Ep. 1378 - Donald Trump Found Guilty Of Running For President
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, justice is officially dead in this country as Donald Trump is convicted by a kangaroo court in one of the most disgraceful sham trials in American history. I have plenty to say about this today. Also, another traditional American symbol has been declared problematic and is now being banned, even though nobody can explain what is so problematic about it. And, the internet mob gets mad at me because I made the controversial and provocative claim that dieting and exercise are a good way to lose weight. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1378
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://amzn.to/3KfSEFc
Watch the 2nd Greatest Commercial Ever: https://bit.ly/4bvFmQO
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% Off Your First Month! http://www.PureTalk.com/WALSH
Good Ranchers - Get FREE bacon for life with promo code WALSH at https://www.goodranchers.com
- - -
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 Wall Show, justice is officially dead in this country as Donald Trump is convicted by a kangaroo court in one of the most disgraceful sham trials in American history.
I have plenty to say about this today, as you can imagine.
Also, another traditional American symbol has been declared problematic and is now being banned, even though nobody can explain what is so problematic about it.
And the internet mob gets mad at me because I made the controversial and provocative claim that dieting and exercise are a good way to lose weight.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Once again, Pure Talk is investing in their customers with their own money and
without charging you an extra penny.
I'm happy to announce that Pure Talk is now providing international roaming to over 50 countries.
As you plan your summer travel, make sure your wireless provider has you covered at home and abroad.
Pure Talk already puts you on America's most dependable 5G network, but now they're offering coverage in over 50 countries as well.
Enjoy the freedom of unlimited talk text and ample 5G data for just $20 a month with Pure Talk.
This is a deal that's hard to beat, costing you less than half of what you pay with other networks.
Not only is their U.S.
customer service team ready to assist you with a seamless switch, but they also have fantastic savings on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Ready to make a smart switch?
Join my cell phone company, Pure Talk, and start saving today.
Visit puretalk.com slash Walsh to explore their offer.
When you make the switch, you'll get an additional 50% off your first month.
Don't miss out on the opportunity to save on wireless at home and abroad.
Visit puretalk.com slash Walsh.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh today.
Donald Trump, as you have certainly heard by now, has been convicted.
The verdict is in.
Guilty.
Guilty on all 34 felony counts of running for re-election.
Because that, after all, is the actual crime that Trump committed.
It's the one and only reason that this case was ever brought.
They prosecuted him for trying to be president again.
That's the actual reality.
That's the real crime, which isn't a crime.
But you might still be wondering, on paper, what crime was Trump just convicted of?
Somehow, a day after the guilty verdict was read, the actual crime he was guilty of is still very hard to say.
Now, one possible theory is that the government of New York really doesn't like it when people overpay their taxes.
They're the first government in the history of the universe that actively punishes its citizens for handing over too much cash.
It drives Alvin Bragg absolutely crazy when that happens, apparently.
If New Yorkers pay the government too much cash, then the full weight of New York's criminal justice system will come crashing down on them.
A jury will convict them in a day, and they'll face several years in prison.
This is how desperately New York doesn't want money from its citizens.
Now, that's what you have to believe if, for some reason, you're still pretending that there was any legitimacy to the show trial of Donald Trump that concluded yesterday in Manhattan.
I've been thinking of the best way to illustrate just how unprecedented and disgraceful the trial was.
There are so many possibilities to choose from.
But I keep coming back to this one point, because nobody else is really talking about it, and it puts this whole debacle into perspective.
As I outlined last week, In order to convict Donald Trump, it was not enough to show that he had supposedly falsified a business record.
The government also had to show that Trump had falsified those records in furtherance of some other crime.
But what was the other crime?
When I did my monologue on this on Friday, I had no idea because the prosecution hadn't suggested anything.
We made it all the way to closing arguments, and still the prosecution had never explained what the crime was that the defendant had supposedly committed.
But during those closing arguments this week, a prosecutor named Joshua Steinglass finally offered a theory.
He said that Donald Trump had falsified the business records in order to violate a different New York state law that prohibited the use of unlawful means to promote any candidate for office.
But that still leaves a key question unanswered.
What were those unlawful means that Trump supposedly engaged in?
So you keep peeling the onion back to find what the hell crime Trump is supposed to have committed, and you continue to come up empty.
So, Steinglass didn't say definitely what the unlawful means were, but he did mention a few possibilities.
And one of those possibilities was that Trump had violated New York tax law.
Now, when you hear that, you might think, well, they're alleging that Trump is engaging in tax evasion.
But they're actually alleging the opposite.
They're accusing Trump of not evading taxes.
Specifically, Steinglass argued that Trump's 1099 form was inaccurate because the payment to Michael Cohen was actually a reimbursement and not compensation, as the Trump Organization had reported it.
But if that were the case, then the government, under its own theory of how Trump's team should have filed the paperwork, would be getting less money out of the deal because they're not owed income tax on reimbursements.
They're only owed income tax on compensation.
Now, I went through the transcripts and found the quote from the prosecutor because when I heard about it, I couldn't believe it was real, but it is.
Here's what he told the jury.
Quote.
It's true that the result of this improper accounting is that the taxes would have to be paid that weren't owed.
You don't have to pay taxes on a reimbursement.
So the result of reporting them as income tax is more taxes are getting paid than are owed.
But as the judge will tell you, it's a crime to prepare false tax documents regardless, even when doing so, does not result in the underpayment of taxes.
