Ep. 694 - Evil To The Left, Cowardice To The Right
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the cowardly governor of Arkansas vetoes a bill that would have banned the chemical castration of children in the state. The Republican Party continues to prove itself utterly useless in the fight against the radical left. Also Five Headlines including the insanely lenient plea deal offered to the two girls who carjacked and murdered a man in DC. If this is privilege, it ain’t white male privilege. Also, another family was harassed on a plane because their young children weren’t masked. And Derek Chauvin’s defense gets the police chief to make a surprising admission on the stand.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the cowardly governor of Arkansas vetoes a bill that would have banned the chemical castration of children in the state.
The Republican Party continues to prove itself utterly useless in the fight against the radical left.
Also, five headlines, including the insanely lenient plea deal offered to the two girls who carjacked and murdered a man in D.C.
If this is privilege, it ain't white male privilege, that's for sure.
Also, another family harassed on a plane because their young children weren't masked.
And Derek Chauvin's defense gets the police chief to make a surprising admission on the stand.
We'll play that for you.
Plus, our daily cancellation and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
If you saw only a picture of it online, you might imagine that you're looking at some sort of strange, half-melted claymation character.
But the blobfish is very real.
It floats along the seafloor, a slimy, droopy, gelatinous, toothless, bottom-feeding invertebrate mass.
Capable only of eating whatever microscopic edible material happens to float in front of it.
It also has no muscle and no defense mechanism, except to slink along in the dark, hoping that the bigger fish don't notice it.
This is why I've long believed that the blobfish should be the Republican Party's mascot.
Republicans certainly are not worthy of their elephant totem.
Elephants are noble, intelligent, strong, sturdy, formidable.
Elected Republicans, with very rare exception, are none of those things.
They're much more like the blobfish, spineless, squishy, ridiculous, defenseless, slithering along uselessly in the muck, hoping not to be noticed.
Over the last couple weeks, Republicans have worked especially hard to earn the new mascot that I'm proposing.
First, Kristi Noem of South Dakota vetoed a bill, as we discussed on this show, that would have banned males from women's sports.
The stated reason for the veto was that the NCAA Would be mad at her if she signed it, and she doesn't want to make them mad.
That's only a slight paraphrase, if you remember when we played that audio clip.
If you thought that would be the most egregious cave we've seen from a Republican this spring, you were mistaken.
Caving, after all, is what Republicans do best.
Perhaps on second thought, I should have suggested a sinkhole as the GOP's emblem.
Maybe that would be more appropriate, even.
And that brings us to Asa Hutchinson, the Republican governor of Arkansas.
Hutchinson, ever the chivalrous gentleman, decided to rescue Noam from having to bear the title as the party's new biggest wimp.
So yesterday, the governor announced that he was vetoing a bill that would have banned the chemical castration of children and all other forms of, quote, gender transition therapy for minors who lack the ability to fully consent to such life-altering procedures.
Now, I could see how a conservative who's been living underground, let's say, for the past 15 years, or maybe at the bottom of the sea to keep the blobfish thing going, might oppose such a bill simply because it would seem to them to be so wildly unnecessary.
I mean, surely they might protest.
We don't need legislation to stop doctors from trying to physically turn boys into girls.
Nobody would ever do such a thing.
We don't need this bill.
You might think that if you have not been above ground and conscious for the last 15 years, but Asa Hutchinson has been above ground and conscious as far as I know.
He's been in the governor's mansion, which might as well be underground in so many cases, but no, he knows that a bill like this is indeed necessary, though it should not be, but it is.
This is no mere theoretical or academic issue.
Many millions of children are being indoctrinated into the left's gender theory doctrines as we speak.
They're having gender confusion purposefully instilled in their minds.
A certain sizable portion of them will eventually be, quote, transitioned.
So this is a real issue, and an important one.
There are not many issues that can reasonably be considered more important, as far as I can tell.
Hutchinson, as a sane though spineless man, knows all of this.
He vetoed the bill anyway on the basis that stopping doctors from dosing physically healthy children with dangerous hormone blockers is somehow government overreach, he said.
Here he is explaining.
House Bill 1570 would put the state as the definitive oracle of medical care overriding parents, patients, and healthcare experts.
While in some instances the state must act to protect life, the state should not presume to jump into the middle of every medical, human, and ethical issue.
This would be and is a vast government overreach.
This guy, he's 70 years old.
He's about to be term limited, thank God.
He can't run for re-election anyway.
70 years old, he's getting term limited out of the position as governor.
What does he have to lose?
Literally nothing to lose.
You might as well just sign the bill.
Yet he can't do it.
That's how much of a completely useless coward this person is.
Even in that position with nothing to lose, he still can't do it.
He's terrified.
He's terrified.
Of making people mad at him.
Now, he says he worries that the bill would allow the state to override parents, patients, and healthcare experts.
But the patients, in this case, are children.
