The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 416 - Transgender Child Molester Awarded Get Out Of Jail Free Card

Episode Date: January 30, 2020

In one the craziest and most outrageous stories you'll ever hear, a serial child molester is released from prison after being deemed less of a risk because he "transitioned" to a "woman." We will go through this case and talk about all of its many insane elements. Also, I'll answer your emails. If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Walsh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the show, everybody. We begin today with a story that is so incomprehensibly insane that even the most cynical and jaded among you will have a hard time believing it. Me as the most cynical and most jaded. I found it hard to believe. Somebody emailed the story to me. It's the first I'd heard of it. And before I clicked the link, I thought, based on the description in the email, I thought, there's got to be more to this. There's no way, no, no way. But I clicked the link and I find out. No, this is exactly it. The headline in the Des Moines, register. Convicted of sex crimes as a man, felon no longer deemed threat because of gender change. Translation. A man who raped 15 children, including a one-year-old baby, is now getting out of prison

because he claims to be a woman. This is really happening. This is really happening in the United States in the year 2020. So I want to get into the details of this case and then break down just how outrageous this really is. I know it seems like there's no need to explain why it's outrageous, but because it's self-evident, it would seem, but this case is so unjust, so preposterous, that there are levels of lunacy you may not notice at first. It's like some sort of grotesque onion where you pull back one layer and there's another and another and another. We'll talk about that in just a moment, but first, a word from a new show sponsor. I'm excited to tell you about that's Daniels. We all say don't judge a book by its cover, but we also know that's exactly

what most of us do. Appearance can be everything, especially in a professional situation. So whether it should be the case or not, it is. Which is why I want to talk to you about that bag that you have over your shoulder right now, perhaps. Are you carrying maybe an old college backpack to work or around town if you have to go to the coffee shop like I do often with my laptop and so on. If so, it's really time to grow up and look the part and get yourself a Daniels briefcase. Based in New York City, Daniels makes leather briefcases for the modern professional, and they're making boys look like men, one bag at a time. That's the goal here. Made from premium Italian leather, Daniels is the perfect bag for wherever the day happens to take you.

Daniels is designed in New York City with working professionals in mind. It's a bag that's built for real life. That means it's high quality, it's durable. It's a simple design. There's no flashy logos or anything, but it's a great style as well. So it's exactly what you want. You've got the utility, you've got the style as well. I can tell you that Daniels conducted kind of an intervention on me

because I've been toting around the same tattered book bag for about six years now. I bought one six years ago. And give them, as I said, what I do for a living, I have to have my laptop with me pretty much everywhere I go. So I had this old, crusty, rotting, decaying book bag that I always had with me. Daniels sent me one of their beautiful briefcases. And finally, finally I look like a grown man. Thank God.

It's about time. I'm 33 years old. So I love the feel of the leather, the attention to detail. Even the inner lining of the briefcase is beautiful. So everything about it. I couldn't recommend it enough. This week, my listeners can get $50 off their Daniels briefcase at daniels, nyc.com. By using promo code Walsh at checkout.

That's 50 bucks off. one of their leather briefcases, take advantage of this deal now. Plus, they offer free shipping, free returns, free exchanges. What else do they have to do to get you to buy one of these briefcases? Again, that's Danielsn.yc.com promo code Walsh for $50 off a handcrafted, high-quality, leather briefcase with free shipping. Start looking like a professional today, daniels NYC.com. I love carrying their briefcase, and I know you will too.

Okay, let's get back to this situation. I've got to read to you basically this whole story in the Des Moines Register, as reported by Tom Cullen, the reporter, because I just, you need, I'm going to give you all the details about this. All right. So the Iowa Attorney General's Office, the Des Moines Register, the Iowa Attorney General's Office is no longer seeking the commitment of a former Midwest Christian Service's student convicted of myriad sex crimes because the individual now identifies as a woman. Court records show the state dismissed the application on January 9th. Attorney General spokesman Lynn Hicks wouldn't comment on the reason for the dismissal, other than to say an offender's hormone levels are an important part of substantiating an offender's likelihood of recidivism. In November, the Storm Lake Times reported that Joseph Matthew Smith,

a 23-year-old convicted of molesting a fellow MCS student in 2014, was undergoing medical treatment that is needed prior to potentially undergoing gender reassignment surgery. Smith has received treatment for gender reassignment over the past two years at Newton Correctional Facility. She first expressed, now I'm reading the article, so I'm going to be using the pronoun she to describe this man, but every time I say she in your head put the scare quotes around it, okay? She first expressed a desire to get started on transgender classification in October 2017 and started using female pronouns. Smith has expressed a preference to identify as Josie, according to court documents.

