News Reporter (4:14)

Watch 22 year old Logan Federico was randomly shot and killed during an alleged home invasion near the University of South Carolina. Police say Logan had just returned to the house where she was staying when she came face to face with an intruder. Columbia police believe she was one of at least 10 victims targeted by the same man, a suspect accused of breaking into homes, stealing cars, using stolen credit cards and eventually setting a house on fire. Now friends and family are left mourning a young woman whose life was cut short.

Matt Walsh (4:51)

Now the media describes this murder as, quote, random. But of course there was nothing random about it. For one thing, interracial homicides like this are overwhelmingly committed by black criminals against white victims. And of course, this murder was the predictable and intended result of a judicial system that exists not to punish violent felons, but to unleash them on unsuspecting law abiding Americans. Now take A look at the mugshots that Alexander Davante Dickey managed to assemble in just 30 years on this earth. You can see it here. The local news station was. News 10 took a close look at Dickey's rap sheet, and here's what they found. Quote. In total, Dickey faced nearly 40 charges within the past decade, with many of the counts ultimately dismissed. While the criminal pattern dates back to 2013, his first conviction came the following year. He was only sentenced in eight cases that involved charges such as robbery, drug possession, and larceny. In 2023, records show Dickey pleaded guilty to third degree burglary. He was sentenced to five years. He was given credit for over 410 days already served. Dickey was also placed on probation, which was sent to end next month, but it was shortened for compliance. Now, in one of his first run ins with the law, back in 2014, Dickey was arrested for repeatedly breaking into parked cars as well as driving a stolen car. And then over the next decade, he would repeatedly commit similar crimes without spending any significant period in prison. The article goes on to explain that for some reason, prosecutors claim that they weren't aware of Dickey's rap sheet when they prosecuted him in 2023. They suggest that there was a paperwork error with his fingerprints that prevented them from accessing information about his prior crimes. But even if that's true, and it probably isn't, it doesn't matter. He clearly should have been imprisoned for life many times over. The very first time somebody robs several cars and then steals one, he forfeits his freedom. Believe it or not, that law is already on the books. In South Carolina, the max penalty for two counts of first degree burglary is life imprisonment. That's already on the books. Quoting directly from South Carolina's penal code, quote, burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than 15 years. Well, that sentence should have been handed down immediately. Normal, functioning members of society do not commit these crimes. You cannot rehabilitate the people who do. Okay? Rehabilitation is basically a myth. The way that we think of it. The way that we think of it, we could take these totally dysfunctional criminals and rehabilitate them and turn them into functioning members of society. It almost never happens, okay? It's mythological. It's like talking about Bigfoot. And even if you can theoretically rehabilitate them, it's not worth the risk to the general public. Now, critics will object, and they'll say, well, are we really going to just. Well, what are we going to do? Give up on people like this? Yeah, we should. We should give up on them. Alexander Dickey, okay, Society should have given up on him a long time ago. Once you have demonstrated that you have no interest in being a part of civilized society, we should give up on you. You can spend the rest of your life locked in a cage like an animal because that's how you want to act. It's not our responsibility to help you or give you another chance or try to domesticate you like some kind of feral cat. We're done with you. Goodbye forever. That should be the approach. And if it was the approach, this criminal never would have had the opportunity to murder this young woman. The time for discretion in these kinds of cases is over. Any judge who abuses this discretion to release violent criminals like this should be held liable for the murders that inevitably result. Until now, there really hasn't been much popular support for a change like this. That's because Logan Federico's murder, as utterly horrifying as it is, is similar to murders that occur every day in this country. Now, what makes the killing of Logan Federico different from a practical perspective is that really, for the first time in memory, the family of the victim is not resorting to leftist platitudes in response. They're not urging everyone to come together or preaching about unity and all that sort of thing. We saw something like that after the killing of Austin Metcalfe as thousands of leftists, primarily black leftist, danced on Austin Metcalfe's grave. The father insisted, you know, that it wasn't a racial issue and he was being forgiving and, you know, this is just a poor decision that a kid made and all that sort of thing. Now, I'm not disparaging the father in that case. It's impossible to imagine being in his position. But the point is that his response, if adopted on a societal and systemic level, is how you get a lot more violence. Well, that's not happening this time. Instead, the family of Logan Federico, particularly her father Stephen, is pledging to devote the rest of his life to changing the laws that allowed Alexander Davonte Dickey to murder his daughter. He's not letting the left wing narrative take hold even for a moment. He's a big part of the reason why. The other day, lawmakers in Charlotte, North Carolina, met for a hearing on violent crime. And here's what Steven Federico had to say. This. This clip is going viral for very good reason. Very powerful address from Stephen Listen, here's.

Stephen Federico (10:57)

What I need you to do when I tell you this story. Think about your kids. Think about your child coming home from a night out with their friends. Laying down, going to sleep, feeling somebody come in the room and wake them and drag her out of bed naked. Forced on her knees with her hands over her head, begging for her life. Begging for her hero. Her father. Me. That couldn't be there. She was five foot three. She weighed 115 pounds.

Matt Walsh (11:41)

Bang.

Stephen Federico (11:44)

Dead. Gone. Why? Because Alexander Devante Dickey, who was arrested 39 goddamn times, 25 felonies was on the street. How about that? How good are we doing for our family? He should have been in jail for over 140 years for all the crimes he committed. You know how much time he spent in prison? A little over 600 days in 10 years. He's only 30 years old. He was committing 2.65 crimes a year since he was 15 years old. But nobody could figure out that he couldn't be rehabilitated. Well, you'd have to put him in prison. My daughter laid on the floor for seven hours before somebody in that house recognized that something was wrong. And that cure criminal an hour later went on a spending spree with her debit card. When they saw his face on a video, they didn't have to do a check. He was arrested so many times. They knew who he was. They knew exactly where to go get him. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic that I'm here today.

Matt Walsh (13:10)

Now what you're seeing there is somewhat unfamiliar these days. That is righteous anger. And it's exactly what we need to see. He is enraged. He's enraged because he feels like the system essentially chose the violent thug who murdered his daughter over his daughter. He feels like the system had a choice between being merciful to this, to this scumbag or to protecting his daughter. And they chose the scumbag. Swapping one for the other. That's how he feels. And he's right. That's exactly what happened. Now you'll see a lot of theories online about why when someone is killed in a very preventable homicide, the family members of the victim usually don't have this reaction publicly. We usually don't see them enraged like this. Even though they must be enraged and they should be. Now some people will tell you that in the past government agents spoke to the victims families and coached them on what to say. But the more likely explanation is that for many generations, in no small part because of the rhetoric of both parties, it's been considered impolite and Uncivilized and bigoted. To point out the truth, you're not supposed to talk about the fact that homicides are both preventable and predictable. For the same reason, you're not supposed to talk about crime statistics or practice pattern recognition when you're out for a walk late at night. As this hearing in Charlotte demonstrated, that dam has now finally broken. Witness after witness exposed the degree to which Democrats have deliberately allowed violent criminals to terrorize entire communities. We'll play one more of these statements. It's from Justice Campbell, a police officer with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department. His life has also been changed forever by one of these violent career thugs. Watch.

Justice Campbell (15:10)

April 29th of 2024, the Marshals Service was serving a warrant for a convicted felon for possession of a firearm. Again, while serving that warrant, four members of that or three members of the task force and one member of the Charlotte megaber Police department were gunned down and murdered that day, along with five others, including myself, that were injured.

Matt Walsh (15:37)

Now.

Justice Campbell (15:40)

That day was chaos. Responding to that call, multiple officers, not only dead but injured, were taking gunfire from an elevated position by a known convicted felon. During the process of extracting the officers, I end up breaking my foot, which resulted in me being diagnosed with regional complex pain syndrome. It's a miserable diagnosis which led to the amputation of my right foot. His entire arrest report, and in this report starts in 2009, where he burglarized a residence with a stolen firearm. After he was taken to jail, he was released where he committed multiple other offenses prior to him going to prison. He was released from prison and again continuously committed violent crimes with firearms.

Matt Walsh (16:54)

Now, confronted with testimony like this is abundantly clear that Democrats have no idea what to do. Without total narrative control, they are in very serious trouble. And in particular, there are now so many victims of violent crime as a result of Democrat policies that Democrats themselves can't even keep them straight. So many victims are now coming forward that they can't keep track of the whole roster. It's gotten so bad that at this hearing in Charlotte, one Democrat representative, a woman named Deborah Ross, appeared to confuse Logan Federico with Irina Zrutska, the Ukrainian refugee who was murdered on the light rail several weeks ago. Steven Federico had to correct Deborah Ross mid statement. Watch.

Deborah Ross (17:36)

I also want to express my deepest, deepest condolences to the family of Irina Zyrutska. What happened to her is simply unimaginable and unconscionable, and I hope that we will take to heart her family's request not to remember her by her Last moments or politicize her death. The majority has brought us here together. And I would say I went to the Philadelphia hearing. I've been on the Judiciary Committee since I was in ever in Congress. But to be honest and for our victims, this hearing is too little, too late. We should have been doing more to prevent crime and address the lack of mental health care long before this hearing, particularly. Oh, I'm sorry. I am so sorry.

Stephen Federico (18:39)

Okay.

Deborah Ross (18:39)

I am so sorry.

Stephen Federico (18:40)

This is Logan Federico.

Deborah Ross (18:42)

Thank you so much for bringing that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I am so sorry for you. I am so, so. I'm so sorry for your loss. And my heart goes out to you. My heart goes out to you.

Stephen Federico (19:00)

How dare you.

Deborah Ross (19:06)

So we should have been doing things to prevent Logan's death and Irina's death. And I am so sorry.

Matt Walsh (19:14)

So there's a hearing to discuss victims of violent crime. There are three key witnesses, none of whom were killed by anyone suffering from a mental illness. And Logan Federico's picture, along with her father, was directly in front of Deborah Ross when she made her statement. And yet, despite all these cues, Deborah Ross apparently thought that she was looking at Irene Zrutska. Starts talking about mental health issues which have no relevance to the murder of Logan Federico or any of the other witnesses in front of her. And Stephen wasn't going to stand for that, nor should anyone. If you look at the media coverage of this case, you'll find a lot of excuses for why Alexander Davante Dickey was constantly being let out of jail. Here's just one example from Law and Crime.

News Reporter (19:58)

Listen, like how you said he. There's been a lot of past convictions, so many mug shots, so many just charges and accusations against him. How does a person that's, you know, described as a true criminal even have the chance to do something like this again? Do you think that this is just some type of failure somewhere he was able to slip through the cracks?

Legal Analyst (20:20)

You know, most people don't go to jail for life in prison for breaking and entering. Let's say it was auto break ins, those smaller petty crimes that really do make people feel unsafe and it really makes people feel violated. It just may not rise to the level of 20, 40 years of a sentence. So there are people who have been convicted who may have done two, three, four years for these crimes and then they're back out. But under the laws generally, there aren't those max penalties.

