The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 685 - Arab Man Commits Massacre. Media Changes Subject To Gun Control

Episode Date: March 24, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media scrambles to change the narrative after the mass killer in Boulder turns out to be an Arab man who killed white people. Also Five Headlines including the US Senator who announced her intentions to only vote to confirm nominees of a certain race. And a man finds shrimp tails in his box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch. What is the lesson we can learn from that story? Finally in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the claim, made by a Democratic senator and many others, that buying a gun is easier than voting. 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 scrambles to change the narrative after the mass killer in Boulder turns out to be an Arab man who killed white people. Also, five headlines, including the U.S. Senator, who announced her intentions to only vote to confirm nominees of a certain race. And a man finds shrimp tails in his box of cinnamon toast crunch. What's the lesson we can learn from that story? There is a lesson. I'll tell you what it is. Finally, and our daily cancellation will deal with the claim made by a Democratic Senator and many others that buying a gun is somehow easier than voting. Is that true at all? Talk about that. And much more today on the Matt Wall Show. When the horrific news first broke about the mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado yesterday, which left 10 people at a King Super's grocery store dead, the media settled on the narrative before the victim's

bodies had even been put into body bags. This was another bloody rampage carried out by a racist white male. Now, I say another because the shooting last week in Atlanta, which left eight victims dead, has not been officially categorized as a race-based hate crime by law enforcement, but that hasn't stopped the media and the Democrat Party, as we've discussed, from insisting that it could be nothing but a race-based hate crime. They arrived at that conclusion in spite of the fact that the shooter himself said his motive was sexual rage, not racial animus. Now, in the case of Boulder, they arrived at a similar conclusion in spite of the fact that we had at that point absolutely no information about the shooter or his motives at all. And they had already determined that

it must be a white guy. Caleb Hall has a couple of compiled a thread of leftists. You can go look at his account on Twitter. It's worth looking at. A threat of leftists in media and politics who declared the boulder shooter was a white male. Many, many, many, dozens said this. Mina Harris, who's a lawyer and also a niece to Kamala Harris, went so far as to say that white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country. Many prominent members of the left echoed this sentiment. And then, of course, the narrative collapsed. authorities after taking a suspiciously long time to tell us the name of the killer, announced that he is a 21-year-old immigrant from Syria.

Now, some on the left continued to cling on to the violent white male talking point, announcing that Syrians now basically count as white, apparently. Famous race-bader Tariq Nishit explained that Syrians are, quote, legally, politically, and socially white. This, along with being abject nonsense, is especially, ironic given the fact that these same people are quick to remind us, and recently have been especially quick to remind us, that Jesus was not white. Well, which is it? Are Middle Eastern men white or not? I suppose the answer is that they're brown when they do good things,

such as heal the sick and redeem mankind, and white when they do bad things, such as murder, lots of people. And this is critical race theory in a nutshell, of course. The leftists who were willing to acknowledge, who were willing to acknowledge that they were wrong in their statements about the shooter's race, mostly excused themselves on the basis that white men commit the majority of mass shootings. TAY Anderson, who describes himself in his bio as a community organizer and Denver school board director, no surprise there, justified his own false assumptions along those lines, writing, quote, yesterday I assumed that the shooter involved was a white male. I was wrong. Over the last decade, a majority of these horrendous acts have been

white men. But I still refuse to give this murder notoriety. Our attention must be on the victims and the Boulder community. How magnanimous. How magnanimous and generous of them to say that. The attention should be on the victims. He decided that after he found out who the killer was, then he decided, you know what, we should talk about the victims instead. Now, by the way, this isn't even necessarily true what he just said about white males committing the majority of mass shootings. The term mass shooting is hopelessly vague and intentionally so. It's generally defined, according to the political needs of whoever is using the term. In their mass shooting database, Mother Jones defines mass shootings as, quote, indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed.

Now look at all the qualifiers on that. Why does it have to be indiscriminate? And what do we mean by indiscriminate? And why only in a public place? and why four victims and not five or two or three? Why do they all have to die in order for it counts as a mass shooting? If somebody goes in, sprays bullets, and hits 15 people and only kills two, that's not a mass shooting? Well, apparently not, not by this definition.

