While the authors of that now debunked Kavanaugh hit piece throw their editors under the bus, a genuine bombshell has emerged. Only it works against the Kavanaugh smears. Also, SNL fires a new cast member after it's revealed that he said some offensive stuff. Of course, everyone has said offensive stuff, so I guess everyone should be canceled. Finally, Sean Spicer spreads the gospel by doing the salsa on Dancing With The Stars. Date: 09-17-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Well, the story just gets more and more embarrassing for the media as we continue to do this Kavanaugh thing for a second time, ringing in the anniversary of the Kavanaugh hearing by rehashing all of it.
And so it's appropriate, I suppose, that the media is embarrassing itself,
humiliating itself yet again, because that's what it did the first time.
And so now it's gonna become a tradition annually.
This is what they do.
We talked yesterday about this debunked claim in the New York Times about another alleged sexual assault
that happened 30 years ago.
Though, as I said yesterday, even if this thing actually happened, which it didn't,
but even if it did, it wouldn't be sexual assault.
Even if it happened, it wouldn't matter.
If someone somehow forced Kavanaugh's penis into a woman's hand at a party, as the story goes,
that would, if anything, be sexual assault by the person who did the forcing.
And Kavanaugh would be one of the victims of it.
But however that would work, logistically, I have no idea.
I can't even figure out what the accusation is supposed to be.
But then it turns out that the woman, the alleged victim, didn't want to be interviewed about the incident and said she didn't remember it.
She had no recollection of it.
And yet the Times left that detail out of its report, had to go back and add in the correction.
Now the author's of the piece are trying to explain why that detail was left out, and they've thrown their editors completely under the bus, which is kind of hilarious.
Watch this.
The draft of the article, did it include those words that have since been added to the article?
It did.
It did.
So somewhere in the editing process, those words were... Yeah, I mean, I think what happened actually was that, you know, we had her name and, you know, The Times doesn't usually include the name of the victim.
And so I think in this case, the editors felt like maybe it was probably better to remove it.
And in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn't remember it.
Okay, so the way in your draft for The Times, you used basically the exact words that are in the book that I deliberately left off the name because that passage begins with the name.
And so in their removal of the name, they ended up removing what follows it.
Yes, yes.
And I mean, so I think it was just sort of an editing, you know, done in the haste, in the editing process, as you know, for closing the section.
Were you involved in the decision to amend this and do the correction on, or the addition online to the piece?
We discussed it.
Yeah, I mean, we think we felt like this, there was so much heat, you know, there's so much, everyone has been kind of seizing on various aspects of this that we certainly didn't want this to be an issue anymore.
And we certainly never intended to mislead in any way.
We wanted to give as full a story as possible.
Something tells me these two probably aren't going to be getting any more jobs writing pieces for newspapers anytime soon, because throwing your editor under the bus is not ideal.
But are they right?
Are the editors to blame?
Well, yeah, the editors are partly to blame, but so are they.
Because here's the thing, they didn't speak up when the article was published without that information.
They didn't speak up and say, hey, wait a second, something was left out here, this is an important detail.
No, they said nothing.
They only said something after other people discovered the omission and brought it up.
That's when they talked about it.
So, I wish that these people would just be honest.
And I know that's too much to ask, but I'd almost respect it.
If they came out and said, hey, listen, we hate Kavanaugh because he's pro-life and we're just doing what we need to do to get rid of him.
That's what this is about.
So that's why we omitted it because obviously it's not going to help our case and that's what we care about.
I would almost respect that.
I would almost respect the honesty if they just said that.
And, and here's the irony here, by the way, the left is going through all this trouble.
To smear Kavanaugh because they're afraid that he's going to repeal Roe vs. Wade.
And that, of course, is what this is all about.
But meanwhile, Kavanaugh almost certainly would not vote to repeal Roe v. Wade.
So all of their hysterical fears are completely misplaced.
You know, there's a reason why most pro-lifers, if you had paid attention when Kavanaugh was announced, most pro-lifers were not jumping for joy the way they would have been if, for example, Amy Coney Barrett was put up for the spot.
But with Kavanaugh, most pro-lifers were like, eh, that was our reaction.
Now we started rallying behind Kavanaugh when all these fake rape accusations came out and they were trying to destroy his life and destroy his family and then of course we're going to rally behind him because to do that to any person is wrong.
But no, there is actually little evidence that Kavanaugh is pro-life, is a conservative pro-lifer.
For all we know, and this actually is my guess, and this is why I wasn't too excited about the nomination, my guess is that when it comes to these kinds of issues, he's going to be kind of like a Kennedy, basically liberal.
If I had to put all of my money on one outcome or the other, and if there was a Roe v. Wade challenge before the Supreme Court, I would definitely put my money on him not voting to repeal it.
