Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case make their closing arguments in their case against self-defense and the Second Amendment. We’ll take a look at the closing arguments, and we’ll trace this case all the way back to where it all really started. Also, Rep. Cori Bush claims that armed white supremacists shot at her. There is absolutely no evidence of this, of course. And Beto O’Rourke runs for governor. Plus, a city in Michigan elects an all-Muslim city council. The media says this is a great example of “racial diversity.” There are a number of problems with that claim. We’ll discuss. And a feminist author says that many women deeply regret having children and getting married. Is that true or just wishful thinking on her part?
Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u
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, the prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case made their closing arguments in their case against self-defense in the Second Amendment.
We'll take a look at the closing arguments and we'll trace this case all the way back to where it really started because we shouldn't forget about where this all really began.
Also, Representative Cori Bush claims that armed white supremacists shot at her There is absolutely no evidence of this, of course.
And Beto O'Rourke runs for governor.
Plus, a city in Michigan elects an all-Muslim city council.
The media says this is a great example of racial diversity.
There are a number of problems with that claim, we'll discuss.
And a feminist author says that many women deeply regret having children and getting married.
Is that true or just wishful thinking on her part?
We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
I'm going to be getting on a plane after the show and heading to Florida to speak at Ave Maria.
And I'm looking forward to that on Wednesday.
And what that means is that, of course, I'm going to make sure I have my trusty Relief Band with me, as I always do when I travel.
Relief Band is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband that's been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, which is my affliction, anxiety, migraines, hangover, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more.
The product is 100% drug-free, non-drowsy, provides all-natural, long-lasting relief with zero side effects for as long as needed.
The technology was originally developed over 20 years ago in hospitals to relieve nausea from patients, but now it's a relief band.
It's available to the masses.
How it works is relief band stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of your brain that controls nausea, then it blocks the signal your brain is sending to your stomach telling you that you're sick and kind of Pulls a little bit of a sleight-of-hand trick on your own body in the process, and then you don't feel the nausea at all.
It's like magic.
Relief Band just released its newest model, Relief Band Sport.
The Sport is waterproof, features interchangeable bands, and has extended battery life.
So, as the holiday season quickly approaches, there's never been a better time to give the gift of relief and make sure your loved ones are nausea-free.
Right now, Relief Band has an exclusive offer just for Matt Walsh listeners.
If you go to reliefband.com and use promo code WALSH, you'll receive 20% off, plus free shipping, and a no-questions-asked, 30-day money-back guarantee.
So head to R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D dot com and use our promo code Walsh for 20% off plus free shipping.
We await now a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, a verdict that should be a foregone conclusion, as the prosecution utterly failed in its responsibility to prove its case.
But I don't feel as confident as I ought to feel, because I have very little faith in our fundamental American institutions, like the justice system.
So many of us have little faith in those institutions.
If the bad guys win here, and Kyle is successfully railroaded, then faith in those institutions will be finally and irrevocably broken for a lot of people, I suspect.
What happens from there?
Well, nothing good.
Again, what makes this case unique is not, it's not simply that a corrupt DA is trying to destroy an innocent man, though that's exactly what he's doing.
What makes it unique is that he's doing it out in the open with the help of the media and the Democrat Party and big tech.
These institutions have selected Kyle as their blood sacrifice.
And if they're able to see this all the way through and do this in front of everybody's eyes, while we know that they're doing it, It will mean that we have crossed a certain threshold in this country.
And I don't know if we'll be able to reverse course at that point.
Now, closing arguments were delivered on Monday.
Prosecutors Tweedledee and Tweedledum provided us with moments that would almost be comedic relief, if not for the very serious stakes here.
For example, D.A.
Binger, in an attempt to show that Joseph Rosenbaum was not a serious threat, listed off all of the many crimes that he committed on the night of his death.
It's not clear what point Binger thought he was making here, but let's listen.
So what does he do that night?
Oh, let me tell you all the awful things Joseph Rosenbaum did.
He tipped over a port-a-potty that had no one in it.
He swung a chain.
He lit a metal garbage dumpster on fire.
Oh, and there's this empty wooden flatbed trailer that they pulled out in the middle of the road and they tipped it over to stop some bearcats and they lit it on fire.
Oh, and he said some bad words.
He said the N-word.
Uh, that's like a lot of stuff.
I mean, he committed more arson in 35 minutes than I have in 35 years, so... Now, notably, under any other circumstance, most people on the left would say that a white man deserves to be shot simply for saying the N-word, leaving everything else aside.
Remember a white Macy's employee was beaten senseless by a black man on camera last summer, remember that?
And the violence was cheered by many leftists because the assailant claimed that the victim said the N-word.
Now, he didn't.
That was all a lie.
The point is simply that in most every other case, the N-word is treated as a literal capital offense.
But putting that aside, by the DA's admission, Rosenbaum, the child rapist, spent the whole night setting fires and committing crimes before he attacked Rittenhouse.
And the arsonist rapist was finally shot, not because of any of his previous crimes, even crimes committed that night, but because he charged and attempted to assault a man carrying a rifle.
All of his previous misdeeds were irrelevant in that moment, though it was nice of the DA to list them all again for us, I suppose.
Really, it's tough to decide if that was Binger's dumbest moment yesterday, or maybe it was this.
Here he is, pointing an AR-15 at a room full of people, and you have to see it to believe it.
I mean, I heard about this on Twitter, and I didn't believe it until I saw the picture.
And notice where his finger is placed.
Okay, he's got his finger on the trigger.
This is what we call bad trigger discipline.
Very bad.
And it's the irony of all ironies.
Binger has spent the whole trial accusing Rittenhouse of being reckless and careless with his firearm, and in this culminating moment, Binger decides to basically nearly pull an Alec Baldwin on the jury.
