The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 362 - Democrats Dehumanize The Unborn, Volume 989,128,002

00:00:00.000 You know, the cutoff really has to be double digits, I think. That's the cutoff. That's all

00:00:03.880 I'm saying. I think once you hit double digits, it's time to stop trick-or-treating. Get off my

00:00:08.340 porch and find a job at that point, once you get to 10 years old. Now, I was out with my kids last

00:00:12.580 night, and there were these teenagers hitting the same houses that we were hitting, and there were

00:00:17.240 a few houses ahead of us. They had no costumes. They were just putting their candy into their

00:00:24.780 book bags. It looked like they just got home from school, and they just decided to, on the way home,

00:00:28.940 might as well hit a couple houses and get some candy. And all I'm saying is, at least put some

00:00:35.160 effort into it. A 16-year-old, not in a costume, going up to a house on Halloween and taking candy.

00:00:43.700 It's like if a five-year-old was invited to his kindergarten friend's birthday, and the five-year-old

00:00:50.840 16-year-old brother showed up at the party right when the cake was being cut, had some cake, and

00:00:57.140 left. It's like, it's not really for you, but if you are going to come, you should participate

00:01:04.120 in the whole thing. And so, in this case, put on a costume, grab one of those pumpkin candy

00:01:10.180 buckets, say trick-or-treat the whole nine yards. People say, oh, well, it's better for teenagers to

00:01:14.760 be trick-or-treating than out causing trouble. Well, first of all, they can multitask. Second,

00:01:20.760 there is a third option. They could be picking up shifts at the coal mine, okay, like I did at their

00:01:28.000 age, making themselves useful. So, now, this is for older kids. If older kids want to trick-or-treat,

00:01:33.520 they have to wear costumes. But once you're not even a kid anymore, once you're an adult,

00:01:38.480 so at 18 years old, you're too old to trick-or-treat, obviously. You're also too old to wear costumes.

00:01:44.520 People don't like it when I say this, but adults should not be wearing costumes.

00:01:47.540 Costumes are for kids. Halloween is for kids. And if you think I'm being a Scrooge, I am. That's

00:01:53.960 kind of my thing. But it's not just that. Let me give you Exhibit A. Look at this from yesterday.

00:01:59.160 This picture here, this is Representative Katie Porter, a Democrat, obviously, 0.50

00:02:04.880 at the Capitol yesterday in a Batman costume. She's working at it. She's, you know, doing

00:02:11.900 supposedly serious business wearing a Batman costume. She looks like a mental patient. 1.00

00:02:19.220 This is what happens when adults wear costumes. Just look at that. It's a disgrace. It's an 0.99

00:02:24.400 embarrassment. Think about what you're doing. How do you not look at yourself in the mirror before

00:02:29.400 you leave the house and think to yourself, oh, my God, I'm an adult dressed like Batman.

00:02:33.960 Again, how does this not cause you to reevaluate not just your outfit for the day, but your whole

00:02:40.860 life? And this is why under my administration, the legal cutoff for costumes will be 18 years

00:02:48.100 old. All violators of this, anyone caught in a costume over the age of 18 will be stuffed

00:02:53.580 into a burlap sack and thrown into the sea. And as I always say, I take no pleasure in handing

00:03:02.000 out those kinds of punishments. It will hurt me more than it will hurt the person being thrown

00:03:06.380 into the ocean. But it's just we have to have law and order. And this kind of degeneracy simply cannot

00:03:12.580 be tolerated. Now, from one Katie to another, speaking of degeneracy, Katie Hill, you know that

00:03:21.380 lady that was having sex with her 22-year-old female campaign aide, paying her with campaign funds, 1.00

00:03:26.260 and then allegedly also having sex with another staffer while, you know, who was also, of course, 0.98

00:03:32.540 being paid, this one being paid with tax money. She gave her final speech before Congress yesterday

00:03:38.460 and she was not wearing a costume. It would have been kind of funny, actually, if she was the one

00:03:44.900 wearing, if she was the Katie wearing the Batman costume, giving the speech after resigning because

00:03:51.620 of ethics violations. Now, that would be that would be worth it. But no, despite being a disgraced

00:03:56.700 politician resigning over ethics violations, she tried to turn the whole speech into some kind of 1.00

00:04:02.960 triumphant feminist moment. Watch this. This is the last speech that I will give from this floor as a

00:04:11.900 member of Congress. I wasn't ready for my time here to come to an end so soon. It's a reality I'm still

00:04:18.780 grappling with and I will be for a long time to come. The mistakes I made and the people I've

00:04:24.580 hurt that led to this moment will haunt me for the rest of my life and I have to come to terms

00:04:28.600 with that. Ever since those images first came out, I've barely left my bed. I've ignored all the calls

00:04:34.520 and the texts. I went to the darkest places that a mind can go and I've shed more tears than I thought

00:04:40.240 were possible. And I'm here today because so many of the people I let down, people close to me,

00:04:47.000 supporters, colleagues, people I've never even met, told me to stand back up and that despite

00:04:52.940 all of my faults, they still believed in me and they were still counting on me. And I realized

00:04:58.840 that hiding away and disappearing would be the one unforgivable sin. I am leaving now because of a

00:05:05.340 double standard. I'm leaving because I no longer want to be used as a bargaining chip. I'm leaving

00:05:11.200 because I didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites used by shameless operatives for

00:05:16.960 the dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen and the right-wing media to drive clicks and expand

00:05:23.160 their audience by distributing intimate photos of me taken without my knowledge, let alone my consent, 0.75

00:05:28.860 for the sexual entertainment of millions. I'm leaving because of a misogynistic culture that

00:05:34.840 gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality, and enabled my abusive ex to continue

00:05:41.260 that abuse, this time with the entire country watching. I am leaving because of the thousands

00:05:47.460 of vile, threatening emails, calls, and texts that made me fear for my life and the lives of the people

00:05:53.420 that I care about. I'm leaving because for the sake of my community, my staff, my family, and myself,

00:06:00.040 I can't allow this to continue. Today, as my final act, I voted to move forward with the impeachment of

00:06:08.020 Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America. We will not stand down. We will

00:06:14.700 not be broken. We will not be silenced. We will rise, and we will make tomorrow better than today.

00:06:21.900 Now, let me ask you, did you notice what was missing from her list of reasons why she was

00:06:28.260 leaving? She's leaving because of misogyny. She's leaving because of double standards. She's leaving 1.00

00:06:33.860 because of her ex-husband. She's leaving because of political operatives. She's leaving because of 1.00

00:06:38.080 sexism and patriarchy and everything. But she forgot to mention that she's also leaving because she was 1.00

00:06:43.140 using her subordinates like sex toys. And that's one little detail that she seemed to have left out. 0.99

00:06:49.680 I'm sure unintentionally she just forgot to mention it. Of course, she's talking about double standards,

00:06:54.860 but the only double standard is the fact that she can get away with making herself out to be persecuted,

00:07:01.100 making herself the victim in this scenario, and the media just goes along with it. A man would not get 1.00

00:07:08.060 that benefit. So that's where the double standard is. In fact, the double standard is so strong in her favor 0.65

00:07:13.540 that the left now, for all intents and purposes, has canceled the Me Too movement for her sake.

00:07:19.240 The Me Too movement is canceled now. They threw it all to the side. The first time a woman really, 1.00

00:07:26.120 really, you know, came under scrutiny, they said, okay, never mind on the Me Too movement thing.

00:07:32.240 Forget it. Never mind. Because everything that they've been saying about consent

00:07:41.860 is now gone. All for the sake of defending this woman.

00:07:49.380 Because they have been saying all along, if you're in a position of power and someone is a subordinate,

00:07:56.500 they cannot consent because they're not on the same level of power and they're not going to feel

00:08:04.680 like they have the ability or like they're empowered to say no, so on and so forth. Those

00:08:11.680 are not my rules. That's not what I say. Now, my own personal feeling is that certainly if you are

00:08:20.380 a member of Congress, having a sexual relationship with a subordinate in that scenario is definitely

00:08:26.160 wrong and it is an ethical violation. Now, if we weren't talking about Congress and we weren't talking

00:08:32.300 about campaign funds and tax money and everything, and this was just in a private business and you had

00:08:40.740 someone in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, then it kind of depends. It's sort of

00:08:47.320 situationally based. I don't personally think that it's impossible for there to be consent or anything

00:08:54.900 like that or that it's automatically sexual assault or something. I don't personally think that, but

00:09:00.080 we're not talking about my standards. We're talking about the standards set by the left, by people

00:09:06.100 like Katie Hill, who have been very clear about this. They've been very clear that just because someone

00:09:12.640 says, yes, I want to do it, doesn't necessarily mean that it's real consent. They've said this over and

00:09:19.640 over and over again. And now I guess we're back to, well, hey, I mean, the other

00:09:24.800 woman wanted it, so she said she did, so that's it. That's all that matters.

00:09:31.440 Well, Me Too movement then. RIP, I guess. Well, while we're on the subject of detestable

00:09:38.760 Democrat women, which seems to be the theme here so far, let's check in with Wendy Ullman, 1.00

00:09:43.440 state representative in Pennsylvania. They were debating a bill in Pennsylvania that would require

00:09:49.000 hospitals and abortion clinics to respectfully dispose of the remains of unborn children.

00:09:56.640 Because as it stands right now, aborted children are tossed in medical waste dumpsters along with

00:10:03.400 used needles and other toxic trash. That's how the human remains are treated. This bill would seek to

00:10:10.240 grant just a little bit of dignity and humanity to these humans. But Ullman is worried about this and

00:10:17.480 about the implications. And she tried to express her concerns and it didn't go so well.

00:10:23.840 It refers specifically to the product of conception after fertilization, which covers an awful lot of

00:10:31.480 territory. I think we all understand the concept of the loss of a fetus, but we're also talking about

00:10:38.880 a woman who comes into a facility and is having cramps. And not to be concrete, an early miscarriage is

00:10:56.800 just some mess on a napkin. And I'm not sure people would agree that this is something that we want to

00:11:04.560 take to take to take to the point of ritual, uh, either cremation or internment.

00:11:11.200 Yes, a mess on a napkin. That's how she sees unborn life as a mess on a napkin. 1.00

00:11:20.000 And you could tell there right before she said that she paused noticeably and was searching for the right

00:11:28.600 words because she knew that what she was about to say, it was horrible. And so she was looking for

00:11:34.800 a different way of putting it. And this is what she came up with. So actually I wonder in her mind,

00:11:42.540 she, she obviously had, she was originally going to say, say it a different way. She had option A in

00:11:47.760 her mind. She was about to say it. She stopped and then went with option B. So considering that this is

00:11:54.560 what she decided to say, I wonder what she originally was going to say before she settled on

00:11:58.940 this. Um, either way though, this is how this is, it's, it's honest. I mean, this is how, as a

00:12:04.340 Democrat, this is how she sees unborn life. She sees it as just, and it, it makes sense from that point of

00:12:11.720 view using that logic. An unborn baby is a clump of cells. When you're aborting a child, it's just a

00:12:18.380 clump of cells, basically a cancerous tumor you're getting rid of. And then in that case, yeah, if a,

00:12:23.800 if an unborn child that's aborted is a clump of cells, then I guess a miscarried child is a mess

00:12:28.680 on a napkin, as she puts it. Now, you know, we, we've had miscarriages. My wife's had miscarriages

00:12:35.100 and it's a very difficult thing to go through emotionally and, um, for the mother physically.

00:12:44.700 And in fact, this is what immediately came to mind for me when I was listening to this horrid,

00:12:51.740 woman saying this, uh, one of the things that adds to the emotional difficulty of marriage of a 1.00

00:13:04.200 miscarriage is precisely that so many people have the attitude of all men here. The attitude that she's

00:13:12.400 expressing is exactly how a lot of people feel about it. And I, even if they're not so explicit

00:13:20.220 about it, you know, so many people don't really view it when you have a miscarriage.

00:13:26.620 So many people don't really view it as losing a child. And then the result is that a woman who's 0.98

00:13:33.280 going through this, she already has, she's already got the emotional burden of it. Um, but then on top

00:13:41.400 of it, she feels alone and isolated as she's mourning her miscarriage because society doesn't

00:13:48.140 see it as a big deal. And so she feels like she's gotten no one to turn to and nowhere to go for

00:13:54.280 empathy. Because society is saying basically what Wendy Ullman is saying, which, ah, it's just a mess

00:14:02.300 on a napkin. Who cares? It's just, it's evil and it's vile. But every time a Democrat takes off the mask

00:14:13.620 and really says what they actually think, uh, on these topics, even though it's horrible to hear,

00:14:24.960 I'm always grateful when they do, because I want people to, to see this. People need to see this,

00:14:30.840 that this is how the Democrat party views human life. It's important that we all see that. And then,

00:14:37.140 uh, the voters have to decide, do you want to support a political party that sees human life

00:14:43.880 this way? Do you agree with that? Is that how you see human life? You know, if you've ever had a

00:14:51.020 miscarriage or if you, someone you love has had a miscarriage, is that how you do, do you agree with

00:14:55.100 that way of looking at it? If not, then you have to really evaluate whether you can support a political

00:15:04.060 party that differs with you so dramatically in the way that it fundamentally views human life. And,

00:15:11.640 and, and that is a, that is a, that is a very fundamental issue, isn't it?

00:15:14.960 What, how we view human life? What is human life? Is it inherently important?

00:15:26.660 Democrat party says no. If you say yes, then it doesn't mean you have to be a Republican. It

00:15:32.420 just means that I think there's no way you could support these people.

00:15:37.920 Okay. I wanted to mention this case, speaking of vile and evil, um, reading now a little bit from

00:15:44.440 KTLA, an article on KTLA.com says the girlfriend of a Boston college student who died by suicide in May

00:15:54.200 repeatedly texted him to do so during their relationship. According to Massachusetts

00:15:59.080 prosecutors, um, who said this in announcing involuntary manslaughter charges against her.

00:16:05.420 In young you 21 tracked Alexander Ertula's location on May 20th and was present when he jumped from a

00:16:13.000 parking garage, only hours from graduation. Authority said you also a student of Boston college was

00:16:18.680 physically, verbally, and psychologically abusive toward her boyfriend during their 18 month long

00:16:22.720 relationship. Investigators looked through a trove of text messages. The two exchanged in which you

00:16:27.760 allegedly tells Ertula, uh, who's 22, who was 22 years old to go kill himself or to go die. 0.62

00:16:35.000 And that she, his family in the world would be better off without him. Prosecutors said the district

00:16:40.320 attorney said you is in her native South Korea and her office is cautiously optimistic that you

00:16:44.300 will return to the U S voluntarily. Uh, they're saying they're going to do what they can to get

00:16:48.180 her back. Um, skipping ahead a little bit. Prosecutors have described a pattern of abuse and manipulation 0.99

00:16:56.060 throughout the relationship in which you allegedly made demands and threats and exercise total control

00:17:00.740 of Ertula, both mentally and emotionally. She was aware of her boyfriend's depression. They contend you

00:17:05.900 instructed Ertula to kill himself hundreds of times through the more than 47,000 text messages she

00:17:11.460 sent to him into 47,000 text messages she sent in two months. Now do the math on that.

00:17:22.740 You know, so that's about 60 days, 47,000 divided by 60.

00:17:27.860 How many text messages a day, how many text messages an hour? It does, does that add up to,

00:17:35.000 um, Rollins said a bill is currently in front of a legislative committee that would make encouragement

00:17:40.080 or assistance of suicide, a crime punishable, punishable up to five years in prison. Now this,

00:17:46.060 um, okay. And they do bring this up. This, this will bring to mind, uh, the case of Michelle Carter

00:17:51.520 a few years ago, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for doing the exact same kind of

00:17:57.160 thing. Very similar where she threw text messages over the course of many weeks was trying to 1.00

00:18:03.520 encourage her boyfriend to kill himself. And, uh, and on, if I remember the case correctly on,

00:18:10.300 on the day, the night when he actually did it, she was, you know, he was texting with her and saying

00:18:16.660 that he was going to do it. And she was saying, yes, do it and encouraging. And then he did. And,

00:18:20.100 uh, she was convicted with manslaughter for that. Now, I think there are, there are many different

00:18:26.200 directions you could go with this with analyzing something like this. But for me, I see this,

00:18:32.100 this tragic, disturbing case as a sort of clear boundary line for free speech.

00:18:39.900 We talk about what is free speech? What are the limits of, of free speech? When does speech become

00:18:44.360 something more than mere speech? And I think that here we see how that works because it's clear to me

00:18:52.440 that obviously this woman, this sick, twisted woman is not covered by free speech. She has committed a 1.00

00:18:59.120 crime. If the allegations are true, she has committed a crime and should be punished severely

00:19:02.960 for it. I think she'd be, should be punished much more than involuntary manslaughter. There was,

00:19:09.100 seemed to be a lot more intention behind it than that. Now, even though she didn't, as far as we know,

00:19:14.440 she didn't physically push him over the edge. She didn't physically killed him, kill him. She used 1.00

00:19:18.500 other methods. And those other methods may mean that her penalty is not as severe as it would have

00:19:23.680 been had she directly killed him. But there still has to be a penalty. The method that she used is

00:19:28.720 not acceptable in a civilized society and shouldn't be. And this is where free speech ends. When you're

00:19:33.760 using speech with the intention of directly and substantially and maliciously harming another

00:19:40.720 person, the malicious, and the malicious part of that is important. Because if you're, for example,

00:19:45.860 if you're calling out a politician for something that they've done or said, well, that might harm

00:19:54.560 them politically, might harm their career, but it's not malicious on your part. You're justified in what

00:20:00.880 you're doing. Malicious harm through speech is, is now in the case of a politician, that would be like

00:20:06.660 if you made up a lie about them to destroy them. Well, then that's not free speech. That's against the

00:20:10.760 law. And this is where the delineation is. And yes, there might be hypothetical cases where it's

00:20:16.580 harder to discern the nuances and distinguish between whether it's free speech or not. And you're

00:20:21.280 always going to have those hard cases. But in broad strokes, generally speaking, there is a clear

00:20:25.540 distinction here. And it is relatively easy to tell the difference, generally speaking, between these

00:20:31.200 things. Now, some people have, and this is my point, some people have tried to make free speech

00:20:35.820 into this very complicated, ambiguous thing. And the people who do that, it's, they're doing it for

00:20:43.940 a reason, because it benefits them. And usually these are people who really don't like free speech.

00:20:49.480 And, but rather than come out directly against it, they just try to make it into this ambiguous

00:20:53.640 concept that nobody can really understand. But really, it's not so complicated most of the time.

00:21:00.640 When you are, as this woman did, harassing and tormenting someone relentlessly with the intention

00:21:09.500 of causing significant harm to them, and that is clearly what you intend to do and why you're doing

00:21:16.000 it, that's not free speech. And that, obviously, to me, is not what the founders intended. When the

00:21:25.480 founders codified our first amount of free speech rights, they didn't have stuff like this in mind.

00:21:32.140 I think we could be pretty sure about that. Now, on the other hand, when you give an opinion

00:21:38.900 that, let's say, hurts someone's feelings, when you're speaking honestly about your opinions on

00:21:44.820 whatever subject, and someone has their feelings hurt because of it, that is free speech. And there

00:21:50.400 actually isn't that much room for confusion here. So when we talk about, we get into the free speech

00:21:56.400 subject, and someone says, well, you know, what is an example of when it could be, when it should be

00:22:04.480 against the law for someone to just say something? Well, here we go. Here's an example that I think

00:22:11.840 most of us could agree with. And that's where the dividing line is between free speech and not free

00:22:18.280 speech. It's also interesting here, this was in, right, this was in Boston, right? And so now they're

00:22:27.620 talking about passing a law that will specifically make it illegal to do this kind of thing to, I guess,

00:22:37.440 encourage, okay, make encouragement or assistance of suicide a crime, punishable up to five years in

00:22:47.080 prison. Now, would this apply to so-called doctor-assisted suicide? It seems like you would

00:22:58.020 have to choose between the two. And anyone, and here's another angle we could explore with this,

00:23:04.480 that anyone who hears about the story of this disgusting woman and what she did, or Michelle

00:23:14.280 Carter, that kind of thing, if you hear about that, and you think that is despicable and horrible,

00:23:20.380 and that person needs to go to jail, which I think any civilized person, that's how you would feel about

00:23:24.160 it, then you should also be against assisted suicide in every circumstance, including doctor-assisted

00:23:34.280 suicide. Because I think there, I think, I imagine there are a lot of people, and there's kind of a

00:23:40.280 cognitive dissonance here, I imagine there are probably a lot of people who think that doctor-assisted

00:23:44.080 suicide is okay, but would hear about a case like this and think that's horrible, must be against the

00:23:49.440 law. Now, obviously, there is a difference between the cases that you could point to. There are several

00:23:56.680 differences. There's no doctor involved, and this was, this was, this was, you could say, manipulative,

00:24:08.200 and all of, and all of that. But the fact is, it's just, it's a question in society,

00:24:15.320 if someone is depressed, you know, if someone is going through a difficult time, should we encourage

00:24:23.800 and help facilitate their suicide or not? And I would say not. The right and moral and ethical

00:24:35.420 and civilized thing to do is to help them, to get, to get them treatment, and our message always has to

00:24:41.900 be, your life is worth living. And if that's going to be our message, if that's how we should

00:24:49.560 approach, you know, this, this issue, then I think you can't have doctors, so-called doctor-assisted

00:24:57.240 suicide or, or this. I think, I think both of them go out the window. And, you know, the people who

00:25:09.760 would say, well, it's, it's different because you got a doctor involved. Getting a doctor involved in,

00:25:14.280 in many ways makes it worse because it's a total perversion of medicine. Think about the Hippocratic

00:25:22.540 oath, do no harm. Medicine is supposed to be about treating disease, helping people, treating people,

00:25:32.260 curing people, making them healthier. That's what medicine is supposed to be.

00:25:40.340 There shouldn't be a time in medicine where we are directly killing people on purpose. That's not

00:25:46.200 medicine. All right, let's move on to emails. mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.

00:25:57.180 Um, this is from, uh, let's see here from John says, hi, Matt, I like your show and your activism.

00:26:04.420 That said, I think your NCAA take is wrong. Basically your point is that you're not pro free

00:26:10.360 market. If you think the rule that NCAA athletes can't use their name to make money is fair. However,

00:26:15.920 I think you forget the essence of free market, freedom of contracts. No one forced these athletes

00:26:20.640 to enter into a contract in which a clause or name and likeness, um, with such a clause on name and

00:26:27.280 likeness. On the contrary, athletes enter these contracts because they believe that even with such

00:26:31.580 clauses, the contract benefited them. They benefit with scholarships, fame, a chance to make it in the

00:26:36.800 pro, uh, in the pros, et cetera. Now you might think that the deal is unfair, that the NCAA want,

00:26:42.300 it makes too much money and that the athletes make too little, but that's irrelevant. The athletes

00:26:46.640 in a free market environment use their freedom of contracts to enter into these agreements

00:26:50.100 because they believe that they end up better off with the agreement than without. They got what

00:26:54.940 they bargained for in a free market environment. To the contrary, if you pass a law or a court

00:26:58.900 decision saying that the athletes cannot contract, contractually waive their rights to use their name

00:27:03.100 and likeness, you are going against free market the same way a minimum wage law would. This is exactly

00:27:08.120 like a minimum wage, uh, because you would be saying, no, even if you want to, you cannot legally go

00:27:13.060 below this threshold. But what if I'm starting to work and I'm willing, and I'm willing to work

00:27:16.580 for $5 an hour? No, you can't. What if I'm willing to waive my right to use my name, to get a

00:27:20.700 scholarship, to get into NCAA and get a scholarship? No, you can't. It's the same thing. Of course,

00:27:25.700 from the free market perspective, it's totally fine if the NCAA decide on its own or, or after

00:27:30.440 bargaining with the athletes to let them use their name. Yeah. Well, that's what you said at the end

00:27:35.760 there is kind of the crux of it because what we talked about a few days ago was the NCAA was deciding

00:27:40.700 that they were going to allow athletes and we didn't, they didn't get into specifics yet as far

00:27:45.800 as I know. So there's a lot that has to be hashed out here, but the basic broad stroke here is that

00:27:49.540 they are going to allow athletes to profit off of their name and image. Um, and then you have the

00:27:54.420 government coming in and saying, or at least one politician coming in and saying he's going to

00:27:59.260 propose a law that would penalize students who take advantage of that and decide to profit off of

00:28:05.920 their name and image. So that I assume you would agree is anti-free market where now you've got a

00:28:12.260 contract between the NCAA and these athletes, and then you've got the government coming in and saying,

00:28:17.460 no, no, no, we don't like that. And so we're going to punish you for it. That obviously is not free

00:28:21.420 market. Um, also I would say that I have been pushing for this myself. I think that this is this,

00:28:33.420 the NCAA should allow this. That's not an anti-free market view on my part.

00:28:39.960 You know, I never said that the NCAA necessarily didn't have, didn't have the right to prevent

00:28:45.580 athletes from making money in this way. It wasn't a matter of, did they have the right to do it? I

00:28:50.920 didn't say they have the right to it. I said, it's not right. So they might have the right to make

00:28:57.440 these kinds of rules, preventing athletes from profiting off of their own name and image.

00:29:01.140 But I think it's wrong. And this is, this is a distinction that people struggle with a lot. I'm

00:29:06.620 not exactly sure why. Because this happens a lot where I'll say, okay, this and that, you know,

00:29:11.740 I think that such and such is wrong and you shouldn't do that. And then inevitably I'll get

00:29:17.140 the emails from people saying, oh, you're saying we shouldn't have the right to do that. No, that's

00:29:21.380 not what I'm saying. If I think that you shouldn't have the right to do it, then I'll say that.

00:29:26.200 That's a separate argument. But there are a lot of things that we have the right to do as individuals

00:29:33.160 or as organizations, as companies, whatever, that I still think we shouldn't do because it's not

00:29:41.280 right. It's unethical. It's immoral in my opinion. And so that's my argument.

00:29:44.740 Um, and, uh, third point is that, you know, when you've got, I don't think that your comparison

00:29:55.420 exactly works because with the NCAA, this is this massive organization, um, controlling all of

00:30:09.280 these schools across the country, passing these rules from on high, telling athletes that they

00:30:17.160 can't go on their own because we're not even talking about making an income saying that they

00:30:23.040 can't even go in their own private life and sell a Jersey or something. Now, prior to this rule change

00:30:31.100 they're talking about, that was what they were saying. So it's hard for me to not see. I don't know

00:30:36.600 how you could see that as anything but a violation of free market principles. I don't know how you

00:30:42.900 could say that that is consistent with the free market because even in a, in the example of Walmart

00:30:48.940 with the minimum wage that you're talking about, yeah, what you, you enter into a contract with

00:30:54.300 Walmart about what your salary is going to be, but Walmart's not going to tell you that when you

00:30:59.360 leave and go home, you can't sell something on Craigslist. And if Walmart did try to pass a rule

00:31:09.740 like that, telling employees that even when they go home and are on their own time, they're not allowed

00:31:16.360 to go on Craigslist and sell something of theirs. I would say that that certainly isn't consistent with

00:31:22.440 the free market and, um, and whether or not they, that they should have the legal right to pass a rule

00:31:26.720 like that. Well, that would be a discussion we could have, but it's, there's certainly a question

00:31:31.940 about whether or not they would. This, uh, is from Leslie says, hi, Matt. I do, I do the grocery

00:31:37.180 shopping every week for my family. I have to go during school hours. So I don't have to drag around

00:31:41.140 little humans that hang off my buggy and dabble in petty thievery. I tend to go late mornings to try

00:31:46.580 to miss restocking so I can rush through and tackle my list. But lately there seems to be a recurring

00:31:51.220 issue of larger humans standing in the middle of the aisles, texting on their phone and looking annoyed

00:31:55.940 when I say, excuse me, to try to get around them during your dictatorship. Would you please summon

00:32:00.360 these people immediately to an American gladiator style demise with those big Q-tip looking bats and

00:32:06.080 a vat of alligators? Thank you in advance for your ruling. Leslie, um, you have identified one of the

00:32:13.520 great threats to human civilization that we face and not just in supermarkets, but everywhere. People

00:32:18.640 who stand in walking aisles, uh, you know, walking lanes, aisles, sidewalks, clogging up foot traffic,

00:32:24.980 people who walk too slow, people who stand in the walking path of those moving walkways at the

00:32:30.660 airport where there's supposed to be one side, you stand one side, you walk, but there are people who

00:32:33.820 stand in the walking aisle. Um, this is all, it's an epidemic. I agree. It's chaos. As for the penalty

00:32:40.680 under my regime, I like how you're, you know, I like, I like your thought process. I like the creativity,

00:32:48.200 but here's my thought. Anyone who blocks an aisle or stands when they should be walking or walks too

00:32:53.580 slow will have their legs amputated because if you aren't going to lose, use them, then you lose them.

00:32:59.620 That's the basic principle here. And, uh, by the way, that principle will also apply to people who

00:33:04.840 don't make sufficient use of their brains as well. Use it or lose it is going to be the rule under my

00:33:10.620 regime. This is from Andrew says, why do you think people, why do people think an impeachment is good

00:33:15.700 for Trump? I'm seeing all over Twitter, mid-level conservative figures declare that what the house

00:33:20.500 is doing is an automatic win for Trump in 2020. Is that really the case? Well, the only way that

00:33:26.660 it's bad for Trump is if he actually gets thrown out of office, which isn't going to happen. So the

00:33:31.960 problem for Democrats is that they're really, as far as I can tell, there really isn't anything for them

00:33:35.700 to gain from this politically speaking, the anti-Trump voters who love the impeachment stuff.

00:33:41.000 Well, they're going to vote for Democrats regardless. The Democrats didn't need to do this to win the

00:33:47.940 votes of the rabidly anti-Trump voters, because they're going to vote against Trump no matter what

00:33:53.220 the Democrats do. Um, the issue then is then is, is how does it play with people who are in the middle

00:34:00.640 and people who are center-right? The people who are in the middle or center or center-right and don't

00:34:06.860 really like Trump and are kind of sick of his old act and could, could be convinced to vote against

00:34:14.260 him, but are concerned about the extremism and the craziness on the left? The question is now the

00:34:23.920 Democrats, they need to win a good chunk of those voters. The question is this impeachment pageant, is it

00:34:31.920 going to help them win those people or is it more likely to alienate those people? And I would say

00:34:36.640 almost certainly the latter. Uh, this is from Rebecca says, Matt, what are your thoughts on Q?

00:34:46.360 Well, Rebecca, you didn't, I was trying to figure out when I read this email,

00:34:49.600 what are your thoughts on Q? You didn't stipulate what exactly you're referring to. So you could be

00:34:56.140 asking for my general thoughts on the letter Q. Um, and as far as that goes, I'm a fan of the letter.

00:35:01.460 I don't, I don't think it's a top five member of the alphabet, but it's not bad. Um, you could be

00:35:06.320 asking me about the whole QAnon thing. And as for that, I don't believe any of that because I'm not a

00:35:10.960 moron. Um, or you could be asking me about the Q source, which is the hypothetical source Matthew and

00:35:17.860 Luke use to write their gospels. And as the theory goes, Matthew and Luke based their gospel accounts

00:35:23.240 on Mark, but they also had a second source, which would have been a collection of Jesus's sayings, uh,

00:35:29.200 without any narrative. So sort of like the apocryphal gospel of Thomas. Um, and I'm going

00:35:35.740 to pretend that you meant to ask me about that because that is the most interesting Q related

00:35:39.880 thing that we could talk about in my opinion. And, uh, and no, I'm not a proponent of the Q theory.

00:35:44.660 I think inventing a hypothetical gospel that nobody has ever seen is sort of absurd and, and far too

00:35:52.380 complicated when there are simpler, more logical explanations. So it's clear that Matthew and Luke,

00:35:59.700 uh, you know, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the synoptic gospels. Of course, we call them synoptic

00:36:04.100 because they're so similar. Um, it's clear that they did use Mark as a source because, and we know

00:36:09.920 that because they repeat Mark almost verbatim at many different places in their accounts. So there's

00:36:15.940 just no reasonable way to explain the similarities, um, other than, other than they used Mark.

00:36:24.320 And besides in the preamble to Luke's gospel, he says that he consulted other sources. And so it

00:36:29.980 makes sense that he would have consulted an earlier gospel like Mark, although he doesn't specifically

00:36:33.520 say Mark, that does make sense. The issue though, and where people get this Q thing from is that

00:36:38.140 while Matthew and Luke repeat Mark verbatim at various points, they also mirror each other verbatim

00:36:43.520 at other points, but not Mark. And so the question is, where did they get that almost identical content

00:36:49.960 that isn't in Mark there? And so the, the, the theory is there must be some other third thing

00:36:54.540 they looked at, um, that they were both using independently without knowing that the other

00:36:59.020 one was using it. And, um, but my thing is, you know, why couldn't it have been like this?

00:37:06.020 Mark writes his gospel first, uh, and as tradition has it, Mark is, was a, was a, a, a,

00:37:12.640 a follower of Peter and, and, and, uh, an associate of Peter. And so would have gotten a lot of his

00:37:19.320 material from Peter. And then Matthew writes his gospel and uses Mark and also his own recollections

00:37:25.900 as an eyewitness apostle. And then Luke writes third and he uses both Matthew and Mark and then

00:37:32.580 adds his own material that he gets from, uh, from his own sources. So there's no need for Q and it seems

00:37:40.600 to be simpler and it makes more sense that way in my view. All right. Finally from Tim.

00:37:46.380 And I just answered a question that you almost certainly probably were not trying to ask,

00:37:50.580 uh, from Tim says, hi, Matt, I don't believe in divorce, but have you considered it with your

00:37:55.440 refrigerator problem? Yeah. I've been talking about this on Twitter. Um, my wife has, well,

00:38:02.600 it all started, I think with the syrup. She started putting our syrup in the refrigerator.

00:38:07.340 And I, originally I didn't say anything because I thought, okay, it's not, not a big deal. It's

00:38:12.220 just syrup. Um, so when I found the syrup in the fridge, I would take it out. Cause you don't,

00:38:15.560 you don't need to put syrup in the fridge. Okay. Syrup will stay good forever. Uh, you know,

00:38:20.160 syrup will outlast the plastic that it's in. It will outlast the bottle that it's in. Syrup is just,

00:38:26.340 is, will stay good for a million years. Uh, that's just science as far as I know. Although I could be

00:38:32.020 wrong. Probably. So she started putting syrup in the fridge and I didn't say anything.

00:38:36.360 And, and then, and then she started putting peanut butter in the fridge.

00:38:41.480 And that's when I started making comments and saying, you know, we don't need to put

00:38:45.300 peanut butter and syrup in the fridge. It can just go in the pantry. But then she started putting

00:38:50.960 honey in the fridge too. Honey. I mean, honey is, it, it, it usually is in a beehive,

00:38:57.260 which is not refrigerated. In fact, beehives are very warm inside. Bees keep hives warm,

00:39:03.720 even in the, even in the, even in the winter time. Uh, because with the vibration of their

00:39:07.680 bodies, they, they heat up the, the, the inside of the hive so that it's at like 98 degrees inside

00:39:11.540 the hive. Tried to explain this to my wife. She didn't care. So now we've got, we've got a honey,

00:39:16.920 syrup, and peanut butter going in the fridge. And every time I see it, I take it out and put it in

00:39:20.920 the pantry. And then she puts it back in the fridge and we got chaos going on. Well, yesterday I

00:39:24.580 opened up the fridge last night and I find honey, syrup, peanut butter, and bananas in the fridge.

00:39:32.640 She, she is now putting bananas in the refrigerator. Bananas are tropical fruits. You get them in the

00:39:38.380 jungle. They don't need to be in a refrigerator. There's no refrigeration in the jungle.

00:39:44.300 And you know what happened? I, I tried to talk to my wife about this calmly.

00:39:47.980 And I said, you know, I think we have a problem here. I think you have a compulsion. You have a

00:39:55.960 refrigerator, refrigerator related compulsion. We need it. We can, we can get help for this.

00:40:01.160 That's it. It's, it's okay. You know what she did? She just laughed.

00:40:06.480 This is refrigerator abuse is not a laughing matter.

00:40:10.480 I don't know where it's going to end before all of our kitchen items are going to end up in the

00:40:19.060 refrigerator. She's going to start putting like the toaster in the refrigerator. 1.00

00:40:24.040 This is, this is, but you know, as I've been talking about this on Twitter, I've discovered

00:40:27.480 that, um, a lot of people out there are dealing with similar problems in their home where they've

00:40:34.620 got one spouse or the other who thinks that everything should be refrigerated.

00:40:38.580 And so this is an unspoken issue in America that I'm glad that I could bring this for this,

00:40:44.300 this conversation to the forefront because we need to talk about it. Um, a refrigerator is a,

00:40:49.480 is a, is a, is an important and powerful tool. It has specific uses and to abuse it in this way

00:40:56.700 is dangerous and, uh, and offensive to me on a personal level. And we'll leave it there.

00:41:05.180 Thanks everybody for watching. Have a great weekend. Godspeed.

00:41:09.260 If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the

00:41:16.060 word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available

00:41:19.960 on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to check out the other

00:41:25.120 Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knoll show, and the Andrew Klavan show.

00:41:29.980 Thanks for listening.

00:41:30.700 The Matt Walsh show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer, Alexia Garcia Del Rio,

00:41:36.000 executive producer, Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis

00:41:41.240 Glover and our technical producer is Austin Stevens edited by Donovan Fowler. Audio is mixed by Mike

00:41:47.440 Coromina. The Matt Walsh show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:41:51.700 If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth,

00:41:56.460 if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well,

00:42:00.200 tune on into the Ben Shapiro show where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more. We'll see you there.

The Matt Walsh Show - November 01, 2019

Ep. 362 - Democrats Dehumanize The Unborn, Volume 989,128,002

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript