Ep. 959 - Biden Immediately Exploits And Politicizes Another School Shooting
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, horrific tragedy strikes in Texas as Democrats immediately exploit dead children to score political points. I have a lot to say about all of this. Also, Nancy Pelosi finally responds to the archbishop who banned her from taking communion. Her response only further demonstrates why she deserved the ban. And record turnouts for the Georgia primaries yesterday. Does that disprove the Democrats’ “voter suppression” narrative? Stacey Abrams says no. Plus, we have some exciting and fascinating space-related news whether you like it or not. And for our daily cancellation, what is a super fat and an infinifat? You’re going to find out today. All of that and much more on the Matt Walsh Show.
Watch last night’s exclusive interview with Dr. Robert Malone and Candace by becoming a Daily Wire member: https://utm.io/ueBTu
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
Join Matt and the Daily Wire crew for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Use Promo Code 'WALSH' at EpicWill.com for 10% off your will.
Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "WALSH" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, horrific tragedy strikes in Texas as Democrats immediately exploit dead children to score political points.
I have a lot to say about all this, and I'll say it today.
Also, Nancy Pelosi finally responds to the Archbishop who banned her from taking communion.
Her response only further demonstrates why she deserved the ban.
And record turnout for the Georgia primaries yesterday.
Does that disprove the Democrats' voter suppression narrative?
Stacey Abrams says no.
Plus, we have some exciting and fascinating space-related news.
Whether you like it or not, you're going to hear about it.
And for our daily cancellation, what is a super fat and an infinifat?
You'll find out today.
All that and much more in the Matt Walsh Show.
[Music]
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?
Probably not.
If you don't have a will in place, you have no say over the future of your children.
And if you're single and you don't think you need a will, you couldn't be more wrong.
A will allows you to establish advanced directive and medical power of attorney.
Do you really want to leave the burden of deciding life support or not to your family members or your close friends?
That's not a burden you should put on anybody.
That's why a will allows you to clearly communicate to your loved ones what your wishes are regarding your health.
If you haven't made one yet, you're not alone, but we're gonna make it easy.
Epicwill.com.
That's epicwill.com when you use promo code Walsh.
We are so excited that they're partnering with us.
They're protecting our staff and their families.
Let them protect yours too.
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 just $119.
And when you use promo code Walsh, you'll save 10%.
That's epicwill.com.
This will be the most important five minutes you spend today.
Well, all mass shootings are tragedies, of course, especially school shootings, but an attack on an elementary school reaches the deepest levels of demonic depravity.
If you're a parent of elementary school-aged children, as I am, you can't help but imagine yourself in the position that so many parents in Uvalde, Texas are in today, and it's enough to take your breath away.
Unthinkable, unspeakable, horrific.
The body count last I saw is 21.
That's two adults and 19 kids, mostly in second, third, and fourth grade.
They were slaughtered by an 18-year-old piece of human filth who walked into Robb Elementary School yesterday, barricaded the doors, and walked into a classroom and started just killing everybody in the room.
The AP is reporting that the shooter was finally taken down by a heroic Border Patrol agent who rushed into the building without backup, as they're reporting it.
We can only hope that the shooter suffered before he died and went to burn in hell for all eternity.
An event as shocking and terrible as this could be a moment of unity for the nation.
It would be fleeting, of course.
It would not last very long, but at least for a time, however brief, You would hope that we could come together in grief and mourning over children whose lives were taken, and also the many more children whose lives are now forever altered by the horrors that they witnessed.
It could be time for some real soul-searching.
I mean actual soul-searching, as in searching our souls to figure out what the hell has gone so wrong in our society.
But a symptom of our peculiar national soul sickness is that we don't have moments like this, and we certainly don't engage in any real introspection, ever.
Our leaders helped to make sure of that, which is why President Biden addressed the nation in primetime last night, spent all of about two minutes expressing his sorrow over the 19 murdered children, and then launched into a political stump speech about the gun lobby and Republicans, and that's how he spent the remainder of his remarks.
Listen.
As a nation, we have to ask, when in God's name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?
When in God's name will we do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?
It's been 3448 days, 10 years since I stood up at a high school in Connecticut, a grade
school in Connecticut, where another government massacred 26 people, including 20 first graders
at Sand Hill Elementary School.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Since then, there have been over 900 incidents of gunfires reported on school grounds.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Santa Fe High School in Texas.
Oxford High School in Michigan.
The list goes on and on, and the list grows.
When we include mass shootings at places like movie theaters, houses of worship, as we saw just 10 days ago at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, I am sick and tired of it.
We have to act.
And don't tell me we can't have an impact on this carnage.
I spent my career as a senator and a vice president working to pass common-sense gun laws.
We can and won't prevent every tragedy, but we know they work.
And the gun manufacturers have spent two decades aggressively marking assault weapons, which make them the most and largest profit.
For God's sake, we have to have the courage to stand up to the industry.
Now, words cannot express how sickening that performance was.
Instead of trying to unite the nation in our grief, Biden chose politics.
The bodies hadn't even all been identified yet.
They were still taking DNA swabs from parents so they could match them to the victims.
And Biden was already taking pot shots at his favorite political targets.
Not to mention rambling off the cuff and repeating himself as always.
