Ep. 1624 - Yelling At Us To Stop Talking About Epstein Only Makes Us Talk About Him More
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, new data reveals that the “raw footage” from Epstein’s prison actually has nearly 3 minutes cut from it. This revelation comes as the Administration and some of its surrogates demand that we drop the subject and move on. We will ignore that directive and talk about the latest today. Also, Elmo goes on an anti-semitic rant on the same day that Jasmine Crockett insists we have to fund PBS so that would-be terrorists in Afghanistan can still watch Sesame Street. It’s been a strange week, to say the least. And false media reports accuse Trump of cutting all spending on AIDS prevention overseas. It’s not true, but why aren’t we cutting spending on AIDS prevention overseas?
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1624
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com.
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Pique Life - Go to https://Piquelife.com/WALSH to get 20% off—for life.
Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WALSH to claim $40 off + free meat for life!
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Today, the Matt Walsh show, new data reveals that the raw footage, quote unquote, from Epstein's prison actually has nearly three minutes cut from it.
This revelation comes as the administration and some of its surrogates demand that we drop the subject and move on.
We will ignore that directive and talk about the latest today.
Also, Elmo goes on an anti-Semitic rant on the same day that Jasmine Crockett insists that we have to fund PBS so that would-be terrorists in Afghanistan can still watch Sesame Street.
It's been a strange week, to say the least.
And false media reports accused Trump of cutting all spending on AIDS prevention overseas.
It's not true, but why aren't we cutting spending on AIDS prevention overseas?
of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Matt Wall Show
Now, if your idea of gut health is eating a handful of tums after every meal and hoping for the best, it might be time to level up.
Enter Peaks Pooh Air Tea.
Yes, it's fermented tea.
No, it doesn't taste like compost.
I was skeptical at first too, but here's the thing.
It actually works.
I recently tried their black Pu'er.
No jitters, no crash, just clean, calm energy that doesn't make you feel like you're on a caffeine better.
And after meals, their green Pu'er helps you digest without feeling like you swallowed a brick.
Imagine that.
Pu'er is fermented, which means it's packed with probiotics, prebiotics, and all the things your gut needs.
But your current lifestyle is probably ignoring real clinical backing, real antioxidants.
This isn't some powdered gimmick from your local wellness cafe.
This is stuff top doctors like Dr. Mark Hyman actually recommend.
Also worth noting, this is high quality tea, wild harvested from 250-year-old trees.
Zero pesticide, no additives, no steeping required, dissolves in water.
That is efficiency.
And I like efficiency.
Now, here's the deal.
If you go to peaklife.com slash walsh, you get 20% off for life.
Not one order, for life.
Plus, they'll throw in a free frother and a glass beaker with their Pooh Air bundle.
Plus, they offer a 90-day money-back guarantee.
So literally zero risk.
Again, that's peaklife.com slash walsh.
Go there now.
Your gut will thank you.
Probably your brain too.
In every single criminal trial in this country, whether the crime is petty theft or murder or anything in between, there are very clear standards that deal with video evidence.
And in particular, if the government wants to introduce video evidence, they have to provide all of the available footage that they have.
That's a pretty intuitive concept.
So if somebody robs a convenience store and police recover surveillance tapes from the store, then they need to turn those tapes over to the defense.
The prosecution cannot modify the tapes in any way.
They can't splice together different tapes.
They certainly can't delete anything.
They have to provide the raw, unedited footage to the defense team.
And on top of that, they have to verify that the tapes are authentic and they haven't been tampered with by establishing a sworn chain of custody.
This is about as basic as it gets.
Every judge in the country, even Kentanji Brown Jackson, I bet, can grasp this very straightforward concept.
You can easily get a case thrown out of traffic court if they won't give you all of the relevant footage that they have.
Or, of course, if they give you footage that's been doctored in some way.
On the other hand, when it comes to the single most watched sex trafficking case in the history of the United States, this rule apparently doesn't apply.
You can forget all about chain of custody, and you can forget about obtaining raw footage as well.
Instead, in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the DOJ produced a video that was clearly manipulated.
As we've discussed previously, Wired magazine found that the footage from outside Epstein's jail cell, which the DOJ claimed was raw footage, had actually been edited and saved multiple times back in May of this year.
Specifically, quote, the file was assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ's website.
Additionally, viewers noticed that there was a glitch when the timer in the footage moved from 1158 to 1159 p.m.
It seemed to jump ahead to midnight.
None of this was initially explained or disclosed by the DOJ, which again referred to the footage as raw.
Of course, the reason the DOJ claimed the footage was raw is that they understand, as most people do, that any edits for any reason would immediately raise a lot of questions.
There should be no need to save the file multiple times or to combine clips to delete things.
They could have just posted everything they had, raw footage, that's what that means, just here it is, and the public can sort it out from there.
But the DOJ didn't do that.
It's possible they were hoping that no one would look at the metadata or study the videos closely.
And if that was the plan, it didn't last very long.
After the footage was posted and Wired Magazine noticed the problem, Pam Bondi had to come up with a justification for all of the discrepancies.
And what she said ultimately is that the security system in the jail resets every night for around a minute.
And therefore, we're told there was nothing nefarious about the missing footage.
It's just a fact of life that in one of the most secure prisons in the country, we can't design a camera system that stays online 24-7.
That's beyond our capacity.
We can, you know, land a man on the moon, but we can't prevent the cameras from shutting down every night just long enough to, you know, maybe allow someone to get murdered.
We also can't make sure that there is more than one functioning camera in the vicinity of this cell block.
Now, already this was an unsatisfactory explanation.
The DOJ didn't actually provide proof that the system needs to go offline for a minute every night.
Bondi just claimed that it was normal, and we're all supposed to accept it.
She also didn't say anything whatsoever about why the footage needed to be edited in the first place.
Again, this would not fly in traffic court.
And it definitely doesn't pass muster when we're talking about Jeffrey Epstein, who had the potential to implicate the most powerful people in the world.
And yet somehow, the story just got much, much worse for Bondi and the DOJ.
It turns out that even after they were exposed for hiding relevant information from the public about this tape, they still haven't come forward with the full story.
So it falls on Wired magazine, a small internet publication, to fill in even more details.
And here's what they reported the other day.
Quote, newly uncovered metadata reveals that nearly three minutes of footage were cut from the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation described as raw, full raw surveillance video from the only functioning camera near Jeffrey Epstein's prison cell the night before he was found dead.
Further analysis shows that one of the source clips was approximately two minutes and 53 seconds longer than the segment included in the final video, indicating that footage appears to have been trimmed before release.
It's unclear what, if anything, the minutes cut from the first clip showed.
Now, before we read on further in the article, there is just simply no way to justify this.
It doesn't matter if the extra two minutes and 53 seconds were irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if those extra two minutes and 53 seconds were duplicated in another video file.
In this case, and in every other case, the duty of the government is to be transparent.
It's not to save people a very small amount of time when they're watching an hour's worth of video footage.
Any government that's functioning properly would understand this calculation immediately.
Just give people all of the information that you have and let them sort it out.
The article continues, quote, the nearly three-minute discrepancy may be related to the widely reported one-minute gap between 1158 and 58 seconds p.m. and 12 a.m. that Attorney General Pam Bondi has attributed to a nightly system reset.
The metadata confirms that the first video file, which showed footage from August 9th, 2019, continued for several minutes beyond what appears in the final version of the video.
It was trimmed to the 1158, 58 p.m. mark right before the jump to midnight.
The cut to the first clip doesn't necessarily mean that there is additional time accounted for, unaccounted for.
The second clip picks up at midnight, which suggests the two would overlap, nor does it prove that the video, that the missing minute was cut from the video.
Close quote.
In other words, we can't say definitively what's in the three minutes of footage that were cut.
It's possible there's nothing of interest, but there's one way the government could provide some more clarity.
They could simply dump all the files on the DOJ's website without any editing whatsoever.
At the moment, no one in the Trump administration can come up with a coherent justification for why this hasn't been done.
They also can't explain why they haven't released phase two of the Epstein files, which was originally planned, or the truckload of documents that Pam Bondi said the DOJ had recovered in the last few months from the Southern District of New York.
She says there are graphic depictions of children on the videos that she can't release, but she hasn't said anything at all about any of the documents beyond telling us that they're apparently not important, which is different from what she initially said.
Nor has she unsealed the search warrants or financial disclosures in the case.
Instead of getting any transparency here, the Trump administration is continuing to tell us that these materials are boring and that we shouldn't care about them.
Here's how the president put it yesterday.
Listen.
I know you've urged people to move on, but I'm curious, why do you think your supporters in particular have been so interested in the Epstein story?
I'm so upset about how it's been handled.
I don't understand why they would be so interested.
He's dead for a long time.
He was never a big factor in terms of life.
I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is.
I really don't.
And the credible information has been given.
Don't forget we went through years of the mother witch hunt and all of the different things.
The steel.gase, which was all fake.
All that information was fake.
But I don't understand why the Jeffrey FC case would be of interest to anybody.
It's pretty boring stuff.
It's sordid, but it's boring.
And I don't understand why it keeps going.
I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.
But credible information, let them give it.
Anything that's credible, I would say let them have it.
Now, and by the way, just this morning, he lashed out again on Truth Social, attacking anyone who's still asking about Epstein as weaklings and saying that he doesn't want their support anymore.
And I know some people are annoyed at me for harping on this and criticizing the president, who in many other ways is doing a fantastic job.
But I happen to believe that bringing sex predators to justice is extremely important.
And I just can't accept being blatantly gaslit by people in power, even if they're people that I otherwise support.
In fact, especially if they're people I otherwise support.
So I must say that this answer from Trump is just simply awful.
First, there's the personal attacks on anyone who asks questions saying that they're bad people.
It's always a winning argument.
If you want to convince millions of skeptical people that their leaders are lying to them about their behavior, then the best approach is to mock them.
Works every time.
And in general, screaming at people to stop talking about something is, and I know this is the way that I work, like the number one way to guarantee that I keep talking about something is to yell at me to stop talking about it.
And then there's the implication that the Epstein files are boring.
Well, in that case, release everything.
Bore us to death.
Go ahead.
Then the story's over and everyone can go on with their lives.
The 9-11 report was something like 600 pages.
Parts of that document were boring.
Almost nobody actually read the entire thing, but it was still very important that the 9-11 report was written.
You know, it's extremely confusing, to put it mildly, to see the President of the United States take the opposite position.
He says he doesn't understand why people care about Jeffrey Epstein as if that's some kind of moral failing on our part.
Guess what?
Why would anyone care about some of the most powerful people on the planet spending time on a sex trafficker's private island?
Who could possibly be concerned about the possibility that a cabal of pedophiles and perverts are running entire countries and major corporations?
And this is where the comparison to RussiaGate comes in.
It's probably the worst part of the answer you just heard.
RussiaGate was a disaster for this country precisely because we didn't get the whole story.
RussiaGate was premised on lies and distortions at every stage.
If Donald Trump made a joke at a rally, the media interpreted it as a coded message to Putin.
They pretended that he had a secret computer in Trump Tower that was communicating with Moscow.
They said that there was the P-tape.
They claimed that Russian hackers were being housed at a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami.
They claimed that Trump had weakened the GOP's platform on Russia, even though the opposite was true.
When Hunter Biden dropped his laptop off at the repair store full of incriminating evidence about Joe Biden's influence peddling operation, the media blamed that on Russia too.
And on and on and on.
So RussiaGate was an utter fraud.
And to the extent that it was successful, it worked because the media and the Obama administration repeatedly lied to us.
They didn't give us information.
They lied to our faces for the better part of a decade.
With the Epstein situation, what we want is the opposite response from the media and the government.
We want total transparency.
At the end of his answer, Trump talks about filtering the documents so that we only obtain credible information, but that's not the job of the government.
Their job is to give us whatever information they have.
Once they start assessing credibility, they give themselves a license to hide incriminating information.
There's no reason to grant the government that license, no matter which political party is in charge.
That's what makes the Democrats' sudden interest in the Epstein file so galling and intolerable.
They're obviously turning this into a dumb partisan issue, and it isn't one.
Like there are those of us who just want to know we want child sex predators and sex traffickers brought to justice.
It's not a partisan issue.
And we want that regardless of who's in power.
Now, we talked about this a bit yesterday.
All of a sudden, after years of complete disinterest in the entire topic, Democrats are suddenly clamoring for the release of the Epstein files, or at least they're publicly pretending to want the Epstein files to be released.
Here's Adam Kinzinger, for example.
He's essentially a Democrat, of course.
Quote, every, and I mean every Republican incumbent or candidate or even anyone thinking about running as a Republican for even dog catcher needs to be asked over and over and over about Epstein.
This is a guy who spent his only significant time in Congress, the only time people knew who he was, screeching hysterically about elderly women and a Q shaman walking around the Capitol building on January 6th.
I mean, that was the issue he claimed to care about.
But no one actually cared about January 6th, so the whole plan backfired.
So now that he's out of office, he's demanding that everybody talk about Epstein, an issue that he didn't care about until this week.
It's not hard to see what's going on here.
Neither party, Democrat or Republican, wants to see the full unredacted release of the Epstein files, apparently.
At a minimum, we can assume that top donors of both parties are implicated in some way.
So they both want to neutralize this whole issue as quickly as they can.
For Democrats, that means turning the Epstein files into yet another partisan football and turning it into another just a stunt.
They're going to make performative efforts to release the files, even though they know that it will never work.
For example, here's Axios' reporting from yesterday, quote, House Republicans on Tuesday voted down another Democratic procedural maneuver aimed at forcing the Justice Department to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Democrats' procedural motion would have scuttled the GOP's legislative agenda for the day in favor of the bill, making it difficult for Republicans to vote for it.
It came after Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted Monday night against attaching the Epstein language to a broader cryptocurrency and defense funding vote.
And specifically, that broader cryptocurrency vote involved legislation that could have paved the way for a central bank digital currency, as well as restrictions on cryptocurrency ownership.
And whatever you think of this bill, although it seems to be a pretty terrible idea, the fact remains that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
So Democrats are using this whole issue to play very transparent political games.
That's how seriously they take child sex trafficking, which is not at all.
But ultimately, if we're being honest, the problem here still goes back to the White House.
They've given the Democrats this opening by bungling the situation so badly.
The Trump administration seems mystified or is acting that way by the anger from the base, but, you know, but number one, many of us, we're not saying anything different from what we've been saying for years about Epstein.
Okay.
And also what Trump has been saying for years about it.
Now Trump has decided all of a sudden that the issue doesn't matter, it's boring, and anyone who talks about it is a weakling and not one of his supporters.
He decided that in the last two weeks.
They never said that before.
So the idea that we as conservatives are obligated to just adopt that perspective out of the blue is madness.
It's also not possible, by the way.
Even if I wanted to just decide that I don't care about this anymore, it doesn't work that way.
I can't.
I can't just, you can't say to me, well, you shouldn't care about this.
Okay, well, then I don't.
Well, never mind.
Even if I wanted to obey that directive, I just can't.
I care about the issue.
I've cared about it for the last five, six years.
I've cared about it the whole time.
I still do.
But I'm not interested in obeying that directive because I'm an American.
Like I'm an American.
I can think for myself.
And if you're a person in position of power, I'm going to hold you accountable.
I'm going to criticize you if you do something I don't like.
I don't care what party you're in.
But the other thing too is that the Epstein scandal, and this is what has to be, you know, you have to understand is that the Epstein scandal is not happening in a vacuum.
Okay.
We have not seen any high profile or powerful people held accountable for their crimes.
No one's even been fired, let alone arrested for allowing an assassin to almost kill Trump last year.
Trump was elected in 2016, partly on a promise to lock her up.
You know, we all recall that.
So when do we start locking people up?
Trump himself has spent 10 years calling out many different crimes and scandals, rightly so.
Just this past weekend, he was talking again about the rigged election in 2020.
Why hasn't anyone been arrested or charged for any of this?
What about the people who lied about the COVID shot?
What about the people who funded the BLM rights in 2020?
What about the cabal of unelected bureaucrats who were using Joe Biden's auto pen to sign pardons and executive orders, effectively seizing control of the federal government?
No one is even being fired for any of this, let alone arrested for Any of it.
And that is the context that all of this is happening in.
And a lot of us are just fed up with it.
Speaking of the AutoPen thing, the New York Times just uncovered emails from Biden officials in which they made executive decisions to sign certain documents.
Quote: Mr. Zions hit reply all and wrote, I approve the use of the AutoPen for the execution of all of the following pardons.
That's a reference to Jeff Zions, the White House chief of staff.
That's a sentence that no government official other than the president should ever write.
The chief of staff does not have the authority to use the president's signature to pardon people.
That's exactly what happened.
Now, that's not to say that digital signatures shouldn't be allowed.
Various outlets, including NBC News, have tried to claim that conservatives are attacking the idea of digital signatures.
It's a straw man.
That's not the case.
If Joe Biden had said, use my auto pen to approve these pardons, there'd be no story.
Okay, that's not a scandal, but that's not what happened.
Instead, a bunch of aides got together, said that they heard Joe Biden authorize certain things, and then solely based on their claims about what Joe Biden wanted, they used his signature to do what they wanted.
Now, back to the point, Republicans are saying that this is a major scandal.
I agree.
It is.
So then who will be held responsible?
Who will be punished?
What person, what actual person with a face and a name are you going to arrest and put in prison for this scandal?
Well, Republicans are investigating it.
Great.
I mean, they're constantly investigating things.
The problem is that nobody is ever punished at the end of it.
And I don't even think that's hyperbole.
Like, nobody is ever punished at the end of any of these investigations.
That's not how the Democrats operate.
Democrats spent the last four years prosecuting Trump and throwing conservative activists and political advisors in prison.
And now, even after the majority of Americans have voted for transparency and justice, we're not getting it.
And that's just not going to work.
It's not what any Republican voted for in the last election.
We want to see accountability.
We want to know that even the rich and powerful will pay for their crimes.
And that hasn't happened yet.
And so for a lot of people, understandably so, this Epstein stuff is kind of the last straw.
Give us the information we've been promised.
Give us the information we're entitled to.
If you refuse to do that, if you insist on insulting us instead, then we're facing a much worse outcome than Democrat control of Congress in less than two years.
We're also facing a total collapse of legitimacy in our country.
You can only deny reality for so long before people decide that they've had enough.
And whatever donors or intelligence assets are being protected here, they're not that important.
They're not worth risking a revolt.
So give us the boring Epstein files.
Publish all the uninteresting footage you clipped out of those videos from Epstein's cell block for reasons that no one has bothered to explain.
Otherwise, in the absence of transparency, people will come to their own conclusions.
And when they do, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you won't like what happens next.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Music.
I want to take a second and do something a little different.
Rather than read you an ad, I want to tell you a true story because it says everything you need to know about good ranchers.
Recently, my producer Sean and I were grilling some steaks and we started talking about how going out to steakhouses isn't the same experience after having good ranchers.
Sean told me he tried to eat at one of his old favorites recently.
Couldn't even finish the steak.
So it was borderline andedible.
I've had the same experience.
There was a time when I'd enjoy a steak at a mid-range chain, not to name any names, but after getting used to good ranchers, it's like your taste buds evolve.
It recalibrates your whole understanding of what meat should taste like.
The store-bought stuff and the restaurants, they just don't cut it anymore.
So I'm not telling you to try Good Ranchers just because they sponsored the show.
I'm telling you because this is what I feed my own family.
It's what I serve my friends.
It's what I eat.
And I don't need garbage anymore anyway.
You won't be disappointed.
Use my code Walsh to get your free meat for life and that extra $40 off.
Stop denying yourself and start eating better with quality American meat.
Again, just use code Walsh at goodranchers.com for $40 off and free meat for life.
Good Ranchers, American Meat Delivered.
Well, we haven't heard from Jasmine Crockett since I returned from vacation.
So let's check in with her.
During a hearing yesterday, Crockett made the case that we have to keep funding PBS because very important to fund PBS because we need Sesame Street to help us to de-radicalize the Middle East, which may sound like an implausible justification, but let's hear her out.
Listen.
When you start to talk about whether or not Sesame Street or anything else that's on NPR or PBS ends up in other places, this is so that there is not this warped thought process about the Western world or about the United States.
We're talking about making sure that we don't end up allowing people to be radicalized against us because they have a terrible vision of us because they may be in a government that actually puts out bad, terrible propaganda about us.
So that's all it takes.
If only the terrorists could see Sesame Street, they would throw down their suicide vests and get a Costco membership and become fully Westernized.
They become good Western people if only they could see Sesame Street.
If only Osama bin Laden had seen Sesame Street, if only he'd been exposed to the cookie monster earlier in life, then the whole trajectory of the 21st century could have changed.
Who knows?
You know, if they could see Oscar the Grouch, they'd have a pretty accurate view of what life is like in New York and Los Angeles with people literally living in trash cans, which is also kind of a Dave Chappelle bit.
But the funny thing about this argument from Jasmine, aside from how incomprehensibly stupid it is, is that, and that's really the main thing.
It's just a very dumb argument.
Now, to her credit, perhaps, if you're trying to make the argument that we need tax money to fund PBS, there is no good way to make that argument.
There is no intelligent argument for that position.
So you're because in reality, it's like 30 years ago, we should not have been funding PBS, but at least back then, maybe you could make, you could point to actual human beings in the country who watch PBS a lot and maybe rely on it to some extent for information 30 years ago, 35, 40 years ago.
These days, who's watching PBS at all?
That's a small list.
And then who relies on it?
Who's actually like, this is their, their window to the outside world is through PBS.
Who are those people?
I'd love to know.
Well, they don't exist.
So you're, you don't have, there's not much you can do.
And so she goes with this.
Maybe it's, maybe it's the best possible argument.
Although it is weird because she's talking about Sesame Street de-radicalizing people only a day after Elmo went insane.
I don't know if you heard about this, but Elmo went insane and started posting anti-Semitic content on his Twitter page.
So these are some of the things that Elmo's account posted on Tuesday.
I'll put it up on the screen.
He posted, quote, this is what I'm reading Elmo's quote.
He said, Elmo say all Jews should die, F the Jews.
Donald Trump is Netanyahu's puppet because he's in the Epstein files.
I can't do the Elmo voice at all.
That would make this better, but Jews control the world and need to be exterminated.
And then in a follow-up post, he remarked, again, kill all Jews.
So that was what Elmo said on Twitter.
And now Sesame Street has released a statement condemning anti-Semitism because that was important to do.
For all the people who thought that this was like a genuine reflection of Elmo's values, it was important for Sesame Street to come out and condemn that.
And they also had to say that Elmo was hacked.
It was important for them to clarify.
Now, is that true?
Personally, I don't know.
I don't know what happened.
Was the Elmo account hacked?
Maybe.
Was Elmo finally letting loose and telling us how he actually feels, how he's felt this whole time?
I don't know.
I can't say.
I can only ask questions.
If Elmo, here's what I will say.
Here's what I will say.
If Elmo did want to exterminate the Jewish people, would Sesame Street admit it?
Or would they just claim that he was hacked?
It's a question.
I don't know the answer.
Where does Big Bird stand on all this?
To me, that's the thing that's really suspicious about it.
What is weird to me is that Sesame, someone put out a statement, but we have not actually heard from the residents of Sesame Street personally.
And what I think we need, and the statement is that's step one, but what I think we actually need, what I would love to see for so many reasons, is a press conference with all of the Sesame Street characters in character answering these questions.
So who knows?
I will say, though, that just to bring this all full circle, that with Sesame Street characters engaging in rhetoric like this, I think actually the show would be very popular in the Middle East.
Too popular, honestly.
In fact, I've heard that sales of the Elmo doll have gone up like 9,000% in Iran since Tuesday.
So I don't know what that's all about.
But we'll keep track of that story.
The Postmillennial has this story.
The CEO of Crowds on Demand has said that he rejected an offer of $20 million to organize the Good Trouble Lives On protests taking place on July 17th.
So that's tomorrow.
Good Trouble Lives On?
The hell does that mean?
The CEO of Crowds on Demand, Adam Stewart, told reporters at NewsNation, we reject an offer that probably is worth around $20 million.
The value of the contract would have been worth around that amount nationwide to organize huge demonstrations around the country.
But personally, I just don't think it's effective.
When NewsNation addressed to an offering of money, he would not say who it was.
The anti-Trump Good Trouble Lives On protest taking place on Thursday follow other large nationwide protests such as the No Kings demonstrations that took place last month, as well as others.
The protest website said that there are going to be multiple locations for the demonstrations taking place on Thursday.
Partners for the Good Trouble Lives On organization includes the SLPC, the NEA, the Women's March, many other left-wing activist organizations.
Okay, so some unnamed person or entity offered this guy $20 million to organize protests.
No surprise there.
I mean, this is how it works on the left.
That's why it's not a conspiracy.
When you talk about paid protesters, it's not a conspiracy.
I mean, it is a conspiracy, but it's not a theory.
This is what is happening.
All of these protests, all of them are funded, paid for, and staged.
All of them.
Not a conspiracy theory.
It's just clearly how it works.
They pay protesters to show up.
They pay protesters to show up to their own protests.
They also pay counter protesters to show up to right-wing protests on the rare occasion that there is a right-wing protest.
I will say on that, any rally I've ever been to or been involved with, any rally where I've spoken, anything like that, there are always a throng of counter-protesters on the left who show up.
They're always there, and they show up with megaphones and they have air horns to drown us out.
And often it's the same people.
I mean, if you do enough of this and if you're an activist and you show up to enough events, you start seeing the same people showing up.
And it doesn't matter where you go.
And you'll have like some guy from Minneapolis who somehow manages to just always be there.
How is that?
It's funny when you have conservatives who look at these protests, and I'm sure I've said similar things where you look at all these protests that they happen during this thing tomorrow, this good trouble lives on, whatever, happening on a Thursday in the middle of the day.
And so the question for conservatives is always, don't these people have jobs?
Don't they have jobs?
This is their job.
Yeah, they do have a job, and this is it.
They're getting paid to be there.
Now, there are also a lot of people who show up, actual activists who don't have jobs.
So the left has a lot of people who don't have jobs.
They're just they're living on the government.
They're on the dole.
But a lot of people on the ground there, like this is their job.
They get paid to be there.
And it's effective.
This is a very effective tactic.
And because of all the money that they put into it, their protest movements always look massive.
They're always nationwide.
They're always big.
And it looks like a real movement.
It looks like one.
Now, a lot of it isn't real, but that doesn't matter because the only point of a protest is it's optics.
That's the only reason you're there.
The whole point of the protest is optics.
And so if the optics aren't, so you got to do whatever you can to have good optics.
And their counter protest strategy, paying for the saboteurs to show up is also really effective.
It's demoralizing to be on the right and plan your big rally and get everything together.
And then you show up and you can barely be heard when you give your speech because these people are right in your ears screaming into a megaphone.
I've been through this plenty of times.
I'll admit, I probably shouldn't admit it, but I'll admit, yeah, it's effective.
It's effective.
How could it not be?
Like, it's annoying.
It's very annoying.
And these people are evil because of what they're supporting.
But yeah, it's an effective way to distract and drown out and demoralize the other side is to make it so that like we can't even do a rally anymore because we know that these people are going to show up and make it like impossible.
So here's my question then.
We can complain about the left funding protests, paying protesters.
We can complain about it.
I've complained about it plenty of times, but it's not going to stop.
In fact, the more we complain, the more they know that it's working.
So they keep doing it.
So I'm not going to complain about it anymore, especially because I get why they do it.
Right?
Organic protests and marches and rallies are almost impossible to organize.
Talk to anyone who's been involved in doing this organically, doing it in a grassroots way.
It's extremely difficult.
You can do it, but what's going to happen is you're going to end up with something small.
If you're relying entirely on grassroots, word of mouth, only true believers showing up, you know, people who this, this really matters to them, if that's what you're relying on, if that's all you're going to get, it's going to be very small.
It's going to be you and like 12 other people standing around holding signs and looking kind of sad.
Huge, massive, organic, grassroots rallies are almost impossible.
So if you can pay to ensure that your rally is well attended, why wouldn't you?
I get it.
As Gavin Newsom would say, come on, man, I get it.
Come on, man.
I get it.
Okay.
I get it with his hand movements.
So this is my question.
Why aren't we doing this?
Why aren't our rich people spending tens of millions of dollars to fund rallies and demonstrations?
Why isn't there a movement?
Like, why don't we do this?
We have rich people.
Why aren't we doing this?
This guy was offered $20 million.
Why isn't anyone offering someone on our side $20 million to put together?
I'm not volunteering myself.
I don't want it.
Organizing is not my strong suit.
But why isn't this happening?
Why isn't there a movement in every major city in the country right now with thousands of people in the street supporting deportations and demanding more of them?
Why isn't that happening?
We have lots of very rich people on our side.
Why aren't they paying to make that happen?
Why aren't they putting the tens of millions of dollars it requires, just like the left does, to orchestrate a nationwide movement of people who are in the streets saying, we don't want these invaders in our country.
We want our sovereignty back.
Why isn't there a nationwide pro-American sovereignty movement?
Now, when I say this, I know that you might listen and you might say, well, Matt, you have a microphone.
Why don't you go out and organize the movement?
Why don't you organize a rally in support of mass deportations?
Now, the answer is that I'm happy to do that kind of thing.
If there was a movement like that, I would happily show up.
I would speak.
I would give it my, I would promote it.
But the answer is that if I were to say, well, no one is doing this, I'm going to do it.
And if I were to do that and put all my effort into it, spend weeks promoting it, Networking, put my own money into it, line up all the best speakers that I can.
If I were to do that, I would get a few thousand people to show up in one city for one afternoon.
And that's after weeks and weeks of non-stop effort.
And that'll be it.
And that's a lot of people for an actual organic grassroots demonstration.
It is.
I mean, that's like impressive.
I've done this in the past.
I mean, we had our rally in Nashville against child mutilation.
And it was actually organic.
It was grassroots.
We didn't have tens of millions of dollars.
We didn't pay anyone to show up.
We don't have that kind of money.
We can't.
And we don't have the infrastructure for it.
So it was purely grassroots.
We got thousands of people to show up.
And in that case, it was actually effective because it was like we didn't need this at the time.
This was not intended to be a nationwide protest move.
I mean, of course, the movement against child mutilation was nationwide, but we were specifically calling.
We were responding to something that happened locally with Vanderbilt in Nashville.
We were talking to our own representatives.
And so in that case, it made sense and it was effective.
But when we're talking about nationwide, something nationwide like this, even having something that like for us, for a grassroots movement is impressive is just not good enough because we're not competing with organic grassroots demonstrations.
So we can't afford to have little mom and pop protest operations here.
We're competing against like the Walmart of protests.
We're competing against the big boys, which means that my impressive grassroots protest would look pathetic compared to their highly funded operation.
And I can point out rightly and say, yeah, but all those people are fake.
They're paid to be there.
It doesn't matter.
You know, once you start explaining, you're losing.
It's like in football.
As a fan, you start complaining about the refs, you're losing.
Even if you're right.
Even if you're right.
Even if the refs are bad, even if the whole thing is rigged, you're only complaining because you're losing.
