Today on the Matt Walsh Show, infanticidal Democrats can’t stop advocating for baby murder. Now the governor of Virginia even wants to kill babies outside of the womb. Also, we’ll talk about a photo of coal miners that at least one liberal says is racist. And the media was very upset yesterday because Howard Schultz doesn't know the price of cereal. Is this a legitimate line of attack? (The answer is no.) Date: 01-31-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, infanticidal Democrats cannot stop themselves from advocating for baby murder.
Now we have the governor of Virginia suggesting that we kill babies outside of the womb.
He's now saying that he was taken out of context.
He wasn't, but we'll look at the context and see what he was actually saying.
Also, we'll talk about a photo of coal miners that at least one liberal says is racist.
And finally, the media was very upset yesterday because Howard Schultz does not know the cost of a box of Cheerios.
Is that a legitimate reason to attack someone?
No, of course it isn't, but we'll talk about that coming up on the show today.
Welcome to the Matt Wall Show, everybody.
Remember to subscribe on iTunes or become a premium member of The Daily Wire so you can get the whole show.
I've got an idea just to begin things with, just kind of brainstorming here.
What if we call unborn babies undocumented?
Instead of unborn, how about undocumented?
Because maybe then liberals will stop killing them.
Do you think that might work?
Because when you think about it, undocumented works for unborn children much more than it works for illegals.
These are babies who just have not yet gotten the document of the birth certificate.
Just, you know, just something to think about.
Speaking of undocumented babies, Democrats across the country are, as we've been talking about over the last few days, they are in a mad dash right now to legalize late-term abortion as quickly as they can, in as many states as they can.
So it was already legal in six states, and also Washington, D.C., thanks to Democrats.
And now, after last week, it's legal in New York as well.
And then Virginia and Rhode Island have their own bills, or had, anyway.
Virginia's bill has since been defeated, and Rhode Island's bill, even if it succeeds, will not be able to do everything that it intends to do, because it also will overturn the partial birth abortion ban.
But partial birth abortion, which is an absolutely barbaric practice of infanticide, is illegal on the federal level.
But the fact is, even though the one bill was shot down, the other bill, even if it were to succeed, can't do everything, it could legalize late-term abortion but not partial birth abortion, it still shows you, it shows you where the Democrat Party is right now, and it shows you what they want to do, even if they're not able to do everything that they want to do.
And we learn everything we need to know about the Democrat party based on their what has now become mainstream support for late-term abortion.
Which brings us to Governor Northam in Virginia.
Yesterday morning, Northam was on a local radio station down there in Virginia, and he was asked about this bill.
Northam is a Democrat.
Now, keep in mind, this guy was sold as a moderate Democrat.
So this is what passes now for moderate liberalism in the Democrat Party.
And here's what this moderate liberal Democrat had to say.
There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday when Fairfax County Delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third trimester abortions as well as other restrictions now in place.
And she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion, even as a woman is essentially dilating, ready to give birth.
And she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor.
Do you support her measure?
And explain her answer.
Yeah, and I wasn't there, Julie, and I certainly can't speak for Delegate Tran, but I will tell you, one, first thing I would say, this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved.
There are, you know, when we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way.
And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable.
So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
So, I think this was really blown out of proportion But again, we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.
We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers.
And this is why, Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should and shouldn't be doing with her body.
And do you think multiple physicians should have to weigh in as is currently required?
She's trying to lift that requirement.
Well, I think it's always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision because these decisions shouldn't be taken lightly.
And so, you know, I would certainly support more than one provider.
Now, so yes, he's advocating infanticide.
We'll get to that in a minute.
But notice, notice how the interviewer does not challenge him at all.
I mean, you're an interviewer and your interviewee is just proposed killing live infants.
And we don't even get a... Wait, what?
Like, we don't even get that much?
I would... I would be happy just with that.
Just one follow-up of it.
It doesn't even need to be very specific.
Just the follow-up could be, uh... What?
So you want to kill infants?
That's... That's all the follow-up.
We don't even get that.
She... You see the expression on her face.
She's just going with it.
She's just nodding her head.
You know, she's doing this the whole time.
Just like, yeah, okay.
No follow-up.
It's almost impressive at this point how disgraceful the media manages to be in every situation.
And just like instinctively, it's just instinct, just a visceral reaction now, they know they can go to the most disgraceful reaction possible every single time.
Meanwhile, if, again, if the media had any self-respect and if it was at all interested in doing its job, Then, as this story was going viral yesterday of the governor of Virginia advocating infanticide, every single Democrat who has so far announced their candidacy for 2020 would have been asked by the media, do you agree with Governor Northam about killing infants after they've been born?
They all would have been asked.
Just like every time Donald Trump says anything that shocks people, every Republican, every Republican on the national stage, every Republican who people care about, they're all asked immediately, what do you think about this?
Do you agree with him?
But of course, you don't get the same thing with the Democrats.
In fact, forget about Northam for a minute and his advocacy for killing infants after they've been born.
New York legalized late-term abortion last week.
It was a big story.
So every single Democrat should have been asked, do you agree with this?
Are you in favor of killing babies in the third trimester, even though they could survive outside of the womb and you could easily just—they have to be delivered anyway, so you could just don't—you know, they weren't asked.
Like, hey, you have a baby.
And in the third trimester, the mother wants to end the pregnancy.
The baby has to come out one way or another.
We could kill the baby first and then take him out, or we could just take him out without killing him.
Do you think that it's okay to do the first thing, where you take that extra step of killing the baby?
Every Democrat should be asked that question, but they're not asked.
In fact, just to give you an idea of how the national media is covering this story, let me read a little bit from the Washington Post article on this, on the story about Northam.
The title of the article is, Failed Abortion Bill Draws GOP Outrage Against Virginia Governor Northam, Democratic Legislators.
So this is the meme, but it's true.
This is always how it goes.
Every time a Democrat says anything or does anything outrageous and horrible and disgusting, The story for the media is always, Republicans pounce.
Republicans are outraged.
Conservatives exploiting.
That's always the story for them.
It's not the thing that was said or done.
It's how conservatives reacted to it.
So, let me read a couple of paragraphs from this article because it just shows you so perfectly.
How our media deals with with this issue.
It says President Trump, Republican lawmakers in Virginia, and conservatives across the country attacked Governor Ralph Northam and other state Democrats on Wednesday after they defended a bill that sought to reduce restrictions on late-term abortions.
So just we'll stop right there.
The first sentence is it's they're leading off right away.
It's with Republicans attacking.
That's the story, right?
And this is how they summarize it in the first Paragraph.
It's not that Republicans are attacking because Governor Northam advocated infanticide.
It's because he defended a bill that reduced restrictions on late-term abortions.
That's what we're going to call it now.
Killing a baby after he has been delivered is reducing restrictions on late-term abortions.
It goes on.
The furor escalated quickly after Republicans circulated a video of delegate Kathy Tran acknowledging that her bill, like current law, would allow abortions up to the point of delivery in cases when the mother's life or health was at serious risk.
Let's stop right there.
Can we get a fact checker on this?
Because I've found already we've got a At least an extremely misleading statement, if not an outright lie.
Because they're saying the law would allow abortions in cases when the mother's life or health was at serious risk.
Well, in this exchange with Kathy Tran that they're talking about, she admits herself that the serious risk to the mother's health could be her mental health.
This could be her mental health, her emotional health, And Kathy Tran admits that in the exchange that the Washington Post is talking about right now.
But of course, the way that they present it.
Now, if you didn't know any better, you had no idea about any of this, you didn't know about this exchange, you hadn't seen it for yourself, you didn't know how these laws worked, and you read that statement, you would think cases where the mother's life or health was at serious risk, and you're thinking physical health.
You're thinking life-threatening situations.
But that is not what the bill covers.
That's not what it talks about.
And Kathy Tran herself admitted that.
And anyway, I don't even need to go on.
You get the idea there.
Now, Northam, of course, has since backtracked and claimed that his comments were taken out of context.
And he also went on Twitter yesterday and made himself the victim.
This is what he said on Twitter.
He said, I have devoted my life to caring for children and any insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting.
Yes, we are the shameful and disgusting ones, you see.
It's us.
Because this poor guy... Look at this poor guy.
He advocated for infanticide and was prepared to sign a bill that would condemn thousands of babies to death, but his hurt feelings are really the problem here.
That's... Oh, this poor, poor man that we would dare be angry after he advocated killing live babies outside of the womb.
Just so you know, Northam, We're not insinuating anything.
We are straight up accusing you of advocating infanticide.
That's what we're accusing you of.
Not insinuating, that's what we're saying, because that's what you said.
So all we're doing is repeating what you said, which was itself horrible and disgusting, and that's what's happening here.
Despite what he's claiming now, his comments are very clear.
He's talking about infanticide.
In fact, he talks about infanticide in two forms.
He is advocating kind of two methods or levels of infanticide.
And he goes through it very methodically in the way that he explains it.
And that's the only thing that was kind of shocking about what he said, is that he was so clear about it.
And usually Democrats, it doesn't surprise me to hear a Democrat who has no problem with infanticide.
All of these pro-abortion Democrats, they really have no problem with it.
That's why with Kermit Gosnell, why do you think it was that the media ignored the Gosnell story and never really expressed any real outrage about it?
This was a guy in the middle of a major American city for 30 years, he had been killing Infants outside the womb, chopping them up, leaving body parts strewn about in the refrigerator and buckets on the side of the room.
The clinic was in shambles and not even sanitizing the equipment ahead of time.
Women were dying.
Just an absolute horror show.
And Democrats didn't appear to be that upset about it.
Why is it?
Why is that, do you think?
Because they have no problem with it.
No matter what they say, when it comes down to it, they really don't have a problem with it.
They're fine.
It's really fine with them.
If the baby comes out and you kill the baby a couple seconds later, you know, because there's really no difference.
And they're right about that.
There really is no difference.
Kill the baby a couple seconds before it comes out, a couple seconds after, you know.
Obviously, if I have gotten myself to a place where I am so soulless, And such a psychopath that I'm okay with killing a fully developed infant mere moments before he comes out of the womb, then obviously I'm also gonna be okay with killing the baby afterwards.
So Democrats agree.
They've got, they're fine with it.
They really are fine with this.
The only thing that's unexpected is when they come out and admit it.
So that's what he did.
And here's what he talks about.
He says, the infant comes out of the mother, So now we're dealing with an infant who is separated from the mother, no longer, there's no more bodily autonomy, this is my body stuff.
That's all gone now.
You never really had, it was always gone, because that was never your body we were talking about.
It's the body of a child, who is not you.
This is not your limb, okay?
But now that the child's out, that is all gone.
This is just a child.
And what Northam is saying is that the infant will be resuscitated only if the mother wants it.
If the mother wants it, we will resuscitate the infant.
So, they could just let the baby die right there, and that is infanticide.
That's murder.
And then he says, even after the resuscitation, there will be a discussion.
Okay?
The part about having a discussion, that's where he uses a little bit more vague language so he can always claim that it was taken out of context, even though it wasn't.
The first part is not vague at all.
He's talking about letting a baby die rather than resuscitate it, which, as I said, is murder.
Babies have to be resuscitated after they're delivered all the time.
Now, fortunately, not in the majority of cases where there's a birth.
But it's not an unheard of thing that a baby will come out and need some sort of immediate medical attention, even resuscitation, in more extreme sorts of situations, which is what the hospital is there to do.
That's what doctors do.
We're not talking about extreme measures.
We're not talking about taking a baby out and putting him on life support for the next 15 years.
We're not talking about that.
We're just talking about he needs immediate, basic, Medical care.
Do you give it to him or not?
Do you just put him there on a table and let him watch him die?
Or do you do something basic to save his life?
What Northam is saying is, you know, maybe you just put him on the table and let him die.
If that's what the mother wants, just let him die.
That's all.
Which is morally equivalent, and identical, in fact, to if you're sitting at the dining room table, having dinner, and your four-year-old child starts choking to death on a piece of broccoli, and so you just, and someone tries to get up to save him and give him Heimlichers, like, say, no, no, no, no, just sit there.
Let's let this play out.
And then you just sit there and watch your child choke to death on broccoli.
Just sit there like this, watching him die.
Exact same thing.
Now, any parent, any monstrous dirtbag who would do that, in the case of the four-year-old child choking, that person would go to prison.
At the very least for manslaughter, if not for murder of some degree.
So it's the exact same thing.
But Northam doesn't stop there, because he says, okay, if the mother wants it, you resuscitate it.
And then a discussion ensues.
Well, he can always claim, well, I just said discussion.
I didn't say what they'd be talking about.
Okay, well, what's the discussion about, Northam?
Are they having a discussion about the football game last night?
Are they having a discussion about what they're going to name the child?
Is that what you meant by discussion?
No, see, everyone knows and you know that what you meant by discussion is it's going to be a discussion about whether or not they're going to kill that child.
Because that is, you're claiming it's taken out of context.
The context of this conversation is abortion.
That's what we're talking about, is killing kids.
That was the context of the discussion with the interviewer.
So the discussion that you're referring to is whether or not we're going to kill the child.
In summary, the Democrat Party is overrun with infanticidal, bloodthirsty lunatics.
And I don't say that as an insult.
I believe, I agree with other people who would say that we live in very divided times.
And so we have to be careful about the rhetoric we use.
And it's very important to not use overheated rhetoric and to not engage in personal attacks, personal insult.
And I agree with that.
So when I say, when I call these Democrats bloodthirsty infanticidal lunatics, that's just a description of what they are.
And it's the most generous description I can really come up with.
That's the best I can do.
I'm being very generous with that.
Because to call them lunatics really kind of lets them off the hook.
And I believe in seeing the absolute best in people.
I am an optimist.
You know that about me.
So I'm being very optimistic when I say that all these Democrats advocating infanticide and late-term abortion, which is infanticide itself as well, I'm being very optimistic when I say that they're just lunatics.
As in, they don't know any better.
When I think we all actually know that that's not even true.
That they're worse than lunatics.
Whatever label you want to put on it, there's no happy label to put on it.
This is a dark and disgusting thing.
And we are at the point now where the Democrat Party and the left, they have long since abandoned any notion of safe, legal, and rare.
That used to be the mantra, safe, legal, rare.
And those pro-lifers who had a little bit of foresight, Said even then look you can't believe them on that.
They don't really care.
They don't care about safe and rare Yeah, they want legal.
That's true, but safe and rare.
That's just it's just what they're claiming.
It's not really what they want and Now we're at the point where yep, they have just punted On the rare part of it.
They don't care about rare anymore The people like to claim that Slippery slope arguments are fallacies.
But the really incredible thing is that pretty much every slippery slope argument that conservatives have made about liberals over the last 50 years have all come to fruition.
They have all come true.
All of them.
By the way, the left continues to lie and claim that late-term abortions only happen in cases where the woman's life is at risk.
And I've already discussed this plenty, and I've explained why it's simply false.
It is absurd.
Late-term abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life.
Ever.
It may be necessary to end a pregnancy early, but you don't need to kill the baby before you take it out.
But you don't have to take it from me.
Dr. Omar Hamada had this to say on Facebook last week.
He says, I want to clear something up so that there's absolutely no doubt.
I am a board-certified OBGYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies.
There is not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion.
Not one.
Delivery, yes.
Abortion, no.
There is absolutely no medical reason to kill a near-term or term infant for any reason.
So there you go.
And guess who agrees?
The Guttmacher Institute.
This is a research institute that is radically left, radically pro-abortion.
The liberals use the Guttmacher Institute all the time to make whatever abortion-loving point they're trying to make.
Well, Guttmacher has looked into this question.
Several times they've looked into it.
And they have found that it is very, very, very rarely the case that health is even cited as a reason for a late-term abortion.
I think that they've said it was cited in like two or three percent of all cases.
They did a report back in 2013 that goes into more details.
Let me read directly from the report.
These are the results of the Guttmacher Institute.
Again, a pro-abortion research institute.
A research institute that liberals have already said is very credible.
They use it all the time.
Okay, so this is what Guttmacher has to say.
Women aged 20 to 24 were more likely than those aged 25 to 34 to have a later abortion.
And women and later abortion, they're talking 20 weeks or later.
And women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks gestation were less likely than others to do so.
Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays, which compounded other delays in receiving care.
Most women seeking, now here's the part, here's the important part.
Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles.
Here they are.
They were raising children alone.
They were depressed or using illicit substances.
They were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence.
They had trouble deciding and then had access problems or they were young and nulliparous.
Now that last cat, I don't even know how to pronounce that.
Nulliparous, I think is how you pronounce it.
I had to look that term up.
I confess I never heard that term before.
It apparently means women who've never given birth before.
And it could be they'd never given birth because they...
Just didn't want to give birth, or they had stillbirths, miscarriages in the past.
It does not necessarily mean, from what I read, women who currently have life-threatening pregnancies.
Okay, so those are your five categories.
And it's got nothing to do with health, saving the mother's life.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, these are women who just made... Basically, these are lifestyle choices.
They just, for whatever reason, they didn't think it fit into their lifestyle.
And why did they wait so long?
Well, maybe because they had some logistical problems, or they just couldn't make up their mind, or things went bad in their relationship, whatever.
That's why they end up waiting this long.
So all this stuff about, well, a woman's not just going to go in there 28 weeks and get an abortion unless there's a serious medical problem.
Not the case.
That's the case, according to Guttmacher, in a small, small fraction of instances.
All right, moving on.
Here's a story.
I've been wanting to talk about this for a few days, but Here's a story that was in the Daily Wire a few days ago.
It says, last week, the Baltimore City School Board unanimously decided against allowing police officers to carry firearms in public school.
Legislation to overturn the prohibition on firearms was sponsored in the Maryland General Assembly, but then later withdrawn because of the lack of support from the city school board.
The final vote was 10-0.
The current law only permits the roughly 90 Baltimore school city police officers to carry their weapons when school is not in session and requires them to lock up the firearms while inside schools.
And the article goes on from there.
You can go read it on the Daily Wire to get more information.
But this is just obviously total madness that you won't allow police officers to carry.
Well, first of all, then what are they there for?
And if you don't trust your police officers with guns in school, then what even is the point?
If there is any police officer on the force right now in Baltimore City who you don't trust with a gun around kids, then that's a guy that should not be a police officer.
Okay, so that's an easy way to solve that problem.
But if you don't trust any of them with guns, then that means that you are just paranoid and delusional.
There is no... The idea that you're going to disarm police officers and then send them into the school is just... Okay, and then... So then the school shooter comes in.
What's the police officer going to do?
Make himself a human shield?
This is like you might as well pass a law saying that when firefighters in Baltimore are responding to a fire, they have to leave their hoses at home.
So you're not allowed to bring any water or any hoses.
By the way, you can't bring any axes or anything either because you might, you know, the hose, I mean, you could, if you spray someone in the face, you could hurt them.
You could drown somebody.
If you have an axe and you use it incorrectly, you might end up cutting someone's hand off, for goodness sake.
So, yeah, just run in and deal with the fire, but figure out a way to do it.
Maybe smother the fire with your own bodies or something.
Absolute madness.
Speaking of madness, there was an article in Arizona Central, which is a, we're told, part of the USA Today network, And this is someone who wrote an editorial, someone who has come up with a very interesting reason to be offended.
This is what it says.
It says, a few weeks ago, this is written by Rashad Thomas is the name of the opinion contributor.
He says, a few weeks ago, I attended a holiday party at a downtown Phoenix restaurant.
I walked around to view the photographs on the wall.
Then a photograph caught my attention.
Friends said, it's coal miners at a pub after work.
It was a photograph of coal miners with blackened faces.
I asked a latinx, rather than Latino, latinx, and white woman for their opinion.
They said it looked like coal miners at a pub after work.
Then they stepped back, frowned, and said, it's men in blackface.
I asked the waitress to speak with a manager.
Instead, I spoke with a white restaurant owner.
I explained to him why the photograph was offensive.
Evidently, someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before.
Yet, the photograph remained on the wall.
He said he would talk to the other owners and get back to me.
While leaving, I asked him had he spoke with the other owners.
He had not spoken with them, but mentioned Google said it's coal miners after work.
Who determines what's offensive?
For me, the coal miners disappeared, and a film honored for its artistic merit, despite being the most racist propaganda films ever, DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation, surfaces, in which white actors appeared in blackface.
The white owner saw coal miners in the photograph.
Therefore, it was not offensive.
Uh, first of all, this is just terribly written.
I know it's Arizona Central, but still, you think they'd have better, you think they'd have higher standards?
It's just a terribly written article, but that's beside the point.
I mean, how many times did he repeat in the first few paragraphs, they said it's coal miners.
They said it's coal miners.
We get it.
Everyone thinks it's coal miners except for you.
So what you see here, this is an example.
It's hilarious, which is one reason why I'm pointing it out.
But, you know, the first thing that jumps out at you is that, okay, this is another overly sensitive leftist who's looking for reasons to be offended and who apparently lives his life looking for reasons.
And this is the food that sustains him, is finding outrage and offense.
And that is, yeah, that's part of it.
That's definitely part of the story here.
The other part of the story, though, is this is relativism.
And he says it himself.
He's like, yeah, everybody around me sees that this is just coal miners after work.
But I see it differently.
You know, I draw these crazy connections between this and Blackface, and I remembered a movie, and these and that, and this and... So that's how I see it.
And I couldn't possibly be wrong.
There's no way that I'm wrong.
So I see it this way, so how I see it must be how it actually is.
My impressions must therefore be legitimate, because it's my impression, it's my opinion.
And if I find it offensive... You see, there's even this confusion.
You can almost sense some confusion in his voice.
Like, he can't understand.
Well, I told everyone it offended me, yet they didn't take it down.
I don't understand it.
How could you not take a die?
I said that it offended me.
What's the problem?
Where's the disconnect, guys?
I just said I'm offended by that.
And this is what you get when you have someone who is, or people, the leftists...
Who are obsessed with finding offense all the time, and then at the same time, they're also relativists who don't believe in objective truth.
That's how you end up with a situation like this, where they're just finding offense everywhere they go.
Finally, let's quickly check a few emails.
You can email the show at mattwalsshow at gmail.com.
From Ryan, he says, Hi Matt, I've noticed that you have tattoos.
Two questions, what are they?
Also, how do you justify tattoos, given that the Bible prohibits them?
I've gotten an email like this about 15 times this week, so I figured I might as well just answer it.
I do have two tattoos.
That's one, that's called a Cairo.
which is a Christogram formed from the first two letters of Christ in Greek.
It's a very ancient Christian symbol used by Constantine.
I like it because of its ancient tradition.
Also, it's got kind of a militant flavor and history to it.
And I think that Christianity needs that sort of militant spirit, a warrior spirit, especially in these times.
That's why I like it.
I also have a Celtic anchor cross right here with the phrase salvation from the cross in Latin.
Which is the first tattoo I got.
As far as how I justify it, well, fortunately I'm not bound by the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament.
Especially a law that was given in the case of tattoos to prohibit people from tattooing pagan symbols on themselves.
Or preventing them from tattooing as part of a pagan ritual.
So this is not a pagan ritual, it's not a pagan symbol, and those laws don't bind us anymore.
Moral laws do, but not the ceremonial laws.
So the prohibitions on tattoos, that goes in the same camp as don't wear mixed fiber, don't eat pork, and all that kind of stuff.
So, it's pretty easy for me to see the distinction there.
But just because we're not bound by that prohibition, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily advisable to go and get a tattoo.
That's up to personal preferences.
And my preference was to get one, so that's all.
If someone doesn't like tattoos, that's perfectly fine.
This is the one thing that kind of frustrates me.
There are some Christians that say, well, you can't get tattoos, you can't drink, and all this kind of stuff.
And that's fine.
Again, if that's your personal preference, if that's how you choose to live, perfectly fine.
That's great.
That's awesome.
Good for you.
I respect it.
But Christianity itself does not actually require that.
Christianity is not actually a puritanical religion.
Christianity has the impression of being very closed-minded, very narrow, very restrictive, and it is closed off from sin, closed off from falsehood.
It does have, in effect, what we would call restrictions, but it is not how it is painted as this just boring, bland thing.
In fact, Christianity allows for all different Types of approaches and opinions and everything.
And if you want to drink and be merry, if you want to get a tattoo, go ahead.
You can.
You can do that.
If your conscience tells you not to, then don't.
Let's see.
James says, under the Green New Deal, the federal government would control all energy production, and with Medicare for All, it would control all access to health care.
In your eyes, is there anything tyrannical about a government that has this much power?
What about unconstitutional?
What will be next?
Total takeover of education, making public school mandatory?
Love the show.
Thanks.
James, my answer is yes, yes, and yes.
The left is trying to move us to a place where the government controls literally everything.
Yes, of course it is tyranny.
It would also be the end of the United States and the end of the American dream and the failure of the American experiment.
If our country falls into tyranny less than 300 years after it was founded, which is the blink of an eye, In the grand scheme of things, there are countries around today that have been around for thousands of years.
We've got less than 300 years, which is just, we're still basically, well, maybe not in our infancy as a nation, but we're in our adolescence at most as a nation.
If at this point, you know, the left completely takes over and everything is taken over by the government, we have no more freedom or liberty, then that means America just failed.
It was a wonderful and beautiful experiment.
Which was great while it lasted, but it was a failed experiment in that case.
And so that's what we're fighting for.
It just puts it into context, what we're fighting for.
Though again, I think it's worth noting the irony here, that leftists, they want the government to control everything, even while insisting that Donald Trump is Hitler.
And for some reason, they don't see the problem there, right?
Finally, from Jess, she says, Hi Matt, what's your take on Howard Schultz being asked about the price of Cheerios?
Thank you for bringing that up, Jess.
Yes, Howard Schultz, the billionaire former CEO of Starbucks, running for president, or consider running for president as an independent, is not popular with the left.
The left hates the guy.
They hate him because they think that he's going to steal votes.
You know, he's going to siphon off moderate liberal voters, thus reelecting Trump.
They also hate him because he's a billionaire.
This is a guy who came up from nothing.
He apparently, I learned this yesterday, apparently he lived as a kid in a housing project and then eventually opens a little tiny coffee shop in Seattle and he builds that into an empire and becomes a billionaire.
This is the American dream.
This is not someone who inherited millions from his family, who was born into wealth and success.
This is really a rags to riches story.
And if we're at a point in our country where we can't admire and respect that, then I don't know what's left.
I don't even know what we're doing anymore.
So he goes on Morning Joe and they ask him if he knows how much a box of Cheerios costs, which is such a stupid gotcha question.
Obviously the reason he's being asked is they're trying to paint him as out of touch.
Now keep in mind, So the media is, they're focused on whether or not Howard Schultz knows the price of a box of brand-name cereal, even while the governor of Virginia is advocating infanticide.
So you've got the governor of Virginia saying, let's kill babies out of the womb.
The media ignores that and they're saying, well, what about Howard Schultz?
He doesn't know how much Cheerios cost!
But who cares?
You know what?
I don't know how much a box of Cheerios costs.
I have no idea.
And I'm not a billionaire.
It's for a few reasons.
Number one, I don't eat Cheerios because I'm a grown-up.
Number two, I'm a man.
And as a man, even though I've gone grocery shopping plenty of times, I have no idea how much anything costs.
So a box of Cheerios, if you told me a box of Cheerios costs $4, I would believe you.
If you told me it costs $15, I'd believe you there too.
I have no idea.
When I go grocery shopping, I just walk down the aisle, I just pick things out based on sight.
It's really more of a based on gut instinct type of thing, and also based on just how hungry I am.
And then I go and I take it to the checkout, and I'm always surprised by what the price is, so it's kind of a fun game.
So, that's all.
It means absolutely nothing, and if Howard Schultz doesn't know how much Cheerios cost because he's eating, you know, a fancy Eggs Benedict breakfast prepared by his personal chef every morning, then you know what?
Good for him.
That's awesome.
I wish I had a personal chef making me breakfast.
If I could afford a personal chef making me breakfast every morning, I would definitely pay for one.
That would be great.
So, good for him.
Alright, we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
As Democrats embrace fourth trimester abortion, they make the same mistake Republicans have made on abortion in reverse.
We will analyze the undocumented infants, then deep fakes, gene editing, Cheerios in the mailbag.
