← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1750 - I Looked Into Why Terrorists Are Being Let Into Our Country. It's WORSE Than You Think
01:18:38
Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:01]
News Reporter
This episode is brought to you by Nordstrom. Spring calls for a wardrobe refresh, and Nordstrom has the best styles of the season, from dresses and denim to standout tops and accessories. Find the trends and essentials that feel right for you. Discover new arrivals from brands you love like Waif, Princess, Polly, Mango, Adidas and free people. Plus free shipping and returns and free styling appointments. Make everything so easy. Shop in stores@nordstrom.com or download the Nordstrom app.
- [00:30]
Matt Walsh
Today, the Matt Walsh Show. By now, we've all heard about the third world immigrant with ISIS ties who was allowed to stay in the United States and carry out a terror attack. But why did that happen? Why does it keep happening? What's the real agenda behind this? We will discuss today. Also, California is about to make two Muslim holidays into official state holidays. And Erica Kirk is grotesquely defamed yet again. Why doesn't she just sue to put a stop to this? Well, I'll give you the real reason. All that and more today on the MATT walsh. Well, it's never a good sign when news anchors begin struggling to keep track of all the Islamic terror attacks that are occurring throughout the United States. You see, it used to be that when a jihadi tried to commit mass murder, there would be some sort of cooling off period before the next attack. But that wasn't the case a few days ago as jihadists within the span of just two hours attempted to commit mass murder in two separate locations, a college campus in Virginia and a synagogue in Michigan. And that left news producers and anchors scrambling to cover what was happening. And here's how the local affiliates at FOX responded. For example, okay, so if you were watching us earlier in the day, you know, we were tracking two breaking situations. One was what we were just talking about in Michigan, the other in Virginia at old dominion. And Fox 5 in D.C. traveling down south to report on the scene the latest in that deadly investigation there. Let's watch.
- [02:21]
News Reporter
And first tonight we are learning a professor of military science, Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shaw, was the victim killed in today's shooting at Old Dominion University.
- [02:30]
Matt Walsh
The gunman is a man from Northern Virginia who previously served time for providing support to isis. The FBI arriving to the shooter's home tonight in Sterling. So he's having to pivot from one terror attack to another on the same day. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of post 911 foreign policy in this country which doubled the Muslim population in the United States. But the bigger issue with that footage is what came next. We're told that the shooter was, quote, A man from Northern Virginia who previously served time for providing support for isis. So there's a lot to think about in that sentence, starting with the fact that the shooter was not, in fact a man from Northern Virginia. 36 year old Muhammad Baylor Jalo was actually a man from West Africa, specifically the poor Muslim nation of Sierra Leone. And although we don't know the precise timeline, the government won't release it. We do know that at some point he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. And as part of that process, he was required to pledge his loyalty to this country and its constitution. Jalo also served in the Virginia Army National Guard from 2009 to 2015. And for the media, that's one of the most important parts of his biography. Watch Mark.
- [03:42]
News Reporter
This is now being investigated as an act of terrorism. The life of this man taken the veteran army pilot surviving combat missions in the Middle east during the early 2000s, only to be killed here on U.S. soil. And there could have been other casualties if it were not for those brave students confronting the attacker and ending his life as he tried to end theirs. Prior to him conducting this act of terrorism, he shouted or stated Allah Akbar. Those words. And then gunshots. A convicted terrorist targeted Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. All of a sudden we heard a commotion. A lot of people rumbling, starting to get up. We started running and that's when we heard gunshots. The FBI identifying the gunman as 36 year old Mohammad Ja? Lo, a former Virginia national guard member. Around 10:45 Thursday morning, investigators say he calmly walked into a classroom on campus, asked if it was the rotc. And when someone said yes, he shot the instructor several times. The student cadets fighting back. There were students that were in that
- [04:44]
Matt Walsh
room that subdued him and
- [04:48]
News Reporter
rendered him no longer alive.
- [04:51]
Matt Walsh
I don't know how else to say
- [04:52]
News Reporter
it, but they basically were able to terminate the threat.
- [04:57]
Matt Walsh
So he was not shot.
- [04:58]
News Reporter
He was not shot.
- [05:01]
Matt Walsh
So she picks the single most muddled and incomprehensible way to describe what happened. And then she says, I don't know how else to say it. The best she can come up with is the cadets rendered him no longer alive. And then a reporter has to play guess who and asks her if the cadets used a gun. And she says, no, they definitely didn't use a gun. Now, not to play mind reader here, but putting two and two together, we can conclude that the final moments of Muhammad's life were not exactly pleasant. The cadets saw this terrorist murder, murdered their instructor, and in response, they stabbed, bludgeoned and stomped him to death. And indeed, it was later reported that one of the cadets used a knife. In other words, just like the terrorists in Michigan who attacked the synagogue, Muhammad Jalo wasn't stopped by the police. He was stopped by his potential victims. People who only survived because they were armed with a weapon of some kind and because they had the heroism and courage to act in that moment when a lot of people wouldn't. But the bigger part of the story, which every mainstream media outlet has decided to obfuscate as much as possible, is why Muhammad Baylor Jalo was allowed to remain in this country in the first place. Like the terrorists who attacked the synagogue and like the terrorists who shot 18 people in Austin, and like the parents of the two New York City bombers who tried to kill Jake Lang, Muhammad Baylor Jalo was a naturalized citizen of the U.S. our government, without any obligation to do so, awarded citizenship to all of these terrorists. And you might say, well, we had no idea they'd become terrorists. We had no idea that there was any connection between Muslims and anti Western, anti Christian violence. But even if you buy that logic, which is obviously absurd on its face, the problem is that Muhammad Jalo remained a naturalized citizen even after he pleaded guilty in 2017 for to providing material support to ISIS. I mean, he quite literally swore allegiance to a foreign enemy that wants to destroy the West. We didn't take away his citizenship even after he did the one thing that under our current law would obviously justify it. And the more you dig into this story, the more disturbing and inexcusable it becomes. We'll start with this news report that I found in the archives of CBS News. It's from 2016, when Jalo was first arrested. Watch.
- [07:29]
News Reporter
Today, 26 year old Muhammad Jalo, a former National Guard soldier accused of working for isis, made his first appearance in court. Afterwards, his attorney declined to talk about the case.
- [07:40]
Assembly Member Matt Haney
I told, I told everyone no comment.
- [07:43]
Matt Walsh
And you guys are just, you know,
- [07:45]
Assembly Member Matt Haney
continuing to follow me. You can follow me as long as you want, but there will be a time for this, and it's just not now.
- [07:52]
News Reporter
Court documents show Jalo was arrested at his Sterling home Saturday. He's accused of donating money to ISIS and attempting to buy weapons to be used in an attack on American soil, similar to the 2009 Fort Hood mass shooting that killed 13 people and injured dozens of others. We stopped by his home Tuesday to try and speak with his family, but no one came to the door.
- [08:14]
Matt Walsh
If you look into here, you can see his house is right there.
- [08:19]
News Reporter
Neighbors like Kenneth Brown never suspected anything was going on.
- [08:23]
Matt Walsh
You just never know. When you say you have a quiet community, nothing is really quiet anymore.
