0:00

Today on The Matt Wall Show, with the death

0:02

of O.J. Simpson yesterday, leftists in the media are

0:04

finally coming out and saying out loud what we've

0:06

always known, which is that O.J. was a hero

0:08

to them because he killed white people. Also, Congresswoman

0:11

Rashida Tlaib is, for some reason, unable to condemn

0:13

those in her district who chanted death to America.

0:15

Academics have come up with a new gender-neutral

0:17

term for Hispanics after LaTinks proved to be

0:20

a flop. And I have exclusive

0:22

footage from a Department of Interior event where

0:24

a poem called I Am Diversity was performed.

0:26

It's as bad as it sounds, all of that, and more today

0:28

on The Matt Wall Show. ["I Am Diversity"]

0:55

You know, I sent a portrait to paint your life

0:58

a few years ago. The process was quick and easy.

1:00

I loved their work so much that I've used them

1:02

multiple times since then. With Mother's Day and Father's Day

1:04

around the corner, paint your life is the perfect gift

1:06

for someone you love. They create

1:08

hand-painted portraits that fit almost any budget and

1:11

are a great gift idea for your mother,

1:13

your father, or both. Paint your life seriously

1:15

transform your photos into a one-of-a-kind, beautiful, hand-painted

1:17

portrait by professional artists. What I really love

1:19

is how they can create anything you imagine,

1:21

put yourself in a location you've always wanted

1:24

to go to, or add a lost loved

1:26

one to a special occasion to create the portrait of

1:28

your dreams. You can choose the artist, art medium, whether

1:30

that's oil, acrylic, watercolor, or

1:32

charcoal. They even have a

1:34

great selection of quality frames as well. Their

1:36

user-friendly platform lets you order a custom-made hand-painted

1:39

portrait in less than five minutes. They'll get

1:41

your professional hand-painted portrait in as little as

1:43

two weeks, and you could give the most

1:45

meaningful gift with paintyourlife.com. There's no risk. If

1:47

you don't love the final painting, your money

1:49

is refunded, guaranteed. And right now it's a

1:51

limited time offer. Get 20% off your painting

1:54

and free shipping. And to get the special

1:56

offer, text the word MAT to 87204. That's

1:59

MAT to 87204. Seven to three, or

2:01

four paint your life, celebrate the moments that

2:03

matter, most message it and rates may apply

2:05

see terms for details. Back.

2:07

In Nineteen Eighty Five, there were two very

2:10

different versions of the O J. Simpson Trial

2:12

play Now, and for most of the country,

2:14

the trial was a spectacle. Lot of crazy

2:16

stuff happen so much that most people don't

2:19

remember all of it now overnight. For example,

2:21

the National Enquirer tabloid morphed into a crack

2:23

legal publication that broke several instances stories about

2:25

proceedings. They had twenty reporters working on the

2:28

case coming up with a transcript and scoops

2:30

that every else missed. And of course, Norm

2:32

Macdonald famously had so many jokes about the

2:34

case that he was fired from Snl because

2:37

of it. And decade since

2:39

there are hasn't been any trial

2:41

remotely like. The. O J trial

2:43

covered while the wall for months by pretty

2:45

much every channel America it was. It was

2:47

entertainment. At. The same time

2:49

and black areas of Los Angeles and in

2:52

major cities all over the country, the O

2:54

J. Simpson trial wasn't just a spectacle. I

2:56

also about revenge for the Rodney King acquittals.

2:58

And. Police corruption more generally mess with

3:00

disgust quite a bit of the last

3:02

thirty years of many people have appointed

3:04

that are. Less attention

3:07

is that. With. The O J trial

3:09

for the first time. It became widely

3:11

acceptable to think about the deaths of

3:13

with people. As. Necessary collateral

3:15

damage to exact political

3:17

revenge. Now. There is no. Social.

3:20

Media the time of course, and table

3:22

news was pretty sanitize, at least by

3:24

today's standards. So. Nobody with

3:27

her with a major television platform came right

3:29

out and said this directly. The

3:31

didn't need, so there was obvious, especially if

3:33

you look at how little concern there was

3:35

among Oj supporters for Nicole Brown and Ron

3:37

Goldman and their families. Because Brown, as you

3:39

might remember, I was repeatedly

3:41

beaten by O J before she divorced him and

3:43

then he hunter down and nearly cut her head

3:46

off. Everyone knew this of on knew that it

3:48

happened of and we did it. Or.

3:50

Not everybody cared there was apparent

3:52

from the reactions and Oj was

3:54

acquitted. There was euphoria among among

3:56

some people who broke down along

3:58

racial lines. Watch. Superior

4:02

Court of California, County

4:04

of Los Angeles. In

4:10

the matter of the people of the state of

4:12

California versus Orange Ball James Simpson, Case

4:18

number VA097, 211. In

4:26

the matter of the people of

4:28

the state of California versus Orange

4:31

Ball James Simpson, Case

4:33

number VA097, 211.

4:44

We,

5:01

the jury, and the embarrassing call of

5:03

auction, found a defendant, Orange Ball James

5:08

Simpson, not guilty of the calm of

5:11

murder, in violation of Senior Court Section 187A,

5:14

a felony upon the program's Kingston, a

5:16

human being of charge in top of

5:18

the information. The

5:24

peer report of the state of California

5:26

County of Los Angeles, in the matter of the

5:28

people of the state of California versus Orange Ball

5:30

James Simpson. So

5:32

it's pretty disturbing footage, especially since at the

5:35

time it didn't cause a whole lot of

5:37

outrage, and thousands of people all over the

5:39

country, most of them blacks, celebrated the acquittal

5:41

of someone who obviously just murdered two people.

5:44

At the time, serious people understood

5:46

that this was jury nullification, but

5:49

nobody really explored the implications. What

5:51

does a country look like over the long term

5:54

when murdering white people is seen as acceptable?

5:58

What happens when the media major political

6:01

figures endorse this barbarism. Not

6:04

a lot of people seem to care, even after a juror

6:06

from the OJ trial came right out and admitted many years

6:08

after the fact that 90% of

6:10

the jurors knew that OJ was guilty,

6:12

but the jurors acquitted him anyway because

6:14

they were driven by a desire for,

6:17

quote unquote, payback. Watch. Do

6:19

you think that they're members of the jury

6:22

that voted to acquit OJ because

6:24

of Rodney King? Yes.

6:27

You do? Yes.

6:29

What do you think felt that way? Oh,

6:32

about 90% of it. Did

6:37

you feel that

6:39

way? Yes. That

6:43

was payback. Uh-huh. You

6:45

think that's right? Well,

6:51

she can't say it's right, but it's what happened. It's what they

6:53

did. And she knows it's wrong to let a

6:56

killer go free, but you know, that's what she

6:58

did. That's what they did. That's

7:00

what the jury did. And this has all

7:02

been known for a while now. But what's

7:04

less widely known is that the Los Angeles

7:06

DA at the time, a Democrat named Gil

7:09

Garcetti engineered this

7:11

acquittal. An attorney named Dylan Esper has cataloged all

7:13

the ways that Garcetti rigged the trial in favor

7:15

of OJ. The big one is that he didn't

7:17

try the case in Brentwood, which is in West

7:20

Los Angeles. That would have been the logical place

7:22

to hold the trial because Simpson had lived in

7:24

Brentwood for two decades. But Brentwood

7:26

is almost exclusively white, and Garcetti recognized that

7:28

for OJ to have the best chance of

7:30

acquittal, given the racial politics of the

7:32

case, he needed to pick a new venue. So

7:34

he chose downtown Los Angeles, where he was able

7:36

to secure an overwhelmingly black jury with just a

7:38

couple of white people on it. And

7:41

Garcetti made several other decisions to swing the case for

7:43

OJ. For example, he declined to pursue

7:45

the death penalty after publicly meeting with Johnny Cochran,

7:47

who was just about to join OJ's defense team.

