Ep. 1570 - Black Teen Raises Thousands In Fundraiser After Killing White Student

Today on the Matt Wall Show, a crowdfunding campaign for the black teen who stabbed a white kid to death has now raised well over $150,000.

People are rallying around him and giving him money because he killed a white kid.

What does that tell us about the culture?

We'll discuss also more anti-Trump and anti-Elon protests over the weekend.

We'll check out the highlights.

A bipartisan group of women in Congress have been fighting for the right to work from home, and it looks like they'll get their way.

And for our daily cancellation, sadly today, I must cancel Megyn Kelly. We'll talk about all that and more today

on The Matt Wall Show. Let's be honest, I have a long list of things I'd rather do than maintain my gutters.
Cleaning gutters rank somewhere between sitting through a DMV line and filing taxes, but there's an easier way, leaf filter, so you never have to clean out your gutters again. Right now, get a free inspection, free estimate, and save up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash Walsh.
You know those cheap plastic gutter guards that they sell at hardware stores? Spoiler alert, they're about as effective as using a paper towel as an umbrella. As with most things in life, you get what you pay for, and I'd rather pay once for something that actually works than repeatedly for something that doesn't.
An investment in Lee Filter is an investment engineer to protect your whole home because nothing says I've made poor life choices quite like watching water cascade down your interior walls from clog gutters. Every Lee Filter installation comes with a lifetime no-clog guarantee.
Their patented technology keeps out everything except water. Plus, a LeafFilter trusted pro will clean out, realign, and seal your gutters before installing the system.
Protect your home and never clean out gutters again with LeafFilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection and take advantage of the Spring Spectacular sale with up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash Walsh.
That's a free estimate, free inspection, and 30% off at leaffilter.com slash Walsh. See representative for warranty details.
On Friday, we discussed the killing of a white high school junior in Texas named Austin Metcalf. Metcalf was stabbed through the heart by Carmelo Anthony, a black 17-year-old student who attended a different school.
According to the arrest warrant, Anthony was in the wrong tent at a track meet for reasons that aren't entirely clear. Metcalf told him to leave.
Anthony dared Metcalf to touch him. Metcalf apparently touched Anthony or his backpack, and then Anthony produced a knife from the backpack and killed Metcalf.
Afterwards, police say Anthony threw the murder weapon away as he was fleeing, and when police asked Anthony what had happened, he admitted that he stabbed Metcalf and then asked them if his actions could be considered a form of self-defense. Of course, there hasn't yet been a trial in this case.
Carmelo Anthony, like everyone else accused of a crime in this country, enjoys the legal presumption of innocence under our constitution. At the same time, reasonable people can look at these facts and come to one obvious conclusion, which is this.
Unless the police and all the witnesses are engaging in the single most organized conspiracy to frame a criminal defendant that's ever been undertaken in the history of this country for no apparent reason, then there was clearly no justification for Carmelo Anthony to kill Austin Metcalf. There was no reason for him to bring a deadly weapon to a track meet in the first place, much less use that weapon to execute an unarmed teenager and then attempt to hide the evidence.
So in other words, any defense of Anthony must rely on something other than the facts. Now, over the past few days, that kind of defense is exactly what has emerged.
Despite the overwhelming evidence in this case, tens of thousands of people have now publicly declared that, in essence, Metcalfe had it coming. And this sentiment isn't based on forensic evidence or new witness testimony or anything like that.
Instead, the defense of Anthony is based on the fact that Anthony is black and Metcalfe was white. So in a moment, I'll go through some of these defenses so you can see the exact argument that I'm talking about.
And the important thing to keep in mind as I read them is that the identity of the person writing the post doesn't matter. What matters is the massive positive response that these posts have received.
Everything I'm going to read has received tens of thousands of positive responses in the forms of replies and likes, along with millions of views. So even if we're talking about professional agitators here, it really doesn't matter.
The point is that the agitation is working. A significant number of people are responding positively to it.
Here, for example, speaking of agitators, was a post written by the commentator Tariq Nasheed, who describes himself as a foundational black American, whatever the hell that means. He said, quote, a suspected white supremacist named Austin Metcalf, pictured with his twin, allegedly demanded honor student Carmelo Anthony give up his seat like it was the Jim Crow era.
Carmelo defended himself from the alleged threat. The Daniel Penny case set this precedent.
The sheet added, quote, if Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in using lethal self-defense and Daniel Penny was justified in using lethal self-defense, then Carmelo Anthony was justified in using self-defense against alleged bullies who instigated an altercation. Correct? Now, collectively, these two posts have received over 6 million views and tens of thousands of likes.
Austin Metcalf, according to the post, was a suspected white supremacist, even though there's been no evidence whatsoever to suggest that that's true. It's just completely invented by this guy.
In this instance, as in pretty much every other instance, the words white supremacist are obviously just a synonym for whites. And the people responding to this post understand that Austin Metcalf was not a member of some white nationalist group.
They don't care. They simply despise him because he was white, which is all it takes.
Then Tariq compares the situation to the Jim Crow era, which is apparently meant to imply that it's impossible for black people to be in the wrong place at any time for any reason. If you're a white person, then evidently you are not allowed to tell a black person that he's not allowed in a particular area, even if he's not actually allowed in that area.
That appears to be the logic here. I mean, if you wake up at 2 a.m.
and a random black person is inside your home and you tell them to leave, then you're basically reinventing Jim Crow. The rest of the Sheed's defense makes a half-hearted comparison to the Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny cases, never mind the fact that both Rittenhouse and Penny were repeatedly threatened with lethal force before they responded in kind, which is why juries acquitted both men.
Also never mind the fact that Tariq Nasheed thinks that both Penny and Rittenhouse should be in prison, which means by his own logic, Anthony should be too. But in reality, as those cases demonstrated, lethal force is the appropriate response to somebody pointing a loaded gun in your face or to a violent felon who's terrorizing a subway car as he yells, I'm going to kill you, and I'm prepared to go to jail for life.
On the other hand, lethal force is not the appropriate response to a student touching your backpack during a track meet or telling you you're in the wrong tent. The only person who could possibly be confused about this or pretend to be confused is somebody who is seeking as desperately as he possibly can to justify the murder of a white minor at the hands of a black killer.
That's the only explanation for this kind of reasoning, or lack thereof. We are witnessing the endorsement of racial violence on a very large scale.
To give another example, somebody named Talbert Swan, who calls himself a bishop, posted a similar comparison on social media. Again, it received an overwhelmingly positive response.
Quote, y'all said 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people with an AR-15 because he felt threatened. 17-year-old Camarlo Anthony was defending himself when he killed Austin Metcalf with a knife, and y'all think he deserves to go to prison.
I wonder why. W-H-I-T-E, white.
Okay, very clever. So what's being conflated here again is that Kyle Rittenhouse did not merely feel threatened.
Okay, actually just saying that you feel threatened is not enough under the law as justification for killing someone or as self-defense. The jury determined correctly that Rittenhouse's fear was objectively reasonable.
It wasn't just that he felt that way. It was that he had a very clear reason to feel that way.
And the reason is that he was being chased by people with guns. Okay, so pretty clear, like pretty obvious reason why you should feel threatened.
It was not a pretext. Rittenhouse didn't invent his fear in order to kill anyone, nor did he kill anyone because he has very little impulse control or because he grew up in a culture that glorifies violence.
He killed people because they attempted to kill him first. And any reasonable person can see that.
It's on video. There's no denying it.
They're on video trying to kill him. Now, the reason these people are making the Rittenhouse comparisons is that they're projecting.
They want to glorify racial violence, but they don't want to make it explicit, at least not yet. So instead, they're pretending that white people are already glorifying racial violence, and then they're framing black-on-white violence as a proportionate response.
Now, here's another post from somebody calling himself Mike Baggs. It racked up something like 7 million views and 30,000 positive responses.
Quote, whenever white supremacists immediately flood our mentions before the full story's even out, you know something's up. It turns out Austin Metcalf was the aggressor, and the black kid, Carmelo Anthony, was defending himself, close quote.
Now, according to this analysis, the person who goes into the wrong tent while armed with a deadly weapon and then dares someone to touch him is not, in the final analysis, the aggressor. What's missing in this analysis is that Metcalf never put Anthony in any fear of his life, reasonable or otherwise.
Touching somebody's backpack at a track meet when they're in the wrong tent is not a threat of lethal force, especially in this context. Therefore, Anthony was not justified in using lethal force as a response.
And Anthony probably knew that, which is why he got rid of the murder weapon and why he asked the police officers if he could possibly have a viable self-defense claim, which is not something you do if you have a viable self-defense claim. But a lot of people seem intent on ignoring these facts.
Here's another post with 10 million views and around 80,000 likes. Quote, the twins didn't just ask him to leave.
They tried to jump him before attacking him. They tried to take his belongings.
They broke his phone and they stomped on it. Ask yourself, if two 200 plus pound attackers came at your child, what would you expect them to do? Carmelo defended himself against violent aggressors.
That is not a crime. Close quote.
Now, none of that is true. It's just totally fabricated.
Austin Metcalf did not jump anyone. He didn't attempt to steal any belongings, nor did he break anybody's phone.
All that information was contained in a fake Facebook post from somebody pretending to be the local chief of police. Anybody with access to Google or who's equipped with basic common sense could have figured that out immediately.
But millions of people wanted to believe this post was true, even though it was obviously fake. And the reason these people wanted to believe this fake information is that when you get down to it, they would support a black person, any black person who kills a white person for any reason.
This is the O.J. Simpson effect, except Carmelo Anthony isn't famous.
He has no pre-existing fan base. This is the purest form of racial resentment, and now it's on full display.
We're not dealing with an honest disagreement about the facts here. We're dealing with people who believe that violence against white people is justified solely on the basis of their skin color.
And that is why, as of right now, a Give, Send, Go fundraiser for Carmelo Anthony, the man who just stabbed a teenager in the heart and killed him, has raised more than $135,000. Yes, the killer's family with his official give, send, go has raised $135,000.
Those are people, actual people, not bots or trolls, giving someone money as a reward for killing a white kid. The fundraising page complains that it's been a challenging and difficult time for Carmelo Anthony's family.
It claims that, quote, the narrative being spread is false, unjust, and harmful.