We're being led by an incoherent, incompetent fool who also happens to be a very, very deeply bad man.
Of course, the entire Democrat party and almost all the corporate media has taken this same cue.
Now, the shooter is Hispanic, attacking a predominantly Hispanic school, so there's no useful racial narrative for the vultures to exploit.
And that means they go right to gun control, and that's been the story since last night, because they've decided to make it the story.
This morning, Michael Moore was on MSNBC ranting about repealing the Second Amendment, just like repealing it outright.
That's how far they'll go in exploiting tragedy.
But just as they are standing on the bodies of dead children to make their political points, they're also stepping over the facts, ignoring them completely.
Because the fact of the matter is that none of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by any of the quote-unquote common-sense gun control regulations Democrats like Biden are proposing.
None of them.
Another fact is that these shootings happen everywhere, Regardless of the law, as much as the left likes to pretend that the gun laws are the same everywhere in the country, that's not the case.
Many states and cities already have strict gun laws.
Other places have more relaxed laws.
If the law is to blame here, then we should observe that all of the shootings are happening in places with relaxed laws.
But that's not what we observe.
In fact, the majority of gun violence happens in blue states and blue cities with strict laws.
Texas, of course, has more respect for the Second Amendment than almost any other state in the Union, and yet the shooter in Uvalde still had to break myriad laws to commit the horrific crime that he committed.
Would a few more laws have made a difference?
Which laws exactly would have made a difference?
Red flag laws?
Well, they have those up in New York.
Yet a shooter with a history of violence and making threats, exactly the kind of guy that red flag laws are supposed to stop, still managed to slaughter people at a grocery store.
They've got gun control and red flag laws in New York, and it still happened.
So what laws then?
Laws supposedly limiting the types of guns available for purchase?
Well, even if you can stop people from buying whatever type of gun you ban, you can't stop them from modifying the legal guns to make them function more like the banned ones, which is precisely what many mass shooters, including the one in Buffalo, do.
Also, a shooter with a simple handgun and enough ammo can inflict horrendous carnage if he's attacking defenseless people in a gun-free zone.
The type of gun just doesn't seem to matter all that much.
You could take away every gun, and that still wouldn't stop the attacks.
The terrorist in Waukesha just used his car instead of a gun.
The worst school attack in U.S.
history happened in 1927.
45 people died.
Not one gun was fired because the killer used explosives.
So what laws?
What law will stop this?
Universal background checks?
That's what NBA coach Steve Kerr called for last night in the wake of the shooting.
Listen to this.
When are we going to do something?
I'm tired.
I'm so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the Devastated families that are out there.
I'm so tired of the, excuse me, I'm sorry.
I'm tired of the moments of silence.
Enough!
There's 50 senators, right now, who refuse to vote on H.R.
8, which is a background check rule that the House passed a couple years ago.
It's been sitting there for two years.
And there's a reason they won't vote on it.
To hold on to power.
So I ask you, Mitch McConnell, I ask all of you senators who refuse to do anything about the violence in school shootings and supermarket shootings, I ask you, are you going to put your own desire for power ahead of the lives of our children?
How will background checks stop someone without a criminal record from purchasing a firearm?
How?
Now there's no indication as far as we know that the shooter in Texas had a criminal record.
You know, very often mass shooters have no history of crime up until the moment when they decide to murder dozens of people.
But a background check isn't going to tell you what people are going to do in the future.
Okay, it's not a future check, it's a background check.
And if there's no criminal history, there's nothing in the background, then what is it supposed to do?
What does it achieve?
On the other hand, gun violence in our cities, the sort of violence that kills the most people in this country every year, hands down, is often carried out by people with criminal records, sure, but they don't purchase their guns legally.
So, there's no law that could make their possession and use of a firearm any more illegal than it already is.
So again, what law would stop this?
Now, I'm not arguing that there's nothing at all we can do.
I'm not saying that.
There are some things.
One thing in particular would be a good starting point.
Put armed and trained security in every school in America.
Armed and trained security in every school in America.
We have the budget for it.
We could send $40 billion to Ukraine.
You're telling me we don't have the money to put security in our own schools for our own kids?
We got billions of dollars apparently laying around.
We could just send it off to, I mean, not just Ukraine.
We're shipping money to dozens and dozens of countries all across the world.
We could worry about securing Ukraine with $40 billion.
How far would $40 billion go?
How many schools in America could we fully and completely protect with armed and trained security with $40 billion?
Now, this is not a foolproof plan.
Nothing is.
But it's a whole lot better than having no security.
Now, it's not clear, as far as I'm aware, if the school in Texas had security or what sort of security it had, if any, but regardless, there was an armed good guy on the scene very quickly.
20 children were still killed.
It would have been even worse, a lot worse, if the good guy with the gun had not been there or had arrived five minutes later, even.
Obviously, our kids are safer in school if the schools are secured.
Obviously.
We have armed security at airports.
We have them at stadiums for football games.
We have armed security in most government buildings.
Congress has armed security.
The President has armed security.
If you go to the DMV or the Social Security Office, you'll find at least one armed security guard there to protect and defend what?
Documents?
License plates?
We have armed security to protect everything we deem important, and even some things that don't seem all that important, and yet there are people who don't want our kids to be protected?
