Ep. 801 - The Media Spins Its Most Absurd False Narrative Yet
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media specializes in spinning false narratives. But the narrative they’ve concocted about border patrol agents on horseback whipping and lassoing Haitian immigrants is perhaps the most absurd yet. We’ll discuss today. Also, speaking of those illegals, shouldn’t we be treating the immigrant invasion as a biological terror threat, given that none of them are masked or vaccinated? We treat unvaccinated American citizens that way, after all. Plus, Australia descends further and further into fascism. Is it a preview of things to come in this country? And Facebook conducts its own research and discovers that social media is deeply harmful to kids. It then did the responsible and ethical thing and immediately swept those findings under the rug. We’ll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
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 media specializes in spinning false narratives, but the narrative they've concocted about border patrol agents on horseback whipping and lassoing Haitian immigrants is perhaps the most absurd yet.
We'll discuss that today.
Also, speaking of those illegals, shouldn't we be treating the immigrant invasion as a biological terror threat, given that none of them are masked or vaccinated?
We treat unvaccinated American citizens that way, after all.
Plus, Australia descends further and further into fascism Is it a preview of things to come in this country?
And Facebook conducts its own research and discovers that social media is deeply harmful to kids.
It then did the responsible and ethical thing and immediately swept those findings under the rug.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
You know, you had to worry about the paparazzi rifling through your trash or whatever.
But these days, everyone has to worry about that because everything that you've browsed, searched for, watched, or tweeted can be exposed to third parties on the internet.
Everything is now open for the public, potentially.
And that is why, to keep my data private, when I go online, I turn to ExpressVPN.
Did you know there are hundreds of data brokers out there whose sole business is to buy and sell your data?
The worst part is that they don't have to tell you who they're selling it to or even get your consent.
One of these data points is your IP address.
Data harvesters use your IP to uniquely identify you and your location.
But with ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server and my IP address is masked every time I turn.
ExpressVPN on.
I'm given a random IP address shared by other ExpressVPN customers.
That makes it more difficult for third parties to identify me and harvest my data.
So if you like me believe that your data is your business, then you should secure yourself with the number one ranked It seems redundant to talk about the crisis down on the border because the border has been in a constant state of crisis for decades, but the overall underlying crisis flares up occasionally into what may more technically be described as, I don't know, a super-duper crisis.
And that's what we're facing right now, particularly down in southwest Texas, in Del Rio, where thousands of illegal immigrants have set up an expansive, bustling, impoverished tent city of sorts.
This is what the compassionate, quote-unquote, immigration policies of the Democrat Party get you.
They get you shanty towns in the desert.
They get you immigrant families living under a bridge.
They get you a third world invasion, which ultimately harms both the invaded and the invaders.
They also get you slavery and sex trafficking.
They get you kids raped and killed by human smugglers.
This compassion brings all manner of misery and death and suffering to everyone touched by it on both sides of the border.
Because this compassion is not compassion at all.
It is total abject indifference.
This is why defending the border, and defending it vigorously, harshly, With force, if necessary, is not only the most just and appropriate policy, as it is the basic duty of our government to protect its borders and its people, but it's also the most truly compassionate.
If you're actually concerned with minimizing human suffering to the greatest possible extent, and we all should be concerned with that, then you'll make sure that immigrants know that the trek across the desert will be fruitless.
There's no need to come.
Certainly don't send your children.
Don't risk their lives or your lives for this.
It won't work.
That's a message of compassion.
Compassion both to the would-be illegal immigrant, or the would-be child who's going to be smuggled across the border, and also to your own people, who live in a sovereign nation and deserve to have that sovereignty preserved and defended.
This is a conversation we should be having when it comes to illegal immigration.
But the media is not interested in that conversation, so instead, as always, they change the subject.
They are perpetually on the lookout for false narratives to help them do that, and yesterday they found a very convenient one.
Images began circulating online of border patrol agents on horseback apprehending immigrants as they attempted to storm the border.
There is, of course, nothing at all strange about this.
Border Patrol agents are supposed to patrol and defend the border.
It's right there in the name, Border Patrol.
And considering they're out in the desert, it makes quite a lot of sense for them to perform this duty on horseback.
You see cops in major cities on horseback.
And sometimes that, to me, seems a little silly.
But on the border, in the desert, makes a lot of sense.
But the images of White looking border patrol agents on horseback.
And I say white looking because in fact, many of these border patrol agents are Hispanic.
But the image of a white-looking Border Patrol agent on horseback rounding up mostly black Haitian immigrants, and more on the Haitian part of this story in just a minute, presented an opportunity to media propagandists that they simply couldn't pass up.
So it began with a guy named Sawyer Hackett, who providentially actually has the word hack in his name, and he posted two images of the mounted Border Patrol agents along with this caption.
The caption is, Border Patrol is mounted on horseback rounding up Haitian refugees with whips.
This is unfathomable cruelty towards people fleeing disaster and political ruin.
The administration must stop this.
And now, pardon the pun, we're off to the races.
The news was trending across social media.
Border agents are using whips against Haitian refugees.
Every major media outlet published their own headline.
These days, a narrative cements and metastasizes within minutes, seconds even.
That's all it takes.
Now, it used to take longer for a false narrative.
The media has always perpetrated false narratives, perpetuated false narratives.
But in the past, it would take some effort to get people to believe it.
But now, with the internet, it just takes a second.
All across social media and the news media, people were breathlessly condemning the evil officers who were whipping and lassoing Haitians down on the border like some kind of old Western film.
Comparisons to slavery were made.
The White House was asked about the whips, and Jen Psaki, though admitting that she doesn't know the context, still said that the images are inappropriate and terrible and even horrific.
Listen.
I have seen some of the footage.
I don't have the full context.
I can't imagine what context would make that appropriate, but I don't have additional details.
And certainly, I don't have additional context, April.
I don't think anyone seeing that footage would think it was acceptable or appropriate.
Thanks so much, Jen.
I want to follow up on the question about Haitians and specifically these photos that are surfacing on border patrol agents seemingly using whips.
I know you said that there's no context that it would be seen as inappropriate.
So the question really is, why would this be happening under the Biden administration?
Is this going to stop?
I wonder, what are going to be the consequences if what we're seeing is what we're seeing?
I mean, Yamiche, it's all good questions.
We just saw this footage.
It's horrible to watch.
I just have to get more information on it.
Again, April, I don't have more information on it.
I've also seen the video.
I can't imagine what the scenario is where that would be appropriate.
I'm certainly not suggesting that, but we've just seen the footage earlier this morning.
I should also ask, I know you said that you're still assessing it, but just to add, if this is what we see, is it the president's stance or the White House's stance that whoever these border agents are using what seems to be whips on migrants, that they would be fired or at least never be able to do that again?
Of course they should never be able to do it again.
I don't know what the circumstances would be.
It's obviously horrific, the footage.
I don't have any more information on it, so let me venture to do that and we'll see if there's more to convey.
Yes, I have no idea what's actually going on, she says, but whatever it is, it's definitely bad.
These men down on the border who work for us and are doing the job they were hired to do are clearly guilty of horrific atrocities.
I don't know anything about the situation, but I know enough to throw our own people under the bus.
That's for sure.
The White House showing more of its trademark moral courage with that response.
But is it true that the Border Patrol agents were using whips?
Well, the first answer is that doesn't matter if it's true.
The narrative is all that matters.
The truth is irrelevant to almost everyone who is propagating this narrative.
The second answer is that no, of course it isn't even remotely true.
City boy Sawyer was, perhaps intentionally, misinterpreting the horse reins for a whip.
That's what those ropes on the horse are?
They're reins.
Okay, and if you've ever seen someone on horseback and you've wondered how they manage to steer the horse in the direction that they want the horse to go, this is how they do it.
And that must have seemed like a pretty weird magic trick if you didn't know about horse reins.
They don't use animal telepathy, it turns out.
They also don't jump on the horse and say, all right, Sparky, take me wherever you want to go.
Where are we going today?
No, they use these things called reins to steer the animal in the preferred direction.
That's what those ropes are.
But we know the left has long had trouble dealing with ropes.
They're very scandalized by really, any rope in any form, they're scandalized.
First, they thought a garage door pull in a NASCAR garage was a noose.
I mean, they thought a rope hanging there for like a tire swing in a park was a noose.
They thought a cord at a Cracker Barrel was a noose.
And now they think horse reins are a whip.
They seem to think that every rope is somehow sinister.
I can only imagine what would happen to these people if they ever went into, I don't know, an indoor rock climbing facility.
Whips and nooses all over the place.
They probably think it was some kind of BDSM dungeon.
So on second thought, they'd feel right at home, I guess.
But all of this talk of whips and nooses obscures another, more important point.
We are told that the immigrant horde being whipped, quote-unquote, down in Del Rio are Haitians.
Now, Haitians, I hope I don't have to remind you, are from Haiti.
Haiti, I also hope I don't have to remind you, is not in Mexico or even near Mexico.
It is an island nation thousands of miles away across the sea.
The media is talking about these people as if they're fleeing Haiti itself, which would mean that they got in boats, presumably, thousands at a time, and sailed up the Gulf of Mexico, hundreds and hundreds of miles, docked somewhere on Mexico's coast, and then walked through the desert, parallel to the U.S.
border, only to then convene around southwest Texas and try to enter there all at once.
That makes no sense at all.
There would have been many potential ports of entry much closer and easier to access.
I mean, if you're taking a boat from Haiti and you want to get into the U.S., how do you end up in Del Rio?
So that doesn't make any sense.
But that's the impression we're supposed to have when they talk about, well, the Haiti, they're fleeing political persecution and so on.
So the implication is that they are fleeing Haiti.
But again, that doesn't make any sense.
If you're fleeing Haiti, you're not going to end up in Del Rio of all places.
So why are they there?
And why isn't anyone in the media asking this?
Why are we having to talk about horse reins instead of discussing the origin and intentions of this mysterious mass of Haitians hanging out in Del Rio for unknown reasons?
Now, I don't have all the answers myself.
I have the questions, which is why I'm asking them.
But it does seem pretty clear that many of these people, probably all of them, are not coming from Haiti at all.
They were, withstand a reason, already in Central America somewhere, and probably had been there for years.
Now, this makes it dubious to refer to them as Haitian refugees or Haitian asylum seekers.
If a Haitian man moves to Guatemala and lives there for five years, And then tries to enter the U.S.
illegally.
Is he a Haitian refugee seeking asylum at that point?
I mean, in one sense, technically, he's still Haitian, of course, but the term gives a misleading impression.
Also, why would we grant him asylum here when he's already been living in another country?
He wants asylum from Haiti, right?
Well, he was in Guatemala.
Why can't he stay there?
And if he's leaving from there, he's got to cross other countries to get to our country.
But whatever we call these people, whether Haitian asylum seekers or just illegal immigrants, I tend to favor the latter term.
The question then becomes, and if they are leaving Central America, why are they all leaving Central America and coming here now?
Why now?
Why all at once?
How did they all get there?
Why at that spot?
These are valid questions, I believe.
Questions worth asking.
That, again, should be the first question anyone in the media asks if they're sitting in a press conference and being told about a tent city of Haitian immigrants in Del Rio.
Everyone should say, what Haitian immigrants?
Why?
Nobody even asks it.
Nobody.
But the media, you know, because they don't want to talk about that.
That's not a question they want to ask because it's not an answer they want to be given.
They'd rather talk about imaginary whips and scary guys on horseback.
They'd rather talk about anything but the real point, as always.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[opening music]
We know that the left is in a constant state of panic over everything,
but the panic over abortion, especially after the Texas abortion law,
has been certainly a sight to behold.
And it's, I'm sure, given you, as a pro-lifer, many opportunities to talk about this issue and debate it with people.
But maybe you found during those conversations that you don't have all the tools you need or you're not equipped or ready to respond to just the rapid fire Barrage of arguments that will be thrown at you and that's why You need to pick up the new book what to say when the complete new guide to discussing abortion from our friends at 40 days for life That's also why I wrote the foreword for that book which you can read if you pick it up and it became a bestseller The book did not the forward.
I mean the forward is good, too And number one in its category upon its release two weeks ago.
It's an easy book to use It tells you what to say and what not to say everything is very neatly organized and so you can read it from cover to cover as I did or you could just you could go back and reference its flip the different chapters, whatever you're looking for,
it's all right there from our friends at 40 Days for Life.
So go to Amazon or get it directly from 40 Days for Life at 40daysforlife.com.
I also think it's funny, even if those guys on horseback were using whips,
which they 1000% were not, but even if they were,
okay, they're using a rope, but they're using a whip against people
who are trying to illegally invade the country.
They are in a place they don't belong, doing something that they shouldn't be doing.
It's just interesting to me that the idea of using a whip is this horrible atrocity.
I mean, you whip someone, maybe give them a little bit of whiplash or something, they have a little bruise there.
That's a horrible atrocity.
And yet the same people calling that a horrible atrocity, even though for the fifth time it's imaginary, it didn't even happen, but the same people saying that also cheered joyously with like tears of joy in their eyes when Ashley Babbitt was shot in the chest and killed inside the Capitol building, an unarmed woman.
In that case, it's lethal force being used on an unarmed person.
And that's, according to the left, that's not even sad.
They're happy that it happened.
And yet the idea of an illegal immigrant trying to invade the country, getting a little bruise on their arm from a whip, that horrifies you?
The unarmed woman lying dead with a gunshot wound is no problem there?
Well, of course, here I am trying to make sense and trying to, you know, hold them to their own standards and all, because we know how fruitless that is.
But I did feel it necessary to make that point in any case.
We're going to get back to some issues related to the illegal immigrants down there on the border in just a second.
And we have to hear more from Jen Pisaki, unfortunately.
But before we get there, I think some congratulations are in order to Canada, because Justin Trudeau was re-elected yesterday as Prime Minister of Canada.
So congratulations Canadians, you got this doofus for another term.
I can't for the life of me imagine why you wanted that.
And I want to ruthlessly make fun of you for this.
This is his third term, right?
Am I wrong?
I don't pay very close attention to politics up there in Canada, I gotta be honest with you.
But I believe this is his third term.
I can't imagine why you would want this guy for three terms.
What has he shown you?
What has he done for you to demonstrate competent leadership?
I don't know how you could live through that, being run by this laughing stock of a man, and then say, yeah, I need some more of that.
And I want to make fun of you so badly for it, but then I realize we have a dementia patient running our country, so I can't even do it.
And that's maybe the worst thing about Biden's presidency.
There are a lot of bad things.
Maybe the worst one is that it deprived me of the ability to make fun of Canada to the extent that I really want to.
But I can still make fun of Justin Trudeau anyway, and here he is, I think this is after he was re-elected, and he's talking about, who knows what he's talking about, but this is just funny.
Let's play it.
I will never apologize for standing up for LGBTQ2+, kids' rights to not have to undergo conversion therapy.
Yeah, you can't, LGBT, LGDB, LG, LG, LGD.
It's, it is difficult, you know, at this point to memorize the entire alphabet soup.
So you can't blame them for that very much.
What, what, what is the actual, I tried to look this up.
I don't even know what the, the acronym expands every week.
They add a new letter to it.
So I'm not even sure what the full acronym is supposed to be now.
And to me it feels a little bit offensive because now they sort of put the plus at the end and that's supposed to cover all of the other identities.
So now I guess the official acronym is LGBTQIA+.
And the plus goes for all the rest that we're not listing.
But how do they lose out like that?
Why don't they get... They all have to be lumped together under plus?
And meanwhile, you give Q, I, and A their own letters?
We've already talked about the problem with intersex.
The intersex, they get their own letter, even if they don't want it, because there's no reason for them to be included in the LGBT label at all.
They've got nothing to do with it.
That's a birth defect.
And then A is what?
A is asexual?
Asexual, these are people who allegedly have no sexual impulses or interests at all.
How do they get lumped in with people who define themselves by their sexual impulses?
This seems like an entirely opposite category of person.
And they get their own letter, and they get singled out.
Meanwhile, all of these other identities, they all get dismissed with a mere plus.
I find that offensive, personally.
All right, let's go back to the border for a moment here.
Another question we might have when we see these images, whether it's the quote-unquote Haitian refugees or any of the other immigrants trying to cross the border, and you look at the footage of it, one thing you notice is that none of them are wearing masks.
And we can assume that almost none of them are vaccinated.
So we are allowing during, as we're reminded, a deadly global pandemic.
We still have thousands of people unvaccinated, unmasked, untested, streaming across the border.
Jen Pisaki, going back to her for a moment, unfortunately, she was asked about this by Peter Doocy, who's the only actual reporter in these briefings.
And here's how she dealt with that question.
Question about what's going on at the border.
Is somebody asking the foreign nationals who are walking into Del Rio, Texas and setting up camps on this side of the border for proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test?
Well, first of all, I can readdress for you or re-talk you through what steps we take.
That is the policy for people who fly into the country.
So, if somebody walks into the country, right across the river, does somebody ask them to see their vaccination card?
Well, let me explain to you again, Peter, how our process works.
As individuals come across the border and they are both assessed for whether they have any symptoms.
If they have symptoms, the intention is for them to be quarantined.
That is our process.
They're not intending to stay here for a lengthy period of time.
I don't think it's the same thing.
It's not the same thing.
These are individuals, as we've noted and as we've been discussed, we are expelling individuals based on Title 42.
Specifically because of COVID, because we want to prevent a scenario where large numbers of people are gathering, posing a threat to the community and also to the migrants themselves.
So those are the policies that we put in place in large part, because again, the CDC continues to recommend Title 42 be in place, given we're facing a global pandemic.
Where's the vice president on any of this?
Isn't she supposed to be addressing the root causes of migration?
Absolutely, and she has been addressing the root causes of migration by working with countries in the region to ensure they have the assistance they need to reduce the number of people who are coming and trying to make those journeys across the border.
We've actually seen some reductions in some of those numbers.
That doesn't change the fact that this is a very challenging situation in Del Rio.
We're working to implement our policies and we're working to ensure we are also addressing root causes.
Okay, now for a little bit of a fact check there.
Let's go to a Fox report, and here we'll see some of the images of the immigrants, the quote-unquote asylum seekers, crossing the river.
But also, we'll get an answer to the question of, are we actually testing any of these people as they come across the border?
And it's a different answer than what you might expect if you believe what Jim Psaki's telling you.
Let's play that.
DHS Secretary, Secretary Mayorkas was here today.
This is what the message he had for migrants who are considering crossing.
Take a listen.
The majority of migrants continue to be expelled under CDC's Title 42 authority.
Those who cannot be expelled under that authority and do not have a legal basis to remain will be placed in expedited removal proceedings.
And back out here live, here's the deal with Title 42.
Yes, most of the single adult men in this camp will be removed from the country, sent back to their country of origin via Title 42.
That is not true, however, of the women, the children, and the family units.
The Biden administration has not used Title 42 on family units.
So a lot of these family units you see in here will have the chance to stay in the U.S.
They will be processed.
They will be released into the country with what's called an NTA, a notice to appear in court.
For a court date sometimes years down the road, whether or not they show up for it, we got no way of knowing.
We'll send it back to you.
And no COVID testing going on down there, right?
Right, Bill?
Nope.
Nope.
No vaccine mandates, no COVID testing.
Just a reminder that the president's going to speak at the U.N.
tomorrow, and one of his signature pieces is how well COVID is being handled in the United States, and the importance of that as his top issue that his presidency is undertaking.
So no COVID testing, which we already knew that was the case.
I mean, this, putting all the other issues aside that we talked about at the opening, which you really can't put them aside, but the basic duty of our government to protect our sovereignty, like that's, if you want to list the reasons why we should protect our borders, that should be the only reason that you need to give.
That's the only reason that any other country needs for protecting their own borders.
That's kind of the mind-blowing thing about this discussion, is that this discussion doesn't exist in any non-Western country.
Some European countries, it certainly does.
But I'm not aware of any non-Western country that feels the need to justify protecting its own borders, and they all do.
And many of them use Much harsher force than we do.
Harsher even than a whip, which is really the reins of a horse.
And there's no discussion about it.
There's no real debate internally about, you know, gee, should we be doing this?
Should we be?
We have this border here, but, you know, should we bother stopping people from crossing it?
There's no discussion about that.
There are no other countries scolding them for doing it.
And the reason why every other country on the planet, at least non-western country, defends their border first and foremost, and the only reason they would give if they were ever asked to give a reason, which they're not, is that this is our country and it's our sovereignty and we have to protect it.
It would be a bizarre question to even have to answer.
But if we're going down the list of reasons, there are other reasons that I said as well, that this is also the most compassionate thing, even for the immigrants.
But on the list is also the issue of COVID.
And from the left's perspective, this should be the only reason they need for shutting down the border completely.
By whatever means necessary, shutting down the border.
Because every single one of these people coming in is a biological hazard by their logic.
By their logic, these are essentially biological terrorists coming across the border, ticking time bomb.
They're going to spread disease and kill.
They're going to kill our grandmothers and our children from COVID.
That's the left's logic.
That is certainly how they talk about American citizens who are not vaccinated.
And are simply going about their lives.
That's even how they talk about children who are unvaccinated.
So that should be it, if they're serious about it.
If they really believe all the things they say about COVID.
And they take seriously all of their own blustery condemnations of unvaccinated Americans, if they took any of that seriously and believed any of it, Then it would be the left more than the right, right now, who would be standing up saying, shut down the border.
We can't have these people coming in.
Our grandmother's lives are not worth it.
That's what they would be saying, but none of them are.
You may notice none of them.
All right.
Um, I don't know.
Maybe if some of these immigrants end up, uh, end up vacationing in Florida, Then they'll fit under the umbrella of people that the media feels comfortable condemning.
I'm not sure.
All right, late last week, the Pentagon admitted that the drone strike that killed those ISIS operatives in Afghanistan actually didn't kill any ISIS operatives at all and instead incinerated an entire family.
Three adults, seven children were killed.
Here's Commander General Kenneth McKenzie, Addressing this and admitting to it and offering an apology.
I mean, you tell me if this is enough for you, but let's listen.
Having thoroughly reviewed the findings of the investigation and the supporting analysis by interagency partners, I am now convinced that as many as 10 civilians, including up to seven children, were tragically killed in that strike.
Moreover, we now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or were a direct threat to U.S.
forces.
I offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed.
This strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport.
But it was a mistake, and I offer my sincere apology.
As the combatant commander, I am fully responsible for this strike and this tragic outcome.
Well, he's right about that.
But he offers his... I offer my sincere apology.
And that's all we're going to get.
I offer my sincere apology.
Oh, sorry about that.
Yeah, we killed seven children.
My bad.
And then they move on and no one is held accountable.
There have been no resignations over this.
Certainly nobody has been fired.
And we've already moved on.
They can come out and admit now and say, yeah, we did it, we killed seven children.
And a few days later, we're not even talking about it anymore.
There's really no outcry, no public outcry anyway, to hold anyone accountable.
I mean, think about what you would have to do at your job to get fired.
It kind of depends on what your job is.
I mean, if you're a public school teacher, then you'd have to do quite a lot to get fired, and probably then you still wouldn't, but that's government.
I mean, outside, if you work outside of government, I guess I should stipulate, what would you have to do?
What kind of mistake would you have to make on the job to get fired?
It probably wouldn't take much.
I know for me, I could walk out there right now and get fired if I wanted to.
I could do it in like 10 seconds.
The sky's the limit if I decided I wanted to get fired.
In fact, I could do it right here on air.
Get myself fired.
And that's the case for anyone who works outside of the government.
You wouldn't have to do much to get yourself fired.
And you also wouldn't have to kill seven kids.
Probably if you killed just one person in your job, outside of government, and outside of the pharmaceutical industry, now we have to stipulate as well, you'd get fired.
But in the government, you can directly murder ten people, including seven kids, and still have a job at the end of the day.
That's the government for you.
Kind of on the same topic here, moving on and over to Australia.
As we know, full-on fascism has come to Australia.
Here is footage that's... All the footage we see of Australia is... It just sends chills down your spine.
Here's a law enforcement official showing up to somebody's house.
Because she allegedly posted on social media that she would be attending a protest, potentially.
That's the allegation, that she posted something on social media about going to a protest.
And next thing you know, there are multiple, looks like there's one on camera, but multiple law enforcement officials at her house talking to her about this.
Let's listen to that.
Sure.
All right.
Is there a reason why you're recording me today?
Yes, for my protection.
You think I'm going to assault you or something?
I haven't even spoken to you and you think I'm going to do something to you?
you and you think I'm going to do something to you?
Well we have seen a lot of police violence in recent times towards the public and there is a growing...
there is a growing mistrust as you can understand.
We don't have to worry about that.
We're not here to do anything like that.
Alright, cool.
So, we're here to have a chat to you because we have instructions that you've been posting some things on social media that you protest on Tuesday.
Um, there's no protest on Tuesday.
There isn't.
Okay, that's fine.
But what I'm here is to remind you to ensure that you need to stay at home in relation to COVID and stay at home orders.
And if there is or is not a protest on Tuesday, regardless, you still can't leave and go to a protest of any sort.
I understand.
And this is what fascism, this is what tyranny looks like when it actually comes to you.
It comes in the form of a woman in a pantsuit saying she wants to have a chat with you.
And she's very polite about it.
She even said both the, it was a little hard to hear there, but both of them said to the woman that was filming, oh, we're not here to assault you.
Don't worry about that.
You're perfectly safe.
You just have to stay home.
Just stay in your house.
Don't ever leave your house and you'll be fine.
Of course, if you leave your house, we might knock you down and spray bear mace in your face, cart you off to prison.
Some of the footage we've seen in Australia has shown that.
But stay in your house and you'll be safe.
We'll make sure you're taken care of.
We'll make sure you have all you need.
Just stay here and never leave.
That's all we want to chat about today.
But the really worrying thing, I mean, the whole thing is worrying, but You have to wonder, how did these, whoever they are, these law enforcement officers, how did they become aware of this alleged social media post from this woman?
And we could be sure the government is monitoring all that stuff and maybe they saw it on their own, but more than likely, someone else snitched.
Some other citizen saw, maybe her friend on Facebook or whoever, saw the post on Facebook and alerted the authorities and sent the authorities to her house.
And the person who snitched knows how that could go.
She might end up going to prison.
She might end up getting assaulted.
We've seen the footage.
We know how the Australian authorities are handling this.
And that's what worries me this entire time.
That's what's worried me the most.
In Australia and also here.
It's been the most depressing aspect of all of this.
Because if this was a simple matter of us against them, you know, the people against the government, we're all in this together as we're constantly told and our government rulers are oppressing us and we're coming together under that oppression to resist it.
Like if that was the story, Then it will be far less distressing than what's actually happening, which is, you know, the government is oppressing us with the help of our fellow citizens who are eager to become little tattletales.
Reporting not just citizens, reporting businesses, Even though they're not, you know, the person doing the tattletaling, they're not in any great risk.
They could just continue on their day.
But they see an opportunity to, through the force of government, to kind of use the force of government by proxy to impose themselves on their fellow citizens.
There are a lot of tyrants who have come out of the woodwork during COVID, and not just in government.
A lot of people who have been given this power to impose themselves on others, and that's a power that they can't forego.
They can't pass that up.
They can't pass the opportunity up.
Here's something funnier than it is enraging.
Two people on a plane, very upset and worried that the guy next to them has dared to take his face mask off.
Let's play a little bit of this.
I'm not sure which airline this is.
Go ahead and play it.
He's sitting on a plane and he's eating a candy bar.
He's got his face mask turned off.
And then you've got this older couple sitting next to him.
And they've got visors and face masks on.
And now the woman is huddling in fear, covering her face.
Because this guy's eating a Snickers bar next to him.
While the husband in the window seat is shouting over.
You're putting our lives in danger.
They've got visors, face masks.
You know they're vaccinated on top of it.
And we go back to this irony of they've got all of that and they don't trust any of it.
They have such little faith in the measures that they themselves are taking here that they think they might be killed because a guy next to them is eating a Snickers bar.
And yet they're on This is great.
Okay.
And yet they're on the plane.
That will continue to be the mind-boggling thing to me.
Difficult for me to understand psychologically.
I can understand the virtue signaling.
And when you see people walking around with visors and face masks, oftentimes they're accused of virtue signaling.
And we know that virtue signaling is an empty gesture where you're trying to broadcast to everyone how seriously you're taking this.
And I believe that there's certainly some of that going on.
But the people going to that extent, with the visor and the face mask, that's not virtue signaling.
They really are terrified.
The people driving in their car at night with a mask on, they're not signaling to anyone.
Their brains are broken, they are that terrified, and that's why they're wearing it.
And yet, they're still on the plane.
If you are that worried, if you're that afraid, that you think even with a mask, a visor, and a vaccine, you might be killed if somebody takes their mask off next to you to eat a Snickers bar for 45 seconds.
If that's how you feel about it, why did you get on the plane?
Because I guess I can only use myself as a reference here.
And I know that for me, If I really believed that if I walk outside of my house, if I sit next to somebody eating a Snickers bar, even with a mask on, that there's a very good chance that I'll die.
If I was that worried about it, I probably would just stay home.
I don't think I would leave my house at all.
The people walking down the road with a mask on, they think that simply Walking alone outside without a mask, they might die.
That COVID might drift over on the wind and make it into their nostrils and kill them.
And again, if I thought that, I just wouldn't leave the house at all.
Yet they still leave and they want to participate in society and do all these normal things.
And yet they get angry at other people who are trying to live their normal life.
So it's all kinds of confused.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
All right.
Let's say one other thing here.
Let's get away from the politics.
This is also important for the New York Post.
It says a Russian MMA fighter dubbed Popeye because of his massive biceps has been warned.
There he is there.
Look at that.
He's been warned that he might die if he doesn't get the lumps of petroleum jelly removed soon.
So this guy, his name is Kirill Tereshin, 25, former soldier.
He injected petroleum jelly into his arms and made those biceps.
And now he has to get the lumps of petroleum jelly taken out of his arms or he might die.
And I don't know, it's just a really sad story.
I'll tell you what makes it sad.
The fact that this man has been pressured into conversion therapy like this.
I mean, he identifies as a big muscled person.
That's how he identifies.
He identifies as Popeye.
A big muscled person.
A BMP, we call them.
That's his truth that he's trying to live.
And yet he's being told he has to go through this medical deconversion.
I find it very upsetting, personally.
Let's move on now to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from someone who says, Matt, if you want to watch a good movie with your wife, then watch The Courier.
It's great.
You can ban me if you don't like it.
I did actually watch that one.
And that's the Benedict Cumberbatch one, right?
Yeah, that was pretty good.
I don't know if I'd call it great.
Oh, we forgot to play the song.
Let's play the song.
Go ahead, play it.
This theocratic class's dictatorship is on its way.
♪ Daily cancellations are the law and order of the day ♪
♪ We the Sweet Baby Gang ♪ Okay, good.
I can't believe I forgot that.
I was gonna pass right over the Sweet Baby Gang anthem.
I should be cancelled for that.
Anyway, The Courier is a good movie.
I wouldn't call it a great movie, though.
I haven't seen... I don't think a really great movie has been made in several years.
I can't remember the last movie I've seen that was made over the last two or three years that truly qualifies as great.
And, you know, one thing about what makes it a great movie is that great movies are rare, by definition.
That's why they're great.
But even so, it's been quite a drought.
I've seen several B+, B- movies.
There have been a lot of Ds, a lot of Cs, Ds, and Es.
I haven't seen a great one.
Let's see, another one says, Matt, when the commenter said the divorce of the USA would be the kids' fault, he was comparing it to the founding fathers.
Everyone alive today in America would be the kids in this analogy.
Oh, that would make sense.
You're right.
That would make more sense than how I interpreted it.
Now I feel stupid.
And for making me feel stupid, you are banned from the show.
The Real Bridget says, you said that masking the kid video gave you ungodly rage.
I think the term you're searching for is godly rage.
I think you're probably right about that.
Matus says, what's the biggest smallmouth you ever caught?
I don't know.
I don't fish for a lot of smallmouth.
It's usually largemouth.
And the biggest largemouth I've caught is seven, eight pounds.
I've never gotten up into the double digits.
Small mouth?
I don't know.
Not very large.
Three pounds maybe?
LiveCrueltyFreeNow says, Just when Matt says something sensible and seemingly sincere about his personal lack of concern or connection with animal rights, the juvenile, all pandas must die thing comes up again.
Why do men who want to come off as macho or overtly masculine think it's so cool or impressive to act totally indifferent and flippant about animals?
Hint, it just comes off as juvenile and insensitive.
Well, you seem to be under the impression that I'm joking about the panda thing, but I don't tell jokes, especially not about this issue.
It's not a joke at all.
I'm 100% serious.
I'm sure that won't make you any less outraged, but that's the fact.
I'll tell you what, living in Biden's America might really make you feel like it's aging you.
And that's why you should turn to our friends at GenuCell Serum from Chaminix.
If you're one of the millions of Americans, male or female, who deals with bags and puffiness under the eyes, That's why you need GenuCell Serum from Chaminix.
GenuCell Serum uses plant stem cell technology to promote visibly healthier skin and the appearance of younger, healthier eyes.
GenuCell's state-of-the-art technology will become your most powerful weapon against under-eye bags and puffiness.
Customers everywhere have been raving about this product.
Susan from New Jersey wrote, I've been using GenuCell for a couple of months.
The puffiness around my eyes is gone, which is great for Susan.
Now she'll stop.
Horrifying and terrifying her loved ones and everyone who has to stare at her face.
Not only that, but my assistant Tessa has been using GenuCell for a couple of weeks now and loves the results she's seeing.
I've been gabbing with her about GenuCell and she absolutely adores it.
With its instant effects, you'll see results in the first 12 hours or your money back, they guarantee it.
So order now and save big on GenuCell's risk-free introductory offer.
All orders are up to 50% off.
Go to GenuCell.com and enter MAT30 for an extra $30 off today.
And wait, there's more.
We all predicted the Biden administration would be a disaster, but I don't think any of us saw them descending into full-on authoritarianism less than a year into our dementia-riddled leader's reign.
Actually, I did kind of see that, but a lot of people didn't.
And, you know, they've declared war on businesses with over 100 employees, requiring that they force mandatory vaccines or weekly testing for COVID.
That includes the daily wire, but we are fighting back.
And potentially facing the penalty, which is $14,000 per violation, which can really rack up.
But we're not going to back down to that, and we're not going to comply with it.
And we need your help in fighting back.
And the best thing you can do is go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code DO NOT COMPLY and check out for 25% off a membership.
And you can join us in this fight.
We need you.
Please do.
Dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use code DO NOT COMPLY for 25% off.
All right, let's get now to our daily cancellation.
So, you know, my oldest kids, the twins, are eight years old, and more and more I'm noticing something about them that seems increasingly unique among their peers, but shouldn't be.
And that is that my eight-year-olds act like eight-year-olds.
They are naive and innocent and energetic.
They like to play imaginative games.
They like to run around outside.
They love books.
My son especially loves Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, and he loves those characters.
He'll run around the yard in overalls and bare feet, pretending that he's on some great adventure.
A little while ago, all the kids built a raft out of logs so that they could float down the Mississippi River.
Even though we don't live anywhere near the Mississippi River, but still, they wanted to build a raft.
My daughter plays with dolls still.
She likes to dress up in costumes.
She likes to sew and make different kinds of crafts.
Last week, she made herself a dress out of an old blanket.
Actually, it might have been a new blanket that my wife just bought, and she cut it up and made it into a dress, but that was fine.
Now, none of this information is terribly fascinating or special.
I mean, they're just kids being kids, right?
Very gender stereotypical kids, too, which I know makes me an extremely unenlightened parent, and I'm fine with that.
But I've noticed that a lot of kids their age, not all certainly, but a lot, aren't like this.
Many kids these days, at 8 and 9 years old, don't have the same kind of energy, or creative drive, or the desire to run around outside all day.
This isn't just my own anecdotal observation, either.
Lots of research has shown that many kids today aren't playing the way we did when we were kids.
They aren't running around outside, they're not reading books, they're not playing physical or imaginative games.
And there are many societal factors which may help explain this shift, but the biggest one, without question, Is that many kids today are living out their childhoods inside a digital world.
The single greatest factor that explains why my kids seem a bit different from some of their peers is that my kids don't play video games, they don't have phones, they don't use the internet.
We're not living off the grid in the forest either, though I kind of wish we were.
I mean, nothing, nothing wrong with living that way.
We're living a pretty normal life for better or worse, except that our kids don't have video games and they don't use the internet.
There are plenty of parenting decisions that I have made that I later questioned or second-guessed, but this is definitely not one of them.
My wife and I decided early on that we would force our kids to have a real childhood.
We're not going to give them a choice in the matter.
You can't give a kid a choice in this, because if you give them a choice, they're going to choose the TV and the Internet and everything else.
I mean, every kid's going to choose that, if you let them choose.
So for us, there is no choice.
A childhood full of imagination and physical play and scraped knees and all the rest of it.
That's what they're going to have.
And so far, they've had that kind of childhood.
Because we're keeping them away from every screen except the one single TV we own, which is in our living room and which they're allowed to watch for limited periods of time.
And of course, only shows that we approve of ahead of time.
I thought about this today when I read a report revealing how Facebook, which owns Instagram, has for a long time been aware that Instagram is harmful to kids, especially girls.
The tech giant apparently conducted its own research into the effects of social media on the developing minds of kids, and they found that the effects are rather dire.
Social media, the focus was on Instagram, but this holds true across the spectrum.
Social media for kids causes anxiety, depression, body image issues, lower life satisfaction, and so on and so on and so on.
Makes kids lonelier.
Makes them more depressed.
It makes them unhappier.
Now, Facebook knows this, and the research they did, again, that's not the only research on this topic.
This has been studied again and again and again, and almost all the research you'll read will tell you this.
And Facebook knows it, but they swept their own findings under the rug, which has drawn comparisons to the big tobacco companies that discovered a link between smoking and cancer decades ago and didn't tell anybody about it.
And I think the comparison is apt, though, if anything, it undersells the problem.
This is going to sound extreme, and maybe it is, but I would rather my kids smoke cigarettes than spend all day on the Internet.
Because the damage done by the latter is that deep and that profound.
Our kids are being fundamentally changed.
They're being turned into different sorts of people, worse sorts of people, because of their overexposure to screens.
They're not learning how to be authentic people or how to live an authentic human life.
Many kids today simply do not know how to find joy or happiness or fulfillment outside of the screen, though they can't really find it inside the screen either, so they just don't have it at all.
And that's why, when I hear about what Facebook has done to cover up the damage its own product does to the people who use it, I don't blame Facebook primarily.
I mean, they obviously deserve 100% of the blame for the things that they're doing, but there's another 100% portion that can be assigned to parents.
Look, I understand that at a certain age, it might be difficult to keep your kids away from the Internet.
It's different when a kid is 16 or 17.
But parents today are giving their 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds phones with Internet access.
That's what parents are deciding to do.
And they can't use the excuse of, well, I want my kid to have a phone in case he needs me in case of an emergency.
Even that is pretty extreme.
Like, the idea that your kid needs to have this constant connection with you all of the time.
No kids in history had that.
I didn't have that when I was a kid.
I didn't have a phone where I could call my parents at the drop of a dime.
And, you know, I survived.
It was okay.
But if you do want that for your kid, you can buy them a phone that doesn't do anything but make a phone call.
And you can make it so that it only can call two numbers, you know?
Your house phone and your cell phone, if you actually still have a house phone, or whatever.
I mean, you can decide.
So you can give your kid a phone like that.
That's one thing.
But there are parents who say, you know what?
No, no, no.
I'm going to give my kid, my eight-year-old, a phone with full and complete internet access.
And I'm going to let them have it all the time.
It just blows my mind.
Do you know how you can keep your 7-year-old off the phone?
Here's how you do it.
Real easy.
Don't give him one.
It really is that easy.
For a 7-year-old.
For a 17-year-old, it's different.
For a 7-year-old, that's all you gotta do.
Because they can't have anything if you don't buy it for them.
How does your child, your young child, benefit from having the internet in his pocket 24 hours a day?
What are the advantages?
I mean, make a chart and list them.
List all of the advantages to your seven or eight-year-old having 24-hour access to the Internet.
You know, in what ways has his life and existence enhanced by spending almost all of it online?
And go ahead and write all those advantages down.
Now go to the other side.
List the negatives.
In what ways can he be harmed?
What are the downsides?
And then when you look back at the chart, which column has more bullet points?
And it must be the negative column because I can't actually think of one single genuine advantage to an elementary schooler having a smartphone.
And yet millions of parents make this choice for their children.
And then they blame the social media companies for the harm that they, the parents, have intentionally exposed their children to.
Maybe think of it this way.
Imagine a parent Who keeps their kid away from the screens, doesn't give him a phone, doesn't let him spend five hours a day playing video games, and so on.
Now, imagine that parent sitting at the child's high school graduation.
Do you think that he, sitting there in the stands, is going to look back on his son's childhood, reflecting, nostalgic, and say, man, I wish I'd let him spend more time staring at screens?
Do you think any parent who makes that choice will have that regret?
We all know the answer.
And we all also know that many parents will regret and already have regretted allowing the internet and the media and video games and everything else to consume their children, shape them, mutate them, dominate their lives.
And that is why today, it is not social media that I'm canceling.
It's not Facebook.
But parents who allow their kids to use social media in the first place.
They're the ones who are canceled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
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 Ali Hinkle, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
The San Francisco mayor violates her own mask mandate, and she gives an incredible excuse as to why she did that.
The White House explains why you need to mask up and vax up, but the thousands and thousands of illegal aliens crossing our border do not.
And three black women beat up an Italian restaurant hostess in New York City over the city's vaccine requirements.
