Ep. 934 - The Real Reason Why The Media Wants To Destroy Libs Of TikTok
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the leftist media tries its best to defend The Washington Post doxxing the creator of the Libs of Tik Tok account. We’ll talk about that, and also try to answer this question: Why are they bothering to go after Libs of Tik Tok at all? Also, cable news pundits are now shipping themselves off to go fight in Ukraine. A win/win perhaps? Elon Musk exposes the overpopulation hoax. A Democrat lawmaker earns props from the left for his theatrical, tearful speech protesting a bill to protect women’s sports. And as airline passengers tear off their muzzles and celebrate their freedom, the Biden Administration fights to muzzle them once again.
Get 30% off my collection in the Daily Wire online store using code SWAGSHACK: https://utm.io/ueuBl.
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, the leftist media tries its best to defend the Washington Post doxing the creator of the Libs of TikTok account.
We'll talk about that and also try to answer this question, why are they bothering to go after Libs of TikTok at all?
Also, cable news pundits are now shipping themselves off to go fight in Ukraine.
A win-win for everybody, perhaps.
Elon Musk exposes the overpopulation hoax.
A Democrat lawmaker earns props from the left for his theatrical, tearful speech protesting a bill to protect women's sports.
And as airline passengers tear off their muzzles and celebrate their freedom, the Biden administration fights to muzzle them once again.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Well, if you're a pro-life activist, then you are going to see the absolute worst of the other
side.
And anyone who's been in pro-life activism has seen this.
The things that they scream and shout at you and everything else.
Talk about harassment, you certainly get a lot of that.
Some people on the left have been saying that pro-life people in Texas and the other growing number of states with the Heartbeat Act are no better than the Taliban.
Because if you want to protect babies, then obviously you're in the Taliban.
They ignore science and biology and refuse to acknowledge that heartbeats are actually a good thing.
Insults like, you're the Taliban, is all they have left to say.
That's 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.
It's one of the largest pro-life organizations.
In the world, they have 1 million volunteers in 1,000 cities and 64 countries holding peaceful 40-day vigils outside of abortion facilities to save lives and help abortion workers leave their jobs.
You can get the book, What to Say When, today.
And if you do get the book, the very first thing you're going to see is the foreword, which yours truly did write.
And that's one reason to buy it.
But really the real reason is that the whole book is great and it's a great resource for anyone,
no matter how experienced you are with pro-life activism.
It covers the old arguments and the new ones that you might be hearing at work or with family.
So get it now and check out 40daysforlife.com to help end abortion wherever you live.
Well, if you thought there would be any accountability for the parasitic sociopath named Taylor Lorenz
who docks the woman behind the Libs of TikTok account, I envy your naivete and innocence, you sweet summer child.
The regime will always defend its own, and so it has dug its trenches around Lorenz and will protect her, of course.
Now, before we get to the latest on the story and some important points that I think need to be made about it, Let's back up quickly and review for anyone who gave themselves a day off from the news cycle yesterday.
You should probably just keep that going.
Go back into whatever cave you were hiding in and don't emerge.
There's nothing up here for you.
Well, Lorenz, a Washington Post reporter who gins up outrage mobs against people for a living, basically.
That's what she does.
While simultaneously crying about all of the online harassment she supposedly endures, wrote an article about the previously anonymous woman who runs the Lives of TikTok account on Twitter.
She published the woman's name, the city where she lives, and her employment history.
She also tracked down the woman's family and went to their homes.
Not only that, but the article on WashingtonPost.com originally included a link which, if you clicked on it, would give you the woman's current home address.
Now, the link was taken down after backlash, but the proverbial cat is already out of the bag.
By design, of course.
I mean, you don't have to keep the link up.
It only needs to be up for five minutes, and leftist internet trolls will take it and run with it, ensuring that the information is enshrined forever online.
And so that was the strategy there.
Now, the doxxing is the big news here, and the most vile thing about the piece, but let's not let it distract us completely from the fact that the article is also, along with the doxxing, incredibly dishonest.
Lorenz accuses the Libs of TikTok creator of using, quote, QAnon-related language, but doesn't explain what that means or provide any examples or evidence.
The left has previously decided that any outrage expressed over pedophilia or child grooming, or if you say something like, we have to save the children or protect the children, that that is QAnon language.
We can only assume that Lorenz is referring to that.
Lorenz starts the article with this sentence.
This is what it says.
On March 8th, a Twitter account called Libs of TikTok posted a video of a woman teaching sex education to children in Kentucky, calling the woman in the video a predator.
What she doesn't mention?
Now, what she doesn't mention, though, what Lorenz doesn't mention, is that the sex educator is running a, the quote-unquote sex educator anyway, is running a sexy summer camp for kids, and that's what she calls it.
And in the video in question, where she's, well, she's just teaching sex ed to kids, is what Lorenz says in the article.
Well, in reality, she's talking about how she recommends masturbation to very young children.
And she brags in the video that her nephews were masturbating, quote, as soon as they can talk.
We've played that video on the show.
You might remember it.
I'm not going to make you sit through it again.
Lorenz doesn't mention any of that in her article, because she's a dishonest, soulless hack.
Speaking of which, the piece also contains this passage.
It says, Tyler Wrynn, a former English teacher in Oklahoma, posted a video telling LGBTQ kids shunned by their parents that Wrynn was proud of them and loved them.
It was featured on Libs of TikTok last week.
Since being featured on the page, Wrynn has been barraged with harassment and death threats.
Quote, I've always seen myself as the type of teacher to stand up for marginalized voices, Wren said.
I see fellow teachers on TikTok speak out for our disenfranchised students, and they're getting the same sort of harassment too.
Oh, poor Tyler Wren.
He's being harassed because of the mean woman behind the libs of TikTok account.
Hey, just curious.
I mean, not that it matters, of course, but what exactly does the teacher say in the video?
I mean, does he really just say that he's proud of his LGBT students?
That's all he says, huh?
He just says, hey, I'm proud of all my students, including the LGBT students.
I'm proud of you all.
And that's what ended up on Libs of Tech?
He's getting death threats over that?
Well, that's some terrible homophobia.
If that's all he said, but let's go to the tape and find out.
Hey, if your parents don't love and accept you for who you are this Christmas, f*** them.
I'm your parents now.
I'm proud of you.
Drink some water.
I love you.
Bye.
Ah, okay.
So, uh, he does say that he's proud of his students.
It's just that Lorenz, quite accidentally, I'm sure, left out the part where he says, f*** your parents.
I'm your parents now.
He says this and chooses to post it to a public platform.
Libs with TikTok, that's another important point here.
She's not sneaking into these people's homes with a camera and surreptitiously recording them.
She's taking the videos they record of themselves and post themselves and she's reposting it to another platform.
Lorenz calls this anti-LGBT harassment.
Which is absurd because you can't harass someone by simply calling attention to something they chose to post, but also because she's lumping all LGBT people into the groomer camp.
She's doing that.
Lorenz is doing it.
She is labeling all LGBT people groomers.
Libs of TikTok's not doing that.
After all, you know, I don't think, and Libs of TikTok doesn't think, that every gay person, or even most, believe that we should teach masturbation to toddlers.
Or agree that teachers should tell students, F your parents, I'm your parents now.
I don't see that as the official gay position on these topics.
Lorenz apparently does.
And that's her issue.
That's on her.
But the media wagons have circled around Lorenz.
Many of her peers have come to her defense, claiming that her tracking down the name, address, and family members of an anonymous Twitter account is just good old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting.
The Post itself has taken this stance as The Hill reports, quote, The Washington Post is standing behind the reporting of one of its top columnists after a story published Tuesday sparked pushback from supporters of a popular conservative Twitter account.
Quote, Taylor Lorenz is a diligent and accomplished journalist whose reporting methods comport entirely with The Washington Post professional standards.
Cameron Barr, senior managing editor at The Post said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that the report, quote, did not publish or link to any details about the creator's personal life.
Now, that's simply a lie.
It did, in fact, include personal details.
Some were later removed, and some remain.
One of the personal details that remains is the most basic of all, her name.
Now, of course, the Lorenz defenders say that it's not doxing to publish the woman's name because names are publicly available information.
That's the narrative now.
Well, it's publicly available.
Well, if that's the standard for doxing, then I've got bad news.
We're all in trouble.
Because in the information age, literally everything is publicly available to any member of the public with the knowledge and wherewithal to track it down.
I mean, your name is publicly available, your date of birth, your address, your employer.
Even things that are allegedly private can still be accessed by someone who knows what they're doing.
Besides, do you know who is on the record as stating that it's doxxing to publish someone's name without consent?
There is one person who's made this point in the past, and I thought did so very well, and that would be Taylor Lorenz.
Here she is just a few months ago complaining about the doxing campaign against a guy dubbed West Elm Caleb.
Some women on TikTok were complaining about this guy for ghosting them and it went viral for some reason and it was a viral trending thing.
And pretty soon this guy's name was everywhere.
And here's Lorenz's thoughts about that.
Listen.
A bunch of people are asking if I'm going to write about the West Elm Caleb story.
No, I'm on book leave.
I can't keep writing pieces for the New York Times.
I literally do have a lot of deadlines.
But journalists who are writing about it, please speak to people with experience in online harassment.
I'm not gonna lie, I've been pretty horrified by a lot of the media coverage of this.
A lot of people are just aggregating some of the cruelest commentary online and whipping it all up into a news story with absolutely no comment from Caleb or Nuance about the situation.
The top story on Google yesterday was literally this House Beautiful story that doxes Caleb, puts his full name in the story, zero comment from this man.
After this whole article gleefully encourages this online harassment and doxing campaign, they literally use him to sell West Elm furniture through affiliate links.
Once again, commercializing a harassment and doxing campaign.
I think the media needs a total wake-up call on the way that they cover online harassment, and this is just the latest example of it.
And reporters should be adding nuance, not just piling on.
Yeah, you don't want to pile on.
You want to have nuance.
The media needs a wake-up call.
I agree with... I agree, actually, with everything she said in that one-minute clip there.
I agree with the entire thing.
The problem is that she does not agree with it.
She says that a news story, Dox's Caleb, puts his full name in the story.
That's a direct quote from her.
Dox's Caleb puts his full name in the story.
Now, whether publishing somebody's name is doxing or not, it's very clear that the person who published LibzaTikTok's name thinks that it is.
Now, how can she justify this double standard?
Well, first, by having no soul, as covered.
But second, because as always with the left, whatever they're decrying, especially when they're decrying the way that somebody is treated, there is always an asterisk.
And the asterisk says, unless they deserve it.
Okay, that's always the exception.
That's always the catch.
So, hatred and intolerance are bad.
Unless they deserve it.
Violence is bad.
Unless they deserve it.
Human rights violations are bad.
Unless they deserve it.
Doxing is bad.
Unless they deserve it.
And Libs of TikTok deserved it.
She had it coming.
For one reason above all others.
And here's what you have to understand.
This may be the most important point of all here.
If this woman had started a Twitter account called Libs of Twitter, and it was dedicated to the Libs of Twitter, her name and address would still probably be private right now.
If she had made a Libs of Facebook account, exposing the liberal wine moms who populate that platform, she'd be at home, safe and sound, rather than having to hide in a safe house right now.
The great crime committed by Libs of TikTok was focusing her energy on TikTok, specifically.
And as I said yesterday, but bears repeating, the reason that this is such an infraction in the eyes of the left, the reason why that pokes the bear so much, is that our kids are on TikTok.
Not my kids.
My kids won't ever even have cell phones because I love them, but lots of people's kids are on TikTok.
The common thread here, the theme, is that the left does not want us to see what our kids are seeing on TikTok.
They don't want you to see what your kids are seeing.
That platform, along with the public school system, together act as a social contagion factory.
