Today on the Matt Walsh Show, officials in DC are finally, after four months, telling us the truth about the alleged “deadly riot” at the Capitol on January 6. And the truth is the opposite of what we have been told this whole time. Also Five Headlines including mainstream media journalists and legal analysts prove that they don’t understand how our court systems work in this country. The judge in the Chauvin case admonishes Maxine Waters. Planned Parenthood faces up to its racist past, sort of. And “incest advocates” make their case for marriage equality. Why shouldn’t we tolerate and accept their alternative lifestyle?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
are finally, after four months, telling us the truth about the alleged deadly riot at the Capitol on January 6th.
And the truth is the opposite of what we've been told this whole entire time.
Also, five headlines including mainstream media journalists and legal analysts prove that they don't understand how our court systems work in this country at all.
They don't even understand it on a fundamental level.
The judge in the Chauvin case also admonishes Maxine Waters.
Planned Parenthood faces up to its racist past, sort of, and incest advocates make their case for marriage equality.
Why shouldn't we tolerate and accept their alternative lifestyle?
We'll talk about that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
PolicyGenius can help you compare top insurers in one place and save 50% or more on life insurance.
You know, it used to be very hard to afford PolicyGenius if you wanted to get affordable life insurance.
It was difficult to know where to look.
What's a good deal?
What isn't?
You gotta go through all the red tape.
Well, PolicyGenius has taken that complication away.
Once you find your best option on PolicyGenius, the PolicyGenius team will set up your new policy for you and answer any questions you have along the way.
And you can feel good knowing that your family has financial protection.
Getting started is easy.
Okay, first head to PolicyGenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need.
You can compare quotes to find your best price.
Since their licensed agents work for you, not the insurance companies, there's zero hassle.
If you hit any speed bumps along the way, PolicyGenius will take care of everything.
You know you can trust them.
That kind of service has earned PolicyGenius a five-star rating across thousands of reviews on Google and Trustpilot.
Best part?
All the benefits of PolicyGenius, the comparison tool, the handling of paperwork, the unbiased device, are totally free to use.
You just can't beat it.
So PolicyGenius can promise that you won't leave the website feeling like a fool.
You could save 50% or more by comparing life insurance quotes and feel good knowing that if something happens, your loved ones will be taken care of.
Go to PolicyGenius.com to get started.
PolicyGenius, when it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right.
So we've been told nearly every day since January 6th that what transpired at the Capitol that day was a deadly riot.
Deadly riot.
The media and elected Democrats have beaten to our heads that five people died that day because of the riots.
Sometimes the death toll is quoted as seven.
The riots killed seven people.
Now we've known from the beginning that this is at least mostly bogus.
Two of the seven were suicides that occurred in the days and weeks after the riot.
There was never the slightest indication that the riot had anything to do with those suicides at all.
The media drew a line connecting them in order to shamelessly inflate the body count.
The fact that they were doing this, that they felt the need to play this grotesque and desperate game of connect the dots, should have been the first clue that something was wrong.
Well, scratch that.
The first clue that the narrative was false was simply the fact that it was the narrative.
I mean, you should, at this point, question literally anything that the left-wing media tells you.
I wouldn't believe them that the sun rose this morning without going out to check myself.
That's the point we need to be— we need to have arrived at with these people.
What about the other five?
Well, we were told that four of those deaths were among the rioters, and one was Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
Of the latter four, Or of the of the former four I should say one was Ashley Babbitt
an unarmed woman shot and killed by an unnamed Capitol Police officer that's one death that we could
confirm from the beginning because it was caught on video.
We know that that happened The other three were more vague
suspiciously vague The media wanted us to know
that three individuals died during the chaos or after it or sometime in the vicinity of
it and And they wanted us to draw from there the conclusion that they were, you know, not so subtly pointing us to.
They wanted to give us a mental picture of a riot where the participants were beating and trampling each other to death.
In fact, it was reported that at least one of the victims was trampled to death.
It wasn't until the first part of this month Four months after the riot, that the DC Medical Examiner finally told us the truth, or began to tell us the truth.
While Ashley Babbitt's death was, of course, a homicide, committed again by a Capitol Police officer, the other three were not.
Two died of natural causes, a stroke and a heart attack, and one was an accidental overdose.
So already, five of that original tally of seven had been revealed to be false.
The deadly riot that claimed seven lives had been reduced to potentially two lives, which leads us to Officer Brian Sicknick.
Now, if you listen to the show, you know that I questioned the story about Officer Sicknick from the very beginning.
It was reported early on that Officer Sicknick was killed in the riot, murdered.
Originally, the media said that he was beaten over the head by a fire extinguisher and basically bludgeoned to death.
That gave way to a story that he was sprayed by some foreign chemical, and that's how he was killed.
I didn't believe either of these stories, and my reasons were, one, because I'm always going to be suspicious when the media and the left pretends to mourn a dead cop.
I mean, they'd never found a dead cop they cared about until this one.
That alone makes me question everything they say about the case.
His value to them was purely political.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they're lying, but it does mean that you can't take them at their word.
Number two, the story was far too vague to be true, or to be entirely true.
Initially, it was reported that Officer Sicknick was injured, quote, while engaging with protesters.
Injured while engaging with protesters.
That's what the initial report was at.
That's how it was phrased.
And then he later died.
The phrasing there was far too calculated and careful.
It's clearly meant to give us the impression that protesters killed him, but it doesn't say that.
It doesn't even say that he was injured by protesters, only that he was injured while engaging with protesters.
None of this phrasing makes any sense if he was really beat to death by crazed rioters.
If that's what happened, they'd know it, and they'd say it.
And also, it would almost certainly be on film.
If not the crime itself happening, then at least the aftermath.
We'd have some video of this.
An officer was beat to death in the middle of a crowd?
If that happened, it would be very obvious, and you have to believe there'd be some photo, video, somewhere.
Yet we never saw any video.
We were never given any additional information.
Nobody was ever arrested for the crime.
And this situation maintained for months, even as the media and the left continued to say confidently, as a matter of fact, that Sickening was killed by protesters.
And then finally, yesterday, well, well over now, four months later, the medical examiner tells the truth.
Here's the report from Embassy Washington.
Again, this came out yesterday.
U.S.
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died the day after he defended the Capitol during the January 6th, quote, insurrection, suffered strokes and died of natural causes.
According to the D.C.' 's chief medical examiner.
Sicknik 42 collapsed hours after the riot and died January 7th in what officials consider a line-of-duty death.
Federal authorities have been clear that Sicknick was assaulted with a powerful chemical spray in his face.
They've said Sicknick and other officers were overpowered and potentially briefly blinded.
Potentially briefly blinded.
Notice the phrasing there.
By that spray while on the front lines.
D.C.' 's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner said Monday that Sicknick's cause of death was acute brain stem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis.
Probably mispronounced all of that.
But the point is, the manner of death was natural, not a homicide.
Okay.
Natural causes.
Not a homicide.
Now, to be clear about this, the medical examiner, along with officials in DC, elected Democrats, the national media, all of them almost certainly knew this very early on.
I mean, there were reports to this effect In conservative media and conservative blogs a day later.
Are we supposed to believe that the mainstream media didn't know?
It would have been extremely clear that Officer Sicknick was not bludgeoned to death.
It didn't take them four months to figure out that he died of a stroke.
He was cremated three months ago.
It's not as though they've been doing a medical examination this whole time.
He was cremated three months ago.
What have they been doing in the last three months?
No, they knew and they didn't tell us.
This is not a simple matter of misreporting.
This is a matter of information being withheld intentionally and for reasons that we can speculate about.
Where does this leave us?
It leaves us with this.
Protesters on January 6th didn't kill seven people.
They didn't kill anyone.
They were killed.
The only death caused by someone on the scene that day was that of Ashley Babbitt.
The rest was lies and misinformation.
And many people fell for it.
They fell for it because they want to believe that they can believe the most prominent sources of information in this country.
They want to believe that they can turn on the TV and basically trust what they're told.
They want to believe that in this age of information, the information they receive is reliable.
They don't want to believe that they're being lied to all the time, everywhere.
And I can understand those desires.
But they're not based in reality.
The fact is that anytime you turn on the news or go online, you are walking into a whirlwind of propaganda.
That's the fact.
And this shows it.
So keep your head on straight.
Bring a healthy dose of skepticism with you all the time.
And don't let them lead you astray.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
It might be a little aggressive.
Rock Auto didn't tell me to say moron.
That was my own editorial.
RockAuto.com, they're going to say, moron or not, there's no reason to go to an auto parts store if you don't have to.
Waste all your time, waste your money.
You're not getting the kind of selection you could get.
You're spending more money than you have to.
You're wasting more time than you have to.
No reason to do that.
You have access to RockAuto.com at your desk and in your pocket.
RockAuto.com always offers the lowest prices possible.
Rather than changing prices based on what they think they can get out of you, this is not, you know, whether you're do-it-yourself or professional or somewhere in between, it's gonna be the same price for everybody.
Rockauto.com is a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low.
And again, they're the same for everybody.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
You can quickly see all the parts available and make a decision.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices.
Go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck.
And remember to write Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us, Fox?
So they know that we sent you.
Well, you may be able to tell, I've been losing my voice the last couple of days.
And here's the thing.
I'm a responsible, I'm a responsible adult.
And I need my voice to do my job, you know, so it's like a really important tool for me anyway.
And so as a responsible person, I said like last night, I need to make sure that I give my voice a rest, you know, and that I just take it easy.
And so I spent the night smoking cigars and drinking whiskey.
So that was my responsible way of dealing with it.
One of those times when the nighttime version of yourself writes a check that your morning self has to cash in.
Well, you know, maybe in your 20s you have a lot of moments like that.
One such moment for me.
Okay, so I have to share this with you.
This is a tweet from Yamiche Alcindor, who's a PBS reporter.
A couple here.
We're gonna go now as we're waiting for the verdict in the Derek Chauvin case.
And the media now is left to just analyze and speculate and everything.
So we've gotten a lot of legal analysis from the media.
And maybe I should stop short of calling it shockingly bad, given everything about the media that we just covered in the opening there.
But I mean, this is, it is sort of shockingly bad.
So here's Yamiche Alcindor, again, PBS reporter.
She tweeted this.
This is her analysis.
Chauvin's lawyer said it flies in the face of common sense to say that Floyd's death was not caused, at least in part, by his underlying conditions of drug use.
This argument is in direct contradiction to the prosecution's case, which says, believe your eyes, Chauvin's knee killed Floyd.
In direct contradiction.
So the defense is making a case that's in direct contradiction to what the prosecution is saying.
I mean, you gotta admit, it's pretty rude.
Of the defense.
The prosecution, they spend all their time making their case.
They build their case.
They bring in their witnesses.
They have whatever evidence.
In this case, they didn't have a lot of evidence, but whatever they have, they bring.
It's all that effort that they put in.
And Yamiche Alcindor is kind of upset that the defense would get up there and have a different version of events.
After all this effort?
Pretty, I don't know, I agree with her actually.
Can we just say, pretty tacky.
Pretty tacky for the defense to get up there and have an opposite version of events.
The prosecution should have just objected and said, hang on a second, that's not what we said.
This is the opposite of what we said.
This is, something isn't right here.
Meanwhile, if you thought that was bad, this is way worse.
Meanwhile, Laura Coates, CNN's senior legal analyst, has this.
Here's what she says.
Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why Derek Chauvin is innocent.
Think about that.
Hashtag Derek Chauvin trial, hashtag George Floyd.
Think about that.
The defense is relying on reasonable doubt?
That's unheard of.
That's almost as unheard of as the defense having a different version of events than the prosecution.
Only reasonable doubt and they're not saying innocent?
Yeah, that's like every murder trial ever.
In America, anyway.
That is the defense's whole job, is to sow reasonable doubt in the jury.
And it would be Uh, misconduct on the part of that of Chauvin's lawyers.
If Chauvin's lawyers got up there in the closing and said, we want you to believe that Derek Chauvin is completely innocent and is an innocent, great guy.
That's what we want you to believe.
No, you're raising the bar farther than you need to.
Why would you do that?
No, the way it's set up is that the bar is supposed to be lower than that.
You don't have to believe that Derek Chauvin is innocent.
You don't have to believe that he's innocent.
You certainly don't have to like him as a person.
But yeah, you don't have to believe he's innocent.
You just have to think that there could be a reasonable chance that he may be innocent.
And if you think there's a reasonable chance that he may be innocent, then you can't convict.
That's what the defense has tried to get across.
And that's as far as you can go anyway, because that's what this trial really comes down to, right?
There's no way the defense can prove, can categorically absolutely prove that George Floyd died purely of a drug overdose and not because of the knee on the neck.
They can't absolutely prove that.
But they don't need to.
The prosecution needs to absolutely prove That even though he had a fatal dose of fentanyl in his system, that's not what killed him.
That's what they have to prove.
And the jury has to decide if they did prove it.
Having followed the trial, I don't see how they did.
Meanwhile, the judge in the Chauvin case had some words about Maxine Waters.
We'll play this for you.
First, we know Maxine Waters flew from D.C.
to Minneapolis to get the crowd riled up and to intimidate and tamper with the jury.
Chauvin's defense raises an objection, actually tried to move for a mistrial, saying that this is intimidating the jury, this is jury tampering.
And the judge said there's not going to be a mistrial.
He did concede, though, that That Maxine Waters may have given a pretense to appeal and overturn the whole trial for the defense, if they want.
And then the judge said this.
Let's listen.
This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning.
I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function.
I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it is prejudiced with additional material that would prejudice this jury.
They have been told not to watch the news.
I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we're talking specifically about the facts of this case.
A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot.
Anyway, so motion for mistrial is denied.
Okay, a congresswoman's opinion doesn't matter a whole lot.
It doesn't matter in terms of changing the reality.
And I think what he means to say is it shouldn't matter.
If you're on the jury, it shouldn't matter to you what this crazy, wacky scumbag politician has to say.
Shouldn't matter, but that's a far cry from saying that it doesn't.
And so we're just hoping.
I don't see why this prejudices the jury.
We told them not to watch the news.
So this all, in order for this to really be a fair trial, we have to hope and assume that the jury, first of all, went in without any preconceived biases, that they're not gonna make a decision based on emotion, but based on facts, that they're not gonna be intimidated, Even before Maxine Waters, they're not gonna be intimidated by, you know, thoughts that their lives could be ruined, they could be doxed, they could be hunted down if they find the Chauvin not guilty.
They're not gonna watch any news throughout the trial.
And also, now that there's politicians there trying to rile the rioters up, they're not gonna be affected by that.
I mean, we are expecting a lot of this jury.
You may say, expecting an unreasonable amount from this jury.
We're expecting at this point to exercise superhuman restraint and courage.
That's really the only way that this ends up being a fair trial, is if these jurors have superhuman restraint and courage.
Restraint to not watch the news at all, even though nothing's done to prevent them from doing it.
And courage to, um, to look at the situation and say, yeah, you know what?
If I find him not guilty, my life could be over, but I'm going to do the right thing.
It's just not, it's, it's almost certainly not going to happen.
If there was ever time for a mistrial, this would be it.
And if you have the trial again, you don't have it in Minneapolis and you sequester the jury.
And if any politicians pull that stunt again, it's another mistrial.
I mean, the idea, the claim, that what Maxine Waters did was anything but jury intimidation and tampering, what else would it be?
What other motivation could you have?
If you're Maxine Waters and you're leaving D.C.
to go to Minneapolis before the jury has even begun deliberating, Demanding that they come to a certain conclusion?
And threatening confrontation if they don't?
If that's not jury tampering and intimidation, what qualifies if that doesn't?
And what reason?
So if her goal was not to intimidate the jury, then what was it?
What was she hoping to do?
I think we all know.
Totally absurd.
So this should be a mistrial.
It should have been a mistrial from the very beginning, but it's not.
And so at this point, I will be floored if they come back with a not guilty verdict.
Not because he doesn't, you know, because the not guilty verdict would be incorrect.
I think that is the correct verdict, but just as I said, to get 12 people together and for them all to have that superhuman restraint and courage, very unlikely, very unlikely.
Okay, number two, I've been wanting to play this story, talk about the story for like a week,
and I keep putting it off 'cause other things come first.
But I'm part of the problem in doing this because this is really a huge story.
And here's a report from the Today Show about the imminent alien invasion.
And let's watch that.
In night vision video from a Navy destroyer, a mysterious flying triangle above the deck of the ship,
the Pentagon confirming the images obtained by documentary filmmaker Jeremy Corbell
were taken by Navy personnel, expected to be a part of a report
on unidentified aerial phenomenon to be presented to Congress this summer.
Already online, some skeptics say the images are caused by cameras trying to focus, but But some of the objects go beyond just flying in the sky.
One shows a spherical object dipping into the ocean, similar to an incident in Puerto Rico where an object was tracked buzzing an airport, then flying into the water, popping back out before appearing to split into two and disappearing.
Over the last several weeks, some of the nation's top former intelligence officials have been raising eyebrows.
It's rotating.
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey said he knew of a case where a plane was paused in midair.
A friend of mine was able to have his aircraft stop at 40,000 feet or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft.
Yeah, how is this... How is this not like the only thing we're talking about?
Oh, just...
Pentagon confirming sites by pilots of aircraft doing things that are physically impossible?
Splitting in two?
Dipping into the ocean and coming back out?
Defying the laws of physics?
Well, that's it.
No big deal.
Right, there are really only two explanations, and one is that There's some other foreign power in our world on Earth that has technological abilities that go way, way beyond anything that we can even conceive of.
There's another country on Earth that has technology so advanced that when we see it, we have to entertain the possibility that it may be from another planet.
Like, there's another country with literally otherworldly technology.
That's one possibility, right?
And the other possibility is it's not from this world.
I'm not exactly sure what the third potential possibility would be.
You know, if this wasn't being confirmed by the Pentagon, and if it wasn't for the source, these are Navy pilots, military people, people who know what they're looking at.
If it wasn't for that, you could say, oh, it might be fake, it might be...
Camera tricks, it might be a bug on the lens, you know, weather balloon, weird weather pattern.
You could, you could speculate about all that, but I think those possibilities are really, are really ruled out.
So I think we know this, this is some kind of flying technology and, um, either it's from this planet or it's not, but either way, that's a huge deal.
And if there is, you know, if this is from China, let's say, or Russia or something, um, why haven't they just taken over the whole world?
If they can do that, they have aircraft that can split into dip into the ocean, go at supersonic speeds and then stop and turn around and go the other way.
Why haven't they taken over the whole world yet?
If that's the case, maybe they will.
And here we are, you know, and even me, I'm part of the problem.
I just said I've had, I've been wanting to talk about this, but I put it off so that I could play TikTok videos of fat women dancing.
You know, I'm so much a part of this problem.
I'm ashamed.
I should be canceled for that.
In fact, we have another TikTok video today, I think, that we're going to play of fat women dancing.
And that is important, don't get me wrong.
We gotta know what the fat women are doing on TikTok, but at the same time, you know, potentially there's an alien super civilization out there preparing to take over the planet.
And we're all like, eh.
Whatever.
Okay, moving on.
Moving on from that, this is from the Daily Wire.
It says, After years of pro-life criticism, Planned Parenthood's President and Chief Executive Officer Alex McGill-Johnson now says the abortion provider is reckoning with the legacy of its founder, Margaret Sanger, and they're looking to cancel the early abortion and birth control advocate over her connections to white supremacist groups and eugenics.
The abortion provider has largely avoided evidence that Sanger founded her, quote, family planning crusade because Sanger, a pioneer of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, felt it was necessary to prevent the tainted and less desirable from reproducing, as she noted in various publications.
Now, though, in a more woke era, Sanger is problematic and Planned Parenthood now hopes to distance itself from its own founding principles in order to erase its history as a racist and ableist institution.
And so they're sort of Let's try to move on to what the, um, what Planned Parenthood is now saying about this.
Although Johnson stops short of acknowledging the racial focus of much of Sanger's writing.
She says, quote, we can't simply call her racist, scrub her from our history and move on.
She does acknowledge that Sanger spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and that Sanger cheered a Supreme Court decision allowing states to sterilize people deemed unfit without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.
Instead, Johnson said Sanger's primary sin was focusing on white womanhood, which runs afoul of today's intersectional feminism.
She says, quote, We don't know what was in Sanger's heart, and we don't need to in order to condemn her harmful choices.
What we have is a history of focusing on white womanhood relentlessly.
Whether our founder was a racist is not a simple yes or no question.
Our reckoning is understanding her full legacy and its impact.
Our reckoning is the work that comes next.
Okay.
Of course, they get no credit for... First of all, pro-lifers have been pointing this out about Margaret Sanger.
So it's not like Planned Parenthood could claim, oh, we never noticed.
We never noticed what our founder said about... We never noticed that she was an, you know, an out-and-out eugenicist.
They can't claim that.
It wouldn't be credible under any circumstance, but especially when you had pro-lifers for decades that have been saying this.
And Planned Parenthood either ignored it or they would deny it and say it's not true, you're misinterpreting, you're lying about what she said.
They did fact checks and everything.
Or they would focus on, like there's, this is a tactic especially of left-wing fact checkers, there's an alleged photo out there of Margaret Sanger speaking to a Ku Klux Klan rally group.
And the photo is not real.
The photo was doctored by somebody.
So, that's one of those things where the fact-checkers, they say, there's a claim that there's a photo of Margaret Sanger speaking to KKK rally.
That's fact-check false.
Well, yes, it's false in that the photo is not real, but she did actually do that.
So you're focusing on the fact that a photo was made up, fine, but she did do that.
She did go and speak to the KKK.
We know that.
And we have certainly cancelled historical figures for far less than that.
But no matter what they do, they don't deserve credit for it.
This is only a matter of self-preservation.
It's all politics, obviously.
They can't really fully confront the legacy of Margaret Sanger because they are the legacy of Margaret Sanger.
Abortion has always been eugenic in nature.
It's about getting rid of the unwanted.
Unwanted babies are the unwanted quote-unquote fetus.
That's what it has always been.
So if they were really going to reckon with the legacy of Margaret Sanger and condemn it, distance themselves from it, that would necessitate that they stop aborting the unwanted.
They would have to reject the idea that a human being deserves to be killed because they're unwanted.
That is a eugenic idea.
Margaret Sanger's idea.
As long as they keep doing it.
So they can say all they want, oh yeah, Margaret Sanger, we don't want anything to do with her anymore.
While they go on killing 300,000 unwanted children every year.
Talk about hollow words.
Alright, let's play this.
George W. Bush was interviewed on CBS about his great compassion.
The media has recently discovered a newfound love of Bush.
This began a few years ago.
And that's what led to this.
You ran as a compassionate conservative.
I did.
Do you believe there are compassionate conservatives today?
Absolutely, I'm one.
And I think there are a lot.
The problem is, with an angry society, it's hard to punch through with compassion.
Is it an angry society, or is it certain leaders and people who've stoked that anger and fear?
I think there's a, that's an interesting question.
I'm a big leadership guy and so therefore I think maybe the latter part of your question is true, that people stoke anger in order to advance their apolitical agenda.
I do believe there is a more, well my dad spoke kinder and gentler.
And he truly believed it.
And I believed in unifier, not divider.
And they just can't be empty slogans.
You have to believe it in order to be credible.
I think that, yes, it's going to require leadership to help heal wounds.
This is so hard to watch.
You've got CBS reporters interviewing George W. Bush about his compassion.
He was such a compassionate guy.
That's not, just maybe for younger people who don't remember the Bush years that much, I can just tell you, that is not what they were saying about George W. Bush at the time.
They were calling him a war criminal, saying he was worse, sound familiar, he's worse than Hitler, all that kind of stuff.
I mean, they hated him.
Again, maybe if you're younger, you know.
You might not remember this or realize it, but I can tell you that Donald Trump is not the first Republican president the media hated.
They've hated them all, and George Bush in particular.
But now, they trot him out because they find him useful.
And they can talk about compassion.
And as I've said many times about this, about compassion, I believe in compassion.
Compassion is a central aspect to living a moral life and being a moral person.
But what does compassion mean?
Compassion is not to simply sit back and not interfere while your whole civilization crumbles around you.
Compassion is not refraining from speaking out when you see evil.
That's the opposite of compassion.
You're leaving people to wallow in misery and death.
That's not compassion.
Compassion, co-passion, co-suffering, it means when you are sharing in the suffering of another to the extent that you can.
That's what compassion means.
And so I think for conservatives, it means now, you know, getting down into the trenches culturally and fighting this fight.
There's suffering that comes from that.
There's hardship that comes from that.
But you're doing it because you're fighting for truth and what is right and moral and just.
That's compassionate.
And if you use harsh language sometimes while you do it, if you raise your voice a little bit, that doesn't make it any less compassionate.
Especially if what's making you angry is your passion for truth and goodness and virtue.
So that's what real conservative compassion should look like.
Okay, finally.
It's time for me again to force you to watch a TikTok video.
I do this because it's important.
It's important for you to know what's happening on TikTok.
Why is that important?
Just because.
Stop asking questions.
You're gonna watch this and like it, damn it.
Here it is.
[outro music]
♪ I'm well spent and if I get on top ♪ ♪ You know I'm leaving a dent ♪
♪ I'm a big bad big butt big dreams daddy ♪ ♪ Two minutes with me and you'll be calling me daddy ♪
♪ Might not pass the presidential fitness test ♪ ♪ But notify your next of kin I'll put you to rest ♪
♪ Whiny little dudes say I'm concerned for your health ♪
♪ And think about my back holes ♪ ♪ While they're touching themselves ♪
♪ They comment I legitimately thought this was John Candy ♪
♪ Then whisper my name as they start to get randy ♪ So on second thought, it probably,
there was no reason to play that.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
But I did.
And so you've seen it.
I don't know if there's any commentary necessary after witnessing that.
Aside from the fact that, you know, just to remind everyone, mental illness is an epidemic in this country.
So is obesity.
And so is TikTok, and sometimes those things all come together in that way, and we all suffer because of it, so there you go.
All right, let's go to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from The Masked Man.
He says, I don't know how Matt did it, but his voice sounds even manlier during this episode.
Unamused Caveman says, Matt's voice made my beard grow a beard.
Emile says, Matt's voice hurt my throat.
Okay, I hope you guys all got, did you get that out of your system?
Yeah, I got all the voice jokes.
You have a few more days to do that.
Hope you got it out of your system.
Yes, my voice sounds jacked up.
That's true.
Thank you for establishing that.
You big bullies.
I hope my voice still sounds like this on Friday when I wear the polka dot shirt.
That's what you deserve.
Another one says, hey Matt, I watched the Daniel Shaver shooting a couple of times.
Did you not notice right before the officer shot, Daniel's right hand moved from the floor and towards his back?
Watch it again.
Yes, that is the justification they gave for shooting him.
Is that a good justification for shooting him?
No.
Why did he move his hand?
Because his pants were falling down, that's what it seems to me, and he was just trying to pull his pants up.
It's like a reflexive thing that you do to try to maintain your dignity in whatever way you can when there's a man pointing a gun at you and forcing you to crawl on the ground towards him.
But it was clear to that point, you know, that's why I... That's not an excuse for shooting him for a number of reasons.
First of all, this... Daniel Shaver, to that point, had shown that he is desperate to comply with them.
He was trying everything he could to comply with everything they said.
His compliance was... he was broadcasting that.
To the point where he was crawling on his hands and knees towards them.
A move which, by the way, I have... No, I'm no law enforcement expert.
I've never seen that before.
I've talked to a lot of law enforcement people.
They've said they've never been in a situation where they've told someone to crawl towards them.
And if there could ever be a situation where you would ask someone to do that or tell them to do it, I don't know why that would be the situation.
You told him to get down on the ground, put his hands behind his back, okay, just go up and cuff him.
Why do you need him to crawl to you?
It doesn't make any sense.
So I don't buy it for that reason.
Yes, you could never know for sure someone could be hiding a gun, but the chances that he was hiding a gun, I think, were very, very low.
And when he's crawling towards you, yeah, I mean, even if, like, on the off chance, on the very, very vanishingly small chance that he's actually reaching for a gun, you would have plenty of time to shoot him dead before he could draw it up and shoot you.
There were three armed officers in a hallway Pointing their guns at him.
He's on his hands and knees, crawling.
Now, I know it can all happen pretty quickly, but on the off chance, on like the 0.1% chance that he was reaching for a gun there, I think you'd have at least a moment to fire your guns before he could draw all the way up from the crawling position and start firing at you.
And that's why we say, you know, I think most unjust police shootings, and most police shootings are not unjust, but the ones that are unjust, it's usually not racism or homicidal mania that drives it.
It's self-preservation that drives it.
That's also what drives most of the just police shootings.
But self-preservation can go too far sometimes for a police officer.
We shouldn't expect them to take unreasonable risks and put their lives on the line unreasonably.
But yeah, you do have to take some risk, even a small amount of risk.
Because if we say that police officers shouldn't have to take any risk at all, well then they're just going to kill everybody.
Right?
So that clearly is not the case.
So I guess my point is, if they had refrained from shooting him, and he didn't have a gun, he was unarmed.
So if they had refrained from shooting him, they would have been fine.
But if they had refrained from pulling the trigger in that instant, what are the chances that they would have ended up dead?
Ended up dead, you know, in that scenario.
I think very, very, very, very, very, very small.
Another way of putting it, that's a chance that I think we should require them to take.
Instead of just killing a guy, just in case.
Right?
We don't want any just-in-case killings.
We want the police to shoot when there's no other choice.
And they have to protect their own lives, protect the public.
Which again, most police shootings, that's what it is.
They do it because there's no other choice.
Okay.
Let's see.
One other... Okay, here's one other thing.
Eric Gomez says, Day 7 of me asking if Matt can read my comment to tell me where he got that sloth.
You're talking about the sloth on my...
Leftist Tears Tumblr here.
Thank you for noticing.
Very few people notice the sloth, but he's my dear friend here.
And you can go to my Instagram to see how I received that sloth and many other gifts in this room.
So a little Instagram plug for you.
Now a quick word from our very good friends at ConstitutionCoach.com.
No, we all as conservatives, what do we say we love?
The Constitution, we love our Second Amendment rights in particular, but how many of us know enough about the Constitution and are ready to defend it?
How many of us have the ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights if we really need to?
My friends over at constitutioncoach.com, They've got a lot of great programs that are going to solve that problem, and they're going to equip citizens to defend liberty by studying and living out the Constitution.
I've experienced their Constitutional Defense course.
You can experience it, too.
There are classes on April 25th.
It's filling up fast.
You get an amazing combination of intellectual ammunition in live classes with Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach.
And then you also get the physical training at the premier firearms training facility in the nation.
You get all this in the same course.
You get to join hundreds of other patriots from across the nation for a time of learning, training, and fellowship with like-minded people.
It doesn't matter where you are on the, you know, where your skills are, they're going to take you to a whole new skill level.
They're going to make you a lot more confident handling firearms.
That's what they did for me.
I mean, I was way on one side of the skill level, not the side that I wanted to be on, and felt so much better after doing this course, and you will too.
Don't just get a gun.
Learn to carry with confidence.
Learn how to defend yourself and your family.
Go to ConstitutionCoach.com.
Rick and the Constitution Coach team have another class on April 25th, but it will fill up fast, so visit ConstitutionCoach.com today.
And find out about how you can be a part of this one-of-a-kind training at ConstitutionCoach.com.
You know, it's almost time for another episode of Candice.
This week's special guest is Dana White, president of UFC, of course, which is the largest MMA organization in the world.
And he's always got a lot of really interesting things to say.
You don't want to miss this.
The show streams on Friday at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central.
On dailywire.com, if you don't have a membership yet, you can go use code Candice and get 25% off.
And also, if you don't know about this yet, you can also get the podcast of Candice, which is available on Apple or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
And if you go there, make sure to leave a five-star review.
If you like what you hear, now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we turn again to the slippery slope.
The thing that we're all sliding down.
We never reach the end of our plummet.
We hurtle endlessly into the abyss, never to stop.
Our misery compounding by the moment, but never ending.
Never culminating in anything except more insanity and more despair.
But the good news is that it gives me plenty of chances to say, I told you so.
That's the one good thing.
As we're all hurtling down into hell, I can say, hey guys, told you so.
Here's another chance from the New York Post.
It says consensual incest advocates are rooting for an anonymous New York parent who wants to marry their own adult child.
Australian Richard Morris, who is pushing to change incest laws in about 60 countries, said he supports the legal push in Manhattan federal court that such behavior between consenting adults, quote, should not be criminalized.
He and other advocates have launched about 130 petitions, mostly on change.org, seeking to change incest laws around the world.
Most have received little support.
We haven't moved any mountains yet, he told the Post.
Morris was inspired to fight for those in consenting incestual relationships.
He said, after learning about a Scottish case in which a long-separated father and daughter were reunited, started an affair, and were then criminally convicted.
Okay.
After you've finished vomiting all over yourself, you should stop and consider this.
According to the logic of the day, how can we condemn the father and daughter couple just mentioned?
Does the prevailing philosophy in our culture provide us a basis to reject the legitimacy of their viscerally repulsive and disordered union?
Well, Richard Morris doesn't think so.
More from the Post.
He says, "Fighting for true marriage equality is the right thing to do, isn't it?"
Morris said.
"It seems to be as unjust as the law that used to imprison gay people and the law that
used to stop people of different races marrying," he added.
Keith Pullman, who runs the blog Full Marriage Equality, also cheered on the New York lawsuit.
He said, "It is absurd to say that an adult can't consent to marry their parent."
The same adult can be sent to war, take on six figures of debt, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to death by a federal court, and consent to sex with five strangers and marriage with one of them, but can't consent to marry someone they love, he told the Post.
In some of these cases, the genetic parent didn't raise them, and they met for the first time two years ago.
Allegations of grooming are laughable attempts to deny someone their right, even though it will have no impact on the person objecting.
Alright.
Now, this article was not meant with wide acclaim.
Most people seem to be reacting with disgust and anger.
Not just at the incest advocates, but at the post for giving them a platform to make their case.
But what actually is the argument against this?
Why can't a father marry his adult daughter?
I mean, really think about it.
It's not a rhetorical question.
Ask yourself why these cases of incestuous relationships are wrong.
You might say that the father can't marry his daughter because even if she's an adult, he's clearly been grooming her.
Okay, well that might be a good enough answer in some cases, but the case in question involves a father who was separated from his daughter, and then reunited when they were both adults.
Assuming there was no grooming, and that they linked up again, and immediately struck up a sexual relationship with each other, again, with full consent.
Why is that wrong?
Why shouldn't we, you know, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
Why shouldn't we not only allow them to marry, but celebrate their union?
Recognize it as wholly valid and good and beautiful?
Why shouldn't we?
This question presents a real problem, I think, for a lot of people in our culture.
Most people don't want to think of themselves as incest advocates.
They're repulsed by the idea.
They want to condemn it.
But when they think about it honestly, they realize that they don't have any logical basis to condemn it.
They don't have the language to explain why they oppose it.
They know they do, but they can't say why.
That is because, as I've often observed, we have reduced sexual morality down to a matter of mere consent.
Whereas consent used to be but one requirement in order for a sexual act to be considered moral and legitimate and good, now it's the only requirement.
Thankfully for the left, this one remaining thread, consent, is enough to rule out things like bestiality.
You know, they can always say that bestiality is wrong because an animal can't consent.
Though even there, it should disturb you if the only reason you can think to reject sexual relationships between men and goats is that men can't obtain consent from goats.
I mean, that should be really the least of your worries when it comes to man-on-goat sex.
You should have a whole bunch of reasons why you're against it before you even get to consent.
But be that as it may, consent does the trick here, basically.
It's even enough to rule out many cases of incest, where one or both people are minors, or where, again, one was groomed as a minor.
But then you run into cases like the one described by the Post, and their consent is not enough.
You're faced with a choice.
Either come out and say that, actually, there's nothing wrong with an adult father marrying his adult daughter, and look at yourself in the mirror when you say it.
Face yourself as an advocate for father-daughter coupling, or Admit that there's more to sexual morality than consent.
And there's more to marriage than simply two people loving each other.
Those are your only two options.
Now, I would say that the reason incest is wrong has, in many instances, nothing to do with consent.
It's also not a matter of practicality or medical complications.
The problem isn't simply that incestuous couples may have deformed children.
If you make that your whole case, well then, what about incestuous couples that take whatever steps necessary to ensure that they don't conceive kids?
No, the reason this is wrong is because it's intrinsically disordered.
It is a severe and grotesque perversion and subversion of the familial relationship.
It is outside of the proper order of things.
That's not what families are supposed to do with each other.
But the real significance of the birth defect issue is that even if the father-daughter couple avoids having kids, the fact that their relationship carries with it an inherent and significant risk of creating birth defects is but one sign among many that the relationship is not what nature intends.
Or as I would put it, not what God intends.
See, in order to condemn this, you have to introduce concepts like the natural order and human dignity.
Incest is an attack on both of those things.
Without those concepts, though, you're defenseless.
You can't very well defend the natural order and human dignity if you don't acknowledge their existence and importance.
But if you do acknowledge them, even if only to give you ammo to take down the pro-incest talking points, well then you've introduced concepts that have reverberating effects and must now reshape your whole view of sexual morality, if you're intellectually honest.
Now you have to reevaluate all sexual acts and lifestyles and ask yourself whether those are within the natural order, whether those are consistent with human dignity.
That's what the kids would call a red pill moment.
Most people refuse to take it, refuse to think seriously about these issues, refuse to investigate their own inconsistencies, refuse to ask themselves whether their position on one topic is consistent with their position on others.
Most people refuse that.
And so those people are canceled.
The incest advocates are cancelled too, of course, but only because I have the moral framework to cancel them.
Many people on the left don't have that moral framework, and for that reason, they too are also cancelled.
A lot of people cancelled today.
Always my favorite cancellations, when I can do that.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, as the Chauvin jury begins its deliberations, the media ratchet up the racial tension and Maxine Waters pushes violence in the streets as Democrats and the media defend her.
