Ep. 725 - Another Celebrity Comes Out As Two People
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, another pop star comes out as non-binary and demands that we use they/them pronouns. Lots of people, even conservatives, seem perfectly willing to go along with the preferred pronoun thing these days. But I’ll explain why we shouldn’t, and why the issue matters. Also Five Headlines including: BLM finds its newest martyr, a 10 year old boy speaks out eloquently against the masking insanity, and airlines will start weighing passengers before boarding. In our Daily Cancellation, I have the distinct honor and privilege of canceling Chris Cuomo.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, another pop star comes out as non-binary and demands that we use they-them pronouns.
Lots of people, even conservatives, seem perfectly willing to go along with the preferred pronoun thing these days, but I'll explain why we shouldn't and why the issue does, in fact, matter.
Also, five headlines, including BLM finds its newest martyr, a 10-year-old boy speaks out eloquently against the masking insanity, and airlines We'll start weighing passengers before boarding.
That'll be interesting.
And our daily cancellation, I have the distinct honor and privilege of canceling Chris Cuomo again.
And I'll explain why all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Lately the pop singer Demi Lovato has been on quite the journey for publicity.
Sorry, I mean, self-discovery.
After coming out as queer, her word, and then pansexual, she's now decided that she's actually, no, she's not that, she's non-binary, and she'll be using they-them pronouns from this point forward, or at least until a trendier option presents itself.
The mainstream media has been all over this breaking news, and the headlines have been as weird and headache-inducing as you might expect.
In an article, CBS News article confusingly titled, Demi Lovato announces they are non-binary and changing their pronouns.
They reported the following.
This is a reading from the article now.
It says, see if you can follow along.
It says, singer Demi Lovato has announced that they are non-binary and are changing their pronouns to they them.
They said that the revelation followed a quote, a lot of healing and self-reflective work.
In a Twitter video early Wednesday morning introducing their new podcast, the pop singer says they don't identify as male or female.
On their podcast, Lovato said that, quote, it would mean the world if people used their correct pronouns, but they will be accepting if people accidentally use she-her pronouns and they just want them to be making the effort.
I can't even follow and I'm reading it.
Now look, if you went into a coma sometime in the year 2015 or so and had just now woken up, the preceding paragraph would be rather bewildering.
You would be forgiven for assuming that Demi Lovato is the name for some sort of group or collective.
If you heard someone say, I saw Demi Lovato in concert and they were really good, you would immediately conclude that Demi Lovato is an entire band, not one single person.
This conclusion would be justified as it would be based on the rules of the English language.
Little would you know that Demi Lovato is a single individual.
And also, by the way, that she's not that good in concert.
For the record, here is Lovato herself, or themselves, explaining why she, slash, they, has, slash, have made this change.
This is 4D with Demi Lovato.
Living in the fourth dimension means existing consciously in both time and space,
but for me it means having conversations that transcend the typical discourse.
I want to take this moment to share something very personal with you.
Over the past year and a half I've been doing some healing and self-reflective work, and through this work I've had the revelation that I identify as non-binary.
With that said, I'll officially be changing my pronouns to they-them.
I feel that this best represents the fluidity I feel in my gender expression and allows me to feel most authentic and true to the person I both know I am and still am discovering.
In this first episode, I'm excited to share with you what this means to me and what it may look like for other people.
I want to make it clear that I'm still learning and coming into myself, and I don't claim to be an expert or a spokesperson.
It's helpful that she began her explanation the way that she did so that it would be painfully clear that the whole thing is nothing but ridiculous psychobabble.
Living in the fourth dimension means existing consciously in both time and space?
What is that supposed to mean?
What other option do we have but to exist consciously in both time and space?
Can I exist consciously in space but not time?
Can I exist in neither space nor time?
Can I be a spaceless, timeless, shapeless vapor floating aimlessly through an eternal abyss?
I suppose it's only a matter of time before Demi Lovato assumes that identity for herself or for themselves.
As I've often argued, the proliferation of these ambiguous alternative identities is really, when it comes down to it, a proliferation of narcissism.
Lovato can't explain what identifying as non-binary means.
She can't tell us how she arrived at this conclusion about herself.
None of this can be made coherent because it doesn't really mean anything.
What she's trying to say, actually, is that she is more complex and interesting than the average person.
She's not sure who she is exactly, but she's sure that whoever she is, she must not be what everyone else is.
Her identity transcends all labels, except the 15 different labels she's given herself over the last six months.
But, look, that's all her concern.
She's free to play whatever word game she wants to play.
She's free to make whatever claims about herself that she wants to make.
The problem is that we are not simply asked to leave people alone and let them live how they want and identify how they want.
That used to be the request, or what seemed like a request at the time to some people.
Just let people live how they want.
Let them be, right?
It's not the case anymore.
It's now demanded that we participate, that we take active roles in affirming and supporting the self-identity of strangers.
I'm fine with leaving people alone.
