Ep. 1533 - Trump Takes A Stand Against Anti-White Persecution
01:01:50 Share

Today on The Matt Wall Show, Donald Trump is the first Western leader to take a stand against the persecution of white farmers in South Africa. This is a story that should be getting a lot more attention. Also, Nike and the NFL give a girl power sermon during the Super Bowl. A 13-year-old in Detroit is arrested for a string of home invasion robberies. Why aren't his parents being held accountable? And a guy at an anti-Trump rally threatens to punch me. Very scary stuff. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. ♪

You know what's fascinating? When your metabolism is working properly, you feel the benefits in literally every aspect of your life. I've discovered an incredible tool that gives me insights to create a healthy metabolism for my body. It's called Lumen.

Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It measures your metabolism through your breath, and the app tells you if you're burning fat or carbs. It then provides personalized guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management. Using it couldn't be simpler. I breathe into my Lumen first thing in the morning to understand my metabolism and get a personalized nutrition plan for the day. I can also check before and after workouts and meals to know exactly what's happening in my body in real time.

Here's why this matters. Your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how your body turns food into fuel. When it's optimized, you'll experience better energy levels, improved fitness results, and even better sleep. Lumen gives you all the recommendations you need to improve your metabolic health, helping you to make informed decisions about your nutrition and lifestyle. Take the next step to improve your health. Go to lumen.me slash walsh to get 20% off your Lumen. That's l-u-m-e-n.me slash walsh for 20% off your purchase.

Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode. Early in the afternoon of April 16th, 2000, a 77-year-old farmer named John Cross and his 76-year-old wife were returning home from church in the province of Limpopo, South Africa. And when they arrived, they were immediately attacked by two men who had broken into their house.

The men shot the elderly woman three times, but she didn't die immediately. So to torture her for roughly 25 minutes, the assailants poured boiling water on top of her. When it came time to murder John Cross, the attackers tied him up, shot him several times, and poured boiling water down his throat for roughly five hours.

In the end, the killers made off with a few thousand dollars worth of household items. And when they were caught, they were not repentant at all. Afterwards, when she was asked about the motive, the cross's daughter said, quote, I think it's hatred. It must be race hatred. I think they did it for satisfaction.

Now, as horrific as this incident was, it wasn't especially uncommon at the time. Farm invasions were happening at a rate of around 1,000 per year. This barbarism was occurring so frequently that two years after the crosses were executed, South Africa commissioned a 500-page report on farm attacks, and it found that almost two-thirds of farm attacks targeted elderly white people in rural areas, often sadistically. But the conclusion of the report was that somehow racism wasn't a factor in most of these incidents.

Even though white people only made up something like 10% of South Africa's population and accounted for two-thirds of the victims of these attacks, the government insisted that anti-white racism was not a major problem in South Africa.

This was a narrative that nobody in the West wanted to challenge. Yes, it was obviously a lie. No serious person said otherwise. But in the eyes of Western leaders, it was a necessary lie. And that's because just about a decade earlier, South Africa had supposedly ended racism when they overthrew the apartheid regime. In a referendum in the early 90s, white South Africans voted to effectively authorize a

A new constitution, one that would allow universal suffrage and many forms of discrimination against black Africans and ultimately clear the way for majority rule by non-whites. As Nelson Mandela put it at the time, quote, the referendum signaled the end of white privilege.

That was supposed to trigger a kind of golden age in South Africa, if our leaders were to be believed. After all, white people had just lost much of their political power. A black majority would soon gain that power in a free and democratic fashion, supposedly. And inevitably, that was supposed to lead to racial harmony and a high-functioning society.

And certainly the media got behind that narrative, pull up news coverage of this referendum and you'll see how the decision was framed at the time. The choice we were told was between democracy and racial segregation. And given that choice, most people would opt for democracy, obviously. What we were not told is that in the end, democracy in South Africa would produce even more racial segregation and racial injustice. And all along, Western elites knew that that would happen. In fact, they intended for it to happen.

In various academic papers far away from the public view, left-wing academics admitted to this. Here, for example, is what the critical race theorist Cheryl Harris wrote in the Harvard Law Review all the way back in the summer of 1993, just as South Africa was getting rid of apartheid, quote,

The South African conception of affirmative action expands the application of affirmative action to a much broader domain than has typically been envisioned in the United States. That is, South Africans consider affirmative action a strategic measure to address directly the distribution of property and power with particular regard to maldistribution of land and the need for housing.

This policy has not yet been clearly defined, but what is implied by this conception of affirmative action is that existing distributions of property will be modified by rectifying unjust loss and inequality. Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.

So in other words, the newly installed African National Congress was not interested in implementing a system based on equal rights for all races. That was the little secret that we weren't told about. Instead, with the backing of Western academics, they were going to start practicing equity. They were going to be a laboratory for critical race theory shortly before it would take hold in the United States.

And of course, that meant redistributing land and housing and money on the basis of race. It meant using the law to punish white people. And they did exactly that. So take a look at this chart. It's from the South African Institute of Race Relations and it tracks the number of race-based laws in the country. And you'll notice that when apartheid was ended in the early 1990s, there was this massive drop, as you would expect.

Black Africans were not considered second-class citizens anymore. They didn't have to carry identification cards around that specified their racial group as required by law from the 1950s. They didn't have to self-segregate in residential areas or in libraries, parks, and restaurants. They weren't prohibited from marrying whites anymore, and so on. So a bunch of race-based laws were taken off the books.

