The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 303 - Ilhan Omar Is A Bigot Living In A Fantasy World

Episode Date: July 25, 2019

Today on the show, Ilhan Omar, the unapologetic bigot, says that people in this country should fear white men because white men cause most of the deaths. This is not only racist but false. I'll correct the record today. Also, is America one of the worst countries for women? "Experts" say so. Date: 07-25-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, Ilhan Omar, the unapologetic bigot, says that people in this country should fear white men because white men cause most of the deaths in this country, she says. This is not only bigoted but false, and I will correct the record today. Also, speaking of correcting the record, is America one of the worst countries for women in the world? Experts, quote-unquote, say so. We'll look at the facts today on the Matt Wall's show. Well, put your conspiracy caps on folks because Jeffrey Epstein was found injured in prison in his prison cell. He's found injured. Not much else is known. Other than that, he was found laying in his cell, marks around his neck, poor guy. Was he assaulted? Did he try to kill himself? Did he fake a suicide attempt in hopes of being transferred or something like that? We don't know. Based on what little we know, I tend to suspect maybe the third option,

but who knows? Yet, of course, the white. wild conspiracy theories start online, maybe the Clintons tried to off him because he knows too much. Maybe Trump tried to off him, you know, maybe it was aliens. Well, I hate to be the one to ruin all of these cinematic plot lines, but I think if a powerful person is sending a hitman to prison to kill you, you aren't going to end up with minor lacerations around your neck. I think that, I mean, that's one ineffective assassin. And so it just doesn't, I mean, I don't really know. My experience with hiring prison assassins is admittedly limited.

It's really, for me, it's sort of a once in a while type of thing that I do that. But, you know, when you're what, when the wife really nags you about it, says, hey, did you hire that prison assassin yet? I'll get, I said I would. I'll get around to it. Get off my case. You know, that kind of thing. So I'm not an expert, is the point. Here's a general rule, though.

that I think people need to understand, even if it is kind of depressing, of all the possible explanations, and this is a general statement, of all the possible explanations, the most boring one is always right every time. Whatever the situation is, the most boring possible explanation is going to be correct. And I think if you remember that, life will start to make a lot more sense to you, even if life is a little bit less interesting when you start looking at it that way.

That is going to be most of the time correct. All right. I want to begin with something that I think is instructive. Our friend Ilhan Omar, there's a video, another video, from last year that has resurfaced, resurfaced, as they say. She was on Al Jazeera, and she was asked whether Islamophobia can't be, in some sense, justified

based on the fact that radical Muslims kill so many people. And so maybe people are afraid for a reason, given all this terrorism and violence. And she responded by, of course, as she tends to do, spewing ignorant bigotry. Watch this. A lot of conservatives in particular would say that the rise in Islamophobia as a result, a lot of hate, but a fear, a legitimate fear, they say, of quote-unquote, jihadist terrorism, whether it's Fort Hood or San Bernardino or the recent truck attack in New York. What do you say to them? I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.

We should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men. Okay, now, she could have said to that question, I don't expect her to say that, oh, yeah, well, Islamophobia is totally justified. Muslims are just the worst, man. I don't expect that answer, okay? She could have said, we shouldn't fear anybody based on their race or ethnicity. judge people on a case-by-case basis, so on and so forth. That's the answer that a non-bigot would have given. Instead, she says, no, we should fear the white man. We should be fearful of white men because white men are causing most of the deaths in our country. That's what she said,

causing most of the deaths in our country. Now, it is not, this woman now, God help us, is a lawmaker. She's also got to help us one of the more influential voices in politics today. So when she says something like that, it's not splitting hairs or being pedantic to analyze that claim. That's a startling claim. And it's a claim that people believe you'd be amazed if you try, maybe you wouldn't be. You have this conversation, as I have been online this morning. There are a lot of people who think that's true, who actually believe that because they hear it from people like Ilhan Omar. And they think, oh, yeah, well, white men by far kill the most people. Now, when she says causing most of the deaths, I'm going to assume. Now, I will do her one favor.

I'm going to do her a favor, and I'm going to assume that she doesn't mean that completely literally. Okay, because the leading causes of death are heart disease, car accidents, respiratory disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes. these are the leading causes of death. I assume she is not suggesting that the white man is engineering all of that. Although, honestly, who knows? I mean, I wouldn't put a pastor to make that claim. But I'm going to assume I'm going to be generous and assume she didn't mean that. I'll assume that what she meant is that white men are responsible for most of the murders in this country, causing most of the death.