Okay, I'll repeat that last line.
It is a crime to prepare false tax documents regardless, even when doing so, does not result in the underpayment of taxes.
So translation, it's very possible the jury just convicted Donald Trump for falsifying business records in order to cover up the fact that he overpaid on his taxes.
That is one of the three possible grand conspiracies that were alleged here.
A dastardly scheme to funnel too much money to the government.
This is the villainous behavior that we're supposed to believe is a threat to democracy.
That's what justifies potentially imprisoning the man who is leading every major poll to become the next president of the United States.
That's what supposedly necessitated doing something that has never been done before in American history, by charging a former president with a crime.
Now, just for good measure, if the jury didn't buy that theory, the government and the judge gave them a whole menu of other options they could choose from.
And one of them related to covering up violations of campaign finance law, while the other was covering up violations of business record laws.
In other words, as Tablet Magazine put it, the jury could have found that, quote, Trump falsified business records to conspire to steal the election by falsifying business records.
Now which circular, incoherent conspiracy did the jury buy?
Who knows?
The judge didn't require them to make that decision unanimously.
Each juror could have picked a different crime to convict Trump of committing.
We may never know.
So to restate, the upshot is that a former president and the leading presidential candidate right now was just
convicted of 34 felony charges by a jury of his political opponents during an
election year based on a novel legal theory where the underlying alleged
crime was never clearly explained and might not even make sense.
And on top of that, the jury didn't even have to reach a unanimous conclusion
about it.
So 12 members of the jury are walking out of the trial with potentially
12 different and opposing ideas about what crime they just convicted a former president of committing.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Now, all that's to say, there are not enough words in the English language to describe what a travesty of justice this case was.
Trials like this are what define the third world.
Show me the man and I'll show you the crime, as the saying goes.
With this trial, Alvin Bragg, who ran for office on the platform of going after Donald Trump, managed to come up with a Frankenstein fake crime for the sole purpose of fulfilling that campaign promise.
And it wasn't just a promise to New Yorkers that Bragg fulfilled, it was a promise to Washington.
Now, if you don't believe that Biden's DOJ had anything to do with this case, I would refer you to the video of Alvin Bragg gloating at a press conference yesterday after the verdict was announced.
Watch.
I did my job.
Our job is to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor.
And that's exactly what we did here.
What I feel is gratitude to work alongside phenomenal public servants who do that each and every day in matters that you all write about and make the press and in lots of matters that you don't.
I did my job.
We did our job.
Many voices out there.
The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury and the jury has spoken.
Now the man to Alvin Bragg's right in that video is named Matthew Colangelo.
He happens to be a former high-ranking Biden DOJ official who left that job in December of 2022 to work as a senior counsel with Alvin Bragg in the Manhattan DA's office.
In fact, he was the number three guy in the DOJ before he took a massive demotion to work in a much smaller local prosecutor's office.
Why would he do that?
Is he just really passionate about impartially enforcing bookkeeping laws in Manhattan?
Now, the New York Post did some digging on Colangelo, and that doesn't seem likely.
Looks a lot more like Colangelo took the assignment to serve as the Democratic Party's hatchet man to take out Trump.
Quoting from the Post, quote, the DNC paid Matthew Colangelo $12,000 in January 2018 for political consulting, federal election commission filing show.
He was also an Obama donor.
And this is the man who went right from Joe Biden's DOJ to Alvin Bragg's office right around the time that Bragg was reportedly waffling about bringing charges against Trump.
Now, you could choose to believe that this is all a coincidence.
Maybe you think Matthew Colangelo would treat a Democrat in exactly the same way as he treated Trump.
If a Democrat supposedly falsified some business records, then Colangelo would be hot on their heels.
But that really doesn't appear to be likely either.
In 2022, while Colangelo was still the DOJ, the Clinton campaign and the DNZ struck a deal with the FEC after the FEC alleged that they had falsified campaign records.
Quoting from the AP, quote, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.
Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump's ties to Russia.
But on FEC forums, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as illegal services.
Well, that sounds a lot like what Donald Trump was accused of doing, except much, much, much worse.
The Clinton campaign allegedly falsified records to hide their involvement in spreading the Russiagate lie.
That was a lie that dominated the political landscape for, what, six years?
It led to thousands of fake news articles and investigations, ruined the lives of several people who worked on the Trump campaign.
But no member of the Clinton campaign was ever hauled before a jury for falsifying records or for doing anything else.
Matthew Colangelo never even dreamed of prosecuting them.
And of course, neither did Alvin Bragg.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC just paid a fine and the matter was resolved.
That was it.
There was never any criminal prosecution, much less talk of prison time.
But in Trump's case, the media is now doing everything it can to convince Americans that, according to established legal precedent, Donald Trump must go to prison for this fake crime.
That appears to be the next step here.
CNN trotted out several panelists yesterday to make that case.
Watch.
He could do home arrest.
Every option is on the table with a Class E felony like this, but I wanted to just put a perspective for people of what any other defendant, because I worked in the DA's office for about 30 years.
I've seen hundreds of thousands of cases and sentences, and those are the factors that would have gone into that equation and absolutely without a doubt any other defendant
who was similarly situated to Donald Trump who is not going to show remorse and who I am sure
will push the bounds of the still remaining gag order after this. We'll see what happens but
anyone else in that position would get would get prisoned. Here's what I discovered. Yes. That
in the most serious FBR cases a sentence of imprisonment is routinely imposed.
