Ep. 843 - Another Major Public School Sex Abuse Scandal
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as yet another sex abuse scandal engulfs yet another public school system, an NBC News op-ed argues that parents should stop involving themselves in educational matters. To intrude in the schools is like interfering with your child’s surgery, they say. It’s a terrible analogy but revealing. Speaking of NBC, an MSNBC reporter was caught following the Rittenhouse jury home after deliberations. What does it take to get a mistrial? And students at SLU have started a petition to stop me from speaking on campus. So I started my own petition to stop them from stopping me from speaking on campus. It’s the battle of the petition, and right now I’m winning in a landslide.
Sign The Petition To Keep Matt Walsh on Saint Louis University Campus: https://bit.ly/3Dzeu1f
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, as yet another sex abuse scandal engulfs yet another public school system, an NBC news op-ed argues that parents should stop involving themselves in educational matters because to intrude in schools is like interfering with your child's surgery, they say.
It's a terrible analogy, but also revealing.
We'll talk about that.
Speaking of NBC, an MSNBC reporter was caught following the Rittenhouse jury home after deliberations.
What does it take to get a mistrial, exactly?
And students at SLU have started a petition to stop me from speaking on campus in a couple weeks, so I started my own petition to stop them from stopping me from speaking on campus.
It's the battle of the petitions, and right now I'm winning in a landslide, I gotta say.
We'll talk about all that and a whole lot more today on The Matt Wohl Show.
And that's why I want to tell you about Mack Weldon.
Whether it's an office party, a party with family and friends, or just a holiday party, a view, your couch, and a game on TV, Mack Weldon has all the essentials to keep you stylish and comfortable throughout the season.
And their innovative daily wear system, not daily wire system, but daily wear system, has taken the hard work out of outfit planning with pieces designed to work together for any occasion, saving you time and sparing you any extra holiday stress.
Not only that, but Mack Weldon's ace sweatshirts and sweatpants and warm knit collection make fantastic holiday gifts as well, and no one is doing better gift sets this holiday than Mack Weldon.
With limited edition color drops and a bevy of new releases, their holiday gift sets are the perfect present for any guy on your list.
And I hear the color drops are really spectacular.
I wouldn't know, as you know, because I am in the colorblind community.
But either way, you got to check out Mack Weldon.
And for 20% off your first order, visit MackWeldon.com slash Walsh and enter promo code Walsh.
That's MackWeldon.com slash Walsh.
Promo code Walsh for 20% off Mack Weldon.
Get it right this holiday season.
All right, so it's a packed show today.
It's a lot to talk about, but we'll start with this.
It's hard to keep track of all of the scandals and controversies engulfing the public school system at the moment.
It's not that things have suddenly gotten this bad.
It's that parents are finally starting to notice how bad it is and has been for many years.
This is a reckoning, and it's a long time coming.
The North Kingston School District in Rhode Island has entered the foreground in recent weeks as all manner of abuses have come to light.
Here's the local Fox affiliate in Rhode Island with a report on just one of their scandals, and this one is really bad.
It says, over more than two decades as the boys' basketball coach at North Kingston High School, Aaron Thomas was widely respected for his success on the court, culminating in the school's first-ever state championship of 2019.
Yet, within two years of the victorious season, Thomas was out at North Kingston High, quietly taking a new job at a middle school in a neighboring town.
School officials made no announcement about the celebrated coach's departure until last week, when Thomas was put on administrative leave at his new school after the Attorney General's Office confirmed it was investigating his behavior as a coach.
A months-long investigation by Target 12 discovered the reason for Thomas' abrupt fall from grace.
Former student-athletes had come forward to accuse Thomas of making them meet him behind closed doors and strip naked, behavior they said he engaged in for years.
We're then given some details about what exactly happened.
This was all part of a quote-unquote fat test that the coach would administer.
And here's how those were carried out.
It said, once naked, the coach would instruct the teenagers to perform stretches, sit cross-legged in front of him, and allow him to use a caliper to pinch and measure their body fat, according to documents obtained by Target 12, as well as interviews with 10 former students, parents, and town officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Two others sent emails to Target12 detailing similar experiences.
The people who spoke about their experiences had either played for Thomas's students or were parents of children who played for him over a period of time stretching from the early 2000s to as recently as 2019.
Some played sports, others other than basketball.
One former player said, After I grew up, I started asking some real questions about what had happened.
Did I need to be naked?
As part of its investigation, Target 12 contacted five professional personal trainers, each said it is unnecessary to be naked for such a test.
Now, after remaining silent about all of this for weeks, the superintendent this week finally addressed the issue at a school board meeting, claiming that he handled everything properly and appropriately.
Now again, this guy was, he left the high school and was sent to go work at a middle school instead.
But parents of the district, they say otherwise.
They say this was not handled appropriately.
They claim that there was a cover-up, much like what we saw in Loudoun County.
And there's no dispute that parents and the public were not told about any of this until it was reported in the media, just like Loudoun County.
The school system now says that it couldn't alert the public because of quote-unquote privacy concerns.
They would have liked to tell everybody, but they had to worry about privacy.
Meanwhile, as this is going on, parents in the district, in the very same district, have also uncovered pornographic material, which has been made available to children in the district, apparently down into the elementary school ages.
One is a now familiar book called Genderqueer, which apparently enjoys wide distribution in schools all across the country, because we've seen outrage over this book all across the country.
The other is a graphic novel called Fun Home.
Now, both of these books depict graphic scenes of sex between teenagers.
The superintendent has again defended himself on this one also, arguing that these reading materials are intended to promote, quote, sexual health among kids.
