Ep. 1343 - Another Outrageous Assault On The Right To Self-Defense
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the right to self-defense has been under attack for a long time in this country. One ongoing case in Wisconsin shows just how far the Powers That Be will go to punish you for defending yourself. Also, Donald Trump ignites controversy on the right with his new statement on "abortion rights." And one of the harpies on the View says that the eclipse happened because of climate change. Plus, a feminist writer for Salon knows who is to blame for the random assaults on women in New York. Obviously it's Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.
Ep.1343
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch my brand new series, Judged by Matt Walsh premiering TONIGHT at 8 PM ET only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order of Fruits & Veggies + $10 Off Every Additional Set. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
http://www.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the right to self-defense has been under attack for a long time in this country.
One ongoing case in Wisconsin shows just how far the powers that be will go to punish you for defending yourself.
Also, Donald Trump ignites controversy on the right with his new statement on quote-unquote abortion rights.
And one of the harpies on The View says that the eclipse happened because of climate change.
Plus, a feminist writer for Salon knows who is to blame for the random assaults on women in New York.
Obviously, it's Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.
And all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
I've been extremely clear and outspoken in my stance that abortion is undoubtedly evil
and should be illegal in all circumstances.
I'm also aware of the indoctrination and pro-abortion propaganda pushed by public schools and other liberal institutions.
You all have heard their lies that a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells or that a woman's reproductive rights include termination of pregnancy if the baby's life is an inconvenience to her.
Then there's the quality of life argument that abortion is somehow justified because the mother doesn't have the means to take care of the baby.
I don't think these people actually know what they're saying.
Our society needs a massive overhaul when it comes to helping young women understand the inherent value of life and the duty and joy of motherhood.
That's why an organization like Preborn is so critical.
Preborn covers all the bases for soon-to-be mothers, particularly ones considering abortion.
Preborn meets women with compassion, encouragement, and understanding.
They provide women with the tools they need to choose life for their babies.
Not only do they introduce women to their children through ultrasound, But they also provide education about pregnancy, as well as two years of financial support for women who choose life.
And they do all this at no cost to the mother.
Help make a difference in the fight against abortion by supporting organizations like Preborn.
Donate 28 bucks, the cost of one ultrasound, and help save a life today.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
Or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
So there aren't a lot of guarantees in the criminal justice system, but for a long time now, there's been at least one thing you could be pretty sure of, which is that if you kill somebody in self-defense, there's a very good chance in this country you're going to be charged with murder.
Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman a cracker right before pounding his head into the pavement.
And famously, the entire country, including the President of the United States at the
time, determined immediately that George Zimmerman was the bad guy.
And of course, Kyle Rittenhouse very nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison
for the crime of defending himself against several people who were clearly trying to
kill him, including a pedophile who just got out of a mental hospital and an Antifa foot
soldier who drew a handgun on him.
Now, everyone's heard of these cases because in both instances, there was a very clear
your racial angle to push.
Even though he didn't kill any black people, the Kyle Rittenhouse incident happened, of course, in the context of BLM mobs torching cities, so they had that angle, and that's why he became an instant target.
George Zimmerman, for his part, gave Barack Obama a chance to talk about how systemically racist America is, so his case was useful for a moment as well.
But there are many self-defense cases that don't make the mainstream news, at least not nearly to the same extent.
And all of them, to one degree or another, contradict the prevailing media narrative.
So the corporate press ignores them.
But they're important to talk about in part because they show how prosecutors and witnesses are willing to lie to imprison people who exercise one of the most fundamental rights, you might say the most fundamental, which is the right of self-defense.
How casually they will destroy people's lives for the crime of trying to preserve their own lives.
So I'm going to go in-depth into one of these cases, which is still ongoing, hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves, and plus it's the premiere day for Judge, so I figure a deep dive on a court case seems sort of fitting.
So, here's the background.
In the summer of 2022, a man in his early 50s named Nikolai Moo was out tubing with a group of people, including his wife, and this was in the Apple River in Wisconsin.
Apparently, a member of his party dropped their phone somewhere in the river, and Nikolai Mou left his group and went looking for the phone.
And that's when, around 3.40 p.m., Mou encountered a couple of additional tubing groups, one consisting of a bunch of teenagers and the other including some adults.
And most of the involved parties are very clearly under the influence of alcohol and perhaps other drugs to varying degrees, and they begin exchanging some words, and here's what happened next, watch.
Who is this?
Yes!
Yes!
From the culture!
From the culture!
Who is that?
From the culture!
Who is that?
Who the hell is this?
It doesn't matter.
He said he was looking for little girls!
Yeah!
What?
Weird as hell!
I didn't even have that part on camera, did I?
What the hell is this guy's problem, though?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[LAUGH
He hit a woman?
He hit a woman!
He's a woman, he's a woman, he's a woman, he's a woman.
[NOISE]
He's dying, he's dying, what the fuck?
What the fuck?
He's dying, he's dying, don't do it, man.
[NOISE]
Now it's clear from this footage that throughout the entire incident right up
until their friend got stabbed, the crowd of teenagers doesn't seem to
be afraid of anything or feel fearful for their lives in any way.
And they seem to be having a great time.
and...
And, you know, that makes sense, because Mu is much older than they are, and though they wouldn't have known this, he just had quadruple bypass surgery, so he wasn't out looking for, you know, a fight with a bunch of teenagers.
