All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
50:55
Ep. 253 - A Democratic Congresswoman Shows Where Her Loyalties Really Lie

Today on the show, a United States congresswoman sides with terrorists and refers to “our Palestinian people.” I think the statement warrants an investigation and I'll explain why. Also, a Democratic state rep harasses an elderly pro life woman and records himself doing it. And I'll answer your emails. Date: 05-06-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on The Matt Wall Show, a United States Congresswoman sides with terrorists and refers to, and I quote, our Palestinian people.
Our.
Now, I think that that statement warrants an investigation, and I'll explain why.
Also, a Democratic state representative harasses an elderly pro-life woman, and he's so proud of himself for this that he recorded it and posted it online.
So we'll play a clip of that and talk about it.
And I'll answer your emails today on The Matt Wall Show.
So did you guys hear about this, you heard about the Kentucky Derby controversy, right?
If you didn't, if you didn't hear about it, let me explain.
And now I should say, I know nothing about horse racing whatsoever.
I watch, I'll watch the Belmont if there's a triple crown at stake.
So I watch maybe three and a half minutes of horse racing per decade or so.
Um, but still I can, you know, I can read headlines.
And so if you read headlines, that makes you an expert these days, if you didn't know.
So I'm an expert based on the headlines I've read.
And, um, so let me, let me explain this to you.
Uh, here's what happened.
This one horse won the race, right?
The first horse won.
But then they were like, oh, no, the first horse didn't win, the second horse won.
And so the second horse was like, oh, sweet.
But the first horse said, no, that's BS, man.
And a lot of other people said, oh, no, I disagree with this.
But then some other people also said, no, I agree, I think it's the right call.
And then there were other people who said, I can see both sides of it.
And that's the gist of it.
Sorry to get technical on you.
In the horse racing industry, we tend to forget that novices don't know all the minutia.
So we'll kind of speak technically.
So I apologize.
Hopefully, I didn't lose you there in explaining it.
So there you go.
That was my horse racing commentary for the day.
Check back tomorrow for some more.
Well, we've got a lot we need to talk about today.
But before we get there, you know, it's summer.
And the only thing more annoying than the winning horse at the Kentucky Derby having his victory stolen from him is flies and other insects that are buzzing around your home.
And, you know, when you think about flies, who knows where a fly was last?
Well, you can think about where flies tend to hover, like garbage and that sort of thing.
And then if one lands on your food, on your hamburger, Now you've got a piece of all that stuff in your hamburger, so that's pretty disgusting.
So we'd like to thank our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and insect traps, and now they've come up with a solution for indoor pests as well.
The Dynatrap Flylight.
So the Dynatrap Flylight works day and night to attract and trap Flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes, other pesky insects, and I gotta tell you, it really works.
You know those fly strips and everything that people use that's dangling down, that plastic that people use, the old school way of doing it, and then you run into it accidentally and you've got dead flies wrapped around your face?
It's happened to me.
Well, the Dynatrap Fly Light is not like that.
It looks like a subtle night light that you plug in and it's out of the way and it takes care of the problem.
Trust me, I've been using this.
Especially for mosquitoes.
Mosquitoes are very attracted to me personally, so I get bit up.
People like having me around because I tend to attract all the mosquitoes.
I don't want to be the thing that attracts mosquitoes.
I want to have the Dynatrap fly light that does that for me, and I've been using it, and just an insane number of insects have been caught in that thing, and it really takes care of the problem.
So, get yours at Dynatrap.com.
That's D-Y-N-A-T-R-A-P.com.
Enter the promo code, remember to do this, promo code WALSH and receive 15% off any of their products.
Dynatrap, the safe, silent, and simple solution to household insect control.
Terrorists in the Gaza Strip fired over 700 rockets at Israel, at civilian targets in Israel, over the weekend.
Many of them were intercepted, many of the rockets were, but many of them also hit.
Israel responded.
And as Israel responded to the attack, some Democrats in Congress, as you have come to expect,
came out in support of the terrorists who fired the rockets initially.
Now, you could probably guess who the people are who came out in support of the terrorists.
The first one is Ilhan Omar, who tweeted and said, how many more protesters must be shot,
rockets must be fired, and little kids must be killed until the endless cycle of violence ends?
Well, if you want to know how many more rockets have to be fired, well, then maybe ask the people
who fired the rockets in the first place.
She says, the status quo of occupation and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unsustainable.
Only real justice can bring about security and lasting peace.
But to me, that was not Nearly as concerning as the tweet that was sent by Rashida Tlaib, Congresswoman from Michigan, and she's an American Congresswoman, allegedly.