Now, by now it's clear that promote sexual health is just a fancier way of saying grooming.
And this is why parents are involving themselves in what Democrats would say is the school's business.
Parents don't trust the schools.
They suspect that the schools have plans and intentions for their children that fall far outside of the proper academic realm.
And they're right, of course.
Democrats are flailing around trying to explain why the parental drive to protect and defend their children is somehow sinister.
Now, in fairness to the Democrats on this point, they've staked out a position on education that is impossible to intelligibly defend.
You cannot really blame them, I guess, for their bad arguments, as those are the only sorts of arguments available to them, given the position they've taken.
The claim that the state ought to have unquestioned authority to teach children whatever it wants, to groom them in whatever way it wants, and that parents who try to offer their two cents are infiltrators at best and terrorists at worst, is not one that can be supported on either logical or moral grounds.
Still, from a menu of disagreeable talking points, they seem to always choose the stupidest and most repugnant options.
So stupid and repugnant, in fact, that they tend to make the opposition's argument for us.
So case in point, an NBC News op-ed published last night from left-wing author and journalist Christina Wyman, and here's the headline.
Schools face parents who want to ban critical race theory and don't get how teaching works.
Stupid parents.
They don't understand how teaching works.
It begins like this.
Parents and politicians across the country are interfering with the curricula that public schools use to teach to students.
State legislatures are passing laws to keep critical race theory out of schools.
Literary classics like Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye are banned for sexual content.
And school libraries are coming under attack for containing books about gender.
There are even parents who are trying to shield students from learning about mental health and suicide, as though helping children build emotional fortitude is a bad thing.
And then things really go off the rails.
She says, Parents have always tried to interfere with curricula, as I observed when teaching middle school in the mid-2000s.
Even then, there was no shortage of parental input about the content of my instruction, from books to test questions.
Part of the problem is that parents think they have the right to control teaching and learning, because their children are the ones being educated.
But it actually, gasp, doesn't work that way.
It's sort of like entering a surgical unit thinking you can interfere with an operation simply because the patient is your child.
No, it's not sort of like that at all.
I mean, that analogy is sort of like the stuff that comes out of the back end of a cow.
For one thing, parents do indeed have an enormous amount of say over what sort of medical procedures their kids undergo.
The left, of course, is trying to erode those rights as well, which partly explains why she chose to make this comparison in the first place.
For another, Teaching grade school is not nearly the sort of specialized, complex skill that is performing surgery.
Teachers are not surgeons.
If we required that sort of specialization and qualification and intelligence from teachers, there wouldn't be enough teachers to man the assembly lines at these educational factories.
For still another, medicine is, or should be, mostly objective, right?
If a child has a tumor, the tumor has to be removed.
Now, depending on the sickness and the medical intervention that's recommended, you might get different opinions from different medical professionals, but you are, at the end of the day, dealing with the physical body, which has certain physical needs that the doctors are supposed to be tending to.
But education is concerned with a deeper question.
What sort of people do we want our children to be?
How should they be formed, morally and intellectually?
What shape should they take?
I mean, you could see why a doctor would ideally be the expert on what sort of medicine to give a child.
Even there, it's not unquestioned by any means.
But you could see how they ideally would be the expert on it, and on what kind of surgery to perform.
But why should a public school teacher be an expert on what sort of person your child ought to be?
Why would the state be the authority on that subject?
Finally, and this is really what it comes down to, I think, Kids in school are not sick, okay?
They're not sick people in need of treatment.
We don't send them to school to be healed.
But that is indeed how the left views the situation.
For all of their talk about the separation of church and state, the way they see it, the state school is a church, and the children in its care are in need of spiritual healing.
Things like the pornographic books, certainly critical race theory, gender theory, all of this, that's all part of the treatment plan.
And we should get out of the way and let our children be healed, they say.
But we absolutely shouldn't listen to that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, two questions for you.
Do you like saving money, and do you like to do things when they're easy to do?
In other words, are you lazy?
If the answer to both of those is yes, as it is for me, then I've got what you need.
GetUpside, the GetUpside app.
Because, look, with the GetUpside app, you can save 25 cents for every gallon of gas.
You get 25 cents back for every gallon of gas that you pump, every time you fill up.
Just download the free GetUpside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
Use promo code WALSH while you're there.
You get a bonus 25 cents per gallon when you first fill up.
That's up to 50 cents a gallon.
Cash back for your first fill up and then you still get the 25 cents thereafter But just you know, you don't have to pay full price of the pump anymore get cash back using get upside Just download the app for free It is completely free use promo code Walsh to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank And how do you get the money out?
Well, it's really simple They send it to your bank account.
They can send it through PayPal you can even cash out with like an e-gift card for Amazon or something like that and It's easy to do.
You're saving money.
It is all upside, no downside.
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, so the Rittenhouse jury went home for a third night without a verdict last night.
Went home, okay?
They went back to their homes because they haven't been sequestered through any portion of this, even during the deliberations.
Which is just one of the things that's completely crazy about everything we've seen happen with this trial.
Why does sequestering a jury, why is that an option that exists in the first place if it's not going to be used in a situation like this?
Just like it wasn't used with the Derek Chauvin trial.
And I can remember on this show screaming until my face was blue about that as well.
Why wouldn't you?
What's the argument against sequestering the jury?
And once again, why is that an option if we're not using it for a trial like this?
The Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial is one of the most high-profile, contentious, explosive murder trials in modern American history.
And it is happening amid protests and people threatening violence and rioting and everything else.
And that doesn't warrant sequestering the jury?
You just send them home at the end of the day and say, well, don't talk to anybody.
Don't do that.
Wag your finger at them.
Tell them don't talk to anybody.
Don't consult anything, any resources, don't go online.
Well, we know for a fact that the instruction that they're not supposed to consult any resources when they're, you know, not deliberating, we know that's not being followed because last night the judge allowed one of the jurors to bring the jury instructions home with her.
And it's like 30 pages of instructions and she was allowed to bring it home.
Which, it would seem to me, as a non-legal expert, that would seem to be the sort of thing that you can't allow.
Because you're bringing, you know, all of the jury deliberations and reading the instructions and all of that stuff, that's supposed to happen during the deliberations.
You can't bring that home with you.
This is not a homework assignment situation.
But the judge refused to sequester the jury.
He's refused to, up to this point, to call a mistrial.
Even though he said in open court, he said that a grave constitutional violation was committed while the prosecution was making its case.
He said that, no mistrial.
We know now that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense, no mistrial.
And now we also know that MSNBC sent a reporter.
Well, they say they didn't send him, but an MSNBC reporter, an MSNBC employee was in the vicinity, was apparently following the bus with the jurors home last night.
And still no mistrial for this.
And the judge doesn't seem all that upset about it, but here he is yesterday revealing this information about MSNBC.
A person who identified himself as James G. Morrison, and who claimed that he was a producer with NBC News, employed for MSNBC, and under the supervision of a person... What's going on?
Oh, okay.
Under the supervision of someone named Irene Bayan in New York for MSNBC.
The police, when they stopped him because he was following at a distance of about a block and went through a red light, pulled him over and inquired of him what was going on and he gave that information.
And stated that he had been instructed by Ms.
Bayan in New York to follow the jury bus.
Okay, so he, this was someone with MSNBC who said that he was told to follow the jury bus home.
Yet another reason why he probably shouldn't be sending them home.
I know there's some people on the right especially seem to really like this judge.
I don't like him.
I think he seems like sort of a doddering old fool who's not up to the task here, just kind of rambling his way through this thing.
And as I said, he should have called a mistrial, but there's five or six different reasons to call it, and he hasn't.
And he did ban MSNBC from the courtroom, but there's not, even with this, there's not the sort of urgency around this situation that there ought to be.
When you've got, in a trial like this, where we can already assume that the jurors are worried about backlash and everything, and now we know the media is following them home, there ought to be a lot more urgency around that than we just saw there.
Now, MSNBC, they put out a statement a couple hours after all of this was revealed.
And this is supposedly a statement denying, but it's not really a denial.
It's more of an, it's really a confession within the framework of a denial.
So here's what they say.
Last night, a freelancer received a traffic citation.
While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations And never photographed or intended to photograph them.
Huh.
So, yeah, he happened to be... I mean, we just had our reporter, we had one of our guys, a freelancer.
He happened to be... He just so happened to get this traffic violation right next to the jury van.
It's a coincidence.
But he never intended to contact the jurors during deliberations.
Okay?
There's two words there.
That's a really important qualification.
Because if MSNBC never intended to contact the jurors, period, then that's what they would say.
No, never intended to contact them during deliberations.
What he wanted to do was find out who they are, get their identities, find out where they live, so that after the deliberations, the media could contact them.
And if they come down with a not guilty verdict, the media could dox them.
That was the intention.
So this is all but a confession from the way that it's framed.
But no mistrial.
We're just going to carry on like that didn't happen.
Carry on as if the grave constitutional violation never occurred.
Carry on as if the defense had not withheld evidence.
Carry on as if the media is not following the jurors home.
And as if, by the way, they're not aware that that is happening.
because you're sending them home where they could easily be exposed and I'm sure they are being
exposed to media and everything so they know that they're being followed by the media.
Not only that, but even Kyle Rittenhouse's defense, not to Monday morning quarterback this
thing, but it's not quite Monday morning in terms of the trial, but even his defense lawyers don't
don't seem to have the urgency.
That they ought to have.
As a layman watching this, it doesn't seem to me like they're really fighting for their client as forcefully as they ought to be.
Given what is happening.
Given what we're all witnessing.
This is one of the great miscarriages of justice that we've ever seen.
Ever.
That any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.
In the court system.
Unfolding right now.
And it's like, you know, even the defense, they don't seem to care as much as they ought to.
That's just my perspective on it.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting.
Meanwhile, out on the steps of the courthouse, Where all the protesters are gathered.
We've been seeing some scenes like this.
The first couple days ago, the protesters on both sides, they shared a pizza.
So they ordered some Domino's and they were sitting.
Here's the video.
And this was being shared on Twitter.
And people were saying, this is nice.
They're finding common ground.
They're sharing a pizza.
And here they are eating a meal together, breaking bread.
This is supposed to be inspiring, I guess.
That they can all sit together and then both sides sat down and had some pizza.
And then the very next day, some police officers were there and they were giving out cookies to the protesters.
And I think they were calling it Cookies for Peace.
There it is.
Giving out cookies too.
Isn't that nice?
Cookies for peace.
I mean, these are all the, you know, let's give, let's give cookies to the potential rioters and maybe that'll convince them not to burn down the city again.
Come on, boys and girls, come get some cookies.
Okay.
If you want cookies, you can't burn down the city.
All right.
Burn down the city.
No more cookies.
I, you know, I'm sorry, but I'm not very inspired by this or the pizza thing.
I have to tell you, I know that we're supposed to find common ground and all that kind of stuff, but when you've got people who are demanding that an innocent man go to prison because he defended himself against arsonists and child rapists who are trying to kill him, you know, when you've got people demanding that that man, as a blood sacrifice, be sent to prison for the rest of his life,
No, I don't want to share pizza with you.
