Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 12, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

39:25

Ep. 369 - Media and Hollywood Rally Behind Convicted Rapist and Murderer

We take a look at the Rodney Reed case. Hollywood celebrities are rallying around him, but what facts are they leaving out? Also, a Canadian broadcaster was fired for innocuous comments about immigrants. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau wore blackface and kept his job. Date: 11-12-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A tweet from the AP last night says the Democratic presidential race started with a record six female candidates, but only one is polling in the top tier.
	Is it sexism or just politics?
	Now, I would like to answer that for you, AP.
	That is, it's sexism.
	It is definitely sexism.
	Democrat primary voters should be ashamed.
	Ashamed of themselves.
	Amy Klobuchar, you know, she's out there talking about the sexism.
	It's the only reason she isn't getting more attraction.
	It's because Democrat primary voters just hate women.
	Hate them.
	Klobuchar, she's one of the great politicians Of our time.
	She's one of the great politicians in the history of the world, and yet she's not getting the traction that she should be because the Democrat primary voters are a bunch of sexist pigs.
	And then think about all the women that have dropped out.
	You know, Gillibrand, Swalwell.
	It's just totally outrageous.
	And then what about Elizabeth Warren?
	Okay, you've got, she's a dynamic Native American woman Yet, where do the endorsements go?
	They go to Bernie Sanders, who's a man, okay?
	AOC, Ilhan Omar, they line up behind Sanders because they hate minority women.
	And it really is incredible.
	So, I'm glad that the AP is on top of that and pointing that out because it's very important.
	All right, now, moving on.
	I want to talk about this Rodney Reed case.
	Maybe you've heard about this, maybe you haven't.
	If you haven't, well, if you have heard about it, then probably what you've heard is one-sided.
	The media, Hollywood, politicians, they're all lining up on one side of this issue, and that should be your first clue.
	Whenever you see everybody agreeing on something these days, That tells you something is up.
	So I've seen very few people or outlets trying to lay out all the facts, except for my friend Amanda Prestigiacomo at Daily Wire.
	She put up a piece yesterday that gives all the facts.
	Excellent piece.
	Brandon Darby at Breitbart, Jack Posobiec at One American News Network.
	Those are basically the only people in media that I've seen that have even attempted to give Both sides or the other side of this of this story.
	And they deserve credit for that.
	As I said, when everybody is on one side, you know, when everyone's on one side of something, it's easy to join that side.
	And if everybody if everyone is kind of 50 50, where you've got half on one side, half on the other, then it's easy to choose a side.
	But if it's like 98 percent to two, Then it takes some guts to go with the 2%, or at least to give the 2% a fair hearing.
	Okay, so Rodney Reed is a convicted murderer and rapist, found guilty of raping and murdering a woman named Stacey Stites in 1996.
	The conviction relied heavily on DNA evidence.
	And we have to mention here that Reed is black and Stites was white.
	And the only reason we have to mention that is because Reed's defenders are making that into an issue predictably, so...
	There you go.
	There's the racial element of it.
	As I said, Hollywood is lined up behind him.
	People are calling for him to be exonerated, or at least spared the death penalty.
	He's scheduled to be executed for his crime of raping and murdering a woman.
	He's scheduled to be executed next week.
	But you've got all these people coming out, Kim Kardashian, Rihanna, people in media, coming out and saying, no, he's innocent.
	It would be a horrible thing to execute him.
	So I want to get into the specifics of this case.
	Many of the specifics that are being ignored by People and media right now.
	But before we do that, let's hear from my friends at Veritas Press.
	Veritas Press is the leader in providing a classical Christian curriculum and online courses.
	Every child, whether homeschooled or in a traditional school setting, should know the significance and application of history in their own lives, and Veritas makes that happen, because that's part of learning history.
	You need to not just learn the facts of it, but you need to learn You know, it's not just about names and places being able to regurgitate information.
	It's about learning how this applies to your own life, what effect it has on you, what effect your history has on you today and on the culture today.
	And Veritas does that.
	These courses are the most exciting way to learn.
	Your child will experience history as never before.
	And really importantly, they're going to want to continue learning.
	Veritas' year-long self-paced courses tell history stories in a research-based, chronological way.
	That reinforces your child's learning one event at a time.
	They interpret the unfolding of history through the eyes of Christian faith.
	Every feature of every course is designed to engage your child and what they're learning with games, videos, interactions, to win your child's attention.
	And as listeners to this show, you can save $100 on every self-paced course that you purchase.
	Go to VeritasPress.com slash Walsh.
	Choose your subject, select your course, and then use the code.
	That's Walsh at checkout.
	That's VeritasPress.com slash Walsh.
	And if you're watching this on YouTube, click on the link in the description, VeritasPress.com slash Walsh.
	Okay, so let's get into the specifics of this Rodney Reed case, and this is going to get graphic inevitably, so I apologize for that.
	Fair warning.
	Quoting now from Amanda's piece in the Daily Wire, it says, when Reed was convicted, it was determined that Stites was strangled to death by her own belt while on her way to work at a H-E-B grocery store in Bastrop, Texas, in April 1996.
	Evidence also determined that Stites, who was also vaginally raped, was anally raped while being strangled to death.
	DNA found semen in Reed.
	I'm trying to censor a little bit, as much as I can, so you understand what's going on here.
	The effort to stay Reed's execution is primarily due to Reed advocates and his legal team claiming a proper examination of forensic evidence shows that Stites was killed hours before she and Reed could have crossed paths.
	Okay, so Reed's legal team says that she died before Reed could have come in contact with her, yet she was covered in his DNA.
	So, How do you put two and two together there?
	Oh, but they can come up with an explanation for that.
	They say that, no, he was actually having a consensual affair with this woman.
	The only problem is that he originally told detectives that he didn't know her.
	And it was only after that affair alibi fell through, or it's only after the alibi that he didn't know her fell through, it's only after that story just fell apart and wouldn't work, that he then went with, oh no, actually we were involved in a consensual affair.
	Now, how did they have his DNA sample?
	Well, because a woman named Caroline Rivas, who is mentally disabled, said that she was raped by Reid, and his DNA was found inside her.
	And from this DNA, they were able to connect him to this rape and several others.
	Now, this case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court denied the appeal.
	In fact, 16 different courts have looked at this case and found no reason to doubt the verdict in the original case.
	So you've got a jury conviction, you've got failed appeals in 16 courts, you've got like 20 different judges that have looked at this thing.
	But let me read some of what the Texas Assistant Attorney General sent a document to the Supreme Court When this attempted appeal was going on, telling their side of the story.
	Now, this document you can go and find online.
	Just go to Google, you can find the document for yourself and read all the facts of the case, which I have done.
	So let me read for you now some of what the Supreme Court document says.
	Says the rape and murder of Stites was hardly Reed's first or last foray against women.
	First was Connie York, a 19-year-old who had come home late one evening after swimming with her friends.
	York was grabbed from behind and told, don't scream or I'll hurt you.
	When York did not listen, she was repeatedly struck, dragged to her bedroom, and raped multiple times.
	Reed was interviewed, and while he admitted that he knew York from high school, he denied raping her.
	When confronted with a search warrant for biological samples, Reed had an about-face.
	Yeah, I had sex with her.
	She wanted it.
	The case went to trial four years later, and Reed was acquitted.
	Next was A.W., a 12-year-old girl who was home alone, having fallen asleep on a couch after watching TV.
	A.W.
	awoke when someone began pushing her face on the couch and had blindfolded and gagged her.
	She was repeatedly hit in the head, called vulgar names, and raped.
	Goes into a little bit more graphic detail than that, but that's the gist of it.
	The foreign DNA from AW's rape kit was compared to Reed.
	Reed was not excluded, and only 1 in 5.5 billion people would have the same foreign DNA profile from AW's rape kit.
	In other words, it was a match.
	Then came Lucy Iper, who Reed had met in high school and whom Reed began to date after her graduation.
	Iper had two children with Reed.
	Throughout their relationship, Reed physically abused Iper, including while she was pregnant, and raped her all the time, including one time in front of their two children.
	Afterwards, Reed began dating Caroline Revis, an intellectually disabled woman.
	Revis's caseworker noticed bruises on Revis's body, and when asked about it, Revis admitted that Reed would hit her if she would not have sex with him.
	Later, Rivas' caseworker noticed that Rivas was walking oddly and sat down gingerly.
	Rivas admitted that Reed had, the prior evening, hit her, called her of all the names, and raped her.
	The samples from Rivas' rape kit provided the link to Stites' murder.
	So he was a match on the Rivas case.
	Shortly thereafter, and about six months before Stites' murder, Reid raped Vivian Harbottle underneath a train trestle as she was walking home.
	When she pleaded for her life for the sake of her children, Reid laughed at her.
	The foreign DNA from Harbottle's rape kit was compared to Reid.
	He could not be excluded, and only one person of 5.5 billion would be expected to have the same foreign DNA profile.
	Finally, and about six months after Stites' murder, Reed convinced 19-year-old Linda Schluter to give him a ride home at 3.30 a.m.
	This is important.
	Reed led her to a remote area and then attacked her.
	After a prolonged struggle, Schluter asked Reed what he wanted and Reed responded that he wants to have sex with her.
	When Schluter told Reed that you'll have to kill me before you get anything, Reed stated, I guess I'll have to kill you then.
	And then a car drove by and Schluter was able to escape.
	Okay.
	Um, it goes on.
	Maybe, maybe you get the point.
	Um, and it's important to note that the, the, uh, that last case we talked about there, that was, that happened around the same area and around the same time of day or of night rather that, um, States was, was raped and killed.
	So this is just an enormous amount of evidence.
	I mean, this is an enormous amount of DNA evidence and witness testimony.
	You've got witness testimony and DNA evidence connecting this guy to multiple rapes, including one that happened in the same place and at the same time and in the same manner that Stites was killed.
	Um, it's actually, it's, it's, It would be hard to have more evidence than this, to have so much DNA evidence.
	So how do Reid's defenders get around this?
	Well, his defenders, which again include a lot of Hollywood power players, including Kim Kardashian, many prominent politicians, even Republican politicians, Dr. Phil and others, they're all coming to this scumbag's defense.
	And based on what?
	Well, they theorize that actually Stacey Stites' fiance killed her.
	And what about his DNA showing up on so many rape victims?
	Well, they've got... I don't think there is one coherent explanation for that, but I have seen a bunch of conspiracy theories that involve, you know, a conspiracy to plant his DNA and all this kind of stuff.
	Why do they think that Stites' fiancé killed her?
	Well, because 10 years after her death, he was arrested for raping somebody else.
	Now, do you get what's happening here?
	Stites' fiancé Raping someone else, according to Reed's Defenders, is proof that he raped and killed Stites.
	But Reed's rape of five or six different women before he got to Stacey Stites doesn't prove anything.
	So you see the inconsistency there?
	Oh, and also they say that the fiancé, Fennell, Confessed to somebody in jail that he had killed his, his, uh, fiance.
	How do we know that?
	Uh, because his, his one of someone in jail, uh, said, claimed that, that Fennell had said this.
	By the way, his, the, the person in jail who made this claim was in jail for forgery.
	So this is literally a convicted liar telling this story.
	And they're pointing to that as a smoking gun.
	That's smoking gun evidence that Reid is innocent.
	In spite of all the physical evidence, in spite of the eyewitnesses and everything, in spite of all that, you've got to convict a guy who's in jail for lying.
	That's what forgery is.
	We're going to take his word.
	That's going to overshadow everything else.
	I mean, come on.
	Even more insanely, some of Reed's defenders say that his history of raping women has no bearing on this.
	That's the other way of dealing with it, is to say that, okay, sure, he probably did those other things, including raping a 12-year-old child, but that doesn't mean that he did this.
	That's got nothing to do with it.
	It shouldn't even be admissible.
	Well, that's ridiculous, clearly.
	If this guy has an established pattern of raping women, And then his DNA shows up on a raped and murdered woman, near his house.
	Yes, that pattern is absolutely relevant.
	I'd say it's damn near conclusive all by itself.
	You've got a serial rapist, a dead woman shows up on the side of the road, covered in his DNA.
	He claims he never met her.
	After that falls through, he says, oh no, we had a consensual relationship.
	You're going to believe that?
	Are you serious?
	Are you really that stupid?
	You're going to, you're going to, that excuse?
	You're going to say, okay, well, the thing is with Reid's defenders, not only are they willing to believe that, They just believe it.
