Ep. 813 - Why My Kids Aren’t Getting The COVID Vaccine
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Pfizer is seeking an “emergency authorization” to start giving the vaccine to kids aged 5 to 11. But what’s the emergency exactly? And what will we do when the government starts mandating this stuff to young children? Also, gang members in Chicago get into a shootout in broad daylight, and the DA has decided to charge none of them with crimes. Plus, a school shooting in Texas has the Left screaming about gun control again, but as always they’re missing the point. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll consider the TikToker who claims that almost all men are rapists.
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, Pfizer is seeking an emergency authorization to start giving the vaccine to kids aged 5 to 11.
But what's the emergency exactly?
And what will we do when the government starts mandating this stuff to young children?
Also, gang members in Chicago get into a shootout in broad daylight, and the DA has decided to charge none of them with crimes at all.
Plus, a school shooting in Texas has the left screaming about gun control again, but as always, they're missing the point.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll discuss the TikToker who claims that almost all men are rapists.
All of that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
You may think that you can go online, maybe put your browser in incognito mode and
your online activity will be private, but it's not as simple as that.
There are many ways that these companies can still track your internet activity, and that means to really stop people from seeing the sites you visit, you need to do what I do, and use ExpressVPN.
Think about all the times you've used Wi-Fi at a coffee shop, a hotel, or even your parents' house.
Without ExpressVPN, every site you visit could be logged by the admin of that network, and that's still true even when you're in incognito mode.
I mean, do you really want your parents to see what you've been looking at?
I mean, personally, I wouldn't care if they did, but I mean, I don't want to know about all the details of things you look at when you're on your computer.
What's more, your home internet provider can also see and record your browsing data.
And in the U.S., they're legally allowed to sell that data to advertisers.
ExpressVPN is an app that encrypts all of your network data and reroutes it through a network of secure servers so that your private online activity stays just that private.
So stop letting strangers invade your online privacy.
Protect yourself at expressvpn.com slash walsh.
Use my link at expressvpn.com slash walsh to get three extra months free.
That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com slash walsh to learn more.
Well, you know, the censorship has gotten so extreme that I'm not even sure if this episode will see the light of day, given what I'm going to say here at the beginning.
There's no reason why it ought to be taken down, of course.
There's no reason why any opinion ought to be censored.
But there's just no telling how our big tech overlords will react these days.
The rules are arbitrary for a reason.
And yet some important points, I think, still need to be made about this.
The former FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, appeared on CBS to express optimism That the Pfizer COVID vaccine might be available to children aged 5 to 11 by as early as this Halloween.
Let's listen.
Lastly, the CEO of Pfizer, the company you started on the board of, affirmed today that that data on vaccinations for 5 to 11-year-olds will be going to the FDA within a matter of days.
Is that confirming your schedule of vaccines by Halloween?
Yeah, I think that's still possible.
FDA has said that the review is going to be a matter of weeks, not months.
I interpret that to mean potentially a four-week review, maybe a six-week review.
So, I think on the low end, it could take four weeks, and that could give you a vaccine by Halloween.
If it slips a little, it could be mid-November.
Now, it should be noted that Pfizer is asking for an emergency authorization to start injecting this stuff into kids, but what is the emergency exactly?
Kids are doing fine.
COVID is no serious threat to them.
Why do we need to rush this out like it's an emergency when it isn't?
An article on NBC.com has more.
It says, Pfizer and BioNTech announced Thursday that they had submitted an emergency request to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration for authorization of the company's two-dose COVID-19 vaccine in children ages five to 11.
Quote, with new cases in children in the U.S.
continuing to be at a high level, this submission is an important step in our ongoing effort against COVID-19.
This is from Pfizer. We're committed to working with the FDA with the ultimate goal of helping
protect children against this serious public health threat.
An FDA advisory committee plans to meet to discuss authorization on October 26th. The
company said last month that the vaccine was safe in children 5 to 11 and showed a "robust antibody
response" based on data collected in a trial that included more than 2,000 children.
During the trial, children were given two smaller doses than those given to people who are 12 and older.
Pfizer said that the shots produced antibody responses and side effects that were comparable to those seen in a similar study of people 16 to 25 who received the full dose of the vaccine.
Oh, okay, well, new COVID cases are at a high level, Pfizer says.
Pretty broad, just at a high level.
What Pfizer forgets to mention is that those cases, 6 million in total, and that includes kids of all ages, not just 5 to 11.
But those 6 million cases have resulted in death for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them.
Even hospitalization rates, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, could be as low as 0.1%.
The vast majority of cases result in mild symptoms or no symptoms.
This is not a serious public health threat for kids.
Not for kids, anyway.
It is for their great-grandparents, who are almost all vaccinated by now.
But it's not for them.
Kids already have, through their natural immune system, greater protection from COVID than vaccinated adults do.
We also have nearly two years of data to support these conclusions.
We have a case study, then, that includes six million kids, at least, Much more than that.
I mean, those are confirmed cases.
Over the course of 22 months.
We could say, therefore, with great confidence, that COVID is extremely unlikely to do significant damage to our kids.
What about the COVID vaccine?
In that case, according to Pfizer, they've tested it on 2,000 children.
We have data from, you know, six million kids demonstrating their robust natural immunity versus data from 2,000 children, according to Pfizer, that says that allegedly it's safe and effective in the same age group.
We have no data about the long-term effects of the vaccine in kids.
Well, we can.
How could we?
And by long-term here, I mean, we don't know the effects beyond a few weeks in this relatively small sample size for the vaccine.
That's an important point, too, because consider this report from Reuters published a couple of days ago.
Maybe you didn't hear about this.
There's a reason if you didn't.
The headline is, Sweden and Denmark pause Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups.
And it says, quote, Sweden and Denmark said on Wednesday, they're pausing the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups after reports of possible rare cardiovascular side effects.
The Swedish health agency said it would pause using the shot for people born in 1991.
So that's anyone 30 or younger?
As data pointed to an increase of myocarditis and pericarditis among youths and young adults that have been vaccinated.
Those conditions involve an inflammation of the heart or its lining.
The health agency said the connection is especially clear when it comes to Moderna's vaccine spike vax, especially after the second dose.
But they said that the risk is very small.
Okay, the risk is small, they say.
We don't know the exact connection, if there is one.
This is also Moderna, not Pfizer.
But that's all exactly the point, right?
The unknowns.
Meanwhile, there are certain things we do know, things we know as certainly as we can know anything when it comes to this virus.
And one of those things is that COVID itself presents only a very small, minuscule threat to young kids.
We know that more firmly than we know almost anything else about this virus or the vaccines that are meant to prevent it.
And so I'm resting on that knowledge, on that data, on that science, when I say, as a parent of four kids, all under 12, that they're not going to be getting the vaccine.
It's not happening.
Period.
We know that California has already preemptively mandated the vaccine for all kids in school.
Once this rush job is complete and the drug is approved for those age groups, they've already said that it's going to be mandated.
I expect many other states to follow suit.
Who knows what will happen on the federal level, but I think we could probably make a pretty confident guess.
And will the mandates for children go beyond public schools?
It seems certain that it will happen there, in public schools, and if you don't want your kid to take this vaccine, then you're going to reach a point here where you're just going to have to pull them out of the government school system.
Those will be your only choices soon enough.
But will our rulers move to preclude our kids from general participation in society?
As they're trying to do with adults if they aren't vaccinated?
We'll see soon enough.
The real question is whether this will be our line in the sand.
Our last line.
There should have been many other lines, but those have all been crossed already.
Will we allow the government now to force an unnecessary drug into our kids' bodies?
Or will this be our metaphorical Alamo?
You know, the issue goes beyond science.
It's true that my personal reasons for rejecting the vaccine for my kids are science-based, as I've already explained.
This is a simple matter of looking at the data and making a decision based on that, as I have done, as many other parents have done.
But if the government tried to force this substance into my kids' bodies, it wouldn't just be scientifically unnecessary, It would be basically a total revocation of my rights as a parent and my kids' rights.
The government would be forcing a medical decision onto my kids, not even because my kids need it.
Okay, so this isn't like a case where my kid needs a blood transfusion or they're gonna die and the government comes and says, you gotta do it, if for some reason I wasn't going to.
That's not what this is.
This is not forcing it on the kids because they need it.
We could have a separate debate about those kinds of situations.
That's not what this is.
This is simply because the government has decided that it wants my kids to have it.
And if it can do that, if I allow it to do that, if we allow it, then, well, game over.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
You know, whenever I see someone with puffy eyes, all I can think about is how much better
they would look if only they knew about Genucell.
I mean, I saw someone with puffy eyes the other day.
I went up to them and said, excuse me, do you realize your eyes are puffy and disgusting?
And they looked at me, and that's when I had a chance to tell them about Genucel.
I don't know if they appreciated it, but you will if you get Genucel.
If you're one of the millions of Americans, male or female, who deals with bags and puffiness under the eyes.
Let me tell you about 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.
My assistant Tessa has been using GenuCell for the last couple of weeks And she has not had puffy eyes this entire time, which is good, because if she did, she would be fired.
Order now and save big on GenuCell's risk-free introductory offer.
All orders are up to 50% off, so go to GenuCell.com and enter MAT30 for an extra $30 off today.
That's GenuCell.com.
GenuCell.com.
All right, let's start with this from The Daily Wire.
This is a An incredible story.
Okay, this is from the Daily Wire again.
It says, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx's office refused, this is in Chicago, refused to charge five men arrested in connection with a gang-related gunfight that left at least one person dead and two wounded, even though police requested a number of felony charges for each individual suspect because the five men were mutual combatants.
The five men were released, leaving Chicago officials, including Mayor Lori Lightfoot, incensed.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that the men linked to a deadly gang-related shootout Friday in Austin were released from custody after prosecutors declined to charge each of them with a pair of felonies, including first-degree murder, even though police sought to charge all five suspects with murder and aggravated battery.
