Ep. 702 - The Problem Is Bad Parenting, Not Bad Policing
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, yet another police shooting sparks outrage and protests. This time a 13-year-old boy is killed. As always, everyone is blaming the police. But I think we should move the conversation from policing to parenting. That is the real source of the trouble, and the thing that nobody seems to want to talk about. Also Five Headlines including the Democrats begin their push for reparations while a bunch of white celebrities come out in support of the idea. And the media baselessly smears Ron DeSantis in the most vile way imaginable. Finally in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the scientists who have now begun creating half-monkey, half-human hybrid embryos. What could possibly go wrong? Or better yet, what could possibly go right? All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, yet another police shooting sparks outrage and protest.
This time, a 13-year-old boy is killed.
As always, everyone is blaming the police, but I think we should move the conversation from policing to parenting.
That's the real source of the trouble and the thing that nobody seems to want to talk about.
Also, five headlines, including the Democrats begin their push for reparations while a bunch of white celebrities come out in support of the idea, and the media baselessly smears Ron DeSantis in the most vile way imaginable.
Finally, in our daily cancellation, we'll discuss the scientists We've now begun creating half-monkey, half-human hybrid embryos.
What could possibly go wrong?
Or better yet, what could possibly go right with a plan like that?
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
So with riots already happening in multiple cities and outrage still exploding over the police killing of Dante
Wright and the country on edge leading up to the verdict in the Derek
Chauvin trial, Chicago decided that now, this week.
Of all times, it would be a good time to release the body cam footage of the officer-involved shooting of a 13-year-old suspect.
You might almost begin to think that people in positions of power in this country want the riots.
In fact, if you're only beginning to think that now, then you're rather slow on the uptake, I would say.
The incident happened on March 29th of this year, a little more than two weeks ago.
Officers were called to the scene in downtown Chicago at 2.30 a.m.
because someone, or some group of people, were shooting guns in the middle of the city.
Police sensors picked up nine shots, then 911 calls started coming in.
One caller reported six or seven shots, another also reported multiple shots.
When officers arrived at the area, they immediately began chasing two suspects.
The first, a 21-year-old man named Ruben Roman, they were able to quickly catch and subdue.
The second suspect was someone that we now know as 13-year-old Adam Toledo.
But of course, the police didn't know who he was or his age.
All they knew was that people were shooting guns, and now here is someone running away.
Bodycam footage shows police chasing Toledo down an alley, where he stops, turns, puts his hands up, and is shot.
Officers render aid immediately, but he dies at the scene.
This, at least, is the version of the story that the media and the activists want us to take to heart.
In fact, CBS released a cropped version of the footage so that this version is all you see, exactly as I just described it.
In truth, if you literally widen the frame, you discover that Toledo was holding a gun.
A gun that he or the 21-year-old suspect, or both of them, were just moments earlier firing at something or someone.
Toledo initially flees while holding the gun, then his officers scream at him to stop and put his hands up.
He halts, turns, gun still in his hand, and subtly tosses the gun behind a fence with his right hand obscured.
By the time the officer fires the single shot that kills him, Toledo's hands were empty.
But there was literally a fraction of a second in between Toledo holding the gun and the officer firing the shot.
From the time that you first see the gun on the body cam footage to the point where the officer fires the shot, eight-tenths of a second elapsed.
That's it.
Toledo did try to surrender.
But it was too late, and he purposefully ditched the gun in a way so that the cops wouldn't see him ditching it.
From the cop's perspective, this is a suspect just involved in some kind of shooting, holding a gun, who is now turning and raising his hands.
Now, that officer has less than a second, less than a second, to make a decision.
Is he raising his hands to put his hands up, or is he raising his hand because he's drawing up and he's about to fire?
If the officer guesses wrong, he's dead.
It is as high as the stakes can get.
And he had eight tenths of a second to decide which way he would go.
Now, I don't know about you.
I've never confronted an armed person in a back alley.
I've never had that experience.
I've never confronted any armed person at all, especially not in the dark at 2.30 a.m.
I've never had to make a life or death decision in eight tenths of a second.
Now, cops, of course, are trained for this.
That's true, but they're also human.
They aren't superheroes.
This isn't a movie.
They are tossed into messy, horrible, real-world situations, and they have to make the best judgment call they can in the moment.
That's why, so often, the more productive question we could be asking is not, could the cops have handled the horrible situation better, but rather, why was the horrible situation happening to begin with?
What could have been done to avoid that situation entirely?
See, to me, that's the question.
In this case, rather than blaming the cop who had eight-tenths of a second to decide whether he wanted to ever see his family again, perhaps we should ask why a 13-year-old boy was out on the street with a loaded gun at 2.30 a.m.
This child had clearly, at some point in the past, gone down a dark path.
A path both metaphorically and literally.
A path that has led many young boys and young men like Adam Toledo to the morgue eventually.
Usually not at the hands of the police, but at the hands of other boys and young men in the community most of the time.
We know that if Adam Toledo had survived that encounter with the cops, And then been shot and killed a week later by some local gangbanger, as happens, you know, hundreds of times a year across the country.
The media wouldn't be reporting it.
Protesters wouldn't be taking to the streets over it, and its name would not be known.
The left only cares about the Adam Toledos of the world when they die by cop.
That's the only time.
If they die literally any other way, any other way, The people pretending to care about him now would shrug their shoulders and go about their day.
So the question again is, it's not, why did the cop make the wrong decision in 8 tenths of a second while confronting an unknown perp with a loaded gun in a dark alley in the middle of the night?
The question is, why did this encounter ever happen at all?
Why was that cop put in that position?
Elizabeth Toledo, Adam's mother, has spoken out since the death.
She says that her child was a goofy, fun kid with a big imagination.
He likes SpongeBob SquarePants and Taco Bell and candy.
She says that he wanted to be a police officer when he grows up.
Now that all might be true.
But we also know, according to reporting from journalist Andy Ngo, that Adam was known in gang circles as Lil Homicide and Baby Diablo.
CBS reports that he went missing two days before the shooting, disappeared out into the street somewhere, and his mother didn't report it.
He also had gone missing a few days before that.
In that case, it was reported.
But then he returned, and his mom never told the police that he came home.
Then he left again, and she never told them that he was gone.
Perhaps not surprisingly, so far we haven't heard anything one way or another about the boy's father, or from the boy's father, as far as I know.
Now, if you would look at the totality of the circumstances here and come away with the conclusion that the police are the problem, then you're not a serious person or an honest one.
You're a fraud and a coward.
You're afraid to deal with reality, afraid to tell the truth.
You know, though you will not say it out loud, that what caused Adam Toledo's death was not bad policing, but catastrophically bad parenting.
The tragedy that led to the final tragedy was parental neglect.
Now, as parents, we can't exercise total control over our kids, okay?
They'll make their own choices, sometimes they're gonna make bad ones, sometimes very bad ones.
But if your boy is only 13, and already he's running around the city at 2.30 a.m.
with a loaded gun and his gang friends, one of whom is 21 years old, and they all call him Lil Homicide, something has gone very, very wrong in your home.
Our cities are full of boys and young men whose home lives have gone very, very wrong, to put it mildly.
70% are living in homes without fathers.
And that's just the beginning of it.
Many of these kids are given no moral formation, no instruction, no guidance.
They have no one setting an example for them, no role models, no one to look up to, no one to show them the way.
Nobody.
Like, millions of kids in this situation have nobody looking out for them.
Police are the cleanup crew called in to deal with the mess.
They're not the ones causing the mess.
What's causing the mess is the collapse and abandonment of the nuclear family.
And that's happening everywhere in society.
And it's bad everywhere.
And you see the fruits of that everywhere.
But in the cities, it has reached apocalyptic levels.
In the cities, the nuclear family basically doesn't exist anymore.
If you want to know what a post-nuclear family world looks like, look at the inner cities.
That's what it looks like.
Adam Toledo's death, that's what it looks like.
You know, I look at my own son, my oldest, he's almost eight, and I think to myself, could he become a gangbanger running around the city with a gun by 13 in just seven years?
Could he go from where he is right now to that in seven years?
Now, the answer for us is no.
Me and my wife wouldn't ever allow that.
But theoretically, would it be possible to turn my innocent, sweet little boy into a hardened criminal by the time he reaches middle school?
Theoretically, sure.
I mean, the first thing I'd have to do, it's very easy for me, actually.
All that I would have to do is leave.
That might be all it takes.
If I personally, as his father, checked out of his life, either physically or mentally or both, that might be enough.
But if it isn't, then the next step is to deprive him of all other forms of moral guidance, to ensure that all of his role models, especially his male role models, are bad influences, take me out of the picture and replace me with the internet, pop culture, rappers, movies.
Next, my wife would have to allow him to get mixed in with a bad crowd, spend all day, next thing you know, all night with these kinds of people.
That's his new family.
That's where he takes his social cues.
That's how he learns to be a man.
Let him stew in that environment, an environment of confusion and abandonment and neglect, for a couple of years.
And just like that, my boy could be the one in that body cam footage.
Anyone's boy could be.
What does that mean?
It means that our children can't raise themselves.
If the Lord of the Flies has taught us anything, it's that.
Our children need us.
They need parents, adults, to mold them.
Boys especially need men, fathers, to guide them, help them harness their masculine energy in productive and edifying ways.
You know, boys are risk takers.
Boys are aggressive.
That's natural.
That's good.
It has to be harnessed.
I can see that in my sons.
They want to take risks.
They want to be aggressive.
That's why the father steps in and says, okay, you want to take risks?
Here are some healthy, controlled risks you can take.
Let's go climb a tree.
I'll be standing right there.
You know, you have a lot of aggression.
Let's wrestle around on the floor.
Let's play football.
Let's go run around outside.
That's what boys need fathers for.
It would seem that Adam Toledo didn't have that.