- [08:28]
News Reporter
We also stopped by Blue Ridge arsenal, a gun store in Chantilly, where court documents state Jalo test fired and then tried to buy an assault rifle. He was turned away at first for not having the right paperwork, but came back Saturday with the right documents and left with a gun. But court documents say unbeknownst to him, the firearm was inoperable, and the gun store couldn't elaborate on the case.
- [08:51]
Matt Walsh
Unfortunately, we can't see what's in their mind. But the guys here do talk to people and ask questions about why they want them to get a good feel for them. And if they get a negative feel, they're gonna shut it down real fast. So we do try. Apparently, the gun store could tell right away that he was probably a terrorist, so they sold him a gun that didn't work, probably after contacting the FBI. This is the kind of thing that would prevent a lot of mass shootings if more gun stores did this. You know, if somebody looks like a terrorist, if he's a lone Muslim with bad paperwork who keeps demanding that you sell him a rifle, or if he's a blue haired man who insists that you call him a woman, then you have the option of refusing to sell that person a firearm and ammunition. And in doing so, you could save a lot of lives. Just by using basic common sense, you can stop the, you know, a huge number of mass shootings, and you can mitigate the damage when they do occur. But in this case, just like we saw in many, many other cases, common sense came to an abrupt end once the legal system got involved. A federal judge named Liam o', Grady, who, appropriately enough, was appointed by George W. Bush, decided to give Muhammad Jalo a sentence of just 11 years in prison with credit for time served. That was roughly half the sentence that the justice department was seeking. And we'll talk about why the judge might have handed down that sentence in just a moment. But in addition to the light sentence, Jala was allowed to leave prison two and a half years early because he completed a drug treatment program. You see, in court, he stated that he had been abusing drugs because of a bad breakup after dating a woman for several years. And this is one of those excuses that isn't actually an excuse at all. I mean, if anything, it makes the crime worse. If you're going to commit an act of terrorism because you got dumped, then you're liable to fly off the handle whenever you face any kind of setback no matter how minor it may be. I mean, you're a danger to society permanently. You should never be let out of prison. But apparently in our court system, this is exactly what you need to say. And although these drug treatment programs are only supposed to shave a year off of your sentence, at most, Jallo got out more than two years early. No one can explain that he just got out of prison early. Now, at that point, the moment he got out of prison in December of 2024, he should have been detained by the feds and placed in denaturalization proceedings, obviously, but the Biden administration didn't do that. Even though Jalo's plea deal by itself was evidence that he had lied on his application for citizenship. This is an open and shut case. And then when the Trump administration took over, they didn't attempt to deport him either. So why, I mean, what's going on here? Why was this self described terrorist allowed to remain in the U. S and continue to plan to murder American citizens in the name of global jihad? Why did in fact two administrations allow this to happen? Well, to answer that question, we need to take a closer look at Muhammad Jalo's arrest. In June of 2015, he traveled to Sierra Leone, only returning to the United States in January of 2016. Now, in that period, he met with ISIS members in Nigeria and first came in contact with an FBI informant. In February of 2016, he purchased a Glock handgun. And concerning an attack on the United States, he said, I really want to, but I don't want to give my word and not fulfill it. In April 2016, Jalo began speaking to an informant about his love for an Al Qaeda cleric and provided more indications that he desired to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. Jalo explained that he quit the military and, quote, thinks about conducting an attack all the time. And he was close to doing so. At one point, Jalo also said, quote, sometimes you just have to take action. You can't be thinking too much. You have to pick out action and take it because time is not on your side. In particular, Jalo expressed an interest in conducting an attack on the U.S. military. He described Muhammad Abdulaziz, who killed five members of the U.S. military in a terrorist attack in Tennessee in 2015, as a, quote, very good man. He also told a confidential human source for the FBI that he was contemplating a Nidal Hassan style attack, referring to the Muslim former US army major who killed 13 people and wounded 32 during an attack on Fort Hood in November 2009. Well, eventually, Jalo was connected directly with an undercover FBI agent, where he indicated he was interested in obtaining weapons for an attack on military personnel in the United States. He also sent $500 to an online account that appeared to belong to ISIS, although it was actually controlled, unbeknownst to him, to the FBI, by the FBI. Well, that's how the government described Jalo's crimes, which, again, he pleaded guilty to committing. But if you look through the court filings from his attorney, as the journalist Ford Fisher did, then you'll find that Jalo's attorneys offered a different perspective about what exactly the FBI told him. The attorneys argued that while Jalo did indicate a willingness to commit an act of terrorism, in the abstract, he wasn't actually serious about committing an attack himself. And that's important, because in this case, there are reasons to believe that Jalo's attorneys were maybe telling the truth. First of all, all the texts and emails and phone conversations were recorded. So if the attorneys decided to lie about the contents of those communications, they might compromise his plea deal and his lenient sentence. Instead, they got the plea deal they wanted, complete with a light sentence, which indicated the judge thought their argument was persuasive. And the prosecutors didn't object to how Jalo's lawyer characterized these conversations either, which is telling. So with that in mind, it's important to consider the argument that the defense is making. According to the lawyers, when Giallo was first invited by the confidential informant to participate in an operation on American soil, he initially responded with ambivalence. And shortly afterwards, he explicitly, quote, refused to participate. He wasn't interested in committing an act of terrorism at the time. Instead, he met with the informants for, quote, the express purpose of trying to meet a Muslim woman to marry. So in this version of events, he was a loser, a loner and a loser. Exactly the type of person that the FBI has targeted in the past. For example, the fake Gretton Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. That's what happened here. And over the next few months, according to Jalo's attorneys, the FBI informants, quote, shaped and influenced his views using text messages, phone calls, and two in person meetings. During these conversations, he agreed to secure a weapon and provide funding, but, quote, continued to decline to participate in any kind of operation. Now, we have no way of knowing exactly what the FBI said during these text messages and phone calls, because they're not public record. That's one of the benefits of a plea deal from the government's perspective. It keeps the evidence hidden. The government and the judge have access to that evidence, but nobody else does. At the same time, it's no secret that the FBI, as a matter of policy, routinely uses informants to convince targets to engage in criminal activity. Additionally, the FBI has been known to protect terrorists who have a connection to its informants. Not many people know this because the government tried to hide it. But the father of the Pulse nightclub shooter was an FBI informant for more than a decade, right up until the moment of the massacre in June of 2016, in which 49 people were killed. And that's significant because several Years earlier, in 2013, the FBI investigated the Pulse shooter, Omar Mateen, after he told his co workers that he had connections to Al Qaeda. But that investigation went nowhere, evidently. And then the next year, the FBI opened a second investigation into Mateen due to his relationship with a Florida man who traveled to Syria to become a suicide bomber. And that investigation also went nowhere somehow. Well, what might be the reason that all of these investigations went nowhere? This is from the Intercept. Quote, an FBI intelligence report indicates that agents told an unidentified undercover informant that they were investigating Mateen. The informant then became very upset that Mateen was under scrutiny, according to the report. Although neither federal prosecutors nor the FBI has confirmed that the unidentified informant in the report was Mateen's father, Defense lawyers for Noir Salman, the shooter's widow, assert that they can now infer that the father played a significant role in the FBI's decision to close the assessment and not to pursue a larger investigation or criminal charges against Mateen. Prosecutors and the FBI director at the time, James Comey, tried to hide this arrangement for as long as possible. They also downplayed the fact that the FBI launched an investigation to meet Mateen's father after, quote, finding evidence that he made money transfers to Turkey and Afghanistan in the months leading up to the shooting. So let's take this back to the case of Muhammad Jala. Okay? Did the federal government see him as a potential informant to be protected? Did they. Did they buy his story that he was reformed and deliberately spring him loose in order to set more traps for other terrorists? I mean, that's. That's not a far fetched conspiracy at all. The FBI does it all the time. They've also been known to encourage terrorists to commit mass shootings. In May 2015, at a convention center in Garland, Texas, there was an event called the first annual Muhammad art exhibit in contest where people drew cartoons of Muhammad as a kind of free speech exercise. The police were prepared for potential terror attacks. So they had police officers, SWAT teams, and snipers standing by. And indeed, a terror attack took place. This is from cbs. Quote, the terror attack in Garland, Texas, was the first claim by ISIS on US Soil. It's mostly been forgotten because the two terrorists were killed by local cops before they managed to murder anybody. And looking into what happened in Garland, we were surprised to discover just how close the FBI was to one of the terrorists. Not only had the FBI been monitoring him for years, there was an undercover agent right behind him when the first shots were fired. Yes, an undercover FBI agent was right behind the shooter. And no, the FBI agent didn't neutralize the shooter. Local police did that. And it gets worse when you look at what exactly FBI agent was telling the shooter. Watch.
