Ep. 1344 - Member Of The ‘Party Of Science’ Doesn’t Know What The Moon Is
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a prominent congress woman and former member of the House Science committee revealed this week that she doesn't know what the Moon is. And somehow that's not even the worst of it. Also, Joe Biden comes up with a new scheme to buy votes by forgiving student loans. Scotland's new hate crime law goes into effect and already the system is overloaded with hate crime complaints. Plus, Ben Affleck's non-binary daughter debuts her new identity at her grandfather's funeral.
Ep.1344
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/3VPYOTo
Watch my new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Leftist Tears Tumbler is BACK! Subscribe to get your FREE one today: https://bit.ly/4capKTB
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month when you make the switch! https://www.puretalk.com/Walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
Hillsdale - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, a prominent congresswoman and former member of the House Science Committee revealed this week that she doesn't know what the moon is.
And somehow that's not even the worst of it.
Also, Joe Biden comes up with a new scheme to buy votes by forgiving student loans.
Scotland's new hate crime law goes into effect and already the system is overloaded with hate crime complaints.
Plus, Ben Affleck's non-binary daughter debuts her new identity at her grandfather's funeral.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
You know, $20 barely gets you anything these days.
You can't even get a burger and fries for less than that.
But do you know what $20 will get you?
From the cell phone company I use, PureTalk.
You can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost.
The average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
You can switch to PureTalk and keep the phone and phone number you currently use, or you can take advantage of their great deals.
on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Making the switch is incredibly easy.
Their US customer service team can help you join Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes.
Choose to spend your hard earned money with a wireless company that shares your values,
supports our military and veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on fake news networks.
Stop spending ridiculous amounts on your phone plan.
Go to puretalk.com/walsh.
Right now, my listeners can get an additional 50% off their first month.
That's puretalk.com/walsh today.
You know, there's a lot we can say about our political leaders.
Are they corrupt?
Yes.
Are they power-hungry?
Yes.
Are they a bunch of evil, soulless goblins?
Yes.
But what may be most significant, the trait that may have the most bearing on the future of our country, is that they are, by and large, also extremely stupid.
I mean, there is little doubt that we are right now led by the dumbest collection of muddle-headed morons that has ever been assembled in our nation's capital, or any nation's capital.
It's difficult to overstate just how monstrously stupid these people are, and if you doubt that, then please consider this video of Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.
And before I play the video, you should understand a few things about Sheila Jackson Lee.
The first is that she is a former member of the Science Committee.
The second is that she is also a former member of the Space and Aeronautics Committee.
And the third is that she is, once again, a sitting member of Congress.
And in that position, she gave an address on Monday to students from Booker T. Washington High School.
And this address happened on the occasion of the eclipse.
In fact, and this is not really the stupid part.
Well, it's not the really stupid part, but it is a stupid part.
She claims that she, as she put it on Twitter, created the opportunity for the students to see the eclipse.
Lee tweeted, quote, Today I created the opportunity to see a unique science and solar experience for the students at Booker T. Washington High School.
As a former member of the Science Committee and a former ranking member of the Space and Aeronautics Committee, this was an irreplaceable moment in history.
There should be more opportunities to introduce science to our diverse and vulnerable communities.
So many students came out to see history for themselves.
Many remarked that this is the first time I've ever seen anything like this, and they made their way to the field.
Despite over 90% of Booker T's students being economically disadvantaged, it has managed to build an enthusiastic environment where students are excited to explore the wonders of space and exploration.
The hallmark of this excitement is anchored in opportunity.
Now, There's enough in those few sentences alone to assess that Sheila Jackson Lee has approximately the IQ of a toothpick.
For one thing, she's somehow taking credit for the eclipse.
She seems to be suggesting that these young people would not have been able to look up at the sky and view this celestial event if not for her intervention.
So by gathering with the kids and pointing at the sky and saying, hey, check it out, she is apparently creating the opportunity to look at the sky.
Without her, they would never have thought to look at the sky.
They wouldn't know how to look at the sky without her.
Second, she seems to chide us for not giving more opportunities to diverse and vulnerable communities to view events like this.
But she doesn't explain how we're supposed to create opportunities for diverse communities to see an eclipse in the sky during times when there is no eclipse in the sky.
I mean, it only happens once every several years.
What are we supposed to do about that?
I guess we could invite diverse communities to come outside once a month and then, like, put our hands in front of their faces to sort of simulate the effect of an eclipse, but I'm not sure what that would achieve.
Sheila Jackson Lee doesn't really elaborate.
And third, as further evidence of her toothpick IQ, she says, the hallmark of this excitement is anchored in opportunity.
I want to be very clear, this statement means absolutely nothing.
There is no way to make sense of that sentence.
There is no meaning we can really glean from it.
I think that maybe what she's trying to say is that the kids were excited for the opportunity to watch the eclipse, which Sheila Jackson Lee had somehow created by some unspecified means.
But the phrase, anchored in opportunity, is at best clunky and unnecessarily wordy, and the phrase, the hallmark of this excitement, is just incredibly dumb.
And together they make kind of a dumb sandwich.
In fact, Sheila Jackson Lee, we can tell from this alone, is the dumbest kind of dumb person.
She's the exact inverse of the smartest kind of smart person.
Because we know the smartest kind of smart person is somebody who understands complex topics, but talks about them in simple ways using simple words.
And on the other end of that spectrum is the dumbest dumb person who tries to use unnecessarily big words to communicate simple ideas, but doesn't understand the words they're using, and so they don't manage to effectively convey even the simplest idea.
So, by all that evidence alone, we already know that Sheila Jackson Lee is a momentous moron.
But it's about to get so much worse.
At this event, before somehow in an unclear way providing kids the opportunity to look at the sky, she addressed the crowd of students and gave them a little lesson in astronomy.
Unfortunately, though, she has an understanding of astronomy that is so garbled, confused, and delusional that my four-year-old daughter could easily fact-check her.
