Ep. 665 - Shocking Survey Shows Just How Effective Media Disinformation Has Been
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a recent survey shows just how thoroughly the media has misled the public on the topic of police shootings. Also Five Headlines including Dr. Fauci stating that society will not be allowed to go back to normal until he says so. And Biden’s health secretary pick tries to dodge questions about his support for infanticide. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll cancel the chief of the Cherokee Nation, who demands that Jeep stop using his tribe’s name, though he can’t explain why.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a recent survey shows just how thoroughly the media has misled the public on the topic of police shootings.
Also, five headlines, including Dr. Fauci stating that society will not be allowed to go back to normal until he says so.
He's the boss.
And Biden's health secretary pick tries to dodge questions about his support for infanticide.
And our daily cancellation will cancel the chief of Cherokee Nation who demands that Jeep stop using his tribe's name, though he can't explain why.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
In recent years, the media has been in a much publicized war against
misinformation.
One might think it would be quite easy for them to slay that particular dragon.
All they have to do is stop misinforming people.
They are, after all, the primary purveyors of fake news in all of its forms.
Some people may be led astray by, you know, Facebook memes and random tweets that pop into their Twitter feeds.
But the internet trolls who spread lies and innuendo through those avenues are mere amateurs compared to the American media.
The latter group has elevated misinformation to an art form.
They have perfected it.
They are experts in the field.
And now, the world's greatest misinformers have given themselves the task of combating misinformation.
It's a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
But if misinformation is the media's art form, then they're narrative around police shootings.
is their Mona Lisa, their Pieta, their masterpiece.
On no other issue is the general public so thoroughly diluted, misled, and confused, and on no other issue has the consequence of that delusion been so utterly catastrophic.
Billions of dollars of damage inflicted, hundreds of buildings torched, dozens of people murdered, disastrous public policies and laws enacted, and this just over the past nine months, Thanks almost exclusively to the media's misinformation campaign about police shootings.
A recent survey from Skeptic Magazine illustrates, in profound terms, exactly how effective this campaign has been.
Interviewing a sample of American adults across the political spectrum, researchers asked the people two questions.
1.
If you had to guess, how many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019?
And respondents were given options that ranged from about 10 to over 10,000.
2.
If you had to guess, in 2019, what percentage of people killed by police were black?
And here the survey group could respond with any percentage between 0 and 100.
The responses to these two questions reveal confusion, intentionally cultivated confusion on a massive scale.
30% of those identifying as very liberal guessed that about 100 unarmed black men had been killed by police in 2019.
38% of self-identified liberals guessed the same.
So you have very liberal and liberal.
As did 40% of moderates, 40% of conservatives, and 33% of very conservatives.
31% of the very liberal group thought that the number of unarmed black men killed by police was around 1,000, as did 26% of liberals, 16% of moderates, 9% of conservatives, and 13% of very conservatives.
There were even sizable portions of each group that thought that 10,000 or more unarmed black men had been fatally shot by police in a single calendar year.
For very liberals, it was over 20% that thought that.
Liberals 11%, moderates 8%, conservatives 4%, very conservatives 6%.
Now the actual number of unarmed black men killed by police in 2019, according to the Washington Post database, is 13. 13.
Not 100, not 1,000, not 10,000, 13.
And even 13 is likely a significant overestimation.
As I previously showed, only six of the 13 unarmed shootings in that year were clearly unjustified.
Only one was a case of apparent murder, and that officer has been charged accordingly.
You could make a case for manslaughter and two or three of the other cases, and those officers have been charged with crimes too.
But in eight of the 13 unarmed shootings, the suspects were in the process of running officers down in their cars, violently assaulting them, or otherwise presenting themselves as lethal threats.
For example, Kevin Mason of Baltimore is categorized as an unarmed man shot by cops, and he was, but he also told officers that he had a gun and intended to, quote, kill every last one of them.
Marzu Scott was shot while unarmed, but only because he assaulted a female officer, knocked her to the ground, and forced her to use the gun after her taser was ineffective.
Isaiah Lewis pounced on an officer and knocked him unconscious before getting shot.
He also may have been unarmed, but he was no less of a threat because of it.
The point is that not every unarmed shooting is unjustified or even really unarmed.
In fact, at least in 2019, most of the unarmed shootings were clearly justified.
Putting all that to the side, we're left with, quote, about 10 unarmed black men and one woman shot by cops in 2019.
