The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 362 - Democrats Dehumanize The Unborn, Volume 989,128,002

Episode Date: November 1, 2019

Katie Hill tries to leave congress on a triumphant note and the media falls for the act. A Democrat in PA describes miscarried children as "a mess on a napkin." And a woman is charged with manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. Date: 11-01-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You know, the cutoff really has to be double digits, I think. That's the cutoff. That's all I'm saying. I think once you hit double digits, it's time to stop trick-or-treating. Get off my porch and find a job at that point. Once you get to 10 years old. Now, I was out with my kids last night, and there were these teenagers hitting the same houses that we were hitting, and they were a few houses ahead of us. They had no costumes. They were just putting their candy into their book bags. It looked like they just got home from school, and they just decided to, on the way home, might as well hit. a couple houses and get some candy. And all I'm saying is at least put some effort into it. A 16-year-old not in a costume, going up to a house on Halloween and taking candy.

It's like if a five-year-old was invited to his kindergarten friend's birthday and the five-year-old 16-year-old brother showed up at the party right when the cake was being cut, had some cake and left. It's like,

it's not really for you, but if you are going to come, you should participate in the whole thing. And so, in this case, put on a costume, grab one of those pumpkin candy buckets, say trick-or-treat the whole nine yards. People say, oh, well, it's better for teenagers to be trick-or-treating than out-causing trouble. Well, first of all, they can multitask, you know. Second, there is a third option. They could be picking up shifts at the coal mine, okay, like I did at their age. making themselves useful. So now this is for older kids.

If older kids want to trick-or-treat, they have to wear costumes. But once you're not even a kid anymore, once you're an adult, so at 18 years old, you're too old to trick-or-treat, obviously. You're also too old to wear costumes. People don't like it when I say this, but adults should not be wearing costumes. Costumes are for kids. Halloween is for kids. And if you think I'm being a Scrooge, I am, that's kind of my thing.

But it's not just that. Let me give you exhibit A. Look at this from yesterday. This picture here, this is Representative Katie Porter, a Democrat, obviously, at the Capitol yesterday, in a Batman costume. She's working at it. She's, she's, she's, you know, doing supposedly serious business wearing a Batman costume. She looks like a mental patient. This is what happens when adults wear costumes. Just look at that. It's a disgrace. It's an embarrassment. Think about what you're doing. How do you not look at yourself in the

mirror before you leave the house and think yourself, oh my God, I'm an adult dressed like Batman. How does this not cause you to reevaluate not just your outfit for the day, but your whole life? And this is why under my administration, the legal cutoff for costumes will be 18 years old. All violators of this, anyone caught in a costume over the age of 18 will be stuffed into a burlap sack and thrown into the sea. And as I always say, I take no pleasure in handing out those kinds of punishments. It will hurt me more than it will hurt the person being thrown into the ocean. But it's just we have to have law and order. And this kind of degeneracy simply cannot be tolerated. Now, from one Katie to another, speaking of degeneracy, Katie Hill, you know that lady

that was having sex with her 22-year-old female campaign aide, paying her with campaign funds, and then allegedly also having sex with another staffer, who was also, of course, being paid, this one being paid with tax money. She gave her final speech before Congress yesterday, and she was not wearing a costume. It would have been kind of funny, actually, if she was the one wearing. If she was the Katie wearing the Batman costume, giving the speech after resigning, because of ethics violations. Now, that would be worth it. But no, despite being a disgraced politician resigning over ethics violations, she tried to turn the whole speech into some kind of triumphant feminist moment. Watch this. This is the last speech that I will give from this floor as a member

of Congress. I wasn't ready for my time here to come to an end so soon. It's a reality I'm still grappling with and I will be for a long time to come. The mistakes I made and the people I've hurt that led to this moment will haunt me for the rest of my life and I have to come to terms with that. Ever since those images first came out, I've barely left my bed. I've ignored all the calls and the texts. I went to the darkest places that a mine can go and I've shed more tears than I thought were possible. And I'm here today because so many of the people I let down, people close to me, supporters, colleagues, people I've never even met, told me to stand back up, and that despite all of my faults, they still believed in me, and they were still counting on me. And I realized

that hiding away and disappearing would be the one unforgivable sin. I am leaving now because of a double standard. I'm leaving because I no longer want to be used as a bargaining chip. I'm leaving because I didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen and the right-wing media to drive clicks and expand their audience by distributing intimate photos of me, taken without my knowledge, let alone my consent, for the sexual entertainment of millions. I'm leaving because of a misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality, and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse this time with the entire country watching.

