The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 188 - Democrats Go Full Infanticide

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Wall Show, infanticidal Democrats cannot stop themselves from advocating for baby 0.91

00:00:05.660 murder. Now we have the governor of Virginia suggesting that we kill babies outside of the 0.95

00:00:10.760 womb. He's now saying that he was taken out of context. He wasn't, but we'll look at the context 0.92

00:00:14.480 and see what he was actually saying. Also, we'll talk about a photo of coal miners that at least

00:00:20.080 one liberal says is racist. And finally, the media was very upset yesterday because Howard

00:00:25.260 Schultz does not know the cost of a box of Cheerios. Is that a legitimate reason to attack

00:00:32.580 someone? No, of course it isn't. But we'll talk about that coming up on the show today.

00:00:42.560 Welcome to the Matt Wall Show, everybody. Remember to subscribe on iTunes or become a premium member

00:00:48.060 of The Daily Wire so you can get the whole show. I've got an idea just to begin things with,

00:00:54.000 just kind of brainstorming here. What if we call unborn babies undocumented? Instead of unborn,

00:01:00.300 how about undocumented? Because maybe then liberals will stop killing them. Do you think 0.99

00:01:04.880 that might work? Because when you think about it, undocumented works for unborn children much more

00:01:12.860 than it works for illegals. These are babies who just have not yet gotten the document of the birth

00:01:20.120 certificate. Just something to think about. Speaking of undocumented babies, Democrats across

00:01:28.640 the country are, as we've been talking about over the last few days, they are in a mad dash right now

00:01:33.560 to legalize late-term abortion as quickly as they can in as many states as they can. So it was already

00:01:40.960 legal in six states and also Washington, D.C., thanks to Democrats. And now after last week,

00:01:47.620 it's legal in New York as well. And then Virginia and Rhode Island have their own bills, or had anyway.

00:01:56.040 Virginia's bill has since been defeated. And Rhode Island's bill, even if it succeeds,

00:02:02.400 will not be able to do everything that it intends to do because it also will overturn the partial birth

00:02:09.200 abortion ban. But partial birth abortion, which is an absolutely barbaric practice of infanticide,

00:02:18.180 is illegal on the federal level. But the fact is, even though the one bill was shot down, the other

00:02:23.640 bill, even if it were to succeed, can't do everything. It could legalize late-term abortion, but not partial

00:02:28.820 birth abortion. It still shows you. It shows you where the Democrat Party is right now. And it shows you 0.62

00:02:35.000 what they want to do, even if they're not able to do everything that they want to do. And we learn

00:02:40.780 everything we need to know about the Democrat Party based on their, what has now become mainstream

00:02:47.080 support for late-term abortion. Which brings us to Governor Northam in Virginia. Yesterday morning,

00:02:55.860 Northam was on a local radio station down there in Virginia, and he was asked about this bill.

00:03:00.560 Northam is a Democrat. Now, keep in mind, this guy was sold as a moderate Democrat. So this is

00:03:08.660 what passes now for moderate liberalism in the Democrat Party. And here's what this moderate

00:03:17.580 liberal Democrat had to say. There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday when

00:03:23.300 Fairfax County Delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third trimester abortions,

00:03:29.020 as well as other restrictions now in place. And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about

00:03:33.520 whether her bill would permit an abortion, even as a woman is essentially dilating, ready to give 0.90

00:03:39.100 birth. And she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support

00:03:46.680 her measure and explain her answer?

00:03:49.520 Yeah, you know, I wasn't there, Julie, and I certainly can't speak for Delegate Tran. But

00:03:56.260 I will tell you, one, first thing I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by

00:04:03.260 providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are, you know, when we

00:04:12.600 talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, 0.98

00:04:19.260 with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way. And it's done in cases

00:04:25.560 where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular

00:04:32.140 example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be

00:04:38.480 delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the

00:04:44.920 mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. 0.80

00:04:51.080 So I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again, we want the government not to be involved

00:04:57.600 in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And

00:05:04.040 this is why, Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman 0.95

00:05:10.160 what she should and shouldn't be doing with her body. And do you think multiple physicians should 0.99

00:05:14.780 have to weigh in as is currently required? She's trying to lift that requirement. 1.00

00:05:19.040 Well, I think it's always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be

00:05:24.480 involved in that decision because these decisions shouldn't be taken lightly. And so, you know,

00:05:29.180 I would certainly support more than one provider.