Then you can see, if you look at the chart, what happened. Starting around 2000, the number of race-focused laws went back up dramatically. In fact, the number of race-based laws is now higher than it was at any other point in South Africa's history. It's higher than it ever was during apartheid. Only this time around, the laws were intended to exact racial vengeance on whites. And whites lost the protection of the laws that were already on the books. This has continued for decades with very little fanfare.

which has led to scenes like this one in a squatters camp for whites in South Africa. Watch. The organization also provides them with food supplies, but as often happens, the distribution of it is interrupted by some uninvited guests. These men and women who have come from a neighboring shantytown are members of a radical political party. Their hats bear the initials EFF, the Economic Freedom Fighters,

It's a movement whose aim is to give back the country's riches to black people. During this stirring speech, other members of the group take advantage of the distraction and steal some of the food. And they're not afraid to show off their loot. They just came in here and took the poor people's food. You saw. We all saw it. He saw it.

Now again, nobody in the West stood up while this was going on at any point. There was no international coalition of the willing that liberated South Africa. The sentiment only began to change to some extent in August of 2018 when South Africa's government filed papers to seize several white-owned farms while paying the owners only about one-tenth of the value of the properties. And that decision prompted the first Trump administration to launch an investigation into the anti-white purge that was occurring in South Africa.

In response, pretty much every outlet in corporate media accused Trump of promoting a dangerous far-right conspiracy theory. They told us not to besmirch the good name of South Africa's government. We were just supposed to continue sending them hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid every year and ask no questions whatsoever. And we certainly weren't supposed to notice, for example...

when the South African black nationalist politician Julius Malema led a packed stadium full of 100,000 people in a chant of kill the boar, which essentially means kill the white farmer. And by the way, Malema leads the political party that raided the whites camp in the video that I just played. And if you haven't seen this yet, here is that rally in Johannesburg. Watch.

Now, after that footage went viral, the corporate press went into a panic. They tried to convince people in comical fashion.

that we hadn't heard the things that we just heard. The New York Times, as is so often the case, led the propaganda effort. They reported that, quote, right-wing commenters claim that an old anti-apartheid chant is a call to anti-white violence, but historians and a left-wing politician who embraces it say it should not be taken literally. So it's really a term of endearment or something like that. He didn't mean kill them physically, you know, as in actually kill them. He meant kill them with kindness, right?

And you were supposed to believe that spin even after the same politician who you saw in the video there made it as clear as he possibly could that, yes, he wants white people to die. Watch. Must never be scared to kill. A revolution demands that at some point there must be killing because the killing is part of a revolutionary act.

I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I'm saying to you, we've not called for the killing of white people, at least for now. I can't guarantee the future. Yeah, but I mean, you'd understand somebody watching that, especially as it gets shared on Twitter, they freak out. It sounds like a genocidal call. Cry babies. Cry babies. I'm not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now. I can't give you a guarantee of the future, especially when things are going the way they are. Subtext.

Okay. So the media's claim is that when he says kill the white farmer, he didn't mean it literally at all. His claim is that, well, I mean, for now we won't kill them. For now. Again, we were told that there was nothing to see here. To the extent that anyone criticized this in the mainstream press, they labeled this politician as a rare extremist in South African politics.

But that was never true. I mean, his perspective is actually pretty popular over there. You saw the video with 100,000 people chanting the slogan. And that's why South Africa's president just signed the Expropriation Act of 2024 into law last month. This law permits the government of South Africa to seize white people's land without providing any compensation whatsoever. Specifically, the law states that, quote, it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid where land is expropriated in the public interest.

So what is the public interest, you may ask? The law doesn't limit that concept in any way, but it does state that, among other things, it's in the public interest to promote the interests of, quote, vulnerable groups, including women, children, youth, LGBTQI+, and people with disabilities.

In other words, yes, if you're a white farmer in South Africa, you could soon be forced under principles of equity to surrender your farm without any compensation to the transgender community, for example.

This time around, the Trump administration is taking decisive action in response to this development. Trump is not just assigning the Secretary of State to investigate or convening hearings so that we can talk about it. Instead, he just cut South Africa's foreign aid completely. We're no longer going to be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to this country. The other day, Trump signed an executive order that reads, quote,

It is the policy of the United States that as long as South Africa continues these unjust and immoral practices that harm our nation, A, the U.S. shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa, and B, the U.S. shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation. Now, with that executive order, Trump became president.

the only major world leader to speak out in any meaningful way about the unfolding atrocity in South Africa. And this order matters. Over the past decade, we've sent something like $6 billion in assistance to South Africa. All of that is gone now. And so you have to ask, where exactly are the other leaders of Western democracies who supposedly value human rights? Why aren't they cutting South Africa's funding? And why are we supposed to care so much about Palestinians and Ukrainians

but not about white South Africans. These are not rhetorical questions. They need answers. And that's why the last part of Trump's executive order is so important. He says that the U.S., quote, shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees, escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation, which means that we're offering white Africans a refuge, one that they've never been offered before. They've already been fleeing South Africa in large numbers, but now they have an open invitation to come to the U.S., and that makes a lot of sense.

Like it makes far more sense than welcoming refugees from many other places on the planet, because these are refugees who are productive, they're skilled, and very importantly, they have seen the worst of radical left-wing racial ideology. But there's another reason to accept the refugees as well, which is this. There's no better way to signal the end of critical race theory and the various efforts to demonize white people in this country

than to abandon the mythology of South Africa as some kind of harmonious post-racial utopia. That's the narrative that's been sold to Americans for decades, but it's not true. It was never true. That narrative was always part of a larger plan to incorporate similar anti-white laws in this country. With the second Trump administration, that plan is being dismantled piece by piece. Now the government of South Africa is going to have to find some other country to pay them billions of dollars, and the whole world can see why this is happening.

Put simply, with its new executive order, the Trump administration has dealt a fatal blow to race-obsessed arsonists who have sought for decades to model our country's decline after the collapse of South Africa. That effort has now been exposed and rejected. So this is a major victory. And for everyone in this country, and particularly for white farmers who endured years of overt racial discrimination under the Biden administration, it's a victory that's long overdue. Now let's get to our five headlines.

So many business owners talk about the immense pressure they face to hire quickly. And I get it. Sorting through applications and finding the right candidate can feel like searching for a needle in a haystack. It's time consuming. It's frustrating. And let's be honest, you've got a business to run. But here's the thing. ZipRecruiter has completely revolutionized the hiring process.

Did you know that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter find a quality candidate within the first day? The very first day they've already got a quality candidate. What makes them so effective? Well, their smart technology starts working the moment you post a job, immediately connecting you with qualified candidates. Their powerful matching technology streamlines the entire process

saving you both time and money, and even better, when you spot that perfect candidate, ZipRecruiter makes it easy to reach out. They provide pre-written messages you can use to invite promising candidates to apply, making the whole process more personal and efficient. It's also worth mentioning that ZipRecruiter is rated the most preferred hiring site by employers according to G2.

That's not surprising given how well they understand what the businesses need. So relax, employers, and let ZipRecruiter speed up your hiring. See for yourself. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh right now to try it for free. That's the same price as a genuine smile from a stranger, a picture-perfect sunset, or a cute dog running up and licking your hand. All things that I so love. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. Okay, a few things to...

Cover here. Kanye West is back on Twitter, and he's going viral now every day for all the wrong reasons, as you've probably heard. Last week, of course, he paraded his wife around completely naked on the red carpet at the Grammys. Just a disgusting thing to do. Also very emasculating as a man. I mean, you may as well castrate yourself in public if you're going to traipse your wife around naked for other men to ogle. You know, a lot of people have talked about

how degrading and dehumanizing it is for Kanye's wife to be traipsed around like this. And it is, certainly, but it's also degrading and dehumanizing for him, which is a point that I think is often lost. And he's continued to degrade himself on X over the past week or two, ranting about how much he hates the Jews. So, you know, more of that material, calling himself a Nazi, fawning over Hitler. But

So some reruns from 2022 and 2023. A lot of this is just frankly kind of boring. Even bringing his wife around naked is disgusting and, as I said, emasculating and degrading to everybody involved. But it's also just like this. It's just boring. It's like when you're totally out of ideas and looking for ways to shock people. Oh, look, here's a naked person, right?

And the same thing here, you know, he's returning to reruns now to try and get attention. And saying that you like Hitler is shocking. But once you've said it, you can't shock people again by going back to that well, you know, and that's what Kanye has been doing. But the thing that I think that should actually get him banned from the platform happened yesterday.

when he started posting hardcore pornography on the platform. And I think he has since taken down his own account. This all happened and now his account is gone. I don't think that he was banned. I think that he left of his own accord. But who knows? He could be back next week.

But he was posting actual hardcore, full-on porn that, you know, this guy's 100 million plus followers posting it for all of those followers to see. And I've been pretty consistent about this. This is the way that I look at it. I don't believe that anyone should be banned from any platform for giving their opinion. Okay, even if their opinion is insane or gross or objectionable or contemptible or all of the above,

I think that any opinion should be permitted, both in terms of, you know, that's what free speech should be legally, but even on these platforms. I think any opinion should be allowed. And if somebody has an opinion that you think is insane or stupid or repulsive, repugnant, well, you can make your point in response to that. So I think any opinion should be permitted. But porn is not an opinion. Now,

If you're a fan of porn, saying I'm a big fan of porn, that's an opinion, right? Arguing in favor of porn, you're wrong, but that's an opinion. The porn itself is not an opinion. It's not an expression of an idea. It's not speech. It's just simply not. Porn is smut. It's visual trash. It's poison for your soul. And that's all it is. Porn is prostitution. Porn is prostitution.

There's no way around it. Performing sexually for money is prostitution. The fact that there's a camera involved does not make it any less prostitution. And prostitution is already banned, as I've said a million times. Prostitution is banned almost everywhere already. And any free speech argument for prostitution is just not taken seriously by most people. And yet porn we treat as though it's different. It's not.

So it should be banned on X and it should be banned on every platform. And it should be banned in general, in my opinion, on the same basis that we ban prostitution. It's the same damn thing. And certainly anybody with tens of millions of followers who suddenly decides to drop hardcore porn into their feeds should just should not be allowed on the platform. That kind of thing should not be allowed. And anyone who says, oh, it's a slippery slope. It's first you ban the hardcore porn and then what? What do you mean?

Like, yeah, what next? Hardcore porn is a, okay, you can ban hardcore pornography without it logically leading to anything else. That's its own category. Okay, so slippery slope arguments work like this. A slippery slope argument can be quite compelling and can be true if you're saying that, look, okay, if we allow X using this argument,

Well, that exact same argument could be used to justify Y. And so if you're allowing X, it means eventually we're going to have Y also. Because the argument used to justify X also applies just as much to Y. That's how a legitimate slippery slope argument works. Well, that's why there is no slippery slope with pornography or with banning it from a platform. Because it is a unique, separate thing.

And you can make an argument for banning pornography from a platform that would not apply to any opinion that a person would express. Because an opinion is not pornography. So you could and we should ban porn from all these platforms. And there is no reason why that needs to lead to, well, next thing you know, you can't give your point of view on any topic.

It doesn't work that way. It doesn't need to work that way. And so I think that these slippery slope arguments people make, it's just because they want to see the porn on the, which that doesn't even make any sense to me. Like why? I would like for there to be no porn at all, but there is a lot of porn out there on the internet. I don't think I'm scandalizing anyone by telling you that. Why do you need to see it on the social media platform? Can there be anywhere on the internet that doesn't have porn? Is that okay?

Can we have one spot on the internet that is not infested with this stuff? Do you need to see it everywhere all the time, really? So you're worried that if we allow there to be any place on the internet at all where that is not just covered in porn, that next thing you know, we're living in a fascist dystopia. I mean, come on, it's ridiculous.

All right, I want to talk about this too. There's a 13-year-old boy in Detroit who's been arrested for a string of home invasion robberies, robberies that include assaults and attempted rapes. He's now in custody, thankfully. Here's a local news report about it.

confessing to the crimes linked to at least 11 break-ins and assaults across the two cities. This mother tells local for Friday she's relieved but still cannot believe he's only 13. The teen is accused of breaking into her home on Anderson Street earlier this week and attacking her 10 year old with a knife. And so I go towards my hallway and I see a guy just shoot out

from her room. So I just got the yelling, get out my house, you know, get my gun, go get my gun. Another woman says a man believed to be the 13 year old attacked her daughter on Northway about a week prior. This young man, whoever it is, threatened her with a knife and some scissors and

Told her to take her clothes off. And if she didn't, she was told he would kill her. Right now, police say they've recovered DNA and a knife, and they're working on a timeline. They believe his first break-in goes back to 2022. His alleged victim then, only nine. He would have been just 10 years old back then.

And recently, police say the teenage suspect's behavior becoming more daring and violent. It's a very scary thing for anybody, let alone a young girl, to be in their bedroom sleeping and have someone grab them.

Now, I want to read a very relevant portion of the local ABC affiliates report on this. It says Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the tips for the community led to the arrest of this teenage suspect. As soon as we realized what we had in terms of complexity and repetitive nature, we put it out to the community and got a quick response. Bouchard said the suspect is 13 years old. He's a tall 13-year-old. And the parent, I would also say, has been cooperative. Did you notice that? The parent.

Parent, singular, parent. So not two, one. No surprise there. It's exactly what you assumed. There was basically zero chance that the kid's dad was in the picture, and he isn't. So stereotypes win yet again. Those who make stereotypical assumptions are vindicated, as always, as they almost always are vindicated again. But here's the point I want to make about this, that there have been now, and you've heard me talk about them, there have been now multiple cases, at least two,

where the parents, and in these cases, it was, I believe in both cases, two parents of school shooters have been charged in the crimes that their kids committed. So the kid goes out and does a horrible thing, and they end up getting charged with crimes for it. And you know what I've said about these cases. If we're going to do that, we are setting a precedent, and we have to follow through on the precedent. We have to apply it equally. If we don't,

then it is a gross miscarriage of justice to charge these parents, even if they are really bad parents. Because it means we're holding them to a standard that we don't hold other parents, and that's wrong. It's actually unconstitutional, I would argue, because we're guaranteed equality under the law. And so if you've got certain people that we apply the law a certain way to them and don't apply it to others, well, that's not equality under the law. So that brings me to the question.

Why aren't this kid's parents in handcuffs right now? Both parents, the single mom and what I assume is the absentee father. If he's alive and currently not in jail, go find the dad in whatever hole he's living in and cart his ass to jail. And go get the mother and throw her in jail. Because this is what we know for certain. There is no way that his parents, the parents of this kid, well, we know the dad was absent, so there's no way his parent, his mom,

was doing her job as a parent. If your 13-year-old son is out there breaking into homes and trying to his classmates at knife point, I mean, it means that you are negligent in the extreme as a parent, at least. Now, kids can go off the rails, they can rebel, they can act in ways that are inconsistent with how you raise them. Sure, all that can happen, and it will happen to some extent, but if your son is a serial home invader at 13, I mean, that's on you, obviously. You're responsible for that. I mean,

How are you, like he's out at night. How is your 13-year-old son out at night doing anything without you knowing exactly where he is? So that's your fault, obviously. Then why aren't we holding this kid's parents responsible? Why aren't they arrested? Why do we only arrest the parents of school shooters? What's the logic here? How can this be justified? Well, it can't be justified, but that doesn't mean that there's no answer to my question. Like there is an answer. There's a reason why.

We arrest the parents of school shooters now, but we would never arrest these parents. And it can only be one thing, which is that school shooters tend to be white. So we prosecute the white parents. The kid in this case is, they have not identified him because he's a minor, but we can assume he's almost certainly black or at least not white. I mean, we can, that's a pretty safe assumption.

And in general, street violence, home invasions, robberies are disproportionately committed by young, non-white males. We know that. And the system just does not want the spectacle of hauling some black single mother into a court and then throwing her in prison for being a terrible mother. They just don't want that. And they're not going to do it.

On the other hand, they don't mind the spectacle. In fact, they quite enjoy the spectacle of throwing middle class or upper middle class white parents in jail. And that's obviously what's going on here. And so it's just, it brings us back to, it's a miscarriage of justice to be holding certain parents to this kind of standard and not others. Now, I say all this, and I'm not even certain that, in fact, I...

I'm certainly not certain that it would be a good idea to just start prosecuting parents when their kids at a young age become violent scumbags. I'd be very, even if we applied it equally, I would have serious hesitations about that. But if you're gonna do it, you have to apply it equally. If you're gonna do it, then do it. But that's not the case here.

All right, let's take a look at this quick ICE update. There were more protests over the weekend over Trump's deportation program, more lamenting of the poor illegal immigrants who are being so rudely ejected from the country. And you see these protests now every day. Oftentimes, they're pretty small scale. We talked about yesterday or on Friday that this past week, there was some kind of day without an immigrant protest.

where people who were immigrants stayed home and didn't go to work, and nobody noticed. Everything functioned fine in the country. Nothing broke down. Everything was fine. Nobody noticed, which is not the message that they wanted to send. So these protests are happening a lot. Yet, who are these poor, put-upon immigrants? Well, I have here just a short list of ICE arrests over the weekend. So this is not comprehensive, but it gives you an idea of who these people are.

And so let's just go through some of the names. Like I said, just this weekend, this is what ICE under Trump's direction has been up to. So let's go through some of the names. On Sunday in Atlanta, ICE Atlanta arrested David Madogu, a citizen of Nigeria. Madogu has been convicted of money laundering, sentenced to 26 months in prison. ICE San Antonio arrested Omar Zuniga, a citizen of Mexico. He's been convicted of assault and sentenced to six months in jail.

Ice Washington arrested Marios Rice Flores, a citizen of Honduras. He was convicted of hit and run stemming from a DUI. Ice, this is all Sunday. Ice Denver arrested Saul Calderon Resendiz, a citizen of Mexico, convicted of aggravated assault. Ice Houston arrested Arturo Santana Garcia, a citizen of Mexico, convicted of aggravated assault.

Then you go to Saturday. ICE San Diego arrested Lucas Eberindo Ramirez Gregorio. I'm sure I'm butchering all these names. In fact, I think I'm doing pretty good on the names. I mean, all things considered. I'm doing better on the names than you thought I would. Convicted of willful cruelty to a child. ICE New York arrested Eric Armando Deleon Corrado, a citizen of Guatemala. He's been convicted of rape. ICE Miami arrested Alberto Jaso Diaz, a citizen of Mexico. Convicted of possession of methamphetamine.

Ice Newark arrested Iber Diaz Matamoros, a citizen of Honduras, convicted of sex offense against a child. Ice New Orleans arrested Carlos Crisostomos Garcia, a citizen of Mexico, arrested, convicted of assault. These are just a few of the names. Then you go to Friday. Ice Buffalo arrested Stephen Emanuel Jones, a citizen of Guyana, has been convicted of murder.

sentenced to five years in prison for murder. Just five years for that one. We have another homicide, another one convicted of homicide. This is ICE Chicago arresting Pedro Bailon Carmen, a citizen of Mexico. So this is just a quick list. And my question is, when you look at these updates, does anybody want these people in the country? Does anyone actually want them in the country? Is any actual American citizen upset that Trump is arresting these people? I

And also, when you see all the protests of the people who are lamenting the fact that these deportations, this is what they're lamenting. They don't want deportations. They say no human being is illegal, yada, yada, and so on. And what that means is they want these people to remain in our communities. It's just a delusional, insane, suicidal point of view. Here's something a little more fun. This is Caitlin Bennett.

went to some kind of anti-Trump rally over the weekend and had a conversation with a very angry leftist who, believe it or not, had some unkind things to say about yours truly. He apparently doesn't like me as warm and fuzzy as I am. He's not a fan. I was pretty shocked by that, but listen to what he has to say. So America, do your duty. Make fascists afraid again. Every day is punch a Nazi day.

So you would do that? Should the opportunity present with a smile. Nobody plays enough Wolfenstein anymore. We need to make more good Nazis. The good Nazis are the dead ones. Who would you classify as a Nazi? Elon Musk, Matt Walsh, Donald Trump, Hegseth. So you would punch Matt Walsh in the face? Absolutely. If he walked down here, you would punch him in the face? Sure. I love the commitment.

Yeah, no, we've got better to do than put up with this crazy, stupid fascist. We did this 80 years ago. The entire planet told him to fuck off. We had to kill 60 million people to go the hell away. We've got better stuff to do. OK, well, listen, I you know, here's what I would say to this. This gentleman seems like a nice guy. I would. But so that's why, because he's a nice guy. I just want to give him some advice. I'd be careful about punching anyone.

Your arms have the circumference of uncooked spaghetti. So I would be afraid that if you tried to punch somebody that your arms would just shatter into 20 pieces. So I'm worried about you. And I know that you say you want us to be afraid because you say we're Nazis and we should be afraid. And I'm having trouble being afraid of a...

congealed blob of great value yellow mustard. I'm having trouble. I'm having trouble being afraid of that. I don't know what, it's not clear what I should be afraid of. And I don't mean that as an insult. Again, I'm trying to help you out if you want to make threats. If you want to make threats, in your case, I would go probably hit the gym for eight or nine years to be safe and then come back and try it again. And in that case, it might actually be a little intimidating.

My favorite part of the video, though, is when he says, nobody plays enough Wolfenstein anymore. This is his great lament. These damned kids don't play enough Wolfenstein anymore. They don't know how good they have it, these kids, these days. When I was their age, I had to fight for everything. I put my life on the line. I played Wolfenstein for hours, hours every day. Wolfenstein.

These kids, they don't know anything about that. They don't know what I went through, the sacrifice and the pain and the hardship in Wolfenstein, playing my Wolfenstein video game. I still play it. I still fight Nazis every day in Wolfenstein. Every day I play. I haven't gotten married. I haven't had kids. I don't have, I live in my parents' house because I'm just, I'm plugging away for hours on Wolfenstein. I can't even eat until my mom brings me a mac and cheese. Still in the fight in Wolfenstein. That's basically what the guy's saying.

And he has me beat. You know, he plays Wolfenstein way more than I do. I'll give him that. And if we met in Wolfenstein, he would kick my ass in Wolfenstein for sure. Like, he forgot to mention that part. When he's making these threats, he's saying that in the game, if he met any of us, we'd be dead meat. We would be finished in Wolfenstein. And I believe him. I believe him.

In the actual physical world, though, the fact that he has the arms and physique of Frosty the Snowman probably would get in the way. Again, all due respect. No offense intended at all. All right, let's get to the comment section. If you're a man, it's required that you grow with a sweet baby game.

DEI is becoming history. You can do your part to honor it this Black History Month by playing the best-selling Am I Racist game, only available at Daily Wire Shop. With over 200 thought-provoking cards, this game asks the questions that we're sometimes too scared to ask. But you ask it with friends, in good humor, in a safe space. It's never been more fun to do the work. So don't wait. This game sold out over Christmas, so if you missed your chance,

Back then, there's no better time to honor the richness of Black History Month, which matters so much to me, as you know, on a personal level. No better way to do it than by diving into the conversations that really matter, those important conversations we hear so much about that you can have with Am I Racist? Go to dailywire.com slash shop to get the Am I Racist game today.

All sarcasm and inside jokes aside, I do wonder what cartoons and games Matt played as a kid and teen. Obviously not Sonic, but if he's an 80s, 90s kid, then there had to be something on SNES or Genesis. Well, I loved cartoons when I was a kid. When I was a kid being the operative phrase there, but sure. My favorite cartoon was probably the Batman animated series when I was a kid. I love that, which I think still holds up, by the way. I mean, I wouldn't sit and watch it by myself, but

I'll watch it with my with with my boys and and and they love it. I think it's a good show And as for games, I think I've shared that I definitely shared in the past the trauma that I experienced my villain origin story when I When I thought that my parents were gonna get me an n64 for Christmas But they got me a Super Nintendo instead because I had no video game system for the first, you know until about I don't know fourth or fifth grade and

I was finally going to get one, and this was right when Nintendo 64 came out. And I thought that it was going to be that, but then they got me. They went to the Goodwill down the street. They got a used Super Nintendo. And yeah, I've told this. I'm still traumatized by it. And maybe that's, you know, if someone were to do a psychoanalysis on me, maybe that's where the video game stuff comes from. My hatred for video games is from that moment of disappointment and trauma.

"Make Big Balls great again." That's a comment I'm reading, I'm not just saying that. I'm reading a comment. But what do you mean by "make him great"? Big Balls was always great. So, how dare you? Big Balls is already a great American. We don't have to make him great. I'm a little offended by that suggestion. "He's saving us billions. He deserves a medal. We salute you, Mr. Big Balls." Couldn't agree more. I think we should consider a monument.

Really, we should consider it. We should at least consider it to big balls. Something, you know, a large monument, something large and bulbous that will tell the story of big balls through the ages. So you could take your grandchildren one day and they'll see the monument and they'll say, Grandpa, what is that? And you'll say, that's big balls. He was a great man. He was a great man. And they'll say, Grandpa, what did big balls do? And you'll say, he did everything he could, which is all any of us can do.

And then they'll say, well, his name is funny. And you'll say, show some respect, you hooligan. Watch your mouth. This is the perfect comment for the comment section tomorrow. Matt asks what someone would name their kid if they had the last name Balls. Well, my hometown of Fort Wayne, Indiana, had a mayor of the name Harry Balls. He was a real guy, was elected mayor. He was such an honorable mayor that the city named streets after him. So the Harry Balls legacy lives on. I used to drive on Harry Balls Drive every day to school.

You're right, it was the perfect comment. Harry Balls, what else is there to say? I can't really add to that, there's nothing. I mean, Harry Balls' parents, God bless them, may they rest in peace, I assume they're dead, but they did violate the number one rule, like the number one rule of naming a child. The number one rule. Really, the only rule is this, that if your last name is a noun, not just a proper noun, but a noun like Balls, right? Yeah.

then do not give your child a first name that could be an adjective. That's the rule. Like, at least, if you at least pay attention to that rule, it should work out fine. And apparently they didn't understand that. Let's see.

I'm an avid video gamer. I find it hilarious to see people so upset over Matt's feelings on video games. It's not just his, it's just not his thing. Getting personally offended about it makes all the slob gamer stereotypes true. I couldn't care less if he called video games Satan's spawn itself. He's the show I listen to every day, whether working or gaming Matt best DW host by a mile. Um,

Yeah, well, especially because my take on video, this is the thing that's so funny about all the controversy over my opinion on video games is that my take on it, my take on video games is disappointingly mild and inoffensive. Like if you told anybody, you know, Matt Walsh, you should hear what he says about video games. And if they went and looked it up, they would be so disappointed because it's actually my most boring take.

And I have a lot of boring ones, but this is the most boring. And yet some gamers just can't get over it. They've been crying about it for years, for years. Because my take is simply that if you play video games, you should play them in moderation and they shouldn't be your whole life. And they shouldn't be the most important thing to you, right? That's it. In fact, I've even said that the comparison between playing video games as a recreation and watching sports as recreation, I think that's an apt comparison. I watch sports.

I kind of buy the argument that they're sort of similar, you know? But, you know, and I don't make watching sports into my whole identity. I watch it in moderation. If I spent 20 hours a week watching sports as a grown man, it would be a problem. Like, I'm neglecting other things that I should be doing. Taking care of my family, for one thing. But I should also, if I have extra time...

as well, then I should be developing other hobbies, other things that I could do, skills and things that involve going outside and doing those sorts of things. And I would say the same thing with video games. If you spend 20 hours a week playing video games, it's a problem. That's just too much time. That's too much time to me as an adult. That's too much time devoted to pure entertainment. And I don't know, if that opinion offends you, then I don't know what to say.

It's just, it's a ridiculous thing to be offended by. What opinion, what do you want me to say? Do you want me to say, oh yeah, there's no amount of video game playing that's a problem. Play it for 80 hours a week as a grown man. That's totally fine. Is that what I, do you need to hear me say that? Just play video games until you literally starve to death because you're not even eating. It's the only thing you're doing. Is that the opinion I need to have in order for it to not be offensive to some people? Apparently so.

At The Daily Wire, we break the news that the corporate media won't touch. We bring you the facts first, fast and unfiltered. Our exclusive investigative journalism actually does what journalism is supposed to do, exposing corruption, uncovering the truth, and holding those behind it accountable. When you join Daily Wire Plus, you get ad-free, uncensored live daily shows where you can chat with fellow Daily Wire members and the show's team in real time. Plus, you get full access to our entire library of premium entertainment, including Am I Racist?, the number one documentary of the decade, and

the films and series that continue to reshape the culture. The fight for truth is happening right now. Become a member today at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You may have heard that the Super Bowl happened last night. And like any red-blooded American, I enjoyed watching the Kansas City Chiefs suffer one of the worst humiliations that we've seen in professional sports this century probably.

Frankly, I would have preferred that the humiliation was a bit more entertaining to watch. Instead, we were treated to an incredibly dull, uninteresting game to go along with some pretty bland and uninspired commentary from Tom Brady and perhaps the worst halftime show the NFL has ever subjected us to. The halftime show was so bad that it was almost baffling. And in case you made the wise decision to take a bathroom break during the halftime show, here's what it sounded like.

earn this thing down don't you play with me stay with me crashing out right now hitting safe for me did it with integrity these boys trying to hate on me just wait and see more blood be spilling it's just paid to me dangerously ain't no changing me ain't no shaming me flip a coin you want the dangerous me so you know that's the rapper kendrick kendrick lamar and he performing uh performing a song there that 95 of the audience myself included had never heard before

And we still have not heard it because nobody could understand a word the guy was saying as he wandered around the stage for 14 minutes, lethargically mumbling the words to a bunch of songs nobody knows. His performance wasn't really offensive or objectionable. It was just plain old bad. In fact, I'm not even sure we can call it a performance. I'm not even sure if those were songs.

He could have been reciting the first 10 pages of the dictionary or giving us his favorite jumbo or a gumbo recipe for all we know. He was completely unintelligible the entire time. And his abysmal pseudo performance brings me back to a radical suggestion I've made before, which is that maybe the NFL should consider a halftime show where a band plays music. And I may now be speaking over the heads of younger people in the audience, but because you see here, a band is a group of people

who play these things called instruments, which produce something called music. And then usually there'll be one person who sings. And almost all popular music used to be made by bands, believe it or not. Now almost none of it is. But it may be time to return to this ancient concept, at least for the Super Bowl halftime show. That's my pitch. In any case, even amid the drudgery of the product that was put on screen last night, there was almost...

One bright spot last night because for the first eight hours of the game or what felt like eight hours The commercials were if not necessarily good at least not overtly woke by recent standards They were basically unobjectionable I would not say the ads were anti woke by any means but they weren't trying to force feed us wokeness at gunpoint So that was an improvement, but even this meager bright spot was soon sullied just a bit

The non-woke vibes were ruined by two ads in particular. They both had the same theme. They were both attempting to kind of resurrect the 2019 era girl power nonsense. These were ads that would have made more sense and felt more at home back in the time when Hollywood was trying to convince us that Brie Larson was the next great superhero. Those days are basically over, but you wouldn't know it from these ads. The first one comes courtesy of the NFL. Here it is. Let's settle this once and for all.

Your best guy? Girl. Whatever. Versus our best guy, the Brad. Brad. Oh, not the Brad. Brad. Brad. Brad. Brad. Brad. Brad. Brad. I'm Brad. I can read. There you go. You got folded up, Brad. Get her. Okay, okay. That's what I'm talking about. Ha ha. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So the ad beseeches us to join the movement to make girls flag football into a varsity sport. And you would think that if the NFL wanted to promote girls flag football, they would show us something that reflects the reality of girls flag football. At a minimum, you'd think that it would be something that exists in the same universe as girls flag football. Instead, we get this fantasy sequence that begins with a man challenging a girl to a game of

I guess one-on-one football? Now of course I have no idea what one-on-one football is or how to play it. If somebody challenged me to go up against them in a one-on-one football contest, I wouldn't even know exactly what they wanted me to do.

But in this case, it meant, I guess, that the girl would run with the ball towards the end zone and the guy would try to tackle her or grab the flags in this case. And the guy apparently did not get a chance to carry the ball himself. So this is a sudden death football showdown where only one side gets to play offense. Not exactly a fair contest. Now, I know that it may seem like I'm taking the ad a bit too literally, and I am. You might say that the commercial is supposed to be a joke.

But yes, but this part of it is not the joke. We are not meant to laugh at the concept of a girl playing against men in football. That's not supposed to be funny. The NFL wants us to take that idea very seriously.

The joke in the ad is not that a woman would never in a million years perform that well against men on a football field. That was not the intended joke or point anyway. The point is supposed to be that men are overconfident morons and women are amazing and perfect and can do anything that men can do, only better. Like I said, this ad is not based in our universe. It would have been more realistic and plausible if she sprouted wings and flew across the field.

That was just one of the girl power ads. The other was even worse and came to us from Nike. Apparently, and I was surprised by this, Nike has not had a Super Bowl ad since 1988. So this is their long-awaited Super Bowl comeback is here, and this is what they chose for it. You can't be demanding. You can't be relentless. You can't put yourself first.

So put yourself first. You can't be confident, so be confident. You can't challenge, so challenge. You can't dominate, so dominate. You can't flex, so flex. You can't fill a stadium, fill that stadium.

You can't be emotional, so be emotional. You can't take credit. You can't speak up. You can't be so ambitious. You can't break records. You can't have any fun. You can't make demands. You can't be proud. You can't keep score. You can't stand out. Whatever you do, you can't win. So win.

Now, I have seen some cope from some conservatives who claim that this ad is a cultural win because Nike is celebrating women's sports in an ad that features only women. So the fact that no trans-identified male appears in the ad is supposed to be a sign that Nike is turning towards the right or something. But that's not the case. Nike still supports putting men in women's sports, which makes this ad a sign of hypocrisy, not progress.

The point of the ad is supposed to be that female athletes are the victims of sexism. That's what the ad is saying. You can't be demanding, you can't be confident, etc. These are all things that women supposedly hear from our supposedly patriarchal society. The whole ad is one long feminist trope that we've seen a million times before. This is not Nike bravely standing up against left-wing gender ideology. It's Nike pandering with a bunch of incredibly overused and ridiculous feminist cliches.

Back in reality, again, nobody is telling women that they can't be confident or ambitious or whatever. Nobody's telling women that they can't win in women's sports. Of course women can win in women's sports. Somebody has to win, and it's going to be a woman, unless men are competing, in which case it's going to be a man. But the richest irony, I think, is that Caitlin Clark is in this commercial.

Clark has actually been doubted, criticized, mocked, belittled, hated on. That's true in her case. Except men are not the ones doing that. In fact, most male sports fans like Caitlyn Clark. They kind of admire the fact that she's managed to single-handedly make women's professional basketball culturally relevant, sort of. All of the hate towards Caitlyn Clark

Literally all of it is coming from other women, most of whom are playing the same sport. Her haters are the other women in her league. And this is very often the case. I'm far from the first person to point this out. But when feminists tell us that women are critiqued and condemned and judged, it doesn't take much digging to find out that it's almost always other women doing the critiquing, condemning, and judging.

This goes for everything. I mean, everything from so-called beauty standards, which are mostly set by women and imposed on themselves for the sake of impressing other women. Because for men, you know, men do have beauty standards, but for men, the beauty standards are pretty simple. Don't be obese. Okay, that's the only beauty standard that men have for women. Don't be obese. That's it. That's it. But...

All the rest of it, layering on the makeup and all the other stuff and spending a bunch of money on clothes and all that, that's for other women. Men aren't asking you to do that. So that's what we find. And that's not to say that men are never mean to women. Of course, they can be. But the vast majority of the meanness that feminists complain about comes from other women. Like the stereotypical horror movie, The Call is Coming from Inside the House.

But I guess Nike didn't want to spend $8 million to make an ad with that message, so we get this mindless girl power routine instead. At a time when wokeness is dying, this stuff feels more antiquated than ever, but Nike is clinging on to it, and so is the NFL, and that is why they are both today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.