The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 218 - Now Is Not The Time To Mock ＂Thoughts And Prayers＂

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Wall Show, a horrific attack against mosques in New Zealand.

00:00:04.600 We will talk about the latest news surrounding the attack.

00:00:08.420 I will also try to dispel certain false narratives that have already been constructed about the attack, as per usual.

00:00:15.400 And I also want to talk about why now is definitely the wrong time to be mocking thoughts and prayers, as some people have started to do.

00:00:26.220 So we'll talk about all that.

00:00:27.240 We'll also discuss some other news of the day, including Beto's bid for the presidency.

00:00:31.800 And I want to explain why he could be a formidable challenge for Donald Trump.

00:00:36.520 So all of that today on the Matt Wall Show.

00:00:41.880 All right. It is. Well, it's not a good day.

00:00:44.920 Another day of tragedy.

00:00:47.760 We have so many of them.

00:00:51.100 It feels like, as you've heard, I'm sure at this point there was an attack on a mosque,

00:00:56.620 two mosques in New Zealand yesterday, 49 people dead as of the last time I checked.

00:01:05.180 The killer filmed himself, live streamed the attack.

00:01:10.840 And that video was unfortunately everywhere across almost every platform you can think of within a very short amount of time.

00:01:19.600 It just was everywhere.

00:01:21.820 That's that's the way things work now.

00:01:24.000 The first thing we should acknowledge here simply is the human toll of an attack like this, the loss of human life.

00:01:36.060 And we should extend our prayers for those who have been lost and for their families.

00:01:41.180 And I think so often we forget to do that part because we jump right into the controversy and the arguments and everything.

00:01:52.620 Anyone who is religious, whatever your religion happens to be, if you're religious, then you can imagine.

00:02:01.520 And you probably have imagined.

00:02:06.120 Because unfortunately, we see this sort of thing so often that, you know, whatever your religion is, I know this is something that I think about every time I go to church.

00:02:16.180 It always crosses my mind about, you know, is this going to be the time when someone walks in here with a gun?

00:02:22.800 Where are the exits and that kind of thing?

00:02:24.400 And it's it's not crazy to think that way.

00:02:30.720 So you can you can imagine the special horror of something like this happening at a house of worship.

00:02:36.440 And we've seen, as I said, over the past year, we've seen some of the worst mass shootings in history at houses of worship.

00:02:43.820 Just over the last year, we've had New Zealand, Pittsburgh, Sutherland Springs and Texas, the church shooting.

00:02:50.420 Almost 90 people killed between just those three attacks.

00:02:56.340 Charleston, too, was that was a few years ago.

00:03:00.040 You know, we sort of reflexively call these mass killers cowards. 0.85

00:03:06.480 Right. Every time there's any kind of mass killing, we say, oh, that person was a coward. 0.98

00:03:11.120 Almost to the point where the word ceases to have any meaning because it is so reflexive.

00:03:15.700 And in fact, the truth is that just even if it makes us feel better to assume that every evil person is a coward, that's actually not the case.

00:03:26.300 Just because someone's an evil person doesn't make them a coward.

00:03:30.780 But to attack a house of worship.

00:03:34.360 I mean, that truly is the height of cowardice.

00:03:37.360 So when I call this guy a coward, it is not just reflexive.

00:03:40.860 And I'm not just saying it because he did a terrible thing. 0.93

00:03:44.260 It really is the height of cowardice. 0.86

00:03:46.380 The only thing more cowardly is something like Sandy Hook, where you're going and killing elementary schoolers.

00:03:51.520 But it was something like this.

00:03:52.720 You're going after people who, you know, or you think will not be armed.

00:03:58.080 Now, from the reports that I've read, at the second mosque attack, someone did return fire, thank God, and probably saved many lives in doing so. 0.99

00:04:08.900 But these, you know, these areas are chosen because the thought is that the people there will be completely vulnerable and not only unarmed, but they're not going to be thinking about this.

00:04:29.220 They're going to be focused on prayer and be in a completely sort of docile kind of state.

00:04:36.040 And that's why these, that's why a house of worship is chosen. 0.98

00:04:39.800 It's just, on top of being evil and disgusting and all of that, it is just so cowardly as well. 0.99

00:04:50.000 Now, speaking of this scumbag, and I thought about it before I turned the camera on, I was thinking about how exactly to go about this because it's a difficult thing. 0.99

00:05:03.700 Um, I believe that it is important to starve these mass killers of the attention that they so desperately crave. 0.99

00:05:11.040 And especially this guy clearly wanted attention.

00:05:15.380 Uh, and so on one hand, you don't want to give it to him.

00:05:18.880 Right.

00:05:19.100 But I also think that the truth is important and it's important to combat false narratives.

00:05:26.100 We can't just allow falsehood to spread.

00:05:30.440 And I feel, especially in my, if my position is worth anything, if I'm supposed to be doing anything with this platform, it's, I'm supposed to be speaking the truth.

00:05:39.240 Right.

00:05:39.520 So there have been a lot of false narratives cropping up around this particular attack.

00:05:45.280 People have been, people have been blaming certain right-wing personalities like Candace Owens. 1.00

00:05:50.280 Uh, they've been blaming certain YouTubers.

