All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
39:36
Ep. 182 - New York Makes It Legal To Kill Babies Through Every Trimester

Today on the show, the state of New York has made it legal to murder children in the womb through every stage of development. We will talk about this barbaric, satanic new law. Also, some new revelations about Nathan Phillips make it even clearer that he is a bully and an instigator. Finally, I answer your emails. Date: 01-23-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on The Matt Wall Show, the state of New York has made it legal to murder children in the womb through every stage of development.
So we're going to talk about this barbaric, satanic law.
I've got plenty to say about it, as you can imagine.
Also, some new revelations about Native American elder Nathan Phillips make it even clearer that he is a bully and an instigator.
So we're going to talk about that as well today on The Matt Wall Show.
Well, hello and welcome, everybody, to the show.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for being here.
I remind you that if you want to get the whole show and not just a small sliver of it on Facebook, you can subscribe on iTunes or go to YouTube or become a premium subscriber of The Daily Wire.
Or you could do all three, even.
That would be best of all.
As you can see, I am doing my best impression of professionalism today with my outfit.
I know it's not a very convincing impression, but it's the best I can do.
All right, I want to talk about first, well, I don't want to talk about this, but it's necessary to talk about something utterly horrific.
The state of New York in an act of unspeakable Unconscionable barbarism has made abortion legal through every stage of development up until birth, which means that now, in the state of New York, you can kill your child, your fully formed, fully developed, pain-capable infant child, even a minute before delivery.
Now, I remind you that, just to put this in context, in New York City, The abortion rate is so high, especially among minorities, that more black babies are aborted than born in the city.
You're more likely, as a black baby in the womb, you're more likely to be killed than to be born.
That's just, that is how, and the rate is very high among white babies as well, but that just shows you, it just shows you how common abortion is.
And the state legislature, they're looking at that and they're saying, no, that's not enough.
You know, the rate's not high enough.
There aren't enough dead babies yet, so let's pass this law, and that's what they did.
Now here's a little bit more from the Daily Wire and Amanda Prestigiacomo wrote a great
detailed piece about this, which is up now.
You can go read it.
It says, the womb will become an even less safe place for unborn babies in New York come Tuesday.
Democrat legislators are set to legalize abortion up to birth and remove the fatal procedure
from the state's criminal code altogether with the passing of the euphemistically named
Reproductive Health Act.
The proposed legislation erases the current limitation abortion in the state which is set at 24 weeks.
The Reproductive Health Act states, and this is important, okay, listen to this, every individual who becomes pregnant, every individual, by the way, so not every woman, but every individual in case a man gets pregnant, which of course does happen apparently these days, every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term To give birth to the child or to have an abortion.
So long as a licensed practitioner acts in good faith, a baby can be murdered in the womb up to birth in order to, quote, protect the patient's life or health.
Notably, the meaning of the word health is not defined within the legislation.
Okay, so there are a few things to highlight here.
You're going to hear liberals latching on to what I just read there about the, you know, protect the woman's life or health.
And some of the justifications I've already read on social media are saying that, well, you know, really this is just a, it's just abortion is only legal in order to save the life of the mother.
That's all.
So it's just extreme cases.
No, that's not true.
Okay.
That's simply false.
This legislation legalizes abortion through every stage of development for the sake of the mother's health.
For the sake of her life, but also her health.
Health is a very broad term.
It is an intentionally broad term, and it could mean anything.
There's a reason why they didn't define it.
They didn't get into any more specifics.
So are we talking about physical health, emotional health, psychological health, financial health?
Well, yeah, we're talking about all of the above.
Anything at all.
The vagueness of the term leaves it open to mean anything, and that's the point.
So you combine the vagueness of this qualification with the fact that the law declares abortion to be a fundamental right for every pregnant individual, You combine those two things and that clearly means that a woman can get an abortion at any time for any reason, period.
That's what it is.
The only stipulation is that they might have to kind of vaguely couch their reason in terms of health.
That's all.
And then they can get the abortion.
Second thing to remember is that And this is sort of irrelevant anyway, considering that this law has nothing to do with it, but the whole idea that you would need abortion to save the life of a mother is a total misnomer.
Okay?
You do not need abortion.
That's a thing that doesn't exist.
And I know people will say, what about ectopic pregnancies?
I'm not talking about ectopic pregnancies.
That's a totally separate issue that we could deal with and, you know, I would argue that treating an ectopic pregnancy is not the same thing as an abortion, because of the principle of double effect, but that's a totally separate conversation.
We're talking about, these are late-term abortions, after 24 weeks.
There's no such thing as an ectopic pregnancy in its third trimester.
That doesn't exist.
So, late-term abortions, to save the life of the mother, that just, it doesn't exist.
That's not a thing.
It is a category that doesn't exist.
It is never necessary, never, ever, under any circumstances necessary, to get a late-term abortion to save the life of the mother.
Never necessary, period.
So anytime someone says that, they say, well, we need, you know, we need to have abortion through all stages in case the life of the mother, just make sure to correct them and say, no, that's false.
There has never been a scenario, ever, in history, ever, Where a woman in the second or third trimester needed to get an abortion to save her life.
Never.
Why?
Well, the reason is obvious.
Okay?
What kind of thing could make a later-term abortion necessary?
Just think about what might come up that would supposedly necessitate that.
Well, there could be some kind of cataclysmic complication with the child.
There could be a health problem with the mother.
There are situations you hear about where the mother is diagnosed with some aggressive form of cancer while she's pregnant and she can't treat it while she's pregnant.
So, you know, I've heard that proposed as an example of something where an abortion isn't necessary to save the life of the mother.
But whatever the case is, all it means is that the baby has to come out.
Okay?
It means that the mother has to give birth.
She has to get the baby out of her.
And those sorts of cases do happen, where there is something cataclysmic that goes wrong, either with the mother or the child, and now the pregnancy could be fatal to both of them, potentially, so the pregnancy has to end.
Okay?
So what does that mean?
Well, as I said, all it means is that the child has to come out.
The child has to be delivered much earlier than expected.
Then the question is, why do you need to kill the child first?
Why does the preemptive killing of the child contribute to the mother's health?
If a mother is at 30 weeks, and something cataclysmic has gone wrong, pregnancy has to end, okay, that happens, it's a terrible thing, very difficult, so you take the baby out.
That's all.
You don't need to kill the baby first, you just take the baby out.
Either way, the baby has to come out, In a late-term abortion, okay, the way that these things are conducted, and I hate to be graphic with you, but I think we all should face what these things are.
Rather than using euphemisms, I think we should be frank and clear about it.
So here's how a late-term abortion is done.
The baby is injected while the child's still in the womb.
He is injected with poison into his head or into his torso, and then he dies.
And then the mother carries the dead baby around in her body for two or three days and sometimes she'll go back in the next day and they'll check and the baby's still alive and has been suffering all that time and so they inject him again and then he dies.
By the way, this is a horrifically painful death for the child, and a child in those later stages absolutely can feel pain.
There's no question about it.
They've got a developed nervous system, they can feel pain, and to be injected with poison into your skull, well, I don't think I need to explain how incredibly painful that would be.
The baby's injected with the poison, the mother carries the dead child around in her body, and then she delivers the dead child.
There is a delivery that happens.
Sometimes she delivers the child in the clinic, but then oftentimes she's not able to get to the, you know, labor comes on very quickly, she's not able to get to the clinic, so she ends up delivering in, say, the hotel bathroom into the toilet or something like that.
Again, the question is, if the mother decides for whatever reason, at that stage, that she doesn't want the baby inside her anymore, she's going to have to deliver the child, regardless.
There is no medical reason, ever, why you would need to kill the baby first.
You could have just as well delivered the healthy baby.
That in-between step of injecting poison into his skull, obviously that doesn't contribute to the mother's health, and obviously it's just another step that's more dangerous for the mother and clearly the child as well.
So the injection of poison into this process, that doesn't make it medically safer for anybody.
So again, if she's 20, I feel like this needs to be emphasized because I keep hearing this and it makes no sense.
If she's 26 weeks or 30 or 32 or whatever, she could deliver the child and the child could easily survive.
Easily.
The preemptive murder of the child is not ever necessary for her health.
Ever.
It is just murder.
It is just death.
It is killing.
That's all.
I'm sorry to be graphic with you, by the way, describing how this happens, but I think it's important to be frank about what we're dealing with, not to cover it in these kind of code words and everything that the pro-abortion left likes to use because they cannot confront the wickedness of this procedure that they support.
And we should be clear that the state of New York just made it legal to give a fully developed infant a lethal injection.
That's what happened.
Which brings us to an interesting point, by the way.
Because let's look at this dichotomy here.
It is unconstitutional in the state of New York to give the lethal injection to convicted criminals.
They don't have the death penalty.
They haven't had it for many years.
And it's been ruled unconstitutional.
So if a man rapes and murders a child, for instance, in the state of New York, you cannot give him lethal injection.
It is unconstitutional.
Which means that the lethal injection can only be administered to babies in New York.
Think about that.
The lethal injection is legal in New York, but only if you're giving it to a baby.
I mean, here's the thing.
This is why I always say that abortion is a litmus test issue.
Not just a litmus test for politicians, although it is that.
But it's a litmus test for human beings in general.
It tells me kind of like everything I need to know about you as a human being.
Because you are just not a decent person if you support giving lethal injection to infants.
You are a sick and perverted person if you support that.
And then I realize that I'm calling millions of Americans sick and perverted, but so be it.
I wish we didn't have all these sick and perverted people out there, but we do.
And I really mean it.
I want you to know how deeply I mean it.
That if you're watching this right now, you're listening, and you support this, and you think this is okay, and you're kind of offended now, you're saying, well, how dare you call me sick and perverted?
Well, yeah, that's what I'm calling you.
Because you are.
That's what you are.
I wish you weren't that.
I wish you were a better person than you are, but right now you're just not a good person.
Because good people don't support giving lethal injection to babies.
You know, and I feel like I'm setting the bar pretty low here.
That's not a high bar to get over.
I mean, if you can't even clear that bar of not supporting the lethal injection for infants, then, I mean, there's nothing I could do for you.
You're just not a good person.
But there's still hope for you, and I pray for you, but you just, you need to let go of this horrible, horrible Ideology that you're clinging to.
All right.
Here's another story from the Daily Wire.
Amanda had this one, too.
I get like half my stories from Amanda, in case you hadn't noticed.
She reports, soon after Native American activist Nathan Phillips confronted high school boys from coming to Catholic in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he reportedly led a protest Of about 20 fellow Native activists attempting to crash the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conceptions Saturday evening mass.
According to the Catholic News Agency, while chanting and playing ceremonial drums, a group of Native American rights activists reportedly led by Nathan Phillips attempted on January 19th to enter Washington, D.C.' 's Basilica during the Mass.
The group of 20 demonstrators was stopped by shrine security as it tried to enter the church during its 515
vigil mass.
So, Nathan Phillips, now this is we were told that Nathan
Phillips, well, he was, you know, he was just trying to intervene and and restore peace and
order and everything like that.
Well, then he goes and he tries to barge into a church.
As I've been saying for days now, Nathan Phillips is a fraud and a bully and an agitator, an instigator, and nothing more.
Phillips inserted himself into a tense situation where children were being taunted and mocked by grown men, and rather than coming to their defense, which would have been the good and heroic thing to do, rather than doing that, he gets in their face, he invades their space, and starts playing the drum in their faces.
And then he's not even satisfied because after that incident, he goes and tries to invade a church.
I mean, this guy's desperate for attention.
He's desperate for controversy.
He's trying to provoke everybody.
But, of course, before he went and tried to invade the church, the first thing he did is he went to the media.
And he blatantly lied about the kids.
He said that they surrounded him, they wouldn't let him leave.
Video evidence proves that's a lie.
He said that they chanted, build the wall, which again, video evidence contradicts.
He tried to provoke them, apparently, and when he wasn't able to provoke them, he just went and defamed them instead, kind of as a plan B. And you might want to think, You know, if you hadn't heard about the story and you just saw all that, you might say, well, you know, maybe the guy's having a bad day.
His behavior was certainly bizarre and dishonest and despicable and manipulative.
But, you know, maybe he'll think better of it in the morning and he'll apologize.
Not so much.
While his lies have resulted in death threats and bomb scares, so much so that the school had to shut down for a day, and these kids now live in fear of physical reprisals, while all that has gone on, Phillips has only doubled and tripled down on his original slander.
He's done the exact opposite of backpedal or apologize.
No, he's just gone.
He's gone further.
In various interviews, He's called the boys a lynch mob, he's called them beasts, he's called them beastly, he's called them scary.
I remind you that these boys are getting death threats, and their families are getting death threats, and Nathan Phillips, the wise old elder, just continues to pour gasoline on the fire.
It's almost as if he is trying to get these boys hurt, or worse.
Now, the media continues to tell us that Nathan Phillips is just this kind old man who wants peace and understanding and harmony.
Well, he's got a really funny way of showing it, doesn't he?
In fact, originally, he was offered an opportunity to come and sit down and break bread with the kids and have a dialogue, and he turned it down.
And then he hinted in the next breath that he thinks maybe they should be expelled.
So he's offered the chance to meet with them and he's saying, no, you know what, but let's expel them first and then we'll talk.
Of course, now he's saying that, okay, I will meet with them, but he's only gonna meet with them if it means that they sit down and he stands and he delivers a lecture on cultural appropriation.
So he's willing to come and lecture them, but as far as a dialogue, no, he's got no interest in that.
And then kind of the cherry on the sundae, Phillips, yesterday, was interviewed by, I think by the newspaper in Detroit, I believe, and he said that the black Israelites, who started this whole thing by yelling racial slurs and so on, he said that, yeah, they were saying some harsh things, but, he says, some of it was true.
Okay, Mr. Phillips, which parts were true?
The parts where they called Native Americans totem pole worshippers?
Was that part true?
Did you even know they said that?
Or where they shouted the F-words, you know, slur word for gay people?
Was that the true part?
Or where they were shouting racial slurs at a black student at the school and saying that his white friends are going to harvest his organs?
Was that the true part?
Or where they called the kids incest babies and future school shooters?
Nathan Phillips has taken the side of a vowed racist who verbally assaulted a bunch of children.
So whatever credibility he had up until that point, which he had none, is now gone.
So he's now in the negative.
He's like, he's racking up overdraft penalties right now in his credibility account.
This is just...
You know, the media has certainly canonized some absurdly unworthy characters in the past, but this may be the most glaringly unworthy saint yet to be canonized by the media.
He is no hero.
He is no champion for peace.
He is a bully.
Plain and simple.
That's all he is.
He's just a bad person, you know.
By the way, think about what the... I'm just putting this together in my head, but think about this.
Think about what the left has done just over the last, say, like three days.
So they started the week slandering and defaming and smearing a bunch of high school kids.
And now with the passage of this abortion law in New York, they're celebrating the mass murder of infants.
I mean, this is just cartoonishly evil.
So much so that if you're on that side and you're doing this, how do you not just catch your reflection in the mirror for a minute and look at yourself and say, wow, I am evil.
This is evil what I'm doing.
Do you ever stop and say that to yourself?
All right, one other thing I wanted to mention before we get to some of your emails.
This is not important at all, actually, and I don't know why I even still pay attention to this, but Oscar nominations were announced.
So the Oscar ceremony, which has no host and which nobody will watch and nobody cares about, still they announced who they have nominated for Best Picture.
And I really think, and this is saying something, I think it's the The weakest collection of Best Picture nominees, maybe ever.
And there have been some really weak categories, especially recently.
I don't have the list in front of me.
They nominated Black Panther, the movie Vice, which is just kind of an absurd hit piece on Dick Cheney, Black Klansman, Green Book, And there were a couple others in there.
Now, what makes it so weak and so bad, because it's one thing if, well, you've got some weak Best Picture nominees, but also there really weren't any good movies that came out this year, and so then you've got to give the award to somebody.
Although, I personally think there should be years where nobody wins Best Picture.
It's sort of like with the Hall of Fame.
With these various Hall of Fames, like especially the Basketball Hall of Fame or Football Hall of Fame, where they feel like every year they have to induct new people into the Hall of Fame, which kind of diminishes the value of the Hall of Fame, because then you end up with people who are, you know, who are good, but don't rise to the level of historically great.
There should be many years in a row where just nobody makes it into the Hall of Fame because there hasn't been anyone that good.
And there should be years where the Academy says, you know what, we can't do an awards ceremony this year because there really weren't any great movies this year, guys, so check back next year.
But this year there were some great movies.
First Man was a truly great, moving, powerful movie.
Also a movie that was subject to absolutely absurd and unwarranted criticism and controversy over the stupid issue of the American flag, even though the American flag is featured in that movie plenty.
It's a very patriotic movie.
The only thing they don't show is the one particular scene where he actually plants the flag on the moon.
They don't show that.
Now, they do show the flag waving on the moon, they just don't show the moment where he puts it there.
Which, who cares?
Because do you know what they show instead?
They show Armstrong leaving a keepsake on the moon from his young daughter who had died of cancer years before, which I didn't even know he did that.
But the movie is much more focused on the personal story of this man and what he went through to achieve this amazing thing.
Much more focused on him on a personal level than it is focused on the geopolitics or the bigger picture.
And I think that makes it really a powerful movie.
It is a movie called First Man.
It's not called First Country, although we were the first country, but it's focused on the man more than the country.
And I think that he deserves that anyway, because he is the one who achieved this thing.
So that's a great movie.
It was basically shut out, wasn't nominated for anything.
Quiet Place, another great movie.
It's a horror movie that actually manages to have some substance to it.
It actually has suspense.
It is legitimately scary but without resorting to gore or to cheap kind of jump scares or anything.
So it is a horror movie with some substance and depth to it.
And it also features a great kind of Father, heroic father figure type of character, which maybe is why it was shut out.
You know, the Academy doesn't go for that these days.
So those are two great movies that were shut out and instead we have, instead they nominate a stupid comic book movie.
I mean, we're living in an idiocracy, folks, in case you haven't noticed.
All right, finally, let's check the inbox.
If you want to send me a message, comment, question, death wish, you can email mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
Steven writes, I have to say I'm amazed at some of the hate mail you get.
The other amazing part is that it's from people who apparently take time to watch the show.
I don't know why anyone would find it valuable to listen continually to something they hate and then take time to email you telling you how much they hate you.
It's like going to a sushi restaurant when you don't like sushi over and over and over and over.
Nonetheless, I listen to your show regularly and I like the thought that goes into it.
Steven...
Thank you, Stephen.
Don't be amazed, though.
This is something that everyone in my line of work deals with, and we're all perplexed by it.
We expect it, okay, so we're not surprised, but as far as the psychology of a person who would sit down and listen or read someone that they hate or follow them on social media or whatever, well, the psychology of that is a mystery to me.
I think it's a mystery to most of us.
Now it's one thing to read or follow or watch someone you disagree with but respect.
Now that makes a lot of sense.
That's a good and healthy thing to do and we should all be doing that.
I think it's a good challenge for all of us.
You should try to come up with a couple of people who you fundamentally disagree with on a very deep level.
But yet you respect their opinion and their perspective, and so you'll read some of what they write, watch whatever they do, and kind of follow them a little bit.
You should have a few people like that.
Because I think it helps, it challenges your views a little bit, helps to make you a more well-rounded person.
So, for instance, I've probably seen every Christopher Hitchens speech.
I've seen most of his debates.
I've read one of his books.
I've read a lot of his articles.
I think he was brilliant, insightful, incredibly witty.
I think he's kind of a joy to read and listen to.
But I disagree with him on a deep and fundamental level.
So that's one thing.
But to religiously follow somebody that you despise and who you don't respect and whose point of view you have, you know, you don't even take into account and you have no appreciation for, well, that, I can't relate to that.
That doesn't make any sense.
There are plenty of people in media who I don't really respect and I can't stand and I don't appreciate their opinion.
I think that they're just stupid and shallow.
And their perspective is relatively worthless.
So, you know what I do?
I'm not going to watch them.
I'm not going to listen to them.
Why would I?
But I think some people are so empty inside and so lost and just so hollow and spiritually shriveled up that this is the only thing that makes them feel alive to hate.
To stew gleefully in their own hatred is the only thing that brings them a thrill in life and so it's pretty sad.
Norman says, Do you think Satanists should be allowed to display sculptures in public places alongside Christian crosses or nativities?
Why or why not?
Also, should Satanists be allowed to give talks, lectures at public schools if Christians are allowed to host events at public schools also?
Thanks, love your work.
To me, this is an easy question.
I know this is one of these things that's supposed to be hard to adjudicate.
It's an easy answer for me.
And you hear about these satanist groups that want to put up a satanic monument or something in a town square in response to some sort of Judeo-Christian monument that's up.
Well, listen, if there's a town out there that is predominantly populated by satanists, And they want to have a monument in their town square, and in their courthouse, and wherever else, declaring their Satanism and worshipping Satan, then I say, yeah, go for it.
Not only do they have the right to do that, but I would prefer if they did.
Because if I'm moving or something, or if I'm looking to get a timeshare in some particular town, And it's 60% populated by Satanists.
I would prefer if they announced that fact and made it clear.
So if I'm going through the town, looking at apartments, and I see a big monument to Satan right there in the town square, I'll say, okay, well, this isn't the town for me.
So yeah, if I'm a big believer in subsidiarity, I'm a big believer in keeping things as local as possible, I'm a believer in local jurisdiction.
So if there is a town like that out there somewhere, a satanist town, then yeah, they should be able to put satanic stuff everywhere.
And all the rest of us will just stay the hell away.
No pun intended.
The problem though, is that in all of these cases that you hear about, where they're trying to put a satanic monument in the town square or in the courthouse or whatever, in every single case, It is a, or in most of the cases I can think of, it is some outside group that is trying to do this to prove a point.
It's not coming from within the town.
And so that I oppose.
If a town is mostly Christian, And then some satanic group from seven states away says, we want to put a satanic monument there.
Well, of course they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
They're not even from the town.
That doesn't represent the views of the town.
I'm from Preston.
He says, Matt, I've been a big fan of yours for many years.
I used to use your articles for current events in high school.
I even listened to your podcast when you were on The Blaze.
I recently got married back in November and really respect your views on marriage and family.
What are some bits of advice you would give to have a happy and successful marriage?
Preston, congratulations.
I'm no marriage expert or guru.
I've only been married for seven years.
I don't think I'm in the spot right now where I can even give advice.
If I were to offer one thing, I'll offer this just because it's obvious and it won't blow your mind.
But here's something that when I was married, I didn't realize would be so important, and that is gratitude.
I know it's obvious, that's the point, but sometimes the most obvious things are the things that we can overlook.
You've got to be grateful for your wife.
Verbally, openly, obviously grateful.
Appreciate what she does.
Show that you notice.
Show that you care.
And if I was talking to your wife, I would say the same thing.
Appreciate your husband.
Be grateful for him.
Notice what he does.
I just think in so many unhappy marriages and in so many failing and failed marriages, this is the theme you hear over and over again.
I know everybody says, well, money and all this stuff is what can ruin marriages.
No, I think if you actually listen to what these people are saying, so often this is the theme that comes up.
So they didn't notice me.
He didn't appreciate what I was doing.
I was doing this.
I was doing that.
They never noticed.
So on and so forth.
Now, of course, in a marriage, it's like you don't want to be doing everything in hopes of being appreciated and being noticed.
But if you're never appreciated and never noticed, it takes a toll on you after a while, and I think it'll destroy your marriage.
So that's something to think about.
Chris says, love the show, Matt.
Do you think that the older Democrats in Congress see the irony that their freshman colleagues that they can't control are a product of their own failed entitlement and victimhood policies?
Or do you think that this is what they're hoping for?
No, I'm sure they don't notice the irony, Chris, but I think that's a very excellent Point.
Thank you for raising it.
Katie says, Hi Matt, I heard you say that modern sitcoms are aggressively stupid.
I agree, but here's my question.
What do you think are the funniest shows on television?
I don't know about right now.
I don't watch sitcoms right now, but The Office, The American Office seasons one through four and a half.
I think that is the, that right there is the funniest chunk of television ever put on, you know, on, The American Airwaves.
And then it fell off rapidly from there, but that would be my vote.
Let's see.
Kelsey says, Matt, I appreciate your show.
I know your children are young, but I was wondering, how do you feel about Christians sending their kids to public colleges?
I'm a disabled veteran and my kids have the opportunity to get grants for California State Colleges.
I just don't know if that education is worth our time.
Thanks for your opinion.
Kelsey, thanks for your service and your sacrifice.
First of all, You know, this is just, here's what I say about, generally, my opinion is it's best to avoid public colleges, but you have to make a decision that's best for you and for your kids, especially.
My main thing, whether it's a public college or a private college or no college, I think the main thing, and this should not be a controversial point of view, but the main thing is as long as a kid If someone has some concept, some vague general concept of what they want to do with their life and how they're going to use their education and sort of what the point of it is going to be for them, then if they have that in mind, then it's easier to decide where they're going to go to college or if they're going to go at all.
I think the problem is so often when we just toss our kids into college, even though they have no idea what they want to do with their life, they have no idea what their skills are, no idea what their passions are.
Which just shows you that's a failure of the public school system, that you can have these kids that go through 13 years of formal education, they get to the age of 18 years old, and so many of them have no idea what they care about, what their views are, what their priorities are, what their goals are.
No clue!
And I know it's true that at 18, you don't have to have it all figured out, but I mean, you should have some general idea of what you're good at and some kind of vague idea of who you are as a person.
And so many kids don't, and that's a failure of the public school education system.
But if a kid has that in mind, then it's easier to say, okay, I'm going to go here for this reason, I'm going to major in this, this is the best place to go, here's my plan.
But if they have no idea at all, Then what I say all the time is there's no reason for them to go.
They could just go get a job.
They could move out, live in an apartment on their own, pay some bills, experience adult life.
And then as they figure it out, then they could go to college.
Or they may discover that they don't need college for what they want to do with their life.
And they can spare themselves the debt and everything else.
But there's no real downside.
It's not a race.
So I don't know if that answers your question, but that's what I would say.
Corey says, Matt, when you first started I hated you, but over time I have to admit I've come to still hate you.
Thank you for that.
Finally, Megan says, Matt, on Twitter I saw you talking about becoming a beekeeper.
Are you serious about that?
I'm absolutely serious.
I'm not a beekeeper yet, but I'm ordering bees.
I've got the bee suit and I've got the frames, the hives, and so I'm going to start my beekeeping journey this year.
Why am I becoming a beekeeper?
Just because, you know, because why not?
Number one, why not be a beekeeper?
I also think that I want to have a hobby that has nothing at all to do with this and nothing to do with anything, you know, politics or anything like that.
And I also think that bees are fascinating.
They really are.
If you read about bees, if you just go watch like a documentary on bees or read about them, these are fascinating creatures who are also crucial to humanity and to agriculture.
But just one example of the fact, and I could go on for 30 minutes about bees.
I won't do it.
Maybe someday I will.
One fascinating thing about bees is, you know, bees can find sources of pollen and nectar that are miles away.
And you may wonder, well, how do they find them?
How do they find the flowers and vegetation and everything?
Well, what they'll do is they'll send out scouts to go and find, you know, some patch of flowers somewhere in a field, you know.
And then the bees will come back.
And now they have to communicate to the other bees where those flowers are.
And the flowers could be two and a half miles away.
And so they have this little dance that they'll do where they wiggle their body in a certain way, and they're essentially communicating the coordinates to the other bees who are standing there watching, and then they all go and they find the flower.
I mean, that is fascinating.
And it shows you God's design in nature as well, which is maybe one of the reasons why I like it.
All right, we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
President Trump has a new governing theme.
Build a wall and crime will fall.
Do walls work or are they merely symbolic?
We will analyze.
Then, the Covington kids are doubled down on by the left.
They won't apologize.
Finally, the culture of death, 46 years after Roe v. Wade.
▲
Export Selection