Matt Walsh (20:49)

Analysts talk about the law as if that's something that we can't immediately change. It's just a fact of Life. We're told that criminals can repeatedly commit acts of violence without receiving mandatory life imprisonment or the death penalty. As we discussed earlier, that's not even true in South Carolina. This guy could have been sentenced for life a long time ago under the current law. But to the extent that this is, you know, that. That you don't have those laws anywhere else, well, then you need to change that. Change the law. Instead of engaging with any of this, Democrats will say that in reality, the solution is, you know, spending more tax money on shelters and mental health treatment. That's what happened at the hearing in Charlotte. And there was a viral post on X to the same effect. It racked up several million views in reference to the murder of Irina Zyritska, who again, was stabbed in a light rail car by an apparently schizophrenic black man who said, I got that white girl. As he walked away. This person wrote the following quote, the right has zero solution to this. Paranoid schizophrenic. Violent outbursts require an integrated care system to ensure he has access to and is taking his medication. They just defunded school lunches. They won't fund this. Yes, an integrated care system. That's the framing that they've settled upon. They apparently believe that unless we fund school lunches and daycare for schizophrenics, then we simply have no conceivable way of stopping innocent women like Irina Zyrutska from having their throats cut on the subway. We're just completely powerless. But, you know, there actually is a pretty clear solution, one that most people on the right would endorse. Most people, most common sense, people in general would endorse. As I said on X, you know, my solution to violent criminal sociopath lunatics is to convict them in a court of law and then kill them. That's my solution. Kill them. You know, we like to hear violence is never the answer. Yeah, no, sometimes violence is definitely the answer. I mean, that's a ridiculous thing to say. There are obviously scenarios, there are obviously situations you can be in where violence is the answer. And it's the answer here. Legal, constitutional violence used against convicted criminals and administered by the state, that kind of violence specifically. But it is violence, and it is the answer. I mean, it's a solution that would have saved Irina's life. There is one absolute 100% way to ensure that a violent criminal does not kill a woman on the light rail car, and that is to convict that person and execute them. If they're no longer on earth, then A hundred percent guarantee that they will never hurt another person. So, yeah, I would call that a solution. It would save hundreds of lives every year. Like, believe it or not, you can just kill the worst and most dangerous people. You can do that. There is no real discernible downside, especially these days with forensics being as sophisticated as it is. Everything's on video now. So the one argument against it, which is that, well, what if you execute an innocent person? We can rule out that possibility completely. Okay, we know who killed Irene Zarutska. There's no question about it. There is a zero percent chance that it was anyone but that guy. It's on video. It was done in front of, you know, dozens of witnesses. We know who did it. So that is out the window now. We don't have to worry about that. And so now there's no downside. Can anyone think of one? The guy who killed Arena Zarutska or Logan Federico. What is the downside to just executing them? Can someone explain? I really want to hear. What is the downside? This is the solution that's been deployed to great effect by almost every civilized society on Earth for thousands of years. We can deploy it again. And what this hearing in Charlotte demonstrates is that for the first time since the crime crackdown of the 1990s, there's a real popular will for punishing degenerate and violent criminals as harshly as we possibly can. And now we need to start handing out those punishments. And in doing so, like Steven Federico, we should be unapologetic and forceful. You know, that is the fight that this righteously angry father has just devoted his life to. And every single American people who don't want their daughters to be executed as they sleep should join him. Now let's get to our five headlines. Did you know that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 1990s when big corporations switched to cheap, processed seed oils that cause inflammation. So Massa decided to actually do something about the garbage that passes for tortilla chips these days. They ditched all the seed oils and went back to just three ingredients. Organic, nixtamalized corn, whatever that is. But I'm sure it's important. Sea salt and 100% grass fed beef tallow. And here's the kicker. They don't taste like some sad health food compromise. These chips are crunchier, tastier, and sturdy enough that they won't snap in half when you dip them. Plus, unlike regular chips that leave you feeling bloated and sluggish, Masa actually Makes you feel satisfies and energetic. The beef tallow makes them way more filling also, so you're not mindlessly demolishing the entire bag and still feeling hungry. I'm always on the go with the kids, so I need snacks that actually fuel me instead of leaving me feeling worse. Master chips keep me satisfied whether I'm packing lunches or need something quick after a busy day. I mean, I don't pack lunches, but you know, I mostly enjoy just eating them myself and I also enjoy that they don't crumble all over my car. That's the main thing. That's the most important thing. Masachips is beloved by tens of thousands of customers and has been endorsed by industry leading health and nutrition experts. Ready to give Massa a try? Go to MassaChips.com Walsh use code Walsh for 25% off your first order. That's MassaChips.com Walsh and code Walsh for 25% off your 1st order. You ever think you're buying good old American meat at the grocery store? Yeah. Well, so did I until I learned that labels can say product of the USA for meat that never even met an American cow. Over £4 billion of the stuff imported last year to be exact. All dressed up to look local. But it isn't. I mean, what else are these labels trying to pull on us? Makes you. You really have to wonder about that. So I started looking for something that I could actually trust, especially with kids to feed and a wife who can spot a so so steak from a mile away. That's when I found good ranchers. These guys only work with local American farms. 100% of it. Not a single mystery meat cut in the bunch, guaranteed. Honestly, I joined up for the deals. $25 off every box. Free shipping. A free lifelong gift. Hard to beat. We rotate between bacon, Italian sausage, my personal favorite, those chicken thighs. And if life gets hectic, well, you can pause or skip a box easily. No guilt trips, no subscription. Shenanigans also love their steaks. They're so unbelievably good and tender that they make pricey steakhouse cut taste like side dishes at a drive through. You just can't beat the quality that good ranchers delivers. Best part? My Code Walsh gets you $40 off and free meat for life when you subscribe. That's right, $40 off and free meat for life with code walls. Just go to goodranchers.com and get fully American meat delivered straight to your door. Goodranchers.com welcome to the Table. Okay, Pete Hegseth who I think is doing a really great job in his role today, addressed an assembly of top military leaders, and he unveiled a bunch of changes that he's making, has already started to implement. And a big focus is that, you know, is. Is the standards. Standards are being raised. They're raising the standards. Watch this.

