The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 871 - There Is No Attack On Voting Rights, Unfortunately

Episode Date: January 12, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Harris and Biden have gone off to slay the fictional dragon of voter suppression. Meanwhile, as they argue that it’s racist to require an ID to vote, more and more Democrat-run cities are requiring IDs to do literally everything else. Also, Ted Cruz questions the FBI about its role in the January 6th riots. Their answer, I would argue, confirms our worst suspicions. And Alec Baldwin continues to make himself the victim of the fact that he shot and killed a woman. His case becomes even more outrageous when you compare it to another recent accidental shooting. Plus, USA Today runs a piece arguing that we must destigmatize pedophilia.  Sign the petition to stop Biden’s vaccine mandate. Head to https://dailywire.com/donotcomply I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb  Sign The Petition To Keep Matt Walsh on Saint Louis University Campus: https://bit.ly/3Dzeu1f DW members get special product discounts up to 20% off PLUS access to exclusive Daily Wire merch. Grab your Daily Wire merch here: https://utm.io/udZpp You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u 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, Harrison Biden have gone off to slay the fictional dragon of voter suppression. Meanwhile, as they argue that it's racist to require an ID to vote, more and more Democrat-run cities are requiring IDs to do literally everything else in life. Also, Ted Cruz questions the FBI about its role in the January 6th riots. Their answer, I would argue, confirms our worst suspicions. And Alec Baldwin continues to make himself the victim of the fact that he shot and killed a woman. His case becomes even more outrageous when you compare it to another recent accidental shooting. Plus, USA Today runs a piece arguing that we must destigmatize pedophilia. We'll discuss that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.

You know, a few decades ago, and for most of human history, private citizens used to be that. You know, they were private. What's changed? Well, the internet has changed. Think about everything you've browsed, search for, watched, or tweeted. Now imagine all of that data being crawled through, collected and aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record, your record. having your private life exposed for others to see was once something that only celebrities had to worry about, but in an era where everybody is online, everyone's a public figure, everyone's basically a celebrity at one level or another,

that's why to keep my data private when I go online, I turn to ExpressVPN. Every time I turn ExpressVPN on, I'm given a random IP address shared by other ExpressVPN customers. That makes it more difficult for third parties to identify me and harvest my data. And the best part is how easy ExpressVPN is to use no matter what device you're on, whether it's a phone, a laptop, or smart TV, whatever it is. All you have to do is tap one button to get protected. Believe me, if it was complicated, I would not be able to do it. I could do it so you can too.

So if you, like me, believe that your data is your business, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market. Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh and get three extra months for free. That's EXP, RESSVPN.com. Go to expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more. Well, as you know, this subject is always difficult for me emotionally. whenever I hear Democrats panicking over the attack on voting rights, it hits me right in the heart. It shakes me to the core.

Gets my hopes up because I very much wish that there was an attack on voting rights. I think universal voting rights is one of the worst ideas this country has ever had. There are few things more worthy of coming under attack than universal voting rights. Voting ought to be a privilege reserved for those who are most competent and qualified. It's not a natural right. God did not imbue us all with some sort of. sacred entitlement to participate in our national elections. The Bible certainly makes no mention of any such thing. So if it's not a natural right, which it emphatically is not, then it's a privilege that we grant,

and it would be wise to consider a person's basic qualifications before granting it. We are under no moral obligation to allow hordes of stupid, bewildered, clueless zombies to flood the voting booth and cast their ballots in a state of ignorance and confusion, helping to steer this giant ship of a country right into one iceberg after another. So that's my position, which I state often and without apology. I'm against voting rights. I don't like them. If it was a position shared by most conservatives and by any significant portion of elected Republicans,

Democrats would be correct in claiming that universal voting rights are under assault, are at risk. But sadly, it is all in the left-wing imagination. I am, you know, a lone voice in the wilderness on this issue. And in fact, even if elected Republicans agreed with me, still the Democrats would be wildly incorrect about the nature of the attack on voting rights. Because nobody anywhere, not even a reactionary maniac like myself,

who actually is opposed to universal voting rights, seeks to abolish those rights on the basis of race. That's not a position held by anybody. at all, anywhere in the whole country. Literally not one single person has suggested such a thing. And yet President Biden and co-president Camilla Harris went down to Georgia yesterday to deliver a speech railing against all of the fictional racists and their fictional efforts to prevent minorities and other oppressed groups from voting.

Now, they began the day's festivities by laying a wreath at the crypt of Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK could but look on in horror from beyond as these two slimy, soulless reptiles turn his grave into a campaign platform. And then when that was done, co-president Camilla Harris took to the podium to repeat one of the left's favorite mantras, this is not normal. Listen. The only normalcy anyone should accept, Dr. King said, is the normalcy of justice. And his words resonate today.

Over the past few years, we have seen so many anti-voter laws that there is a danger of becoming accustomed to these laws, a danger of adjusting to these laws as though they are normal, a danger of being complacent, complicit. Anti-voter laws are not new in our nation, but we must not be deceived into thinking they are normal. We must not be deceived

into thinking a law that makes it more difficult for students to vote is normal. And I have met with voters in Georgia. I have heard your outrage about the anti-voter law here and how many voters will likely be kept from voting. You know, for a party that thinks your four-year-old should go to the library to listen to a drag queen, read a book about gender theory, it's kind of jarring to hear these people advocate for normalcy. Camilla also frets about how many voters will be kept from voting.

