Ep. 485 - Girls Sue To Keep Boys Off Girls' Sports Teams. Judge Rigs The Case
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, three brave high school girls are suing to keep boys off girls' sports teams, but the judge has rigged the case. We touched on this story briefly yesterday, but today we’ll go more in depth. Also Five Headlines including a developing showdown in Pennsylvania between the dictator governor and county officials who want to re-open against his wishes. Plus emails and more.
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, three brave high school girls are suing to keep boys off of girls' sports in the state, but the judge has rigged the case against them in a really outrageous way that you just have to hear about.
Now, we touched on this story briefly on the show yesterday, but I want to go into more depth on it because I think it deserves more attention, certainly more attention than it's going to get in mass media.
Also, five headlines, including a developing showdown in Pennsylvania between the dictator-governor And county officials who want to reopen against his wishes.
I think we're going to see more of this in states across the country.
We probably need to see more of this, of elected officials who are sane and reasonable and realize on the local level that we need to get things going again.
And I think they're going to have to just start doing that, despite what the dictator emperor in the governor's mansion thinks.
So we'll talk about that, plus emails, some emails about the Ahmaud Arbery case and much more as well coming up on the show.
But before we get to any of that, I want to tell you about our good friends at Lightstream.
Lightstream, one of our loyal sponsors.
I want to thank all of our sponsors for supporting us during this time and you for supporting us.
And also just to ask you that when you're listening to this show, if you hear us talk about a sponsor selling a product you're interested in, then consider supporting them and going to them for what you're looking for.
So, Lightstream.
Right now, saving every penny you can is especially important, including on your credit card balance.
You've got to start looking at all of the different areas where you can save money.
And this is an area that a lot of people, I think, forget about.
You get a rate as low as 5.95% APR with autopay, much lower than the national average credit card rate of over 19% APR.
There are absolutely no fees.
The application is quick and easy.
It's 100% online.
Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan experience, and that's exactly what they deliver.
People love Lightstream.
Okay, here's what this customer had to say.
I heard about Lightstream while listening to one of my favorite podcasts.
And it prompted me to do some more research after shopping around for a personal loan that would help me get a lower interest rate that was no one easier to work with.
Plus, Lightstream had the best rate by far.
Better yet, no fees.
I had my cash within two business days.
Overall, amazing experience.
Highly recommend.
You can apply today to get a special interest rate discount and save even more.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com.
That's L-I-G-H-T subject to credit approval, rates include 0.5% auto pay
discount.
Terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit lightstream.com slash Walsh for more information.
Okay, so a story reported by the Daily Wire yesterday and that I mentioned, as I said
briefly during the headline segment of the show.
This shows what we're up against in our culture in the fight for truth and sanity.
Because that's what this is really about.
On the most basic level, we're just fighting for rationality and sanity and common sense.
And I think we have to get there first before we can get to the deeper things.
Three high school girls in Connecticut are in a legal dispute.
Over the state's decision to allow males who identify as transgender to compete on girls' sports teams.
Now, in Connecticut, two boys in particular, Andrea Yearwood and Terry Miller, are the names they go by, have been basically dominating the female circuit for a couple of years.
These would be middling athletes, if they were to compete against their own kind, boys.
Against boys, they're middle-of-the-pack, mediocre runners.
But against the girls, they just rake in the wins.
Sometimes, you know, in some races, they have taken first and second place between the two of them.
Now, the lawsuit filed by Selena Soule, Alana Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell, those are all real girls, by the way, seek to put a stop to this madness.
The lawsuit, basically, the case the lawsuit is making is that males have a biological Inherent biological advantage over girls and so therefore we that's why we've in the past had this Really common-sense system of you know, putting the the two sexes in their own sports leagues.
Let's go back to that That's the case that these girls are making But just as the track races are rigged against them now, so it seems is the courtroom District Judge Robert Chetigny presiding over the case Recently instructed lawyers for the plaintiffs That they may not refer to trans athletes as male.
Okay, here's the full quote.
I read this yesterday on the show.
I'm going to read it again.
Remember, this is a judge in a courtroom.
This is not, you know, like a gender studies professor at some university.
This is what a judge is saying.
This is a transcript from a conference call with the lawyers, and here's what he said.
What I'm saying is, you must refer to them as transgender females rather than as males.
Again, that's the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client's legitimate interests.
Referring to these individuals as transgender females is consistent with science, common practice, and perhaps human decency.
To refer to them as males, period, is not accurate.
Certainly not as accurate, and I think it's needlessly provocative.
I don't think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females.
That is what the case is about.
This isn't a case involving males who decided that they want to run in girls' events.
This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls' events.
So, going forward, we will not refer to the proposed interveners as males.
Understood?
And then they were told that if they really have trouble complying with this order, they'd have to take it to the Court of Appeals.
You know, if for some reason Chettigny's order that they can't call males male troubles them, then they'll have to take it to a different court.
And now the lawyers are calling for Chettigny to recuse himself, correctly pointing out that the judge has, quote, destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding.
Indeed, he has done exactly that.
The judge has come out not just as a believer in left-wing gender theory.
Not just that.
I mean, that would be bad enough.
But he's come out as one of the more radical proponents of it, actually.
Because calling trans girls female, that's what he's saying.
He's not even just saying they're girls, he's saying they're female.
And that is a step beyond what even many defenders of Yearwood and Miller and other trans athletes would say.
The usual line is that there's some kind of vague distinction between girl and female, so that a girl might be a girl, but not necessarily female.
That's the usual line that we hear.
And that line is incoherent and crazy enough as it is, and it makes no sense.
But it's not as crazy or as incoherent as to flat-out claim that individuals with XY chromosomes and penises are female, which is what he's saying.
And that, the craziest and most incoherent version of the pro-trans argument, is the one that this judge not only believes, but is trying to impose on the girls as a prerequisite for their lawsuit to continue.
Now the problem, of course, is that the fact that the trans athletes are male is the whole point.
The girl's entire case is that males and females are biologically different, and those differences grant males inherent advantages in most athletic competitions.
If they can't make that case, then they can't make any case, because that's the only case, and it's a pretty good case, I would say.
If they have to pretend for the sake of the lawsuit that boys are female, then they lose the very basis for the lawsuit.
This is the point that Judge Chetigny pretends not to understand.
Remember this part of his little lecture there.
He says, this isn't a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls' events.
On the contrary, Your Honor, that is exactly what the case involves.
That is exactly what the case is.
Males who want to run in girls' events.
That's what it is, by definition.
If they were females competing against other females, there would be no reason for a lawsuit.
It wouldn't be a problem.
I'm thinking that these girls who filed the lawsuit have raced against many other girls, hundreds of other girls.
Never an issue.
Now it is.
Why is that?
Because they're not girls.
And they're certainly not female.
Now, I only wish that the lawyers for the girls had thought to ask the judge a simple question,
which I think is a very relevant question, and to say, well, okay, judge, you say they're female.
Bye.
What's that?
Can you define the word female?
I mean, he apparently thinks that a female is somebody with XX chromosomes or somebody with XY chromosomes.
And that pretty much covers the whole gamut of human possibilities.
So then that would mean that the judge thinks that a female is really nothing in particular.
If he has a definition for the word that would allow it to retain some kind of distinct and objective and unique meaning, while also permitting penis-wielding XYs to fall under its umbrella, I'd really like to hear what that definition is.
But I don't think he can provide one.
I don't think anyone can provide one, because I've been asking, as you know, for like a year, and I have yet to get a response.
And whatever definition of the word female or woman that Judge Chetigny might offer now, you know, I have to wonder if it would be the same definition that he would have offered five or ten years ago.
The judge at 68 years old.
I'm guessing that if I were to go back to when he was, say, 60 years old and ask him if men can have babies or if women can have penises, he would offer a firm no on both counts.
I could be wrong.
It's possible that he's been a radical babbling incoherently about transgender females for most of his adult life.
That's possible.
I tend to doubt it.
Because ten years ago, no one but the most fringe militant on the LGBT left was entertaining any of this nonsense.
You didn't hear about it.
And that's not to say that people who identified as transgender didn't exist ten years ago.
They did, obviously.
But it wasn't an issue.
We weren't talking about it.
And there was almost nobody going around saying that men can have babies, women can have penises.
There was almost nobody arguing that men should be in the women's bathroom or that we should have boys racing against girls.
I ran track when I was in high school, and this never came up.
It was just never an issue.
Nobody ever talked about it.
Now, if you want proof that nobody was talking about this ten years ago, all you have to do is look at what every Democrat on the national stage was saying about the issue of transgenderism during the Bush years, or any time before that.
Just go back and Google it.
Think of any of these elected Democrats who have been on the scene for a while.
Google their name with transgender and, you know, do a search by time frame.
Go back to, you know, I don't know, 2007?
What were they saying about it?
It wouldn't take long to check because they weren't saying much of anything about it.
Now all of them, though, now all of them, from Chuck Schumer to Joe Biden, claims to believe that men are women and women are men.
Did they believe that this whole time, but they just never said anything until the last few years?
Have they held this belief within themselves for decades?
Or did they decide suddenly, collectively, almost overnight, that the country is filled with females trapped in male bodies and the only appropriate response to this epidemic is to invite boys into girls' locker rooms and onto girls' sports teams?
Now, the latter would seem to be the case here.
That this was an almost overnight transition, as it were.
Which raises the question, what prompted this drastic change of mind?
What sparked Judge Chettigny's epiphany?
Assuming that if I had asked Chettigny at 60, Is there such a thing as a female with XY chromosomes and a penis?
Assuming that if I had asked him when he was 60 years old, he would have said no.
Now he's saying that there is.
What happened in between?
Why did he change his mind?
What about Joe Biden?
Joe Biden is 78 years old.
That means up until the age of like 70, at least, he thought he was living in a world where men are men, women are women, and that's pretty much it.
He changed his mind.
Why?
Chetigny says that the science tells us about transgender females.
What science?
Tell me about the science.
Don't just say science.
Ah, the science says it.
Science!
That's the thing I think that sometimes leftists don't understand.
You can't just shout the word science and have that count as making a scientific argument.
You can't go around shouting.
You make a claim and someone says, where are you getting that from?
You can't say, I got it from science.
Science told me.
Like science is some sort of like creature, that invisible creature that whispers in your ear and tells you things.
Science is a method for ascertaining and understanding the truth of the physical world.
So tell me about that method.
Don't just say science.
By what method did you discover that men can have babies?
I mean, can you name a scientific breakthrough or discovery that validates this claim you're making?
Here's the thing.
You take Chetigny, for example.
At some point, he decided that girls have penises.
I mean, not to be too crude about it, but that's what he decided.
I think it's fair to ask why he decided that, and when, and is he really quite sure that he wasn't right about this issue the first time?
And if we had a real news media, this same question would be asked of every single elected Democrat.
I would love to see this question asked just once, of one of these people.
They are all making breathtaking claims about human sexuality and the nature of human beings.
And those claims wildly contradict what most of them have said on the subject for their entire lives until just five seconds ago.
Okay, is this not a flip-flop?
Is this not arguably the weirdest and most dramatic flip-flop in political history?
Can you think of a more dramatic one?
Can you think of one stranger than this?
Where you had politicians that went from, you know, women have vaginas, men have penises, to you can mix and match them?
I think that deserves further investigation.
I think we should be asking, why did you change your mind on this?
What happened?
Simple question.
See, on this issue, I ask really simple, fair questions.
It's not a gotcha.
When I ask the question of, can you define the word woman?
Or, when did you decide that men can have babies, and what made you decide that?
Simple question.
There's no, it's not a gotcha, there's no ulterior motive.
I really want to know.
However you explain the shift, we are now left with a country where millions of people believe, or pretend to believe anyway, that a biological male can wake up in the morning, announce that he's a female, and the only morally acceptable response from society is enthusiastic affirmation and to just give him whatever he wants, including access to the girls' locker room and the girls' sports teams.
And this ideology has seeped into, rapidly seeped into, every institution, especially our academic institutions, but now we find out even in the courtrooms.
And so that is the fight that we are dealing with.
Let's go on to headlines.
As referenced earlier, a looming showdown is developing in Pennsylvania.
Some counties in the state are planning to reopen, regardless of what the governor, Tom Wolf, has to say.
And they've decided to take it upon themselves to make these decisions, not waiting for the emperor to give his approval, and good for them.
I mean, this is exactly what needs to happen.
Officials, you know, those who are in power, who are sane and reasonable and understand that we need to save our economy before it's too late, they need to step up and just do the right thing, regardless of what any dictator in any governor's mansion says.
And so that's happening in some counties in Pennsylvania, but Tom Wolfe is not going to take this defiance lightly.
So he issued a string of tweets yesterday, and let me read some of what he has to say.
I mean, this is just a temper tantrum from a man who does not want to be defied.
He says, I won't sit back and watch residents who live in counties under stay-at-home orders get sick because local leaders cannot see the risks of COVID-19 and push to reopen prematurely.
Today, I'm announcing consequences for counties that do not abide by the law to remain closed.
Non-compliant counties won't be eligible for federal stimulus discretionary funds.
Instead, those funds will be allocated to counties working to stop the spread of COVID-19.
Businesses should know that opening in counties that don't abide by the law will potentially jeopardize their business liability insurance, or the protections it provides.
Dine-in restaurants that open in counties that have not been authorized to reopen will risk receiving a citation.
These citations can ultimately lead to the loss of a restaurant's liquor license.
If your county reopens prematurely and you don't feel comfortable returning to work, rest assured that the Commonwealth will allow you to continue to receive unemployment compensation even if your employer reopens.
We are fighting a war that has taken lives of too many people and we're winning.
The politicians who are encouraging us to quit the fight are acting in a most cowardly way.
Cowards.
This is what he decrees from his throne.
He calls them cowards.
Yes, if you don't listen to, obey, comply with his orders, you're a coward.
That's the way it works now in upside-down land.
Now, a lot could be said in response to this from Tom Wolf.
But I'll just mention one thing, a reminder, as I've discussed on the show throughout the last week or two, because I do think this is the big story of the coronavirus epidemic in America.
Tom Wolfe is one of the governors who sent, by mandate, infected people into nursing homes.
He is directly responsible for many deaths.
He is a grandma killer.
Calling people grandma killers left and right, well, he's the grandma killer.
Along with Cuomo, along with the governor of, you know, along with Newsom in California, and other governors who made the same decision.
New Jersey, he has no credibility.
He has no moral authority.
This epidemic would have been, the death toll would be a fraction, a fraction of what it currently is.
If guys like Tom Wolfe and Cuomo and others had actually protected nursing homes rather than directly putting them in harm's way.
Number two, speaking of not being a coward, the Daily Wire reports Tesla CEO Elon Musk has reopened the company's manufacturing plant in Alameda County, California, elevating his public feud with interim public health officer Dr. Erica Pan, who has prohibited the company from resuming businesses via a countywide order that is more strict than the governor's public health order.
In a tweet on Monday afternoon, Musk said that Tesla would begin to ramp up production in the county, which includes the Fremont facility where over 10,000 people have jobs.
Musk said Tesla is restarting production today against Almeda County.
Rules, I will be on the line with everybody else.
If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.
So, I think that's... Again, this is...
This is what we're going to see.
People are, whether it's individual businesses, we've already seen that with the salon owner down in Texas and other places, or county officials, you know, people are just going to start to do the right thing regardless of what any mandate or directive or order from the governor says.
And so if you don't want total lawlessness, if you don't want this thing to get out of control, then You need to step back and let people get back to their lives.
Because that's going to happen regardless.
I think we've reached a point where people are getting back to their lives.
No matter what you say.
You can fight against it.
You can start issuing citations, putting people in jail, have more chaos.
Or you can start facilitating this transition back into freedom and sanity.
Let's see, what else?
According to the AP, Twitter announced Monday it will start alerting users when a tweet makes disputed or misleading claims about the coronavirus.
The new rule is the latest in a wave of stricter policies that tech companies are rolling out to confront an outbreak of virus-related misinformation on their sites.
Facebook and Google have already put similar systems in place.
Now this, of course, is what the left has been pushing for.
They know that Silicon Valley is on their side ideologically, so they want these tech giants to censor, to decide what information is true or worthy of reaching our ears and our eyeballs.
And that's fine.
I'm not in favor of it, but if that's the position they want to take, They're free to take it.
If they want to celebrate censorship, and celebrate the control of information by massive corporations, they're entitled to that view.
But then, my only request is, don't turn around and talk about how evil corporations are, and how we need to break their influence over our culture, and our country, and our politics.
Don't do that.
Don't do that after applauding billion-dollar corporations as they put themselves in the position of being arbiters of truth.
Because if you're going to push for them to do that and celebrate it, then you are putting a lot of trust in their hands.
Number four, a headline in the mirrors, and this is a headline that you almost won't believe it's real, but it is.
Headline says, Deadly coronavirus has proven that women are the stronger sex.
Coronavirus proves that women are the stronger sex.
The article written by Jane Simmons claims that Because more men are dying of the coronavirus, women are stronger.
So, girl power, right?
This writer of an article that was published in a publication is actually gloating.
She wrote a whole article gloating about men dying from the disease.
So, we need not imagine how it would be received if somebody wrote an article claiming that women dying of breast cancer proves that they're the weaker sex.
We don't need to imagine it because we know that would be received exactly as it should be received, with contempt and scorn and mockery, which is how this should be received too.
But aside from, you know, the loathsomeness of gloating over deaths, and aside from the absurdity of claiming that one sex is weaker because it's more susceptible to a particular illness, especially when both sexes have different illnesses that they're more susceptible to, it has nothing to do with strength or weakness, aside from all that, here again, We have a feminist forgetting that she's not allowed to make these kinds of points anymore.
Because this acknowledges biological differences between men and women.
In fact, she even says that verbatim in the article.
That there are biological differences, physical differences between men and women.
If you're a left-wing feminist, you're not allowed to say that anymore.
That's out the window.
Because if you say that, it completely destroys the case for transgenderism.
So, you have to choose.
You can't have both.
Either men and women are interchangeable and the physical differences are non-existent or inconsequential, or men and women are different physically, immutably, biologically.
One or the other.
Can't be both.
And yes, if you're a feminist and you're noticing that by accepting the trans narrative, You are forfeiting all the girl power stuff, all the women's rights stuff, you know, all the women are better than men stuff, all the demonization of men.
I mean, all that goes out the window because there's no difference anymore between these two groups.
The only difference is social.
It's a social construct.
Arbitrary.
Subjective.
So, yeah, if you're a left-wing feminist, maybe you're noticing that.
But then either you can just shut up and comply with the trans narrative and the LGBT narrative, or you can fight back against it to try to reclaim your own narrative.
But the two can't coincide.
They can't work together.
Number five, finally, big news here, the artist Tekashi69, one of my personal favorites, just got out of prison a couple days ago after he snitched on his friends to get a lighter sentence.
So he was, you know, arrested originally for, I don't know what, was it, I don't know, murder or something?
Drugs?
Something like that.
And he turned snitch, he snitched on his friends and his gang, and so he got a lighter sentence.
And he just got released from prison.
It was supposed to be like 40 or 50 years, but because he snitched, he got a light sentence.
And then with the coronavirus thing, and he has asthma, so they let him out even earlier.
And so now he's out.
But the thing is, he's a rapper.
And, you know, being a snitch as a rapper, kind of frowned upon.
So he went to Instagram Live and he tried to explain himself and tried to do a little bit of damage control.
And here's how that went.
It wasn't worth it.
It wasn't.
And I'mma tell you what.
If there is a street code, right?
If there is a street code and there's something so-called as loyalty and everything and no snitching and all of that, I get it, right?
But where was the loyalty when you were sleeping with my baby mother?
Where was the loyalty when you was caught on the wiretap trying to kill me?
Where was the loyalty when you tried to kidnap my mother?
Where was the loyalty when you were stealing millions of dollars from me?
Where was that?
So who broke it first?
All right, I get it.
Don't fight fire with fire.
I'm sorry.
But what did I do wrong?
Be loyal to n****s that's f****d.
My bae moms be loyal to niggas that kidnap me, beat the shit out of me on video and everything?
I'm supposed to be loyal to that?
No, you know what?
You know what it is?
Y'all don't want to accept the fact that those is all true facts.
Y'all don't want to accept... Y'all understand why I snitch.
Y'all understand.
Y'all don't want to understand.
It's not that y'all don't understand.
Y'all don't want to understand.
Y'all don't want to understand that... Damn, this kid really was a... He moved their families out of poverty.
He paid for school for all of the members, whatever, but he snitched on them, why?
Were they loyal to me?
Because when I met Son, he was sleeping on the rug.
I gave him money, yo, look, listen, I'm a rainbow Mexican hair kid, I rap.
I'm not about that gang shit, but listen, I know how to get us out.
You wasn't loyal to me, whether, but y'all understand, y'all understand.
And I know you understand, y'all don't wanna understand.
I do. I do understand, Tekashi69.
Bye.
I do.
I've been there.
Myself.
All of that.
I can relate.
To everything that was just said, honestly.
Even the tattoos.
The hair.
That's how I look on the weekends.
It's pretty uncanny.
I just cover it up with makeup during the week, but the whole look is great.
I mean, he looks like a Batman villain whose origin story is that he fell into a giant tie-dye machine.
And that's what I love about it.
Or he looks like a, I don't know, like a My Little Pony character that, you know, after the show ended got addicted to methamphetamines or something.
But anyway, you know, what he's saying about whatever he's saying is deeply, deeply significant.
And as I said, relatable to me.
And indeed, to all humanity.
I mean, listen to his words.
Listen to what he said there at the end.
He said, you understand, and I know you understand, you don't want to understand.
You understand, I know you understand, you don't want to understand.
Wow.
Think about that.
Think about what he's saying.
So much truth there.
He's basically saying, listen, truth itself, okay, the most difficult truths of life, are self-evident to us.
We have an innate understanding of the truth.
But how often, alas, have we wished to not understand?
How often have we wished that we did not know what we do indeed know?
How often have we looked upon the innocence of a child and said, if only, if only, I could have that innocence back.
That ignorance.
That blissful ignorance.
And that's what I take from Tekashi 6ix9ine.
And that's why he's one of the great artists and one of the great poets and one of the great thinkers of our time.
And I'm just glad he's out of prison finally, so I can once again enjoy his philosophical musings and his angelic music for years to come.
Or until he gets shot for being a snitch.
Whichever comes first.
We'll pray for him.
Okay, let's go on to our daily cancellation.
It's a quick one today.
Today we're cancelling whoever wrote this letter to Slate.
The letter is, I love my boyfriend, but want a girlfriend.
That's how the letter and the advice column is titled on Slate.
But that's not really the cancelable part, okay?
I mean, it is cancelable, but don't get me wrong, but you need to do more than that these days, okay?
Just wanting a polyamorous relationship.
That could have got you cancelled by me.
few years ago, but you gotta impress me.
Just normal degeneracy isn't gonna do it, okay?
So let's read the actual letter.
This is what it says in part.
My partner is the most compassionate, loving, and respectful partner I could ask for.
He supported me through difficult times, weight fluctuations, questioning my gender, changing my name, sobriety, among other things.
I am incredibly attracted to women.
He knows this, and we have talked about opening our relationship.
However, he is on the spectrum of asexuality and is only interested in having sex with me.
Did you catch that?
He's on the spectrum of asexuality.
Why?
Because he wants to be monogamous.
That now puts you on the spectrum of asexuality.
We'll get back to that in a minute, but I also wanted to take note of this part here.
The thought of me having sex with other people makes him deeply uncomfortable, as we both relate to sex in very different ways.
We've had this conversation a few times in the year that we've been together, but with no solid plan or outcome.
We've had this conversation a few times in the year that we've been together, with no solid plan or outcome.
Has been with this girl for a year.
I'm assuming it's a girl and a guy, but who really knows at this point?
But I'll just, let's just go with that for the sake of argument.
This guy has been with this girl for a year.
And he's already put up with everything she listed at the top.
Difficult times, weight fluctuation, questioning my name, questioning my gender, changing my name, sobriety, among other things.
One can only imagine what the other things might be in a list like that.
And now she goes off and she wants to sleep with other people.
All of that in a year.
And they aren't married or anything, so the real advice that needs to be given here is to the guy, to the other person, and that needs to be, like, Get the hell out.
Just run away as fast as you can.
What are you doing?
You fool.
What are you thinking?
Subjecting yourself to... Listen, you usually see the sanest version of a person in the first year.
Ask my wife, okay?
First year of being with my wife is the sanest I've been around her, okay?
Mentally, it all goes downhill from there, right?
Because that's when people are putting on their sanest front.
But, especially for me, you can only pretend to be sane for so long before your internal craziness comes out.
So, you keep that in mind.
So if you're the guy, what you have to realize is that, change the name, change the gender, everything, fluctuating weight, sobriety, this and that, that's the sanest she's gonna get.
And it's only getting crazier from there.
So, and of course, this advice really applies to anyone.
If your boyfriend or girlfriend tells you that, I mean, forget about everything else, but if your boyfriend or girlfriend tells you that they want to see other people and have an open relationship, that is definitely a don't pass go, don't collect $200, just get the hell out kind of moment.
No need for a discussion.
That's the good thing about it.
So it should be a very easy and clean break.
If your girlfriend sits you down and says, you know, I was thinking I'd like to have an open relationship.
The great thing is that you don't need to say anything.
Your response is, say nothing, just stand up, walk out, walk out the door, never talk to him again.
There's no reason to even talk anymore.
It's done at that point.
But back to the spectrum of asexuality thing, because this is really interesting, and it's relevant to me, personally, because I never realized that I was asexual.
Most of you probably aren't surprised to find out that I am, but I'm a little bit surprised.
To me, I always thought that I was in a monogamous relationship with my wife.
Turns out, I'm on the spectrum of asexuality.
I'm just a hop, skip, and a jump away from being a full-on asexual amoeba reproducing through self-replication.
I'm very close to that.
So you notice what's happening in our culture, slowly but surely.
And this is always the trajectory.
Because first we're told, okay, it's okay to be different, to be weird, to have different kinds of desires.
Something that people think is perverse, it's not.
Even if it is, it's okay.
You want to be polyamorous, that's fine.
Yeah, it's different, but it's fine.
That's the first step.
And then we're told, actually, no.
These kinds of desires, they aren't really even different.
They're really normal.
Lots of people feel this way, even if they don't say it.
It's all normal.
Everything is normal.
There is no abnormal or normal.
Everything's normal.
And so it's fine.
That's the second step.
The third step is to say, actually, these things that you thought were abnormal are not only normal, But the opposite of these things, the previously normal things, they're the abnormal things.
And I know we told you that it's okay to be abnormal.
We changed our minds.
Those abnormal things are bad.
You should hate those.
So that's where this heads.
It heads to a place where being in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is spurned, is treated as freakish, as radical, as on some sort of weird spectrum.
There's something wrong with you that you're in a relationship with someone and you only desire them.
What's wrong with you?
You freak.
That's where all this heads.
Okay.
Finally, let's go to emails.
As always, a lot of emails about the Ahmaud Arbery case.
So here's one from John says, Matt, I think you're wrong in the case of Ahmaud Arbery.
I think your conclusion so far is flawed simply because you're ignoring the additional information that has come to light since the original video was leaked.
There are now no less than two additional sources of video and no less than four additional witnesses.
In addition to that, Arbery has been linked by the police to four other cases of theft and burglary in the area where the shooting took place.
The new video clearly shows Arbery walking, not running or jogging, up the street as he approaches the construction site.
He then looks both ways to see if anyone is watching him before running up the driveway and entering the construction site via the garage.
Video from inside the construction site shows him looking around.
The external video then shows someone from across the street walking towards the house, shouting at Arbery.
At this point, Arbery flees down the road.
This is when the McMichaels video takes over.
Given this information, I can reasonably come to the conclusion that McMichaels were indeed attempting a citizen's arrest.
First and foremost, Arbery's behavior approaching the house is inconsistent with the idea that he was out for a jog.
Secondly, under Georgia law, by entering the house with the intent of stealing something, Arbery was already guilty of a felony.
The fact that Arbery's offense was a felony allows McMichaels to pursue and attempt a citizen's arrest under Georgia law.
Georgia is also an open carry state, and once Arbery charged him, both McMichaels and Arbery had a legal standing for a self-defense claim, no matter what the outcome of the confrontation.
Taking all that into consideration, looking at both parties involved, one party is consistently law-abiding, while the other was breaking the law at least twice prior to the confrontation.
This leads me to believe that Arbery was fleeing potential felony charges, not a racist beatdown.
This also leads me to give McMichaels the benefit of the doubt, as he is innocent until proven guilty.
Okay, well, John, I think some of your information is just... So, I think some of your information is incorrect.
And then I also think that you're making a lot of assumptions, but not framing them as assumptions, you're framing them as facts.
So, you say that Arbery has been linked to four other cases of burglary and theft?
Where did you find that?
I haven't seen that anywhere.
And I've looked, so I don't think that's true.
You talk about the video of Arbery, and you have this whole description of the video outside the construction site, looking around to see if anyone's watching.
You're making assumptions about his intention.
And you're also doing this based on... I've looked at that video.
I mean, I've seen the video you're talking about.
There are two other videos, as you mentioned.
There's a video from outside the construction site you're talking about, and there's also a video of Arbery inside the construction site.
But the video outside, it's really hard to see anything.
I don't know how, I mean, you've come up with a lot of very specific details.
I would tell anyone watching this right now, go look at the video that he's talking about.
It's really hard to tell what the hell's going on.
It's distant and grainy and it's hard to tell.
And then the video inside the construction site, all we see is the guy walking in and looking around.
That's all we see.
If anything more sinister happened, it's not on the video.
You say that Arbery went in with the intent to steal.
Well, how do you know that?
I mean, that's, yes, if he went in with the intent to steal, that's very convenient for your case because then you could say it was, you know, at least the intention of a felony.
I mean, if you go into a place looking to steal and you don't steal because there's nothing to steal, is it still a felony?
I mean, maybe it is.
I'm not exactly sure how the law works there.
But that's a hell of an assumption that you're making.
And I don't know how you could possibly make it.
You could say, well, I can't imagine why else he'd be in a construction site.
Okay, fine, that might be why he's there, but that's, you see what I'm saying?
That's just your assumption.
There are other conceivable reasons why a person might be in a construction site, but regardless, I mean, he's dead now, so we can't ask him.
All we have are the bare facts, as far as we know.
As far as we know, as far as what we can prove, maybe I should put it this way, as far as what we can prove is that Arbery went into a construction site, briefly looked around, and left.
That's what we have.
Anything else that you're going to assume about his motivations is just that, an assumption.
And the problem is, if you're going to do that, then you can't complain when people do it with McMichaels.
If you're gonna create this whole narrative of assumptions and motivations and intent on Arbery's case, for Arbery, then what about would people do the same with the McMichaels and say, oh, they were racists out looking for a black person to shoot?
I don't believe that they were.
That's not, I've said the whole time.
I mean, I think that they're wrong in what they did.
I think it was more that they were just trying to be the heroes.
They were trying to be vigilantes.
And they were thinking they were like in an action movie or something.
That's what I take from that.
So, I'm not assuming racist motivations, but I'm also not assuming motivations on Arbery's part either.
I'm just trying to look at what actually happened and what we can prove.
Now, also, the property owner, Larry English, says that nothing was ever stolen from the property, and he never filed any police report for any reason.
That's what he says.
I've seen a lot of people, defenders of the McMichaels, on Twitter and on social media, making all kinds of claims about how things were stolen, and there was copper wire stolen, and this and that.
There were all these break-ins.
Okay, well, the guy who owns the property said that nothing was ever stolen.
So that seems rather significant, doesn't it?
I don't know, how can we just ignore that?
Was anything stolen?
Let's ask the guy who owns the property.
He said no.
He never filed a police report.
There was no break-ins.
There was no theft or robbery from the place.
That's what he said.
His words.
If the guy is saying nothing was stolen, it's reasonable to conclude that Arbery didn't steal anything.
And as this was a construction site, not an occupied residence, what you have then, at most, it seems like, is trespassing, which I don't think is a felony.
Now you claim, again, he had the intent to steal.
But again, how do you know that?
You can assume it, you can guess it, you can theorize about it, you cannot state it as a fact.
And here's what I know for sure.
A civilian is not entitled to chase somebody down with guns because of what that civilian thinks another person might have intended to do, but didn't do.
And that's really what this comes down to, John.
Everything else aside for a moment, okay?
Because I don't know if Arbery was a burglar or not.
Maybe he was.
I mean, I'd be perfectly willing to believe that he was.
I don't know anything about him.
He could be a burglar.
Sure.
I don't know.
I mean, the way some people, the whole idea that he was jogging, I also don't find that outlandish.
I don't know.
There are some people acting like that's a totally outlandish claim.
He was jogging.
Maybe he wasn't, but why is that weird?
It's the middle of the day, a guy's out in the street jogging.
I don't see anything inherently absurd about that claim.
Just like it's not absurd that he was a burglar either.
I mean, a person could be either one of those things.
I think in both cases, there's some weirdness that needs to be explained.
Like, yeah, you could say, well, if he was jogging, then why did he stop at a construction site?
Why wasn't he wearing jogging clothes?
I mean, it's hard to tell what he was wearing, honestly.
But okay, those are questions.
But then also questions, if he was a burglar, why didn't he steal anything?
What was he doing out on foot, miles from the house, in the middle of the day, as a burglar?
That doesn't necessarily seem like what a burglar would do, usually.
So, I don't know.
There are questions either way, but who knows?
So, putting all that aside for a minute.
Because we don't know what his intention was.
What we do know is that the video doesn't show Arbery stealing anything.
We know that there was only one reported burglary in the area seven weeks earlier.
We know that the property owner says nothing was stolen.
All of that, it would seem, cuts against the idea that Arbery was a burglar.
But, again, putting that to the side, you as a civilian do not have the authority to chase somebody down and confront them in the street while brandishing a weapon to question them about a crime you think they committed.
And yes, holding a weapon and telling them to stop and come talk to you and answer a question is brandishing, according to the law.
You say it was self-defense that they shot him.
I don't think so.
It can't be self-defense if you initiate the altercation.
Brandishing a weapon at someone in the middle of the street, not in self-defense initially, but because you think they look suspicious and you want to talk to them, that is you initiating an altercation.
Because the other guy has every right and every reason to assume you mean him harm, whether he's a burglar or not.
So Arbery defended himself.
So it would be like if you punched, it'd be like if I punched you.
And then you punch me, then I punch you back, and on my second punch you die.
I can't claim self-defense.
I can't say that, well, I was responding to your punch.
I was, but I initiated the first punch.
The whole punching altercation was initiated by me, and so I don't get to hide behind self-defense.
I'm the aggressor.
In this case, pulling a gun on someone is the first punch.
You are the aggressor.
Yes, it's an open carry state.
That doesn't mean that you can just grab your gun, hold it in your hand, and go around demanding that people come talk to you.
Not to mention that, stopping your truck in the middle of the street.
You got one guy up with a gun in his hand in the truck bed.
You got another guy, gun in his hand on the street, trying to head Arbery off at the pass.
As a clear case of brandishing, yes, open carry does not mean you can brandish weapons at people.
And I think that's a really important point we should be making as gun rights supporters.
We should be saying this is not what we, as gun rights supporters, this is not what we're talking about, okay?
We don't believe that people who own guns, that should give them the power and the right to walk around holding the guns and demanding people come talk to them and stopping people in the middle of the street Parking our car in the middle of the street and pulling our guns out to go talk to a person.
As gun rights supporters, we need to be saying, no, no, that's not what we're talking about.
That's not what gun owners do.
That's not what responsible gun owners do.
So to me, this is simple, John.
Best case for the McMichaels is that Arbery was a trespasser and maybe, though there's no evidence of it right now, maybe guilty of stealing a tool or some nails or, you know, I don't know what he'd be stealing.
Um, no evidence of that, but let's just say best case for them that he did do that.
None of that comes close to justifying three guys grabbing guns and chasing him down the street.
Um, you know, if he had killed someone, if something really sinister happened in that construction site, like he had killed someone or, you know, attacked or assaulted someone and he was running away, that would totally change the complexion of this case.
But there's no evidence of that.
No one suggested it.
I mean, so we can assume that's not the case.
And, um, what you're left with is, uh, is, is, you know, uh, you're left with, you're left with at best three armed men chasing a guy down the street because he was on a construction site.
Uh, you know, I, I'm sorry.
I just, that, that is a massive overreaction.
And I doubt that you, John, would ever respond that way.
I mean, if you, if you saw someone poking around a construction site, Would you call your son?
Would you grab your shotgun and tell your son to come with you?
Hey, get the gun!
And go chase the guy down?
Would you?
Because he was in a construction site for a few minutes?
I don't think you would.
Alright, let's... But we'll leave it there.
I'm open to more information.
If more information comes out that completely changes my perspective on this, then I'll say so.
I'm not against changing my mind.
But I haven't seen anything yet that would make me do that.
We'll cut it off there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Thanks for listening.
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.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by 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.
Obama wants to forget the past, and the Democrats want to ditch the future.
Only Donald Trump stands between them and us, but can he survive?