Pete Hegseth (29:13)

And I want to be very clear about this. This is not about preventing women from serving.

Matt Walsh (29:19)

We are.

Pete Hegseth (29:19)

We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world. But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be will also mean that weak men won't qualify because we're not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death. As we all know, this is you versus an enemy hell bent on killing you. To be an effective, lethal fighting force, you must trust that the warrior alongside you in battle is capable, truly physically capable of doing what is necessary under fire. You know, this is the only standard you would want for your kids and for your grandkids. Apply the War Department golden rule, the 1990 test, and the E6 test. It's really hard to go wrong.

Matt Walsh (30:35)

Now think about this for a minute, because people are going to freak out about this. The media, the left. They're going to say that Hegseth is trying to drive women out of the military and so on. They're already saying that. They've been saying that, but at the same time, according to their own claims, Hegseth actually isn't changing anything. I mean, they're the ones who have insisted for years that we didn't lower the standards for women. They insisted that women should be allowed in combat because they're just as capable as men. I mean, that has been the argument. At no point, the people that support recruiting as many women as possible and diversifying the ranks and all that kind of crap, at no point have they ever admitted that the standards are being lowered. At no point have they explicitly argued, or rarely have they explicitly argued that we should put women in these positions, even though they are technically less qualified, but it's worth the risk for the benefit of greater diversity. They've never explicitly made that argument. Instead, they pretend that the standards are not being lowered. So if that's true, then Hegseth isn't changing anything. There will be one standard. There's one high standard. Anyone who meets it will be allowed in. I mean, isn't that what you guys said we've been doing all along? When the left freaks out about this, think about what they're admitting. All hex. Because he said, look, we're not going to rule. You know, we're not going to say that women can't be in these positions. We're gonna have one high standard. And you hear that if you're on the left and you go, well, you're. You're discriminating against women. Women can't meet a high standard. But then at the same time, you'll say, women are exactly the same as men. They can do everything that men can do. So which is it? Which is it? Well, we know. We know which way it is. And this new policy is as sensible as it gets, is. It's as fair as it gets. One standard, one high standard. If you pass it, great. You're in. If you don't, too bad. I. I really appreciate Hegseth's attitude here. This should be the attitude of any leader, especially someone leading our nation's military. And the attitude should be, okay, if you don't meet the standard, like, that's. That's your problem. Well, what if we have a. What. What if we end up with a. With a force that's, you know, 96 male? Okay, well, then those are the people that met the standard. Great. Whatever we end up with, those are the people who met the standard. So who cares? Now, granted, I would be in favor of just flat out banning women from combat roles entirely. Even the small minority, the very, very small minority who can live up to, you know, this. This policy of equal, high standards, I would still. If it were up to me, I would still exclude them because I think on moral and ethical grounds, women just simply should not be in combat. The fact that they're too physically weak to do the job is part of the reason why they shouldn't be in combat. It's a big part of the reason. And. But the. The overarching reason is that they're women and women. It's just not right to have women in these positions. It's not. It's not suited. You know, it's not. It's not. It's not proper to have women in these positions. But I think Hegseth is approaching this in a sensible way, and the end result will. Will be almost exactly the same anyway. So I think it's great, and it's even better when you consider the freak out that is going to happen has been happening where you're gonna have all these people accidentally admitting that women can't live up to, you know, high standards in a, in this sort of context. Here's a story from our friends up north. This is out of Quebec Canada, and, you know, nothing good comes out of Quebec. No exception in this case. Listen.

Canadian News Reporter (34:51)

For the last seven years, Jonathan Bedard, Eric Leblanc and Justin Maheu have been waiting to become parents together, something that officially happened yesterday.

Pete Hegseth (35:03)

She's perfect, of course. Like any, she's curious, she's energetic, she loves to play, she loves to jump, she loves to dance.

Canadian News Reporter (35:09)

They adopted their three year old through Quebec's Youth Protection Services, but first had to be approved as foster parents. Something that required a lot of work and openness, they say, to their relationship.

Pete Hegseth (35:22)

We had a lot of things to go through in order to be able to be, to have that accreditation. And it's through that process that they learned that we are a little different because we're three, but we're not different from any other family.

Canadian News Reporter (35:36)

Some other Canadian provinces, including Ontario and British Columbia, legally recognize more than two parents. Quebec does not. Last April, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled the government has a year to modify the civil Code to allow a child to have more than two recognized parents, saying the current situation is unconstitutional and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since it discriminates against different family models.

Matt Walsh (36:04)

Yes, unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to not allow three men to have a baby. So nature itself is unconstitutional. Apparently, nature already prohibits. Prohibits three men, two men, any number of men from having babies. Nature has already decreed that men cannot start families on their own. Neither can women. So I guess nature is infringing on the rights of the LGBT community. And this is the difference, by the way, between the traditional understanding of human rights, the American understanding, and the leftist version. Because the original idea was that human rights belong to us by our nature, endowed by God. And so when I say that nature has decreed it as so, this is what I mean. It's our human nature endowed by God, created by God. But the leftist idea would say that our rights stand in opposition to nature. We get our rights not from nature, but against nature to contravene nature. So it's the opposite. It's the opposite of what was intended. It's a subversion. So where does the right for three men to have a baby come from? Exactly. Exactly. Where do you get this right now? The answer they'll give is they'll say, oh, the Constitution, but it's not in there. Okay, first of all. Well, and honestly, I don't know much about the Canadian Constitution, but that's irrelevant anyway, because what I know for sure is that if a change was made to the Constitution anywhere, including in Canada, to prohibit gay couples or gay throuples or gay quadruples from. From adopting, the left would say that gays are having their rights violated in that case. But if the right allegedly comes from the Constitution and then it's removed from the Constitution, well, they can't say their rights are being violated because it's not. Because you said your rights from the constitution. Well, it's not in the Constitution anymore. And so end of discussion. So as I've, you know, as I've argued that what they're. They are appealing to an authority above and beyond the Constitution, whether they admit it or not, they are still appealing to an authority above and beyond that. What authority exactly? Well, that's the question they can't answer. They won't answer. And now we're left with this. We're left with three men adopting a baby. And this kind of abomination was totally foreseeable. It's the reason why gay adoption should never have been allowed at all in any configuration for any number of partners. And yet there are still conservatives who don't understand this. You know, I was on Tucker's show a few months ago, and as you may remember, we talked about gay adoption. And I think. I think we started this. I think Tucker, we started the show with it. He threw that at me right out of the gate, which was great. And I said, of course I'm against it. And I had people on the right attacking me for that, criticizing me for that. You know, well, here you go, guys. Congratulations. Like this, this, this. You know, this. No, don't. Don't turn around now, okay? If you were getting on my case because I said we shouldn't have gay adoption, don't turn around now and say, well, this is too far. I don't agree with this. If you're in favor of gay adoption, you don't get to complain about this. You don't get to. Okay, I won't allow it. You're. I. It is disallowed. It's prohibited. You support this. If you support gay adoption, you support this. That video we just saw, three men adopting a baby, you support it. You do. You may not know you support it because you're not smart enough to even understand your own positions, but you do support it. I'll tell you why you support it? Because there's not a single argument, not a single argument in favor of gay adoption that would not also be a defense of three men adopting a baby. And the other way is true, too. There's not a single argument against three men adopting a baby that wouldn't also be an argument against two men adopting a baby. That's really the point here. So anyone who's tried to. And there are a lot of people on the left, too. Not, you know, on the left and, and, and, but even some on the. Certainly on the left, but some on the right who try to draw this line, you know, they're all in favor of gay adoption. If somebody like me goes out and says, no, I don't think two men should be allowed. I don't. I think they should be legally barred for. From adopting a baby. If they hear that, they'll say, oh, that's bigoted. How dare. What is this? This is the year 2025. How could you say such a thing? And then they see this and, and they'll say, well, that. This is what's going on here. Well, go finish that thought. Go ahead. What, what's your problem? Why shouldn't three men adopt a baby? What's the issue? Exactly. Can you finish the, the thought? What is your argument against it? I really want to hear. What is your argument against three men adopting a baby or four men, or five? Okay, what if, what if you had a. What if you had a whole, a whole squad of gay men going in there, five of them, to adopt a baby? Why shouldn't we allow that? And this is now, for a lot of you listening, this is not a stumper at all. Yeah, you can easily explain why. What I'm, what I'm saying specifically is if you think gay adoption, two men adopting a baby is fine, but you don't like this. Well, then for you, I would like you to explain why the three men can't adopt one. What is the argument? Because the problem for you is that the only argument against it, the only one, is that three men adopting a baby is unnatural, disordered, and unhealthy. That's the whole argument. That's it. That's the entire argument. Babies are not meant to be raised and parented by three men. That is not meant to happen. That is not a, that's not how these things are supposed to work. That's the entire argument. There is no other argument but that. But we don't. And it's a, It's a very good argument. It's the only argument. It's the only correct argument. It's the only argument you need. Well, the problem for you is that that is also the argument against two men adopting a baby. Same applies. It's unnatural, clearly. Therefore disordered, therefore unhealthy. And it's not meant to be. That's, I'm not speculating. That's not my opinion that it's not meant to be. It's clearly not meant to be. In the entire history of the human race going back into the past and, and stretching out into the, into the unknown future, there has never been and will never be two men who naturally conceive a child. It's impossible. Babies are not meant to be raised by three men and they're not meant to be raised by two men. So, you know, that's why it doesn't make any sense to say, well, I'm okay with two men raising a child, but three men, that's out of bounds. Why is it out of bounds? Why is it somehow more absurd for three men to raise a baby than two men? Can you explain that? It's the same thing. And this is a lesson that everybody should understand by now. And I get it. I'm not. Again, if you're on the left, I'm not even talking to you on this. If you're on the right and you don't get this by now, then I don't know, you're a hopeless case. You either draw the line at the one sensible, coherent place to draw it, or you have no line at all. That's it. And on all of these issues, there is only one. If you want to draw a line, there's only one sensible, discernible, objective place to draw it. And if you've decided to push the line back, to push the fence back, what you're going to find is that there's nowhere else you've torn that fence up and there's nowhere else to put the post back in and rebuild that fence. And, and that's where we are now. All right, we have another fun statue controversy. These are always, these are always a. A barrel of laughs. USA Today reports. Tina Turner was simply the best. But fans are less than impressed with a new statue paying tribute to the late rock singer. A 10 foot bronze statue of Turner, who died in May 2023 at the age of 83, was unveiled in the singer's hometown of Brownsville, Tennessee on Saturday during the city's annual Tina Turner Heritage Days celebration. The monument, designed by Atlanta based sculptor Fred, um Ajanoga, depicts Turner mid performance as she strikes a confident pose in a mini dress and high heels. Ajanoga said he aimed to reflect Turner's ability to move dynamically on stage. The way she grasped the microphone with her index finger pointing out, and her hairdo, which the artist likened to a lion's mane. However, the tribute did not receive a warm reception from Turner's fans, many of whom took to social media to criticize the statue's design and its questionable resemblance to the real life Turner. Okay, so people didn't like statue. Let's see if they're being harsh or not. We'll put the photos up on the screen. And as you can see. No, they're not being harsh at all. If anything. If anything, they're not being harsh enough. We've seen a lot of really bad statues in recent years. This one might be somehow the worst. I don't know how that's possible, but they pulled it off. Fred Ajanoga, congratulations to the artist. I mean, you pulled off. You somehow made the worst one. Like, if I showed you these pictures and keep the pictures up on the screen, okay, don't take them off. Actually zoom it. Zoom in on the face. Let's see the face. If I showed you this and I didn't tell you who it was supposed to be, you would. You would never guess. Tina Turner. You would have. You would just. You wouldn't be able to guess. You'd guess that maybe this was supposed to be. The first thing that came to mind when I saw it for some reason was Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons. But like a Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons. Or may. May. I mean, this is a weird one. Like, maybe a young. I don't know, from a certain angle, it's kind of a young Sean Aston with an afro dressed in dragon with smaller breasts. Actually, you know who this kind of looks like? Okay, so this is. This is a. This is an even weirder one. This is a deep cut. This is obscure, but it kind of looks like. Who was that chick from SNL, like, 25 years ago? She did the. She was in the will. She did the Will Ferrell skits with. With the. With where they were cheerleaders, I think. Cherry O. Terry. Cherry O. Terry. Cherry Oter. Cherry O. Terry. What is not Cherry? Sherry o' Terry was her name, I think it kind of looks like Sherry o' Terry playing it. Like, if. If. If that. If I'm thinking the same one. That woman from SNL playing Tina Turner in a 1998 SNL skit is sort of what that looks like. I don't know. It definitely doesn't look like Tina Turner. That, that I know for sure. It maybe looks like Tina Turner if she was born with, like, fetal alcohol syndrome, but it does not look like the Tina Turner who existed. And of course, this is just the latest really God awful ugly statue to be erected around the country. There have been many examples. We don't need to go through the list. We've talked about many of them on the show. Pretty much every statue that has been unveiled anywhere in public at any point this century has been about as ugly as this one, maybe a little bit less so. But, but bad. Has there been a beautiful statue made anywhere? And I don't think there is. It's, it's a, it is a sad and disturbing thing. I mean, it's hilarious. Also provides a lot of great comic relief. But it is sad. It's, it's, it's a, it's a tragedy. See, we like, we like to think that we've progressed, that we've gotten more sophisticated. And in some respects we have, but in a lot of very important respects, we have regressed. And that's really obvious when you consider art, and in particular when you think of some of the most timeless and ancient art forms, like sculpting, you know, making statues. And that's where you see that we have just lost. I mean, there are a million examples I could give to highlight the contrast. But just consider this statue. Let's put this up on the screen. This is an ancient Roman statue called the Laocoon or Lacon and his Sons. Now that just give me an idea of how old this statue is. Okay. This statue was discovered. Discovered in the 1500s, 500 years ago. It was an ancient relic lost to the sands of time. Discovered in the 1500s. It was made, they think, probably about 2,000 years ago. 2,000 years ago. And you look at that, you see the detail. You see everything about it. And you see how, I mean, the guy who made this Tina Turner statue said that he wanted to make it dynamic, wanted to make it look like she was moving, and he didn't pull it off at all. Well, you look at this statue made 2,000 years ago. It is dynamic like it is. It's movement. You see the movement. You see the. Every detail of the body, the muscles, everything anatomically, it's like flawless. And the face, everything. So 2,000 years ago, people were capable of creating this kind of art at a level that nobody on earth, not a single human on this planet can Even get close to. These days, we cannot get close to emulating any of this. I think we've simply lost the skill. It's gone. It's extinct. And it probably. That's the really sad thing is that it's probably gone forever because these are skills that are passed down. And, you know, a lot the great artists through history have been under the tutelage of another great artist, and that's how they learn. They learn how to do this because it's not. It's obviously, it's not. It's not obvious. I mean, it's all like to. From our perspective. I look at these statues now, and as I said, you could. Like, there's hundreds of examples. You can. You could pull up any statue that was made 500 years ago, a thousand years ago, 2,000 years ago, and you see this. But you look at it now, it's almost like it looks like magic. I can't even conceive. None of us can conceive of how you would do that. How do you take a block of stone and make it look like that? I don't. I. It's. It may as well be a magic trick. I mean, that's how out of our grasp it is. And that's because the skills are passed down, and they were passed down by the ancients, passed down for centuries, for millennia, until it got to us and we dropped it. We just. We took this precious skill and we dropped it on the ground and it shattered like glass. And now it's just gone. And we can't create art like they did 100 years ago or 500 years ago or 2000 years ago. I mean, I was thinking about this. If you want to find a historical analog now, like, if you want to find something in history, a monument, a statue, a sculpt, a sculpture that looks like something we could do today, you got to go back way further than 2,000 years. You got to go. I mean, we'll put this up on the screen. So this is a Venus statue. Not really a statue. It's a small. It's a sculpture of, as you can see, a large woman is like a fertility. A goddess of fertility thing. And this is about the level that we can achieve in modern times. I think we're about. At this level. And this thing was made in the Paleolithic era. Okay. This thing was made 40,000 years ago. So we are. Our artistic talents, in some respects, have regressed by about 40,000 years. You could argue we are a Stone Age in our artistic abilities. And I would say about the same for language communication abilities. I think we're about at Stone Age level. We've regressed that far. And so I say it's that, you know, it's gone, it's gone for good. But maybe that's not. It's not gone for good. It might just take us another 40,000 years to get back there if humanity still exists, which it probably won't. So if you feel like your regular morning coffee just isn't doing it anymore, then Everyday Dose is exactly what you need. Everyday Dose transforms your morning coffee into a powerhouse of vitamins, minerals and other amino acids all in one affordable cup. Just 30 seconds to prepare and you're getting your caffeine fix plus all the nutrients your body needs. One delicious cup. One simple solution. Everyday Dose isn't just coffee, it's coffee plus benefits. They've infused their 100% Arabica beans with lion's mane chaga, collagen protein and brain boosting nootropics for clean, sustained energy without the crash or the jitters. You can choose between their mild Coffee plus, which is light, smooth and gentle and sensitive stomachs, or Coffee plus Bold, which is a rich, full bodied medium roast with an extra energy kick. Both deliver the same functional benefits and undergo rigorous third party testing to ensure you're getting the best quality. Your brain and body will thank you. I always start my day with a just a standard cup of coffee, but now I use Everyday Dose and I can feel the difference in my energy levels throughout the day. Also, the coffee is truly delicious. I can tell you from experience. Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee plus or Bold Plus. You'll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts, including a rechargeable frother and gunmetal serving spoon by going to everydaydose.com walsh or enter walsh at checkout. You also get free gifts throughout the year. That's everydaydose.com Walsh For 45% off your first order this October, we're giving Daily Wire plus members more than ever before, including must see documentaries like USS Cole. Al Qaeda's Strike Before 911 premieres October 10th exclusively on Delaware Plus. I've got your first look right now. Check it out. Ali told us Al Qaeda is planning to attack a US Navy ship as it's refueling in the port of A. There was a lot of warning out there to the ships. Did the coal get that information? I can't tell you. Bin Laden was getting very antsy what could be next?

Justice Campbell (56:30)

I don't think we missed any specific threats.

Matt Walsh (56:33)

It wasn't if it was going to happen, it was when the United States was going to be attacked. They were walking into a trap. I saw a boat coming at us. They're close enough that I could see them smiling and waving. Then the explosion happened. Two men in. It was apparently not seen as a threat. May have been impossible to prevent. Osama bin Laden had essentially declared war.

Pete Hegseth (56:53)

Against the United States.

Matt Walsh (56:55)

Certainly emboldened al Qaeda. Why?

Pete Hegseth (56:57)

Why were we even operating in that?

Justice Campbell (56:59)

What was the intelligence community doing?

Pete Hegseth (57:01)

No one connected all the dots until.

Matt Walsh (57:03)

It was too late. People in the US didn't comprehend that.

Pete Hegseth (57:06)

There was an organization called al Qaeda, people living in caves, basements who actively.

Matt Walsh (57:13)

Sought to kill Americans. I think our government certainly had enough of the information to have done something.

Pete Hegseth (57:20)

They were focused totally on us. No one was looking up the the chain of command. We had an opportunity to disrupt what.

Matt Walsh (57:26)

Became 911 USS Cole Al Qaeda strike before 911 a three part series premieres October 10th on Daily Wire plus USS Cole Al Qaeda strike before 911 premieres October 10th only on Daily Wire plus if you're not a member yet, well, you can fix that now by getting free 40 off new annual memberships with code fall40@dailywireplus.com now let's get to our daily cancellation. Well, it's official. For the seventh straight year, a white guy will not be headlining the super bowl halftime show. Unless you count Eminem's brief appearance in the 2022 halftime show with Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg, which you really shouldn't. The last white performers to headline the Super bowl were Maroon 5 back in 2019, and since then we've been treated to performances by luminaries like Usher, Kendrick Lamar, Rihanna, the Weeknd, and so on. It's as if the NFL couldn't find a single white person singing actual music anywhere in the entire country for the better part of a decade. You don't need to be a calculus professor to understand these statistical implications here. The NFL has made the deliberate decision to basically discriminate against white performers in the name of diversity. It's the same reason that they still insist on having those dumb slogans in the end zone. The league is captured by, at the corporate level anyway, by anti white leftists who, unlike the vast majority of the country, haven't progressed beyond the George Floyd era. And as a result, year after year, the super bowl halftime performances haven't resembled music so much as they've resembled the barely coherent Ramblings of the local strip mall vagrant. Half of what Kendrick Lamar said was incomprehensible in the last super bowl halftime show, to the extent that he had a big moment during his performance. It was to accuse another rapper of being a pedophile. So we're talking about, you know, real fine art here. With each passing year, the performances become even more painful, almost as if they're sort of a form of ritual humiliation. And that said, through all of this, at least the NFL had the decency to ensure that the performers could still speak the English language, at least in a nominal sense. That was a very low bar, admittedly, but the NFL executives were able to clear it. Even though you couldn't understand what the performers were saying half the time, at least in the abstract. They were technically reciting lyrics that have meaning in the English language, at least superficially. The NFL was still pretending to be an American league, even if they, you know, are increasingly hosting games overseas. But that now has changed. As you may have seen, the NFL has just announced that Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, better known by his stage name Bad Bunny, will headline the 2026 Super bowl halftime show. And here's the NFL's big reveal.

Pete Hegseth (60:45)

Well, there it is.

Canadian News Reporter (60:45)

It's official.

Pete Hegseth (60:46)

Puerto Rico's finest Bad Bunny will be the Apple music Super Bowl 60 halftime show in February on NBC.

Deborah Ross (60:52)

And Peacock.

Matt Walsh (60:54)

So there's the whole Puerto Rican Humpty Dumpty aesthetic going on. He's not saying anything because he can't speak English. None of his songs are in English either. And then the reporter in English tells us that we should be excited by this development. We should be thrilled to hear songs like this one. Apparently they're like, you know, chain restaurants with their Applebee's bars with more talented musicians than this. But we're told that we're supposed to be impressed by Antonio, which is why he's constantly on SNL streaming services. The super bowl all over the place, being promoted relentlessly because he represents demographic replacement. You're not supposed to say that, but that's true. They want to send the message that America is not for English speaking Americans anymore. And it's not hard to identify who specifically is making this decision. The NFL has the ultimate veto power. But from what I could tell, Jay Z is the primary decision maker behind all the selections for super bowl halftime shows. His company, Roc Nation, has had an exclusive deal with the NFL since 2019, which just so happens to be the last year that that any white people were allowed to appear on the. On the stage. Also in 2019, Roc Nation and the NFL announced the commitment to an Inspire Change social activism campaign, which explicitly advocates for letting criminals out on the street before trial. I'm not making that up. By the way. Look at the fourth bullet point here. This is from the NFL's website. Quote, criminal justice reform, providing transition support for the formerly incarcerated and advocating for key reforms to the criminal legal system, including pretrial detention. Now, translation, they want criminals to spend as little time in prison as possible. They also want to reform policing, meaning they want to get rid of it. The people who wrote these bullet points are the same people who picked Antonio for the halftime show. So it's a. It's a political pick, period. To be clear, Antonio is not simply a foreigner who can't sing or speak English. He's also a far, far rabid leftist who wears dresses and who, like all leftists, lacks any semblance of self awareness or shame. It's actually pretty staggering in this case. Just a few days ago, Antonio issued a very clear promise that he wouldn't perform in the United States anymore, supposedly in order to protect his fans from being deported during his shows. He said he's willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue solely to protect criminals from getting rounded up and shipped overseas during his concerts. But now that the NFL called and they backed up a dump truck full of pesos, suddenly Antonio's on board. Suddenly the fans don't matter anymore. He'll be performing at Levi's Stadium in California next year, 100%. And even though the state is teeming with illegal aliens who could be deported at the game. This is from ABC News, quote, Puerto Rican. Puerto Rican musician Bad Bunny said an interview that he did not include the United states in the 2025, 2026 concert tour because of fear that U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement would raid the concert venue. People from the US could come here to see the shows. Latinos and Puerto Ricans of the United States could also travel here or to any part of the world. He told. He told the magazine. But there was the issue that ICE could be outside of my concert venue. And it's something that we were talking about and very concerned about. Musician has previously been critical of ICE operations, which have intensified under US President Donald Trump. He posted an Instagram video in June in which he expressed outrage at federal agents in Puerto Rico for not leaving these people working here alone. Well, you know what this means. ICE has the opportunity to conduct by far the single most effective, not to mention hilarious operation in all of ICE history. This has the potential to be even better than deporting Abrego Garcia to a random country in Africa that doesn't even exist. If you've seen the movie Trap or if you've seen the previews anyway by M. Night Shyamalan, then you know exactly how this could work. Except instead of trying to find one serial killer after they seal off the stadium, once the musical number starts, they could just deport everyone in attendance. Now, to be fair, everyone has fair warning from Antonio himself, and they showed up anyway, so they don't get to play the victim. Now, for all we know, maybe that's why Antonio signed on to this gig. It's entirely possible that he's working with DHS as a double agent at this point. Certainly, if I were an illegal alien in California and I heard a man in a dress using the name Bad Bunny tell me that I'll be deported at one of his shows, only to see him change his mind a few days later and tell me to attend one of his shows, I mean, I'd be a little suspicious. Either he was lying before or he's lying now. And neither option is reassuring. Now, what would be reassuring for the millions of actual Americans who still follow the NFL would be for the league to demonstrate just once that it understands or even likes its own fan base. For the better part of a decade, particularly with the social justice BLM messaging and the and the, you know, halftime shows, the league has made it clear that it holds most of the country in contempt solely on the basis of their nationality, their skin color, and also their assumed political views. Now, in various conservative circles, as a result, there have been calls to boycott the NFL just like we boycotted companies like Target and Bud Light. I have not joined those calls because by and large, as I've. As I've argued often, sports are one of the few mainstream ways that Americans can express and celebrate important virtues like meritocracy, masculinity. You know, competition and sports are an important part of culture. You know, you that that's going Every culture in history has had sports. It's important, just like art is an important part of culture. And despite the best efforts of the league executives, that remains the case. Professional football, in my view, is an important cultural institution in this country. So our focus therefore should be eradicating the left wing propaganda and anti white messaging that the league continues to promulgate as we've eradicated it from so many other cultural institutions in recent years. The backlash to this upcoming halftime show makes it very clear that you know, we're, we, we can, we're making progress in that direction. And now that backlash must intensify until finally, an American, an actual American who speaks English, performs at the Super Bowl. And that is why the anti white and anti American executives at the NFL, along with Antonio the Man in the Dress, AKA Bad Bunny, are all today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. New information comes out about the anti LDS shooter. Another killer turns out to be trans. And Gavin Newsom incites violence against Stephen Miller. Check it out on the Michael Noel Show.