00:05:53.660 Uh, they blamed Donald Trump.

00:05:56.900 Um, they blamed, you know, uh, so on and so forth.

00:06:01.600 Claiming that the killer was inspired by these people. 0.99

00:06:04.160 Um, well, I did go and read part of this scumbag's manifesto. 0.99

00:06:12.860 And I hate to even call it a manifesto. 0.99

00:06:14.880 That makes it sound more significant than it really is.

00:06:19.780 It's just ramblings is all it is.

00:06:22.380 And he published 70 some pages of ramblings, uh, before his attack.

00:06:28.180 Now I didn't read the whole thing.

00:06:29.520 I, there's no way I could possibly do that.

00:06:31.220 But I read enough and I hate that I had to read it at all, but I read enough just to tell you this,

00:06:39.720 that all of the narratives you're seeing surrounding this attack are false.

00:06:45.820 In fact, here's the important point. 0.99

00:06:48.300 The scumbag wanted to fuel false narratives. 0.99

00:06:52.820 And he basically said as much. 1.00

00:06:55.020 His, his manifesto is filled with sarcasm and obvious trolling.

00:07:02.340 This is essentially like an internet troll that is, uh, coming to the real world.

00:07:08.420 And, and, uh, he mentions well-known names, hot button issues, and so on,

00:07:15.620 all because he wants attention and controversy.

00:07:17.840 At one point he said that he, you know, he used a gun because he wanted to, he wanted

00:07:22.200 to spark debate in, in the United States about, about guns and so on. 0.99

00:07:26.540 And so he's a murderous, a murderous, nihilistic coward. 1.00

00:07:31.060 And that's all. 1.00

00:07:32.960 And he's clearly also legitimately racist. 0.99

00:07:35.880 He hates Muslims, calls them invaders. 1.00

00:07:38.900 Um, so obviously we, we throw racist in there, a racist, murderous, nihilistic coward. 1.00

00:07:46.020 But the nihilistic part is very important as well. 0.97

00:07:48.660 The rest, everything else that you're going to hear about his political views, his affiliations,

00:07:55.600 et cetera, et cetera, much of it is, is simply false.

00:08:00.620 And the important thing to realize is that reading his diatribe makes it clear.

00:08:06.700 And I don't recommend reading it, by the way.

00:08:08.660 It's, I read it so that you didn't have to, you know, I've, I've told you everything you

00:08:11.960 need to know about it.

00:08:12.740 Um, but reading it makes it clear, inescapably clear.

00:08:18.660 That he was a nihilist with no clear political agenda and with the desire to stir up division

00:08:24.220 and discord and to bring attention to himself.

00:08:27.440 Um, I'll just give you one example.

00:08:29.380 He, he, he says in succeeding sentences, he says first that he supports Donald Trump as

00:08:35.680 a symbol, whatever that means.

00:08:38.700 And then he also says he does not support Donald Trump as a leader or a policymaker.

00:08:43.100 So he's saying he supports Trump and he doesn't support Trump.

00:08:46.760 Why is he saying that?

00:08:47.900 Um, so that people can latch onto whichever angle they want, um, and then argue with each

00:08:55.940 other.

00:08:56.740 So that if you're a Trump supporter, you can say, oh, see, he didn't, he doesn't like

00:08:59.900 Trump.

00:09:00.260 So this is the fault of Trump haters.

00:09:02.040 And if you, if you hate Trump, you can say, oh, he likes Trump.

00:09:04.440 See, it's the fault of people who like Trump. 0.99

00:09:05.980 Clearly that is the strategy that this scumbag was going with very obvious. 0.99

00:09:13.400 And the media is willingly playing into it. 0.99

00:09:16.880 I mean, I've seen this all over the media, all over social media as well.

00:09:21.280 People saying, oh, he was a Trump supporter, this and that. 0.99

00:09:25.520 And I hate talking about what this scumbag believed and what he wrote. 0.98

00:09:34.220 But it's important that the truth be known. 0.98

00:09:36.540 And I don't want, I don't think we should be, I don't want you to be manipulated.

00:09:39.980 So I'll leave that there.

00:09:43.220 Uh, we'll put that to the side.

00:09:45.140 Just wanted to make the record clear.

00:09:47.680 One other thing I wanted to say, uh, is that it's pretty standard procedure now, as you know,

00:09:52.320 after these attacks to hear people mocking thoughts and prayers, right?

00:09:56.760 That phrase.

00:09:58.100 And the usual suspects are at it again with this thing.

00:10:01.260 Every time there are people say, oh, your thoughts and prayers don't do anything.

00:10:06.220 Unsurprisingly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got in on the action. 1.00

00:10:09.600 This is what she tweeted.

00:10:10.600 She says, um, at first I thought of saying, imagine being told your house of faith isn't

00:10:15.240 safe anymore, but I couldn't say imagine because of Charleston, Pittsburgh, Sutherland Springs.

00:10:21.060 What good are your thoughts and prayers when they don't even keep the pews safe?

