00:19:17.100Assassination is what they will call it.
00:19:20.440Comparing it to killing a U.S. official like Mike Pompeo, that is, again, Iranian propaganda.
00:19:29.120That's how they're going to phrase it.
00:19:31.540That's how they're going to put it and frame it.
00:19:33.780Second, you know, there are many reasonable things that you could say or, you know, a reasonable
00:19:46.320person could speculate or worry about where this is going to head, what's going to happen
00:19:53.420next, I think we would be fools if we weren't, you know, somewhat worried because we're, you know, we, we, it's, it's, it is a, it's a contentious situation to put it mildly.
00:20:07.920So, so there's nothing wrong with that.
00:20:10.900And I've seen plenty of reasonable people who've said, listen, I think this was a right, the right thing to do.
00:20:15.780I think it was necessary, but, um, this could go any number of directions.
00:20:19.840And so, so, so, so, you know, here, here are some directions it could go that wouldn't be so good.
00:20:52.820Third thing, is there any doubt that every Democrat in the country would be tripping over themselves to extol the brilliance of this move if Obama had done it?
00:21:04.640Now, there are, on the, on the fringes of the left, there is a, there are some people, a few people, who are consistent on these things.
00:21:16.420And, in fact, did hold Obama accountable during his, um, administration for doing things like assassinating American citizens via drone strike,
00:21:47.560If this was, if this was Obama who did that, is there any doubt that most of these Democrats would be saying that it was a brilliant move, it was morally right, it was strategically wise, on and on and on and on, so on and so forth?
00:22:22.620But on, on issues like this, Democrats are far more tribalistic.
00:22:27.800When it comes to, in my view, when it comes to foreign policy especially, Democrats are far more tribalistic and are far more, um, uh, uh, likely to completely change their foreign policy principles, depending on if it's a guy with a D or an R next to his name in the White House.
00:22:48.160I think that, you know, 99% of the Republicans who are celebrating this, or at least supporting it now, would be doing the same if it was Obama in office.
00:23:03.180All right, let's move on to some other big news that I don't, I don't want to be, I don't want to get completely overshadowed.
00:23:11.160Uh, reading again from the Daily Wire, it says, Congressional Republicans have now taken aim at the infamous decision Roe v. Wade by urging the Supreme Court to revisit the nearly 50-year-old case that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right across all 50 states.
00:23:25.380Thirty-nine Republican senators and 168 members of the House of Representatives, almost all of them Republicans, signed a so-called friend-of-the-court brief, um, filed on Thursday by the National Anti-Abortion Group Americans United for Life in connection with the challenge to a Louisiana abortion access law due to be heard in March.
00:23:43.140The Louisiana case before the court does not directly target Roe, the report continued.
00:23:48.420The law at issue requires a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed, which critics say is not medically justified.
00:23:57.040Um, according to the brief, Roe's jurisprudence has been haphazard from the beginning due to becoming a radically unsettled precedent that, quote, has been substantially undermined by subsequent authority, arguing that previous court rulings, quote, clearly did not settle the abortion issue.
00:24:12.080The brief urges SCOTUS to reconsider those precedents.
00:24:17.640It's interesting to report on the Daily Wire.
00:24:19.500You can go and read, um, and of course it raises the question, are we going to get any kind of direct confrontation with or challenge to Roe v. Wade with the way the court is currently, um, constituted?
00:24:38.300I wouldn't at all be confident that Roe v. Wade would get overturned.
00:24:43.840And that's part of the irony, actually, about the way the, just how fervent the left was, obviously, in trying to stop somebody like Kavanaugh from getting on the court and saying that Kavanaugh is going to attack abortion and Roe v. Wade and all this.
00:25:00.240I don't think Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
00:25:07.700But when it comes to Roe v. Wade, you know, if, if you have, if you have any integrity, again, and it doesn't even matter how you feel about abortion personally, even if you're in favor of abortion.
00:25:23.400If you're in favor of abortion, but you have integrity, and maybe there's a paradox there, maybe there's a, just, that's impossible.
00:25:31.120How could a person with integrity be in favor of abortion?
00:25:34.540Probably they can't, and I think that's the problem.
00:25:37.420But if there was anyone in that category that exists, then they would have to admit that Roe v. Wade, putting abortion to the side, how you personally feel about it, Roe v. Wade is a disastrous legal opinion.
00:25:50.480On just a, on a, on a, on a legal level, it's a, it was a disastrous decision by the Supreme Court because what they did was they located a fictional right to abortion in the right to privacy provision, which also doesn't exist.
00:26:10.660And if it did exist, it would have nothing to do with abortion.
00:26:17.340So based on a right to privacy, which has nothing to do with abortion and also doesn't exist in the constitution, they found, they located a right to abortion.
00:26:27.920And it just, that, of course, makes no sense on a legal level.
00:26:36.220And on, on, on, on that basis alone, Roe v. Wade should be, should be overturned.
00:26:41.360Um, let's move on to, to emails, mattwalshowatgmail.com, mattwalshowatgmail.com.
00:26:46.960Um, there was one here that was interesting that I wanted to spend some time on.
00:26:51.960Okay, this is from Brandon, says, Matt, I was confused by some of your tweets last night talking about the Iran situation.
00:26:57.420Someone said that the U.S. response isn't biblical, and you seem to suggest that Jesus' words in the Bible don't apply to governments, but only to individuals.
00:27:06.860Are you saying the government can do whatever it wants morally, according to the Bible?
00:27:10.580Well, Brandon, of course, I'm not saying that.
00:27:15.240A few people challenged me last night, basically taking the position that Jesus was anti-war, and the Bible is anti-war, and, uh, you know, all, all, all the stuff about don't take vengeance, turn the other cheek, and so on, should disqualify us from doing things like killing terrorists.
00:27:32.240And we, we, we've, we've all heard this before.
00:27:34.580Before, we've, we've, we've all encountered this version of Jesus as this peacenik anti-war hippie, right?
00:27:42.480Somebody quoted Paul in Romans saying that, uh, you know, the, the, uh, the verse in Romans talking about beloved, don't take vengeance, leave it to God.
00:27:54.900And Romans is actually a great example.
00:27:58.720So, it's good that the person quoted it, even though the person who quoted it, obviously, had never read the entire letter.
00:28:05.820Because if you read the entire letter of Romans, you would see that in the very same letter, Paul, in his only explicit mention of the state in that letter, specifically affirms the state's authority to wield the sword and take lives.
00:28:19.380So, you know, at one point, he's saying, beloved, don't take vengeance.
00:28:26.740Yet, at another point, he says that the state can wield the sword and, and take lives in the name of justice.
00:28:37.220Well, because it's simply the case that many of the moral edicts and commands given in the Bible are given to individuals, not to governments as a whole.
00:28:48.820That doesn't mean that governments can do whatever they want.
00:28:53.560Intrinsically immoral acts are intrinsically immoral, no matter who does them.
00:29:03.380Which means that individual people can't do it, and the government can't, you know, come up with some policy where they, you know, subject prisoners of war to rape or, or, or whatever.
00:30:13.480And that's why you can't just haphazardly take a verse here and a verse there and apply it to foreign policy.
00:30:26.360Which, again, doesn't mean that our foreign policy is totally exempt from everything that's in the Bible.
00:30:35.920But it does mean that you can't do it that way.
00:30:40.980And when Jesus says, turn the other cheek, you know, he's talking to you individually as a person and me.
00:30:49.000And he's saying that if you are insulted personally, then the correct response is to turn the other cheek.
00:30:56.360You cannot take that and extrapolate it and pretend that Jesus was giving advice on foreign policy and on how entire nations are supposed to respond to things like terrorism.
00:31:14.000Now you're taking turn the other cheek, which is a very simple but important command, and you're expanding it into oblivion.
00:31:23.160And you're turning it into something incoherent.
00:31:28.200Now, we're going to pretend that Jesus is saying that if a nation is attacked by another nation, the nation shouldn't defend itself?
00:31:36.640No, the government has a responsibility to defend its citizens.
00:31:40.160And if we're attacked or if we're under threat, the government has a responsibility to respond.
00:31:46.700No, we don't want the government to turn the other cheek to aggressors and terrorists and, you know, enemy powers.
00:31:57.340So you've just got to be, you know, we've, we've, we've, we say again and again, you've got to look at the context in the Bible.
00:32:09.340Um, you can't take anything just in isolation and pluck a sentence out of its context.