The outlet noted that the brazen mid-morning gunfight, which left one shooter dead and two suspects wounded, stemmed from an internal dispute between two factions of the Four Corner Hustler street gang, according to an internal police report and a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation.
So, to review here, this is a gunfight in the middle of the day, somebody dies, they arrest the survivors of the gunfight, and then prosecutors say, you know what?
We're going to let this one slide.
Not even a slap on the wrist here.
Not even give them like a ticket for being a public nuisance.
All five suspects were released without charges on Sunday because according to the state's attorney's office, well listen to this.
Here's the reason why they're not being charged.
Because according to the state's attorney's office, they were targeting each other.
So, no harm, no foul.
I mean, somebody died, but no harm, no foul.
A spokeswoman first claimed that prosecutors had determined that the evidence was insufficient to meet our burden of proof to approve felony charges, even though these guys were out in the open, shooting at each other, but there's not enough evidence that it happened.
But they didn't specify what evidence might be necessary to bring charges that the police department felt were warranted.
Later, they noted that mutual combatants was cited as the reason for the rejection.
A designation the Sun-Times noted refers to a fight or struggle that two parties willingly engage in.
The Cook County prosecutor released another individual from custody last week
for the same reason, despite indications that they were engaging in gang violence.
I keep scrolling down here to see the punchline if there's something else, but that's it.
They're saying both sides agreed to engage in this gunfight, and they were only shooting at each other, and so we're not gonna charge them with a crime.
The Chicago Attorney's Office, basically what they've done here is they have, in one fell swoop, they have decriminalized gang violence, as long as it's between each other.
So if you're a member of one gang and someone's on your corner there selling drugs, you can go up and shoot them.
As long as you keep it, you know, within that, as long as you keep it within, as long as it's inter-gang violence, you don't involve anybody else.
You know it's bad when even Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is herself a deranged leftist, far-left Radical lunatic.
Even she is ticked off about this.
Because she at least has the sense to see that you're ushering in total chaos is what you're doing here.
You are now abandoning our city to chaos.
That's what's happening.
In fact, that's what she said.
She said, if they do not feel like the criminal justice system is going to hold them accountable, talking about violent criminals, gang members, we're going to see a level of brazenness that will send this city into chaos.
And we cannot let that happen.
It's hard to imagine that it could get more brazen or more chaotic in a place like Chicago.
But that's what that's what they're looking at.
This is, so what, I guess dueling.
Can we have duels now?
Is that back on the table?
Has Chicago just legalized dueling?
So if you have a beef with another guy, you can agree to meet out at high noon out in the street, shoot at each other?
Of course, Mayor Lightfoot has no room to complain.
This is the inevitable result of running these cities according to leftist policies and philosophies?
Because what really lies at the root of it, whatever excuse they give, Kim Foxx gives for not filing any charges, the real reason she's not filing charges is because she just fundamentally doesn't believe that it's their fault.
She thinks that they're all victims.
You know, they're victims of systemic racism.
You know, this is not anything they're doing of their own free will and volition.
So you can't blame them for it.
They're all victims.
A violent criminal who goes out of Chicago and kills someone else is himself a victim as well.
That's the mentality that Lori Lightfoot subscribes to.
All these Democrats running all the cities.
Believe that as well.
So Kim Foxx is really just taking it to its logical conclusion.
Which is to embrace anarchy and chaos and to basically abolish the law completely.
All right, Chris Hayes ran a segment last night in response to Josh Hawley, who was skeptical about this claim that school board members are the victims of widespread intimidation and death threats.
So Chris Hayes spliced together Hawley with clips that are meant to prove that this is a problem.
So Chris Hayes and his team, they went and they found examples, you know, trying to prove that, no, this, the FBI and the Biden administration going after parents at school board meetings This isn't, as I have claimed, as Josh Hawley has claimed, this is not about intimidating parents or trying to silence them.
There is, in fact, a big problem.
It's not just that parents are criticizing school board members or raising their voices and yelling.
There's death threats.
There's violence.
It's an epidemic.
And that's why the DOJ needs to be involved.
Chris Hayes wants to prove that.
So he and his team got together and they got all the clips they could find to try to make that point, to try to prove it.
And here's the best they could do.
Let's watch this.
He thinks innocent parents are being silenced by the DOJ for politely disagreeing with their local government.
He was indignant as he asked the Deputy Attorney General about the existence of school board threats and intimidation, which is frankly kind of astounding when the reality of what's happening on the ground is undeniable.
Is waiting to express one's view at a school board meeting harassment and intimidation?
We know who you are!
We know who you are!
You can leave freely, but we will find you and we know who you are!
You will never be allowed in public again!
Harassment and intimidation?
What did those terms mean in the context of a local school board meeting?
The death threat was you're going to get knifed, you're going to get a You were dead.
Tell me where the line is with parents expressing their concerns, waiting for hours in the school board meetings.
We've all seen the videos.
This happened in my state.
People were actually throwing fists and hitting each other outside the auditorium this evening after the board unanimously voted to approve requiring masks.
If this isn't a deliberate attempt to chill parents from showing up at school board meetings for their elected school boards, I don't know what is.
One of the board members, they called for her and her children to choke and die.
Another one said that the board member was about to get ruined.
Another one suggested another board member die by suicide, calling also for harassment and bullying of board members.
You are attempting to intimidate them.
You are attempting to silence them.
It has an effect on you that you can't really put into words when someone describes the way they want to Josh Hawley's very upset.
home and end your life. I cannot believe that an Attorney General of the United
States is engaging in this kind of conduct and frankly I can't believe that
you are sitting here today defending it. Josh Hawley's very upset we're gonna
send him that montage just to read him into a little bit of what's been going
on at the local level but I suspect he knows. Okay so there you go.
I wanted you to see all that because that's the worst of the worst.
I can assume that Chris Hayes, MSNBC, if there were more compelling examples of parents engaging in actual violence, intimidation, death threats, they wouldn't have left those on the cutting room floor.
So that's the best they could do.
And what do we see there?
We saw exactly one clip of an actual parent Engaging in what you could arguably call intimidation, saying, we know who you are.
Of course, that kind of language you hear from Antifa, BLM, I mean, this is, you have to really stretch to see that as a threat.
It could just as easily be a threat to, we're gonna vote you off the school board.
But even if you give them that, that's the one clip they were able to show.
Verified, confirmed of an actual parent saying something that you could interpret as a threat if you wanted to.
And then what else did we have?
We had a news report of parents throwing fists.
Okay, well, there have been a handful of cases of that, where parents on both sides get into heated scuffles, and no one is seriously injured.
But that's on both sides.
And then you had a couple of school board members alleging, claiming that they had received death threats.
We don't actually see those, they just tell us that they've gotten them.
Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe it on face value.
I just don't.
Especially when there's so much to be gained by claiming that you're getting the death threats.
Maybe you are, but I would need to see them.
Because I'm not going to take your word for it.
Especially when this is the kind of reflexive move of everybody these days, especially public officials, when they're getting criticism and they're facing backlash, every time we hear, I'm getting death threats now.
Maybe you are.
If you are, that's very bad.
But also, maybe you're not.
All that, even if, let's just pretend that all of that is, those are all valid examples of, you know, intimidation threats, if we believe all of that we just saw.
Considering how many school board, school boards there are across the country, how many meetings and protests there have been, does that just, really?
That?
You think that justifies the Department of Justice getting involved?
You think that is a reason for the FBI to get involved?
That's the best you could do.
Because I could tell you something right now, if someone wanted to make a montage of the things that are done and said at BLM rallies and by Antifa, you know, they're not going to have to grasp at straws nearly as much.
And we know FBI, DOJ, never involved there.
So this only, all you have to do is look, listen to the other side as they're trying to justify this.
That's all the evidence that you need, that it is not justifiable.
That this is indeed about intimidating and shutting down, silencing parents.
This is a warning.
You know, it's better to stay home.
It's better not to come to the meetings.
Because if you do, then you're going to end up on the FBI's radar.
We're watching you.
Okay, that's what the FBI is saying.
All right, there was another school shooting yesterday.
The circumstances of this one are a little bit different.
From what we normally think of when we hear about school shootings.
This is from the local NBC affiliate.
It says, four people were hurt Wednesday morning during a shooting at Timberview High School in Arlington, according to police.
Arlington police said that there was a fight between students on the second floor of the school when one of the students pulled out a gun.
And that student is 18 years old.
And we still don't know a lot of the details here, but he fired the gun and four people got hit.
We still don't know if he was firing at the person that he was having a fight with and then accidentally hit the other people or if he just started spraying bullets.
I don't think we know that yet.
And also, we hear that it's a fight.
There's a video going around claiming that it's footage of this fight.
That led to the shooting, and it's not really a fight so much as one kid is just getting absolutely pummeled and assaulted by another.
And in that case, we don't know which kid is which.
So there's a lot of unknown.
But for the left and the media, they know as much as they need to know.
There's a shooting, it's at a school, and so that means let's start shilling for gun control.
And so we've seen that, of course, in social media right away, this connection with gun control.
Here's just one example.
Chris Murphy, Senator Chris Murphy in Connecticut, he posted what he says, what he claims is a screenshot of a text message conversation between a kid at this school and And his mother saying there's a school shooting and he says, read this.
It's from today in Texas.
Each day you choose to be too busy to join the anti-gun violence movement.
You endorse this as the new normal for our kids, for your kids.
And of course, with the people promoting gun control, as is always the case in the aftermath of incidents like this, what they fail to mention Is that there were already a number of laws in place that had already made this very illegal.
So if laws in and of themselves were able to prevent this, then it should not have happened in the first place.
So this guy, not a kid, he's a grown man, 18 years old, he brought a gun to school.
That's definitely against the law.
Despite what caricature the left may have in their head of Texas, it's not legal for students to bring guns to school in Texas.
I got news for you.
So that's against the law.
He broke that law.
Also, he's 18 years old.