They're like Petri dishes, where the viruses are grown and cultivated and the hosts are infected.
Now, the boomers on Facebook are getting infected by their own mind viruses, as are the millennials on Twitter, but it's most important, as far as the left is concerned, to keep what is happening to our kids in the dark.
That's why they cry harassment when you simply point and say, hey, look what's happening over there.
They don't want you to look while they're still sowing.
They just want you to accept whatever grows from the seed without asking questions.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, just like the foundation of this great country is the Constitution,
the foundation of your family should be your faith and your beliefs.
So I have a serious question for you.
If something should happen to you or your spouse, who do you trust to instill those same core beliefs and values in your children?
Do you think it's the same person the state would assign them to?
Are you going to trust the state to make that decision?
If you don't have a will in place, then you have no say in the future of your children.
It's as simple as that.
You're choosing not to have a say.
And if you're single and don't think you need a will, you could not be more wrong.
A will allows you to establish who has power of attorney over you.
Without that, the state has total control over your medical decisions if you can't make them for yourself.
I wouldn't trust the state with anything, let alone my medical health, let alone my children.
If you haven't made one yet, you're not alone, though.
Make it easy for you at epicwill.com when you use promo code WALSH.
We are so excited that they're partnering with us at Daily Wire.
They're protecting our staff and their families.
Let them protect yours.
Epicwill.com, promo code WALSH.
This is how easy it is.
You can secure your future in as little as five minutes with a complete Will package starting at $119.
And when you use promo code Walsh, you'll save 10%.
Epicwill.com.
This will be the most important five minutes that you spend today.
Let's see.
So, we'll start here.
American cable news pundit Malcolm Nance has decided to go to Ukraine, allegedly to fight the Russians.
And he put up a tweet and he's posing there with his, you know, he's got his gun, he's got the fatigues on and everything.
And he captions it and says, I'm done talking, is what he said.
And while he's been there, he's been doing a lot of cable news hits and things and doing interviews and talking about why he decided to go fight in Ukraine.
And here he is on Joy Read.
Now, remember something.
Just last week, Joy Reid was complaining about the focus on Ukraine and saying that it was racist to talk so much about Ukraine.
Yet here she is, and here's Malcolm Nansen.
Let's watch that.
Well, as you know, I spent quite a bit of time here in the pre-war period.
And when the invasion happened, I had friends who were in Donetsk, who were in the Ukrainian army, who were writing to us and telling us, we're not going to survive tonight.
We've been hit 500 times.
You know, these are graduates of Defense Language Institute.
These are my friends.
And you know, as the more I saw of the war going on, the more I thought, I'm done talking.
All right, it's time to take action here.
So about a month ago, I joined the International Legion here in Ukraine, and I am here to help this country Fight, you know, what essentially is a war of extermination.
This is an existential war, and Russia has bought it to these people, and they are mass-murdering civilians.
And there are people here like me who are here to do something about it.
He's actually, he's done quite a few interviews while he's been supposedly on the battlefield, and it's just a different kind of war, I guess, where you can stop and do interviews.
He's been tweeting a lot, too, prolifically tweeting while on the battlefield.
Now, listen, I did say at the start of this thing that if you really think America should get involved in this war, then why don't you go to Ukraine yourself and fight?
I did say that.
Nance has taken me up on it, apparently.
It was sort of rhetorical.
I don't actually think you should do it.
I don't think you should go and risk your life, potentially, to protect someone else's country.
It's not something I would do.
And that's why when I've brought this up and I've been asking questions about this Malcolm Nance thing, some people on Twitter are saying, well, you're just sitting in the safety of your home criticizing.
Well, yeah, you're damn right.
I'm not going to put my life on the line for someone else's country.
I'm not going to do that.
And, you know, there are some who say, well, at least we give him some credit for putting his money where his mouth is.
It's just hard for me to give him credit, though.
I gotta be totally honest with you, because I can't imagine that the Ukrainian military needs or wants help from an out-of-shape 60-year-old cable news pundit, who's tweeting and doing interviews from the alleged battlefield, and can't even speak the language, as far as I know.
But he shows up there, and immediately he changes his Twitter profile, of him posing with the fatigues and everything.
And he's got the cameras falling around, he's doing interviews.
Is that... And I admit, I have no experience on the battlefield myself.
But maybe someone who does have experience, you can tell me if you would find that helpful.
When you've been... And again, if you're a combat veteran, then I'm soliciting your opinions on this.
And I'd be very interested to hear this.
When you were in a firefight, did you ever find yourself in a position Where you were thinking to yourself, what we really need right now, on the scene here, is a 60 year old out of shape cable news pundit with a camera crew following him, who's going to tweet.
Like, did you ever think that?
Was there ever a situation where you were thinking, that's what we need?
Probably not.
But this has become kind of a LARPing opportunity for people in cable news to show up there and get some camera time.
I failed to see how it could help, but maybe some military analysts can kind of spell it out for me.
I'll be very interested to hear that.
This is from Fox Business. It says, "Tesla CEO Elon Musk is willing to invest up to $15 billion of his own cash to take
Twitter private and will make a bid within 10 days, according to Tuesday reports.
The New York Post reported Tuesday that Musk, with a 9.1% stake in the social media company, has tapped Morgan
Stanley to help raise an additional $10 billion.
Musk's massive $43 billion bid to purchase the company may require borrowing against both the company and his stock in
addition to raising money from private equity investors."
The estimated 10 to 15 billion dollars Musk is reportedly willing to invest is well above his roughly 3.4 billion dollar stake in the company.
Sources told The Post that the co-investors will collectively have more equity in Twitter, but Musk will remain the single largest shareholder.
So, to summarize, the story isn't over yet.
The board is trying to shut it down.
The corrupt Twitter board, who again have almost no, once Jack Dorsey is gone, Jack Dorsey, who, by the way, it's a whole other story.
He's lighting the place on fire on his way out the door.
And once he's gone, he's got, I think, 2% of the company.
