Ep. 785 - The Ashli Babbitt Shooting Looks Even Worse Now That The Cop Has Spoken Out
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the cop who killed Ashli Babbitt has gone public. He was interviewed by NBC. And after seeing him, and listening to his side, I am even more sure than I was before that her killing was unjustified. She was murdered. Also, President Biden literally falls apart on camera while responding to the terrorist killing of 13 American servicemen. And the Supreme Court shuts down Biden’s unconstitutional eviction moratorium. Plus, the media is lying about COVID in Florida, again. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the new non-binary remix of “It’s Raining Men."
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the cop who killed Ashley Babbitt has gone public.
He was interviewed by NBC, and after seeing him and listening to his side, I am even more sure than I was before that her killing was unjustified.
She was murdered.
Also, President Biden literally falls apart on camera while responding to the terrorist killing of 13 American servicemen, and the Supreme Court shuts down Biden's unconstitutional eviction moratorium, unsurprisingly.
Plus, the media is lying about COVID in Florida again.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the new non-binary remix
of "It's Raining Men," a very important issue and one of many that we will discuss today
on "The Matt Walsh Show."
(upbeat music)
So last night, finally, more than a half a year after the unarmed Ashley Babbitt was shot
by a Capitol Police officer in the Capitol building, the name of the shooter was made public.
And not because it was officially released by anybody in a position of authority, as has happened in every other controversial police shooting in recent memory.
They would have been fine just letting his name never make it officially into the public, even though it had been circulating online for some time now.
In this case, it was because the officer himself, Michael Byrd is his name, Decided to speak out.
Fortunately for Lieutenant Michael Byrd, who shot Ashley Babbitt in the chest at near point-blank range as she was climbing through a broken door, he was able to face the public with the help of a very powerful PR team, otherwise known as the entire mainstream media.
Doesn't even have to pay them.
Pay them.
It's a pretty sweet deal.
Lester Holt of NBC News sat down with Byrd to pitch him softballs and give him a chance to extol his own virtue and courage, which he was more than willing and eager to do.
Early on in the exchange, in fact, Byrd declared that he showed, quote, the utmost courage in reference to himself by shooting an unarmed woman in the chest.
Listen to this.
Could you give us the nature of some of those threats?
They talked about, you know, killing me, cutting off my head, you know, very vicious and cruel things.
Racist things?
There were some racist attacks as well.
It's all disheartening because I know I was doing my job.
Given the nature of the threats that you describe, do you have any concern about showing your face and identifying yourself?
Of course I do.
That is a very vital point and it's something that is frightening.
I believe I showed the utmost courage on January 6th and it's time for me to do that now.
Oh, I'm sorry.
He actually credits himself with courage twice.
So he has the utmost courage on January 6th by shooting an unarmed woman in the chest.
He also has the utmost courage just by sitting down in front of a friendly media who is ready to celebrate him and accept everything that he says.
There's a lot of courage there as well.
Now, what led into that is he was being asked about the threats, the response he's gotten after his name leaked on social media, and he claimed that he's getting all these threats, people threatening to cut off his head, he claims.
He claims, anyway.
And you see how Lester Halt there, again, part of the PR team, leading him, coaching him along, saying, racist threats?
Was there racist threats too?
Oh yeah, sure, oh yeah, racism also.
We haven't seen any of that, we have no evidence of it, but that's what he tells us.
At least nobody can accuse him of having an overabundance of humility, at least.
And Byrd then goes on to explain what led up to him deciding to pull the trigger on that day.
He does claim He claims that he issued repeated warnings.
And that's one really important part of this.
Did he say anything?
Did he issue any warnings before firing his weapon?
He says that he did, but that's not substantiated by any video that we've ever been allowed to see or any witnesses that we've heard from.
It seems like he probably could substantiate that.
I'm sure on the other side of that door, there's some security footage, security cameras, all in that building.
You might be able to hear some of that, but they haven't released that to us.
We haven't heard from any witness who says that they heard him yelling and giving a warning, but he says that he did, and we'll listen to that part here.
He says officers barricaded the door, what he considered the last line of defense.
I had been yelling and screaming as loud as I was, please stop, get back, get back, stop.
We had our weapons drawn.
Bird, only his hand and gun visible, targeted a figure trying to climb through a window.
He fired a single fatal shot, hitting Ashley Babbitt.
She was 35 years old, an Air Force veteran, Trump supporter and QAnon follower.
I was taking a tactical stance.
You're ultimately hoping that your commands will be complied with.
And unfortunately they were not.
When you fired, what could you see?
Where were you aiming?
You're taught to aim for center mass.
The subject was sideways and I could not see her full motion of her hands or anything.
So I guess her movement Now, you note there how they also included the bit about how she was a QAnon follower.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
doing it then at that moment.
She was posing a threat to United States House of Representatives.
Now you note there how they also included the bit about how she was a QAnon follower.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
Now we're told that George Floyd being a violent felon who rushed into a woman's home and put a gun to her stomach
and robbed her in front of her kids, that history, those biographical details
about George Floyd are not relevant at all.
In fact, if you bring them up, you're a horrible person.
You're a racist even somehow for simply bringing that up.
