The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 765 - A Three Point Plan To Defeat COVID And Live Forever

Episode Date: July 30, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as mask mandates return and talk of lockdowns picks up, it is clear that no amount of COVID risk is acceptable. With that in mind, I have come up with a three phase plan to eliminate the COVID risk and ensure that all of us can live safely and happily forever. I will share that with you today. Also we have our Five Headlines, including the journalist who had her own proposal: porn for kids. Yes, really. Plus, Facebook gets ready to unveil glasses that will record everything we do. And a restaurant owner calls Chris Cuomo to task live on air. We’ll play the heartwarming clip. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with Chris Hayes from MSNBC, who made an argument for masking while vaccinated that is truly breathtaking in its stupidity. Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF 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, as mask mandates return and talk of lockdowns picks up, it's clear that no amount of COVID risk is acceptable. With that in mind, I have come up with a three-phase plan to eliminate the COVID risk and ensure that all of us can live safely and happily forever. And I will share that with you today. Also, we have our five headlines, including the journalists who had her own proposal to make, porn for kids. Yes, really.

Plus, Facebook gets ready to unveil glasses that will record everything we do. sounds fantastic. And a restaurant owner calls Chris Cuomo to task live on air. We'll play the heartwarming clip for you. And our daily cancellation will deal with Chris Hayes from MSNBC who made an argument for masking while vaccinated that is truly breathtaking in its stupidity. And we'll talk about that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show. This weekend, Washington, D.C. will become the latest locality to reinstate mask mandates for everyone in the city, regardless of vaccination status. This move has been prompted by a rash of COVID deaths in the city. And by, rash of deaths, I mean two. A total of two people have died of the virus in D.C. in the past two weeks.

Deaths and hospitalizations are down across the country, which is probably why we're hearing a lot, we're hearing so much now about cases, but not so much about the people with those cases and how they're actually faring. We hear about the cases, but then the question of, okay, well, how are those people doing? The answer is, almost all of them are doing okay. Many have no symptoms at all or only mild symptoms. And yet even though vaccinated people are almost certainly not going to develop any serious complications from the virus if they somehow contract it, the mortality rate for the vaccinated is a fraction of a percent. And even though many millions of people have natural immunity from prior infection, and even though a large portion of the unvaccinated slash nonimmune

are young people and children who have never been under any serious threat from the virus, and even though deaths have dropped precipitously and have not risen precipitously, even as cases rise, Americans all across the country are being told by the CDC to begin wearing masks again. There's talk of a return to lockdowns in some parts of the country or perhaps everywhere. In a press briefing yesterday, the White House was asked about this, are we going to go back to lockdowns? And they certainly would not rule it out. Let's listen to that. President Biden says that we are not returning to lockdowns, shutdowns, and school closures.

But he also once said that we didn't have to wear masks anymore once we were vaccinated. So why should Americans trust him now? Well, because we listen to the scientists. We listen to the expert. This is a public health situation. This is not about politics at all. This is about saving lives. And this is what the president is all about.

He wants to make sure that we are saving lives. If you look at Peter the last six months, that's what he's done every day. And you see that in the numbers. Now we're at a point where we have to double down and make it very much. very, very clear to people that we can't, we can't let the pandemic win. We have to continue to fight. So if you're listening to the science, if scientists come to you at some point down the line and say it is our opinion that there should be shutdowns and there should be school closures, you would do that. Well, we listen to, like I said, we listen to the CDC and the expert and

their guidance. Our, you know, the CDC is a body that is very well respected. And we found, again, we follow their guidance. very well respected by who exactly, themselves. But, hey, this is about saving lives. Double down so that the pandemic doesn't win. And the media has gone into full panic mode, which isn't to suggest that it ever left full panic mode. Last night, the term Ebola was trending on social media

because of a Washington Post article warning that the Delta variant is more contagious than Ebola. Now, that's no doubt. out true, but then lots of things are more contagious than Ebola. Ebola is, in fact, very difficult to spread as it requires you to have direct contact with somebody's bodily fluids. You may as well say that the delta variant is more transmissible than cancer. I mean, that would also be true, technically, but rather misleading. Meanwhile, Don Lemon on CNN, ranted wildly about all of the rights that must be immediately revoked from the unvaccinated.

You have to have leaders start speaking the truth. You have to have to. have leaders. The data will help. Be more, yeah, of course, I said that is true, but also, I mean, in addition to, you've got to have people start speaking the truth. You can't have them speaking out of both sides of their mouth saying, yeah, well, I trust the science and I'm doing this. I heard you had Jerome Adams on, and he's saying, talking about some right-wing conservative propaganda hosts who are saying, oh, yeah, no one really said get vaccine. They said, I believe in the science. And it's up to you to get it. We can't have mealy-mouthed people like that. You have to be more direct.

a more concerted effort to say get vaccinated because you're not just killing yourself, you're going to kill other people. That's what you have to start telling people. You've got to start telling people, if you don't get vaccinated, you can't come into this office or this place of business. If you don't get vaccinated, you can't come to work.

If you don't get vaccinated, you can't come into this gym. If you don't get vaccinated, you can't come into this, get onto this airplane. There's nothing to do with freedom. There's nothing to do with liberty. You don't have the freedom and the liberty to put other people in jeopardy. You don't have the freedom to put other people in jeopardy. That's interesting.