And once he's off the board, then they're not even going to have 2% collectively, all the rest of them.
So this isn't over yet.
Elon Musk isn't giving up.
But this, I think, is the... That's all great.
But here's the Elon Musk news that I really appreciate.
This is a video that's gone viral today.
This is Musk in a recent interview.
I'm not sure when this was.
Talking about the overpopulation scam, which is what it is, and kind of debunking it.
Let's listen to this.
Yeah, so most people in the world are operating under the false impression that there are too many people.
This is not true.
Earth could maintain a population many times the current level.
And the birth rate has been dropping like crazy.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So, unfortunately, we have these ridiculous...
population estimates from the UN that need to be updated because they just don't make any sense.
Really, you can just look and say, what was the birth rate last year?
How many kids were born?
Multiply that by the life expectancy and say, OK, that's how many people will be alive, you know, in the future.
And then say, is the trend for birth rate positive or negative?
It's negative.
So that's the best case, unless something changes with the birth rate.
Yeah, he's exactly right there.
This is a really important thing to bring up.
The overpopulation myth.
I mean, this is one of the most insidious, in a literal sense, anti-human myths that the left has ever concocted.
And of course, you always notice with the overpopulation myth, the people that are out there promoting it, Say, oh, there are too many people.
There's over, we have population and then overpopulation, and we're, we're, we're, we're, we're, we're too, we're full.
We're above capacity right now.
Well, the people saying that, they never consider themselves to be in the over camp, right?
They're, they are just population, and then there are these other people, and then they often don't specify who, but sometimes they do.
Well, whoever it is, there are other people who, they're, you know, they, they are the extras.
The people that we don't need.
And that's already a problem, to talk about people in that way, like we're nothing but just sort of resources.
Like we're objects that you can have too many of.
And the other point is that actually, it's not that we have overpopulation, that's not the crisis that we're facing.
You know, we're not gonna, there's no scenario where we are going to reach the carrying capacity of the Earth.
This is one of the great ironies, I think, about the environmentalist movement.
And the overpopulation myth is very much tied to the environmentalist, anti-human movement.
But the people who call themselves environmentalists, and they pretend to respect and love nature so much, to the point of almost worshipping it, they also underestimate it quite a bit.
So they kind of worship the earth, but they, at the same time, weirdly, have no respect for it.
They see the Earth as this tiny, little, fragile thing that can be destroyed and broken quite easily.
Who was that Democrat lawmaker, famously, years ago, was worried that an island would tip over because there were too many people on it?
I can't remember the guy's name.
I'm sure people in the comments will remind me.
So it's that kind of mentality that you find in the entire environmentalist movement.
Maybe not to that absurd level, but it is, in fact, actually just as absurd to say that there are too many people on Earth.
Do you realize how enormous the Earth is?
Now, sure, when you compare it to other celestial bodies like Jupiter or the Sun or something, it's small compared to that.
But compared to us, it's almost, it might as well be eternally vast.
That's how big it is.
You could take the earth is so big that okay it's being put up in the street Hank Johnson who's okay that was the guy that was the brilliant guy we thought an island would tip over because there are too many people on it good old Hank Johnson but you could take everybody on earth And put them in the state of Texas, and you'd have about the population density of Manhattan.
I wouldn't recommend it, it wouldn't be the best way to live, but a lot of people do choose to live that way in Manhattan.
So, the entire population of the Earth could fit into Texas, and that would leave all of the rest of the Earth empty.
And in fact, right now as we speak, Most of the land on earth is empty.
And I'm not just talking about Antarctica, places where nobody could live.
I'm talking about places where people could potentially live.
Those places are empty too.
So we are nowhere, if the earth has a carrying capacity, we're nowhere near it.
We are not going to fill up the earth.
Just like you puny little mortal with your SUV and your electricity, you're not gonna destroy the climate.
The climate that has been around for billions of years, an Earth that has withstood super volcanic eruptions and asteroids and comets.
It's withstood all of that.
And then we come along with the Industrial Revolution and shortly thereafter we've destroyed the entire Earth.
We could endure the super volcanoes and the comets and all that, but not our SUVs, not our highways.
It's ridiculous.
So we're not anywhere near carrying capacity.
The problem is actually on the opposite end.
It's not overpopulation, it's depopulation is the problem.
Yes, the population is still growing, but the rate of growth is slowing dramatically.
And in fact, catastrophically.
And in many places, especially in the Western world, we're below replacement rate.
And then what happens then?
What you end up with is a top-heavy population, where there are a lot of older people, and there's not enough young people.
Then you have this kind of inverted pyramid sort of structure to the population.
A lot of older people who need to be cared for, and there's no one around to take care of them.
We're experiencing that right now.
It's going to get a lot worse in the next 50 years.
That's the crisis we ought to be worried about.
Not have fewer kids.
We need to have a lot more of them, actually.
Many of the things people worry about with the environment, I mean, it's true that we've got, you know, you can go and you can look at images and see pollution and you can see rivers that are flowing with garbage, especially in places like Asia.
That's not a problem with too much population.
That's just the people who are in these areas choosing to do things that they shouldn't do.
Yeah, you should have respect for nature.
You should just throw your garbage into rivers like they do in many parts of the world.
The answer there is not to have fewer people, it's just to teach the people not to do those sorts of things.
And maybe rather than packing ourselves in like sardines in the cities, we could spread out a little bit more.
That's a choice we could make.
All right, let's go to this.
This is from the Daily Mail.
It says, a gay Democratic lawmaker in Missouri challenged a Republican representative over their state's transgender athlete bill.
Ian Mackey, 35, slammed Chuck Bazai, 63, for supporting the Save Women's Sports bill, a transgender athlete bill that would remove trans female athletes from women's sports.
Trans, notice they're saying trans female now, not trans woman, but otherwise known as men.
It would remove men from women's sports.
During a debate on the bill in the state house chamber Thursday night, the representative largely focused on, besides family, specifically his gay brother Scott, who was afraid to tell his brother over fear that it would be held against him.
So this is the lawmaker, the gay democratic lawmaker, going after the Republican, over this bill that would simply remove men from women's
sports or ensure that men cannot enter into women's sports and destroy women's sports. And we'll
play some of this, we might pause it midway through, but let's, let's, uh, why this is gone.
This one went massively viral and the left loved it and calling this guy a hero and everything. And I'm
sure he's going to run for president eventually. Let's listen. Do you remember your remarks on
the floor last year when you brought this up? Um, it would, you'd have to give me a specific.
I mean, I made a lot of remarks last year.
So I recall a story you told about your brother.
Okay.
And I remember you said that your brother called or that your mother called you, I believe, to tell you that your brother had some news that he was afraid to tell you.
Okay.
And your brother wanted to tell you that he was gay, didn't he?
He was expressing that to the family and he thought that we would hold that against him and not let my children be around him.
Why do you think he thought that?
I don't know.
It never would have happened, I'll tell you that.
My kids at that point in their life adored my brother.
Can I tell you if I were your brother, I would have been afraid to tell you too.
I would have been afraid to tell you too because of stuff like this.
When I first saw this clip without context, I was confused, you know, because I'm thinking, is this guy being interrogated?
What is he, a witness on the stand?
What's happening here right now?
Why is this, the older guy, why is he just sitting there allowing himself to be yelled at by this little punk right here?
And the answer is, no, he's not a witness on the stand, he's not accused of any crime.
He didn't do anything wrong.
He supports a bill that would prevent men from competing in women's sports.
Also has nothing to do with gay people, by the way.
It doesn't have to have anything to do with gay people.
Now, if the LGBT community, like, they want to put that T on there and associate themselves, then that's their choice.
But I don't see any reason why the two have to be related at all.
So this guy, he's a gay man.
What does that have to do with a man who claims that he's a woman?
You explain that to me.
So why is he being berated?
No, he's not accused of any crime.
He's not a witness on the stand.
He's a Republican, and this is what Republicans do.
They allow themselves to be berated.
This is about his own family.
What he should be doing is standing up right now and saying, hey you, punk, shut up.
This is my family.
It's none of your business.
Who do you think you are talking about my family?
Maybe you should pull the Will Smith move.
Keep my brother's name out of your effing mouth.
Maybe something like that.
Look, this has nothing to do with you.
Then again, this Republican apparently, I don't know what all the context is here, but apparently he brought up this story, it would seem.
While this bill was being debated because he was, I can only guess, because he was trying to give himself street cred with the left.
He was trying to advertise to the left and say, no, no, no, I'm not a bigot, I have a gay brother.
And he thought that that would mean that he would be, that they would have a less critical reaction towards him.
No, it's the opposite, and that's what's happening right now.
So he thought he would take that story out, pull that out there.
To try to appease the left, and instead he's being humiliated and screamed at by them.
So the same old story over and over again.
Let's play the rest of this.
Because of stuff like this.
Because this is what you're focused on.
This is the legislation you want to put forward.
This is what consumes your time.
I would have been afraid to tell you too.
I was afraid of people like you growing up.
And I grew up in Hickory County, Missouri.
I grew up in a school district that would vote tomorrow to put this in place.
And for 18 years, I walked around with nice people like you.
Who took me to ballgames.
Who told me how smart I was.
And he went to the ballot and voted for crap like this.
And I couldn't wait to get out.
I couldn't wait to move to a part of our state that would reject this stuff in a minute.
I couldn't wait.
And thank God I made it.
Thank God I made it out.
And I think every day of the kids who are still there, who haven't made it out, who haven't escaped from this kind of bigotry, Gentlemen, I'm not afraid of you anymore.
Because you're gonna lose.
You may win this today, but you're going to lose.
Oh, shut the hell up.
Shut up.
I'm not afraid of you anymore!
How many times did he practice that speech in the mirror?
And it just kills me, this guy just sitting there, taking it.
You are so in the right, if the Republican in this exchange You could not possibly be more right about something.
Your position is that males should not compete in women's sports.
Everyone on earth agrees with you, except for like five people.
It's this guy, and then the rest of the Democrat weirdos, and they're the only ones who disagree.
Everyone else is on your side.
Everybody in the world, in the history of the world, agrees with you.
It would be hard to have more people on your side than you do, and yet you just sit there like a scolded child.
He's talking about your family.
What business is it of his?
And you just sit there taking it.
How about you stand up and say, hey, hey, listen, shut up, okay?
I don't have to listen to you.
Why don't you answer some questions?
Like, first of all, what's a woman?
Can you tell me that?
You answer that question, and then maybe I'll let you continue your little speech, talking about my brother, which doesn't concern you.
What, you think that, quote, trans women should compete in women's sports because they are women?
Is that what you think?
Well, what's that mean?
How are they the same as women?
Are you actually gonna- Do you take the position that biological males do not have any physical advantages over women in sports?
Is that actually your position?
Literally all of the science, the entirety of modern science, stands against you.
And that's your position.
Is that really your position?
Well, why don't you explain that instead?
Instead of giving me a stupid little speech about how you were afraid of bullies in school.
I don't care about that.
You know what?
You're an adult now.
You're a grown man.
Get over the bully.
We were all bullied in school.
We all went through it.
Get over it now.
Because what the actual concern here is that there are currently, you're an adult now, you're not in school anymore.
There are actually kids in school right now who we do have to worry about protecting.
Okay, you still have your feelings hurt because you were bullied in school, allegedly.
What about the girls in school who don't want to be forced into a locker room with naked boys?
What about the girls who are being sexually assaulted and raped by boys in female bathrooms, as has happened?
See, that's what we're concerned about.
So why don't you flip it around and put it on him?
Just sitting there.
Kills me.
But you deserve it.
I mean, this guy, whoever that guy is, he's just, he's a...
That clip right there is going to live forever and he's sitting there as a scolded schoolboy.