But here's the double irony.
The double irony is, if there's any chance of Kavanaugh Actually voting against Roe and actually becoming a social conservative on the bench, it would probably be because of how he's been treated by the left.
So they're doing all this because they're so afraid of him.
Meanwhile, he's a moderate, probably kind of liberal guy.
But if that changes, it's going to be because of how he's being treated by them.
Their wager is that, well, they treat him this way and he's going to be too afraid when it comes down to it.
He's just going to do what they want because he'll be too afraid of provoking their wrath, which maybe is how it would go.
I don't know.
But there's also a possibility, and this is what I would root for, that he says, you know what?
Screw these people.
These people are evil.
Now, there is a real Kavanaugh-related bombshell, one that, shockingly, was reported by CBS.
That's maybe the biggest bombshell of all, and we'll talk about that in a minute.
But first, we're never going to agree on everything, but I think we all can agree that we could all use a lot more sleep.
Sleep is, well, I don't know if you knew this, but it's an essential human need.
You need sleep.
Getting a great night's sleep is easier than ever.
Thanks to the world's softest sheets brought to you by our friends at Bowlin Branch.
Everything Bowlin Branch makes from bedding to blankets is made from pure 100% organic cotton,
which means they start out super soft.
They get even softer over time.
So it even gets better and better as you use them.
Everyone who tries Bowlin Branch sheets loves them.
And that's why they have thousands of five-star reviews.
That's all you have to do is go and see what the people are saying about these sheets and you'll see that everyone loves them.
And they want you to love your purchase too.
So they offer a no-risk, 30-day trial and free shipping.
So you can send them back if you don't like them, but you're not going to want to do that because these are amazing sheets.
To get you started right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bowlandbranch.com, promo code Matt.
Go to bowlandbranch.com today for $50 off your first set of sheets.
Okay, oh, I forgot to mention, one of the reporters, quote unquote, who authored the piece that is now being torn apart, and rightfully so, is suggesting that the alleged victim doesn't remember what happened because she was drunk.
So, talk about victim-blaming, or alleged victim-blaming.
They've gone from smearing the alleged perpetrator to smearing the alleged victim.
Whatever they need to do.
Whatever needs to be said.
Now, I predicted yesterday that the narrative from the left, given the fact that this alleged victim doesn't remember it, the narrative is going to be, well, she suppressed the memory because it was so traumatizing.
She suppressed it.
It's a suppressed memory.
So actually, the fact that she doesn't remember it is proof that he did do it.
Because that's exactly what you would expect.
And, in fact, I did have some people on Twitter tell me that.
That is an actual argument that was presented to me, that it's a suppressed memory.
But here's another way to go, and say, well, she's drunk anyway.
Because whatever these people need to do, this is pure evil.
And they're not going to stop.
They just will not stop.
Speaking of evil, Leland Kaiser, friend of Christine Ford and one of the supposed witnesses at the supposed party where her alleged supposed rape occurred, is revealing something interesting.
And when I say speaking of evil, I don't mean Leland Kaiser as the evil.
I mean what she's had to endure and what's happening apparently behind the scenes to this woman.
That's the evil part.
Shockingly, CBS has this report.
Watch this.
I, Brett M. Kavanaugh, defund... Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed after a gut-wrenching day of testimony from him and Christine Blasey Ford, who accused him of assaulting her at a high school party.
Speaking publicly for the first time to The Times reporters, Ford's close friend Leland Kaiser, who Ford said was at the party, said she didn't believe Ford's account and that it just didn't make any sense.
She also said she told the FBI that Ford's allies pressured her to say otherwise.
So she doesn't believe it.
She straight up just doesn't believe it.
And this is a friend of Christine Ford.
And this is someone who's a liberal Democrat.
So there's no political motive for this.
No financial or personal motive.
There couldn't be, because this is a friend.
She's just alienated herself from her friend.
She's enduring all this abuse behind the scenes.
She doesn't gain anything from this.
Yet, this is what she's come out and said.
Now, someone said to me yesterday, oh, well, the fact that you're saying that her not believing Christine Ford is this huge, this significant thing, but if she came out and said she did believe Christine Ford, you'd probably say it didn't matter.
Well, yeah, kind of.
Now, if she had come out and said, I saw it, I remember it, I'm a witness, that would be significant.
But if she just said as a friend, yeah, I don't remember it, but I believe her, which actually was what was originally reported, Originally what was reported is that Leland Kaiser, there was always this weird thing where she didn't want to come out, she didn't want to talk about it, she said she didn't remember, but originally reported by, I think it was the Washington Post, I don't remember which out, but it was originally reported that Leland Kaiser said, I don't remember it, but yeah, I believe her.