Once you start complaining like that, you're losing.
And so that's the problem.
That's why it's not as simple as, well, you just go out and do it.
Okay, we can, but like, it's going to actually hurt us in the end because we're going to end up with something so much smaller than what they have that the optics will be terrible.
It will send the opposite message from the one we're trying to send.
The reality is that there are millions of Americans who want our country back and want our sovereignty.
There are millions of Americans who feel that way.
But you try to approach this through a purely grassroots organic way, that will not be reflected in what you see on the ground.
And so it's going to hurt.
It will do the opposite.
It's not going to help.
What we need is funding, massive funding.
And yeah, you need to pay protesters to show up along with the real ones.
Pay people to show up.
Bust them in from out of town.
Like I'm tired of complaining about, oh, they bust people in.
Yeah, that's smart.
That's a good strategy.
We should do it.
Why not?
You're having a protest.
You need boots on the ground.
No one is going through interviewing each person as why are you really here?
No one's doing that.
You need people there.
That's the whole point.
This is how the game is played.
This is how the game is played now.
I wish it wasn't played this way.
This is how it's played.
And we either play it or we lose.
And so that's all I think now.
That's all that.
That should be our response now.
It's not, oh, they're paying.
Well, you shouldn't do that.
Of course they're going to like, what do they care?
We complain.
Are they going to listen to us?
That's not fair.
Don't do it.
Have some sportsmanship.
Be a good sport.
Yeah, you know, on that side, you could spend, you have the resources and the money and the people that are willing to put up tens of millions of dollars to fund your protests.
We know that you can do that, but we want you to be a good sport and not do it because we're not.
Come on.
That's a loser mentality and it's not going to work.
So the only response is to say, all right, look, two can play at that game and let's do it.
But we need people to step up.
We need the funding.
Like we just do.
And we don't have it right now.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a beard.
Hey, we're the sweet baby gay.
Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
Sounds miserable and time consuming.
And who has time for all that?
But with Balance of Nature fruits and veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients.
Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, they freeze dry them, turn them into a powder, and turn them into a capsule from there.
You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and then your body knows what to do with them.
Go to bouncenature.com, use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's bouncingnature.com, promo code Walsh.
All right, a few comments here.
Not all cultures are the same.
Some are barbaric.
Someone who emigrates from Japan is far different from someone who emigrates from Somalia.
Yeah, look, of course, not all cultures are the same.
Not only are they not the same, but some cultures are superior to others.
And this is maybe the ultimate red pill, the one that I think a lot of people are ready to take, but maybe haven't taken yet.
The one where you realize that equality is a myth.
Cultures are not equal.
Humans are not equal.
They're not.
Equality exists in mathematics and really nowhere else.
It doesn't exist anywhere else.
Now, it exists conceptually as a legal Concept, and it should exist that way.
All Americans are equal under the law, which is to say every American citizen should get due process, should have a jury by his peers, basic constitutional protections, and so forth.
But does that mean that all Americans or all people across the world actually are equal?
Well, what does that mean?
I mean, what do you mean by equal?
Equal in what way?
Equal means the same.
That's what it means.
So is it all people are the same?
No, they're not.
What do you mean by that?
It's the kind of thing that just everybody says, and we've said our whole lives, we've been saying it.
We've been told it.
We've been brought up on this notion.
All people are the same.
It's clearly not true.
That's obviously in no way true.
So, so, and people, they're not the same.
People are not equal physically.
We know that.
They're not equal in terms of their intelligence.
They're not equal in terms of their skills.
They're not equal in terms of their personalities.
They're not equal in terms of their values, in terms of their virtues, in terms of their vices, in terms of their strengths, their weaknesses.
They're not equal in any of those ways.
And they're not equal in the cultures that they create, right?
So what do you mean equal?
The only equality you can find in people is not something that can be physically observed or measured.
It's a matter of faith.
It's a matter of our Christian faith.
I believe it, which tells us that all human beings are possessed of human worth and dignity, that we're all created by God and loved by God.
And that is a spiritual truth.
That's a real truth, but it's a spiritual truth.
It's a deep spiritual truth.
Outside of that, in all other senses of the term, in terms of anything observable, anything physical, anything sort of practical, there is no equality.
Human beings are not equal.
Cultures are not equal.
And that does matter.
It matters in a lot of, there are real implications.
So this is not academic, right?
Believing the myth that everyone's the same, everyone's equal, cultures are equal, that has real ramifications.
We're living through them right now.
When we disabuse ourselves of that notion, when we do away with that myth, that has implications.
And one of them can be seen in particular when it comes to immigration.
Because now you can look with honest eyes and see that, okay, I got a bunch of people coming to this country.
They're not all the same.
And they're coming from different cultures and they're not all equal.
All these cultures are not equal.
So, and all of that is, you know, it's just like, it's obvious.
It's undeniable, but people feel that they have to deny it for whatever reason.
Let's see.
Matt Walsh, how can you be so ignorant to at least one quality Somalians can bring to the table?
America has been sorely lacking in our piracy abilities.
When have you heard of a successful American piracy attempt?
Think of it, a trade school for piracy.
Yeah, the Somalis do have that.
They've got that.
Well, they used to have that.
Piracy was at one point 15% of Somalia's GDP.
Okay, 15% of their GDP was piracy.
And now it's a lot less because the civilized world got sick of it finally and they allowed it for way longer.
I mean, the idea that like some Somalis on a glorified canoe, right, can just show up and like hijack a cargo ship.
It's crazy that this was ever allowed, it was ever tolerated.
It never had to be tolerated, but it was.
It's not anymore.
And so now Somalia's economy is even worse than it was before because they don't have piracy.
Now it's an agricultural economy, but they aren't very good at agriculture either.
So that's what it is now.
Matt, I'm pretty optimistic.
Our society at some point soon will hit a critical mass, will reach a point of no longer tolerable civilization-wide nihilistic despair, and will revolt to return back to the world of analog, human-made art, music, and work.
It'll be the new MAGA make art great again.
I hope you're right.
That's one way that this could go.
That is the more optimistic way.
And it's a bit of a morbid optimism because even in your version of events, it requires us to hit a rock bottom of, as you say, civilization-wide nihilistic despair.
You said you're pretty optimistic.
We're going to reach a point of civilization-wide nihilistic despair.
So that's happening.
It's happening right now.
And then the question is, how do we respond to it?
And so the optimistic view is that, well, maybe people just reject all this technology.
They get to a point where we say, you know what?
We don't want it.
We want to have real human lives.
And so even though this technology is available to us, even though we can go to ChatGPT and just like generate whatever movie we want to watch, we're not going to do it.
So that's one way it could go.
I am just not at all confident that it will go that way.
Because there's no precedent for it.
The precedent suggests that whatever technology is available to us, we're just going to use.
And not only are we going to use it, we're going to allow it to take over our lives.
We've already done that.
I mean, people walk around with their phones and they allow their phones to absorb their entire lives.
People spend, you know, 13 hours a day on their phone, just doing nothing but staring at their phones.
And so if there was any capacity in the critical mass of people to reject this and return to, as you say, an analog life where we decide to live our physical lives and reject some measure of the convenience that is offered to us by these devices, like if that was in the cards, it would be happening already, and it's not.
I think what experience shows us is that convenience is the ultimate drug.
It's the ultimate kind of heroin.
That the critical mass, and there are always going to be exceptions to this, but the critical mass of people just aren't capable of turning it down.
So no matter how much that convenience ultimately harms them and makes them miserable.
The name Velvet Sundown sounds like the ripoff of Velvet Underground, which was a 60s independent music band.
Well, of course it's a ripoff.
All AI is a ripoff.
It's all plagiarism.
It's all theft.
AI cannot generate new ideas or original concepts.
All it can do is crib from what already exists.
That's one of the many problems with this technology.
And I criticize the technology all the time.
I always add the disclaimer.
I shouldn't need to keep adding it.
Yes, there are legitimate uses of this technology.
There are potentially nearly miraculous uses of this technology.
There might come a time in the future where AI is used to cure cancer.
I mean, all that stuff.
And that's all wonderful.
But in many applications, I think that it's going to have a, and already is having an incredibly corrosive and toxic effect on human life.
And so one of the main problems with it is that, especially when it comes to anything creative, it's just pure plagiarism.
It's all it is.
It's just stealing from things that have already been done and reassembling it.
So, and it's not like a new interpretation.
So here's the thing.
You could, okay, if we go to ChatGPT, and I've done this, everyone's experimented with this just to see how it works.
And you say, oh, write me lyrics to this song, make me a poem, write whatever, like create some.
And it's pretty fascinating to see it just generate, like no matter what the, no matter how specific the prompt is, it'll generate something in a second.
But what's actually happening, even though it is seemingly impressive, it's less impressive when you realize what it's actually doing, which is that it's a search engine, basically, and it's just stealing from a whole bunch of different bits and cobbling it together.
And you could argue that, well, all creative work is like that to some extent, right?
Any movie that's produced today has influences.
And many times those influences are very clear.
Any filmmaker working today, any real human filmmaker is influenced by other things.
And so the film that he creates today is going to be a product of a lot of those different influences.
But that's not plagiarism in most cases, because that is a human mind that is influenced by things and taking ideas and reinterpreting it, giving it his own spin, and then creating something new from his own mind.
That's not plagiarism.
But in order for it to not be plagiarism, there has to be that human element of the reinterpretation, the thing where you take it, you say, yeah, I'm taking this idea and I'm giving my own spin.
I'm reinterpreting it.
AI is not doing that.
AI can't do that because that requires a mind.
So it's not like when ChatGPT makes you a poem, it's not taking from other poems that already exist and then reinterpreting it.
There's no reinterpretation.
There's no mind there to do the reinterpretation.
It's purely just stealing.
And that's all that's happening here.
All right, folks, we are celebrating a decade of the Daily Wire, 10 years of fighting the culture war and building something real.
And how are we celebrating?
We're growing fast.
More members, more shows, new voices like Isabel Brown, new documentaries like Journey to the UFC, the Joe Pfeiffer story, premiering Friday, July 25th.
Not just a fight doc, it's a blueprint for becoming unstoppable from nothing to UFC stardom through trauma, pain, no excuses, the kind of story this culture needs, and we are proud to tell it.
Our members get it all first.
The announcements, the first looks, the full truth, no censorship or hidden agenda, just common sense and a community that actually has it.
Don't sit this out.
Celebrate a decade of DailyWire.
Go to DailyWirePlus.com and join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
There's a little bit of good news that materialized in Washington late last night, or at least it seemed that way at first.
In a 51-50 vote with J.D. Vance breaking the tie, the Senate voted to advance a bill that would slash roughly $9 billion in federal spending on everything from foreign aid to public broadcasting.
It's a good start, although, of course, it doesn't go far enough.
Obviously, we should eliminate all funding to propaganda outlets like NPR and PBS, along with all of our funding for foreign countries.
Foreign aid in every case is either a fraud on the American taxpayer or a way to launder money to intelligence agencies.
Most of the time, it's both.
But even in the absence of a total suspension of wasteful spending, which will probably never happen in our lifetime, the bill that advanced in the Senate yesterday was still fairly encouraging.
But there were some unfortunate 11th hour changes to the bill.
Turns out that several very important spending cuts were eliminated at the last minute.
And we can learn a bit about how Washington works if we look at some of these cuts in detail.
Additionally, if you can believe it, some brand new wasteful spending was actually added to the legislation for the benefit of something called Native American Radio Stations.
Yes, they added pork to the big pork cutting bill.
We cut funding for NPR, but we added millions of dollars in funding for something called Native American Radio.
Watch.
So let's look at where this rescissions package we've been talking about stands right now.
So originally, the proposal was for $9.4 billion with a B cuts overall.
But now senators have drawn a line and it has been reduced.
Now the cut proposal is expected to be $9 billion.
What has changed?
Well, cuts have been restored, $400 million with an M in health, global health funding, and especially that includes PEPFAR, which of course is a global AIDS HIV prevention and treatment program.
Now, addition to this, I want to make one smaller note.
The White House also pledged a very small amount, relatively $9 million, for Native American radio stations.
Why does that matter?
They did that to win a vote.
It is The vote of this man, Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota.
Mike Rounds is a Republican.
He represents South Dakota in the Senate.
And apparently, according to this reporting, he demanded nearly $10 million in spending on Native American radio stations in order to win his vote for this bill.
Again, he demanded a payout for radio stations in order to vote for a bill that would cut wasteful spending on radio stations, which is corruption, obviously, but his corruption made me want to answer a pretty basic question, which is, what exactly is a Native American radio station?
