← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1734 - WATCH: Dumbest Democrat Ever Delivers Cringe Worthy Performance In Front Of Congress
01:15:39
Loading summary
Transcript79 lines
- [00:00]
A
Today on Matt Walsh Show. At a hearing over the murder of Irina Zarutska in North Carolina, an elected official reveals that he is so clueless about his own job that he would not be able to pass a third grade civics exam. Like to say that he's an extreme case, but the fact is that our government at every level is infested with the dumbest humans who've ever lived. Also, the House passes a voter ID bill Democrats are taking about as well as you might expect. An Olympic athlete cries on camera because his girlfriend broke up with them. We'll talk about all that and more today in the Matt Wall Show. Your online activity is constantly tracked and sold by data brokers, companies that profit by packaging your personal information and selling it to advertisers, tech companies and others. Once your data is out there, it can be used for all sorts of nefarious things. So if you want more control over your digital privacy, you need our sponsor, ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN is a virtual private network that encrypts your Internet connection and routes it through secure servers. Protecting your online activity and keeping your browsing private also masks your IP address, the unique identifier used to follow you around on the Internet. I use ExpressVPN all the time, especially while traveling and doing research on public WI fi. It's nice to know I can still do a deep dive without worrying about who could potentially see my data or steal my sensitive information. By hiding your IP address, ExpressVPN makes it a lot harder for these companies to build detailed profiles about what you do online and sell that information, advertisers, marketers and whoever else wants to buy it. ExpressVPN offers several subscription plans to fit different needs and their basic plan is dirt cheap, starting at just 3:49amonth and listeners of this show can get an extra four months. When you use my special link. Go to expressvpn.com Walsh get four extra months of ExpressVPN. That's exp R-S-Vpn.com Walsh it's been nearly six months since the brutal murder of 23 year old Irina Zarutska on the light rail system in Charlotte. The murder was committed by a violent habitual felon named the Carlos Brown, a black black man who for for an allegedly crazy person, chose his victim very carefully. Brown did not attack the first person he saw. He rode the light rail for several hours that day, waited until a defenseless white woman sat in front of him and then after just a couple of minutes, stabbed Zarutska several times before walking off the train and bragging that he had just murdered a, quote, white girl. Now, in a serious country, every politician who allowed Brown to commit this murder would have immediately resigned in disgrace and gone into exile if not been imprisoned themselves. And there were many, many elected officials who were responsible for what happened. For about a thousand reasons, Brown should not have been a free man. At the time of the murder, he had a record that included arrests for felony larceny, assault, shoplifting, many other crimes. He'd also pleaded guilty to committing a robbery with a dangerous weapon, which sent him to prison for several years. And then after, after all these arrests, In January of 2025, John Just months before murdering Irina Zarutska, Brown repeatedly called 911 to report that he was under the control of a mysterious man made material that had entered his bloodstream. And after enough of these calls, officers arrested him. But a judge, a black woman named Teresa Stokes, who also happens to run a mental health treatment clinic, decided not to keep decarlos Brown in jail. Instead, the judge allowed Brown to go free as long as he provided a written promise that he would appear in court. She permitted a violent criminal who was committing more crimes and behaving like a raving lunatic to live among the general public. Lawmakers gave her discretion to unleash this monster on the city of Charlotte. The judge took advantage of that discretion, and a very predictable result occurred. Now, for the past six months, to their credit, Republicans in North Carolina have refused to allow Irena's killer and his accomplices in the state government to get away with what they've done. First, Republicans, with a small amount of Democrat support passed Irena's law. This is a law that, if it had been in place last summer, would have saved her life. It prevents magistrate judges from releasing habitual violent felons, men like to Carlos Brown without bail. So no more written promises or cashless bail. Now, by itself, that provision would have kept Carlos Brown in jail for at least all of 2025, since he had no money. And additionally, judges, this is important, have to provide written explanations for any decision to release violent or habitual offenders. They're also obligated to make criminals undergo mental health screening if there's any possibility that they might be insane, which again, was the case with the Carlos Brown. And if judges fail to meet those obligations, among others, then they'll be removed from the benchmark. That's the first prong of the Republican response to Irina Zarudska's murder. But they've also been holding hearings in which they force elected officials with jurisdiction over Charlotte, the people who should have kept decarlos Brown in jail to answer questions under oath. And these hearings, in no uncertain terms, have been a train wreck for the Democrats who were responsible for Irina's murder. They've also been eye opening as to how utterly unintelligent and incompetent and unprepared our leaders are. I mean, these hearings and other hearings that we'll discuss in a moment are the best argument for mass disenfranchisement and mass impeachments that you will ever see. The people running major cities in the United States shouldn't be allowed to vote, much less make life or death decisions that affect millions of people. We'll start with the questioning of Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden, who. Who is responsible for overseeing the jails in Charlotte. So he's the guy whose agency released the Carlos Brown. Now watch this line of questioning from North Carolina Republican representative Alan Chesser. If you're able to get through it. Now, by any measure, this is a top 10 all time moment, or bottom 10, depending on how you look at it that's ever taken place in a legislative hearing in this country. Watch.
- [06:23]
B
But I will very plainly ask you to answer my questions quickly, concisely, and not go on a long tirade, because I'm gonna do my best not to be disrespectful. I don't want my time wasted either. So, first, if I were to classify your position as the highest law enforcement officer in the county, would that be a fair description?
- [06:43]
C
That's correct.
- [06:46]
B
And as such, you. You made reference earlier that you're a constitutional office. My colleague made reference that there are constitutional divisions amongst responsibilities between us and you. What branch of government do you operate under?
- [07:02]
C
Mer County.
- [07:06]
B
What branch of government do you operate under? Sheriff.
- [07:14]
C
Constitution of the United States.
- [07:16]
B
Correct. That is what establishes the branches of government. I'm asking which branch you fall under.
- [07:22]
C
Mecklenburg County. I'm a duly sworn Mecklenburg county sheriff. We answer to the people of Mecklenburg County.
- [07:29]
B
This was not where I was anticipating getting stuck. Are you aware how many branches of government there are?
- [07:38]
C
No.
- [07:40]
A
Okay.
- [07:44]
B
For the sake of debate, I will move on and say there are three branches of government. Legislative, executive, judicial. Of those three, which do you believe you fall under?
- [07:53]
C
I believe I fall under the last one.
- [07:56]
B
Would you say it to me judicial? You are incorrect, sir. You fall under the executive. And as a member of the executive, what do you believe your primary function is?
- [08:08]
C
Care in custody of those in my custody. At the Mecklenburg county detention center.
