The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 364 - The Epstein Cover Up

Episode Date: November 5, 2019

ABC tries to cover for Epstein. The New York Times says we should stop wearing clothes. A prominent abortionist accidentally destroys every pro-abortion talking point in one minute. Date: 11-05-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Well, I was pretty fascinated by this. The New York Times ran an editorial yesterday. Take a look at this headline. It says, wear clothes, then you're part of the problem. You know, I have to say, I was pretty shocked that the Times is now running Katie Hill's internal staff memos as an editorial. I didn't expect that. I mean, hasn't this woman suffered enough?

Just leave her alone, for God's sake. She's the victim in this, remember? But actually, no, this isn't, if you look closer, this isn't from Katie Hill, surprisingly enough, this is an environmentalist thing. This is the times arguing that you're killing the environment by wearing clothing. And they're not just referring to people like myself who go and kill baby polar bears to harvest their fur for slippers, which is a completely legitimate hobby, by the way, but frowned upon these days. No, they're saying that if you wear any clothing at all, you're killing the planet. So of course, if the choices between killing the planet,

or having to look at everybody naked, probably the former would be the wiser choice. Have you seen people recently? But really, think about what the environmentalists want from us now. Okay, they want us not driving, not taking airplanes, not using electricity, eating bugs, going around naked, and they wonder why their message isn't resonating. It's a mystery. It's a real mystery. Because it should be so viscerally appealing, this idea that we can live, they're in. inviting us to live like it's the year 200,000 BC. Who wouldn't want that? Run around naked, eat bugs, eat worms and beetles, die from a tooth infection when you're 37. It's a great life, a short life, but a great life.

But for some reason, people aren't into it. I just, I can't quite figure that up. Okay, today we're going to talk about, we've got a bunch of to talk about today, including a big bombshell from Project Veritas and James O'Keefe. This one is a, this is a literal bombshell. Well, not a literal bombshell, but that would be not safe. but this is a big story. We're going to talk about that. Also, remember the, if you remember that reporter who dug up dirt on the guy who was doing charity work for kids, Carson King, and the reporter tried to cancel him based on the old tweets that he had written, but then the reporter ended up getting canceled instead. Remember that? Well, he's speaking out now, and he wrote an article and has revealed that apparently he hasn't learned a damn thing, surprisingly. And a prominent aborting.

Abortionist celebrates his birthday in an appropriately disturbing way, but I also have a clip from this abortionist that completely decimates pretty much every pro-abortion talking point. And I want to play that for you today. But first, a word from Lightstream. You know, the holidays are approaching and you may be thinking about how you're going to save some extra money. Well, I've got an idea, because we all have this in mind, right, as the holidays come up, I got an idea that maybe you haven't thought of yet. You can consolidate your high interest credit card balances to a lower rate and save with light stream. Get a rate as low as 5.95% APR with auto pay. It's much lower than the national average interest rate of over 20% APR. So just compare, you know, 5.95% with 20%. That's how

much you're saving. Plus, your rate is fixed. So as the rate continues to rise, as rates continue to rise, everyone else's rates, yours are going to stay low. And so you get that piece of mind. You're not only saving money, but for me, a lot of this is about saving money, but it's also about just the peace of mind that comes with that stability and knowing that you're making the right financial decision. Just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount. The only way to get this discount,

listen to this is to go to lightstream.com slash walsh. L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash walsh. Okay, so you know sometimes you hear people hyping up bombshells, and then the bomb goes off, and it's more of a firecracker, really, at best. This one, though, this one I think is really big. James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, they have footage of ABC anchor Amy Robach, and this is about as damning as it can possibly get for a news organization. Listen to this.

She told me everything. She had pictures. She had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. we convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton. We had everything.

I tried for three years to get it on to no avail, and now it's all coming out, and it's like these new revelations, and I freaking had all of it. I'm so pissed right now. Like, every day I get more and more pissed, because I'm just like, oh my God, what we had was unreal.

So that is damning on a number of levels for ABC. So you have corruption and you have incompetence. That's being revealed here by the anchor. The anchor who you want to give her credit because, according to her anyway, she wanted to get this story up and she was trying to push the story.

