The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 227 - Another Peaceful Pro-Lifer Brutally Assaulted By Pro-Abortion Extremist

Episode Date: March 28, 2019

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a brutal assault of a pro-life activist is getting no attention in the media, but I’m going to give it some attention today. In fact there is an epidemic of pro-abortion extremists attacking pro-lifers. I'll provide evidence. Vox comes out in defense of Cardi B, who admitted to drugging and robbing men. We’ll talk about the blatant double standards there. Also, the latest on Jussie Smollett. Date: 03-28-2019 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, a brutal assault of a pro-life activist is getting no attention in the media, of course, but I'm going to give it some attention today because it's important. In fact, there is an epidemic of pro-abortion extremists attacking pro-lifers, and I'm going to provide evidence of that today on the show. Also, Vox has come out basically in defense of Cardi B, who admitted to drugging and robbing men. We'll talk about the blatant double standards in that case. Also, the latest on Jesse Smollett and other interesting topics today. on the Matt Wall Show. The FBI is now, it says, reviewing the, reviewing the Jesse Smollett case, specifically reviewing the circumstances that led to the cases, the charges against him being dropped. They're not calling it an investigation. They're calling it a review. Meanwhile, Kim Fox, the state's attorney behind all of this, is standing by her decision, though admitting, as I think I played for yesterday on the show, admitting that she thinks Smollett is guilty.

and that they could have proved him guilty. So she thinks he's guilty, could have proved him guilty. They let him go anyway. But she says, well, it's perfectly normal for people who are charged with these kinds of crimes to just be let off the hook on the promise of doing community service or whatever. Now, you know what? Here's the thing about that. She could be right, for all I know.

Maybe it's true that people who are charged with these kinds of things very often are let off the hook. Or maybe it's not true because there were actually, there were leaked emails from her office where she, after she made this claim, she sent an email to her staff saying, hey guys, can you pull up examples of us actually letting people off the hook with community service for filing false police reports? We need examples. So she made that claim, and now she needs to go scramble and find examples. I don't think she's found one yet. So it's a little bit like, it's a little bit like when you're in an argument with your wife and you're mad at her and you say, you say, well, you always do this. And then she says, oh yeah, give me one

example, one time when I've done this, and then you say, uh, I'll get back to you on that. So that's kind of what's going on with her. But, but even if it's true that these kinds of deals are often made with people who file false police reports, well, there's a couple of differences, though. Number one, of course, in a normal situation of filing a false police report, it doesn't become a national story. So the difference is that Jesse Smolett not only filed the false police report, but he went in front of the entire country, and he tried to foment more racial division for the sake of his own advancement. And let's not forget that he was willing to let, and he still is willing to let innocent people take the phone. When he originally found out that they

had arrested a couple of suspects, before he knew it was. his friends, he said, oh, yeah, must be them, because he thought it was two just random white dudes. And he was willing to let them to let them go to jail on hate crime charges. So this is different for that reason. But there's another thing, too. They could have made this exact same deal and said, fine, we'll keep your bond, do a little community service. We won't go through the whole trial, rigamarole.

But what they could have and should have done is said, here's the condition. you have to go outside of that courthouse, get in front of the cameras, and admit what you did. If you do that, then we're good. In fact, maybe we even give you your bond back because it doesn't matter. Because for someone like him, for a narcissistic liar who's doing this for fame and fortune, the worst penalty that you could give him is that. In fact, that would be a lot worse than sending him to jail for a couple of months or whatever and letting him continue to play the victim and play and pretend that he's innocent. So they could have done that.

The real scandal here, the real travesty, is not just that they didn't go through with the trial, it's that they let him walk out of that courtroom and stand on the courthouse steps and play the victim and continue to pretend that he's innocent. That's what the scandal is. That's what makes this so outrageous because they could have easily said to him,

listen, we've got you on this. You know that we've got you. We've got all the evidence. If this goes to trial, you're screwed. And we're going to throw the book at you. We're going to send you to jail for years. We're going to find you as much as we possibly can. We're going to find even more crimes to charge you with unless you walk out there and admit what you did. They could have done that and they didn't. And that's the Travis to hear. Okay, I want to switch your gears here. early in the show, I want to play a clip for you, and I want to do it close to the beginning of the of the show, because it's important that you see it. And before I play it, let me read first from a report in LifeSight News. It says, an 85-year-old pro-life advocate was brutally assaulted outside a planned paranoid facility in San Francisco last Thursday. The pro-lifer was taking part in a peaceful 40 Days for Life campaign when the perpetrator stole the victim's banner and viciously beat him. The same assailant had attacked the victim and another man just two days prior.