This is the most serious falsifying business records case in the history of the state of New York.
I think Alvin Bragg is going to ask for a sentence of incarceration, and I think Judge Marshawn will very seriously weigh that.
So the special treatment, you're saying, would be if he were not given a prison sentence.
Right.
If you believe anything that you just heard there, then you are too stupid.
Well, you're too stupid.
You're too stupid to tie your shoes in the morning, most likely.
These panelists want you to believe that Trump is getting special treatment in New York if he doesn't go to prison.
Like, special treatment in a positive way.
They're going to do him a favor.
This is a city where you don't even go to prison if you pummel old ladies in the street.
This is a city that is profoundly reluctant to send anyone to prison for anything, even and especially for actual violent crimes committed against innocent people.
But this business records case is on a whole other level, they say.
The most serious business records case in the history of the state.
So serious that they can't even tell you what the crime was, even now after he's been convicted of it.
Trump didn't show remorse for this fake crime, so he needs to go to prison.
That's the logic, as Soviet as it is.
We're supposed to believe that that's the normal outcome in a case like this, but it's not.
If you look up recent prosecutions in New York for falsifying business records, you'll find that virtually all of them involve allegations of tax fraud or workers' compensation fraud where the defendant made money.
For example, there was a New York versus James Garner, a case from November 2021, in which, quote, a mental health therapy aide was indicted for allegedly defrauding over $35,000 in workers' compensation benefits.
There was also a case of New York versus Jassu Aguilar-Dubon from October 2022, in which, quote, a Bronx business owner was indicted for failing to report over a million dollars in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes.
Now, on their website, the outlet JustSecurity has tallied many other examples like this, but again, the point is that these people allegedly lied to obtain more money.
In this case, as I said, Trump overpaid his taxes, if anything.
So, his prosecution is highly unusual for that reason alone, and that's not the only strange aspect of this case, of course.
It's also more than a little odd that the same judge who handled this hush money trial is also handling the criminal case against Steve Bannon and the criminal case against the Trump Organization.
And this judge just so happens to be a Joe Biden donor.
Is that normal?
The CNN panelists wouldn't say, but we all know the answer.
They gave every Trump-related case to one single judge, and it just so happens to be a judge, who donated to Trump's political opponents.
They're not even trying to hide what they're doing.
This is the kind of political corruption that you might read about in the Gulag archipelago.
And up until now, you would read those stories, as I did when I first read the volumes of the Gulag Archipelago several years ago, reading those stories and thinking, wow, well, I mean, thank God nothing that absurdly corrupt could ever happen here.
Here we are.
With the Trump trial, the left has trampled every norm that exists in the criminal justice system.
They prosecuted the leading presidential candidate in an election year for a seven-year-old fake crime.
They assigned a hack judge to the case, who essentially guided the jury to a conviction.
And they did it all in front of a jury in one of the most partisan places in the country.
A few weeks ago, one prospective juror who disqualified herself from the trial gave an interview in which she explained that after meeting the other jurors, they did not seem completely impartial to her.
Listen.
This is Kat.
She runs a VC fund here in Manhattan for folks that are over 60 years of age.
She was just dismissed as a potential juror.
What happened?
Why were you dismissed?
Because I couldn't be impartial.
You couldn't be impartial.
So when the judge asked that hand, can you be impartial, you raised your hand and you said you cannot.
Exactly.
Wow.
Do you feel like the people that you were speaking with in that jury room that you sat with all day on Tuesday, that they can put together a fair and impartial jury because of that sense of duty?
Do you think that's possible?
I'm not sure about that.
Really?
Why?
You know, everybody has biases and Now, there's some speculation on social media that this woman might have leaned towards acquitting Trump, but we have no idea.
Which is very hard to do, right?
In order to serve as a jury.
I hope they do.
I mean, this is justice, right?
Now there's some speculation on social media that this woman might have leaned towards acquitting Trump,
but we have no idea.
The fact that she's speaking to MSNBC would suggest otherwise.
But the key point is her first-hand observation of the jury, which is that they might not be impartial
And we all knew that, of course.
It was always impossible, quite literally impossible, that Trump would get an impartial jury.
Impossible that he could have a fair trial.
Impossible.
Nobody on Earth is impartial to Donald Trump.
And if such a unicorn does exist, they don't live in New York City.
But this illustrates a key difference between the left and the right, which is that in general, the left is committed to winning at all costs.
They're happy to seat biased jurors and judges to get what they want.
Meanwhile, conservatives are preoccupied with norms that nobody else in the country cares about.
Republicans could have arrested and charged Hillary Clinton for any number of crimes at any point in the past decade.
They could have pursued her for the Steele dossier FEC charge I mentioned earlier, investigated the Clinton Foundation, prosecuted Clinton's retention of classified materials, followed by her lie to the FBI during an interview about those materials.
But Republicans didn't do any of that on the basis that if they do that, then Democrats might return fire.
And so Republicans continue to cherish our norms while Democrats blow the norms to smithereens with a thousand sticks of dynamite.
Now the necessary response is obvious, although it won't be pleasant.
Donald Trump should immediately create and publish a list of 10 high-ranking Democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office.
First on the list should be Joe Biden.
Second should be Joe Biden's crackhead son.
And in the meantime, Republican AGs all over the country should pursue their own indictments.
Border states should charge government officials for deliberately contributing to human trafficking at the southern border.
And if Donald Trump's hush money, quote-unquote, was illegal because it interfered with an election somehow, then so is importing millions of foreign nationals every year.
That's the biggest form of election interference imaginable.
Time to impanel a grand jury right away in the reddest city in the reddest state on the map.
Better issue a gag order on Joe Biden, too, for good measure.
Take corrupt Democrats, corrupt Democrat criminals, put them on trial in front of juries that already hate them before the trial even begins.
That's what needs to happen.
Now, does that mean that we are stooping to their level?
No, it means that we must stop pretending that we live in a country that no longer exists.
Now, will any of this ever come to pass?
We'll see.
It's doubtful.
But it's the only viable option.
Right-wing lawfare is what's necessary to defeat left-wing lawfare.
There is no other way about it.
The entire legal system depends on a series of unstated principles.
That prosecutors won't pursue political cases, that juries will be impartial, that crimes must be clearly defined.
And once one side violates all of these principles, Then the principles cease to exist for everyone.
They're gone.
They do not exist anymore.
And now it's mutually assured destruction.
But that's a deterrent that only works if there's a real possibility that it's actually enforced.
And after what just happened in Manhattan, it's well past time to introduce the left to what mutually assured destruction might look like.
So, frankly, I don't want to hear elected Republicans complaining about this verdict.
I don't need to see their tweets and their statements condemning it.
They've already put out all the statements and all the tweets.
I don't care.
None of us care.
We're not impressed with that.
If you're an elected Republican saying, I oppose this, and you're going on Fox News and you're like, great, good for you.
The only thing that we want to hear from these people is which Democrats they will have arrested.
Don't tell us you're sad about the verdict.
We don't give a damn about your feelings.
We want to see corrupt Democrat criminals frog-marched on camera in handcuffs.
Don't whine about the double standard.
Force the Democrats' own standards on them.
Drag them there kicking and screaming.
And if you won't do that, then just shut up.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
They've just unveiled their limited edition King Cut, available only for this special occasion.
The King Cut box is packed with thick-cut bone-in ribeyes, center-cut filet mignons, and thick-cut bone-in New York strips, all sourced from local family farms and aged 21 days to perfection.
The work of a father never ends, so Good Ranchers is offering free bacon for life with any new subscription.
Make sure to use code WALSH to receive two packs of Good Ranchers uncured applewood smoked bacon with every order, Seriously, you won't just get free bacon this year, you'll also get it next year and every single year after that.
And if you need any other reason to support Good Ranchers, they're not only amazing partners on my show, but they're supporting the paralyzed veterans of America, too.
So every order saves American farms and supports American veterans.
So, knock this Father's Day out of the park.
Visit GoodRanchers.com, use code WALSH to secure their brand new King Cut box.
For a dad you know, or subscribe to any of their custom curated box for yourself, don't forget to use code WALSH at checkout to claim your free Applewood Smoked Bacon for life.
That's GoodRanchers.com, promo code WALSH.
ABC7 News in San Francisco reports a historic but controversial flag that has become a symbol of the far right was taken down in front of San Francisco City Hall over the weekend.
According to a city official, the Appeal to Heaven flag was swapped with an American flag on Saturday.
Officials say the controversial flag was initially raised on Flag Day in 1964 at Civic Center.
It was part of what is known as the Pavilion of American Flags.
San Francisco Recreation and Parks Communication Manager Daniel Montes said the flag was originally used during the American Revolutionary War, flown by George Washington's cruisers, and is associated with early quest for American independence.
It's since been adopted by a different group, one that doesn't represent the city's values, so we made the decision to swap it with the American flag.
The Appeal to Heaven flag has made headlines recently after the banner was flown outside U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's beach vacation home in New Jersey, according to the New York Times, which obtained several images showing it on different dates in July and September 2023.
The Times previously reported that an upside-down American flag had flown outside Alito's Alexandria, Virginia home less than two weeks after the violent January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S.
Capitol.
This is how it works.
And we're watching the process in real time, so it's very instructive and it's worth taking note of this.
We are watching as the left takes the next historical symbol, which in this case has existed for 250 years, back to our nation's founding, and just deciding that they're going to turn it into a problem.
Just deciding that it's a problem now.
This thing that has existed for 250 years hasn't been a problem.
And now it's a problem.
And they decided it because Alito flew the flag at his vacation home.
Turns out that exact same flag had been outside of San Francisco City Hall for 50 years.
And so rather than the left saying, well, okay, never mind.
I mean, if this flag not only has been around for 250 years, but even for half a century has been flying in San Francisco, then it's clearly not some sort of symbol of far-right extremism.
Rather than the left saying that, they're saying, oh, well, no.
See, we've decided that it's a symbol of far-right extremism.
And so, rather than going back on that after we discovered that it was actually flying outside of San Francisco City Hall, we're just gonna take it down from San Francisco City Hall.
So that's the way that works.
There was never any controversy around this flag.
For 250 years, there was no controversy.
there was no controversy for 250 years up until 14 seconds ago there was no
controversy And now suddenly it's a controversial flag.
So this is what they do.
They took this traditional American symbol and just decided one day on their own that actually it stands for insurrection and right-wing extremism and presumably racism and so on.
And now the flag is being taken down from government buildings, where in the case of San Francisco, again, it's flown for 50 years.