- [19:30]
Houston Attorney Trenton Roberts
Suspicion surrounds the undercover FBI agent who did not engage Elmer Simpson and Nadir Sufi as they opened fire.
- [19:37]
Matt Walsh
So it's pretty clear that from day one, the the intent was to encourage some kind of action. At the Garland Events Center.
- [19:45]
Houston Attorney Trenton Roberts
Houston attorney Trenton Roberts represents Garland ISD security officer Bruce Joyner, wounded in the shootout. Days before the attack, the undercover FBI agent was communicating with gunman Elmer Simpson, telling him to tear up Texas.
- [19:59]
Matt Walsh
It does look like his intent was to document a terrorist attack in order to advance himself within the terrorist organization of isis.
- [20:09]
Houston Attorney Trenton Roberts
Seconds before the shooting, the same undercover agent took pictures of the south entrance to the Colwell center where the shootout went down. These are black and white reproductions from the court record. In FBI documents, the unidentified agent says he saw the shooters get out of their car right in front of him. The driver holding an assault rifle and raising it up, and he heard many shots fired. The agent quickly drove away and continued to hear shots fired.
- [20:35]
Assembly Member Matt Haney
So there has to be, you know,
- [20:36]
Matt Walsh
a very strong necessity argument that they had to keep this guy in there and couldn't stop this attack.
- [20:42]
Houston Attorney Trenton Roberts
Sources tell me the agent couldn't risk blowing his cover.
- [20:45]
Matt Walsh
When you invest enormous amount of time trying to infiltrate and to get into these organizations, you have to make these decisions on the fly.
- [20:58]
Houston Attorney Trenton Roberts
And Clarice, Garland police did stop that undercover FBI agent moments after the shooting. They did stop him. They detained him. He identified himself only as FBI. Other agents rushed in and swooped him out from here. Garland police could not get any answers about what he knew and when he knew it. Again, the FBI wouldn't even identify him as being here for 15 months. The official word from the FBI is that they knew one of the shooters was in town three hours before the incident. But the FBI from the top down, denied knowing anything about an actual attack being planned to take place.
- [21:36]
Matt Walsh
So they whisked the undercover operative away without providing any kind of explanation for what he was doing over the last several months. And that's it. The story just died along with the two terrorists. Nobody asked any more questions. That seems to be the goal with the case of Muhammad Jalo as well. Nobody in the government has explained why he was not denaturalized and deported, or why he got out of prison early, or what the FBI agents were telling him to do when he insisted he didn't want to commit an act of terrorism. No one has explained why at every turn the government took steps to help the terrorist rather than protect Americans from him. Now, if you're the cynical type and you're left to speculate because that's all we can do when we're not given the full story, you might conclude that maybe there's some authoritarian political motives here. I mean, you might point to the fact that the same week that Jalo opened fire in Virginia, a Virginia state senator named Saddam Aslan Saleem, yes, his name is literally Saddam, helped pass a major unconstitutional anti gun bill that he sponsored which prohibits so called assault firearms. According to Fox, the law would, quote, ban a wide range of firearms and features, including semi automatic center fire pistols with magazines exceeding 15 rounds, rifles with detachable magazines, and weapons with certain characteristics such as collapsible or thumb hole stocks and threaded barrels. Is this the kind of result the Bureau is hoping for? Is it the result the DOJ is hoping for? Is that why they don't denaturalize anyone? Even the self described domestic terrorists, Even someone who literally pledged allegiance to ISIS does not get denaturalized. Is that the reason? We really don't know. I mean, the only alternative explanation is that they're just extraordinarily historically incompetent to a degree that is impossible to fathom. Either way, assuming nothing changes, which is a very safe assumption, we can assume, we can conclude that our leadership class has implemented a regime in which, number one, you subsidize foreigners who hate you and try to kill you, and number two, when they do kill you or your neighbors, they use that as a pretext to strip everybody's constitutional rights. And it's not just Democrats who are doing this. Nearly two dozen Republicans in the Senate just voted against legislation that would strip welfare funding from so called, quote unquote refugees. So again and again, our leaders are taking the side of foreign invaders and they do it because they can get away with it. Millions of people, myself included, have called for the full and unredacted list of Epstein files. But no prominent political figure or journalist has called for the release of all FBI correspondence with Muhammad Jalo or the Garland shooters or the Pulse shooter's father. Nor is there any interest in why the Trump administration, which pledged to dramatically increase the number of denaturalization proceedings, hasn't done that. What are they doing to ensure that we never offer citizenship to another anti American third world invader ever again? What's being done? Is anything being done? These are not academic issues, especially now that we've gone to war in iran, which has 90 million Muslim citizens. And this is after 20 years, 25 years of the floodgates being open with the entire Arab world invited to come settle within our borders. So these acts of terrorism will continue at an ever increasing pace unless the government starts denaturalizing and deporting a lot more of these foreigners. A lot more. And until that happens, and it may never happen, we have to do exactly what they did in Michigan and Virginia. We have to be ready to defend ourselves. We certainly can't rely on anyone else to do it for us. Now let's get to our five headlines. Big Pharma ruined your skin. Can you pronounce every ingredient on your lotion bottle? Does your moisturizer read like a lab report? But Big Pharma did to food. They did to skin care. Also, they ruined it. They used slick marketing to convince us to rub industrial byproduct on faces. And now skin issues are extremely common. It seems everyone knows someone struggling with bad skin or some sort of skin condition. So here's the truth. Tallow is what we used for generations before chemical companies took over. It's what your skin actually understands because it's biologically appropriate, an organic compound that is bioidentical to your skin barrier. Cow Guys is rancher owned and has no synthetics. You use it as a lotion for hands, arms, legs, face and lips. Skin that glows morning and night. It's effective, natural and smells wonderful. My producer McKenna started using the Cow Guys Tallow Balm and certainly impressed with it, specifically started using it on a dry skin patch on her wrist and helped clear up the red patch overnight. I'll gladly support companies that still believe in hard work, ownership and American values like Cowguys does. Search up cowguys.com to get your Tallow balm and get a mini tallow balm free. No special code needed. That's three to four months of moisturizer for $34. Again, just search cowguys.com to grab free Tallow balm with your order. Okay. On a similar topic, a new bill has been introduced in California that would make Muslim holidays into official holidays, official state holidays in the state to two Muslim holidays in particular. And here is. Here we have the legislators that are pushing this, explaining this wonderful measure.
