Ep. 926 - The Massive Government Coverup To Protect An Infanticidal Serial Killer
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the latest on the murder of five infants by an abortionist serial killer in DC. It’s a story that the corporate media, the local government, and the federal government has decided to completely ignore. Also, Judge Jackson is confirmed as the first black woman Supreme Court Justice, and also the first Supreme Court Justice who can’t define the word woman. A historic occasion, indeed. Plus mainstream media journalists hold a seminar on “disinformation,” but things don’t go as they planned during the Q&A portion. And American Airlines has an exciting new aviation invention: buses. In our Daily Cancellation, what the hell is a bi-romantic asexual? It’s the latest LGBT innovation, and it makes no sense at all.
Subscribe to the Matt Walsh Report Newsletter: https://utm.io/uercM
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/uesif .
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the latest on the murder of five infants by an abortionist serial killer in D.C.
It's a story that the corporate media, the local government, federal government has decided to completely ignore, but we're not.
Also, Judge Jackson is confirmed as the first black woman Supreme Court justice and also the first Supreme Court justice who can't define the word woman, a historic occasion indeed.
Plus, mainstream media journalists hold a seminar on disinformation, but things don't go as they planned during the Q&A portion.
And American Airlines has an exciting new aviation invention Buses.
In our daily cancellation, what the hell is a biromantic asexual?
It's the latest LGBT innovation, and it of course makes no sense at all.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Are you a member of the Taliban and unaware of it?
Some people on the left have been saying that pro-life people in Texas and the ever-growing
number of states with the Heartbeat Act are no better than the Taliban.
No science or biology or acknowledgement that heartbeats are actually a good thing.
Just you against us and therefore you're the Taliban and that's the response.
This is what they're...
That's what the left, of course, is saying, and this is why our friends at 40 Days for Life wrote the number two Amazon Christian bestseller, What to Say When?
The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion, How to Change Minds and Convert Hearts in a Brave New World.
40 Days for Life is based in Texas and is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world, with a million volunteers in 1,000 cities in 64 countries holding peaceful, 40 Day Vigils Outside of Abortion Facilities to Save Lives and Help Abortion Workers Who Have a Change of Heart Leave Their Jobs.
Get the book, What to Say When.
I wrote the foreword for it so you know that at least that part will be good.
In fact, the entire book is great.
It covers the old arguments and the new ones that you'll hear at work or with family.
So get it and check out 40daysforlife.com to help end abortion where you live today.
So perhaps you've heard about the story of the fox in D.C.
Not Fox, the TV network, but an actual fox with rabies, it turns out.
She had taken up residence on Capitol Hill, had been terrorizing the local inhabitants for days.
Finally, the rabid fox attacked and bit a Democratic congressman and a journalist.
And this was the last straw.
The police were sent in to find and arrest the insurrectionist canine.
And after it was apprehended, the fox was euthanized and peace was restored to the land.
Now, personally, As you know, I'm not much of an animal rights guy, but given that this animal was attacking politicians and journalists, I think it should have been set free and promptly awarded a medal for its service to the nation.
If anything, more rabid animals should be let loose in the Capitol.
Send some wolves in, grizzlies, let the chips fall where they may.
And if they devour everybody and seize control of the government, I'm not sure we'd be in any worse shape at the end of it.
In fact, I think it'd be quite an improvement.
In any case, I bring this up because this was, by the measure of media coverage, one of the top stories in Washington this week.
Every major news outlet published multiple stories about the Fox.
The Washington Post, especially, followed the saga of the bloodthirsty fox all week.
CNN, NPR, The New York Times, many other outlets also kept track of the story as well, posting multiple breaking news bulletins concerning it.
Meanwhile, though, elsewhere in D.C., another saga has been unfolding, which has attracted far less interest from the corporate media.
You might say that this other story happening in the same city, right in our nation's capital, is quite a bit more important than a fox.
You'd say that anyway if you have a soul and a brain, which I suppose rules out most of the people working in corporate media.
I'm referring, of course, to the just-uncovered murder of five infants at a D.C.
abortion clinic.
Now, you've heard me talk about this all week because it is one of the most important things happening in our country right now.
The cover-up has made the story far less visible, but it also makes it all the more important.
You know, if you want to know the things that we should be talking about and you should be paying attention to, just look for the things that they don't want you to pay attention to.
So to review briefly, last week a pro-life group in DC called Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising obtained a box of, quote, medical waste from a clinic in the city run by a monstrous psychopath named Cesar Santangelo.
The box was given to them by a driver from a company called Curtis Bay Energy, which operates out of Baltimore.
And we'll get back to Curtis Bay in just a moment because they're an important piece of this story.
As for the boxes, as we've covered on the show, they contain the remains of well over a hundred aborted babies.
Five of those babies were fully developed, late-term infant children, well past the point of quote-unquote viability.
There was ample evidence from the injuries on their bodies and from their stage of development that these babies were killed either in illegal partial birth abortions or in illegal post-birth abortions, otherwise known as infanticide.
But the D.C.
police still refuse to investigate the crime.
They refuse to do an autopsy.
The mayor has so far not acknowledged the case at all.
She's just ignoring it, as the media is mostly ignoring it, and the Biden administration is ignoring it, and as they hope you ignore it.
Now, following the latest updates in the case, yesterday, the Daily Wire had a report showing that Cesar Santangelo was caught on video during a live-action undercover investigation in 2012, admitting explicitly Let's go back and listen to that again.
If you do everything possible to help it survive, you know, there's maybe a 20 to 30% chance that it would survive.
if you do everything possible to help it survive, you know, there's a maybe a 20 to 30 percent chance that it
would survive.
If you don't do anything, then you know the chances are much, much less.
Goodness, I feel scared.
Sure, sure, you know what?
Like, would you make sure that it, like, it doesn't survive?
Yeah, you know, there's things you do.
Obviously, you're here for a certain procedure, and if your pregnancy were, let's say you went into labor, the membrane ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know, then we would do things, we would not help her.
We wouldn't do anything, let's say, we wouldn't intubate.
Okay, so you would make sure.
Yeah, we wouldn't do any extra, you know, it's like, yeah, it would be, you know, a person that would be a terminal
person in the hospital, say, that had cancer.
You know, you wouldn't do any extra procedures to help that person survive.
It has like, do not resuscitate order.
Okay.
We wouldn't do the same.
He says, "We do the same things here."
Not we would do the same thing, but we do the same things.
And what are those things?
Well, if it was hard to understand this conversation, let's recap.
Santangelo is assuring the mother, who's really an undercover journalist, that if her baby, which he refers to as it, if the it were to survive the abortion, he would just leave the child to die.
He would make sure that it does not survive.
He compares this to a terminal cancer patient in the hospital, except, of course, the terminal cancer patient cannot be helped.
There's nothing that can be done to help the terminal cancer patient survive their condition.
That's why we call it terminal.
They can at least be given painkillers, though, something that the baby during an abortion is not given.
I mean, you can't make any attempt to ease the child's pain and suffering because only living beings feel pain and feel suffering.
So, to give the child painkillers would be to admit that he is a living being, which the abortionist murderer cannot do.
But the other big difference, obviously, is that the child born alive can be helped.
He just needs some basic, life-saving medical interventions in order to live.
He has refused those interventions through no choice or consent of his own.
That's not like the cancer patient.
Let's bring it back to the patient in the hospital.
Imagine that you had a patient in a hospital experiencing a medical emergency and there is something very simple that could be done to save his life.
But instead the doctors put him off in the corner and watch him die.
That's what Santangelo is saying he would do and does do.
And now there's physical evidence that he takes even a more direct role in the child's death than that.
What we're describing here is already murder.
Leaving the baby to die, that's murder.
You're killing the baby.
But the babies recovered from the medical waste box were not simply left to die.
They were killed.
Their skulls were crushed.
Their brains were sucked out of their head.
This is happening here in America, while the media talks about a dead fox.
And what about that medical waste box?
Where was it headed?
Well, it was headed to Curtis Bay, which is the company whose name is on the box where the bodies were recovered from.
And that company says on its website that it is, quote, the only facility in the Northeast region that utilizes waste-to-energy incineration to safely convert infectious biomedical waste and non-hazardous pharmaceuticals into useful energy.
That's right on the website.
So they were going to burn the children's bodies for electricity.
The Baltimore area is apparently at least partially being powered by the bodies of dead children.
Right there on the website.
Now, Curtis Bay denies this, for the record.
They say that they don't burn, quote-unquote, fetal remains for energy, and yet their name is on the box.
What's more, they collect medical waste, evidently, from abortion clinics.
What else would be inside the box?
And whatever Curtis Bay knew about the contents of its own boxes, I think we can fairly assume that they knew what was inside the box, because, again, you're collecting from an abortion clinic, Now, maybe they never check, so they have plausible deniability.
That could very well be the case.
A don't ask, don't tell kind of situation, where they send the boxes over to Santangelo, and they say, oh, send us your medical waste, and by the way, we don't take fetal remains.
Hint, hint, wink kind of thing.
But whatever they knew, Santangelo certainly knew it was in the boxes.
Just as Planned Parenthood was caught selling the parts of aborted babies for scientific research, Santangelo was apparently selling them off to be burned for fuel.
And that brings us to the latest.
One of our reporters, Mary Margaret Olihan, who has been doing great work on this story and so many other stories before this, she went to the clinic to get some answers about all this, the clinic in D.C.
where Santangelo operates.
While she was there, She got a fair bit more than she expected or bargained for.
After trying to speak to Santangelo and being shut down, Olihan left the building and happened across a visibly pregnant woman in clear distress who was right then in the process of undergoing an abortion.
The woman was in severe pain and told our reporter that, quote, they just took the tubes out.
And Olihan explains what that means, reading off from the article.
It says, I immediately understood her to mean laminaria sticks, often made out of seaweed, which abortionists use to dilate a woman's cervix.
Dr. Ingrid Skopp, a senior fellow and director of medical affairs at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, tells me that the laminaria absorbs the water from the cervix and helps the cervix to dilate.
Making it easier for the abortionist to reach in to the uterus to blindly, with surgical instruments, remove the baby in a piecemeal fashion, in a dilation and evacuation dismemberment abortion.
Former abortionist Kathy Altman, now an associate scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, told me it's likely that the young woman I encountered would be heading into an induction abortion since she was in the hallway.
If she were going to be having a dilation evacuation abortion, Altman said the doctor would take the laminaria out at the beginning of the procedure while she was in the stirrups.
In an induction abortion, the doctor usually injects the baby with digoxin or potassium chloride when he puts the laminaria in, then waits a day or two for the baby to die before inducing the abortion.
But the baby does not always die, Altman told me, and if the doctor does not reach in and cut the umbilical cord before the baby is induced, that baby could be born alive.
So the laminaria sticks are used either for abortions where the baby is ripped apart and dismembered piece by piece, again with no painkillers, nothing at all being done for the pain.
So this child will feel the pain of being ripped apart.
Or, as was probably the case for this woman that our reporter encountered, they're used in an abortion where the baby is stabbed with a poison needle and left to die over the course of one or two days.
If the child is not dead by then, he'll be born alive, potentially, and either killed directly or left off in the corner of the room to continue his agonizingly slow death.
Now, by the way, Lila Rose at Live Action took a look at the Google reviews of this clinic earlier in the week and found several women who just right there in the reviews said that they underwent the same sort of procedure and they reported that their babies were either born alive or may have been born alive.
One woman says that her baby was born and then or delivered and then rushed out of the room and she asked if the baby was alive and was not given a straight answer.
This is all very common.
It happens all the time.
At clinics all over the country.
Babies that are being born, dismembered, ripped apart.
This is all happening all across the country, especially in places like D.C.
And then we find out, in some cases, reportedly, being shipped off to power plants to be burned for fuel.
I mean, we are burning our children for fuel.
And the people who brag the most about their compassion About their love for the downtrodden and especially for the most vulnerable?
They are the ones facilitating this and sitting off on the sidelines and watching and applauding as it happens.
Now, let's get to our five headlines.
All right.
[MUSIC]
All right, so Judge Contagi Jackson was confirmed yesterday, is now officially the first black female Supreme Court
justice.
And so we heard quite a lot yesterday about the historic nature, this historic occasion, including Dick Durbin, Democratic lawmaker, who had a lot to say about how historic this is and how wonderful it is that we should all be celebrating.
Let's listen to a little bit of that.
I'd like to close with one last personal plea to my Senate colleagues.
I hope you'll think about this.
In the years to come, long after we've left the Senate, one of our grandchildren may ask where we were on this historic day, April 7th, 2022, when America broke down what seemed like an impossible racial barrier and voted to send the first African-American woman to serve on our highest court.
I will be proud to say I was on the Senate floor, standing at my desk, and casting my vote with pride for the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Katonji Brown Jackson.
I hope my colleagues will join me in sharing this historic moment.
You know what I take away from that?
He says, long after we've left the Senate.
What is that going to be exactly?
Can we get on with that?
I mean, this guy's 6,000 years old and he's still in the Senate talking about long after we're gone, many years from now.
That's the most troubling thing to hear.
Many years from now, after we're all gone.
Meanwhile, the average age in the Senate is 97.
And many years from now, they'll be gone.
How about now?
Why don't you go home now and start telling your grandchildren all these incredible stories?
That you're so proud about.
Raphael Warnock also was, he got a little bit spiritual in this moment, and let's hear a bit of that.
Yes, I'm a senator.
I'm a pastor.
But beyond all of that, I'm the father of a young black girl.
I know how much it means for Judge Jackson To have navigated the double jeopardy of racism and sexism to now stand in the glory of this moment in all of her excellence for my five-year-old daughter and for so many young women in our country.
But really, if we're thinking about it right, for all of us, Seeing Judge Jackson ascend to the Supreme Court reflects the promise of progress on which our democracy rests.
So what a great day it is in America.
A great day in America.
Well, a couple of things here.
First of all, they want us to celebrate a moment like this, and there are several reasons that we can't actually celebrate the moment.
We'll go through some of them.
Maybe the first reason is that she's not a good candidate.
Um, that, um, she is, you know, we should celebrate matter what they look like or what sex they are, what skin color they have.
We should celebrate Supreme Court justice who actually are faithful to the constitution and will interpret the constitution and try to defend the constitution because that is their job to uphold the law as it is written in the constitution.
We know that that is not what Jackson is going to do.
So there's nothing really here to celebrate.
The other reason we can't celebrate it is that we hear from people like Warnock that
this is, it's a moment of progress, it's progress.
It's the same thing we heard what feels like ancient history now when Barack Obama was
first elected.
I mean, how much do we hear about this?
This is a moment of incredible progress and a black man's been elected president.
And they tell us that.
And between Obama and Jackson, there have been many other such moments of alleged glass
ceilings breaking all over the place.
And yet, they say this progress is happening.
In one breath, and in the next breath, they revert back to just, we're still a systemically racist country.
It's just as bad now as it was during slavery times.
I mean, we had John Stewart yesterday talking about the three-fifths compromise as if nothing has changed since then.
He said the American Dream is false, it's a myth, it doesn't exist.
Yeah, well, this is a black woman who's now Supreme Court Justice.
Being hailed by a black senator on the floor of the Senate.
Is that not evidence?
Is she enjoying the American Dream?
So apparently it is possible.
So they say that this is a sign of progress, and I could almost put everything else aside if they actually meant it.
I wish I could say to them, okay, it's progress, great, so can we move on now?
Are you saying that we now have progressed past the point of systemic racism, we're not that kind of country anymore?
Is that what you're saying?
Now, I think this progress happened a long time ago, but if you're saying that it happened right now, then okay.
But what happens the next day when you're pretending that this is a systemically racist country and all the rest of it?
So they want to celebrate the progress in one moment, and then in the very next moment, they want to pretend that no progress has happened at all.
In fact, even in saying this, he gives away the game because he says that Contagi Jackson had to navigate the double jeopardy of racism and sexism.
Yeah, that's one way of looking at it.
Or another way of looking at it is that Kentonji Jackson's success is yet more evidence that this systemic racism and sexism actually doesn't exist.
But it's an unfalsifiable claim.
That's the thing about systemic institutional racism and sexism.
It is unfalsifiable.
Literally nothing can happen that would be evidence that it doesn't exist.
Even a black man being elected president, becoming the most powerful man in the free world, was not evidence at all that systemic racism doesn't exist.
You could have not only the most powerful man in our government be a black man, but you could have an administration comprised of racial minorities, and it still is not evidence.
If you don't believe me, the next time you hear someone going on about systemic racism, just ask them.
What would need to happen to prove to you that systemic racism in America doesn't exist?
What would you need to see happen?
Because we know a black man being elected president isn't going to do it.
We know that a black female Supreme Court justice, that's not going to do it.
Okay, that doesn't do it.
What would do it for you?
What do you need to see?
And I'll tell you right now, they won't be able to tell you.
And that is Indication right there.
That is proof that you have an unfalsifiable claim.
And unfalsifiable claims are fallacious.
It can't be falsified because it also can't be proven.
It's a thing that exists out in the ether.
It doesn't exist in reality.
You know, it's like you can't falsify the existence of unicorns.
You can't prove that unicorns don't exist.
And let's see what else we got.
One other, I thought this was actually inspiring.
Kamala Harris, we've heard from some of the senators, but Kamala Harris also had something to say, obviously, about
this historic moment.
And let's listen to her thoughts, such as they are.
There's so much about what's happening in the world now that is presenting
some of the worst of this moment and human behaviors.
And then we have a moment like this that I think reminds us.
I mean, okay.
There's so much about what's happening in the world now.
There's so much about what's happening in the world now that is presenting some of
the worst of this moment and human behaviors.
I mean, okay, there's so much about what's happening in the world now.
I understand that part.
That is presenting some of the worst of this moment.
What's happening in the world is presenting the worst of this moment and human behaviors.
She recovered by the end.
I'll give her credit.
By the end, the first sentence was a mess.
The second sentence, she kind of recovered and she had something approaching a coherent thought.
So that's progress.
That's progress from Kamala Harris.
It's progress from the Biden administration.
So maybe there is hope yet.
There is a chance for some kind of progress.
But no, for all the reasons described, this cannot be considered a historic moment.
Also, because, of course, They want us to celebrate the first black woman on the Supreme Court, but we don't know what a woman is.
What do you mean by that?
And this is a point, you know, my fear with this point is that we will just, we'll get tired of saying it and kind of move on.
But we have to, don't make that mistake.
You gotta hit him with this every single opportunity, every time.
I mean, every time anybody on the left says anything about women, especially wants us to celebrate the achievement of a woman or of women generally, every time they do it, you come right back with, what do you mean by that?
Who is that?
What's a woman?
What are you talking about?
Define the word.
Just hit him over the head with it.
Bash them over the head with it, metaphorically, every chance you get.
Because this is not like a meme or just some kind of sassy fun comeback.
This is a legitimate point, a point that destroys their entire worldview, that they have to answer.
And so we should never tire of bringing it up.
All right, let's move to this.
So this week, The Atlantic hosted a seminar at the University of Chicago called Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy, where a whole bunch of high-profile people in media and politics, to include Obama apparently, was there.
And they showed up to talk about the dangers of disinformation, even though these are the purveyors of disinformation.
And this was a fact not lost on some in the audience who were college kids, and during the Q&A portions, they had the chance to call the propagandists to task in some really glorious video footage.
We can't play all this, but I want to play a few clips here.
So first, here's a student Asking, I think the first question that comes to mind, I mean, you're having this disinformation seminar and you are the people who claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation.
Turns out that that claim was disinformation.
How do you rectify all that?
So here's a student asking an Atlantic journalist about this problem.
Thank you for doing this, really appreciate it.
I'm Daniel Schmidt.
I'm a freshman at the University of Chicago.
My question is for Ms.
Applebaum.
So in 2020, you wrote, those who live outside the Fox News bubble do not, of course, need to learn any of the stuff about Hunter Biden, referring to his laptop, of course.
A poll later after that found that if voters knew about the content of the laptop, 16% of Joe Biden voters would have acted differently.
Now, of course, we know a few weeks ago, the New York Times confirmed that the content is real.
Do you think the media acted inappropriately when they instantly dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian disinformation and what can we learn from that in ensuring that what we label as disinformation is truly disinformation and not reality?
My problem with Hunter Biden's laptop is I think totally irrelevant.
I mean, it's not whether it's disinformation or... I mean, I don't think the Hunter Biden's business relationships have anything to do with who should be President of the United States.
So, I don't find it to be interesting.
I mean, that would be my problem with that as a major news story.
Oh, it's not interesting.
It just doesn't interest me.
That's all.
I don't find it interesting.
Is that how we're deciding now, what news is worthy to be printed?
If it's interesting or not, to you personally, subjectively, during a presidential campaign, we're making decisions based on what you personally find interesting.
And if you don't find it interesting, then not only are we not going to talk about it, but it's going to be banned from social media.
That's a great power.
I'd love to have that power, just ban everything from social media that I don't find interesting, which would be like 99.9% of the stuff on it.
Not interesting, she says, but that of course is not what they were saying two years ago.
They were not saying that it's not interesting, they were saying that it's false, that it's disinformation.
So the next day, this happened a couple days ago, the next day, Jonah Goldberg, who's the token conservative on the panel, responded to this bit about the, and he's also someone, by the way, who said that this was all disinformation and a lie and a hoax and everything, and he responded and had his thoughts about it.
Let's listen to that.
Talk about A to C. They now think that if only the media had told us about the laptop at the time, as the kid yesterday was suggesting, which I don't buy his theory, that Trump would have won.
But for the censoring of the New York Post, Trump would have won.
And I think it's a preposterous counterfactual.
But it's also, it's impossible for me to refute.
In the same way, I cannot refute that this bottle is keeping all the polar bears away.
Right?
I mean, do you see any polar bears?
I cannot prove the negative.
And this is just, it has now become... Can we lock the doors just in case?
It has been wrapped into a much larger narrative.
And so when they hear disinformation, they say, oh, you mean like Hunter Laptop, which actually turned out to be true?
It's actually infuriating.
It's sickening to listen to these smarmy... It's like keeping the polar bears away.
That's not the point, Jonah.
You know that's not the point.
The point isn't whether or not it's true that it would have swayed the election one way or another.
Look, I myself am skeptical that the Hunter Biden laptop story would have swayed the election.
Could have.
I'm skeptical.
I said that at the time when this story came out and conservatives and right-wing media were hammering on the Hunter Biden laptop thing right as we were heading into the election.
And now, I didn't say that it's disinformation and it should be banned from social media.
I said, like, it's true, but I don't think that this is the best closing argument.
I don't think the best closing argument against Biden is that his son is a scumbag.
And yeah, you can draw the connection between his son and Biden, and you can draw all these connections, and they are connected.
But if you want a political scandal to land, it has to be pretty simple and easy to explain.
And to connect the dots between Hunter Biden's laptop and Joe Biden himself...
That takes a couple more moves and it's a harder case to make, especially in the closing weeks of a campaign.
You want to go with things that are much simpler and more to the point about Joe Biden himself.
Because a lot of people, they're going to hear about Hunter's laptop.
Well, it turns out a lot of people didn't hear about it because it was censored by the media.
But I think a lot of people would hear about it and say, well, I don't care.
What does that have to do with Joe Biden?
Yeah, his son, his grown son is a scumbag.
Okay.
Again, there is a connection there, but getting people to see the connection is a different matter.
It's not the same thing, right?
I think the stronger argument and the closing argument against Biden all along should be about him and how incompetent he is, and also His age, and I know that his age came up a lot, but I think that should have been the headline.
That should have been the number one thing hammering on the entire time.
This man is losing his mind.
He's not fit for office.
He's 78 years old.
He's senile.
He has dementia.
Yeah, it was talked about plenty, but in my mind, that's the number one most salient thing in the election to bring up.
Okay.
But that's academic.
That's irrelevant.
The fact is, we don't know whether it would have swayed the election because it was censored.
And all that matters, whether or not it would have or wouldn't have, not the point.
The point is that the powers that be in the culture, the media, big tech, they thought that it would, which is why they censored it.
So this was an attempt to rig and sway the election.
Not just an attempt, it was.
They were rigging, and they were rigging the election.
That's it.
Now, how do you quantify the effect that it had?
I mean, you can't because you're speaking in theoretical terms.
To know for sure, you have to go back in time and do it all over again, but without censoring that material.
We can't do that, so we can only speak theoretically.
But this was a rigging of the election that happened because big tech and the media, they thought that this could be damning enough to convince people to vote to either just not vote for Biden at all or to actually vote for Trump.
And they were having flashbacks to the email scandal with Hillary Clinton in 2016, which absolutely did, absolutely was one of the deciding factors, as well it ought to have been, leading to her losing and Trump winning.
So they were having flashbacks to that, and they said, we can't let this happen again, and so we're going to censor this material.
Jonah Goldberg is missing the point on purpose, talking about in theory, well, what would have happened, that's not it.
They thought that it would, and they tried to censor it, and they did censor it because of that.
And that's the point.
And it is, it is, it should infuriate you, especially if you pretend to care so much about democracy, and you're always accusing Trump and the far right of waging an assault on democracy.
Well, how is this not an assault on democracy?
When there is factual and relevant information about a political candidate in a presidential election that is kept from public view because of how it might sway them.
How is that not an assault on democracy?
Let's see.
Okay, I want to get to this.
We don't have a lot of time, but we talked yesterday about the case of Maria Lucio, who is the woman who's on death row right now for brutally murdering her two-year-old daughter.
And she has had celebrities come out in her defense, you know, just the peanut galleries out in her defense.
And a lot of this was, a lot of this began with a Netflix documentary.
As is so often the case now.
You've got these supposed true crime Netflix documentaries.
And these things, by the way, these true crime, supposed true crime Netflix documentaries, they are a scourge on this planet at this point.
So many examples of people watching these quote-unquote documentaries and coming away thinking they understand a case when really they don't understand it at all.
I mean, it all, you know, making a murderer is one of the classic examples of this, of course.
Still to this day, people walk around saying that Stephen Avery has been unjustly freed from prison.
Well, I'll tell you what, if they ever do free him from prison, and especially if you're a woman and he moves in your neighborhood, move out.
Because this guy is a murderous psychopath.
And we know in that quote-unquote documentary, they left out a lot of relevant information.
And that's the problem with these documentaries, is that it's very easy to take a murder case and make a guilty person seem innocent by simply just leaving out all the stuff that makes them seem guilty.
Real easy to do.
You just take the defense, whatever the defense is, and you present that in film form, and you leave out all of the most damning evidence.
And then people watch that, and they don't do any research on their own, and they walk away assuming that, oh, this person's been thrown in jail, they don't belong there.
In Steven Aver's case, it was, I mean, there were so many things that were left out.
Just off the top of my head, there's the fact that his victim, Teresa Halbach, you know, she was going to his house, she had gone to his house a couple times to take pictures for a magazine of, I think it was, cars, you know, he was selling cars.
And she had told her bosses that she doesn't want to go back to his house because of this guy, the guy's a creep, and would show up to the door like in, with nothing on but a bathrobe.
So she had already gotten, you know, she was already freaked out by this guy, didn't want to go there.
His DNA was found under the hood of her car.
When he said he never went in her car, never was anywhere near it.
He had made plans earlier while he was in prison, you know, years before, talking about torturing and raping women.
I mean, he killed a cat, and they kind of mentioned that, but they downplayed it.
Actually, he doused a cat in gasoline and set it on fire.
This is what, like, serial killers do.
So all kinds of stuff like that left out.
Similar thing with the Maria Lucio case.
And we've heard about family members of Lucio who have come to her defense.
But apparently many of these are kids of hers who were not living in the house when all this happened.
Because she had like 12 kids, I don't think all by the same father.
And they've been in and out of foster care, they were living in different homes.
And so many of the kids that have come out in her defense and saying she didn't do it, they weren't in the house at the time.
One of her own daughters, though, who was in the house, has been on TikTok speaking out and saying that her mom did, in fact, viciously abuse her sister.
She didn't personally see some of the worst abuse, but she was in the house and she knows that it was happening.
So here she is on TikTok talking about some of this.
Let's play this.
The only one who abused my sister was my mother, Melissa Lucio.
No, my father, stepdad that lived in the house with us, was not aware of the abuse that was going on.
Even us as kids, we didn't know the extent of the abuse that was happening.
We, the abuse that we talk about and know about is the isolation of her keeping my sister
away from everyone, not letting her play with us.
My mom would hold my sister down on the bed or she would hold her head down on the pillow
so that Mariah wouldn't interact with us.
We did see my mom pinch Mariah, but we never witnessed a punch.
We never witnessed my mom bite Mariah, nor did we ever witness my mom pull my sister's hair, but all of that was happening.
Like I said, my dad was not aware of the abuse.
He was always working, and the only time that I can think of that the abuse was possibly happening was Either when all of us were in school, my dad was working and my mom was alone with Mariah, or when all of us were sleeping because my mom slept or Mariah slept in the bed with my mom and my dad.
And that's the only thing that I can think of.
We didn't see any of the abusing until when we came home or when my dad found Mariah that day in the bed.
Mariah was soaked.
Her, her, her pamper was soaked.
And, um, my dad took off her clothes so that he can change her pamper before the ambulance got here or there.
And, um, when he took off her pamper, of course he had to take off her pants.
And that's when he saw the bruises and that's when he started screaming to my mom, how could he do that?
Or how could she do that?
And why was, why did she abuse my sister?
So that's this woman's own child who's reporting all this, and now she's on death row justly so for killing this child.
Says the child fell down the steps.
Allie Stuckey has a thread on this and has posted some of the court documents detailing more about the abuse that Mariah, the daughter, suffered.
At the hands of this disgusting woman.
And she admits that she did, she, she, okay, just reading it says, Appellant also stated that she would hit Mariah when Appellant got mad.
Appellant also described how she pinched Mariah's vagina and how she would sometimes grab and squeeze Mariah's arm.
Appellant described how she bit Mariah twice on the back at different times about two weeks before Mariah's death.
Appellant said that on one occasion she bit Mariah on the back for no reason while she was combing Mariah's hair.
Appellant said, I just did it.
Pellen also stated that she would spank Mariah several times day after day.
So, admitting to vicious, like, deranged physical abuse of a child, then the child ends up dead with bruises and marks all over her body, and the claim is that she fell down the steps, and people are buying this?
It's like, it's unthinkable to me.
And one thing you hear a lot, by the way, is that, well, the other kids said that they were not personally abused.
That doesn't mean anything.
You know, a parent, an abusive, psychotic parent kind of focusing their abuse on one child is not uncommon.
It happens a lot.
They have a name for it.
They call it the Cinderella Phenomenon or Target Child Selection.
I don't particularly like either of those terms, but those are the terms that are used.
And this is something that happens.
It's a very well-known phenomenon.
Where a parent, abusive parent, will isolate, for whatever reason, will pick one child, isolate them, we hear about that in the video there, how she was isolated and then physically abused while all the other kids are left alone, at least physically.
That is clearly what happened here.
This woman deserves to die.
Few people on earth deserve to die as much as she does.
And I will thank God when she is finally executed because that's what she deserves.
All right, one other quick thing before we get to the comment section.
A report from a journalist at Airline Weekly says, this is an exclusive report, American Airlines is the latest to offer an on-the-ground alternative to flying amid the pilot shortage and high oil prices.
They will begin operating buses as flights for American from its Philadelphia airport hub in June.
Buses as flights is what they're calling it.
In other words, just, you see it there.
So, no, it's just a bus.
Like, unless the bus flies, unless this is a magic school bus situation where Miss Frizzle's flying it through the air and going on adventures, it's not a bus as a flight.
It's just a bus.
And so this is the innovation.
This is the aviation innovation we're getting now.
And I was thinking about this, and it just seems to me like we're moving backwards, right?
Because 30 years ago, You could take a supersonic flight from New York to London in like three hours, three and a half hours.
And now if you're in Philly and you want to go to a city nearby, you buy a plane ticket, they put you on a bus.
The aviation industry is progressing in the opposite direction, basically.
By 2030, American Airlines, it'll be like Wright Brothers planes, they're flying.
You'll be able to glide from New York City to another location in New York City.
That's the direction we're heading.
Well, if you're worried about not getting enough of my wildly reasonable takes before the coming alien invasion mercifully wipes us out of our collective misery, then you need not fear any longer.
That's because I've started a weekly newsletter which will grace your inbox once a week with some tips, fun facts, updates, and an introspective look into the dark inner workings of my disturbed and terrifying mind, and also the occasional mean tweet.
You saw the lengths I'm willing to go for abuela, so if you want to join them and get on my side, you'll head to dailywire.com slash mattwalshreport and subscribe to my newsletter right now.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Memo type says, is Matt making an institutional power argument?
Yeah, I am making an institutional power argument that I have made many times for cancel culture.
Institutional power is a real thing.
I guess you're referring to the institutional power argument we hear from the left, where they talk about how racism is defined by institutional power, and you can't be racist unless you have institutional power, and that's why only white people can be racist.
Yeah, that's completely bogus.
For many reasons.
One is that racism has nothing to do with institutional power.
If you despise someone or judge them or think they're inferior because of their race, then you're racist whether you have institutional power or not.
It's also false because white people are not the only ones with institutional power.
But that doesn't mean that no argument should be made based on institutional power.
Institutional power is a real thing that exists.
And my argument is that although racism is not defined and dependent upon institutional power, cancel culture is.
That's how you distinguish between cancel culture and just holding somebody accountable or expressing your disapproval of something or protesting.
That's how you distinguish between those two things, because they're not the same.
Cancel culture is when the powerful institutions in this country are used against someone to shut them down, silence them, and it's done in a vengeful, petty, often dishonest kind of way.
For ideological reasons.
That's what cancel culture is.
I think we should be pretty clear about that.
Let's see.
Matt, why aren't you displaying your hard-earned trophy?
Yeah, the trophy that somebody awarded me for dominating my children in pickup basketball.
Well, the reason I'm not displaying it is that the shelving behind me, the shelves behind me are fake because this, again, as I've told you before, it's just a sheet.
It's like a bed sheet with an imprint of my old studio on it.
So that's why, unfortunately, I can't display the trophy.
Speaking of which, though, Speaking of me defeating my kids in various competitions, I did play, it was kind of a big moment.
I played, really it was like the first time playing a real board game against my kids.
It was just my daughter, the eight-year-old Julia.
I played Monopoly.
It was the first time playing Monopoly against her and my wife, all three of us played.
And I just, I crushed their souls.
Okay, by the end of this thing, I had every Monopoly on the board except for one.
And it was just in total domination.
And I told my daughter beforehand, before we got into it, I said, I'm not going to let you win.
We're playing for real now, OK?
You're eight years old.
We're playing a real board game now.
And she said to me, I know, Daddy, I just want to play a game with you.
I said, OK, let's play.
And by the end of it, I had won so thoroughly, of course, and she starts crying.
She's in tears.
And I ask her, why are you crying?
And she said, she told me because she thought she might win.
She got her hopes up.
And I tried to comfort her, and I said, oh no, Jules, you were never going to win.
I was always going to win.
You're not ever going to beat me in this game or any other game.
And I thought that would comfort her, and it apparently didn't, and my wife was looking at me, and like, I'm the bad guy all of a sudden.
But I stand by this.
My dad, growing up, we used to play cards, and he would never let us win.
He would ruin us in cards every single time.
And look how I turned out.
Maybe that doesn't help my case, I don't know.
And finally, Aaron says, Matt, I'm a correctional officer who makes the inmates watch their sweet daddy.
Well, sweet daddy seems like it could have some troubling connotations in a prison setting, but it is good to hear anyway.
I do appreciate that.
I don't know how exactly you force your, it does seem like that might be a violation of human rights to force your inmates to listen to this podcast, but I appreciate it all the same.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, Disney is continuing its groveling struggle sessions as its executives debase themselves in ever more extravagant and excruciating ways, hoping to win back the good favor of the LGBT cabal that's really running the company at this point.
This week, Disney held another Reimagine Tomorrow online seminar for its employees, and as always, Chris Ruffo got his hands on the footage.
We'll review some of it, but there's one part in particular that I'd like to pay special attention to.
We'll get to that in a couple minutes.
Before we get there, Here's a Disney official announcing a benefits program to help pay for sex change surgeries for the children of Disney employees.
Listen.
The other big area is gender identity and expression.
So doing all of this work to ensure that our employees and cast can express their gender here authentically and proudly at the company.
So, you know, coming up with guides on how to change your photo, information about pronouns, working with our benefits team to give information about gender affirmation procedures, both for our employees who are transitioning and trans, but also our employees who have kids who are transitioning.
Gender affirmation procedure, as you know if you listen to the show, is a euphemism that in practice actually means chopping the breasts off of teenage girls, chemically castrating young boys, and subjecting these confused and abused children to various other forms of medical savagery.
It wasn't very long ago that the left was still denying that these kinds of things were done to children at all.
Now, though, Disney proudly announces that it will foot the bill for procedures that, five seconds ago, we were told didn't exist, weren't happening.
Will this be enough to satiate the alphabet squad?
Well, of course not.
During the same seminar, various Disney employees and executives who claim various different letters in the LGBTXYZ club appeared on camera to talk about their deep and profound pain.
This they-them was feeling particularly emotional.
Let's listen to that.
You know, for me, well, one, I'm an emotional person, so there's always a fear of crying in public, but I've just decided to accept that this is who I am.
But in addition to that, you know, the fact Just the fact of like how painful this has been.
And as a black person, as a black queer person, as a black queer and trans person, you know, to do the work of holding the company accountable means unpacking my own pain for somebody else to learn.
That is really hard to do without knowing that it's going to get better.
And so if I'm going to continue to do this and continue to show up and kind of lay myself bare for the benefit of my colleagues and our leadership, I want to know that something is going to be done about it so that I don't feel this way anymore and so that we don't feel this way anymore.
As a black person, as a black queer person, as a black queer trans person, as a black queer trans person with food allergies, as a black queer trans person with food allergies and dyslexia, as a black queer trans person with food allergies and dyslexia and vertigo, just keep, you know, padding the victim resume.
The woman insists that she's deeply in pain.
She's suffering, writhing in emotional agony.
But as always, she cannot explain what exactly she's so upset about.
I mean, I think I know the answer.
One answer is that she's a manipulative fraud who uses emotional blackmail to control people.
This, of course, is the number one most common cherished tactic of LGBT activists.
The other is that she has an ego the size of Disney World, but it's as thin and fragile as it is overinflated.
And she carries this massive bag of narcissism around with her everywhere, and it's always getting, you know, bumped into and bruised.
This, again, is the classic story of LGBT activists told over and over and over again.
You also notice how this woman has almost no thoughts of her own.
Everything she utters is a talking point or buzzword.
Do the work.
Unpack my pain.
Show up.
She's so obsessed with herself and focused on herself, and yet there is almost no self there.
She's a walking, talking, leftist cliché.
And we'll return to that theme in just a moment, but first, we have to go to Bob Chapek, who's the Disney CEO, and a man who, if he were any more spineless, would melt into a puddle and disappear down the drain.
He's more of a jellyfish than a man at this point.
Translucent, insubstantial, gelatinous, invertebrate, and apparently totally incapable of experiencing shame.
Watch.
By now, I hope you've all read my most recent note, in which I pledged to be a better ally for the LGBTQ community, apologized for not being the ally that you needed me to be, and committed to ensuring that our company lives up to its values.
I meant every word, and that's what we're here to talk about today.
I know that we've got work to do, and that work starts with listening.
I'm glad the company will hear from today's panel of LGBTQ plus employees, and I hope that you are as impacted as I've been by the voices that I've heard over the past few weeks.
I've read many emails that have been sent, spoken with LGBTQ plus employees and their allies, met with advocacy groups, and convened my own leadership team.
And I have been taken by the honesty, the openness, and the urgency of their stories.
I want you to know that your words have made a real impact on me.
I understand that we've made mistakes and the pain that those mistakes have caused.
And I know that our silence wasn't just about the bill in Florida, but about every time an individual or institution that should have stood up for this community did not.
I and the leadership team are determined to use this moment as a catalyst for more meaningful and lasting change.
You know, it's in videos like this where you really see the religious nature of modern leftism.
Chaypik confesses his sins, seeks atonement and absolution.
I mean, every religion has this feature, but in, say, the Christian religion, the faithful seek the forgiveness of our Father who art in heaven.
Chaypik seeks the forgiveness of his own gods who art in the LGBT initialism.
There are many little demigods in that club, and everybody on the outside of the club is struggling to get inside the club and enjoy their own share of its divinity.
A Disney executive producer named Latoya Raveneau has found her own way into the club, and it's pretty interesting.
Listen to this.
I identify as, like, a biromantic asexual.
I've had a lot.
Of learning and growing about myself this year, kind of facilitated by how comfortable I felt on The Proud Family and with my immediate team at Disney TVA.
And so it's just sort of like this creative dissonance between my personal experience.
A biromantic asexual.
Now let's break this down.
An asexual is somebody who supposedly doesn't experience any sexual attraction at all to anyone.
The problem with that identification is that, first of all, if it's true that somebody experiences no sexual attraction at all, then it makes absolutely no sense to include them in the LGBT community, given that this is a community which is literally defined by its various sexual attractions.
Putting an asexual person in the LGBT camp, it's like having a club for birdwatchers, and also including people who have absolutely no interest in birdwatching.
These are people who do not want to partake in the very thing that defines the club.
It makes no sense to have them in the club, in that case.
Also, people are not meant to be asexual and are not asexual.
Now, some animal species are asexual, like Komodo dragons and certain species of crayfish.
But people are not Komodo dragons or crayfish.
That woman, as far as I could tell, is neither of those things.
She's a human being.
What we call asexuality would more properly be characterized as a low libido or a disinterest in romantic relationships.
That's not the same thing, scientifically, as asexuality.
It is rather a dysfunction of the brain, which may be due to hormonal problems, or some sort of mental illness, or trauma suffered earlier in life.
You know, there could be a lot of reasons for it.
Or perhaps, and I think this is the most common, it could also be a symptom of spiritual despair.
Some people have given up on human relationships because they've decided that they're not worth the cost or the effort, but that's not asexuality.
And whatever the cause of this affliction, it's not an identity.
It's bizarre and self-limiting to find your whole identity in your sexual attraction, but it's even more bizarre and far more limiting to find your identity in your lack of attraction.
You are finding your sense, your self, your sense of self, in the absence of something.
This is no way to become a fully formed and stable human being.
But wait a second.
She says that she's not only asexual, but also bi-romantic.
But what does that mean?
In reality, romantic means something that is characterized by love and affection towards another person.
This is the dictionary definition.
And we have to understand love in this context to be the erotic form of love.
That's what romantic love is.
That's why you would hopefully say that you love your mother, but you would even more hopefully not say that when you go out to dinner with your mother, it's a romantic dinner.
See, there are different kinds of love, and romantic love is erotic love, it's sexual love.
These are the same, erotic, sexual, romantic, these are all synonyms.
They belong in the same category.
So how can somebody be romantic, more than that, biromantic, meaning that they have romantic attraction to both sexes, and yet also at the same time be asexual?
Well, they can't, is the answer.
One of the latest LGBT innovations is to draw this incoherent, bifurcating line between romantic and sexual.
But the distinction, just like the distinction between sex and gender, is meaningless.
Romantic and sexual are the same thing.
They are characterized the same way.
If you're not romantically attracted to somebody, then you're not sexually attracted to them.
If you are romantically attracted to them, you're sexually attracted to them.
There is no legible distinction between the two.
And yet the LGBT activists Draw one anyway.
This is their game.
It never ends.
They never stop their assault on language and logic.
All coherent concepts have to be broken down, torn to shreds, blended together, and turned into a jumbled smoothie of meaningless contradictions.
And that's why ultimately today, we thought I was going to cancel Disney, but we already canceled them.
So instead, In a much more specific sense, we are cancelling biromantic asexuals.
Can't really be cancelled, I guess, because they don't exist, but even so, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
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.
