Ep. 701 - The Truth About Ashli Babbitt And Our Two Tiered Justice System
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the DOJ has announced that the officer who shot Ashli Babbit will not be charged with a crime. In fact they won’t even tell us his name, or give us any other information. Today we are going to look closely at this case and try to figure out what happened, and why the woman died, and whether it was justified or not. Also Five Headlines including the Biden Administration has its feet held to the fire during the White House Press briefing over its abortion policies. That doesn’t happen every day. And CNN brings a trans athlete on the air to explain why men actually don’t have an advantage over women in sports. Plus, Biden’s UN Ambassador hates America. Perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest there.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the DOJ has announced that the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt will not be charged with a crime.
In fact, they won't even tell us his name or give us any other information about him or what happened.
Today, we're going to take a close look at this case, try to figure out what did happen, why did the woman die, and whether or not it was justified.
Also, five headlines, including the Biden administration has its feet held to the fire during the White House press briefing over its abortion policies.
That doesn't happen every day.
and CNN brings a trans athlete on the air to explain why men actually don't have an advantage
over women in sports.
Plus Biden's UN ambassador hates America, it turns out.
Perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest there.
We'll talk about that and so much more today on the Matt Wohl Show.
(upbeat music)
Less than a day after armed robbery suspect, Dante Wright was shot by police,
the name of the police officer who pulled the trigger Shortly after that, her address was leaked as well.
Now her home is currently surrounded by concrete barricades, metal fencing, and armed police guards in order to stop the violent mob from burning it to the ground and perhaps killing anyone who happens to be inside the house.
This is the way it goes with every high-profile police shooting.
The name of the police officer is quickly released, soon all of their other personal details follow, and then oftentimes, as happened with the officer in this case, they're charged with a crime.
Well, I shouldn't say that it works this way with every high-profile police shooting.
There is one quite notable exception.
It was announced yesterday by the DOJ that the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt, one of the pro-Trump protesters at the Capitol on January 6th, will not be charged in her death.
The statement from the DOJ refers to this man only as the U.S.
Capitol Police Officer because his name was never made public.
We don't know his name.
Four months later, and we know absolutely nothing about the federal officer who shot an unarmed woman in the Capitol.
Compare that to nearly any police shooting that BLM gets upset about, where we're told nearly every personal detail about the officer within hours of the shooting.
Before we even consider The specific details of the shooting, which we will, which left Ashley Babbitt dead, what few details we have as officials refuse to tell us much of anything really.
It's already unthinkable and outrageous that this dichotomy exists.
There are two systems in this country, two tiers of justice, one for the politically favored, one for the rest of us.
If you're shot by police and BLM appoints you a martyr for their cause, the name of the officer will be made public, he'll likely be charged with a crime, unless the shooting was so incontrovertibly above board that prosecutors can't come up with a crime that would theoretically cover it.
Meanwhile, protesters will wreak havoc in the streets and be allowed to do it, and the media will canonize you.
That's how it goes in that case.
But if you're shot by police and BLM decides that your death doesn't matter, or even that you deserved what you got, Then the officer's name will never be given to the public, the media will quickly move on from the story, the protesters will sit on their hands, and the officer will be quickly cleared of all wrongdoing.
Without any real explanation, either.
Whatever you think of the Ashley Babbitt shooting, whether you believe it to be justified or not, and I'm not sure how you could be sure that it is justified, given that the powers that be haven't even bothered to justify it, but whatever the case may be for you, you should not be okay with this state of affairs.
That you should at least agree that we should know the officer's name just as we know the names of the officers in every other high-profile incident.
This is not merely about being fair or having the same standard for everyone, though it is partially about that.
It's also about understanding the true motivations of the police officer who fired the shot.
This was obviously a politically charged situation.
Most of the rioters and protesters were right-wing Trump supporters.
Many officers were there that day.
Not one of them, save this one, felt that it was necessary to start shooting.
Is it possible that this officer had ideological and political conflicts of interest?
That he was pushed to take a step that no other officer took due to his political hatred for the people there?
I have no idea.
That's the point.
None of us know.
Could be, couldn't be.
These are the kinds of questions we should ask.
These are the kinds of questions the government would answer if we truly lived in a free country, where everybody is equal under the law.
Now, it's possible that this man who shot her is an honest and straightforward guy, as honest as they come, his motives as pure as the driven snow, but they aren't giving us any information about him.
And so we're left only to speculate about what his motivations might be.
Here's what we are being told, and this is about the sum of it, really.
From the DOJ statement yesterday, I'll read it to you.
