Ep. 1358 - The Government Floods The Country With Criminals And Punishes You If You Defend Yourself
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, prosecutors tried to throw an elderly man in prison for defending his property against illegal alien criminals. They didn't succeed, but you need to hear the details of this case to understand just how egregious and malicious this prosecution was. Also, "protesters" at Columbia University have now broken through windows and occupied a building on campus. Drew Barrymore and Kamala Harris combine forces for the cringiest moment of 2024 so far. And experts now say that, for the sake of public health, we should stop taking showers.
Ep.1358
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the latest episode of Judged by Matt Walsh premiering TONIGHT at 8 PM ET only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Cozy Earth - Use code MATTWALSH for up to 35% off your order! http://www.cozyearth.com
Helix Sleep - Get 20% off your order + 2 dream pillows. https://helixsleep.com/Walsh
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, prosecutors tried to throw an elderly man in prison for defending his property against illegal alien criminals.
They didn't succeed, but you need to hear the details of this case to understand just how egregious and malicious this prosecution was.
Also, protesters, quote-unquote, at Columbia University have now broken through windows and occupied a building on campus.
Drew Barrymore and Kamala Harris combined forces for the cringiest moment of 2024 so far, and experts now say that, for the sake of public health, we should stop taking showers.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
Well, as Mother's Day approaches, there's no better time to celebrate the special woman
in your life who has nurtured, cared for, and loved you unconditionally.
This Mother's Day, consider giving her the gift of Cozy Earth, a luxurious sleep experience that she truly deserves.
Cozy Earth sheets redefine luxury and comfort.
Crafted from viscose bamboo, they are temperature-regulating, ensuring a restful night's sleep for both hot and cold sleepers.
I travel a lot for work, and hotel sheets have nothing at all on my Cozy Earth sheets that I have at home.
Cozy Earth caters to your unique style and preferences with a wide range of sizes and 11 vibrant colors.
Their sheets are not just a purchase, but an investment in comfort and durability.
The best part?
They get even softer with every wash, ensuring your satisfaction for years to come.
What are you waiting for?
Cozy Earth offers a 100-night guarantee, so there's no harm in trying them out.
This Mother's Day, treat a special woman in your life to the luxury she deserves with Cozy Earth bedding and sleepwear.
Don't forget to use my promo code Matt Walsh to check out for 35% off at CozyEarth.com.
After placing your order, select podcast in the survey and select my show in the drop-down menu that follows.
That's CozyEarth.com with promo code Matt Walsh.
On Monday, prosecutors in Arizona decided not to retry George Allen Kelly after his prosecution resulted in a hung jury last week.
Kelly, you may remember, is the Arizona rancher who was accused of shooting and killing a Mexican national named Gabriel Q. N. Butamayo, who was illegally trespassing on his property.
Gabriel had previously been caught illegally in the United States several times before his death.
He was most recently deported in 2016.
Now, as this trial got underway, I defended Kelly based on a pretty simple principle, which is that American citizens have a right to defend their property and their families and themselves.
That's all we really needed to say or know about this case.
That should be it.
Those men had no right to be on his property.
And in this case, they didn't even have the right to be in this country, let alone on his property.
And so it's an egregious miscarriage of justice to prosecute a man for defending his property from illegal invaders.
Invaders who are illegal two times over.
So we already knew that.
We already knew enough to know that this is a total miscarriage of justice.
But I have to admit that Until I looked more closely into the trial, I had no idea exactly how outrageous this prosecution was.
I didn't fully understand the extent of the depravity that motivated these prosecutors to try to ruin the life of a rancher in his 70s because he exercised his right of self-defense.
So however unjust you think this case is, it's even worse than that.
As I'll explain in a moment, at trial, the prosecution couldn't even prove that Kelly was responsible for killing Gabriel.
In other words, it's not just that the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which is their burden.
The prosecution also failed to prove that Kelly had committed any form of homicide at all.
Apparently, a single lone juror is the only reason that George Allen Kelly wasn't acquitted outright.
And after you hear what happened in this case, the idea that even one guy on the jury or member of the jury want to convict at all is truly unbelievable.
So, let's begin with the prosecution's opening statement.
This is where the state had the opportunity to tease its star witness, a Honduran national named Daniel Ramirez.
Supposedly, Ramirez, who was also illegally on Kelly's property, witnessed Kelly murder Gabriel in cold blood.
And Ramirez's testimony, the prosecutor suggested, would be airtight, like conclusive.
Watch.
Now, Daniel Ramirez was just steps away from his companion when he saw Gabriel shot in the back and he saw Gabriel fall to his death.
Daniel had to run for his life because the shots were still ringing out all around him.
The state anticipates that Daniel will come here To tell you about what happened to him that day.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is State vs. George Allen Kelly in a nutshell.
So that's the prosecution's promise, and it sets a pretty high bar.
Gabriel's companion, quote-unquote, not his criminal accomplice, but his companion, the prosecutor says, saw Gabriel get shot in the back because this maniac rancher was shooting wildly at them, and she says that is the state versus George Allen Kelly in a nutshell.
And well, that turned out to be true, although not in the way that the prosecutor intended.
So behold the testimony of star witness Daniel Ramirez here.
And so you told investigators in this case that you knew someone or you recognized someone who was in the group and that was this person named Ramon, right?
(speaking in foreign language)
So right before we left for lunch, you testified that you had a conversation
with investigators and there was a person who accompanied you in this group,
and his name was Ramon, and that that person was with you.
You testified to that before lunch.
Do you remember that testimony?
No.
[ Foreign Language ]
You don't remember telling us that before we took the lunch break?
[ Foreign Language ]
No.
I mean, it's painful to listen to.
It's like she's questioning a brick wall, basically.
The guy just sits there staring with a glazed expression.
He doesn't even blink, I notice.
He just, like, doesn't appear to be even fully conscious.
But through the translator, we learn that Ramirez can't remember much of anything, including what he said under oath during the trial, right before the lunch break.
This is the companion, quote-unquote, who was supposed to convince us that he remembers everything about the day that George Kelly murdered his buddy for no reason out of the blue.
Now, I'm not going to show you all the testimony because, you know, it's, well, just too long, but also it's just excruciating to listen to.
Suffice it to say, there were so many inconsistencies with what Ramirez said that he was worse than useless as a witness.
And remember, this is their whole case in a nutshell, is this guy.
The prosecutor said that.
For example, Ramirez testified that he was with Gabriel just a few meters away from the house when the shooting happened, but the body was found more than 100 yards away from the house.
And additionally, Ramirez said that the shots went towards the house, which makes no sense.
And when he spoke to police, Ramirez first said the shooting occurred west of Nogales, only to change his mind when he was told where the rancher actually lives.
And on top of all that, Ramirez insisted that he saw his companion fall backward, but the body was discovered face down.
Oh, and Ramirez happens to be a drug smuggler, although he initially lied about that as well, of course, and he's been caught trying to illegally enter this country between eight and ten times.
Now, if you want to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt for some reason, you might discount all of that.
You might say that, well, This was one unreliable witness.
Sure, it's their star witness, the one they said that their whole case in a nutshell is this guy, but surely the rest of their case was solid.
But actually, the fact that their star witness has the memory of a goldfish was just the beginning of the state's problems.
The larger issue was that under the prosecution's theory of the case, none of George Allen Kelly's actions on the day of the shooting made any sense whatsoever under their theory of the case.
So here's the timeline.
In early January 2023, a Border Patrol agent and liaison who frequently speaks to ranchers in the area advised Kelly by text message several times that illegal aliens were traveling through the area in large groups.
Quote, some may have had narcotics, the agent texted to Kelly.
That's what he told them.
And these kinds of texts continued throughout the month, and then on January 30th, several illegals were spotted by Border Patrol in the desert of Keno Springs, Arizona, and they fled.
At least two of them ended up on Kelly's ranch, at which point, as he was making lunch, Kelly says he heard a gunshot.
So he calls the police, he rushes outside, he fires several warning shots from his rifle to scare them away, to warn them.
Kelly insists that the police come to his property.
They conduct a full sweep, they're mistakenly looking for an active shooter at this point, and they don't find anything.
And then hours later, Kelly finds the body himself, calls 911 voluntarily to report it.
He doesn't hide any shell casings, he doesn't bury the body on his 170 acre property, as he could and would have if this was a murder.
He immediately reports it, that's what he does.
And that's, again, not exactly consistent with the theory that Kelly is a murderer who just shot somebody in cold blood.
Normally, murderers don't call the police and tell them to come search their remote property so they can find a body.
And then, if police miss the body, murderers don't call the cops again to inform them that they missed it and invite them back onto their remote property again.
That's not normally how murderers operate.
But that's the prosecution's theory here.
The police came back to the ranch and decided very quickly that Kelly must have killed Gabriel, even though they couldn't find the fatal bullet anywhere.
Now, this isn't exactly solid logic, so instead of explaining it, the prosecution spent the rest of their opening statement lying about the 9-1-1 call about the body.
Listen.
This is a photograph of Gabriel when with the man.
And I'm going to ask you to do something in this case that George Allen Kelly's own words tell you that he did not do.
I'm going to ask you to consider Gabriel Quinn Bukimea as a person, as a human being, and not as George Kelly described him, as an animal.
So, he says that Kelly called the guy an animal, which sounds bad, I guess, is how the jury is supposed to see that.
Supposedly, when Kelly was calling 911 to report that he had found a dead body, he called the man an animal.
The implication, of course, is that he's, I guess, a bigoted MAGA Republican, one of those dastardly folks who, you know, thinks that everybody from Mexico isn't human.
The problem with his argument is that even if Kelly had called Gabriel an animal, it would, first of all, be an understandable thing to say based solely on his actions.
This guy was a criminal, a repeat offender who continually and illegally trespassed into the country and then onto his property in this case.
And so it would be understandable if Kelly was angry and used unkind words to describe the dead intruder.
But even if it's not, it doesn't prove that he was guilty of felony homicide.
Even if he said something really terrible about this guy after the fact, it doesn't prove anything at all.
It doesn't prove that he's guilty, it doesn't prove anything.
But if you listen to the full 911 tape, you discover that actually Kelly wasn't calling this guy an animal because of his actions or because of his nationality or ethnicity or anything like that.
What happened is that Kelly very clearly didn't want to provide any more statements to the police than he needed to.
He had a vague idea, which would later prove to be very correct, that the police would seek to use everything he said against him.
So he didn't want to be specific.
He just wanted an officer to be dispatched to his property.
So this is a longer clip than we would normally play, but it's important to get the context to understand how deranged the prosecutor's lies were.
Listen.
What I'm telling you is that we need a sheriff's deputy out here, 100 Willowcross Circle, immediately.
And that's all I can say, ma'am.
Okay.
Is anyone hurt?
I need to know because if someone's hurt, I need to send an ambulance too.
There's no, there's no.
Okay, do you feel more comfortable talking to a deputy over the phone?
Well, in other words, okay, you know, you know the thing, you have the right to remain silent and anything you can say can and will be held against you.
I'm not, I'm not admitting to anything I've done, but You know, all those things tend to add up, and I don't know what happened.
I'll put it like this.
Last spring, out here, there was a pickup found on East Sagebrush with a dead lady in it.
Uh-huh.
I don't know if you knew of that or not.
Yes, sir.
I'm aware of what happened.
Okay.
It's a situation similar to that.
How's that?
Is it discolored from somewhere?
Is it discolored?
Yes.
What does that mean?
Um, has it been there for a while?
Can you tell?
Uh, from, from what?
In that, in that I only approached the body to make sure that the animal, uh, you saw the vegetable or mineral, the animal wasn't alive and it was not alive.
Okay.
There were no signs, there was no signs of blood.
Uh, there was just a, Uh, an animal laid face down.
An animal?
An animal, and you know what an animal is.
It's not a vegetable or a mineral.
Okay.
It's a body, and you know what I'm talking about.
I just know what you're talking about, George.