Here's what she said.
Now listen to this.
She said, when will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free?
Headlines like this, and she's reacting to a headline in the New York Times.
And I think it was the New York Times.
Headlines like this and framing it in this way just feeds into the continued lack of responsibility on Israel who unjustly oppress and target Palestinian children and families.
All right, let me, I'll go back to that first sentence because that's really the only sentence that matters here.
She says, when will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free?
What?
Our Palestinian people?
Our?
Now, we're told that it's a racist smear to accuse Muslim politicians of dual loyalty.
And I agree that if you were to—it would be a smear to accuse a Muslim politician of dual loyalty just because she's a Muslim.
That would be a smear.
But if she advertises her dual loyalty, if she comes out and says it, which is what she just did here, our Palestinian people, well then it's not a smear, it's just an observation.
That's all.
And actually, you know, maybe I should back up for a minute because, no, I don't think that Tlaib has dual loyalty because there's no evidence at all that she's loyal to America in the first place.
So I think I'm more accusing her of having sole loyalty to her Palestinian people.
That's what she just said.
She said, she said, well, they're my people.
This is, I mean, that is really, really concerning.
You know, it's, it's, I don't think it's like a matter of semantics here.
Yeah, it's just one word, but that's a really important word.
Because that is a word that expresses who your loyalties lie with, who you identify yourself with.
And I don't think it's too much to ask that if you're a politician in America and you're a representative of American citizens, whenever you refer to our people, you should be talking about Americans.
Or even more specifically, the American citizens who elected you and who you represent.
I think she needs to be investigated for this.
And I'm serious.
If she was a civilian, I mean, it would be one thing.
There are plenty of idiots on Twitter who are cheering on terrorists, and they're allowed to do that.
I think it's vile and stupid, but they're allowed to do it.
If you're a member of the U.S.
Congress, and you're referring to non-Americans as your people, that raises some very serious questions.
Your sole loyalty as a representative, as a member of the U.S.
government, needs to be with America.
I mean, do you think someone could get a job, like at the NSA, if they went around saying stuff like this?
Do you think if in the interview process at the NSA, you were to refer to my Palestinian people, you think you'd get the job?
No, there's no way.
If you're working at the NSA, they want to be very, very sure that your sole and only loyalty is to this country.
I think it should be the same thing with politicians who are making the laws.
The ones who are in charge of things.
And before anyone accuses me of racism, though I don't really care if you do because that label has lost all meaning these days, but I would say the same thing for anyone who referred to another people or another country as their people.
So find me an example.
I know when I was talking about this earlier this morning, there were people saying, well, what about all the politicians who side with Israel?
Okay, well, find me an example of a Jewish politician in America talking about our Israeli people, or my Israeli people, and I would have a huge problem with that, too.
Okay?
I would have a huge problem with that.
But I don't think you're gonna find that, actually.
Now, if you can find an example of it, then let me know.
But I'm not aware of any example.
Someone argued to me that in context, well Tlaib, she refers to the world and then she says our Palestinian people.
So maybe she was speaking from a global perspective and she was saying like we're all one people, we're all each other's people or whatever.
Maybe that's what she was saying.
I still have a problem with American politicians speaking that way in these global terms, as if the distinction of countries doesn't matter.
That troubles me also, because, again, you're an American, you're a representative of the American government, and so I think you need to understand those distinctions and respect them.
But that's not what's happening here.
That's clearly not what she's saying.
That's not what she means.
She's talking about herself personally, In fact, in her bio, she identifies herself as a Palestinian-American.
And so it's no wonder that she puts the Palestinian first.
And we see how that works now.
But if that is what she meant, if she meant it in a global way, well, does that mean that Trump could talk about our Russian people?
Can you imagine?
How do you think that would go over?
How do you think it would go over if Trump sent out a tweet talking about our Russian people?
How would the left react to that?
They would literally explode, I think, with rage.
There would be actual explosions happening across the country if that were to happen.
So, no.
Obviously, this is a problem.
It really is.
We cannot be so cowed by the racism charges that we refuse to speak up about something like this.
It is not okay for a representative of the United States Congress to identify her people as people who do not live here.
It's just not okay.
That is extremely concerning, to say the least.
All right, speaking of concerning Videos and, or concerning things, and speaking of loyalties lying elsewhere, I should say, there's a watchdog, a watchdog group called the Middle East Media Research Institute.
And they posted a video over the weekend, not, not their own video, but they posted it to bring it to our attention.
It's from a recent event at the Muslim American Society Islamic Center in Philadelphia.
And during this event, there's a bunch of children.
Well, let me just show you.
I'll just show you.
