← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1759 - The Media Does Not Want To Talk About This HISTORIC NASA Launch. Here’s Why.
01:12:28
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:02]
Lowe's Advertiser
Spring fest is happening now at Lowe's. Keep the spotlight on your yard with stay green premium 2 cubic foot mulch. 5 bags for $10. Plus, when you want more help indoors, get up to 40% off. Select major appliances that help you supercharge your chores. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Valid to 422, while supplies last. Selection varies by location. See lowe's.com for details. Mulch offer excludes Alaska and Hawaii.
- [00:30]
Commentator/Narrator
On Christmas Eve of 1968, as American soldiers became increasingly involved in a protracted war in a faraway country, and as political assassinations were becoming a regular feature of domestic politics. Stop me if any of that sounds familiar. A single broadcast was watched by more than a quarter of the world's population. I'll say that again. One in four people on the planet, across dozens of countries, stopped what they were doing and watched a single broadcast. That had never happened before. It's never happened since. This massive audience was not tuning into a deranged, depressing political podcast. They were not watching a hysterical panel on CNN or the latest true crime documentary to roll off the assembly line at Netflix, or the season finale of a network television drama that was produced to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They were not watching an endless stream of dreck on the Internet either, courtesy of social media algorithms designed to confuse and demoralize them. No, instead, this is what a quarter of the world's population was watching on Christmas Eve of 1968.
- [01:34]
Apollo 8 Crew / Historical Audio
We are now approaching lunar sunrise. And for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light. And there was light. And God called the dry land Earth. And the gathering together of the waters called he seas. And God saw that it was good. And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a merry Christmas, and God bless all of you. All of you on the good Earth.
- [02:36]
Commentator/Narrator
So we spliced the broadcast together a bit, but you get the idea. That's the most popular broadcast in world history. Astronauts quoting the book of Genesis. On board Apollo 8 as they orbited the moon, they had gone farther from Earth, a lot farther than any other astronaut in history. No one else had ever left Earth's orbit. No one else had ever taken a photograph like this one. Which, of course is iconic. Now, you may have seen the picture before. It shows Earth rising over the horizon of the moon. It was taken by the astronaut Bill Anders. By any measure, it's one of the most historic, iconic photographs ever taken. When they got back to Earth, the astronauts became Time magazine's Men of the Year. They received a ticker tape parade, they appeared at the super bowl, they got a postage stamp, they addressed Congress, they were treated as heroes because they had done something that seemed impossible, something no one had achieved before. And more than that, this was an achievement that laid the groundwork for many more breakthroughs to come. It was also a clear and unambiguous sign that we had taken the lead in the space race over the communists. We were the superior country, therefore the. We were producing superior results, results that were unprecedented at the time. And everyone could see that. A little over 57 years later, after many years of inactivity and dysfunction, which was largely the result of deliberate sabotage, most recently by the Obama administration, NASA is about to achieve another major milestone, something that's never been done before. That's the plan. On Wednesday evening at 5:24pm Central Time, as part of the Artemis 2 mission, which will last 10 days, four astronauts, three Americans and one Canadian will travel in the Orion spacecraft to the far side of the moon, reaching roughly 4,700 miles beyond the Earth. That's farther into deep space than any crew has gone before in the history of humanity. And when they return, they'll enter the atmosphere at around 25,000 miles per hour, which is the record for the fastest re entry speed of a crewed vessel ever in history. So these are, objectively speaking, historic achievement achievements. It's historic that NASA is even attempting this. The overwhelming majority of people alive today have never seen a crewed mission to the moon. The famous clock at the Kennedy Space center hasn't counted down to a mission like this, a mission where an astronaut has left low Earth orbit since 1972. And on top of that, just like Apollo 8, the Artemis 2 mission is part of a new space race with a different communist power. This time, it's China that's trying to beat us to the moon. They want to get there by 2030. And they're not just looking for bragging rights. They could try to claim ownership of the moon, which would drastically alter the balance of power on Earth, if not the solar system. Now, despite these stakes, though, you probably haven't heard much, if anything, about Artemis 2. There's a reporter who goes by the name Ellie in space, who just Walked around the streets of Boulder, Colorado, to see if anyone was aware of this. And while some people had a vague understanding of the mission, for the most part, these are the kinds of responses that she received. Watch. I was wondering what you've heard about Artemis the God. No.