Not the whole thing, but this is the relevant portion.
It says, the focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws.
In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms.
Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right, not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure.
Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so willfully, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law.
As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.
The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation.
Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that at the time of the officer fired a single shot at Ms.
Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the members of Congress and others evacuating the House chamber.
Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms.
Babbitt's family, the U.S.
Attorney's Office and U.S.
Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter.
And that's it.
That's the end of it, as far as they're concerned.
The people who've been screaming about police brutality for years and accusing cops of being homicidal lunatics are also perfectly satisfied with that.
In this one case, they're satisfied with that.
In this one specific case, they're suddenly okay with an unarmed woman being shot without any given explanation.
Did you notice that they don't actually tell us why he did it?
They give a range of possible reasons and don't tell us what the reason was.
They say, well, it could have been out of fear.
It could even be out of negligence.
It could have been because he feared.
Who knows?
Well, which is it?
What did he say was his reason?
We have zero transparency from the government in this case.
And not only is BLM okay with that, but if the BLM accounts on social media are any indication, they're downright happy that the woman is dead.
But what about those of us who have integrity and who actually care about things like truth and justice?
You know, we in that minority.
Though, of course, those of us who care about truth and justice, we may never scream for justice while we run out of a burned-out footlocker with an armful of shoeboxes, but we still care about it.
In fact, it's because we care about justice that we wouldn't do that.
Those of us in that category, what should we think about this?
Well, again, it's hard to know what to think because we're being told so little about it.
All we have is the video taken by somebody in the crowd.
There is no doubt all kinds of additional footage out there.
Security camera footage, body cam footage.
I mean, it's a federal government building and there's police officers all over the place.
They no doubt have tons of footage, but we haven't seen any of it.
All we have is this. And this is disturbing, of course, because we're watching a woman die,
but I think it's important for us to watch it. So because this is all we have to go on.
And let's watch it again now.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So that's it.
Okay.
That's all there is.
There are a couple other angles of the shooting taken by people in the crowd, but that's it.
We can see that Babbitt was unarmed and climbing through a door into a hallway with armed police officers.
We can also see that there were heavily armed and armored police officers coming up the stairs behind her.
She was literally surrounded on all sides by armed police officers.
One of the officers fired the shot.
Again, the only officer on the scene that day who apparently felt it necessary to take that step.
Can we justify this shooting, given the circumstances?
Well, if we can, if we can, the argument in the unnamed cop's favor would have to go something like this.
Ashley Babbitt was trespassing with an unruly mob in a government building.
She was given multiple warnings to leave the area.
The warnings may or may not have been verbal, but the hallway was locked and barricaded, and there were police officers guarding it with guns.
She knew she was not supposed to keep going, but she did.
The officer didn't know what her intentions were and made the best decision he could in that high-pressure situation.
That's what the argument in defense of the shooting would sound like, and I have heard that exact argument from many people, including, again, the same people who would, in every other situation, reject that same argument.
Personally, I am not convinced by that argument at all.
I think it's extraordinarily weak.
Yes, she was trespassing.
Yes, it was very reckless to climb through that door.
No, I cannot defend that decision or tell you what in the world could have possibly been going through her mind when she started to do that.
But even so, this is a 5-foot, 2-inch, 110-pound, middle-aged, unarmed woman.
She was shot by a large male officer.
Are you telling me he couldn't have easily taken her to the ground?
Easily!
Through some other means.
We know that she posed no physical risk to him whatsoever.
Okay, unless she's some sort of ninja or something.
She posed no physical risk to him.
We know that.
Can we really believe that he believed that she did?
She posed such a risk that he had to go right to the gunshot?
Couldn't do anything else?
And whatever he believed, is it not exceedingly clear that he could have used any number of non-lethal means to halt her progress?
Here's another important question.
Did he personally, verbally warn her that he was going to shoot?
Yeah, there were all kinds of visual cues that she wasn't supposed to climb through the door.
But did he actually yell to her and say, stop or I will shoot you?
If he did and she kept coming, then that might change things in his favor.
Certainly makes him look a little better.
But if he didn't, if he didn't say anything and simply executed her on the spot, then this looks even more like a straight up murder of an unarmed citizen and military veteran by a federal law enforcement officer.
Now, we could answer that question, by the way, about what the officer did or didn't say if more footage was released, or even if they would just tell us.
They know, okay?
The Department of Justice, Capitol Police, the politicians, even the media.
I guarantee you, all of them know who that guy is and what exactly happened.
They're not telling us.
