Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 2, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

40:09

Ep. 288 - AOC Makes Wild Claims About Conditions At Detainment Facilities

Today on the show, AOC goes down to the border and makes wild claims about what’s going on there. We’ll try to sort through it. Also, Nike recalls a patriotic shoe because it offended Colin Kaepernick. And I am going to explain why I really want people to stop using their kids to make political points. Date: 07-02-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on the Matt Walsh Show, AOC goes down to the border and makes some wild claims about what's going on down there.
	We'll try to sort through it today.
	Also, Nike recalls a patriotic shoe because it offended Colin Kaepernick.
	Really.
	And I'm going to explain why I really want people to stop using their kids to make political points.
	This is a horrifying practice and I think we should all stop.
	So we'll talk about that today on the Matt Wall Show.
	So AOC went down to the border to check out the detainment facilities down there.
	And what do you know, she makes some dramatic and horrifying discoveries.
	I mean, it's almost like it's scripted or something.
	She says that conditions are terrible, of course, that border agents are abusive.
	But that's not all.
	She claims that the detained women are forced to drink out of the toilet.
	Okay, so here's the report from the Daily Wire.
	It says, Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that CBP officials told detained female migrants to drink from the toilet while Ocasio-Cortez was present.
	Then, when pressed by a reporter if she actually heard a CBP official say that, Ocasio-Cortez refused to answer.
	Multiple CBP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the Washington Examiner and the Daily Mail how Kezia Cortez acted inside the
	facility and say that she distorted the entire situation.
	A border agent who was there told the examiner, so this is what happened with the migrant
	drinking water from the toilet.
	She wanted water, didn't know how to use the faucet in the cell and drank from the toilet.
	She never told AOC that we made her drink from the toilet.
	AOC of course changed it.
	This was when she, the migrant, was apprehended and brought into the facility.
	An editor for the Daily Mail, David Martosko, tweeted out a photo from inside a CBP detention
	that showed a toilet that was connected to a sink that states potable water.
	So this is what happened.
	These are a standard issue apparently in jails across the country.
	They've got the sink attached to the toilet, but that doesn't mean you're literally drinking out of the toilet.
	A witness who was at the facility described Ocasio-Cortez's behavior towards CBP officials
	as being threatening, saying that she was crying and screaming and yelling.
	Uh, it's not funny.
	I mean, well, it is funny, actually, because I can just imagine that, you know, AOC is down there just being utterly hysterical.
	Um, just, okay.
	A second CBP official described one of Ocasio-Cortez's outbursts, telling the examiner, the 29 year old said, said something under her breath.
	Oh, all these guys in here are gonna F me.
	That's apparently what she said, according to this CBP officials.
	The agents are standing there behind the computers, the official continued.
	One of the agents laughed at something he was saying to another agent and she got irate and flipped out.
	Now they're under investigation.
	She took it as they were laughing at her and screams at them and says, what's so funny?
	Okay, so it sounds like quite a scene down there.
	Quite a scene down there, mainly on the part of Ocasio-Cortez, who is making a scene.
	And we know that she has a flair for the dramatic, because think back to those photos she went down when she was looking at a fence and pretended to cry for the cameras.
	So this is someone who's very dramatic and theatrical, hysterical, and she's bringing that with her into a situation where that's kind of the last thing you need.
	Look, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the conditions in these facilities could stand to be improved.
	And I certainly believe that we should treat all people in our custody, no matter why they're in our custody.
	If they're in our custody, they should be treated with humanity and dignity.
	I don't think anyone really disagrees with that.
	I think almost everybody is on board with that.
	But AOC is a terrible spokesperson for this issue.
	She's terrible because, as I said, she's hysterical and dramatic.
	And I'm sure I'll be called sexist for claiming that a woman is being hysterical.
	But look, not all women are hysterical, but AOC is a hysterical woman.
	That's just... Look, if you don't want to be called hysterical, don't be hysterical.
	Also, she's hyper-partisan.
	So that makes her a bad spokesperson for this issue.
	And she's already made her judgments before going there.
	She called them concentration camps before she showed up and toured the facility.
	She'd already said that.
	So, that meant that she had to discover something that was going to justify that comparison.
	Now, even if they were drinking out of the toilet, that still wouldn't justify comparisons to the Holocaust and concentration camps.
	But the fact is, Um, she decided before she went that they were concentration camps and there was zero chance that she was going to go and come back and say, uh, you know what?