It's got nothing to do with anything, we're told.
And yet the fact that Ashley Babbitt believed in some kooky QAnon thing, what does that have to do with anything?
Did he know that?
Isn't that what we're always told about George Floyd?
Well, yeah, he might have done all these horrible things and been this violent, terrible scumbag of a person, but the officer didn't know that?
That doesn't get him off the hook.
Well, what information about Ashley Babbitt did Michael Byrd have?
None.
Now this leads us to perhaps the most revealing point in the interview.
Holt asks him if the fact that he didn't know whether she was armed altered his decision making at all.
And listen to his answer because it's very important here.
Her family points out that she was not armed.
That's correct.
The fact that you weren't aware whether she was armed or not, did that alter the decision making?
It did not.
What should we make of the fact that there were other officers in other potentially life-threatening situations who didn't use their service weapons that day?
I'm sure it was a terrifying situation.
I can only control my reaction, my training, my level of expertise.
That would be upon them to speak for themselves.
Former President Trump has talked about you and this incident.
He says she was murdered.
What does it feel like to hear that from a former president?
Well, it's disheartening.
If he was in the room or anywhere and I'm responsible for him, I was prepared to do the same thing for him and his family.
What does it feel like?
What does it feel like to be called a murderer?
Yeah, what does it feel like?
Well, it must not feel great.
Can we get that question to all of the other cops?
In every single shooting that the BLM's been upset about?
They've all been called murderers.
From the very top.
What about the cop who shot Micaiah Bryant?
Saving someone's life in the process.
Saving the life of a young black woman.
By shooting someone who was trying to stab her to death.
Some crazed lunatic with a butcher knife.
He was called a murderer.
By many, many very prominent people.
Including in the White House, if I remember correctly.
Can we sit down with him?
Say, well, how does that make you feel?
When you were directly saving someone's life and you were called, you were accused of racist murder.
No, that question isn't asked.
We only ask it of this guy here.
Now, on the topic of whether or not she was armed, notice what Officer Byrd does not say.
He does not say that he thought she was armed.
He doesn't say that he couldn't see her hands and thought maybe there was a gun.
He doesn't say that he thought she had a bomb in her backpack or something.
He says that he wasn't sure if she was armed or not, and he shot anyway.
That's what he just said.
Now, I want you to imagine any other police officer from any other shooting in memory offering a justification like that.
Well, did you think he was armed?
I didn't really know.
But you shot him?
Yeah.
What kind of reception do you think that would receive?
And we'll return to that point in a moment, but let's wrap up with one more clip.
Holt briefly puts Bird in a mildly uncomfortable position by asking him about an incident a few years ago where Bird left his loaded service weapon in a bathroom and walked away, clearly demonstrating, you would think, a certain recklessness that may have played a role in what transpired on January 6th.
But Bird simply shrugs that off and says that it was a mistake and it was dealt with and Holt doesn't push him on it.
Then at the end, Byrd, who has already bragged of his incredible, steadfast courage, makes this claim.
Let's listen.
Multiple investigations have now upheld Byrd's actions on January 6th.
Capitol Police, in their press release after exonerating you, said your actions potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death.
What was it like to hear those words, to see those words?
Those words meant a lot because that's exactly what I did on that day.
That was my mission.
That was what I prepared for.
And it's rewarding and refreshing to hear that.
Oh, well, I'm glad you're rewarded and refreshed.
This is grotesque and just disgusting.
You think you can't be any more disgusted by the media, but then they manage to stoop to new lows every single day.
He killed a woman, and the whole interview is about how he... How does that make you feel?
How does it make you... It must make you feel good to hear that.
The Capitol Police did an investigation of themselves and discovered that they themselves hadn't done anything wrong.
Well, that settles that, I suppose.
In fact, he's quoted, Michael Byrd is quoted by NBC News as, and these aren't the words you hear in that clip, but they quote him in their article, him saying that he saved, quote, countless lives.
Countless lives.
He's not even saying that he thought he was saving lives at the time.
That would be one thing.
He's saying that even now, looking back on it in hindsight, he did save all of those lives.
I mean, how?
We know that Ashley Babbitt, we know now, some of this he might not have known at the time, but now we know that Ashley Babbitt was a five foot two inch unarmed female.
And even now he's saying by killing her, he saved countless lives.
What was she going to do?
Was she going to bust through the window and murder dozens of armed cops with her bare hands?
Was she Uma Thurman and kill Bill, some kind of trained assassin?
The claim from Byrd is absurd on its face.
The whole interview was absurd, again, grotesque, and impossible to imagine any other police officer ever receiving that kind of treatment or being given this sort of opportunity by NBC or any other media outlet at all.
And that's one important point to be made about this, of course.
Before we talk about whether Babbitt's shooting was justified based on the objective facts of the case, it is inarguable that the people defending it, every single one of them, would be exploding with outrage if she had a different skin color and a different political affiliation.
All of these defund-the-police champions have finally discovered one unarmed shooting of a civilian that they support, which only proves what we already knew.
That all of their concern over police brutality really has nothing to do with police brutality at all.
And I am not aware, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that none of these people have come to the defense of Ashley Babbitt.
Not a single one.
And they believe, by their own professions, that police officers are, many of them, serial killers, basically.
They only get into this line of work because they want to bully and kill people and be oppressors.
That's what they say.
And normally, when there's a shooting of a civilian, and the person is unarmed, right?
That's all the information they need.
They were unarmed and period, you don't kill them.
We have been told this so many times.
And yet in this case, it's not even that they look the other way, they celebrate it.
They don't care about police brutality.
They don't care about abuses by the state.
They don't care about anything or anyone.
They don't even care about the dead criminals whose faces they paint in murals on walls.
It's only about the ideology.
The dead bodies are vehicles for their ideological agenda.
Now, they'll deny this, of course, and say that somehow this is different.
Ashley Babbitt was in a government building, they'll say.
She was trespassing.
She was warned, allegedly.
But almost all of the BLM martyrs were also warned repeatedly to stop, and they didn't.
George Floyd was warned.
Jacob Blake was warned.
Rayshard Brooks was warned.
They were all warned.
Michael Brown was certainly warned.
And as far as government buildings, if that somehow makes all the difference, and I don't see why it should, I mean, is there something sacred about a government building?
If they've been doing this in some sort of private building, that changes things?
Why?
Are the lives of congressmen and politicians, are they actually more important than the lives of just regular people?
Is that what you're saying?
Apparently, that's what we're being told.
But if that does make all the difference, well, BLM militants invaded a police station and burned it to the ground with cops fleeing for their lives.
They assaulted a federal courthouse for months on end.
If any cop had fired a single shot at any of them, and they didn't, not one shot fired.
Through all of those months, But if they had, there would have been eruptions of outrage.
BLM would have burned cities to the ground in response.
Even more cities, anyway.
So we know that that is the case with these people.
We know that that's the hypocrisy here.
And it actually is hypocrisy in this case.
That's an appropriate use of the term.
Because a hypocrite is someone who pretends to believe something, pretends to hold a conviction or principle that they don't actually hold.
And that describes BLM and defund the police to a T. But just looking at the objective facts on the ground, the objective facts of the case, was, can we say, with everything that we know now, there's still a lot that we're not being told.
There's still a lot of evidence that we're not being allowed to see, a lot of footage that we're not being given, many supposed eyewitnesses that we've never heard from.
But based on everything that we know and have seen, can we say that Ashley Babbitt's shooting was justified?
And I would say even more now that I don't see how that could possibly be the case.
And I think there are a few points, a few things that point to that, and many of them were touched on in the interview, but they didn't dwell on it, they just moved on.
One of them is that there were a whole lot of cops there that day, and not a single one other cop felt the need to fire their weapon.
I think that really tells you something.
He was the only one, and he claims that he saved countless lives.
If he needed to fire a shot to save countless lives, then countless lives should have been taken elsewhere, because all these other cops weren't firing any shots.
So that doesn't make a lot of sense.
We also know that Ashley Babbitt Was surrounded by armed police officers behind her coming up the steps with rifles and on the other side of that door.
He wasn't the only one in that hallway.
You can even see that on the clip.
Did he need, did he have to resort to lethal force in order to stop her?
When she is an unarmed woman surrounded by police officers with their guns trained on her.
I don't see how that could possibly be the case.
Could he not have run up as she was climbing through the door and pulled her down and put her in cuffs and detained her?
Could he not have easily done that?
If he had said something like, "Well, I thought she had a gun."
I thought I saw one.
Then it would just be a matter of, do we believe the claim that he actually thought he saw a gun?
And there'd be no way for us to know.
We don't really know.
We can't be inside his head in the moment.
But he's not even saying that.
He's not even saying, I thought she had a gun.
He is saying, I didn't know.
And that to me is the final fact that really settles it.
She was murdered and it's more clear than it ever was before.
Let's get now to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now let's talk about blue blocks.
You know, I spend, like so many of you, much of my day staring at screens.
And probably the main downside of staring at screens all day is that it just eats away at my soul and it plunges me down into the depths of utter despair from which I cannot ever emotionally escape.
But the second worst thing about it is all the blue light, which damages your eyes and can lead to blurred vision, headaches, and dry, watery eyes.
Blue blocks was created to fix this problem Of the eyes, not the despair and the eating of your soul.
And block out the damaging blue light with high quality lenses.
Unlike other types of blue light glasses, blue blocks are evidence-based and made under optics laboratory conditions in Australia.
The founders were unhappy with the quality and lack of science behind leading blue light blocking glasses brands and that's why blue blocks exist.
Blue blocks was created to change this.
With high-quality lenses for daytime, nighttime, and for color therapy exactly in line with the suggested peer-reviewed academic literature.
They have over 40 stylish frames for every need.
They come in prescription, non-prescription, and readers.
So you got to take advantage of this.
Go to blueblocks.com slash Walsh and use coupon code Walsh to save 15%.
That's blueblocks.com.
B-L-U-B-L-O-X dot com slash Walsh and use coupon code Walsh for 15% off.
All right, so let's go first from Fox, the latest from Afghanistan.
It says, a day after two suicide bombings hit the Kabul airport, the death toll in Afghanistan has risen to more than 100 people.