Hicks said that we don't believe we have evidence sufficient to prove Josie Smith has a significant chance of reoffending. In Iowa Department of Corrections, spokesman said Smith was transferred on Saturday to the Sioux County or the Sioux City Residential Treatment Facility for transitional release. Hicks caution the public

not to overreact to Smith's upcoming release. Smith will be subject to sex offender registration for the rest of her life. said, which includes regular meetings with a probation officer and a listing on an attorney general clearinghouse. So don't worry. Yes, he's a serial sex offender, but he's going to be on a list and he's going to have meetings. So don't be concerned. Josie Smith, according to Hicks, says we will be subject to strict sex offender reporting required of those who commit the crime she did. She'll be subject to supervision for the rest of her life. A preliminary report

prepared by the state's expert Dr. Jeffrey Davis says Smith molested as many as 15 victims, raging from ages 1 to 13 before being sentenced to prison in December 2015. The report found the likelihood of reoffending

within five years of release exceeded 20% because victims were of both genders and because Smith was under the age 25 and never had a long-term relationship. Smith has not had an intimate relationship, the report says, His sexual encounters appeared to have primarily involved molestation,

including his own molestation by multiple perpetrators or his victimization of others. He was molested as a child starting at the age of seven. Okay. And then it goes on from there. I'm saying if there's any other details here that are important. Dr. Tracy Thompson, Thomas, a forensic psychologist, said that the statute that outlines civil commitment requires the state to essentially prove an offender has a chance offending greater than 51% for the rest of his life,

that becomes harder to prove when an offender significantly lowers his testosterone levels, which has a significantly higher impact on sex drive than estrogen. Okay. Where do we even begin? As I said, there are many layers of this putrid, rancid onion. So in no particular order, let's start here. First of all, it's not even true that this man this man, this dude, this male individual, this male scumbag, I should say, it's not true that he's less likely to reoffend because he transitioned to a female, quote

unquote. That's simply not true. In fact, they actually did a study on this, a legitimate study, the longest and most involved study of its kind as far as I know, where it involved 324 people over the course of 30 years, and they looked at whether there was any change in several different things, but including criminality, reduction in crime, including violent crimes for transgenders who transitioned from male to female. And they found, no, they found that these male to females retain the same rate of violent crime as regular males. probably because they're still male at the end of the day. Second, even if it was true, it's beside the point.

Even if it was true that his chances of reoffending have now been somewhat or even significantly diminished because he's on these hormone pills, that would still be beside the point. It's irrelevant because we're missing something here. And it's a big thing. And that thing is called justice. The point of prison is not simply to segregate dangerous people so that when they're supposedly not dangerous anymore, we can release them. That's not the whole point.

That's part of the point. Segregation of dangerous people is part of the point of prison. It's not the entire point. Not even close to the entire point. And it's not the main point. If it was, then why is somebody like, I don't know, Bernie Madoff? still in prison. He's probably not a danger to anybody anymore. Is he still, if he's still alive? I don't even, is he still alive? I'm not sure.

But if he is, he's probably not a danger to anybody anymore. Yeah, he scammed hundreds of people out of their life savings, but probably he wouldn't be able to do it again after he's famous for doing it the first time. And so, release him from prison, put him on a scam artist registry. and then he can go about his life. We could have a registry for everything. A murderer registry. A car thief registry. No need for prisons anymore.

