Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media and BLM activists want you to forget that “reasonable doubt” is the standard in the Derek Chauvin trial, and in every other trial. All that matters is whether there is reasonable doubt about Chauvin’s role in Floyd’s death. If there is, he should walk. Is there? We’ll talk about that today. Also Five Headlines including the police chief in DC justifying his decision to be lenient on the two girls who murdered Mohammad Anwar. How would his reasoning apply to the Chauvin case? And scientists look to extend human life by harvesting blood from the young. Plus, white liberals are asked about their stance on voter ID and their responses are incredibly, though expectedly, racist. Finally, in our Daily Cancellation, another member of the View is on the chopping block. I’ll explain why.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media and BLM activists want you to forget that reasonable doubt is the standard in the Derek Chauvin trial and in every other trial.
All that matters is whether there is reasonable doubt about Chauvin's role in Floyd's death.
If there is, he should walk.
So is there?
We'll talk about that today.
Also, five headlines, including the police chief in D.C.
justifying his decision to be lenient on the two girls who murdered Mohamed Anwar during that carjacking.
How would his reasoning apply to the Chauvin case?
And also scientists look to extend human life by harvesting blood from the young.
Yes, they're really doing that.
Plus, white liberals are asked about their stance on voter ID and their responses are incredibly, though expectedly, racist.
And finally, in our daily cancellation, another member of The View is on the chopping block.
I'll explain why that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
Now a quick word from policy genius.
Now, before Policy Genius existed, there was a time before that, and if you wanted to get affordable life insurance, maybe some people will remember this, it could be a difficult, complicated, confusing process, but that's not the case anymore.
You can protect your loved ones by getting life insurance with Policy Genius, and it's very easy to do, so you are You are without excuse.
PolicyGenius can help you compare top insurers in one place and save 50% or more on life insurance.
Once you find your best option, the PolicyGenius team will set up your new policy for you and answer any questions you have along the way.
And you can feel good knowing that your family has financial protection.
Getting started is very easy.
Here's all you gotta do.
First, head to PolicyGenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need and compare quotes to find your best price.
Since they're licensed agents, work for you, not the insurance companies, there's zero hassle and they're just gonna find you the best deal.
It's as simple as that.
If you hit any speed bumps during the application process, PolicyGenius will take care of everything.
That kind of service has earned PolicyGenius a five-star rating across thousands of reviews on Trustpilot and Google.
If you want to see why people love it so much, then go to PolicyGenius.
They can promise that you won't leave their website feeling like a fool.
You could save 50% or more by comparing life insurance quotes and feel good knowing that if something happens, your loved ones are taken care of.
So go to PolicyGenius.com to get started.
PolicyGenius.
When it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right.
As the trial of Derek Chauvin continues nearly two weeks into the proceedings, it's as clear as ever that the trial of Derek Chauvin doesn't really matter to the people who demanded that he be put on trial from the very moment that they saw the infamous video last May.
For the media, BLM, the left generally, the trial is but a formality, a bit of a symbolic theater.
They arrived at their conclusion when they watched the video, probably even before they watched it in many cases, and the only point of the trial is to affirm that conclusion.
It's not to prove anything.
Proof is irrelevant.
Truth is irrelevant.
For this crowd, the truth is whatever they feel, and the job of the rest of the world is to validate those feelings.
That's how they approach all of life, and that certainly includes the court system.
And it's why we now are living under a terrorist threat from these same people.
We all know that they'll riot and kill and burn and destroy if they don't get their way.
Every person in the country knows this.
And we're meant to accept it.
We're meant to simply cope with the fact that we now live in a country where if one side of the ideological divide is ever made very mad about something, they'll kill people and burn down buildings and be allowed to do it, given space to do it, to use the former Baltimore mayor's phrase, give them space to destroy, she said.
We're also supposed to tolerate and accept that the left is using terrorist threats to influence the outcome of a murder trial.
BLM activists and others have not been veiled or subtle about this at all.
If they don't get their way, they'll destroy your neighborhood.
Maybe kill you in the process.
That's the threat.
And we know they'll really do it because they've already done it many times.
What this means is that the well has already been poisoned.
You know, if the jury finds Chauvin guilty, it could very easily be because they don't want to cause rioting, and they know that an acquittal would bring that.
Also, they don't want to worry about being doxed and their lives permanently ruined and endangered because of it, because we know that's also going to happen.
Now, maybe if they come back with a guilty verdict, it'll be because that's how they honestly read and interpreted the facts of the case.
That could also be it, but we'll never be able to know that.
We'll never know to what extent the terrorist threats influence the outcome of the trial if they come back with a guilty verdict.