And there was a similar fundraiser that was taken down by GoFundMe because raising money for murder suspects isn't acceptable under their terms of service. But it's apparently just fine for Give, Send, Go, the supposedly Christian alternative.
Now, the reason that this is happening, the reason that killer is being celebrated and even funded by a significant number of Americans is that everything I said on Friday is true. The culture among young black males in this country glorifies violence.
And in particular, it glorifies violence against white people. That's why young black males are disproportionately violent to a degree that's almost impossible to believe, even though it's true.
Black people are roughly 12 times more likely to kill a white person, 28 times more likely to violently assault a white person than the other way around. And this is what happens when the vast majority of black children are born without present fathers in the home.
It's what happens when black culture is dominated by degeneracy. And it's what happens when the worst kinds of people are hailed as heroes of the black community.
Now it's a kid who stabbed another kid in the heart. In the past, it's been George Floyd or Michael Brown or any of the other BLM martyrs we might name.
If not them, it's rappers and athletes who would be the least objectionable of the bunch, at least in most cases. But ask yourself, when was the last time that a great black man of high moral character, somebody who achieved something meaningful, was given the George Floyd or Carmelo Anthony hagiography treatment? You become what you admire.
This is true of people and cultures. When you elevate people like Carmelo Anthony and George

Floyd, you become like them. Now, obviously, there are great black men and women in the world and throughout history.
Just as one example in the current day, one example that springs immediately to mind for me is Ben Carson. He's one of the world's greatest surgeons.
His personal story is harrowing and inspiring, truly awe-inspiring. But he's been cast out of black culture.
Mainstream black culture celebrates George Floyd or Kendrick Lamar or whoever, far more than would ever celebrate a man like Carson. Not only are the good, decent, productive black men and women not celebrated, they are in fact condemned by the very culture that should be celebrating them.
And this is what happens with all of the left's victim groups. When you're a victim group, this is what happens, because your heroes must then be victims.
The qualification to become a hero is not that you achieve something, but that something bad happened to you. Even if in reality, you did the bad thing to yourself, as was the case with George Floyd, Carmelo Anthony, Michael Brown, and so on.
We see a version of this problem in American culture at large. We tore down the statues of our true historical heroes.
Now they're being replaced by pop stars and celebrities and other assorted degenerates. The end result of this trend, which is continuing even though so many Americans reject it, will be that many more people will die.
Any country that tolerates racial violence will inevitably descend further and further towards dysfunction and open race warfare. If BLM types can justify the killing of Austin Metcalf, they can justify the murder of any white man, woman, or child.