00:05:31.900 Now, so yes, he's advocating infanticide. We'll get to that in a minute. But notice

00:05:36.580 notice how the interviewer does not challenge him at all. I mean, you're an interviewer and your

00:05:43.480 interviewee is just proposed killing live infants. And we don't even get a, wait, what? Like we don't

00:05:52.680 even get that much. I would be happy just with that. Just one follow-up of it doesn't even need to be

00:05:58.520 very specific. Just the follow-up could be, uh, what? So you want to kill infants. That's,

00:06:08.420 that's all the follow-up. We don't even get that. She, you see the expression on her face. She's just

00:06:12.320 going with it. She's just nodding her head. You know, she's doing this the whole time. Just like,

00:06:16.640 man, okay, no follow-up. It's almost impressive at this point, how disgraceful the media manages to be

00:06:24.700 in every situation. And just like instinctively, it's just instinct, just a visceral reaction. Now

00:06:31.260 they know they can go to the most disgraceful reaction possible every single time. Um, meanwhile,

00:06:37.880 if, again, if the media had, had any self-respect and if it was at all interested in doing its job,

00:06:45.640 then as this story was going viral yesterday of the governor of Virginia advocating infanticide,

00:06:52.300 every single Democrat who has so far announced their candidacy for 2020 would have been asked

00:06:59.160 by the media, do you agree with governor Northam about, um, about killing infants after they'd been

00:07:05.700 born? They all would have been asked just like every time Donald Trump says anything that shocks

00:07:12.160 people, every Republican, every, every Republican on the national stage, every Republican who, uh,

00:07:19.080 people care about that. They're all asked immediately. What do you think about this?

00:07:23.500 Do you agree with him? But of course you don't get that the same thing with, uh, with the Democrats.

00:07:29.820 In fact, forget about Northam for a minute and, and his advocacy for killing infants after they've

00:07:35.160 been born. New York legalized late term abortion last week. It was a big story. So every single

00:07:42.420 Democrat should have been asked, do you agree with this? Are, are you in favor of killing 0.97

00:07:47.960 babies in the third trimester, even though they could survive outside of the womb and you could 1.00

00:07:51.520 easily just, they have to be delivered anyway. So you could just don't, you know, they weren't

00:07:57.080 asked like, Hey, um, you have a baby and in the third trimester, the mother wants to end the 0.87

00:08:05.400 pregnancy. The baby has to come out one way or another. We could kill the baby first and then take 0.99

00:08:10.820 him out, or we could just take him out without killing him. Do you think that it's okay to, to do the 1.00

00:08:15.860 first thing where you take that extra step of killing the baby? Every Democrat should be asked 0.97

00:08:20.240 that question, but they're not asked. In fact, just to give you an idea of how the national media

00:08:24.940 is covering this story. Let me read a little bit from the Washington post article on this,

00:08:31.500 on the story about Northam, the posts, uh, the title of the article is failed abortion bill draws GOP

00:08:38.580 outrage against, um, Virginia governor Northam democratic legislators. So this is the meme,

00:08:44.820 but it's true. This is always how it goes. Every time a Democrat says anything or does anything

00:08:50.380 outrageous and horrible and disgusting, the story for the media is always Republicans pounce.

00:08:58.760 Republicans are outraged. Conservatives exploiting. That's always the, that's always the story for 0.87

00:09:04.120 them. It's not the thing that was said or done. It's how conservatives reacted to it. So they just,

00:09:09.600 let me read a couple of paragraphs from this article because it just shows you so perfectly,

00:09:13.580 uh, how our media deals with, with this issue. It says president Trump, Republican lawmakers in

00:09:19.800 Virginia and conservatives across the country attacked governor Ralph Northam and other state

00:09:24.580 Democrats on Wednesday after they defended a bill that sought to reduce restrictions on late term

00:09:29.340 abortions. So just, so we'll stop right there. The first sentence is it's they're leading off right

00:09:35.680 away. It's with Republicans attacking. That's the story, right? And how this is how they summarize it in

00:09:41.880 the first paragraph. It's, it's not that Republicans are attacking because governor Northam advocated

00:09:48.400 infanticide. It's because he defended a bill that reduced restrictions on late term abortions. That's

00:09:56.320 what we're going to call it now. Killing a baby after he has been delivered is reducing restrictions on 0.95

00:10:02.700 late term abortions. It goes on. The Fuhrer escalated quickly after Republicans circulated a video of 0.89

00:10:09.040 delegate, of delegate Kathy Tran, acknowledging that her bill like current law would allow abortions up

00:10:14.980 to the point of delivery in cases when the mother's life or health was at serious risk. Let's stop right

00:10:19.820 there. Can we get a fact checker on this? Because I've found already, we've got a, we've got a, um,

00:10:27.800 at least an extremely misleading statement, if not an outright lie, because they're saying the abortions

00:10:35.600 would, the law would allow abortions in cases when the mother's life or health was at serious risk. 0.96

00:10:44.040 Well, in this exchange with Kathy Tran that they're talking about, she admits herself that the serious

00:10:51.220 risk to the mother's health could be her mental health. And this could be her mental health or emotional

00:10:56.960 health. And Kathy Tran admits that in the exchange that the Washington Post is talking about right

00:11:03.300 now. But of course, the way that they present it. Now, if you didn't know any better, you had no idea

00:11:08.320 about any of this. You didn't know about this exchange. You hadn't seen it for yourself. You

00:11:12.300 didn't know how these laws worked. And you read that statement. You would think cases where the

00:11:16.940 mother's life or health was at serious risk. And you're thinking physical health. You're thinking

00:11:21.200 life-threatening situations. But that is not what the bill covers. That's not what it talks about.

