Ep. 1628 - REVEALED: The Dark Truth About Becoming An Organ Donor
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the conspiracy theorists have been proven right again. New reporting reveals that there are very good reasons to be hesitant about putting yourself down as an organ donor on your driver’s license. Also, Trump pushes to have the NFL team in Washington change its name back to the Redskins. And a new alleged “police brutality” case goes viral. We’ll take a look at the full context and find out who is really at fault.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1628
- - -
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:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH
Kikoff - Start building credit with Kikoff today, and you can get your first month for as little as $1. Go to https://getkikoff.com/walsh
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
Pocket Hose - Text WALSH to 64000 to get a FREE pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of ANY size Copper Head hose. Message and data rates may apply.
- - -
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 at the Matt Wall Show, the conspiracy theorists have been proven right again.
New reporting reveals that there are very good reasons to be hesitant about putting yourself down as an organ donor on your driver's license.
Also, Trump pushes to have the NFL team in Washington change its name back to the Redskins, and a new alleged police brutality case goes viral.
We'll take a look at the full context and find out who's really at fault.
All that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
The Matt Walsh Show.
How many times have you told someone, if it ain't broke, don't fix it?
Now, that's great advice most of the time, but not so much for a cell phone.
See, over time, the battery life fades, the processors can't keep up, and it's fallen in the toilet one too many times.
Fortunately, thanks to PureTalk, your cell phone is something that you can replace without feeling guilty.
When you switch to PureTalk this month, they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy A36 for free with a $35 qualifying plan, just $35 a month for talk text and data, and a free Samsung phone with scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass and a battery that lasts all day.
All America's most dependable 5G network really does make life here at the Daily Wire simpler with easy, reliable service.
Look, supporting companies like PureTalk is a good thing.
You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half.
They win by hiring more Americans and helping more veterans.
Make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.
Go to puretalk.com slash walsh to get your phone today.
Again, that's puretalk.com slash walsh to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, PureTalk.
In every single state in the country, when you go to the DMV to get your driver's license, you're asked whether you want to become an organ donor.
And this is how the vast majority of people, more than 90% of them, end up on the National Registry of Oregon.
And usually people are happy to sign on.
It's seen as a pretty unambiguous act of virtue.
In fact, it's long been seen as the most virtuous act that can possibly take place at a DMV, which, you know, admittedly isn't saying much.
And most people don't really think about it.
They just check the box, yes, on the theory that one day, if they end up in a horrible accident and they die, then their organs could be used to save a life.
But if you think about it for a second, as many so-called conspiracy theorists, quote unquote, have done over the years, a lot of questions begin to emerge.
For one thing, why exactly are we pairing organ donation with getting a driver's license?
I mean, no other government program works like this.
Even with the motor voter law, there are still a handful of DMVs that don't ask about voter registration.
Organ donation stands alone as the only issue that every DMV, without exception, is fixated on, you know, aside from like actually driving.
They're not interested in signing up for a gym or helping you file your taxes or making sure you know how to service your car or finding you a quality gutter cleaner or any of that.
Human organs are the one thing on their mind.
There also aren't any other major medical decisions that they expect you to make on the spot when you go for your driver's license.
Like they don't try to upsell you on a root canal or LASIC eye surge or anything else.
Organ donation, again, stands alone.
Now you might say that, well, a lot of people die in car accidents and it's good to have a plan B for their organs.
So that's not creepy at all.
But if that's the reason, it's strange that the DMV doesn't pester you to, say, hire an attorney to draft your will just in case you die in a horrible car accident.
Nor does the DMV bother you to check to see if you have good health insurance, which is obviously pretty important if you get into a wreck.
The DMV doesn't care about any of that.
They just want you to sign up to have your organs taken away in case you die.
Now, the legal basis for the DMV's question is found within the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which was backed by every major medical organization.
This law encourages states to add organ donors to a national registry.
It was first passed in the 60s, but it's been revised several times most recently in 2006.
And the latest version of the law, quote, expanded the list of persons who can consent to organ donation on behalf of an individual, gave every individual the opportunity to donate the organs at or near death, and stated that individuals who refused to donate must explicitly state that.
In other words, because not enough organs were being donated, the law changed from opt-in to opt-out.
And the legal presumption is that you want to gift your organs to strangers.
Now, as they watched organ donation become a bigger and bigger priority for the government, a small and highly skeptical group of people wondered whether all of these major medical organizations and lawmakers might have a conflict of interest.
After all, organ transplants are extremely lucrative procedures.
A double lung transplant can easily cost $2 million.
A liver transplant can run over $1 million.
Kidney transplants, which are kind of the bargain bin of the organ donation world, cost merely hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So given all these numbers, it's reasonable to ask whether a hospital, when confronted with a seriously ill patient who happens to be an organ donor, might have an incentive to murder that patient or at least let them die or at least not give them all the care that they otherwise would.
Like there's a lot of money on the line.
It's certainly reasonable to ask what safeguards are in place to prevent something like that from happening exactly.
Now go on the website of the Mayo Clinic, which is supposedly the number one hospital in the world, and you'll find an entire page that's devoted to reassuring skeptics about organ donation.
But the page doesn't do a very good job.
Instead, it simply states, quote, myth, if I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won't work as hard to save my life.
Fact, when you go to the hospital for treatment, the healthcare team tries to save your life, not someone else's.
You get the best care you can get.
Close quote.
Well, that's that.
The Mayo Clinic promises that you'll get the best care.
No one in the hospital would ever dream of killing you or letting you die so they can harvest your organs.
And you'll just have to take their word for it.
And if you can't trust the sterling reputation of America's leading medical experts, then who can you trust?
And you'll notice, of course, that this is a common theme in the fact-checking industry.
People who are skeptical of the official narrative will find that their skepticism is quote unquote debunked by the fact-checkers simply repeating the official narrative.
As it turns out, though, once again, We have been lied to.
And once again, the so-called conspiracy theorists were right.
At hospitals all over the country, new reporting reveals, and there's now a federal investigation being launched into this to look into this by the HHS.
This new reporting reveals that patients are indeed being rushed into surgery to remove their organs, even when they're still alive.
And we're not talking about one or two cases here.
This is a systemic problem.
It's also an inevitable problem given the way that the incentives have been set up.
Consider the story of a Kentucky man named TJ Hoover.
Back in 2021, doctors said that he was brain dead.
They convinced the family to remove his life support so that his organs could be harvested.
Meanwhile, according to an employee with the organ procurement company named Nikki Martin, Hoover was actually displaying signs of life, including tracking with his eyes, moving around, trying to pull his tube out, trying to pull his hands away.
But the family apparently wasn't told about any of those signs of life, and Hoover was ultimately brought to an operating room so that his organs could be harvested.
But just before his life support was cut off and the surgery began, Hoover woke up.
And then even after he woke up, the organ harvesters at Kentucky Organ Donor Alliances, or CODAP, reportedly weren't deterred.
The harvesters were still dead set on finding a doctor to perform the surgery on this guy who just woke up.
That's according to one medical professional who was in the operating room with TJ Hoover Watch.
What you are watching is the honor walk.
It's one of the most revered traditions in a hospital.
