President Trump took out Iran's head terrorist. This is good news for America and for the world. But Democrats are in a state of mourning. We'll talk about their disgraceful response. Also, will the Supreme Court revisit Roe v Wade? Finally, was Jesus an anti-war hippy, as He is so often portrayed?
Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Now, I certainly don't purport to be an authority or expert in the realm of foreign policy, but I don't think you need to be an expert to come to some very basic conclusions about things, and I base those conclusions on the facts that are generally agreed upon by all reasonable people, it seems.
And those facts are Solomony was an evil, murderous man.
He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S.
military members and civilians as well.
He had planned attacks on American soil in the past, including one in D.C.
that was foiled, fortunately, before it happened.
He was behind recent attacks against Americans in Iraq, including the attack on our embassy a few days ago.
He was an ongoing threat to American lives and the lives of many others, many people of other nationalities, including Iranians, by the way.
Now, none of that is disputed from what I've seen.
Pentagon says that Soleimani was also planning an imminent attack of some kind against Americans.
Now, you could say that you don't believe that and you don't trust the Pentagon, but you don't need to believe it.
We don't even need that.
You don't need to take the Pentagon's word for it when it comes to the other points that I just listed, and I think that tells us everything we need to know in terms of was this attack Morally justified.
The thing that finally prompted the U.S.
to respond were the recent attacks, especially at the embassy.
We knew where Soleimani was.
We had his location.
Trump ordered the attack, took him out.
Based on all of that, I say it's morally justified.
Now, does it make strategic sense?
From my non-expert perspective, it seems to make a lot of strategic sense, yes.
All of these people Liberals and Democrats mostly.
We'll talk about them more in a minute.
But these people worrying about escalation or that this might constitute an act of war and so on.
Well, an attack on our embassy is an escalation.
It is an act of war.
The only question is whether we will show a willingness to respond swiftly and harshly to that sort of provocation or not.
That's the question.
An unwillingness to respond.
You know, policy of appeasement, it seems to me.
Like the policy that Obama had initiated, which included sending pallets of cash to Iran.
That kind of policy obviously does not de-escalate or prevent future attacks, and we can clearly see that.
Because if it did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
Obama appeased for eight years.
Did Iran de-escalate?
Did they back off?
Did they play nice?
Did it result in peace and harmony in the Middle East?
No, obviously not.
If you don't show a willingness to protect yourself, to defend yourself, to respond in kind, if you don't show that kind of willingness, then you embolden your enemies and you send the message that they can do whatever they want.
And obviously that's not the message we want to send.
Look, I'm not in favor of regime change wars.
I don't want to be the world police.
I've basically been a non-interventionist.
But taking out a monstrous scumbag who's been killing Americans for decades and stage an attack on our embassy only a few days ago is neither of those things.
That's not being world police and that's not a regime change war.
It's appropriate, it's just, it's necessary, I would argue.
It's obviously reckless.
You know, to be someone who is itching for war all the time, always wanting to intervene, always wanting to send troops over everywhere and start wars everywhere.
And there are people like that.
I think there are fewer people like that today than there were, say, 20 years ago, but there are people out there like that.
You know, the so-called neocons and so forth.
But the other extreme end is this anti-war absolutism that you also find out there.
In fact, the very notion of being anti-war is really a silly and unserious position.
Because there are times when military action is necessary.
Saying, I'm anti-war.
Well, in a sense, almost everybody is, because nobody likes, or very few people anyway, like war.
But there are obviously times when you have to respond that way.
Killing a guy like Soleimani, especially after he was behind the attack on our embassy, seems like a necessary response.
Now, here's a question for us to consider.
After Trump deployed hundreds of troops to protect the embassy in Baghdad, and then killed the guy who coordinated the attack, so you've got the attack on our embassy, Trump sends hundreds of more troops over there to protect the embassy, And then he goes and kills the guy who coordinated it.
Now, basically coming down like a ton of bricks on everybody associated with it.
After that happens, do you think our embassies are more or less likely to be attacked in the future?
Obviously, there's nothing we can do to make sure that they're never attacked again anywhere.
But is it more or less likely to happen now because of that?
Do you think future would-be attackers are more or less emboldened by this, now that they see what will happen to them?
That's the question.
And there would appear to be an obvious answer to it.
If somebody tries to break into your house, and by the way, an embassy that is, you know, US Embassy, that's American soil.
That's the way embassies work.