00:11:27.620 And Kathy Tran herself admitted that. Um, and anyway, I don't even need to go on. You just,

00:11:33.500 you get, you get the idea there. Now, Northam of course has since backtracked and claimed that his

00:11:41.200 comments were taken out of context. And he also went on Twitter yesterday and made himself the victim.

00:11:47.060 This is what he said on Twitter. He said, I have devoted my life to caring for children and any

00:11:52.300 insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting. Yes, we are the shameful and disgusting ones. You 0.97

00:11:59.700 see, it's us because this poor guy, look at this poor guy. He advocated for the infanticide and was

00:12:05.860 prepared to sign a bill that would condemn thousands of babies to death. But his hurt feelings are really

00:12:12.840 the problem here. That's, oh, this, this, this poor, poor man that we would dare be angry after he

00:12:20.060 advocated killing live babies outside of the womb. Just so you know, Northam, we're not insinuating

00:12:28.680 anything. We are straight up accusing you of, of advocating infanticide. That's what we're accusing

00:12:36.100 you of. Not, not insinuating. That's what we're saying because that's what you said. So all we're

00:12:42.780 doing is repeating what you said, which was, which was itself horrible and disgusting. And that's what's

00:12:49.160 happening here. Despite what he's claiming now, his comments are very clear. He's talking about

00:12:54.680 infanticide. In fact, he talks about infanticide in two forms. Um, he's, he is advocating kind of two

00:13:03.120 methods or levels of infanticide. Uh, so, and he goes through it very methodically in the way that

00:13:09.740 he explains it. And that's the only thing that was kind of shocking about, about what he said is

00:13:15.620 that it was so, he was so clear about it. And usually Democrats, it doesn't surprise me to hear

00:13:21.960 a Democrat who has no problem with infanticide. Uh, that's all, all of these pro-abortion Democrats,

00:13:28.320 they really have no problem with it. That's why with Kermit Gosnell, why, why do you think it was

00:13:33.440 that, that the media ignored the Gosnell story and, uh, never really expressed any real outrage

00:13:39.680 about it? This was a guy in the middle of a, of a, of a major American city for 30 years.

00:13:44.840 He had been killing infants outside of the womb, chopping them up, leaving body parts strewn about

00:13:51.740 in the refrigerator and buckets on the side of the room. You know, the, the, the clinic was in,

00:13:56.620 was in shambles and not even sanitizing the equipment ahead of time. Women were dying. 0.99

00:14:02.200 Um, just a, an absolute, an absolute horror show. And Democrats didn't appear to be

00:14:08.740 that upset about it. Why is it? Why is that? Do you think? Because they, they have no problem with

00:14:14.160 it. No matter what they say, when it comes down to it, they really don't have a problem with it.

00:14:18.080 They're fine. It's, it's really fine with them. If the baby comes out and you kill the baby a couple

00:14:24.080 seconds later, you know, because there's really no difference. And that, and they're right about

00:14:28.200 that. There really is no difference. Kill the baby a couple seconds before it comes out, a couple

00:14:31.380 seconds after, you know, what's if I'm okay. Obviously, if I have gotten myself to a place 0.99

00:14:36.760 where I am so soulless and such a psychopath that I'm okay with killing a fully developed infant mere 0.98

00:14:45.580 moments before it comes out of the womb, then obviously I'm also going to be okay with killing 0.99

00:14:49.580 the baby afterwards. So Democrats agree. They've got, they're fine with, they really are fine with 0.99

00:14:55.680 this. Um, the only thing that's unexpected is when they come out and admit it. So that's what he

00:15:02.320 did. Uh, and here's what he talks about. He says the infant comes out of the, of the mother. So now

00:15:09.300 we're dealing with an infant who was separated from the mother. No longer, there's no, there's no

00:15:13.300 more bodily autonomy. This is my body stuff. That's all gone. Now you never really had, it was always

00:15:19.800 gone because that was never your body. We were talking about. It's the body of a child who is

00:15:24.000 not you. This is not your limb. Okay. Uh, but now that the child's out, that is all gone. This is just

00:15:30.740 a child. And what Northam is saying is that the infant will be resuscitated only if the mother wants

00:15:38.220 it. If the mother wants it, we will resuscitate the infant. So they could just let the baby die 0.95

00:15:43.280 right there. And that is infanticide. That's, that's murder. Um, and then he says, even after

00:15:50.500 the resuscitation, there will be a discussion. Okay. The part about having a discussion, that's,

00:15:57.160 that's where he uses a little bit more vague language. So he can always claim that it was taken

00:16:01.180 out of context, even though it wasn't. The first part is not vague at all. He's talking about letting a

00:16:06.200 baby die rather than resuscitate it, which as I said, is murder. Babies have to be resuscitated

00:16:12.120 after they're delivered all the time. Now, fortunately, not in, not in the majority of cases

00:16:16.760 of, um, where there's a birth, but it's, it's not an, it's not a complete, it's not an unheard of

00:16:23.740 thing that a baby will come out and need some sort of immediate medical attention, even resuscitation

00:16:28.760 in more extreme sorts of situations, which is what the hospital is there to do. That's what doctors do.

00:16:36.220 We're not talking about extreme measures. We're not talking about taking a baby out and putting

00:16:41.720 him on life support for the next 15 years. We're not talking about that. We're just talking about,

00:16:45.420 he needs immediate, basic medical care. Uh, do you give it to him or not? Do you just put him there

00:16:53.640 on a table and let him watch him die? Or do you do something basic to save his life? What Northam is

00:16:59.280 saying is, you know, maybe you just put them on the table and let him die. If that's what the mother 1.00

00:17:03.200 wants, just let him die. That's all. Which is morally equivalent and identical. In fact, 1.00

00:17:09.580 to if you're sitting at the, at the dining room table, having dinner and your four-year-old child

00:17:15.120 starts choking to death on a piece of broccoli. And so you just, and someone tries to get up and to

00:17:20.660 save him and give him Heimlich or say, no, no, no, no, no. Just sit there. Let's let this play out.

00:17:25.900 And then you just sit there and watch your child choke to death on broccoli. Just sit there like

00:17:30.560 this, watching him die. Exact same thing. Now, any parent, any monstrous dirt bag who would do that

00:17:39.480 in the case of the, uh, of the four-year-old child choking, that person would go to prison

00:17:44.420 at the very least for manslaughter, if not for murder of some degree. So it's the exact same thing,

00:17:52.360 but Northam doesn't stop there because he says, okay, if the mother wants it, you resuscitate it.

00:17:57.420 And then a discussion ensues. Well, he can always claim, well, I just said discussion. I didn't say

00:18:05.820 what they'd be talking about. Okay. Well, what's the discussion about Northam? Are they going to,

00:18:09.520 are they having a discussion about, uh, about the football game last night? Are they having a

00:18:13.440 discussion about what the name they're going to name the child? Is that, is that what you meant by

00:18:17.140 discussion? No. See, everyone knows. And you know that what you meant by discussion is it's

00:18:22.440 going to be a discussion about whether or not they're going to kill that child because that is

00:18:27.220 you want it. You're claiming it's taken out of context. The context of this conversation is

00:18:31.680 abortion. That's what we're talking about is killing kids. That was the context of the discussion 0.98

00:18:37.620 with the interviewer. So the discussion that you're referring to is whether or not we're going to kill

00:18:44.140 the child. Uh, in summary, the Democrat party is overrun with infanticidal, bloodthirsty lunatics. 1.00

00:18:59.840 And I don't say that as an insult. Uh, I, I, I believe I agree with other people who would say that 0.98

00:19:08.480 we live in very divided times. And so we have to be careful about the rhetoric we use. And it's very

00:19:15.080 important to not use overheated rhetoric and to not engage in personal attacks, personal insult.

00:19:20.640 And I agree with that. So when I say, when I call these Democrats, bloodthirsty infanticidal lunatics, 0.98

00:19:27.220 uh, that's just a description of what they are. I, I, and it's the most generous description I can 0.98

00:19:33.740 really come up with. That's the best I can do. I'm being very generous with that because

00:19:38.420 to call them lunatics really kind of lets them off the hook. And I believe in, in seeing the

00:19:42.820 absolute best in people. I am an optimist. You know that about me. So I'm being very optimistic

00:19:48.440 when I say that all these Democrats advocating, um, infanticide and late-term abortion, which is

00:19:53.000 infanticide itself as well. Uh, I, I'm being very optimistic when I say that they're just lunatics as 0.99

00:19:59.080 in they don't know any better when I think we all actually know that that's not even true, 0.99

00:20:03.720 that they're worse than lunatics. Whatever, whatever label you want to put on it, there's, 0.95

00:20:09.720 there's, there's no, there's no happy label to put on it. Um, this is a dark and disgusting thing. 0.76

00:20:17.960 And we are at the point now where the Democrat party and you know, the left, they have, they have

00:20:23.780 long since abandoned any notion of safe, legal, and rare. That used to be the mantra, safe, legal,

00:20:31.060 rare. Right. And those pro-lifers who had a little bit of foresight said, even then, look,

00:20:39.580 you can't believe them on that. They don't really care. They don't care about safe and rare. Yeah.

00:20:44.800 They want legal. That's true, but safe and rare. That's just, it's just what they're claiming.

00:20:49.140 It's not really what they want. And now we're at the point where, yep, they have just punted,

00:20:56.980 uh, on the rare part of it. They don't care about rare anymore.

00:21:03.420 The people like to claim that, uh, slippery slope arguments are fallacies,

00:21:12.180 but the really incredible thing is that pretty much every slippery slope argument that conservatives

00:21:20.420 have made about liberals over the last 50 years have all come to fruition. They have all come true.

00:21:27.920 All of them.

00:21:31.360 By the way, the left continues to, to, to lie and claim that late-term abortions only happen in cases

00:21:37.400 where the woman's life is at risk. And I've already discussed this plenty. Um, and I've explained why

00:21:43.060 it's simply false. It is absurd. Late-term abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life ever. Uh,

00:21:49.160 it may be unnecessary to end a pregnancy early, but you don't need to kill the baby before you

00:21:54.100 take it out. But you don't have to take it from me. Uh, Dr. Omar Hamada had this to say on Facebook

00:21:59.120 last week. He says, I want to clear something up so that there's absolutely no doubt. I am a board

00:22:04.020 certified OBGYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There is not a single fetal or maternal condition

00:22:10.440 that requires third trimester abortion. Not one delivery. Yes. Abortion. No, there is absolutely

00:22:16.640 no medical reason to kill a near-term or term infant for any reason. So there you go.

00:22:25.280 And guess who agrees? The Guttmacher Institute. This is a research institute that is radically left,

00:22:32.580 radically pro-abortion. This is, the liberals use, uh, the Guttmacher Institute all the time

00:22:38.140 to make whatever abortion loving point they're trying to make. Well, Guttmacher has looked into

00:22:43.220 this question. Um, several times they've looked into it and they have found that it is very, very,

00:22:50.020 very rarely the case that health is even cited as a reason for a late-term abortion. Uh, I think that

00:22:57.880 they've said it was, it was cited in like two or 3% of all cases. They did a report back in 2013 that

00:23:03.720 goes into more details. Um, let me read directly from the report. This, these are the results of the

00:23:09.900 Guttmacher Institute. Again, a pro-abortion research institute, a research institute that,

00:23:14.540 that liberals have already said is very credible. They use it all the time. Okay. So this is what

00:23:19.700 Guttmacher has to say. Women aged 20 to 24 were more likely than those aged 25 to 34 to have a later

00:23:26.400 abortion and women and later abortion. They're talking 20, 20 weeks or later. Um, and women who

00:23:32.340 discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks gestation were less likely than others to do so.

00:23:36.360 Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays, which compounded other delays in receiving

00:23:42.460 care. Um, most women seeking. Now here's, here's the part. Here's the important part. 0.99

00:23:49.060 Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles. Here they are.

00:23:56.300 They were raising children alone. They were depressed or using illicit substances.

00:24:02.140 They were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence.

00:24:07.160 They had trouble deciding and then had access problems or, uh, they were young and nulli,

00:24:13.700 nulliparous. Now that last cat, I don't even know how to pronounce that. Nulliparous,

00:24:17.900 I think is how you pronounce it. I had to look that term up. I confess. I never heard that term

00:24:22.040 before. It apparently means women who've never given birth before. Um, and it could be they'd never

00:24:27.020 given birth because they just didn't want to give birth or they had stillbirths, miscarriages in the

00:24:32.740 past. Um, it does not necessarily mean from what I read women who currently have life-threatening

00:24:38.580 pregnancies. Okay. So those are your five categories and it's, it's got nothing to do with health,

00:24:45.940 saving the mother's life. According to the Guttmacher Institute, these are women who

00:24:49.220 just made the, basically these are lifestyle choices. They just, for whatever reason,

00:24:54.240 they didn't think it fit into their lifestyle. And why did they wait so long? Well, maybe because

00:24:58.820 they had some logistical problems or they just couldn't make up their mind or things went bad

00:25:03.440 in their relationship, whatever that that's why they ended up waiting this long. So all this stuff

00:25:07.920 about, well, a woman's not just going to go in there 28 weeks and get an abortion, uh, unless there's 0.89

00:25:12.920 a serious medical problem, not the case. That's the case. According to Guttmacher in a small,

00:25:19.320 small fraction of instances. All right. Uh, moving on. Here's a story. I've been wanting to talk about

00:25:28.180 this for a few days, but, um, here's a story that was in the daily wire a few days ago. It says last

00:25:34.380 week, the Baltimore city school board unanimously decided against allowing police officers to carry

00:25:40.820 firearms in public school legislation to overturn the prohibition on firearms was sponsored

00:25:46.560 the Maryland general general assembly. Um, but then later withdrawn because of the lack of support

00:25:52.880 from the city school board. The final vote was 10 to zero. Uh, the current law only permits the

00:25:59.380 roughly 90 Baltimore school city police officers to carry their weapons when school is not in session

00:26:04.200 and requires them to lock up the firearms while inside schools. Uh, and the article goes on from

00:26:10.720 there. You can go read it on the daily wire to get more information about this. I mean, this is just

00:26:14.580 obviously total madness that you won't allow police officers to carry. Well, first of all, then what

00:26:22.360 are they there for? And if you don't trust your police officers with guns in school, then, uh,

00:26:33.300 then what even is, is the point if, if there is any police officer on the force right now in Baltimore city

00:26:40.480 who you don't trust with a gun around kids, then that's a guy that should not be a police officer.