I don't want to share common ground.
There is no common ground.
I don't even want to share a country with you.
And sitting down for 30 minutes and posing for cameras, pretending like we have anything in common whatsoever, pretending like we respect each other, I'm not sure what the point of that is.
Because all those people, the BLM protesters and everything, having the pizza and acting very friendly, if they don't get their way, they'll happily go out and loot and burn and attack you in the street and stomp on your head.
There is no common ground there.
See, in order to have common ground and have unity, like I talk about all the time, there has to be some common ground, first of all.
You have to have some basic things in common, but also there has to be respect.
I mean, there has to be some amount, some element of basic respect between people in order for there to be any hope of peace and unity and all that great stuff.
And I like the idea of peace and unity as an idea, but the problem is I can't respect you if you're on that side of it.
You know, a man goes to Kenosha to do his part to try to stop rioters from committing all this violence and destruction.
And next thing you know, he's under attack and he has to defend himself.
And you want to put him in jail for the rest of his life.
I cannot respect you at all on any level.
I don't respect you as a man.
I don't respect you as an American.
I don't respect your point of view.
I don't respect any of it.
How can I?
It is not respectable, by definition.
All right, let's go to this.
I'm supposed to be speaking at St.
Louis University on December 1st, and this has apparently been a subject of great controversy on campus for weeks now.
And, you know, some of the leftist groups on campus, they don't want me to speak.
They're terrified of what I might say.
And they now have a petition.
It's the Keep Matt Walsh Off of St.
Louis University Campus petition.
It's on change.org.
So if you feel the same way with them, I mean, you could go find the petition and sign it.
It's addressed to the president of the school and the administration, and let me read a little bit of this petition.
It says, conservative speakers have visited our campus previously without issue.
Political discourse is valuable and arguably necessary to our college education.
Arguably necessary.
But Matt Walsh is not simply a conservative speaker.
He is a threat to women, to LGBTQIA plus community, and racial minorities on campus.
His Twitter is one example of his dangerous persona.
I can think of a better advertisement for my Twitter page, I guess.
That's my dangerous persona on Twitter.
He says, as you can read from his social media, Matt Walsh holds extremely controversial and harmful opinions.
For example, he calls feminism rotten at the core and one of the worst things to ever happen to Western civilization.
Yeah.
I mean, my only qualification there, my only clarification, I suppose I should say, is that I would probably argue it's not one of the worst things to happen to Western civilization.
It may indeed be the worst thing to ever happen to Western civilization.
But he responds to his dissenters by calling them stupid and morally deranged.
True.
I do.
I do.
In fact, well, I only if you're stupid and morally deranged, then I will observe that fact.
I'll point that out.
Can't be blamed for that.
He says gender theory is by far the biggest threat in our schools.
These extreme statements allow no room for healthy conversations.
Instead, they promote dangerous stereotypes.
Allowing Matt Walsh to speak on campus is not representative of the Jesuit education we have received in our years at SLU.
Well, I can't argue with that.
I would be quite offended if anyone ever accused me of saying anything that is in keeping with or representative of Jesuits.
Furthermore, hate speech galvanizes people.
Matt Walsh will potentially be on campus for a few hours, but his speech will last more than a few hours.
For his supporters, his words will become a tool to advance their discriminatory behavior.
Et cetera, et cetera, and so on and so on.
It goes on for a while.
The petition got about 1,400 signatures in two days.
So, you know, not too bad, I'll say.
So then I decided to make my own petition.
Instead of the Keep Matt Walsh Off of St.
Louis University Campus petition, I made the Keep Matt Walsh On St.
Louis University Campus petition.
And here's what mine says.
I'll read you mine.
It's a lot shorter.
I said, we the undersigned believe that SLU administrators should not cave to the leftist demand to shut down the upcoming Matt Walsh talk.
This campaign is driven by ignorance, cowardice, fear, and stupidity.
It represents everything that an institution of higher learning, particularly a Catholic institution, should oppose.
If ideas such as, women don't have penises, and it's wrong to kill babies, are not welcome on campus, then SLU will have declared itself to be nothing but a radical far-left religious cult.
It will have sacrificed truth and free expression on the progressive altar.
And it will have done all of this in a fruitless and ultimately self-defeating attempt to appease a deranged ideological horde that cannot be appeased no matter how much it is coddled.
We demand more of SLU.
Stand for truth and freedom, not fear and moral insanity.
Thank you.
P.S.
SBG forever.
I had to throw that in there at the end.
I couldn't help myself.
So we got twice as many signatures in 30 minutes than they got in two days, which is pretty great.
And we're now up to, what are we up to?
We're up to over 13,000 signatures.
And if you want to add your name to our petition to keep me on the campus, then we'll put a link in the description on YouTube and you can sign it there, or you can find it posted on my social media if you're not listening on YouTube right now.
And, you know, already with 13,000 signatures, far more than they were able to get with much more time to do it.
It's clear that the people have already spoken.
And so if SLU cancels me now, it will be, I think we could say, an attack on democracy.
It would even be an insurrection in many ways.
Deeply troubling.
I also want to be clear about one other thing here.
This is not simply a matter of Free speech, okay, or a diversity of ideas.
That's not what this is about.
It's not merely that, anyway.
Okay, I'm not saying that they should allow me to speak on SLU, which again is a Catholic campus, allegedly.
I'm not saying that they should do it just for the sake of diversity of ideas.
What makes it outrageous that they're trying to keep me off of campus is not that my ideas are different.
It's that my ideas are right.
Okay?
And that is really an important point.
It should need to be said, but it does.
It is worse to try to keep right opinions and right statements and ideas off of your campus than to keep wrong ones.
Now, we could have an argument.
If I was getting up there and saying a whole bunch of wildly fantastic and wrong things, should they still allow me?
Well, yeah, I think you could make that argument that they should.
For the sake of a diversity of ideas and letting people express different opinions and letting, you know, the students be exposed to different viewpoints and all of that.
But that's not what I'm doing.
What I'm saying is true.
And so that's my number one argument for why I should be allowed on the campus, because what I'm saying is true.
And not only that, but you're a Catholic campus.
And if you have students on a Catholic campus, Who are not only pro-abortion but are offended at the very idea that anybody could be pro-life.
Don't even want to be anywhere near that point of view, then something is terribly wrong with your school and your institution.
that you've created an environment on a Catholic campus where your students feel entitled
to be insulated from viewpoints that are not only true, but also totally in keeping with
Catholic teaching.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay?
That should be a problem.
You should see that as a problem if you're an administrator at SLU.
That your students, that you've apparently created an environment where your students feel entitled to be insulated from Catholic teaching.
Which everything that I say is in keeping with Catholic teaching.
And it's also right, again.
So I think we really undersell.
I mean, what are they really upset about?
They say it there.
One of their big problems is my criticism of feminism.
Why do I criticize feminism?
Well, for a lot of reasons, but the number one thing is that feminism has led to the deaths of 60 million babies.
Which I think is why you could certainly make an argument that it is the worst thing to ever happen to Western civilization.
There has never been an ideology or a movement that has been more deadly than feminism with 60 million dead human beings.
They're also upset about my criticism of gender theory.
As I say in my petition, you know, I believe that women don't have penises and that only women give birth.
So, we would really be understating the problem if we said that keeping me off of campus is simply an attack on the diversity of ideas.
It's not simply that.
They want to keep me off of campus because I believe that only women can give birth.
These are college students who want to be protected from basic biological truths and basic moral truths.
That's what makes this so absurd and insane and outrageous, and why you absolutely cannot cave to it.
All right.
Next, from CNN, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has granted clemency to Julius Jones, commuting Jones's death sentence just hours before he was scheduled to be executed for a 1999 murder that he says he did not commit.
Jones's sentence will be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The Republican governor came to the decision following prayerful consideration and reviewing materials presented by all sides of the case.
This had become a major cause.
Kim Kardashian got involved and said that, you know, we can't execute Julius Jones.
And there was really people on the left and right.
I think CPAC also interceded on behalf of Julius Jones.
And finally, the Republican governor caved to it and said, all right, we're not going to execute him.
A couple of things here.
First of all, despite what you may have heard about this case, there is DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, and a murder weapon all convicting him.
If that's not beyond a reasonable doubt, then what is?
I mean, how can you ever find anybody guilty of anything if that's not enough?
Eyewitness testimony, DNA, and a murder weapon.
If they were missing one of those three, then you could always say, all right, well, Maybe there's some reasonable doubt here.
You have something to hang your hat on, at least, when it comes to reasonable doubt.
In this case, you don't.
You've got the big three.
Eyewitness, DNA, and murder weapon.
They found the murder weapon in his home.
So this is beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
And in fact, The fact that he's not being let out, he's not being pardoned, he's not having his entire sentence commuted, it's just being converted to, rather than execution, life without the possibility of parole.
And that means that the governor doesn't think he's innocent.
So then why change the punishment?
Also, why should a public pressure campaign, why should activism convince you?
Either you think the evidence is solid and he's guilty, or you don't.
If you think that he was falsely convicted, then he should be out of prison.
I mean, this is a matter of he might actually be innocent of these charges.
If you think there's reason to believe that, then why are you giving him life without the possibility of parole?
He should be out on the street right now.
But if he was convicted legitimately, which he was, then he murdered a man in cold blood in front of his child and should face the consequences.
You know, compassion for killers should not override justice.
And what is justice?
Justice is giving people what they are due.
It is not just, despite what some of the students on SLU campus think, it is not just to kill babies in the womb.
Because they are not due that treatment.
They don't deserve that.
They don't warrant it.
And when you think about it in those terms, there's just no way to justify abortion.
That's why pro-aborts, they ignore the baby's existence entirely in their arguments about abortion.
They just, they try to make, they make this argument about abortion while ignoring the baby, but what are we arguing about when it comes to abortion?
We're arguing about what we should do with this baby that exists.
And if you're saying that the baby should be killed or terminated, to use your terminology, Then I will ask, why does the baby deserve that?
Why does the baby warrant that treatment?
And if you have no response to that, if you cannot tell me why a baby... Let's put aside bodily autonomy and all the arguments about the woman.
Let's put that aside for a moment.
Because there are two people involved here.
And let's focus on the baby for just a second.
You think the baby, the quote-unquote fetus, should be terminated.
Does the human in the womb, does he warrant that treatment?
Is he due that treatment?
And if you cannot say yes to that, then there's no way that you can justify abortion.
Now, on the other hand, A grown man makes a decision to kill another man in cold blood.
Is he due execution?
Does he warrant that?
Has he done something that warrants that?
Is that justice?
I would say it is.
I mean, this is a choice that you made.
You made the decision that you don't want to be a part of human society anymore.
Babies in the womb, they haven't made that decision.
They're not given a choice.
But when you go out and you decide to commit this heinous crime, then that is a statement you are making to society.
And what you're saying to society is, I don't want to be a part of you anymore.
I don't want to be a part of human society.
I don't want to live like a civilized human being.
And once you have made that decision, once you have selected that fate for yourself, then it is just to give you what you quite literally asked for, to give you what you're due.
All right, next we got Jen Pisaki was asked about the 100,000 drug overdose deaths in a year in 2020 and why Biden isn't doing more to stop the drugs from coming across the board in the first place.
And she predictably did not have a very good answer, but here she is.
Grim milestone this week.
More than 100,000 people died of drug overdoses in the last year.
Experts say a lot of that is driven by fentanyl, which is coming across the southern border in record amounts.
So why isn't the administration doing more to stop the drugs from coming in?
Well, first, I would say that the President is meeting with the President of Mexico today, as you know, and that we work with Mexico every day to disrupt transnational criminal organizations, which are responsible, as you know, for the majority of fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine entering the United States, as well as spreading violence and insecurity in Mexico.
So during the summit today, we certainly expect that discussing this topic, our joint goals to combat transnational
crime and terrorism, the movement of these type of drugs across the border would
be part of the discussion.
And when it concludes, we'll provide a readout.
Translation, we aren't doing anything because we don't care about Americans.
That's the real translation.
And when we talk about the drug overdose epidemic, as we discussed yesterday, 100,000 Americans in a year, it's unfathomable numbers that we're talking about.
How do we solve that problem?
Well, one of those ways is, as mentioned there, to stop the drugs from coming across the border.
But also I go back to something I mentioned yesterday.
The pharmaceutical industry carries a lot of the blame, because an increase in prescription pill overdoses is part of this story.
And this should really be a bipartisan issue.
There are not very many issues where there even could be bipartisan agreement, but this is one where there ought to be.
Here's one thing that we should all be able to rally around.
Banning direct-to-consumer pharmacy ads.
Because like I said yesterday, with the direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements, everything is being taken out of order here, because the way it's supposed to go is you have a symptom, you go to the doctor, you tell them your symptoms, the doctor is, again, supposed to be the expert on this, and then they can recommend a treatment plan.
You don't go to the doctor, With the diagnosis and treatment already in mind, because you got it from TV.
Next time you hear any kind of drug ad on TV, you'll notice it's always the same.
It's always the same script.
It's always, do you have X symptoms?
Then you might have Y disease.
Good news, there's PharmaDose.
Talk to your doctor about PharmaDose today.
And then a list of side effects that takes up 98% of the total runtime of the commercial.
So this is actually one Actual substantive policy thing that could be done that would certainly not solve the drug overdose epidemic, but it would address it, and it would make a dent in it in a very profound way, and that is banning those kinds of ads.
I don't care.
I know there are some people on the right who say, oh, we can't do anything like that.
It's an attack on a free market.
The government also has responsibility to look out for the good of its citizens, the actual good of its citizens.
And when you have this multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, which is selling disease to its citizens, then that's a time to step in, and I think those advertisements ought to be banned.
All right, finally, let's check in with a conversation on the BBC.
I just, I love this conversation for reasons that will become quite clear to you in a moment.
A discussion about trans issues, where the question, the famous question, is dropped.
Dropped.
When I say dropped, I mean dropped like a hot potato.
Dropped to avoid answering it.
But let's, let's listen to that.
These are views expressed by Rosie that are held by many in society and yet they seem to be unacceptable to express certainly in some forum.
Why?
Well I think the first thing to say is that the majority of women actually do support transgender rights and they do say that you know a trans woman is a woman.
So actually it may be held by some in society but it's not the majority view and it's not the majority view of women so I think that's the first thing to say.
But what about the definition of woman as by your biological sex rather than your preferred gender identity?
You know, I actually don't know why some people are women and why some people are men.
No one on this panel does.
And anyone who claims to know the answer to that question is a liar.
All I care about is the principle of live and let live, and showing one another respect.
So if a person says, yes, I was born a man, but I am a woman, and this is how I live my life, I want to respect that person for who they are, because I don't think they're doing anything wrong, and they're certainly not bothering me in any way.
So I think the ultimate important principle here that we should all share if we want a free and accepting society is live and let live.
Nobody, nobody knows.
If you say you know what makes a woman a woman, then you're a liar.
This is, I mean the entire, everyone in the world, literally everybody in the world, in the entire history of the world, forever, Knew the answer to this question up until 25 seconds ago, but now it's a mystery.
Nobody knows.
Nobody knows.
No one can answer.
Nobody can answer why a woman is a woman.
This is a woman saying this.
I'm a woman, but I don't know why.
I don't know what makes me a woman.
Just a quick hint.
It's your female reproductive system.
Accepts chromosomes.
That's what does it.
As far as the live and let live thing, though, I'm not going to get much into that because our daily cancellation, in fact, deals with this idea that all they really want is just live and let live.
Let people do what they want.
That is not the case at all.
We'll get to that in a minute.
But first, the comment section.
[MUSIC]
User AllTheWayLeft says, "OMG the right is saying that the left is freaking out over
a cartoon depicting a member of our government killing another member of our government and calling their outrage
over that theater."
But it was Matt freaking out and canceling Sesame Street, a children's show.
Let's just be clear about one thing.
The kids that watch Sesame Street can't go get a vaccine on their own.
They still need their parents' consent.
Now, if parents have said children want to get their kids vaccinated, then that is their right and none of Matt Walsh's business.
But back to the outrage over a cartoon by the left.
It's a bad thing.
If it's a bad thing, then the outrage of the right over some Muppets is downright pathetic.
OK, well, a couple of points here.
Not everything is the same, OK, first of all.
So it's possible to make a complaint about something related to a cartoon or a fictional show.
That doesn't mean that every complaint that anyone makes about cartoons is going to be legitimate.
Okay?
Also, I don't know if it's accurate to say that I freaked out over Sesame Street.
It's more that I used that issue as an opportunity and a platform to make jokes about New Jersey.
I think I squeezed about five of them in there.
So I don't know if you could call that freaking out necessarily.
And the third thing also is that with the Sesame Street thing, this is stuff aimed at children.
And so, whereas with the Paul Gosar meme that was on Twitter, that was making fun of, aimed at, whatever you want to say, an adult.
Okay?
As an adult, if somebody makes a mean cartoon about you, then it's your responsibility to just kind of deal with it like an adult, and we don't need to have you crying, taking up time in the midst of all these crises in the country.
We don't need you standing in Congress as AOC did, taking up everybody's time, taking up taxpayer time, crying about them.
You're a grown-up.
Get over it.
Okay?
I can say that to you as an adult.
Get the hell over it, you whiny baby.
But with kids, it's different.
They're kids.
They actually need to be protected.
If we as adults are not advocating for them, then nobody will because they can't advocate for themselves.
And so when I see the indoctrination of children who are susceptible and vulnerable, that's to me an entirely different situation.
So do you see the distinction?
Kids versus adults?
Tetsu says, as a pretty hardcore Attack on Titan fan, Gosar making himself Eren Yeager might not have been the best idea.
That dude has a very dark future.
I know, right?
I was just thinking that.
Wait, what's Attack on Titan?
Is that the thing from yesterday?
Oh, okay.
Nathan Zachary says, Hey Matt, love the show.
Do you believe in Bigfoot like you do aliens?
Please explain.
Keep up the good work.
I think we've talked about this before.
In fact, I'm sure that we have talked about the Bigfoot versus alien debate.
No, I would love to think that Bigfoot exists.
I want him to exist because that would be a lot of fun.
But my argument for aliens is that aliens live out in the universe, right?
And the universe is such an incomprehensibly vast place that it seems absurd to suggest That there isn't any other life out there on all those many billions and trillions of planets that exist just in our galaxy alone, and then you add on the hundred billion galaxies that are in just the known universe, and it becomes even more absurd to suggest that we're alone.
Whereas with Bigfoot, you're talking about a theory where it's this, I guess, mostly intelligent species of man-apes that live just in the woods, basically, in some guy's backyard in Alabama.
That, to me, If they existed, we would have very, very firm evidence of it.
I can see why aliens, how aliens might exist, and we would have no evidence of it.
We could, you know, human civilization could come and go and destroy itself without ever finding any firm evidence of aliens because they're so far away.
But with Bigfoot, it's quite a different story.
All right.
Tomlin says, wow, that was some deadpan advertising.
It's like Matt's soul was being sucked out while he promoted those companies.
Yeah, sucked out of my body so that they can go buy those products, more like.
My soul literally left my body.
I had an out-of-body experience.
I was so excited about the products and services of my beloved sponsors.
Unfortunately, then, you're just left with the soulless husk to do the ad reads, and that's, I guess, what you're picking up on.
History is being made here at The Daily Wire.
As the first to file suit against the Biden administration for their unconstitutional vaccine mandates, we're pleased to see that the Biden administration suspended their implementation and enforcement this week.
This is huge for the freedom of American workers to make their own medical decisions, as is the right, without the government's authoritarian hand getting involved.
And we can't be happier to be at the forefront of this fight against Joe Biden's assault on our business, on our bodies, on our private health decisions, on the Constitution, on everything really.
However, there are plenty of businesses who are enforcing mandates and our victory means nothing really unless these businesses do the right thing and stop.
It's understandable that there's been enormous pressure from the government to comply.
But there's truly no reason now to do that, to force your employees to make a medical decision that they don't feel comfortable with because the mandate is not in effect at the present moment.
And if you're an employee and your company is forcing this nonsense on you, there's no longer a reason for you to have to do that either.
They cannot force you to take a vaccine you don't want to take.
Don't let them hide behind the vaccine mandate.
Unless we lose, none of this will apply, and there's no reason to comply,
and we're not going to comply, but the fight is just getting started.
We still have to win the court case.
So sign our petition against Biden's vaccine mandate over at dailywire.com/donotcomply
to send a message to the Biden administration that Americans don't do whatever they're told,
especially when it's being told to us by tyrants like Biden.
We have over 600,000 people who have signed the petition so far, and the more signatures we get, the louder the message.
That's why we're aiming to get to 1 million signatures.
So head to dailywire.com slash do not comply to sign the petition today.
And also, This isn't your last chance to sign up for my highly lauded newsletter.
You could really do that anytime, but it is the last time I'm going to tell you about the precious banjo that I am giving away.
This is your last chance to win that.
Your subscription to the newsletter will automatically enter you into the running to claim the banjo.
Which has been sitting behind me all the while, which I have played beautiful music on every single day I play it.
And it can be yours.
That banjo can be yours.
All you have to do is sign up for the newsletter.
And in order to do that, go to dailywire.com slash banjo to subscribe to my newsletter, which is always full of the best writing that you'll read all week.
That's the most random giveaway.
A banjo giveaway for a newsletter, but that's what we're doing.
There's no turning back now, we can't.
So go to dailywire.com slash banjo.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So this was such a stupid week, chock-full of so much maniacal idiocy, that it was difficult to select only one candidate for the Friday cancellation.
In fact, I had other plans for this segment, but at the last moment, in a dramatic finish, today's cancellee surged ahead and crossed the finish line.
Kathy Hochul is the new governor of New York, and she wins the honor today.
She'll be canceled by me today, but it's nothing personal against her.
I actually appreciate how hard she's worked to prove me right.
Because I said during the Cuomo scandal, once it became clear that the Democrats had abandoned him and were ready to sell him up the river, that they would not be taking that step if they didn't have someone even more extreme waiting in the wings.
Little was known about Hockul at the time.
Her career has been marked only by mediocrity, having made a living as a kind of full-time political default option.
She's the Kamala Harris of New York, in other words.
But despite knowing nothing about her, the fact that she was the hitter on deck While Cuomo was left to flail around helplessly in the batter's box was enough to confirm that she is either a dyed-in-the-wool leftist or enough of a hollowed-out shell of a human being as to be reliably counted on to do the bidding of the radical left.
In her case, I suspect the second option gets closer to the truth.
Whichever is the case, she has taken over for the disgraced grandma killer, though somehow the grandma killing is not what makes him disgraced, and set to work in stating the kind of wokefied policies that were even too far for Cuomo.
Case in point, this week Hockeel signed a bill making it illegal for utility companies to misgender or deadname trans people.
That is, the bill makes it illegal for employees of utility companies to speak biological truths in reference to or in the presence of gender-confused individuals.
The website Gay City News, a trusted source of gay news for city dwellers, has more on this.
It says the bill, quote, requires utility waterworks and phone companies to recognize the pronouns and names of customers.
Ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo had faced pressure over the summer from dozens of groups of LGBT people who were pushing him to sign the bill, known as the Affirming Gender Identity in Utilities Act.
Advocates had stressed that the bill would prevent customers from being misgendered, dead-named, or otherwise targeted by traumatic forms of discrimination.
Furthermore, customers looking to update their names and pronouns with companies have encountered requirements to produce court orders to show their information.
And that's gone, too, now, because of the bill.
Now, given that utility bills are one of the most common forms of identification accepted by DMVs and other government agencies, what could possibly go wrong now that anybody can change their name and sex without having to produce any documentation of any kind?
Well, quite a lot could go wrong, but Kathy Hochul isn't worried about any of that.
She's worried about flashing her leftist credentials, which, for the modern Democrat, is the entire point and purpose of the office.
Governing is nothing but a succession of virtue signals.
It's also an opportunity to radically transform and deform our nation and culture, but that's more of a nice secondary bonus for the empty shell types like Hokyo.
But to hear her tell it, she's been deeply invested in the trans rights issue for many years.
Indeed, it is the cause nearest and dearest to her heart.
She wakes up every morning with but one thought on her mind.
How can she cater to less than 1% of the population today at the expense of the other 99%?
Well, here she is further explaining that and her decision to sign the bill.
This is what we just call common sense legislation that is long overdue.
For a transgender individual being misgendered, it's traumatic.
These are people with feelings and individuals who just deserve more than that.
And to know that this is going on and causing them anguish, therefore it causes me anguish.
This is how I feel so deeply and passionately about the people of this state.
We have an opportunity to bring back New York City, New York State, We value individuals, we value people, and we show love, respect, and dignity to all.
It's that simple and I know we can do this.
Yes, it causes the poor woman anguish to think about the trauma suffered by a trans person who's forced to hear their own name or a biologically appropriate pronoun repeated back to them.
You can look into Kathy's eyes and see the pain in her soul.
Or you wouldn't be able to see it if she had a soul.
She calls this common sense legislation that will help bring back New York State.
Apparently, the only thing holding New York back are utility company employees calling their non-binary pansexual customers he and her instead of zee and zurr.
It's simply common sense to babble nonsensically and deny physical reality if somebody in the LGBT community says that you should.
Life is one big game of Simon Says, and LGBT people are forever the Simons.
Common sense, you see.
Not only that, but it's respectful of their feelings.
Well, what about the feelings of utility company workers who now must endure the humiliation of being forced to speak untruths and use gibberish or else lose their job?
What about those who are being subjected to a compelled speech mandate but would quite prefer to retain their First Amendment rights instead?
Do their feelings carry any weight?
If it would make you feel good for me to participate in your delusion, but it would make me feel bad to participate, do we not need something other than feelings to settle this dilemma?
In a world of sanity and justice, we would, but then again, in such a world, we wouldn't need to have this conversation in the first place.
In the real world, though, the world we actually live in, the Democrat Party has decided that strangers must be legally compelled to affirm and reinforce an individual's self-perception.
Now, there was a time not all that long ago, like even, you know, just like five minutes ago, we heard on BBC, when live and let live was allegedly the motto.
But now it's not nearly enough to let people live as they please.
You must actively participate in their lifestyle choice.
You know, we went from just let them be to you must celebrate.
And we've gone beyond that now.
Now it's you have to participate in it.
You must be an active participant.
Their self-identification is your charge.
It's your warrant.
It is a fragile, delicate thing, their identity, which you are legally obligated to protect and reinforce.
But if it's a real identity, and if they're sure of it, why should it require your involvement?
Why should there need to be a literal gun to your head forcing you to assent to it?
And anyway, how does the government have any right to do any of this?
Where does it derive the authority to legally mandate that one private individual affirm the self-identification of another private individual?
From the Democrats, the answer to all of these questions is, as always, who cares?
We'll do what we want.
And that's Kathy Hochul's answer, whether she says it or not.
And it's why I must say it to her, finally, today.
You're cancelled.
And something tells me not for the last time.
We'll leave it there for today and for the week.
Have a great weekend.
Talk to you on Monday.
Godspeed.
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, The Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Ali Hinkle.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
