Ep. 701 - The Truth About Ashli Babbitt And Our Two Tiered Justice System
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
175.49504
Summary
The DOJ has announced that the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt will not be charged with a crime. In fact, they won t even tell us his name or give us any other information about him or what happened. Today, we re going to take a close look at this case, try to figure out what did happen, why did the woman die, and whether or not it was justified. Also, the Biden administration has its feet held to the fire during a White House press briefing over abortion policies. And CNN brings a trans athlete on the air to explain why men actually don t have an advantage over women in sports. Plus, Biden s UN ambassador hates America. We ll talk about that and so much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the DOJ has announced that the officer who shot Ashley
00:00:03.900
Babbitt will not be charged with a crime. In fact, they won't even tell us his name or give
00:00:07.700
us any other information about him or what happened. Today, we're going to take a close
00:00:11.840
look at this case, try to figure out what did happen, why did the woman die, and whether or
00:00:16.040
not it was justified. Also, five headlines, including the Biden administration, has its
00:00:19.780
feet held to the fire during the White House press briefing over its abortion policies. That
00:00:23.920
doesn't happen every day. And CNN brings a trans athlete on the air to explain why men
00:00:28.900
actually don't have an advantage over women in sports. Plus, Biden's UN ambassador hates
00:00:34.280
America, it turns out. Perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest there. We'll talk about that and
00:00:46.660
Less than a day after armed robbery suspect Dante Wright was shot by police, the name of
00:00:52.440
the police officer who pulled the trigger was publicly released. Shortly after that, her
00:00:56.560
address was leaked as well. Now her home is currently surrounded by concrete barricades,
00:01:02.560
metal fencing, and armed police guards in order to stop the violent mob from burning it to the
00:01:06.940
ground and perhaps killing anyone who happens to be inside the house. This is the way it goes with
00:01:11.440
every high-profile police shooting. The name of the police officer is quickly released. Soon,
00:01:16.040
all of their other personal details follow. And then oftentimes, as happened with the officer in this
00:01:20.640
case, they're charged with a crime. Well, I shouldn't say that it works this way with every high-profile
00:01:25.900
police shooting. There is one quite notable exception. It was announced yesterday by the
00:01:30.340
DOJ that the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt, one of the pro-Trump protesters at the Capitol on
00:01:34.620
January 6th, will not be charged in her death. The statement from the DOJ refers to this man only as
00:01:40.860
the U.S. Capitol Police officer because his name was never made public. We don't know his name. Four
00:01:45.940
months later, and we know absolutely nothing about the federal officer who shot an unarmed woman
00:01:51.720
in the Capitol. Compare that to nearly any police shooting that BLM gets upset about, where we're
00:01:57.640
told nearly every personal detail about the officer within hours of the shooting. Before we even
00:02:04.060
consider the specific details of the shooting, which we will, which left Ashley Babbitt dead, what few
00:02:10.880
details we have as officials refuse to tell us much of anything, really, it's already unthinkable and
00:02:16.520
outrageous that this dichotomy exists. There are two systems in this country, two tiers of justice,
00:02:22.520
one for the politically favored, one for the rest of us. If you're shot by police and BLM appoints you
00:02:28.200
a martyr for their cause, the name of the officer will be made public. He'll likely be charged with a
00:02:33.520
crime unless the shooting was so incontrovertibly above board that prosecutors can't come up with a
00:02:37.560
crime that would theoretically cover it. Meanwhile, protesters will wreak havoc in the streets and be
00:02:42.440
allowed to do it and the media will canonize you. That's how it goes in that case. But if you're
00:02:47.980
shot by police and BLM decides that your death doesn't matter or even that you deserved what you
00:02:52.560
got, then the officer's name will never be given to the public. The media will quickly move on from
00:02:57.220
the story. The protesters will sit on their hands and the officer will be quickly cleared of all
00:03:01.360
wrongdoing without any real explanation either. Whatever you think of the Ashley Babbitt shooting,
00:03:08.400
whether you believe it to be justified or not, and I'm not sure how you could be sure that it is
00:03:12.300
justified, given that the powers that be haven't even bothered to justify it. But whatever the
00:03:18.380
case may be for you, you should not be okay with this state of affairs. That you should at least agree
00:03:26.060
that we should know the officer's name just as we know the names of the officers in every other
00:03:31.340
high-profile incident. This is not merely about being fair or having the same standard for everyone,
00:03:38.140
though it is partially about that. It's also about understanding the true motivations of the
00:03:43.020
police officer who fired the shot. This was obviously a politically charged situation.
00:03:49.160
Most of the rioters and protesters were right-wing Trump supporters.
00:03:53.380
Many officers were there that day. Not one of them, save this one, felt that it was necessary to start
00:04:00.760
shooting. Is it possible that this officer had ideological and political conflicts of interest?
00:04:07.500
That he was pushed to take a step that no other officer took due to his political hatred for the
00:04:11.960
people there? I have no idea. That's the point. None of us know. Could be, couldn't be. These are the
00:04:19.800
kinds of questions we should ask. These are the kinds of questions the government would answer if we
00:04:23.960
truly lived in a free country where everybody is equal under the law. Now, it's possible that this man who shot her
00:04:29.800
is an honest and straightforward guy, as honest as they come, his motives of as pure as the driven snow,
00:04:35.720
but they aren't giving us any information about him. And so we're left only to speculate
00:04:41.220
about what his motivations might be. Here's what we are being told. And this is about the sum of it,
00:04:48.440
really. From the DOJ statement yesterday, I'll read it to you. Not the whole thing, but this is the
00:04:52.480
relevant portion. It says, the focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal
00:04:56.960
prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws. In order to establish a violation
00:05:02.640
of this statute, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer acted willfully
00:05:06.760
to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the constitution or other law. Here, the fourth
00:05:12.680
amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only
00:05:17.620
that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but the officer did so willfully,
00:05:22.840
which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to
00:05:26.700
disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an
00:05:31.000
officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment
00:05:35.000
cannot establish the high level of intent required under section 242. The investigation revealed no
00:05:40.580
evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation.
00:05:45.200
Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that at the time of the officer
00:05:48.760
fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt. The officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary
00:05:52.840
to do so in self-defense or in defense of the members of Congress and others evacuating the House
00:05:56.300
chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt's family,
00:06:01.680
the U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation
00:06:05.660
into this matter. And that's it. That's the end of it, as far as they're concerned.
00:06:13.180
The people who've been screaming about police brutality for years and accusing cops of being
00:06:17.900
homicidal lunatics are also perfectly satisfied with that. In this one case, they're satisfied
00:06:23.560
with that. In this one specific case, they're suddenly okay with an unarmed woman being shot
00:06:28.420
without any given explanation. Did you notice that? They don't actually tell us why he did it.
00:06:36.140
They give a range of possible reasons and don't tell us what the reason was. They say, well,
00:06:42.120
it could have been out of fear. It could even be out of negligence. It could have been because
00:06:45.020
he feared it. Who knows? Well, which is it? What did he say was his reason?
00:06:53.980
We have zero transparency from the government in this case. And not only is BLM okay with that,
00:07:02.120
but if the BLM accounts on social media are any indication, they're downright happy that the woman
00:07:06.960
is dead. But what about those of us who have integrity and who actually care about things
00:07:12.460
like truth and justice? You know, we in that minority. Though, of course, those of us who care
00:07:18.500
about truth and justice, we may never scream for justice while we run out of a burned out foot
00:07:22.220
locker with an armful of shoeboxes, but we still care about it. In fact, it's because we care about
00:07:26.560
justice that we wouldn't do that. Those of us in that category, what should we think about this?
00:07:33.840
Well, again, it's hard to know what to think because we're being told so little about it.
00:07:38.360
But all we have is the video taken by somebody in the crowd. There is no doubt all kinds of
00:07:42.920
additional footage out there. Security camera footage, body cam footage. I mean, it's a federal
00:07:48.940
government building and there's police officers all over the place. They no doubt have tons of
00:07:54.200
footage, but we haven't seen any of it. All we have is this. And this is disturbing, of course,
00:08:00.420
because we're watching a woman die, but I think it's important for us to watch it. So,
00:08:03.000
because this is all we have to go on. And let's watch it again now.
00:08:07.500
So, that's it. That's all there is. There are a couple other angles of
00:08:37.140
the shooting taken by people in the crowd, but that's it. We can see that Babbitt was unarmed
00:08:45.120
and climbing through a door into a hallway with armed police officers. We can also see that there
00:08:50.440
were heavily armed and armored police officers coming up the stairs behind her. She was literally
00:08:55.080
surrounded on all sides by armed police officers. One of the officers fired the shot. Again, the only
00:09:02.820
officer on the scene that day who apparently felt it necessary to take that step. Can we justify this
00:09:09.460
shooting given the circumstances? Well, if we can, if we can, the argument in the unnamed cop's favor
00:09:17.100
would have to go something like this. Ashley Babbitt was trespassing with an unruly mob in a government
00:09:22.980
building. She was given multiple warnings to leave the area. The warnings may or may not have been
00:09:27.200
verbal, but the hallway was locked and barricaded and there were police officers guarding it with guns.
00:09:31.300
She knew she was not supposed to keep going, but she did. The officer didn't know what her
00:09:35.420
intentions were and made the best decision he could in that high pressure situation.
00:09:39.820
That's what the argument in defense of the shooting would sound like. And I have heard that exact
00:09:43.740
argument from many people, including again, the same people who would in every other situation
00:09:48.000
reject that same argument. Personally, I am not convinced by that argument at all. I think it's
00:09:56.380
extraordinarily weak. Yes, she was trespassing. Yes, it was very reckless to climb through that
00:10:02.860
door. No, I cannot defend that decision or tell you what in the world could have possibly been going
00:10:08.060
through her mind when she started to do that. But even so, this is a five foot, two inch, 110 pound,
00:10:16.520
middle-aged, unarmed woman. She was shot by a large male officer. Are you telling me he couldn't have easily
00:10:24.060
taken her to the ground? Easily through some other means. We know that she posed no physical risk to him
00:10:32.820
whatsoever. Okay, unless she's some sort of ninja or something, she posed no physical risk to him. We know that.
00:10:41.800
Can we really believe that he believed that she did? She posed such a risk that he had to go right
00:10:49.880
to the gunshot? Couldn't do anything else? And whatever he believed, is it not exceedingly clear
00:10:58.240
that he could have used any number of non-lethal means to halt her progress? Here's another important
00:11:05.940
question. Did he personally, verbally warn her that he was going to shoot? Yeah, there were all kinds of
00:11:14.180
visual cues that she wasn't supposed to climb through the door. But did he actually yell to her
00:11:19.200
and say, stop or I will shoot you? If he did and she kept coming, then that might change things in his
00:11:26.800
favor. It certainly makes him look a little better. But if he didn't, if he didn't say anything and
00:11:32.900
simply executed her on the spot, then this looks even more like a straight up murder of an unarmed
00:11:39.580
citizen and military veteran by a federal law enforcement officer. Now, we could answer that
00:11:46.020
question, by the way, about what the officer did or didn't say if more footage was released, or even if
00:11:50.860
they would just tell us. They know, okay, the Department of Justice, Capitol Police, the politicians,
00:11:57.780
even the media, I guarantee you all of them know who that guy is and what exactly happened.
00:12:03.880
They're not telling us. And the fact that they haven't told us, if he gave her a warning and
00:12:10.140
said, stop or I'll shoot you, and she kept coming, you'd think they'd probably tell us that.
00:12:16.600
The fact that they're not telling us that and not telling us anything else,
00:12:19.760
that would seem to basically answer the question. No, there was no warning. That's my guess.
00:12:24.860
And we're left only to guess. My guess is very educated guess, reasonable guess. There was no
00:12:31.340
warning from him verbally. He just shot her. To my mind, shooting an unarmed person who poses no
00:12:41.720
reasonable lethal threat to you without warning is murder. Now, here's what we can say, though.
00:12:50.460
If this shooting was justified, then a great many of the high-profile shootings that BLM has rioted over
00:12:59.160
were also justified. Any logically consistent argument you can make that would validate Babbitt's
00:13:05.500
killing would also validate the killing of many BLM martyrs all in one fell swoop. That much we know.
00:13:12.820
She was in the process of committing a crime. Okay, well, so was George Floyd. So was Michael Brown.
00:13:16.560
In the vast majority of these high-profile cases, a crime was being committed. That's why the cops
00:13:20.340
were there. She was given warnings. Well, we don't know if she was or not, but we know that Jacob
00:13:24.960
Blake was. I mean, he had guns pointed at him and they were screaming at him over and over again in
00:13:30.640
his face, stop, stop, stop. And he didn't stop until they finally pulled the trigger. She was unarmed,
00:13:36.880
but could have still theoretically posed a lethal threat. Well, BLM has protested the killing of even
00:13:41.900
armed suspects like Dion K. in DC was running towards officers with his gun drawn.
00:13:49.420
They protested that. Many others were not armed, but were still presenting themselves as clear
00:13:55.060
physical threats like Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, who got into a fight with officers and stole one
00:13:59.300
of their tasers. She should have known better. Okay, well, should Dante Wright not have known better
00:14:05.500
than to push away the officers, resist arrest and climb back into his vehicle?
00:14:08.540
Well, if Ashley Babbitt brought her death on herself, if she is to blame, if she is not the
00:14:17.160
victim, but the perpetrator who reaped the consequences of her own actions, which seems to
00:14:21.340
be the opinion of most people out there, certainly on the left, but even a lot of people on the right,
00:14:27.080
then the same applies to every name I just listed and then some. Oh, but she was an insurrectionist
00:14:34.620
trying to take over a government building, you say. Well, if that's what makes the difference,
00:14:40.280
if we're saying that what gives cops a license to start spraying bullets is that, then that would
00:14:46.860
put a great many BLM and Antifa rioters directly in the line of fire. Though in their case, you know,
00:14:53.300
they've been allowed to wage assaults on federal buildings for months on end, sometimes even take
00:14:57.780
over government buildings at police stations and burn them to the ground without a single shot being
00:15:01.920
fired at them ever. But that brings us back to where we started. Justice in two tiers. A system
00:15:11.060
that favors some and not others. Ashley Babbitt falls on the losing side of that coin. And no matter
00:15:17.820
what they might say or excuses they might offer in the minds of BLM and the media and our government,
00:15:23.640
that is why her death is not an outrage or a crime. Let's get now to our five headlines.
00:15:31.920
All right. Um, let me, I just have to say this at the, to begin with, and I don't, I don't often do
00:15:42.980
this. Uh, very rarely have I done this, but I have to issue a retraction and a bit of an editorial
00:15:49.780
correction in the, in the, if you listened to the show yesterday, which you better have
00:15:53.140
in the daily cancellation, we talked about the, uh, made up gibberish language of the left and how
00:15:59.520
it gets more and more absurd with the pronouns. And now they have neo pronouns for people who
00:16:03.540
identify as hot dog buns and clouds and skyscrapers and horses. Um, and you know, I, I gave a little
00:16:09.640
bit of my own personal background and my own, my own history of trauma saying that when I grew up,
00:16:14.360
I had four sisters in the house and my two older sisters, um, had their own, it wasn't pronouns,
00:16:19.920
but they had their own gibberish languages. They would make up and then speak to each other in
00:16:24.000
front of me in this made up language to torment me because I never knew what they were saying.
00:16:28.820
And that's what I, that's the claim I made. I did get a text message from my younger sister,
00:16:33.320
one of my younger sisters last night who listened to the show and wanted me to know that it wasn't
00:16:38.360
my older sisters who had the made up language. It was her and our youngest sister who had it.
00:16:42.680
So I had, I got that wrong. And she clarified to me that, um, these are my two younger sisters.
00:16:48.580
They are the ones who had the made up language and they called it. I didn't know this. They called
00:16:52.060
it the, I think she said it in the text. They called it the a annoying language because every
00:16:57.020
made up word ended in a, and, um, they just used it to annoy everybody in the house. So
00:17:01.400
I have to issue that retraction because the thing is, if I upset my family and they boycott the show,
00:17:08.120
I lose half my audience and I can't allow that to happen. All right, let's start here. We're
00:17:13.840
going to start with, with maybe the best question I've ever heard asked best line of questioning
00:17:19.800
I've ever heard, um, at a white house press conference. And that's not saying a lot because
00:17:26.160
very rarely are there worthwhile questions that are asked. I mean, most of what's said at a white
00:17:31.900
house press conference, the questions that are asked aren't even really questions, right?
00:17:35.000
They're just softballs teeing up, um, at least if it's a democratic administration, softballs
00:17:41.020
teeing up the, uh, spokesperson to say whatever they want to say. But in this case, I thought
00:17:45.680
this was, uh, this was really good. This is apparently EWTN reporter Owen Jensen. Somehow
00:17:52.260
they've allowed EWTN, that's a Catholic news organization. They've allowed them in the building
00:17:56.380
probably not for long now. And, uh, let's, let's take a listen.