- [05:45]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
Are you excited for Artemis, too?
- [05:47]
Commentator/Narrator
Who's Artemis?
- [05:48]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
So, do you know how we're going back to the moon, like, sometime in the next month?
- [05:53]
Commentator/Narrator
Not know that.
- [05:54]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
Seriously, you guys? No way. I didn't know that NASA is sending humans back to the moon for the first time in over 50 years.
- [06:01]
Commentator/Narrator
Yeah, we're wondering if it. What you know about NASA and what upcoming events they have. Honestly, I've been reading the news too much, I'll be honest. Okay, yeah.
- [06:14]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
What does Artemis 2 mean to you, if anything?
- [06:16]
Commentator/Narrator
Artemis, what is Artemis 4. Zero girl?
- [06:19]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
So we're going back to the moon, like, in April, and I don't think a lot of people know this. You had no idea? Oh, my gosh. NASA needs to do a better job of getting the word out. Have you heard of Artemis 2? What do you know about Artemis 2?
- [06:34]
Commentator/Narrator
Yes, well, I know Artemis 1. Artemis 1 was first.
- [06:38]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
But. But in what context? What is it?
- [06:41]
Commentator/Narrator
Oh. Oh, it's like a rock. It's like a rocket program. Like from NASA. Yes. To Mars. Right.
- [06:48]
Interviewer/Street Reporter
To the moon.
- [06:52]
Commentator/Narrator
I don't know if I'm more concerned by their answers or the pants. That guy was wearing, like, MC Hammer pants. Are we doing this again with the. I guess we're doing this again with the pants. We did the Jinko thing in the 90s. We already did this. Okay? My generation did this when I was in, like, middle school. We had the really wide, ridiculous pants. And now, yeah, those pants there. We already did this. We. We went through this. We've been through this. We learned our lesson. Those pants are. You look stupid. Okay? Those do not. Like, no human looks at those pants and thinks that those look good. And we already learned that lesson. And now we're cycling back 30 years later and saying, let's try on these stupid pants again Anyway. Well, unlike the old women at the no Kings rallies we talked about yesterday, these people, particularly the random street performer, have an excuse for their ignorance. The media has buried the story of Artemis 2, and they've done that on purpose because Artemis 2 is happening under the Trump administration. That's what a lot of this is, is about, you know? Therefore, the media is obligated to undersell it. I mean, they're happy to run a million stories about Katy Perry launching to the edge of space for 12 seconds. But when NASA is on the verge of a historic achievement in space travel, they don't want to talk about it because it would make Trump look good, you know, as a. And this is, this is the Trump administration. NASA reports directly to the president. So there's, there's no way to, to, to talk about this or be happy about it or congratulate NASA without also giving the Trump administration credit, which they don't want to do. And that's what a lot of this is about. And the reality is that, you know, this mission launching, you know, around the moon this week, that will send humans farther into space than ever before, a landmark moment in the history of our species, is getting almost no attention. But history books will care about this moment, even if the media doesn't. Now, I'll admit that hearing this, you know, a lot of people are probably skeptical. In response, you might say, well, this mission isn't actually that big of a deal. After all, we've already circled the moon and landed on it before. That was a long time ago. So who cares if these astronauts are about to go 685,000 miles to the moon and back? Now, first of all, even if you disregard all of the scientific significance of what's about to happen, the, the fact remains that America has not had a collective achievement to celebrate for a long time. You know, all of our big collective moments have been. If you think about it, what, what have our been big moments been? As a, as a, as a country, in my life and your life and in all of our lives? Well, all those moments have been extremely bad, like 9, 11, Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, BLM riots, COVID lockdowns, political assassinations, and so on. All of the I remember where I was moments have been not very inspiring to say the least. America has not had a good one of those in decades. I mean, seriously, when was the last time there was a truly historic moment to the point that for the rest of your life, you always remember where you were when it happened? We have had moments like that. But then ask yourself, have those moments been high points or low points in the country's history? Almost certainly it's the latter. If I'm missing something, not remembering some big moment we all celebrated, let me know. Now, that's not to say that our country hasn't accomplished anything in the past generation. In fact, we've had some major accomplishments, even in space. Just last year, SpaceX rescued two NASA astronauts who were stranded in space for nine months, which wasn't Exactly. Easy to do. But it's unavoidably true that a general decline in many areas of life, coupled with political polarization, has made collective celebration of anything almost impossible. When SpaceX saved those astronauts, the left complained because Elon Musk was involved. That's how broken and demented a large portion of, of the population has become. It seems like an impossible problem to solve, barring a civil war. But if we make a substantial broad push back into space, if this is not the only thing we're doing, but it's just the beginning of something, if we begin exploring new worlds, harnessing their potential, then that could be unifying in a meaningful way. And when America was a, in, in, you know, whatever we consider unified to be, when America was in some sense a unified country, it was at a time when, when we were pushing forward and exploring and going out and doing, doing cool things. That matters as a country. If you want to be a great country, you got to go out and do cool things. It actually does matter a lot. You know, a lot of people say problems on Earth have a way of feeling a lot smaller when you could travel 140 million miles away to a colony on Mars or the moon and start a life there. And I think there's, I think there's some truth to that. And even the potential for that future all by itself can change our culture. Remember when those people went down in the submersible to see the Titanic and imploded at the bottom of the ocean? Remember how a lot of people made fun of them for risking their lives to go where almost, almost no living person had ever gone? That was the attitude all over the Internet, you know, that only a moron would risk his life in search of a new discovery. But actually, we need people like that. This is a case I made at the time. You need people like that. You need people who are going to risk their lives just to go somewhere that no one's been. If we didn't have people like that in the history of Western civilization, Western civilization would not exist. You wouldn't exist, I wouldn't exist, this country would not exist. None of the great things we've ever done ever would have ever happened if not for people who are willing to risk their life, willing to die just for the sake of going somewhere that, that no one's, no one's ever been and doing a thing that no one's ever done. So watch this segment featuring one of the Artemis 2 astronauts and see how he handles that type of concern.
- [13:23]
Narrator/Space Mission Reporter
Watch NASA's hoping to lift off on Wednesday, the start of a six day launch window. Artemis 2's crew will orbit the Earth twice on their first day, then head off for the moon. They won't land on it. They'll fly around its far side, pushing farther from Earth than humans ever have. About 253,000 miles before looping back to Earth. This nine day mission ends with a splashdown off the San Diego coast, A practice run for an eventual moon landing planned for 2028.
- [13:55]
Astronaut Reid Wiseman
We do look at it as a test flight.
- [13:57]
Narrator/Space Mission Reporter
Reid Wiseman is the mission's commander. First time people have flown on this rocket or in this capsule.
- [14:04]
Commentator/Narrator
What is the level of risk in all this?
- [14:07]
Narrator/Space Mission Reporter
What level of risk profile are you willing to accept?
- [14:10]
Astronaut Reid Wiseman
If we weren't willing to take risk, we'd never leave the planet. So we have got to go take risk, take humans further, further off the planet, off to the moon, off to Mars.
- [14:17]
Narrator/Space Mission Reporter
But it's one thing to intellectually say someone has to be willing to take that risk. Another thing to say, I'm willing to take that risk. Why are you willing to take this risk?
- [14:26]
Astronaut Reid Wiseman
Right now on planet Earth, there's four people in a position to go take this risk. And this is what we signed up for, and myself, Victor, Christina and Jeremy are in a position to go do that. We have to seize that moment.