00:10:27.440 Uh, and then she goes on later and she says, thoughts and prayers is referenced to the NRA's

00:10:32.620 phrase used to deflect conversation away from policy change during tragedies, not directed

00:10:37.720 at the prime minister of, uh, of New Zealand, who I greatly admire.

00:10:40.980 So to call this thoughtless and insensitive would be a massive understatement.

00:10:50.300 First of all, thoughts and prayers is an, is the NRA's phrase.

00:10:54.900 What does that even mean?

00:10:56.380 Does she really think that the NRA invented thoughts and prayers?

00:11:01.420 Like this is, it's a, it's a, it's a, some sort of conspiracy that they came up with it. 1.00

00:11:06.120 No, she's not that stupid. 0.99

00:11:09.540 Despite what you might think, this is just opportunism. 1.00

00:11:12.480 She's using the bodies of 49 dead people to bludgeon her political opponents. 1.00

00:11:16.600 As, uh, as of thoughts and, as for thoughts and prayers, the fact is this, even if you don't

00:11:22.800 believe in the power of prayer, the victims clearly did, their families did, they died in

00:11:31.680 prayer, literally.

00:11:35.020 So now is not the time for the criticism of prayer.

00:11:38.240 And I remember this every time you have a shooting at a house of worship, the same thing

00:11:43.320 happens. I remember it with Sutherland Springs and the, uh, I think it was 20, 25 or 26 people

00:11:50.760 who were killed, uh, shot in cold blood point blank range at a, at a church in, in, uh, in Texas,

00:11:56.520 you know, about a year ago.

00:11:58.860 And it was the same thing.

00:12:00.180 People say, Oh, you know, so you think thoughts and prayers do that?

00:12:02.600 Well, the thoughts and prayers couldn't even keep the killer out of the church.

00:12:04.860 Leaving aside how the people who say that clearly don't understand what prayer is and what the

00:12:17.160 faithful believe prayer to be. We don't, we don't think of prayer as some sort of magical incantation

00:12:25.080 where if you say these certain words enough times, uh, you know, good things are automatically

00:12:31.560 going to happen, or there's going to be some sort of force field put around you to stop, uh, bad

00:12:36.780 things from happening to you. That's not what we think of prayer that if you don't pray, if you're

00:12:41.880 not religious, maybe that's what you think we think, but that's not it. Prayer is about, uh, it's about

00:12:51.720 union and connection with God first and foremost. That's what it's about. And in fact, uh,

00:13:00.960 not every prayer is even a petition. So when we talk about prayer, we're not talking always about

00:13:10.080 asking for things from God. Sometimes prayer is simply adoration. It's worship of God. Uh,

00:13:18.920 sometimes prayer is, is contemplation, simply thinking about the divine. Sometimes it's a prayer

00:13:25.800 of repentance. Sometimes it's a prayer of thanks, thanksgiving, many different kinds of prayer.

00:13:30.960 And it is not principally about asking for things. And when we, the faithful,

00:13:36.800 when we see terrible things happen to people and to other people of faith, even in a church or a

00:13:43.280 mosque or a synagogue, we're not confused by that. We don't think, well, how could this have happened

00:13:48.420 when they were praying? Because we don't expect prayer to work like that. And we know that terrible

00:13:56.740 things happen in this world. That's why we pray. It's why our faith is so important to us.

00:14:06.380 So you simply, you have a misunderstanding. If you're going around saying this kind of thing,

00:14:10.580 you have a misunderstanding of what faith means, what religious people believe of what prayer is.

00:14:17.560 You have a misunderstanding. But even aside from that, it just is just not the time.

00:14:24.280 Can you have a little bit of sensitivity? These, these people believe this, they, they died

00:14:29.620 in prayer. Can't you have a little bit of sensitivity and leave that just, you know,

00:14:37.180 hold off for a little bit. You can, you can launch into your anti-prayer rant any other time. You've got

00:14:41.720 all the time in the world to complain about prayer and talk about and mock it and say how worthless 1.00

00:14:46.900 and stupid it is. You've got all the time to do that. You don't need to do it right now. 1.00

00:14:51.720 I mean, look, even if you think, even if you think that prayer is pointless and worthless and it does

00:14:58.500 nothing and you're just talking to yourself and there is no God, whatever, even if you think that,

00:15:02.680 even if that's your belief. Okay. Well then, then from your perspective, then people pray at times like

00:15:11.220 this to make themselves feel better and so that they can commune with each other. And it is so

00:15:18.520 fine. What does that bother you? Just, just let them do that. Then I don't even understand. Even

00:15:23.760 if I were to adopt your perspective, I was still not, I wouldn't be out there after a mass shooting

00:15:30.600 say, Oh, don't, don't pray. What do you care? If it's just something people do to make themselves 0.84

00:15:34.720 feel better, then fine. What does that bother you? Why do you need to, who cares? Why do you

00:15:41.200 care? What happened to live and let live? What about what happened to letting people live 0.61

00:15:47.540 their lifestyle? You don't have to understand it. You don't have to agree. You could think

00:15:51.540 it's stupid. It doesn't matter. All right. Um, I had a couple of things I wanted to talk 1.00

00:15:57.680 about today. Uh, less important things, less serious and tragic things to talk about. So

00:16:03.680 I'm going to move on to a couple of those. First of all, Beto O'Rourke announced his candidacy

00:16:09.640 for president yesterday. Uh, I don't have a lot to offer on this as I find news about

00:16:14.680 political campaigns to be exceedingly boring, but I will say one thing about Beto O'Rourke.

00:16:20.860 Uh, I disagree obviously with his views. Uh, not only do I disagree with his views, I think

00:16:25.520 that his shtick is, is phony in many ways, but I also think that conservatives make a mistake

00:16:32.000 when they take him too lightly. He is, uh, he is a formidable political talent and he would be a

00:16:39.800 formidable challenge for Trump. Now, fortunately for Trump, I don't think that he's going to get

00:16:44.500 the nomination. I think the Democrat party is at a place right now where a guy like Beto O'Rourke,

00:16:49.800 uh, is probably just can't win the nomination. But if he did somehow get the nod, he would be a tough

00:16:57.220 out for Trump, I think for sure. And, and remember Trump has never, this is one of the reasons why

00:17:02.260 it'd be tough for him. Trump has never faced anyone with actual charisma or political talent. So that,

00:17:09.120 that would be a new challenge for Trump. Trump has never faced someone like that. And even outside of

00:17:14.620 the campaign, most of the, uh, feuds that Trump has been in have been with people who are completely

00:17:23.020 devoid of charisma or, or, or, or talent of any kind. Uh, Hillary Clinton, Clinton was like a black 1.00

00:17:30.260 hole for charisma. She was where she just, just everything is just sucked in and obliterated. 0.96

00:17:37.340 Um, so there's just nothing there in terms of, uh, of political talent or charisma. And his number one,

00:17:44.320 number one primary challenger was Ted Cruz, who I liked Ted Cruz, but Ted Cruz is actually listed as an

00:17:52.060 antonym for charismatic. If you look up in a thesaurus, you'll see his name there. So it would

00:17:57.720 be a new thing for Trump. And, uh, Beto is, is not the only Democrat with charisma. Kamala Harris has it, 0.94

00:18:06.100 though. I think she's soulless and evil. She, uh, she does have, uh, she does have charisma. So 1.00

00:18:12.680 there are a few others as well. Here's the problem. For one thing, O'Rourke is,

00:18:19.240 he's good at speaking off the cuff or at least looking, seeming like he's speaking off the cuff

00:18:25.900 and then, and also in the process being coherent and superficially insightful emphasis on

00:18:34.600 superficial, but superficial insight fools a lot of people. There's that, uh, there was that viral

00:18:40.860 video of, of O'Rourke answering a question during the campaign against Cruz. He was answering a question

00:18:47.500 about, I think it was about the, um, the NFL, the anthem controversy. And of course he was

00:18:53.120 coming out in favor of the players who were kneeling and he just goes on this, whatever,

00:18:58.560 four or five minute thing about the anthem. And, uh, the reason went viral and millions of people

00:19:04.980 shared it is because everyone was saying, Oh, this is so insightful. And he's just,

00:19:08.960 he gets it. He understands. Now I don't agree with the point of view he was expressing there,

00:19:15.020 but the fact that he can do that and give you a four or five minute answer on something

00:19:22.420 seemingly off the cuff. And then other people will go, Oh wow, that was really insightful.

00:19:28.860 The fact that he can do that is, is that's a challenge. Trump, as I said, he's never faced

00:19:33.660 anyone who could do that. Hillary Clinton definitely could not do that. Um, and the problem is that

00:19:40.540 Trump Trump's off the cuff speaking style is basically rambling and incoherent. Uh, when

00:19:51.420 Trump goes off the cuff, he just goes in a million different directions and it's basically incoherent.

00:19:56.760 You can't even tell what point he's trying to make the contrast, I think, between rambling

00:20:01.680 incoherence and someone with some charm and charisma speaking coherently is just not a contrast that

00:20:08.300 will work well for Trump. I'm afraid also Beto. And there again, are a few Democrats who have this

00:20:14.020 going for themselves. Uh, but Beto has basically mastered the art of coming off like a regular

00:20:21.740 down to earth guy. And now again, I think, I think, I think a lot of that is shtick, but it doesn't

00:20:29.740 matter. This is politics. And if you can come off that way, that's, that's a huge advantage. Um,

00:20:36.280 and that's why some of the attacks that Republicans launched against him during the campaign in, uh,

00:20:43.840 in Texas, a lot of those attacks failed so miserably. And I know you'll say, well, he lost.

00:20:49.860 Yeah, but it was Texas. Uh, this was Texas. He had no business even coming close to winning

00:20:56.460 in Texas. The fact that he came close is stunning, honestly, really is. And it shows you that the

00:21:05.920 attacks were not effective at all attacks. Like, um, I mean, the fact that what Republicans would

00:21:11.360 try to, and conservatives are still doing this. They're trying to use the fact that Beto was in

00:21:17.520 a punk rock band as a younger person. They're trying to use that against him. Like this guy was in a band.

00:21:24.140 Okay. Most people think bands are cool. That's not, you're, you're just making him seem cool.

00:21:29.780 That is not a good line of attack. I know you might think if you don't like him, you think that

00:21:33.440 any line of attack is good. You think, Oh, this loser was in a band. No, when people see, Oh, 0.98

00:21:38.240 he was in a band. You know what? People think they think, Oh, okay. He had friends. He was a musician.

00:21:42.480 Uh, he liked to party. Most people think, well, that's cool. That's he was like, I was as a,

00:21:47.860 as a younger person. He's just a normal person. Oh, he had a DUI. Again, nobody cares about the

00:21:54.520 DUI. No one cares about that. Maybe they should, but they don't. That's it. No one cares. If you

00:21:58.660 had a DUI 20 years ago, when you were a crazy punk rocker, blah, blah, blah. Nobody cares about that. 0.73

00:22:05.740 And a guy who has matured after being a crazy partying punk rocker, et cetera, that's a story

00:22:12.640 that people find relatable. You know why? Because a lot of other, a lot of normal people are like

00:22:17.600 that. Maybe they weren't punk rockers, but there are a lot of people who, when they were younger,

00:22:21.520 they were kind of crazy. They did stupid things. They drank a lot. Then they matured and they 1.00

00:22:25.200 changed. So, uh, that is a story that does well for, for O'Rourke. That's a, that when you use that,

00:22:34.220 you're helping him. And in fact, most people can relate more to that than they can to the story

00:22:42.620 of a billionaire real estate developer who before being a president was a, you know,

00:22:48.000 Hollywood celebrity. Yeah, nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that that's not,

00:22:51.600 no one can relate to that story. That's not, no one is, most of us have never been in that world.

00:22:57.340 Uh, but we have been many of us in kind of the world that O'Rourke was in. So that's not a,

00:23:03.880 it's not an effective line of attack. It just makes him seem normal. And it also presents a

00:23:09.020 difficult contrast for Trump because Trump, I think struggles to come off like a regular human

00:23:14.940 being. Sometimes he he's Trump is, there's just so much, it's just bombast all the time with Trump

00:23:20.740 constantly. And that routine is wearing thin for a lot of people. And I know that if you're a big

00:23:26.600 Trump fan, you don't want to hear this, but you need to hear it because he's good. He'll lose in 2020.

00:23:32.480 If he doesn't change something that the, the stick that Trump has now, I know when he goes up and

00:23:38.520 speaks for four hours at a campaign rally and just rambles about a million topics. If you're a big

00:23:43.540 Trump fan, you think, Oh, this is great. It's once awesome. This is, it's not most, most people

00:23:50.480 don't find that compelling. You might, cause you're a big fan. That's fine. But most people don't find

00:23:55.560 that compelling. And I tell you something, there are a lot of people who did find it compelling in 2016

00:23:59.820 and now they don't anymore. Cause it's just, it's, it's old. It's a, it's an old thing.

00:24:03.940 You gotta, you gotta switch it up. You can't stick with that. And it's, it doesn't do any good to

00:24:08.000 say, Oh yeah, well he won like that in 20. Yeah. But times have changed. That was 2016. He was running

00:24:13.260 against Hillary Clinton, the most, the most unlikable human to have ever existed. He had the

00:24:18.760 good fortune of running against. And by the way, a human who didn't even think to go and campaign in

00:24:24.040 the Rust Belt. Um, and he also had the advantage of no one took him seriously. So no one actually

00:24:29.580 thought he was going to win. So he, a lot of people that hated him didn't go and vote against

00:24:33.960 him because they thought he had no chance. He's going to have none of that in his favor this time

00:24:38.060 around, unless he runs against, unless he has the, the great fortune of running against someone like

00:24:42.520 Elizabeth Warren, well then fine. But, um, that's probably not going to happen. If he pulls someone

00:24:47.340 like O'Rourke, he's not going to have those advantages anymore. And he's going to have to change

00:24:52.540 things up. Um, and the four hour unscripted campaign rallies where he's just doing nothing,

00:24:58.480 but throwing red meat to people who already agree with him. It's, it's not going to work

00:25:04.640 and he's going to lose. So if he wants to win in 2020, he's going to need a strategy that goes

00:25:12.600 beyond just slapping a silly nickname on his opponent and making fun of his hand gestures.

00:25:18.580 That was Trump's response yesterday was he was making fun of O'Rourke's hand gestures. Um,

00:25:23.540 and again, conservatives were like, Oh, that's great. This is classic stuff.

00:25:29.240 It's it's it's Bush league. Maybe that was enough in 2016. It's not going to be enough this time. 0.60

00:25:36.380 You see, when you're running against someone with zero personality and zero charisma and who,

00:25:42.700 and who nobody likes like with Hillary Clinton, then yeah, basically any strategy will work against

00:25:50.360 but when you've got someone who's got some talent, you're not going to be able to knock them out by

00:25:56.040 putting a nickname on them. That's not going to be enough, especially when everyone knows, sees it

00:26:01.320 coming. It's you don't have the element of surprise anymore. No one is surprised. Everyone knows what

00:26:07.540 Donald Trump is about. So if he wants to win, he's going to, he also had that going for him in 2016 is

00:26:12.520 that no one had ever seen anything like this before and they didn't know what to do with it.

00:26:16.480 Well, now we've all seen it. We're expecting it. So Trump, if he wants to win, he's going to need

00:26:23.760 to come with a move that we haven't seen. Uh, and I think that maybe if he could figure out a way to

00:26:34.040 just come off like a regular person, I, you know, there's a, I don't know if you've ever seen that

00:26:40.760 clip of Trump, um, on Oprah, like 30 years ago, there's a clip. It's made the rounds online plenty

00:26:49.840 of times. Trump is on Oprah. Uh, and he's talking about 30 years ago. He's talking about a lot of

00:26:56.180 the same things, trade and all that. He's talking about a lot of the same things that he talks about

00:26:59.240 now. So an impressive amount of consistency. But if you watch that clip of Oprah, he's saying

00:27:05.840 the same sorts of things, but he comes off like a normal person. He just, he's just speaking. He's

00:27:12.500 not rambling. He's not, it's not bombast. It's not bluster. Uh, he's not saying things to get a rise

00:27:19.300 out of people. He's not trolling. He's not doing any of that. He's just, he seems like a normal

00:27:24.100 person who knows what he's talking about and who's actually concerned about the country.

00:27:29.980 And, uh, and that's how he comes off in that clip 30 years ago. If he could somehow rediscover

00:27:37.100 that part of him, uh, then I think he'll present a real challenge to the other side,

00:27:47.700 especially because they're not going to expect that. And I think maybe the only way it's for him

00:27:53.820 to, at this point, maybe that part of him is dead now and there's no reclaiming it. It's quite

00:27:58.880 possible. Um, people change, but nowadays you see that part of him mostly when he's reading

00:28:08.360 scripted speeches that he didn't write like the state of the union address, everyone raved about

00:28:14.720 that. So I think, and his sycophants will disagree, but I think his best chance in 2020 is to stick to

00:28:21.680 the script, to give a lot of scripted speeches, just like that state of the union to be as scripted as

00:28:27.040 possible to dial things back a little bit, to be as normal as possible. Uh, I think that's going to

00:28:34.060 be his chance to win. And I know that again, the, the sycophants will say, no, he just needs to do

00:28:39.960 exactly what he's been doing all along. All right. I mean, if you want to encourage him to, uh, you

00:28:47.600 know, do that if you, if you really think I'll just say this in closing, I think to win, there is

00:28:57.440 going to be a huge, huge, uh, anti-Trump movement, you know, at the polls in 2020, obviously there are

00:29:07.720 a lot of people who absolutely hate him and there's no denying that. Right. So I, it seems clear to me

00:29:15.600 that Trump, if he wants to win, he's going to need more votes than he got in 2016. It's going to need

00:29:23.660 more, not less. And so you have to ask, has he done anything over the last two years to earn more

00:29:32.400 supporters? Do you think he's earned that? You think what he's doing now is earning more supporters

00:29:38.940 or is it just keeping them the same and possibly even losing people?

00:29:48.040 All right. Uh, let's see, I guess we'll move on to, to emails. I had a couple of things to talk

00:29:55.120 about, but all right, we'll move on to some emails and we'll wrap up for a Friday. Uh,

00:30:01.060 mattwallshowatgmail.com, mattwallshowatgmail.com. This is from Dennis says, hi, Matt. Great show as

00:30:06.800 always. Roughly 38 years ago, my little brother attempted to blow out his candles. He managed to

00:30:13.660 lodge his wad of chewing gum into the center of the cake. I've been scarred since. The good news is that

00:30:18.840 there's an easy solution. When the singing stops and it's time to extinguish the fire, simply clap

00:30:22.940 your hands directly above the cake, the candles. The gush of air created by a single clap is usually

00:30:27.360 enough to put out every single candle. Small children may have to clap a second time,

00:30:30.920 but at least they're not spreading the plague that they most certainly would have. Uh, yes. Well,

00:30:36.600 if you watch the show a couple of days ago, uh, Dennis is referring to, um, uh, I went on a rather

00:30:42.480 lengthy rant about people blowing out their birthday candles and spewing, uh, their spittle all over the

00:30:48.420 cake. So yeah, clapping now that, that seems, especially if you had a little kid's birthday

00:30:52.840 party and you intentionally clap, Oh yeah. Over the candles to put them all out. Uh, that will get you

00:30:57.840 some dirty looks, but I do. It's better than, than someone blowing on the cake. Anyway, this is from

00:31:02.340 Tom. Hi, Matt. Enjoy the show. Uh, I listened to your recent critique of academia as a scam and had

00:31:08.000 to agree with most of what you said. As a college professor, I am often embarrassed by my profession.

00:31:12.920 I'm a 55 year old white straight conservative, so I don't fit the stereotypical academic profile.

00:31:18.300 I worked in industry for 25 years before I changed careers, mostly so I could spend more time with

00:31:23.820 my kids while I have an engineering and a, uh, and heavy, um, uh, let's see engineering background.

00:31:31.280 I teach in a college of business that puts us somewhere between the STEM fields and the humanities.

00:31:36.600 While I can't disagree with the overall points you made about academia, I wanted to let you know that

00:31:40.920 there are some of us who are truly trying to provide our students with important career skills.

00:31:46.060 I teach mostly MBA students and work hard to impart not only technical skills,

00:31:50.180 but important practical business skills based on my prior career. Although I am conservative,

00:31:55.080 I try and keep my politics out of the classroom because that's my job. Uh, keep up the good work

00:31:59.740 and hold the, the academy accountable. Just know that we are not all left-wing intersectional ideologues

00:32:05.300 trying to indoctrinate our youth. Well, Tom, I, uh, appreciate that. And it is, it's always concerning.

00:32:12.540 I appreciate your email. It's always concerning though. When I hear someone say,

00:32:15.260 I'm a college professor and I agree with you. I always, I wish that you wouldn't agree. You know,

00:32:20.080 I wish that you would tell me I'm totally wrong. But when even college professors agree that higher

00:32:26.400 education has in some, in many ways become a scam, that's, that's, that is concerning. But

00:32:30.400 I have a lot of respect for people like yourself who stay in the thick of it, uh, to try to be at

00:32:37.960 least some small glimmer of light in the midst of all this madness. I've got a ton of respect for that.

00:32:42.600 But you're doing the Lord's work and keep it up. Um, all right, let's see. This is from Nathan says,

00:32:50.920 Hey Matt, I'm wondering if you could give some advice. Me and my wife are planning to have our

00:32:54.780 second child. Congratulations. Fortunately, we agreed to name our first daughter in honor of my

00:32:59.500 grandmother, but with the upcoming children, we can't seem to come to an agreement. I want my children

00:33:04.400 to have biblical names like Peter, Noah, Delilah, Rebecca, et cetera. But she keeps coming back with

00:33:09.440 names like Maria, Maria, Maria, Leah, what Maria, Leah, Georgia, Bo, et cetera. It seems to me like

00:33:18.260 she's coming up with names for a dog rather than name names for a child. And I've expressed this much

00:33:23.900 to her. She repeats over and over. I want my child to have an interesting name, not an old slash common

00:33:28.760 one. I'm not sure how, how much common ground can be reached here. Any suggestions, Nathan, I would

00:33:33.960 just quote Ephesians five to your wife. Uh, wives must submit to their husbands. And in fact, actually 0.99

00:33:40.700 bring out the Bible and say, uh, come here for a minute, honey, let me show you this. Let me read

00:33:45.440 you. There's an interesting passage here. I think St. Paul has something to say. Uh, actually maybe

00:33:49.940 don't do that. That might be counterproductive. Just, okay. This is what I would say. First of all,

00:33:55.380 Maria, Leah sounds like the name of a Dr. Seuss character or maybe some sort of disease. So that's not

00:34:01.140 a good one. Georgia is as common a name as just look at any map and it has the name Georgia on it.

00:34:07.280 And, uh, Bo is a great name for a child. If you want your child to be a cliched jock character from

00:34:13.420 an early nineties high school sitcom, then yeah, go with Bo. Uh, otherwise maybe stick with the

00:34:19.420 biblical names unless she hates the Bible, you know, tell her that, look, we could name our kid

00:34:25.540 after a biblical, unless you hate the Bible. Is there something you want to tell God about, uh, that you

00:34:30.740 dislike his book? All right. Guilt trip. I mean, it can work sometimes. So it's worth a shot.

00:34:38.100 Anyway, this is from James. Speaking of the Bible says, hi, Matt, you seem to answer emails about

00:34:42.940 biblical history a lot. So I thought I'd throw this one out at you. One claim I hear all the time 1.00

00:34:47.840 that confuses me is that the gospels are anonymous. Last I checked though, they have names at the top.

00:34:54.440 Where does this claim come from and how do you respond to it? Uh,

00:34:58.440 hi, James. Yes, I do talk about biblical history a lot, but I should emphasize that I am not a,

00:35:05.620 an expert, uh, just to be clear. I'm interested in the subject. I read about it a lot,

00:35:10.740 but I'm not an expert. So I'll always, whenever I give an answer on a question like this,

00:35:15.700 always check my answer, uh, check my work. Okay. Go and look it up for yourself and make sure that I'm

00:35:21.000 right because don't take my word for it. Now, uh, yes, almost any mainstream secular scholar that

00:35:29.240 you'll hear from will say that the gospels are anonymous, not just scholars, but secular people

00:35:34.580 in general, like to say that they say, Oh, it's anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote them,

00:35:38.180 et cetera. Where does it come from? Well, it, it, it doesn't come from thin air. We have to admit,

00:35:44.060 it's not like they just invented this. The people who make this claim will point out correctly

00:35:49.260 that the gospels themselves do not claim authorship. They don't, the gospels themselves in the text

00:35:57.260 don't claim to have been written by any particular person. So they might say gospel of Matthew, Mark,

00:36:03.500 Luke, John at the top, but in the text itself, it doesn't say, this is Matthew. Here's my account of

00:36:11.420 the life of our Lord. Uh, and that is a noticeable fact because the, the epistles do claim authorship.

00:36:19.260 At the very beginning. Like if you, if you read any of Paul's epistles, they always start with,

00:36:24.220 uh, Paul identifying himself, uh, Paul slave of Christ, so on and so forth. And this was common

00:36:31.120 for people to do back in the ancient world and, and in today's world as well. If people are, you know,

00:36:35.600 offering an account of something, they'll often, especially if it's a firsthand account. So

00:36:41.680 that's the other interesting thing is that the gospels are written in third person. So Matthew

00:36:46.980 never says, uh, we went there, we did this, we, we met up with Jesus and went over there. Um,

00:36:55.060 even when, when referring to himself, he just says, he doesn't say, ah, he just calls himself Matthew

00:37:01.080 and never hints that he is talking about himself. Um, so the gospels themselves never claim authorship

00:37:10.980 and they never claim to be eyewitness accounts and they are not written like eyewitness accounts.

00:37:19.300 That, that is all true. We can't, that can't be denied. I mean, that's absolutely true.

00:37:23.140 And so when someone makes this claim, that's what they're basing it on. It is not a baseless claim.

00:37:31.220 And I, I'll admit that I don't really understand why Matthew didn't write his gospel like an 0.98

00:37:37.560 eyewitness account. I kind of wish that he had, honestly, uh, I would be, I wish he had, but he

00:37:44.660 hadn't. But as you point out that that's all true. But, but as you point out that there are,

00:37:51.700 there are names right at the top. So it's, it's hard to overlook that part of it does say the gospel

00:37:56.460 of Matthew, um, gospel of seems pretty clear cut. And what's really important is that we don't have

00:38:05.080 any complete manuscripts that lack that identification. As far as I know, as far as I

00:38:13.480 know, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have, now we have gospel fragments that are

00:38:20.820 just little pieces of the gospels that obviously don't say gospel of, because it does, it's only

00:38:25.460 just a little part of the page. But, um, of all the completed, of all the, whatever hundreds of,

00:38:32.020 uh, completed manuscripts we have, there is not a single one that does not have that identifier at

00:38:39.620 the top. And there also is not a, a, a, you know, for instance, um, uh, we don't have something like

00:38:45.440 the, the text of the gospel of Matthew, but at the top it says gospel of Luke or whatever, where things

00:38:49.780 are mixed, uh, uh, mismatched. So, uh, that's a significant fact as well. The gospels, as far as we

00:39:00.620 can tell, have always had these identifiers. Now we don't have the originals though. We don't have,

00:39:06.520 we don't have the originals. We don't have copies of the originals. We don't have copies of copies

00:39:10.260 of copies of copies, um, at least not in complete form. So strictly historically speaking,

00:39:18.780 we don't know, historically speaking, we don't know what kind of identification they had originally.

00:39:26.780 We can't say as a matter of history for an absolute fact, which means secular people,

00:39:32.340 the most they can claim is that the gospels might be anonymous or the most they can do is say, uh,

00:39:41.320 the gospel allegedly written by Matthew or something like that. But when they, when they come out and

00:39:46.260 just say, Oh, Matthew didn't write that gospel. It's anonymous. They're going, they, and they know

00:39:52.080 this if they know, if, if they've read this, if they've researched the topic at all, they know

00:39:56.360 that they are going far beyond where the evidence actually leads them. Because as far as we know,

00:40:04.340 it has always said the gospel of Matthew. We don't have any evidence that there was ever a point when

00:40:09.860 the gospel of Matthew did not say gospel of Matthew. And obviously if we had the original document,

00:40:16.300 which we don't, I wish we did. We don't. If we had it and the original document said gospel of

00:40:22.420 Matthew, well, then that would put the whole claim to rest, wouldn't it? If it said that on the

00:40:26.700 original document, then clearly there you go. Uh, we can't say as a matter of history that it

00:40:33.900 absolutely did say that, but, um, we can say as a matter of history, as far as we know, in all

00:40:42.040 likelihood, this, you know, Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew. And so, um, the secular people,

00:40:49.760 I think in their, in their zeal to discredit the Bible, they, they often step, uh, far beyond where 0.53

00:40:58.940 the evidence actually takes them. So they're, they're not content to just point to this or that

00:41:06.340 difficulty in the scriptures. And there are difficulties and there are things that are

00:41:11.280 difficult to understand. Like why, for instance, the eyewitness accounts are not written like

00:41:16.080 eyewitness accounts. So they could point that out and just leave it there, but no, they want to go

00:41:22.140 for the certainty. They want to prove that, Oh no, this is all just bogus. And then they go off.

00:41:28.040 So in a way, ironically, they're, they're doing what they accuse us of doing, which is having a sort

00:41:33.800 of unfounded certainty, uh, which they themselves often demonstrate. All right, we'll leave it there.

00:41:42.940 Thanks for watching everybody. Thanks for listening and have a great weekend. Godspeed.

00:42:00.000 A horrifying evil terrorist attack on Muslims and Christchurch shakes the world.

00:42:04.740 President Trump runs into Republican resistance over his national emergency. And we check the

00:42:08.760 mailbag. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Ben Shapiro show.

The Matt Walsh Show - March 15, 2019

Ep. 218 - Now Is Not The Time To Mock ＂Thoughts And Prayers＂

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript