Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an article for the Washington Post argues that young children should be exposed to kink and fetishism. It will do them good, says the writer. We’ll discuss that madness. And our Five Headlines. Bill Cosby is freed from prison, Gwen Berry finally comes up with a reason for turning her back on the flag during the Anthem, and the founder of BET, who is a billionaire, says he wants his reparations check. In our Daily Cancellation we’ll discuss the efforts to remove “confederate statues” from the US Capitol. Efforts endorsed by many Republicans.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, an article for the Washington Post argues that young children should be exposed to kink and fetishism.
It'll do them good, says the writer.
We'll discuss that madness today.
And our five headlines.
Bill Cosby is freed from prison.
Gwen Berry finally comes up with a reason for turning her back on the flag during the anthem.
Really bad reason, but she has a reason.
And the founder of BET, who is a billionaire, by the way, says he wants his reparations check, and he wants it now.
In our daily cancellation, we'll discuss the efforts to remove quote-unquote Confederate statues From the U.S.
Capitol, efforts endorsed by many Republicans who are going to be canceled today by me.
All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
You know, if you're a small business or any size business, you can't afford the risk of not having your HR in order.
Every business owner knows this.
This is not a fun thing you have to deal with, but you do have to deal with it.
And there are major issues if you don't take care of it.
But you didn't start your business for this reason, right?
Because you wanted to spend time on HR compliance, wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, so much red tape you gotta deal with.
And HR manager salaries also aren't cheap.
An average of $70,000 a year, we're talking about.
That's why you need Bambi.
Bambi, spelled B-A-M-B-E-E, was created specifically for small businesses.
You can get a dedicated HR manager Also craft HR policy and maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month.
So you compare that to $70,000 a year.
I think it's obvious which is better.
Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat from onboarding determinations.
They customize your policies to fit your business and they help you manage your employees day-to-day.
So go to Bambi.com slash Walsh right now to schedule your free HR audit.
That's Bambi.com slash Walsh spelled B-A-M-B-E-E dot com slash Walsh.
If you've been living a life of oblivious serenity, perhaps out in the wilderness somewhere, or in a cave in the desert, maybe in a bubble under the sea, you may be surprised that a headline like this was published anywhere.
The headline, yes, kink belongs at Pride, and I want my kids to see it.
And even when you find out that this was published, you may assume that it was featured on some sort of far-left blog and written by a fringe, militant, crazy LGBT activist.
You'd be right about the second part of that, and even the first, except in this case, the far-left blog goes by the name The Washington Post.
Yes, this open and explicit advocacy for exposing children to sexual fetishism and kink did grace the pages of what was once, at some point in the past, I'm told, considered a reputable and mainstream newspaper.
At no point in my life, but I'm told that at some point that was the case.
The article written by Lauren Roello.
We'll have more on her in a minute.
encourages parents to do as she does with her own young children, bring them out to pride events in order to encounter half-naked men acting out their depraved sexual fantasies in public.
She writes, speaking of her experience at a pride march in Philadelphia five years ago, she writes, quote, When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb.
Just as we got settled, our elementary schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats.
Raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses, whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong.
The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog.
What are they doing?
My curious kid asked, as our toddler cheered them on.
The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes.
At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation.
There's no nuance at all.
But, she says, I told them the truth.
That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.
Now, she goes on to argue that the kink community, quote-unquote, has always been a part of Pride and that it's good that they be allowed to be authentically themselves in public.
That's certainly one way to describe people who like to act out their sexual fantasies in front of children.
I mean, is that what you'd say about a man masturbating on a park bench near a playground?
Hey, he's just being authentically himself in public.
As it turns out, not everything that's a part of your authentic self is meant to be done or displayed in public.
Defecation is an aspect of everyone's authentic self, and yet we do that right with the door closed in the bathroom.
Unless we live in San Francisco, which maybe this lady does.
The author, again, her name is Lauren Roello, and you should remember her name in case she ever tries to come within 50 yards of your children, continues for many paragraphs describing the wondrous benefits of allowing elementary-aged children to watch gay men in leather thongs flog each other in the street.
Skimming through some of this, she says, quote, I agree that Pride should be a welcoming space for children and teens, but policing how others show up doesn't protect or uplift young people.
Instead, homogenizing self-expression at Pride will do more harm to our children than good.
When my own children caught glimpses of kink culture, they got to see that the queer community encompasses so many non-traditional ways of being, living, and loving.
If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope that they'll encounter kink when they attend.
How else can they learn about the scope and vitality of queer life?
Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid, no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren't bad or wrong and that they aren't alone in their experiences.
I can't think of a more relevant or important reminder for youth, who often struggle with feelings of isolation and confusion, as they discover more about themselves and wrestle with concerns about whether they're normal enough.
She can't think of anything more relevant or important to tell kids.
There is nothing more important than instilling in our children a healthy appreciation for sadomasochism.
She thinks.
Lauren Roello does acknowledge the critics of her position, but she labels all of us anti-kink advocates.
That's what you are.
If you're horrified by what I just read to you, you are an anti-kink advocate.
You might not have even realized that you held that position.
I mean, if you simply don't believe that adults should be engaged in sexual role-play and BDSM out in public in front of three-year-olds, you are now an anti-kink advocate.
Now, I have no real problem with that label personally, except that I'd prefer maybe anti-degeneracy advocate or anti-child-grooming advocate.