If someone tries to break into your house, and you greet them with a shotgun, Is that going to encourage more burglars in the future?
Are you going to worry that by doing this, more burglars are going to want to show up maybe for the challenge?
They just like a good challenge?
No, they're not there for the challenge.
They have other objectives.
They want to steal your TV.
They want whatever they want to do.
People who attack us, attack our people, our embassies, they're not doing it for the challenge.
They're doing it for other reasons.
They have other objectives.
And now they know that that calculation carries a significant amount of risk for them.
And it's good that they know that.
Now they know that if you do that, we're going to send, we're going to show up with, in force to respond.
And then if you helped coordinate this thing, we're going to send a drone out to find you and we're going to, You know, turn you into a pot of beef stew, basically.
I would think that it's good for would-be attackers or would-be coordinators of attacks to know that.
Now, the next question, of course, is what will Iran do in response?
What happens next?
And the first answer to that, obviously, is nobody knows exactly because nobody can look into the future.
The second answer is we have to be very selective about whose guesses and predictions we trust.
Notice something.
And I'm not saying to trust my guess or prediction.
You shouldn't trust that.
But I have noticed that none of the serious, sober-minded, knowledgeable voices that I've seen are screaming about World War III or saying that World War III is going to happen.
Now, a lot of people are screaming about World War III and saying World War III is going to happen, but none of them are sober and knowledgeable.
And that's probably because Iran is not some enormous superpower.
They're basically a third-rate power, and they would get annihilated in a direct, all-out war with the United States.
Which doesn't mean that they issue no response at all, obviously.
They could respond on a smaller scale, they could respond through proxies, they could attack our interests and our people directly.
And exactly how all of that will shake out, I don't know.
But I do know that All of the things they could do in response, they've already done and are already doing and would have continued to do if they were unopposed.
We just have to continue to be swift, decisive, and smart in response to whatever they do in the future.
That's basically my take on this.
But Democrats have a different take, unsurprisingly.
And their take is that Well, their take is basically that protecting our embassies and killing terrorists who kill Americans is bad if Trump does it.
Not a surprising take.
That's their take on everything.
Did Trump do it?
It's bad.
Very, very, very simple calculation they have to make.
Almost there's an enviable simplicity to it.
It would be nice to live in a world like that where you don't have to think too much about things.
All you have to say is, did Trump do it?
Does Trump support it?
Well, I'm against it.
Now they haven't put it quite like that most of the time, but that's the gist.
And we'll run down some of the lowlights of the Democratic response to this in a minute, but first,
you know, I like to do my research on my sponsors on the show,
and I only recommend brands to my listeners that I believe in.
And I can say with full confidence that ExpressVPN is the best VPN on the market.
Here's why.
ExpressVPN doesn't just log your data.
Lots of really cheap and free VPNs make money by selling your data to ad companies.
That's not what ExpressVPN is all about.
ExpressVPN developed a technology called Trusted Server that makes it impossible for their servers to log Any of your info.
Okay, so they're not going to do that.
If you want to go the cheap, easy route and find some other VPN, well then, that's what's going to happen.
We don't have to worry about that with ExpressVPN.
The second thing is speed.
I've tried lots of VPNs in the past.
Many of them slow your connection speed down and make your devices very sluggish.
That's a problem for me, especially because I live my entire life on the internet, unfortunately.
So I've been using ExpressVPN for months, and my internet speeds are blazing fast.
Even when I connect to servers thousands of miles away, I can still stream HD quality videos with zero lag.
The last thing that really sets ExpressVPN apart from other VPNs is how easy it is to use.
Unlike other VPNs, you don't have to input or program anything,
which is also good for me because I really don't know, even though I'm on computers all the time,
and on the internet all the time, I'm also basically illiterate with it.
I don't know what I'm doing with computers.
So they make it very easy.
So you know you have that security.
You know you have the convenience of it.
You know you have speed.
It's easy to use.
So, to protect yourself with the VPN that I use and I trust, use my link ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh today.
Get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to learn more.
Well, they haven't all been quite this bad, because this is about as bad as it gets, but Rose McGowan, She's the former Hollywood actress.
I don't know what she does for a living now, but she sent out a tweet last night saying, Dear Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people.
52% of us humbly apologize.
We want peace with your nation.
We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime.
We do not know how to escape.
Please do not kill us.
Hashtag Soleimani.
I mean, what do you even say to that?
Cowering to a terrorist regime, begging for mercy, apologizing.
Democrats might elect her president if she keeps this up.
Although there is one point here.
Aside from the question of where did she get the 52% figure from, 52% of us apologize.
Did she poll everybody before she sent this tweet out?
But I think the bigger point here is, you know, Rose, maybe I can help you out.
She says that she doesn't know how to escape.
Well, it's pretty easy, Rose.
You have a passport, right?
Okay, so I assume you have a passport.
Well, go to the airport, get on a plane, and that's it.
The plane will do most of the rest of the work, and you can go anywhere you want.
You can leave the country.
And I'm not one to always resort to the, if you don't like America, get out thing.
But if this is your position, that there's a terrorist regime in power, you're being held against your will, then you just... If I felt that way, I would leave.
So you are free to do that.
In fact, you could go to Iran if you want, deliver your love letter in person.
See if you like how you're treated over there.
Meanwhile, a reporter for the New York Times, and I'm not making this up, a reporter for the New York Times, hours after the strike, posted, well, I'll just show it to you, posted this video, watch.
All my friends have left.
It's a shame that I'm the only one left.
I'm the only one left of all the sorrows and sorrows.
The time has come and the way has gone.
The one who didn't leave is the only one left.
Here's the caption that went with that video.
A rare personal video of General Soleimani reciting poetry shared by a source in Iran about friends departing and him being left behind.
Totally normal, right?
You're posting this sympathetic video of the terrorist reciting poetry.
This is like right after Bin Laden was killed.
Here's a silly video of Osama singing Take On Me at the Taliban karaoke night.
Meanwhile, a CNN reporter, Sam Vinograd, tweeted, Soleimani was a terrorist who was responsible for horrific actions.
Iran will consider this an act of war.
President Trump doesn't rely on intelligence for anything, so it is unlikely that he fully understands the repercussions of this action.
Iran will consider this an act of war.
They attacked our embassy.
That was an act of war.
The act of war already happened.
What kind of gutless nonsense is this?
A country makes an act of war against the United States, and you say we shouldn't respond to the act of war because it would be an act of war?
Oh no, we can't respond to an act of war with an act of war because that might cause them to do an act of war, I mean another act of war, on top of all the other acts of war they've already done, but, you know, we can't.
And it gets worse.
The Daily Wire has an article up right now compiling the Democratic reaction to the Soleimani strike.
Let me read some of this on thedailywire.com.
It says, Socialist Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders responded by tweeting, Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that would cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.
Trump promised to end the endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.
Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren responded by writing on Twitter, Soleimani was a murderer responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans, but this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict.
Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.
Let's just, before I continue, let's review what they're calling a reckless, you know, thoughtless move.
It was killing the guy who Elizabeth Warren herself describes as a mass murderer who was
in Iraq after having just helped coordinate an attack on an American embassy.
Killing that guy was reckless.
OK.
Democrat presidential candidate Marianne Williamson responded by writing, prayers for peace.
Killing of Qasem Soleimani by U.S.
military was one of the most reckless, irresponsible actions ever directed by a U.S.
president.
Congress deserves condemnation for allowing it, and Americans need to understand this.
War with Iran would be totally disastrous.
Well, Marianne, maybe you could grab your peace crystal.
And get to work.
I mean, really, I blame you.
You're the one that's supposed to be harnessing all of the goodwill and all of the positive energy in the universe through your crystals.
Where have your crystals been?
What, did you leave them up in the attic?
Get the crystals out!
Get to work!
The whole world's gonna come to an end because of you.
Marianne?
Far-left political commentator Crystal Ball tweeted, speaking of crystals, No one voted for this, no one authorized it, and yet here we are in the precipice of war with Iran.
If we assassinated Soleimani, it's hard to overstate just what a massive escalation and dangerous situation this president has just put us in.
Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang responded.
War with Iran is the last thing we need and is not the will of the American people.
We should be acting to de-escalate tensions and protect our people in the region.
Far-left Young Turks writer Emma Weiglin tweeted, Imagine the Iranian government assassinating Mike Pompeo with a drone at the direction of the president and called it self-defense.
That's exactly what the U.S.
did by killing Soleimani.
An act of war.
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy said just a few days ago that Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East.
No one fears us.
No one listens to us.
But then Murphy responded to news that Trump killed Soleimani by writing, Soleimani was an enemy of the United States.
That's not a question.
The question is this.
As reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?
And on and on and on, so you get the gist of it.
