Ep. 715 - The Chauvin Trial Was A Sham. Throw Out The Verdict.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the trial of Derek Chauvin was the greatest sham in the history of the modern American legal system. We are now learning just how much of a sham it truly was. Today we’ll talk about the juror who apparently lied his way onto the jury in order to, as he says, bring about social change. Also, Five Headlines including Jill Biden’s push for universal free community college and the bizarre story of the child who was paddled with a wooden board by her teacher while her mother watched. But now the mother is complaining to the media. And in a Daily Cancellation that is sure to make a lot of people very angry, I will explain why anxiety isn’t a real mental disorder.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the trial of Derek Chauvin was the greatest sham in the history of the modern American legal system.
We're now learning just how much of a sham it truly was.
Today we'll talk about the juror who apparently lied his way onto the jury in order to, as he says, bring about social change.
Also, five headlines including Jill Biden's, that's Jill Biden's, Dr. Jill Biden's, sorry, push for universal free community college.
And also the bizarre story of the child who was paddled with a wooden board by her teacher while her mother watched.
But now the mother is complaining to the media and saying she didn't want that to happen.
And our daily cancellation will have something that will probably make a lot of people very angry.
I'm going to explain why anxiety isn't a real mental disorder.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
And now a quick word from my pillow.
Well, you know, I've been telling you about MyPillow.
You've heard about MyPillow, not just from me, but from lots of people because it's just the most comfortable pillow that you could ever use.
And if you know that if the pillows are comfortable, then think about how comfortable the slippers are.
Must be.
That's why they're introducing the new MySlippers.
The slippers took over two years to develop and they're designed to wear indoors and outdoors all day long.
The MySlippers are made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue and they're made with quality leather suede.
So they're very durable.
Like I said, you can wear it outside, but they're also super comfortable.
For a limited time, MyPillow is offering 40% off their new MySlippers.
Yeah, it's 40% off.
I have these slippers myself.
I wear them.
I've always been a slipper guy at home, especially as a dad.
You know, you got to make that transition eventually where you're wearing the slippers at home.
And I cannot recommend these slippers enough to you.
So go to MyPillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square and use promo code DAILYWIRE.
You also get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the Giza Dream Bedsheets, MyPillow Mattress Topper, MyPillow Towel Sets, and much more.
Call 800-951-7163 and use promo code DAILYWIRE or visit MyPillow.com now or call 800-951-7163.
It was apparent from the beginning that Derek Chauvin was not going to be given a fair trial in front of an impartial jury of his peers.
If there was ever a trial that should have been moved to a different location, this was that trial, but it wasn't moved.
And if there was ever a jury that should have been sequestered for the duration, this was that jury, but it was not sequestered.
Chauvin was being judged by Minneapolis locals who lived through the protests and riots, and who were leaving the court each night and returning to that same community, likely driving past the angry crowds that were threatening to burn down the city if a guilty verdict wasn't returned.
To make matters worse, and to trial an even more blatant sham, George Floyd's alleged drug dealer, who was present at the scene on the day of Floyd's death, wasn't required to testify.
And most egregiously, there was no mistrial declared after a prominent congresswoman, Maxine Waters, traveled from D.C.
to Minneapolis to demand a guilty verdict in front of a frothing crowd and call for more confrontation should the jury fail to give her what she wants.
It's hard to imagine how a deck could be more unfairly stacked against a defendant.
And that's before we've taken into account the apparent BLM activist who maneuvered his way onto the jury.
Juror number 52, who we now know as Brandon Mitchell.
And we know him that way because he's been all over the media in recent days.
Nobody's doxxed him.
He has come forward himself, been doing a ton of media interviews.
He's very eager to tell his story and receive the applause that he evidently feels entitled to.
But the part of his story that he has not been quite so eager to discuss is his own recent experience as an activist for the BLM cause.
As multiple outlets have reported, including the Daily Wire, Mitchell was photographed in August of 2020 after attending a rally in D.C.
In the picture, he's wearing a Black Lives Matter hat and a t-shirt that says, Get Your Knee Off Our Necks.
Not very subtle.
If this is impartiality, I would hate to see what partiality looks like.
Mitchell now claims that he doesn't remember wearing the shirt, okay, and that he only attended the rally because he'd never been to D.C.
And it was, quote, an opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of black people.
I guess there are no black people in Minneapolis, or he didn't notice them.
He also claimed on his juror questionnaire that he never participated in any protests against police brutality.
That's what he said on the questionnaire in order to get on the jury, that he never went to any protests for police brutality anywhere.
What about the event in DC?
Well, he says that although he attended it in full BLM attire, and it was held in the middle of a summer when protests against alleged police brutality were raging across the country, and it featured speeches from George Floyd's family members, and there were people holding signs that literally said, stop police brutality, still somehow the whole thing had nothing to do with police brutality.
That's what he says.
It was really just a commemoration and celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.