Thursday's bombing near the airport killed at least 95 Afghans, and now we know 13 U.S.
troops have been killed as well in the deadliest day for U.S.
forces in Afghanistan since August 2011.
Late Thursday, U.S.
Defense Department officials said the death toll for U.S.
service members remained at 10, but the count included 10 Marines and two Army soldiers instead of the previously reported 12 Marines.
And then there was also one member of the Navy was also killed.
And then that's on top of a hundred additional people.
And I think we could expect at least that part of the death toll to rise.
You know, We're going to play, we'll play some clips from Joe Biden's press conference yesterday.
And we talked about this on backstage last night.
And if you watch the press conference, it was, it was in many ways, one of the most disturbing presidential addresses that I would say, in fact, the most disturbing one that I've ever seen in my lifetime.
Given the context, given what he is responding to, To see this old, frail, confused man just collapsing on camera was extremely disturbing.
And it doesn't give you a lot of confidence that we're going to get out of this situation.
And when I look at this, you know, one of the big questions that I have is, and you know, as I've been saying for the last couple of weeks, And like we debated very passionately and furiously on backstage last night, which is a really interesting conversation, by the way.
If you didn't watch that episode, you should go back and watch it.
You can watch it on YouTube or WIRE.com.
But I still maintain that leaving Afghanistan is the right thing to do.
It's been handled in the most incompetent way imaginable.
And a number of very obvious mistakes, like shutting the Air Force Base down, very obvious mistakes have been made.
Leading to this situation where now we had Marines at the airport facilitating the evacuation of thousands, and they're still there, facilitating the evacuation of just thousands of Afghan civilians.
Why?
While there are still hundreds and hundreds of Americans trapped behind enemy lines.
And they're at the airport facilitating this evacuation of just masses and masses of Afghans.
Now, we've been told that, oh, well, the Afghans were evacuating.
They're interpreters or they're people that worked with our military.
We owe it to them.
Really, all of those masses of people at the airport, they're all interpreters?
They all work?
No, these are just people in Afghanistan who showed up at the airport because they want to leave.
Understandably, they want to leave.
There's no way to know, really, who they are or whether they worked with us or not.
It is a mob of people.
We want to get out.
Again, understandably.
But what is not understandable is why our guys are there dealing with that.
The first objective should be, get Americans out.
First thing you do.
And then, any Afghans that actually worked with us, if we made a deal with them and said, we're going to get you out, then we should follow through on that deal.
And then after that, you know what we do?
We leave.
It's not our job to evacuate half of the country of Afghanistan from the country.
But Joe Biden, standing in front of the people last night, did not imbue anyone with a whole lot of confidence going forward.
I thought we're going to jump ahead a little bit because I thought maybe the defining moment, and this will be really the defining image of Joe Biden's presidency, and I said that when we were sitting down watching the press conference.
I said that at the time.
This is the image right here.
that will summarize his entire presidency.
We'll see it here.
He's going back and forth with Peter Doocy, and at one point, he becomes sort of exasperated, and he kind of hunches down.
And just watch it here if you didn't see it.
Here it is.
You know as well as I do that the former president made a deal with the Taliban that he would get all American forces out of Afghanistan by May 1.
In return, the commitment was made, and that was a year before.
In return, he was given a commitment that the Taliban would continue to attack others, but would not attack any American forces.
Remember that?
I'm being serious.
No, I'm asking you a question.
Because before... No, no, no, wait a minute.
I'm asking you a question.
Is that accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
You know, I've actually seen people on social media claiming, trying to defend what Biden is doing there.
What he's actually doing is he's sort of like just giving up.
I've seen people on social media claiming that he's praying.
This was a moment of him praying for the lives lost in Afghanistan.
No, that's not what he's doing.
He's frustrated and he's collapsing on camera.
He's giving up.
He can't do it.
There's one reporter in that room, and it's only ever Peter Ducey, he's the only guy.
There's one reporter in that room who will ask tough questions and actually have follow-ups and demand some kind of answers.
And this frail, old, pathetic nothing of a man, who was a pathetic nothing of a man before he became frail and old, by the way, can't handle it.
But I think even, so that's the defining image There's one other moment before that that also really encapsulates his presidency, I think, when he first began to take questions.
The way that he phrased it was interesting.
Let's watch that.
Thank you.
May God bless you all and may God protect his troops and all those standing watch for America.
We have so much to do.
It's within our capacity to do it.
We just have to remain steadfast.
Steadfast.
We will complete our mission, and we will continue, after our troops are withdrawn, to find means by which we can find any American who wishes to get out of Afghanistan.
We will find them, and we will get them out.
Ladies and gentlemen, I gave me a list here.
The first person I was instructed to call on was Kelly O'Donnell of NBC.
Mumbling, stumbling around, semi-coherent.
It was very disturbing even before that in his speech because he's doing a lot of the mumbling thing.
He can barely speak.
It's no exaggeration to say.
And then there'll be these moments of lucidity where he starts, it's like it was, it's the Joe Biden of, uh, of 15 years ago.
So lucid in comparison, right?
Relatively speaking.
But he has these moments where suddenly he's on the ball a little bit more and he's projecting his voice more and then he kind of goes back down again.
So the lucidity comes in waves.
And the waves are farther and farther apart.
And that is what happens with dementia, when someone is losing their mind and losing their mental facilities.
Where it begins where they've got these rare moments where they kind of lose track of their thoughts and they go blank for a minute.
And that was Joe Biden like five years ago.
And then those moments come closer and closer together.
Until eventually you get to the point where the lucid moments are the ones that are far apart.
We're watching that happen.
So many Americans have watched this happen with their grandparents or their parents, and now we're watching it happen with the President of the United States.
A consequence of having a 78-year-old president, as I have said all along.
And then he says, I was instructed to call on.
Well, who's instructing you?
You're the president.
Who's passing on these instructions?
And that's distressing to hear for two reasons.
Number one, he's too out of it to realize that he shouldn't be saying that out loud.
And number two, for the obvious reason that there is something to be said out loud to begin with here, that he is being instructed to do things.
And that's a word of warning.
That's a caution for all of the people right now who are saying Joe Biden has to resign.
Impeach Biden was trending yesterday on Twitter.
And I get it on an emotional level.
I think he is absolutely unfit to be president and has been from the beginning.
I think he deserves to be impeached.
It's not ever going to happen.
You need the Democrats to go along with that.
Of course, they're not going to do it.
But even in some fantasy scenario where Joe Biden was kicked out of office, Remember that Joe Biden is the puppet, the one who is being instructed to do things.
He's the weekend at Bernie's fleshy mannequin who's carted out there to barely even speak in front of cameras.
So if he's the puppet and you get rid of him, or he steps down, or he goes on to meet his maker, as many people this age do, as everyone that age eventually does, then you're gonna go from the puppet to the people pulling the strings.
It's hard to see that as an improvement.
And that only speaks to how, I guess it speaks to how absolutely screwed we actually are.
I hate to say it.
There's really no way out of this.
You would need everybody in the White House to resign.
You need the whole system to forfeit their power, which is not going to happen.
It's always been the plan from the beginning.
I don't think anyone behind the scenes ever imagined that Joe Biden would actually make it all four years.
So this is all according to plan.
I thought this was also pretty revealing.
Yesterday morning, August 26th, right before 8 a.m., this was tweeted out by the Sergeant Major of the Army, Michael Grinston.
I think we have this tweet from him.
Right before the attack, okay?
Now, in fairness, this was before the attack, like an hour before.
Here's what the Sergeant Major of the Army, Michael Grinston, tweeted.
He said, Diversity is a number.
Do you have people that don't look or think like you in the room?
Inclusion is listening and valuing those people.
Women, hashtag Women's Equality Day, reminds us we're smarter and more lethal when we come together as an inclusive, cohesive team.
Our values demand it.
So this is what the Army, this is what the top brass, the people in charge of our military, were worried about yesterday.
While terrorists were strapping suicide vests onto their bodies and heading to the airport to kill 13 of our own guys.
This is what they were focused on.
Is celebrating Women's Equality Day.
Claiming that we're more lethal by being inclusive.
Women in the army, they make us more lethal?
Now, you want to claim that that makes us a more tolerant army?
Then go ahead, but the point of the army is not to be tolerant.
It is to not tolerate certain things, like our enemies, who wish us harm.
But now the claim is that actually we are a more deadly and fierce and formidable fighting force if we're inclusive and tolerant and we've got a lot of estrogen pumping through the ranks.
How so?
Show me the science on that.
I'd like to see some studies on that.
That show that fighting units with women are more deadly.
That defies all common sense.
And there's no evidence of that whatsoever and no reason to think that it's true.
But this is what our military is focused on.
And that's one of the points that I was making yesterday in the backstage and I've been making now for the last couple of weeks.
That I don't think the United States should be in the business of building empires overseas or nation building or pursuing imperial ambitions.
I don't think that the United States should be doing that.
Our founding fathers certainly never imagined that for the United States, never wanted that.
But even if I could go along with that in theory, even if in theory I could agree that it's a good idea for us to become an empire and to expand our reach across the globe, the problem is we're not operating in theory.
We're operating in reality.
And in reality, the people who are running the empire are these kinds of people.
And this is the influence that they're extending across the globe.
So if you like the idea of empire building in theory, what I would say is take it out of theory and put it in reality.
Do you want these people to be the ones building the American empire?
Because they're the ones doing it.
And speaking of these people who are in charge of the American empire, Nancy Pelosi, in the midst of the crisis in Afghanistan yesterday, she got, this was after the attack, she got in front of cameras and this is what she was talking about.
Here we are 101 years later, women in positions of high responsibility, but an attack on the right to vote that is happening in our country.
A few days ago, on Tuesday, in the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Terri Sewell, a woman from Selma, Alabama, we passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Enhancement Act.
To offset the damage that the courts are doing to the right to vote.
And in doing so, we also need the Senate to pass it and to pass H.R.
1, which is legislation to overturn the voter suppression laws that are being enacted across the country.
Not only to suppress the vote, but to nullify the vote.
So we have important work to do.
We have important work to do.
I, when I saw that clip yesterday, I actually did kind of a double take because she, I kind of clued in when she said there was an attack on the right to vote.
After the deadliest day, she knew that we just suffered the deadliest day in Afghanistan for our military in a decade.
And she's out there talking about the entirely fictional attack on the right to vote.
Again, get rid of Biden, and these people are still in charge.
Another word of warning again.
All right, moving on to a couple other things.
You may be hearing that it's a bloodbath down in Florida, people dying of COVID left and right.
You've probably seen the headlines like this one from Miami Herald.
This is the headline, it says, Florida COVID update, 901 added deaths, largest single-day increase in pandemic history.
The COVID panic porn pushers have been having a field day with this, the deadliest day in history, they're saying.
Which is at first kind of surprising because you think, well, really, we're having the deadliest day now?
When you've got millions and millions of people who either are vaccinated or have natural immunity, now we have our deadliest day?
That's unexpected.
That's why you always want to go and actually read the article.
So, here's what, if you read the article, this is what it says, Miami Herald.
Remember, they said deadliest day, most deaths added in a single day in pandemic history.
And it says, "Florida on Thursday reported 21,765 more COVID-19 cases and 901 deaths
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All but two of the newly reported deaths occurred
after July 25th, with about 78% of those people dying in the past two weeks."
The majority of deaths happened during Florida's latest surge in COVID-19 cases fueled by the Delta variant.
Oh, okay.
Well, hold on a second.
So we're going back to July 25th.
So allegedly the deadliest day, most deaths added, is how they put it.
But these are all the deaths that are being reported that have happened over the course of an entire month.
And that becomes the deadliest day.
Now, they'll get away with this because they'll say that, well, we didn't say it was the deadliest day exactly.
We said it was the most reported deaths in a day.
Which technically is true, but what they want you to take away from that headline, and what most people take from it, because they don't click on it, is that it's the deadliest day.
I would hope that everyone realizes this by now, really with anything with the media, but especially when it comes to these sensational claims about COVID.
You can't judge anything by headlines.
You always gotta read into it.
There's almost always more to the story.
Here's another headline.
This is from the AP.
It says the Supreme Court's conservative majority is allowing evictions to resume across the United States, blocking the Biden administration from enforcing a temporary ban that was put in place because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The court's action late Thursday ends protections for roughly three and a half million people in the United States who said they faced eviction in the next two months.
The court said in an unsigned opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reimposed the moratorium on August 3rd, lacked the authority to do so.
Under federal law without explicit congressional authorization, the justices rejected the administration's arguments in support of the CDC's authority.
The three liberal justices dissented.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the three, pointed to the increase in COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant as one of the reasons the court should have left the moratorium in place.
He said, the public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC's judgment at this moment when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates.
So you notice how the liberal justices who want to affirm this authority by the executive branch to waive their scepters mightily and declare that nobody is allowed to, all landlords across the nation aren't allowed to evict delinquent tenants.
But even the liberal justices who support it, they don't make any constitutional argument for it.
They're not attempting to claim that this authority exists in the Constitution.
They're saying instead that, well, it's, it's, there's a pandemic right now and it's, it's the public interest.
We should respect, we should, this is the constitutional argument that the liberal justices are making, that we should respect the CDC's judgment.
There is no constitutional argument at all.
In fact, Cori Bush, who she was the one, the member of the squad, remember she set up her little fake homeless encampment outside of the Capitol building, staging an insurrection of sorts.
And she had all of her Oreos and junk food and everything and she was hanging out out there.
And she eventually is one of the main ones that bullied the White House into extending the moratorium.
Before this decision was decided, she tweeted, 11 million people will face eviction if the Supreme Court blocks the eviction moratorium extension.
It's a simple choice.
Uphold the moratorium or put the lives and livelihoods of millions at risk.
The American people are counting on SCOTUS to make the right decision.
Well, that's simply false, first of all, that 11 million people are facing eviction.
That assumes that all of the people who have not been paying their rent Can't.
And once this eviction, the moratorium is lifted, they're all going to be tossed out on their butts.
A certain portion of them will be, and justifiably so, because they haven't been paying their rent for a year.
But there's also going to be a pretty large number of people who can pay it, but they're just not, because they don't have to.
That's part of human nature.
When you don't force people to fulfill their obligations, there's a certain portion of them who won't, unless you make them.
But even if that was true, once again here, she doesn't try to say that the executive branch of the CDC had this constitutional authority.
Instead, it's an emotional argument, it's putting lives at risk.
It has nothing to do with anything, actually.
The only question is whether the CDC had this constitutional authority to do what they did, and clearly, they didn't.
All right, let's move now to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Kunal, who says, Matt is harsh on politicians all the time, but he's never commented on male politicians' looks.
So yes, this was sexist, talking about my comments about Kristi Noem.
Well, that's not true at all.
Just the other week, I said that de Blasio The mayor of New York looks like the love child of Rex Ryan and Gumby.
So, which he does.
I make fun of the looks of politicians, male and female, all the time.
Give me some credit.
Here.
Yo Mama's Boo says, Matt is low-key becoming as popular a conservative voice as Candace Owens.
Whenever he moves people on both the left and right, pay attention, even Carrie Underwood.
Well, I appreciate that, but please don't use the phrase low-key.
You're too old for that.
Yo mama's boo.
I don't know how old you are, but I'm assuming, because everybody is.
But thank you.
And also you're banned from the show.
Jerry says, Matt, what I love about you most is you stick to your personal beliefs no matter what criticism you endure.
You're a good man.
And as a woman, I find you a very desirable type of man that we need more of.
I'm just going to read all these comments that are complimenting me.
Shotzi says, hot privilege is a double-edged sword.
There are pitfalls to being more attractive than a lot of other women, but it isn't misogyny to point out that appearance may get you more attention.
Yeah, I mean, look, as someone who, admittedly, I experience hot privilege myself, that is a privilege that I will admit to.
But it is kind of, as you point out, it's a blessing and a curse.
I find my own beauty to be both a blessing and a curse.
Because on one hand, I am strikingly handsome.
On the other hand, people often don't treat me the same as other people.
And I know that I make others feel bad when they set their eyes upon me.
So I think you're right about that.
And let's see.
Just Another Conservative says, today my identity has changed.
I am now a non-binary slug that is attracted to trans women who identify as fish.
Again, thank you for your tolerance.
And thank you for coming out and speaking your truth and living your truth.
And I applaud you for that and I find it quite impressive and inspirational as well.
And Dan Vasca says, Matt, just own your misogyny and be proud of being called that.
The people who hate you are still going to call you misogynist no matter what.
Just say, okay, and they won't be able to use that against you again.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't care at all about, about being, being labeled that or about being labeled anything else, especially by people who reflexively label you in lieu of making actual arguments.
But I'm also not going to, as you say, own my misogyny because I'm not, in fact, a misogynist.
So it would be factually untrue.
I'm not going to agree to something that's factually untrue.
Misogyny is the hatred of women, okay?
And I don't hate women at all.
I love women.
I think women are great.
I love women as women, meaning I appreciate the unique things that women bring to the table in society.
The people trying to erase women, literally erase them, They're the misogynists.
They hate women.
Now, I kind of hate what I'm saying right now because I'm doing the... The Dems are the real misogynists.
And I don't like that.
As I've said many times, the Dems are the real racists or Dems are the real transphobes.
And I'm kind of doing that here.
I realize that.
But in this case, they actually are.
They really are misogynists.
They really do hate women.
And they want to get rid of women as a category.
And I think that's an important point.
I wouldn't necessarily say all of this in response to being labeled that way, because I think that you're right, that dismissiveness is the correct approach.
But between you and me, this is the truth, for the record.
Thank God, folks.
It's time for your Daily Wire promos.
You know, as the legacy media continues to spin the news, our newest podcast, Morning Wire, continues topping the Apple and Spotify charts.
And we're continuing our commitment to bring you the news without a hidden agenda.
It's the only daily podcast that values your time and the truth.
I mean, I'm a daily podcast and I value the truth.
I don't really value your time.
That's why I drone on and on.
So actually, I guess this is true.
And while we're working overtime to bring you the news you need to know, we need your help to keep the facts trending towards number one.
So subscribe and start listening now to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts and leave a five star review if you like what you hear.
You know, I feel like The Daily Wire promos for other shows shouldn't insult the shows that are giving the promos, okay?
Because you're claiming that I don't value time and truth, which I just reject, even if it's true.
Also, if you want the news that other outlets won't cover, then The Daily Wire's Reader's Pass is perfect for you.
For just $4 a month, You'll unlock exclusive access to editorial content that you won't get anywhere else and right now get a free four-week trial when you sign up at dailywire.com slash subscribe but hurry because this deal won't last forever you get all kinds of Op-eds and and editorials and insights and analysis from a lot of great writers including Ben Shapiro Candace Owens even myself on occasion
All of this can be just yours for just $4 a month.
And if you act fast, you get your free four-week trial at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
It's a good deal, and it's also never been a better time to take it.
So what are you waiting for?
Get informed.
Get a reader's pass today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today for our daily cancellation, we turn to transgender singer Mila Jam.
Mila Jam has recorded an updated and revamped version of the well-known song, It's Raining Men by the Weather Girls.
Now, the original is certainly no classic, not exactly an artistic high point for Western civilization, though compared to much of what came after and some of what came before, it may be higher up on the scale than we would like to think.
But in any case, it's a dumb song, it's a bad song, but it's kitschy and it has character at least.
It's become iconic in its own way, thanks mainly to its use in comedy montages and so forth.
Another quick side note here, since we're on the subject.
I discovered only just this morning, when I was researching the background of It's Raining Men, because this is the kind of thing my job entails, so that I could give you all of this unnecessary information.
I discovered that one of the women in the Weather Girls group is named Martha Walsh.
There's no relation as far as I know, though if there was, I would certainly be proud to call her kin.
But we probably spent more time talking about It's Raining Men than is necessary, mostly because no amount of time was necessary at all.
And it's probably also not necessary to play the remix for you, but I'm going to do it anyway, because there are a few salient points to be made about it.
In Mila Jam's new and inclusive version for 2021, all references to men have been removed, which means the entire point of the song has been removed.
There are also no references to women.
This song, which is originally about sex, has been rendered sexless as Mila Jam sings not about women or men, but about them.
Here's a small taste of "It's Raining Them."
[MUSIC - LILI RAY, "IT'S RAINING THEM"]
Well, so there's that.
I'm sure you're glad that you were able to see that, and I'm glad you were too, because if you can get past just how terrible the song is and everything else about it, I think it does provide some very useful, if still grotesque and disturbing insight into our current cultural condition.
I mean, think about the chorus.
It's raining them.
The original song has heterosexual women singing about their desire for men.
Men are a particular and definable group, which, with particular and definable features, Which heterosexual women find appealing.
But what are them?
I mean, who are them?
This is a vague and undefinable group with no particular characteristics and features.
Are we supposed to imagine that there are people who get all hot and bothered and turned on by the thought of them?
The thought of just people in general with no other specifications?
Does anybody walk into a room filled with people, with thems, and feel attracted to everyone regardless of their physical attributes?
Has anybody ever walked into, like, the DMV and said, Hallelujah!
It's raining people in here!
Look at all these thems!
I doubt that very many people work that way, but that is indeed how the left thinks it should work, and how we should work.
They wish to usher in a kind of sexless, ambiguous utopia where nobody is anyone and there is no real sexual attraction because sexual features are irrelevant or erased.
And that's what this move to non-binary is all about, a self-identification which means nothing and is inherently nonsensical, but is also increasingly popular, especially among younger people.
Non-binary is not an identity, it's an anti-identity.
It is the rejection of all that is specific and particular and unique about you.
You become a them, which is to say that you become really nothing and no one.
Another good example of this is this here.
Here's a high school teacher in a recent viral video coming out as non-binary to his students.
Watch.
I'm about to come out to all my students.
So I have a quick announcement for everybody.
Can everybody look up from their phones?
My class is important, please.
Hello.
I'm waiting.
You guys look at me.
So, I usually go by Mr. Johnson, but I would like to be called ZOA now.
My name is ZOA, and I'm non-binary, so you can call me Mr. ZOA, you can call me Miss ZOA, you can call me Mick ZOA, that's M-X period, and I go by all pronouns.
That's it!
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
[CHEERING]
[WHISTLING]
[APPLAUSE]
Thanks, guys.
That's it.
All thank you.
If anybody has any questions, you can ask me at the end of class.
Oh, bravo, sir.
So much care.
Not sir.
I apologize.
Sir and ladies and gentlemen, bravo.
To jump on this trend and to say this thing that is sure to bring you applause, it's so courageous, really.
Now, it's obviously bizarre and wildly inappropriate for a high school teacher to be talking to his students about this at all.
And this is just as obviously someone who is not mentally fit to be a teacher at all.
Then again, if we disqualified teachers on that basis, we'd be left with only about 12 or 13 of them in the entire country.
But either way, think about what he's saying.
He is a he, and a she, and a mister, and a miss, a they, and a them.
He encompasses all identities.
He is all things.
He is everything to everyone.
Now, this is narcissistic to a literally insane degree, but it's a narcissism, an obsession with the self, which erases the self.
He is so focused on himself, so in love with himself, that he has obliterated himself.
He has collapsed into himself and become a sort of ghost or phantom, undefinable, identity-less.
At least, he wants to be undefinable and identity-less.
And yet, he doesn't want to be that either at the same time, because you'll notice something else.
How the people who want to reject the gender binary and remove themselves from this thing which nobody can really remove themselves from, they're reluctant to take it all the way, right?
Most of the time.
Because if you're a person who's neither male nor female, even though that isn't possible and nobody fits into that category or ever will, I mean, the appropriate response, when someone says to you, oh, I'm non-binary, the appropriate response is, no, you're not.
But if it was possible to be that, And that's the category to which you belong.
That, in fact, your correct pronoun would be not he or she or they or them, but it.
Not they, because they is plural, and you're just one person.
Not he or she, because he or she denotes male or female.
And you say that you're neither, so it would be the correct pronoun.
Now, think about, what if my dreams ever do come true, and space aliens land on this planet, and they walk off their spaceships, and they appear to not have any recognizable sex?
Well, we would call them it, wouldn't we?
If we were talking about an individual, one of these creatures.
We would point and say stuff like, wow, look at it!
And, well, I hope it doesn't use that laser gun on us, and so on.
But even most supposedly non-binary people don't want to be called it.
Because it is dehumanizing.
It makes you sound like you're not a person, but some sort of bizarre creature, some kind of swamp thing emerging from the muck.
You want to be a human, and I don't blame you.
The problem is that humans are males or females.
That's part of the human deal.
You can't escape it.
You never will.
And you shouldn't try.
Because to escape it is not to expand your identity, but to lose it completely.
And that's why the person who sang that It's Raining Them song is cancelled.
Another one where it took us a while to get back around to it, but...
They're not going to escape it.
They are cancelled for that.
And we will leave it there for the day and the week.
Hope you have a great weekend.
Talk to you on Monday.
Godspeed.
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 Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, 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 Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
