Today on the Matt Walsh Show, AOC is still talking about the supposed trauma she experienced on January 6th, even though she was never in any danger, and never personally encountered any rioters. We’ll discuss. Also Five Headlines including the media finally coming around to the idea that COVID came from a Chinese lab, after a year of insisting that this was all a conspiracy theory. Also, the White House finally acknowledges the surge in violent crime in our cities, but pins the whole issue on lax gun control. And students at a school in New York were given a class on pornography, without parental consent. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the push to normalize facial hair on women.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, AOC is still talking about the supposed trauma she experienced on January 6th, even though she was never in any danger and never personally encountered any rioters at all.
We'll discuss also five headlines, including the media finally coming around to the idea that COVID came from a Chinese lab after a year of insisting that this was all a conspiracy theory.
Funny how things change.
Also, the White House finally acknowledges the surge in violent crime in our cities, but pins the whole issue on lax gun control, of course.
And students at a school in New York were given A class on pornography without parental consent and our daily cancellation will discuss the push to normalize facial hair on women.
Yeah, that's a thing now.
It is a thing and we'll talk about it.
at all of that and much more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Now a word from new sponsors on the show that we're very excited about, AR500 Armor.
that we're very excited about AR500 armor.
This is something that I have myself taken more seriously, especially in recent times.
The fact that I have a responsibility to be able to protect myself and my family.
You've heard me share about how important this Second Amendment is to the foundation of our country, and you might be one of the over five million citizens who purchased a firearm for the first time in 2020.
and maybe you're beginning to take this more seriously as well.
If you're taking the first step of protecting yourself with a firearm,
the next step in your personal protection plan should be considering body armor for yourself
and your family. Shopping for body armor may seem like something you never thought you'd have to do.
You may not know where to begin. In fact, you may not even know,
maybe you didn't even know you could buy body armor. Well, you can. That's where AR500 Armor
comes in. AR500Armor.com makes buying body armor easy, approachable, and affordable. In fact,
dot com makes buying body armor easy, approachable, and affordable.
In fact, with AR500Armor.com, you buy it online, you have it shipped straight to your house.
with AR500Armor.com, you buy it online, you have it shipped straight to your house. AR500Armor
AR500Armor has multiple packages built for people just like you who are looking for varying
has multiple packages built for people just like you who are looking for varying levels of
levels of protection.
protection. And best of all, they've put together some packages specifically for listeners of the
And best of all, they've put together some packages specifically for listeners of the
Daily Wire, so there's something for everyone at AR500Armor.com.
Go to AR500Armor.com/Walsh to see all their promotions and special pricing running right
now and you can use code WALSH for 20% off anything else in their entire store.
Plan right now for how to protect yourself and your family for the future.
Get yourself the body armor we trust from AR500Armor at AR500Armor.com/Walsh.
Visit AR500Armor.com/Walsh and use code WALSH at checkout for 20% off.
So nearly five months after the events of January 6th, the one solitary example of right
wingers participating in a riot after months and years of near nonstop left wing riots,
nearly five months later, many of our lawmakers, none of whom were physically harmed in the
incident, have not been able to emotionally recover.
And they're always eager to remind us of Of that fact.
None so eager as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who appeared on a podcast called Latino USA a few days ago to, once again, discuss her trauma.
Now, personally, I'm traumatized that the show is called Latino USA and not the more inclusive Latinks USA.
But for whatever reason, AOC chose to appear on this bigoted, transphobic show.
During the course of the conversation, she repeatedly claimed that what happened on January 6th was an attempted coup.
And that it was mere seconds away from being successful.
She also complained of her own emotional and psychological trauma and said that she has been in therapy because of it.
Let's listen to a little bit of that.
I think after the sixth, I took some time and it was really Ayanna Pressley when I explained to her what had happened to me, like the day of, because I ran to her office.
And she was like, you need to recognize trauma and that this is something that you went through, but we're all going through.
And it's really important to pause after that because that's how you process it.
And I feel like I learned this the hard way after my father had passed away when I was a teenager, because I was like, you know, first born, only daughter of a Latina family.
You know how that dynamic is and you need to like do everything.
So that happened to me at a young age and I socked it away.
And I had to live with that for years.
And so I learned my lesson then.
And now I feel like I've kind of taken, I've had to take a beat.
If I take a couple months now and just be really good, then I don't have to live with this thing festering and lingering with me like a roommate in my apartment for years.
So you're doing therapy?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I'm doing therapy, but also I've just slowed down.
I think the Trump administration had a lot of us, especially Latino communities, in a very reactive mode.
And so I've been putting myself in a more proactive space.
There was a time when people would be embarrassed to admit that they're in therapy.
That was wrong, because it's not shameful in and of itself to be in therapy, but we have massively overcorrected to the other side, to the other end of the extreme.
And you can be sure that your trauma is especially severe when someone has to tell you that you're suffering it.
You know, now that you mention it, I am traumatized.
That's how you know you have the real stuff, right?
That's how we think of trauma now.
We think of it as something that you might not even know about, so you need someone to tell you, whether it's a therapist or a friend, to tell you that you're traumatized, and that's how you know.
I think the thing with real trauma is that no one needs to tell you.
I mean, it's possible to really be traumatized by traumatizing things, experiences.
You don't need anyone to tell you that that's how you feel.
Because it's abundantly clear.
