All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
46:16
Ep. 203 - Jihad Bride Wants To Come Home

Today on the show, a woman left the US and joined ISIS. Now she wants to come home but Trump says no. Also, Jussie Smollett has been arrested. We’ll discuss the latest in the case. Finally I’ll explain why Bernie Sanders is an arrogant, hypocritical, morally deranged, communist fraud. Date: 02-21-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a woman who ran off and joined ISIS now wants to come home because she says she learned her lesson and she just wants to come home.
Should she be allowed back in the country?
The answer is no, but we'll talk about that.
Also, Jussie Smollett is now under arrest.
We're going to go back and look at his Good Morning America interview.
He did, because with everything we know now, it's really a creepy interview, so we'll look at that.
And finally, I will explain why Bernie Sanders is a power-hungry, hypocritical, communist fraud.
All of that today on the Matt Wall Show.
Listen guys, we've all been young.
Right.
We've all been young.
And you know, in your youth, sometimes you get into a little bit of trouble.
Sometimes you make mistakes.
You party a little too much.
You drink underage.
Maybe you get suspended from school.
You join ISIS.
I mean, it happens.
All these things.
And it just... I tell you, I got into so much trouble when I was a kid for joining ISIS.
My parents, they took my PlayStation away for a week.
And my dad said, how many times have I told you not to join ISIS?
And he took the place and then I was, you know, I did it again.
I was grounded.
These are just normal childhood experiences.
At least that's what some people seem to think.
That's how the media is portraying it.
Because the media has been plastering.
Maybe you've seen these Smiling pictures of a young Muslim woman and her toddler son all over the place online, and they're telling us that this woman named Hoda Muthana, who's 24 now, she was born in America, she joined ISIS when she was 19,
But she's learned her lesson now, and so she wants to come home.
Four or five years later, she wants to come home, and she's getting a lot of sympathetic coverage.
But again, she abandoned her family and left the U.S.
A year after graduation, she went to high school here, she went to school here, had a seemingly normal life,
and she went off and joined ISIS, became a major propagandist for them,
and she recruited other people, she used the internet to recruit other people to join ISIS as well.
She got married to an ISIS fighter, uh, and then he died.
And then she got married again and he died too.
And then she got married a third time and he also died.
I think, uh, at this point, it seems the universe is sending you a message and the message probably is don't marry ISIS fighters.
You dimwit.
But, um, now she's, uh, she's in a refugee camp somewhere and the poor darling wants to come home.
And she, she's, she, she says she's changed.
Uh, she's learned her lesson, but that mean old Donald Trump, along with secretary of state Mike Pompeo, they say she's not allowed to come home.
She, uh, well, this isn't even really her home.
They say, um, she's not technically a citizen, uh, and she's not welcome here anymore.
So she's not allowed to come back.
And this is being portrayed as some kind of like cruelty.
But it's some kind of cruelty on the part of Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo and the government that they won't let this woman come home to what she says is her home.
And this is where her family is and her life was before she went off and joined ISIS.
But actually, this is really merciful on the part of Donald Trump.
Keep in mind that Obama had a U.S.
citizen executed by drone strike when he went off and joined al-Qaeda.
And then he had the guy's teenage son, who I think was 16 years old at the time, had him executed too.
So in comparison to that, uh, this is extremely lenient.
Uh, I mean, she, because she, she could be getting the, uh, drone strike treatment, but instead, instead it's, they're just telling her don't come back.
But the thing that is interesting to me about this, um, about this topic is that it brings up an interesting conversation about the nature of forgiveness.
And this is one thing that annoys me.
I know that it will surprise you to learn that I'm annoyed by something.
I don't get annoyed by things very easily.
I can't even say that with a straight face.
So this is one of the many things that annoys me, is the way that this concept of forgiveness is abused and misused.
And we use this word, forgiveness, all the time.
And I think we use it in a way that shows that we don't really understand what the word means.
Because there are people arguing and saying, well, we should have forgiveness towards this young woman and let her come home.
And you know what?
That's fine.
Yeah, have all the forgiveness towards her that you want.
Forgive her all you want.
Okay?