We override the decisions of children all the time.
I often have to issue my own parental vetoes, squashing my son's plan to eat nothing but ketchup and bread for every meal, or my daughter's proposal that she made recently that we capture a squirrel and bring it into the house as a pet.
Okay, I had to veto that.
Kids are famously bad at analyzing the long-term effects of their actions, or even the short-term effects.
It's not their fault they lack the neurological equipment to think in those terms.
This is why we don't let children get tattoos or buy guns or buy tobacco products.
They're simply too young to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.
Override them?
Yes, of course.
All the time.
That's our job as adults.
What about the parents and the, quote, healthcare experts?
Well, we'd have no trouble overriding a parent who took his 11-year-old son into the tattoo parlor to get a giant picture of Scooby-Doo inked permanently on his forearm.
We would not only override such a parent, but they would likely get a visit from Child Protective Services, wouldn't they?
It's possible for a parent to be wrong in the decisions they make for their child.
It's possible for healthcare experts to be wrong, too.
This is one of those times.
Indeed, healthcare experts not long ago would have said that a gender confused child is either going through a phase or worst case is suffering from a mental disorder.
There would have been no discussion of putting the child on drugs to change his body in order to conform it with his delusions.
Therapy and counseling would have been the preferred treatment course not long ago.
As it turns out, We have no choice but to use the word wrong in reference to these healthcare experts.
They were either wrong a few years ago, or they're wrong now.
If you think they're right now, then you think they were wrong before.
Whichever way you go, you're calling healthcare experts wrong.
God forbid.
And that's fine, because healthcare experts can be wrong.
And they most certainly are wrong in this case.
And by the way, it's not like every healthcare expert actually agrees with this anyway.
Despite what you may have been told, not every health care expert is lining up to endorse the idea of drugging children who are gender confused.
It's just that the ones who don't endorse it either are too afraid to speak too loudly in their opposition, or if they do speak up in opposition, they're going to be, well, they're going to get exactly the kind of treatment that Asa Hutchinson was afraid of receiving, which is why he made the decision he made.
Now, Hutchinson, further explaining his veto, also explained that The bill is, quote, opposed by the leading Arkansas associations.
The leading Arkansas associations.
What associations?
Oh, just the leading ones.
You know, the associations.
All of them.
They don't like it.
And he says, and the concern expressed is that denying best medical care to transgender youth can lead to significant harm to the young person from suicidal tendencies and social isolation to increased drug use.
Okay.
Consider what is happening here.
A Republican governor in Arkansas is affirming the idea that chemical castration may be, quote, the best medical care for a boy who's confused about his gender.
Again, this is a view so radical that only a few years ago, it wasn't even accepted by the most fringe people on the left.
Now, in the blink of an eye, elected Republicans in the South are endorsing it.
Our plunge into madness has hit warp speed, and the Republican Party is completely incapable of doing anything about it, and unwilling.
And what is this medical care exactly?
Well, in many cases, it means physically healthy boys taking drugs that were initially developed to treat prostate cancer in grown men.
Okay?
We're giving cancer drugs to children who are physically healthy.
They're being dosed with off-label cancer drugs in order to halt their normal growth and maturation and to make their bodies more feminine.
These same kinds of drugs, by the way, are also used to chemically castrate sex offenders.
So, I just want to reiterate that again.
We're giving drugs to little boys and those same kinds of drugs are used to chemically castrate sex offenders.
Now, all of this is done based on two premises, right?
Number one, These are the premises.
One, that some male children are really girls, and some female children are really boys.
And number two, that it's possible to turn the male children into girls by giving them drugs, and vice versa for the female children.
Both of these premises are wildly false.
Utterly indefensible.
These are also not medical or scientific, but philosophical assertions.
They are grounded in the belief that the self, right, the self is this amorphous, indeterminate, relative thing.
According to this philosophical view, we can make and remake ourselves however we like because nothing about us is ingrained or innate, except our race, somehow.
This claim does not become any more credible just because doctors or medical experts make it.
It is, again, not a medical claim.
It is a religious dogma, and it's absurd on its face.
In reality, if a child has gender dysphoria, no hormone drug or surgery could ever be an effective treatment or an ethical one.
The gender dysphoric person feels, you know, trapped inside a body that doesn't match, to use the National Health Service's phrase.
This obviously cannot be anything but a disorder of the mind.
It should go without saying that a person cannot actually have the wrong body.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's not as if our minds are entirely separate entities that are poured inside our bodies like a liquid into a container on some sort of apparently mistake-prone cosmic assembly line.
It's a very strange form of dualism that sees the human person this way.
I am my body.
I can no more have the wrong sex than I can have the wrong right knee, or the wrong left pinky finger, or wrong eye color.
I am who I am, biologically speaking.
I cannot be anything other than that, no matter how I might feel about it.
If I have trouble accepting my biological nature, then the correct course of treatment must be one that helps me to accept it.