	They take it as gospel.
	They say, oh, no, no, he said he didn't do it.
	Their defense is basically that he said he didn't do it.
	That's really the central piece of evidence that they present.
	Because other than that, they have no evidence.
	What a convicted liar said in jail, and jailhouse informants are notoriously unreliable, especially ones who are in jail for lying and being a fraud, You know, that doesn't count as evidence of anything.
	And then the fact that Stice's fiancee 10 years later went to jail for rape is not evidence of anything.
	Or on the other hand, if it is potentially evidence of something, if we're willing to say that, well, his history of rape or, you know, not really history, but after the fact, the fact that he became a rapist, If you're willing, if you're going to say that that's potentially evidence, then that means that all of Reid's stuff is potentially evidence and which outweighs the other is the question.
	Um, but if, if you're going to pull that move where you say that, yeah, he probably raped a bunch of women, but he didn't do this.
	Um, which I don't know how you do that given the DNA evidence, but at least be clear that that's what you're doing.
	At least be clear that you are defending a serial rapist and child sex predator.
	Be clear about that.
	I mean, you're defending someone who definitely deserves to die.
	But your point is that he doesn't deserve to die for that.
	He should die for something else.
	And, okay, I mean, you can make that case.
	But be clear that that's the case you're making.
	Because what I'm seeing in the media is just the canonization of this guy.
	Making him out to be just a good, innocent man who's caught up in this and totally not his fault or anything.
	You know, it's pretty strange.
	Hollywood is lining up behind Rodney Reed.
	They also lined up behind Roman Polanski.
	They ran cover for Harvey Weinstein.
	Even a guy like Bill Cosby was able to rape women in Hollywood for decades before being held accountable.
	Epstein, too.
	Epstein hung out in Hollywood.
	Epstein had a lot of Hollywood friends, attended Hollywood premieres and everything.
	These people, they seem to really have a nasty habit of defending serial rapists and child sex predators.
	It seems to be a pattern.
	And in this case, think about something else, too.
	The people defending Rodney Reed.
	And I'm not trying to make this exclusively left versus right thing because I don't think it is.
	I think they're left and right on various sides of this issue.
	But given the fact that you've got media and Hollywood and all those people behind Rodney Reed, these are also the people who supporters of the Me Too movement, right?
	So you've got a bunch of supporters of the Me Too movement defending a convicted killer and rapist of women.
	And in doing so, they are accusing multiple women of lying, and they're also slandering a dead woman as an adulterer.
	Talk about victim-blaming.
	This woman was raped and killed, and your excuse is that, well, no, she was actually having a consensual affair.
	And these are the same people with Kavanaugh.
	A woman comes out with a totally outlandish story, has zero evidence, and they say, if you don't believe her immediately, without any question, then you hate women.
	In this case, we have evidence against him, and they're saying that, no, if you believe the women this time, then you're probably a racist and you hate black people.
	You see how they play this game?
	It is so incredibly dishonest and despicable and evil.
	And let me ask you one other question.
	If you're defending Rodney Reed on this, and really be honest about this, let's say you succeeded and he was, not only was he spared the death penalty, but he was let out of jail.
	And so now you've got a formerly convicted rapist whose DNA has turned up in five or six different rape cases.
	Now he's on the street.
	So congratulations on that.
	Would you invite him to stay over at your house?
	Would you let him babysit your children?
	Would you?
	I mean, if you would, then you're insane and a horrible parent, but you wouldn't.
	That's the thing.
	I mean, if this guy was let out of jail, you wouldn't want to be anywhere near him.
	Because you know he's a monster.
	You know that.
	Okay.
	Let's move on.
	I want to play this for you briefly here.
	And this is a challenge.
	This is a fun challenge.
	I dare you to watch this video that I'm going to play for you.
	Try to watch it without cringing.
	Just see if you can.
	I think you can.
	This is a college student asking a question to Tom Steyer during his town hall.
	Steyer is apparently a guy who's running for president with the Democrats.
	He's one of the 970 people running for president in 2020.
	Anyway, here is the very theatrical question that was posed to him.
	She's a member of Iowa Students Action, which is a progressive advocacy group.
	Kieran, what's your question for Mr. Steyer?
	In Iowa, higher education is in crisis.
	The Iowa Board of Regents hikes tuition year after year, shifting the burden of funding public universities onto students' backs.
	This model is being repeated at almost every public university system across the country.
	And it ain't right.
	How does your vision for free college ensure that states can't take educational rights away from students, especially formerly incarcerated and undocumented students?
	So that's really Power Rangers level acting right there.
	That's Nickelodeon circa, that's the midday schedule of Nickelodeon circa 1997, that acting in that town hall.
	Uh, but, but good, good stuff there.
	Nice.
	She put effort into it and a lot of energy, so you got to respect that.
	Okay, let's take a look at this.
	Do you know who Don Cherry is?
	Don Cherry is a Canadian hockey commentator.
	If you're listening, maybe in Canada, and I say, do you know who Don Cherry is?
	That sounds like a crazy question, but in other parts of the world, you know, he's, he's not quite as iconic as he is up there in Canada.
	Now he does, um, he does a segment on TV called coaches corner.
	And in a recent coaches corner episode, he, uh, or segment, he, he encouraged people to wear poppy pins to honor, uh, veterans, which is a tradition in Canada and his remarks.
	Encouraging people to honor veterans.
	His remarks were apparently so offensive that he was fired.
	Um, here's, so this, what you're about to hear is apparently, supposedly very, very offensive.
	So get ready for this.
	Listen.
	You know, I was talking to a veteran.
	I said, I'm not going to run the poppy thing anymore because what's the sense?
	I live in Mississauga.
	Nobody wears, uh, very few people wear a poppy.
	Downtown Toronto, forget it.
	Downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy and I'm not going to, he says, wait a minute.
	How about running it for the people that buy them?
	Now, you go to the small cities, and you know, you know, those, the rows and rows, you people love, you, they come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that.
	These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada.
	These guys paid the Yeah, he was fired for that.
	For that.
	Now, to his credit, he refused to apologize, so good for him on that.
	I bought a puppy, I'm still gonna run it.
	Anyhow, love you for it.
	Yeah, he was fired for that, for that.
	Now, to his credit, he refused to apologize.
	So good for him on that.
	The guy sitting next to him, long time friend and co-host, guy that sat there and seemed like he had no problem
	with what Don Cherry was saying, but he threw his friend completely under the bus
	He apologized, started prattling about diversity and all this stuff.
	Meanwhile, a bunch of other Canadians have pretended to be offended by these utterly, completely benign statements.
	Now, You might hear that this was just a last straw and that he'd said a bunch of other offensive stuff.
	And so he didn't get the benefit of the doubt on this one because he'd caused a lot of other controversies with the things that he'd said.
	Well, what were the other offensive comments and controversies that he had started?
	Well, he said a few years ago that women shouldn't be in the male locker room.
	That was a controversy.
	I think he made some comments about environmentalists.
	Called them kookaloos or something.
	I think it was something like that, which is hilarious.
	And things in that vein.
	Again, a bunch of benign comments.
	Who cares?
	Meanwhile, as this guy is getting fired for simply encouraging people to remember and respect veterans and to have some appreciation, especially if you come into a country If you're an immigrant, you're coming to the country, what he's saying is you should be especially grateful that this country has opened its doors to you and that other people have fought to create this environment that you can come into and be a part of and everything.
	There's absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
	But while people are angry at him for saying this, meanwhile the Prime Minister of Canada wore blackface.
	And face no repercussions whatsoever.
	Voters had no problem with him.
	So if you're just if you're a TV commentator in Canada and you advocate that people respect and remember veterans, that's offensive.
	Yet you could be the prime minister of Canada and wear blackface and that's fine.
	If that makes sense to you, maybe you'll just have to explain it to me because I can't quite Make heads or tails of it.
	All right.
	Let's go to emails.
	Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.
	Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.
	This is from Ryan says you recently talked about how the school system favors girls over guys.
	And I thought you were simply wrong.
	You then started to name some ways in which the system favors women, and it's all happening in my school.
	I'm a sophomore in high school, and this conversation is very prevalent.
	The most obvious example is gym class, which they have affectionately renamed to Lifetime Sports.
	Wait, really?
	Is that what gym class is now?
	Lifetime Sports?
	Are you kidding me?
	Is that real?
	I mean, I don't doubt it.
	Lifetime sports.
	You even had to feminize the name of gym.
	Why can't it just be gym class?
	What was wrong with gym class?
	Lifetime sports.
	What does that even mean?
	Anyway, name change aside, the curriculum has drastic changes as well.
	They've abolished the mile run, there's no more 20-minute runs, no football, no dodgeball, and you guessed it, Jim now has 50 question multiple choice and short answer quizzes at the end of every unit, about four per trimester.
	Just to make things better, they have implemented a Scantron exam with 100 questions that is basically the determining factor of your grade.
	I really hate this, as it is gym class known for physical activity, but I don't make the rules.
	Yeah, that's... Well, Ryan, that was exactly what I'm talking about.
	That the education system is basically tailored to and set up for girls.
	Because the thing about boys is they have more physical energy.
	They're not as capable of sitting down and sitting still for long stretches of time.
	They're not as good at memorizing things.
	Women are better at that.
	So boys, especially younger boys, but really males in general, at any level of school, They need to be active, they need to be up more, they need to be learning in a more hands-on way.
	And the only point of gym class or lifetime sports, the only point of it is just to give the kids a chance to get out that aggression and get out that energy.
	That's really the only function of gym class.
	And as far as that goes, it serves an important function.
	As long as it's doing that, I don't think it's a waste of time at all.
	There are some people who say, well, gym class is a waste of time.
	I don't think it's a waste of time.
	I think if you're going to have these kids in school from 8 o'clock to 3 o'clock or 7.30 to 2.30 or whatever it is, for all that stretch of time, you need to give them that chance to get out that energy.
	They can't just be sitting at a desk that whole time.
	But now you're taking that out of it and you're putting desks into gym class now.
	And taking out all the physically challenging things that involve aggression and strength and endurance, taking all that out.
	So you've got kind of the last bastion in school that was sort of more tailored to boys, and now they're taking that away.
	Because in school, the boys aren't allowed to have anything.
	Everything.
	If you've got energy, and you like to move around, and you're more of a hands-on learner, in the modern education system, there is just nothing for you.
	They want nothing to do with you.
	And, well, there is something for you.
	I'm sorry, actually.
	There's drugs.
	Rather than having gym class or something, instead now they'll say, well, we'll just shove some chemicals down your throat.
	That'll calm you down.
	Really is horrific.
	This is from Jonathan, said, hi Matt, I saw you talking about how we should take away foreign aid from every country.
	Is that really your position?
	How do you justify it?
	Yeah, we were talking about this online.
	Yeah, that is my position.
	I don't think that there should be, I don't think that our government should be taking money out of the pockets of American citizens and handing it to foreign governments.
	I don't think that should ever happen.
	That to me strikes me as immoral, irresponsible, unconstitutional.
	And it's hard for me to see how that doesn't violate or how that isn't an example of taxation without representation.
	Because, okay, you're taking money from me, you're handing it to a foreign government.
	That foreign government doesn't represent me.
	I don't know what they're going to do with the money.
	I have no influence over them.
	So isn't that taxation without representation?
	I just don't think it's right.
	I'm crazy enough to think that the money that you earn is really your money.
	And we have to have some form of taxation to keep the government going.
	That might be a necessary evil.
	Although it's way, way beyond what it needs to be.
	As we talked about last week, the government already takes in almost $4 trillion a year in taxes.
	And anyone who thinks that that is necessary is crazy.
	But I still think that your money is your money.
	We deal with this necessary evil of taxation because we have to.
	But it's still your money.
	So the foreign aid, what they're doing is they're taking money out of your pocket, out of your bank account, and they're handing it to foreign governments.
	I see that as as just simply wrong.
	Let's see here.
	This is from Kayla, says, Hi Matt, I've been listening to your show for about six months now and absolutely love it.
	Your humor is hilarious and I love all the deep topics as well.
	I'm a work from home mom, so listening to the podcast is a breath of adult conversation during the long toddler chasing days.
	Speaking of toddlers, my husband and I have two little boys, three and one, and even though my pregnancies are terrible because of hyperemesis, that's how you pronounce it, right?
	Hyperemesis.
	Anyway, I'm getting baby fever.
	I've always wanted a bigger family and it's been my dream to homeschool my kiddos, make food from scratch, live on a cozy farm, etc.
	I also run my own business, which is awesome because it allows me to be home with my babies and also bring in that side income.
	Well, I've had a suspicion for a while now that my in-laws, who are very involved in our lives and our kids' lives, which is awesome, what they really look down on is the idea of us growing our family.
	They've both made comments before like, well, this person or that person could have as many kids as they want because they both have good jobs and both make good money.
	Or they'll say, two kids is plenty.
	And last night, my father-in-law straight out asked my husband, so you're not getting pregnant, right?
	Well, probably.
	Your husband probably isn't getting pregnant, so he could have said yes to that.
	Although these days, you never know.
	I know I've let it slip a few times that I have baby fever, but it's never been more in-depth than that.
	Here's the thing.
	I know we aren't rich, and we're very young, 25 and 26.
	We have a small house, etc, etc.
	So yes, I know there's nothing wrong with waiting.
	I just feel like they think something is wrong with me.
	That I would want more than two kids, but I also feel weighted down by their opinion since we rent our house from them and they're very involved in our boys lives.
	Is something wrong with this desire to grow our family?
	Even though we aren't rich, we don't have a big house.
	I guess when I picture my life, I see a big family sitting around an old table, eating dinner together.
	It's loud, chaotic and full of joy, but I get the overwhelming sense that if we choose to have a third child, they would think that we were so irresponsible and stupid.
	Um, yeah, well this is, I can't speak for your in-laws of course, but.
	And I would hope that they wouldn't look at you that way, although I can't say.
	The fact is, a lot of people in society do.
	There are a lot of people who have a very utilitarian, materialistic view of things.
	And so, the way they look at it is, okay, you have one kid, you have two kids, fine.
	But why would you need to have more than that?
	As if it's an issue of need.
	That's not what it is at all.
	It's just a matter of people have vastly different ways.
	They're just a totally different priority system.
	And if you're not as focused, if you don't care as much about the material side of things, and if having a huge house and being able to go on really nice vacations and stuff like that, if that isn't as important to you, Then you're going to say, well, I want to have a bigger family.
	And of course, I'm going to say there's nothing wrong with that.
	I have four kids, which four kids, which really is not a big family or shouldn't be considered a big family.
	But these days it is when most people are having the average of 1.3 kids, whatever the average is now.
	But yeah, we've gotten the same kinds of comments from people with our fourth kid, the same sorts of looks and that sort of thing.
	Most people aren't going to come out and be aggressive about it.
	Maybe family members feel more entitled to be aggressive, although they shouldn't feel entitled.
	It's still rude and wrong.
	But most people won't be that explicit about it.
	It's just little snide comments here and there that they'll make.
	And what I would say is just ignore them.
	Who cares?
	Really, who cares?
	Who cares what anyone else thinks?
	Who cares what your in-laws think?
	First of all, it's a, it's a, it's just a rule of life that in-laws you'll always be judged by in-laws.
	Isn't that just a classic?
	Everyone goes through that.
	So I'm not trying to downplay it, but really who cares what they think makes absolutely no difference.
	And if you decided.
	That you're not going to have as many kids as you want to have, and you're not going to have that large family with the big old table where you're sitting around having dinner, and it's loud and everything, and that's what you want.
	If you decided not to have that, and not to fulfill that dream of yours, because you didn't want to be judged by your in-laws, I can guarantee you that 30 years from now, you will absolutely regret that.
	30 years from now, when you have made that drastic change to your life, and decided not to pursue what you wanted to pursue, just because of comments from your in-laws, 30 years from now, you're not gonna feel like that was the right choice.
	Whereas, on the other hand, if you decide to, okay, I'm gonna keep having kids because I want kids, and that's what I want for my life, and your in-laws make their stupid comments, 30 years from now, you're not going to look back and say, oh, well, I wish I never had these kids.
	So I wouldn't have gotten those comments from my in-laws.
	No, it's not going to mean anything to you.
	And in fact, forget about 30 years.
	I mean, once you have the child, it's not going to mean anything to you.
	This is your child.
	Who cares what anyone says?
	But thank you for the question.
	And thanks, everybody, for listening.
	We'll leave it there.
	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.

▲