In fact, with murder, think about just as a hypothetical example, but one that has many analogous cases. Think about someone, say, a man in his 50s who murders his wife in a fit of passion after finding out that she cheated on him. Okay? What are the chances that that guy will kill somebody else? He's not a serial killer.

He's not even necessarily a psychopath. Let's say he lived the first 50 years of his life, never hurt anybody. So what are the chances that he does it again? Probably less than, I would say significantly less than 50%. So if you're letting this guy out of prison, why put people who murder others in a crime of passion in prison? Their risk of killing again is pretty low, probably. Well, that doesn't work. Because, for one thing, being on a registry, having your name on a database doesn't do a single

damn thing to prevent you from committing a crime. For another, it's not only about crime prevention, it's about justice. Justice matters too, a lot. It matters a lot. So I don't care if you can look into a crystal ball and tell me that this dude will never hurt another child again. You can't. And if you did have a crystal ball telling you that, then I would say your crystal ball is defective, because he will do it again.

Will. People who are serial child molesters, people who get into their 20s and as the report says, have had many sexual interactions, but all of them are molestation, whether to him or by him. People like that, they don't snap out of it. You let him out of prison in his early 20s. He's not going to spend the rest 60 years of it, you know, the final 60 years of his life or however, however long he lives on the straight and narrow. It's not going to happen because we're dealing with someone who is sick and dangerous. This is a sick and dangerous person. And sick and dangerous people don't magically suddenly stop being that.

But, again, regardless of that, justice, the man deserved to be punished for what he did because that is just. You molest a child. You molest a one-year-old, for God's sake. Justice calls for you to be in prison forever. Never to see the light of day again. In fact, justice calls for a short walk up to gallows and then an even shorter trip back down with a rope around your neck. That's what it calls for. This guy shouldn't even be living anymore. He should be executed. That's what we should be doing with serial child molesters. I'm very much convinced of that. But at a minimum, justice calls for permanent life incarceration. There is no benefit to society at all to being lenient on child molesters. Third point, this man was molested as a child. That's not an excuse for what he did. But my point is he was molested as a child, and then he became a serial child molester,

and then he goes to jail. And then he decides he's really a woman. Do you think that revelation was due to some deep insight this guy has about his interior self? Do you think all of these details, the fact that he's a sexual degenerate who was abused as a child, you think that's irrelevant to the sudden identification as a woman? Even if it's true that a man can really be a woman inside, whatever the hell that means, even if that was true, which it isn't, but even if it was, even if it was, does any sane person think that that's the case for this particular guy?

Isn't it incredibly obvious that he is just a confused, sick, depraved human being and his desire to live as a woman is yet another one of his perverse fantasies? Isn't that obvious to everybody with a brain? Again, regardless of how you feel about transgenderism generally, the reality in this specific case should be obvious to everybody. And he gets to leave prison because he transitioned. I'm sure that had nothing to do with it, right? The fact that he gets to leave now because he transitioned.

Just like the guys who discover their inner femininity and then what do you know, get to walk into a women's locker room, but we're told, no, that's got nothing to do with it. They would never be motivated. Nobody would ever be motivated by that. So if you transition, you get to get out of jail free, you can go into women's locker rooms. But no, no, no, no. That would never be anyone's motivation ever.

No, no, no. It could never, ever have it. It's impossible. Right. Fourth point. And yet, in spite of all this, the person who wrote the article I just read and the officials interviewed in the article, at least one of the officials, they all reverently use the pronouns that this sicko, this baby rapist, wants.

Why? Do you actually think he's a woman? Is that really what you think? The guy who wrote this article and is using the word she, is that really? Is that really? You think this guy's a woman? Is that you really believe that?

If not, why are you barking like a dog and using the language he demands? Why are you barking on command on this guy's command. He says, call me a woman. Okay, that I will. Why? You can't even look at this guy and say,

sorry, sorry, buddy, no. That'll care what you want. Makes no difference to me. But you don't want to hurt his feelings? You don't want to hurt the feelings of a man who molested a child, multiple children. That's your concern? You're going to sacrifice truth.