And you deserve it if you allow yourself to be put in that position.
By somebody who could not possibly be more wrong.
He's just wrong right down to the very core of this issue.
He is wrong about it all.
He could not be more wrong.
All right, what else we got here?
One other quick thing, maybe quick.
This is from Fox 59 in Indiana.
It says, the Anderson Community School Corporation is reviewing its use of an Indian as its mascot following backlash over a viral video posted to TikTok.
The video shows two students dressed up as an Indian chief and an Indian maiden performing a ceremony with a pipe and then a dance before a basketball game.
Sarah Holbaugh, who shot the video, And posted it to, yes, TikTok, of course.
Says, it was disappointing but not surprising that it was happening.
Holbaugh was attending the game and recorded the video.
She posted it on TikTok where it's been viewed nearly a million times.
Holbaugh said, the Anderson student section got really into it.
You had the pep band playing.
I asked the people around me who said, oh, Anderson has been doing this forever.
The video prompted backlash towards the school district.
So much so that the district put the pregame ritual on hold.
Okay.
So it's a pregame ritual.
It's at a high school basketball game and they've got an Indian mascot.
And she has the video that she put on TikTok.
First of all, let's watch this event, this incident.
I literally hate Indiana.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
In the middle of warm-ups and all.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
All right.
There you go.
Got the kids dressed up as Indians.
Good.
That's the mascot of the school.
Yeah, I got news for you.
I know this is heresy, blasphemy these days, but there is nothing at all offensive about that.
It's not offensive.
It's not at all offensive.
It is perfectly fine.
I will say this on the record.
It is perfectly fine for a white person to dress up like, you know, a traditional Indian and that's perfectly fine.
There's actually nothing.
It's not offensive.
Why?
Why is it offensive?
So you can't explain.
It's just supposed to be self-evident.
Well, of course it's offensive.
Why?
Because it's...
Cultural appropriation, what does that mean?
So it's something from another culture and so you can't participate in it or pay homage to it or why?
Why exactly?
Like everything else on the left, they can't answer any questions.
They especially can't answer the why question.
It only takes like one or two whys before the whole thing breaks down.
That's offensive.
Why?
Because cultural appropriation.
Okay, why is that offensive?
Because!
That's it.
That's all they got.
So, there's nothing offensive about that.
And also... And again, like, it's... If the people involved and the people who made the mascot an Indian to begin with, if they hated Indians and thought they were weak and stupid and inferior or whatever else, then you wouldn't use them as your mascot.
The whole point of a mascot is that this is something strong and formidable and, like, that's the whole point.
You don't take something that you hate and have a low opinion of and feel is inferior and make that your mascot.
So it is a tribute to.
And yes, there is nothing racist about paying tribute to this culture.
And the other thing is that this school has been doing this apparently for 50 years, and nobody in the school except for this one girl cared.
She even says herself, like, everyone's into it.
Everyone's having a good time.
Everyone's into it.
No one has a problem with it.
But she puts it on TikTok, and then a lot of people who are not at the school, and who this doesn't concern them, Now they're offended, and so the school, of course, pulls it down and says, well, we're gonna put it on hold.
We've been doing this for, this is a tradition for, I think, for like half a century, a tradition.
Everyone at our school is cool with it, they all think it's great.
Nearly everyone.
But some people on TikTok complain, so we're just gonna put it all on hold.
This tradition for 50 years, we're gonna abandon it.
So more cowardice.
Common theme here.
Let's get to the comment section.
Here's a message that was sent to me.
Well, that's a little harsh, isn't it?
And like I told you, it wasn't my fault.
It was my kid's idea.
Here's a message that was sent to me.
"Matt, the prank you pulled with your children is actually horrifying,
and I think less of you as a father because of it."
Well, that's a little harsh, isn't it?
And like I told you, it wasn't my fault. It was my kid's idea.
Blame them.
What am I going to do? Tell my eight-year-olds not to do something?
That would be intolerant, and I don't believe in intolerance.
The honest truth is, and look, I got mixed reviews on the prank, which if you didn't listen to the show yesterday, I don't know why I'm even repeating it now, but my kids pulled a prank on my wife where she was out for a few hours, and they decided that when she came back, they wanted to pretend that my daughter Julia had been terribly injured.
First of all, when I explain it, it sounds a lot worse than it was.
There's no way to explain it that it doesn't sound horrible, which maybe should tell me something, but it doesn't.
So they wanted to pretend that she got terribly injured and I did say to them, we probably shouldn't do this.
I don't think, you know, mom's not going to find this funny.
And they really wanted to do it.
So then I said, okay, if you're going to do it, then we've got ketchup in the, in the, in the refrigerator.
You could use that and make it look like blood.
That's all I said.
And they chose to go forward with that.
And they just made it look like, they made it look like she got some kind of facial injury.
That's all.
And so she was like bleeding profusely from her face.
And then my wife came home and she walked in and she was, you know, pretty horrified and quickly she was told the truth and she didn't find it funny.
So that's what this is referring to.
But my point is, why am I not a horrible person?
Well, number one, because I'm blaming my kids for it.
Number two, because I was actually, this was a, it was kind of a moral crisis for me.
I was really, I kept like, I know that I should probably tell them not to do it or maybe I should, I could also text my wife and tell her that they're going to do this and give her a warning or something.
But then I also just thought, I can't like, like I said yesterday, I can't allow myself to interfere with a good prank.
I can't do it.
And so that was the moral dilemma that I was, I was wrestling with it.
I really was.
And I think I came down on the ethically correct side of this, which is that you do not interfere with a prank.
Never, under any circumstance.
All right.
Sliver says, I've been filing my own taxes for over a decade.
It used to be free and take an hour or so.
This year it took two days and cost me several hundred dollars.
Also, these people believe that they can print infinite amounts of money without consequence.
So what exactly do they need our taxes for?
