The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 672 - The Insurrection That Never Was

Episode Date: March 5, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media said there would be an insurrection in D.C. yesterday. It never happened. Now they’re saying the insurrection will actually be another day, and the military has to remain in the city until this new date. Are we starting to see a pattern? Also Five Headlines including eBay’s ban on the newly “offensive” Dr. Seuss books, the Washington Football Team decides to get rid of its cheerleaders, and BLM is revealed to be one big grift. What a shock. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll talk about one Democratic representative’s plan to lower the voting age to 16.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media said there would be an insurrection in D.C. It never happened. Now they're saying the insurrection will actually be another day, and the military has to remain in the city until this new date. Are we starting to send a pattern here? Also, five headlines, including eBay's ban on the newly offensive Dr. Seuss books, plus the Washington football team decides to get rid of its cheerleaders. And BLM is revealed to be one big grift. What a shock. And in our daily cancellation, we'll talk about one Democratic representative's plan to lower the voting age to 16. Is that a good idea? Definitely not. We'll talk about all that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.

While the United States Capitol was on, quote, high alert yesterday, the National Guard was ready, fencing all in place, security perimeter fortified. The House of Representatives canceled its sessions for the day. This was all done because, as the media constantly reminded us in the days leading up to yesterday, March 4th, there was supposed to be a threat of right-wing terrorist violence. The right-wing MAGA domestic terrorists had threatened to try to overtake the Capitol building on March 4th, we were told. And this was all part of, again, this is what we're told, all part of some plot that, as I understand it, involved the belief that March 4th was the true inauguration day. And on that day, Donald Trump would rise from the ashes to his rightful throne and call on his followers to also rise up in vengeance and destroy his adversaries. Now, the strange thing is that I never. heard about this conspiracy theory and this plot from any actual right wingers. I never heard

any right winger talk about this. I never saw any right winger post about this. I don't know of any right wingers who know of any right wingers who talked about that or posted about that. This was a far-reaching, widely believed conspiracy theory on the right that nobody on the right seemed to be aware of. Very strange. Yet it justified the further military occupation of D.C. and the drama and theatrics of the House of Representatives shutting down in a panic. And then March 4th came yesterday, and it went, and nothing happened. There was, you may have noticed, no attack, no insurrection, nothing. Now, this could be because the right-wing insurrectionists have invisibility cloaks

and actually did invade the Capitol, but nobody saw them. And if the terrorists have that kind of technology, then we're definitely in trouble. I mean, we have to admit, right? But the other possibility, something we should at least consider is that there was never any plot at all. That this was all an invention, something that existed only in the fevered imagination of the left in the media. I mean, we certainly can't rule out either possible. But I mean, the invisibility cloak thing is technically possible. But I tend to think that the latter is probably the case.

There was never any plot. If there were any QAnon people who believe that March 4th was the real inauguration, Day or whatever, it was a small smattering of them and not nearly enough to justify the continued military occupation of our nation's capital. So where do we go from here? There were supposed to be right-wing violence on inauguration Day. There was no violence. Then they said that there would be the violence on March 4th, and that didn't happen either. The military occupation of D.C. is starting to remind me of the 15 days to slow the spread thing, something with a definitive end date originally, but then suddenly becomes ambiguous and endless. They put a certain measure in place

for a particular reason. Then when that reason no longer applies, they find another one. And that's why we can't expect the military to go home and the fencing to come down now that another predicted right-wing insurrection turned out to be a dud. There are reports today that the United States Capitol Police Department has requested an extension of the National Guard presence in the Capitol for another 30 days. rather 60 days, sorry, another two months. Another two months of the U.S. Capitol under military occupation. Why? For what reason? More threats, of course. But what threats? Well, you heard about the threats on inauguration day that didn't amount to anything. And you heard

about the threats on a March 4th that didn't amount to anything. Now get ready for the next big thing. The next big hype. March 20th. You're probably going to be hearing a lot about March 20th in the coming days. Not from right-wing insurrectionists or Q&N conspiracy theorists, but from the media allegedly reporting what those other groups are allegedly saying. So here's the newsweek headline. It says QAnon theorists switch date to March 20th after no Trump inauguration, after no Trump inauguration, call the fourth false flag.