You're going to sacrifice rationality. You're going to sacrifice your dignity. You're going to humiliate yourself, embarrass yourself, and play along with this nonsense all simply to preserve the feelings of a child rapist? Really? How spineless can you be? This is beyond spineless. This is boneless. You are now a gelatinous puddle of a person laying there, flaccid and helpless with no will of your own.

That you would actually debase yourself by using. using this person's preferred pronouns. Fifth point, let's not allow the judicial malpractice involved in releasing this man from prison, distract from the malpractice involved in the fact that he was allowed to transition in prison in the first place on the taxpayer's dime. Remember what it said. Smith has received treatment for gender re-assignment over the past two years at Newton Correctional Facility.

So this guy molests 15 kids, goes to jail. gets a free gender transition out of the bargain, is now released again. And here again, we have the feelings, the confused, deranged feelings of a pedophile give an absolute top billing, top priority. What is the argument in favor of using tax money to help this guy transition? There's no argument other than it would make him feel good. and he would feel bad if he couldn't do it. That's the argument that wins the day. That outweighs everything else.

And once again, why does he want to transition? Is it because he's identified some mysterious mystical truth about his inner self? Or is it because this is another one of his sick sexual fantasies? Which do you think? We now have prisons spending money, tax money, to help pedify. live out their fantasies in prison? What if you wanted to be a furry? Would you go and get him a dog costume?

What if you had a BDSM thing? Would you build him a sex dungeon? I mean, how far does this go? This is, there are, we are at a point where literally no words can adequately describe how crazy things have gotten. And maybe you have the same feeling I do, but every day I feel like

there's a small collection of sane people left in this country. And every day another person abandons the sane tribe. And I always feel such betrayal when they do it. And one way I know is that I see yet another person who I thought was rational and had a little bit of a spine. I see them talking about a case like this and saying the word she. And every time I see that, I think,

E2? E2 Brutei? You're going to do it too? Really? I mean, am I the only one who sees how am I the only one who can look at someone like this and say, I don't give a damn what your preferred language is? I'm going to say what the reality is. I don't care about the fantasy world you're living in. You cannot force me to pretend I don't understand reality. It's not going to happen. Sixth point, the hormone pills this guy is given are supposedly so potent that they're supposed to have changed a sex predator into a non-preditor. They didn't, as we stipulated, they didn't. And even if they did, as we stipulated, he should still be in jail. But it is true in any case that these hormone pills are indeed extremely potent. And they do have a

profound lasting effect on the people who take them. That is true. no doubt about that. So consider the fact that these same pills, the pill that is supposed to have essentially chemically castrated this sex offender in prison and made it so that he is neutered and no longer a danger to the public, that same drug is given to children, children, middle school kids, and younger. are given the same drug this guy has. The same drug that is supposed to have neutered a serial child molester,

that drug we give to actual children. Because they're confused. They're confused about their gender, and so we give them this drug. I could go on dissecting everything that's wrong with this story and society, but you get the point. and this is why it's so important the few remaining sane people

if you're in the same if we're in the same club if we're in the sane club you gotta you gotta stay with us it's really important sanity that's what we need in this country now forget about everything else

you know we're not at the point yet where we can have arguments making a stand for things like patriotism and I mean even morality we're not there yet We need to establish basic sanity, basic rationality and logic. That's what needs to be defended first before we can get to anything else. But this is where it leads.

And this is why I emphasize this issue so much, because it is a war over reality itself. That's what's at stake. And when they insist that you start using certain language that isn't true and those sorts of things. What they're saying is we demand that you abandon reality, that you put feelings over truth, that you put our political agenda, this is the left, you know, you put our political agenda over truth and reality. And for some reason, every day more and more people find themselves persuaded somehow by that argument. All right, let's, let's, you know, we're I think we'll go right to emails, because I had a few other stories, but they're all in the same vein of outrageous things that make me angry.