It's mind-boggling.
We just heard from Steve Curry.
He's pounding on the table with tears in his eyes, calling for someone to do something.
Do something, he's shouting in this theatrical performance.
And I do call it that.
I'm sorry.
I don't take his tears seriously.
I don't think they're genuine.
And I'll tell you why, because two years ago, Kerr joined in protesting against armed police officers at school in Oakland.
So he's in tears over kids getting shot and killed, yet he doesn't want security in those schools?
What?
He wants someone to do something unless that something involves actually, actively protecting our children.
Let me ask you, Steve Kerr, okay?
If a guy with a gun is going to a school to kill kids, is it better for there to be security guards on campus or not?
Are you gonna suggest it's actually better if there's nobody there?
That is insane.
That doesn't make any sense.
So what's the argument against it?
And whatever your stupid argument against securing the schools and protecting our children is, why do you never make the same argument in relation to any of the other buildings that are guarded 24-7 by security?
Are congressmen more important than our kids?
There was one riot where a bunch of unarmed yahoos invaded the Capitol building, and they responded by locking the whole city down for months, like Fort Knox.
And even now, they've got, like, armies of security surrounding that building, and it'll be like that forever.
But a decades-long string of massacres at school, including two of the deadliest at elementary schools, and that's still not enough to get everybody on board and agreeing that schools need security?
Like, everything else we can argue about.
But how is that not the first thing we do?
Do the people opposing such efforts actually want kids to die so they can use their deaths for political gain?
Do they actually want our kids to be sitting ducks?
I don't want to think that anyone would think that way, but I cannot fathom any other explanation.
This brings us to a final point, though certainly not the least important point.
Speaking of that decades-long string of massacres, why?
Why is this happening?
This is yet another reason why the gun control narrative falls apart.
Americans have owned guns since forever, since the Second Amendment was ratified, since before that, and yet these kinds of attacks seem to be far more common now than they were in the past.
Now, you can look in the statistics and oftentimes people will do that and they'll try to debunk and they'll say, well, no, technically, you know, schools weren't any safer in the 90s than they are now and everything.
And, you know, if you look at violence in general and everything, and you average it all out, there may be some truth to that.
But also, you know, it's like, we're not imagining things, right?
I mean, I can remember going to school myself in the 90s, and there were, there was the one big incident that we all remember, Columbine.
And the reason why we all remember that, 20 plus years later, is because at the time when it happened, it was unimaginable.
It's like, unheard of.
And it's just, it's not unheard of anymore.
So it certainly seems like these sorts of things are happening much more often than they used to.
I mean, talk to your parents, depending on how old you are.
I talked to my parents when they went to school, you know, going to schools in the 60s.
Was it like every year there's a massacre at a school?
No.
So why?
Why is this happening?
And here's the question that we somehow never ask, which is the why.
Before we ask how a mass shooter got his hands on the gun he used to commit his crime, or even how he was able to access the school grounds in order to commit his crime, shouldn't we ask why he wanted to do that in the first place?
Isn't that the first question?
Why would anyone No matter how many guns he has available to him, why would anyone want to do that?
What's gone wrong inside his mind and his soul?
Whatever plan you devise to prevent a murderous demon from killing innocent people, it will be, at best, a Band-Aid.
I fully admit that armed security at school is a Band-Aid solution.
It's a necessary Band-Aid.
It's a Band-Aid that will save lives.
But it is a Band-Aid.
It doesn't get to the core of the problem.
The core of the problem is that the murderous demon exists.
That he is a murderous demon in the first place.
That such a person was produced.
There is a terrible spiritual sickness permeating our society.
We seem to be producing a lot of these kinds of people.
Evil has a deep foothold here.
We scratch at the surface of the problem.
We never look beneath.
If ever we did, we would find certain themes emerging.
Now, I don't know anything about this scumbag in Texas.
Most of his backstory has yet to be reported, as far as I have seen, but I can predict certain biographical details.
I can just predict this.
He didn't have a stable home life.
He spent most of his life online, staring at screens, isolated from other flesh-and-blood humans.
He almost certainly didn't have any friends, or very many.
Probably didn't have a girlfriend.
He didn't have much or any moral or spiritual formation.
He was empty, nihilistic, despairing.
He had no purpose or direction.
This is the case for almost all of the mass shooters.
That's why I can predict it.
And if this was not the case for him, he's an outlier.
But it almost certainly is.
This is also the case, by the way, for almost all the violent criminals in our cities.
All this applies to them, too.
This is what ties them all together.
See, it's not a... We like to think that these are two completely different kinds of things.
All the violence in the cities, people are dying every single day, randomly shot to death on street corners, and then the mass shootings at schools and in other places, and we like to... Well, these are two... They're not two completely different categories of things.
They're actually very similar.
And this is the thing that ties them all together.
It's the actual source of the crisis.
It's what makes the sorts of people who do these sorts of things.
The people who we try to contain or control with laws, but no law in itself can make a man safe if he is corrupt and evil to his core.
If he's the kind of man who would want to do something like this, he's never going to be safe.
You're never going to be safe around him.
The real solution is one that makes war against that evil, right?
The evil down there at the core.
And we are not serious about addressing the problem until we resolve to address that problem.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, with the summer basically here and all the nice weather,
you don't want to waste your time.
Wandering helplessly for hours around an auto parts store.
You don't want that, do you?
And with all the ever-increasing number of car makes and models, it's now impossible to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront, which means you can wander around and not even find what you want.
All those hours wasted you'll never get back.
Why endure often pointless or seemingly intimidating questions about the specifications of your vehicle only to have the counterman Order the parts on his computer anyway.
You have computers with access.
You don't need any damned counterman.
You can just go to rockauto.com yourself at home.
Be your own counterman.
And you got rockauto.com in your home, in your pocket.
Why would you choose to spend 30%, 50%, 100% more for the exact same auto parts at a chain store or a new car dealership?
No need for that.
rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or your daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer.
Amazing selection.
Reliable prices.
No counter, man.
rockauto.com.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
And remember, as always, to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box.
So they know that I sent you.
Well, Nancy Pelosi has finally responded about being banned from communion by her archbishop.
Her first response was reportedly to, and not surprisingly, to just ignore him.
And she was told not to receive communion, but she's in D.C., and so she went and received it anyway.
But here she is on MSNBC giving a more A longer, I was going to say a more thoughtful, certainly not thoughtful at all, a longer anyway, verbal response to this.
And let's listen.
What's so sad about it, and as you're speaking, I'm thinking of some of the discussions I've had with other members of Congress over time.
And what is important for women to know and families to know that this is not just about Terminating a pregnancy.
So these same people are against contraception, family planning, in vitro fertilization.
It's a blanket thing and they use abortion as the front man for it while they try to undo so much.
That's what they tried to do in the Affordable Care Act, which didn't have anything about terminating an abortion, a pregnancy.
So let's just say that You know, I wonder about death penalty, which I am opposed to.
So is the church, but they take no action against people who may not share their view.
Thank you for referencing the Gospel of Matthew, which is sort of the agenda of the church that is rejected by many who side with them on terminating a pregnancy.
So, we just have to be prayerful, we have to be respectful.
I come from a largely pro-life Italian American Catholic family, so I respect people's views about that, but I don't respect us foisting it onto others.
Hmm.
She mentions the Gospel of Matthew.
I'm glad that she brought that up because there's another very unfortunately relevant passage in the Gospel of Matthew.
The entire thing is actually quite relevant.
The entire Bible is quite relevant to everything going on in our lives.
But one passage in particular, Matthew 18, 6, you know, for anyone who harms one of these little ones, it would be better for that person if a millstone was hung around his neck and he was tossed into the sea.
So, how about that from the Gospel of Matthew, Nancy Pelosi?
I mean, according to the Gospel of Matthew, you would be better off with a millstone around your neck drowning in the sea.
That's not me talking, that's Jesus Christ talking.
Tell me what part, now I can point to that in the Gospel of Matthew and many other parts of it, like the entire Gospel that condemns people who harm children.
So show me the part of the Gospel of Matthew that endorses it.
Can you show me that?
Show me the part.
I'll give you any of the Gospels, actually.
Find me the passage in the Gospels where Jesus says something that leads you to the conclusion that he wants you to kill children.
So, when God, as we are told in Jeremiah, forms a child in the womb, you know, he knows the child from the moment that child is stitched together in the womb.
And then, stitches the child together, forms the child together in the womb of his mother.
Where is the indication in the Bible, anywhere in the Bible, that God actually wants you to kill that living being that he formed in the womb?
Can you find that?
I'd like to know.
She mentions the death penalty, and of course, she totally misrepresents the situation there.
You know, the death penalty is actually—but that's another thing, I'm glad that she brought it up.
Because the death penalty is—that's not a clear cut.
She says, oh, the Church is against the death penalty.
No, historically, the Church is not against the death penalty.
In fact, historically, the Church has been in favor, explicitly in favor of the death penalty, in certain circumstances.
Now, Pope Francis, this most recent pope, doesn't like the death penalty.
And he made some changes very recently to the catechism, which were quite controversial to say the least.
And there's a whole lot of debate about what he put in there with regards to the death penalty, whether he even had the authority to put it in there and to phrase it the way that he did.
Talking about, I don't remember the exact phrasing, but talking about the death penalty, like as if it's an intrinsic evil.
And he didn't say that, and this is always the case with Pope Francis.
This is why, this is one of the reasons why his pontificate has been so damned frustrating.
Again, an understatement.
But he's just constantly confusing everyone about everything.
Like, nothing he says is clear.
So we're just sitting around, he'll say something, or write something, and everyone's sitting around debating, what the hell does that mean?
Because he's never clear about it.
And so with his proclamations about the death penalty, he didn't come out directly and say it's an intrinsic evil, but he kind of indicated that.
But at the same time, you can't say that because the church has explicitly, in the past, endorsed that kind of penalty for certain crimes.
So you're saying the church endorsed intrinsic evil in the past?
Well, you can't say that.
So with the death penalty, I think where this leads us is that It is, at a minimum, controversial.
And people have come down on either side of it.
Of the issue.
With abortion, that's not the case.
There's zero controversy.
It has been, from the beginning, forbidden.
There's nobody of any credibility or any real authority on the other side of the issue.
And that's one of the reasons for that, is that there's no coherent argument you can actually make.
There's no coherent argument on any level you can make in favor of abortion.
There's certainly no coherent moral argument you can make.
And even more so if you're trying to make a theological argument.
There are plenty of theological arguments you can make in favor of the death penalty.
Including, let's start with the fact that God himself, in the Old Testament, prescribes it?
I mean, God himself says, prescribes a death penalty for certain crimes?
He does.
So, from, and I get if you're not religious, if you don't believe in the Bible, that doesn't mean anything to you, fine, but we're talking, this is a religious conversation right now, what we're talking about.
Nancy Pelosi, that's, she's making claims on, on those grounds.
All right.
Georgia primaries yesterday.
Brian Kemp was the clear victor there.
He'll be the Republican candidate once again for governor.
And then Stacey Abrams.
Will be the Democrat candidate, and she's almost certainly going to lose.
And because she's almost certainly going to lose, again, that's one of the reasons why she passed a claim ahead of time that the votes are rigged and that there's, you know, and everything else.
Rigged in a different way, right?
She says it's rigged because we're suppressing votes and we're keeping, like the people that would vote for her are being kept home somehow.
And she's making that claim just like everybody on the left is, especially after Georgia passed its election integrity and voter ID laws.
Except that, here's the problem for her, that for the primaries yesterday, there was record turnout.
We'd never seen anything like it in Georgia.
So this was after laws were passed, we're supposed to be suppressing the vote, and then you have record turnout?
Well, does that have the effect of kind of disconfirming her claim about votes being suppressed?
She says no, listen.
The question about voter suppression and voter turnout is causation without correlation.
I'm sorry.
You can make mistakes even when you know what you're talking about.
It's correlation without causation.
We know that increased turnout has nothing to do with suppression.
Has nothing to do with it.
Suppressing, by the way, means that when you're stopping something from happening, you're mitigating it, minimizing it.
That's what suppression is.
And there's no correlation.
So there's no correlation between voter suppression and the number of people who vote.
So, theoretically, right, 100% of eligible voters could vote, and she could still claim that they're being suppressed.
What?
What do you mean then by suppressed?
If everybody is voting, and it might not be everybody in Georgia, but it's record numbers, More people voting after these supposed voter suppression policies are put in place.
And what do you even mean when you say suppression?
What are you talking about?
Well, the answer is that voter suppression, just like systemic racism, just like everything else you hear from Democrats, it's an unfalsifiable theory.
Right?
There's nothing that can happen that will have the effect of falsifying it.
Nothing.
No matter what happens, climate change, another example, unfalsifiable.
No matter what happens, it confirms.
Okay, famously, that's why they changed it from global warming to climate change, because it's like, that makes it by definition unfalsifiable, because any change in the climate, anything that happens in the climate, it confirms climate change.
Because look at that, it's changing.
Systemic racism, they say that America is horribly systemically racist.
It doesn't matter what happens.
We can elect a black president and that has no bearing on systemic racism because it's unfalsifiable.
And one of the, you know, here's how you know, and by the way, the unfalsifiable theory is by its nature an invalid theory.
Okay, that means it's just something arbitrary.
It's something ad hoc.
It's something you made up.
It's like trying to play a game with little kids, like a game that they've made up.
Have you ever tried to play with little kids some kind of game?
Play this game with me!
And they're just like making up the rules as they go along.
So it's impossible for you to win.
And that's what the left does.
No matter what happens, they change the rules, they change the definitions, everything is unfalsifiable.
And you know it's an unfalsifiable theory because all you have to do is ask them.
When it comes to systemic racism, just, you know, next time you're talking to someone on the left about this, ask them, what, what, what do you, what needs to happen?
Like, what needs to happen to prove to you that there is no systemic racism against black people?
And the answer is gonna be nothing.
And if nothing can disprove a theory, then that means that nothing has proven it either.
That means that this is a theory which exists entirely apart from evidence.
And one of the reasons that they do this is that they also want... Nothing can ever get better, right?
Because they always want to have the victim claim.
Which means that they call themselves progressives and they're supposedly working towards some utopia, but you can never get there.
There can never be any improvement.
So even after we have a black president, You know, after that, we'll hear from the left that actually racism is worse than it's ever been.
Not only has it not gotten better, but it's actually worse.
Speaking of things being the worst, another highlight from Abrams, who's again running for governor of Georgia, but she has a very low opinion of Georgia.
Let's hear that.
I am tired of hearing about being the best state in the country to do business when we are the worst state in the country to live.
When you're number 48 for mental health, when you're number one for maternal mortality, when you have an incarceration rate that's on the rise and wages that are on the decline, then you're not the number one place to live in the United States.
But we can get there, Gwinnett.
The worst place.
She wants to run for... Vote for me!
This is the worst place ever!
Vote for me!
This is one of the reasons why she's gonna lose again and then cry that she didn't really lose.
I mean, because she didn't lose the first time, she says.
She's governor right now, actually.
The worst place to live.
And one of the... She says a ranking of 48... What was it?
48th in mental health?
I don't know where she got... I actually looked it up to say, like, what ranking are you basing this on?
And how exactly do you rank mental health?