- [08:15]
A
So this is the top law enforcement official in a major county in the state with a population of more than a million people. He's been in law enforcement for more than 36 years. He was a legendary homicide detective. According to his official biography, he won a contested primary election four years ago by by nearly 10, 000 votes. He won the general election with around 200,000 votes. And despite all that experience and despite the position he now holds, he does not have a fourth grader's grasp of his job description. It's not simply that he doesn't know which branch of government his office falls under. He doesn't even know what a branch of government is. I mean, for all he knows, there are 20 branches of government. I'm surprised that when asked about the branches of government, he didn't start listing the parts of a tree twig. Am I in the twig? Am I that? Is that my branch? That's how hopelessly clueless this guy is. Now, to be clear, this is not some dumb viral gotcha moment, okay? It's also not a a gaffe, which is how media outlets in north Carolina are describing this video. It's directly relevant to his ability to perform his job, and it says a lot about how we select our leaders in this country. It cannot be stated enough that an elected official or anyone in government not being able to list the branches of government is a shocking level of ignorance given their job description. Imagine if you sent a contract to your lawyer, ask him to look it over and break it down for you, and then he sent you back an email saying, sorry, what's a contract? When you say contract, what do you mean exactly? That's the level of rank stupidity we're dealing with here. Now, of course, if you work for the judicial branch, which the sheriff apparently believes he does, I mean, he obviously doesn't know what the word judicial means. That's what he said. The last one. Executive, legislative, judicial. Which one do you work for? The last one. But if you do work for that branch of government, then your job is to interpret the law. Judges don't really do that anymore either, but that's supposed to be the idea in theory. So on the other hand, if you're though an executive branch officer, your job is quite different. Your job is to enforce the laws that are passed by the legislative branch. This is not a moot point. It's clearly an issue that causes a lot of confusion for this particular sheriff. Now, in a separate interview a few months ago, the sheriff suggested that unless his bosses in the judicial branch give him permission, then he doesn't have to follow North Carolina law. Watch. All right, so let's. Let's clear it up.
- [10:51]
C
Use.
- [10:52]
A
You actually say that you are obeying everything that you need to, mandated by ICE and the federal government, right?
- [11:00]
C
Absolutely. I can tell you this. You will never hear a lawmaker or any judicial lawmakers or ICE or DHS says this. Sheriff McFadden is not following the law. They will use the word cooperation because they want me to do something that is not. Is outside of the law. If a federal judge or a magistrate or a state judicial official has not signed a paper, then it is not legally my book.
- [11:29]
A
So he implies that he can't do anything to enforce immigration law unless a federal judge or magistrate or state judicial official has signed a paper. And once again, this strongly suggests that he has no idea what his actual responsibilities are. The way immigration law works, deportation orders are mostly handled by officials and administrators within the executive branch, including immigration judges and other officers. These are people who work for the doj. They aren't part of the judiciary branch, and in the vast majority of cases, they aren't federal judges. And therefore, since North Carolina law requires that the sheriff cooperate with ice, he's actually not allowed to wait for a federal judge or magistrate in the judiciary branch to sign a paper before he. Before he does anything. And the sheriff doesn't remotely understand any of this, which is obviously a big problem for the top law enforcement official in the county. But the really amusing part of that clip is from the beginning, when he says something like, you'll never hear a lawmaker say that, I'm not following the law. You'll never hear a lawmaker say that old Sheriff McFadden isn't following the law. But in reality, you will hear lawmakers say that. At the hearing the other day, several lawmakers took turns, one after another, saying that. And it wasn't exactly a tough argument to make since the sheriff himself stated that he doesn't. He doesn't follow the law and apparently doesn't know what the law is or even what laws are in general. This is another top 10 moment from that hearing. Watch.
- [12:52]
B
And the agreeable to law. What do you think that means?
- [12:55]
C
Following the law.
- [12:57]
B
Following the law.
- [12:57]
C
Following the law. Not opinions. Following the law.
- [13:01]
B
I would agree. Thank you. With that. Do you think your personal opinions have any authority to override statute or. No. Do you believe your office holds any authority to nullify law?
- [13:18]
C
No.
- [13:18]
B
Okay, so if. How do you reconcile that with the public Statements that you've made about not enforcing the law.
- [13:29]
C
I've never said I'm not enforcing the law.
- [13:32]
B
With respect, I'm going to read a direct quote from you, sir. It says, quote, we do not have a role in enforcement whatsoever. We do not have to follow the rules and the laws that are governed by our lawmakers. And Raleigh, end quote.
- [13:50]
C
We were talking about. Again, you're taking the content of what I said when we are talking about immigration.
- [14:03]
A
We don't follow the law. So you're saying you don't follow the law? No, we follow the law. You want to expand on that? No. Okay. That's the same guy a couple of months ago who was giving interviews saying, you never hear a single lawmaker claim, I don't follow the law. Well, not only do lawmakers say that, but he himself has said that. I never said I don't follow the law. Well, let me read a transcript where you say, and I quote, we don't follow the law. It's like a sketch comedy show, except for the fact that people are being slaughtered, you know, because of morons like this. So you can't really laugh at it. At no point has this sheriff expressed even a hint of responsibility or regret for what happened to Irene. In fact, at every available opportunity he's minimized. Her death is one of the more egregious examples. It's truly one of the worst answers he could have possibly given under the circumstances. Watch. If Irena's law had gone into effect before last Friday, or if Irena's law had been into effect before Irena passed in August, would she still be alive today? Would she? Yes.
- [15:13]
C
I don't know. You know, I think that we are. And here's the sad part, we are over exaggerating. Just one stabbing death and we're over exaggeration. This stabbing, stabbing on the light rail. Think about how many people were injured or stabbed that same day when the person was stabbed on the light rail. And not saying that Irene is Lord Irena. We could have prevented that, and we never would know we could prevent that. But the young man who took her life was diagnosed bipolar and schizophrenia. Okay. But 618 people inside the Mecklenburg County Detention center had that same diagnosis. And so it's not unique, but it's unique because it was caught on film. It was nationally sensationalized, and we used the word refugee instead of immigration. So again, we changed the wording to fit. Fit the agenda.
- [16:10]
A
Gotcha. Let's just stop and think about his answer here. This is how he Attempts to explain away the stabbing death of a woman on a train in his county. Although we, you know, we have to allow for the possibility that he might not know what a train is or what the word stab means or what death is or what planet he's currently on. But the excuse he's going with is that, yeah, Irina was stabbed to death, but people are stabbed to death all the time in Charlotte. People are getting constantly butchered by schizophrenic hobos where I work. His point is that he's so bad at his job that nobody is safe anyway. Everyone's getting stabbed all the time. Oh, you got stabbed to death. Well, hey, take a number. Get in line. Why are we talking about this one specific case? There's people getting stabbed right now. That's how bad of my job I am. This is his prepared response during a televised interview to a very straightforward question, which is, would Irene's law have saved her life? He could not make it any more obvious that he doesn't care, doesn't even want to consider the possibility that something can actually be done in order to save the lives of innocent women on the Charlotte light rail system in the future. He views the routine slaughter of Charlotte's population as a badge of honor. And to all appearances, that's because he's simply too stupid to understand what he's even saying or how it sounds to people with an IQ north of room temperature. His only defense during that oversight committee hearing in North Carolina was a very predictable one. Can you guess? Can you guess what it was? What. What did the black sheriff say when all these Republican legislators pointed out in a public hearing that he was an idiot who was doing a horrible job? What do you think? What do you think he said? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. What do you think? Go ahead. Just take a. Take a. Take a wild guess, and then we'll. We'll watch. Here it is.