So these are all arbitrary guidelines, and according to two those arbitrary guidelines, indeed, white men are most often the culprits of that kind of mass shooting. Though even by those highly selective and random standards, white men don't commit more than their representative share of mass shootings when you look at their overall, the overall population percentages and so forth. But if we define mass shootings simply as a shooting where more than one person is shot, the picture changes dramatically. And if we do the most reasonable and worthwhile thing and focus on all homicides rather than giving undue emphasis to one particular and uncommon form of homicide, we'll find that the majority of those crimes are committed not by white men but by black men.

Would it be okay then for me to make the blanket assumption that every homicide is done by black men until I'm given specific information to the contrary? No. If there was just any story about someone being murdered, someone's murdered when a liquor store was robbed. If I were to tweet out and say, that must be a black guy, I'd be called racist for that. Yeah, this is exactly what the left did in this case and then justified it. It said, yeah, I made a racial assumption. Of course, I'll be told that such assumptions in my case are racist. Even though the people calling racial assumptions based on statistical generalities racist,

in that case are the same ones who make those kinds of assumptions and justify them when it comes to mass shootings. Or quote-unquote, mass shootings. Now, this is how the double standard works. It's also why the race of the victims in yesterday's shootings has not been judged relevant by the media or our political leaders. after the Atlanta shooting, there were marches to, quote, stop anti-Asian hate. I'm not really sure how a march is going to, I don't know exactly know what a march against hate is supposed to accomplish, but we had those. There were demands for hate crime charges to be filed. Media editorials about the whiteness pandemic.

Representative Judy Chu, we played this clip a couple days ago of California, said on ABC News that she knows in her heart and in her mind that the shooting was a hate crime. And she knows that simply because a majority of the victims were Asian and the shooter was white. By that standard, if we were allowed to apply the same standard, it must be concluded that yesterday's terrible crime was an anti-white hate crime. In that case, all 10 victims were white, and the perpetrator, despite desperate claims to the contrary, was a non-white Arab man. Why should we not be calling for hate crime charges here? Why should we not be organizing stop anti-white hate rallies? It's true that we don't know the killer's motive at this point, but when has that ever stopped the race baiters? It's only stopped them in this case.

After gearing up to make this shooting into yet another story about race, they shamelessly pivoted as soon as they heard the name of the killer. And now they wish to discuss issues like mental health and gun violence instead. It was considered insensitive and even racist to blame mental illness for the Atlanta shooting, because that would be to let the killer off the hook. it would be to distract from the matter of his alleged racism, we were told. You'll notice that last week, CNN featured no segments like the discussion this morning where host Allison Camerata questioned why the gun shop owner who sold the Boulder shooter his weapon didn't first conduct a psychological examination.

That was her question. Let's listen to that. Why, in case, in terms of making change, since it seems intractable at the national level, Why don't we go to gun shop owners and say, do you think that this 21-year-old who comes in and wants an AR-15 style weapon, do you think that he looks like he's going hunting with this weapon? Did you ask him, by the way, do you ever think that people are chasing you? Do you ever hear voices saying that people are coming for you?

Do they ever ask questions like that? Because this guy, it sounds like, according to his family, would have answered yes. The short answer is, in our society, we don't ask, those questions. We don't demand of gun shops that they ask those questions. We have a, a, a perspective in America that there is a right to buy a weapon absent some compelling and obvious circumstances. And gun shops don't ask those questions. And it's, it's very, very painful. Now, sane people can identify many legal and logistical problems with such a plan. It's also interesting that the left demands greater scrutiny and oversight for an adult who wants to buy a gun than a child who wants to get a sex change.

But this is all part of the twisted story of modern leftism. Double standards, contradictions. They present themselves in rapid succession. And we're supposed to just go along with the program. Don't comment on it. Cooperate with the ever-shifting narrative. Never stop to question any of it. Let's get now to our five headlines.

You know, sometimes I think it's important to be able to unplug from the news and politics. Not sometimes. We should be doing that a lot. We should spend a lot more time unplug from it than we do plugged into it. Even the case for me. And that's where I think MyBooky can really help. March is here and Madness has officially begun. It's time for you to shoot your shot and score big on the nonstop action with MyBooky.

Select the winners from 63 tournament games in the MyBooky bracket contest for a chance at $10,000 in cash prizes. And it's only a dollar to friend. entry. It doesn't matter whether you're filling out multiple brackets, betting the national championship winner, or simply looking for players and game props. MyBooky's got you covered. Sign up today at mybooky.orgie.orgia and use promo code Walsh to secure a deposit bonus. Don't want to miss out on that. That's promo code Walsh to claim your deposit bonus. College ball, NBA, NHL, no matter the sport, no matter the minute, MyBooky puts the action in your hands with in-game live betting. It's a lot more fun when you've got the bet with My Bookie.

And with choices from thousands of lines and odds, you can turn any game day into payday and just, like I said, make it a lot more fun on top of that. So, bet anything, anytime, anywhere with my bookie. Yeah, by the way, I have gotten your messages or emails. I've got many, many people have sent me the stories, including the Daily Wire yesterday about how we're now told that beards make face masks less effective. So I've gotten all those. And my, you know, I don't know if people sending me this, they're trying to convince me to shave the beard. Just more anti-beard bigotry.

I'm sure that's what it is. But I think, first of all, yes, I already knew that. Of course, every time I put the face mask on, I know that, look, this is not, it's not doing much because I got all the beard here. And I'm sure the virus can still navigate its way up. Because I'm not exactly getting an airtight seal here. So I'm plenty aware of that. this is why I've said all along, or at least thought all along, that I should get a medical exemption from wearing a mask because I'm bearded.

That's the way I look at it. Now, let's go number one here. So we, as mentioned, of course, the left is making this particular shooting a story about gun control. And you did hear, you heard a little bit of that last week, but not as much. And the reason is that they wanted to focus on the racial aspect. They wanted that to be the main story. And they also didn't want to talk about mental illness last week. Because that would be, they would think, as I said, that that would seem to, if the guy's crazy, then it's not really a matter of racism.

Or if he is racist, if you're crazy and racist, then you can't really be blamed for your racism because you're crazy. They didn't really want to talk about it then. They didn't want to talk about it this week. So Joe Biden announced yesterday what he wants to do about gun control. And here's his plan. Let's listen. This is the one thing I do know enough to say on in terms of what's happened there. While we're still waiting for more information regarding the shooter, his motive,

the weapons he used, the guns, the magazines, the weapons, the modifications that apparently have taken place to those weapons that are involved here, I don't need to wait another. minute, let alone an hour, to take common sense steps that will save the lives in the future and to urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to act. We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again. I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was law for the longest time. And it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again. We can close the loopholes on our background check system, including the Charleston loophole. That's one of the best tools we have right now to prevent gun violence.

Yeah, a lot of problems there. The first one is, I don't know what an assault weapon is. I'm not sure. I'm not, that's still, no one is quite made clear what you mean by assault weapon. What is that supposed to mean? And that's why, in fact, when you hear the statements, When you hear a statement that there was a mass shooting committed with an assault weapon, that doesn't really tell you anything. That tells you almost nothing about what actually happened in the shooting, what kind of weapon was used, how many people died, motive. There's no, really no, there's a basically an all but meaningless statement to say that because those two terms can mean anything. and here's what assault weapon means. It means a weapon is an assault weapon if it is a weapon that Democrats right now are trying to ban.

Why are they trying to ban it? Because it's an assault weapon. Why are they calling an assault weapon? Because they want to ban it. And so we go around and around in circles like that. In reality, though, that term has no objective meaning whatsoever. And that's a real problem. Now, in more political news, Senator Duckworth, Senator Tammy Duckworth, I really think one of the most vile and repulsive people in the Senate.

She's a really bad person and a terrible incompetent goon. And she should be expelled from the Senate for, I think probably several reasons. But here's number one. This is the only reason I need to give you. This is a report. This is from Chad Pergram, is a Fox News reporter. He says, reporting from the pool. Democratic Illinois Senator Duckworth talking about the effort to get more diverse nominees out of Joe Biden. And she says, I'm a no vote on the floor on all non-diversity nominees. You know, this is her talking again. You know, I will vote for racial minorities and I will vote for LGBTQ. But anybody else I'm not voting for. Okay, that's, you know what we call that? That's called racism, of course. Now, when you say I want diverse

nominees, but that's another way of saying, I don't want white people. That's all she's saying. I don't want straight white people. That's why I don't want. Of course, in reality, to call someone, oh, that's not a diverse person. I want a diverse person. White person, what does that mean? How can a person be diverse in and of themselves? Again, a word with a person. no meaning, it just means whatever they wanted to mean in the given moment. And in this case, it's, it's, it is a very thinly veiled way of saying, I don't want to vote for white people. I'm a non-white person. I don't like white people and I don't want to vote for them. Flat out racism. And she's free to be a racist, um, bigoted scumbag, all she wants to be.

But that should not be acceptable in the Senate. She should be expelled from the Senate for that. And the Republicans, if they had any backbone, they'd be calling for that right now. We need to have hearings. We need to do whatever we can. She needs to be gone. We cannot have people in the Senate who are going to stand up and announce ahead of time that they're racist against a certain race and they're not going to approve of anybody who is that race. Obviously we can't. And it goes without saying that if this was a white Republican saying, you know, I'm not interested in any nominee who isn't white. I want to stick with my own people. And if they're not white, I'm not interested in them. And if they're not straight. I don't want any gay nominees. So if they're not a white straight person, I don't want them. If a Republican were to say that, because you can't imagine a politician saying that, they never would. But it would be, it would be a nuclear, you cannot even conceive of the nuclear meltdown that would happen on the part of the media and the Democrat Party. And they would not stop until that person was gone. Should be the same damn thing here. It is. It is.

is just as bigoted and racist and disgusting. But meanwhile, this same person, she's concerned about racial hatred. While she exhibits that hatred and encourages it and wants to vote based on it, she's concerned about it too. She wants to make sure that we get rid of racial hatred, specifically anti-Asian hatred. So here she is talking about the effort to get an anti-Asian hate crime bill passed. Let's listen. The president on Friday endorsed a bill.

I know you are a co-sponsor of a called the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. All the co-sponsors are Democrats. Do you have any pledges from Republicans to sign on? We don't at this time, and it's astonishing to me. I mean, the House passed a bill that actually was a resolution against hate crimes against Asian Americans tied to COVID. And, you know, we have actually Republicans who voted against it. And Mitch McConnell at the time because Republicans were in charge wouldn't even let us vote on it in the Senate.

I mean, where can you be that you would not be willing to vote on a bill that would condemn violence against any group of Americans? Well, she's scandalized. How could anyone exhibit that kind of bigotry? Except for me, of course. Only she's allowed to be a bigot. I wish she would just come out and say that. I'd almost respect it. I'd respect the honesty, at least, if she came out and said, listen, I am a flaming,

bigot, but no one else is allowed to. I'm allowed to be, but nobody else can. Yeah, let's get a hate crime, an anti-Asian COVID hate crime bill. What? So, okay, so, so it's already illegal to commit a hate crime against an Asian person. In fact, it's illegal two times over. If you were to assault an Asian person, it's illegal because it's assault, and then it's a federal hate crime because it's race-based. So it's illegal twice, and now they want to make it illegal three times. Let's add another law on top of it.

Let's make it illegal three times over. And if that's not enough, let's make it, let's pass another bill. Let's just keep passing bills. Until anytime someone does that, they've committed 20 crimes instead of one. You know what? If you, we could get rid of all of this nonsense,

because you really only need to make an act illegal once. It only has to be illegal once. but if you're if you if you if you're saying to yourself oh well there's not enough uh it's still not dissuading people you know there's people are still doing it uh this is this is a this is a more serious crime okay well then if you want to make the penalties harsher i'm all about that not just for anti-asian assault but if you want to make the penalty harsher for assault for example, someone who goes up and assaults a random innocent pedestrian walking down the street or whatever it is. And we've seen, we see cases like that all over the place. Asians being

targeted, white people being targeted, black people. If you, if you're saying that those crimes are not treated harshly enough by the justice system, I agree with you. I think the person that does something like that should go to jail for, put them in jail for 30 years for all I care. There was that case in Baltimore, which we haven't heard anything about it. I don't know if there's been any update on it, but there was a case of the, we had the video that we played months ago of a white guy walking down the street. Someone runs up, black guy runs up behind him with a brick and bashes him over the head, runs away. We heard almost nothing about that when it happened.

We've heard no update on that case. But if they found that guy or if they do find him, how much jail time is he going to get? I mean, a couple of years at most, I'd say put that guy, put that scumbag in jail for 50 years, put him in jail for the rest of his life. I mean, that is someone we don't need in society. Like, we don't need you. If you're doing something like that, we don't need you, you're gone. One strike you're out. I never want to see outside of a prison cell ever again.

I'm fine with that. Whoever the victim is, white, black Asian doesn't matter. But that's not what they want, though, you know? And they don't care about the white guy getting bashed with a break. They give a damn about that. This is all just political posture. Because what it comes down to it, these people, this is not the tough on crime party. If they were, I'd be right along with them.

Say, you want to get tough on crime? You want to put these violent dirtbags in jail for a long. I'm with you. Let's do it. All right. Number two, there's an unintentionally horrifying article in the Brown Daily Herald, which is Brown University's newspaper, about the, and this is about their new online system for reporting sexual harassment and assault online. Anonymous.

What could go wrong? The article says the Title IX office introduced a new method of reporting incidents of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or gender-based discrimination on its website. The online sexual violence and gender harassment incident reporting form aims to provide an easy mechanism to report incidents. This according to the Title IX program officer Renee Davis. The form allows students to report descriptions of incidents, concerns, and involved persons, such as alleged aggressors, harmed individuals, and witnesses, as well as the desired response from the Title IX office. Students can also opt to make their reports anonymous. So you can implicate somebody in a crime. You can tell the school what punishment you want for that

alleged perpetrator, and you could do all this anonymously. so that the person being accused doesn't even know who's accusing them, has no right, supposed to have the right to face your accuser in court. None of that, out the window. That's at Brown University. Anonymous online reporting of crimes. And then the second part of that is that the person accused, of course, goes into the kangaroo court, the rape tribunal or whatever, and is summarily punished.

No evidence. I mean, think about that. Not if you're a man being, and it's all going to mostly be men accused anyway, as we know. And that's the point here. But you're being accused of something. No evidence is brought to bear. And you don't even know who's accusing you. And you get kicked out of school.

Labeled a rapist for the rest of your life. Yet another reason to be very careful about sending your kids off to college, especially your sons. let's see this is a story that gets more and more bizarre okay um a guy says that he found shrimp tails in his cinnamon toast crunch now and i was reading this story and every every sentence it gets it gets weirder and weirder so i guess he he had already he ate a bowl of cinnamon toast crunch and then he was pouring more um because he was going to eat another bowl and the shrimp tails fell out of the box. And this guy, first of all, is apparently the husband of the woman who played Topanga on Boy Meets World, because why not? And also his other box of cereal, evidently,

had dental floss in it. And there was a hole in the bag. And then it was taped over and there was dental floss in it. Which really, whoever did this, may I feel bad for this guy? Believe me, I would be traumatized for the rest of my life. But it's kind of brilliant in an evil way. Because if you could think of, like, what are the two worst things you could find in a box of cinnamon toast crunch? That's probably it. Shrimp and dental floss.

It's hard to think of something worse than that. And then he contacted the company. And originally the cinnamon toast, I guess it's Kellogg's. I don't know. Well, I don't want to implicate them. Whoever makes Cinnamon Toast Crunch. They originally they said that the shrimp tails only looked like shrimp tails. So this was a little bit of like spilled milk situation where it can look however you want.

They said, no, it's not a shrimp tail. It is clumps of cinnamon that is congealed together and taken the form of a shrimp. Which, you know, if I was a cinnamon toast crunch customer, I wouldn't feel a lot better about that. That the cinnamon can do that. It wouldn't make me feel much better. But then he says, no, it's really shrimp. And apparently now they're backpedaling and they're trying to figure out what it was. I mean, in fairness to them, this could have been, if it's not all a hoax, this could have been something that has. happened in the grocery store. That would be my first guess that someone in the grocery store did this. I don't know. But here's the lesson for it. I said there's a lesson we can learn from this. And here's the lesson. This is what you get for being an adult who eats cinnamon toast crunch. That is a children's cereal. Like if you're over the age of, say, 15, you shouldn't be eating it in the first place.

So, yes, this is me victim blaming. You get what you deserve. That's the lesson there. Really, as an adult, you shouldn't be eating cereal at all. It's arguable whether adults should be eating breakfast, frankly. But certainly not cinnamon toast crunch. If you're going with breakfast cereal, if you got to do that as an adult, you got to go bland. This is what adults do.

shredded wheat, raisin brand. Okay? That's what we eat as adults. It's penance for our sins. Finally, I have to do this. You know, I have no choice but to do this. I don't want to do it. I have to do it.

We have another video of some middle-aged liberal woman on TikTok singing a song that she made up. This one about the stimulus package. And every time I play this stuff on this, show people get mad at me. And I want you to know I have no choice. I feel that it's my obligation. Or at least if I have suffered through this, then I feel as though for your own good you should as well. I hope that makes it better. But here's the song. Listen. Look at this stuff. Isn't it neat? Competent leaders getting us back on our feet. The American Rescue Plan, it has.

Almost everything. A year into this mess, recovery unfolds. How many wonders can one rescue plan? This is a little mermaid, I think, right? Reading it over, you'd think, really? If I know my Disney films. No Republicans voted for this thing. It's got direct relief to American families.

It's got a path to reopen our schools. Cost of childcare? Tax credits, baby. It's like they care. It's a big deal. Mental illness is a serious problem. Imagine the neighbors looking out their window and seeing this happening.

Don't you want to go out dancing, having convoes with those. What are they called again? Oh, yeah, friends. Okay. Turn this off. Turn this off. Turn it off. Who puts it off?

this on. Oh my gosh. And who there's someone behind the camera. Who is behind, who is doing this? See, this poor disturbed woman. Like someone in that family. I don't know if it's the husband or a child. It's probably one of the kids. You know, whoever it is, your mother comes to you and says, listen, I wrote this song about the stimulus package. It's kind of, it's based on a little mermaid song. wanted to perform it and then put it online, will you film? If you love your mother, there's no way you say yes to that. No, you go, you take her to therapy, you take her to counseling. You say, mom, listen, I know it's been a tough time. There are people who can help you. Let's get in the car. Let's go talk to some people, okay? It's going to be fine.

We don't need to do this. That's who I'm angry with. I am angry at the family members who allow these women to do this. If you have a middle-aged woman in your family, and she wants to make a TikTok video with a song she made up, under no certain, maybe pretend you're filming, if she really insists, take out the phone and say, okay, mom, go ahead. Wow, this is a great song. Yeah, I'll post this online. Oh, my goodness. All right. Let's move on to reading the YouTube comments. This is from Bobby Bax. He says, I switch from Gillette to Harry's because of their wokeness. Now I guess I have to grow a beard. Yeah, well, that's, see, that's it. Gillette, Gillette went woke. Harry's went woke. All of the razor

blade companies are going woke and that's all the more reason, all the more incentive. You grow a beard, you don't have to worry about this anymore. Another comment says, when I was three, I would go into my mom's closet and put on her high heels because I thought they were funny. I'm glad I wasn't manipulated into thinking that that's my real identity, forced to cross-stress and eventually injected with puberty blockers. Yeah, I hear this all the time from adults, at least the reasonable ones, the rational insane ones, saying, man, I can't, all of the crazy stuff that I said when I was a kid, all the things I pretended that I was, all the claims I made when I was a child, I'm so glad my parents weren't insane enough to take that seriously.

Another comment says, dude, your whole rant about trans kids is so correct. kids don't know what they mean because they have a limited vocabulary and don't know which words to use when they express how they feel about things because they don't understand their emotions yet. That's the most true statement I've ever heard. And it's honestly a statement that should go without saying, yeah, it should. If you understand, this is not on my part some sort of deep insight into child psychology. This is basic, basic level insight into child psychology that you don't even need to be a parent to have this insight because you were a kid yourself at one time. And if you can remember if you can remember back, To that at all, you know, you can remember being a child who believed all kinds of crazy things as a kid. Mike Dutton says, I'm a terrible person, can't stop laughing at the term fat community. Yes, I'm fat. But that doesn't make you a terrible person. It makes you a normal person because the term fat community is absurd. This is one, another thing you notice is how this word, talk about words that, that,

are vague and meaningless now. Community is another one. Everything is a community now. A fat community. Well, what exactly is the only thing, if you're overweight, if you're obese, the only thing that you necessarily have in common with the other members of the obese community is that you all eat too much relative to the amount of calories you burn. That's how you lose weight. Now, look, I understand there are conditions, there are disabilities people can have and all that. But vast majority of cases, if you're gaining weight, it's not complicated, it's not a mystery, you're gaining weight because you're eating more than you're burning. That's it. In fact, I just read a, there was a survey done.

And I find this hard to believe that, but the survey claimed that a majority of Americans gained weight. during the COVID lockdowns. Now, that part is easy to believe. But then they claim that, you know, the average weight gain was like, I think it was like 20 pounds or more than that. And that seems a little bit hard to believe. But the point is, people are gaining weight.

That's totally believable. During the lockdowns, why are they gaining weight? Did everyone develop a thyroid condition? No. It's because they weren't moving around as much and they were eating more. And you gain weight.

Does that make you a part of a community? a community of like-minded people? No. Just you all share the same vice. And by the way, it's a vice that we all share to some degree or another. I mean, we all commit the sin of eating too much, at least sometimes. And finally, Walsh is probably my favorite Daily Wire commentator guy, rivaled only by Knowles. Shame he doesn't even have his own Wikipedia page. That's true. I don't. And I've complained about that before. I should probably complain about it more. Because a serious problem in my life and I think for I think you would agree in your own as well. This is how this is some of the persecution I suffer.

That I've been giving my opinion online for years and I still don't warrant a Wikipedia page. No one tell me I'm privileged, okay? I don't even have a Wikipedia page. We've been talking about the attack on gun rights today and we'll have more to say about that coming up in the daily cancellation, which makes it a perfect time, perfect transition to tell you about my friends over at Constitutioncoach.com. They've got a lot of great programs for equipping citizens to defend liberty by studying and living out the Constitution. And I just experienced, as I've been telling you about, their constitutional defense course. I went out to Nevada at a front site, and I took their course,

and I couldn't be happier that I did so that I can, you know, I can start to learn. I mean, I've always supported the Second Amendment. I've always believed in gun ownership. But I realize I've got to really finally focus on learning how to use the this thing and getting myself trained up. And that's something that we should all be doing. You can get an amazing combination of intellectual ammunition in live classes with Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach, and then also get physical training at the premier firearms training facility in the nation all in the same course. You've got to see this facility, by the way. It'll blow your mind. You get to join hundreds of other patriots from across the

nation for a time of learning, training, and fellowship with like-minded people. Whether you have shotguns your whole life or you've never touched one or you're somewhere in between, I'm telling you, these people, they took me to an entirely different level of comfort and skill that I didn't think was possible. Don't just get a gun. You've got to learn how to carry with confidence. You also have to get the training you need to defend your family. And you've got to learn about all the rights, all the things that give us the rights and the abilities to do this in the first place. So go to Constitutioncoach.com. Rick and the Constitution Coach team have another class on April 25th, but it'll fill up fast.

So visit Constitutioncoach.com today. And watch my video there to find out more about how you can be a part of this adventure and this kind of training. Constitutioncoach.com. Well, if you haven't heard by now, but I'm sure you have heard by now, if you've been listening to this show, so, you know, and if you haven't been listening,

then how dare you? Candice Owens has a brand new talk show with us exclusively at dailywire.com. The full show is available at DailyWire for Daily Wire members only, but Candice, the podcast, is available on Apple, Spotify, anywhere else you get your podcast.

The Candice podcast features several breakout segments from the full-length show, including interviews, panel discussions, and her advice, so you can get that. But what I would recommend is also you want to tune in, become a Daily Wire member, and watch the entire show. You can do all that now. And also you can head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe today. And be sure to leave a five-star review if you like what you hear. Now let's get

to our daily cancellation. You know, one of the favorite strategies of the gun grabber is to compare the alleged ease of purchasing a firearm to the alleged difficulty of performing some random other task. Often you'll hear it formulated this way. they'll say, in America, it's easier to do X than it is to vote. We really have our priorities screwed up. President Obama was famously fond of this particular MADLIB. On more than one occasion, he filled in the blank with book, claiming that it's harder somehow to obtain a book than to obtain a shotgun.

This may be true if the book you're trying to obtain as one that the left has already banned or burned. But as long as you're not trying to buy some forbidden text like Dr. Seuss's Mick Elegat's pool, it's quite easy to buy books. You can even get them for free at the library. I mean, in most cases, kids as young and six can obtain a library card. Check out all the books they want. No questions asked. As I said, there are many versions of this buying a gun is easier than such and such formulation.

Yesterday, Senator Alex Padilla of California was one of several Democrats to put a familiar spin on this old yarn, echoing a Washington Post editorial published a few days ago. He claimed that buying a gun is easier than voting. Let's listen. For most states, the age required to legally purchase a rifle. And the age required to cast a ballot are both 18. However, there's some shocking disparities in legal state requirements for obtaining a weapon versus casting a ballot. In 25 states, voters must be registered and have specific forms of ID in order to cast a ballot.

But those same states allow people to buy rifles without permits and require no background checks for some sales. Additionally, in a majority of states, new voters are able to obtain a rifle quicker than they're able to cast their first ballot. It seems to me that we have our priorities entirely backwards when it comes to this, when we make it easier to buy a gun. than we do to cast a ballot. Priorities are way out of whack, according to this thing I just made up. We should note that Politifact has previously fact-checked this claim and determined that it's true. They said it's true. But if you're not convinced of the truth of a claim simply because a website with fact in its name says that it's true,

it may be necessary to take a closer look. And you don't need to look very long or hard to discover that what we're dealing with here is anything but a fact. that is rather a gross and absurd fabrication, and one that quickly evaporates on closer inspection. First, let's consider the process of voting, okay? All right. If you want to vote and you're a legal adult, the only thing standing between you and the ballot box

is the requirement that you register ahead of time, which you can even do on the same day that you cast the ballot in many states. You can also accomplish this task online. It requires no money. No additional hoops must be jumped through or obstacles navigated. You must only provide proof that you're a resident of the state in which you'll be voting,

and that'll be the end of it. As for voting itself, you can do it through the mail from the comfort of your own home. You can do it early. You can do it on Election Day. There's nothing difficult or confusing about voting. Any legal adult, providing they're not a convicted felon, though even that's not going to permanently rule you out in most states, can vote. There's quite literally nothing standing in your way when you want to vote. It's free.

It's easy. the only prerequisite is that you might have to provide minimal proof that you're voting in the right state. Voting is so easy that 155 million people successfully completed the task in 2020. It could be said without exaggeration that literally every single person who wanted to do it and was eligible to do it did it. How can a thing be any easier than that? What about purchasing a firearm? Well, the first thing that purchasing a firearm requires is money. That alone makes obtaining a firearm more difficult than voting.

We could end our comparison right there. One is free, one is not. One is a free activity that any legal adult can engage in. The other is an activity that requires money. End of discussion, right there. But the differences extend far beyond that. There are a great many laws governing who can buy our firearm, what kind of firearm they can buy, where they can buy it, where they can carry it, what they can do with it,

when and where they can do the things they can do with it, et cetera. It's true that it's generally easy to purchase some guns than others. So the laws aren't the same for every gun. But that's the point. The prospective gun owner must first navigate the red tape and research the laws to figure out which gun he can buy and how he's supposed to buy it. No such process is necessary for voting. many states require waiting periods before buying a gun some states require waiting periods for all guns you could buy some guns online but the guns that you do buy online have to be shipped to a licensed dealer

no sort of equivalent red tape exists for voting online again there really is not red tape at all for voting except the most basic and easily navigated requirements anyone can do it if you fulfill those really basic requirements you can do it This is not the case for buying a gun. You can also lose your right to a gun much easier than you can lose your right to vote. Federal law prohibits felons from obtaining firearms. No such federal law excludes felons from voting. You can even lose your gun rights for being dishonorably discharged from the military for a host of other reasons.

There's no comparison here. Voting is simple. It's free. It's easy. Buying a gun is expensive and complicated. and may even be impossible, depending on who you are and what gun you want to buy and where you live. Voting is much easier than buying a gun, much easier. But, and this is where I might lose you, it shouldn't be.

See, I wish the Democratic fable was true. I hear them say stuff like this, and I think, man, if only, I wish the situation was reversed. I wish they were telling the truth. gun ownership is, after all, a more important and more essential right than voting. More people should own a gun than vote, and it should be easier to do. Voting is not really a human right at all. You want to know the truth, it's not a human right. It is a privilege granted to us and a privilege that should be reserved for those who are the most qualified to do it.

That's voting. The ability to defend yourself and your family is fundamental. It has to be fundamental. If you can't preserve your own life, then you can't do anything else. Certainly you can't vote. Well, I mean, in some cases, maybe you still can vote even if you don't preserve your own life. We all have the God-given right to ensure our own safety and that of our loved ones. But determining the political course of the nation is something different. It's not fundamental, and it should not be opened up to any warm body or even cold body in some cases.

there ought to be tests, there ought to be requirements for voting that rule out millions of current voters who are not equipped to take part in the process and have no business involving themselves in it. That's the way it should be. But that's not the way it is. So even though I wish that this, that this fable was true, this fantasy land, that the Democrats have have concocted in their heads, I wish it, This is the one time where I wish it was actually a reality, but it's not. Not even close. Not remotely close. And so, for that reason, they, of course, are all, once again, canceled.

And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. 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 Podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, the Andrew Clavin Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer, Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producers are Mathisglover 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 Coramina. Hara 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.

A terrible shooting in Colorado raises bad faith debate. A breakfast company gaslights a man who found shrimp tails in his cereal, and a Democrat senator won't vote for white nominees. Check it out on the Michael Noles show.