50 years without a problem.
Until the left made it a problem.
And of course, they've done this with countless American symbols, but here we get to see it happening in real time.
We see the birth and the genesis of the false narrative.
We see how utterly arbitrary and contrived it is.
Let this be a lesson.
The next time you hear that some flag or symbol or statue or whatever is problematic, remember that it's problematic simply because the left woke up that morning and decided that it is.
They've claimed for themselves the power, the authority to determine what our historical symbols mean.
They have claimed the right to imbue our history with whatever meaning they determine.
And if they decide one day, well, this is a problem, then it's a problem.
Problematizing, as they call it.
This is like a leftist term, problematize.
And this is exactly what it means.
They take something, and they rip it apart, and they sift through it, and they look for a reason for it to be a problem.
They take something that is not a problem, that they know is not a problem, and they say, OK, we're going to find a reason to make this a problem.
And now they're doing it with this historic American flag.
And the pretense anyway, and it is only pretense, but the pretense
is that this flag was flown by somebody on January 6th.
Supposedly.
So just somebody in the crowd happened to have this flag, and that means that now the flag is a symbol of right-wing extremism.
Now, as I pointed out before, and others have pointed out, well, you know, American flags Those were the main flags.
The Star Spangled Banner was flown on January 6th by a lot of those people.
And so does that make the American flag a right-wing extremist symbol?
And of course the answer is yes.
In the left's mind, they hear that objection and they say, yeah, that's a right-wing extremist symbol too.
And I'm telling you right now, we are going to get to the point in the not-too-distant future where there will be a real effort to get rid of the American flag, the actual American flag, and replace it with something.
That is going to happen.
Now, it's true that when I make political predictions about who's going to win in elections, I'm very often wrong.
You should ignore me on that.
But when it comes to cultural trends, I'm usually right.
And so this is a cultural trend that I'm telling you right now.
In the next few years at least, the American flag itself, there's going to be a real movement to change the flag and get rid of it on the basis That it has become a symbol of, well, not just that it has become a symbol of right-wing extremism, but that, in fact, it has always been.
It's a symbol of racism.
It's all of this, right?
Going back and slavery and everything.
Of course, you wouldn't have to look that hard to find leftists who are openly making that case right now as we speak.
But in the next few years, especially if Joe Biden is reelected, or I should say, Especially if re-elected or not, Joe Biden is still president after this next election.
Especially then, that will sort of turbocharge this movement and, you know, the real problematizing of the American flag will happen, without a doubt.
And they've already set the stage for that with things like this.
And if they can do it, if they can do it with this, with the Appeal to Heaven flag, That's 250 years old.
And they could just decide, like, in the span of a week, it goes from totally fine to we have to take it down because it's so controversial.
If they can do that in a week with this, well, they could do it with anything.
What will replace the American flag when they decide to take it down and rip it up?
I mean, the obvious choice would be the pride flag, and I would expect that's where this is headed.
The pride flag becomes the new American flag.
New York Post reports on a new study from the anti-Natalists continuing their campaign to discourage the human race, you know, rather, well, rather encourage the human race to embrace its own extinction.
Here's the headline.
Fatherhood might be bad for your heart.
Article says, kids may pull on your heartstrings in more ways than one.
Fathers have worse cardiovascular health than men without kids, according to a new study.
Researchers from Northwestern University and Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago analyzed data from 2,814 men between ages 45 and 85 and found that health outcomes varied considerably by ethnicity and how old the man was when his first kid was born.
For example, men who became fathers under age 25 seemed to have worse heart health than other fathers.
This is especially true among men who are Hispanic or Black.
The study published in AGPM Focus earlier this month used data from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.
The men were grouped as being fathers or non-fathers and self-identified as Black, Chinese, Hispanic, or White.
Fathers made up 82% of the group.
Black, Chinese, Hispanic, or White.
Seems like a really specific category there with Chinese.
Why not Asian?
I don't know.
The researchers looked at a number of health markers, including diet, exercise, and smoking habits, weight, blood pressure, and glucose levels, and turns out that it's bad for your heart to be a father.
Now, as you hear this, you might be a little confused because maybe, you know, you could have sworn that you've heard studies that show that married men and family men tend to be healthier and live longer.
So what's up with that?
Well, that's true, and in fact, this very same study even acknowledges that.
Quote, "Fathers might live longer. While the fathers in the study had worse cardiovascular
health overall, they were the least likely to die from any cause in the group. Researchers
said that this may be because fathers have more social support than non-fathers.
Fathers may also be more likely to have someone as their future caretaker
to help them attend medical appointments and manage medications."
We also found that fathers had lower rates of depressive symptoms than non-fathers, so mental health may be contributing to the lower death rates in fathers.
Okay.
So, fatherhood destroys your heart and helps you live longer.
If that finding seems like nonsense, it's because, of course, it is.
And studies like this are pointless anyway.
Because if you put the effort in to take care of yourself, you'll probably have good heart health.
Now, there could be other things that happen, other diseases that crop up that are basically outside of your control.
But generally, if you take good care of yourself, you'll have pretty good heart health and good health in general for a long time anyway.
And if you don't take good care of yourself, then you won't.
And that's the case whether you have 10 kids or no kids.
So even if we accept the results here, it doesn't mean that if you have kids, you're more likely to have a bad heart.
Your own personal likelihood of having heart problems depends largely on your own eating and exercising habits, and that's what will determine it.
And, you know, I can say this for my case, that if I was not married, and I had no kids at my advanced age of almost 38, I would probably be obese at this point.
I mean, I would certainly be pretty flabby and weak.
And that's because when I go to work out, at least like 85% of my motivation is that I have a wife and kids and I want to stay strong and healthy for my family.
That's what drives me.
And the other 15% is probably that I'm on camera every day and I don't want to be fat.
You know, I could probably rationalize even, you know, that 15%.
I could probably rationalize that away if I didn't have a family.
I could probably convince myself that, you know, maybe I could just become a fat guy and that'll be part of my brand.
I could even take the stage name Fat Matt or something.
You know, you can work with it.
It can work.
You can work with the fat thing if you're on camera.
But I'm not going to do that because I have a family and I don't want to die of a heart attack when I'm 45.
I also want my children to see me as a strong presence in the home, a source of protection and security.
And if you're a flabby little weakling, it's hard to maintain that image in front of your family.
And this is how I feel about so many of the supposed drawbacks of having a family.
I hear about the drawbacks, and they are so foreign to my own experience.
They are so often the opposite of what my experience has been,
because you also hear that having a family will make you poor.
And again, for me, it's the opposite.
My family is what motivates me to go out every day and try to succeed and earn as much money as I can.
It's hard to imagine that I would have anywhere close to the same ambition and success if I was just earning a living for myself.
I mean, honestly, if it was just me, I could probably get by pretty easily on, you know, like being like a Walmart assistant manager or something like that.
And I don't mean that as an insult to Walmart assistant managers.
I'm just saying that a single guy doesn't need much.
When I lived alone in my early 20s, I slept on a mattress directly on the floor.
Didn't even have a box spring.
Just a mattress.
And I slept like that for like five years.
In fact, I had the mattress in my living room.
I did.
I did.
I don't want to brag, but I had two rooms in my apartment, a bedroom and a living room.
So, you know, I was living pretty high on the hog.
But I didn't really use the bedroom.
I just dragged the mattress into the living room because I figured like all my stuff is there and I got the TV.
I want to watch TV in bed.
And so I got my couch and my mattress just lying there and like a little tiny table and a TV.
And that's how I lived for like five years.
And I could still live that way now, even at my age, if I wasn't a husband and a father.
If I didn't have any family, and it was just me, I'd probably still basically be living that way.
So, this is the strange position that I'm in, and that a lot of men who have families are in, that I'm constantly told that having a family means that I will lose all of the things that I actually gained Because I have a family.
I'm constantly told that if you have a family, you can't have all the things that I have, and not only have, but only have, because of the fact that I have a family.
Or largely have, because of that fact.
It's very bizarre.
Let's see.
Fox LA has a major update to one of the most important stories of the decade, and I'll read through this article a bit.
And then I have some shocking images, some pictures that I'll show you at the end of it, and we'll go through those.
So here's the story.
There are at least two beings using some sort of cloaking device that landed in a Las Vegas backyard, a veteran crime scene reconstruction analyst said.
Scott Roeder, who has testified as an expert in some of the most highly publicized criminal cases in the world, broke down a video of a reported alien sighting in Los Angeles frame by frame.
In one second of real time, there are 30 frames that show a head with smoke around it, which Roeder called some sort of cloaking device moving into the top right corner of the video and peering over the fence.
He said, quote, I apply the same principles that I would apply to any kind of homicide investigation at this particular time with what we've seen here is proof of a couple of things, that these entities are real, that they're there.
This is not fake.
This is not a fraud.
So you may remember the story we talked about, of course, on the show several months ago, that there was this story of aliens that landed in someone's backyard in Las Vegas.
And they got turned around, they were a little bit, they were lost, they were confused.
And so they landed in the backyard.
And at the time, many people And there appeared to be some kind of video that was taken, but you couldn't really see the aliens in the video.
And a lot of people, I think quite foolishly, just declared that because you can't see the aliens in the video, the video is therefore not sufficient evidence that there were any aliens there.
But Scott Roeder's coming along, and he's an expert, and he's saying, look, they have invisibility cloaks.
That's what this expert is saying.
And this guy, he's an expert in aliens with invisibility cloaks.
I thought I was the only one.
I'm also an expert in that subject.
And I thought I was the only expert in this field.
It's sort of a... It's a burgeoning field.
It's a growing field.
But I had been the only expert up until now.
But now he is as well.
And I concur with him.
So there's really an expert... There's a unanimous... The experts unanimously agree that That these aliens aren't have invisibility cloaks and that's why you can't see them.
So let's look at the photos Let's just pull up the photos and take a look at them.
Okay, so you see there So you can see So right so you see where the arrow is pointing and it's right It's right there.
Let's go to the next photo Oh right here.
I want you to look at where this arrow point.
What do you see there?
What do you see?
What do you see here where the arrows pointing?
You don't see anything.
You see nothing at all.
Go back to that first photo.
Go back.
Can we go back again?
Okay.
Look here again.
What do you see in this area right here?
Absolutely nothing.
You don't see anything.
This is literally nothing.
You can't see a single thing at all.
That's exactly the point.
Precisely.
So you can clearly see with those photos that you can't see anything.
But these are invisible aliens, remember.
So not seeing them is seeing them.
When you don't see them, you are seeing them because they're invisible.
In fact, I would go so far as to say this.
I would say that the photos would be less convincing if you could see aliens.
Because think about it.
Somebody says to you, oh, there are invisible aliens in my backyard.
And you say, let me see a picture.
I don't believe you.
And then they show you a picture of an alien and you would say, well, you're foolish.
I can see the alien is obviously not invisible.
You see what I'm saying?
They show you a picture and there's no alien.
Then you go, oh, well, that's clearly he's invisible.
There's no alien there.
So you're saying to yourself, well, that's exactly what I expected this picture to look like.
In other words, on the theory, okay, this is science.
What is a scientific theory?
A scientific theory is a way of explaining things that occur in the physical world.
And so, on the theory that there is an invisible alien in your backyard, that theory predicts that a photo of the alien will not show anything.
That's what the theory predicts.
And then you look at the photo, and what do you know?
There's nothing.
So the theory has been proven.
The theory has been confirmed.
It's confirmed.
It's actually a fact now.
It is a fact.
We now have confirmation.
We have absolute confirmation.
That's 100% evidence, reliable evidence, that the aliens are there.
So, you know, seeing is believing, but not seeing is even more believing when it comes to invisible aliens.
So that's just, anyway, I get a little nerdy when we get into the science of it, but that's the science.
There it is.
Jeremy's second gen razors are here for men, conservative men, and if you don't think I'm right, go listen to the real Jeremy in the new second greatest commercial ever, which now has over 7.5 million views on YouTube.
In the meantime, make sure you get yourself a new Jeremy's 2nd Gen razor.
They're radically redesigned, featuring a new ergonomic handle for superior durability and sharper, longer-lasting blades.
You can get the brand new Sprint 3 for a quick, clean shave, or the new and improved Precision 5 for an exceptionally smooth and close shave.
Head over to jeremysrazors.com to start shaving like a man, not a manifesto.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Yesterday, before the Trump verdict swept away all of their conversations on
social media, I had been involved in a debate about obesity.
And here was the question at the center of this discussion on Twitter.
Can you lose weight simply by eating less and exercising more?
Now, if you're a sane person, this does not sound like much of a debate at all.
We might as well debate whether walking is best achieved by putting one foot in front of another.
Or whether there's a noticeable causal link between putting your hand on a hot stove and sustaining a burn on that same hand.
These do not sound like debatable topics, and yet people were debating it.
Lots of people.
Including and especially those who fashion themselves experts.
Now, it began when I posted a response to a tweet from the account Raw Egg Nationalists, and he linked to a study from 1992 finding that obese people tend to under-report the amount of food they eat and over-report the amount of exercise they get.
And then they complain that they can't lose weight.
They complain that they're doing everything they can to lose weight.
According to the study, they're actually not doing the things they claim they're doing.
And so that's why they're not losing weight.
And I said this.
A bunch of people on here got mad at me recently because I said that literally anyone can lose weight simply by eating less and exercising more.
But it's obviously true.
The idea that overweight people remain overweight even with dieting and exercise is asinine.
It's actually a scientific impossibility.
That's what I said.
Pretty straightforward, obvious, unassailable, you might think.
But then came the indignant responses.
Let me read just, there were a lot of them, but let me just read a few of them for you.
And we'll start with this from metabolic health coach and public speaker Valerie Ann Smith.
She posted quote, Asinine?
What's asinine is the patronizing attitude and your poor understanding of the metabolic challenges faced by those struggling with obesity.
Thankfully, we have a whole community that cares and can offer real help solutions, even in the face of your continued comments.
Yes, even in the face of my comments.
My comments that are such an obstacle in the way.
Even with my comments, they're able to somehow find a way to continue on.
How brave.
How brave of them.
There are some themes in this response that we'll notice in all of the others.
Like this one from a guy named Chris Cornell.
"I'm not mad that you appear to have no idea about the challenges faced by a large percentage
of people struggling with obesity.
It can actually be helpful when an influencer with such a poor understanding of an issue
confidently speaks out with such patronizing certainty.
It gives an opportunity for others to offer potentially helpful information."
Meanwhile, a professor at Duke named Herman Ponser, who by the way, looks exactly like a Herman Ponser,
said this.
Here, as in most of his work, he misses the point.
Sure, calorie deficits will lead to weight loss.
The problem is achieving that through diet and exercise is incredibly hard.
So his simply is mathematically correct, but there's nothing simple about it.
Also, there's this from somebody named Liz.
I wish it were this simple, Matt, even if you are thoroughly convinced you're correct.
Imagine for a moment what it would be like if you did eat less, weigh less, track your intake, test for ketones, limit carbs, exercise, including resistance training, and you were still obese and not losing, sometimes even gaining weight.
And then imagine the judgment from others who don't believe you.
PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome, it also often causes infertility.
Would you also insist that someone is just too uptight to get pregnant?
Be grateful that your body works well with the efforts you make.
Reward for the same effort is a gift not everybody is given.
Okay.
You get the idea.
So lots more of those came from and lots of people saying that I'm oversimplifying and there's a lot of people that, in fact, someone just said to me today that there are plenty of people who rigidly stick to a diet and exercise five days a week And yet, do not lose a single pound.
That's a claim that somebody made to me.
Now, there's a fundamental confusion on display with all of these people who, while suffering from this confusion, are nonetheless accusing me of failing to be a sophisticated thinker who can pick up on fine distinctions.
Here's the distinction that they, and many other people with their view on this topic, somehow miss.