We'll talk about it after.
Look at this.
Those who are content with oppression and the evil of their existence,
and those who are not content with hatred, should abandon their existence and turn away from
oppression.
Revolters, revolters, revolters They come from the same places as us
The eyes of the oppressor look at us and the eyes of the martyrs look at us
The jinn is in a state of shock The evil of the righteous is inside us
You must return to Palestine And the peace of the men in us will be able to open the
door Light and companion, oh lion
We must be patient no matter what happens And be free from the Lord of the mighty
After the night and the day Oh angel, guide us
So that we can solve the problems So that we can reach the destination
And we can reach the home Oh wind of heaven, blow away the evil of the martyrs
In Islam, we are the ones who will be the ones to build the homes
Our martyrs gave life as a gift They won gardens of pleasure.
Their bodies smell of misery.
They race to the paradise of the Lord.
Will Jerusalem be their capital?
Will it be a resting place for the poor and the needy?
Okay, now if you're listening on SoundCloud or iTunes and you didn't have the benefit
of subtitles and you didn't understand the language, then let me read the Middle East
Media Research Institute's description of this video from their YouTube page, which
describes what was going on there.
It says, on April 22, 2019, the Muslim American Society Islamic Center in Philadelphia uploaded a video of an Ummah Day celebration to its Facebook page in which young children wearing Palestinian scarves sang This is what they were saying.
Glorious steeds call us and lead us to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The blood of martyrs protect us.
Take us, O ships, until we reach our shores and crush the treacherous ones.
Flow, O rivers of martyrs.
A young girl read a poem praising martyrs who sacrificed their lives for Palestine.
And she asked, Will Jerusalem be a hotbed for cowards?
Another young girl read, Will we defend Palestine with our bodies?
We will chop off their heads.
We will liberate the sorrowful and exalted Al-Aqsa Mosque.
We will subject them to eternal torture.
So there you go.
That's what's happening in America, folks.
When I was a kid, I went to Christian events.
I'd go to Sunday school, vacation Bible school I would go to.
And what we would do is we would learn Bible stories.
We would maybe draw a picture of Noah's Ark.
We would sing songs like, Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
We would do pageants.
We never recited poems about chopping off the heads of martyrs.
And we never talked about crushing the treacherous ones, subjecting people to eternal torture.
So that was, I guess it's just a difference of style.
I don't know.
And by the way, a totally coincidental difference, right?
It just so happens that this is an Islamic society where they've got kids singing about cutting off people's heads.
And you never find that with Christian groups.
But it's just a coincidence.
We can't draw any conclusions whatsoever about the different religions because they're exactly the same.
They're totally equal.
And how dare you think otherwise?
All right.
Here's another, we'll just keep it going here.
Here's another disturbing video to play for you on a slightly different note, but only slightly different, not that different actually.
Brian Sims is a state representative in Pennsylvania somehow.
He describes himself in his Twitter bio as LGBTQ activist, state representative, civil rights attorney, college football captain, bearded, RuPaul's Drag Race fanatic, and Little Mermaid enthusiast.
And notice how he puts LGBTQ activist before state representative.
So just like Tlaib is a Palestinian before she's an American, he's an LGBTQ activist before he's a state representative.
And so the Little Mermaid fan, he decided that he wanted to harass and intimidate an elderly woman and film himself doing it.
And this goes on for, now what I'm going to show you here, I'm not going to show you the whole video.
The actual video goes on for like eight minutes of this person Harassing an elderly woman.
I'm just going to show you a clip of it.
Here it is.
Hi, everyone.
Representative Brian Sims here, and I'm once again out in front of Planned Parenthood of southeastern Pennsylvania.
It's not only in my district, it's the most heavily protested Planned Parenthood, I believe, in the country.
Today's protester.
Now, she is an old white lady who's going to try to avoid showing you her face.
But the same laws, luckily, that protect her from being out here also protect me from showing you who she is.
And so my hope is that you'll donate $100 for every extra hour that this woman is out here telling people what's right for their bodies.
So I have a couple questions for you, ma'am.
How many children have you clothed today?
I'm sorry, I missed your answer.
How many children have you clothed today?
How about how many children have you put shoes on their feet today?
Have you fed any children today?
Or have you just stood out in front of a Planned Parenthood shaming people for something that they have a constitutional right to do?
Huh?
Huh?
If you're here about the children, you can pray at home for children.
It's probably the same place that you could feed a child.
But you're not.
Instead, you're out here shaming people for something that they have a constitutional right to do.
Who'd have thought that an old white lady would be out in front of a Planned Parenthood telling people what's right for their bodies?