To cause death, I'll assume she means that in a sense of murdering people. And if that's what she means, then she's still wrong. She is still catastrophically, insanely, incredibly wrong. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, white people in general, not just men, but people, because women do kill people too, despite what you may have heard. And in fact, we are in this whole conversation, we're just leaving out the 800 or 900,000 babies who are killed every year in this country. If you were to allow that into evidence, if that could be submitted into evidence, then in fact, the leading murderers in America would be women.

But we're going to look at, we're going to look at law enforcement statistics for this. So I'm, you know, I'm doing Ilhan Amar a lot of favors here. I'm ruling that out. I'm trying, I'm trying to see her comments in the most sensible light possible. So what do we find? White people in general commit 45% of all murders, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics. Black people commit 52% of all murders. Now, this is remarkable because white people are 75% of the population. Black people are 13%. 75% of the population commits 45% of the murders, 13% commits 52. Those are facts. Okay? White people are way, way, way, way underrepresented in the murder stats. Again, that's a simple fact.

And that's all it is. If we're going to talk specifically about terrorism, that's not what she said. She said we should fear the white man because they're the ones killing most of the people. And when we look at that statistic, again, it is proven utterly bogus. No basis in reality whatsoever. Let's look at terrorism, though. If we look at specifically a terrorism, and if we take a global view of the problem, well, let's just put it this way.

According to the Global Terrorism Index, far-right groups killed, so-called far-right groups killed. And we won't even get into how they judge far-right. For instance, any anti-Semitic, any time a white person commits an anti-Semitic hate crime, which we know does happen, they're going to call that far-right. which personally, I think we could quibble with that. But I won't for this. So they say far-right groups killed 66 people across the entire world between 2013 and 2017, according to the global terrorism index.

66 people in four years, 2013-2017. Meanwhile, in 2017 alone, just that year, 18,000 total people were killed by terrorists. So you've got 66 people in four years across the entire world killed. by right-wing terrorists, but 18,000 were killed total in just one year in 2017. Who do you think is responsible for almost all of that? I'll put it to you this way. That same index finds that nine of the ten worst countries for terrorism, nine of the ten countries most plagued by terrorism,

are majority Muslim countries, with one outlier, number 10 being India. India is like 15% Muslim. So again, those are the facts. In order to make white men the greatest danger, you have to really do some serious special pleading. And you do hear this from people. Like I said, I've been hearing it this morning that white men are the biggest dangers. Right-wing groups are more dangerous in America than Islamic terrorists or any other terrorists.

Now, you can make any statistic work if you, if you will, down the parameters in a really specific way in order to make it work. That's called special pleading. And if you do that, then sure, you can make that happen. So how do people do that? How do they reach the conclusion? If you wanted to claim that right-wing terror groups, white people, in other words, are the deadliest, the most dangerous, how are you going to do that? Well, a report from the government accountability office in 2017 found that right-wing terror groups were responsible for more deaths than Islamic groups. In fact, when you hear this claim, it's most of the time, if they will, well, most of the time, they're not going to cite it. They're not going to give you a

citation at all. Whoever's making the claim you ask for a citation, they won't have one. But if they do have one and they provide it to you, probably it's going to be this, or something based on this. Well, how do they arrive at that conclusion? I'll quote now from their report. It says, of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in deaths, since September 12, 2001, far-right politics, violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 of the deaths, 73% total, while radical Islamist violent extremist groups were responsible for 23. That's 27%. The total number of fatalities is 106 for far-right violent extremists and 119 for radical Islamist

violent extremists over the approximately 15-year period. However, 52% of the deaths attributable to radical Islamist violent extremists. dreamers occurred in a single event, an attack on Paul's Nightclub in Orlando, Florida in 2016. Okay. Hmm. Since September 12th, 2001, why such a specific date? I mean, why not since the turn of the millennium? Why not in the past 20 years?

Or past 30? I mean, it says they're approximately 15-year period. Well, why not a 15-year period from when this study was done? This study counted 2001 to 2016. It said approximately 15. Why not just make it 15? 2001 to 2016. Well, we know why, of course, because the deadliest attack on American soil in history

happened on September 11th, and that was brought to us, courtesy of Muslims. So in other words, if you don't count the deadliest attack on American soil, ever in history, which happened in this century. It's not ancient history. Now, if it happened a hundred years ago and you weren't counting it, then fine. Okay, so if you were doing 2001 to 2015 or 2016 and the worst attack in history was done by Muslims, you know, in 1907 or something, then I think that's fair. But when you are specifically making the parameters to start the day after that attack and to go and to, and to go 15 years before, it's, as I said, I mean, this is the definition of special pleading. You know what conclusion you want, and so you're engineering it to get that conclusion.

It's just a worthless statistic. If we include the deadliest attack in American history, which is recent history, still recent, then you find that deaths by Muslim terrorists way outnumber. I mean, then it's over 3,000. verse, what do they say, 106, well, since this report, there have been other, there have been other mass casualty events. So, you know, let's say one, 120 or something verse over 3,000. I mean, it's just, it's not even close. And the really absurd thing is that even in this report, they're also, now they know they can't do it, but they also say, well, also keep in mind that,

that half of the deaths by Muslims was just at one event. So what they really want to do is they want you to exclude that one too. That's kind of what they're saying. It's like, well, you know, that one. So let's exclude that. That's an outlier. Let's exclude 9-11. And then it's like a Muslim haven't killed anybody practically.

I mean, if you exclude all of the incidents of them killing people, they haven't killed anybody. It's just, you see what has to be done to make the white man the biggest threat? you see how ludicrously specific and tailor-made the parameters have to be in order to get to that conclusion? Now, this is instructive, and here's really the point to me, is that what you see here from Ilhan Omar, this is bigotry. What Omar is saying is bigotry. And I know you can say, well, she said that white men kill the most people, and you're saying that's bigoted, but you just said that black people are responsible for 52% of murders, even though the 13% population, isn't that bigoted on your part to bring that up? No, it's not. And I'll tell you the difference,

because what I said is true. Okay, so a fact can never be racist. I want to say that again, a fact can never be racist because it's a fact. Now, you could use a fact to come to a racist conclusion. That's true. It's very possible for a racist person to take facts and then arrive at racist conclusions. Absolutely. But to simply cite a fact, especially in contradiction of a of a falsehood, in order to correct the falsehood, that's not racist. It just is. That's just is the fact. I'm not, I'm not arriving at any conclusion. I'm not saying anything beyond. These are the facts. That's it. Here you go. Arrive at your own conclusions. Ilhan Omar, on the other hand, is saying something that is untrue about a racial group other than her own in order to stoke fear and suspicion of that group.

That is classic bigotry. That's, that's, that's, that is dictionary, textbook dictionary, right? Bigotry right there. Yeah, I just said it's text, it's dictionary, it's dictionary, textbook. dictionary. I can barely even speak. It's so bigoted. It's, it's, it's, it's rendered me almost speechless. But it really is. That's, that's just textbook stuff right there. You are, you're, this is fearmongering. You're making up, uh, these untrue statements about another racial group in order to fear monger. And she was explicit with it, too. She said, we should fear them.

So let, let's imagine for a moment that a, right-wing white politician were to say, hey, you know, black people, they've killed 98% of the people, 98% of murders in this country are from black people. And so we should fear them. Now, if a white politician were to say that, first of all, they'd be run out of office in 30 seconds. You would never see or hear from them ever again on a public stage. That would be it. And that would be bigoted because you were explicitly trying to stoke fear against another racial group. and you're doing it with falsehoods. In fact, even if a white politician were to stick with the facts and were to say, look, black people commit 502% of murders, even though the 13% of the population,

therefore we should fear them. So you started with a fact, but you arrived at a racist conclusion. You're stoking fear. You're saying we should fear an entire race based on this fact. That would be racist too, even though it's based in effect. But when you combine the falsehood with the fear I mean, good Lord. Good Lord. You just, you can't get more racist than that. All right. Speaking of, I'm trying to pull something up as we are speaking of false claims. Want to look at another one today. An article on the website Big Think, which is ironically named, and we'll see why in a minute, has been making the rounds today. Let me read a little bit of this from the articles. is the worst countries in the world to be a woman.