If I heard through the grapevine that my neighbor three doors down identifies as a cantaloupe, I'm not going to go knock on his door and scream at him to leave his cantaloupe fantasies behind.
You're not a cantaloupe, dammit!
I wouldn't do that.
But if I'm told that I must, in any way, affirm or reinforce the cantaloupe delusion, then I will have to respectfully decline.
He can think whatever he wants, but he can't force me to think it, or to pretend that I think it.
I'm not intruding on his life when I protest or resist such an imposition.
I am stopping him from intruding on mine.
He might live in a world where men can be cantaloupes, but I don't.
I live in the real world, and I'd like to remain here.
That's my lifestyle choice, and I will insist that it be respected.
And so it goes with pronouns.
A pronoun is a grammatical construct.
It's part of language.
It's not a pet that you can own.
It's not your pet goldfish.
It's not a fashion accessory that you can wear.
You don't get your own pronouns.
Just as you don't get your own prepositions or your own adverbs.
I suppose a man might have a special affinity for the preposition on, but that doesn't change what the word on means.
If he is not sitting on a chair, but says that he identifies as sitting on it because his preferred preposition is on, that wouldn't change his actual physical relationship to the chair in real life.
And by demanding that we all pretend that the word on means off and off means on, he is the one trying to impose himself on us.
Or off of us, as the case may be.
For the sake of preserving language as a tool for conveying meaning, which is the whole reason why language exists in the first place, we would have to resist those efforts.
In the English language, the word he is a pronoun that refers to males.
She refers to females.
That's how it works in English.
They refers either to multiple people or to an unknown person.
It would be perfectly valid to say, for example, look, someone left their wallet here.
I hope they come back for it.
Or I hope they don't come back for it if you're a less honest person.
But it would not be valid to say, look, my friend George left their wallet here.
I hope they come back for it.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because I know who George is.
I know that he's male.
I know that he's only one person, not Siamese twins.
The word they in that context would be deceptive and confusing.
And it would fail to convey meaning, which again is the entire point of language.
In fact, they in that context, let's say that my friend George is non-binary, whatever exactly that means.
And I use the word they.
What am I actually saying?
What meaning am I conveying?
Because he's a male and he's only one person.
So they, in that context, is referring to his perception of himself.
It's referring to his feelings about himself.
But that is not what pronouns are supposed to do.
Pronouns are not concerned with your self-perception or how you feel.
We have language.
We have words that can talk about that.
But when we are using pronouns, it is a reference to who an individual actually is.
Not how they see themselves.
Not how they feel.
That's irrelevant to the pronoun.
Now, it's true that language evolves over time, but the preferred pronoun phenomenon is not an example of linguistic evolution.
Let's be very clear about this.
The people pushing this change are indeed pushing it.
They're not just observing that it's already happened.
It is a top-down change.
It's not an organic development.
The cultural powers that be have decided that certain words should no longer mean what they have always meant, though they can't be bothered to tell us what those words should mean now instead.
They are, by force and coercion, attempting to remove the meaning from words without replacing the words with new meaning.
See, language develops naturally over time in order to better convey meaning.
In our case, language is being manipulated intentionally in order to make it less meaningful.
That is a very, very different thing.
Why does all this matter?
I would hope it would be obvious by now.
Language matters.
We cannot have a human society without it.
Truth matters.
We cannot have a society worth living in without it.
We are witnessing an attack on both language and truth, and thus on society.
And that matters.
And it only requires a little backbone to oppose it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
We talk a lot about cancel culture on this show and over at the Daily Wire in general.
We know that the primary agents of cancel culture, the people that have the power to really cancel you, that would be big tech, of course.
And how do we stop big tech from doing that to us?
Well, that's what you need ExpressVPN for.
Instead of letting big tech cancel your right to free speech, how about canceling their access to your private data?
That's why I use ExpressVPN, and you should too.
Have you ever wondered how huge tech sites make their money when they're actually Supposedly free to use?
Well, they do it by tracking your searches, your video history, everything you click on, and then selling your valuable data to third parties.
When you use ExpressVPN, your device's IP address gets masked, and this helps.
That's one form of masking that I support, by the way.
This helps make your online activity anonymous, and that'll make it much more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers.
ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from cybercriminals and hackers.
So you've just got to try.
You've got to use ExpressVPN and protect yourself, protect your data.
It's time to say no to censorship and take back your online privacy at expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
Visit my link and you'll get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free.
That's expressvpn.com slash Walsh to protect your data today.
I want to play this first.
This is not a headline, really, but I've got to play it anyway.
The giant toad, Bill de Blasio, every other day he's got a press conference embarrassing himself.
And I have to give him credit, embarrassing himself in new and unexpected and interesting ways.
So if you're only listening, you're going to have to go later and watch the video on YouTube or on dailywire.com, because you've got to see the visual to get the full effect.
But let's play.
Here's Bill de Blasio yesterday at his daily press briefing.
But the biggest victory for the Nets is yet to come.