What this means is that the majority of people in every ideological category overestimated the number by at least a factor of 10.
Huge numbers of liberals and moderates overestimated by factors of 100 or 1,000.
The situation isn't much better for the second question.
On average, liberals thought that between 55 and 60 percent of people killed by police in 2019 were black.
Moderates thought the figure was around 45 percent.
Conservatives and very conservatives thought it was between 35 and 45 percent.
Again, all of the groups missed the mark by a wide margin.
In reality, only 23.4 percent of those killed by police in 2019 were black.
Between 2015 and 2020, the figure averages out to about 26 percent.
Conservatives came the closest to the truth, but even they tacked on an imaginary 20% on top of the 23% that it actually was.
Now, you might argue that the average person isn't spending much time researching the exact demographic details of police shootings in 2019 or any other year.
Okay, this is part of my job, so I've done the research, I've looked into it.
Not everybody has, and so you might say, well, it's not very surprising that they get it wrong in a survey of this sort.
But the problem isn't that they didn't know the precise number.
It's that they couldn't land in the ballpark, or even in the neighborhood of the ballpark.
The average person may not know exactly the number of Americans killed each year by lightning strikes, but if I gave you options of, you know, here's a survey question.
How many Americans are killed each year by lightning strikes?
Your options are around 50, around 5,000, or around 50,000.
Now, I'm guessing that you already thought to yourself, well, it's probably around 50.
And that's correct.
That's because the average person has the capacity to make reasonable judgments about the threat posed by lightning strikes.
We all know they happen, but we also know they're pretty rare.
And there's no way in hell that lightning bolts from the sky are smiting 50,000 people in this country every year.
The idea that police are killing 1,000 or 10,000 unarmed black people In a year?
Or that half of the people killed each year by police are black is just as absurd.
It's just as obviously bogus.
But the average person can't see the absurdity for what it is because their judgment and capacity for making reasonable estimations on this issue has been obliterated after years of relentless propaganda from the media.
This is what we're up against.
For all of the skepticism rightly targeted at the media, even the skeptics can be wildly misled by that same media.
No matter how much of an independent thinker, a critical thinker, you might consider yourself to be, it's difficult to keep your wits about you when surrounded by a constant fog of lies and half-truths.
Ed Harris' character in The Truman Show had it right when he said, we accept the reality of the world with which we're presented.
It's as simple as that.
And it is indeed that simple for many of us, but it shouldn't be.
As we have learned time and time again, the reality and what we are presented can often be two very different things.
Let's get now to five headlines.
[MUSIC]
So we've heard from Fauci in sort of vague terms in recent days,
implying that the masking and social distancing and all of that would have
to continue even for people who are vaccinated basically indefinitely.
But now we have him in a teleconference, I think with the National Institute of Health, being as clear and explicit on this subject as we've heard him so far.
And here's what he had to say, listen.
There are certain aspects of being vaccinated and what that means to you personally and your own personal safety and that of your family versus what vaccines will allow you to do in society.
One relates to you yourself being vaccinated.
And the other relates to the number of people and the relative percentage of people in society that will be vaccinated.
Because there will be things that you will not be able to do because the burden of virus in society will be very high, which it is right now.
Even though we're going way down on the decline that Dr. Walensky showed you, we are still at an unacceptably high baseline level.
With the seven day average being quite high.
So there are things, even if you're vaccinated, that you're not going to be able to do in society.
For example, indoor dining, theaters, places where people congregate.
That's because of the safety of society.
You yourself, what you can do When you are together with another person, we are looking at that.
And we're going to try and find out very quickly what recommendations could be made about what people can do.
Okay, so there we go.
They're looking at it.
What can you do with another person?
If you're waiting around for a guy like Fauci to tell you what you can do when you're around another person, then he's looking at it, and he'll get back to you.
But for right now, sit on your couch with your hands tucked under your legs, and don't move, and don't touch anything, and don't talk to anybody, and he'll get back to you, let you know exactly what you're allowed to do in your own house with other people.
I mean, if you are actually still waiting around for guys like Fauci to give you the okay before you go and live your life, then I don't know what to tell you.
There's nothing I could do for you, really.
I mean, you're a hopeless case at this point.
You are hopelessly mindless if you're still waiting for a guy like Fauci to give you the okay.
