All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
49:41
Ep. 296 - Why 'The Squad' Refuses To Condemn Antifa

An Antifa member just waged a terrorist attack against a government facility. Prominent Democrats absolutely refuse to condemn the act. We'll talk about why. Also, Joe Biden reveals his stunning historical ignorance. And I'll explain why we should all stop watching Disney movies. It's not a boycott. This is about self-respect. Date: 07-16-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, an Antifa member over the weekend staged a terrorist attack on a government facility.
Prominent Democrats have refused to condemn the act.
They have been asked about it explicitly, directly.
They refuse to condemn Antifa terrorism.
This, of course, is horrifying.
But why do Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa?
The answer to that question is even more horrifying.
We'll talk about that today.
Also, Joe Biden reveals his stunning historical ignorance.
And I'll explain why I think we should all stop watching Disney films.
Don't call it a boycott.
This is not a boycott.
It's about self-respect.
And I'll explain that today on The Matt Wall Show.
Okay, I have to say, first of all, the squad... That can't happen.
That cannot be a thing.
I am... I forbid it.
I will not allow it.
I do not permit it.
We are not... It's just...
The Squad, no.
The group of freshman Democrats, Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, Presley, have somehow adopted this name, The Squad, and the media's just going with it, of course, putting it in headlines and news reports, and even conservatives are going with it.
We're going to call them The Squad now.
It is just so corny and lame and bad and not good that I can't stand it.
I mean, the Squad sounds like a pop group that would have tried out on The X Factor back in 2005 or something.
It sounds like, or maybe more like a...
Like a girl group from 1998 that had one hit and then one, you know, kind of minor hit and then they disappeared from the face of the earth.
There are much cooler names that they could have chosen.
How about something like The Contingent or The Faction?
Or the coalition.
Those are all corny too, but slightly less so.
All I can say is if we're doing the squad thing, then I hope that a group of young Republicans get together and form a group called The Click.
And then of course The Click and The Squad will have breakdance competitions on a bi-monthly basis.
Okay, so at this point now, that's my dream.
Actually, we're not far from that.
This isn't really a breakdance competition, but I just saw that Joe Biden said today, or maybe it was yesterday, that if he's the nominee and he's challenged at a debate by Trump on his age and his mental agility, he will challenge Donald Trump on the spot to a
push-up competition.
He actually said that.
And so this, I mean, I really hope that Biden is the nominee in that case, because I have
no doubt that Biden actually would challenge Trump to a push-up competition.
And I think if Trump has challenged that, he's not going to be able to say no.
So we're going to get the spectacle of two men in their seventies doing a pushup competition.
Um, and so I'm, I'm, I'm on board for that.
All right.
So a couple of things here.
Um, there's something from yesterday that's getting a lot of attention.
And something else that's not getting as much attention.
But I think it should be flipped.
I think the thing that's not getting as much attention should be getting more than the other thing.
So, the first thing, the thing that everyone's focusing on, is the press conference that was held by the Spice Girls.
Sorry, that's the wrong girl group, the Squad.
They held a press conference to respond to Trump's tweets, the tweets that we discussed at length yesterday on the show.
We don't need to get into that again.
They made a lot of accusations against Trump.
Many of those accusations, especially the ones from Omar, were false or misleading.
She said, for example, among other false accusations, she accused Trump of calling people from other countries S-holes.
Well, no, that's wrong.
He called the other countries assholes.
And but there's a very clear difference between saying that about a country and saying it about a person from that country.
So that's just one example of something that you lied about.
And in fact, I've been told that I don't want to get into the tweets again, but people have been telling me that you'll see that this is why Trump This is why Trump tweeted that to begin with.
That's why this is why the tweet was a genius ploy on his part, because he prompted them to get up at a press conference and tell a bunch of lies and embarrass themselves.
So you see, it all worked out for him.
Well, I'm not sure that giving your enemies a forum to lie about you is really a win for you. Sure, to those of us who are
already right-wing, we're going to see a press conference with the Spice Girls and we're going to think
that it's embarrassing and everything.
But not everybody is a committed right-winger.
My whole point that I was trying to make yesterday is that, you know, if Trump is focused just on appealing to the most committed and sort of entrenched right wingers in the country, he's going to lose.
You need more.
There aren't enough of those to win.
There especially aren't enough of those in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan, those states that he really is going to need to win again.
All right.
So, no, I don't think that the press got—even though, from my perspective, the press conference was a disaster for them, that doesn't actually mean that it was in the minds of the people that you need to appeal to.
For me, as a far right—yes, I am a far left.
Well, I criticize Trump.
That makes me a far leftist.
Freud didn't slip there.
As a far-right extremist myself, any time Cortez or Omar or one of the Spice Girls says anything, to me it's embarrassing because these people are so absurd.