The elderly man tried to stop the theft of the banner by putting the stick holding the banner into the spokes of the bicycle. You'll see this in a second. But this just gives a little bit of context. And then the perpetrator shoves the man to the ground. So we'll see all of that. But the point is, what you're about to witness here, the context is that this guy stole a pro-life banner, property that it did. belonged to him, the elderly man, 85 years old, goes and tries to retrieve his property, and then this is what happens.

Old man, stay on the ground. Be on the ground, old man, unless you want to go there. Now, I want you to understand that what you just saw there is not unusual. It is not an exception to the rule. violent assaults against pro-life demonstrators are quite common. And let's run through. I'm going to play a bunch now. Let's just go down memory lane here, because, as I said, it's very common for pro-abortion extremists to assault pro-life demonstrators, such as, if you remember this one.

you the whole time. Cool. Guess what? Hey. Destruction of private property. Against the law. If somebody gets raped by somebody and they're like, I'm a 16 year old and I can't have this baby. Think you should keep it?

It's a baby. If someone was raped and she gave birth and she decided to kill her three-year-old child. I meant to get your phone. Someone called the car. Meant to kick your phone. Do not touch me. Someone call the cops. Or how about this?

Hey. Hey, Gaddy? Gabby. Gaddy. And then there's this. You're on videos. What's up, bro? What's up?

And I could go on for three or four hours playing clips like that because they're all over YouTube. I mean, all you have to do is just go on YouTube. and type in pro-lifer assaulted, and you'll get hundreds of hits on that. So you get the idea. The point is that pro-abortion extremists are often violent and unhinged. This should not be a surprise considering what they support. And even when they're not being violent, they will very often verbally assault pro-lifers. Go stand outside of an abortion clinic sometime, if you don't believe me.

stand with the people who are holding vigils, trying to counsel women, and see the treatment that they endure, from passers-by, from clinic staff, from everybody. You may actually be shocked by it. If you believe and listen to the media, I don't know why you would at this point, but if you do, you may be under the impression that protesters, the pro-life protesters are the ones who are standing outside of clinics all the time, shouting, you know, shouting at the women going in and heckling and harassing. no that's that's not what happens uh it's the other way around it's they stand there praying that's the way that pro-life demonstrations usually go most people are silent and they're simply praying uh and at a clinic you'll most people will be silent except for a sidewalk counselor counselor who will try to approach women who are going into the clinic approach them not to yell at them or insult them or anything like that, but simply to inform them about the other options they have available,

because the clinic will not do that. The clinic will not tell women that they have other options. And in the midst of that, what will happen is those pro-lifers who are being peaceful and mostly silent will be harassed or assaulted, and it's quite common. One of the weirdest such cases was a couple of years ago when a, what really appears to be a demonically possessed abortion doctor came out to confront a pro-lifer and it was like it was basically a scene from the exorcist watch this friends i pray sir you got to repent sir you got to repent sir for murdering babies why because it's a sin before god why

well stinky breath yeah it's pretty it's pretty evil you sir yeah i am and i hope and pray that you yeah ha wow that's what you do to babies huh Yeah, I love it. You love it, huh? Yeah, I do. Okay, I hope that you come to Christ, sir. Oh, I'd ever go to Christ. I hope that you come to Christ, sir.

No, I don't go to Christ. Yeah, you... I don't listen to Christ. You will have a darkened heart, sir. I do have a darkened heart. Yeah. You have a darkened heart? I do, I do very, very much.

And you will stand before God in judgment. Yes, I will. Every day. You will stand before God and judgment. Yes, I will, every day. All of the babies that you have killed. I love it. Yeah, keep tearing the babies apart.

Yeah, I will. Keep tearing the babies apart. Yeah. Keep tearing the babies apart. Yes, sir. The babies, their blood screams from the ground. Now, I'm not going to claim, okay, that you can't find examples of pro-life demonstrators acting inappropriately.

