Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand in his own defense. The DA pulls out every dirty trick in the book in an effort to railroad him. We’ll discuss the latest in the case today. Also, a George Floyd biography is coming soon. Will it include the part where he forced his way into a woman’s home and robbed her at gunpoint? And two couples at an IVF clinic have a mix up that results in their babies getting swapped. YouTube gets rid of the dislike counter in order to protect the fragile feelings of content creators like myself. And workplace masturbator Jeffrey Toobin appears on CNN with some highly ironic analysis of the Rittenhouse case.
Read the Daily Wire’s bombshell Loudoun County exposé here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/loudoun-county-schools-tried-to-conceal-sexual-assault-against-daughter-in-bathroom-father-says | Support the Daily Wire’s investigative journalism for only $4/month — use discount code REALNEWS for 25% off your membership: https://utm.io/udQ0u
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, Kyle Rittenhouse takes a stand in his own defense.
The DA pulls out every dirty trick in the book in an effort to railroad him.
We'll discuss the latest in the case today.
Also, a George Floyd biography is coming soon.
Will it include the part where he forced his way into a woman's home and robbed her at gunpoint?
I guess we'll find out.
And two couples at an IVF clinic have a mix-up that results in their babies getting swapped Plus, YouTube gets rid of the dislike counter in order to protect the fragile feelings of content creators like myself, which I really appreciate.
And workplace masturbator Jeffrey Toobin appears on CNN with some highly ironic analysis of the Rittenhouse case.
We'll talk about all that and much more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
It really is like, you know, running into the gas station with the keys still in the ignition and the door unlocked.
Most of the time you're probably fine, but what if you come back to see someone driving with your car?
You never know what will happen.
Every time you connect to an unencrypted network, cafes, hotels, airports, Any hacker on the same network can gain access to your personal data, passwords, financial information, et cetera.
It doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack somebody.
Just some cheap hardware is needed.
A smart 12-year-old could do it.
I mean, I couldn't do it, but I'm dumber than a smart 12-year-old.
Your data is valuable.
Hackers can make up to $1,000 per person selling personal info on the dark web.
So why use ExpressVPN?
Because it creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet.
Hackers can't steal your sensitive data.
It would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption, which means that you're pretty safe, okay?
You're pretty safe.
And you can, if you get ExpressVPN, you are keeping yourself secure.
That's the name of the game here.
So secure your online data today by visiting ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Walsh.
And you can get an extra three months for free as well.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
In one of the most famous scenes from A Man for All Seasons, and perhaps the best, Thomas More is arguing with his son-in-law, William Roper, about the meaning and value of the law.
And Roper wants More to arrest a guy that he, Roper, has judged as bad.
Though he can't explain what law the guy has actually broken, More calmly explains that being bad, generally speaking, isn't against the law in and of itself.
You can't go arresting people for that reason, because that would be against the law to do.
Roper, indignant, accuses Moore of giving the devil the benefit of law, and Moore says that he would indeed give even the devil the benefit of law.
Roper, looking to take the moral high ground, says that, well, he would cut down every law in England to get a chance to go after the devil, if that's what it takes.
To which Moore responds and says, when the last law was down, the devil turned round on you.
Where would you hide, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that blow then?
Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
Now, I've thought about that scene a lot as I watched the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
It's clear now, and has always been clear to any honest observer, that Rittenhouse committed no crime.
He's an innocent man.
Innocent boy, really, as he was only 17 at the time of this incident.
But the left, to include the corporate media, big tech, Democrat Party, the DA in the case, they're willing to destroy the law, rip it to shreds, cut down every law in the United States, if they have to, to punish Kyle Rittenhouse.
Now, at least Roper, in A Man for All Seasons, wanted to cut down the law to get to the devil, which would have been a bad enough idea, as Thomas More explained.
Kyle Rittenhouse, though, is not the devil.
He is, in fact, a good man, even a hero, as we'll talk about today.
The men he killed in self-defense were far more devilish than he is.
If anything, then, the left is cutting down the law to defend the devil.
But the effect will be the same in the end, if they succeed.
We'll be a nation with no law, a nation with nothing that can call itself a justice system.
Now, there's plenty more to say about the trial, but let's begin by playing a few important clips from yesterday.
Rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense.
No doubt a risky move to have him testify, considering that the state had totally failed to prove its case, or even provide enough evidence to justify bringing the case in the first place.
The defense, as we know, basic law here, the defense is not there to prove anything.
It's up to the prosecution to provide proof of the crime.
If the prosecution can't, and certainly couldn't in this case, then that should be the end of it.
There's really no need for the defense to call a single witness, much less put the accused himself on the stand.
That's the way it should work, but that depends on the jury understanding what its role is supposed to be and acting on that understanding without any ulterior motives.
Unfortunately, you can't always rely on that, which is probably why the defense tried to seal the deal by putting Kyle up there.
Having watched his entire testimony, though I can't get inside the minds of the jurors, it seems to me that the gamble paid off because Kyle didn't come across like a cold-blooded murderer as he has been cast.
He seemed very much as he is, a kid.
A kid who suffered a terrible trauma and had to fight for his life in the moment on the streets of Kenosha and is now having to fight for his life once again.
It's the kind of pressure that would take an unimaginable psychological toll on anybody, especially somebody so young.