Places torn apart by war or societies stifled by centuries of male patriarchy. A recent survey by the Thomas, the Thompson Reuters Foundation show. So which category does the United States fall into? Because the U.S. made 10th place, the old, I'm sorry, this article is so poorly written. I'm having trouble reading it coherently. Because the U.S. made 10th place, the only Western country on the list, conducted online by phone and in person, between March 26, in May 24th, the survey pulled 548 experts on women's issues spread evenly across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific. Those surveys included academics and policymakers,

health care staff, and NGO workers, aid in development professionals, and social commentators. Social commentator. They're experts. They were asked which five of the UN's 193 member states, but what does it even mean? Let me stop for a minute. Experts on women's issues. What does What does that even mean? How are you, you're an expert on women? What? Can I be an expert on men? So if you want to know about men's issues, can you call me up?

I'm a social commentator and I'm a man, so that makes me an expert. Says they were asked which five of the UN's 193 member states they thought were the most dangerous for women in six areas. Health care, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking. So, okay, I'm just going to, I'll stop reading from the article, which, as I said, is abysmally written. This is from Big Think. Worst countries to be a woman.

Most dangerous countries for women. Let's look then at the top 10 that these experts give us. Number one, India. Number two, Afghanistan. Number three, Syria. Number four, Somalia. Number five. Saudi.

Arabia, number six, Pakistan, number seven, Democratic Republic of Congo, number eight, Yemen, number nine, Nigeria, number 10, the United States. One of these does not belong. That's a, that's a fun game to play. Which of these is not like the other? The U.S. then, according to experts, is more dangers for women than Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan. In fact, in our hemisphere, we are the worst place for women, according to experts. Worse than Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Nicaragua, we're worse than all those places, which is weird because all of those places are places where women are flinging to come here. Turns out we're worse. You know, it turns out we're doing them a favor when we stand at the

border. And if we were to ever build a wall, which looks like it's not going to happen. If we built a big wall that Donald Trump promised and hasn't delivered, and we stood there and we said, no, turn around. We'd be doing them a favor. It's so much worse here, especially if you're a woman. Now, this is obviously completely ridiculous with no basis in reality. There's a reason why they're doing this study by polling so-called experts. Rather than looking at the statistics, you could look at the stats and see murder rate, rates of sex. assault and rape, poverty rate, rates of people being in prison without trial, I mean,

violence against women, domestic, but you could, these things are, these are all statistics. And in some of these countries, it's going to, because some of these countries are just hellholes, it's going to be harder to get statistics from, but you could, you could do it that way. but they're not doing it that way. Instead, they're just going to, they're going to call up 538 random women and say, hey, what do you think about this? Well, just give us your opinion and we'll make a list. So how could anyone actually make this claim? Well, I think for one, what you see here is a very weird kind of self-centeredness. I guarantee that the experts in America, the so-called experts, they were the ones probably saying that America is so bad.

They just assume that their own experience, their own trials, their own tribulations, however petty, must be the worst possible thing. When you hear Americans talk about America as if it's the most dangerous and sexist and bigoted and homophobic place on earth, what you're hearing in part is narcissism. They're saying that because they live here. And so they just assume it has to be whatever they're going through, it's got to be the worst or among the worst things. that anyone could go through. So a woman, a feminist in America, she, if you're a feminist in America, living in a, you know, living in an urban center or whatever, and you're going about your day, what's the sort of everyday incidents of sexism and what's the kind of persecution and depression that you could expect to experience on an everyday basis. Because you know, you can,

you wake up in the house you own because you're allowed to own property in America, which isn't the case in a lot of other countries, especially in the Middle East. You go to your job because you're allowed to have a job in America, not the case in many other countries. Also, we have an economy that allows pretty much anyone to get a job if you really want one, which is not the case in many other countries, including south of the border, which is why they're coming here. You have a nice breakfast, which in many countries, there's not going to be a lot to eat. Venezuela being one of them. You leave your house, you go to your job, you walk down the street, you don't have to really worry. You get on the subway. Okay, well, now that you're on the subway, now we've got our first

incident because there might be man spreading on the subway, right? You get on the subway, there might be, you want to sit down. There might be a guy is spreading his legs a little bit too much and encroaching on your space a little bit. Now, there's also going to be women who take up entire seats with their purses. That's okay. You know, you're allowed to, now a guy who needs to spread his legs a little bit because of, because of the equipment that men carry around. That's not okay. But a woman takes up an entire seat with her purse, with her stuff that she lugs over. That's fine. Anyway, but that's, so there's oppression right there. That's your first incident. It's, it's 9.30 in the morning. You've already, you've already been oppressed. Okay, then you get off

your subway. You walk to work. You're fine. you get to work. And then maybe a male co-worker talks to you. And maybe he's a little bit too friendly. Maybe he complements you. Worst case scenario, maybe he even compliments what you're wearing. It says you look nice today. Maybe he asked you how your weekend went.