Deforming, mutilating, poisoning, or castrating me, or suppressing my healthy physical development in any other way, would be precisely the wrong approach.
It's exactly like, exactly like, giving laxatives and, you know, a funhouse mirror to an anorexic.
And the anorexic believes she's fat, when really she's not.
It would be cruel to, quote, treat a person struggling with this disorder by helping them to better see themselves by the light of their delusion.
Okay, if an anorexic person comes up to you and says, I think I'm fat, the last thing you're going to do is say, you know what, if you identify as fat, then you are.
I mean, if that's how you feel, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong.
If that's how you identify, let's get you some diet pills.
No, the point is that the anorexic thinks she's fat, but she's not.
The gender dysphoric boy thinks he's a girl, but he's not.
The confusion is the issue, not his body, not puberty, not his natural biological functions.
They are not sick.
If anything is sick, it's his mind, and that's what should be treated.
Although, in the case of children, most of the time, there's nothing even wrong with their minds.
They're just going through a normal phase.
They're confused.
It's a very natural thing for a child to be confused, especially when they don't have any guidance from the adults in their lives.
This is the position of all reasonable and decent people.
And yes, so if you don't hold the position that I have just described, you are not a reasonable, decent person.
You are a twisted, perverse, evil person.
This is not a gray area issue.
There are issues where reasonable, decent people can disagree respectfully.
There are issues like that.
Plenty of issues.
This is not one of those issues.
If you endorse the idea of chemically castrating children, you are a disgusting, horrible person.
That's it.
Or you're crazy.
Like, those are the two options.
But the problem is that it also requires some small hint of courage.
Some small hint of courage to be reasonable and decent in an unreasonable and indecent culture.
For many Republicans, such as Asa Hutchinson, that is simply too high a bar to get over.
They will, in the end, go along with any evil, affirm any lie, countenance any delusion, so that they might live another day, politically and socially.
Not live to fight another day, but simply to float another day, out of sight, out of mind, hoping that they will be eaten last.
Let's get now to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
One of the most important things for your health and general wellness and
also sanity is to get a good night's sleep.
But you really can't do that when you don't have a good pillow.
You got some.
[Music]
Flimsy thing that's just not supporting your head.
It's not giving you, you know, it's not allowing you to sleep in the position you want to sleep in.
You're not going to sleep well and that's why you need a MyPillow.
By now you've heard me talk about MyPillow and, you know, you've heard me say all the great things about MyPillow.
I use it myself every single night.
I cannot say enough good things about it.
But now introducing something almost as good.
It's the new MySlippers.
The slippers took over Two years to develop, and they're designed to wear indoors and outdoors all day long.
The MySlippers are made with MyPillow foam and the impact gel to help prevent fatigue, and they're made with a quality leather suede.
I can tell you firsthand, I got the MySlippers a few days ago.
I wear them around the house all the time.
I'm a big slipper fan in general, slipper apologist, and these are the best slippers I've ever had.
For a limited time, MyPillow is offering 40% off their new MySlippers.
Yes, 40% off.
So I now have the sheets, pillows, and slippers from MyPillow.
And like all the products, comfort is key.
You can also get this.
What you gotta do is go to MyPillow.com, click on the Radio Listener Square, and use promo code DAILYWIRE.
You'll also get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the Giza Dream Bedsheets, the MyPillow Mattress Topper, and MyPillow Towel Sets.
Or, you can call 800-951-7163 and use promo code DAILYWIRE.
Visit MyPillow.com now, or call 800-951-7163.
All right, where are we starting here?
So the Daily Mail has this.
It says two girls ages 13 and 15 who were charged with the murder and carjacking of a Pakistani immigrant killed last month while working at his job delivering food in Washington, D.C., have reportedly reached a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Now, you remember this.
This case, we talked about it a few days ago.
Maybe if you didn't watch the show or you weren't paying attention to conservative media that day, you may not have heard of it because the mainstream media was certainly happy to move on and not talk much about it.
But it's on video.
These girls, they carjacked this Pakistani immigrant, Mohammed Anwar, 66 years old.
He was trying to do his job delivering food for Uber Eats, you know.
And they tried to steal his car.
They had a Taser.
And he attempted to stop them from stealing his car because this is his livelihood.
He needs his car in order to support himself and his family.
And they drive off with him hanging out of the car.
They flip the car, send him hurtling.
He dies on the pavement, bleeding.
And then they're rescued from the car by some National Guardsmen who were standing there.
And nobody has any concern for Mohamed Anwar who's just laying there bleeding, dead or dying.
No one even checks on him.
And the girls, the only thing they're worried about is their phone.
They're like stepping around the dead man saying, I need my phone!
I need my phone!
So that's the case, if you didn't hear about it.
Well, on Monday, the teens reportedly reached a plea deal with prosecutors that would ensure that they will not be held past the age of 21 Nor be placed in a prison facility.
So they carjacked a man and murdered him.
And they're not going to prison.
According to this, they're not going to spend a day in prison.
And they'll be totally free to go by the age of 21.
Which means, for the one girl, in six years.
If she's getting any sentence at all, and it's not going to be prison, it's six years.
Now you have to ask, you know, this, this girl who murdered a man at 15 and, uh, and cared so little for his life that the only thing she was worried about was her phone afterwards.
Do you think like six years from now, after spending six years in whatever the juvenile detention system or wherever she is going, you think she's going to be magically a better person and less of a danger to society?
Right now, she is a murdering sociopath who does not value human life at all.
So you add six years on top of that, going through the juvenile system, and after she's already been given the message from the court system that what she did wasn't all that bad.
I mean, it was bad, but not that bad.
You think those factors are going to make her a better person?
Less of a danger?
You know, when this person gets out of jail, would you feel comfortable around her?
Would you let her babysit your kids?
No, I don't think so.
We all know how it's going to go because it's gone this way a million times, so we all know this story.
And the story is, she gets a slap on the wrist from the court system.
They release her back after she does her, you know, pays whatever penalty, whatever symbolic penalty.
And then she's released back into society and, you know, a couple months later, a couple of years later, she will either be dead or she'll have killed someone or both.
And if she's not dead, she'll be back.
She'll end up back in prison in this time for, you know, 10, 15 years.
And then we'll release her again and we'll do this all over again.
While she continues to be nothing but a danger to and a strain on society.
And all for what?
Now the other question we have to ask ourselves is if, in this case, these were two teenage black girls, let's just ask ourselves if this was, especially in DC of all places, if we had a video of a 15-year-old white male teenager carjacking a Pakistani immigrant and killing him, And then getting out of the car and the only thing he's worried about his phone is his phone.
Do you think he's going to get this deal?
You think that's going to happen?
Especially in DC.
We all know.
No, that's not going to happen.
So this is an example of privilege, but it's not white male privilege.
That's for sure.
And I think, you know, their race certainly helps them in this case, but gender is probably the most salient factor here.
Because the fact is that women, there's a lot of ingrained privilege for women in our culture today, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the court system.
In fact, here's an article, this I think is relevant, here's an article from the Michigan Law website, and it says, I'm talking about a recent research paper that was done, It says, if you're a criminal defendant, it may help a lot to be a woman.
At least that's what Professor Sanja Starr's research on federal criminal cases suggests.
Professor Starr's recent paper, quote, Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases, looks closely at a large data set of federal cases and reveals some significant findings.
Listen to this.
After controlling for the arrest, offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, quote, men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do, and women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
This gender gap, the gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Professor Starr found in another recent paper.
Now we hear a lot about the racial disparity in the court system.
The gender disparity is much more significant.
And we don't hear anything about it.
Now keep in mind again, because one of the things, if ever you bring this up, and you bring up the fact that women are much more likely to get a lenient sentence, which is true, The immediate response will be, yeah, well, women commit less violent crime and all that.
No, this is after controlling for the type of crime, criminal history, all of that.
So you take a man and a woman, at least in federal court, and they're identical in what they've done in their criminal history.
Only thing that's different is their sex.
The woman's gonna get a lesser penalty, significantly lesser penalty.
So this is a case here.
This is what's happening with these girls.
I would call this, it's a couple of levels of privilege here, as they get to cash in their victim points, which literally amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card in this case, or at least get-out-of-prison free, because they're not going to prison.
But of all the privilege, their female privilege, I think, is the most significant here.
All right, number two, a family with a two-year-old and a special needs child was kicked off, temporarily kicked off, a Spirit Airlines flight.
They were eventually let back on, apparently.
But that doesn't make what we're about to see here okay.
And let's watch it here.
I told you, noncompliance, you will have to get off.
I didn't want to do this.
What did I say?
What did we do?
I'm sorry.
What did we do?
Okay, no problem, just tell me what we did.
Noncompliance with the mask.
We're wearing masks.
We're wearing masks.
She's not wearing a mask.
The baby?
We're wearing masks.
A little baby girl.
Okay, so she's saying...
We're wearing masks.
A lot of kids are wearing masks.
She's saying that they're noncompliant.
She's wearing a mask.
She's wearing a mask the whole time.
Guys, was I wearing a mask?
Meanwhile, both of the adults are wearing a mask.
All we see there is the toddler, who's, by the way, totally unbothered.
That's what you gotta like about toddlers.
She's just sitting there, enjoying her yogurt.
Completely oblivious to everything.
She's eating a yogurt, and she's not... Not only is she a toddler, but she's also in the process of eating, and so that's why she's getting singled out.