- [18:02]
C
As of today, we have people wanting to be rehired. We can't hire everyone that's applied.
- [18:08]
A
Why?
- [18:09]
C
Because we are particular about who's running. We are particular about who's running our agency. That means my detention officer and my staff. So we don't hire everybody. That applies. They want to work for Sheriff McFadden. I can tell you that a young man came to me only because he saw my picture on the bus. People want to work for the first black sheriff of Mecklenburg county because it's rare. So let's get this clear. They want to work for me. They would love to work for me. And if we put a positive light.
- [18:48]
A
Yeah, you know, it's just not. It's not acceptable. How could you criticize a black sheriff? And during Black History Month, no less. You shouldn't be asking all these racist questions. After all, he's black. He's the first black sheriff. He's rare. His photos on the bus. Black people see his photo on the bus and they go, oh, it's a black guy. Plus he's black. Did we mention that he's black? Did you know that he's black? Just. Just ask him. He'll tell you. He doesn't know much. Sheriff Macfadden, if he's even pronouncing his own name correctly, I think it's pronounced McFadden. I think he's mispronouncing his own last name as well. On top of everything else, doesn't even know his own name. He doesn't know. He doesn't know much of anything, but he does know that he's black. Ask him that question. Ask him. What are the. What are the three branches of government? I don't know. What country is this? I don't know. What planet are we on? What's the solar system? Who knows? Who knows? Are you black? Oh, hell yeah, I am. Tell you all about that. So it's totally unacceptable for you to talk about how he doesn't understand the most basic fundamental functions of the government or what his job description is. Totally unacceptable for you to complain about the slaughter of one white woman on public transit. You know, after all, she was white. He's black. Somehow from this point, the hearing descended even further into the depths of total stupidity. One lawmaker wanted to know why this sheriff allows murderers to use a music studio to record rap songs while in prison. Which is a pretty reasonable question, all things considered. I mean, they are in prison for murder after all. And watch this. It's about the music studio inside of the jail.
- [20:35]
C
We have a music studio and I guess they rapping or something in there. And the family member of some of the victims that were murdered were very upset about that.
- [20:48]
A
Do you think that's appropriate to have.
- [20:51]
C
A music studio for people to rap in that are in jail for murder or other felonies? So let me put the content into better content. Every single one of us in here listens to music. Every single one of us in here take music into our lives. That's part of rehabilitation for us. I have directly spoke with that family member about that person being displayed as someone inside Our detention center simply just making music. It is part of her rehabilitation. You can look at many studies and see that music helps us. So we're taking this out of content of one particular thing. We should be talking about the mental health that we incorporated inside a detention center. Now, North Carolina first mental health institution inside of a detention center.
- [21:54]
A
Now, at this point, at this point, even though this man is a sheriff, an elected official, obviously just a bad person all around, you almost feel bad making fun of how stupid it is. I mean, feels a bit like making fun of a baby. That's kind of what it feels like. I suppose that comparison is pretty offensive to babies. I just want to quote the sheriff here because he did say, and I quote verbatim. This is the quote. Here it is. Let me put that content into better content. What? Okay. Yeah. Put the content into better content. So the. The content of what the lawmaker asked is bad because it's obviously bad to let convicted murderers and rapists play around in a music studio and pretend to be rappers when we're supposed to be punishing them for raping and killing people. That's bad content. But he wants to take that bad content and put it into better content. Sure, that makes sense. Let's all just nod our heads politely. We don't want them to call us racist again, after all. Now, what else are you going to do with a. With a. With a prison, but just set up a music studio and let them. Let them make music. Maybe Roger Goodell will show up and, you know, pick out his next halftime act at this prison. Might as well, at this point. By the way, the lawmaker who asked that question is actually a Democrat. Her name is Carla Cunningham. And totally apart from this hearing, she's also seeking to have the sheriff removed from office. Why? Well, because she says the sheriff threatened to remove her law enforcement protection unless she voted the way he wanted her to on a piece of legislation concerning ice. Yes, the sheriff threatened a sitting lawmaker in order to pressure her to vote against federal law enforcement. This is from Yahoo. News. Quote, Cunningham is one of five people who have filed a petition to remove Sheriff McFadden from office, alleging that the sheriff threatened to withhold law enforcement protection for the legislature, a legislator, unless she voted to sustain the governor's veto of a bill that the sheriff opposed. The sheriff told the legislator that his office could not or would not protect her from violence if she cast a legislative vote in favor of a bill that McFadden opposed. The petition states legislation was designed to strengthen cooperation between local Law enforcement agencies and the federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So this guy. And you hear that and you think, well, that's. So you want to say that's outlandish. Like, who. Who would be that brazen? Who would do that? You can't just go to a lawmaker and say, hey, do what we want, or we're going to take your. Your security protection away. That's not even subtle. I mean, that's just a. You're brazenly, you're breaking like 10 different laws there. But then you realize that, like, oh, this guy, I mean, he. He legitimately has an IQ of 50. So, yeah, that totally tracks. Put simply, this guy is probably one of the dumbest people in the entire state, bottom 10%. I mean, easily. Doesn't speak English very well, threatens lawmakers, doesn't know what a branch of government is. His understanding of basic civics is far, far less advanced, less advanced than what you'd find in a Schoolhouse Rocks video from the 90s. Doesn't care about horrific murderers because, you know, horrific murders happen all the time. Pretty much the only thing he's sure of is that he wants murderers to rap inside his prison and he's sure that he's black. Those two things. Sheriff Gary McFadden, all things considered, may actually be the dumbest Democrat to currently hold elected office. It's a high bar to clear, but he may have just cleared it. Now, the reigning champion, of course, is Hank Johnson, the congressman from Georgia. Admittedly, Hank, John Johnson is very hard to dethrone. I thought he never would be because as you probably remember, he once years ago asked in admiral whether the island of Guam might capsize if too many Marines were stationed there. And, you know, why not just take a trip down memory lane? Here's that clip again, sir. I think Guam is a small island.
- [25:57]
C
Very small island and about 24 miles, if I recall.
- [26:02]
A
Long.
- [26:04]
C
24 miles long, about 7 miles wide.
- [26:08]
A
At the least widest place on the island. And about 20. About 12 miles wide on the widest part of the island. And I don't know how many square.
- [26:27]
B
Miles that that is.
- [26:29]
A
Do you happen to know. I don't have that figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you if you'd like.
- [26:35]
C
Yeah, my fear is that the whole.
- [26:39]
A
Island will become so overly populated that.
- [26:45]
B
It will tip over and capsize.
