Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the war on American history continues, and now it has moved way beyond simply removing statues of Confederate generals. We’ll discuss the latest on that front today. Also Five Headlines including Democrats in Texas absconding from the state in order to prevent the passage of bills they oppose. These are the same people who complain about “obstructionism.” And will the Biden Administration be fact checking your text messages? A new report makes that claim. In our Daily Cancellation we talk about an article in a scientific journal claiming that geology is racist. The reason they give for this claim is so unbelievably insane and stupid that it may actually shock you.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the war in American history continues and now it's moved way beyond simply removing statues of Confederate generals.
We'll discuss the latest on that front today.
Also, five headlines including Democrats in Texas leaving the state in order to prevent the passage of bills they oppose.
These are the same people who complain about obstructionism usually.
And will the Biden administration be fact-checking your text messages?
A new report makes that claim.
Also, In our daily cancellation, we'll talk about an article in a scientific journal claiming that geology is racist, and the reason they give for this claim is so unbelievably insane and stupid that it may actually succeed in shocking you.
We'll find out all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
After a very long buildup, the town of Charlottesville, Virginia,
finally removed the statues of Confederate generals, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson this past weekend.
And in the midst of the mindless statue-toppling craze that has infected our country for several years, this event was all but inevitable.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group I normally would not cite as any sort of authority or reference at all, but whose numbers here are probably basically reliable, a total of 168 Confederate Quote-unquote, Confederate symbols were torn down or removed in the year 2020 alone, including 94 monuments.
Now, virtually all of these statues were removed following the death of George Floyd.
Nobody's ever offered a coherent explanation as to why the death of a violent felon and drug addict who was resisting arrest should have precipitated a reevaluation of anything, let alone historical monuments.
I mean, what precisely is the connection between George Floyd's demise and a statue of a Confederate general?
That hasn't been made clear.
It's even less clear how the mad rush to eliminate these statues represents cultural progress.
A sign that we had made progress and had healed the deep wounds from the Civil War was that many Americans could remember and recognize men who fought on both sides.
We were able to view it with a mature and nuanced perspective in the light of historical context.
The fact that we are less able to do that today As we are further away from the event itself.
The fact that we can't even bear to see an image of any man who lived in and fought for the South would seem to indicate that we've gone backwards, not forwards.
You know, it's a mark of maturity and growth when a married couple can talk civilly or even laugh about old arguments they've had or past offenses that they caused one another.
But if they find that suddenly those old arguments and offenses are becoming the source of contention yet again, That's a sign that their relationship has regressed, not progressed.
But Lee and Jackson were not the only historical figures to be toppled in Charlottesville over the weekend.
On the same day, the city council convened in an emergency meeting, quote-unquote, with only 20 minutes notice, and decided to tear down a beautiful statue of the great explorers Lewis and Clark, which had been proudly standing in its spot on Main Street in Charlottesville for over 100 years.
Now the priceless work of art has been removed from view with no specific plans for where it may go or what might happen to it.
Now, what did the statue do to deserve this fate?
What exactly was offensive about it?
This is Lewis and Clark.
They're not Confederate generals.
Why was it taken down?
Well, there's the stated reason, and then there's the actual reason, and where the left is concerned, those two things rarely align.
The stated reason is that the Lewis and Clark monument caused offense to Native Americans because of how it depicts their Indian guide and translator, Sacagawea.
The sculpture features Lewis and Clark standing triumphantly and looking off into the distance while Sacagawea is crouched behind them looking down.
It was decided by activists, including a descendant of Sacagawea, who for some reason was consulted in this matter.
I'm not sure why.
A distant relative, you know, over 200 years later.
And her opinion matters?
Why?
But it was decided by all of these people that the positioning of the figures on the statue is offensive because Sacagawea is in a subservient and submissive pose, supposedly.
Not that this matters at all to the activists, but their interpretation of the statue is simply incorrect.
The guy who sculpted it, Charles Keck, first of all, he talked about what he was doing and why he did it that way, and you can go and look at what he said.
He was also originally commissioned only to produce a statue of Lewis and Clark.
He made a special point to include Sacagawea, and obviously not because he wanted to disrespect her.
He explained why he positioned the figures the way that he did, and this is what he said, The guide Sacagawea is at their side, a little to the rear, so that she shall not compete too much in the composition with Lewis and Clark.
Remember, this was supposed to be a statue of Lewis and Clark.
He's including this other figure.
He continues, by making her look down, I have tried to suggest that they were on a high prominence and she was more interested in the immediate surroundings and not aware of what was in the minds of the explorers.
Okay, so this is not about subservience or submission or subordinance.
This is about focus.
By the artist's interpretation, Lewis and Clark, as the leaders of the expedition, were focused on the long view, you know, the ultimate goal, while Sacagawea, as the 16-year-old guide, tracker, and translator, was concentrating on the immediate surroundings.
It's very clear that the artist, who made a point, again, of including Sacagawea, even though she was not in the original plans for the monument, did not intend to insult her by memorializing her.
She's being honored, not demeaned, and the irony here is that the activists supposedly seeking to protect her good name are doing so by tearing down a statue that honors her.
And besides, even if the piece is outdated in its depictions, or slightly offensive, or whatever, and I don't think it qualifies as any of that, I don't think it's outdated or offensive or anything, but even if it was, are we at the point Where all works of art produced by people who lacked our modern mindset must now be removed from our sight?
Have we reached a point where no art can be timeless?
Because any that fails to align entirely with our contemporary view of things must be destroyed?
Yeah, we have reached that point indeed.
This is a war on our history as a nation and it's not just happening in Charlottesville.
Though Charlottesville has perhaps become ground zero for some of this.
And we haven't even discussed the other statue that came down in that city on Saturday.
In all, in one day, not one, not two, not three, but four beautiful historic sculptures were yanked down by demolition crews.
And we talk, by the way, we talk about the historical significance of these statues and why that's a, why it's a travesty that they're torn down for that reason.
And it is.
But these are also works of art.
These are priceless works of art that someone spent years making and that have stood there proudly for decades or centuries in some cases.
And we're tearing all this stuff down like it's nothing.
But the fourth statue was a depiction of Revolutionary War General George Rogers Clark, labeled on the statue itself and in history as the conqueror of the Northwest.
Clark is the older brother of William Clark of Lewis and Clark fame, so a bad weekend for the Clark family, all told.
And he is hailed, or at least had been hailed, for his victories against the British in the Northwest Territory.
The statue depicts Clark on a horse confronting or speaking to a group of Indians.
Why is that offensive?
Well, left-wing activists, who are now the authorities on art interpretation apparently, have their stated reasons, and here's the Washington Post explaining their reasoning.
The removals can be traced to years of activism, said Anthony Guy Lopez, a UVA graduate and Crow Creek Sioux tribal member who began petitioning the city to take down the Lewis, Clark, and Sacagawea statue in 2009.
He called the twin takedowns an exorcism of state violence against Native Americans.
If art can be evil, these were evil, Lopez said.
What this says to American Indians is that violence is part of our lives, and that we have to not only accept, but glorify it.
Now, of course, violence was very much a part of life for Native American tribes, and really for all people everywhere during that time period, which is depicted in the statues, and throughout all of history before that, and for much of the time after that up until now.
And for a lot of people in the world today, it's still, violence is still a part of their lives.
But perhaps more importantly here, neither statue actually depicts violence.
There is nothing remotely violent happening in the Lewis and Clark statue.
And you've got this activist saying, this is violence!
What?
Where?
Where is the violence on this statue?
Lewis, Clark, and Sacagawea, they're all on the same team.
Standing there, looking out.
Violent?
And the George Clark statue may imply a larger context of violence.
He was a general engaged in battle, after all, but there's nothing violent being displayed or portrayed by the work of art in question.
So what's the real problem?
That can't be the real problem with these statues.
What is the real problem?
I think this paragraph from an article about the removals on UVA's website captures it nicely.
This is what it says there.
The Clark statue had long been a source of pain for Native Americans at UVA and in the community.
UVA history professor Christian McMillan wrote in July 2020 that both the George Rogers Clark statue and the statue of Lewis Clark in Sacagawea were, quote, instrumental in creating and perpetuating the myth of brave white men conquering supposedly unknown and unclaimed land.
Yes, well, we wouldn't want statues That perpetuate the myth of brave white men.
Wouldn't want that.
That really is the problem, right?
Never mind the fact that Lewis and Clark were, in fact, brave white men.
You would have to be in order to forge ahead into a wilderness that is unknown to you.
That's what someone means when they talk about going into an unknown wilderness.
Means that they don't know it.
So there's no sense in you saying, well, it's unknown to you, but not to people that might live there.
Well, obviously.
But I'm me, talking from my perspective.
I don't know this wilderness.
And so that's why it requires bravery for me to go out into it.
Where dangers of all kinds lay ahead.
And where you know that there is a very good chance you'll die.
And whether you survive or not, it is certain that you will suffer.
That takes bravery.
That is more bravery than has ever been exhibited or will ever be exhibited by any of the morons and the cowards and infantile babies who are tearing these statues down.
Every single historical figure that they have torn down, all of them, more important, have contributed more to society than any of those losers ever will.
Yeah, Lewis and Clark were brave.
So was George Rogers Clark.
Guess what?
So were Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, for that matter.
They were brave men.
Yeah, I said it.
Charging into battle takes bravery.
It does.
And, you know, the former group, the explorers, they did in fact claim or conquer land that was unknown to them and oftentimes unclaimed.
Yes, sometimes the land was occupied by Indian tribes.
Not all the time.
By the way, you're talking about a smattering of Indian tribes dispersed over the entire continent.
It's not like every square mile was claimed or owned by Indian tribes.
What, did they own the whole hemisphere?
Nobody was supposed to come here?
Absurd.
Some of the land, though, was occupied by Indian tribes, and as I've tried to explain many times, these tribes themselves lived by the law of conquest.
They claimed that land through violent force.
They were not innocent turtle doves living lives of peaceful serenity.
This land, like the land all over the globe, was up for grabs for anyone with the will and might to take it.
Might make your tummy hurt when you hear it phrased that way in modern society, but that's the reality.
That's how Indian tribes operated.
It's how everyone operated at that time.
And yet it's been decided that white men are the villains of history and the villains of the present day.
And what that means is that no white man in history is allowed to be honored or remembered or celebrated.
It's not a coincidence that nearly every single statue or monument that's been toppled over the past year or two has been a depiction of a white man.
It's not like there aren't other kinds of statues out there.
Is it a coincidence that almost every single one Just so happens to be a white historical figure?
It's not.
Now that isn't to say that they won't eventually, the mob, I'm not saying they won't eventually move on to other targets once all of the white men of history have been thrown on the incinerator.
I think they will.
I've said that I think eventually they're going to be tearing down Martin Luther King Jr.
For his, for the, shall we say, problematic aspects of his life and biography and personality.
Eventually, they'll get to that.
This is, after all, as I have said, a war on American history in its entirety.
And it is the inevitable result of critical race theory, the result of a narrative of history that casts all of our historical triumphs as moral failures, all of our heroes as bullies and tyrants, and all of our sources of pride as sources of shame.
This is where it all leads.
And it's far from over.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now we check in with our very good friends over at Charity Mobile.
I've been a Charity Mobile customer for a while now and I'm proud to support, it's not very often that you can say as a customer of a company that you're proud to support them.
I think as conservatives, we do a lot of sort of holding of our nose when we're shopping
or supporting companies because so many companies are against us in the culture, but Charity
Mobile is not.
They're the pro-life phone company.
5% of your monthly plan price goes to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice.
There's a lot of other perks that come with this too.
It's just a great service all around.
You get new activations and eligible accounts get a free cell phone with free activation
and free shipping.
And there's no contracts.
You don't have to worry about termination fees or any of that nonsense.
There's also no risk with a 30-day guarantee.
And you also get, if you need it, live customer service based right here in the USA, which I really appreciate.
And free usage alerts, you get free apps to make everything easier, all that kind of stuff.
But the main thing is, you're helping to build a culture of life in America while supporting a pro-life phone company.
So call them at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com
All right, so I've got to show you this just to start with I don't know if I'd call this headline news, but my wife saw this while running errands just here in town.
So if you're watching the video podcast, you got to take a look at this car.
I don't know what the deal is with this, but it's covered in like green fur and baby dolls and stuffed horses.
This is maybe among the top five most terrifying things I've ever seen in my life.
And I want to be careful because I say that the owner of this car lives somewhere around us.
So I don't want to upset whoever that is.
And in fairness, they may have just accidentally crashed into a serial killer's basement and ended up with all that stuff all over the car.
I don't know.
I really don't.
But the good news, at least, is that you have a car like that.
You never have to worry about not being able to find your car in a parking lot.
That you don't have to worry about.
You're not gonna do like what I see.
I gotta get used to the fact that I drive a pickup now and I'm in Tennessee.
So anytime I park and go into a store, if I don't take a picture of where I'm parked, as soon as I walk out into the parking lot, I'm lost.
It's a bewildering sight because all of the cars in the parking lot look exactly like mine.
So I'm just walking through with my key, you know, seeing which one will set the alarm off.
You don't have to worry about that with this card.
That's the one advantage.
And that's all I'm going to say about it for fear of my own life.
But I had to show you because, come on.
My God.
All right.
Joe Biden is giving a speech on voting rights today at some point, and Jen Psaki previewed the speech on Monday.
She was asked in the White House press conference what the speech is going to be all about.
And here's what she says about the speech and also the issue of voting rights today.
Let's listen.
Well, first, well, thank you for the question, because he's very focused on this speech tomorrow, one that he himself wanted to deliver.
He'll lay out the moral case for why denying the right to vote is a form of suppression
and a form of silencing, and how he will use, he will redouble his commitment to using every
tool at his disposal to continue to fight to protect the fundamental right of Americans
to vote against the onslaught of voter suppression laws based on a dangerous and discredited
conspiracy theory that culminated in assault on our Capitol.
He'll call out the greatest irony of the big lie is that no election in our history has
met such a high standard with over 80 judges, including those appointed by his predecessor,
throwing out all challenges.
He'll also decry efforts to strip the right to vote as authoritarian and anti-American
and stand up against the notion that politicians should be allowed to choose their voters or
to subvert our system by replacing independent election authorities with partisan ones.
And he will highlight the work of the administration against this, the necessity of passing the
For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and how we need to
to work together with civil rights.
rights organizations to build as broad a turnout and voter education system to
overcome the worst challenge to our democracy since the Civil War.
The worst challenge to our democracy since the Civil War.
So apparently the January 6th quote-unquote insurrection has been demoted. It
is it is no longer the worst the worst thing that's happened since the Civil
War.
I thought that it was.
That's what we've been told.
But now it's these voting rights laws.
Or laws that are meant to deny people the right to vote.
Look, the term gaslighting is used far too often, just like the word grifter is used far too often in discourse today.
But it really does apply.
There's just one long stream of gaslighting.
Anytime we hear from the Democrats about the voting rights issue, these laws to deny voting rights.
There are no such laws being passed anywhere.
Nobody is attempting to do that.
Those laws do not exist.
And as I always remind you, I say this as someone who would support those kinds of laws if they did exist.
I wish they did.
Every time I hear Democrats say, there's this law in this state, they want to deny people the right to vote.
I get my hopes up.
I say, really?
Thank God, finally.
I'm moving to that state.
And then I look into the law and it's like, no, okay.
You just have to have a photocopy of your ID.
That's it.
Because, in reality, there actually isn't any universal, God-given right to vote.
It's not inherent to our humanity to have this right to participate in the democratic process.
It's not.
Which is why, already, we deny lots of people the right to vote.
If you're a felon, you're denied the right to vote.
If you're under the age of 18, as it stands right now anyway, you're denied the right to vote.
That's a lot of people.
So we can't claim that it's a universal right, inherent to us as God-given.
It's something that you have to qualify for, and it can be taken away.
That's already the system.
Everywhere.
Or nearly everywhere.
The question is only, should we have Should there be more of an effort to protect the voting process by making sure that the people who are participating in it are qualified to participate?
I say yes, and I say that that is protect.
If you really value the right to vote, who are the people who really value the right to vote, who really cherish it, who really take it seriously?
We hear so much about the right to vote is a sacred, it's a sacred right.
I personally wouldn't call it sacred, but I think my position, if it is sacred, protects that sanctity.
More than the people who say, oh yeah, let anyone do it.
Open up the floodgates, just let anyone vote.
Doesn't matter.
They could be, you know, whatever, they've been in a Cheeto and Netflix-induced coma for the last four years.
Shake them awake, carry them in the cradle position over to the polls and just dump them in a voting booth and say, yeah, you know, hit one of them, hit a name random, it doesn't matter.
That's how you protect the sanctity of voting rights?
That way?
I don't think so.
But I am taking a position that almost no one else takes, at least among elected Republicans.
There's not any that I'm aware of.
I have not heard any elected Republican suggest that we should actually start actively and purposefully excluding people from the voting booth.
I wish elected Republicans would advocate that, but they're not.
In fact, and we're going to talk More about this in a minute, but I guess we'll go ahead and talk about it now, as a matter of fact.
I think what you're hearing from Republicans on voting rights is quite the opposite of that.
Governor Greg Abbott, he was on Fox News last night.
And he was talking about the Texas Democrats who have fled the state to prevent not only legislation on voting rights, but many other issues as well.
He was talking about them, and then he gets into the issue of voter suppression and who are the real voter suppressors in this country.
And here's what he says.
Let's listen.
But Laura, I have to point this out.
The thesis that they are operating under is completely false, because what the Texas law does doesn't hinder anybody's ability to vote.
In fact, interestingly, what Texas is seeking to do is to add additional hours to vote.
Texas has 12 days of early voting, and the hours of which will be expanded, and we will ensure that hours are expanded on Election Day also, so their entire thesis is completely wrong.
And compare early voting in Texas with early voting that we have in Delaware.
Texas has 12 days of early voting.
Delaware has zero days of early voting.
Why am I picking on Delaware?
Because that is where the president himself voted in the last election.
And if anybody wants to talk about voter suppression, they should be talking about Delaware, not Texas.
Yeah, the Dems are the true vote suppressors.
That old thing for Republicans.
That is what we're getting from Republicans.
It's true, what he just said.
That Republicans are actually, they're trying to expand it.
They're, you know, in Texas, they're gonna provide more hours to go vote, expanding early voting, and all that kind of thing.
That's what you're getting from Republicans.
They actually agree with the Democrats on this issue.
While the Democrats accuse them of not agreeing.
And the Republicans' response, as always, is to say, no, no, no, we do agree!
We do agree!
I promise!
You should be expanding the hours of voting, expanding early voting.
I don't want to hear Republicans brag about, oh, we've got more early voting than Delaware does.
There should be no early voting at all.
You have election day, voting day.
Go and vote on that day.
And if we're talking about a presidential election, you've got four years to plan for it.
Everyone knows what day it's going to be.
We all know.
There's no surprise.
When it comes time for the 2024 presidential election, we all know when that vote is going to be.
And you know where you have to go, depending on where you live, to cast your vote.
You're telling me you can't schedule the time with this much notice?
That's the way it should be, but we are heading in the opposite direction.
So, as always, when it comes to voting and how easy it should be, really, Republican Democrats are basically on the same side with only just slight differences.
Speaking of the Democrat lawmakers leaving the state, reading now from the Daily Wire, it says, Texas Democrat lawmakers absconded from the state on Monday in a theatrical fashion as they subverted democracy by denying the legislature a quorum needed to approve bills in Governor Greg Abbott's special session agenda.
Quote, private planes carrying more than 50 Democrats, there they are there, on their private plane, left Austin for Dulles International Airport mid-afternoon, skipping town just days before the Texas House of Representatives.
It was expected to give early approval to sweeping new voter integrity laws in the special legislative session, according to Associated Press.
The numbers meant the House would not have enough lawmakers in attendance to conduct business and could not, at least for now, vote on the bill.
This is the second time that Texas Democrats have bolted from the state to stop measures from becoming law because they have no path to permanently block the voting measure or a list of other contentious GOP-backed proposals up for debate, according to the report.
So there you see them there on their private chartered flight.
And they tweeted this out, or at least a reporter tweeted this out.
On plane to D.C., Texas Democratic lawmakers are leaving state to break quorum to stop Republican voting bill.
Veteran Capitol observers say this is unchartered territory.
This photo was taken by a Democrat on the plane.
As many people have observed, you see them there on the plane, and none of them are wearing masks at all.
The excuse we're given is that this was a private charter plane, Which raises a whole bunch of questions in and of itself.
Where are you getting this private plane from?
Where are all of these supposed public servants?
Where are they getting all their flying private all the time?
How are they doing that?
Where are they getting this money?
Nobody asks that.
Or at least anyone asking it is not going to get an answer to the question.
Okay, so you're on private and technically then, because it's not any kind of public transportation, you don't have to wear the mask.
Okay.
So what these Texas Democrats are telling us is that the only reason we wear masks on commercial airlines is because we have to.
Why do we have to?
Well, because we have to.
There's no actual underlying reason.
If there was any underlying reason for the rule saying we have to wear the mask, then they'd be wearing the mask voluntarily on a private plane.
But they're not.
Because they have their own rules.
Texas State Representative James Tallarico tweeted, just landed in Memphis on our way to DC.
Thank y'all for your well wishes.
We left behind our families, our livelihoods, and our beloved Texas, but our sacrifice is nothing compared to the sacrifices brave Americans have made throughout history to protect the sacred right to vote.
You're correct that your sacrifice is nothing.
I agree with you on that part, because there's no sacrifice at all.
You're going on a apparently paid vacation.
Leaving work.
Can I do that?
I wonder how that would fly with the bosses here at The Daily Wire.
No notice.
Don't take any vacation time.
I just get on a plane and fly.
And then I say, hey, hey, don't worry, guys.
My sacrifice.
I get a call.
What are you doing, Matt?
You got to do the show.
Hey, listen, my sacrifice.
I know this is a sacrifice, but don't thank me for my sacrifice.
There are other pictures of them on their bus, because they took a bus, and then they took a plane, and then they took another bus, and they're taking selfie videos the whole time and bragging about it and talking about their great sacrifice.
In one of the photos, you can clearly see there's like an 18 or 30 pack of Miller Lite there.
So they're going on a little booze cruise.
What a great sacrifice.
And of course, these tasteless hacks bring Miller Lite of all things.
With them.
So hypocrisies abound.
You know, they're not wearing masks.
They're obstructing democracy while accusing everyone else of being obstructionist.
They are the carbon footprint.
Are they worried about that?
All of this fossil fuel they're burning?
A lot of hypocrisy, a lot of double standards.
But as always, the double standard and hypocrisy is part of the point.
Because that's the power that they have.
That's the message that they're sending.
And in a certain way, you know, even though there's so much hypocrisy, and it's a double standard, and this is nothing but a self-congratulatory, ridiculous stunt, and I despise Democrats with my whole soul, even in spite of that, it's hard for me to get very angry at them about this.
Because this is the kind of thing I wish Republicans would do.
I mean, this is hardball.
This is Democrats saying, you know what, we're not going to go along with you at all, even when we legally have to.
Even when it seems we have no power here at all.
We still, we're not going to give you a damn inch.
We're not, we're going to give you nothing.
That part of it, I kind of respect.
I got to be honest with you.
And I wish Republicans would have the same attitude.
Now granted, it's easier to do that when you have the media on your side, because we know if it was Republicans doing this, all the headlines would be Republican fugitives obstructing democracy.
There'd be 57 headlines just about the fact that they're not wearing masks on the plane.
So we know that.
It's a lot easier when you've got the media on your side, but even so.
I can't hate them too much for playing hardball.
I can't, because it's what I want Republicans to do.
All right, next.
I can certainly hate this.
Staying with the Biden administration, here's something that seems to have somehow flown under the radar, and this is from Politico.
I'm going to read this to you, and you tell me if anything jumps out at you.
If there's anything here that raises a red flag.
I don't know.
It says, The Biden administration is casting conservative opponents of its COVID-19 vaccine campaign as dangerous and extreme, adopting a more aggressive political posture in an attempt to maneuver through the public health conundrum.
Well, this is nothing new.
It's not like this is a new strategy.
In a new strategy, liberals are casting their opponents as dangerous extremists.
It's an interesting new strategy.
We'll see if it pays off.
But it continues, the White House has decided to hit back harder on misinformation, quote-unquote misinformation, and scare tactics after Republican lawmakers and conservative activists pledged to fight the administration's stated plans to go door-to-door to increase vaccination rates.
The pushback will include directly calling out social media platforms and conservative news shows that promote such tactics.
Listen to this part.
Biden-allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.
The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.
Now, I don't know, call me crazy, But it seems as though they're saying that the DNC is going to be colluding with fact checkers to monitor our private text messages.
All in an effort to head off misinformation.
You know, it's for our own good, that's all.
You gotta understand that.
If the DNC is Checking in on your text messages, maybe your emails, whatever.
It's all for your own good.
If the NSA is doing it, it's all for your own good.
Because there might be dangerous extremists out there who are trying to, you know, talk to you and convince you of things.
And you're too stupid, of course, just like I, and we're all too stupid, to be able to practice discernment.
And that's why we need Big Brother, who can swoop in and save the day.
Now, how is... So, I saw this report in Politico, and then I was Googling to see if there's been other headlines about this, and there hasn't been anything.
How is this not a big deal, at least?
That's the report, that they're going to be monitoring our private text messages.
I guess, you know, if you have a problem with it, just start your own cell phone carrier, that's all.
Start your own Verizon.
You don't like it?
Private company, start your own Verizon.
That I'm sure will be the response.
All right, moving on.
I think it's time for, it's a bit a little heavy today.
Maybe it's time for another musical break.
A time to appreciate some true art.
Talk about art too.
True musical art.
So here is, I don't think it requires any more setup.
Here it is from our friends at TikTok.
It's vaccination day.
It's vaccination day.
It's time for vaccine shot number two.
I've got my mask with Pikachu, but I am running seven minutes late.
I hope they'll jab me anyway.
I really want this shot today.
Now my fear of COVID can abate.
I'll see actual real-life people.
It'll be totally strange.
Wow, am I so ready for this change!
And for the first time in forever, I'll emerge from my lockdown.
For the first time in forever, I'll go catch Pokemon downtown.
My right-wing friends might think I'm crazy.
Alright, let's stop it there.
You had to see that.
You had to hear it.
Because I did.
Now, I do not mean to stereotype.
I am not one.
You know I would never do that.
I'm against stereotyping.
But if this guy does not live with his mom, I will be shocked.
That's all I'll say about that.
Let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Phyllis says, Well said, Phyllis.
And needless to say, I agree.
convince me that Jenner is a conservative or is a Republican or is a woman for that matter."
Well said, Phyllis. And needless to say, I agree. Angie says, "Camilla is so out of touch,
it's pathetic. Or really, she's just a liar and a bad one at that. I live in a rural town
that only has one K-12 school for three towns. I'd only have to drive about six miles to a place
that'll make copies. But even better, I can just walk into another room in my house where we have
a scanner, printer, and a computer."
Shocking, I know.
You had a scanner slash printer and a computer?
In your house?
In rural America?
If someone can't figure out how to make a copy of their ID, I'm not sure I want them voting anyway.
She finishes.
Yeah, well, that's one of the great reasons for the voter ID laws, I think.
Because I would love to have the voting test Where we just test your basic knowledge on civics, on American history, and that sort of thing.
Can you make it to like a fifth grade level?
I would love to have that, but if we can't have that, then this stuff functions as kind of a test in and of itself.
A basic competency test.
Can you at least figure out how to make a photocopy of your ID and send it in?
Can you follow those instructions?
If you can't, then you're definitely someone we don't need.
Even if you're, you know, not trying to commit voter fraud.
If you're so insanely incompetent and stupid that you can't figure that out, then I agree with you.
I don't think we need you in the voting booth.
Another comment says, I don't think we should be using the phrase identifies as because it implies that this is a thing someone can do legitimately.
I would use the terms say they are, or perhaps even pretends to be.
This is more direct and to the point if we're trying to maintain truth, legitimacy of language, and a baseline reality.
I get your point.
I think identifies as still, it could be an accurate description.
This is someone who is identifying themselves.
You can identify yourself as anything.
I can identify myself as an elephant if I want.
It's just, it's a claim that I am making about myself.
And it may even be a feeling that I have, a deluded feeling I have about myself.
So when I say that this is a man who identifies as a woman, I'm not agreeing with the claim, I'm just saying that is the claim
they're making.
Let's see.
Jared says, Matt, now we demand first rule of Sweet Baby Gang is you do not talk about Sweet Baby Gang merchandise.
You brought this upon yourself.
Well, speaking of Sweet Baby Gang merchandise, and we could go many different places with Sweet Baby Gang merchandise, but we can start with the T-shirt that I've showed you.
And there is now, I didn't do this.
But someone put together, you can see it here, I think this is a change.org petition.
Someone made a petition calling on the Daily Wire to put the Sweet Baby Gang merchandise on sale, and it looks like they wanted, what do they want, 200?
They wanted 100 signatures, and they already have 89.
So the people have spoken.
I don't know if this is gonna result in the merchandise actually going on sale, I can't promise that.
I think petitions generally have no result whatsoever because they carry no legal weight.
But I just want you to know, I'm on your side on this thing, okay?
If it were up to me, you'd be able to buy this today at a very high premium.
But it's not up to me and nothing is up to me.
But there it is.
If you want to sign, if you want to cry out, Let your voice be heard the democratic way.
Then go find that petition and sign it.
One thing I hear from people all the time when I meet people in public is they say to me, Matt, you are a fashion god.
And I really want to hear you talk more about fashion and your own sense of style.
Nobody ever says that to me at all.
And that's probably good, because I don't know a lot about fashion, but I'll tell you who does.
Mack Weldon.
Mack Weldon is, you know, they're so much more than just underwear.
That's how they kind of started.
But now they've got a full collection, including t-shirts, polos, button-ups, shorts, pants, swimsuits, and so much more.
With light and breathable fabric technology, Mack Weldon keeps you cool and comfortable all summer, which is really good, because I've discovered in Tennessee in the South, it's actually really hot, it turns out.
I didn't know that.
So I've been using a lot of Mack Weldon, especially their t-shirts, which are really comfortable.
The great thing about Mack Weldon is that you don't have to decide between being comfortable or looking stylish.
You can actually accomplish both and with little effort, which is very good for me.
So you gotta try Mack Weldon.
For 20% off your first order, visit MackWeldon.com slash Walsh and enter promo code Walsh.
That's MackWeldon.com slash Walsh.
Promo code Walsh for 20% off Mack Weldon.
Reinventing men's basics.
You know, if there was a superlative for most likely to be trending on Twitter, it would be, I think it'd be me, you know, honestly.
No, it wouldn't be me.
It actually says in the copy that it wouldn't be me.
I'm not the guy.
Candace Owens, she's the one who would be most likely to try.
I think I trend on Twitter a fair amount, maybe not as much as Candace, but, and this is where I find my worth as a person, is in how often I trend on Twitter.
So it's really a competition.
Anyway, Candace Owens is who we're talking about here, not myself.
She has a new episode of her show, Candace, dropping tonight, Tuesday the 13th at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central.
In tonight's episode, she discusses the protests in Cuba and weighs in on Marxism with MMA fighter, Benil Dariush.
So watch Candice live tonight at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, only on dailywire.com slash Candice.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we turn to something that somehow manages to be so ludicrous that I had to spend about 30 minutes googling it just to make sure that it wasn't some kind of joke or parody.
It is, as it turns out, no joke, at least not intentionally.
The Washington Free Beacon reports on the news, and I'll give you some of the background before we get to the really good stuff.
Reading from the Free Beacon report, it says, Top geologist condemns systemic white supremacy in the field of geoscience, which concerns the study of earth and rocks, in a manifesto published at the scientific journal Nature Communications.
The manifesto, which was spearheaded by Fort Hayes State University geology professor Hendrata Ali and signed by 20 academics, Asserts that the lack of black geologists demonstrates the bigoted roots of the science.
They called on colleagues to quash the racist, quote, expectations around manners, clothing, hair, professional attire, language, and diction in an effort to boost diversity in the field.
Quote, racism has led to the geosciences becoming one of the least diverse among all science and engineering fields.
Racism thrives in geoscience.
Geoscience organizes organizations function alongside the same racist ideologies and practices shaping society.
So they're addressing the lack of black people in the field of geology.
This is no doubt a problem that has plagued your mind and haunted your dreams.
I know that it has for me.
I often wake up in a cold sweat, tossing and turning, my eyes wet with tears.
My wife will turn to me and say, well, what's wrong?
What is it?
And I'll say, there's not enough.
There's not enough.
And she'll say, not enough what?
Black geologists.
We need more diversity in the geological sciences.
This happens like three times a week.
I'm seeing a therapist about it.
Now, it's good that the people who published this paper are finally dealing with this problem, but as I said, this is only the background.
We haven't gotten to the real headline here.
And before we do, a little more from this paper, speaking in general terms about the need for more anti-racism education among those who study rocks.
It says, quote, In considering anti-racism in the geosciences, we cannot ignore the intersecting identities of marginalized people.
We must acknowledge the added burden of inequalities and oppression experienced by people and communities with these intersectional identities, such as black women who are subjected to both sexism and racism, or when class status, disability, gender expression, or sexual identity intersects with other minoritized identities.
Indeed, focusing on only one axis of diversity has led to some gains only in more white women working as geoscientists, but has not increased the participation of BIPOC and other marginalized peoples.
Okay.
So this is your standard issue racial grievance mongering so far.
The grievance mongers have identified a certain, very specific area of society, in this case the field of geology, and decided arbitrarily that there should be more black people involved in it.
And then they decided, just as arbitrarily, that the lack of black people is due to racism.
It couldn't just be that not as many black people feel like studying rocks for a living?
Can't say I blame them.
No, no, no.
It has to be racism.
That's what it is.
This is all, as I said, pretty standard fare.
And then we get to this.
Listen very closely.
And this, again, is real.
Access implies that individuals can obtain the resources they need to safely pursue their scientific endeavors, regardless of location, instrumentation, site accessibility, and their identity.
Historically, access has been limited to mostly able-bodied, white, cisgender, heterosexual men.
As the geosciences strive to be more accessible, the community must recognize that BIPOC and other marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces.
Um, anyway, other marginalized geoscientists are not always safe in geoscience spaces.
For example, holding objects, for example, a rock hammer, has been viewed as suspicious and
continues to be used as a reason to call the black, to call the police on black people,
which can lead to the death of black individuals entirely because of racial profiling
and an unjustified fear of black people.
Okay, you heard that right.
Geology is racist because black people are afraid of holding hammers.
This makes me, among other things, feel bad for the black cashier who rang up my items at Home Depot last week.
I mean, imagine the psychological trauma he must suffer on a daily basis.
And why are black people afraid of hammers?
Well, because if they hold one, somebody might call the cops, and then the cops will come and shoot them.
In fact, this is a problem, we're told, with all physical objects in general.
According to the paper, any activity that requires holding an object of any kind can be construed as racist because of how it endangers black lives.
You might not have known this, but if you have ever worked at, say, the concession stand at a movie theater, and you handed a black customer his large bucket of popcorn after he paid for it, you just put his life in jeopardy.
Somebody should have come and smacked that popcorn out of your hands and said, no, don't do that!
You're gonna kill this man!
What are you doing?
That's an object!
He can't hold an object!
I mean, you should know better, honestly, than to go around giving objects to people of color.
It is your unique privilege as a white person to hold objects.
Other races of people don't have that ability.
They just don't.
Now, you may ask many questions, such as, has there ever been a case, has there ever been a case, ever in history, even once, of a black geologist being shot by the cops For using a hammer to break open some rocks.
The paper would seem to indicate that this is an epidemic.
I know it's not an epidemic.
I'm just wondering, has it ever happened at all, at any point?
Since the inception of the field of geology, has any geologist of any color or race been killed by the police in the course of their duty for using a hammer?
And by the way, if geology excludes black people because of how it requires the use of hammers, what about the construction field?
If people of color avoid geology because they don't want to risk their lives by holding objects, what are they doing in construction?
I mean, in that field, white people are underrepresented.
Almost 20% of construction workers are Hispanic and 12% are black, which is proportional with the general population.
If anyone was going to be shot for using a hammer on the job, you'd think it'd be construction workers who oftentimes are working in cities and populated areas, not geologists out chipping away at some limestone in the desert somewhere.
But here I am replying rational thought to what is wholly irrational.
The leftist religion dictates that everything, everywhere, must be racist.
And it's up to them to, you know, fill in the blanks and explain the hows and whys.
And in fairness to them, it's not easy to find racism in geology of all things, and this is basically the best they could do.
It was an admirable attempt, we must say.
But still insane.
And for that, they are, of course, today cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
(upbeat music)
Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll 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 Mika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Cubans take to the streets to protest communism, Hunter Biden sells his doodles for half a million bucks, and a genius of the public health establishment promises to make life very hard for the unvaccinated.
