The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1209 - Canada’s ‘Mass Graves’ Hoax Is Yet Another Fabricated Narrative To Demonize Christians

Episode Date: August 21, 2023

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, churches burned across Canada after the media started reporting about "unmarked graves" at Christian schools in the country. Well, investigators have finally started to unearth some of these "graves" and guess what they've found? Nothing but rocks. Yet another hoax is exposed. Also, Trump officially announces that he will be skipping the upcoming republican debate. And Judy Garland is the latest dead celebrity to be canceled. Apparently she performed in blackface in the 1930s.   Ep.1209   - - -    Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm    - - -    DailyWire+:   Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d   Get Your Jeremy’s Hand Soap here: https://bit.ly/3q2CCIg   Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/Walsh   My Patriot Supply - MAJOR savings on your 4-week Emergency Food Kit http://www.preparewithwalsh.com/     Headrest Safe - Save $100 today with code WALSH at http://www.theheadrestsafe.com     - - -   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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, churches burned across Canada after the media started reporting about unmarked graves at Christian schools in the country. Well, investigators have finally started to unearth some of these graves, and guess what they found? Nothing but a bunch of rocks. Yes, another hoax is exposed. Also, Trump officially announces that he will be skipping the upcoming Republican debate, and Judy Garland is the latest dead celebrity to be canceled. Apparently, she performed in Blackface in the 1930s. We'll talk about all that, and more today on the Matt Wall's show. Using the internet without ExpressVPN, it's like checking in your baggage at the airport without a lock.

You think your stuff is kept private, but you never know who's going through your things. When you go online without a VPN, internet service providers can see every single website you visit. They can legally sell this information without your consent to add companies and tech giants who then use your data to target you. When you use ExpressVPN, Internet service providers cannot see your online activity. Your identity is anonymized by a secure VPN server. Your data is also encrypted for maximum protection. I love ExpressVPN because of how easy it is to use. Just fire up the app and click one button.

Plus it works on all your devices like phones, laptops, even routers. so everyone who shares your Wi-Fi can be protected. Secure your online activity by visiting expressvpn.com slash Walsh right now to get three extra months free. That's EXP-R-E-S-V-PN.com slash Walsh to get protected today. ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh. A couple of months ago on the first day of a major Islamic religious holiday, a man casually walked up to a mosque in Stockholm, Sweden, and with hundreds of people looking on, he produced a Quran and began ripping out the pages.

He wiped a few of those pages on his shoe, and then the man set the Koran on fire. 5,000 miles away at the U.S. State Department, Joe Biden's diplomats sprang into action. Within hours, the State Department issued the strongest possible condemnation of the Koran burning. Quote, I will say that we do condemn it, so the State Department spokesman. Spokesman added that the demonstration had created, quote, an environment of fear that will, quote, impact the ability of Muslims and members of other religious minority groups

from freely exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief in Sweden. Now, whatever you think of that response, you have to admit, it's a little bit surprising because it was just two years ago that criminals torched, vandalized, and looted more than 80 churches across Canada. Unlike Sweden, Canada sits directly on the border of the United States. Some churches that went up in flames are a 10-minute drive from major population centers in this country. And yet, as the churches were raised, Joe Biden's State Department didn't say a word. One Koran burning in Sweden gets their attention.

The destruction of dozens of entire churches a few miles north of the U.S. border, well, they couldn't be bothered by that. Neither could Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as his country witnessed this historic campaign of anti-Christian terrorism two years ago, a campaign that somehow led to just one arrest.

Trudeau said the violence was unacceptable, but also understandable. Watch. As I've also said, it is unacceptable and wrong that acts of vandalism and arson are being seen across the country, including against Catholic churches.

One of my reflections is I understand the anger that's out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real and it is fully understandable given the shameful history that we're all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians. But I can't help but think that burning down churches, churches is actually depriving people who are in need of grieving and healing and mourning

from places where they can actually grieve and reflect and look for support. We shouldn't be lashing out at buildings that can provide solace to some of our fellow citizens. It's understandable, Justice Joe says, as thugs torch Christian churches in his country. He ignores the attack of Christianity in his country, just as politicians in the United States ignored the deadly mass shooting by a trans-terrorist at a Christian school in Nashville earlier this year, and just as they ignore the campaign of terrorism directed against pro-life pregnancy centers. In all these cases, elected officials didn't simply excuse violence against Christians. Instead, for years, with the help of corporate media,

these officials engineered hoaxes for the purpose of demonizing Christians and encouraging more of this kind of violence. The point of these hoaxes was to create a pretext for the violence that inevitably followed in every single case. In the U.S., the hoax took the form of disingenuous warnings about transgenocide and an entirely fictional epidemic of anti-trans murders, murders that turn out in nearly every case to be related to domestic disputes, drugs, prostitution, and have nothing to do with the fact that the victim identifies as trans. In Canada, the hoax that prompted the church burnings began in earnest in May of 2021. When Canadian media reported that ground-penetrating radar had found the unmarked graves of more than 200 children near an Indian residential school in Kamloops, which is located in British Columbia. And many of the media reports and social media posts actually referred to these alleged sites as mass graves.

The Canadian government had established these residential schools in the 19th century to assimilate native Canadian children into Canadian culture. They were mainly operated and funded by the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodists, and Amos. Anglican churches. Now, leftists in Canada have long maintained that these schools mistreated children. That's been conventional wisdom for some time in Canada. That's one of the reasons Canadian activists now argue that Canada should strip Catholic schools of all federal funding. And these supposed mass graves were the confirmation that they needed. The evidence to support the narrative that they already believed. Now, to be clear, it's long been suspected that children did die of diseases like tuberculosis and influenza at these schools. It's also true that in that time period,

countless children of all races, ethnicities across the entire world died of these diseases. But the discovery of supposed mass graves at one of these schools to the media and the Canadian government meant something very different. The finding they suggested meant that Christians had systematically murdered children at these schools and then covered up the evidence. The Toronto Star reported the remains of 215 children have been found. The AP reported, Over 600 bodies founded another Catholic school for indigenous children in Canada. U.S. news and many other outlets called it confirmation of, quote, genocide, etc. Within days, the reports that ground penetrating radar had found unmarked raves at residential school sites all over Canada.