	Uh, it could be improved, but it wasn't as bad as I thought.
	So, uh, Hey, let's, let's dial it down a few notches.
	There was zero chance that she was going to come back and say that she, she had to find something and look at that.
	She did.
	And the final thing that makes her a bad spokesperson is that she's a liar.
	So I flat out, simply do not believe.
	The stuff about the toilet.
	At least the idea that the women were forced to drink out of the toilet, or, hey, you want water?
	You gotta get it from the toilet.
	The idea that we're having them drink out of toilets, I just don't believe it.
	It's simple as that.
	It has kind of a hands up, don't shoot sort of vibe to it, where it fits with the established narrative too perfectly.
	It's too convenient for her, for AOC, for the people that are criticizing our immigration policies, to witness something like that is just too
	convenient.
	So I just don't believe it.
	But as I said, can we improve the conditions?
	I mean, sure, probably.
	But even if the conditions are not up to snuff, that's not necessarily because there's some
	sort of conspiracy among Border Patrol agents.
	In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't a conspiracy to treat these people inhumanely, to treat them like animals.
	That's probably not... Whatever improvements can be made with the conditions, the need for those improvements has nothing to do with that.
	It's that this is a bureaucracy.
	That these Border Patrol agents, they work for the government.
	They are at the mercy of the bureaucracy.
	And so, if they're not prepared with the right supplies and everything else, it's because they're not—they, the Border Patrol agents, aren't being supplied with those supplies.
	They aren't being given those supplies.
	And so, like with anything else, if you're looking for blame, you've got to look up the chain of the bureaucracy, because that's usually where it lies.
	But two things to keep in mind here.
	Number one, improving the conditions of the facilities is a practical issue.
	It's a practical problem to solve.
	And it requires a sober and reasonable approach.
	AOC is not a sober or reasonable person.
	She's down there screaming and crying, okay?
	That's not what we need.
	There is very little sobriety or reasonableness with AOC or with respect to this issue at all, or with respect to any issue in this country.
	That's why nothing is ever accomplished, because everybody is just looking to showboat or throw red meat, and very few people have the just rational, calm approach to things that we need.
	And the second thing to keep in mind, and I think we just should continue emphasizing this, is that You can avoid ending up in these facilities.
	That's one of the reasons why the concentration camp compares.
	Well, there are many reasons why that comparison is absurd.
	One of the reasons why it's absurd is that in Nazi Germany, if the Nazis wanted to send you to a concentration camp, you didn't have any choice.
	You couldn't just leave the country.
	In fact, you could be in your own country, and the Nazis came in and invaded your country and sent you to a concentration camp, right?
	With this, though, you could easily avoid ending up in these facilities.
	Just don't sneak across the border, right?
	If you don't do that, then you're not going to be in the facility.
	Now, that doesn't just—it doesn't mean that we can treat them inhumanely.
	It doesn't mean that the conditions don't matter.
	That's not the point I'm making.
	But there is, speaking of practical things here, there's a practical point where if you want to avoid that, you just not come.
	It's an easy way to avoid it.
	Don't sneak across the border and you don't end up there.
	So the problem is when you've got a whole flood of people sneaking in, that's going to put a strain on the system.
	And now we're scrambling to get all the supplies and everything we need to take care of this onslaught of people.
	And that creates a precarious situation.
	If you don't want to be in that precarious situation, then don't do that.
	Because what we're not doing, unlike the Nazis, we are not invading Central America and taking these people and dragging them across the border and locking them away.
	They're coming here.
	Even despite knowing.
	I mean, they're aware.
	They know about these facilities and the allegedly bad conditions.
	And they're still coming, so there's an easy way to avoid it.
	Okay.
	Checking in briefly here, because I don't want to just leave this issue.
	As we discussed yesterday, the domestic terror group Antifa staged a violent riot over the weekend where they assaulted a journalist and they bashed people over the head with lead pipes and crowbars.
	And none of the presidential candidates, as of yesterday, had said a word about the incident.
	None had condemned Antifa.
	They all ignored it.
	What about today?
	I think I want to check in again.
	And maybe I'll just keep checking in every day to see when these Democrats want to get around to saying, hey, by the way, I am against smashing people in the head with crowbars for political reasons or for any reason.
	So it's been three whole days.
	Have any of them said anything?
	Well, finally, Andrew Yang did say something.
