Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 6, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

45:07

Ep. 365 - A Disgraceful Stunt

The New York Times turns a slaughter of Mormons by a Mexican cartel into a discussion of religious fundamentalism. Is this the Times' most disgraceful stunt yet? Also, speaking of stunts, white nationalists crashed my Q&A last night. And Kamala Harris has a plan to ensure that school kids never see their families. Date: 11-06-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the show, everybody.
	Yesterday, you probably heard about the tragic slaughter of a group of Mormons and U.S.
	citizens who were traveling in Mexico near the U.S.
	border.
	Donald Trump tweeted about it.
	They were killed in an attack by a cartel.
	Six children, three women died, shot while they were in their cars, and then the cars were set on fire.
	Some of the kids were also taken hostages, I believe.
	Now, it's a terrible case, obviously, unthinkable, and to heap Insult on top of unthinkable tragedy the New York Times yesterday when when reporting on this incident and I really believe that this well It now this is quite a statement so I know I know it but this might be The most disgraceful stunt that I can remember the New York Times pulling and that's that is saying quite a lot but they published an article and and here is their headline or summary of it on Twitter anyway and
	It says, the brutal killing of nine members of an American family in northern Mexico on Monday highlights the long history of religious fundamentalist settlers in the region.
	Our religion reporter, Elizabeth Diaz, details their history back to the early 20th century.
	Really, New York Times?
	Is that what it highlights?
	It highlights religious fundamentalism.
	So when you hear about a cartel attack, Killing women and children.
	The first thing you think about is, I wonder what the history of religious fundamentalism is in Mexico.
	That is amazing.
	It's also important to keep in mind, in case you're, for whatever reason, so generous that you would want to give the New York Times the benefit of doubt on this, you have to keep in mind that to the media, religious fundamentalist is invariably an insult.
	Now, I don't think it necessarily is or should be.
	I think a religious fundamentalist is literally someone who follows or subscribes to the fundamentals of their religion.
	I think there are people who are called religious fundamentalists who maybe aren't.
	But that's, to me, what a religious fundamentalist, that's what the word should mean.
	So I suppose if I were to call somebody that, it's not necessarily an insult.
	But if we're trying to ascertain the Times' motivation, What their real intent is, then it's clear that they meant to insult these people, because for the media, fundamentalist is always pejorative.
	And on top of insulting the dead, they're also, of course, completely deflecting from the real thing that is highlighted by this story, which should be obvious to everybody, and that would be violence and chaos on the border, the danger posed by drug cartels, etc.
	Um, now, why do we think the media doesn't want to go that direction?
	Why don't they want to talk about that?
	Well, that's, that's pretty obvious because with our media, everything is ideological.
	They see everything immediately through an ideological lens.
	They really can't even help it.
	It's just how their minds work.
	And it's not to give them an excuse, but that's just to show how incompetent they are and how incapable they are of doing their jobs.
	Um, but they see everything ideologically.
	And so they're, they just, they, they cannot admit.
	That this story could at all be a reflection on why, for example, we should be enforcing the border and so on.
	By the way, remember how the media referred to Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, after he was killed?
	Remember the Washington Post, they called him an austere religious scholar.
	So, Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, was an austere religious scholar.
	While these victims of cartel violence are fundamentalists.
	Do you think the New York Times would ever publish an article about ISIS that, you know, talks about the history of Islamic fundamentalism in the region?
	No, they would never do that.
	So, Baghdadi, religious scholar, Mormons killed by cartels are fundamentalists.
	Think about that.
	Okay, much to talk about today, including my speech that I gave at CSU last night in LA, and some drama in the Q&A when white nationalists decided to show up and try to derail things, unsuccessfully, but they gave it their best shot.
	Also, that report in the Federalist that I mentioned yesterday, an interesting report that I promised to talk about today, we're going to talk about that, and Kamala Harris's plan to ensure that kids basically never see their parents.
	You're going to want to hear about this plan that she's cooked up and this bill that she's proposing.
	It's really something else.
	So we'll get to all that.
	But first, a word from Rock Auto.
	Chain stores, you know, have a thing.
	If you go to a chain store, they have different price tiers for professional mechanics and people who are do-it-yourselfers.
