Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 1, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

40:11

Ep. 189 - They Aren’t “Fetuses,” They’re Undocumented Infants

Today on the show, I explain why “undocumented infants” should be our new term for babies in the womb. Also, AOC introduces another law to solve the fake, non-existent “wage gap.” Date: 02-01-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on The Matt Wall Show, I will explain why we should start calling unborn babies undocumented infants.
	And we'll talk about the right's sudden, newfound, but much welcomed passion for the abortion issue.
	And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants another bill to help solve the non-existent gender wage gap.
	And finally, I will answer your emails today on The Matt Wall Show.
	Thanks for being here.
	Thanks for watching.
	Remember to subscribe on iTunes to get the whole show or become a premium member of The Daily Wire.
	Now, the big news, first of all, that I have to mention just at the top is that Cory Booker has announced his candidacy for president.
	Everybody is very excited about this news.
	I went outside and there were people running down the street just exclaiming their excitement for Cory Booker.
	to be a candidate for president.
	And he joins a very crowded yet dynamic field for the Democrats, a field that includes crazed abortion enthusiast Kamala Harris, fake Native American Elizabeth Warren, and others as well, including, also I should mention, there's a woman called Marianne Williamson, who describes herself as a spiritual guru, She's running for president as a Democrat, and I think what our country really needs is a spiritual guru.
	That's very clear to me.
	But she has one item of her platform that is very interesting.
	She is suggesting, demanding $100 billion in slavery reparations.
	Now, she herself is white, I believe.
	I assume that she'll also be taking part and contributing to this.
	I would just make one slight tweak to her idea.
	What I would say is, we'll start by confiscating all of her income for reparations.
	And then we'll throw that into the pot, into the kitty, and then we'll figure out where we are.
	We'll kind of reconvene and, you know, collect ourselves and figure out how much more we need to make up the difference to get to $100 billion.
	So we'll just start.
	That'll be the first step, right?
	Whoever suggests it.
	Kind of a you smelt it, dealt it sort of situation.
	So you suggested it.
	So you start by giving up all of your money and then we'll, you know, we'll figure out where to go from there.
	All right.
	Yesterday I made a, a suggest, speaking of ideas and suggestions, I made a suggestion at the top of the show, which I want to expound upon a bit here.
	I wrote about this on the Daily Wire as well.
	You can go there dailywire.com and read it.
	My thought is basically this, we need to start calling unborn babies Undocumented infants.
	Okay?
	That needs to be the new term that we use.
	So we stop using any other term, just undocumented infants should be the way that we refer to unborn babies from now on.
	Now, I think that this works.
	I think this is a good term.
	I'm biased, of course, because it was my idea, but I think it works for a number of reasons.
	Starting with this, it is literally true.
	It is an accurate description of the sort of person that we're talking about.
	Because the only thing that really separates and distinguishes a child moments before birth from a child who has already been born is documentation.
	That's it.
	That's the only real difference.
	There is no other biological, scientific, philosophical, moral, ethical difference between the two.
	Just that once a child is born, within a few weeks they issue a birth certificate and a social security card.
	And so the one distinction is that the child in the womb doesn't yet have the paperwork.
	But of course, that doesn't actually mean anything.
	Now, words on a page can legally and officially recognize someone as being a person, but the words on the page, the paperwork, cannot actually confer biological personhood status.
	Because being a person is a biological thing.
	So all the paperwork can do is just officially recognize it.
	And as a matter of logistics and practicality, a child in the womb doesn't yet have the paperwork.
	So that's the one difference.
	And here's the thing.
	I've been told many times that undocumented people You don't have all the same rights as those who are documented.
	I've also been told many times that undocumented people have the right to cross through borders and over barriers in pursuit of life and liberty.
	Planned Parenthood itself has even said, this is the phrase that Planned Parenthood used, Planned Parenthood sent out a tweet a while ago and they said that undocumented people have the right to live.
	That was their phrase.
	And I totally agree with this statement.
	All people have the right to live.
	And I certainly would not support any effort whatsoever to summarily execute illegal immigrants crossing the southern border.
	I would not support that, and fortunately nobody has suggested it.
	But there is, you might say, a different southern border that is quite often protected by violent means.