See, this is another strange thing. We're told about all these voters across the nation who've been kept from voting because of the allegedly racist, alleged anti-voter laws, allegedly passed by Republicans, and yet they've never provided, not ever, not once, even one single real-life example of an actual human being who wanted to vote and was legally eligible to vote, and yet was prevented from doing so because of one of these so-called anti-voter laws. I've been asking this for years. Show me the person, just one person who really wanted to vote, and yet somehow, some way, was unable to do it.

Show me this person. I only want one. And if you do find that person, the next thing I'm going to want to know is their IQ. Because voting is so unbelievable. and unreasonably easy that you would have to have the intelligence quotient of a sea sponge if you can't figure out how to navigate the process. Or in fact, you would have to be dumber than that because there are plenty of intellectual sea sponges in America, and yet still all of them tragically, unfortunately, managed to vote. Next, Joe Biden took the stage. Immediately he proves yet again what a decent and kind old man he is by claiming that all of his political opponents are segregationists and Confederates.

How do you want to be remembered? At consequential moments in history, they present a choice. Do you want to be the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be in the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis? This is the moment to decide to defend our, elections to defend our democracy. Right about the cough there. Cut him off right before he cough. He always gets in.

It's like one cough per sentence, this guy. Just dying right in front of us, our president. No big deal. Many presidents and politicians have myths, you know, that crop up around them. Abe Lincoln couldn't tell a lie. George Washington and the cherry tree. Donald Trump and the P-tap. Not all the myths are family-friendly, but they've all got myths. But out of all these legends, None are more absurd, more divorced from reality, than the myth that Joe Biden is a decent man. He is, in fact, very indecent. He is a nasty, deceitful, cold-blooded hobgoblin who will defame and slander anyone who fails to do what he wants. He's also a power-hungry narcissist, so desperate to claim the throne that he ran for president even when he knew his mind and body were failing.

He was ready to plunge the whole country into crisis just for a taste of power. So he's a deeply evil man. And speaking of being deceitful, here he is claiming that the Georgia law, the Georgia voting law, makes it illegal for people waiting in line to drink water or eat food. Longer lines at the polls.

Lines that can last for hours. You've seen them with your own eyes. People get tired. They get hungry. When the Bible teaches us to feed the hungry and give water the thirsty, the new Georgia law actually makes it illegal. Think of this. I mean, 2020, and now 22 going into that election, it makes it illegal to bring your neighbors,

your fellow voters, food or water, while they wait in line to vote. What in the hell heck are we talking about? Yeah, I don't know. That's a good question, Joe. think about this. It's 2022 or no, it's 2020 going into 20. He said it's 2020 going into 2022. So we skipped 2021. I don't know. It might kind of feel like that when the 2020 was two years long, but actually it wasn't. Now, what do you just said there is, well, it's not true at all. First of all, people waiting in line in Georgia can be provided water. The poor dears,

they can have their water. They're not going to, you know, die of thirst. Food can be provided as well, as long as it's not within 100 or 150 feet of the building. which means that people waiting in very long lines can still eat. Because if it's a very long line, if you're waiting, we hear about people waiting for hours, supposedly. Well, that means that they're waiting far beyond 150 feet from the building. And they can have their food. And also, you can always just bring your own food if you think you might need it. So the entire thing is a non-issue.

But this raises the question of why we even need to provide. full meals to people waiting to vote. Are we really a country of such pathetic fat asses that we can't go a couple hours without eating while we're waiting to vote? Is this really a problem? Who the hell needs to eat while they're in line to vote, of all things? You can't just wait until you get home? Fatty?

You know, Americans used to be pioneers taking covered wagons across vast expanses of wilderness. towards unknown destinations. And now we cry that our human rights are violated if we can't eat a donut while we vote. Times have really changed, I would say. As for Biden's scriptural reference, to begin with, the exhortation to feed the hungry was not meant to refer to overweight people who are feeling a bit peckish in line because they haven't had a snack for the past 90 minutes. That's not what we mean.

Feed the hungry. That's not what we're talking about, all right? but Biden's concern for scripture is of course highly selective because the Bible also says things like male and female he created them. Biden doesn't quite endorse that sentiment these days. And the Bible forbids murder, especially the murder of babies. But again, Biden has different ideas about that. We see again that nothing these people say can be taken seriously. And that brings us to one final point.

Yesterday, at around the time when Kamala and Joe were performing a political tap dance routine on MLK's grave, The mayor of D.C. made an announcement, joining many other large cities across the nation like New York and Los Angeles and many others. Mayor Bowser tweeted the following. Remember that starting Saturday, you will need these three things before heading out. One, proof of vaccination, 12 years plus. Two, proof of vaccination and photo ID, 18 years plus. Three, a mask. Now, think about this for a moment.

