Ep. 342 - NBC Spreads Fake News While Accusing Others Of Fake News
NBC News has accused myself and the Daily Wire of "fake news" for reporting on a potentially dangerous drug being given to gender-confused children. But the fake news, of course, is all on their end. Also, more Trudeau black face footage. This is the worst one yet. And a jaw dropping report about the true scope and severity of the child porn problem on the internet. What can really be done to stop it? I've got one idea. Date: 09-30-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Can we all just be completely honest about something for a minute?
And I'm putting politics aside, just being completely honest.
Can we agree at least that the 1998 impeachment series was way more entertaining and just better all around than the reboot in 2019?
I mean, sure, you've got the outlandish characters this time around.
Trump, obviously, Giuliani, Joe Biden, some good characters, but I'm not sure that they're
really better than the characters in the original.
But the main thing is you can only do so much with characters.
It all comes down to plot for me, you know, as a viewer.
And the central plot just isn't nearly as absorbing.
It's just, in the original show, you had sex, lies, you know, betrayal.
Critics at the time, of course, said it veered a little bit too much into soap opera territory, which it did.
But this is impeachment we're talking about.
That's what the show is supposed to be like.
And this time it's as if the producer said, oh no, it was too soap opera last time.
So we're going to intentionally make this as dry as possible.
So it all revolves around a phone call.
Think about what the first impeachment series revolved around.
Think about that.
And this time we have a phone call.
It's just, plus, I don't want to bring this up, but someone has to mention, but you know, the impeachment 98 had a whole host of fascinating female characters. Lewinsky, Paula Jones,
even Hillary Clinton with her Cruella Deville impression was pretty interesting. But this
time, there's basically no female characters. All the female characters have been replaced by
men. Now, all the talk we do about representation, making sure people are represented, is that
in 2019, is that really a choice that can be justified? Yeah, they brought back Nancy Pelosi and
everything, but she just is not, she's the least compelling female character and she's the
only one that carries over. Anyway, All right.
I I don't know.
We can just hope that the show picks up steam in later episodes.
And if it doesn't, then we also know that I'm sure they'll reboot it again in a few years.
And I guess we can hope that that reboot lives up to the expectations set by the 98 series.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
Okay.
Lots to talk about today, including And in fact we're going to begin with NBC News calling out myself and Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire in general for alleged fake news.
They say that we are responsible for a fake news story.
But in the not-so-twist ending, They are the ones propagating the fake news.
It's going to shock you to learn that.
So we're going to talk about that in just a moment.
But first, a word from our friends at Kettlebell Kitchen.
Nutrition is a thing that's on everybody's mind.
What, when, how much to eat.
It's a mess of conflicting information that can confuse anyone.
It can derail your fitness journey.
It's the kind of thing where you begin, and I've done this so many times, where I think, I want to start eating healthy, I want to get healthy, and then I try to look it up, you Google it, and you just get so confused and you say, never mind, I'll just stick with McDonald's.
There are tons of different diets and meal plans out there.
But they don't really take your own needs into account.
And also, if I'm being completely honest, I've tried the food from some of these other meal plans, and I just didn't like it.
So it came down to that for me.
But Kettlebell Kitchen solves all of these problems, finally.
Kettlebell Kitchen knows that meal planning isn't one-size-fits-all.
What works for your neighbor isn't necessarily going to work for you.
And that's why they've come up with personalized solutions.
Kettlebell Kitchen was founded by two army veterans, who are also brothers, and a chef with a mission to help people change their lives through food.
Their goal is to help you achieve yours with your goals, with meal plans that are tailored for your needs, and their team of nutritionists will help create a sustainable health plan that honors your body's unique needs.
Also, for me, I gotta go back to this and emphasize it, that for me, one of the most important things is the food is good.
That's what I want to know.
Is the food good?
And it is.
I've tried several of their meals.
I liked it all.
I especially liked the bison beef sliders.
I had that a few nights ago.
Restaurant quality stuff.
Brought right to your door, take a couple minutes to heat it up, and you're good to go.
Can't get any better than that.
Feed the champion in you with Kettlebell Kitchen.
Go to kettlebellkitchen.com, enter code WALSH for $50 off your first two orders for new customers.
That's $50 off your first two orders at kettlebellkitchen.com, code WALSH.
All right.
Last week, the Daily Wire reported that a drug called Lupron, used as a puberty blocker for transgender children, has been linked to thousands of deaths.
Now, shortly after this story was published, NBC News, and there were other left-wing Outlets and people who also jumped on this, but NBC News in particular, denounced the Daily Wire for pushing fake news, quote-unquote, naming myself and Ben Shapiro as the culprits who shared and disseminated what they called, quote, anti-transgender rhetoric.
Ironically, as I said before, their article debunking our fake news is itself fake news.
And I want to talk about this and get into it because it touches on how the media Twist things.
And also, when you hear a left-wing outlet like NBC News talking about fake news, well, we start to see what they really mean by that.
And also, the actual issue here, which isn't what the Daily Wire wrote or anything like that, the actual issue is these drugs themselves that are being given to kids.
So it deals with all that, and that's why I want to talk about this.
NBC explains in their article, That Lupron is often used to treat prostate cancer in adult men, and most of the deaths associated with the drug are, quote, likely among these patients.
Adult men, prostate cancer, that's what the drug is usually used for.
Now, that's no doubt probably the case.
Most of the deaths, most of the adverse reactions to the drugs are going to be among People with prostate cancer who are using the drugs to treat that cancer.