	Undocumented infants who are trying to cross the border of the birth canal in hopes of a better life, in pursuit of liberty, they are routinely stabbed, poisoned, crushed, dismembered for doing so.
	And the murder of these migrants is, we may call them biological migrants, The murder of them is especially egregious because unlike migrants from Central America, they really have no choice but to leave their homeland.
	Okay, now, we're often told that migrants from Mexico or Guatemala or wherever else are forced to leave.
	They have no choice because they're fleeing the conditions in their countries have become untenable, so they have to leave.
	Well, undocumented infants really are forced.
	They really have no choice.
	They did not choose to be conceived in their womb of origin.
	They don't choose when and if they are born.
	They are victims of circumstance.
	They have no choice whatsoever.
	Immigrants deserve a chance, right?
	Isn't that what we're told?
	Isn't that the slogan?
	They are dreamers.
	They have a dream.
	These are good people, decent people, innocent people, just trying to survive.
	Those are the lines, right?
	It's what everybody says.
	Well, it applies just as much, in fact, even more so to infants.
	Now, you'll often hear people say that, well, we are all undocumented immigrants, right?
	We're all like this.
	We have no room to judge these undocumented immigrants that are coming across the border of Mexico because we're all in the same boat.
	Well, that's actually not true.
	Now, our ancestors maybe were undocumented, but that doesn't mean that we are.
	And even our ancestors actually Probably weren't undocumented.
	My grandparents came, or great-grandparents, they came here through Ellis Island.
	That was perfectly legal.
	Now, if your family came back in the settler times and pioneer times, then, yes, they were, quote, undocumented.
	But that's because documentation didn't exist, so there was no distinction between documented and undocumented.
	There were no documented people back then, so the distinction means nothing.
	But, It is true that we were all at one time undocumented infants.
	All of us began our existence in the womb.
	All of us were granted the opportunity to flee the womb in hopes of a better life.
	And so we really are all in that boat.
	Who are we to deny that right to those who come after us?
	It is a form of discrimination.
	It is, in fact, the worst form of discrimination.
	So undocumented infants it should be.
	Now, the point here, listen, is not just to troll liberals by using undocumented infants.
	I mean, that's part of the point, honestly, if I'm being truthful, but that's not the whole point.
	It's also about being more precise and more strategic in our language.
	And the left has already figured this out.
	They've been doing this for a long time.
	They've already figured out, you know, how to use language.
	And they get the upper hand in arguments all the time because they control the language.
	They convince us to adopt their language, and in adopting the language, we basically cede their point without even knowing that we're doing it.
	Because many times, the conclusion to their premise is embedded in the language that they use.
	And so the moment we start using the same language, we've already essentially agreed with their conclusions.
	So language manipulation is one of their primary weapons.
	And it's, it's, it's been, you know, probably the most effective tool they have in their arsenal.
	So they have a few different ways of doing this.
	And they have a few different ways of manipulating language on the left.
	And They can just be straight up dishonest and use language, use words that are the opposite of what they really mean.
	And you see that with gender issues, so pronouns and all that.
	And with that, they're just lying.
	They're trying to convince us to lie.
	They're saying, oh no, don't use a male pronoun for him.
	Use a female pronoun because he identifies as a woman.
	Well, that's language manipulation, but it's just a lie.
	And it may be effective in duping some people, but I think most people don't fall for that.
	Most people still, even if they pretend otherwise because they're afraid of the backlash, most people still don't buy this idea that a man in a dress is really a woman.
	So the more effective strategy for the left has been when they come up with a new term or a new word for something, and the new word is misleading, but it's not actually technically untrue.
	And the primary example of that is the word fetus.
	Now, fetus is just Latin for child or offspring.
	That's all that means.
	So, when they insist on using fetus instead of child, when they say, no, it's not a child, it's a fetus, that's like saying, no, it's not a human, it's a homo sapien.
	It's a distinction without a difference.
	It's like saying, it's not a car, it's an automobile.
	A distinction without a difference.
	Means the same thing.
	But they realize that viscerally and emotionally, instinctively, the word baby and the word child, the word infant, brings to mind a cute little person.
	Right?
	A cute, innocent little person.
	Anyone who hears baby, child, infant, that's what comes to mind immediately.
	And of course, they don't want that visceral reaction.
	So they go with fetus.
	Which doesn't immediately bring to mind anything, because before they started using fetus as the word, nobody used that word, nobody had ever heard of it.
	So they use a word that is technically true, but it just doesn't carry the emotional baggage that they're afraid of, and it's sort of a blank slate term, and they can infuse an image, and they can infuse emotional baggage into it.
	Undocumented immigrant is another example.
	It's not untrue.
	Illegal immigrants are undocumented.
	They do lack proper documentation, so that's true.
	But illegal is kind of a harsh term.
	It's direct.
	It's a little bit too accurate.
	So they go with something softer, something more ambiguous, something that makes the distinction sound arbitrary.
	Like, oh, they're just undocumented.
	They just don't have paperwork.
	What's the big deal?
	So I suggest we fight fire with fire, and that we take their two most effective forms of language manipulation, and we take those, and we steal them, and we use them ourselves.
	Only, we are using them in an honest way.
	This is not dishonest, and it's not misleading.
	We are not looking to obfuscate or to get people to have a visceral reaction that is inappropriate.
	We're not looking to do that.
	We are looking for a term that is true and that, in this case, it is, in fact, more specific, more direct.
	But that maybe carries with it a little bit of emotional baggage that will help people understand more instinctively what we're talking about.
	So, undocumented infant immediately brings to mind, first of all, an infant, a baby, a human child, which is accurate, it's true, it's what we want people thinking about.
	And then second, with undocumented, it gives you the impression that the only difference between this infant and an infant outside the womb is just paperwork.
	It makes it sound like an sort of arbitrary, basically meaningless difference.
	And that is true.
	That's exactly true.
	It's exactly right.
	So let's use this.
	Let's go with this.
	Yesterday, I started this campaign on Twitter, and the term was trending nationwide pretty much all afternoon.
	So I think it was a good start.
	But let's keep it going.
	One other thing I want to say about this abortion and undocumented infants I've noticed something over the last couple of weeks, and that is conservatives, generally speaking, in the mainstream, have been talking about abortion.
	It's been one of the main topics of conversation, and they've been talking about it in very direct, aggressive, forceful ways.
	Now, if you've been paying attention at all over the last 30, 40 years, you know that that is a definite change.
	The left and the media, they like to paint it as if—they've always painted it like, well, conservatives are obsessed with abortion, it's all they talk about.
	That's actually not true.
	Now, it's one of the main things that I talk about as a crazy, radical pro-lifer.
	But, and there are others in my camp, but in the mainstream, generally, actually, conservatives have generally avoided this issue, and they don't talk about it very much.
	And when they do talk about it, they don't use the kind of language that I've seen conservatives using over the last couple of weeks, and they don't speak about it in terms, or in the way that it's been spoken about over the last couple of weeks.
	This is a good change.
	I don't want to speak too soon.
	I don't want to be too optimistic.
	But it seems like we've crossed some sort of threshold.
	And we could always go back across.
	Maybe that will happen.
	I hope it doesn't.
	I hope we stay where we are and keep moving ahead.
	Because what we've seen is that when all conservatives really focus on this issue and they stand up and they say, no, this is killing babies.
	We're not going to stand for it.
	And in fact, not only that, but they treat the pro-abortion position as not just wrong, but as so self-evidently wrong and just so evil that it's almost absurd, that you can't even take it seriously.
	That's the main difference I've seen over the last few years, is that conservatives are taking this approach of like, what?
	How could anyone?
	You want to kill babies?
	What the hell is wrong with you?
	And that is exactly the approach.
	It is exactly the tone and the attitude we should have.
	Because that's another thing that the left has done, and they've been very successful at it.
	Where they act like their positions are just self-evident.
	And if you disagree with them, you're crazy.
	And it can be very convincing to people.
	Because they say something and then someone immediately says, well, I disagree with that.
	But then the way that they react to the disagreement, it makes the person think, well, okay, geez, all right, maybe I was wrong.
	We should be doing exactly the same thing with abortion, except in this case, it's true, it's honest.
	Because it is self-evident that abortion is wrong.
	It is absurd, ridiculous, evil to actually support the murder of babies.
	So our reaction to people who support it really should be, what?
	What is wrong with you?
	Are you crazy?
	That's a baby!
	You can't kill babies!
	What?
	This is a good change of pace.
