Ep. 828 - High School Boys In Lingerie Give Their Principal A Lap Dance
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a school in Kentucky holds a “man pageant” where high school boys in lingerie gave lap dances to their teachers while a school in Florida brought elementary schoolers to a gay bar for a field trip. What is the issue with all of this? Is it an infringement on “parental rights”? Yes, but that’s not even half of the problem. Also, an uncharacteristically impressive performance from Republicans as they interrogate Attorney General Garland during a Senate hearing. And a woman is brutally assaulted on a train in New York while dozens of people stand by and watch. This is becoming a theme. Plus, a professor at Rutgers claims that black and brown people lived in peaceful harmony across the globe until white people ruined it all. And Anthony Weiner’s estranged wife says she was sexually assaulted by a US Senator. The problem is that her sexual assault story doesn’t feature an actual sexual assault.
Daily Wire just signed ousted ESPN sportscaster Allison Williams who resisted Disney’s vaccine mandate for a new sports series. Take back your content from the Hollywood elites - get 25% off a Daily Wire membership with code DONOTCOMPLY: https://utm.io/udJyw
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, a school in Kentucky holds a man pageant, quote-unquote, where high school boys in lingerie gave lap dances to their teachers, while a school in Florida brought elementary schoolers to a gay bar for a field trip.
And that was all this week.
So what is the issue with all of this?
Is it an infringement on parental rights?
Yeah.
But that's not even half of the problem.
We'll talk about that today.
Also, an uncharacteristically impressive performance from Republicans as they interrogate Attorney General Garland during a Senate hearing.
And a woman is brutally assaulted on a train in New York while dozens of people stand by and watch.
This is becoming a theme.
Plus, a professor at Rutgers claims that black and brown people lived in peaceful harmony across the globe until white people ruined it all.
And Anthony Weiner's estranged wife says that she was sexually assaulted by a U.S.
senator The problem is that her sexual assault story does not feature an actual sexual assault.
We'll discuss all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Authors Jack Schneider and Jennifer Berkshire argue that parents, in fact, do not have, quote, the right to shape their kids' school curriculum.
And they chalk up the current school board movement and the activism by parents to nothing more than a misguided, quote, frenzy Based on the, they say, false idea that radicals are out to curtail the established rights that Americans have over the educational sphere.
Well, that is in fact exactly what is happening, but the Washington Post says otherwise.
What they say is, quote, What's actually radical here is the assertion of parental powers that have never previously existed.
When do the interests of parents and children diverge?
Generally, it occurs when a parent's desire to inculcate a particular worldview denies the child exposure to other ideas and values that an independent young person might wish to embrace or at least entertain.
The turn over all decisions to parents, to turn over all decisions to parents would risk inhibiting the ability of young people to think independently.
As the political scientist Robert Reich has argued, minimal autonomy requires, especially for its civic importance, that a child be able to examine his or her own political values and beliefs and those of others with a critical eye.
If we value that end, the structure of schooling cannot simply replicate in every particularity the values and beliefs of a child's home.
Unquote.
Well then, whose values and beliefs should they replicate?
These kinds of defenses of the education system never seem to answer that question directly.
We're told that parents, by getting overly involved in their kids' education, may be inhibiting their children's ability to think independently.
But there is no environment on Earth, perhaps outside of communist China or North Korea, more stifling to independent thought than the school system.
You know, there is an orthodoxy in the schools, a certain accepted mode of thought, and those who fall outside of it face punishment from their teachers and even more ruthless penalties from their peers.
And in fact, the whole idea of independent thought among children is somewhat nonsensical.
A child's thoughts are going to be dependent on something, or at least based in something, They're going to be basing their values, their priorities, their views of the world on some sort of framework that's provided to them by an outside authority.
A child dropped off on a desert island as a toddler and raised by seagulls might become a truly independent thinker in that his thoughts are formed independent of any cultural context or preformed value system, but kids within society will not be anywhere close to entirely independent in their thoughts or in any other sense.
Children are shaped.
They are formed.
And the question is simply, who can be best trusted to do that?
The left answers, the school system.
But they're too cowardly and dishonest to actually answer the school system.
I mean, that is their answer, but they won't say it out loud.
So instead, they try another one of their patented baits and switches, where they tell you to bring your children to school so that they can become free thinkers.
And as soon as you drop your child off and head to work, They turn to your child and say, OK, Junior, here are all the things you're allowed to think, and here's a list of things you aren't allowed to think.
Yeah, that's the free, independent thinking in the school system.
That's why this is, again, a question of who can best be trusted to impart values.
And on that end, as you deliberate over that question, consider this news from a school district in Kentucky.
This just happened this week.
WDRB in Kentucky has the story.
Listen.
An event at Hazard High School causing outrage and now an investigation.
The school is celebrating homecoming week.
Yesterday was costume day featuring a man pageant.
Multiple pictures were posted and taken down from the school's athletics page.
They appear to show students giving lap dances to faculty and staff.
Some pictures show female students dressed in Hooters costumes.
Other pictures show students and staff paddling each other.
One person featured in the pictures is Principal Donald Happy Mobilini, who is also the mayor of Hazard.
Some parents say they are outraged.
Others say they don't think any lines were crossed.
Everybody who has been to Hazard knows all of the teachers and what happens during homecoming week.
Wearing the mask, of course.
As expected.
So, male students dressed in bikinis and lingerie gave lap dances to teachers.
And then teachers and students were paddling each other.
And this was all posted by the school itself on its Facebook page.
The degenerate lunatics running these schools are such degenerate lunatics that it doesn't occur to them that people might have a problem with high school boys in lingerie giving lap dances to their principal.