We've been told repeatedly in panicked and highly emotional tones that it's a violation of an individual. individual's human rights to require an ID to vote. Why? Because allegedly some Americans, many Americans, they say, are simply unable to obtain an ID. Give them four years to do it, and they can't figure it out. They're just going to sit there helplessly crying for four years. How do I get an ID? Someone help me. You know, they don't know. Like, they could Google it. They could just call the DMV. Google, what's that? I don't know. How do I know what number to call the DMV. And so they just sit there, panicked for four years. They can't figure out how to get an idea. That's what we're told. The requirement is too onerance. To require an ID is it's

to get out to excluding these poor helpless people from the polls. And yet the same people who make that argument are now passing laws and ordinances requiring an ID in a vaccine card to do literally everything in life. Your fundamental participation in society on any level is now predicated on your ability to produce both a photo identification and a medical card. It does no good to claim that, well, this is different because voting is a right while, say, going to a restaurant is not a right. Really? Because the Civil Rights Act says otherwise. The people who make this argument, I mean, I'm going to assume they would still say that it's a violation of a person's rights if they're prevented from entering a restaurant on the basis of, say,

race. And at any rate, the point is that the argument against voter ID law, is predicated on the obviously ridiculous idea that it is unreasonable to expect people to have IDs. Because there are people who just can't, they can't get them. Yet again, the people who claim this are now ensuring that everyone has to have IDs anyway to do anything anywhere all the time. Can they not then also present the ID at the voting booth? Is the simple act of reaching into your pocket to pull out the ID too much of a burden? Is that what we're talking about?

Because we can't be talking about the difficulty of obtaining one, considering everyone's going to have to obtain these things anyway. So are we concerned that the voters may not have the strength to reach into their pockets? Maybe that's too strenuous after waiting for 82 minutes in line without a snack. It's ludicrous. I mean the whole thing. Nothing these people say has any bearing on reality at all.

There is no attack on voting rights. at all. Unfortunately. Now let's get to our five headlines. This has been a difficult economic time for a lot of us, thanks to the Brandon administration and all the work that they've done, especially hard on businesses. And that's why one of the many reasons why it's so important these days

to support American companies. I'll give you one, one of the best, Good Ranchers. Good Ranchers is the exclusive meat company of the Daily Wire, and they help you get American meat delivered. They've got 100% American steakhouse quality meat, and it's all for an affordable price. Shop Good Ranchers today to support American Made and put the small farm back on top. Plus, you can use my code Walsh for $30 off. That's the biggest first purchase discount code Good Ranchers has ever given out,

which means there has never been a better time to buy Good Ranchers also. They're big supporters of the Daily Wire. I've met the guys. They're great guys. And here's the thing. You're supporting a great company. You're supporting great people. and American companies, but you're also getting just an awesome, delicious product at the same time.

So visit good ranchers.com slash walsh or use code walsh at checkout to get $30 off on any of their many boxes. Everything they sell is truly top-notch, and you really have to try it. So visit good ranchers.com slash waltz today to save $30 on your new favorite steak. Start the year with Good Ranchers, American meat delivered. Need to eat while you're in line to vote. I'll never, I will never get over that. That will never stop being hilarious to me. All these stories of, you know, that's another thing I haven't seen.

I want to see a story. Show me the evidence of people starving to death while waiting to vote. Okay. Like, I want to see the footage of that. It's just a bloodbath of people lying there outside of the elementary school gymnasium, right, waiting to vote. And they're just lying there. Their red cages are showing. They starve to death in the space.

of 97 minutes. Anyway. The good news, though, aside from that, is that I'm back now in my rightful chair. Well, actually, the chair I'm sitting in right now is not the ex-chair. That's in my office. But I have it back anyway. And I thought about having someone wheel my chair from my office to the studio and then back to my office every single day. Maybe I should still do that.

Like, we have an intern now. That's something that she could do. But anyway, look, I know that some people have mocked me. I saw the comments because I complained at length about my missing chair only to discover live on the air that it was sitting literally five feet from me in the studio. And my wife complains about this kind of thing all the time. I'm dreading when she's always a few days behind listening to the shows. And how dare she?

Apparently she's got other things going on her life. But eventually she's going to hear that segment of me finding my chair that was sitting right next to me. And she's, and I'm going to have to deal with all the I told you so because she's always insisting that this is something that I do where I lose things and I can't find them even though they're right in front of my face. Like I'll shout to my wife, hey, do we have any milk left? And she'll say, we have six gallons and you're looking right at them currently right now. But you know what? Here's what it is.

I'll tell you what it is. I'm a visionary. Okay. I don't see what's in front of me. I see beyond. I see what could be. I've tried to explain this to my wife. I don't see the milk.

I'm not focused on the milk. I don't see the chair. I see a deeper truth. Yes, the chair was in the room with me. But what is the room when you think about it? What is a chair? You know what I mean? I don't know what I mean.

I'm just a moron. I shouldn't be able to vote either. That's the honest truth of the matter. All right. We'll start here. Jill Sanborn is the FBI Executive Assistant Director she appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday to answer questions about January 6th. Well, she appeared to be asked questions about January 6th, not necessarily to answer them.

And Ted Cruz questioned her, and I think thoroughly redeemed himself from the whole kerfuffle over January 6th and calling it a terrorist attack. This is actually, as we've been talking about the last couple of days, and people wanted to throw Ted Cruz overboard because of what he said and how he characterized January 6th. And as I said, it's perfectly fair to criticize him for that. He deserves to be criticized. We should always be willing and eager to criticize any politician when they screw up. But I'm not ready to abandon the guy because he gives us moments like this that are really important. So here he is.