And that's what signed his death warrant.
The cop will live with the guilt.
But he's not the one.
He's not the one who put that boy in that alley with that gun.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
You know, as conservatives, we say we love the Constitution, but very few of us,
I think, have actually studied it and probably fewer stand ready to defend it.
And that's where my friends over at ConstitutionCoach.com come in.
It's where they got a lot of great programs for equipping citizens to defend liberty by studying and living out the Constitution.
And that's why I was so grateful to go and experience their constitutional defense course.
And it's why I encourage you to do the same.
You get an amazing combination of intellectual ammunition and live classes with Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach.
And you also get the physical training at the premier firearms training facility in the nation.
You get this all in the same course.
You get to join hundreds of other Patriots from across the nation for fellowship, training, and learning.
And it's a lot of fun, but you come away with a very valuable skill.
In fact, whether you've shot guns your whole life, or you've never even touched one, wherever you fall in that spectrum, I'm telling you, these people, they took me to an entirely new skill level.
They could do the same for you.
But you gotta go to constitutioncoach.com.
Rick and the Constitution Coach team have another class on April 25th, but you're coming up on your last chance to sign up.
So sign up now.
Go to constitutioncoach.com.
Again, constitutioncoach.com.
One other note about this, I just saw Moms Demand Action, the gun control nutcases.
They tweeted about this case.
They said, "Update, video released today shows that Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old boy, a 13-year-old
LaTinx boy who was fatally shot by police in Little Village, Illinois on March 29th,
had his hands up when he was shot and shows no indication that Toledo was holding a gun."
Now, that's not true.
As we just discussed, the body cam footage clearly shows that he did have a gun, and only eight-tenths of a second elapsed between when he had the gun and when the cop pulled the trigger.
But I'm really looking at LeTink's boy.
Are you really doing that at a time like this?
This boy has died.
Can we take a break from that?
Can we take a break from that BS for a day?
Can the LGBT agenda take the day off?
You folks have been pretty active.
Take a day off.
We don't need the Latinx thing.
You don't need to try to inject that into this.
It's incredibly disrespectful, because the Latino community, they don't use that word.
Latino people do not use that word.
That is a white, LGBT, liberal word that you are imposing on them, and you're doing it now.
You're using the opportunity of a boy's death to do that.
It doesn't even make sense because Latinx is supposed to be gender neutral.
You're talking about a boy.
A gender neutral boy?
Latinx boy?
He's a boy.
Latino.
There's a word for that.
They have that word in their community and you should use the word out of respect.
And also because it's a real word.
We don't need to change it.
You know, the irony is that so often we hear these claims of appropriation.
We hear about white people colonizing foreign cultures and imposing their values and ideas on those cultures.
And nine times out of ten, those claims end up being bogus.
Here's a real example of it.
Here's an actual real example of white people, white Westerners colonizing a foreign culture and imposing their own values and ideas on it with this latinx thing.
Except that the colonizers in this case, and it turns out in most cases, are left-wing liberals.
And so they get a pass.
All right, number one, this is from the LA Times.
It says, a House committee late Wednesday advanced legislation first introduced in 1989 that would study the issue of awarding reparations to the descendants of American slaves.
The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to send a bill to the House floor for the first time to create a commission to study the legacy of American slavery, of racist laws, and how they affected formerly enslaved people and their descendants.
The bill instructs the 13-person committee to consider a national apology And to recommend any appropriate remedies to Congress for slavery.
So this is a bill, this is a committee talking about a bill to study to, you know, there are a lot of steps still to go through.
And this goes back to 1989.
So this idea has been out there for a long time.
Up until a couple of years ago, I would have said, this is political posturing.
It's not really going to happen.
But I think we're at a point now where this will happen.
I'll make that prediction right now.
I think some kind of reparation policy will be passed.
It is with the Democrats having total control of the government right now and white guilt being at its absolute peak.
Yeah, I think it will happen.
It's not gonna be to the full extent that left-wing activists hope for, but it'll be something.
Let's look at a few clips here of lawmakers debating this.
First, here is Democrat Hakeem Jeffries arguing for reparations.
Let's hear what his case is.
I'm not gonna move on because after slavery, Jim Crow, and the rise of the KKK, and the lynching epidemic, and Plessy versus Ferguson, and Black Wall Street, In 1921, destroyed.
Why?
Because black prosperity was viewed as a threat to white supremacy.
So no, we're not simply going to move on.
And when the Great Depression struck, African Americans were hit the hardest and we received the least amount of support.
Why?
Because yes, Southern Dixiecrats insisted that in the New Deal, African Americans would be excluded, while other Americans were helped.
Excluded from Social Security, because most of us were domestic workers, or many of us.
agricultural workers excluded from Social Security excluded from unemployment
insurance and excluded from the federally subsidized loans and insured
loans that were issued so between 1934 and 1962 98% of the federally insured
loans that were issued by the federal government were issued to white
Americans okay rather than me responding to that I'd rather hear from
representative Burgess Owens who I think he You can find the clip online.
It's like five minutes long of everything he has to say about this idea of reparations.
Well worth your time to listen to.
We can't play the whole five minutes, so here's a little bit of what Burgess Owens had to say in response to this idea.
I'm looking forward to, by the way, reparation when you take people's money.
It's punishment.
It's theft.
It's judgment.
It's saying that because of your skin color, you owe me.
That is not the American way.
We're not racist people.
This American country is based on meritocracy.
And I tell you, anybody who's been in sports or military, you guys get it.
At the end of the day, It's the character, it's resolve, it's the loyalty that makes a difference.
The color of skin has nothing to do with how we choose those people that we want to trust and move forward with.
Yeah, that kind of sums it up.
That's what it is.
It is punishment, vengeance.
That's why I say what is greasing the wheels here for this to actually happen is white guilt.
White guilt at an all-time high in this country, especially on the left.
But not just on the left.
This is something that is being drilled into kids' heads from a very young age.
And it gets more and more intense as they get older.
You get into college, and it is full-on cult-like brainwashing.
But the idea is, if you're white, you're guilty of these sins from the past.
You have unique ancestral guilt.
As I always say, it's a very religious kind of idea.
This is their religion.
The idea of inherited guilt.
Only in this case it is racially inherited guilt.
Like there's guilt that flows in the bloodline for white people.
And this is an idea that many people find very convincing and compelling because it's been beaten to their heads.
And that's why a lot of white people in this country now would submit to this.
Having money taken out of their wallets, food taken out of their children's mouths, to pay for a sin they didn't commit, they had nothing to do with at all.
Now, one thing that is rarely clarified when we hear this idea of reparations, you heard it when I was reading from the LA Times article, they talk about reparation for the descendants of African slaves.
Well, even that is a horrible idea, but is that really all you're talking about?
So we're going to... Before we pay reparations to a black American, first we're going to make sure they actually are a descendant of an African slave.
Is that what we're talking about?
Because that's going to exclude many millions of black Americans who live here now and are not descendants of African slaves.
Because their family came here more recently than that.
But if we're doing that... Okay, so if we're... If we are...
If we're going to single out the descendants of African slaves, then are we also going to single out the descendants of slave owners?
What about the people who, white people, whose families came here well after slavery had already been abolished?
Like me, for example.
My family.
My family wasn't here when that was happening.
My family's largely Irish, which means not only do they not own slaves, but when they came here, they faced quite a lot of discrimination, systemic discrimination as well.
Do I get some kind of reparation for that?
I mean, you could easily make the case that when my Irish ancestors came here, they faced discrimination, systemic discrimination against Irish people, which was very common back then.
And, you know, that set them on a certain path.
And if it weren't for that, I could be in a totally different spot right now.
I could be much richer, much more well-off, you know, butterfly effect and all that.
You could make that case.
But then if you're going to do that, then you could really take anyone and you could trace it back and you could find the misfortune suffered by their ancestors, tragedies that befell them, oppression they suffered.
It would be very hard to find probably anyone on earth outside of like, I don't know, the royal family.
There are not very many people on earth who do not have very real oppression in their bloodline going back to their ancestors.
Oppression, persecution, tragedy, suffering, you know, that's common for all people everywhere for all time, but especially when you go back through history.
But as I said, this all comes down to white guilt.
And speaking of which, some celebrities, including some white celebrities, have come out in favor of reparations, put together a PSA explaining why we should all pay reparations.
And here's that.
Lame argument against reparations.
Talking about slavery is keeping racism alive or perpetuating the victim mentality.
No.
If we were to stop talking about racism tomorrow, do you think that that would stop
another unarmed black person from being shot and killed by the police?
[Music]
Do you think not talking about racism would change the fact That black women are more likely to die during childbirth?
We're out of excuses as a country, so please stop making them.
We built this country on the backs of black and brown people, and we still haven't really done anything to say f***.
Very eloquent from Chelsea Handler, as always.
We haven't done anything to say f***.
Well, you're right.
Well, I mean, she said she has done a lot to say that.
If she has done nothing else in her life, she has certainly said that word quite a bit.
That will be the monument to her, at least that she used that word a lot.
Look, if you're a white, well-off celebrity and you feel this guilt and you think you need to pay reparations, I've got an idea.
Pay reparations.
No one's stopping you.
You can take your money, give it to black families.
There are charities that you can donate to.
There's all kinds of things you can do.
You can see them in that video sitting in their comfortable homes.
Because what they're really saying is, no, no, no, it's not that I should have to pay.
It's all of you people out there should have to pay.
I mean, by their logic, they're the most privileged, so they should have to pay the most.
And also, who was the first celebrity we saw there, quote-unquote celebrity?
It was Alyssa Milano.
She said, if we stop talking about racism, you think that's going to stop black men from getting shot by the cops?
Well, in a way, yeah, I mean, it may prevent some of that.
If we stop obsessing over race and race-related things, And if we stop telling people that cops are homicidal, racist lunatics prowling through the streets looking for black men to murder, if we stop saying that, then, yeah, I think we actually would cut down on the amount of police-involved shootings.
You know, when you tell someone, you take a young black child and that's the message that you send to them from a young age, that the cops hate you, they want to kill you, they want you dead, they're all Klan members and racists and they're out there hunting black men, and you tell a young black child that?
Yes, you have greatly increased the chance that he is going to have hostile interactions with the police.
Yes.
All right, one other clip I want to play, somewhat related.
Patrice Cullors is one of the co-founders of BLM, and there's been controversy recently because she calls herself a trained Marxist, and BLM is a Marxist organization.
The founders of BLM are very clear about that.
It is a Marxist organization.
But even though she's a trained Marxist, she has made a lot of money and then she went out and bought four houses.
She's investing in real estate.
Of course, they're all in white neighborhoods.
And there's been there's been blowback because of that on both sides, left and right.
And here she is with Mark Lamont Hill trying to defend her decision as a Marxist to buy four homes.
Let's listen to that.
There's also a critique, though, from the left that would say if you are a trained Marxist, if we're talking about a certain kind of radical politic, That extravagant homes of any sort or multiple properties of any sort is itself contradictory to the ideology that you hold.
And so it's not about having money per se, but that it's about, uh, or about property per se, but it's about there being a potential contradiction between your express politics and your lived practice.
Sure, and I think that is a critique that is wanting, and I say that because the way that I live my life is in direct support to Black people, including my Black family members.
First and foremost.
And for so many black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community, they choose to invest in their family.
And that's what I've chosen to do.
I have a child.
I have a brother that has severe mental illness that I take care of.
I support my mother, and I support many other family members of mine.
And so I see my money as not my own.
I see it as my family's money as well.
Right.
Yeah.
You know, she was a Marxist.
Translation, I was a Marxist until I had money.
That's it.
It's really easy to be a Marxist when you're broke.
You know, most of the Marxists you see on the internet advocating for Marxism, just a bunch of broke, they're all broke.
A lot of them living at home with their parents.
Really easy to do.
Then once you have money, it's a whole different ballgame.
And the thing is, what she said there about, you know, I've got my own family, I want to take care of my family, totally fine!
I completely sympathize with that, I agree with it.
I think your first responsibility is to your family.
It's nobody else's business.
You want to buy four homes, buy four.
Buy ten homes if you want.
Totally no one else's business.
It could be that you're being greedy and miserly and everything else.
Even that is nobody else's business.
Or it could be that you're taking care of people.
You have a mother you're taking care of.
You have a... taking care of her brother, she claims.
Completely fine.
I get it.
Yeah, but see, I'm allowed to have that position because I'm not a Marxist, but you are.
That is exactly the kind of argument and logic that, as a Marxist, you have been arguing against and shouting down for years.
That really is the whole argument, at least on the economic part of it.
That's the argument for financial freedom, economic freedom.
I should be able to earn money and take care of my own family.
My first responsibility as a man, as a human being, is to my own family.
And I should be able to take care of them in the way that and to the extent that I want.
I shouldn't have to explain that to anybody.
I shouldn't have to justify it.
And there shouldn't be anyone coming in saying, no, you've taken care of your family enough.
Now you have to take care of this family over here.
Now you have to take care of my family.
Yeah, that's the argument that we've been making, but Patrice Cullors has not agreed with that until now.
And only for her.
Because I guess that's the real argument.
The real argument is, yeah, but it's different for me.
She should have just said that.
I think I'd almost respect that if she said, if that was her whole answer.
You know, if Marc Lamont Hill had said, oh, how do you justify this?
And if she had only said, you know, it's different for me.
I would say, okay, at least you're being honest.
All right, we got to play this.
You know, the left really, really hates Ron DeSantis.
And when the left really, really hates you, they will do anything to destroy you.
Anything.
So here's Joy Reid on MSNBC, along with her guest, implicating Implicating Ron DeSantis in a sex trafficking scandal with no evidence whatsoever.
She's just tossing it out there.
Let's listen.
The question for Gates, because obviously Greenberg has to give somebody bigger than him, that would be Gates.
Here is at least, per the reporting, the people who were on that Bahamas trip.
Notice if you see somebody's name that rings a couple of times.
You had at least five women per Politico.
You had Gates.
You had a guy named Jason Perizzolo, the hand surgeon and GOP fundraiser, to Ron DeSantis,
who apparently Gates wanted to turn into the Attorney General of Florida.
There's Halsey Beshears, a former state legislator and former appointed official in the DeSantis
administration.
If you're Ron DeSantis, does this feel like it's creeping closer to you?
Because these are your friends, these are your allies.
Yeah, just as Greenberg's lawyer said about Matt Gates when he left the courthouse the
the other day he said, you know what?
If I were Matt Gaetz, I don't think I'd be all that comfortable right about now.
You have to believe that DeSantis, I mean, these are his boys, these are his guys, right?
We've seen the pictures, we've heard the stories.
You have to believe that Ron DeSantis, if he has done anything wrong, feels like things are creeping closer and closer to him.
My God.
They sink lower and lower by the day.
You keep thinking you can't be surprised by it, but what scumbags.
I hope that Ron DeSantis sues them both into bankruptcy and oblivion.
I really hope.
I really hope that Ron DeSantis sues them into bankruptcy, they lose their homes, then Patrice Cullors can come in and buy their homes out from underneath them.
That's what I hope happens.
My lord.
Implicating him in sex trafficking, sex scandal.
There is no evidence at all that Ron DeSantis has anything to do with any of this.
Oh, but they're not accusing him.
They're just asking questions, that's all.
I mean, just like I could ask the question of the guy up there, I don't even know his name, the guy that we were just listening to.
I could ask the question, is he a pedophile?
I'm not saying he is.
I'm asking a question.
Is he?
He hasn't denied that he is.
I mean, you heard him speaking there.
Did he deny in that statement that he's a pedophile?
I don't know.
They really hate Ron DeSantis, and they're afraid of him.
And that probably tells you everything you need to know about Ron DeSantis, I think.
Tells you why he's probably the guy, should be the guy in 2024.
They really don't want him.
They really, really don't want him to be the guy.
They're not spending a lot of time attacking Trump anymore.
It's Ron DeSantis.
The Trump is a different story, and that's quite startling in its own way, because they're not talking about Trump at all anymore.
Trump has become, and Trump fans out there aren't gonna like me saying this, but Trump has become a cultural non-factor.
Like, he doesn't even matter anymore.
He releases statements and that kind of thing and makes no waves at all.
The reason for that is that the big tech has just wiped him out.
Big tech came in.
I mean, this is Donald Trump, OK?
Former president.
The most famous and talked about guy, an influential guy in the world for the last, like, six years.
Big tech came in and said, no, you're done.
We're done with you.
You don't exist anymore.
And it worked.
He's a non-factor.
There might be something he can do about that, but it's going to take a lot of effort.
You have to be very clever about it to get around that.
So far as it stands, they have erased him.
And now they're moving on to Ron DeSantis.
And the advantage also that Ron DeSantis has is he's not on Twitter, I don't think.
He doesn't really rely on big tech for Donald Trump, that was his game, was to use big tech, to use it to elevate himself, and he rode that all the way to the presidency, which was quite brilliant, with his double-edged sword.
Then they pulled the rug out, now he's gone.
Ron DeSantis is doing it a very different way.
They're going to have to find a different way to get rid of him.
Alright, before we move on to reading the comments, we gotta do this article just because it's really important.
This is from the New York Post, and I'll just read.
This is the news, okay?
I'm just reading to you what the news is, and it's important news.
It says, they're taking a shortcut.
As the weather is turning warm, men are embracing extra short shorts, and Twitter is loving it.
Last week, the This Is Us actor Milo Ventimiglia made waves when he flashed his gams while leaving the gym in teeny weeny pants.
His thunder thighs grabbed everyone's attention and left fans wanting more.
I'm reading the article, okay?
Uh, here's- we have the picture up there on the- no, oh my god.
No.
That is not- we cannot do this.
That is not acceptable.
So what they're claiming is that this is the fashion now.
Those are hot pants.
It looks like he's not wearing pants at all, in fact.
Is he wearing pants?
It looks like he's wearing a t-shirt, and he's not wearing anything underneath it.
I don't know.
What they're claiming is that this is the fashion now, is men wearing shorts like that.
And I will say, I'm not going to allow that.
That cannot be the fashion.
We're not doing this, guys.
We are not doing it.
We're going back to cargo shorts.
There was nothing wrong with cargo shorts.
Fashionable, quite handsome, and practical as well.
And they cover more of your pale, gross legs so the world doesn't have to look at them.
What the hell is happening with, you know, jeans all the... So the fashion now is for jeans.
We're going back to baggy, JNCO style jeans while the shorts are getting shorter.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
Meanwhile, I'm over here wearing my polka dot shirt.
Everything is confused.
Nothing makes any sense.
Okay, let's move now to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from one user who says, YouTube now considers you as offensive material.
Good stuff, Matt.
Fight the power.
Yeah.
Most of the comments actually, I can't, I can't do a full reading the comments segment today because almost all the comments are about the fact that YouTube censored our show yesterday, which they did.
I don't know if they're maybe they're doing it to this show too.
I don't know but they censored the show yesterday so that they put a parental advisory on and you had to sign in in order to watch the show and then you had to click through another advisory warning of offensive content and you also couldn't share.
They took away the share function so you couldn't share the show.
What is their reason for doing it?
They didn't give a reason as far as I know.
What I will say is, number one, they censored the show before it even went live.
They had censored it already.
We can only speculate, and I will say that the topic of the show yesterday, which if you missed because of all the censorship and everything, I would hope that you go back and watch it after this show, because it's an important topic.
We talked about the Ashley Babbitt shooting.
And the fact that we aren't being told anything about the Ashley Babbitt shooting, and she was killed by an unnamed federal officer in the Capitol, and we haven't been told why, we haven't been told who shot her.
We haven't been told his name or anything about him.
That's what the title was about, and that's what the opening monologue was about, and YouTube, for whatever reason, doesn't want you to hear that.
And yeah, we did.
We played the clip.
We played the video of Ashley Babbitt getting shot.
It's upsetting.
It's not graphic.
You don't see anything that's graphic, but it's upsetting.
Maybe that's the excuse they would give is, oh, you know, you played upsetting, violent content on the show.
Yeah, well, a few days before that, we played the video of Daunte Wright getting shot and they didn't censor that.
Sophia says, Matt, I saw someone riding a skateboard on the main road, not even off to the side, and wearing a mask.
I thought of you and wondered what you would say about it.
Well, he's got his priorities straight.
You know, safety first.
He's skateboarding on the main road, where he could easily get hit by a car, but at least he's got the mask on.
You know, because when you're skateboarding in the middle of the road, the number one thing that might kill you is a virus.
So I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't make fun of that at all.
He's just, he's got his priorities straight.
Finally, Sarah says, Hey Matt, it's awesome.
You're so willing to redact any false information you may accidentally put out there.
I thought I'd let you know that you slipped up again today.
The earth actually is flat.
I'll let you decide if you think I'm joking or not.
Cancel me if you must.
The thing is Sarah, I think you're joking, but I can never be too sure these days.
I have in the past, Managed to upset the flat-earth community, which is how I discovered that there is actually a flat-earth community.
And that's what I realized.
It was at that moment that whatever little faith in humanity I had left was obliterated.
And a full cynicism and pessimism from that day on.
And I realized that no idea is too stupid for people these days.
So I hope you're joking, but who knows.
You know, we have some really great mattress sponsors on the show that I tell you about.
And we all know that good mattresses are important because you spend so much time in them.
Well, if you're a parent, you might not spend a lot of time in them, but you still spend a good amount of time in them.
And that's why you need to make sure you're sleeping well.
Well, you think about your mattress.
What about the chair that you sit on?
You probably sit on all day at work.
That matters as well.
Xchair.
That's what I'm sitting in right now.
Xchair has you covered for all of your office chair needs.
The secret is not only their patented dynamic variable lumbar support, which offers unbelievable
lumbar support to your lower back, but now thanks to their new XHMT technology, you can
also get heat and massage therapy while you're sitting at your desk.
You get all of that in one package.
It doesn't look like it's a massage chair.
It looks like a regular office chair, but it's got all those things in one package.
Instead of your old, uncomfortable office chair, now you can look forward to spending
hours sitting in the ultimate therapeutic massager.
You're going to have the best chair in the office or the best chair in your house.
You'll be the envy of everyone else.
Xchair is on sale now for $100 off, so go to xchairwalsh.com now.
That's the letter X, chairwalsh.com, or call 1-844-4XCHAIR.
Xchair has a 30-day guarantee of complete comfort, and you can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month.
So go to xchairwalsh.com now.
Use code XWHEELS for free XWHEEL blade casters.
You know, yesterday's troubling events with Twitter and Project Veritas should concern everyone.
How they got banished from Twitter basically for exposing CNN.
It's become easier and easier for big tech to silence people they view as problematic.
And this problem is going to get worse before it gets better, a lot worse.
This is one of the principal reasons why The Daily Wire has decided to embrace a membership-based business model.
We can't become reliant on big tech.
We've got to be doing our own thing.
That's what this is all about.
Each new member who joins us makes us a little bit less dependent on big tech.
Building up our membership base is the only way to ensure that Daily Wire can continue to grow and thrive into the future.
So if you're already a Daily Wire member, thank you.
We appreciate you.
And if you're not a Daily Wire member, I hope you'll join us today.
In fact, it's so vital that we quickly build up our membership base that we're offering 25% off new memberships when you use code CENSORSHIP on dailywire.com slash subscribe.
So go now.
With a sense of urgency, use code censorship and get 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we're going to cancel everybody involved in this monstrosity, a literal monstrosity.
NPR has the story.
It says, for the first time, scientists have created embryos that are a mix of human and monkey cells.
The embryos described Thursday in the journal Cell were created in part to try to find new ways to produce organs for people who need transplants, according to the international team of scientists who collaborated in the work.
Okay, now you might feel concerned about any scientific endeavor that was borrowed from the screenplay for The Planet of the Apes, but no worries.
Scientists and bioethicists say that it's all good.
This is all above board.
It's quite ethical.
The article continues, quote, The scientists who conducted the research and some other bioethicists defend the experiment.
Quote, This is one of the major problems in medicine, organ transplantation.
That according to Juan Carlos Izpiswa Belmonte, a professor in the Gene Expression Laboratory of the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in La Jolla, California, and a co-author of the Cell Study, he said, the demand for that is much higher than the supply.