But what I have to realize is that I am seeing things through a lens that not everybody shares.
So not everyone is looking at it like from the way that I am.
Okay, so that was the press conference.
There was a moment at the press conference where Omar was asked to respond to another Trump tweet.
Wherein he accused her of being pro-Al Qaeda.
And she refused to deny the charge.
She said she wasn't going to dignify it with an answer.
So she didn't say, no, I'm not pro-Al Qaeda.
Come on.
She just said she's not going to dignify it with an answer.
This, again, is a moment that conservatives are making a big deal about saying, well, look, she's not denying it.
But, and I agree that, again, from my perspective, that's a very embarrassing moment for her and troubling one for the country.
But I don't think it's gonna be a problem for Omar.
I think she can get away with acting like it's such an absurd question and such an insulting question that she's not gonna dignify it with an answer.
In the same way that if a reporter asked Trump, are you pro-Nazi or are you pro-KKK, I think that he could and probably should answer. I'm not going to
answer that question. I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. So I think that a lot of
people are going to see it in in the sort of the same vein. The Al Qaeda moment, that's going to get
a lot of play on Fox News and stuff, but I don't think it's going to make waves outside of right-wing
circles. And for the record, I think Omar obviously doesn't want to talk about Muslim
violence.
She wants to minimize it, as she did famously with Some People Did Some Things, which is how she described 9-11.
And that is morally abominable on her part.
But I don't think she's a Muslim fundamentalist herself.
She herself is not a Sharia law loving Muslim.
And I know that because she's a left-wing radical.
That's what she is.
You can't really be both.
Those are two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
So you can't be both.
They're only similar in being extreme, but other than that, that's where the similarities end.
Oh, and in both cases, you're going to hate Christians.
So, I mean, you have those two things in common, which I do think is why radical leftists do have some sympathy for Muslim fundamentalists, even though the Muslim fundamentalists would kill them, the radical leftists, but they have some sympathy because both of them, it's kind of enemy on my enemy sort of thing.
So, they do have that in common.
But other than that, the ideologies are worlds apart, literally.
Um, but there was something else.
I think this, this brings us, remember Omar is a radical left-winger.
Same for Cortez, same for Presley, same for Tlaib.
And that brings us to the, to the moment, which I think is a much bigger deal.
This wasn't at the press conference, but I guess it was walking from it or, um, going to it.
Uh, the squad members were, were.
I can't even say it without... The squad.
They were asked very directly if they condemn Antifa, and especially if they condemn the terrorist attack carried out by an Antifa member at a government facility just this past weekend.
Now, Omar can act like questions about Al-Qaeda are too absurd to answer.
She can't do that with this, because Antifa is a radical left-wing group.
She is a radical leftist.
It is a perfectly valid and important question to ask, and it is something that she obviously needs to condemn.
So let's see how this moment goes.
And this, by the way, is a journalist who you can find on Twitter at TheRealKeen, K-E-E-A-N is how that's spelled.
I want to give him a shout out because I think he did great work here.
And he's asking a question that, of course, no one in the mainstream media is going to ask.
So we'll go through.
He got to, I'm not sure if he got to the fourth member, but he asked Omar, AOC, and Presley if they would condemn Antifa.
And here are how those moments went.
First, let's watch Omar.
Antifa firebombed a facility in Tacoma over the weekend.
It's an ice facility.
Will you condemn them for that?
I mean, firebombing a concentration camp is kind of a laudable thing.
If it actually is a concentration camp, you must be happy that they did it, no?
Are you pleased?
Should more people do it?
It's easy to say no.
It's really easy to say no.
Okay, so you see her kind of smiling and giggling there a little bit.
She didn't, she wouldn't, she refused to condemn.
Now here is AOC.
Will you be condemning Antifa?
They firebombed an American facility.
Will you condemn them?
Will you be condemning them?
Thank you.
Do you feel like you have some responsibility in the attack with your rhetoric about concentration camps?
Are you responsible?
Do you feel ashamed?
Okay, and here's Presley.
Will you tell Americans not to attack violently iced facilities?
Just say no.
It would be a very simple thing to say, and it would go a long way to tell Americans that you're not sympathetic to Antifa.
Are you sympathetic to Antifa?
Why is it a hard thing for you to say?
Are they your base?
Are you worried that they're not going to vote for you?
Are you ashamed at all?
I mean, this is a pretty simple answer.
So there you go.
There you go.
That's the moment, or those are the moments, I should say, that need to be amplified and shown everywhere.
This is what we should be talking about because this question was not like some kind of cheap gotcha question.
It's not an absurd question.
This isn't like, excuse me, Congresswoman, do you support cannibalizing the elderly?
Excuse me, answer the question.
Why won't you answer the question?
No, this is a legitimate and fair question.
Antifa, again, is a left-wing terror group, and they are now staging attacks on ICE facilities, which Cortez has described as concentration camps.
So it is obviously important that AOC and the other members of the Spice Girls stand up and condemn this and urge their followers not to be a part of this kind of thing.
Antifa also was out a few weeks ago smashing people in the head with crowbars.
As I said a few weeks ago, you can, and very pathetically, some liberals have tried to defend Antifa by saying, well, they haven't killed anybody yet.
Let's compare the death toll, white nationalists versus Antifa.
Yes, they haven't killed anybody, but it's not for lack of trying.
They have tried to, they just haven't successfully done it yet.
When you hit somebody in the head with a crowbar, you're trying to kill them.
If they survive, it's only because you are such an effeminate weakling that you can't even... You could hit somebody with a crowbar and still all they end up with is a bump in the head.
I mean, you know, you give a four-year-old a crowbar and give him a couple swings at someone's head, they'll probably kill him.
So that just shows you how weak and ridiculous these people are.
But still, they're dangerous.
Even these People with, you know, biceps the size of toothpicks, when you give them a crush, they're still dangerous.
And now that they've graduated to guns and explosives, well, it doesn't matter how weak you are, when you're shooting a gun at somebody, you could kill them.
So they're still very dangerous, and they are terrorists.
Yet, you have AOC and the others refusing to condemn.
And notice, I think it was AOC who said something like, I'll issue a statement or whatever.
Well, she still hasn't issued a statement, but that's the kind of thing.
So again, this was not, their response was not a sort of, I'm not going to dignify that.
You know, of course I condemn, I'm not going to even talk about it.
That wasn't their response.
Their response was they didn't want to talk about it at all.
To say, to refuse to talk about it and say, I'll issue a statement.
That's what you do when this is a topic you don't want to go anywhere near.
But as the questioner said, this is very easy.
I mean, to condemn terrorism, to condemn shooting at a government facility, to condemn smashing people in the head with crowbars, that should be a very easy thing to do.
It's not a trick question.
All you have to say is, I condemn it.
Absolutely.
This cannot happen.
The people who did it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
They won't say it.
Why won't they say it?
Well, The thing is, when you're silent in a matter like this, you leave everyone else to fill in the blanks, because you've given us silence.
So we can only assume.
We can only speculate.
And my speculation, which I think is totally accurate, is that they're silent about it because they agree.
Well, there are two reasons.
One is, and both are very troubling and disturbing, one is they know that a large section of their base consists of radical leftists who are either in Antifa or are very sympathetic to Antifa.
So they know that.
They don't want to upset their base.
Also, on a personal level, I believe they totally agree with what Antifa does.
They're fine with it.
From their perspective, if you disagree with them, then you're a bigot, you're a racist, you're a homophobe, you're a Nazi, you're a fascist, you're KKK, you're all of those things rolled up into one.
You don't deserve to live.
I mean, you have no right to anything.
You are utter scum and your life is meaningless.
That's the perspective that these people have.
And you would have to have that perspective if you're at all hesitant to stand up and say,
listen, I disagree with the people who are being attacked by Antifa,
but no, of course you shouldn't smash them in the head with a crowbar.
If you're at all hesitant or reluctant to say that, then that means that you must agree.
You must think that these people deserve to be smashed with crowbars or to be shot at.
So this is where we are.
I mean, it's horrifying.
And it may, I mean, just imagine if and when these people control the country again, um, if they get somebody in the white house, one of their, one of their own in the white house, given their opinion about us, those who disagree with them, given that they feel that we deserve to be hit in the head with crowbars and to be shot at and to be killed.
I mean, you could just imagine what happens when they're in control.
All right.
By the way, quick history lesson from Joe Biden.
This is History 101 with Joe Biden.
Watch this.
Look, there has never been a president in American history who has been as so openly racist and divisive as this man.
Imagine what it says around the world.
I mean, I really mean it.
The United States is always led by the example of our power.
And for this president, after what happened in Charlottesville, continuing through, wasn't he wanting to go home to Brooklyn?
You know, I mean, go home to Michigan, go home to your countries.
It's sickening.
It's embarrassing.
The, uh... The most racist president in American history.
Yeah, in American history, he's the most racist president.
That is just the kind of statement that... And, you know, many of his supporters are going to hear that and say, yep, that's right, most racist ever.
I mean, you have to be so ignorant of American history to make a statement like that.
I could point to so many, but just one example, Abraham Lincoln said that black people are inferior to white people.
He opposed legal and social equality explicitly and said so, and he proposed sending black people back to Africa.