We'll go through some of these clips sequentially here, questioning Jill Sandborn, wanting to find out, did the FBI, have any kind of involvement with January 6th at all. And you would think that if the answer was no, it would be really simple to say no. So let's listen to this. I want to turn to the FBI. How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th? Sir, I'm sure you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of sources and methods. Did any FBI agents or confidentiality?

informants actively participate in the events of January 6th, yes or no? Sir, I can't answer that. Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6th? Sixth. I can't answer that, sir. Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6th? Sir, I can't answer that. All right, so she says that she can't answer questions about sources and methods, but the problem is that he didn't ask any questions about sources and methods.

He asked a very simple question, were any FBI agents or FBI informants or anyone affiliated with the FBI, were they involved in encouraging inciting, inciting acts of, you know, rioting and violence or anything on January 6th? and of course we get a no comment here but I would say that you know this is not like a court of law with a civilian where you've got a right to remain silent and you know or maybe you're being you're being questioned about a crime by the police and you're in the interrogation room and maybe you're refusing to say anything even though you're totally innocent because you realize the power dynamics here you're at a disadvantage and you whatever you say could be twisted against you and so you're not going to say anything until you have your lawyer present. That's just, that's smart. But the same logic and rules do not apply in this case with a government, with an agent of the government, representative of government, being asked a question like this. Because if this is just a crazy, like, it's either true or it isn't, right? Either the FBI was involved in some way in inciting the events of January 6th or they were not.

and if they were not, I cannot fathom why they would refrain from telling us that. It's only confidential if they were involved. If they weren't involved in it, then there's nothing confidential. Now, I can pretty much guarantee you that if you were to get a NASA spokesperson on record in front of a camera and a microphone and ask them, sir, did NASA fake the moon landing? they're not going to say, well, I can't comment on that. We can't talk about our sources and methods. I'll tell you something.

That's one conspiracy theory of many that I don't give any credibility to. If we got that answer, then I'm going to feel differently. But no, I think what they would say is, that's crazy. Of course not. What's confidential? It's like we had nothing to do with it. There's nothing so there couldn't have been anything confidential that occurred. If this is totally baseless, then the FBI not only would say so,

but they would be more than eager to say so. They would be saying so in front of everybody because they are vindicating themselves. And also, all you have to do is deny it. And for a lot of people, that's going to count as debunking. That's going to be decisive. Now, I'll admit that even if they did deny it, that wouldn't necessarily be decisive for me

because it's possible they could lie. but for most people and certainly for the media that would be enough. That's all you have to do is just say it. No, no, no, no, we didn't do it. The fact that they're not willing to say that, I think, tells you something. The only reason I can think is that it's true and she didn't want to perjure herself or be the one that gets thrown onto the bus

for lying to Congress about it. So instead she's going with the, I can't comment on that thing. All right, moving on, same line of questioning. Ted Cruz asks about this guy, Ray Epps, who he'll explain Ray Epps, but he was this mysterious figure who was very present on January 6th is on tape breaking the law by encouraging rioting and yet has for some reason not been arrested.

Who is Ray Epps? I'm aware of the individual, sir. I don't have the specific background to him. Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably very concerned about Mr. Epps. On the night of January 5th, 2021, Epps wandered around the crowd that had gathered. And there's video out there of him chanting. Tomorrow, we need to get into the Capitol, into the Capitol.

This was strange behavior, so strange that the crowd began chanting, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed. Ms. Sanburn, was Ray Epps a fed? Sir, I cannot answer that question. The next day, the next day, on January 6th, Mr. Epps has seen whispering to a person and five seconds later, five seconds after he's whispering to a person, that same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades. Did Mr. Epps urge them to tear down the barricades? Sir, similar to the other answers, I cannot answer that.

Okay, so she refuses she knows who he is, but refuses to answer any questions about him. Once again, if he's not working with the FBI, if she has nothing to do with this guy, If her agency has nothing to do with the guy, then I cannot possibly understand why she wouldn't just say, I don't know anything about the guy. We have nothing to do with him. Finally, last clip here, there's the question of why this Ray Upps character was listed as wanted by the FBI and then magically taken off the list, though he was never actually arrested. Shortly thereafter, the FBI put out a public post listing, seeking information on individuals connected with violent crimes on January 6th. Among those individuals, and the bottom there is Mr. Epps. The FBI publicly asked for information identifying, offering cash rewards leading to information, leading to the arrest.

This was posted and then sometime later, magically, Mr. Epps, disappeared from the public posting. According to public records, Mr. Epps has not been charged with anything. No one's explained why a person videoed, urging people to go to the Capitol, a person whose conduct was so suspect the crowd believed he was a Fed would magically disappear from the list of people the FBI was looking at. Ms. Sanburn, a lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on January 6th. My question to you, and this is not an ordinary

law enforcement question. This is a question of a public accountability. Did federal agents, or those in service of federal agent, actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on January 6th? Not to my knowledge, sir. So that's kind of interesting. At the very end, after refusing to answer on seven different occasions saying, I can't talk about it, I can't talk about it. Finally, at the very end, she says, not to my knowledge. So there's this change of tone midway, a slight change in tone, midstream. And speaking of changes of tone, we should mention that after all this question about Ray Epps

and she didn't want to talk about him, she knows about him, doesn't want to talk about him, can't say anything about him, even though he was encouraging people to, you know, Ted Cruz says he's encouraged people to go to the Capitol. Just to clarify, he is on video. You can find the video online, explicitly saying, we need to go into the Capitol. shouting to the crowd the night before, we need to go into the Capitol. We need to invade the Capitol. And that's what caused the crowd to all start chanting, chanting, fed, fed, fed, and pointing at him.