- [27:31]
Assembly Member Matt Haney
Watch Ramadan Mubarak, everyone. I'm assembly member Matt Haney, and we're here at the Islamic Society of San Francisco with an incredible group of community members announcing an exciting bill that we've put forward in the state legislature, AB 2017, which will make Eid a state holiday in California. Right now, too many students are being forced to celebrate what is one of the most holy days for them or missed time in school. And workers are being forced to miss critical time at the jobs to be able to celebrate something that is one of the most holy days, not just for Muslim Californians, but nearly 2 billion Muslims across the world. This is how we show truly that we are inclusive, that we value diversity, we celebrate diversity, and that our Muslim neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, are fully included and able to celebrate without consequence, the most holy day for them. I'm here with somebody who is leading that effort here in San Francisco and is my supervisor and is also the first Muslim American supervisor in San Francisco and is an incredible leader here for the Tenderloin and for District 5. And thank you for being here.
- [28:56]
Matt Walsh
Okay, that's good. Good. So that's. So first of all, turn the background music down. My God, I can't. I mean, why. Why is the audio quality so bad? Are you using, like, a 2004 flip phone for this video? It doesn't. I. It doesn't make any sense to me. But more to the point, the substance here of what they're saying, they want to make the Muslim holidays of Eid al Fitr and Eid al Adha into state holidays. And if the bill goes through, to be the second state in the country after Washington state to recognize Muslim holidays as official state holidays. And then there are states like New Jersey, I think, Illinois, New York, where schools close for Eid or whatever it's called, even if it's not officially recognized as a state holiday. And there's legislation in other states that would. That would do that. So this is a growing trend, and it's a bad trend. It's a dumb trend. We should not be officially recognizing any Muslim holidays at all. No schools should be closed, no government building should be closed. Everything should go on as normal. Now, if you're Muslim and you want to celebrate your holiday, go ahead no one's saying you should be banned from doing it, but it shouldn't be recognized by the state. And if you're a stupid person, you might say, well, but Christian holidays are recognized by the state. Christian holidays are recognized. Why would Muslim holidays be recognized? Well, actually, to begin with, that's. That is barely true. Christmas. Christmas is the only federally recognized Christian holiday. Just Christmas. And in California, I think Christmas and Good Friday are recognized as federal, as. Not federal, but as state holidays. So, so that's two. You know, it's not like every Christian holiday is recognized at the state or federal level. Not even close to that. But now California is recognizing two Muslim holidays. So in California, it's two and two. They got two Muslim holidays that they recognize and they got two Christian holidays. Exactly. Even. And that's, that's the point, right? And I'm sure that's why they did the two, so that it's even. But does it make sense for it to be even? Why should it be even? I mean, this is the whole problem with the multicultural approach, with the cult of multiculturalism. And let's just. And I'm using this one issue as kind of a microcosm, right? I think there's a lot in this one issue that we, that, that we can to be analyzed. The idea which we're being told now is that it's not fair for California to give special treatment to Christianity. They have state recognized Christian holidays, and so they should have the same number of state recognized Muslim holidays, except that Christianity should be treated as something special in California because Christianity has been special to California since its inception and long before that. California would not exist without Christianity. Christianity has defined it from the beginning. It's part of the culture, it's part of the identity, it's part of the fabric of the state at the most fundamental possible level. I mean, look at the names of the cities. San Diego, San Francisco, San Bernardino, San Mateo, et cetera and so on. These are obviously saint names. Sand saint. I think people know that Los Angeles, which the angels, comes from Our Lady Queen of the Angels, Sacramento, the capital of the state, literally means sacrament. And I would hope everyone already knows all this. I mean, I probably am hoping too much. But the point is that California is steeped in Christianity, Catholicism specifically, at every level. That's because the state began as a Spanish territory full of Catholic missions. I mean, it has been deeply Catholic since before it was a state. That's why Catholicism has defined everything about even the architecture, the way that the buildings were built and what they look like many of the major universities in California were established by the church or by Christian organizations. Many of the hospitals and, you know, charity organizations and all the rest of it, you get on the list. Catholicism is the foundation of the state itself. It's the scaffolding, it's the bones of the place, which is one of the reasons why it's so sad to see what it's become. And yet still, historically, culturally, there's no question that Christianity has been absolutely integral to the state. California never would have become the great state that it once was without Christianity. It wouldn't exist at all. That's just a fact historically. So should Christian holidays be recognized by the state? Well, yeah. Should the, the legislators who are working there over in, you know, Eucharist town, Sacramento, should they at least recognize Christmas at a minimum? Obviously, it would be absurd not to. So then what about Islam? What has Islam contributed to California? Again, just using this as a microcosm, what has Islam contributed to California? If we ask, what has Christianity contributed? Well, it's like, it's more like what have they not? What, what has it not contributed? Everything. Everything down to the, to the names of the places. What about Islam? What has Islam, the religion that is now being recognized by the state, what has it been? What has it contributed to California? Nothing. I mean, literally nothing. Not a single thing. That's the answer. Catholics have been the foundation of California since the 1700s, since, you know, over a century before it was a state, actually. Do you know when the first Catholic Mass was celebrated in California or what would become California? You know, when that was 1602. There was a Catholic Mass celebrated in California in 1602. So their Catholic Mass has been celebrated in California for 424 years. Muslims, on the other hand, when did they show up? So Catholics showed up 424 years ago and celebrated their. Actually before that. But the 1st Mass was 424 years. What about Muslims? Well, they showed up in semi significant numbers for the first time in like the year 2002. I mean, at recent, as recently as 1990, there were maybe 30,000 Muslims in the entire state. It was not until the 2000s that it had a sizable Muslim population. And even now it's sizable only relatively speaking. It's still a very small minority. Islam has nothing to do with the history of California. It has nothing to do with present day California, even has nothing to do with its culture, with its identity. If Islam didn't exist, what would be different about California? If the whole religion just never existed? If we Could. If we could erase it from the history books, what would be different in California? Nothing. It would have no effect. Right? I mean, that's the. If Catholicism didn't exist, what would California look like? It wouldn't exist. I mean, it'd be. It'd be something that isn't. Does not even vaguely resemble California as we know it. It'd be a totally different place. Most likely it would. I mean, almost certainly, in fact, it would still be. It would still be. This whole hemisphere would still be run by human sacrificing, cannibal savages, but because the Catholics were the ones who came over here and, and first conquered those, those, those barbaric civilizations. But certainly if Islam didn't exist, everything would be the same. It would have no effect. Islam has nothing to do with the state of California historically, culturally, or in any other way. Muslims have not contributed anything significant at all. Not. Not anything. And now they get a holiday recognized by the state. Why? It's not part of the culture. It's not part of the identity. It's contributed nothing. It's. It is at best irrelevant. Like the most generous thing we can say about Islam to California is that it's irrelevant. That's the most generous way to. Way to put it. And this, of course, extends logically to the whole country. Christianity shaped this country from the beginning, from way before the beginning of the country. The first Westerners who settled this place came specifically in order to spread the gospel and claim this land for Christ. Now you can feel however you want about that. I think it's great. But that's a fact. It has been Christian to its core since its infancy and before infancy. America was culturally Christian before it existed as a nation. And Christian ideas, Christian philosophy, Christian theology are embedded into the nation's founding. This is not debatable in the slightest. It's also not debatable that Islam is not embedded in our nation's founding whatsoever. Islam has nothing to do with. With this country. It is not part of the culture. It's not part of our history. It's not part of our identity. It's not part of our national fabric at all. And it never has been. Again, the most generous thing we could say about it is that it's irrelevant. And that's why Christmas deserves to be a national holiday. America is. And, and America is so Christian already that even if it weren't recognized as a national holiday, it would still be like when the government recognizes Christmas as a national holiday, it is literally recognizing it, okay? As in this is already A national holiday, whether you like it or not. And so we're just going to recognize that fact. It's not even like imposing anything. It's just like, of course Christmas is a. No matter what the government says, it's a national holiday. Everyone in America loves Christmas. Even if you're Jewish or Muslim or Hindu, you still, you know, you know, you know about Christmas. You have positive associations with it. Christmas music, decorations, colors, Christmas movies, the whole thing. It's. It's such a part of our identity here. And, And Christmas itself is such a wonderful, joyous holiday that even if you aren't Christian, even if you hate. Even if you hate Christians, you still can't help but have a warm feeling about our holidays. And that's why the holiday is recognized and should be. It's absurd not to. What about Eid Al. What is it? Eid al Fatir? What is that? What kind of, like, cultural associations does anyone have for that? Nobody knows what the hell it even is like. What is that? No one has any warm bre. Oh, yes, Eat Alpha too. And we all love Eat Al Fatier season. Nobody who isn't Muslim has any clue what that is. There. There is no such thing culturally as Eid Al Fatir decorations or Eat Al Fatir music. No one is saying, hey, you got to get into the eat alatir spirit. That might exist within Islam, but culturally it doesn't. Doesn't exist at all. Nobody outside of Islam cares about it. Nobody knows about it. No one's influenced by it at all. So why should it be recognized by the state? Why should it be recognized by the government? Christian holidays are culturally relevant. That is indisputable. Muslim holidays are not at all. So this is what pisses me off. Christianity. And it's obviously. It's not just about California. It's not just about holidays. Christianity made this country, made it, made it. Without Christianity, this country in its form, in the current form simply would not exist. And now other faiths come here, okay, but you come here and graft yourself onto it. You want to affix your stuff onto our country like a barnacle. You want to say, hey, hey, hey, why aren't we recognized? We want our faith to be treated as just as important, but it isn't. It just isn't. You haven't earned that. Your religion hasn't earned that. Your religion, if you're Muslim, your religion. America is the envy of the world. Everybody wants to come here. I mean, that's what this whole argument's about. If that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Christianity made this country into the envy of the world. Islam didn't. Now, if you're Muslim, you have your own countries that, that Islam made. Islam has, has, has made, has created many countries. Why aren't those countries the, the envy of the world? No one wants to go to those countries. They want to go to this country. This country was made by Christianity. That is a fact. And so at the very least, if you come here, have the humility to have respect for that and say, okay, I'm coming here and this is a Christian country was made Christian. Christianity made this country. Everything that is good about this country, it is because of Christianity. And so if you come here, have respect for that, have humility and recognize that, okay, the Christianity is going to be treated as something special in this. I decided to come to this country. I didn't have to come. Nobody invited me. I'm showing up. And in this country, in America, Christianity is special for all the reasons we've described. And if you come here, you should have respect for that. Instead you come here and say, I want Islam to be treated as, just as special. It's not, not here. You didn't earn that. Go make your own country that will become the envy of the world. The most powerful country on earth. Go, go ahead and try. Go make your own country that everybody wants to move to. Go make your own country. That's so amazing that I want to go there. But you, you can and you haven't. And what does that tell you? One of the most remarkable things about the Daily Wire and my own show over the past few years is how fast it's grown. It started as a small, scrappy operation, recording out of my car. Now we've got studios, films, a massive team behind everything you see and hear every single day. You don't get from point A to point B like that unless you care about finding people who actually know what they're doing. People with real skills, not just the right piece of paper. That's what everybody is finally waking up to, skills based hiring. And our sponsor, ZipRecruiter helps you do just that. Right now you can try for free@ziprecruiter.com Wall ZipRecruiter sorts through the tidal wave of applicants and figures out who actually has the skills you need. If you're also an employer who's adopted skills based hiring, best way to ensure that your applicants have the right skills is using ZipRecruiter. ZipRecruiter recommends smart screening questions to help you hone in on that perfect match for your role so you're not wasting time on people who are totally wrong for the job. Plus, ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology finds qualified candidates fast. You can easily add those screening questions right to your job post so you get the highest quality applicants. And if you want to view candidates that have recently been active on the site rather than an old forgotten profile, ZipRecruiter's filters can help you with that as well. Let Zip Recruiter help you find amazing candidates with skills you seek. Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day, and now you can try for free at ZipRecruiter.com Walsh that's ZipRecruiter.com Walsh Meet your match on ZipRecruiter. This episode is brought to you by White Claw Surge. Nice choice hitting up this podcast. No surprises. You're all about diving into tastes everyone in the room can enjoy. Just like White Claw Surge, it's for celebrating those moments when connections have been made and the night's just begun. With bold flavors and 8% alcohol by volume. Unleash the night. Unleash White Claw Surge. Please drink responsibly. Hard seltzer with flavors 8% alcohol by volume. White Claw Seltzer Works Chicago, Illinois There was a post over the weekend that went viral that I want to talk about, amplified by guys like Ian Carroll and other quote unquote independent creators as we call them now. And I'm not going to put the post up on the screen or read it because it's totally false. It's just. I will summarize it by saying that this post that was all over X and maybe other platforms as well, is just another volume in the ever expanding library of anti Erica Kirk defamation. And basically the post claimed that an audio recording, which they also posted, the audio recording depicts Erica helping to facilitate sex trafficking for Jeffrey Epstein. Now, it's not true, obviously. It's totally made up. Plus the recording is from over like 20 years ago when Erica herself would have been a minor. So this person was accusing Erica as a child of being a a involved in a facilitating capacity with sex trafficking. Totally insane. Not true at all, clearly. And yet the original poster claimed factually, objectively that it is that it's Erica wasn't even like, oh, this is. Might this be Erica? Does that sound. No, it's. It was the exact phrasing. This is undeniably Erica Kirk not even bothering to throw in and allegedly or to couch the accusation in any way whatsoever. Just saying. Yep, this is Erica. That post got 11 million views. And again, it was reposted and amplified by other large accounts. Ian, Carol in particular. And now he. He did do the. The. The smarmy, cowardly, passive aggressive thing of allowing yourself plausible deniability because he reposted it and said it was with something like, wow, wow, this sounds an awful lot like her. And then later, he could backtrack what she did and said, well, I never said it was her. Why? What are you talking about? I wasn't trying to. I didn't imply anything. I never implied anything. All I was saying is that we should look into this. And again, it's not remotely true at all. Verified to be false. Something your common sense should have already told you. And this is, as I said, just one more example of just blatant, fraudulent, slanderous nonsense being leveled at Erica. And there's a lot of it all over the place. Yesterday, there's a nutcase who calls herself a journalist named Liz Crokin kept the narrative going. She posted, quote, erica Kirk is involved in the rape, torture, and trafficking of children. Just. Just not even. Again, no, allegedly. Just not the vaguest attempt to even pretend that she's exercising any kind of prudence or discretion at all. Just outright defamation. Totally made up. I mean, there's no evidence of this at all. Zero evidence of Erica Kirk being involved in rape, torture, and trafficking of children. There's not even, like, you know, if. If. Proving that is a mile away. Like, if. If the. If the. If you're. If. If. The proof of Erica being involved in that is a mile away. Liz Croen has not even made it an inch in that direction. Okay? Not a. Not a foot in that direction. This is no evidence at all. Totally made up and. And stated as fact. And this is what's happening. The worst, most insidious, most damaging lies that it's possible to tell about a person. And that post has a million views. And here's what I want to say about this. And this is why. Posted over the weekend. Want to say it here, too, because it's important, and there's a reason I bring it up. Aside from just lamenting the constant assault on this woman who is, at this point, the most defamed person to ever live. I mean, it's insane. I. Like, I've never seen anything like it. But here's my point, and I don't really have a solution for this. I gotta be honest. I have some ideas maybe, but I don't have a solution. I don't know what to do about this exactly, but it's, it's really bad because this is how defamation works these days, and it's all over them. It is totally out of control. And it's only going to get worse. You start, you bring in AI and all that kind of thing. I've been warning about that. Other people have warned about it, but as AI videos and AI audio and that sort of thing gets even more sophisticated, this is only going to get worse. And, and what you need to understand if you don't. I think a lot of people who, I mean, I think a lot of people don't get this, maybe because they're just not as clued into this particular problem. And if you've never fallen victim to it, then I would see why you wouldn't be. But the victims of this kind of thing are almost powerless to do anything about it. There's almost nothing you can do about it. That's the reality that I think most people don't quite understand. I keep hearing about Erica. People say, well, if none of this stuff is true, why is she. Why won't she sue? Well, I'll tell you why. And this is a case again. Here's a case study. Microcosm. Can Erica sue over any of this stuff? Sure, she could sue. I mean, I hope she does. Just as an outside observer. You can sue anyone. Anyone can sue anyone. That is for sure. So if the, if the question is can so and so sue this other person, the answer is always, yes, they can. You can sue anyone for anything. But to win a lawsuit, well, that's a different matter, because in order to win, she would have to prove that this person, first of all posted this nonsense knowing that it wasn't true. That's proving malice. She would have to prove. That's the standard for someone, especially who's someone who's a quote, unquote, public figure. Right? What's, what's a public figure? Well, I guess like any, like, if a lot of people know who you are, then you're a public figure. Basically. If you're not a public figure, the standard is a little bit lower. But if you could be considered a public figure by the courts, you have no hope of getting anywhere unless you can prove not only that the claim is false, but also. And in this case, the proving it's false thing would be easy to do because the claims are so ridiculous. But oftentimes, depending on what the, the defamation is Even that part is like proving a negative. I mean, there are many times when someone can make a claim that, oh, you, you said this or you did this. Now I gotta prove that that didn't happen. I mean, infamously, proving a negative is very, very hard to do, even if it's clearly not true. That's why in a court of law, in a criminal court, you know, if someone is accused of a crime, they don't have to prove they didn't do it. Because we all understand that proving you didn't do something, like if you're saying, oh, you killed, you're coming to me and accusing me of killing someone, I don't have to prove to you I didn't. Because in many cases I might, like, prove that I didn't do or say this on this specific time at this. Like, I mean, unless there's video of me at that moment, I'm not. I might not be able to prove that. But no, the onus is on you if you're accusing me. Well, no, you have to prove that it happened. And if you can't prove that it happened, then the assumption is that it didn't. But over here, when it comes to defamation, it's. It's flipped on its head where you have to prove that the thing is not true. Okay, well, let's say you. Let's say you get over that hurdle. And in many cases you can, but not always. Well, now you have to prove that the person who said you did it knew when they said it that it wasn't true. And that's almost impossible to prove in most cases. I mean, it's almost impossible. Like, how can I prove. So now I got to prove not only that I didn't do something, but I have to prove what was in your head when you said it. How am I supposed to do that? I can't do that. That's almost impossible most of the time. And that alone, right there is reason enough why 99% of the time when someone's being defamed, especially as a quote unquote public figure, it's like, you don't even. I can't clear that hurdle. I can't prove. I can't prove malice. I can't prove, like, I know what you're doing and you know what you're doing. Common sense shows what you're doing. But I can't prove what's in your own head. I can't prove what's in your heart. But it's more than that. She'd also probably have to prove damages, she'd have to prove that this specific lie damaged her in a measurable way. So it's not even enough to prove that, oh, it's not true, and then prove that, well, you knew it wasn't true. But then you got to prove in many, many cases that this actually harmed you in some way. Which, ironically, if you're being lied about all the time by lots of people, it's even harder to prove damages from any one specific claim because you're being damaged all over the place. Like a firing squad. You know, when 10 guys are firing at you, how do you know which one actually hit? And then she'd have to hope. Even if she gets through all that somehow, then you gotta hope that the. The broke bastards who are saying all this stuff about you actually have the funds to pay, which they probably don't. And all this stu will take time in court, years, potentially, to work itself out. And even if she wins, it won't make a difference to the people who, who have decided already that she's, you know, a villain, that she's some kind of super villain. Not going to matter. They'll just use the lawsuit as proof that Erica has something to hide, right? This is the game. They say, well, if it's not true, why aren't you suing? And then she sues. And then they say, oh, you're suing. You're trying to shut me down. You're trying to censor me now? Oh, it's now. Now I'm over the target. So no matter what, it doesn't matter. No matter what, it doesn't matter. We all know that, right? Erica's not suing. And everyone says, oh, it's a little suspicious she's not suing if she did. The second that happens, the second a lawsuit is announced, we all know what the reaction will be. There's not a single person who's been attacking Erica who, because she files a lawsuit, will say, oh, well, if she's filing a lawsuit, then, okay, well, maybe we should step back a moment and let this thing. That's not going to happen. Every single one of them will say, well, clearly, well, now we know. And meanwhile, she'll have only further highlighted and called attention to the very lies that she's trying to rectify in court. That's really the biggest problem of all when you're being lied about and defamed, and then you file a lawsuit over it. Well, all you're doing is making it into a bigger story. Now you're taking this, this lie that you'd rather that you, you just want it to go away because you don't want to be lied about. It's hurting your reputation unfairly. You don't want to bring it to the attention of more people. Right? It's like someone saying something about you and then, and then suing them over it is, you might, it's like it's the equivalent of taking a megaphone and repeating what they just said. And so it's a lose lose scenario is what I'm trying to say. It's the ultimate lose lose scenario. And, and I've, I've experienced much smaller versions of this. I've, I've had people lie about me, smear me. I've had people Photoshop like fake tweets and messages I never sent. I mean, I, people have no standards anymore. I mean there's so many people that just, they have no moral standards at all. They have no conscience and they, they don't care. They'll lie about you, say whatever they want. And this has happened to