Now, before we talk more about the alleged trauma, I think it must be clarified once again, and we have to keep clarifying it, that what happened on January 6th was not a coup.
It was not a near coup.
It was not an attempted coup.
It was not an almost coup.
It wasn't even coup adjacent.
A coup is when a group of people, usually a small group, violently overthrow the government.
That's what a coup is.
The people in the Capitol building that day, they were not going to overthrow the government.
They were not close to overthrowing the government.
There was no threat that they would overthrow the government.
Overthrowing the government was not on the menu of plausible outcomes that day.
It was just not going to happen.
It could have gone, like any event, it could have gone many different ways.
But it couldn't have gone that way.
The government was not getting overthrown.
And it wasn't what they were trying to do anyway.
If you actually think that our government can be overthrown, overturned in a matter of a few hours by a bunch of hooligans taking selfies and stealing furniture, then I don't know what to tell you.
January 6th, what was it?
It qualifies as a riot.
Not everybody who was there in D.C.
that day was involved in a riot, but some were.
And it qualifies as trespassing.
And it qualifies as vandalism in some cases.
But it was not a serious and organized attempt to actually overthrow and take over the government, which means that it was not a coup.
And it was not an insurrection.
And as has been pointed out many times, and we must continue pointing out, if it was a coup and an insurrection, then that label certainly applies to every single BLM riot that we've seen over the last many years, in fact.
Now as for the trauma, I think the assumption among many people on the right Is that people like AOC and all the other Democrats who've made similar claims are simply lying about their trauma.
They're pretending to have been emotionally scarred.
This is all one big fraudulent sob story.
And the evidence marshaled by those who take this position includes the fact that many Americans across the country endured, as we just discussed, weeks of sustained violent rioting, and neither AOC nor any other Democrat ever asked them about their trauma or showed any concern for it whatsoever.
AOC wasn't even in the building when the riot happened or where it happened.
She at no point actually encountered the riots at all.
She was in no danger whatsoever.
What about store owners who had to run out and seek cover while their shops were being looted and burned?
Many such cases.
You know, it seems as if AOC had trauma, then they had something much worse than trauma.
Yet AOC and the other Democrats has no evident concern for them.
Far from it.
In fact, they defend and romanticize the rioting in that case.
So all of that is true.
It's also true that AOC has a history of pretending to be upset and traumatized by things.
She has a history of shedding crocodile tears, like when she pretended to cry in front of an empty parking lot a few years ago, infamously.
But even with all that said, I don't think these people are necessarily Just lying about feeling traumatized.
We should not underestimate or overlook the fact that Washington DC is currently full of some of the weakest and most fragile human beings on earth.
These are not leaders.
That's a big part of our problem right now politically in this country.
And not just people who are weak and fragile, but who are in fact proud to be so.
That's why AOC is talking openly about needing therapy for this.
If you do need therapy for it, that's not something I'd be bragging about.
If AOC though says that she's nearly incapacitated, she's in a state of shock, still like trembling in fear because some people were trespassing in a building across the way from her five months ago, I think we should take her at her word.
We live in a culture overrun by people who are not able to process uncomfortable feelings or difficult situations.
People who run to therapy or reach for prescription drugs rather than simply endure even the mildest difficulties.
And in fact, when you think about it, it only makes sense that we should be led by those kinds of people as well.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now checking in with another new sponsor on the show we're excited about, True Bill.
Now, you know, two problems that plague, I think, modern people, many problems, but here are two.
One is that you have a million different passwords for a million different things, you can never remember them.
And the other is you've probably signed up for a bunch of subscriptions and you can't even remember which ones and all of that.
Truebill is the smartest way to manage your finances and deal with this problem,
at least when it comes to the subscriptions.
It's an easy to use app.
You can review your recurring charges in one place, cancel subscriptions directly through the app,
'cause sometimes, you know, you're signed up for a subscription,
you forget that you're signed up for it, and then you're paying for it and not using it.
That happens to people all the time.
I know it's happened to me.
Truebill has a variety of tools to help customers improve their finances.
You can create a monthly budget and expenses.
You can track and evaluate savings goals.
You can work with many of the nation's top providers negotiate and lower your bills.
People think they spend around 80 bucks a month on subscriptions, but actually spend closer to 200 bucks a month, and that's a big difference.
The average person saves $720 per year with Truebill.
Those are big savings.
Get started today then at Truebill.com slash Matt.
Take control of your finances and start saving at Truebill.com slash Matt.
That's Truebill.com slash Matt.
I just wanted to mention, not really a headline, but I don't know if you knew that yesterday was, hopefully you did know, you celebrated, that yesterday was Pan-Visibility Day.
Actually, I'm sorry, it's Pan-Sexual and Pan-Romantic Awareness and Visibility Day, so you gotta be aware of them and also make sure that they're visible.
Now, the one thing, the one immediate problem that comes up When you think about trying to make pansexual people more visible is that they don't exist, you know, because that's not a thing.
And so that's a problem when you want to be aware of people and you want them to be visible, but they don't exist.
It's a little bit of a difficulty or or, you know, it could go.
There's one of two ways.
Nobody is pansexual, or maybe everybody is, because it depends on how you define it.
So I did look this up because I wanted to participate in Pansexual Awareness and Visibility Day.
I care deep, as you know, I care deeply about these kinds of things.
