Ep. 227 - Another Peaceful Pro-Lifer Brutally Assaulted By Pro-Abortion Extremist
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a brutal assault of a pro-life activist is getting no attention in the media, but I’m going to give it some attention today. In fact there is an epidemic of pro-abortion extremists attacking pro-lifers. I'll provide evidence. Vox comes out in defense of Cardi B, who admitted to drugging and robbing men. We’ll talk about the blatant double standards there. Also, the latest on Jussie Smollett. Date: 03-28-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a brutal assault of a pro-life activist is getting no attention in the media, of course, but I'm going to give it some attention today because it's important.
In fact, there is an epidemic of pro-abortion extremists attacking pro-lifers, and I'm going to provide evidence of that today on the show.
Also, Vox has come out basically in defense of Cardi B, who admitted to drugging and robbing men.
We'll talk about the blatant double standards in that case.
also the latest on Jussie Smollett and other interesting topics today on The Matt Wall Show.
The FBI is now, it says, reviewing the Jussie Smollett case, specifically reviewing the
circumstances that led to the charges against him being dropped.
They're not calling it an investigation, they're calling it a review.
Meanwhile, Kim Foxx, the state's attorney behind all of this, is standing by her decision, though admitting, as I think I played for you yesterday on the show, admitting that she thinks Smollett is guilty.
And that they could have proved him guilty.
So she thinks he's guilty, could have proved him guilty, they let him go anyway.
But she says, well, it's perfectly normal for people who are charged with these kinds of crimes to just be let off the hook on the promise of doing community service or whatever.
Now, you know what?
Here's the thing about that.
She could be right, for all I know.
Maybe it's true that people who are charged with these kinds of things very often are let off the hook.
Or maybe it's not true, because there were actually leaked emails from her office.
Where she, after she made this claim, she sent an email to her staff saying, Hey guys, can you pull up examples of us actually letting people off the hook with a community service for filing false police reports?
We need examples.
So she made that claim and now she needs to go scramble and find examples.
I don't think she's found one yet.
So it's a little bit like, it's a little bit like when you're in an argument with your wife and you're mad at her and you say, you say, well, you always do this.
And then she says, Oh yeah, give me one example.
One time when I've done this, And you say, I'll get back to you on that.
So that's kind of what's going on with her.
But even if it's true that these kinds of deals are often made with people who file false police reports, well, there's a couple of differences, though.
Number one, Of course, in a normal situation of filing a false police report, it doesn't become a national story.
So the difference is that Jussie Smollett not only filed the false police report, but he went in front of the entire country and he tried to foment more racial division.
For the sake of his own advancement.
And let's not forget that he was willing to let, and he still is willing to let, innocent people take the fall.
When he originally found out that they had arrested a couple of suspects before he knew it was his friends, he said, oh yeah, it must be them, because he thought it was two just random white dudes.
And he was willing to let them go to jail on hate crime charges.
So this is different for that reason, but there's another thing too.
They could have made this exact same deal and said, fine, we'll keep your bond, do a little community service, we won't go through the whole trial, rigmarole.
What they could have and should have done is said, here's the condition.
You have to go outside of that courthouse, get in front of the cameras, and admit what you did.
If you do that, then we're good.
In fact, maybe we even give you your bond back, because it doesn't matter.
Because for someone like him, for a narcissistic liar who's doing this for fame and fortune, the worst penalty that you could give him is that.
In fact, that would be a lot worse than sending him to jail for a couple of months or whatever and letting him continue to play the victim and play and pretend that he's innocent.
So they could have done it.
The real scandal here, the real travesty is not just that they didn't go through with the trial.
It's that they let him walk out of that courtroom and stand on the courthouse steps and play the victim and continue to pretend that he's innocent.
That's what the scandal is.
That's what makes this so outrageous.
Because they could have easily said to him, listen, we've got you on this.
You know that we've got you.
We've got all the evidence.
If this goes to trial, you're screwed.
And we're going to throw the book at you.
We're going to send you to jail for years.
We're going to fine you as much as we possibly can.
We're going to find even more crimes to charge you with, unless you walk out there and admit what you did.
They could have done that, and they didn't.
And that's the travesty here.
Okay, I want to switch gears here early in the show.
I want to play a clip for you, and I want to do it close to the beginning of the show, because it's important that you see it.
And before I play it, let me read first from a report in LifeSite News.
It says, an 85-year-old pro-life advocate was brutally assaulted outside a Planned Parenthood facility in San Francisco last Thursday.