I am leaving because of the thousands of vile, threatening emails, calls, and texts that made me fear for my life and the lives of the people that I care about. I'm leaving because for the sake of my community, my staff, my family, and myself, I can't allow this to continue. Today, as my final act, I voted to move forward with the impeachment of Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America. We will not stand down. We will not be broken. We will not be silenced. We will rise. And we will make tomorrow better than today.

Now let me ask you, did you notice what was missing from her list of reasons why she was leaving? She's leaving because of misogyny. She's leaving because of double standard. She's leaving because of her ex-husband. She's leaving because of political operatives. She's leaving because of sexism and patriarchy and everything. But she forgot to mention that she's all. also leaving because she was using her subordinates like sex toys. And that's one little detail

that she seemed to have left out. I'm sure unintentionally, she just forgot to mention it. Of course, she's talking about double standards, but the only double standard is the fact that she can get away with making herself out to be persecuted, making herself the victim in this scenario, and the media just goes along with it. A man would not get that benefit. So that's where the double standard is. In fact, the double standard is so strong in her favor that the left now, for all intents and purposes, has canceled the Me Too movement for her sake. The Me Too movement is canceled now. They threw it all to the side. The first time a woman really, really, you know, came under scrutiny, they said, okay, never mind on the Me Too movement thing. Forget it. Never mind.

because everything that they've been saying about consent is now gone, all for the sake of defending this woman. Because they have been saying all along, if you're in a position of power and someone is a subordinate, they cannot consent because they're not on the same level of power and they're not going to feel, like they have the ability or like they're empowered to say no, so on and so forth. Those are not my rules. That's not what I say. Now, my own personal feeling is that certainly if you are a member of Congress, having a sexual relationship with a subordinate in that scenario is definitely wrong. And it is an ethical violation.

Now, if we weren't talking about Congress and we weren't talking about campaign funds and tax money and everything, and this was just in a private business, and you had someone in a sexual relationship with a subordinate, then it kind of depends. It's sort of situationally based. I don't personally think that it's impossible for there to be consent or anything like that or that it's automatically sexual assault or something. I don't personally think that, but we're not talking about my standards.

We're talking about the standards. set by the left by people like Katie Hill who have been very clear about this. They've been very clear that just because someone says, yes, I want to do it, doesn't necessarily mean that it's real consent. They've been safe to say this over and over and over again. And now I guess we're back to, well, hey, I mean, the other woman wanted it, so said she did, so that's it. That's all that matters. Well, Me Too movement then. RIP, I guess. Well, while we're on the subject of detestable Democrat women, which seems to be the theme here so far, let's check in with Wendy Ollman, state representative in Pennsylvania.

They were debating a bill in Pennsylvania that would require hospitals and abortion clinics to respectfully dispose of the remains of unborn children. Because that stands right now, aborted children are tossed in medical waste dumpsters, along with used needles and other toxic trash. That's how the human remains are treated. This bill would seek to grant just a little bit of dignity and humanity to these humans. But Allman is worried about this and about the implications, and she tried to express her concerns, and it didn't go so well.

It refers specifically to the product of conception after fertilization, which covers an awful lot of terror. I think we all understand the concept of the loss of a fetus, but we're also talking about a woman who comes into a facility and is having cramps and not to be concrete. Concrete, an early miscarriage is just some mess on a napkin. And I'm not sure people would agree that this is something that we want to take to the point of ritual, either cremation or internment. Yes, a mess on a napkin, that's how she sees unborn life as a mess on a napkin. and you could tell there right before she said that

she paused noticeably and was searching for the right words because she knew that what she was about to say it was horrible and so she was looking for a different way of putting it and this is what she came up with so actually I wonder in her mind she obviously had

she was originally going to say it a different way she had option A in her mind She was about to say she stopped and then went with option B. So considering that this is what she decided to say, I wonder what she originally was going to say before she settled on this. Either way, though, this is how, this is, it's honest. I mean, this is how, as a Democrat, this is how she sees unborn life. She sees it as just, and it makes sense from that point of view,

using that logic, an unborn baby is a clump of cells. when you're abhorting a child, it's just a clump of cells, basically a cancerous tumor you're getting rid of. And then in that case, yeah, if an unborn child that's aborted is a clump of cells, then I guess a miscarried child is a mess on a napkin, as she puts it. Now, you know, we've had miscarriages. My wife's had miscarriages, and it's a very difficult thing to go through emotionally and for the mother physically. and in fact, this is what immediately came to mind for me when I was listening to this horrid woman saying this

one of the things that adds to the emotional difficulty of a marriage, of a miscarriage is precisely that so many people have the attitude of Allman here. The attitude that she's expressing is exactly how a lot of people feel about it. Even if they're not so explicit about it, so many people don't really view it when you have a miscarriage. So many people don't really view it as losing a child. And then the result is that a woman who's going through this, she's already got the emotional burden of it. but then on top of it she feels alone and isolated

as she's mourning her miscarriage because society doesn't see it as a big deal and so she feels like she's got no one to turn to and nowhere to go for empathy because society is saying basically what Wendy O'Mon is saying which is just a mess on a napkin who cares it's just it's evil and it's vile but every time a Democrat

takes off the mask and really says what they actually think on these topics. Even though it's horrible to hear, I'm always grateful when they do because I want people to see this. People need to see this. That this is how the Democrat Party views human life. It's important that we all see that. And then the voters have to decide, do you want to support a political party? that sees human life this way? Do you agree with that? Is that how you see human life? If you've ever had a miscarriage or if someone you love

has had a miscarriage, is that how you, do you agree with that way of looking at it? If not, then you have to really evaluate whether you can support a political party that differs with you so dramatically in the way that it fundamentally views human life. And that is a very fundamental issue, isn't it? how we view human life, what is human life?

Is it inherently important? Democrat Party says no. If you say yes, then it doesn't mean you have to be a Republican. It just means that I think there's no way you can support these people. Okay, I wanted to mention this case, speaking of vile and evil, reading now a little bit from KTLA, an article on KTLA.com, says the girlfriend of a Boston college student who died by suicide in May repeatedly texted him to do so during their relationship,

according to Massachusetts prosecutors who said this in announcing involuntary manslaughter charges against her. In Young, U. 21, tracked Alexander Ertala's location on May 20th and was present when he jumped from a parking garage only hours from graduation. Authority said you, also a student in Boston College, was physically verbally and psychologically abusive toward her boyfriend during their 18-month-long relationship. Investigators look

through a trove of text messages, the two exchange, in which U allegedly tells Ertala, who was 22 years old, to go kill himself or to go die, and that she, his family, and the world would be better off without him, prosecutors said. The district attorney said U. is in her native South Korea

and her office is cautiously optimistic that you will return to U.S. voluntarily. They're saying they're going to do what they can to get her back, Skipping head a little bit. Prosecutors have described a pattern of abuse and manipulation throughout the relationship in which you allegedly made demands and threats and exercised total control of Ertala, both mentally and emotionally. She was aware of her boyfriend's depression they contend. You instructed Ertala to kill himself hundreds of times through the more than 47,000 text messages she sent to him into... 47,000 text messages she sent in two months.

Now, do the math on that. You know, so it's about 60 days, 47,000 divided by 60. How many text messages a day? How many text messages an hour does that add up to? Rollins said a bill is currently in front of a legislative committee that would make encouragement or assistance of suicide a crime, punishable of up to five years in prison. Now, this, okay, and they do bring this up. This will bring to mind the case of Michelle Carter. a few years ago, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for doing the exact same kind of thing,

very similar, where she, through text messages, over the course of many weeks, was trying to encourage her boyfriend to kill himself. And if I remember the case correctly, on the day, the night when he actually did it, she was, you know, he was texting with her and saying that he was going to do it, and she was saying, yes, do it, and encouraging it. And then he did. And she, was convicted with manslaughter for that. Now, I think there are many different directions you could go with this with analyzing something like this. But for me, I see this tragic, disturbing case as a sort of clear boundary line for free speech. We talk about what is free speech. What are the limits of free speech? When does speech become something more than mere speech? And I think that

here we see how that works. Because it's clear to me that obviously this woman, this sick, twisted woman, is not covered by free speech. She has committed a crime, if the allegations are true. She has committed a crime and she'll be punished severely for it. I think she should be punished much more than involuntary manslaughter. There seemed to be a lot more intention behind it than that. Even though she didn't, as far as we know, she didn't physically push him over the edge. She didn't physically kill him. Kill him. She used other methods. And those other methods may mean, that her penalty is not as severe as it would have been had she directly killed him, but there

still has to be a penalty. The method that she used is not acceptable in a civilized society and shouldn't be. And this is where free speech ends. When you're using speech with the intention of directly and substantially and maliciously harming another person, in the malicious part of that is important. Because if you're, for example, if you're calling out a politician for something that they've Donner said, well, that might harm them politically, might harm their career, but it's not malicious on your part. You're justified in what you're doing. Malicious harm through speech is, in the case of a politician, that would be like if you made up a lie about them to destroy them. Well, then that's not free speech. That's against the law. And this is where the delineation is. And yes, there might be

hypothetical cases where it's harder to discern the nuances and distinguish between whether it's free speech or not, and you're always going to have those hard cases. But in broad strokes, generally speaking, there is a clear distinction here. And it is relatively easy to tell the difference generally speaking between these things. Now, some people have, and this is my point, some people have tried to make free speech into this very complicated, ambiguous thing. And the people who do that, they're doing it for a reason because it benefits them. And usually these are people who really don't like free speech. But rather than come out directly against it,

they just try to make it into this ambiguous concept that nobody can really understand. But really, it's not so complicated most of the time. When you are, as this woman did, harassing and tormenting someone relentlessly with the intention of causing significant harm to them, and that is clearly what you intend to do and why you're doing it, that's not free speech.

And that, obviously, to me, is not what the founders intended. When the founders codified our first amount of free speech rights, they didn't have stuff like this in mind. I think we could be pretty sure about that. Now, on the other hand, when you give an opinion that, let's say, hurt someone's feelings, when you're speaking honestly about your opinions on whatever subject, and someone has their feelings hurt because of it, that is free speech. And there actually isn't that much room for confusion here.

So when we talk about, we get into the free speech subject. And someone says, well, you know, what is an example of when it should be against the law for someone to just say something? Well, here we go. Here's an example that I think most of us could agree with. And that's where the dividing line is between free speech and not free speech. It's also interesting here. This was in Boston, right? This was in Boston, right? And so now they're talking about passing a law that will specifically make it illegal to do this kind of thing to, I guess, encourage, okay, it would make encouragement or assess.

of suicide of crime, punishable up to five years in prison. Now, would this apply to so-called doctor-assisted suicide? It seems like you would have to choose between the two. And anyone, and here's another angle we could explore with this, that anyone who hears about the story of this disgusting woman and what she did, or Michelle Carter, that kind of thing, if you hear about that and you think that is despicable and horrible and that person needs to go to jail, which I think any civilized person, that's how you would feel about it, then you should also be against assisted suicide in every circumstance, including doctor-assisted suicide. Because I imagine there are a lot of people, and there's kind of a cognitive dissonance here.

I imagine there are probably a lot of people who think that doctor-assisted suicide's okay, but would hear about a case like this and think that's horrible, it must be against the law. Now, obviously there is a difference between the cases that you could point to. There are several differences. There's no doctor involved. This was, you could say, manipulative and all of that. But the fact is, it's just a question in society. if someone is depressed, you know, if someone is going through a difficult time,

should we encourage and help facilitate their suicide or not? And I would say not. The right and moral and ethical and civilized thing to do is to help them to get to get them treatment. And our message always has to be your life is worth living. And if that's going to be our message, if that's how we should approach, you know, this is. then I think you can't have doctor assist, so-called doctor-assisted suicide, or this. I think both of them go out the window. And, you know, the people who would say, well, it's different because you've got a doctor involved. Getting a doctor involved in many ways makes it worse because it's a total perversion of medicine.

The thing about the Hippocratic Oath, do no harm. Medicine is supposed to be about, treating disease, helping people, treating people, curing people, making them healthier. That's what medicine is supposed to be. There shouldn't be a time in medicine where we are directly killing people on purpose. That's not medicine. All right. Let's move on to emails. Matt Wall Show at gmail.com.

Matt wallshow at gmail.com. This is from, let's see here. from John says, Hi, Matt, I like your show and your activism. That said, I think your NCAA take is wrong. Basically, your point is that you're not pro-free market if you think the rule that NCAA athletes can't use their name to make money is fair.

However, I think you forget the essence of free market. Freedom of contracts. No one forced these athletes to enter into a contract in which a clause on name and likeness with such a clause on name and likeness. On the contrary, athletes enter these contracts because they believe that even with such clauses, the contract benefited them. They benefit with scholarships, fame, a chance to make it in the pros, et cetera.

Now, you might think that the deal is unfair, that the NCAA makes too much money and that the athletes make too little, but that's irrelevant. The athletes, in a free market environment, use their freedom of contracts to enter into these agreements because they believe that they end up better off with the agreement than without. They got what they bargained for in a free market environment. To the contrary, if you pass a law or a court decision saying, that the athletes cannot contractually waive their rights to use their name and likeness, you are going against free market the same way a minimum wage law would. This is exactly like a minimum wage because you would be saying, no, even if you want to, you cannot legally go below

this threshold. But what if I'm starting to work and I'm willing to work for $5 an hour? No, you can't. What if I'm willing to waive my right to use my name to get a scholarship to get into NCAA and get a scholarship? No, you can't. It's the same thing. Of course, from the free market perspective, it's totally fine if the NCAA decide on its own or after bargaining with the athletes to let them use their name. Yeah, well, that's what you said at the end there is kind of the crux of it, because what we talked about a few days ago

was the NCAA was deciding that they were going to allow athletes and they didn't get into specifics yet as far as I know, so there's a lot that has to be hashed out here. But the basic broad stroke here is that they are going to allow athletes to puff it off of their name and image. And then you have the government coming in and saying, or at least one politician coming in saying he's going to propose a law that would penalize students who take advantage of that and decide to profit off of their name and image. So that, I assume you would agree, is anti-free market, where now you've got a contract between the NCAA and these athletes, and then you've got the government coming in and saying, no, no, no, we don't like that.

And so we're going to punish you for it. That obviously is not free market. Also, I would say that I have been pushing for this myself. I think that the NCAA should allow this. That's not an anti-free market view on my part. I never said that the NCAA necessarily didn't have the right to prevent athletes from making money in this way. It wasn't a matter of, did they have the right to do it? I didn't say they have a right to it. I said it's not right.

So they might have the right to make these kinds of rules, preventing athletes from profiting off of their own name and image. But I think it's wrong. And this is a distinction that people struggle with a lot. I'm not exactly sure why. Because this happens a lot where I'll say, okay, this and that, I think that such and such is wrong and you shouldn't do that.

And then inevitably, I'll get the emails from people saying, oh, you're saying, well, you shouldn't have the right to do that. No, that's not what I'm saying. If I think that you shouldn't have the right to do it, then I'll say that. That's a separate argument. But there are a lot of things that we have the right to do as individuals or as organizations, as companies, whatever, that I still think we shouldn't do. Because it's not right. It's unethical. It's immoral, in my opinion. And so that's my argument. And third point is that, you know, when you've got, I don't think that your comparison.

exactly works. Because with the NCAA, this is this massive organization controlling all of these schools across the country, passing these rules from on high, telling athletes that they can't go on their own. Because we're not even talking about making an income, saying that they can't even go in their own private life and sell a jersey or something. Now, prior to this rule change, they're talking about, that was what they were saying. So it's hard for me to not see that. I don't know how you could see that as anything but a violation of free market principles. I don't know how you could say that that is consistent with the free market. Because even in the example of Walmart with the minimum wage that you're talking about, yeah, you enter into a contract with Walmart about

what your salary is going to be. But Walmart's not going to tell you that when you leave and go home, you can't sell something on Craigslist. And if Walmart did try to pass a rule like that, telling employees that even when they go home and are on their own time, they're not allowed to go on Craigslist and sell something of theirs, I would say that that certainly isn't consistent with the free market. And whether or not they should have the legal right to pass a rule like that, that would be a discussion we could have. But there's certainly a question about whether or not they would. This is from Leslie says,

Hi, Matt, I do the grocery shopping every week for my family. I have to go during school hours, so I don't have to drag around little humans that hang off my buggy and dabble and petty thievery. I tend to go late mornings to try to miss restocking so I can rush through and tackle my list. But lately there seems to be a recurring issue of larger humans standing in the middle of the aisles,

texting on their phone and looking annoyed when I say, excuse me, is try to get around them. During your dictatorship, would you please summon these people immediately to an American gladiator-style demise with those big Q-tip-looking bats and a vat of alligators? Thank you in advance for your ruling. Leslie, you have identified one of the great threats to human civilization that we face, and not just in supermarkets, but everywhere. People who stand in walking aisles, you know, walking lanes, aisles, sidewalks, clogging up foot traffic, people who walk too slow, people who stand in the walking path of those moving walkways at the airport

where there's supposed to be one side you stand, one side you walk, but there are people who stand in the walking aisle. This is all, it's an epidemic, I agree, it's chaos. As for the penalty under my regime, I like how you're, you know, I like, I like your thought process. I like the creativity, but here's my thought. Anyone who blocks an aisle or stands when they should be walking or walks too slow will have their legs amputated. Because if you aren't going to use them, then you lose them. That's the basic principle here. And by the way, that principle will also apply to people who don't make sufficient use of their brains as well. Use it or lose it is going to be the rule under my regime. This is from Andrews says, why do you think people, why do people think an impeachment is good for Trump? I'm seeing all over Twitter mid-level conservative figures declare that what the House is doing

is an automatic win for Trump in 2020. Is that really the case? Well, the only way that it's bad for Trump is if he actually gets thrown out of office, which isn't going to happen. So the problem for Democrats is that there really, as far as I can tell, there really isn't anything for them to gain from this, politically speaking. The anti-Trump voters who love the impeachment stuff, well, they're going to vote for Democrats regardless. The Democrats didn't need to do this to win the votes of the rabidly anti-Trump voters, because they're going to vote against Trump no matter what the Democrats do. The issue then is how does it play with people who are in the middle and people who are center-right? The people who are in the middle are center or center-right and don't really like Trump and are kind of sick of his old act and could be convinced to vote against him, but are concerned about the extremism and the craziness on the left. the question is now

Democrats they need to win a good chunk of those voters the question is this impeachment pageant is it going to help them win those people or is it more likely to alienate those people and I would say almost certainly the latter this is from Rebecca says Matt

what are your thoughts on Q well Rebecca you didn't I was trying to figure out when I read this email what are your thoughts on Q? You didn't stipulate what exactly you're referring to. So you could be asking for my general thoughts on the letter Q, and as far as that goes, I'm a fan of the letter. I don't think it's a top five member of the alphabet, but it's not bad.

You could be asking me about the whole QAnon thing, and as for that, I don't believe any of that because I'm not a moron. Or you could be asking me about the Q source, which is the hypothetical source Matthew and Luke used to write their gospels. And as the theory goes, Matthew and Luke based their gospel accounts on Mark, but they also had a second source, which would have been a collection of Jesus's sayings without any narrative. So sort of like the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. And I'm going to pretend that you meant to ask me about that, because that is the most interesting

Q-related thing that we could talk about, in my opinion. And no, I'm not a proponent of the Q theory. I think inventing a hypothetical gospel that nobody has ever seen is sort of absurd and and far too complicated when there are simpler, more logical explanations. So it's clear that Matthew and Luke, you know, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the synoptic gospels, of course, we call them synoptic because they're so similar. It's clear that they did use Mark as a source because, and we know that, because they repeat Mark almost verbatim at many different places in their accounts. So there's just no reasonable way to explain the similarities.

other than they used Mark. And besides, in the preamble to Luke's Gospel, he says that he consulted other sources, and so it makes sense that he would have consulted an earlier gospel like Mark, although he doesn't specifically say Mark, that does make sense. The issue, though, and where people get this Q thing from, is that while Matthew and Luke repeat Mark verbatim at various points, they also mirror each other verbatim at other points, but not Mark. And so the question is, where did they get that almost identical content that isn't in Mark? And so the theory is there must be some other third thing they looked at that they were both using independently without knowing that the other one was using it. And, but my thing is, you know, why couldn't it have been like this?

Mark writes his gospel first. And as tradition has, Mark was a follower of Peter and a associate of Peter, and so would have gotten a lot of his material from Peter. And then Matthew writes his gospel and uses Mark and also his own recollections as an eyewitness apostle. And then Luke writes third, and he uses both Matthew and Mark and then adds his own material that he gets from his own sources. So there's no need for Q, and it seems to be simpler and it makes more sense that way in my view. All right, finally from Tim, and I just just answered a question that you almost certainly probably were not trying to ask. From Tim says,

Hi, Matt, I don't believe in divorce, but have you considered it with your refrigerator problem? Yeah, I've been talking about this on Twitter. My wife has, well, it all started, I think, with the syrup. She started putting our syrup in the refrigerator. And originally I didn't say anything because I thought, okay, it's not a big deal, it's just syrup. So when I found the syrup in the fridge, I would take it out. Because you don't need to put syrup in the fridge.

Okay, syrup will stay good forever. You know, syrup will outlast the plastic that it's in. It will outlast the bottle that it's in. Syrup is just, we'll stay good for a million years. That's just science, as far as I know. Although it could be wrong. Probably in. So she started putting syrup in the fridge, and I didn't say anything. And then she started putting peanut butter in the fridge.

And that's when I started making comments and saying, you know, we don't need to put peanut butter and syrup in the fridge. fridge. It can just go in the pantry. But then she started putting honey in the fridge, too. Honey. I mean, honey is, it usually is in a beehive, which is not refrigerated. In fact, beehives are very warm inside. Bees keep hives warm, even in the, even in the wintertime, because with the vibration of their bodies, they heat up the inside of the hive so that it's at like 98 degrees inside the hive. Try to explain this to my wife. She didn't care. So now we've got, we've got honey, syrup and peanut butter going in the fridge.

And every time I see it, I take it out and put it in the pantry. And she puts it back in the fridge, and we got chaos going on. Well, yesterday I opened up the fridge last night. And I find honey syrup, peanut butter, and bananas in the fridge. She is now putting bananas in the refrigerator. Bananas are tropical fruits. You get them in the jungle. They don't need to be in a refrigerator.

There's no refrigeration in the jungle. And you know what happened? I tried to talk to my wife about this calmly. And I said, you know, I think we have a problem here. I think you have a compulsion. You have a refrigerator related compulsion. We can get help for this. So it's okay.

You know what she did? She just laughed. Refrigerator abuse is not a laughing matter. I don't know where it's going to end. before all of our kitchen items are going to end up in the refrigerator. She's going to start putting like the toaster in the refrigerator. But you know, as I've been talking about this on Twitter, I've discovered that a lot of people out there are dealing with similar problems in their home

where they've got one spouse or the other who thinks that everything should be refrigerated. And so this is an unspoken issue in America that I'm glad that I could bring this this conversation to the forefront because we need to talk about it. A refrigerator is an important and powerful tool. It has specific uses. And to abuse it in this way is dangerous and offensive to me on a personal level. And we'll leave it there. Thanks, everybody, for watching.

Have a great weekend. 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 GeliWire 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. If you prefer facts over feelings,

if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on into the Ben Shapiro show where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more. We'll see you there.