00:26:47.120 Okay. So that's an easy way to solve that problem.

00:26:50.600 But if you don't trust any of them with guns, then that means that you are just a paranoid and

00:26:56.000 delusional. There is no, the idea that you're going to disarm police officers and then send them into

00:27:03.620 the school is just, okay. And then, so then the school, the school shooter comes in, what's the

00:27:11.820 police officer going to do? Make himself a human shield. This is like, this is like, you might as

00:27:17.300 well pass a law saying that, um, when firefighters in Baltimore are responding to a fire, they have to

00:27:23.940 leave their hoses at home. So you're not allowed to bring any water, any hoses, by the way, you're not,

00:27:29.100 you can't bring any axes or anything either because you might, you might, uh, you know, the hose, I

00:27:33.100 mean, you could, if you spray someone in the face, you could hurt them. You could drown somebody. If

00:27:37.980 you have an ax and you use it incorrectly, you might end up cutting someone's hand off for goodness

00:27:42.660 sake. So yeah, just run in and deal with the fire, but, uh, you know, figure out a way to do it. Maybe

00:27:47.600 smother the fire with your own bodies or something. Absolute madness. Speaking of madness, there was an 0.95

00:27:54.060 article in, um, Arizona central, which is a, we're told part of the USA today network. And, uh, this

00:28:02.900 is someone who is someone wrote an editorial, uh, who someone who has come up with a very interesting

00:28:09.120 reason to be offended. Um, this is what it says. It says a few weeks ago, this is written by, um,

00:28:15.920 Rashad Thomas is the name of the opinion contributor. He says a few weeks ago, I attended a holiday party at

00:28:23.460 a downtown Phoenix restaurant. I walked around to view the photographs on the wall. Then a photograph

00:28:28.380 caught my attention. Friends said it's coal miners at a pub after work. It was a photograph of coal

00:28:34.140 miners with blackened faces. I asked a Latinx rather than Latino Latinx and white woman for their 1.00

00:28:42.220 opinion. They said it looked like coal miners at a pub after work. Then they stepped back frowned and

00:28:47.060 said, it's men in black face. I asked the waitress to speak with a manager. Instead, I spoke with

00:28:53.460 a white restaurant owner. I asked, I explained to him why the photograph was offensive. Evidently,

00:28:58.780 someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before. Yet the photograph remained

00:29:03.220 on the wall. He said he would talk to the other owners and get back to me. While leaving, I asked

00:29:08.500 him, uh, had he spoke with the other owners. He had not spoken with them, but mentioned Google said

00:29:13.320 it's coal miners after work. Who determines what's offensive? For me, the coal miners disappeared and a film 0.51

00:29:21.580 honored for its artistic merit, despite being the most racist propaganda films ever, um, D.W.

00:29:27.560 Griffith's Birth of a Nation surfaces in which white actors appeared in blackface. The white owner 0.95

00:29:33.080 saw coal miners in the photograph. Therefore, it was not offensive. Okay. Uh, first of all, this is just

00:29:40.180 terribly written. I know it's Arizona central, but still you think they'd have better, you think they'd

00:29:47.340 have higher standards. It's just a terribly written article, but that's beside the point. I mean, how

00:29:52.020 many times did he repeat in the first few paragraphs? They said it's coal miners. They said

00:29:58.040 it's coal miners. We get it. Everyone thinks it's coal miners except for you. So what you see here,

00:30:03.980 this is an example. Uh, it's hilarious, which is one reason why I'm pointing it out. But you know,

00:30:10.060 the first thing that jumps out at you is that, okay, this is another overly sensitive leftist who's

00:30:14.320 looking for reasons to be offended and who apparently lives his life looking for reasons.

00:30:18.300 And this is, this is the, this is the, the food that sustains him is finding outrage and offense.

00:30:24.240 And that is, yeah, that's part of it. That's definitely part of the story here. The other part

00:30:28.340 of the story though, is this is relativism. And he says it himself. He's like, yeah, everybody around

00:30:33.940 me sees that this is just coal miners after work, but I see it differently. You know, I draw these

00:30:40.820 crazy connections between this and blackface and I remembered a movie and these and that and this.

00:30:45.280 And, um, so that's how I see it. And I couldn't possibly be wrong. There's no way that I'm wrong.

00:30:53.080 So I see it this way. So, so how I see it must be how it actually is.

00:30:59.560 My impressions must therefore be legitimate because it's my impression. It's my opinion.

00:31:04.540 And if I find it offensive, you see, there's even this confusion. You can almost sense some

00:31:11.600 confusion in his voice. Like he can't understand. Well, I told everyone it offended me yet. They

00:31:17.200 didn't take it down. I don't understand it. Well, how could you not take it? I said that it offended

00:31:21.960 me. What's the problem? Where's the disconnect guys? I just said I'm offended by that.

00:31:25.680 And this is what you get when you have someone who is, or people, the leftists who are obsessed

00:31:35.140 with finding offense all the time. And then at the same time, they're also relativists who don't

00:31:38.700 believe in objective truth. Um, that's how you end up with a situation like this, where they're just

00:31:43.940 finding offense everywhere they go. Finally, let's quickly check a few emails. You can email the show,

00:31:49.640 um, at mattwallshow at gmail.com. From Ryan, he says, hi, Matt, I've noticed that you, you have

00:31:56.680 tattoos. Two questions. What are they? Also, how do you justify tattoos given that the Bible prohibits

00:32:02.360 them? I've gotten an email like this about 15 times this week, so I figured I might as well just

00:32:06.560 answer it. Um, I have, uh, I do have two, um, tattoos. That's one that's called a Cairo, which is a

00:32:12.760 Christogram formed from the first two letters of Christ in Greek. It's a very ancient Christian symbol,

00:32:17.400 uh, used by Constantine. I, I like it because of its ancient tradition. Also, it's got kind of a

00:32:22.580 militant flavor and history to it. And I think that Christianity needs, um, that sort of militant 0.92

00:32:27.740 spirit, uh, a warrior spirit, especially in these times. That's why I like it. I also have a, uh, a

00:32:32.980 Celtic anchor cross right here with, um, the phrase salvation from the cross in Latin, which is the first

00:32:39.960 tattoo I got. As far as how I justify it, well, fortunately, I'm not bound by the ceremonial laws of the

00:32:45.560 Old Testament, uh, especially a law that was given in the case of tattoos to prohibit people from

00:32:50.680 tattooing pagan symbols on themselves or to, of preventing them from tattooing as part of a pagan

00:32:57.040 ritual. So this is not a pagan ritual. It's not a pagan symbol. Um, and those laws don't bind us

00:33:02.700 anymore. Moral laws do, but not the ceremonial law. So the, the, the prohibitions on tattoos that goes in

00:33:08.600 the same camp as don't wear mixed fiber. Don't, don't eat pork and all that kind of stuff. Um,

00:33:14.660 so it's pretty easy for me to see the distinction there, which, but just because it's, we're not

00:33:21.700 bound by that prohibition, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily advisable to go and get a tattoo.

00:33:26.140 That's up to personal preferences. Um, and, uh, and my preference was to get one. So that's,

00:33:33.000 that's all. If someone doesn't like tattoos, that's, that's perfectly fine. But this is the

00:33:40.720 one thing that kind of frustrates me. There, there are some Christians say, well, you can't get

00:33:43.600 tattoos, you can't drink, you gotta, and all this kind of stuff. Um, and that's fine. Again,

00:33:48.680 if that's your personal preference, if that's how you choose to live perfectly fine, that's great.

00:33:52.500 That's awesome. Good for you. I respect it. But Christianity itself does not actually require

00:33:59.480 that. Christianity is not actually a puritanical religion. Uh, Christianity has the impression

00:34:07.560 of being very close-minded, very narrow, very restrictive. And it is closed off from sin,

00:34:15.060 closed off from falsehood. It does have in effect what we would call restrictions, but it is not how

00:34:21.980 it is painted as this just boring, bland thing. In fact, Christianity is, is, allows for all

00:34:32.460 different types of approaches and, and opinions and everything. And if you want to drink and be

00:34:40.260 merry, if you want to get a tattoo, go ahead. You can, you can do that. If your conscience tells you

00:34:45.120 not to, then don't. Um, let's see. James says under the green new deal, the federal government

00:34:52.740 would control all energy production and with Medicare for all, it would control all access 0.90

00:34:57.080 to healthcare. In your eyes, is there anything tyrannical about a government that has this much

00:35:02.300 power? What about unconstitutional? What will be next? Total takeover of education, making public

00:35:07.880 school mandatory. Love the show. Thanks, James. My answer is yes, yes. And yes. Uh, the left is trying

00:35:14.040 to move us to a place where the government controls literally everything. Yes, of course it is tyranny.

00:35:18.600 It would also be the end of the United States and the end of the American dream and the failure of 0.52

00:35:22.540 the American experiment. Um, if our country falls into tyranny less than 300 years after it was founded,

00:35:29.600 which is the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. I mean, there are countries around today

00:35:35.180 that have been around for thousands of years. We've, we've, we've got less than 300 years, which is just,

00:35:39.960 we're still basically, well, maybe not in our infancy as a nation, but we're in our

00:35:44.020 adolescence at most as a nation. Um, if at this point, you know, the left completely takes over

00:35:50.600 and everything is taken over by the government, we have no more freedom or liberty. Then that means

00:35:54.200 America just failed. It was a wonderful and beautiful experiment, which was great while it

00:35:59.500 lasted, but it was a failed experiment in that case. And so that's, that's what we're fighting

00:36:03.300 for. It just puts it into context, what we're fighting for. Um, though, again, I think it's worth

00:36:07.800 noting that the irony here that leftists, they want the government to control everything, even while

00:36:12.500 insisting that Donald Trump is Hitler. And for some reason they don't see the problem there.

00:36:17.860 Right. Finally from Jess, she says, hi, Matt, what's your take on Howard Schultz being asked

00:36:24.940 about the price of Cheerios? Thank you for bringing that up, Jess. Uh, yes, Howard Schultz,

00:36:30.700 the billionaire, former CEO of Starbucks running for president or consider running for president as

00:36:35.420 an independent is not popular with the left. The left hates the guy. They hate him because

00:36:39.500 they think that he's going to, um, steal votes. You know, he's going to siphon off moderate liberal

00:36:44.820 voters, uh, thus reelecting Trump. They also hate him because he's a billionaire. Uh, this is a guy

00:36:53.540 who came up from nothing. He apparently, I learned this yesterday, apparently he lived as a kid in a,

00:36:59.700 in a housing project. And then eventually he opens a little tiny coffee shop in Seattle and he builds

00:37:06.320 that into an empire and becomes a billionaire. This, this is the American dream. This is not

00:37:13.800 someone who inherited millions from his family, who was born into wealth and success. This is really a

00:37:20.500 rags to riches story. And if we're at a point in our country where we can't admire and respect that,

00:37:28.100 then I don't know what's left. I don't even know what we're doing anymore.

00:37:31.820 So he goes on morning Joe and they ask him if he knows about, you know, how much the box of Cheerios 1.00

00:37:38.000 costs, which is such a stupid gotcha question. Obviously the reason he's being asked is they're 0.99

00:37:43.220 trying to paint him as out of touch. Now keep in mind. Uh, so the media is, they're focused on

00:37:49.860 whether or not Howard Schultz knows the price of a box of brand name cereal, even while the governor

00:37:56.240 of Virginia is advocating infanticide. So you've got the governor of Virginia saying, let's kill babies 0.99

00:38:00.900 out of the womb. The media ignores that. And they're, and they're saying, well, what about 1.00

00:38:04.920 Howard Schultz? He doesn't know how much Cheerios cost, but who cares? You know what? I don't know

00:38:12.220 how much a box of Cheerios costs. I have no idea. And it's not big. I'm not a billionaire. It's

00:38:17.220 because it's for a few reasons. Number one, I don't eat Cheerios because, uh, because I'm a,

00:38:21.960 I'm a grownup. Number two, I'm a man. And as a man, even though I've gone grocery shopping plenty

00:38:28.100 of times, I really, I have no idea how much anything costs. So a box of Cheerios, I, if you

00:38:33.060 told me a box of Cheerios costs $4, I would believe you. If you told me it costs 15, I'd believe you

00:38:37.860 there too. I have no idea. Uh, when I go grocery shopping, I just, I walk down the aisle. I just

00:38:44.340 pick things out based on site. It's just, it's really more of a based on gut instinct type of

00:38:49.880 thing. And also based on just how hungry I am. And then, uh, and then I go and I take it to the

00:38:56.300 checkout and I'm always surprised by what the price is. So it's kind of a fun game. Um,

00:39:01.640 so that's all it means absolutely nothing. And if, uh, if Howard Schultz, um, doesn't know how much

00:39:11.340 Cheerios cost because he's eating, you know, a fancy eggs, Benedict breakfast prepared by his

00:39:20.180 personal chef every morning, then you know what? Good for him. That's awesome. I wish I had a

00:39:26.460 personal chef making me breakfast. If I could afford a personal chef making me breakfast every

00:39:30.960 morning, I would definitely pay for one. That would be great. So good for him. All right,

00:39:35.880 we'll leave it there. Thanks everybody for watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.

00:39:38.860 Michael Knowles here, host of the Michael Knowles show. As Democrats embrace fourth trimester abortion,

00:39:50.600 they make the same mistake Republicans have made on abortion in reverse. We will analyze the

00:39:55.140 undocumented infants, then deep fakes, gene editing, Cheerios in the mailbag. Check it out at dailywire.com.

The Matt Walsh Show - January 31, 2019

Ep. 188 - Democrats Go Full Infanticide

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript