All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
39:00
Ep. 202 - The Left Launches A Posthumous Smear Campaign Against John Wayne

Today on the show, leftists randomly decided to dig up an old John Wayne interview and scold him for his racist beliefs. But what is the point of this exercise? Why are leftists always looking for dead people to condemn? We'll discuss. Also, an insane story of government incompetence, and I field a question about "positive parenting." Date: 02-20-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left has decided to posthumously condemn John Wayne for racism.
But what is the point of this exercise?
Why are they constantly digging up these long dead people to shame them for the views that they held a long time ago?
Well, we'll talk about that and try to get to the bottom of it.
Also, I have here a truly insane story.
That perfectly illustrates the incompetence of government and also shows us why we don't want these people controlling our healthcare system.
So we'll talk about that today as well on the Matt Wall Show.
Bye.
It says here on the back, a man's got to have a code.
Creed to live by, and that is very good advice.
Good advice from the Duke.
And I'm a huge fan.
I'm a big John Wayne fan.
I've seen almost all of his movies, and I love all of them, especially The Searchers, True Grit, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Quiet Man.
I mean, the classics.
These are classic films.
But the big news is that I'm not allowed to like John Wayne anymore.
I probably shouldn't be drinking out of this cup.
It's an offensive cup.
I should probably be throwing it and smashing it on the ground in anger.
And you're not allowed to like him either, in case you didn't know.
John Wayne is yet another dead man who has been posthumously excommunicated from polite society.
Why?
Well, seemingly at random.
Seemingly is the key word there.
I'll go back to this, the seemingly part.
But seemingly at random.
a uh yesterday an interview with uh that john wayne did with playboy in 1971 went viral so yes this is a this is a 50 year old interview a famous interview i might add an interview that is not exactly secret it's not like this thing was dug up Like it had been buried in the desert like the Gnostic Gospels or something for 2,000 years, and then it was dug up and found.
No, it's been out there.
I mean, he did it in Playboy, so people knew about it.
But it went viral half a century later, 50 years after it was published, and 40 years after John Wayne died.
And leftists on Twitter were taking screenshots of the various portions of the exchange that John Wayne had with Playboy and posting them online and exclaiming over what a racist and what a sexist John Wayne was, because he says a bunch of racist, sexist stuff in this interview.
And they were so shocked.
They said, oh my gosh, what a piece of garbage John Wayne was.
And yes, you know what?
Uh, John Wayne was a racist.
He says some legitimately racist things in that interview.
There's, there's no question about it.
Um, for, for some reason yesterday it was important that everyone acknowledge the, uh, the racism of this dead Hollywood actor and boldly condemn it.
We have to boldly stand up against John Wayne and said, John Wayne, you racist.
Um, Condemn the opinions of a man who has been dead since the Carter administration.
Now, I said this interview went viral and this anti-John Wayne backlash was seemingly random.
But not really random, though.
There is a method behind this madness for the left.
There is a point to it.
This is part of a larger strategy, a larger plan.
And the plan is to sort of systematically go back through history, find people who white males today might like or admire from history, might consider to be personal heroes or what have you, and dig up their skeletons, Or dig out the skeletons in their closet, even as their actual skeletons are decomposing in the grave.
That's the plan.
And the point behind this is that white males of today are not allowed to look back in history and admire or enjoy the work of other white males.
That's the point.
You're not allowed to do that.
Our heroes must be culturally approved.
We can admire women from history, we can admire minorities from history, but not too much, keep in mind, not too visibly, because that would be cultural appropriation.
So we, basically, we're not allowed to have any heroes.
We can't really have, you can't have white males because they're all bad.
But even someone who's not a white male, well, you can't like them too much because if you do, then it's like you're trying to steal heroes from other, um, uh, racial groups.
So that's the, that's the point.
And the only way I think to respond to these posthumous smear campaigns is to have utter contempt for them.
Contempt for the smear campaigns, not for the people who are being smeared.
And when the left comes to you saying, aren't you going to condemn this guy who had this bad opinion a long time ago?
Aren't you going to stand up with us and condemn him?
You know what our answer should be?
Our answer should be no.
You know what?
I'm not going to.
Get out of my face.
I'm not going to play your game.
I don't care.
John Wayne had racist opinions.
You know what?
I'm going to watch his movies anyway.
I still like him.
I'm going to go on a John Wayne movie watching binge this weekend.
And I'm going to have my kids watch the movies too.
And I'm going to tell them, this is John Wayne.
He was a great actor.
You kids should like him too.
That's what I'm going to do.
Because I'm not going to play your game.
I don't care.
I'm not going to dance to your music.
When you randomly decide that, nope, not allowed to like John Wayne anymore.
No, well, I still do.
I don't care.
Well, how can you like him?
He was racist.
You're not supposed to... I don't care what your opinion is.
Don't you understand that?
That's the... I don't care.
It doesn't matter to me.
Yes, John Wayne was racist, that's true.
John Wayne was born in 1907, you utter nincompoops.
Do you know who else was racist?
Literally everybody born in 1907 or earlier.
Not every white male, mind you, okay?
But every person in the world, with very few exceptions, if any.
I mean, I can't even think of what an exception would be.
Maybe there are a few.
But almost everybody born in the world in 1907 or earlier would be considered racist by our standards today.
Here is one thing that I can say for absolute certain.
Anyone born from the beginning of human civilization to about 1950 would have held, without question and without exception, views and opinions that we would find abhorrent today.
A lot of the time those views are going to be on issues like race and ethnicity and culture, or the views could be on gender, or the views could be about homosexuals, Okay, but everybody born from the beginning of human civilization to approximately 1950 is going to have opinions on some or all of those subjects that we today would find repulsive.
So we could give the John Wayne treatment to anyone of either gender of any race of any ethnicity.
Because you see the idea that all races are equal and that we shouldn't be suspicious of people who don't look like us.
Okay, this is the right idea.
This is a good idea.
It's a true idea.
It's morally correct.
It's morally upstanding.
Yes, but it's also a very new idea.
And you know what else?
It's a very Western idea.
And I'm going to put a serious emphasis on Western, because if you go to many non-Western countries, even today, you're going to find that many of the inhabitants still do not share our progressive, enlightened views on race, and probably on gender, and almost certainly on sexual orientation.
Even today you're going to find that in many non-Western countries.
Do you think you're going to find a lot of racial enlightenment in the Middle East?
The answer is no.
But if you're going back through history, then you're going to reach a certain point.
You know, if you're going back in your time machine, if you're going back with your scolding finger to go scold people back in history who didn't share your views on race, views that again, yes, are correct and are right.
So congratulations to you and to all of us.
But if you're going back to scold, you're going to be doing a lot of scolding.
You're gonna be spending a lot of time.
I hope you've gassed up your time machine because you've got to go.
You've got a lot of, you've got a lot of driving to do.
Or flying, or however your time machine travels.
You see, what the left wants us to do is they want us to look at history through a modern-day lens, but very selectively.
Okay, so we are meant to hold only certain people, almost always white males, to the moral standards of today.
Not always white.
I mean, there are sometimes white women we'll get this treatment to.
Laura Ingalls Wilder was One of the other recent people to be posthumously defrocked, essentially, because she did not have enlightened opinions about race, apparently.
And so the trick is to convince us that these people, who the left chooses, don't deserve the benefit of historical context.
And it's really important for us to understand the way that this is done.
Okay?
The way that they do this is by conflating personal moral guilt with objective moral wrong.
Now, those are not the same thing.
Okay?
And this is something that relativists get wrong also.
There is objective moral wrong, and then there is personal moral guilt.
So, wrong is wrong.
I totally agree with that.
Bad is bad, wrong is wrong, always and forever.
What's wrong today was wrong in 1907, it was wrong in 1807, it was wrong in 1207, it's been wrong since time immemorial.
So the racism that was prevalent across the planet until very recently was wrong.
Definitely.
Totally wrong.
But the problem is that the left says, because it was wrong, that means that all of those racist people, well, the white males anyway, were pieces of garbage whose statues should be torn down and their movies should be burned in a giant bonfire and so on.
You see, that's the leap they make.
They start from a premise we can agree with, which is racism is wrong.
Fine.
Yeah.
Racism is wrong today.
It was wrong at any other point in history.
Yes, I agree.
But then they do another move and they say, therefore, all of these racist people were terrible and do not deserve our admiration and do not deserve to be remembered or honored or anything like that.
But no, see, that equation doesn't work.
That's a fallacy.
The badness of the individual Depends on personal moral guilt, not just on the on the objective moral wrong of the action or the viewpoint or whatever we're talking about, but on personal moral guilt.
Um, so everybody that does a wrong thing or holds a morally wrong view does have some moral guilt for it, no matter when and where they hold that view.
But that guilt can be mitigated.
It can be severely mitigated in some cases, depending on context.
That's where context matters.
And the context that everybody in the world lived in from the beginning of human civilization until the middle of the 20th century is one where outsiders, where people who looked different, who had a different culture, they were in some sense inferior and worthy of suspicion.
This is the context that almost everybody throughout history lived in Um, and admit, you know, they lived amid this, this, this context, uh, um, pretty much everywhere in the world that doesn't make it right.
But it does mean that it's much, much easier to slip into a wrong view when the wrong view is totally normal and taken for granted and everybody holds it.
And that's just the way things are.
Um, That's the that's, you know, people will generally accept as normal and as right the the context that they're born into.
Now, our situation is different because it's been drilled into our heads from birth that racism is an abomination.
We have, we have been told this over and over and over and over again since we were very small children.
So we get no credit.
The fact that you're racially enlightened, that doesn't, you get no credit for that.
You can't pat yourself on the back or congratulate yourself for that.
You didn't choose that view.
Okay.
It's not like you were born in the, in the 1500s and you came to this conclusion on your own.
In that case, I would say you deserve a lot of credit.
But you don't deserve any credit for it.
You were told this and you accepted it.
So, fine.
Good.
It's good that you accepted it.
But that's all.
To be not racist in our context, all that means is that you just have to accept what you're told and what everybody else believes.
And, you know, it's not only the normal view, but to hold any other view is roundly condemned and will get you rejected from society.
And which is all good and fine.
It should be condemned, but the point is to accept that.
It doesn't take any courage on your part.
It doesn't take any enlightenment.
It doesn't take any intelligence.
It's just normal.
You see, the test for us these days is not whether we're racist, because most of us are not racist.
And so non-racism is just taken for granted.
But in our culture, as in any culture, there are other viewpoints.
There are other really wrong beliefs and practices that are relatively normal to us.
Racism is not one of them, but there are others.
There are other forms of discrimination, even, that we take for granted.
So the test for us is whether we can see those and condemn those.
It's whether we can see outside of our own context To see the objective wrong of something that a lot of us just accept.
But here's the interesting thing, that almost without fail, the people who shame those from the past for their very limited, very stuck-in-the-culture beliefs, those people today are also guilty of themselves, guilty themselves of holding those same kinds of beliefs.
Not on matters of race, but in other areas.
And so the main one that comes to mind is the pro-abortion belief.
You know, being pro-abortion today is relatively normal.
It's certainly culturally acceptable.
And it's just something that a lot of people buy into because that's the situation that they were born into.
Now, a hundred years from now, I can pretty much guarantee you that people are going to look back on abortion, and if you're an abortion supporter, they're going to look at people like you, and they're going to say, what a piece of garbage.
How could you have accepted this?
What, you thought babies weren't people?
You're killing a million babies a year, and you were fine with it?
What is wrong with you?
You see, if you support abortion, you're going to be, that's how history is going to remember you.
And in fact, you have a lot less of an excuse than a sort of everyday racist that you came across
in 1907 or in any other point, you know.
You have a lot less of an excuse.
Because today, abortion is at least a contentious issue.
I mean, there are millions of people who do see the truth of it, and they're trying to convince you of it, and they're telling you.
And so in order for you to continue in your beliefs, you have to block all of that out.
But for a long time in history, basically nobody had a non-racist belief.
That was an opinion that nobody held.
It just wasn't represented by anyone.
I mean, you go back even to the abolitionists, In the mid-19th century, and they were progressive for their time, but they weren't non-racist.
You know, I've been waiting for the day when liberals discover the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Where Abraham Lincoln famously made some very racist remarks.
He was against slavery, so he deserves credit for that.
But he was definitely racist.
He was a white supremacist.
He could see enough to see that slavery was wrong, but he didn't see anything wrong with racism in and of itself.
So even the people who were enlightened for their time back as recently as the mid-19th century were still, by our standards, hugely racist.
So that just puts it in even more context, puts more of a perspective.
Something like abortion, on the other hand, there's always been millions of people who reject that.
So in our culture, it has never been normal to the extent that something like racism was normal everywhere in the world.
For much of human history.
But that's the test.
So rather, you know, rather than focusing on John Wayne, maybe, and this is something we can all do, rather than going back in history and digging up these people and shouting at their corpses and condemning them, maybe look within yourself and do a survey of your own heart, your own soul, your own mind.
To think about the beliefs that you hold and that you take for granted and try to discover if there are any beliefs that you now hold and take for granted because they're normal, which in fact may be morally atrocious.
I think that would be a better use of our time.
All right.
Let's see here.
I've got...
Okay.
I've got to get to this story because it's, it's just, it's just crazy.
And it's a perfect, it's a, basically a parable about the incompetence of government, even though it actually happened.
And I'm going to have to read directly from the news article because I don't want to miss any details.
It's such a, it's such a crazy story.
This is from, I'm reading now from AZ central.
And this is what it says.
For nearly two decades at the Grand Canyon, tourists, employees, and children on tours passed by three paint buckets stored in the National Parks Museum collection building, unaware that they were being exposed to radiation.
Although federal officials learned last year that the five-gallon containers were brimming with uranium ore, then removed the radioactive specimens, the Park Safety Director alleges nothing was done to warn park workers or the public that they might have been exposed to unsafe levels of radiation.
In a rogue email sent to all Park Service employees on February 4th, Elston Stevenson, the Safety, Health and Wellness Manager, described the alleged cover-up as a quote, top management failure and warned of possible health consequences.
He says, if you were in the Museum Collections building between the year 2000 and June 18th, 2018, you were exposed to uranium by OSHA's definition.
The radiation readings at First Blush exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safe limits, identifying who was exposed and your exposure level gets tricky and is our next important task.
According to Stevenson, the uranium specimens have been in a basement at park headquarters for decades and were moved to the museum building when it opened around 2000.
One of the buckets was so full that its lid would not close.
Stevenson said the containers were stored next to a taxidermy exhibit where children on tours sometimes stop for presentations sitting next to uranium for 30 minutes or more.
By his calculation, those children could have received radiation dosages in excess of federal safety standards within three seconds and could have suffered dangerous exposure in less than half a minute, and yet they were sitting next to it for 30 minutes or more.
And the story goes on from there.
So the National Park Service was storing buckets of uranium In a museum next to an exhibit where children would stop and sit and nobody moved the buckets for decades.
This is a I mean, it's.
If you don't know anything about the way government works, it's it's inconceivable.
You just can't wrap your head around it.
But this just shows how incompetent and ineffectual a bureaucracy is.
That all someone needed to do was move these buckets, get rid of buckets, and something as simple as getting rid of buckets, literal buckets of uranium, something like that wasn't done for 20 years.
And keep something in mind that there are people Who want the government to have complete control over our healthcare system.
They want this government that couldn't figure out how to move buckets of uranium away from a children's exhibit.
They want these people to control our healthcare system.
So just keep that in mind.
By the way, something else that was trending on social media yesterday, along with John Wayne, actually someone else was trending along with John Wayne, and that is Malia Obama.
Malia Obama, of course, is Barack and Michelle's daughter.
And I just want to mention this to you in case you see stories about this.
Why was she trending?
Well, because allegedly, conservatives were outraged that Malia Obama was drinking alcohol.
There was a picture.
Apparently, some paparazzi person took pictures of Malia Obama, who was on a beach with her friends somewhere, drinking wine.
And she's not 21 yet, apparently.
I think she's 20.
Which, of course, who cares?
The fact that this woman, who is not a public figure, not a politician, just a private citizen, out on a beach enjoying herself, the fact that she was drinking underage is of no concern to anyone, does not matter, is not relevant, is not worthy of notice at all.
But if you were on social media yesterday, You would have seen a lot of liberals making this point and saying, well, just leave her alone.
She's a private citizen just having a drink.
What does it matter?
And yeah, that's true.
But why were they making this point?
I mean, who were they arguing against?
Who actually disagrees?
Why is this even a subject of conversation in the first place?
Well, they claimed that conservatives, as I said, were outraged about Malia Obama drinking.
And so they were defending her against conservative outrage.
But so I saw this trending and I kind of looked into it.
I said, who really?
Conservatives were mad about who?
What kind of idiot on the conservative side was making a big deal out of this?
I got to find these idiots.
And so I looked and I checked and I couldn't find any.
I could not find one single conservative expressing any outrage at all or any concern to any degree about Malia Obama drinking wine.
So there were a lot of people outraged about outrage that, as far as I could tell, didn't exist.
So what's going on with this?
Well, this is a familiar tactic, and we've seen it before.
You may remember a few years ago when the media reported about a backlash against Starbucks because their cups weren't Christmassy enough.
You remember that from a few years ago.
You probably remember much more recently when that video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing on a roof in college went viral, and the media told us again that there was backlash and conservatives were outraged about the fact that she was dancing on a roof.
Um, and now we have this Malia Obama thing.
What does all this have in common?
Well, what it has in common is that actually almost no conservatives really cared about any of this.
The Starbucks cup thing.
I remember there were like two or three, uh, conservatives of relative sort of prominence online who, um, who, who were upset about the Starbucks cups.
And that was those two or three people.
Those two or three silly people were taken and extrapolated by the left into this whole conservative backlash.
Same thing with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing.
There were maybe a couple, like a small handful of conservatives on Twitter or whatever, who were making fun of her because she danced on a roof.
Almost, but everybody else didn't care.
All the rest of us were like, who cares?
Fine, who cares about this?
But they took that and they turned it into, they took those two or three people and they turned it into a, conservatives are outraged.
But the really impressive thing with this Malia Obama thing is that, you know, at least with Starbucks and with the dancing video, there were legitimately a couple of conservatives who were concerned about that.
And so they could take that as sort of the, the, the nucleus and then just expand it.
But with Malia Obama, I don't think there was anybody.
I think that they just invented this whole cloth.
They invented this out of whole cloth.
They just, they just made this outrage appear out of thin air based on absolutely nothing.
It is a, it's a clever strategy though, because the whole point is to make us all make conservatives look totally ridiculous and silly for being concerned about something like this when in fact, none of us were.
All right.
Want to get to some of your emails?
You can email the show, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com, with your comments, questions, concerns, hate mail.
A couple I want to get through quickly.
This is from a beardsman is how he signs his email.
He says, watching the show.
I've noted that you are a professional looking corporate beard.
Corporate beards are neat and all, but I was wondering why did you choose that instead of perhaps going to terminal length or even just longer than it is.
This isn't to shame you for trimming, but it is, but it isn't a terminal beard.
How God made you especially a follicly gifted as follically gifted as you are.
I don't understand why you would limit yourself.
I guess the real question is why should we cut our beards if we shouldn't shave them?
On a somewhat related note, how many ways have you worn a beard and how long would you say you've been bearded?
I've never heard this term terminal beard before, but I like it and I'm going to use it.
A terminal beard.
Well, I've been bearded and I haven't been clean shaven in probably 15 years to answer your last question.
But I'll tell you, here's the thing for me, beardsman.
Is that one of the great advantages in my mind to having a beard is that it doesn't require a lot of upkeep.
Laziness, basically.
That's part of the reason that I have a beard.
And not just laziness.
Well, you know what?
I won't even say laziness.
It's about time management.
Because if you want to stay clean shaven, it means you're shaving every day.
And there's all this effort that goes into it.
And, um, and you know, I think studies have shown that clean shaven men, by the time they die, they will have wasted cumulatively.
They will have wasted two and a half years of their life shaving, which is a statistic that I basically made up, but maybe it's true.
Um, And it's just a total waste of time.
That time would be better spent doing other things.
But the problem is when you grow the beard really long, if you get it too long, then you end up almost, you're back at the beginning and now it requires a lot of upkeep.
Like if you want to grow your beard long and not look like Tom Hanks from Castaway, then it requires, you know, you've got to do a lot of trimming and it requires other things to make it actually look like a good beard and not like you're, you know, some kind of vagrant or whatever.
So my strategy is I'll just have the beard and I don't do anything with it I let it grow and then every once in a while I'll just trim it back to about this length and I'll let it grow again and that's the way that that's just a it's just a way to maximize or to be as efficient as possible I guess that's That's why I have it like this.
This is from Jeremy.
It says, Hey Matt, if leftists believe so strongly in a victim hierarchy, wouldn't they have to put the unborn at the top?
It's completely absurd to grant a special victim status to gays, transgenders, minorities, and women, while simultaneously promoting the active genocide of children up until and after birth.
If they truly cared about victims, ending abortion should be their top priority.
Well, Jeremy, I totally agree, of course.
But you see, the difference is that although unborn children are victims in our culture, and they are a group of people who cannot fend for themselves and need to be defended, the problem from the left's perspective is that an unborn child represents a sacrifice, a personal sacrifice.
That you have to make to care for and love this child.
And part of the point of leftism is that you shouldn't, you shouldn't have to make sacrifices.
That your life is all about you.
It's all about your own enjoyment, your own pleasure.
You know, using your own money for yourself.
That's the point of life as far as they're concerned.
And unborn children interfere with that.
Which is why they have to be discarded.
But, you know, as far as like defending gays and minorities and women, well, sure.
I mean, that's because that doesn't interfere with them at all.
So that's easy.
But an unborn child is something different.
Alright finally, this is from Brianna.
She says, Hey Matt, recently a parenting counselor came to speak to some moms at my church and it became obvious pretty quickly that she was an advocate for positive parenting.
She said we should never give timeouts or punishments of any kind.
And that we should only be talking through the situation while acknowledging the child's feelings.
She also had science and research to back up her parenting views, citing some sources, although I admittedly haven't looked through them yet.
What is your view on positive parenting and do you think it works?
Brianna, I'm not really familiar with that phrase, but if positive parenting is what you describe, namely no punishments of any kind, no discipline, then I think it's madness.
And I really don't care what research she brings to the table.
I mean, you have to keep in mind here that parenting is a very complex kind of thing.
That is, to parent well, to parent successfully, is complex and dynamic, and it's not possible to really measure in a study.
So the primary job of a parent is to instill virtue in a child.
So these studies about parenting, how do they measure virtue in order to determine what kind of parenting is best?
What is the virtue measuring tool?
Where they could say, this type of parenting instills 12.5% more virtue than this other kind.
It's obviously absurd.
The problem with all these parenting studies and the research and the parenting strategies and the parenting books and everything else is that it treats parenting like a science when it's really not.
It's more of an art, but it's bigger than that even.
It's a human relationship, right?
And human relationships cannot be condensed down in this way.
They can't be poked and prodded in a laboratory.
So the studies don't mean anything.
I don't care about them.
The idea of parenting without punishment is crazy for two reasons.
Number one, children need limits.
They need boundaries.
This is one of the primary things that a child needs.
Child needs to be told no.
This is about giving direction.
This is one of the main things that a child looks to a parent for.
And so if the parent says, well, I'm not going to give you that.
I'm only going to affirm.
I'm going to be a positive.
I'm only going to say yes.
Well, then you are depriving your child of a need, of a necessity.
And something else to keep in mind, secondly, is that Yeah, you may have a positive parenting style, but the world does not.
So the real world is not going to be positive all the time.
When your child goes out into the world and gets a job, his boss is probably not going to have a positive management style where he only tells his employees yes and only affirms them positively and only says nice things.
Nobody in the world is going to have that strategy.
Nobody else will.
That's not the way the world operates.
So if you raise your child in an environment where they're only ever affirmed, ever, and they're only told positive things, and they're never told no, and they're never punished, and they never face consequences, and they never face discipline, then you are preparing them for a world that doesn't exist.
You may as well, instead of teaching them how to drive a car, you may as well teach them how to ride a unicorn because it's the same exact thing.
You are giving them a, you are, you are preparing them for something that doesn't exist.
That's one of the reasons why a child needs to be taught about boundaries and needs to be given discipline and needs to be told no.
Because he's going to live the rest of his life in a world that tells him no, and a world that has boundaries, and a world where there is consequences and where there are punishments, sometimes very severe ones, if you screw up.
I wouldn't be listening to this woman and her parenting strategies.
And I would also be suspicious of this church if this is the kind of All right, we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
something else, this also certainly is not biblical parenting. Spare the rods, spoil
the child, right? That's what the Bible says. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks for
watching everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.
I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show. The Covington kids sue the Washington
Post for a quarter of a billion dollars. Crooked FBI official Andy McCabe walks back comments
on his coup d'etat and New York's Bolshevik mayor attacks Ocasio-Cortez as too far left
Has the left finally gone too far?
We will discuss.
▲
Export Selection