Or anti-leather-clad weirdos spanking each other in view of third-graders advocates.
Any of those labels will do, though really I prefer to be defined in the positive.
I am anti all of those things, but I'm also a pro-sanity, pro-basic human decency advocate, most of all.
Lauren Roello is very much on the other side of the sanity and moral decency issue.
She's just opposed to it, totally, as has already been made clear, but a deeper dive into her biography and life story gets expectedly dark and weird and disturbing very quickly.
Roello is a former prostitute, which just reminds you again, this is a person who was published in the Washington Post.
Okay, she's a, let me tell you about her for a minute here.
She's a former prostitute, Who now identifies as, quote, gender vague.
She's married to a man who now identifies as her wife and is transitioning into a woman.
And her young son, as she recently announced proudly on Twitter, has just started experimenting with makeup and has declared his intention to appear on RuPaul's Drag Race one day.
He's like eight years old.
This is a family utterly consumed in a tornado of dysfunction and delusion, and her children are caught in the middle of it, being used, exploited, abused.
In saner times, of course, they'd be taken from the home, the kids would, and their parents would be put in prison.
I mean, those kids would be better off in foster care.
They'd be better off in a loving home with adoptive parents, but even foster care, Would be better for these kids than being in a home with these abusive parents.
But that's not going to happen.
These kids are condemned to this abuse, abandoned by the system and by society, like so many other children.
It's even worse than that.
Not only are they abandoned to the abuse, it's not just the people are looking the other way.
That'd be bad enough.
It's that people are applauding it.
Can you imagine that as a child?
Being abused in this way and exploited in this way.
And everybody's standing around applauding.
If there's any good news to be sifted out of this insane, disgusting mess, it's that the general reaction to Rowello's piece has been, to put it generously, extremely negative.
Now, while the curated and monitored comments under her article in the Washington Post are largely supportive, funny how that works, the feedback from the wider internet has been much less so.
As it turns out, most people don't think it's okay to intentionally expose your children to naked men in dog leashes spanking each other on a street corner.
And that's good that people aren't okay with that, but we shouldn't slip into complacency because of it.
Because first of all, it's a rather low cultural bar when we feel relief that most people don't think BDSM should be a spectator sport for preschoolers.
Like the fact that I'm seeing such a negative reaction to it and I'm going, phew, that shows you how low the bar is.
Second, just because most people have retained their sanity on this issue for now, that doesn't mean it'll stay that way.
There's a reason the Washington Post ran this piece.
They knew it would get this reaction.
That's part of the reason they ran it, of course, for the clicks.
But also, the goal is to shift the Overton window, to impose perversion and degeneracy from the top down.
Powerful cultural forces beat us over the head with this, And at first we yell out and say, stop, but they keep doing it and they keep doing it until many people get numb to it and eventually decide that it must not be so bad after all.
And while they shove this filth in our face and in our children's face and in their own children's faces, they of course always accuse us of being the ones obsessed with the issue if we articulate an objection to it.
It's gaslighting.
It's a sleight of hand trick.
Saturate us with this stuff all the time, and at the same time, try to convince us that we're weird or strange for noticing or caring.
The point is that the cultural changes we're witnessing, and this is one of the most important points for us to understand, The cultural changes, the cultural deformation, I should say, most of it is not organic.
It's engineered, it's orchestrated, it's imposed from above.
It doesn't require our enthusiastic participation, not at first anyway, that comes later.
At first, all it needs is our acquiescence.
And this is how they go about getting it.
And it's worked every time.
And will continue to work Until we wake up and recognize the game as it's being played.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, now I want to tell you about Axon Taser.
You know, when you're out in public, you want to be able to protect yourself and your family.
I think it's a smart thing to be able to do, but also a responsibility to be able to defend yourself.
And that's what Axon Taser is all about.
Taser's line of non-lethal self-protection devices are small and lightweight enough to carry with you or in your glove compartment or your purse.
Yet they're powerful enough to incapacitate an attacker at the same time.
They use an electrical charge to immobilize attackers for up to 30 seconds, allowing you time to escape, and they send an emergency dispatch to your GPS location, which is a great thing that you're not going to get with a lot of similar products.
You've got all that built in.
TASER devices come loaded with features like laser-assisted targeting, emergency dispatch, which will send response teams to your GPS location upon firing.
You can protect yourself and your family with TASER's line of smart self-defense products.
Taser devices are available without a permit in most U.S.
states.
Get the Taser Pulse Plus or Taser Strike Lite at taser.com with promo code Walsh.
Save 15% now at taser.com, promo code Walsh, spelled T-A-S-E-R.com, promo code Walsh.
Restrictions apply.
See site for details.
All right.
Man, I feel ready for another vacation.
It's been such a long time.
Only a minute.
I'll be gone tomorrow.
I'll be back on Wednesday.
So it's July 4th weekend.
Everyone's gonna be gone on Monday.
Company holiday.
So two additional days.
I don't think that's much.
What really happened is we were up at Lakehouse in New England and my wife and kids are still there.
I left them there, or rather they stayed there, and I flew home, and now I'm going to fly back, and then we're all going to drive home after a couple days.
That's what's going on.
So I've been in this dark studio for hours a day just writing.
My wife's been on the lake.
She sends me pictures all the time.
It's so nice here.
I'm so happy for you.
Glad you guys are having a good time.
And then that'll be it.
I won't leave again.
I promise.
I'll never leave you after this week.
Let's begin here.
Since we're on the topic in the opening, there's kind of a segue here, I suppose, unfortunately.
This is from the AP, it says, Pennsylvania's highest court threw out Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction and opened the way for his immediate release from prison Wednesday in a stunning reversal, and he was released from prison, in a stunning reversal of the fortune for the comedian once known as America's Dad, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the case was bound by his predecessor's agreement not to charge Cosby.
Now, Getting to the reasons.
We know the background of this.
He was arrested, charged, and convicted of rape.
And really, this is a serial rapist who's abused many women, but he was convicted for one of the cases anyway.
It says, Justice David Wecht, writing for a split court, said Cosby had relied on a former district attorney's decision not to charge him when the comedian gave his potentially incriminating testimony in a civil case surrounding this accusation of rape.
The court called Cosby's arrest an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade.
The justice said that overturning the conviction and barring any further prosecution, quote, is the only remedy that comports with society's reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.
Now, I don't have... I don't think I have a lot of valuable insight on the legal aspect of this.
Of course, everyone's outraged and upset that Bill Cosby's out of prison.
I feel the same way.
Clearly, he's a serial rapist.
He deserves to be in prison.
He deserves worse than that.
So, nobody is happy that he's out of prison, but you hear a lot of people saying that this is a miscarriage of justice, and this is the justice system failing, and all these kinds of things.
I don't know if that's true.
It depends on the legal arguments here, and I would let maybe a legal expert Not that I'm one to fall back on experts here, but at least someone who's studied the legal matters here more thoroughly make those kinds of judgments.
But if what they're saying is that Bill Cosby gave essentially this confession based on an agreement with a prosecutor that he wouldn't be criminally prosecuted for it, and then he was, Well, yeah, it would seem to me that's something you just can't do as a prosecutor.
That's a mistake.
The dysfunction and the miscarriage of justice happened with that.
It's a mistake that the court made and how they went about this.
And we also wouldn't want that kind of precedent, would we?
Where a prosecutor can make a deal with you and say, all right, we won't prosecute you, and then You tell them what they wanna hear, and then they say, no, nevermind, we're still gonna do it.
So, there's the general sort of outrage, but whether or not this was the wrong decision by the Supreme Court, I don't see how it was, unless I'm just missing something.
What I will say, though, is there's many people on the left who have started using this term rape culture again.
It's been a little while since we've heard that, right?
We hadn't heard much about rape culture.
It was a big thing during the Me Too movement, and in recent years, especially as the focus has moved to more racial issues, they've kind of put that to the side.
And now once again, these same people on the left are pretending to care about rape culture,
and they're saying this is an example of rape culture, and how men get away with this kind
of thing.
I just think that's very interesting.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Because how many of the people that are saying that, how many of them have whispered even a word of protest over the fact, and I could pull a million examples, but here's just one really egregious one.
The fact that male sex offenders in prisons in states across the country, Male sex offenders and rapists and murderers are being sent into women's prisons because they say they identify as women.
There are women right now, as we speak, and not just a few, there are many women right now, as we speak, who are locked in a prison cell with a violent male offender, sometimes sex offender.
Want to talk about rape culture?
Um, you want to talk about women being silenced?
Men getting away with this kind of thing?
If you're not saying anything about that, or the men that are being allowed into women's locker rooms, and women are getting berated and told to keep their mouths shut and just deal with it, You don't like this naked man parading around in front of you?
That's your problem.
You don't like it?
Leave!
It's your issue.
He has every right to get naked in front of you.
You know, that kind of thing.
If you're one of the people making that argument, or looking the other way while this happens, then no, you don't get to pretend to care about quote-unquote rape culture.
You don't get to pretend to be outraged about this Bill Cosby situation.
Or you could pretend, I can't stop you, but you're not going to have the privilege of being taken seriously.
We'll just put it that way.
Alright, speaking of people who can't be taken seriously, number two, Gwen Berry was on some kind of show.
She was the Olympian, turned her back on the national anthem, the hammer thrower.
I'm not even sure what show this is, but she was defending.
She finally, after like a week, has come up with some kind of defense for her behavior, but I don't find it terribly persuasive.
Let's take a listen.
Well, originally we were not even supposed to be on the podium during the singing or the playing of the national anthem.
When we were back in the call room, the directions were that we were going to be introduced to the crowd before the anthem was going to be played or after the anthem was going to be played.
No one made any mention or any notion that we would be on the podium or had to be on the podium during the singing of the national anthem.
I want to make that clear.
Those were our directions, either before or after.
No other event group that I know of stood on the podium during the playing of the National Anthem.
However, when we went out to introduce ourselves to the crowd, coincidentally, the National Anthem was playing and they asked us to stand on the podium and then the anthem played.
In that moment, I feel like it was a setup because those were not the directions, that was not the intent.
The intent was we would be introduced to the crowd either before or after the singing of the national anthem.
In which if we had that option, or if I knew that I was going to be on the podium, I would have chose something else.
Now, I just want to ask, what is it about the national anthem or that whole scenario that made you feel so uncomfortable?
Why didn't you want to, you know, acknowledge that part?
History.
If you know your history, you know the full song of the national anthem.