	And it shows us that if we were to keep this up, and have exactly this approach, and this tone, and this attitude, and we talk about it in these terms, and we talk about it a lot, and we keep it on the forefront of people's minds, I think there could be real change in this country.
	All right.
	Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats unveiled a new bill, which they put together called the Paycheck Fairness Act.
	And it's supposed to help solve the gender wage gap.
	Now, you might be thinking, don't we already have like three dozen laws that supposedly address the wage gap.
	And yes, yes, we do.
	And then you might also be thinking, isn't the gender wage gap a myth?
	I mean, hasn't this thing been debunked a million times?
	Well, yes, yes, it has.
	But nobody has told AOC that.
	So she, she was talking about the legislation yesterday.
	And here she is explaining this piece of legislation.
	We implicitly recognize as women that the pay gap and the wage gap is an injustice that persists through secrecy, and it's an injustice that persists to the present day.
	And the only way that we can combat that is through organizing in our personal action ourselves.
	So I'm so happy that the Paycheck Fairness Act addresses, among many things, two very critical ones.
	One, Is that we cannot ask for salary history and pay people depending on their salary history anymore.
	Anymore.
	Because it is time that we pay people what they are worth and not how little they are desperate enough to accept.
	It is time to pay people what they are worth.
	And that has nothing to do with their history.
	It has everything to do with what they are worth today.
	And the second thing is that it makes it legal and it makes it totally permissible to share your salary information at your workplace.
	And that's incredibly important because for all of those who say that the wage gap does not exist and that it's a myth, then they should have no problem proving that.
	By allowing the disclosure of salaries in the workplace.
	So I'm so thankful to just be able to co-sponsor and be that backup in this legislation that so many people have worked so hard to bring today.
	Okay, let's run through a few things here from what you just heard.
	She says that the wage gap persists in secrecy.
	And she's right.
	It is so secret that it doesn't exist.
	That's how secretive it is.
	The gender wage gap has the secrecy of, say, the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.
	They live such secretive lives because they don't exist at all.
	There is no gender wage gap.
	And there have been many studies done about this, and they have all proved that there's no gender wage gap.
	When you compare people in similar positions doing similar jobs with similar experience and similar levels of seniority and so on, I mean, when you actually make a worthwhile comparison, the gender wage gap basically disappears.
	Which is to say that women are not being paid differently or less for equal work.
	That is not true.
	That is a total lie.
	Period.
	Now, it may be true that women, generally speaking, make less than men, generally speaking, but that's because women tend to choose jobs that pay less.
	They tend to choose less You know, they tend to choose lower paying jobs.
	There are more women in childcare, for instance, and social work and working at hair salons and things like that.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	I mean, there's a perfectly honorable lines of work.
	It's just that the market doesn't pay them as much.
	Also, men tend to choose jobs that are more physically demanding, that are more dangerous, that require more time, may require relocation and that sort of thing.
	And those jobs are going to pay more.
	Yeah, I talked yesterday on the show, I said, you know, if you're 18 years old, you don't know what you want to do with your life, move to North Dakota and work on an oil rig and make, I don't know how, you know, make six figures or close to that.
	And so that's just one example of a high paying job that is very physically demanding.
	It's going to probably require you to move.
	It's a huge sacrifice.
	It's dangerous.
	And that's the kind of job, it's like, it's almost all men doing jobs like that.
	You go on an oil rig, you're going to see mostly men.
	And they are upping the average for men in general.
	It's not because women are excluded.
	It's not because women are told you can't take that job.
	But here's the fact, no matter, you know, there could be any feminist that might be watching and listening right now saying, well, no, that's wrong.
	Men shouldn't be paid more.
	OK, well, do you want to move to North Dakota and work on an oil rig?
	That's a way you could help your gender average just by going and doing that.
	But you're not going to do.
	You don't want to do that.
	That's just not something you want to do.
	Well, there are men who want to do it, and so they get paid for it.
	That's not unfair.
	You're doing what you want to do, and they're doing what they want to do.
	And that's all.
	So the gender wage gap doesn't exist.
	Second thing, she says We cannot ask for salary history and pay people depending on their salary history anymore.
	Anymore!
	We can't do that!
	We are not going to do this!
	Well, wait a second.
	What does we mean?
	What is this we thing?
	We cannot pay people according to their salary history?
	We aren't doing anything!
	We aren't paying anyone.
	There's no we here.
	An employer is not a we.
	That's not something that we're all doing.
	That's their business.
	That's between the employer and the job candidate.
	And that's all.
	There is no we.
	Also, why shouldn't an employer be able to ask for salary history?
	And how is this any of the government's business?
	And how in the world is this a federal issue?
	Third thing, she says, it's time we pay people what they're worth.
	Well, again, we have this we thing.
	Um, but you're worth what you accept.
	So if your employer offers you $30,000 to do a job and you accept it, then you're worth $30,000.
	If you think you're worth more than that, that's your time to say, I'm worth more.
	Give me more.
	This is this, um, yet again, we see the way that feminism, uh, liberal feminism, which is the only kind of feminism, we see how it infantilizes women.
	And we're being told that women need daddy government to come in and go to the employer and say, no, you must pay her more.
	And no, you can't ask this question.
	You can't ask that question.
	She's uncomfortable with this.
	She's uncomfortable.
	No, you know, I think that mature grown women are perfectly capable of going into a job interview.
	And if they're not offered the salary that they want, they can just say, I would like more than that.
	This is what I want.
	And they can negotiate.
	And if they're not going to get what they want, they can either choose to accept the job anyway, or they can go and interview somewhere else.
	They can decline the job.
	This is something that grown-ups do, or can do.
	It's an option.
	And this is also, by the way, another reason why men sometimes get paid more, because they ask for more.
	Studies show that men are more likely to demand more, to actually negotiate.
	And again, that's not a criticism of women because there's nothing wrong with accepting the salary that you're presented.
	If you're satisfied with it, if you're fine with it, then great, no problem.
	So I'm not saying that someone lacks maturity if they don't demand more.
	I am saying that if somebody wants more money and doesn't say it and refuses to negotiate and then runs to the government and says, can you tell my employer to give me more?
	Now that is a lack of maturity.
	Fourth thing, she says that it should be legal and permissible to share your salary information at work.
	Well, it was never illegal in the first place.
	But many jobs don't allow it because you don't really want your employees going around talking about their salaries.
	So what she means to say is this.
	It should be illegal to make it impermissible to share salary information at work.
	Which, again, who are you?
	Why do you get to decide this?
	Why is this your call?
	Why is it any of your business?
	If an employer has a rule that you can't share salary, okay, what is that to you?
	It's not your business.
	And also, do you expect everyone at a given company to make exactly the same amount of money?
	Because if you do, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, then I hope you don't make any more than your interns do at your job.
	But if you're willing to accept the fact that you're going to have people in a company that are paid at varying scales, well then, you know, there might be someone at your job who makes three times the amount that you do because they're worth three times as much.
	But there's no advantage to workplace harmony and morale and general productivity for you to know it.
	It's better if you don't know it.
	And it's none of your business anyway.
	So there's no advantage to advertising the fact that, you know, this person is making much more than that person.
	Even if the higher salary is completely justified, it's still just, it's not a good thing to talk about.
	It's not helpful to talk about.
	So, we'll see what happens there.
	But another, you know, another law to address a fake problem.
	So who knows?
	Maybe this law will finally fake solve the fake problem once and for all.
	All right, let's go check the inbox.
	You can email the show, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
	And we'll get to a few here before we wrap up on a Friday.
	This is from Leon.
	He says, Hi Matt, really liked the show.
	I'm curious though, can you make a case against abortion without bringing religion into it?
	It seems like religion is always the center point of this debate, and I think it detracts from the message.
	What is your non-religious case against abortion?
	Hi, Leon.
	Well, I think I actually do make a non-religious case most of the time.
	The only time I really bring Christian dogma into it is when I'm talking to and addressing specifically Christians who think that Christianity comports with the pro-abortion message, which it doesn't.
	So that's a totally different conversation.
	But generally, to a general audience, I agree that we can and should make the case, articulate the argument, without recourse to biblical citation, because it's just not necessary.
	It's very easy to do.
	It's very easy to make the case without the Bible.
	Just like I don't need to pull out the Bible to explain to you why it's wrong to rape, or why arson is wrong.
	I could, but I don't need to.
	And if I'm talking to a general audience and they don't all believe in the authority of the Bible, then I'm not going to pull out the Bible.
	Because the thing is, when you introduce the Bible as your proof or your evidence, In a conversation with a general audience, then you've just backed the, you haven't moved the conversation forward, you've just backed it up.
	Because now, okay, now we got to circle back around and explain why the Bible is actually an authority here.
	Which is a totally different conversation, and you've just totally derailed everything, and you've lost track of the conversation completely.
	So, I agree with you there.
	What is the non-religious case against abortion?
	Again, there are dozens of arguments.
	I've made all these arguments many times.
	I will just say this very sort of the central point here.
	I can argue against abortion without Christian doctrine.
	If I were not a Christian, I would still be against abortion.
	We don't need to agree on Christian doctrine in order to have this discussion.
	I cannot argue against abortion without appealing to the fundamental value and worth of human life.
	So we do have to agree on that.
	If you reject the fundamental worth of human life, then there's no argument that can really be made against abortion that will resonate with you.
	So if we cannot agree on that—so I do need There does need to be some basic common ground here that I can appeal to.
	And if we don't even have that, then there's no discussion.
	There's nothing we can talk about.
	And in fact, if you don't agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, Then you also can't really argue for abortion, because any argument for abortion is invariably going to go back to this idea that it's the right of the woman, and she has bodily autonomy, and to make abortion illegal is essentially to enslave her, and so on and so forth.
	Of course, all of that is absurd, but that's the argument against abortion, right?
	But that argument also hinges on the value and worth of human life.
	Because if human life has no worth and no value, then what do I care about her rights for?
	Who cares about her rights?
	Then in that case, I could just agree.
	Yeah, you know what?
	Yeah, we're enslaving women, forcing them to give birth.
	We're just making them into baby factories.
	Well, so what?
	Who cares?
	They're not worth anything.
	Human life has no value.
	They have no value.
	So who cares?
	Why should I care?
	Doesn't matter.
	So we all have to assume that in order to have this discussion at all.
	If we do agree on that, at least ostensibly, then my argument is very simple.
	It is never okay to intentionally and directly destroy an innocent human life.
	Period.
	That's all.
	Human life carries with it certain rights, certain dignities, and that dignity demands a certain respect.
	And that respect means, obviously, that you cannot directly, intentionally destroy In innocent human life.
	And all of civilized humanity, our country, our nation, rests essentially on this premise.
	And it is the same premise upon which I reject abortion.
	So that's the argument.
	It is an argument about the value and worth of human life and the implications of recognizing that value and worth.
	From Jason, he says, hello Matt, if you could unilaterally make one amendment to the U.S.
	Constitution, what would that amendment be and why would you make it?
	Hi Jason, I know exactly what amendment I would add.
	I have long believed that there is a big problem with serving sizes on nutrition labels on junk food, like chips and candy and stuff like that.
	If you look at a nutrition label on a bag of chips, let's say, like the bag of chips I polished off last night at about 12.30 at night, and you look at the nutrition label, it'll say something like 140 calories per serving.
	And at first you think, oh, that's not so bad.
	But then you look at it again, and it says 300 servings per bag.
	Basically half a chip is a serving.
	And I just feel like this is wrong because it makes me feel bad when I eat the whole bag.
	I'm left feeling like a glutton who just had 300 servings of chips in one sitting, and it hurts my feelings, okay?
	It hurts my self-esteem.
	So I would make an amendment that makes it illegal to put serving sizes on nutrition labels, or that the serving sizes have to be much larger.
	So that would be my amendment.
	In fact, forget that, I would make it illegal to put nutrition labels at all on junk food.
	If it is food that we all know is unhealthy, Okay, then there's no reason to put the nutrition label because, listen, we get it.
	I know that, like, you don't need a nutrition label on a Snickers bar.
	Yes, it's a candy.
	I understand that it's bad for me.
	So all the nutrition label does is shame me.
	Nobody has ever looked at the nutrition label on a Snickers bar and then said, you know what, I'm not going to have that.
	Because you only picked up the Snickers bar because you were looking for junk food.
	So all that happens is that you eat the Snickers and then you look at the nutrition label so that you can find out how much you should hate yourself.
	And I say that that is in direct defiance of my human rights or something.
	And so that would be my amendment.
	All right, from Michelle, she says, Hi Matt, I really enjoy your show.
	You seem to be a devout Christian and form your opinions around this without being hateful.
	So many people struggle with the fact That while we may not approve of a person's life choices, we still love that person.
	Without knowledge of the Bible, this seems impossible.
	As someone who has come to know Jesus as an adult, I have struggled with this.
	Luckily, I have a great church family who guides me.
	Your podcasts are refreshing.
	Thank you, Michelle, and God bless.
	From Ian, he says, Hi Matt, just wanted to stop by and say you're ugly.
	How could you say that about me, Ian?
	From Steve, he says, Matt, on Twitter a few days ago, you were criticizing people who use insulting nicknames about their political opponents.
	I don't know if I agree, because Trump has done this to great effect.
	It may seem juvenile, but it is effective, don't you think?
	Steve is referring to a tweet I sent out a few days ago, last week, I think, urging people to stop using dumb nicknames, like Libtard, or Drumpf, or Killary, or Obummer, or Rethuglicans, or...
	Demon crats or whatever.
	And I stand by that.
	Because here's the problem.
	When you use one of those terms as you are expressing your opinion, everyone who reads or hears you use that term will immediately assume that you have an IQ hovering around room temperature.
	Okay?
	That's just what's going to be assumed.
	Because it makes you look and sound very, very, very stupid.
	Maybe you're not stupid, but it just makes you look stupid.
	Worse than that, it is corny.
	It is so corny.
	Libtard and Killary and O'Bummer.
	I mean, O'Bummer?
	That's just the corniest nickname you could ever, ever think of.
	And there is nothing worse than looking corny and dumb.
	Nobody is going to listen to a corny, dumb person.
	It's like you couldn't even choose one or the other.
	It's bad enough to be one or the other, but to be both at the same time?
	No one's gonna take that seriously.
	So there's no point, look, if you're gonna throw an oh bummer into whatever you're writing on Facebook, there's no point in writing it, because all you're doing is advertising that you're corny and dumb.
	So you may as well just write that instead, I'm corny and dumb.
	Now again, maybe you are not dumb, but it's just, that's how it comes off to everyone who reads it.
	So you really shouldn't do it.
	Now, It's true that Trump has in the past used nicknames, but his nicknames were a little, the ones that were actually effective were different.
	It wasn't Obama.
	It was like taking a personality trait of this person and just tagging it to their name.
	to always draw out that association.
	So crooked Hillary is, you know, she is crooked, she's corrupt.
	And so just taking that, tagging it there, and it was an effective strategy.
	It was effective in its time, you know, it ran its course, he used it to effect, I agree.
	It's not exactly the same thing, but I would also say that, listen, Trump is Trump, and just because something worked for him and he got away with it doesn't mean it works for everybody.
	Who knows?
	Maybe he could start using Obama or Libtard.
	I wouldn't be surprised if Trump dropped a Libtard one of these days.
	But you're not Donald Trump.
	The rest of us aren't.
	So you just end up looking very, very stupid.
	Finally, from Stacy, hi Matt, love the show.
	You seem to talk a lot about a lot of different subjects but I rarely hear you talk about so-called climate change and the Democrats' effort to use climate change to advance their Marxist policies.
	Where do you stand on this issue?
	Do you believe that climate change is real?
	Hi Stacey, I talk about this on occasion.
	I don't talk about it that often because it just doesn't interest me that much.
	Yes, I think that climate change is real.
	I am not a climate change denier.
	I believe, absolutely, that climates change.
	Climates change all the time.
	Climates are in a constant state of change.
	A climate is always getting hotter or colder, drier or more humid, so on and so on.
	Now, do human beings cause that change?
	That's the question.
	Well, I think that there is this great big Giant ball of gas in our solar system about 90 million miles away.
	You know, just go about 90 million miles that away.
	Or maybe that away.
	Anyway.
	It's about 800,000 miles across.
	It's burning at about 27 million degrees.
	It accounts for about 99% of the mass in our solar system.
	It is so powerful that it enslaves eight planets in its gravitational pull, nine if you include Pluto.
	Its gravitational force reaches trillions of miles into space.
	And I think that that thing decides what our climate is going to be.
	Not my SUV.
	That's my opinion on that subject.
	Thanks for watching.
	Thanks for listening, everybody.
	Have a great weekend.

▲