So, it's kind of a strange call to listen to, there's no doubt about it, but it's clear from that audio that Kelly is not making any kind of commentary on the person he just shot.
He's not saying illegals are animals or whatever.
The way the prosecutor put it in the opening statement makes it sound like he said, I just shot this animal, this dirty Mexican, whatever.
That's what they want you to conjure in your mind, but that's not what he's saying, nor is he trying to hide that there's a dead human body on the property.
He called about it, he's trying to get somebody out there.
Instead, he's trying, albeit clumsily, to get police to the property while not admitting anything that, in his mind, might incriminate him.
He's not trying- he doesn't want to say much in the 911 call, knowing that it's being recorded.
We can assume that that's part of what his thinking was.
And so he's just- he's just trying to get- in fact, he even clarifies that when he says animal, he means that, like, in the biological, scientific sense, that we are animals in that sense.
He makes that very clear.
Now, of course, the prosecution and the media had to insinuate otherwise because they know they don't have an actual case.
So they decided it's best to just accuse this 70-something-year-old rancher of being a racist because of this phone call.
Now, there were other low points for the prosecution, like how they kept claiming that Gabriel was trying to live out the American dream, even though he showed up on Kelly's property dressed in camouflage, wearing tactical boots, equipped with an encrypted two-way radio.
You know, like people do when they want to live out the American dream.
And somehow, despite that evidence, the police testified that they never considered the possibility that maybe he was a drug smuggler.
It was all, it was farcical.
But maybe the lowest point was prosecutors' attempt to question Kelly's wife, Wanda.
It was important for prosecutors to try to discredit Wanda because she testified that she saw the trespassers on the property with firearms and camo backpacks.
Watch.
This is Kelly.
Isn't it true that You told Deputy Montereal that you heard four shots.
I'm objecting.
She can answer.
You can answer.
I don't.
I was not counting.
My husband was out there facing these guys with guns and you think I'm gonna stand there and count how many times I hear a shot?
You're crazy!
Kelly, I'm just asking you about what you told him.
I did not tell him four.
I told him I saw two.
That's all I saw.
We're talking about the shots, not now.
Now the shots.
Well, I did say maybe five or six later, but I don't know.
Isn't it true, Mrs. Kelly, that you told Debbie Monreal that you believed it was four shots?
I don't remember talking to that deputy, so I don't know remember telling him four shots.
So, here the prosecutors are trying to do to Wanda what the defense attorneys did to Ramirez, except it doesn't work, because Ramirez can't remember what he said before lunch that day.
He can't remember where the crime scene was, he can't remember what direction the shots came from, or what happened to his quote-unquote companion after he was hit.
By contrast, Wanda couldn't recall the precise number of gunshots that she heard during a moment of extreme stress.
This is an elderly woman, and there's gunshots going off, and she can't remember the exact number.
Wow.
So this is supposedly the prosecution's gotcha moment.
And the point was apparently to distract from the fact that the prosecution doesn't actually have any evidence that Kelly even killed Gabriel because they never recovered a bullet.
They couldn't do any ballistics matching to determine whose gun fired the fatal shot because they didn't have the evidence.
For all the authorities knew, Gabriel could have been shot somewhere off-site and dragged to the ranch.
He could have been shot on-site by somebody else.
You know, maybe that was the bullet that Kelly says he heard.
The prosecution has no definitive answer to any of that.
Their entire case hinges instead on an elderly couple not recalling the precise amount of warning shots that were fired.
Now, did you hear about any of these details?
Probably not.
I hadn't heard some of these details either.
And the reason I decided to do a deeper dive into this case is that I saw a thread from an account on Twitter called Rosie Memos, and she unearthed several incredible videos, including this footage of the sheriff in Santa Cruz County falsely accusing Kelly of being an outsider and an extremist who wanted to quote, hunt me some Mexicans.
Watch.
What about those vigilante groups?
Are they out here?
There are people that'll come to the border thinking they're going to find some action.
Like we had a rancher here that had been writing fan fiction on Amazon.
And he was describing himself hunting migrants with his AK-47.
And he actually even used his own name and his wife's name and his ranch's name.
And he came from somewhere else.
And then We caught him out there actually shooting at some people out there shooting at some migrants.
Wow!
Killed one of them and one of them got away so now he's being prosecuted for homicide in the county so that's an example of a guy with that mentality they come out here and they want to say I'm out here in the Wild West and they want to have a big tough story to tell I'm gonna go out there and hunt me some Mexicans you know and And that appeals to some people, but it's not a common thing.
It's like, I mean, you would just be driving around.
He's an extremist.
Yeah.
Now, the sheriff is lying about the contents of Kelly's book, for one thing.
It's not about hunting Mexicans.
It's about a rancher who fights drug cartels.
And that's not a crazy topic to write about when you're constantly hearing from Border Patrol that drug cartels are running through your property.
And of course, Kelly isn't an outsider.
He lived on that property for more than a decade.
Now, right away, That gives you a sense of how completely one-sided this whole prosecution was.
They decided to make an example of George Kelly, and they didn't bother with building a real case.
In fact, the authorities didn't do any real forensic work whatsoever.
As I mentioned, they didn't find the bullet.
They also never found any gunshot residue and never tested the backpack that the trespassers were carrying for any gunshot residue either.
And, you know, if you watch the trial and the various interviews, you'll notice that the police decided very quickly that they were going to charge George Kelly.
Their strategy was to interview Kelly and his wife multiple times, get them to say as much as possible, and then use any contradiction, however minor, as there always will be some contradiction when you're telling the same story over and over again to different people, especially when you're under a moment of stress, and they want to use all that as proof that Kelly is a murderer.
If you needed yet more reason to never talk to the police unless it's absolutely necessary, well, this is it.
Now even though Kelly is now free to go back to his life, the fact remains that the government tried to send this elderly man to prison for a quote-unquote crime that even if he had quote-unquote committed, he would have been justified in doing so in the name of self-defense and defending his property.
And yet there is no direct evidence that he even did commit it.
There's no way to explain why this prosecution occurred unless you understand that the state wants us to be helpless, demoralized, and vulnerable.