And that's their goal.

That's why they're sending money to the family of Carmelo Anthony and comparing him to Kyle Rittenhouse.

And it's why everyone, whether they're white or black, needs to pay very close attention to where they're living and what schools they're sending their children to.

Until this culture changes, and right now there are no signs that it will, the consequences of ignorance are simply too great to ignore. Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you're the owner of a growing business, imagine a hiring approach similar to speed dating. However, instead of meeting potential romantic partners, you meet multiple qualified job candidates in a single scheduled session.
Granted, no one actually likes speed dating, but people do like hiring qualified candidates quickly. Wouldn't it be nice if there was an efficient format that allows you to connect with several pre-screened interested applicants all at once, streamlining your recruitment process? Well, good news there is.
It's Zip Intro from Zip Recruiter. You can post your job today and start talking to qualified candidates tomorrow.
And right now you can try Zip Intro for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh. Zip Intro transforms your hiring process with our streamlined approach to candidate assessment.
Just select a convenient time slot and we handle everything else. Finding qualified candidates and managing all the scheduled logistics on your behalf.
You maintain complete control over which applicants applicants you like to meet. And best part, you can be connecting with promising talent as early as tomorrow through their efficient back-to-back video call format.
It's hiring made remarkably simple. Enjoy the benefits of speed hiring with Zip Intro only from Zip Recruiter, rated number one hiring site based on G2.
Try Zip Intro for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh. Again, that's ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Zip Intro. Post jobs today.
Talk to qualified candidates tomorrow. NBC News reports coast to coast opposition to upheaval in President Donald Trump's second term took shape Saturday at more than 1,200 events organized by Democratic activists.
Protesters across the United States took to the streets in a series of hands-off demonstrations decrying Trump's border enforcement and deportation policies, as well as mass firings on the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement released before the event, organizers said Trump and his billionaire advisor at Doge, Elon Musk, have created an unnecessary crisis under the belief that this country belongs to them.
Among those who gathered at the National Monument on Saturday was Trump voter Ramesh Budhram of New York, who is having some regrets as he contemplates possible disruptions to Social Security. Budhram said, I'm a senior citizen.
He wants to step into our Social Security checks. It's not nice.
Budhram has been keeping score during Trump's first 75 days and suggested some promises haven't been kept. I thought it'd be a little better, Budram said.
He's saying he's going to drop the gas prices, the supermarket, the food stuff, but it didn't happen. Yeah, I don't buy these former Trump voters that they keep digging up to say they no longer support Trump.
This Ramesh Budram guy is another one. Totally fake.
I don't buy it. He says that Trump wants to mess with his Social Security check.
Trump, that's not true. Trump has not touched Social Security, has said a million times that he never will.
And I say that as someone who thinks that we do need to phase out Social Security. To me, it's a scam.
I personally don't want the government handling my retirement savings. The idea that I'm forced into this government retirement program is crazy to me, and I have no interest in it.
I don't want it. Let me keep my own money.
I'll take care of it. Thank you.
That's my view, but it's not Trump's. Trump has never said anything like that.
So all of that is fake. And then he says he's disillusioned because the price of gas and food hasn't gone down enough.
And Trump has been in office for like 10 weeks. How quickly did you think all that stuff was going to happen? Did you expect that he would take office and it'd be fixed the next day? I mean, it's nonsense.
So I don't really buy it. But let's check in on these protests.
Let's listen to some of the sounds and see some of the sites. The reporter Ted Goodman was on the seen in D.C.
interviewing some of the protesters just to see what they think. And it turns out that they don't think very much.
They don't have very many thoughts in their heads. Let's watch.
So what makes Trump a fascist? What makes Trump a fascist? He does things without... Yeah, talk loud.
I don't have my mic on. I'm not really into interviews.
Sorry? He just does everything he wants and, you know, not following laws or, you know, he was a convicted felon, you know, that's all I know. But your sign says he's a fascist, and I'm just curious what makes him a fascist.
One of the things is that he's trying to control the media, right? Say that again? He's trying to control the narrative. How is he trying to control the media? Doesn't every president try to control the narrative? They try to control their own narrative, but one of the things that Trump has done, for example, is renaming the Gulf of Mexico and then not allowing the Associated Press to come into the White House.
Basically, you know, trying to get... So, well, first of all, I'm not trying to be rude, but that guy, the Asian guy, looks like he got, you know, he gave himself a haircut with like a weed whacker or something.
The bangs are very erratic. More to the point, they, of course, have no idea why they are there, why they hate Trump, why Trump is a fascist.
They have no clue. They give one specific example of Trump's fascist policy, which was to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
Renaming a body of water is the extent of Trump's fascist rule, it turns out. And then there's this guy interviewed by Caitlin Bennett, who also has no idea why he's there.
Although he's much more passionate. I mean, these two guys clearly were just handed

signs. I don't know if they're paid protesters or not, but they were just handed signs.
They have

no idea why they're even there. Here's a guy who's much more passionate, but is still very confused.

Watch. He is credibly alleged of having a 14-year-old girl.
Is that what you want for

your president? Absolutely not. Which one are you guys talking about? I'm sorry.
I interrupted you

I'm not going to interrupted you. You're good, my friend.
I was talking about our alleged president, our fascist, nazified, idiot, moronic. The mango menace? Break our NATO alliance.
Turn our allies against us. Steal our money, throw 71 people, 71 million people off Medicaid that people depend on.
71 million people. Is this what you want? Do you want money taken from your grandma? Do you want to not support battered women and abused children? Is that what you believe? Stand up and say it, fascists.
Stand up and say it. I'm standing up and saying what I believe.