And that may seem extreme what he just said there, but it pales a comparison to other proposals that have been put forward. Ian Milheiser, a reporter for Vox, urged Congress to raise the tax rates on the unvaccinated to 99%. In fairness, he probably thinks the tax rate. rate on everybody else should be like 95%, but 99%. And I suppose this would at least save them from the indignity of being kicked out of restaurants and planes like Don Lemon wants, as they won't have enough money to do any of that in the first place. All in all, it's clear that no amount of COVID risk is tolerable.

Daily death rates are down so low that in many major American cities, they can be counted on one hand. And yet, that is still too much to bear. 100,000 people can die of the flu in a given year. That's 100,000 people. That's 33-9-11s or 66 Titanic's or 625 Oklahoma City bombings. And nothing will be done about it. No measures taken.

No public health policies put in place at all. No masks. No panic. No, it's not just that with flu, there's less of that. It's that there's none. In fact, we don't even talk about it. You could have 100,000 people die of the flu and you won't even hear. hear about it. You won't know that it's happening. But for COVID, two deaths in a city in two

weeks is too many. The threat of COVID must be precisely zero or else we cannot return to our lives. That clearly is the approach that our leaders are taking. With that in mind, I would like to suggest a path forward. If we cannot accept any risk at all, then it's time that we do everything that needs to be done. So this right now, I think this is a big news. I am going to save the world right now on this show. You weren't expecting that. I've only saved the world a few times in the show.

This is another time. So here's my three-phase plan to achieve our goal of zero COVID risk. Here it is. Phase one. All unvaccinated people are loaded onto barges and set a drift in the sea. Now, it's important that we respect their rights, which means that they should be allowed to choose which ocean they're exiled into. I will say that.

It doesn't really matter that much so long as the ships of the unclean remain a minimum of 55 miles offshore. Anything less, and a strong breeze might blow their virus fumes back to the mainland, immediately killing thousands of people. We have no reason to think that such a thing is possible, but there haven't been any studies done to prove that it's not possible, I think. And even if studies have proven that it's not possible, where are the studies proving that those studies are correct? And if those studies have been done, then where are the studies affirming what the studies about the studies have shown us? Phase two, all large gatherings are permanently

banned, obviously. Medium-sized gatherings also banned. Small gatherings also banned. All types of gatherings are nothing more than orgies of viral transmission. There is a no reason in the age of COVID why we should need to have any form of physical interaction with other human beings. There is no need for such frivolities anyway, especially when we have the internet.

Although speaking of the internet, virtual gatherings must be likewise prohibited. We simply don't have enough data to conclusively prove that the virus can't infect you through Zoom, and besides, Zoom carries other risks that are just as severe, Jeffrey Tubin, etc. Phase three,

the government constructs, artificial cocoons, a la the matrix, where we can be comfortably and separately stored like packages of ground beef. Now, here's the good news. Our cocoons will be hermetically sealed, of course, which means that we can squeeze thousands of them into one facility without worrying about viral spread. And I think it will bring us great comfort to know that our loved ones have been stripped naked and locked forever inside a dark robotic tomb right near us. Of course, inside our individual pods, all of our necessary nutrients will be provided through our government-issued umbilical cords for entertainments and to stave off the creeping approach of madness, our brains

can be plugged into a computer system, giving us access to an entire virtual world, where social distancing and masking will still be observed, of course. Now, I understand that these proposals may seem drastic, even insane. But remember, that the goal now is to avoid any and all risk, no matter how small. That is the goal. If the measures I've outlined here manage to save only one life, then they are worth trying. Always remember the great lesson of COVID, that the only way to preserve our lives is to stop living them. And I think it's finally time to get serious about that. We are all in this together. Well, I mean, we'll be in separate pods, but together in our hearts.

And that's the most important thing. Now let's get to our five headlines. Well, the July and August heat is upon us, but that does not mean that you should shave your beard. That is no excuse, especially if you live. You know, there's guys up north, you Yankees shaving your beard. I'm down here in the south. It's 652 degrees.

I've still got this coat on my face because there are some things that are more important than comfort. But if you do have the beard, especially during the summer, it couldn't be more important to keep it tame and looking fresh, no matter how humid or dry your summer is turning out to be, which is not why you need beard oil from beard supply. If you're one of these men out there currently growing or maintaining a beer, chances are you're a need of products to keep it looking thick and healthy.

Trust me, you don't want to show up to your neighborhood barbecue in the blistering heat without beard oil. Your beard's going to look just mangy and disgusting. Go visit beard supply.com. Because for a limited time only, you can buy one beard oil product and get another one for free. So go visit our friends over at beard supply.com today. Order yourself two beard oils for the price of one. You don't want to miss this deal.

So again, that's Beardsupply.com to buy one beard oil and get another one for free. All right, I was grateful, by the way, to go at a segment with Laura Ingraham on Fox News last night. I don't know if you got a chance to watch it. But if you didn't get a chance, you should go find that segment somewhere and watch it because it was really important. I was brought on to talk about the issue of men crying, which has been a theme on this show this week, something I've dealt with repeatedly. And it's great that I'm always brought, if I'm doing a cable news hit, you know it's going to be the important issues. That's what they bring me on for, Abuela, men crying, like, that's, there's something really important going on. That's when they say,

we need to get Matt Walsh here to talk about this. And so I did appreciate that. And it was, I thought it was a worthwhile conversation. Just on that note, I've talked about the tweet that I sent out where I said mention, cried it's unmanly and undignified. And that's what a lot of what has sparked this reaction from people. And it hasn't stopped yet. It has the outrage mob. They have not usually, like, I've been through this many times and I've got the mob coming

after me on the internet. And the reason I don't get upset about it like so many people do, well, I'm used to it. It's also funny. And who cares what these people think? think. But I also know that the mob will usually about 24 hours. If it really bothers you what they're saying, but you shouldn't, then put your phone down for a day. And you go live your life. Well, all these people are obsessively messaging you. I hate you so much. And you don't. Usually it's 24 hours. This has been, we're going on like three days and they haven't let up. And so many of the responses are

just so funny. I cannot recommend highly enough if you want to entertain. yourself. Just put something out on your own social media channels about how men shouldn't cry because the responses are unintentionally hysterical. I want to just share one more with you. Okay, this was someone last night after my Fox News hit. This is a woman, and here's what she said to me. She said, widdle baby can't handle your feelings, so you'll stuff them. As a therapist, I like to encourage people to express their emotions in a healthy way. A man crying in public means he's very sure of himself and comfortable with his feelings. What does that say about you? I love everything about this. Starting with little baby, little baby can't handle your feelings. As a therapist,

I disagree with that. You're a therapist, and that's how you talk to people? I would almost respect that. I've never been to therapy. A lot of people say that I should probably go. But I would really respect, I guess, a therapist where you sit down and you start telling them all your problems and your life story. And they go, oh, little baby, are you upset about that? Your childhood trauma? Widow baby, you want some tissues? So I thought that was pretty great. Although, whittle baby can't handle a feeling so you stuff them. Are babies renowned for stifling their emotions? Is that what babies are all about? That hasn't been my experience. That hasn't been my experience. with babies. Babies are very bad at controlling their emotions and cry constantly.

My whole point is that men should not be like babies. That is my radical suggestion. Okay. So if you're looking for a therapist, maybe I'll try to put you in touch with this woman here. So here's someone who really does need therapy. This is from the Daily Wire. A British, reading out, a British fashion journalist faced a storm of outrage Thursday after suggesting that children should be watching entry-level pornography. A contributor to GQ and the Sunday Times Style magazine, she posted a Twitter quote, Someone needs to create, oh, there it is, someone needs to create porn for children. Hear me out. Young teens are already watching porn, but they're finding hardcore, aggressive videos that give a terrible view of sex.

They need entry-level porn, a softcore site where everyone asks for consent and no one gets choked, etc. Now, she put that out there and then deleted it within, I don't know, within minutes maybe, like an hour or time. She deleted it really quickly, which shows, this is the bubble that these people are living in. You know, someone in the media, a fashion journalist living, I assume, in London or something. And the bubble she's in, the bubble of did you know, the bubble of. generosity and decadence that she's in, she didn't know that people would react negatively to that. And you know she didn't expect it because she deleted it right away. You know, if somebody says something controversial and then leaves it up there, it still might be

grotesque and outrageous and evil and insane like this. But at least you know that they knew it was going to be controversial and they were prepared for that. They knew what they were getting into. They leave it up there. Hey, it is what it is. They take it down right away, and that tells you that they didn't think that this was going to be a problem. She didn't think. The circles that she runs in, she thought that, oh, yeah, entry-level porn for kids.

What's the big deal? Oh, you guys, you guys have a problem with that? I had no idea. And later, she kind of backtracked, and she was saying, oh, it's all about consent. I didn't mean to insinuate this and that. She also clarified this was supposed to make it better. Oh, by children, I mean just people under 18. So, you know, 14, 15, 16.

Oh, okay, well, that makes it a lot better. But if you look even at her, what she was saying after the fact, trying to justify it after she deleted it, there were plenty of people, many of them kind of like in her orbit, you could tell, journalists, media people, defending her and saying they think it sounds like a good idea also. Or at least they know what she was getting at and, you know, it doesn't offend them.

Of course, it is offensive. The word offensive is way overused. People are offended by way too many things. There are things that are legitimately offensive. Proposing porn for children, legitimately actually offensive. If you have a soul, if you have any kind of functioning moral compass at all, you're going to find that offensive and outrageous and outrageous and disgusting. But I should also note, you know, her proposal here as outrageous and disgusting and evil and deranged as it is, it's not that. far from the view of many people, in fact. It's not that far because you probably know my opinion on the subject of pornography, very much in the anti-camp. And whenever I've talked about this, especially when you get into the risks it poses to children. I mean, I've proposed in the past, I proposed banning pornography outright.

which I still believe we should do. Of course, most people, very upset at that notion. Don't take my pornography from me. It's all I have in my life is the message you get from a lot of people. But even if you back up a little bit and you say, okay, putting banning porn to the side, what about just putting some measures in place to protect children from it? Some really basic measures, not even anything extreme. I'm in favor of the more extreme measures, but what if we're not talking about that?

What if we're talking about something really, some real basic stuff? For example, requiring that pornography sites like PornHub verify ages before allowing people to enter the site. Yeah, there are ways around that. It's not foolproof, but it's definitely better than nothing. And there are many different ways that websites can verify ages. There are websites now that will actually do this, depending on what kind of site it is. You want to do online gambling, for example. You're going to have to verify who you are and verify your age.

So there are ways to do it. It's not that onerous. It shouldn't be a big deal. If you're an adult and you want to look at porn, what's the big deal? You have to verify your age. But when I've suggested this or what anyone suggests that, people, lots of people are opposed to it. They would rather the pornography be open for everyone. They would rather be open and available to everyone, knowing that millions of like nine-year-olds are going to be going to be exposed to the most depraved and disgusting extreme pornography imaginable, knowing that that's going to happen because these measures are not put in place.

And there are millions of adults who are okay with that because the alternative is that their own access might be slightly impeded. If you even, for a lot of adults, if you suggest even slightly impeding their access to hardcore pornography, that to them is so offensive that they would rather the alternative of having nine-year-olds exposed to this, doing immense and immeasurable psychological damage that will last for their whole lives. So on one hand, you've got this woman saying, let's intentionally expose young children to pornography.

But it'll be, you know, it'll be sort of softer pornography. So you've got that, and that's a horrible thing to say. Then you've got to, in my experience, a lot of adults who would say, well, it's not intentionally exposed them, but at the same time, I don't really care if they are exposed to hardcore porn. I don't want to do anything to stop that from happening. Those two viewpoints, I would put about on the same level in terms of their depravity and in terms of being utterly and totally indefensible.

Any other industry, I mean really, any other industry where a product or service is being provided that is not legal for children to consume in any other industry, they are required to do something to verify the age. You want to buy liquor. In fact, forget about that. If pornography magazines even still exist and you went to a gas station to buy one, they'd have to verify your age. You know, if a nine-year-old went into a gas station and bought a porn magazine and the cashier just let them buy it, who would defend that and say, well, it's really the parents' fault? Where are the parents? Yeah, where are the parents?

But at the same time, how does that justify what the cashier did? Is it okay for the cashier to say, well, your parents aren't here and whatever? Sure, I'll take your money. No, in any other circumstance, we expect basic measures to be put in place except with porn sites. They are the one exception. That doesn't make any sense. So as horrifying as this viewpoint is, it's really not far from what many people believe. and, you know, and if you're in that camp where you think we should do absolutely nothing

from a, you know, a policy perspective to insulate kids from this, then you're setting the stage for people like this journalist here. Just so you know. All right, let's go now to, for this from the sun. It says Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced that its Rayban Smart Glasses will be the company's next product to launch. Zuckerberg made the comment during Facebook's second quarter earnings call. Facebook has planned to launch its smart glasses as its next product.

He said, looking ahead here, the next product release will be the launch of our first smart glasses from Rayban in partnership with Isilor Luxatica, whatever that is. The CEO didn't add much more than that, other than saying the glasses will let the wearers do some pretty neat things. What do we know about Facebook smart glasses so far? Facebook has big plans for its smart glasses, but the first pair won't be classified as an augmented reality product. And as far as what exactly they'll do, there's still not a lot. No. Now, but, you know, these are electronic device you're going to wear on your head, potentially giving Facebook the ability to record everything you do and say.

And there's a big privacy thing there. But, you know, here's what frustrates me. You ask almost anyone in America whether or not they value their privacy and whether their privacy rights are important to them. All of them will say yes. One of the most important things. In fact, based on our words and our values as we present them, we value privacy more than anyone else ever has in history. We certainly talk about it a lot more.

And yet you know that these Facebook glasses are going to come out and they'll sell like hotcakes. Millions of people who otherwise would say, I really have a right to privacy. I care so much about my privacy. And then Facebook says, oh, here are some glasses. Wear them on your head. We'll record everything you do and say, oh, yes, please. This is always that tension where we say we value our privacy. and yet all of us willingly sacrifice so much of it every single day as a matter of course.

And many of us going much further than that. Wearing Facebook glasses, I think, would be a pretty extreme way to sacrifice your own privacy. Okay, I want to play this. I can't forget to play this. A restaurant owner in California is switching things up a little bit. He is allowing only the unvaccinated to eat at his establishment. So he's requiring proof of being unvaccinated. I don't know how exactly you could prove that, but clearly he's trying to just make a point here.

He's making a statement about the idea of vaccine passports. Chris Cuomo had him on his show to yell at him, and I think it probably didn't go exactly how Chris Cuomo planned. Let's take a look at that. The whole reason this is happening is because people won't protect themselves, Tony. I mean, what do you thinking? Then why did you leave your house when you had COVID? I mean, you had it. And you left your house. I mean, it's been documented. First of all, it has been documented.

My asses it's been documented. I quarantined. I went out. My wife got accosted by somebody. I don't know, man. And I know you don't know. So I'm trying to help you. The science is clear, Tony. Trying to help me. I don't want you to get sick the way I was sick. The science is clear.

Oh, you care about me all of a sudden, huh? Enough to have you on the show because I don't like people making bad decisions for themselves and their family. I was hoping it was a little bit of a stunt. You have the freedom not to take the vaccine. I just don't know why you think it's a good move. Maybe we should ask your brother about protecting people, right? Look, that's his job. And if he doesn't do it well, people won't vote for it.

A whole new can of worms. But, look, Tony, I don't know if you know me too well. I'm not shy away from much. I'm asking you about you. Yeah, good. I appreciate that too because I know you talk a lot. So my stance here is a pro-freedom stand only. It's not political.

You'll never going to, if you come down here, you're not going to see a Trump flag flying over the roof. Okay. You're not going to see campaigns signs. You're not going to see campaign slogans or political slogans ever, okay? You're only going to see pro-freedom messages, and that's it. And you're not going to drag me down the hole talking about the science. This is not about whether I'm pro-vaccine or not. I'm pro-freedom anti-tirney, okay?

And, you know, maybe the conversation should really be between me and your brother. That's what I'm thinking. Really, that whole clip, the only thing I wanted to get out of that is where he said, I quarantined, I went out. I quarantined, I went out. But then you're not quarantining. That's going out. It's like the definition of quarantine is not leaving.

It's not going out. So Chris Cuomo gets called out there, which is good to see. And what the restaurant owner, I think what was his name, Tony? What he's saying there is, of course, exactly, exactly right. And this is the distinction that many people on the pro-vaccine passport side of things, many of the COVID cultists pretend not to understand. Okay. If you're against vaccine passports, if you're against Don Lemon's idea of if you don't vaccinate,

you're not allowed to eat at any restaurants or fly on any planes or do anything, if you're against those kinds of measures, then that doesn't necessarily mean, you could also be against the COVID vaccine, but that's an additional viewpoint that you have, that you happen to have. It's not necessary. It's not necessary to have any particular view on vaccines one way or another

to be in favor of people having the right and the liberty to go and live their life and participate in society. I really, the whole, The whole way that we approach vaccines, I've always hated. And this goes, this is not new. I mean, this goes back before COVID was ever, before anyone, before COVID-19 was a thing. Before it existed. We had already done this with vaccines.

We had turned vaccines into an ideological, political thing. And that's another important point because the way that we talk about the COVID vaccine debate, It's like a lot of people think that this is a new. That for vaccines to be an ideological battlefield, that's a new development. It's not way before this. It was, well, your pro vaccine or your anti-vaccine. And the two sides really don't like each other. And the people who would identify themselves on either side of that spectrum,

if they ever talked to you and they didn't know where you landed, they would kind of like demand that you take one side of the other. It never made any sense to me. Right. Anti-vaccine pro. What do you mean? It depends on the vaccine. It depends on the situation.

It depends on who's getting the vaccine and why they're getting it. Am I in favor of every vaccine that's ever been developed? Probably not. Am I in favor of everyone in the world getting every vaccine? No, I probably not. It really depends. It depends. This is a medical.

medical treatment, medical decision, at least. And so it's going to be kind of a case-by-case basis. That's been my take on vaccines. I've never been able to plant my flag as pro or anti when it comes to vaccines. Or frankly, to care that much whether you do or don't get them. Whatever the vaccine is. We've also got this, speaking of really important stories, And we've talked about men crying.

Here's another important story. This one, Fox 5 and D.C., they're tracking down a really important story about, I don't know if you knew this. This is a big crisis level situation. Dog groomers apparently are unlicensed. And Fox 5, they're on top of this. Let's watch. Hey, guys, it's Fox 5 reporter Sierra Fox. Right now I am here with Abby and Lucy.

They're outside of happy grooming, just got beautiful and they feel good. their tails are wagging. Today, my story is about how pet groomers don't have to have any sort of licensing or regulations. To some pet owners, after hearing that, that's concerning. So I'll have more details for you about this coming up at 4, 5, and 6. Bye, guys. That is a huge concern. And I didn't realize that.

I thought that you would have to, you know, go to school for six years, take three years of additional training, go through bi-annual testing, spend at least $5,000 or $6,000 a year in licensing fees in order to cut a dog's hair. That's what I thought. And I found a certain amount of comfort in that belief, thinking that there weren't any unlicensed, unregulated people out there just willy-nilly cutting the hairs of dogs. But Fox 5, they point out, not only are there some unlicensed. dog hair cutters, but they all are. We got to get the government involved in this. That is obviously the case.

All right, this is something, here's another thing really serious. We're doing all the serious stuff today. It is a Friday after all. You guys know that I'm a huge fan of Lizzo. I'm very protective of her. And so I was naturally pretty upset when some vicious rumors about Lizzo started circulating. And apparently some people online were, and this is not funny at all. They were claiming that Lizzo was stage dived at a concert and killed someone.

Just flattened them by like a pancake. That was the claim. It's terrible stuff. It's not funny. It's completely untrue. She didn't kill anyone. They survived. Only a few broken bones.

So let's be clear about that. But here's Lizzo addressing this rumor. So I've seen a lot of annoying things about me on the internet, but the thing that bothers me the most is this rumor that I stage dived at a concert and killed somebody. Like that rumor, it's a fly, first of all. I've never staged dived in my life. And, like, kill somebody? Y'all really going to put that on my mother fucking name? Like, I know I'm big, but I'm not that fucking big.

Like, look. there it is it's it is repugnant that these rumors would spread and i want to be clear that there were no earthquakes caused either so so please don't start joking about that this was this was not similar in severity to an asteroid strike you know okay um and i'm really just disgusted by by those kinds of comments from from the internet very disappointed in the internet today frankly all right um one of the thing let's see what else will be before we get to read the YouTube comments. Okay, here's one another.

This is Angie Jones, who's an international keynote speaker with a pretty large following. She tweeted this, and this kind of went viral, this claim that she made. She says, this weekend, I went on a girl's trip, 10 black women flying first class. People literally could not process how it was possible. Staff tried to send us to regular lines. passengers made snide remarks. One guy even yelled, are they a higher class of people than I am? Stay mad.

And of course, a lot of comments, a lot of Yasqueans and that sort of thing in the comments. Can we just be totally clear that this didn't happen? That did not happen. It's possible that she happened to be on a plane flying first class with the one guy in the country who's never heard of first class. And so he sees that and says, first class, what are they a higher class of individuals? It's possible that that happened, but really unlikely.

And all the rest of it is her simply sort of assuming that everyone is mad that they're in first class. If they were staring at all, it's just because it's unusual to have a group of 10 people altogether flying first class. It'd have to be a pretty big plane to even fit that many people, a group that size in first class. But so that's possible. But the rest of it is her assuming that everyone cares.

When in reality, nobody cares. No one cares that you're flying first class. You know, it's a big deal for you. You're impressed with yourself for flying first class. That's great. I've flown first class a couple of times. I was impressed with myself too. but no one else cares.

This is something for taking the racial element out of it. This is something for narcissists to, it's a really important lesson for them to learn, for all of us to learn. And there's actually a freedom in this when you realize it and you learn it. And it really takes hold in your mind. No one really cares what you're doing. Okay, when you walk around in the world in public, if you have this idea that everyone is staring at you, judging you for better or worse, everyone cares, that's your narcissism flaring up. That is the definition of a narcissist.

You're imagining that when you walk into an environment, like you get on a plane, you're the main character in that story. And everyone is revolving around you, waiting for you to show up. And even if you're imagining that everyone hates you or they're judging you, that is still narcissism. And it's delusional. Because no, they don't hate you. They're not judging you. They aren't thinking about you. They don't care.

Everyone on that plane, they're going somewhere, they're coming from somewhere else. They've got a million things going on in their own lives. They've got other annoyances. They're annoyed they have to wear the mask. They're annoyed that they're on the plane. You know, they've got maybe their kids with them. they've got marital problems they're thinking about, problems at their job, issues with their family. That's where their head is.

If they thought about you at all, it was for like 10 seconds. They might have noticed you for 10 seconds and had a thought about you for 10 seconds, positive or negative, and then they moved on with their lives and they will never think about you again. Now, when you really realize that, it might start to cure your narcissism a little bit, but then it's also freeing. because not only can it rid you of your narcissism, it can also rid you of a lot of the anxiety people have when they're out in public,

feeling like they're judged all the time. They're not judging you. They don't care. Even if you're in public and something really embarrassing happens to you, even then. People point and laugh, and then they're going to move on with their lives.

They'll probably never think about it again. I guess it depends on how embarrassing it is. It's possible if it's something really bad, then, you know, I don't know, if you pee your pants in public or something, probably people will remember that forever and they'll be telling stories about it forever. So that I would recommend against that. But for the most part, no one's thinking about it. No one cares. All right, let's move now to read the YouTube comments.

Cool Papa J. Magic says it really, it really stinks that the greatest minds of our generation are forced to debate garbage like socialism, masks, slash whether or not gender even exists, etc. You do a great show anyway, Matt. Thanks. I don't know if I qualify as one of the greatest minds of our generation. generation, but I appreciate it. And I do agree that this is, it's unfortunate that we're stuck debating these really elementary, elementary things. It works out for me. I've been very open and honest about this, that if our society was not going completely insane, I wouldn't have a job. Because all I really do is, is point out the obvious. And there's a need for that now. There's a place for that for people to point out the most obvious.

things in the world. That's all I do. That's my whole gig. If most people were basically sane, then we wouldn't need anyone to point out the obvious. We wouldn't need a captain obvious show, which is what this is. But we do. So that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's my gig. If, if we get to a point where people snap out of it and we live in a basically sane society, that'll be great. The one downside for me is that I got to find a new job. job. I'll take that trade, by the way. Another comment says, wow, Matt, I really feel for you. My wife is very artistic and loves to decorate, but for the most part, we have the same taste and we don't like those inspirational quotes. But I must say, I'm surprised that you so hate it, but haven't done your manly duty

and set your wife on the straight and narrow path. Do you have something to confess? Does she carry more sway in the house than you do? Are you saying she doesn't listen to her sweet daddy daddy Daddy Walsh's desires in home decorating. My wife does not call me Sweet Daddy Walsh. Let me be very clear about that. That would be even a bridge too far. No, it's somehow much less creepy for a whole bunch of strangers to call me that. No, I entirely defer to my wife on all decor

and decorating things. I don't care about that. Well, I might formulate an opinion about some of it. I don't care enough. about that opinion to have an argument about it. And I also realize, and it's a big part I think of making a marriage work, right, is realizing what your strengths and weaknesses are. You got to know that.

Because then you know where to defer to the other and how to lean on them. When it comes to any kind of decorating-related thing, I have no idea. You know, you put me in an empty room, give me furniture, give me decorations, and they can be the highest quality furniture and decorations on earth. I would have no clue how to assemble it in a way that's visually appealing. My wife is very talented at that.

So let's see, Matt, your words are so inspirational and powerful. Then why hasn't your wife plastered them all over your bathroom? Now, that is a good point. See, there is a decorating idea that I do. find especially appealing. Should be quotes from me all over that. That wouldn't be narcissistic at all. And half Irish says, I'd like to hear what you expect would happen to those 300,000 unwanted

babies if they were born. Of the 300,000 babies that Planned Parenthood kills every year. And those are only the babies that Planned Parenthood kills. They're just one of the abortion conglomerates. One set of abortion clinics of Planned Parenthood. But you've got 800,900,000, a million babies that are killed every year, all told. But the 300,000, what happens to them if they're not killed an abortion? Well, the answer is I don't know exactly.

Hopefully, they find a loving home. I think many of these mothers who make the decision to get an abortion if they had not made that decision. And I know this because you could talk to mothers who considered getting an abortion and were going to but decided not to talk to them and see how they feel about it a year later, two years later, five years later, almost none of them will tell you that they wish they had gone through with the abortion. In fact, I have never personally heard that from any woman. And I've talked to plenty who had considered abortion.

So what does that mean? It means that of those 300,000, a great many of them will find loving homes in their own home, with their biological, at least their biological mother, hopefully the biological father too. Of the ones that do not, hopefully a great number of them are adopted. And although it is difficult, it's tragically difficult for a seven or eight or nine-year-old child to find a home willing to adopt him, and that's a terrible and tragic thing, the good thing is it is not difficult at all to find homes that will adopt babies. There's a very long waiting list of loving and capable families that want to

desperately to adopt babies. And so, you know, I think that's the answer for the rest of those, of those, quote, unquote, unwanted children. They would end up getting adopted. And you know what? Even if the worst happens, these children end up on the street. They end up in abusive homes, horrible situations that you wouldn't wish on any kid. Am I going to say that I think it'd be better if they were dead? Is that what you're saying? I guess it is. What about children that are in abusive situations or horrible situations right now, should we just go kill them? What about adults that are on the street homeless, living miserable lives of despair and emptiness and suffering? With no hope in sight. Should we just go kill them? Better to be dead? Because that's what you're saying.

If you're unwanted, better off dead. Now, I absolutely reject that. I think it is better to live. definitely. And certainly, it is not up to us to decide if someone else's life is worth living. As we have discussed, the CDC is now recommending that vaccinated individuals wear masks indoors and outdoors, in fact, and they haven't quite got to the point of suggesting that we all go into the Matrix pods. But now that I've put that idea out into the universe, maybe it'll actually happen. I apologize for that. But this is all about authoritarianism, and that's why Ben Shapiro's book, his new book,

The Authoritarian Moment, could not be more timely or necessary. When you pick up Ben's book, you'll learn how to stand strong against the authoritarians who are trying to make you submit to their cause. The authoritarian moment is now available at Amazon Barzanoble or any other major booksellers, so go pick up a copy today. And, you know, it seems like we can't go a day without fresh, terrible news about how our authoritarian overlords are attempting to squeeze Americans of every last base. of our freedom, which is why I think it's important

that I provide some good news for you. And here it is, if you've ever thought it'd be cool to travel to the DailyWire's studios on the DailyWire's dime and hang out in Nashville, smoke a cigar with the hosts of DailyWire Backstage. If you ever thought about that, now is the time that you can do it. Because if you're not a member yet, this is your chance. Head to DailyWire.com slash subscribe

and use code backstage to get 25% off your new membership and be automatically entered to win two tickets to lounge with the DailyWire Legends backstage. and that's not all. You get to take home some signed copies of Michael and Ben's newest books, but not mine. If none of that entices you,

just remember, you unlike most people, will get to meet me as well. So head to dailywire.com slash subscribe with code backstage to get 25% off your membership and a chance to win the ultimate backstage experience.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Thanks, yours too. What does Ravs stand for anyway? To me, it's the remarkably advanced vehicle. Really? To me, it's the run-law. approved vehicle for its amazing style. What about remarkably adaptable vehicle because of its versatile cargo space? Or really admired vehicle?

Oh, or really awesome vehicle. It really is the recreational activity vehicle. The stylish 2026 Toyota RAP4 Limited. What's your Rav for? Today for our daily cancellation, we finally have an opportunity to cancel MSNBC hosts Chris Hayes. He has, of course, said many things at a warrant cancellation, but his stupidity is often overshadowed by many of his fellow cable news hosts and media personalities, Hayes rarely gets the idiot credit that he deserves, and today I aim to change that. Yesterday, Hayes took to

Twitter to defend the idea that vaccinated people should wear masks, using an analogy that many of his followers seem to think was quite brilliant. He tweeted, quote, you're telling me I have to buckle my seatbelt, even though I have airbags? Either the airbags work or the seatbelt works, but it can't be both. This, by the way, had over 60,000 likes. nearly 10,000 retweets last I checked. Like I said, his followers found it to be a deeply compelling argument. The only problem with the argument is that it is profoundly stupid. As is so often the case with the COVID cult, the arguments they make actually undermine the very point they are trying to defend.

In fact, the analogy he makes here so brilliantly proves the opposite of the point that he's trying to prove that I wish I had thought of it myself. So let's break it down, shall we? obviously Hayes is drawing a comparison between vehicle safety measures and COVID prevention measures. In this analogy, the airbags are the vaccine and the seatbelts are the masks. I'm actually going to do him a favor and flip that around to make it slightly more intelligible and slightly less dumb. Seat belts are, after all, the most important and effective line of defense in a car accident, not the airbags. I'm assuming that Chris Hayes would say that vaccines are the most important and effective line of defense against the virus. If you say that the vaccine is but an additional measure to add on to masking rather than the other way around, then we have a whole new list of issues to deal with.

But again, I'm going to be generous and make his argument better so that I can have more fun debunking it. Now, according to the CDC and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, seatbelts alone reduce your risk of death in a car accident by about 45 to 50%. airbags alone reduce your risk by 34%. Together, the combination, reduces risk of death by around 60%. But here's the point. Seat belts only reduce your risk of death by 45% to 50%. It is their relative ineffectiveness, which necessitates that another measure be put in place as well, even though that measure is also relatively ineffective.

Together, there are a whole lot better than nothing. but if you get into a head-on collision, especially on the highway, there's still a very good chance that you will die or at least be seriously injured. That's how relatively ineffective these measures are. Let's bring this over to the vaccines. Remember, the airbag is needed because the seatbelt by itself is relatively ineffective. That's the whole reason we have the airbag. If seatbelts reduced your risk of death by, say, 99% and your risk of serious, injury by a margin nearly as large, and there wouldn't be any need for airbags.

