Today on the Matt Walsh Show, President Biden delivered a long, rambling, and at times barely intelligible speech to congress last night, but if you could stay awake and decipher it, there was plenty to be concerned about. Especially the part where Biden unveils his plan for “universal preschool.” I’ll explain why that is a horrible, dystopian idea. Also Five Headlines including the parents who are volunteering their babies for COVID vaccine trials. What sort of parent would do that? And a track runner in Oregon collapses on the track after being forced to run with a mask. Plus, is the No Fly List being politically weaponized by the Biden Administration? Finally in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the outrage over comments Steve Harvey made claiming that men and women cannot be platonic friends. Is he wrong, or exactly 100 percent correct?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, President Biden delivers a long, rambling, at times barely intelligible speech to Congress last night, but if you could stay awake and decipher it, there was plenty to be concerned about, especially the part where Biden unveils his plan for universal preschool.
I'll explain why that's a horrible Dystopian idea.
Also, five headlines, including the parents who are volunteering their babies for COVID vaccine trials.
What sort of parent would do that?
And a track runner in Oregon collapses on the track after being forced to run with a mask.
Plus, is the no-fly list being politically weaponized by the Biden administration?
We'll deal with that.
And finally, in our Daily Cancellation, we'll talk about the outrage over comments made by Steve Harvey claiming that men and women cannot be platonic friends.
Is he wrong or is he exactly 100% correct?
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
The problem with State of the Union addresses or speeches to a joint session of Congress, which is the same
thing, is that they're always dull and pointless and
forgotten by everyone 35 minutes after they conclude.
They make no difference, they leave no lasting mark, and they achieve nothing.
It is an occasion for our political elites to engage in empty, self-congratulatory pageantry, sort of like the Oscars, but for presidents.
Not incidentally, they also tend to be as boring as the Oscars and to generate about the same level of viewer enthusiasm.
Enthusiasm which hovers somewhere in between dazed, confused, and catatonic.
And of course, that also happens to describe the general demeanor of our president.
Credit where it's due, though.
Biden's speech did at least manage to up the ante and be even more grotesque and depressing than the average speech of this sort.
Last night, Biden delivered his address to a half-empty room of socially distanced, fully vaccinated politicians in masks.
It all looked quite creepy and dystopian, like a masquerade ball from hell or something.
Now, if congressional Republicans had any sense or backbone, they would have refused to participate in the farce.
Instead, they sat there, masked and obedient, clapping on cue.
Now, imagine if Republicans had refused to wear the masks on the reasonable ground that they're all vaccinated and the masks serve, therefore, no effective purpose.
Would they have been kicked out of the room?
Would they have been arrested?
Or would they have been allowed to sit there, maskless and free, as men and women of dignity?
Whatever the case, it would have been a major political win.
There would have been no way to lose politically had the Republicans refused to take part in the masking sham.
The only way to lose was to do exactly what the Democrats told them to do, and as always, Republicans surveyed the options and quickly chose the one where they gain nothing, lose everything, and the other side wins.
They're nothing if not consistent.
The speech itself was lengthy and drawn out, but also moved quickly from one topic to the next in a mostly disjointed fashion.
Listening to it was like being stuck in some sort of disorienting time warp.
It felt like it was moving quickly, but also not moving at all.
Biden kicked things off by claiming that the January 6th riot was the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.
Some might say that 9-11 was at least slightly worse than a crowd of people briefly trespassing in the Capitol.
In one case, 3,000 people were slaughtered.
In the other, only one person was directly killed in the melee, and that was one of the people in the crowd who was shot dead while unarmed by a still unnamed Capitol Police officer.
Indeed, some might say that there have been countless attacks and tragedies between 1865 and 2021 that were far worse in scope, scale, and body count than January 6th.
Even the BLM riots before and after that event were worse by all of those measures.
And it's not even close.
But Biden's speech was based in a reality that is not the one that we all live in.
Case in point, he also pledged to cure cancer and promised to devote trillions of dollars to an infinite array of programs and causes.
This is just not a serious man.
It was not a serious speech, though his agenda, or the agenda of his handlers, does pose a serious threat.
But the most frightening part of Biden's rambling, half-whispered diatribe came at the very beginning, when he unveiled his $1.8 trillion American Families Plan.
Because he's got a plan for you, for your family, which is supposed to guarantee paid leave, free community college, free daycare, free waffles for every man, woman, and child in the country.
It also includes an item long on the leftist wish list, which is universal preschool.
Listen to this.
The great universities in this country have conducted studies over the last 10 years.
It shows that adding two years of universal high-quality preschool for every three-year-old and four-year-old, no matter what background they come from, puts them in a position to be able to compete all the way through 12 years and increases exponentially their prospect of graduating and going on beyond graduation.
Research shows when a young child goes to school, not daycare, They're far more likely to graduate from high school and go to college or something after high school.
When you add two years of free community college on top of that, you begin to change the dynamic.
Yes, send your three-year-old to school, not daycare, you irresponsible parents.
Now, in fact, as publications from the Atlantic to the Washington Post to the Heritage Foundation have all argued, universal preschool does not live up to the promises that Biden makes for it.
In the long run, studies show that it can do more academic harm than good.
But the real problem with the universal preschool plan is deeper and more fundamental than that.
Biden says that if we get children into the government education system starting at the age of three, They'll be able to better compete, and ultimately their prospects of going to college will improve.
Now this is an idea rooted in a materialistic, utilitarian view of the human person.
People are not people, so much as cogs to be molded into the correct shape and fit into their appointed place in the machine.
The strategy doesn't even really achieve that desired end, but that's almost beside the point.
What sort of parent is worried about their three-year-old competing?
Competing against who?
My youngest son is four, and I've never once given even a moment's thought to whether I'm currently equipping him with all the tools he needs to compete in the global marketplace.
He's a child.
His job now is to be a child.
My job is to see to his basic needs while attending also to his moral, spiritual, and emotional formation.
At no point have I even considered what his college application might look like one day, or how his professional resume is coming together.
I am concerned with teaching him, yeah, but for children at his age, preschool age we call it now, the best way for them to learn is not by sitting in a classroom, but by playing and exploring.
You know, playing for a young child, that's serious business.
That's where they do most of their learning and developing.
It's ultimately harmful to a child's development to place competitive pressure on them that early.
Young children should feel only the mild pressure to, you know, clean up their toys and finish their broccoli.
They should be thinking about their future SAT scores, for God's sake.
But then again, I'm approaching this Right, from the standpoint of a parent.
That is, I love my children, and I want them to be happy, and I want them to grow into good and well-adjusted human beings.
That's my desire for them as a parent.
The government, for all of its nanny-state talk, for all of its talk where it makes itself sound like it's a parent, it doesn't actually love my children or yours, and doesn't care about spiritual and emotional and moral growth, development, or anything else.
The government sees your child as property to be owned and used.
That's why Joe Biden there says, no, no, no, your three-year-old doesn't belong in daycare.
Your three-year-old belongs with us.
Give him to me.
Now, the government's objective is to ensure that your child becomes the sort of person that it needs him to be and thinks he ought to be.
The brainwashing has to start early.
That, of course, is not just a matter of fitting them into the global marketplace, but it is about making sure, from the government's perspective, that your child has the correct, quote-unquote, values and beliefs.
And we've got a pretty good idea of what those values and beliefs are.
You get them in there at three, you start them on the gender indoctrination, you start them on critical race theory, you get that in very, very early.
So early that the child stands no chance of resisting it.
Three-year-old has no critical thinking skills almost at all.
So whatever you tell them, they'll believe.
And the government knows that that objective is better served and can more effectively be fulfilled if the children are sent into its clutches at the youngest possible age.
Children once began school in kindergarten, you know, and then we added pre-K, and then pre-pre-K, and soon pre-pre-pre-pre-K, and then, you know, then you get pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-K, and it just goes on and on and on.
This cannot be best for your child.
It's not.
What's best for him is to be at home with you, not sent into government buildings almost immediately after birth.
But the government is not concerned about what's best for him.
They're concerned about how they can use him, and how they can best turn him into the sort of person they think he should be.
And that is why preschool is cancelled.
Oh wait, no, that's a segment at the end of the show.
But either way, universal preschool is a terrible idea.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Yeah, I did have to, by the way, mention at the top of the monologue,
specify that we're talking about State of the Union Address or
a joint speech to Congress, speech to a joint session of Congress.
to a joint session of Congress.
It's really important to stipulate that because of all the pedantic a-holes out there in Internet land, which is the one thing I think I hate most about the Internet and we all do.
So, like, for example, I tweeted yesterday, last night, About exactly what I said, that every State of the Union address is pointless and is forgotten by everyone the next day, which is true.
I mean, can you remember anything that a president said in any State of the Union address in the past?
I certainly don't.
But the comments under that tweet, it was just nothing but, one comment after another, this was not a State of the Union address, it was an annual message.
State of the Union will be in January, Matt.
This was an address to Congress.
Just FYI, not a State of the Union.
Then what, this wasn't a State of the Union address.
One comment, what State of the Union address?
This wasn't that.
LOL, this wasn't a State of the Union speech, genius.
And it's like, no, it is, it is.
It's exactly the same thing.
It's just a different name.
Sometimes presidents, and this started somewhat recently, the last few presidents, their first State of the Union address, they choose to call it something else.
For political reasons, mostly.
I don't know what exactly those political reasons are.
Probably has a lot to do with, well, I just got here, so usually, State of the Union address, I'm gonna look back on the past year and say, what a great job I did, but I just got here, and I don't wanna say the last guy did a great job, so this is gonna be a slightly different thing.
Politically.
People, this is how you could tell.
It's a good IQ test.
When people, they have nothing of value to add to a conversation.
So all they can do is leap in with a pedantic, useless, redundant correction.
That's how you can tell.
Everyone who does that, they're sub-100 IQs.
All right.
But thank you to everyone who felt the need to correct me on that point.
Senator Tim Scott gave his rebuttal to Biden's speech last night.
It was fine, mostly.
It was a decent speech.
Tim Scott.
Seems to be a decent guy.
He talked about how America isn't racist, which is a good thing to talk about.
And he was attacked for that and called racial slurs by the left, ironically.
But that, of course, also was expected.
Let's listen to that part.
Here he is explaining how America is not a racist country.
Here's Tim Scott.
A hundred years ago, kids in classrooms were taught the color of their skin was their most important characteristic.
And if they looked a certain way, They were inferior.
Today, Qs are being taught that the color of their skin defines them again.
And if they look a certain way, they're an oppressor.
From colleges to corporations to our culture, people are making money and gaining power by pretending we haven't made any progress at all.
By doubling down on the divisions, we've worked so hard to heal.
You know this stuff is wrong.
Hear me clearly.
America is not a racist country.
It's backwards to fight discrimination with different types of discrimination.
And it's wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.
Fine.
Good.
No problem there.
But we as conservatives, we're so desperate You know, for Republicans who are not milquetoast cowards that were very, very easy to impress.
And so we hear something like that, and everybody, a lot of conservatives yesterday were on their feet cheering, yes, finally someone said it!
America's not a racist country!
Well, yeah, of course, I would hope he would at least say that.
That's, that's, that bar, the bar is not even off the ground yet in terms of the standard.
Are we really at a point now where we're impressed when a Republican simply says America's not a racist country?
That's a sad statement.
And again, it's a statement about the Republican Party generally, that we're impressed by something like that.
But it's not actually impressive.
I think we need to expect more than that.
And unfortunately, a lot of the good stuff was undermined, and the reason why I can't give Tim Scott anything close to an A-plus grade is because, for one, you know, the GOP needs someone out front in the lead who is, to my mind, aggressive, fiery, someone who goes on the offense.
But most of Scott's speech was defensive.
And that's not just him, it's Republicans, again, in general.
It's a defensive speech.
What you just heard there about America's not racist.
True.
Good thing to point out, but also a defensive statement.
Then, worst of all, there was this where he starts to talk about the need for police reform.
Let's listen.
Believe me, I know firsthand our healing is not finished.
In 2015, after the shooting of Walter Scott, I wrote a bill to fund body cameras.
Last year, after the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, I built an even bigger police reform proposal.
But my Democratic colleagues blocked it.
I extended an olive branch.
I offered amendments.
But Democrats used a filibuster to block the debate from even happening.
My friends across the aisle seemed to want the issue.
More than they wanted a solution.
But I'm still working.
I'm hopeful that this will be different.
Yeah.
And that's another thing tried and true from the Republican playbook, is to rather than taking issue On a fundamental, like, principle-based level with what the left is trying to do.
Instead, you agree with the fundamental principle, and then you say, no, we agree with the left that this or that thing needs to happen, but we're the ones who are better at making that thing happen.
So the argument essentially is, we are a more effective version of leftists.
We're leftists too, but we're effective leftists.
That's the selling point we get from the Republican Party.
That's the selling point we get from supposed conservatives.
That's what you just heard there.
He's saying, hey, I think there needs to be federal police reform too.
Police reform on the federal level, but we're trying harder than them to reform the police.
No, what we need to hear is, here's what we need to hear.
The push for police reform is based on a fantasy.
It is based on a falsehood.
It is based on a myth.
It is based entirely, this push right now for police reform, is based entirely on the idea that there is an epidemic of race-based police brutality.
That's why we're talking about police reform.
Everyone knows that.
Well, that is false.
It's not real.
It's made up.
It's not a real epidemic.
The facts don't line up with that.
That's a false narrative.
That's what we need to hear.
I would love to hear someone like Tim Scott, any Republican, given that kind of stage, stand up there and give the statistics.
Tell people the truth about what's really going on.
Talk about the number of police shootings compared to the number of arrests.
How many of them are unarmed?
The fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of police shootings are straightforwardly valid and legitimate because you've got a violent perp trying to murder a police officer, usually shooting at them, and then they get shot back.
That's like the majority of police shootings.
Talk about that.
How about defend specifically, you know, some of these specific officers?
The officer in the Micaiah Bryant shooting, for example.
But that's what the push for police reform is based on.
That's not the problem right now in our cities, is not that we have police precincts and police departments that are unreformed.
That's not what we need.
We don't need police reform.
We don't need criminal justice reform in the way that the Democrats talk about it and the way the Republicans do.
What we need are better ways to get violent criminals off the street and keep them off.
Because that's the kind of reform we need.
Want a criminal justice reform?
That's it.
Because there are hundreds, thousands of violent criminals walking around our cities right now, who are known to the system, have already been through the system, have already been arrested a bunch of times, are known to be violent threats, they filter through, they're put back out into the community, they keep committing crimes, they go back in, until finally they do something so heinous that there's no choice but to put them away for good.
That's the kind of reform we need.
Enforcing the law.
Getting dangerous people out of society.
Better protecting society.
I'd love to hear that from the Republicans.
Instead we get police reform.
Which again, is a Democrat idea.
Democrats are the ones who told us we need police reform.
And then Tim Scott and others say, alright, great idea, I'll do a better job than you.
Alright, number two, if you want to feel your skin crawl, always a fun sensation, let me play some clips from an ABC report about parents who've offered their kids up to be lab rats in vaccine trials.
So as it stands right now, of course, kids are not eligible for the vaccine, but they've got a You know, do trials on kids, and so there are parents out there willingly offering their kids up and saying, sure, inject this substance into my child.
We'll see what happens.
Let's watch a little bit of this report.
Today, kids as young as six months old are taking part in trials for both Moderna and Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines with their parents' consent.
Dr. Zina Good enrolled both her sons in Stanford Hospital's Pfizer trial.
So we thought participating is a really good way to protect our kids.
And so far, because this vaccine has been tested in a lot of teenagers and so many adults, and it was shown very safe, we felt pretty comfortable to participate.
Seven-month-old Sorin, one of the youngest in the trial, received his first shot last week.
Mom says he's doing well.
His older brother, three-year-old Andal, also got the shot.
Did he experience any side effects from the vaccine?
He had a sore arm for, like, for a day and was a little bit low on energy for, like, a day, but that's not much.
We're not sure it's even side effects.
He might have just, you know, been tired that morning.
Okay.
Well, you know, what makes this to me so heinous is that this is an illness that doesn't affect kids anyway.
Now, if this was an illness that affected kids, I still probably wouldn't be putting my kids up in line to be first.
But at least you could say, you know, there's a potential advantage to your child that this is an illness that affects kids, and you're worried about your kid's health, and so you want to get them the vaccine as quickly as possible.
And the risks are low, and all of that.
So maybe you could make an argument there.
But in this case, it's not a — your child, these children, a baby, are at almost no risk already.
So you're introducing a risk for no reason.
Offering them up to be experimented on, to be lab rats in a vaccine trial for a virus that wouldn't really affect them anyway, most of the time.
Here's another parent, and I want you to listen to her reasoning.
I thought it was pretty telling.
Here she is, I think it's a three-year-old child, explaining why she put her three-year-old up to be experimented on with the vaccine.
Here it is.
Dr. Angela LaCour's three-year-old daughter is also in the trial.
She says she feels strongly that doing this isn't just about keeping her child safe.
We're just so lucky that we have have a healthy child and so grateful that she's able to be
part of this but I think knowing that there are so many other parents out
there whose children are vulnerable and and maybe struggling and they're really
waiting for the vaccine to become a reality her being able to be part of
this and make that as a reality for other families and as a mom I can't imagine
what that fear must be like for them we're just so proud of her. Outside of a
fever a rash at the injection site did they talk to you about any potential
side effects? I know that in very extreme and rare circumstances like they
couldn't even give us a rate for this there's the risk of anaphylaxis and
again she hasn't had any kind of reaction to other vaccines so not something I
was very concerned about but it also brought us a lot of comfort that we were
doing this across the street from the hospital.
So she says, we're grateful that we have a healthy child, and so we're going to offer her up here because of other kids.
And we're looking out for other kids.
That may seem magnanimous and generous.
But the problem is, it's your kids.
If you were offering yourself up, your own body, as a vessel for experimentation with the vaccine, then I could say, OK, very brave of you, I can appreciate that.
But it's not you, though.
It's your child.
And they didn't consent to this.
They can't have consented.
She's only three years old.
There's no way she could have consented.
You might have told her, oh, honey, we're going to bring you in and give you a shot, and then you'll get a sticker we'll take out for ice cream.
And I'm sure the kid will say, oh, sounds great.
Yeah, let's do it, mommy.
But they have no idea what they're doing or what the potential side effects are.
Nobody really knows exactly what the side effects are in kids.
That's why we're doing trials right now.
So they didn't consent, can't consent, and you're offering them up for the sake of other children.
Totally disordered and backwards, upside down, topsy-turvy.
Okay, that's not, as a parent, your first priority is your own child's safety, always.
You never put your own child's safety below, you know, the welfare of other children.
It's good to be concerned about the welfare of all children, but your first concern is the child that God gave to you.
And to potentially sacrifice that welfare or to put it on the line for the sake of the welfare of someone else's child is completely disordered.
Speaking of disordered things, number three here, the state of Oregon is revising now its outdoor mask mandate after a runner collapsed on the track from lack of oxygen.
So they're running track and they have to wear a face mask.
Face masks that, again, were not made to be worn while sprinting.
But here's what led to the revision of these mask mandates in Oregon.
Good afternoon, I'm Lee Anderson.
A runner from Summit High School collapsed during competition.
Now the Oregon Health Authority is updating its mask policy for outdoor sports.
Max Goldwasser breaks down the details.
Maggie Williams just seconds away from setting the Summit School record in the 800 meter.
A moment of glory overshadowed by this moment of concern.
Williams finished in two minutes and eight seconds collapsing as she crossed the finish line.
I felt like I just wasn't being able to get a full breath and multiple times of that happening not being able to get enough air it just I just felt super dizzy and then eventually passed out.
Williams blames her lack of oxygen on the mask she's required to wear during competition.
Clearly in the past this has never happened, and then this race that I was wearing a mask, it did happen, which I don't think is a coincidence.
Her coach echoing that belief, saying this was not a conditioning issue, it was a mask issue.
It was a different response than I've seen for kids that have collapsed to the track just because they were exhausted.
She wasn't sure where she was.
Yeah, of course not.
Those of us who are sane individuals, we don't need to be convinced that she collapsed because of a lack of oxygen.
Obviously she did.
She had a piece of cloth over her mouth while she's running at full speed.
I ran track in high school, but I don't think you need to run track to have that experience to understand how this might work.
It's restricting your oxygen flow.
You're breathing in more of the air that you have just exhaled, and less of the fresh air from outside.
But as always, we've been told all along, don't trust your own common sense instincts.
We have to wait for the studies to tell you.
And so that's why we've been told all along that masks don't restrict airflow at all.
What?
I don't need to look at a study to know that they do.
There is a blockage.
There is something over your face.
Obviously, if that thing was not over your face, you'd be able to breathe better.
Clearly!
The fact that we've got kids who are at almost no risk already, outside, running on a track, you know, spread out, they're racing, and they're wearing masks.
This is the kind of thing future generations will look back on this.
And they will never stop mocking us.
We are going to be a laughingstock of history because of this kind of thing, and we'll deserve it.
All right, next, Nick Fuentes says that he tried to board a plane this week only to discover that he was on the no-fly list, and later he published a video of himself talking to a Southwest agent—I think it was Southwest—who tells him, In the video that he can't fly with them and he needs to talk to TSA about it, which seems to confirm or at least provide good evidence that he is indeed on some kind of no-fly list.
It's not just a matter of one airline saying you can't board for this or that reason.
Now, anyone who has listened to this show for a while knows that Nick Fuentes and I have not seen eye-to-eye, to put it mildly.
But here's the thing, you don't have to see eye-to-eye with a person, you don't have to agree with them about everything or anything at all, in order to be very, very troubled at the prospect, the possibility, that people are being put on a no-fly list because of their political viewpoints, their ideological viewpoints.
I mean, it doesn't matter how you feel about those views.
Nick Fuentes hasn't been convicted of any crime.
He hasn't been charged with any crime.
He was at the Capitol on January 6th, but he says he was never in the building, never entered the building.
He hasn't been charged with entering it.
And the thing about the no-fly list is that you aren't going to know exactly why you're on it.
So you could say, well, maybe there's a good reason.
Well, so what?
We're supposed to just trust?
The government, when they say that, that's the problem.
They don't tell you why you're on it.
They don't even tell you that you're on it.
You have to go and try to fly, and like what happened in this case, you have to try to get on a plane, and that's when you find out.
And even then, they won't tell you everything.
So for me, this is kind of easy.
I don't think the no-fly law should exist at all.
I don't think anyone should be on it.
If the government can prove that you're a dangerous criminal, they should convict you of that crime and punish you for it.
But if they can't prove it, if they can't even muster enough evidence to charge you with a crime... Okay, again, this is a punishment.
No-fly list is a punishment imposed on people not only before they've been convicted of a crime, But before they've even been charged with any crime or accused of any crime, the government can still say you're not allowed to fly.
We're not going to tell you why.
We're not going to necessarily give you any process to get off of it.
With the no-filers, they can restrict your movement without any burden of proof.
They can just bypass the Bill of Rights entirely.
That's a problem.
And it's a power begging to be abused.
It's an abusive power by its own nature.
And it can be abused further and wielded as a political weapon, which perhaps now this is exactly what this administration is doing.
And it could happen to anybody.
If it could happen to Nick Fuentes, it could happen to anybody.
And if you're on the right, what you also have to keep in mind is that the powers that be Democrats and leftists, they don't draw any distinction between anybody on the right.
They've got the category of the right, and everyone is the same.
They don't draw any distinction between any of them.
So anything you see happening to one person in that category can happen to everybody.
Whether they're being deplatformed, kicked off social media, put on no-fly lists, that can happen to everybody.
I mean, just think about if there was a... What if there was a no-drive list?
Think about that.
Because one of the excuses, and I've heard this in relation to the Nick Fuentes thing, even conservatives, I've heard say that, well, flying isn't a right.
Yeah, it's not a constitutionally guaranteed right, but that doesn't mean that the government can take it away without any justification at all.
Is that what we're saying?
If a right is not guaranteed and listed in the Bill of Rights specifically, then the government can take it away for any reason, without any justification, without any accountability, transparency?
Is that really the road we want to go down?
And as far as going down roads, yeah, imagine a no-drive list.
Driving also is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution.
But what if you got pulled over?
Because your license plate was flagged, and the cop told you, oh, sorry, you're on a no-drive list, you're not allowed to drive.
You haven't been convicted of a crime, you haven't been accused of a crime, you weren't drunk driving, nothing like that.
You just, you got on a list somehow, maybe because of your political views, you've been deemed a threat for reasons that are unclear, and now they say you can't drive.
And not only can you not drive, you can't even be a passenger on the road.
We know that there are people who get their licenses taken away, but that's for a reason.
There's a reason for it.
And you have a process through the court system to rectify it if a mistake was made, or if you believe you're innocent, or whatever.
Would anyone accept that?
A no-drive list that functions that way?
Then why do we accept it with a no-fly list?
And you can't say that, oh, flying is more dangerous, so it's a different kind of thing.
It's not!
Driving is a hell of a lot more dangerous, and a hell of a lot more people die doing it.
So they can do it with the planes.
They can do it with cars.
Do it with any vehicle.
Why not?
All right.
Moving on, finally.
Let's lighten the mood a little bit here.
I don't know if this is going to lighten the mood or just send you plunging finally into the abyss of depression.
It'll do one or the other, but, um, you know, I got to play this for you and I'm not even going to go to intro it, but, but here it is from our friends at TikTok.
Here it is.
Hiya, Pfizer.
Hi, Ben.
You got any extra shots?
Sure, Ben.
Sleeves up.
I'm a Pfizer girl in a COVID world.
I'm the classic mRNA tactic.
95%, there's no argument.
Got no contagion with my vaccination Come on, fight, let's go fight
With a bad guy Come on, fight, let's go travel
Only if essential Oh, we're having so much fun
We'll have to do this again for my second shot.
Oh, I love you, Ben!
You know that, you know, um... You know, there's, uh, supervolcanoes, that, uh, you, you, they're across the, across the Earth, and, uh, scientists say that a supervolcano could go off anytime and spew so much molten ash into the air, sends us into an eternal night, kills all life on, on the planet.
I mean, it sounded kind of good right about now.
I gotta play one more.
I'm sorry, I don't even know why I'm doing this, but here's one more.
Let's watch.
Censoring me, who was just giving that- She came in like a stocking bomb.
Yeah, she's nothing like that robot blonde.
Or a hunk of clear, dense, stitched yarn.
She handles questions.
Refreshed.
This may be hard to believe.
We don't spend a lot of time talking about or thinking about President Trump here.
Former President Trump, to be very clear.
Is that the same woman?
Is it the same woman who did both of those things?
She is a terrorist.
That is someone... You know what?
I amend everything I just said before.
There should be a no-fly list and she should be the only person on it.
All right, let's get now to our, and a no posting list.
How about that?
Forget about no fly list.
There should be a no posting list, which there already is with big tech.
I guess I'm not innovating anything new, but she needs to be on it.
All right, let's go to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Magnum.
He says, you're such a cancer on society, Walsh.
Thank you, sir.
Another one says, hey, Matt, I'm in high school wrestling.
We aren't allowed to shake hands before or after our match, but we're allowed to wrestle.
Thoughts on this?
So, yeah, just for the sake of hygiene and not spreading germs around, you don't want to touch your hands, but then you're going to be draped all over each other in the act of wrestling.
You know, makes a lot of sense.
I have to trust, we have to trust the powers that be that it makes sense.
We can't make sense of it because we are, our puny mortal minds can't quite process it.
Another comment says, Matt, which of these three options seem the most likely?
A, reconciliation between the right and left.
B, civil war.
C, subjugation of the right by the left.
I know you didn't offer a D, subjugation of the left by the right, because I guess we realize that ain't happening.
So between the two, you know, it definitely isn't A. I think we know that.
Another one says, maybe I'll take my mask off, but I'll be damned if I'm losing my anti-lightning sombrero.
Look, you can never be too careful.
Frankly, I think anyone who discourages the use of an anti-lightning sombrero is actually murdering people.
You are responsible when someone gets hit by lightning.
So very good, very good point there.
And let's see, there's one other I want to read.
Okay, Jillian says, Matt, yesterday you said you'll wear a mask in certain stores and tell your kids it's because you have to.
I was very surprised to hear that.
I just recently decided I won't wear a mask anywhere.
This decision was after a recent experience where they told me my eight-month-old had to wear a mask to enter.
I refuse to give them any leeway.
Like you said, it'll never end unless we simply stop obeying these arbitrary mandates.
If we continue to comply, they will continue to enforce even more insane rules.
Never put a mask on a baby, period.
It's dangerous.
I don't know who told you to put a mask on an eight-month-old.
They should be in jail, because that could kill your eight-month-old, in fact.
At a child that age, you don't put things over their mouth.
You're not even supposed to put a kid in bed with a blanket at that age.
So, yeah, you don't put a mask on a baby.
I'm not going to put a mask on little children.
I don't, you know, we don't, I never volunteer for masking.
We don't wear masks outside.
We don't wear masks on the playground.
Uh, the only scenario in the past has been my two, the oldest, the seven year olds.
If we have to run into a store real quick and they're with me and it's required to have a mask on, then I'll give them the mask.
And I explained to them, we got to just do this stupid thing and we got to run in really quick.
But most of the time, you know, we'll go in without the mask.
If no one tells us to put it on, we won't.
If someone who's not a position of authority in that store tells us, we won't put it on.
But if someone who works there says, can you put the mask on, then we'll do it, just so we can get the stuff and leave.
Because the only other option is to get into an argument with this employee who unfortunately has to enforce this rule.
Um, and then, what, we get kicked out of the grocery store or something like that, and that to me doesn't seem like there's any real point to it.
Um, but generally, yeah, I think we have to get to the point, we should certainly all be at the point now where, number one, again, wearing a mask outside, putting a mask on your kid outside is crazy, don't do it.
Um, we shouldn't be volunteering to wear the mask.
But if you're in a private establishment, And someone who owns that establishment says, you need to wear the mask or don't come in, then, you know, it is their rules.
Well, you know, Mother's Day is right around the corner.
If you didn't know that, now you know.
I just saved your butt and I reminded you.
And so you got to start thinking about what are you going to get?
Uh, your mom for Mother's Day?
What are you going to get your wife for Mother's Day?
Well, let me give you a suggestion.
A new sponsor just in time for Mother's Day, the Pearl Source.
At the Pearl Source, you get the highest quality pearl jewelry at up to 70% off retail prices.
Pearl Source cuts out the middleman by eliminating traditional five times markups by jewelry stores and selling directly to you, the consumer.
So when you go to the jewelry store and you buy pearls or any other jewelry, you're spending way, way, way more than you need to.
And that's what Pearl Source is all about.
Cutting out all of that extra.
Uh, baggage.
They have the largest selection of pearls available anywhere and each jewelry piece is custom made for you.
The Pearl Source offers fast and free two-day shipping on every order with zero contact delivery.
Everything comes beautifully packaged in an elegant jewelry box so it's ready to be given as a gift.
It comes with a no-hassle 60-day money-back guarantee so it's risk-free.
You don't want to miss this.
Don't overpay for jewelry.
Go to Pearl Source and save up to 70% off of retail prices and for a limited time Listeners of my show can take 20% off your entire order for Mother's Day.
So go to thePearlSource.com, enter promo code WALSH at checkout for 20% off your entire order on top of the savings you're already getting.
You just don't want to miss this.
If you want fine pearl jewelry at the best prices online, then go straight to the source, the PearlSource.
PearlSource.com, enter promo code WALSH at checkout.
Well, another high energy episode of Candace is coming at you this Friday.
This week, Candace hosts political commentator and interviewer Dave Rubin.
They got a lot to talk about, including the recall election in California, Caitlyn Jenner jumping into the ring.
So that'll be an interesting conversation.
Subscribe now and stream Candace live on Fridays at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, only on Daily Wire.
And remember, if you're not a member, you can get 25% off a new membership with code Candace at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
As we know, people on the internet feel a deep need to constantly be outraged about things.
There's a certain amount of outrage, a certain quantity of outrage that's required to satiate this need.
As people, you know, develop outrage tolerance, though, they'll find that they need more and more outrage to get their fix.
Now, this shouldn't be a problem.
There's no shortage of outrageous things happening in the world all the time.
You can no more run out of outrage than you can run out of sand on the beach.
But what happens, the problem, is what happens when the people who most need to feel outrage have also, for political reasons, committed themselves to being not outraged about the most outrageous things.
What happens when someone deeply needs to be outraged, but their ideology precludes them from being outraged about, for example, the murder of babies and the general mutilation of children?
Well, this is like looking for sand and you live right next to a beach, but you need to find sand everywhere but the beach and even sandboxes.
Now you've just made what should be the easiest thing incredibly difficult.
And that's why in the age of cancel culture, people are forced to go back in time to find things to satiate their outraged desires.
They gotta go back in a time machine, like back to the future, to find something to be pissed off about.
Every day there's another video from years ago that people are randomly upset about for no reason, other than the fact that they need to feel upset about something.
And this week, that video, or one of them, that fills the need is this.
It's an interview with Steve Harvey from, I don't know, several years ago, I think like 10 years ago.
And in it, he gives his opinion about whether men and women can be friends, platonic friends.
He says no.
And people are upset.
So let's listen first to the, as they say, resurfaced clip.
Well, my friends are men. I don't have female friends. I don't. I'm incapable of that.
Why? What do you mean? Well, because, you know, come on.
Because you have a wife. Well, I have a wife and I don't really have female friends because, look, okay, let's get
rid of this myth right here.
Okay, I'm going to tell you this.
Let's get rid of this right here.
You're an attractive woman.
There are some guys somewhere saying, yeah, we're friends.
No, that's not true.
He's your friend only because you have made it absolutely clear that nothing else is happening except this friendship we have.
We remain your friends in hopes that one day there'll be a crack in the door, a chink in the armor, and trust and believe that guy that you think is just your buddy, he will slide in that crack the moment he gets the opportunity.
And you think most men think this way?
99.9% of us think that way.
Very upsetting stuff there.
People were upset about it.
Also, correct, of course.
It's obviously true that men and women can't really be platonic friends.
There are exceptions, of course.
There are exceptions to most general principles.
Okay, but it's impossible to talk about anything if we're not able to make reasonable generalizations.
And that's why we can't talk about anything, because people are always obsessed with the exceptions.
That's another one of the pedantic things people do online that annoys me.
You're talking about general principles and someone always says, no, I'm aware of an exception.
I personally am aware anecdotally of an exception.
Let me tell you all about the exception I know about.
No, this is a reasonable generalization and it's true.
Men and women can't be friends.
That doesn't mean they can't work together.
It doesn't mean they can't function around each other.
It just means that they can't, they can't be buds.
They can't be pals in the same way that Men can be pals with each other or women with each other.
Now, when talking about this subject, the first thing we have to say is, and don't take this the wrong way, ladies, but your opinion doesn't count.
Okay?
Your opinion doesn't matter here.
It doesn't matter what you say.
And I'll tell you why.
I know that a lot of you think men and women can be friends, but it takes two to tango.
And sadly, men, much of the time, have an entirely different dance in mind.
As for men who claim that they have many dear friends who are women, some of those guys are gay and the rest are lying.
Don't shoot the messenger here, this is just the truth.
Now if you're the sort of person who needs a study to confirm your own common sense, well luckily we have those.
According to an article in the Scientific American, researchers recently conducted an experiment to find out how males and females in a, quote, friendship actually felt about each other.
So here's how that went.
Reading out, it says, in order to investigate the viability of truly platonic opposite-sex friendships, a topic that has been explored more on the silver screen than in science labs, researchers brought 88 pairs of undergraduate opposite-sex friends into a science lab in order to ensure honest responses.
The researchers not only followed standard protocols regarding anonymity and confidentiality, but also required both friends to agree, verbally and in front of each other, to refrain from discussing the study even after they had left the testing facility.
These friendship pairs were then separated, and each member of each pair was asked a series of questions relating to his or her romantic feelings, or lack thereof, toward the friend with whom they were taking the study.
The results suggest large gender differences in how men and women experience opposite-sex friendships.
Men were much more attracted to their female friends than vice versa.
Men were also more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them, a clearly misguided belief.
In fact, men's estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt.
Basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends.
Women, too, were blind to the mindsets of their opposite-sex friends.
Because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual.
As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends, and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends.
What a shock.
And by that I mean, not a shock at all.
Common sense wins again.
This is so thoroughly confirmed by common sense, and the nearly universal experience of all mankind, that it is an interesting talk about whether or not it's true.
It simply is.
What is more interesting to talk about is why it's true.
And the reason for that is also a matter of common sense, though perhaps not so common anymore.
It's this.
Men and women are different.
Men and women, no matter what they might say for political and ideological purposes, all basically know that they're different, they see each other as different, and they see each other differently.
You know, heterosexual men are perfectly capable of bonding with women, but their desire is to bond in a different sort of way.
And I don't just mean sexually.
A man's attraction to women is hopefully not merely sexual.
His desire for companionship with a woman has a prominent sexual element, of course, but there's more to it than that.
Yet it all tends towards eros, towards romantic love.
One of the problems I think we have in society is that we only have one word for love, rather than in other languages like Greek, where they have multiple words for different kinds of love.
A man's affection for a woman is going to be different in kind from the feeling that he has about his male friends.
He's going to want something different out of the relationship.
That's not his fault.
It's not a flaw or a weakness.
It's perfectly natural.
He's a man, and as a man, he relates to women in a certain way.
Now, notice something.
Women who think they have male friends will often say that they're, you know, what they'll say is, I'm just one of the guys, and they'll brag about how they can throw down beers and spit and cuss with the best of them, right?
Most of the time, that's a lot of silly nonsense.
But even if it's true, you see how a woman who wants to be just friends with a guy will have to try to imitate the relationship between two men.
She'll have to try to blend in with the guys.
She'll have to try and fit herself into the category of a male-male friendship.
You know, basically become a man by default for the purposes of the friendship.
Why is that?
Well, it's because there is no authentic category of a close male-female heterosexual platonic friendship.
That category doesn't really exist.
The ones that work, if they work at all, work because the woman is basically pretending to be a guy and is seen as a guy by the other guys.
But usually from the guy's perspective, if they want to hang out with guys, they'd rather the guys be actual guys.
So if a guy is letting a woman into that fold, if he is putting up with that charade, it is usually for a reason.
And it's not the reason that the woman has in mind.
Now, the male-female friendships that really work are the ones that are mediated and contained and centered around some other larger thing.
Men and women can get along at work, even be friends in the context of work.
Married couples can be friends with other married couples.
In these contexts, the friendship can function and remain just a friendship, but they can't be close friends just with each other without that mediation and context.
Married couples can be friends, but if the husband from one couple Starts hanging out alone with the wife from the other couple, problems arise.
As a wife, if your husband is out late having some beers with his guy friend, you might be annoyed that he's out late, but it's not going to be a crisis in your marriage.
If you find out that he's out late having some drinks with a female friend, quote unquote, there are going to be sirens blaring and red flags waving all over the place.
In fact, Even if he didn't have any kind of physical or sexual contact with that woman at all, you're probably already going to feel cheated on because he should not be having that kind of intimate companionship with a woman who is not you.
Guys have a need for female companionship.
But it's a different kind of companionship, and so his need for female companionship is supposed to be filled by you.
He shouldn't need more close female companionship.
If he does, that's a major problem.
And almost every wife on the planet sees it that way.
Even if, for whatever reason, they would disagree with Steve Harvey on the point he made.
There's no need to talk about whether things should be this way.
Things just simply are this way.
Men and women are different.
They relate to each other differently.
They bond differently.
And that's fine.
You know, the reality only becomes a problem.
This is a general lesson for everybody, in all things.
Reality only really becomes a problem when you are set on denying it.
And that's especially the case with things with human nature.
And we are set on denying so much about human nature and that's why everything is falling apart.
And all of these things that should work basically fine don't work anymore.
Because we're set on denying what is obviously true right in front of our face.
And that is why I don't need to cancel male-female friendships because they don't really exist.
Instead, I'm just going to cancel the people upset about Steve Harvey, especially because that was something from 10 years ago.
Anyway, so let's, let's keep, let's keep, when we're looking for outrage, can we at least keep it within the last, I don't know, there should be a 30-day cutoff.
Can we, can we agree to that?
All right.
We'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
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 Walsh 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, Joe Biden unleashes an interminable, soporific address to Congress and puts America to sleep while preaching insane radical leftism.