Now, anyone with any level of intelligence might feel that it has been horribly insulted by this excuse.
Yet, even if you buy the excuse, you still have Mitchell's own words to contend with.
In an interview with the Get Up Morning Show, whatever that is, the former juror number 52 seems to admit, repeatedly, that he was far from an objective participant in the trial.
Straining cajolity, he says that he didn't know much of anything about the case prior to showing up for jury duty.
Apparently, he suffers from amnesia, at least amnesia about the George Floyd shirt he was pictured wearing, so perhaps this was another flare-up.
He heard about it, but then he forgot everything when he showed up for jury duty.
But he also says that he saw a small portion of the video depicting Floyd's death, and that after seeing it, he, quote, didn't need to know much else.
Let's listen to that.
Prior to the case, how much did you know about George Floyd and how he was killed?
I mean, I had seen like a little portion of the video, but I couldn't really watch the video like that just because it wasn't something that I wanted to see so much of, of black men being killed.
It was like, I can't, I can't watch it.
So I clicked on it on accident one time and turned it right off.
That was all I knew really.
Wow.
I didn't need to know much else, though.
I mean, I knew how the video would end, and that was it.
You're 31 years old, and I understand you were the only African-American man in the jury pool.
Tell us about the other jurors on the panel, if you can.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, I mean, I was the only African-American.
There were two other men of African descent.
There was also a black female, a mixed lady, and the rest of the cast was white, older,
I think it was like maybe five older white women, and then another white guy.
Okay, I'm not quite sure.
The last part there, he's the only African-American man, but there were two other males of African descent.
Were they not American?
Were they not citizens?
And yet they were on a jury?
I don't understand what that means.
But let's forget about that part.
He says, I saw a little bit of the video.
I didn't need to know much else.
Really?
Because you're on the jury because you're supposed to want to know what else is going on?
Is that the sort of attitude we want from jurors?
How impartial can we expect them to be when they've seen only a short sampling of the prosecution's evidence prior to the trial and have already decided that it's all they need to see?
Later in the interview, Mitchell confesses that he went into the jury selection process cognizant that it was a, quote, historic moment and a chance to make history.
As if that wasn't clear enough, he says that he knew from the gate what it was and what it could be.
Now, this part of the interview hasn't gotten a lot of attention.
I'm not sure why.
Because this seems to me to be very significant.
Let's listen to that.
Did you really understand how important your role was as a juror, especially being the only African American male on the jury panel?
Yeah.
So I said even in my initial interview to the lawyers that I felt like it was a historic moment and That we would have a chance to make history by being the jurors on that case.
So I knew from the gate what it was and what it could be.
It was a chance to make history.
This is an impartial jury.
Somebody on the jury who was there to make history.
Offering some closing thoughts to wrap up the conversation, Mitchell advocates jury duty as a chance to, quote, get out there and get into these avenues and get into these rooms to try to spark some change.
Here's that part.
So what message would you leave to those about saying yes to jury duty?
I mean, it's important if we want to see some change, we want to see some things going differently.
We got to get out there and get into these avenues and get into these rooms.
Okay, so to review, Brandon Mitchell, a juror on Derek Chauvin's murder trial, had previously attended BLM rallies wearing a George Floyd t-shirt and admits that he saw the jury as a historic chance to bring about social change.
He is an activist who used the jury as a forum to advance his agenda.
He's saying that.
That's not my interpretation.
That is what he is saying.
He did.
In other words, this was not a fair trial.
Not close.
And that would be the case without the BLM activist on the jury.
That's the situation we're in right now.
The BLM activist who lied his way onto the jury is icing on the cake.
And with the activist, it becomes, again, one of the worst shams in the history of the modern American legal system.
And I don't think that's an overstatement.
The case for a retrial is overwhelming.
If this doesn't qualify for a retrial, I can't imagine what would have to happen in a case for it to get one.
But does that mean that a retrial will actually be granted?
No.
Doesn't mean that, you know, just because it should happen doesn't mean that it will.
Chauvin was always going to be a sacrificial goat made to pay not just for his own sins, but for the sins of all of white America.
In fact, new reports suggest that the Justice Department was standing by in the courtroom when the verdict was read, ready to arrest Chauvin in the courtroom on the spot and charge him with civil rights violations if he had been acquitted.
They were not going to let him get away, even if he was found not guilty.
Now, even if you think that Chauvin is guilty, how does this rise to the level of a federal crime?
What evidence is there to support that charge?
Well, evidence only matters if you care about things like truth, like fairness, like justice.
And this case, as we have seen, has never had anything to do with any of those things.
And now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
There are a lot of responsibilities that you have to take on as an adult that seem
sort of daunting and you put it off and you put it off and you put it off.
Until sometimes it's too late.
And putting a will together is definitely one of those things.
But it's so important to have a will, to have something there for your loved ones.
If anything ever happens to you, you don't want to put them in a position where you don't have a will.
And that's just not fair to them.