So if you want to forgive Hoda Muthana, you're perfectly free to do that.
And you can go outside and shout to the sky, I forgive you, Hoda!
And maybe she'll hear the message in her dreams at night.
I don't know.
But if you want to forgive on a personal level, you absolutely can do that.
The thing is though, especially from the perspective of the government, forgiving someone does not erase what they did.
It's not like Groundhog's Day and you wake up and it's as if the past never happened and everything is reset, like some kind of video game.
Okay, that's not the way it works.
Because if you do something and then you say you're sorry, And someone forgives you, you still did that thing.
The thing still happened.
It's still there in the past.
So if you steal from me, I might forgive you.
Hopefully I forgive you.
But if you come back the next day after apologizing and ask to borrow $100, I'm not going to give it to you.
Why?
Was my forgiveness incomplete or fraudulent?
No.
But I don't have amnesia either.
And I know that this apparently is something that you struggle with.
This instinct to steal.
So I'm not going to entrust my money or my property or my valuables to you.
I'm going to exercise prudence and caution.
And those things are not mutually exclusive from forgiveness.
You can be cautious, prudent, And also forget, if somebody molests a child, we can be as forgiving as we want, as difficult as that.
And I admit in that case, it's very difficult for me to feel any forgiveness at all.
But even if we do have forgiveness to a child molester, all the forgiveness in the world should not, in my opinion, ever mean letting the person out of prison.
I think everyone that molests children should go to prison forever, at a minimum.
Because now we know that they have that in them.
They have that potential.
And so for the sake of prudence, for the sake of justice, for the sake of safety, of self-defense, of protecting other children, they need to be in prison forever because they have that in them.
They have that inclination which does not just die away when they ask for forgiveness.
Some actions have consequences that are permanent.
Even if everybody in the world forgives you, the consequence can still remain.
A serial adulterer is probably going to lose his marriage.
Even if his wife somehow finds it within herself to forgive him, that doesn't mean the damage can be undone.
The damage is still there.
You still destroyed your marriage, no matter how sorry you might be.
And so if you go off and join ISIS, Knowing what they are, knowing what they do, and this was in 2015 that she joined, remember?
This wasn't like she joined before anyone had hardly even heard the name ISIS.
I mean, she joined in 2015 knowing very well that they kill and rape children, that they execute innocent people, that they lock people in cages and set the cages on fire, and those sorts of things, okay?
She knew this, and she still went and joined up, and so that is a choice that's going to haunt her forever.
She will experience the consequences forever.
And some choices are like that.
In fact, you may argue that every choice is like that.
It's the butterfly effect, right?
Butterfly flaps his wings here, and there's a tsunami over on the other side of the world.
So you could argue that every choice has a ripple effect that lasts in some sense forever.
But if it's a very small choice, a choice that's no big deal, the consequences will be possibly imperceptible.
But if it's a big choice, if it's a choice like I'm joining ISIS, if it's an I'm joining ISIS type decision, then you'll probably never outrun the consequences.
And that's just the way it goes.
Forgiveness really has nothing to do with it.
You just, you're going to have to live with that now.
And, and also, you know, you're a danger to society.
We, we don't know what kind of radicalization you underwent.
Uh, we don't know if this could be all some kind of ploy on your part to get back here and then do a terrorist attack.
I mean, these are all suspicions that we are within our rights to have about you.
And so you can, you can just never come back.
That's just, that's just the way it goes.
All right.
Jussie Smollett is officially under arrest in custody, charged with disorderly conduct
for filing a false police report.
More charges will hopefully be forthcoming, God willing.
If he did send that hate letter to himself with the white powder, which I mean, come
on, it seems pretty likely to me that he did.
But, um, if he, if he, if they're going to look into that now, and if he did send that letter to himself, that's going to be a whole new.
So this is just a charge for the filing, the false police report for the fake attack that he staged.
Um, if he sent the letter to himself through the U S mail with white powder in it, then he could be looking at some serious prison time.
And so they're going to be looking into that as well.
I maintain that he should be charged with a hate crime.
The definition of a hate crime, according to the FBI, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society.
That is motivated in whole or in part by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity slash national origin.
Um, Smollett's offense was indeed committed against a society or a group, uh, which would be white, white people in this case, white conservatives in particular, with the objective of engendering outrage and suspicion towards that entire group of people.
In fact, in fact, his hatred of white people.
Was so great.
Let's not forget this.
Smollett was prepared to let two innocent random white people take the fall for this.
He was prepared to have those people sent to prison for a hate crime.
Um, for something that he just made up because you may recall that when the police originally picked up the, uh, persons of persons of interest that were, that, you know, that ended up being the Nigerian brothers.
But before Smollett knew that.
He said he was fine with them being arrested.
It was only after he found out who they were that he said, no, it couldn't have been them.
There's no way it was them.
So if those were just two random white people that got picked up and this whole thing was pinned on them, Smollett would be fine with that.
Just send these people to prison who did absolutely nothing wrong.
Um, so this is a man who is a bigot and whose bigotry constitutes a threat to civilized society.
And he needs to face the consequences, face the consequences that he would have happily allowed innocent white men to face.
So I think he should be charged with a hate crime, but certainly he needs to be charged with, I mean, at a minimum,
if not that, a host of other crimes, especially with the kind of evidence they have against him.
Speaking of the evidence, here is, and this came out last night right before they arrested the guy.
to the guy.
Here is surveillance footage of the Nigerian brothers who he hired to stage this attack.
Here they are buying ski masks and gloves on the night of the attack.
Look at this, look at this video.
They're buying a criminal starter pack, essentially.
They may as well be wearing sandwich board signs that say, we are preparing to do something illegal.
Look at us.
Like Smollett didn't think to at least have these guys go to different locations not in the city to buy the stuff for the attack.
or at least go buy the stuff at like a Walmart along with other items to make it look less suspicious.
You know, go pick up a phone charger and a box of saltine crackers
and some toilet paper, some Windex.
Oh, and the ski mask and some gloves, you know?
I mean, he didn't at least have him do that, buy buffer items.
Everyone knows that if you're going to the grocery store, you're buying something embarrassing, you buy buffer.
Like you don't go to the grocery store and just buy one huge pack of toilet paper, right?
Nobody does that because then everyone in the store is going to think that you have explosive diarrhea
and you had to run to the store and buy all the toilet paper.
And you don't want to do that.
So you go and you buy other little things as well to go along with the toilet paper to try to kind of take the edge off.
But he didn't have to do that.
He just had to go to the store and buy all the attack supplies on the night of the attack.
I mean, this guy is a total moron.
He's a moron, but he's also a sociopath.
And I'd like to go back again, since we're looking at video, um, knowing what we know now, I want to go back and remember that interview that he gave with Good Morning America.
Um, soft, total softball interview.
But let's go back and watch a piece of this interview, knowing everything that we know.
Let's watch especially this part right here.
Look at this.
What do you say to a young gay man?
A young gay person?
To learn to fight.
And I don't just mean, like, learn to fight.
I mean, learn to fight.
Learn to be a fighter.
I am not advocating violence at all.
So let's be clear about that.
If you're gonna die, fight until you do.
Because if you don't fight, you have no chance.
I have fought for love.
I'm an advocate.
I respect too much the people, who I am now one of those people, who have been attacked in any way.
You do such a disservice when you lie about things like this.
If the attackers are never found, how will you be able to heal?
Um, I don't know.
Let's just hope that they are.
You know what I'm saying?
Like let's, let's not go there yet.
Let's um, I was talking to a friend and I said, I just want them to find them.
And she said, sweetie, they're not going to find them.
That just made me so angry because so I'm just going to be left here with this.
You know what I'm saying?
Like I'm just going to be left here with, With like, so they get to go free, and go about their life, and possibly attack someone else, and I'm here left with the aftermath of this bull?
That's not cool to me.
That's not okay.
So, I understand how difficult it will be to find them, but we gotta, I still want to believe, with everything that has happened, that there's something called justice.
Cause if I stop believing that, then what's it all for?
Thank you Chelsea.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, I'm not going to say that he's a good actor because I thought that, uh, I watched the interview when it happened and I thought he came across, um, completely phony.
He, he comes across like an actor.
Um, it seems like he's acting.
You could tell that he even rehearsed some of those lines.
You could tell that he was, uh, who knows, maybe he had one of the Nigerian brothers play the interviewer and they went through, um, they went through and rehearsed the whole thing.
So he's not even a very good actor, but he is a sociopath.
The fact that he could do that at all, the fact that he could sit there and with, for the most part, a straight face, uh, play this role.
is just incredible.
I mean, to be able to look someone in the eyes and just lie to them just with a completely made up story to be able to do that.
And he did that for this was like a 15 minute interview.
And he sustained that eye contact and he told this lie.
And he sort of sold it.
I mean, he did his level best.
That's why I say this is someone who's a threat to society and needs to go to prison for a long time.
You just when you have someone who is a pathological liar and is relatively well is
is not a great liar but at least is a I don't know.
I would give him, I'd give him maybe a six out of 10 on the, on the, um, on the convincing scale for that, for that interview.
So when you have someone who's a decent, who's a pathological liar, a decently good liar, and, um, they're willing to tell the most horrible kinds of lies about people that, I mean, that is someone who really is a threat.
And for the sake of protecting society from his lies.
Uh, I think he needs to go away to prison for a very long time.
All right.
What else?
Um, I got to mention this because it's a huge controversy.
Controversy.
It's a huge controversy.
There's a, there's a new ghostbusters movie coming out.
Um, but it's not going to be another all female ghostbusters.
Like the one that came out in 2016, um, which was, which was bad and it was a flop and it was just bad that I mentioned bad.
This new Ghostbusters is going to be a continuation of the original Ghostbusters franchise, not the feminist version.
And so the director of the upcoming Ghostbusters, Jason Reitman, who is, I believe, the son of the director of the original Ghostbusters, he was interviewed this week and he said, this is a phrase he used.
He said, we're going to hand the movie back to the fans.
Gasp.
Did you hear that?
We're going to hand the movie back to the fans.
So that comment provoked a huge outrage online, huge outrage.
Um, because, because I don't know, because apparently it was sexist to say, we're going to, we're going to hand the movie back to the fans.
Um, this is a sexist comment now somehow.
So for example, just to give you an idea of how people are taking this.
Here's an article on a website called themarysue.com, kind of like a feminist, seems to be a relatively heavily trafficked feminist website.
An article by Rachel Leishman.
And this is not a joke, by the way.
I mean, I don't think this is satirical.
I think this is meant to be totally serious.
The headline is, giving Ghostbusters back to the fans makes it seem like women can't be Ghostbusters fans.
That's how feminists interpreted what Reitman said.
They interpreted it as Reitman saying, women aren't allowed to watch this movie.
What he said was, we're going to hand it back to the fans.
What they heard was, you women can't watch this movie.
This is for, this here's for men.
Go back in the kitchen.
That's what they heard.
Um, I don't, I don't hear that.
I mean, all I hear is a guy saying, we're going to give the movie back to the fans.
I don't hear that other part of it.
That's I don't, but you see feminists, they have, um, They can pick up a frequency.
I think they have very finely tuned hearing.
There are things that men say that are imperceptible to most of us because it's on a different frequency, but they can hear that frequency.
And so they heard Reitman saying that sexist comment that none of us heard, you see.
Here's some of the article.
It says, as someone who grew up watching the Ghostbusters movies, I would say very confidently that I am a fan of Egon, Peter, Ray, and Winston.
So to hear that Jason Reitman, who's directing the new film, plans to give it back to the fans, I honestly have to laugh.
Are you laughing though?
It seems like you're crying.
I don't know if you're really laughing.
If someone like myself and my older brother can enjoy the Paul Feig version, which is the feminist version, what right does Jason Reitman have to say that he's giving the new film back to the fans?
I'm sorry, but maybe I'm confused.
Does it make me less of a fan that I like Ghostbusters Answer the Call?
Answer the Call again is the feminist version.
Or am I less of a fan because I'm a woman?
Which one is it there, Jason Reitman?
As Pajiba reports, Reitman is supposedly letting the original fans have their time again, meaning they cried enough on Twitter about the female Ghostbusters that now the crybabies will have their male-centric comedy right back where it started.
On an episode of Bill Burr's Monday Morning Podcast, Reitman said, We are, in every way, trying to go back to the original technique and hand the movie back to the fans.
In case you had any doubts as to what he means by that, he also said, I'm not making the Juno of Ghostbusters movies.
Another important question I have is what this means for Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson, two men who put their stamp of approval on Ghostbusters Answer the Call.
Remember when they were in that film?
Because it gave fans an ode to the original and was creative and funny?
Look, I remember that time in geekdom.
My young pseudoniece was terrified of ghosts so to blah blah blah blah blah.
All right, we got past the funny parts.
Actually, there was one other.
Okay.
So dear Mr. Reitman, I know your father directed the original film.
I get it.
You have a claim to it, but we do too.
We have a claim to how these movies make us feel.
And some of us enjoyed Answer the Call.
So validating the most toxic, misogynistic opposition to that film as the true fandom is a slap in the face to all of us who felt empowered by the female Ghostbusters.
Was your intention to alienate part of your fan base?
Um, So there were feminists who felt empowered by a Ghostbusters film.
There were feminists who watched a movie about people fighting ghosts, and they felt empowered by that.
May I suggest, Rachel Leishman, that you Perhaps you should look for your empowerment in other places.
There are much better sources for it.
I don't know, read a book about Joan of Arc or something.
If you're looking for empowerment in Ghostbusters films, I just think you're reading a little bit too much into it.
This is one of my favorite things that feminists do, um, and leftists do in general is, uh, they make a huge deal about some really stupid thing.
And then they accuse the other side of making a big deal about it.
So with the, with the female ghostbusters, the feminists latched onto this movie and may turn it into this, turn it into this seminal moment in the fight for women's rights as a female ghostbusters.
And they demanded that everybody has to like this movie and support it and laugh at it and think it's funny.
And then a few people said, yeah, you know what?
I really, I just don't have any interest in that.
I liked the original better.
Uh, I don't want to see it.
And they're the ones who freaked out over it.
It said, how dare you dislike this Ghostbusters film?
You sexist.
But then they turn around and accuse us of just because we didn't like the movie.
And it's not even like we hated it or it just, it just wasn't a good movie.
And, uh, and no, I don't really feel like seeing the feminist version of Ghostbusters.
You know, part of this is, um, part of this with, with feminists is that they get very, uh, touchy about any time you even sort of imply that a female comedian is not funny.
That's a lot of what this is about is this is this is one of the one of the big things they're looking out for is anyone who claims that female comedians aren't funny or that women aren't as funny as men.
And even though nobody was saying that in regards to this movie, they were just saying this particular movie with these comedians isn't that funny.
We weren't making any statements about female comedians in general, but feminists get very, very sensitive about it.
I mean, they get sensitive about everything, but especially about that.
And so I think that was a big part of it.
Any female comedian, we must agree that she is funny.
Every female comedian.
They're all funny, and we're not allowed to say anything but that.
And if we insinuate otherwise, they get very offended.
All right.
One other thing before we get to some of your emails.
On Tuesday, as I mentioned on the show on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders officially announced his 2020 presidential bid.
And he promptly raked in, I think it was $6 million in campaign donations within 24 hours of that announcement.
So he obviously remains an immensely popular figure on the left.
And the thing is, even people on the right tend to attribute certain positive qualities to him, such as authenticity and honesty.
And I've heard plenty of Republicans essentially say that, well, I don't like Bernie Sanders, but he's the least repulsive Democrat on the national stage, which is hardly a high honor.
Um, or a high bar to get over, but I really don't think he even makes it over that bar.
Um, I don't think he's the least repulsive.
I think I'd put a more on the other end of that, but he's more towards the most repulsive in my opinion.
Um, and it, it, and I, I think it's important for us to recognize that because Sanders, he's got this kind of eccentric.
Loveable grandpa routine that he does, and I think a lot of people fall for it, even on the right.
And they see him as, at worst, a kind of harmless eccentric old guy.
But he's a lot worse than that.
He is, in fact, and I wrote an article yesterday with the title that Bernie Sanders is an arrogant, power-hungry, hypocritical, cowardly, morally deranged communist.
And I stand by that.
All of those adjectives are carefully chosen.
And as I did in the article, I'll go through them one by one to prove what I'm talking about.
So he's arrogant and power-hungry.
Why is he that?
Well, Bernie Sanders is 77 years old.
If he were to be elected president, heaven help us, he'd be 79 on Inauguration Day.
Um, there's nothing wrong with being old.
There's nothing wrong with being an elderly person.
We will all be elderly one day, should we be so lucky as to live that long.
But the presidency is an enormously stressful, physically taxing, mentally draining job.
Um, there's a reason why, as I mentioned a couple of days ago, just look at the, you know, Obama and Bush went into office as relatively young men and they came out looking like the life had been drained out of them, looking like they had aged 50 years, both of them.
Um, so.
To think that you could take on that kind of stress at the age of 80?
You just have to be extraordinarily arrogant to think that you could handle that, and you have to be extraordinarily power-hungry to want it.
I mean, what 80-year-old man wants that kind of stress?
Well, it's because if you crave power that much, See, this is the problem with presidents in general.
It's a problem that's baked into the cake.
Where the problem with presidents is that they want so badly to be president.
It's pretty, it's uncommon to have a reluctant leader make it into the White House.
And I think we've, we've gotten to a point now in our society where it's just where nobody like that is ever going to be president ever again.
The last one was probably Calvin Coolidge.
There hasn't been any since him.
There was, there were very few before him.
What I'm talking about, reluctant leaders, like guys who.
Ran for president because they think they have something to offer.
Uh, they think that they can do the job, but they're not desperate for it.
They, they, and they, you get the impression that they'd be fine if they didn't win it.
That really is, that's the best.
We need people with that attitude, but it's just, if you have that attitude, you probably won't win.
Um, because especially these days to win, you need to be very ruthless and obsessed and desperate basically.
Um, and.
So, but a few of the presidents that we've had who've, um, who've been very desperate for the job have been pretty good at the job in spite of the character flaw that prompted them to pursue it in the first place.
But the thing is it's, it's understandable to have that kind of blind ambition is understandable for a younger man.
But a man or woman who is still grasping for the throne in his final years of life, someone who pursues it, even if it literally kills them in the process, that is a person we should be very suspicious of.
So arrogant and power hungry.
Bernie Sanders is also hypocritical.
Sanders has been living on the public dime for 40 years.
During his time as a public servant, he has managed to amass a fortune and a seven-figure income, especially over the last few years, that puts him firmly in that same one-percenter camp that he has spent decades decrying.
He hasn't cashed in on his political career to the same extent as say, Hillary Clinton
or someone like that, but he is no middle-class hero, that's for sure.
He laments income inequality and meanwhile, he rails against the evils of capitalism,
but he has done quite a bit of capitalizing himself.
Just a couple of years ago, he bought his third house, which is a modest little $600,000
lakefront property in Vermont.
Now I happen to believe that Americans are entitled to buy as many homes as they want
and to make as much money as the market allows, but I also believe in being consistent.
And if somebody lectures about greed and about capitalism and about wealth all the time and deliberately fosters hatred and suspicion towards the wealthy with this overheated kind of class warfare rhetoric, If that person goes and buys three homes and collects millions in book royalties, well then they're going to be guilty of rank hypocrisy.
Most Americans can't even afford one home.
Sanders has three.
Why doesn't he sell it and use the money to pay off some student loans?
Or why doesn't he donate all of the royalties from his books to soup kitchens?
In fact, why is he charging money for his books at all?
Why doesn't he put his book online for free?
I mean, even Bernie's most dedicated fans have to see the irony of a guy
making millions of dollars on a book which advocates a socialist revolution.
Bernie Sanders is also cowardly.
Sanders earned a reputation as a kind of scrappy freedom fighter who stands up against the dark and powerful forces in our culture, but he is not very convincing.
And he's about as convincing in that role as he is in the role of middle class champion, because it doesn't take any courage for a Democrat to stand up there and pump their fist and shout about Wall Street and corporations and so on.
Um, he, there are powerful forces in his own party, which it would require courage for him to stand up against and which he does not stand up against.
Uh, and he should know about the powerful forces, the dark and powerful forces in his party, because they rigged the primaries against him in 2016.
Yet in the end, he still bowed to the Clinton machine.
He kissed the ring and he played nice.
Bernie Sanders is morally deranged, and I could provide many examples here, but let's just start with his advocacy, his pro-abortion extremist advocacy.
Bernie Sanders supports abortion at every stage of pregnancy for any reason.
He was asked in a debate in 2016 if he could name one single circumstance where he would support restrictions on abortion.
And he could not name one.
There is no circumstance, no situation at any point of pregnancy, for any reason, where he thinks that abortion should be illegal.
And there's more.
Sanders is also a lifelong communist.
He is on tape in the 80s heaping praise on Fidel Castro, admitting that he provided advice to the
Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You know, Sanders, Bernie's communism is more than just a personality
quirk, okay?
He has been providing PR cover to murderous communist regimes for decades.
Now, Sanders, as we've already established, is no spring chicken, okay?
This is not a young guy.
He's not some stupid college student who champions communism because he doesn't know what happened in the world prior to about 2005.
No, he lived through the majority of the 1900s, and he knows very well that it was a century bathed in the bloodshed, in blood shed by communist governments.
He knows that.
He knows very well that communist governments very recently killed 100 million people.
And counting.
Yet he advocates for communist policies and wishes to see the great evil of the 20th century reborn in the 21st.
And what else can we call that but morally deranged?
You support a system that once again killed 100 million people at a minimum and counting since the beginning of the 20th century.
That is morally deranged.
So the ideas that Bernie Sanders espouses aren't just wrong.
Or radical.
They are wicked.
And he espouses them in a hypocritical fashion, steeped in cowardice and arrogance.
He is not suited for the Senate, much less the White House.
And that's why I say that he is an arrogant, power-hungry, cowardly, morally deranged communist fraud.
And God help us if he ever makes it into the White House, though I doubt that that will happen.
All right, I'm going to get to just a couple of emails today.
You can email the show at mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is a big question from Anthony.
It says, Hi Matt, I've been a fan for a while.
I really value your opinion and perspective, mainly because I agree with you on most things.
Sorry, that was kind of funny.
I value your opinion because I agree with you.
So my wife and I have recently returned to Christianity.
Last November, we returned to the church.
I was wondering if you could help us with understanding how God can have a plan, yet we are free to make choices, even sinful ones.
How are we created in the image of God and created by God, yet there are evil people?
Why would God purposefully create people who he knows will be evil?
Thank you very much.
My wife and I really enjoy your show.
Hope you can provide some clarity on this or some ideas on where I can find some clarity.
Have a wonderful day.
God bless.
Hi, Anthony, and welcome back to the faith.
You are dealing with one of the most, maybe the most, difficult Theological question.
So the fact that you can't quite figure it out is nothing to be embarrassed by because nobody, I mean, there is no perfect answer for it.
There is no answer that I can give that will make you go, oh, okay, well, I totally get that now.
As far as where you can find answers, I would recommend, as I've recommended on the show before, The Problem of Pain by C.S.
Lewis.
It's a very short book.
It's a short, concise, Very kind of tight, efficient answer to this problem.
Not so much an answer, but it's a treatment of the problem.
And you're going to find much more wisdom on one page of that book than I could give you if I rambled about this for the next three hours, which I promise I won't.
But go and read that book.
What I will say is, The answer, the Christian answer classically, and I think the correct answer, hinges on free will.
So God gave us the power to choose, to act, to decide, to distinguish one thing from another.
And if we can choose one thing or another, that means that we can choose evil.
We can choose to do wrong.
Why does He allow us this choice?
Well, because you can't have love without choice.
You can't have joy, you can't have goodness, you can't have courage or fidelity or any virtue, because all of that is meaningless if we are just programmed automotons.
So think about it.
If you talk about drone strikes earlier, nobody credits a drone with courage, right?
When you hear about a drone strike of ISIS, you don't say, wow, that was a courageous drone.
That drone really, we got to give that drone some credit.
Let's give a medal of honor to the drone.
We don't say that about drones.
We do say that about the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy.
Why is that?
Well, because the One is just a programmed machine.
It had no choice but to do what it did.
You don't get any credit for doing something you had no choice but to do.
And more to the point, it's hard to even say that you did that thing if you had no choice but to do it.
If somebody grabs your hand and puts a gun in it and forces you to pull the trigger, Well, then we can't even say that you shot someone.
You didn't really do that.
It was the person who grabbed your hand who did that.
And you really had no role.
You were just a pawn.
You were just an instrument and nothing more.
So, you know, so the men who stormed beaches of Normandy, we say that they had courage.
Because they had a choice, and in that choice is the courage, is the valor, is the virtue.
If they didn't have a choice, if they didn't have the option of cowardice, then they wouldn't have had the option of courage.
Just like you can't go up if there is no down.
If down does not exist, it doesn't mean anything to go up, because then there's only up, right?
So that's it.
In order to have love and goodness and all that, it needs to be chosen.
And if there's going to be a choice, then there has to be an opposite that could be chosen.
And that's where you find the evil and the suffering and the pain.
Now, I admit that that's only a partial answer, okay?
That deals with the suffering and evil that we inflict on each other.
And I think that that pretty well deals with that.
There's a whole other question, though, about the pain and suffering that people suffer, that people deal with, that does not appear to be chosen.
You know, a child getting cancer, for instance.
Child didn't choose that.
Nobody chose that.
It just happened.
That's a much more difficult question to deal with, and one that Again, I can't give you some concise, cute little answer that will make you say, oh, okay, well, that's it.
But I would recommend that book to you.
All right, this is from Mary.
It says, Hey, Matt, I'm 20 years old, Catholic, conservative.
My dad got your book, The Unholy Trinity, for his birthday two years ago, and when he finished it, I started reading it.
It was fantastic.
Loved every minute of it.
When I read that book, I didn't know very much about politics.
Now I try my best to be as knowledgeable as I can.
I also listen to your show fairly often.
It's good to listen to while I'm doing housework.
I'm the oldest of 10 children, so the house gets messy a lot.
I can imagine.
We only have three kids, and you should see our house a lot of the time.
I feel like I should ask you a question.
Which of the Lord of the Rings movies is your favorite?
The extended versions, of course.
Anyway, love your work.
Praying for all the best for you, your wife and your children.
May God and all his goodness bless you.
Uh, Mary, that was such a nice email that I, um, now I don't even want to give you the answer that I was prepared to give.
I feel bad saying this to you, but I have to tell you that I have, I have recently come to the conclusion that the Lord of the Rings movies are massively overrated.
Um, The books are great, but I did go back recently and try to watch the movies, and they're not as good as I remember.
So I don't think they hold up as well as I thought they would.
A little too sappy, a little bit corny, kind of drawn out, too long.
That was just my impressions.
I don't even know if I can answer that question anymore.
I just made this discovery recently.
My whole world is rocked by it, as you can tell.
I'm sort of emotionally... I'm very confused.
And I'm in a bit of emotional chaos over this, because I had always thought of Lord of the Rings movies as one of the best films, maybe the best film franchise.
Well, second to The Godfather, which does hold up, by the way.
And, uh, but I just, I don't know if this, if this, if this is that anymore.
And I really, I really hate to, to tell you that, uh, I I'm afraid that Lord of the Rings might be like the Star Wars films in being, uh, it might join the Star Wars films, Fran, the Star Wars franchise as, uh, and be the, the second most overrated film franchise behind Star Wars.
Uh, but thank you for watching the show anyway.
And I appreciate the question.
And I'll talk to you guys tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Western women who left the U.S.
and Great Britain to join ISIS and slaughter innocents now want to return home after Western warriors killed their terrorist husbands.
We'll analyze these poor jihadi dreamers looking for a better life than the mailbag.
▲
Export Selection