Meanwhile, these teenagers are mostly football players in prime physical condition, so they appear to be very much the aggressors as they jeer and taunt the older man and accuse him of, quote, looking for a little girl.
And then something happens off camera.
An adult woman who came over from another tubing group gets in the man's face.
He apparently makes some kind of contact with her and the mob pounces.
They push the man and begin hitting him repeatedly after he goes down in the water.
Meanwhile, the woman is fine.
She's not hurt in any way.
Only after the man fatally stabs one of his attackers, a teenager named Isaac Schumann, Does the mood start to change?
Schumann bled out on the scene.
The man also stabbed several others who were attacking him, and you can tell from watching the video that he was not chasing them down and slicing away, that they were coming at him, attacking him, and that's when he used the knife.
Now, based on these facts, within 48 hours, the DA charged Nikolai Mou with first-degree murder.
And what's followed, nearly two years later, is, for the prosecutors anyway, nothing short of a train wreck.
You know, there are airtight cases, and there are closed cases, and then there's this.
Pretty much every prosecution witness has demonstrated very clearly that they're either lying or they're completely unsure of what happened two years ago.
This is such a debacle that very real questions need to be asked about why this case was brought and why these prosecutors still have jobs.
So I'll start with the incredible testimony of a witness named Larian Davis, who recorded some of the footage of the incident.
Under cross-examination from one of the, actually one of Kyle Rittenhouse's old lawyers, incidentally, Davis admits that he lied to the police about why the group was upset with Nikolai Moo.
This is just incredible footage.
Watch this.
You also said to the police, he came out of the bushes, And he was taking pictures of the girls.
Yes, I said that.
You saw that?
No, I said that.
I understand you said it.
Did you see it?
Yes.
So you saw Mr. Miu with his camera that afternoon taking pictures of little girls.
That's what you're telling this jury?
Oh, no, no, no.
No, that's what I said.
No, like I said, I understand you said it.
Is it true?
Oh, I don't know.
Why would you say it if you don't know if it's true?
It was a lot going on.
Um, okay.
Now, it's hard to believe that this is a real interaction between two humans in a courtroom.
So the lawyer says, you said you saw him taking pictures of little girls.
Witness says, yeah, I said that.
Lawyer says, did you see it?
Witness says, no, I said it.
Now, to be clear, we're talking about falsely accusing a man of pedophilia two years after the fact, and the only excuse he can come up with for lying is, there was a lot going on.
There's a lot going on, so I just accused someone of being a pedophile.
It just happens, and things were hectic.
Keep in mind, this is a prosecution witness.
So this should be the end of the case right there.
I mean, this is the clearest possible evidence that the people Mu confronted decided long after the fact to come up with a story to justify their aggression towards him.
They have no credibility whatsoever.
You'll remember in the video, somebody shouted that Mu was looking for a girl, but on cross-examination, another witness, Jawan Cockfield, admitted that the claim was not based on any evidence whatsoever.
Watch.
You tell the police that he told you he's looking for a circle.
Yes?
Yes.
Okay.
And... You then say... Grown man can't have sex with little girls.
What the hell?
What the f***?
He's a raper.
Right?
Uh-huh.
Yes?
Yes.
Okay.
You have no information.
As to what this older man is doing, do you?
No.
Okay.
What about Rayburn saying he can't have sex with little girls?
You're doing that to humiliate him, aren't you?
Not necessarily.
Well, what other reason would you be calling him names when you don't know anything about what's happening?
Trying to figure out the situation.
So the way that you're trying to figure out what's happening is by calling a grown man names.
Yes?
Yes.
I mean, part of the problem here for the prosecution is you have witnesses whose IQs are not much higher than, like, the chairs they're sitting on.
So, you know, they just called this man a raper who's interested in little girls as a way of scoping out the situation.
You know, that's what they're saying.
That was their way of gathering intel, apparently.
Trying to figure out what was going on.
So, you know, when you're trying to figure out what's going on, the best way to do that is just to accuse everyone of being rapists.
That's, you know, you start with that and then you kind of whittle things down from there.
And then elsewhere in the testimony, Cockfield claims to be shocked that the man in response turned around and became upset.
Now, none of this makes any sense, and as the trial went on, it continued to make no sense.
For example, on cross-examination, it was revealed that the dead teenager's best friend, Owen Peliquin, told police on the day of the incident that Moo was looking for a lost phone, not underage girls.
Listen to the defense attorney read Owen's prior statement, and then watch as Owen tries to weasel out of this admission.
Your answer.
We were floating and then we look at him and he was just standing completely by himself with some goggles on.
And then we were like, what are you doing?
And he said, Oh, I'm looking for a phone.
Do you remember providing that answer to that question?
Not at all.
Is that true?
Very true.
That happened?
No.
That didn't happen?
I do not remember.
You don't remember what happened that day in the river?
I remember.
So did he or did he not tell you that he was looking for a phone?
I don't recall him ever saying that.
No.
Okay.
Is your memory better today or is it better on the day of the incident?
I'd say it's better today.
It's better today.
Almost two years later.
Yeah, I've been able to think about it a lot.
Okay.
Well, in between the time of the incident and today, do you ever reach back out to law enforcement to make any corrections that you might have had?
No, I'm pretty young.
I wouldn't have known how to do that.
Still wouldn't.
I mean, if there wasn't a dead person here and someone else's life hanging in the balance, you'd almost have to laugh at some of this.
It seems almost like a courtroom, like a very dark courtroom comedy.
Just these witnesses.
So two years later, Owen's memory is suddenly better.
It's better now than it was at the time.
He remembers more about what happened two years later than he did when it actually happened.
And by that he means his memory is worse.
Because he can't, he can't, he doesn't remember if his memory is good or not.
That's part of the problem.
He says his memory, he doesn't remember, he does remember, he's not sure.
He doesn't remember remembering.
And now he doesn't recall the guy ever saying anything about missing a phone.
And he had no way of figuring out how to tell the police any of this because he's just 19 years old.
And 19 year olds are apparently completely unable to use Google or cell phones or dial 911 or communicate basic ideas at all, evidently.
These are strange lapses in the prosecution's case, to say the least, and it keeps going.
Owen also testifies that he simply can't remember the fact that one of his friends was shouting for the culture to egg on a fight.
Watch.
I wouldn't say we ever did it just for like a camera, like a video.
Well, do you remember him yelling for the culture?
Remember that?
I do not.
You don't remember him yelling that?
I don't.
Okay.
Do you remember somebody in your group yelling or saying to somebody, you got 10 seconds.
Remember that?
I don't recall that.
Did you say that?
I did not.
Okay.
So Mr. Mu moves over to the blonde.
You agree there's a path to go through, but you want to see this through, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Now, I admit, I'm not as hip as I used to be.
Well, I was never hip, let's be honest.
I had to look this one up because, you know, I don't know.
So I went to Urban Dictionary, and you'll find that, for the culture, is, quote, when you do something you know you usually wouldn't have done and are doing it purely for the hype factor of going against your usual judgment to instead try something new and different.
This is what one of the witnesses was shouting, and we heard that in the video.
They were shouting as the mob descended on this 52-year-old man.
Now, this is the kind of fact that if you're trying to make Nikolai Miu out to be the aggressor, if you're trying to make him out to be this dangerous man that these poor teenagers were so frightened by him, well, this kind of fact is pretty inconvenient.
The fact that they're all laughing and having a great time and shouting for the culture, not exactly what you would expect if they were terrified for their very lives.
So, Owen just pretends that he doesn't remember it happening.
Problem solved, according to the prosecutors.
These kinds of inconsistencies are continuing to pile up as the trial goes along, but a few facts were definitively established, and one is that, contrary to what some of those teenagers said, Mu never knocked a woman down at any point during his altercation.
She was captured on the recording, standing upright, holding her phone.
Additionally, Mu never stabbed anyone until he was in the water, surrounded by a mob that was punching him in the face.
So, Mu waited until his life was in danger before he used deadly force.
And once he began stabbing people, he didn't indiscriminately start swinging.
Instead, he only targeted the people who were targeting him, including Isaac Schumann, who put his hands on Mu's neck.
Watch.
You watched the video, right?
Yes.
Okay.
So now you're aware that Isaac has his hands around Mr. Mu's throat?
I didn't know that he had his hands around his throat, no.
You didn't see that?
No.
Okay.
Is that something that you saw?
No.
He was, that was pretty late.
I think Isaac was the last one stabbed on video.
And so by that time I was focused on the guy next to me who had his whole stomach cut open.
Okay, but I guess my point is, initially you say you didn't see Isaac make contact with him.
You see on that video somebody with their hands around Mr. Muise's throat, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
On that video nobody is stabbed.
Until Mr. Miu is punched in the face and knocked in the water, right?
Yeah.
So you would agree that the people that are injured with the knife, that all happens after Mr. Miu has been knocked in the water, punched, slapped, pushed, right?
Yes.
And you don't attack Mr. Miu, do you?
No.
And he doesn't do anything to you, does he?
No.
Now, it's not an exaggeration to say that the prosecution has not presented a single witness to bolster its claim that this was first-degree murder.
Instead, every single witness rebutted their argument.
Here, for example, is another witness, AJ Martin, who concedes that ganging up on a man in his 50s and beating him may, in fact, not exactly de-escalate an already tense situation.
Watch.
You're pushing him, correct?
Yeah, that's where I had said that I thought I'd push him in the front left shoulder to keep him down, but I was there too late, so I didn't get that shoulder.
I guess I got the back of it, and... You said you're a peacemaker, right?
You like to mediate?
Yeah, that's what I was trying to do.
You can understand how somebody who'd been down in the water and hit two times getting pushed from behind may not understand that you're trying to mediate.
It goes to his mindset.
Overruled.
You can answer the question if you're able to.
Sorry, what was the question?
Sure.
As somebody who likes to mediate and was attempting to mediate, you can understand how a person in Mr. Mu's position who'd been hit twice in the water might not understand or appreciate your intent to try to de-escalate by pushing him in the behind.
You might misunderstand that, right?
He could misunderstand that.
Sure.
Okay, so far, thanks to the prosecution witnesses, we've established the following facts.
Most of their witnesses are liars.
It was completely reasonable for this 50-year-old man to fear for his life.
One of the teenagers had his hand on this man's throat while the others were pummeling him, and that they all lied about him being a pedophile two years after the fact.
So, like, what are we doing here?
There's no case.
This man should be at home living his life.
There's nothing to even talk about.
And this is not exactly the kind of case that it takes Perry Mason to win, but somehow, once again, things got worse for the prosecution.
Yet another witness claimed that the group was afraid of Nikolai Miu, but began to feel a little more secure as other adults began surrounding him as well.
So he's presenting this image of a deranged 50-year-old man who's freaking them out.
And then the defense attorney shows a photo of the witnesses looking extremely enthusiastic and not remotely afraid.
Watch.
You see Mr. Mew walking away from your group, moving over toward the blonde person, the woman, right?
Yes.
Okay.
And at that point, are you still scared?
When more people, adults, start to come, I felt a little bit more secure.
Okay.
That's you, right?
Yes.
Okay.
And this is, if you remember, Seconds before, moments before Madison Cohen, you say, you see her punched, right?
This is before I saw her get punched, yeah.
I mean, again, if not for the context, you have to laugh at some of that.
He's claiming that he was fearful for his life, and then you cut to a photo of him looking the happiest he's probably ever been in his life.
I mean, that's the face of a man, you know, caught on one of those cameras at a Six Flags, you know, roller coaster or something.
That's not the face of someone who's fearing for their very lives.
That is certainly not someone who's, you know, grateful and relieved that other adults have appeared to deal with the threat.
And everyone looking at the footage knows that.
So this is yet another prosecution witness who is lying overtly on the stand.
Everybody knows it.
And I could go on for another hour dissecting every other aspect of this case and how totally disastrous it's been for the prosecution, but you get the point.
In no sane country is this a first-degree murder case.
And by the way, there is no duty to retreat in Wisconsin.
But even if there were, there was no real chance for this man to get away once the mob descended on him.
This is a completely unjustifiable prosecution no matter how you look at it.
And it was brought for the same reason that most other self-defense claims are brought, which is to terrorize the rest of the population into submission.
Remember how the Rittenhouse prosecutor said, everybody takes a beating now and then?
Well, we're pretty close to the prosecutors in this case saying the same thing.
That's more or less their argument at this point, that 52-year-old men should just accept their mob beatings rather than defend themselves.
You know, if you're getting descended upon by a mob, and they're knocking to the river and beating you, and they have their hands around your throat, well, you know, just deal with it.
Just lie there, play dead, until they walk away.
But that is obviously outrageous.
In a sane society, if you harass and assault someone, whatever happens next, whatever violence erupts as a result of your choices is your fault.
If you don't want to get shot or stabbed, if you don't want to bleed to death in a river, don't go around trying to bully random strangers just for fun.
The reason this case isn't on every mainstream channel is that the mob happened to be white for the most part, though not totally.
But this is every bit as serious and coordinated an attack on the right to self-defense as the Rittenhouse case was and the Zimmerman trial was.
The judge should dismiss the charges.
The prosecutors should be disbarred, and new prosecutors should consider looking into perjury charges for some of these witnesses who again have admitted that they lied.
And if none of that happens, and if somehow the jury convicts, then we can say with certainty that just a couple of years after the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the right to self-defense has been suspended in the state of Wisconsin.
Everyone living there should either move or prepare accordingly.
And the rest of us should do everything we can to preserve our fundamental rights while we still have them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[Music]
Bounce of Nature fruits and veggies is the most convenient way to get whole fruits and vegetables every day.
They use an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and vegetables into whole food supplements without sacrificing their natural antioxidants.
The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in Bowels of Nature's fruits and veggie capsules are fruits and veggies.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
That sounds miserable and time-consuming.
Well, with Bowels of Nature, There's never been an easier way to ensure that you get your daily dose of fruits and vegetables.
Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH to get 35% off your first set of fruits and veggies, and an additional $10 off every additional set that you buy.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
All right, as you can see, by the way, I'm on the set of my new show, Judged, today, as we are premiering the first episode tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern, and you'll be able to find that episode on Daily Wire, YouTube, X, and the second episode of the series will also be available tonight, but that's exclusively on Daily Wire.
And from then on, all the new episodes you can find on Daily Wire, so you have to go and get subscribed if you're not already.
As you know, It is now a legal, it's an actual legal mandate that you become a subscriber to Daily Wire and watch the show.
Daily Wire has this report.
Former President Donald Trump declared on Monday that he supports states being able to decide how to handle abortion policy following a Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, after his major rivals dropped out, Trump announced his position on the contentious issue in a video posted to his Truth Social program.
Platform, rather, not program.
Let's watch about a four and a half, five minute video.
Obviously, we can't play the whole thing, but let's watch a little bit of that.
Here it is.
Under my leadership, the Republican Party will always support the creation of strong, thriving, and healthy American families.
We want to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies, not harder.
That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.
Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights.
Especially since I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended.
Roe v. Wade.
They wanted it ended.
It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month.
The states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, And whatever they decide must be the law of the land.
In this case, the law of the state.
Many states will be different.
Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that's what they will be.
At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people.
You must follow your heart, or in many cases, your religion or your faith.
Do what's right for your family and do what's right for yourself.
Do what's right for your children.
Do what's right for our country and vote.
Okay, let me make several points here.
First, as you know, I am unapologetically, completely, radically pro-life.
You know, I say radically, there's actually nothing, there shouldn't be anything radical about being completely pro-life and being entirely opposed to killing babies at any stage of development.
But these days that is a radical position, unfortunately.
And I'm against abortion in all cases, no matter what, no exceptions.
And the reason that I hold that position is that it is the only morally or logically coherent position to hold on this.
Either unborn babies are human beings, persons, endowed with the same human rights that all the rest of us have, or not.
Like, it's one or the other.
It can't be both, it can't be neither.
Those are the two options.
And if the first option is correct, that they are human beings endowed by the creator with inalienable human rights, like all the rest of us, then it is never okay to murder them under any circumstance.
Just like it's never okay to murder anybody else.
And that's the only coherent position to take.
If you say, on the other hand, well, no, they are not people.
They are not human beings.
Well, then you're left with the problem of what exactly are they?
And if you think that you are a person, well, at what point did you become a person?
And what is different?
And whatever that magical moment happened, what was different about you then that didn't apply to you a second before that?
It's an unanswerable question.
Because you have to draw the line somewhere.
You have to draw the line.
And the only logical place to draw it is at conception.
I have never heard anyone make a coherent argument for any other point.
And so that's the reason why I'm against killing human beings.
Murdering human beings at any stage of development.
And I think that no state has the right to kill babies.
It's not a state's rights issue.
No state has that right, any more than they have the moral right, or should have the legal right, to declare that rape is legal.
Any more than they should have the legal right to say, you know what, it's okay to kill people between the ages of 31 and 37.
Any more than they could just arbitrarily take out any other stage of human development and say, well, as long as they're in that stage, yeah, go ahead, have at it.
So that's my position.
The second point is that I realize that my position is not the majority position.
It should be.
I wish that it was.
But it's not.
It's not even a sizable minority position.
The fact is that the vast majority of Americans support child murder, at least to some extent.
It's a horrible thing to have to admit.
I wish it wasn't true.
I don't even like saying it out loud because of how it makes me feel about most Americans in this country.
But it doesn't matter how it makes me feel, it's the reality.
Most Americans do support some form of child murder, which is a very sad statement about our culture, to say the least.
It also presents certain unavoidable political realities.
And the argument from conservatives who are defending Trump's statement is that, you know, their argument is that, look, he probably, not probably, he almost certainly cannot get elected if he runs on a federal abortion ban with no exceptions and we're going to ban all abortion.
He won't be elected if he says that.
It's just not going to happen.
And so he'll be essentially forfeiting the election.
to Joe Biden. And if he isn't elected, then we're stuck with a radically pro-abortion president
who favors abortion at every stage of development.
And not only that, but wants to put pro-lifers and is putting pro-lifers in prison.
And that's the argument from the conservatives who are defending the statement.
I think that argument is true.
I mean, all of the available evidence points to the fact that my own position is not popular enough to get somebody elected to national office.
Again, I wish that wasn't the case, but it very clearly is the case.
And I believe in facing reality for what it is.
This goes back to a debate that we've had in the pro-left movement for years.
Which long predates Trump, which is incrementalism or absolutism.
Do we go for incremental victories, taking what we can get along the way?
Or do we insist on all or nothing?
And I've always been a believer in incrementalism because I'm a realist and because I actually want to win.
So I want any victory I can get.
Like, if I can have a small victory or no victory, then I'll take the small victory.
To me, there's not much to think about.
It's not much of a debate.
Like, obviously, I'd prefer that.
Now, I'd like to take a giant leap towards my goal, but if I can only have a small step, I'll take that over a giant leap backwards.
So if the options are giant leap backwards or small step forward, it doesn't make any sense to me for someone to say, well, no, I choose neither because I want to take a giant leap forwards.
But if that's not an option on the table right now, in reality, then that doesn't make any sense.
So by not choosing the small step forward, you are choosing the leap backwards.
And that doesn't, it doesn't make sense strategically.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
So you take the small step where you can get it, and that's the idea.
So in this case, I'll take the most pro-life outcome that I can possibly get.
I will accept an incremental victory.
Provided, and this is the big caveat here, okay?
This is where things get, this is where it gets complicated.
You take the incremental victory, provided that it is an incremental victory, and not the end point.
As long as we are not satisfied.
So the ultimate goal, as far as I'm concerned, is to see abortion eradicated everywhere.
The ultimate goal is to live in a country where there's no abortion at all.
Now, Is that an option on the table right now?
Is there any possible universe right now where that can happen?
No.
Not right now.
It's just not.
There's no possible universe right now where that happens.
So I'll take the biggest step I can towards that goal.
I prefer to save as many babies as we possibly can right now, but we have to keep fighting towards the ultimate goal, and that's sort of the rub here.
You fight incrementally, which means that you're not satisfied.
You don't say, OK, well, this is it.
We'll stop here.
And this, by the way, this is the situation we're in with every fight.
I've said many times that the fight against the gender ideology and the gender transition industry, as far as I'm concerned, that is also an incremental fight.
Yeah, our first goal is to protect children from this, but that's not the end of it.
This is still, you know, a billion-dollar industry that profits off of Mutilating and destroying people and capitalizing on and profiting from mental illness.
The whole industry should be destroyed.
So I'm not satisfied until that happens.
But that can't happen right now.
So if you come to me and say, look, we can't destroy the whole industry, but what we can do is prevent kids from being victimized by it, then I'm going to say, I'll take that.
I'll take that right now.
I'm not satisfied, though.
The fight continues.
And I see a similar situation here.
But what that also means is that you have to be smart and strategic about what you say and how you position yourself.
Which is why, for me, the worst thing that Trump did in that statement is to use the phrase abortion rights.
And the follow your heart stuff was almost as bad.
You know, if you want to tell me that he can't win if he announces that he wants to push for a federal ban on all abortions, Sure, obviously that is correct.
That's not a winning political position right now.
But that doesn't mean that he has to use left-wing terminology when discussing the issue.
The smart strategy is to take what you can get right now, but don't say or do anything that forecloses your ability to take more in the future.
When you adopt left-wing framing on the abortion issue by saying, you know, abortion rights, Which, by the way, if you want to understand why this matters, imagine if next thing you know Trump is talking about fetuses rather than unborn children.
That's also a problem because you're adopting their framing.
That's why we don't use that term.
Because you're adopting their framing, which says that there's something distinctly different, inherently different, about the unborn child as opposed to every other human being.
Like they're a different species or something.
And when you adopt their framing, you undercut the pro-life case.
And, you know, this is where conservatives have struggled.
It's one thing to work incrementally towards your goal.
We really have no choice but to do that.
But you don't have to accept left-wing framing in the process.
Because when you do, that's how you end up getting stuck on the step you're on, and eventually losing that ground too.
So, just to summarize, I don't blame Trump for failing to call for a federal ban on all abortions without exceptions.
Which, if it was up to me, that would be the policy.
I don't blame him for not calling for that.
Because, again, it's just a political reality that he can't win with that position.
But the way we talk about this issue really matters.
And even aside from the position itself, the way he expressed it was not good.
It's important to be very precise and strategic when speaking about this issue, which means never accepting the left-wing framing or left-wing language ever, under any circumstance.
There are no abortion rights.
You don't have a right to an abortion.
And if it sounds like I'm playing semantics, I'm not.
It really matters.
And I think everyone by now should understand that language is not semantic.
It's how we communicate with each other.
It's how we express ideas.
And when you use certain language, you're expressing an idea whether you mean to or not.
When you use the phrase abortion rights, you're expressing the idea that there is a right to abortion, but there is not.
And even when taking a compromised or compromise political position, you cannot compromise on the language.
And of course, even with these complaints, the choices are still Biden or Trump.
There are no other choices.
I'll vote for Trump.
Biden wants to kill all the babies he can, and he wants to throw pro-lifers in prison while he's at it, and that's what he's been doing.
Trump is obviously significantly better than that on this issue and every other issue, so I'll take Trump.
I'll take the incremental victory.
Let's continue the fight, though.
And it's a fight that continues as long as there are babies to save.
Which means that this is a fight that we're going to be in for the rest of our lives, and probably much longer than that.
Alright, it was pretty amazing to see that eclipse yesterday.
It's just that from my vantage point, it was mainly the clouds eclipsing the sun.
So it was a view of the clouds.
And this is the second eclipse in a row, I have to tell you, where I haven't been able to see it because it was overcast.
So you might think that you're suffering in your life, that you deal with difficulties, but this is what I'm dealing with right now.
There's two eclipses in a row.
You know, the last one, I couldn't see it.
It was a bust.
And they said, oh, you'll get another one in seven years.
I waited seven years.
I waited.
I did nothing but just wait for seven years for the next eclipse, and then I look out and there's clouds again.
Which is why I think we need to ensure equitable and inclusive access to all astronomical events for everybody.
I think there's not enough discussion about that for too long.
Marginalized people like myself have not been able to see eclipses.
We haven't been able to see shooting stars.
I don't know how many times I've heard people, oh, there's a shooting star.
I look, I don't see a shooting star.
In fact, recently there was a thing with Jupiter, where Jupiter was supposed to appear larger than it has in however many years.
Went outside to see it at night.
Clouds again.
Couldn't see it.
At this point, I'm not even sure if these celestial bodies even exist.
Is there a Jupiter?
Is there a Sun?
I don't know.
Because every time I try to look, it's cloudy.
And it's not fair to me.
It's not fair to all marginalized communities.
This is a conversation about inclusivity that we need to have.
You've heard of DEI.
Well, this is DE Sky, is what I'm talking about.
And if that sounds incredibly stupid and insane, you should know that it's actually not as stupid or insane as what was said, unironically, on The View yesterday.
Let's watch this.
We've got a solar eclipse.
We've got the earthquake.
She ran down the hallway.
She ran down the hallway.
The rapture is here.
The rapture is here.
And then also I learned that the cicadas are coming.
Cicadas.
Cicadas.
For the first time in... Cicadas.
Cicadas.
for the first time in many, many years.
No, every 17 years this happens.
Well, that's not what I read, but maybe, you know, maybe you know better.
In a way.
I would say all those, all those things together would maybe lead one to believe that, you know, either climate change exists.
That's more the point.
Or something is really going on.
Or it's returning.
That's quite something at the mercy of climate change.
It's underground.
It can't, I don't think that's... It happens, and the eclipse, they've known about the eclipse coming because eclipses happen.
Okay, so...
You know, I'm constantly saying that the left is beyond parody, but this truly is beyond parody.
How do you make fun of this?
How do you satirize this?
She just listed three things that have absolutely nothing to do with the climate and lumped them in as signs of climate change.
So the orbit of the moon is now a result of climate change.
Like, the problem is that there isn't a more absurd claim that you could make to compare to this as a joke, right?
Like, I can't say, well, that's like claiming that climate change on Earth causes the black hole at the center of our galaxy.
What she just said is not any more absurd than that.
That's the most absurd thing you can say on this topic, has now been said.
Now, there are other things that are equally as absurd.
But unfortunately, it can't get more absurd than that.
So in effect, and I don't know if this is 4D chess that she's playing or what, but in effect, she's just killed all climate change jokes.
We can't joke about this anymore.
They're all dead now.
She has killed them.
Because now we have a prominent leftist on the record, on TV, saying that climate change causes an eclipse.
There's nowhere else to take it now.
We can't take this anywhere else.
That's it.
There's no, the Babylon Bee, you can't, what are you gonna... All climate change jokes are done.
It's a tragedy in a certain way, it really is.
Because I enjoy making fun of climate alarmists.
I enjoy it as much as the next person, probably a lot more.
I really like making fun of them.
It's a lot of fun.
It's important to me to be able to make fun of environmentalists and climate alarmists, and she's killed that.
You know what it is?
A little piece of my heart has now been ripped out of me and destroyed because of this.
I'm honestly upset about it.
Every time the left takes it one step, they keep going, and then eventually they cross that line where it's like, alright, can't satirize it anymore.
That's the funniest version of this thing you have just done unironically.
What can we do now?
Because we're obviously fully at the point now where climates, when they talk about climate, that just means anything that occurs anywhere in physical reality.
That's what they mean by climate.
Any occurrence, when they talk about climate change, they just mean something has happened.
Some sort of event has occurred somewhere in the physical plane.
That's climate change.
In fact, it's probably even broader than that because it doesn't even need to be a physical occurrence.
Because they'll connect climate change to, like, anxiety and mental health and all these other things.
So really, any concept at all is climate change.
Which is another reason why you can't make fun of it anymore, because now it means absolutely nothing at all.
It has no real meaning.
And so there's really no way to make fun of it, and I find that to be really quite sad and unsettling.
If you're hiring for a concert, you have to act quickly, or someone else will get it instead.
Similarly, if you're hiring for your business, you want to find the most talented people for your open roles before the competition scoops them up.
The best way to do that is with ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter helps you find the qualified candidates and find them fast.
And right now, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com immediately after you post your job.
ZipRecruiter's smart technology shows you qualified people for that role.
Once you've reviewed your list of qualified candidates, you can swiftly invite your top choices to apply.
This streamlined process encourages them to apply sooner, allowing you to fill that role faster.
Amp up your hiring performance with ZipRecruiter and find the best talent fast.
See why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh and try it for free.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Well, the wait is nearly over.
Tonight is the highly anticipated premiere of my new Daily Wire Plus series, Judged, by Matt Walsh.
It's no secret that my list of personal and professional accomplishments are both expansive and, for so many people, quite enviable.
Theocratic fascist, hit podcast host, best-selling children's author, acclaimed actor, Many other titles as well.
But the truth is, all these things were mere stepping stones on the road to my true calling.
Real plaintiffs will stand before me with real cases.
Would a jury of peers be less painful for these petty claims?
Probably.
Would it be as entertaining for the rest of us?
Not a chance.
Take a look at the official trailer for Judged by Matt Walsh now.
All rise for the Honorable Judge Walsh.
Please be seated.
Ms.
Goldstein.
Mr. Bentley.
Mr. Outerbridge.
Ms.
Spicer.
Mr. Barney.
Ms.
Singh.
At 30,000 feet, my lips exploded.
Why would I pay rent to somebody who had sex with my sister?
A dog bit my finger.
He's allergic, like the grass.
If he didn't want me to drop the car, he would've took the key I had with him.
Has anyone told you you're the worst negotiator that's ever lived?
I've never been more annoyed than I am in this moment.
Not even close.
That does it.
Please get the hell out of my courtroom.
So watch the premiere of Judged by Matt Walsh tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern on Daily Wire Plus.
Don't have a Daily Wire Plus membership? Well, you can get it now for 35% off with code
judged at checkout. Go to dailywire.com/subscribe now. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel Amanda Marcotte, feminist writer for Salon, and I'll admit, I'll begin by admitting
that canceling Amanda Marcotte is perhaps a little cheap.
It's like cancelling stubbed toes or indigestion or head lice.
A little too obvious, and I don't need to explain why any of those things are bad.
Goes without saying.
Of course, I'm only trying to illustrate a point here.
I don't mean to compare Amanda Marcotte to head lice.
That would be inappropriate and dehumanizing, of course, to head lice.
In any case, Marcotte has earned her spot in this segment today by publishing an article for Salon.
That is so crushingly stupid, so fantastically ridiculous and dishonest, that it somehow, against all odds, manages to lower the bar for feminist writers and Salon, a bar that was already sitting approximately 10,000 feet below sea level.
Here's the headline.
Speaking of being beyond satire, here's the headline.
Men punching random women in NYC.
A desperate last gasp of the male rage fueling MAGA.
Okay, now, this is another one of those headlines that I saw circulating on social media, and I had to stop to verify that it was real.
At first, I honestly thought that it wasn't.
It's the kind of thing that a right-wing meme account might create as a joke.
And if they had, it wouldn't have even been very funny, because it's a little bit too on-the-nose.