And here's the good thing.
It's really easy to set one up at TrustAndWill.com.
Setting up an estate plan is simple, convenient, and secure for as little as $39.
You can nominate guardians for your children.
You can determine who gets your stuff in plan for medical, future medical care for everyone from the comfort of your home.
Trust and Will documents are designed by estate planning experts and customized for the state you live in.
And with live customer support seven days a week, TrustandWill.com's team is available to answer any questions you have while setting up your plan.
Make sure you get that will.
Go to Trust and Will.
Gain peace of mind at TrustandWill.com and get 10% off plus free shipping of your customized legal documents.
All right, so let's start with Joe Biden.
He gave a speech about the COVID response yesterday and a couple of notable things.
It's trustedwill.com/wolsch.
This is what it sounded like.
We're going to make it easier than ever to get vaccinated.
Visit vaccines.gov, vaccines.gov, or text your zip code to 438829, 438829.
or text your zip code to 438829.
438829.
-I just love when he does the, "I'm gonna repeat,"
or "Let me be clear," and then what he says next is far less coherent and clear than the thing he said
before.
Vaccines dot... You know, there's dot something.
There are a couple of different ways you can interpret what he said.
It wasn't com.
I'm not going to speculate much, but vaccines dot gum, maybe?
It's where you go for chewing gum.
You want to get a pack of chewing gum, you just go to, you know...
Go to that web address?
I don't know.
But he also had... That was kind of startling.
It's always startling when your president is losing his mind on camera, as this guy has been for a long time now, before he was even elected.
This part was startling, too, where he reveals that death is still coming for us.
We can't escape it, he says.
Let's listen.
You know, there's a lot of misinformation out there, but there's one fact I want every American to know.
People who are not fully vaccinated can still die every day from COVID-19.
Look at the folks in your community who've gotten vaccinated and are getting back to living their lives, their full lives.
Can still die every day?
Hopefully they don't die every day, you know?
I mean, generally you would hope that you would die only once.
That's rough.
That's pretty rough.
If you could die from COVID every day?
Like, you already died yesterday, now you gotta die again today?
Or if he means that people, just people in general, are gonna die every day if they're not vaccinated.
I agree with him, and in fact, I will say that he's understating the case.
It's actually a lot worse than what he just said.
In fact, people are going to die every day No matter what, even if they've gotten the vaccine, people are going to die every day.
I'd go further than that, and I know this seems quite shocking, almost unbelievable, but it is true, believe me on this, that everybody will die.
We're all doomed.
We will all die of something, and pretty soon, in the grand scheme of things.
Yeah, you know, the amount of time you have left is measured in a few decades at most.
So he's absolutely correct about that.
People are going to die every day.
They will.
But probably not of COVID, that's the thing.
Whether you have the vaccine or not, especially if you're a little bit younger, it probably will not be COVID that gets you.
Could be, probably won't be, but it'll be something eventually.
So, thank you for that, Joe Biden.
Okay, now, moving on to this, I want to play this for you.
This is a totally bizarre story out of Florida, and I think Florida gets a bad rap sometimes.
It's not the crazy state, in my opinion.
California is the crazy state.
Oregon is the crazy state.
Even Vermont is the crazy state.
I think Florida is unfairly labeled that way.
Although this, what we're about to play, a local news report for you, every aspect of this, is weird.
So let's watch what the local news has to say about this incident here.
here. Let's watch. That's hitting a six year old wi
in front of her mother. C The hatred in which she hit my daughter, I mean, it was a hatred that really, I've never hit my daughter like she hit her.
I never hit her.
That's the mother speaking.
She's speaking in Spanish.
I'm reading the subtitles to you.
We know the name of the w through a report from the office.
It says the princ are the two women in the them through the school d unsuccessful.
The child's video.
and Cecilia self, a clerk in the video. We tried to
the school district, but The child's mother record
didn't she stop the beati if I had done it with my
been bad for me.
I don't know, I'd be in jail.
Mom told deputies the school called Tuesday, April 13th, saying her daughter damaged the computer.
The fee?
$50.
In the report, mom says the school also mentioned paddling, with her in a deputy present.
In the report, the mother says she didn't understand the process correctly.
Later that day, she went to the school to pay the fee, and they took her into the principal's office.
She already had her there.
Then the principal started to scream.
Mother says.
Behaving and taking care of the stuff.
You don't keep messing up things.
Mom looks around.
No cameras.
Nerves set in.
There are no cameras.
What are we doing here in this place?
My daughter and I alone.
So she did what she thought was her only option.
How do I prove if there wasn't a camera?
She hid her cell phone in her purse and pressed record.
Okay, we'll stop it right here.
Pause right here.
We're going to cut out of the video right here, but okay.
So you get what happened here.
The girl got in trouble, six years old, damaged the computer.
They sent a note saying that she's going to be paddled for it, and the mother shows up to be present, to be a witness at the paddling.