But at the same time, it's clear from the clip I just played there that her main concern, the main thing she's upset about is that she didn't get credit for the story. I think anyone, it's okay to be upset about that. I think anyone would be, I mean, anyone would feel that way to a certain extent. You feel like you had a big story that your bosses wouldn't let you go with and someone else gets the story. But it is disturbing that you don't see quite the concern for the victims that you would hope to see.

But that's not really the point here. The point is what it reveals about ABC. So first, you've got the fact that they didn't recognize, according to the fact that they didn't recognize, to her, they didn't recognize the Epstein story as a big story. At first, they said, who's Epstein? Nobody cares. And this was what? Three years ago? I mean, three years ago, I knew that Epstein was a big story. Most of us knew that Epstein was a big story. They didn't realize that. And then you've got the corruption of, as they start to see that it's a big story, and they see the powerful people that are implicated, they decide not to run it because of that,

because they're worried about the repercussions. And, I mean, we can only expect it. Well, she says that the palace got involved, and so they were worried about whatever repercussions would come from that. And she says they had Clinton. Everybody was in it. So I think we can assume that there was also the political angle of ABC, not wanting to take down a Democrat.

This is, there really is no coming back from something like this, given the source. and you know it would have been very courageous of the anchor if she had come out sometime in the last three years and actually exposed this and said hey i've had this story ABC won't let me run it well here's the story that would have been great she didn't do it didn't have the guts for that but in some ways now that we get the now that we hear this allegation the way that we do it's much more powerful than if she had come out and said it because then you could always accuse of her of her of lying and so on but the

that we get this allegation and she didn't know that this, you know, she was just talking to whoever she was talking to, she thought it was private, she didn't know it was going to get out there, that makes it very powerful and compelling. And there's nothing that ABC can, I'm sure they'll think of something, but there's really no coming back from this, or there's really no way to salvage your reputation, whatever reputation that they had, which wasn't much to begin with. This is why, yeah, I sound like a broken record. All of conservatives in media sound like a broker record saying this, but this is why people hate the media. If you're in the media and you feel very persecuted and put upon because people like Donald Trump call you the enemy

of the people, why do you think that resonates so much? I mean, you can sit there and with your martyr complex and say, everybody hates us, I don't know why. Or you can consider what have we done that would make people hate us so much? Why is it so popular when Donald Trump launches it to his anti-media thing? Why is that always such a hit? It could be that everyone is evil and they're out to get you and you're perfect. It could be that. Or it could be stuff like this. because although this is a bombshell and it's damning, it's also not surprising. Nobody is surprised by that. This is exactly the kind of thing that we assume the media did, that we knew the media did.

And this is why we don't like the media. Because we can't trust it. And if we can't trust you in the news media, then what purpose do you serve? If you don't have trust, then you have nothing. All right, speaking of the media, you may remember the story of Aaron Calvin. Well, you probably don't actually because nobody remembers anything for more than 35 minutes. But Aaron Calvin was that reporter over at the Des Moines Register who wrote a profile on Carson King. That's the local hero who raised a bunch of money for sick kids.

Well, originally he raised money for himself for beer money. And then he said, you know what? Actually, we'll give it to kids instead. And in the profile that Aaron Calvin did, you may recall, it included some information about offensive tweets that King had sent like a decade ago. And King was forced to publicly apologize, but then a huge backlash blew up against the reporter and the Des Moines Register for publishing irrelevant dirt on this guy who's only famous for... Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. different day. Don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your bags and come on through. Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too. Comfort in. It's calling your name. Save on the stay.

Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Well, I hope you like my little song. Book direct at Shoreshiltails.com. Writing a funny sign and then raising money for kids. Somebody dug through through Calvin's, so then some, other people dug through Calvin's own Twitter history and found a bunch of offensive tweets of his and he was fired. Okay, so that's the review of that story. Well, now he's back several weeks later with an article in the Columbia Journalism Review reflecting on his experiences. And here's the big shocker here. He still hasn't learned anything. he basically stands by the decision to publish this stuff about Carson King about his about his tweets he still hasn't had the epiphany that cancel culture is bad he's still refusing to acknowledge

that this is a problem in our society this thing of digging up dirt on people and trying to destroy them randomly for no discernible reason now a couple of things here first of all it it seems like Calvin, the reporter at the Des Moines Register, is the only guy who was fired. And he seems a little bit salty about that. I don't blame him for that. I think that's wrong. Because it sounds like his editor, or at least he claims that his editor is the one who told him to do a background check on Carson King. Again, that's a background check on a guy who held a sign and raised money for kids.

Let's do a background check on him. as if he is applying to, you know, being an FBI agent or something. He says that an editor told him to do it. And then obviously an editor approved the article before it was published. And yet Calvin was the only one who was fired. So I think that's wrong. And he was fired for the wrong reasons, too. He was fired because of the tweets that people dug up that he had written years ago.

No, that wasn't our point. We weren't saying he should be fired for that. What we were saying is he should be fired for writing this incredibly irresponsible profile and publishing damaging information about a private citizen for no reason. It doesn't advance the public good. It's not newsworthy. There's no reason to do it. Everyone responsible for that decision should have been fired, but that's not what happened.

Also, Calvin said he got a bunch of death threats and so on, and that's obviously wrong. as someone who myself has been the target of that kind of treatment. It's hard for someone who's never been targeted by the outrage mob with the death threats and the death wishes and all of that. It's hard to understand how overwhelming and scary that can be. Yeah, of course it's scary because all these people, you don't know who they are. Which of them could be crazy and actually be serious about what they're saying? Who knows? Especially when you have a family. But this is exactly my point. This is the kind of situation that the media often puts other people in.

So think about the Covington Catholic kids. It's a situation, they put those kids in that situation for no reason. It's a situation they could have put Carson King in if the story hadn't gone in the other direction and it ended up flying back in the faces of the Des Moines Register. And yet this is a lesson that Calvin refuses to take from all this. He refuses to take this lesson. In fact, he still denies that cancel culture is even a problem.

Here's what he says on that. I just thought this was fascinating. After everything he's been through, and after everything everybody was saying, you know, why we object to this. Here's what he said. He said, meanwhile, I lost my job, work that I was good at and proud of. My family has deep roots in Iowa, and I grew up reading the register. The writer, Jesse Single, gleefully pointed out on Twitter the irony of the fact that I had shared a new Republic article on the fallacy of cancel culture, before I was fired.

He shared an article, fallacy of cancel culture, meaning he shared an article about why the cancel culture doesn't really exist or it's not a problem. And he continues, but I still don't believe in the boogeyman of cancel culture. I was not canceled. I was fired. That's an important distinction. I'm far from the first person to be doxed or to endure an online mob. It's more of a common occurrence and turns more quickly violent for women or writers of color.

with the support of my partner and my friends and family, I was able to avoid collapsing beneath the weight of the great hatred directed toward me. Some of my former colleagues at the register have reached out to communicate their support. Blah, blah, blah. The specter of cancel culture is a concept most often invoked to protect those in power, often straight white men such as myself from facing consequences for their actions, but I want no part in it. I'm not going to start a YouTube channel railing against the perceived dangers of PC culture.

I believe I lost my job unfairly. at the same time, I firmly believe that people, especially those in power, should be held accountable for what they say and what they do. Yes, except that Carson King is not a person in power. That's the whole point. And you're holding him responsible for some crap that he posted 10 years ago when he was a kid. And this is how it is with the media. They just, they can't, it, they're incapable of, learning. And no matter what happens, if they ever suffer any backlash, or if they suffer the same kind of treatment that they heap on other people, it never has the effect of making them stop and say, hey, you know, wow, there's never any self-reflection, never any real self-reflection.

Whatever happens, it only proves what they already thought. So that's the fascinating thing for Calvin here, is that after all of this, it only proved what he already knew to be case. Fascinating how that works. Before we move on, I want to tell you about Veritas Press. And as someone with four kids myself, this is very important for me. If you have kids, I want you to pay attention. Veritas Press is the leader in providing a classical Christian curriculum in online courses. Every child, whether homeschooled or in a traditional school setting, should know the significance

and application of history in their own lives. And Veritas makes that happen. It's not just about remembering names and dates and places and being able to regurgitate that information. When I went to public school, that's what history was all about. It was just about regurgitating information, memorizing the dates and then putting it down on a piece of paper. But this is so much more than that. This breathes life into the history. It makes it come alive so that children can sort of experience it for themselves in a way and learn.

