← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1795 - They Lied About Karmelo Anthony. What Else Have They Lied About?
00:52:31
Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:01]
A
I feel like I'm getting robbed when I bet the Stanley cup on a sportsbook.
- [00:05]
B
Dude, delete that app. You need to be using polymarket.
- [00:09]
A
Polymarket.
- [00:09]
B
Polymarket is a prediction market, not a sportsbook. You trade against other fans, not the house. That means more money for you and less for greedy sportsbooks.
- [00:18]
A
Even during the Stanley Cup?
- [00:20]
B
Especially during the Stanley Cup. Polymarket is an official prediction market of the NHL.
- [00:25]
A
No way. What's the catch?
- [00:27]
B
No catch. And it's available in all 50 states. Polymarket is so confident you'll never go back, they're giving you $50 free on your first trade.
- [00:36]
A
I'm deleting my Sportsbook app. How do I get started?
- [00:39]
B
Download Polymarket now and use Promo code draw for $50 free for your first trade. Stop letting Sportsbook steal from you. Download Polymarket and use Promo code draw for $50 free on your first trade. Use Promo Code Draw. Trading not available in all jurisdictions.
- [00:55]
A
Check local regulations before trading restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Now that Carmelo Anthony has been shipped off to prison and riots nationwide have failed to materialize, you'll discover that no one in the mainstream press wants to talk about the story anymore. He's no longer useful to anyone, not even his own family. But there was a very important element of the Carmelo Anthony case, one that we should never forget, even if the media wants to pretend that it never happened. And I'm talking about the absolute, unrestrained brazenness of all the lying that we had to listen to over the past year. It rivaled the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in terms of how flagrantly dishonest the coverage was. Democrats, BLM activists, the corporate press, all repeatedly deceived the public about basic, fundamental aspects of the story. Even though anyone with an Internet connection could disprove the lies in about five minutes. They claimed the video footage was irrelevant, even though it was a key part of the case. They claimed Austin Metcalfe pummeled Carmelo Anthony when Metcalf barely actually touched him. They claimed there was an all white jury when only about half the jury was white. And on and on and on. The lying had the desired effect. Anthony's family raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Millions of black Americans were outraged. The other day, one of these outraged black Americans randomly attacked a white person on the side of the road, falsely claiming he was involved in the case in some. In some way. Watch.
- [02:25]
C
Hey.
- [02:25]
A
What? You on jury selection? No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't.
- [02:29]
D
Seriously? No, he wasn't.
- [02:31]
A
He was on jurisdiction.
- [02:36]
D
He's a Bet he ain't been on Jerusalem.
- [02:40]
A
You gonna die now. When this footage was uploaded to Facebook, virtually all of the comments were positive. And you can see some of them on the screen right there. Quote, Maine, that's so funny, bruh. I'm crying. Lmao. You out here doing the Lord's work. I'm quoting. It's not just me talking. If you couldn't tell if you've been paying attention over the last 30 years, none of this is new. Black activists lied about O.J. simpson, about Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Jacob Blake, George Floyd, every other black martyr in their war on white people. They've been telling flagrant lies for a very long time, even when those lies are extremely easy to debunk. And by any measure, though, the Carmelo Anthony case is one of the most egregious examples, it was such an obvious case of first degree murder that the defense didn't even present a case. For all intents and purposes, really, the defense witnesses helped the prosecution over and over and over again. There is no coherent version of events that justifies the killing of Austin Metcalf. And yet the lies and the outrage persisted. And seeing all of this, one of your first reactions, once you get past the pure disgust and the desire to bring about immediate change in this country, should be to ask yourself, what else have they lied to us about over the years? I'm not talking about the narratives that all reasonable people have already rejected. I'm not talking about O.J. simpson or George Floyd. I'm talking about the narratives that, even if you're pretty skeptical of left wing race propaganda, might still seem convincing to you. In other words, now that we've seen how flagrantly they're willing to lie for the benefit of a killer like Carmelo Anthony, what other famous black, quote, unquote, victims in American history need a second look? It's a difficult question to address because the entire point of propaganda is to muddy the historical record so that no one in the future can debunk the lie. And that's why, for example, NBC News ran this headline a couple of weeks ago. Quote, kyle Rittenhouse gained fame for opening fire at a 2020 civil rights rally in Wisconsin. Now they know that Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked during a riot that caused tens of millions of dollars worth of property damage. They know the rioters tried to beat him with a skateboard and shoot him with a handgun. But the goal of NBC News is to recast this event as a civil rights rally so that 50 years from now, historians will portray Rittenhouse as a deranged gunman who mowed down peaceful protesters. NBC News doesn't care that there was a public trial, complete with extensive video evidence which proved Rittenhouse legally defended himself during a riot. They're hoping they can rewrite history anyway, and they're probably right. 50 years from now, I mean, you can imagine what the history books are going to say about that episode. I mean, that's the whole point here, that, you know, seeing through this kind of propaganda isn't easy when the propaganda was written more than 70 years ago. But we should try anyway just to see what we might find out. You know, again, they're, they're lying blatantly to our faces about events that we all experienced and that in most cases were caught on video for the whole world to see. If they can and do lie about those sorts of things, imagine what kind of lies they can tell about events that none of us experienced. With no videos to go back and check to confirm the record, consider every supposed racist atrocity from decades or centuries ago. Every, quote, unquote, innocent minority wrongfully persecuted by racist whites. I'm not saying that all of those stories aren't true. I'm saying that you can't assume that they are true. You have to go back with a skeptical eye, willing to question even the narratives that are. That are most taken for granted, indeed, especially those narratives. So let's go through a couple of examples now. Let's, let's begin that process today, and let's start with the killing of a 14 year old black boy named Emmett Till. Now, there's a good chance that you've almost certainly heard of Emmett Till. As the writer Steve Saylor has pointed out, he's not just a fixture in high school history textbooks. He was also center stage during the BLM hysteria of the past few years. Quote, Emmett Till, who was murdered in 1955, has been mentioned in 427 different New York Times articles over just the last 10 years. Emmett Till was mentioned more often in American books in 2022 than in any previous year. So as far as enduring myths go, Emmett Till is certainly up there. The basic narrative, which you've probably been told in school and by the media, is that Till was abducted and lynched by racist white people in Mississippi back in 1955. His crime allegedly was just simply whistling at a pretty white woman in a grocery store. Her name was Carolyn Bryant Donham. That was a serious violation of racial codes at the time. So Bryant, who was very offended, lied to her family and told them that Emmett Till had groped her. This is the story and in response, Bryant's husband and his half brother hunted the boy down. A few days later, abducted him from a cabin and brutally lynched him. The story was a major catalyst for the civil rights movement many decades later. In her 70s, Bryant admitted that she had lied about Emmett Till. Black activists then demanded that prosecutors charge her with a crime. And ultimately Bryant died before they could get their vengeance. That is the official narrative a few years ago when Bryant passed away. CBS News repeated this this version of events verbatim on air. Watch.
- [08:15]
E
Carolyn Bryant Dunham, the white woman who accused Emmett Till of making advances towards her, has died. 14 year old Emmett Till was kidnapped and brutally murdered by Bryant's then husband and his half brother in Mississippi in 1955. Over the allegation, the two men were acquitted in his killing by an all white jury, but later confessed in an interview. The case gained national attention after Emmett Till's mother allowed Jet magazine to take and publish photos of her son's mutilated body in an open casket. The horrific image shocked the nation and served as the catalyst for the civil rights movement. He years after Till's death, Dunham admitted to fabricating parts of her story, although she was never charged with a crime.
- [09:04]
A
Now the problem here is that virtually every aspect of what that anchor just said is a fabrication. First of all, Emmett Till was not accused of merely making advances towards Bryant. That's an extremely, I guess we would say, sanitized and deliberately misleading way to present the story. According to Bryant's testimony in court as well as her memoir, Emmett Till grabbed her hand and said, how about a date baby? And when she tried to flee, Emmett Till followed her to the cash register, forcefully grabbed her waist and said, what's the matter baby? Can't you take it? He told her she didn't need to be afraid and explained, quote, I've been with white women before. Emmett did not leave the store until one of his friends entered and forcefully removed him. So this was according to her, in attempted sexual assault, not just in advance. Now these facts are obviously not flattering for Emmett Till. And for what it's worth, this behavior would not be out of character for the Till family. I think it's worth noting Emmett. Emmett's father was named Lewis Till. He enlisted in the army during World War II to avoid going to prison for domestic violence. But Lewis Till's behavior did not change overseas. He was court martialed for the murder of an allied search civilian during the Italian campaign, as well as the rape of two pregnant Italian women. Ultimately, he was found guilty and hanged. And incidentally, he had been incarcerated at the same military prison as the American poet Ezra Pound, who was jailed for treason. Pound even wrote a verse about Libus Till, saying, Till was hung yesterday for murder and rape with trimmings. Now, of course, the fact that Emmett Till's father was a domestic abuser and a rapist does not by itself demonstrate that Emmett Till did anything wrong. But you know, if we're just being logical about it, it makes it more likely that he would engage in similar conduct. And taken together with Bryant's testimony, it's obviously context that makes her claim more credible, though. Still, none of us can ever know for sure what really happened in that store that day. I mean, we really don't know for sure. But the major lie about Emmett Till is what happened many years after his death. And the claim from the left and the media and activists is that Bryant later recanted her allegations that Emmett Till had physically assaulted her. They say that Bryant admitted in her dying years that she made the whole thing up and she feels really bad about it. This is a core part of the story and here's ABC repeating that claim. Listen, we're coming.
- [11:27]
F
Reverend Wheeler Parker says that his Bible tells him to forgive and he says that's what he's doing here.
- [11:34]
A
Thank you.
- [11:35]
F
Taking an overnight train to Mississippi with his wife, trying to make peace.
- [11:39]
A
Oh my goodness.
- [11:40]
F
The murder of his cousin by a clan of racists.
- [11:43]
A
If you dwell on it, you'll come
- [11:45]
F
out of been injured nearly 70 years ago. To this day. This is where the white woman who worked here claimed that his 14 year old cousin had grabbed her, put his hands around her waist and then told her he had slept with white women before. It was all over the daily papers with quotes from a young wheeler parker calling 21 year old Carolyn Bryant a pretty lady. Interviews he says he never gave. Bryant and her husband Roy owned the store. In 2007, she told a book writer that she lied and then she died in 2023, never apologizing to the black families.
- [12:26]
A
What you should notice about all these stories is how definitive they are. All the official versions of the Emmett Till story make the claim that beyond a shadow of a doubt Bryant admitted she was wrong. Pretty much everyone accepts this version of events to the point that just a couple of years ago, black activists tried to have the elderly woman thrown in prison. At the time she was in her 80s and in failing health. But they didn't care they went all the way to a grand jury which rejected their claims. Watch.
- [12:51]
G
Well, a grand jury in Mississippi today declined to indict the white woman whose accusations set off the lynching of Emmett Till nearly 70 years ago. Carolyn Bryant Dunham, now 88, initially claimed that Till made unwanted advances towards her and at her family's grocery store, it led to the brutal torture and lynching of the 14 year old. The prosecutor said the grand jury found insufficient evidence to charge Dunham.
- [13:17]
A
Here are just a few of the top comments on that video to give you an idea of the public reaction. Quote, she's definitely going to hell. Quote, you got to be kidding me. Don't worry. God knows what you did. We know what you did. One day you'll receive what you deserve. May God hold Emmett in his hands. Quote, unquote. Always angers me when the truly evil live to a ripe old age. Now those are the least deranged quotes I can find. It's all out bloodlust over a dying woman in her 80s. And it's all based on a total fabrication. Bryant never recanted her allegation. The claim that she recanted was made by a historian named Timothy Tyson. He wrote a book in 2017 called the Blood of Emmett Till in which he claim that Bryant recanted her claims about till in 2008, many decades after the incident, he recorded all this, all of his interviews for the book, including his interviews with Bryant. Standard practice for historians who are writing a book. So you'd think he'd be able to support his claims, especially a claim as explosive as that one. But it turns out that somehow Tyson's transcripts and audio recordings did not capture this bombshell admission. The FBI opened an investigation into Tyson's claim since it would obviously be relevant to a criminal proceeding even if the statute of limitations had expired and they found no support for it whatsoever. This is from the Washington Post. The article is from 2021. Quote. The Justice Department has closed the latest federal investigation into the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till in rural Mississippi. Federal authorities reopened the case three years ago after a new book reported that Bryant had denied an interview that Till had made any advances in theory that could have meant she lied in decades old court proceedings. Justice Department officials said Monday that when the FBI questioned Brian about these allegations about these alleged statements to the book's author, she said she did not make them and the author's interview tape and transcripts do not show her making such statements. The book said Bryant told Tyson that Till had not come onto her sexually. A disclosure that directly contradicted her testimony six decades earlier when she told a jury that Till grabbed her by the waist and uttered obscenities. In a statement, Justice Department said the FBI was unable to confirm Tyson's assertion that Donham had recanted her prior testimony. When agents interviewed her, she denied ever recanting and provided no new information. Justice Department statements said authorities concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that she ever told the professor that any part of her testimony was untrue. Although the professor represented that he had recorded two interviews with her, he provided the FBI with only one recording which did not contain any recantation. A transcript of Tyson's other interview also did not contain the alleged recantation, official said. Separately, NBC News reported that, quote. But Donham denied to federal investigators that she lied in her testimony, a source of knowledge of the case said. And there were inconsistencies with statements made by Tyson. So to recap to this day, they're lying to us about what the woman alleged Emmett Till did to her. They're lying by claiming the woman recanted her claim she didn't. And they're burying a lot of information about the case about Emmett Till, including the fact that his father was a rapist. And with all that in mind, you have to wonder if they're telling the truth about any aspect of this particular story. I mean, once they're willing to fabricate important details in order to create a myth for the purposes of launching the civil rights movement, then there's no reason to trust anything they say about it. Now, does that mean that his killing was justified? No, obviously not. It was a brutal murder. We know that. There's really no disputing that. But the popular narrative about this case leaves out important details and blatantly lies about others. And there's no disputing that either. Which makes you wonder about, you know, what else about the story they aren't telling us. Nothing about the story or any of these kinds of stories can be taken on faith anymore. Doesn't mean they're all wrong. Any of these kinds of stories you learned in school, you should go back again and check. You cannot assume that any of them are entirely true and many of them might be entirely wrong. And in fact, lynchings in general are one of the most inflammatory aspects of American history and therefore nobody wants to be honest about them. There's a hysteria about lynchings that led to a federal anti lynching bill just a few years ago, if you remember that. Even though no black person has been lynched in this country at all in living memory. Now, white people have certainly been attacked for their skin color, as we saw at the top of the show, but there have been no anti black lynchings at all in. In many, many decades. And you know, there's this idea that if you object to any of the propaganda about lynching, then you must endorse the murder of innocent black people. But that's obviously not true. And all that matters is the truth. That's all we're saying about all these stories. What actually happened? What is the truth? You're saying some things that aren't true. I want to know what the actual truth is. That's all. Now, the popular narrative about lynching today is that it was a form of murderous violence inflicted by white people on black people for racial reasons. Now it's true, of course, that those kinds of lynchings have occurred in American history, not anytime recently, which is what made that anti lynching bill so ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that lynching was already very much illegal anyway. And yet even Tuskegee university, which is a historically black university, admits that between 1882 and 1968, more than, and this is according to their Tally, more than 27% of lynching victims were white. Now, if lynching was a form of racial violence, then why would a significant percentage of the victims be white? The answer is that historically lynching was a form of mob justice. In the vast majority of cases, the victim, white or black or any race, was accused of committing a serious crime. Now, often, we can't know exactly how often, but they were indeed guilty of committing the crime. The important point is that lynching was not an exclusively racial form of violence. Often it had nothing to do with race at all. I mean, we can confidently say that Most of the 27% of white victims, assuming that percentage is not an undercount, which is a very massive assumption, but we can assume that they were not lynched, you know, for racial reasons. Does it make sense then to assume that every black victim was lynched for racial reasons? Of course it doesn't. In a certain significant percent of cases, they were lynched for the same reason whites were lynched, because they had committed or were accused of committing a crime. And lynching was not invented in 1882 by the way. It had been used all through the early history of the United States and before that happened during colonial times, too. We don't have any data, as far as I could find, on the racial makeup of the victims in the early 19th century and prior to that. But there is good reason to suspect that a large number of them, perhaps even a majority, perhaps even a large majority, were white. And this wasn't just mob justice. Sometimes. Sometimes it was. Sometimes mobs of angry townsfolk banded together to kill some alleged wrongdoer. And sometimes they would do that even though they had a court system and jails that could have brought the alleged criminal to justice in a, you know, civilized and constitutional way. But sometimes lynching was less a case of mob justice and more a case of frontier justice. You know, large swaths of the American territory through much of its early history didn't really have a functioning court system. So there wasn't much you could do with murderers, rapists, and cattle thieves in those cases, but execute them quickly. And, you know, sometimes they will leave their bodies hanging from a tree as a warning to anyone who might think of committing similar crimes. It was brutal and ugly, but sometimes brutal and ugly options were the only ones available. Maybe you can think of a better way to deal with like, a murderer. If you're living in a frontier town and there's no court system and no jail, you've got someone who just murdered someone or is a rapist, what are you supposed to do with that person? So again, we have a story that is much more complicated than the one told today by the media in the education system. Lynchings happened for hundreds of years. A huge number of them had nothing to do with race. Some of them were actually justified and necessary. Some of them were not. Some of them were racial killings, Some of them were not. We can't possibly know what the percentages look like. We can't break it down into a pie chart. And so instead, the popular narrative has simplified the pieces so that the racial killings are the whole pie. And now lynching has become a symbol of anti black racism. But historically, the concept of lynching did not have that automatic racial connotation. It's only relatively recently that the noose has become this, like, racially charged symbol. But it should tell you something, that literally every prominent case of a racist noose being left somewhere to intimidate black people and at any point this century has turned out to be a hoax. All of them have been hoaxes. And maybe that should tell you something. One of the most powerful scenes, for my money, in the miniseries Lonesome Dove, one of the great pieces of, you know, of. Of television or, or film ever made, but one of the most powerful scenes is when Tommy Lee Jones's character Lynch's a group of thieves and murderers and. And including one of them who was a former friend. All of them were white. Now, it's fiction, obviously, but also a pretty fair reflection of historical reality. A pretty fair reflection of what lynching looked like and why it was done in many, many cases, all throughout American history. But importantly, 35 years ago, when the show came out, 35, 40 years ago, whatever it was, nobody flagged the lynching scene as some kind of historical whitewashing. It looked normal to the audience because that's how everyone understood the concept of lynching until, I would argue, the last, like, 20 years or so. And that's when the propaganda went into overdrive. Young men feel directionless. And one of the best answers to that problem is building something real. Start a business, learn a trade, create something new and useful. Take ownership over your own life instead of waiting around for permission from some corporation or government agency or. Problem is that actually building a business is hard enough already. Then you run into the banking system. A lot of small business owners are profitable. They're growing and doing everything right. But big banks still bury them in paperwork and drag the process out for weeks or months just to access capital they need. Right now, more than 70% of small businesses need additional funding at least once a year. That's why Cardiff exists. If you want bank rates without the bank delays, go to Cardiff Co Walsh for up to $500,000 in same day funding. They funded more than $12 billion for businesses since 2004. The application takes less than five minutes. There's no impact on your personal credit. Businesses can get approved in minutes and funded the same day. Which means instead of wasting months fighting bureaucracy, business owners can actually focus on growing their company, hiring people, expanding operations, buying equipment and inventory. Banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loan, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same day funding at Cardiff Co Walsh. Again, that's Cardiff Co Walsh. Real growth, fast funding. Cardiff borrow better. And of course, the propaganda concerns every aspect of our history. It's all encompassing. I mean, some of the most flagrant civil rights mythology involves moving on to another case, the Central Park Five, who were supposedly railroaded and falsely accused of brutally beating and raping a white woman in 1989. Netflix recently released a drama about the incident called When They See Us. And in that drama, here's what one of the black suspects Looks like. And so he's smiling and he's extremely tiny. Your first thought is that, you know, there's no way he could assault an adult woman. He looks so small and innocent. And indeed, the whole series is about how the racist white police and prosecutors decided to frame this kid and his friends for a crime they didn't commit. Never mind the fact that in real life, many of the detectives involved in the case were black. This, by the way, is what the innocent black boy actually looked like in real life. Here he is. So there's a slight disparity there. They're not even hiding the propaganda. It's as flagrant as it could possibly be, but they don't care. Watch. There is not one shred of evidence. Imagine the frenzy of these teenagers ripping off her. They are innocent of these crimes.
- [26:00]
D
They are guilty to the account of assault, to the count of riot, to the account of attempted murder.
- [26:07]
C
Why they doing us like this?
- [26:09]
E
What other way they ever do us?
- [26:14]
D
I've been having these dreams. I keep hearing these footsteps and they
- [26:20]
C
coming closer and closer.
- [26:25]
D
That's me coming to bring you home.
- [26:33]
A
They said if I went along with it that I could go home. And that's all I wanted. The police will do anything lie on us. They will lock us up. They will kill us. This portrayal of the prosecutor was so bad that the prosecutor sued Netflix and won a settlement. It was just totally over the top and false. The story they're pushing, which is a story you'll find everywhere from textbooks to movies, is that the detectives grilled these five teenagers, four black and one Hispanic, who were between 14 and 16 years old, for hours on end. They told them to confess and they planted all kinds of information in their heads. In the end, the teenagers broke. They implicated themselves in writing and on video, all because the racist police officers played a dirty trick on them all. Five of them implicated themselves, several of them in the presence of their parents, all because the police pressured them to confess. Now, one of the first things you need to do when you're evaluating this narrative is to watch the interrogation footage. It's available online. And here's one of the alleged attackers, a 14 year old named Raymond Santana. And pay attention to his demeanor, okay? Listen to how he answers the questions and adds details that weren't asked for. And judge for yourself if you think he's telling the truth.
- [27:42]
D
Why don't you tell me what happened on the night of April 19th in maintenance?
- [27:48]
C
Well, it was supposed to be a bunch of us going to set you phone to rob to Rob bicyclists and joggers.
- [27:56]
D
Okay. What were the others doing? While Kevin was struggling with her with
- [28:00]
C
the wrists, Anton was going for her clothes, and Lopez is doing her arms.
- [28:05]
D
What was Anton doing to her clothes?
- [28:07]
C
Trying to pull them off.
- [28:08]
D
What was she wearing?
- [28:10]
C
I don't know.
- [28:11]
D
Were you getting closer?
- [28:12]
C
Yeah.
- [28:13]
D
You walked toward them.
- [28:14]
C
Mm.
- [28:18]
D
What did you see Anton doing to her?
- [28:20]
C
Just putting more. And Kevin was pulling down his pants. Lopez was smacking the lady in the face. Okay.
- [28:32]
D
Was she screaming?
- [28:33]
C
She was just hollering like, help, help. She was smacking.
- [28:38]
D
You said that Kevin knocked her to the ground. He tripped her?
- [28:40]
C
Yeah.
- [28:41]
D
What happened to her when she was
- [28:43]
C
on the ground, Lopez came, and he was holding by her arms. He pinched her arms with his knees, and then he covered her mouth with his hand. And then she was still screaming, so he started smacking her.
- [28:55]
D
What did he smack her with? His hand. Where did he smack her?
- [28:59]
C
In the face. Smacked her in the face.
- [29:02]
D
Was he. Where was he in relation to her body? She was lying on the ground like this. And he was behind her head?
- [29:08]
C
Yeah.
- [29:08]
D
And he was holding her hands. You said that he was kneeling on her arms?
- [29:11]
C
Yeah, on her arms.
- [29:12]
D
And what was he doing with his hands?
- [29:14]
C
He was covering her mouth. But every time she was told he was smacking, he said, shut up, bitch. Kept smacking.
- [29:19]
D
How many times did he smack him?
- [29:20]
C
I think twice or three times.
- [29:22]
D
And did she keep screaming?
- [29:24]
C
Mm. And he just kept smacking.
- [29:26]
D
Did somebody stuff something in her mouth?
- [29:27]
C
No. He picked up the brick and hit her with the brick? Twice.
- [29:30]
D
Where did he hit her with the brick?
- [29:31]
C
Around her face? Around here or somewhere up here.
- [29:35]
D
After he hit her in the head with a brick, did she stop screaming?
- [29:38]
C
Yeah, she was, like, shocked.
- [29:39]
D
When you say she was shocked, what did you see?
- [29:42]
C
She just stood there. She didn't do nothing.
- [29:45]
D
Did she stop moving?
- [29:46]
C
Mm. She just stood there.
- [29:49]
D
What was Kevin doing while Steve Lopez was holding her hands and hitting her
- [29:53]
C
with the brick he was having sex with?
- [29:55]
D
What did you see him doing? Was he on top of her?
- [29:57]
C
Mm.
- [29:58]
D
You have to answer out loud and say yes or no.
- [30:01]
C
Yes.
- [30:02]
D
And did you see whether his pants were on?
- [30:04]
C
No.
- [30:05]
D
Did he take them all the way off or just take them down or just open his wide? How far down did he pull them?
- [30:10]
C
About a little past the knees.
- [30:12]
D
And did he say anything while he was on top of her?
- [30:16]
C
No, he was just having sex with me.
- [30:20]
D
When this woman was first grabbed, you said you first saw her. Kevin Richardson was holding her wrists. Was he saying anything to her?
- [30:29]
C
He Was just trying to put. I didn't hear him say nothing. I just seen him struggling
- [30:37]
D
when she got knocked down. And you said that Steve Lopez hit her in the head with the brick. Was she bleeding?
- [30:44]
C
I think so, yeah.
- [30:45]
D
Was she bleeding a lot?
- [30:46]
C
No.
- [30:47]
D
No.
- [30:49]
A
Now, the video goes on for a long time. His demeanor doesn't change. He tells a consistent story that he participated in the attack, but his conscience eventually led him to leave the scene as the sexual assault began. Provides a lot of details. Many of them are unprompted kind of details that he'd only know if he was involved in the attack. Anyone looking at this video would have every reason to believe he's telling the truth. And on top of this confession, the police had physical evidence at trial. The jury heard that quote, hair consistent with the female jogger's hair was found on the clothing of Richardson and co defendant Stephen Lopez. Blood stains were found on Santana's right sneaker Salaam's jacket and on co defendant Lopez's underwear. And semen stains were found on the underwear of McCray and Richardson and on Santana's sweatshirt. Now, none of this evidence has ever been refuted. And you're also supposed to ignore the fact that the defendants were convicted of crimes that related to other attacks that same evening, which had nothing to do with the jogger. But if you ask the left, they'll tell you that it's obvious. All these confessions were coerced and planted because the teenagers contradicted themselves on important issues. Of course, if the confessions were planted, then you would expect that they would be consistent, not inconsistent. The truth is that the confessions were consistent on all important matters. That's why they help in court. The defense lawyers in every single case tried to discredit the confessions in front of the jury by pointing out inconsistencies. And in every single case, the jury rejected those claims because they recognized that the inconsistencies were not material. This is a quote from Armstrong Report, which was prepared by. The Armstrong report was prepared by a former prosecutor named Michael Armstrong in 2003. Quote, we believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. All of the defendants were obviously attempting to minimize their own involvement, and the stories they told necessarily included fabrications. The other hand, they were as a general consistency that ran through the defendant's descriptions of the attack on the female jogger. She was jogging. She was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several assailants, sexually abused by some while Others held her arms and legs and left semiconscious in a state of undress after an assault that covered a relatively short period of time. This general description was common to all or most of the defendant's statements. Despite some differences in specifics, the report concluded that the consistencies found in the defendant's statements, the informal remarks made by the defendants at various times, and the corroborative testimony of other witnesses make it more likely than not that the defendants participated in an attack upon the jogger. So why did all five of these teenagers go free? In 2002, a serial rapist named Matthias Reyes confessed to attacking the jogger. He said he was the only one involved, even though there was no evidence to corroborate that claim and his DNA was a match for the crime scene. None of the Central Park Five were connected to the case by DNA. This was treated as a major revelation by the news media, but it wasn't remarkable information at all. The authorities always understood, because of the unknown DNA, that there was at least one outstanding suspect. This all came up at trial. Police had no reason to believe that any of the teenagers would have left DNA on the scene, at least not the kind of DNA they were looking for at the time. So the identification of a new suspect and a DNA link really did nothing, from a practical perspective, to exonerate the Central Park Five. But everyone acted otherwise. The DNA. In Manhattan, Robert Morgenthau petitioned for the convictions to be vacated. A judge agreed, and that was it. There wasn't even a hearing. Now, hearing this, leftists will say, but Matthias Reyes confessed. And he specifically said he was the only one involved. And that's true, he did confess. But it's also a very ironic claim for these people to be making, because in one breath, when it comes to the Central Park Five, they claim the confessions are irrelevant and fake and coerced. And in the next breath, when they're talking about reus, they'll say that we should treat this confession as gospel. He said he acted alone, therefore he acted alone. Case closed. Now, never mind the fact that prosecutors barred detectives from interviewing Reyes and his associates. Never mind the fact that Reyes, who was serving a life sentence, had a motive to lie. He wanted a favorable prison transfer, which he received. Additionally, he was receiving threats through the prison's underground communication system saying he'd be harmed if he didn't come forward. Never mind the fact that New York City Criminal Court Judge Thomas Galligan was quoted as saying, if Reyes is a credible witness, then credibility has a new meaning. And most Importantly, you're supposed to ignore the fact that an acquaintance of Reyes said that Reyes claimed in a private conversation that he joined in on the attack after it was already in progress. So there were independent witnesses who came forward to say that Reyes was lying to the DA but we're supposed to ignore that as well. So the idea of The Essential Park 5 were exonerated, put simply, is totally total propaganda. But it worked. And to understand how it worked, you understand just how brazenly black activists were lying about the crime from the moment it happened. This is from the Washington Post in August 1990. Quote. While many new Yorkers waited in uneasy silence last week for a verdict in the racially charged Central park jogger rape case, Bill Tatum wondered aloud why anyone thought there had been a rape at all. There's just no evidence of a rape. None, said Tatum, 56, the portly, stylish editor and publisher of the Amsterdam News, that the city's oldest and most influential black newspaper. Something bad happened that night, but they certainly can't say it's rape. Other newspapers report on our community. Mayor David N. Dinkins said the Amsterdam News is based in it. Therefore, in many instances, it is able to provide its readers with a more accurate view of the African American experience. The Amsterdam, as it is frequently called, carries weight not just as a newspaper, but also as one of the city's most prominent black run enterprises, closed wood. So it's very similar to the brazen propaganda we see today. They simply deny basic observable facts and they get away with it. They become heroes to the black community. One of the Central Park Five, a man named Yusuf Salaam, is now a New York City councilman. Several of them work for the Innocence Project, which specializes in freeing criminals. Many of them are guilty on technicalities. It's actually one of the worst organizations in the entire country. It's in terms of the damage that it does to communities by releasing these people. They use false narratives to spring dangerous criminals on society. And every time there's a story about innocent projects having. Having some success in getting a criminal out, everyone just assumes, based on the name of the organization that, oh, they proved this person was innocent. No, very often they get these people out on tech. Very often it's someone who's clearly guilty, but some kind of technical thing happened. And so on a technicality, they spring this guilty person from prison. This is what this organization does. Horrible. I started the real history series because false historical narratives are fundamental to the left's power in this country. Their mythology is central to everything they do. They come up with extremely obvious lies, but they sell them with total sincerity. And it works. To this day, as we've discussed, millions of people think John Brown was a brave anti slavery crusader. They don't know or care that he slaughtered innocent people, innocent white people and an innocent black man who had nothing to do with slavery. Data brokers collect enormous amounts of information about you every single day. They track what you search for, what websites you visit, what you buy, what you click on, what apps you use, even how long you spend looking at certain pages online. They compile all that information into profiles and sell it to advertisers, corporations, political groups, sometimes even outright scammers. The reality is that your online activity paints an incredibly detailed picture of your life. Your habits, interests, financial concerns, health questions, beliefs, routines. Companies make billions of dollars collecting and selling information. That's why I use ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your online activity, routes it through secure servers. That means your Internet provider, data brokers, and big tech companies cannot track what you do online. It also hides your IP address, which is the number used to identify you online. Without the identifier, data brokers have far less valuable information to collect and sell. And one thing I like about ExpressVPN is that it's simple. You open the app, tap one button, and your devices are protected. It works on phones, laptops, tablets, desktops, and smart TVs. It's not about doing anything shady online. It's about the fact that that more and more of modern life happens digitally. Which means more and more modern life is constantly being monitored and monetized. Protecting your privacy should not be controversial. And right now, you can get ExpressVPN at its lowest price ever. Just 3.49amonth. It's less than 12 cents a day. My subscribers can get an extra four months and use my special link code expressvpn.com Walsh get four extra months of ExpressVPN. That's exp r e s s vpn.com Walsh along the same lines, leftists are transfixed by something they call the Tulsa Race massacre. Few years ago, a show on HBO called the Watchmen popularized this myth. On the left, they depicted a genocidal and unprovoked attack by white people. Watch. They don't provide any context whatsoever. They claim that white people just started executing black people solely because they were black. And every single comment is treating this footage like it's found footage from the 1920s. They're acting like It's a an authentic historical document. The top comment reads, the fact that this atrocity wasn't taught in schools is a travesty in itself. And every other comment is like that. Even though by the way it is taught in schools. It should be obvious that people shouldn't get their history from an HBO show. That's exactly what happened. Here's a social media Post with 700,000 likes. For example, quote, I remember when Watchmen aired and it showed the Tulsa massacre. No clue it even happened. It's terrifying knowing this evil happened in recent history and the people involved tried to hide it. Now, HBO obviously didn't invent this narrative either. The so called Tulsa race massacre has been a fixture of leftist propaganda for a very long time. And again, it is in the school. They do teach it in schools, but there's a lot missing from the narrative. Okay, so I'll explain. Dick rowland was a 19 year old shoe shiner in Tulsa. Rowland, taking a break from his job, went into a nearby building where he sexually assaulted a 17 year old white girl named Sarah Page was working as an elevator operator. According to local news reports at the time, Rowland grabbed her arms, scratched her tor clothes and tried to assault her. The woman shrieked and Rowan only abandoned the attack when someone else came over to assist her rally denied that he attacked the woman and claimed that he just fell on top of her somehow. At the blaze, John Doyle described what happened next. Watch.
- [41:57]
H
So tensions explode in Jim Crow Tulsa and word start spreading all around that there may be a lynching. And ironically, the only reason that people believe that there might be a lynching was because a year prior, a white man named Roy Belton was lynched after being suspended, suspected of murder. So a bunch of angry white people show up outside the courthouse, but they were kept at bay by the sheriff and his six armed men. And the most chaotic it got was when a bunch of white people, like three of them walked inside the the courthouse and said, hey, hand him over. The sheriff was like no. And then they just left. So now seeing this angry mob of white people, a bunch of black people decide to go arm themselves to confront this mob to protect Dick Rowland, even though again, the sheriff pretty much has it all under control. So a bunch of them armed themselves with rifles and shotguns and march to go confront this mob outside of the courthouse. So then the white people are like, why are they armed? We should probably be armed. So then they go get armed. And this standoff ends up turning pretty deadly with black people actually attacking first, opening fire on Whites after they claim a white guy tried to disarm one of the armed black guys in front of a bunch of other armed black guys. I don't know if I buy that, but the result was 12 people dead, 10 of whom were white and two were black. So total chaos erupts. Riots, shootings, fires. Over 24 hours, Greenwood burn. Up to 300 people die, most of whom are black. And thousands become homeless. But that did start because of black aggression, right? Wasn't just like random white rape.
- [43:10]
A
So to recap, after this black guy was arrested for attempted rape, a lot of people, including white people and black people, showed up at the jail. The black militia was worried that the suspect, suspected rapist, would get lynched, just like a white guy had been lynched recently at the time this happened. But they didn't remain peaceful for very long. The black militia brought their weapons and opened fire. They killed several white people and then the white people got their guns and, and retaliated against the people who had attacked them. Now, there's a reason that all of this context is stripped out of the official narrative. It completely undercuts everything they're saying. They know that if the narrative was, well, black people open fire for no reason, but then the white people overreacted in response, well, then the whole event would lose much of the anti white narrative power that it currently has. And this is the trend you begin to see. The propagandists take some event in history that did happen in many cases, they strip it down to the studs, clear away all the stuff that makes the event more complicated or that in any way implicates the narrative's protagonists. And then they retell the story with those details removed and some fabricated details mixed in. It's a very clever and effective strategy. It's extremely difficult decades or centuries later sometimes to separate fact from fiction, which when they're interwoven in this way, and if you're lying about a thing that actually happened, it actually was bad, then the propagandist can always say, as a last resort, hey, maybe you're right that some facts were left out. But why are you so focused on that? What does it matter to you? Are you saying that this bad thing was actually good? What are you really up to here? This is what many commentators did a few weeks ago when I tried to correct the record on Rosa Parks on the Rosa park story. And many details are left out of that story, as we discussed. And my attempt to simply give the full story was met with accusations that although what I'm saying is true. I must really be trying to justify the segregation of black people on buses, right? That was the ridiculous claim. We could do the same thing with someone like Harriet Tubman. Her story is shrouded in mythology. Many of the supposed facts about Tubman and the Underground Railroad are fabricated or invented out of whole cloth. But she was a real person. She did help free some slaves. So extracting the real facts from the mythology is difficult. And any attempt to do so again will be met with people not so much refuting your point, but rather impugning your motives in raising the point in the first place. This is how the game is played. And they play this game with the incident in Tulsa by just omitting the whole part of the black mob opening fire because it's cleaner that way. The HBO show literally begins in the violence of the in the middle of violence, without any context. And they make it seem like white people were the only ones doing the shooting. And millions of people buy the story without any hesitation. They fabricate history in order to make white people look like genocidal maniacs and black people the perpetual victims. It's a never ending story and it's one we're all familiar with. Now, if you read the official narratives carefully, you'll find that they try to paper over the storyline a bit. Here's the Washington Post, for example, quote, Black World War I veterans who wanted to protect Rowland from being lynched rushed to the courthouse to defend him. A shot was fired and all hell broke loose. A massacre survivor recalled later. So as you catch that a shot was fired, I made this point when I did my takedown of the of that atrocious Ken Burns documentary on the American Revolution. Always have to pay close attention whenever you hear the passive voice. When you hear a shot was fired, you should ask, well, who fired it? You know, along the same lines, when you hear slaves were sent to America, you should ask, well who sent them? Whatever they want to hide the truth, they bring out the passive voice. This is a very common thing. And the reason I went into particular detail on these myths is that they persist to this day. There are plenty of other myths, like the Tana Brawley case, Michael Brown, hands up, don't shoot lie, Breonna Taylor nonsense, etc. Many others that we could add to the list. But if you're paying the slightest bit of attention, then you already know that those narratives are false. By contrast, the historical myths that I just mentioned and many more that we could mention are still to this day pushed by our schools and by the corporate press. We should use the conviction of Carmelo Anthony and the flood of lies that surrounded this case as an opportunity to remind ourselves that that much of our history as it's communicated to us in the modern school system is simply fake. The lies are brazen because brazen lies told with confidence are the most effective. I mean, the same people will tell you that Carmelo Anthony was a victim are the same people who are lying to you about the Civil Rights movement and the extensive damage that it's done to our country. We just released a two part documentary on the topic on the Daily Wire. Could have been 500 parts, really. After enduring the Carmelo Anthony trial and all the lies we've been told, it's now abundantly clear that these people are never going to stop lying. All we can do in response is to read as many primary sources as possible. Tune out the hysteria and intimidation, correct the record fearlessly, even if they yell at you for doing it. They lie about our past so they can repeat the same tactics over and over again. It's the only move they have. And as Carmelo Anthony rots in prison like he deserves, while Rick Chow and Daniel Penny and Kyle Rittenhouse go free as they deserve, they must be realizing that their one move, namely lying about everything, is finally losing its effectiveness. The truth is winning. All we have to do, which I'm going to devote the rest of my career to doing, is to continue telling the truth about our history. And the more they howl, the more they threaten us, the more they attack us, the more we know they're losing whatever power they once had. They are afraid and desperate. And especially after this week, it's never been more obvious that we will defeat them. That will do it for the show this week. Have a great weekend. Talk to you on Monday. Godspeed. Last month we judged Martin Luther King Jr. Not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. American school kids spend a lot of time hearing about MLK and Rosa Parks. Have you noticed no one ever asks what Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery are like today. The legacy of the Civil Rights movement wasn't a racially harmonious utopia. Its hollowed out urban cores, hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, raped grandmothers, ethnic cleansing entire neighborhoods. This month we survey firsthand accounts of the historic wave of nonviolent crime riots unleashed on this country by the Civil Rights movement, which caused more enduring damage on America's greatest cities than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who were the winners and who were the losers? What's the truth about redlining, white flight, affirmative action. Don't want to miss the second second part of our special on the civil rights movement, the looting of America on Daily Wire. Plus.