How do you rank the mental health of everybody in a state and then compare it to other states?
That's totally meaningless.
But this is why Democrats are terrible leaders, is because they hate... You know, you can't effectively lead anything if you hate the thing you're leading.
Right?
You can't be an effective leader in an institution if you hate the institution.
If you work for a company and you hate the company, then you're going to be a terrible manager if you're put in a position of leadership.
And even worse, if you hate the people also in the company, if you hate the people you're leading, which Democrats do, then you're going to be a terrible leader.
You have to have some kind of affection for the institutions that you're leading.
But you're not going to be able to lead effectively within those institutions.
And this is why all these cities are falling apart, that are led by Democrats.
They hate these cities, and they hate everybody in them.
I want to move to this.
Kamala Harris is trying out a new version of the it-takes-a-village cliché.
Let's hear that.
You know, when we talk about our children, I know for this group, we all believe that when we talk about the children of the community, They are the children of the community.
The children of the community are the children of the community.
Okay.
And what she means by that, of course, is like, these are children that belong to the community.
It takes a village.
They're not just your children, they belong to everybody.
But we know that that is false.
We also know when they say that, when they say community, what they mean is the government.
That's always what they mean.
That's why I would say they call it public school.
That's why I always say it's government school.
Forget about public.
Be very clear about what is meant here.
And that's what they mean, always, is the government is in charge.
You know one of the reasons why that's not true?
Why they're my kids, and I'm going to be in charge of them, and I'm caring for them, and I'm not going to entrust them to the community, quote-unquote?
And I wouldn't, even if by the community you actually meant the community, I still wouldn't entrust my children to the community.
And there are many reasons for that.
But one of the big ones is that I love my kids.
And you don't.
The government doesn't love my kids.
Even if you live in the best community in the world.
They're not going to love my kids at least the way that I do.
They might in a kind of a general, if you're a generous kind of person and you're a good Christian, you're going to have love for people in a sense that you want what's best for people in this kind of general sort of way, in a way of being charitable, kind of a charitable love.
But you're not going to love my kids in the way that I do.
You're not going to be invested in their well-being as I am.
As invested in making sure that not only they are safe, but that they grow into being good people.
Like, I would die for that.
I would die for my kids.
I would die to ensure that they grow into good people.
I would give my life to that, and I am, and so is my wife.
And that's the kind of investment I have in my kids, and that's why they're my kids.
You send them off to public school, there's no love there, they're just a number.
They're a warm body in a chair, right?
They're just, they're kind of, they become a statistic.
And the schools want to make sure that as many graduate as possible because it's better statistics.
They want to send as many as possible off to the, off to the university system because that's better statistics.
And so everything is, it just becomes statistical.
It's a statistical reality.
My kids are not statistics to me.
They're human beings.
They're my kids.
I know them.
You don't.
And that's why I am equipped to care for them in a way that nobody else is.
All right.
Okay, one other thing I want to read before we get to the comment section.
And I'm going to read this.
You're going to listen to it, whether you like it or not.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, something weird is going on in the universe.
You're just going to sit and listen to this.
NASA made the determination by examining evidence gleaned from the Hubble Space Telescope deep in space, which has measured the speed at which the universe is currently expanding, which is much faster than the speed of the expansion of the Big Bang.
NASA writes, the cause of this discrepancy remains a mystery, but Hubble data encompassing a variety of cosmic objects that serve as distance markers support the idea that something weird is going on, possibly involving brand new physics.
This is the scientific language from NASA.
Something weird's going on here.
That's scientific language, but it's interesting.
And that's why I'm gonna continue reading it.
Scientists had assumed that gravity would slow down the universe's expansion over time.
Dr. Kathy Romer of the Dark Energy Survey told the Daily Mail, the universe is not only expanding, but it's expanding faster and faster as time goes by.
What we expect is that the expansion would get slower and slower as time goes by because it has been nearly 14 billion years since the Big Bang.
14 billion years, okay?
That's a long time.
That's an interesting length of time, I would even say.
NASA explains, when NASA conceived of a large telescope in the 1970s, one of the primary justifications for the expense and extraordinary technical effort was to be able to resolve Cepheids, stars that brighten and dim periodically, seen inside our Milky Way and external galaxies.
Using these stars discovered by astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt in 1912, scientists measured distances in the universe.
They then used exploding stars called Type La Supernovae to measure greater distances.
Using both approaches, scientists could estimate the Hubble constant, named after scientist Edwin Hubble, a value that can estimate the age of the universe by measuring the expansion rate.
But some of these calculations are breaking down as a point, and so they're just confused by it.
Right.
This interesting fact about space that I'm telling you.
You go tell your friends about it.
All right?
We got through it together.
Let's get now to the comment section.
Thanks for watching.
This is the issue along with abortion.
This is the hill to die on.
Yeah, I generally have disdain for the news cycle.
You know, I'm not gonna, I don't, maybe, you've probably noticed by now.
I don't, this show is not ruled by the news cycle.
Now, there can be things happening in the news that everyone in the news is talking about that actually is worth talking about, such as today, but generally speaking, I don't rely on the media to tell me what's important and what I should talk about on this show.
Just one correction, though.