- [14:38]
Commentator/Narrator
So the interviewer almost can't believe what he's hearing. It's such an unusual statement that it seems like a foreign language. We're not used to this kind of attitude anymore, even though it's the attitude that again built this country and Western civilization. But the astronaut is right, you know, the safety culture of the left, which is obsessed with avoiding harm, including emotional damage or whatever, will lead to the death of humanity. We simply won't make it as a species if the left gets their way. People who want to deconstruct everything from gender to the nuclear family to the legal system, they'll never launch a rocket to the moon, they'll never build a colony on Mars. They won't do a single thing to preserve the future of humanity because they're deeply resentful people and they don't want humanity to continue. If the Artemis mission manages to put a dent in that nihilistic perspective, which, you know, millions of people on the left are afflicted with and some not as, some on the right as well, then it'll be worth whatever it costs. And to be clear, these astronauts will face very real risks during this mission. There's no question about that. Now it's true that even if the main engine fails, the astronauts will probably still be okay. The moon's gravity will slingshot them back to Earth similar to what happened with Apollo 13 to get those astronauts home. This is called a free return trajectory. It's one of the biggest built in safety valves in the mission. In addition to the fact that they aren't even attempting to land on the moon, which simplifies the mission quite a bit. But among other things, the astronauts still have to survive re entry into the atmosphere at the highest speed ever attempted. And during the unmanned Artemis 1 mission, which was launched in 2022, in order to test the equipment, make sure everything would work for Artemis 2, there was indeed a problem on re entry. Gas was trapped within the shield that heated and expanded, which blew away some of the heat shield. Watch and liftoff of Artemis 1.
- [16:40]
SpaceX/NASA Technical Narrator
Artemis I, which flew in 2022 without a crew, was a full system test flight to prove the rocket and capsule are mission ready for humans to travel around the moon and back splash down. It splashed down safely in the Pacific. But on inspection, engineers found the heat shield was damaged on re entry, though the interior of the capsule was not. Is there a level of concern about the heat shield on this one?
- [17:10]
Astronaut Reid Wiseman
You're hitting Earth's atmosphere at roughly 39 to 40 times the speed of sound. There is concern we're going to modify our entry trajectory. We're actually going to come in a little bit hotter, a little bit faster than Artemis I. And based on the issues that we have with the heat shield, that will keep us safe.
- [17:29]
Commentator/Narrator
So the goal is to enable a new era of space exploration that takes us to several other planets. And there are reasons to think that unlike what happened after the 1960s, we can actually accomplish that goal this time around. For one thing, we now have several multi trillion dollar private companies that have designed technology that could take humans to the moon, Mars and Bey. So this is not simply a science experiment or a proof of concept. And for another, it's now acceptable for the first time in decades to openly criticize the anti white regime that's emerged from the civil rights era. So these space corporations are not going to be destroyed by mandatory affirmative action or dei, which is historically what happened to NASA. One of the main reasons why it didn't do much for, you know, decades. We are once again a country in which the majority of the population wants to reward merit rather than equity. And the consequences of that transformation will be profound or could be, hopefully. It's a very different approach from the one that we took in the 1960s, although on the surface, it looks very similar. Watch.
- [18:34]
SpaceX/NASA Technical Narrator
NASA's challenge is what comes next. Getting Artemis 3 astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon's surface. To do that, NASA in 2021 awarded a nearly $3 billion contract to Elon Musk's SpaceX for the lunar lander version of its starship, the biggest, most powerful launch vehicle ever built. Made of two components, the lunar lander will sit atop the reusable super heavy booster. After several spectacular failures and explosions, Starship rebounded with successful launches this past August and October. But the setbacks and technical complexity have contributed to the delay in America's return to the moon's surface. Artemis may be Apollo's mythological twin, but upcoming missions with SpaceX bear little resemblance. For example, the massive SpaceX lander that will rendezvous with the crew in lunar orbit has to be refueled in space, a complex process requiring the launch of 10 or more fuel tankers. And nothing like this has ever been done before. Elon Musk says it's needed to propel deep space exploration.