And the fact that they haven't told us, if he gave her a warning and said, stop or I'll shoot you, and she kept coming, You'd think they'd probably tell us that.
The fact that they're not telling us that, and not telling us anything else, that would seem to basically answer the question.
No, there was no warning.
That's my guess.
And we're left only to guess.
My guess is, very educated guess, reasonable guess, there was no warning.
From him, verbally.
He just shot her.
To my mind, shooting an unarmed person who poses no reasonable lethal threat to you without warning is murder.
Now, here's what we can say, though.
If this shooting was justified, then a great many of the high-profile shootings that BLM has rioted over were also justified.
Any logically consistent argument you can make that would validate Babbitt's killing would also validate the killing of many BLM martyrs all in one fell swoop.
That much we know.
She was in the process of committing a crime?
Okay, well, so was George Floyd.
So was Michael Brown.
In the vast majority of these high-profile cases, a crime was being committed.
That's why the cops were there.
She was given warnings?
Well, we don't know if she was or not, but we know that Jacob Blake was.
I mean, he had guns pointed at him and they were screaming at him over and over again in his face, stop, stop, stop.
And he didn't stop until they finally pulled the trigger.
She was unarmed, but could have still theoretically posed a lethal threat.
Well, BLM has protested the killing of even armed suspects like Dion K and DC was running towards officers with his gun drawn.
They protested that.
Many others were not armed, but were still presenting themselves as clear physical threats, like Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, who got into a fight with officers and stole one of their tasers.
She should have known better?
Okay, well, should Dante Wright not have known better than to push away the officers, resist arrest, and climb back into his vehicle?
If Ashley Babbitt brought her death on herself, if she is to blame, If she is not the victim, but the perpetrator who reaped the consequences of her own actions, which seems to be the opinion of most people out there, certainly on the left, but even a lot of people on the right, then the same applies to every name I just listed, and then some.
Oh, but she was an insurrectionist trying to take over a government building, you say.
Well, if that's what makes the difference, if we're saying that what gives cops a license to start spraying bullets is that, Then that would put a great many BLM and Antifa rioters directly in the line of fire.
Though in their case, you know, they've been allowed to wage assaults on federal buildings for months on end, sometimes even take over government buildings at police stations and burn them to the ground without a single shot being fired at them ever.
But that brings us back to where we started.
Justice in two tiers.
A system that favors some and not others.
Ashley Babbitt falls on the losing side of that coin.
And no matter what they might say or excuses they might offer in the minds of BLM and the media and our government, that is why her death is not an outrage or a crime.
crime.
I don't often do this, very rarely have I done this, but I have to issue a retraction and a bit of an editorial correction.
If you listened to the show yesterday, which you better have, in the daily cancellation we talked about the made up gibberish language of the left and how it gets
more and more absurd with the pronouns.
And now they have neo pronouns for people who identify as hot dog buns and clouds and
skyscrapers and horses. And I gave a little bit of my own personal background and my own history
of trauma saying that when I grew up, I had four sisters in the house and my two older sisters
had their own, it wasn't pronouns, but they had their own gibberish languages they would make up
and then speak to each other in front of me in this made up language to torment me.
because I never knew what they were saying.
And that's what I, that's the claim I made.
I did get a text message from my younger sister, one of my younger sisters last night who listened to the show and wanted me to know that it wasn't my older sisters who had the made-up language.
It was her and our youngest sister who had it.
So I got that wrong.
And she clarified to me that, these are my two younger sisters, they are the ones who had the made-up language, and they called it, I didn't know this, they called it the, I think she said it in the text, they called it the A-noying language, because every made-up word ended in A, and they just used it to annoy everybody in the house, so.
I have to issue that retraction, because the thing is, if I upset my family and they boycott the show, I lose half my audience, and I can't allow that to happen.
All right, let's start here.
We're going to start with maybe the best question I've ever heard asked, best line of questioning I've ever heard at a White House press conference.
And that's not saying a lot because very rarely are there worthwhile questions that are asked.
I mean, most of what's said at a White House press conference, the questions that are asked aren't even really questions, right?
They're just softballs teeing up, at least if it's a democratic administration, softballs teeing up the spokesperson to say whatever they want to say.
But in this case, I thought this was really good.
This is apparently EWTN reporter Owen Jensen.
Somehow they've allowed EWTN, that's the Catholic News Organization, they've allowed them in the building.
Probably not for long now.
And let's take a listen.
Today, as you well know, the Biden administration and HHS started the reversal of the Trump administration's ban on abortion referrals at Title 10 family planning clinics.