And you can't carry a handgun at 18 in Texas.
You gotta be 21.
So that's also against the law.
And he shot four people, which is also against the law.
So a whole number of laws that he broke and is going to rightly pay the price for.
The question that we have to ask Chris Murphy and that Chris Murphy and people like him will never answer clearly is, what other laws?
If those laws didn't stop this, then what law would have?
What additional law?
If somebody is committing an act in which they break 20 laws, do you think adding another so that they break 21 instead of just 20?
What difference is that going to make?
As far as being in the anti-gun violence movement, I don't even know what that means.
Sure, yeah, we're all against gun violence.
I'm against people falling victim to any form of violence with any kind of weapon.
So I'll one-up you, Chris Murphy.
I'm anti-weapon violence of all kinds.
If someone is falling victim, unless it's self-defense, I'm against violence committed by any kind of weapon at all.
I'm anti-violence.
If it's unjustified violence, See, you're focusing only on guns.
I'll go further than that.
The question is, what additional laws can actually prevent this?
Because those forms of violence are already illegal, in about ten different ways at least.
Unless you live in Chicago, where apparently actually now it's legal.
But you gotta take that up with the Democrats that are running those cities.
So that's not an issue here.
Although, I do see another point that could be made when you hear about yet another shooting at a school, even if the circumstances here are a little bit different from, again, what you normally think of when we think about mass shootings at schools.
But still, it's more violence in the school system.
And I agree that violence in the school system is a problem.
All kinds of violence.
There are many schools, especially in the city, where maybe kids aren't getting shot every day, thank God, but there is violence every day.
They might be using their fists and throwing chairs at each other, but there's violence every single day.
In many of these schools, it's chaos.
I agree that that's a big problem.
When are we going to look at the system itself?
I mean, the school system itself.
Maybe there's a problem with the school system itself.
Maybe this is just another reason to actually homeschool your kids.
Could be an argument for that.
In fact, it boggles my mind that we hear that, you know, there's a violence epidemic in the schools.
There's a bullying epidemic in the schools.
The parents and the family members of the shooter in this case have come out and said that he was bullied and that's what he was responding to that.
You know, he'd been bullied for years and years.
Pretty common excuse you hear in these kinds of cases.
I don't know if it's true or not.
But there's bullying, there's violence.
And yet the same people who tell us that about the school system, they also tell us that, well, you got to send your kid to public school in order for them to be properly socialized.
You got to send them into this environment where bullying and violence is out of control and an epidemic, according to them, But you have to send your kids into that so that they can be properly socialized.
You wouldn't want to keep them home with you.
Then they're going to be weird.
Then they're going to be socially awkward.
As opposed to the public school system, where you got kids shooting each other, getting into fights every day.
A bullying epidemic, again, according to you.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Yet another reason to keep your kids home and homeschool them.
All right, here's something from Justin Trudeau that I have to just read because I am sincerely confused by it.
Justin Trudeau tweeted this out yesterday.
He said, people across the country are lighting candles to honor indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA plus people who are missing or have been murdered.
We must continue to work together, raise awareness, and advocate to end this ongoing national tragedy.
Hashtag sisters in spirit.
I'm honestly curious, did his cat walk across the keyboard?
Did he have some kind of mini seizure or spasms in the middle of typing?
2SLLGBTQQIA+.
What even is that?
I was looking that up out of curiosity, because I, I, I, is that, is that the, is that what the acronym is now?
2SL, and apparently that means, okay, 2SLGBTQQIA+, that is two spirit, okay, two spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual, plus, and then everybody else, we're lumping in there.
So now we're taking two spirits, but, we're not even, we're not only including two spirit, but they're getting, um, They're getting first place now.
They're getting pride of place right at the very beginning.
Two-spirit.
And that's very good.
For the 12 or 13 people in the world who identify as two-spirit, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, it's good that we put them right there at the front of the acronym.
Thanks for that, Justin Trudeau.
Next, we got Billie Eilish.
She was performing at a concert in Texas and decided to speak out against the Texas abortion law.
And hey, I mean, maybe she makes a compelling case.
You know, Billie Eilish.
She's an eloquent and intelligent person.
So let's just hear what she has to say about the Texas abortion law.
She may surprise us.
Hey. I am so f**ked.
I'm sick and tired of old men.
Men in general.
Sorry.
But old ones, especially.
Shut the f*** up about our bodies!
Oh my God!
[Bleep
[Cheering]
And I have to be honest with you...
[Cheering]
That...
When they made the [Bleep
I almost didn't want to do this show.
I almost didn't want to do this show.
Alright, okay.
Shut up, Billie.
Because I wanted to punish this one place.
So I wanted to give her a chance.
Maybe she had something interesting and intelligent to say, but apparently not.
All she wants to say is that we men, you know, we should Shut up about her body and about women's... No one's talking about your body, Billie Eilish.
No one cares.
No one is talking about that.
Who in the pro-life movement is talking about women's bodies?
Where is this happening?
Who are you referring to?