It's when family, friends, and staff all pay their respects as someone is wheeled off to give the ultimate gift: donation of their organs.
Except this man, TJ Hoover, was still very much alive.
So we did track down someone who was in the operating room that day and did see what happened firsthand.
Her name is Natasha Miller.
She's a transplant perfusionist, and I'm driving to see her now.
From what I understand, he was mouthing the word no and pushing hands away and things like that.
Yes, he was very aware.
The pronouncing physician comes in, and when she comes in, she walks back out and she says, I'm not doing this.
I'm not doing this case.
I don't feel comfortable.
The organ coordinator that was there, she steps out to call the supervisor at the time to tell him that the pronouncing physician was refusing to do the case.
She said that he was yelling at her, telling her she needed to find another physician to come.
And she's like, there is no one.
There's no one else to come do this case.
Is there any part of this that makes sense to you?
Is any part of this defensible?
No, because it seemed like at first they were saying, well, family, family consented, family consented, family consented.
And I get that.
But again, it seems like family wasn't made fully aware of his actual state.
None of it makes sense.
We should have never went to OR.
I was a registered organ donor and I'm not anymore.
Really?
Because you don't trust the system?
I don't trust the system.
What is TJ's life like now?
He wasn't supposed to make it easier if he made it.
Hold your hand up, bud.
For TJ, it's not just about being alive, but living and getting to be a part of these moments.
Like walking his sister down the aisle.
The organ harvesting company CODA has denied all wrongdoing.
They said that they don't get any kickbacks when organs are harvested and they claim that all the procedures were followed.
But when you listen to the testimony of the former CODA employee who was in the operating room, the company's denial isn't exactly convincing.
And on top of that, if you can follow procedures and still come close to ripping the organs out of a living patient, then obviously the procedures need to change.
And that shouldn't be controversial in any way to say.
That's especially true given that as horrible as T.J. Hoover's situation was, the organ harvesting industry has been involved in operations that are somehow even more horrifying than that.
In some cases, the mistake wasn't caught in time.
We're talking about situations where the surgical operation began, even though the patient wasn't dead.
Last May, for example, a 42-year-old woman named Misty Hawkins, who had a lifelong cognitive disability and lived with her mother in Alabama, choked on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and ended up in a coma.
By the time doctors removed the obstruction, she had suffered severe oxygen deprivation and had to be hooked up to a ventilator.
And that's when the doctors reportedly gave the mother a choice.
She had 72 hours to decide whether she wanted to terminate life support and donate the organs or send her daughter to a nursing home.
And the mother decided to let her daughter die on the theory that she didn't want her to suffer.
And here's what happens next.
This is from the New York Times report that just came out.
Quote, in the operating room, a hospital doctor took Ms. Hawkins off the ventilator and gave her drugs for comfort.
The doctor declared her dead 103 minutes later, near the outer limit of organ viability.
The surgeons entered the room.
They began operating after a five-minute waiting period.
All circulatory death donations require a waiting period to ensure the heart does not restart.
Almost immediately, they saw Ms. Hawkins' heart moving.
Records from the procurement organization also noted subsequent gasping respirations, a type of breathing.
The surgeon stopped and left the room.
Another doctor sewed up Ms. Hawkins.
It's unclear if she was given any anesthetic.
12 minutes later, she was again declared dead.
Now, nobody informed Hawkins' family about any of this, according to the Times.
They just told the family that her organs turned out to be unusable.
It took more than a year for the family to learn what had actually happened, and they made the discovery by talking to the New York Times.
Something similar happened to Hoover's family in Kentucky.
For all the respect that these hospitals supposedly have for organ donors, they became extremely quiet and secretive when things go bad.
In Hawkins' case, doctors interviewed by the Times assessed that it was, quote, all but impossible that her heart restarted after the waiting period.
So in other words, the doctors were probably wrong when they declared that she was dead.
It looks a lot like she was alive.
And despite that inconvenient detail, the doctors started carving her up, presumably without providing anesthetic, because supposedly this person was dead.
And this isn't something you think a hospital could possibly mess up, but apparently that's what happened.
And again, it's not particularly uncommon.
There are plenty of cases just like this one, quoting again from the Times, quote, in 2022, when she was 38 and homeless, Ms. Galagos was hospitalized and went into a coma.
Doctors at Presbyterian hospital in Albuquerque told her family that she would never recover.
On the day of the planned donation, Ms. Scalagos was taken to a pre-surgery room where her two sisters held her hand.
A doctor arrived to withdraw life support.
Then a sister announced that she had seen Ms. Galagos move.
The doctor asked her to blink her eyes and she complied.
The room erupted in gasps.
Still, hospital workers said the procurement organization wanted to move forward.
A coordinator said it was just reflexes and suggested morphine to reduce movements.
The hospital refused.
Instead, workers brought her back to her room and she made a full recovery.
Yes, yes, just seconds before they were about to kill this woman and harvest her organs, the family noticed that she was still alive.
And then even after the family pointed this out, the organ harvesting organization still wanted to cut her organs out.
And now she's fine.
And yet through all of this, no one has been arrested or fed to the alligators.
No one suffered any consequences at all for trying to harvest the organs of a person they knew was alive.
Stories like this led the Trump administration to investigate the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which administers the organ transplant program that Congress established.
The administration looked into a relatively small number of incidents, a total of 351 cases where organ donation was authorized, but ultimately not completed.
And here's what they found.
Quote, the 103 cases, 29.3%, showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.
At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated, raising serious ethical and legal questions.
Evidence pointed to pure neurologic assessments, poor neurologic assessments rather, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases.
Vulnerabilities were highest in small and rural hospitals, indicating systemic gaps in oversight.
Okay, so to repeat, according to this data, 73 patients had neurological signs incompatible with organ donation, and at least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated.
And this is just based on an investigation of 351 cases where organ procurement was authorized but not completed.
So we're not looking at the cases where it was completed.
In nearly 10% of those cases and potentially as many as 20% of them, the patient wasn't actually dead.
Keep in mind, these are the most conservative estimates we have.
The real figures are almost certainly even worse.
Nothing on the Mayo Clinic's webpage on Organ Donation talks about any of this, nor will the DMV inform you of these statistics when you go to renew your license.
Instead, as is so often the case, the conspiracy theorists on social media will give you more accurate information than official expert sources will.
Once again, the conspiracy theorists were onto something.
Just as they were about masks and social distancing, COVID shot, Wuhan lab leak, and so on and so on and so on and so on.
This is yet another blow to the credibility of the expert medical establishment, which, unlike many of the patients whose organs they want to harvest, has been dead and gone for a very long time.
The least credible people on the planet have been proven to be liars once again.
And that's not the only reason that we shouldn't be surprised by these revelations.
In every other context, the medical industry already treats human beings like lab rats and or commodities.
And we've seen this again and again with abortion and euthanasia, so-called gender-affirming care, and so on.
Doctors who don't value the dignity of human life will eagerly commit unspeakable horrors in the name of ideology or profit or both.
And they'll do it without any hint of shame whatsoever.
They'll tell anti-lockdown protesters to stay home while they encourage BLM rioters to flood the streets.
They'll carve up the bodies of young children, even as they privately admit that those children can't consent.
And as we're seeing now, they'll slice open the chest of an organ donor who's not even dead, and then they'll get angry when the organ donor wakes up in the middle of the operation.
Thanks to a law that's been adopted by every state, your local DMV, you know, the lady at your local DMV wants you to ignore all of this.
She wants you to believe that really all these incidents aren't a big deal.
And I mean, even if they seem like outtakes from a saw movie, we just don't worry about it.
Just sign on the dotted line and like any good and decent person would and become an organ donor.
After all, how could it possibly be a bad idea to be an organ donor?
That'd be like saying it's a bad idea to save a helpless puppy, the kind they show on TV as that Sarah McLaughlin song plays, or at least they used to.
And for most of this country's history, the DMV lady would have a point, but the DMV lady doesn't have a point anymore.
Give immoral people a position of power, and they'll corrupt everything they can.
Put the medical industry in the position of taking lives intentionally, as they do with abortion, euthanasia.
You've created all kinds of conflicts of interest already.
You've turned the medical field into something that doesn't just treat and help people, but in fact, intentionally harms and kills them in some cases.
They'll turn unambiguous acts of virtue, like agreeing to be an organ donor, into a catastrophic blunder that can get you murdered in an operating room.
That's what the people running some of the most powerful hospitals and medical organizations in the country have done.
As a result of their corruption, here's the stark choice that we're left with.
The next time we go to the DMV to get our license renewed, we can either make it harder for people to receive organs they need, or we could sign a license to have doctors butcher us in the operating room while we're still alive.
Those are the choices, and there's no good option.
That will remain true until the people responsible for all these cases I mentioned and many cases I didn't mention are criminally investigated and, if appropriate, charged for what they've done.
There needs to be a full accounting here.
Absolute transparency is necessary along with actual consequences.
And until that time comes, no one, especially not the DMV lady, should be doing the bidding of these surgeons and organ harvesters.
The DMV should stick to handing out licenses and Doing eye tests and the medical profession for the first time in a generation should focus exclusively on helping and treating people instead of wantonly destroying even more human life for profit.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
When budgets are stretched thin, kickoff offers a smart path to genuine credit building without the burden of costly credit card balances.
No credit check required, no interest charges, only $5 monthly.
It can actually boost your score quickly.
With clear budget-friendly plans, beginning at only $5 a month, no surprise charges, and zero interest rates, kickoff helps you win big on the credit front.
Straightforward.
You make timely payments, credit agencies notice positive habits, and your credit can improve very quickly.
Users with credit under 600 grew an average of 84 points in their first year with on-time payments, plus with over 1 million users and hundreds of thousands of positive reviews.
There's a reason why kickoff is the number one credit builder on the app store.
We have a few different Daily Wire producers that use Kickoff, and they can attest to the simplicity and ease of the app and how straightforward it is for getting you on the right path to increase your score.
Sign up in minutes from your phone.
No credit check, cancel anytime.
Start building credit with Kickoff today, and you can get your first month for as little as $1.
That's 80% off the normal price when you go to getkickoff.com slash walsh today.
That's kickoff without the C. Get K-I-K-O-F-F dot com slash walsh.
Must sign up via getkickoff.com slash walsh to activate offer.
Offer applies to new kickoff customers.
First month only subject to approval.
Offer subject to change.
Average first year credit score impact of plus 84 points.
Vantage score 3.0 between January 2023 and January 2024 for kickoff credit account users who started with a score below 600, but paid on time and who had no delinquencies or collections added to their credit profile during the period.
Late payments may negatively impact your credit score.
Individual results may vary.
All right, I've been meaning to mention this.
And I've got a few things to say about it.
President Trump over the weekend launched a pressure campaign to force the Washington Commanders football team to change their name back to the Redskins.
Fox News has the latest.
President Donald Trump threw a curveball into the NFL world over the weekend when he, that's a mixed metaphor.
That's no good.
Threw a curveball into the NFL world.
That's just, you got to rework the opening sentence there.
Anyway, how about he did a trick play or something like that?
I don't know.
Quarterback sneak.
Anyway, over the weekend when he threatened to put the Washington Commanders RFK Stadium site in jeopardy if they didn't change its name back to the Redskins.
And Trump wrote on Truth Social, the Washington whatevers should immediately change their name back to the Washington Redskins football team.
There's a big clamoring for this, Trump wrote.
Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams with a storied past.
Our great Indian people in massive numbers want this to happen.
Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them.
Times are different now than they were three or four years ago.
We're a country of passion and common sense.
Owners, get it done.
And then he followed up later.
He was also saying that he's going to, as I said, he's going to potentially hold up what's happening with the stadium, the new stadium, if they don't get this done.
Then he says, my statement on the Washington Redskins has totally blown up, but only in a very positive way.
I may put a restriction on them if they don't change the name back to the original Washington Redskins and get rid of the ridiculous moniker Washington Commanders.
I won't make a deal for them to build a stadium in Washington.
The team should be much more valuable, and the deal will be more exciting for everyone.
Okay, so this was like on Sunday, getting into the week.
They're talking about this.
Now, I don't think this is going to happen.
They're not going to change it back to Redskins.
Like, that's just, it's not going to happen.
It just won't.
And I will say, you know, I have to say to start with that, look, this whole thing does strike me as a pretty unsubtle attempt to change the subject.
Okay.
It is hard for me to stomach the idea that Epstein is a boring and unimportant and dumb story, as Trump has said, but the name of the football team in Washington isn't boring, dumb, or unimportant.
I mean, that's the problem.
You can't come out and say, this is totally ridiculous.
Why are we talking about this?
It doesn't matter.
And then a few days later, launch into a series, like spend a day talking about the name of the football team in Washington.
How in the world is that important enough to require the President of the United States to not only speak out about it, but to get involved actively?
So that's important enough for that, but not the Epstein files?
Like that doesn't make any sense.
So when critics claim that this pivot to the Redskins is kind of a ploy to change the subject, yeah, I think it is.
Just being honest, and I know it's going to annoy some of you that I'm saying that, even though you know him right, it's going to annoy you because like, yeah, but be a team player.
We all know that, of course, that's what he's doing, but don't say it out loud.
But that's a game I don't play.
I'll say out loud whatever I happen to think about a subject, and I'm not going to worry about, well, we don't want to say that because we got to think about the strategy.
I'll fully admit I'm not as worried about strategy.
I'm just going to tell you what I think, right?
Because that's what I consider my job to be.
And so in this case, yeah, this is very clearly an unsubtle attempt to change the subject and kind of clunky and clumsy and it doesn't work and it's too transparent, you know?
So just like strategically, it doesn't work anyway.
And I don't even think we should change the subject because I think that the subject, the abstain subject is important.
All that said, on the merits of the case here, I do agree with Trump.
I mean, I've been saying this myself since forever.
I don't think it's the kind of issue we need the president to be focused on right now, but because it doesn't rise to that level, but I agree in principle that, yeah, the name should not have been changed.
Trump also wants to bring back the Cleveland Indians name, and that's another one that should not have been changed.
I agree.
Mainly that I wanted to talk about this angle for a minute, because you hear this kind of argument all the time from the left, and somebody posted this.
It has like 60,000 likes, 10 million views.
It's an argument that resonates on the left.