You stand up and say what you believe.

And not platitudes.

And not idolatry.

Let's hear ideas.

You have no ideas.

All you have is hate, racism, stupidity, and greed.

A round of applause for that right there.

He has been waiting a while for that.

Yeah, that was great.

What do you think about the vandalism that's going on at Tesla dealerships around the country? And we're not the TV, so you can say whatever you want. You know, I still for no violence unless we're pushed.
I mean, they want us to do violence so they can declare martial law. So that's why I'm against the violence.
They are police officers. OK, do you want my name? What are you guys out here protesting today? What's the number one thing to be anti- for? Stop the oligarchy.
We want Americans. He's not elected and he has no business doing what he's doing.
We don't want we don't want the billionaires taking over our country. OK, so that guy, the more just invented.
We talked in the opening monologue about these invented claim. People walking around completely confused.
They have no idea what's going on.

These ideas in their head that they see something online, they believe it right away.

And from this guy, we heard before always, Trump's going to cut into Social Security. Not true.
Kicking 71 million people off of Medicaid. Not true.
Trump was accused of, he claims, sexually abusing a 14-year-old. Not true.
And then we hear about oligarchy. And I like how these people have just basically, it seems just learned the word oligarchy over the past few weeks.

I've heard the word oligarchy more since this past January than I heard it over the past 20 years before that. And of course, the truth is that Trump is the least oligarchic president we've had in generations.
I mean, maybe ever. He is much less a member of the oligarchy than Biden was or Obama was or Bush was for that matter.

Oligarchy means, it literally means rule by a few, but it really means rule by the rich, rule by a collection of rich people. And now you could argue that by that definition, every country everywhere in history for all time has been ruled by the oligarchy in a literal sense.
But as for the rich, Trump is despised by most of corporate America, most of the rich and powerful people, the people who are funding these protests, for example. Elon Musk is like the one exception.
But you never hear these complaints about oligarchy when Democrat presidents are in the pocket of George Soros. You never hear it when big corporations help push the left-wing agenda.
You never hear about the oligarchy in that case. And it's funny too, because right now you've got people who supposedly hate the oligarchy and supposedly hate rich people and supposedly hate corporate America.
They were just cheering when a CEO was murdered in the street. And those same people are right now today freaking out because the stock market is taking a hit.
So the chant seems to be, you know, down with rich people, down with the oligarchy, down with CEOs, also protect the stock market. It just, it seems a bit incoherent is what I'm saying.
All right, let's check in on one other hands-off protester. Here we go.
Hey friends. I just passed the Dunkin' Donuts, which is the most vague possible location I could possibly give you in Massachusetts.
But besides being near a Dunkin' Donuts, which places me somewhere in Massachusetts, I mentioned I'm at the Hands Off Boston March, and it is the slowest march I have ever been in, and I could not be more happy about that because that means... It doesn't really matter what this guy is saying.
If you're listening to the audio podcast, that guy is wearing women's clothes. That's a trans guy.
You probably could have guessed that. So these are the sorts of people who are rallying.
A lot of people who are paid to be there. A lot of people who don't know why they're there.
And a lot of people who don't even know who they themselves are or how human biology works. So this is the ragtag group that has come together here.
Okay, we mentioned last week that a group of women in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, had come together to demand that mothers of young children be given the right to vote from home. That is, mothers in Congress should be given the right to vote on legislation from home without showing up to the Capitol in person.
And these women, Republican Representative Anna Polina Luna is among them, shut down business in Congress for days for the sake of this fight. Now we have an update on this, but first I want to play this.
Here we have the female Avengers, the Feminist Justice League, gathered together for a joint interview with CBS News where they talk about why they think they should be given these accommodations. Listen.
Historically, it's been much more wealthy, you know, older men who serve in Congress. This isn't designed for young families and for young women especially.

Congress was designed and built for old white men to represent themselves.

And, you know, we've made a lot of progress since then.

We get into it because we're public servants and we care about representing our community.

But there should be some accommodations for family things that come up, like the birth of a child. It's not like I'm faking, you know, to go party in Cabo, right? Like I'm actually trying to a recover but then be also care for a newborn.
Our job is to represent people and I'm a 35 year old woman. All of my friends are going through this problem right now.
That is representing people. American people are not just single, you know, older men with or without children.
I want to be able to represent my community and I want to be able to have a family and it shouldn't be so hard to figure out how to do both. Okay, let me clarify a few things.
First of all, and I say this because I honestly believe these ladies may not understand this point. You are being paid by the taxpayers to represent your constituents in your district, not your friends.
So she says that she's paid to represent people and that she's representing them by having this fight because all of her friends are in the same boat. But that's not why you're up

there, okay? You are not there to represent your girlfriends. You aren't there to express the concerns that you hear from your friends when you go for a girls' night at the karaoke bar or whatever, okay? You're not there to represent your brunch and mimosas constituency.
You're there to represent the constituents in your district. And let me ask you this, ladies,

did any of your constituents, I mean, a single one, did a single one of your constituents in

any of your districts ever tell you that they care about making sure members of Congress

have more maternity leave? Did a single one of your constituents tell you that? Okay, Anna, you're supposed to be the Republican conservative here. Which of your constituents said that they care deeply about making sure that you can vote from home? Can you show me that? Where are all these letters of support? Where did you hear this? All of these, where's this overwhelming voice from your constituents who are saying, you know, the most important thing to me right now in America is making sure that you people in Congress don't have to go to work physically.
If the answer is none of them have ever said that, okay, then you need to go do your job. This is not your job.
I don't give a damn what makes you comfortable. That's not why you are there.
All we're hearing from these women is me, I, this is what I want. This would make me, we don't give a damn what makes you comfortable.
That's not why you are there. We didn't pay you for that.
You're not getting paid for that. Okay, you are there to do the work for your constituents.
If you don't want to do that job, you can quit. Okay, no one is forcing you to do this.
No one put a gun to your head and told you you had to run for Congress. You chose to do that.
And this has been the rule for Congress for well over two centuries. Okay, this is the rule that every member of Congress has been expected to follow.
And then you come along and you say, yeah, you know what? The way this was done for 200 years doesn't really work for me. No, I need the rules to change for me so that I'm more comfortable.
And yes, those were old white men who came, who formed Congress and formed this country and came up with the rules.