That's how deeply they're invested in the delusion of their own moral authority.
It doesn't cross their mind.
That what they're doing is inappropriate.
Which is not an excuse, by the way, very far from it.
My point simply is that these people are helpless perverts, corrupted beyond all human recognition.
Another example just from this week, a school district in Keller, Texas has stocked its school libraries with a book called Genderqueer, which features cartoon images of oral sex, discussions of masturbation, among other topics, both written about and illustrated.
Meanwhile, down in Broward County, Florida, school board member Sarah Leonardi proudly announces that she chaperoned an elementary school field trip to a gay bar.
Students from Wilton Manor Elementary School were taken to Rosie's Bar and Grill, a quote, LGBTQ-friendly bar and grill, decked out with rainbows everywhere, and featuring menu items like the Big Dripper Wrap, the Young Ranch Hand, the Banana Hammock, the Naked Sweaty Lovin', and Ivana Hooker.
Those are all menu items at this gay bar and grill where the kids were taken.
This is apparently an annual field trip.
And once again, the school officials responsible publicized it themselves.
They either aren't expecting the backlash, or they couldn't care less if they get it.
One of the intended consequences of painting parents as domestic terrorists is that school officials will feel increasingly justified when they run afoul of parents.
I mean, if a bunch of domestic terrorists are upset, then you must be doing something right.
But there's another point to be made here, and it's an important point.
That I think is getting lost.
The issue in education is not just parental rights.
In fact, parental rights are a secondary concern.
Because parental rights are not absolute.
We all agree and understand that parents can and sometimes should lose their rights.
If you abuse your child, if you mistreat them, you can lose your rights as a parent.
And we all agree in principle that that can and should happen.
So, what matters, first and foremost, then, is the basic liberty and human dignity of the child himself.
Parental rights are, indeed, under attack, and we should defend them, but we make a mistake when we frame this entire issue as nothing but a parental rights issue.
So, what's wrong with boys in lingerie giving a lap dance to their teachers?
Or children being exposed to pornography in the school library?
Or third graders being brought to a gay bar on a field trip?
Is the problem simply that the parents didn't approve?
What if the parents did approve?
I'm willing to bet that all of the parents of the children at the gay bar did indeed give their blessing.
In fact, in some of the pictures, you see a bunch of adults standing around.
I'm guessing a lot of parents in that crowd.
Some parents apparently were fine with the lingerie lap dance.
Some are okay even with their kids being exposed to pornography, or worse.
So is that it, then?
Is this just a matter of getting a democratic consensus among the parents, and as long as they all agree to sexually abuse the kids, then it's fine?
No, because the principal concern here, again, is the freedom and dignity of the child.
This is about the children's rights first.
As we've seen, sadly, there are plenty of parents in our culture who will gladly infringe on their own children's freedom and dignity.
But we defend parental rights not because parents have the absolute authority to do whatever they want to their kids, but because parents can be most trusted to care for and guard and protect their children.
Not absolutely trusted, but most trusted.
So our cultural default position should be to entrust children to their parents, because that's the natural way of things.
If a parent proves themselves unworthy of that trust, say by taking their kid to a drag queen story hour, then they should have their parental rights revoked at that point.
But what we know for sure is that the school system cannot be trusted at all, at all, to protect the dignity and freedom of children.
Because that is, again, what this is really about.
Those images you saw of the kids in lingerie, that is an assault on the dignity and true freedom of children.
And the school system is much more likely to be a direct and intentional threat to that dignity and freedom.
Which is why, as for the school system, I kind of like the solution inadvertently offered by the Washington Post article I mentioned at the top.
The piece ends with this.
Here's the final paragraph.
It says, "In framing our public schools as extremist organizations that undermine the
prerogatives of families, conservatives are bringing napalm to the fight.
They may rally the base and tilt a few elections in their favor, but as with any scorched-earth
campaign, the cost of this conflict will be borne long after the fighting stops."
Parents may end up with a new set of rights only to discover that they have lost something even more fundamental in the process.
Turned against their schools and their democracy, they may wake up from their conspiratorial fantasies to find a pile of rubble and a heap of ashes.
A pile of rubble and a heap of ashes.
Sounds good to me.
That's exactly what I want the school system to become.
Metaphorically.
It is a cursed and sickly and dilapidated thing.
So burn it to the ground and start over.
[MUSIC]
Now we check in with policy genius.
You know, shopping for life insurance before Policy Genius was one of those things that was difficult to do.
You would put it off, and that's not a good idea to put it off, because you put off getting life insurance until it's officially too late.
But Policy Genius has made it so much easier And it's very simple to compare quotes from over a dozen top insurers all in one place.
Why compare?
Well, because you could save 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with PolicyGenius.
The licensed experts at PolicyGenius work for you, not the insurance company, so you can trust them to help you navigate every step of the shopping and buying process.
That kind of service has earned Policygenius thousands of five-star reviews across Trustpilot and Google, and eligible applicants can get covered in as little as a week thanks to an award-winning policy option that swaps the standard medical exam requirement for a simple phone call.
So they make it easy to do, they make it affordable as well, and so there's no reason not to do it.
You gotta head to Policygenius, and in minutes you can work out what kind of life insurance you need, and you get the life insurance, and then you have your loved ones protected for the future.
Head to policygenius.com to get started right now.
Policy Genius, when it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right.
All right, had an enjoyable night last night.
We went to, as we continue, as I told you, with my kids, every holiday they celebrate seven or eight times.
And so we continue the week-long or two-week-long Halloween celebration.
We went to the boo at the zoo here in Nashville.
Big fan of the Nashville Zoo and zoos in general.