You certainly can. But there is really no comparison. The violence and harassment almost always comes from the other side. Almost always. And you're not going to see this in the media, but that is the reality. And as I said, it's not surprising because they are defending violence. They are defending the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent children. So obviously they're not going to have any problem with stealing a sign or assaulting an 85-year-old man.

That's pittance compared to what they're defending. So that shouldn't surprise us too much. But also, the other thing about this dynamic between pro-lifers and pro-abortion people, when you've got pro-life demonstrators on one side and pro-abortion people on the other, remember that the pro-abortion people are, by definition, inherently, selfish. Okay, so it's all about them personally. When they are protesting or demonstrating in favor of abortion, they're doing it because it's something that they want for themselves.

They want to have this privilege, if we can call it that, I certainly won't call it a right, to kill babies because it will make their life easier. And that's why they get emotional. Okay, so this is not righteous anger on behalf of the oppressed. No, this is the anger of a selfish, diluted person who feels like their own convenience is going to be intruded upon. and for the men who act this way, they want abortion to be legal so that they can use women as objects, and they never have to worry about the responsibilities that may come from that. On the other hand, and this, you know, I think I said this around the time of the March for Life, this is what makes something like the March for Life such a beautiful and inspiring event,

is that pro-lifers, whether you agree with them or not, what you cannot deny is that these are selfless people. They're not doing it for themselves. You don't go and stand outside of an abortion clinic for your own sake. You don't gain anything from that. You don't go to the March for Life and take a bus and go all the way there in January when it's freezing cold and stand outside in the cold for four hours for yourself. There's nothing that you gained from that. The people who are involved in the pro-life cause, contrary to the ones who are pro-abortion, the ones who are pro-life, they are in it to protect those who cannot protect themselves. They are focused outwardly to the other, to the person who cannot speak for themselves. Whereas for pro-abortion people, it's all about me, me,

me. That is the crucial difference between the two, and that explains, I think, um, their different, shall we say, strategies in getting their message across. All right. I want to, for a moment, revisit this story about Cardi B. You may remember from yesterday. She's the famous female rapper who admitted in an Instagram video that she used to drug and rob men. she'd lure them back to her hotel after a night of stripping. She would have them come back to, this is what she admitted to,

having to come back to the hotel, and she would drug and rob them. She's set all this in a video that she posted online for some reason a couple of years ago. And yesterday she posted a barely coherent statement defending herself, explaining that she had no choice but to drug and rob men. And we all need to stop criticizing her because she's living her truth and she's being herself and she's being honest. and this is what she needed to do. A couple of follow-up points about this.

The incomparable idiots over at Vox are perfectly willing to buy this excuse. An article on Vox that was posted, published, I think last night, explains that Cardi B will not be hurt by this scandal, and really she shouldn't be. And the article says this. For one thing,

the author of the article is trying to draw a distinction between Cardi B and someone like Bill Cosby or Ark Kelly. She says, for one thing, there's the difference in degree between what Cardi says she did and what Cosby and Kelly's accusers say they did. Cosby and Kelly have been accused of repeatedly over a period of decades using the power they accumulated as celebrities to drug and rape and rape women in Cosby's case and to rape and abuse women and young girls in Kelly's case. Cardi says that she drugged and robbed men before she became rich and powerful celebrity in order to survive. Cosby and Kelly have been accused of repeated violent and sadistic abuses of power over decades. Cardi has admitted to a crime of survival. A crime of survival. No, a crime of survival is when you're literally starving to death,

and so you steal a loaf of bread from the supermarket so you don't die. That's a crime of survival. Cardi B was a stripper, and she made plenty of cash in that profession. So what are we saying? She would have starved to death had she not had this side gig of drugging and robbing men? By the way, I did look this up because I figured that somewhere she probably has bragged about how much money she actually made as a stripper. And sure enough, I found this in Yahoo News from just a couple. couple of months ago, it says the Grammy-nominated artist started dancing at 18, and while she admits

her first time was embarrassing, the checks helped her get over that feeling quickly. She says, I was seeing money that I feel like I would have never seen ever. At first, I started off making $200 or $300, sometimes not making money at all because you've got to pay your house fee and my house fees were very expensive. But after I got good, there were nights where I would leave with $2,000 or $3,000. When I was 21, I had $20,000 saved up. When I was 22, I already had $35,000 saved up in singles. So she couldn't survive on $3,000 a night. Well, then how am I still alive?