So my first question, why does the Biden administration insist that pro-life Americans pay for abortions and violate their conscience?
Well, first, that's not an accurate depiction of what happened, and I know we want to be accurate around here.
None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
That is written into the Public Health Service Act, and it specifically states that.
But we know there's indirect subsidies, money that's fundable that can't be traced.
We know that.
Come on.
That is not how it works.
That is the law.
So I'm stating what the law is and how it is implemented legally by these organizations.
And the reason I, though, since you gave me the opportunity, the reason why the president took these steps is because he believes that advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, can be helped by these actions.
And by focusing on advancing equity in the Title X program, we can create opportunities
for the improvement of communities that have been historically underserved, which benefits
everyone.
That's how these fundings are used in communities.
You talk about equity, if I may interrupt.
How is it equity, how is it fighting systemic racism when abortion, we well know, disproportionately affects minority children?
Again, funding cannot be used from this for abortion, but access to healthcare, access to healthcare in communities and communities that have been marginalized, underserved, adversely affected by persistent poverty is always going to be something the president fights for.
Okay, I think I've answered your question, Alex.
No, she didn't really answer, but so two great points being raised, questions being asked by the reporter there, and one is about the funding.
Now, she says, oh, yeah, well, they're funding, but it's not going, you know, it's going to healthcare clinics and facilities that provide abortions, but the funding can't go to the abortion.
And the rejoinder from the reporter is correct, that money is fungible.
So anytime you hear that, you know that it's bogus.
And we've been hearing this as a justification for the federal funding of Planned Parenthood for decades now.
You know, we get half a billion dollars a year to Planned Parenthood as they murder hundreds of thousands of babies a year.
And of course, we continue to Hand over these bags full of money.
We make these sugar daddy payments.
The government, the taxpayer, the sugar daddy for Planned Parenthood.
We continue to do that even after we had a Republican administration.
We had a Republican Congress and a Republican administration for two years.
They didn't do a damn thing about it.
But anyway, the justification is that, yeah, we give half a billion, but it doesn't go to the abortions.
Okay, but money is fungible.
That's the point.
So it doesn't even really make sense to say, yeah, if we, if you use the money to fund this aspect of their operation, then that frees them up to put other money towards the abortion aspect.
So by funding one part of it, you are effectively funding the other.
And then the second line of questioning about if you, if you care about equity and equality and all of that, and you want to protect minority communities, Well, we know that abortion, when we say abortion disproportionately affects minority communities, what that means is that minority babies are being killed at a disproportionate rate.
And if not for abortion, there would be many millions more minority people in the country today.
So it's hard to see that as a positive for any minority community or any community at all.
That they've successfully exterminated so many of their own children.
All right, let's move to...
Number two, CNN had a segment with a trans athlete.
They call this person, I think on the screen, what do they say here?
Yeah, trans female.
Okay.
So they call this person a trans female athlete, which I assume means it's a male who identifies as a woman.
But you see how sex and gender have once again become interchangeable?
After they spent the last, I don't know, 40 or 50 years telling us that sex and gender are two different things and they're not interchangeable?
You know, being a woman is not exactly the same thing as being a female.
And a person can be a female, doesn't necessarily make them a woman.
That's what they said for, you know, last 40 or 50 years.
And now, over the last couple of years, what they've gone back and said, never mind, actually it's the same.
I know we screamed at you for 50 years that it's two different things, but turns out now basically it's interchangeable.
Woman, female, same thing.
Sex, gender, same thing.
So, but that's the least of the problems, I think, with this segment, and let's just listen to this madness.
The simplistic version is that those born male have a natural physiological advantage that also includes differing levels of testosterone.
You know the argument.
Your response to that is what?
Yeah, it's a nonsense argument.
Depends on how much time you want to let me get into the weeds because I can literally spend hours on this.
How about 30 seconds?
Yeah.
So the first thing is testosterone, your natural internally produced endogenous testosterone has zero impact on your athletic performance.
And we know that.
But we didn't know that until 2013.
Because everyone just assumed that, well, testosterone is why men are bigger, stronger, faster.
But when we finally studied it, there's no relationship between just natural testosterone and performance.
So why is testosterone banned?
Well, every body produces a different amount, and when you add to it through exogenous means, doping, there is a performance advantage.
But when you take a body's natural amount and you drop below it, there tends to be a performance disadvantage.
For example, In one study, they found in this elite set of male athletes, some men below the women's average for testosterone were competing at no competitive disadvantage with men that had 40 times as much testosterone.
Right.
The first problem here, maybe the biggest problem, are the glasses there.