Another bioethicist, Insu Yun, says, I don't see this type of research being ethically problematic.
It's aimed at lofty humanitarian goals.
Thousands of people die every year in the United States waiting for an organ transplant, young noted.
So in recent years, some researchers in the U.S.
and beyond have been injecting human stem cells into sheep and pig embryos to see if they might eventually grow human organs in such animals for transplantation.
But so far, the approach hasn't worked.
So Belmont teamed up with scientists in China and elsewhere to try something different.
The researchers injected 25 cells known as induced pluripotent stem cells from humans, commonly called IPS cells, into embryos from monkeys, which are much more closely genetically related to humans than are sheep and pigs.
After one day, the researchers reported they were able to detect human cells growing in 132 of the embryos and were able to study the embryos for up to 19 days.
That enabled the scientists to learn more about how human cells and human cells communicate, how animal cells and human cells communicate, an important step towards eventually helping researchers find new ways to grow organs for transplantation.
Okay.
Probably gave you more of that article than I need to.
The only good news here is that this must be the thing that will cause the aliens to finally intervene by vaporizing our planet.
I mean, this has got to be it.
But before we're all rightly killed or enslaved for our collective crimes, it's worth reflecting on this.
Can it be ethically justified to create a half-monkey, half-human, Frankenstein monster if the end goal, or one of the end goals, is to harvest its parts in order to extend our own lives?
That's the question.
The answer to that question is no.
And also, what the hell is wrong with you?
I wouldn't call this even an ethical dilemma or an ethical controversy.
There's no controversy, because this doesn't approach the realm of morally permissible behavior.
It is a clear-cut case of science going way, way, way too far.
In the words, actually, of Dr. Ian Malcolm of Jurassic Park, your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
If they should.
And yes, in this case, they shouldn't.
The problem is that While I can say that this is wrong, and perhaps you can say that it's wrong,
Our society in general doesn't really have any ethical leg or monkey's paw to stand on here.
What we're dealing with here is the commodification of human life in its most extreme form.
Or the most extreme form we've seen so far.
More yet to come, I'm sure.
Scientists are literally creating life in a petri dish to use it as a product, as a good, as something to be used.
It is life as commodity.
But it's only the latest innovation in that space, right?
We've been treating human life as a commodity for a long time.
We live in a country, after all, where human embryos are created and then stored like leftover ground beef in a freezer.
If they aren't wanted, they're just destroyed.
Even children conceived naturally in their mother's womb, if they're not wanted, are destroyed.
And sometimes harvested for parts, as we discovered with Planned Parenthood.
Now, if that's how we view human life, as something lacking inherent value and beauty, and which only has value if it's useful to us, then sure, why not make the monkey people and start cutting off pieces of them?
I'll take a spleen, actually, just as a backup in case I need one.
See, the precedent's already been set, and that's the problem.
That's what concerns me.
One other thought here to share, and this is a cheerful thought for the day, a good note to end on, I think.
Something I've said before, but I think probably I need to keep saying, and it is this.
You are doomed.
You will die.
Right now, as we speak, the cause of your death is probably out there, lurking, waiting for you.
It might be in you.
It might be in your cells.
It might be in your heart or your liver, dormant.
The clock is ticking.
Or it might be someone down the street.
Some guy sitting in his office right now, making plans for the future.
But in six months, he's gonna run through an intersection and T-bone you, and you will die, and so will he.
Could be.
The point is, you're marked.
Your death warrant is signed.
You will die, and then everyone you know will die, and soon the world will be free of any trace of you, and you'll be forgotten, and everything you ever did or thought or said or felt will be vapor and ash.
At least in this physical world.
What's my point?
My point is, happy Friday.
But also, there have to be limits to the lengths we will go to extend our short, finite, fragile little lives.
It can't be that literally anything that extends life is acceptable and good.
The effort is so fundamentally futile in any case.
That doesn't mean that we should be suicidal or that we shouldn't value life.
Quite the opposite.
We should value it immensely, as we have so little of it, and for such a short while.
But if we throw ethics and dignity out the window just to cling on to our mortal frames for a few more moments, is that trade really worth it?
And if we, ironically, devalue human life in an effort to extend human life, how can that trade be worth it?
We have destroyed the worth of the very thing we want to extend, for the sake of extending it.
Doesn't make sense.
So live your life, take reasonable precautions, go to reasonable lengths to protect yourself, treat your maladies, extend your existence.
But we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We can't throw out our dignity and value in an effort to abolish our mortality, because the latter we cannot do.
In the end, we'll have given up what makes life beautiful and good, and we'll still die anyway, just without the comfort of knowing that we had lived with dignity.
So, look, if you wanted to be cheered up, you came to the wrong place.
If you wanted to be reminded that you are cancelled, one way or another, eventually, then you came to the right place.
So.
With that in mind, I hope you have a great and joyful weekend, and we'll leave it there.
Have a good day.
Godspeed.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