When you say, this is the hill to die on, I agree in a sense, but also, I ain't dying on this hill, okay?
They are, figuratively.
That's my only problem with this.
Is this the hill you're going to die on thing?
And of course, we know the people that say that, I get accused of this all the time.
I hear this from people, especially other conservatives.
Are you really going to die on this hill?
Is this the hill you're going to die on?
And the people that say that, they never, like whatever hill you're on, they say, oh, it's not worth dying for.
But then they never find a hill worth dying on as far as they're concerned.
They just keep, they keep surrendering hill after hill after hill until there are no hills left.
And yeah, I think that there are plenty of these hills worth dying on, but I also don't plan on dying on the hill.
And when it comes to the grooming thing, gender ideology, you know, that particular hill?
That's a hill we can actually win.
So.
Let's see, Arthur says, before you do any serious business with any company, check and see if they have a chief diversity officer.
Totally agree with you.
Only caveat is that I have been pushing to be the chief diversity.
Well, I'd like to be chief diversity officer of The Daily Wire.
We don't have one, but that's a position that I would very much like to take on.
And if not that, I've also been pushing to be chief diversity officer of Twitter, if Elon Musk takes over.
So, there are a couple exceptions to that, but generally, I think you're right.
Reese says, on the issue of the Jackie Robinson comparison, I think it's not just what is said, but also how it's said.
Asians are a protected class.
Now, go call one of them Jackie Chan.
It would be disrespectful.
Okay.
The difference, though, is that if there's an Asian person who says, I'm the new Jackie Chan, and then you say, okay, Jackie, That's not racist.
You're not making fun of them based on race or ethnicity.
You're making fun of what they just said, and such was the case with the baseball player who called the guy Jackie, Jackie, because he had called himself Jackie Robinson.
Selena says, Hey Matt, I took a break from your videos about eight months ago and I'm just checking in today on all the things that I missed and wow, the liberals have gotten worse.
I'm a Republican on your side and I can't believe all this stuff.
I'm a former teacher.
I'm watching all the things about schools I heard about in the news, but thanks for showing all this and opening our minds.
I'm in a liberal state and everyone around me is liberal and are okay with these kinds of things.
It's clearly just the devil's work trying to ruin this world.
Well, Selena, if you have taken a break for eight months, then you may have forgotten some of the rules around here, but by all rights, by admitting to me that you have not listened to the show for eight months, I mean, what could you possibly be doing for the last eight months?
That's more important than this.
By all rights, you should be banned from the show now.
But I'm feeling generous today, so as long as you promise not to leave us again and not to leave the Sweet Baby Gang again, I'll let you stay.
Thanks for listening.
You guys know how much I love animals.
Walruses, for example, big supporter there.
Pandas, not so much.
So, of course, with monkeypox taking over the headlines, I've been devastated by all
the stigma being placed on our tree-frolicking friends.
And in that devastation, I've had precious little time to gather the facts about monkeypox,
but rather than turn to someone like Bill Gates for the answers.
I think I'd rather hear from an actual expert.
Last night, Dr. Robert Malone made his return to Candace, and in case you missed it, he broke down everything you need to know about what monkeypox is and what it isn't.
You may remember Dr. Malone from his interview with Joe Rogan, his speeches also at the anti-mandate marches, or when he got kicked off Twitter for challenging the COVID narrative with, you know, actual science and facts and data and those pesky things.
In a time when headline-driven panic is exploited by big pharma and totalitarian-minded governments more than ever, it's critical we adhere to the truth, not the agenda.
And the uncompromised truth of the matter is just what Dr. Malone and Candace get to.
So, to help protect yourself from Monkeypox disinformation, you can watch last night's exclusive interview by becoming a Daily Wire member.
And right now, when you head to dailywire.com slash subscribe, you can get 25% off your new membership.
So head to dailywire.com slash subscribe today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Our cancellation today deals with something that I think is real and not a parody, but of course these days you can never be sure.
I always have in the back of my mind the possibility that everything happening in our culture right now is one giant practical joke.
You know, I'm waiting for someone to bust into the room at any moment, point to the hidden cameras, and explain that my entire life up to this point has been the most elaborate prank in history.
Which is wishful thinking, but I have to hold on to any hope, however faint.
And it's better than accepting that this is real.
Watch.
Okay, this is the fatness spectrum.
A small fat is a size 18 and lower, 1x or 2x.
I'm a 4x, 5x.
I'm a size 26, sometimes 28.
I am the super fat you say I'm speaking over.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page here, what we just witnessed in that video is a morbidly obese woman responding to the charge That she's not fat enough to have full fat credibility in the fat community.
She's accused of being a small fat, as opposed to a super fat.
But she explains that according to the fatness spectrum, she actually is a super fat, and thus has the authority to speak about fat issues.
According to the fat spectrum she provides, there are four categories of fats.
Small fat, mid fat, super fat, and infinifat.
Okay, now, InfiniFat sounds like some kind of magical crystal that a fat person might go on a quest to obtain so they can become the greatest and most powerful fat in the world.
And that's only sort of what it means.
In reality, an InfiniFat is someone who wears size 6X clothing.
Basically, if you have to go to a truck stop, weigh station to find out your weight, then you're an InfiniFat.
And you're also going to be dead very soon.