The third paragraph speaks to slaves in America, our blood being slain and and piltered all over the floor.
It's disrespectful and it does not speak for black Americans.
It's obvious.
There's no, there's no question.
Huh.
It's obvious.
There's no question.
Well, if you know your history, the third paragraph Of the, as she puts it, of the National Anthem, talks about blood being, what was it, slang?
And piltered?
Is that the word she used?
Blood being piltered all over.
Now, I admit, I don't know the third and there are, I think, four stanzas to the National Anthem.
Like almost everybody else, I know the first one.
I don't know the others by heart.
But when I first heard that claim from her, I immediately knew that that can't be right, because piltered is not a word.
It kind of sounds like a word that could be a word.
It's like the kind of word that you throw out and scrabble just on a flyer and you hope that no one challenges it, because it kind of sounds like it could be a word.
So you give it a shot, because you got that triple word score in reach, and you just throw PILTER down.
And someone goes, PILTER?
What is that?
Oh yeah, PILTER.
Wait, you've never heard the word PILTER?
Are you serious?
Well, go ahead and challenge it.
You'll lose a turn.
Go ahead.
I don't care.
That whole move.
But, as it happens, pilter is not a word.
I actually did look it up, because I thought, I almost felt like, am I having a stroke or something?
Because that to me sounds like that can't possibly be a word.
I did actually Google it, just to make sure I'm not wrong on this.
Not a word.
I can confirm that.
What does the National Anthem actually say?
What is she referring to?
So let's read, I'm not going to sing it, but let's read the part that I assume she's referring to.
It says, and where is that band who so vauntingly swore that the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, a home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave from the tear of flight or the gloom of the grave, and the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
It's actually great.
It's actually beautiful.
Notice nothing is being piltered all over the floor.
I don't know what it would look like for a thing to be piltered.
And the reference to slaves and hirelings, okay?
That is not a reference to African slavery.
I go back to what we discussed at the start of the show yesterday.
Okay?
She says people need to know American history.
She obviously doesn't know a damn thing about American history.
And this is, by the way, backing up again, This was not her reason for turning her back on the flag.
She turned her back on a flag just out of a general, sullen sense of, I hate America and I don't know why.
Really, it's, I hate myself, and I'm projecting those feelings of resentment and failure, I'm projecting them out onto America.
That's what a lot of this is about.
All of these morons who hate America so much.
And at some level, they do feel that way.
But these are basically like kids who go around and say, no one likes me, everyone hates me.
That kind of thing.
But that was her reason for doing it.
And then she did it and she got this big, big negative reaction and backlash.
And for the last few days, she's been looking for a reason.
And she probably, she looked up the lyrics of the National Anthem, and she discovered for the first time that it has other stanzas, and then she saw the word slave in there.
She said, oh, yeah, this is the reason.
This is why I did that.
But as we discussed yesterday, the form of slavery that existed in America, the type that she's referring to, horrible thing, not the only kind of slavery that's ever existed on the planet.
Slavery has existed as an institution across the world for thousands of years.
So not every reference to a slave is going to be about this slavery of African slaves in America.
In this case, it certainly isn't.
This verse is clearly talking about the British here.
They are the band that so vauntingly swore.
They're arrogant and haughty and all of that.
Like those damned Brits tend to be.
And the hirelings and slaves are a reference, it seems to me, to the fact that the British Army had mercenaries and men impressed into duty against their will, as opposed to the volunteer forces in America.
So it's kind of a dismissive reference to the British forces, saying, oh, they're hirelings and slaves.
They were forced to be there.
These are mercenaries.
As opposed to the free men who volunteered for service for the United States.
That's what it's talking about.
It takes a little bit of translating and interpreting the flowery language, but it's pretty clear.
Not a reference to African slaves.
So the reason she gives makes no sense, but it doesn't matter.
Because again, this is just her... Really, this was a gut, visceral reaction Because she hates her country.
She hates the country that she's representing and going to represent in the Olympics.
Next here, we've got Representative Gina Powell in Ohio.
She was proposing an amendment to a bill which would ban biological males from female sports.
The kind of bill that, again, if you really are opposed to rape culture and you want to protect women, it's the kind of thing you should support.
And she was talking about this And her Democrat counterparts had, I thought, a very intelligent response as she was talking about this amendment.
Let's take a listen.
The chair has the amendment.
The amendment appears to be in order.
The representative may proceed.
Wonderful.
The Safe Women's Sports Act is a fairness issue for women to be able to achieve their dreams and athletics in our state.
And it's crucial to preserving women's rights and the integrity of women's and girls' sports.
Across our country, female athletes are currently losing scholarships, opportunities, medals, education, and training opportunities.
This amendment will require schools that are part of the OHSAA to designate separate teams for participants of the biological sex.
No school interscholastic conference or organization that regulates interscholastics shall permit biological males to participate on an athletic team or an athletic competition designated only for biological female participants.
That really is their whole argument.
Because what Representative Gina Powell is saying here and what she's advocating, the amendment, there's no intelligent argument against it.
Doesn't exist.
That's why, if you've noticed, all the arguing that goes on over these issues, should there be men in women's bathrooms, should there be men in women's sports, should there be men in women's prisons, a lot of arguing And we know on our side, we're putting forth arguments that make a lot of sense.
Arguments based in biological science, just basic sanity, logic, reason, moral decency.
On the other side, there are no arguments.
They have nothing.
So they do that instead.
I don't like this!
Stop it!
That's the whole argument.
It makes my tummy hurt!
I think there was a second video that actually shows the guy doing it.
Do we have the second video?
Can't remember if I sent that to you.
Okay, here it is.
I want you to actually see the guy who was doing that.
Um, and uh, and, and, it just, yeah, here it is here.
What does he even say?
(upbeat music)
(gunshots)
This fat overgrown baby, this fat old baby sitting there with his suit and tie.
He can't even, their argument is so weak that they can't even articulate, they can't form words even.
They're now at the point of grunting like cavemen.
What else do you have?
You might as well just do that.
I want to see a formal debate about the bathroom and women's sports issue.
Got a conservative on one side, leftist on the other.
And the leftist the whole time just does that.
And look at this guy.
How old's this guy?
70?
You got this fat old 70 year old.
How old is this guy, 70?
Yeah, this fat old 70 year old.
First of all, I wanna know, why do you feel so struck?
Why is it so important to you to get men into the women's locker room and women's bathroom and into women's sports?
Why is that so important to you as an old guy?
What's going on with you that you really feel that passionately about it?
And when did you decide this?
I don't know who that guy, I don't know who that idiot is.
I'm going to make a wild guess here that he spent like the first 50 years of his life at least never mentioning this issue or expressing any discomfort with the fact that there are male and female bathrooms in sports teams.
And now he has decided, like so many other Democrats who have been in public service for decades, never brought it up And now it's the most important thing in the world to them.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
I mean, usually I don't resort to body sham.
Well, I do probably.
That's not true.
I resort to that kind of frequently.
Um, but here I just, I have no respect for you as a man, nothing but, but contempt and disrespect as a man taking this position.
Alright, this was something uploaded to Twitter by an account called MyMixTapes, with a Z. MyMixTapes.
It's apparently the rapper Kodak Black, and you can see him here.
The footage, he's on a boat, and he's chucking $100,000 into the sea.
That's what the Twitter account says, $100,000.
And he's simply throwing it into the ocean.
This is essentially what everyone does when they go to an Apple store.
Same kind of effect.
As a side note, unrelated, but I was thinking about taking up scuba diving.
I was actually thinking about that.
Totally unrelated.
I might get into it, like, this afternoon.
But anyway, you can see the outfit and the hair.
It looks like he might have had an unfortunate encounter with, like, a malfunctioning tie-dye machine.
At some point, rappers all started wearing sparkly pink neon colors and unicorns and stuff.
At some point, rappers started dressing like my eight-year-old daughter.
My daughter has that exact same chain, too.
I don't know where she got it.
I can tell you something, this kind of financial recklessness is something that you'd never see from my guy, Pooh Shiesty.
Or frankly, from Spottum Gottum.
They would never do this.
What they're gonna do, or at least Pooh, is actually, rather than throw money into the ocean, if you have money, he will actually steal it from you.
He'll shoot you in the butt and take it.
According to the allegations.
By the way, this guy, Kodak Black, I should also mention the guy in the My Little Pony jumpsuit throwing money to the ocean.
He got a pardon from Donald Trump.
One of Trump's final acts as president.
Anyone want to explain that to me?
One of the final things that Donald Trump did as president, on his way out, rather than draining the swamp or anything like that, he pardoned that guy.
And last thing to consider, How would people react?
Because this video was up on Twitter and it kind of went viral and people were laughing about it.
Okay.
$100,000 he's thrown into the ocean.
Rather than giving it to his community, you know, he's got people in his community, poverty stricken, homeless people on the street, kids that, you know, are hungry.
And instead of taking $100,000, he's just going to throw it into the ocean.
You can see the city, I don't know what city that is, in the background.
There are people in that city right now.
That city.
Who could use that money, but he throws it into the ocean.
I'm just, I'm wondering, if this was a white Fortune 500 CEO, on a boat, with a city skyline in the background, throwing hundred dollar bills into the ocean, what would the reaction to that be?
Would anyone be laughing about that?
Something to consider.
Finally, someone who's got plenty of money himself, though, in fairness, I don't think he's throwing it into the ocean, Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and America's first... This is an article in Vice, by the way, that I'm reading.
America's first black billionaire wants a check.
He wants it from the government, and he wants it to come with an apology for slavery, Jim Crow, and hundreds of years of racism.
The 75-year-old media magnet Owns several homes, heads an asset management firm, and was the first black person to own a majority stake in an NBA team.
He doubts that the check will ever come, but he sees a new kind of reparations, being called by a different name so as not to be divisive or controversial, happening already.
It says, the new reparations is critical race theory education, it's the housing grant program in Evanston, Illinois, it's the $5 billion of targeted support and debt relief for black farmers, and it's the $50 billion in corporate pledges in the wake of George Floyd's murder dedicated to combating systemic racism and inequality.
So the article says that's, and Johnson is saying, that's a form of reparations that's happening right now, but that's not enough.
He wants the actual check.
This billionaire wants a check from you.
If you're a white guy, I don't know, working as a plumber or something, Robert Johnson wants you to pay him.
He wants you to contribute to the kitty, throw money into it, and so that he can get a check.
But what I really, what jumped out at me when I read this article, aside from the silliness of the reparations idea, and silliness I think puts it, is a generous way of putting it, but I thought critical race theory wasn't being taught in schools.