Ironically then, the only outcome, the only verdict we can trust is an acquittal.
We know if they find guilty, it would very well, it could very well be because of terrorist threats.
Not necessarily, but that could be the reason or part of the reason.
If they acquit, it will be in spite of the terrorist threats.
They'll be finding that way in spite of the fact that they risk their own lives in doing so.
There couldn't be any feasible motivation to come to that decision other than that it's the correct decision in their view.
So that's what we're faced with.
This is what the left has done to this country.
In one of the highest profile murder cases in modern American history, perhaps the most high, the highest profile of all, the only verdict that we can be sure was arrived at honestly and based on the facts of the case is the very verdict that would cause our cities to burn.
It's the double-edged sword of all double-edged swords.
The consequence of living in a country where millions of people have just thrown truth out the window and morality out the window.
But for those of us who still care about the truth and who are following this case and actually evaluating the evidence on its own merits, whatever small portion of people fall into that category, for those people, I think it's important to emphasize one important and simple point.
This is a point that has been totally lost in the media coverage, and even many of the seemingly honest people I've talked to who really want to know the truth in this case and really want true justice to be done one way or another, seem to have forgotten or lost sight of this.
And the point is this, reasonable doubt.
Okay, that's the standard.
I'm not a lawyer, not a legal expert or a legal scholar, but I know that much.
Because that's simple, that's basic level.
Derek Chauvin's lawyer doesn't need to prove that Chauvin is innocent.
All he needs to do is demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.
All he has to establish is that the prosecution has not fully established its own case.
If you're sitting on the jury and you say to yourself, when all is said and done, well, I think he really might have killed Floyd, but it's also plausible that he didn't, that should be a vote to acquit.
I mean, we don't convict people or we aren't supposed to convict people in this country based on mights and maybes.
Maybe, I think he probably did, but we'll convict him.
That's not the way it's supposed to work.
We convict based on certainty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now, the prosecution is still making its case.
The defense hasn't even really begun to present its own case.
But so far, based on what we knew going into the trial and what has come out during the trial, there is so far a whole heap of reasonable doubt.
You know, the prosecution says that Chauvin acted negligently and used excessive force, which led directly to Floyd's death.
But the defense has been able to show just by examining the prosecution's own witnesses that the force he used may not have been excessive.
In fact, one expert prosecution witness admitted on the stand that Chauvin would have been justified in using even more force.
He could have used a taser on Floyd, for example, and would have been justified in doing so.
You could argue that Chauvin was more restrained in his handling of Floyd than he needed to be.
You could argue that.
We've also seen, and this again has come out during questioning of prosecution witnesses, that there was a hostile crowd at the scene.
And this impacts the way officers handle a suspect.
We've seen that Floyd was resisting, was belligerent, was complaining that he couldn't breathe even before he was on the ground.
We've seen that Floyd had three times, three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
Another prosecution witness testified that Floyd was foaming at the mouth.
Now, once again, this is a prosecution witness, supposed to be helping the prosecution's case, saying that he saw Floyd foaming at the mouth.
Well, is that more likely to be a sign of someone overdosing or of them being choked to death?
Yesterday, the defense played a clip of Floyd apparently saying, I ate too many drugs.
Now, you could hear that clip and argue that he didn't say that, that he might've said something else.
But, I ate too many drugs is at least a plausible interpretation of the clip.
You don't have to strain very hard to say, well yeah, it sounds like he said that.
Maybe he didn't, but it sounds like he did.
That's all that matters.
Is there a plausible scenario where Chauvin is entirely innocent of causing Floyd's death?
So far, yes.
Here's a scenario.
Floyd took three times the fatal dose of a dangerous narcotic, overdosed, and died.
I mean, that's the plausible scenario.
It's consistent with the facts.
There's evidence to support it.
And the prosecution hasn't disproved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They haven't even begun to disprove it.
Haven't gotten close to disproving it.
There's more trial yet to be had, but, you know, there's enough at this point, enough reasonable doubt to cover Chauvin with some left over.
In fact, there's so much reasonable doubt at this point that the real question is why the case was even brought in the first place.
A man with three times the failed dose of a narcotic in his system died while foaming at the mouth.
Speculation that Chauvin may have still been part of the cause, but not the cause, or even the main cause, is not enough to convict a man of murder in this country.
Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Doesn't mean you have to believe Chauvin is innocent.
Doesn't mean you have to like him.
Doesn't mean you have to invite him over for dinner.
It just means that reasonable doubt Is the standard and that standard matters.
Our justice system is built on it.
We don't have a justice system without it.
We don't have justice without it.
But then again, the people shouting no justice, no peace, they don't care about justice, do they?
Vengeance is what they're after.