Then the article goes on to talk about how QAnon people branded March 4th, a false flag and never plan to do anything on that day, which again raises the question as to why, you know, why they canceled the House session and they stood on high alert. If now the media is telling us that, oh, yeah, well, the Q&9 people said March 4th was never a thing. But where does this March 20th date come from? Well, in the Newsweek article, you have to go all the way to the end of that article, and then you find this. Here's what it says. Some Q&I and not. Some Q&I, supporters seem to rebrand the March 4th conspiracy in the wake of community suspicion. While two individuals affiliated with the false theories simply suggested that Trump's inauguration

would take place sometime in the spring, one man identified as Ken told Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel that the former president, quote, will be inaugurated again on March 20th in comments over the weekend. Ken also believes that Trump is still in full command of the military and Biden is acting as president as a ruse while the Pope and others are rounded up, according to Wigle. The upcoming date will mark the 167th anniversary of the Republican Party's founding. Former members of the Whig Party are said to have technically established the GOP during a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20th, 1854. Oh yes, March 20th, 1854, the technical founding of the Republican Party. Isn't that a date that all of us right wingers know so well and care so much about?

I talk to conservatives all the time. I say, what are you doing from March 20th? Big day. It's when the Whig Party, technically form Republican Party. Big stuff. So that's it. A guy named Ken. Newsweek is pushing in its headline a new date for an insurrection based on something that a guy named Ken told another guy. That's really it. I'm not cherry picking and pull. No, that's it in the Newsweek article. That's all. they got. They got a guy named Ken. They don't even explain anything about Ken. Who is Ken? Is he from a forum? Is he from Reddit? Is he just like, did this Washington Post reporter stumble across this guy in a park bench somewhere? Is it his neighbor, his uncle, his cousin? Ah, just, this is what Ken says. This is how journalism works in the modern age. It works,

namely by trying to conjure things into reality by reporting them as a reality before they are a reality. The game here is completely transparent. The media wants some kind of violent right-wing demonstration, and so it is itself inventing conspiracy theories that it hopes the right will adopt. And even if the media is ultimately disappointed and the violence never materializes, still the threat, the entirely invented threat, is useful. enough on its own. Useful to guys like Congressman Jamal Bowman, who was on MSNBC recently, explaining why the city has to remain fortified even after all this. Here's what he says. What do you feel or how do you feel about the decision to extend the security perimeter

and the presence of the National Guard at the Capitol? It's something we have to do, unfortunately, because the threat of white nationalists and white supremacists is real. You know, they are concerned. to organize and galvanize across this country. There are many examples of them infiltrating law enforcement across this country. So we have to make sure the capital is protected and our elected officials are protected. But we also have to be proactive. You know, we cannot take the threat of white nationalism lightly.

You know, over the last several years, they've made their presence felt, whether it's the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, the Christ Church shooting, which happened overseas, as well as the AME church shooting, and then obviously the January 6th insurrection. We have to do everything we can to protect ourselves and protect the capital, but we also have to be proactive

in dealing with the issue of white nationalism in a very serious way. Did you catch that? We have to do everything we can to protect ourselves. A politician saying that the government has to do everything it can to protect him. Sure, I mean, he's asking to be protected from a non-existent threat. Even so, talk about saying the quiet part out loud. Do everything you can to protect me?

No, in fact, Jamal, the government should not do everything it can to protect you. Not at all. There's a whole lot it can do that it shouldn't do. It's doing some of those things right now. Yes, the government can fortify the nation's capital and permanently militarize it to protect politicians, to protect itself, but it shouldn't. But this is how Bowman and his Democrat cohorts see it. Do everything to protect him and almost nothing to protect regular American citizens, his constituents from violent BLM rioting in our cities or from the ordinary everyday violence and bloodshed that wreaks havoc in those same cities.

