The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 327 - Buttigieg Mangles The Bible Again

Episode Date: September 9, 2019

Pete Buttigieg once again mangles the Bible to try and justify abortion. We will look at his theological arguments. Also, noted child rapist Roman Polanski wins another prestigious film award. Yet Hollywood continues to lecture us about our moral inferiority. Date: 09-09-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

All right, happy, happy Football Monday, everybody. It is the first Monday of the football season, so that's pretty exciting. I hope that your team fared well yesterday as you were watching the action. My Baltimore Ravens managed to squeak out a 59 to 10 victory, so that was pretty exciting to watch. You know, I do just want to say this as we enter into football season that I think it's important to note that it is our patriotic duty as Americans to watch and enjoy football. There is no excuse. I don't want to hear this stuff of, oh, I'm not a football. football fan. That is unacceptable in America these days. Football is America's pastime. It is our most

sacred tradition. It has completely supplanted baseball in those categories. It's not even close anymore. I mean, we aren't even the best. America is not even the best at baseball in the world anymore. And basketball has also gone international, but football, our football, is, well, that just belongs to us. It's our thing. So think about it. Football. involves large men crashing into each other at fast speeds, is unique to us in America, and it stole its name from a lame international version and then improved it. So that is, it is quintessentially American. And the most American thing about it is that we invented this new sport.

And we were like, well, what are we going to call it? And we said, we'll call it football. And the rest of the world said, you can't call it football. We already have a thing called football. You can't. And we said, no, it's what we're going to call it. I don't care. It's just we're going to take that.

We're just going to call it that. And then they said, but you don't even really use your feet. I mean, with our football, you're kicking the ball with your feet. So for you to call football doesn't make any sense. And we said, yeah, that's what we're going to call it anyway. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. Try and stop us. And then we took it and we turned into a billion dollar industry. And then we decided, we said, you know what? You know what every football team needs? Is we need to hire a full-time staff of attractive women who just stand on the sideline. Their only job is to cheer on the men. And so we did. And so that's a thing, too. I mean, how, can you, it is, it is some, well, someone who doesn't like football, I have to question, I do have to question their patriotism, their loyalty. And that's, that's all there is to it. All right, so there's a lot to discuss today.

And we're going to get into, you know, unfortunately, we have to start on a Monday by talking about some of the baby-killing enthusiasts over on the Democratic side because they're at it again, embarrassing themselves and the country. And so we're going to talk about that. But before we do, first, a word from stamps.com, you know, no one really has time to go to the post office. You're busy.

You got all this stuff you got to do. And who has time for the traffic and for parking and lugging all your mailing packages? Nobody has time for that. So that's why you need Stamps.com. One of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses. Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office. And it saves you money with discounts that you can't even get at the post office. So it's a win, win, win for you.

Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S. post office. office right to your computer. Whether you're a small business sending invoices, you're an online seller, shipping out product, you're a large warehouse, whatever you are. Stamps.com can handle all your issues with ease. You can print official U.S. pastage, postage, postage, postage, 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it. Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox. It really is that simple. Now, right now, this is the important part. My list. get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without

any long-term commitment. You just have to go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Walsh, and you can get all those deals. That's Stamps.com, enter Walsh. All right, so as I said, let's begin with the baby-killing enthusiasts. We've got a few items to discuss related to this, to these people. First, noted abortion lover, Pete Buttigieg, was on the radio show, the Breakfast Club, a couple days ago. And he took the opportunity to launch into another one of his trademark sermons. And this one is more disturbing than usual. So let's watch a bit of this.

So what's the reckoning between the GOP and Christianity? Well, GOP's got to deal with the fact that they have come on board with a president that is completely against not just our values, but their own. Right. I mean, if you're in Mike Pence's world where, you know, being Christian has a lot to do with, with, you know, a kind of rigid, traditional sexual ethics. Like, that's not how I come. Stop right there for just a minute. Because yet again, he goes in with the Mike Pence thing. I mean, this guy is absolutely obsessed with Mike Pence. He must have Mike Pence posters hung up in his bedroom. He's people. probably has a Mike Pence cardboard cutout in the middle of his living room. He probably spends his time writing poems about Mike Pence in his diary. Every question he's asked. I mean, he can be asked a question about, so what's your opinion on, you know, the situation in North Korea? Well, you know, the thing about that is, Mike Pence, dude, take it easy. If I was Mike Pence, I'd be

getting a restraining order. I would be seriously concerned at this point. This is not normal for you to be that completely focused on Mike Pence of all people. So Buttigieg brings it back to Mike Pence, but let's go and if we can get past Mike Pence and see what else he has to say. I mean, if you're in Mike Pence's world where being Christian has a lot to do with, you know, a kind of rigid, traditional sexual ethics,

like that's not how I come across, but he does. And yet he thinks that, This president ought to be the moral as well as political leader of this country. Okay, actually stop it right there again because we haven't even gotten to the point yet. We haven't got to the crux of the issue yet. But here is Buttigieg mocking Pence for Pence's supposed rigid sexual ethics. And where is he getting that from? Why are you accusing Pence of having rigid sexual ethics?

Well, I guess it's from the fact that Pence doesn't want to go on lunch dates with women who aren't his wife. well, whether you consider that rigid or not, and I don't, why is Buttigieg commenting on Pence's relationships? I mean, Buttigieg, which again is just weird. It's just weird, Buttigieg, give it a rest. Talk about something else. I mean, next thing you know, Buttigieg is going to be bringing up stuff about Mike Pence that he shouldn't even know. Like, well, you know, Mike Pence had waffles for breakfast this morning. Um, I know, because I, I was staring in his window with my binoculars. But can you imagine how Buttigieg would react if Mike Pence ever returned the favor and were

to make comments about Buttigieg's sexual ethics? What if Pence were to get up there and say, you know, Mayor Buttigieg has a, has a, with his libertine sexual ethics, Buttigieg would collapse into tears at that. he would be so scandalized. How dare you make comments about my personal life, even though I've been talking about you incessantly for the last 19 months? All right, let's go back to the video. And you've got an entire Republican Party coming on board with this,

but I think deep down they know that this isn't right. Meanwhile, you've got religious traditions that teach us about the importance of lifting up the stranger, the importance of lifting up the poor, of healing the sick. That, you know, I mean, you go through the New Testament for sure. And every other word that comes out the mouth of Christ is about things like helping those in need. And you've got a Republican Party dedicated to its opposite.

There will be a reckoning over that. Now, right now, they hold everybody in line with this one kind of piece of doctrine about abortion, right? Which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, you know, there's a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath. And so even that is something that we can interpret different. and I'm pro choice. Take up me too. But I think no matter where you think about the kind of cosmic question of how life begins,

most Americans can get on the board with the idea of, all right, I might draw the line here, you might draw the line there. But the most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision. Absolutely. And I think that if you're a man who's against abortion, you haven't gotten a wrong woman pregnant. I mean, wife.

I'm just saying, we've had some slip-ups. All right, so there you go. First of all, the other dude there, not sure who that is, but his reason for supporting abortion is that sometimes he, quote, slips up and, quote, gets the wrong woman pregnant. The wrong woman. Now, if that's not a sexist comment, I mean, if that isn't about the most misogynistic thing I've heard in a long time, then I don't know what is. He's saying the reason he likes abortion is that sometimes you get the wrong. you slip up and get the wrong woman pregnant. But Buttigieg just laughs it off. I half expected him to give a fist bump to the guy or something. He has no problem with that. If he really cared about women and he had a problem with sexism, he would have spoken up and said,

that's not appropriate. But no, because he was still thinking about Mike Pence. He was distracted. Now, in terms of the theology or lack thereof, what Buttigieg says here is completely, false, of course. Nowhere does the Bible affirm this idea that a baby isn't a baby until birth. In fact, the Bible says, before you form me in the womb, you knew me. So this makes it pretty clear that God recognizes our humanity, the humanity of all humans, from beginning to