00:18:00.600
So today, as you well know, the Biden administration and HHS started the reversal of the Trump
00:18:06.900
administration's ban on abortion referrals at title 10 family planning clinics. So my first
00:18:12.800
question, why does the Biden administration insist that pro-life Americans pay for abortions
00:18:20.200
and violate their conscience? Well, first, that's not an accurate depiction of what happened. So let
00:18:25.780
me, and I know we want to be accurate around here, uh, none of the funds appropriated under this title
00:18:31.020
shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning that is written into the
00:18:36.180
public health service act. And it specifically states that indirect subsidies, money that's
00:18:42.440
fungible that can't be traced. We know that come on. That is not how it works. That is the law. So
00:18:47.840
I'm stating what the law is and how it is implemented legally by these organizations. And the reason I
00:18:53.280
though, since you gave me the opportunity, uh, the reason why the president took these steps is
00:18:58.080
because, uh, he believes that, uh, advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who
00:19:03.980
have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and
00:19:09.620
inequality can be helped by these actions. And by focusing on advancing equity in the title 10
00:19:15.720
program, we can create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been historically
00:19:19.940
underserved, which benefits everyone. That's how these fundings are used in communities.
00:19:24.740
You talk about equity, if I may interrupt, how is it equity? How is it fighting systemic racism when
00:19:30.620
abortion, we all know disproportionately affects minority children? Again, funding cannot be used
00:19:36.580
from this for abortion, but access to healthcare, uh, access to healthcare and communities and
00:19:42.260
communities that have been marginalized, underserved, adversely affected by persistent poverty is always
00:19:47.500
going to be something the president fights for. Okay. I think I've answered your question, Alex.
00:19:52.620
No, she didn't really answer it, but, but so two great points being raised, questions being asked,
00:19:57.740
um, by the reporter there. And one is about the funding now, now, now she says, oh yeah, well,
00:20:05.180
they're funding, but it's, it's not going, you know, it's going to, uh, healthcare clinics and facilities
00:20:12.300
that provide abortions, but it's, but the funding can't go to the abortion. And the rejoinder from
00:20:20.480
the reporter is correct. That money is fungible. So anytime you hear that, you know, that it's bogus
00:20:26.980
and we've been hearing this as a justification for the federal funding of Planned Parenthood
00:20:31.360
for decades. Now, you know, we get half a billion dollars a year to, uh, Planned Parenthood, um, as
00:20:38.380
they murder hundreds of thousands of babies a year. And of course we, we continue to hand over these
00:20:46.200
bags full of money. We, we make these, uh, these, these sugar daddy payments, the government, the
00:20:51.740
taxpayer, the sugar daddy for Planned Parenthood. We continue to do that even after we had a Republican
00:20:56.600
administration, we had a Republican Congress and a Republican administration for two years.
00:21:01.360
They didn't do, they didn't do a damn thing about it. But anyway, the, the, the justification
00:21:06.880
is that, yeah, we give half a billion, but it doesn't go to the abortions. Okay. But money
00:21:11.340
is fungible. That's the point. So it doesn't even really make sense to say, yeah, if we, if
00:21:18.200
you use the money to fund this aspect of their operation, then that frees them up to put other
00:21:25.700
money towards the abortion aspect. So by funding one part of it, you are effectively funding
00:21:30.940
the other. And then the second line of questioning about if you, if you care about equity and
00:21:37.920
equality, uh, and all of that, and you want to protect minority communities, well, we know
00:21:44.600
that abortion, when we say abortion disproportionately affects minority communities, what that means
00:21:48.460
is that minority babies are being killed at a disproportionate rate. And if not for abortion,
00:21:55.260
there would be many millions more minority people in the, the, the, uh, in the, uh, the country
00:22:02.700
today. So it's, it's hard to see that as a positive for any minority community or any community
00:22:10.880
community at all that they've successfully exterminated so many of their own children.
00:22:15.240
All right, let's move to, uh, number two, CNN had a segment with a trans athlete. They call this
00:22:24.360
person, I think on, on the screen, what do they say here? Yeah. Trans female. Okay. So they call this
00:22:29.800
person a trans female athlete, which I assume means it's a male who identifies as a woman, but you see
00:22:36.720
how sex and gender have once again become interchangeable after they spent the last, I don't know, 40 or 50
00:22:41.940
years telling us that sex and gender are two different things and they're not interchangeable.
00:22:46.080
You know, being a woman is not exactly the same thing as being a female and a person can be a
00:22:50.420
female that doesn't necessarily make them a woman. That's what they said for the last 40 or 50 years.
00:22:54.680
And now over the last couple of years, what they, they've gone back and, uh, and said, nevermind,
00:22:59.520
actually it's the same. I know we screamed at you for 50 years that it's two different things,
00:23:04.760
but turns out now basically it's interchangeable woman, female, same thing, sex, gender, same thing.
00:23:11.940
So, but that's the least of the problems I think with this segment. And, um, let's,
00:23:16.200
let's just listen to this madness. The simplistic version is that those born male have a natural
00:23:22.940
physiological advantage that also includes differing levels of testosterone. You know,
00:23:29.140
the argument, your response to that is what? Yeah, it's a, it's a nonsense argument. So
00:23:35.340
depends on how much time you want to let me get into the weeds because I can literally spend hours on
00:23:40.620
this. How about 30, how about 30 seconds? Yeah. So the first thing is, um, testosterone,
00:23:46.880
your natural internally produced and dodges testosterone has zero impact on your athletic
00:23:52.480
performance. And we know that, but we didn't know that until 2013 because everyone just assumed that,
00:23:59.460
well, testosterone is why men are bigger, stronger, faster. But when we finally studied it,
00:24:04.420
there's no relationship between just natural testosterone and performance. So why is testosterone
00:24:10.060
banned? Well, every body produces a different amount. And when you add to it through exogenous
00:24:15.980
means doping, there is a performance advantage. But when you take a body's natural amount and you drop
00:24:22.180
below it, there tends to be a performance disadvantage. For example, in, uh, one study,
00:24:28.420
they found in this elite set of male athletes, some men below the women's average for testosterone
00:24:36.940
were competing at no competitive disadvantage with men that had 40 times as much testosterone.
00:24:44.160
Right. Uh, the first problem here, maybe the biggest problem are the glasses there.
00:24:49.320
Who goes on, on television wearing glasses like that? Now, I know you might point out that I have made
00:24:55.960
some interesting fashion choices with what I choose to wear when I'm on, uh, in front of the
00:25:00.060
camera, but come on, give me a break. That's a rainbow, rainbow glasses. But this is what you,
00:25:09.520
what you're seeing there is the left doing what the left does. Um, and that is distracting from the
00:25:16.600
main point. And what they're going to do is really on any issue, especially where they know they have an
00:25:21.700
indefensible position, which is every issue, uh, particularly when it comes to gender, they're
00:25:27.080
going to home in on one specific argument and what they say in that area will be false,
00:25:35.680
but it's also going to be almost entirely beside the point. But then the, the strategy is that the
00:25:44.460
other side on the right, we get sucked into having this argument over this basically irrelevant detail
00:25:51.260
because what they're saying there is so wrong. And we can't, we feel like we can't leapfrog over
00:25:56.460
that. We have to, you know, argue over that. So the claim that testosterone doesn't give
00:26:02.060
athletes an advantage is obviously ridiculous, but it's almost beside the point. We could even,
00:26:09.760
it's not about testosterone is just one, one minor advantage in comparison to all the other
00:26:17.620
advantages that men have. They don't even talk about any of those other advantages.
00:26:26.840
Now it's all about testosterone. And so they're going to pull out all the studies and they're
00:26:31.100
going to say this study over here said this about testosterone. They're going to start using a lot
00:26:36.060
of complicated sounding words like exogenistic and all these kinds of words to make it sound like
00:26:42.420
they're, um, they have the science supporting them and they're, they're taking a very nuanced and
00:26:47.340
intelligent position. And this is all what they're actually claiming is that men don't have any innate
00:26:59.300
biological advantage in sports. It is so insane. There is, there is, it is as crazy as claiming that the
00:27:11.120
earth is flat. I know a lot of positions get compared to that. Oh, these are like flat earthers. No,
00:27:16.120
this is actual flat eartherism. This is as crazy as that. It is that divorced from reality.
00:27:24.420
Obviously men have an advantage in sports. That's why you take any sport and you find that the, that the
00:27:32.820
best men are always better than the best women in most sports, I should say, you want to make,
00:27:40.660
you want to talk about gymnastics or those, it might be different, but when it comes to the traditional
00:27:47.180
competitive sports, racing, you know, basketball, football, those kinds of sports, wrestling, boxing,
00:27:54.800
one-on-one where it's all about strength and stamina, pure athleticism, men are always the best men are
00:28:03.720
always substantially better than the best women. And in fact, men, a few notches down are going to be
00:28:09.940
substantially better than the best women. That's why you take any D3, uh, basketball team from college
00:28:19.240
and you put them against the best WNBA players. We all know they would dominate. The score would be 85 to
00:28:27.420
zero. We all know that. Go to any state, look at the, uh, the, the track and field, um, statistics and
00:28:40.840
records in any state in the union, anyone. And what you're going to find is that all of the fastest time
00:28:49.220
belong to men, always, always everywhere. And for all time. Why is that? Because men have
00:28:58.780
dozens and dozens of physical advantages and it's, and testosterone isn't even the beginning of it.
00:29:07.820
You're talking about muscle structure, bone structure, everything down, you know, even things
00:29:13.180
like women having wider hips. I mean, things like that. Every, every part of us as, as, as men is
00:29:24.380
going to be going to be different from women. We, as, as a man, you are male down to your very bones,
00:29:33.740
literally, and women are women down to their bones.
00:29:36.280
And all through that, you find differences. And in so many of these cases, the differences give
00:29:49.800
All right. Um, let's take a look at, uh, okay, we got to play this. The UN, our UN ambassador,
00:29:59.440
Linda Thomas Greenfield is, I feel is her name. Uh, she, because she's a Democrat and she was
00:30:05.240
appointed by a Democrat. Of course, she hates our country, hates it deeply and made that clear in a,
00:30:10.320
in a recent address. Let's listen to what she had to say.
00:30:12.440
I've seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding
00:30:20.420
documents and principles. But I also shared these stories to offer up an insight, a simple truth I've
00:30:27.540
learned over the years. Racism is not the problem of the person who experiences it. Those of us who
00:30:34.480
experience racism cannot and should not internalize it, despite the impact it can have on our everyday
00:30:40.820
lives. Racism is the problem of the racist. And it is the problem of the society that produces the
00:30:48.940
racist. And in today's world, that's every society. In America, that, that takes many forms. It's the
00:30:56.340
white supremacy that led to the senseless killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so
00:31:04.620
Yeah. Racism led to the death of George Floyd. Of course, we, you know, we, we get that, that claim
00:31:10.460
from everyone on the left. It's, they've never even tried to give any evidence for it. They never do.
00:31:17.960
In what way you have evidence that Derek Chauvin is racist and that he killed George Floyd on purpose
00:31:24.240
due to his racial animus. Really? If you have that evidence, Hey, uh, Linda Greenfield, if you've got
00:31:31.720
that evidence, you better give it, it's probably too late now, but, uh, you better hand that over
00:31:36.360
to the appropriate authorities. Cause they, the, the prosecutors prosecuting Derek Chauvin right now,
00:31:43.700
they don't have that evidence. They haven't produced it. They produced a shred of evidence
00:31:48.220
that any of this had anything to do with race. That would be a bombshell if they had it. I mean,
00:31:53.060
if they could produce something, I don't know what, what that would be, but something indicating
00:31:58.380
this was racially motivated. That changes the complexion of everything. No pun intended,
00:32:04.480
but there's no evidence of that. So, um, no big deal. Just our UN ambassador, you know,
00:32:11.920
smearing cops is racist, smearing the entire country is racist. Of course, if that is your view,
00:32:19.380
you're not fit to hold any public office. You're especially not fit to be the UN ambassador.
00:32:26.720
You cannot lead people that you hate. You cannot lead something that you hate. You can't lead an
00:32:37.940
organization that you hate. You know, if you work for a company and you hate that company,
00:32:43.040
and then you're made, you're put in a position of authority in that company, it's going to be bad
00:32:46.740
news because you're in a position of authority in a company that you hate. Same goes for a country.
00:32:53.860
Hey, if you're leading a country that you despise, like Linda Thomas-Greenfield despises it,
00:33:09.280
That's why, why do you think it's one of the reasons why you look at any city run by a Democrat,
00:33:14.140
all of the cities that are in shambles across the country, every single one, all of them run by
00:33:17.980
Democrats. A lot of reasons for that. One of the reasons though, is that they hate their cities.
00:33:23.900
They hate the people in the cities. They hate the country that the city is, uh, is, is located in.
00:33:30.700
They hate it all. They hate the history of the city.
00:33:38.860
Like anything else, if you're, if you're in charge of taking care of something and you,
00:33:42.460
and you either don't care about it or actively hate it,
00:33:45.320
bad things are going to happen. Although she did say, I have to say, uh, listening to that clip
00:33:52.100
again, I noticed one thing that she said that I actually agree with and then, but she moved on
00:33:58.020
from it. And I don't think she understands the implications of what she said, but, but she said
00:34:01.080
the, that, uh, she was talking about racism and she said, it's a, it's in every society.
00:34:07.180
Well, you know, yes, actually you're right about that.
00:34:13.620
Racism is, um, comes from like any other form of hatred or anything else. It comes from flaws in
00:34:21.180
human nature. And which means, doesn't mean that every person is racist. It just means that
00:34:25.620
you're going to find that any kind of hatred, whether it's racial hatred, any other form of hatred,
00:34:31.080
you're going to find elements of that in any society. She's right about that.
00:34:38.100
But what that means is that if you go to Africa, um, you're going to find a hell of a lot of racism.
00:34:45.640
Okay. You go to Asia, hell of a lot of race. You go to India, a lot of racism, the middle East,
00:34:52.520
It is a, it is a problem that you find across the globe. And in fact,
00:34:59.540
in a lot of non-Western countries, it's a lot worse than it is here. A lot and a lot more socially
00:35:06.960
accepted. So that part I agree with. But, um, as I said, if, if, if people on the left were to stop
00:35:15.380
and consider the implications of that and what that actually means, then maybe they would hate
00:35:20.000
America a little bit less, but, uh, all right, we're going to get to our reading the comments
00:35:24.140
in just, well, no, we're going to get there now. Actually, we'll just move right to reading the
00:35:27.520
comments. Um, Joan says, sadly, all the victims of these violent criminals are completely ignored.
00:35:34.080
Where's the Me Too movement standing up for these women? Yeah. The Me Too movement, just like BLM,
00:35:40.100
many of these movements on the left. Um, of course they don't, Me Too movement pretends to be standing
00:35:44.940
for women's rights and speaking out specifically for, for victims, women, female victims of
00:35:50.740
violent crime and harassment. And they don't, they don't care about that. Just like BLM is a big grift.
00:35:58.620
People at the top are making lots of money. We know the, the, one of the founders of BLM just bought,
00:36:03.580
what is it? Four different houses, all in white neighborhoods, of course. Uh, the grifters in charge of,
00:36:09.220
now Me Too has not been as profitable a grift as BLM is, but still pretty profitable.
00:36:17.080
They don't care. If they did, yeah, they'd be speaking up and saying, what about the women here?
00:36:21.180
How do they feel? Can we at least hear from them? And, and if they don't want to come forward,
00:36:28.320
and here's the thing, a lot, they would, they might very, very likely decline the opportunity to come
00:36:34.340
forward and speak. But if they do, it's only because they're afraid of what would happen to
00:36:39.700
them if they were to come out. The, the woman that George Floyd, um, point, put at gunpoint after,
00:36:49.360
after forcing his way into her house, it, that woman, whoever she is, probably is not going to
00:36:57.120
want to come out and say how she feels about George Floyd and how it makes her feel to walk by murals
00:37:03.360
with this guy's face every day. But the reason that she wouldn't want to say it, I would guess
00:37:08.540
is because it would put her life in danger. What does that tell us? That's all the more reason why
00:37:15.860
you would think Me Too would speak up on their behalf if they care, but they don't. Um, KVG says,
00:37:22.620
two things can be true at once. Dante was a bad human being and the cop screwed up. Sure. I don't
00:37:29.200
think anyone, we, the cop admits pretty much on the spot when you listen to the video that it was
00:37:35.360
an accident. And so an accident is a mistake, a screw up. You know, there's, I don't think anyone
00:37:41.980
is denying that. Um, absolutely degenerate kind of ironic username, given the comment here says,
00:37:51.900
children are too wholesome for this world. Matt, your daughter is adorable. Yeah. You know what?
00:37:56.800
They really are. It's kind of heartbreaking as a parent. They don't tell you this part about
00:38:00.240
parenting. Do you? This is one thing that this undercurrent of pain, um, that comes, it's sort of
00:38:05.340
this, it's a, it's a kind of a sweet loving pain, but it is pain that you feel as a parent, seeing your
00:38:10.560
children in their innocence and knowing that it won't last, knowing that one day they'll be as jaded and
00:38:17.520
corrupted as you are. I have moments like this all the time with my kids. I had a moment like this,
00:38:22.640
actually this morning with my son, because I went into the room to say bye to him before I left for
00:38:25.660
work. And he had this magazine that, that, uh, that, uh, his mom bought from the store with pictures
00:38:30.660
of King Kong and Godzilla. You know, it's just like one of those movie magazines. And, um, he had selected
00:38:38.100
a bunch of pages and mark them that he wanted to sit with. When I got home from work, he said he wanted
00:38:44.580
to sit with me and look at these, these specific pages. And so he told me when I got home from work,
00:38:49.160
there's just a bunch of awesome pictures he needs me to see. And he's looking forward to that. And of
00:38:53.500
course I said, Oh buddy, that's awesome. You know, I can't wait. But I also had this pang of sadness
00:38:57.600
again, like, man, this kid is so innocent and sweet that this is what he's, this is what he's doing
00:39:03.280
with his day is he's looking at pictures of Godzilla and King Kong and looking forward to watch,
00:39:06.960
looking at the magazine with daddy. Um, but you know, it won't last. That's the thing. That's the
00:39:13.000
sadness. That's where it comes in. It was a sappy moment. We don't get those very often on this show.
00:39:18.620
I feel like I have to move to something else. Here we go. Um, another comment says, this is my
00:39:23.500
first time commenting. So I, I will inevitably be banned for not commenting earlier. No, you're
00:39:29.420
banned for thinking that I would ban you for something so petty. That's why you're banned,
00:39:33.040
but you are banned for the record. Another comment says, Matt, I was unsure of your show back when you
00:39:38.100
were streaming in your car. Now you're my favorite show on daily wire. You pull no punches,
00:39:41.740
keep up the great work. Oh, so you were unsure just because I was in my car, elitist. You think
00:39:46.760
I didn't have anything worthwhile to say only because I was a maniac screaming at my car dashboard.
00:39:51.420
Really? You know what that gets you, gets you banned. Of course. And finally, Jackson says,
00:39:58.880
congratulations on 700 episodes. I didn't even realize I read these comments and, uh, I, that's how
00:40:04.800
I realized I was at 700 episodes, big milestone. I didn't plan any celebration. Um,
00:40:11.200
here, I will joyously throw these pens in the air in celebration. Here's my celebration for 700
00:40:17.140
episodes. Are you ready? That was pretty exciting. Good. All right. Now a quick word from ExpressVPN.
00:40:28.580
Listen, we know that everyone should have the right to express themselves freely, but we know also,
00:40:32.680
sadly, that big tech, uh, has opted for silencing people and censorship. Uh, and we know that this is,
00:40:39.460
a lot of this is politically motivated. And what does that mean? It means we have to fight back
00:40:43.360
and to fight back against big techs control the internet. I use ExpressVPN. You ever wondered
00:40:48.440
how free to access tech giants make all their money? They make billions of it. Well, they do it
00:40:53.100
by tracking your searches, your video history, everything you click on. And by building a profile
00:40:57.320
of you, uh, they then sell off your sensitive data. And that's how they're making money off of you
00:41:02.280
without your consent, without your knowing it. When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone,
00:41:06.780
you, you, uh, you make anonymous much of your online presence by hiding your IP address. That
00:41:12.000
means your activity is more difficult to trace, more difficult to sell to advertisers. What's more
00:41:16.320
ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and crittens and
00:41:21.660
cyber criminals. You know, the big tech hates you. So don't just let, let them profit off of you in
00:41:26.960
this way. Take action, get ExpressVPN, revoke big tech's right to your data, secure your internet with
00:41:32.860
the VPN that I trust for online protection. Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com
00:41:40.280
slash Walsh to get three months free with my exclusive link. That's again, expressvpn.com slash Walsh
00:41:47.060
right now and learn more. Also it's a episode five already. We can't get enough of Candace Owens or her
00:41:54.200
new show. And, uh, every episode has been great and getting better each, each week this week. Uh, I think
00:42:00.860
it's going to be the best of all because she's going to be hosting comedian and podcaster, Adam
00:42:04.220
Carolla. You can tune in. Uh, you don't want to miss this conversation. And if you want to tune
00:42:08.440
in, of course you become a Daily Wire member, you can watch that way. Or, uh, you can also get
00:42:13.120
Candace Owens in your Twitter feed, uh, Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen to your podcasts.
00:42:16.980
So if you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, uh, look no further, head over to Apple
00:42:22.000
Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe today. Be sure to leave a five-star review. If you like what you hear,
00:42:26.240
now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for what I think will be a brief and
00:42:32.760
relatively painless cancellation, we turned to an article in the Washington Post, an article in
00:42:36.420
which your, your humble, your humble podcast host, yours truly is personally featured.
00:42:40.360
The headline is United pledged to diversify its pilot pipeline. Outrage from conservative
00:42:45.900
pundits was swift. Now I should tell you that I didn't know about this article or that I was
00:42:50.240
mentioned it until I, it was posted to Twitter by a guy named Torrin Ellis who tagged me in his tweet.
00:42:55.760
Ellis tweeted, quote, here are three propped up mediocre white men that should kick rocks,
00:43:03.040
Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson, and Pierce Morgan for attempting to devalue DNI. I think DNI stands for
00:43:08.720
diversity and inclusion. Needless to say, if I called Ellis a quote, mediocre black man,
00:43:15.900
he would cry racist. And only, you know, that's because he's allowed to use language like that.
00:43:20.740
Uh, but I'm not, the rules are very clear. Ellis, by the way, is a diversity and inclusion
00:43:25.740
strategist by trade. I'm still not sure what a diversity and inclusion strategist does exactly.
00:43:32.060
I guess a company hires you and then you give them arbitrary quotas to fill.
00:43:36.240
Like you say, well, let's see, uh, this company needs nine more black people, two Asians, 12 women.
00:43:41.560
Tell you what, let's spice it up in a bit and get a, get a non-binary lesbian Vietnamese pirate on
00:43:46.480
staff as well. That'll be $95,000. Thank you. The process may not work exactly like that,
00:43:52.760
but I think that's the general idea. In any case, all that to say, this is how I discovered that I
00:43:56.240
was outraged, that I was outraged at United. You see, I'm quite often included in these articles
00:44:01.060
about conservative outrage and conservative backlash. The strategy from the media is pretty
00:44:06.060
obvious. It always follows the same pattern. Someone on the left or some company on the left,
00:44:10.120
in this case, does something crazy and stupid. The media knows that it can't defend the crazy,
00:44:16.000
stupid thing on its own merits. So instead they go in through the back door attempting to indirectly
00:44:20.480
defend it by pretending that only we bigoted, hateful, insane, conservative pundits are opposed
00:44:25.000
to this crazy, stupid thing. For the record, much of the time, outrage is not the right word for how
00:44:32.880
I feel about these crazy, stupid things. Sometimes it is. Okay. I am indeed outraged, for example,
00:44:38.000
about the children being indoctrinated into left-wing gender theory and then drugged and mutilated.