Who goes on television wearing glasses like that?
Now, I know you might point out that I have made some interesting fashion choices with what I choose to wear when I'm on, uh, in front of the camera, but come on, give me a break.
That's a rainbow, rainbow glasses.
But this is what you, what you're seeing there is the left doing what the left does.
Um, and that is distracting from the main point.
And what they're going to do is really on any issue, especially where they know they have an indefensible position, which is, Every issue, particularly when it comes to gender, they're going to home in on one specific argument.
And what they say in that area will be false, but it's also going to be almost entirely beside the point.
But then the strategy is that the other side, on the right, we get sucked into having this argument over this basically irrelevant detail.
Because what they're saying there is so wrong and we can't, we feel like we can't leapfrog over that.
We have to, you know, argue over that.
So the claim that testosterone doesn't give athletes an advantage is obviously ridiculous, but it's almost beside the point.
We could even, it's not about, testosterone is just one, one minor advantage in comparison to all the other advantages that men have.
They don't even talk about any of those other advantages.
Now it's all about testosterone.
And so they're going to pull out all the studies and they're going to say, this study over here said this about testosterone.
They're going to start using a lot of complicated sounding words like exogenistic and all these kinds of words to make it sound like they're, um, they have the science supporting them and they're, they're taking a very nuanced and intelligent position.
And this is all what they're actually claiming is that men don't have any innate biological advantage in sports.
It is so insane!
There is, there is, it is as crazy as claiming that the earth is flat.
I know a lot of positions get compared to that.
Oh, these are like flat earthers.
No, this is actual flat eartherism.
This is as crazy as that.
It is that divorced from reality.
Obviously, men have an advantage in sports.
That's why you take any sport and you find that the best men are always better than the best women.
In most sports, I should say.
You want to talk about gymnastics?
It might be different.
But when it comes to the traditional competitive sports, racing, you know, basketball, football, those kinds of sports, wrestling, boxing, one-on-one, where it's all about strength and stamina, pure athleticism, men are always, the best men are always substantially better than the best women.
And in fact, men a few notches down are going to be substantially better than the best women.
That's why you take any D3 basketball team from college and you put them against the best WNBA players, we all know they would dominate.
The score would be 85-0.
We all know that.
Go to any state, look at the track and field.
Statistics and records in any state in the Union.
Anyone.
And what you're going to find is that all of the fastest times belong to men.
Always.
Always.
Everywhere and for all time.
Why is that?
Because men have dozens and dozens of physical advantages and testosterone isn't even the beginning of it.
You're talking about muscle structure, bone structure, everything down, you know, even things like women having wider hips.
I mean, things like that.
Every part of us, as men, is going to be different from women.
As a man, you are male down to your very bones, literally, and women are women down to their bones.
And all through that, you find differences.
And in so many of these cases, the differences give advantages to men in most competitive sports.
All right.
Let's take a look at... Okay, we got to play this.
Our UN ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield is her name.
Because she's a Democrat, and she was appointed by a Democrat, of course she hates our country.
Hates it deeply.
And made that clear in a recent address.
Let's listen to what she had to say.
I've seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles.
But I also shared these stories to offer up an insight, a simple truth I've learned over the years.
Racism is not the problem of the person who experiences it.
Those of us who experience racism cannot and should not internalize it, despite the impact it can have on our everyday lives.
Racism is the problem of the racist, and it is the problem of the society that produces the racist.
And in today's world, that's every society.
In America, that takes many forms.
It's the white supremacy that led to the senseless killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many other black Americans.
Yeah, racism led to the death of George Floyd.
Of course, we get that claim from Everyone on the left, they've never even tried to give any evidence for it.
They never do.
In what way?
You have evidence that Derek Chauvin is racist and that he killed George Floyd on purpose due to his racial animus?
Really?
If you have that evidence, hey, Linda Greenfield, if you've got that evidence, you better give it.
It's probably too late now, but you better hand that over to the appropriate authorities.
Because the prosecutors prosecuting Derek Chauvin right now, they don't have that evidence.
They haven't produced it.
They produced a shred of evidence that any of this had anything to do with race.
That would be a bombshell if they had it.
I mean, if they could produce something, I don't know what that would be, but something indicating this was racially motivated, that changes the complexion of everything.
No pun intended.
But there's no evidence of that.
So, um, no big deal.
Just our UN ambassador, you know, smearing cops as racist, smearing the entire country as racist.
Of course, if that is your view, you're not fit to hold any public office.
You're especially not fit to be the UN ambassador.