The pro-lifer was taking part in a peaceful 40 Days for Life campaign when the perpetrator stole the victim's banner and viciously beat him.
The same assailant had attacked the victim and another man just two days prior.
The elderly man tried to stop the theft of the banner by putting the stick holding the banner into the spokes of the bicycle.
You'll see this in a second.
But it's important.
This just gives a little bit of a context.
And then the perpetrator shoves the man to the ground.
So we'll see all of that.
But the point is, what you're about to witness here The context is that this guy stole a pro-life banner, property that didn't belong to him.
The elderly man, 85 years old, goes and tries to retrieve his property.
And then this is what happens.
Now, I want you to understand that what you just saw there is not unusual.
It is not an exception to the rule.
Violent assaults against pro-life demonstrators are quite common.
And let's run through.
I'm going to play a bunch now.
Let's just go down memory lane here.
Because, as I said, it's very common for pro-abortion extremists to assault pro-life demonstrators, such as if you remember this one.
It's hard to confuse everybody.
But still, it's better to be— you want to kill them with kindness, remember?
That's right.
What?
They actually had people filming you the whole time.
Cool.
Which is why I said, kill Wakanda!
And guess what?
Hey.
Distraction on private property.
Against the law.
If somebody gets raped by somebody and they're like, I'm a 16 year old and I can't have this baby.
Think you should keep it?
It's a baby.
If someone was raped and she gave birth and she decided to kill her 3 year old child.
And I could go on for three or four hours playing clips like that because they're all over YouTube.
I mean, all you have to do is just go on YouTube and type in pro-lifer assaulted and you'll get hundreds of hits on that.
So you get the idea.
The point is that pro-abortion extremists are often violent and unhinged.
This should not be a surprise considering what they support.
And even when they're not being violent, they will very often verbally assault pro-lifers.
Go stand outside of an abortion clinic sometime.
If you don't believe me, stand with the people who are holding vigils, trying to counsel women, and see the treatment that they endure from passers-by, from clinic staff, from everybody.
You may actually be shocked by it if you believe and listen to the media.
I don't know why you would at this point, but if you do, you may be under the impression that pro-life protesters are the ones who are standing outside of clinics all the time shouting at the women going in and heckling and harassing.
No, that's not what happens.
It's the other way around.
They stand there praying.
That's the way that pro-life demonstrations usually go.
Most people are silent and they're simply praying.
And at a clinic, most people will be silent except for a sidewalk counselor who will try to approach women who are going into the clinic.
Approach them not to yell at them or insult them or anything like that, but simply to inform them about the other options they have available.
Because the clinic will not do that.
The clinic will not tell women that they have other options.
And in the midst of that, what will happen is those pro-lifers who are being peaceful and mostly silent will be harassed or assaulted and it's quite common.
One of the weirdest such cases was a couple of years ago when a, what really appears to be a demonically possessed abortion doctor came out to confront a pro-lifer and it was like, it was basically a scene from The Exorcist.
Watch this.
Why?
Why?
Stinky breath.
Why?
Yeah, I am.
You got to repent, sir, for murdering babies.
Yeah.
Why?
Because it's a sin before God.
Why?
Stinky breath.
Yeah, it's pretty evil of you, sir.
Yeah, I am.
And I hope and pray that you...
Yeah.
Well, that's what you do to babies, huh?
Yeah, I love it.
You love it, huh?
Yeah, I do.
Okay.
I hope that you come to Christ, sir.
Oh, I'd never go to Christ.
I hope that you come to Christ, sir.
No, I don't go to Christ.
Yeah, you... I don't listen to Christ.
You will have a darkened heart, sir.
I do have a darkened heart.
Yeah.
You have a darkened heart.
I do, I do.
Very, very much so.
And you will stand before God in judgment day and day.
Yes, I will.
Every day.
You will stand before God in judgment day and day.
Yes, I will.
Every day.
All of the babies that you have to kill.
I love it.
I love it.
Yeah, keep tearing the babies apart.
Yeah, I will.
Keep tearing the babies apart.
I will.
Keep tearing the babies apart.
Yes, sir.
The babies, their blood streams from the ground.
Now, I'm not going to claim, okay, that you can't find examples of pro-life demonstrators acting inappropriately.
You certainly can.
But there is really no comparison.
The violence and harassment almost always comes from the other side.
Almost always.
And you're not going to see this in the media, but that is the reality.