All right, and then and then eventually they were so they also have a special needs child You can't see in the video right now, but sitting in between the parents There's a special needs child a little bit older, but he you know, he looks like he's I don't know how old he is But certain young he's a young child They were eventually kicked off the flight Forced to get off the flight and then they and then they were allowed to get back on after going through all of this rigmarole and the Humiliation and all of that, they were eventually let back on.
That doesn't make this okay, though.
To harass a family with young children, and humiliate them like this, only to let them back on, none of that is okay.
I mean, this is evil behavior.
And what I hate the most about it, there's so many things I hate about it, but the worst thing, and it's hard to hear the audio, but you can hear the flight attendant there, Saying that, hey, this is the policy, there's nothing I can do about it.
I don't like it either, but having these people hide behind policy while they're harassing families who aren't doing anything wrong, insisting that they muzzle their young children for no reason, No real medical reason, just do it, because it makes everyone else feel more comfortable, allegedly.
And they hide behind the policy.
You know, policies are not these, you know, like deities that are hovering there and can cause you to do things you don't want to do.
Policies are just, they're nothing unless you have people to enforce them.
A policy can't do anything unless people enforce it.
And so if you are choosing to enforce it, then you can't hide behind that policy.
That's a choice that you are making.
And meanwhile, this is Spirit Airlines.
Like if this doesn't convince you to stop flying Spirit, then I don't know what will.
Because on top of this, on top of them harassing young families with young children, they're also just one of the worst companies in existence.
Flying Spirit Airlines is a, it's a, even compared to most other airlines, and this is saying something, it's a miserable experience.
They, Spirit Airlines, they hate their customers.
You can just tell they hate you.
It's one of those things.
And this is at every level, in my experience anyway.
Customer service, if you have to call them or you get on the flight, the flight attendants, everyone's in a bad mood.
They don't like you.
They don't want you there.
So it's a horrible service.
The planes are cramped.
It's like they're sticking you into these sardine cans.
And on top of that, they treat their customers like crap, as you just saw there.
If that's not enough to convince you.
Now, the thing is, I would say I will happily pay like $400 more to fly on a better airline, but all the other airlines are crap too.
So, or most of them anyway.
All right, number three, Derek Chauvin's defense yesterday started homing in on the concept of camera perspective bias.
And what they're suggesting is that at least some of the video we've seen of Chauvin supposedly kneeling on George Floyd's neck may have been deceptive.
Not to say that they were deceptively edited, but just that the perspective of the camera is misleading.
So here's a pretty, I think a pretty stunning moment where the defense attorney gets the police chief to agree that, um, at least for part of this time, Derek Chauvin did not have his knee on George Floyd's neck, but had his knee on George Floyd's back.
So let's, uh, let's watch this.
Chief that from the perspective of Miss Frazier's camera, it appears that officer Chauvin's knee is on the neck of Mr. Floyd.
Yes, sir.
Okay, now they're changing the camera to a different angle.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
As you can see, they've got the split screen.
And you can see one angle, it really looks like Derek Chauvin has his knee on the neck.
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that.
But you can't always trust, we should have learned this by now, you can't always trust these, the videos that you see of these incidents.
Would you agree that from the perspective of Officer King's body camera, it appears that Officer Chauvin's knee was more on Mr. Floyd's shoulder blade?
going to ask the police chief the question I think. Would you agree that
from the perspective of officer King's body camera it appears that officer
Chauvin's knee was more on mr. Floyd's shoulder blade? Yes.
I have no further questions.
It's a significant moment right there.
Because it's all about, again, just sowing the reasonable doubt.
Seeds of doubt.
That's what defense attorney is supposed to do.
He doesn't have to prove innocence.
He just has to prove or demonstrate that the prosecution has not made its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
So there's doubt now about how long Derek Chauvin had his knee on George Floyd's neck.
Doubt about that.
There's doubt about how exactly George Floyd died.
There are conflicting medical examinations.
Medical examiners saying different things.
There's doubt about whether he died of an overdose.
At a minimum, there's doubt about all these things.
Does all that add up to reasonable doubt about Chauvin's guilt or innocence?
Certainly seems to.
All right, number four, this is from The Hill.
It says, a new state law in Utah will legally require that biological fathers pay half of women's pregnancy expenses.
Some states such as New York and Wisconsin have similar financial provisions for pregnancies.
The bill signed by Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, was well-received by Utah's Republican-majority legislature and will apply to pregnancy-related medical costs.
In cases where a child's paternity is disputed, the father won't need to pay until the paternity is established.
Fathers also will not be liable to pay for abortions carried out without their consent, except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is endangered.
Yeah, Republicans apparently are celebrating this.
I wish that I could support a bill like this, you know, in principle.
In a perfect ideal world, I would support this because, yes, if you're a father and you, you know, it takes two to tango, as they say, and if you help to conceive a child, then you should be responsible for that child.
And that responsibility should be, you know, again, in an ideal situation, that responsibility would even be, you know, there would be law behind that to enforce it.
Now, if you're doing what you should do, this should be a non-issue.