- [26:52]
A
We don't anticipate that. The Guam population, I think currently about 175,000. And again, with 8,000 Marines and their families, it's an addition of about 25,000. I mean, God bless that admiral there. He took that. He was about as polite as you could possibly be. Well, we don't anticipate that. My fear is that the whole island will capsize. Yeah, we don't anticipate that, Admiral. My. My fear. My fear is that. Is that. Is that soda pop will rain from the sky and we'll all drown in a river of soda and gumdrops. That's my fear. We don't anticipate that. We don't anticipate it. Now, he's been in office for nearly two decades, okay? He's gone out for reelection every two years, and every two years, he wins by more than a hundred thousand votes in his district, which happens to be majority black. He thinks an island can capsize if you station a few thousand Marines on it. But his voters don't have any problem with that. He thinks islands float on top of the water like giant rafts. That's what he. That's because if they did, then. Then, you know, that concern might be legitimate, which raises the question of how the islands stay in place. Like, if that's the case, that they're just floating there, then why hasn't Hawaii bumped into Asia at this point? Maybe Hank, you know, maybe he thinks that, you know, there's, like, teams of mermaids under the islands, holding them in place, holding on to ropes. Who knows? And presumably his voters also think that islands can capsize if a bunch of people stand on them and are maybe being kept in place by mermaids. So at a certain point, you can't really blame Hank Johnson. You have to start looking at the voters. And Georgia is well past that point. So is the state of New Jersey, where a lawmaker named Lamonica McIver just axed the director of ICE. Some questions at a congressional hearing. Watch.
- [29:01]
D
So, Mr. Lyons, I've heard my colleagues ask many questions over and over again, and you cannot answer them. So let me ask you some questions that you may be able to answer. Mr. Lyons, do you consider yourself a religious man?
- [29:14]
A
Yes, ma'.
- [29:15]
C
Am.
- [29:15]
D
Oh, yes. Okay. Well, how do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?
- [29:23]
B
I'm not gonna entertain that question.
- [29:24]
D
Oh, okay. Of course not. Do you think you're going to hell, Mr. Lyons?
- [29:27]
A
I'm not gonna entertain.
- [29:28]
D
Of course not. How many government.
- [29:30]
A
The gentlelady will. Gentlelady will suspend, Chairman. As I. A gentlelady will suspend. As I said, the issues we're debating here are important to ones that members feel deeply about.
- [29:40]
D
Thank You.
- [29:40]
A
While vigorous disagreement is part of the legislative process, members are reminded that we must adhere to established standards of decorum and debate. The witnesses are here voluntarily. And I will continue remind, continue, remind members that while oversight is important, aggressively attacking those witnesses personally is inappropriate and not in keeping with the traditions of our committee.
- [30:01]
D
Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking a question. You all, you guys are always talking about religion here in the Bible. I mean, it's okay for me to ask a question, right? But let me continue on. I got your notes.
- [30:11]
A
All right. The gentle lady may much.
- [30:13]
D
Let me get back to my question. And Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate you. How many government agency. Mr. Ly.
- [30:21]
A
I'm just asking, asking the question. Let me ask you a question. Is you going to hell? Let me, let me ask. Let me ask you a question. Is you going to hell? She was so proud of herself too. She thought she had a. She was. She, I mean that she had written that ahead of time and her whole stat, you know, her staff are. They're all morons also, you could assume. And they loved it. They were like, that's gonna, that's gonna go viral. That of course, is the only, that's the only thing that these lawmakers even care about in, in hearings anymore, is that they just want to go viral. I said this before. We. We've. Anyone who thinks that our government is populated by like power hungry egomaniacs who just want to control everything. Anyone who thinks that still is way behind time jerk. Now they are egomaniacs. That's true. But a lot of these people, they're not even power hungry. They're actually not. They just want to go viral. Like, they just want to be influencers. Right? They, that's all they want. That's the only thing they're after is they want to get clicks and likes on. They're like no different from your standard tick tock slop influencer. That's. That's all they want to do. Now you have to keep in mind when you watch footage like this that women like LaMonica MacGyver are the cream of the crop in a sense. I mean, she's the absolute best representative that her district, another district that would rank high on the diversity metrics, by the way, chose to send to the U.S. congress. They had other options and they chose her like the sheriff in Charlotte. She has no idea what the purpose of a hearing is or what her job description is or how you're supposed to act in a civilized society, nor can she speak proper English. And that goes for a lot of her constituents. Also, the reason dysfunctional countries in places like South America and Africa are dysfunctional at the end of the day, is that their leaders act like this. They don't have the intelligence or the ambition to do anything else. They don't care about the law. They don't understand any of. Any of your arguments. And as a result, if given enough power, they will destroy everything that the founders of this country built. That's certainly the goal of Michigan Congressman Sri Thanadar, who could barely speak English at all, even though he moved to the United States from India in the late 1970s. He'd been here for a long time, but he's sure of one thing, which is that he wants to abolish ice. And like the sassy woman from New Jersey, he came prepared to ask the ICE director, along with the Director of Customs and Border Protection, some extremely stupid questions. Watch. Do you think President Trump will pardon you and your boss, Kristi Noem, before he leaves office, just like he has for Insurrectionist and his political allies? Do you believe President Trump will pardon you? Because. Go ahead. I'm not going to speak on behalf of President Trump. But I'll tell you, I signed up for this job to protect America, and I'm. I'm very proud of the service that I provide. And I don't need a pardon from anybody. Well, you better hope so. You better hope you get being pardoned, because you will be held accountable for the absolute disregard of the law your agencies have shown over the past year. Your agencies have lost the trust of the American people, with millions taking to the streets to protect the illegal actions of your agencies. And that's why I introduce a bill in the United States Congress to abolish ice. Yeah, this isn't even really a political monologue at this point. Even if you're a rabid left winger and you voted for Kamala Harris, this should appall you. This is just abject, pure, unfiltered, raw stupidity. These are not serious people. And until the last 100 years or so, none of them would have been anywhere near positions of power, really, until the last 50 years, or even sooner than that. But now these absolute buffoons are all over the place, from state legislatures to the US Congress. You simply cannot avoid them. They are everywhere now. It's difficult to believe now, maybe hard to believe, but for most of American history, Congress was filled exclusively with high IQ men who are extremely articulate and took the job seriously. And you could say, well, society was racist and misogynistic and Backwards and archaic back then. We can't possibly go back to those dark times. If that's your position, I challenge you to find a single political debate in American legislature from the 18th, 19th, or early, early 20th century centuries. Okay, so I'm giving. That's, that's a lot. It's a huge time period. We're giving you. Find just one. Just one debate that was anywhere near as the clips we've run through today. Find me one. It just didn't happen. Like, it just didn't happen. Now, our leaders could get animated, to be sure. There was the famous incident just prior to the Civil War where a senator was nearly beaten to death with a cane in the 1800s after he insulted a congressman's relative. But, you know, things got intense, but they never became truly unambiguously idiotic. It's a matter of historical fact. America was not overrun with foreigners. Voters were relatively intelligent, and that system produced