That's the bad news.
The good news is that for the remainder of your life, you have enormous credibility in the fat community.
And I do mean enormous.
I did some research into the fatness spectrum to confirm that this is a real thing.
And by real, I mean a fake thing that was really made up by real people.
And to that question, I can say, sadly, yes, affirmative.
It is.
In my research, the first thing I stumbled across was this article on the website Bustle in 2015, in which a woman wrestles with an identity crisis after being accused of insufficient obesity.
She writes, after spending a little over two decades associating my body with fatness, I never would have imagined that I'd be classed as not fat, or as a small fat by anyone's standards.
Yet when I discovered the body positivity movement and immersed myself into blogging, it felt like small fat was the first thing a lot of humans saw.
You see, within fat acceptance bubbles on the internet, there's one body type that often receives a bit of flack.
The small fat is essentially someone who might identify as fat or plus size, but who simultaneously fits into a smaller size on the plus size spectrum.
The small fat is likely allotted some amount of thin privilege, with others sometimes deeming it a body type not fat enough to self-identify as such.
Now, from what I understand, this is why the fat gang has an initiation ritual where you're forced to freebase pixie sticks, and anyone who refuses is revealed to be an undercover small fat and is then immediately killed.
Fortunately, Teen Vogue, the ultimate authority in insane bullcrap, has written a helpful explainer about the fat spectrum.
In their "Ask a Fat Girl" column, they explain, "These are designations on the spectrum of fatness, a set
of terms created by and for the fat community to self-identify one's size.
These size categories aren't universally agreed upon—folks can identify however they please—
but serve as a general outline for where one falls on the spectrum of fat privilege."
Those who fall on the smaller end of the size spectrum are afforded more privileges than those on the opposite end.
The further you go on the larger side of the spectrum, the more likely a person is to face discrimination, institutional scientism, be denied medical care, face trouble accessing public spaces, and more.
Within the fat community, these destinations allow for a shorthand when sharing information.
For instance, if I'm in need of a new pair of jeans, I can ask a Facebook group, I'm a mid-fat looking for some new wide-leg jeans.
Any suggestions?
That way, those who respond know what general category of store I would be able to fit in.
What store I would be able to fit in?
We're going real Infinifat here.
I gotta go shopping and I gotta know what store I can fit in.
Will I fit in Walmart?
If you're so fat that you won't fit in a Walmart, then that's not Infinifat.
That's beyond.
What's beyond Infinifat?
Galactic fat?
I don't know.
By the way, the categories of fatness are referred to as fat-agories.
Like, unironically, that's what they call them.
How do you make that up?
Fat-a-gories.
Incidentally, that's the term I've always used to group fast food restaurants together.
I have different fat-a-gories for fast food.
Arby's is in the highest-ranking fat-a-gory, because if you tried, like, a super-size-me experiment and ate only Arby's for a month, you'd gain 600 pounds, and then your bowels would explode.
That's also why Arby's is the best fast food restaurant.
Also, by the way.
In any case, what can we take away from all of this?
Well, nothing new.
But there are two things worth considering, once again, I think.
First, we see the modern leftists' obsessive and compulsive need to label themselves.
Now, when I was growing up, it was cool to declare yourself independent of all labels.
People would say, well, I don't really believe in labels.
I don't do labels.
And this was kind of silly, but it at least superficially encouraged people to form distinct and independent personalities.
Right?
It was kind of a strike against conformity.
Of course, the problem was that most of the people that went around talking about how they're non-conformist and they don't believe in conformity, those are the people that conformed the most.
But in theory, again superficially, it's a good thing, I guess, to encourage people not to conform just for the sake of conforming.
But now on the left, and among the younger generations in general, people have fled all the way to the other extreme, relentlessly inventing new categories and fatigories to hide themselves in.
The labels stand in place of identity or personality.
It's like a weird sort of credentialism.
But these credentials are even more meaningless and arbitrary than the credentials of a traditional credentialist.
Second, of course, these are people who, along with giving up on developing real human personalities and identities, have also given up on success, improvement, self-betterment.
Fat acceptance, like so many other types of acceptance, is a form of despair.
They clamor for the highest victim status, competing with each other over who's oppressed the most, or really who is oppressing themselves the most, by eating themselves to death the quickest.
And they do this because they don't even desire to live successful and joyful lives.
Pity and affirmation is all they seek.
That's why we—acceptance, acceptance.
I mean, what a weak, meager, kind of pitiful thing that is to want out of life.
That's all you want?
Just acceptance?
You don't want more than that?
You're not setting your sights any higher than that?
I just want to be accepted.
But this is the only pleasure they've ever known.
Pity, affirmation.
Or the only pleasure they ever want to know.
Well, that and eating.
And they look for nothing more in life.
It is sad, pathetic, quite depressing.
And that is why super fats, small fats, mid fats, infinifats, and the whole fatness spectrum All of that today is cancelled.
And 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.
Hey there, this is John Bickley, Daily Wire editor-in-chief and co-host of Morning Wire.
On today's episode, a mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas leaves several people dead, President Biden's approval drops among Democrats, the World Health Organization considers a controversial global pandemic treaty, and the White House addresses conflicting messages on China and Taiwan.