The words simple and hard are not mutually exclusive.
Just because a thing is hard, that doesn't mean that it's complicated.
This is my point about weight loss.
It isn't complicated.
It is very simple.
In fact, it's one of the simplest things in the world.
Burn more calories than you take in.
You will lose weight.
You will.
This is physics.
It's a law of nature.
It is true of everyone, everywhere, for all time.
It's the reason why there has never been a single case of somebody being stranded on a desert island for months with little to no food, and then when they're rescued, everyone's shocked to see that they somehow have put on weight during the experience.
Never happened once in history.
It's why everybody is skinny in third world countries.
It's why every contestant on every survival show ever has lost weight.
And these examples shouldn't be necessary.
If you eat less and exercise more, you will lose weight.
You will.
You will.
Every person who claims to be an exception is lying.
You are lying.
You are a liar.
All of you.
And you know it.
Well, you say that, Matt, but no, I exercise five days a week and stuck to a diet originally and didn't lose a pound.
No, you didn't.
You're lying.
You're just a liar.
You exercise five days a week consistently and didn't lose a pound?
What the hell kind of exercise are you doing, exactly?
I mean, I guess we need to really, maybe we need to explain what we mean by exercise.
Like, are you just driving to the gym and walking in and then turning around and leaving and calling that exercise?
Yeah, if that's what you're doing, you're not going to lose weight.
If you're doing any kind of, like, actual exercise five days a week, or even three days a week, even two days a week, And you're sticking to a diet?
Yes, you will lose weight.
100%.
And if you claim otherwise, I know you're a liar, because here's how I know.
Because you are a human being.
Existing in the same reality as me, which means that you are subject to the same laws of nature that I am.
And this is, again, an indisputable law of nature.
Eat less, exercise more, and you lose weight.
You must lose weight.
You cannot not lose weight.
I don't care what's going on with your thyroid, your hormones, your whatever.
Diet and exercise will lead to weight loss.
If you say that you've tried everything and you haven't lost weight, I know that you're not telling the truth.
Because you haven't tried everything, because you obviously haven't tried the one single and simplest thing that actually works, which is to eat less and move more.
Is it hard?
Yes.
Okay, if we can move past the, like, does this work question, which is so insane, it's like, it's a...
The idea that it doesn't work is a fantasy on the level with the tooth fairy.
Okay?
If we could all move past it, if you think I'm being patronizing, I'm only being patronizing about this claim.
That a person can actually eat a healthy diet and exercise and not lose a single pound.
Yes, I'm being patronizing about that because it's insane and you're lying and you need to stop it.
And you're lying to yourself most of all.
But, if we could move past that, if we could all just acknowledge that, yes, of course that's how it works for everyone ever in history, then we could get to the other conversation about the...
The difficulties of actually putting, not the complications, but the difficulties, the hardships, rather maybe is a better word, of actually putting that into practice.
Because yes, it is hard.
Being disciplined is hard.
Putting an effort into anything is hard.
Not doing something that you want to do Like, say, not gorging yourself on french fries or cheesecake or whatever.
It's hard.
And it's especially hard when you live in a society that encourages constant and unrestrained consumption in every conceivable form.
You are encouraged and enabled to be in a constant state of consumption.
It was a whole lot easier for someone 100 years ago to not overeat, which is also why there weren't very many fat people 100 years ago.
And that demonstrates, yet again, the link between eating exercise and the amount of lard on your body.
So, it is hard.
Yes.
But it's, and I'll even go so far as to admit, because it's clearly true, that it's harder for some people than it is for others.
It might be a lot harder for you than it is for me.
Everyone's metabolism is different.
You will lose weight if you do these things, but you might lose it at different rates and all that kind of stuff.
There are some people who might just be naturally more disciplined, naturally it might be easier for some people to follow a strict diet.
There are people who But it's still simple.
out a lot and they really enjoy it.
And so because they enjoy it, it's easier for them to do.
There are other people who might get into a habit of working out and they might stick
to it for a year but never really like it.
While there are other people that go to the gym and they just love every second of it.
And yes, if you love it, it's easier to do than if you don't.
So like all of that is true.
But it's still simple.
And in life, the simple things are often the hardest.
To be an all-around decent, productive, honest, hard-working, healthy person is hard.
And it's also, again, extremely simple.
We all know how to be that sort of person.
We all know what sort of choices to make in any given situation to get ourselves closer to that ideal.
If we don't make those choices, it's not because we're confused by complexities and nuances.
It's because it's hard, and we don't want to do the hard thing.
What you see people doing on this subject, it's the same thing that people do in so many other facets of life.
They try to complicate what should be very uncomplicated.
When it comes to obesity, if you can convince yourself that it's complicated, then you have an excuse to remain obese.
Sure, you'd like to lose weight, but losing weight is such a complex, convoluted, tangled web.
You would lose weight if only you could figure out how.
If only it were possible.
If only it were that simple.
But it isn't, you say, so what can you do but eat another muffin and continue on with your day?
This is the rationalizing that people do.
They hide behind imagined complexities.
They take refuge in the intricacies and complications that they've invented in their heads.
It's a lie.
It's all a way to avoid the simple thing.
And avoiding the simple thing is now the American way.
At least it has become the American way.
Which is also how we've become one of the fattest nations to ever exist on the planet.
And that is why the people pretending that weight loss is complicated are all today cancelled.