But I think maybe just this one for the day will be enough so that I don't have an aneurism on camera. Which would be interesting for the viewer, I admit, but I'd prefer. I'd prefer not. So we'll go to emails, Matt Wall Show at gmail.com. Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. Before we get there, though, we've been telling you about the proletters. life fight and what the Daily Wire has been doing. And obviously, you know, obviously you know that for me on this show, the struggle to defend

unborn life is the most important thing. 60 million children killed since Roe v. Wade. And that's why this is the number one civil rights issue of our time, the number one human rights issue of our time, one of the most important human rights issues of all time. But we also know that the left has been. has been increasingly going off the deep end, getting more extreme in their defense of child murder, and part of that effort is also to censor and shut down

those of us who stand for life and to defend those who can't defend themselves. And so they've been going after The Daily Wired. We know that when Ben Shapiro spoke at the March for Life last year, our advertisers were targeted by left-wing media watchdogs. We've lost revenue there, and these are efforts that continue. But we're not the only ones. Live action is one of the biggest pro-life voices in the movement,

and they do some of the most important work in the movement. And they've also been targeted continuously, over and over again, relentlessly, by the pro-abortion set. And our entire social media platforms, they're no longer allowed on. That's why our DailyWire.com members are so important. Your membership helps keep our cameras on, our microphones turned up, even when the left pressures our sponsors, That's why from now until January 31st, a portion of any DailyWire.com membership will be donated to live action with promo code live action to support awareness and education around the world in this issue.

This is your last chance. So head on over to DailyWire.com and make your pro-life voice heard. There's only a few days left to take advantage of this plan and you want to do it now. So again, join DailyWire.com, make your pro-life voice heard before it's too late. All right, let's go to emails. This is from Brandon, says, Dear Matt, first I must say you appear to have good taste in most things, drink, entertainment, books, and so on.

But I find it always falls short of what is truly great. Your affinity for Christopher Nolan and whiskey choices are just a few examples. I know this marks me for immediate execution upon your ascension to rightful rule as theocratic overlord, but hey, you really can't do anything about it right now. Anyway, ever the glutton for second best, I took your advice and had to listen to John Prine. the first song I listened to was hello in there. I found myself blinking back tears.

Perhaps it was the fact that I just found out my first child is going to be a boy, or perhaps I need to reevaluate your status as picker of second best things. Either way, thank you for the suggestion. Brandon, because I'm so merciful, I am going to overlook all of those vicious insults you leveled at me and simply say you're welcome for pointing you in the direction of good music. And also, for the record, because I don't like that. being slandered. I don't know where you get this my affinity for Christopher Nolan thing. I think my position has been that I think Christopher Nolan, many of his films are overrated.

I think he's a good director, good filmmaker. But you might be confusing me with Ben Shapiro. He's a Christopher Nolan guy. I'm not really. I'm kind of, I'm lukewarm on Nolan, for the record. This is from Mark says, hey Matt, you posted on Twitter about spanking kids. and I wanted to answer that I posted a Twitter poll for people if they, is spanking a child, is that an ethical and effective form of

punishment? It's been interesting, about 30,000 people have responded to the poll and last I checked it was about I don't know, 75, 25, 25 in favor of spanking kids. Back to Mark, he says, I find that he says, I wanted to answer that I spank my kids, I find that it is an extremely

effective method of raising my kids well my kids are usually the most well-behaved kids in the room where other parents and people are constantly commenting on how well-behaved my kids are, especially my daughter. When I stopped using spankings for time, my kid's behavior became noticeably worse, so I resumed. There were a few times when I overheard her talking to her cousins while they were plotting to do something mischievous,

and she said, I'm not going to do that because I'll get a spanking. I think it's important to do spanking right. You should do it in anger. You need to be consistent, and you should talk to your kids about what's going on and why it's happening. With my kids, I sit them down. We talk about the wrong behavior they did, the consequence. Then we do it, the spanking.

Then we talk to them about what happened while comforting them and finish with a prayer for strength going forward. I'm not going to say not spanking is the wrong choice, but I think to say it is wrong to do it is inappropriate. Also, when you mention studies, the problem with the studies done on this subject is that there is no causal relationship between spanking and negative outcomes.

The most that can come from it is a correlation Dr. Gershoff says that all of the studies on physical punishment have some shortcomings. Quote, unfortunately, all research on parent discipline is going to be correlational because we can't randomly assign kids to parents for an experiment. All right, Mark, yeah, it's true that studies on the subject are hard to conduct. A real study, a real controlled study of something like this, would have to involve not necessarily randomly assigning kids to parents, but randomly assigning parents to spank their kids.

You have to have a group of parents. And you say, okay, this group over here, you're going to spank your kids. This group, you won't. And then we'll check back in 10 years and see how it's going. But that would be obviously unethical among all the other problems with it. So that hasn't been done. So it's a hard thing to study. And that's why my perspective on it doesn't hinge on studies.

My point in bringing up the studies was just to address all the people who claim that spanking leads to more disciplined kids and more well-behaved kids. and I don't think there's any empirical evidence for that. There aren't any studies, as you point out. I just, I don't think there's any evidence. And although studies of this are hard to conduct and aren't conclusive, you can still look at various factors and broadly compare spanked kids to non-spanked. And that's been done.

And I don't think the spanking leads to better-behaved kids theory has been supported by any of the studies or any of the research that I've looked at. My issue, and I think we've talked about this before, but my issue with spanking is multifaceted. Number one, there's a real do as I say, not as I do element to this. I tell my kids all the time, use your words, don't hit. I'm constantly telling them that. And then, but I'm going to turn around and hit them. I can insist all I want that no, it's different, it's not the same, blah, blah, blah,

but a hit is a hit. And I think I undermine my own authority and my message as a parent when I do the thing I'm telling them not to do. That doesn't mean that everything I do a kid should be allowed to do. But if I'm saying that something sort of in principle is wrong, and if I have this consistent message of don't do this, don't do this, do this, then I shouldn't be doing it myself. I can think of very few exceptions to that. Another one would be yelling and shouting. I tell my kids all the time, don't yell, don't shout. Do I do it myself sometimes? Yes. But I also know that I shouldn't be because I'm the one constantly telling them not to do it.

If I do it and I tell them not to, kids are going to make a connection. It does all, as I said, all we want, we can say, oh, it's different. Blah, blah, blah, blah. That's not. That's not. not how they see it. Number two, I think spanking may kind of reek of desperation. A really in command and in control parent should be able to instill discipline and keep a handle on things without resorting to hitting their children. And I can't remember who said about it. I read somewhere, somebody drew this, I thought, interesting distinction between being

a demanding parent and being a commanding parent. and the distinction is anybody can demand. Demand is you're insisting and you're pleading and maybe even you're spanking but you're trying to conjure your kids into doing what you want. That's demanding. And we all make demands as parents. But the goal is to be commanding,

to be a commanding presence where they listen because they respect you and they listen simply because you're saying it. And so you have commanding. over the household. Now, nobody can complete that task perfectly, obviously, but that's the goal. And I think that spanking tends to lend more towards the demanding parenting style than commanding. And then three, I think there are real ethical concerns with using physical force against a child, with trying to extract good behavior through physical force and the fear of physical force.

I know a lot of people grew up in homes where they feared their dads and they behaved because they were afraid of being smacked and I know a lot of people defend that saying I turned out okay but whether you actually turned out okay or not I still don't think it's the right approach or the right relationship you're supposed to have with your child you think about a child it's a very this is a small frail helpless creature we're talking about here

and I don't know, imposing yourself physically in that way, using physical force on a small child as an adult, I think there should be other ways, and there are other ways. You should be able to, one thing, you should be able to outsmart your child. And I think when you resort to spanking, what you're saying is, I got nothing else. You've beaten me. You've beaten me in the psychological game. And so now I'm going to beat you. And I know, look, okay, I know people are going to say there's a difference between beating and spanking.

Spanking. I understand that. But it is still you're physically hitting your child, right? That is what you're doing. So I understand the distinction maybe between beating and spanking. But sometimes parents who spank their children, I think they're in a little bit of denial. They even try to draw distinctions between hitting a child. than spanking. No, you are hitting. You are dictionary definition. That's hitting. You are hitting the child to get the child to behave. And when you put it like that, it sounds kind of awful. But that's the correct way of putting it because that is what you're doing, right?

And going back to, I think there are things we do as parents. Spanking maybe is one of them where People do it primarily because their parents did it, and their parents did it, and their parents did it, and it's sort of a normal thing for parents to do. I think that's the main reason people do it. Not because they've looked at research that convinced them, not because they've really thought about the ethical implications of it. I know they're exceptions.

Maybe you have, but I think for a lot of parents, they do it just because it's what their parents did. And I'm not saying that this generation of parents that were all better than the previous generations. But, and I know, but the problem is a lot of people will say, there seem to think that previous generations of parents were so much better than us. And so we should just do what they did. And there's this idolization that happens of the previous old, you know, the old fashioned parenting. They got some things right that we get wrong, certainly. but they also got some things horribly wrong as well.

They weren't perfect parents, and they did have some wrong ideas about parenting. We shouldn't idolize that. You think even the greatest generation, call them the greatest generation, well, they knew how to parent. Yeah, well, their kids turned around and started the sexual revolution. So I'm not putting the blame entirely on them,

but the evidence that they were wonderful, awesome parents isn't there. Something obviously went really wrong. with your great parents, your so-called great parenting, and then, you know, next thing you know, your kids are starting Woodstock. I think some things went wrong. And when you hear these people talk about, oh, my grandmother used to pull out the belt and, you know, they talk about their fathers or their grandparents using belts and weapons and in anger hitting them. And people talk about it now almost fondly with nostalgia. But what you're describing is an adult, is an out of control, enraged adult using a weapon against you as a child. That is physical abuse.

You are fondly recalling your own abuse and then claiming you turned out fine. I think that's evidence that you didn't turn out fine. And, you know, back in the old days, especially with fathers, I think there was, this wasn't the case across the board, but the general attitude was fathers were more emotionally distant. They were authority figures, but that was kind of it. They were more emotionally distant. They didn't interact with the kids as much. There wasn't as much affection.

There wasn't as much playing with the kid on their own level as a father. And so you sort of feared your father as an authority figure. But I think that's wrong. I think this is one area where in modern times, we have. have improved. We're a father now with my own kids. I'm very affectionate with my kids. I play with my kids. I don't want to just be the authority figure in the home. I want to be someone a source of love and affection as well. I want to be someone that they feel safe around. I want to be someone that they can relate to and have a bond with and talk. I want to be that too. I'm not saying

you can't do that if you spank. I'm just saying that there were some that the the, the, the, the, the, the, philosophy of parenting back in the old days was not entirely correct. There were some problems with it, and I think that spanking may have been a part of that. So it's just something we should analyze and think about. All right, let's go. This is from Aaron says, Dear Matt. One other point about this I wanted to make. Maybe I can just sum it up here. Maybe this is all I needed to say, rather than rambling for 15 minutes. Most people would say that hitting a dog as punishment is animal abuse.

Certainly hitting a dog with a belt or any kind of a rod or anything. A spoon, whatever. Most people would say, especially if you're using some sort of tool, hitting a dog, that's abuse. If there was a video of a guy, and I'm sure there are videos like this online, There's a video of a guy with a belt whipping his dog. We would all say, not only is that animal abuse, but that animal should be taken away and that guy should go to jail. And yet, it's okay to hit a kid?

Are we really going to say that there are disciplinary methods that are unethical to use against animals but are okay against young children? And I do think there's a distinction between, say, using a belt and just using your hand. But there are people that do the belt too. And there are people at least who maybe don't use the belt themselves, but will excuse it. You're whipping a child.

And again, if anyone did that to a dog, they go to jail. So I think it goes the other way around. There is no ethical form of punishment against a child that I can think of that would be unethical against a dog. There are ethical forms of punishments for dogs that would be unethical for children. so it does go the other way, like crating, for instance, okay. But if you're doing something to your kid, that would enrage you if you saw someone do it to a dog. That should be a red flag.