How are you still breathing if $3,000 a night isn't enough to get you by, and so you have to drug and rob people? Very few people on earth make more than $3,000 a day. So we should all be dead, according to, Cardi B and Vox. But Cardi B, she just couldn't make it work, you know, with her budget. She had no choice. If, instead of pretending to buy that excuse, as some people are,

why don't you just come out and say she's a woman and her victims were men, so it's okay? Because that's what you really mean. That's obviously what you actually mean. So why don't you come out and say it? We all know this is what you're saying. The people that are defending Cardi B, it's because she's a woman. And so admit it. No, the real difference between Cardi B and Bill Cosby and R. Kelly is that she's a woman and they're men.

I forgot to mention another video of Cardi B surfaced. This one of her bragging about getting guys drunk and then tricking them into sleeping with transsexuals. Why would she do that? I don't know. There's not a lot of context. to it, but that's what she says. And I mean, we know there are double standards with the way that women are sometimes treated with these things, but this is beyond the pale. I mean, this woman is a vile crook who should be in prison. It's just a confessing, she's confessing to one violent

crime after another. This woman should have 60 years in prison by now. But there's one other thing I wanted to say about this, as I was thinking about it. Cardi B's excuse is that she not only was doing what she had to do to survive, but also that she's living her truth, right? She's being real, she's being honest, she's being herself, whatever. And I'm kind of glad she went in that direction with her excuse for this behavior because it helps to expose just how vacuous and absurd the whole, hey, I'm just being me thing really is.

People have used it very often, especially these days, as an excuse to behave like pigs. And this is just one of the more extreme examples, where people say, hey, I'm being me, this is my truth, I'm being real. Well, okay then. But if this is you and you're being real, then that just means that you're a horrible person.

The fact that you're being yourself and being real is not an excuse to be horrible. If yourself is horrible, then you need to change yourself because that's bad. So it reminds me of that, you know that stupid slogan that you see sometimes floating around online in memes and so forth, that goes like, if you can't handle me at my worst,

then you don't deserve me at my best. It's a similar kind of attitude that people have where a person takes ownership, takes prideful ownership of their worst. behavior and says basically everyone has to deal with it because this is just me being me and i'm being myself but no you see if i can't handle you at your worst that's because you're a bad person and you're miserable to be around and that's why no one likes you it's not because they're haters or they're jealous or they're trying to stifle you no it's simply because you're an abysmal insufferable

excruciating human being. That's what it is. And I shouldn't have to tolerate your awfulness as some sort of price of admission so that I can experience your best. Because I've got to tell you something. Your best isn't that great either.

But this is the attitude that we encourage in kids these days, especially. We say, be who you are, and if people don't like it, it's their fault. It's their problem. No, it's probably your fault. If you find that everyone around you always turns out to be a hater and you're constantly in conflict with everyone,

and everyone is out to get you all the time, and you can't maintain friendships or relationships with anyone, then look at the common denominator. It's time for an epiphany where you go, oh, wait, everyone around me hates me because I'm terrible. That's why. Okay. You know what a lot of this is? It's shamelessness disguised as honesty.

People think it's okay these days to be terrible if they're honest about it and if they're being real. And so they can simply admit, and that's what Cardi B is doing. She's like, yeah, I drugged and robbed, man, but I'm being real about it. I'm being honest with you.

No, that's not really honesty. That's shamelessness, and there's a difference. Now, honesty is when you admit to being terrible and doing awful things, and you're remorseful about it and ashamed. Okay, well, that is really brave and bold honesty, I'll give you that. But if you're taking these terrible things about yourself and you're parading them in front of the world and saying, hey, everyone, look at me, that is shamelessness. And as I said, there's a difference, and it's not good. All right, let's, well, I had, okay, I got to, I can't move on to the inbox before I play. I played a lot of clips, but I got to play this one too, because this one I found on Twitter,

and it's maybe the most relatable thing you've ever seen. Watch this. Good morning, TPS students. It is testing week, and it's time to slay all day. Yeat. Stay woke, beyond fleek, and get that Gucci breakfast. Goals, say bye Felicia to that testing stress. Weather's going to be turked, right, Chris? Yes. Toledo weather going to be the lit during testing week. A hondo P chance of success. You've got this, kids.

Steve, how about that traffic? Are we looking at Okr? Better than Okr! We're talking. Turned. Homo won't be an issue. No traffic problems around any TPS schools. keep you from taking those tests. That really does. As a Christian, I can say, that really reminds me of every single youth pastor I've ever met in my life. It's basically exactly like that. And we wonder why we can't get young kids to go to church.

All right, let's go to the inbox. You can email the show, Matt Wallshow.g.m.com. Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. This is from Brandon. Says, hey, Matt, love your show. I started listening to your podcast about a month ago. And now I actually enjoy my hour-long commute to work. every morning. I notice you've mentioned a few times now that beans don't belong in chili. I don't

think I've ever had chili without beans, as I feel it would be empty without it. Have I been wrong my whole life? Anyway, I appreciate what you do. Godspeed. Yes, Brandon, you have been, I regret to inform you, wrong your whole life. The International Chili Society has officially defined what a chili is, and frankly, it's a sign of our crumbling education system that you Brandon, have apparently never read the bylaws of the International Chilli Society. But let me read for you, commandment number one on their rule sheet about what constitutes a chili. It says true chili is defined by the International Chilli Society as any kind of meat or combination of meats cooked with chili peppers, various other spices and other ingredients, with the exception of

items such as beans or spaghetti, which are strictly forbidden. Why are they forbidden? Because they are meaningless filler. beans and chili is like when people put walnuts in brownies. It's not like it's bad necessarily, but there's no point to it. You're distracting from the main event. If I'm eating a brownie, it's because I want the chocolate. So why are you putting these little gaps of non-choclet into my brownie?

What is the point of this? In fact, if I'm at someone's house and they serve me brownies with walnuts, I will say exactly this to them. And I'll throw it in their face, which is, I think, the only reasonableness. response, and it's the same thing with chili. The main event is the meat, and everything that is not meat, or that does not accentuate the meat like the spices do, is pointless. Why is it there? All right. From Mark, it says, talking about the, this is referring to the New York Times article we mentioned on the show yesterday that was attempting unsuccessfully to disprove God,

says, when the professor made the argument regarding the problem of evil, he said natural evils are wrong. While you made a good argument regarding that men are the cause because our sin wrecked the world, there's another argument that's missing. Another answer is that since men are sinful, any suffering they experience is just. We don't deserve life, pleasure, comfort, or anything good that God has given us. That all comes from his grace. The question should be why do bad things happen to people? the real question is, since man is so evil, why does anything good happen to people at all? Well, the answer to that is God's grace. Also, you mentioned that God's omniscience and his omnipotence are contradictory.

Well, I don't think they're contradictory. I'm saying that that's a more compelling atheist argument, but I explain how it's not actually true. You gave the God exists in a B theory of time. While that argument works, for those that don't subscribe to the B, theory of time and other answer is that there is no logical reason for these two to contradict. Just because I know what I would do in a certain situation doesn't mean I lack in power to do those things. For example, I know that I'm going to eat the bag of chips in front of me. Does my knowledge of that take away from my power or ability to do those things?

Absolutely not. It doesn't really make sense. Mark, your answer to the problem of evil, I don't think that's going to be a successful answer when you're talking to someone who's secular, atheist, agnostic. Because what you're trying to argue is that, well, I mean, just take any horrible thing you can think of, and then you're saying, well, that person deserve that thing. So, I mean, fill in the blank. Think of the most horrible thing that could have happened to a person, a child. And then you're saying, well, yeah, but they deserved it really because they're sinful. I don't think that's the, I don't think that's a successful answer.

And I certainly don't think it's going to be a convincing answer to an atheist. I think if they hear that, they're going to just run away screaming and saying, you're crazy. That's insane. Yeah, you try to tell me a child with brain cancer as well, he deserves it. No, that's not, no, child does not deserve cancer. I will say that unequivocally. But, theoretically speaking, as I said,

when we're trying to answer the question of these so-called natural evils, natural suffering, as opposed to the kinds of suffering that we can explain through free will, which is a little bit easier to explain, somebody victimizes another person. Will that happen because that bad person chose to do it? Natural evils is a little bit more difficult.