Isn't that what we're being told?
Isn't that what places like Vice have been insisting?
That this whole thing about critical race theory, it's all a far-right narrative.
It's not even being taught.
This is really kind of an esoteric legal theory, and it's got nothing to do with education.
And now you're saying, oh, it is being taught, but it's a form of reparations.
Well, which is it?
Because those are two very different things.
Either it's not being taught at all, or it is being taught as a way to, as a form of restitution for slavery.
Very different.
All right, let's move now to reading the YouTube comments.
One comment says, they got shysty.
I smell a setup from the feds.
Probably white supremacists too.
Stay strong, Matt.
Free poo.
Yeah, I want to see those.
Bumper stickers and shirts, free poo, because this is a serious issue.
I wish Trump was still in office so he could pardon Pooh Shiesty.
Maybe Biden will do it.
CP says, Matt, the egg you're talking about is called Balut.
Okay, that's the egg with the fertilized duck or chicken embryo inside it that people eat in some cultures.
But you're not allowed to... That may sound gross, but you can't say that.
It's racist.
Racist against who?
I don't know.
Racist against the duck embryo, perhaps.
Ian Smiley says, please do a push-up contest on the next backstage episode.
Love to see Walsh crush those nerds.
Then Just Jen says, I want to see Matt challenge Ben to a push-up contest.
We all know that Ben is shockingly amazing at them.
Probably even better than Matt.
Well, we actually tied.
The last backstage, I missed the last one, but the one before that, off air, I was actually talking about that with Ben.
And because he said he could do, I think he said he could do like 30 pull-ups or something like that, which is a lot.
I'm not going to say it's more than me.
I plead the fifth on that.
But I did float that idea.
Maybe before backstage sometime we should have some sort of physical fitness test or contest.
I'm game.
I'll throw the gauntlet down right now.
I'm in.
I'm in.
Let's do it.
Push-up contest.
Me and Ben Shapiro.
Yeah, I like that idea.
All right.
And finally, this says, sorry, Matt, but I think you're somewhat deluded on the slavery issue.
The fact that people practice evil and barbaric actions for thousands of years does not make anyone in the past less culpable.
We're not more culpable because we're so advanced suddenly that we know that we now should know better.
Evil is evil.
Wrong is wrong.
Sin is sin.
Barbarism is barbarism.
In fact, those in the past who owned slaves are not excused because everyone else was doing it.
In fact, they were so callous that they could throw slaves into the arena to kill one another for entertainment.
We're talking about the Romans now, but a little bit further back.
My mother taught me the fallacy of that belief from the time that I could first talk.
Okay.
No, I didn't say that people who practiced slavery historically for thousands of years when it was an accepted institution across the globe, I didn't say that they were without moral guilt.
And I didn't say that it wasn't wrong back then.
I believe in objective morality.
I'm not a moral relativist.
So what's evil is evil for all time.
And slavery has always been evil.
It's always been the same amount of evil.
It wasn't like less evil then than it is now.
It's always been extraordinarily evil, as evil as a thing can be.
And nobody who engaged in it or practiced it is innocent.
And however you put it, excused.
I didn't say they should be excused.
No.
But when you're assessing moral culpability, personal moral guilt for an action, You have to take things like historical context into account.
You take a lot of things into account.
They do this in the court system, or at least they should, in an ideal scenario, when they're passing down a sentence.
They're trying to make a judgment in part.
We already know, okay, they've been convicted of the crime.
We know that whatever the crime was, we know it's bad.
Let's say it's murder.
Well, part of the issue in sentencing is how To what extent are we placing moral culpability on this person?
We know they're morally culpable.
How culpable?
So these are questions.
Now, in the end, only God can really judge that and say for sure.
But I think we can make general, kind of reasonable assumptions and judgments.
And so, when you're talking about someone in history, let's just pull 500 years ago, let's say, and they're living in a society Where from birth, this was an accepted and normal institution.
I would say they have less, not none, less moral culpability than someone born today.
Into a society where they're told from birth, this is a horrible thing.
If in spite of being told that from birth, you still do it, I would say you have even greater moral culpability than someone who's born into an environment where it's considered acceptable.
This is not any kind of radical idea.
This is something that, in most subjects, people would agree.
They have to judge people within the context of their time.
Just on an issue like slavery, we want to make an exception to that common-sense judgment, and I just don't think we should.
You also have to keep in mind, There are certain moral insights that maybe you have arrived at in your life, kind of on your own.
But there are a lot of others that were instilled in you from birth, and you don't really get credit for those.
Ideas like racial equality, slavery is bad, these kinds of things.
We take it for granted because we were born into a society where this is what we're told from birth.
This wasn't like some brilliant idea that you had.
You were told that.
And it's a good thing that you were.
But people born in a different situation, I just think we judge moral culpability differently.
You know, in today's day and age, it seems men are short on examples of what real men are.
Well, you have me, at least.
That's one thing you've got going for you.
But in fact, you only need to glance at social media for a second to see the standards being set for boys these days, like men parading around and singing lullabies as characters of over-sexualized women on Nickelodeon.
That's why Daily Wire started a new podcast to illuminate the heroism of our brave, Biological male ancestors.
It's kind of sad we have to stipulate that.
