Ep. 1677 - Have You Forgotten About Iryna Zarutska? They Want You To. Here’s Why.
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, it seems that many people have already forgotten about the case of Iryna Zarutska, who was stabbed in the neck by a career criminal on the light rail. But forgetting about her story is exactly what they want. Today, I have an update on the case that makes that clear. Also, have an increasing number of "far-right" young people discovered a new affinity for monarchy? That's what the media is claiming. If it's true, there's a reason for it. I'll explain. And I'm being attacked for saying that intolerance is a virtue. Is that true? Well, obviously it is. I will double and triple down as usual.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1677
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.
Finally, Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available at https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
American Financing - Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Walsh today! Call 866-569-4711 for details about credit costs and terms. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers.NMLS 182334.https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com/pages/podcasters and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
ARMRA - Go to https://armra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout to receive 30% off your first subscription order.
- - -
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
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today, the Matt Walsh show, it seems that many people have already forgotten about the case of Irina Zarutska, who was stabbed in the neck by a career criminal on the light rail, but forgetting about her story is exactly what they want.
Today I have an update on the case that makes that clear.
Also, have an increasing number of far-right young people discovered a new affinity for monarchy.
That's what the media is claiming.
And if it's true, there's a reason for it, I'll explain.
And I'm being attacked for saying that intolerance is a virtue.
Is that true?
Well, obviously it is, and I will double and triple down today, as is my custom.
All of that today and more on The Matt Walsh Show.
*Music*
With rising costs everywhere, we tend to overestimate what things actually cost, including life insurance, where 72% of Americans guess way too high.
Policy Genius makes finding affordable coverage simple so your loved ones have the financial protection that they need.
See if Policy Genius can help you find 20-year life insurance policy starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage.
Policy Genius transforms the typically overwhelming process of shopping for life insurance into a straightforward experience.
With just a few clicks, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find coverage that fits your needs and your budget.
Their team of licensed agents guides you through every step, handling paperwork and answering questions without any sales pressure.
The platform clearly displays all of your options, coverage amounts, prices, terms, eliminating confusion, and guesswork.
As the country's leading online insurance marketplace with thousands of five-star views, Policy Genius has earned trust by helping customers find policies perfectly suited to their unique situation, making this important financial decision surprisingly simple.
As a father and husband, I know how important life insurance is, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing your family will be financially protected and able to maintain their quality of life, even if you're no longer there to provide for them.
Secure your family's future with Policy Genius today, head to Policy Genius.com/slash Walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you can save.
That's Policy Genius.com slash Walsh.
By all accounts, including his own, 36-year-old Roofer Joe Gonzalez was an evil human being who deserved to die.
In 1992 in the state of Texas, Gonzalez murdered a 50-year-old building contractor who supposedly owed him $200.
Gonzalez robbed the man and attempted to make his death look like a suicide, but it wasn't a very convincing defense because people who kill themselves normally don't rob themselves after they do it.
Now, at trial, Gonzalez told the jury, quote, I'm a man who has no regard for the law.
I'm a man who has no regard for humanity.
Within just 12 minutes, in November of 1995, the jury convicted Gonzalez and recommended the death penalty.
If you had to guess how long it took for Joe Gonzalez actually to be put to death, what would you say?
What's the approximate time frame for how long you think Joe Gonzalez sat on death row before he was finally executed?
Now, maybe you're thinking this is a trick question.
And the answer is he was never actually executed.
He's still on death row, appealing the jury's decision to this day.
That's normally how death penalty cases go.
We all know that.
But in this case, surprisingly enough, Gonzalez was indeed put to death, and he was put to death very quickly, relatively speaking, just 10 months after the jury recommended the death penalty in September of 1996, Joe Gonzalez was executed by lethal injection.
It was at that point the fastest execution in U.S. history since Gary Gilmore was executed in Utah in 1977 by firing squad just three months after he was convicted of two murders.
Now, the reason both of these men were executed so quickly is that unlike most death penalty defendants, they were not interested in dragging the process out.
They didn't have any interest in appealing their sentences.
So they allowed the government to proceed with the executions without undue penalty.
Left to their own devices without any frivolous appeals, states like Texas and Utah were able to dispense justice in a reasonable time frame.
Now, this is not ancient history.
We're not talking about executions in colonial New England or something.
In modern America, it is entirely possible to put violent criminals to death Promptly.
One of the key steps we need to take, as these cases demonstrate, is to get rid of the idea that death penalty defendants are entitled to an automatic appeal.
And these appeals can take decades to resolve.
They're almost always unnecessary.
But ever since the 1970s, because of a Supreme Court decision, these appeals have been mandatory, unless the defendant waives them.
As a result of this decision by the Supreme Court, the average time that inmates spend on death row has ballooned.
As you can see in the graph, in the 1980s, the average time spent on death row was around 74 months.
Now it's over 260.
So it didn't take long after the Supreme Court's decision, 1976, for everything to slow down dramatically.
They introduced mandatory appeals, and now inmates are spending three times as long on death row.
Now, along the same lines, as you would expect, there's also been a dramatic change in the average age of a defendant who's executed on death row.
In 1975, the average age was 36.
In 1980, the average age was 24.
By 2005, the average age was up to 44.
Now it's up to over 50.
In fact, more than 570 prisoners on death row are over the age of 60 as of 2019.
Back in 1996, that number was just 39.
Some elderly prisoners, like Vernon Madison in Alabama, are spending so much time on death row that they're developing dementia and having strokes, which makes them ineligible for the death penalty because they're supposedly incompetent to be executed.
Yes, that's that's an actual category of inmate.
That's a that's a legal concept now.
Incompetent to be executed.
Now you might argue that competence is like kind of irrelevant for the death penalty.
You don't need to be competent.
Because you don't need to do anything but die.
I mean, that's all you're doing.
You don't need to be comp.
He's too incompetent to die.
That's what they're saying.
But this is the system we have now.
Even if you were competent to stand trial, it's possible for you to lose your mind on death row, and then you go back to general population as a confused vegetable while the victims' families wonder when they're ever going to get the justice they were promised.
And the answer is they never will.
This is supposedly the human humane solution, according to the Supreme Court.
We need an absurd amount of appeals and bureaucratic wrangling lasting years and years before we can actually dispense the punishment that was handed down to the person.
Now keep in mind the Supreme Court made this decision in an era before advanced DNA evidence, before modern ballistic techniques, uh widespread video surveillance.
The general sentiment at the time was that innocent people might be convicted and sent to death row.
So therefore, because evidence was not as robust, we supposedly needed mandatory appeals to make sure that innocent people were not executed.
But that's not the case anymore.
You know, most death penalty cases are similar to the murder of Irina Zarutska.
And that's really the point here.
We're going to revisit the case of Irena Zarutzka because it's important.
And even amid all the other things that are happening in the country, we cannot forget what happened to her.
That's why I want to give a brief update on the case and tell you what's going on with it.
Now, and the answer, as we'll see, is that nothing is going on.
There is no update.
There's no movement at all.
Even though this person, I mean, when the media talks about uh DeCarlos Brown who killed her, they still say alleged or can, or you know, uh accused, the accused killer.
There's no alleged or accused about it.
He's on camera doing it.
There's zero doubt that he did it.
And despite that fact, nothing is happening with the case at all.
And that's the point, as we'll see.
Now, uh, of course, there is no doubt, again, whatsoever, as to who is responsible for Irina's death.
The killer of this case has more than a dozen prior arrests.
He committed the crime on camera in front of dozens of witnesses, as we all remember.
In a just society, the man responsible to Carlos Brown would be given a speedy trial under our constitution and then put to death.
I mean, this happened several weeks ago.
I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be on trial right now.
And that's true, even if you buy his defense, which is that he was mentally ill in some way.
But really, the defense is nonsense.
You know, this is a surveillance photo from the light rail a second or so after he stabbed and mortally wounded Irena.
It's the photo you've you know seen many times before, a photo that very much will live in infamy and should live in infamy.
It's obvious that the Carlos Brown went out of his way to target a defenseless woman who wasn't even looking at him.
He sat in wait for his victim.
After he killed her, he said something along the lines of, I got that white girl, which was heard by various witnesses and also picked up on camera.
And then as this surveillance footage from the train station, which was just released, demonstrates he changed his clothing.
And you could see there, this is the footage of the uh arrest of DiCarlos Brown.
The officers swarm him pretty quickly.
And as you can see, he's not wearing the red clothing anymore.
He's carrying it, he's carrying his sweatshirt.
So it looks a lot like he understood that he had just killed someone and wanted to avoid detection.
So whether he heard voices or not, or whether he has impulse control issues or not, which obviously he does, it doesn't matter.
Someone who decides to murder an innocent woman for any reason forfeits his right to live.
And that's clearly what happened here.
But because our death penalty system is a bureaucratic morass, because our justice system generally is a bureaucratic morass, DeCarlos Brown will not be executed anytime soon.
He won't even be on trial anytime soon.
This is the latest reporting from a local news station in North Carolina.
Here's what's happening with this case right now, okay?
Quote, the man accused of killing a Ukrainian woman on a Charlotte Light rail almost two months ago was scheduled to have a crucial court hearing on Thursday.
DeCarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of killing 23-year-old Irina Zerutskabak in late August, was scheduled to have a Rule 24 court hearing on Thursday, October 16th.
A rule 24 hearing is for the state to determine whether or not they would pursue the death penalty.
Court documents said the hearing was has now been pushed back until April 2026.
The decision to delay the hearing came from Brown and his attorney, Daniel Roberts.
However, the reason for the delay was redacted, according to court documents.
So there's going to be a hearing to determine whether or not the state will pursue the death penalty.
As if there's any doubt that they should, as if that's something we even need to talk about.
DeCarlos Brown should have been should have been put down, executed somewhere around his 10th conviction, if not like his fifth.
And he certainly deserves that punishment now, but this hearing, again, not even a trial, but just a hearing to see whether or not he will have a death penalty trial, will not take place until April of next year.
Of course, the best part of all of uh all that is is you know, you don't even get to know why the hearing was delayed.
We're only told that this decision comes from De Carlos Brown himself and his attorney.
Oh, well, they wanted to push it off, so why not?
Why that request was granted, we we are not told.
We get no information whatsoever.
All you could be sure of at this point is that the trial isn't going to take place for a very long time.
If it occurs at all.
Even in a case where the defendant's guilt is obvious to everyone in the entire country, where there is 0% chance that he's innocent, we're told to put up with these endless delays for no reason.
Now, these delays are downstream from that Supreme Court decision in the 70s that we talked about, and that Supreme Court decision was downstream of the belief, which is false that innocent defendants are sent to death row all the time.
That was never true.
Okay?
It wasn't true in the 1970s.
It's certainly not true anymore.
We don't need a neurotic number of hearings and appeals to determine the fate of animals like De Carlos Brown.
The evidence is overwhelming.
It is absolutely conclusive, and it's overwhelming in every other death row case, by the way.
So why haven't any states attempted to bypass this Supreme Court decision with lawsuits or new legislation?
Why haven't we seen legal challenges to this absurd framework that essentially renders the death penalty moot?
Why don't states say actually we don't need mandatory appeals anymore or endless hearings.
We can just hold a trial, present the overwhelming evidence, and then get on with it.
There's certainly no constitutional basis for making the death penalty effectively impossible to enforce.
On the contrary, the founders approved of the death penalty explicitly in many cases.
So why don't we see any legal challenges on this point?
The only explanation that makes sense is that in the case of De Carlos Brown and every other case like it, the people in charge of the state government the reason why they're delaying, they want us to forget what happened.
They want the outrage to subside, which it usually does.
And then they can get away with giving as lenient a sentence as possible.
That's what the mayor of Charlotte clearly wants.
Remember, she put out a statement right away saying that we should feel sympathy for people like the Carlos Brown, attacked anyone who shared the footage of Irina's murder.
She doesn't want the Carlos Brown to be executed.
And if she can arrange it, she wants him out on the street as soon as possible.
So we can terrorize more innocent women.
And it's not crazy to think the mayor of Charlotte might accomplish that goal.
Just a week ago, we covered the case of a convicted child killer who managed to get out of prison in less than a decade.
I mean, with that case in mind, do you think it's impossible that DeCarlos Brown actually is released at some point in the not to do too distant future?
Is it impossible that he ends up on another light rail, a free man?
Well, it's it's certainly not impossible.
It's very possible.
Now, fortunately, in the case of DeCallus Brown, there are federal charges as well.
And those charges are also death eligible, but that prosecution and any potential conviction could be undone by a future Democrat administration.
At this point, particularly if DeCarlos Brown isn't executed, that outcome seems like a distinct possibility.
But it shouldn't be possible.
The right to a speedy trial doesn't just apply for the benefit of the defendant.
It also applies for the benefit of society.
We have a constitutional right to see violent criminals punished swiftly to the fullest extent of the law.
Once someone does something like this, the rest of us have a right to no longer be required to share a planet with that person.
That's our right.
It is our right to have that person executed.
Every once in a while over the past month or so, I've come across a post on X with that picture of Irina, along with a message like, we haven't forgotten you, or you know, something along those lines.
And I hope that's true.
But as months turn into years, inevitably, people will become distracted.
There'll be more violence and chaos and tragedy.
Democrats will make sure of that.
And it'll be easy, despite our best efforts, to forget what happened to Irena.
That's what they want us to do.
That was the whole point of the Supreme Court's decision in the 1970s and all the state laws that followed.
Now's the time for those laws to change.
It's time for Irena's Roots' killer to receive a fair trial and then a speedy execution in a matter of weeks, if not days, which is admittedly a far more dignified death than he deserves.
But under our constitution and our common law tradition on the death penalty, which has been ignored since the 1970s, it is the fate that the Carlos Brown should receive.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
That's right.
Imagine putting these two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room ahead of the holidays.
It's possible when you call American financing today.
If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas, bills piling up, you're not alone.
Most Americans are putting those expenses on credit cards.
Credit card rates are insane in the 20s or even 30s.
American financing can show you how to use your home equity to pay off that debt with rates in the low fives.
Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you, restructure their loans and save money every month, all without upfront fees.
Their customers are saving an average of 800 bucks a month.
That's like a 10,000 dollar raise without having to change jobs or anything.
Call now before it's too late.
American Financing, 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711, or visit Americanfinancing.net Slash Walsh.
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.
But with Balance of Nature, there's never been a more convenient way to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every single day.
Balance of Nature's fruits and veggie supplements are different from the start.
They're the original blend that captures the natural balance of color, taste, and smell from real Whole Foods.
You can take them however you like, swallow them with water, chew them, or open the capsules and mix the powder into your meals or your drinks.
Inside you'll find ingredients from 16 whole fruits and 15 whole vegetables.
They're freeze-dried and lab tested with no binders, no fillers, and no flow agents, just 100% whole food ingredients.
Balance of Nature's goal is simple.
It's just deliver the natural goodness of fruits, vegetables, spices, and fibers exactly as nature intended in a form that goes wherever you go.
Balance of Nature has been a sponsor on the show for a while now.
And look, I really love the products.
They uh they make healthy choices feel accessible, really easy and convenient no matter how busy you are, which is really important to me.
So go to Balance of Nature.com and get a free fiber and spice supplement plus 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer by using discount code Walsh.
The Virginia gubernatorial election is coming up on November 4th.
Uh, Abigail Spanberger, who refuses to condemn political violence against conservatives, just put out this ad targeting uh Winsome Earl Sears, her Republican opponent.
Let's watch it.
I'm Abigail Spanberger, candidate for governor, and I sponsored this ad, MAGA Republican Winsome Earl Sears.
And what Sears says about abortion is disturbing.
We know abortion is wicked.
Sears wants a near total ban with no exceptions for rape and incest.
And she talks about violence against those who disagree with her.
Murder is murder.
And one day it's gonna be your turn.
Talking about the murder of those who support abortion rights, Windsor Merle Sears, so far right, she's wrong for Virginia.
Just the absolute shamelessness of these people.
Absolutely shameless.
Makes me mad.
Makes me want to check in on the fish cam.
Can we put the fish cam up?
Just so I can calm down for a moment.
There we go.
I'm gonna run this joke into the ground.
I already have.
I'm gonna run it in, it's gonna be obliterated in a thousand pieces, this joke.
So, um, it's not even a joke, though.
So Spamberger is attacking Sears for supposedly supporting political violence, which isn't true.
That was taken out of context, of course.
She was clearly saying, you can tell even from the clip, without context, that she's saying that murder is murder.
Murdering babies is wrong, and it's just as wrong to murder babies as it would be to murder you.
That's the point.
And regardless, you know, your attorney general candidate openly expressed his desire to kill his political opponents himself.
He openly expressed his desire to watch their children die, okay.
And Spanberger refused to call for him to step down infamously.
We all saw that video.
And now here she is bringing up the topic of political violence herself.
The topic where she is vulnerable, but she's pretending that's not the case.
And as a Democrat, she can get away with that kind of thing because she knows she has the media behind her.
She has an entire uh propaganda machine behind her that operates uh for free for her.
So she thinks she can get away with it, and uh she probably will.
But to me, the more grievous thing, the more revealing thing is how she goes after Sears for opposing abortion while also trying to tag Sears as the violent one.
So it is violent somehow to oppose violence against babies, which is the argument that she's making.
You know, speaking of being vulnerable, I mean we're having a conversation about violence, political violence.
And you are volunteering, you are reminding us that you're the side that supports the murder of 60 million babies.
And that's why the left can never win this argument about who's the more violent one.
Okay, this pissing match, they can never win.
Who supports violence the most?
Who's the most violence?
Now, obviously, they are the ones committing and supporting political violence.
It's like 100% them.
So they've already lost the argument.
But even if that here's the thing, even if that were not the case, let's pretend that it's 5050.
Right?
50% of the political violence is supported and committed by conservatives, the other 50 by the left.
In fact, let's pretend that the media is right when they claim that, whoa, actually, most political violence is from the right.
Let's pretend that's true.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's pretend that 100% of the political violence is committed by the right.
Let's just imagine that we are in that sort of fantasy world for a moment.
Even if all of that were true, the left would still be vastly more violent and more dangerous than the right.
Because when it comes down to it, 60 million babies have been slaughtered over the past half century in this country.
And the left supported it and funded it and facilitated it.
So they win the violence contest already.
Like, no matter what anyone on the right does, you still win that contest.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And this is also why there will be there will never be any moral equivalence between the left and the right.
There are a lot of reasons why there's no moral equivalence.
But this will always be the issue that cuts that argument off at the pass.
The argument's a non-starter.
You can't even begin to draw an equivalence.
And if you believe that, if you actually believe that, if you actually believe the pro-life argument, which I do, then you cannot possibly draw any equivalence.
And it's pretty obvious to me that there are a number of conservatives who don't actually believe the argument.
They might claim to be pro-life, they say we're murdering babies.
They don't really believe it.
And I know they don't, because if they turn around, as some of them have, and say, well, you know, the far right is just as bad, if not worse.
I've seen that argument.
If just as bad, if not worse.
Well, if you're saying that, then you don't actually believe what you're saying about abortion.
Because if you do, there is no possible way you can argue that anything happening on the right comes anywhere close to 60 million murders.
Nothing comes close.
You either believe that or you don't.
You either.
And that was my point, by the way.
Now it doesn't mean that doesn't mean that everything anyone says on the right is correct.
It doesn't mean we can't disagree with each other.
All of that, obviously.
What it does mean is that there's no moral equivalence.
What it does mean is that you can't say things like, well, it's just as bad.
Just as bad.
And I've seen that argument verbatim quite a lot.
And if you're saying that, you're full of shit.
Either you're full of sh when you pretend to be pro-life, or you're full of when you pretend that they're just as bad.
Because you can't, you can't, you can't be both.
You can't actually think that the far left is responsible for the murder of 60 million humans, and also really think that the quote-unquote far right is just as bad.
And that was my point about the you know, the stupid group chat that some conservatives were panicking about.
We're dealing with people who celebrate the mass slaughter of babies.
I mean, why in God's name would we spend even one millisecond talking about edgy jokes in a group chat?
How would how is how could it even come up?
I mean, and and I know the response is is going to be to what I'm saying right now, is going to be, well, both are bad.
Why can't we condemn both?
Well, you know what that's like?
It's like if someone tells you that they have stage four pancreatic cancer and they'll be dead in six months, and then you say, oh man, that's terrible.
You know, yeah, I know you feel, I just stubbed my toe.
Now it's true that both the stubbed toe and the pancreatic cancer are bad.
That is true.
They both fall under the category of bad things.
I agree.
But bad things are a rather vast spectrum.
There's a lot of bad things.
They're not equally as bad.
Stubb toe is bad, cancer is bad.
I think we all agree that they're not the same.
They're not equal levels of bad.
They are so astronomically far apart on the scale, they are so far divided in terms of severity that they are in different galaxies.
Which means that bringing up the stub toe in the face of the cancer is insane.
It's an insane thing.
Now, in a vacuum, if I was just walking along with you down the road and you stubbed my toe and you said, Oh, damn, stub my toe, that'd be okay.
If we're walking down the road and nothing else going on, and you stub your toe and say, Oh, I stubbed my toe.
I would not respond by saying, Well, how can you talk about a stubbed toe when people have cancer?
That would be a crazy response on my part.
In fact, in that context, you stubbed your toe, I would say, Oh, are you okay?
I'd be sympathetic.
I mean, I wouldn't really care, but I pretend anyway.
But uh bringing it up in the context of the cancer, bringing it up in the face of the cancer, is psychotic.
It's actually evil.
I mean, it's evil to try to change the subject for even one second to your stubbed toe while this guy over here just told you about his cancer.
And so that is the situation we have with the group chat.
Or anything similar on the right.
The context.
Okay, this is not a context that is like we're just walking down the road and nothing else is going on.
That's not our context.
Our context is that Charlie Kirk was just murdered, and the left celebrated it.
And we all watched them do it.
The context is that they're celebrating violence in the street every day.
The context is that they are literally murdering babies every single day, millions of them over the years.
That is our context.
And in that context, the stubbed toe of some dumb, edgy jokes or rude comments made in private, are not even close to being worthy of our attention.
And I don't know how else to explain it other than that.
If you still don't get the point I'm trying to make after that, that I'm I'm out of, I've I've run out of uh, we've run out of road here.
There's nothing else to be said.
Um, okay.
Here's an article in the Times headline: meet the young Americans who want a monarchy, but not King Trump.
Uh so this is well, millions of protesters took to the streets in fear for the future of the Republic.
A growing fringe say it's time for an absolute monarchy.
So that's the premise here.
Um the rise of monarchism among young Americans is consistent with a number of studies that suggest Gen Z is more suspicious of democracy than previous generations.
Fewer than 1% of the over 65 are in favor of the American monarchy.
But 27% of 18 to 29-year-olds in the USA would like to have a king or queen, according to a Ugov poll in 2023.
And uh that's pretty much the whole story.
I mean, it's it could goes on and on, but the the claim anyway is that monarchy is becoming more popular in America, especially among young people, especially among young men in particular, they say.
And look, I don't know how accurate that premise is.
Uh I'm skeptical about the claim that almost 30% Of Americans in their 20s want to have a king or queen.
I'm pretty skeptical about that.
You know, even if some poll said that, I'm still skeptical.
Like that's just anecdotally, that's not an argument that I've ever seriously encountered in the wild from a real person.
I don't know if I've ever heard someone genuinely say that they would actually like to pursue uh you know an agenda where we end up with a king instead of a president.
So, I mean, and yeah, we're told 30% of young people feel that way.
I don't know.
Well, let's accept the premise for now.
Because I want to make a few points about it.
And I certainly, now, when they say that a growing number of young people are skeptical about democracy, that I don't doubt.
Now, being skeptical about democracy, having problems with democracy, that's not the same thing as just openly supporting having a monarch.
It's not exactly the same.
But anyway, so let's just accept the premise.
And first of all, a couple things.
First of all, none of this has anything to do with Trump.
Trump is not a king.
He's not acting like a king.
The no kings protest, that's why it's so dumb.
He's a duly elected president acting within the bounds of the law.
He's actually showing a lot of restraint.
If anything, he's showing too much restraint.
I think he's done an excellent job, but if I had any criticism, it's it's all along the lines of he's too restrained, still, in my opinion.
But um, although I I understand politically why uh you know why that is.
And as I pointed out many times, Joe Biden or the Biden regime anyway, acted much more dictatorial than Trump has ever acted or will ever act.
So that's the first thing.
Now, as to the question, to the extent that any sizable number of Americans want a monarchy, why would they feel that way?
Are they all a bunch of evil fascists?
Well, no.
These are people who have noticed something true about our country, which is that our democratic system is falling apart.
Our democratic system is failing.
That is true.
It just is.
Now, it hasn't quite reached the point of not working at all.
I mean, in the last presidential election, the Democrat scheme to replace their dementia-riddled candidate with some woman nobody likes, um, obviously failed in that case.
You know, if democracy didn't work at all, then that scheme would have would have worked.
In fact, if democracy didn't work at all, if we were at that point, then Joe Biden would have just become the he would have gotten a second term as a vegetable.
Because that's what that was their first plan, as we know, that's what they actually wanted to happen.
But uh democracy asserted itself and worked the way it was supposed to.
And this is the problem with monarchy, by the way.
If we had a monarchy, then Joe Biden would have remained the king as long as he is, you know, even after his mind was gone, he would have been king, and he would have been succeeded by what, Hunter Biden.
That's the thing about a monarchy.
It may seem like an appealing idea to some people until you get a bad monarch.
At least with a bad president, you can get rid of him in four years, in theory, anyway.
So all that to say, our democratic system worked in 2024.
And I'm not saying that just because the guy I supported won.
Okay.
I'm not saying, well, a Democrat system works when the guy I like wins and doesn't work when he when he loses.
Um I say it worked because the Democrats tried to rig the game.
And which, as usual, but they failed.
But in general, our democracy is starting to break apart.
You know, that's the that's the uh, it's not a it's not a straight line down, but it's it's trending down.
You know, there's there's peaks and valleys, but it's trending down.
How do we know that?
Well, they're about to make a foreign socialist from Uganda, the mayor of New York.
Look at some of the people we have in Congress, people who are open about their allegiances to foreign countries.
Ilhan Omar openly talks about uh how Somalia is her real priority.
People who are so incredibly stupid and incompetent that they aren't qualified to be shift manager at Domino's pizza, much less members of Congress.
There's a chance that a Somali scammer will be the next mayor of Minneapolis.
I mean, the list goes on.
This is what our democracy is getting us now.
It's a government uh increasingly run by foreign agents, scam artists, and semi-literate retards.
That's that's and so that's what democracy is getting us.
What's happening is people are looking at that.
They're looking at all this.
Um they're looking at Congress, they're looking at these congressional hearings, arguments that very much resemble uh arguments that you might find in a Waffle House or on a spirit airlines flight, but should not be happening in the halls of Congress.
They're looking at that sort of thing, and they're saying, you know, this democracy thing, not all it's cracked up to be.
They're noticing the fact that our democracy has empowered the dumbest, most incompetent people, people who don't even like our country and aren't loyal to it, to seize positions of power.
People are noticing that, and they should notice it, and they're right.
But I think they're wrong about the solution.
We don't need a monarch.
And there's no way to get to there from here anyway.
Uh, even if we could, you know, the monarch would come from the like where, well, we should have a monarch.
Who?
Who's that guy gonna be?
And who's gonna select that person?
Well, the monarch would come from the system, you know, it'd be chosen by the system, and the system is fundamentally left wing.
So we'd end up with a left-wing monarch.
And also, of course, our country was founded by people who rebelled against monarchy.
So a monarchy in America would be the end of America that our founder, it'd be the end of the America that our founders created, which is to say it'd be the end of America.
And I don't want that because I love America.
I don't want to give up on it.
And none of this is necessary anyway.
It's not possible.
I mean, that's the other thing.
That's maybe the main thing.
It's like even if you think that, well, we should have a monarchy.
I disagree, but it's like it's that can't happen.
Okay.
Um, but on top of all that, it's uh it's not necessary.
The problem, yeah, all of the issues you're noticing with the with our democratic system as it is currently run, those issues are true and they are real, and they're a big problem.
Okay, when you just have like hordes of idiots who don't even love this country, getting to decide what happens, it's it's a catastrophe.
You just can't, we you can't, you can't you cannot have a functioning country that way.
It cannot work.
Um system at all works.
When you just say to everybody in the system with no qualification, okay, everybody gets an equal say about what we're gonna do.
There is no system, no organization, nothing that works if you do it that way.
And a country doesn't work that way either.
But we don't need to abolish our entire constitution and our entire system of government.
We don't need to abolish what our founder set up, and we shouldn't.
We need to restore it.
We need to go back to what they had in mind, and they never had in mind to give literally every person who happens to be living inside our borders a vote.
That was never the idea.
The founders didn't want to do that because the founders were not morons.
Why is our system falling apart?
Well, because we give the vote to foreigners who have no stake in our country and no love for it.
We give the vote to welfare queens who don't contribute to society in any way whatsoever.
We give the vote to people with 70 IQs who have no idea what planet they're even living on.
Uh, we give the vote to the dumbest and most useless people.
Uh, we give the vote to people who think that like the handmaid's tale is a great prophetic work of literature.
We give the vote to anybody with a pulse, and we even give the vote to people who don't have a pulse.
So that's the problem, right?
And it's true, again, that the system does not work that way.
If you insist on that, then your country's gonna fall apart.
And I mean, if I if you're definitely better off living under a wise and just monarch than in a democracy governed by a mob of the dumbest, most clueless idiots the world has ever seen.
Between those two choices, you're better with the you're better with the former.
That doesn't have to be the choice.
And besides, the wise and just qualifier is like really important there.
And there's no guarantees about that.
So the better solution is to fix our current system.
And you you can do that in ways that I've described many times.
It can be done.
Now, do I think it will be done?
No, I have no faith in that, but it can be.
Unlike transitioning from our current system to having a monarchy, having a king in a palace, which cannot happen.
Fixing the voting system can, in theory, happen.
And again, I've talked in many ways about how to do that.
Drastically narrow the qualifications to vote.
That's it.
I'm not saying that that would create a utopia.
I'm not saying that it would solve all of our problems.
It would solve a lot of our problems.
I mean, if there's one thing we could do all by itself that would be nearly guaranteed to make America great again, it would be that.
Because right now, the idea is that every human existing within our borders is automatically qualified to vote, as long as they're over the age of 18.
And that and that's going to come down to anyway.
So, and that's total madness.
It was never supposed to be that way.
None of our founders, none of the founders of our democratic system, going all the way back to our to uh you know to our founders, going back further to the ancient Greeks.
I mean, none of them recommended the kind of system we have.
Now, in fact, they all warned against it.
They all said, well, obviously, look, people should have a say, but obviously you can't just you can't just have a a an unruly mob of any old moron with no stake in anything, deciding what happens in your country.
Like obviously you can't give them an equal say.
And we got all those warnings over the millennia.
And we said, Yeah, but you know what?
I think we'll do exactly that.
Fortunately, it's an easy fix.
Not a likely fix, but it is easy.
Um, it could happen.
We could transform our country overnight with a few tweaks.
You know, you just got to disenfranchise a few groups.
And I've gone over the list before.
I mean, disenfranchise, take the vote away from anybody on welfare, number one.
If you're living off of taxpayer money, you shouldn't get to vote.
Now, the good news is if you get back on your own two feet and you're you're living on your own and not living off of the dole, you can you could then earn the right to vote at that point.
But while you're living on the dole, you you shouldn't, you should know.
The vote should go to people who are able to support themselves and contribute to society.
And you might have reasons why you're not able to do that, but uh even so, you know, we can be sympathetic to that, but that means that you don't no, you don't get to be a captain of the ship here.
You don't get to steer the ship.
Uh you don't get to vote to give yourself more of my money.
You're not putting any money into the system and you get to vote to decide what happens with it.
No.
Like clearly that we should not allow that.
Uh next, I would disenfranchise anyone who can't pass a 10-questioned fifth grade civics exam.
Every time I say that, people are like, well, how could you?
That's impossible to you could very easily do that.
Very easily.
It's a low bar, it's a very generous bar.
I mean, it's still, I mean, you could argue for a much higher bar than that, but um I I think that that uh that would be good enough.
And and how do you do it?
Well, when you register to vote, require registration in person, somewhere, like at the DMV or whatever.
And uh you should be given a quick exam on paper, no Googling, no chat GPT allowed.
And if you can't get at least seven of the ten correct, then you don't get to vote.
And it would be questions really easy, like name the branches of government.
I mean, not even fifth grade.
Like it's lower than that.
And anyone who can't do that shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Right?
They are they're not fit, they're not suited.
Why should you be allowed to vote in a system that you don't even understand?
You don't know what you're doing.
Right?
It's no different than a driver's exam, which we also administer the DMV.
The basic idea is, well, we're not gonna let you drive unless you demonstrate that you know how to do it.
And we're not gonna let you have a say over our system if you don't, if you can't demonstrate that you know anything about it in the first place.
Well, we do now, it's like the equivalent of letting someone drive, giving them a driver's license when they don't even know which pedal is the brake pedal.
Okay, they don't they don't even know what a steering wheel is.
It's like if someone shows up and you're trying to teach them to drive, you say, okay, put your hands on the steering wheel, and they go, which which one is that?
And then you say, Well, good enough.
Here's your driver's license.
Be on your way.
We have the equivalent of that.
We have these people just wandering in, like, what is this?
What?
What are we doing here?
You're voting.
You're gonna vote for president.
Who's uh which one's president again?
Is he the which one?
So we obviously we can't do that.
Um, and then I would also disenfranchise dual citizens.
You know, you renounce your citizenship to to any other country before you can vote in our elections.
Again, these are all this like really reasonable stuff.
I mean, this is very reasonable.
And um, in general, I would make the voting qualifications even higher for legal citizens who were not born in this country, first generation immigrants.
Um, you know, uh I wouldn't disenfranchise them all, but I I want the best of the best voting in our elections to come here and start voting.
Like to come here and be allowed to be a citizen in the first place.
I think the bar should be very high.
To then be able to contribute to actually be able to like, again, steer the ship, uh, I think it's an even higher bar.
And, you know, now I say this is someone who wants a moratorium on all immigration to begin with, but to the extent that we have any immigrants coming in, I would raise the bar even higher before they're allowed to vote.
But the the one qualification there, just again, like lowest, really low low bar is just you must renounce any citizenship to any other country.
You only are a citizen of ours.
And if you are not willing to do that, then you shouldn't get a say.
Then voting is not for you.
Then at that point, if you want to live in this country, then it is a privilege that we are allowing you to live here.
But we will decide what happens here, not you.
And uh that's it.
I mean, that's what is that?
Four or five qualifications, really, basic level stuff, nothing um, it's it's basically requiring the bare possible minimum of voters.
And the idea that we shouldn't even require the bare minimum is to me like total lunacy.
And yet, here we are.
Have you ever wondered why elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers are using AMRA colostrum?
It's because ArmorColostrum packs over 400 natural nutrients that work at the cellular level to build muscle, speed recovery, and boost performance.
No artificial stuff, just pure fuel for whatever you are tackling.
Think of it as your body's natural defense system upgrade.
It strengthens your immune barriers throughout your entire body while supporting your gut wall system for better digestion, less bloating, plus it helps your body absorb nutrients more effectively and keeps your metabolism running smoothly.
You also notice the difference in your skin's radiance thanks to natural antioxidants and collagen boosting compounds.
Plus, there's a reason elite athletes have been using colostrum for years.
It enhances endurance, speeds up recovery, so you can bounce back faster.
Bottom line, ArmaColostrum gives your body comprehensive support to thrive naturally.
We've worked out a special offer for my audience, receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to AMRA.com slash walsh or enter Walsh to get 30% off your first subscription order.
That's ARMRA.com slash Walsh.
Last week on the debut episode of Friendly Fire, we announced Daily Wire Lifetime Memberships.
We also mentioned only 10,000 exist.
But here's something new.
Now you can win a lifetime membership.
You can win it.
And all you gotta do is download the free DailyWire Plus app in the App Store and open the app, tap explore, and follow me that uh enters you to for a chance to win A lifetime membership.
You also get alerts when I release new episodes, breaking news, live chat during the show, and much more.
If you've already downloaded the app and followed, you are already entered for everyone else.
Get to work, download the Daily Wire Plus app, and follow me today.
And now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Ever since he lied about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and then pretended that uh he was the victim when people called him a scumbag.
It's been a very strange few weeks for Jimmy Kimmel.
Now try putting yourself in his position.
You host a comedy show, even though you don't tell any jokes, you make millions of dollars every year, even though you're less popular than novelty YouTube channels that are devoted to stamp collecting.
The only reason you're still employed is that everybody, including the executives at your network, have uh forgotten you existed.
And then all of a sudden, you have a large temporary surge in viewers because you say something monumentally stupid and evil.
So what's your next move in that situation?
I can't say with any degree of confidence what Jimmy Kimmel's next move actually was, like everybody else in the country.
I don't watch his show.
At the same time, I couldn't help but notice this recent footage, which was circulating on social media the other day.
Apparently, Kimmel's show featured some kind of drag queen story hour segment in which a man dressed as a whorish woman starts reading books to children who are clearly child actors.
Watch I treat the hell.
Do I scare any of you?
No, no.
Really?
You just look amazing.
Why would that be scary?
That is so affirming.
Thank you so much.
You guys look amazing too.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Well, I have a whole pile of books here.
What if we chose one together?
Because this is, after all, a democracy.
As of this morning, it's still a democracy.
I'm not sure.
First up we have who cares about elderly people.
Yeah.
This is collectible spoons of the Third Reich.
Okay.
Would you guys like to read a book by President Trump?
Please.
Well, but hold up.
What about President Trump's least favorite son?
Now you can tell the kids who are coached to react negatively when they're told about the Trump book.
They overdo it, as most child actors do.
So really what we're watching here is a man dressed as a woman pretending to indoctrinate children who have already been indoctrinated.
And I guess we're supposed to find this funny or entertaining in some way, even though it's obviously neither.
It feels like every other Jimmy Kimmel segment, which is to say it feels like his writers just looked over a list of Democrat Party talking points for the week and decided to make a segment based on those talking points.
Whatever the DNC wants Jimmy Kimmel to say or do, he'll say or do it.
In that sense, I suppose you could say that this segment does serve some practical purpose.
It suggests that even as they're still reeling from their defeat in the last election, Democrats are still clinging to their drag queen obsession of all things.
They don't have any sense for how creepy and disturbing this is to the vast majority of Americans, to every single normal person.
They haven't changed their messaging or their tactics in the slightest.
That's obviously good news for conservatives, even though it's a very bad omen for many children, particularly children in public school.
But this segment, it's not just an excellent example of how morally bankrupt and frankly disturbing the left has become.
It's also exhibit a for something I said recently on this show, which is that intolerance is a virtue.
You know, uh there are some behaviors and beliefs that a moral society simply cannot tolerate.
Now you might think this statement is a self-evidently true uh uncontroversial thing to say, but apparently it's not.
So let's recap by going over what I said the other day, and first we'll play the clip.
Watch.
Here's how it works.
Right?
The left comes along with some thing they want to do, some agenda item, some some something, something bad, always.
And the first reaction from everybody usually is, well, that sounds terrible.
I don't, why would we want that?
No, let's not do that.
Oh, you want to destroy the institution of marriage?
You want us to pretend that men are married when they're not?
No, let's not.
Oh, you want to castrate kids, you want men in the women's locker room?
Uh no, that's insane.
We're not doing that.
Uh, you want to flood our country with third world as worlders?
No.
Like there's literally no benefit to us whatsoever.
Why do we want to do that?
And so that's usually people's first reaction.
But then the left, they get they get to work and they demand tolerance.
That's the first thing.
They demand tolerance.
They say, well, yeah, you might not like it, but you should you should put up with it.
Should we tolerant?
And then they demand affirmation after they get tolerance.
And then they demand celebration.
And then they demand participation.
Okay, so it's tolerance, affirmation, celebration, participation.
Before we get all the way to participation, we should say no.
No, you know what?
I'm not even gonna tolerate this.
I am actively opposed to this.
I think it's bad.
I don't want it in my community, and I don't want it in my country.
We need to be intolerant.
Intolerance is a virtue.
Intolerance is good.
Intolerance is holy.
Intolerance is Christian.
Intolerance is moral and courageous.
Intolerance is biblical.
Intolerance is loving.
Loving to your family, to your country, to your way of life that you should be protecting.
Now, the point I'm making here isn't even unique to conservatism or the right.
There are many prominent liberal thinkers, including John Locke, the father of liberalism, who have made similar arguments, but you don't need to be well-versed in classical philosophy to get the point.
We all know it's true simply based on our day-to-day observations.
Tolerance, particularly in the hands of the modern left, is a it's a Trojan horse.
In the span of a decade, we went from just tolerate gay marriage, it doesn't harm you anyway, to uh affirm my pronouns and my fake gender, or you deserve to die a horrible death.
Oh, and by the way, we're gonna get you fired from your job if we don't kill you.
So that's where tolerance leads in many cases.
It's an invitation to be taken advantage of.
As G.K. Chesterton puts it, tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
And we should stop pretending otherwise, especially after everything we've seen in recent years.
But on the left, even among the self-styled free thinkers on the left who are willing to have some dialogue with conservatives.
My comments were not meant with resounding approval.
For example, Jank Uger of the Young Turks posted this response: quote, Matt Walsh said we need to be intolerant.
Intolerant is a virtue, and tolerance is good, and tolerance is holy, and tolerance is Christian, and tolerance is moral and courageous.
This is why I'm on the left.
When someone on the right say this about any of us, Muslims, blacks, gay people, et cetera, you're saying we don't want you.
Okay, I heard that loud and clear.
Then do you expect my vote after you told me you can't even tolerate me?
I know he doesn't speak for everyone on the right or even a majority, but it's guys like him who use culture wars to divide us.
Another reason why I hate the culture wars.
I think our greatest strength is when we are the United States of America.
Well, I got bad news, Jenk, by the way, it's uh on the point about intolerance.
Um, I do definitely speak for the vast majority of conservatives.
Almost all of them would totally would absolutely agree with everything I said about intolerance.
Um, you know, first of all, you have to kind of admire the gall of a guy whose shows named the Young Turks, telling us that tolerance is a virtue.
You know, the young Turks in the late Ottoman Empire were not exactly known for their tolerance, to put it mildly.
I'm sure the show is ironically named, so we'll give them a pass on that.
But uh secondly, if the word tolerance has any meaning at all, then by definition, there has to be intolerance as well.
There must be some things that we simply do not tolerate.
If anyone can be tolerant of anything, you know, there have to be things that we don't we don't tolerate.
So the question is not whether intolerance should exist.
It has to exist.
We can't live in some fantasy world where no one needs to be intolerant of anything, as Jenk implies.
If we did that, then the idea of tolerance would be meaningless.
Now, here's and and tolerance is kind of meaningless, actually.
So here's the point.
Here's the point about tolerance.
I say intolerance is a virtue.
Because it is.
Tolerance, on the other hand, is not a virtue.
That doesn't mean I'm opposed to tolerance in all contexts.
It means that it's not a virtue.
And I'll explain why.
Even though this is the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be explained.
Are there things that we should tolerate?
Yes, obviously.
There's lots of things we should tolerate.
I tolerate stuff every day.
I'm a pretty intolerant guy.
And I still I tolerate things, I tolerate every person I walk by on the street.
I'm constantly tolerating.
But there is nothing virtuous or noble about it.
Okay, tolerance is not a virtue.
It's not something that we need to encourage.
We don't need to laud people who demonstrate tolerance.
It takes no courage or even any effort to tolerate things.
Tolerating a tolerable thing makes sense.
It's logical.
It's not a heroic act.
It's not an act at all.
You can tolerate while doing nothing.
You can tolerate while sitting on your couch.
You can lounge in your living room eating Doritos while congratulating yourself for all the tolerating you're doing.
Everyone, look at me, I'm being tolerant, you can declare as the crumbs fall on your shirt.
That's why I never said, as has been claimed by my critics, that tolerance is bad or has no place in society or whatever.
Tolerance is the default state of all people.
Tolerance is the lowest effort thing you can do because you aren't doing anything.
Which, again, when you're tolerating tolerable things, fine.
I'm not saying you shouldn't.
I'm just saying, like, I'm not going to give you credit for that.
I'm being tolerant.
Okay, good for you.
But so you're doing nothing?
You're just doing nothing and allowing someone to do something.
Cool.
Good for you.
It's not the kind of thing we need to, like, we don't need pastors up on the pulpit preaching, well, this is why we should be tolerant.
Which pastors do preach about that all the time.
And a lot of people love to hear it because it requires nothing of you.
That's the great thing about tolerance as a virtue.
I don't have to do anything.
It requires absolutely nothing.
Which is why it's not a virtue.
Intolerance is a virtue, though, because it is active.
It is a thing you do.
All virtues are things you do.
If a virtue requires you to do nothing, it is not a virtue.
If you're saying to yourself, wow, I really like this virtue because I don't have to do anything.
This is a really easy virtue to have.
Well, hate to break it to you, that means it's not a virtue.
Intolerance requires you to get up and do something or speak out, or at least stop chomping on the Doritos for a second.
Intolerance is noble and brave, provided, of course, that it's directed at something actually bad.
Yeah, that's the one qualifier.
Intolerance is only virtuous if it's directed at evil.
Obviously, being intolerant to good things is not virtuous.
I would think that such a stipulation is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said out loud.
Intolerance to something benign, right, makes you a jerk.
Or if you've got a whole bunch of pet peeves, is why we say pet peeves are like, well, that's the reason we call it your pet peeve.
It's just something that annoys you but isn't really bad necessarily.
And but that's why it's a pet peeve.
It's yours, it's a pet, it's yours.
And in that, and so being intolerant of people who are doing something that's a pet peeve of yours, that makes you a jerk.
Right?
Uh, intolerance to something good and virtuous makes you a leftist.
But intolerance to what is truly evil and wrong makes you a good person.
It is a loving and good act.
And we have not had nearly enough intolerance in our society.
And that fact, the fact that it ever became mainstream to brainwash children into thinking they're the opposite sex and then castrate them.
That's all the evidence we need that we are sorely lacking intolerance in our culture.
Far too many people were far too tolerant of that evil and so many other evils for far too long.
There were only a very few people who are willing to stand up and say, no, you know what?
I'm not gonna tolerate this.
I don't tolerate it.
And they were condemned by a lot of the tolerant types, even on the right.
And I know this for a fact, I was there.
And that's why I said, after watching the New York mayor's debate, in which the Muslim socialist attacked his challenger because he couldn't name a mosque that he had visited.
It's clear that this country needs to embrace intolerance far more broadly than we currently are.
Because we also should not tolerate hordes of foreign nationals who invade our country and then demand that we respect their beliefs and customs, including foreign nationals from the Muslim world who want to destroy Western civilization, demanding that we assimilate to them rather than they assimilate to us.
We should not tolerate socialists who want to destroy our economy and dismantle the police department and close the prisons and raise taxes by tens of billions of dollars so that degenerate hobos and felons can supposedly have uh free bus rides or whatever.
We shouldn't tolerate men who dress up as women in the service of a delusion, especially when they are trying to impose it on children.
Everything I'm saying here, all the statements that I'm actually making, the ones I've said on the show and on social media, would have been completely uncontroversial in this country as recently as a few decades ago.
And they should not be controversial today.
We should react to Jimmy Kimmel's drag queen sketch the same way that even a Bill Clinton voter would have reacted in 1992, with the maximum possible degree of intolerance.
And we should be intolerant, proudly intolerant, of anyone who stomps his feet and claims otherwise.
And that is why everyone demanding that conservatives display tolerance for depraved and degenerate behavior are today canceled.
