Ep. 803 - The ACLU Rewrites History And Erases Women At The Same Time
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the ACLU honors the anniversary of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death by erasing women. Also, whip-gate enters its fourth day, with the Democrats and the media sticking to the false narrative, no matter how many times it is debunked. And several late night hosts all teamed up last night to bring our attention to the alleged climate crisis. It was hilarious comedy, as always from that group. Plus, Kim Kardashian is leading the charge to free another murderer from prison. And Vice publishes an article claiming that natural immunity doesn’t exist at all. Isn’t that medical misinformation?
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 ACLU honors the anniversary of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by erasing women.
Also, Whipgate enters its fourth day, with the Democrats and the media sticking to the false narrative no matter how many times it's been debunked.
And several late-night hosts all teamed up last night to bring our attention to the alleged climate crisis.
It was hilarious comedy, as always, from that group.
Plus, Kim Kardashian is leading the charge to free another murderer from prison, and Vice publishes an article claiming that natural immunity doesn't exist at all.
Isn't that medical misinformation?
We will discuss all of that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
There are little things that can happen sometimes which, though seemingly insignificant on their own,
still so perfectly exemplify a larger issue that they're worth more attention than we might otherwise tend to afford
them.
That, I think, is the case with this recent tweet from the ACLU.
You may know there was a time many moons ago when the American Civil Liberties Union concerned itself with defending civil liberties.
It was once so committed to the First Amendment that it defended the speech and assembly rights of the KKK and Nazis.
That's when it took the C and L part of the name seriously, but those days have been over for a long time.
Now the C and L may as well stand for, you know, communist lunatics or crazy leftists or whatever you want to put in there.
They are nothing but a group of far-left agitators at this point, often positioning themselves further out on the leftist fringe than even the most fringe leftists have.
And that brings us to the tweet, posted in honor of the anniversary of RBG's death a few days ago.
In the caption, they write, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, we lost a champion for abortion and gender equality.
And on the anniversary of her death, the fight to protect abortion access is more urgent than ever.
So far, so normal.
But then, in an image below the caption, they included a quote from RBG herself.
The original quote, the one that their version is based on, says, this is quoting RBG now, the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity.
When government controls the decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.
Again, pretty normal.
We're leaving aside for now the problems with the original quote itself.
Of course, a woman makes the decision to potentially bear a child when she engages in the sexual act.
The sexual act is the reproductive act, so even if you don't intend to reproduce, you're still engaging in the reproductive act, which can have that Consequence, and has had that consequence literally billions of times in human history.
Once conception occurs, whether she intended it or not, she is now bearing a child.
She cannot preserve her dignity by going to the abortionist and paying hundreds of dollars to have that baby killed.
And in fact, by expecting a mother to care for her children rather than murder them, we are indeed treating her like a fully adult human.
That's what we expect adults to do.
You treat a woman as less than an adult, and even less than human, when you propose that she may need to murder her own kids for the sake of her own well-being.
The point is, there are many problems with the quote from RBG.
But the quote is the quote.
I mean, she said what she said.
I could disagree with what she said, but I can't change the fact that she said it.
On that point, the ACLU begs to differ.
And their version of the quote posted to Twitter in honor of RBG and to commemorate the anniversary of her death.
The organization gives us this.
This is the quote that they have.
The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a person's life, to their well-being and dignity.
When the government controls that decision for people, they are being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for their own choices.
Yes, the ACLU removed the word woman From Ruth Bader Ginsburg's quote about women.
It's hard to know where to begin in surveying all the problems with a move like this.
So let's just start with a basic point about quotes.
Namely, that this is not how quotes work.
You cannot alter the words in a quote to change the meaning or update the content.
The ACLU takes woman and her and they take that out and they sub in people and they and they put that in brackets.
Okay, but you don't get away with it by putting in brackets because that's not how brackets work either.
Brackets are used to clarify someone's meaning or to add necessary details.
For example, if I were to say, just as an example, Lamar Jackson is a better playmaker than Patrick Mahomes.
You could repeat that quote accurately and validly by saying, Matt Walsh said, quote, brackets, Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson is a better playmaker than, brackets, Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes.
That would clarify my meaning and provide necessary information to people who may not be familiar with the names that I used.
You're adding words in, but in a clarifying way.
But if you objected to the content of my statement, it would not be valid to say, Matt Walsh said, quote, Lamar Jackson is, brackets, not a better playmaker than Patrick Mahomes.
That may be what you think I ought to have said, but it's not what I said.
So it would not be true to say that I said it.
That's English 101, I guess.
English 101 lesson.
If we can move past that.
The greater point is that the ACLU has just perfectly demonstrated how left-wing gender theory totally undermines and negates the feminist argument for women's rights.
After all, you can't have women's rights if you don't have women.
The irony is that in their caption of the altered quote, they credit RBG with advancing gender equality, and then they proceed in the very next step to erase gender entirely.
Just imagine for a second how every standard feminist talking point will sound once you sub the words people or person for women or woman.
This is actually kind of fun.
It's a fun game you can play on your own.
I'll get you started.
For example, here's a claim you've heard a million times.
Women earn 82 cents for every dollar men earn.
Now, that's not at all true, but that's not the point.
Let's consider the claim again with the ACLU's edits.
People earn 82 cents for every dollar people earn.
Suddenly, a political talking point that was coherent yet false becomes incoherent, redundant, and still false.
Or try another statement that you've heard many times.
You know, you've heard something to this effect many times.
We must defeat male privilege so that men and women are finally equal.
That now becomes, we must defeat people privilege so that people and people are finally equal.
And so on.
As I said, every feminist talking point, every single one, is reduced to ash and rubble by this change.
In fact, just last night, Nikki Fried, who's that silly woman down in Florida who's running for governor, she tweeted simply, elect women.
Like I said, a silly person.
Uh, but this now becomes, as dumb as that is, well, just elect women.
Yeah, just elect women.
But now that becomes elect people.
And I mean, that at least makes some kind of sense, I guess.
Hopefully we all agree that we should be electing people and not say snakes and rodents.
Though Congress would seem to suggest that we don't all agree on that point.
Either way, it's impossible to advocate for electing women if there is apparently no such thing.
Now, another point I think has to be made here.
Many people on the right, when they see this sort of thing play up, they're inclined to sit back, grab a popcorn and a soda, and watch the left eat itself.
The belief, the hope, the quite fanciful hope, I think, is that the left will self-destruct under the weight of its own contradictions.
Many of us expect that there will be some sort of war of attrition between the conflicting factions, and in the end, they'll all be destroyed, right?
The trans activists who wish to erase women, the feminists who wishes to elevate women above men, both of these sides cannot coexist, much less achieve any kind of mutual victory, we think.
So let them fight, and we will win by default.
This is the attitude of many on the right.
And I understand it.
I understand that attitude.
It's an optimistic attitude.
It's wrong for two reasons.
First, this assumes that the left notices these contradictions and is bothered by them.
It assumes that they feel the need to be consistent or coherent.
They don't.
One of the marks of a tyrant, one of the things that makes them a tyrant, and modern American leftism is a tyrannical movement, one of the marks of a tyrant is that he is arbitrary and inconsistent, and you are expected to cooperate with and affirm his whims in any given moment.
This is a feature, not a bug.
It's part of the point.
Especially for relativists who deny that there is any sort of objective or knowable truth.
The truth changes on a dime, sometimes from one sentence to the next, which is how the ACLU celebrates gender equality in one sentence, and in the very next sentence, denies the existence of gender.
This is all a part of the tyrannical relativist game.
Second thing.
And this is where it gets even more depressing.
If there is a conflict between what we might call traditional left-wing feminists, you know, they're so old-fashioned and traditional that they believe that, you know, only women have uteruses.
But if there's a conflict between them and the trans agenda, and if it's true that either side must achieve a zero-sum victory, then the trans agenda will triumph.
Arguably, they already have.
They hold all of the cultural power right now and have already used it to enact sweeping, catastrophic, previously unimaginable changes.
And they've been able to do this in an incredibly short amount of time.
They have totally altered the way that even average people on the street view biological sex.
The philosopher, I think it was Charles Taylor, has this concept called the social imaginary.
And that has to do with the way, you know, you have the academics with their theories and average people on the street who really aren't aware of those theories and aren't participating in those conversations and the ivory towers.
Well, the social imaginary is when those theories filter their way down into society and becomes part of the sort of intuitive Sense that it becomes this intuitive sense that everybody shares.
When people in society start believing something seemingly intuitively without even knowing why they believe it.
And so these ideas about gender from the left, they become part of the social imaginary.
Average people buy into this stuff without knowing why they buy into it, without knowing where it comes from, without being able to explain it.
But the point is that the trans activists have been able to inject this stuff into the social imaginary to craft and mold the social imaginary in a very short amount of time.
What does that mean?
It means that they're going to win that fight with the feminists.
And though it may be briefly satisfying to watch all of those feminist medusas suffer such a humiliating fate, and I don't deny that it is satisfying to watch, the reality is that the victors will be significantly worse.
In fact, it's not so much that feminists would be supplanted by trans advocates, but that they would be passing the baton, even if unwillingly.
It would represent a transition, much like, you know, stage 3 cancer transitions to stage 4.
The great project of left-wing feminism was to undermine and destroy, at least in the societal consciousness, moral truth and certain biological truths.
As we move to stage four and our cultural cancer becomes terminal, the modern gender warriors take us from the rejection of moral truth and certain biological truths to the rejection of truth itself and biology itself.
That is the shift that we are all now witnessing.
It suddenly becomes not quite as funny when you look at it like that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now a quick word from LifeLock.
Listen, the fact of the matter is, if you don't secure yourself on the internet, you're going to be wide open to all the bad guys out there.
Every time you go on the internet, you're putting yourself and your information at risk.
Payment apps like Venmo, Cash App, and others make payments easy, but you may want to adjust your privacy settings to prevent them from sharing your personal information.
A recent report found that payment apps share user data with third parties such as banks, fraud monitoring services, and some even share with marketing firms.
That's why it's so important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day.
Because every day, we put our information at risk on the internet.
In an instant, a cybercriminal could harm what's yours.
Your finances, your credit, your reputation, your life.
It's as serious as that.
That's why it's so good that there's LifeLock.
LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats.
Like, for example, if your social security number is for sale on the dark web.
Things that you won't be able to find yourself.
And that's why you need LifeLock.
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can keep what's yours with LifeLock by Norton.
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
So I want to show you guys something, first of all, very disturbing.
I hate to go from depressing to disturbing, but I have to.
This is this is disturbing.
I saw this at my we have the picture.
I saw this at my neighbor's house yesterday and I was just snooping around my neighbor's house as I tend to do.
And I saw these here and they were hanging like on a fence.
And if you're watching the video, I mean, in fact, if you're listening to the audio podcast, maybe go check out the video because you've got to see these for yourself.
There are these kind of rope-like objects hanging on the fence, and they're sort of orange, and they've got three prongs on one side, and the other side there are three holes.
I'm not sure what all that's about.
But my question is, are these whips or nooses?
Because they have to be either one.
Either way, I'm terrified.
So I've already contacted the FBI, and I've told them, My neighbor is clearly a racist, potentially a slave owner.
I don't know what he has in mind with these insidious looking objects, but it can't be anything good.
I went home shaking.
I was literally shaking.
In tears.
And I told my wife all about it.
Everywhere you look, once you realize that every Object of that kind, that kind of resembles a rope, is either a noose or a whip.
I mean, it really changes your perspective on things.
And we have entered now, I think this is day four of Whipgate, and Maxine Waters is the latest to come out and talk about this.
We had Kamala Harris yesterday, as I said, an expert on whips herself, so there's a reason for her to be talking about it, but now Maxine Waters Who is, and I don't say this lightly, she is one of the worst scumbags in Congress.
Just a utter scum, a horrible person.
And here she is talking about the so-called whips that were used by Border Patrol.
Listen.
We are here and we are organized and we're saying to the president and everybody else, you got to stop this madness.
And I want to know, in the first place, who's paying these cowboys to do this work?
They've got to be gotten rid of.
They've gotten to be stopped.
It cannot go on.
And so I thank all of you for being here today.
Write the story.
Tell the story about what is going on.
And let people know that they're trying to take us back to slavery days and worse than that.
Worse.
This is worse than slavery.
To have Border Patrol agents on scary horses.
With using reins on a horse.
That is not just slavery.
That is worse than slavery.
To prevent... I mean, think about this.
Trying to prevent people from entering the country illegally is akin to slavery, if not worse than it.
Except in slavery, you're taking people and forcing them to enter the country against their will And then forcing them to do labor without paying them for it.
That's slavery.
In this case, all we're saying, at worst, is, no, you can't come in.
You can go anywhere else in the world, as far as we're concerned.
I mean, the other countries may have something to say about that, but as far as we're concerned, you can go anywhere else.
Including, certainly, back to wherever you came from.
You just can't come in here.
Because we have a process, and this is not the process.
Really what we're saying is, oh, if you wanna do this, there's paperwork you gotta fill out ahead of time.
So telling people to fill out the paperwork, that's slavery.
I admit, as someone who hates paperwork as much as the next guy, probably more than the next guy, maybe it feels like that sometimes.
But she says, we gotta get rid of these cowboys, whoever's paying for these cowboys.
Well, those border patrol agents, taxpayers are paying for them.
She says, get rid of them.
Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Mayorkas is looking to do exactly that.
He was in a press conference yesterday, and here's what he said he's going to be doing about these so-called cowboys.
I want to share with you, with Ranking Member Katko, and this entire committee, the fact that we are addressing this with tremendous speed and with tremendous force.
I have ordered an investigation to be conducted of the events that are captured in those images.
The Office of Professional Responsibility for Leaders Are conducting the investigation.
We have ensured that the individuals during the pendency of the investigation.
So these guys did absolutely nothing wrong.
The narrative is completely false.
We know that.
That's a fact.
There's been no video that surfaced of them whipping anybody because it didn't happen.
And they're being put on desk duty anyway.
And all of the people who are leading this charge, they all know that it's false.
But it doesn't matter to them.
We're just going to We're going to take these guys, did nothing wrong, they're doing the job we're paying them to do, and we're going to just throw them to the wolves, because what do we care?
You know, there's that quote attributed to, I guess it's attributed to Goebbels, about if a lie is repeated often enough, people will eventually come to believe it.
And, you know, that was the case in the 1930s and the 1940s.
How much more is it the case now?
Or maybe it's not that people are necessarily more susceptible to being fooled into believing a lie simply because it's repeated so often.
I think we're probably as susceptible as we've ever been.
Which is pretty damn susceptible.
The problem is that the lies, the capacity that the liars have to repeat those lies is much more than it once was.
Because they've got 24-hour News.
And you've got the internet.
And so once they settle on a lie, like in this case, they can have repeated it a million times in one day.
And so all the people that are susceptible to those sorts of tactics, which is most people, they end up believing one falsehood after another.
Speaking of believing falsehoods, last night it was what they're calling Climate Night for all of the terminally unfunny late-night shows.
All of the late-night hosts, all the Jimmys and then Seth Meyers, they all got together on their own individual shows or together all at once.
They all decided to raise awareness about the climate.
Just more hilarious comedy from these guys.
Let's watch James Corden and Seth Meyers introduce this concept.
Really funny stuff.
Listen. -James and I are joining forces, along with other late-night hosts for "Climate Night,"
one night where we put aside our intense white-hot rivalries and come together to raise awareness
for the vast effects the climate is having on our lives and the things we can do to help.
-There's a lot of misinformation out there to combat, and there are initiatives in Congress we can support
and countless ways that you can reduce your carbon footprint.
Because this climate crisis affects the whole world, whether you're in New York, like I am, or in the UK, where James is.
Uh, well, sorry.
Actually, Seth, I'm in California.
That's a California accent?
No, I'm from the UK, but I shoot my show in California.
I think that's something you should make clear in the opening credits.
Who is watching this?
I don't believe it.
I know the ratings are pretty low.
I don't believe that any person.
Who is sitting down and deciding to watch Seth Meyers?
Who?
I want to know who.
If you're watching this right now, if you're watching this, and you have made the decision in your life at any point to actually sit down and watch Seth Meyers, who's never made a funny joke in his life, he's been a comedian for, I don't know, decades, never said anything funny, not once.
So I want you to explain yourself, and I'm sincere about this, I want an explanation.
Even if the ratings are low, they still allegedly Probably hundreds of thousands of people who choose to spend their night watching this kind of stuff.
Was any of that funny?
Was that a laugh track in the background?
Was the audience at gunpoint?
Nothing funny happening there.
And of course, increasingly, they're not even trying to be funny because it's all about the left-wing agenda.
We also have Jimmy Kimmel, who's another guy who's never... And I'm not just saying this because they're a bunch of left-wing hacks, although they are.
It's theoretically possible for a left-wing hack to be funny sometimes, but these people never are.
Jimmy Kimmel had another hilarious comedy bit.
Bringing on climate scientists to scold all of us for, you know, not doing enough to protect the climate.
Let's watch.
Hello again.
We're climate scientists.
Real climate scientists, not actors.
Five years ago, we came on Jimmy's show.
We told you climate change is real.
That it's undeniably caused by human activity.
That it's going to be catastrophic.
And that we weren't f***ing with you.
Totally not f***ing with you.
I thought we made that clear.
But now it's five years later.
The globe is hotter.
Hurricanes are stronger.
Droughts are worsening.
Coral reefs are dying.
Wildfires are raging.
And floods are even floodier.
So we're back with a new message.
And we really hate to say this, but... We told you so!
We f***ing told you so!
We told you we'd be f***ed by climate change.
And now we are, just like we said.
These people really make me root for climate change at this point.
Climate change is gonna kill all of humanity.
Okay, well, good then.
Oh, man.
This is comedy, ladies and gentlemen.
That's comedy right there.
And of course, meanwhile, they're saying, well, we told you so.
This is what they're doing.
This is the problem they run into, these chicken littles with the climate.
They have been, before even the phrase climate change entered common parlance, because people that are as old as me, I mean, I can remember when I was in school and I heard about the ozone layer, the big hole in the ozone layer that was, the ozone layer was being destroyed.
We don't hear so much about that anymore.
You know, you heard about, they're going to cut all the trees down, we won't have oxygen anymore.
I can actually vividly remember a point about third grade when I went home from school one day, rather distressed at the idea that pretty soon all the trees are going to be gone and we're all going to suffocate.
And I told that to my parents.
It was one of the many times in my public school career where my parents would have to undo the brainwashing that had been done.
So there was that, and then there was also global warming, they talked about.
Before my time, there was that they were worried about global cooling, and then they changed to global warming.
And the thing is, all of those claims, ozone layer, killing all the trees, global warming, those are pretty specific.
And they made pretty specific and dire predictions that certainly by now, in the year 2021, most of us should be dead by now and should probably have all suffocated.
And, but that's the problem, is that it's too specific.
And when you make a specific claim and a very specific prediction for an end time, just as any modern religious false prophet of the end times, you know, there have been many religious cults that have predicted herald camping and so on, have predicted that this date or that date is going to be the end of the world.
The problem with doing that, it's more effective in the moment, but the problem is that you have set a standard.
You've put a date on the calendar, and then what happens when you get to that date and everything's fine?
So now they've made it broader, and now we're talking about climate.
What was the phrase that Seth Meyers or the other, the chubbier guy, I forget his name, they used for something like, they talked about the risks of climate or the threat posed by climate, the climate itself.
Now the climate itself is the problem.
No, there's always been a climate, and I'll tell you something else, there's also always been climate change.
That's what climates do by definition.
That's the case anywhere on Earth, at any point on Earth, anywhere in the universe.
If you can find a planet that has a climate, it's going to change.
So they broadened it though.
So now it's climate change that covers everything.
And what do you do about the fact that they've repeatedly predicted the end times and then we get to the end time and we're still here.
One thing you could do is just keep pushing the date back and they're doing that a little bit.
But they're also saying, oh, you see, we're basically in the end times.
We told you so.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are looking around and saying, I mean, I don't know, we all seem to be pretty okay.
Yeah, there are hurricanes and there's natural disasters.
We've always had those.
But other than that, looking around, I mean, life seems pretty normal.
We have our seasons, they come and go.
Everything seems okay.
But of course, if Seth Meyers or any of these people, if they really are concerned about climate change, one of the best things they can do, how much CO2, how much energy Do they consume by putting on a TV show every single night?
You're not going to convince me that I need to be terrified of climate change, but you will at least convince me that maybe you take it seriously.
If you were to say in reaction to climate change and to do our part and to make a real statement and to do at least what we can to stop our impending doom, we're going to shut down our show and we're not going to do it anymore.
There's all these lights that we keep on, rolling the cameras, bringing all these people in.
You know, they all have to drive in here.
Some of them fly in.
We bring guests on and they fly, you know, burning all that jet fuel.
So we're going to shut it down.
We're not going to do the show anymore.
That'd be a very good thing you could do for the planet on many levels.
But at least if you were to do that, then I would believe that you take it seriously.
But I don't.
Because as with COVID, none of these people who are telling you to be terrified of it actually are themselves.
And that ought to tell you something.
All right, next we have...
More celebrity madness.
Kim Kardashian has found another murderer that she would like to turn into a victim, and she's saying this is someone that we should all feel very sorry for.
Reading out from the Daily Mail, it says, a convicted murderer whose case was taken up by Kim Kardashian has been handed an execution date despite a parole board calling for his sentence to be commuted.
Oklahoma inmate Julius Jones, age 40, was given an execution date on Monday, a week after the parole board recommended his death sentence be commuted.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals scheduled Jones to be executed on November 18th.
The court also set dates for six other executions, which will be the first to be carried out in nearly seven years, since a series of botched executions led to a moratorium on executions there.
By the way, boxed?
Botched executions?
That's what happens when we've got this idea that we have to do it by lethal injection.
There are other ways to carry out executions that would be cheaper and simpler, and also probably less painful, if you're concerned about that, for the condemned.
And there's really no chance of it being botched.
Like a firing squad, for example?
I mean, you just keep shooting until you hit him in the head?
Can't really botch that.
But we know in our culture we have to medicalize everything, and we even have to medicalize executions, because that's a way of sanitizing it and making us feel better about it, and not confronting what we're actually doing, which is we're killing someone.
Who deserves to be killed.
But this guy, Julius Jones, he has become the new cause for people like Kim Kardashian and other celebrities and people on the left and Democrats.
They've come out and so we got to commute a sentence.
The claim is that he's... There are kind of a bunch of different claims that they're sort of throwing against the wall.
One is that the prosecution was racial.
This is a racist thing, of course, they're saying that.
And they're also claiming that he's probably innocent, that there's no good evidence against him.
Well, I thought this was a great report.
This is from the local news in Oklahoma.
This is what real journalism looks like.
Now, this is a little bit long.
It's probably about two minutes.
We'll play this whole clip, though, because here's a real journalist from the local news around where the original murder happened, kind of looking at the claims made by Julius Jones and his supporters and then comparing them with the facts.
Listen.
And the equation, they say, boils down to simple facts.
Facts of the case they've listed on this website, justiceforpaulhowell.com.
Their attempt to battle misinformation.
I always like to say the most consistent thing about his alibi is how inconsistent it is.
Jones and his family claim he was at his parents' house at the time of the murder.
His girlfriend testified that he was on the south side of Oklahoma City during the time of the murder.
Later in an appeal, this is when this story of him being at home with his family developed.
The problem is, is during the trial, he had repeatedly admitted to both of his trial attorneys.
that his family was mistaken and he was not at home that night and they were talking about the previous night before.
And that's not the only testimony about his whereabouts that night.
Two uninvolved eyewitnesses testified at trial that they saw Julius Jones with a Suburban the night of the murder.
There are claims that Jones did not have the opportunity to testify himself.
Trial transcripts say otherwise.
Jones repeatedly declined to testify in his own defense.
Julius Jones has also had every opportunity to testify.
The family also contests the claims that Jones was a football player at the University of Oklahoma.
In reality, he was never on any OU athletic team.
Some of his supporters also say he was a promising college student.
However, OU actually denied him financial aid after he failed his first semester with a .8 GPA.
Jones never finished his second semester.
Then there's that infamous red bandana.
Megan was the only eyewitness who saw it to testify at trial.
He had a black stocking cap, a red bandana, a white t-shirt and jeans.
A red bandana was found in Jones' home, wrapped around a gun that Ballistics verified as the murder weapon.
Okay, well, all of the rest of that is interesting and important because it just shows how the people who try to make martyrs out of these thugs and murderers, they always follow the same script, right?
It's always the same thing.
Oh, this is a promising young man.
He was a good student.
He was going to be a doctor or a surgeon.
He was going to join the Peace Corps.
And of course, even if all that was true, it wouldn't change anything.
If this person committed a murder or whatever they did, it doesn't change the facts of the case.
But as it happens, it's never true.
And you find out in this case, what, a .8 GPA?
Great student.
He was a star of the football team.
Wasn't on any team.
Okay.
So it just shows you this pattern.
And that's another thing.
Aside from repeating the lies over and over again to get you to believe it, they also tell so many lies.
They overwhelm you with the amount of lies.
At a certain point, people just give up and say, whatever, it's too complicated, who knows?
When in reality, it's not complicated.
Opponents of the death penalty on that issue in particular love this strategy because they want to make it seem as though you can never really be sure of someone's guilt, which is why you can never put anybody to death.
And they say, it's better that a thousand guilty men go free than that one innocent man is executed.
Implying that there's no way for us to ever be sure, but that's just not the case.
And what, that wasn't even the full clip, and that wasn't, this is just local news breaking down some of the facts of the case.
There's a lot more to it than that, but they had the murder weapon in his house, wrapped around a bandana that an eyewitness saw him wearing, and also they found the DNA on the murder weapon.
So what, that's it.
I mean, you're, you're the guy.
Um, in order to entertain the idea that he might be innocent, and that's on top of all the other evidence.
I mean, they've got DNA and ballistics, the murder weapon.
That's pretty much tells the whole story, but there's got plenty of other evidence as well.
In order to entertain the idea that this guy might still be innocent, you've got to start doing all kinds of flips and gymnastics in your head to make that happen.
When it's clear that he's guilty.
And what did he do?
I don't know if they specifically outlined it there, but he shot a man.
He shot a man in the head in front of his two young kids.
That's what he did.
Kim Kardashian and all these celebrities who have so much compassion for Julius Jones, you think they've met with the family of the victims?
They don't care about that.
You know, if you were able... I kind of... I say the same thing about people who are really into animal rights.
And a guy who would shoot a man in the head in front of his kids is an animal in many ways.
But in the same way, there are people who are really into animal rights.
And what I always say about that is, that's fine.
I can respect that.
If you still value human rights as well.
But if you're putting animal rights above human rights, that's where there's a problem.
And when it comes to people who have all this compassion for convicted murderers and monsters who did barbaric things to innocent people, if you're able to find within yourself true compassion for those monsters, I can respect that if you also have compassion for the victims and more compassion for them.
But if you've got some compassion left over in your heart, that you're able to afford to even the most guilty, the most heinous people on earth, I can respect that.
That means you have an overabundance of compassion and love within yourself.
More than I do.
I'll admit.
But the problem is that that's not the case with Kim Kardashian.
Or any of these other celebrities, Democrats.
No, they have no compassion for the victims.
They don't care.
But they don't have any compassion for the potential next victims.
If you commute this guy's sentence, make it a life sentence, the next thing you know he's paroled, ends up on the street, does it again.
So they have all of their compassion for the guilty, for the murderers.
It's so unbelievably twisted, psychologically speaking, that it's hard to wrap your head around how anyone could see things that way.
All right, finally, here's a little bonus thing.
I've had this for a few days, and I meant to play it, and I'm gonna play it now.
This went viral over the weekend for some reason.
It's actually from a couple of years ago.
But here's the Republican governor.
Do we have this one?
Yeah, we do.
Okay.
This is the Republican governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, with an ad that was on TVs in Georgia a couple years ago, trying to sell himself.
I don't know.
You tell me if you find this compelling or not.
I'm Brian Kemp.
I'm so conservative, I blow up government spending.
I own guns that no one's taking away.
My chainsaw's ready to rip up some regulations.
I got a big truck, just in case I need to round up criminal illegals and take them home myself.
Yep, I just said that.
I'm Brian Kemp.
If you want a politically incorrect conservative, that's me.
The cringe factor is overwhelming.
That's a cringe challenge right there.
How far, how long can you get into that without cringing into yourself?
Forming a sort of black hole, collapsing into yourself with cringe.
You know, the thing is, we can We could laugh at this kind of thing from Republicans, and that's probably the main thing we should be doing is laughing at it, because it is just silly and ridiculous.
But it's also, what annoys me about it is it's so damn condescending.
This is what, you think this is, this is how you're connecting with conservative voters.
And I don't know, there might have been a time when that sort of thing works.
I'd like to think the conservative voters are a little bit more discerning now.
I'd like to think that.
Just because we've had enough of this kind of thing.
But then again, he did win, so maybe my optimism is misplaced.
All right, let's get now to reading the comments.
All right.
Excuse me there.
I am, I am a little bit under the weather today and it's not COVID.
Okay.
And that, that's one thing I really hate is that these days I also have aller- I'm someone with, with allergies cause I'm just a cool guy.
So I got glasses, allergies, the whole, the whole thing.
And you can't have allergies anymore.
You can't like get a case of the sniffles and go anywhere.
You know, you, you walk through the grocery store and you clear your throat or sneeze, God forbid.
And everyone stares at you like it's like the scene in the zombie movie when a guy comes home and tries quickly to pull his sleeve down, but someone notices, what's that on your arm?
Oh, is that a bite mark?
It's exactly that scene.
The way people look at you.
Anyway, all right.
Amy Null says, I really wish I could work at The Daily Wire.
Matt, I could be your coffee runner.
Other than that, I only have customer service background.
Well, I tell you, we do have the coffee running covered here at The Daily Wire.
I do have three or four people that offer to get me coffee every morning, which I deeply appreciate.
Adam says, Matt, have you watched The Chosen yet?
That's the, I get asked this in the comments all the time.
I don't know if it's, is it always you asking?
So that's the Jesus show, right?
I haven't watched it.
This will sound heretical.
It's not because we're talking about a movie, but I actually don't think that the gospel story typically makes for a good movie or show.
I'll admit that to you.
The Passion is an exception, but the Passion is more of a prayer.
It's more of a devotional than a film.
And I don't say that as a criticism, but that's the way that I look at the Passion.
It's not, you know, it's not entertaining.
You're not watching it to be entertained.
And that's one of the basic functions of a film, traditionally, is to be entertaining.
And so I look at that as more of a prayerful experience, watching that film.
Other than that, the problem with the movies and shows like this is that, first of all, there's not going to be any suspense at all watching these stories play out.
You know, so that handicaps you, I think, as a filmmaker or someone making a show.
Also, there's not a whole lot of narrative meat on the bones.
You know, each gospel is very short.
Very short.
So you have to either fill in details in order to make a full fleshed out film or show, And that can get a little dicey or you end up with, um, a kind of a series of short vignettes, which, which doesn't always make for the best show either.
So this is, this is the, um, one of the problems that you run into.
And I don't know, maybe the chosen is great.
I haven't seen it, but this is one of the problems you run into.
It's one of the reasons why Hollywood, they don't, they don't, you know, They don't make very many biblical movies.
And I know it might seem like there's an easy answer for that.
They hate Christians.
Well, they do, but also they love money and they'll take our money.
And you would think, you know, why wouldn't we see a bunch of these?
There's a huge audience for it.
Well, the answer is, I mean, look at that Noah movie that came out several years ago with, who was it?
Russell Crowe.
And I, you know, I watched that movie.
I didn't like it.
Because they added so much into the story, it became a totally different story.
It just became this Hollywood story loosely based on a biblical story.
But the issue is that you have to add in a bunch of details because the Noah story in the Bible is very short, much shorter than the Gospels.
So if all you're doing is showing what the story tells you, that's going to be a 25-minute movie.
So you have to add in details, and then do you trust That's a dicey proposition in and of itself.
Do you trust Hollywood to add details to biblical stories?
I don't.
All right.
Team Takeover says, I didn't even learn any of my teacher's first names.
Why would anyone need to know their sexual orientation?
Very good question.
But then JC says, I'm a high school teacher and I'm gay.
I tell my students who I am, where I'm from, and that I have a partner named Rob.
I do come out to them.
Yes.
But it's no different than a straight teacher mentioning a wife or husband.
I also tell the students that I'm not interested in politicizing any part of that after, uh, any, any, any of that part of me.
After that, I don't discuss it.
Teenagers wonder and gossip about these things.
So I lay it out once and then leave it alone.
It's not a crime.
They don't have to agree with my lifestyle, but I won't hide it either.
Yeah, I still, JC, I gotta tell you, I don't understand why you would have to have any conversation with your students about your sex life or your sexual orientation.
I don't see why that conversation needs to be had.
If there are rumors or kids asking questions, you know what the correct answer to those questions would be?
That's an inappropriate question.
It's not relevant.
It's none of your business.
Let's get back to our lessons.
Yeah, I'm with Team Takeover, the comment right above yours.
I didn't know anything about my teachers.
I didn't know their first names.
I knew no details about their life whatsoever.
That's why as a kid, when you're, you know, you see your kids, you see your teachers at school, and then if you're out in the wild somewhere, and you see one of your teachers in the wild wearing civilian clothes, it was always kind of a trippy experience because like, wait a second, this person has, you always sort of imagine them as materializing in the classroom and then dematerializing once the bell rings.
The idea that they even had a life outside of the classroom was weird to me.
And that's one extreme, I suppose.
But that's better than this new notion that your students have to have this full, complete picture of you as a person and have to know all about your private life.
I don't think they need to know any of that.
Let's see.
Jerry says, Matt, I'm hoping for more segments that involve BTS mockery.
Well, you know I would never mock BTS.
Wonderful artists.
And also, may I say, wonderful people as well.
I'm imagining.
And Guy says, my fiance is a teacher in Clark County School District in Nevada.
She let me know that she can, in fact, have a cross in her classroom, but she can't talk about it.
Gay and proud is normal.
Christian and proud is not allowed.
I'm surprised that they'll even let her have the cross to begin with, to be honest with you.
But she can't talk about it.
Meanwhile, of course, yeah, I imagine if she flew the gay pride flag, then she would be able to talk about that.
Even though that is also a, you know, Church and state issue.
Because that flag, as we've been over many times, is a religious symbol.
Doesn't belong in the classroom.
You hear me constantly yammering about PolicyGenius all the time because I am that excited about PolicyGenius.
But did you know they also offer amazing deals on home and auto insurance?
I bet you didn't.
Now you do.
It's never a bad time to find ways to bundle your home and auto insurance and save on coverage with PolicyGenius.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare home and auto insurance in one place.
They can help you find home and auto coverage similar to what you have now, but at a lower price.
They have saved customers an average of Over $1,200 per year over what they were paying for home and auto insurance.
They've saved new customers an average of $435 per year on auto insurance and $350 per year on home insurance.
Their team will handle the paperwork to set you up with your new policy or switch over and From your current one, they're gonna do all the tough stuff.
All you have to do is head to PolicyGenius.com, answer a few questions about yourself and your property.
PolicyGenius will take it from there.
They'll compare rates from America's top insurers, progressive to all-state to all the top ones, to find your lowest quotes.
The PolicyGenius team can look for ways to save you more, including building your home and auto policies.
It's as easy as that.
So head to PolicyGenius.com to get started right now.
PolicyGenius, when it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right.
And, you know, it's no secret that today's America is short on truth, especially when it comes to legacy media.
That's why The Daily Wire started The Morning Wire, the daily morning show dedicated to bringing you all the news you need to know without any spin or hidden agenda.
It's the only daily podcast that values your time and the truth.
And while we're working overtime to make sure fact-based news still has a platform, we need your help to keep it 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.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, we've cancelled many publications during this segment of the show, but as far as I can remember, Vice has so far escaped the cancel hammer, and that has to change today.
Vice is cancelled for an article which they recently shared on their social media pages with the headline, There's no such thing as natural immunity, and even if you've been lucky thus far, Delta could change that.
No such thing as natural immunity.
We know that up to now, our public policies and most of our so-called public health experts and the media have all been operating and talking as if there's no such thing as natural immunity.
But this is the first time that they've outright explicitly denied its existence.
I mean, they can't really deny its existence, not with any credibility, because natural immunity is basic science.
Its existence is not in any doubt whatsoever.
If you have previously been infected with the virus, you have a certain level of immunity.
That's what natural immunity means.
There are questions about how much immunity that affords you.
And there are good science-based reasons to think it actually affords you much more immunity than the vaccine.
But this has also been a question that the quote-unquote scientific community hasn't spent much time studying.
I mean, we don't know a whole lot about natural immunity as it pertains to COVID because the quote-unquote scientific community isn't talking about it and they're not doing studies on it.
Perhaps because they don't do the studies because they don't want the answer.
Perhaps because their interests lie elsewhere.
In any case, how does Vice, in this article written by Caitlin Flynn, justify its complete rejection of natural immunity as a concept?
Do they have any evidence to present?
Do they have studies or research that no one else has seen?
I'm skeptical, but let's hear them out.
It says, experts emphasize that if you've made it thus far without contracting the virus, it's because you've been lucky, not because you're invincible or have natural immunity, which doesn't exist.
Carl Fichtenbaum, professor of clinical medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said, this kind of thinking fits into the common mindset that bad things will happen to other people, but not to us.
But adopting the mindset that you'll be okay and natural immunity will protect you, you're not doing your part to protect yourself or others.
Quote, you're getting the benefit from other people who do get the vaccine and walking through life on the coattails of others, Fichtenbaum says, but your luck may run out eventually, especially given how transmissible the Delta variant is and the fact that mask mandates in several states have been walked back.
Okay, so here we have the repeated assertion that natural immunity doesn't exist and yet no attempt to prove that assertion at all.
Do the writers of this article and the supposed experts she interviewed, do they even know what natural immunity is?
Well, let's keep reading.
It says, while it's true that many young, healthy people have avoided infection thus far or only had a mild case of COVID, Fichtenbaum emphasized that it's not because their body has some sort of amazing immunity that's better than everyone else's, and it's not because they just won't come in contact with the virus, it's just that they've been lucky.
Some people may feel confident that they're fine to go through life without the vaccine because, for example, their roommates contracted COVID and they didn't.
But Ambler confirmed that prior exposure without infection is not some sort of proof that you're naturally immune.
Or that you had an asymptomatic case and now have antibodies.
Ah, so there it is.
The professor of clinical medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, whose assertions have been repeated as fact in an article shared thousands of times on social media, doesn't understand what natural immunity is.
Or at least he's pretending not to understand it.
He seems to think, or again pretends to think, that natural immunity is the idea that some people will never get COVID because their immune systems are imbued with magical powers.
But that's not what that term means.
On the contrary, naturally immune people did get COVID.
Many of them got it pretty quickly, early on, and now are at a much lower risk of contracting it again.
So Vice is combining a straw man with a bait-and-switch, pretending that they've debunked natural immunity, while instead debunking some other concept that didn't exist until they invented it.
It's a clever and effective trick, because they know that most people will not bother to read the article and discover any of this for themselves.
Instead, they'll read the headline, which reinforces what they already believe and what they want to believe, and especially it affirms them in their blanket hatred of the unvaccinated.
We can't underestimate this point.
There are many people who hope that they don't want natural immunity to exist, that all these millions of people who have immunity right now, they don't want those people to have immunity, because then that would interfere with the satisfaction that they get in hating all of the people who don't, who are not vaccinated.
And so that's what this article is intended to do.
But if you want some actual information on this subject, Dr. Marty McCary, a surgeon and professor at Johns Hopkins, was interviewed on Fox this morning, and here's what he had to say about natural immunity.
One of the greatest failures of our public health leadership has been ignoring natural immunity.
We're 19 months into this.
We do not see reinfections cause severe illness.
That's clear observational data.
You add that to the 15 studies with hard data showing that it's effective and even up to 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity.
Public health officials are going to have to start to recognize this because they're ignoring natural immunity is ruining lives right now.
Yes, ignoring natural immunity is ruining lives.
It's also spreading misinformation.
But needless to say, no social media platform has flagged this article or penalized Vice for promoting this kind of blatant medical misinformation.
No, because they're only worried about the kind of misinformation that might, God forbid, make people less afraid and less paranoid.
That's what the misinformation... That is the number one qualification to be categorized as misinformation, at least as far as COVID goes.
Might it make people less afraid?
And then whether it's true or not, that makes it misinformation.
And that's why today we have to cancel Vice.
But also, of course, we're going to cancel all of the social media companies, Twitter especially, which allows this kind of blatant misinformation on their platform while claiming to be combating misinformation.
So they're canceled.
Vice is canceled.
Everyone's canceled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed. Well if you enjoyed this episode don't forget to subscribe and...
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.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, the Biden administration slams Border Patrol even as the border remains wide open, Democrats seek to blow out the spending and regulate business into the ground, and COVID hysteria continues.