And that toll, that burden, was made apparent early in Kyle's testimony when he broke down on the stand.
Let's watch that.
Once I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr.
Rosenbaum. Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side.
And I was cornered from in front of me with Mr.
Zeminski.
And there were.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
People right there.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Take a deep breath, Kyle.
(sobbing)
That's what I...
Now that's what a panic attack looks like for anyone who is not familiar.
Of course, as expected, leftists on social media, if you were expecting them to have any humanity, then you were sorely mistaken.
They mocked him for this display, accusing him of crying crocodile tears.
There are many posts like this one from Ana Navarro.
She said Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed Anthony Hubert, 26, Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and injured Gage Grohskraus, now 27.
Think about how much their loved ones have cried real anguish and grief, not crocodile tears.
Now, it's funny to hear people like this deride a kid for crying on the stand as he faces false murder charges.
Kyle Rittenhouse was violently attacked by a mob, had to defend himself with lethal force, and immediately upon doing that, he was, in order to save his life, immediately upon doing that, all of the most powerful forces in society conspired and have been conspiring to ruin him and take away his freedom.
In the face of this, he cried.
Meanwhile, people like Anna, if a stand-up comedian tells a joke, or if a politician they don't like is elected, or if you misgender them, they'll break down in tears.
So they cry all the time about everything, wielding their fragile emotions like a battering ram.
Yet they think they're in a position to look with contempt on a kid who cries while facing the kind of pressure that the vast majority of humans on planet Earth have never faced.
And will never face.
We talked to you yesterday about how the word trauma is way overused and everyone's running around all the time claiming how they're traumatized by everything.
Well, here is an appropriate use.
This is an application for trauma.
This is a kid who has suffered real trauma.
That night, that is a traumatic experience and what he's gone through over the last year and this trial also traumatic experience.
One other point about this.
Navarro attempts to solicit sympathy for Rosenbaum and Huber, the two men who were killed.
The media has been playing this game for a year, trying to tug on our heartstrings, calling on us to mourn poor Rosenbaum and Huber.
So it becomes relevant then, because they have introduced this, right?
Just like in a trial.
And now we're in the court of public opinion.
They have opened this door here by talking about how we should feel so bad for Rosenbaum and Hubert.
And on that note, it becomes relevant to point out that Rosenbaum was not only a sex offender, but in fact, a serial child rapist.
He molested and anally raped multiple boys.
He had just recently got out of prison for sex crimes when this happened.
Okay, so he is a serial child rapist, goes to prison, gets out of prison, and then one of the first things he does is he tries to chase someone down and kill them.
To put it as generous as I can, Joseph Rosenbaum was a piece of human filth.
I mean, that's how I feel about child rapists.
I don't know about you.
Huber was slightly better, but only by comparison.
Rather than a child rapist, he was merely a repeat domestic abuser guilty of, among other things, choking and strangling a woman.
Now, these facts may not be relevant to the shootings themselves, but they are relevant if we're being asked to feel sympathy for the quote-unquote victims, or feel any emotion towards them other than contempt.
Rittenhouse was justified in his actions that night because Huber and Rosenbaum were violently attacking him, leaving him no choice, as has been incontrovertibly proven.
But it's also worth noting that the world is a better place without people especially like Joseph Rosenbaum in it.
Bad person.
And it strikes me that the left mourns a pedophile child rapist only a few days after celebrating when a different child molester's name was put on a Navy ship.
Um, Harvey Milk.
Maybe eventually Joseph Rosenbaum will get his own ship, too.
So these people really seem to be big fans of child rapists.
You might start drawing some conclusions about them.
Now, back to the trial, perhaps all we really need to say in analyzing the state's cross-examination is that they actually spent time questioning Kyle about the video games that he plays, which put him in the position of having to explain to the DA that video games and real life are not the same.
Isn't one of the things people do in these video games try and kill everyone else with your guns?
Yeah, the video game is...
It's just a video game.
It's not real life.
Sir, isn't it true that you've played Super Mario World?
Is it not true that in that game you jump on little mushroom men and kill them?
Sir?
Establishing a pattern.
So this is what grasping at straws looks like.
And that was, if anything, that was like the highlight.
That was the best moment from the DA.
Maybe the whole trial.
That's like as good as it got.
It was an absurd and misleading line of questioning, but at least it wasn't a grave constitutional violation.
The constitutional violations happened at a different point when the DA began questioning Kyle about the fact that Kyle exercised his right to remain silent after his arrest.
Prosecutors are not allowed to stand in front of a jury and imply that silence is incriminating.
Because the whole point of your right to remain silent is that you are not being forced to incriminate yourself.
Okay?
The judge then had to jump in and remind the DA of this fact.
You need to account for this.
Your Honor, I don't want a jury here.
He's commenting on my client's right to remain silent.
No, Your Honor.
I am making the point that after hearing everything in the case, now he's tailoring his story to what has already been introduced.
The problem is, this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant's silence And that is, and you're right on the borderline.
And you may be over, but it better stop.
Understood.
This is, I can't think of the case, the initial case on it, but this is not permitted.
Now, it's not often that you hear a judge accuse a DA of a grave constitutional violation in open court.
That's how things have gone in this trial.
A little bit later on, as the prosecutor continued with lines of questioning that were not admissible and which he'd been warned to avoid by the judge, continued along this path, the judge was then forced to intervene again, and this time he wasn't quite as kind about it.
Why would you think that that made it okay for you, without any advance notice, to bring this matter before the jury?
You are already, you were, I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence.
That's basic law.
It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years.
I have no idea why you would do something like that.
And it gives, well, I'll leave it at that.
So I don't know what you're up to.
Now, I think what he was going to say there, not to try to read his mind, but maybe words to the effect of, like, if there's a conviction here, this is an appeal all day long.
I mean, if there is somehow a conviction here, a grave miscarriage of justice, the good news, at least, a whole lot of bad news, the good news, at least, is that this is appealed all day long.
I mean, you have the judge in the case telling the prosecutor that he committed a grave constitutional violation.
He said, you crossed the line and did that.
Look, there are gray areas in life.
There are times when the line between the good guy and the bad guy might not be as clear.
This is not one of those times.
The bad guys may as well be wearing name tags that say, hi, I'm the bad guy.
That's how brazen all of this is.
And that leads me to two final points.
One is, what are they really doing here?
Why are they going after this kid?
Well, much of the prosecutor's questioning revolved around the gun he was using and how big it was and how scary it was.
You know, he observes, the prosecutor does, that Kyle Rittenhouse had a bigger gun than what his assailant had.
You had a bigger gun?
I mean, he had a smaller gun, so why were you, with the bigger gun, worried about a smaller gun?
Well, I don't know, maybe because a smaller gun, when you fire it, would still kill me?
It became clear as this was going on that the Second Amendment is what he is trying to prosecute.
Our Second Amendment right, our right to defend ourselves, is on trial.
Much of his line of questioning was about, really about that.
Where Kyle Rittenhouse became, he wasn't even testifying about himself, he became a, he was being treated like a constitutional scholar, a firearms expert, Kyle Rittenhouse is a symbol.
This is not about him personally.
It certainly isn't about the events of that night or the facts of the case.
He's a stand-in, and he represents not only the constitutional rights that the left detests, but also the kind of people that the left detests.
Just like Derek Chauvin before him, Rittenhouse is a blood sacrifice meant to atone for the sins of all white men.
His personal guilt or innocence is not relevant.
Just as a goat sacrificed on a burning altar is not selected due to its personal foibles, it is burned as a symbol, and that's the role that Kyle is playing here.
Second, all that should matter in a case is that Kyle is not guilty of committing murder.
That should be the end of it.
That's all that matters legally, even if he was reckless or stupid, or he shouldn't have been there, quote-unquote.
Even if he is a terrible person, Even if he's the devil.
None of that matters or should matter legally.
And yet, I still think it's important to point out that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a bad person, and I don't think he's even stupid or reckless.
And he's not, he's more than merely innocent.
He's more than that.
I think he's a hero, in my estimation.
Yes, he put himself in harm's way by showing up to the riot.
But where I come from, putting yourself in harm's way in order to defend innocent people and protect property is heroic.
That's what heroes do.
That's like the definition of a hero.
And yes, to protect property too.
It tells you a lot about, you know, a lot of people on the left that they, and we get this from the prosecutor a lot too, well, you would use violent force to protect property?
It's just property.
Well, again, he used the violence force to protect human life, his own life.
That's why he had the gun, was to protect himself.
But, um, but you know what, you know something?
Yeah, I mean, using force to protect property?
That is also morally justified.
It's not only morally justified, it's heroic.
What, does the mob have some kind of right?
Well, the mob, all they want to do is burn down buildings.
They have no right to do that.
This is people's property.
This is their livelihood, their lives, their businesses that are being destroyed.
Yes, you could... I would use lethal force to protect... If someone was trying to burn down my home, I would shoot them.
I would.
Even if there was nobody else inside.
Why?
Because it's my home.
It's my property.
And you have no right to do what you're doing right now.
And I can use force to stop you, and I would.
But even when faced with a mortal threat from a violent mob, still, Rittenhouse waited until the very last moment to fire.
He tried to preserve the lives of the people who wanted him dead, until they left him no recourse.
I would call that courage, not stupidity.
Though, to cowards, perhaps, it's hard to tell the difference between the two.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
I don't mean to scare you, but these days there are surveillance apps out there known
as stalkerware, and they can collect information from you while avoiding detection by pretending
to be something else.
Stalkerware sits silently in the background collecting data, doing things like recording calls and keystrokes, stealing your photos, sending the info it gathers to whoever is spying on you.
Every day, we put our information at risk on the internet in ways like this.
In an instant, a cyber criminal could steal what's yours, sometimes even harm your finances, your credit, your reputation.
They can really ruin your life in a lot of ways, and that's why it's so good that there is LifeLock.
LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats, things that you wouldn't know about or even think about, like if your social security number is for sale on the dark web.
If they detect that your information has been compromised, they will send you an alert.
And they will help you to fix the problem.
They make it very easy for you.
You don't want to use the internet without LifeLock.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can help protect what's yours with LifeLock by Norton.
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year by going to LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
All right, so this is kind of exciting.
I just got the news yesterday from my dentist that I have to get some root canals next week.
So I got two root canals I'm in line for.
It feels very adult.
You know, I've heard so much about the root canals.
You always compare, oh, it's worse than a root canal.
I've never even had a cavity before.
And here's the thing.
When I do something, I go all in.
I'm fully committed.
So if I'm going to have a cavity, might as well get a root canal type cavity.
And so that was my first reaction.
This feels like a new step into adulthood in some way.
And I guess I would be the guy... I'm such a committed contrarian that I would be the guy to enjoy a root canal.
That would be my ultimate contrarian take.
Actually, root canals are good.
But then the problem is I was talking to the dentist and he told me that... I don't know why he said this.
He shouldn't have said it.
But he said, you know, you could just do nothing if you want.
That is an option.
Just don't do anything.
You could do that.
I said, really?
You're putting that on the table?
I could just do nothing at all and live my life?
Don't tell me that.
As a doctor, that's the worst thing you could say to me.
When I blew up my Achilles, the doctor said the same thing.
He's like, technically, you know, Yeah, I mean, we have the surgery.
It's a big surgery.
Technically, you could do nothing.
We have to tell you that's an option.
And I seriously considered it.
And I'll tell you why.
Because there's this combination for me.
I hate doctors.
I mean, I hate going to doctors.
I mean, not anything against doctors, personally.
I don't like going to the doctor.
I'm also very lazy, and then I have this gross overestimation of my own pain tolerance, and so all those things combined to, if you give me an excuse, I'll just live with it until my teeth fall out, if you put that on the table.
Now that's just something I have to balance, I suppose.
Alright, but my wife does have a pretty firm opinion on it, which is, I don't want your teeth to fall out.
Okay, we'll start with this from the Daily Wire.
This says a biography of George Floyd will be published on March 17th.
So look forward to that.
Put that on your calendar to go out and pick the George Floyd biography up.
And it appears to whitewash his life story to highlight his constant search of a better life and his relentless struggle to survive as a black man in America.
In a press release, Viking Press, a publishing company owned by Penguin Random House, announced the biography, which was written by Robert Samuels and Toulouse Olu Runepa, two prize-winning Washington Post reporters.
The book is designed to reveal how systemic racism shaped George Floyd's life and legacy, from his family's roots in the tobacco fields of North Carolina to ongoing inequality in housing, education, health care, criminal justice, and policing, telling the singular story of how one man's tragic experience brought about a global movement And so now this is when we're going to get the whole hagiography of George Floyd.
I mean, this is an important point.
I mean, this is an important step when you're building this myth.
Because so far, with the mythology of George Floyd, Saint George Floyd, they have the martyr story, which is mostly false.
But the whole rest of his life, they've kind of ignored.
And so now, finally, these Washington Post reporters, who, as Washington Post reporters, we know that they are very experienced fiction writers, and so now they're going to write this work of fiction.
And they've got their work cut out for them, in some ways.
How are you going to take this man, who was a terrible person, terrible, and contributed nothing of value to society whatsoever, And, in fact, rather than contributing things of value to his community, he preyed upon the most helpless and vulnerable people in his community.
How are you going to take that and somehow morph it into a hero's journey?
So, I almost would want to read the book, just out of curiosity, to see how they do it.
I mean, I'm not going to do that because I value my time too much and I wouldn't spend the money on it, but... Yeah, a struggle to survive as a black man in America.
So, is that...
Searching for a better life.
Is that the cha... When we get to the searching for a better life, you know, part two.
Searching for a better life.
Is that the part where he forces his way into a woman's home and robs her at gunpoint in front of her kid?
He was just searching for a better life?
Don't mind me, ma'am.
I'm just searching for a better life.
Now hand me over all your money.
But you know, it's true in a way that in some of, in these communities, in cities, as a
black man, or really if you live in these communities at all, no matter your race, there
is a struggle to survive.
That's true.
These can be dangerous places.
But it's a struggle to survive because of guys like George Floyd.
They're the ones who create that struggle.
I mean, they're the ones you're worried about.
No matter what anybody says.
No matter what they claim about how we fear the police, no.
I mean, if you are a woman living in the inner city, you're not worried about the police.
You're worried about George Floyd breaking into your house.
All right.
So I'm not usually one to talk about news from the fashion world, but there was a point I wanted to make about this.
I thought it was somewhat interesting.
This is from MSN.
It says, Tom Ford says cancel culture inhibits design.
The 60-year-old fashion muse behind the iconic label says the fact everything is now considered appropriation is limiting fashion.
Speaking to the Guardian, Ford said, Cancel culture inhibits design because rather than feeling free, the tendency is to start locked into a set of rules.
Everything is now considered appropriation.
We used to be able to celebrate other cultures, and now we can't do that.
He says the future of fashion is increasingly cartoonish.
Instagram has broken down the rules.
People dress up to take pictures of themselves to post online.
Everything is exaggerated, especially the eyebrows.
So it says this is the future of fashion.
It's very cartoonish.
I mean, just not as a fashion expert myself, but just by observation, you would seem to be right about that.
But also, it's impossible now because of these rules of appropriation.
And this is the nature of style.
It's something that's, it's always a fusion.
There's always different influences that you're bringing together, right?
And now we're drawing these lines and saying, well, no, if you're, if you're a white person, you're not, you're not allowed to wear anything that has any kind of influence from the outside world, which means that basically you got to walk around naked, which is great news if you're, you know, Jeffrey Toobin.
But for most of us, it's not so good.
Because no matter what you're wearing, no matter what you're eating, no matter what music you're listening to, it is always going to be the result of at least some kind of fusion, some kind of outside influence.
Because these things are human inventions, human constructions.
Whether we're talking about the culinary world or fashion or music, I mean, these are art And people are influenced by the world around them.
Now, I was reading an article recently, and I almost did it for a daily cancellation, but then I figured there's really no point.
What else can I say about this other than how stupid it is?
But one of these media outlets, they were very concerned about appropriation that parents are committing in how they wear their babies.
You know, baby wearing is a thing where if you, you know, you could, one of those backpacks or you, there's different things that parents can do.
Makes it a lot easier because it frees up your hands.
You can strap the baby, you know, onto your chest or onto your back and go about your day.
And you might think that the only thing to worry about there when you're wearing the baby is just to make sure it's safe and you got everything strapped together so that the baby doesn't fall.
But apparently, no, this is a very, this is a very fraught area because there's a lot of cultural appropriation.
And so this article was concerned with letting parents know if you're a white parent, make sure that you're not appropriating, you're not accidentally being racist in how you choose to wear babies.
That's how absurd it's gotten.
But there's also another point too that, um, you know, he's talking about the style world.
I don't know much about that, but what you find in general is that cancel culture makes everything boring.
I guess it does that with style.
It also just does that with opinions, with discussion.
That's one of the, I think, underrated aspects and consequences of cancel culture.
Yes, it's very tyrannical.
It's very limiting.
People are afraid.
But also, in the midst of all of that, As people are trembling in fear and not wanting to say anything that will upset anybody, everything just becomes so boring.
All discussions become so aggressively, relentlessly boring.
And why is that?
Because people are afraid to experiment with ideas.
To use the cliche, they're afraid to kind of think outside the box.
Because that's, in the past, that's actually how, that's part of the process of figuring out how you feel about things and what your ideas are.
Sometimes in order to do that, it involves you first expressing an idea that maybe you're not 100% sure about.
And you say, hey, I was just thinking this, here's my opinion on this.
I'm not exactly sure, but here's a thought that I had.
And then you have a discussion and through that discussion, you start to kind of hone it a little bit and mold it and shape it.
But you can't do that anymore.
You can't go out there with an outside-of-the-box thought, where you're kind of experimenting with ideas.
Everybody is looking for cover in a crowd.
That's one of the reasons why people stay in their echo chambers.
It's especially why people who have a platform and speak in front of cameras, why they try to stay in their echo chamber, because there's protection there.
You can hide behind other people.
And you find this on the right, too.
It's not just on the left.
There's a lot of this that goes on on the right.
In fact, you can notice this.
I'm very sensitive to it.
I don't know how much you, because I'm in this world, but I'm not sure how obvious it is to people outside of this business, but I notice, you know, like conservative commentators, something happens, there's a new event, say like the Kyle Rittenhouse case or something, and you've got a lot of conservatives who will, they kind of wait.
They don't want to say anything at first.
They have an opinion.
They have a perspective.
They don't say anything.
They wait for someone to be the first one to say something, express an opinion, then a few others say it.
And then they jump in and say, OK, well, I can have that opinion now.
Because at least if they come after me, I've got some company.
And it just makes everything very boring, all discussions.
No matter what side you're on, you have your approved opinions that you know you can say and it's safe because everybody says that.
And that's the zone everybody lives in, and it becomes very boring.
All right, this is from the New York Post.
It says, two couples spent months raising baby girls who weren't theirs after a mix-up at a Los Angeles fertility clinic, which implanted the mothers with each other's embryos during in vitro fertilization, according to a lawsuit.
Daphna Cardinale said that she and her husband Alexander quickly suspected that the girl she gave birth to in late 2019 wasn't theirs because she had a darker complexion than they do.
Alexander said during a news conference, I had a weird sort of a gut reaction when she was born.
It wasn't anything logical.
It was just like an instinct.
In the delivery room, he had expected a fair child, like their firstborn, but he was surprised to see the baby girl come out with much darker skin.
It was so jarring that Alexander actually took several steps away from the birthing table, backing up against the wall.
I guess this isn't funny, but I'm trying hard not to Laugh at this situation.
But the parents ignored their doubts because they fell in love with the infant and trusted their doctors.
I was overwhelmed by feelings of fear, betrayal, anger, and heartbreak, the distraught woman said, adding that she suffered trauma when she found out months later that she had carried another woman's baby and that the other woman had her child.
And now this is working its way through the court system.
You know, there, of course, the fertility clinic is going to be sued out of existence.
And, you know, rightfully so.
This is a pretty When it comes to customer service mistakes, implanting the wrong baby in a woman's uterus, pretty high up there.
You know, that's a little bit worse than delivering a pizza later or something.
But it does maybe raise some questions about IVF as a concept.
When you have a procedure where this can even happen, This is something, through modern technology, this is a risk that never could have happened before in human history.
There was no chance.
Now, for thousands of years of human history, right, there was a chance, this is something that fathers might have had to worry about, that the baby that's in the womb is not theirs, but you never had a mother who had to worry that the baby wasn't hers.
Now, because of IVF, this obviously doesn't happen very often, we would hope, But it's kind of, it's a possibility that we have created.
And it's a possibility we've created because that's what happens when you move
the very human act of conception out of its natural confines and you do it in a petri dish.
Maybe that's kind of a red flag about this sort of procedure.
And because what we're actually doing, and the reason why I don't like IVF, why I'm not a fan of it, is because, not just I'm not a fan of it, I object to it on moral grounds, because it's the commodification of human life.
You're quite literally treating human life like a commodity, in the most literal sense.
And you have, you know, you have a bunch of embryos, and then what happens?
Maybe this mix-up kind of thing, this Freaky Friday mix-up thing, doesn't happen very often.
But what does happen all the time is that you've got a bunch of embryos, and then you have leftover embryos that get stored in a freezer, like, you know, like ground beef that you're not going to have time to cook up.
And it just stays there for a while.
And then eventually, if they're never used, okay?
And think about the language here.
The embryos are never used, then they'll be destroyed.
So, this is the reduction of human life down to a commodity, being treated very much like an object, where we talk about, you know, you could have a surplus of it, and what do you do with the surplus?
You just destroy them.
It's hard, and I admit this, if you come at, if you, Approach life from a materialist perspective.
And all you see, when you look at human beings, all you see is material.
You think that's all we are.
In fact, all we are, all you are, is an object.
If that's how you see it, then from that starting point, it's going to be hard for me to convince you that something like IVF might be morally problematic.
But if you see life as more than that, if you're not a materialist, Then I think there's a reason to be skeptical of anything that reduces life down to mere material.
All right, next, this is from TechCrunch.
I think this is good news.
I'm very, very happy about this.
It says YouTube today announced its decision to make the dislike count on videos private across its platform.
The decision is likely to be controversial, given the extent that it impacts the public's visibility into a video's reception.
So if you're watching this on YouTube right now, if this is correct, then you should not be able to see how many people disapprove of my show.
What I just talked about with IVF, there's gonna be a lot of people that don't agree, even on my side.
And now, guess what?
You're not gonna know how many disagree with it.
And I personally am a fan of that.
It says, "But YouTube believes the change will better protect its creators from harassment
and reduce the threat of what it calls dislike attacks."
Essentially, when a group teams up to drive up the numbers of dislikes a video receives.
The company says that while dislike counts won't be visible to the public,
it's not removing the dislike button, so you can still dislike,
but nobody will see that you disliked it.
And then we as YouTube creators will have to go back into our YouTube studio dashboard and we can look up that information if we want to.
But I won't look it up because I don't want to know.
It's better not to know.
So your dislike, it will be sent off into the void.
The dislike itself will be stored basically in a cyber freezer and I will never go.
It'll just stay there.
I'll never look at it.
I will never know.
And, uh, you know, there are some people saying that this is kind of absurd, but, but, you know, and you might hear a phrase like dislike attack, or when a thumbs down is equated to harassment, you might think that sounds pretty absurd and silly, but you know, it's easy for you to say, if you're not a YouTube creator, as someone who is on this platform every single day, you just have no idea what kind of emotional and psychological toll it takes on a person to see all those thumbs down.
I cry every day when I check my videos.
If I see even one, I shed a tear for every thumbs down I get.
It is deeply traumatic.
And so I want to thank YouTube for finally standing up for us and for our feelings.
Now let's dive into the comment section.
[MUSIC]
As you know, people always tell me that one of the things I really love about
this show is the passion that I bring to the subjects that I talk about,
especially when we're talking about mortgage refinancing.
And that's what we're gonna talk about right now.
American Financing, America's home for home loans.
New sponsor on the show we're very excited about.
The home you're living in right now can cost you less.
It's true.
You can lower your payment and save thousands long-term.
You just have to refinance to one of these incredibly low mortgage rates and do it now before they're gone.
They're expected to rise in the new year.
You cannot afford to miss out on this deal.
It takes just a 10-minute call to American Financing, America's home for home loans.
For me, the call takes longer because I spent a lot of time gabbing about the subject.
But if you want to be in and out, you can.
You'll work with a salary-based mortgage consultant, someone who will guide you through custom loan options that can save you up to $1,000 a month.
That's right, $1,000 a month.
And you don't have to reset your loan to get those kinds of savings.
You can choose any term.
10 years and over, because you shouldn't pay interest for years that you don't need.
Pre-qualify for free at 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
All right.
Jennifer says, Matt, you're smart enough to know the Derek Chauvin case was the end of our justice system.
Now let's see if you're brave enough to admit it.
Well, I think the Derek Chauvin case was a blow to our justice system.
And I, as you know, believe that Derek Chauvin should have been acquitted.
But, you know, I think you're really underestimating and understating what's happening with the Kyle Rittenhouse case by looking at this as a one-to-one comparison.
I mean, what's happening with Kyle Rittenhouse, and he hasn't been convicted yet, and we're praying that he's not.
If he is convicted, it would be even more egregious.
I mean, for example, in the Derek Chauvin case, you didn't have any scenes like what we just played where the judge says that there's a grave constitutional violation happening right now in this case.
So, in terms of how egregious and blatant and out in the open it is, I don't think we've ever seen anything quite like the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
So I think this would be kind of the nail in the coffin in my opinion.
Carla says, talking about the video yesterday we played of the boy in the dress with the abusive mother, it's clear that the boy in the opening video has been coached by his mother.
She dressed him up and paraded him before the camera in order to satisfy her own sick ego.
What I want to know is, where is that boy's father?
Either he's absent in the boy's life or he's a weak and pitiful excuse for a man.
Yeah, well you always know that anytime you see It's not a coincidence that in the vast majority of cases, when you see these poor little kids being paraded around on camera, on TikTok, Instagram, in the media, these poor little boys dressed up like girls with makeup and everything, it's not a coincidence that it's almost always the mom alone doing this.
She's the one on camera.
She's the one holding the camera.
And what that tells us is that this is 100% certainty.
The father is absent from that home.
100% certainty.
Now, he may still be a physical presence.
I think very often he's absent in every sense of the word.
But there may be cases where he is a physical presence, but he is still absent.
There might be a man, a guy, in that house physically, sitting around like a lump on a log, but there's no father in that home.
There's no real father, because a real father would put an end to that.
Immediately.
You know, I don't, I am not one to recommend divorce.
Um, but you, you know, you're a father and your wife tries to dress your boy up like a girl.
That's, that's one of those drawing lines, ultimatums.
You're not going to do this to my son.
This is not going to happen.
All right, Spazio says, I think you need to show some proof of the claims you made about Alfred Kinsey.
It's the second time you claim he's not a valid scientist and his research is pure nonsense.
There's no legit documentation on the internet that back up your thoughts, and this is a really unsettled argument because of that.
Well, Spazio, yes, there is.
You know, I'm not going to hold your hand through this.
Increasingly, I'm just annoyed with people.
They say, what's your source?
Give me a... Just spend five minutes looking it up yourself, why don't you?
I can't hold your hand.
Everything I said about Alfred Kinsey, 100% factual.
Okay, but you're going to have to spend a little bit of time.
I can't see what you want is you want me to give you a link with the bullet points and so that you can spend five seconds and you can read three sentences and say, oh, well, there it is.
Now, this is one of those things you got to spend a little bit more time to understand the full history of, you know, of Alfred Kinsey and the sexual revolution and how it takes a little bit.
In fact, you might even have to read some books about it.
You might have to read an entire book if you really want to understand it.
But what I can tell you is that what I said again is a fact.
His methodology, when he released sexual behavior in the human male, and the methodology that he used, the segments of the population that he was studying and gathering all of his survey data from, it's not disputed.
Let's see, what else do we got?
Zuko says, it's very hard to maintain control at the video of the poor abused four-year-old.
It's amazing, though, that she gave us the nice comparison of his age, though he's clearly confused because he's four and his mom insists on changing definitions on him.
Right, that's exactly the point.
Eric says, I bet 99% of the people who've seen Eternals had no idea it was directed by a woman.
Yeah, that's the other point about the claim from the film critic yesterday, this Marvel movie Eternals that apparently nobody likes and nobody wants to see.
And the critic says, well, it's because it's directed by a woman.
People are sexist.
And as I said yesterday, the exact opposite is the case.
Critics especially bend over backwards to find any reason they can to give a good review to a movie that's directed by a woman.
But as far as the audience goes, this just shows kind of the bubble that these film critics live in.
They don't understand how the average film moviegoer actually experiences movies.
The average moviegoer has no idea who the director is of any of these movies.
I bet if you went up to just the average moviegoer, the average person who watches movies, which is most people, and you ask them to name, like, five directors, they probably couldn't even name five.
They might be able to give you three.
Like, they could tell you Steven Spielberg, but maybe they could give you Christopher Nolan.
I mean, just because most people don't, it doesn't matter to them that much.
And they certainly aren't aren't looking up information about the director and then saying, well, this one was directed by a woman.
Well, I'm not going to watch this.
That's not what people are doing outside of the bubble that you're living in.
When it comes to Biden's vaccine mandates, the Daily Wire isn't backing down.
You heard us talking about this yesterday if you watched the backstage show.
We filed our lawsuit against the tyrannical and unconstitutional mandates a week ago today, and we're already seeing results.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay over the weekend, preventing Biden's mandate from going into effect, citing grave statutory and constitutional issues.
There seems to be a lot of those going around today.
This does not mean the battle is over.
Rather, the battle has just begun.
Biden is determined to pass these mandates no matter what, and that's why we have to keep fighting.
We're not just fighting for the daily wire employees.
We're fighting for the medical freedom of every single brave American,
and it's extremely important that everyone makes their voice heard right now.
This is an urgent matter and your medical freedom depends on it.
If you want to support the fight to make your personal medical decisions without government interference, sign our petition against Biden's authoritarian mandate.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already signed the petition in just a few days, but we need many more people to stand up just to reach our goal.
So please head to dailywire.com slash do not comply to sign the petition today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel, once again, CNN.
This time for a segment on the Kyle Rittenhouse case featuring one Mr. Jeffrey Toobin.
As you recall, though you surely wish you did not recall, Toobin, CNN legal analyst, gained international notoriety last year when he was caught badgering the witness during a Zoom meeting with his co-workers.
Tubin pulled his tube out, you might say.
He tried to, to put it gently, get a hold of himself during this meeting.
He's always been the self-congratulatory type, so he decided to give himself a hand, so to speak.
And while he was engaged in this DIY project, his colleagues looked on in unimaginable shock and horror.
Now, for most humans on Earth, handling your situation in a work setting in full view of other employees Would lead not only to immediate termination, but it would likely foreclose all future possibilities of employment.
You could maybe get a job as assistant manager at your local sex shop.
I don't know.
Though on second thought, you certainly could not be trusted in that setting either.
So really, that would be it for you.
You may never find gainful employment ever again, but Jeffrey Toobin works in corporate media, and the rules are different there.
Which means that, in this case, he was back on the beat with CNN within just a few months.
CNN has mostly not seen it necessary to justify its decision to employ and provide a public platform to a man who masturbated during a work meeting.
To the extent that they've bothered to explain it, the rationale seems to be that Toobin's behavior was an accident.
He's the real victim here, you see.
He didn't know that his camera was on during the Zoom call.
He thought he was debugging the hard drive in the privacy of his own home.
And it may indeed be true that he didn't know the camera was on.
But the act itself was not an accident.
Granted, I was not on the call, which is why I still have eyes and I haven't gouged them out.
But I still feel safe assuming that Toobin didn't slip and fall and accidentally masturbate.
No, he quite intentionally decided to perform that act during a work meeting while watching his co-workers.
The only thing he didn't intend was for them to know that he was doing it.
I fail to see how that makes this any better.
I mean, if there's a guy on public transportation sitting in the back of the bus masturbating, hoping no one sees it, and someone does, can he say to the cop, well, I didn't mean for anyone to know that I was doing it?
Especially because we can assume here, as always is the case in these kinds of situations, that when a pervert is caught in the act for the first time, he was only caught for the first time.
It's not, however, his first time at the rodeo.
And yet he's back on the air, which leads us finally to this segment, and let's all watch cautiously.
Two thoughts.
Two thoughts.
One, what kind of idiot, 17-year-old, gets a giant gun and goes to a riot?
He has no license.
He has no training.
He thinks he's going to scrub graffiti off with his AR-15?
I mean, the stupidity of this.
It's like, what could possibly go wrong?
Well, a lot went wrong.
The good news for Kyle Rittenhouse is that he's not on trial for being an idiot.
He's on trial for homicide.
And in that respect, I mostly agree with Joey that this is a tough case for the prosecution because it does seem like he has a plausible case of self-defense.
And, you know, if it were illegal to be an idiot, the jails would be even more crowded than they are now.
Homicide's a different matter.
Very bold move by CNN to use a glass table.
Also, you have to feel bad for the guy sitting right next to Toobin, as Toobin's kind of waving his hands around like that.
I mean, his life must have been flashing before his eyes.
Which is still better than Toobin flashing before his eyes, I suppose.
As for Toobin, he accuses Rittenhouse of being an idiot.
Now, just to emphasize here, the man who pleasured himself during a Zoom meeting and forgot to turn the camera off is calling somebody else an idiot.
He says it's fortunate for Rittenhouse that, you know, being an idiot isn't illegal.
Well, it's fortunate for Toobin that masturbating in front of unwilling spectators isn't illegal.
Oh, wait, it is illegal.
Just not if you're a member of the favored class.
Now, putting his childish analysis of the Rittenhouse case aside, I mean, you can really see why CNN just had to bring the masturbator back on the air, because otherwise they'd be deprived of insightful legal opinions like, that guy's an idiot, lol.
But putting that aside, Jeffrey Toobin really shows us the nature of cancel culture, doesn't he?
Jeffrey Toobin shows us quite a lot, actually, way more than we want to see, but the lesson he provides about cancel culture is useful.
Cancel culture is, as I've always said, arbitrary by definition.
Why is Louis C.K.
still banished to the cultural hinterlands, persona non grata, and yet Toobin is on cable news?
They did the same thing, but Toobin is arguably worse because he didn't get consent ahead of time.
And there have certainly been people who committed far less severe infractions, or no infraction, and yet suffered punishments far worse than whatever Toobin suffered, which was really nothing at all.
When it comes to workplace sexual harassment specifically, we live in a world now where giving your female co-worker a compliment may be sexual harassment.
But, I mean, in Toobin's case, masturbating in front of her during a work meeting is not sexual harassment.
But this is all by design.
It's a power move by CNN, really.
Cancel culture is arbitrary.
It's also left-wing, inherently.
It was largely invented by the left-wing corporate media.
It's their thing.
Cancel culture belongs to CNN and its fellow corporate media organizations.
It will decide who is cancelled and who is not.
Jeffrey Toobin is on their team.
They happen to like him, for whatever reason, and so they will grant him a pass that nobody else, I mean, nobody else on the planet, anywhere, would be granted.
There's no coherent moral philosophy underpinning this.
Cancel culture isn't... It's not mere left-wing puritanism.
It's not even a moral panic.
It's a weapon.
And they will decide how to wield it.
That's why Toobin still has a job.
And is probably still invited on Zoom calls.
And everybody else on the call just has to make sure that they don't eat lunch beforehand, I guess.
That's also why I must say again today that CNN is, of course, cancelled.
I'll leave it there for today.
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.
Kyle Rittenhouse clears his name, a major publisher commissions a hagiography of George Floyd, and Biden's vaccine mandate might cost nearly 40% of truckers their jobs amid a supply chain crisis right around Christmas.
