Abortion enthusiasts were shouting, ranting, and threatening at the Supreme Court yesterday. I'll explain why their freak out reveals the lie in the "abortion is health care" claim. Also, five headlines, including a very disturbing story about bigotry and intolerance at the Daily Wire. And I'll answer your emails.
Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://www.dailywire.com/coldwar. In Part 1 we peel back the layers of mystery cloaking the Terror state run by the Kremlin, and watch as America takes its first small steps onto the stage of world leadership.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today, on the Matt Wall Show, the left comes apart at the seams, panics, goes into hysterics.
Stop me if you've heard this one before.
In this case, because of a case that's being argued at the Supreme Court right now that deals with abortion.
In fact, we've reached the point where Democratic senators are standing on the steps of the Supreme Court while cases are being argued, calling out certain justices by name and issuing threats to try to intimidate them into deciding the way the Democrats want.
We'll talk about all of this, but what I really want to focus on especially is the case itself and what it is exactly that Democrats are freaking out about.
Because when you see what they're freaking out about and what all the hysterics are really about, it shows, it reveals the lie in the claim that abortion is healthcare.
It reveals that even they don't think that.
So we'll talk about all that.
Also, five headlines including A very disturbing headline about bigotry and hatred and intolerance right here at The Daily Wire.
So you'll want to hear about this.
Apparently there's this guy named Matt Walsh, Matt Welsh, something like that.
Never heard of him.
But this is a pretty unsavory character.
And he's especially said something that's pretty, pretty shocking and startling.
So we'll talk about that.
And then also, we'll get to your emails.
And there's someone in the emails who thinks that I'm very wrong about the coronavirus and thinks, in fact, that what I've said about the coronavirus is reckless and dangerous.
Is that true?
We'll talk about that as well.
All of that and more coming up.
But first, a word from Fairway.
I've had the great pleasure of eating some of Fairway's products, and I've had the sirloin steak, I've had the T-bone.
I've had various cuts of pork.
The thing I love about it is you don't have to be a great, I am a great chef, let me just
say that, but you don't have to be a great chef.
It's just the meat itself.
It doesn't take a lot of seasoning.
It's just all the flavors come out.
It's delicious stuff.
And it's a much better cut of meat than what you're going to find at the grocery store.
And you're getting it for a better price as well.
Fairway is a family-owned grocery chain that's been in business since 1938.
Fairway's premium beef and all-natural pork is raised by family farmers, hand-cut by a highly experienced team of Fairway butchers from ribs to ribeyes, pork chops, beef tenderloin.
If I had the beef tenderloin too, that was delicious.
Their certified heritage pork is crafted in small batches by Midwest Family Farms,
making it the most succulent pork that you're ever gonna taste.
Visit fairwaymeatmarket.com.
You can select your favorite meat products there.
Like I said, this is way better than what you're gonna find if you just go to your local grocery store,
your local grocery chain.
You're gonna get it from a better price as well.
In fact, this week, my listeners can get the Heartland package valued at $230
for just 99.99.
So that's less than a hundred bucks.
You're getting more than 50% off.
Plus you get free shipping when you enter Walsh at checkout.
The Heartland package includes eight, eight ounce all natural boneless pork chops.
You get six, eight ounce USDA choice ribeye steaks.
And then you get one mouthwatering side dish, loaded potato bake, gourmet cheesy corn,
brisket baked beans, whichever one you wanna choose.
That's more than 50% off the best meat in America, plus free shipping.
That's fairwaymeatmarket.com, promo code WALSH.
Look for the Heartland package.
Again, fairwaymeatmarket.com, promo code Walsh.
Look for the Heartland package.
Okay, now, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of June Medical Services v. Rousseau.
The case was brought by abortionists in Louisiana who are very upset about a state law that would require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges in local hospitals.
In case, now the reason for that, in case something goes wrong during an abortion, Which can and does happen quite often.
Well, you're going to need to send the woman to a real hospital so that they can be treated.
Now, we're going to come back to this in a moment.
But that's what sets the stage.
And that's what this case is about.
So this is not a case that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
It's not a case that restricts abortion at all, in fact.
It's not a case that touches on abortion itself at all.
It's a very basic regulation on abortion clinics, requiring abortion clinics to take certain steps to ensure the safety of their patients.
But as we've learned time and time again, any restriction Any regulation, any law, any mere suggestion that comes within 500 miles of abortion is cause for panic by abortion supporters.
And that's what happened yesterday in D.C.
Speaker after speaker got up at their pro-abortion rally, and it just got crazier and crazier as time goes on, as it always does with these leftist rallies.
So let's start with Renee Sherman, who calls herself the Beyonce of abortion storytelling.
Now, I'm not sure what that means exactly.
Does it mean that when she gives her speeches, she lip syncs?
I don't know exactly, but let's watch what she had to say.
We're the abortion providers!
We're the future abortion providers!
Awesome!
And a special shout out to where are my people who had abortions?
Where y'all at?
Nothing about this work is gonna be without us!
Awesome.
So, as I said, I had an abortion when I was 19.
It was honestly one of the best decisions of my life.
I was simply not ready to become a parent, and that's really all you need to know!
Okay.
You know what?
That is perfect.
In many ways.
To begin with, it once again completely annihilates the claim that nobody celebrates abortion.
You've got a woman standing at a microphone shouting, let's hear it for all the people who've had abortions!
If that's not celebrating abortion, then what is celebrating abortion?
What does celebrating abortions look like and sound like, if not that?
I mean, do you need actual confetti raining from the sky?
Do we need the actual champagne to be popped?
Does there need to be a cake with rainbow sprinkles that has the phrase, abortion is healthcare, written in frosting?
Well, that'd be absurd, of course.
Nobody would ever... Oh, wait, right.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Thanks, Miley.
So, yes.
The left celebrates abortion.
Celebrates it all the time.
There's no debate about that.
But you can tell quite a lot from this celebration.
That's what I want to focus on.
Because it's celebrating abortion, but this celebration is missing something, isn't it?
It's missing more than the confetti and the cake.
It's missing... What's the word?
What's the thing that you usually have in a celebration?
Joy.
Happiness.
So even as she's shouting, let's hear it for all the people who've had abortions, the expression on her face is empty.
There's no smile.
There's no happiness in her eyes.
So it's just like, this is her face.
Let's hear it for all the people who've had abortions.
Complete, not even the crack of a smile.
It's not even close to it.
And then the yeas and the woos from the crowd are lifeless.
Forced, unconvincing, everyone's going, whoa!
Yeah!
Yes!
Go us!
These are damaged, guilt-ridden, bitter people who are trying to force themselves to be happy about what they've done by pretending that they're happy.
So this, as I always say, with the celebration of abortion, to shout your abortion, they're trying to convince themselves.
They're not convincing you.
They're not even talking to you.
They're talking to themselves.
They might as well, just imagine, every time you see this kind of thing, just imagine a mirror and they're talking into the mirror.
The Beyonce of abortion storytelling, she probably gets up every single morning and looks in the mirror and says, let's hear it for all the people who had abortions.
We're happy.
Yes, we're very happy.
But it never works.
It's a fake-it-till-you-make-it strategy, but they're never gonna make it.
They're never gonna be happy until they admit to themselves that what they did was evil and horrible and horrendous and hideous.
And then at that point... Now, I'm not saying that a woman who has abortion can never be happier or satisfied in her life.
Again, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying once you begin, just like with anything else that you're feeling guilty about, that you've done, even something that's less serious than killing your own child, but if you want to get past it, if you want to get past that guilt, you're not going to get past it by repressing it, by pretending, trying to convince yourself it was okay.
That's a rationalization.
You'll spend your whole life rationalizing it.
It has to begin by saying, yes, this was wrong.
It was a horrible thing.
You start with that.
You face it.
You confront it.
And then you can finally begin to heal.
Women can find healing after abortions.
But it's not going to be a healing through denial.
There's no such thing as healing through denial.
It doesn't happen.
So for them, as long as they're trying to fool themselves, they're not going to heal.
Speaking of joyless and lifeless, here's Rashida Tlaib.
This past year, I realized, my, my, my, are they obsessed with our bodies, how we talk, how we look, what we stand for?
I mean, this type of policing of our bodies is so interconnected to all the social justice movements all around the country.
I represent the third poorest congressional district in the country.
This issue is an economic justice issue.
This issue is a racial justice issue.
And let me tell you, this obsession with our bodies!
You know, I, in the legislature, in the Michigan legislature, for six years, used to say to people, yo, yo, you know what?
You're so freaking obsessed with what I decide to do with my body, maybe you shouldn't even want to have sex with me!
Or with you!
Or with any woman!
The power that we have over our bodies to push back and use that power and saying enough is enough, we won't stand by for you to commercialize, for you to profit, for you to do all the things you do to what?
To make us less than in this country.
Because that's what it does.
So I want you to know there is more of us than them.
Yo, yo, yo, check it.
Maybe you shouldn't want to have sex with me.
Well, Rashida, I will respect your wishes on that front.
I will... Done and done, okay?
You got it.
No argument from me.
In fact, this might be the only thing that Rashida Tlaib has ever said that both sides can agree on.
Indeed, I believe we have forged a bipartisan consensus on this particular issue.
This is the issue that will unite the entire country, and it's coming from Rashida Tlaib.
I never thought, whoever thought, that she would be the one to say something, and everybody in America can unite in one voice and say, yes, we agree.
You know, I've noticed something.
Feminists in one breath insist that their bodies are none of our business.
Yet, as soon as they finish saying that, they get right back to talking incessantly about their bodies, divulging details we didn't ask for and we didn't want to hear, shouting about their sex lives constantly, shoving it in our faces, while telling us it's none of our business.
All of these details I'm telling you about my sex life are none of your business!
Yes, I agree.
I totally agree.
So shut up!
How about that?
There's a good solution.
And that brings us, speaking of people who need to shut up, that brings us to Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer, of course, who, by the way, has the distinction of, among all US senators, looking the most like a Batman villain.
But yesterday, he decided to really take that role as the Batman villain seriously.
And I'm going to play that clip for you in just a second.
If you haven't seen this, this is...
It's nearly unbelievable.
It gets right up to the edge of you can hardly believe that even a Democrat would say this.
But we'll play that for you in just a second.
Let's check in with our good friends over at Tommy John.
You know, when it comes to comfort, especially comfort beneath your outer garments, shall we say, there's underwear and then there's Tommy John, the revolutionary clothing brand that's redefined comfort for Americans everywhere, including myself.
To put it simply, Tommy John doesn't give an F. That is, they give three Fs.
They don't just give one, they give three.
Fabric, fit, and function.
I think all of those things you're going to want when it comes to underwear.
Tommy John obsesses over every little detail in stitch, and you can really tell, I can tell.
You know, when you see the product, when you put it on, you can tell that this is, they've put a lot of time into, you know, they're not just throwing something together.
This is, every stitch counts by using proprietary fabrics that perform like nothing you've ever worn before.
As a result, Tommy John's men's and women's underwear sport a no wedgie guarantee.
Comfortable?
Stay-put waistbands?
Which is an important aspect of wearing underwear.
And a range of fabrics that are soft, feather-light, moisture-wicking, breathable, designed to move with you, not against you.
And that means that there's no bunching, there's no riding up.
And Tommy John's is so confident in their underwear that if you don't love your first pair, you can get a full refund with their Best Pair You'll Ever Wear, or its free guarantee.
If you want to give Three Fs about your underwear and upgrade with Tommy John's.
Again, that's Fabric Fit and Function and you want to go to Tommy John's.
Hurry to TommyJohn.com slash Walsh for 20% off your first order.
That's TommyJohn.com slash Walsh for 20% off your first order.
TommyJohn.com slash Walsh.
Go there now.
Okay, Chuck Schumer auditioning for his role in the next Batman film.
This is what he had to say.
I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you.
So what has happened here, just to review, is Chuck Schumer, United States Senator, has called out Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name, and says that they have released the whirlwind, they will, quote, pay the price, And they won't know what hit them.
Now, these remarks have provoked condemnation from many people, rightfully so, including Chief Justice Roberts and Donald Trump, President Trump.
Schumer's spokesman has tried to justify this and has said, this is what he said, it was, speaking of the threat, saying, it was a reference to the political price Republicans will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movements on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.
So it's a political price.
BS.
Bull.
Nonsense.
Political price that Republicans will pay?
Well then, that's what you would have said.
You would have said, I'm talking to you, Republicans!
You've unleashed the whirlwind!
Et cetera, et cetera.
He didn't say that.
He called out two justices by name.
They're not politicians.
They're not elected.
Justices don't pay political prizes.
What does a Supreme Court justice care about a grassroots movement?
A grassroots movement can do nothing to the Supreme Court.
It makes no difference to a justice what happens to the political party or what the grassroots movements are doing.
They stay in their position regardless.
They still decide cases.
So to claim that a reference to a political price that a lifetime appointed judge will pay, that claim is incoherent.
By definition, that's sort of the whole point of them being lifetime appointees, is so that they can't pay political prices and they can't be threatened with political repercussions.
That is the whole point.
Schumer is just too much of a rat, too much of a coward to stand by his own words.
This was obviously a threat.
An attempt at intimidation.
And I'm not saying that Schumer is hatching some sort of plan to send assassins after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, although maybe you can't put it past him, but I'm not saying that.
I think this was from Schumer.
His intention was for it to be a sort of vague, general, intimidating statement.
That, hey, you better watch out.
I'm whipping up this crowd, I'm making them angry, and you don't want to have a whole crowd of people, a whole bunch of people that hate your guts.
That's all I'm saying.
You might pay a price for that.
I'm not saying what kind of price, just there might be a price.
You don't have to be a detective to put the dots together, to understand what he's saying.
And again, if it's not a physical price, Then what kind of price are you talking about?
We've already established that it can't be a political price, so tell me what you mean.
He can't say.
So, saying that it's some sort of physical intimidation, that's the only reasonable interpretation.
Now, I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure it's not legal to threaten a Supreme Court justice in order to influence his decision in a case.
It's not legal to threaten judges in general to influence their decisions in cases, or for any other reason.
And there are actually specific laws against uttering threats on Supreme Court grounds, which is what Chuck Schumer just did.
U.S.
Code, reading now from the website of a Cornell Law School, says, It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework, or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court building or on grounds.
Loud, threatening, abusive language.
It's exactly what you heard there.
It's against the law.
Schumer broke the law, period.
He should be arrested for it.
And that's not a joke.
It shouldn't sound like a joke.
I know that's the point we've gotten to in this country where I say a senator should be arrested for breaking the law, and it sounds like I'm joking.
It sounds ridiculous.
The thought of a U.S.
senator facing any kind of legal penalty for breaking a law is almost funny.
It makes you laugh, the thought of it.
Well, it shouldn't be funny.
He's not special.
He's not above the law, even if that's been the way it's worked.
It shouldn't work that way.
And he should be arrested for it.
I don't want to hear just verbal condemnations from Republicans.
Yeah, that too, but why not send the police to arrest this guy who just threatened Supreme Court justices on the steps of the Supreme Court?
Now let's circle back here for a moment because I want to emphasize what this is actually about.
Like I said at the beginning, this is not a case that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
It's not anything close to that.
It's a case centering around a law in one state that would require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges, that is, the ability to admit patients into the hospital.
And the reason for that is very obvious.
If there's a medical emergency, you need to be able to send the patient to the hospital.
And you don't want to just put them in their car and say, well, go to the nearest emergency room and wait there.
You don't want to do that.
You need to get them right into the hospital.
And that's what the admitting privileges is for.
Now, any other Outpatient medical clinic surgery center is going to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
This is a very standard regulation that healthcare clinics face.
And any other, I say other in quotes, any other health clinic wouldn't object to it because they would say, yes, of course we should have that.
So this reveals the lie.
Now they say, abortion is healthcare, just like you saw on Miley's cake there.
Abortion is healthcare, that's what they tell us.
Ilhan Omar sent out a tweet yesterday, abortion is healthcare, period.
That's what they say.
Now, you say abortion is healthcare, my question is, healthcare, okay, well then what illness or injury is it treating?
If something is healthcare, then it should be treating some sort of malady, some sort of illness or injury.
What does abortion treat exactly?
I know the answer.
It treats pregnancy.
But pregnancy is not a malady, it's not an illness, it's not an injury.
So it's not healthcare.
But you claim that it is if you're a pro-abortion person.
Okay, well, then if these are healthcare clinics, let's treat them like any other healthcare medical clinic.
They should have the exact same regulations.
You said it.
So they say, it's healthcare, these are medical clinics.
We say, okay, well then let's give it the same regulations.
No, we can't do that!
That's an attack on women!
Would you ever say, you know, that whatever regulations the orthodontist office has to abide by, would we call that an attack on Patients of the orthodontist clinic?
Would we say that health and safety guidelines of orthodontists, that those guidelines are an attack on the patients of the orthodontist clinic?
Makes no sense.
It's the exact opposite of an attack on the patients.
It's meant to protect the patients.
So they don't, of course, believe what they say themselves.
All right, let's move on to headlines.
Number one, CNN reports a cruise ship passenger died from coronavirus less than two weeks after he returned home, marking California's first death as the disease sickens people in 15 states.
The death reported Wednesday was linked to the Grand Princess cruise ship and was the first coronavirus fatality outside Washington state where 10 people have died.
The cruise ship's being held off the California coast so federal health officials can screen the people aboard, some of whom were on an earlier cruise with the California victim.
The unidentified victim was 71 and had underlying health conditions.
Now, we should note that those deaths in Washington state are at a nursing home, which has been particularly hard hit by the illness.
This again underscores the point that the virus is mostly killing people who are elderly or already sick, which doesn't make it any less sad.
It's still a tragedy, of course, but it does put into perspective Who is actually at risk here of dying or becoming seriously ill from the coronavirus?
And that's what this, we need to have perspective.
We need to have an appropriate, in proportion, risk assessment of the coronavirus.
And we'll get back to that in emails in just a minute.
Number two, Elizabeth Warren supporters are not taking her humiliation and failure lying down.
They've gone into the arsenal of weapons and they've pulled out the only weapon they have, which of course is to accuse everybody of sexism.
That's all they've got.
The S-bomb that they drop on everybody.
Yes, because the only conceivable reason that anyone could ever have for disliking Elizabeth Warren is if they hate all women.
Imagine thinking that.
Imagine thinking that Elizabeth Warren is such an appealing figure, so objectively appealing, that the only reason you could ever have for disliking her is if you have a disdain for all women in general.
Like, that's the only possible explanation.
Now, I've seen a lot of arguments like this one.
This is from June Diane Raphael, who's an actress, apparently, and she says, She says, stop telling your daughters they could be president when you are unwilling to vote for a woman president.
Unwilling to vote for a woman president.
That's what you hear from Warren supporters.
Why are you all unwilling to vote for a woman?
No, we're just unwilling to vote for that woman.
It's not women, it's that woman.
You know, so this is like saying, stop saying you like food if you're unwilling to eat the spoiled yogurt in my fridge.
I mean, you say you like food, but then I served up a nice heaping bowl of moldy, sour, spoiled, rancid yogurt and you wouldn't eat it.
So it seems like you've got a problem with food.
Of course that makes no sense.
It's not food, it's that particular dish you've put in front of me.
It's not women, it's that particular woman you've put in front of us as voters.
By the way, watch how quickly all of these arguments disappear when Nikki Haley runs for president in 2024, which she probably will, I imagine.
All of this stuff goes out the window immediately.
Number three, and some bad news today, unfortunately.
Next month, an asteroid that could be as large as two and a half miles wide will fly right by the Earth, just missing us.
So close.
Damn it.
That was such a tease.
All these asteroids, you know, it's a real problem in the asteroid community.
They're all a bunch of teases.
Just to give you an idea of what we're missing, this thing that could be the solution to all of our problems.
An asteroid that's a mile wide, Hitting Earth at, you know, it would be about 30,000 miles an hour.
That would have the impact of 1 million megaton bombs.
Or it would be 10 million times more destructive than an atomic bomb.
Pretty much no matter where it hits, then, you'd be looking at global destruction.
So just to give some perspective on that, an asteroid that's only a fraction of that size, an asteroid that's the size of, say, a townhouse, would be enough to flatten an entire city.
It would be like, you know, it would be the effect of the Hiroshima bomb, basically.
So, close, but no cigar.
Maybe next time.
Number four, and of course the good news is that at least the world will be wiped out by climate change either way, you know, in 10 years, so.
Number four, in the next big primaries in Michigan next week, an article in Politico argues that Biden could finish Finish off Bernie there.
Bernie won Michigan in 2016.
Looks like, according to the polls, he's seven points down right now.
So if he loses Michigan, then the argument is that it's kind of over for him.
I hate to keep beating this drum, but if Biden wins the nomination, and then the general, we're going to be in a position, this is a serious thing, we're going to be in a position of not knowing really who's in charge.
Because Biden is in the middle of a precipitous mental decline.
It's only going to get worse.
So what happens when he has full-blown dementia?
Does anybody know?
What do we do?
How will we know?
Will they tell us?
When Biden loses his mind, can we trust the administration to tell us that that's what's happening?
And what do we do from there?
And what about on the way to completely losing his mind?
At what point Do we... Is the line drawn, and we say, okay, we've got to get him out of here?
Well, no, but we are entering into uncharted territory, so I guess we're going to find out.
Finally, disturbing headline here.
Look at this.
It says, Daily Wire hosts call for extreme measures, including violence, against drag queens.
This is from Media Matters, of course.
Of course, the article says, the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles
called for drastic measures to prevent drag queens from being around children,
with Walsh explicitly calling for violence against them by saying, quote, real men should kick a drag queen,
quote, out on his ass and call the police.
It's not funny.
It's very serious.
Walsh also said that the adults in a room in which a drag queen danced in front of a child quote should be going to prison.
And Knowles called on quote the arm of the state to stop this.
The Daily Wire's official YouTube account uploaded video of Walsh's extreme comments made during the Matt Walsh Show podcast, which has received more than 31,000 views.
The video cuts off before Walsh's explicit calls for violence, but includes his claim that the adult should be arrested for letting a drag queen perform in front of a child.
Wow.
This is pretty horrifying stuff.
And I personally won't stand for this kind of bigotry.
I don't know who this Matt Welsh guy is.
I've heard of Michael Knowles.
No surprise that he's saying bigoted stuff.
It's exactly what you'd expect from him.
But you know, what they're actually referring to was a video where a drag queen dances suggestively for a little girl while she looks on horrified and all the adults in the room are applauding.
So this wasn't calling for violence against drag queens generally, it was calling for men to take action to defend children from sexual grooming and abuse.
That was the point.
Okay.
The point was, if a child is being abused, exploited, harassed, any decent man, any real man, would step in, step up, and put a stop to it.
But still, yes.
Horribly bigoted.
Very dangerous.
Only a bigot.
Only a bigot would be opposed to the sexual harassment of a child.
That's the only reason that anyone could be opposed to that.
I cannot think of any other reason why a person would be upset about this.
There just isn't any other reason.
Honestly.
And don't worry.
This is not about normalizing pedophilia.
I mean, we're only accusing people of bigotry if they're outraged by the sight of a cross-dressing man in booty shorts dancing for a child.
That's it.
We're shaming people for being against that.
But no, that doesn't logically end in the normalization and defense of pedophilia.
Not at all.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I know it really seems like that's where it's headed, but it's not.
And if you ever say that, you're a bigot too.
Anyway, again, whoever said those things, whoever that was, I denounce it, personally.
Disavow it.
And I just, I don't want any part of it.
All right, we're going to move on to your Daily Cancellation, but before we do, you know, the Daily Wire's own Andrew Klavan, who you know and love, has released the second entry in his excellent Another Kingdom trilogy.
Austin Lively, once just an out of luck Hollywood screenwriter, is now a chosen hero caught
between two worlds in dual quests in both Los Angeles, California, and the magical medieval
world of Galeano.
You can experience this adventure yourself.
You've heard the podcast, of course.
The podcast is wildly popular.
Millions of people have watched it, and I know I have.
But you can get the book today on Amazon.
Andrew Klavan is, if you've never read any of his books, it shouldn't surprise you to
to learn that he's just a great natural writer.
Makes me kind of jealous myself as someone who attempts to write that obviously comes so naturally to him.
So I would absolutely recommend going to get that book right now on Amazon.
Now, for your daily cancellation, and it's the Huffington Post on the chopping block today.
So come on down, Huffington Post.
Yesterday, Huffington Post published this article.
It says, I'm demisexual.
Here's what I want you to know.
I was 23 when I finally discovered there was a word for my experiences and feelings.
And the article consists of a long personal history, a memoir of this woman who's coming out as demisexual.
Very brave, very bold, very beautiful.
And after this long preamble about her romantic life, we finally get to this.
She says, my friends would gush over the cute guys in school and I played along.
I trusted them entirely, so I figured if they thought those boys were cute, they had to
be right.
I never fully understood what it was that was so appealing to them.
They were usually nice, but I had no idea why my friends wanted to kiss them.
I knew close to nothing about most of them.
There was no inkling of sexual or physical attraction to people I didn't know very well, even after puberty.
And now, as an adult, I realize that's exactly what demisexuality is.
I'm attracted to someone only after I develop a deeper emotional connection with them.
I can count on one hand the number of men I've kissed in my life or have been attracted to, and I have no problem with that number.
In no way do I feel that I've missed out.
Because, to my body's inclination, I'd much rather have a seven-hour long conversation with someone than be physically intimate with them.
So there you go.
That's demisexuality.
Women who prefer to develop deep emotional connections.
Women who would rather talk, who just want to talk.
You know, would rather do that than be physically intimate.
They are demisexuals.
So in other words, every woman is a demisexual.
To one extent.
Every woman is on the demisexual spectrum.
Let's put it that way.
You know, there may be varying degrees.
But every woman is in that range.
Call me crazy, but I don't mean to try to otherize or erase demisexuals.
Far be it from me.
Far be it from me to be demophobic.
But I really think we don't need a separate word for this.
You know, I think just woman is fine because we all kind of get it.
We know that that's part of the thing.
And even if it wasn't so common, Right?
We still wouldn't need a word for it.
It's not its own sexuality.
It's not a whole new thing.
Someone who's attracted to another person based more on their personality, that's not... It's pretty normal.
It's just you don't need a new word for that.
There are some people who find a sense of humor to be especially attractive.
There are other people who don't care quite as much about that.
We don't need a name for that.
We don't need to call them humosexuals.
As fun as that would be, to have that label out there.
So this becomes a problem for the LGBT narrative, actually, because we're told that LGBT folks are persecuted and oppressed, yet we also see how people are positively desperate To be a part of this, to be a part of the LGBT club.
Everybody wants to get into the abbreviation, the holy sacred abbreviation.
Everybody's trying to barge their way in.
Trying to find a way in.
Says, no, no, I'm a demisexual.
I'm in a, you know, I'm LGBTQD.
There's D in there somewhere.
People are so determined not to be plain old heterosexual that they're finding ways to slip out of the heterosexual camp.
It's like at night, they slip out And they try to sneak into the LGBT camp.
Trust me, I'm in the heterosexual camp and every morning it's like we wake up and we do roll call and we find that someone else has defected.
It's very sad.
Sometimes we can see them running away.
We'll see a guy kind of running away over the hill and we'll shout to him.
We'll say, hey, hey, where are you going?
What are you doing?
And he'll shout back and say, oh, sorry, I'm leaving.
I discovered that I'm actually, it turns out I'm a Blondisexual.
I prefer women with blonde hair, so I'm Blondisexual.
I'm going over to the LGBT.
I'm getting in there on the B. It's part of the thing.
But Blondisexual isn't a thing, though.
It's not a, everybody likes blonde women.
Come back!
And then they disappear over the horizon.
And all the straight men mourn the loss of our brother-in-arms.
And then we'd put on our cargo shorts, and we'd carry on with our lives.
Anyway, this just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would happen if LGBT people were really persecuted.
I don't think people would be trying.
Generally, when there's a persecuted minority, you don't generally have people claiming to be in that category, even when they're not.
That's not usually what happens, right?
Finally, let's go to emails.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
This is from Adam.
Says, good morning, theocratic fascist overlord.
I work for a gym focusing on being a family center.
We have multiple locations in central Maryland.
As you know, Maryland is a very left-leaning area, and so the place I work is as well.
I was recently asked to replace the signage for our one-off restrooms.
Currently, they have the kind of sign you see on any restroom, the little outline of a man or woman.
I'm being asked to find signs that say, all gender restrooms, like the picture attached.
And there's a picture of the sign.
Since I believe the truth and know that there are only men and women, should I not go along with this?
I see an easy compromise in simply putting a sign that says restroom, but I'm not sure how to present this without having the woke crowd jump on me.
I cannot wait till you assume your true mantle as ruler of this insane world.
We don't have to deal with things like this.
Thank you for your response.
Well, Adam, so you say one-off restroom, so I assume you mean So that's a single person?
Is that what that means?
I don't know what one-off restroom means.
If we're talking about single-person restrooms, then, first of all, I don't think there's any problem here.
I don't think there's any moral quandary.
Now, if it was a multi-person restroom and they were trying to get you to set it up so that any gender can go in there, then I think that's a situation where you have to say no.
I'm not doing that.
That's crazy.
It's dangerous.
But there's no reason for a single-person restroom to be This is the one compromise I'll give to the other side of this discussion when it comes to the restrooms.
Yes, single person restrooms, there's no reason for them not to be available to men or women, right?
Because there's only one person in there at a time.
So I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with putting all gender On there.
Yeah, it's it should both gender should be the phrase all gender makes it sound like there's more than two But it doesn't necessarily mean that Because all you know, so all genders.
Well, there's only two so all means two So I you know, I wouldn't necessarily see I I don't think it's something you need to get yourself fired over I don't think that they're asking you Directly to deny the truth if they were then then I think that's where you take a stand, but but but they're not You know putting that sign on there is just a little bit of PC.
So it's silly ridiculous PC pandering, but it doesn't really matter anyway Okay, let's move on.
This is from Noah, says, Matt, you're wrong about the coronavirus.
Your comparison of the coronavirus and the flu is faulty and shows your scientific ignorance.
The coronavirus has a much higher mortality rate, two to three percent.
It spreads before symptoms are shown and it has different effects on the body.
Trying to minimize this epidemic is irresponsible and dangerous.
You really are wrong about this and you owe it to your listeners to do better research before spouting off about a subject like this.
Okay, no, I'm not sure you understand my point.
First of all, you don't know that the mortality rate of coronavirus is two or three percent.
It almost certainly is not.
Now, I know that's the reported mortality rate, but as I explained on the show a couple of days ago, that's the mortality rate for reported cases.
So people that have the symptoms, they go to the doctor, they get tested, they come back positive.
If they recover, okay, that's someone who's going to count against the mortality rate.
So two or three percent, to this point, of people who've reported, who have tested positive for and have been reported as positive for coronavirus have died.
Most of them in China.
The issue is that in most cases, in the vast majority of cases, the symptoms for coronavirus are very mild.
It's going to be the symptoms of a cold.
Fever, cough, right, runny nose, that kind of thing.
Which means, almost certainly, I can't say this for sure, but it just, it stands to reason, common sense would tell you, that there have probably been many thousands of people who've had the coronavirus, but it was just mild symptoms, so they didn't go and get tested for it, especially before this was all over the headlines, and recovered, and yet, just, nobody knows, nobody ever found out about it, so they don't count against the mortality rate.
Which is why the real mortality rate is almost certainly a lot less than 2 or 3%.
I don't know what it is, but neither do you.
Second, my point about the flu is not to say that they're the same or equally as dangerous.
I agree that having the coronavirus is probably more dangerous than having the flu.
We don't know the mortality rate again, but it probably is.
It seems like it'd be a good guess to say that the mortality rate, the real mortality rate, is probably still higher than it is for the flu.
So if you had to choose between having the coronavirus or the flu, I think you would choose the flu.
But this is about risk assessment.
Yes, you are more likely to die from the coronavirus if you have it, But you are much, much, much, much, much, much, much more likely to get the flu and not the coronavirus, which means that as you stand there right now as a healthy person, you are much, much, much, much, much, much, much more likely to die of the flu than you are to die of the coronavirus.
Although, chances are, you're not going to die of either one.
You're going to die of something, but probably not one of those.
Millions of people get the flu.
Hundreds of thousands die of it across the world every single year.
Those numbers are exponentially greater than it is for the coronavirus right now.
So it's risk assessment.
What's the risk that you get the coronavirus?
Very small.
If you do get it, what's the risk that you die of it?
Again, very small.
So it's a small risk on top of a small risk.
What's the risk of you getting the flu?
Much greater.
Right?
What's the reason for stipulating this?
Well, because it's good to have a healthy perspective on the dangers that we face as people.
Our survival depends on it, on being good risk assessors.
We have to be able to do that.
Not because we should be dismissive of the coronavirus, but just because it's smart to be more focused on the things that are more likely to be threats to us.
Unfortunately, the problem is that the media's sensationalism often gets us worried, not just with the coronavirus, but in general.
We get worried about things that are on the fringes as far as threats, that are probably not going to affect us.
But the media focuses on those things because they're uncommon, and that makes them more sensational and more interesting to report on.
So we get focused on that, and oftentimes at the expense of focusing on things that are more important.
And that's why you have the, I think, rather absurd dichotomy of people who are going out and buying surgical masks because of the coronavirus, yet haven't even gotten their flu shot.
Bethany Mandel on Twitter made a great analogy.
She said that it's like parents who worry about their kids being kidnapped so they don't let their kids play outside on their own, yet a lot of those very same parents will put their kids in the car seat and not properly hook in the car seat.
You know, when you put the kid in the car seat, you need to have the strap up on their chest.
You need to make sure that it's tight.
A lot of parents just throw their kid in the car seat, buckle it up, don't even worry about adjusting it.
And your kid is much, much, much more likely to die in a car accident because he's not properly strapped in than he is to die from being kidnapped.
Now, if your kid is kidnapped, God forbid, then he, in that scenario, in that context, is of course going to be at a much greater risk than a kid who's in a improperly installed car seat.
But your kid is almost certainly not going to be kidnapped.
Especially by a stranger.
Most of the kidnappings that you hear about, and it's still very rare, but most of the kidnappings that you hear about are custody disputes and that sort of thing.
It's parents kidnapping their own kids in a custody dispute.
If we're talking about kidnapping by a stranger, Like a kid that's abducted off the street in a van, or someone breaks into a house and steals a kid out of the window.
Those sorts of things have happened, but the chances of it happening to your kid are vanishingly small.
It almost definitely won't happen.
Yet, as parents, a lot of us were more worried about that.
You know, I can be guilty of this.
Before I go to bed tonight, I check every single lock in the house, I'm checking the windows, on the fear in the back of my mind that someone's gonna sneak into the house in the middle of the night and steal one of my kids.
Meanwhile, now I am pretty...
I think I am pretty good about the car seat too, but still, this is something that, it's a threat that takes up space in my mind, even though the chances of that happening, it's like, I could leave the door wide open every single night, and almost definitely, nobody will come in and steal my kid.
Yet I still worry about it.
Much more than is reasonable to.
Bad risk assessment.
And so I think that we should try to have an appropriately calibrated risk assessor in our brain, so that we understand what things are actually threats to us, and we focus more on them, and a little bit less on the things that are not really threats, or are not likely to be threats.
That's my point.
Okay.
We'll leave it there.
As I remind you again about the Church of Cowards, which is in stores now, and I appreciate all the great feedback I've gotten on this book.
It's a book that's very personal to me, as any book is when you write it.
But this is a book that I put a lot into it, so I appreciate everyone that's bought it and read it and given it some thought.
And so I hope that you'll give it a read as well.
Go to Amazon right now and pick it up.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks a lot for watching the show, everybody.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Danny D'Amico, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, Chuck Schumer didn't choose the thug life.
Oh wait, yes he did.
He threatened Supreme Court justices if they don't decide on abortion the way he wants.