You know, it seems a little bit too outlandish.
But this is not a meme.
It's an actual article, written and published without a hint of irony.
Let's read on.
Quote, men are punching random women on the streets of New York City.
As usual with these kinds of diffuse and chaotic stories, there's much that is unknown, including how often this is happening, how many people are involved, or whether it's at all coordinated.
Women report being assaulted by men of different races and ages.
Well, actually, no, there's not a lot of racial diversity in the men who are committing these assaults.
We'll return to that in a moment.
Continuing, still across the different stories, a couple of similarities pop out.
The alleged victims are mostly young and pretty, and most of them say they were minding their own business when they were attacked.
Some were on their phones or reading on tablets.
Others were speaking to friends or daydreaming.
Whatever they were doing, they were just living their lives, and that, it seems, is what enraged their assailants.
While it rarely turns to violence, most women who spend much time walking around in public have experience with men who berate them for paying attention to something other than the man who is now, often out of nowhere, spewing invectives.
In our modern era, that often manifests with men who are infuriated at women for looking at their phones.
But I'm old enough to remember when I would get yelled at for reading books in public.
Quick aside here, that didn't happen.
Nobody yelled at her for reading a book in public.
Much of what she said in that paragraph is exaggerated or entirely invented.
Let's get to the crux of the issue from Amanda's hallucinatory perspective.
Whatever the excuse the angry man concocts, the impetus is always the same.
The eyes of a woman are directed at someone or something that is not him and he is indignant over it.
These stories resonate as well because the nation is having a moment of increasingly unhinged male fury at women for daring to have lives that are centered around something other than catering to a man's every whim.
Unleashed by Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, there's an upswell of loud male entitlements shouting at us from every corner.
We see it in the male fans of Jordan Peterson who clamor to his events to hear him croak out a just-so story about how lobsters justify their faith in male dominance.
Or the rise of tradwives online who make a living pretending they're unemployed and housebound.
Or Ben Shapiro setting fire to a Barbie doll because he can't stand that a blockbuster comedy starring a woman is about anything but her quest for male affection.
The rise of MAGA is fueled by misogyny, but it's less a backlash than a tantrum.
A rage explosion by men who want to restore their dominance but fear that, this time, women won't buckle to their bullying.
This rash of men punching women in New York City captures this moment in a dark way.
Now before we get to the content of this screed such as it is, the first thing we notice is just how tired and lame and dull the writing is.
Amanda Marcotte has been writing essentially the same article over and over again for 20 years.
Now, of course, 20 years ago, she wasn't talking about Donald Trump or MAGA, but the basic themes and concepts are the same.
And there really is only one theme and one concept, which is that men are misogynists and various bad things are happening because of our misogyny.
She's been reflecting on this idea for two decades and yet has never managed to say anything interesting or insightful about it.
And this is my biggest problem with people like Amanda Marcotte.
It's not that everything they say is wrong, and that's a given.
Is that they can't even manage to be vaguely interesting while being wrong.
And as for the claim that she's making, obviously, violent crime in New York City
has nothing to do with Trump or MAGA. Chicago is not MAGA country, neither is New York.
The men assaulting random, you know, committing random assaults in Manhattan,
these are not Trump voters.
These are not Jordan Peterson acolytes.
They're not listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast.
They've never heard the term trad wife, most likely.
And these are, almost exclusively, black men.
And Democrat voters, if they vote at all, which they probably don't, they are repeat violent offenders, career criminals who are on the street able to attack and victimize random women because of policies that Amanda Marcotte supports.
In fact, not only is this not a MAGA phenomenon, but if you go somewhere that is really MAGA country, a predominantly conservative place where you're likely to see American flags and red hats and all the rest of it, in those places women aren't getting brutalized as they walk down the street.
That's an interesting fact.
These attacks on women are supposedly the result of right-wing male rage, and yet they're only happening in blue cities.
That's interesting.
Go to pretty much any neighborhood with a majority of Trump voters, and any woman will be perfectly safe walking down the street at any time of day or night.
Amanda hates white Republican males more than anything.
She blames us for all the violence against women.
And yet, you never hear about a rash of violent attacks on women in white Republican areas.
Which is fascinating, isn't it?
So she's obviously wrong about who is responsible for this violence.
She's also wrong about the why.
These attackers aren't going after these women because they feel entitled to their time, or they're mad at the women for looking at their phones, or because they're filled with some kind of patriarchal sense of entitlement.
They're doing it because they're predators.
Often mentally ill, often high on some drug or another, looking for the easiest victim they can find.
You know, and that's why they target women most of the time.
It's because the women are the easiest targets.
They do it because they can.
And they'll keep doing it for as long as they can.
Until we make it so that they can't.
And we don't do that by printing, you know, scolding lectures in salon.
Because the other thing about these guys is they're not reading salon.
Okay, I can tell you that right now.
Now what you do is you do that by locking them in prison forever.
But Amanda Marcotte doesn't want that.
She's an advocate for criminal justice reform, quote-unquote.
Which means putting these violent predators back on the street and keeping them there.
I mean, she doesn't care if the violent attacks continue.
In fact, she wants them to.
At least it gives her something to write about.
Even if she's writing the same article over and over and over again, and somehow still missing the point every single time.
And that is why she is today, I must say, cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow, or better yet, catch you tonight at 8 p.m.