	RockAuto.com's prices, though, are the same for everybody.
	And on top of that, best of all, they're reliably low for everybody.
	RockAuto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices Based on what the markets will bear.
	That's kind of like what airlines do.
	But with rockauto.com, they're not going to do that.
	Rockauto.com is for everybody.
	Doesn't require membership or account login.
	Very easy to navigate.
	And it's a family business, serving auto part customers online for 20 years.
	Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
	They have everything from engine control modules, brake parts, tail lamps, motor oil.
	You know, if you need new carpet in your car, they have that as well.
	Whether it's your classic or your daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
	As I said, it's really easy to navigate the site, find exactly what you're looking for.
	You know that it's cheap.
	You know you're supporting a family business, so you can't really get any better than that.
	Go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
	Write Walsh in their how-did-you-hear-about-us box so they know that we sent you.
	Again, that's rockauto.com.
	By the way, can I just say, before we move on to the main topics here, you know Emma Watson, the actress Emma Watson, is catching a lot of flack today for saying in an interview, I think was it with the British Vogue, I think was the One of my favorite magazines.
	I have a subscription.
	But she said that she's not single.
	She is self-partnered.
	Self-partnered.
	And people are making fun of her for this.
	But first of all, can I say, if you make fun of Emma Watson, you're making fun of her spouse, too.
	Think about that.
	Because she is her spouse.
	And it's just wrong to go after people's spouses, okay?
	Leave the spouses out of it.
	That's my thing.
	Also, Even though this is new age, self-absorbed, vapid, stupid nonsense, in a way, I do at least kind of admire people.
	Maybe admire is not the right word.
	I stand in awe of people who can love themselves this much, who can be this self-absorbed.
	I almost envy it.
	Because for me, you know, I would never want to be partnered with myself.
	That sounds like the worst thing in the world.
	Why would I want to be married and partnered with myself of all the people?
	Me?
	That's why I married someone who is exactly the opposite of me.
	They say opposites attract.
	Well, that is 100% the case in my marriage.
	She's exactly the opposite of me in every way.
	She is bubbly, outgoing, cheerful, optimistic.
	If you can imagine that, just the opposite in every way.
	So to marry myself, I mean, well, well, who would want that?
	Who would want to be married to me besides my wife for some reason?
	So I say congrats to Emma on her coupling.
	And I wish her and herself many happy years of wedded bliss.
	Okay.
	So I spoke at a CSU LA last night.
	The subject of my talk was the left's war on reality.
	And, um, which is a theme that I talk about a lot on this show.
	And it's, I wrote a book about it.
	It's because I think it's when it comes to the culture, it's the most important thing that we can be talking about and should be talking about.
	And I tried to go into detail about the attempts in our culture to redefine life, marriage, and gender.
	And this is a talk that I've spent a fair amount of time developing because my goal, um, I don't know if I, if you know, this is my goal anyway, is for it to be sort of the definitive response to every major argument that the left presents to justify their positions on these topics, life, marriage, and gender.
	So that's a lot to bite off and try to chew in a 30 minute talk, but that's my goal anyway.
	And you can go to YouTube and go to Facebook.
	And check it out.
	I posted it on Twitter as well.
	I mean, that's so and I would encourage you to go and watch the talk and share it with your friends, please.
	But there was some drama yesterday during the Q&A when a bunch of white nationalists showed up with questions that, of course, had nothing to do.
	Well, several of them had nothing to do with whatsoever with the subject of the talk, which is a shame, again, because it's an important subject.
	Um, and their goal was to try to trap me and get me to say something that they could use against me to destroy my career and so forth.
	That's the goal.
	Now for a little background on this, um, these white nationalists have been involved in a, in a little campaign over the last few weeks to try to crash the Q and A's of conservative speakers on campus.
	Um, doing the left a huge favor in the process and asking questions that are often tinged with antisemitism and racism.
	Again, the goal here for them is to try to trap us.
	These aren't serious questions, and they aren't being honest in their approach.
	And they know it.
	And we know it.
	And everyone knows it.
	This is not an honest exchange, and that's not what they're looking to do.
	This is just a game of gotcha.
	Now, they were especially excited to show up for me for two reasons.
	One is that I work for a Jewish man.