All we are doing, all we ever talk about when it comes to this issue, Our focus as pro-lifers is on the child.
That's our point.
That's what we're trying to defend.
Is the body and the dignity and the moral worth of that child.
All we ever hear from the other side... Stop talking about our bodies!
Our bodies!
You stop talking about them.
We don't care.
That's not what we're talking about.
When you have one side of the debate that feels the need to const... all they ever do is lie.
They will simply never engage honestly on this issue.
They won't do it.
They never have.
Never.
When you've got one side of the debate that always lies about what the other side is actually saying, Well, that should tell you who's on the right and wrong side of this thing.
All right, next, from the Daily Wire, it says, the U.S.
Space Agency, NASA, plans to conduct a mission next month to deflect a pair of asteroids far out in deep space to keep them from threatening Earth.
Dubbed the DART mission, or the Double Asteroid Redirection Test, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency will send a spacecraft to a pair of asteroids on November 24th, a bit of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
And if all goes according to plan, it will smash into one of the two asteroids, known as Didymoon, at roughly 13,500 miles per hour, nearly a full year later.
Didymoon is more than 500 feet wide.
And Didymoon sounds like a, I don't know, a Teletubby or something.
More than 500 feet wide and orbits a much larger space rock known as Didymos, which is five times as big.
And so that's the plan anyway.
There are these two big asteroids that potentially could threaten to cause devastating damage to Earth and who knows, maybe wipe out all life on Earth, I'm not sure.
And so they're sending these rockets out to deflect them before that happens.
And my first question to that is, why?
This was our way out.
Are you going to ruin that for us, NASA?
But then I am given a little bit of hope, given that this is the US government after all.
And so it seems there's a pretty good chance, it seems like, that they could go and accidentally deflect this thing into Earth.
So it seems a pretty good chance that this thing was never going to threaten Earth at all.
And they've hatched this plan, and they're going to deflect it right into us.
Now both asteroids are going to hit us at the same time, which you'd have to admit would be pretty hilarious.
If that were to happen, the means Before we all perish in a ball of fire, the means would just be tremendous.
Well, with cryptocurrency rapidly increasing in popularity, now is a great time to tell you about Alto Crypto IRA.
With Alto Crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin and avoid or defer the taxes.
You get into investing in crypto, you need to do it in a tax-advantaged retirement account Altos Crypto IRA is the easy way to get crypto into an IRA.
You can trade all you want without the tax headache.
You can create an account in just a few minutes.
It's very easy to do.
You can invest with as little as $10, so you don't need a lot of money to get started.
You don't need a lot of time to get started.
And one of the best things, there's no setup charges at all.
Secure trading 24-7 through Altos integration with Coinbase.
80-plus coins are available, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and many others.
There's multiple ways to fund your account.
You can make a cash contribution, transfer cash from an existing IRA, or roll over an old 401k.
It's all very easy to do, and now's the time to do it.
Open an Alto Crypto IRA account with as little as $10.
Just go to altoira.com slash matt.
That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A dot com slash matt.
Go to altoira.com slash matt.
All right, let's get now to reading the comments.
[MUSIC]
Uh, let's see.
MFN says, Matt's dog situation is worth its own episodes.
So, my dog has already replaced me in my family, and now you want the dog to replace me on this show as well.
You want this... My whole home life is now about this damn dog, and now you want the show to be about the dog too.
Is that what you want?
Maybe I'll just bring the dog in here, have him sit here for an hour in front of the camera?
Don't answer that because a lot of you probably would prefer that and I don't want to hear it.
Ty says, Matt, I wanted to know if you've struggled giving up NFL football in the wake of their support for BLM.
In addition to virtue signaling on the field with phrases such as end racism, the league has apparently given millions to BLM.
I know for me personally, the NFL is hard to give up, but I have contemplated it.
Yes, the answer to your question is I have found it.
I have found it difficult.
I have many ways of rationalizing it.
I've given up most professional sports.
I used to be an NBA fan up until recently.
But with this most recent round of BLM virtue signaling, when it was virtue signaling on steroids starting about a year or two years ago.
I couldn't do it anymore, so I can't watch the NBA.
I don't watch it anymore.
I gave that up.
The NFL, I do try to rationalize it in that, number one, it's not nearly as bad as some of the, especially the NBA.
There are plenty of NFL players.
One thing I like about NFL players, for one thing, one thing I've always liked about the NFL, about football in general, is that it seems to attract a lot of people of faith, religious people.
You hear NFL players after games, and people make fun of them for this, but, you know, talking about they had a big game, they scored touchdowns, and you always hear NFL players, even the big stars, saying, ah, give glory to God for that.
And you hear even Christians mocking that, as if it's silly.
I think it's fantastic.
I mean, we should give glory to God in all things, and every time I hear an NFL player say something like that, I think it's great.
Yeah, you have a big game, give glory to God.
And I think that stuff really makes a difference.
It seems small, but to have athletes who are glorifying God, even in small ways, it makes a difference in the culture.
So, you know, I balance that, but it is rationalization, I suppose.
I admit that.
I just enjoy watching football, and I enjoy watching it with my family.
And there's part of me that I feel, you know, I don't want to let the left take this away from me.
It's something that my family enjoys.
Is it a rationalization?
Again, I admit that it is.
Ted Kaczynski, apparently a fan of the show, says, What's your point, Ted?
"Adults refer to a grown-ass man as 'Daddy' who is not their real father."
What's your point, Ted? I didn't hear you in the 90s making this criticism of Puff Daddy fans, so...
I think some hypocrisy on your part.
Misinformation says, tell the school board people that activists harassing them at their house, et cetera, is just part of the process.
That is part of the process.
And, you know, apparently even following them into a bathroom and filming them, according to Joe Biden, part of the process.
And Moe Words says, to the PA legislator guy, there are plenty of laws that are not in men's favor.
Look at family law and court rulings.
Men have to fight for equal custody, pay, alimony, and child support.
Well, right.
I mean, when it comes to the law, there's no question that the sexes are unequal and are treated unequally before the law, but that women are the beneficiaries in that case.
Now some people are more equal than others, and when it comes to the law, women are the more equal, in the more equal category.
Women have, because of their sex, they have legal rights that men don't have.
And let's just, we could start and end with the fact that women are judge, jury, and executioner over their own kids.
And so if a man and a woman conceive a child, for the first nine months of that child's existence, The woman has absolute authority to kill that child if she wants, even if the man protests.
And there are many cases like that, which are unspeakably horrific and tragic.
I hear from men like this.
Now, of course, there are plenty of cases on the other side where you have scumbag, cowardly men pressuring and trying to force black male women into getting abortions.
That obviously happens.
Jeffrey Toobin over at CNN is an example of that kind of guy.
A lot of cases on the reverse, where you've got men pleading with their, you know, girlfriends, less often wives, not to abort the children, and they do it anyway.
And that's a case of, and this is the way the law is set up, total helplessness on the part of men.
So you give some other good examples, but I think that right there shows the way the law really works.
This coming Tuesday, October 12th, we're making backstage extra exciting.
Instead of the usual Daily Wire studio, we'll be live streaming our conversation on stage at the famous Ryman Auditorium right here in Nashville, doing what we do best, which is making sense.
This will be an event and a live stream unlike any other we've done before, and we're thrilled to be able to share it with all of you.
Plus, we'll be making some extremely exciting announcements, which you will not want to miss.
So be sure to tune in.
Join myself, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Jeremy Boren, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and our live audience for a backstage like never before.
Tuesday's live stream will begin at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern, 7.30 p.m.
Central.
So head to dailywire.com or Daily Wire YouTube to catch the show when it airs.
And also, As the legacy media continues to spin the news, our newest podcast, Morning Wire, continues to top the Apple and Spotify charts.
And we're continuing our commitment to bringing you the news without any hidden agenda.
It's the only daily podcast that values your time and the truth.
And while we're working overtime to bring you the news you need to know, we need your help to keep the facts trending towards number one.
So subscribe now and start listening to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today, for our daily cancellation, we return to the murky swamps of TikTok, ready to cancel everything in our path.
And right away, a good candidate presents itself.
Here's a feminist woman named Christy, who looks exactly like every other feminist woman named Christy that you've ever met, if you've had the misfortune of meeting more than one.
Just as a quick introduction to Christy, this is not the video we're going to focus on today, but I just want to play one of her most recent contributions.
Here she is on the issue of race.
Listen.
In honor of this, white people, stitch this.
How many white people?
I make it my personal business to have complex conversations about race with any and all white people that I encounter.
Complex conversations about race with all white people that you encounter.
How does that work?
Are you stopping people on the street?
Excuse me, sir, I'd like to have a complex conversation about race with you.
Maybe you go door-to-door like a Jehovah's Witness, except significantly more annoying.
I shudder at the thought of being stuck next to her on an airplane for three hours.
Just one more reason to choose a seat in the exit row, I guess.
I'm here to double down on the video that made me go viral.
Most men are rapists.
Anyway, that gives you an idea of where she's coming from.
Now let's get to the main event.
I'm here to double down on the video that made me go viral.
Most men are rapists.
And by that I mean most cis-heteronormative men.
There's a reason we say we live in a rape culture.
Most rapes go unreported, some even unknown.
And the way rape is portrayed and glamorized in movies and media misrepresents what most rape actually looks like.
Let's just look at the updated definition of rape so that everybody's clear.
Penetration no matter how slight of the vagina or anus or any other body part or object or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person without the consent of the victim.
Are you buying somebody drinks with the goal of getting them drunk enough so that they can't consent?
Rapist.
Coercing somebody into sex?
Rapist.
Guilting or manipulating someone into having sex with you?
Rapist.
Dating coaches and pick-up artists have normalized this kind of behavior.
And if you engage in any of those things, you'll be known as a rapist.
Is your just-the-tip joke funny now?
Always with the hair.
They all have the same hair.
Do they go to like the hair salon and say, uh, yeah, I'm a shrill feminist.
Just so go ahead and do, do what you do.
Now you notice how she lets gay men off the hook at the start, because apparently male-on-male rape doesn't exist.
This will come as welcome news to everybody who's going to prison.
From there, she gives us a definition of rape that few could argue with.
Rape is having sex with someone, performing any kind of sexual act with them, without their consent.
Yeah, that's obviously what the term means.
But then she performs the trick that has become so common in our culture, a trick that has led to lots of confusion and to very many ruined lives.
By manipulating the word consent.
You'll notice that she doesn't pull out the old Webster's to tell us what the word consent means.
She does that with rape, but not consent.
Because if she had, we'd see that consent means agreement to do something.
That's it.
If you agree to do it, you consented.
If you were forced to do it, you didn't consent.
So it's that simple.
She provides the example of a man.
It's always a man, as if women don't do this.
A man getting a woman drunk in order to have sex with her.
Now, if someone is trying to intoxicate another person with the explicit goal of taking advantage of them, and the other person has no sober intention of engaging in any kind of sexual activity, then yes, that could be a form of removing consent.
But the problem is that in most cases where alcohol is involved, especially somewhere like a college campus, you have two people in a sexually charged environment, both getting drunk, And then both having sex while drunk.
Who's the rapist there?
Both of them?
Are they raping each other?
Well, the school rape tribunals always put the blame on men.
In fact, I'm not aware of a single case where a woman has been charged or even accused of rape after a mutual drunk sex.
The onus always falls on men.
From there, she makes rape into an even more obscure concept by claiming that men, again, always men, because women never do this, Men who guilt, manipulate, or coerce women into sex are rapists.
Now, it's possible to imagine forms of coerced sex that would count as rape.
If you tell a woman to have sex with you or you'll kill her, that's coercion and it's obviously rape.
But she says that most straight men are rapists, which means she's talking about far less dire and more generalized versions of manipulation.
Essentially, what feminists mean when they say this is that trying to convince a woman to have sex, using any form of persuasion at all, is rape.
Which is another way of saying that a man who tries to initiate sex, even with his own wife, potentially, is a rapist.
You would have to mean that if you're trying to support the claim that most men are rapists.
Which is obviously ludicrous.
And worse than ludicrous, as this mentality has, again, ruined the lives of many men by providing women with the framework to accuse their consensual sexual partners of rape after the fact.
The word consent means what it means in reality.
If you agree to do it, if you're not forced but you agreed, then you've consented.
Even if you did it but you didn't want to.
Even if you did it and you felt bad about it later.
Even if you did it but only because you thought it was the only way to secure promotion at work, in all of those cases, in any case like them, you have agreed.
You have participated of your own free will and volition.
You were not raped.
But even if you weren't raped, Does that mean that you weren't used?
Is it possible for someone to be sexually used and yet not raped?
Yes, in fact, it's possible and it happens all the time.
And it's bad, but it's not rape.
At the end of the video, she says, via text on the screen there, that feeling entitled to someone's body for sexual pleasure is a rapist mentality.
Now, it isn't, necessarily, but it is a perverse and degraded mentality.
It's also the mentality that many people in our culture, men and women, share.
The moment that we ripped the sexual act out of the loving and committed confines of marriage, we turned it into a purely selfish act performed by individuals for their own gratification.
Everyone involved in hookup culture is using someone's body for sexual pleasure.
Everyone who looks at porn is doing that.
Most of the people, men and women, on dating apps are pursuing exactly that.
Are they all rapists?
No.
I mean, some of them are, by statistics would seem to indicate, but most of them aren't.
The problem, as I've described in the past, is that in our culture today, we have no moral language to govern sex except consent.
That's the only moral guide that we have left, because we've thrown everything else out.
The idea that sex used to be loving, used to be... Sex is supposed to be loving, it's supposed to be committed, All of that we've thrown out.
And we've left only consent as the one single moral rule left to govern the sexual act.
And a lot of people, like the person in the video there, have, without realizing it, noticed the problem.
And they've looked around and they've seen that, wow, I mean, gee, so often, sex in our culture today is, it's degraded, It seems immoral, amoral.
People are just using each other as objects.
I mean, to use someone else simply as basically a glorified masturbatory aid?
As just this tool for you to get your thrills?
That's a terrible thing.
It's dehumanizing.
And it is.
But because they're committed to this idea, That we all need to be libertines.
That we can't, you know, that the concept that sex is supposed to be loving and committed, that's patriarchal, that's religious.
They're committed to that.
So they've thrown that out.
All they have left is consent.
And so they decide that, oh, OK, well, all these cases here, these are all violations of consent.
And that's how I'm going to be able to condemn them.
They're not.
But in many cases, they are still immoral.
And that's why today, even though, even though she, she, like so many feminists on this issue, there may be, there may be closer to the, to the point.
They're closer to the truth than they realize.
Still, I have to say that today she is canceled and we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agrees to a temporary debt ceiling increase, President Biden's approval rating craters, and ESPN suspends Sage Steele for saying the unsayable.
