Ep. 922 - The Shocking Case That Reveals The True Horrors Of Abortion
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, horrific photographic evidence suggests that a prominent abortion clinic in DC is killing babies after they’re born. But the DC government is running cover for the clinic and refusing to investigate. We’ll discuss. Also, Elon Musk buys a big stake in Twitter. And liberal female journalists cry about being traumatized by mean comments on the internet. The Daily Wire gets a mention on SNL. And Brian Stelter on CNN shocks no one by coming out in defense of child groomers. In our Daily Cancellation, a conservative pro-life website criticizes me for my Dr Phil appearance. Why? Well I read the article and I’m still not sure.
The magic has left the kingdom. It’s time to build new things that we can believe in. Subscribe to The Daily Wire today with promo code BUILDTHEFUTURE for 45% off: https://utm.io/uereW
What is a Woman? Matt Walsh tracks down the answer in his new book. Preorder your copy now at whatisawoman.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, horrific photographic evidence suggests that a prominent abortion clinic in D.C.
is killing babies after they're born, but the D.C.
government is running cover for the clinic and refusing to investigate.
We'll discuss.
Also, Elon Musk buys a big stake in Twitter, and liberal female journalists cry about being traumatized by mean comments on the internet.
The Daily Wire gets a mention on SNL, and Brian Stelter on CNN shocks no one by coming out in defense of child groomers.
In our daily cancellation, a conservative pro-life website criticizes me for my Dr. Phil appearance, Why?
Well, I read the article and I'm still not sure.
Sure, we'll talk about that, all of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
With an Alto Crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin and avoid or defer the taxes, get into investing in crypto, and do it in a tax-advantaged retirement account.
Alto's Crypto IRA is the easy way to get crypto into an IRA.
Trade all you want without the tax headache, create an account in just a few minutes, you can invest with as little as $10, No setup charges.
Very easy.
Secure trading 24-7 through Alto's integration with Coinbase.
80-plus coins available, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cardano.
Multiple ways to fund your account.
You can make a cash contribution, transfer cash from an existing IRA, or you can roll over an old 401k.
Open an Alto Crypto IRA account with just as little as $10.
Just go to altoira.com.mat.
That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A.com.mat.
Go to altoira.com.mat.
One of the consequences of spending time on social media is that you're likely to encounter, without warning, as you mindlessly scroll along, images of violence and death.
I mean, it's always unsettling to see such things, of course, but it's all the more jarring and, after a while, desensitizing to see them out of nowhere, sandwiched in between, like, a news article about the Grammys and a gif of a cat or something.
Death becomes just another bit of content in this context, floating by on the endless river of content.
Early last week, we saw a prime example of this kind of thing when footage of a 14-year-old boy falling to his death from an Orlando theme park ride started making the rounds.
A terrible tragedy.
I happened across the video without knowing what it was or why it was posted.
And like millions of other people, I watched the boy fall, heard his body hit the ground.
Something that none of us needed to see or should have seen, but we saw it.
On Friday, many of us were again confronted with images that we did not bargain for.
Even amid all the brutality and despair casually posted to social media platforms every day, these stood out.
They are, in fact, the worst things I think I've ever seen.
Wish I hadn't seen them.
Yet in this case, they are images that we actually should see, as much as we might be haunted and sickened by them.
Lila Rose, president of the pro-life organization Live Action, posted photos of five unborn children who had been aborted in DC in an abortion clinic operated by Dr. quote-unquote, Cesar Santangelo.
The bodies of the victims were obtained by a group called Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, which is a pro-life activist group.
...who report that they obtained them from a whistleblower inside the clinic, and they then contacted the DC Homicide Unit about the bodies.
Now, according to this group, and sources who spoke to Live Action, at least some of these children may have been aborted after they were born, infanticide.
Or may have been subjected to an illegal partial birth abortion.
Here's more from Live Action.
It says, Physician experts have told Live Action News that five aborted children in a D.C.
apartment appeared to have been viable human beings, raising questions about potential legal and serious ethical violations by the abortion clinic.
Dr. Robin Perucci, a neonatal specialist, told Live Action News, I can say with confidence that these babies died at an age when they were viable, premature people.
In her Friday morning comments, she noted that she was going to work in a NICU where she would, quote, care for little ones this size and age.
Now, all you have to do is look at the images, which I'm not going to show you here, but you can easily find them, and you can see that these were fully formed infant children.
The very advanced stage of development, as well as the injuries you can visibly see on their bodies, along with the report from the clinic whistleblower, all lend credence to the claim that a federal crime was committed.
This looks like Gosnell all over again.
Gosnell 2.0.
And as with Gosnell, who was able to operate his house of horrors in Philadelphia for decades without consequence, I mean, in his case, literally blood smattered, smeared on the walls, dead bodies in refrigerators and that sort of thing.
Just an absolute horror show.
And it was like that for decades in the middle of a major American city.
City officials had little interest in getting involved, and the same thing is happening here.
The Washington Post reports this morning, the city medical examiner does not plan at this time to perform autopsies on the five, quote-unquote, fetuses police removed from a Capitol Hill row house earlier this week, according to two D.C.
officials with knowledge of the case, even though the group involved in their discovery claims that the fetuses were all late-term abortions performed illegally.
Not going to perform an autopsy?
Now, put aside for a moment the nature of the injuries, the report from the whistleblower, the stage of fetal development, all of that aside.
Wouldn't the simple fact that you were given five dead bodies, five dead and mutilated bodies, wouldn't that be enough reason to warrant an autopsy?
I mean, somebody calls you up and gives you a tip and says, we've got five dead bodies here, and you come and claim them.
Aren't you wondering how they died?
How would you not perform an autopsy?
Wouldn't that be the first thing you do?
Shouldn't law enforcement officials be curious about how these children died?
Do taxpayers in D.C.
not pay the salary of the city medical examiner precisely for cases like this?
Cases where people are dead and it's not clear how they died.
The police announced mere moments after discovering the bodies.
They held a press conference and they said there's no reason to think that an illegal abortion occurred.
But how could they possibly know that just by looking?
What's going on here?
Well, what's going on is that the wagons are circling.
The abortion industry is funded and protected by the government to such an extent that the abortion industry is basically its own quasi-governmental agency at this point.
When the Center for Medical Progress conducted an undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood a few years ago and exposed on video Unequivocally, that the organization is harvesting organs and selling body parts, and this was proven.
You have Planned Parenthood officials on video admitting it.
What happened then?
The cops raided the journalists who revealed these crimes.
They're the ones who are threatened with prison time.
The organization who committed the crimes suffered no consequences at all.
Didn't even get their funding cut off.
By the way, didn't even get their federal funding cut off even after Republicans took control of the government.
It was after this that we had a Republican president and Republican Congress, and they just kept sending that money to Planned Parenthood.
The government protects its own.
The abortion industry is its own.
Now, I asked rhetorically why the medical examiner is not interested to find out how these people died.
The answer, of course, is that the authorities do not recognize the people as people.
And that's really what makes these images and this story so important.
You know, most of the conversation around this story will be about whether those children were victims of illegal abortions or post-birth abortions.
But we have to realize it's also quite possible they were not.
Late-term abortion, that is the killing of fully developed, viable infants who can easily survive outside the womb, that is legal in DC.
The clinic where these murders occurred boasts that it will kill babies at 27 weeks or later.
Again, these are babies you just give birth to them and they can survive.
They'll need a little bit of medical attention.
I mean, actually, in fact, every newborn who is born needs attention.
And it's no different for a baby born at 27, 28, 29, 30 weeks.
But these are not blobs of cells, they're babies.
If you've seen a newborn, you have seen a maybe slightly bigger version of what a baby killed during late-term abortion looks like.
That's why the images are important.
I think we would make a mistake in focusing too much on the question of whether they were aborted illegally or not.
That's an important question.
And if a crime occurred, then those responsible should go to prison.
But the greater point here is that it's quite possible and common to murder an infant, crush his skull, dismember him, without committing any crime at all, according to the laws on the books.
The pro-abortion movement, they would like you to believe, if you happen across these images, they'd prefer if you don't see them at all, but if you do, they would like you to believe that the images of these mangled and bloodied infants are anomalous.
They're an exception.
They are, in fact, something other than abortion.
That's a lie.
This is what abortion is.
If you support abortion, this is what you support.
Thousands of babies who look just like this, who look like infants, who are infants, not fetuses, are butchered every year in this country.
This is what it comes down to.
You know, if you've, again, if you've ever seen a newborn baby, which I'm sure you have, if you support abortion, you support dismembering that baby and throwing him into a dumpster because that's what abortions do, abortion clinics do.
Now, you could put every other issue and debate aside and boil it down to this.
One side of the ideological divide believes that it is good to dismember infants.
They also believe that it's good to castrate children, should any children survive the womb.
This is really all you need to know.
That should be enough, I think, to make your judgment about who the bad guys are.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
You know, of course there are many, many leftists out there just begging to be canceled.
And I always enjoy canceling them, but I'm gonna give them a little break just for right now,
because I have a way bigger cancellation to make, and that is store-bought meat.
Yes, you heard me.
It's not a person.
We hope the meat is not a person.
But it's sold to you by people who do not care about you or your health.
They hide behind these smoke and mirrors of empty labels like all-natural, cruelty-free, grass-fed, whatever any of that's really supposed to mean.
That's why I'm giving all of you My sweet, sweet babies, a chance to prove your loyalty.
Follow me on this righteous crusade to cancel store-bought meat.
Stop buying it.
Instead, do yourself, your family, and the world a favor and start purchasing your meat from Good Ranchers.
Why?
Well, not only is Good Ranchers the exclusive meat company of The Daily Wire, it's actually 100% born, raised, and harvested in the USA.
That can't be said for 85% of the grass-fed beef in stores that claims to be from the USA, but actually it isn't.
So my point is, You're being lied to by big meat.
But Good Ranchers is here to tell you, and tell it to you straight, their meat is steakhouse quality, locally sourced in America, affordable, it's shipped straight to your door, and it's absolutely delicious.
I can tell you from experience.
It's time to cancel store-bought meat, and I'm ordering you to join me in doing so.
So head to GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh, or use code Walsh at checkout to get $30 off the most convenient and delicious purchase you've ever made.
Go to GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh today so that we can all say goodbye to store-bought meat once and for all.
All right, let's start.
A little bit of good news for a change.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has become left-wing social media platform Twitter's largest shareholder, taking 9.2% stake in the company.
Musk now has four times as many shares as Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, who owns just 2.25%.
Bloomberg reported Twitter shares surged about Twenty-six percent of pre-market trading after the regulator filing released Monday detailing Musk buying the holding.
The stake is worth about three billion dollars based on Friday's market close.
The move comes after Musk teased a shakeup at Twitter or possible plans to build a new social media platform that promotes free speech.
He started talking a few weeks ago about, well, he's been talking for a while about it, but especially a few weeks ago about free speech and Twitter. He put a survey out asking his
followers, do they think that Twitter protects free speech? Of course, the answer is no.
I think it was like 70% of people said no. And then Musk said, well, I'm going to do
something about this. And then today we find out what it is. He just bought 9% of the company. It really
is incredible. And this is exactly what we need.
Somebody with that much money and that much power doing this.
Now, when I heard that Elon Musk was talking about making a competitor platform to Twitter, that would be better than nothing, but it's not nearly as effective as what he's doing now.
You know, if you want, if you actually, this is what I've been saying all along about all these social media competitors, whether it's Parler or Getter or, you know, Gab or the Trump's social media platform, which is, by the way, is a total embarrassing failure.
He doesn't even use it himself.
Which is why I said a lot of you people called me naysayers.
Yes, you people for criticizing me.
I was accused of being a naysayer when we heard about Trump planning his own social media platform.
And I said, it's going to like fizzle out right away.
That's exactly what happened.
He doesn't even use it because there are a lot of reasons for it.
As I've been saying all along, if you're going to do the competitor platform, To Twitter, then you can't just make another version of Twitter.
There has to be some kind of innovation.
You have to give people a reason to use this instead.
But if what you have made is just an off-market, off-brand, generic Twitter, there's no reason for anyone to use it.
I'll just use Twitter in that case.
But the other big thing is that to compete, this is the way it's set up now, if you want to compete with Twitter or Facebook, You're going to need to have like tens of billions of dollars to throw around just to start, just to get on the map.
You need to have tens of billions to even have a chance to compete with these platforms.
And if you don't have that kind of money to throw around, there's certainly no chance that you're going to make a dent.
You might be able to make a little niche for yourself, but you're not going to be able to make a dent in Facebook, Twitter, TikTok.
I think the better strategy is what Musk is doing.
They've already got this thing set up, they have the platform, the hundreds of billions of dollars in development have already been poured into it, so now I'm just going to take it over.
Much better strategy.
There may be hope for us yet, for some of us on Twitter.
I kind of assumed.
I gave myself, you know, Babylon Bee's already gone.
I gave myself maybe six to eight months of life left on Twitter before they finally throw the axe down.
Who knows?
We may live longer than that now, with Elon Musk taking over.
All right, this is from the Post Millennial.
It says, accused cry bully Taylor Lorenz said she has suffered severe PTSD from being a journalist and broke down in an MSNBC interview on Friday.
On Friday's Meet the Press Daily show on MSNBC, host Chuck Todd briefly discussed government statistics about online harassment in women before turning it over to correspondent Morgan Radford Who did an interview with Washington Post columnist Lorenz who covers technology and online culture.
So let's begin first with the setup from Chuck Todd talking about this problem of online harassment.
And he says that it's a problem that especially impacts women and especially female journalists.
They're the victims of this.
Let's listen to that.
Welcome back.
This week, the White House proclaimed April as National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.
One of the fastest growing threats to women is online harassment.
The latest government statistics show one in three women under the age of 35 have experienced a type of essentially sexual harassment online.
It's often underreported and many times not taken seriously, despite its serious risk to mental health and physical safety.
The Biden administration is now committed to a new global partnership for action on gender-based online harassment and abuse.
The goal, deliver an action plan on combating technology-facilitated gender-based violence by the end of this year.
Morgan Radford joins me now.
She's been doing some reporting on the impact of this type of harassment, especially the impact it has on women in journalism.
And it's not even a close call, Morgan.
As nasty as the attacks can be on some of us in this business, if you're a woman, it is at another level.
That's right, Chuck.
And you know, before this was all sort of anecdotal, but now we have hard data.
I mean, this is one of the biggest issues facing female journalists right now.
Well, we'll get to the actual example, because they do bring in, in fairness, they bring in, because if you're skeptical, well, they have a victim story that they share with us.
But I actually think that Chuck Todd understates the problem to begin with because he says that one in three women under the age of 35 Well, it's actually three in three women under the age of 35, and three in three women of any age who have been online for more than 30 seconds have been harassed.
But the other thing is that that's also true for men.
Like, literally anyone who has spent more than half an hour on the internet at any point in their life, their lives, has been harassed.
It comes with the territory.
We all experience it.
Every single one of us.
And the larger of a platform you have, The more people you're interacting with, the more people who know that you exist, the more that you're going to be harassed.
It's not a good thing.
I don't like it.
I don't enjoy it.
I experience it all the time.
You could just sift through my email inbox, messages, comments.
It's all there.
So this comes with the territory with the Internet.
Is it good?
No, it's not good.
But we can't even begin to have any serious conversation about this issue, however serious the issue actually is, but we can't begin to really talk about it if you're determined to talk about it through the lens of identity politics and left-wing victimology 101.
If that's how you want to talk about it, then we're not going to be able to have any serious conversation.
As evidenced by Taylor Lorenz, again, Washington Post columnist, and she came on to talk about her experiences.
By the way, she's also not under the age of 35.
I think she's in like her 40s.
And so this is the example they give us for some reason.
And here she is talking about the trauma that she suffered because of online harassment.
Hey, nice job on that story, you soulless effing c**t.
Then also you'll see there's many people that are tweeting, you know, these are Taylor Lorenz's loved ones.
They have photos, wow, these are all photos of your family members.
Children.
Yeah, they'll threaten children, they'll threaten my parents.
I've had to remove every single social tie.
I had severe PTSD from this.
I contemplated suicide, it got really bad.
You feel like any little piece of information That gets out on you will be used by the worst people on the internet to destroy your life.
And it's so isolating.
And terrifying.
It's horrifying.
I'm so sorry.
You're fine.
It's overwhelming.
It's really hard.
Just put your phone down.
Lady, just put your phone down.
Go do something else with your life.
If you can't handle it, then do something else with your life.
You're traumatized by it?
You have PTSD?
I mean, there are people who go overseas, they're in armed conflicts, they go to war, they come home from war, and they're not reacting the way that you are.
And even if they do, you're putting yourself, when you use a phrase, when you use a term like PTSD, you have post-traumatic stress disorder, you are putting yourself on the same plane as people who watch their friends get blown to pieces on the battlefield.
You're putting yourself in the same conversation, on the same level.
You do not have PTSD.
No, you don't.
I'm not your psychiatrist.
I'm not your therapist.
I haven't run any tests at all on you.
And yet, yes, I can sit here from a distance and say, you do not have PTSD.
You just need to grow up.
This is weakness.
You're weak.
You need to be stronger or find another line of work.
I mean, that's the example that she gives us.
If someone says, you soulless c-word, I get that.
That's like 600 times a day, those sorts of comments.
And that's the best you could do?
That's the worst example you can give us.
Now, bringing your family into it, all that kind of stuff, that's terrible.
That's absolutely terrible.
It shouldn't happen.
But it happens to all of us.
It happens to me.
I hate it.
I don't like it.
That makes me angry, once you bring my kids and my family into it.
But we all experience it.
Without a doubt.
It is true.
So there are two things to establish here.
Actually, there are three.
Because the first thing we should point out, maybe the most important thing about Taylor Lorenz, is that she is guilty of this kind of thing herself.
This is what makes it all the more ironic and ridiculous to bring her on to talk about it.
She is one of the architects of cancel culture.
She's one of these quote-unquote journalists who's whipped up mobs against people, try to get them canceled, try to get them harassed, trying to foment exactly the kind of outrage against other people that she says traumatizes her.
And how much worse does that make you?
It seems like you are actually kind of soulless.
If you're traumatized by being insulted by people and yet, and so you consider it to be a traumatizing event and yet you try to put other people in that position?
That just makes you a horrible person.
So that's one thing we have to establish.
We also have to establish that a lot of this is, it does fall into the category of just suck it up buttercup and deal with it.
Because you have to make a choice.
Anyone with a platform, you didn't get it by accident.
I know this from experience.
You have to work.
Some of us harder than others, but you still have to work and actually try to build a platform, the kind of platform where they're even asking you to come on cable news and talk about your experiences.
So a lot of effort went into that.
If you're going to make that effort, then you have to be prepared to deal with the criticism.
And because we live in the modern age, we live in the age of the internet, it's going to be a whole lot of criticism, and a lot of it's going to be quite vulgar, and maybe a little bit upsetting.
But if you can't deal with that, then you can't deal with being a journalist, and you need to find a different line of work.
Because here's the one advantage, this is the great thing.
As rough and tumble as it can get on the internet, the great thing is that it still exists in your phone.
And so you can always just put down your phone and live your life.
And there's a lot of power in that, too.
You know, I've noticed that.
I feel that sometimes.
When the mob's coming after me and everybody's really upset about something that I said and, you know, I'm getting thousands of people coming after me, it actually is quite satisfying that I can just put my phone down and go fishing or something.
And there's all these people out there on the internet who are so mad and it's like, I don't even know it.
I'm not even reading it.
So you have that ability.
And then the third point is that it is also true That the internet, the anonymity that comes with the internet, it gives people, they feel license to say the kinds of things that they would never say to you in person.
I mean, I could say that again.
It's something, again, I could say from experience.
I talk about all these things people say to me.
I've never encountered it in public.
Like, every day I can go online, check my inbox, whatever, look at the comments, and there's all these people saying, ah, you're a piece of crap, you're this and that.
Nobody has ever come up to me in public and said that to my face.
Ever.
Not once.
So, these are all a bunch of cowards for the most part.
They hide behind the anonymity and everything.
And the internet enables people to do that.
And so I think that there is a conversation that we can have About why is it that people act this way to each other on the internet?
What does it say about us?
I know we like to think that, well, the internet isn't the real world, and so it's a totally different thing.
And you hear that all the time.
Well, Twitter isn't the real world.
Well, yes, it is.
It's the real world.
Because these are actual human beings who are using this communication tool to speak to each other.
It's the real world.
And whatever you say on the internet, that's you saying it.
You might want to, if you're the kind of, if you are a troll, if you're one of these vicious trolls on the internet and you say a lot of terrible things, you might want to comfort yourself by telling yourself, that's not really me, that's just internet me.
That's the me in the YouTube comments.
I'm telling someone to kill themselves.
I would never say that in real life.
No, you are saying it in real life.
This is reality.
So we could talk about that.
What is it that drives people to behave that way?
Why does the anonymity bring this out of people?
What does it say?
I mean, all these, it's an interesting conversation.
At least.
But we can't really have it if we again insist on having it through the lens of identity politics, the left's victimhood hierarchy.
Because they don't even want to start the conversation unless they can establish at the outset that their preferred victim groups are the primary victims of this thing.
When in fact, this is a ubiquitous problem.
But everybody on the internet experiences.
And if we're not going to acknowledge that from the outset of the conversation, then there's no point in having the conversation.
All right, staying in the realm of cable news here, elsewhere in cable news, Brian Stelter is taking on the anti-grooming laws in Florida.
No surprise that this Perverted potato is in favor of grooming children.
So he brought on another creep by the name of Charlotte Clymer, who's a male who identifies as a woman, and asked some real hard questions.
You know, this is what journalism is all about, folks.
Listen to this.
Charlotte, I think we should start with the history of this.
There is an ugly history in the United States of portraying gays, lesbians, transgender people as perverts, as predators, who are preying on children.
And when I see some of the coverage in the last week, it seems to me they are just repeating an ugly history.
Good morning, Brian.
Yeah, it's exasperating.
Always with the hard questions there.
Serving up the hard question right from the beginning.
What it says on the screen there, it says, LGBTQ community latest to be caught in culture war.
Now, let's think about that for a second.
The LGBT community, they're the latest to be caught up in this culture war.
And Stelter obviously begins this from a false premise.
That all of the criticism on the right about the grooming of children, that it's really targeted at LGBT people, that's actually not the case.
What we're talking about specifically when it comes to the Florida law are teachers who want to use their position as teachers to indoctrinate, to sexually indoctrinate children.
And there are plenty of heterosexual teachers who are radical leftists who do the same thing.
I don't care if they're LGBT, if they're straight, it doesn't matter.
That makes no difference to me.
The point is that I don't want you sexually indoctrinating children.
However you personally sexually identify is irrelevant.
That's the point.
Leave it out of the conversation.
The kids don't need to hear about that.
So that's a false premise to begin with, and then another false premise that says on the screen, LGBT community latest to be caught in culture war.
Yeah, I wonder how this happened.
How did this happen exactly?
The LGBT community for the last several decades has been incessantly waging a culture war, and now they find themselves caught in a culture war.
How did that happen?
That's a mystery.
Activists who incessantly wage culture war find themselves caught in a culture war.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Next we got, we'll go over to SNL.
And it's pretty, maybe every season of SNL you get, if there's however many, you know, 20 cumulative hours of programming, probably more than that, you might get five minutes of good content.
And so this is part of the five minutes.
And it just so happens that the Daily Wire got a mention on SNL over the weekend.
So let's listen to that.
The conservative media organization, The Daily Wire, said they'll spend $100 million to create children's programming to counter woke media companies.
Programs will include Clifford the Big Straight Dog, and Conto, but in English, and One Fish, Two Fish, That's How Many Fish Genders There Are.
I saw that clip yesterday and the wheels started turning because that last idea is actually pretty good.
One fish, two fish, that's how many fish chanders there are.
I actually like that idea.
I might take that and run with it.
And, you know, look, the Daily Wire getting a mention on Saturday Night Live, what you have to understand is that they would much rather ignore us.
So the fact that we get a mention at all means that they can't ignore us anymore.
Because of what we're doing.
So that's a victory in and of itself.
And it was actually, it was a pretty decent joke.
I'll give him that.
All right, let's move to this.
We're going to go back first to ancient history.
It can be hard to remember the things that happened way back in the past, but if you can think back all the way to last October, October of 2021.
Here's what Colin Kaepernick, social justice activist, here's what he was saying back in October of 2021.
So this is like six months ago.
Let's watch this again.
They don't want you to understand is what's being established is a power dynamic.
Before they put you on the field, teams poke, prod, and examine you, searching for any defect that might affect your performance.
No boundary respected.
No dignity left intact.
Come on, boy.
Hurry up.
Look at that shape there.
Look at this.
Mr. Farmer, I got your bid.
30.
James, 30 to you.
100.
Solid.
Next one coming up.
Best one we got.
500.
600.
Look at this here.
Come on, who wants this?
700.
There we go now. 1000.
Yeah, it says October 2021 and the NFL is slavery and these poor, helpless slaves in the NFL who are paid $20 million contracts.
But that doesn't matter.
The fact that they're being paid for their work to begin with, you would think already disqualifies them from the status of slave.
First of all, even if you're not getting paid, if you're volunteering to do any kind of job at all, and you have your wits about you, and you can consent to it, Then it's not slavery.
And then if you're getting paid, it's especially not slavery.
And if you're getting paid $20 million a year, you would think it's as far from slavery as you can actually get.
It's actually the diametric opposite of slavery.
If you've never heard of slavery, and somebody wanted to explain it to you, they could say, look at an NFL player, it's the opposite of that, is what slavery is.
But that's how Colin Kaepernick saw it anyway, as of six months ago.
Now let's fast forward to this weekend, and here's what Colin Kaepernick is saying now.
We want to make sure that we come out, we show everyone I can still play, still throw it, and really just looking for an opportunity for a door to open.
To have that be a pathway to be able to get back in there, get a starting job, and lead a team to a championship.
That I can help make you a better team.
I can help you win games.
any member of an NFL organization watching you today, what is your message
directly to them after the years that you have been off the on the off the
field? What is your message to NFL teams? That I can help make you a better team. I
can help you win games. This guy. Yeah my message to the NFL is look I'm a good
player I want to play for you and I just want a chance to be a slave on your
plantation where my dignity will be destroyed.
I'm a great candidate for this.
You can destroy my dignity anytime.
I'd make a great slave.
This guy is... I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he's the most blatant con artist In modern American history.
I can't think of someone who would take that title from him.
And yet he's been incredibly successful.
So he's at least that.
He's the most blatant and most successful con artist in modern American history.
Maybe in the history of the world.
I don't know.
The way that he's been able to profit off of this racket, off of this grift, While making no attempt to appear sincere or consistent, it really is incredible.
But it should go without saying that, look, no NFL team is going to hire this guy unless they're forced to.
So I'm not going to say that no NFL team is going to do it.
It is possible.
I'd give it like a 40% chance actually that he does end up on an NFL roster in the next, potentially for this next season.
But that's gonna be because the NFL, you know, Roger Goodell and the suits in the NFL basically force him on a team.
No coach would actually choose to bring this guy on.
He's 33 years old.
32 or 33.
years old, 32 or 33, hasn't played for six or seven years.
He went one in ten his last season in the league.
He was already on the... He had already hit his prime and was descending into the pits when he left the league six, seven years ago.
And he's not going to be any better now.
And so you bring him on and you're getting a guy who maybe is good enough to be a backup.
Maybe that's the most you could possibly hope for.
And in exchange for that, you're getting all of the publicity, you're getting all that, and you're getting a guy who you know ahead of time will accuse you of racism if you don't start him.
Even if you start a quarterback who's also black.
You can start a quarterback who's blacker than he is, and you're still going to be accused of racism if you don't start him.
So you know that ahead of time.
Why would any coach sign up for that?
If they're forced to, they will.
Which, maybe they will be.
Let's get now to the comment section.
Let's see.
Mike says, Matt, I'm disappointed that you completely ignored April Fool's Day.
I guess I did, but my kids did not ignore it.
So this was my kids.
My kids had an April Fool's joke, and they were really excited about this.
I got home from work.
And as soon as I walked in the door, they're like, Daddy, Daddy, you gotta open the fridge.
The milk has gone bad.
And so I was thinking, why do I have to look at the milk as soon as I walk in the door?
And then this is what they showed me.
So it's, the milk has gone bad.
And it's, you get it?
Because it's like the milk is gone.
He's got a knife and he's got the ski mask and everything.
And they also put the sign there, so in case I didn't get the joke, I think the milk has gone bad.
Oh no.
That is, I gotta say, that's top quality dad humor.
And this is from eight-year-olds.
So they already are getting the dad jokes down like that.
So that was a proud Papa moment.
Let's see, what else do we got?
Oh, we also have this, by the way.
I've got to give a shout out to Crane & Company.
They're the new sports show that we just started a few weeks ago.
Great show, by the way.
You've got to go check them out.
You can download the podcast on Apple Podcasts.
And they're down in New Orleans for the Final Four, and they happened across a member of the Sweet Baby Gang who's walking around downtown New Orleans wearing the Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt, representing Just totally confusing everybody he walks by.
Now, in New Orleans, you're used to seeing a lot of weird things and everything, but a bearded man in a diaper is probably not something that you see every day, so shout out to the Sweet Baby Gang there.
All right, let's see.
Henry says, Jada is a classic narcissist.
They like to rub situations like sleeping with others in the faces of their spouses.
They have no remorse about doing it.
Everything a narcissist does is right in their mind, even though it's bad to normal people.
Yeah, they think they're right, yes, but to be more specific, I think that as a narcissist, they believe that they are more complex, more interesting, more sort of nuanced.
Spirits than everybody else and so they think that you know even if they do something that's technically wrong Their reason they're just sort of so far above the rest of us that they have reasons that we can't understand And I think that's kind of what you get with Jada Smith Amanda says, my three-year-old announced this morning that she's a kitty cat.
Obviously, she knows who she is better than we do.
We're trying to figure out if we need to call the vet first or just go forward with getting her a litter box and food bowl.
You're joking, but this is actually happening in schools.
This is really 100% happening.
That there are, maybe not three-year-olds, but older than that, you know, kids in third and fourth grade who identify as animals.
And their teachers are supposed to treat them as animals and respect that self-identification.
That is a real thing that is a relatively frequent occurrence in schools these days.
Yet another milestone on the slippery slope that we were told would never happen.
We were told for years it's completely absurd, it's offensive to even suggest That if we respect people's quote-unquote gender identity, eventually we're going to have to respect their species identity.
Up until, I don't know, yesterday, we were told that, no, that's transphobic, come on, that's paranoia, that's insane.
That's a fallacy to argue that, well, it's actually happening.
Lenny says, my problem with this show is that Matt spends hour upon hour complaining about all the problems in society, but never offers a solution.
What's the point of talking about this if you aren't going to try to solve it?
Well, first of all, that isn't true.
I do talk about solutions.
I actually try to go out and implement my solutions too, so I don't just talk about them.
But putting that aside, you know, I actually believe that this obsession, and I hear this a lot from people about, oh, why aren't you talking about the solutions?
This obsession with solutions is sort of a cop-out.
This solution-oriented thing.
Like, there's no point talking about or thinking about anything if it can't easily be fixed or solved.
That's what you're saying.
And so what you're really saying is there's no value in simply understanding.
I disagree.
I think that there's, even if there's something going on, if there's a problem in society, and we can't immediately solve it, and if I notice a problem, but I don't have your five-point plan, do this, do this, do this, and we'll solve it, does that mean we should just ignore it?
We shouldn't talk about it?
No, there's a lot of value in understanding, in general, value in understanding, also value in understanding the world you're living in.
You should want to understand things.
I think this is also, this is one of the reasons why we're so death phobic in our culture.
Of course, everybody, everyone's afraid of death to a certain extent, but we're afraid of thinking about or talking about death.
And then COVID-19 comes along and people lose their minds and collapse into this state of paranoia because they've never even thought about the fact that they're mortal beings.
And I think this kind of ties into it.
It's like, well, why think about our mortality?
Why think about death?
Because we can't solve it.
We're all going to die.
You can't do anything about it.
You can delay it for a while, but not even that long, but you're still going to be mortal.
You can't solve death.
Yet another one of the uncomfortable aspects of life that I don't have a five-point, I don't even have a 20-point plan to solve death.
And yet, I still think we should confront it and talk about it.
So, that's the case for many things in our culture.
And finally, Matthew Jordan says, Matt, the answer we all need is which fast food place has the best French fries?
Arby's has the best French fries, hands down, no question about it.
The worst are McDonald's, and McDonald's French fries have actually gotten worse over time.
I think kids these days don't realize 20 years ago the McDonald's fry was sufficient, at least.
It was adequate.
And now they're like soggy and cold.
They don't even put salt on them anymore.
They're undercooked.
It's disgusting.
So they're the worst.
Most overrated are Chick-fil-A.
Not bad, but not worth all the hype.
Well, I'm sure you, I know you all heard, because you heard about it on this show, and many other shows as well, the leaked Disney LGBT agenda last week.
Well, The Daily Wire decided to respond.
Daily Wire had a town hall meeting where co-CEO Godkin Jeremy Boring announced our $100 million investment into DW Kids.
We're getting involved in kids entertainment, because I can tell you, parents like myself are tired of the fact that you just, you can't You basically cannot trust any kid's show anymore, and every day it's another one bites the dust, another one that you thought was just innocent family fun, and you turn it on and you see a drag queen or something like that.
That's why we're getting involved.
We've hired the VeggieTales writers to help create our first So, head to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code buildthefuture for 45% off your membership right now.
Doodles with noodles that centers on a man and his puppet giving drawing lessons over the next three years
We've committed to investing 100 million dollars into children's entertainment content because in order to change
the culture You have to make the culture and daily wire is making the
culture But the thing is we need your help to do it
So head to daily wire comm slash subscribe and use code build the future for 45% off your membership right now
Now let's get to our daily cancellation So I'm gonna respond to something that perhaps on its own
is not worth a response But it represents a larger trend and it's it's that larger
trend that concerns me So one thing I've noticed over the past several years, but especially the past several months, is that there's a certain segment of the right
That somehow can't handle winning.
Or maybe they don't want to win, or perhaps they're envious that they're not the ones personally achieving these victories.
Like, they don't want to win if they won't get special credit for it.
Whatever it is, whenever we here at The Daily Wire have success with something, there are those on the right who seem utterly determined to find fault with it.
Often these are critics who never do anything of note themselves, never land any significant blows in the culture war, never move the needle at all, never put anything on the line.
Instead, they relegate themselves to the sidelines while pointing out every perceived flaw in those who are actually down in the arena fighting the battles.
As Teddy Roosevelt observed in his Man in the Arena speech, there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt.
Now, today I want to focus on just one example of this kind of thing.
A conservative ostensibly on my side who seems absolutely desperate to criticize what most on our side would consider to be a big win.
So the website LifeSiteNews, which is a pro-life news organization that I have vocally supported and amplified many times over the years.
I appreciate their journalism.
They just published an article written by a guy named Nick Bell with this headline.
Matt Walsh's debate with transgender activists on Dr. Phil show left a lot to be desired.
Now, this is far from the first time I've encountered criticism from the right for my Dr. Phil appearance.
You know, I flew out to Los Angeles to appear on mainstream television in front of a hostile audience on a panel where I was outnumbered three to one.
There was a risk because I knew that if I choked or floundered, it would be an embarrassment that potentially in my career may never fully recover from.
But fortunately, the embarrassment was all on the other side of the debate, a debate that's been viewed many millions of times.
It represents, I think, one of the first times that some of these basic arguments against trans ideology have been presented to a mainstream audience.
So it's all good, you know, you'd think.
But that's not enough for the Nick Bells of the world.
My appearance left a lot to be desired, he says.
He sits back, reflecting two months after the fact, and has decided that my efforts were simply not good enough.
Yes, you took on three gender ideologues on national television and humiliated them, he mutters from the bleachers, but could you have done more?
And could you have done it better?
Now, look, I'm not taking issue with the general concept of criticism.
I'm not saying that other people on the right should refrain from criticizing me or the Daily Wire or anybody else for the sake of being a team player or whatever.
Criticism from an ally can be good and valuable.
We need to be able to do that.
But when that criticism is petty and irrelevant and weird and desperate, as it so often is, you begin to suspect that there's some other motivation lying under the surface.
And I do have that suspicion about this article, as the author, Bell, seems to spend most of the essay grasping around in the dark for something to criticize.
He begins with this odd paragraph.
He says, quote, The two non-binary guests seem to be likable enough.
One is a woman who believes she's a man and has long hair and a beard.
The other is a man who has successfully blended the characteristics of both genders to create an appealing hybrid.
They come across as well-meaning people who have suffered due to people misunderstanding their struggles.
In that context, simply using their preferred pronoun seems a small ask.
Now, for the record, not to split beard hairs here, but the one with the beard is a man, the other is a woman.
I wouldn't call either hybrid appealing, personally, and I definitely don't think my opponents on stage were well-meaning or kind or likable or anything like that.
And it is indeed a big ask that I should deny reality for their sake.
Now, he goes on in circuitous fashion, circling around whatever point he seems to want to make.
Seems to think that I was caught up too much in semantics by focusing on the definition of a woman rather than the more important issues.
He then makes this really bizarre claim.
He says that conservatives must, quote, make the case that transgenderism inflicts unacceptable damage, not only on those who dissent from it, but also on the transgenders themselves, as well as children caught up in a social contagion.
Much of Walsh's appearance on Dr. Phil exemplified the predicament of conservatives when they forfeit this crucial piece of their argument.
What?
How did I forfeit the claim that transgenderism hurts kids?
I specifically make that point during the episode.
I make that point all the time.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in media anywhere who makes that point more often than I do.
Things get stranger from here.
here, Bell writes, "Walsh went on to bring up the destruction of women's sports, the
dangers of allowing men into women's bathrooms, as other reasons to oppose the transgender
agenda." He mentioned the rape in Loudoun County, Virginia, of a girl by a boy dressed
in a skirt this past year that occurred in a women's bathroom. But the left-wing professor
easily fends Walsh off by saying that she does not support open bathrooms where anyone
can go in, showing how easily the left can neutralize the dangerous bathroom argument
by simply taking a compromise position, in this case separate bathrooms for the transgendered,
allows them to avoid truly justifying the transgender position.
The thing is, that's not the position that the professor took in the episode.
She absolutely did not endorse separate bathrooms for transgender people.
No leftist endorses that position.
That doesn't exist on the left, it can't.
They want men in the women's room, nothing less than that.
They're not going to take a third bathroom for trans people.
Now, I don't want that compromise either, because I don't see why we should make any special accommodations for people who are confused about their gender.
Just use the bathroom in accordance with your biological sex.
But the left, they don't want that compromise either, because to do that admits That these are, that, you know, the trans, the quote-unquote trans woman is not really a woman and they can't admit that.
So that's why it's a very good thing for us to, you know, talk about this on a national, on a national stage.
Specifically the bathroom issue.
We want to corner them into trying to defend it.
Because it's a, it's a perverse and insane case they're making.
The more they talk about it, the better it is for us.
So yeah, if you are on a stage in front of a lot of people talking about this issue, you shouldn't be talking about bathrooms the entire time, but that should definitely be a feature of your argument.
Because you want to force them to confront that.
Force them in front of all these people to say that they want men in the women's room.
And that the women who are uncomfortable with it, that's too bad for them.
So what exact point does the author have to make that's so important he felt the need to say it two months later?
Well, as best as I can tell, his primary contention is this, which he states early in his piece.
Isn't it a bit hair-splitting to insist on perfect logical rigor if the alternative would lead to transgender people feeling dramatically less mental anguish?
Would that alternative lead to less suicide?
Would it allow the transgenders to lead happier lives?
Later, concluding his thoughts, he follows up on the same theme.
He says, "Instead, the right should focus on the fact that the very thing these confused
people are seeking, their happiness, will be harder and harder to find the further they
go down this road."
Walsh gets closest to this sort of argument when he briefly takes exception to the transgender
agenda being foisted on kids but failed to develop the argument.
As a result, much of its force was squandered.
This dynamic is a microcosm for the state of the debate writ large.
The right would be better served by shifting the argument from an exclusive focus on girls, sports, and dangerous bathrooms to the well-being of the gender confused and the increased likelihood for confusion among children.
The argument for truth and honesty in sex and gender is dramatically more powerful when the true stakes of the issue, the happiness and wholeness of real vulnerable people, are at the forefront.
You wonder if Bell actually watched the Dr. Phil appearance, or if maybe he spent the last two months trying to find a reason to disprove of the performance and couldn't find one, but he owed the editors an article, so he decided to pull this one out of his drafts and submit it anyway.
Whatever twisted path led to this thing being published, the fact is that I do not focus the debate exclusively on sports and bathrooms.
I just don't do that, so what's the real problem here?
A lot left to be desired?
What's left to be desired exactly?
He devoted 2,000 words to this subject and I still have no idea.
He's also wrong.
This is the most important thing.
Lots of other conservatives are wrong about this also.
So, it's an important point.
The primary focus of our argument against gender ideology should not be the well-being or happiness of the gender confused.
It also shouldn't be protecting children.
That shouldn't be the primary focus.
That's not our first point.
Now, these are obviously very, very important things, and we should emphasize them and fight for them.
Obviously.
But the primary point in our argument against gender ideology is that gender ideology itself is false and incoherent.
That's the main point.
If you make something else your primary focus, you're surrendering the strongest argument.
Which is that the left's entire position is insane, garbled, nonsensical, hollow.
It's wrong.
They're wrong.
Simple as that.
They are making claims that are wrong.
The fact that the false claims harm people is secondary because the reason they harm people is that they are false.
You can't argue for gender ideology's harmfulness until you've established its wrongness.
That's what makes it harmful, is that it's wrong.
If it were true that, you know, a boy might be a girl trapped inside of a boy's body and that he... Well, if that's true, then who are we to say it's harmful for him to go out and pursue his true female identity?
It's not true.
It's a lie.
And that's why it's so harmful.
And so you have to start by establishing that it is a lie, that it's false.
That's the point of the what is a woman question.
It's not semantics.
It's crucial.
It's the core of our argument.
It is our argument.
So maybe I'm being hard on the author.
Maybe he's sincerely just confused about my strategy on Dr. Phil, my overall approach to this issue.
But it does seem to fit into a pattern of people on the right, some people, noticing a victory on our side and then laboring strenuously to discredit it, no matter how trivial or trifling they have to be in their efforts.
We already know what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about such people.
I'm not as eloquent as him, so instead I'll just say to them, you're cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
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, 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.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Putin's troops in Russia allegedly massacre hundreds and leave them in mass graves.
Plus, the left desperately tries to pretend the right is the aggressor in our culture wars.