And as I said, it's not surprising because they are defending violence.
They are defending the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent children.
So obviously they're not going to have any problem with stealing a sign or assaulting an 85-year-old man.
That's pittance compared to what they're defending.
So that shouldn't surprise us too much.
But also, the other thing about this dynamic between pro-lifers and pro-abortion people When you've got pro-life demonstrators on one side and pro-abortion people on the other, remember that the pro-abortion people are by definition inherently selfish.
Okay, so it's all about them personally.
When they are protesting or demonstrating in favor of abortion, they're doing it because it's something that they want for themselves.
They want to have this privilege, if we can call it that, I certainly won't call it a right, to kill babies because it will make their life easier.
And that's why they get emotional.
Okay, so this is not righteous anger on behalf of the oppressed.
No, this is the anger of a selfish, deluded person who feels like their own convenience is going to be intruded upon.
And for the men who act this way, they want abortion to be legal so that they can use women as objects and they never have to worry about the responsibilities that may come from that.
On the other hand, and this, you know, I think I said this around the time of the March for Life, this is what makes something like the March for Life such a beautiful and inspiring event, is that pro-lifers, whether you agree with them or not, what you cannot deny is that These are selfless people.
They're not doing it for themselves.
You don't go and stand outside of an abortion clinic for your own sake.
You don't gain anything from that.
You don't go to the March for Life and take a bus and go all the way there in January when it's freezing cold and stand outside in the cold for four hours for yourself.
There's nothing that you gain from that.
The people who are involved in the pro-life cause Contrary to the ones who are pro-abortion, the ones who are pro-life, they are in it to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
They are focused outwardly to the other, to the person who cannot speak for themselves.
Whereas for pro-abortion people, it's all about me, me, me.
That is the crucial difference between the two, and that explains, I think, They're different, shall we say, strategies in getting their message across.
All right.
I want to, for a moment, revisit this story about Cardi B. You may remember from yesterday, she's the famous female rapper who admitted in an Instagram video that she used to drug and rob men.
Uh, she'd lure them back to her hotel after, after a night of stripping.
She would have them come back to, this is what she admitted to, have them come back to the hotel and she would drug and rob them.
She's said all this in a video that she posted online for some reason a couple of years ago, and yesterday she posted a barely coherent statement defending herself, explaining that she had no choice but to drug and rob men, and we all need to stop criticizing her because she's living her truth, and she's being herself, and she's being honest, and this is what she needed to do.
A couple of follow-up points about this.
The incomparable idiots over at Vox are perfectly willing to buy this excuse. An article on Vox that was posted,
published I think last night, explains that Cardi B will not be hurt by this scandal, and really
she shouldn't be. And the article says this, for one thing, and the author of the article is trying to
draw a distinction between Cardi B and someone like Bill Cosby or R. Kelly, she
She says, for one thing, there's the difference in degree between what Cardi says she did
and what Cosby and Kelly's accusers say they did.
Cosby and Kelly have been accused of repeatedly over a period of decades using the power they
accumulated as celebrities to drug and rape women.
in Cosby's case, and to rape and abuse women and young girls in Kelly's case.
Cardi says that she drugged and robbed men before she became rich and powerful celebrity
in order to survive.
Cosby and Kelly have been accused of repeated violent and sadistic abuses of power over
decades.
Cardi has admitted to a crime of survival.
A crime of survival.
No, a crime of survival is when you're literally starving to death and so you steal a loaf
of bread from the supermarket so you don't die.
That's a crime of survival.
Cardi B was a stripper, and she made plenty of cash in that profession, so what are we saying?
She would have starved to death had she not had this side gig of drugging and robbing men?
By the way, I did look this up because I figured that somewhere, she probably has bragged about how much money she actually made as a stripper.
And sure enough, I found this in Yahoo News from just a couple of months ago.
It says, the Grammy-nominated artist started dancing at 18, and while she admits her first time was embarrassing, the checks helped her get over that feeling quickly.
She says, I was seeing money that I feel like I would have never seen ever.
At first, I started off making $200 or $300, sometimes not making money at all because you've got to pay your house fee, and my house fees were very expensive.
But after I got good, there were nights where I would leave with $2,000 or $3,000.
When I was 21, I had $20,000 saved up.
When I was 21, I had $20,000 saved up.
When I was 22, I already had $35,000 saved up in singles.
So, she couldn't survive on three grand a night.
Well then, how am I still alive?
How are you still breathing if $3,000 a night isn't enough to get you by and so you have to drug and rob people?
Very few people on Earth make more than $3,000 a day.
So we should all be dead, according to Cardi B and Vox.
But Cardi B, she just couldn't make it work, you know, with her budget.
She had no choice.
Instead of pretending to buy that excuse, as some people are, why don't you just come out and say, she's a woman, and her victims were men, so it's okay?
Because that's what you really mean.
That's obviously what you actually mean, so why don't you come out and say it?
We all know that's what you're saying.
The people that are defending Cardi B, it's because she's a woman, and so admit it.
No, the real difference between Cardi B and Bill Cosby and R. Kelly is that she's a woman and they're men.
I forgot to mention another video of Cardi B surfaced, this one of her bragging about getting guys drunk and then tricking them into sleeping with transsexuals.
Why would she do that?
I don't know.
There's not a lot of context to it, but that's what she says.
And I mean, We know there are double standards with the way that women are sometimes treated with these things, but this is beyond the pale.
I mean, this woman is a vile crook who should be in prison.
It's just a confessing.
She's confessing to one violent crime after another.
This woman should have 60 years in prison by now.
But there's one other thing I wanted to say about this, as I was thinking about it.
Cardi B's excuse is that she, uh, Not only was doing what she had to do to survive, but also that she's living her truth, right?
She's being real.
She's being honest.
She's being herself, whatever.
And I'm kind of glad she went in that direction with her excuse for this behavior because it helps to expose just how vacuous and absurd the whole, hey, I'm just being me thing really is.
People have used it very often, especially these days, as an excuse to behave like pigs, and this is just one of the more extreme examples, where people say, hey, I'm being me, this is my truth, I'm being real.
Well, okay then, but if this is you and you're being real, then that just means that you're a horrible person.
The fact that you're being yourself and being real is not an excuse to be horrible.
If yourself is horrible, then you need to change yourself, because that's bad.
So it reminds me of that, you know that stupid slogan that you see sometimes floating around online, in memes and so forth, that goes like, if you can't handle me at my worst, then you don't deserve me at my best.
It's that, that's a similar kind of attitude that people have where a person takes ownership, takes prideful ownership of, uh, of their worst behavior and says, basically, everyone has to deal with it because this is just me being me and I'm being myself.
But no, you see, if I can't handle you at your worst, that's because you're a bad person and you're miserable to be around.
And that's why no one likes you.
It's not because they're haters, or they're jealous, or they're trying to stifle you.
No, it's simply because you're an abysmal, insufferable, excruciating human being.
That's what it is.
And I shouldn't have to tolerate your awfulness as some sort of price of admission so that I can experience your best.
Because I gotta tell you something, your best isn't that great either.
But this is the attitude that we encourage in kids these days, especially.
We say, be who you are, and if people don't like it, it's their fault.
It's their problem.
No, it's probably your fault.
If you find that everyone around you Always turns out to be a hater, and you're constantly in conflict with everyone, and everyone is out to get you all the time, and you can't maintain friendships or relationships with anyone, then look at the common denominator.
It's time for an epiphany where you go, oh wait, everyone around me hates me because I'm terrible.
That's why.
Okay.
You know what a lot of this is?
It's shamelessness disguised as honesty.
People think it's okay these days to be terrible if they're honest about it and if they're being real, and so they can simply admit, and that's what Cardi B is doing.
She's like, yeah, I drugged and robbed men, but I'm being real about it, I'm being honest with you.
No, that's not really honesty, that's shamelessness, and there's a difference.
Now, honesty is when you admit to being terrible and doing awful things, And you're remorseful about it and ashamed.
Okay, well that is really brave and bold honesty, I'll give you that.
But if you're taking these terrible things about yourself and you're parading them in front of the world and saying, hey everyone, look at me!
That is shamelessness.
And as I said, there's a difference and it's not good.
All right, let's...
Well, I had, okay, I gotta, I can't, I can't move on to the inbox before I play.
I played a lot of clips, but I gotta play this one too, because this one I found on Twitter, and it's maybe the most relatable thing you've ever seen.
Watch this.
Good morning TPS students.
It is testing week and it's time to slay all day.
Yeet!
Stay woke, be on fleek, and get that Gucci breakfast.
Goals!
Say bye Felicia to that testing stress.
Weather's gonna be turnt, right Chris?
Yes!
Toledo weather gonna be the lit during testing week.
A hundo P chance of success.
You've got this kids.
Steve, how about that traffic?
Are we looking okay?
That really does, as a Christian I can say, that really reminds me of every single youth pastor I've ever met in my life.
No traffic problems around any TPS schools to keep you from taking those tests.
That really does, as a Christian I can say, that really reminds me of every single youth pastor I've ever met in my
life.
It's basically exactly like that.
And we wonder why we can't get young kids to go to church.
All right, let's go to the inbox.
You can email the show, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Brandon, says, hey Matt, love your show.
I started listening to your podcast about a month ago, and now I actually enjoy my hour-long commute to work every morning.
I notice you've mentioned a few times now that beans don't belong in chili.
I don't think I've ever had chili without beans, as I feel it would be empty without it.
Have I been wrong my whole life?
Anyway, I appreciate what you do.
Godspeed.
Yes, Brandon, you have been, I regret to inform you, wrong your whole life.
The International Chili Society has officially defined what a chili is, and frankly, it's a sign of our crumbling education system that you, Brandon, have apparently never read the bylaws of the International Chili Society.
But let me read for you commandment number one.
on their rule sheet about what constitutes a chili.
It says, true chili is defined by the International Chili Society as any kind of meat or combination of meats cooked with chili peppers, various other spices, and other ingredients with the exception of items such as beans or spaghetti which are strictly forbidden.
Why are they forbidden?
Because they are meaningless filler.
Beans and chili is like when people put walnuts in brownies.
It's not like it's bad.
necessarily, but there's no point to it.
You're distracting from the main event.
If I'm eating a brownie, it's because I want the chocolate.
So why are you putting these little gaps of non-chocolate into my brownie?
What is the point of this?
In fact, if I'm at someone's house and they serve me brownies with walnuts, I will say exactly this to them, and I'll throw it in their face, which is, I think, the only Reasonable response, and it's the same thing with chili.
The main event is the meat, and everything that is not meat, or that does not accentuate the meat, like the spices do, is pointless.
Why is it there?
All right, from Mark, it says, talking about the, this is referring to the New York Times article we mentioned on the show yesterday that was attempting unsuccessfully to disprove God, says,
when the professor made the argument regarding the problem of evil,
he said natural evils are wrong.
While you made a good argument regarding that men are the cause
because our sin wrecked the world, there's another argument that's missing.
Another answer is that since men are sinful, any suffering they experience is just.
We don't deserve life, pleasure, comfort, or anything good that God has given us.
That all comes from His grace.
The question shouldn't be, why do bad things happen to people?
The real question is, since man is so evil, why does anything good happen to people at all?
Well, the answer to that is God's grace.
Also, you mentioned that God's omniscience and His omnipotence are contradictory.
Well, I don't think they're contradictory.
I'm saying that that's a more compelling atheist argument, but I explained how...
It's not actually true.
You gave that God exists in a B theory of time.
While that argument works, for those that don't subscribe to the B theory of time, another answer is that there is no logical reason for these two to contradict.
Just because I know what I would do in a certain situation doesn't mean I lack in power to do those things.
For example, I know that I'm going to eat the bag of chips in front of me.
Does my knowledge of that take away from my power or ability to do those things?
Absolutely not.
It doesn't really make sense.
Mark, your answer to the problem of evil, I don't think that's going to be a successful answer when you're talking to someone who's secular, atheist, agnostic.
Because what you're trying to argue is that, well, I mean, just take any horrible thing you can think of, and then you're saying, well, that person deserved that thing.
So, I mean, fill in the blank.
Think of the most horrible thing that could have happened to a person, a child.
And then you're saying, well, yeah, but they deserved it, really, because they're sinful.
I don't think that's a successful answer.
And I certainly don't think it's going to be a convincing answer to an atheist.
I think if they hear that, they're going to just run away screaming and saying, you're crazy.
That's insane.
You try to tell me a child with brain cancer is, well, he deserves it.
No, that's not...
No, child does not deserve cancer.
I will say that unequivocally.
But, theologically speaking, as I said, you know, when we're trying to answer the question of these so-called natural evils, natural suffering, as opposed to the kinds of suffering that we can explain through free will, which is a little bit easier to explain.
Somebody victimizes another person, well that happened because that bad person chose to do it, right?
Natural evils is a little bit more difficult.
We can't explain that without getting into some theology.
There is obviously no way around that.
And so, the theology there is that man fell out of harmony with nature and with himself through sin.
And so, I think that's our answer.
We can kind of leave it there.
From Jeff, it says, Matt, who would win in a fight, the Ninja Turtles or Power Rangers?
I guess I would give it to the Power Rangers, because they can make that Megazord thing, right?
And, you know, just stomp on the Ninja Turtles.
But great question, thank you for that.
From Timothy, he says, hi Matt, love the show.
I've heard you briefly mention the issue of the order of the Gospels before.
Could you explain that?
Which Gospel was written first, and how do we know?
And when were the Gospels all written?
Yeah, I think we've talked about this before.
We don't know exactly when the Gospels were written or in what order, but this is something biblical scholars have been studying and debating for a long time.
Different theories have emerged, and as you can imagine, there are, you know, atheists and secular scholars are going to have slightly different answers from Christian scholars.
So just a quick overview based on my reading, everyone agrees that John was written last, even you go back to the Church Fathers, they all, so there's basically universal agreement throughout history on that point, so we can be pretty sure about that.
The most prominent theory today is that Mark was written first, and there are a few reasons to think that, but the primary reason is that almost all of Mark The text of Mark, almost all of it is contained in Matthew and then to a lesser extent Luke.
So it's clear and sometimes verbatim.
You've got these verbatim passages between the three Gospels.
That's why they're called the Synoptics.
It's clear that somebody went first and used the others as a source.
We know that.
It wouldn't really make sense if Matthew went first, and then Mark came along and made a gospel out of Matthew, because Mark is so much shorter than Matthew, and Mark leaves out some really important things, like the virgin birth, which isn't in Mark.
So it wouldn't make sense If Mark was second, and he made a gospel based on Matthew, and all he did then was just, he took some of it, and cut out some really important parts, and then made his own gospel out of it.
In that case, Mark would just be an abridgment of Matthew, and there's almost no reason for it to be in the Bible in that case.
But, if it came first, well then it's sort of one of the original source documents, and Matthew and Luke used it.
And then added details, fleshed it out based on their own sources and for Matthew his own eyewitness experience.
So that to me makes a lot of sense.
It just makes a lot more sense than the idea that Mark wrote some sort of abridgment of Matthew.
As for when they were written, Well, secular scholars will push all the Gospels after the year 70 A.D., because that's when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, which is mentioned in the Gospels.
And so, they'll say, well, it must, obviously, these things were written after that happened, because they mention it, whereas Christians will say, well, no, it was a prophecy, so it happened before.
So, I think we, you know, they were written, at least John, all of the Gospels except for John were written before 70, but not too much before 70, because Paul was writing up until the mid-60s thereabout.
And in his letters, he never mentions the Gospels explicitly, the written Gospels, doesn't cite them, rarely mentions any of the stories they contain, and it seems inconceivable to me that if the Gospels existed when Paul was writing, that he would not have frequently cited them.
Just like modern-day missionaries, you know, they're not going to go around and never mention the Gospels.
They're going to mention them frequently, right?
So Paul doesn't mention them at all.
I think it's because they didn't exist yet.
They hadn't been written.
And so Matthew was probably written sometime in the mid-60s, then Luke, and then or Mark, Matthew, Luke, and then John.
All right, finally, this is from Matt.
Says, Matt, love the show because I agree with just about everything you say,
but mostly because you have the best first name ever, likewise.
There was a lot of talk about the new movie about abortion, Unplanned, being rated R by the MPAA
because it shows abortion-related content.
Because the movie is rated R, a person under the age of 17 needs to have a parent or adult accompany them
in order to watch a movie about abortion.
But in the height of all ironies, pro-abortion activists in many states are pushing to remove parental consent laws relative to abortion, claiming that many teens should be able to decide for themselves whether to slaughter their unborn baby.
Thus, the left apparently believes that although a girl under the age of 17 is too young to be able to watch a movie about abortion, that same girl is apparently mature enough to actually have an abortion Yes.
It does answer itself.
But thank you for bringing that point up.
Because it is, as you say, completely absurd.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening, everybody.
audiences or because the left wants to keep the movie's message away from as
many teens as possible, the question answers itself.
Yes, it does answer itself. But thank you for bringing that point up because it is,
as you say, completely absurd. We'll leave it there. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening, everybody. Godspeed.
I'm Michael Knowles, host of The Michael Knowles Show.
The left's worst week ever concludes with them using the only weapon left at their disposal, calling conservatives bigots.
When the left calls you a racist, you know you've won the argument.