But it was always weird.
That Kaiser was not more public about coming out in support of her friend.
Just like Christine Ford's family.
That was always a weird thing.
That her family didn't really come out publicly in support of her.
Always very strange.
Well, now we find out behind the scenes, Kaiser was being pressured, and now she's saying, you know, in honesty, I don't believe her.
And yeah, that to me is more significant than her saying she believes her.
Why is that?
Well, because she's a friend.
So she has a very obvious bias, a very obvious personal reason to say, I believe her even if she doesn't.
She has no obvious reason to say she doesn't believe if she in fact does.
So the fact that she's going against her own interests, against her own friendships in order to say that, that is very, very significant.
Just like the silence from Christine Ford's family, not coming out publicly and being out there and supporting in a really visible way.
That is also significant.
So let's go back and recap here.
Christine Ford has no witnesses, no evidence, doesn't remember where it happened, doesn't remember when it happened, doesn't remember what happened before or after.
Her own friend doesn't believe her.
Apparently her own family doesn't believe her.
There's just no reason at all, period, to take her seriously or to take any of this seriously.
So the people who are still going around and claiming that Kavanaugh's a rapist and so on, these are disgusting lying hacks, all of them.
They know what they're doing.
They know exactly what they're doing.
And we talk about We talk about how this is backfiring on the left because it's only in a lot of people's minds, and you hear this from a lot of people, that they don't really like Trump, they even dislike him strongly, but they're still going to vote for him because of this kind of thing, because of Kavanaugh, because they've seen how the left acts.
And they realize they have to do whatever they can to stop the left from taking control.
You hear that a lot.
The thought is, well, this is backfiring on the left.
On top of being morally wrong, it's a really bad strategic political move, which I think is correct.
But I think there is a strategy also on their side.
I'm not saying it's a good strategy, but there is a strategy.
I think part of the strategy is, this is a warning shot.
This is a message to when Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer on the bench.
Her replacement.
This is a message to Ginsburg's replacement, if that person is nominated by a Republican.
Like, this is a message.
If you're nominated, you probably want to decline.
Because you see what we're going to do to you.
I think that's part of the strategy here.
And that's why they keep going.
Because they're trying to say to the next potential conservative nominee or Republican nominee, if you accept this, we are going to ruin your life and we are never, ever going to stop.
And it could be an effective strategy, as morally abominable as it is.
I mean, look, if it were me, if Trump came to me and said, we want to have you on the Supreme Court, which is unlikely to happen, Well, honestly, I'd probably take it.
I'd have to say yes.
But I think a lot of people, a lot of more normal people, would probably say, it's not worth it.
I'm not going to have my whole life turned.
I'm going to have my family destroyed over this.
So that's the strategy.
Very, very evil.
OK, well, speaking of evil, that's my second time I've used that transition.
That's really my transition from every, that's always my transition.
Speaking of evil, let's go to the next evil thing.
Yay!
Okay, well, the woke rage mob has found another scalp.
They've claimed another trophy.
Shane Gillis.
Shane Gillis was hired by SNL.
He was supposed to be an SNL cast member.
But when it was announced, of course, people had to go digging to see if he'd ever said anything controversial.
Because this is what we do now.
Someone is in the news for a positive reason, and so we go and we dig through their closet for skeletons and we say, let's go find a reason to hate this person.
Oh, this person is getting honored or something good is happening.
They're being promoted.
Something good is happening.
Let's go find a reason to hate this person.
And so that's what happened.
Everyone complains that the news only reports negative stuff.
And that's true most of the time.
But here's what happens when there's a positive news story.
If there's a positive news story, if someone makes it into the news for a positive reason, it's turned into something negative because we find a reason to hate that person.
So in this case, it turned out that Shane Gillis had, in the past, made offensive remarks about Asians on a comedy podcast with another comedian.
He used slurs about Asians, and he made fun of their accents, and he was talking about Chinatown in the city and all of that.
Is it offensive?
Sure.
Is it funny?
Not really.
No, I watched the segment.
I didn't find it funny.
Is it a joke, though?
Yes, obviously.
He's a comedian on a comedy podcast doing a bit.
That's what comedians do on podcasts.
It's a joke.
Bad joke?
Fine.
But still a joke.
But that doesn't matter to the Rage Mob.
It never does.
They demanded that Gillis get fired, and now he has been.
SNL cave, predictably, as always.
This doesn't need to be a conversation about whether the C word for Asians is offensive or whatever.
I think, yeah, it's offensive.
I don't think you should go around saying that.
But here's the point.
So what?
I mean, really, so what?
Yes, if we could establish, let's just say we established.
He said that's offensive, he said something offensive.
Okay, he did.
Right, okay, he said something offensive.
Fine.
So what?
Everybody in the world.
Everybody.
There's 7 billion people in the world.
Everybody in the world.
All 7 billion.
If they have the power of speech, they have all said offensive things.
Every single one.
You have.
Whoever you are watching this right now, you have said so many offensive things and you know you have.
Every single one of you.
All of you.
Me included.
Me also.
Now, that doesn't mean, and you could say, oh, I've never used that word, though.
Okay, maybe you never have.
I'm not saying everyone's used that word.
I'm not even saying everyone's used racial slurs.
Maybe you've never said offensive things in that vein.
Maybe that is not a brand of offensive thing.
Maybe that's not a genre of offensive remark that you have ever engaged in.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that.
But on whatever topic, in whatever way, You have said very offensive things.
You have said things that you wouldn't want plastered all over the headlines.
You have said things that you wouldn't want people digging for and putting out there the moment that you're promoted or given a new job or whatever.
You definitely, definitely, definitely have.
And how do I know that?
Well, because You're a person.
Okay?
You're a human being.
And that's just, that's a thing people do.
People say a lot of stuff in a given day.
Right?
If you're a human being and you can speak, you say a lot of things in a day, you say even more things in a month, even more than that in a year, and a certain percentage of that stuff is going to be offensive.
That's just the way it goes.
That's statistics.
So it doesn't make sense.
When you think about it, it really doesn't make sense.
When we find out that someone said something offensive, for us to go, what?
He said something offensive?
What?
How is this possible?
This is outrageous!
Of course he did.
I mean, of course he did.
It was statistically certain that he has said offensive stuff.
And if you're someone, now, if you're not in the public eye at all, if you're not in media, if you're not a comedian, if you're not, you know, whatever, then probably the offensive things that you've said For the most part, have not been on camera.
But if you're someone who does a lot of talking on camera, on microphones, in podcasts, doing interviews, doing this and that and that and that, you're on stage, you're doing this, there's just a lot of, there's a huge volume of material of you talking, often off the cuff, then it's just, it is statistically certain that some of that is going to be offensive.
And again, if you don't have video of you saying offensive things floating around out there, that's only because you're not on video that often.
So it just doesn't make sense.
I think the proper reaction with this kind of thing is for us to say, OK, yeah, well, OK, we all say offensive things.
That's his offensive thing that he said.
It's out there.
You know, he shouldn't have said it.
He did.
Why can't that just be the reaction?
He shouldn't have said it.
He did, though.
We all say things we shouldn't say.
Here's an example.
Here is example number 552 trillion of people saying things they shouldn't say.
He came out and he said, Now, if his response to this was for him to come out and say, oh no, you know what?
I really hate Asians.
I despise them.
And I stand by it.
If he had done that, then yeah, SNL wouldn't have it.
I couldn't even quibble with SNL firing him.
But that's not what he said.
He came out and said, look, it was a joke.
It was a bad joke.
That's what it was.
It's just a bad joke.
Why isn't that enough?
Why isn't that enough?
He acknowledged it.
He said it's a bad joke.
Yeah, you got me.
You got me.
That was a thing.
Shouldn't have said it.
I did.
Why can't we just move on from that?
I mean, these are all rhetorical questions.
I get it.
I know why.
And I also know, as I have myself pointed out so many times, That this is all performative.
Nobody is really outraged.
Nobody really cares.
Because what I'm saying right now, everybody knows this.
Right?
So, everyone... People that act offended by an offensive comment, they all know about themselves that, oh man, I've said worse stuff than that about this or that, you know?
They all know that.
But they pretend to be what?
I never!
I never!
This is a... It's just, they're pretending.
It's performance.
Why do we pretend?
I don't know.
Power?
Control?
Envy?
I think that's part of it.
Just because we're bored?
It's just something to do?
A lot of it is recreational.
It is... Back in the Roman days, you could go to the Colosseum and you could watch someone get torn apart by the lions.
And you could get your kicks that way.
Well, we don't have that anymore.
I have no doubt that if we had something like that, it'd be enormously popular.
But we don't have that anymore, so instead we have this.
It's just... It's bloodlust.
It's enjoying watching someone get torn apart, if not physically, then at least metaphorically.
We can settle for that.
This as always, this is where the Bible once again has something to say about it.
And you go to the famous story, He without sin cast the first stone.
Because really, at the end of the day, and the point of that story, let he without sin cast the first stone, Jesus wasn't saying, we cannot objectively make judgments about what's right or wrong.
He wasn't saying, this woman was caught in adultery.
Jesus wasn't saying, despite how it's commonly translated or interpreted these days, He wasn't saying, oh no, you know what, actually, adultery is okay.
And he wasn't saying the people that were disgusted by adultery and opposed it or whatever.
He wasn't saying they were wrong for that.
Yeah, adultery is wrong.
That's why he said, go and sin no more to the woman.
It's wrong.
But he's also saying, you're not really in a place to literally throw a stone at this woman.
Because look at yourself.
Yeah, maybe you've never committed adultery.
Maybe that's not a type of sin that you've committed.
But you've done things too.
You've done really bad things.
Adultery is a really bad thing.
You have certainly done really bad things in your life.
Maybe not that, but something else.
And so you're just not, you're not the guy.
If there's anyone around here who can throw a stone, it's not you.
I think that applies very much in these situations.
Let he who has never made an offensive comment in their life, not a single one, let he be the one to cast the stone.
All right, one more thing.
Sean Spicer.
Speaking of evil, no.
You may remember him.
This isn't so much evil as just sad.
This is sad.
So Sean Spicer was a former White House press secretary and, as you may recall, Trump's press secretary.
And he's on Dancing with the Stars now for some reason.
And he did his debut dance last night.
I admit, I don't watch the show, but I did see this clip online, and I just have to share it with you.
Watch this.
Hands in the air!
Every boy and every girl!
When you're feeling sad and low We will take you where you gotta go
Smiling, dancing, everything's free All you need is positivity
Come into the world, everybody, every girl People of the world
See, if you're having a good time See, if you know what you're doing right
Take a super bow, ha, ha, all right Come into the world, if you're having a good time
Shake it to the right, if you know that you feel fine Take a super bow, ha, ha, ha, sing ya, hold tight
Come into the world, if you're having a good time Shake it to the right, if you know that you feel fine
Take a super bow, ha, ha, all right Come into the world, if you're having a good time
Shake it to the right, if you know that you feel fine Take a super bow, ha, ha, ha, sing ya, hold tight
Now, in fairness, in fairness, I do have that exact shirt, I must admit.
Bye.
For those listening on iTunes, Spicer is wearing a fluffy, frilly, neon shirt while doing the salsa.
I think that's supposed to be the salsa.
I'm not really sure.
And he's dancing to the Spice Girls.
So I don't know what's... His dance moves look like... Well, first of all, they look like I would look if I was trying to do the salsa, which is why I would never do it, especially not on camera.
But he looks... Really, he looks like a Little League baseball coach having a seizure in a pirate shirt.
That's kind of what his salsa looks like.
And I...
I don't get it.
But Mike Huckabee, who thank God has not gone on the show yet, he wrote on Twitter in support of Sean Spicer, and he said, want to create an emotional meltdown in Hollyweird?
Hollyweird instead of Hollywood.
Clever stuff.
Vote for Sean Spicer to win Dancing with the Stars tonight and every night that he's on.
Sean Spicer's a good guy and a brave sport to go on Dancing with the Stars.
Let's show him some love.
And then Spicer responded, Thank you, Mike Huckabee.
Clearly the judges aren't going to be with me.
Let's send a message to Hollywood that those of us who stand for Christ won't be discounted.
May God bless you.
He really tried to turn this into a Jesus thing.
He's really claiming that he's standing with Christ by dancing to the Spice Girls in a frilly neon shirt.
See, me, I don't get it.
I don't quite get the connection.
When I see that, when I look at that clip, I see a guy who's desperate for attention and still wants to be famous.
And we'll do literally anything for it.
I don't really see the gospel being spread quite.
I don't see where that comes in.
And this is the thing that we talk about victim culture and how victimhood has been turned into a currency these days and everybody wants to be a victim.
And we put that on the left most of the time, and for good reason, but it's not just the left that does this.
And this is something that you see among conservative Christians sometimes, I have to admit.
There is a tendency sometimes where Sean Spicer now is turning himself into a victim, where the judges didn't like his dance moves, and it's because he's a Christian.
No, it's because you suck at dancing, Sean, which, look, I do too, so I'm not, but that's why, again, I'm not gonna do it in front of judges.
I'm not gonna do it in front of anybody.
In fact, we're going to a wedding this weekend, and this will be the second wedding that I've attended after my Achilles injury.
And in both cases, these are times when I actually thank God that I have an Achilles injury, even though now I'm kind of overcoming it, but I still have it.
But I thank God for it, because it's my excuse I don't have to dance.
I can just sit there, which is what I would do anyway, in fairness, but now I have a reason.
And I can say, the first wedding I went to, I still had the cast on and everything.
And people are dancing and people are coming up to me.
And I was saying, oh man, I'd love to be out there.
I'd love to be out there dancing.
I tell you, I live to dance.
But, you know, I just can't.
I just can't.
It's really, it's tough for me to sit here and not be able to dance.