The Nets are stepping up for Brooklyn, for the whole city of New York.
The Nets are now going to be joining the battle against COVID with a mobile vaccination site right outside Barclays Center.
He's, so he's wearing, the problem there is not so much what he's saying, it's what he's wearing.
He's wearing a ball cap and a jersey and he looks like Benjamin Button there or something.
He looks like a school guidance counselor at a pep rally.
Now you know what he looks like?
He looks like a, what am I looking for?
He looks like a massive tool, is what he looks like.
I can just imagine this guy in that outfit.
Trying to fit in and coming up to you like, hey bro, did you catch the sports competition yesterday evening?
Man, our home team really, really scored some points.
It was wild.
I've never seen a team make so many touchdowns in one evening, in one inning.
Incredible.
And this guy was, every time I see him, like what?
If you're, and I know to try to get into the mindset of a voter in New York City, it's a fruitless task and rather disturbing journey into that mind, but what about him?
When he's running for mayor, what about him made you say, oh, I need that guy in charge of this city that I'm living in?
I want someone who lives in New York City to explain that to me.
If you live in New York City and you voted for Bill de Blasio, and I mean this sincerely, I'm not trying to attack you, even though you're an idiot.
I really want to know why.
What about him did you like?
Maybe it's me.
Maybe I'm not seeing it.
Maybe it's not him, it's me.
I don't know.
Alright, let's move on to our first real headline here.
The latest BLM martyr is Andrew Brown.
He was a man in North Carolina who was shot and killed by the cops a month or so ago while they were trying to arrest him.
He was a drug dealer.
He had As always with these things, he had a long rap sheet.
Arrested dozens of times already.
He was convicted of resisting arrest also on like four other occasions.
Charged with resisting arrest on ten other occasions.
He was shot, the media says, while unarmed.
And that's been the report.
That's what we've been hearing from the media for weeks now, that there's another unarmed black man that was shot by the cops.
But that's not actually true.
The local prosecutor held a press conference yesterday and announced that the cops in the case will not face charges.
And that has a lot to do with the fact that Brown was not really unarmed.
He was in a vehicle and he was using it as a weapon.
So that might technically count in the way that they figure out these statistics.
That might technically count as quote-unquote unarmed.
But in reality, he's not unarmed.
He's got a weapon.
Which is this large metal contraption that he is sitting in and steering in the direction of officers.
Now, I would play the body cam footage for you, and I would like to play it, and it was released yesterday as well, during that press conference with the prosecutor.
But if I do that, I've learned that YouTube will use it as an excuse to lock the show down and put the age lock on it or whatever, so I'm not gonna do that.
You can go and watch it online easily if you want.
But you can clearly see the guy in the body cam footage when the cops show up, a whole bunch of them, There's a whole bunch of them and they had their guns drawn because this is a known drug dealer with a long rap sheet.
And so they came in, you know, ready.
Also someone who has resisted arrest many times in the past.
So they're prepared for that.
They come in, they're screaming at him to surrender.
Instead, he gets into his car and drives it right at a group of officers.
That's when they open fire.
And he was killed in the process.
Now, Andrew Brown's family, though, is, of course, asking the feds to get involved.
Which I would not be surprised at all if they do.
This is from CNN.
It says, the attorneys for the family of Andrew Brown Jr.
are asking the Department of Justice to intervene after a North Carolina district attorney said the deputies would not be charged in connection to his fatal shooting.
The attorney said in a statement on Tuesday, we certainly got neither transparency nor justice today.
We request that the federal Department of Justice intervene immediately.
District Attorney Andrew Womble announced Tuesday that deputies who fatally shot Brown last month were justified in using deadly force, a finding that the attorney described as an insult and a slap in the face.
Womble also played four body camera videos to the public for the first time on Tuesday.
Brown's family and community have called for a full public release of the videos since his death on April 21st.
And now they've gotten it, it's been released.
The three deputies who fired at Brown, a 42-year-old black man while attempting to serve warrants, will also be reinstated and retrained, Wooten said.
However, he said disciplinary action would be taken against the deputies who responded to the scene.
Quote, while the district attorney concluded that no criminal law was violated, this was a terrible and tragic outcome and we could do better.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
If you're saying that no law was violated, they didn't do anything wrong, then I understand he's trying to thread the needle here and make a compromise and give a little bit to both sides.
There's no point in doing that.
Because either you arrest all of the officers and charge them with murder and then convict them, or anything short of that is not going to be satisfying to BLM.
So if you're not going to do that, then you might as well, there's no point in throwing them any kind of bone at all, because it's not going to make a difference.
And in this case, it's pretty clear.
He gets into his car, you drive it at a group of officers, and he gets shot.
That's something that you do, and this is something that I've brought up before, but it isn't discussed very often, but it's worth thinking about and talking about.
If we could, just for a second, get away from analyzing the behavior of the police officers, There's more than enough of that.
We've done a lot of that, talking about how the police officers respond.