And then he's there the next day. He's whispering to people and he's still encouraging. They do what he said. And this guy doesn't end up arrested? You know, you're going to throw a guy in prison for, like, stealing a lectern or you find people wandering around taking selfies and we're going to arrest. then, but not the guy, one of the guys who came up with this idea? Is that not illegal to explicitly encourage crowds to violence? It is. So with this one guy, Ray Epps, suddenly the

powers that be have decided to be a little bit more generous. That doesn't make a lot of sense. And yet, even after this whole exchange where the FBI doesn't want to talk about it, after the fact some of the Adam Kinsinger and some of the other people involved with the January 6th committee they came out a few hours later

and said oh actually you know what we talked to that guy with the committee and he told us that he's not involved with the FBI interesting how that works I mean this Ray Epps dude he's been known about online people have been talking about him for months

we never heard anything about the January Sixth Committee talking to him. We never heard anything about him saying that he wasn't affiliated with the FBI. The FBI representative herself wouldn't talk about it. And then after this clip with Cruz goes viral, then Adam Kinsinger and his fellow hacks come out and say, oh, this is a non-issue. Ah, come on. See, the denial has a lot less credibility when it follows that. When there's silence, silence, silence. and then we get the denial? Now we're asking questions.

Some more fireworks. I want to play this clip as well from a different hearing. This is Rand Paul versus Fauci round eight, I believe. I think they're at eight go rounds now. Rand Paul calls Fauci out for his statement that he made it on multiple occasions, that disagreeing with him, Fauci, is disagreeing with the science. Dr. Fauci, the idea that a government official, like yourself would claim unilaterally to represent science, that any criticism of you would be

considered a criticism of science itself is quite dangerous. Central planning, whether it be of the economy or of science, is risky because of the fallibility of the planner. It would not be so catastrophic if the planner were simply one physician in Peoria, then the mistakes would only affect that physician's patients, the people who chose that physician. But when the planner is a government official, like yourself, who rules by mandate, the errors are compounded and become much more harmful. A planner who believes he is the science leads to an arrogance that justifies in his mind using government resources to smear and to destroy the reputations of other scientists who disagree with them. In an email exchange with Dr. Collins, you conspire, and I quote here

directly from the email, to create a quick and devastating published takedown of three prominent epidemiologist from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford. Apparently, there's a lot of fringe epidemiologists at Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford. And you quote in the email that they were from Dr. Collins and you agree that they are fringe. And immediately there's this takedown effort. A published takedown, though, doesn't exactly conjure up the image of a dispassionate scientist. There's a certain futility to this, although it's good that Rand Paul is holding him accountable. because almost nobody else is willing to do it publicly.

But there's just a futility to it because this is another huge scandal. The fact that Fauci as a government employee in charge of the pandemic response that has seen 800,000 plus people die, I wonder if, by the way, if Fauci's handling of the pandemic has been successful, what does failure look like exactly? How would we know what failure looks like? How do we know how to judge his performance? If 800,000 people dying is not failure in a pandemic response, then what is? Eight million?

I mean, what's the cutoff? But anyway, him conspiring with someone from the NIH to put together a devastating, takedown of other scientists who are critical of him personally, that's a major scandal. That's one of many major scandals involving Fauci, but it just doesn't amount to anything. No accountability. He'll continue to be the highest paid federal employee in history. But it is nonetheless a shocking scandal. Well, not shocking in terms of surprising, but it is a serious scandal.

This is not science. And you know, it's kind of unfortunate that all of these sort of public representatives of science, the people who actually claim to be sole representatives of science, it's unfortunate that all of them are partisan, dishonest, despicable, soulless hacks. Because it does, after a while, it gives people the wrong impression about science in general and what a real scientist is. Fauci is not a real scientist. There are real scientists out there. And it's an admirable field to enter into.

And I think that the actual scientific mindset is also an admirable. I mean, if you talk to a real scientist, they don't do this. They're not going to try to take you down for criticizing them. They actually, and there are scientists like this out there. It's just they're not on cable news, and they don't. have jobs in the government. But they encourage it. They want to be challenged. The last thing they would ever do is try to take you down and punish you for credit. They have their theories and their ideas, and they know that the only way to hone those theories and ideas and to confirm

whether they're true or not is to put them up for scrutiny. And so they welcome that. They don't have this hubris and arrogance. That's what real science is, but we're not seeing it. We're just We're not seeing it publicly, unfortunately. All right. Here's a hilarious article in the Wall Street Journal by Doug Schoen and Andrew Stein. Unintentionally hilarious. And the headline is Hillary Clinton's 2024 election comeback. It says a perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once unfathomable scenario plausible,

a political comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024. Several circumstances have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill. She's already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee. She's an experienced national figure who is younger than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking. Here's the funny part. If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022,

Mrs. Clinton can use the party's loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of, change candidates. Hillary Clinton will be the change. The mummified remains of the Clinton machine will be the change candidate in 2024. Now, to me, it's certainly not unfathomable that she would run again. It's almost unfathomable that she wouldn't.