They are intentionally flooding our country with criminals and then punishing us if we do anything to protect ourselves from the wave of criminality that they have invited into our lives and onto our properties.
Now they're going after just about anybody who has the audacity to take any steps to protect themselves.
They want to terminate the right of self-defense in addition to your property rights.
That's what's going on and it's heinous.
And somehow even more terrifying, judging by the fact that a juror somehow wanted to convict Kelly on those facts, Is that more and more people seem to be fine with it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
Amid the chaos of my daily life, I find solace in my Helix mattress.
It's not just a mattress, it's a sanctuary that prepares me for the challenges of the next day.
Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has you covered.
Their unique Sleep Quiz customizes your mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.
No more generic mattresses made for someone else.
I took the Helix Sleep quiz and I was matched with a firm but breathable mattress.
I love this mattress and confident that you'll love yours as well.
Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
Helix's financing options and flexible payment plans ensure a great night's sleep is never far away.
Helix is offering up to 30% off of all mattress orders and two free pillows.
For my listeners, just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
This is their best offer yet.
It won't last long.
Helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
With Helix Sleep.
Better sleep starts now.
There's a report from Breitbart.
Anti-Israel protesters involved in an encampment at Columbia University took over an administrative building early on Tuesday morning.
Video footage posted to X showed anti-Israel protesters carrying barricades into Hamilton Hall, an academic building on the university's campus.
And its Telegram channel, Within Our Lifetime Palestine, posted an announcement calling for protection of the anti-Israel encampment on the campus.
The group wrote, Student organizers have called on everyone to come to Columbia tonight and defend the encampment after administrators' threats this morning.
Other videos posted to X showed anti-Israel protesters smashing the glass doors of Hamilton Hall as people can be heard chanting, Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest.
So, they've invaded the building and that's the next step.
You know, this is tough for me because I feel very conflicted.
On the one hand, these people are not protesters at this point.
And they're breaking the law.
They've set up multiple illegal encampments.
They set up an illegal encampment.
It was taken down.
They set up another one.
They're vandalizing property.
They're trespassing.
They're invading private buildings where they don't belong and they have no right to be.
These are spoiled, entitled, Ivy League rich kid brats who deserve to be locked up in prison and have their college careers and their future careers destroyed because of it.
That's what they deserve.
These are people who have never been held accountable in their lives for anything, and they need to be.
And I would take immense joy in seeing them held accountable, because that would be justice.
And I quite enjoy justice.
I find it very pleasing on the rare occasion that it actually happens.
So that would be great to watch, and it's what they deserve.
And moreover, they're fashioning themselves as radicals and revolutionaries.
But as I said yesterday, they aren't.
They can't be, because they share the ideology and worldview of the powers that be in our
They share, they are proponents of and disciples of the dominant ideology in our culture, which means that you can't be a radical, you can't be a revolutionary.
They are fully products of our cultural institutions.
They are, it's henchmen.
It's brainwashed sheep.
And now they're pretending to protest and stand up against the man or whatever, only because the man has given them this little space here to play pretend.
Like the man is standing by and watching and patting their heads and saying, oh, very good.
Aren't you a bunch of cute little revolutionaries?
I mean, professors at the school are with them, are joining with them.
So it's like, who are you even protesting at this point?
So it's all fake, and I think it'd be good for them to be introduced to reality in a just way.
But on the other hand, these Ivy League institutions are currently destroying themselves, and I'd love to see that too.
So if Columbia wants to completely torch its credibility, well then, okay.
So go for it.
So that's like on one hand, I'd like to see the encampments torn down, police come in, arrest them, drag them away, order and calm restored.
So you'd like to see that.
As someone who's a proponent of law and order, that's normally what I would want to see.
But this is happening on Columbia University.
Columbia University is allowing it to happen.
They could easily stop it.
It'd be very easy to do.
Very, very simple.
Not a hard thing.
It's not a difficult quandary they're in.
So they could easily put a stop to it, but they're too afraid to, and so they're allowing themselves to be destroyed.
And I guess if that's what they want to do, it's what they want to do.
Where does that leave us?
I guess with the fact that there's no one here to root for.
And that's it.
We'll go ahead.
Just let them fight.
Here's a headline from the Daily Mail.
This is what they put on Twitter.
Four teenagers, including high school football star aged 14 to 16, are killed in horror crash after cop cruiser used pit maneuver to stop them speeding at 111 miles an hour as horrifying photos show their mangled wreckage.
Okay.
So this one went viral yesterday on social media.
What they're leading with, the Daily Mail is, and other media outlets.
Four teenagers, high school football star, killed because a cop used a pit maneuver.
And this is all you're meant to read about when it comes to this case.
And it's all that many people did read.
Which is why this story, I mean, well, this one sentence summation of a certain aspect of the story provoked a lot of outrage yesterday towards the cops.
And as it was intended to do, of course.
But let's do the thing we're not supposed to do, which is click on the article.
Well, they want you to click.
They do want the clicks.
But they don't want you to actually read the whole thing.
So let's do that.
Let's read, not even the whole thing, but a few paragraphs.
Okay.
Four Florida teenagers have been killed after they were involved in a police chase in which officers used a maneuver designed to get a car to stop, but caused them to spin out of control.
The four, who were between the ages of 14 and 16, attended Newberry High School in Bradford County.
Two of the teens in the car died at the Waldo area scene, while the other two passed away from their injuries days after the fact at UF Health Shands Hospital in Gainesville.
Gabriel Cheevers and Lawrence McClendon Jr.
were both Newberry High School students.
McClendon was a sophomore defensive back for the football team.
The McClendon family have set up a GoFundMe to help cover funeral expenses.
The police pursuit began after an SUV was reported to have been stolen out of Gainesville.
Only hours after the theft, the car was detected by a license plate reader.
They tried to stop the car.
They sped away 111 miles an hour.
Eventually, the state troopers were called in.
Authorities later added two of the teens that were killed in an SUV were wearing ankle monitors, while three had active warrants.
Some of the occupants also appeared to be wearing ski masks.
Okay, so...
We have, you know, you've got to keep reading to discover that these kids, these high school football stars, had stolen a car, they were speeding at over 100 miles an hour, they were wearing ski masks, and had ankle monitors, and they had three active arrest warrants between them.
So the cops were not just trying to pull over an SUV because it had a broken taillight or something.
These were delinquents out stealing a car while already having a rap sheet despite being no older than 16 years old.
Now, it's very sad that they died.
I mean, four kids died.
It's a very sad thing.
Of course it's sad.
Anytime a kid dies, it's a terrible tragedy.
I wish it hadn't happened.
But who is to blame here?
You know, the peanut gallery is blaming the cops.
Who is really to blame?
Well, a few different parties we can point to.
Unfortunately, we have to say that the teenagers themselves are first and foremost to blame.
I mean, they're the ones who engaged in this behavior.
So it starts there.
If you don't steal a car and go speeding 111 miles an hour, this doesn't happen.
So we've got to start there.
But I do believe that the amount of kind of moral guilt that you can assign to a teenager is somewhat limited.
Because these are kids and they've got underdeveloped brains, and as every teenager does, they're impulsive, all these things.
So, where do you look next for blame?
Well, next you look to the parents.
And I understand that sometimes teenage boys can be rowdy, they can be troublemakers, they can do self-destructive things, they can drive way too fast in cars.
I was certainly guilty of that at their age.
But, you know, if your son has an ankle monitor, And an arrest warrant?
And he's out in a ski mask?
In a stolen car?
Involved in a high-speed police chase?
Well, then you have failed miserably as a parent.
I mean, you have to go out of your way to be that bad as a parent.
That's just... And so that's where you look.
You have to parent your kids.
Give them some guidance.
Give them some direction.
This is the harsh reality.
If you do not teach your kid about consequences, they will learn another way.
They will learn the hard way.
And sometimes it'll be a very, very hard way.
But it will be learned.
Because consequences are coming regardless.
You can either introduce consequences to your child in a controlled, safe, loving environment of the home, or you can let the world do it.
And those parents let the world do it.
But if you let the world teach your kid about consequences, you will not like the way that lesson is taught.
And, because that's the thing, consequences, that's the one thing you can't escape in life.
Eventually, they come.
They come for everyone.
I mean, this is like, this is science, right?
I mean, Newton's third law.
For every action, there's a reaction.
And that applies to human behavior as much as it applies to physics.
And I'm not talking about some kind of Buddhist karma thing.
I'm not even talking about divine judgment, although that is the ultimate consequence that we all will face.
What I mean is that, if you don't teach your kid about consequences, Then the consequence of that failure is that your kid will become the sort of person who doesn't understand consequences, and then will act in the kind of way that people with that misunderstanding act, and the consequence of that will almost certainly be horrifying, and often fatal, as it was here.
So, that's where the blame goes.
To the parents, unfortunately.
What about the cops?
Like, lots of people have said that the cops should not have done the pit maneuver.
Doing a pit maneuver to stop a car going 111 miles an hour is almost certainly going to kill the occupants of the car.
And that's been the criticism.
But what else would you have the cops do?
I mean, think about it.
You have a car going 100 miles an hour.
It's stolen.
The cops can either do everything they can to stop the car, or they could just let it go.
They could say, okay, well, and what is it?
So if you, so basically we're announcing that if you, you know, if you commit a crime, you steal a car, if you do anything, as long as you drive, you know, over 65 miles an hour away from the scene of the crime, you automatically get away because no one's going to chase you.
No one's going to try to stop you.
I mean, that's what people, that's honestly what some people want.
They say the cops should not engage in high speed chases at all because it's dangerous.
So what you're saying is like, once someone gets in a car, they could just go, all right, see you later.
Well, and what happens if they do that?
Well, I mean, leaving aside the concern that you're just letting people get away with crimes, well, now you have a stolen car speeding down the road, going for a joyride at potentially triple-digit speeds, with the people inside it wielding this 5,000-pound weapon, this massive metal battering ram, And what happens if and when they crash into another motorist on the road?
What happens when they T-bone a minivan with a family inside and kill everybody inside it?
What happens then?
Well, then the cops have just sat by and watched as an entire family was killed.
And then we blame the cops for that.
So they can't win.
Either they stop the car and we blame them for how they stopped it, or they don't stop the car and we blame them for whoever the teenagers kill as a result of them not stopping it.
So it's a lose-lose, as always, for the cops.
There's no way, no matter what they do, they probably lose.
Which is why they did the right thing.
I mean, it's sad that the kids died, it is, but if you're stealing a car and going 100 miles an hour, you know, You're putting lives at risk, and it needs to be your own life that's at risk, not anybody else's.
And if anyone is going to die as a result of that decision, it should be you and not anyone else on the road.
So you need to be stopped, whatever the cost is to you, so that there is not a cost to some innocent third party that is not involved in this.
I think that's the way you have to break it down.
All right.
You know, if it were somehow possible to harvest and harness a moment of cringe and then convert the cringe energy into a weapon of some kind, a bomb, let's say, a cringe bomb, then I think this moment right here could be made into a bomb a hundred times more powerful than the one we dropped on Hiroshima.
This is beyond, like, nuclear-grade cringe.
It really is.
It took me three tries.
This is a 20-second clip.
It took me three tries to watch it.
Because the first two times I had to turn it off.
I had to turn it off.
I got 15 seconds in.
I couldn't make it.
First time was 10 seconds.
Then I made it 15 seconds.
Then I finally made it to the end.
It's very, very difficult.
I'm telling you.
And this is what happens when you take two of the cringiest humans on Earth, Kamala Harris and Drew Barrymore, and you put them together on camera.
On a couch.
The cringe that will result will be, well, it'll be exactly like this.
Watch.
I've been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now.
But in our country, we need you to be Mamala of the country.
That, I told you, I warned you.
We need you to be Mamala of the country, my God.
Now, I do have to say, Kamala's reaction there, and if you let it go a little bit, a few more seconds longer, you'll see, like, her reaction was, uh, I don't know what she said after this, but her reaction in the moment It was pretty good.
She reacted like a relatively normal person to such a bizarre comment.
Because Drew Barrymore says, we need you to give us a hug as a be-mama-la of the country.
And Kamala says, yeah, OK.
I mean, OK.
I mean, yeah, all right.
What else do you say to that?
I don't know what you say.
Well, you know, here's what I wish.
Here's what I wish.
I see these clips of the Drew Barrymore show.
I wish one of her guests would just say to her, hey, can you back off?
First of all, give me some personal space, okay?
There are two couches here.
Why are you not sitting on that couch?
I've been on talk shows before.
Why are you sitting right next to me on the same couch?
This is like if we're going to eat lunch or something in a professional environment, like a work lunch, and we're sitting in a booth, and you come over to sit on the same side as me on the same booth.
You don't do that.
I don't know you that well.
What are you doing?
So stop making this so awkward.
Like, there are people watching.
Why are you trying to make me uncomfortable?
I came to your show.
Now, I wish somebody would say that.
That would be a nice thing to say.
But the most ridiculous thing here Aside from how cringy it is in general to ask a politician to give the country a big hug and be our mom, aside from that, of all the people to say that to, Kamala Harris is the last one.
She is the least qualified for the role of national mom.
Not that I think it's a role that anyone should necessarily be filling, but I mean, honestly, it would make, and I know this sounds like an exaggeration, but it would make more sense to ask Hillary Clinton to be America's mom.
That would make more sense.
At least Hillary Clinton, she has a kid.
Harris doesn't even have children.
Plus, Hillary could be, you know, She could be kind of America's evil stepmom.
So she does give off a certain maternal energy.
It's a very evil maternal energy, but she gives off the maternal energy of a mom who, like, locks you up in the tower and you're forced to befriend talking rodents because nobody will talk to you.
Like, she gives off that very Cinderella vibe thing.
And you may, maybe, make an argument that there's times when America could use an evil stepmom.
I don't know.
But Harris doesn't even have that.
Like, she gives off no mom vibes at all.
Least of all the warm, loving, maternal vibes of a mom who gives us all a hug.
Like, of all the emotions and thoughts to experience when you see Kamala Harris and listen to her talk, who would think to themselves, I want her to give me a hug?
What?
Drew Barrymore, you might as well go To like Kohl's department store and deliver that tearful plea to a mannequin in the women's section.
You might as well be talking to a mannequin.
Can you be our, can you be our momma-kin?
Can you be the momma-kin of the country and give us all a hug?
Like, you, you lunatic.
What is wrong with you?
How does this person have a talk show?
Kamala Harris is totally empty.
She's a completely hollow person.
Nothing to say.
Nothing to offer.
No warmth.
No compassion.
No wisdom.
Nothing.
She is so lifeless that she makes Joe Biden seem vibrant by comparison.
Which, by the way, is like the only reason that she's still on the ticket.
And Joe Biden, by the way, he would love to give the country a hug.
He would love it way too much.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
There's nothing like sitting behind home plate at a baseball game or
being court side at a basketball game or front row for your favorite concert.
When you want the best, you have to act quickly.
If you don't, someone else will come along instead and take that opportunity from you.
It's the same 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.
So what's the best way to do that?
Well, ZipRecruiter.
That's the way to do it.
ZipRecruiter finds qualified candidates fast.
And right now you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Once you review ZipRecruiter's list of most qualified candidates for your job, you can easily invite your top choices to apply, and that way you're encouraging them to apply sooner rather than waiting around for them to come along on their own.
Amp up your hiring performance with ZipRecruiter and find the best talent fast.
And if you do that, you're going to see why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
If you want to experience the effectiveness of ZipRecruiter, it's very easy to do.
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.
Never in a million years would I expect to see Walsh be more defensive of a dog's life than Knowles.
That is a twist.
That's a twist.
I know Knowles went for full-on defending the killing of poor Cricket.
And it is a twist, because you would expect, like, if someone told you ahead of time that a politician would get in a lot of trouble for killing a dog and one Daily Wire host would be alone in defending the decision, everybody would assume.
You'd put all your money in your bank account on betting that it's me to be the one to do that.
So, it is a little bit like, you know, I want to keep you on your toes.
I don't want to always be predictable.
I'm predictable most of the time, but every once in a while, I gotta veer off in a direction you weren't expecting.
Now look, there's actually a fair amount of comments actually defending Noam on this.
I'll just read one other.
Says everyone getting mad about the farm dog is ridiculous mostly because many states will put down your dog if they
kill livestock She didn't cut her family that check
Uh, they'd have full rights to have cricket put down.
Anyways, brain dead arguments as always. Yeah, so look Um, first of all, I don't care
That much at all. Like I don't I And I think I made that clear when we talked about the
daily cancellation yesterday Uh that of all the things to worry about right now of all
the things to be upset about Being upset about a dead dog 20 years ago on some ranch in
south, dakota Of all the things to be actively angry about at this moment
in time It is insane that that makes anybody's top 10 list, much less should it be number one on their list for multiple days, as it was for plenty of people, including prominent conservatives who spent multiple days talking about it.
I'm on Twitter last night and there are still people Making their arguments.
You know, I don't think that she should have killed the dog for this reason.
Like, we get it.
We've heard it.
We've heard it by now.
Everyone's posting pictures of their own dog.
That's my favorite.
People posting pictures of their own dog, saying, I would never kill my dog.
Wait, what do you want us to give you?
You want a cookie?
You want us to give you credit for that?
I wouldn't kill my... Like, that's creepy, first of all.
That's just an odd thing to do.
Your dog's probably pretty freaked out if he knew that you were doing that.
If your dog could ask, like, why are you taking a picture of me?
Oh, because I'm going to post it online just to show everyone that I haven't killed you.
So it's way over the top and ridiculous.
And if I were to make a list of the things that I care about right now and the issues that I think should be top headline news and should get everyone's attention, and I were to make a list and a ranking, Kristi Noem's dead dog 20 years ago would not... The list, you would get to number 1 million on the list and we wouldn't even be close to Cricket making the list yet.