But she didn't want her daughter to be paddled, and rather than step in and prevent it and say, hey, don't hit my kid, she watches it and films it, and this is the reason she's giving.
In the subtitles, she says, oh my gosh, she says, I sacrificed my daughter so all the parents can realize what's happening in this school.
So that's why she didn't step in, because she was offering her child up as a sacrifice to raise awareness about the corporal punishment issue at this school.
As I said, every part of this story is bizarre.
I don't understand exactly what's happening here.
Well, with the mother, I think I do understand what's happening.
She, as unfortunately parents so often do these days, they see their kids as a chance to go viral and get attention and file a lawsuit.
If I were to speculate, because we can only speculate about somebody's motives.
And so in this case, when another adult is going to hit your kid and tells you, she says she was confused by the process.
It's written down there.
Like, we're going to paddle your kid with a wooden board.
That's what we're going to do.
What are you confused about here?
What do you mean with a wood paddle with a warden board?
Do you mean, like, metaphorically?
What do you mean by that?
I think they were actually pretty upfront, it seems, about what they were gonna do.
Ma'am, we're gonna be hitting your kid with this board right here, and you're gonna stand there and watch.
Now, if this were me, And I didn't want my child to be hit by another adult, which I wouldn't, and we'll get to that in a second.
I'm going to physically intervene, like walk over and say, you're not going to do that.
You'd think that's what any parent would do if they actually wanted to stop it.
She didn't, so we can again only speculate.
My speculation is that she saw an opportunity to file a lawsuit.
She says that she sacrificed her daughter so all the parents can realize what's happening in this school.
This is like some kind of perverse Christ scenario.
Sacrificing a child is sacrificed.
But I think she sacrificed her daughter.
If I were to, again, just theorize, I would say she sacrificed her daughter to get that big bag of cash from the lawsuit.
So that's the mother part of it.
Now we gotta think about the school.
I mean, first of all, it seems like this is something that they just do.
I didn't know that this existed anywhere in the country still.
I'm actually kind of shocked it does.
And they do this, and now there's controversy.
Do you not know that that's how people are going to react?
Have you been in our society for any length of time?
Have you seen the way things go?
You think you can paddle kids with a board at school and people aren't going to be upset about that?
Now, the thing is, you know, the idea of corporal punishment.
I think a corporate punishment can have a place in the home.
I think parents have to make their own parenting decisions, and children respond differently to different kinds of punishments.
I don't think that there's a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to discipline and punishing, and some methods work for some kids, some methods don't.
I mean, there are some kids that you can put them in timeout in a corner.
And that's really going to get the message through.
And you don't really need to do anything else.
There are other kids who they don't care about that.
And you might as well not be doing anything.
You put them in a corner, it makes no difference.
So kids are different.
Kids have different personalities.
In the home, you can make your decision about how you want to handle your kid.
At school, though, no.
I mean, that's what I'll say.
Look, I'm old fashioned on a great many things.
And I understand that back in the day, I mean, my own parents will tell me stories about this kind of thing when they went to school.
And this is what happened when kids got out of hand, unruly.
You take out the ruler, take out the paddle, and you handle it that way.
But no, my general policy here is if you're, you know, as another adult, you're not going to lay a hand on my kid.
As simple as that.
Really what it comes down to is this is a power and an authority and a tool that I don't trust the school to wield, literally and figuratively.
I'm not going to trust the school with that.
I think some parents can be trusted with forms of corporal punishment.
Um, spanking and so forth with their own kid.
Am I going to trust the school system?
Am I going to trust a public school teacher to be using physical discipline on a child?
No.
No.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Now, I'm of the opinion that the schools are not parents.
Teachers are not parents.
Shouldn't act like it.
Shouldn't have the authority of a parent.
There should be a clear dividing line.
Between parent and teacher.
And now you are going way across that line, in my view.
So that is simply, again, that is not an authority, that's not a power, not a tool that I would trust the school system with.
Government, the government school, giving them the, you know, entrusting them with the power to hit your child.
No.
Even if it's not a government school system, private school, same thing.
So, What a story there.
All right.
Let's move on.
Staying in the realm of education here.
Staying in the realm, in fact, of bad ideas in education.
Jill Biden, sorry again, that's Dr. Jill Biden, made the case a couple of days ago for free community college.
I still have no idea why first ladies are getting involved in advocating for policy at all.
I don't know why.
I've never been able to figure that out.
Why do we need to hear from them?
Why should I care about you?
You weren't elected.
It's not like you're elected by default or anything like that.
You were not elected.
But this is what we do with first ladies.
We send them out, give them their little pet projects to do.
And so Free Community College, that's one of Jill Biden's pet projects.
And this is how she made the case for it.
Community college graduates provide more security for their families.
They invest in their local schools and businesses.
And they bring needed skills to our workforce, helping us to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
That's why we need two years of free community college!
Yep, just more, we just need more free stuff.
That's the way to solve our problems.