In fact, you really shouldn't have airbags in that case because the airbags themselves can cause injuries like broken noses and concussions. If the seatbelts were 99% effective at preventing death, the airbag would likely do more harm than good. So, how does this relate to vaccines? Is Chris Hayes saying that the vaccines are relatively ineffective? Is this an anti-vax argument from Chris Hayes, is this vaccine misinformation? Perhaps we should report him to Twitter, get him de-platform before his anti-vax extremism gets people killed. I mean, that must be what he's saying if he's relating them to seatbelts or airbags.

After all, in 2019, 53% of vehicle occupants who died in car wrecks were wearing seatbelts. Does Hayes think that over half of the people who die from COVID are vaccinated? The point matters because the necessity for additional safety measures depends entirely on the effectiveness of the primary measure. If you're saying that the other measures are needed, you're making a statement about the ineffectiveness of the primary measure. But if you acknowledge that the primary measure is extremely effective at preventing very bad outcomes, and yet you still advocate for additional measures anyway and for those measures to be mandated enforced by the government, then you've opened up a door that cannot be closed. You have erased a line

and won't be able to justify redrawing it anywhere else. You've advocated for something without any limiting principle to contain it. If the vaccines are highly effective at preventing death and hospitalization, if the protection they afford you is way into the 90th percentile, 97, 98, 99, or more, and yet you still want more to be done, then why just that? Why a vaccine and a mask?

Why not a vaccine in two masks or three masks? Why not mandate four? hazmat suits for everybody when they leave their house. Now, we may not have enough hazmat suits to go around right now, but I'm sure we could solve that problem. So seriously, why not the hazmat suit? If we could manage to produce enough, if we could, why not mandate them in addition to vaccines? They would reduce the spread considerably more than just a mask. It's not harming anyone to wear them. It isn't going to hurt you physically. It's a small sacrifice. It's just a thing you're wearing, that's all. So why not?

I want an answer to that question. But you don't want to give an answer to that question because the answer is something like, okay, take it easy. That's ridiculous. It's way overboard. Yeah, you're right. And it's also way overboard to expect immune people with an infinitesimal risk of serious infection to walk around all day, every day in face masks.

That is also ridiculous in overboard. If your answer is, well, just do it anyway. Better safe than sorry. then we're back to having no way to explain why we should just go with full hazmat suits. This is what's lost in our discussion of COVID. It's what's been lost from the beginning. That is any notion of proportionality and probability and perspective. The three P's have been thrown out the window.

In fact, let's go back to the car for a moment. 1.3 million people die in car accidents every year worldwide. In the U.S. alone, an additional 4.5 million people are injured, and severely. Around 600 children under the age of 13 are killed in car crashes every year in in this country, and that is significantly more than die of COVID in that age group. Seat belts and airbags together only reduce the risk of death by 60%. So why hasn't Chris Hayes called for additional mandated safety measures there? Why don't we require everyone in the car to wear racing helmets, for example?

Again, putting the logistical issues to the side because they can be solved. I mean, we could require all car manufacturers to provide racing helmets with their cars, like they provide spare tires. Does that seem onerous? Sure, but literally millions of people are dying, hundreds of very young children. If we're supposed to believe that it's not safe for an immune person to walk through a grocery store without a mask, then how can we possibly consider it safe to drive to that grocery store with only a seatbelt and an airbag to protect you? At this point, is the immune person more likely to die in the car on the way to the store or from a virus he picks up while he's inside it. Does anybody want to claim it's the latter? Do you really think that's how the probabilities shake out here?

In fact, why are we allowing people to drive at all? You're speeding down the road at 60 or 70 or 7 miles an hour or more in a large metal bucket. One wrong move, one second of distraction by you or someone else in another car can end your life and the lives of all your passengers. Your entire family can die in an instant. And it's happened many times. It's a dangerous activity. An activity that carries with it a not insignificant risk of death or bodily harm. It's hard to see how it's safer to do that than it is for an immune person to walk through a crowd without a mask.

And yet we do it every day without thinking about it, without worrying about it. We know a million people will die every year from this. we know that we might die from this. We know that when we put our children in the car, they might die. Every time you strap your child into the car, you know he might die from this activity that you are doing right now and you might kill him. You might be the one to do it accidentally. But we do it anyway.

We don't even hesitate. We do it much of the time when it's not remotely necessary. Going places we don't, strictly speaking, need to go. Nobody ever stops and weighs the risk of driving against the necessity of going to the place they're about to go to. Nobody does that. They just get it and drive. And a million of them die every year, year after year after year after year. Yes, COVID is not the same as a car accident. But then again, I'm not the one who made this analogy. While we're on the subject, though, since Chris Hayes brought it up, it does demonstrate how we calculate our risk from COVID in a way

that is completely different from how we calculated anywhere else in life, even when faced with greater threats. There are many things out there that are more likely to kill us, and yet we worry less about them and do almost nothing to prevent them. That makes no sense. It is irrational. It is fear-based. And fear-based decisions are almost always irrational, as Chris Hayes has proved, though he didn't mean to. And for that, he has canceled. And we'll end it there for the day and the week. Have a great weekend, everybody. Talk to you next week. 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 Podcasts, 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 Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.

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 and 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. John Bickley here, editor-in-chief of Daily Wire.

Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire. On today's episode, President Biden addresses immigration and crime, countries around the world loosen their travel restrictions, and Democrats push for student loan forgiveness. Join us and get the facts first on the news you need to know with our show Morning Wire.