Like, if you get married and then you have kids, then you don't have to worry about splitting it 50-50.
I mean, I really paid for 100% of our pregnancy-related costs because I'm the breadwinner in the family, and we're married, and so it's not an issue enough to think about it, right?
But these are the complications you do have to consider if you, um, you know, are having kids out of wedlock.
But the reason why I can't support this is that we don't live.
We live in something quite far from the ideal world.
And in this non-ideal world, there is, as was mentioned here, abortion.
And what that means is that the mother has 100% authority to have her child executed.
And the father has no say in that whatsoever.
So you can't have it both ways here.
If we're gonna legally require men to pay 50% for, make them financially responsible for 50% of the pregnancy, then do they also have 50% say in whether the child's gonna be executed?
If they don't, then I don't see how you can put them on, I don't see how you can give them half the tab for the pregnancy costs.
Either we are legally treating the unborn child As also the father's child or not.
Either the unborn child is legally also the father's child and the father's responsibility or not.
And if you're telling me that the father has no right to stop the woman from having the child executed, then what you're telling me is that legally, while the child is in the womb, it's not really the father's child and not really the father's responsibility.
That's not the way it should be, that's the way it is though.
So we can't do this other stuff until we first take care of that problem.
All right, number five.
Finally, news from, really important news.
I've been waiting to get to this.
News from FIU, the FIU football Twitter account.
And it says, please welcome Coach Horny to FIU as our new special teams coordinator.
Coach Horny.
I gotta say, I'm really fascinated by this career change for Katie Hill.
You know, she went from Congress to coach in football.
Big step.
That's it.
That's it.
I just wanted to make that joke about Coach Horny.
That's a real guy.
His name's really Coach Horny.
I don't know anything else about him.
I just know that's his name.
And I know, presumably, he has lived with that name his whole life, which is unthinkable.
How do you survive middle school with a name like Horny?
How do you do that?
I really think as a, you know, don't you have, you have a responsibility as a parent to like probably change your last name.
I don't know how, that's probably a difficult thing to do, but you gotta, you gotta do something.
You can't saddle a kid with that.
It's not going to work.
How do you do anything?
I mean, how do you ask a girl on a date as a teen boy with a last name like Horny?
And then he becomes a coach.
So, which means that he's always going to be identified by his last name for the rest of his life.
That's tough.
And here I am making fun of it, like a middle schooler myself.
What else am I going to do?
All right, let's move to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Caleb says, Hey Matt, longtime listener and enjoyer of the show.
Um, you are my favorite DW host and I want to get on reading the comment section and I see that flattery works for this.
It does indeed.
It does indeed.
Another comment says tap water is really the champagne of freedom, to be honest.
What?
Tap water is the champagne of freedom.
And this comment has like five likes.
Don't, don't like, don't encourage that.
That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't mean anything.
Uh, Madeline says, um, I'll stop drinking Coke if the rest of you do.
Well, I already did.
I stopped drinking Coke, um, you know, years ago because I decided I wanted to live past the age of 45.
You were just, if you're drinking especially non-diet Coke, you might as well, like three times a day, go grab a whole bag of sugar and just start dumping it into your mouth.
So yes, I already stopped drinking it.
So it is, I admit, easy for me to boycott Coke because I really don't drink it anyway, but even so.
That's what we should all do.
Uh, Christian says, please review the new Space Jam trailer.
I remember when you canceled your kids last time over Space Jam, LOL.
I did see it.
So there's a new Space Jam coming out with LeBron James.
And I did watch the trailer.
Speaking of incoherent, it makes no sense whatsoever.
It's it's really, and this is no surprise.
It's I guess we could call it product placement, the movie, because I don't know what the plot is, but it appears to be, it's just one long commercial, um, for all of the movie studios, other products.
And that's also the point of every superhero movie, by the way.
It's really one long commercial for the merchandise and the action figures.
It's like every superhero movie is one long action figure commercial.
That's its main function.
Let's see.
Armando says, Matt, you're missing the point on the Amazon controversy.
Workers feel forced to urinate and defecate on bags because of the unreasonable and unrealistic goals
set by Amazon.
They have a horrible system in which workers feel they have to outperform to meet the ridiculous goals.
So I get that.
I worked for a call center years ago when I was a teenager where they stopped paying you if you went to the bathroom.
Like you were only paid.
You had to sit there and you had your headset on and I was a telemarketer, okay?
One of the most, you know, the hated, dreaded telemarketer.
And you sat there at your computer, and it would automatically dial people, and you'd take one call after another.
If you paused it and put your headset down and went to go to the break room for a second to get some water, or go to the bathroom, you were not paid for that time.
Every second that you were not in the process of making a call or taking a call, you were not paid.
So I understand that, but in this case, they're complaining that drivers... I don't know what's going on at the Amazon warehouses, and as I said, I have no interest in defending Amazon.
I don't care about defending them.
But the complaint, or part of the complaint, was that drivers on the road were forced to pee in bottles.
I still don't understand how that could be Amazon's fault.
They can't really do anything about the scarcity of bathrooms on a highway, can they?
Let's see.
Lauren West finally says, honestly, I agree.
I'm 17 and yet I'm having trouble deciding to go to college or not.
Well, I could tell you, you know, here's my advice.
You're 17.
Presumably you're going to, I guess you're going to what?
You're going to graduate this year.
So what I would say is don't.
That's actually an easy choice.
Don't go to college right now.
I'm not saying never go, but there's really no compelling reason for a 17 or 18 year old to go to college.
You can graduate high school, go out and work in the real world for a little bit.
College will always be there.
There's no downside at all.
You take a couple, you're not racing anybody.
This is not a race.
College is always going to be there.
They'll always be more than happy to take your money if you want to give it to them.
So there's no downside in taking a couple years, you work, you earn some money, get some life experience, maybe figure out yourself a little bit more, figure out what you want to do with your life, and then, with that experience, a little bit of money under your belt, and knowing, having a clear picture of your future goals, then if you want to, go into college.
That's my advice.
No downside to it.
It's all upside.
Best kind of advice.
Now a quick word from our friends over at ConstitutionCoach.com.
Listen, I've been telling you about these guys for weeks now, and for very good reason, because as conservatives, right, we say we love the Constitution, the rule of law, and all of that, but I think few of us have taken the time that we need to study it, and fewer of us stand ready to defend it and defend ourselves.
That's what ConstitutionCoach.com is all about.
They've got a lot of great programs for equipping citizens to defend liberty and live out the Constitution.
I've experienced this myself with our Constitutional Defense Course, which is all about giving you the intellectual ammunition that you need, learning about the Constitution, learning about our history, but also You're also getting that physical training at the premier firearms training facility in the nation, all in the same course.
Trust me, you're not going to regret doing something like this.
You'll be very thankful that you did.
I know that I am.
You get to join hundreds of other Patriots from across the nation for a time of learning, training, and fellowship with like-minded people.
Whether you've shot guns your whole life, or if you've never touched one, it doesn't matter.
I'm telling you, these people, they took me to an entirely new skill level, and they could do the same with you.
If they can do it with me, they can do it with you, I guarantee it.
Don't just get a gun.
Learn how to carry it with confidence.
Go to ConstitutionCoach.com.
And listen, Rick and the Constitution Coach team, they have another class on April 25th, but it's filling up.
This is your last chance to sign up, okay?
So you gotta go to ConstitutionCoach.com.
Don't put it off.
If you put it off, today's the day to do it.
And you can watch my video there as well to find out more about how you can be a part of this one-of-a-kind training.
Go there now.
Sign up.
ConstitutionCoach.com.
And as we return from Easter and Passover, it's important to reflect, you know, on the impact that these holidays have on our faith and the impact that Judeo-Christian values have on our culture.
More and more, the left wants to erase these values and replace them with their own pseudo morality.
That's why we've launched a brand new talk show with Candace Owens, one of the fiercest protectors of conservative values and free speech that there is.
You can go behind the headlines, go behind the Twitter fights to see Candace as herself.
And you can watch her host lively discussion panels.
And exclusive interviews with an always exciting round of guests, including myself.
I'd say I was pretty exciting.
And in fact, I was on her show last week.
Let's play a quick clip of that.
What then happens when these kids who can't show up on time, who aren't actually passing on the basis of what they know, when they get out into the real world?
I'm opening that up for any of you guys.
Well, I'll say, I always thought that they'll get out into the real world and they're going to be introduced to reality and they're going to have to adjust to it.
And that's what we all said.
All conservatives said that, oh, these snowflakes are going to get out into the real world.
But then we forgot that they get to make the real world.
I mean, they're the ones taking over.
And so they have reshaped reality in their image.
And so, unfortunately, they're not really getting the wake up.
The rest of us are getting the wake up call.
Brilliant, brilliant point.
And a great jacket on that guy.
Also, Candace is great too.
Candace is also the first Daily Wire show to appear in front of a live studio audience, an element that's rarely been seen in conservative media.
And you're getting all of that.
It's just, it's a great show overall.
The show streams on Fridays at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central at dailywire.com, but you can get the audio podcast, Candace, on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
So go there now, get the podcast, and remember to leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we're going to cancel everybody involved with this story in USA Today, written by Rasha Ali.
It's titled, quote, the pandemic forced us to stop hugging and shaking hands.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
The article goes on to quote a number of supposed experts, including Dr. Fauci, who argues that we as a society should never go back to what were once normal, universal ways of greeting each other.
Fauci is quoted as saying that we should never shake hands again because shaking hands is, quote, really one of the major ways that you transmit a respiratory illness.
That's what he's saying.
Other experts, including a quote-unquote experts, including a psychotherapist and a health educator in San Francisco, argue that shaking hands and hugging may sometimes be a violation of a person's autonomy, especially when children are urged to participate in that custom.
And so maybe that's why we should never go back to that again.
From the article, it says, it's a common tale.
An adult relative comes over and a parent tells a child to greet that person with a hug or a kiss.
But as physical touch vanished during the pandemic, the pressure put on kids to physically greet people waned.
And experts say it's a practice we should stick with after the pandemic.
Quote, we want our kids to trust their intuition, especially when it relates to body autonomy.
We also want kids to have a sense of agency when it comes to their intuition and their bodies, which is an important part of their emerging sexuality, according to health educator Shafia Zaloum.
Now, okay, it is, of course, enormously creepy to think of a child giving their visiting grandmother or aunt a kiss as something at all related to their emerging sexuality, as Shafia Zaloum seems to.
It's also insane to relate any of this to bodily autonomy or to make an issue out of any of it at all.
And I say this as someone who quite jealously guards my own personal space, and I have no interest in hugging anyone outside of my immediate family.
Even so, I don't see the pandemic-related changes as an improvement, and I certainly wouldn't want to embrace them as permanent solutions.
Now, to make matters worse, the article suggests a number of alternative greetings that we're all invited to adopt moving forward.
And so here are the, they have a little handy chart and a diagram showing what this would all look like.
So first they have the hand wave.
And there's nothing wrong with a hand wave generally, but it's awkward to stand three feet from someone face-to-face and wave at them, which is what you see people doing now.
It's just like standing.
That's what my one-year-old daughter does.
She'll go up to someone right in their face and start waving like this.
And that's fine for a one-year-old.
For adults, it looks ridiculous.
You're both standing there like morons, three feet from each other, waving.
Another suggested alternative is to put your hand across your chest Like this, which looks like a greeting that you might see on Star Trek or something.
And then, of course, the elbow bump, they suggest, where two grown adults awkwardly touch elbows, which makes them look, I don't know, deformed.
Or maybe it looks like they're about to go into some kind of secret handshake that they've devised, but they both forget the rest of the moves, so they just stop right there.
Whatever the case, it's stupid.
And if you come up to me, sticking out your elbow and hoping that I touch it, Don't be surprised if my elbow misses your elbow and accidentally jabs you directly in the nose.
Accidents happen.
I mean, you know, you never know.
Finally, the chart here suggests, as another option, and this apparently is not a joke, It suggests a foot shake.
Okay?
Now, with a foot shake, I haven't seen anyone, thank God, actually doing this, but this is what USA Today has suggested.
With a foot shake, two people walk up to each other, and while standing, they look into each other's eyes and begin to play a game of one-legged footsie.
Yes, because this will be way less awkward and sexual than a handshake somehow.
I mean, if you're worried about telling your child to go give Uncle George a hug, How much worse would it sound to say, Johnny, your uncle's here.
Come play footsie with him.
Play footsie with your uncle.
Don't be rude.
This is why I'm happy to stick with shaking hands and hugging.
You know, not only is it possible for grown adults to engage in those activities without looking like awkward nerds or demented freaks, which is more than I can say for the alternatives, but it also makes social interaction smoother precisely because there are fewer options.
Everyone understands that when you're greeting someone, it's either a handshake or a hug, depending on your relationship to that person.
Now, sometimes there's the awkwardness of, you know, you go for the handshake when the other person goes for a hug, or even worse, if you go for a hug and the other person goes for a handshake, kind of letting you know where your relationship stands.
But this awkwardness was minimized by the fact that there were only the two options.
So it's got to be one or the other.
If you go for one and it's not then that, then you know it's the other.
Pretty simple.
If we get rid of those options and we leave it up to each individual to devise his own unique form of greeting, we're just going to be left not knowing what to do.
And this is the case with so much in society, because when we get rid of all these, you know, one at a time, all these different social conventions out the window, and allegedly to free people up to, you know, be how they want, all that means is that nobody knows how to interact with each other.
And now, you get rid of handshakes and hugs, you know, you might go for the wave, While they go for the elbow bump and then you transition to the foot shake.
The other person tries the hand across the chest.
All you want to do is say hi to the person and now the two of you are doing the hokey pokey.
None of this is necessary.
We had a fine system before.
It was working fine.
There is no reason to abandon it.
You know, you got to get over your own compunctions, your own germophobia.
Time to get past that.
Get back to normal.
That's what we got to do.
And anyone who wants to get rid of the handshake is cancelled, and especially anyone who wants to replace the handshake with a foot shake or elbow touching or any other inappropriate activity like that is also certainly cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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 Wall 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 Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
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.
Dr. Fauci predicts no federal vaccine mandate, BLM threatens to burn down more stuff, and the confused Assistant Secretary of Health endorses pumping little kids full of cross-sex hormones.