You've got the media, you've got Democrat presidential candidates, they're all opposed to it.
They all are worried about war with Iran.
Look, okay, a few things here.
First of all, calling this an assassination is just straight-up Iranian propaganda.
You may as well be working for the Iranian government.
Soleimani was a terrorist operating illegally.
He was an aggressor against the United States.
He was killed in a war zone.
This was not an assassination.
Assassination is what they will call it.
Comparing it to killing a U.S.
official like Mike Pompeo, that is, again, Iranian propaganda.
That's how they're going to phrase it.
That's how they're going to put it and frame it.
Second, there are many reasonable things that you could say, or a reasonable person could Speculate or worry about where this is going to head, what's going to happen next.
I think we would be fools if we weren't somewhat worried because it's a contentious situation, to put it mildly.
So there's nothing wrong with that.
And I've seen plenty of reasonable people who've said, listen, I think this was the right thing to do.
I think it was necessary.
But this could go any number of directions.
And so here are some directions it could go that wouldn't be so good.
That's fine.
But to act as though Iran is some massive superpower, and we've just poked the bear, and now they're going to rise up and destroy us, Which is the way some of the Democrats are essentially positioning this, is absurd.
I mean, it's un-American, it's ridiculous, it's sensationalist, it's fear-mongering.
Third thing, is there any doubt that every Democrat in the country would be tripping over themselves to extol the brilliance of this move if Obama had done it?
Is there any doubt?
Now, there are, on the fringes of the left, there are some people, a few people, who are consistent on these things, and, in fact, did hold Obama accountable during his administration for doing things like assassinating American citizens via drone strike, which is something that Obama did do.
But those voices are few and far between.
For the most part, When Obama was in office, whatever he did, drone strikes, whatever, Democrats were totally behind it.
So is there any doubt at all, if this was Obama who did that, is there any doubt that most of these Democrats would be saying that it was a brilliant move, it was morally right, it was strategically wise, on and on and on, so on and so forth?
No, we have no doubt about that.
Because these people have no integrity whatsoever.
You could claim that the same is true on the other end, and if Obama had done this, most Republicans would be criticizing it, but that's actually not true.
And I'm not saying that Republicans are above being tribalistic, they obviously aren't, but on issues like this?
Democrats are far more tribalistic.
When it comes to, in my view, when it comes to foreign policy especially, Democrats are far more tribalistic and are far more likely to completely change their foreign policy principles depending on if it's a guy with a D or an R next to his name in the White House.
I think that, you know, 99% of the Republicans who are celebrating this Or at least supporting it now would be doing the same if it was Obama in office.
But that's how Democrats operate.
All right, let's move on to...
Some other big news that I don't want to get completely overshadowed.
Reading again from the Daily Wire, it says, Congressional Republicans have now taken aim at the infamous decision Roe v. Wade by urging the Supreme Court to revisit the nearly 50-year-old case that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right across all 50 states.
39 Republican senators and 168 members of the House of Representatives, almost all of them Republicans, signed a so-called friend of the court brief Um, filed on Thursday by the National Anti-Abortion Group Americans United for Life in connection with a challenge to a Louisiana abortion access law due to be heard in March.
The Louisiana case before the court does not directly target Roe, the report continued.
The law at issue requires a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed, which critics say is not medically justified.
According to the brief, Roe's jurisprudence has been haphazard from the beginning due to it becoming a radically unsettled precedent that, quote, has been substantially undermined by subsequent authority, arguing that previous court rulings, quote, clearly did not settle the abortion issue.
The brief urges SCOTUS to reconsider those precedents.
And then it goes on from there.
It's an interesting report on the Daily Wire.
You can go and read.
And of course it raises the question, are we going to get any kind of direct confrontation with or challenge to Roe v. Wade?
With the way the court is currently constituted, I wouldn't at all be confident that Roe v. Wade would get overturned.
And that's part of the irony, actually, about the way, just how fervent the left was, obviously, in trying to stop somebody like Kavanaugh from getting on the court and saying that Kavanaugh is going to attack abortion and Roe v. Wade and all this.
I don't think Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I could be wrong.
I really don't think he would.
But when it comes to Roe v. Wade, you know, if If you have any integrity, again, and it doesn't even matter how you feel about abortion personally, even if you're in favor of abortion.
If you're in favor of abortion, but you have integrity, and maybe there's a paradox there, maybe there's a, just, that's impossible.
How could a person with integrity be in favor of abortion?
Probably they can't, and I think that's the problem.
But if there was anyone in that category that exists, Then they would have to admit that Roe v. Wade, putting abortion to the side, how you personally feel about it, Roe v. Wade is a disastrous legal opinion.
On a legal level, it was a disastrous decision by the Supreme Court.
Because what they did was they located a fictional right to abortion in the right to privacy provision, which also doesn't exist.
And if it did exist, it would have nothing to do with abortion.
So based on a right to privacy, which has nothing to do with abortion, and also doesn't exist in the Constitution, they found, they located, a right to abortion.
And it just, that of course makes no sense.
On a legal level.
And on that basis alone, Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Let's move on to emails.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
There was one here that was interesting that I wanted to spend some time on.
Okay, this is from Brandon, says, Matt, I was confused by some of your tweets last night talking about the Iran situation.
Someone said that the U.S.
response isn't biblical, and you seem to suggest that Jesus' words in the Bible don't apply to governments, but only to individuals.
Are you saying the government can do whatever it wants morally, according to the Bible?
Well, Brandon, of course I'm not saying that.
I'm just backing up for a moment here.
A few people challenged me last night, basically taking the position that Jesus was anti-war, and the Bible is anti-war, and all the stuff about don't take vengeance, turn the other cheek, and so on, should disqualify us from doing things like killing terrorists.
And we've all heard this before.
We've all encountered this version of Jesus as this peacenik, Anti-war hippie, right?
Somebody quoted Paul in Romans saying that the verse in Romans talking about beloved, don't take vengeance, leave it to God.
I'm paraphrasing.
Now here's my point.
And Romans is actually a great example.
So it's good that the person quoted it.
Even though the person who quoted it obviously had never read the entire letter.
Because if you read the entire letter of Romans, you would see that in the very same letter, Paul, in his only explicit mention of the state in that letter, specifically affirms the state's authority to wield the sword and take lives.
So, at one point, he's saying, Beloved, don't take vengeance.
Yet, at another point, he says that the state can wield the sword and take lives in the name of justice.
How do we make sense of that?
Well, because it's simply the case that many of the moral edicts and commands given in the Bible are given to individuals, not to governments as a whole.
That doesn't mean that governments can do whatever they want.
Intrinsically immoral acts are intrinsically immoral, no matter who does them.
So, rape is intrinsically immoral, which means that Individual people can't do it, and the government can't, you know, come up with some policy where they, you know, subject prisoners of war to rape or whatever.
Slavery is intrinsically immoral.
Lots of things are intrinsically immoral.
Killing is not intrinsically immoral.
Killing is a matter of authority.
So, what the Bible tells us is that we as individuals do not have the authority to go out and kill in the name of justice.
We can kill in self-defense, obviously, or in defense of those we love, but we are not empowered to go out and be vigilantes, to be like superheroes.
We can't go out on the street looking for bad guys to bring to justice.
We are not empowered to do that.
The government is empowered to do that.
Does it abuse that power?
Well, of course it does.
But the Bible does grant that power to the state, not just in Romans, but throughout the text, Old and New Testament.
And so that's my point.
And that's why you can't just haphazardly take a verse here and a verse there and apply it to foreign policy.
Which, again, doesn't mean that our foreign policy is totally exempt from everything that's in the Bible.
But it does mean that you can't do it that way.
And when Jesus says, turn the other cheek, he's talking to you, individually, as a person, and me.
And he's saying that if you are insulted, personally, then the correct response is to turn the other cheek.
You cannot take that and extrapolate it and pretend that Jesus was giving advice on foreign policy and on how entire nations are supposed to respond to things like terrorism.
Now you're taking Turn the Other Cheek, which is a very simple but important command, and you're expanding it into oblivion.
And you're turning it into something incoherent.
Now, we're going to pretend that Jesus is saying that if a nation is attacked by another nation, the nation shouldn't defend itself?
No, the government has a responsibility to defend its citizens.
And if we're attacked or if we're under threat, the government has a responsibility to respond.
No, we don't want the government to turn the other cheek to aggressors and terrorists and, you know, enemy powers.
So you've just got to be, you know, we say again and again, you've got to look at the context in the Bible.
You can't take anything just in isolation and pluck a sentence out of its context.
You can't do that.
You have to look at the context and you have to, this is very important, look at who these comments or commands are being directed at.
Let's see, this is from Antonio, says, Hi Matt, I'm sorry the Pope is ignoring you.
If he followed your podcast, he would surely be a better Pope.
Well, that's... I'd have to agree with you there.
I'm only writing to advise you to watch the best movie in recent years.
The Peanut Butter Falcon.
I'd like to hear your comment on this movie.
Good start of the decade.
With devotion, Antonio.
Yeah, I actually did watch The Peanut Butter Falcon.
That's the Shia LaBeouf movie I watched with my wife a few weeks ago, and I thought it was a delightful movie.
Basically family-friendly.
I mean, I've got six-year-old kids.
I probably wouldn't watch it with them, but if you've got older kids, it's a family-friendly kind of Very Mark Twainian sort of adventure slash coming-of-age tale, and I really enjoyed it.
I'm not a big fan of Shia LaBeouf, but he impressed me in that one, so I will also give my stamp of approval on the peanut butter falcon.
A little bit of a weird ending.
But other than that, pretty good movie.
This is from Larry.
He says, Hi Matt, I saw you talking about fishing the other day.
I didn't realize you were an angler.
Here's a good question for you from someone who's just getting into it.
What is the biggest mistake novice bass fishermen make?
Well, there's a lot of mistakes.
I mean, pretty much everything.
I know when I first started fishing, I'd say I did everything wrong.
And there are many things you could point to.
One of them is not choosing the right color of lure, depending on the water clarity and the season and the color of the bait that's actually in the lake or the body of water you're fishing on.
You have to know what else is in the lake and try to match.
The color of your bait to that.
And then again, like I said, water clarity is important.
So if it's a crystal clear lake, then you want your colors to be very muted and realistic.
If it's a murkier lake, then you want to go either really, really dark, so you get that nice silhouette the fish can see, or maybe really bright.
This is where you want to get louder and more obnoxious, just so the fish can locate the bait.
So that's a mistake.
People make mistakes in presentation.
It's important, especially in a clear lake.
The way that you make the bait move under the water, that's going to trigger or not trigger the reaction bite from the fish.
Fish are predators.
Bass fish are predators.
And so you want to trigger that instinct to go after the bait.
A lot of that is going to be presentation.
But I would say the number one mistake, at least the number one mistake I made, was location.
Not finding the right location.
And staying put, rather than not being mobile enough.
Because when you're fishing, this is really hunting.
And you're going out, and you've got to find where the fish are.
It seems like a really basic and obvious tip.
And it is.
But it's one that took me a while to figure out.
Okay, if you're fishing, you actually have to find where the fish are first.
Which means that, you know, if you're at a lake or something, I see people doing this all the time.
I see guys at lakes and they, you know, they just walk out onto a dock or they're on the bank and they just are standing there for hours just casting out in the same spot.
Just, you know, obviously there's no fish there.
So you want to look at location.
If it's in the summer, especially, you know, you want to look in shady spots, you're looking around structure.
Okay, if there's rocks and stumps and things, you want to go to grass, you want to go to weeds, all that stuff, that's where fish are going to hide out.
They're not just going to be out in the middle of, you know, some, if there's some big open spot in the middle of the lake, they're probably not going to be there.
If it's colder, if you're trying to go fishing right now, for example, then you want to go deep, which, unless you know the topography of the lake, unless you know what's under there, it's probably a waste of time.
So you want to know, like, if you can go deep and you happen to know, if you're in 20 feet of water and you happen to know that underneath you there's grass or there's structure, there's an underwater island or something, then that could be a good spot.
If you have no idea what's under the lake and it's a big lake, probably just going out into the middle of the lake and throwing a bait in is, you know, you're probably not going to catch anything.
But, you know, doesn't mean you can't try.
So that would be the main thing.
You want to keep, you want to, you want to find the right location.
You want to keep moving.
If you're in a location and there's no fish there, then you want to move to the next spot.
This is what makes fishing off of the shore more difficult than if you're in a boat, because you're a little bit less mobile.
But just keep moving.
They say that 90% of the fish will be in 10% of the lake.
So keep that in mind.
You've got to find that 10%.
And if you're in a spot and you're not getting any bites, it could be that you're in the 90% where there aren't any fish.
All right.
Thanks for that question, though.
I did threaten on Twitter a few days ago to do an entire show on bass fishing tips.
And don't put it past me to do that.
If I keep getting emails like this, you know, you might tempt me.
But thanks for that.
And I hope everyone has a great weekend.
Nice short week for us.
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 2020.
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.