It's called America's Forgotten Heroes, and the first episode concerns Union soldier Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who dashed directly into history at the Battle of Gettysburg by strategically charging the Confederates and narrowly dodging a bullet that grazed his cheek on the way.
His actions were pivotal to the Union winning such a hard-fought battle, yet many Americans don't know his name, just like so many other important historical figures that you've never even heard of.
So, if you didn't already know his name, remember it now, because men like Chamberlain Are more than just men, they're legends, and they're the reason America is as free as it is today.
So subscribe now to America's Forgotten Heroes on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere you might listen.
Also, The Daily Wire has several open positions for our in-house team in Nashville.
This week, the position we're highlighting is we got a few openings, in fact, in our post-production department, including a video editor position as well as an assistant video editor position.
The video editor will use his or her technical and creative abilities to cut and assemble raw video footage from various Daily Wire projects, yes, including the Matt Wall show, to creatively support and emphasize subject matter in videos through compelling editing and storytelling.
A minimum of two years professional video editing experience is required for this opportunity.
I don't know why they need to just ask me to do this.
Maybe because I don't know anything about computers at all.
I can barely even turn mine on.
It turns off and I gotta call someone in here to figure out how to turn it back on.
The assistant video editor will assist our team of video editors by pulling and assembling media cuts, performing quality control on cuts, and much more.
So, these are full-time in-office positions in Nashville, Tennessee.
Candidates should apply through dailywire.com slash careers.
A link to your reel and or portfolio is required for consideration for both of these positions.
So, go again to dailywire.com slash careers.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we're going to be canceling GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the other 66 Republicans in the House who voted to remove all statues from the U.S.
Capitol which depict people who joined the Confederacy.
These are not statues of random Confederates, mind you.
Each state has sent a statue of someone who represented them in Congress, usually a historical figure from a century or more ago, and many of these statues have been standing in the Capitol for a century or more themselves.
Now, we should also note that some of the Confederate statues, quote-unquote, and the phrase Confederate statue here is a little bit of a, is a little misleading.
Because many of these statues memorialize men who served in Congress after the war was over.
Okay?
A statue of Wade Hampton was sent by South Carolina, for example.
He opposed secession but remained loyal to his state when it seceded and became a Brigadier General of the Cavalry for the Confederates.
In the three decades that he lived after the war, he served as Governor, U.S.
Senator, and Railroad Commissioner.
Joseph Wheeler was sent by Alabama.
He joined the Confederate Army, eventually rose to the rank of Lieutenant General, then after the war became a lawyer and eventually a politician.
He served in the House from 1881 all the way until 1900.
These are not all people who are known to history solely as members of the Confederacy.
Many of them had distinguished careers after the fact.
That they were members of the Confederacy is a reflection of the fact that they lived in the South.
So what Congress is saying today is that Southern states simply are not allowed to honor anyone who lived in or served their state from the middle part of the 19th century up until the beginning of the 20th, basically.
Congress has decreed, or will decree once the Senate votes, that these states must look elsewhere to find people to memorialize.
That is to say, other states are telling those states which historical people they may or may not choose.
And many Republicans, 67 in the House alone, are on board with that plan.
Including Kevin McCarthy, who, while going along with the Democrats' agenda and joining hands with the mindless, statue-toppling hordes, thought that he might, at the same time, try and flip the script on the Democrats by pointing out that the Confederates were Democrats themselves.
He's got them now.
Whatever will they do?
Back against the wall.
Let's all watch and bask in the rhetorical brilliance of Kevin McCarthy.
Watch.
It is a fighting time of our nation.
The greatest challenge ever to our Constitution was the Civil War.
Long and by far.
The bill we're voting on today, we voted before.
And I supported it.
I support it now.
But let me state a simple fact.
All the statues being removed by this bill are statues of Democrats.
Madam Speaker, as I heard the Speaker talk earlier about removing of the four portraits of speakers in the hall, the same answer goes for that as well.
They were all Democrats.
What's interesting, the statues that need to be removed were sent to the Capitol by states that were majority controlled by Democrats, sent to a House that had a majority controlled by Democrats, accepting of these statues.
I think the bill should go further.
Maybe it's time the Democrats change the name of their party.
They may be desperate to pretend their party has progressed from their days of supporting slavery, pushing Jim Crow laws, or supporting the KKK.
But let's be honest, at any place, at any time, if those fundamentals rest somewhere We cannot let him.
What is the kind of preacher cadence he's got going on?
Why do politicians do that?
Where the voice goes up, and then it trails off, and then you pause, then it goes up again.
I support what you Democrats are doing.
I will go along with you 100%.
I will give you everything you want.
I will cooperate fully.
But also, You're the real racist!
Ha!
I win!
Didn't see that coming, did you?
Let me deliver a newsflash to Kevin McCarthy and any other Republican still beating this particular dead horse.
Nobody cares that slave owners 200 years ago were Democrats.
Nobody cares.
I know you want people to care.
I know you care.
I know you think this is a clever point to raise.
Nobody else cares.
Nobody even cares that Democrats are the ones who enacted Jim Crow and supported segregation much more recently.
Democrats have encountered this tactic many times.
You aren't throwing them for a loop.
He's so impressed with himself while he's saying all this.
But you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said already, and you aren't causing even one single person anywhere to reconsider their allegiance to the Democrat Party.
Maybe that talking point should have that effect, but it doesn't.
