Ep. 1552 - Don’t Listen To The Emotional Blackmail Arguments Against Pardoning Derek Chauvin

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, some conservatives are condemning the movement to pardon Derek Chauvin.

They say that BLM will be mad if we pardon him, and of course we should never do anything that

might make BLM mad, apparently. Also, a CNN commentator claims that Ukrainians are more

American than Americans. A drag queen shows up to protest a law in Texas, but only ends up proving

why the law is necessary. And a woman on a reality TV dating show leaves her fiancé at the altar

because he isn't woke enough. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
You know what's interesting about the current state of health and wellness? Everyone's chasing the latest trend, the newest fad, the most exotic supplement, but sometimes the most powerful solutions are the most fundamental ones. That's why I want to tell you about Armora Colostrum.
Colostrum isn't some laboratory creation. It's literally the first food nature provides to every mammal at birth.
We're talking about nature's original superfood packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that your body instinctively knows how to use. And Armora has perfected a way to deliver this incredible substance in its purest form.
The secret is in their proprietary cold chain biopotent pasteurization technology. While their supplements lose their potency through processing.
Armra's method preserves these vital nutrients exactly as nature intended. Plus, they source everything from grass-fed cows on American family farms, supporting our agricultural communities while delivering a premium product.
What I appreciate most is that it's not another artificial supplement. It's a natural whole food that works in harmony with your body, helping to maintain mental clarity and improve immune health.
In times when we're surrounded by synthetic solutions and processed products, isn't it refreshing to find something that's both innovative and completely natural? This is the kind of advancement we should champion, one that enhances what nature has already perfected. We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 15% off your first order when you go to tryarmra.com slash Walsh or enter code Walsh. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Walsh.
A couple of months ago, we discussed once again the travesty of justice that was the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. This was a trial that was conducted just down the street from ground zero of the BLM riots of 2020, which destroyed Minneapolis's police precinct, caused $500 million in damage to more than 1,500 businesses, and resulted in several deaths as well.
We're talking about the single most destructive riot in United States history after the Los Angeles riots of 1992. And it happened in the same place where Derek Chauvin's trial was being held.
But the judge, who later declared that every case is about racial justice in some way, didn't move the trial to a different venue. Instead, he made sure that Chauvin's fate was determined by jurors who knew well that their city would burn to the ground if they didn't convict.
They had security fencing and National Guard troops all around the courthouse throughout the trial, just in case the message wasn't clear enough. And those jurors did exactly what you'd expect them to do under those circumstances.
They convicted Chauvin without even addressing the question of whether he actually killed George Floyd. And the jurors admitted it on CNN.
They simply decided that Chauvin didn't express enough concern for Floyd's well-being. That's how they rationalized their decision.
For their part, prosecutors repeatedly lied to the jury about the level of fentanyl in Floyd's system at the time of his death. Specifically, prosecutors compared blood samples taken from Floyd before he was pronounced dead to samples taken from overdose victims long after their deaths.
And they pulled this off without anyone on the defense team even noticing it somehow. Their goal was clear.
They wanted to downplay the sheer amount of fentanyl in Floyd's system, which was well over a lethal dose. And that's why Floyd kept telling police officers that he couldn't breathe long before he was lying on the ground.
It's also why Floyd was violently resisting arrest, which is why Chauvin had to restrain him on the ground, as he was trained to do. That's not even getting into the evidence of Floyd's heart tumor, which was withheld from Chauvin by his attorney.
After Chauvin's state conviction, federal prosecutors from the Biden administration pursued additional charges on the theory that Chauvin had deliberately violated George Floyd's civil rights. This case was somehow even more absurd than the original murder trial.
It hinged on the theory that Chauvin had made the conscious decision to abuse his authority to harm George Floyd, even though he knew that like 20 people were recording him. But Chauvin signed off on a guilty plea to these federal charges for two reasons, most likely.
First of all, it wouldn't mean any additional prison time. His sentence would run concurrently with his state sentence.
And secondly, Chauvin would be transferred to a federal prison, which are generally much safer and better run than state prisons. So in other words, no serious person sees this guilty plea as an actual admission of guilt.
Chauvin was clearly making the best of what seemed to be a hopeless situation. But in a matter of months, all of this logic, as reasonable as it seemed at the time, would fall apart.
For one thing, Chauvin was stabbed 22 times in the law library of a federal prison in Arizona. So the safety justification for taking the plea deal wasn't very compelling in retrospect.
And additionally, Chauvin learned about George Floyd's heart condition, information that was being withheld from him at the time that he signed the guilty plea. He learned about that after the fact.
And more generally, Chauvin's situation no longer seems hopeless because the broader political environment has changed. You know, another victim of mob justice, Daniel Perry in Texas, received a pardon after he was convicted for defending himself from the BLM mob.
And then Donald Trump was elected promising full pardons for January 6th defendants. And then yet another victim of mob justice, Daniel Penny, was acquitted in New York.
So given this background, you can see why Derek Chauvin has been fighting to have his federal guilty plea overturned. It's an important step towards his ultimate goal of vacating his state murder conviction.
Once the federal case is gone, then prosecutors can no longer use Chauvin's admission of guilt, which was obviously coerced, against him. And additionally, Chauvin would probably be released from prison about two years earlier if the federal sentence was vacated because of rules about how federal prisoners need to serve out most of their sentences.
Despite the obvious injustices that Chauvin has endured throughout this process, he hasn't had a lot of major voices lining up behind him with a specific practical plan of action. But last week, as you may have seen, that started to change.
Ben Shapiro launched an effort to have Chauvin's federal conviction pardoned by Donald Trump. And even aside from the more tangible benefits this might have for Chauvin, for example, getting him out of prison a few years earlier, a presidential pardon would also be a major step towards clearing Chauvin's name and rejecting the central fraudulent BLM narrative that has done so much damage to this country in recent years.
And even if the pardon never happens, it's still good to advocate for one. You know, it helps Chauvin to have people vocally supporting him, and it helps the country to have people repudiating the BLM narrative once and for all.
But not all conservative commentators are on board with this idea. Yes, there are conservatives arguing against a presidential pardon for Derek Chauvin, who was clearly convicted in violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
This is a man who was offered up as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of racial justice. He was sent to prison as a human sacrifice because the mob demanded that somebody has to pay for the fact that a violent career criminal overdosed on fentanyl.
And yet there are conservatives arguing that we should allow this injustice to stand. We should sit with our mouths shut as the sacrificial lamb is burned at the altar.
So I'm going to go through all of their arguments one by one, because this is an issue that implicates both the criminal justice system and the state of the conservative movement. And we'll start with the alleged conservative commentator Rob Smith and his analysis of the move to pardon Chauvin on the PPD podcast the other day.
Listen to this. There is absolutely nothing beneficial that pardoning Chauvin would do for the Trump administration, for this country, for race relations, for anybody else.
It is absolutely destructive. It makes no sense.
And so for me, when I first saw this, generally conversations that happen come from the ground up. Usually there's some sort of murmuring under and then it kind of like bubbles up and then it becomes a national conversation.
This seems to be a very top-down conversation that comes from somebody with an enormous amount of influence. This is nothing that anybody was talking about or thinking about.
So it really makes me question, why is this conversation happening right now? It makes me question, why did Ben Shapiro want to start this conversation right now? Who does this benefit? Doesn't benefit Trump, doesn't benefit America It doesn't benefit race relations. It doesn't benefit anything.

Now, before I play the rest of the clip, notice what his priorities are. He's primarily concerned about race relations, as if that's somehow a justification for letting a fraudulent criminal conviction remain on a man's record.
He says it wouldn't benefit America to pardon a man who's clearly innocent. He also claims that it would somehow hurt Donald Trump,

who just pardoned every single January 6th defendant

because he understands how corrupt our criminal justice system has become. And there were a lot of people saying that Trump shouldn't pardon the January 6th defendants because the left would be really mad if we did that and they'd start breaking things.
And yet Trump did it anyway and it was fine. But as Rob goes on, his argument gets even more embarrassing.
So let's keep listening. There are very few people that can actually really speak to in depth what was going on in that trial, how Derek, excuse me, how George Floyd actually died, et cetera, et cetera.
There's probably five people that have spent the bulk of their day on a podcast set every single day, like Ben Shapiro, like maybe two or three other people that can really talk to you in depth about this. So then they're positioning themselves to say, no, listen to me.
I'm the one who really knows about this. So what? Trump's agenda is supposed to be derailed.
Where we're at as a country right now is supposed to be derailed because these leftists and these Democrats are looking for a reason to have another race war. That is what they love.
So why this conversation is happening right now, I have no idea. So you're not for it at all? No, I am not.
Now, what Rob is saying here is pitiful and wrongheaded in the extreme. Arguing that we should let an injustice stand because the BLM mob will be mad if we don't is repugnant, loathsome, stupid nonsense.
It's exactly the sort of pathetic, scared, gutless, limp-wristed mindset that allowed the mob to burn down cities and run roughshod over the culture for years. George Floyd was a violent, drug-addicted criminal who died because he took a lethal dose of fentanyl and then resisted arrest.
That is a fact. Look at the autopsy.
He had a lethal dose of a poison in his system and he died, as you tend to do when you poison yourself. I don't care if it causes racial strife to speak this truth.
Oh, don't say it. It might cause racial strife.
So be it in that case. Anyone who plays this emotional blackmail game is not worth listening to.
Okay, we've seen what happens when we allow the left-wing narrative to run unopposed, all for the sake of avoiding strife. What happens is the left wins everything, we lose everything, and we end up with a whole lot more strife than we would have had if we had just spoken up to begin with.
Derek Chauvin is an innocent man. Rob can pretend that only five podcasters have the knowledge of the trial to make a statement like that, but it's not true.
And by the way, if it is true, like his argument is that Ben is one of the very few people who knows this case. And so therefore we shouldn't listen to him.
Like that's not even true. There are a lot of people that know the case, but if what Rob is saying is true, like what kind of argument is that? You're saying that you don't know anything about the case.
because I assume you're not in the five. There are five podcasters who know something about the case.
You're not among them. And yet, so if that's true, Rob, then you should probably shut up and let the people who know something about it do the talking if you don't know anything about it.
But as it turns out, anybody with a passing interest in the facts of this case understands

what a travesty this trial was. Like millions, not five.
There's not five people who know. There's like millions.
Okay. Now, Rob, you may not understand.
You may be clueless, but don't project your cluelessness onto the rest of us. Okay.
You don't put an innocent man in prison to avoid racial strife. In fact, again, it only causes more, as we've seen.
Okay, to reiterate, we have all seen what happens when you let falsehoods, injustices, and moral insanity stand just for the sake of appeasing the left-wing mob. Conservatives tried that approach for decades.
That's how we got BLM to begin with. But Rob is not the only conservative who's taking this approach, unfortunately.
Somebody named J.D. Sharp, just as one example.
There were a lot of comments on X to this effect, but here's just one. He responded to me and said, quote, I know a pardon of Chauvin will result in the biggest black influencer campaign ever And will likely lead to a domestic race war worse than 2020 Which will then lead to martial law and a totalitarian government Controlled by artificial super intelligence Can you imagine? Pardoning Derek Chauvin will lead to the biggest black influencer campaign ever Don't want to do it it.
The black influencers will be mad. Let's leave the innocent man in jail, okay, because otherwise the black influencers might be upset about it.
But that will then lead immediately to a sci-fi dystopia and the enslavement of mankind. So you start with black influencers, and next thing you know, we're enslaved by robots.
Now, how exactly does all that work? Well, fortunately, we have J.D. to explain.
He adds, quote, quote, my full position is pardoning Chauvin will result in a massive social media influencer campaign led by Stephen A. Smith that leads to his presidential campaign run, which will lead to the closest thing to a racially driven civil war we've ever had that will include actual domestic bloodshed and very well could turn into martial law just as the most powerful population control tool, artificial superintelligence is arriving.
Close quote. Yes, he's claiming that Stephen A.
Smith could be the Democrats nominee if Trump pardons Derek Chauvin, which is probably the single best argument for pardoning Derek Chauvin. Yes, let Stephen A.
Smith be their guy. Please, dear God, Democrats, please do that.
It would be a bigger blowout than Nixon in 1972. But we're supposed to fear this outcome, apparently, because we'll have a racially driven civil war.
Now, of course, that's nonsense. Okay, a Chauvin pardon, especially one that doesn't even free

him from prison, would not lead to widespread rioting like we saw in 2020. We've seen with the Daniel Penny acquittal and the pardon of Daniel Perry in Texas that BLM is demoralized and ineffective now.
And they've also lost all of their funding. And that's why the riots aren't happening because the people pulling the strings realize that race riots hurt their agenda.
They hurt the agenda that they were supposed to be helping. But even if riots did result from a pardon, that would only make the public despise Democrats more than they already do.
That's the most confusing thing about this argument. Oh, it might cause riots, and then it'll hurt the conservative political agenda.
That would hurt the Democrats. Have you not been paying attention? Have you been in a cave for the last five years? This all destroyed the Democrat Party.
Did you not notice that? The rioting, the woke madness, it destroyed the Democrats. They are in ruins right now because of it.
And your fear is that they'll start it again and destroy themselves more? Okay, another round of BLM mass rioting would be a political catastrophe for the Democrats, a catastrophe for them. If I were really cynical, you know what I'd say? I'd say pardon Chauvin just so that it drives the left deeper into madness and further from the mainstream.
But I'm not saying that. I'm saying do it because it's the right thing to do.
It just so happens that the right thing and the politically smart thing are one and the same in this case.

Again, though, many, many conservatives disagree.

So here's another person expressing the disagreement.

This is Delano Squares. Watch.

My perspective, I'm making a more substantive point, right, which is I want somebody to tell me why they think Derek Chauvin deserves a party.

And I know exactly where people are going to go. They're going to say, oh, George Floyd died of an overdose.
And yes, he did have drugs in the system. And yes, he was saying, you know, I can't breathe long before Derek Chauvin arrived on the scene.
but he didn't die until D'Archovina arrived on the scene and knelt on him, his neck, back, shoulder, area, however you want to sort of characterize that, for the better part of nine minutes. So to me, this is not something where I'm saying, oh, this is such a clear miscarriage of justice.
And I think I have a different substantive point on this than many conservatives. Now, this is a textbook post hoc fallacy.
When you look at the timing of events and determine causation solely from that. So he concedes that Floyd had enough fentanyl to kill a horse in his system.
But because Floyd didn't die until after Chauvin restrained him, he's concluding that Chauvin must be the cause. Never mind the fact that Floyd didn't actually die on the street based on the government's own autopsy report.
Never mind the fact that the coroner didn't find any serious physical injury to Floyd's body whatsoever. Never mind the fact that Floyd couldn't breathe while he was still in the squad car.
With the post-hoc fallacy, all that matters is the order of events. Now, for his part, Jason Whitlock responded to Ben Shapiro's call for a pardon, as well as my own posts on the subject.
So let's start with his general thoughts about it. Here it is.
Yeah, I think without question, there doesn't seem to be logical, rational fault behind this. because if the man is going to get a pardon,

it... logical, rational fault behind this.
Because if the man is going to get a pardon, it needs to be in the state courts. And it needs to come from the governor if they really are looking for relief.
Because first of all, let's say they did pardon him on the federal charges. Now he goes to state prison with far more violent criminals.
His life is far more in jeopardy in a state prison. Now, I'll say I have no issue with the people arguing against a Chauvin pardon on technical grounds.
The point that a federal pardon would actually hurt him because it would just land him in state prison instead of federal prison is reasonable. Now, it's a reasonable point of view.
If Trump decided against the pardon for that reason, it's understandable. If Chauvin himself didn't want the pardon for that reason, that would obviously be reason enough to not do it.
Although for the record, as I alluded to earlier, it's not necessarily true that Chauvin would end up in state prison after a pardon. And it's not clear that a pardon would have no practical effect otherwise.
It's also not clear that a federal prison is safer for Chauvin. He got stabbed in the federal prison.
But as CNN has conceded, quote, Jane Ann Murray, a University of Minnesota criminal law associate professor who specializes in sentencing, said that inmates such as Chauvin, who might need additional security, still might be allowed to remain in federal prison to serve a state sentence. Okay, so he could actually get pardoned for the federal crime and yet remain in federal prison.
So that's an important point here. Additionally, CNN reports that, quote, if Chauvin were to receive a federal pardon, he could end up spending less time incarcerated than he would have, even though the state sentence is slightly longer than the federal sentence.
The reason, prisoners are often required to serve a greater portion of federal sentences than state sentences, and prisoners sentenced after 1987 are ineligible for federal parole. Again, Chauvin himself tried to vacate his federal conviction.
Okay, so that seems to indicate that he thinks it would benefit him to get rid of the federal conviction. He tried to get them to get rid of it.
Regardless, from what I can tell, Jason Whitlock's primary argument against the pardon is actually more about the politics of the situation. For example, he posted on X, quote, what's going on here? This seems out of nowhere from the Daily Wire, given the fact that it's separated from Candace Owens.
If Trump took this on right now, it would sabotage and overshadow other agendas. I believe Chauvin was wrongly convicted, but the timing of this campaign seems out of place.
And Whitlock went on to make a similar argument on his show. Watch.
Matt Walsh, on Wednesday morning, I guess from the Daily, he is from the Daily Wire, I guess, he actually gave a substantive response to my question about, hey, what's going on here? Matt Wall says that he totally disagrees with me. Trump has all the momentum right now, which makes it a perfect time to pardon Chauvin.
If Dems react to it by further glorifying and worshiping Fentanyl Floyd, all the better. Let them do it.
That's a losing proposition for them politically. Also, pardoning Chauvin is just simply the right thing to do.
Trump is not the kind of man who refrains from doing the right thing because of how it might look. Here's my problem with that, and obviously I have a lot of respect for Matt Walsh.
This is all political. This isn't about seeking justice.
Hey, Trump's got the momentum. And if Dems react, blah, blah, blah.
And maybe that's just a response to what I said, like, hey, man, Trump would sabotage his whole agenda. And we'd spend the next month, two months talking about Derek Chauvin and a pardon and re litigating George Floyd.
And the man's only 45 days into his second presidency. And I guess I'm arguing there's more important things to do.
And there's a smarter way to go about. If you believe Derek Chauvin's been wrongfully convicted, there's a smarter, more effective way to go about this rather than sabotaging Trump's agenda and policy deals.
Now, I like Jason. I enjoy his work.
I respect him. But I must say that this is where the argument starts to come across as a bit disingenuous.
Again, if you want to say that a pardon wouldn't have much practical effect, that's one thing. Reasonable people can disagree on that.
Or if you want to say that it's actually worse for Chauvin to get pardoned, then again, that's a reasonable argument. I'm not convinced by it, but it's a reasonable argument.
But what we're getting here is something else entirely. Whitlock has stated repeatedly that he believes Chauvin didn't receive a fair trial.
He believes the conviction should be overturned. If that's your belief, and it happens to be the correct belief, then saying now's not the time for a pardon is a dodge.
Okay? If now is not the time, when is the time? If it's true that pardoning him would be politically disastrous, should we do it closer to the midterms? Should we do it when the 2028 campaign is in full swing? Should we just never do it and say, sorry, Chauvin, you were wrongfully convicted, but too bad. If it's politically unpopular but right to do, now is precisely the time to do it.
When you're as far from the next elections as you're going to get. If it's politically popular and also right, now is still the time to do it.
If it's the wrong thing to do in principle, then there is no right time, right? Whichever is the case, now is not the time is the kind of thing you say if you don't want to say what you really think. And in this case, I think that there are some conservatives using the now is not the time dodge because they actually agree with the BLM narrative about the case, but they don't want to say that.
And then there are other commentators who disagree with the BLM narrative and would actually like to see Chauvin pardon, but they don't want to agree with Ben Shapiro or give him any credits, so they're finding a reason to object. Okay? Also, again, for the record, the call to pardon Chauvin is not out of nowhere, as Whitlock and others have claimed.
I have personally been calling for a pardon from the moment Trump was elected. I've been defending Chauvin since before he was on trial.
I've called out the BLM false narrative on the George Floyd case from the very beginning, and I will continue to do so while advocating for a full federal pardon. That's because there is no question that a pardon is morally the correct course of action in this case.
I also think it's probably the correct course of action tactically. Chauvin is an innocent man who was offered up for the slaughter in the name of racial justice.
His continued incarceration is a national disgrace. Should we re-litigate the Floyd case? You're damn right we should re-litigate it.
Yes. Should we re-litigate that moment of mass hysteria that killed dozens of people and caused billions of dollars of damage, put an innocent man in prison? Should we relitigate? If the other option is just to pretend it never happened, which is what the left and the Democrats want, then yeah, you're damn right we should relitigate it.
I think there's not enough relitigating going on. Okay, I think a lot of evil people were able to do horrible things and they're just a lot, we're just pretending it never happened.
Whether it's COVID or BLM, Floyd, the trans stuff, castrating kids. I mean, there's a lot of, there needs to be more re-litigating of all of that because the other option is just to all the people who did all those terrible things, well, no harm, no foul, except that there was a lot of harm.
And they need to be held accountable for it. So the first step is to nullify Chauvin's conviction with a pardon that will get Chauvin out of prison several years earlier at a minimum.
anything that gets us closer to the day when Derek Chauvin is free, joining the ranks of

Daniel Penny and Daniel Perry and Kyle Rittenhouse and many other victims of the BLM mob is something

that every conservative should support. That's the best course of action for Derek Chauvin.

It's the best course of action to ensure that no innocent man has to endure what he did ever again. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Let's be honest, I have a list of things I'd rather do than maintain my gutters. Cleaning gutters rank somewhere between sitting through a DMV line and filing taxes, but there's an easier way.
Leave filter so you never have to clean out your gutters ever again. Right now, get a free inspection, free estimate, and save up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash Walsh.
You know those cheap plastic gutter guards that they sell at hardware stores? Spoiler alert, they're about as effective as using a paper towel as an umbrella. As with most things in life, you get what you pay for, and I'd rather pay once for something that actually works than repeatedly for something that doesn't work at all.
An investment in leaf filter is an investment engineered to protect your whole home, because nothing says I've made poor life choices quite like watching water cascade down your interior walls from clogged gutters. Every leaf filter installation comes with a lifetime no-clogs guarantee.
Their patented technology keeps out everything but water, no holes, gaps, or large openings for debris to get through. It's almost like they're actually thought about how gutters work, unlike those DIY contraptions you've probably considered before.
Plus, a LeafFilter Trusted Pro will clean out, realign, and seal your gutters before installing the system. Protect your home and never clean out gutters again with LeafFilter, America's number one gutter protection system.
Schedule your free inspection and take advantage of the Spring Spectacular sale with up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash Walsh. That's a free estimate, free inspection, and 30% off at leafffilter.com slash Walsh.
See your representative for warranty details. There are a bunch of videos that are making the rounds on X right now and have a lot of people talking.
I want to talk about some of them. The NBC affiliate in Austin reports on a new law currently being debated in the state.
Reports, lawmakers are bringing back an effort to create consequences for any public library in Texas that hosts a children's reading event led by a drag performer, reviving legislation that failed to pass during the last legislative session. The Senate Committee on State Affairs held a hearing today to consider Senate Bill 18.
The proposal's wording closely mirrors a similar piece of legislation he brought forward during the 2023 session. The new bill proposes that a municipal library may not receive state or other public funds if the library hosts an event at which a man presenting as a woman or a woman presenting as a man reads a book or a story to a minor for entertainment and the person being dressed as the opposite gender is a primary component of the entertainment.
So that's the law. Not everybody agrees with preventing cross-dressers from having events for children in public libraries, of course.
The cross-dressers themselves certainly disagree. And one of them showed up to speak out against this bill.
Here he is. Hello, my name is Bridget Bandit, and I'm speaking in opposition to SB18.
I'm a born and raised Texan and full-time drag queen. Previously, I've worked with children throughout my life as a swim instructor, teaching summer art camps, hosting children's birthday parties, and volunteering in my church as a youth group leader.
Today, I occasionally host drag queen story times. These kinds of events don't differ much from the kind of work I did before, yet this bill would impact my ability to work with children simply based on a subjective and ill-defined expectation of how I should look.
Now, if you're listening to the audio podcast, you would have missed the visuals. The person speaking is dressed in drag as he addresses the Texas State Senate.
So you can fill in the blanks in your mind. He looks exactly as you would expect him to look, which is like the evil stepmother in a Tim Burton reimagining of Cinderella, which is what all drag queens look like for some reason.
I don't know why, but they all seem to love the Tim Burton aesthetic. They watched Nightmare Before Christmas and then thought that they would make that into their entire personality.
He says that this bill would prevent him from working with children. That's the key line there.
And yes, yes, sir, that is the point. That's the point, yes.
The lack of self-awareness with these people is, as always, incredible. If I didn't know any better, I would think that he was hired by Republicans to show up there.
Now, I know that didn't happen because Republicans are not clever enough to use a strategy like this, but he may as well be advocating for the bill.

Coming out dressed like that and saying, but this means that I can't work with kids. That's the best possible way to advocate for the bill.
Coming out and saying, but wait, if this bill passes, the creepiest human being you've ever seen in your life won't have access to your children. that is, again, a very good argument for the bill.

I also like how he says that the bill is based on an ill-defined expectation of how he should look. But I don't think it is ill-defined at all.
I think it's not only pretty clear, but also not a very onerous guideline. How should you look if you want to work with kids? Well, not like that.
Just don't look like that. You can look almost any other way.
Just don't look like that. Don't go out of your way to look like you look right there.
but go to the men's section in any clothing store in America and pick any outfit you want. And it will almost certainly be fine.
Just don't look like that. Okay, there are 90 million options for what you can wear.
You've chosen the one thing that you should not wear. And keep in mind, none of these bills would actually stop any drag queen from reading the kids at the library or working with them in school or anything like that.
Because it's not like every drag queen is being put on a registry and prevented from being around kids ever again. Now, I mean, I'd be very interested in talking about a bill like that.
We could look at a piece of legislation like that. I think there's a lot to be said for it, but that's not what any of these bills are doing.
That guy in the clip, he can still go do a story time for kids. Just don't do it when you're dressed like that.
Dress normal, be a normal person, and go read to kids. The law is not going to stop you.
So what he's actually saying, what all these drag queens are actually saying, is that if they can't wear women's clothes while they work with kids, then it's not worth working with kids. A prerequisite for them to work with kids is that they get to cross-dress at the same time.
So just think about that. You've got a man dressed in women's clothes, and we're saying to him, oh, can you not wear that when you're working with the kids?

And then he goes, well, if I can't wear this, then never mind.

Then there's no point.

Just think about that for a second.

You're saying there's no point in you even being around kids

or working with them or reading stories to them

if you can't wear women's clothes while you do it? Why is that? What is the point then? Can you elaborate a bit more? This is what I've always said about these people. Throw the burden back on them.
Tell us exactly why it's so important to you

that little kids see you in women's clothes. Why is that so important to you? Why can't you just

wear normal stuff, just wear a normal shirt and pants and go read the story?

Well, there is an explanation for that, but it's one that they don't want to say out loud. Okay, here's one of the more repulsive things that we've heard on CNN in at least the last few days.
Let's listen to this. The person who's watching, who just heard you say, Donald Trump is not standing up for Ukraine.
What do you say to the person who says, well, I don't care about Ukraine.

I want Donald Trump to stand up for America.

What do you say to them?

I don't know where you got that.

I mean, I don't have time for it.

Yes, but we hear it.

We hear it.

Here's the thing.

Where did you grow up?

Did you grow up in a place where you thought the Russians were the good guys?

What part of America did you grow up in where they taught you the Russians were the good guys and our allies were the bad guys?

That's the flip here that we need to continue to remind people.

The Russians are the bad guys.

They're ready to go. What part of America did you grow up in where they taught you the Russians were the good guys and our allies were the bad guys?

That's the flip here that we need to continue to remind people.

The Russians are the bad guys.

They're raping women.

They're killing children.

They're bombing cities.

The Ukrainians are the noble good guys.

Some ways they're more American than we are over the last couple of years. And we must stand with them in the same way we stood with the allies in World War II and since this country was founded.

This is not just about Ukraine.

This is about the core and the integrity of American values.

And that's what he's also betrayed.

Okay, first of all, before we get to the Ukrainians are more American than we are a bit, you know, this guy is frustrated because he says not enough of us are accepting the narrative that the Russians are the bad guys and the Ukrainians are the good guys. The Russians are the evil rapists and the Ukrainians are noble heroes, is what he said.
He's upset that more people aren't buying into that framing. Here's the problem with that.
Okay, I believe in moral absolutes. I believe in right and wrong.
I'm not one of those people who says everything is gray, there's no black and white. I don't say that.
But when it comes to disputes between people, I'm not talking about abstract moral questions, right? Is it right or wrong to commit murder? I'm not saying that. When it comes to disputes between people, okay, it's very rarely as simple as good guy versus bad guy.
It's very rarely that simple. This is true when the dispute is between two individuals, right? A marriage falling apart, two friends having a falling out, co-workers who hate each other, neighbors that are constantly feuding.
Whatever it is, in nearly all of these kinds of cases, your perception of the good guy or the bad guy will depend entirely on whose version of the story you're hearing. And the truth usually is somewhere in the middle, which is why we've all had the experience of there's a dispute and we hear about it from one person in the dispute and we go, oh, the other person is terrible.
And then you have the

occasion to talk to the other person and they give you a whole other side of the story that

you didn't know about. And now you're confused.
Now your simplistic view of this dispute has been

exploded. And what you're left with is in this case, yeah, kind of a gray area.
Because most of the time when you've got disputes between people, both sides are at fault to some extent. Not always.
There are times when it's pretty clear cut. But most of the time, there's going to be blame to go around.
It takes two to tango, whatever cliche you want. Now, if this applies to disputes between individuals, all the more it applies to disputes between nations.
Again, there are exceptions to this. Sometimes the good guy, bad guy dynamic is relatively cut and dry.

Usually it isn't. It's pretty rare that you can look at a war and say one side is noble and the other side is evil.
It's not often that simple. Sometimes it can be.
It's not often that simple, especially when it's a longstanding conflict between nations. And this is very clear.
if you look at conflicts, it's difficult for us to judge this when it's a longstanding conflict between nations. And this is very clear.
If you look at conflicts,

it's difficult for us to judge this when it's a conflict where we have heard only one side of the story and there's a media campaign and a campaign by all the most powerful institutions in the country to get us to see the dispute in a certain light. But if you go look up, just take a conflict where you have no framing going into it.
There isn't anyone trying to frame it for you. And you're looking at it sort of objectively and without a lot of background.
Okay, so go look up some random conflict between warring factions in Africa somewhere.

Well, if you look up something like that and try to figure out who the good guy is,

it's not easy most of the time.

And you'll quickly come to understand that the very question is sort of childish.

Who's the good guy?

I mean, when you're looking objectively, you're like, you say, well, this is like atrocities being committed by both sides.

This is a dispute that goes back hundreds of years.

Like, who knows who the good guy is here?

Thank you. When you're looking objectively, you're like, you say, well, this is like atrocities being committed by both sides.
This is a dispute that goes back hundreds of years. Like who knows who the good guy is here.
So you should be very skeptical of anyone who tells you that your view should be simplistic about something like this. And you should be even more skeptical when he tells you that Ukrainians are more American than we are.
Because that is ridiculous drivel. That is abhorrent nonsense.
Ukrainians are not more American than Americans. Ukrainians are not American at all.
As I've said many times, I have nothing against Ukraine or Ukrainians. I wish them well.
I truly do. I have nothing against them.
No hard feelings. Not that they care what my feelings are about them, but nothing against them.
I care about Ukraine as much as they care about me and my family and my country. That is precisely as much as I care about them.
How do Ukrainians feel about our country? Well, they see us as their piggy bank, we know that. But aside from that, do they care about our country at all? Have they ever done anything to help us, ever? Has any Ukrainian ever made a single sacrifice for the sake of America? Ever? Ever?

No, no one all counts. They wish us well, I hope.
But other than that, they're focused on their own

country, as they should be. They are not invested in America's future except as it directly impacts

them, and that's how I feel in return.

That's how I feel about every other country.

I wish them all well. I wish all the people of the world well.
I want everyone to be happy and nothing bad to happen to anybody. That's what I would like.
That's not how it works out,

but that's what I would like. But I am invested in the future of other countries only to the extent that it impacts my country.
Because I'm on my own countryside. Which is also why, I said that disputes between people and between nations are rarely very cut and dry.
There's usually gray area, and that's true. But it's easy for me to see that when I'm looking at conflicts between nations where my own country isn't involved.
I take my own country's side for the same reason I take my family's side. Even though I might recognize that, yeah, you know, there's some, if my brother is in a dispute with somebody else, I'm on his side.

And I can look at it objectively and say, okay, well, you know, you've done some stuff that is wrong too.

And I'll talk to him about that.

I'd counsel him on that.

I would encourage him.

But I'm on his side.

There's no question about it.

I'm not a neutral observer, right?

Because that's my brother. And when it comes to my country, that's the way I look at it.
I'm on my countryside. But you notice what he's saying here.
He's saying that Ukrainians are more American than Americans because they allegedly value democracy and freedom and all of that. Their value system makes them more American than we are.
And I don't think

he's right that they hold these values more than we do. But even if he is, that is irrelevant.
Because, and I need cable news pundits to listen very carefully to this. Okay, this is really important that you understand this.
America is not a value system. It is a nation.
You don't become American by adopting values.

We are a nation. We are a country.
We are not an abstract set of ideas.

We are actually a country, just like Ukraine is.

And Ukraine puts themselves first. I do the same for America.

I make no apologies about it. All right, before we get to the daily cancellation, this is, well, we've seen enough of these kinds of videos.
We don't need to see another one. I certainly don't need to force you, force you, my beloved audience, to endure another one of these.
But the problem is that I endured it. I suffered through it.
And I know that you, as my beloved audience, would want to share in my suffering. I know that you would.
That's the kind of bond that we have. So really, I'm showing this to you because I know that deep down you want to see it because I have.
And so I regret to inform you that they're singing again. They won't stop.
They won won't. They won't stop, can't stop.
They refuse to stop. They should be stopped, but they aren't.
So they keep on singing. Left-wing protesters suffer from a kind of musical Tourette syndrome.
They just break out into song and they can't help it. So now here is former NIH director Francis Collins singing at a rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Friday.
The point of the rally was, I don't know what, it was something about science. They're rallying to defend science or something, but here it is.
Well, this is a song for all the good people, all the good people who are part of this family. This is a song for all the good people.
We're joined together by this noble dream. Have you got that? So it's just all the good people, but the second line, part of this family, and the last line, we're joined together by this noble dream.
Do that with me. This is a song for all the good people.
All the good people who are part of this family. This is a song for all the good people.
We're joined together by this noble dream. Well, this is a song for all of those dreamers who are looking for answers to come our way.
Scientists, doctors, students, all seekers, we share in the hopes for a much brighter day. Come on now! Well, this is a song for all the good people, all the good people who are part of this family.
This is a song for actually ticks me off. It actually makes me angry when I watch videos like this.
And not because it's a god-awful, hideously terrible song, although it is. Not because Francis Collins has the singing voice of a camel.
Not because the lyrics sound like a sixth-grader's creative writing assignment. Not because of any of that.
I mean, all of that makes the listening experience very unpleasant. The song is an atrocity.
Don't get me wrong. It's a tragedy.
Flag should be flying at half mast for a week

across the country because of this song. But that's not it.
I'll tell you what makes me mad.

And actually, envious. Mad and envious.
I'll be totally honest with you. It's the self-confidence

of these people up there singing their awful songs. I wish I had that insane level of self-confidence that they have.
Imagine how happy these people must be. Imagine how blissfully happy Francis Collins is.
I want to be that happy. Just no self-awareness at all.
There are plenty of people who are actually good singers and yet would never sing in front of a crowd because they're self-conscious and they're unsure of themselves. And yet here is Francis Collins not only belting out this terrible song in his toad voice, but actually trying to get the crowd to sing along with it.
The arrogance. The arrogance of that.
Nobody in the crowd has ever heard the song before because he made it up. Yet he's singing it and he's like, come on, everyone, join in.
Come on, people. Why aren't you singing? Because they don't know the words, Francis.
You wrote the words. They were not in your living room when you were practicing the song in front of your wife who encouraged you way more than she should have.
So, and yet here he is playing it proudly and trying to turn it into a sing-along. Totally confident.
Blissfully, insanely confident. Undeserved confidence.
That's what I want. I want that kind of confidence.
I want to be that sure of myself all the time. It must be great.
It must be so great to be like that. It's not great for the rest of us that we have to be around people like this, but it's great to be that person.
I assume, I mean, just for comparison's sake, you know, I made a movie as, oh, I made two movies, big hits. I'm confident in both of them.
I like both movies. I know they're good.
They did really well. And yet when we finally put Am I Racist on for my kids a few weeks ago, I was nervous.
I was nervous for my kids to see it. I was actually nervous that my children were going to watch the movie.
I'm sitting there on pins and needles, right? Pins and needles waiting to get the verdict on the movie from my 11-year-old. And they all loved it, of course.
I'm their dad. They love seeing their dad in a movie.
They've watched it like four times since then. The point, though, is that I was nervous to show a quality piece of content to a small audience of my own family.
Okay, so that's, and yet here is Francis Collins, without a care care in the world No nerves, no shyness Performing the worst song of all time In front of an audience of people in D.C. That, I I hate that I wish I was that oblivious I really do I wish I had no self-awareness Every time I see somebody somebody with no self-awareness, walking into a room, talking, boring everyone to death with their dumb stories, making everything awkward, but they don't notice it.
They don't know they're doing it. And I think to myself, man, it must be great.
It must be great. It must just feel great to be like that.
You end up making a total ass of yourself all the time, but who cares? Like, you don't care. You don't even know what's happening.
So, I don't know. That's my, that's, I wish I could be like Francis Collins.
Only in that, only in that am similar to him in that neither of us can sing. The only difference is that because I know I can't sing, I would never, ever sing in front of anyone ever, ever, ever.
And yet he's into it. He's having a great time inflicting that on the rest of us.
It's amazing.

Nothing beats going live in the studio, diving into the day's political battlegrounds with no

filter. The Daily Wire has given me a platform to cut through the noise and deliver my unfiltered

thoughts to my listeners. No idiocy, no nonsense, just breaking down the hard truths that matter.

If you're doing what you love to do like I am, there's nothing better than being surrounded by

people who love it as much as you do. And if you own your own business, you want to hire employees who love what they do to boost the overall success of your business.
Plus, it makes it a pretty great place to work as well. But how do you find passionate employees who are a good fit for all of your roles? Well, that's easy.
ZipRecruiter is the answer. And right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Here at The Daily Wire, we're proud to partner with ZipRecruiter. ZipRecruiter starts working for you immediately with smart technology that shows your job to qualify candidates right away.
And when you spot that perfect candidate, you can easily reach out to ZipRecruiter's pre-written invite-to-apply messages to personally connect with your top choices so you don't waste time or money. You can hire experienced people who are excited about what they do with ZipRecruiter.
Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. See for yourself.
Go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter for free. ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
The media wants you to believe that Trump is a criminal, Elon is unhinged, and the world is spiraling into chaos. But here's the truth.
We are winning. The left's lies are unraveling, their narrative is crumbling, and their tears are falling.
That's why The Daily Wire is here to cut through the noise and bring you the facts that others won't. Uncensored, ad-free daily shows, investigative journalism, live chats, breaking news, no filter, no corporate leash, no nonsense.
The Daily Wire is where the real story lives. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the fight today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. I've never watched the Netflix reality TV show Love is Blind.
I know that probably shocks you to hear. It seems like I'm sort of the key demographic for that type of programming.
All I know about the show is what I learned from reading about it on Wikipedia this morning. So apparently it features a group of men and women who date by communicating through speakers without seeing each other.
They only meet in person and see each other for the first time after they get engaged. I think that's the way it works.
And then there's a period of a few weeks where they live together. At the conclusion of this brief cohabitation phase, they either get married or they choose to go their separate ways.
You'll be shocked again to learn that the majority of relationships and marriages to come out of this show last for about 45 seconds once the cameras turn off. There's an old adage you've probably heard before.
It says families that make trashed reality TV shows together stay together. But it turns out that that adage is wrong.
All that said, meeting on a reality show where you talk to each other through an intercom isn't much worse than meeting through Tinder. In fact, since the parameters of the show prevent couples from having sex for at least the first several days, allegedly, you might argue that Love is Blind is downright traditional compared to how so many people approach dating these days.
I mean, this is basically 19th century courtship in comparison to a dating app hookup, you might argue. You'd probably be wrong, but you might argue it.
In any case, that's kind of a long preamble to this viral clip from the season eight finale of Love is Blind. And in this clip, we will see contestant Sarah Carlton meeting her fiance, Ben Mazenga, for their nuptials.
But in a moment that came as a major twist to the not terribly bright people who watch these shows, but not at all surprising to the producers who certainly staged the whole thing, Sarah decided to leave Ben at the altar.

And here's the moment where she breaks the news.

I love you so much.

But I've always wanted a partner to be on the same wavelength.

And so today I can't I'm sorry but I don't want that to be misunderstood I still love you and everything about you is amazing and I care about you so much I care about you too I love you so much and I know I want to stay with you and keep growing our relationship if you'll let me We'll see We'll talk about that Okay I love you I know that the connection we have is so real The connection we have is so real which is why I'm going to humiliate you on television. I love you so much and have a deep and real connection, so naturally I've decided to dump you in front of an audience.
With information, by the way, it's not like she discovered some information about the guy at the last minute, right before she was walking up to the altar. and showed a video of him cheating on her.
That's not what happened. This is information that she would have known the whole time.
And she could have told him this at any time, but waited until the, let him put the, let him put the suit on and everything, right? He's got his suit on, he's showing up. It's like she put the dress on knowing that this was, she was gonna dump him anyway.
And then this pathetic guy, who by the way I find to be far more grotesque than the woman in this exchange. He's being humiliated in front of everybody in this whole thing that she set up just for that purpose.
And his response is to say, but we'll hope we could still be together.

Oh my gosh, dude, this is, this is tough to watch, but why is she dumping him? Well,

that's the part that's gotten a lot of attention online. Here it is.

My heart is there, but we talked about a lot of the values that I hold so close to my heart. Making this decision, my mind is telling me I can't

because it's sad like I was really excited about Ben and I'm like he's such a great person I just like Like...

What?

I just hope I made the right decision. I remember I asked him about Black Lives Matter, and I'm no expert.
But when I asked him about it, he was like, I guess I never really thought too much about it. That affected me, especially in our own city.
How could it not? How did he not make you think about something? I asked him to like what his church's views are and he said he didn't know. And so then I watched a sermon online.
From his church? About, yeah, sexual identity. Okay.
And it was traditional. I told that to Ben.
And he doesn't really have much to say about it, you know? I want something to think about that stuff. Sometimes I did wonder if it was surface, fun, carefree love that we had.
Equality, religion, the vaccine. So to review, she loves him.
She feels a connection with him and she believes in him to be a really good guy, but she doesn't want to marry him because he is not sufficiently pro BLM or the vaccine. And he goes to a church with horror of horrors, traditional views on sexuality.
Now for the purpose of this discussion, we will pretend that this moment and the entire show are not completely contrived. I'm quite confident that my podcast attracts an audience intelligent enough to know that reality shows are all fake and dating reality shows are the fakest of all.
In fact, that's kind of an important point, that the phoniness makes this even more sinister. This is obviously not an organic moment of emotional honesty from Sarah to Ben.
This is propaganda. The producers of the show are putting this on the air in order to send the message that conservative men are not marriage material.
This is meant to influence the rather impressionable women who watch this sort of programming, convincing them that they shouldn't date or marry any man who doesn't toe the ideological line. Notice the framing, right? This woman, at least for the story, waited until the guy was at the altar standing in front of his friends and family to tell him that his political beliefs are disqualifying.
In the real world, the actual real world, not the real world as presented by reality TV, this would make her a horrible, sadistic witch. But in this show, her ridiculously callous behavior is accompanied by soft emotional music and the other characters, I mean, her family, consoling and comforting her.
Reality shows are not renowned for their artistic subtlety, and this is no exception. There's nothing subtle about this.
It is, again, a scene meant to encourage women to feel revulsion towards men who have, as she says, with disgust, traditional values. But let's, again, put all that to the side.
For the sake of discussion, let's take all of this at face value. After all, there are plenty of men who find themselves in similar situations.
It's not happening on camera, and they aren't getting dumped at the altar. Often they get dumped after the altar, unfortunately.

But still, there are many Ben's who wind up with Sarah's. And that's why it's important to say that this is usually completely avoidable.
Don't go on a reality TV dating show. That's one way to avoid

it. But it's avoidable even outside of that.
Because the cliche says that opposites attract.

And that's true in a certain sense. Men and women are opposite sexes.
That alone is enough to vindicate the cliche. Happily married couples very often have wildly different personalities and interests.
Anecdotally, nearly every happily married couple that I know features an extrovert and an introvert, right? So there's some opposite attracting there. As an introvert, I can't imagine being married to one.
There'd be way too much contemplating and ruminating going on. The thought of two extroverts being married is equally overwhelming.
Way too much talking, not nearly enough shutting up. This is the kind of variation that brings some flavor into your relationship.
But your worldview, your value system, that's a different matter entirely. Contrasting personalities can bring excitement and humor into your marriage.
Contrasting value systems, on the other hand, bring conflict, deep, constant conflict, an unbridgeable divide. It's like when you have a variety of instruments playing one song, you get a symphony.
But when you have different instruments playing different songs at the same time, you get noise and chaos. And that's what it's like to be in a relationship with somebody whose core values are opposed to your own.
The two of you are playing different songs. There's no harmony and there can never be.
So if you don't want to end up divorced or dumped at the altar or in a miserable marriage with somebody whose values are in complete opposition to your own, all you have to do to avoid that scenario is find out their values very early on. In the vast majority of cases, that is easy to do.
Here's how you do it. Most of the time, it's as simple as this.
Just ask them. Ask them right away.
In our case, my wife and I talked about all of these things on our first date. We spent hours talking about politics and religion because neither of us wanted to waste our time dating somebody who would only later turn out to be a far-left wacko.
It's better to get that out in the open right away. I don't want to waste my time.
If this woman who I'm meeting for the first time is some kind of left-wing feminist, tell me now. I'll cut the dinner off 30 minutes into it, and I won't pay because you're a feminist because I'd assume you want to pay, and we could go our separate ways.
So it's not emotionally devastating to break things off after one date. You don't even know the person.
The further you get into the relationship, the harder it is, and the more you might be tempted to overlook serious red flags. So that's why I prefer a kind of cut-to-the-chase strategy.
Now, if you're on the dating scene right now, maybe you don't want to have an intense political discourse on your first date. I recognize I'm a bit extreme.
My wife is too, so it worked out. So if you want to save it for the second or third date, that's fine.
But don't save it for the 20th date, and certainly don't save it for sometime after you've already tied the knot. Besides, if you're avoiding religion and politics, what the hell else is there to talk about? There are only like five interesting things to discuss, and that's two of them.
So save yourself the heartache. Don't become another Ben.

Don't waste your time with a Sarah. Also, if you value your brain cells, don't watch reality TV dating shows at all.
That's probably the best advice that could come out of this. And that is

why Love is Blind, and every show like it, and every person who watches that show or any show

like it, are all today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.