The Daily Wire never said otherwise.
I never said otherwise.
In fact, in the original report on the site, it specifically notes that Lupron is being prescribed off-label as a hormone blocker for gender-confused children.
But I want you to think about what NBC is doing here.
They are defending the use of this potentially dangerous drug among physically healthy children on the basis that, well, it's really designed for use among terminally ill men.
That's their defense of the drug.
They're saying, no, no, no, no, no.
See, this is fake news.
Really, this drug is designed for terminally ill men with prostate cancer, and that's why we've had these adverse reactions.
Yes, exactly.
Yet this drug that is supposed to be used in that way, or in other cases where people are suffering from actual, real, physical problems, a drug meant for that, designed for that, is being given to physically healthy children, whose only problem is that they are confused about their gender, and they're probably only confused about it because their parents haven't helped to clarify the issue.
In most of these cases, even the confusion itself, which is not a physical problem, but even the confusion itself in most of these cases is going to go back to parenting.
But don't worry, says NBC, Lupron is just, you know, it's just chemically castrating those children.
That's all.
Most of the people who die from it are adults.
Sure, we don't really know the risks inherent in suppressing the normal growth and development of children who are confused about their gender.
We don't really know all the risks.
We don't really know what it's doing to them long-term.
We have no real sample size at all.
Okay, you're not going to find a lot of adults who are in their 50s now and have been on this stuff for 40 years.
Or who used this, you know, or who, or who used this 40 years ago.
So.
We don't really exactly know, but NBC says, but I don't, you know, don't worry.
It's probably not killing them.
It's probably the people that are dying from it, probably the adults.
Um, and, uh, and as far as we know anyway, and so we don't have to worry about it, but forget about the adverse side effects for a minute.
All right.
The desired effect.
The desired effect of a drug like Lupron in a healthy child is adverse.
So, we're not talking about adverse side effects.
Let's talk about the adverse effects.
The main effects.
It is intended to interfere with the normal, natural development of the child.
The whole point is to force their bodies to artificially remain in a prepubescent state.
That's what the drugs are being used for.
If anything, the Daily Wire vastly understated the dangers involved in this practice, because that wasn't the subject of the article.
I don't think there was anything dishonest there, but the subject of the article was about the side effects.
But if anything, that leaves aside, that paints a, in some ways, rosier picture than what is actually the case.
Because the primary effect, the desired, stated primary effect of these drugs is itself horrible.
So we don't even need to get into any of the rest of it.
Now, NBC quotes a guy named Dr. Jack Turbin who discussed the hazards of, quote, allowing puberty to progress.
That's a quote from the NBC article.
That's a quote, them quoting Dr. Jack Turbin.
Them uncritically quoting him when he says that, you know, there can be problems with, quote, allowing puberty to progress.
Allowing it to progress?
See, puberty is not a disease.
It isn't cancer.
Prostate cancer is cancer.
That's why Lupron makes sense in those cases.
But doctors like Jack Turban want to treat a healthy, normal stage of growth as some sort of malignancy.
Now, if NBC was a real news outlet, which it isn't, but if it were, it would be debunking I wouldn't be trying to debunk The Daily Wire or me.
It would be debunking the great fraud that's being perpetrated by the medical industry at the expense of these innocent children.
At the very least, it would express some level of skepticism at the claim that puberty should literally be treated like cancer if a child is confused about his gender.
They have no skepticism of that.
They don't ask any questions.
So I say it again.
These doctors are literally treating puberty like cancer.
They are prescribing the same things for it that they would for cancer to stop puberty, which is normal and healthy.
It is part of growing for a child.
No skepticism from not just NBC, but any of these left-wing outlets.
Much less moral indignation, which is what there really should be.
These slayers of the fake news dragon are more than happy to present radical, far-left, crazy gender theory as fact.
They just put it out there as fact.
They don't need to do nothing.
But this whole, this is radical, far-left, this is way into Looney Tuneville stuff we're talking about.
And NBC just puts it out there, says, yep, this is how it is.
They even, in their headline of the article, they call puberty blockers trans healthcare.
That's how they refer to it.
In the headline, they say trans healthcare.
Because, you know, conservatives are attacking trans healthcare, quote-unquote.
No indication that this form of, quote, healthcare is, to put it mildly, controversial.
They don't even bother saying, you know, Alleged trans healthcare, or what is reported to be by some trans healthcare, or controversial trans healthcare.
They don't put any kind of qualifier in front of it all, they just say it's healthcare.
And now a quick word from our friends at Calming Comfort.
You know, every night, probably like you, I try to fall asleep.
But there are days when anxiety and stress and everything keeps me awake.
No matter what I take, no matter what I do, I'm just lying there, trying to count the sheep.
That doesn't work.
Finally, I tried Calming Comfort by Sharper Image, the luxurious weighted blanket that helps you relax so you can fall asleep and stay asleep naturally.
Guys, I gotta admit, I was a weighted blanket skeptic.
I think I can say that.
I was a skeptic about it.
Everyone's talking about the weighted blankets, and I thought, well, how in the world can adding weight to a blanket make any difference whatsoever?
Well, I have now been converted, hallelujah.
There is no need to suffer through another sleepless night with Calm and Comfort.
Calm and Comfort is designed, and this is how it works, with high-density comfort fill to provide exactly the right amount of weight to help your body relax.