me. It's. Anyone in the public eye, it's happened, it certainly happened to me. And yet I don't sue for all the reasons above. I haven't sued in any of these cases for all these reasons. All the reasons I just described. I run through the math and I go like, it's just, it's not worth it. I mean, it's only going to cause more problems than it solves. And that sucks because I'm really mad. Also, like, I also just want justice. You shouldn't be allowed to do this. You can't lie about someone. It's one of the worst things you could do. Lying about someone to destroy the reputation. I mean, to me, morally, I put that on the same level as like murder or close to it. I really do. Using, using lies and deceit to, to destroy someone's reputation. I put, morally, I, I, I personally, I put you on the same level as like a murderer. It's a form of, of, of murder. It's like you're killing someone's reputation and, and so you want justice for it also. But you run through all the, the math of it and you realize that the chance of getting justice here is very low. Probably not going to win. Even if I do win, what will I win? Money? Probably not. Even if I do get money that's not going to restore my reputation likely will have the opposite effect. And the option, the upshot here is that the slanderers and the defamers basically have carte Blanche, to lie about you and destroy your reputation. Your only recourse is costly, time and cost prohibitive and may damage your reputation even more than it already was. And this is the situation now. It's. It's really bad. It's real. It's real ugly out there. Erica Kirk is one of the worst examples we've ever seen. But it's like, it's not just her. And this is all part of the, you know, the information environment that we're in now, which is totally screwed, to put it scientifically. And, You know, mainstream media obliterated its rep. It's its reputation, its credibility over the course of decades. I mean, it used to be that the, you know, information, if you were getting information about what's going on in the world, you could, you would, you could only get it from these big legacy mainstream media outlets. Right? And that also gave you recourse, by the way, because back before all this, if like some New York Times reporter came out and just stated as a fact, Erica Kirk is, you know, torturing children, it's. Well, now you have, now you're, you've, you have many more options, right? And, and even before a lawsuit, like, you could. There's an institution there. You can try to hold the institution accountable. You can at least get the person fired. And if you do go and file a lawsuit, well, now there's like, they've actually got, they've got something to lose here because it's the New York Times. But now in this environment, it's not like that anymore because everyone just has a platform. They can say whatever they want and they can lie, and a lot of people do. Does that mean that we're. It'd be better off if it was still the mainstream media controlling everything? No, obviously not. The mainstream media obliterated its credibility over the course of decades, culminating in Covid, blm transgenderism, three of the worst examples of mass hysteria in American history. All unfolding at the same time, basically. Right? I mean, transgenderism, that the trans ideology had predated it, and obviously the BLM did too. But like, all these things kind of came to a head at this basically the same time. And they were all pushed by, by, by the mainstream media. And that was the end of the old gatekeepers regime. And there's no, there's no coming back from it, nor should we. Any faint hope of redemption for the msm? I don't think there is any hope, but if there ever could be, it would require accountability and consequences for the people who push these lies. And there's been none of that at all and never will be. And so what happens now, well into the vacuum that has been left, rushes the independent, quote, unquote, creators independent, even though they're not actually independent. And I don't just mean because of foreign involvement or whatever. I mean, sure, there's some of that, but, but everybody is relying on ads. They're reliant on, you know, ad revenue, clicks, subscriptions in many cases, like all these things, right? That's not, it's not sinister in and of itself. Right. You got to make your money somehow. But like anyone who has sponsors, if you have sponsors, I have sponsors. Okay, but. And then you say, well, I'm independent. Well, how independent are you? You answer to your sponsors. But in any case, all these, everyone else rushes in and, and then what's ended up happening is that many of them have proven to be just as deceitful, amoral and fame hungry as the worst of the MSM personalities. That's what's happened. And in the past it was the MSM pursuing ratings. And that's many of their worst sins came down to not only their, their political ideological commitments, but the fact that they were chasing ratings. And now we have, instead of chasing ratings chasing clicks, the results have proven to be just as bad, if not in some cases, worse in some ways. So I don't know, I don't have the answer for it. I don't know what to do. I don't, I don't know what to do except that I think all it just comes down to the individual to exercise a lot of discernment. That really is the only solution. There's no other solution. So, so there is no going back to how it was before. We shouldn't want that anyway because like I said, those people were all liars and rats in the legacy media. So individual discernment is the only way forward. It's the only way. People have to be very discerning and just realize that. Integrity is a rare trait, especially for people that, you know, talk into a camera every day for a living or make their living off of getting attention. Integrity is a real rare trait. And so you have to keep that in mind and exercise discernment. That's the only way. Because it's not, you know, what the people that are, that are spreading me going back to where this, what I started with that ridiculous claims about Erica Kirk, she's helping Jeffrey Epstein. Well, yeah, the people that were pushing that, the personalities or whatever, that they, they deserve most of the blame but it's not just them. What about all? Just like the normal people who also retweeted that or commented approvingly, they're also to blame. Have some discernment, have some integrity. Just like assume it's true because you'd like it to be or because it because it supports your pre existing narrative that you have about this person or this issue. So it really falls on all of us this episode is sponsored by Equip Foods. People often pick up protein bars assuming they're making a quick and healthy decision. But if you've ever taken the time to actually read the label, you're probably surprised to see how much sugar is in these bars. Finding a protein bar that tastes good is made with quality ingredients might feel like a more daunting task than actually working out. Now enter Equipped Foods Prime Bar, the first grass fed beef protein bar made with only real food ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide. Starting today, my listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Bar, which has become our team's favorite protein bar on the market with 20 grams of protein in every bar. Tried a lot of protein bars on the market and they were all disgusting and artificial tasting. Prime Bar, on the other hand actually tasted real and good. With just 11 clean ingredients including collagen, beef tallow and colostrum naturally sweetened with dates and honey, you get 20 grams of clean protein without the bloat, no whey, seed oils, gluten or artificial drunk. They're third party tested for heavy metals, microplastics and pesticides so they can actually back up their cleanest bars in the market claim. If you want to try the cleanest protein bar on the market that already sold out Once, go to equippedfoods.com Matt Walsh Use code Matt Walsh at checkout to get 25% off one time purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time. That's Equip foods.com Matt Walsh and use code Matt Walsh at checkout. My show is proud to be supported by Grand Canyon University, an affordable, private, nonprofit Christian university based in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. @GCU Academically Rigorous Induct At GCU, academically rigorous, industry driven programs are built to provide you with practical skills and career readiness. They believe education shouldn't be a privilege, but an affordable path forward. Because of this, GCU has kept tuition at the same rate on its traditional campus for the past 17 years, will continue that into the 2627 academic year. Plus they awarded over $404 million in institutional GCU scholarships last year to support and encourage education grounded in Christian truth. GCU works to empower the next generation to lead with integrity, serve with purpose, and help transform their communities. So take action and find your purpose at GCU. Visit gcu.edu to learn more. All right. Finally, briefly, I want to mention this post Millennial Report A left wing Portland politician has gone after a 95 year old constituent blasting her on social media after she made a mild criticism of how he choose to present himself in public regarding his tattoos. He wrote back that she was small minded on his personal Instagram account. The 95 year old woman, whose name is Joan, wrote to City Councilman Jamie Dunphy that tattoos can be very personal. It can be a turn off to many people. She then suggested that he wear a long sleeve shirt. Please consider wearing long sleeve shirts in public, the note read, which appeared to be torn in half. After Dunphy posted an image of the note on his personal Instagram account, Dunphy responded via social media, posted a picture of the elderly woman's correspondence, and said no, mind your own business and keep your small minded opinions about other people's bodies to yourself. The 95 year old woman, who struggles to hear because she has hearing aids, was not able to be reached for comment by the Oregonian by phone. After a failed phone call, the outlet sent the constituent a text, but she didn't respond. Dunphy, meanwhile, has doubled down, said, I'm genuinely shocked by the audacity of any person in our community thinking it's appropriate to contact elected officials criticizing their bodies or appearance. Portlanders pride ourselves on our weirdness and our ability to be openly ourselves. I'm honored to be able to reflect that as a leader in our city government. Okay, so first of all, obviously publicly dunking on a 95 year old woman is about as lame as it gets. This guy's a dork and a bully trying to play tough by telling off a woman who's old enough to be his great grandmother. Now, personally leaving aside the specifics of what she said, I'm very happy that there are still old grannies out there that are writing letters of concern like this. She apparently wrote like a physical letter and sent it to him physical. And this woman saw this dude's tattoos, thought they were inappropriate, took the time to personally write him a letter, a correspondence to express her concern. And there's something just very genuine about that. Like it's just something genuine, sincere, not performative about it. Which I appreciate. Especially nowadays when like nobody really cares about anything. Everything's for show, everything is for likes and shares all the time. If anyone does have a complaint, they, they always air it publicly. So there's. I, I think we're gonna miss, we're gonna miss when the last of the old grannies, the old concerned grannies who write letters of concern when they, when they die off, we're gonna, we're gonna miss that. I already do. My, my grandmother was this way. We'd be watching something on tv. She, we would, there'd be something like a Disney movie she didn't like and she would write a letter to the Disney Corporation to let them know about it. And you know what that comes from. It comes from actually caring about stuff. It comes from having a genuine, real human reaction to something and then trying to express your view about it so that they'll understand. There's a kind of like an, there's a sincerity and sort of innocence to that that I find endearing. So I'm on the granny side at a deeper level. And as to the issue of tattoos themselves, well, you know, my objectivity might seem to be a bit, a bit compromised on the subject given that I have, you know, I've got a tattoo. I actually have another one on my shoulders. I have two. And however, I still actually agree with the granny, even on the substance of the topic. You know, my relationship with tattoos is a little bit weird. Like, I wouldn't say I regret having the two. I don't regret getting them necessarily or having gotten them when I was in my early 20s. When everyone else gets tattoos, I'm not going to get them removed. I don't have like an emotional, I don't, I don't waste any emotional energy feeling bad about them or regretting them. However, and as far as tattoo, like, it could have been a lot worse. I got my tattoos in early, early 2000s when the, like the tribal armband tattoo was, was big. At least I didn't do that. At least I didn't get a tattoo that would permanently brand me as a guy who was a big Papa Roach fan when he was 19. So I didn't do that. However, if I never got them, would I get them now? No. I mean, obviously not. Like, I would I go to a tattoo shop, right, if I had no tattoos, would I, as 39 year old Matt Walsh, would I go to a tattoo shop and get them now? No, no chance. So I'm weirdly ambivalent about it. I don't actively regret them, but I wouldn't get them now if I hadn't already done so. If that makes Sense, which maybe it doesn't. It's a bit of a complicated feeling. All that said, there's no question that the tattoo thing has gotten out of hand. I mean, it's. And it's totally lost whatever appeal it had in terms of being rebellious or whatever. I mean, like, this guy says, oh, I have my tattoos because I'm an individual and I'm weird and I'm expressing my individuality. It's like, no, you. You look like every other person in Portland. What are you talking about? You may as well claim that you're expressing your individuality by wearing jeans. You may as well just be wearing blue jeans and said, this is my. This is who I am. This tells you who I am as a person. I'm wearing blue jeans. And also, this is the worst part. Tattoos have absolutely been one of the major drivers of the erosion of professional standards. I mean, it used to be that having a tattoo was considered uncouth, so you had to cover it in the workplace. That was part of the. That was part of the whole deal of it being rebellious and individualistic, and there was consequences to that. You know, if you want to be rebellious and individualistic and brand your body with it, well, then, you know it's going to create some difficulties for you. You have to work around it. It's part of the whole deal. But now everybody has them. So every workplace has just given up and professional standards have eroded even further. I wish there were still that taboo around tattoos. Not because I have some desire to commit social taboos, but because that would be a sign of a healthy society. And the funny thing is, when I got tattoos, when I was 20. 20 years ago or so, a lot of people told me that, well, you're going to regret it later in life because it's gonna be hard to get a job, you know? And that ended up not being the case because, you know, I never got a job. Now, I. I do this for a living, so it doesn't really matter. But also because professional standards have plummeted into the ground. Like, I could go work in a. I could work in a business environment, and it wouldn't matter at all. So that's the problem, and it is an issue. And even if you have tattoos, I think we should all acknowledge that. And yeah, it's true that, like, if you. If you've decided, especially if you branded your whole body, you've got the sleeves and everything. No, it does. Okay, you want. You wanted to do that to yourself. That's. That's your choice. But the idea that every environment now has to conform to that or everyone has to be okay with it, that, that doesn't make any sense. And then you don't get to complain about it. I mean, you've branded your whole body in this way. Someone reacts negatively. You can't do that. That's a, that's a, like an aggressive move to make to go to a tattoo, especially this guy. They get the sleeves and everything. So you're going to a tattoo artist and saying, brand my entire body, right? Or at least like whole limbs of my body. You do that and then you turn around and you're offended. When anyone is even slightly critical, when anyone has even the slightest criticism, the, the mildest criticism and says, hey, would you, you know, I don't know if that's entirely professional. You can't have it both ways. That's why I have a common cause with The Anti Tattoo 95 Year Old Woman on this issue and probably on a lot of other issues. Let's be honest, I probably have common cause with her on like almost everything. Whatever that says about me. And we will leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. What do Snow White, Cinderella and smallpox blankets have in common? They're all fairy tales. For decades you've been told that you live on stolen land. We are right now on stolen land. That the Indians were peaceful Native Americans. We massacred them. Your ancestors committed genocide. And guess what? None of it is true. The Native Americans were some of the most savage fighters ever known to man. Raiding, scalping, torturing, even eating enemies. It was better to lose a battle to the U.S. army than to get wiped out by a rival tribe. And why did the story completely change in the 1960s? It turns out there's a lot more to the American Indians than Hollywood directors and school teachers want you to know. This month, we blow up the big, biggest myths about the American Indians and reclaim the real history that was stolen from us. This is the real history of the American Indian.
- [77:38]
News Reporter
Cash flow. Crunch On Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tack unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck. Com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondac does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.