That's all I'll say. Okay. From Aaron says, Dear Matt, yesterday you were criticizing people who brought up Kobe Bryant's rape accusation for 2003 by pointing out that he was never convicted of anything. So it's unfair to speak with confidence, as if you know for sure he's guilty. You even went so far as to say that people were slandering him

for talking about it. Last year you said that Michael Jackson was a child rapist despite the fact that he like Kobe has never been convicted in a court of law You even criticize people who pointed this out by stating that it's too high of a standard to say you won't believe something negative about someone unless they've been convicted of it My question then is which is it? Why is it okay to call Michael Jackson a rapist but not Kobe when both were never convicted and yes and please don't say we we don't call Kobe a rapist out of respect for the dead? Michael Jackson's been dead for 10 years and that didn't stop you from saying what you said about him. I think there's a delineation here, Aaron. Fair point, but I think there's a delineation.

First of all, my primary criticism of people who brought up the Kobe stuff is that they did it literally hours after he died. And there's no reason for that. The man died, by the way, died along with his daughter and eight, seven other people. And there were those who, the first thing they did, the first thing they said,

body's still smoldering in the wreck. and their first move is to call him a rapist. That's obviously in bad taste, to say the least. There's no reason. I'm not saying that we can never talk about the negative things about someone's life after they die. Obviously, that would be absurd. But you don't need to do it in this case five minutes later.

There's no reason for it other than to get attention. And so that was my primary beef. But also, Kobe Bryant was accused one time by one person, wasn't convicted. The evidence against him was not, in my opinion, overwhelming. I'm not saying he's innocent. I don't know. But I think based on what we do know, it's unreasonable. Forget about the timing for a minute even.

It's unreasonable to think or to speak with confidence and say that he's guilty. Now, for Michael Jackson, on the other hand, you've got... a man who was multiply accused of child rape by multiple children telling similar stories there's bundles of evidence against him

eyewitness and physical evidence and he admits to having little boys over to his house and even in his bed for sleepovers as I said before and I'll say it again if you think a grown man is inviting little boys into his bed

for innocent reasons you are not smart. And if you still think it, even after those little boys tell you they were raped, you're a lot worse than not smart. And I would contend there is not a single person on earth who would insist on Michael Jackson's innocence,

given the evidence against him, given his own admission to having sleepover parties with little boys who invited into his bed, given all the accusations, nobody on earth would be. insisting on his innocence if they didn't, if, if he wasn't a famous pop star. If he was just Michael, Mr. Michael Jackson down the street works as a plumber or works at the DMV or something and all of these facts lined up against him and you found out that he was, that he was having

little boys from the neighborhood over to his house for sleepovers. And then, oh, by the way, a few of them have even said that they were raped. There is no way in hell you would be insisting that he's innocent. No way. Not one single person was. The only reason they're doing with Michael Jackson is because they like the way he dances and sings. And I find that just, I find that attitude to be really beneath contempt that you would give someone the benefit of the doubt because you like their songs. That's not the case with Kobe Bryant. I'm, you know, I was never, I was never a big Kobe fan. I wasn't, I didn't dislike him.

I didn't have much of an opinion about it one way or another. And so with his rape case, I'm not looking at it like, oh, no, my dear Kobe never could have done that because I like the way he plays basketball. That's not my approach. I looked at the case back when it first was in the news back in 2003 or whenever it was. I've looked at it again this week. And I just think, and it's the only case against him. He wasn't convicted. And there's, there are a lot of details in that case that cast doubt. Such as just one of the details, by the way, is that from what I read, that when they did the rape kit on the accuser, they found other men's DNA as well, not just Kobe Bryant's. So that alone right there is enough for reasonable doubt. All right. But thank you for the email, and we will wrap it up there.

Thanks everybody for watching and listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple, podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay,

supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling, technical producer Austin Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer, Robin Fenderson. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020. Hey everyone, it's Andrew Claven,

host of the Andrew Claven show. Well, we began this week with a simple question, how dumb does the left think we are? It's a pretty easy question to answer. They think we're really dumb and racist, too. But here's a much more difficult question, a real mystery. Why does the left think

they're smart. Try and figure it out on the Andrew Claven Show. I'm Andrew Claven.