I mean, in a nightmare scenario, nightmare, maybe he even say, ask what you're doing later and sees if he want to hang out. God forbid, God forbid. Okay, there's your second incident of oppression. And then you go about your day, you're working, you go home. I mean, so I don't know, maybe we've got two incidents there, persecution for women on an everyday basis. but from the perspective of a feminist in America, that has to be among the worst.

Of course, there are countries where you could essentially as a woman be legally raped. There are countries where you're not allowed to drive. There are countries where you can't, if you walk down the street with anything more than your face showing, you could be stone to death or beaten. There are countries where if you're raped, you could be killed for it. But no, the man spreading on the subway. that's just as bad. It's got to be. You know why? Because it happened to me. I think, and then the other

problem that we have is, and this is, of course, is related. But the other problem is people in this country just having no understanding of, no appreciation of the state of things in other parts of the world. And that's become a big problem, that people in this country are so privileged and so comfortable and just we're so fat and happy and maybe not happy but fat and satiated and comfortable living in luxury we just we have no idea what it's like in other parts of the world and certainly throughout history so we we don't appreciate the fact that in this country you know we have problems in this country that's true but what comes to racism sexism poverty all all those things, it's pretty much as good in this country as it's ever been anywhere.

Could still be better. We could still work on making it better. But it says it's as good as it's ever been. Anywhere. But we have no appreciation for that. And thus we have no gratitude either. And that's, I think, a big part of the problem. All right.

Let's see here. I think we'll move on to emails. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. This is from Bridgett says, Hi, Matt, I just wanted to share a word I found that you were describing your podcast. You were talking about the feeling of recognizing

that everyone around you has their own life that is as important as central as yours is to you. The word for that is Sonder. The definition is the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own. What a humbling feeling. It's pretty cool that enough people have encountered that emotion

that there's a word to describe it. It sort of feels like a proof of shared humanity to me. Anyways, when I found that word, I thought it was awesome, and I just wanted to share it with you. Yeah, we were talking yesterday on the show about, I was having my, I was essentially like a Stone's 16-year-old in his friend's basement trying to get philosophical. Hey, man, have you ever thought about how, like, everybody is a person, man?

I was having that moment. Free of drugs, though, I should mention. I didn't know there was a word for it. Sonder. So where is that word? Is that in the dictionary? That's interesting that there's actually a word for that experience. And that just shows, I guess, what we're talking about, that, you know, you have these experiences, these internal experiences.

You have this internal life and you think, you sort of think you're alone with it. And then you recognize that all these thoughts that you think were unique, where other people have experience the same thing. Which I think is comforting, if you look at it the right way. This is from Nick said, yesterday someone sent me the following quote, enjoy life to the fullest. It has an expiration date. This saying obviously echoes many others with a similar sentiment. Yolo comes to mind. You only live once. Kids used to say that. My question for you is, from a Christian worldview, do you think this is a good, this is good or bad advice? Perhaps the answer hinges on what constitutes a living life to the fullest. Taken to its logical conclusion,

the mindset could be used to justify immoral actions like infidelity, theft, or shaving off a perfectly healthy beard. On the other hand, recognition of one's own mortality and finding joy in life seem perfectly in keeping with the Christian worldview. I'm only asking you to wax philosophical. Consider yourself lucky. This isn't Canada. Yeah, I think if we keep the proper perspective on it, I mean, there's truth to it. It's a cliche. When it comes down to there's really no reason to say it for the simple reason that it's a cliche. There's really no reason to say a cliche. That's a cliche for a reason. We all know it already. It's all, it's in our head. We've encountered it before. So there's no reason to say it for that reason. But yeah, I think that, um,

leaving the cliche nature of it aside, there is truth to the, to the fact that you should enjoy your life. You only get it once. Now, there is, we believe obviously as Christians that there's a life beyond this one. But that doesn't make this life worthless. And I do think that's an important point. And sometimes the way Christians sometimes can tend to talk about it, it's as if they think that this life doesn't mean anything. Of course it means something. God gave us this life to live. And so, and that's why when someone is killed, it's, it is a tragedy. That's why if you lose a loved one, you mourn, even if you know that they hopefully went on to a better place, that there is a life beyond this way. You still mourn because you recognize that something has been lost.