We can't explain that without getting into some theology. There is obviously no way around that. And so the theology there is that man fell out of harmony with nature and with himself through sin. And so I think that's our answer. We can kind of leave it there. From Jeff, it says, Matt, who would win in a fight? The Ninja Turtles are Power Rangers? I guess I would give it to the Power Rangers because they can make that Megasort thing, right?

And, you know, just stomp on the Ninja Turtles. But great question. Thank you for that. From Timothy says, hi, Matt, love the show. I've heard you briefly mention the issue of the Order of the Gospels before. could you explain that which gospel was written first and how do we know and when were the gospel's all written? Yeah, I think we've talked about this before. We don't know exactly when the gospels were written or in what order, but this is something biblical scholars have been studying and debating for a long time.

Different theories have emerged. And as you can imagine, there are atheists and secular scholars. are going to have slightly different answers from Christian scholars. So just a quick overview based on my reading, everyone agrees that John was written last. Even to go back to the church fathers, they also. There's basically universal agreement throughout history on that point, so we can be pretty sure about that.

The most prominent theory today is that Mark was written first, and there are a few reasons to think that, but the primary reason is that almost all of Mark, the text of Mark. Almost all of it is contained in Matthew and then to a lesser extent, Luke. So it's clear, and sometimes verbatim. You've got these verbatim passages between the three gospels. That's why they're called the synoptics.

So it's clear that somebody went first and used the others as a source. We know that. It wouldn't really make sense if Matthew went first, and then Mark came along and made a gospel out of Matthew, because Mark is so much shorter than Matthew, and Mark leaves out some really important things like the Virgin Birth, which isn't in Mark. So it wouldn't make sense if Mark was second,

and he made a gospel based on Matthew, and all he did then was just he took some of it and cut out some really important parts and then made his own gospel out of it. In that case, Mark would just be an abridgment of Matthew, and there's almost no reason for it to be in the Bible in that case. But if it came first, well, then it's sort of, the one of the original source documents, and Matthew and Luke used it, and then added details,

fleshed it out based on their own sources, and for Matthew, his own eyewitness experience. So that to me makes a lot of sense. It just makes a lot more sense than the idea that Mark wrote some sort of abridgment of Matthew. As for when they were written, well, secular scholars will push all the Gospels after the year 70 AD. because that's when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, which is mentioned in the Gospels. And so they'll say, well, it must, obviously these things were written after that happened because they mention it,

whereas Christians will say, well, no, it was a prophecy. So it happened before. So I think they were written, at least John, all of the Gospels of Except for John were written before 70, but not too much before 70, because Paul was writing up until the mid-60s thereabout. And in his letters, he never mentions the Gospels explicitly, the written gospels, doesn't cite them,

rarely mentions any of the stories they contain, and it seems inconceivable to me that if the gospels existed when Paul was writing, that he would not have frequently cited them. Just like modern-day missionaries, they're not going to go around and never mention the gospels. They're going to mention them frequently, right?

So Paul doesn't mention them at all. I think it's because they didn't exist yet. They hadn't been written, and so Matthew was probably written sometime in the mid-60s, then Luke, or Mark, Matthew, Luke, and then John. All right, finally, this is from Matt, says, Matt, love the show, because I agree with just about everything you say,

but mostly because you have the best first name ever, likewise. There was a lot of talk about the new movie about abortion unplanned, being rated R by the NPAA because it shows abortion-related content. Because the movie is rated R, a person under the age of 17 needs to have a parent or adult accompany them in order to watch a movie about abortion. But in the height of all ironies, pro-abortion activists in many states are pushing to remove parental consent laws relative to abortion, claiming that many teens should be able to decide for themselves whether to slaughter their unborn baby. Thus, the left apparently believes that although a girl under the age of 17 is too

young to be able to watch a movie about abortion, that same girl is apparently mature enough to actually have an abortion without her parents' knowledge or consent. That begs the question, is the reason why unplanned is rated R because the content is too mature for teen audiences or because the left wants to keep the movie's message away from as many teens as possible? The question answers itself. Yes, it does answer itself. But thank you for bringing that point up, because it is, as you say, completely absurd. We'll leave it there. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening, everybody.

Godspeak. I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show. the left's worst week ever concludes with them using the only weapon left at their disposal, calling conservatives bigots. When the left calls you're racist, you know you've won the argument. Check it out at Dailywire.com.