You cannot lead people that you hate.
You cannot lead something that you hate.
You can't lead an organization that you hate.
If you work for a company and you hate that company, and then you're put in a position of authority in that company, it's going to be bad news.
Because you're in a position of authority in a company that you hate.
Same goes for a country.
If you're leading a country that you despise, like Linda Thomas-Greenfield despises it, Nothing good is going to happen.
That's why, why do you think it's one of the reasons why you look at any city run by a Democrat, all of the cities that are in shambles across the country, every single one, all of them run by Democrats.
A lot of reasons for that.
One of the reasons though, is that they hate their cities.
They hate the people in the cities.
They hate the country that the city is, uh, is, is located in.
They hate it all.
They hate the history of the city.
And that really comes through, right?
Like anything else, if you're in charge of taking care of something and you either don't care about it or actively hate it, bad things are going to happen.
Although she did say, I have to say, listening to that clip again, I noticed one thing that she said that I actually agree with.
And then, but she moved on from it, and I don't think she understands the implications of what she said, but she said that she was talking about racism, and she said it's in every society.
Well, you know, yes, actually, you're right about that.
Racism is Um, comes from like any other form of hatred or anything else.
It comes from flaws in human nature and which means doesn't mean that every person is racist.
It just means that you're going to find that any kind of hatred, whether it's racial hatred, any other form of hatred, you're going to find elements of that in any society.
She's right about that.
But what that means is that if you go to Africa, You're going to find a hell of a lot of racism.
Okay?
You go to Asia, hell of a lot of racism.
You go to India, a lot of racism.
The Middle East, a lot of racism.
It is a problem that you find across the globe.
And in fact, in a lot of non-Western countries, it's a lot worse than it is here.
A lot.
And a lot more socially accepted.
So that part I agree with, but as I said, if people on the left were to stop and consider the implications of that and what that actually means, then maybe they would hate America a little bit less.
All right, we're gonna get to reading the comments in just, well, no, we're gonna get there now, actually.
We'll just move right to reading the comments.
Joan says, sadly, all the victims of these violent criminals are completely ignored.
Where is the Me Too movement standing up for these women?
Yeah, the Me Too movement, just like BLM, any of these movements on the left, of course they don't.
Me Too movement pretends to be standing for women's rights and speaking out specifically for victims, women, female victims of violent crime and harassment, and they don't care about that.
Just like BLM is a big grift, people at the top are making lots of money.
We know one of the founders of BLM just bought, what is it, four different houses, all in white neighborhoods, of course.
Uh, the grifters in charge of now, me too has not been as profitable a grift as BLM is, but still pretty profitable.
They don't care if they did.
Yeah.
They'd be speaking up and saying, what about the women here?
How do they feel?
Can we at least hear from them?
And, and if they don't want to come forward and here's the thing, They might very likely decline the opportunity to come forward and speak, but if they do, it's only because they're afraid of what would happen to them if they were to come out.
The woman that George Floyd put at gunpoint after forcing his way into her house, that woman, whoever she is, probably is not going to want to come out.
And say how she feels about George Floyd and how it makes her feel to walk by murals with this guy's face every day.
But the reason that she wouldn't want to say it, I would guess, is because it would put her life in danger.
What does that tell us?
That's all the more reason why you would think Me Too would speak up on their behalf.
If they care, but they don't.
KVG says, two things can be true at once.
Dante was a bad human being and the cops screwed up.
Sure, I don't think anyone... The cop admits pretty much on the spot when you listen to the video that it was an accident.
And so an accident is a mistake, a screw-up.
I don't think anyone is denying that.
Absolutely Degenerate, kind of ironic username given the comment here, says, children are too wholesome for this world.
Matt, your daughter is adorable.
Yeah, you know what, they really are.
It's kind of heartbreaking as a parent.
They don't tell you this part about parenting, do you?
This is one thing that, this undercurrent of pain that comes, it's sort of this, it's a, it's a kind of a sweet loving pain, but it is pain that you feel as a parent seeing your children in their innocence and knowing that it won't last, knowing that one day they'll be as jaded and corrupted as you are.
I have moments like this all the time with my kids.
I had a moment like this actually this morning with my son because I went into the room to say bye to him before I left for work.
And he had this magazine that his mom bought from the store with pictures of King Kong and Godzilla.
You know, it's just like one of those movie magazines.
And he had selected a bunch of pages and marked them.
That he wanted to sit with, when I got home from work, he said he wanted to sit with me and look at these, these specific pages.
So he told me when I got home from work, there's just a bunch of awesome pictures he needs me to see.