These courses are the most exciting way to learn. learn, your child will experience history as never before, and they're going to want to continue learning. That's the other thing about education. It should be self-perpetuating. You learn and you should want to learn more. That's a really important aspect of education that's often lost, but with Veritas Press, it's definitely not. Every feature of every course is designed to engage your child and what they're learning with games, videos, interactions to win your child's attention and foster a love of learning. It's all about that, the love of learning. Your child will be able to learn at his or her own pace, and you'll have one less subject to teach.

saving yourself valuable time when you sort of delegate that to Veritas Press. Best of all, your child will master the material, guaranteed. If you're not satisfied, then you get your money back. And as listeners to this show, you can save $100 on every self-paced course you purchase. Go to Veritaspress.com slash Walsh. Choose your subjects, select your course. Use the code Walsh at checkout. That's veritaspress.com slash Walsh.

Okay, here's a picture. I think first posted by Abby Johnson, prominent pro-life activist, and then it was a, and then live action also took it, posted it. So take a look here at this picture. They say this is abortionist slash serial killer Leroy Carhart. And if you're in the pro-life movement at all, or if you're familiar with it, then you're familiar with that name, Leroy Carhart. He's one of the most prominent abortionists.

He's also done thousands of late-term abortions. Well, here he is celebrating his birthday, ironically. And remember, of course, he's killed a lot of babies in his day. That's his specialty. The kind of human he specializes in killing, especially, are the late-term babies. But you see that sign on his desk. The sign says, even on my worst day, I'm killing it.

Now, I just want to show you that because do you think that's a coincidence? Do you think that's there by accident? Obviously not. This is entirely intentional. And I'll tell you how I know it's intentional. One, because abortionists are sick and evil and deranged people. So you think about those undercover tapes at Planned Parenthood, where Planned Parenthood officials were joking,

about killing babies and joking about, hey, if they sell enough dead babies, they can get a Lamborghini. This is very common among abortionists and in that realm, this kind of quote unquote humor. These are really absurdly cartoonishly evil people. Like if abortion didn't exist and I wrote a screenplay with characters like this, with guys like Leroy Carhart, you would say that it's way too outlandish to be believable. And here's the other thing. Lerick Carhart, as someone who performs late-term abortions, absolutely knows and acknowledges that he kills living babies.

And I know that he acknowledges that, that he kills babies because he said so himself. And I want to play this for you. This basically got no attention when it first came out. But I think it deserves a lot more attention than that. The BBC did a report on the abortion war in America, as they called it. And as part of that report, they interviewed this guy, Leroy Carhart,

and I want to show you just a brief clip of that interview. Listen to this. What counts as a medical need in your view? I mean, if the woman is really stressed about her pregnancy, I think it has to get more to the point of depression, not just stress. And it fit within my confidence of what we could do safely. I would do that.

right up until when? Late, 38 weeks, 39 weeks? I don't know. That you're not comfortable saying? No, I'm not going to say that. To the fetus it makes no difference whether it's born or not born. The baby has no input in this as far as I'm concerned. But it's interesting that you use the word baby because a lot of abortionists won't use that. They'll use the word fetus because they don't want to acknowledge that there's a life.

I think that it is a baby and I tell our... I use it with the patients. And you don't have a problem with killing a baby? I have no problem if it's in the mother's uterus. There's just so much in that one little clip, and all of it is utterly devastating to the standard pro-abortion arguments. First of all, he admits, you caught that at the very beginning there. It's just really important. He admits that performing late-term abortions in cases where,

you know, he's supposedly doing it for the health and life of the mother. He admits that in many of those cases, the medical issue that the mother suffers from is depression. So keep that in mind. Keep that in mind whenever someone says, and you hear this all the time, you hear people say that, oh, late-term abortions, that's not even a problem. This is just something that pro-lifers make up or something that anti-choice people make up, as they would phrase it. Because if someone's doing a late-term abortion. It's only because the mother's health is seriously in jeopardy and they got to do it to save her life. Not according to Leward Carhart, Carhart, who actually performs the abortions, he's saying that if a mother comes to him and says, I'm depressed about being pregnant,

that is a, quote, medical reason to get an abortion. Which actually makes a lot of sense. Because this idea that a person at a late stage of pregnancy could have some sort of actual physical, medical complication that would necessitate an abortion is ridiculous. Now, it's very possible that a woman in the later stages of pregnancy could have a serious physical medical complication. That would mean that she can no longer carry the baby. But in those cases, if you're interested in preserving the baby's life, you would just deliver the baby alive. doctors do this all the time in hospitals all across America they have emergency C-sections and so on it's a very common thing

but with late-term abortions now if it's a late-term abortion there is going to be a delivery either way the baby's coming out it's going to be delivered the only question is are you going to kill the baby before you deliver him or not so with the late-term abortion, all you're doing is adding an extra step. And that extra step happens to involve killing a human being. There is no way that that extra step of killing the baby first

could somehow be necessary in order to save the mother's life. No, that's not what it's about. It's just about killing the baby for the sake of killing a baby. And the medical complication is often something like she's just emotionally traumatized by the fact that she's pregnant. But it doesn't end there. He also then justifies abortion by saying that it makes no difference to the baby if the baby is born or not born. The baby has no input, he says.

Now, this is, of course, callous and cruel in the extreme, but this is the kind of rationale that abortionists use. I think sometimes it surprises people to learn that abortionists, especially when they're talking amongst them, Now, in this case, he's talking to a reporter, so he was being a little bit more honest than usually they're willing to be. But abortionists don't, they don't bother with all the euphemisms and everything oftentimes that people in the pro-abortion movement do.

They know what they're doing, and their reason for doing it is just, hey, you know, the baby just doesn't mean anything to me. I don't care. But of course, with that attitude, to say it makes no difference to the baby if it's born or not born, which I suppose is another way of saying that the baby isn't really, you know, isn't fully conscious of what's going on and doesn't have quite the self-awareness, you know, that a human does later in development, which is true. But, of course, if that justifies abortion, then it would justify killing an infant six months after birth or a year after birth. and I suspect that a guy like Lee were a Carhart would have no problem with that. If it was legal, he would do that too. And then finally, he says that he calls them babies.

He says, yeah, they're babies. I'm killing babies. Sure. He's got no problem saying that. He even calls the baby a baby to the mother. He even calls the mother a mother, which just shows you that all the talking points, all the obfuscation, all the ways that pro-aborts try to sanitize this. Well, for the guy who's actually doing the deed, that's all useless. And it's useless because he knows what he's doing. He knows what he sees it for himself.

He knows what this. He knows that, of course, it's a baby I'm dealing with here. What else would it be? It's just that he's gotten himself to a point, he's gotten his soul to a point, or he has sufficiently removed his soul, forfeited his soul to a point where it doesn't bother him. All right, let's see. We have this, I mentioned this interesting article in the Federalist that I think we'll say for tomorrow. But I do want to talk about this because Chad Felix Green, who's a great writer over at the Federalist,

he wrote a report analyzing this claim that there's an epidemic of anti-trans hate crimes. I'm sure you've heard this claim many times. In fact, we heard it at that Democrat Town Hall a couple months ago, where someone got up and was screaming about how there's a people are. I'm pretty sure the phrase was a claim that people are out hunting trans people. Well, Chad Felix Green took a look at this claim, and he took a look at the actual supposed instances of anti-trans hate crimes and found, unsurprisingly, that this is an epidemic that doesn't exist.

And we'll talk more about that. tomorrow. Because, although it's been a pretty dark show in some ways, I feel like I unfortunately have to continue that trend and show you another disturbing clip. This one from a Pete Buttigieg rally. These are Buttigieg supporters. And look at what they're caught on tape doing. It goes to the song High Hopes by Panic at the Disco, which is, like that. the walk-on song for Pete. The way that the dance goes is very, very simple. You do kind of like a push down to the right and then down to the left and then up to the right and up to the left. Super simple dance. And then you do the same thing but you do roll to the right, roll to the left,

roll up to the right and roll up to the left. And then you do two clas and then you go back and forth just up in the air, right? So it looks like this to the music and I encourage you all to do it along with me so that I don't feel silly. You know what? I changed my mind. White people are actually bad. I, you know what, abolish white people. That's my feeling.

The alt-right accuses me of being anti-white, which I've always found to be an idiotic and incoherent accusation. But maybe they're right. Maybe I am anti-white, I think, because all of them, saying is if you if you if you can't dance which it's a stereotype but it's true that most white people can't many stereotypes are based in truth this one definitely is my feeling is if you can't dance then it is unethical and irresponsible for you to attempt it when other people are present you are subjecting them to that now I can't dance I can't sing so you know what

I don't dance or sing. Because I'm not going to subject others to the horrific spectacle of me attempting to do that. I don't think it's socially responsible. And so this is socially irresponsible, what you're seeing there. Which brings us, inevitably, to this. Yeah, Sean Spicer is still on Dancing with the Stars. And his dancing is getting worse each time. His outfits are getting worse each time.

it's almost like he's doing it on purpose but he got voted through again, I think, last night, didn't he? Look, I'm going to say this. I don't say it lightly. I mean every word of it. The people responsible for this continued spectacle of Sean Spicer dancing. Those people are domestic terrorists.

This is an act of domestic terrorism. By voting Sean Spicer through, you are tearing at the very first. fabric of our society. Think of the children who are being exposed to this. My son saw this, and he came up to me and he said, Daddy, what is that man doing? I'm scared. And I said, me too, son, me too. And these are conversations that if you're voting Sean Spicer through, you're forcing all of us to have this. I don't want to have to explain this to my kids. That what's happening on that screen? What that man's doing? I don't know.

That's not a conversation I want to have. And now I have to explain to my kid. I mean, and then my son said to me, well, you know, I'm white. Does that mean that when I dance, I'm going to look like that? And I said to him, I'm, yes, I'm sorry, probably. And he broke down in tears. It's outrageous. All right, let's get to a couple of emails.

Matt Wall Show at gmail.com. Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. This is from Brian says, Matt, as to your dilemma on the plane, I respect you saying no, I probably would have relented, but only out of sheer awkwardness. Your conscience should be clear. Go in peace. Yes, Brian is referring to an interesting dilemma that I was talking about on social media last night. Let me see what you guys think of this. I am interested in your input.

So here's the situation. I was boarding a flight in Baltimore for Los Angeles yesterday. Southwest flight. I was in boarding position A4. So anyone who flies southwest, you know. know that, of course, you get southwest, you pick your own seats. So whoever gets on the plane first, you get your pick of the litter. And I was one of the first people to get on the plane with my position A4. And I can't tell you how excited I was when I saw that A4 position on my,

on my boarding pass. And I was so excited. I skipped on to the plane whistling. That's how happy I was, if you can believe it. And I looked and I, you know, I'm very, I'm very scientific about choosing what seat. Because of course I'm going to take an aisle seat, but I also am trying to figure out where on the plane I want to be. I don't want to be too far in the back, but also don't want to be too far close to the front in case the plane crashes, because then the further back you are the better. Also, if you're more towards the middle, you feel the turbulence a little bit less. Then I'm also thinking about, you know, I want to be, I don't want to be too close to the front because then probably I'm going to end up with someone sitting in the middle next

to me, maybe if I'm a little bit, maybe I can sort of lose myself towards the back. Anyway, so I had this whole process. I picked my seat. Well, about nine hours later, when Group C was boarding, a guy comes on with his wife. Only middle seats are left. You know, if you're like C30 and later, then you're screwed. It's just you, you're going to be in a middle seat. That's all there is to it.