They were pretty smart.

I think they were smarter than all three of you ladies.

I mean, which one of you want to step up to the plate and say that you know more than the old white men who set up these rules?

Which one of you?

Representative Luna, are you the one?

You want to tell us that you didn't?

So yeah, all the old white guys, they made the rules, but you know better. You know better than they do.
Really? You wouldn't have this job. Congress would not exist.
The United States would not exist. Your life probably would not exist if not for those old white men.
And anyone who uses the term old white men in a derogatory way

immediately loses all credibility, okay? Your argument is mute, moot rather. And my argument is mute now because I just said mute instead of moot.
But it truly is. The moment that you pull out the old white men trope, especially in this context, It's like, I don't even care what you have to say anymore.

So. the old white men trope, especially in this context, it's like, I don't even care what you have to say anymore.
So, you know, I don't know how else to explain this other than because the argument from the other side is, well, if you're pro-family and you think that women should have children and they should raise their children and be there for their babies, then you should be in favor of this. I am pro-family.
I'm very pro-family. And I think it's a wonderful thing if any of you ladies or any other woman in Congress wants to have a baby.
I think that's fantastic. And I think your desire to be home with your children is great.
I think it's very natural. I think it's right.
Okay. But that means that if you want to prioritize that, that you can't be in Congress.
Okay. Congress is not a job made for everybody and anybody.

It's made for very particular sorts of people who are able to do certain things, such as show up in person to the Capitol to vote basically a few days a month. so this whole thing is just to me outrageous and highly annoying.
But of course, it looks like these women are going to get what they want. Here's ABC News with the update.
Speaker Mike Johnson of Florida GOP Representative Anna Polina Luna say that they have cut a deal to end the fight over proxy voting for new parents, which will reopen the House floor after nearly a week of legislative paralysis. House Republican leaders will formalize vote pairing, a procedure that allows a member who is absent during a vote to coordinate with a present member on the other side of the matter to offset the absence.
So for example, the procedure in this case would allow a new mother who is absent for a House vote to team up with a present lawmaker voting opposite from their stance to form a pair Okay, great, so the obnoxious whiny women will get their way, tail as old as time And we're going to allow this Good thing that there's no conceivable way that this could be abused, right? You know, enabling members of Congress to not show up in person. No way that that's going to be abused.
No, no, no, no. This is only going to be for parents in the first, whatever, 12 weeks of the baby's life.
It's not going to extend beyond that. It's not going to be abused.
It's not going to be taken advantage of. No, no, no, because politicians would never do that.
No, we can trust them. We can trust them to use this new found freedom and luxury and accommodation that they've been given.
We can trust them to use it responsibly and to never abuse it. That's what we're being told anyway.
All right. Here's one for the no good deed goes unpunished file.
I want you to look what happened to a door dasher in Texas who tried to help someone. Listen.
He was just trying to get some food. Altman's decided to order the man food.
I opened my car. I was going to go get him some food.
Literally, the second I opened my door to step out, he just, like, starts stabbing me. Fort Worth Police Department says Quindarius Cartwright is the man who cut Altman's in the face and chest.
Photos of the bloody gash are too graphic to broadcast. Genuinely thought I was going to die.
It was so much blood. Walked in Waffle House, they were freaking out.

I mean, I'm sure it's probably a traumatic thing

for anyone to watch.

Video of Altman's recovery

shows his swollen face and stitches.

Most of the stab wounds to the body

weren't really too bad.

It was just when he stabbed me in the face

that it was like, it was really bad.

On top of injuries, Cartwright reportedly stole Altman's car

and joy-rode it to a strip club in North Fort Worth. Okay.
So this guy, Jackson Altman's tries to help the homeless guy, give him food. The homeless guy's name is Quindarius, by the way, which is funny.
Let's be honest. Like, if you said the name Quindarius to me without context, I would assume you were either talking about a Roman emperor or a homeless guy outside of a Waffle House.
Those are the two options for a name like Quindarius. And in this case, it was a homeless guy outside of a Waffle House.
The door dasher would have been much better off if it was a Roman emperor outside of the, even one of the evil ones, it would have been better. But instead he gets the homeless guy, tries to give the guy food, ends up getting stabbed.
And this is why, you know, people think I'm mean for the way that I talk about the homeless, but this is why. And I've said before that I'll give money to the homeless.
I'll give them food sometimes. I try to help, but I'm at the point now where I'm done with all of that.
I don't give them money anymore. I don't give them food because these are very often dangerous people, drug addicts, criminals, con artists, liars.
I'll tell you the last time I gave a homeless guy some money, this actually was recently. This is kind of like the final straw moment for me.
Because I'm at a gas station. I'm standing at the pump.
And this guy comes up. He's got this whole sob story about how he lost his job and his apartment.
And he's on the street now, and he needs some money for food and to get a bus ticket to go down to his sister or whatever. I forget the whole story that he told me, but that was the story.
Now, I'm not an idiot. I knew he was lying.
I knew he's not buying any damn bus ticket. So I knew it was made up, but I gave him a few bucks anyway, trying to be nice, trying to be generous.

A week later, same gas station, same guy comes up to me with the exact same story.

And he was supposed to be getting on a bus like last week to go down to his sister's or whatever to start fresh, start a new life.