As long as she's still alive, just like Joe Biden, she's desperate for power. She has lived her whole life in pursuit of it. As far as she, it's the only thing she cares about. And as far as she is concerned, her life is a waste if she doesn't eventually obtain power. And in reality, her life is a waste for a lot of reasons, but not for that. So it wouldn't surprise me at all.

In fact, I would expect it. I mean, I would give it like an 80% chance that unless she dies before that, but even that might not stop her. She's going to run in 2024. But here's an idea. I mean, there are a lot of reasons to object to Hillary Clinton. as president, certainly. You know, you could probably name probably about 200 of them off the top of your head. But I've got to ride this hobby horse again here that we don't, we shouldn't need to get

past. We could talk about all the reasons. But we shouldn't need to talk about those reasons. Because the only thing that we should need to point out is that Hillary Clinton is 74 years old currently. And in 2024, she'll be 76. She will turn 80 in office, if she were, God forbid, to win. That is too old.

That is way too old. Even if she was the greatest potential leader that this country would ever see, which she's very much on the opposite end of that spectrum, but even if she were, she's still too old. That is just too old. There are realities about the human mortal condition. And one of them is that you cannot take on a job like this in your mid to late 70s.

We're seeing it happen. We're seeing what happens right now when we try that. We are watching our president die in front of us. We have a guy running the country who does not have his mental faculties all in place. This is how pathetic it is, that she would run in 2024 as the younger option. She's the youth option at 76. because somehow we've decided over the last like eight years that only people in their 70s can run for office or run for president.

I don't know why we've decided that. And it's not even like these 70 plus year olds who are running are good. It's like it's nothing special about it. It's too old. I'll tell you this right now. I will not support the nomination. Of course, I'm not going to be involved in selecting the nominating. for the Democrat Party, but in the Republican Party, I will not support the nomination of anybody

over the age of 75 ever, because it is too old and we are mortals, and that's just the reality. So would I apply this to Donald Trump? Yes, absolutely. He's going to be 78 years old. We are seeing what happens when a 78 year old is in office. And don't tell me, oh, Trump is different. He's a spry 78 year old. He's not different. He's mortal. He's not different. He's not. especially when, at least with the Republicans, there is a 44-year-old, effective, talented, charismatic politician waiting in the wings. How insane would we be to say, oh, no, no, I don't want the young charismatic, sensational politician. I'll go with the 78-year-old instead. What? Give me one good reason for that. This is crazy, guys. This is just totally crazy.

Why can't we all agree on this? I mean, this is one thing that should be bipartisan agreement. That we're not going to hire very elderly people as president. That's just not a job that you can qualify for over the age of 75. Blows my mind. It just, especially when we're seeing what's happening right now. We've experimented with it. It's not working out.

And then there are people saying, well, let's try it again. Let's try it. Let's go from one 78 year old to another. And we'll just keep trying. And then if that doesn't work out, we'll just keep going to the nursing homes and pulling people out until we find someone who's pushing 80 years old who can effectively do the job without losing their mind in the process. All right. One other quick clip I got to play for you. Alec Baldwin is still, I guess defending himself.

I don't know what you call this, but here he is ranting in his car. I don't know what this guy thinks he's doing, ranting in his car. What kind of weirdo does that about the shooting? The best way, the only way we can honor the death of Helena Hutchins is to find out the truth. That's what I'm working toward, insisting on demanding that the organizations involved in this investigation, do everything in their power, everything in their power to find out what really happened. That's all that matters. the best way to honor the death of Helena Hutchins

is to find out the truth and any suggestion that we're not complying myself and any lawyers I'm working with or whatever is a lie that's a lie. We're going to as soon as we go through this process then by all means we will comply. But

I have no worries about that. I have no worries about that. That's all going to work itself out regardless of what they say in these right wing rack sheets and people who are all about hate. But setting aside all the hate, setting aside all the January 6th of it all. There it is. What?

Why did he hold up a packet of Splenda? What? I never actually watched this clip, so I'm befuddled. So he held up a packet of splendor in which he had drawn. a smiley face. Oh, okay. Well, I guess he's innocent, Your Honor. If he ever ends up in court, I guess this is what he could present.

Your Honor, Your Honor, I present. Exhibit A. Splenda. I rest my case. Well, but that would require him to go to court and be charged with the crime, which he has not been. Instead, he's making videos in his car saying, we have to figure out what happened. We got to get to the bottom of this. I mean, the hubris on this guy, the gumption, he pointed a gun at someone and shot them

and is now saying, we need to figure out what happened. I am dedicated to getting to the bottom of this. Well, you picked up a gun, pointed at someone and shot him in the face. Like, that's what happened? I'm pretty sure that's it. It's actually not very complicated.

But compare this. Here's the only point I really wanted to make about this. Alec Baldwin accidentally shot and killed someone, assuming that was accidental, which we can't even be sure of that, but let's just assume that it was. So he pointed a gun at someone and shot them, has not been charged with any crime at all. Kim Potter accidentally shot a dangerous violent criminal in the course of trying to make an arrest, and she's going to prison. So what is that? Is this an example finally of male privilege? Well, no, it's not male privilege.