Yeah, and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
I mean, originally there was not an income tax, and then there was an income tax, and it was supposed to be temporary, and then it wasn't temporary, and then, you know, in the early days it was just the income tax, and you had to pay your income taxes, and then they came up with the withholding system, which is where they get to go very nice for them and take the money from you first, and then give you whatever leftovers, and then if they take too much, then at the end of the year they can return the money to you without interest.
And then everybody will celebrate and say, I got all this free money.
No, that's your own money, dummy, that they took.
You could add that as a savings account.
You'd make a little bit more interest on it, at least.
Put it under your mattress.
You'd be better off.
And the withholding system was supposed to be temporary, and then it wasn't, and it was permanent.
And it just keeps getting worse and worse.
But, you know, it's the old boiling a frog thing, where people tolerate it.
You know, if you had gone from, if you went from 0 to 100, And you went right from there's no income tax at all to the situation we have right now.
It would have been a rebellion.
People would have revolted violently.
But because you just do it kind of gradually over the course of a century or so, people tolerate this totally intolerable situation where our money is being taken from us in this, and you know, We are burdened by this tax code that is so complicated that you have to spend your own money and hire people to sort through it for you.
And if you try to do it yourself, it'll take two days to do.
Let's see.
Devon says, Matt, while I agree with everything you've said about income tax, you missed a big part that only furthers your point.
You say the government could run off $2 trillion, but if we weren't taxed on our income, we would spend far more money, thus increasing sales tax.
The government probably wouldn't even notice much of a difference in their income, yet we would have far more purchasing power, lower tax rates, promoting spending, which increases tax income.
Yeah, if you really want an economic stimulus, how about that?
That's the kind of economic stimulus that I have supported this whole time.
Including during the COVID lockdowns.
That's one of the reasons, that's one of the ways you knew that they weren't serious about the stimulus and trying to stimulate the economy.
Because if they were really serious about it, they would have suspended the federal income tax, let you keep your own money.
You want to stimulate the economy?
How about that?
You don't have to give people anything.
Just let them keep what they're making.
If you can imagine that.
And then, yes, despite What many people seem to think, if you get rid of the income tax, it's not that the government goes all the way down to zero dollars.
And the point you make here is very good, because, yeah, as it stands right now, get rid of the income tax, and the government's still left with $2 trillion in revenue every single year from all the other taxes and the consumption-based taxes and everything.
But actually, it would be more than $2 trillion, because now people have more money, and as people are inclined to do, they're going to go out and they're going to spend more.
And then you're going to make that money back in income taxes.
Or rather, in sales taxes.
Dom says, you and Kartnarx should do a special together.
That would be amazing.
That's actually a great idea.
It's not very often that I find great ideas in the YouTube section, but I have big support of CartonArcs.
That's the channel on YouTube where they just go around harassing people for... harassing and publicly shaming people for leaving their carts in parking lots.
And that's one collab that I would very much be into.
If you haven't visited my collection, the online DW shop, it's high time that you do.
Not only should you be wearing your loyalty to yours truly on your sleeve, You can now get 30% off my collection for one day only, and that day is today.
30% off.
I'm very generous.
I have the power to put these deals in place and take them away, so I'm giving you one day.
You can grab your What Is A Woman merch, secure pieces on my limited edition and highly sought-after patch program, or show off your preferred pronouns, aka my preferred pronouns, handsome and brilliant, with one of my best-selling shirts, and there is so, so much more.
Just go fill up your cart and get 30% off for one day Only with code SWAGSHACK at checkout.
Thank you for your compliance.
It is truly appreciated and, in fact, demanded.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today, for the final time, we cancel the mask Nazis.
Or perhaps, in fact, not for the final time.
After the hero judge in Florida ruled that the CDC's mask mandate was unlawful, I said on this show yesterday that the Biden administration would complain about the ruling, but they wouldn't challenge it.
After we've all seen the videos of air passengers cheering over the news of the mask mandate ending like it was the fall of the Berlin Wall, challenging the ruling, potentially overturning it, would be politically suicidal, especially heading into midterms.
But I may have underestimated this regime's penchant for doing politically suicidal things.
As the Daily Wire reports, today, the Biden administration will appeal a court ruling by a U.S.
district judge who ruled Monday that the administration's national mask mandate on public transportation was unlawful.
Quote, the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention disagree with the district court's decision and will appeal, subject to CDC's conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health.
The department continues to believe that the order requiring masking in the transportation corridor is a valid exercise of the authority Congress has given CDC to protect public health.
This is an important authority the department will continue to work to preserve.
Well, this is why you shouldn't listen to my predictions on this kind of thing.
Turns out that I'm still somehow too optimistic to be a reliable political prognosticator.
Now, I still suspect that this appeal will be mostly for show, but maybe not.
Perhaps the Democrats figure they've already got so many nails in the coffin that they might as well add one more heading into the midterms?
If they succeed in forcing masks back onto people's faces, it will be wildly unpopular with normal people, but at least the media will feel good about it.
Speaking of which, here's Andy Slavitt on MSNBC last night expressing his disappointment over the judge's ruling.
Listen.
We're seeing today people have to react to them.
I'm going to get on a plane in about an hour.
Thankfully, I'm vaccinated and boosted and have a good quality mask, so she'll feel reasonably good.
But, you know, I think usually we would like to see the CDC, which has the authority to make these decisions, make this decision, not a judge.
The CDC has asked for 15 more days to review data.
I think it's important that we see that.
We have to remember there are cancer patients and four-year-olds that are not vaccinated or are vulnerable.
So hopefully people will continue to show good judgment and protect themselves and protect others where possible.
Oh, the CDC only asks for 15 days?
Well, okay then.
I mean, if we've learned anything over the past two years, it's that 15 days is just 15 days.
When they say 15 days, they mean it.
We all know that.
That's the great lesson of the pandemic.
It's just that you have to keep in mind that the word day is relative.
Now, we might think of a day as 24 hours, but that's just from the perspective of Earth.
On Venus, for example, a day lasts 5,832 hours, or about 243 Earth days.
What the CDC and other public health authorities forgot to mention is that when they say 15 days, they're referring to Venus days, not Earth days.
Simple miscommunication is all.
I'm glad Andy Slavitt could help clear that up for us.
Another cable news pundit, Roland Martin, is having an even harder time with the news.
This is what he tweeted yesterday.
He says, I don't give a damn about what some grossly unqualified Donald Trump judge said.
I'm double masked and wearing goggles on this Nashville to DC flight.
I had COVID in December.
Y'all can kiss my ass about me not wanting it again.
And any fool saying they don't matter is a damn liar.
You have to love the hat that says Roland Martin unfiltered, which is on top of a head covered in goggles and two masks.
Some irony overload there.
Honest to God, though, if I knew that this fruitcake was flying out of Nashville in his mask and goggles yesterday, I would have gone to the airport and got on that plane just so I could sit next to him and cough and sneeze for the entire flight.
For his own good, of course.
Now look, this may seem like just a bunch of virtue signaling from Martin, but it's actually not.
I mean, it's not merely virtue signaling, anyway.
The fact is that this man, like so many others on his side of the ideological fence, has been psychologically disfigured by two years of COVID fear-mongering.
He's still not scared enough for his health to, you know, go on a diet.
I mean, he's not gonna panic that much.
But he is legitimately afraid to go barefaced on a plane.
I believe that his fear and paranoia and effeminate cowardice are all real.
Granted, there are people in the replies to his post, you know, to this tweet, posting recent pictures of him at large public events without a mask and saying that he's like a hypocrite.
But this is all part of the broken brain syndrome.
That is incoherent and arbitrary risk calculation.
That's one of its most prevalent symptoms.
And I think nothing quite captures the damage done to people by two years of COVID hysteria, like this short clip taken on a JetBlue flight right after the announcement about the mask mandate was made.
You could see the flight attendants ripping off their masks and literally dancing for joy.
And that's all great, but listen to what one of them says.
It's very interesting.
Listen.
This is the captain speaking.
So right now, all flights in JetBlue, we don't require a mask.
required a mask so we can take it off before the whole thing.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
My God, it's like the best day ever.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
I'm so excited.
Look at my face!
I don't even know how to face it.
Oh my god, yay!
Oh Eric, you're so cute!
Oh my god.
You can follow him and wave him in the air like you just don't care.
[LAUGH]
But please don't build him on the floor because he has to clean up.
[LAUGH]
We'll be coming to you with your sex in just a moment.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So she skips down the aisle, waving the mask over her head,
feeling justifiably elated and joyful.
And she says, look at my face, I have a face.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Now that might seem like a joke, but there's actually something quite profound in that statement, I think.
Because by far the most terrible and oppressive thing about masking was not how uncomfortable it was, or what a ridiculous charade the whole thing was, but rather the fact that the mask turns you into a faceless automaton.
The mask is dehumanizing.
This is especially the case for workers in the service industry who were turned into a literal faceless servant class, forced to muzzle themselves like dogs and become anonymous, depersoned serfs over the last two years.
On planes, everybody was in that position.
We've heard so much about the epidemic of violence and fighting on planes over the last two years, and I'm convinced that this explains why.
It's not just that people were annoyed and on edge about the masks, but that when you put people into a high-stress situation, In a confined space, with each other, and you cover everybody's faces so that they can't fully see and appreciate and encounter each other's humanity, you end up with exactly the chaos that we experienced.
People need to see each other and be seen by each other.
This is not a want or a desire or a nice luxury, but an actual human need, because we are all human beings after all.
We were born with faces and with the natural inclination to connect with other humans, primarily through facial cues.
The first thing a newborn baby does is look at and study his mother's face.
And it's quite amazing to behold, as I've seen four times, that a baby comes out of the womb already knowing kind of where to look.
Baby doesn't know anything else, but he will look at your face.
We are literally born with this instinct, this ability, this need to see and recognize faces.
Remove that from people for a prolonged period of time and you're depriving them of something that is so essentially human in a deep and primal sort of way.
The writer Jonathan Franzen wrote an essay back in the 90s complaining about the very new trend at the time of people walking down the street talking on their cell phones.
And he didn't like it very much and he said, quote, all I really want from a sidewalk is that people see me and let themselves be seen.
Now, perhaps because of our cell phone addictions, we had got accustomed to not seeing and being seen by other people, even when we're standing two feet from them.
And so the masking for some wasn't much of a stretch.
They weren't losing anything that they hadn't already effectively lost.
But that just means that if the masks didn't bother you, it's only because you'd already despaired of your humanity.
So the people that brag about, oh, it didn't bother me much, that's because you're sick.
You're a sick person, psychologically and emotionally and spiritually, if it didn't bother you.
It should bother you.
It should bother you to not have your face seen or be able to see other people's faces.
If it doesn't, it's because you'd already given up on some of the most crucial aspects of being human.
There's a reason why leftists in particular are so comfortable in masks.
It's because their ideology puts them at war with human nature at every turn, in every way.
They deny everything that's natural and good and healthy.
They want to take everything that is true and human away from us.
They even want to take away our faces.
As I watch some of these videos of people celebrating the, perhaps temporary, unfortunately, end of mask tyranny, I thought about another writer, C.S.
Lewis, who wrote a book called Till We Have Faces.
Now, the title refers to faces in a spiritual sense, but that's partly because C.S.
Lewis, prophetic as he was, never imagined that we would live in a world where our actual faces are taken away.
At the very end of that book, Lewis writes this.
He says, I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer.
Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?
How can they meet us face to face, till we have faces?
Now, this is obviously meant to be understood in a very spiritual and poetic sort of way, referring to the true self-knowledge that comes from surrendering oneself to God.
But in modern times, till we have faces takes on a frighteningly literal meaning.
To take off the mask is to have a face, an identity.
It is to, in many ways, reclaim your humanity.
And that only sounds like an exaggeration to people who have already given up on theirs.
And in the end, it is those people who are cancelled.
We'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
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.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