This was a widespread epidemic, they told us. Here's a Bloomberg report on an additional discovery. Watch. We started our radar penetrating research. on June the 2nd of 2021. As of yesterday, we have hit 751 unmarked graves. This is not a mass grave site. These are unmarked graves. This is now today on Cowes' First Nation,

and this is what we call today our community gravesite. It became our community grave site. after the 1970s when the residential school was stopped overseen by the Roman Catholic Church and the Archdiocese. You're going to notice that they are in proper order. These that lay here are one meter by one meter apart in some cases. So there were dozens of reports like this all throughout the summer of 2021. This was the reporting from the entire news media in the U.S. and Canada. And in response, Justice Frioux knelt at one of the supposed grave sites and pretended to cry. Canada's celebrations were canceled. The government pledged hundreds of

millions of dollars to investigate this. There were mass protests. Statues were toppled. One outlet says that, that serves indigenous communities, APTN News, reported that, quote, demonstrators toppled statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth in Winnipeg during rallies honoring the children discovered in unmarked graves on the sites of former residential schools over the past month. And here's what that look like. Watch. Now, in the eyes of these rioters, Queen Elizabeth represents colonialism, and colonialism means taking advantage of the natives, not helping them. This anti-colonialist narrative is absurdly simplistic. It ignores the actual facts of history, so naturally they want to destroy all remnants of that history, starting with the statues. This was the mainstream position on the

Canadian left. Harshal Wahlia, the executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which is basically Canada's version of the ACLU, encouraged the vandal. She declared, quote, burn it all down. Two years later, the lies that these barbarians have been telling have completely fallen apart. No mass graves have been found at these supposed unmarked gravesites that have allegedly been uncovered with ground penetrating radar. No bodies, no remains. No remains. have been unearthed, none at all. It was all a hoax. The alleged grave site in cam loops, it turns out, that we told you about at the beginning, that was the site of a septic field,

which was used to dispose of the school's sewage. The school dug a massive line of trenches three feet deep for that purpose. But the researchers, quote unquote, who scanned the site with ground penetrating radar, somehow weren't aware of that. I mean, how could they miss that little detail. How could they fail to consider other potential reasons why a school might dig trenches? How was a mass grave the very first and only assumption? Remember, the radar never detected bodies. Okay, ground penetrating radar can't do that. It detected anomalies. And anomaly just means something unexpected or strange, something out of place. Well, if there's something unexpected in the ground, something out of place,

why would you assume that the thing must be a grave of dead children? Aren't there other possibilities you should consider first? In two years, nobody in Canadian state media has bothered to ask that question. Instead, they've sought to discredit anyone who doubts the false narrative. As recently as this summer, the state media outlet CBC ran this headline, quote, residential school denialists tried to dig up suspected unmarked graves in Camloops. The Toronto Star wrote last year, Genocide deniers ask,

where are the bodies of the residential school children? Seems like a good question to me. I mean, if you're saying there's a genocide, then there should be a lot of bodies. And if you can't find the bodies, then that would call into question the genocide, wouldn't it? One senior member of Parliament, Mark Miller, argue that Canadians who ask questions are,

quote, part of a pattern of denialism and distortion. In other words, seeking verifiable evidence of the media's claims is somehow denialism. By asking to verify the facts, you are distorting the facts. It's precisely what they do with climate change. They make these outlandish, unsupported claims, and then when you look into the claims at all, they call you a denier. And what happens to deniers? Well, you can probably guess. If you're not on their side of the issue, then you might go to prison. This summer, as John Kay reported at Quillette, the investigator appointed by Trudeau to investigate these graves,

called on the government to give, quote, urgent consideration to, quote, civil and criminal sanctions against residential school, quote, denialism. And if we take that proposal seriously, and there are signs that the Canadian government will, then ironically, it could mean a lot of natives are about to go to prison. Because in their efforts to prove their theory of residential school mass graves,

these natives are inadvertently debunking it. Somebody calling himself Chief Derek Napannock of one Indian tribe just decided to dig up some graves at a residential school in Manitoba. This is a school that just a few weeks ago was reported to be the site of 14 possible burial sites, quote unquote. Well, here's what the chief found at this burial site. Watch. July 24th would be the start of our continuing search for truth

as we move from identifying 14 reflections in the ground underneath the Catholic Church to an actual excavation of the site. Our elders, residential school survivors and community members requested that we move in this direction together following community engagement over the past two years. The excavation would be an effort to determine the truth of the reflections identified by ground-penetrating radar that was done twice over this location in the past 12 months to lead to greater certainty of the extent and location of the reflections. We are now concluding the excavation of the 14 locations under the church. The archaeological team we hired from the University of

Brandon, which is the same archaeological team that is relied upon by regional police agencies when doing archaeological excavations, found no conclusive evidence of human remains in their excavation of the ground under the church basement. As a community, We were preparing for more than one possible outcome, which meant that we would prepare for the worst, but we would hope for the best. We know from the living memory of our elders who attended the school, as well as the living memory of those who have been past the stories of their ancestors' experiences in the school, that horrible things happened there. So there's a big buildup and all the disclaimers before he gets around to the reveal, which is that the ground penetrating radar hadn't picked up on. unmarked graves at all. In fact, it picked up a bunch of oddly shaped rocks. Alas, it turns out more than a dozen children had not been buried under this school.

Now, you'd think that'd be cause for celebration. I mean, this man just confirmed that children had not, in fact, been murdered and stuffed underground while attending a school many years ago. To most people, that's an uplifting development. That's a relief. When you think that there's unmarked graves of children, and then you dig and you find a bunch of rocks, a normal person says, well, thank God. Hey, I get great news, everybody. Turns out that a bunch of kids were not killed here. That's good. But that's not what you see in that amazing video. Instead, the chief is clearly bothered by the discovery or lack thereof. Says he's worried denialists might use reality to undermine his activism and his quest for

victimhood. The lack of dead children in the ground. worries him. Think about that. You know, he says there, you hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. You have to ask yourself, like, what is the best and worst in your mind? It sounds to me, you're saying the worst scenario is that you don't find unmarked graves of children. Hey, you hope for the best that you'll find a bunch of dead kids in the ground. That's really the attitude these people have. And he concludes by insisting that despite this little setback with this theory, everyone knows that the Canadian residential school system was abusive. Everyone knows the Christians treated these kids horribly, he says.

Do we know that? What reason do we have to believe that exactly? The Canadian government and media just spent two years lying about an obviously falsifiable story, which is that there were mass graves at these schools. The media and the government said that because there are unknown objects under the ground at a church, it must be a bunch of dead children and could not possibly be anything else. And then it turns out that that was a bunch of BS. That's what just happened.

They lied about genocide when they knew people could simply dig up the graves and prove them wrong. So why should we believe anything they have to say about how horribly these schools were run for centuries? If these schools were so horrible, why did they have to concoct a blatant, grotesque lie about them? if they're really, really bad, but they weren't killing kids and they didn't have mass graves, why don't you just tell the truth? Tell us what really happened. Well, now we can't believe anything you say. You know, when they shift the goalposts here, and they say, okay, there's not a bunch of unmarked graves,

but here's a bunch of bad things that did happen. Guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to say, I don't care what else you say. I don't believe anything that. And that's what the rest of us will do. Now, you don't get to just shift the goalpost and say, okay, fine, we're wrong about this, but we're right about this. Nope, don't believe any of it. Don't believe any of it. You know, if you didn't want people to ask questions, skeptical questions, you could be honest with them. You could do the exact opposite of what these cretons are doing. Lying like this creates chaos. It derails any possibility of a reasonable fact-based conversation about what actually happened at these schools. And it's almost as if they're doing it on purpose.

Almost. Now, it's tempting to dismiss all this and say, well, it's only happening in Canada, which is a uniquely godless place. And at some level, that's true. Canada is one of the few nations on earth to permit abortion up to the moment of birth. One of the only places on earth where people who don't even have terminal illnesses can be euthanized like stray dogs. That level of savagery is exceptional. But on this issue, as with so many others, the left in this country agrees with Canadian liberals. Recall that a year before the Canadian church burnings, in this country torched St. John's Church across from the White House. Nobody on the left even pretended to care.

When Donald Trump tried to tour the damage, they called him a fascist. The kind of people I'm talking about here are not confined to Canada, and their goal is not simply to win elections. Their goal is to destroy the foundation of Western civilization, most notably Christianity. And in the face of this effort, virtually no one is pushing back. No one is asking questions. not even the Vatican. In fact, the Pope has apologized to these Canadian activists.

He went on a pilgrimage of repentance over Canada's residential schools. What did that accomplish? Nothing, of course. Cultural vandals will forget their own lives the moment they're disproven. Move on to the next one. That's what they always do. But they'll never forget weakness once they see it. They'll never be deterred by anyone who doesn't tell the truth.

about what they're doing. So here's the truth. Like Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden's handlers hate Catholics. They hate Western civilization. And they'll use whatever hammer is available to beat us over the heads. And they'll even use some hammers that aren't available, that they have to make up. They are spiritual enemies. And it's time to stop giving them the upper hand. Let's get to our five headlines. In a world filled with uncertainties, one shocking headline can spread panic like wildfire and grocery stores are empty within hours. It's crucial then to be ready for whatever comes your way.

Having a reliable food storage system can provide you with peace of mind and the assurance that you and your loved ones will be well taken care of. Right now, with my Patriot Supply, you'll save $200 on a three-month emergency food kit to help stock your supply. Go to prepare withwalsh.com and grab this special price before it ends. Your three-month emergency food kit provider provides over 2,000 calories each day for optimal strength and energy and stressful situations. You can enjoy a wide variety of my Patriot supply of food from buttermilk pancakes and chicken alfredo to rice pudding. Their meals have you covered for every part of your day.

The best part is that each meal is delicious. It's better to have an emergency food supply and not need it than to need it and not have it. Don't wait for disaster to strike before taking action. Invest in your safety and well-being by securing your food storage today. Go to preparewithwalsh.com and get $200 in savings with each kit your family needs. That's preparewithwalsh.com. The Hill has this report. Former President Trump confirmed on Sunday that he will not attend the first Republican presidential debate this week.

And left open the possibility that he would skip future primary debates as well, citing his sizable lead in national polls as a primary reason. In a post on truth social, Trump cited a CBS News poll released earlier Sunday that showed him leading the next closest candidate by 46 percentage points. It's quote, the public knows who I am and what a successful presidency I had with energy, independence, strong borders and military, biggest ever tax and regulation cuts, no inflation, strongest economy in history, and much more. I will therefore not be doing the debates. Trump's announcement, which capped months of speculation about whether he would participate, comes days after it was reported that the former president planned to sit for a pre-taped interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson instead of attending Wednesday's debate in Milwaukee. Okay. So analyzing this from a purely political perspective, I'm kind of of two minds because on the one hand, I agree that it's Trump is so far ahead in the polls that there's nothing to be gained by doing the debates. And politically, you know, if you're looking at something and there's nothing to be gained by it, then that means that you can only lose.

It's certainly not a neutral thing. Or at the very least, if nothing can be gained by it, then the best you can hope for is neutral, is no effect. But that's a losing proposition. There's no reason to put yourself in a position like that politically. And so it makes sense for that reason that he would skip it. Trump also is not a skilled debater. So he's already walking into a situation that doesn't play to his strength. strengths. So why would he do that when he's so far ahead in the polls? But on the other hand,

politically, again, analyzing this politically, the political consideration on the other side is that if Trump wins the primary and we get into the general election and Biden is ahead in the polls, you know, in most polls by a significant margin, he's not going to be up by 46 points, but if he's ahead by, I don't know, five or six points or something. Well, now you've given him the precedent where he could just say, I'm going to skip the debates for the same reason Trump did. Now, you might point out that, well, Biden probably will do that anyway because he's senile and like they can't put it.

I mean, there's no way they can put him in a position. Joe Biden's handlers will not put him in a position where he's on the stage for, you know, two hours, three hours, unscripted, going against somebody like Trump. So they're going to skip the debates regardless. And you're probably right about that. So it's not like they're going to get the idea from Trump to skip the debates. The point, though, is that inevitably when Biden says that he is going to skip the debates, Trump's argument against it, he's undercut his own argument.

And I know the hope is that, like, no one remembers anything. And so you can say something one second and then the next second say something else. And nobody cares because nobody pays attention. But it puts you in a weaker position. You know, because when Biden skips the debate, Trump's response to that is, will have to be something along, it will have to be like responding in principle. Okay, so Trump's response when Biden skips it is not going to be, well, this is a bad move politically for Biden. It's a better idea politically for, no, it's going to be, no, this is an insult to the voters. Okay, it doesn't matter if you're far that far ahead in the polls.

you have a responsibility to stand in front of the voters and put yourself in this position and let them see for themselves and answer questions and be held accountable. So that's what Trump and Trump's team will say when Biden skips the debate. And yet they put themselves a position where Biden can turn around and say, well, what do you mean? You skip them. So that means you didn't care about the voters during the primaries? That's the one argument against it is just looking into the future. and knowing exactly how this is going to play out. Is that reason enough politically to go and do the debates for Trump?

That I'm not so sure about. Staying with politics for a moment, as much as I hate to, there was a big political controversy over the weekend with the media claiming, the media and many on the right as well, talking about the right-wing media as well as the left-wing, claiming that DeSantis attacked Trump supporters, that he insulted them, that he degraded, them. There were a lot of headlines like this from allegedly right-wing outlets, this one from

Fox News. Quote, critics ripped DeSantis for Trump comment. They say it makes him sound like crooked Hillary. Now, the comment from DeSantis, allegedly, was that he supposedly called Trump supporters listless vessels. That's the claim. And again, lots of Trump surrogates and others on the right were going nuts with this, saying that it was a terrible thing. It hurt their feelings. I'm going to play the clip for you. And here I'm going to play the clip as it was presented on Fox News over the weekend. And I want you to notice the banner on the screen as they are replaying these clips from DeSantis. And the banner says, Desantis attacks Trump supporters with degrading remark.

So the point of their segment is how terrible these comments were. Let's just watch them and, you know, just forget all the setup for a second. And you don't know anything going into this. You haven't heard about these comments. And you watch this and you listen to what Santos is saying. Do you come away from this feeling offended? Like he said something outrageous and offensive. Well, you tell me.

Let's watch. We have a strand in our party that views supporting Trump as whether you are a rhino or not. And so you could be the most conservative person since sliced bread. Unless you're kissing his rear end, they will somehow call. you are rhinos. You're not rooted in principle. If all we are is listless vessels that's just supposed to follow, you know, whatever happens to come down the pike on truth social every morning, that's not going to be a durable movement. Okay, if you didn't have any of the setup and you didn't have any of the hand ringing ahead of time and you heard DeSanta say that,

would you say, I can't believe you said that? That's horrible. How could he say that? No. What he's saying is just obvious. Was DeSanta's saying? Was DeSanta that all Trump supporters are listless vessels? No, obviously not. And again, everyone who listens to what he said there understands what the guy is saying. It's just that a lot of people are pretending not to understand so that they can feign offense for the sake of scoring political points. And I get it. It's politics. But call me old-fashioned, lying is never okay, number one, and pretending to be a sensitive little baby and crying over words that you claim are mean, that's never okay either.

It's just I can't respect that. It's what people do to Trump all the time. He says something and maybe it's inartful, maybe it's a little bit clunky in the wording. But everyone kind of knows what he means. They know what he's trying to say. And yet they interpret it in the most offensive way they possibly can because they're looking for a reason

to be offended by what Trump says. So that happens to Trump all the time. And now the same thing. And they also do it to DeSantis all the time. But many of the people who complain when it's done to Trump, many of those exact same people do the exact same thing to DeSantis. And in this case, now DeSantis in the past has said things that are clunky and, you know, he could have worded better. Every politician does that.

In that case, I don't think there was nothing wrong with what he said. It was, it's perfectly clear what he's trying to say. And what is that? Well, what he's saying is not that all Trump supporters are listless vessels. He's saying that we shouldn't be listless vessels. He's speaking out against the mentality that this mentality that the only thing that matters, the only litmus test, the only test of your conservatism is whether you agree with Trump. And this is a mentality that certainly exists out there.

Would anyone deny it? Are we really going to pretend that that doesn't exist that, that, Nobody feels that way. It exists in the Republican Party. It exists on Fox News. Why are we den—I know why we're—ritorically, why are we denying this? It just seems absurd to pretend that there aren't in some corners a feeling that we should just go along with whatever Trump says and does and never criticize them under any circumstance. Like, of course, that exists.

And what he's saying is that if we follow that mentality, if we go along with that, then we will become listless vessels simply drifting in whatever direction the leader happens to be rowing. And he's saying we shouldn't do that. It's just to pretend that this is an offensive remark is just absurd to me. And if you're doing that, you know what you're doing. You know what you're doing. I know what you're doing. Everyone knows what you're doing. So let's just stop playing these games.

And by the way, this kind of mentality that, well, just go along with whatever the leader is doing. That exists in both political parties. It exists in all of politics throughout history. It's not, he didn't say it's unique to Trump. This is a, this, you know, you can find this in the Democrat Party too with Biden. But his point is that, no, we have, you know, we have our path and we know it is the right path. We have to hold our leaders accountable. And we cannot determine who is fraudulent, who is sincere based entirely on their view of one guy, or entirely based on their, quote, quote, loyalty to one guy.

That is not the mentality that we should have. And I think that most people agree with that intuitively. And so that's it. All right. Actually, I have one more political story. this is from the Hill, said Senator Joe Manchin accused both parties of villainizing each other on Sunday as the moderate Democrat continues to fuel speculation about a potential third-party White House bid with the bipartisan group, no labels. If you're a Democrat, they expect you to villainize every Republican.

If you're a Republican, you should villainize the Democrats. Manchin told radio talk show host Joe Katsimodidis on W-A-B-C-A-M's The Cats Roundtable. That's not the way our founding fathers attended for this Democratic. to work, he added, it was intended for us to work together. Some real insight here. Some real incredible insight, very interesting. Did you know the two sides villainize each other? It'd be nicer if everyone could hold hands and get along?

Great stuff from Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin committed the efforts by no labels, which has been pushing a potential unity ticket as a third option in the 2024 presidential race. He said, all they're asking for is, do the CISISISC, the United States wants some other options. The West Virginia Senator, who has so far refused to rule out a third-party bid, stoked fears among fellow Democrats last month when he headlined No Labels event with former Utah Governor Joe John Huntsman.

Former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the founding chairman of the Labels, similarly lamented an interview on Sunday that there is currently too much hatred in Washington. Okay, so it's my only point here. If you hear about this No Labels thing, this is what it is. And this is the problem with third parties. Now, in a perfect world, if I had my way, we would not have a political system dominated by two parties, especially not these two parties. But in practice, any attempt to make a third option just ends up like this. You know, you have a third version of what the other two already are. Joe Lieberman and John Huntsman and Joe Manchin, these are not radical third alternatives with new and exciting ideas. These are the the same guys that have been running the country for decades, right? I mean, it's been these same guys. It's very much part of the swamp, part of the D.C. It's no difference. The same people, just with a softer tone. See, that's what the third party really becomes. It becomes

another Democrat party with a slightly softer tone, which is what the Republican Party already is, too. So all we have are Democrat parties in different variations. same way with the Libertarian Party I mean look at the people they nominate for president so it's almost pointless to talk about the possibility of third parties and would you support that there is no anytime a new third party movement springs up in this country it is

it is either immediately co-opted by Washington by the same two-party system that already exists or it's a creation which is just no labels thing. It's a creation of the current two-party system. So nothing new here, nothing exciting, certainly. Here's a funny tweet. This is unintentionally funny from Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali. Here's what he tweeted.

Finish my Friday prayer at my local mosque where the imam prayed that we would be saved from the LGBTQ in our homes. Democrats are underestimating how pervasive GOPCRT and trans fear messaging slash propaganda has taken hold in religious communities and suburbs, you can't ignore it. Okay, now, first of all, that's a great prayer by that imam. I wish more Christian pastors would offer prayers like that. Second, it is, of course, hilarious that Wajahat Ali would try to blame the GOP for the conservatism of Islam. Apparently, this dude thinks that Islam was founded like sometime in 2019 or something.

In reality, and this may be news to him, but Islam is an ancient religious. religion and that imam was was offering a prayer fully in line with Islamic teaching that goes back to its founding. Okay, that's the reality, plain and simple. The truth is that, and here's the point, LGBT activists are the ones preaching something new. Islam isn't. In fact, Islam's positions on this topic, it's position on this topic, it's fully in line with every other ancient religion and nearly every ancient code of conduct or moral system dating back thousands of years. The idea, on the other hand, that you should just have sex with whoever you want, and that

procreation and sex are two entirely different things, and that you can not only have sex with whatever gender you want, but you can be whatever gender you want yourself. This idea cannot be found in any religion or any moral system or any philosophy anywhere in the world. certainly not Islam, but also nowhere else, until today, until about 17 seconds ago. So the LGBT activists, again, are the ones proposing something totally new, which okay, you are allowed to propose a new idea. You're allowed to do that. But admit that that's what you're doing.

Okay, instead of this absurd sharray, that LGBT activists are always putting on, where they're pretending that, oh, no, our ideas, you know, this has always been there. You know, you could find trans and non-binary people in the Bible. Ancient native populations had transgenderism 1500 years ago. You know, this is always, in fact, it's only in the modern age that we came up with the gender binary and all this stuff. instead of doing that, which is all completely ridiculous and not true, instead just say, hey, everybody listen. You know, everyone in the world has been wrong about sex and gender since forever. Everybody is wrong, but we, okay, we here with the green hair and the facial piercings

and the leather bondage gear that we wear in public for our parades, we are right, okay? we have realized something that nobody else ever knew. And here it is. Listen up. And then present your idea. Your idea that biology is made up and that people can, you know, that women have penises and that, you should just have sex with whoever you want to without any kind of, you know, sex is something that exists entirely outside of the moral realm.

There are no moral laws or rules that apply to sex whatsoever. Just come out and say that. And then we can analyze your ideas on their merits. And we can quickly see that your ideas are insane and lead to nothing but destruction and misery and despair. And we know about the destruction, misery, despair, because we can look at you. And we can see everything about you and see that, wow, these, yeah, whatever made those people like that, we don't want that. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to present it that way for precisely that reason.

You know, this reminds me on Twitter this weekend, I don't remember who, but someone tweeted, kind of a viral tweet about their experience with a Christian evangelist that knocked on their door. And this woman said, you know, a Christian, whoever knocked on my door and wanted to tell me about Jesus, and I was very polite to them, but I declined. And then she said, well, you know, we're always told that the LGBT people are indoctrinated. and all that, but they're not the ones knocking on your door trying to evangelize you. They don't do that. And of course, the response to that is, yeah, you're exactly right.

They don't. Okay, because that's what Christians will. That's what Christian evangelists will do. They'll knock on your door and they'll say, hey, I want to tell you about my faith. I want to tell you what I believe. And talking to another adult, here it is, here are my ideas. LGBT activists don't have the guts or the honesty to ever do anything like that. They're not going to door-to-door evangelize.

They're not going to knock on your door and talk to you as an adult and say, hey, listen, I got some ideas. Here's my ideas. I want to tell you about them. But they won't do that because they don't want their ideas to be scrutinized. That's why instead they play the constant sleight of hand tricks. And especially that's why they go to kids in school, captive audiences and public audiences and public. school, kids that don't know enough to scrutinize what they're being told, and they indoctrinate kids at the youngest ages. So that's the difference here. And most of all, they can never just be

honest about it. They want to fool you into thinking that, well, hey, if you're a Muslim, then actually everything that we're, you already agree with everything we're saying. This has always been in your faith. And the other thing you can tell by these lies is that they just have no respect for the intelligence of the people that they're lying to. All right, quickly, here's another big controversy, an important controversy. It deals with a timeless question, one that has perplexed humans for millennia. And the question is this, should you crack an egg on your child's head? Is that a good parenting strategy or a poor one?

It's an interesting question. Here's the Daily Mail. Parents were today facing a furious backlash over a new TikTok challenge that sees them cracking eggs on their children's heads. Footage shows toddlers left confused in pain or bursting into tears after the egg-cracking. challenge, which some have compared to child abuse. So these videos from TikTok are going viral and people have lots of opinions. Mostly their opinions are this is very bad. This is abusive. Lots of people are very upset about this. Here's one video that I saw pop up on Twitter, and this one got tens of millions of views. Again, most of the reaction has been extremely

negative. People are very upset about this. But here's what the egg crack challenge looks like. Watch. Go. Crack it. Ready? Yeah. How long does this go on? It's like a 25-minute video parents cracking eggs on their kid's head. This is what you get on TikTok. Now, okay, let me just, I'll give the official verdict on this situation.

