The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 194 - The Totally Insane And Utterly Hilarious Green New Deal

Episode Date: February 8, 2019

Today on the show, we discuss AOC's Green New Deal. It is crazy, childish, delusional, and hysterical. I'll give you the highlights. Also, speaking of AOC, she claimed yesterday that all Latinos have a birthright to the United States because they are "natives." We'll talk about why this claim is completely wrong and also ironic coming from someone with the last name "Cortez." Date: 02-08-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveils her Green New Deal. It is hilarious. It's also terrifying. We will dissect it point by point, and I'll tell you some of the craziest things from this plan. Also, speaking of Cortez, she claimed that all Hispanic people have a right to enter the U.S., a birthright, because they are all Native Americans, according to her. I'll talk about why that is completely wrong, and also I'll point out a special irony with someone named Cortez making that claim. It's pretty funny when you think about it. We'll talk about all that today on the Matt Wall Show.

Well, I am really excited, guys. The Green New Deal is finally here. I'm super excited about it. I've been waiting forever, it seems. I think we've all been waiting for it. You know, Ben Shapiro called it one of the stupidest documents ever written, and I totally disagree. I mean, I couldn't disagree more.

This is, how can you complain about something that promises to you free housing, free college, free health care, and a livable income, even if you don't feel like working. So this is, I mean, how could anyone complain about this? It's great. Oh, right, because it's completely insane and impossible and delusional and childish. And it's the kind of thing that would sound brilliant if you were high or severely concussed. So, okay, that's the reason why it's a stupid plan.

All right, fine. Let's take a look at the plan. A plan, by the way, that all of the most prominent Democratic presidential candidates, Cory Booker, Camilla Harris, have, I think five or six of them, at least, have come out and endorsed this plan. And now, if we had an honest media, which, of course, we don't, but if we did, that would be fatal for them, for these Democratic candidates, because then they would be forced to justify and explain every crazy, delusional, idiotic thing in this plan, and it would totally discredit them. But that's not going to happen. So the media is not going to stop Cory Booker and say, hey, by the way, how are we going to build a train track across the entire ocean? That's not going to happen because they don't want to embarrass him. So, but we'll get to

that. The train track thing we'll get to in a second. Let me read a little. little bit from this plan and we'll just kind of, we'll just, you know, we'll just, we'll see what we think of it. All right. So it says this is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline. The Green New Deal Resolution, a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War II to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will move America to 100% clean and renewable energy, create millions of family supporting wage union jobs. By the way, I don't want to be a spoiler alert, I guess here, but at no point does this plan explain how it's going to create jobs. That is never explained.

It's just stated that they're going to create jobs. I guess what they're, because if you write it in a plan, right, that's all you have to do. down on a plan and say, we should have more jobs. And then just like that, the jobs appear. I guess that's the way this works. Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries. I don't even know what that means. Is that even a sentence? That's just a jumble of words. Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security. What? Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment training,

climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities. Like I said, these aren't even sentences. Okay, these are just words. Alexander Ocasio-Critaz had a bucket of words that she dumped on a page, and this is it. Also, a job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security. By the way, now I'm listing all the things that we're going to get. High-quality education, including higher education in trade schools, clean air and water, and access to nature. She's going to ensure that we all have access to nature. I think we all have that now, don't we?

I mean, you can walk outside of your home. If there's anyone living maybe in some sort of giant biodome on Mars, then they might not have access to nature. But the rest of us do. All you have to do is just walk outside. And there you go. Also, healthy food, high-quality health care, safe, affordable, adequate housing, economic environment free, an economic environment free of monopolies. economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work. Let me, in case you missed that, she is going to ensure economic security for all who are unable

or unwilling to work. So with this plan, you could just say, nah, don't feel like working. I'm just, I'm not willing. Sorry, that's all. And then if you're not willing to work, then what she'll do is she'll send you to, so there's going to be two magical trees, right? There's going to be the affordable, the livable income tree. And so if you want to work, you'll go to that magic tree and you'll pluck a livable income

off of the tree and put it into a basket and skip merrily on home like a little red riding hood. Or if you don't want to work, then you can go to the economic security tree and pluck a bit of economic security off the tree and put that in the basket and skip on home. And that's the way that this is going to work. something tells me that the economic security tree is going to be a lot more popular than the livable income tree. And we'll get more to that in a second. Because remember, this is a very important part of this, that by ensuring economic security, not to mention free housing, free health care, free college, for everybody, even if you're not willing to work, you have

just made it so that there is no incentive to work, which is a big, problem because as we'll see here in a minute a lot of what Cortez is talking about here will require a lot of work there's a lot of work that's going to need to be done in order for all this stuff to happen but there's not going to be anyone to do the work because you've just made it so that we can sit home on the couch and live like kings by the way one other thing before we get to some other highlights or low lights from this bill What does any of this have to do with the environment?

There are a few things in there, clean air, clean water, fine. But free education, free housing for everybody, how does that help the environment? That's what I don't get. I thought this was supposed to be a green new deal. But most of this stuff has absolutely nothing to do with the environment one way or another. So here are some other highlights from the bill. Up or the plan, I should say. upgrade or replace every building in the U.S. for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.

Yes, every building. So every building, not even just every commercial building. There are over 5 million commercial buildings in the U.S., which would be a big project all in its own to update or replace 5 million commercial buildings. And also keep in mind that many of those commercial buildings are in city. and they are like huge skyscrapers. So to replace, so before we even get to anything else, she's talking about replacing almost every skyscraper in the entire country.

A skyscraper, I think I read somewhere that the, I was reading recently, I don't know why, about the most expensive buildings in the world. And the World Trade Center, for instance, it costs like a billion dollars or something. These massive skyscrapers cost hundreds of millions, if not over a billion dollars. So just to replace every skyscraper, you're talking about billions upon billions of dollars. And then we get to every retail store, all the Walmarts, all that, all the shopping centers, all the malls.

And then all the homes, too. There are 127 million households in America. Now, that doesn't mean that all of them live in single-family homes. like we're also talking condominiums, apartments, townhouses, all that stuff. There are 127 million of those. And so we've got to replace all of those as well. And we haven't even got to the schools, churches, hospitals, post offices. All of that has to be replaced.

So we were talking about hundreds of millions of buildings that need to be replaced. This is going to be trillions of dollars that you're just on this project alone. And we're only getting started. That's just the beginning. I mean, this is just step one, guys. To tear down every single building in America and rebuild it from scratch, that is just step one. Now, we also are going to totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere. That language is actually in the plane.

Build charging stations everywhere. Where are we going to build them? everywhere. Just where? Just everywhere. I mean, there'll be five of them right here in this room. There'll be everywhere. They'll be raining from the sky. Everywhere. That's all. Just everywhere. So much of this plan, it reads like something that, you know, something, it's like something she had to come up with for her 11th grade economics class or something like that. And, you know, she forgot to do the project. And then she remember. the night before, and so she's just rushing and writing it down, like, build charging stations everywhere. Just put that down. And by the way, this would be, if this was for an economics

project in high school, she would definitely get a failing grade for this. Create affordable public transit available to all. Build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary. Okay. If we are building, enough high-speed rail to make air travel unnecessary, we would, of course, need this mythical railway system primarily built across the ocean, because that is when air travel is the most necessary. So if you want to make it unnecessary, there's no getting around the fact that you are going to need a railway system that stretches across the entire length of the Pacific and across the entire length of the Atlantic, and you're probably going to need many railway systems going

across the Pacific, because the Pacific is a pretty large body of water. And if you only have one railway system going across it, well, that's going to lead to a lot of congestion, and it's not going to be very accessible to everybody. So you're probably going to need hundreds of railroads that are just stretching across the ocean. Now, there is, just so you know, there's about 5,000 miles separating California from Japan. So this railroad system would have to span across 5,000 miles, and it would also have to be built over water that is 13,000 feet deep on average. So you would need a structure. You would need giant 13,000 foot structures, like pillars, that this railroad system is going to be built upon. So this is a project

that would take, I mean, you've got to think probably centuries and again cost billions and billions of dollars. And not to mention, you know, being out in the middle of the Pacific trying to install these 13,000 foot structures so that you can build. That's a very dangerous work. And we're going to lose a lot of lives doing this, which that goes back to the problem of who's going to volunteer to go out into the middle of the Pacific and build a railroad system when you've just said that they can sit home if they're unwilling to work and get paid anyway. Another part of the plan, plant lots of trees. That's an actual sentence in the document. Now, this is at least practical. I mean, we can plant lots of trees. But once again, we see this sort of thing where it looks like

gets dashed off at the last minute because she was procrastinating. And so, uh, we need another thing, but plant lots of trees. Just put that down there. What do you mean? Where are we going to plant them? Just it doesn't matter. Just plant, we'll plant lots of them. That's all. We'll just, we'll plant them somewhere. Uh, and then, and then finally, she also wants to abolish cows. Uh, I found this to be rather horrifying. She wants to get rid of cows, actually farting cows specifically, but all cows fart. So the, and yes, the phrase farting cows actually appears verbatim in this allegedly serious proposal written by United States Congresswoman and endorsed, remember, by all of the prominent Democratic presidential candidates. So here's the full context. It says, we set a goal to get

to net zero rather than zero emissions in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast. get rid of, get rid of farting cows. So the implication is that getting rid of gassy cows is a goal that they have, but she's not sure if they'll be able to do it in 10 years. So that may be the most reasonable concession that Cortez makes in this entire document when she says, okay, maybe we can't get rid of every cow. Now, hold on a second.

Actually, you think we can rebuild every single building in the country, build railway systems across the Pacific, provide free housing, free education, free health care, free income to everyone. Yet getting rid of all the cows is the thing that you're not sure will be able to accomplish in 10 years. That's where you get conservative all the sudden. I mean, that's one thing that we could, I don't think it would be a good idea, but we could probably get rid of all the cows in like a week. They're pretty slow and stupid and fat. I mean, if you wanted to just go and carpet bomb all the cattle farms or maybe go out there with machine guns and just take down all the cows, you could probably do it. I mean, if you sent out, maybe you sent out some Navy SEAL squads or, I don't know, you could deploy if you needed it to deploy the military.

And I think they could probably slaughter all the cows within a week, probably. So don't sell yourself short, AOC. And is that the plan? She says, get rid of cows. Well, are we talking about killing all of them in some sort of mass cow genocide? Or the only other option would be, well, we could ship them all off to some sort of island, like cow fart island or something. But then they're still going to be ruining the environment with their flatulins. So the only other option beyond that would be to launch them into space.

and then, you know, just send them out into intercellar space, and then maybe they'll eventually land in some other alien civilization. Can you imagine being an alien civilization and some spacecraft lands, and then a bunch of cows emerge? What are they going to think? I tell you one thing they're going to wonder, like, how did these cows this should be an advanced race of aliens, and yet it's a bunch of what are these. It would be very confusing for them.

So I don't know. I don't know. What's the plan? How is she going to pay for any of this? Well, she doesn't really answer that question, but in the FAQ, the frequently asked question portion of the document, it says, how will you pay for it? And the answer is, the same way we paid for the new. deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs.

The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars, the Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There's also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation. So the question isn't how we will pay for it, but what we will do with all of our new shared

In other words, she has no idea how we're going to pay for it. The question isn't how we're going to pay for it. It's what are we going to do with all of our prosperity? That's the question, which is just the classic line of a con man trying to sell you something. No, no, don't worry about how you're going to pay for. Just think about it. It's like someone who's trying to sell you on a pyramid scheme. And so then rather than explaining the details of the plan, they show you pictures of like nice watches and fancy houses and cars.

And you're asking questions, well, wait, how is this going to work? No, don't worry about how it's going to work. Just think about how you're going to spend all the money you're going to make. Now, I was thinking about this. And listen, it's really easy to make fun of this plan and to be a Debbie Downer and a naysayer. it's really easy to do because it's such an enormously stupid idea. But then I was also thinking, listen, if we're going to do this thing, let's go all the way. You could actually argue that the Green New Deal, the main problem with it, is that it's too modest.

If we're going to do it, let's do this thing. That's what I'm saying. Also, think about the fact that if they have the ability to do this, then they must have access to not only trillions of dollars, but even like magical genies and wizards who can, because most of this stuff is impossible without magical superpowers. And so if they have access, which I assume that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must, if she has access to a team of highly trained genies, then I've got some other. ideas. This is my idea for, we could call it a new green new deal or maybe a green new new deal, whatever you want to call it. I have just a few things. I actually have 20 things I would like to add to the deal. And I just want to offer these up as a suggestion. Number one, a free ice cream machine for every American. And of course, this would have to be vegan ice cream because Cortez is killing all the milk cows, remember. Number two, every sidewalk in America,

converted to a moving walkway. Number three, every staircase converted to an escalator. Number four, every escalator converted to an elevator. Number five, I'm thinking of a big bridge connecting North Carolina to like Morocco, okay, with like refreshment stands and stuff along the way. And then you would also probably need like some cabins or something so people can stop and sleep because they might get, yeah, it's kind of, it would be kind of a long walk. Number six, a free blimp for every American.

Number seven, a free dog for every person. Number eight, a free foot bath for every dog. Number nine, essential oils for every footbath, because you don't want to take a foot bath if you're not going to be exfoliating your skin at the same time. Number 10, this to me seems really obvious. Instead of, and this is where I'm showing, Cortez, she's not thinking big enough here.

because she's saying, let's have free health care for everyone. I've got a better idea. Let's just abolish disease. Okay, so how about we say no more diseases? And then you don't need health care. I mean, think about it. This is obvious stuff, right? Number 11, universal happiness.

You know, I think is something we should include in the plant. Number 12, a constantly refreshed selection of cereal in every pantry. Number 13, I'm thinking we need like, magical lions that can read us stories and grant wishes. Number 14, immortality. You know, I think, again, if we're going to be doing this, why not immortality? Number 15, I'm thinking every person should have this computer-type thing, like from the Matrix, or you can plug in and learn how to do karate in five minutes.

That would be pretty sweet. Number 16, bananas that never rot. Number 17, let's abolish loneliness. Nobody's allowed to be lonely anymore. Number 19, free pony rides for everyone, but consensual pony rides, of course. Number 19, I'm thinking of every person should have kind of like a robot thing that lifts you out of bed in the morning

and brushes your teeth for you and puts on your pants for you. And number 20, finally, and this is really the highlight of my plan, of the things that I would add to her plan, I think that student loan debt should be converted into tacos. And I'll tell you how this would work. Every dollar of student loan debt that you have equals one taco.

So if you have $30,000 of debt, well, then you get 30,000 tacos. You see? I mean, pretty... It's like, how hasn't anyone thought of this yet? We've got all this debt. If you change it into tacos, then the debt's gone, and now you have tacos.

So, I mean, come on, right? So that's my plan. I'm going to write this up in an official proposal and send it to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office, and hopefully she'll add that to the plan. So we'll stay tuned for that. All right. I hate to keep talking about this woman, but Cortez, she also spoke at a rally yesterday. It was a busy day for her. They were, some progressive members of Congress were rallying against ICE and CBP, the Customs and Border Protection.

They were rallying against their own law enforcement agencies because the thing that they're upset about is that these agencies enforce the law. They don't like that. I want you to listen to one thing that Cortez said at this rally. All right. Here's a clip of it right now. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection, featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic

elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, or radium, and, and radiant expression of joy. Ultra concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein. Because we are standing on native land and Latino people are descendants of native people and we cannot be told and criminalized simply for our identity or our status. Okay.

She says we are standing on native land and Latino people are descendants of native people and we cannot be told and criminalized simply for our identity and our status. So many problems here. Goodness gracious. There are many problems here. Let's start with the greatest irony of all. Cortez said this. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Where do you think that name came from? I can tell you this. Okay. There weren't many Aztecs with names like that. You're not going to find Alexandria-Corpos. Cortez among the Aztecs. It just so happens that Cortez shares a last name with the most famous conquistador in history, Hernan Cortez. Why? Because people from Central America, many of them, are actually descended from the Spanish, from Spanish Europeans. Now, so, so now I don't know

this as a fact. I'm just saying that she, well, I know as a fact that's that many people have Central America are descended in part from Spanish Europeans. I don't know that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is related to Hernan Cortez, but they do have the same last name. And now, I happen to think that Hernan Cortez is one of the great heroes of Western civilization because he overthrew an evil, violent empire of ruthless human sacrifices. But still, the point remains that Alexandria may well be descended from the guy who came here on a boat and overthrew a native civilization. Now, it's true that people from Central and South America also are likely descended from native people as well. So most of them are a mix, just as most people everywhere in the world are a mix of different ethnicities and cultures and so on.

But think about what she's doing here. She's treating, and this is very common, the left they do this all the time, where they treat native people like a monolith, as if someone who is partially descended from a tribe in Central America like the Aztecs also has some kind of rightful claim to the continental U.S., which makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying that somebody from Italy has a birthright claim to France, or someone from Sweden has a rightful claim to Norway, or someone from Ghana has a rightful claim to Nigeria. Point being, just because your ancestors came from a certain hemisphere or continent doesn't mean that your birthright gives you access to that entire section of the globe. Indians or native people or indigenous people or whatever phrase you want to use. These were not, this was not one homogenous unified group. They were fractured, separate, distinct, different people. They didn't consider themselves.

There was no, they didn't consider themselves to be one big, giant, unified people because they weren't. Now, sometimes they lived in cooperation with. the tribes around them. Sometimes they enslaved and killed each other, which again, you find that all across the world. That's the way that it's always worked. But they were different. So it just doesn't make any sense at all. Someone who lives in Mexico now, there's a very good chance that they are descended from Spanish Europeans and also perhaps native tribes from Central America. but that by no means implies that they are also natives to the continental U.S. That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

All right. That's enough of talking about this woman. Can't stomach anymore. I want to read, let's get to the inbox before we wrap up for the week here. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. You can email your thoughts, questions, concerns, hate mail, whatever you got.

This is from Ash. It says, my second grader is doing a project on MLK Jr. Where he's supposed to dress up as the leader and give a report. Uh-oh. Each kid in the class has a different historical figure, and my son got MLK. He was so excited when he came home to tell me and wanted to discuss his costume. I told him that we could put him in a suit and draw the facial hair, but that we couldn't darken his skin because it was. He's eight, so he got upset, but I explained that it wasn't appropriate because it hurt the feelings of people of color and eventually he was fine with that.

But he, rightfully, I think, doesn't think anyone will get his costume. There is absolutely no way I would put my little boy in blackface, even though he only wants to do it to honor the former civil rights hero. My question is, given the current climate, why would they give a little white boy this assignment? I am super proud that he wants to honor MLK and his presentation will be awesome, but I am put off by the fact that they asked him to dress up in costume to do it. It feels like entrapment for his potential future aspirations. Yeah, I mean, I agree that the school should have known better than this. In this environment, you really are setting a kid up for some problems if you ask a white kid to dress up as MLK.

I mean, it's amazing to me, especially given everything that's happened over the past week, that the school has an assignment to dress up like some historical figure, and they assign MLK to a white kid and say dress up like him. I mean, it's just, yeah. But this also just shows how crazy our culture has become, because you shouldn't have to worry about this as a parent at all. Everyone should just understand that he's a young child dressing as someone he admires. So it should be a total non-issue, but our culture is so crazy and so unreasonable.

People are so unreasonable. And we're looking to destroy each other for the smallest little reason that now this is something you have to worry about. And I think that's just a, although it was stupid on the part of the school, it's also more than that. It is a reflection of the insanity of our culture that you as the parent even have to worry about that. Okay, this is from someone who I'm not sure if they want me to use their name or not, so I won't just to be safe. It says, hi, Matt, I just wanted to say, I love your show. I watch it pretty much every day. I'd like to share with you my story. I was 19 and I got pregnant because I was not on birth control since I thought it wouldn't happen to me.

I was still a freshman in college and did not want a baby to, quote, ruin my education and career. I was considering abortion, even though I knew it was wrong. However, my boyfriend, who was also still in school, stepped up and convinced me to keep the baby. He told me that it was his baby too and that I can't just abort his child. He promised that he would support me. Now we are married with two amazing kids. I never finished my degree, but I do not regret it at all. I am content because of the joy my babies bring to everyone in my family. I wish that more men would be like my husband and own up to their actions. Abortion is not just a women's issue. It takes two to make a baby. Men need to stop running away from their families. It's really scary to see that some people don't understand that

abortion is murder. I didn't fully understand it when I was young, but after becoming a mother, I honestly cannot fathom how abortion is legal. It makes my blood boil that babies are murdered every day, and it's done by medical professionals. Anyway, love the show. Keep doing what you're doing. Well, I would say, keep doing what you're doing. Thank you for sharing that story. It's an awesome story. Both you and your husbands are heroes in my book. And it's really incredible. and really great to hear a story about a man stepping up like that, speaking up for his child, and being encouraging and supportive to his pregnant girlfriend. And there are many stories like this that don't get highlighted, but still not enough, not nearly enough.

And I totally agree with you that when we talk about abortion, as a women's issue. It's unfair to men, and it also lets men off the hook too much. So it's unfair to the good men, and it lets the lazy scumbag men off the hook. And it's also just incorrect, as you point out. It takes two people to make a baby. So there are a lot of men out there, unfortunately. There are plenty of cowardly, lazy, just bad men who are perfectly happy to talk about abortion being a women's issue and say, look, I have no opinion, I can't have any opinion, they can do what they want, because it completely, they think it absolves them of all guilt. So they can go, get women pregnant, and then they say, it's your issue to deal with. Fine,

go ahead, yeah, go ahead and kill the baby. It's fine. But then there are also good men out there who, what they're being told is that when they create a child, when they create a human being, that that's not their child. They have no say. They have no right. And that's just completely wrong. But anyway, thank you for sharing that inspirational story. I really appreciate it.

And finally, this is from Brad. He says, hi, Matt. I'm a huge fan of your show. I share your political views 100% and your religious views for the most part. I also appreciate your stance on homeschooling as I was homeschooled, and my wife and I plan to homeschool our daughter

when she reaches the age. I am writing in regards to your show comments from earlier in the week about whether infants go to heaven or hell. I come from the reformed Calvinist point of view, and I must disagree on your position, as hard as it is to think about from a human perspective, I do not believe that we can assume all infants are spared hell and go straight to heaven. As a Calvinist Christian, we ascribe to the doctrine of election and reprobation. I am not sure how Catholics such as yourself view this doctrine, but we believe that all people that have ever been

and will ever be on this earth are in two camps, the elect and the reprobate. As Christians, we believe only those written in the book of life will enter heaven. All the others are cast into hell. And we also believe all people are conceived and born with the curse of the original sin. So even an infant, while not capable of actual sin, is still guilty of original sin. I believe the children of believers are granted the reward of eternal life if they pass at an early stage. But I do not believe we can assume the same for unbelievers. The Bible clearly states that only the chosen will enter heaven. Therefore, I believe it is dangerous to assume God makes an exception for all infants. I realize it is a terrible thing to think about, but I think

it is the truth. I hope you see what I'm trying to articulate here. I'm far from a theologian or an expert by any stretch, just a simple farm boy raised in a conservative country church. I look forward to a response from you. Hi, Brad. I appreciate your email and your support for the show. I don't mean this with any hostility whatsoever. So please understand that. But I have to say that I find this, and I know that you're far from the only person that has this point of view. And you articulated the point of view quite eloquently, and so I appreciate that, but I do find that point of view to be horrific, honestly. Let's put this into perspective here, okay? You're talking about hell. Okay, so this is not some theoretical in-between place, right? You're

talking about hell, hell, like actual hell, a place of eternal torment, I assume is what you mean by hell. And also, when we talk about the word eternal, eternal means very little to us because we can't possibly wrap our heads around what it means. We don't know what forever means. We can only experience time in succession. And so every moment, a moment comes, it runs out. We get another moment, and that's how we experience time. Which makes it just, impossible to think about eternity. And so sometimes I think we're able to, you know, maybe there are some people that are able to, and I'm not saying you're doing this, but maybe there are some people who are able to sort of casually say, yeah, maybe some babies go to hell for all eternity,

because they don't even think about what eternity means. Because none of us can really conceive, which is why when I've been talking about this this week, I've been saying, well, you're talking about babies going to hell for trillions of years. And I've had some people say, send me emails and say, well, you can't say hell is trillions of years. That's inaccurate. This is eternity. You're talking about in terms of time. Yeah, I understand that. But I'm just trying to put it in terms that we can sort of understand. Now, we can't understand a trillion years either. We can't even understand a million years. But at least a number is something that we can sort of wrap our head around. The point anyway is that hell, we believe, is forever. Never

ends. So to say it's a number. a trillion years is really, a trillion year stacked up against eternity is just a drop in a bucket. A trillion years, you haven't even gotten started yet. So you're saying that God, a merciful, a perfectly merciful and loving being, might send babies. Think about a six-month-old baby. Might send a six-month-old baby who dies of a disease. killed in a flood or a fire or something may send that being who he created to eternal

torment that never, ever, ever, ever ends. Worse, you're saying that they were selected, that that child, let's just put this, you know, let's narrow this down a little bit. imagine a six-month-old child who dies, let's say, in a house fire. These things happen. Child of an unbeliever. The child dies in agonizing pain and then goes to an eternity of agonizing pain that God has selected that child for.

And you're saying that the child was selected for that before birth. he never had any choice. He never had any say in it. He never had any role in this at all. He never had any direct personal role in his own damnation. God selected him for hell and then made him and sent him to earth and then took his life almost immediately and cast him into an eternity of suffering. And you suggest that this could somehow be in keeping with a merciful and loving creator? but I think you know that it's not, which is why you even say it's terrible, it's terrible, it's hard, you use word like terrible. You're right, it is terrible.

But a loving creator doesn't do terrible things. Keep something else in mind. You know, he could have just not made the baby in the first place. Creation for God is an active choice. So he must choose to make this baby. And he must choose to consign before birth, before he even has conceived the child. He consigns this child to an eternity of suffering. And there is zero chance of anything else happening.

Why even make the child then? What was the point? We talk about the creation of human life as this great miracle. Well, it's not. I mean, in that case, he has made this creature to suffer. That's the only reason it exists and it will never have anything else. What was even the point? And I know you could say, well, you know, why would God make anyone who he knows is going to go to hell?

Yeah, but it's entirely different if it's a person who's lived long enough to make some kind of choice, someone who has had some sort of chance, who can play some sort of direct role in all of this. But a baby who has been preordained for hell and then taken from this world by disease or murder has no chance, no choice, nothing. and will be punished forever, forever, for a sin that he did not personally and consciously commit. Keep one other thing in mind, Brad. Nothing exists without God's continual and active consent. So imagine that there is like, in heaven right now, there is a Matt Walsh button, and God has his finger on the Matt Walsh button.

And the moment that he releases his finger from that button, I cease to exist. Of course, that's not really how it works. but my point is that every moment that I exist is an active choice by God to keep me in existence. It isn't, let's say, an active effort by God to keep me in existence. That's what it means to be the sovereign power reigning over all of existence, which means that those babies suffering forever in hell.

God has to sustain them in existence so that they can continue to be tormented for So every moment of eternity, God has to make the active choice to keep those babies existing so that they can suffer forever. And you imagine that a loving and merciful God would do that. It just doesn't make any sense. And I think you know that it doesn't make any sense. But you think that you have to be open to that possibility because of some doctrine.

And what I'm saying is that if your doctrine flies in the face of everything we know about God and everything we've been told about them, and your doctrine forces you to accept the possibility that God would do something evil, and I can't think of any other way to explain, to design a child to suffer forever in hell. and to preordain him to that fate, what else, if, again, if that is not evil, then I don't know what the word evil means. So yes, I just, I absolutely reject that notion. But it's been an interesting conversation this week to continually talk about this. And I appreciate all your emails on it. And thanks for watching and listening. And I'll talk to you guys next week. Godspeed.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, Jeff Bezos of Amazon exposes the National Enquirer as a blackmail racket. Democratic Green New Deal gets off to a rough start, and we check the mailbag. That's today on the Ben Shapiro Show.