Here's what she said.
And sometimes you've heard the word full moon Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see a full moon is that complete rounded circle Which is made up mostly of gases And that's why the question the question is why or how could we as humans live on the moon?
Are the gases such that we could do that?
The Sun is a mighty powerful heat that is almost impossible to go near the sun. The moon is more manageable and you
will see in a moment, or not a moment, you'll see in a couple of years that NASA is going back to
the moon.
So this is a sitting congresswoman who has been a member of the science committee
and a space committee saying that the moon is made up mostly of gases.
And she then juxtaposes the moon with the sun, which she says has a mighty powerful heat, while the moon is, quote, more manageable.
So she appears to believe not only that the moon is a gaseous entity, but also that it gives off its own light and heat.
She very much appears to believe that the moon is basically a much dimmer, cooler version of the sun.
So she thinks we have, like, the night sun and the day sun.
And why is it darker at night?
Because the night sun is dimmer.
And I'm not exaggerating or trying to be funny here.
That is really what she actually believes.
And it is, needless to say, Hopefully, needless to say, completely false.
The moon is solid.
Its surface is rocky.
The light it gives off is the light it reflects from the sun.
It does not create its own light.
This is a very basic fact about our solar system that every child by first grade should understand.
If my 10-year-old thought that the moon was made of gas, I would be concerned.
If I heard my 10-year-old say that, I'd say, what?
You're 10.
You think that?
I would have said, well, I failed as a parent.
It would be a disturbing level of ignorance for a 10-year-old.
For a 74-year-old congresswoman, it is horrifying.
Not to mention baffling.
I truly have no idea how you can live through seven and a half decades and never encounter even the most basic facts about the moon.
This is like if a 74-year-old woman declared that the Pacific Ocean is made of chocolate syrup.
Okay, it's not just that the belief is wildly off-base, it's that it would seem impossible to maintain such an outrageous misconception for that many years.
Like, think about how many times that must have come up in conversation through the years to people who didn't correct you.
Yet, that apparently is what has happened here.
Later that day, Lee responded to the mockery over these comments.
She said this, quote, Now look, once again, and I don't mean to get hung up on the minutiae, but we have a statement here that makes no sense and means nothing.
Foolish thinkers lust for stupidity?
Now look, once again, and I don't mean to get hung up on the minutiae, but we have a
statement here that makes no sense and means nothing.
Foolish thinkers lust for stupidity?
What?
It sounds like the kind of thing you see on, like, a fortune cookie.
It's because someone who doesn't speak English thought it sounded profound.
You know, something was lost in translation.
What does that mean?
It doesn't mean anything.
She just, she thinks it sounds insightful, so she said it.
Because she is quite literally dumber than a grasshopper.
And she claims that she was really talking about the sun, which is the worst excuse she could have possibly offered.
If anybody on her team was at least slightly more intelligent than her, Because that's the other thing, by the way, that you have to understand.
Like, this stupidity, it's not just her.
Her whole team, apparently, is this stupid.
That's why they posted this video on her Twitter page.
And no one thought that there's a problem here.
So if anyone on her team was a little bit more intelligent, they would have suggested That she tried to claim that she was referring to the moon's atmosphere when she referenced its gases.
Now, the moon does have a very thin atmosphere made up of helium, methane, and other gases.
It would be a hell of a stretch to try to spin it that way, and obviously it still wouldn't be true that the moon is made up of gases, but at least that would be a somewhat workable excuse, maybe?
Instead, she comes up with the least plausible cover story she possibly can.
So let's go back and see what her statement would sound like if you swap in the word sun for moon.
It would be like this.
A full sun is a complete rounded circle, which is made up mostly of gases.
The question is, how could we live on the sun?
Are the gases such that we could do that?
The sun is a mighty powerful heat.
It's almost impossible to go near the sun.
The sun is more manageable.
And you will see in a moment, well, not a moment, but in a couple of years, that NASA is going back to the sun.
To be clear, that's what she's claiming she meant to say.
So the spin that this ignoramus came up with is that she didn't mean to say that stupid thing, she actually meant to say something even stupider.
So now we have a choice.
Either Sheila Jackson Lee thinks that the moon is made up of gases, or she thinks that we can live on the sun, and that NASA in a couple years will be visiting the sun, or rather going back to it, because they've already visited it once.
So pick your poison.
And keep in mind, what you just heard there was only a 45 second clip of remarks that went on for more than five minutes.
And believe it or not, it actually gets worse.
Watch.
What you will see today will be the closest distance that the moon has ever been in the last 20 years.
Which means that's why they will shut the light down, because they will be close to the Earth.
Which is an amazing experience, and what we are supposed to experience, and I'm hoping we can, complete darkness.
Okay, now I can't be sure what exactly this lunatic is babbling about, but she seems to be confusing an eclipse with a supermoon.
The latter occurs when a full moon coincides with the moon's closest approach to Earth, which is something that happens not once every 20 years, but a few times every year.
And as for the statement that they will shut the light down, I honestly have no idea what that's even supposed to mean.
Like, who is they?
They?
They will shut the light down?
Does she think there are people living on the moon who manually control how much light comes from the sun?
In my entire life, I've never heard anyone refer to the moon as a they.
Like, what have you ever heard anyone point to the moon and go, look at them?
Does she think the moon is non-binary?
We can't be sure.
But she keeps going.
Listen.
The one impact I want you to have is how you are controlled by something outside of your human experience.
That the solar system is bigger than us, though there are solar systems, and there are systems that are smaller than the Earth.
Still, we're in a solar system, and we depend on the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun.
That is our existence.
That is what creates our desire for creativity, our music, Our weather, our rain, our snow, our cold, our heat, that solar system working.
The moon and sun create our music, she says.
I mean, that's obviously asinine, but it's the closest thing she gets to resembling like a coherent thought.
And the problem is that right before that, she claims that there are solar systems smaller than the Earth.