	Yesterday, he tweeted.
	He said, I hope Andy Ngo is OK.
	Journalists should be safe to report on a protest without being targeted.
	OK, that's that's fine.
	I mean, that's not much of a that's Not a very passionate condemnation, but it's better than nothing.
	As for the rest, no.
	Kamala Harris, nothing.
	Joe Biden, nothing.
	Bernie Sanders, nothing.
	Gillibrand, nothing.
	Mayor Pete, nothing.
	O'Rourke, nothing.
	I mean, going down the line, the other 19 or whatever candidates have said nothing on this.
	And that is, I say again, I mean, as cynical as I am, I am I guess more naive than I thought, because I figured that most of them would at least say something.
	Just probably kind of half-hearted, but I expected them to at least say something, yet they're not.
	And why is that?
	It's important for us to realize.
	Well, I think there are two reasons why the Democrats are ignoring this.
	Number one, they realize that their base is extremely radical and that Antifa, their base is basically comprised of Antifa members or Antifa sympathizers.
	There are a lot of them on the left, and they know that, which is why they're not going to condemn Antifa in a primary.
	They might do it in a general.
	Now, if this was a general election, and they know they have to appeal to more reasonable and sane people in the middle, then maybe they would condemn, but not in a primary.
	They can't, because they realize that their base, this is what they're into.
	And I also think that these people personally, these Democrat candidates, many of them are just bad people.
	To put it bluntly.
	And I think that they would love it if they could take a crowbar and smash the heads of conservatives or their political opponents, whoever they want.
	They would love it if they could do that.
	But they can't.
	So instead they just kind of stand on the sideline and smile quietly while other people do it.
	I think that's part of the reason.
	Now, maybe that's unfair.
	Maybe that's not true.
	But the thing is, when you refuse to condemn this kind of violence, this kind of behavior, the rest of us are left only to speculate.
	As to the reasons why you're silent and how you really feel about it, if you want to put those thoughts to rest, you want to put the speculations to rest, you could just come out and say, look, I condemn this, it's horrible, it's terrible, Antifa should be shut down.
	If you're not going to say that, then all I can do is speculate.
	And these are my speculations, which unfortunately I'm in a position where I have to speculate like that.
	Okay, moving on.
	There's a lot of topics I want to hit, so we're moving kind of rapid fire here.
	This is an issue that is just tailor-made for, speaking of red meat, this is tailor-made for Conservative Talk Radio.
	Reading now from the Daily Wire report, it says, according to the Wall Street Journal, Nike was forced to pull an American flag-themed shoe called the Betsy Ross from production after NFL quarterback-turned-political activist Colin Kaepernick, who inked a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal with Nike last year, complained.
	Kaepernick reportedly told the company that he found the very idea of the shoe offensive.
	Later on it says, the shoe shipped out to retailers this week, but Nike quickly recalled the shoe and demanded retailers return their stock, leaving customers confused.
	The shoe isn't available for sale on the brand's website, and a statement from Nike said only that the company decided against releasing the sneaker because it featured an old version of the American flag.
	Let's see here.
	Turns out Nike was responding to a request from Kaepernick himself, who saw the shoe online and complained directly to Nike's top brass.
	The Wall Street Journal says, after images of the shoe were posted online, Mr. Kaepernick, a Nike endorser, reached out to the company officials, saying that he and others felt the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol because of its connection to an era of slavery.
	Some users on social media responded to posts about the shoe with similar concerns.
	You know, I never got too bent out of shape about the kneeling thing.
	I was never really into that whole controversy.
	And I was very happy when it basically ended.
	Not because I was all that offended by the kneeling, but just I was so sick of the topic.
	And it went on for way too long.
	So, I never cared much about that.
	And as far as I'm concerned, as I pointed out many times, Kneeling is a sign of respect.
	Kneeling is a sign of submission and respect.
	So, in fact, if anything, if you kneel in front of the flag, you're being, not only are you being reverent, you're being too reverent.
	It's almost idol worship to kneel to the flag, right?
	Now, I know that they didn't mean it that way.
	That wasn't the message they were trying to send.
	But as far as I'm concerned, that is what it means to kneel in front of something.
	And so if they want to do that, let them do it.
	That was my thought on it.
	This, though, is just... This is something else.
	That Nike would bend to the demands of... First, you have Kaepernick actually being offended by a flag.
	Because here's the thing, we were told, I know it's ancient history now, but thinking back to when that whole controversy was happening.
	What we were told was that this protest was not really about the flag.
	They weren't protesting the flag.
	They weren't disrespecting the flag itself, right?
	It was about police brutality, at least originally.
	And then it morphed into who knows what.
	It became this ambiguous kind of thing, really just a trend.
	But originally, Kaepernick said this is about police brutality.
	It's not about disrespecting the flag.
	It's about sending a message about this particular issue.
	Well, apparently it was about the flag the whole time.
	Because here he is, offended by a flag.
	This isn't about police brutality, this is just he doesn't like the flag.
	He thinks the flag itself represents slavery.
	Which means, by the way, that the flag of almost every country in the world Any country that's been around for 200 or more years, by this logic, all of their flags represent slavery.
	Because they all had slavery.
	All of them.
	If they've been around that long.
	So, by that logic, many flags, most of the flags of the country flags on Earth are offensive and represent slavery by that logic.
	But of course, we only single out America for this.
	When talking about slavery, we single out America.
	Somehow slavery is a unique American sin, even though it's an institution that lasted for thousands of years across the entire world, and that every race and ethnicity, they all practice it, right?
	Be that as it may, I think this finally reveals what most of us realized all along, that this really is an anti-American thing, this is an anti-flag thing, and finally Kaepernick is coming out and admitting it.
	Okay, before we get to emails, I wanted to mention one other thing.
	This is an issue that may not be important to you, but it's something that takes me off,
	so I'm going to rant about it for six hours.
	There's this girl, a young girl, eight years old, who you've probably seen her online.
	She's achieved some measure of viral fame because of these parody videos she does where
	she makes fun of AOC.
	Her name, the girl's name on the internet now, is Mini AOC.
	And these videos are very popular.
	Conservatives love them.
	Yesterday, her Twitter account posted these pictures.
	Look at these.
	Mocking the staged photo op that AOC did down on the border last year.
	And here's the tweet that the account sent out with the little girl pretending to be AOC.
	Now, I mock those photos also.
	They are hilariously mockable.
	And AOC herself provides constant fodder for parody and mockery.
	So, I get it.
	I get the humor.
	But I also have to tell you, I really hate this.
	I hate this kind of thing so much.
	I really, really hate it.
	I hate when people use their kids for this kind of thing.
	What's happening here is that this young girl is being used by her mother for money and attention.
	That's what's happening.
	And I can't stress enough how much I hate it.
	Even though most, and I made this point yesterday online, and many conservatives, ah, lighten up, it's great, it's great fun.
	Even though none of them would be saying, if this was a girl, same situation, but she's mocking Trump?
	Then none of them would be saying, oh, lighten up.
	They'd all be agreeing with me.
	So it's that thing.
	Everybody has these double standards now.
	We all know that we have them.
	But I hate it no matter the politics, no matter whose side it is.
	It doesn't matter.
	I hate bringing kids into this kind of thing.
	By the way, if you go to Minnie AOC's Twitter account, there's information right in the bio there to contact her for bookings.
	Bookings?
	Bookings for what?
	You know, I mean, her mom is contracting her out to go and—I don't—do what exactly?
	I'm not sure.
	What?
	To do—this 8-year-old girl's going to do some hilarious political stand-up comedy?
	I'm sure that's going to be great stuff from an 8-year-old.
	But that's what I'm talking about.
	She's—oh, it's all great fun.
	No, she's being used for money and attention and fame.
	That's what's happening here.
	Let me tell you something about little kids.
	I have three of them.
	Our oldest are only a couple of years younger than this girl.
	So I can speak with some experience here.
	I guarantee you that no eight-year-old would ever think of something like this themselves.
	Never.
	Period.
	No eight-year-old is watching the news and saying, hey, mom, let's do a hilarious spoof of that congresswoman from New York.
	I got some ideas.
	I've been workshopping to do a satire video.
	That's just not happening.
	Period.
	It's not happening.
	So the people saying, oh, it's all in good fun.
	First of all, how do you know that?
	Well, I saw the video.
	Looks like she's having a great time.
	What, because she's smiling in a video?
	I mean, do you not understand how the Internet works by now?
	Everybody looks happy on the Internet.
	And 90% of them are depressed.
	So you can't possibly know that.
	But also, this was not her idea.
	It was her mom's idea.
	Her mom decided to get her started at 8 years old in a career as a political satirist.
	That's simply not a hobby that an 8-year-old anywhere on Earth would decide on themselves.
	So her mom is coaching her through all this, giving her the lines.
	I mean, how many takes do you, when she does one of those videos, how many takes do you think it took?
	How many times do you think, no, no, no, do it this way, do it that way, with her mom directing it and posing her and doing all this kind of stuff?
	And she's eight years old, she doesn't even understand satire.
	I mean, most adults don't even get it.
	You think an eight-year-old does?
	Oh, she's real smart, this girl.
	No, look, I'm sure she's a smart girl.
	But no eight-year-old is smart enough to really understand how parody and satire works.
	Okay.
	They just, they don't have the mental capacity for it.
	So she doesn't really understand what she's doing.
	She didn't choose to do it.
	Her mom is forcing her to do it.
	Um, and so, uh, that's why I hate it.
	Let kids be kids.
	Let them do kids' stuff.
	Doing viral videos is not kids' stuff.
	Doing political satire is not kids' stuff.
	Trying to get shares and likes and tweets and everything, that's not what, that's, you know, we have to condition kids to care about that kind of crap.
	Kids, naturally, at that age, you know, they want to go run around outside.
	They want to go, I mean, whatever they want to do, but they're kids.
	Here's the other thing.
	It's dangerous enough already to simply post pictures of your kids online.
	And that's why I don't do it anymore.
	Because when you post pictures of your kids online, you're putting them in front of potentially millions of people, and you don't know any of those people.
	There's no real advantage to it for your kid.
	Nothing positive can come of that for your kid.
	The most you're hoping for is neutral, is that nothing positive or negative comes.
	There's zero chance of anything positive coming.
	There is some chance of something very negative coming from it.
	But then consider, it's one thing when you're putting pics of your kids out there, which I think, as I said, is probably not wise.
	But if you're putting their face and image out there all over the place in a political context, Okay, well, then you've just made your child a target.
	A target, at a minimum, of bullying and harassment online.
	If you go and you read the comments under any of these pictures or videos that she does, you're going to find many, hundreds of vile trolls saying horrible things about this girl and her mother and her family and everything.
	You're exposing her to that.
	I mean, you are throwing her into that pit.
	And why?
	You have put her face out there in a partisan political context in this environment.
	And you have therefore guaranteed that at a minimum, thousands of people are going to post vile and insulting comments about her.
	And who knows if something worse could happen?
	People are crazy.
	Especially these days.
	I mean, we saw Antifa smashing people with crowbars.
	People are nuts.
	It's just... Can anyone argue that this is best for the girl?
	That this is really gonna help her?
	That this is somehow gonna enhance her life in any way?
	I just... You know, I have...
	I've been tempted a few times when I'm doing this show, because it's no secret.
	I am at my house, not at the moment, but usually I'm at my house doing the show.
	And a lot of times my kids are home.
	And I mean, there have been times when they've almost come into the room in the middle of shooting.
	And a few times I've been tempted to call them over and have them come on camera for a minute, because it'd be kind of funny.
	But then I don't, because I, as I said, I don't really want their face in picture out there.
	But I also, because I, I am a political person.
	That's how I'm known as a political ideological person, which is fine for me.
	I'm an adult and I chose, I chose this life, right?
	I chose to do this.
	Nobody forced me into it.
	Um, but I know that people are crazy, as I said, so if I start associating, you know, I bring my kids into it and they become associated with me and their image is attached to me.
	Well then there's, it becomes a sort of political thing and I just, I would be afraid for their safety.
	I don't want to do that.
	I just don't want them to have anything to do with this.
	As much time as I spend online and I see how vile and disgusting and hateful people are, how unhinged they are, it's just a cesspool.
	It's a toxic dump on the internet.
	And the last thing I want to do is expose my kids to it, much less throw them into it.
	It's the last thing I would ever do.
	Because I just want them to be kids.
	I want them to run around outside and I want them, if they're gonna watch TV, watch, you know, some dumb cartoon, you know, not the news.
	That's why I feel, I guess, given what I do for a living and what I see every day on the internet and the kind of comments that I get and just what I, all of that, what I'm exposed to, the idea of my kids getting even a piece of that kind of attention, Just makes my skin crawl, and I would never want to expose them to it.
	You do this with your kids, you turn them into a little avatar for your political views, and you try to turn them into a viral sensation, especially a political viral sensation, then you have just thrown them in it.
	You've exposed them to that, and there's just no good reason to do it.
	There is no good reason.
	Period.
	No good reason.
	So please, people, stop.
	All right.
	MattWalshow at gmail.com.
	MattWalshow at gmail.com is the email address.
	This is from Dustin, says, Matt, watching one of your older shows, please, for the love of God, never wear that pink and blue plaid short sleeve shirt ever again.
	It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen.
	Well, Dustin, you should know by now.
	That the quickest way to get me to do something is to tell me not to do it, because I am essentially a toddler in that way.
	You tell me not to do it and I'll do it.
	Now, I think it's well known.
	That I have the emotional maturity of a toddler.
	So I have to assume that this was reverse psychology on your part and you were, you actually, you love this shirt and you wanted to see me wear it again because it brings so much joy to your life to see this beautiful, handsome, dashing shirt.
	And so that's why I'm wearing it for you because I know, I know what you, you know, I know what your real intentions were.
	By the way, if you wanna buy this shirt, well, I'm not sure where you could buy it.
	I think my wife bought it for me.
	My wife buys all my clothes because, again, I am a toddler.
	From Nick, this is, from Nick says, hi, Matt, big fan of the show.
	I really like hearing your interpretations on religious topics, and I'd like your opinion on this one.
	You said on your show recently that you were okay with the change in the words of the Lord's Prayer because, since it's a translation, there's some wiggle room, so to speak.
	I agree that from a literal standpoint, In our current language, the Pope's change could make sense.
	That being said, as a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, my father and I speak Greek, and I looked at the original text of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew, and the literal translation is significantly closer to, and lead us not into temptation, than let us not fall into temptation.
	I acknowledge that there are some reports that the first version of the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, but since no text was ever found, the earliest available translation is Greek, and the line in question literally translates to, "...and introduce us not into temptation."
	I've double-checked this with my grandfather as well, who was born in Greece and also knows some ancient and Byzantine Greece.
	Knowing this, can you still defend the Pope's decision?
	Also, how does him being infallible in matters of Scripture work when it comes to changing the words of Jesus himself?
	Thanks for all you do, I'm a big fan.
	To your last question, no, the Pope is not infallible when it comes to translation issues.
	He could be wrong, and that's what this is, so he could be wrong about a translation.
	And I take your point about the literal translation and how it's closer to lead us not than let us not fall into.
	But I still think that the point, the idea, the point, the concept is that we're asking God to protect us from temptation.
	We are not requesting that he refrain from himself tempting us because that's not what God does.
	God is not the tempter.
	Satan is the tempter.
	So, I think the change in the Lord's Prayer just reflects the point, the concept, the idea that is contained in the original prayer.
	It reflects the point that we're making when we pray that prayer.
	So, that's why I think it's... I'm fine with the change.
	Because I... Here's my point.
	I don't think it is a change.
	I think it's... That's what it means.
	That's what Jesus was conveying.
	Now, I understand that the Lord's Prayer was passed on to us just in terms of... in the Scripture, just a couple of pages after the scene where Jesus is in the desert being tempted by Satan.
	And depending on which gospel you're reading, it actually says that Jesus was led into the desert, or even led into the desert by the Holy Spirit to be tempted.
	And so some people point out that, okay, well, it says Jesus was just led to temptation by the Holy Spirit, and then a few pages later, he's giving us this prayer where we say, don't lead us into temptation.
	And so there's the But I think that's a good argument.
	It's a good point.
	And I would take that point as well.
	But I still think that Satan is even referred to in Scripture as the tempter.
	That's not how God is referred to.
	And so at the end of the day, the point is, we're asking for God to protect us from temptation.
	Think about when you feel tempted to commit a sin, whatever the sin might be.
	Do you think that God is the one tempting you?
	Do you pray that God will stop tempting you?
	Or do you pray that God will Protect you from this sin or remove this temptation, which isn't to say that he's the one who placed it on your heart in the first place.
	I mean, how do you think of it?
	I think we all think of it as, no, we're asking God to remove this temptation, but we're not saying that God is the one who placed it on our heart to begin with.
	We don't, in other words, we're not praying, putting the Lord's Prayer aside for a second.
	Do you, when you feel tempted, do you pray, God, stop tempting me?
	I don't think anyone does, because, again, that's not God's MO, so to speak.
	All right, this is from Christian, says, Hi Matt, love the show.
	With the assault on No and the various videos you showed, why is the government not getting involved, whether it's city, state, or federal?
	I heard that, particularly in Portland, that the police are not even engaging.
	But this is clearly not a peaceful protest group.
	That's for the same reason why there was little action against BLM, the anti-police riots that were going on in cities across the country a few years ago.
	Remember, the mayor of Baltimore Infamously so.
	While her city was being burned, while stores were being looted, cop cars were being set on fire, bricks were being thrown, people were being assaulted, she got up and said, let's give them space to destroy.
	Direct quote.
	So it's the same reason.
	And the reason is, it's always the same boring reason, which is it's ideological and political.
	The powers that be in these towns are liberal Democrats.
	And so, and these Antifa members are liberal Democrats.
	That's the reason.
	Okay, one more question.
	This is from Really cool guy.
	I guess that's his Christian name.
	Interesting name.
	Hello, dear and fair dictator Matt Walsh.
	This is 19-year-old Chilean Chris again.
	I narrated my intellectual journey a couple weeks ago.
	I have a question about pride that I can't seem to solve myself.
	You and plenty of conservatives oppose gay pride because you say that people didn't choose to be gay and therefore it's stupid to be proud of being homosexual.
	So far I agree.
	What seems to trouble me a lot though is that you do say that you should be proud of being American.
	Yet most Americans don't choose to be Americans, but they're born into it.
	How is that not hypocrisy?
	In which reasons is it proud to be something?
	Not sure.
	I know there must be a reason in front of my face, but I really don't see it.
	Since you wouldn't support that intellectual inconsistency, I am overwhelmed.
	Even Michael Knowles says that pride is the mother of all sin, yet he repeatedly says as well that he is loud, proud about being the best country in the world, and he's proud of being an American.
	God bless you and your family.
	Okay.
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	Remember what I said?
	We were talking about this pride thing.
	And one of the problems in American English, especially modern American English, is that there's sort of a, it's, the language has become impoverished.
	And sometimes we only have one word, when really we should have about five or six different words.
	So we try to use one word to, and apply it to all these different situations, and then it becomes confusing.
	A word like love, for instance.
	I mean, love, the Greeks had four words for love.
	We just have the one, and so that makes it confusing sometimes.
	I think the same thing could be said about pride.
	The way I look at it is that our pride in being American is a different sort of pride.
	It's pride kind of in the same way that I might say I'm proud of my children.
	We are taking pride not in ourselves, Or our own perceived good qualities, but in the accomplishments of others.
	And I think this kind of pride, it's really more like gratitude, love, appreciation.
	It is acknowledging and finding joy in what others are doing or have done.
	Proud of being American, I think, is like that.
	It's not like I'm proud of myself for being American.
	Now, that would be absurd, because as you pointed out, I didn't do anything to become American.
	I was just born here, and lucky for me.
	So, when I say I'm proud of being American, that's not what I mean.
	I mean that I'm proud of all the people who established this country, fought for it, protected it.
	I'm taking pride in the history, the heritage, the tradition, all of these things which I am grateful to be a part of.
	And this kind of, it's a humble pride.
	It's a pride of acknowledging what others have done.
	It's not about you.
	It's about others.
	It's a grateful pride, but with sexuality, there is no history, no heritage that comes with your sexual orientation.
	Um, being proud of it is, is not only absurd, but it's completely self-focused.
	It's all about you.
	It's your sexuality and you're proud of it.
	And so that's the difference.
	Um, and that's why we talk about pride is the mother of sin.
	We say that the Bible warns against pride, but the Bible isn't saying, Oh, you should never tell your son or your daughter that you're proud of them.
	Of course you should say that.
	But those are different kinds of, um, Different types of pride.
	Which is why I would say maybe rather than saying I'm proud of being an American, maybe a better word would be I'm grateful to be an American.
	I appreciate being an American.
	I love being an American.
	I'm humbled to be an American.
	All of those words work.
	And maybe we should use those words instead to differentiate it from the pride that you're talking about here.
	All right.
	Thanks for that though.
	Thanks for all the questions.
	Thanks for watching and listening.
	Godspeed.
	We will separate fact from fiction, which should leave AOC uncharacteristically silent.
	Then, Andy Ngo speaks out after his brutal beating at the hands of Antifa.
	Finally, Nike disses the flag for the 4th of July, so the governor of Arizona disses Nike.

▲