00:44:43.260
I've been included in conservative outrage articles about that. And accurately so
00:44:47.420
the physical and sexual abuse of children does outrage me. You might even say that I'm a full-blown
00:44:54.260
snowflake when it comes to child abuse. I am very upset about it and angry. That much I admit. It
00:44:59.560
offends me. It does. As for United deciding to recruit based on race and gender rather than merit,
00:45:05.840
I'm not outraged. If I was a passenger on the first plane that crashes because it's piloted by
00:45:12.580
someone who was hired to fill a quota, then yeah, I'd be outraged about that. But I'm not going to
00:45:17.580
be on that plane because I'm not going to fly United because I prefer not to die if I can help it.
00:45:23.240
Nonetheless, I was included in the outrage pundit brigade without my consent. Here's the
00:45:29.420
Criticism of the plan suggested United was prioritizing the wrong qualities and in many
00:45:34.980
cases overlooked the fact that pilots would still have to undergo extensive training
00:45:38.260
to be eligible for a job. Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh penned an opinion piece titled
00:45:43.460
United offers passengers exciting opportunity to die in diverse and equitable plane crash.
00:45:49.240
Fox News host Tucker Carlson tackled the issue the day after United's announcement,
00:45:52.380
accusing the airline of prioritizing identity politics over safety. Quoting him, it says,
00:45:57.360
so if hiring on the basis of irrelevant criteria will over time get people killed and it will,
00:46:01.000
why are they demanding it? Because they don't care. They're ideologues. They're suffering from an
00:46:04.900
incurable brain disease called wokeness. And Piers Morgan, who resigned from Good Morning America
00:46:09.360
last month after criticizing Megan, Duchess of Sussex, wrote in the Daily Mail that white male
00:46:14.520
pilots were being discriminated against by the airline's plan. Okay. Now, I wouldn't call my
00:46:19.060
headline quoted there as outraged. I did think it was pretty clever, though, and I'm grateful for the
00:46:23.660
shout out. But what I really want to focus on for a moment is a quote earlier in the article
00:46:29.680
from the spokesman for United Airlines. And as far as I know, this is the first time they've come out
00:46:35.620
and given a longer explanation of this plan and defense of it. And so, in fairness, I'll read that
00:46:42.180
to you. Here's what the spokesman said. He said, our commitment to diversity is about recruiting from
00:46:47.460
the deepest pool possible of exceptional and qualified candidates who want to pursue a career
00:46:51.360
as a commercial airline pilot, particularly those who otherwise may not have attempted to do so due to a
00:46:55.800
variety of factors, primarily financial barriers. We believe that we're going to be a better, stronger
00:47:00.740
airline because of this. And we also understand that our pilot group needs to better reflect the
00:47:05.680
communities that we serve. Now, this, of course, is nonsense. The point is that United didn't just say
00:47:15.380
that they want to make sure everyone has a fair shot at being a pilot. They didn't just say
00:47:19.960
that they're going to go into underserved communities and recruit. Nobody would object
00:47:26.140
to that plan. Most of us probably assumed they were already doing stuff like that.
00:47:30.960
If they weren't, it's an easy thing to start doing. The problem is that they set a quota, a goal.
00:47:38.800
They have an actual percentage in mind for the number of women and minorities that will be in their
00:47:43.700
training pipeline. 50% is the number they want. So here again is the question. If all they want to do
00:47:50.920
is find the most qualified people and are expanding their search to that end, how can they know ahead
00:47:56.880
of time that 50% of the most qualified people will be women and minorities? They might hope that it's 50%,
00:48:04.180
but how do they know that it will be? They obviously can't know that. And it's almost certainly
00:48:10.280
not going to work out like that. If then they fulfill their 50% goal, it will be because they
00:48:16.640
put other considerations above considerations of merit and skill. This is another equality of
00:48:22.960
outcome versus equality of opportunity situation. Everybody agrees with equality of opportunity.
00:48:31.820
We're turning something controversial, which doesn't need to be controversial. If you simply said,
00:48:37.300
all people of all races, nations, and creeds and sexes should have the opportunity to be a pilot or
00:48:42.080
a firefighter or an actor or whatever other arbitrarily selected occupation, if that's all
00:48:47.360
you said, nobody would disagree. We could all shake hands and be friends. Probably not shake hands given
00:48:54.100
the lingering COVID paranoia, but we could all elbow bump and be friends. That is a non-controversial opinion
00:48:59.500
and a worthy goal, and it's not a problem. But when you say that a certain preordained percentage of the
00:49:06.520
people who actually earn these jobs and titles should be a certain race or sex, then you have left
00:49:13.260
this non-controversial opinion and worthy goal and fallen into a pit where everything is dumb and
00:49:20.480
nothing makes sense and planes crash because the pilot was incompetent but filled a quota and the media
00:49:25.640
pretends that only conservative pundits are upset about it. And so for that reason, the Washington
00:49:33.340
post, of course, is canceled. And the diversity and strategists from before, I forget his name
00:49:38.000
already, all canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.
00:49:44.660
Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the
00:49:53.440
word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're
00:49:57.840
available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to
00:50:02.440
check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show,
00:50:08.060
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising
00:50:13.400
producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Our technical director is Austin Stevens,
00:50:18.180
production manager Pavel Vadosky. The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike
00:50:23.680
Coromina. Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
00:50:29.260
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
00:50:32.580
CNN admits on a hidden camera that it hyped COVID for ratings. BLM NYC lambasts BLM's founder for
00:50:39.820
embezzling lots of money without giving them a cut. And ice cream melts over white supremacy.