Ep. 1346 - The Media Says The Quiet Part Out Loud: OJ Was Their Hero Because He Killed White People
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, with the death of OJ Simpson yesterday, leftists in the media are finally coming out and saying out loud what we've always known. That OJ was a hero because he killed white people. Also, congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is for some reason unable to condemn those in her district who chanted death to America. Academics have come up with a new gender neutral term for Hispanics after Latinx proved to be a flop. And I have exclusive footage from a Department of Interior event where a poem called "I Am Diversity" was performed. It's as bad as it sounds. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1346
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch my brand new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Paint Your Life - Text MATT to 87204 to get 20% off.
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Regina Caeli Academy - Join me at the Courage Under Fire Gala! Use code DAILYWIRE for exclusive access to your tickets at http://www.courageunderfiregala.org
- - -
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, with the death of O.J.
Simpson yesterday, leftists in the media are finally coming out and saying out loud what we've always known, which is that O.J.
was a hero to them because he killed white people.
Also, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is, for some reason, unable to condemn those in her district who chanted death to America.
Academics have come up with a new gender-neutral term for Hispanics after latinx proved to be a flop.
And I have exclusive footage from a Department of Interior event where a poem called I Am Diversity was performed.
It's as bad as it sounds.
All that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
You know, I sent a portrait to paint your life The process was quick and easy.
I loved their work so much that I've used them multiple times since then.
With Mother's Day and Father's Day around the corner, Paint Your Life is the perfect gift for someone you love.
They create hand-painted portraits that fit almost any budget and are a great gift idea
for your mother, your father, or both.
Paint your life, seriously transform your photos into a one-of-a-kind beautiful hand-painted
portrait by professional artists.
What I really love is how they can create anything you imagine.
Put yourself in a location you've always wanted to go to, or add a lost loved one to a special
occasion to create the portrait of your dreams.
You can choose the artist, art medium, whether that's oil, acrylic, watercolor, or charcoal.
They even have a great selection of quality frames as well.
Their user-friendly platform lets you order a custom-made hand-painted portrait in less
than five minutes.
You'll get your professional hand-painted portrait in as little as two weeks, and you
can give the most meaningful gift.
With PaintYourLife.com.
There's no risk.
If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed.
And right now, it's a limited time offer.
Get 20% off your painting and free shipping.
And to get this special offer, text the word MAT to 87204.
That's MAT to 87204.
Paint Your Life.
Celebrate the moments that matter most.
Message data rates may apply.
See terms for details.
Back in 1995, there were two very different versions of the O.J.
Simpson trial playing out.
And for most of the country, the trial was a spectacle.
A lot of crazy stuff happened, so much that most people don't remember all of it now.
Overnight, for example, the National Enquirer tabloid morphed into a crack legal publication that broke several exclusive stories about the proceedings.
They had 20 reporters working on the case, coming up with transcripts and scoops that everybody else missed.
And of course, Norm Macdonald famously had so many jokes about the case that he was fired from SNL because of it.
In the decades since, there hasn't been any trial remotely like the OJ trial, covered wall-to-wall for months by pretty much every channel in America.
It was entertainment.
At the same time, in black areas of Los Angeles and in major cities all over the country, the O.J.
Simpson trial wasn't just a spectacle.
It was also about revenge for the Rodney King acquittals and police corruption more generally.
That's been discussed quite a bit over the last 30 years.
Many people have pointed that out.
What's gotten less attention is that with the O.J.
trial, for the first time, it became widely acceptable to think about the deaths of white people as necessary collateral damage to exact political revenge.
Now, there was no social media at the time, of course, and cable news was pretty sanitized, at least by today's standards.
So, nobody with a major television platform came right out and said this directly.
But they didn't need to.
It was obvious, especially if you looked at how little concern there was among OJ supporters for Nicole Brown and Rod Goldman and their families.
Nicole Brown, as you might remember, was repeatedly beaten by OJ before she divorced him, and
then he hunted her down and nearly cut her head off.
Everyone knew this.
Everyone knew that it happened.
Everyone knew he did it.
But not everybody cared.
It was apparent from the reactions when OJ was acquitted, there was euphoria among some
people and it broke down along racial lines.
Watch.
Mr. Robertson.
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
In the matter of the people of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211.
We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant or it's all James Simpson
I'm not I
Said I
I In case number BA09
9 7 2 1 1. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant or
oranthol James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of
penal court section 1 87 a felony upon the cold brown Simpson, a human being
of charge in count one of the information superior court of the state of California County of Los
Angeles in the matter of the people of state of California versus oranthol
James Simpson.
So it's pretty disturbing footage, especially since at the time it didn't
cause a whole lot of outrage and thousands of people all over the
country, most of them blacks celebrated the acquittal of someone who obviously
just murdered two people.
At the time, serious people understood that this was jury nullification.
But nobody really explored the implications.
What does a country look like over the long term when murdering white people is seen as acceptable?
What happens when the media and major political figures endorse this barbarism?
Not a lot of people seem to care, even after a juror from the O.J.
trial came right out and admitted, many years after the fact, that 90% of the jurors knew that O.J.
was guilty, but the jurors acquitted him anyway because they were driven by a desire for quote-unquote payback.
Watch.
Do you think that there are members of the jury that voted to acquit O.J.
because of Rodney King?
Yes.
You do?
Yes.
How many of you think felt that way?
Oh, probably 90%.
90%?
Did you feel that way?
Yes.
That was payback?
Uh huh.
You think that's right?
Well, she can't say it's right, but it's what happened.
It's what they did.
And she knows it's wrong to let a killer go free, but, you know, that's what she did.