Quick note, just to reiterate, to anyone watching at home.
Never ever point a weapon at anything or anyone you don't intend to destroy.
And never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire.
You would think that the DA, who is trying to prosecute somebody right now, I mean, one of the charges that was dismissed yesterday was a firearms charge.
You'd think maybe he would know a thing or two about firearm safety, but apparently not.
At another point, after menacing the entire courtroom by waving a rifle around like a maniac, Binger gave his theory of self-defense.
And his theory, as he explicitly states, is that self-defense is illegal.
Listen to this.
They have to convince you that Joseph Rosenbaum was going to take that gun and use it on the defendant because they know you can't claim self-defense against an unarmed man like this.
You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun, when you're the one creating the danger, when you're the one provoking other people.
My God in heaven.
You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun?
Now, if that's the case, then it is never acceptable to use your gun in self-defense.
He is arguing that shooting someone is always murder.
Always.
Because by definition, he says, you lose the right to shoot the gun the moment you produce the gun.
So you have the right to bear arms, says Binger.
You just don't have the right to use them, ever, under any circumstance.
Those are the implications of the statement that we just heard him make.
And then more importantly, the jury heard him make.
He is lying to them about the basic facts of the law.
Forget about lying about the case.
We know he's doing that.
He's lying to the jury about what the law says.
And now, you know, this is where some of my pessimism comes from in terms of the verdict.
We have to trust that the jury is smart enough to know what the law really is, even with the DA standing there lying to them for days on end.
He also says that you can't claim self-defense against an unarmed man.
Much of the prosecution's case rests on the fact that the arsonist child rapist did not have a weapon visible at the time of the altercation.
The assistant DA went into a little bit more detail on this point.
Let's listen to that.
Clearly, if there is provocation, he's guilty.
But even outside of provocation, why do you get to immediately just start shooting?
As Mr. Binger said, he brought a gun to a fist fight.
And he was too cowardly to use his own fists to fight his way out.
He has to start shooting.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you ever seen any of the Jason Bourne films?
Jason Bourne routinely defeats large numbers of assailants using only his fists and his wits.
Ladies and gentlemen, justice demands that we hold Mr. Rittenhouse to the same standard.
If you've seen it in an action flick, you must convict.
Um, sorry, I don't mean to make fun of the assistant DA.
It's obvious from his physique that this man has lots of experience in hand-to-hand combat.
I mean, he is the expert.
But we can't all be trained kung fu fighters like himself.
Most of us are mere mortals, and it is asinine to suggest that we have a legal or moral obligation to fight an angry mob with just our fists.
It is equally asinine to argue that unarmed mobs, or even just an unarmed individual, isn't a potentially lethal threat.
Maybe someone should ask Reginald Denny about this.
He's the white truck driver who was pulled out of his truck during the LA race riots in the 90s and beaten unconscious, barely survived, suffered permanent physical impairments because of the attack.
Does the DA of Kenosha think that we have an obligation to submit ourselves to permanent physical disability for the sake of preserving the lives of the violent animals assaulting us?
What would the prosecution say to Reginald Denny?
Well, I guess they'd say this.
Everybody takes a beating sometimes, right?
Sometimes you get in a scuffle and maybe you do get hurt a little bit.
Ah, just a scuffle.
Some cuts and bruises.
Everybody takes a beating sometimes.
I mean, the assistant DA tripped and bruised his knee on the way into Krispy Kreme the other week.
So he's been there and done that.
No big deal.
And what they argue now is that whenever you're assaulted by someone, your responsibility is to take the beating and to preserve the life of your assailant, even if that means giving up your own life in the process.
This, of course, is suicidal, amoral.
The prosecution has waged an all-out assault on the dignity and worth of human life, all under the guise of defending the dignity and worth of human life.
But no matter how they present it, what they're saying is that your life is so worthless, so lacking in value, that you should be willing to forfeit it, you should be ready to jump on the grenade if ever some scumbag criminal decides to attack you.
According to the DA, that's how worthless you are.
The scumbag criminal, if a child rapist comes after you to beat you senseless, Your life is so worthless that you should, even if you have the ability to stop him, you shouldn't.
As I've said all along, they have put our right to self-defense on trial, but you could even say that they've put the value of human life on trial.
There is a caveat here, though, for the left, to include the prosecution in this case.
The right to self-defense is, it's not that it doesn't exist completely, It's just that it's conditional.
And not conditional based on circumstance, but based on identity and politics.
See, it's really impossible to understand much of the liberal analysis of the Rittenhouse case until you understand that most of it is founded on the assumption that the rioters had the moral right to destroy property as they pleased, and anybody who tried to prevent them from doing so was infringing on those rights.
See, this is the crucial point for them.
This is what it all comes down to.
From the perspective of reality and common sense, the prosecution claim that Kyle Rittenhouse provoked his attackers makes no sense.
He wasn't the one rioting.
He didn't go there that night with the intent of committing a crime, unlike the looters and rioters.
They attacked him because he wanted to prevent them from committing crimes.
They provoked the altercation that led to their own deaths.
He didn't bring a gun to a fist fight.
They brought, if anything, they brought a fist to a gun fight.
Or rather, at least they brought fists to a guy who was carrying a gun.
That's on them.
You know, that's them writing a check they couldn't cash.
But this is all the way that a normal, sane, morally decent person sees it, but the abnormal, insane, morally repugnant hordes, again to include the DA, actually believe that the rioters were entitled to burn and destroy.
Remember a few years ago, the mayor of Baltimore saying about rioters in that city, we have to give them space to destroy.
And that was not a gaffe, okay?
She was articulating the leftist view of these situations.
Their alleged emotional trauma granted them the right to do as they pleased.
If they felt that the path to emotional healing was to burn a convenience store or loot a footlocker, then they were morally sanctioned to do so.
So looking at it from this drunken, discombobulated perspective, it makes sense that Kyle Rittenhouse is the provoker and the aggressor.
He was there to prevent them from exercising their right to riot.
When they chased and assaulted him, they were acting in defense of that right, in self-defense, which meant that he had no right to respond with lethal force.
That's the way they see it.
The DA has all but argued this explicitly.
One other point I want to make here in the lead up to the verdict, which could come any minute.
Let's remember how this all began.
It began not when Kyle Rittenhouse showed up in Kenosha with his weapon, but days before that, when accused rapist Jacob Blake accosted a woman, fought the cops who showed up to save her, pulled a knife, and tried to steal a vehicle with children inside.
He was justifiably shot.
Both local and federal authorities, the Biden administration included, have looked at the shooting and have confirmed that the shooting was justified.
But the media lied about that case, and they used it to intentionally provoke more rioting.
And then when Kyle came along and did what he had to do, they lied about that too.
If Kyle is rightfully exonerated, they'll lie some more and try to set the city on fire all over again.
They truly are the enemy of the people.
What's more, the media has no right to do what it's doing.
Let's be clear about that too.
Okay, this free speech does not cover this.
It has no right to lie and instigate and intentionally provoke and incite and rip our country to pieces on purpose.
Many of them should be in prison for what they've done in Kenosha and what they will continue to do.
They are the villains here and we should never forget that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
And here's a great way, and an easy way, GetUpside.
It's called the GetUpside app.
And it's because it's all, it really is all upside for you.
You're saving money every time you go and pump your gas.
My listeners are making up to 25 cents for every gallon of gas, every time they fill up.
Just download the free GetUpside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
Use promo code WALSH and get a bonus 25 cents per gallon on your first fill up.
That's up to 50 cents cash back.
Don't pay full price of the pump anymore.
There's no reason.
Get cash back using GetUpside.
Just download the app for free and use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank.
Some people who drive a lot are making as much as $200 to $300 a month in cash back and there's no catch.
The cash is added to your account.
You can cash out to your bank account, PayPal, you can get an e-gift card on Amazon or somewhere else.
And it is really as simple as that.
You're saving money every time you go to the pump.
Just download the free GetUpside app and use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank.
That's code WALSH.
Okay, um...
Here's just another perfect example of the convoluted thinking of the left on this.
Tom Nichols, who's a, you know, never Trump guy.
I think at one point he claimed to be conservative.
I'm not sure.
But Tom Nichols on Twitter, he says, everyone involved would be alive if he, Rittenhouse, had stayed home with his mommy instead of going to play hero in a neighboring state.
This is the frustration where you want to grab these people by the collar and like shake them and say, they were at a riot.
What about the rioters?
This was a riot.
What about them?
Well, why didn't Kyle Rittenhouse just stay home that night?
Why didn't they all stay home that night?
They want to analyze this case, pretend that happened in the context of a riot and pretend the riot wasn't happening.
Everyone would be alive if Kyle had stayed home that night?
He's the one who should have stayed home?
not the child rapist who, according to the DA, was just running around the city setting stuff on fire?
But as I said, I mean, I've already explained where this really comes from.
They had the right to do that.
Because they were upset.
Because their tummies hurt.
Because another rapist had been shot by the cops while trying to abduct some children in a stolen vehicle.
And that made their tummies hurt, and they were really upset about that.
Or at least they were pretending to be upset about that.
And so they had the right to do whatever they wanted to do.
Alright, let's start with this.
A tweet from Cori Bush.
Representative Cori Bush.
Let's remember that she is an elected representative.
She is a member of Congress.
And here's what she tweeted.
She said, when we marched in Ferguson, white supremacists would hide behind a hill near where Michael Brown Jr.
was murdered and shoot at us.
They never faced consequences.
If Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted, it tells them that even seven years later, they still can get away with it.
I mean, where do you even begin here?
Where do you start?
This isn't even the most important point, but what do you mean, hid behind a hill?
I'm trying to figure out the physics of that, exactly.
Logistically, how does that work?
They're hiding behind a hill and shooting at you?
And this is in the middle of the city?
There's a big hill that they can hide?
I'm trying to imagine how that even works, and I can't.
But, of course, it doesn't have to work in reality because she completely made this up.
I mean, when did this happen, exactly?
Is there any evidence of this?
So there were armed white supremacist militants in Ferguson after Michael Brown was killed.
And that, by the way, also an entirely justified shooting.
And that was also vindicated by local authorities and the federal government under the, which at the time was under the direction of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama's DOJ tried to find a way to, you know, tried to find some charges to hang on the officer in that case and couldn't find them.
But yet they still use the Michael Brown case.
As an example of police brutality and white supremacist violence and all this kind of stuff, a democratic administration already debunked that and they still use it because the truth is irrelevant to them, of course.
But she says that after this happened, there were militant white supremacists on the scene shooting at people, and this never made the news.
The media decided not to report this fact.
Were they shouting, this is MAGA country while they shot, maybe?
But of course, this is a brazen lie from a sitting U.S.
Congresswoman, but she lies brazenly because she knows she'll get away with it.
She knows that there is no possible consequence to her.
Because she's a Democrat, and also because of all of the identity politics points that she can check off as a black woman.
So, you know, that gives her all the cover in the world.
She could say whatever she wants.
Nobody will follow up.
No one in the media will even ask her about this.
And that tells you everything you need to know.
That shows that they know it's a lie.
Because if they thought there was any chance that this actually happened, then they'd want to talk about it.
They'd want to get her in front of a camera and say, tell us all about this horrible experience with white supremacists shooting at you.
But they know it's totally bogus, and so they're not going to ask her about it.
And of course we haven't even gotten to the fact that she connects Kyle Rittenhouse, she puts him in the same category as white supremacists.
When that's just a flat-out lie once again, but also everybody involved in this case is white.
They're all white people.
I just saw there's another tweet from, I don't have it in front of me, but Some blue check leftist, uh, someone in the media saying, uh, saying that employers after the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict comes down, no matter what the verdict is, this guy on Twitter saying that the employer should give black employees the day off, give them a couple of days off, you know, because of how emotional this case is for the, for the black employees.
What?
Black people, there are no black individuals involved in this case.
This is a white person who shot three other white people who were attacking him.
But it doesn't matter.
The truth is completely irrelevant.
And that is really what they think.
Ends justify the means.
The truth is subjective.
So the way they look at it with Kyle Rittenhouse, yeah, of course he's not a white supremacist.
Race has nothing to do with this case whatsoever because everybody involved is the same race.
But the truth, that might be the truth, that might be the reality, but it's not their reality.
It's not their truth.
And their truth is determined by how they feel.
And so when they see this case, it feels to them like Kyle Rittenhouse must be a white supremacist.
And it feels to them like he's guilty of mass murder.
And because they feel that that's the case, then it is the case.
Then it's true.
If you feel it, then it's true.
That's how they see it.
All right, next we got Beto O'Rourke.
Let's see, he tried to run for senator, that didn't work out.
Tried to run for president, that didn't exactly work out.
And now, maybe third time's a charm, he's running for governor.
Let's watch his announcement.
I'm running for governor, and I want to tell you why.
This past February, when the electricity grid failed and millions of our fellow Texans were without power, which meant that the lights wouldn't turn on, the heat wouldn't run, and pretty soon their pipes froze and the water stopped flowing, they were abandoned by those who were elected to serve and look out for them.
It's a symptom of a much larger problem that we have in Texas right now.
Those in positions of public trust have stopped listening to, serving, and paying attention to and trusting the people of Texas.
And so they're not focused on the things that we really want them to do, like making sure that we have a functioning electricity grid, or that we're creating the best jobs in America right here in Texas, or that we have world-class schools, or that we make progress on the things that most of us actually agree on, like expanding Medicaid or legalizing marijuana.
Instead, they're focusing on the kind of extremist policies around abortion or permitless carry or even in our schools that really only divide us and keep us apart and stop us from working together on the truly big things that we want to achieve for one another.
Why did I play so much of that clip?
I have no idea.
But you have to respect, in a way, just how blatant Beto O'Rourke is.
He's desperate to be in charge somehow of someone.
He's just desperate for something.
He wants the attention, he wants to be in charge, he's power-hungry, he's attention-starved, and so he's running through.
He's like, okay, I'll be senator.
I think I'm cut out for that.
Nope, you don't want me for that?
Okay, then how about I'll be president?
Nope, okay, well how about, alright, then I'll be governor.
Oh, no, not that?
Well, then I'll be, I don't know, I'll be the captain of the bowling team.
How about that?
And I love how he talks about, well, the people have said, we have to get down to what the people of Texas really care about.
What are the things that really affect their lives?
Yeah, equity and tolerance, have some more drag queen story hours, because that's what the Democrat Party thinks people actually care about and want.
Once again, of course, what you hear there, the opposite is the reality.
That what makes the Democrat Party, what makes Democrats and Democrat governors and Democrats at every level, what makes them ineffectual, what makes them impotent leaders, makes them bad leaders, is that they're totally unconcerned about the practical, everyday act of governing.
They don't care about people's everyday lives.
That's why they're so dismissive of inflation, gas prices going up, supply chain crisis.
What do we hear from Democrats in the media?
Well, you know, it's just deal with it.
You'll be fine.
So you got to buy one less TV.
What's the big deal?
You got to pay a little bit more for milk.
I mean, come on, just just drink less milk.
These are the everyday practical things that affect people's lives, and that's exactly what they don't care about.
Because on the left, all that matters is ideology.
So they are always in service to ideology.
You know, if you have a Democrat governor of Texas, he's not serving the people of Texas.
He's serving the ideology first and foremost.
I think Beto O'Rourke just had, he has some sort of, he is playing out his fetish in real time in front of the entire world.
He has a humiliation fetish, a fetish for losing.
And I really, I would appreciate it if he would keep this behind closed doors.
We don't all have to witness it.
Tony Fauci has some thoughts about the liberty versus safety debate as he continues to morph into just a full-on supervillain.
And he even kind of looks like one now.
Let's watch that.
Well, one of the things that to me was most Difficult to accept is that we put together a good plan for how we were going to try and dampen down the spread of infection early on.
Thinking that that was accepted by everybody and then the next day the president saying free Michigan, free Virginia.
I didn't quite understand what the purpose of that was except to put This misplaced perception about people's individual right to make a decision that supersedes the societal safety.
It was at that point that I realized that I would have to just get out there myself and say things that clearly were going to be contradictory.
You know, for me the main point there is he's wearing a turtleneck underneath a button-down and a suit jacket.
That's what I'm focusing on first and foremost.
Oh, but we have, you know, making decisions that undermine the societal safety, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.
As Fauci just becomes, and he's been pretty explicit about this the entire time, but We know traditionally in America, what our founding fathers always said is that we don't sacrifice liberty for safety.
And he's been pretty straightforward about saying, no, it's the other way around.
Give up all your freedoms and we'll keep you safe.
Okay, I wanted to mention this.
This is from NBC.
A city in Michigan is apparently the first in the nation to elect an all-Muslim city council reflecting a more racially diverse landscape in local governance.
Three candidates, one election to the city council in Hamtramck last week.
H-A-M-T-R-A-M-C-K is the name of the town.
How do you pronounce that?
I'm not great with pronunciation, but you've got three consonants in a row, so what am I supposed to do with that?
All six identify as Muslim.
Hamtremec, part of the greater Detroit area, also elected its first Muslim mayor to round out the city's government.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, a national American Muslim advocacy and public policy organization, said it's the first and only city that they're aware of that has a full Muslim city council and mayor.
So, a couple of problems here.
First of all, We see this same confusion with the media, where they seem to think that Muslim is a race.
So they say, well, they elected an all-Muslim city council, which is a reflection of racial diversity.
Muslim, again, is not actually race, it's a religion.
Don't mean to split hairs there, but I don't think it's really splitting hairs.
I think it's an important point.
But also, how is this diversity?
It's people of all the same quote-unquote race, to use the media's language, So in all Muslim, you have a city council where it's all one identity group, and that's diversity?
Well, no, remember what we talked about yesterday when it comes to diversity.
As I said, this is a perfect example of the point I was making yesterday.
Diversity, when you hear someone on the left talk about diversity, What they really mean is getting rid of the white males.
That's what it means.
And that's why, as long as you get the white males out, they don't really care what the racial makeup is.
So, they're not, all Muslim, all people of Middle Eastern descent, that's perfectly fine.
They're not gonna worry about, hey, maybe we should get a black person in there, maybe we should get a transgender person in there.
If it was all males, they wouldn't worry about that.
Just as long as you get the white males out.
The push for diversity is a push for excluding white males from society.
And that is again proven by the fact that as long as you never hear them complain ever, there is never a complaint about diversity.
In any institutional organization, as long as the white males are pushed out.
You get them out, and it doesn't matter what the makeup is, what the percentages are, makes no difference.
Diversity is, I say again, an anti-white male conspiracy.
That's what it is.
Which is the only way.
I mean, that's the only way to make sense of the claim that an all-Muslim city council is diverse.
All right, so I've had this for a few days that I've wanted to play.
Here's a CNN contributor who is allegedly a Republican, or at least at one point is a Republican.
I don't know if he still considers himself one.
He is laughing about parents who are worried that kids are being exposed to pornography, pornographic content at school.
He thinks that's hilarious, and let's listen to him.
I was just going to say real quick, all those parents worried about pornography in the literature Kids ain't worried about pornography and literature.
You better take your son's phone and take a look at what that bad boy is downloading.
Baby?
Hello?
Go to that school dance and see what they're doing out behind the school, baby.
Come on now.
These parents acting like they weren't teenagers.
Hello?
And they don't have their kids' passports, so even if they got the phone, they couldn't see what's on it, because they don't even know what their kids are watching on the phone.
Hello?
Incredible insight and analysis from them.
Allure.
That's what we're getting now from MSNBC.
But it's not really even funny.
I mean, to these degenerate weirdos, you know, the idea that we should protect our children from pornographic content, it's hilarious.
It's funny to them.
They're not simply disagreeing.
They think it's funny.
They're laughing.
At you as a parent and your concern for protecting the innocence of your children.
And the way they look at it is, you know, there's no point.
I mean, they see, and being pretty honest about it here, the way they see it, kids are already sexualized.
There's no point in trying to stop it.
There's no point in trying to prevent it and protect them.
And if they're being exposed to pornography on the phone, then you might as well expose them to it at school.
You know, once that threshold has been crossed, then, you know, hey, game on, the way they figure.
And if there are parents who have successfully Protected their kids from this kind of content.
Well, you know those those those parents have their kids in a bubble And it's it's for the kids own benefit that they are removed from that bubble whether the parents want them to or not But by the way, just so you know it is actually possible I'm not saying it's necessarily easy It is possible to protect your kids from this kind of content I mean, Michael Steele there is right about one thing.
He's right that if your kid has a smartphone, if you give a smartphone to your kid with internet access, it almost doesn't matter how old they are, and if they've had it for any length of time, then they've almost certainly been exposed to all manner of filth and objectionable content that you as a parent shouldn't want them to see.
So he's right about that.
He's wrong in thinking that it's funny.
The corruption of kids, to him, is a funny thing.
He's wrong about that.
And he's also wrong that, even if that's true, that it somehow justifies pornographic content at school.
But it is correct.
That's something parents need to understand.
If you give that sort of tool to your child, who is not old enough to use it appropriately, Then he is going to be exposed to it and it's got nothing to do with I hear from parents sometimes who say Well, I you know, I I trust my kids.
I Trust them and that's why I'll give them the phone This is not about this is not about trust Kids at a certain age don't have the psychological ability To To navigate cyberspace, to navigate the internet and avoid this kind of content.
This is where the idea of consent.
This is why we say that children are not old enough to consent to sexual activity.
Well, they're also not, even if you give them the phone and they make the quote-unquote choice to click on something or to go to Pornhub or whatever, It's not really a choice because they can't actually consent to being exposed to that.
When you watch pornography, you are now involved in someone else's sexual activity.
You are involved as a spectator, but that still is involvement.
You are, in a certain way, taking part in this activity.
And whatever choice a child makes with the phone, it's not really a choice because they cannot choose that.
All of our laws on consent are based on the assumption, the correct assumption, that children are not psychologically capable of making that kind of choice.
So you give the phone to your child, this is what's going to happen.
So, as I always say, there's no reason, there's no real good reason to let your kid have the phone, just take the phone away.
If you're worried about their, you know, they need to be able to get a hold of you or something like that, give them a phone, give them a flip phone, no internet access.
Will the other kids, you know, think it's funny?
Yeah, but who cares?
You can preserve your child's innocence, or you can protect them from the snickering and laughing from other kids.
You can kind of choose which one you're going to prioritize as a parent.
What else do we got here?
This is from The Independent.
A police report was filed following the recent on-stage urination incident during a performance by US band Brass Against.
Last week, the group's singer, Sofia Yurista, was filmed urinating on a fan's face midway through a rendition of Rage Against the Machine's Wake Up in Daytona, Florida.
Before inviting the man to lie down on stage, Yurista had told the crowd, I gotta pee and I can't make it to the bathroom, so we might as well make a show out of it.
And then she peed on the guy's face.
On stage.
The band subsequently apologized for the incident, writing on Twitter, Sophia got carried away.
That's not something the rest of us expected, and it's not something you'll see again at our shows.
Thanks for bringing it last night, Daytona.
She got carried away.
That's why she peed on a guy's face.
This is just, this is gross.
This is gross.
I can't even joke about it.
Piss poor judgment by everybody involved.
All I can say to the singer is you're in trouble.
And I think that, from what I understand, Sofia's from France, because I heard someone in the audience point at her and say, European.
But at least the fan had a VIP ticket.
Sorry.
In all seriousness, this is degenerate filth.
I hope everybody involved is arrested.
I mean, everybody involved.
Even people in the audience.
Guilt by association.
Arrest them too.
Arrest everybody.
That's my real opinion of this.
Now let's get to the comment section.
Very excited to be able to tell you once again about American financing.
What if you could lower your mortgage rate without adding years to your loan, potentially saving hundreds of dollars a month and tens of thousands long-term?
Well, fortunately for you, it's possible.
When you call American Financing, America's home for home loans, you'll start with a free mortgage review from one of their salary-based mortgage experts, so you can understand all of your home loan options.
They make it very easy for you.
From flexible terms to competitive rates and fast closings, they've got you covered.
You really can save up to $1,000 a month with these guys, and you could choose any term, 10 years and over.
With all the money that seems to be draining from our accounts with how expensive everything is these days, why not save money on your mortgage when you have this opportunity?
Custom loans don't get any better than this.
So what are you waiting for?
Make the 10-minute no-obligation call now.
Learn about custom loan options and get these savings as soon as possible.
You can even skip two mortgage payments at the same time.
But you've got to call now.
866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
Diane says, I get the point Matt was making about diversity in the military.
However, he did throw down the gauntlet.
I would suggest the Navajo Code Talkers is a historical example of when diversity helped our military win.
Well, no, that's not an example of diversity helping the military win, because the example that you're providing is all about skill, ingenuity, effectiveness.
That's not diversity.
Okay?
This is not in World War II, we made the decision that we're going to prioritize diversity, and so that's why we're going to bring... No.
That was not diversity for diversity's sake.
So when I say that diversity itself has never helped any military win any engagement, that is not to say that every victorious military has to be racially homogenous.
That's not the point.
It's just that everybody involved, you know, they should be there operating as one unit and the top priority is to effectively defeat the enemy.
And they are going to utilize any strategies and bring in anybody they need to bring in to achieve that goal.
Okay, those are the victorious armies that do that.
When you prioritize diversity, when you're bringing people in, not because of their skills, not because they're qualified, Not because they're going to be effective killers of the enemy, but you're bringing them in just to fit some kind of racial quota.
That's the problem.
That's what I'm talking about.
Nick says, is anyone else's favorite part of the Matt Wall show when Matt describes his weekend and everyday interactions with his wife, kids, and family?
Whenever Matt briefly mentions his kids waking up singing, for example, it still cracks me up as much as it did the first time.
And then Paul responds to Nick's comment and says, I don't like the family stories.
I don't know them or care what they do.
I want the time spent on relevant topics.
All right, Paul.
What am I, just a piece of meat to you?
You don't want to know about me and my life?
You just want to hear the opinions, huh?
I feel so objectified.
Ted says...
Uh, quoting, Matt Walsh says he wants slave labor for his show.
Media matters.
But yeah, I did, I actually did say exactly that.
I am looking for, uh, you know, for some slave labor.
Um, not a racial thing.
You know, I'll take, uh, slaves of any race whatsoever.
All can apply for the internship, for the slavery slash internship position.
Candid Apple says, Do this, Matt.
When our oldest son had picked up the Santa thing and it was time for him to grow out of it, we told him the secret.
That Santa was a real person who lived a long time ago, who was loving and gave gifts to people, and that ever since, people have continued to give gifts in his name.
The people who know this secret and keep it can now be Santa and set the presents under the tree.
He loved it and was so excited to sneak through the house at midnight to put the presents under the tree.
This also prevents your kids from being those brats who make the public announcement at the school lunch table.
Santa's not real.
Um, yeah, I mean, that's... If you gotta break the news, that's, I think, probably the best way to do it.
Not a lot of consolation in that, though, when you say that, well, you know, Santa was real, sort of, but he lived a long time ago, and now he's dead.
Not a great consolation there.
Hey, sorry, kid, you missed him.
Yeah, I mean, if you'd happened to be alive 1,500 years ago, then maybe you could've seen Santa, but he's dead now.
Decomposing.
Um, so you can, which is better to tell your kids when you're breaking the news that Santa isn't real or that he's dead?
That's an interesting question.
I guess if you really want to save yourself from the charge of lying, you could always tell your kids.
I mean, now you're lying some more, but another way to go about it is to say, Hey, listen, uh, You know, Santa's, he's not, he's not here anymore.
He doesn't exist.
Oh, you mean you lied to me?
No, no, no.
He was, he, he, he died actually last night.
So he's dead now.
He's gone.
We got to move on from Santa.
I didn't lie to you, but now he's dead.
Uh, another comment says, I don't think you ever need to tell your kids Santa isn't real.
They'll just naturally figure it out when they're old enough.
Well, no, it's not natural.
Uh, it's not, it's not, it's not like a natural process of evolution.