Yeah, they had another brilliant idea.
How do they think of this stuff?
It's genius.
Every problem, they always stumble on the solution.
Free stuff!
Give people stuff for free.
That'll solve it.
No, you know, free college is not the answer.
Free community college is not the answer.
Student loan forgiveness is not the answer.
At least it's not the answer to any question worth asking when it comes to this issue.
I'll tell you, the answer, the solution to the problem, and the problem, you know, the problem is multifaceted, but the problem of the student debt crisis, the problem of, you know, of kids and young adults being required or feeling like they're required, To spend tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars on an education just so they can get an entry-level job somewhere?
The solution to that problem is not free stuff.
It is to move away from this artificial, contrived system completely.
That's the solution.
Because the fact of the matter is, vast majority of jobs in America don't really necessitate a college degree.
Except artificially.
In the vast majority of jobs, you're going to learn how to do the job once you're on the job.
There's going to be on-the-job training, or something like that.
That's the majority of jobs.
That includes high-paying jobs.
That includes many different stable careers that you could make a very nice living in.
We're not just talking here about, you know, being a cashier at McDonald's or something.
That is most jobs.
Whether you went to college or not, you gotta start entry level.
And whether you have that piece of paper or not, and all that debt or not, you're gonna go into the job not really knowing how to do it.
And you're gonna have to learn, like anybody else.
So what does the piece of paper do for you?
Well, in a lot of cases it gets you in the door, but that's artificial.
We've decided as a society to require the degree for a lot of jobs, not because it's actually needed, but because we simply decided it.
The left is always a fan of criticizing what they consider to be artificial constructs.
Well, here you go.
Here is artificial construct number one, maybe the number one example.
Of a damaging, harmful, costly, in more ways than one, artificial construct.
That you need to have a college degree, a piece of paper that you spend $90,000, $100,000 on to get an entry-level job in a profession that you're going to have to learn on the job anyway.
The solution is to move away from that.
If we're not going to move away from that, if we're going to continue requiring degrees for no real reason, Then the problem's only going to get worse.
In fact, you start giving out free college, you start doing some form of student loan forgiveness, now the pressure to go to school for no reason is increased, and now you're going to have even more careers and occupations and jobs and employers that require the degree, even though it's not really necessary.
Yes, obviously there are some lines of work where you need additional formal education.
Nobody would deny that.
You want to be a doctor, you want to be an engineer, you want to be a lawyer, you want to be an architect.
Clearly, there is additional formal education, oftentimes a significant amount of it, not just four years, that you're going to need to get.
But you want to get a job, you're going to start in a cubicle somewhere?
Like entering data into a computer or whatever you're doing?
You need a job in marketing or sales or something like that?
You don't need a degree for that.
But nobody wants to talk about that.
No one wants to move away from that system.
And I think one of the reasons, and most people recognize, I think, that it's a flawed system, obviously.
But I think people don't want to move away from it because they've invested so much in it.
And it would feel, like, unfair to them if we started moving away from it.
But we have to.
All right.
A couple things here from Twitter that I wanted to quickly read.
Here's CNN anchor Anna Cabrera has this report.
She says, NYC public schools will have remote learning instead of snow days next year, according to the New York City Department of Education.
This was, you know, I worried about this for the kids' sake when we started doing the remote learning thing.
That this is this is what's gonna happen It's gonna be the end because now that schools have decided they can replace education with with the computer Which really you can't because it's not gonna be a real education as we've seen we got all these kids falling behind Because they can't learn that way even for adults, it's really difficult to Stay engaged and certainly to learn by staring at a computer for seven hours a day and listening to a talking head You know, spitting words at you.
But because school systems have decided that, it means that, you know, you're not going to get days off anymore as kids.
So take the snow days away.
Yeah, why not?
I mean, just take all the childhood joy away.
You know, we've done that for the last year.
Closed down the pet playgrounds, took everything away.
Take away, you know, if kids want to go to summer camp, they have to wear a mask and stay socially distanced, the CDC is saying.
So let's just, let's take every last childhood joy from these kids.
Let's take it away.
Because, as always, it's not about the kids, it's about us.
Right?
And also, there's this.
This is a great vaccine PSA that was posted by the Baltimore City Health Department to Twitter.
So you can take a look at this.
It's a picture of a woman looking kind of sullen and pouty.
And then there's a guy, presumably her husband, sitting behind her and saying, Mimosas with the girls?
You still aren't vaxxed, Debra.
This is a Baltimore City Health Department.
This is how they're pushing vaccines.
And I kind of appreciate it.
You know, I don't agree with the idea that you have to have a vaccine to go out and have mimosas with the girls.
There's no reason why you can't.
But I do like how they are, it seems to be advocating here, traditional, patriarchal, male-led households.
That I can appreciate.
I suspect they did it by accident.
But still, I appreciate it.
And finally, before we move to the comments, here's a report from the Daily Star.