And they're determined to get it.
Get their vengeance.
One way or another.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You guys all know that.
People look to me as kind of a fashion guru.
Or maybe they don't.
Maybe I need a lot of help with fashion.
It depends on, you know, your perspective may vary.
And that's why I love Vincero watches.
You know, they can make even someone like me, even a schlub like me, look good.
Vincero is loved by some of your favorite entrepreneurs, athletes, and even podcast hosts like myself.
Believe me when I say I love my Vincero products.
I've got four or five of them now, and I wear them all the time.
These are hands down the best products you can get for the money.
When you pick one of their products, you immediately know you get what you paid for.
It's the best value for your money, guaranteed.
These are really affordable watches, but not cheap watches.
And there is a difference, and it's all about the quality, right?
Right now is the perfect time to shop Vincero, because right now is Vincero's spring upgrade sale, and they have what you need to upgrade your style for the spring.
30% off all of their brand new watches and accessories and get ready to hit this spring and summer feeling like a new person.
This is one of their biggest sales of the year and it's here for only a few days.
So you got to take advantage of this deal now.
Head over to vincerocollective.com forward slash Walsh.
No code is required.
Your discount will be automatically applied at checkout, but only if you access the sale by going to vincerocollective.com slash Walsh.
Everything on site is up to 30% off.
No exclusions, including sunglasses, wallets, bracelets, everything.
Go to my link and check out this awesome sale going on at Vincero.
All right.
So the, uh, as mentioned, the police chief in DC has explained, uh, he was asked about, um, you know, why the teens in that case have not been charged as an adult.
And I thought his answer was kind of interesting in the way that it may apply to the other big murder case that we were just talking about, but let's listen to what he had to say.
This is a tragic case, and, you know, charging this person as an adult, as a juvenile, you know, would not, you know, does not bring back the lost loved one in this case.
The youth involved are presented to court, and decisions are made based upon District of Columbia guidelines.
And, you know, as I stated previously, I think the question now is, are the guidelines that we have in place, specifically when you're talking about carjacking, is it sufficient for our community?
It's not going to bring the loved one back to put these girls in prison or charge them as adults.
Well, yeah, that's true, but are we going to bring George Floyd back by throwing Derek Chauvin in jail?
So, I mean, can you ever bring a loved one back by putting a murderer in prison?
That is always such a cop.
I hate when people say that.
It's such a cop out.
In this kind of context.
Well, you can't bring the person?
Of course you can.
We all know that.
Yeah, we also hear that a lot with capital punishment.
People that are anti-capital punishment.
They say, well, you know, you're not going to bring the person back by executing the killer.
Yes, obviously.
But nothing that you do with the killer is going to bring the person back.
We know that.
So by your logic, what, we should just do nothing?
Let them walk free all the time?
Not even have a prison?
Because there's absolutely nothing we can do with that person that's going to bring back their victim.
But if that's the way we're looking at it, then yeah, there's all of this stuff that we're doing with Derek Chauvin, you know, the protest, not even merely the trial, but the riots.
Rioting?
Is that going to bring back George Floyd?
No, but you see in this case, another comparing and contrasting here, here's a good example of when there's no reasonable doubt, right?
There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever about what killed Mohammed Anwar, how he died, who killed him.
These girls carjacked him and then drove off when he was hanging out of the vehicle, flipped it and he died.
They killed him.
No reasonable doubt about that whatsoever.
Nobody is raising any questions about that.
We know that that's what happened.
The question is whether they should be severely punished for it or just get a kind of judicial slap on the wrist.
And instead, we're giving them a slap on the wrist.
And waiting until that moment 10, 15 years from now or earlier, probably earlier, when they inevitably do something that will force the system to put them away for longer.
Number two, so your mileage will vary on whether you consider this to be news at all, but I think it's interesting, and this is my show, dammit, so back off my case.
I just want to mention this.
So I did my own poll.
It's not a scientific poll, not a scientific survey by any means.
I realize that.
But out of curiosity, I put a poll up on my Twitter page, and I said, as it stands right now, who would you prefer in 2024?
And then the only options here for the purposes of this survey, the Santas or Trump, right?
Not a representative sample of the electorate, not a representative sample of the Republican electorate, okay?
Even so, in the course of a day, there were about 75,000 votes.
That's a lot.
And I just found the results to be really interesting.
DeSantis, on this poll, got 70% vs. 30% for Trump.
70 vs. 30.
Now, again, not a scientific poll.
Does that mean that DeSantis would win in a primary against Trump?
No, probably not.
I think Trump would still most likely win.
We have a lot of time before we get to the primaries.
A lot can happen in the meantime.