Or you're going to have to sit in the overhead bin, even perhaps. Maybe they'll put you down below, tie you to a wing or something like that. So this guy comes on with his wife, he's only got middle seats. They're going to have to sit in different rows and middle seats. This guy decides to sit in my row in the middle seat. But then he asks me if I wouldn't mind moving to a different seat, moving from my aisle seat to a middle seat in a different row so that his wife can sit next to him. That's what he asked me.

If I would, again, move from my aisle seat to a middle seat. Here's the question that I posed, and I've gotten thousands of answers to it, which I wasn't quite expected. Who is the jerk here? Me for saying no? Which I did say no. I did refuse. I declined that invitation. I said, I'm going to stick with my seat.

Thank you very much. So, who's the jerk? Me for saying no and refusing to let the guy sit next to his wife, or him for asking in the first place. or are we both innocent doves? I guess that's also an option. Obviously, I'm biased here. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Don't let my analysis influence you at all,

but it seems to me that asking someone to switch from an aisle seat to a middle seat, you just don't do that. I fly all the time. I've never been asked that. I've never heard anyone asked that before. You know, the middle seat for a six-hour flight, there's a reason why his wife didn't want to sit in it, right?

So to ask a stranger to take on that discomfort seems, I don't know, it seems tacky to me, to put it mildly. Now, if his traveling companion was a young child, then he wanted to sit next to his kid, then, yeah, I would do it. Or if there were some other extenuating circumstances, his wife was sick or something, then, you know, that would be different. But he didn't express any extenuating circumstances. It sounded like he just wanted to sit next to his wife. And that just is not good enough. It's a pretty significant sacrifice. He's asking me to make without giving me any real reason why I should.

And so I had to say no. It's kind of like, imagine if you went to the movies. And you got to the movies early because you wanted to pick your seat. You picked a seat. You picked seats like in the middle row, also in the middle of the middle row. So you've got your perfectly lined up with the screen, not too far back, not too close. And then imagine that some other people come 30 seconds before the movie starts. And they come up to you and they say,

would you mind getting up and moving to a worse seat so we can sit there? Would you ever do that? Would you actually say, well, of course, yes, sit down. Because here's my thing. If in that situation, you did get up and give the person your seat, it's not because you're being nice, it's just because you're a punk who got bullied out of your seat, just because you felt too awkward saying no.

And so you whipped out and gave him what he wanted. it's not because you're being generous. Anyway, that's my case for myself, but I will. A surprising number of people said that I was the jerk in the situation, which I don't know if they really feel that way, or if their view is clouded by the fact that I'm a jerk in general, and so they just assume that I was a jerk here. Which I don't, look, I don't deny that I'm a jerk.

I'm just saying that doesn't make me a jerk in this particular situation. You have to separate the two. This is from Yehuda, says, Good Afternoon, Matt. About a month ago, I started listening to your show in my drive home, and I thoroughly enjoyed. I appreciate your views on relationships and marriage. One thing you mentioned yesterday was the benefit of getting married a young age. My wife and I married seven months ago. I was 20.

She was 19. We are expecting a child in three months. I know I'm newlywed, but I can support your point that I know my wife is a totally different person than when she was when I proposed. That being said, so am I. I love her more and more every day. I have never been with another woman, nor do I have any regret on not playing the field. I guess I don't have a question, just want to express my appreciation for your outlook on marriage, which I find myself consistently agreeing with, even though I'm an Orthodox Jew and you're a Christian.

Now I'm wondering, was this the guy who wanted to sit next to his wife on the plane? Because now I'm starting to feel guilty. That is one thing that occurred to me. It's like, you really don't want to be apart from your wife for six hours? I mean, I'm just saying, like you can't. I think there are a lot of married couples who would say, hey, that's fine. I'll sit by myself in silence for six hours. That's cool.

So the very fact that you would be so desperate to sit next to your wife for six hours when you're with her all the time anyway, maybe they were newlyweds. Maybe they were going on their honeymoon. And they were just so in love with each other. Darling, I can't be apart from you. They were sitting there texting each other. I don't know if they were actually texting each other.

But, you know. Anyway, I don't know if that, would that make me a jerk then in that case if they were newlyweds? and I forced them to be apart in that way. No, but thanks for the email, and congratulations on the marriage, by the way. I think you guys made a great decision. As I said yesterday, I'm a big proponent of marrying young. It's not for everybody, of course.

We all have to make decisions that are right for us in our particular situations, but I certainly think that it's something that once you're an adult and you leave the house, it's something to at least consider. and starting that journey together, and I think you guys will be happy that you did. So congratulations again. Finally, this is from Michael says, I'm a libertarian conservative and agree with much of what you say.

I agree on conservative values, but do not believe the government should be used to push said values. On the topic of allowing people to kill themselves, I disagree with you. I do not want anyone to kill themselves and what is assisted suicide we're talking about, as we've been discussing in the email portion

for the last few days. I do not want anyone to kill themselves and would do all I could to convince that person otherwise, but as bad as an action as it might be for the person, as you said, I don't see why it's the state's job to prohibit that. Take legalization of drugs. A person should be allowed to do all the drugs they want, as long as no one else is harmed.

And this might not be in their best interest, but they're still a free individual. Just as I would try to stop a person from committing suicide, I'd try the same for a drug addict. At the end of the day, it is still their choice, and they are not physically harming anyone else in the process, so it's okay. How do you disagree and can't?

you've changed my mind. Well, I can only say, and I've got so many emails on this and people making this same point, Michael, I can only repeat what I've been saying that, first of all, we're talking about assisted suicide. So we're not talking really about whether or not a person in an individual has the right to kill themselves. We're saying, does a third party have the right to come in and get involved? And especially when the third party is someone a representative of the medical industry, which is supposed to be focused on healing and treating disease, not killing people. And what I would say is that no. So this is a really, really focused on that third party. I think that

so even if I agree that you have a right to kill yourself, whatever that could possibly mean, I don't think that anyone else has a right to help you. And if you are saying that someone has a right to help another person kill themselves, you can't do it on a self-determination basis because it's not self-determination. You're helping to determine

someone else's self, or rather to obliterate someone else's self. So there's that. Also, I would just say on the libertarian thing, I sympathize with libertarian views in many respects, especially when it comes to taxes and economics. But I do think that the reason why I don't myself identify as a libertarian is because it can be a bit too simplistic at times,

where you completely disregard the kind of. concept of the public good and any notion that the state should be at all involved in fortifying, protecting, facilitating, promoting the public good to you is anathema as a libertarian. I just disagree with that. Now, I agree that many times the state can do things that it says are for the public good, but actually are not. So that's bad. I agree that that is bad. And there are other things that could be for the public good, but maybe the state should not, still shouldn't get involved in because it's not their place. But to just sweep that consideration off the table completely and say that the state has no role here at all, I disagree. In fact, I think that that is one of the roles of the state.

It's just they have to do it right. And we as free people in a democratic society, you know, we have the power to, or we should have the power anyway, to see that it is. done right. So, for example, something like legalizing drugs. I'm legalizing marijuana, fine. I just, I don't, the, the cost in terms of money and manpower and everything, pain and suffering, involved in enforcing laws against it just is not worth it. When you consider what marijuana is, which is a, you know, relatively benign in comparison with other subs, is that are actually legal, such as alcohol and a lot of prescription drugs and so on. So that's why I'm okay with legalizing marijuana.

But the idea of legalizing all drugs, for example, heroin, intravenous heroin, the idea of having a situation where you could just go to the drug store and pick up intravenous heroin. No, I can't get on board with that. I respect that you're taking your view to its logical conclusion as a libertarian and saying, well, you know, it may not be great for society to have heroin legal for everyone and you could go buy it at the store, but the state has no role there. I just disagree.

I think that the state does have a role there, largely for the sake of the public good in that case. Okay, we'll leave it there. Thanks, everybody for watching. Thanks for listening. Thank you for emails as well. 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 Geliwired podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. Produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling, technical producer Austin Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer Mike Coromina. New polling from the New York Times suggests that Democrats have been living in a progressive fantasy world if they believe they're likely to defeat Trump in 2020, which makes sense if they believe other

fantasies like the narrative that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. We will examine how the left can be so gullible when nobody believes the press. Check it out on the Michael Knowles show.