So of course I wanted to be a part of this.
I mean, I was a little upset when we went, the animals, there was no animals to see.
But you know, they still, they got candy and all the kids were dressed in costumes.
And for me, the headline and the takeaway for me is that when we were walking along
and we come across this other kid about the same age as my youngest son,
who's almost five years old.
This other kid looks to be about five.
And this kid is dressed as a gingerbread man.
And then we saw probably three or four other kids about the same age dressed as gingerbread men.
And my wife starts talking to the parents of the one kid dressed as a gingerbread man, and the parents say, oh yeah, you know, he's obsessed with the gingerbread man.
He wants to read stories every night about the gingerbread man.
And this was such a relief for me, because our son is exactly the same way.
He's obsessed with the gingerbread man, and every single day he wants to read stories about it.
And he was going to go as a gingerbread man for Halloween, but he changed his mind at the last minute, like kids always do.
He wanted to be a werewolf instead, okay?
But it's one of those, I always thought it was kind of weird, like why gingerbread, this like a year-long obsession with a gingerbread man?
Why is this the thing you're obsessed with?
But you have these reassuring moments as parents when there's this really weird thing about your kid, and then you meet another parent, they tell you about their kid, oh okay, well this is, so your kid's weird in the same way, so it's okay.
My kid's not as much of a freak as I thought.
That's reassuring to find out.
Okay, so we'll start with this.
A.G.
Garland was again before a Senate committee being questioned about a variety of things.
And there were a few really good moments from Republicans during this interrogation.
And it's not often that I can really give any props to elected Republicans on this show, but when those opportunities arise, I will take advantage of them.
And in this case, some of the Republicans during this hearing were, I mean, I will even say masterful in their takedown of Garland.
So we'll start with this from Senator Hawley, who I think speaks for many of us in his treatment of Garland.
Listen.
Parents who go to school board meetings.
Mr. Smith is a parent who went to a school board meeting.
I'll leave it at this, General Garland.
You have weaponized the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Your U.S.
attorneys are now collecting and cataloging all the ways that they might prosecute parents like Mr. Smith because they want to be involved in their children's education and they want to have a say in their elected officials.
It's wrong.
It is unprecedented, to my knowledge, in the history of this country.
And I call on you to resign.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, resign in disgrace.
That's exactly what Garland should do.
And I thought Cruz's question of Garland was talking about why he should resign.
A lot of reasons.
As Holly points out, weaponizing the Department of Justice against parents.
For the Department of Justice to be corrupt and weaponized, that in and of itself is certainly not Unprecedented.
Obama did the same damn thing.
But to be weaponized in this way, against parents in general at school board meetings, yes, that is unprecedented.
But that's not the only reason why Garland should resign.
There's also some real corruption and nepotism going on.
And Cruz's questioning of Garland was tremendous on this end.
Garland would probably consider it an act of terrorism, given how thoroughly he was dismantled and embarrassed by Ted Cruz.
Let's listen to a piece of that.
A big part of this letter is that they're upset about parents not wanting critical race theory taught.
Your son-in-law makes a very substantial sum of money from a company involved in the teaching of critical race theory.
Did you seek and receive a decision from an ethics advisor at the Department of Justice before you carried out an action that would have a predictable financial benefit to your son-in-law?
This memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence.
I just asked a question.
Did you seek an ethics opinion?
It has no predictable effect on... Did you seek an ethics opinion?
It has no predi... Did you seek an ethics opinion?
Judge, you know how to ask questions and answer them.
Did you seek an ethics opinion?
You asked me whether I sought an ethics opinion about something that would have a predictable effect on something.
This has no predictable effect in the way that you're talking about.
So, if critical race theory is taught in more schools, does your son-in-law make more money?
This memo has nothing... If critical race theory is taught in more schools, does your son-in-law make more money?
Yes or no?
This memorandum has nothing to do with critical race theory or any other kind of curriculum.
Will you answer if you sought an ethics opinion?
I am answering the best I can.
Yes or no, did you seek an ethics opinion?
This memorandum has nothing... Did you seek an ethics opinion?
This memorandum has nothing to do with... General, are you refusing to answer if you sought an ethics opinion?
I am telling you that there's no possible... So you're saying, no, just answer it directly.
You know how to answer a question directly.
Did you seek...
An ethics opinion.
I'm telling you that if I thought there was any reason to believe there was a conflict of interest, I would do that.
He really looks like he's about to cry.
That was my only disappointment watching that interrogation go on, is that I was hoping Garland would break down in tears.
He seemed like he was on the verge of it.
And you could understand why, in a way, because these are people who Are never challenged, um, by anyone, especially not publicly like this in front of the entire country, but they're just, they're just, they live in their bubbles and they're never challenged.
And if they encounter something like this, a real line of questioning, they don't know how to respond to it.
I would almost prefer if the tyrants running our country If the tyrants in the ruling class, like Garland, I'd almost prefer it if they were, you know, intimidating and imposing figures.
It would be a little bit less embarrassing for the rest of us in that case.
Because then you would see them and you'd say, okay, well, yeah, they're a tyrant.
What's what you would expect a tyrant to look like?
But no, these frail, empty, pathetic little weaklings on the verge of tears because you ask them difficult questions, those are the tyrants and oppressors that we are Whose thumbs we are living under.
You watch that and you almost feel sorry for Garland because he's so pathetic.
And then you remember that he's a colossal piece of garbage and you don't feel so bad for him anymore.
Speaking of colossal pieces of garbage, Senator Spartacus, Cory Booker, wasn't having any of this whatsoever, so he swooped in to defend Garland and he's incensed that anyone would suggest That the DOJ's war on parents is anything less than noble and necessary, and he tries to explain why here.