This is leftist privilege. This is being a rich, famous celebrity privilege. And those are, you want to know what privilege looks like. Like those are two forms of actual privilege. There's ideological privilege. And then, yeah, there's the good old-fashioned, I'm rich and famous privilege. That is real privilege and that is enduring. We've always had that kind of privilege in America.

that's always existed and it will probably always exist into the future. This dude is in his car waving around packets of Splenda, a free man while Kim Potter's going to prison for who knows how many years. For what we know

was an actual accidental shooting where she didn't shoot some poor innocent woman who's a cinematographer in Hollywood. She shot a violent, dangerous scumbag whose death is in many ways a benefit to his community.

His community is better off without him because he's a terrible, awful, violent, horrible, horrifically evil person. She goes to prison, not him. Okay. Let's get to the comment section. El Paran says, Matt, aren't you sad that your Ravens didn't make the playoffs?

Laughing emoji? You know what? I'm not even sad. I don't care. This is the grief process I go through every year. The Ravens either don't make the play. so they get knocked out. But then, you know what it is?

It's a moment of clarity for me when I realize that football, watching sports is a total waste of time. There's so many better things you can be doing with your time. You know, pick up a book and read it. Spend time with your family. And I have this epiphany, this realization, but then the season starts again next year, and it all goes out the window. All right.

Evan says, Matt, you use cults as an analogy for getting pressured into. to cutting off your family and loved ones. You don't even need to go that far. Every abusive girlfriend and wife has three arrows in her quiver. Isolate you from your friends, isolate you from your family, and tell you that your hobbies make her uncomfortable. A lot of the bureaucrats in Washington are women who are either single and miserable or else browbeat their passive husbands.

You could tell that these women are the people writing the COVID rules because they all seem to come straight out of the crazy ex-girlfriend playbook. Solid analysis there. Also kind of appropriate and timely. We're just talking about Hillary Clinton, and that's probably your prime example of that. Sweet Baby Gang for Life says, Matt, what happened?

You read two banworthy comments and both escaped unscathed? What? Was the band hammer in the shop or something? I've come to expect better from you, our aspiring cult leader. Well, you know what, then fine. Then you're banned,

sweet baby gang for life. You're revoked. Don't criticize my methods. I make these decisions. Not you. Okay? Don't be like, this is like when my daughter comes up to me and says,

you need to put, you need to put Luke in timeout. This is what he did. You don't decide that. I'm the dad. You don't get to put people in time. In fact, sometimes she won't even come to me. She'll just put her brothers in time out. And I'll walk into the room and I'll find him standing in a corner.

Say, what are you guys doing? But we were putting time out. By who? So, yeah, this is an analogy because the sweet baby gang, you were all like my children. But I'll be very quick to disown you. There's no loyalty here, unfortunately. The loyalty goes one way. That's how cults work, right?

And finally, Drew says, January 6th and Matt's chair getting stolen. One was the most heinous attack on our very way of life. The other was a protest that got out of control. Thank you, Drew. At least someone around here understands the severity of the issue and what I went through emotionally. I appreciate that. Every time I go to the gas pump, I am shocked anew at how expensive all the gas is. And I'm always looking for ways to save some money to the gas pump.

Here's a great way to do it. It's the get upside. app. Have you gotten this app yet? If you haven't, I don't know what you're waiting for. My listeners are making up to 25 cents for every gallon of gas every time they fill up. Just download the free Get Upside app in the App Store or Google Play right now. Use promo code Walsh and get a bonus $25 per gallon on your first fill-up. That's up to $50.00 cash back. Don't pay full price to pump anymore. Get cashback using Get Upside. Just download the app for free and use promo code Walsh to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank. Some people who

drive a lot are making $2 to $300 a month in cashback. And there's no catch. The cashback is added right to your account. You can cash out anytime. You just send the money to your bank account, PayPal. You can get a gift card. It's that easy. All you got to do is download the free Get Upside app and use promo code Walsh to get up to 50 cents a gallon cashback on your first tank. That again is code Walsh. Now let's get to our daily cancellations. So today we cancel USA Today for an article published yesterday, originally titled, What the Public Keeps Getting Wrong about pedophilia. The link to the article was initially posted to Twitter, along with a lengthy thread explaining that pedophilia is misunderstood and misrepresented. But the actual article was hidden behind a paywall.

A short time later, the entire thread was deleted, and a new tweet was posted explaining, quote, A previous thread did not include all information, and the story it was written about is behind a paywall. We made the decision to delete the thread. They also apparently made the decision to change the headline of the article, which is now titled, the complicated research behind pedophilia. Now it's impossible to know what other edits they may have made, but they removed the paywall, and let's read a little bit from the article as it now stands.