You hear this a lot when we talk about the names of teams.
And so I'll put that up on the screen.
You can see it there.
The account is ironically suggesting that rather than change the Cleveland name back to the Indians, we should call the team the whites and have a mascot of a white guy with a mustache and glasses and a fedora.
And so the idea is like, well, how would you like this?
Oh, you think it's so great to have the Indians as a name?
Well, how would you like it, white people?
How would you like this if it was called the whites?
And the guy who posted this, by the way, is Indian.
It looks like, you know, feather Indian, American Indian.
So the point is that we're supposed to find this really offensive or something as white people.
But of course, every time the left makes this point, the response from most white people is, hell yeah, that would be awesome.
I would totally support a baseball or football team called the Whites or the Fighting Caucasians or whatever you go.
Yeah, let's do it.
Call our bluff.
Let's go ahead and do it.
How about the Great Whites?
That's a good one.
You know, the team is called the Great Whites, and the mascot is a Caucasian shark.
So it's kind of a combination.
It could go either way.
It's a shark with a fedora and a good credit score.
That's how you know he's a white shark.
He's a shark holding up a paper with an 850 credit score.
Anyway, I'd have no problem with that.
But the irony here, the really funny thing, is that we all know that if some team did change their name to the whites, which of course would never happen.
But if that were to happen, it would not be white conservatives complaining.
It would be leftists.
Leftists would complain because they would see the team name as a celebration of the white race, which of course isn't allowed.
You're not allowed to celebrate white people or show that you're in any way proud of them or anything like that.
So they would see it as a celebration, glorification of the white race.
And we all know that.
It would 100% only be leftists complaining.
And they would be hysterical about it.
I mean, they would be completely hysteric.
So we're supposed to believe that if the team changed their name to the whites, that there'd be this hysterical reaction from white conservatives, people like me, that I would be completely offended by it.
When in reality, it would be, I mean, people on the left, they would actually be rioting in the street.
They would storm the stadium, okay, and burn it if that were to ever happen.
They would be, you know, apoplectic with rage.
Absolutely.
And again, we all know that.
And yet, when a team is named after Indians, they so in that case, they would be offended because they'd see, oh, well, that's, You're celebrating white people.
We can't do that.
But then, if you name a team after the Indians, they don't see that as a celebration.
They see that as an attack on Indians rather than a celebration or glorification of them.
But it is, in fact, the latter.
That's like when you name a team, that's why nobody, you name a team after something that you admire, something you think is good, something you think is, you know, something that has some gravitas to it.
That's why you name the team after them.
That's why you're never going to have a football team called the, whatever, the Philadelphia Wimps or something.
It's always something that has, you know, it's the Eagles, right?
It's like something when you name it after animals, you name it after animals that we think of as like strong, right?
So, but when it comes to the Indians, that's how they say.
So what's the moral of the story?
Well, they'll complain no matter what.
That's the moral.
And their victim narrative is always vindicated no matter what, in their minds.
Their victim narrative always is always proven correct, no matter what happens.
All right, the recount has this viral video from a town hall in Jonesboro, Tennessee, where a woman claims that she was the victim of Christian extremism at her OBGYN, which you got to watch out for that Christian extremism.
So a little background here.
Tennessee recently passed a bill called the Medical Ethics Defense Act, and the point of the legislation is to protect medical providers from being forced to be involved in or administer procedures that contradict their religious and their moral beliefs.
Namely, most obviously, this is about making sure that medical providers aren't forced against their will to participate in abortions or quote-unquote gender-affirming care or that sort of thing.
That's why you need the legislation.
Well, this woman says that she has fallen victim to this legislation.
And this is the, it's kind of like when these kinds of bills are proposed or when they're passed, the left will talk about all these wild sort of worst case scenarios that might occur if we allow people to have this kind of freedom.
And then what do you know?
This woman comes along and says that she had one of those worst case scenario type things happen to her.
This has been picked up by multiple media outlets, all reporting it uncritically, of course, as though it's a verified fact, even though it isn't.
There's nothing verified here at all.
But anyway, here's what she had to say.
Listen.
I just found out that I'm pregnant again.
I've been with my partner for about 15 years, though we're not married.
I just had my first visit, and that provider told me that thanks to that fact, they were not comfortable treating me because I am an unwed mother, and that goes against their Christian balance.
I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the state where I can seek care across state lines, and that's what I'm doing.
Prabhupada, Virginia, traveling to Virginia for my prenatal care.
Scared out of my mind that I'm going to labor and not be able to, or have to deliver in this state with a provider who feels that that child's life is more valuable than mine.
While we do love and want this child, I also have a 13-year-old.
And I can't leave her behind.
I call Marcia's office twice a day.
Woo-hoo!
I'm either blocked or She has all calls going directly to voicemail.
I've never even reached a staffer.
And when I contacted Bill Hackerty's office, I was told that he's not looking at me to listen to his constituents.
Love that.
Okay, so she claims that her OBGYN refused her care because she's an unwed mother.
And then she claims that she tried to contact her senator's office, Bill, you know, Bill Haggerty, Senator Haggerty, and was told, quote, the senator isn't obligated to listen to his constituents.
Gasps, gasps from the crowd.
Now, first of all, I flat out don't believe any part of this story.
I just don't believe it.
And that's where I'm at with people like this making any claim.
This is where I've been for a long time.
I just don't believe you.
I just don't believe it.
Well, how could you say that?
I don't believe anything you say.
I think you're a liar.
I think you're a pathological liar.
I think if you're a left-wing activist, you're a pathological liar.
I think you lie about everything.
I don't trust anything you say.
Anything you tell me about something that happened in your personal life, especially something that conveniently helps to prove some sort of point that you want to make, I just don't believe it.
And I don't even care what it is.
I don't care if you told me that you had, you know, a toast for breakfast this morning.
I just don't believe it.
I'm going to assume you're lying about that.
I don't believe anything you say ever about anything.
So I will just flat out to your face, say, yeah, I think you're a liar.
I think you're full of crap.
I think you're lying.
And so that's the problem here.
I just don't believe it.
Starting at the end and working backwards, I guarantee that Senator Haggerty's office did not say to her when she called, oh, well, he's not obligated to listen to his constituents, you peon.
He doesn't have to listen to the likes of you.
That's not, no, that is not how the conversation went.
I 100% guarantee that's not how the conversation went.
I guarantee that quote was not said.
Guarantee it.
I don't know how it went.
I wasn't there.
I just guarantee that that wasn't it.
That was not said.
So what actually was said, like they said something else, and then she interpreted it as, oh, so you're saying that he's not, he doesn't have to listen to me.
But that's not what she said.
And more importantly, I don't believe that she was refused care because she's an unwed mother.
I don't believe that.
To begin with, that is not what Christian teaching dictates.
There's nothing in the Bible or Christian teaching that would prevent an OBGYN from giving care to an unwed mother.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Quite the opposite.
This woman, I mean, this is, if you're any mother, wed or not wed, Christians believe that, you know, you should get medical care.
And particularly if you're an unwed mother, and in this case, she's a whack job liberal, and you are going to, and you're not going to kill your baby, you're going to allow your child to be born,
well, then certainly we want to encourage that and give you all the, I mean, that's why there's pregnancy resource centers, Christian pro-life pregnancy resource centers all over the country that are giving care to very often unwed mothers.
So this woman is revealing the basic misunderstanding that's very common on the left, the distinction they fail to grasp, but which every Christian I know grasps perfectly well.
There's this basic distinction that I've never met a Christian who doesn't understand this distinction.
It's like second nature to us, but the left, they really struggle with it.
They don't get it, which is what tells me this story is from her own imagination.
And the distinction is between the person and the act, the sin and the sinner.
As Christians, we cannot participate in an immoral act, but that doesn't mean that we can't help or serve those who commit immoral acts.
Going back to the gay wedding cake example, there's nothing preventing a, and this is a point made a million times about that particular case or cases like it.
It's always left-wing activists who don't understand or pretending they don't understand this distinction.
There's nothing preventing a Christian baker from selling cupcakes or muffins or even a cake or any kind of baked good or anything else to a gay couple.
If you're a Christian baker and a gay couple comes in and says, we'd like two cupcakes, please, there's nothing at all that would prevent you morally or theologically from selling them the cupcake.
That's fine.
But if you want me to bake a cake specifically for an event celebrating a gay wedding, a gay quote unquote wedding, well, now you're asking me to participate in the event.
And I can't do that.
I can sell you baked goods, but I can't participate in this event.
So that's the distinction.
An OB GYN who delivers care to an unwed mother is not participating in or in any way condoning the fact that she is unwed.
I've never met, again, a Christian who doesn't understand this distinction.
It's like very, it's ingrained in us.
I think it should be ingrained in any person, any rational person should be, but, but in particular with Christians, this is ingrained in us from, you know, the youngest ages.
But this is a distinction that mystifies the left.
They just don't get it.
And I think to some extent, there's this intentional obtuseness.
They're pretending they don't understand it.
But I think a lot of them really don't understand it.
There really is this conceptual, they just, they don't get it.
Going back again back to the gay, like they, they can't, they, they can't understand that, oh, I can, as the baker, I can sell you a cupcake, but I can't, I can't custom make you a gay wedding cake.
They just, they can't, they can't wrap their heads around that.
They don't understand, they don't understand the difference between those two things.
So this is a story that kind of hinges on this misunderstanding, which tells me that it comes from the left, not from a Christian.
All that said, you know, when somebody brings up their personal life in public, they invite the rest of us to make judgments about it.
If you bring up your personal life in public, you talk about your personal life, then I am free to form an opinion about that fact because like any fact that you bring to my attention, I can form an opinion about.
That's my right as an American.
It's also unavoidable.
It's natural.
I'm a human being.
I have a mind.
I can't help but form opinions.
I can't help but have a perspective on anything I'm aware of, right?
As a conscious human being.
So if you don't want other people to have opinions about your personal life, then don't tell them about it.
The moment you tell them any detail about your personal life, they're going to have an opinion about it.
And if you're presenting that opinion, this fact about yourself publicly, that not only does everyone else have an opinion about it now because you told them, but it's perfectly reasonable for them, and they certainly have every right to say that opinion publicly about your personal life.
And so I will speak about this woman.
I don't know her name, but whoever she is.
I'm going to speak about your personal life.
It is ridiculous that you have been with someone for 15 years and have two kids and are not married.
That is ridiculous.
That's shameful.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
It's wrong.
It is a shameful fact about you that you have chosen to share with the world.
And you've chosen to share it because you're trying to make some kind of political point.
And so I'm going to share back with you the fact that that is shameful and ridiculous.
And you should be embarrassed.
You should be embarrassed of that.
That is unfair to your children, among other things.
By not getting married, all you're doing is telling your kids that you make no promises, that you give no assurances that their family will stay intact.
You are injecting anxiety and uncertainty into their lives at such a fundamental level that you are harming them.
You are doing grave, deep harm to your children this way.
So, you know, if the OBGYN told you that, then they were right.
Although I think the rest of the story is completely made up.
All right.
Let's move now to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a beard.
Hey, we're the sweet baby game.
Nearly half of American adults say they would suffer financial hardship within six months if they lost their primary income earner.
As a father and husband, I know how important it is to protect my family's financial future if the worst were to happen.
That's where policy genius comes in.
Policy genius takes the complexity out of life insurance, making it easy to find and purchase coverage that ensures your loved ones have the security they need if something happens to you, whether it's covering everyday expenses, paying off debts, or providing funds they can invest in for long-term growth.
The right policy gives you peace of mind.
With Policy Genius, you can quickly compare quotes from leading insurers to find coverage that works for both your family's needs and your budget.
With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policy starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars of coverage.
It's an easy way to protect people you love and feel good about the future.
As the country's leading online insurance marketplace, Policy Genius simplifies the life insurance process by letting you compare quotes from America's top insurers with just a few clicks to find the lowest price.
Their team of licensed agents walks you through everything step by step, answering questions, handling paperwork, and advocating for you throughout the process so you can make informed decisions about the future.
Secure your family's future with PolicyGenius.
Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.
Import Somalians and they will create Somalia.
It's amazing how many people don't understand this reality.
Well, yeah, and one of the reasons why people don't understand it is that they've been brought up on the lie that all these dysfunctional third world countries are only dysfunctional third world countries because they've been victimized by white Western countries.
And the reality is that one way or another, the people of a country will create their country.
Every country is a product of its people.
So why is Somalia the way it is?
Because of Somalis.
And if you really love Somalia and thinks it's a great country, then you shouldn't take that as an insult.
You should be proud of that.
But of course, everyone wants to have it both ways.
These Somali immigrants who come here, they want to have it both ways.
And so they want to say that, I'm so proud of my homeland.
It's such a great place.
But then if they hear me say this or anyone else say, well, Somali is the way it is because of Somalis, they'll say, oh, it's not our fault.
It's all white Western colonizers.
But I thought you said you're proud of it.
Aren't you proud of it?
It doesn't sound like you're proud of it.
Right.
Trying to deflect the blame for why it ended up the way it did tells me that you are fundamentally not proud of this country.
And that's just the way it goes.
Countries, people create countries, and countries are a reflection of their people.
And that's, you know, the only thing that can really upend that formula is if you start importing people en masse from other countries into a country, which is what we've done here.
But even then, I would say it's our, that we as people, as Americans, it's up to us to speak out against this, put a stop to this, to elect people who are going to stop it.
Like we have to fight back against this.
The fact that a Somalian migrant can even legally run for mayor of Minneapolis shows how far from our founding we have come.
Yeah, I think technically the guy was born in D.C. or something, but I agree with your overall point.
I think certainly for federal elected office, certainly for, and you could certainly, and you could make an argument for mayors.
You could make an argument for any elected office.
But without a doubt, federal elected office, national office, we should only allow people who were born here to run and to hold those offices.
I didn't realize George Floyd was buried in a golden coffin, so I googled it.
It costs around $25,000.
It's plated with 14 karat gold.
He was the third person to be buried in this particular model of coffin after Michael Jackson and James Brown.
Oh yeah, I remember it well.
A golden casket for a career criminal and drug addict.
This is just one of those things that my grandchildren are going to, you tell them about that.
It's that image of a golden casket with this career criminal scumbag in it and the mayor of the city on his knees before the casket weeping.
It's like, well, I'll say this.
I hope it is my prayer that my grandchildren, when they see an image like that, they'll be completely confounded by it.
They'll be totally shocked and confused.
Because the other option is that they see that image and they go, yeah, well, figures, because look at how the country is now.
Matt, I agree with you about monogamy over polygamy, but the problem with you and other conservative simps is that you refuse to talk about the problems with women and you won't defend the patriarchy.
So your take is toothless and weak.
That's why men listen to Andrew Tate, not you.
Yeah, you know, I hear this criticism, and it just goes to show that so many of my critics aren't criticizing me.
They're not.
They're criticizing what they think a guy like me would say or would not say.
That explains so much.
And I'm not saying I'm ever validly criticized.
There's plenty of things you could criticize me for legitimately, but so much of the criticism I do receive, particularly from the right, from other people on the right, so much of that is not actually a criticism.
It's a criticism of what they think, what they assume I must say or must not say.
Right?
Because this rebuttal, which I've heard a lot this week and I hear in general, is a total fantasy.
It may not be a fantasy for other conservative commentators.
I agree.
So it's true that you can find other conservative commentators and commentators in general who are very willing to talk about the duties of men and responsibilities of men, but they'll never put the shoe on the other foot.
They'll never talk about what women should do.
They won't criticize feminism, certainly.
They definitely won't defend the patriarchy.
They won't defend gender roles, the idea that men are meant to do certain things, women are meant to do.
So that's true of plenty of people.
It's not true of me, though.
That's not the case for me.
you really think I'm afraid to attack feminism?
To call women out, defend the patriarchy, defend male headship, male leadership in the home.
I do it all the time.
Just spend five minutes on YouTube looking for segments where I call out women and feminism and I defend male leadership and male headship in the home, where I talk about the need for respect from women to their husbands and what happens when men are not respected in their own home.
Spend just before you accuse me, before anyone accuses me of, well, you ignore this part of the problem, just five minutes.
Because if you're going to spend a couple of minutes writing something or criticizing me, I think it's fair to say, just five minutes.
Just go to Google, YouTube.
Just take a look at what I've said about those subjects.
And you're going to find like collectively hours of footage of me talking about this.
I do it all the time.
I got no problem doing it.
Go back.
Just like I was just a couple months ago, I did a big monologue where I was criticizing some of what Megan Kelly has said about men.
And from my perspective, putting the blame on men too much.
And that was a whole thing, not just one day.
It was like a whole, it was a whole thing.
So you can go back.
Go back and listen to that monologue and what I say there.
So the problem is that I can't talk about everything every time I talk about anything.
This is so when I'm choosing to speak about a certain subject, I can't say literally everything about it because then every show would be 57 hours long.
So all we can do, just if you, if you see a tweet of mine or you listen to a monologue, or particularly if you listen to a clip of a monologue and you hear what I'm saying or you see what I wrote, you can't assume that that's all I've ever said on the subject or all I think that needs to be said about it.
It's just what I'm saying right now on this particular topic, focusing on this particular angle.
So finally, Captain Planet used to piss my dad off so much.
Now I understand why.
Yeah, my parents had a whole bunch of shows in the 90s that they wouldn't let us watch.
And I don't even remember all of them, but there's plenty of shows, plenty of shows we were able to watch, but there were also plenty of shows that all my friends were watching.
And we were not allowed to watch them.
And I've had the same realization as an adult that many times over that I get it.
As a child, I hated it, right?
I hated that, whatever, all my friends in fifth grade loved Ren and Stimpy on Nickelodeon.
And for my parents, no, you're not watching that.
You're not watching that garbage.
So I found that very annoying at the time.
I definitely get it now.
And usually when my dad would ban us from watching a show, it wasn't because he was saying the show was necessarily intrinsically evil or satanic or something.
It was usually that he would walk into the room and we would be watching a show and he would stand there.
And this always made us nervous when he would like if he walked into the room we're watching a show and he just glances over and then leaves the room.
It's like, okay, fine.
But if he stops and watches for about 30 seconds, then we're all nervous.
Then we're like, okay, now this, this is going to be a problem.
Because what we know is he's not going to watch it for 30 seconds and go, this is a great show.
I really like this.
No, what would usually happen is he'd watch it for 30 seconds and then he'd go, what is this crap?
Turn this off.
No one, you're not watching this anymore.
And then based on that, based on 30 seconds, it would never be allowed on our television ever again, based on a 30-second glimpse of whatever the show happened to be.
And I totally get it now.
I do the exact same thing with my kids.
I just did it the other day.
We've been staying at a place this summer that has cable, that has basic cable, which is an interesting experience, blast from the past.
And so my kids, the younger ones, they were watching Bluey.
And Bluey is a great show for kids.
I certainly approve of Bluey.
I think it's a good quality show for children.
But then another show came on after it, and I don't even know what it was, but I walked into the room.
I still don't know what it was.
I watched it for a few seconds and I did the same thing.
I was like, what is this?
Turn this off.
Well, why?
But dad, we liked it.
Don't you want to watch more of the show?
No, I don't.
Just you're never, you're not watching that again.
We're done with that.
Why?
Because the glimpse was enough for me to know that this is a really dumb and obnoxious and just kind of ugly show.
Ugly, it's like the animation is ugly.
It's dumb.
It's obnoxious.
In this case, I didn't even notice anything particularly morally objectionable.
I just don't watch, I don't want my kids watching dumb, obnoxious things.
I don't need you as a child sitting there, right, with hypnotized, silently staring at this screen while there's dumb, obnoxious things being injected right into your brain.
You don't need that.
I don't need that for you.
You don't need that.
Turn it off.
Go play outside.
So, yeah, I totally get all that now.
And I would assume every parent does this.
But then I hear from, whenever I say this, I hear from parents that say, well, how could you, how could you do that?
How could you stop your child from watching something they want to watch?
It's like, I don't know.
Probably about 95% of the shows on TV or on streaming, even the kids' shows, I'm not going to let my kids watch.
And again, most of it is not because it's woke or whatever, although there's plenty of the woke stuff.
They can't watch that.
Most of it is just this is Dumb and obnoxious, and that's all.
And you don't need to spend your time watching something dumb and obnoxious.
Read a book, go play outside.
This episode is brought to you by Pocket Hose, the world's number one expandable hose.
If you've ever struggled with traditional garden hoses that constantly kink and crease, right?
The spigot connection, you'll appreciate really the innovative design of the Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot.
The clever swivel mechanism rotates a full 360 degrees, ensuring uninterrupted water flow and giving you complete freedom to move around your entire property without fighting against stubborn hose tangles.
Whether you're watering flower beds on one side of your house or reaching planters around back, the smooth pivot makes watering effortless and enjoyable.
When your gardening tasks are complete, this remarkable hose offers another surprise.
It automatically shrinks back down to a compact pocket-sized coil.
It's incredibly easy to handle and store away very neatly.
That makes my yard work 10 times easier since I don't have to lug around a tangled mess.
Built with rust-proof materials and anti-birth technology, the super lightweight yet ultra-durable pocket hose copperhead is engineered to withstand years of regular use, which is why the manufacturer confidently backs it with a comprehensive 10-year warranty for your complete peace of mind.