It says, pretty shocking, it says, Hitler liked women peeing on him during sex and was incestuous with his niece, according to a new documentary.
See, all I'm gonna say is I always knew that this guy was up to no good.
I'd been starting to get a bad feeling about him, but this really confirms it.
You just never know.
You never know these days.
You never know.
All right, let's move now to our five comments.
Or not five comments.
I don't know how many comments we're gonna do.
I'm mixing up my...
This is from Donna says, Hey Matt, as far as Prince Charming goes, what he did was perfectly legal.
If you've ever taken a CPR class, there is something called implied consent, which means if you find someone unconscious, you can start CPR without getting consent.
In Snow White's case, she was unconscious and unresponsive.
Not only did Prince Charming do nothing wrong, it could have been an open mouth kiss in terms of mouth to mouth.
Even worse, he could have touched her chest and still been on the right side of the law.
Talking about chest compressions.
Well, looks like we've got a rape apologist on our hands here, Donna.
Pretty upsetting from you.
You're banned from the show.
You should be ashamed.
Another comment says, please tell me you're being sarcastic when you're talking about the Disney movies.
No, I never engage in sarcasm.
Sarcasm is beneath me.
And I would never do that on this show, and so if you listened to the show yesterday, The Daily Cancellation, where I was cancelling a whole bunch of Disney movies, not at all sarcastic.
Another comment says, your views on marriage are absurd.
Absurd?
What were my views on marriage that I expressed?
Oh, so my view on marriage as expressed yesterday was that you should stay married and stay true to your vows.
You know, Bill Gates and his wife are getting divorced after 27 years, and when they're both in their mid to late 60s, almost three decades of marriage, they're getting divorced because they want to grow as people individually.
They feel like they can't grow together anymore.
My view is that you made a vow, a promise, and you should keep it, and you should stay married and work through your problems.
And what you're telling me is that not only do you disagree, but you think that's an absurd view.
It's an absurd view that married people should keep their promises.
All right.
Another one says, pitbulls are designed to be ferocious and overprotective.
It's an armament and to ban them would be an infringement.
Oh, come on.
Come on.
Now you can say pitbulls count as a weapon under the Second Amendment.
You know, you can't, like, if that's your argument, it's like there are two different arguments here.
One is that they're a weapon, just like a gun, and so you have a right to have a pitbull.
You have a right to bear pitbulls.
There's that argument.
The other argument is that they're actually harmless, and they're cute and cuddly, and there's nothing, you know, and they're not going to hurt you.
Like, it kind of seems like you have to choose one argument or the other, and I'm getting both, and I don't quite, can't quite figure out how to put all those together.
And finally, Joshua says, talking about my video yesterday, that video is like a Conservative Inc.
boomer's wet dream.
It's got it all.
Everything from a chance to call someone libertard or demon rat, to Democrats are the real racists, to back the blue, to look at this based minority.
This probably is getting hella traction on Facebook.
I literally said none of those things in the video.
Not one single one of those things did I say.
Although I do think we should back the blue.
But I didn't use any of those phrases.
That's always my favorite criticism, when I'm criticized for things that I didn't say at all.
I say enough things on a daily basis that if you're looking for a reason to criticize, try to just choose from the category of things I actually said.
I give you a lot of options.
Things have been growing like crazy here at The Daily Wire, and we're expanding and a lot of exciting things going on.
We know we've got the movie deal with Gina Carano.
We've launched the show with Candace Owens.
We released our first feature film.
All this stuff, that's just the first six months.
A lot more to do in the months and years ahead, but we want to make sure we continue to include you in our future plans.
And one way that we do that is making sure that we bring in our shows products and services that not only we love, but that you will love as well.
So in order to better enable us to do that, please go to dailywire.com/walsh
and fill out my audience survey to tell us a little bit more about yourself.
And then so that we can figure out what kind of sponsors to bring to you
and to sweeten the whole experience and give you a little bit of incentive.
Go to, when you complete the survey, you're entered to win a $1,000 gift card.
Now here's the thing, you can only complete the survey once and be entered in for that gift card, but that's per show.
So after you do my survey, you can go listen to Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, get access to their surveys as well, and you get a lot of chances to get that gift card.
So make sure you go there and do that right now.
Also, if you didn't catch last night's episode of Candace, don't worry, you can still watch the full interview with her and President Donald Trump if you're a Daily Wire member.
They discuss everything from the media's attacks against him and Melania to whether he's considering another presidential run in 2024.
If you haven't joined Daily Wire yet, hurry now because this is your last chance to get 25% off a new membership with code CANDACE.
That code goes away on, what is it, this Thursday, May 6th.
So that's tomorrow, or it's today.
What is today?
It's tomorrow, right?
Anyway, you don't have a lot of chances, so go right now, dailywire.com, slash subscribe, use code Candice for 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Our daily cancellation today has evolved quite a bit.
Or maybe it's more true to say that it has metamorphosed into a beautiful, ill-tempered butterfly, however you want to put it.