That's what they did.
That's what the jury did.
And this has all been known for a while now, but what's less widely known
is that the Los Angeles DA at the time, a Democrat named Gil Garcetti, engineered this acquittal.
An attorney named Dylan Esper has cataloged all the ways that Garcetti rigged the trial in favor of OJ.
The big one is that he didn't try the case in Brentwood, which is in West Los Angeles.
That would have been the logical place to hold the trial because Simpson had lived in Brentwood for two decades.
But Brentwood is almost exclusively white, and Garcetti recognized that for OJ
to have the best chance of acquittal.
Given the racial politics of the case, he needed to pick a new venue.
So he chose downtown Los Angeles, where he was able to secure an overwhelmingly black jury with just a couple of white people on it.
And Garcetti made several other decisions to swing the case for OJ.
For example, he declined to pursue the death penalty after publicly meeting with Johnny Cochran, who was just about to join OJ's defense team.
That was a significant decision because a death penalty jury has to answer yes to the
question of whether they'd be okay with sentencing somebody to death.
That weeds out a lot of the left-wing jurors immediately, so Garcetti chose not to do that.
And additionally, Garcetti chose to present the prosecution's entire case during pretrial
hearings, giving the defense a chance to scope out all the witnesses well in advance of the
As Esper points out, this ultimately worked to the defense's advantage in a pretty major way.
OJ's lawyers picked up on one inconsistency in the pre-trial testimony relating to the amount of blood collected by police investigators, and they made that a major part of their defense, which they were prepared for because it was all presented to them.
Now, these were not errors or sloppy work by the prosecutors.
These were intentional efforts by Garcetti to avoid convicting O.J.
Simpson, which would have ended his political career.
Pretty much every black voter in Los Angeles would have voted to remove Garcetti if O.J.
had been found guilty.
Indeed, even after O.J.
Simpson was found not guilty, Garcetti refused to prosecute him for perjury in the civil trial, even though it was clear that O.J.
Simpson lied several times.
But that's how committed Garcetti was to keeping O.J.
Simpson out of jail.
Again, anybody paying attention during this whole saga understood all of this.
None of these are new revelations.
It's not new information.
What is new is that now that O.J.
Simpson is dead, he died yesterday of cancer, as you've probably heard, mainstream news outlets are now coming right out and admitting all of this, really for the first time.
They're acknowledging that O.J.
Simpson was guilty, but that he simply couldn't be convicted because of race politics.
So here, for example, is a CNN journalist explaining on camera yesterday that in 1995, a lot of black people loved to see a black man get away with murdering two white people.
Now, she catches herself midway through, but it's very clear what she was saying.
Watch.
It's also just worth noting how much was impacted by this trial, Jake.
So many things happened.
We saw policing changing here in the city.
And it's also worth noting, because of that unrest, that racial unrest in the 90s, that is why so many people who may not have been invested in O.J.
Simpson were just happy to see that someone who was rich and famous and black could get away with what other people did in the system as well, too.
You know, we'd have a much better understanding of today's race politics and how to put an end to it if we could have admitted this back in 1995.
A lot of people wanted to see a black man get away with murder.
It's not that they thought he was innocent, it's that they knew he was guilty and they wanted him to get away with it.
The two white people are collateral damage, basically.
A professor named Mark Lamont Hill, who maybe you've heard of, spelled this out very clearly yesterday.
He wrote this, quote, O.J.
Simpson was an abusive liar who abandoned his community long before he killed two people in cold blood.
His acquittal for murder was the correct and necessary result of a racist criminal legal system.
But he's still a monster, not a martyr.
In other words, you can kill white people without penalty.
As long as the criminal legal system is racist, and people like Mark Lamont Hill believe it's irredeemably, irreparably racist forever, then it's fine to basically decapitate white people in their own homes.
That's what he's saying.
The fact that he's acknowledging that O.J.
Simpson was a murdering monster That doesn't make his position more reasonable.
It makes it worse because he's acknowledging that and still saying that it was good that he was let off the hook.
This is according to someone who collects a paycheck paid by the government of New York to teach the next generation of Americans, by the way.
Yesterday, Hill elaborated on his reasoning, essentially saying that OJ had every right to kill his victims because a police officer involved in the case used a racial slur at some point in the past.
Watch.
I don't share a belief in his innocence.
There's a difference between being legally, between being factually innocent and being legally not guilty.
OJ Simpson was factually, was legally not guilty.
OJ Simpson should not have been found guilty.
You know why?
Because there was a police officer.
A racist police officer.
It's really that simple.
A racist police officer.
Now, you'll notice that there's no regard whatsoever in Mark Lamont Hill's mind for the two victims.
Their families aren't entitled to justice.
All because a detective on their murder case used a racial slur.
So if you use the n-word, then any white person who's tangentially related to you deserves to die.
That's basically what he said.
And a lot of people thought this way in 1995, but they didn't say it in public for the most part, and that is what is changing now.
The reason several mainstream outlets spent yesterday eulogizing O.J.
Simpson as some kind of victim is that they approve of what he did.
There's no other way to spin it.
The New York Times, for example, wrote that, quote, a jury in the murder trial cleared Mr. Simpson, but the case ruined his world.
Now, they quickly edited that out of the piece, you know, when people pointed out that he stabbed two people to death and therefore ruined their worlds, too.
And actually, he ruined his own world by committing the stabbing.
For its part, NPR wrote the following headline on something called Threads, quote,
"Breaking news. The football great Ornithol James Simpson, known as OJ, has died."
The football great, you know.
As everybody knows him, of course.
The Associated Press, meanwhile, tweeted, Again, it's the trial that lost him the American dream, not the fact that he actually went out and killed two people.
And those were all real headlines.
Everyone knows exactly what's going on here.
The only way to get glowing headlines like this from the corporate media is if you kill people they don't like.
It's the same reason the Washington Post described that ISIS leader as an austere religious scholar.
O.J.
Simpson killed members of a disfavored demographic, so they're mourning him as a victim, not the people he killed.
And this kind of attitude was, you know, was on display everywhere yesterday.
There was no focus on the victims whatsoever.
CBS News interviewed one of OJ's lawyers from the 1995 trial named Carl Douglas.
And in the interview, he comes out and declares what he saw as a main benefit of the trial.
Again, it had nothing to do with justice or finding the truth or the real killers or anything.
Instead, it was about showing to the world that black lawyers can get their defendants off too.
Watch.
What truths were revealed through the course of this trial that are still being struggled with today?
Your listeners don't understand that era of our country.
That was before the internet.
Emails were not as widely used as today.
That's before Twitter, Facebook, or X, Instagram.
So everyone was transfixed on this case and on this trial that was being led by an African-American attorney.
What that case did for the image of Black lawyers everywhere was significant.
And whatever you think of this verdict, For Black Americans, it was not speaking about O.J.
Simpson, per se.
He didn't speak to the Black community in the ways that other Black icons did.
But for the system, for Black lawyers to be successful, for people to believe that at least once in our history, the system acknowledged the excellence of Black lawyering, that was a watershed event for all of the country to observe.
And I'm proud to have been a part of that nine-member team.
So he says, quote, whatever you think of this verdict for black Americans, it was not speaking about OJ Simpson per se.
Well, that about sums it up straight from one of OJ's lawyers.
The OJ trial was not about OJ Simpson.
The trial was arguably the beginning or at least a landmark moment on the way towards our current era of racial insanity.
The race hustlers of the time rallied around OJ, not because they thought he was innocent, but because they saw him as an agent of revenge.
And Democrat Party elites in Los Angeles, like Gil Garcetti, did everything they could to ensure OJ's acquittal so that he could serve that function.
But nobody yesterday was more explicit about this than CNN contributor Ashley Allison, who's a former senior advisor in the Obama White House.
Listen to what she chose to say out loud on national television yesterday.
Watch.
But it was so racially charged because of what had happened just before with Rodney King, but also just how black Americans feel about policing.
It's not like OJ Simpson was the leader of the civil rights movement of his era.
You know, he wasn't a social justice leader, but he represented something for the black community in that moment, in that trial.
Particularly because there were two white people who had been killed.
And the history around how black people have been persecuted during slavery, there were just so many layers.
And I guess I would just close with this, is that There was racial tension then, there is racial tension now.
It might not be the backdrop of the Trump campaign, but until this country is ready to actually have an honest conversation about the racial dynamics from our origin story till today, we will always have moments like O.J.
Simpson that manifest, and our country will always be divided if we don't actually deal with the issue of race.
He represented something for black Americans because it was two white people who had been killed.
That's what black Americans connected with, according to this woman.
They felt affinity with O.J.
because he brutally slaughtered white people.
I mean, talk about saying the quiet part out loud.
Although, as we've seen, it's hardly the quiet part anymore.
And you know, I know the whole imagine if the races were reversed thing gets old after a while, but this really is no different from a white cable news contributor going on cable news and saying that Dylan Roof, that white people connect with Dylan Roof because it's black people who'd been killed.
Now, of course, well, I guess I should amend that because I could totally see a CNN contributor saying that as a way of condemning all white people.
But imagine a white cable news contributor saying that in a positive way.
They mean it in a good way.
Lionizing Dylann Roof because he killed black people.
But you can't imagine that.
It would just never, ever happen.
And probably if someone did say that on cable news, not only of course they'd be fired immediately, their life would be over, they'd probably be arrested.
They'd probably find a way to arrest you for that.
But this mentality we just saw there has metastasized over time, helped along by Barack Obama leading to the rise of BLM and culminating in Floyd and the 2020 riots and then the post-Floyd era of DEI.
And now 30 years later, so-called race relations have deteriorated to the point that the race hustlers finally feel comfortable coming out and telling us what their motives were all along.
So yes, O.J.
Simpson is dead, but the legacy of that trial, particularly the racial violence and distrust that it normalized, is still, unfortunately, very much alive.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Billy Wire has this report.
Representative Rashida Tlaib got testy with Fox Business reporter Hillary Vaughn over a question about a rally in her home district where anti-Israel protesters chanted, death to America, and called for the eradication of Israel.
Anti-American protesters, more importantly, calling death to America.
The rally in question, which took place in Dearborn, Michigan, featured a speaker named Tariq Bazzi.
We played this clip.
A few days ago, he was affiliated with the Hadi Institute, and just to remind you, he said, We've been asked in the past why our protests on the International Al-Quds Day are so anti-America.
Why don't we just focus on Israel and not talk so much about America?
Gaza has shown the entire world why their protests are so anti-America, because it's the United States government that provides the funds for all the atrocities that we just heard about.
And then attendees shouted, death to America, and they talked about And he went on to go talking about why America should be dismantled entirely, and so on.
So, this reporter tracked Rashid Tlaib down and asked her about this, because again, this was happening in her district, and these are her supporters, these are her voters, these are her constituents, and what does she have to say about it?
Let's find out.
I don't talk to Fox News!
I don't talk to Fox News!
I do not talk to Fox News!
At a rally in your district people were chanting "Death to America." Do you condemn...
I do not talk to Fox News.
But do you condemn chants of "Death to America"?
I don't talk to people that use racist tropes.
Why can't you just say whether or not you condemn people chanting "Death to Ameri...
Why are you afraid to talk to Fox?
Fox News is not, not, listen, using racist tropes towards my community is what Fox News is about, and I don't talk to Fox News.
Is death to America racist?
I don't talk to Fox News.
Is chanting death to America racist?
I'm talking about your guys' racist tropes.
You know, you guys are, you guys know exactly what you do.
I know you're Islamophobic, but you guys gotta go deal with it on your own selves.
You're not gonna use me.
Oh, so it's Islamophobic.
It's Islamophobic to object to Muslims chanting death to America in our own homeland.
And you notice, Tlaib almost sounds like she's about to cry there.
And, you know, not because people were chanting death to America, of course, but because she's being asked to condemn it.
And this should obviously be automatic expulsion from Congress.
People are chanting death to America in your district.
And if you cannot bring yourself to at least say out loud that you disagree with it, at least, can you at least give us that?
I disagree with Death to America.
I don't want to see that.
She can't do that.
Well, if you can't, then you're not fit for office.
And by the way, this is not some kind of gotcha moment.
And you see that from the media quite often.
I mean, it's almost always targeted at Republicans, but where, you know, they'll call upon a Republican to denounce something that has nothing to do with them.
Oftentimes something that, like, of course they're against, but still you need the performance of them denouncing it.
And they want to see the Republican dance on a string like a marionette, like a puppet.
And, but this is not that.
Okay, because in this case, you have not only Tlaib's constituents, but her ideological allies calling for death to America in her district.
And there's a very real question about whether she agrees with them or not.
Whether she condones it or not.
I mean, really, there's no question about it.
We know that she does condone it.
Agree with it.
But that's why this is a relevant thing to ask her.
And She, the headline is that she didn't answer the question, but she did answer it.
If you're an American politician and someone asks you directly, right to your face, do you condemn those who say death to America?
Not answering that is an answer.
There's really no difference, substantively, between how she responded and if, on one hand, that, or on the other hand, if she had just said, yes, I agree, death to America.
I mean, if she had just started chanting death to America herself, right there, standing in the halls of Congress, it would be the same answer.
Because that is the answer.
She agrees with them.
Breaking news from Axios, reading now, Latin, a gender-neutral way to describe or refer to people with Latino origins, is surging in popularity on university campuses, in museums, and among researchers and media.
Catch-all terms like Hispanic or Latino have come under scrutiny for blurring important nuances and presenting a large part of the U.S.
population as a monolith.
Latine is part of a movement centered on wanting to build and foster an inclusive community, says Carlos Zavala, Vice President of the consulting firm Whiteboard Advisors.
41% of U.S.
Latinos in the latest Axios poll say that they are comfortable with Latine.
The increased use of Latin comes as Latinx, or Latinx, has been phased out by some organizations or banned by officials.
Latinx has been pushed by U.S.
academics as a gender-neutral option for Latinos, but was criticized for using the letter X in a manner that's unnatural to Spanish speakers.
Okay, well, first of all, they claim that 41% of Hispanics are comfortable with latin, comfortable with being called something that sounds dangerously close to latrine.
But then I looked at the survey they linked to and I didn't even see that question asked.
So, maybe I missed it, maybe it was, but I couldn't find it.
So, assuming for a moment that 41% of Hispanics really did say in some poll that they're comfortable being called Latine, it's still obviously not what most Hispanics prefer.
And this is not something that Hispanics came up with.
Okay, this is not, there's a reason why these terms are not coming, are not originating from that part of the world.
There are a lot of things that are sneaking over the border, right?
But that terminology is not coming from the south of the border.
It's starting here, and they're trying to export it down that way.
So left-wing academics are inventing these new inane terms to refer to Hispanics, and they're just trying to see which one they can get to stick.
That's all that's happening.
They want to find out which one is the least objectionable to the people that it labels And then that's what they're going to go with, and that's what's going on here.
Meanwhile, of course, what makes this all the more absurd is that if you're really determined to find a gender-neutral term to refer to these people, well, there's Hispanic.
Okay, so you could just say that.
And these academics and people in media who want a gender-neutral term, they've never been able to explain why Hispanic doesn't work.
Like, why can't you just say that?
What's the problem?
And even if you don't want that, well then, like, why not just say Latin?
We call it Latin America anyway, don't we?
So why do you need to affix another letter onto it?
If this really is a problem for you, then you could just say Latin, and that would cover all the bases.
Instead, they're like going through every letter in the alphabet until they land on one that people are willing to use.
So it's, you know, they started with the worst letter they could choose for this project, which is X. So they tried latinx, that didn't work.
Now they're trying latine.
If that doesn't work, you could do, I don't know, latinu.
Put a U at the end.
Latink.
Put a K. How about this one?
Or you could do a Z, Latins.
Or Latini.
Put a Y at the end.
The Latini people.
But none of this makes any sense because Spanish, of course, is a gendered language.
That's the language.
That's what it is.
And I made this point before, of course, but it bears repeating.
What we see with things like latinx and latine, what we see with this is that this is the only form of colonization that is really happening in the world today.
And it's the most objectionable form.
Because colonization in and of itself, in principle, is not evil.
It can be quite good.
It has been a force for good, historically, for the most part.
Think about where the world would be.
Think about where this continent would be if not for colonization.
Well, we'd still be in the Stone Age.
That's where we would be.
But colonization can be done in sinister ways and for sinister reasons.
And that's what this is.
This is cultural colonization.
It's ideological colonization.
It is taking American, it's left-wing American academics Quite explicitly trying to impose their way of thinking and their way of speaking on an entire group of people onto a language.
Trying to impose their obsession with gender neutrality onto a gendered language.
And of course, this is just one facet of the overall ideological colonization agenda.
There's also the, you know, hanging pride flags on embassies in conservative Christian countries.
You know, forcing the LGBT stuff, the gender-neutral stuff, the trans stuff.
All of that is colonization.
And it's really the only form that happens.
At least it's the only form happening.
It's the only form of colonization being done In the Western world, anyway.
All right, I want to show, you know, we've been talking, of course, about this week, about the fight over abortion.
The fight on the right among conservatives over abortion and what the position on that should be heading into the election, even though, as we talked about yesterday, the position is really quite clear that killing babies is wrong all the time.
And that's really the position.
And it's the clearest position.
It's the right position.
It's a pretty unassailable position morally and logically.
But there's certainly not a consensus on that on the right.
We know that Carrie Lake, who's running for Senate in Arizona, had already come out and said that she opposed a Supreme Court decision in Arizona that would result in the banning of most abortions in the state.
So, people on her side of this discussion Have been saying that, well, this should not be a federal ban, it's a state's rights issue.
And then we discover, what do you know, that they're claiming they just want it to be a state's rights issue, but then when a state actually does ban it, they don't like that either.
So it turns out, they don't want abortion to be state's rights, they just want there to be abortion.
This is just pro-abortion is what it is.
And so Kerry Lake put out a video yesterday, and it's a five minute video, we're not gonna play the whole thing.
I wanna play at least the first, you know, the first portion of it.
Where she's talking about her views on the topic of abortion and why she opposes this abortion ban, even while claiming to be pro-life and be a conservative.
Let's watch some of this.
This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are.
The issue is less about banning abortion and more about saving babies.
I agree with President Trump.
This is such a personal and private issue.
I chose life.
But I'm not every woman.
I want to make sure that every woman who finds herself pregnant has more choices so that she can make that choice that I made.
I'll never forget the first time I got pregnant, taking that pregnancy test, looking down.
And I was excited, but I'll be honest, I was afraid as well.
I was nervous.
I was anxious.
It's natural for women to be nervous and anxious when they're pregnant.
I never would ever assume that any woman had the same exact feelings I had or situation I had.
We know that some women are economically in a horrible situation.
They might be in an abusive relationship.
First of all, you know, there are some conservatives that are defending what you just watched there.
we must have exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of a mother.
We as American people don't agree on everything all of the time.
First of all, you know, there are some conservatives that are defending what you just watched there.
If she did the same thing on immigration or gun control, you know, I don't think those conservatives
would be defending her.
And guess what?
the most.
The most right-wing, most conservative position on those topics is also not the mainstream.
It's not where most people are.
Now, most Americans want immigration laws to be enforced.
Most Americans don't want illegal immigrants taking our jobs.
Most Americans basically want gun rights.
But if you're truly conservative on these issues, you most likely take that far.
I know I certainly do.
You take that principle farther than the mainstream does.
That's why it's the mainstream.
And I think that if Carrie Lake had, say, looked at the polls and then put out this little squishy video with the music in the background and the piano music and explaining why she's moderated her positions on any other topic, I don't think it would be found acceptable by almost any conservative.
And yet this is supposed to be acceptable on abortion?
It's not.
So here's the problem.
Number one, this is just wrong.
It's wrong.
If you care about that sort of thing, it is morally wrong.
It's wrong on principle to come out in support of, well, women have to make choices.
Sometimes you have to make the choice to kill your baby.
It's just a choice that has to be made.
It's a personal, it's a very personal, difficult choice to kill the baby, and sometimes you have to do that.
It's actually a reprehensible, disgusting view.
And also, it is politically suicidal.
It is not going to work.
So even if you don't care about the morality of it, even if you scoff at that, and you say, oh, yeah, Matt's just being a purist.
He's trying to be one of those true conservative types.
Fine.
Then let's talk about the politics of it.
Politically, it's a dumb strategy.
It is the strategy the Republican establishment has been using for decades.
It is not new.
This is no different from what John McCain would do, or Mitt Romney, or any of the Bushes, okay?
Jeb, George, any of the Georges.
It's the same thing!
It's the exact same strategy, exact same position.
Was it a brilliant political strategy when they did it?
Has it been a path to conservative dominance in government at any point in the last 30, 40 years, huh?
No.
This has always been the establishment Republican view, that the only way you win is by moderating your views, by looking at where the left is on a topic, and coming as close as you can to them while still pretending to be conservative.
By getting as far away as you can from the right wing on every topic.
That has been the Republican establishment strategy forever.
And it has not worked.
So what do you achieve here?
What does Carrie Lake achieve with this video?
Where she is again condemning a state ban on abortion.
So this is not... You cannot hide behind states' rights.
Arizona has the right, the state right, to pass this law.
She's saying she doesn't want the law.
It's a pro-life law she doesn't want.
And the law even carves out cases where the life of the mother is jeopardized.
Even though you never need abortion to save the life of the mother, it's not real.
But okay, if it was real, that has been carved out.
That's an exception that's granted.
She still doesn't like it.
And instead we get this ridiculous video.
Everything she's saying here, this is Clinton-era Democrat talking points.
This is Republican establishment talking points, which means that it is Clinton-era, mid-90s Democrat talking points on abortion.
Safe, legal, and rare is what she's talking about.
She might as well have just said that directly.
Because that was the mantra of the pro-abortion movement for years and years and years.
And that's what she's saying now.
And it doesn't work politically.
And I'll tell you why it doesn't work politically.
For two reasons, because here's what it does.
It will not attract the kinds of voters who care so deeply about abortion that if you're
too pro-life, they won't vote for you.
Those kinds of voters aren't voting for Republicans, okay?
If they care that much about abortion, they don't need the moderate, squishy, milquetoast version of pro-abortion.
They don't need that.
They can go get the real thing from the Democrats.
If they care about it, they don't need that from you.
So why, if I'm a voter in Arizona, and I care a lot about killing babies, and I care so much about it that I would refrain from voting for a Republican because of it, why would this convince me to vote for Carrie Lake?
Yeah, she's like moderately on my side now, but then the other guy is fully on my side, so I'll just vote for him.
You can't find an angle here.
You can't outflank the Democrat to his left on abortion.
So it's not going to do much for those voters.
What will it achieve?
Well, I'll tell you one thing it will achieve is that you have alienated and betrayed the voters in your state who are pro-life and do care deeply about this issue.
Now, sure, some of them will still vote for you.
They'll hold their nose and vote for you.
Lesser of two evils and all that.
But you have demoralized them, and demoralizing your base going into an election is a stupid strategy.
It's also one that, if you notice, the Democrats never, ever do.
They understand that having your base moral, you know, motivated, and excited, and amped up, they understand the value of that.
It's only Republicans that don't get this.
So, that's all you've achieved.
You've demoralized your own base.
And it doesn't matter.
Look, I know there are other conservatives that will lecture the conservatives in Arizona.
Go vote for anyway, lesser of two evils.
It'll be your fault if... That's fine.
You can lecture all you want, but I'm just telling you.
And look, if you haven't been in the pro-life fight, if you haven't been in the movement, then... I know you don't get it.
I don't really care about your opinion.
There are some people that have been in this fight for decades.
They care deeply about it.
You might not get it.
You might not understand.
But they care deeply about it because they actually do believe that babies are being killed by the millions.
And so, if you believe that, it's impossible to not see this issue as at least one of the top issues that we face as a culture.
And you need those voters as a Republican.
You can't win without them.
And so this is just, this is insanely stupid.
It really is.
Because she didn't have to put this video out.
She didn't have to come out and, now, if you want to say that, okay, well, sure, but it would also be politically unwise in her position to come out, you know, openly and passionately advocating abortion bans across the board and making that a central part of her campaign and talking about it a lot.
If you want to say that that would also be politically unwise, maybe it would be.
Kind of depends on where you're running, what state you're running in, and what the situation is.
But that's one thing.
As a political calculation, it's one thing for a Republican candidate to say, okay, I'm going to, you know, we'll talk about this a little bit.
I'll give my position.
I'm not going to make it the focus of my campaign for political reasons.
That's one thing.
It's another thing to come out with actual pro-abortion talking points.
I mean, Carrie Lake has spoken out about the abortion issue multiple times this week, but to condemn the pro-life position.
And then here's what's going to happen.
That if she loses, pro-lifers are going to be the scapegoats.
So that's really what's happening here.
You've got some Republicans setting pro-lifers up to be the scapegoats when they lose.
That's the plan.
And it's really disgusting and reprehensible.
It's the same thing they did in the midterms, using pro-lifers as a scapegoat.
Meanwhile, you have d***s like Dr. Oz running as Republicans.
You think maybe that's the reason they lost?
The guy's pro-abortion, and he lost.
So is that pro-lifers' fault?
You're choosing terrible candidates who aren't even conservative, and then they lose, and it's the fault of pro-lifers that that happened.
So that's how they're setting this up.
And it is, again, on moral grounds, it is disgusting.
But then also, if you don't care about that, just to reiterate, on political grounds, it is really, really stupid and it's not going to work.
I'll tell you that right now.
It is not going to work.
Let's get to the comment section.
♪ If you're a man, it's required that you grow a beard ♪
♪ Hey, we're the Sweet Baby Gang ♪ - Regina Chaley Academy is an accredited
pre-K through 12 classical homeschool hybrid academy for Catholic families in cities across the US.
They provide in-classroom lessons two times a week and in-home lesson plans that support parents the other three days of the week.
Virginia Chelley Academy, with your support, has provided nearly half a million dollars
in student tuition assistance for the 2023 to 2024 academic year.
Your participation in the Courage Under Fire Gala, a significant event in our mission to evangelize,
will help us continue to provide tuition assistance in the future.
Come and join me on May 24th in Nashville, Tennessee for a night of encouragement and camaraderie.
I'll be speaking alongside Dr. Abby Johnson and Father Callaway on how to have courage
and stand up for the truth, no matter what adversity you face.
We'll be joined by some of the most influential leaders in the conservative movement for a night of connection and inspiration.
VIP tickets will have access to an exclusive meet and greet with all speakers.
If you can't attend, please consider donating today to support families and continue to train the heart, mind, and soul.
Every dollar counts.
For tickets, visit CourageUnderFireGala.org and use promo code DAILYWIRE at checkout.
That's CourageUnderFireGala.org and use code DAILYWIRE.
Can't wait to see you there.
Okay, a few comments.
Blake Barrett says, my family is still debating a Scattergory's answer nearly 30 years later, even after my father's death.
Unit of measurement, My dad's answer, six pack.
Almost everyone voted against him.
I thought it was a valid answer.
And I am very happy to vindicate Putting on, I wish I had my gavel with me because this now is putting on the Judge Walsh robe, but a totally valid answer.
Not only a valid answer, but a creative, innovative answer to that question.
And this is where the debates happen in Scattergories.
This is actually, as I mentioned yesterday, many members of my family refused to ever play Scattergories with me again after a particularly intense game of it about 10 years ago.
Where I was and this is this it's because of this not exact that exact answer, but There were there were several fights throughout the game because I would come up with Interesting creative answers That were well within the rules of the game but they didn't like it and so that I would get voted I get voted off the island and so it was it was a fight and grown adults having knockdown drag-out fights about a board game and There's nothing immature about that at all.
Ryan Mitchell says, Hi Matt, everyone's telling you what they think of Judge by Matt Walsh, but what do you think about it?
How do you judge your own show?
Well, I thought it was great.
I like the morality lesson at the end of each case, especially.
That's not an abortion.
going back to if the baby dies in the womb and doesn't come out, if a woman can't get an abortion
then they're forced to wait until they're septic for doctors to do something, how do you respond?
Well, that's an easy one actually. That's not an abortion.
The baby has already tragically died in the womb and then it's a matter of removing the tragically
dead child from the womb.
That's not abortion.
There's no abortion, of course.
Of course, if a baby dies in the womb and you need to remove the baby, of course you should.
And that, again, is not an abortion.
An abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the child.
That's what an abortion is.
And anything that is not that is not an abortion.
Nick says, in one of the videos, we're talking now about the Dexter Reed police shooting, which the left is trying to make into the next George Floyd.
So far, unsuccessfully, but they're still trying.
Nick says, in one of the videos, you can see that the cop's hand is black, so there's at least one cop involved, just like every other cry of racism against the cops.
I mean, these people at this point don't even care what the race is of the cops.
In their mind, law and order is a white thing.
Yeah, they don't really care.
Now, they don't care.
They do know that, narratively, it's hard to make it stick as a racist police killing if the cops are black.
So, in this case, the fact that one of the cops is black is just being downplayed.
But they don't see that as a problem.
I mean, if you point out that, well, how could this be a racist thing when you've got a black... Then they'll just say, well, policing is inherently racist.
And so anyone who is a police officer is automatically racist because policing is inherently racist.
And they have no problem saying that a black person can be a part of that racist structure and can be anti-black themselves.
And even if they don't know it and, you know, there's all this unconscious bias and all that kind of stuff.
That's the get-out-of-jail-free card, the sort of intellectual get-out-of-jail-free card they always have, which is unconscious bias.
They don't know that they're racist, but they are, because it's unconscious.
Leaving aside the fact that, of course, makes no sense because bias, by definition, is a conscious thing.
It's a conscious, you know, bias is discriminating consciously against someone.
And so if it's not conscious, then it's not bias, but they don't care about that.
Let's see.
James says, I'm no fan of escalating a situation to where it turns into this mess.
Is there another way for the cops to handle this situation?
Maybe step back, block him in with cars, take out his tires, clear the area and wait him out.
He might have just been having a bad day.
Well, look, James, if you have a bad day that involves shooting at the cops, then you're going to die.
That's going to be your last day.
And no one is to blame for that but you.
You know, having a bad day can, it can be a valid, that's never really an excuse, but it can be a mitigating factor in some circumstances.
You know, if you're having a bad, somebody snaps at you or something, and they're a little bit rude, and then it's because they're having a bad day, well, maybe that could be understanding, you could be understanding of that.
But if having a bad day is your excuse for shooting at someone, well, it's no excuse at all.
And in this case, what are the cops supposed to do?
Because keep in mind that shots, they only started shooting once they were being shot at by the guy.
And once the guy is spraying bullets around and shooting at you, the police generally have no choice but to neutralize the threat as fast as they can.
Because then otherwise, you've got a guy, and keep in mind, he's in the middle of the street in a neighborhood.
And he's firing bullets.
So the longer he's able to do that, the longer that he's not neutralized, the greater threat he poses to the other police and to the neighborhood.
And so they have no choice but to just take him down, take him out, neutralize him.
And why do they use so many bullets?
Well, if you watch the video, it's not that confusing.
Once he was down on the ground and not moving anymore, that's when they stopped firing.
They didn't stop firing before that because he wasn't neutralized yet.
As long as he's moving, he's still a threat to the people around him.
And so you just, you shoot until he stops moving.
You know, when The Daily Wire first approached me about becoming a judge and hosting my very own judge show, naturally my first question, as you would expect, was, well, can I sentence people to death on the show?
And they said, no, but we will pay you money.
And with that, I'm proud to introduce you to my new Daily Wire Plus series, Judged by Matt Walsh, now streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
Join me as I settle real-life legal disputes armed with actual, albeit Disappointingly limited legal authority.
Will I preside over Morgan Wallen's latest legal issues and determine his fate?
Fortunately for Morgan, no.
But rest assured, the people you see and the cases you hear on Judged are as real as it gets.
And so is my verdict.
Episode 1 and 2 are streaming right now on DailyWirePlus with new episodes released every Tuesday.
So do yourself a favor and tune in to my new show, Judged, by Matt Walsh on DailyWirePlus.
And remember, if you don't enjoy it, well, there's probably something wrong with you in that case.
If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member yet, join now and use code JUDGED at checkout for 35% off your membership at dailywireplus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Bit of a special treat for you today.
I have obtained exclusive, and I assure you, very real footage of something that absolutely begs for cancellation.
Every aspect of what you're about to see deserves to be cancelled.
Not just cancelled, but exiled out into the desert alone, rejected by society.
This is video from something called the Ally Awards at the Department of Interior.
And after obtaining this video, I googled the Ally Awards to learn more, and I found this document, which I assume refers to the same event.
It says, The Ally Engagement and Enrichment Week Ally Awards are a People's Choice Awards sponsored by diversity change agent programs across Interior.
This program empowers the workforce to recognize peer contributions towards a more inclusive culture in the workplace.
And my favorite detail comes at the very end of the document.
It says, nominations can be submitted by a second party or can be self-nominated.
So the good news is that you can nominate yourself in order to recognize yourself for your own role as a diversity change agent.
You don't need to wait for someone else to declare you an ally.
You can just declare yourself.
Which is wonderful, in my opinion.
Actually, I was so inspired that I sent Daily Wire Management an email this morning nominating myself for an award to recognize my own allyship.
I'm still waiting for a response, though.
Over at the Department of Interior, where our tax money is being used on this stuff, the Ally Awards were held, virtually of course, and it was a truly beautiful event.
In fact, the event even featured a stirring performance of a poem called I Am Diversity.
And here's how it was set up.
Watch.
And now we would like to share a poem entitled I Am Diversity.
Story behind this is we discovered this several years ago when we were designing a interior Toastmasters slash diversity change agent poetry forum, and that we were so moved by it, we've since decided to incorporate that and really resonates and it echoes a lot of the themes that we learned about this week.
This is by Charles Benefield, and what you're about to see is a video of Bohm and Bessie employees who participated in a recording and a recitation of this poem.
Please enjoy.
Okay, well, we'll listen to the poem in a second, but they were moved by this poem.
They were moved by it.
They were so moved by it that they felt inspired to get a bunch of employees together to recite it.
And so here is the poem.
[ Music ]
I am diversity.
Please include me.
I'm present in every place you go.
Depending on your lens, I'm friend or foe.
I'm forced to be reconned with.
Like the winds of change, I move.
I'm swift.
I'm present when two or more are together.
If embraced, I can make the good even better.
I don't mean to interrupt this stirring rendition.
I promise we'll listen to more of it as much as you don't want to.
But I do have to make special note of that last line, I'm present when two or more are together.
Now students of scripture will recognize that that is a line from the Gospel of Matthew, except that in that case it is referring to Jesus Christ, and here it is referring to diversity.
So if you've ever doubted that DEI is a religion to these people, well, there you go.
Let's continue.
I'm not limited to age, gender, or race.
I'm invisible at times, and yet, all over the place.
Don't exclude me due to a lack of knowledge.
Welcome me like the recruit fresh out of college.
Let me take my seat at the table.
Even though I may be differently abled.
My experience, my passion, your time technique can help add value for your company.
Learn about me.
Improve my under-representation.
And I can provide a competitive edge to your entire nation.
I exclude no one.
I am strengthened by all.
My name is diversity, and yes, I stand tall.
Recognize me and keep me in the mix.
I'm not crying, you are!
that we can't fix.
I'm your best hope for true innovation.
And to many, I reflect hope and inspiration.
Your lives and companies will continue to change.
Thus, the need for diversity and inclusion will also remain.
I am diversity.
Yes, that's me.
I'm not crying, you are.
Thank you so much, Alexandra.
She's crying.
Why wouldn't she be crying over such an emotionally gripping poem?
There were so many stunning lines, but my favorite was probably, let me take my seat at the table, even though I may be differently abled.
And then second place for me was this, my experience, my passion, the authentic me can help add value to your company.
Now, say what you want about the writing, but at least it rhymes.
Sort of.
That's more than could be said about most of the bad poetry I've forced you to endure on this show over the years.
So you have to take the silver linings wherever you can find them.
Now, when most normal people watch a video like the one we just saw, the thing that they will focus on, understandably so, is the political element.
The fact that something called the Ally Awards even exists, and that it's being held on the taxpayer's dime and time, and that they've recited, you know, they're reciting diversity poems and all the rest of it.
Demonstrates again just how deep the ideological rot goes.
And this is in a government agency that was founded in the 1840s to conserve and manage federal land.
So it's not the kind of agency that you would expect to be hyper-woke, if you didn't know any better anyway.
But as this demonstrates, every federal agency is hyper-woke.
The virus infects every level of the federal government.
Every department, every agency, the entire bureaucracy is this.
Which is why the next Republican president in 2024, hopefully, ...needs to gut these agencies with a chainsaw.
I mean, take them apart, cut them into pieces.
There are about 2 million, I think, civilians working for the federal government, which means that at least a million people should be unemployed a few days after Trump takes over.
Cutting half of them is a modest start.
That's the only way to treat this disease.
You set a goal to fire a million federal employees in the first 15 days.
Call it 15 days to slow the spread.
That's how you deal with the political sickness.
But this isn't just about politics.
To me, the most disturbing thing about the video is how childish it is.
Like, putting the wokeness factor entirely to the side, if they presented a poem like that to middle school students, I would say it's a bit infantilizing for kids that age.
That it quite literally sounds like the kind of thing you might recite to kindergartners.
Now, not that I think that they should talk about diversity and inclusion to kindergartners either, but the quality of the poem, the artistic sophistication, is at best kindergarten level.
You know, it reads like something that you might find on a poster hanging in a guidance counselor's office at your kid's elementary school.
And if you think I'm exaggerating about that, by the way, then here you go.
Watch this.
I am diversity.
Please include me.
including me by Charles Denfield.
I am a resident of Henry Presley School, with the training number as my friend or foe.
I am a force to be reckoned with.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
OK, so that was an actual group of elementary school kids performing the exact same poem.
The poem that adult government employees found so moving and beautiful that they had to get together and perform it for each other.
This is elementary schoolers performing it.
Because our country is being run, not just by woke leftists, but by woke leftists with the intelligence, not to mention the artistic sensibilities, of five-year-olds.
Which is no surprise, I suppose.
The wokeness and the five-year-old intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand, which is why the entire Department of Interior is today cancelled.