The brand new pocket hose copperhead with pocket pivot is a total game changer for you and for your yard.
For limited time, my listeners can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose.
Just text Walsh to 64,000.
That's Walsh to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase.
Walsh to 64,000.
Message and data rates may apply.
See terms for details.
We're celebrating a decade of the Daily Wire, and that is 10 years of saying the quiet part out loud and building something that actually matters, something the left can't cancel or burn down.
We're not slowing down.
We're scaling up with new talent like Isabel Brown and her new show premiering this fall, new docs like Journey to the UFC, the Joe Pfeiffer story premiering Friday on Daily Wire Plus.
And here's the thing: members get all of it first.
The drops, the trailers, the truth, uncensored.
Plus, you get to connect with a community that doesn't think biology is optional.
Celebrate 10 years with us.
Join now at DailyWirePlus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, we have another alleged police brutality case for the Daily Cancellation Today.
This week, there has been lots of outrage over a video of William McNeil Jr., 22 years old, getting his window broken and receiving a swift punch in the face during a traffic stop.
As the story goes, McNeil's only crime was failing to have his headlights on during the day.
And the story was accompanied by this video, which, as per tradition, only shows the alleged quote-unquote brutality, but none of the events leading up to it.
Here it is.
When he pulled me over, he walked up, opened my door, because my window don't work, right?
And then I said, so what I did wrong?
He said, well, for one, your headlights are off under this weather.
I'm like, there's multiple people's headlights off, first of all.
And then there's no rain.
It doesn't matter.
You're still required to have headlights on.
Can you pull that low up?
Huh?
Can you pull that low up?
Yeah, when you step out of the car, I will.
Can you call your supervisor?
Huh?
Can you call your supervisor?
All right, go for it.
Exit the vehicle now.
Exit the vehicle.
Show me your hand.
Here.
So we see him sitting in his car.
His window is smashed, and then he gets hit in the face, and he's dragged out of the car and arrested.
Based on this video, the race hustlers have gone to work, hysterically shrieking and saying all the things you expect them to say.
Speaking of things you expect, ambulance chasing parasite Ben Crump parachuted onto the scene and is now representing McNeil.
Crump put out a statement saying that, quote, what happened to William McNeil Jr. is a disturbing reminder that even the most basic rights, like asking why he'd been pulled over, can be met with violence for black Americans.
McNeil was calm and compliant, yet instead of answers, he got his window smashed and was punched in the face.
Now, not to spoil the ending here, but as anyone with an IQ above single digits already assumes, Crump is flat out lying.
We'll get back to that in a moment.
But first, here's the latest on this case from Fox News.
Quote, police in Jacksonville, Florida are investigating a viral video in which an officer is seen punching a male driver in the face during a traffic stop.
Footage that began circulating on social media over the weekend showed William McNeil Jr. staring at the camera on February 19th as an officer is seen smashing his driver's side window and demanding that he exit the vehicle now.
The officer then strikes McNeil in the face before he drags out of the car.
Quote, in my direction, the agency immediately began both a criminal and administrative review of the officer's actions.
These administrative reviews are ongoing, but the state attorney's office has determined that none of the involved officers violated criminal law.
Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters said Monday while releasing a longer body cam video of the incident.
Water said the arresting officer involved in the incident, whom he identified as Dee Bowers, has been stripped of his law enforcement authority pending the outcome of the administrator review.
So the officer has been relieved of his duty while they review the case.
But they've already said that no crime occurred here on the part of the officer, at least.
They also released, as you heard, the body cam footage, which shows the whole interaction.
Because it turns out that if you see a short clip of an altercation that only shows the moment that the altercation turns violent without any of the lead up to contextualize it, then you don't and can't really understand what happened and who is at fault.
This is a lesson that every rational person in the country should have learned by now.
In fact, you should have learned it about a thousand times over.
But unfortunately, there are a lot of irrational people out there, so, and dishonest people.
So here is the body cam footage.
And as you watch this, remember that Ben Crump said that McNeil was perfectly compliant.
So watch this and tell me if compliant is the word you would use to describe it.
Is there a reason why you're popping the door open like that?
Is there a reason that you're pulling the opening?
Absolutely, there's a reason why I'm pulling you over.
One thing, implement whether you don't have the lights on.
Two things, you don't want your seatbelt.
Okay, I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you why I'm pulling you over.
Give me your driver's license, registration, proof of insurance.
No, no, call your supervisor.
Why?
Excuse me?
Call your supervisor.
Step out of the vehicle.
No.
Step out of the vehicle.
No.
Step out of the vehicle.
25, 7, for 94, the driver just slammed the door and locked it.
Call your supervisor.
What time is your supervisor?
I've already told you.
Right now you're under arrest for resisting.
Sir, this is your last warning to open your door.
Open the vehicle to exit before we're gonna break the window.
Open the door next, or we are going to break the window.
Open the door connection.
You are under arrest for resisting.
Open the door connection.
You are under arrest for resisting.
Open the door connection.
You are under press representing.
Open the door connection.
You are under arrest for resisting.
I'm about to break a window.
All right, go for it.
Get on my eyes.
I'm gonna get on my eyes.
Exit the vehicle now.
Exit the vehicle.
What is your reason, sir?
Step out.
What is your reason?
Step out now.
All right.
Get on the ground.
No, no, no, don't forget.
I'll tell you this right.
*Gunshot*
Right, compliant.
Sure.
Just a review, McNeil was pulled over because he didn't have his seatbelt on and he didn't have his headlights on.
It's daylight, but the officer says that it's inclement weather.
You can see in the background that it's overcast.
McNeil refuses to provide his license and registration.
He argues with the police officer, refuses to get out of the car.
Then he shuts and locks the car door.
Compliant, we're told.
Saying no and locking your door is compliance.
McNeil is then told to exit the vehicle seven times, seven times, count them.
And only after the seventh command do the officers finally break the window.
They then pull him out of the vehicle and they arrest him.
And after searching his car, by the way, they find marijuana, which is another detail that the outrage mob and race hustlers fail to mention.
Now, I know that, you know, you're expecting me to side with the police in this case and to display no sympathy at all for poor William McNeil Jr.
And if that's what you're expecting, well, I'm here to tell you that you are exactly right.
I will have no surprises for you today.
I have zero sympathy for this guy.
I'm on the cop side entirely.
The entire thing was McNeil's fault every step of the way, including the punch in the face, which he richly deserved.
Yes, he did.
The punches, it's the only thing that you could even begin to argue might have been excessive.
And even if it was, it's like, it's nobody, okay, it's a punch in the face.
He's fine.
He didn't go to the hospital.
He's fine.
I would still give the cop, even if I thought the punch was totally out of line, definitely wrong, I would still say, all right, fine.
So give the cop a slap on the wrist, put him on a desk for a day, and then send him back out.
It's fine.
And if McNeil's crying about it, I would still say, like, get over it.
Okay.
Just get over it.
But despite what you may have heard from all the legal experts on social media, police are allowed to legally use that kind of force when they're trying to gain compliance from somebody who's resisting.
Like, actually, yeah, they are allowed to punch you in the face.
I mean, you could complain about it.