But what about getting inside the head of somebody like Andrew Brown?
Why would you do that?
You are a criminal.
They're coming to arrest you.
You're committing crimes.
Fair is fair, okay?
And you've got, there are, I don't know, five, six, seven, I'm not sure how many police officers there, but a whole group of police officers, heavily armed.
And they're rolling up in their vans, they're out there, they got their guns drawn, and you get in your car and you try to drive away.
What do you think is going to happen?
What's the best case scenario in your mind?
How do you think this is going to play out?
You must know, if you are at all a sane individual, you must know that the moment you make that decision, your chances of dying have just increased 100-fold.
If you had stopped right there, and got down on the ground, put your hands up, and did everything they said, your chances of dying are basically non-existent.
If you follow all their instructions.
You start to resist and then the chances go up.
You do something like get into the car and drive towards a group of them, even if you didn't mean to hit them, which of course, as far as they're concerned, like they're not going to know your intentions.
You're driving a car towards them.
They have every right to assume that you're trying to hit them and you're a deadly threat and they're going to treat you that way.
But even if you didn't mean to, even if that wasn't your intention, you must know that your chances of getting shot and killed have gone up dramatically.
And if you're not shot and killed, well, what then?
So you get into a high-speed chase.
The police show up.
The helicopter comes.
You're not going to escape the helicopter.
You're not going to get away.
Unless you're a secret CIA agent or something, you've got the whole plan ready to go.
You've got your go bag.
You've got your passports, new identity.
And even then, I'm not sure you're getting away.
But if this is an action movie, and you're an action hero, and you've got the whole plan in place, maybe you do.
But short of that, You're not going to get away.
All you're doing now is, at best, increasing your coming prison sentence significantly.
And yet that's the choice that Andrew Brown made.
It's the same choice that Daunte Wright made.
Most of the BLM martyrs, it's the choice that they made.
So I think our question should be, why don't they value their own lives?
This is not about police officers understanding that black lives matter.
Police officers know that.
Everyone knows that.
But Andrew Brown didn't seem to think that his own life mattered.
So maybe we should be talking about that.
Daunte Wright didn't seem to value his own life.
He was willing to throw it away for nothing.
To throw it away in exchange for nothing.
Gaining nothing from it.
Maybe we should be talking about- We can't talk about that.
Because all we can do is talk about the police officers.
All right, number two, this is from Fox News.
It says, a 10-year-old boy, a Florida boy, slammed his local school board during a public meeting last week, calling the district's mask mandate unfair to kids during an emergency session on reopening guidelines.
The boy, later identified as John, begins by describing himself as a student at Felix A. Williams Elementary School in Martin County.
And we'll play some of his remarks in just a second.
Spoiler alert here, not to spoil the ending, but following his remarks, the board voted four to one To keep masks mandatory for the remaining days of the current school year.
In spite of what he had to say, the kids pleading with them, can we take the masks off?
There's no reason for us to have the masks on to begin with.
They elected to keep the masks on anyway.
But I thought this kid, I mean, he's 10 years old.
And this is pretty eloquent for anyone of any age, let alone a 10 year old.
Let's listen.
I expected school to be a little bit different in the beginning, but I didn't think it would stay this way all year long, and I was surprised by the rules.
A lot of them didn't make any sense to me, like the fact that we were not allowed to play on the playground, or have student council, or turn to face each other at lunch, and we also have to wear masks outside at P.E.
and on track.
I love my school and all, but my teachers seem really stressed, and that makes me feel bad.
One teacher walks around with a clipboard full of referrals for any student whose mask isn't on properly.
It makes me feel scared.
That same teacher yells at us having our masks down to drink water while we are outside in car line.
She told us we had to wait until we were in our parents' car to have a drink of water.
She had her mask down the entire time while she was yelling at us, which makes me and all my friends very mad.
My mask also sticks to my face when it's really hot, and it makes it hard to breathe.
I feel like I can't catch my breath, and that makes me feel claustrophobic and anxious.
It's really stressful.
I finished taking all of my alpha assays, and I had a hard time focusing with the mask on.
A few weeks ago, I ran into my teacher outside of school.
She didn't even recognize me, because she's never seen my face before.
That last part there is...
Just sad.
It's also sad that this is a 10-year-old boy making a far more compelling argument against wearing masks than any adult on the other side of the issue has made in favor of children wearing the masks.
Because they've never made any argument at all, really.
It's their own fear and disregard for the kids.
That's all it is.
There's never really any argument presented.
And that was longer than that.
He went on for two and a half, three minutes.
Again, 10-year-old boy laying out the case.
This is why we should be wearing the masks.
Trying to explain it to adults four or five times his age.
Makes no difference.
They keep the masks in place anyway.
I was reading some of the responses online to this.
And of course, there were people saying, oh, he didn't write that.
This is parents.
This is mom wrote it and is using him as a prop.
I think that's really ironic because I guarantee you, Most of the people making that claim about that kid that he's being used, he didn't really write it, this isn't his choice.
Most of those people are the exact same people who, if that 10-year-old boy was identifying as a girl, they'd be applauding it.
If that 10-year-old boy was dressed up as a drag queen, they'd be applauding it.
Now, in that case, it's not about the parents making a decision or the parents using the child.
But here, they have it exactly backwards, of course.
Because normally, I don't like it when kids are used to make statements.
Political statements.
Statements of any kind, really.
I think kids should just be kids.
This is different for a really obvious reason.
He is the one directly affected.
Okay, this is not so often what you get.
You get this especially from the left.
The parents have their own political and ideological priorities that have nothing to do with the kids.
And they use the kid as a mouthpiece or a mascot for their own priorities.
It's not helping the kid at all.
In this case, though, the kids are the ones affected.
They are very much caught up in this.
And we haven't really heard from the kids at all.
They don't have a voice.
It's been all the adults arguing about it.
And then finally a kid gets up there and speaks for himself, and you have a bunch of adults say, ah, shut up, kid.
Let the adults talk about whether you should be muzzled for the rest of the school year for no reason.
I'm sure his parents probably did help him come up with that.
Good for them.
You know what they're doing?
They're teaching their son to stand up for himself.
To speak up for himself.
That's an important ability for a person to have, for a child to develop.
So well done to the child and the parents, but not so much the members of the school board.
And you can't believe that.
I mean, of course you can believe it, but they said too bad.
They had no response to the kid, but too bad, wear the mask anyway.
All right, moving now, reading from Raw Story, which is a leftist rag, online rag.
It says, Jacob Chansley, dubbed the QAnon shaman in the media, is among the most famous of the Capitol rioters who is facing federal criminal charges in connection with the January 6th insurrection.
Albert Watkins, Chansley's attorney, discussed his client with Talking Point Memo's Matt Schuham, which Talking Point Memo is another leftist rag.
Anyway, So, Talking Points Memo has this quote from Matt Shuham.
Or rather, Matt Shuham is Talking Points Memo.
Albert Watkins is the attorney.
Okay, I'm all kinds of confused.
Has a quote from the lawyer.
Again, this is QAnon Shaman's lawyer.
Supposed to be representing him in this federal case.
And this is what his lawyer says about him.
This is the quote.
As much of it as I can read, anyway.
He says, a lot of these defendants, and I'm going to use the colloquial term, perhaps disrespectfully, but they're all effing short bus people.
These are people with brain damage.
They're effing retarded.
They're on the damn spectrum.
But they're our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our co-workers.
They're part of our country.
These aren't bad people.
They don't have prior criminal history.
They were subjected to four-plus years of damn propaganda, the likes of which the world has not seen since effing Hitler.
Okay, that is the lawyer.
For Jacob Chansley, the quote-unquote QAnon shaman.
His lawyer is saying that about him.
That he's, quote, effing retarded and is a short bus person.
Leaving aside the demeaning and degrading language to people with learning disabilities and so on, if you want to understand why a lot of these people that were involved in the Capitol riot, why some of them are still languishing in prison, Getting hunted down, having these, being charged with crimes that could carry 20 years in prison.
Clearly, way beyond what is justified according to the law.
And this helps clarify it a little bit because this is, you know, this is the kind of caliber of lawyer they're able to get to represent them.
They have the entire system against them.
So much so that even their lawyer is against them.
It does make me wonder, speaking of these people, where is Trump on this?
Why isn't he speaking out on their behalf?
These are his supporters that are being hunted down like dogs and thrown in cages.
The federal government wants to pin decades on them in prison for trespassing and doing that while BLM rioters, people who burned down police stations, burned down convenience stores, assaulted police officers.
Most of them have never even been arrested.
They're just out there.
Some of them are still out in the street.
You have Antifa anarchists waging an assault on a federal courthouse for months.
Many of them never even arrested for it.
Not once arrested.
Well, in this case, the entire force of the federal government is coming down.
There's no question this is politically motivated.
No doubt about it.
As a political witch hunt, there's no doubt.
And it's outrageous.
It's unjust.
Especially when you compare it to the non-response, to the BLM rioters.
And so I am wondering why Trump isn't speaking up on their behalf a little bit more.
Has he said anything?
If he said anything, it hasn't been much.
All right, this is from...
Okay, this is from the Daily Wire.
I'm regretting that I'm about to read this because it's such an upsetting and horrible story, but I'll read it anyway.
It's from the Daily Wire.
It says, an 18-year-old snatched a sleeping 4-year-old boy from his Dallas home early Saturday morning and brutally beat him to death, leaving his lifeless, bloodied body in a street.
Court documents and video surveillance reportedly show.
The child identified Monday as Cash Gernon was living with his biological father's former girlfriend.
Cash and his twin brother were left in the woman's care after their father disappeared in March.
The boy's biological mother says she did not know her twins were in the care of the former girlfriend and had been searching for her boys.
She is now with Cash's twin.
Darren Brown, 18, has been arrested and charged with kidnapping and burglary.
More charges are expected as forensic is reviewed.
The alleged killer's bond is set at 1.5 million.
The Daily Mail reported that Brown was wearing an ankle monitor when he was detained.
So he's wearing an ankle monitor.
He breaks into the house, kidnaps this kid, and brutalizes him and kills him and leaves him bloody on the ground, dead.
This is a four-year-old.
I'm searching for things I can say about this that won't get me in a lot of trouble.
All I will say, and we'll leave it at this, this is why we need the death penalty for cases like this.
A public execution, I think, would be really appropriate in a case like this.
But certainly at least an execution of some kind.
In cases like this, this is what put me over the edge to being pro-death penalty after being against it for a while.
But there are some crimes that are beyond imagining.
You can't wrap your head around them.
They're so horrific that when a person does it, there is no other response from a civilized society but to rid society of that person permanently.
Anyone who's against capital punishment, what would be the better approach?
So we take Darren Brown, he's 18, you put him in prison, and you're gonna need to put him in protective custody for his entire life.
Of course, the other option is to put him in general population and tell the prison guards to just get a little distracted for a few moments and look the other way and let the prison population do what it's gonna do.
I'd be fine with that too, but assuming you're not gonna do that, so you're gonna put him in protective custody, which is more expensive for the taxpayer.
For the rest of his life, he's 18, let's say he lives until he's, he could live another, easily another 60 years or more.
Six decades of taxpayers not only feeding and housing this guy, but paying extra to protect him.
And for what?
For what purpose?
What do we gain from that?
What does he gain from that?
This isn't about rehabilitating him to send him out back out in society.
He's never going to be out in society ever again.
So it's not that.
Is it about redemption?
Is it about him, you know, coming to confront his own heinous crimes?
That can happen with a death penalty too.
In fact, I think the death penalty facilitates that.
When you know, when there's a date set and you know that you're going to die on this day.
It certainly gives you a chance to confront your own sins.
So I just don't see, I don't see the point.
I don't see the argument for keeping someone like that alive for six decades in prison just for them to die naturally.
Anyway, I don't see it.
All right, finally, this is from the New York Post.
In a measure that will likely irk flyers, airlines could soon require plus-size passengers to step on the scale or provide their weight before boarding the aircraft.
The initiative, which was outlined in a recent Federal Aviation Administration advisory, strives to provide new data on average passenger weights, as the current numbers reportedly don't reflect today's sky-high obesity rates.
In turn, this would help ensure aircrafts, especially the small ones, don't exceed their allowable weight limit.
So this is a little disturbing, because what we're being told is that there's the standard weight limit for airplanes, but that was all calculated before Americans got really fat.
So now it has to be recalibrated, and we need to figure out just how fat everyone is before they get on a flight, and so that's why people need to get weighed.
All I ask, this is the only thing I'm asking, is that the weights be announced on the intercom.
We could do like a public weigh-in before the flight.
Or else maybe each passenger, as they board, their weight could be announced.
Almost like a boxer coming to the ring.
Alright, boarding now.
It's Mrs. Shelby Johnson weighing in at 195 pounds.
Something like that.
I don't know.
And then the good thing is, when everyone gets on the flight, if you realize that you're a little bit overweight, Then the captain could come over the intercom and say, OK, ladies and gentlemen, we're currently 267 pounds overweight.
Fortunately, that means we only need to lose one passenger.
Passenger in 12A, you're going to have to leave.
You know, it makes it easier.
All I'm saying is that the flying experience is already degrading and dehumanizing.
So we might as well go all in.
And it'd be a great incentive to lose weight also.
All right, let's move now to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Robert McGregor, says, three of my favorite things, Shrimp to Eat, The Matt Wall Show, and Marvel's Avengers.
Dude, you're tearing me apart.
Well, Robert, you have to choose.
You can't have us all.
I'm drawing a line right here.
It's me or the shrimp and the Avengers.
Choose wisely.
Autumn says, my orthodontist office is still making me wear a mask.
Even though I'm fully vaccinated.
They told me that they have to wait until the board of dentistry says that they can change policy.
Your orthodontist is telling you to wear a mask.
Do you have to wear the mask when they're working on your teeth?
I wonder how that works.
Or no, because we know that's not it.
You have to wear a mask in the waiting room and when you're walking into the room with the chair, but then you take the mask off and they have their hands in your mouth.
Makes a lot of sense.
Justin Pirro says, at least some good has come of all this.
Mayor Lightfoot is going to keep that mug covered for us, and I can't thank her enough for it.
Well, listen, that's very rude.
But I also say, you know, maybe that is one advantage of the people who are perpetually masking.
Maybe we can assume that they're all ugly and they're trying to hide their shame.
So really, if you see someone still masking at this point, because I believe in empathy and everything, And a very compassionate person.