The October 4th memo reads, In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools.
Is that true?
Yes, sir.
I mean, it is true.
It is true.
I have a list of very disturbing incidents.
In Texas, a parent physically assaulted a teacher.
August 18, 2021, in Pennsylvania, a person posted threats in social media which required police to station outside of a school district.
Law enforcement investigating the person.
I could keep going.
Ohio, a school board member was threatening letter that began with, we are coming from you.
Domestic terrorism in the United States, sir, has it been more from overseas radical terrorists since 9-11 or more from homegrown terrorists, most of them being right-wing extremists?
Which has been greater since 9-11?
I want to be careful about that.
The threats that we face with respect to terrorism, and none of those descriptions have to do with terrorism, but the threats that we face in the United States come both from foreign terrorists... A church in South Carolina, a synagogue in Pennsylvania, a school Parkland, a school, Newtown.
Has there been threats and violence against schools in the United States of America?
There have been, yes.
Coming from what types of groups?
They come from domestic groups.
From domestic groups.
Parkland and Newtown?
What does that have to do with anything whatsoever?
Cory Booker, living up to the title that I gave him of a colossal piece of garbage, is tying At parents who get angry at school board officials to the Sandy Hook massacre and the Parkland shooting.
I shouldn't need to say, no relationship at all between those things.
What, are you suggesting that these school shooters were upset at their school boards over policies they didn't approve of?
Now Booker, he says, oh no, there's been a lot of violence against school board meetings.
And then he starts listing them.
And what does he list?
He lists three things.
Then he says, oh, I could go on.
Could you really?
Could you go on?
Because I don't think you could.
I think that's basically all you had.
He lists two examples of people using threatening language, allegedly, on Facebook or in a letter.
So no physical violence there.
And the one violent incident he talks about, the assault of a teacher, in case you're wondering what happened there, this was back in August.
Allegedly, there was an argument between a parent and a teacher, and during the argument, the parent pulled down the teacher's mask, face mask.
Shouldn't do that.
Okay, you're making physical contact with somebody else.
You shouldn't do it.
But that's your example?
That's why the Department of Justice, the FBI needs to get involved?
Because a parent reached out and did this and pulled the mask down?
That's all you got?
That's the best you could do?
I hope the teacher recovered from that.
I wonder how long they were in the hospital after that.
Better check on them and maybe they're still in a coma after having their mask pulled down.
And he takes that and ties it to domestic terrorism.
What he's saying is that an angry parent acting inappropriately and pulling down a teacher's mask is akin to domestic terrorism on the level with a school shooting where 19 people are murdered.
This is what we're getting from these people.
Senator Dick Durbin gave this a shot also, trying to demonstrate to the public why school boards really are under threat and why the FBI needs to get involved.
And he says that he knows that the threats are very real and that all of this is very real because he saw it in a search engine.
Watch.
Those who think the insurrectionist mob of January 6th was merely a group of tourists visiting the Capitol ignore the pillaging The deaths and the serious injuries to over 100 law enforcement officials and those who argue that school board meetings across America are not more dangerous and more violent than in the past or ignoring reality.
I went on and just typed in this morning school board violence on one of the search engines.
Page after page is coming up.
So this is right in line with Garland, who at the last hearing, if you recall, said that, well, how do I know that school boards are being threatened?
Because they told me so in a letter from the National School Board Association.
They claimed it.
And also I read it in the headlines.
And Durbin is saying, oh, I Googled it.
I Googled it this morning and it came up with a bunch of search result answers.
So there you go.
I mean, at least he's being honest about the research that he did.
And when most people say that they've researched an issue these days, that's all they mean.
They mean that they plugged something into Google and they saw a bunch of hits come up and they said, well, there it is.
Even though, you know, 90% of the links are just repeating the same story over and over again.
But Dick Durbin, you know, has been in the Senate for 150 years.
This maybe is the first time that he's ever even used a search engine, so maybe we can excuse him there.
But that's how pathetic.
Listen, if they had something, if they had a real case here, they'd make it by now.
If there were examples of real Dangerous violence.
Especially multiple examples.
An epidemic of it happening at school board meetings.
They tell us about it.
It's not like this is an ace up their sleeve that they're saving for another time.
They don't have it.
All right, let's move on.
A Rutgers professor was interviewed by the race-baiting website, The Root.
And she babbled on for several minutes, spewing blatant racism.
But it's this part in particular, coming from a professor, That really caught my ear.
Listen.
I think that white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate, right?
The real sort of issue here, you know, I've heard people sort of say it, is one, I think that white people viscerally fear.
It's not that white people don't know, right, what they have done.
They know.
They fear that there is no other way to be human but the way in which they are human, which is to... So, you know, like you talk to white people and whenever you really want to have a reckoning about it, they say stuff like, you know, it's just human nature.
If y'all had all of this power, you would have done the same thing, right?
And it's like, no, that's what white humans did.
White human beings thought there's a world here and we own it.
Prior to them, black and brown people have been sailing across oceans, interacting with each other for centuries without total subjugation, domination, and colonialism.
So we're going to kind of skip right over the explicit racism.
Only because what else is there to say about it other than this is explicit racism and et cetera and so forth.
Reverse the races, white professor saying this about black people.
They would be fired within 30 seconds and there would be marches and rallies and the president would be talking about it and so on and so forth.
So we know all of that.
Which isn't to minimize it, but we know all of that.
Or at least the audience of this show knows it.
But then, coming from a professor, her vision of history, where she says that, oh, black and brown people, they weren't subjugating each other.