intelligent leaders. You cannot argue in any credible fashion that it's an improvement to have the kind of Congress and the kind of lawmakers and officials that we have today. None of these people should be allowed to serve in any official capacity at all. Whatever we've done to allow idiots like this to become elected officials in the United States, we need to reverse those decisions immediately. None of the founders would have tolerated any of this. We wouldn't have a country if they did. So here's my proposal. Just one disenfranchise and bar from office any politician in the bottom 30% of American IQs, just starting with that. You could do that in any number of ways. For example, you could have them all take an old SAT test or something similar overnight. A law like that would fix about 90% of our problems. Now, yeah, I'm aware of the counter arguments. People will say, well, the IQ test can be rigged, although it really can if you do it right. Especially if you pick an old version of an SAT test. But even if you buy that argument, the fact remains, like, we gotta do something. We have no choice. We cannot continue as a country when our leaders lack the mental capacity to know what they're even supposed to be doing. And I would take it further than that. A man who can't even name the branches of government, much less identify the one he works for, should not be in any kind of leadership position in, in society. But he also shouldn't have the right to vote. How many of the people who vote for guys like that or any of the idiots we played clips of today, how many of them could pass a fifth grade civics exam themselves. What if the exam consisted of precisely one question? What if when you go to vote, you had to get to take a civics exam? But there was just one question, the easiest one, the one the sheriff failed, and you simply asked. You simply asked voters to list the branches of government. What if that was the only thing you had to do? You could even google it ahead of time, as a lot of people would. But when you get there, you got to write it down on a piece of paper. No looking at your phone when you're in. When you get there, you got to come in in person and write it down. A piece of paper. What percent of voters today would fail that quiz? It's more than 1 or 2%. I think we all know that our system cannot survive if the dumbest, most incompetent, most utterly clueless and befuddled among us are allowed to lead this country or have any say over the direction of the country through the ballot box. This is a far greater threat to American democracy than Russia or China or Iran or anyone else. Without a doubt, the greatest threat to American democracy is that because of Democrat rule and open borders and the general collapse of intelligence in this country, the votes of competent Americans are effectively being canceled out, washed away, drowned in a sea of retardation. And for the sake of everyone else living here, the descendants of the people who built this country and the people who can keep it running another 250 years, that needs to change one way or another. Now let's get to our five headlights. I love having seafood for dinner, but the grocery store's quality was just not cutting it in the slightest. I decided I needed to find a higher quality option, which is why I was excited to try our sponsor, Wild Alaskan Company. My first box had perfectly portioned sockeye salmon and Pacific halibut individually wrapped, ready to go through the sockeye on the grill with just some lemon and salt. It was rich and flavorful, definitely not like the mushy stuff from the store. Their fish is 100 wild caught, never farmed. So no antibiotics, no GMOs, none of that clean real fish that supports healthy oceans and fishing communities. Plus it's frozen right off the boat to lock in the taste, texture and all those omega 3s. And it's sustainably sourced from Alaska so you know you're getting the best while feeding your your family quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you could trust. Go to wildalaskan.com Walsh for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaska.com Walsh for $35 off first order. Thanks to Wild Alaska Company for sponsoring this episode. Pregnancy can arrive unexpectedly, and for those facing an unplanned pregnancy, fear and uncertainty can feel overwhelming. Past decisions and abortions may carry lingering grief that feels hard to navigate alone. That's where our sponsor, Preborn steps in. Their clinics offer compassionate support without judgment, providing honest conversations, accurate information at a safe space to process difficult emotions and explore options. One of the most powerful tools Preborn provides is ultrasound technology. Seeing a developing baby on screen and hearing a heartbeat can bring clarity in moments of confusion. For many, that simple appointment becomes a turning point, transforming fear and uncertainty to into hope and confidence. Preborn walks alongside women through every stage of their journey. The impact is real. Babies are born, families are formed, and healing happens. And this can all begin with something as simple as an ultrasound. Be a part of that change with a $28 donation to cover the costs for a mother in need. All donations are tax deductible and 100% of your donation goes directly to saving babies and building families. To donate securely, dial pound250, say the keyword baby pound 250 baby or go to preborn.comwalsh it's preborn.comwalsh so it's kind of a natural transition here. Daily Wire reports. House of Representatives passed a new version of the Save America act on Wednesday evening, giving some new life to legislation that would require photo identification and proof of U S citizenship for voters. The vote went largely along party lines, with every Republican who was present voting in favor of the measure. The lone Democrat to break with his party and vote for the Save America act was Henry Seller. The bill, introduced by Texas Republican Representative Chip Roy and pushed by President Donald Trump, heads to the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle to reach Trump's desk. But that's the, that's the bill, and it was passed. Obviously it's a good bill, great idea, necessary piece of legislation. Of course, Democrats are reacting exactly as you would expect, shouting that this bill will disenfranchise millions. It's racist, it's sexist, it's Jim Crow, et cetera, et cetera, and so on. You know, there's a million examples we don't have to play. We really don't have to play any of them. But here's, here's one anyway. This is Representative Delia Ramirez, who was last heard saying that Guatemala, that she is Guatemalan before she's American. So she should have been removed from office and deported already, but she hasn't been. So she's still here. And here's here she is weighing in on, on the SAVE Act. Look, as I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what I hear is the same racist, misogynistic trash, different decades. Republicans are invoking historical policies intended, let's be clear, to disenfranchise Americans, especially working people, women, students, indigenous people, and anyone who can't afford the burdens of a new bill.
- [43:32]
D
The Save America act is yet another.
- [43:35]
A
Republican attempt to intimidate and suppress the.
- [43:38]
D
Votes of anyone, anyone who threatens their.
- [43:41]
A
Extremist white supremacist agenda. White supremacist extremists. We're just throwing. I like she throws in indigenous people. I think that's the first time I've heard that. Why are so. Now indigenous people also can't get IDs never mind the fact that. Look, what do you mean by indigenous? Like white people of European descent are, you know, actually indigenous inhabitants of, of the country of the United States of America. But anyway, so all that is total nonsense. And of course none of these people could explain how or why the law actually disenfranchises anyone. And Scott Jennings on CNN I think illustrated that point quite brilliantly. You know, you can always, you, you can always stump these people. You can always stump leftists, as we've seen, with the simplest questions. And, and many times when they make a statement, all you have to say is, is why is that the case? Or what do you mean by that? That word you just used, what does that, what does that mean? Or in this case, how, how's, how's that going to happen? The most basic follow up is enough to make them totally collapse as we see here. Watch.
- [45:03]
D
He is actually championing a bill that actually would take voting rights away from a lot of black people in this country.
- [45:09]
A
Wait, what, what voting rights is he taking away from black voters?
- [45:13]
D
Oh, if we look at the Save the Save act, that's exactly what we're talking about. That is actually going to continue to disenfranchise overwhelmingly a lot of people of color. There are so many civil rights organizations that have run the data. If we look at the way that it is going to disenfranchise black voters. It's the same reason why Chuck Schumer called it Jim Crow 2.0. So it's the same president. If we want to continue, I am talking about it. It's the way that you're putting new poll taxes on this when you're making people have. That's what we can call them now. It's a, it's kind of an idiom. Right? If you want to say that people have to prove that they are citizens, that they have to prove with a voter id. The reality is you're layering what is a constitutional right for the American people and making it harder for people to vote in this country, and it's going to disenfranchise black voters.
- [46:00]
A
Concern you that you're making all these claims? You've yet to lay out how it's hurting anyone. But 76% of black voters think we should show an ID to vote. 80% of Hispanic voters, 83% of the American people. Are you saying that black voters are too dumb to know what's good for them? I mean, it sounds pretty condescending.
- [46:23]
D
Three quarters of black voters, that's not.
- [46:25]
A
Who want voter id, but that's clear.
- [46:27]
D
The SAVE act is about ideas. The Save act is about.
- [46:30]
A
So what? I can't take it. I don't know why we're doing all this in one day. I really can't. I can't take it. It's an idiom. I, I missed that the first time I saw this clip. I somehow missed that entirely. She says, oh, there's poll taxes. What do you mean there's a. What are you talking. There's no poll taxes. Well, it's an idiom. So that's going to be their new excuse when they, they can make a claim that's just totally false. They're putting poll taxes in place. No, we're literally not. That's actually not happening at all. Well, it's just an idiom. What do you mean idiom? Idiot. I know what an idiot is. It's you. But idiom. Idiom is like it's raining cats and dogs out there. Right? You gotta break the ice. Yeah, that, that's an idiom. Now, an idiom is they really got that poll tax. You know, I went, I went, I went to the store today. There was really a poll tax, if you know what I mean. I don't know what you mean. What is that? What does that idiom represent? So the how question is really the point here. The fact that a majority of black voters, you know, he, he, he talks about. The majority of black voters think that voter ID is a good idea. And I mean, maybe they do, but that's irrelevant. I understand why Scott brings it up. Doesn't matter. Like, if 0% of black voters wanted voter ID, it would still be a good idea. If 100% of them want voter ID, it's a good idea. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how anyone feels about it. The real question is how this law will disenfranchise anyone. And the reason they won't answer that is that the answer is that the law does not directly disenfranchise anyone at all except illegal immigrants. It does directly disenfranchise them because they should be for everybody else. It sets up a very simple process that would enable you to prove your citizenship to vote. It's a process that for most Americans will not really require anything. It doesn't require you to go out and get any new forms of id. It's stuff you already have in your house. For some Americans or minority, they would have to go out and get some of these forms of id, but they can easily do that and you have plenty of time to do it before the next election. All that said, I'll also say this. It is true and conservative should admit that it's true that this bill will have the ultimate effect of preventing a certain percentage of americ, actual American citizens from voting. That will. That's not that it won't. It doesn't directly do that. That's not the intent of the bill. But it is true that if you, if this bill is put into place, if it actually becomes law, then the effect will be that next time around fewer actual American citizens will end up voting again. Doesn't do it directly. And it's not race based, it's not sexist. So all that is a lie. But it does set up a process, a really simple process you have to follow. And if you don't follow it, you can't vote. And the truth is that a certain percentage of Americans will not follow that process. And so, yeah, they're not going to. They will not be able to vote. They could follow it. So it's not dis like disenfranchising is. You're not allowed to vote. No, you can. You just like, here's the thing that everyone is doing in order to vote. You can do it or don't do it. If you don't do it, you can't vote. But I see that as a good thing. Now I understand why most Republicans don't want to make this argument in particular for politically, but when they say that, oh, the study, this study, the civil rights group did a study and it says that, you know, 14 or whatever of voters won't, will not end up voting because this law is in place. When I hear that, most Republicans hear that and say, oh, that's nonsense. That's like, I hear that I go, good. Oh, 14. I wish it was 40% fantastic, okay? Because all that means is that the people who are too stupid and too incompetent and too clueless or too lazy to, to, to follow this really basic process are not able to vote. And it's, it's good if incompetent, stupid, lazy people are not able to vote. It's better if they don't vote. I'm glad they can't. I'm happy about that. So if we get, if we get around to, you know, we get around to elections and there are Americans, I can't vote because of this. My answer is good. I'm glad you can't go home. You should not vote. You're too stupid and incompetent. You have, you should not, you shouldn't even have the right to vote. If it were up to me, I would just take the right away from you. What I would do if it were up to me is every single person who's not able to vote because of voter ID laws, not only can they not vote, but now you're never allowed to vote because you've revealed yourself to be stupid, incompetent, foolish, just unable to operate as an adult in society. And so you should not have the right to vote. That's what I would do. But I mean, I'm not surprised that, you know, that's not an argument that's being made more widely, but it is true. Approximately one in three people are deficient and C15, a vital nutrient which causes cellular fragility syndrome. When your cells don't get enough C15, they get weak and age faster, which means you age faster. Luckily, our sponsor Fatty 15 provides you the first new essential fatty acid in 90 years that can help really help with this problem. Fatty 15 is pure C15 that helps repair your cells, protects them from breaking down and actually supports stuff like sleep, metabolism and cognitive health. It might sound like typical supplement marketing, but the science behind this one, this one really genuinely checks out and the results actually show up. Fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long term health and wellness, especially as you age. You can get an additional 15% off their 90 day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.comwalsh using code WALSH at checkout Daily Ride reports with an update on the story we mentioned yesterday. The 18 year old man who attacked a rural Canadian school identified as a woman and had a history of mental illness, law enforcement confirmed. On Wednesday, police identified the man who opened fire on Tumblr Ridge Secondary School killing six people as Jesse Van Rootselar. Rootsail are, I guess Van Root sailor who was found dead at the school began to quote unquote transition about six years ago. And so this was a man and was being misidentified by law enforcement as a woman for, you know, for a day before they finally admitted that it was a man. And that's all been confirmed. Police and media are saying we don't know the motive. No, we'll, we'll never know, we'll never know why he did it, but we know the motive. As surely as we, as surely as we knew this was going to be a trans identified person. We, we also know the motive. Another trans mass shooting added to the very long list, a list that grows exponentially and we can now say beyond a shadow of a doubt, according to the data that trans identified people are more likely to commit mass shootings than any other group. And it's not even close. Like this is a real epidemic. And we've talked about why trans identified people are so likely to commit these kinds of crimes. We've gone into that, you know, the divorce from reality, self destructive, radicalized by, by nature of being trans identified. You're all, all those things are going to be true. But there's another point here because we're finding out more about this guy, this killer as all of his Internet activity, Reddit posts, other forums he went to, all that stuff comes