And in general, when you go with the, you're the real racist approach, you're now arguing on their turf, on their terms.
You are playing a game that they invented.
You are in their stadium now.
The refs are bought and paid for by them.
Okay, this is like playing in Foxborough.
The cards are stacked against you, to mix metaphors.
The fans are all on their side.
You're not going to win this mud-flinging match.
It is far better, far more effective, far smarter, not to mention far more dignified, I think, to refuse to play the game entirely.
And in this case, refusing to play the game means standing up there and saying, no, we're not going to remove the statues.
In fact, we don't support removing any statues anywhere, unless it's a George Floyd statue, or a statue of the pederast Harvey Milk in San Francisco, or somebody like that.
Those statues we can get rid of, but all the statues you people want to remove?
We say no.
None of them.
Why should we say no?
Well, four reasons.
Number one, speaking now specifically about these so-called Confederate statues, which again is a misleading way of putting it, The first thing to keep in mind is that many of these states were already going to replace those statues with someone else without being told to do it.
Maybe not right now, but soon.
The Democrats know that.
They know that most of these statues are not long for this world, one way or another.
And that's why they're coming in now and demanding that the statues be taken down.
The statue of Jefferson Davis, for example, in the U.S.
Capitol.
That's coming down anyway.
But they would much rather the spectacle of Republican-controlled states being forced to take down their Confederate statues in shame at the behest of their Democrat overlords.
They'd prefer that over allowing those states to do it themselves on their own terms.
Because they choose to do it.
They want the optics of, and we're going to see this soon when this thing goes through, Of those statues.
And there's gonna be cameras all around.
And I'm sure Nancy Pelosi will be standing there triumphantly watching as the statue of, uh, of these very statues come down.
Arms folded.
Well, they wouldn't do it, so we had to.
That's the point.
This is all a political game for Democrats.
That's all anything ever is.
Their stated motivations for doing anything are never the real motivations.
They're always thinking about the political optics, and good for them, frankly!
They're in it to win it!
While mush-brained Republicans stumble along doing as they're told, while muttering vague protests as they do it.
Second thing.
The left-wing mob should never get what it wants.
You should never do anything at its behest.
Anything.
I don't care what it is.
If they're outside your door with pitchforks tomorrow morning demanding that you wear blue jeans that day, and you were already going to wear blue jeans, you should put the blue jeans back in the drawer and wear khakis instead.
The left-wing mob wields unprecedented power in our culture, and the only way to break that power is to defy it.
I've said this many times about the statues.
Even if there's a hypothetical statue that by its rights objectively warrants removal, you still should oppose its removal under these conditions at the behest of these damned people.
Number three, we should absolutely reject the claim that everyone who served in the Confederacy is now automatically precluded from receiving any public recognition or memorialization at all.
We should reject that.
That's not how we saw it as a country for nearly 150 years after the war.
And the left tells us now that we have to see it that way.
For nearly 150 years, it was generally seen that the war was a terrible time in our history when honorable people fell on either side of a great rift Rift, and blood was spilled, and there was brutality and evil, but there was also dignity and courage and honor.
It was understood that a man like Robert E. Lee, for instance, was not a proponent of secession, was not some sort of rabid defender of slavery, but he lived in Virginia.
It was his home.
It was his family's home.
When faced with an awful choice, he decided to fight alongside his family, his sons, his community, rather than against them.
That was a choice he faced.
He could take up the sword against his own sons or alongside them.
Now, seeing that choice again in historical context, it's maybe not so hard to understand, even if you would have chosen differently or think you would have chosen differently.
And yet, in spite of that, we could still remember Robert E. Lee as a great general and an important historical figure.
And for 150 years, that's how he was remembered.
Now the left comes along after all these years and says, no, you know what?
That point of view is no longer allowed.
You're not allowed to feel that way anymore.
Many conservatives bow obediently and say, yes, sir, as you command.
I don't think that should be our response.
Four, finally.
I don't know how many times this has to be communicated, but apparently at least one more time.
It doesn't end here.
The more you cooperate, the further it goes.
If we're removing statues of people who served in the Confederacy, even if they didn't themselves own slaves, is there any special reason why we wouldn't or shouldn't remove statues of people who didn't serve in the Confederacy, but did own slaves, like Thomas Jefferson?
What about people who didn't own slaves, but were outspoken racists and white supremacists, like Abraham Lincoln?
He was a white supremacist, a stated white supremacist.
There is no reason why, with this precedent, it shouldn't be applied to nearly every historical figure who made the mistake of being born in the 19th century or earlier, or even the 20th century or earlier, at the rate that we're going now.
Some of us said years ago, when they started taking the Confederate monuments down from parks and so on, that soon they're going to be going after the founders.
And we were right.
We predicted it.
How did we know that?
Do we have supernatural powers?
Did Marty McFly show up from the future and tell us about it?
No.
We are just able to understand the concept of precedent.
And we also know how the left operates.
We know that it's called progressivism because it always progresses.
It never stays still.
It must always move, must progress.
Progress not in a good way, but like cancer progresses.
We know that.
If you still don't know that, still have not figured that out, You are without excuse for your obliviousness and stupidity.
And also, you're cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
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 House GOP leader supports tearing down Confederate statues.
The politician and philosopher Donald Rumsfeld dies.
And a pervert Washington Post columnist exposes her children to kink.