I think you could assume that they're wearing it because they're ugly and just walk up to them and say, listen, it's okay to be hideous.
You don't have to be ashamed.
Take that mask off.
I think they'd really appreciate that.
Finally, Bill Zussner says, I wonder if Matt knows that being a contrarian doesn't make him better.
Well, Bill, I totally disagree.
I want to take a second to tell you about Helix Sleep.
I've been telling you about Helix for months now, or well over a year now, and we're such big fans of Helix Sleep in my house that we now have two Helix mattresses.
We've got one.
My wife and I have a Helix mattress.
My daughter has a Helix mattress.
The boys don't have Helix mattresses yet.
They'll be fine.
Helix Sleep has a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
I've been through this process a couple of times now, and it's very, very easy to find the perfect mattress.
If you like a mattress that's really soft or firm, if you sleep on your side or your back or your stomach or you sleep really hot, whatever it is with Helix, there's a specific mattress for each and everybody's unique taste.
You don't need to take their word for it.
Helix was awarded the number one best overall mattress of 2019 and 2020 by GQ and Wired Magazine.
And also I have awarded this.
I'm the number one matcher, so I think that's the most important thing.
Just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
You gotta do this and actually sleep well at night for a change.
Right now, Helix is offering up to $200 off and free pillows with all mattress orders for our listeners at helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh for up to $200 off your mattress order.
And if you're interested in winning a trip to the Daily Wire headquarters to walk in the same halls As yours truly, not exactly the same halls, but in the vicinity of the same halls, now's your chance.
You are not going to meet me, but you will meet Candice Owens.
If you sign up as a Daily Wire member with code VIP, you'll get 20% off your new membership and be automatically entered for a chance to win a trip to the Daily Wire studios to see Candice live.
Not only will you be meeting Candice, you'll be getting an inside look at her studio, our office, and front row seats to watch her live and in action on her talk show, Candice.
So don't wait.
Go enter to win a Candace VIP pass now at dailywire.com slash subscribe using code VIP for 20% off and for an experience that only Joe Biden will forget.
I got to stop using that joke at the end.
I think I think we get we get the joke at the end.
Are you guys still laughing at that joke?
Anyway, now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we have the great privilege of once again canceling Chris Cuomo.
So after the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would rule on Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks, potentially putting Roe v. Wade on the chopping block, the left and the media have been trying desperately to explain why we must not infringe on a mother's God-given right to have her children dismembered.
They've not done a very good job of making this case, though.
Although I should say, in fairness to them, it's not really possible to make a good case for such a hideously depraved thing.
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, continuing his lifelong contest with his brother, Andrew, to see who can be the biggest embarrassment in the family, Demonstrated this difficulty during a monologue on his show a couple of nights ago, Cuomo spent two minutes laying out his argument in defense of Roe, and the end result is a muddled, indecipherable mess of half-baked talking points and ad hominem attacks.
It was exactly the sort of thing we so often hear from people on his side of the issue, which is why it might be worth dissecting in some detail.
So we're going to take this piece by piece and watch his monologue, and I'll respond to it.
Let's start here.
All right, here is a bolo.
Be on the lookout.
We're about to see if Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court mission pays off.
It's now a 6-3 decidedly conservative court.
And it now says, the Supreme Court of the United States, that it will hear a case that could remove a woman's right to control her own body.
Remove a woman's right to control her own body?
That might be a fair characterization if Mississippi was mandating that women have chips installed in their brains that would enable the governor to steer them around like remote control cars, but that's not the law at issue here.
As far as I know, no such law has been proposed anywhere, and if any law is proposed like that, I will oppose it.
The issue here is whether women have the right to destroy someone else's body.
Yes, the other body is dependent on their own body for survival, but does a body's dependence on your own give you the moral and legal right to exterminate it?
Even if that other body is your own child, do you have that right?
And if you say that a mother has the right to destroy any body dependent on her own for survival, then, as we talked about yesterday, you must explain why that logic should not also apply outside of the womb as much as it applies inside it.
Born children are just as dependent and helpless, especially at their youngest ages.
Why shouldn't their dependence also negate their right to exist?
Or perhaps you think it should.
However you sort through all of this, we should be clear that this is the question.
It is a question about a woman's rights over another human's body.
It is not a question about her rights over her own body.
Just to be clear.
Let's continue.
Dobbs v. Jackson, Mississippi Women's Health Organization.
It tests a state law that bans almost all efforts to end a pregnancy after 15 weeks, including pregnancies resulting from incest or rape.
Legally, the issue is fetal viability.
When does what is inside a woman become a person with rights under the law?
You would think we would have impaneled experts on a special commission by now to see what the science says, right?
But we don't seem to have the intellectual curiosity about this issue because it's not really about science.
It has become a culture war.
It's a political lever to use as a distraction from policy and solving problems.
To allow people to get up in their religion and their righteousness over any sense of what science suggests.
Cuomo says that abortion has become a culture war issue, apparently under the impression that there was a time when it was not a culture war issue.