And so I looked it up.
There's a, in fact, Twitter linked to this.
It's a website called Gendered Intelligence, Understanding Gender Diversity in Creative Ways.
This is a website out of the UK.
And here's what they say.
They say, "On Pan-Visibility Day, we want to debunk the misconceptions that still exist
about being pansexual and panromantic.
Bad representation and visibility are crucial for recognition
and ultimately for LGBTQ+ equality."
Uh, okay.
So what is it?
That's the question we all have.
First things first, it's a real identity and not a rare one.
Pansexuality is still regarded as an identity by, as a disregarded as an identity by many, but more and more people are coming out as pansexual, including celebrities and MPs like Layla Morin.
Uh, okay.
A fun fact about the word pan is the Greek word for all.
Pansexuality doesn't mean liking or loving everyone you meet.
Just because pansexual people can feel attracted to people regardless of their gender, it doesn't mean they'll feel attracted or in love with everyone they meet.
Okay, so this is just bisexual, I guess?
Well, no, it says pansexuality is not the same as bisexuality, but they can coexist.
Bisexuality means being attracted to more than one gender, so many bisexual people also identify as pansexual and vice versa.
What being bisexual and pansexual means is ultimately down to each individual.
Definitions are there to guide us, but they're not ultimate truths.
Everyone has their own interpretation of what an identity means, and that's totally okay.
So this was a... This is a reference guide that I think Twitter linked to, and Twitter would never steer us wrong.
This is supposed to tell us what pansexual people are on Pan Visibility Day and Awareness Day, and there are a whole bunch of words.
No definition.
It's not anything.
Kind of beats around the bush a little bit, and then when we get down to the brass tacks, it tells us that, well, you know, definitions.
What's a definition anyway?
It's whatever you want it to be.
So, go back to the beginning.
Either there are no pansexuals, or maybe everybody is, because it could be anything.
Maybe I'm a pansexual.
It's possible.
All right, let's go here, number one.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo might also be pansexual, for all we know.
He was on Fox yesterday.
He says that he's convinced that COVID came from a Chinese lab.
And what you're about to hear, if this was a month ago and any time before that, this would be condemned as conspiracy mongering and so on.
But now, all of a sudden, this is an unacceptable theory.
Let's listen to him.
And so there are many things the United States government could do to impose real costs on the Chinese Communist Party until they come clean about what they know and what they did.
We know for sure they covered up this virus.
I am confident that we will find that the evidence that we have seen to date is consistent with a lab leak, and I'm convinced that's what we'll see.
If I'm wrong, I hope the Chinese Communist Party will come forward and make a fool of me.
If only we had, if this is the true, And this happened November of 2019.
If only the world would have known.
Think about how much grief this planet would have been spared.
Oh, Bill.
I remember talking with Dr. Redfield about this at great length.
We were working so hard.
HHS, Secretary Azar, myself.
We were working so hard to get this information.
This would have been early January of 2020, when we were still trying to figure out precisely what was about to hit the world.
And the Chinese Communist Party had gone completely dark.
They wouldn't take our phone calls.
They wouldn't answer our questions.
We sent inquiries.
We couldn't get a straight answer.
Our ambassador, Ambassador Branstad, couldn't get a straight answer.
The Chinese Communist Party clearly knew they had a problem.
They didn't want the world to know it.
And I'm convinced they still know they have a problem and don't want us to know it.
Yeah, this is, I mean, I was saying months ago at the very beginning, this to me seems This has shades of Chernobyl.
This seems a lot like Chernobyl in a lot of ways.
And that's assuming that the virus leaked from a lab intentionally and there was no purpose behind it.
I think that's another thing we just don't know.
But this is kind of like Chernobyl, but a lot worse in terms of the death toll and the global implications.
But this is something that you're allowed to say now, Now you're allowed to say it.
But as you recall, for months and months, this was a conspiracy theory.
And I think there are a couple things going on here for why the media's changed course on this.
Partly they've changed course because they have no choice.
The evidence more and more is pointing in that direction.
The evidence is always pointing in that direction.
But what we know from the media is they don't They don't want you drawing conclusions before they tell you to draw them.
A lot of this is about power and control.
I think the assumption from a lot of people on the right is the media is trying to cover for the communist Chinese government.
I'm sure there's some of that.
I think there's also just your standard ordinary narcissism among these people in the media.
Where they say, no, no, no, you wait for us.
We'll tell you.
We, along with certain people in government and the so-called experts, we will tell you when you're allowed to believe X, Y, Z. That's up to us to decide.
What we've seen with COVID over the last year, and this of course predates COVID, but especially over the last year, there's been this just all-out attack on common sense, where you're not allowed to make common sense judgments.
And you didn't have to be an expert, you didn't have to be in the intelligence community to, a year ago, look at the situation and say, huh, this came from Wuhan, they've got this lab right there in Wuhan.
What are the chances?
What are the chances that coincidentally, with no connection, you've got this global pandemic, this virus, that originates in an area of the world where they've also got this lab there?
I mean, there's a chance that it's coincidental, but from the beginning it seemed like most likely there's a lot of smoke, there's probably a fire situation.
When choosing between You know, when you have two options, and one is a wild, incredible coincidence, and the other is where there are a couple of dots that are easily connected and you connect them, and if you have no other information, it doesn't make any sense to assume that the coincidence is the explanation.
And certainly, at least, it's worth talking about.
But that's a common-sense conclusion, just like the people From the very beginning, who said, why are we telling people they can't walk around outside?
Why are we shutting down parks and playgrounds?
Why are we shutting down beaches?
Why are people wearing masks when they're walking around outside?
This doesn't make any sense.
Use your common sense.
We shouldn't be doing this.
But that's another one where, yeah, now the so-called experts in the media, they've gone on board with that a year later.
After screaming at us that if we made that argument up until now, we were trying to kill everyone's grandmothers.
So I think that's a lot of what this is.
It's an attack on common sense.
And part of the reason why there's this attack on common sense happening on the part of the media is that they want you to wait for them so that they have that control and power because they're more intelligent than you and me.
And they'll tell us when we're allowed to think.
Anything, really.
All right, number two, this is from the Daily Wire. It says, "Parents of students attending Columbia
Grammar and Preparatory School in Manhattan were furious after the school forced students
to take an explicit class on pornography without parental consent," of course.
The school at first denied hosting the workshop, then later apologized.
The class, which involved a slideshow and a lecture by an instructor, featured raunchy images and presentations on porn genres and OnlyFans, a subscription website used largely for pornography.
The New York Post detailed the workshop.
Let's see how much of this I can actually read.
The often explicit slide presentation and lecture by, the person's name is Fonte, Justine Ng Fonte is the lecturer.
The presentation lecture by Fonte to the 120 boys and girls included lessons on how porn takes care of three big male vulnerabilities, statistics on the orgasm gap, showing straight women have far fewer orgasms with their partners than gay men or women, and photos of partially nude women summon bondage to analyze what is porn and what is art.
Fonte's presentation, some of which was seen by the Post, included a list of the most searched pornographic terms of 2019, including, and now there are a bunch of things that I know I can't read on the air, one slide cited various porn genres such as incest-themed, consensual, barely legal, and kink and BDSM.
The workshop was designed and taught by Justine Ng-Fonte, the health director at Dalton, another top prep school.
And by the way, I looked up her bio, and her bio says that she's, on Twitter anyway, says she's a passionate she-they health educator fighting for a more sex-positive world.
So that's what's happening at that school.
I mean, this is a slightly more grotesque and explicit version of the kind of sex ed that you find in schools all across the country.
So you might say, well, yeah, this is some fancy school in New York.
Bunch of far-left wackos are there.
Mostly far-left wackos sending their kids there.
Of course this is happening there.
It's not happening in my kid's school.
They would never do that.
I wouldn't be so sure.
This is, again, slightly more explicit than if your kid is 16 years old and is in a public school, they've probably had a lesson similar to this.
Maybe slightly more toned down.
That's what sex ed is.
That's the whole point.
That's the whole point of sex ed in school now.
What they call comprehensive sex education.
That's the term of art for it.
So if your kid's been through a, quote unquote, comprehensive sex education course, they've been through stuff like this.
Which is why I have always said that, and this should have been our argument all along, it shouldn't have been, let's reform sex ed, or let's make sure there's parental consent before, or any of that.
Our argument all along should have been, none of this should be taught in school at all.
Yes, there should be no sex ed in school at all.
Nothing called sex ed.
We want to teach about human reproduction?
Great.
That's for science.
We want to talk about the body parts and how they function?
Fantastic.
There are classes for that.
Anatomy, you know, that's anatomy, that's biology.
So, I'm not saying that the school should overlook The scientific facts of human reproduction entirely, no.
Although we're getting to a point now where I don't trust the school to teach those subjects either because who knows what they're telling kids about how do you determine a male from a female and that kind of thing.
But in an ideal scenario, yeah, obviously you're going to teach that stuff in school because these are scientific facts.
But there is no reason why the school should go beyond that at all.
We don't need to get into any of your Trying to shape how kids view sexuality, giving them advice on how to engage in it, when to engage in it, none of that.
As a teacher, your own personal moral and ethical views on these subjects, none of that should be in the school.
It's not the place for it.
That should have been our message all along on the right, but it wasn't.
And so now you end up with this kind of thing.
And the other thing you have to keep in mind is that, you know, the schools believe that they have total control over your kids.
And that they are more, you know, that their moral claim to your children supersedes your own.
Because they're the educators.
And you're sending your kid to them for six or seven hours a day, And so they really believe, most of the people running these schools, across the country, they really believe that as a parent, it's actually none of your business what's happening at school.
If your kid comes out as transgender at school, and all the teachers know it, it's none of your business, they don't have to tell you that.
That's the attitude.
And so when you send your kid into school, What you're encountering.
That's what they're encountering, I should say.
All right, number three from the Daily Mail says, Joe Biden will skip a commencement ceremony traditionally attended by presidents amid a row over his pro-abortion views of the Catholic University.
Biden's administration will be the first since Bill Clinton's to skip the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony after more than 4,000 students and alumni signed a petition urging school officials not to invite the president over his pro-choice view on abortion.
A White House official told the Catholic News Agency on May 11th, That the president was invited to give a commencement speech and receive an honorary degree from the school, but would not attend due to a scheduling conflict.
So they're saying it's a scheduling conflict, but really, you know, they don't want to send Joe Biden in to give this commencement address, and then it's a protest or something, and so that's why they're not doing it.
To save him the embarrassment.
This is a rare encouraging story, so I'm glad we put it in here.
It's not so much encouraging on the part of the school that they invited him to speak in the first place, but this is what we expect from Notre Dame.
The people running that school, it's been that way For a long time, but at least the students and some faculty members did the right thing and said, no, you can't send.
He doesn't, but this is, this is supposed to be a Catholic university.
We can't have him here speaking, especially because he claims to be a Catholic.
If memory serves me, and based on this article, Obama spoke at a commencement at Notre Dame, even though he obviously is far left pro-abortion.
And that was horrible and never should have happened, but that wouldn't be as bad as Joe Biden speaking, because at least Obama doesn't claim to be a Catholic.
And so there's no confusion there.
But there's a real scandal when you've got these politicians who claim to be Catholic, but clearly aren't, and then they're given platforms by Catholic institutions.
That's a real scandal.
That's a real problem.
And yes, I can say that.
I can say that Joe Biden is not Catholic, no matter what he says.
I am in a position where I can declare, not because I have any special authority, but simply because being Catholic means something.
And anyone who is Catholic, we have to insist that it means something.
Now, on the left, they can make up labels and identities that mean nothing, pansexual, means everything, means nothing, fine.
Being a Catholic means something.
And one of the most fundamental things that it means is that you accept the moral authority of the Church.
If you don't accept the moral authority of the Church, you don't have to.
There's no law saying you have to in this country.
And if you don't, okay, but then you're not a Catholic, obviously.
If you think of the Catholic Church as just a human institution like any other, prone to make moral errors and so on, then okay, but clearly you're not a Catholic.
And that's what Joe Biden believes, even if he doesn't say it.
That's obviously what he believes, because he thinks that the Catholic Church got it wrong on this central moral issue.
And not just this one, but many others.
More news from the White House.
Jen Psaki was asked about the rise in violent crime, and she acknowledged it for a change, but here's what she pins it on.
Let's listen.
4,000 more people shot and killed by guns in 2020 compared to the year before.
Is there a crime problem?
Well, I would say certainly there is a guns problem, and that's something the President would say.
And there are communities where local violence and community violence is an issue, and that's one of the reasons that we have proposed and now are implementing funding for community violence prevention programs across the country.
I will say that we don't often highlight, and you just gave me the opportunity to, the fact that between mass shootings, mass shootings that get a lot of attention, that we lower the flags, there are hundreds, thousands of people who lose their lives.
And that's one of the reasons the president will continue to advocate for the Senate passing universal background checks, but also advocate for actions in states where we have seen the greatest level of activism over the past several years.
Does COVID have anything to do with the increase in numbers that we've seen in the last year?
In terms of local community violence?
It's an interesting question.
I'd have to ask our team to check on that.
I know as I started off this briefing, giving an update on that, we've seen statistics on domestic violence.
And obviously we know that there are the loss of life at the hands of gun violence is often, too often, suicide can be domestic violence.
And we've seen statistics as it relates to the impact on mental health.
I'd have to check with experts on the assessment of that.
Okay, so I guess I should correct myself because I said that she acknowledges the crime epidemic, but not really.
They're not acknowledging that.
She says, well, not a crime, but there's a gun problem specifically.
No, there's a crime problem.
Our cities across the country are beset by crime, are ravaged by crime, by violent crime and non-violent crime and all kinds of crime, but mostly violent crime and not all of it involves guns.
In fact, a lot of it doesn't.
And of those that do involve guns, of course the... I don't think I need to spend much time on this because we're probably on the same page.
The suggestion That all you have to do is have stricter gun laws and that's going to solve the problem.
It's an insult to our intelligence.
It's absurd.
We can start with the fact that in many of these cities, almost all of these cities are blue, run by Democrats, and they already have strict gun laws.
And that has accomplished nothing.
There's no evidence That, especially in these cities, as you make the gun laws stricter, it makes the crime go away.
If that was gonna be the trend, we should see some evidence of that, and we don't.
So they already have these laws.
The average criminal in, let's say, Baltimore City, if you got some 18-year-old gangbanger out there, or younger a lot of times, Let's just take a hypothetical case, but one that happens many times every day in cities across the country and accounts for a great portion of the homicides.
So you've got a teenage male gangbanger running up and shooting someone else over a dispute, a drug-related dispute, trying to protect his corner or whatever.
Okay, how many crimes have been committed in that act?
Because we can already guarantee that the gun he's using is an illegal gun.
He most likely didn't go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork and present his ID and do all of that.
He got the gun some other way.
So by possessing the gun, he's already committing a crime.
By using the gun to shoot someone, he's committing a crime.
He's involved in... He's a drug dealer.
He's committing a crime there.
Many, many crimes committed in that one act.
So, by making more laws... So let's say that in that one act, he commits six different crimes.
Okay.
Pass more laws, and instead of committing six crimes, he commits ten.
Or 20.
It doesn't matter.
Pass so many laws so that in that one act of shooting the other drug dealer on the street corner, he commits 50 crimes.
Well, commit six crimes or 50, break six laws or 50 laws, what difference does it make?
If the six laws didn't do it, I don't think adding a bunch more will make a difference.
Especially when you're not enforcing the laws that are already on the books.
And what, what do you need to enforce laws?
Let me think for a second.
Who are those people?
But now I'm blanking.
Who are those people that are in charge of enforcing laws?
What do we call them?
Law enforcement.
Oh, that's it.
Yeah.
Law.
It's actually law enforcement officers are the people who enforce the laws.
So for the laws we have in the books right now, we need, we need those people to do that job.
And if you make more laws, then probably need even more law enforcement officers to enforce all the extra laws that we have.
But on the left, they want to have more laws and fewer people to enforce them.
They want to talk about trends.
Okay, how does that work?
They want laws to go up like this, but then law enforcement to go down like that.
There's a big gap here, and that gap is a problem.
And that gap gets filled in with a lot more violence and a lot more crime.
Speaking of law enforcement, Talk about this as well, because cops were actually, I noticed this on social media, cops were receiving some praise on social media for a change.
After bringing, this happened a couple of days ago, they brought a quadruple murder suspect, they brought him in, he was on the lam, they brought him in safely, no shots fired, nobody was killed.
And so that's why the cops were actually being praised.
But let's listen to this story from Fox.
Okay, it says, The days-long manhunt for quadruple murder suspect Tyler Terry came to an end in South Carolina Monday morning without violence after authorities launched a massive operation involving a force of 300 officers to squeeze out the suspect from his hiding place.
The Chester County Sheriff's Office said Terry was safely taken into custody near Highway 9 and Highway 99 in Chester County.
They said no shots were fired by any party and that neither Terry nor any of the officers were injured during his capture.
Law enforcement received praise on social media following the announcement that the manhunt ended safely with no injuries to the suspect or officers.
One user wrote, exceptional work bringing this to a peaceful end.
Another said, great job to all.
Thankfully, all are okay.
Another one said, I knew they would take him alive.
Cops don't act like that around here.
Way to go.
Terry, 26, had been evading police since running from a car wreck after a high-speed chase last Monday night in Chester County.
Since then, officers, dogs, helicopters, and drones had searched the woods, neighborhoods, and industrial areas for Terry.
The strong perimeter of 200 officers in place overnight grew to more than 300 by the early morning, with officers from cities, counties, state, and federal agencies joining the manhunt, according to the Chester County Sheriff's Office.
All right.
So, that's the story.
They brought the guy in.
That's great.
And they did it peacefully.
He wasn't killed in the process.
And we should also note that the suspect here, Tyler Terry, is a black man.
And that's kind of interesting.
Because we're told that all cops do when they're bringing a black suspect in is they just murder the guy.
With no provocation, or they wait for the slightest provocation.
Itchy trigger fingers, and they're just looking to murder him.
Yet here you have a black man wanted for four murders, known to be armed and dangerous, on the lam, and they managed to bring him in.
And this is being used as an example, and even some people on the left are saying, hey, why can't If they could do that with this guy, why can't cops always do that?
Well, let's look at what was required.
First of all, 300 law enforcement officers were involved in cornering this guy and finding him.
And I'm sure that had something to do with the fact that he was taken peacefully.
That he knew he had literally nowhere to go.
So, there were a whole lot of law enforcement officers Going to find this guy.
Do we think maybe it would have gone differently?
He's hiding out in the woods, and if they sent in, like, two or three officers to go apprehend him, we think maybe it would have gone differently?
Maybe he would have said to himself, oh, I could definitely get away.
All I gotta do is, you know, run away from these people, maybe kill them, whatever I have to do.
300 is different.
I can't get away from 300 people.
So, they brought him in safely, which is great.
They said 300 officers.
And also, it says no shots were fired, which means that the suspect didn't instigate any violence.
It seems, as far as we know.
He didn't fight them.
He certainly didn't shoot at them.
He didn't try to kill them.
He didn't get in a car and drive it right at them.
Nothing like that.
So that's how it ended safely.
And what does that tell us?
What lesson can we bring from that?
Number one, you need law enforcement officers.
And sometimes you need a lot of them.
And when you're dealing with a really dangerous person, you need a whole lot of them.
The more you have in that situation, the safer it's gonna be for everyone involved, including the suspect.
And what does that mean?
It means, yeah, we probably shouldn't be defunding police departments.
We should be funding them.
A lot of these cities, a lot of these places, they need more officers, not fewer.
Then more officers are going to make everyone safer, including the criminals are going to be safer.
And we also learned from this that even if you're a very dangerous, very bad guy, if you don't fight the police officers or try to kill them while they're bringing you in, you will almost certainly survive the encounter and you'll be brought in safely.
No matter who you are, no matter what crime you committed, no matter what your race is.
It's funny how that works.
So I think that to me, that's the lesson I take from this.
All right, let's go now to reading the YouTube comments.
J.D.
says, Matt, I get that you want people to speak up about these issues.
However, I think the problem for many is not having the platform to adequately do so, considering the few that are available will swiftly de-platform those who speak out in opposition.
As a result, I believe a more effective objective is to first create our own infrastructure so people that are willing to challenge these ideologies cannot be silenced.
If they took down the Daily Wire tomorrow, I'm not saying I know what the solution is, but I think the days where simply letting our voices be heard had any substantial power are far gone.
Okay, so there's two quick points here.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
But first of all, There's no escaping the responsibility that we all have to speak up.
And I'm not saying if we all speak up that magically everything will be better tomorrow.