end. And importantly, he has a plan for all humans. And that plan probably does not involve being murdered in the wound because if it did, then he never would have created the person to begin with. If that's what God wanted and intended, God is not going to make a human life intending and wanting and hoping that the mother will kill the child before the child's even born. The stuff about the breath in the Bible, this is obviously said in a poetic way, the breath of life. God breathes into human beings, gives them the breath of life. That's what Buddha, Judge, is referring to. That clearly is not literal.

Nobody thinks that God is literally leaning down from heaven, like from the clouds, and breathing with his mouth into the nostrils of a person, and that's how they come to life. Nobody, that is, it's rather beautiful, poetic imagery to describe something. That's pretty clear. Now, I'll tell you what's not just poetic. The incarnation. As Christians, that is, I think, rather obviously something that we take literally. And this biblically for a Christian is the coup de grace for pro-abortion talking points. I mean, this is it. Jesus Christ was incarnate in the womb.

He was miraculously conceived in the womb. Now, he could have come to earth in any way that he chose. He could have descended from heaven, the way that he would eventually ascend. He could have materialized out of thin air. I mean, there are many different ways he could have done it. But he chose to come to Earth through the vessel of human pregnancy. So if you're saying that unborn babies are subhuman, then you are saying that Christ was at one time subhuman. That is your Christology, to use the thing.

theological term. Your Christology is that Jesus Christ was at one time less than human. But it's a central doctrine of our faith that Christ was fully man and fully God. The idea of him being less than man and fully God is heretical to say the least. And it just does not comport with Christian theology at all. This is something completely separate. Christ elevated all of mankind by becoming man. Thus, he elevated fetuses, too, by becoming one. So if abortion wasn't wrong before the incarnation, which it was, it certainly is afterwards as all of human life, including from the fetal stage, was elevated, sanctified by the incarnation.

This is, I mean, this is something that when we're having the theological argument about abortion among Christians. And oftentimes I hear Christians cite verses from the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, the one that I cited before you formed you in the womb I knew you, Jeremiah. And those are all good things to cite. I mean, the Ten Commandments, that shall not kill. That's pretty solid. And obviously, it applies to abortion. But I think from a Christian perspective, this should be the first thing. I don't know why this brought up more often. I think the incarnation, you want to say, well, there's nothing in the Bible. There's no pro-life statement in the Bible. The incarnation is about the most pro-life statement that God could possibly make. And it just makes it so it, it ends the discussion from a Christian

perspective. There's nowhere to go from there. Now, on this same general subject, let's go over to the AP, which for whatever reason decided to put out a big, um, a big pro-abortion propaganda video. And this video, which I'll show you now, it tells us the sad story of a poor woman who had to go across state lines and spend a lot of money to kill her child. And we're supposed to feel very sorry for her.

And let's see if it succeeds in making her sympathetic. Watch this. What I would learn the hard way is when you first stop taking birth control, that first couple weeks, that first, like, few days, you're your most fertile. So I got pregnant in like early February. I was housing insecure at the time.

I like I just started a job. I didn't have any support. I didn't have any health care. They said that they would be able to help me, but I had to get there before I turned 28 weeks. And so I had less than 10 days. And they said that my procedure would cost about $10,500. It's not a decision.

to be made lightly because on top of, or like, I didn't make it lightly, because it was on top of a large emotional, like, turning point, like, decision to make in my life. It was a large financial decision to make. Now, if you're listening on iTunes or on SoundCloud, and you couldn't see the video there, there were some captions that I think were relevant to the issue. such as the fact that she was 26 weeks pregnant when she went and got this abortion. Actually, she was probably about 27 weeks because she said in the video that when she called the abortion clinic in New Mexico, she was less than 10 days from the 28 week cutoff, which probably means by the time she got the abortion, she was at 27 weeks.

But let's just call it 26 weeks, just for the sake of argument. At 26 weeks, a child has almost a 90% chance of survival. the vast, vast, vast majority of babies that are born at 26 weeks, and it happens all the time. It is not an uncommon occurrence to have a baby that is so premature. 90% of them, nearly 90% survive. At this point, a baby has all of his vital organs. He has all of his physical features that we associate with being human. He has his nervous system.

He's a baby. He's just a baby. You can go into the, which my own, our first kids, the twins were premature, not 26 weeks premature. They were born at 34, 35 weeks. And so they spent a little bit of time in a NICU, the infant, the natal ICU unit of the hospital, where they send babies who are premature and need help breathing. So I can remember being up in the NICU unit and seeing babies that were much more premature than my babies were. And these are just babies. These are not, this is not a mass of gelatinous, amorphous cells lying there.

Okay, these are babies. They look in every way like babies. They are babies. They need temporary medical treatment and in order to survive. And then most of them will go on to live normal lives and they'll have no prolonged medical effects at all. You know, they just need help at the beginning to breathe. now we're told that abortions this late don't happen unless there's some kind of catastrophic medical situation i've heard this many times i'm sure you have too that hey well women they're not they're not

doing this willy-nilly they're not going to go get an abortion at 26 weeks unless unless you know they need it for for the sake of survival if there's a threat to the life of the mother well as i've said many times, there has never actually been a medically necessary abortion. And if there is a catastrophic medical situation that happens at 26 weeks or 28 weeks or 30 weeks, which does occur, then at that point, maybe the baby needs to come out of the woman. Yes, but there is no reason to kill the baby ahead of time. By that time, you have essentially a fully formed baby. So no matter what, if there's a medical problem, that baby needs to come out. The woman is going to have to deliver the baby. The only question is, are we going to kill the baby before it is delivered? And there's no

medical reason to kill the baby ahead of time. But in any case, that's not even the situation here. There was no catastrophe. She said that she was housing insecure, which means what? She was living in an apartment or something. And she had just started a new job. That's it. That's what she tells us. She wasn't going to die. There was no serious medical. complication. Pregnancy wasn't going to kill her. It would have just been super inconvenient to have a kid at that point. So she killed it.

And sure, if you just started a new job and you have a baby, that's inconvenient. Yeah. I mean, my wife is pregnant now and she's going to give birth in the next month or so. And anytime you have a new baby on the scene, there are. a lot of inconveniences. Yes, it can be a very inconvenient thing in a lot of ways to have a newborn baby. You got to stay up at night. The baby's not sleeping well. You got to take off of work. All these different things. You got to go to the doctor a lot. A lot of inconveniences. That obviously is not a suitable moral justification for murder, obviously. Which is why the pro-abortion

people, they don't want to talk about it in terms of convenience. What they want to talk about are these extreme rare cases, medical abnormalities, and so on. But here we have an abortion of convenience at 26 weeks when the baby had a 90% chance of survival. And the AP is taking this story and they're proudly putting it out there. And they expect us to feel sorry for the woman, not the baby. Just completely deranged. Absolutely deranged. But I'm, I guess there's The point here is I am grateful to the AP for putting this story out there. Their intention, obviously, is to promote abortion. But the effect is for any normal person with an even half-formed conscience, when you see that, you're going to think that's terrible.

That's just wrong. I mean, there are so many other options available to this woman. She could have had the baby. She could have put the baby up for adoption. There are other things she could have done. And we should expect her as a society to explore those other options. The same way we expect a mother or a father with born children who finds themselves in a situation where they can't care for the child anymore.

And that happens also. But what do we say to those parents? We say, we're very sorry you're in that situation, but you need to go put the child up for adoption. You need to make sure that you find someone who can care for that. child because what you cannot do is just leave the kid in the living room and split town. And what you certainly cannot do is kill them. No matter what situation you're in, no matter how dire your situation is, you cannot kill your child. You have a responsibility

to that child and that responsibility at the very least requires you to go and make sure that that someone else is going to care for the child. If we if we if we, if we, if we, if we have no problem saying that and putting that kind of responsibility onto the shoulders of parents of born children, there is no reason why we can't put that responsibility onto the shoulders of parents of unborn children. It's the same idea, the same principle, and that's all. All right, I also wanted to mention this. Roman Polanski, film director and noted child rapist, has a new movie out, and the new movie just won Best Director at the Venice Film Festival.

Now, this to me is noteworthy, especially during a week, and this is why it really caught my eye, during a week when certain Hollywood stars have been calling for blacklists of anyone in Hollywood who might support Donald Trump, the five or six people in Hollywood who support Donald Trump, there's been Deborah Messing and other Hollywood celebrities have been saying we need to blacklist them and everything. Well, they're trying to take the moral high ground on Trump while they continue to support someone like Roman Polanski. Roman Polansky, who, let's recall,

drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. And this is not allegedly or anything like that. He was convicted. He pled guilty, actually. Now, he was able to plead the charges down to, rather than rape, I think it pled it down to unwanted sexual contact or something like that.

Pled it down to a lesser charge. But then, rather than face the music and do whatever time he was going to be sentenced to, he fled prosecution and he left the country, and he has been on the lamb ever since. He is a fugitive, he is a fugitive from justice for 40 years now after raping a child. And in spite of that, he has had a successful career in Hollywood making movies.

Now, apologists for Hollywood are going to point out that, well, this was the Venice Film Festival, not a Hollywood function. So we can't blame Hollywood for this, but it's all related. It's the film industry, besides which Polansky has had no trouble finding top film stars to appear in his movies throughout his career. People like Jody Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly, Ewan McGregor, Adrian Brody, Johnny Depp, Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver. These are not fringe character actors that nobody's heard of. These are top names. and these are people who have appeared in a film directed by someone who they know is a child rapist, a confirmed child rapist. And Polansky won best director at the Academy Awards 15 years ago.

Merrill Streep gave him a standing ovation. Whoopi Goldberg famously defended him saying, well, it wasn't rape, rape, she said, whatever that means. Polansky is Hollywood's guy. They love him. sure he was kicked out of the out of the academy last year because they had to they had no choice with all the me too stuff going on they they knew they had to um get rid of him and pretend to take some kind of moral stand but it was all it was it was a farce considering the fact that they kicked him out of the academy in what it was 2018 back in like oh six or oh seven they

they gave him best director um and you know now they want to circle of around and say, and say, never mind. But they still can't help themselves. So he's still getting awards, and he's still getting people to come star in his movies.

So that gesture meant nothing from, from the academy. It was a total classic CYA move and nothing more. Polansky is, as I said, Hollywood's guy. Let's not forget that. And this is an important thing

to keep in mind, as, especially as we head into the 2020, election and we're going to be subjected to all kinds of PSAs and all kinds of lecturing from these people, whether it's about Donald Trump or it's about climate change or it's about guns or whatever. They're trying to take a moral stance. Meanwhile, Roman Polansky is the big, grotesque, disgusting, child raping elephant in the room. And, I mean, really, just I don't want to belabor the point, but really think about this.

This is not one of those things where they're continuing to support Polansky because they can just claim that he didn't do it. It's not one of those things. Like the people that still support O.J. And say, oh, he didn't really do it. Which obviously is absurd. He clearly did it. And he's all but admitted it.

With Roman Polansky, he plays. Guilty. And there's no, no one is saying he didn't do it. The people who still support him in Hollywood, and again, these are big names. These are prominent big names who still support him. What they must be saying is not he didn't do it, but yeah, he did it, but it's okay. That's the, now they're not saying that directly. Whoopi Goldberg came as close as anyone's come to saying it directly. He said, eh, wasn't rape, rape. Um, meanwhile, not only was she a child, but she was, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, drugged her and raped her. If that's not rape,

then what is? If you're telling me that that's not really rape, Whoopi Goldberg, then what in the hell possibly could be? If that doesn't qualify. But anyway, what they must be saying is they don't see a problem with it. They're fine with it. With a grown man drugging a 13-year-old child and raping her. And that's not surprising that they feel that way.

But it's important to keep in mind. These people are absolute moral degenerative. 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, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. All right, let's see.

We're going to get to emails. Matt Wall Show at Gmail.com, Matt Walls Show at Gmail. Actually, before we get, before we talk about, before I answer some emails, I did, I did have one more issue I wanted to discuss. And this is kind of, this is kind of, kind of personal. And, you know, it's hard for me to talk about, so I apologize. But last night, last night I had to run to the store for something. And as I often tend to do when I'm just making a late-night run to the store, I went out in my very stylish, though also comfortable and convenient, socks and sandals combo. And I'll show you a picture because I'm not ashamed.

I'm not ashamed. Here's a picture of the get-up that I wore to the store. Now, sure, it's comfortable. As I said, it's also very fashion-forward. It's very bold, as you can see. well, I'm in line checking out, and the dude behind the register actually makes fun of me and my footwear to my face. He didn't even wait till I had gone, like any other self-respecting person. Just to my face, he makes fun of me. So I go home and I tell my wife about it,

hoping that I'll have someone to comfort me in my time of this very trying time. And instead, she makes fun of me too. And then she actually grabs her phone and quickly takes her phone and quickly takes a picture of my feet and text it to her sister so they can make fun of me together. Now, of course, I'm feeling attacked and unsafe in my own home. Here I am trying to live my truth, trying to stand in my truth, trying to wear my truth. And this is how I'm treated. So then I post this picture on Twitter last night thinking that, okay, now I'm going to find emotional support because that's what Twitter is known for, is emotional support. But instead, there's just more mockery and shame and bullying and ridicule heaped on me and my and my socks and sandals.

So I want to say this. First of all, the anti-sox and sandals bigotry in this country needs to end. Our forefathers came to this country because they wanted to be able to wear whatever foot attire they chose. And if they could see, if George Washington could see the way that people with socks and sandals are treated now, he would be rolling over in his grave. I can let it be known that I am an icon in the fashion world. I don't talk about it very often. I don't brag about it. Try to make a big deal about it.

But people come up to me all the time, all the time. And they say to me, Matt, I want to thank you for your bold and beautiful fashion choices. You have changed my life. I mean, look at me right now. I'm wearing a black, some black pullover with some weird green, vomiting colored t-shirt. I mean, this is fashion, folks. Third thing is for those who say, oh, why would you wear socks and sandals? Because if you're wearing socks, then just put on shoes. And if you're wearing sandals, what's the point of the socks? Well, I'll explain to you. First of all, there are two really good reasons to wear snails. If you already have socks on and you want to leave the house and you need some kind of other footwear to put on and you have sandals right next to the door, but your shoes are all the way upstairs, that's a good reason. And second, if you're your socks are awesome and you want to show them off, then that's another good reason.

Though I shouldn't have to justify myself and I really am tired of the way that socks and sandals are treated. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Now we'll go to emails. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. This is from Matt says, or from Chuck, sorry. says, Matt, you sound like a communist when you say college athletes should get paid. In a free market economy, those players are agreeing to sell their labor for free tuition, a college degree, and the fame of playing the game if they're good enough. Yeah, I got a lot of emails like this.

We talked about paying players last week on the show, I think on Friday. And I feel pretty strongly that college athletes, at least in the major schools and the major sports, the sports that rake in billions of dollars, like, for example, college football, it's a main thing we're talking about here, that they should get a cut of those profits. Now, Chuck says that that makes me a communist. Well, what I'm talking about is people being paid a fair market value for the labor that they provide. How is that communist? That is free market. the college system is a corrupt rigged system. It is a really a rigged system where the players come in and they are exploited in every possible avenue through ticket sales and merchandise and

TV deals and everything else. And it is set up so that all of that money is going to go into the pockets of the coaches and the administrators and other people who are not playing. these head coaches in these major schools, they are paid multiple millions of dollars a year for coaching football. Where does that money come from? The money comes from the people that are going to the games to watch, people that are buying the merchandise and everything else.

That's where the money's coming from. How is it communist for me to say that everybody involved in earning that money should see a piece of it? It's the opposite of communist. In fact, this system right here, this is like a communist system where it's set up so that the people,

the sort of administrative roles at the top, they're going to see all the money. And then the peons at the bottom are, they got to be satisfied with, you know, free lunch. So, no. And to say free tuition,

a college degree, okay, great. At most, what's that worth? Let's say at most. You get $200,000 at the upper end. About $50,000 a year, compared to a coach who's making $5 million a year.

And not only that, but in order to play, they're not able to actually focus on their education. The colleges might say, oh, yeah, we want to do the education first. That's not how they feel. That's not what they really want. To me, it's a very simple question, okay? Very simple. These college programs, the major college programs, earn billions of dollars collectively from these players. The question is, should only the people not playing get a piece of that money?

Or should the people playing also get a piece? I cannot understand the argument for, no, no, I feel strongly that only that the administrators and coaches should be millionaires and the kids should be satisfied because they get a free education. What kind of position is that? It's so bizarre to me. I don't even understand it. Why do you feel so strongly that the head coach should get $5 million and the player should be paid nothing? Why? Why? If you think you're protecting the integrity of amateur sports, it's not amateur.

When there's billions of dollars being made, it's not amateur. It is professional sports. When you can get paid $5 million a year or $9 million a year as one head coach in college football is being paid right now, in order to coach it, then that's not amateur anymore. That is professional. So I just really don't get it. At the very least, I hope you would agree. At the very least, that these kids should be able to, if go out on their own and profit from their own name.

Because the way it's set up right now is that, yeah, these kids get free housing and free lunch. Meanwhile, the coaches are making millions a year. And not only that, the players aren't allowed to go. out and sell, say, their own jersey or get paid for a sponsorship or for a TV appearance. They're not allowed to. They get in trouble. If a player is caught, and this has happened, players are caught, you know, God forbid selling their own merchandise based on their own name, and they get in trouble for that. And we're supposed to be outraged at them for trying to profit off of their own name and not at the system that stipulates that the only people who are allowed

to get filthy rich off of this are the are the, are the, are the, the coaches and administrators who are exploiting these kids for money. That to me is crazy. At the very least, I hope you would agree, that if someone is a top college quarterback and they're a great player and therefore their jerseys are worth money, and therefore there are companies that want to have sponsorship deals with them, and therefore they could get paid for TV. They should be able to go out and do that.

And if you're telling me that you think they shouldn't be able to, then please don't give me any of this nonsense about how you're – this is free market. capitalism. This is the interference in free market capital. This is the NCAA saying, no, you're not allowed to engage in the free market. We're not allowing you to do that. You are not allowed to go make money. We're going to make millions. You are not allowed to make any. Again, that, psychologically, I cannot understand what would lead someone to support. I can understand why the NCAA likes that system. They're getting all the money. They're getting rich.

But for someone who's not even involved, either way, like, what, why? All right. This is from Jonathan says, hey, Matt, love the show. What are your expectations on the Raven season this year? And are you as high on Lamar Jackson as a lot of Baltimore fans seem to be? I'm originally from Buffalo, which means I have to be a Bill's fan. I'm hoping passing on Lamar for Josh Allen wasn't a mistake. Well, after that performance, yes, I mean, Lamar had a perfect passer rating.

Three for 300 plus yards, five touchdowns. And he made some really good throws. Now, people could say, well, that was Miami Dolphins. They're tanking this year, and that's all true. But they're still a professional football team. And they still have a pretty good secondary. And look, I don't care how bad the team is. If you can go out and play like that, then that's a good sign.

And, in fact, this is what good teams are supposed to absolutely trounce bad teams. And so winning, you know, what was the five or six? 59 to 10, 59 to 10, that's a sign that you're. a really good team. And you're also a good player if you can perform that way against any competition. I don't care if it is the Miami Dolphins. This is from Andrew says there's a lot of controversy around the idea of open versus concealed carry. It's a huge point of debate within the gun community, gun owner community. My issue with it isn't the idea of banning open carry, but rather with the banning concealed carry and states that effectively force you to open carry. The big reason

to open carry is comfort, especially with a larger gun. The second biggest advantage is ease of access. If it's an older person carrying this way, the former wouldn't surprise me as much. Even in my mid-30s, my hands are not what they were in the 20s in my 20s, and I can't imagine what a person in their 50s and 60s would go through there. The other perspective of open carry is the amount of restrictiveness in laws around concealed carry. It varies greatly from state to state. But if you accidentally flash a bit of metal or print excessively, it could be considered

brandishing. There's plenty of people CCing out there, concealed carry. you can make more than a couple of them, but you have to be paying attention. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if you could carry a 357 around and not get a lot of notice in states where it was legal,

if only because no one can pry their eyes away from their phones. Not really in disagreement one way or another. I found myself on the fence and believe in the ideas of tact and circumstance when open carry is in play, the exception being legality, as mentioned above. I think a vast, vast proportion

of the carry community would respect their wishes and probably vote with their dollars. Yeah, those are good points. And I guess I hadn't really addressed. We talked about open carry last week. And I said, I don't really see the point of it. And in all my years, I almost never see people open carry, even in states where it's legal. I've lived in states where it's legal.

I've lived in states where they have concealed carry and open carry. I've lived in states where they only have open carry. I just rarely ever see it. it's just a very small minority of people who seem to be to want to open carry and i said last week i can't i generally can't see why someone would unless they're just trying to sort of show off that they have a gun and they're wearing it as a fashion statement now Andrew brings up some points of reasons why someone might open carry for legitimate reasons and so i take that point i guess there are some legitimate reasons there but we also can't deny that

You know, it's true that most gun owners are responsible. As I said last week, most gun owners are responsible, mature, and all of that. They treat the gun. They respect the firearm as they see it as a tool. They understand that it can be dangerous if misused. And so they have a proper respect for it. That's most gun owners. That's not every gun owner, though. And there are some people, and I think this is also a problem. It's a minority, but there are some people in the gun-owning community who just are way too. impressed with their guns and they do see it as a fascist. They think they're cool for having that's why they take the whole thing. This is a sort of a separate issue, not a big deal, but the people who take pictures of themselves, you know, like, the people, if you go on Facebook, all of their pictures are them with their guns and everything. You know, that to me sometimes can come across like you're treating it like a bit of a toy. Now, if you have one or two pictures of you with a gun, I'm not saying there's any problem with that. I'm just saying there are some people who are constantly taking pictures of themselves posing with the guns like their James Bond or something.

That makes me uncomfortable. And when I see the open carry, it kind of sometimes seems to be in that vein of people who are too impressed with it. And the reason why it's so noticeable is that it is very different from the attitude and the approach that the vast majority of gun owners have. So that's my issue. But all of that aside, even if there are legitimate reasons to open carry, and I take your point that there can be, the point still remains. The main point we talked about last week is that I think it's perfectly reasonable for individual stores and establishments and companies to say, okay, maybe you could do it out there. We don't want you to do it in here. I think it's reasonable for them to say, and we as gun owners have to respect that. And we should respect it. All right. So we will. Leave it there. Thanks everybody for watching. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word,

please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple, podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, Associate Producer Alexia Garcia-Del Rio,

executive producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Donovan Fowler. Audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019. Hey, everybody, it's Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven Show. You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon is turned to blood. But on the Andrew Claven Show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Claven Show and laugh your way through the apocalypse with me, Andrew Clayton.