What kind of earth-shattering content are they putting out?
And how exactly does it benefit the United States?
To answer that question, I went on something of an internet safari, and here's what I found.
Tonight, we're taking you inside a one-of-a-kind radio station that's indigenizing the airwaves.
The Daybreak Star Radio Network launched just last summer here in Seattle.
It's elevating native music from the Pacific Northwest and all over the world.
Kairo 7's Graham Johnson introduces us to some of the people behind this groundbreaking effort.
And you're listening to DJ Native Rez on Daybreak Star Radio.
DJ Big Rez is David Hilaire.
The salmon will run.
The Mauna will breathe.
The rivers will flow.
A longtime DJ from the Lummy Nation, Big Rez is now heard around the world on the Daybreak Star Radio Network.
Stand up with the First Nations and the people that have been living here for thousands of years.
To have a whole radio station just dedicated to Indigenous people, Native Americans, is monumental, I think.
You heard it straight from the source.
Big Rez is indigenizing the airwaves.
He's elevating Native music.
It's a groundbreaking effort.
It's really monumental development.
This is the kind of innovation that apparently is worth subsidizing to the tune of $10 million.
But I have to confess that upon listening to that segment, I wasn't impressed with the brief excerpts of content that they played from the radio station.
So I went looking for something slightly longer examples of what Native American radio is bringing to listeners in America.
Here's one of the songs that they're constantly replaying, apparently.
They call it a pipeline, but those on the front lines know that black snake was sent for us to grow.
To shed the skin our ancestors prey of wounds old and calloused, so that we may stay.
So that we may unite.
Unity our tool.
Stand up with the First Nations and our people that have been living here for thousands of years.
Stand up.
We've been fighting for our freedom since the Nina and the Peter and the Santa Maria.
Stand up.
Like Geronimo, Spittin' Bull, Red Cloud, Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier.
Stand up.
Now they poisoning the waters for our sons and our daughters, so we on the frontier.
We one.
One nation, one cause, one people, one tribe.
Now it's just against the pipeline.
So there's the claim there that the pipelines are poisoning the water, which they repeat constantly throughout the song.
It's a pretty great lyric, at least if you like lyrics that sound exactly like talking points from a Bernie Sanders stump speech.
Then there's my favorite line quote, we've been fighting for our freedom since the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.
In other words, until Christopher Columbus arrived, so-called Native people never once had to fight for their freedoms.
All the beheadings and tribal warfare were just par for the course.
But the moment Christopher Columbus arrived, all of a sudden, they had to fight for their freedoms, and they're still fighting to this day.
Yes, they have the freedom to steal millions of dollars from American taxpayers.
Yes, they have literally every other right that every other American has, but according to this song, which as anyone with ears will attest, is as dreadful and embarrassing as a musical composition could possibly be, the Indians are still fighting for their freedoms to this day.
And so this is the kind of garbage that we're still funding.
So if anyone ever tells you irony is dead, tune your radio to big res as he indigenizes the airwaves.
But as disgraceful as this display is, it's actually not the worst of it.
As you heard in that report, we also restored funding to AIDS prevention programs overseas, even though those programs were originally supposed to be cut.
Here's the Daily Wire's reporting of what happened.
Quote, a senior administration official told the Daily Wire that cuts to PEPFAR, global health funding provided by the United States to combat AIDS and HIV, were not impacting essential life-saving services.
America remains the most generous country in the world because President Trump has a humanitarian heart, and we urge other nations to dramatically increase their humanitarian efforts, the official told the Daily Wire.
Official comments come as some media outlets such as NPR have claimed the Trump administration is gutting AIDS relief.
So we're assured that Donald Trump has a humanitarian heart, and therefore we need to continue spending millions of dollars on AIDS prevention in Africa, which raises the question, which I think many people, although we always hear about AIDS prevention efforts in Africa, the question is, what does AIDS prevention look like exactly?
Here's how one activist describes the benefits of these programs.
Watch.
Winnie, you say that the risks are huge.
Can you put that in very real practical terms?
What exactly does that mean?
Absolutely.
What we see now is that many clinics have been shut, workers have been laid off, and communities who had contracts to serve their own people in communities, contracts were closed.
So now we see in many places fewer people showing up for a test, fewer people coming to get what they need for prevention, like PrEP or condoms.
And so we see new infections rising.
So she's saying that America needs to continue paying for PrEP and condoms overseas, or else a lot of people will die.
But actually, there's a much simpler solution here.
The only people who need to take PrEP and wear condoms in order to avoid contracting HIV are people who are engaging in sexual activities that are likely to infect them with HIV.
In other words, we're talking mostly about promiscuous gay men.
All that's needed, in reality, is for these promiscuous gay men to stop behaving that way.
That's the solution.
That's how they can avoid contracting HIV.
We don't have to send them a dollar.
They can do it for free.
Or not do it, as the case may be.
The thing is, no one at any point, and this is another controversial, yeah, this is seen as like greatly, it's like, well, to question AIDS relief in Africa, who would do that?
You have to be a very cruel person.
And yet, no one at any point has explained exactly why it's our duty as Americans to pay for the prep and condoms that are used by foreigners who voluntarily engage in extremely dangerous sexual activities.
No one's explained why it's our responsibility as Americans to facilitate the sexual activities of people in foreign countries.
I mean, it's crazy.
No one has answered this simple question.
Why shouldn't we cut AIDS funding for Africa and every other country on the planet?
Why exactly are American families held responsible to pay for HIV treatment for Africans, especially preventative treatments, which are designed so that these people can have risky sex without any fear of consequences?
It's a question.
It's not even the rhetoric.
Why is it you think about some, just any American family in Ohio somewhere sitting down for dinner?
And if you think that we need to have AIDS funding in Africa and other parts of the world, what you're saying is that that family, because that's where the money comes from, you're saying that family has an obligation to make sure that gay Africans don't get AIDS.
Why?
Why does that family have that obligation?
Says who?
Well, the answer to the question is pretty obvious, that we shouldn't pay for any of this.
It's as useless as subsidizing Big Res while he spins up indigenous remixes about pipelines and Christopher Columbus.
We elected Republicans so that they'd cut spending on anything that doesn't benefit American citizens.
And while there were useful cuts in the bill yesterday, there is still a lot more to be done.
And that is why funding for Native American radio and AIDS prevention in Africa is all today, or should be anyway, canceled.