Of course, unfortunately, depending on where you live, there may be a lot of things that you want to do that you actually can't do because they've been shut down.
Now, I will say, part of me laughs when I hear stuff like this, like, well, you know, we'll find out soon enough when we can start doing things like indoor dining again.
I've been doing indoor dining since the spring.
I took a brief pause in indoor dining because I had to, because where I live, they shut down all the restaurants.
But they opened up after about a month, and I'm going out with my wife regularly to go eat.
And, you know, and if restaurants are open around you, and again, but you would rather sit around and still order DoorDash or whatever and pay the extra $45 fee they tack on top of it for soggy, cold food.
If you want to do that, then fine.
I mean, it's more room for the rest of us, I guess, at the restaurant.
But you shouldn't be waiting around anymore.
You just have to think about, and I always have to emphasize this, Because it's important for us to understand psychologically.
Guys like Fauci, you know, this is not like some kind of conspiracy theory.
This is a basic understanding of human nature.
Fauci, over the last year, has been given enormous power over our everyday lives.
Now, in reality, in actuality, he should have no power over what any of us do.
He's not an elected official.
He's not a lawmaker.
He's not a law enforcement officer.
He should really have no power over us.
But he's been given enormous power.
And also prominence and fame.
How many people knew Fauci's name before all this started?
Now he's a household name?
Household name, incredibly famous, still loved and adored by, somehow, by many people, and with incredible power.
It's, even for people of great virtue and humility and integrity, which I don't think any of that applies to Fauci, but even if you had all that stuff, And then you're given that kind of power and that kind of fame and that kind of recognition and acclaim and all that.
It is very difficult to not be corrupted by it, number one, and also very difficult to willingly give it up.
Because the minute that Fauci says, OK, you know what?
We can start moving back to normal.
The virus is really receding.
We've gotten a hold of it now.
Millions of people have already been infected.
They're immune to it.
Millions more are getting vaccinated.
And so you can go and live your daily life.
And you'll probably be fine.
The minute that Fauci says that, then he goes back to basic irrelevance.
Nobody cares.
He's not doing the — no one's calling him in for interviews anymore.
He's not giving press conferences that 50 million people are going to watch.
He goes back to having no — just being basically a nameless bureaucrat.
I don't think he wants to give that up.
And it's not just him.
There are a lot of people from Fauci's level all the way down to your local bureaucrats, you know, town halls, school boards, all that kind of stuff.
They have been given importance and power and prestige that they've never had before and they don't want to give it up.
So always keep that in mind when you hear these people speaking.
Number two, on Monday, Virginia's state Senate passed a bill that was already approved by the House of Delegates, officially banning, this is from the Daily Wire, officially banning the death penalty in the southern state.
The bill now waits to be signed into law by Democratic Governor Ralph Northam, which is expected.
The bill would join Virginia with 22 other states that have voted to end capital punishment.
The Associated Press reported that Virginia has executed more people in its long history than any other.
So now Virginia, under Ralph Northam, is gearing up to Ban the death penalty.
It's a pretty major story, pretty major development.
And what that's going to mean is that in Virginia, under Ralph Northam, and we should remember this when we hear, well, the death penalty is abolished in Virginia.
Not exactly.
There's a qualifier needed here.
The death penalty is abolished in Virginia for adults.
What this means is that as an adult, you can no longer receive the death penalty no matter what you do.
You could go out, rape and kill, kill children.
In Virginia, like in 22 other states now, there's nothing that you can do that will earn you death, no matter how heinous.
I mean, no matter how much you send the message to society that you don't want to be a part of it, That you don't want to be treated like a human being because you want to act like an animal?
No matter how much you do it, society is still going to keep you around and keep you alive.
And pay money, too, to keep you around and keep you alive.
And not just that, but in fact, the more heinous your crime, the more money society has to pay to house you and keep you alive in prison.
Because you're going to need protection.
If you do something so horrible, Let's say you rape and murder a child.
It's so horrible that even the other murderers in prison hate you for it?
Well, now you need protective custody for your whole life.
That's gonna cost even more money.
So society has to assume the burden, the extra burden, to pay more money to keep you alive because what you did was so heinous.
So that's the situation in Virginia for adults.
But children can still be executed in Virginia, like in all the other states.
Children can still receive the death penalty and due to the tune of about a million a year.
Ralph Northam, famously, infamously, is in favor of the death penalty for infants, born infants.
When a child is born, we can make a decision about what to do with the child.
Can't do that with a child murderer.
We can't make any decisions there.
There's no decision to be made.
I keep them alive three hot meals a day for their whole life.
Uh, sort of on the same subject here.
Number three, Biden has nominated Xavier Becerra to be the new health secretary.
He has no medical background of any kind as far as I can tell, but he's going to be health secretary for whatever reason.
The greater concern is that he's a, he's an infanticidal lunatic.
Um, like every other Democrat, like Ralph Northam, like the whole Democratic party.
Senator Romney questioned him yesterday in a hearing about that, about his support of infanticide, uh, partial birth abortion specifically.
And let's listen to that exchange.
There's a division in our country with regards to the issue of abortion, of course, as you know.
And mainstream Republicans, mainstream Democrats disagree.
But most people agree that partial birth abortion is awful.
You voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.
Why?
So, Senator, here, I understand that people have different, deeply held beliefs on this issue.
And I respect that.
I have worked, as I've mentioned, for decades trying to protect the health of men and women, young and old.
And as Attorney General, my job has been to follow the law and make sure others are following the law.
And I'm also sitting in front of a high-risk OBGYN who, for several decades, had the work of protecting the health of women And a future baby.
And so I will tell you that when I come to these issues, I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you're going to live a healthy life.
And I will tell you that I hope to be able to work with you and others to reach that common ground on so many different issues.
I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial birth abortion, it sounds like we're not going to reach common ground there.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with Romney there.
There's no common ground.
And he says, I respect everyone's opinion.
He didn't answer the question at all, if you noticed.
The question was very simple.
It wasn't a gotcha question.
It wasn't trapping him at all.
He just said, Romney asked, you voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.
Why?
The simplest question.
You voted.
Why'd you do that?
And didn't get an answer.
No answer.
Instead it's, I respect, I deeply respect the deeply held views of everyone and I deeply respect all the deeply, all the deep things that are happening in this deep country.
Well, it's nice that you respect everyone's views.
I don't really believe you that you respect everyone's views, but I'll be honest with you and tell you that I don't respect your views at all.
I also don't respect you as a person, as a man, at all.
I don't respect you.
Because if you get this issue wrong, then you're not deserving of any respect at all as a human being.
You are a disgrace and a scumbag.
That's what you are.
You are a terrible excuse for a man and for an American.
So I want to be really clear about that.
You get this issue wrong.
I have absolutely no respect for your opinion, which is horrific and stupid.
And I have no respect for you as a horrifically stupid person.
Partial birth abortion is, we talked yesterday about the males and the females sports leagues and how that's the easiest societal question we faced, despite the fact that another one of Biden's nominees was saying how difficult it is.
Oh, it's such a difficult question.
All these questions they find so difficult.
Well, I might have to amend my statement.
I said the female sport thing is in fact the easiest societal question we've ever faced.
I'll amend that and say actually partial birth abortion, or really abortion generally, especially partial birth abortion, is the easiest question.
In partial birth abortion, you're taking a child who is in the process of being born.
This is a fully developed child.
An infant.
Okay, you can't hide behind embryo here.
It's not an embryo.
This is a fully developed infant.
You take any newborn child you've seen, lovingly cradled in its mother's arms, that's what the child looks like in the partial birth abortion.
In the process of being born, and you are murdering that child as it emerges from the birth canal.
And you're doing it in the birth canal on a technicality, because you know that once the child emerges from the birth canal, now it will legally count as infanticide, unless guys like Ralph Northam get their way, in which case, even then, you can kill.
Which, really, by the logic of late-term abortion, you may as well kill children who are five days old, or five months old, or five years old.
Because morally, there's no difference.
And you can't hide behind any excuses about it's the woman's body.
The baby is in the process of leaving the woman's body.
So even if I bought into your bodily autonomy arguments for abortion, which I don't, but even if I did, that's out the window.
The child's in the process of being born.
He's not going to be in your body anymore.
The question is, are you going to kill that child a second before it's born?
Are you going to take the extra step of killing that child before it's born?
If you do, and if you are in favor of that, you're simply in favor of murder.
That's it.
You are in favor of murdering a baby because it's an inconvenience to society, to the mother, whatever.
And yeah.
So, I mean, call me crazy.
But if you think there's ever a scenario where it could be okay to suck the brains out of a baby, then I don't respect you or your opinion.
And I think you know that your opinion is not worthy of respect, which is why you won't defend it.
You can't defend it.
And you know it.
All right, let's go number four here.
You heard a lot about the kids in cages during Trump's term.
That was obviously a ridiculous false narrative.
Talking about false narratives.
Police shootings.
I think that's number one on the list of false narratives from the media, but kids in cages, the only reason that isn't number one is because the consequences of that lie have not been nearly as dire as the consequences of the police shooting lie.
That's a simple lie.
And one of the reasons that you knew it was a lie from the beginning, when the left was going on about kids in cages and how worried they are about it and all of that, one of the reasons you knew it was a lie goes back to what we were just discussing.
That there's no way these people actually give a damn anyway.
That's a hint for everybody.
Anytime someone on the left is pretending to care about children, you know something is up because they don't actually care.
There's something else going on here.
Something is wrong anytime someone on the left is pretending to care about children.
And probably what they're saying is completely bogus, as it was here.
So the kids in cages narrative was bogus, but it was pushed by the media and Democrats and Biden himself.
Interesting thing now, though, is that Biden himself is keeping migrant kids in the same places that Trump was keeping them.
Jen Psaki was asked about this at a press conference, and here's how that went.
And to ensure the health and safety of these kids, HHS took steps to open an emergency facility to add capacity where these children can be provided the care they need before they are safely placed with families and sponsors.
So, it's a temporary reopening during COVID-19.
It's the same facility that was open for a month in the Trump administration, summer 2019.
of COVID protocols as unaccompanied minors come into the United States.
And Kamala Harris said, basically, babies in cages is a human rights abuse being committed by the United States government.
So how is this any different than that?
We very much feel that way.
And these are facilities... Let me be clear here.
One, there's a pandemic going on.
I'm sure you're not suggesting that we have children right next to each other in ways that are not COVID safe, are you?
I'm suggesting that Kamala Harris said that this facility, putting people in this facility, was a human rights abuse committed by the United States government, and Jill Biden said, under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages.
Now, it's not under Trump, it's under Biden.
This is not kids being kept in cages.
This is a facility that was opened that's going to follow the same standards as other HHS facilities.
It is not a replication.
Certainly not.
That is never our intention of replicating the immigration policies of the past administration.
Okay.
All right.
Well, we're fine then.
Never mind.
They're not cages, they're facilities now.
You see, there's a clear difference.
It's exactly the same situation, the exact same place, everything's the same, but not cages, they're facilities.
That's all.
Yeah, well, they were facilities all along.
And yes, see, that's the point.
And that's why this is the tricky thing you run into any time you're trying to hold Democrats to their own standard, or to the standards that they've applied to you.
Because we can criticize Biden for this immigration policy because he criticized Trump for the same and mischaracterized it and lied about it.
But we're not saying that what's happening right now is wrong.
Of course the kids are here, especially if they're unaccompanied.
What else are you gonna do?
Just send them off into the wild world by themselves?
When people are coming here, And especially if they're coming here illegally, you got to do something.
And if we're talking about kids, you have to have a place for them.
And we also know, to complicate matters, that oftentimes the adults with the children may pose as parents, but oftentimes they're not actually the parents.
This could be a trafficking situation.
You don't know.
You don't know.
You have no way of knowing.
This is the situation that, you know, the law enforcement officials, immigration officials are put in because of the decision to, you know, among illegal immigrants to do that, to commit that crime and to involve kids in it.
So there's no perfect answer.
There's a lot of times there's no happy conclusion.
You have to do something.
And it makes sense to have, yes, facilities.
So we're not criticizing that.
However, we also can't let you get away with this without pointing out what you're doing.
So that's the balancing act that we always find ourselves in when dealing with the hypocrisy of the left.
Number five, finally, I thought this was fantastic.
Some cops in Pakistan have adopted a new crime-fighting strategy, which is rollerblading.
We have the video here.
Let's play some of this video of the rollerblading cops.
And there's some cool, there's like some cool 80s music that goes with it.
Just perfect music for this.
Almost perfect music.
I think what we really need is maybe something 90s, maybe Ace of Base, even Limp Bizkit.
But they're rollerblading.
One cop pulls his gun out while they're rollerblading.
What I want to see now, this is what I want to see now, is a gang of criminals on skateboards.
So we can have a rollerblade versus skateboard battle.
That's what I actually want to see.
Become like a movie or something.
There's the music.
A movie that I might have written in fourth grade.
The other thing that's missing here with these rollerblading cops is Walkmans.
I'm not sure if the plural is supposed to be Walkman or Walkmans, I was never sure, but you know, the Walkman cassette player that I had when I was in fourth grade?
Maybe Fanny Packs?
I don't know.
But this is great.
I don't know.
How do you take a cop seriously?
I have enough trouble taking the cops seriously on bikes.
I understand the bike cop thing.
I mean, it's a practical solution, especially in the city.
It's hard, though, to take someone seriously as a figure of authority when they're on a bike with a bike helmet.
And in Rollerblades, it makes it even worse.
But I appreciate it.
Creative, you know, ingenuity is what we need in law enforcement, so that's great.
All right, let's move on now to reading the YouTube comments.
Here are some comments from the show yesterday.
From username History and Headlines, he says, it's pretty clear that what happened over the summer was domestic terrorism.
Yeah, pretty clear to you and I. To the guy that's going to be the Attorney General, though, Merrick Garland, not very clear at all.
Because as we learned yesterday, and he actually said this, this is not me, this is not hyperbole, I'm not exaggerating, not a straw man, he actually said that domestic terrorism at night doesn't count.
It might still be a crime, but it's not domestic terrorism because you do it at night.
Jenny V says, came for Shapiro, but now it's all about Matt.
When will we see you do more shows or longer shows?
Well, I do five shows a week.
We put out content on Saturdays, too.
I am doing longer shows.
Like, the shows are 45 minutes to 50 minutes at this point.
What more do you want from me, Jenny?
What more do you want from me?
What else can I do for you?
Back off.
But thanks for watching.
Floor Saza says, Matt, you're pretty damn sexy with big guns and a fantastic beard.
Oh, you're also a great chef.
Chef.
You know, I don't like being catcalled, and there's far too much of that happening in the comments, I've noticed.
Actually, I do like being catcalled, let's be honest about it.
Getting catcalled is great.
I don't know why women complain about it.
What's the problem?
People are complimenting you.
I don't have an issue with it.
You can compliment me all you want.
Let's see, Nicholas says, okay, let's get to more serious topics.
When is your Easter candy review?
I don't have much of a review for Easter candy.
I'm in favor of giving people freedom to eat whatever candy they want on Easter, unless it's Peeps or the big jelly beans.
So only the small gourmet jelly beans are acceptable.
They're the only ones worth a damn.
Big jelly beans can go to hell.
Peeps can go to hell.
And if you eat those things, you can too.
That was a little strong.
I'll back up a little bit.
I won't wish eternal damnation on you for eating the bigger jelly beans, but seriously.
Get better taste.
And finally, Wayne says, Hey, Matt, love the show.
Been listening to it since March of last year.
I'm from Namibia, and here there's a lot of trophy hunting.
Yes, you're right.
The meat does go to the local locals in the area.
There are small shops that clean up the skins, horns and heads of these animals.
And they get money as a result.
It shows that people in the West know nothing about trophy hunting, and it's And it's benefits to the local community here.
Firstly, all hunts are documented and highly regulated by the government.
It's like people think that others just come here and shoot animals that were in a park or something.
No.
There's immense regulation.
It's quite expensive.
And each head of something like a giraffe could be up to $100,000.
These shootings usually happen in conservation farms owned by commercial farmers.
And this is one of the driving forces of tourism and conservation in my country specifically.
Even though I don't know a lot about trophy hunting, I said yesterday that I suspect it's probably okay because of the way that it benefits the people in that region.
And based on your knowledge in Namibia, Wayne, I will say that, yeah, I will officially declare that I am firmly in the camp of pro-trophy hunting.
I am totally in favor.
If it benefits people, you know, if we're using animals in a way, We're not being like reckless and destructive for its own sake, but we're using them in a way that benefits people and people who need that benefit.
You know, people who need the food especially need the money.
So we think about the people that depend on the food and the money from the tourism for trophy hunting.
If we were to take that away, because Westerners, it makes their tummies hurt when they see pictures of giraffes laying dead.
We take that away and it harms people, so I'm not in favor of that.
Kill all the giraffes you want, but do it in a way that benefits people.
I'm not going to fly 2,000, 3,000 miles away or more to go kill a giraffe, but if you want to do it in this way, then more power to you.
Godspeed and God bless.
You know, there's a silver lining to a lot of things that may seem bad at first.
But when it comes to acne, I would say there's no real silver lining.
It's just a bad thing that nobody wants.
There are no benefits to it.
And that's why if you have acne, you want to find a solution.
And that's why you need Proactiv.
Proactiv combines gentle skincare paired with the best acne treatment for your skin.
Proactiv has three different systems designed for your skin type.
No matter your type of breakout, Proactiv combines gentle skincare and they're going to find a solution for you.
So the three systems go this way.
Number one, they have Proactiv MD Advanced.
This is the prescription strength stuff for stubborn breakouts.
Then they have Proactiv Plus Gentle for more gentle sensitive skin types.
If you need something that's really specified to your skin type, then Proactive Gentle is the way to go.
Then there's also Proactive Solution Original, and this is the original system,
suitable for all skin types, and that's kind of whatever the situation,
you know you can't go wrong with that.
With clinically proven ingredients and tested by dermatologists,
they've got the simple three-step system designed for you, and what that means is that when you get proactive,
you are subscribing to consistently clear skin.
This is a problem that if you have, you don't have to live with, you don't have to deal with every day.
You just got to get proactive and be proactive in dealing with the problem.
Right now is a great time to try proactive for our podcast listeners.
You can get a special offer.
Available by going to proactive.com slash Walsh.
Proactive subscribers will receive the hydrating duo as a free gift that includes four hydrogel masks and the green tea moisturizer.
You also get free shipping on top of it.
Again, visit proactive.com slash Walsh to take advantage of this special offer now.
That's proactive.com slash Walsh and subscribe to Clear Skin.
Also want to tell you that tonight, February 24th, is this month's backstage.
You don't want to miss it because, look, we entered 2021 with our debut in the world of entertainment, and we've been keeping the big news coming ever since then.
We announced the big movie deal with Gina Carano.
There's a lot going on.
We're going to talk about all of that today.
If you're not already a Daily Wire member, you can go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join us before backstage so that you can ask questions that we will then answer on the air.
We'll also be talking about Ben Shapiro's new series, Debunked.
There are so many narratives about hot topic issues.
We talked about one of them today with the police shootings.
So many others, climate change, universal health care, COVID policies, all of that stuff.
And what Ben is going to do is he's going to expose the leftist fallacies on all these different topics using facts and logic.
Ben's new show will be available exclusively to Daily Wire members.
So if you aren't already a member, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code debunked for 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we are canceling the chief of the Cherokee Nation, Chuck Hoskin Jr.
It appears that Chuck has decided that it's time for Jeep to stop using the Cherokee name on its Jeep Cherokees, which have been on the market under that label for something like 40 years.
Chuck is concerned that Jeep has appropriated the Cherokee name.
Now, I'm tempted to say that if Jeep has to give back that name, Cherokee, then I think Chuck has to give the name Chuck back.
Thus, white people.
But I'm not going to say that.
I'm tempted to say it, but I'm not saying it.
Instead, let's just listen to the Cherokee chief himself explain his reasoning such as it is.
Here it is.
Listen.
Today in 2021, as chief of the Cherokee Nation, I am saying categorically that I think it's wrong to use our name to peddle a vehicle.
For most people, tribes don't even maybe seem real in terms of their experience.
Seeing something in history and naming something after something in history probably doesn't feel too bad, particularly if it engenders some strong, positive emotions.
But I think in this year, 2021, we ought to be talking about the fact that tribes are still here, we're vibrant, we do a great deal for our people and our communities, and that our names mean something.
And they've been here A lot longer than the Jeep company and other corporations that have seized our name for profit.
Is there some way that Jeep could use that name that you'd be fine with it?
Well, there's no way that they could use the name that I would be fine with.
It certainly doesn't honor us by using that name, and it was surely never intended to.
Now, just to clarify here, if you're listening to the audio podcast, that was not Ted Cruz.
I know it sounds exactly like him.
I mean, exactly like him.
It does.
But I don't want you to have conjured in your head an image of Ted Cruz in a Native American headdress pretending to be a tribal chief.
There's already one person in the U.S.
Senate pretending to be Native American.
We don't need another.
So that was not Ted Cruz.
No, that was, in fact, Chuck Hoskin Jr.
And you heard his reasoning.
It can be summarized, I think, in three key points.
Number one, It's the year 2021.