Quote, pedophilia is viewed as among the most horrifying social ills, but scientists who study the sexual disorder say it is also among the most misunderstood. When most of the public thinks of pedophilia, they assume it's synonymous with child sexual abuse, a pervasive social problem that has exploded to crisis levels online. researchers who study pedophilia say the term describes an attraction, not in action,

and using it interchangeably with abuse fuels misperceptions. The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Cistical Manual of Mental Disorders says that pedophilia is defined by, quote, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children. Scientists have in recent decades improved their understanding of pedophilius, causes prenatal and early childhood risk factors, as well as how pedophobes. files can better control impulses. One of the most significant findings is that scientists who study this disorder say pedophilia is determined in the womb, though environmental factors may

influence whether someone acts on an urge to abuse. All right, the article then goes on to favorably reference Alan Walker. You may remember Walker as the creepy college professor who advocates for destigmatizing pedophilia. Walker is affiliated with the Prostasia Foundation, which we've talked about on the show. He's appeared on there, he or she, I can't remember which one, on their YouTube channel and in interviews on their site, this is an organization that is several levels beyond creepy and which is also concerned with destigmatizing pedophilia. In fact, if you go to Prostasia's website right now,

the very first thing that pops up is a, quote, safety guide for, quote, age play. If you're wondering what that is, Prostasia explains that age play is, quote, a form of role play in which at least one of the participants adopts the role or mindset of someone younger, a teenager, a child, or even a baby. So now you have some idea of what we're doing with. Back to the article in Alan Walker. It says, An academic at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia,

who's talked about destigmatizing pedophilia and referred to pedophiles as minor attracted people, resigned in November following the outcry over the phrase. Alan Walker argued destigmatizing the attraction would allow more people to seek help and ultimately prevent child sexual abuse. There is growing support in the field for Walker's point of view. While clinical psychologist James Cantor said there's no treatment that can turn a pedophile into a non-petophile,

pedophiles can be taught self-control and compensatory strategies, which he said is more likely if they're under the care of a professional. He argues that pedophiles need to be able to access therapy, which can be difficult since those afflicted may be ashamed to seek help or worried about being reported to the authorities if they do. Now, what can we say about all of this after we finish vomiting into the nearest trash can? The most generous possible interpretation is that the author and those quoted in the, piece are drawing a distinction between impulse and action and advocating for strategies to help prevent pedophiles from converting those horrific impulses into action. Now, that sentiment alone by itself, the idea that we want to stop pedophiles from acting on their desires is, of course, uncontroversial. Everyone agrees. It's so obvious that it's not a point that really needs to be

made. Now, it could be a worthwhile discussion if you're presenting actual tangible prevention strategies. But all that the author of this piece, the author's named by the way as Alia De Steger, has to offer is therapy. That's a rather broad and useless suggestion, especially because it requires us to have faith in the psychological industry to handle the issue effectively and appropriately, and I have no such faith. And that brings us to the larger problem. Although there is a nugget of truth here, that there's a difference between desire and action, and we want to prevent the actions. Again, obviously, we want to prevent the actions. But the very troubling and ultimately fatal flaw is that the morsel of common sense is

couched in a lot of pablam about destigmatizing pedophilia. They're treated as a valid community in a press community, a victim class in their own right. And much emphasis is placed on the, claim that pedophiles are born with this desire. Now, that latter point may also be true in some cases, it's possible that something has gone wrong in the brain of the pedophile and that at least in some cases, we can trace the problem back to the wound. Now, that entirely removes the moral and spiritual element, once again, medicalizing the problem of human evil, which is a problem, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some sort of neurochemical facet to this issue. Fine. But the problem is that all of this stuff, it's a community. They're stigmatized. They're oppressed.

their desires are natural quote unquote they're born with it all of this has always been the pretense for eventually normalizing and then finally celebrating the act itself now they're not doing it yet explicitly even the nightmarish prostasia foundation with its guide for pedophilic sexual roleplay isn't coming out and explicitly saying that it's normal or good to rape children what we're witnessing now is the groundwork. They're digging the foundation. They're laying the bricks for the hideous building that they plan to construct. We've seen this process play out enough times to know where it leads. In fact, the idea that people who are born with certain sexual desires should repress them, refrain from acting on them, that is fundamentally incompatible with the leftist worldview

anyway. That's how we know that when it comes to pedophilia normalization. The current point that we're at right now is but a stage that they're passing through on their way to the ultimate destination. Now, you might hope that this will be different because most of the other forms of perversion normalized by the left have involved consenting adults of various numbers and combinations, but children cannot consent, obviously. Perhaps the consent issue you might hope will create a barrier. It will be like Gandalf standing on the bridge, screaming you shall not pass. This is the one boundary that the fiery demon of leftism cannot cross, you might say, you might hope. But we know that the left is already hard at work on this issue as well, on breaking down the idea of consent.

Because they tell us that children, very young children, children as young as two or three, can consent to all sorts of things, make all kinds of decisions, even sexual decisions. They can consent to change their gender. You see how another foundation right now is also being formed. More bricks are being laid. eventually the two construction projects will be connected, and within a few years, I get it maybe five years, the actual act of pedophilia will be openly and explicitly defended. This USA Today article is just one of the opening salvos in that effort. And for that reason, USA Today is today canceled.

And we'll leave it there. 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 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 Clavin 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 Vodowski.

The show is edited by Robbie Dansler. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters. Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022. John Bickley here, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief. Wake up every morning with our show Morning Wire,

where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less. Join me and my co-host, Georgia Howe, for daily coverage of all the biggest stories on Morning Wire.