But look, none of this means that our elected representatives lack courage. I don't want you to think that. It would be unfair of me not to make note of Democratic Representative Al Green, who did demonstrate unparalleled courage in heroism yesterday in the midst of the attack by invisible or possibly non-existent insurrections. Here's the Hill with that report. Representative Al Green is sending a message to QAnon and right-wing extremist threats by sitting on the Capitol steps on Thursday.

The date authorities warned militia groups were potentially planning another breach of the building. He told the Hill, quote, I want to make a statement to let people know, those who would threaten those of us who cherish this freedom, that we have here that we refuse to allow those threats to negate our freedom. Capital police and the FBI have cautioned that militia groups that took part in the deadly insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, when a group of Trump supporters attempted to disrupt the certification

of the Electoral College votes had drafted plans, for a second attack on March 4th. Wow. Wow. The bravery. He is sitting on the steps behind a barbed wire fence, patrolled by armed national guardsmen, and staring down a crowd that consists of media members

and a handful of pedestrians who happen to be walking by. Truly, the world has never seen courage such as this. For this man to sit in what is right now the safest place on earth. In spite of the alleged threats of a handful of nutty troll accounts on the internet. Well, I, for one, I'm stunned. Stunned. Sure, it takes more courage to simply walk down the street in Chicago, a lot more, actually, than to do what he did. But still, let's not focus on any of that.

Let's focus on him, which is what he wants us to do. Very inspiring, very courageous. And on that positive note, let's move on now to our five headlines. You know, I have to say, I really hate, you know that I don't like complaining. It's the last thing in the world that I want to do is complain. I especially don't like to complain about here where I work. It's a little awkward to do. But there are times when I feel I have no other choice.

So, you know, I am in this studio here, as you can see, this beautiful studio. And this is also where I work during the day. I just sit here all day working. And it's pretty dark in this studio. All we have are the studio lights, which work for the camera. But in reality, it's like really dim and dark in here. So for months, I've just been sitting in the studio in the darkness all day. And until yesterday, I was informed after like three months that hidden behind one of the props back here is a light switch that will turn on lights in the whole studio.

I've been here for three months and I just found out that there are lights in the studio that I can turn on. Nobody told me. Everyone else knew, but nobody told me. So every person that I've asked about this and I've said, I didn't know that there were lights I could turn on. every single person told me, well, we thought you liked just sitting in the dark. And then I thought about it and I realized, okay, that's fair. I can see why you would assume that about me. So maybe this is my fault, but I take no responsibility. Is it my fault that I never thought to check on the wall for a light switch after three months?

No. I refuse to take that responsibility. Okay, number one, from the Daily Wire, it says, Internet auction site, eBay, confirmed Thursday, that it is scouring its open auctions for six canceled Dr. Seuss titles, reviewing seller profiles and removing the listings, which the site claims violate its offensive materials policy. On Thursday morning, the Daily Wire, reported that eBay sellers who had listed copies of six Dr. Seuss titles marked as racist and offensive and remove them from publication by Dr.

Seuss Enterprises, those are, again, these are the banned blacklisted titles. So if you have these, you know, make sure they're under lock and key. if the cops show up to your house asking if you have the, you know, make sure you have them stored somewhere. I don't know if they're going to start serving search warrants looking for this, but the titles are, and to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street,

if I ran the zoo, McElegat's Pool, which I've never even heard of that one, I consider myself a Seuss expert, but I've never heard of that one before. On Beyond Zebra, scrambled egg super, and the cat's quizer. So anyone on eBay who had been selling those titles, now they're not allowed to sell them.

They've been removed from eBay too. Now, it's really easy to take issues like this, as the left has been doing, the media has been doing, and pretending, reducing it down and pretending that it's all about Dr. Seuss. Every time there's a cancel culture type story, what the media wants to do is, What do you care about Dr. Seuss so much? What's a big deal with Dr. Seuss? Whoever it is, if it's Gina Carano, it's just Gina Carano. It's just one person. Okay, but first of all, that doesn't make it right, even if it is just the one person. But the second thing is, it's not just the one person.

This is part of a trend, a very troubling trend. That's the point. That's what we're concerned about. It's not only about Dr. Seuss, as big a fan as I am of his literature. It's about what it represents. And what it represents here is that, you know, on this past Monday, you could buy Dr. Seuss books on eBay. It was no problem. Dr. Seuss was simply Dr. Seuss. Then it was decided all at once by the left and the media and the powers, the cultural powers that be, that this stuff is all offensive. and within a couple of days, you can't even sell the stuff on eBay anymore.

You can't even sell it secondhand. That's the troubling trend, where things can happen this suddenly and in such a sort of coordinated way. Yeah, you should be troubled by that, no matter how you feel about Dr. Seuss. Because as I've been pointing out all along, and I think it's an important thing to point out, these books that are now banned on eBay and we've decided they're offensive, they've been in publication for like 80 years and nobody had a problem. So why now? Why all of a sudden? Why all at once do these things have to happen? All right. Number two, this is from ESPN. It says the Washington football team has discontinued its cheerleader program after more than 50 years, replacing it with a co-ed dance squad as part of its rebranding effort. The team had announced last last month of the cheerleader program was paused while it decided what direction the rebranding would take. And now, I don't even not going to read this whole thing, but they're getting rid of it

replacing it with what a dance squad. So this is an example of, you know, this is classic example of corporate woke virtue signaling where they're not really doing anything. What's the difference between a cheerleader squad and a co-ed dance squad? Cheerleader squads already have dudes on them in most of these cases. like those are the guys that are tossing the cheerleaders in the air and already what they do is dance right so what is it's a distinction without a difference but you know throw throwing another bone to the left that's what this is about corporate virtue signaling and it's it's the NFL um continuing in in in little this is little and bigger ways

uh continuing to try to appease and appeal to people who are not fans anyway and will never be Number three, from the daily wires, since President Joe Biden took office in January, the Department of Justice has been quietly dismissing federal cases against Portland, Portland, Oregon rioters, according to local media. KGW reported Wednesday, federal prosecutors have dismissed more than one-third of cases stemming from last summer's violent protests in downtown Portland when protesters clashed with federal agents. The network reviewed federal court records and found 31 of the 90 protest cases have been dismissed by the U.S. Department of Justice, including a mix of misdemeanor and felony charges.

Some of the most serious charges dropped include four defendants charged with assaulting a federal officer, which is a felony. More than half of the dropped charges were dismissed with prejudice, which several former federal prosecutors described as extremely rare. Dismiss with prejudice means the case can't be brought back to court. The charges all stemmed from confrontations between, quote, anti-fascist protesters and special agents of federal government brought in to protect and defend the city's federal courthouse over the summer. These are people, some of them, charged felony charges of assaulting a federal officer in the process of trying to damage, at a minimum, damage or take over a federal courthouse. And those charges are being dropped.

And yet we still hear this absolute nonsense that somehow the rioters of the Capitol are getting the kid glove treatment while the BLM and Antifa riders had the full force of a, of, uh, uh, uh, the rioters. of the federal government come down on them. It is exactly the opposite is the case. This is another thing with the left in the media. We are looking at something with our own eyes, and they're telling us that that thing doesn't exist. Don't believe your own lying eyes. There can't be any good reason,

especially if you care about maintaining order, if you're worried about insurrections and all these things. What could be the good reason to drop charges on people who assaulted federal officers who were defending a federal court building. Meanwhile, and I think we have this clip, you know, in some cases, the people that went into the Capitol building on January 6th

are facing 20 years. They're trying to put 20 years on some of these people. Like, for example, the infamous QAnon Shaman, who's this, obviously this wacky, nutty guy, who he was the guy with the weird, you know, headdress thing that he was wearing. And he was in, you know, one of the people in the Capitol, they're trying to put 20 years on this guy. Just to get an idea of who this guy is and what his intentions were, while he was interviewed by CBS yesterday. And here's what he said.

My actions on January 6th, how would I describe them? Well, I sang a song, and that's a part of shamanism. It's about creating positive vibrations. sacred chamber. I also stopped people from stealing and vandalizing that sacred space, the Senate. Okay, I actually stopped somebody from stealing muffins out of the break room. I also set a prayer in that sacred chamber because it was my intention to bring divinity and to bring God back into the Senate. But Jake, legally, you were not allowed to be in what you're calling the sacred chamber. And that is, and that is the one very serious regret that I have was believing that when we were waived in by police officers that it was acceptable.

Okay, so he's in the Capitol building saying a prayer, trying to bring good vibrations. And then we find out some of the other dastardly criminals in there, somebody was trying to steal muffins from the break room. I wonder if they were going to put 20 years on that guy. Is that guy going to get the muffin thief? Is he going to get 20 years for that? Quite possibly. Now, obviously, we all agree that they shouldn't have been in there.

It's illegal to be in there trespassing and everything. But you hear that guy. Does that sound like a dangerous right-wing terrorist? Was that guy a threat to overturn democracy? Was he going to overturn the results of the election? Was that guy? You worried that that guy could have done that? It is hard for me to see how that guy is any more of a threat than for you.

for example, the BLM or Zanatifa people who assaulted federal officers in Portland and are now having their charges dropped. Explain to me how that guy, the shaman guy, with his good vibrations and prayers and trying to guard the sacred muffins of the break room, how is he a greater threat than the people assaulting federal officers or the people that burned down and invaded the police station in Minneapolis or the people who, you know, burned down apartment buildings and stores and CVS's and drug stores and liquor stores. We don't care about any of that, right? I mean, those are just the places where average Americans live and work. Who cares about that? You have a tough time explaining to me how that dude is a bigger threat. Was ever at any point a

greater threat than how about the BLM rioters who assaulted a woman in New York with two by force, beat her over the head with him, caught on video. Who are you more worried about? Who would you be more worried about? Who would you feel more uncomfortable with? Walking down, you know, the street. Come across a rioter who beat a woman with a two-by-four or that dude. Who do you think is a greater threat to you?

All right. Number four, Jen Saki does this thing now where she answers questions, I guess, from Twitter. And she was asked about how Biden will unify the country. We've all wondered this, right? because we've heard this plan. Democrats are going to unify the country. What is his plan to do it? And she laid out the plan.

Let's listen. What is President Biden doing to create unity in our country? This is what the president ran on and what he's focused on every day. It's about his actions every day, his rhetoric, and how we all speak from this government. He doesn't look at people or hear their stories based on their political party or what their registration is. He's really in this job because he wants to help all Americans

and govern for all Americans. Hopefully that action and that kind of leadership will help unify the country. Okay. So that's it. That's how he's going to do it. I did take notes. So he's going to unify the country

through his actions, through his rhetoric, and how we all speak from this government. So there's no plan, basically. Of course, he's not going to, he has no plan at all to do any kind of unifying whatsoever. That's what we learned from that. Could there be any, could there, could there, that is the most vague answer I think I've ever heard

from a politician or a spokesperson. Think about it. The question is, how is he going to do this thing that he says? He says he's going to unify. What's his plan? And her answer is, well, through his actions, his actions will do it. You know, really his plan to do this is to take actions. And he'll also be saying things too.

So really his plan is to say some things and do some things. That's the plan. Yeah, but what is he going to say and do? It doesn't matter. Things. Things. That's what he's going to say and do. All right.

Number five, this is from the Daily Mail. It says Michael Brown, Sr. is among the Black Lives Matter activist demanding $20 million from the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation after its financed were disclosed for the first time revealing the group raked in 90 million. million dollars in donations last year. The nonprofit shared its, the nonprofit shared its financial snapshot with the Associated Press amid accusations from local chapters that they are not being given any of the money. Brown, whose son Michael Brown Jr. was killed by police in Ferguson in 2014, says he and his advocacy group have been shortchanged by the larger BLM organization.

Brown asked in a statement, why hasn't my family's foundation received any assistance from the movement? Who are they giving it to? And what are they doing with it? And this is, this is a, there have been several reports in recent days about local, as, as mentioned in the Daily Mail report, local BLM chapters that are upset. Maybe having a little bit of an awakening moment, maybe, where they realize, oh, this is all, this is all a giant scam that I'm a part of. That's all this is. 90 million dollars? What, what? Yes, it's obviously a scam. But I do not have any sympathy for you if you got basically robbed by BLM because you're one of the morons who contributed to that $90 million in donations.

What do you think they're going to do with it? What do you think their plan is? Like what in your in your best estimation, what did you think they were going to do? It's obviously a scam. And if you have money to donate, that's great. so many better, give to an organization that helps, you know, children. I mean, if you really want to give to an organization that defends the idea that black lives matter, give to a pro-life organization, trying to defend black lives in the womb and white lives and all lives.

So no big surprise there. Giant, giant scam. Finally, here's a bonus. This is a New York Post report that talking about this new, apparently a new phenomenon now where men, well, it's not that new, but more and more men are wearing makeup now, because all our lives have migrated to Zoom. And so it says, when realtor Ben Dixon caught sight of his face

during an early morning Zoom call with a client in January, he was distracted by what he perceived were bags and discoloration under his eyes. I thought you could do with a little help here, the 42-year-old admitted to the post, noting how he'd become more bothered by his appearance while working remotely during the pandemic.

So like a growing number of dudes who are increasingly horrified by their appearances on countless Zoom calls, he consulted a friend with seemingly perfect skin who generously shared his secret, concealer for men. More men than ever are now buying makeup resulting in the mail side of the industry

experiencing a leap in sales, partly due to the work from home trend. Now, I had this really this kind of existential crisis moment because I saw this report being shared on Twitter about how more and more guys are wearing makeup. And at first I wanted to share it and kind of laugh and say,

guys wearing makeup, you know, kind of make fun of them. But then I realize that I wear makeup every day. Because really, when you're on camp, but here's the thing. It's different one, it's different when I do it, okay? General principle. Number two, when you're on camera, that's the one exception I will make. If you don't, and I resisted the makeup thing for a long time with it, but if you're on camera, you don't wear makeup, you will look like a corpse.

I still look like one with the makeup. Imagine if I didn't have it. So, I'm going to make it. allowance here, at least for myself, if nobody else. All right, let's move on now to reading the YouTube comments. Let's see. This is from Nanny Manley says, my comment is totally unrelated to today's show, but I wanted to share a funny dream I had.

Matt and his wife were over at my house having dinner with me and my family. I did not consent to you having a dream about me and my wife, by the way. This is a non-consensual dream that I'm a part of. as the dinner went on someone made a joke and when alissa started to laugh her face turned into the laughing emoji Matt unceremoniously canceled her on the spot when i woke up and remembered the dream i started laughing then thought how funny it would be if my face turned into a laughing emoji too i need more sleep yes you do um first of all that sounds horrifying second i have a general policy where i i think i've been clear about this i all dream stories are

terrible and boring, and they're only interesting to the person who is relaying them. So you're a band for the show for that. Sometimes I can make an exception if I'm in the dream. Like, okay, I'll listen to it, but no exception here. Freak of Fitness says, who else has pondered about moving out into the woods of an extreme remote location, smash all of our technology, and live off the land? A naked and afraid slash alone collaboration, but instead I'll be clothed, not afraid, and I'd have my family with me. In all seriousness, I think that is something we should think about. I think about

that every day. There's no good reason not to do it. I think all of our lives will be better. I think it's a weird situation for me because I make my living on the internet, but I'm absolutely certain that the internet has been a net negative for mankind. And you, who are watching this right now, you would all be way better off if you didn't, if you didn't spend any time on the internet at all. And so much, so much else of modern technology, maybe you don't need to forsake all modern technology. But if you, we all drastically decreased our consumption and use of modern technology, we would be way happier as people. The internet is not making us happy at all. So that's, that is my honest belief. That's how I urge people. Like if you can spend

less time on the internet, do it. But at the same time, if you do spend less time on the internet, then we lose money. So there's a conflict of interest there. And finally, secret Caucasian man says, Matt, would you rather be a ninja or a pirate? I got to say, the comment's kind of lacking today. But of course, I'd rather be a ninja. You know, every day we have to talk about companies that are, you know, censoring conservatives, banning conservatives, shutting down speech, all these hopelessly woke leftist companies. Of course, we have to talk about them because they're a big problem in society today.