out and it's the same, same story again and again, it's the same story. We've already seen the account Reddit lies on. X has done some good work, work on this, going back to track this guy's timeline, you know, through his posts on the Internet. And apparently according to this account, this guy killer first started posting on Reddit when he was 10. And you can track and see how he went from like a normal kid to within a few years through from posting on Reddit, this totally deranged, confused, confused, perverted weirdo. And this is why I obsess over the fact that, and this is not entirely, you know, it's, we look at why someone does something like this, there's never going to be just one answer. It's not just like there's one factor that led to it, there are a lot of factors, but this is a major factor, early exposure to the Internet. And you see that with all these guys, you See it with all of them. Okay? It's a, it's enough of a common thread that we can look at that and say, and also our common sense tells us that, yeah, it's why I obsess over the fact that we cannot allow children to have unfettered access to the Internet as kids. If you as a parent are letting your adolescent, pre, Adolescent child have unfettered access to the Internet, okay, I'm talking about, give him a phone, you can go wherever he wants. He has a computer, a laptop, whatever that he can go on. He's able to go on Reddit. Okay? I'm not Talking about your 12 year old wants to look up some fact for school as part of research into a book report or something. We're not talking about that. We're talking about, you know, able to access the Internet the way that I can or you can just like I can get on the Internet anytime I want. And parents that allow that kind of access to their kids. You're just a bad parent. Like I, you know, let's not sugarcoat it. You're a bad parent. You're guilty of abuse and neglect. You are unfit parent. I mean, it cannot be condemned in harsh enough terms what an awful, terrible parent you are. You should feel ashamed and embarrassed. And I know I sound repetitive, you know, pounding on this point, but what happened to this kid is not some kind of anomaly. It's not some kind of extreme aberration or exception to the rule. When you let your kid have unfettered Internet access, he will not, might not, might, will, will, will almost immediately start wandering into the darkest corners of human existence. Like he will be exposed to the kinds of things that human beings, adults for most of human history, would have never encountered in their lives. I mean, it only takes a kid a couple of minutes on Reddit or anywhere else to encounter things that are so weird and so depraved and so dark that up until 15 seconds ago, most humans through their entire course of their entire life would have never even encountered like an image like that or a concept like that, an idea like that, you know, and now you've got kids that are just marinating in this stuff. An 11 year old boy, boy at the most impressionable possible age, consuming poison. What do you think will happen? You know, what's the win here? I always like to ask that for anything. I always ask that in a professional context. Anything you want to, you want to go out and do something, I want to take on a project or anything. What's the win what's the win? Right, because I want to win. I, what I'm interested in doing. So tell me the win. Let's talk what's the win? Let's compare that to what the loss could be. Here's how we could lose. Here's the L. We could take on this thing. Tell me what the win is, and if the win is a lot bigger than the potential L, then let's do it. So my question with you give your kid, you give your 11 year old boy the Internet, Go ahead, have at it. What's the win? What's the win? How do you win? Like, what's the upside? How does that work out? In what scenario will you look back later in life and say, oh, thank God we gave him unfettered Internet access when he was 11 years old. Man, thank God our 9 year old was able to access the Internet and go on any website he wanted at any time of day. Well, thank God that really worked out. Is there like any scenario? No. It's guaranteed to harm. It's only a question of how much harm it does. That's the only question. And the only answer I ever get to this. And someone said this to me today, when I make this point, you hear people that say, well, you know, here's my millennials in particular. Well, I was accessing the Internet, you know, we were all accessing the Internet as a young, at a young age, and we turned out fine. Okay, number one, in what way do we turn out fine? In what way? Can you look at our generation say, oh, that worked out perfectly. That worked out great. We're doing fantastic. By what metric did it work out? I love that when you hear this, because this, this is why people dismiss any concern about anything they say, well, I turned out fine. Yeah, but you didn't. It's always, it's always the most dysfunctional losers that say that too. When you express some kind of concern about like, I don't think we should do this, I don't think we should let kids be exposed to it. Well, hey, I did and I turned out fine. No, you didn't. You're a dysfunctional loser. Your life is awful. I look at your life and I just thank God it's not mine. I mean, as I like, I, I, I, I, I, I'm, I plunge into this despair just looking at your existence. That's how depressing it is. It did not turn out fine for you. What are you talking about? Oh, man, I've been on the Internet and looking at porn Since I was 10 I turned out fine. And the person saying that has the worst life you could. Their life is a tragedy. You can't even be the same room as them. It's so depressing. I turned out fine. No, you didn't. And on top of that, you know, we did not have. It's not the same. I mean, it was bad enough for us, but if you're a millennial, it was not. You didn't grow up on the Internet from birth the way kids do now, because it didn't. That was not an option. So if you're a millennial, like the Internet became a household thing, you know, maybe you were in middle school, you at least had element, you know, elementary ages and before without it. And then when it first came online as a sort of household item, it was not as, I mean, it was. Could be pretty dark, but however dark it was, it's gotten a lot worse. And however prevalent all the bad stuff is, was on the Internet, you know, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, it's much more now. So, you know, when I first got the Internet, like Reddit, there was no Reddit. Like, that didn't even exist. I mean, when, when I first got the Internet, we had it in our house and there was, there was no smartphones. You didn't carry it around with you. We had it on a computer. A desktop computer is the only kind of computers anyone had. We had one in the entire house. It was in our dining room. My parents put it in the dining room so it would be in the most public place in the house, totally open, you know, which was smart, but. And the Internet was, you went on, it was like aol and there was like, the whole Internet was comprised of like 10 channels that you could, you get a welcome screen and there's 10 that you could click. It's like entertainment, message board, whatever, sports, and you just click. And that was the whole Internet. That's all the Internet was, was the whole thing. And you have the millennials that compare that. So you had that when you were 14. And that is analogous to a nine year old going on Reddit today. What kind of freaking are you? Oh, you didn't turn out well. I mean, you're brain dead. What are you talking about? We've seen plenty of clips of American Olympic athletes humiliating themselves in the world stage by whining about ice. But I think it's time that we. And maybe this is a positive way to 10 as positive as we're going to get to see a foreigner humiliate himself that's, that's better. That'll make us feel better. So here's a. This is a pretty kind of bizarre story. I don't know if you saw this. There's a Norwegian biathlon athlete by the name of Sterla Home, Ligrid, and was interviewed after winning bronze. And if you're listening to the audio podcast, you're not going to understand the clip because he's speaking in Norwegian. Unless you're one of our millions of millions of Norwegian listeners. But if you're not that, then you're not gonna say so we'll play this and then we'll come back and I'll, I'll summarize what was said in this clip. Go ahead. All right, so Sturla says that he. All you can think about during this week at the Olympics is the love of his life who recently left him. But the key facts to know here. And he's crying. You can hear that. Even if you understand what he's saying, you can hear him crying. He's crying, talking about his love of his life left him. Key facts to know are, number one, that he cheated on her. And he admits that on television, confessed it on live TV to the entire world that he cheated on her. And number two, he's known her for six months. So they met six months ago, three months later, he cheated on her. This is not relevant to any of our lives. But he, you, I mean, he said it like you said it publicly, so now we all know. I mean, so there it is. So he was able to. He stayed faithful. I'm giving him some credit. He stayed faithful for, for three entire months. Give him some credit for that. That's, that's 12 weeks of faithfulness and fidelity that he was able to muster. And then he cheated on her and now he's crying on TV saying that he misses her. So this is really impressive levels of emotional manipulation going on here. And he's, he's trying to obviously manipulate this poor woman into coming back to him by crying on camera and by essentially blaming her for the fact that he's not having a good time at the Olympics. That's what he's actually doing. This is supposed to be the best week of my life. I'm at the Olympics, but I, I can't enjoy it because my girlfriend broke up with me. And shockingly, the strategy did not pay off. So apparently the Norwegian media tracked down this, this long suffering ex girlfriend, or short suffering as the case may be. And she said that she was, she was actually, she Was pretty angry about all this, understandably so. And she's not interested. She wanted nothing to do with the guy anymore. First the guy cheats on you, and then he emotionally blackmails you in front of hundreds of millions of people. So a real winner, this guy. And she's not interested in getting back to him. The gambit did not pay off. I will say two things in an effort to offer some advice to our friend Sterla, not that he'll ever see this video or be able to understand it because he doesn't speak English. But first of all, you were dating for six months, so you're fine. Get over yourself. When I first heard. When I first saw the video, and he's crying and you see, I read in the captions, and it's like, I lost the love of my life. I was about to feel bad for him because I thought he was going to say, like, oh, my wife died. But then it's like, no, she left. And, oh, it was my girlfriend that I. That I was dating for six months. You're fine. You're fine. Like, you're fine and you're. I know when you're younger, when you're a young man and you have never been married and you're dating someone and you've been dating them for five and a half hours, and you feel like, you know, this is the. This is some sort of epic love story. And I understand that when you're young, but this guy's almost 30, I think. I think he's like 30. Close to it. You'll be fine. And second, more importantly, there is no scenario, no scenario where you're going to win a woman's affections by crying because the most you could ever hope to achieve is pity. And you're not even gonna get. You won't get that in this case. But even if you did, you have to understand that the pity part of a woman's brain and the romantically attracted part of her brain are on opposite sides. Not. I mean, not neurologically. Don't take this as any kind of neurological analysis. That's not exactly how it works. But metaphorically. Metaphorically, the pity part and the romantically attracted part are on two. These are two different sides of the world. A woman is not going to become romantically attracted to someone that she finds pitiful. Like, you're better he would. If you're going to try to manipulate her into which you shouldn't, that's bad. But you'd be better off if you had gone on TV after your big Win and said, hell, yeah. This is the greatest day of my life. I could not be happier. I have never been happier than I am right now. I can't wait to go party with all these beautiful women here at the Olympics. That would be more likely to rekindle the girl's interest in you than, you know, crying and whining and talking about how sorry you are. And I know it sounds harsh every time I say this, and maybe some guys think I'm trying to sound macho or whatever, but I'm not. I mean, it's just true. Like, it's not. It's not nothing to do with. Doesn't matter how you feel about me. I'm just like, this is just a fact of psychology that you should never cry in front of a woman. Especially not on tv, in front of a global audience under those circumstances. But in general also, you should never do it. Rare exceptions for serious tragedies. But outside that, outside of the kind of horrific situation that would hopefully only happen a few times in your life, if at all, you should not cry in front of a woman. And really, the reason that you shouldn't is it's really. It's the same reason that you shouldn't cry in front of your kids, Right? And that's not to say that your wife is a child, but it's a similar reason. And I think people. It's easier for people, anytime this conversation comes up, it's like, easier for people to understand and accept. Because I know everyone wants to say, well, hey, we're an enlightened age and men can be sensitive and they should be able to express their feelings and all that. People want to say that no one really believes it, and it doesn't work in practice. But when you apply it to kids, I think everyone sees it intuitively. Like, even someone who's all about, say, oh, men should be able to express their feelings. Even they. If you were to ask them, yeah, but it. Should a father cry in front of his kids? I think everyone knows. Well, no, you wouldn't do that. For a father to break down in tears and start sobbing in front of a child again, aside from, like, extreme, extreme scenarios. But for a father to break down the tears and sob in front of a child is selfish. It's weak. It's just like it's totally upside down and backwards because what is the child supposed to do? You know, you're unloading your feelings. What do you want the kid to do? Comfort you? Console you? Expecting comfort and consolation from your own child is Ridiculous and wrong. Your. Your responsibility with your children is to be the one comforting, consoling them. You're supposed to be the one in control, the one who is composed, the one who has the situation. You know, everything's fine. I got this. That's supposed to be you. That's the job. That's the gig. And you could say what, you have to be like that all the time? Yeah. Yes. That's. That's it. All the time. And if you. If you don't have things under control and if you're freaking out, you're panicked, whatever, go somewhere where no one could see you but your kids should never see. Doesn't matter how high stress the situation is, how high pressure you're worried, whatever. Doesn't matter. As far as the kids are concerned, everything's fine. You got it? They can cry all they want, but not you. That's. That's the way it goes. And it's. It's. It's the same thing with crying in front of, you know, a woman for. For a similar situation, that, you know, they're looking to you for protection, for safety, for security, all of those things. And crying, losing control of your emotions, expecting to be consoled and comforted, flips that on its head. You know, it's just. It's just. That's not what a woman is looking for in a man. It's. And just like a man, we're not looking for masculine qualities in a woman. So a woman who's aggressive and bossy and all those kinds of things, it's like, that's always unappealing. That's always revolting. Because that's not. That's just. As a man, that's not. That's. That's. That's not what I'm looking for. Like, that's not why this relationship exists. I don't need that out of you. So. Bad idea. But, hey, he won bronze, so. And he only won bronze on top of that, on top of everything else, the only one bronze in the Olympics. That's the most embarrassing thing. If I were there, it would have been gold, you know, easily. All right, we will wrap it up there for the week. Talk to you on Monday. Have a great. Or, no, not on Monday. I think we're off on Monday. We're off for President's Day. So I'll talk to you on Tuesday. Have a great day. Great weekend. Godspeed. They told you America invented slavery. They told you the Indians were peaceful. They told you colonialism was evil and that Joseph McCarthy was a bad guy. And guess what? They lied. For half a century, generations of American school children have been taught to hate our history, hate our country, and hate themselves. Time to set the record straight. And since no one else to do it, I will. Who sold us the slaves? What were India and Africa like before Europeans arrived? What caused white flight? Some of the most well known stories from American history are designed to demoralize you. Trail of Tears, smallpox, Blanket Smith, the Red Scare. It's all baseless. It's time for a lesson on what they're not teaching in public schools. On the real history of slavery, colonialism, the Indians of America and the world. It's time for Real History with Matt Walsh, now streaming only on Daily Wire. Plus.