What?
Okay, go pick up any history textbook or, you know, this is something you could even, this one you could Google.
Look up a list of empires throughout the world, throughout history.
You're gonna see things like the Ottoman Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Mayan Empire, the Inca Empire, the Persian Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
These were not empires built and run by white Westerners, or Europeans, or white Americans, okay?
But they're empires.
And how do you, Professor, what do you think an empire is?
How do you think an empire is established?
You know, the Ottoman Empire, when they were building their empire and it was expanding, were they showing up to other countries and other regions and kind of knocking on people's door very politely and saying, would you mind?
Would you mind if we conquered you?
Yeah, we got this empire thing going and we really want to grow it.
And so we would love to conquer your, you've got some land here.
We would love to take it.
Would you mind?
They said, sure.
Yeah, go ahead and take it.
Oh, great.
And they shake hands.
That's not how it worked.
These, if it's an empire at any point in history, especially in ancient history, they were grown by conquering and subjugating and killing and enslaving all throughout the world.
Now, this is historical misinformation and historical illiteracy on multiple levels because she also says that not only were they peaceful and not subjugating each other, which is a total fantasy, but that they were crossing oceans and interacting peacefully with the people on the other side of the ocean.
That's also not correct.
Now, there are plenty of non-white cultures who were, you know, seafaring Like the, you know, especially the Polynesians, for example.
But nobody was traveling whole oceans and setting up lasting settlements until Western, until Europeans were doing it.
They were the first to do it.
To cross entire unknown oceans, go to an unknown part of the world and set up a settlement.
So she's also not correct about that.
And by the way, the non-white, non-Western empires that were not traveling across oceans, the reason why they didn't travel across the ocean, it's not because they had some sort of ethical qualm with it.
It's not because they said, oh yeah, there could be usable land on the other side of this huge body of water, and there could be resources, and there could be slaves that we could take.
But we're not going to do that because, you know, We want to respect their autonomy, and they're going to be indigenous peoples on that landmass, and we want to respect them.
No, they didn't do it because they lacked the knowledge or the interest or the ability.
Perhaps they didn't see it as in their interest to, you know, there was enough that they could take and steal and conquer around them that they'd need to travel across the ocean to do it.
College professor, folks.
College professor.
And some of you in the audience are paying six figures.
I mean, you are paying top dollar.
You're paying enormous sums to send your kids to school to listen to bullshit like that.
Think about that for a second.
I didn't go to college at all.
I dropped out of community college after one semester.
That's what I did.
And I could be teaching her a history lesson.
I am far more knowledgeable than she is as a, I don't know what subject she teaches, but as a college professor, I am far more knowledgeable than her.
Give me that money.
You know what?
If you're going to spend $100,000 sending your kid, give me $100,000 and I will teach your kid.
I'm not going to say I'm going to do it.
It's not that I'll do a tremendous job, but I'll do a better job than these college professors will.
You know what?
I'll cut it in half.
I'll do it for $50,000.
Give me 50 grand and I'll condense it.
I'll teach them in a month.
They'll be in and out.
How about that?
Let's see what else we got here.
We got a lot of stuff.
Not sure if we can get through all this.
Let's check in with the FDA.
This week, the FDA Advisory Committee recommended that we start giving COVID shots to kids age 5 through 11.
I'm going to play a very short clip from one member of the committee.
This is Eric Rubin.
And you tell me if this instills you with a great amount of confidence in the vaccine.
Listen.
But we're never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it.
You know, that's just the way it goes.
So this is the Nancy Pelosi, we got to pass the bill to find out what's in it thing.
Except in this case, we got to approve the vaccine and inject it into children's bodies to find out what's in it or to find out at least if it will harm them.
Here's what I'll say about this.
As a parent of kids who are in that age range, they are not going to be getting the vaccine.
And the reason they won't get it is because I love my kids.
And I'm not saying that if you get your kids vaccinated with from if I'm not saying that if you give your kids the
COVID vaccine That you don't love them
That's another one of those things that I would never say [BLANK_AUDIO]
I wouldn't say it on this show, which will be on YouTube.
I wouldn't say it.
All right, what else do we got?
Okay, now we check in, go from the FDA to the NYC subway system, where the good people of New York commute in a peaceful and orderly way.
And here's some video that was taken of what starts as, I suppose, an argument between a man and a woman, I will say a black man and a white woman.
And I tell you that because I do think the races are relevant here.
And here's how that ends up.
Let's start watching this here.
My train riding NYC.
Say it to my face now.
Tell me to take a chill pill.
Say the word chill pill.
Oh!
Punches her right in the face.
Oh!
Say the word chill pill.
They replay this a few times, but I want to keep playing it so you can see the reaction from everybody on the subway.
or lack thereof. You see that one guy standing closest to him, the guy in the
ball cap.
And I don't know if he's with that woman.
I sure hope that he's not.
I mean, if he was with her, I hope he's not anymore.
But his response is... Okay, we can turn this off now.
So that guy, his response, I think he does, in fairness to him, he does speak up and says, hey man, whoa.
This is a woman who was just brutally assaulted right in front of him.
And he says, oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, man.
And nothing else.
Everybody else on the plane, on the train rather, that train is packed.
People all around, including a lot of men, alleged men, biological men at least, And they just stand there watching this.
Many don't even, like, they're looking down on their phones and don't even look up.
Except for the person who's using their phone to record all of this and not intervening, of course.
You know, this is definitely a theme and it has been.
It was only, what, last week, two weeks ago, we had the story of a woman being raped on a train.
There was no video of that that was at least released to the public, although the police, it would seem, did have video because that was videoed as well.
And raped on a train, and no one intervened.
There were people on the train just sat and watched.
It didn't do anything.
So it certainly is becoming a theme.
Now, I say the races were relevant there because, number one, again, if we're going by one standard here, we know That if the races were reversed, certainly everybody would be saying that.
Can you imagine a large white man punching a black woman in the face and there's video of it?
That video would be everywhere.
It would be a national crisis.
We would know the assailant.
We would know everything about him right now.
We would know his name, where he lives, his job, which he would not have anymore, and rightfully so.
We know that's the case.
This happens and that's not the reaction at all.
But this is not the only video of this kind that we've seen.
Of white women being assaulted.
And I believe the other thing that makes especially the race of the victim relevant is that this is becoming sort of a meme or it has been a meme online for a long time now about kind of dehumanizing white women.
We know about the Karen meme.
And I've been complaining about that for months now.
And people laugh about it.
I said, the Karen meme is a racial slur.
And it's used as an excuse to kind of dehumanize white women.
And so as this meme gains, you know, gains popularity, we see more and more of these assaults on white women.
I think there is a connection.
Where, you know, we're sort of being told it's acceptable for a white woman to be treated this way.
And what did she say to, quote-unquote, earn that assault?
She said, take a chill pill, apparently, is what she said.
But then you run into the fact that, as other people have pointed out online, You know, if you live in New York, this is what you voted for.
This kind of lawless environment.
And I understand the argument that some people make that, hey, If I were on the train and I saw that happen, I wouldn't step in either because I know that because of the racial dynamics, there's a very good chance that, you know, I'm going to end up being charged with a hate crime.
I'm going to have the mob coming after me.
The video is taken out of context and it ends up online.
And next thing you know, they're coming after me and my life is destroyed.
And I understand that argument.
I mean, I understand it intellectually.
It's self-preservation that you don't want to get involved.
But there's nothing terribly unique about that.
Cowards are always concerned with self-preservation.
That's not unique to our culture.
But it's still cowardice.
Cowardice, it's not doing the right thing, not wanting to put yourself in harm's way to do the right thing, To protect the innocent, you know, because you're concerned with preserving your own safety and your own well-being.
That's the coward's way.
And there's a certain intellectual rationale to it that we can all understand.
Yeah, you don't want to get hurt.
You take the potential hate crime aspect out of it.
The other issue is if you step in, you might get your ass kicked.
I understand that you don't want to experience that because it hurts.
But, um, There are moments in life where you are just simply called to do the right thing and put your own safety and your own potential, potentially your own life on the line.
You're called to do that.
And the thing is, if you don't step up in that moment, like the guy that's on that video now, Immortalized, the coward who watched this happen and didn't do anything about it.
Yeah, he preserved his physical safety.
He's not going to have the cops coming after him for a hate crime or anything like that.
But he's given up his dignity.
You know, you've sacrificed your dignity as a man.
You've sacrificed your masculinity, like permanently, and you're never going to get it back.
You've given up your self-respect.
Because there's no way you can live with yourself and at least look at yourself in the mirror and feel any pride after something like that.
It's not worth it.
So even if you're preserving your safety, you're not preserving your own dignity.
And it's not worth giving up your dignity as a man to preserve your safety.
All right, one other thing to play, a little bit less serious.
If you want to see something mesmerizing, BuzzFeed posted this, and they said it's mesmerizing anyway.
They posted this and said this is mesmerizing art.
This is a modern artist doing her art, I guess.
Let's see what this looks like.
[Music]
Okay.
So she's covered in paint and playing.
She's like playing Twister on a canvas.
And that's the art, essentially.
Look at that.
Look at the final product there.
Looks like random splotches.
Quite beautiful splotches.
Yeah, I'll tell you exactly what happened here.
There was some man who was trying to, you know, trying to make himself appealing to this woman.
She showed the man her art and the guy said, oh yeah, that's great art.
That's beautiful.
You have a lot of talent.
Hey, you want to go out this Friday night, by the way?
And ever since that happened, this is what's being unleashed on the world.
But I will say, you know, you might as well put that... I mean, that's as good as any other modern art you'll see.
Might as well put it in a museum.
Some billionaire will pay a hundred million dollars for it.
I tell you, this is my... Okay, we can turn this off now.
Oh, and as the video continues, she's wearing fewer and fewer articles of clothing.
Okay.
My problem with modern art is that it's ugly and stupid and doesn't mean anything.
It's also just kind of cowardly.
In a way, there's a kind of intellectual cowardice to modern art that you see, especially if you can get over the abject silliness of it.
There's an intellectual cowardice to it because you're not saying anything.
I mean, art is supposed to say something.
It's supposed to portray something.
There has to be some coherence to art in order for it to be art.
But when you actually produce coherent art, when you're saying something that can be understood and interpreted, when you're trying to portray something, you know, here's my painting of an actual thing, when you do that, then there's an objective standard people can judge it against.
And they can say, oh, you tried to paint a picture of a tree.
Well, you know, that's not a great tree.
Or you're trying to say this or that with your art, well, you didn't do a very good job of conveying it.
And so they can judge it.
There's an objective standard they can judge it against.
Part of modern art, the goal of modern art, is to escape that objective standard so that nobody can judge it.
No one can say it's bad because... Bad compared to what?
They can't say, oh, you did a poor job of conveying this or portraying this because you're not trying to convey or portray anything.
Which is, of course, in the end, exactly what makes it bad.
The worst kind of art, in fact.
Okay, now let's read the comments.
[Music]
So, Tymie Shue says, "Matt, what did Christ mean by 'live by the sword, die by the sword'?"
Does it have a broader implication for self-defense, war, or justice?
Of course, it has implication for all those things, but this is why when you're reading the Gospels, when you're reading anything in the Bible, You can't, you know, you can't proof text.
You can't just quote mine or, you know, you go kind of mining for a certain verse or a certain phrase.
You take it out of context, just like people do when they're doing, just like Dick Durbin did when he was researching on Google.
And then you think that it proves your point.
You can't do that.
You have to understand, you know, everything in the Bible within its context.
And sometimes, and the context is always pretty complex.
And anything that you, any quote you read from Jesus in the Gospels, you have to understand those quotes within the context of everything else that he said.
So live by the sword, die by the sword is a perfect example.
If you take it, you take that verse, those, you know, six words, six, seven words, take them by themselves.
Outside of the context of everything else in the Gospels and everything else in the Bibles, Old and New Testament, and then it would seem that Jesus is saying that you should never use a weapon at all, for any reason, even to defend yourself.
But then you read it within the context of everything else in the Scriptures and it becomes clear that that's not the case at all.
I mean, to defend yourself, to do your duty and defend your family, Certainly violence is acceptable there.
Jesus Christ used violence on at least one occasion, clearing the temple of the money changers.
That was not done peacefully.
It says that he fashioned a whip.
In fact, it says, I think it's significant that it says that he fashioned a whip.
Not even that he grabbed one, but he took the time to actually make a whip to then go and use it on people.
To drive them out.
And why?
Because he was defending the sacredness and dignity of the temple.
And it's okay to use violence in some circumstances for that.
So you understand within context and it's clear that Jesus was not anti-violence as a general statement.
Austin says, I once interacted with someone who said that dogs are people too.
It never occurred to me until recently that they were being 100% serious.
Our culture's inability to make distinctions is horrifying.
Yeah, this was something that for me also, it took a while to sink in.
Oh no, the people, this is actually a belief system that lots of people hold, that dogs and people are equal.
But we won't get into that again.
I think I've probably said More than I need to say on that subject.
SweetMamaG says, I had a Skip-It and a Polly Pocket as a kid, and as I got older, a Walkman with shuffle and bass boost, and thought that I was living high on the hog.
A tank, though?
Honestly, I might get one for my sweet baby Gs.
They already have a roller coaster, 7-foot climbing mountain, a Ninja Warrior obstacle, a zipline.
Why not a tank?
Before you say they're spoiled, they are.
My son is autistic and has epilepsy and hospitalized a lot.
I want to make his childhood as fun as possible because tomorrow isn't promised.
You have a roller coaster in your backyard?
Where do you live?
I want my kids to be friends with your kid.
Yes, but you're right.
These are the kinds of toys that we had as kids, not roller coasters.
The Skip It.
See, kids today, you don't understand this.
You don't understand in the 90s what we had to deal with.
A skip-it was like a plastic ball-and-chain mechanism that you would jump over, and that was it.
And we were ecstatic about it.
We loved it.
We had something else called a bop-it, and this was a weird box thing, like a plastic box, and you would slap the box, and that was all you did.
You just slapped the box, and it was a fun game.
We had a Tamagotchi, which is, you know, kids these days have the fancy video games.
We had the Tamagotchi, which is like the primitive caveman hieroglyphic of the video game world.
And it was this pixeled blob on a keychain that would eat its own feces and then die of malnourishment.
And we loved it.
I don't know if this is the right place to ask you questions, but I was wondering how you manage your time dedicated to work and family.
How do you maintain a balance between the two, as they're both very important?
Yeah, well, that's always the difficulty.
That work-life balance and so on.
I will say that as a man, it really helps to, and I can't recommend this highly enough, it helps to have a wife who believes in what you do and supports what you do.
And I have that, so it's a lot easier to find that balance.
And you know, you would like to think that that's sort of automatic in a marriage, but it's definitely not.
And it makes it a lot more difficult when you don't have that.
And finally, Dave says, if Matt were in the position of being able to save the life of a dog or a panda, but not both, which one would he choose?
Are we talking about the burning building scenario?
Well, I would just, I would just, I would never run into a burning building for an animal.
I'm sorry.
I just, I wouldn't do that.
That is, we talk about there are times for courage, there's times for self-preservation.
This is definitely a self-preservation situation.
You know, you got your own family you got to get home to, so.
I'm sorry for the dog and the panda.
I hope it's a quick death, but I'm not running in there.
Not happening.
I've been telling you about this book that just came out by 40 Days for Life, What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion, and the reason I'm telling you about it is that it is an invaluable tool for all pro-lifers.
If you're a pro-lifer and you want to be able to defend your position and to defend the culture of life that we're trying to build here in America, then you need to have this book in your library.
And since its release, lots of people have gotten the book.
It's been a number one Amazon new release and a number two Amazon bestseller.
The book is very easy to use.
It tells you what to say, what not to say, and the proven arguments that have worked for everybody, people on the fence, abortion supporters, even plant-parented workers.
It's an invaluable and timely tool.
You've got to get it right now.
40 Days for Life, by the way, is a grassroots organization, pro-life organization, and one of the best ones in the world.
They have held peaceful vigils all across the world and across America,
and they've helped convert the hearts of 221 abortion workers.
So you know these arguments work.
What to say when the complete new guide to discussing abortion,
how to change minds and convert hearts in a brave new world.
Go to Amazon or get it directly from 40 days for life at 40daysforlife.com.
And also, you deserve nothing less than the facts with your morning cup of coffee.
And we're here to supply them on our newest morning podcast, Morning Wire.
Not only has it been topping the Apple and Spotify charts since its release, it's the only daily podcast that values your time and the truth.
And while we're working overtime to bring you the facts, we want your help to keep the facts trending towards number one.
So subscribe and start listening now to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Huma Abedin is one of those people whose names you might know if you pay
attention to the news, though it's not entirely clear why you know it or
She's not a public figure of any importance.
She's not a politician.
So, you know, she's got that going for her, at least.
But she is a creature of Washington, D.C., a former staffer to Hillary Clinton, estranged wife of creepy sex pest Anthony Weiner.
And now she's written a book.
And the book is called Both & A Life in Many Words.
And it promises, based on the title, to use a lot of words to tell you about her life, whether or not the subject is really worth all of those words in the first place.
And here's a tip for any memoirists of the future.
If the headline of your memoir is that you use a lot of words in it, probably a good indication that you shouldn't be writing a memoir in the first place.
Though in Huma's case, she does have another headline.
It's a headline that has made lots of headlines over the past day or two.
Huma claims, and she has all of this in her book, and you can read the whole story for the low price of $24.99.
She claims that she was sexually assaulted by a United States senator 15 years ago.
Now, she's not going to say the senator's name, or what state he represents, or even if he's still in Congress.
She says that she didn't even remember the incident until the Kavanaugh hearings jogged her memory and brought this buried trauma back to the surface.
And that's how you know that it's a very serious and truthful tale.
She forgot about it for a decade.
She waited to tell it publicly until she had a book to sell.
And she won't name the supposed sexual assaulter who's still prowling the streets, perhaps the halls of Congress even.
Nothing unique about that, I suppose.
But let's not dismiss Huma's assault claim based on its total lack of credibility.
Let's also dismiss it because the assault claim is not really an assault claim.
Here's the Daily Beast describing this traumatic ordeal.
It says, according to Aberdeen's account, she and the Senator met at a dinner attended by several other lawmakers and their aides in Washington, D.C., though not Clinton, who was New York Senator and Aberdeen's boss from 2001 until 2009.
Following the meal, Aberdeen took a walk with the Senator, who invited her into his apartment for coffee.
And she wrote, told me to make myself comfortable on the couch.
Then, in an instant, it all changed.
He plopped down to my right, put his left arm around my shoulder, and kissed me, pushing his tongue into my mouth and pressing me back on the sofa.
She writes, Aberdeen, who said that she was so utterly shocked, pushed the senator away.
Her resistance surprised him, and he apologized, saying he had misread the situation and wanted to make up for it without this ending badly, she said.
Aberdeen wrote, Then I said something that only the 20-something version of me would have come up with.
I am so sorry, and walked out trying to appear as nonchalant as possible.
A few days later, the two ran into one another on Capitol Hill, and the senator asked if they could still be friends.
The end.
Now, listening to this account of rape, you might be wondering when the rape happens.
It doesn't.
There was no rape, no assault.
If this event occurred at all, there's nothing much to report about it.
Which is why she didn't report it to the police or anybody else until it was time to hawk her memoir.
What she describes here is something that, in more normal times, used to be called making a move.
The man kissed her, attempting to initiate physical intimacy.
She rebuffed him.
He stopped immediately and apologized.
This is what we used to call getting rejected.
It all adds up to nothing more than an awkward story for the woman to tell, maybe even the man later in life when the embarrassment has worn off.
Only in the age of Me Too has normal heterosexual male behavior and normal if uncomfortable interactions between males and females become a human rights violation.
Now, could there be a scenario where a man kissing a woman might qualify as real assault?
Certainly.
If he had run up to her on the street, unannounced, a stranger, planted his lips against her lips, we would categorize that as violent and a criminal act.
But this was not on the street.
And it was not really unannounced.
She went out to eat with him, came back to his apartment, for coffee, quote-unquote.
Human beings aren't automatons.
At least we shouldn't be.
We speak to each other not only using words, but also through signals, facial expressions, body language, behavioral cues.
A woman going up to a man's apartment, accepting his invitation for coffee after a dinner date, is a behavioral cue.
The Me Too crusaders would have the man ignore the behavioral cues and verbalize everything like some kind of robot.
Excuse me, human female, you have accepted an invitation to return to my apartment.
Does this mean that you are open to romantic physical contact?
Please answer yes, no, or undecided.
Of course, I'm way off base here because even that wouldn't be good enough, according to the new rules.
We're told that consent must be affirmative, verbal, and continual, which means that just one confirmation isn't enough.
The man would have to issue this disclaimer repeatedly throughout the night as things progress.
The problem is that humans don't operate this way.
And despite the protestations of feminists, most women don't want men to operate this way.
So the standard here is that men are being told to act in a way that no human actually acts, and which is sure to alienate any real woman in real life.
And if they don't, they'll be called a rapist.
Meanwhile, actual rapists exist in this world, and actual rape victims.
But they are ever overshadowed by attention-starved opportunists like Huma.
Speaking of actual rapists, they've got a lot of them in the public school system.
One of them raped a young girl in a bathroom in Loudoun County.
And that story, the one about real violent rape of a child in a school, has already received less attention from the corporate press than Huma Abedin getting kissed by a guy while sitting on his couch in his apartment.
Putting everything else aside, I think that's reason enough to say to Huma today that you are certainly cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show,
Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, our Supervising
Producer is Mathis Glover, our Technical Director is Austin Stevens, Production Manager Pavel
Vodovsky, the show is edited by Ali Hinkle, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair
and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our Production Coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
The FDA approves the Fauci Ouchie for kids aged 5 to 11, Ted Cruz destroys Joe Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Twix candy bars reveal an uncomfortable truth about radical leftism and the occult.