but it's nice to also be able to talk about the companies that hold the same values and beliefs as us and are working with us and for us in the culture. And one of those would be 40 Days for Life. You know, the state of our culture frustrates all of us, you know, politicians, lobbying for radical pro-abortion legislation, infanticide. But where I see the real progress is on the grassroots level, on the community, the most localized level, and that's what 40 Days for Life is all about. 40 Days for Life went from one peaceful prayer vigil in front of a plant-parent in Texas. to now 1,000 cities, 66 countries.

40 days of prayer, fasting, and law-abiding vigils have saved 18,000 and three babies from abortion. They've helped the 211 abortion workers leave their job and have closed 107 abortion facilities. So this is a group that is saving lives, 18,000 lives that they've saved. Be a part of the beginning of the end of abortion by joining 1 million volunteers and sign up for your location at 40 DaysforLife.com. You can also stay updated on the number one pro-life podcast, 40 Days for Life. The largest spring campaign ever is happening from February 17th to March 28th. You want to get on board and be a part of that. Don't wait for Washington to heal our culture.

Go to work in our neighborhood at 40 Daysfor Life.com. And, you know, there are so many crazy leftist theories and ideas, in some cases, outright lies. In many cases, outright lies floating around out there. And we spent a lot of time on the Daily Wire trying to deal with that. Well, Ben Shapiro's new show, Debunked, is all about that. Every Friday, Ben exposes popular fallacies purported by leftist activists and politicians with short mini-documentaries that entertain and keep you informed on fact versus fiction when it comes to hot-button issues, which, let's face it, everything's a hot-button issue these days. The last one, the first one,

in fact, was about minimum wage. And next, Ben Shapiro is taking on the subject of unions. Couldn't be a better time with all the craziness from the teachers' unions to talk about that. So Debunk is now available to DailyWire members exclusively. Not a member yet. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code debunked to get 25% off your new memberships. And stay tuned for this Friday's episode, which again, we'll be all about breaking down unions. Go sign up code debunked, 25% off. And now let's get to our daily cancellation.

So today we're going to cancel the most underrated member of the squad, Ianna Presley. I call her underrated because she's easily the craziest one of the bunch, even more so than AOC or Ilhan Omar. yet she doesn't always get the credit that her craziness deserves. Demonstrating my point. Here she is on the House floor yesterday, introducing an amendment to lower the voting age to 16. Here's what she says. To immigration reform, to climate change, to the future of work and minimum wage.

Our young people are organizing, mobilizing and calling us to action. They are at the forefront of social movements and have more than earned inclusion in our democracy. Mr. Speaker, 16 and 17-year-old, constituents of mine are supportive. their families. They are working not for enrichment or to build a resume, but because they have no choice. They are attending school full-time and taking care of loved ones in the midst of the COVID crisis. Young people are contributing both to the labor force and their local economies by paying taxes, and yet they are deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. Some have questioned the maturity of our youth. I don't. 16 and 17-year-olds today possess

wisdom and maturity defined by today's challenges, hardships, and opportunities. They deserve and demand a government that is accountable to them, a government that values their voices and understands the depth and breadth of their lived experience. There it is. Lived experience. Everyone take a shot. Yes, we must understand the depth of a 16-year-old's lived experience. They're people of great wisdom, she says, great maturity.

Their voices should be heard in our democratic process. They should have a say. And all of these claims will be really super-convincing. to me if it weren't for the fact that I was a 16-year-old once, and if I had never met any other 16-year-olds. Then maybe I could find this rosy picture believable, but my experience, both with being 16 and being around 16-year-olds, tells me that no, they are not wise and mature. They are, by and large, idiots. And I say that with no malice or judgment. I was the biggest idiot of them all at 16. I very often marvel at the fact that I managed to live through the experience of being 16.

at 16, especially if you're a guy, you will literally risk your life just to amuse your friends. Like just getting a, wow, dude, that was awesome. Out of your buddies is enough justification to do something that has a 75% chance of killing you. That's the kind of wisdom that a 16-year-old has, okay? It's not nearly the kind of wisdom that I have now

as a 34-year-old man when I would never do anything that has a 75% chance of killing me just to make people laugh. It would have to be, it had to be, no more than a 50% chance. There's also science behind this. Your anecdotal experience with teenagers and being a teenager is backed by science.

It's not a coincidence that we all have this impression of teenagers as impetuous, impulsive, hormonal, half-sane barbarians. Science tells us that the prefrontal cortex, the region of our brain that controls things like logical reasoning, discernment, impulse control, all the things that we would normally relate to wisdom isn't fully developed until the age of 25. So if you, like me, look back at yourself from the age of like 15 to 24 and think, my God, who was that person? That person was actually insane.

I was an actual lunatic. Well, this is why. Your executive brain functions, your capacity to be a reasonable and mature adult were not fully online. Now, you might object and say, well, by this logic, instead of lowering the voting age, we should raise it to 25. Is that what you're saying? Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I'm saying. Precisely what we should be doing. The country would not, by any, measure, benefit from having 16-year-olds vote. Ionna Presley would benefit because her ideas and policies are so stupid and destructive that most 16-year-olds would find them appealing, but the country would not benefit. It also doesn't benefit from having 18-year-olds vote.

There is simply no downside to requiring people to grow a little older, become a little wiser, accumulate some more lived experience before they vote. What's the worst that could come from such a policy? What's the worst case scenario? A bunch of kids get their feelings hurt, storm off to their rooms. You won't let me vote? Well, I hate you. I mean, that might happen.

I can think of plenty of downside to allowing uninformed and unwise people to vote. We've been living through that downside for decades. Now, with all that said, I would be willing to consider a compromise here. an intelligent objection to the points I've raised so far is that, sure, most 16-year-olds are immature and stupid, but then again, a lot of 36-year-olds are, too. There are many 56-year-olds who are as ill-equipped for the voting booth as the average 16-year-old, if not more so. That's all true.

So my compromise would be this, similar to what I proposed in the past. All voters must take a simple test measuring their basic aptitude and how informed they are. we'll be setting a pretty low bar with the test starting small questions like who is the secretary of state what does the legislative branch of the government do okay stuff like that i say all voters be required to take this test any who pass can vote any who fail cannot so if you're 16 and you pass fine if you're 62 and you fail you're out now i'd like to see voting requirements that go far beyond this i think the requirements should be strict enough that millions of current voters are ruled out. I like to see the numbers reduced by about 70 to 80%. That's what I think we should

shoot for. I don't think voting should be a big party that everybody is invited to. I think it should be something that only the most informed, most engaged, most productive and mature Americans have the privilege to participate in. I realize this idea is upsetting to a lot of people, but I don't care. And anyway, I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to lower the bar so that all you have to do is pass a test that any eighth grader should be able to pass. Anyone who does pass it votes. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't. So what do you say, Iona Presley? Can we strike a deal? No, we can't, can we? Because you want the uninformed to vote. You want people who are utterly clueless to file into the polling stations and drown out the votes of the informed and the engaged

citizens. That's the whole reason why you're proposing this change. And that's also the reason, along with a bunch of other reasons, why you're canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching everybody. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. Well, 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. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Knowles show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

Our technical director is Austin Stevens. Production manager Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Danny Damiko. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina. Aaron Makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.

Hey, everybody. This is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, some people are depressed because as the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turn to blood. But on the Andrew Clavin Show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Clavin Show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Clavin.