This is some other kid is going to tell them and tell them in a mocking way.
There's going to be that conversation where another kid says, you still believe in Santa?
And then, and then like, they could learn that way.
That's the natural way, as you put it, or you can tell them, you know, you can talk to them in a safe environment.
Or you're not going to make fun of them.
Because that would be adding insult to injury.
To tell your kid Santa isn't real and then to say, I can't believe you ever bought that, idiot.
Don't do that when you tell your kids.
And finally, The Amateur says, Matt, why would you lie to your kids about the mythical nature of Santa?
My parents never even allowed us to believe that Santa was real, despite how the world works.
And let us know that our presence came from them, to appropriately place our gratitude.
Also, Jesus being the reason for the season.
I expect better of you.
Ah, yeah, yeah, your parents are so much better than me.
Thank you for that.
I can only hope to bask in the light of their superiority.
So thank you for that.
Now, again, I take from your comment here, you're talking about your parents, that means that you don't have kids.
Okay?
And don't take this the wrong way, but in general, if you don't have kids, your opinion on anything parent-related is completely irrelevant and silly.
No offense.
Here's what you have to understand about young kids.
The words not real to a young child don't mean anything.
At a certain age, kids who are three, four years old, they don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality.
There's just a conceptual disconnect And so you can tell them, you can say, well, Santa's not real.
That doesn't mean anything to them.
Because to them, they feel like Santa is real.
And then leftists, even as adults, they still operate this way.
They operate like a four-year-old.
All four-year-olds are kind of leftists in a certain way.
So at four, from their perspective, they feel like Santa is real.
They've seen him on TV.
They've seen him at the mall.
And to say he's not real, even though I've seen him and I feel like he's real, to them, that doesn't mean anything.
And that's why, as I said yesterday, kids also at that age believe that dragons are real and fairies are real.
And they think that all the superheroes that they see on TV are also real and flying around.
That's the world they live in.
And it's a fun world.
It's much more fun than the real world.
Let's be honest.
So in order to break your kids and to make sure of this belief, you have to take all of those fantasies and all of that imagination away from them.
Did your parents also work really hard to make sure you didn't believe in dragons and fairies?
When you came in and said, oh, uh, daddy, I saw a fairy in the garden.
No, you didn't!
Fairies aren't real!
Is that how it worked?
See, I'm not going to do that to my kids.
And that's why it goes this way.
It's certainly no secret that the left is attempting to force compliance across the board.
Whether it's the media lying to push the left's gun control narrative over the course of the Rittenhouse trial or the federal government's attempt to enforce vaccine mandates on employers, it's become patently obvious that compliance is the goal.
Why?
Because the left Doesn't want you to have autonomy over your own body.
They don't want you to be able to defend yourself, nor do they want you to stay employed if you won't comply to them.
That's why we here at The Daily Wire are fighting every day against tyranny.
From our honest coverage of the Rittenhouse trial to the lawsuit we've taken out against the Biden administration for their unconstitutional vaccine mandates, we're applying the pressure and we're already creating change.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Issued a temporary stay preventing Biden's mandate from going into effect, citing grave statutory and constitutional issues.
However, Biden is determined to pass these mandates and we cannot let our guard down for a second.
We're not just fighting for the daily wire employees, we're fighting for all Americans.
This is an urgent matter and your freedom depends on it.
If you want to support the fight to make your personal medical decisions without government interference, sign our petition against the Biden administration's authoritarian mandate.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already signed the petition.
We need more people to sign it, so please head to dailywire.com slash do not comply to sign the petition today.
And finally, the most important thing to tell you about, what I've been waiting to get to.
If you haven't signed up for my newsletter yet, I highly recommend you do so now.
Not only does signing up bring you a bundle of theocratic fascist joy to your inbox every
Friday, your subscription will also put you in the running to win the banjo, which is
currently sitting behind me, the one that our alien friend, our pilgrim alien, has been
taking care of for so long.
We're going to be giving that banjo away.
This is your opportunity to own a banjo that has been owned and, as you know, played by
probably the most legendary banjo player in American history, which would be myself.
The incredibly lucky winner gets my banjo, and it's not going to be you if you don't sign up for the newsletter.
Just head to dailywire.com slash banjo to subscribe to my newsletter, which always is full of the best writing you'll read all week.
I don't know about the best, but it's, you know, okay.
And get entered to win my beautiful banjo.
Thank you in advance.
I look forward to seeing your name on my subscriber list.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel a woman by the name of Jessica Taylor, Dr. Jessica Taylor to be specific.
She has a PhD in forensic psychology and for some reason needs that piece of paper acknowledged every time someone says her name.
She's also a self-described radical feminist author who recently wrote the book Sexy but Psycho.
I don't know anything about the book, but based on the title, I'm going to assume that it's half biography and half fiction.
I'll let you decide which half is which.
In any case, yesterday, Dr. Taylor tweeted this.
She says, I wish there was more honesty in the world about how many women feel trapped by motherhood, marriage, and being a 24-7 slave to men and children, whilst the TV and magazines frame it as some sort of feminine ideal bliss.
So many women regret it, but they can't say a word.
She continues in a follow-up, she says, Okay, to use the tedious modern cliche, there's a lot to unpack here.
who regret having children or regret getting married or both.
The women who had big plans, big personalities, big ambitions
to find themselves trapped for decades, making themselves feel smaller and smaller.
Okay, to use the tedious modern cliche, there's a lot to unpack here.
First of all, you might ask how Jessica knows what many women think and feel
if by her admission, they don't say a word.
It would seem that she has a prejudice against marriage and family life and merely assumes that the prejudice must be shared by most other people, which is common in narcissists.
They struggle to see the world as distinct from themselves.
As a narcissist, you know, she can't fathom that other humans exist in the world as wholly separate entities and live their own lives just as vivid as her own and may see things differently and have different feelings.
She also knows that if she is alone in her contempt for the nuclear family, or in a minority at least, then that makes her simply a bitter, lonely person.
It would mean that it's possible for her to be another way, that another path was available, but she chose this instead.
And she can't face that possibility, so she projects her neuroses and her hatreds onto others.
And you know, I was able to come up with that whole diagnosis without even getting my psychiatry PhD.
That's how good I am.
Now that aside, there are a few other pieces of this puzzle that need closer inspection.
In fact, nearly every word is wrong, so it might be best to go again, line by line, and discover just how much wrongness there is here.
So again, she begins, I wish there was more honesty in the world about how many women feel trapped by motherhood, marriage, and being a 24-7 slave to men and children.
Okay, the problem there is most obviously that she compares motherhood and wifehood to slavery.
The difference, though, is that women choose to be mothers and wives, unless they live in, like, Saudi Arabia or something.
But Jessica doesn't make that stipulation.
These rad femmes never do.
They tend to let the fundamentalist Muslim world off the hook completely.
But apart from instances of arranged marriages and actual sex slavery and that sort of thing, this is a life that women choose.
Also, in slavery, you're producing goods or performing a service for someone else with no benefit to yourself.
In motherhood, you're helping to build and maintain a family, your own family.
It is yours.
You are giving yourself to something that is yours in a very intimate and personal sense.
And in that, you find another crucial distinction.
Slavery is dehumanizing.
A person in slavery is not a person, but a machine.
That'll be the case for our intern, whenever we hire one.
In family life, on the other hand, you are fulfilled, you're made whole, you're edified, completed, lifted up by your relationship with your family and your service to your family.
I could go on, but hopefully I've already given enough differences between motherhood and slavery to convince you.
Hopefully you didn't need to be convinced in the first place.
Continuing, she says, whilst the TV and magazines frame it, marriage, motherhood, as some sort of feminine ideal bliss, Now this would be a good point if it was coming from someone who hasn't watched any TV show or film or read any magazine since about the year 1942.
In modern times, however, Hollywood is constantly hammering on the point that the traditional suburban white picket fence life is actually a grim dystopian hell.
That's what American Beauty was all about, and many films before and since have revisited that theme.
Hollywood at some point discovered the shocking truth that sometimes women in single-family homes in the suburbs aren't happy, and they since decided that all women in those types of setups are unhappy all the time, and that they're all having illicit affairs, and their husbands are all closeted homosexuals.
This has been Hollywood's version of suburbia for decades now.
Jessica, in fact, got this idea from Hollywood.
Then she says, it really is one of the biggest taboos in the world, women who regret having children or regret getting married or both.
Now this goes back to the first line where she calls for honesty.
It's pretty common these days for people to confuse self-centered whining with taboo-breaking honesty.
And we see it again here.
I mean, we've all known people in our lives who profess that they want to be honest about their feelings.
And what that means in practice is just that they complain all the time, and they whine about every misfortune or discomfort, and they expect you to pity them for their troubles, but also admire them for their bold and courageous honesty at the same time.
But the fact is that even if a woman is feeling unhappy at home or in her marriage, she should not be honest about it, in the sense of talking about it publicly, She especially should not be honest about her regrets about having children if she is, in fact, experiencing those regrets.
I doubt that those regrets are nearly as common as Jessica believes and hopes, but if a certain portion of women feel that way, but they don't say it out loud, good for them.
They shouldn't say it out loud.
Your parenting regrets are the kind of thing you keep to yourself, a burden you carry on your own as you work to fix whatever character defect has caused you to feel that way.
Finally, she refers to the women who had big plans, big personalities, and big ambitions find themselves trapped for decades, making themselves smaller and smaller.
Now, I fail to see why anyone's personality should be constrained by marriage and family life.
My wife has personality for days.
If anything, her personality has become bigger and more boisterous since I met her.
Some of that may be compensation for the fact that she married a cynical bastard.
I don't know.
But as for big plans and big ambitions, I mean, what do you mean?
Sitting in a cubicle?
Working in middle management somewhere?
Being on a payroll?
Those are the big plans?
There's no reason why a woman can't do those things also while having a family.
Many women do.
But the way these people paint the working world as some kind of utopia where dreams are fulfilled and people become larger and more vivid and more interesting human beings, I find that laughable, especially coming from people who, most of the time, fashion themselves as anti-corporate socialists.
So which is it?
Is the corporate world the fulfillment of a woman's dreams and the avenue to her liberation and happiness?
Or is it exploitation and its own form of slavery?
The left's opinion on this subject seems to change with the tide, as with every other subject.
It's all a mess, therefore, just like Jessica's worldview and probably her life as well.
Now, I don't think that working a job is exploitation.
But I do know that in the working world, in your job, you are completely replaceable.
You will leave your job one day, and you'll be replaced the next day, and nobody will remember you or care that you're gone.
The hole you leave behind will be filled as quickly as it was made, and that will be it.
In your family, that's not the case.
If you leave your family through death or by your own choice or however, Whatever the case, a hole will be left behind that nobody will ever fill completely.
And you will be missed and remembered, and the impact you made will be felt, for better or worse, for generations.
That's the difference between your job and your family.
And it's another reason why everything Jessica said is wrong.
Every word, every line, every assumption underpinning it.
Her ideas are silly and trite and out of touch and sad and wrong.
But other than that, great points.
Thanks, Jessica.
Also, you're cancelled.
And we'll leave it there today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Also, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Ali Hinkle, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire.
On today's episode, the Kyle Rittenhouse case wraps up, Vice President Kamala Harris faces growing media scrutiny, and new polling shows Americans turning on the Biden administration over immigration.