A lot of the reaction on the internet has been overwrought, as you might expect from the internet. This is not physical abuse. Okay, you're not going to give a kid a concussion with an egg. No one's going to go to the hospital with a skull fracture because they had an egg on their head. Should you do this to your kid, though? Well, the problem is that most of these kids are too young. A young child isn't going to understand. He's not going to get the joke and will just be disturbed and confused by it and start crying. And you don't want to make your kid cry. It's not fun or funny, which is exactly what you see in these videos, which is why I would never do this to my three-year-old daughter. Like she would lose her mind. Okay. Now, my 10-year-old son or my 6-year-old son, on the other hand, they would laugh hysterical. It would be the funniest thing that ever happened to them. They would tell everyone. It would. It would tell everyone. be hilarious for them. The only problem is that then they would start doing it. Like,

if I do that to my 10-year-old son, he would laugh hysterically and then take out an egg and do it to himself. And then there'd just be egg all over the place. So that's the age of the child matters, the temperament of the child matters, and you have to take these things into consideration. Also, the rapport you have with your child, if you aren't the kind of parent who horses around with your kids normally and plays pranks on them, but then you do this out of nowhere for TikTok, they're going to be totally confused and weirded out. That's the other thing you see in this video. These kids, they're not used to their mothers playing around with them like this.

And so they're like, what are you doing? Understandably so. And that's really the point here. Doing this for TikTok, that's the problem. That's what I have an issue with. If you just came to me and told me that the other day you were making scrambled eggs with your kid and you just kind of like, you weren't filming it, but you just spontaneously crack the egg on the kid's head

because you thought it'd be funny and you thought they'd get a kick out of it. But then they didn't, and they started crying and you felt bad. If you just told me about that, I wouldn't say, oh, this, you're an abuser. I'm calling CPS. No, I think, you know what I think? I'd think, oh, well, you're spending time with your kid,

you're making breakfast, you're including them, and then you're horsing around, you're being spontaneous. Sounds to me like you're a good parent. You went a little overboard with the egg thing. You thought they'd find it funny. They didn't. It happens. No big deal. But when you do it for TikTok, it's not spontaneous. You're not just having fun with your kid. You are harvesting your child for social media engagement. And that is the problem. That's the issue I have with all these different.

Every week, it's another prank that parents are playing on their kids. And usually what happens is that, you know, the VIII. videos you see the kid reacts in a negative way and they don't think it's funny. And then people respond by saying like the prank itself is this terrible, horrible thing. And maybe sometimes there are different pranks. I can't think of all them. But that's not usually the issue. It's like if you want to joke around with your kid, that's fine.

But the problem is that you're not doing this because you're trying to have fun with your kid or you're just a fun, funny parent who's joking around. You're doing it because you're doing it for the. audience out there. Okay, you're taking this moment that should just be, like, it's like, first of all, why, you're making scrambled eggs with your kid. That's a great thing to do. But at what point do you think I got to get my phone out and film doing this? Every Saturday morning, I make scrambled eggs for them. It's like, it's a family tradition. I'll make a breakfast. I never think to take my phone out, and my kids will always come in.

They want to crack an egg. They want to do whatever. They want to flip, they want to scramble the eggs. they want to flip the bacon, they want to do different things. I never think to myself, I got to get this on can. I got to film this. Because it's not for an audience. It's just a moment in your family. Let it be that. Everyone doesn't need to see it.

And so that's the issue. When you make it into a spectacle for the public, that's when it becomes a problem. And that's the problem with all these different kinds of videos. But also, yes. Whether you're running the camera or not, don't hit your three-year-old over. to head with an egg. It's like they're not going to find a funny. Okay, let's get to the comment

section. When it comes to carrying your valuables or self-defense items in your vehicle, most people feel they have to choose between safety and convenience. So on breaking in your car, we'll typically check the glove box, under the seats, under the center console. Well, now we can outsmart them with the headrest safe, which gives you convenience and peace of mind. The headrest safe is exactly what it sounds like. You can replace your standard headrest in your car with easy to access safe. To access the safe, you just pull the side part off, and you can either use your fingerprint, use a key or manually type in the code to open the safe. It's your choice. There's no way that anyone would know that your headrest safe is even there. And even if they did, there's no way

they could get it open without using one of the three methods to unlock. And the headrest safe is a universal design that allows it to fit all vehicles. And the best part is these come in a variety of colors to match the interior of your car as well. I have their black leather Vulcan headrests for my vehicle, and I love it. I took my family out to dinner last week. And the restaurant only had valet parking. Thanks to my headrest safe, I was able to leave valuables in the car and kept them safe without any worry at all. Depending on the day, I'll put self-defense items, cash, medications, and the safe gives them peace of mind knowing that it will stay out of the hands of our kids, the valets, intruders, anyone. So what are you waiting for? Save $100 today at

theheadrestsafe.com with promo code Walsh. Check out, that's theheadrestsafe.com, promo code Walsh. Yankee stacking says, Matt, we're officially past the good times create weak men stage. We've definitively started the weak men create tough times phase of our failing culture. There's no doubt about that. But the good news is that individually we can still choose to skip ahead in the process, right? And individually, we can choose to be the tough men who are created by hard times rather than the weak men creating the hard times. So I think broadly speaking, you're correct, but on an individual level, that's really up to us. Tyson says, man, I remember walking for miles and filling out 30 applications in a day

when trying to get a job. I did the same thing. I mean, it used to be standard practice. If you want a job, you apply at dozens of places. And, you know, kids, before the age of the Internet, or at least before the Internet was the, was the ubiquitous thing that it is today. if you wanted to apply for a bunch of jobs, oftentimes you couldn't do it on the internet.

You had to actually go physically into these places and ask for a job application and fill it out right there and hand it back to them. That was a thing. That's what we used to do. And that's, you know, getting a job is a full-time job. That's what they used to say. But the difference is that now

a lot of people don't want jobs to begin with, and that's the part that I'll never understand. Now, the total lack of ambition, if we're talking about kids that were 16 or 17 years old, I get that. When I was 16 and 17 years old, I had jobs because I was forced to, but I hated every second of it, and I was salking about it a lot. I just didn't want to do it because I'm 16 or 17 years old. I don't want to have to work. My parents made me work anyway. But by the age of 20 or 21, and from then on, once I was an adult, a grown man, I wanted to work. I wanted to be successful. I wanted to support myself.

I desired success. I had ambition. And when you don't find that in young adults, again, I'm not talking about teenagers. Teenagers is pretty common, that this slacker mentality is pretty common. But in young adults, that's supposed to be the time when you're just like on fire with ambition. you have big dreams and hopes and goals for the world. And, you know, if anything, people should be trying to dial you back should be saying, well, no, you can't take on everything all at once.

Like, hey, let's, you don't want to take too many risks. Let's, let's dial back a little bit. That's what the older adult world should be saying to you. If you're 23 years old, well, you should be hearing from older adults is, hey, let's calm down, sport. Let's take it one step at a time here. you shouldn't still have to have people that are like prodding you along and saying like get get up and try to do something with your life what are you doing it's a total lack of ambition is uh i think a hard for me to relate to on any level at all but also just a major civilizational level problem that we have um and jerry says he gave me a new respect for my brother-in-law he chose he chose one he does not care about having

nice things. He chose to live in poverty as long as he can smoke pot all day, watch TV and play video games. Well done, well done. I thought he was a waste of a human life. Well, no, Jerry, you were right the first time. On Friday, I talked about choosing one vice or the other, materialism or laziness. Obviously, it's better to have neither vice. That's the best scenario, is to be neither lazy or materialistic. To be neither slothful nor greedy is best. But, But if you have to have one, only have one. And the problem is that these days a lot of people have both. They are both materialistic and lazy.

They are both greedy and slothful. So they want a lot of things. They want a lot of luxuries, but they don't want to work for it. And my point is that if you don't want to work, you should at least be the kind of person who doesn't want a lot of things. And if you want a lot of things and you're materialistic, then you should at least be the kind of person who works hard to get those things. but what we end up with in the culture these days are a lot of people who are kind of the worst of all worlds in the case of your brother-in-law first of all if he plays video games and smokes weed all day then there's no way he's supporting himself you can't support yourself on a lifestyle like that

there's no way that he's paying for whatever house or apartment he's playing the video games in he's not paying for the video games he's not paying for the tv the streaming services that he watches probably not even paying for the weed so this is someone who very much falls into the worst of all worlds category that I was talking about. He wants all the luxuries, the video games, the weed, the streaming services, the TV, doesn't want to pay for them. So someone else does, presumably his parents, but I don't know. What I was talking about is, let's say there was someone, and this, you don't find this

very often, that's the point, but let's say there was someone who said, you know, I really don't want to have a job, the nine to five hustle and busts all want to leave behind. I don't want any part of that. And so instead they do something radical with their lives to escape that. Okay, if it becomes like the Christopher McCandless into the wild sort of thing, where he burned his Social Security card, his driver's license, just set out on foot across the country, ended up in the Alaskan wilderness, lived there by himself,

eventually died of poisoning because he ate the wrong kind of berry, which is like inevitably how that story is probably going to end. But that's, if you really are, you know, if you really are, you don't want any part of the nine to five. job thing. And you want to live a different kind of life. Well, I can respect that at least if you go that direction. But that's not what people end up doing.

They don't want the 9 to 5 job, but they still want all the benefits and the luxuries and the frills and the comforts that come with that. And that's the issue. Are you sick of woke corporations dragging your values through the mud? Well, you can wash your hands of it all with Jeremy's brand new hand soap. Jeremy's hand soap is the perfect solution for everyday grit and grime. Not to mention it smells amazing is it's scented with green tea and citrus. Jeremy actually cares about you so he didn't put any of that paraben crap in his hand soap.

Not only is it paraben free, but it's also free of sulfades, DEI, and ESG for that matter. Plus, it's not tested on animals and it's made right here in the USA. Most important thing to me is that it's not tested on animals. What more could you want from your hand soap than to get clean hands while keeping a clean conscience? So do yourself a favor and wash your hands of hypocritical leftists once for all. Jeremy's hand soap is the ideal addition to your bathroom or kitchen sink as you liberate your home from the influence of woke companies. Go to jeremy's raisers.com. Order your green tea and citrus hand soap today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You would hope that the silver lining around our mortality, one of the benefits of dying, is that at least you're finally spared from our incredibly woke and tremendously stupid.

But the problem is that our culture is so incredibly woke and so tremendously stupid that you can't even fully escape it in death. long after you've died, your body decomposed into the ground, the woke brigade might still come along and cancel you. Now, granted, when you're dead, you probably won't care very much. Things will either be going so well for you at that point or so poorly that it's not going to bother you much either way to find out that you've caused an extremely belated controversy on Twitter. But those of us who are still alive, we'll have to deal with it. So even if you aren't troubled, it's annoying as hell for the rest of us. And that brings us to Judy Garland, who is the latest dead person to find that. themselves on the cancellation chopping block.

Garland died over 50 years ago, but that didn't stop her from provoking mass outrage on multiple social media platforms over the weekend when the woke brigade found out that Judy Garland in the 1930s, almost 100 years ago, did Blackface. Now, one of the posts calling attention to this fact came from some random Twitter account that published an image of the actress in Blackface along with this caption, quote, two movies a year apart, same. Shout out to Gen Z for teaching me this. Now, that post was viewed 57 million times.

TikTokers also got in on the action. Here's another random account that managed to get a lot of traction with a post calling attention to the Blackface issue. Watch. Talk about Judy Garland as a child in Blackface. Coming for to carry me home. Oh, I come from South. From way down south Where the cold amputators used to grow

There's great big elegant pictures show And my old Kentucky home is a French chateau Way down south in Dixie, sweet more Sweet I think we got something there I said we have All right So that's real music at least

Now from there the media jumped into action outlets like Newsweek and the Daily Dot published articles on the subject. The rap had this headline, Judy Garland criticized for wearing blackface in 1938. White people found this an acceptable form of entertainment. Yes, those dastardly white people. It's important that we spend all of our time looking for all the bad things white people did in history. We must leave no stone unturned. Did anyone of any other race enjoy forms of entertainment in 1938 that we today would find offensive?

Well, who cares? That's not important. All that matters is what white people were doing wrong. And here's another thing that they were doing wrong. Of course, if you really want to be upset about white people on blackface, you don't have to go back that far. I mean, there's always Justin Trudeau or Jimmy Kimmel. But Trudeau is a leftist, and Kimmel voted for Biden, so they get off the hook. Now, Garland probably also voted for Biden since she's dead, but that did not absolve her apparently.

Now, we should note that some people did come to Judy Garland's defense. They swept into add nuance and content. contextualize the Judy Garland Blackface scandal. And although these nuance adders are less crazy and slightly less obnoxious than the woke mob, they still missed the point by several thousand miles. Watch this. Judy Garland was trending yesterday on the app formerly known as Twitter. Let's discuss. This user expressed their outrage at finding out that Judy Garland had made films with blackface. If you don't know me, hi, my name is Tori. I'm a Wizard of Oz historian and collector, and as such, I know a lot about Judy Garland, her filmography, and her career. Before we begin, I want to start

by giving a trigger warning because I will be showing images and some clips from films that have black-faced scenes. But I hope even if you are made uncomfortable by this type of content, you will try to muddle through because it's important to talk about. I'd also like to add the caveat that I'm coming at this from the perspective of a white person, and therefore my voice in this conversation is not as important as black voices. Well, if you were hoping for a rational, common-sense perspective, you've already heard three things here that should temper those expectations. Specifically, there's her caveat that her voice doesn't matter because she's white. Also, she unironically offers trigger warnings, and perhaps most concerning of all,

she identifies herself as a Wizard of Oz historian, which sounds a bit like claiming that you're an anthropologist who specializes in studying the ancient kingdom of Wakanda. We're not starting on the right foot here, to put it mildly, but let's keep listening anyway. Here it is. I'm not going to sit here and make apologies for blackface or to try to justify it. It's gross. It's gross. But here's the truth about Judy Garland's participation in this. She had no agency over what roles she did.

Here is Judy Garland signing her MGM contract at the age of 13, in which she also agreed to give her mother, Ethel Gum, a portion of her weekly paycheck, making her the main breadwinner for her entire family. Louis B. Mayor was not shy about making sure that his stars stuck to their contracts. Judy Garland was assigned scripts to do, and then she did them. Two movies, a year apart, same. Because it's much easier to just blame Judy Garland rather than patriarchal system that made her decisions for her. And there it is.

Let's not cancel Judy Garland from the year 1938. Let's instead cancel the patriarchy from the year 1938. This is what we get from Garland's defenders. Though she does make one correct point, which has been echoed by nearly everyone else defending Judy Garland from this posthumous cancellation attempt, it's true that she was a kid when she performed in blackface. She didn't have full agency over her decisions. All of that is true. But it's also not really the reason why it's so stupid to get offended by a blackface performance from the 1930s.

The real reason is simply that performing in blackface in the 1930s was not some great sin back then. It doesn't matter how old she was at the time. What matters is the time, the 1930s. That's the only relevant detail here. That's all that needs to be said. Blackface was not a big deal in the 1930s. Now, we might consider it a big deal today, unless you're the Canadian Prime Minister,

but the people living in the 1930s were living in the 1930s, not in the modern age. They just didn't see it that way. You can say, well, they should have seen it that way. Yeah, but they didn't. Okay, so they just didn't. That's all. judging them by modern standards, it's not just unfair and wrong, though it is both of those things.

It's also incoherent. It doesn't make sense. You might as well say that Johnny Unitas wasn't a good quarterback because he never scored any home runs. You're judging by a completely different set of standards. It doesn't mean anything. See, I will never stop marveling at the fact that we live in a society filled with moral relativists who are relativistic about everything except the one thing they should be. you know, in a certain sense, relativistic about. Most of the time, these people can be heard saying things like, hey, I'm just living my truth, man. Hey, don't impose your morality on me. Normally they would say that truth and morality are fundamentally and substantively relative,

that they change entirely from person to person. And yet when it comes to assessing the actions of our ancestors, of people who lived decades and centuries ago, these very same people suddenly become merciless and stringent moralists, imposing one unwavering set of morals on people who don't agree with it. Now, the irony, of course, is that this one time when they drop the relativistic gig is the one time when it would actually apply, again, in a certain sense. And let me explain what that sense is.

Moral truth does not change over time. What is objectively immoral today was objectively immoral 90 years ago and 900 years ago. So moral truth is not relative. However, moral culpability is relative. You don't need to factor in the century and decade when a sin occurred in order to decide if it was a sin. But you do need to factor those things in if you're trying to assign moral responsibility for those sins. And if you're trying to assess the degree of moral responsibility, a wrong action does not become more or less wrong over time. But an individual can be more or less responsible for that wrong action over time,

which means that the amount of personal responsibility that we should assign to individuals for racial insensitivity in the 1930s or any time period before that is basically nothing. Okay, essentially no responsibility. Racial sensitivity, as we recognize it today, did not exist in the world anywhere among any group of people a century ago. How much blame should we give to any one individual for not having personally achieved a racial enlightenment that nobody else in their world had achieved either? How much guilt should we assess to people who failed to have developed the kind of racial sensitivities that nobody else on the globe during that era had developed either?

The answer to those questions is basically none. And this is the fact you have to deal with. People in history saw the world differently. They saw each other differently. They therefore acted very differently. And that's just the way it was. You can be mad about it. You can be upset.

You can make your tummy hurt. But your anger is futile and stupid. And you are stupid. And mostly it is a cover. an excuse. I'll back up. It's not, yeah, you're stupid, but you're also a coward. Okay, it's cowardice as well. Because you want to spend your time blaming other people for their lack of moral insight while not thinking at all about your own inadequacies in that regard. Judy Garland didn't see a problem with blackface because really nobody at that time saw a problem

with it. And you can waste time canceling Judy Garland for that, or you can ask yourself, what evils do you support and promote today just because everyone else supports and promotes it? Where are your moral blind spots? Maybe stop and think about that before you go searching for another dead person to lecture for their shortcomings. And that is why those who are trying to cancel Judy Garland

are themselves today, certainly canceled. That'll do it for this portion of shows. We'll move over to the members block. Become a member today by using Code Wall. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Hope to you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.