Number two, it's wrong to use the Cherokee name to pedal a vehicle.
And number three, the Cherokee tribe still exists.
So those are his three reasons.
I think I'm fairly summarizing them, right?
Now, I would respond to those points this way.
Number one, that's not an argument.
Number two, that's not an argument either.
And number three, neither is that.
None of those are arguments.
The fact that it's the current year and not some other year does not itself explain why any course of action is wrong or right.
Indeed, it is always the current year.
That's the crazy thing.
It has never been anything but the current year.
There has never been a time when people have lived in a year that was not the current year.
Like, yeah, it's 2021 and people are living in 2021 and not in, you know, 2007.
But in 2007, they lived in 2007 and not 1982.
not in 2007. But in 2007, they lived in 2007 and not 1982.
That's the way it works. None of this even begins to explain why Jeep shouldn't put the
name Cherokee on some of its vehicles.
Also, simply stating that it's wrong to use the Cherokee name to pedal a vehicle doesn't explain why it's wrong.
That's the assertion.
That's the proposition you're trying to defend.
You can't defend it by saying it and restating it over and over and again using slightly different words.
This is something that people nowadays don't seem to understand, especially on the internet.
An assertion is not an argument.
The argument is what you present to defend or explain the assertion.
It's not like it's self-evident.
It's not at all evident to me why it's inherently wrong to use the name of a tribe to sell a vehicle.
It's just a name, after all.
Names are fluid things.
They're used in different ways.
They take on different meanings.
You'd think that a culture that wants everything to be fluid, wants even biological reality to be fluid, could understand that names really are fluid.
Gender is not fluid.
Names actually are.
That's one of the reasons why if a man claims to be a woman and says, my name is Susan, I'll call him Susan because a name, you can pick whatever name you want.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that you're a woman because you're not, and you can't pick whatever gender you want.
So names are fluid.
And I'm sure if I go back far enough, I can find a time when the Cherokee weren't even called the Cherokee.
What we're seeing here is this very weird dynamic wherein representation is considered so important.
It's an urgent necessity to make sure that minority groups are portrayed, named, mentioned, shown all the time, everywhere.
But at the same time, the very same people fighting for representation also are fighting to remove representation.
You know, it's a victory for minority groups to be represented.
It's also somehow a victory that Native American groups are less represented in general culture today than they were a year ago.
So which is it?
Are we supposed to be representing or not?
The only way to make sense of this seeming contradiction is to see the Native American identity and the names associated with it as somehow specially sacred and deserving of reverence.
You know, there's nothing insulting about the Jeep Cherokee.
There was nothing insulting about the Native American woman that was used on the Lando Lakes butter containers.
The only way to see this stuff as inappropriate is to ascribe an almost mystical quality to the Native American identity.
But it's not mystical, or sacred, or deserving of any sort of religious reverence.
Native Americans are people.
We put all kinds of people and names on cars, sports teams, helmets, product packaging, etc.
There's no reason why Native Americans should be exempt from that.
So the only logical response, then, to Chuck, in this case, is to say, dude, get over yourself.
Just get over yourself.
But we all know that is not the response that he's going to receive.
In fact, Jeep, in response to this totally manufactured controversy, said, quote, Our vehicle names have been carefully chosen and nurtured over the years to honor and celebrate Native American people for their nobility, prowess, and pride.
We are more than ever committed to a respectful and open dialogue with the Cherokee Nation Principal Chief, Chuck Hoskin, Jr.
Uh-oh.
The open dialogue.
We all know where this is headed.
I mean, there should be no dialogue.
They should say to Chuck, yeah, we aren't going to talk about that because it's stupid.
That should be it.
That should be the beginning and end of their statement.
But they're open to a dialogue.
Which means that within six months, we're going to get the big announcement that Jeep is helping to end racism by erasing yet another cultural reference to Native Americans.
Hooray.
I'm certain that this is where, that that is where this is going to go.
And for that reason, I am cancelling Jeep, too, preemptively.
I won't even give them a chance.
They are cancelled.
Chuck is cancelled.
Ted Cruz is cancelled, in case that really was him.
Everyone is cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today.
Thanks for listening.
Thanks for watching.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, 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 Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, a grand jury declines to indict police officers in the death of black man Daniel Prude, the first black bachelor complains about systemic racism, and Democrats struggle with Joe Biden putting kids in cages.