7:49

That was a significant decision because a death penalty

7:52

jury has to answer yes to the

7:54

question of whether they'd be OK with sentencing somebody

7:56

to death. That weaves out a lot

7:58

of the left wing jurors. So

8:00

Garcetti chose not to do that. And

8:03

additionally, Garcetti chose to

8:05

present the prosecution's entire case during

8:07

pretrial hearings, giving the

8:09

defense a chance to scope out all the witnesses

8:11

well in advance of the trial. And

8:13

as Esper points out, this ultimately

8:16

worked to the defense's advantage in a

8:18

pretty major way. O.J.'s lawyers picked up

8:20

on one inconsistency in the pretrial testimony

8:22

relating to the amount of blood collected

8:24

by police investigators, and they made that

8:27

a major part of their defense, which they were prepared

8:29

for because it was all presented to them. Now, these

8:32

were not errors or sloppy work by

8:34

the prosecutors. These were

8:36

intentional efforts by Garcetti to

8:38

avoid convicting O.J. Simpson, which would have

8:40

ended his political career. Pretty

8:42

much every black voter in Los Angeles would have voted

8:45

to remove Garcetti if O.J. had been found guilty. Indeed,

8:48

even after O.J. Simpson was found not guilty, Garcetti

8:50

refused to prosecute him for perjury in the civil

8:53

trial, even though it was clear that O.J. Simpson

8:55

lied several times. But

8:57

that's how committed Garcetti was to keeping

8:59

O.J. Simpson out of jail. Again, anybody

9:01

paying attention during this whole saga understood all

9:03

of this. None of these are new revelations.

9:05

It's not new information. What

9:09

is new is that now that O.J. Simpson is dead—he

9:12

died yesterday of cancer, as you've probably heard— mainstream

9:15

news outlets are now coming right out

9:17

in admitting all of this, really for

9:20

the first time. They're

9:22

acknowledging that O.J. Simpson was guilty,

9:24

but that he simply couldn't be convicted because

9:27

of race politics. So here, for

9:29

example, is a CNN journalist explaining on camera

9:31

yesterday that in 1995, a

9:34

lot of black people loved to see a black

9:36

man get away with murdering two white people. Now,

9:39

she catches herself midway through, but it's

9:41

very clear what she was saying. Watch. It's

9:46

also just worth noting how much was

9:48

impacted by this trial, Jake. So many

9:50

things happened. We saw policing changing here

9:53

in the city. And it's

9:55

also worth noting, because of that unrest,

9:57

that racial unrest in the 90s, that

9:59

is why— So many people who may not

10:01

have been invested in OJ Simpson, we're just happy

10:03

to see that someone who was rich and famous

10:05

and black to get away with this,

10:08

but other people did in the system as well, too.

10:11

Yeah, we'd have a much better understanding of today's race politics

10:14

and how to put an end to it. If we

10:16

could have admitted this back in 1995, a

10:19

lot of people wanted to see a black man get away

10:21

with murder. Some of the

10:23

thought he was innocent is that they knew he was guilty and

10:25

they wanted him to get away with it. The

10:27

two white people are collateral damage,

10:29

basically. A professor named

10:31

Mark Lamont Hill, who maybe you've heard of,

10:33

spelled this out very clearly yesterday. He

10:36

wrote this quote, OJ Simpson was

10:38

an abusive liar who abandoned his community long

10:40

before he killed two people in cold blood.

10:43

His acquittal for murder was the

10:45

correct and necessary result of

10:47

a racist criminal legal system. But

10:49

he's still a monster, not a martyr. Now,

10:52

in other words, you can kill white

10:54

people without penalty as long as the

10:56

criminal legal system is racist and

10:59

people like Mark Lamont Hill believe

11:01

it's irredeemably, irreparably racist forever, but

11:04

then it's fine to basically decapitate white people in

11:07

their own homes. That's what he's saying. Like

11:09

the fact that he's acknowledging that OJ Simpson was a murdering

11:13

monster, that doesn't make his

11:15

position more reasonable. It makes it worse because

11:17

he's acknowledging that and still saying

11:20

that it was good that he was let off the hook. This

11:23

is according to someone who collects a paycheck paid

11:25

by the government of New York to teach the

11:27

next generation of Americans, by the way. Yesterday,

11:30

Hill elaborated on his reasoning, essentially

11:32

saying that OJ had every

11:35

right to kill his victims because a

11:37

police officer involved in the case used

11:40

a racial slur at some point in

11:42

the past. Watch. I

11:44

don't share a belief

11:47

in his innocence. There's a

11:49

difference between being legally, between

11:51

being factually innocent and being

11:53

legally not guilty. OJ Simpson

11:55

was legally

11:57

not guilty. O.J.

12:00

Simpson should not have been found

12:02

guilty. You know why? Because there

12:04

was a police officer,

12:08

a racist police officer.

12:12

It's really that simple. A

12:14

racist police officer. Now,

12:17

you'll notice that there's no regard whatsoever

12:19

in Mark Lamont Hill's mind for the

12:22

two victims. Their

12:24

families aren't entitled to justice, all

12:27

because a detective on their murder case used

12:29

a racial slur. So if you use the

12:31

n-word, then any white person who's tangentially related

12:33

to you deserves to

12:35

die. That's basically what he said. And

12:38

a lot of people thought this way in 1995, but

12:41

they didn't say it in public for the most part, and

12:43

that is what is changing now. The

12:46

reason several mainstream outlets spent yesterday

12:48

eulogizing O.J. Simpson as some kind

12:50

of victim is that

12:52

they approve of what he did. There's

12:54

no other way to spin it. The New York Times,

12:56

for example, wrote that, quote, a jury

12:59

in the murder trial cleared Mr. Simpson, but

13:01

the case ruined his world. Now,

13:03

they quickly edited that out of the piece. You know, when

13:05

people pointed out that he stabbed

13:07

two people to death and therefore ruined their

13:10

worlds too. And actually he

13:12

ruined his own world by committing the

13:14

stabbing. First part, NPR

13:16

wrote the following headline on something called

13:18

threads, quote, breaking news.

13:21

The football great Orinthol James Simpson, known

13:23

as O.J., has died. The

13:25

football great, you know, as everybody

13:27

knows him, of course. The

13:29

Associated Press, meanwhile, tweeted, legendary athlete,

13:31

actor and millionaire O.J. Simpson's murder

13:33

trial lost him the American dream.

13:37

Again, it's the trial that lost him the American dream,

13:39

not the fact that he, you know, actually went out

13:41

and killed two people. And those are all real headlines.

13:44

And everyone knows exactly what's going on here. The

13:47

only way to get glowing headlines like this from

13:49

the corporate media is if you kill people

13:52

they don't like. It's the

13:54

same reason the Washington Post described that

13:56

ISIS leader as an austere religious scholar.

13:59

O.J. Simpson killed members of a disfavored demographic,

14:01

so they're mourning him as a victim, not

14:03

the people he killed. And

14:06

this kind of attitude was, you know, was on

14:08

display everywhere yesterday. There was no focus

14:10

on the victims whatsoever. CBS News interviewed one

14:12

of OJ's lawyers in the 1995 trial named

14:15

Carl Douglas, and in the interview he

14:17

comes out and declares what he

14:20

saw as a main benefit of

14:22

the trial. Again, it had nothing to do with

14:24

justice or finding the truth or the real

14:27

killers or anything. Instead, it was

14:29

about showing to the world that

14:31

black lawyers can get their defendants off

14:33

to watch. What

14:36

truths were revealed through the course of

14:38

this trial that are

14:40

still being struggled with today?

14:44

Your listeners don't understand

14:46

that era of our

14:48

country. That was

14:51

before the internet. Emails

14:53

were not as widely used as

14:55

today. That's before Twitter, Facebook, or

14:57

X, Instagram. So

15:00

everyone was transfixed on this

15:02

case and on this trial

15:05

that was being led by an

15:07

African-American attorney. What

15:09

that case did for the

15:12

image of black lawyers everywhere

15:14

was significant. And whatever

15:16

you think of this verdict, for

15:20

black Americans, it was not

15:22

speaking about OJ Simpson per

15:24

se. He didn't speak

15:26

to the black community in the ways

15:28

that other black icons did. But

15:31

for the system, for black lawyers

15:33

to be successful, for people to

15:35

believe that at least once in

15:38

our history, the system acknowledged the

15:40

excellence of black lawyering, that was

15:42

a watershed event for all of

15:45

the country to observe. And I'm

15:47

proud to have been a part

15:49

of that nine member team. So

15:54

he says, quote, whatever you think of this verdict

15:56

for black Americans, it was not speaking about OJ

15:59

Simpson per se. Well,

16:01

that about sums it up, straight from one of

16:03

OJ's lawyers. The OJ trial

16:05

was not about OJ Simpson. The trial was arguably

16:08

the beginning, or at least a landmark moment on

16:10

the way towards our

16:12

current era of racial insanity. The

16:14

race hustlers of the time rallied around OJ, not because

16:16

they thought he was innocent, but because they saw him

16:18

as an agent of revenge. And

16:21

Democrat party elites in Los Angeles, like Gil

16:23

Garcetti, did everything they could

16:25

to ensure OJ's acquittal so that he could

16:27

serve that function. But

16:29

nobody yesterday was more explicit about this

16:32

than CNN contributor Ashley Allison, who's a

16:34

former senior advisor in the Obama White

16:36

House. Listen to what she

16:38

chose to say out loud on

16:41

national television yesterday. Watch. But

16:44

it was so racially charged because of what

16:46

had happened just before with

16:48

Rodney King, but also just how

16:51

black Americans feel about policing. It's

16:53

not like OJ Simpson was the

16:55

leader of the civil rights movement of his era. He

16:58

wasn't a social justice leader, but

17:01

he represented something for the black

17:03

community in that moment, in that

17:05

trial, particularly because there were two

17:07

white people who had been killed. And

17:09

the history around how black people

17:11

have been persecuted during slavery,

17:13

there was just so many layers. And

17:16

I guess I would just close with this, is that there

17:19

was racial tension then, there is

17:21

racial tension now. It might not

17:24

be the backdrop of the Trump

17:26

campaign, but until this country is

17:28

ready to actually have an honest

17:30

conversation about the racial dynamics from

17:32

our origin story till today, we will

17:34

always have moments like OJ Simpson that

17:36

manifest and our country will always be

17:39

divided if we don't actually deal with the

17:41

issue of race. He

17:43

represented something for black Americans because it

17:45

was two white people who had been

17:47

killed. That's

17:50

what black Americans connected with, according to this woman.

17:53

They felt affinity with OJ because he

17:55

brutally slaughtered white people. I

17:58

mean, talk about saying the quiet part. out loud, although as

18:00

we've seen, it's hardly the quiet part anymore. And you

18:03

know, I know the whole imagine if the

18:05

races were reversed thing gets old after a while, but

18:08

this really is no different from a white

18:11

cable news contributor going on cable

18:13

news and saying

18:15

that Dylan Roof, that white

18:17

people connect with Dylan Roof because it's

18:19

black people who'd been killed. Now,

18:22

of course, well, I guess I should amend that

18:24

because I could totally see a CNN

18:26

contributor saying that as

18:28

a way of condemning all white people, but imagine a

18:31

white cable news contributor saying that in

18:33

a positive way. They mean it in a good way, lionizing

18:36

Dylan Roof because he killed black people. But

18:40

you can't imagine that would just never, ever happen. And

18:44

probably if someone did say that on

18:46

cable news, not only of course, they'd

18:48

be fired immediately, their life would be over,

18:50

they'd probably be arrested. They'd probably

18:52

find a way to arrest you for

18:55

that. But

18:57

this mentality we just saw there has

18:59

metastasized over time, helped along by Barack

19:02

Obama leading to the rise of BLM

19:04

and culminating in Floyd and the 2020

19:06

riots and then the post Floyd era

19:08

of DEI. And now 30

19:11

years later, so-called race relations have

19:13

deteriorated to the point that the

19:15

race hustlers finally feel comfortable coming

19:17

out and telling us what

19:20

their motives were all along. So

19:23

yes, OJ Simpson is dead, but

19:25

the legacy of that trial, particularly

19:27

the racial violence and

19:29

distrust that it normalized is

19:32

still, unfortunately, very

19:34

much alive. Now let's get

19:36

to our five headlines. Grand

19:43

Canyon University is a private Christian university

19:45

located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. GCU believes

19:47

that our creator has endowed us with

19:49

certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and

19:51

the pursuit of happiness. They believe in

19:54

equal opportunities and that the American dream

19:56

is driven by purpose. GCU equips you

19:58

to serve others in ways that promote

20:00

your flourishing, which will create a ripple

20:02

effect of transformation for generations to come.

20:04

Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or

20:06

doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus,

20:09

and hybrid learning environments are designed to

20:11

help you achieve your degree. GCU has

20:13

over 330 academic programs as of September,

20:15

2023. GCU will

20:17

meet you where you are and provide a

20:19

path to help you fulfill your unique academic,

20:22

personal, and professional goals. Find your purpose today

20:24

at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, and affordable.

20:27

Visit gcu.edu. That's gcu.edu.

20:30

Billy Wire has this report. Representative Rashida Talib

20:33

got testy with Fox Business reporter Hilary Vaughn

20:35

over a question about a rally in her

20:37

home district where anti-Israel protesters chanted, Death to

20:39

America, and called for the eradication of Israel.

20:44

Anti-American protesters, more importantly, calling

20:46

Death to America. The rally in question, which

20:50

took place in Dearborn, Michigan, featured

20:52

a speaker named Tariq Bazi.

20:55

We played this clip a

20:57

few days ago who was affiliated with

20:59

the Hadi Institute. And just to

21:01

remind you, he said, we've

21:03

been asked in the past why our protests on

21:05

the International Al-Quds Day are so anti-America. Why don't

21:07

we just focus on Israel and not talk so

21:09

much about America? Gaza has shown the

21:11

entire world why their protests are so anti-America, because

21:13

it's the United States government that provides the funds

21:15

for all the atrocities that we just

21:18

heard about. And then attendees shouted, Death to

21:20

America. And they talked about, and he

21:23

went on to go out talking about why America should

21:25

be dismantled entirely and so on. So

21:29

this reporter tracks

21:32

Rashida Talib down and asked

21:34

her about this, because again, this is happening in her district.

21:37

And these are her supporters. These are her

21:39

voters. These are her constituents. And

21:42

what does she have to say about it? Let's find out. Why

22:02

can't you just say whether or not you condemn people

22:04

chanting Death to America? Why are you

22:06

afraid to talk to Fox? No.

22:08

It's not. Not, listen, using

22:11

racist tropes for my community is

22:13

what Fox News is about and I don't

22:15

talk to Fox News. Is Death to

22:17

America racist? No, it's just Fox

22:19

News. Is chanting Death to America racist? Talking

22:22

about your guys racist tropes. You

22:24

know, you guys are, you guys know exactly what you do. I

22:27

know you're Islamophobic, but you guys gotta go deal

22:29

with it. You're not going to use me. Oh,

22:33

so it's Islamophobic. It's Islamophobic to

22:35

object to Muslims chanting Death to

22:37

America in our own homeland. And

22:41

you notice, Talib almost sounds like she's about

22:43

to cry there. And

22:46

not because people were chanting Death to America, of

22:48

course, but because she's being asked to condemn it. And

22:52

this should obviously be automatic expulsion

22:54

from Congress. People are chanting Death

22:57

to America in your district. And

23:01

if you cannot bring yourself to at least say

23:03

out loud that you disagree with it at least,

23:05

can you at least give us that? I

23:08

disagree with Death to America. I don't want to see that. She

23:11

can't do that. Well, if you can't, then you're not fit for office. And

23:14

by the way, this is not some kind of gotcha moment that

23:16

you see that from the media quite often. I

23:19

mean, it's almost always targeted at Republicans, but where,

23:22

you know, they'll call upon a Republican to denounce something

23:24

that has nothing to do with them. Oftentimes

23:27

something that like, of course, they're against, but still

23:30

you need the performance of them denouncing

23:32

it. And they

23:34

want to see the Republican dance

23:37

on a string like a marionette, like a

23:39

puppet. And

23:41

but this is not that. Okay,

23:43

because in this case, you

23:45

have not only Talib's constituents, but

23:48

her ideological allies calling

23:51

for Death to America in her district. And

23:54

there's a very real question about whether she agrees

23:56

with them or not, whether she

23:58

condones it or not. I

24:01

mean, really, there's no question about it. We know that

24:03

she does condone it and agree with

24:05

it. But that's why this is a relevant thing

24:07

to ask her. And

24:10

the headline

24:13

is that she didn't answer the question, but she did

24:15

answer it. If

24:17

you're an American politician and someone asks

24:19

you directly right to your face, do

24:21

you condemn those who say death to

24:24

America? Not answering

24:26

that is an answer. There's

24:29

really no difference substantively between how

24:31

she responded and if and on

24:34

one hand that or up on the other hand, if she had

24:36

just said, yes, I agree.

24:38

Death to America. I mean, if she had just

24:40

started chanting death to America herself right there standing

24:42

in the halls of Congress, it would

24:45

be the same answer because that is

24:47

the answer. She agrees with them. Breaking

24:49

news from Axios reading

24:52

now, Latin, a gender neutral way to

24:54

describe or refer to people with Latino

24:56

origins, is surging in

24:58

popularity on university campuses in museums and

25:01

among researchers and media. Catch

25:04

all terms like Hispanic or Latino have

25:06

come under scrutiny for blurring important nuances

25:08

and presenting a large part of the

25:10

US population as a monolith. Latin

25:13

is part of a movement centered on

25:15

wanting to build and foster an inclusive

25:17

community since Carlos Zavala, vice president consulting

25:19

from the consulting firm Whiteboard Advisors. 41%

25:23

of US Latinos in the latest Axios poll

25:27

say that they are comfortable with Latin. The

25:30

increased use of Latin comes as Latinx

25:32

or Latinx has been phased out by

25:34

some organizations or banned by officials. Latinx

25:38

has been pushed by US academics as a gender neutral

25:40

option for Latinos, but was criticized

25:42

for using the letter X in a manner

25:44

that's unnatural to Spanish speakers. Okay,

25:48

well, first of all, they

25:50

claim that 41% of Hispanics are comfortable

25:52

with Latin, comfortable with being called something

25:54

that sounds dangerously close to latrine. But

25:57

then I looked at the survey they linked to and I didn't. even

26:00

see that question asked. So maybe

26:03

I missed it, maybe it was, but I couldn't

26:05

find it. So

26:07

assuming for a moment that

26:09

41% of Hispanics really did say in

26:11

some poll that they're comfortable being

26:14

called Latine, it's

26:16

still obviously not what most Hispanics

26:18

prefer. And this is

26:21

not something that Hispanics came up

26:23

with. Okay, this is not, there's

26:25

a reason why these terms are

26:29

not coming, are not originating from that part

26:31

of the world. There

26:34

are a lot of things that are sneaking over

26:37

the border, right? But that's not, that terminology is

26:39

not coming from south of the border.

26:41

It's coming, it's starting here and they're trying to

26:45

export it down that way. So

26:49

left-wing academics are inventing these

26:51

new inane terms to refer

26:53

to Hispanics. And they're just

26:55

trying to see which one they can get to stick. That's all that's

26:57

happening. They want to find out which

26:59

one is the least objectionable to the people

27:01

that it labels. And,

27:03

and then, and then that's what they're going to go with.

27:05

And that's what's going on here. Meanwhile, of course, what

27:08

makes this all the more absurd is

27:11

that if you're really determined to find a gender

27:14

neutral term to refer to these people,

27:17

well, there's Hispanic. Okay, so

27:19

you can just say that and these academics and

27:21

people in media who want a gender

27:23

neutral term, they've never

27:25

been able to explain why Hispanic doesn't work. Like,

27:28

why can't you just say that? What's the problem?

27:32

And even if you don't want that, well, then, like,

27:35

why not just say Latin? We

27:38

call it Latin America anyway,

27:40

don't we? So

27:42

why do you need to, to fix

27:45

another letter onto it? If

27:48

this really is a problem for you, then

27:50

you could just say Latin, and

27:52

that would cover all the paces. Instead,

27:56

they're like going through every letter in

27:58

the alphabet until they land on on

28:00

one that people are willing to use.

28:04

So it's, you know, they started with the worst

28:06

letter they could choose for this

28:08

project, which is X. So

28:11

they tried Latinx, that didn't work. Now they're trying

28:13

Latine. If that doesn't work, you

28:15

could do, I don't know, Latino,

28:17

put a U at the end, Latink,

28:21

put a K. How about

28:23

this one? Or you could

28:25

do a Z, Latines. Or

28:29

Latini, put a Y at the

28:31

end, the Latini people. But

28:35

none of this makes any sense

28:37

because Spanish, of course, is a

28:39

gendered language. That's

28:42

the language. That's what

28:44

it is. And I made

28:47

this point before, of course, but it bears repeating. What

28:50

we see with things like Latinks

28:52

and Latine, what

28:54

we see with this is that this is

28:57

the only form of colonization that

28:59

is really happening in the world today. And

29:01

it's the most objectionable form because

29:04

colonization in and of itself in principle

29:06

is not evil. It can be quite

29:08

good. It

29:10

has been a force for good historically, for the

29:12

most part. You think about where the

29:14

world would be, think about where this continent would

29:17

be, if not

29:19

for colonization, well, we'd still be in the Stone Age. That's

29:21

where we would be. But

29:24

colonization can be done in

29:26

sinister ways and for sinister

29:29

reasons. And that's

29:31

what this is. This is

29:33

cultural colonization. It's ideological colonization.

29:36

It is taking American, it's

29:42

left-wing American academics

29:46

quite explicitly trying to impose

29:48

their way of thinking and

29:51

their way of speaking on

29:53

an entire group of people and onto a

29:55

language, trying

29:58

to impose their own language. their

30:00

obsession with gender

30:02

neutrality onto a

30:04

gendered language. And of

30:06

course, this is just one facet of

30:09

the overall ideological colonization agenda.

30:11

There's also the hanging pride

30:13

flags on embassies and conservative

30:15

Christian countries, forcing

30:18

the LGBT stuff, the gender

30:20

neutral stuff, the trans stuff,

30:22

all of that is colonization.

30:25

And it's really the only form that happens, at

30:28

least it's the only form happening. It's

30:30

the only form of colonization being done

30:35

in the Western world anyway. All

30:38

right, I wanna show, we've been talking of

30:40

course about this week about the

30:43

fight over abortion, the

30:49

fight on the right among conservatives

30:51

over abortion and what the position

30:54

on that should be heading into

30:56

the election. Even

30:58

though, as we talked about yesterday,

31:01

the position is really quite clear that

31:03

killing babies is wrong all

31:05

the time. And that's really the position and it's

31:07

the clearest position, it's the right position. It's

31:10

a pretty unassailable position morally and logically.

31:13

But there's certainly not a consensus on that on

31:15

the right. And

31:18

we know that Carrie Lake is running for

31:20

Senate in Arizona, had

31:22

already come out and said that she

31:24

opposed a Supreme Court

31:27

decision in Arizona that would result

31:29

in the banning of most abortions in the state.

31:32

So people on her side

31:34

of this discussion have been

31:36

saying that, well, this should not be

31:39

a federal ban, it's a state's rights issue. And

31:41

then we discover, what do you know, that

31:43

they're claiming they just want it to be a

31:45

state's rights issue, but then when a state actually

31:47

does ban it, they don't like that either. So

31:50

it turns out they don't want abortion to be

31:52

state's rights, they just want there to be abortion.

31:54

This is just pro-abortion is what it is. And

31:56

so Carrie Lake put out a video yesterday

31:59

and it's a five- minute video, we're not gonna play the whole thing.

32:01

I want to play at least the

32:03

first, you know, the first portion of it, where

32:06

she's talking about her views on the

32:08

topic of abortion, and why

32:10

she opposes this abortion ban, even while

32:12

claiming to be pro-life and be a

32:14

conservative. Let's watch some of this. This

32:18

total ban on abortion that the Arizona

32:20

Supreme Court just ruled on is

32:23

out of line with where the people of

32:25

this state are. The issue is

32:27

less about banning abortion and more about

32:29

saving babies. I agree with President Trump,

32:31

this is such a personal and private

32:33

issue. I chose life, but

32:36

I'm not every woman. I

32:38

want to make sure that every woman

32:40

who finds herself pregnant has more

32:42

choices so that she can make that choice

32:44

that I made. I'll never forget

32:46

the first time I

32:49

got pregnant, taking that pregnancy test,

32:51

looking down, and

32:53

I was excited, but I'll be

32:55

honest, I was afraid as well. I

32:57

was nervous. I was anxious. It's natural

32:59

for women to be nervous and anxious

33:02

when they're pregnant. I never would ever

33:04

assume that any woman had the same

33:06

exact feelings I had or

33:09

situation I had. We know that some

33:11

women are economically in

33:14

a horrible situation. They might be in

33:16

an abusive relationship. They might

33:18

be the victim of rape. I agree with

33:20

President Trump. We must have exceptions for rape,

33:22

incest, and the life of a mother. We

33:25

as American people don't agree on

33:27

everything all of the time. First

33:29

of all, there

33:32

are some conservatives that are defending what you just

33:34

watched there. If

33:37

she did the same thing on

33:39

immigration or gun control, I

33:43

don't think those conservatives would be defending her. And

33:47

guess what? The most right-wing, most

33:50

conservative position on those topics is

33:53

also not the mainstream.

33:55

It's not where most people are. Most

34:00

Americans want immigration

34:02

laws to be enforced. Most Americans

34:05

don't want illegal immigrants taking our jobs. Most

34:08

Americans basically

34:11

want gun rights. But

34:15

if you're truly conservative on these issues, you

34:18

most likely take that farther.

34:20

I know I certainly do. You

34:24

take that principle farther than the mainstream

34:26

does. That's

34:30

why it's the mainstream. I

34:33

think that if Carrie Lake had, say, looked at

34:35

the polls and then put out this little squishy

34:37

video with the music in the background and the

34:39

piano music and explaining why

34:41

she's moderated her positions

34:43

on any other topic, I

34:46

don't think it would be found acceptable by

34:48

almost any conservative. And

34:51

yet this is supposed to be acceptable on abortion. It's not.

34:55

So here's the problem. Number

35:00

one, this is just wrong. It's wrong.

35:04

If you care about that sort of thing, it is

35:06

morally wrong. It's wrong on principle to

35:09

come out in support of, well,

35:11

women have to make choices. Sometimes you have to make the choice to

35:13

kill your baby. It's just a choice that has to be made. It's

35:18

a personal, it's a very personal, difficult

35:20

choice to kill the baby. And sometimes you have

35:22

to do that. It's

35:25

actually a reprehensible, disgusting

35:27

view. And

35:32

also it is

35:34

politically suicidal, is not

35:37

going to work. So

35:39

even if you don't care about the morality of it,

35:42

even if you scoff at that and you say,

35:45

oh, yeah, Matt's just being a purist,

35:48

he's trying to be one of those true conservative types. Fine.

35:52

Then let's talk about the politics of it. Politically,

35:55

it's a dumb strategy. It

35:58

is the strategy the Republican establishment. establishment

36:00

has been using for decades. It is

36:03

not new. This is no different from

36:05

what John McCain would do, or Mitt

36:08

Romney, or any of

36:10

the Bushes, okay, Jeb George, any

36:12

of the Georges. It's

36:15

the same thing. It's the exact

36:17

same strategy, exact same position. Was

36:20

it a brilliant political strategy when they did

36:23

it? Has it

36:25

been a path to conservative dominance in

36:27

government at any point in the last

36:29

30, 40 years, huh? No. This

36:32

has always been the establishment Republican view

36:34

that the only way you win is

36:36

by moderating your views, by adopt, by

36:38

looking at where the left is on

36:40

a topic, and coming

36:44

as close as you can to them

36:46

while still pretending to be conservative, by

36:49

getting as far away as you can from

36:52

the right wing on every topic.

36:54

That has been the Republican

36:57

establishment strategy forever,

37:02

and it has not worked. So

37:06

what do you achieve here? What does

37:08

Carrie Lake achieve with this video? Where

37:11

she is again, condemning a

37:13

state ban on abortion.

37:15

So this is not, you

37:17

cannot hide behind states rights. Arizona

37:21

has the right, the state right, to

37:24

pass this law. She's saying she doesn't want the law. It's

37:26

a pro-life law she doesn't want. And

37:29

the law even carves out cases

37:31

where the life of the mother is jeopardized, even though

37:33

you never need abortion to save the life of the

37:35

mother. It's not real. But okay,

37:37

if it was real, it's that's, you know,

37:39

that that has been carved out. That's an

37:42

exception that's granted. She

37:44

still doesn't like it. And instead, we

37:46

get this ridiculous video. Everything

37:49

she's saying here, this is Clinton era

37:51

Democrat talking points. This is this is

37:54

Republican establishment talking points, which means that

37:56

it is Clinton era, mid 90s. is

38:00

democrat talking points on abortion safe legal and

38:02

rare is what she's talking about. She might

38:04

as well just said that directly because that

38:06

was that was the the

38:08

mantra of the pro-abortion movement for years

38:10

and years and years. And

38:13

that's what she's saying now. And

38:15

it doesn't work politically. And I'll tell you why it

38:18

doesn't work politically for two reasons, because

38:20

here's what it does. It

38:22

will not attract the

38:26

kinds of voters who care so deeply

38:28

about abortion, that if

38:30

you're not, you know, that if you're too pro-life, they

38:32

won't vote for you. Those

38:34

kinds of voters aren't

38:36

voting for Republicans. Okay. If

38:39

they care that much about

38:42

abortion, they don't need the

38:44

moderate, squishy, milk toast version

38:46

of of of

38:49

pro-abortion. Why they don't need that, then go get the

38:51

real thing from the Democrats. If

38:53

they care about it, they don't

38:55

need that from you. So

38:57

why if I'm a voter in

39:00

Arizona, and I care and I care a lot about

39:02

killing babies, and I care so much about it that

39:04

I would that I would refrain from voting for a

39:06

pop for a Republican because of it. Why

39:08

would this convince me to vote for Carrie Lake? Yeah,

39:12

she's like moderately on my side now.

39:14

But then the other guy is

39:17

fully on my side. So I'll just vote for him. You

39:21

can't you can't out, you know, you

39:23

can't find an angle here. You can't

39:26

outflank the Democrat to his

39:28

left on abortion. So

39:33

it's not going to do much for those voters. What

39:35

will it achieve? Well, I'll tell you one thing it will

39:37

achieve is that you

39:40

have alienated and betrayed

39:42

the voters in your state,

39:45

who are pro-life and do care deeply about

39:47

this issue. Now,

39:49

sure, some of them will still vote for you, they'll hold their

39:51

nose and vote for you less serve two evils and all that.

39:54

But you have demoralized them and demoralizing

39:57

your base going into an election is

39:59

a stupid. strategy. It's

40:02

also one that if you notice the

40:04

Democrats never ever do. They

40:07

understand that having your base moral,

40:10

you know, motivated and

40:14

excited and amped up, they understand the value

40:16

of that. It's only Republicans that don't get

40:18

this. So that's

40:20

all you've achieved. You've

40:22

demoralized your own, your own base. And

40:25

it doesn't matter. Look, I know there are other conservatives

40:27

that will lecture the conservatives in Arizona.

40:29

Go vote for anyway, lesser two evils. It'll be your

40:31

fault. That's fine. You

40:33

can lecture all you want, but I'm just telling you. And

40:37

look, if you haven't been in the pro-life fight, if you

40:39

haven't been in the movement, then I know

40:42

you don't get it. I don't really care about

40:44

your opinion. There are some people that have been in this

40:46

fight for decades. They care deeply about it. You might not get

40:48

it. You might not understand, but

40:51

they care deeply about it because they actually do believe that

40:53

babies are being killed by the millions. And

40:57

so if you believe that, it's hard,

40:59

it's impossible to not see this issue

41:01

as at least one of the top issues that we

41:03

face as a culture. And

41:08

you need those voters as a Republican. You

41:10

can't win without them. And so

41:12

this is just, this is insanely

41:15

stupid. It really is. Because

41:18

she didn't have to put this video out. She

41:20

didn't have to come out and, and now if you want to

41:22

say that, okay, well, sure,

41:27

but it would also be politically

41:30

unwise in her position to

41:32

come out, you know, openly

41:35

and passionately advocating abortion

41:37

bans across

41:39

the board and making that a central part of

41:42

her campaign and talking about it a lot. If

41:45

you want to say that that would also be politically unwise, maybe

41:48

it would be kind of depends

41:50

on where you're running, what state you're running in and what the situation

41:52

is. But that's

41:55

one thing. As

41:57

a political calculation, it's one

41:59

thing. for a Republican candidate

42:01

to say, okay, I'm going to, you know, we'll

42:03

talk about this a little bit. I'll get my position. I'm

42:06

not going to make it the focus of my campaign for

42:08

political reasons. That's

42:10

one thing. It's another

42:12

thing to come out with

42:15

actual pro-abortion talking points. I

42:18

mean, Kerry Lake has spoken out about the abortion

42:20

issue multiple times this week, but

42:23

to condemn the pro-life position. And

42:28

then here's what's going to happen. That

42:31

if she loses, pro-lifers

42:34

are going to be the scapegoat. So that's really what's happening here.

42:37

You got some Republicans setting pro-lifers up to be

42:39

the scapegoats when they lose. That's

42:42

the plan. And

42:45

it's really disgusting and reprehensible. That's

42:47

the same thing they did in the midterms, using

42:49

pro-lifers as a scapegoat. Meanwhile,

42:52

you have like Dr. Oz running as

42:54

Republicans. Do you think maybe that's the reason they

42:56

lost? Guys pro-abortion and

42:58

he lost. So that

43:01

pro-lifers fault, you're

43:04

choosing terrible candidates who

43:07

aren't even conservative and

43:09

then they lose. And it's the fault

43:12

of pro-lifers that that happened. So

43:17

that's how they're setting this up. And

43:22

it is, again,

43:24

it's on moral grounds,

43:26

it is disgusting. But then also, if you

43:28

don't care about that, just to reiterate on

43:30

political grounds, it is really, really stupid and

43:33

it's not going to work. I'll

43:35

tell you that right now, it is not going to work. Let's

43:38

get to the comment section. It's your

43:41

own baby, it's your own baby. It's

43:45

your own baby, Kay. Regina

43:50

Chaley Academy is an accredited pre-K

43:52

through 12 classical homeschool hybrid academy for

43:54

Catholic families in cities across the US.

43:56

They provide in classroom lessons two

43:58

times a week. and in-home lesson

44:00

plans that support parents the other three days

44:03

of the week. Virginia Chelly Academy with your

44:05

support has provided nearly half a million

44:07

dollars in student tuition assistance for the 2023 to 2024

44:09

academic year. Your

44:11

participation in the Courage Under Fire Gala, a significant

44:14

event in our mission to evangelize, will help us

44:16

continue to provide tuition assistance in the future. Come

44:18

and join me on May 24th in Nashville, Tennessee

44:20

for a night of encouragement and camaraderie. I'll be

44:23

speaking alongside Dr. Abby Johnson and Father Callaway on

44:25

how to have courage and stand up for the

44:27

truth no matter what adversity you face. We'll be

44:29

joined by some of the most influential leaders in

44:32

the conservative movement for a night of connection and

44:34

inspiration. VIP tickets will have access to an

44:36

exclusive meet and greet with all speakers. If

44:38

you can't attend, please consider donating today

44:41

to support families and continue to train

44:43

the heart, mind and soul, every dollar

44:45

counts. For tickets visit courageunderfiregala.org and

44:48

use promo code dailywire at

44:50

checkout that's courageunderfiregala.org and use

44:52

code dailywire. Can't wait to see you there.

44:55

Okay, a few comments. Blake Barrett

44:57

says, my

44:59

family is still debating a Scattagories answer

45:01

nearly 30 years later, even after my

45:04

father's death. Unit of

45:06

measurement, my dad's

45:08

answer six pack. Almost

45:10

everyone voted against him. I thought it was a

45:12

valid answer. And

45:17

I'm very happy to vindicate putting

45:20

on, I wish I had my

45:22

gavel with me because this now is putting on the

45:24

Judge Walsh robe, but a

45:26

totally valid answer. Not only a valid answer,

45:28

but a creative, innovative

45:31

answer to that question. And

45:34

this is where the debates happen in Scattagories. This

45:36

is actually, as I mentioned yesterday, many

45:39

members of my family refused to ever play Scattagories with

45:41

me again, after a particularly intense

45:43

game of it about 10 years ago, where

45:46

I was, and this is because of this,

45:48

not that exact answer, but there

45:51

were several fights throughout

45:53

the game because I would

45:55

come up with interesting

45:58

creative answers. that

46:01

were well within the rules of the game, but

46:04

they didn't like it. And so that I

46:06

would get voted, I get voted off the island. And

46:09

so it was a fight. And grown

46:11

adults having knocked down drag out

46:13

fights about a board game. There's

46:16

nothing immature about that at all. Ryan

46:19

Mitchell says, Hi Matt, everyone's telling you what they think

46:21

of judge by Matt Walsh, but what do you think

46:23

about it? How do you judge your own show? Well,

46:27

I thought it was great. I liked the morality lesson

46:29

at the end of each case, especially.

46:33

When I start the, Cobra says, when

46:35

I start the abortion

46:37

debate with friends on pro-life, they

46:39

keep going back to, if the baby dies in

46:42

the womb and doesn't come out, if

46:44

a woman can't get an abortion, then they're forced

46:46

to wait until they're septic for doctors to do

46:48

something, how do you respond? Well,

46:52

that's an easy one actually. That's

46:54

not an abortion. The baby has already

46:56

tragically died in the womb. And

47:00

then it's a matter of removing

47:02

the tragically dead child. That's

47:05

not abortion. Abortion is, there's no abortion,

47:07

of course. Of course, the baby dies in the

47:09

womb and you need to remove

47:13

the baby. Of course you should.

47:15

And that again, is not an abortion. Abortion

47:17

is the kids, the direct

47:19

and intentional killing of the child.

47:22

That's what an abortion is. And anything that

47:25

is not that, is

47:27

not an abortion. Nick

47:30

says, in one of the videos,

47:32

we're talking now about the Dexter Reed

47:34

police shooting, which

47:39

the left is trying to make into the next George Floyd, so

47:41

far unsuccessfully, but they're still trying. Nick

47:44

says, in one of the videos, you can see that the

47:46

cop's hand is black. So there's at least one cop involved,

47:49

just like every other cry of racism against the cops. I

47:51

mean, these people at this point don't even care what the

47:53

race is of the cops. In their mind, law

47:55

and order is a white thing. Yeah,

47:58

they don't really care. Now, it, it, it. They

48:01

don't care. They do know that narratively

48:03

it's hard to make it stick as

48:06

a racist police killing if

48:08

the cops are black. So

48:11

in this case, the fact that one of the cops is

48:13

black is just being downplayed. But

48:15

they don't see that as a problem. I mean, if you point out

48:17

that, well, how could this be a racist thing when you've got a

48:19

black? Then they'll just say,

48:22

well, policing is inherently racist. And

48:24

so anyone who

48:26

is a police officer is automatically racist because

48:28

policing is inherently racist. And they

48:31

have no problem saying that a black

48:33

person can be a part of that racist structure

48:35

and can be anti-black themselves. And even

48:37

if they don't know it, there's all this unconscious

48:40

bias and all that kind of stuff. That's

48:44

the get out of jail free card, the sort of intellectual

48:47

get out of jail free card they always have, which

48:50

is unconscious bias. You

48:53

have someone who's they

48:56

don't know that they're racist, but they are because it's

48:58

unconscious. Now, believing aside

49:00

the fact that, of course, makes no sense

49:02

because bias, by definition, is a conscious thing.

49:05

It's a conscious bias is

49:09

discriminating consciously against someone.

49:12

And so if it's not conscious, then it's not biased,

49:14

but they don't care about that. Let's

49:17

see. James says, I'm no fan

49:19

of escalating a situation to where it turns

49:21

into this mess. Is there another way for

49:23

the cops to handle this situation? Maybe step

49:26

back, block him in with cars, take out

49:28

his tires, clear the area and

49:30

wait him out. He might

49:32

have just been having a bad day. Well,

49:34

look, James, if you have a bad day that involves shooting at the

49:37

cops, then you're going to die. That's

49:39

going to be your last day. And that

49:42

that no

49:44

one is to blame for that but you. Having

49:48

a bad day can be a valid. That's

49:51

never really an excuse, but it can be a

49:54

mitigating factor in

49:56

some circumstances. somebody

50:00

snaps at you or something and they're

50:02

a little bit rude and then it's because

50:04

they're having a bad day well maybe that could be understanding you could

50:06

be understanding of that but if having a

50:08

bad day is your excuse for shooting at someone well

50:12

it's no excuse at all and

50:15

in this case there's what are the cops

50:17

supposed to do because

50:20

keep in mind that shots they

50:23

only started shooting once they were

50:25

being shot at by the guy and

50:27

once the guy is spraying bullets

50:29

around and shooting at you the

50:32

police generally have no choice

50:34

but to neutralize the threat

50:36

as fast as they can

50:38

because then otherwise you've got a

50:40

guy and keep in mind he's in

50:42

the middle of the street in a

50:44

neighborhood and he's firing bullets so

50:48

the longer he's able to do that the

50:51

longer that he's not neutralized the greater threat

50:53

he poses to the other police and

50:55

to the neighborhood and so they have no

50:57

choice but to just take him down take him out

51:00

neutralize him and why did he use

51:03

so many bullets well if you watch

51:05

the video it's not

51:07

that confusing once

51:10

he's down on the once he was down on the

51:12

ground and not moving anymore that's when

51:14

they stop firing they

51:16

didn't stop firing before that because he wasn't neutralized yet as

51:20

long as he's moving he's still a threat to the people around him and

51:23

so you just you shoot until he stops moving you know

51:26

when the Daily Wire first approached me about

51:28

becoming a judge and hosting my very own

51:31

judge show naturally my first question as you

51:33

expect was well can I sentence people to

51:35

death on the show and they

51:37

said no but we will pay you money and

51:40

with that I'm proud to introduce you to my

51:42

new Daily Wire Plus series judged

51:44

by Matt Walsh now streaming exclusively on

51:46

Daily Wire Plus join me as I

51:48

settle real-life legal disputes armed with actual

51:50

albeit disappointingly limited legal authority

51:53

will I preside over Morgan Wallin latest

51:55

legal issues and determine his fate fortunately

51:57

for Morgan no but rest assured people

52:00

you see and the cases you hear unjudged are as real

52:02

as it gets. And so is my verdict.

52:04

Episode 1 and 2 are streaming right now in Daily

52:06

Wire Plus with new episodes released every Tuesday. So

52:08

do yourself a favor and tune in to my new

52:11

show, Judged, by Matt Walsh on Daily Wire Plus. And

52:13

remember, if you don't enjoy it, well,

52:15

there's probably something wrong with you in that case. If

52:17

you're not a Daily Wire Plus member yet, join now

52:19

and use code Judged at checkout for 35%

52:21

off your membership at dailywireplus.com. Now

52:24

let's get to our daily cancellation. A

52:32

bit of a special treat for you today.

52:34

I have obtained exclusive and I assure you

52:36

very real footage of something that absolutely begs

52:39

for cancellation. Every aspect of what you're about

52:41

to see deserves to be canceled. Not just

52:43

canceled, but exiled out into the desert alone,

52:45

rejected by society. This is video

52:47

from something called the Ally Awards at the Department

52:50

of Interior. And after obtaining this video, I Googled

52:52

the Ally Awards to learn more. And I found

52:54

this document, which I assume refers to

52:56

the same event. It says, the

52:58

Ally Engagement and Enrichment Week Ally

53:00

Awards are a People's Choice Awards

53:03

sponsored by Diversity Change Agent programs

53:05

across interior. This program

53:07

empowers the workforce to recognize peer contributions

53:09

towards a more inclusive culture in the

53:12

workplace. And my favorite detail comes at the very

53:14

end of the document. It says, nominations can

53:16

be submitted by a second party or

53:18

can be self-nominated. So

53:20

the good news is that you can nominate

53:22

yourself in order to recognize yourself for your

53:25

own role as a diversity change agent. You

53:27

don't need to wait for someone else to declare you an ally.