Even more absurd, he pegs pro-lifers as the ones who shy away from the personhood debate.
What he doesn't realize, or pretends not to realize, is that we build our whole case around personhood.
We advocate for personhood amendments and personhood laws.
We want nothing more than to talk about personhood.
Though we don't want to leave the issue up to a panel of experts.
We've seen what a mess self-appointed experts can make of things, and I'm not quite sure who the experts on personhood would be anyway.
Cuomo believes that the scientists can settle it.
But all the scientists can tell us is that a person is a human being.
If you wish to draw some distinction between human being and person, then you are making a legal and moral case, not a scientific one.
You're also attempting the same trick that advocates of slavery pulled.
The same trick that has served as the foundation and justification for many of the world's greatest atrocities and genocides throughout history.
History proves that nothing good ever happens when you attempt to draw a dividing line between human and person.
That is one of the reasons why pro-lifers are happy to stick with a scientific answer on this question.
A person is a human being, plain and simple.
Anyone claiming otherwise has the burden of proof entirely on their own shoulders.
But the pro-abortion side has never tried to meet that burden.
They tell us that an unborn human isn't a person, and yet they won't tell us what a person actually is.
They're the ones who don't want to talk about personhood.
They'd be even less interested in commissioning a panel of experts than even we are.
You think Planned Parenthood would welcome an expert commission panel to figure out when personhood begins?
You think Planned Parenthood would want that to happen?
You think NARAL would want that to happen?
So Cuomo has this part of the issue completely backwards.
And he has every other part backwards too, of course.
Let's keep watching.
Though, medical capabilities may be moving the point of viability well short of what it was assumed to be in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
So you'd think some of the proponents of harsher measures would want the science involved.
Most Americans want the court to uphold Roe v. Wade, which found women have liberty over their own body as a right to privacy, a privacy right under the 14th Amendment.
62 uphold, 24 overturn.
But again, it's not about science or consensus.
It's about dividing lines.
What?
He calls for a scientific discussion, then as if it counts as scientific evidence, he appeals to an ABC News survey.
What does that have to do with anything?
Who cares what the public thinks?
He directly conflates the two, or at least puts them on equal footing, by talking about science or consensus.
He's not even referring to a consensus of scientists here, but a narrow and limited consensus of random people who took an ABC news poll.
What the hell do I care about?
What does that matter at all?
What scientific weight does that have?
If we're trying to figure out whether an unborn human is a person, What, you want to decide it based on ABC News surveys?
So things have gone fully off of the logical rails here.
Now it's time for the real train wreck to begin.
Legislating to the far right white fright vote.
Flooding the zone with 536 bills that abridge a woman's right to control her own body in 46 states.
It's just like voting rights in one way.
You see?
It seems like the far right only cares about protecting humans before they are born.
Sure, why not throw it all in?
I mean, the racist label, the voting rights talking point, the thing about pro-lifers only caring about people before they're born.
Put it all in the blender like a rhetorical smoothie.
You might as well.
Never mind that the voting rights issue has nothing to do with anything.
Never mind that pro-life racism is so bizarrely self-sabotaging.
Black babies are killed disproportionately by abortion.
The end of abortion would mean a dramatic increase in the black population.
That is one strange racist conspiracy, you have to admit.
Or perhaps it's not a racist conspiracy at all.
As for the claim that pro-lifers only care about people before they're born, which is a boring and repetitive talking point we hear all the time, even if that were true, it would still be preferable to the total disregard for human life so often displayed by Chris Cuomo and his ideological compatriots.
But it's not true, of course.
It doesn't make any sense.
The whole reason why pro-lifers care about the unborn is that we draw no moral distinction Between them and born humans.
That's our argument.
If we thought that born humans had no value, as Chris Cuomo suggests, then we'd feel the same about the unborn.
Our entire position is based on the premise that human life has inherent value.
Inherent means you can't gain it or lose it.
You have it always.
If we didn't believe that, if we didn't care about human life, then we wouldn't be pro-life.
This should be obvious, unless you really have convinced yourself that the pro-life movement is nothing but a handmaid's tale plot to enslave women.
Another quite odd plot, we have to say, given that so many pro-lifers are themselves women.
I mean, go to the March for Life sometime.
Go to a fundraising banquet for a pregnancy resource center.
Go stand a vigil at an abortion clinic.
You're going to find a majority of women in all of those places almost every time.
It would seem that this is not a plot to control women's bodies after all.
It would seem that we pro-lifers just really do oppose the murder of defenseless and innocent human beings.
Who would have thought?
Who could have imagined?
Well, Cuomo didn't think.
And he doesn't think in general.
But, unfortunately, that doesn't stop him from talking.
And for that reason, today, he is cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
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 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, public health pseudo experts and their political allies are unmasked as the real science deniers, the Andrew Brown case comes apart, and the radical left's mask comes off when it comes to winking and anti-Semitism.