That would mean that somewhere in the universe, there is a star that, together with its planets orbiting it, is smaller than the Earth itself, and so small, in fact, that the orbit of the planets around it is no greater than the diameter of the Earth.
Now, for the record, there is no evidence that anything like that exists anywhere in the universe, but it does exist in Sheila Jackson Lee's imagination, a place where the moon is not only made up of gases, but is also, of course, a planet.
We have yet to know whether you can live on the moon.
But I don't know about you.
I want to be first in line to know how to live and to be able to survive on the moon.
That's another planet which you're going to see shortly.
Yes, Sheila, I want you to be first in line, too.
I very much want you to be first in line.
Now is probably a good time to tell you that this woman graduated from Yale.
She is a Yale graduate, a prominent congresswoman, a former member of multiple science committees, yet she can't even bulls**t her way through a five-minute presentation about the eclipse to a bunch of public school kids without diving headfirst into the most bizarre science fiction anyone has ever heard.
This is like what would happen to me if I woke up one day and suddenly found myself standing in front of some sort of conference of mathematicians expecting to give a presentation about calculus.
Except that I could probably get out at least one or two sentences before it becomes painfully obvious that I haven't the slightest clue what I'm talking about.
And also, that's calculus?
In Sheila Jackson Lee's case, she was asked to speak at a grade school level about the moon.
And she couldn't do it.
Now, fortunately, she did fact-check herself during her remarks, checking with someone to make sure that her science was accurate.
Watch.
And Dr. Simmons, I didn't go too far away from the scientific explanation.
Is that correct, hopefully?
Alright, so I was near it.
She was near it.
Yeah, she was about as near as the Earth is to Pluto, which according to Sheila Jackson Lee is probably about 14 and a half miles or so.
And my only regret is that they didn't pan to Dr. Simmons to get her, I mean, to get her, you know, look being put on the spot there.
You know, the moon is a gaseous entity and inside it grows strawberries and unicorns.
Dr. Simmons, I'm pretty close on the science, right?
Not too far?
Yeah?
Pretty close?
Now there's no reason to belabor the point any more than I already have.
The point is that this woman quite literally could not pass a first grade science exam and yet she is a member of the party of science and has been a prominent congresswoman in that party for 30 years.
And lest you think that perhaps this woman has not always been this stupid, perhaps she's just another member of our ruling class who is suffering from dementia or some other form of brain damage, consider that Way back in 1997, it was reported that this same congresswoman, then a member of the House Committee on Science, visited the Mars Pathfinder Operations Center in Pasadena, California, and asked, reportedly, whether the Pathfinder on Mars had been able to find the flag planted there by Neil Armstrong.
Um, this question was not caught on camera, so after it was reported, Sheila Jackson Lee's office, of course, denied it, and also, of course, accused the journalist of racism.
But now we know, all these years later, that believing we visited and planted a flag on Mars is actually the least idiotic misconception this woman has about our solar system.
So, we are ruled by morons.
By people who should not be trusted to walk across the room holding a pair of scissors.
People who probably have to wear Velcro shoes so they aren't caught on camera struggling to tie them.
These are the people running the country.
The good news is that maybe we can convince them to board a rocket ship and take a trip to visit the sun.
I hear it's nice this time of year.
And that would certainly solve a lot of our problems.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Do you owe back taxes or still have unfiled returns?
That can really weigh on your mind, especially when the IRS has become even more determined than it's ever been.
Their chief data analytics officer revealed that the IRS is focused on an enforcement project with an average return on investment of about $6 for every $1 spent.
They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't yet filed their returns.
Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code and will fight for you.
With a record of negotiating over a billion dollars in tax relief for their clients, their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help, even if you Don't have all your personal or business records from over the years?
They can get you filed up to date anyway.
Facing the IRS without a professional is not a smart move.
Contact Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate your tax debt.
Call today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Walsh.
They'll give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt today.
That's tnusa.com slash Walsh.
This is from Forbes.
President Joe Biden unveiled a sweeping new plan Monday aimed at erasing or lowering student loan debt for more than 30 million people.
The second attempt to offer a widespread forgiveness after the Supreme Court blocked the administration's inaugural program last summer.
The proposal would cancel up to $20,000 in interest for more than 25 million people who owe more than they originally borrowed, regardless of income.
Those enrolled in the Savings on a Valuable Education repayment plan and other income-driven repayment plans will be eligible to have the entire amount their balance has grown since entering repayment forgiven, including single borrowers earning $120,000 or less and married borrowers earning $240,000 or less.
Debt would automatically be forgiven for eligible borrowers who have not applied for relief due to their paperwork requirements, bad advice, or other obstacles.
So, the Biden administration is trying this again as a way to buy votes as we head into the election.
The key phrase here, I think, is regardless of income.
So this is the clearest admission that we've seen yet that the student loan forgiveness is welfare for the upper class, which of course is what it's always been.
But when you hear regardless of income, they aren't even pretending that it's targeting disadvantaged people or whatever.
This is being done for a group of people, college graduates, who earn more on average than most of the people who will be forced to foot this bill.
Student loan forgiveness means that a car mechanic will have to chip in to pay off the loans of a heart surgeon, okay?
And that's what it means, and it's just a moral abomination, obviously.
But don't worry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on with Stephen Colbert last night for whatever reason, and she says it's all worth it.
You know, she says that having your money stolen and given to college graduates to pay off their loans that they took out and that you had nothing to do with, it's all good.
Because it means that those college graduates can take more vacations.
Listen.
Are you one of the people who will benefit from this program?
Now, I don't think I will be.
Actually, I'm going to be one of the few that doesn't.
I'm a member of Congress.
I'm a little bit outside the threshold and bounds.
But if I wasn't, you know, just a few years ago, waitress me five years ago would have benefited from it.
Congresswoman me will not, but that's okay. I'll take the knock if it means that that people can get relief and you
know This is huge. This is people getting the student loan
forgiveness Student their student loans canceled. It means that you
know it's hope to buy a house or have a kid or
travel abroad or maybe even go back to school and and You know pursue a career that maybe they otherwise wouldn't
have I I mean, one of the reasons that's not me now is because I didn't feel like I'd be able to afford medical school.
And so hopefully someone else who's at an ISEF competition somewhere will be able to do that because of this.
Yeah, go back to school.
Go take out more loans.
You just got your loans forgiven, so what should you do with that freedom?
Go take on more loans.
Well, I lost my loans.
I might as well get some more.
I lost my debt.
Let me immediately go take on more debt.
It's a great idea.
Well, you know, I don't know about you, but I take solace in this.
At least my money is being stolen so that college grads can travel abroad.
That's comforting, isn't it?
It's a very comforting thought.
I feel good about that.
So while you're struggling to feed your family and pay your mortgage and pay all kinds of debt that no one is going to forgive, Just know that the food that's being taken out of your children's mouths is being taken so that somewhere out there, somewhere out there, a 27-year-old gender studies major can take a life-changing trip to the Cayman Islands.
And that should really, right?
I mean, when you're explaining to your kids, sorry, we can't afford new shoes.
Tax burden is too high.
But don't worry.
Think about all the vacations other people are taking.
Real relief.
And look, I say this, and I always make these points whenever student loan forgiveness comes up, and I say this even though I don't dispute that a lot of these college grads are in a really tough spot, and I would even say an unfair spot in many, if not all, but in many cases.
Because there are plenty of college graduates that are deep in debt because of loans that were taken out because of agreements that they made when they were like 18 years old and had no idea what they were doing.
And it was all on a false promise and they were scammed.
And I get all that.
I don't deny any of that.
I think that's absolutely true.
But the problem, as always, is that If you're in an unfair, if we, for the sake of argument, would agree that it's unfair that you have these loans that you did take out, and you didn't know what you were doing maybe, and I agree, 18 years old, you know, making a financial commitment like that is absurd.
But even if we could agree that, yeah, well that sucks, that's unfair.
It's a lot less fair to make someone who didn't take the loan out pay it back.
So if it's unfair that you have to pay it back as the person who took out the loan, how would it be more fair for someone who didn't take it out to pay it back?
That's just, that's heaping unfairness on top of unfairness.
So that cannot be the solution.
Even though we acknowledge that the whole thing's a scam.
The university system is a giant scam, and these are the suckers who fell for it.
And I, you know, and I feel for a lot of them.
My objection is to making taxpayers, making you and me, who are not involved, responsible.
Even though we're not responsible.
Making us pay the penalty for something we have nothing to do with.
Now, what we should do, you know, if we want to really make it right, what we should be talking about, as others have suggested, including Will Chamberlain and others have talked about this for years, that, you know, if you want to talk about seizing the university endowments and using those to pay off student loans, well, you know, now we're talking.
Because many of these universities are sitting on millions, in some cases billions of dollars.
These are extremely wealthy institutions that have millions and again, in some cases, billions
of dollars.
And these are the institutions running the scam.
And so they should be forced to pay.
If that money has to come by force, if we have to go in by force, which is what a student
loan forgiveness plan does, you got to come in by force and take money from somebody to
pay off these loans.
Why would you not take it from the universities?
It's their fault.
They're the ones running, they are the scam artists.
Why would they not be the ones forced to pay it back?
So that to me is obviously the right approach, which is why it won't happen.
It'll never happen.
And, you know, very few of our political leaders would have the guts to even propose something like that, which means that it won't happen.
Now, you could, if we lived in a sane country and we were having a conversation like this, now you could make the argument that, hey, if we're going to go in and seize the endowments and we're going to take, we're going to go into these scam institutions and take their money, That's exactly what should happen.
Well, the money shouldn't go to college graduates, it should go somewhere else.
There's a lot of things we could force them to pay for.
And, you know, there's an argument there, but that's a conversation I would love to have.
I'd love to have the conversation like, hey, we're going in and taking them, these scam artist institutions are going to pay.
Because this is insane that this has happened, that we've allowed them to bankrupt generations of Americans with a worthless college education that only gets more and more worthless by the day.
These institutions that exist at this point, many of them solely as vehicles of ideological indoctrination, they're not even interested in providing anything resembling a worthwhile, real, well-rounded education.
This has been happening for decades now, and they pay no price for it.
It's crazy.
So if we could all agree on that and say, well, they've got to pay.
But, you know, we're taking all this money.
We're going to have billions of dollars.
What do we want to do with it?
That's a good conversation.
That's a conversation we should be having.
Alright, Daily Mail has this report, says Scotland's police force has solved fewer shoplifting, theft and assault crimes in recent years.
Figures suggest, as frontline representatives say, officers are being overwhelmed by reports made under the country's new hate crime law.
David Thredgold, chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, says Police Scotland's vow to investigate every report of hate crime has created a simply unmanageable situation with around 8,000 filed in the first week.
Analysis of more than a decade of crime statistics has suggested fewer thefts, assaults, and shoplifting cases are being solved by officers.
Police Scotland says that it's coping with the additional demand created by the hate crime law.
Many of the earlier reports related to tweets made by J.K.
Rowling.
And so that's what a lot of these reports are coming in now.
And they're being overwhelmed and it's become, you know, they just instated this hate crime law and it's already unmanageable, even according to law enforcement in Scotland.
And all I have to say about that is good.
Fantastic.
I mean, that is exactly what needs to happen.
And if you live in Scotland, just flood the lines with hate speech complaints.
File a hundred hate speech complaints every day.
Overwhelm the system until it becomes totally unsustainable.
If that's what they want, then give it to them.
And anything can be hate speech, keep in mind.
Anytime anyone says anything that makes you feel bad, call it in.
Call it in.
They can't charge you with a false police report, because it's not false if you're reporting it based on how you feel.
This is about your truth.
It's about your feelings.
That's how the law is written.
Remember, the legality or illegality of an act now, or a statement in Scotland, is determined by the feelings of the person who hears or witnesses the act or statement.
So, if you say something that a quote-unquote reasonable person could consider to be threatening or abusive, that's the language in the law, then it's illegal.
You can call it in.
And on the flip side, if you consider yourself to be reasonable and you feel abused by something that somebody said, call it in.
File the report.
Now, naturally, of course, you should only do this to leftists who support the law, and they should celebrate you doing it because this is what they wanted.
And so, you know, I wouldn't call in any reports on your fellow members of Team Sanity.
However, a few of them may exist in Scotland.
But, hey, if I lived in Scotland and any time I encountered a leftist and they did anything at all to make me sad, call it in right away.
Report all of them every single time.
And again, it's what they want.
It's what they want.
They should be happy.
They should celebrate that.
They should congratulate you.
Right?
Because you're taking hate speech seriously.
And to be clear, I'm not encouraging anyone to file a false police report.
I would never do that.
That would be a serious and unethical and probably illegal thing for me to do.
And so I'm not doing that.
I just want to be very clear.
I'm not saying, absolutely, I wouldn't condone any false police reports of any kind.
Do not do that.
I'm not saying anyone should falsely report anything.
All I'm saying is that the law now allows you to file a report when someone makes you feel sad, right?
When someone makes you, someone makes you feel, you know, you feel abused by what they said.
That's what the law allows.
And so, and I encourage you to take full advantage of it.
Because hate speech, you know, it's a big problem.
It's a big problem in Scotland.
And they want to know all about it.
This is the only thing that they care about now.
It's the only thing that they... I mean, this is what they've signed up for with their law.
Because once you allow people to call in stuff like this and you treat this like a crime, you treat, you know, mean words as an actual criminal act.
Well, there's a lot of mean words out there.
And even more words that aren't mean but could be construed as such.
And so the moment you pass this law, what you are saying is that, okay, our entire law enforcement apparatus from henceforth will be solely focused on this because there won't be any other time for anything else.
That's what they want.
And so again, give them what they want.
That's what you should do.
The Postmillennial has this report.
The parents of school shooter in Michigan, Ethan Crumbly, have been jailed after being convicted of manslaughter.
Ethan is serving life in prison for murder after he killed four students at Oxford High School in Michigan in November 2021.
Ethan was 15 at the time.
Ethan's mother, Jennifer, and his father, James, 45 and 47, are now both going to prison for manslaughter.
Each of Ethan's parents are serving 10 to 15 years for the charges.
This was the sentence passed down yesterday.
Here is the judge passing down the sentence.
Each of the defendants gross negligence has caused unimaginable suffering to hundreds of others as a result of what happened that day.
Each act or inaction created a ripple effect.
Therefore, an out of guidelines sentence is appropriate and proportional.
The court uses the useful tool of the legislative guidelines
which embody the principles of proportionality, while also taking into account the nature of the offense
and the background of each defendant.
I believe that the following sentences would be in the best interest of justice
and are reasonable and proportionate to the seriousness of the matter and the circumstances
surrounding each defendant.
With regard to Jennifer Crumbly, It is the sentence of this court, Ms.
Crumley, that you serve 10 to 15 years with the Michigan Department of Corrections.
You will have credit for 858 days.
State costs are $272 as a crime victim's rights fee of $130.
You and your agents may not have any contact with the families of Madison Baldwin, Tate Muir, Hannah St.
Juliana, and Justin Schilling.
I will issue another ruling with regard to contact Um, with your son, the shooter.
excuse me, as to defendant James Crumley, it is the sentence of this court
that you serve 10 to 15 years with the Michigan Department of Corrections,
that you receive credit for 858 days, that you pay state costs in the matter of $272,
that there is a crime victim's rights fee of $130, that you or your agents have no contact
with the families of Madison Baldwin, Tate, Beale, and Hanna Seaks.
So 10 to 15 years, they're both getting for their sentence for the crimes.
And this is apparently, she says, an out-of-guidelines sentence.
So this is going beyond what the sentencing guidelines would call for.
And she's throwing the book.
So she's throwing more than the book at them.
She's giving them as much prison time as she possibly can.
And this is the kind of Very severe, rigid application of justice that we rarely ever see.
Many, many occasions when we would love to see something like this, and we don't.
Many, many violent scumbags, chronically violent scumbags, who are, you know, commit crimes, and then they're released from prison, committed again, released from prison, commit again, and do horrible things.
Do horrible things directly to other people.
Not that we're blaming them for things other people have done that they were supposed to prevent or have seen coming, but people who do things themselves that don't get this kind of treatment.
Don't get 10 to 15 years in prison.
Oftentimes the judges will go the other way.
They'll do everything in their power to give the lightest sentence they possibly can.
And that's not what's happening here.
And you know, we talked about it.
I've made my point about this case.
I think that you know my argument.
I think the precedent being set here is incredibly dangerous.
And what makes it the most dangerous is how arbitrary it is.
How incredibly arbitrary this is.
Because essentially, they're going to prison for being bad parents.
That's basically the charge, really.
I mean, that might not be what it says on the charging documents, but that is the charge,
that they are bad parents.
And that if they had been better parents, this would not have happened.
Because nobody is claiming that they were involved in any way coordinating this terrible
No one's claiming that they were actively involved in committing it, that they wanted their son to do it, or they told their son to do it, or they planned it with them, or anything like that.
Now, if any of that was the case, then there's nothing to talk about, of course.
Throw them in jail forever, at a minimum.
But in this case, no one is claiming that.
I think it's widely agreed that They didn't want their son to go shoot up a school.
But the problem is that, as parents, they were so negligent, and so stupid, and so absent, sort of, at least from kind of morally absent as parents, that it allowed this to happen.
And they were reckless as parents, as well.
And all of that is true.
So, I'm not defending their parenting skills at all.
You know, if you want to claim that they're really bad parents, 100% agree.
If you want to say that this wouldn't have happened if they were better parents, again, that's a hypothetical, we can't know for sure.
It's possible that you could have really good parents who do everything they can, and yet their kid still ends up being a murderous scumbag.
It's very unlikely, but we can't say it's impossible, because human beings are their own, you know, have their own minds, and they can make their own decisions.
And sometimes, as a parent, no matter what you do, your child will end up making really, really horrible decisions.
That can happen.
But most likely, if you do your job as a parent, Or if you even get close to doing your job, if you even just try, you put a little bit of an effort in as a parent, your kid will not end up being a school shooter, okay?
Like, at least it won't get that bad.
So, all that is true.
The issue, of course, is that that is also true of almost every violent criminal in the country.
Like, almost every violent criminal in the country, almost every violent felon in a prison right now, almost every violent felon who is not in a prison but should be right now, all of them have parents who, almost all of them, have parents negligent, irresponsible, totally failed, Either completely physically absent, or at least morally absent, or a combination of the two.
A lot of these violent criminals, it is a combination because they've got fathers who abandoned them from the start, and they've got mothers who just were not interested in raising their kids at all.
And, you know, if any of that had been different, father stays home, the mother puts a little bit of effort into actually being a mother, then these kids would not have ended up being violent criminals.
So the same logic applies.
Can you take any random, what's the most recent case of someone robbing a liquor store and shooting, it's like a violent crime committed in the process of, a murder committed in the process of a robbery, let's say.
Someone's knocking over a liquor store, shoots the clerk, a gas station, whatever, someone's getting mugged on a street corner and shot.
These kinds of things happen all the time.
And you just take the most recent case of that, it probably happened somewhere in the country yesterday.
And whoever it was who committed that crime, without even knowing, we're speaking totally in hypotheticals now, but whoever that person is, we know for an almost certain fact that they have a father who is not at home, and they have a mother who's just terrible.
Mother's probably on drugs, is not interested in the kid, not doing anything to raise the kid.
Are those parents going to be charged with a crime?
They won't.
They never are.
So we selected these parents in particular These are the only ones we have held.
This is a legal standard that we've created and held only these parents to it.
And so that is the real dangerous precedent being set.
It's not even so much that we might one day live in a country now where anytime someone commits a violent crime, their parents automatically end up going to prison too.
That would be bad, but that's not going to happen.
What's more likely is that now that this can of worms has been opened, right, well now, no, it's not that it's going to consistently happen to every parent, but now this gives the judicial system a tool that they can decide when they want to use it.
Now they have that option.
And if they decide for whatever reason that in this particular case, That these are the kinds of parents they would like to put in prison too?
Then they can.
And by the way, when we say kinds of parents they want to put in prison and kinds of parents they don't, let's not beat around the bush.
Part of the story here is that these parents are white.
That's just a fact.
A lot of these violent criminals with really terrible parents in our cities across the country have black parents.
You're not going to see that standard held in that case.
I think it's almost certainly the case.
It's not almost certainly the case.
We know it's the case.
You take Ethan Crumbly.
What did he do?
He shot and killed four people.
Terrible crime.
He should be executed for it.
But you take that, you make him Ethan Crumbly, but he's black.
And maybe rather than committing that mass shooting in a school, he commits it on a street corner.
There's just a 0% chance that the legal system goes after his parents, too.
And we know that there's a 0% chance that the legal system goes after his parents, because there have been thousands of Ethan Crumblies doing things like that in our cities, and the legal system has never gone after any of their parents, not even once.
And so this is, that's the precedent being set.
And so it's, you know, I see a lot of very foolish people applauding this.
It's a good thing we're finally holding parents accountable.
You think that's actually what's happening?
No, we're not holding parents accountable.
We're holding these parents in particular, and none others at the moment, accountable.
Not a good thing.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
Are you a few years or even decades out of school and wondering, what the heck did I even learn, and what was the point?
You might even be thinking, I don't know, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, you're not alone, and it's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and Its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson in this eight-lecture course Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever and wherever you want.
Start your free course of American Citizenship and its decline with Victor Davis Hanson today.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
It's hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
hillsdale.edu slash walsh.
So a few comments pointing to what they see as inconsistencies in my pro-life position.
First one says, so your argument is, if a three-month pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother, it's better to let the mother die, thereby also killing the unborn baby, than aborting the baby to save the mother's life.
Two deaths is better than one, so you can feel morally superior?
Matt, you just spent a big chunk of your show arguing that you have the right to defend yourself.
Why shouldn't you be able to kill a fetus that threatens your life?
And finally, in this episode, you make the case against capital punishment.
You'll reply, well, these people lost their right to life when they committed whatever crime.
But as you argue here, who are you to make that call?
Sanctity of human life is absolute, or it isn't.
Which is it?
All right, well, these are all similar sorts of arguments and objections, so let me answer the last question, which I think answers all of them.
Sanctity of life is absolute.
Yes, life is sacred, and when I say it's absolute, I mean in the sense that it's inherent.
It's given to us by God.
Human life itself is given to us by God, it's created by God, and so therefore it is, by definition, sacred.
So that is true.
However, the right to life is not absolute.
You do not have the absolute right to continue living no matter what you do.
You don't have any absolute rights.
You can lose any of your rights.
Of course you can.
The simple fact of putting you in prison already removes most of your rights.
Most of your rights are out the window when you're in prison.
Right?
Right against freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?
Well, that doesn't apply in prison.
They can search you anytime they want.
You have no property.
You have no privacy.
You don't have free speech.
You don't have the right to assembly.
Most of your rights go out the window.
Along with just your basic right to be free and kind of go where you want and have freedom of movement.
All of that goes out the window.
And so the very fact that we have prisons, for example, already tells us that at least many of our rights can be lost.
And if none of them could be lost, then we couldn't have prisons.
We couldn't have any kind of justice system at all.
And then you would have, of course, total anarchy.
And then the result of anarchy is that then your rights are lost by another means.
So, the same goes for the right to life.
Like, of course you can lose your right to life.
That's not absolute.
So, and there are obvious examples of this that I think we would all agree with.
If somebody comes into my house and points a gun at my head, and I shoot them to defend myself or defend my family and my children, well, I think everyone who is not a lunatic would agree that I have the right to do that.
Of course I do.
And I have not deprived them of their rights in doing so.
They didn't have the right to come into my house.
They didn't have the right to point a gun at me.
They didn't have a right to threaten my children.
I have a right to preserve my own life, which means in that case, because of their choices, I can take their life.
So that person, by doing that, has sacrificed, has forfeited his own right to live.
And that's how rights can be lost, is if you choose by your actions to forfeit them.
Now, let's extend this logic to unborn children.
Well, we've already established that if anyone's life is sacred, then everyone's life is sacred.
Because if anyone's life is sacred, it means that human life is inherently sacred.
Because we're all created by God.
And it's not like there are some of us created by God and some who aren't.
Like, we all are.
We all come from the same place in that sense.
So, human life is sacred for everyone.
And if it's sacred for everyone, then it's sacred for unborn children as well.
And if we agree that the right to life is not absolute, it can be lost, and I think we all, again, we all must agree on that, unless you really think that you have, if someone comes in your house and points a gun at your head, you have no right to shoot them.
If you're not that extreme, then you would agree that the right to life can be lost, and then it's just a question of how can it be lost?
And my sort of theory here is that it can only be lost by the actions You can only choose.
It's not that it's a loss, like you're walking along one day and, oh, I've lost my right to life.
Where did it go?
You've chosen to forfeit it.
The minute you have that gun in your pocket and you break into somebody's house, meaning them harm, whether you are saying it to yourself in your head or not, you have still chosen, okay, I'm going to put my right to life on hold right now.
I'm going to put that off to the side because I'd rather do this instead.
So that's my point, that you can, through your actions, you can lose it.
But unborn children, what action have they engaged in to lose their right to life?
The action of what?
Being conceived?
That's not a choice that they made.
An unborn child didn't choose to be conceived.
An unborn child is the only place he can be doing the only thing he can be doing.
So that does not, it cannot apply to unborn children.
They can't lose the right, because they can't choose to.
They can't do anything to forfeit that inherent or that, although not absolute, still fundamental right.
So, you know, the question goes back to you.
Like, what has an unborn child done to lose their right to life?
What have they done to deserve being killed?
Maybe that's it.
That's how I would like to flip it around and ask you that.
What have they done to deserve this?
When the unborn child is being ripped limb from limb and thrown into a dumpster like trash, what did they do to deserve that?
Okay, don't tell me about anything else and things happening out in the world and all this.
No, no, no.
What did they do?
What did the child do?
And if your answer is, well, they didn't do anything to deserve it, Well, then I suppose my answer is you should not commit an act of violence on someone if you admit from the start that they didn't do anything to deserve it.
That is the definition of unjust, is it not?
I mean, justice is to give to everyone what they deserve.
Justice is to put everything in its rightful place.
Somebody commits a crime, the rightful place is prison.
That's justice.
Someone does something bad, what they deserve as a punishment, you give it to them, that's justice.
Somebody doesn't commit a crime and you punish them for a crime they didn't commit, that's not justice, because they didn't deserve that.
And so it would seem to me that by definition, killing an unborn child is always an act of injustice, because they could not have possibly done anything to deserve it.
The murderer being executed absolutely did something to deserve it, on the other hand, And that is the difference.
I'd say it's a pretty significant one.
Now, it's been two years of fighting the left and building the future with great products, and we're only getting better.
Jeremy's second-generation razors are here.
Same mission, new razors.
You'll notice a redesigned ergonomic handle for superior durability and improved coated stainless steel blades.
For those of you who craft your masculine look with precision, we have Jeremy's new and improved Precision 5 razor.
Precision trimmer allows you to tailor your shave.
It provides an exceptionally smooth and close shave.
Now, if shaving is more of a chore, you just want to get done with it and be over with it, the brand new Sprint 3 is for you.
Open blade geometry allows for a quick, clean shave, so you can get back to your manly activities as quickly as possible.
Razors made right.
Progress that isn't progressive.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to upgrade to our new second-generation razor today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
You know, outside of films like Zoolander, it's pretty uncommon.
But it does happen from time to time in the real world and it's always kind of hard to watch what it does.
You might remember that Barack Obama made the late John Lewis and also ran at his own funeral a few years ago when he delivered a eulogy that ended up being a political speech about police racism or something.
It was pretty tacky, and at the time it seemed hard to top.
But last weekend, for the first time in a while, we had a real contender for the title of tackiest moment at a funeral.
And this time it was in the world of entertainment instead of politics.
At the moral service of her grandfather, the 15-year-old daughter of Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck, for some reason decided to mark the occasion by publicly coming out as transgender.
Instead of using the name Seraphina Rose, this girl made it clear that she will henceforth use the more ambiguous name of Finn, and apparently she'll now be using they-them pronouns as well.
So here's the first time that Finn Affleck announced her new identity, complete with a shaved head.
Watch.
Hello, my name is Finn Affleck.
I'm reading verse 8.
Proverbs chapter 16, verse 8.
Better is a little with righteousness than large income with injustice.
Okay, the proverb about importance of righteousness is, you know, maybe a little out of place here.
Appearing at the funeral of your grandfather and generating a bunch of tabloid articles about your alleged gender identity can be described as a lot of things, but probably not righteous being one of them.
Now, of course, the point here isn't to be critical of this girl or what she said at the funeral.
She's only 15.
She doesn't know what she's doing.
This is where parents are supposed to step in and say, you know, it's not really the time for this.
You know, you don't need to debut your new name at the grandfather's funeral.
She's confused and she is herself obviously another victim of the gender ideology cult.
And so deserves a lot of sympathy for that reason and certainly has it for me.
The real story here is that Ben Affleck By some great scientific coincidence, as is being reported now by many media articles, NOW somehow has a non-binary kid in addition to a non-binary step-kid.
And of course, non-binary being in scare quotes on both occasions.
The Daily Mail reports that Ben Affleck's current wife, Jennifer Lopez, also has a 16-year-old daughter named Em, who uses gender-neutral pronouns and has become close with Finn as a step-sibling.
So we have two gender-nonconforming kids in the same family.
What are the odds of that?
As it happens, there's not a lot of data on this because the categories are all completely made up, obviously, but according to UCLA, something like 1.4% of youth between the ages of 13 and 17 now identify as transgender or non-binary.
That's approximately a, I don't know, a zillion percent increase from a decade ago,
mathematically, when nobody was transgender or non-binary, especially in that age group.
Also, according to UCLA, something like one third of transgender-identifying people are non-binary.
So putting two and two together and fudging the numbers a bit,
the odds of having a child who identifies as non-binary is probably something like 0.5%.
Again, these numbers are almost certainly wrong because just like everything else in the gender space,
But for the sake of argument, we'll pretend the numbers are real for a second.
And if the odds of having one non-binary teenager are 0.5%, then the odds of independently having two non-binary teenagers are very, very low.
I mean, it's something like 0.002%.
Or 1 in 40,000.
If we're assuming that transgenderism is a naturally occurring phenomenon, Which it isn't, but that's what trans activists demand, then Ben Affleck's situation is quite a statistical coincidence.
But of course again, it's not a coincidence.
Finn was obviously influenced by her gender non-conforming relative, Em, and of course both of them were influenced by the lifestyles of their celebrity parents.
This is a common phenomenon, which is why a huge number of Hollywood celebrities have children who identify as trans or non-binary.
So here's a very much non-exhaustive list of some celebrities who have, or previously had, trans slash non-binary slash gender non-conforming kids, according to various websites that track this kind of thing.
There's Cher, Charlize Theron, Dwayne Wade and Gabrielle Union, Jamie Lee Curtis, Cynthia Nixon, Sigourney Weaver, Marlon Wayans, This is a striking list, and it reveals a couple of things.
First of all, Hollywood celebrities often treat their kids like fashion accessories.
If it's popular to have a trans kid, then they all need to go out and get themselves a trans kid.
And then they go on television and talk about their children to advance their own public profiles, as if that's not an incredibly creepy thing to do.
Now, it's not true of all these celebrities, to be fair.
They haven't all done that, but it's pretty common.
A couple years ago, for example, Dwayne Wade went on pretty much every television show in existence, from Ellen to Good Morning America, to talk about how proud he was that his child had come out as trans.
Like, the child, quote-unquote, came out as trans, and then immediately, Dwayne Wade is on the interview circuit, telling everyone in the world about it.
Which, by the way, even if You think that it's possible for a kid to be trans, which it isn't.
But even if you're in the camp where you think that that's a real thing, you should still understand that there's no good reason for a parent to go and tell the entire world about it.
Constantly.
Dwayne Wade told Robin Roberts at the time, quote, When I say we're learning from our 12-year-old, we're literally learning from our child.
He also said that he knew that his child was trans when he was three years old.
This is, in fact, the complete inversion of how parenting is supposed to work.
Obviously, parents are not supposed to learn from their three-year-old children.
Like, I've never learned anything from a three-year-old child.
We've had several three-year-old children in the house at various times, and I don't think they've ever taught me anything.
But, in Hollywood, you know, it's celebrated.
Of course, the fact that transgenderism is so much more common in Hollywood, the pilot population, proves that it's a social trend and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.
When you gather a bunch of narcissists together, which is what Hollywood is, then they produce children who desperately seek ways to seem different and unique and special.
Jennifer Lopez, for example, is notoriously one of the most narcissistic people in Hollywood.
I could show you about a million clips here, but I'll settle on this one, where she laments the fact that she's not a more widely respected actress.
Watch.
Some people are talented actors from the time they were very young.
And I was a good actress always.
I can say that now.
To myself.
Many thought you should have been nominated for an Oscar.
First of all, did you feel snubbed?
I was sad.
I was a little sad because there was a lot of build-up to it.
There was a lot of like, she's gonna get nominated for an Oscar.
It's gonna happen.
If she doesn't, you're crazy.
And I'm reading all the articles and I'm going, oh my god, could this happen?
And then it didn't.
Ouch.
Reading all the articles about herself, somehow that is not surprising.
Now, there's probably not a single person on this planet who can confidently say they've seen a Jennifer Lopez movie and been truly amazed at her natural acting talent.
First of all, the number of people who've seen a Jennifer Lopez movie is obviously a
very tiny subset of the population.
Then within that subset, it can't be that many people who didn't think to themselves,
why am I watching this terrible Lifetime movie?
But to the extent that these people exist, they're apparently all friends of Jennifer
Lopez and they're convinced that she deserves an Oscar and they've convinced her of this
fact as well.
Now, not to dwell too much on Jennifer Lopez, but she does this constantly.
It's actually difficult to Google Jennifer Lopez and not be reminded of how self-absorbed
For example, the Amazon description for her documentary film, The Greatest Love Story Never Told, reads, quote, Directed by Jason Berg, The Greatest Love Story Never Told follows Jennifer Lopez as she attempts her most daring project yet, independently producing a new album and cinematic original that explores her 20-year journey to self-love.
Her 20-year journey of being obsessed with herself.
We're supposed to believe it's an accident that someone this delusional, this committed to self-love, could possibly produce delusional children who want to express their self-love at, you know, someone else's funeral.
But it's not an accident.
Transgenderism is a byproduct of extreme narcissism and disordered thinking.
Parents who are extreme narcissists will inevitably produce transgender children at a rate that is impossible to explain away as random statistical variation.
And that's precisely what we're seeing now.
And it is why celebrity parents who push their children into the cult of transgenderism, to the point of announcing it at a memorial service for their grandfather, are today cancelled.