But there he was still fundraising, fundraising for that bus ticket a week later he didn't remember telling me that you know this same lie a week earlier most likely because he's on drugs the whole time so I just told him yeah you know I already gave you money and he just walked away now again I knew he was lying I knew it was a scam but still to be lied to by the same guy with the same lie that was just irritating and that was that was probably my, it was probably at that point where I said, like, why do I ever, why am I doing this? Why would I ever, I would be better off just taking the five bucks and burning it. I mean, it would be a better use of the money probably, rather than giving someone money who's lying to me so they can go buy drugs with it.
Why did I ever do that? Why do any of us ever do it? The only solution to the homeless problem, the only solution to our cities being overwhelmed by vagrants and drug addicts and mentally ill lunatics who treat the sidewalk like a campground, the only solution is not charity. We've tried charity.
Every city in the country has homeless shelters and soup kitchens and everything else. There's no reason why any homeless person should ever actually go hungry.
There's no reason why they should be begging for money or food. They can get food.
And if they're physically capable and they actually have any interest in getting a job and becoming functioning members of society, they can also get jobs. But they're on the street because they have no interest in not being on the street.
So the only solution, and this is why I always say it, the only solution is to ban it. You have to ban vagrancy, clear out the camps, clear off the sidewalks by force.
That's the only solution. You have to say, you're not allowed to sleep on the sidewalk.
We live in a civilized society, and you can't do that. This is a sidewalk.
It's not a place. You cannot set up a campground here.
This is not allowed. You cannot do it.
And you'll notice that any city or anywhere you go in the world where they don't have this problem, it's because this is what they did. It's not because they had some great charitable regime.
It's not because they finally reached a point where the homeless people were given enough money and enough charity that there's no more homelessness. It's not that.
It's because you're not allowed to. That's the only way to clear this stuff out.
And if we don't have the stomach for that, then our cities will just forever be overwhelmed by dangerous, violent vagrants. Those are the options.
Experience extraordinary by creating the perfect foundation for your best sleep this season. Drift effortlessly to sleep in Bowling Branch's signature sheets crafted from the finest 100% organic cotton and offer a buttery soft, breathable foundation.
Pair them with Bowling Branch's airy blankets, duvets, and quilts for the perfect summer upgrade so you never have to sleep hot again. What really impressed me is how they get even softer with every wash.
I didn't think that was possible, but after a few months, they felt even more luxurious than when I first got them. And believe me, I've tried some other premium sheets before, but nothing comes close to the breathability and comfort of these.
The best part is they're crafted by artisans and woven from the finest, 100% organic cotton on earth with designs and colors for every mattress size, bedroom style,

and so you can find the perfect fit for your home. Plus, you can try Bowling Branch sheets for an entire month risk-free.
You can wash, style, and feel the difference for yourself. And if you don't get the best night's sleep, you can send them back for a full refund.
Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Bowling Branch. Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlandbranch.com slash dailywire.
That's bowlingbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash wire to save 15%. Exclusions do apply.
See site for details. The chat is live right now in the DailyWire Plus app and at dailywire.com.
But if you actually want to join the conversation, you've got to be a DailyWire Plus member. DailyWire Plus members get everything, all of our content ad-free, including daily shows, hit movies,

documentaries, and more, plus exclusive investigative journalism that gives you the whole story, not just the part that fits the narrative. Become a member today at dailywire.com slash subscribe or download the Daily Wire Plus app in the App Store right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Over the past few weeks, we've spent a considerable amount of time talking about marriage from the perspective of a man.
This is a perspective that isn't discussed often enough and is even less understood. A couple of weeks ago, we talked about the concept of emotional labor, which is a term used almost exclusively by women about themselves.
The claim, which you'll find in a million articles or here in a million TikTok videos, is that women carry a disproportionate amount of the emotional and mental burdens of marriage and family life. And I explained why that is a rather severe misconception.
This past Friday, we talked about the wildly viral video of a feminist social media influencer who announced to the world that she almost divorced her husband for failing to do household chores when and how she wanted. And I, again, explain in detail why that woman has an attitude that will kill her marriage, just like it's killed so many thousands of marriages before hers.
Now, we're not going to rehash either of those conversations, but we are going to spend some more time in this general vicinity. A couple of days ago, Megyn Kelly jumped into the fray.
She shared her own reaction to that viral video I just mentioned. She seemed to generally disapprove of the woman castigating her husband publicly, but she also disapproves of the way that many men on the right approach and talk about marriage.
And I'm going to play those comments from Megyn and offer a response. But before I do that, I need to rewind the clock by about a year to set the stage.
And before I do that, I need to preface everything I'm saying by saying that I personally like Megan. I've been on her show a number of times.
I've had nothing but pleasant interactions with her. I met her in person for the first time at one of the inaugural balls in January.
I found her to be very kind in person. So I have no personal problem with her at all.
But she does have a bit of a problem with me, it would seem. So before we get to Megan's comments this week, I'm going to play something that she said about me last year.
And I heard this clip at the time, but I decided not to say anything about it or respond to it. I try not to get into public spats with people on our own side, which is why I quite frequently let it slide when people on our side, who I thought were friends or at least friendly, take shots at me, which happens all the time.
But I feel it necessary to bring this up now because it will provide some important context to Megan's remarks last week.

And also, I think the conflict between feminism and what we now call the traditional view of marriage and gender roles is coming to a head.

It's coming to a head on the right.

And now is the time to get it all out in the open.

As conservatives, we have to decide if we want to conserve the view of the sexes that was held by basically everyone in the world for all of human history until the middle of the 20th century, or if we want to conserve feminism. We cannot conserve both.
And I know which I prefer. So with that said, let's go back to February 3rd, 2024, when Megyn Kelly appeared on a podcast called Chicks on the Right.
At the time that this podcast was recorded, Megyn was pretty angry at me for making some derogatory comments about feminism, as I tend to do. And here is the setup from the host.
Listen. I think it was right after you'd written a book.
And so we had you on to talk about your book. And there was some controversy happening at the time with Matt Walsh.
And I know you had a beef with him recently on Twitter. Back then there was a controversy? Yes.
There was controversy because he's always been the same guy when it comes to women have their place and that needs to be at home and they shouldn't have careers and all that stuff. So, and it was about that.
And we talked to you about that. And you said something that has never left my brain.
And I loved how you said it. And I refer back to it all

the time because I struggled with his arguments. He's very persuasive.
He's an excellent writer, as I'm sure you know. And his criticisms were like getting to me.
And I remember that I asked you about it in that show. And you said, I just know that having a career and family, having that career makes me the best version of myself for my family.
And I was like, that is the perfect way to describe how we think, I think how we feel about our own careers. It just really resonated with me.
And so when I saw you guys kind of beefing about a month ago or three weeks ago or whatever about the similar issue. Okay, so we'll get to Megan's what she says in a second.
Well, I will say guilty as charged. I have always been the same guy.
For the most part, I'm saying the same things now that I said 13 years ago when I was a mostly unknown blogger with like 5,000 Twitter followers. I might be a jerk, but at least I've always been the same kind of jerk.
You have to give me that. But Megan Kelly has had enough of it.
She's had enough of my crap and she wants me to shut up. And I'm not exaggerating.
That's what she said verbatim. Listen.
And again, having said that I like the guy, I'm getting a little tired of his nonstop judgment of women who make different choices than the ones he wants us to make. Sorry, Matt, you're not our Jesus.
We don't answer to you. Like live your life the way you want to live it and stop judging everybody who makes a different choice.
I'm sick of it. I, and I know you gals and generally women, we're not judging moms who choose to stay at home and raise their kids.
That's a choice we celebrate. We love those are our sisters and our friends and our moms.
Women aren't doing this to other women for the most part. It's guys like Matt, like, shut up.
I'm not out there saying your wife is boring and a loser because she decided not to get a job. I don't think that.
I think it's awesome. She's the mother of six children.
She must be incredibly busy. But why are you looking at every woman who works and trying to pass judgment and make her feel guilty about our choices all the time? It's a fail.
We don't feel guilty because of you. But I'm just getting tired of his random posts about how the one woman who said, oh, I'm confessing that I really liked it when the guy I dated wanted to pay for the meal.
And he's like, no, you can't have that unless you play the traditionally feminine role. Who died and made you boss of all women? What are you saying? I don't know why he feels the need to try to set fake guardrails around our behavior.
It's a no, Matt. We don't need you.
Yeah. Yeah.
Although we have seen, though, there are a lot of these conservative pundits, younger ones, the younger women who are kind of taking that discourse and running with it and saying, hey, say no to the high-powered careers, ladies. Wow, Megan.
Okay. You know, I confess that I don't take very kindly to being told to shut up, especially by someone who's supposed to be on the same side and who could reach out to me and voice her concerns privately if she wanted to.
But it doesn't hurt my feelings. I could take the heat, which is why I let this go at the time.
But this rant is now newly relevant given what she said last week. So keep in mind the language that Megan just used.
She said that I don't understand women. I'm trying to control women.
I'm trying to tell women what to do. I'm trying to be, what, Jesus.
I'm trying to be the Jesus of women or whatever. I'm judging women.
I'm putting up guardrails. Now, I don't think that that's an accurate characterization at all, but I do think that these terms would pretty well describe Megan's attitude towards young men.
So here she is on her show last week. Listen.
Here's what's happening on the right. Young women, and I talk to young conservative women all the time about their lives and their goals and the things that they want.
And what's happening is they can't find men who are maybe more conservative. usually they're looking for somebody who is

religious. A lot of conservative women tend to be God-loving conservatives.
And they can't find a lot of young men who want to marry a working woman now. This is an actual pattern that's coming up on the right.
And to me, it's so sad because it's like, how did we get to the point where we were now telling young, conservative, amazing women that they're not attractive if they also work, if they choose to, let's say, do what I'm doing and what you're doing and like get their voice out there. But I'll stick with me just because I think conservatives listening to this will like the thought of another Megyn Kelly voice up and coming.
Well, why wouldn't we want that? Why would we take somebody who's talented in this field and really wants to make a difference and have the messaging to her be, you're really not that valuable unless you give it up and go into the home and only have a family and only raise a family. And not only are we sending her that message, but young men are actually believing that.
They're actually believing it, especially on the right, because like the trad mom has gotten so popular. And it's like, no, if we do that, we're not going to have any strong conservative or right-leaning women to provide a role model for younger conservative women who, and there's nothing to apologize for here, don't necessarily want to spend all their 20s and their 30s getting married and having kids.
So Megan says that young men these days don't want to marry a career woman. And she says this is a real problem.
She says that these young men are not attracted to working women,

but obviously she thinks they should be. That these men are believing the anti-feminist propaganda.
They've been duped, says Megyn Kelly. It's very sad.
She says it's sad.

In other words, it seems that the one putting up guardrails and judging other people for what

they want in life is Megyn Kelly. Megyn doesn't seem to understand these young men.
She says that I don't understand women, she says, and I probably understand women more than she thinks I do, but I admit that I don't understand them perfectly. I'm not a woman after all.
I've been married to a woman for almost 15 years. I'm raising two girls.
I have a mom and four sisters. I'm not clueless on the subject, but I'm not an expert on the inner life of women, and I've never claimed to be.
Likewise, Meghan is not an expert on men. In fact, she seems to be rather flummoxed by them, and her confusion is, I think, shared by all of the feminist voices in our culture, and those voices are a lot louder and have a lot more power than the voices of the young men that she is criticizing

here. And this is the message that young men have heard their entire lives from every corner of the culture.
And that's why it's worth responding to her in some detail. So I'd like to make a few points.
First of all, Megan is correct about her fundamental observation that men are generally not attracted to ambitious, career-driven women. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that men will not marry those kinds of women.
And I'm not saying that wives should never have jobs. In many households, both parents work out of financial necessity.
I understand that. There are also many different kinds of jobs that a woman might take on, which don't always require going to an office full-time.
My own wife is right now working on organizing a fundraising gala for a Catholic homeschool hybrid academy. She enjoys it.
She's good at it. It's a service that she's able to provide to support quality Catholic education, and she can do it at home.
And I am caricatured by people like Megan as believing that women should only ever do the dishes and laundry and nothing else. But that's not actually my view.
I think a woman's first priority should be the children and the home. But that doesn't mean she can't do other things and pursue other vocations alongside that.
And as I said, in many cases, a family might feel that they need two full-time incomes in order to survive. I understand all of that.
But this conversation is about ideals and about attraction. What is the ideal that men strive for? What qualities do they find attractive in a woman? So most men ideally would like to earn an income that would allow them to be the sole breadwinner in

the home. Most men like the idea of being the provider.
That ideal will not always become a reality, but it is the ideal. And as for attraction, men are not generally attracted to a woman's professional ambitions.
And that's just not the quality that attracts a man to a woman. Now that isn't to say that men are never attracted to women with careers

What I'm saying is that the fact that a woman has a career will rarely be the thing or even one of the things that men find attractive about her. Okay? When a man is talking to his friends about a woman he's dating, he's almost certainly not going to say any version of this.
Dude, she's great. She takes her career really seriously.
She's super ambitious. She has so much earning potential.
Now, that's the kind of thing that a woman might say to her friends, maybe using different words, but that's the kind of idea that a woman might communicate to her friends about the man that she's dating. A man is not going to say that about a woman.
As a man, I have never heard another man say anything approaching that about a woman that he's dating or married to. I've never heard that because men and women are different.
They are looking for different things, Megan. A man might be attracted to a woman with a career, but he's not going to be attracted to her because of her career.
And a woman who puts her career before anything, a woman who prioritizes her professional ambitions above all else, will be very unappealing to the vast majority of men. And I know that might be upsetting for you to hear, Megan, but it's just true, okay? Because men and women are different and they want different things.
The difference between the romantic interests of a man and of a woman could perhaps be best summarized this way. Here's a thought experiment.
If you give a man a choice between an attractive, sweet, kind, feminine grocery store cashier who makes $13 an hour and wants nothing more than to become a mother one day, or a high-powered, ambitious, loud, rich,

corporate girl boss whose greatest dream is to be a CEO one day, most men, I'm telling you, will choose the former without hesitation. They don't even need to go and consult their friends about it or think about it or pray about it.
They're going to take the former. They're going to take the cashier.
Now, if you give women the same choice, the mild-mannered, unambitious guy working a cash register or the highly paid corporate go-getter, you're going to have a lot more takers for the latter option, a lot more. Now, why is that? Am I saying that most women are greedy gold diggers looking for a rich man to bleed dry? Am I saying that most men are oppressive tyrants looking for some meek, helpless woman they can control? No.
No on both counts. I'm saying that men and women are different and they want different things.
Okay? A man is not looking for a business partner. He's not looking for someone to provide for him He wants a wife He wants a mother for his future children He wants a helpmate He wants a woman, not a man This is not a new phenomenon Megan calls this desire of young men a problem That is coming up on the right But it it's not a problem, and it's not coming up.
Kim Iverson responded in agreement with Megan and said that she, quote, doesn't get this trad wife trend. But what she's calling a trend, or what Megan says is just coming up, is in fact the norm.
It's the way human society has been organized since the dawn of civilization. A young man seeking a woman who will have his children and prioritize raising them and keeping a home is doing the same thing that billions of other young men have done since time immemorial.
This traditional approach is not some new fad invented by TikTok influencers, nor is it a far-right conspiracy. It is the way of human civilization.
These young men, they want what their grandfathers wanted and what their grandfathers' grandfathers wanted and what their grandfathers' grandfathers' grandfathers wanted and on and on through the ages. The trend, the fad, the new thing, Megan, is feminism.
However you feel about career women who find their value and purpose in the working world, there's no question that they are the ones doing something new.

Feminism sent women out of the home and into cubicles and boardrooms.

Feminism convinced many women to desire professional success over and above family and children.

And now feminists are angry that men were not reprogrammed along with them. Men don't want what feminism is selling.
You may think they should want it. You may want them to want it, but they don't.
They look out and they see that ever since the rise of feminism, divorce rates have skyrocketed, birth rates have plummeted, 60 million babies are dead, and most people are, by every metric, much more miserable. And they don't want that.
You cannot make them want it. And getting angry at them for not wanting it is, first of all, fruitless, second, arrogant, third, unfair, and fourth, foolish.
Because these young men that Megan is referring to have an innate desire to be providers. That's why they are not especially interested in women who put their careers first.
They want to provide. The desire to provide is a noble desire.
Even if many of these men will end up splitting the financial load with their wives in some way, still the desire to provide is noble and it should be encouraged, not shamed. It's not sad.
There's nothing sad here, Megan. These young men are experiencing a deep, ancient yearning, a yearning to leave home and find a wife and become one flesh, as the scripture says, and then to have children and carry on their bloodline, and then to go back out into the world on a mission to provide for their family, thereby fulfilling their destiny as men.
This desire is primal and timeless. It is not a primal, timeless desire for a colleague or a business partner.
It is a desire for a wife, a woman he can provide for and fight for and conquer the world for. And in return, in return, he wants a woman who will have his children and raise and love them and prioritize them above anything and show him appreciation and respect and affection.
That's what young men want. That's what any man wants.
And they should be allowed to say that out loud. Okay, men are allowed to talk about what they want and what they need in relationships.
But the problem is that every

time a man talks about that, you've got women like Megyn Kelly who get upset about it. They get angry.
They get like, how dare men have any needs, have anything that they want in any of this? Almost every young man wants this

Until our feminist matriarchal society beats it out of him or convinces him that he can never have it. He can never have the thing that his grandfather had, and that his grandfather's grandfathers had, and his grandfather's grandfathers had, and on and on and on.
So if you want to know why so many young men are demoralized and depressed and broken, it's because for their whole lives, they've been told that what they want down at the deepest level of their soul, they should not want and they cannot have. Every man before them in history could have it, but not them.
We're too enlightened for that now. The feminists took over and they know better.
They know better than our ancestors knew. They know better than the combined wisdom of all human history.
That's the message that these young men hear. You want to talk about sad, Megan? That's sad.
That is a tragedy of catastrophic proportions. There is nothing wrong with what these young men want.

There is something very wrong with the culture that tells them they shouldn't want it.

And that is why Megyn Kelly is today, sadly, canceled. That'll do it for the show today.