one of my favorite CS Lewis books is a grief observed and that's the book that he wrote after his wife died one of his one of his last book during towards the end of his life he wrote this book and um and i believe the book originally was not he didn't intend to publish it he was just sort of his own he was writing a journal and expressing kind of working through his trauma that he was feeling after his wife died of i believe it was cancer and this is and it's the beginning, it's a very short book, but at the beginning of the book, he's angry at God, he seems almost on the verge of giving up on faith. By the end, he doesn't, spoiler alert. But this is one thing that he talked about. There's a great quote in there, and then I'm going to

have to paraphrase, but he says that, you know, even though he knows that his wife has gone on to the next life, he also knows that this world, this physical world, is completely devoid of her. that if he were to search the entire universe, every crack and crevice of the universe, he would not find her anywhere. She is, she is in a very real sense, gone. And that is, that's not an illusion or something. She really is gone. For all intents and purposes from this world. And that is a sad thing. So, the point is that life is meaningful and so I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, live it to the fullest. But if by that you mean,

throw morality, throw discipline, throw self-control to the side, because when you die, you're just going to decay and fade into nothingness, and there's nothing beyond that. If that's what you mean, then obviously there's a problem. This is from Josh says, hello, Matt. Short version of my question, would you ever leave Twitter, even though I assume doing so would adversely affect your career as immediate personal what would Twitter need to do to make you leave? I've gotten this question several times because we talked, I think it was yesterday or two days ago, we talked about what I think is the most egregious thing Twitter has done.

And they've done a lot of egregious things in terms of their bias against conservatives or their bias in favor of far-left ideology. The most egregious thing is the case with this man who's trying to sue women in Canada to get his genitals waxed. and he has been harassing women online and the women who have stood up to him, one in particular, who he harassed and mocked in a sexually degrading way, she stood up to him and responded in kind and was perfectly justified to do it. She was banned from Twitter permanently and he's still there, even though this guy is a creep and a predator and just a monster in many ways,

from the way that he treats women and other things as well. after we talked about that, I had a lot of emails like this. People saying, well, okay, if you think Twitter's so bad, why don't you sign off? Why don't you leave? Why don't you boycott it? And I understand that question. That is something that I struggle with. The easy cop-out answer is that for me, with my job, I really, I have to be on it. I can't leave it, at least not by my own choice. That's the cop-out answer. But even if I didn't have sort of a professional obligation to be on Twitter and to be on social media, given my job, I don't know if I would leave it. Because if I can use the platform, if I'm able to use the platform to undermine Twitter's own ideological agenda, if I can use this platform to get the truth out there, to get conservative ideas out there, then why wouldn't I use it? I'll use it until I can't anymore until they take it from me. So what I've decided, and I've long ago decided this with Twitter, with Facebook too, but especially with Twitter, that as long as I have this platform and I can use it to speak the truth, I'm going to do that. I'm not going to censor myself at all. So that is my personal pledge. I'm not going to, now if you're if you're on Twitter, you're on these social media sites and you're censoring yourself in order to maintain that platform, well then there's really no point. point. Okay, then you might as, then the best thing in that case would be just to leave. But I'm not

going to censor myself at all. And I'll just continue. So I don't know, maybe it's, it's kind of a kamikaze mission. I'm just going to continue using it, not censor myself in the least bit. And if they eventually come along and ban me, then they do. But if they don't, I'm going to continue using it to undermine their own ideological agenda. That's, that's the way that I look at it. You know, even when we've been talking about this issue with this guy in Canada. And when I'm using Twitter, you know, as I said, I'm going to, I'm going to speak the truth. I'm not going to say something that's not true just to follow the rules of a social media site. So, for instance, I'm going to refer to this man as a man.

Even if Twitter says, oh, you're not allowed to do that. That's misgendering. Well, I'm not going to lie for Twitter's sake. And if they want to ban me too in order to protect this predator, they want to keep doing it. that, then they can. But until that time comes, I'm just going to continue with what I'm doing. All right. I think we'll leave it there. Thanks everybody for watching. Godspeed. If you prefer facts over feelings. If you aren't offended by the brutal truth. If you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on into the

Ben Shapiro show where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more. We'll see you there.