53:30

You can just declare yourself, which

53:32

is wonderful in my opinion. Actually,

53:34

I was so inspired that I sent Daily Wire

53:36

Management an email this morning nominating myself for an

53:39

award to recognize my own allyship. I'm still waiting

53:41

for a response though. Over the Department

53:43

of Interior, where our tax money is being used on this

53:45

stuff, the Ally Awards were

53:47

held virtually, of course, and it

53:49

was a truly beautiful event. In

53:52

fact, the event even featured

53:54

a stirring performance of a poem

53:57

called I Am Diversity. And here's how it was

53:59

set up. Watch. And

54:01

now we would like to

54:03

share a poem entitled, I Am Diversity.

54:06

The story behind this is we discovered

54:08

this several years ago when we were

54:10

designing an interior

54:13

Toastmasters slash diversity

54:16

change agent poetry forum.

54:19

And that we were so moved by it, we've since

54:22

decided to incorporate that and really resonates

54:24

and it echoes a lot of the

54:26

themes that we learned about this week. This

54:30

is by Charles Benafield. And

54:33

what you're about to see is a

54:35

video of foam investing

54:37

employees who participate in a recording and

54:39

a recitation of this poem.

54:43

Please enjoy. Okay, well,

54:45

we'll listen to the poem in a second. But they

54:47

were moved by this poem, they were moved by it. And

54:50

they were so moved by it that they felt

54:52

inspired to get a bunch of employees together to

54:54

recite it. And so

54:56

here is the poem. I

55:06

am diversity. Please include I'm

55:08

present in every place you go. Depending

55:10

on your lens, I'm friend or foe.

55:12

I'm forced to be a conduit. Like

55:15

the winds of change, I move. I'm

55:18

swift. I'm present when two or

55:20

more together. I embrace, I can make

55:22

the good even better. I

55:25

don't mean to interrupt this stirring rendition.

55:28

I promise we'll listen to more of it as

55:30

much as you don't want to. But I do

55:32

have to make special note of that last line.

55:34

I'm present when two or more are together. Now

55:37

students of Scripture will recognize that that is a

55:39

line from the Gospel of Matthew, except

55:41

that in that case, it is referring to Jesus Christ. And

55:45

here it is referring to diversity. So

55:47

if you've ever doubted that DEI is a religion to

55:49

these people, well, there you go. Let's

55:52

continue. I'm not

55:54

limited to age, gender, or

55:56

race. I'm invisible at

55:59

times. and yaks all

56:01

over the place. Don't exclude me

56:04

due to a lack of knowledge. Welcome

56:06

me like the recruits fresh out

56:08

of college. Let me take my seat at

56:10

the table. Even though I may be differently

56:12

able. My experience, my passion, your

56:14

time to eat can help add

56:17

value for your company. Learn

56:19

about me. Improve my

56:21

underrepresentation. And I can provide a

56:23

competitive edge to your entire nation.

56:25

I exclude no one. I am

56:27

strengthened by all. My name is

56:29

diversity. And yes, I stand tall.

56:32

Recognize me and keep me in the

56:34

mix. Together, there's no

56:36

problem that we can't fix.

56:39

I'm your best hope for true

56:41

innovation. And to many,

56:43

I reflect hope and inspiration. Your

56:45

lives and companies will continue to

56:48

change. Thus, the need for

56:50

diversity and inclusion will also

56:52

remain. I am diversity. Yes,

56:54

that's me. I'm

56:59

not crying. You are. Thank

57:01

you so much, Alexandra. She's

57:06

crying. Why wouldn't she

57:08

be crying over such an emotionally gripping

57:10

poem? There were so many stunning

57:12

lines. My favorite was probably, let

57:14

me take my seat at the table. Even though

57:16

I may be differently abled. And

57:19

then second place for me was this. My

57:21

experience, my passion, the authentic me can

57:24

help add value to your company. Now

57:27

say what you want about the writing, but at least it rhymes, sort

57:30

of. That's more than can be said about most

57:32

of the bad poetry I've forced you to endure on this show over

57:34

the years. So you have to take the silver

57:36

linings wherever you can find them. Now, when

57:39

most normal people watch a video like the

57:41

one we just saw, the thing that they

57:43

will focus on, understandably so, is the political

57:45

element. The fact that something called the Ally

57:47

Awards even exists and that it's being held

57:49

on the taxpayers dime in time and

57:51

that they've recited, they're reciting diversity poems and

57:53

all the rest of it, demonstrates

57:56

again, just how deep the ideological

57:58

rot goes. And this is

58:01

in a government agency that was founded in

58:03

the 1840s to conserve and manage federal land.

58:05

So it's not the kind of agency that

58:07

you would expect to be hyper-woke if you

58:09

didn't know any better anyway. But

58:11

as this demonstrates, every federal agency is hyper-woke.

58:14

The virus infects every level of the federal

58:17

government, every department, every agency. The entire bureaucracy

58:19

is this, which is why the next Republican

58:21

president in 2024 hopefully needs

58:23

to gut these agencies with a chainsaw. I

58:25

mean, take them apart, cut them into pieces.

58:28

There are about 2 million, I think, civilians

58:30

working for the federal government, which

58:33

means that at least a million people

58:36

should be unemployed a few days after Trump takes over. Cutting

58:39

half of them is a modest start. That's the only way to

58:42

treat this disease. You set

58:44

a goal to

58:46

fire a million federal employees in the first 15

58:48

days. Call it 15 days

58:50

to slow the spread. That's how

58:52

you deal with the political sickness. But this

58:55

isn't just about politics. To me, the most

58:57

disturbing thing about the video is

58:59

how childish it is. Putting the wokeness

59:02

factor entirely to the side, if they presented a

59:04

poem like that to middle school students, I

59:07

would say it's a bit infantilizing for kids that age. That

59:10

it quite literally sounds like the kind

59:12

of thing you might recite to kindergartners.

59:16

Now, not that I think that they should talk about diversity and

59:18

inclusion to kindergartners either, but

59:20

the quality of the poem, the artistic

59:22

sophistication, is at best kindergarten

59:25

level. You know, it

59:27

reads like something that you might find on a

59:29

poster hanging in a guidance counselor's office at your

59:31

kid's elementary school. And if you

59:33

think I'm exaggerating about that, by the way, then

59:35

here you go. Watch this. Thank

59:49

you. Okay,

1:00:13

so that was an actual group of elementary

1:00:15

school kids performing the exact same poem. The

1:00:18

poem that adult government employees found so moving

1:00:20

and beautiful that they had to get together

1:00:22

and perform it for each other. This

1:00:26

is the elementary school they're performing. Because our

1:00:28

country is being run not just by woke

1:00:30

leftists, but by woke leftists with the

1:00:32

intelligence, not to mention the artistic sensibilities

1:00:35

of five-year-olds. Which is

1:00:37

no surprise, I suppose, the wokeness and the

1:00:39

five-year-old intelligence tend to go hand in

1:00:42

hand, which is why the entire Department

1:00:44

of Interior is today canceled. I'm

1:00:47

here for the show today and this week. Thanks for watching.

1:00:49

Have a great day and a great weekend. I'll talk to

1:00:51

you on Monday. Bye.