Calm and Comfort applies an even amount of pressure over your body to help the production of serotonin and melatonin, Simulating deep touch pressure stimulation and that's sort of the science behind it.
The main thing though is just that it does help.
It's made with super soft velveteen material and designed to promote a sense of calmness and relaxation for a more restful night's sleep and you wake up and you just feel a lot better.
The Calm and Comfort Weighted Blanket comes with a 90-day, anxiety-free, stress-free, best night's sleep of your life guarantee from Sharper Image.
Right now, just for our listeners, you can go to calmingcomfortblanket.com, use promo code WALSH at checkout to receive 15% off the displayed price.
And because you can't put a price on a great night's sleep, go online now at calmingcomfortblanket.com and use promo code WALSH for your special discount today.
Now, in reality, of course, no drug could ever be an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, no matter the age.
I suppose I should say, no drug that physically alters the healthy development of a child could ever be an effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
Now whether there could be some kind of mental, some sort of drug dealing, some psychotropic kind of drug, that I would be very skeptical of too.
But this is a mental disorder though.
That's the point.
Gender dysphoria, which is what we're talking about here, this is not a physical disorder.
This is something going on in the mind.
And I think, and one of the reasons I'd be very skeptical of using any kind of drug, Is that, as I said before, I think in most of these cases it really just comes down to parenting.
It's very simple.
In most of these cases.
Maybe not all, but most.
The gender dysphoric person feels trapped inside a body that doesn't match.
That's a direct quote.
I'm using a phrase from the National Health Service in the UK.
That's how they describe it.
Trapped inside a body that doesn't match.
Quote unquote.
Um, that obviously cannot be anything but a mental disorder.
Obviously.
It should go without saying that a person cannot actually be trapped in the wrong body.
That can't actually be happening.
So if a person feels like that's the case, it's something going on in the mind.
Obviously, that's the only thing it can be.
Because our minds are not these entirely separate entities that are placed inside our bodies on some sort of cosmic assembly line, and something might go wrong in the factory manufacturing process, and the wrong mind is put into the wrong body.
That can't happen.
Obviously, that can't be the case.
So this is a very strange sort of dualism that you find going on.
The people that would affirm this idea that, yeah, maybe their mind doesn't match their body, that is the weirdest kind of dualism.
This is superstitious.
And what makes it even more absurd is that most of the people who subscribe to this and who would affirm it and say, somehow it really can happen, that you can end up in the wrong body, Most of them, probably if you ask them, given that this is mostly on the left side of the spectrum, probably most of them don't even believe in a human soul.
Which is the only way that you can even begin to make sense of that.
Certainly, if we have no soul, then it's just our brain and our body.
We are our body and nothing more.
So, whatever your body is, that's you.
That's it.
That's all there is to it.
There's nothing else.
That's just you.
If you feel like you're supposed to be something else, or you are, you're just, you're mistaken.
Why you're mistaken?
Well, that's when we get into, is there something going on in the brain?
Is there something going on with how you were raised?
Whatever.
Is it some of both?
So, when you leave the soul aside, there is no way to make sense of this at all.
It just, it cannot be.
You are your body.
That's it.
There cannot be any mismatching.
But even if you bring the soul into it, it still doesn't make any sense.
Because even from the perspective of most people who believe in souls, it's not like your body is some sort of container and your soul is just placed inside it, poured inside it like a liquid.
That's not it.
And even if it was that way, Well, the only person that could do the pouring of the soul would be God, and I think we can assume that he's not going to make a mistake and put the wrong soul in the wrong body.
So, no matter how you look at it, no matter what your metaphysics are, no matter if you're religious or not, there's no way to look at this other than if someone feels that way, they are mistaken, they are deluded, they are suffering, then either from terrible parenting or a mental disorder or both.
That's it.
I can no more have the wrong sex than I can have the wrong left pinky finger or the wrong eye color.
I am who I am, biologically speaking.
I cannot be anything more than that, anything other than that, no matter how I might feel about it.
If I have trouble accepting my biological nature, then the correct treatment must involve and must be directed towards helping me to accept it.
If I have trouble accepting something that is inevitably and permanently and immutably true, such as my biological identity, Then correct and good treatment would be all about helping me to accept it.
It would not ever involve deforming, mutilating, poisoning, or castrating me, or suppressing my healthy physical development in any way, just to conform more with my delusional beliefs about myself.
It could never involve that.
Because that would be exact- it would be like If you had an anorexic come in, another kind of body dysmorphia, an anorexic, someone who's, you know, think of someone who's rail thin, has an eating disorder, feels like they're overweight.
They're not.
They think they are.
It's a mental health problem and they are suffering.
It is very real suffering.
It is potentially fatal.
So what do we do with someone like that?
We help them to realize Who they really are, which is not an overweight person.
We help them to see that what they perceive about themselves is incorrect.
But honestly, and I don't say this as a joke at all.
This is not a joke.
To me, it seems when you have a child who's 8 years old or 9 years old, 10 years old, it doesn't matter how old the person is.
When it's a child, it just makes it all the worse.
But when you got a child, a boy, as he feels like he's a girl, Putting him on puberty blockers so that he can look more like what he feels like, even though how he feels is wrong.
Not wrong morally, like there's something morally wrong, but it's just wrong factually.
Doing that, it would be like an anorexic person coming and saying they feel overweight, and so what you prescribe for them is a funhouse mirror.
Like at a carnival, you know those mirrors that you look at, it makes you look like you're 200 pounds heavier than you are.
That's what it's like.
Because what you're doing is you're saying, this person has delusional feelings about themselves, so I'm going to help them see themselves more in that diluted light.
I mean, it is like sending an anorexic home with a funhouse mirror and diet pills.
Laxatives.
Saying, well, this is how you feel about yourself, so it must be true.
Here's diet pills, here's laxatives, here's a mirror so that you can better see your true self.
But of course we would never do that, because that would be cruel and insane, psychotic, to do that to somebody.
I mean, you're basically murdering them, is what you're doing.
We would never do that with someone like that.
But with a child, Who has a very basic confusion and a confusion that probably nine times out of ten can be easily corrected.
What we do instead is we start to mess with their bodies and mutilate and deform them.
It is unbelievably evil.
And NBC News has nothing but thumbs up and approval for it.
And now a word from Noom.
Well, you know, I must admit that I myself, I'm not good at breaking bad habits.
I'm not good at forming good habits.
Is anyone?
I don't know.
I certainly, I'm certainly not.
And the thing is, if you want to get healthy, if you want to get in shape, If you want to make those changes in your life, it's got to start with breaking the bad habits and forming good ones.
It has to start on that level, and that's where Noom comes in.
That's what Noom is all about.
Noom is a habit-changing solution that helps users to learn to develop a new relationship with food through personalized courses.
Based in psychology, Noom teaches you why you do the things you do, and then it arms you with the tools to break the bad habits and form better ones.
They say that it's based on cognitive behavioral, it's the cognitive behavioral approach.
Those words are too complicated for me.
It works.
It's as simple as that.
That's all you need to know.
Noom is not a diet.
It is a healthy and easy-to-stick-to way of life.
No food is good or bad or off-limits in and of itself.
Noom teaches moderation.
And it can be used in conjunction with many pre-existing popular diets, if that's what you want to do.
You don't have to change it all in one day.
Small steps make a big, big difference.
Sign up for your trial today at Noom, N-O-O-M.com slash Walsh.
What do you have to lose?
Visit Noom.com slash Walsh to start your trial today.
That's Noom.com slash Walsh, the last weight loss program you're ever going to need.
All right, let's Let's go to this.
We'll lighten the mood a little bit, so to speak.
In a way, we're doing the opposite.
Because more footage of Justin Trudeau in blackface has surfaced.
And I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I just wanted to... I mean, I have to play it just so you can see.
If you didn't see this going around online, here's the video.
There's no sound or anything.
And what you see, that's not... I don't know exactly when this is from, I think we have more footage of Trudeau in blackface than not in blackface.
Has he ever not been in blackface?
much further back than that.
But he's, who knows?
Because this guy just, this guy loves blackface.
At this point, I think we have more footage of Trudeau in blackface than in not in blackface.
Has he ever not been in black?
Do we, have we ever actually seen Justin Trudeau without the blackface?
I'm now, I'm starting to lose count because it just, every day it's another thing.
But you see, it's not just blackface, he's got black knees too.
He's painted his whole body.
He went all out.
He's got the wig, he's got everything.
This is... I mean, what you see there is... I said last week or two weeks ago when this stuff first started coming out that Um, it's, of course, it's totally inappropriate.
Justin Trudeau deserves to be criticized for it.
He should be held to his own standards.
He would be the first one to call someone else racist for this.
But I said, at the time, a couple weeks ago, that, okay, that thing where he was, originally he was at a talent show or something, was that what it was?
Or no, he was dressed as Aladdin at a costume party, right?
That was the first one we saw.
And I said, yeah, inappropriate.
Objectively speaking, I don't know that if I would call it racist, Because I don't think we could say he had racist intent, though that's what he would say about someone else, so we should hold him to his own standard again.
But now, with more of this stuff coming out, it's hard not to see it as just straight-up racist.
You look at that costume, how do you look at that as anything other than straight-up racist?
And how did he not know?
So to believe it's not racist, we would have to believe that he didn't know, that it was totally innocent.
He had no idea that there was anything wrong with this.
But even if that footage is back from the 90s or something, I remember the 90s.
Okay, I was a kid in the 90s.
And I knew in the 90s that you don't dress up in blackface.
I knew that as a kid in the 90s.
A child.
So how did he not know that?
And if he knew and he did it anyway, then it seems like we may have real racist intent here.
Either way, but hold on a second, there's actually more to this clip, because this is from some boating trip or something that Trudeau went on, and there's a little bit more to it.
Watch this.
Okay, you've got no sound again, but you've got a guy who appears to be on drugs, acting like an ostrich, I guess, or something.
And then the other guy with the whitest dance moves of all time.
So what is happening here?
Was Trudeau trying to balance out?
I mean, what is it?
What's going on?
You've got a couple of the whitest things you've ever seen.
That dancing.
Now, I'm no dancer myself, but that's the whitest dancing I've ever seen.
That's it.
If you look up white dancing in the dictionary, it's that.
It is exactly that, to a T.
So was Trudeau trying to balance out the whitest thing ever to happen?
A corny white dude dancing in a clown wig?
On a rafting trip?
Was he trying to balance that out?
Was he concerned that the sheer volume of whiteness might rip open a hole in the space-time continuum?
And so he needed to- I don't know.
Who knows?
I'm just theorizing.
But I think we need to talk to Trudeau about this.
We need answers.
Who is the ostrich man?
Who's the dancing man?
What is he dancing to?
I'm guessing Smash Mouth.
We need to find out.
We need to know.
Trudeau must answer for this.
Alright, by the way, one other thing before we get... Before we get back to a very serious topic, there's a headline from page 6 I wanted to show you also.
The headline, you'll take a look at it here, it says, Kate Middleton re-wears blue Alexander McQueen coat for
fourth time.
I just wanted to show you that because this is just more evidence that society is
deteriorating around us.
Fourth time?
Fourth time!
Disgusting.
Personally, I wear my coats once.
I throw them out after that like a civilized person.
I walk in my door.
I toss my coat at the feet of my butler, William.
I say, William, dispose of that immediately.
It displeases me.
I'm shocked to learn that Kate Middleton lacks my class and sophistication.
I am completely floored by that.
Shameful.
All right.
Okay, so last thing before we get to emails, and I've been stalling, as maybe you can tell, because I really don't want to talk about this, because it's so horrifying and stomach churning, and I almost feel bad.
I'm not bringing this to you as the viewer or listener, but I think I have to because it's important, and it's necessary that we face it.
The New York Times has done some real journalism.
Every once in a while they do some real journalism, and here's an example of it.
This is real journalism, and it's about the proliferation of child pornography on the internet.
The problem, well, you knew the problem was bad, right?
I think we all knew that.
But it's worse than you thought.
It's certainly worse than I thought.
Much worse.
I'm not going to read the whole lengthy report that they just published.
I think it was yesterday they published it.
I recommend you go and look up the article titled, The Internet is Overrun with Images of Child Sexual Abuse.
What Went Wrong?
Now, I warn you, it is very, very, very disturbing, infuriating, sickening.
It does include some descriptions of some of the things that police have uncovered in their, so far, mostly futile attempts to fight this problem.
It is, like I said, much worse in volume than I think we realized.
Consider this.
According to the Times report, in 1998, there were 3,000 images of child sexual abuse online, which is a lot.
We can all agree.
In 2008, there was 100,000.
In 2008, there was 100,000.
Today, 10 years after that, and 20 years, about 20 years after 1998 when there were
3,000 images.
45 million.
From 100,000 10 years ago, 45 million.
images and videos of child sex abuse online. 45 million.
From 100,000 10 years ago, 45 million.
I mean, 10 years from now, what's it going to be? There's an exponential growth rate that has been
happening ever since the internet was a thing, right?
Ever since the internet was basically a household item in the late 90s, there's been this exponential growth, infestation, maybe it's a better word, of child pornography, and it's not slowing down.
It's speeding up, in fact.
And much of it is the worst and most evil and depraved kind of stuff you could possibly imagine.
Very young kids, infants in some cases, being tortured and raped.
And this stuff is being shared through encrypted messages, hidden on dark web forums, where thousands and thousands of people go to share and view it.
Like I said, go to the New York Times and read that.
I think it's important for us all to know what's out there.
And this is the kind of thing that, as a society, we should be focusing on.
This is a problem.
And it should be something that we can all agree on.
It's one of the only things that we should all be able to agree.
This is a huge problem.
Something has to be done.
And drastic steps have to be taken.
I would think that all those three points we could all agree.
The article goes into detail about the trouble that law enforcement has in controlling this because these child raping scumbags are experts in the technology that they need to hide their tracks.
Now think about how monstrous these people are.
That they have, you know, they have become experts in this technology.
They have learned it.
In some cases better than the FBI knows it just so that they can engage in this kind of activity.
So the question obviously is and this is what the article deals with the question is what do you do about it?
How do you get rid of this stuff?
I think one thing is.
You have to put a lot more legal pressure on Facebook, Google, all these companies to seek this stuff out.
Not just to try to censor it once it's reported to them, but to seek it out, to find it on their own platforms, in their own networks.
And to not just shut it down, but to find where it's coming from.
So there needs to be more of an effort on that end.
But here's something else I think we should do.
That the article does not talk about.
I think we need, and this isn't going to solve the problem, I know that, but I think it could at least make a dent in it.
And it is the right thing to do.
We need the death penalty for child pornographers, and it needs to be public.
There are people raping and torturing toddlers and sharing it online, and these people are, they're not people, they are beasts.
They are animals.
They have forfeited their claim to humanity.
They have forfeited their right to live.
It's just, it's gone.
They don't have it.
They have no right to be alive.
As far as I could see it.
And I think society has to act with swift and righteous and uncompromising vengeance.
Yes, vengeance against these people.
Because, you know, it's not just About deterring, although it is partly that.
And like I said, this isn't going to solve the problem, but I do think it will have some deterring effect.
It has to.
When these child raping scumbags start to see that their friends and their little pornography networks, not so little, unfortunately, networks online, are being caught and hung, executed for it.
I would think that would have to have some effect on you, psychologically.
But even if it had no deterring effect, it's not just about that.
It's not just about deterring.
It's not just about segregating dangerous people from society, although it's partly about that too.
It's not just about, you know, saving money so we don't have to provide for these people in prison for the next 40 years of their worthless, pathetic lives, although it's partly about that.
It is also, along with those things, it is also just It is vengeance.
Righteous vengeance.
Where we are saying, you have done the worst thing a person can do.
And you have victimized children in horrific ways that will be with them forever.
And so now you are going to face the consequences.
On behalf of these victims and on behalf of society in general, this is vengeance.
And so you're gonna die.
We're not gonna put you in jail for 20 years and let you get out and do it again.
We're not gonna... No, nothing like that.
You have your trial, you're convicted.
Shortly thereafter, we take you out, we hang you.
And we throw you in an unmarked grave.
Because that's all you are.
You don't deserve to be remembered as a person.
I really believe that this is the only correct approach.
This is the moral and right approach to these kinds of crimes.
And not just this.
Um, as you know, as I've talked about on the show, my thinking on issues like the death penalty has evolved considerably.
And now I am, I've wrestled with it for a long time, but the more and more I've thought about it, and especially in relation to crimes like this, I just cannot see any other appropriate way to deal with them.
I read a story, I just read a report about a child pornographer in Kentucky.
Who is found guilty of dozens of counts of child pornography.
And you know, by the way, that somebody's found guilty of, whatever, 15 counts of child pornography.
You know the actual number is a thousand times that.
Okay, because people don't have... People don't just look at child pornography a couple of times.
This is just what they do.
They're obsessed with it.
So anyway, 15 confirmed counts of child pornography, and what the article says is he's facing 30 years in prison, which means that's the top.
That's the most he might get.
And he probably won't even get that.
And even if he does get that, he'll probably be out before that.
He'll probably get paroled before that.
That's just not nearly enough.
That doesn't come anywhere close to society expressing It's absolute outrage and disgust and anger, all of which are righteous at men like this.
Okay, let's...
And I know that this law will never happen.
What I'm proposing will never happen, I realize that.
And even if someone did try to move in that direction, we're going to run into the problem that the Supreme Court has said that it's unconstitutional to execute child rapists, which is crazy.
I think it's one of their worst decisions they've ever passed, and they've passed some bad ones.
So you'd have a Supreme Court issue as well.
But although I think that... Now, I believe that what the Supreme Court has dealt with in the past are issues of can you... Can you execute child molesters, rapists, and so on?
When you deal specifically with, well, what about those people who do this and then also are part of a network of child pornographers online?
So I think maybe there might be a loophole you could get through there.
a loophole into which you can stuff these people's necks and close it around them.
Okay, let's go to emails. matwalshowatgmail.com, matwalshowatgmail.com.
We're going to wrap evolution up.
We're going to settle the whole evolution debate.
It's going to be settled after this.
We've talked about it a couple times now in the email section.
So I'll do a few more emails and then that'll be it.
Because after that I'm sure we all have agreed now.
We've all come to the conclusion.
The same conclusion, right?
This is from Bill.
Says, Dear Matt, I'm writing in response to your discussion of evolution last week.
I think your dismissal of the irreducible complexity objection to Darwin's natural selection working on random variation was too facile.
I recommend most highly the works of the godfather of irreducible complexity, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behi, Darwin's black box, etc.
But quickly, the point is a genuine case of irreducible complexity, if it exists at all, doesn't have a gradual Darwinian step-by-tiny-step formation storyline.
Behi uses the example of a mouse trap.
There are several parts, all of which need to be present for the trap to function at all.
If, for example, You start with the wooden platform and then add a spring.
You don't go from catching no mice to catching some mice.
You still catch no mice.
This is true from any combination of its parts, except the final completed combination of its parts.
In your dismissal of irreducible complexity, you offer the emergence of the vertebrate eye as an example.
I would argue, I would agree that half an eye is better than a quarter of an eye, which is better than a light-sensitive spot.
But that scenario, if it's a legitimate storyline for the emergence of the eye, has intermediate with increasing functional capacity to recommend themselves to the natural selection subcommittee deciding its fate.
A genuine case of irreducible complexity, of which I think the bacterial flagellum is an example, has no hypothetical intermediate stage, which has any function to recommend its stay of execution.
Knockout experiments demonstrate that when individual component parts of its structure are removed, the whole structure is not just less efficient at its job, it doesn't do its job at all.
This is the rub for a Darwinian explanation.
And if this were just an isolated example in a sea of easily explicable cases, It could probably be chalked up to biochemical pathway ignorance.
But as I understand the demographics of cells, there is a very large and continually growing contingent of irreducibly complex entities.
And one more thing, Behe, I think, is also a Roman Catholic with no axe to grind when it comes to evolution.
He thinks there's good evidence to support common descent, but still only sees evidence for a limited scope for the efficacy of natural selection working on random variation.
See his book, The Edge of Evolution.
Yeah, the flagellum is a tough case.
I got a lot of emails about that.
I certainly admit it's a tough case.
It's a good point.
I also admit that I don't know nearly enough about cellular biology to speak very extensively on the subject.
If I tried to go into detail, I probably would embarrass myself.
From what I understand, Well, first of all, speaking of the flagellum in general is, from what I understand, a little bit confusing because there are many different, there are different flagella and they vary in what they do and what they look like.
So there's more variation already than maybe your argument lets on.
And from what I understand, there are plenty of theories and ideas as to how these flagella may have been formed.
I don't think this is an argument that makes a biologist stop and go, wow, well, it's impossible then for evolution to be true.
But I think that's what you would need to prove, right?
You would need to prove, you or Behe or whoever else, not just that it's unlikely or hard to understand, or even that we don't know how it happened.
Because you can't do essentially a creationism of the gaps thing, where you point out the gaps and you say, current scientific understanding cannot explain this, and so therefore I'm correct.
So you can't do that.
You would need to show that it is impossible, that there is no possible way that evolution could work through natural selection on something like the flagellum.
And I don't think that that has been shown or proved.
So for me it comes down to that.
When, as we talked about last week, a theory is all about explaining natural phenomena.
Well, almost no theory that I can think of off the top of my head can explain everything.
There are still going to be gaps in our understanding.
Now, the point is that those gaps have been closing steadily.
As we learn more about the natural world and how things work.
But the presence of gaps doesn't in and of itself prove whatever competing theory true.
Especially if that competing theory has a number of gaps itself.
And that's one of the reasons why, I know you didn't bring this up, but this is one of the reasons why, and some people took me to task because I sort of waved off the fossil issue.
As if it's irrelevant.
Now, it's not irrelevant.
I don't think I said it's irrelevant.
I said it's not nearly as relevant as when you get into genetics and you get into that level of things.
But the problem with bringing fossils up is, as I said, vast, vast, vast majority of life forms never do fossilize.
That's just the reality.
The vast majority of those that do are not going to be found because we're not excavating the entire Earth.
Inevitably, by the nature of the thing, there are going to be fossils you don't find.
You're going to find gaps in the fossil records.
Of course you are.
It would be unreasonable to demand that every single fossil be found and that you could show it.
Of course not.
So the problem is when people who deny evolution come along and they point to those fossil gaps and they say, there you go, we've been proven correct.
You haven't been proven correct by the absence of this or that thing.
I think what you have to do, and I think you mentioned this, Bill, and I agree with you, that you have to look at the totality.
You have to look at the cumulative case that both theories can make.
Not based on the absence of evidence of the other theory, but based on their own evidence.
What actual, real evidence can you bring forward to actively prove your own theory?
And I think when you look at it on that level, I still think the evolutionary theory has just way more evidence to recommend itself from my perspective.
This is from Steve, says, Matt, Darwinism evolution was intended to show that there is no design or purpose in nature, but that it is undirected and random.
It is a materialistic theory that promotes the belief that there is nothing beyond matter and energy.
There is no supernatural.
There is no God.
There is no designer or designer.
Design or designer.
It is incompatible with Christianity or any religion that believes in supernatural forces.
Aside from the fact that there are questions that I have not had answered by evolutionists, which came first, plant life or animal life?
How do creatures evolve digestive systems to meet a different environment over thousands or millions of years?
Creatures that starve to death can't reproduce to have those changes evolve.
How did sexual reproduction evolve?
How does a land creature evolve into a sea creature without dying and vice versa?
How would the body of a creature know how to develop the systems necessary to live in a completely new environment over thousands or millions of years?
If you say that anything is possible with enough time and chance, as evolution requires, isn't that just magic and not science?
Darwin's theory is not fact, and when honestly examined with science, it falls apart.
The Darwinist faithful do not want to let go of it because it allows them to have a godless, purely materialistic explanation of the world that they desire.
I suggest Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution to illustrate how Darwinists use misleading
and false information to promote their disproven theory.
Okay, Steve, I'm not going to dissect every sentence of this email.
I think there are a number of problems here.
First of all, it's a claim that evolution has been disproven.
I mean, you can go ahead and make the argument that you're not convinced by it, because for this or that reason, and go ahead and make that argument.
I'm not saying that that's a stupid argument to make, but to say that it's been disproven, that's just incorrect.
I don't, you know, I doubt Among people who understand the science, who really understand it, and who don't accept evolution, I don't think any of them would say that evolution has been quote, disproven.
Because disproven, to disprove, that is a, you're setting the bar for the burden of proof, for you, is extremely high.
And you're going to have to do a lot better than what you just did to disprove it.
As far as people just want to believe in Darwinism because it allows them to have a godless universe, that's just, well, how do you explain me then?
I mean, right?
A statement like that, I can disprove that right now just with myself.
So I can prove that that is certainly at least not the only possible reason why somebody might believe in evolution.
Somebody might believe in it, quote-unquote, because they really just think that's where the evidence points, and that's where I fall.
I don't have any axe to grind with religion, obviously.
And there are plenty of other Christians and members of other religions.
Now, you might say, oh, you can't possibly be religious and believe in evolution.
Well, yeah, but a lot of people are.
You can argue that they shouldn't be or that they don't understand or whatever, but to try to get into motivation, And to say, well, the only reason why somebody would believe in this is because they're trying to disprove God, that obviously is not true.
I can say from experience, that is not true.
What else here?
I didn't want to overlook anything.
And then, OK, the various questions you asked about how do you get from plant life to animal
life and so on, beings evolving out of the water
and then onto land, and in some cases, going back into the water, like would be the case with, say,
for instance, whales.
Well, you mentioned it in your other paragraph that really, for a lot of that stuff,
it does come down to time.
That when you think of things on the scale that we tend to think of things, which for us, quick
would be an hour, and a long time would be a day or a year or even a lifetime.
That's how we think of things.
So on that scale, all the questions you just asked are unanswerable.
It is.
It's impossible to understand.
Evolutionary theory on the scale that we think about things.
But when you think of things on the time scale, and you consider that Earth has been around for 4 billion years, and life at its most rudimentary level has probably existed for 3 billion years, which means you've got a billion years of no life before you even get to life, then another 3 billion years, basically, to get from that most rudimentary level to human beings.
When you consider that timescale, I think it handles most of your questions.
And that's not a cop-out.
The time is very important, so you have to keep going back to it.
And I do believe...
That I'm not saying this is the case for everybody, but many people who doubt evolution, I think for a lot of them, part of the reason they doubt it is because they haven't totally considered the time scale that we're talking about and what it really means.
Or if they're young Earth creationists, because of their theology, which I think is mistaken, they can't consider it on that time.
So they're thinking of everything in the terms of 6,000 years.
Now, that's true.
If the whole universe is 6,000 years old, then yeah, there's no time for any of this stuff to have happened.
And so evolution couldn't be the case.
But I think the universe is, in fact, 14 billion years, and the Earth is about 4 to 5 billion years old.
All right, from Andrew says, Hi Matt, my reason for rejecting evolution is maybe too simple, but I'll be honest, I reject it because it is clear to me that human life is just too incredible, too beautiful to have been the product of blind chance.
Even animal life, eagles, bears, dogs, etc.
is all way too majestic and wonderful.
I know this isn't a scientific answer, but that's how I feel.
Well, first of all, I don't apologize for making an argument that isn't scientific exactly.
There's nothing wrong with making an argument like that.
I get what you're saying.
I suspect that probably most people on your side of the issue would agree that this is one of their main reasons for rejecting evolution.
It's a very visceral reason where you look and you see how incredible human life is, how beautiful so much of life is, and you think, well, there's no way that evolution can explain that.
I would make two points, though.
Number one, nobody is talking about blind chance.
Natural selection as a mechanism for facilitating evolution is not chance.
It's sort of the opposite of chance, really.
As far as blind, well, I guess, I suppose an atheist would have to say that it's blind, in a sense.
Yeah.
I don't think it's blind, though.
So I would say that it's neither blind nor chance.
And anyone who accepts evolution would agree, at a minimum, that it's not chance.
Yes, the genetic mutations are random, but the process of natural selection is not random, is not a roll of the dice.
It couldn't be.
If it was, then yeah, there's no way you could have anything that we see around us explained by evolution.
But that's not what the theory says.
So I would say it's not blind orchid.
Second, to the sort of aesthetic argument of how beautiful life is, I agree.
Human life is beautiful.
Bears and eagles are majestic.
Totally agree with that.
The problem, though, is that this argument cuts both ways.
And I think it cuts more against you than for you.
Because the world is also host to some very, I would say, not beautiful lifeforms.
Or at least some lifeforms that would be very difficult.
Some lifeforms that only their mothers could love.
I'll put it that way.
Think of the wasp that lays its eggs inside a caterpillar's body and then its babies eat the caterpillar from the inside.
And this is how the wasp lives.
This is how the wasp reproduces and survives.
This is what it does.
It's not just that some of these wasps do this.
This is the behavior of the entire species.
Think of tapeworms that can only survive inside the intestines of larger organisms.
Think of spiders that eat their mates and eat their own babies.
Think of parasitic fungi that take over the brains of ants and turn them into zombies.
There are many, many, many examples of this kind of thing.
Life that it would be very hard to call majestic or beautiful.
Head lice, mosquitoes, on and on and on.
Now, on evolution, the proliferation of parasitic types of species is very easy to explain.
In fact, it's what you would expect, even if you didn't know that any of these life forms existed.
You knew about the theory of evolution, you would predict that probably these kinds of creatures are out there because it makes sense on a Darwinian model, right?
But on the view that God individually and specifically created each species apart from any natural process of evolution, well then you have to explain why God would make the wasp that lays its eggs inside a caterpillar's body, or the tapeworm that must live inside the bellies of third world people, or the mosquito that sucks blood and spreads disease.
On a view that God allows evolution to operate, to work, according to its own laws and processes, on that view, then this problem becomes a little bit less of a problem.
But on your view, I think you've got some splaying to do.
I think it becomes much more... So it's sort of similar.
We talked last week about Calvinism and I said how the problem of suffering is a difficult challenge for any theist to meet.
It's one of those problems that we wrestle with and you think about and everything.
On a non-Calvinistic view, it's not a devastating problem.
It's not like it has to make you abandon your belief in God.
There are ways of dealing with it, especially because you have something like free will.
And that can explain not all of the suffering in the world, but a lot of it, where God allows people to make choices.
But I said on the Calvinistic view, it seems like the problem of suffering is totally devastating and insurmountable.
Because then you really are specifically blaming God for all of the suffering, where God engineers everything.
There really is no free will, and everything is directly done, conducted by God as this sort of puppet master, this cosmic puppet master figure.
So I think on Calvinism, the problem of suffering is very difficult.
It's basically insurmountable.
I would say that on the anti-evolution, view, the issues raised by some of these rather horrific life forms that are parasitic and that can only survive by victimizing other forms of life, I think on the non-evolutionary view it raises some pretty tough theological questions.
It's not insurmountable like Calvinism is, so it's not the exact same relationship like it is between the problem of suffering and Calvinism.
I think there are ways, you know, I'm sure there are ways you could probably explain it.
I'm just trying to point out that the issue you bring up, it does cut both ways, as I said.
And I do think it cuts more against you than for you.
Whereas for me, as someone who thinks that evolution is true, I would say again that it's a similar sort of idea to free will.
Not that it is free will, but God gives us free will.
That's how the world works.
We are allowed to make choices.
And that includes bad choices.
Same thing with evolution.
That's how the world works, as decided by God, and so it's going to have certain results.
Not all of them are going to be especially pleasant.
All right, we will leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching and listening.
I should have one more show tomorrow before I'm off for a few days.
My wife is scheduled.
We have it now scheduled for the baby to make her appearance.
So one more show tomorrow, and hope you guys have a great night.
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 Gelliwire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The 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.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