But even so, I have a feeling if I had done that poll four months ago, five months ago, the results would have been completely flipped.
But you could look at this in a positive or negative way.
If the only thing you care about is Trump's political future, Right?
If you're not so much a conservative as just a Trumpist, and that's all, and he's the only guy, he's the only guy you want, the only guy you care about, the only thing you care about politically is Trump, then you see something like this, and you look at that in a negative way.
That's bad news for you.
But, if you're a conservative, and you're a supporter of the MAGA movement, then this is a positive.
Because what it would seem to indicate is that You know, Trump supporters have found someone who they think can carry that banner, carry the mantle, the MAGA mantle.
And that's exactly what's needed, one way or another.
Because even if Trump runs again in 2024 at the age of 78, which I've said all along, I hope he does not do.
Leaving everything else aside, I've been very clear, I do not support 78-year-olds running for president.
I don't think anyone should be doing that at that age.
I don't think anyone over the age of 75 should be running.
And as I've said, I think there should be laws preventing that from happening, but there aren't.
As far as I'm concerned anyway, as a voter, I can't support that.
You're just too old and we're seeing now what happens when you elect someone at that age.
But even if he runs again, whatever happens, like in the not too distant future, there's going to have to be someone to take that banner and march forward.
Trump is going to have to pass the baton on sooner rather than later, no matter what.
Because he is an old, older man, and he's not going to live forever.
Even if he won in 2024, he's out in 2028 for good.
And the fact that DeSantis is stepping up to take that banner, that's a very positive development.
You know?
I think DeSantis has a lot of Trump's upside and lacks a lot of his downside.
He doesn't have all the same charisma.
He doesn't have all the same celebrity factor.
He doesn't quite have that.
But he does have a lot of charisma.
He's very good at dealing with the media.
He's a kind of, you know, tell it like it is, sort of, that's his approach.
He's got a lot of governing experience.
He's interested in policy in a way that Trump never was, clearly.
I think he's got a lot of the upside, not a lot of the same downside.
Then he has some extra upside that Trump didn't have.
So I see this as a positive development.
All right, moving on.
Number three.
Here's the Newsweek.
I'm just going to give you the headline.
It says, Can blood from young people slow aging?
Silicon Valley has bet billions it will.
Biotech startups are trying to hack the process of aging and in the process stave off the most devastating diseases.
Okay, so we start harvesting blood from young people.
To stop aging.
Now, there's a non-creepy way of looking at this, or there's a non-creepy way this could go.
Because if you're talking about, for example, I don't know, coming up with a treatment for Alzheimer's, and that involves some element of blood transfusion or blood from younger people, and the reason you're doing it is to cure a terrible disease, well, I don't think anyone would object to that.
I don't see any real ethical dilemma.
As long as you're not taking all of the blood from a young person, as long as you're not killing them to harvest their blood, do a 100% blood transfusion.
Now, I think there we could agree that there's some ethical problems, maybe.
Assuming that's not the case, then that's not an issue.
But this overall effort, not focused on one particular disease, but This view of aging itself, as aging itself is a disease.
We have to stop that process and just extend human life indefinitely.
That, I think, is where we take issue.
And it's also, speaking of double-edged swords, because It would seem that the people who are most obsessed with this and most focused on this.
We have to extend human life.
We have to just keep extending and extending and extending as much as we can.
Treat aging itself as a disease.
Aging is a bad thing.
To hang on to youth at any and all costs.
The people who have that view are probably more likely to be godless, faithless.
And for them, you know, this physical life is all we have.
The, if you, when you die, you simply cease to exist and you disappear, evaporate into the void.
It's a horrifying thought.
Uh, and if that's your, your outlook, then yeah, you need to extend like, cause that's all we got.
We just have to extend human life by any means necessary.
But then also, if that's your view, life is meaningless and There's something inherently despairing about it.
It's meaningless.
It's empty.
We're not here for any purpose.
And no matter what, even if you extend life from, you know, even if we make it so that people can live to 200, in the grand scheme of things, that's a blink of an eye.
You could make it so that people live to 500.
Well, compared to the age of the universe, that's nothing.
Might as well be a day.
So you have to keep extending life because there's nothing beyond it.
But then also your belief that there's nothing beyond it means that life is meaningless and miserable and gray and dreary.
So you're extending this meaningless, miserable thing.
It's just kind of one way or another.
There's no good answer, I guess.
All right, moving on.
This is from Reuters.
It says, this is a story that sounds scary until you think about it for two seconds.
All right.
Let me read from this.
It says, one in three COVID-19 survivors in a study of more than 230,000 mostly American patients were diagnosed with a brain or psychiatric disorder within six months, suggesting the pandemic could lead to a wave of mental and neurological problems, according to scientists.