But you're referencing, I think, specifically what we talked about at the top of the show yesterday, the gender ideology madness, kids that are being sucked into this thing, being mutilated and destroyed permanently, disfigured, drugged, and all of that.
What I know for sure is that if the sane, decent people in this country are silent, and many already are silent, if they remain silent, then there's nothing that can be done.
There's no hope.
Because there are a whole lot of people that look at this, or many other situations, they know that it's wrong, they know that it's awful, but they don't say anything because they're afraid.
And as long as that's going to continue, then there's no hope.
So that's the responsibility that we all have.
As far as building infrastructures and that sort of thing, so we're not as susceptible to being shut down by Facebook and Twitter and all that, I totally agree with you there.
And not to turn this into a shameless promotion or advertisement, but that's one of the reasons why The Daily Wire is trying to build up a subscriber base, so that we're not as susceptible and vulnerable to Facebook just coming along and saying, never mind, you don't get to exist anymore.
Which they could do to many conservative voices and outlets.
So, become a member today.
Noah says, hey Matt, I didn't agree with you on the pit bull argument until today.
I was at the neighbor's house and a pit bull broke out of the room, ran at me, and bit me for no discernible reason.
Many such cases.
Many such cases.
But they're cute, though.
Right?
They're cute until they're, you know, gnawing at your arm.
Until they rip your arm off.
They're very cute.
And that's what matters.
Michelle says, how is affirmative care at all helpful?
What if we told schizophrenics, we'll agree with whatever you say and not challenge your delusions at all?
The whole point of therapy is that it's supposed to challenge delusion to root out mental disease and hopefully discover a useful treatment.
Yeah, the whole idea of affirmative care is an oxymoron.
It's a contradiction in terms.
It's a non sequitur.
It doesn't make any sense.
If someone's coming in and they're plagued by a delusion of any kind, as a therapist, if you have any role at all, if you're going to be useful at all, it should be to help them overcome that delusion, not affirm it.
Nate B says, just stop talking, dude.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Well, you know what, Nate?
You make a very good point.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but as I read this now and I look at the argument that you presented, you say, and this is fascinating, you say, just stop talking, dude, which is already profound enough.
But then you also say, you don't know what you're talking about.
And I had never considered that until you presented this argument like that.
And now, I mean, frankly, my whole, I can see my whole worldview is sort of crumbling right now in my head.
I'm questioning everything I thought because of that.
So thank you so much for that really intelligent argument.
I really appreciate it.
According to History Channel's Ancient Aliens, I and all others with negative blood are descended from aliens.
Maybe that's why I'm so anxious to get off this planet.
You know what?
I think you're joking, but ancient aliens.
They're going to be the one.
The people involved in Ancient Aliens on History Channel, which has long been one of my favorite shows, which you can probably tell.
They are going to have the ultimate I told you so moment.
In the end, they're going to be the ones.
And they may be the only ones who survive when the alien invasion begins.
Who knows?
Well, it's time to take the mask off, which you really should have never been wearing in the first place.
But what we're going to do is take the mask off in a few different ways with the latest Backstage, where we make sense of the senseless events that have taken place over the past month.
So join Jeremy Boring, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Andrew Klavan tomorrow night, Wednesday, May 26, for another cigar and reason-packed episode of Backstage.
It streams at 7 o'clock Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central on dailywire.com and on our YouTube channel, Daily Wire.
Also, after a year of authoritarian lockdowns, you could probably use a vacation.
I think we all could, but you might get one.
Best kind of vacation is a free one.
You can get one, maybe a free one, to Nashville.
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 Candace live.
Not only will you be meeting Candace, you'll be getting an inside look at her studio, her office, And front row seats to watch her live and in action on her talk show, Candace.
So don't wait, go enter to win a Candace VIP pass now at dailywire.com slash subscribe using code VIP for 20% off.
Let's get now to our daily cancellation.
Today with Righteous Rage, we're going to cancel Glamour magazine.
Glamour's website recently featured a story with a headline that you already know is going to be a problem because it contains the word empowering.
It also contains the word normalize, which is even more problematic.
So putting it all together, the headline declares, this empowering Instagram photo to normalize facial hair for anyone who's grown up believing it's something to be ashamed of just went viral.
Now the article reads, because you need to hear this, very important news.
It says, whether you remove yours with waxing, shaving, or sugaring... Sugaring?
The hell is that?
...or embrace it in all its glory, what you do with your body hair is totally your choice.
We were all born with it, and it's our right to show it off as we damn well please, which is why we have a serious amount of time for this photo during the rounds on Instagram.
Joanna J. Kenney, a 31-year-old British esthetician, took to Instagram to share a close-up snap of her upper lip hair in all its glory.
Gross.
Upper lip hair in all its glory.
Alongside the most empowering caption.
For all of my dark-haired friends, I'm wearing my new lipstick and blue mascara to remind you all that facial hair is normal.
She captioned the picture of her upper lip.
Joanna explains that she first started noticing upper lip hair and general facial flaws when she was a teen.
Quite rightly, the skincare guru explains that like acne, pores, lines, and wrinkles, facial hair is airbrushed from most forms of media, which she says is most people's point of reference to determine what is normal.
So this is me normalizing facial hair for anyone who's grown up believing it's something to be ashamed of.
She signs off.
Obviously, she amassed plenty of supportive comments from her followers with people thanking her for sharing the unfiltered post.