	Um, and that if, you know, if you're a white nationalist, that is, I suppose, an unforgivable sin.
	Um, and that's why they're, uh, they're a cult leader.
	Uh, this guy named Nick Fuentes, you know, he called me a race traitor because I work for Jews and he was very upset about that.
	So, um, and in fact, the very first question of my Q and a took me to task for that scandalous fact that I work for a Jewish person.
	And you can go again to YouTube and see it.
	Um, and, uh, and they also don't like me because as I said, this Nick Fuentes guy, their cult leader, uh, went off on this unhinged rant about me after calling me a race traitor and so on.
	And the thing that provoked it was interesting.
	What provoked it is, you know, I, I didn't have never even heard of this guy.
	I'd never said anything about him.
	Um, what provoked it is that I called, you may remember this a few weeks ago after the El Paso mass shooting.
	Carried out obviously by a racist who was murdering Hispanics.
	I called the mass shooter a racist piece of s white trash some other choice descriptions that you think we could all agree given that this is a mass shooter who killed a lot of people.
	He's an evil man and there's really nothing you could say about him.
	That would be beyond, you know, it would be out of bounds.
	I think what once you're a mass shooter, it's pretty much fair game.
	Anyone can say whatever they want about you.
	But Fuentes didn't like that, and he was very upset that I was making fun of a mass shooter.
	That hurt his feelings for some reason.
	And he responded by calling me a race traitor who works for Jews, among other choice descriptions.
	And I responded to him with the level of seriousness that was appropriate, given his original line of attack.
	And here we are.
	And there they were at the Q&A.
	Though, again, it's not just mine they're showing up to.
	And that's important to note, that this is a broader campaign To essentially undo and undermine all the inroads conservatives have made in recent years on college campuses, which are significant.
	I'm not going to say that conservatives have achieved some sort of definitive final victory on college campuses.
	That obviously is not the case.
	Um, we, there's quite a lot we're working against, you know, the, the, the institution is against us.
	Academia obviously is against us.
	And academia is of course in many ways a brainwashing mechanism, taking these malleable impressionable young people and forming them into far left people who believe in gender theory and all these other things.
	And so we're working against that and doing what we can to make progress given all of that.
	But, um, What these white nationalists want to do is they want to come and offer a big assist to the left by undermining that and turning all of our talks or trying to turn them into an opportunity to spout white nationalist talking points.
	Which again, only helps the left.
	It's the only people who are helped by it.
	Now, if you go and watch the Q&A section of this talk, you'll see two things.
	So what you see are you see ideology and you see tactics.
	Now, first to the ideology.
	These people are convinced that our struggle in this country is racial and ethnic.
	And our main goal, as they see it, is to preserve our racial, ethnic, European heritage.
	In fact, these people seem to, from the way they talk about it, it seems as though they think we live in Europe.
	They talk about us as if we are Europe, as if there's really no distinction between us and Europe, which, of course, is not the case.
	And to the extent that these people are being at all sincere in what they're saying, the one correct thing they have noticed is that, as I tried to express last night, we do need a unifying principle as a country.
	And you can't have, I've said this many times, you can't have a country where a bunch of people are randomly living in the same geographic area, but they don't have anything in common.
	That's, that's not a real country.
	That's just not how a country works.
	And if you want to be a country, a people, then there must be something that unifies you.
	And we should be able to say, uh, you know, if I say being an American means blank, Everyone should be able to fill in that blank with something other than living in this part of the world.
	Okay, that's not how we should fill in the blank.
	Now, it's easy to say that we should unite as people do.
	We need to have unity, but unite around what is the question.
	Here, though, is where these white nationalists go horribly wrong.
	Our unifying principle isn't and was never Ethnic.
	Our unifying principle is the doctrine upon which our country was founded.
	Our country is unique in the fact that it was founded on a doctrine.
	That's not how most countries are established.
	Ours was.
	And it is a doctrine.
	Okay, this idea of inalienable rights, human rights, endowed by a creator, That's doctrinal.
	And so I would argue that that should be our unifying principle.
	And that doctrine is not a racial one.
	In fact, it is expressly non-racial.
	It is about the inherent dignity and inherent rights of all people.
	And as conservatives, Many of our most crucial and important arguments that we make also are hinged on this concept about the inherent rights and dignity of all people.
	In my talk last night, I spent about the first 20 minutes of it talking about abortion and the pro-life fight and engaging with the pro-abortion arguments.
	And the pro-life position starts with this fact that all people have inherent rights and human dignity.
	If we're wrong about that, then there's no reason to be pro-life, and there's no reason to be conservative, there's no reason to care about any of this stuff, actually.
	Now, it's true that our founders did not quite apply that principle equally, as they were blinded by the bigotries of their time, but we can apply it equally, or at least try, and that's our principle, in my view.
	But the questioners weren't satisfied with straightforward questions and answers.
	They, you know, they mainly wanted to lay traps.
	So they threw gotcha questions at me about Ben, hoping they could get me to disavow him because he's Jewish.
	One guy in particular was very determined to get me to call him a bigot.
	This was an interesting exchange.
	He very much wanted me, the questioner, Wanted me to call him the questioner, a bigot.
	And he kept insisting on it over and over again.
	It was very strange.
	And there are people in the audience that were, you can see their expression.
	They were kind of perplexed.
	Like, why are you, why are you so set on this?
	Why do you want him to go?
	This is what he really wanted.
	Now, why did he want this?
	Well, because in my talk, I had just said that, in fact, I ended my talk by saying that, um, we should engage with opposing views rather than just labeling them bigoted.
	Which doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a bigoted view.
	Calling somebody a race traitor because they work for Jews is a bigoted view.
	If that's not bigoted, then the word bigoted just has no meaning at all.
	But it does have a meaning.
	That's bigoted.
	But, um, rather than, if someone expresses a point of view, especially if they're talking about a topic, an issue, okay, Rather than just saying, that's bigoted, you should try to address it.
	Because, simply, even if there are such things as bigoted points of view, which there are, simply labeling something bigoted is not the same as debunking it or defusing it.
	So, this guy wanted me to say that he's a bigot, that he's a bigot, so that he could take the clip, post it on Twitter, and accuse me of hypocrisy and cowardice.
	Even if he had to do it out of context, doesn't matter.
	He just wanted me to say it so he could use it.
	And that's the tactic.
	Now, I didn't play his game.
	I didn't give him what he wanted.
	But, of course, that still didn't stop him from going to social media, accusing me of it anyway.
	In fact, as I was leaving the talk, and, you know, I spent about 40 minutes on the talk, 30 minutes on Q&A.
	As I was leaving, this guy came out and started shouting behind me, Why did you call me a bigot?
	Even though I didn't.
	He just really wanted me to.
	But they have no problem lying and being dishonest if it advances their ends.
	This is nothing new.
	This is moral relativism.
	And that's the main point I want to make here about these people.
	That they are moral relativists.
	And that's very clear in the way they go about things.
	The truth doesn't matter to them.
	Being honest doesn't matter.
	Makes no difference.
	They have no ethical or moral concerns at all.
	None of that matters.
	It's just, you know, ends justify the means, and that's it.
	But this is nothing new.
	You know, I've been dealing with moral relativists my whole career.
	They come in different forms, they say different things, they pursue different, though not that different, ends, but really they're all the same in the end, when it comes down to it.
	And after this particular group of fringe weirdos fade out, or grow up and move on, Which they probably will eventually.
	They'll be followed by another group.
	And another, and another.
	Especially in our culture these days with moral relativism.
	As it is one of the great scourges of our culture.
	And it will just keep going on and on.
	And all we can do is just meet it in all of its various forms.
	And try not to grow too weary of it in the process.
	Even though it can get irritating after a while.
	All right, I wanted to call your attention to an article in the Federalist written by Chad Felix Green, who does a lot of great work.
	And I should also mention, I think it's relevant to mention, that Green is a gay man.
	And the only reason I mention that is to head off at the pass any claim that his work is motivated by bigotry against the LGBT community.
	He's in that community.
	Now, I know that that won't stop the most committed identity politics proponents from accusing him of anti-LGBT bias anyway, but I think rational people can see the absurdity of that.
	So, Green's report analyzes this notion that there's an epidemic of anti-trans violence.
	And you hear this all the time, right?
	You hear that trans people are being murdered, particularly black trans people.
	At a much higher rate than the general population, and this means that there's an epidemic of anti-trans hate crimes.
	Well, I've said before that this claim is certainly false.
	Yes, it's true that trans people are victims of violent crimes way more often than the general population, but that's got nothing to do with hate crimes.
	And I've always known that, but Green decided to really do the legwork, look at the numbers, and demonstrate it.
	What he discovered is that, first of all, The racial angle here is completely irrelevant.
	The vast majority of black trans people are killed by other black people.
	So we can put that aside.
	Race is irrelevant.
	That's not part of this.
	But then what about the murders themselves?
	Green discovered that this claim of an anti-trans hate crime epidemic is propped up by indiscriminately lumping every case Where trans people are killed into one pile and calling them all hate crimes, no matter the circumstances.
	This is a very common... Talk about tactics.
	Well, here's a common tactic on the left.
	They do the same thing with so-called gun violence, where they say, oh, we have a gun violence epidemic, and then they give you these really scary numbers.
	What they fail to mention is that they're taking every case where a person dies by gunshot and lumping it into this gun violence category, even though, like, half of them are suicides.
	Which doesn't mean that it doesn't matter or it's not a tragedy.
	It is.
	It's just that it's not relevant to the point they're trying to make when they bring up that fact or the statistics.
	So it's the same thing here.
	And basically the approach is to pretend that it's impossible that a trans person could ever be killed for any other reason.
	Because if a trans person is killed, they're taking that, they're putting it into the pile, and they're saying these are all hate crimes.
	And so you end up with absurdities like, for example, a trans person who was one victim among many in a mass shooting and was included in the number.
	Or another trans person who was accidentally shot by a friend.
	That's put in with the numbers.
	Many of the deaths can be attributed to prostitution or other risky behaviors.
	Prostitutes in general are murdered at a much higher rate than everybody else.
	Which is a terrible thing.
	But it's not because of hate crimes.
	It's because of the nature of what they're doing and who they're dealing with in the process.
	It's a horrible thing.
	It's not a hate crime epidemic.
	So Green concludes that out of 118 cases of trans murders, four of them, four, could be considered actual anti-trans hate crimes.
	And that's over the course of four years.
	So that, do the math there, that would be an average of one anti-trans hate crime a year.
	One.
	And that is what the left says is an epidemic.
	But this is the game.
	They make a claim like this, and they just assume you're not going to look into it.
	In fact, they demand that you don't look into it, saying that it would be disrespectful to do so.
	And I guarantee there's going to be people saying that even what I'm saying right now, this, the very fact that I'm doing a segment on this is transphobic and terrible and inappropriate and all of that.
	Um, so they make the false claim and then they use emotional blackmail to prevent you from trying to confirm it.
	So we just have to take their word for it.
	Why does it matter though?
	I mean, why bother debunking this?
	Well, first of all, because the truth matters.
	And nobody has the right to lie unchallenged.
	Second, this completely false claim about anti-trans hate crimes is used to silence people all the time.
	Because, invariably, whenever the subject comes up about gender and sex, and you dare to claim that men are men and women are women, somebody's gonna rush in and start screaming about anti-trans hate crimes and claiming that you're encouraging more bigoted violence against trans people.
	I mean, it really always happens that way.
	If you have a discussion about these issues for long enough, someone is going to bring that up and accuse you of contributing to this supposed epidemic.
	And if you say there is no epidemic of bigoted violence against trans people, they say that you're encouraging it again just by saying that.
	And that, of course, is the game.
	But it is just that a game.
	It is completely dishonest and we shouldn't fall for it.
	All right, before we get to emails, Kamala Harris has introduced a bill.
	She's introduced a bill that would extend the school day by three hours.
	My God.
	She wants a 10-hour school day.
	I am so glad I'm not a kid anymore.
	For so many reasons, I'm so glad that I'm not a kid in this culture, in this society.
	And this is definitely in the top five reasons now.
	Let me read from The Week.
	This is their article.
	They say, Kamala Harris, Presidential hopeful, is introducing a bill that would extend the school day from 8 a.m.
	to 6 p.m., Mother Jones reports.
	That might elicit groans from kids, but upon closer review, the bill isn't really making them sit at their desks and learn long division all the way through this afternoon.
	Instead, Harris is hoping to Better accommodate families who are burdened by working hours that don't line up with the typical school day that ends at 3 p.m.
	Harris's bill would introduce, so if they're not doing long division for those three hours, what are they doing?
	That apparently is not clear, but she does want to keep them in school anyway for those three hours.
	Harris's bill would introduce a pilot program that gives money to 500 schools serving a high proportion of low-income families.
	Those schools would adjust to the new hours, only closing for weekends, federal holidays, and emergencies to make it easier for parents to balance work and childcare.
	The program structure is reportedly purposely vague and will allow for parents, teachers, and community members to weigh in on the best practices during the first year.
	Let's see.
	Supposedly, students wouldn't be forced to spend all the extra time in the classroom, but how would they spend it?
	I guess that's not exactly clear yet.
	Either way, point is, 8 a.m.
	to 6 p.m.
	is how she wants to extend the school day.
	This is, in Kamala Harris's view, apparently, she just, I guess, doesn't think that kids should spend really any time around their families during the school, during the week.
	Because, you know, I haven't I didn't see this, but I assume that part of her bill does not include abolishing homework.
	I assume she's not doing that.
	So, presumably, we're talking about 8 a.m.
	to 6 p.m.
	for the school day, and the kids still come home with homework.
	So, you know, they get home, they leave right in the morning, first thing.
	Get home at 6 p.m., eat dinner.
	Off to do your homework and then it's bedtime.
	Um, I mean, do you have any time to, to, to, you know, sit around with your family, play a board game, talk to your parents and you know, do you have any time for recreation with your family, which is very important for kids?
	Any time for that?
	No.
	Um, this I think is one of, uh, I mean probably the, the main problem of many With the school, with the public education system as it is already currently structured.
	And this is without even adding on the three extra hours of the school day.
	Where it separates kids from their families for exorbitant amounts of time.
	And starting earlier and earlier in life.
	You know, when I was a kid, most people, maybe you went to preschool when you were four, four or five, and then five to six, you started kindergarten.
	Now though, you know, they've got pre, pre, pre-K, they've got kids going into the starting school when they're like three.
	And so starting at the age of three, until they graduated about 18, 15 years, they're going to be in the government education system and they're going to spend, At least during the school year, they're going to spend most of their time, most of their waking hours will be spent in that system under the care of teachers, of government employees, you know, with their peers instead of with their families and with their parents.
	That is a horrible idea.
	And it's, it has had horrible, a disastrous impact on our culture.
	It's also, it's a self-perpetuating problem because Kamala Harris will say, well, okay, but you've got all these parents who are working and, and, you know, they, they, they're not going to be able to take care of their kids anyway.
	And so it would be easier for them to just keep the kids in school.
	But the more and more that the government education system intrudes into the lives of kids and takes over the role of parenting, the more it does that, The more you have parents relying on that and structuring their work schedule around it.
	And so it's self-perpetuating.
	It just makes it worse and worse.
	So you could say it's kind of a chicken or egg.
	They can say, oh, we're only doing this because the parents need us to.
	But I think another way of looking at it is the parents need you to because this is what you're doing.
	This is the system you've created.
	And a lot of people have grown Addicted to it and dependent upon it.
	But it's a bad system and it should be going the other way.
	We should be trending in the direction of kids spending less time in school.
	There should be less time in school.
	The school day should be shorter.
	There should be less homework.
	Because the most important thing for a child in their formative years is to be or certainly one of the most important things is for them to be with their families.
	That kids need that in order to grow into functional, well-adjusted adults.
	So the trend should be cutting down on busy work, cutting down on time spent in school that's just wasted anyway, and having parents doing more.
	I mean, because think about how much time is already wasted in the school day.
	When I went to school, it was, yeah, I think it was about usually eight to three, basically.
	And I would say in that chunk of time, maybe two hours was spent productively and the rest of it was wasted.
	You know, the rest of it was wasted on, on, you know, thing.
	I mean, you, you, you'd have kids, you'd have, and they, of course there are many teachers that do this now.
	You have a, you know, you go to class and the teacher puts on a movie or something.
	I can remember times when Uh, in English class or something, we would spend an entire week watching a movie in these little 30 minute chunks.
	Just a total waste of time.
	And if you're going to be doing that, then the kids might as well be home with their families.
	What's the point of this?
	So we should be paring it down less time at school, more time with the families, but that's not what on the left.
	And, uh, with, with status like Camilla Harris, she wants to go very much in the other direction.
	All right, let's go to emails.
	mattwalshow at gmail.com.
	mattwalshow at gmail.com.
	This is from Mike.
	Says, Hey Matt, I love the show.
	I'm grateful for all the work you guys are doing at The Daily Wire.
	Your talk yesterday was fantastic.
	I'm sorry the Q&A was hijacked by self-indulgent children.
	What do you think the source of this division is and what can be done to push through it and ensure that the right ideas persevere?
	Hope the family's well.
	God bless.
	Well, I think I touched on that already.
	What's the source of it?
	I think a lot of it is just sort of moral relativism in its various different forms and rearing its head, wearing various different masks.
	And this is the latest mask that it's wearing, this white nationalist stuff.
	And, you know, also on a sort of simpler level, you mentioned self-indulgent children.
	I mean, also it's just a hunger for attention.
	They're looking for attention.
	And you might say that I've given it to them in this show.
	Maybe that's a mistake.
	Maybe it is.
	I mean, there's a balance that you have to strike here.
	Because on one hand, if people are wrong about something, I believe we should engage and explain why they're wrong.
	I'm a big believer in that.
	It's what I spend all my time trying to do, basically.
	On the other hand, when people are begging for attention, you don't want to go out of your way to give them attention.
	So that is the tension.
	That is the balance that has to be struck.
	This is from Marlene says, Hey Matt, went to see you today at Cal State LA.
	Didn't get to ask my question, read your speech, but sending it to you here in case you can get to it.
	Thanks.
	Yeah, there were Marlene.
	There were a lot of people that had questions related to the talk who didn't get a chance to ask their question.
	And a lot of people who wanted to challenge me on what I said in the talk and didn't get a chance to do that, which is unfortunate.
	I understand the importance of a two-parent household and how this is the best for the well-being of the children, specifically a two-parent household where the parents are married and stay married.
	I agree that neither father nor mother are dispensable to raising a child.
	I believe from your speech, your position is that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt, for the two statements above.
	My question is, is there any option for individuals who really, really long to be parents and are gay?
	I myself have no kids, but would love to someday.
	Listening to your speech just made me think of individuals who really want to have kids and are gay.
	In your opinion, are they just doomed to not be parents?
	Kinda sad.
	I was thinking maybe they can have a baby with someone, like a friend of the opposite sex, and raise the baby together, but then this would not be the same.
	Again, I agree with children needing a mother and father, but I'm hesitant to bring this up in the conversation because I feel bad basically saying, if you're gay and really want to be a parent, that just shouldn't happen for you.
	Yeah, Marlene.
	Well, I mean, it's always sad when people want kids and don't have them or can't have them.
	But as I said in my talk, and as you alluded to, I think every child has a right to a mother and a father.
	Not every child will get that, sadly.
	Speaking of sad things.
	Okay, that's very sad.
	There are children who mother and father divorce or one of the parents dies or something.
	So not every child gets it.
	I think every child should.
	And so that should be our goal.
	And if we have kids in the adoption system and we're looking for parents for them, then we should try to find parents where it's a mother and a father so that those children get what they need and what they have a right to.
	And so when it comes to adoption, I think we need to focus on when we're talking about rights as it pertains to adoption, it is the rights of the children.
	That we should be talking about and focusing on.
	This idea of prospective adoptive parents having a right to adopt, to me, is bizarre and kind of disturbing because what you're effectively saying is that those prospective parents have a right to one of those children, as if those children are commodities that they have a right to own.
	And I don't think it works that way.
	I think the rights are with the kids in that situation.
	As far as gay couples who really want children, you know, I, it is a sad thing, but there are, listen, I also think that, um, you see some of these Hollywood celebrities, a single, single women who go out and adopt, uh, without, without a husband just on their own.
	I don't think they should be able to do that.
	And I appreciate that they really want kids and, you know, I'm sympathetic to that.
	I am, but I don't think as a single adult, you should, I think it should be against the law.
	I don't think you should be allowed to go out and adopt a kid for this reason, that that that's a child that's not going to have a father.
	And I think the child has a right to a father.
	And I don't think that, um, you know, we should take an opportunity away from a mother father household by allowing a single parent to adopt a child, which doesn't mean that, you know, if you are a single parent with a child, That you're an unfit parent or your kids are going to be, the kid's lives are going to be ruined.
	It's not what I'm saying.
	I'm just saying that the, I think maybe hopefully we could agree that the ideal scenario in principle would be for a two parent household.
	And so when we have a, when we have children in the adoption system, we should be looking for the ideal scenario.
	And despite popular misconceptions, There are a lot of prospective parents, hopeful parents, who are mother and father, two-parent households, who have been waiting for a long time to adopt a child.
	And so I think that's what we should be focused on.
	We can sympathize with people's situations, and we can feel bad for their struggles.
	I agree, we should.
	We should have compassion.
	But that doesn't mean that we should compromise by depriving a child of something that that child needs.
	Okay, let's see.
	From Ryan says, Dear Supreme Bearded Overlord, while I do agree with you that it's tacky to request a stranger to give up a comfortable airline seat for a middle seat on a flight, I think the ultimate culprit here is Southwest Airlines.
	They create this unholy debacle every single flight by not having assigned seating.
	With assigned seating, you're always seated next to your travel companion and are able to upgrade your individual seat if one of them is available.
	Having flown Southwest many times and fallen a hapless victim to their seating policy, I cannot help but feel that Southwest has culpability in this outrageous seating disaster.
	My question to you is, when you take over the world, what will your mandatory airline seating policy be?
	Yeah, Southwest.
	I mean, I like Southwest.
	I think everyone likes Southwest because of their customer service.
	They definitely blow every other airline out of the water as far as that goes.
	Even though their seating policy led to this disastrous scenario that I suffered through and frankly was traumatized by a few days ago, I know a lot of people complain about it.
	I generally am in favor of it only because it gives you some control.
	It's sort of exciting and it gives you a little bit of control over whether or not someone's going to sit next to you, whether you're going to get someone in a middle seat.
	Like if you're in an aisle seat, there's this sort of chess match that goes on where you're trying to figure out where to sit on the plane.
	Exactly.
	So as to increase the likelihood that nobody will sit next to you in the middle seat.
	And so that little chess match that goes on, and even though I failed in this particular situation, usually I'm pretty good at that.
	And I kind of enjoy it.
	So that's exciting.
	Gives you a little bit of power and control.
	And so I'm in favor of their seating policy, actually.
	From Rachel says, Dear great and future ruler of all of our pathetic lives, I have already accepted my death by your order due to my possession of eight throw pillows, but hopefully your answer may prove salvation for others.
	If a fan were to see you in public, what is an acceptable and non-wrath-inducing way in which we may express our appreciation of your great wisdom?
	Is it acceptable to ask for a picture?
	May someone shake your hand?
	Is a simple knowing nod all that you will endure of us?
	Can disposing of my pillow save me in the great day of your ascension?
	Great question, Rachel.
	I appreciate that.
	These are the kinds of questions I should have gotten in the Q&A.
	Future reference.
	So I think the procedure for speaking to me in public is pretty simple, pretty standard.
	Basic etiquette, really.
	You know, it's not a big deal.
	All you have to do is just lie prostrate on the ground.
	Army crawl towards me, face down.
	Then as you get close to me, you may reach out your hand towards my foot.
	Don't make contact, obviously.
	If I kick you, then that's a sign that I don't want to speak to you.
	You must immediately roll away from me without looking up.
	If I say, rise and speak, you may stand.
	Don't make eye contact.
	Look towards the floor and pay me a compliment lasting no less than 30 seconds, but no more than two minutes.
	And then turn around about face and walk away.
	And that's it.
	You know, it's, I mean, pretty simple.
	And that's just really being polite, I think.
	But I appreciate that question, Rachel.
	And thanks everybody for watching.
	Thanks for listening.
	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, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
	Thanks for listening.
	The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
	The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.

▲