Shame on you.
Shame on you for hiding your face at the same time that you're shaming other people.
Again, the same laws that protect me protect you, and that's okay.
You're allowed to be out here.
That doesn't mean that you have a moral right to be out here.
Shame on you.
What you're doing here is disgusting.
This is wrong.
You have no business being out here.
Hi, everybody.
Thank you for being here.
Yep.
Disgusting.
Okay, so the little mermaid there is doing a few interesting things.
First, he's Sticking a camera in a woman's face and literally shaming her on the internet while accusing her of shaming people.
He actually says, he says, shame on you for shaming, you're shaming people, shame on you!
I'm sure he's too stupid to appreciate the irony, but you and I can appreciate it anyway.
Also, he keeps going on about clothing and feeding children.
Well, there's a very good chance that this woman, who is both brave and dignified, by the way, in her response, and that's how it is the entire video.
She just, she doesn't run away, but she doesn't engage with him.
She just stands there.
And so I think a very, very brave and strong woman, much stronger than this person.
This despicable, cowardly punk, Anyway, but there's a very good chance that she is quite charitable in her private life.
I would be willing to bet that she gives a lot to charity and that she has done a lot to help kids.
I'd be willing to bet that.
Because that's the case with pro-lifers.
Despite what you hear from pro-aborts, they're all pro-lifers, they only care about babies before they're born.
That is such utter nonsense.
I mean, pro-lifers are constantly Doing things for children.
It shouldn't surprise you to learn that pro-lifers love kids.
They love human beings.
They love life.
That's why we're pro-life.
So this whole thing about, oh, you only care about babies.
As soon as they're born, you just leave them.
That's just total nonsense.
There's no evidence for that.
That is based on nothing.
That is just an empty accusation.
It's something that pro-abortion people say because it makes them feel more comfortable.
It's what they want to believe.
It would make them feel more comfortable about their own evil, sick, disgusting viewpoints if they could convince themselves that, oh yeah, these people over here, they don't really care about people.
They're just pretending.
I mean, what do you think that woman is there doing?
Why do you think that this elderly woman decided to get up on a Saturday morning and go to this club?
What do you think motivates that?
You really think it's because she hates women?
She is a woman, so she's there because she hates women.
You know, if someone Doesn't care?
You know, if it's true that pro-lifers don't really care about life, they don't care about babies, they don't care about women, but you know what they would do?
They would do nothing.
They would just stay at their home.
You don't get up on a Saturday morning and go to a clinic and subject yourself to that if you don't actually care.
That's why they're there.
They don't get anything out of this.
The people who are at clinics, what do you think they get out of it, personally?
They're not making money off of it.
They're subjected to harassment, so they don't enjoy that.
There's nothing in it for them.
They're only doing it because they believe that babies are being killed and they think that that shouldn't happen.
So that's why they're there.
Don't project- you as a pro-a-boy, as an empty, soulless, evil, apologist for murder, don't project that onto other pe- just because you don't care, just because you don't give a crap about other people, which is obviously the case with this- with this coward, just because you don't care doesn't mean that's something that- that- that everybody feels that way.
Yes, you are self-absorbed and selfish and all you care about is yourself.
That's clear.
But that's not the case for everybody.
There are people who actually care about other humans and that's why pro-lifers go to these clinics.
But all of that is beside the point.
Because the idea that we can't oppose the murder of a group of people unless we are also feeding and adopting those people is just ridiculous.
Am I not allowed to oppose the killing of the homeless unless I've worked at a soup kitchen?
So, if someone proposed that we should go and just eradicate all of the homeless, put them down like dogs, in order to get rid of the homeless problem, and I stood up and said, no, I'm opposed to that, would you say, well, I don't see you working at Soup Kitchen, pipe down!
Can I not oppose the murder of toddlers unless I've adopted a toddler?
You know, Andrea Yates drowned her five kids in the bathtub, her born children.
I'm opposed to that.
I think that's horrible.
Are you going to say, oh, well, I didn't see you stepping up to adopt those kids.
So shut your mouth!
It's such an absolutely idiotic talking point.
And if you use that talking point, you're either a moron or you're lying.
It's just there is no in-between option.
There's no third option.
You either know that it's a stupid talking point and you're using it because it's red meat for dumb pro-abortion people, or you're just really, really stupid, that you can't see the problem with that, and how that line of thinking means that we are not—you really can't oppose the murder of anyone.
Because what you're saying is, unless you personally are stepping up to take care of this person for their whole life, you cannot be opposed to their murder.
Which means that, you know, there are 7 billion people in the world.
I cannot take care of almost any of them.
Like, I don't have the resources.
I only have the resources to care for a very, very, very, very, very small number of those people.
And all those people happen to live in my house right now.
So what you're saying is, I can't be opposed to the murder of any of the rest of them.
Genocide, whatever, I can't, because I'm not stepping up to care for them, so I guess, yeah, go ahead and kill them.
You know, I can't take care, whoever you are watching this, if you're pro-abortion, I can't take care of you, I don't have the money for it.
Or the interest, frankly.
So I guess I can't be opposed to people killing you.
I guess, yeah, go ahead.
Someone can just go ahead and kill you, and I can't say anything about it, because I'm not here giving you any money, right?
But mostly the big takeaway here is that, once again, the pro-abortion side is, as always, vicious, hostile, shaming, bullying, despicable.
While the pro-life side is peaceful and non-confrontational, and that's the way it is, like, 95% of the time.
It's almost always that way.
Every once in a while you'll see the roles reversed, but not very often.
And that's all it is.
All right.
There was a...
A report in the daily, well, maybe we'll do that tomorrow.
There was a, so maybe you've heard the latest thing.
The latest trend is, um, is, uh, I think they call it soligamy.
Yeah, soligamy, like solo.
It's when you marry yourself, when you fall in love with yourself and marry yourself.
And that's the latest trend.
So there was an article in a British publication written by a woman who married herself.
After, shockingly, two of her marriages fell through.
So she got divorced twice.
Her marriages weren't working.
And then she goes and marries herself.
I wonder why those marriages didn't work out.
It's a huge mystery, right?
The kind of person who's so self-obsessed that they would marry themselves.
I wonder why it didn't work in Amerit.
Anyway, well, maybe we'll talk about that tomorrow.
There's more to be said about it.
But I want to get to emails, especially because the first one I think is very important.
This is from Matt Walshow at gmail.com is the email address.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
This is from Anna.
And I got several emails like this, so just reading one.
Says, Matt, I'd really enjoy your insight on how Christians should react to the death of Rachel Held Evans.
Obviously, any death is heartbreaking and we should mourn with those who mourn.
But I find some of the comments by Christian leaders to be intriguing in the sense that they seem to be glorifying her.
It just feels very confusing.
I always appreciate and trust your insight.
So, if you didn't hear the news, over the weekend, Rachel Held Evans, a prominent, well-known liberal Christian writer, died.
And she died very suddenly, unexpectedly.
I think she had a reaction to some medicine that she was given for an infection.
Kind of just routine.
She went to the hospital for an infection and it seemed like a routine thing.
They gave her some medicine, and it led to swelling in the brain, and she died.
In fact, she sent a tweet when she first checked into the hospital, saying, oh, I'm in the hospital.
And she was joking around about how she was going to miss Game of Thrones.
And so to her, it was just a normal, no big deal.
And then it just was a freak occurrence.
And then she ended up dying.
She was 37 years old.
She had a husband and two young children.
Very, very sad.
Now, I will say that she was, I feel like I have to say, because it's kind of the elephant in the room, if you're familiar with both of us, then you probably know that she was a critic of mine.
I was a critic of hers.
Critic is probably understating it.
We were harsh towards each other.
Very harsh.
And we were at polar opposite extreme ends of things.
And so we were both very critical of each other.
Um, and maybe that's why I got a lot of these emails this weekend asking what my reaction is or how should we, how should we react to it?
And I appreciate the email.
I appreciate the question, but to me, the answer is obvious.
Um, how should we react to the sudden death of a 37 year old mother of two, uh, with sympathy and with mourning?
And with sadness.
That's all.
It is an incredibly sad thing.
And I mourn her loss.
I mourn for her family.
I pray for them.
And we don't need to say anything other than that.
That's all we need to say.
There have been some Christians, not the majority by any means, but some, who decided to take the opportunity of Rachel's death to express their opposition to her theological views.
There are Christians who, it seems to me, and not just because of this, but there are other examples as well, there are Christians who have forgotten how to just be human.
No one is saying that you have to suddenly agree with all of her theological points of view just because she tragically passed away.
Obviously not.
If you disagreed before, you still disagree.
And so everyone knows that.
That doesn't change.
But when the woman just died, and her children are still by her bedside saying goodbye, and she hasn't even been buried yet, this is not the time for criticism.
This is not a forum Or a stage upon which you need to stand and express your theological disputes with this woman.
And I know that the emailer wasn't saying that.
I'm not talking to her.
I'm speaking generally.
So just be a human being.
Be a human being for God's sake.
That's all.
Why is that so much for us sometimes?
If you feel the need to say more than just I mourn for her.
I'm sorry for her family.
I'll pray for them.
If you feel like you want to say more than that, if you feel like more needs to be said, more pontificating needs to be done, and it really doesn't, but if you feel that need, then rather than giving a theological lecture, maybe think about and talk about mortality and death.
That's what I've been thinking about this weekend.
You know, here was a young and healthy woman.
Living her life, making plans for the future, going about things day-to-day like all of us, and thinking about the TV show she's going to watch, like we all do.
You're looking forward to these little things and just living your life.
And suddenly, just by some freak occurrence, she's gone.
And that's it.
That's the end.
And that's going to happen to all of us one day.
I mean, one day you're going to eat your last meal.
One day you will say I love you to your children for the last time.
One day you'll Fill up your gas tank for the last time.
You'll tie your shoes for the last time.
You'll look at a bird for the last time.
I mean, all these things.
And you probably won't know that it's the last time that you're doing those things when you're doing them.
To you, it will just be Tuesday.
It'll just be a normal day.
And that fact should mean something to us, shouldn't it?
It should cause us to live differently, to cherish life more, to do more with life, to care less about stupid things and more about important things.
Because we all know that if we are fortunate enough to have some warning before our death, and we're conscious and on our deathbed, we all know that In that moment, we're going to look back on so much of what we did with our life and regret it.
And feel like so much of that was a waste.
And we're going to look back on so many of the things that we cared about and worried about and all that.
We're going to say, how stupid was I for worrying about that?
It doesn't matter.
So we all know that this epiphany will occur to us, yet for some reason we can't Live that way now.
And that's the thing.
Except for momentarily.
So maybe there's a death, you're thinking about it, and in that moment, when you reflect on this stuff, it does affect that change.
But then we revert back to our old ways of living and thinking, and we go about our day as if we're immortal.
As if death can't come for us at any time.
So, I don't know.
Maybe think about that.
Or just be sorry and mourn and express your sympathy and leave it at that.
All right.
This is from Jennifer says, I'm a relatively new listener, but your show is now my favorite on the daily wire.
I'm a fellow Catholic.
I wanted to get your perspective on something that has been bothering me my whole life.
As a churchgoer, what are your thoughts on people who bring loud, obnoxious, and distracting children to mass?
For example, this past Good Friday during the evening service, there was a mother sitting across from me whose toddler son would shout, BAH, every 10 seconds during the entire first reading.
She made no effort to try and quiet the child.
Then during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, she proceeded to let her child crawl back and forth across the pew in front of her, and then would flip the kid up and around in the air, playing with it.
Playing with it.
Well, him.
It is a little strong.
She barely paid any attention to the service and made my experience at Mass much less spiritual than I had hoped.
I would like to think that when I become a parent one day, I will immediately get up and step out if my child becomes disruptive in church.
As a father of three children, what do you do in these situations?
Yeah, this is a tough one with kids at church.
And now I will say, and I'm not trying to put myself on a pedestal here.
It's just, for me, as a parent, I am hyper aware of my kids' behavior and Their impact on people around them, and if they're being a distraction, I'm hyper-aware of that.
And so, in church, the moment they start making noise, I'm taking them out.
I'm taking them to the back, and I'll bring them back in if I can calm them down.
But I'm not going to ignore them.
And it's the same if I'm in a restaurant.
The five-year-olds now are fine in restaurants, but two or three years old is a tough age for a restaurant.
And so when we're all there as a family, if our two-year-old is having a hard time and he's crying or screaming or making a lot of noise, I will pick him up and I'll bring him outside and try to calm him down.
And that's how I operate as a parent.
Because the way I look at it is, yeah, this is my kid, but he's not everyone else's kid.
And so there are certain things and annoyances that I have to deal with as the parent of this child, but that doesn't mean that everyone should have to deal with it.
So that's how I've always tried to operate.
And so I kind of feel the same way you do, Jennifer.
When I see these parents who, their kids are just being a total distraction and a disruption, and these parents, like, they don't even notice.
I don't understand.
As a parent, I do not understand that.
I can't.
In some ways, I almost admire it.
Well, I don't admire it.
I'm jealous of it.
I wish I could be that oblivious of my child, and I wish that I could care so little about how annoying he is being to those around him.
So I don't understand it, but some parents are that way, and so I don't think that's the right thing.
You need to, as a parent, You need to keep other people around you in mind and realize that, yeah, you might be saying, well, I don't want to have to get up and leave church because then I'm, you know, I'm going to miss out or I'm at a restaurant.
I don't want to have to, I'm with my family.
I don't want to have to get up and leave the restaurant.
Well, yeah, but that's your kid.
That's your responsibility.
You can't say, well, look, I don't want to be, uh, inconvenient.
So everyone else is going to have to deal with it.
No, that's the wrong thing.
It's your child.
That's your responsibility.
I, I've got my own kids to deal with.
I shouldn't have to deal with yours.
So, this is a pretty simple thing.
Everyone deal with your own kid.
Don't make me deal with him.
So that's on the one side, right?
If your kid is really being a disruption and a distraction, then you need to deal with him.
Get him out of the situation.
Stop forcing everyone else to have to endure it, because that's not fair.
On the other hand, we also have to be, as a society, Welcoming to children and tolerant up to a point with the fact that they are kids.
And there are some non-parents who, I mean, the minute you walk into a restaurant with your family and your young kids, they're giving you dirty looks.
And sometimes I'll be at church and we'll have all the kids sitting there and one of the kids will make like one little noise or they'll talk for two seconds.
And already there's someone behind me whipping their head back and giving a dirty look.
So that's not right either.
On the other end of the spectrum, that's not right.
We do need to have some tolerance and patience with kids.
And it's only up to a point, because if a kid is being so distracting and disruptive that it's making it impossible for you to Do what you came there to do to appreciate the church service or to enjoy your dinner.
Well, then, yeah, the parent needs to do something.
But you can't be completely intolerant of kids because they're part of society, too.
They're different from us.
They operate differently.
They are a little bit louder.
They're a little bit more rambunctious.
That's just how they are as kids.
That's just the way it is.
And so we need to be understanding of that as well.
And the last thing I'll say is, if you're in a situation, if a parent's in a situation with a kid who's being loud and crying and being disruptive, but it's a situation where they really cannot take the kid out, so let's say an airplane, for instance, Well then it really does fall on everyone else to just kind of deal with it and be patient.
Um, and be nice about it because there's nothing the parent can do.
And I've, I've been in situations with, you know, we've, we've taken our kids on, on planes plenty of times.
Usually it goes fine and we come prepared.
Like we've got snacks, we've got toys, we've got, I mean, we've got everything we can to try to just bribe them to keep them silent, at least for that plane ride.
We, we don't, we try not to operate that way as parents generally, but in a plane it's whatever you got to do to keep them quiet.
Do it right.
But there's been a few times when one of the kids just is having a bad time and they start freaking out and screaming and trust me, as the parent, I feel way more I'm more stressed out by it than you do, even though I know it's annoying for everybody else.
But there's nothing I can do.
I can't take them out.
We're 30,000 feet in the air.
I'm doing everything I can to keep them quiet.
It's not working.
Sometimes that just happens with kids.
Sometimes kids, they just need to get out of their system.
They want to cry.
They're going to cry.
Sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop it.
And so that's when I really need everyone else to just bear with me and sort of be on my team, even though you don't know me or the kid.
So, that's how I would parse that.
Finally, let's see, from Toxic White Male, Matt Walsh, it's inappropriate to call naysayers of the Sandy Hook shooting morons and brain-dead idiots when you haven't had all the facts and evidence presented to you, and it's evident through your arrogance on the entire subject that you haven't.
With that said, I do respect your opinion.
However, I challenge you to watch the documentary, We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook on YouTube, which is a very detailed and thorough investigation about the entire Sandy Hook massacre.
Comprised of multiple YouTubers and private investigators, if it doesn't change your mind even just a little bit, I will personally donate $10 to your PayPal slash Patreon, and if it doesn't, I'll still donate, but if it doesn't, ask yourself this after you watch it.
Is the ruling class in the deep state capable of orchestrating a false flag like a Sandy Hook, even if you believe it really happened?
P.S.
And when Alex Jones changed his tune and said that Sandy Hook really did happen, it confirmed the fraud that is Alex Jones.
All right.
Yeah, I mentioned this.
I don't even remember what the context was, but I mentioned this last week, the Sandy Hook conspiracy.
And as I've said many times, it is a conspiracy believed by brain-dead idiots and morons.
And a conspiracy that was invented and spread by people who are worse than idiots, people who knew what they were doing and were exploiting a tragedy for publicity.
Do I regret using language that harsh?
No.
I don't at all.
I stand by it 100%.
I mean, this was a tragedy where dozens of five- and six-year-old children were murdered And I can't, to this day, probably of all the tragedies that have happened in American history, or at least all the tragedies that have happened while I've been alive, all the kind of national tragedies, including 9-11, none of them affected me the way that Sandy Hook did, and still does, even though many more people died on 9-11, so the death toll was much greater.
Just the specific targeting of five and six-year-old kids For the parents, I cannot wrap my head around that.
Being a parent and having that happen to your five-year-old kid.
And how do you go on?
How do you live?
I can't even comprehend it.
So to have people taking this very real tragedy, And turning it into some sort of cinematic story, turning it into some kind of game, where there's all those secret agents and things happening.
You know what?
The best thing I could say about someone who does that is that you're stupid.
And there are worse things I could say.
There are parents whose five and six year old kids were shot in the head and killed And all you can think is, oh, it's a conspiracy.
Let's talk about the conspiracy.
There was never any basis whatsoever to claim that that was a conspiracy.
None.
And I've seen, every time I talk about this, you have the Sandy Hook nutters who come and say, well, look at all this evidence.
I've looked at the evidence.
There's none.
There is no evidence.
There never was any.
This was just, you just came up with it in your head.
And your whole thing is, well, could they pull it off?
Could they do it?
A lot of people could do a lot of things.
That doesn't mean that there's any evidence that it actually happened.
Just, oh, they could have.
Oh, they could have, so that means that they did.
Those two things, don't you understand that's not the same?
Just because you can come up with a scenario wherein it's possible that a certain thing could have happened, that doesn't mean that it actually did happen.
To claim that something like that happened, you would need real solid evidence.
You have none, zero, no evidence.
And the little bits of evidence that you do have, it doesn't even make any, not only is it invented and false, but it doesn't even make any sense.
Like one of the pieces of evidence that these Sandy Hook nutters would use is they'll say, they'll take a picture of one of the children who died.
And then they'll find a similar-looking girl who was, I think in this case, was one of the girls who died.
And then they found a similar-looking girl who appeared at some event with Barack Obama.
And they said, oh, it's a crisis actor, you see?
Look, she didn't really die, it's a crisis actor.
First of all, not the same girl, and it's really obvious from the picture.
Second of all, are you telling me that this brilliant, devious, Government that could orchestrate this fake shooting for no apparent reason.
They could do that, but they wouldn't think to get a different crisis actor?
Like they would actually reuse the same person?
So, they're so brilliant that they can pull off this whole staged hoax and fool almost everyone, yet they're also so stupid that they leave these obvious breadcrumbs that any person on YouTube can find and point to and say, yo, you see?
Clearly it's a hoax!
It just makes no sense whatsoever.
And all the pieces of evidence are just like that.
Where number one, that's not true.
But second, even if it were true, if it's not true, but if it were, then that would mean that this government, that these people are so incompetent and foolish that there's no way they could have pulled this off in the first place.
So you're trying to do both.
You're saying on one hand, they're brilliant, devious, evil, you know, geniuses.
On the other hand, they're complete incompetent.
Oh, the other one was, um, They said, oh, you see, there's this, if you look on Google, there was a story published about the shooting before the shooting happened.
Look at that.
Look at the Google timestamp.
Well, number one, timestamps on Google are very often wrong.
Happens all the time.
Where an article is published, but then the timestamp says it was published like a day before.
It's just a wrong timestamp.
Number two, why would they do that?
If they're staging this hoax, why would they publish the article before it even happened?
And what, you're saying, so the New York Times is in on it too, by the way?
So, this is a far reach, this is a conspiracy involving that they were able to recruit thousands of people across federal, local, state governments, media, everyone's involved, yet they're so stupid that they would publish the article before it even happened.
You see, you see, you see a problem there?
So, when you see something like that, and you say, oh, the timestamp is a day before or whatever, there are two possible explanations.
One is that this is a conspiracy involving thousands of people branching across local, state, federal government, and many different media outlets, and it's a conspiracy involving all these people, yet they're so dumb that for some reason they would decide to publish the article beforehand.
That's one explanation.
Or the other explanation is that timestamps are wrong all the time, and so this is just an example of that.
Which explanation do you think is most plausible?
What's the explanation that just makes the most sense?
So, anyway, I'm not gonna continue on that, but yeah, I have nothing but contempt for that whole conspiracy theory.
I mean, when you're taking pictures of dead children, And you're accusing them of being actors.
I mean... Look, if I alienate all of the Sandy Hook nutters and they want nothing, then great.
I'm fine alienating.
Please, if you're that kind of person, I'm perfectly fine with you not watching the show or reading anything that I write.
I really do not want to appeal to those kinds of people.
So, thanks for the email anyway.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
You know, if you're on the right, the big story's happening right now.
The economy, Venezuela, maybe Israel.
But if you're on the left, the big story is the story itself.
The narrative, who controls it, and how to silence anyone who disagrees.
I'm Andrew Klavan.
▲
Export Selection