And he's looking forward to that.
And of course I said, Oh buddy, that's awesome.
You know, I can't wait.
But I also had this pang of sadness again.
Like, man, this kid is so innocent and sweet that this is what he's, this is what he's doing with his day is he's looking at pictures of Godzilla and King Kong and looking forward to watch, looking at the magazine with daddy.
But you know it won't last.
That's the thing.
That's the sadness.
That's where it comes in.
It was a sappy moment.
We don't get those very often on this show.
I feel like I have to move to something else.
Here we go.
Another comment says, this is my first time commenting, so I will inevitably be banned for not commenting earlier.
No, you're banned for thinking that I would ban you for something so petty.
That's why you're banned.
But you are banned, for the record.
Another comment says, Matt, I was unsure of your show back when you were streaming in your car.
Now you're my favorite show on Daily Wire.
You pull no punches, keep up the great work.
Oh, so you were unsure just because I was in my car?
Elitist.
You think I didn't have anything worthwhile to say only because I was a maniac screaming at my car dashboard, really?
You know what that gets you.
Gets you banned, of course.
And finally, Jackson says, congratulations on 700 episodes.
I didn't even realize.
I read these comments and that's how I realized I was at 700 episodes.
Big milestone.
I didn't plan any celebration.
Here, I will joyously throw these pens in the air in celebration.
Here's my celebration for 700 episodes.
You ready?
That was pretty exciting.
Good.
All right.
Now a quick word from ExpressVPN.
Listen, we know that everyone should have the right to express themselves freely, but we know also, sadly, that Big Tech has opted for silencing people and censorship.
And we know that a lot of this is politically motivated.
And what does that mean?
It means we have to fight back.
And to fight back against Big Tech's control of the internet, I use ExpressVPN.
You ever wondered how free-to-access tech giants make all their money?
They make billions of it.
Well, they do it by tracking your searches, your video history, everything you click on, and by building a profile of you, they then sell off your sensitive data, and that's how they're making money off of you, without your consent, without your knowing it.
When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone, you make anonymous much of your online presence by hiding your IP address.
That means Your activity is more difficult to trace, more difficult to sell to advertisers.
What's more, ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals.
You know that Big Tech hates you, so don't just let them profit off of you in this way.
Take action.
Get ExpressVPN.
Revoke Big Tech's right to your data.
Secure your internet with the VPN that I trust for online protection.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Walsh to get three months Free with my exclusive link that's again expressvpn.com slash Walsh right now and learn more.
Also, it's episode five already.
We can't get enough of Candace Owens or her new show.
And every episode has been great and getting better each week.
This week, I think it's going to be the best of all because she's going to be hosting comedian and podcaster Adam Carolla.
You can tune in.
You don't want to miss this conversation.
And if you want to tune in, of course, you become a Daily Wire member.
You can watch that way.
Or you can also get Candace Owens in your Twitter feed, Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen to your podcast.
So if you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, Look no further, head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe today.
Be sure to leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today, for what I think will be a brief and relatively painless cancellation, we turn to an article in the Washington Post, an article in which your humble podcast host, yours truly, is personally featured.
The headline is, United pledged to diversify its pilot pipeline.
Outrage from conservative pundits was swift.
I should tell you that I didn't know about this article or that I was mentioned it until it was posted to Twitter by a guy named Torin Ellis, who tagged me in his tweet.
Ellis tweeted, quote, here are three propped up mediocre white men that should kick rocks.
Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan for attempting to devalue DNI.
I think DNI stands for diversity and inclusion.
Needless to say, if I called Ellis a, quote, mediocre black man, he would cry racist.
And only, you know, that's because he's allowed to use language like that, but I'm not.
The rules are very clear.
Ellis, by the way, is a diversity and inclusion strategist by trade.
I'm still not sure what a diversity and inclusion strategist does exactly.
I guess a company hires you and then you give them arbitrary quotas to fill.
Like you say, well, let's see, this company needs nine more black people, two Asians, 12 women.
Tell you what, let's spice it up a bit and get a non-binary lesbian Vietnamese pirate on staff as well.
That'll be $95,000.
Thank you.
The process may not work exactly like that, but I think that's the general idea.
In any case, all that to say, this is how I discovered that I was outraged.
That I was outraged at United.
You see, I'm quite often included in these articles about conservative outrage and conservative backlash.
The strategy from the media is pretty obvious.
It always follows the same pattern.
Someone on the left, or some company on the left in this case, does something crazy and stupid.
The media knows that it can't defend the crazy, stupid thing on its own merits, so instead they go in through the back door, attempting to indirectly defend it by pretending that only we bigoted, hateful, insane conservative pundits are opposed to this crazy, stupid thing.
For the record, much of the time, outrage is not the right word for how I feel about these crazy, stupid things.
Sometimes it is, okay?
I am indeed outraged, for example, about the children being indoctrinated into left-wing gender theory, and then drugged and mutilated.
I've been included in conservative outrage articles about that, and accurately so.
The physical and sexual abuse of children does outrage me.
You might even say that I'm a full-blown snowflake when it comes to child abuse.
I am very upset about it, and angry.
That much I admit.
It offends me.
It does.
As for United deciding to recruit based on race and gender rather than merit, I'm not outraged.
If I was a passenger on the first plane that crashes because it's being piloted by someone who was hired to fill a quota, then yeah, I'd be outraged about that.
But I'm not going to be on that plane because I'm not going to fly United because I prefer not to die, if I can help it.
Nonetheless, I was included in the outraged pundit brigade without my consent.
Here's the relevant portion of the article.
Criticism of the plan suggested United was prioritizing the wrong qualities, and in many cases overlooked the fact that pilots would still have to undergo extensive training to be eligible for a job.
Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh penned an opinion piece titled, United Offers Passengers Exciting Opportunity to Die in Diverse and Equitable Plane Crash.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson tackled the issue the day after United's announcement, accusing the airline of prioritizing identity politics over safety.
Quoting him, it says, so if hiring on the basis of irrelevant criteria will, over time, get people killed, and it will, why are they demanding it?
Because they don't care.
They're ideologues.
They're suffering from an incurable brain disease called wokeness.
And Piers Morgan, who resigned from Good Morning America last month after criticizing Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, wrote in the Daily Mail that white male pilots were being discriminated against by the airline's plan.
Okay.
Now, I wouldn't call my headline quoted there as outraged.
I did think it was pretty clever, though, and I'm grateful for the shout out.
But what I really want to focus on for a moment is a quote earlier in the article from the spokesman for United Airlines.
And as far as I know, this is the first time they've come out and given a longer explanation of this plan and defense of it.
And so, in fairness, I'll read that to you.
Here's what the spokesman said.
He said, Our commitment to diversity is about recruiting from the deepest pool possible of exceptional and qualified candidates who want to pursue a career as a commercial airline pilot, particularly those who otherwise may not have attempted to do so due to a variety of factors, primarily financial barriers.
We believe that we're going to be a better, stronger airline because of this, and we also understand that our pilot group needs to better reflect the communities that we serve.
Now, this, of course, is nonsense.
The point is that United didn't just say that they want to make sure everyone has a fair shot at being a pilot.
They didn't just say that they're going to go into underserved communities and recruit.
Nobody would object to that plan.
Most of us probably assumed they were already doing stuff like that.
If they weren't, it's an easy thing to start doing.
The problem is that they set a quota, a goal, They have an actual percentage in mind for the number of women and minorities that will be in their training pipeline.
50% is the number they want.
So here again is the question.
If all they want to do is find the most qualified people and are expanding their search to that end, how can they know ahead of time that 50% of the most qualified people will be women and minorities?
They might hope that it's 50%, but how do they know that it will be?
They obviously can't know that.
And it's almost certainly not going to work out like that.
If then they fulfill their 50% goal, it will be because they put other considerations above considerations of merit and skill.
This is another equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity situation.
Everybody agrees with equality of opportunity.
We're turning something controversial, which doesn't need to be controversial.
If you simply said all people of all races, nations, and creeds and sexes should have the opportunity to be a pilot or a firefighter or an actor or whatever other arbitrarily selected occupation, if that's all you said, nobody would disagree.
We could all shake hands and be friends.
Probably not shake hands, given the lingering COVID paranoia, but we could all elbow bump and be friends.
That is a non-controversial opinion and a worthy goal, and it's not a problem.
But when you say that a certain preordained percentage of the people who actually earn these jobs and titles should be a certain race or sex, then you have left this non-controversial opinion and worthy goal and fallen into a pit.
Where everything is dumb, and nothing makes sense, and planes crash because the pilot was incompetent but filled a quota, and the media pretends that only conservative pundits are upset about it.
And so, for that reason, The Washington Post, of course, is cancelled.
And the diversity and strategists from before, I forget his name already, all 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, 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 Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
CNN admits on a hidden camera that it hyped COVID for ratings.
BLM NYC lambasts BLM's founder for embezzling lots of money without giving them a cut.