I had planned today to cancel the CIA for its now-infamous woke recruitment ad featuring a female CIA agent who says that she is, quote, a cisgender millennial, a woman of color, and intersectional.
She also says that her existence is not a box-checking exercise.
Even as she proceeds to check every box she can.
Now, all of this is extremely stupid, worse than stupid when you consider that the CIA is recruiting people who'd be better suited teaching gender theory at Portland Community College, where all the students should attend for free, says Jill Biden.
But the worst part of the ad is when she boasts about her generalized anxiety disorder.
This is someone working for the CIA who's bragging about the fact that they have anxiety disorder.
And she includes it as one of the identity boxes to check.
So on her victimhood resume, anxiety disorder is listed right alongside woman of color and intersectional and all the rest of it.
This is what we've done in our society.
We have turned things like anxiety into mental disorders and then made mental disorders trendy.
Something that people like this woman quite literally advertise.
And that's what sent me off in a different direction.
As I thought about it, I became less interested in the CIA ad and more interested in this issue of anxiety and what we in modern culture have made of it.
And that's what prompted me to tweet the following thought last night.
I said, quote, quoting myself, one of the worst things to happen in modern times is the medicalization of the human condition.
Now people who experience anxiety think they're sick.
They aren't.
Anxiety is a fundamental fact of human existence.
It is not a disease.
That's what I wrote.
That's what I believe.
We have set out to medicalize and disease-ify every aspect of the human condition, every difficult emotion, every unpleasant personality trait.
That's why the DSM now has something like 300 mental disorders listed and over 50 million adults in this country have been diagnosed with at least one of them.
Now, as you might expect, that opinion provoked an intense and almost entirely negative reaction.
Almost entirely negative public reaction, I should qualify.
I have gotten a lot of private messages from people whispering their agreement with me, saying, hey, I agree with you.
Attaboy.
Thumbs up.
But in public, almost everyone who's chimed in and contributed to the discussion has been of the opinion that I am wrong, and not only wrong, but a filthy, worthless piece of human dirt for even daring to say something like this out loud.
Or tweet it out loud.
Now I am saying it out loud because the one way to ensure that I keep saying something and keep saying it louder and louder Yes.
That's the maturity level for me.
You tell me to stop saying it, I'm going to say it louder.
That's the way I work.
Now, I'd like to explain my point of view a little bit, but I want to be clear before I do that this explanation is in no way an apology.
I don't apologize at all.
I'm really happy that I said what I said, and I couldn't have been more right about it.
And if you're someone who reacts to an honest opinion by screaming and crying and ranting and raving, the problem is you.
You, in fact, owe me an apology for being so unreasonable and annoying.
So I accept your apology.
You are forgiven.
Now let's move on to the actual issue.
And as far as that goes, a few points I want to make.
Number one.
I have been accused of stigmatizing mental illness with this opinion.
I'm told the same whenever I argue that ADHD is not a real mental illness, which it isn't.
Not a real disorder, which it isn't.
But what I'm doing is exactly the opposite of stigmatizing.
What I'm saying is that anxiety is an inevitable part of being human.
It comes with our consciousness and self-awareness.
Stigmatize?
No, to stigmatize is to say that it's weird or embarrassing.
If anything, calling it a mental disorder is stigmatizing.
I'm also not minimizing anxiety.
I'm not stigmatizing or minimizing.
Just because it comes with being human doesn't mean that it's any less painful, difficult, sometimes overwhelming.
Neither am I saying that those struggling with their anxiety shouldn't seek help.
Again, just because anxiety is human doesn't mean that we should wallow helplessly in it.
So I'm not stigmatizing, I'm not minimizing, and I'm not saying that people shouldn't get help.
I'm simply arguing that we have made a category error.
We have placed anxiety, along with many other human emotions and experiences, like for example despair, into a medical box when it doesn't belong there.
Two.
The idea that anxiety is a fundamental fact of human existence, a defining fact, actually, is not new or bold.
I wish I could take credit for having this bold, interesting, new opinion.
I don't.
Only the last 18 seconds or so did we decide, as a country, as a society, to start treating these things as psychiatric disorders.
Prior to the medicalization push, anxiety was a subject for philosophers and theologians and other great minds.
This is not an argument from authority.
My critics are the ones making arguments from authority.
I'll get to that in a minute.
But my point is simply that what I'm saying about anxiety has been said, or something very close to it has been said, by many people much smarter than myself and much smarter than you, probably, all throughout history.
That doesn't mean that I'm right.
But it does mean that if you're shocked by the idea that I present here, if you react to it like it's absurd or outlandish, then I have to suspect that you really haven't thought much about it or read anything about it.
If you'd spend any significant time reflecting on anxiety and reading what others have said about it throughout history, then you certainly would have encountered my point of view many times, and should not therefore be recoiling in shock and horror.
If you are recoiling in shock and horror, then consider the possibility that you haven't given this topic much thought.
Number three.
I have been told that I am not qualified to give my opinion on this subject because I'm not a doctor.
But I note with interest that almost all of the people telling me that I'm not qualified because I lack a medical degree also themselves lack a medical degree.
Turns out that you don't need to be a doctor to have an opinion.
You need to be a doctor to have an opinion that differs from their own.
That is an argument from authority, and it's also ad hoc, childish, and stupid.
Besides, my point here, once again, is that this is not a medical issue.
To demand my medical credentials is to beg the question.
You're expecting me to abide by your premise, but I'm rejecting your premise.
That's the whole point of the argument.
Doctors may be experts on medical conditions, but they're not experts on the human condition.
I'm not sure that anyone can be an expert on that, per se, because they can only experience their own humanity and not anybody else's.
But I do think that some people are blessed with wisdom that gives them greater insight into the subject than others.
I don't think that doctors often have that insight, actually.
I think it's a big problem that doctors know about medical conditions, but they have, it seems, often have very little understanding of human nature and the human condition.
So for a greater understanding of that, of human nature and the human condition, for that you have to look to those great philosophers, theologians and others mentioned earlier.
Four, finally, there's a version of my argument that would garner much wider approval and agreement, I think.
If I had simply said that anxiety disorder is over-diagnosed, Most people would probably agree.
Say the same about ADHD and depression and other similar things.
And most people agree.
If you say, it's overdiagnosed.
Even people who have been diagnosed will usually agree, though most of them will say that other people have been misdiagnosed, not themselves.
So it's a very odd problem.
Apparently mental disorders are being massively misdiagnosed, but no individual person has been misdiagnosed.
Quite a riddle, isn't it?
I think we end up here because the general problem is just undeniable.
As already mentioned, there are around 300 diagnosable mental disorders and counting.
300 different ways that your mind can be considered disordered, sick, diseased.
And now 50 million adults and 17 million children have been diagnosed with at least one of them.
That doesn't make any intuitive sense.
How can so many people be mentally ill?
At a certain point, if so many people have disordered minds, doesn't the word disordered begin to lose its meaning?
To call something disordered, you have to have some idea of what the proper order is.
So, what is the properly ordered mind, and who has it?
Because pretty soon we're going to get to the point where nobody has one.
And if everybody has a disorder, then it would seem like nobody does.
The word just doesn't mean anything anymore.
Now, this problem is apparent, I think, to a lot of people, and yet few people want to really think about why this is happening, how it has happened, how to prevent it from happening.
All we're allowed to do, all that most people will allow themselves to do, is look at the problem from 30,000 feet, speak about it in very broad terms, and then ultimately shrug their shoulders and move on and do nothing about it.
To get any more specific, to really dig down deep into the issue, is dangerous and upsetting, and it requires you to trample over a whole lot of sacred cows.
So, let's trample them.
My view is that mental disorders are wildly overdiagnosed and misdiagnosed because some of the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders do not belong in that category at all.
Anxiety is not the only example of this, but it's the one we're discussing today.
When you take something like anxiety, Which is absolutely essential to the human experience.
And you declare that when it's felt to a certain degree, or reaches a certain amount, it's disordered, and transforms from a human emotion to a mental illness, you have opened up a floodgate that you cannot close.
You can say that anxiety is only disordered when it causes problems in this or that area of your life, or is experienced for this or that reason, or in this or that way, or whatever else.
But ultimately, these standards are going to always be arbitrary and subjective by definition.
It's not like diagnosing a tumor or cardiovascular disease.
You're attempting to diagnose the content of someone's consciousness.
You are diagnosing a thought process.
And yes, anxiety is a thought process.
Now, you might say, oh, it has physical causes, so on and so forth.
It's a thought.
In other words, a non-thinking being cannot be experiencing anxiety.
If a person or being is not thinking anything, then it doesn't make any sense to say that they're having anxiety.
Anxiety is a thought process.
And that's what you're diagnosing.
It's a normal thought process.
One of the most normal, most fundamental thought processes.
When you start slapping medical labels on normal, if painful, human thoughts and emotions, eventually you'll have slapped a label on every emotion and every person.
And we are well on our way to that point.
The only way to stop it is to radically rethink our whole approach to mental illness.
We have to start reorganizing the categories in a major way.
We have to consider the possibility that not everything which causes pain is a sickness.
Not every source of agony is a disorder.
If we're not willing to think about that, or even to talk about it, then the tide of medicalization and pharmaceutical intervention will continue to rise until everyone is drowning in it.
And for that reason today, the CIA is cancelled.
They weren't going to escape.
I was coming back around to them, and so they're still cancelled.
And, you know, anxiety disorder is also cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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 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.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, the Facebook Oversight Board says that the company was right to ban Trump, war breaks out inside the House GOP over Liz Cheney, and the Democratic Party continues to promote economic, immigration, and COVID idiocy.