And then we're then informed that this is not the first time this woman has posted to celebrate facial hair on women.
The article says that she recently shared a list of all the reasons why her facial hair makes her beautiful and it's so empowering.
I'm not going to read the list because, frankly, I'm too repulsed.
At this point to do that.
We're going to completely also leave to the side the issue that the left really can't normalize bearded women at this point, as they've already made it clear that bearded women are probably men anyway.
I mean, they expanded gender roles until the whole thing snapped back like a rubber band and is now more constricted than ever.
So now we must suspect, at least according to modern logic, that any woman who wants to grow a beard is probably actually a man trapped in a woman's body.
But as I said, we'll ignore that logistical complication for now.
What about this idea that it's beautiful and should be normalized for women to grow facial hair?
My short answer to that is no.
Gross.
Stop.
My longer answer is, seriously disgusting, what are you doing?
My even longer answer is that there's a reason why, to my knowledge, no culture has ever embraced female facial hair as the pinnacle of feminine beauty.
Go back even to the ancient Egyptians, and women were shaving and removing hair by whatever primitive means were available to them.
My understanding is that they would attach jellyfish to their faces and singe it off.
And when I say that was my understanding, I mean that I made it up.
But in any case, the point is, women have always removed that kind of unsightly hair.
Why?
Well, there's a reason why facial hair on men is considered attractive, while facial hair on women is not.
And this is an important point, because we hear all about the beauty standards, and it's supposed to all be arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary.
Much of the time.
So what's the difference?
Well, namely, that facial hair is largely a product of testosterone.
Women are biologically inclined to pursue men with higher levels of testosterone.
Some of this biological conditioning may be under siege in recent years as some women these days gravitate towards more sort of androgynous effeminate types.
You know, the scrawny, sexless, hairless Gumbies who look like Voldemort if he grew a nose and joined a boy band.
Those guys exist and there are women who, for whatever reason, find them appealing.
But for the most part, even now, women, whether they're conscious of it or not, will prefer men who give off signs of virility and strength.
On the other hand, men, again with some notable exceptions, are not looking for the same sorts of things in a woman.
If a man wanted a woman who was like a man, he'd be gay.
If he isn't gay, then he wants a woman who's a woman.
And on women, from a man's perspective, facial hair does not signal desirable things as it does on men for women.
Instead, it signals poor hygiene and a woman who doesn't care about her appearance and doesn't take care of her appearance.
Of course, a woman is free to present that way if she wants, but she can't be offended when men are repulsed.
Because we're told sexual orientation, right, it's not changeable, it's immutable.
So, as heterosexual men, we want what we want, and we can't help it.
And we don't want to be tickled by a woman's mustache when we go in for the kiss.
That's just, that's not what we want.
That's not our sexual orientation.
Is it possible to change all of this?
I mean, could you, over time, Condition men to find hairy, unkempt, slovenly women attractive?
Could you condition them even to prefer that sort of presentation?
Is this all a matter of arbitrary social constructs that can be changed?
Is beauty truly in the eye of the beholder?
Well, those are all different questions, I suppose.
And the answer to the last question is no.
Beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder.
There is an objective quality to beauty.
Like, there are things that are objectively beautiful and things that are objectively ugly.
And if you think that an objectively ugly thing is beautiful, it's not just your perspective, you're actually wrong.
You have the wrong perspective.
We hear so much about shifting beauty standards.
And it's true that superficial preferences may change over time, but the fact is that a woman who everyone would find beautiful today would be seen as beautiful probably at any time in history, anywhere in the world.
There is no time or place or culture that would shriek in horror and revulsion at the sight of Marilyn Monroe, for example.
Now, there are some places that would have stoned her to death, but that's not because she was ugly.
So beauty is not simply a matter of subjective preference.
There is an objective quality to it that holds across all cultures.
With that said, is facial hair a more superficial matter?
Could you condition men to like it?
Could you really succeed in normalizing it in that way?
I think probably not.
But even if you could, here's the other question, why try?
There's nothing wrong with the current standard.
Just because a standard exists today and has always existed, it doesn't mean in and of itself that it should be deconstructed and overturned.
This is what we hear all the time, as if it's self-evident.
We're told, oh, this is just a social, societal standard, we have to get rid of it.
Well, even if I agree that it's, even if, theoretically, it's a basically arbitrary social standard, why does that mean we should get rid of it?
In fact, as GK Chesterton warned, we should want to know why a fence was put in place before we tear it down, which means the benefit of the doubt should go to the historical standard unless a very good reason can be given for getting rid of it.
And it's a hassle to wax my upper lip is not a good reason.
Stop complaining and take care of your body and your appearance.
That is part of your responsibility as a woman.
Yes.
Jess says it's the responsibility of a man to do the same for himself.
Women have a right to complain when men allow themselves to become flabby, shabby, weak, pudgy little things.
Men can likewise complain when women not only allow themselves to be unkempt and unfeminine and gross, but even demand to be celebrated for it.
All sides should do their part.
This is equality.
And for women, part of your part is making sure you don't look like Commissioner Gordon when you go out in public.
And that is why Glamour Magazine and all women attempting to normalize female facial hair are all today cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
The media blamed Trump for their own cover-up of the Wuhan lab.
An increasing number of women are choosing to detransition after transgender therapy.
And Ron DeSantis takes a big swing at the liberal establishment.
