The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 734 - AOC Neglects Her Poor Family Members, Blames Trump

Episode Date: June 3, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, AOC posts pictures of the crumbling shack where her grandmother lives in Puerto Rico. She blames Trump for her grandmother’s living conditions. But why isn’t she reaching into her own pocket to help? Also Five Headlines including the Fauci emails revealing, well, basically what we already knew. That we have been lied to, repeatedly. In our Daily Cancellation, a high school valedictorian went off script during her graduation speech to slam the state of Texas for restricting abortion. There is actually quite a lot to be learned from her remarks on the subject, though not the things she wants us to learn from them. 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, AOC posts pictures of the crumbling shack where her grandmother lives in Puerto Rico. She blames Trump for her grandmother's living conditions, but why isn't she reaching into her own pocket to help? This is kind of symptomatic of a larger problem in our culture, which we'll talk about also five headlines, including the Fauci emails, revealing, well, basically what we already knew, I think, which is that we've been lied to repeatedly. And our daily cancellation, a high school valedictorian went off script during her graduation speech to slam the state of Texas for restricting abortion. There's actually quite a lot to be learned from her remarks on the subject, though not the thing she wants us to learn from them. So we'll talk about that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show. It's truly been a banner week for Champaign Socialists. We start with this briefly, just because I think it's funny, a famous Twitch streamer named Nicole Sanchez. And one of

these days I'll figure out what a Twitch streamer is. She's well known for her videos and posts supporting Bernie Sanders and she was fond, has been fond of wearing tax the rich merchandise. But she uploaded a video to YouTube this week showing off her $2 million apartment, $2 million. If you're thinking there might be some kind of contradiction here, Sanchez explained in another recent video that when she says tax the rich and talks about all the evil rich people, she doesn't really mean all rich people. Don't be silly. I think she presents the distinction pretty eloquently here. Listen. All I'm doing is standing by the beliefs that I started off with and I'm here. So, um, whether I'm making this money or not, I just feel like it's definitely not

something to like, I guess, like, rude about because there's nothing to be rude about. I think when people mean like tax the rich, uh, I think at the end of the day, they do mean like billionaires and people that have insane, unfathomable amounts of wealth. Oh, okay. I didn't mean, I mean billionaires, not millionaires. You notice that Bernie Sanders went through the same evolution where he used to always be railing about the millionaires and billionaires, and then he became a millionaire, and he kind of shortened it, and now he was worried only about billionaires. So it's funny how that works.

Ironically, though, in a certain way, the fact that this person, this Nicole Sanchez, was able to become rich in the first place is maybe the best argument for socialism. that I've ever heard. Still not very good one, but it's the best one. In any case, Sanchez is but a lowly foot soldier in the army of wealthy, privileged socialist hypocrites. Marching at the head of the battalion is Alexandria KZ Cortez. AOC last heard discussing her PTSD that she suffered when some people trespassed in a building close to the building that she was in, but not in the building she was in, tweeted this out on Wednesday afternoon. She said, just over a week ago, my abuela fell ill. I went to Puerto to see her my first time in a year because of COVID, this is her home. Hurricane Maria relief hasn't

arrived. Trump blocked relief money for Puerto Rico. People are being forced to flee ancestral homes and developers are taking them. Now, you can see in the picture that her abuela's ceiling is falling apart. There's water damage. She appears to have almost no furniture in the home, except for one old chair. It's rather a sad sight. She has buckets everywhere to collect the leaking water. Truly squalid conditions. There's no question about that. Now, AOC continued on in a lengthy thread saying in part, we immediately got to work reaching out to community advocates and leaders and following the money. What's happening to Puerto Ricans is systemic. Much of it can be traced to La Junta, aka the Wall Street-connected fiscal control board that the U.S. gave power to over the

Island. Okay, so her grandmother's ceiling is falling down and she's living in a shack with one chair and buckets all over the ground. And AOC saw this and immediately got to work by reaching out to community advocates. Now, I don't know about you, but if I went to a loved one's house and I saw that pieces of their ceiling were on the floor alongside puddles of water, I wouldn't say, hang on, let me get a community organizer over here. No, instead of reaching out to advocates and activists, why don't you reach out to, I don't know, Home Depot instead? Why don't you call a repair man? Why don't you give your grandmother some of your own money to solve the problem? Cortez makes at least 180 grand a year, and that's just

her congressional salary. She has no children, no dependence. She's a single woman with a six-figure salary. That's not counting whatever other income streams she might have. She could sign a book deal tomorrow for a million dollars if she wanted. She's one of the most famous figures in America, and fame can always be monetized. Whenever she leaves Congress, if she ever does, we can keep our fingers crossed. She'll be making six figures on a single paid speech. The point is AOC is well off, and not just now. She's set for life. So why isn't she forking over? So why isn't she forking over? her own money to help her own family. It's a fair question, I think. Now, under normal conditions, I would say that it's none of our business, how someone spends their money and whether they're

giving their money to their family members in need or not, none of our business. But these are not normal conditions, because for one thing, AOC has many ideas about how we should be spending our money and is more than happy to take our money and spend it how she sees fit. Also, she's the one who brought her grandmother into it. She publicized her grandmother's situation in order to score political points. She used her poor abuela as a cudgel against Trump, who isn't even an office anymore. She introduced this personal situation into the public conversation, which means we're all entitled to share our own opinions about it. This is, of course, something people always do now, in order to make a political point or ideological point or win an argument, they

bring up some personal thing. And then that's supposed to be an end to the argument. And that's supposed to be an end to the argument because then you're not allowed to respond because if you do, they could always say, well, how dare you? This is none of your business. If it's none of my business, why did you bring it up? So I responded to that tweet, and I said, tweeting back to AOC, I said, shameful that you live in luxury while allowing your own grandmother to suffer in these squalid conditions. Fair response, I think. And she responded a short time later, and her response, I thought, was kind of revealing. She said, quote, you don't even have a concept for the role that first generation, born daughters play in their families.

My abuela is okay, but instead of only caring for mine and letting others suffer, I'm calling attention to the systemic injustices that you seem totally fine with in having a U.S. colony. Now notice she didn't say that she was going to help her grandmother. If she planned to help or had helped, it would have been a good time to shut me up by saying, hey, I gave my grandmother 50 grand to fix her roof and buy some furniture. So butt out, jerk. She didn't say that.

Because it's clear that she is going to wait for the government to fix a problem that she could easily, and with little effort or sacrifice, fix herself. Her concern, she says, is the systemic issue. She's glossed over her own family member suffering in order to focus on the larger, broader systemic problem. Rather than solve the one issue she can personally and directly and immediately solve, she'd rather talk about something bigger and vaguer and which she cannot directly. do anything about. And this is exactly the problem, not just with Alexandria, Kaysa-Cortez, but with our politics in general and our culture in general. Lots of people tend to stare helplessly at broken things that they could fix through their own effort, but instead they wait around hoping the fix comes from above. And by above, we mean the government. This is how people have been conditioned. They've been conditioned to see their struggles within a larger and more

ambiguous context. Personal issues become systemic issues. What could be a personal fix now requires a government policy or program to address it. You know, in Catholic social teaching, there's a concept that's quite helpful in illuminating whether you're a Catholic or not. And in fact, there are many such concepts in Catholic social teaching. This one is called subsidiarity. And it's a principle that says that all issues should be handled at the smallest and most localized level possible. No problem should be addressed by a large bureaucratic organization, which could be addressed by a smaller and simpler and more directly connected organization. That isn't to say that nothing should be done by large organizations. It just means that not everything should be

done at that level. In fact, most things should not be done at that level. The closest person to the problem should fix it. If you ask me to pass you the salt, I'm not going to call someone in New Mexico to drive over here and come into my house and pick up the salt and give it to you. I'm just going to extend my own arm and hand you the salt. It's quicker, easier, simpler, and a whole lot less expensive that way. So AOC's grandmother, and it's just a good example, has a collapsing ceiling and water damage all over her house. She can organize activists to call for more funds to be sent from D.C. to the Puerto Rican government in hopes that it eventually finds its way over to her, Buela, or, or, you know, she can do it that way.

a process that requires about 15 different steps and takes a long time, or she can reach into her own pocket, pull out her bank card, pay for the repairs herself. By one method, the problem maybe gets solved within a year or two or three, or maybe not ever. And the other method, the problem is solved immediately and more cheaply. And best of all, she has strengthened her bond with her grandmother by purpose. forming this act of love and service for her. It's much more humanizing. One method is direct, relatively cheap, and also spiritually edifying. The other is indirect, expensive, detached, and cold. The problem, you know, is that in our country, we often choose the latter method. And that's

exactly how we've gotten where we are today. So help your grandmother, AOC. That's the moral of the story. Let's get now to our five headlines. You know, one of the, one of the, the small joys of parenthood is, uh, just seeing the kinds of names and labels that your kids come up with for things, um, as they're, as they're sort of like making sense of the world. And that could, that could always be a lot of fun. And so I, I didn't, it could be fun, but it's also a little terrifying at time. So I did this experience a couple days ago. Um, I was at home. We were, we were in the living room at night. And my, my, my, my four, year old son who he's always got a ton of energy he's like a rabid raccoon running around the

house at all at all hours of the day uh just full full of energy but this was it was getting late it was like eight o'clock and he he was had more energy than usual and i was trying to figure out what was going on with him and then he said to me he said uh hey daddy guess what and i said what And he said, I found some wild beans. I ate some wild beans and they've made me strong and crazy. That's what he said. And I thought for a minute, wild beans that you ate that have made you crazy. What the hell did this kid find and eat?

And I'm racking my brain now because I'm thinking, was he, did he find, did he eat like poison berries from outside? Was he in the medicine cabinet? This is a four-year-old. He ate something that he considers a wild bean. Did he find like a crack rock and eat it? I don't think so. I don't smoke a lot of crack at the house so that he shouldn't have been able to find that. But my wife quickly put pieced it all together and realized that he had somehow invaded our pantry and we had a whole bag, I guess, of chocolate covered raisins. And he had ate the entire bag. I don't know how he got up there where he found them. I didn't even know we had them. He ate the whole bag and then he was on a sugar high. So that was the answer. I mean, that could be, with a four-year-old, though, that could be anything, wild beans.

And that's just a great, you know, it's just a great way of looking at chocolate-covered raisins, I suppose. All right, let's go. Number one here from The Daily Wire. It says, journalists obtained emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed that the bureaucrat said in February 2020 that surgical face masks are not effective for healthy people seeking to resist COVID-19 infection. Fauci has since repeatedly stated the apparent importance of masks in relation to the pandemic. Another email with the subject line, My Take on Masks from fellow bureaucrat Andrea Lerner dated April 2021,

has been nearly completely redacted, sparking some speculation online. Newsweek reported Tuesday on Fauci's email about surgical masks in effectiveness for the healthy, dated February 5th, 2020. It says, there's an email on February 5th, 2020. Fauci advised against wearing masks, this is February 5th, 2020, and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus.

Fauci wrote, quote, masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. He said, quote, it continues. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus,

which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keeping out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low-risk location. And there's another email where he talks about, where he admits that asymptomatic spread is very rare. And these are all emails again from over a year ago. And there are a ton of emails.

I mean, I'm sure you've heard about the Fauci emails by now. which are being released after a Freedom of Information Act request. I have to tell you that I don't quite, I'm not as into the Fauci email story as others are, which is why I haven't talked about it much on this show. And the only reason is that I'm not learning anything from these emails that I didn't already know. If there's one out there that has some real breaking news, I haven't seen it yet. And that's not to say that this isn't infuriating. it's just that my contempt for Fauci today remains what it's always been because I always knew that he was

telling us one thing yet believing another I knew that we were being lied to that was clear from the beginning now and most of this he actually said publicly so this the emails about masks that he was sending in February and March of 2020 advising people people personally, oh, you don't need to worry about wearing a mask. These emails are getting a lot of attention, at least getting a lot of attention in conservative media. We'll get to in a second how left-wing media is interpreting these emails. So they're getting a lot of attention, but the thing is Fauci said this publicly. He's on the record in public, telling people that they don't need to wear a mask. That's part of the story here. It's been part of the story.

It's been a scandal from the beginning. They had the so-called public health experts, Fauci, the Surgeon General also, infamously, sent out a tweet early on, screaming at people in all caps, don't wear a mask. And that's what they said. And then all of a sudden, just like that, it went from don't wear a mask, you're an idiot if you wear a mask. In fact, you're selfish if you're going out and buying medical masks. You're hoarding them from people who need them in the healthcare industry. They went from that to you have to wear a mask all the time everywhere, whether you have symptoms or not, whether you're sick or not, and if you don't, you're going to kill your

grandmother. And this transition happened literally overnight. And the explanation we've always been given is that, well, the science evolved. Science evolved. But it did? What science? What scientific breakthrough was there between like early February 2020 and April of 2020? In the span of a month or two, what information did we get that told us that rather than not having to wear a mask hardly at all, everyone needs to wear masks everywhere, including outside, including if they're not sick? what science, what data, what information, where is this evolution? Can you show it to us? No, they never can. They never did. And that's because, in my view, the quote, evolution when it comes to masks was not really, it was not a scientific evolution. It was a political evolution. That's my view. It's been my view all along. And I think we knew all of this the entire time.

So don't get me wrong. There is a scale. scandal here. And Fauci should be fired at a minimum. But I knew that. I didn't need the emails to tell me that. Now, but the emails, no matter how you slice it, aren't flattering at the very least, unless you're in the left wing media and you're doing the slicing because here's, well, I'll just show you this. This is a good taste. This is pretty much all mainstream media. This is This is how they're dealing with it. Here's Nicole Wallace on MSNBC yesterday talking to Fauci. And she's like, she could barely contain herself.

She's gushing over Fauci. And no change there, I suppose, either. But let's listen to this. You spoke about my emails. You look at my emails. I never in the email said anything derogatory about President Trump. Well, the true mark of someone is if they look good, even when their personal emails come out. So you pass the test that very much.

few of us would pass. Dr. Anthony Fauci, thank you for spending some time with us today talking about all of it. We're always grateful to get some of your time. She's like a, she's giggling like a schoolgirl. She can't contain herself. That's the true, Mark. You look so good in the emails. See, the problem with the emails, it's not so much the emails themselves. It's when you compare them to what was being said in public. That's the issue. All right. Naomi Osaka is the world number two tennis player. I admit I'd never heard of her until this week. She's withdrawn from the French Open and announced that she will step back from tennis after

a controversy erupted when she skipped a post-match press conference. Osaka, who won her opening match in the tournament on Sunday, also said she has suffered long bouts of depression since winning the U.S. Open in 2018. The 23-year-old was fined $15,000 for refusing to attend the press conference and was warned that she will face further conference. consequences if she did so again. Under the rules, Osaka must still meet with the media for post-match press conferences upon requests. In a statement on social media after her withdrawal, she said, I think now the best thing for the tournament, the other players, and my well-being is

that I withdraw so that everyone can get back to focusing on tennis going into Paris. She, let's see, she said, Osaka took to Twitter shortly after she skipped the press conference to say that she sees the press conferences, which have to be attended by the winner and loser of a match as kicking a person while they're down. She said, quote, we're often sat there and asked questions that we've been asked multiple times before, or asked questions that bring doubt into our minds. And I'm just not going to subject myself to people that doubt me.

I've watched many clips of athletes breaking down after a loss in the press room. And I know you have as well. I believe that whole situation is kicking a person while they're down. And I don't understand the reasoning behind it. So now she's backing away. And she said she withdrew from the tournament. because it doesn't it's harmful to her mental health to have to sit and answer questions, especially after you lose.

She doesn't want to be around people who doubt her. She wants to, you know, hide from that. Now, the reason I didn't mention this story at first is because I really don't care. Like I said, I didn't know who this person was. And if that was all that happened, just she decides, I don't want to be in the same. the tournament. I don't want to answer questions from the press. Who cares? Great. Fine. And I'm not one to sit here and defend the press anyway and their rights to ask questions or to, you know, I'm not interested in doing that. But the problem is that ever since she made this

announcement, she's now being celebrated for her courage. And the final straw for me was yesterday Hillary Clinton sent out a tweet saying talking about this athlete's, what's her name again, Naomi Osaka, Osaka, talking about her courage and saying we should celebrate her for her courage. Now that's going overboard. She wants to withdraw from the tournament. Who cares? That's her own choice. But let's not pretend that that's courage. That's not courage any more than LeBron James NBA playoffs A couple nights ago

his team was losing badly in the fourth quarter and he storms off the court before the game is over and goes to the locker room probably to protect his own mental health because if it felt bad he was kind of sad

because they were losing never mind the fact that he's a grown man allegedly world famous athlete but he doesn't want to sit there and be sad and everything and it just makes him feel bad So he went, he went storming off the court, went to the locker room. It's like behavior that as a parent you would not accept from your children if they were playing sports.

If my son was in basketball and they were losing and he stormed off the court because he was sad, we'd have real problems at home. So I would call this move from Naomi Osaka courageous in the same way that LeBron James is courageous for storming off the court. in the sense that it's it's not courageous at all you to shrink away from a situation that makes you uncomfortable to avoid discomfort it may be understandable it's a human instinct we all want to do that but it's not courageous so you want so if you want to tell me let her make her own decisions um respect her decisions fine cool who cares but if you tell me you tell me that we should celebrate it as courage, now there's a problem. Because that's not courage. That's the opposite of courage. Shrinking away from difficult things, avoiding discomfort,

that's the opposite of courage. Like, by definition, another thing that I've had on the docket for a couple of days, I want to play this for you. Severe staffing shortages from Fox News. Severe staffing shortages at the San Francisco Police Department paired with the local prosecutor's criminal first agenda is creating a dangerous situation on city streets headed into the summer months, according to union president Tony Montoya, after one of his officers left patrolling alone in Chinatown was violently tackled to the ground by a homeless man until bystanders intervened. Now this is, we have the security camera footage. It was released by the union. And you can see there's a homeless man he was causing, I don't know what he was doing. I think he was harassing people,

random people. The cops are called. One cop shows up to the scenes, a female police officer. She tries to arrest him. He tackles her to the ground. And she's now powerless at this point. This is a big guy. He's a large man. And who knows if he's on drugs or whatever. And he's on top of her. And it takes a whole bunch of bystanders intervening to pry him off and maybe save her life. Let's take a look at the video here. We have the security camera footage. No weapons. I don't have no weapons.

He's definitely, he's obviously on something. He's drunk here. Now he's fighting her. And she is completely outmatched. She's a, you know, a woman small of stature. This guy's on top of her. One bystander intervenes. That's not enough.

Another guy comes up. Another guy runs out. I need to be four guys. And eventually other police officers show up. All right. So, I mean, that's, we're talking about courage. So there's some real courage, I think, to be a bystander.

And so often in these situations, we've seen this a million times. Usually something like that, the footage we would see, that was a security camera footage. But usually we're not getting security camera footage. We're getting cell phone footage because the bystanders, rather than intervening and doing the right thing, they just sit around filming it. so that they can be the first one to get it on social media and get all those sweet social media likes and hits.

But in this case, bystanders did the right thing, got involved, which they should be lauded for that. But there's so much going on here to be analyzed. First of all, when you defund police departments and you have fewer police, this is the kind of thing that happens. Now, if those bystanders had not run in to help her, what would have happened? She could have been killed or she would have been fully justified. And that doesn't mean that she wouldn't end up getting prosecuted for it, by the way. But she would have been fully justified, especially if she didn't have any help. She would have been fully justified in pulling out her gun and just shooting the guy.

Because now she's in a fight for her life. She's in mortal danger. She's got this large, intoxicated crazy guy on top. top of her and she's in fear for our life. So she would have been fully justified in pulling out her gun and shooting him. It didn't go that way, largely because other people intervene. If they weren't there, then that could have gone a fatal direction because she's just one police officer there dealing with this. And that's the thing. When you have fewer police officers, there's actually, no, you don't end up with less violence. You end up with more violence in the

community because there are fewer people there to enforce the law, but even the interactions with the public and police become more dangerous for everyone involved because they don't have backup, they don't have help, they're going to have to more quickly resort to lethal means to defend themselves in situations like this. And then also, you know, we have to mention, we've got the issue of the fact that this is a female police officer by herself patrolling, responding to a call like this. And credit to her, I mean, that, that takes courage as well. But what's the plan here?

This is not, this woman, there are very few suspects, especially men, that this woman would be able to contain and take down on her own. Even if you're a man, even if you're a large, strong man, it still is very difficult to take someone down and contain them when they really don't want to be. be contained, and especially if they're on drugs. But for a woman, there's almost no chance. Police officers are not ninjas. This is not Kill Bill. They might be trained, but there's almost no chance that that female police officer could have been able to take that guy down. So what's the plan exactly? You send female cops out by themselves. They could be easily

overpowered by almost any suspect. It's just disaster waiting to happen, and that could have been a disaster, if not for the courage of the bystanders. All right, let's move to reading the YouTube comments. This is from Buff Guy One.

I don't know if I'm believing the username, though. He says, Matt needs to get rid of the beard. It's run its course. But you know what? You need to get rid of your life. It's run its course. That was a little strong. Maybe. maybe a little bit overboard, but I have to defend my beard. You know, when you, I have to speak up in defense for what's right.

Let's see. Another comment says, the camera B angle, that's exciting. No, it suddenly takes the storytelling mode from first person looking in the camera to talking off camera like an interview. I've always hated it, ditch the second camera. You could always rely on the internet for that and comments for that. there's always going to be people who find a reason to criticize and I do appreciate that I really do I don't even mean that sarcastically as someone who myself I'm always looking to criticize everything I appreciate that uh that you have stepped up to the plate here another comment says you were a kid in

the early 90s bah ha ha ha there's hope after all I have no idea what that means and haley miller says do you purposely not only pronounce Kamala incorrectly but also differently each time, I have no idea what you mean. I would never, no, I would never purposely mispronounce Kamele's name. That is very disrespectful and I would never do it. Well, when you think about all the things you want to do this summer as the weather gets warmer, things are opened up, you know, getting your normal life back, hopefully.

I don't know what your plans are for the summer, but I'm thinking your plan is not to spend time wandering around auto parts stores. And if it's not, that's why you need rockado.com. Rockauto.com, if you need auto parts, if you got your car trouble, you need anything for your car, rock auto.com is going to be a much better option than walking into a store, having to answer a bunch of questions.

You might not know the answer all the questions. And then what are you going to find most of the time? They don't have the part. Well, we don't have that part. We've got to order it. Why bother with all that? You just pull out your phone. Go to rock auto.com.

Always going to find the lowest price as possible. And at the same time, although the catalog is extensive and they've got endless, endless supplies of parts, it's also really easy to navigate and find exactly what you're looking for. So the catalog is unique, easy to navigate, and you could quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle, and you can choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer. So go now to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car truck. And as always, remember to write Walsh in there. How did you hear about this box so they know that we sent you?

And if there's one thing we learned about our government over the past year, it's that they hate freedom. I think we probably knew that even before this year began or this past year began. If there's one thing we need to start actively doing, though, it's fighting to keep ours. And that's why you need to pick up Ben Shapiro's new book, The Authoritarian Moment, and prepare yourself for whatever else are almighty rulers have wading up their sleeves. So if you understand the threat this poses to our future, it's time to read up on the truth in order to stand up to the woke. The authoritarian moment is now available for pre-order at Amazon. Barnes & Noble and any other major bookseller. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

So yesterday the name Paxton Smith was trending nationwide on social media and is still trending last I checked. Before I figured out who this person is and why they've become notable, I saw that such luminaries as Hillary Clinton once again and Sarah Silverman and Jessica Valenti and a bunch of people with pronouns in their bio were extolling her bravery. And that was enough for me to know that whatever Paxton Smith did, it probably wasn't good. And my instincts were correct. Here's USA Today with the story. It says a high school valedictorian from Texas flipped the script on school officials by using her graduation speech

to speak out against the state's newly signed law banning abortions as early as six weeks after conception. Paxton Smith has submitted an entirely, had submitted an entirely different speech on the effect of the media on young minds to school officials for the commencement ceremony at Lake Highlands High School in Dallas on Sunday. But Smith said it was important to use the moment to criticize a controversial abortion law signed by Governor Greg Abbott. last month, Smith called the legislation a war on the rights of your mothers, a war on the rights of your sisters, a war on the rights of your daughters. We cannot stay silent, Smith said to the graduating class, Smith was able to finish her speech without interruption. It's not unusual for school officials to intervene when a student deviates from an approved graduation speech. The impromptor speech has prompted the Richardson Independent School District to re-evaluate its

set of protocols regarding future student speeches. Well, of course, they weren't going to intervene during this stunt as they would have if her politics were different. They wouldn't want to be accused of being agents of the patriarchy or whatever. Now, as reluctant as I am to give this stunt any more attention, I do think it's worthwhile to listen to a portion of the girl's pro-abortion diatribe because we can learn from it. We're not learning the things she wants us to learn, but still, I do find it quite instructive.

So let's listen now. I have dreams and hopes and ambitions. Every girl graduating today does, and we have spent our entire lives working towards our future. And without our input and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us. I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail, I am terrified that if I am raped, then my hopes and aspirations and dreams and efforts for my future will no longer matter. I hope that you can feel how gut-wrenching that is. I hope you can feel how dehumanizing it is to have the autonomy over your own body taken away from you.

And I cannot give up this platform to promote complacency and peace when there was a war on my body and a war on my rights. A war on the rights of your mothers. A war on the rights of your sisters. A war on the rights of your daughters. We cannot stay silent. Well, that was all a bunch of muddled garbage. Her reasoning is as morally bankrupt as it is intellectually vacuous.

None of the claims she made there were remotely true. But I don't blame her. She's just a kid, 17, 18 years old, high school student. I blame instead the adults in her life and the cultural and political forces in our country that have convinced this young lady that her dreams and hopes and ambitions are dependent on her ability to murder her children. I mean, that's what she believes. And I believe that she really believes that. And I don't really blame her for believing such hideous nonsense as it's what she's been conditioned to believe. So let's think about this just for a moment.

Paxton says that her dreams, hopes, and ambitions hinge on her right to dismember any future babies that she might conceive. She says indeed that her aspirations for the future will, quote, no longer matter if she's not able to kill a baby after a heartbeat is detected. She needs to have unfettered, unlimited access to any and all child killing resources or else her life is over and all of her plans for the future are but dust and ash. Now, in order to hold this demented point of view, she must first of all believe that human life in the womb is totally worthless. She must see pregnancy as a sort of zero-sum game, either she dehumanizes her child or she is dehumanized. If she's forced to treat her child as a human, then she's no longer human. There's only so much

humanity to go around, she thinks. There's only room for one human between the two of them. A law that would potentially prevent her from throwing her own children away like so much garbage is a law that deprives her of humanity. That's the way she sees it. And she must also believe that there is no reliable way to prevent the birth of a future baby without abortion. She mentions rape, but far less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape. In 99 plus percent of cases, babies are conceived through an intentional act by mother and father. And then they're killed because either mother or father or both decide that they don't want to deal with the natural results of that intentional act. Now, I don't know, I'm beginning to see a way to prevent pregnancy that works literally 100% of the time.

And you don't have to kill anybody. Third, perhaps most disturbingly, in order to say everything that she just said, Paxton must likewise believe that there is no way for a woman to fulfill her ambitions and chase her dreams once she has a baby. she equates motherhood with death itself once you become a mother your goals your purpose your very life are over and this is not a straw man of what she said it is literally what she said our control over our future has been stripped away from us she said my dreams for my future no longer matter this is the language she's using and she's being applauded for it she says sees motherhood as the end of all dreams, the disintegration of hope, the crushing of ambition.

It is a dreary, miserable, fearful view of the world and life and womanhood. And it's exactly what the abortion industry wants her to believe. Exactly like what people like Hillary Clinton want her to believe. And tell her to believe. And it's entirely false. Little does Paxton know but you don't have to give up any dreams or any goals when you become a mother. You might end up changing your goals because your priorities have changed and become less centered around yourself, but there's no reason why any particular ambition must change or be abandoned. It's true that it can be more difficult, more challenging to do certain things as a parent, but nothing has become impossible that was possible before. In fact, as a parent,

Far from having your dreams erased, you now have your dreams multiplied. You have additional hopes and plans for the future. I would even say greater hopes and plans. Your designs for your life have expanded, not shrunk. Abortion does not preserve your ability to fulfill your goals. You don't need abortion for that. I mean, you're a strong woman, right? You're a fighter, a go-getter.

isn't that what you would say about yourself? Isn't that what the culture tells you to believe about yourself? Well, it does say that and tell you that, but then it also tells you that you're incapable of achieving your goals and being a mother at the same time. So you have to choose one of the other. One thing must die, your child or your dreams. That's what the culture tells you.

That's what feminists tell you. It tells you that you're strong but then treats you like you're weak, like you need to pay someone, a man most likely, to kill your child just so that you can be happy and successful in life. This is a message of helplessness, of dependence, of fear. And that's what the abortion industry says to women like Paxton. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Your life is over if you get pregnant. The only way out is through bloodshed. The only way out is through death. and destruction. It's a lie. And the worst thing, you know, is to realize what a lie it was only after it's too late. After you've already made the fateful choice and you've given up the one thing you can never get back, your child. You don't have to give up your career ambitions forever just because you have a kid. That's something you can still have. You give up your child, you can never have your child back. Many women, whether they'll say it publicly or not,

and many will say it publicly, if only people would listen, have exercised their right to choose, quote unquote, and then lived a little longer and looked at their lives and realized that all they have now that's worth having, they still could have had with a child. But the one thing that was the most worth having, they gave up forever. They killed the greater dream for the sake of the lesser one. It was a choice, yeah, but a false choice. And it can't be undone. That's the path that Paxton is already walking towards. Because she's been brainwashed to believe that her dreams depend on death.

And that is a horrible thing. And so all the people who've convinced Paxton Smith of that lie and so many other young women of that same lie are today canceled. And to say that they're canceled, I think, doesn't quite go far enough. But that's it. 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 podcast, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Null's show, the Andrew Claibon 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 Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair 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. Leaked emails from Dr. Fauci show that we were right about the virus from the beginning. We were right. I hate to say that. You know how much I hate to say. I told you so. New York accounting program won't let whites apply, and Ron DeSantis faces a serious challenge for governor in 2022. Check it out on the Michael Nulls show.