Okay, these were all things that he explicitly said.
Now, so you're telling me that that's less racist than any tweet that Trump is?
Show me a Trump tweet that's more racist than that.
And that's just what I mean really any president For the first, you know hundred plus years and of American history Was certainly extremely racist Meanwhile as I said yesterday Even though I think Trump's tweet was stupid.
I Don't think that he's racist.
I think that he just is a He says whatever's going to get him attention and he, and he, and he, you know, if you criticize him, then he hates your guts.
If you compliment him, he loves you.
And that, that's what he decides.
That's how he judges people.
It's really got nothing to do with race.
All right.
So let's move away from politics for a minute.
I've been wanting to talk about this.
The Live Action Lion King.
This is a more important subject.
The Live Action Lion King remake comes out, I guess it comes out this weekend, right?
Came out in China last weekend, comes out this weekend here.
Of course, it's being referred to as live-action, but it's not really live-action because it's still a movie about talking lions.
They didn't train real lions to talk for the movie and to sing songs.
It is a cartoon still.
This is a cartoon remake of a cartoon.
It's just a slightly more realistic-looking cartoon because, of course, the original Lion King was great, but the one thing holding it back from being really, really great And from you really enjoying it, is that the singing warthog didn't look enough like a real warthog, right?
Isn't that, when you're watching the, uh, when you watch the original Lion King, isn't that what you always think to yourself?
Oh, you know, this Pumbaa character, I mean, if only he looked more realistic, I think I'd really be able to enjoy this more.
Now, I'm sure this movie, The New Lion King, is going to make 15 quadrillion dollars at the box office, because these movies always do.
But the reviews have been actually lukewarm, which is good, I think.
But surprising.
I'm good because these lifeless, charmless, pointless, redundant cash grabs should be recognized as such, and condemned as such, in my view.
But kind of surprising because usually critics don't recognize Uh, when something is a redundant, pointless, charmless, lifeless cash grab.
Uh, that, that's why, you know, almost every Marvel superhero movie that comes out gets glowing reviews.
They all, they all get like 98% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Uh, even though they're all exactly the same, nothing new or interesting has been done with a, with a superhero movie since the Dark Knight, you know, back whatever it was 10 years ago.
And for a decade, there's just been nothing interesting or new, just the same thing over and over and over again.
Critics always love it.
In this case, though, it seems like maybe some of them are finally... I mean, this is what they do for a living, right?
They criticize movies.
They critique movies, I should say, for a living.
They should be able to recognize when something exists just to make money and for no other reason.
Maybe finally they're waking up to it.
Now, this Lion King remake is just the latest Disney remake of a Disney film that came out less than three decades previous.
There's also been Beauty and the Beast, of course, and Aladdin, and Little Mermaid, and they're coming out with Mulan.
They're going to have a Mulan live-action remake.
They did Cinderella already, I think.
They did Alice in Wonderland.
They did Dumbo.
Some of those are older Disney movies originally.
Now, I call these remakes.
And that's what everyone calls them.
They're not really remakes.
They are reenactments.
They are, with a few exceptions, I think Alice in Wonderland, Dumbo, they actually did something different with them.
But with the rest of them, these are just reenactments.
These are shot-for-shot reenactments, for the most part, mirror copies of the original films.
Same characters, same lines, same songs, same everything.
Just beat for beat.
It's the exact same thing.
I mean, the Lion King even hired some of the original voice actors to play the same cartoon again, which makes you wonder, why even do that?
Why not just take the original dialogue from the original movie and dub it into the new movie?
How about a remake where it's just literally the same movie again?
Nothing has changed at all, not even the animation.
You just re-release it and call it a remake because that's what this is.
The original Okay, the original movies, what we consider to be the original movies, those are the remakes.
All of these stories, of course, already existed.
Most of them are based on old fairy tales.
Lion King is kind of a Hamlet and Bambi mashup.
Of course, the Beauty and the Beast is an old story.
These are remakes in the sense that the 90s versions are remakes in the sense that they took existing stories, existing ideas, and they kind of did their own thing with them, oftentimes taking darker, more mature stories and making them into kind of funny, kid-friendly musicals.
Which is cool.
Beauty and the Beast was originally written in the 18th century, I believe.
It's an 18th century French fairy tale.
The Beauty and the Beast from Disney in the 90s takes this old, dense, mature French tale and turns it into this beautifully animated, whimsical family movie.
Now, that's what a remake is, because that takes imagination and wit and creativity, where you're taking the original thing.
It's not a carbon copy.
You're basing your version on this version.
You're inspired by it, and then you do your own thing with sort of the elements of the story.
These new things, though, they just attach themselves to the 90s versions parasitically and try to profit off them without doing anything new or interesting whatsoever.
It's just for the profit and no other reason.
And that's why I resent it.
I resent even more that people still go and mindlessly consume this garbage that Disney is just shoveling into your mouth because they have no respect for you as a viewer.
I went into a whole thing last week about how I think the boycotts are stupid.
We shouldn't be boycotting so much.
Everyone's boycotting everything.
Well, so I'm not talking about here about a Disney.
I'm not promoting or proposing a Disney boycott.
It's more just We should recognize that Disney, they ran out of new ideas decades ago.
They're not even trying anymore.
And now they're just shoveling this garbage into your mouth.
Maybe we should stop eating it.
I mean, when they have so little respect for their viewers that they're going to just give you the exact same movie again with the only difference is it's less whimsical and less creative.
We shouldn't go out and give them a billion dollars in return.
Self-respect is what I'm talking about here.
Think about what they could have done with this latest round of movies.
They could do what they did the first time.
Not literally exactly what they did the first time, which is what they're doing now, but they could take the stories and just do another variation, another take.
I mean, even the original Beauty and the Beast, the real original, the one from the 18th century, even that isn't really original because at its core, right, it's a story about a beautiful person learning to love an ugly person and that love bringing out the beauty in that ugly person.
It's a story about the elevating, edifying power of love.
GK Chesterton, I believe it was, who said that the lesson of Beauty and the Beast is that a thing must be loved in order to be lovable.
The point is that love lifts us up, brings us up.
Okay, so that's what Beauty and the Beast, the story, is about.
And there's hundreds of stories out there that all center around that truth.
And many of the stories are great, whether it's a book or a movie.
I mean, you can tell that basic story a million times in a million different ways, and it could be compelling every single time.
It's just that you can't tell it in exactly the same way that it's already been told.
You should do your own thing.
Because there are a million different ways of telling that basic truth.
The latest Beauty and the Beast could have told that story Could have focused on that truth in a different way.
I just said truth.
I did.
I can't get around it.
Could have focused on that truth in a different way, telling a different but still fun and memorable and family-friendly story.
That would be interest.
That would be worthwhile, but instead they just took the 90s version and just did the exact same thing.
They're doing basically cover versions of the 90s versions, which in fact, not even cover versions, because I mean, the great cover songs, you think about Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah or Janis Joplin's Me and Bobby McGee, any of the great cover songs, what they do is they're always distinct from the original.
They take the original song, they do the original song, but they bring something different out of it.
You think about Johnny Cash's cover of Trent Reznor's Hurt.
It sounds like it's Johnny Cash's song.
It sounds like it's a song that he wrote about himself.
He makes it his own, as they say in the musical singing shows, and he just does his own thing, and it becomes a story about him, about this old man at the end of his life who's thinking back on his regrets and so on.
That's what a good cover song is.
These new Disney movies are not good cover songs.
They are more like karaoke cover songs.
It's exactly the same as the original, but just worse.
Without the spontaneity, without the surprise, without the talent, without the depth, without anything.
Just a dumbed down, blander version of what we already saw.
And so I'm just saying we should stop.
Dignifying this stuff with our money.
Let me get, I'll move on a second, but one, so I, over the weekend with my kids, I watched, just because, I mean, I feel like I can watch a preview and I can read a description of a movie, and nine times out of ten, I already know if it's good or not.
I don't actually need to watch it.
I can just already tell.
So I do that with these Disney movies.
I don't need to go and watch the new Aladdin.
I can tell it's garbage.
There's no chance it's not garbage.
I already know that I don't need to watch it.
But I said, maybe I should watch one of these just so I can say that I did, so I could be fair about it.
So with my kids, I watched the latest Beauty and the Beast, the live-action Beauty and the Beast, which I hadn't seen before.
Of course, like anyone else, I grew up with the original Beauty and the Beast.
The original in the 90s.
I liked it as a kid, of course.
And so I watched it, and it was exactly what I thought.
The whole time I'm thinking, why are we watching this?
We could just put the cartoon on.
It's so much better.
What's the point of this other than to make money?
I understand that, but what's the point of me watching it?
I'm not profiting off of it.
There's one scene in the new Beauty and the Beast Because there are a few different, they do make a few changes, but the changes that they make in these live-action things, the changes are usually just, it's not creative changes, not that they're improving or they're doing their own thing, it's just that they have to do certain things to compensate for the fact that it's not a cartoon anymore.
So there's one scene that I think perfectly encapsulates the problem with these live-action reenactments.
There's a scene in In the 90s, Beauty and the Beast, where Gaston goes to propose to Belle, right in the beginning of the movie, he goes in, he goes to her house, barges in, proposes in his way.
She shoots him down.
She was pretty rude about it, frankly.
And then she basically shoves him out the door and he falls into a big puddle of mud.
And then somehow there's a pig that ends up on top of his head, and he brought his little henchmen along with him, whatever his name is, and also a marching band, because he expected he would go in, propose, she would say yes, he'd come out, the marching band would play and celebrate, and they'd get married that day.
Doesn't go that way.
He ends up in the mud, pig on the head.
Okay.
Now, I've watched that movie with my kids.
It gets a laugh every time from the kids.
It's a funny, cartoonish, because it's a cartoon, wacky, silly kind of scene.
Well, I guess in the live action version, they figured they can't really do that because it's with real people.
It would just look too ridiculous to have him in the mud with a pig on his head, a real pig.
It just wouldn't look right.
So instead, it's the same basic scene, but instead it's just he goes, he proposes, she says no, and then he just walks blandly away.
And as he's walking away, he steps in a puddle of mud briefly and kind of shakes it off his shoe and keeps walking.
That's the change.
So that's worth a billion dollars, right?
That change.
You take this fun, silly scene and you turn it into something boring.
Those are the only changes made for these movies.
And so, again, I believe that we should not boycott.
This is a call for self-respect.
And we're just saying to Disney, we're not going to keep watching this garbage.
Give us something new.
Okay.
We have standards.
We're not just going to, we, we, we need our, you know, movies are expensive.
We got other things we could spend our money on.
I'm not just going to, I'm not just going to hand over 40 bucks to you.
So you can just give me that.
Yeah.
You got to give me something better.
All right.
Let's move on to emails.
Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.
Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.
Um, This is from Andy says, I think it's funny how you think that Trump is more racist than Democrats.
I won't bother describing your fallacy.
Sorry you had no, uh, you had to experience such humiliation today.
Pick up a book every once in a while.
The Democrats will never not own racism in America.
You know, history proves you wrong.
Don't bother replying and please don't humiliate yourself on air again.
You'll only regret it.
Please don't reply for your own sake.
Um, yes, because that's, I spoke probably for 30 minutes on this, going into great detail about my perspective on this, trying to explain my point in probably too much detail.
And that's what Andy, that's what Detective Andy, that's what Insightful Andy takes away, is that I said that Trump is more racist than the Democrats.
That's what he takes from this.
I just, people who, there's a, and it's, there's a thing these days with people
that I just, I can't wrap my head around.
I don't get it.
When you can convey your point very clearly, you can even repeat your point, as I tend to do, 10 or 15 times, just going back to it.
Here's my point, here's my point, here's my point.
And someone can listen to that and still miss the point.
How is it possible?
Especially for me.
I repeat myself so much.
How could you possibly miss my point?
I'm like hitting you over the head with it.
Like I'm an Antifa member with a crowbar.
I'm hitting you.
Here's my point.
Are you listening to me?
And still people like Andy are like, I don't understand your point.
Oh, so you think Trump is racist?
I said exactly the opposite, Andy.
Okay.
I mean, I literally said, it was like a seven minute digression yesterday where I said, no, I don't think Trump's racist.
And then I explained why I don't think he's racist.
And Andy hears that and says, so you think Trump is racist?
Good Lord, Andy.
For your sake, I'm going to assume that you are a raging alcoholic and you were completely drunk when this show aired yesterday, and that's why you missed the point.
For your sake, I'm going to see the best in you and assume that's what happened.
This is from Phil, says, I agreed with you on your podcast yesterday until I talked with a number of my Republican friends.
They all feel Trump's weekend tweets were intentional and brilliant.
He forced Pelosi to stand with the squad and move to the radical left.
That only benefits the Republicans.
Well, Phil.
Yes, I'm sure your Republican friends did say that, but the problem again is it's not your Republican friends that I think are the issue here.
Republicans are going to, committed Republicans, are most of the time going to side with Trump, going to see the best in everything he does and says, and are going to try to spin it in the most positive way.
That's what Republicans are going to do.
Fine, right?
But not everyone's a Republican.
And there aren't enough committed, active Republicans to get you re-elected.
You're going to need to appeal to other people as well.
Now, of course, far-left Democrats, you're not going to get them.
There's no point in even trying.
I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying you also need to be able to appeal to people who are not necessarily totally committed to the right-wing agenda, right?
And so the opinion of people who are committed to that agenda isn't really relevant to this discussion because, of course, we already know what they're going to say about a Trump thing.
I also think, look, he forced Pelosi to stand.
He unified them.
It's not that they're all standing around Ilhan Omar.
That's not the point.
They're all just standing around together talking about how racist Trump is.
That's the unity.
And I don't see how that benefits him.
At best, you could say he won't be harmed by it.
Maybe he won't, but it's not a benefit.
That's not better than what was happening last week when they were all fighting with each other.
That was better.
Okay, from Anonymous.
I enjoyed your show until yesterday.
Now I can't listen anymore.
You've lost a fan and follower.
You've revealed yourself to be an un-American liberal in disguise.
F off.
Again, this is another very intuitive person who could listen to all that.
Yeah, I mean, of course, because that's, everyone knows, it's not even, look, anonymous, it's not even a disguise.
I mean, everyone knows that I am a far left liberal.
It's, I think I'm well known for that.
I don't hide it.
I don't disguise it.
It's just, it's, I'm, I think I'm, if I'm known for anything, I have to say, I think I'm known for being a liberal.
Which is why my inbox all the time is filled with glowing reviews from liberals.
It's constantly.
They're always emailing me telling me what a great guy I am and how they wish good fortune and health on myself and my family.
It's all the time because I am such a liberal.
So great, great point.
And yes, if you criticize a politician, then you're un-American.
That's a great perspective.
You know, it's not like that perspective is itself disgustingly un-American.
No, no, you're right.
I mean, because loving America is not about loving America, it's just about loving Trump, right?
Trump is America.
Trump is God.
Trump is everything.
Trump is life.
And if you criticize him even a little bit, then you're un-American, you're terrible, you're awful, F off, I'm never gonna listen to you.
That's a great, great... I mean, let me tell you something.
You're not at all an embarrassing, sycophantic cultist when you have that perspective.
Not at all.
This is from Brittany, says, hello, Matt.
I desperately need advice about my mother-in-law.
She is kind-hearted, giving, but completely lacking a sense of self-awareness.
Aren't they all?
And doesn't respect boundaries.
It's a strange combination.
My husband and I have gotten by and dealt with her weird and sometimes manipulative antics, but now having two young children complicates it.
The most recent issue, we let my oldest, three years old, spend the night with her this weekend and go to church with her on Sunday.
I'm admittedly a bit of a control freak when it comes to my kids.
I prefer the term high standards.
And my mother-in-law has a habit of never listening to anything we tell her.
So I had a very hard time allowing this.
She lets my three-year-old run the show.
She also gets an idea in her head and will call us 15 times to say we need to change how we do things.
I wrote out very specific notes for her, most of them pertaining to the digestive issues my daughter has.
I told her about bedtime, nap time the next day.
I told her we don't mind if she goes to church with them, but we don't want her to sit in the sanctuary, not go to the nursery.
My daughter stays with us at our church, so she's perfectly capable of that.
We want her to sit in the sanctuary, not go to the nursery.
Okay.
I'm sure you're smart enough to see where this story is going.
She did literally the opposite of everything we said.
I mean every single thing.
She went to bed at midnight.
She ate all of the foods that I told her mess up her stomach.
She went to the nursery at church.
She didn't take a nap.
I was livid.
I'm looking for advice on how to deal with this.
I want to confront her right then and there.
But decided it was wisest not to, but my husband and I have decided the next time she asks to babysit or have a sleepover, we will tell her no, because we can't trust you to respect our wishes.
I don't want to keep my kids away from their grandparents, but I also know I can't trust them to follow our rules.
There's so much more too, but I can't tell you all of the woes in an email.
Please give me some advice on how in the world I should deal with this crazy lady that is my mother-in-law.
Well, Brittany, You probably won't like my answer, and let's begin with my answer is basically irrelevant because I'm no more of an expert on how to deal with mother-in-laws than you are, so there's no reason why whatever I have to say you should trust more than your own intuition.
But since you asked for it, I'm always eager to give my opinion on everything.
I tend to think, and this is something that comes up with us, I think it comes up with everybody, right?
I tend to think that this is just what grandparents do.
It's just what they do.
They let the kids stay up, they give them junk food, they, you know, whatever.
They let them watch.
It's just, this is the grandparent thing.
It's sort of, there's no way around it, you can't avoid it.
So in my situation, our family, I tend to be, my wife is a little bit more like you.
She's, she's less relaxed about it.
And she, you know, she feels like, look, this is what we want for our kids or our kids.
You should follow our rules.
I tend to say, yeah, we're, we're, we're giving them the grandparents, they're watching them.
Um, so maybe we should, as long as here's, here's my thing.
As long as something truly dangerous is not happening, okay?
Obviously, if your mother-in-law is putting your kids in danger in some way, then that's a problem and you need to talk about it, and you probably shouldn't let her watch the kids anymore.
But if she's just being the grandmother, spoiling the kids, letting them stay up and all that... I mean, I did that with my... That's why I loved visiting my grandmother when I was a kid.
It's because, yeah, she would let us stay up as long as we wanted.
We could watch whatever we wanted on TV.
She would just shove sweets and junk food in our mouths constantly.
And it was great!
And so I think that that's, it's almost like, I feel like we'd be depriving our kids if we don't allow them to have that relationship with their grandparents, when that's what grandparents are supposed to do.
It's not really a big deal.
It's not like she's undoing everything you've done.
They send them to the nursery or whatever.
Well, all the work you've done to make sure the kids can sit in church, it's not undone by that one experience.
So that would be my, I tend to be more relaxed about it.
And I would say, yeah, you're, Yes, you have your rules, but also at the same time, when you're entrusting your kids to someone else, really, it's their rules.
They're the ones watching your kid.
You're not there.
So in some ways, their rules are going to supersede your own because they are the ones watching them.
It's like if you send your kid to daycare and the kid might say,
say, well, at home, my mommy lets me do this and that.
Well, the daycare provider is going to say, OK, well, you're not at home, though, and I'm in charge right now.
And in our situation, we don't do that.
And I think as parents, when we entrust our kids to someone else, our job is to say to our kids, look, they're the mommy and daddy for right now.
As far as you're concerned, listen to them, their rules go.
Of course, there are in extreme circumstances, you might have to step in and your rules are going to supersede.
Again, if someone is being put in danger, but I don't think you can give your kids to someone else and then expect that everything is going to happen exactly as you do it in your own home.
And the last thing I'll say is my kids have their grandparents on both sides of the family, fortunately, that are all alive still.
And they're all very helpful.
They watch the kids all the time.
And I tend to be very grateful for that.
And so I also think that sometimes there's a lack of gratitude when we try to be too controlling.
about how our kids are cared for when grandparents are stepping in to help us out.
Sometimes it comes off as a lack of gratitude.
We should be grateful.
You know, the fact is your mother-in-law was taking the kid for a night so that you could go out with your husband, right, and have a date night, do whatever you wanted to do.
So I think your first reaction should be, well, I'm really grateful that she didn't have to watch him.
It's not like you're doing her a favor by letting her watch the kids.
She does want to see the kid, but really she's doing you a favor, first and foremost.
All right.
Let's do one more.
This is from Henry.
He says, Hi, Matt.
First of all, thank you for being a voice of reason on the ocean of insanity that we live in today.
Your show is the best Daily Wire podcast by far, and I agree with most of what you say, except that God exists.
That's quite a stipulation.
So I'd like to know, What are your top three or more books that you would recommend an atheist read, except for the Bible?
Greetings from Brazil.
Henry, thanks so much for listening to the show, and I appreciate that you listened, even though we differ on this obviously fundamental question.
So, you didn't specify.
I assume you mean, what are books I recommend that you read that will help you get an understanding of My belief system and why I think God exists.
I assume that's what you mean, not just books in general, but specifically spiritual or theological books.
Okay, so as far as that goes, I would—so, okay, three.
I would recommend—well, first I would recommend, if you want to understand Christian theology, what we actually believe at a basic level, then I think Mere Christianity is a good place to start.
Now, Mere Christianity by C.S.
Lewis, of course, is a very simple book.
And so you're not going into complex theological concepts.
I'll get to that in a minute.
But I think this is a good entry point just to give you, as I said, a basic understanding of what most Christians believe across all the denominations and why they believe it.
So that would be my first recommendation.
Then I would recommend something by Dostoevsky.
I'll go with Crime and Punishment, I think is his most His easiest one to read is Most Accessible, which isn't to me, and when I say easy read, I just mean that it kind of moves quicker and it's his closest thing to a real page turner that you just can't put down.
His other books are great, but they have denser parts that are harder to get through sometimes.
So I would recommend Crime and Punishment.
That I think, although it's a novel, it's not an explicitly theological or apologetic work, it still is giving you a lot of Christian philosophy and it's going to give you a real insight into that.
So, I'd recommend Crime and Punishment.
And then, finally, if you're looking to really be intellectually challenged and you want something—I don't know where you're at, you know, in terms of your What kind of books do you normally read?
But if you're looking for something that's a little bit more scholarly and denser, that's going to really get into the weeds of Christian theology, then I would recommend something by Alvin Plantinga and Richard and or Richard Swinburne and really anything.
Just Google those two names.
Pick anything and read one of them.
So, that's what I would... I would say start there, and then once you've done that, come back.
If you're still interested, I could give you three more books to read.
And you know what?
Here's what I'll say, too.
Because people ask me for reading recommendations all the time, and I'm always happy to give them.
If you want to give me three books of your own, not of your own that you wrote, but three books As an atheist that you think are very compelling and make a great argument and that will give me an insight into your point of view, then feel free to offer those and I'll read them.
Okay, we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro show, President Trump at war with the squad.
▲
Export Selection