It shouldn't be that way, but they can.
They're allowed to do that.
They don't have free reign to do it whenever they want.
They can't just walk up to you on the street and punch you in the face for no reason.
But in the process of trying to gain compliance, they are allowed to do that.
And here's the thing you notice in the clip.
It worked.
Okay.
McNeil refused to cooperate through the entire interaction, and then he got punched in the face.
And it's, I mean, it's comical, actually, is the moment he got punched in the face, he immediately started obeying.
He's sitting there.
He's a tough guy, right?
He's not listening.
Seven commands, doesn't listen.
They break the window, still doesn't listen.
Then he gets punched in the face and they say, put the hands up.
And he goes right away, puts the hand up.
Why is that?
Because there are some people who just won't listen until they get smacked.
It's human nature.
And in fact, there's a quote from the sheriff that we didn't play, but where he says that, look, sometimes it's an ugly thing.
Like sometimes dealing with noncompliant people, dealing, it's like, it can be ugly to see and it might upset you a little bit, might make your tummy hurt.
He didn't say this part of it, but to see someone get punched in the face.
But that's just, yeah, sometimes it gets a little bit ugly.
That's just, that's the reality.
That's human nature.
Cops deal with these kinds of people every day.
And William McNeil is one of them.
But the punch was the result of a series of events that led up to it.
And let's go back and talk about those events.
McNeil was pulled over lawfully for failing to have his headlight on during headlights on during inclement weather.
And you could see that it's overcast, likely rainy.
And that means according to the law, yeah, if it's if it's in most states, probably all of them, I don't know.
In Florida anyway, if it's overcast and it's kind of raining off and on, you're supposed to have your headlights on.
Now, have we all been guilty of driving without our headlights during the daylight when it's overcast?
Sure.
I've done it many times.
Is it annoying to get pulled over for that reason?
Yeah.
Was the officer being sort of overly scrupulous and pedantic by trying to enforce this law?
Sure, fine.
And, you know, most of us have been there.
I got pulled over for going nine miles over the speed limit a little while ago.
People go nine miles over the speed limit all the time and don't get pulled over.
I go nine miles over the limit all the time and don't get over.
I go much more than nine miles over the limit, I'm ashamed to admit, and usually don't get pulled over.
But this time I did.
That's just the way it goes.
Just the way it goes.
Sometimes they get, I assume, you know, I'm willing to bet probably that this, that, that William McNeil is probably like, he doesn't, he's driven many times and overcast, doesn't put his headlights on, and doesn't get pulled over.
Probably the first time it ever happened.
Which also, by the way, cuts against the idea that, oh, it's because I'm black.
Well, yeah, but you as a black man have probably done this a million times and not gotten pulled over.
This time you did.
But you were black all those other times too, and you didn't get pulled over then.
So there must be some other explanation as to why this time you did.
And look, when you get pulled over for the ticky-tack reason, which has happened to all of us, it's not an experience exclusive to black people.
When that happens, it's annoying.
You have two choices.
One option, which is the one that I chose, and I've chosen, I choose every time.
I've got pulled over for seatbelts before.
I've gotten pulled over for various headlights and a brake light out.
I mean, things like that.
And so the first option, the one that I've always chosen in these situations when they happen, doesn't happen often, but when they do, is to be respectful and compliant and not argumentative.
And what's likely to happen if you choose that path is that you get a warning and that's it.
Like if William McNeil had just rolled down his window or he claims he couldn't roll down because it was broken.
I don't believe that.
But fine.
He opens the door and he says, Oh, you didn't have the lights on.
He says, Oh, I didn't realize.
I didn't realize I needed to have them on.
Sorry about that.
Oh, you're not wearing your seatbelt.
Oh, you know, actually, I just took it off because I, stupid me.
I apologize.
If he had said that, you know what would have happened?
Probably nothing.
Like the cop would have said license registration, would have run the thing, assuming he doesn't have a warrant and he's not on a suspended license, probably nothing would have happened.
They probably wouldn't have even found the weed in his car.
Because if he was respectful and compliant, just went up, just went along with it and didn't act super suspicious, then they'd have no reason to search and they probably would have sent him all the way.
The whole thing ends up being a slightly irritating 10-minute diversion.
And then you're on your way with no further consequences.
Worst case, you get a small fine or citation and you could just pay it.
Both of his cases, these were not moving violations.
So you could just pay.
It's like 50 bucks and you'll be fine, not even going to hit your insurance.
Or if you really want to, you can go to court and plead your case.
Court is the place for that.
That's the great thing about living in a first world society.
We actually have a specific place that exists specifically to hear your pleas.
That place is not on the side of the road.
It's in a court.
So that's the first option.
The second option, the one that McNeil chose and so many other alleged victims of alleged police brutality choose, is to argue and refuse to comply and do everything in your power to take a minor traffic violation and turn it into serious legal trouble for yourself.
You can deliberately escalate a very low stakes situation until you find yourself lying on the pavement in handcuffs.
If you're at least slightly more emotionally and mentally mature than a toddler, you probably won't go with that route.
You'll be able to engage in a little bit of analytical reasoning, which will tell you that if you're annoyed by a small traffic citation, you're not going to improve your situation or your mood by adding an arrest and a bunch of additional charges on top of it.
Just like if you're annoyed because you accidentally stepped in a puddle and you got one of your shoes a little bit wet, you're not going to improve the situation by then jumping into a pool in all your clothes.
Because now your shoe's still wet along with the rest of you.
If you're annoyed by being slightly wet, don't make yourself more wet.
If you're annoyed by receiving a very minor citation, don't add a bunch of other serious citations on top of it.
And when the cop tells you to get out of the car, closing your door and locking it will not help anything.
They're not going to say, oh, never mind.
There's no way that ends.
There's no way that it could possibly end except with you on the ground in handcuffs.
You have now chosen a path where the best, actually, there are other ways it could end.
The best way it ends, the best available result is that you get arrested.
So why?
Why do that?
Why go out of your way to make everything worse for yourself?
Now, sure, these days, as we've seen, there's always the possibility that you get a viral police brutality incident out of it and then you can sue and maybe make millions of dollars.
But I don't think that McNeil even had that in mind exactly.
Because I think that would almost give him too much credit.
That would make him manipulative and immoral, but at least rational in a very self-serving way.
I don't think that was his plan.
I also don't think he was staging some kind of protest against injustice.
This was not civil disobedience in the way that political activists might engage in it.
There was no plan.
That's the thing.
And there never is with these kinds of people.
This is just a temper tantrum.
This is like a toddler throwing a toy train across the room because he's angry that it's nap time.
There's no plan or strategy.
When the toddler throws the train, it doesn't make any sense for you to go, well, how do you think that that's going to mean that you don't have to take a nap?
All you're doing is proving to me, child, that you need a nap even more because you're throwing the train.
But with my toddlers, I don't have that conversation because they're not, there is no plan.
They're just, there's no rational calculation at work.
And this is what cops deal with every day.
Obnoxious, irrational, tiresome jerks who make everything harder than it needs to be and everything worse for themselves every step of the way.
There is no way to deal with these kinds of people except by imposing your will on them.
That's the only language that a guy like William McNeil Jr. understands.