With all due respect to Cricket, I'm sure Cricket wasn't a great dog.
Well, apparently she wasn't a very good dog.
But even so, with all due respect to the Fallen, it would not make the list.
So, you know, let's not get too bad out of shape.
It's not like I'm crying tears about it.
However, If someone asks me and presents it as just an ethical question, do you think, like, what are the circumstances where it's okay to put down a dog?
I think there are plenty of circumstances where it's okay.
And then you tell me the specifics of this case and you ask me to...
Make a judgment call, I would say.
Yeah, probably not that.
Probably not.
Probably not because of how young the dog was.
And it sounds like the dog needed more training.
And 14 months.
Now, I'm not a dog expert.
I'm not a dog trainer.
I don't hunt with dogs.
Or hunt at all, frankly.
But it seems to me that 14 months is a little young for that.
And just more time needed to be put into training.
And yeah, I don't...
I don't think it's necessarily ethically right to kill an animal rather than put the proper energy into training the animal.
That's how I would break this down.
And then after saying that, I will just move on with my life and probably never think about it again because, as I said, there are many other things for us to be worried about right now.
All right, Speaking the Truth says, I think the fact that virginity is rising has more to do with the toxic feminist movement than porn.
That certainly is a major factor.
I think that there are, first of all, it's hard to break it down.
It's hard to separate all these things all the time.
And as we've been talking about the rise in male virginity, Declining birth rates, as we discussed to start the show yesterday.
There are many factors that go into it.
One of them that I mentioned was porn.
Specifically, because rising male virginity is itself one of the factors leading into the declining birth rates.
It itself is not the only factor.
And then what is the main factor leading into that factor?
Well, I would say that porn is the main one, but certainly not the only one.
Now, you could point out, as many people did in comments, that, okay, yeah, porn is a major factor, maybe even be the main factor, but why is it that porn is so prevalent?
Why is it that men are turning to porn as much as they are?
Okay, well, then you could continue the conversation, and we could talk about this for hours and not reach the end of it.
And feminism certainly has not helped any of this.
And has been not only hasn't helped but has been a just a toxic as you say toxic is the right word a poisonous degrading influence on the culture and just about every respect to my mind But the fact is that You've got, you know, I looked up a study, we were talking about this yesterday, and it kind of changes depending on the study you're looking at.
The one study I saw, which I think is a pretty conservative estimate, says that the first exposure to pornography for children is 12 years old.
Now, I've read 8 years old, I've read 9 years old, I've read 10, so it kind of depends, but let's just go with the most conservative estimate, which is let's say 12.
Still, 12 years old.
And you've got boys at the age of 12, and girls too, but more often boys, that are exposed to hardcore pornography at the age of 12, which is something that just, it almost never happened prior to the internet age.
It almost never happened.
A 12-year-old being exposed to this kind of content would almost never happen.
And I know that people will say, oh, what about What about the kid finds his dad's porn magazines?
People bring this up all the time.
First of all, if your dad was leaving porn magazines around the house, then your dad was a creep.
My dad wasn't looking at porn magazines.
We didn't have porn magazines in the house at all.
I don't think that was all that common.
If it seems common to you, then that says something about the way that you were raised, and you should be asking some serious questions about the way that you were raised.
But even with that, that would be the only real circumstance where a child would be exposed to anything like this.
And that was not nearly as common.
And most of the time, if they were exposed to anything, the images would not be anything like what kids are exposed to now.
And also just the ubiquity of it.
It's so pervasive, it's everywhere.
The other thing too, also with pornography, is that Yes, you've got millions of people that are seeking it out every single day and spending hours every single day consuming hardcore pornography.
Which again, prior to the internet age, even if an adult was subscribed to a magazine, they probably were not spending hours every day with pornography.
It just wasn't enough of it.
But the other thing too is that Again, prior to the internet age, there was almost no scenario where you would be accidentally exposed to pornographic images.
It's hard to imagine a scenario where that would happen, where you would accidentally, you would have to seek it out, or put yourself in a position, in a situation where you might encounter it.
But these days, like anyone on social media, you can go on Twitter, and anyone can go to Twitter, any kid can go on Twitter and just scroll down a news feed and see explicit pornography just pop up.
That's how pervasive it is.
We could talk about other things too, but there is no conversation about declining birth rates, male virginity, male loneliness, the decline in marriage, all that.
There is no conversation about that sort of thing that can skip over this factor of pornography.
Court reconvenes tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern, and it's, in fact, your civic duty, your moral obligation, and legal obligation to watch my new Daily Wire Plus series, Judged, by Matt Walsh.
Now, to the astonishment, perhaps dismay to some, my rulings are indeed legally binding.
They are legal rulings.
Step into my courtroom with your petty grievances, and you'll find my verdicts are final, as they rightfully should be.
In tonight's episode, you'll see a sibling duo that takes the old adage, sharing is caring, Ludicrous extremes, plus a flirtatious Santa who may just find himself on his own naughty list.
Remember, the courtroom is my domain, but entry is exclusive to DailyWirePlus members, so make your wise decision.
Get your membership now at DailyWirePlus.com and witness the gavel of justice in action tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern, only on DailyWirePlus.
Remember, if you don't enjoy it, well, there's something wrong with you.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
So here's another one of those headlines that starts out crazy and
then gets even more insane somehow as it goes on.
Here it is from the New York Post.
Daily showers are purely performative and have no real health benefits.
Experts insist.
So you know you're in for a treat whenever the experts show up.
If a headline ends with the phrase experts insist or experts say, you can be sure that whatever preceded it is completely bonkers.
And this time the experts are on the scene to discourage us from being hygienic.
And why?
I mean, what is their argument against bathing yourself?
And in what way is a shower performative?
Like, I've never thought of myself as performing while taking a shower, but I guess that's what you'd expect me to say as one of those phony, pandering grifters who takes showers.
Already we can tell that the experts might be engaged in a little bit of post-hoc rationalization here.
We can probably assume that these experts were made fun of in school for having bad BO, and they eventually came up with this justification.
I don't stink, I'm just authentic.
Showers are performative anyway, you frauds.
You frauds with your showers.
Or perhaps I'm being unfair.
Maybe they have a reasonable case to make.
Let's be open-minded.
And let's keep reading.
Experts say the daily shower has no proven health benefit, dismissing the dousing as a socially accepted practice geared towards staving off accusations of funkiness.
As A-listers from Jake Gyllenhaal to Mila Kunis admit that they've been saying no to the nozzle.
Quote, why are we washing?
Mostly because we're afraid somebody else will tell us that we're smelling.
Environmentalist Danakta McCarthy tells the BBC the prostitute state author only hoses off once per month to help the environment, a lifestyle choice inspired by spending two weeks in the Amazon with the indigenous Yanomami tribe, he said.
So did you get that?
This guy has picked up his personal grooming habits from a primitive jungle tribe in the Amazon.
That's like telling us that your perspective on dental hygiene was transformed by spending a week in London.
Like, if anything, it should have the effect of making you more inspired to be hygienic.
I, myself, have had a brief encounter with the traditional tribal culture, and I will tell you that, and they were very welcoming and it was quite wonderful in many ways, but I never appreciated a shower so much as the one that I took when I got home from that experience.
And, by the way, primitive tribes, they don't bathe very often, but it's not because of some deep ancestral knowledge of hygiene.
It's because, first of all, they don't have running water.
And second, they don't really know much about germs and bacteria.
So the lack of showers comes purely from a place of ignorance and deprivation, not something we really want to emulate in the first world, I would think.
But anyway, continuing, it says, Quote, every other morning, McCarthy told a reporter he opts instead for a wash at the sink, using a cloth to give his body a good scrub.
And while abstaining from daily showers might seem like antisocial behavior, medical experts are inclined to lean toward agreeing with earthy types, like McCarthy, saying that the modern obsession with cleanliness can actually be hazardous to one's health.
Manhattan dermatologist Dr. Julie Rusak previously told the Post that prolonged daily showers could strip away the skin's microbiome, which plays a role in protecting the skin and is also extremely important in overall health.
Chemist David Whitlock was so adamant about preserving this dermal barrier that the bathing abstainer didn't shower for 12 years.
Disgusting.
Instead opting to spray himself with good bacteria.
When asked about addressing critics, he told Vice, tell anyone who mocks you that they're betraying profound ignorance of the skin microbiome and then walk away.
Well, yes, we might be ignorant of the skin microbiome, but the bigger problem, David, is that you smell like ass.
That's really the issue here.
But good, yes, please walk away.
Please, that part, please do.
Now, so far I haven't read anything that persuades me to stop showering, but maybe we haven't read far enough, so let's just go through a bit more here.
In 2021, researchers at Harvard found that 66% of Americans shower every day, while a 2005 report claims that it's common for Brits to shower once or twice per day.
The Brits are showering more often?
I don't believe it.
They're not brushing their teeth more often, we know that.
We wash our bodies so much more than we did in the past.
Dale Southernton, professor of sociology of consumption at the University of Bristol,
who co-authored the report, told the Beebe, "The change has mostly come about over the past 100 years
and it was not planned.
In fact, it seems to have happened almost accidentally."
Experts have chalked up this phenomenon to the increasing prevalence of showers,
which became common in US homes.
homes circa the 1920s and in their across-the-pond counterparts in the 1950s.
We don't shower because of health.
We shower because it's a normal thing to do.
Throw in the societal stigma of not showering, and it's no secret people are irrigating their epidermis on the reg.
What?
Sally Bloomfield, honorary professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, claimed that people shower every day because it's, quote, socially acceptable.
Okay.
A few things here.
First of all, if I was dictator of the country, then any news publication that used a phrase like on the reg in its journalism would be forcibly disbanded and all of its employees would be imprisoned for life.
Second, speaking of people who should be in prison for life, I am horrified to learn that, according to one study, 34% of you are not showering every day.
You dirty, smelly freaks.
Third, as I read this article, I was expecting that it would all come around to the experts claiming that actually, if you don't shower for five months, eventually your body, like, adjusts and you won't smell like garbage anymore.
I thought that they would get around to making some kind of dubious claim like that, but no.
Instead, they seem to be admitting that, yes, you will stink, and that's supposed to be okay, apparently.
Society should just, like, get back to stinking.
Back to the good old days of everyone smelling like wet dogs all the time.
And their whole argument is that, well, the only reason people shower every day is because of the social stigma of giving off the stench of an overheated port-a-john.
That's the only reason, they claim.
Well, no, that's not the only reason.
There are other reasons.
There are plenty of health benefits to washing the dirt and grime off your body.
But yes, it's true that beyond all that, and maybe before all that, there is the fact that we want to fit into society.
We want to be normal people.
We want to be pleasant for others to be around, and therefore not stink.
That's true, and that's good.
It's good to want to be normal in that way.
It's good to want to be a pleasant, welcome sort of presence in the room, rather than a foul, reeking, disgusting one.
See, these experts, they treat the desire for normalcy and social cohesion as some kind of great evil.
They point at us in an accusatory way and they say, you people, you only take showers so that other people don't vomit from your stench whenever you walk into the room.
Well, yes.
I mean, that's a big part of it.
We don't want to be the objects of revulsion to other human beings.
It's good for us to not want that.
It's good for us to take steps to avoid being that.
That's what it means to be a functional member of human society.
Now look, there are plenty of criticisms you could make of modern culture, plenty of downsides you could list.
But the expert class is in a constant state of warfare against the aspects of modern society that are by far and away the best.
The things that are nearly all upside and no downside.
Air conditioning, indoor plumbing, beef products, modern hygiene.
That's all the best stuff.
That's the best, that stuff, it's inarguably, it makes your life better and more enjoyable and increases your happiness and well-being.
And these are precisely the things that they want to take from us.
Until we're eating the bugs and living in the pod, greasy and unwashed, so that the pod smells like a hippie commune, this is the life they want for us.
And it's why the anti-showering experts are today cancelled.