Anyway, so that's my theory.
My theory for Sean is that they didn't like the dancing because it's bad.
Not because they're against Christ.
And so this victimhood thing.
Now, there are examples of conservative Christians in this country being victimized.
There are many more examples across the world of Christians actually being victimized and martyred.
In this country, it does happen.
Talk to Masterpiece Cake Shop, Jack Phillips, and he'll tell you about that.
But there are also examples of the victimhood mentality among Christians where, you know, Someone is insulted, or whatever, and they try to turn it into... I don't... I don't think we should do that.
I think it's almost blasphemous, really.
That's almost blasphemy.
Don't bring... You know, that spectacle there.
Okay?
If you want to do that, do it.
But don't bring Jesus into that.
He doesn't have anything to do with that.
Don't blame Him.
Why do people... I really don't... I don't understand... You know, this thing that people do where they...
When you've got F-list celebrities, someone who's famous for being a White House press secretary, a former White House press secretary, and then they go and they embarrass themselves on TV intentionally just to keep the attention on them.
I don't understand it.
How are you that desperate for attention that you'll even take negative attention?
That I don't get.
If somebody came to me and said, hey, would you like to come on this show here and be humiliated in front of everybody?
I would have to say, not really, no.
Thanks for the offer.
Are you sure?
Because millions of people are going to be watching.
You could be really, really embarrassed.
Yeah, no, no thanks.
I don't think so.
I humiliate myself all the time as it is, and sometimes on camera, as anyone who watches this show can attest.
I don't need help.
All right, let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
Although all that being said, I do... The other part of me does have some kind of respect for people who are very bad dancers like me, and yet are willing to do it in front of other people.
I do have some respect for that, I have to say.
All right, let's go to emails.
Again, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Rebecca, says, Matt, I was wondering if you could tell us your thoughts on the conversation among Christians following the recent suicide of the very successful young pastor, Jared Wilson.
It's very hard for some of us to understand why someone in his position would want to end their own life.
Yes, depression most often is never about circumstances, but when you're young, have a beautiful wife, two healthy young kids, and success above the ordinary, it's really baffling.
Now even some Christians are saying that he didn't choose to commit suicide, but that he lost his battle and died by suicide.
Many, in quotes, died by suicide.
Many are also saying that because he professed to believe in Jesus, that he's also, that he's automatically in heaven and that he's, quote, finally free.
If that were the consequence of suicide, shouldn't we all do it then?
I'm not saying that he is or isn't in heaven, but how can we know for sure and why would we even assume?
To not murder is one of the Ten Commandments, and murder of the self is self-murder.
As a Catholic, I believe and hope he is in purgatory, but irregardless, I don't think Christians should ever advertise to the world that suicide is a solution.
Every single day, it seems like more and more Christians are not standing on the foundation of truth, too scared to offend anyone.
I'd really like to know what you think of all this.
Thanks.
Yeah, Rebecca, I've gotten a few emails about this, and so I wanted to address it.
This is an awful situation, obviously.
I didn't know Jared personally at all.
We debated once on a podcast years ago, and that was pretty much the extent of our interaction.
I think we interacted maybe on Twitter a few times.
But by all accounts, a decent guy, a good guy, and this is just terrible.
It's the kind of thing, you hear stories like this, it kind of takes your breath away.
When you think about especially the family, wife and two kids and how they're... It puts me at a loss for words when I think about where you go as a spouse after something like this, as a child.
It's just terribly tragic.
So you raised two points which I think are important and Which also troubled me greatly, and this is a delicate subject, and people get upset when you start talking about these things.
And they say, well, you shouldn't be talking about them, or you shouldn't talk about it now.
Well, when are we going to talk about it?
Because we need to talk about it.
And the two points you raise, I think, are good.
Important.
So one is this idea that we should completely remove the choice, the willfulness from suicide, and talk about it as if someone who, quote, dies by suicide might as well have died of cancer.
And this is something now where you hear this, that every time there's a suicide of a prominent person, you hear from the media and social media people saying, no, don't say he committed suicide, say died by suicide.
To make it into a passive and to sound like something that happened to him rather than something that he did.
And I'll tell you why that concerns me.
I think probably for the same reason it concerns you, Rebecca.
Because it makes the person, here's what I think about.
It makes the person who is depressed, who feels hopeless, whoever that might be.
There are a lot of people in that boat right now.
Someone in that boat.
I don't see how it doesn't make them feel powerless.
I mean, think about what you're saying to a potentially suicidal person.
You're saying, you have no choice.
You have no power to prevent this from happening.
You have cancer, essentially, and there's nothing you can do.
Suicide might just happen to you, like getting hit by a car.
It might just happen.
You can't stop it.
You can't prevent it.
And I really worry that that might lead to more suicides.
I worry that it does lead to more suicides.
I worry that the way that we talk about suicide of prominent people, the way the conversation happens, and the things people say, and I know they say it with good intentions, I know that, but I really worry that it causes the wrong word, that it helps to promote an atmosphere that encourages suicide.
I think the worst thing that you can do for someone who is on the verge of that is make them feel powerless.
Because they already feel powerless.
They already feel like, I have no choice, I have to do this.
So for us to respond and say, you're right, I just think that's extremely dangerous.
Extremely.
Now I get why we use this language.
We don't want to be seen as blaming or condemning.
We don't want to seem disrespectful.
We don't want to add to the family's pain.
I'm very sympathetic to that.
I get that.
I do.
I really do.
But we have to think also about the living.
We have to think about the next potential person who might go down that road.
What do they need to hear?
I think we need to think about that more.
And I think, you have no choice, you have no power, is a terrible message for them.
It's the worst thing you could say to them.
Think about someone who is literally standing on a ledge, and they're about to jump.
Would you ever say to them, you have no choice, you have no power, this might just happen to you?
No, no, no, your message would be the opposite, right?
Wouldn't it be, no, you don't have, when they're screaming down to you from the ledge, I have no choice, I have to do this, there's no way out, aren't you saying, no, you do have a choice, you don't have to do this, there is a way.
Isn't that your message to them?
Isn't that what anyone would say?
Well, if that's what we would say, then isn't that what we should say?
As for saying he's in peace, he's with Jesus, again, yeah, I see your concern, because that does seem to promote suicide.
And nobody means it that way, of course, but how would it not?
If that's the case, you commit suicide, just go right to heaven, then why don't we all do it then?
Heaven's definitely better than earth, so why even treat suicide like a sad thing in that case?
Now, at the same time, of course, we're not going to sit here and say, everyone who does that is not in heaven, right?
We're not going to say that either.
I'm not saying that, and you didn't say that.
Nobody can say that.
I think we can't say where anybody is, no matter how they died.
Even if they did die by cancer, no matter how anyone died, we can't say where anyone is or what happened to anyone after death.
And so I think it's best to just leave that alone for everybody and not make definitive declarations about where they are or what happened.
We can't.
Because we're not God, we can't do that.
It's best to say, you know, we could say what we hope and what we pray and all of that, but I think we should, as much as possible, refrain from saying things that we know we can't possibly actually know to be true.
Anyway, it's a delicate subject, as I said, but an important one.
And the main thing here is, you know, we pray for his family and encourage anyone who's feeling like Jared.
was feeling at the end to encourage them to seek help, to get help, to talk to somebody.
You know, you don't have to be alone.
Even if you feel alone, you don't have to be alone.
You're not.
And there is help out there.
And suicide is just never a solution to anything.
All right, and to look and see when this kind of thing happens and you look and you see the
families that are left behind, which proves, you know, these are people who felt alone,
but obviously we're not. We're very, very far from being alone.
In fact, their lives were Incredibly important and integral to the lives of so many other people who now will have this massive hole in their lives that will never, ever be filled.
All right.
This is from... Let's see how much time we have here.
This is from Jean, says, Dear Matt, due to my long commute each day, I listen to Daily Wire as follows.
Ben on my way home, Michael in the evening while cooking dinner, and you on my morning commute.
This morning, you know, it's a good system.
If you need to cut the other two out, just listen to me.
You can listen to me three times if you wanted to.
I'm just saying.
It's up to you.
This morning while in bumper-to-bumper traffic, I was laughing out loud listening to you talk about the Ravens game bathroom dilemma with your son.
The people in the cars next to me probably all thought I was a nutjob due to laughing so hard.
I'm glad you didn't have to crawl in urine.
Me too.
You also discussed your pet peeve of not being able to watch people eat bagels.
One of my pet peeves is rubber bands give me the creeps.
I won't touch them.
I avoid them as much as possible.
Would you mind sharing your top five pet peeves?
I appreciate your unique perspective, insight, and commentary on our news and culture.
Keep up the fantastic job you're doing.
Yeah, some people ask me, why do you have a pet peeve about bagels?
It's just the way they sound when people are eating them.
I don't know what it is.
Just the kind of, this kind of like swishy, squishy kind of sound people make when they, I can't describe it.
The sound of people eating chips or something crunchy, that doesn't really bother me.
But something that, there's just, I don't, I can't, it's a pet peeve, that's the point.
I can't really explain why it annoys me so much, but it does.
As far as my other pet peeves, I can't rank them because honestly, everything's a pet peeve for me.
Everything annoys me.
I can find a reason to be annoyed by anything and everything in life.
It's one of my great talents, if you can really call it a talent.
So, uh, I don't even know if I can, if that's a question I can answer, but I appreciate the question.
This is from LJ says, Matt, what do you think of the rule change in the NFL allowing challenges on pass interference?
I think, um, the NFL is like Congress.
Where they get together every year, and they feel like they just have to pass laws and change things.
Just because, well, we're together, we might as well.
When really, with Congress, I always say, people complain, oh, Congress isn't doing anything.
Good!
That's what we want.
We don't want them to just pass laws for the sake of it.
Might as well pass some laws, fellas.
That's not good.
And the NFL does the same thing, where every year they make rule changes.
Because they have to, because they feel like they have to, or they feel like they might as well.
And those rule changes are almost always bad.
They almost always make the game worse, except for this rule change.
I totally support it.
I think pass interference calls.
Look, you give coaches three challenges, I think let them challenge whatever they want.
It's not like, you know, you're not giving them 50 challenges or unlimited, but they have three, and they should be able to challenge anything that affects the outcome of the game.
The idea that the calls made by the refs should be above challenge is to me so absurd, so ridiculous, that it doesn't make any sense.
A pass interference call is an enormously important call, and it can really affect the outcome of the game.
It can lose or win a game in the end, and if an erroneous pass interference is called... Think about a pass interference.
If it's a spot foul, Pass interference, that could be a 55-yard penalty.
And if it was wrong, and if the ref was wrong, and there was no pass interference, of course we should be able to go—we have the technology to go back and look at it, and so of course we should.
It's worth a couple minutes to look at it, rather than just saying, ah, give them the 55 yards.
That could be the difference between winning and losing a game, and you want, as much as possible, to minimize Having refs be the ones who win or lose games, because nobody's watching for that.
That destroys the product.
Nobody's watching to see what the refs do.
The refs are supposed to be, as much as possible, invisible.
There are people who argue, well, human error is part of the game.
Yeah, human error of the players, if players are making mistakes, then yeah, that's part of the game.
But mistakes by the refs, that is only by default part of the game.
It's just, it's part of the game because we haven't had any way of removing it from the game.
But if we can remove those human errors by the refs as much as possible, we should do it.
Finally, this is from Rose, says, Matt, I've been a fan for a long time, but no more.
Your comment on Chick-fil-A.
Was beyond the pale you should be ashamed.
Yeah, I said on Twitter yesterday and it was I think I someone told me I was trending on Twitter briefly because of People were attacking me Because I said that Chick-fil-a is overrated.
I Stand by what I said And the treatment that I have gotten Only brings to mind what Jesus said in the Gospels blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness and Speaking of victim mentalities by Christians.
There you go.
Look, I'm not saying that Chick-fil-A is bad.
When I call something overrated, that doesn't mean it's bad.
It just means that it's overrated.
It means that it's not as good as everyone says.
Chick-fil-A is a good fast food place.
I like it.
I go to it.
I think it's top five.
It's not number one.
That's all I'm saying.
They do a good chicken sandwich.
That's all they really do that well.
I think their fries are not good.
They're not crispy enough.
They're too greasy.
They're undercooked.
Much of the time.
There are probably 10 different fast food places that do better fries than Chick-fil-A.
But they got the chicken sandwich.
They do a good chicken sandwich.
And it is good.
It's the best chicken sandwich on the market.
But, you know, it's a chicken sandwich.
And so it's just... They don't have a diversity in the menu, which is fine, because this is what they do.
But a really good chicken sandwich is not going to be better than, for instance, a really good hamburger.
So I'm going to take a place that does a really good hamburger, because hamburgers are superior to chicken sandwiches, and they're going to be above Chick-fil-A.
So that's why Five Guys, for example, is above Chick-fil-A.
Chipotle.
If you don't mind the E. coli every once in a while, Chipotle is better than Chick-fil-A.
You know, Arby's, I got news for you, is better than Chick-fil-A.
Chick-fil-A is a top five place.
And they got great service.
The fact that all the protests and everything and the freak out by the left, that does make the stuff taste better, okay?
So when you're eating the chicken sandwich and you're thinking about how it makes a leftist cry, that does make it taste better, but still it doesn't quite put them over the hump to get them into the top three.
I'd say they're, you know, number four or five on the list.
Very solid.
They're never gonna get into that top three because chicken sandwiches can only bring you so far in life, unfortunately.
And listen, chicken is just never gonna be beef.
It's always gonna be chicken.
And so, it's always gonna be behind the places that excel in beef.
And that's, look, these are facts, okay?
I'm not... You can react however you want, but what I'm telling you, these are just scientifically proven facts.
All right, we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Have a great day, and we'll talk tomorrow.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