Now think about that.
One in three.
That's pretty scary.
But notice how it says brain or psychiatric disorder.
Notice how those two things are lumped together.
But those are two very, very different things.
So let's keep reading.
It says, Researchers who conducted the analysis said it was not clear how the virus was linked to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety and depression, but these were the most common diagnoses among the 14 disorders they looked at.
Post-COVID cases of stroke, dementia, and other neurological disorders were rarer, but were still significant.
Paul Harrison, a professor of psychiatry at Oxford University said, although the individual risks for most disorders are small, the effect across the whole population may be substantial.
It says health experts are increasingly concerned by evidence of higher risks of brain and mental health disorders among COVID-19 survivors.
Previous study by the same researchers found last year that 20% of COVID-19 survivors were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder within three months.
And the new findings analyzed health records and mostly of the United States and on 34% have been diagnosed with neurological or psychiatric illnesses within the month.
I'm trying to get to what these deserve.
Okay, here we go.
Here are the disorders that we're talking about.
It says anxiety at 17% and mood disorders at 14% were the most common.
It did not appear to be related to how mild or severe the patient's COVID-19 infection had been.
Among those who have been admitted to intensive care with severe COVID-19, however, 7% had a stroke within six months and almost 2% were diagnosed with dementia.
Okay.
So it sounds scary.
You keep reading, you get to the bottom, and you find out that in the vast majority of these cases, we hear psychiatric or neurological.
Well, vast majority, it's psychiatric, not neurological.
Now if you told me one in three of COVID-19 survivors had a, I don't like even like using the term survivor here because it makes it sound like COVID-19 a much higher fatality rate than it really did.
But if you told me that one in three people who had COVID-19 had neurological disorders, now that is something.
But anxiety, mood disorders, depression, these are already very vague things, really hard to define.
Um, whether they count as a disorder or sort of an inherent part of the human condition is at a minimum something that's up for discussion.
But even so, you know, during this whole process, when we've all been under lockdowns, And, you know, nothing but the fear-mongering from the media and everything.
Can we think of other reasons why people may be suffering from depression and anxiety and mood disorders?
Can you think of other reasons why over the last year there might have been a spike in those things?
Whether you had COVID-19 or not?
And as far as 2% diagnosed with dementia, well, we also have to keep in mind that the vast majority of people Who had the worst symptoms were elderly.
So you gotta factor that in too.
All right.
Finally, here's a good TikTok video.
This is a good one for a change.
Not good so much in what it reveals, but at least it makes a good point.
So here's someone interviewing white liberals about voter ID laws.
And let's just listen to these people and the reasonings that they give for their view.
Let's hear.
Do you have an opinion on voter ID laws?
Yeah, they're usually pretty racist.
I think voter ID laws are a way to perpetuate racism.
Would you go as far as saying those laws are racist?
For sure.
Do you think it suppresses the African American vote?
Definitely.
Because they're less likely to have state IDs.
These type of people don't live in Do you carry ID?
Yes, I do.
Do you know any black person who doesn't carry ID?
No.
Do you have ID?
and get identification.
Do you think that's harder for black people to go online?
Well, I feel like they don't have the knowledge of how it works.
Do you carry ID?
Yes, I do.
Do you know anybody, any black person who doesn't carry ID?
No.
Do you have ID?
Yes.
Because I have my ID and my friends have their ID, so we know what we need to carry around.
Everybody that I know have ID, like, that's one of the things you need to walk around with New York with.
I heard a lot also that black people can't figure out how to get to the DMV.
Really?
What's that saying here?
I know what's that, 125th Street.
Do you know where the DMV is right here?
It's on 125th Street and 3rd Avenue.
These type of people...
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Don't know how to get their IDs.
Or they don't understand.
You know, these very concerned, woke, white liberals.
They're just concerned for these minorities who don't understand really basic things.
That is some of the most extreme racism I've seen captured on film in quite some time.
And every single one of those white people in that video, if you ask them, they would identify themselves as anti-racist.
Not just, because it's not good enough, remember, to be not racist.
You have to be anti-racist.
And all of them, I guarantee, would say, oh yeah, anti-racist.
That is how super not racist I am.
I'm anti-racist.
And at the same time, I think that black people as a group can't figure out how to get an ID.
What was the exact quote from that guy?
These type of people live in places where there aren't DMVs.
So I assume you mean cities, and there are no DMVs in a city?
What?
There's a DMV every three blocks!
I live very close to a city.
I work in a city now here in Nashville, and I went to get my ID yesterday.
It finally changed over.
First time that I've moved to a new state and gotten my ID changed over within, you know, usually takes me about three years to do it, but this time I did it in a few months.
So I felt good about that.
But there are, I was looking on the GPS, there are about four or five different DMVs right in the vicinity.
And you walk in and they make it very, very easy.
It is not complicated.
I've been to many DMVs in many states.
I've been through this process many times, moving around and getting IDs.
So I've been through this a lot.
I'm no genius myself.
I can figure this out.
They make it so easy.
You walk, it's, you couldn't possibly do it wrong.
They literally idiot proof it.
You walk in, you go to the desk.
They give you, they tell you everything that you need.
You present the documents.
They give you a little ticket.
It's got your number printed real big there.
They tell you, go sit down over there on those chairs.
And when your number comes up, it's going to flash on a screen.
And there's also going to be a voice repeating it over and over and over again.
D46, it's your turn at the window.
D46, D46, D46.
You couldn't possibly do it wrong.
And that's why Almost every adult you come across, black, white, or otherwise, has an ID.
It is not hard at all to do.
And by the way, I will say, the Nashville DMV is, I think, sort of the, it's like the Chick-fil-A of DMVs.
Friendly, quick, efficient.
I have never had such a pleasant DMV experience.
So I would recommend that to you.
Maybe move to Nashville just for the DMV experience, if nothing else.
You know, I've been telling you about my friends over at ConstitutionCoach.com because we know the Constitution is constantly under attack in this country.
And we as conservatives have to be ready to defend it intellectually, first of all.
And that means understanding the Constitution.
We also have to be ready to defend ourselves physically.
My friends over at ConstitutionCoach.com have a lot of great programs for all of us for equipping citizens to defend liberty by studying and living out the Constitution.
I've experienced their constitutional defense course myself.
Can't recommend it highly enough.
You can get an amazing combination of intellectual ammunition and also you get physical training at the premier firearms facility in the nation all on the same course.
You get to join hundreds of other patriots from across the nation for a time of learning, training, and fellowship with like-minded people.
It doesn't matter where you are, you know, where your skills are, whether you've shot guns your whole life or if you've never touched one.
These people, they took me to an entirely new skill level and they could do the same for you.
They could do it for anyone.
Don't just get a gun.
Learn how to carry with confidence and get the training you need to defend your family.
Go to constitutioncoach.com.
Rick and the Constitution Coach team have another class on April 25th, but you're coming up on your final chance to sign up.
It's filling up very quickly, so you got to go to constitutioncoach.com today.
Watch my video there to see more about the training, but then make sure you get signed up at constitutioncoach.com.
All right, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
Big Mac says, Mr. Gorbachev, tear off these balls, arguably the greatest line of the Matt Wall show.
Well, thank you for that.
And I do believe that that line probably is my, not just the greatest line of the show, I think it's my greatest professional achievement.
I don't think I'll ever top it.
And that says more about my professional achievements than it does about the line, but even so.
Mark says, surely you can't be serious about quota systems and flying.
I am serious and don't call me Shirley.
Do movie quotes get you canceled?
Well, usually, Mark, they would, but this one, someone had to throw in the airplane quote, given the subject, so I'll let that one slide.
Tony Tran says, me, aliens do not exist.
People, how do you know when you've never seen one?
Me, how do you know they exist when you've never seen one?
Well, Tony, I think that this was what we'll call straw man.
Most people don't say that they know aliens exist.
It's just that there's a, I would say that there's a, Very high probability of it.
And that's got really nothing to do with all the UFO videos.
Even if we had never seen a single UFO video, I would still say very high probability of some kind of other life form out there in the universe, simply given the fact that there are billions and billions of galaxies and with billions of solar systems and trillions of planets.
What's the mathematical likelihood that we are, of all the trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of planets across the universe, we are the only one where life has ever developed?
Any kind of life.
That's the argument.
Buim says, Matt, how much do you bench all the gym bros wanna know?
You know, I usually put up like 450 reppin'.
No big deal.
450, 500.
If you ever see me at the gym, I don't often actually bench that, because I don't want to make people feel bad when they're there.
I find it's bad for people's self-esteem.
So if you ever saw me at the gym, I probably wouldn't be benching the 450.
That's only just out of my own humility, just so you know.
Texas Sellers finally says, Matt, I know you're a father, so I want your advice on this.
When the baby's been fed, been played with, not tired, but still cranky, what else is there to do other than put them in their prison cell And drink your beer.
Well, it depends on how old.
So you say baby, I'm thinking you mean, you know, like infant age.
Because at infancy, you don't need the prison cell, slash what they used to call it, a playpen.
You don't really need that.
You lay them down and they... That's the great thing about babies.
They can be difficult.
But the great thing about a baby is that they don't move.
And you should really cherish that when you have it.
You can put them down.
It doesn't mean you put them in a room on the floor and you leave for five hours, but you can put them down and, you know, and they'll stay there.
So that's good.
If you know you've met all of the baby's needs, then, yeah, there does reach a point where you put the child down and, you know, take a breather.
You have to be able to do that.
I'm hesitant about wading into these waters, especially because I know there are a lot of women who watch this show, a lot of mothers.
The cry it out method, as it's called, highly controversial.
And I know that I'm going to make people very angry by wading into those waters.
But I am a proponent of that method personally.
Sometimes you have to put the baby down in a crib or something.
You know all the needs have been met.
Like you said, you've fed, changed, all of that.
Still crying, you put the baby down, you let them cry it out.
It doesn't mean you leave them for three hours, but 20 minutes or something, let them get past it.
I think for your own sanity, sometimes you have to be able to do that.
Now a quick word from Relief Band.
You know, Relief Band is all about dealing with nausea, and anyone who struggles with nausea, you know, it's not fun to put it mildly.
For me, it's car sickness, and I spend a lot of time in the back of cars when I'm traveling, Uber or whatever, going to and from airports, hotels, and all that kind of stuff.
And so I have that nausea, or at least I did have that car sickness problem until I started using Reliefband.
Reliefband is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband that's been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting, which is associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraine, hangover, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more.
The product is 100% drug-free.
It's non-drowsy, so it's a lot better than, you know, any of those pills you could take that's gonna Make you sleepy for the rest of the day, and it's got zero side effects.
The technology was originally developed over 20 years ago in hospitals to relieve nausea from patients.
But now, through Reliefband, it's available to the masses, and you've got to take advantage of this.
This year, ensure that nausea this year is never the reason to miss out on life's important moments.
Right now, Reliefband has an exclusive offer just for Matt Walsh listeners.
If you go to reliefband.com and use promo code WALSH, you'll receive 20% off plus free shipping and no questions asked, 30-day money-back-return policy.
So, head to reliefband, R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com and use our promo code WALSH for 20% off.
Now, as we return from Easter and Passover, you know, we're reflecting on the impact these holidays have on our faith and on our values in general.
And we know that the left wants to erase these values and replace them with their own pseudo morality.
And that's why we've launched a brand new talk show with Candace Owens.
A fierce protector of conservative values and free speech.
One of the best out there.
So you can go behind the headlines and the Twitter arguments to see Candace as herself.
Candace is also available, is the first Daily Wire show that we're doing in front of a live studio audience.
And you can watch it if you go to dailywire.com.
You can sign up with code Candace, but you can also get the podcast as well.
The audio podcast Candace is available on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
So if you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, look no further.
Head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe today and be sure 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 a lady on The View whose name apparently is Sarah, though I don't know her last name and I don't feel like looking it up.
She earned herself applause and lots of you-go-girls yesterday during a debate over vaccine passports.
Sarah came out in favor of the passports, and here is her reasoning.
Let's listen.
I cannot argue privacy on a public health issue like this when I don't understand how the most private thing in my body, my uterus, seems to be open for business when it's convenient politically.
So I will say that these passports are a great idea.
Uterus open for business.
We don't need to know about that.
That's your own concern.
Now, Planned Parenthood, by the way, of course, tweeted that clip out.
Loved it.
As I said, lots of feminists expressed their appreciation of her point there.
I can't quite join them in their round of applause, though, mostly because that was extremely dumb.
And let's count the ways.
First of all, what exactly are you saying here, Sarah, that you think you don't have privacy with respect to abortion, so therefore nobody should have it with respect to vaccinations?
If I can't have privacy, then nobody can.
Is that your position?
I'll do you a favor and assume that that wasn't your point, even though that was literally the point that you were making.
I'll assume that you were, in a clumsy way, just attempting to note what you perceive to be a contradiction.
You see it as hypocritical or ironic that people who oppose abortion would also oppose vaccine passports.
Well, the problem is that the hypocrisy and irony actually runs entirely the other way.
See, there's nothing contradictory about someone arguing that we shouldn't be forced to get vaccines, and also that we shouldn't be allowed to kill our children.
Those two positions are in no way whatsoever at odds with each other.
I can advocate for privacy when it comes to vaccines, yet still say that you shouldn't be granted the privacy to kill your baby.
You see, I can believe both of those things, and I do.
There's nothing logically unsound about arguing that privacy should extend as far as vaccines, but not as far as killing babies.
Meanwhile, you're professing a belief in privacy rights that is so absolute, so radical, that it even permits you to kill your own child, but you don't think we should have the privacy to decide what vaccines we take?
You go from a privacy rights absolutist to an anti-privacy absolutist.
You go from bodily autonomy extremism to chucking bodily autonomy out the window completely.
You say that you have the privacy rights and autonomy to kill a person, but not to decide what vaccines you put in your body?
You have taken the extremist position on both sides of these issues.
You have done that.
What's happening here is something very similar to what happens with the capital punishment debate.
People who are anti-capital punishment and pro-abortion will point at the pro-capital punishment and anti-abortion side and accuse us of having a self-contradictory view.
If we say we're pro-life, then how can we possibly support the execution of criminals?
But of course, there's nothing remotely contradictory or arbitrary about the view that killing innocent and defenseless children is wrong, yet executing convicted adult murderers is right.
One can believe it justified to execute a man who, say, raped and killed a child without also believing that it's justified to crush an infant's skull in the womb.
Those two positions are not at odds with each other.
In fact, they line up quite logically and sensibly.
We are so opposed to the murder of innocent people that we think the people who commit those crimes may, in some cases, be eligible for the harshest punishment.
See, it's our, for those, and not every pro-life person is in favor of the death penalty by the way, many are not, but as someone who is, I will say it is partially my conviction, my belief in the value of human life that causes me to be in favor of the death penalty.
Because I consider it to be such a heinous act to kill an innocent person.
That the harshest available punishment should be applied to you.
You may not agree with this point of view, but to pretend that it's incoherent is silly.
It's a perfectly coherent point of view.
I'll tell you what is incoherent.
It is incoherent to say that a child-killing rapist or a serial killer has a right to live, but a baby doesn't have a right to live.
It's incoherent to treat the execution of a convicted murderer as some great injustice and yet to celebrate the execution of infants.
Once again, the contradiction, the moral insanity is all on the other side.
Even though I'm used to it, I still can't help but be almost shocked at the gumption of the pro-abortion side that they would accuse us of being moral hypocrites when they're the ones who support executions only for the youngest and most defenseless among us.
That position is simply not defensible itself.
Second point for our friend, Sarah.
Just sort of a technical point.
Sarah claims, as all pro-borts do, that pro-lifers are somehow trying to control her uterus.
Well, let me allay those concerns, Sarah, and tell you that we don't care about your uterus.
We're not the ones talking about it.
You guys are the ones who are constantly talking about your uteruses and other assorted body parts.
You're the one always bringing it up.
And it's really weird.
I gotta say, it's very weird for us.
Because that's not what we're trying to talk about.
Like, we're talking about abortion, and then you weirdos come running in, what are you doing talking about my body and my uterus?
We're not.
Calm down.
That's not the conversation we're looking to have.
Our point is not about your body.
It's not about you, actually, if you can believe it, you narcissist.
It's about the body of your child.
And the only point we're making about the body of your child is that one, your child's body is not your body, they're two separate distinct entities, and two, you shouldn't have the right to destroy your child's body.
That's it.
That's all we're saying.
Yes, your child's body is dependent upon your body, but that doesn't make his body the same as your body, and it doesn't make it okay to kill him.
Just because somebody is dependent upon you, that doesn't mean that you should be able to kill that person.
If it did, that would mean that parents would have the right to kill their children way beyond the womb.
Infants, babies, toddlers, adolescents, even some grown adults are dependent on their parents for survival.
A newborn baby, speaking of newborns, is nearly as dependent on his mother's body out of the womb as he was inside it.
Do you think that gives you the right to bash a newborn's skull against a rock and throw them in a dumpster?
I would hope not.
Most of us recognize that parents have a responsibility to their born children.
We compel them.
We compel them by law, by force, to care for their children.
We say to parents, you have to.
You don't have a choice.
You have to care for your children.
If you can't or you don't want to, you have to find someone who will.
You have to make other arrangements.
May not be difficult to do.
You know, you put them up for adoption.
Some states make it easier than others for parents to offload their kids and find someone else to care for them.
But whatever the process, there's going to be, there's a process in place, right?
And you have to follow it.
If you don't, you'll go to prison.
What you can't do is just leave your kid on the side of the road.
Least of all, can you simply kill your child?
Right?
The point of pro-lifers is that this principle, the principle that you are responsible to and for your child, and don't have the right to intentionally harm your child, should apply in the womb just as much as it does outside of it.
That's a consistent view.
That is a rationally defensible view.
That's a morally salient view.
Which is more than I can say about your position.
A position that is as logically incoherent as it is morally deranged.
A position that today has earned you the title of cancelled.
And that'll do it for us 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, and 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 Mika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
United Airlines promises affirmative action for pilots, rich liberals turn Alex Jones rants into reality, and AOC babbles even less coherently than usual.