- [19:52]
Elon Musk
And we want to have epic, futuristic spaceships with lots of people in them, traveling to places we've never been to before.
- [20:02]
Commentator/Narrator
The point of this new setup that's being tested, as Elon Musk said, is to enable us to expand far beyond the moon. In the 1960s, there was no clear plan for doing that. We didn't have reusable rockets. We didn't have the refueling system that we have now. And again, private companies didn't have trillions of dollars in capital to spend on space exploration, in part because the economy was much smaller and also because they didn't know how it would benefit them to do that. But now it's much more clear how space travel will benefit them. A week ago in Austin, Elon Musk discussed the benefits of solar panels in space. Unlike solar panels on Earth, the solar panels in space can be arranged so that they always face the sun. They can constantly gain energy, and without the atmosphere in the way, they're much more efficient. This is obviously very handy. Since energy is a prerequisite for civilization. It's also necessary to power data centers, which are currently straining our electrical grid, if you haven't noticed. So how do you get these solar panels in space? I mean, it'd be extremely expensive to launch them with rockets. So Musk's plan is to install a mass driver on the moon and use the moon's gravity to launch the solar panels and the satellites into space. Watch.
- [21:11]
Elon Musk
As soon as the cost to orbit, drops to a low number. It immediately makes extremely compelling sense to put AI in space. And you get there by having an electromagnetic mass driver on the moon with robots, with Optimi, and obviously lots of humans. And with that you can send a petawatt, you can create a petawatt of compute and send that to deep space. Because on the moon, the moon has no atmosphere and has one sixth Earth gravity. So you don't need rockets on the moon. You can literally accelerate it to escape velocity from the surface. And that dramatically drops the cost once again of harnessing power and enables you to go a thousand times bigger than a terawatt.
- [22:44]
Commentator/Narrator
So this is just one example of how a colony on the moon could completely change the world economy. Could mean infinite power, essentially could mean that we could make the dreams of the 1960s and 70s into reality. Back in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, as you may remember, it was. It was commonly assumed that we'd have flying cars and moon colonies by now and a bunch of other cool stuff. Instead, most things have degraded. As we talked about a few weeks ago, it currently takes longer to fly to London from the US than it did back then. Airlines want to save on fuel, the skies are much more congested and security lines are much longer. It's not even getting into the Concorde, which is gone now. A Concorde crashed after hitting a piece of debris on the Runway, which didn't even come from the Concorde, by the way. And nobody ever wanted to fly the thing ever again. It was too expensive and everybody thought it was a death trap. So the airlines just gave up on it. Just like they gave up on good service and happy flight attendants and competent pilots and everything else. This is a recurring theme on this show for a reason. Things have gotten worse in large part because everything is so demoralizing now. Even the dystopias of the 1980s were not quite this bleak. Now yeah, Blade Runner was pretty dire, but you got to realize that was a movie that was set in 2019. They predicted a lot more technological advancement than we have now. Like nobody expected that outside of a handful of areas, mostly phones and the Internet, technology would become so stagnant. But that's exactly what did happen. Largely because of all the garbage we're wasting our money on. We, we could easily be a multi planetary society by now. We weren't getting dragged down by entitlement spending, third world scams, mass immigration and so on. I just give you an idea of, of how much money we're spending on other things. Something like 1% of the entire federal budget goes to dialysis payments via Medicare. If you spend $100 in taxes, $1 is going to dialysis. Think about that. That's just one thing. In 1969, Medicare accounted for about 4% of the federal budget. Now it's more than three times that amount, roughly 13% all by itself. And that's just one program. Total entitlement spending accounted for about a third of the federal budget in 1969. Now it accounts for nearly 2/3. Medicare alone now costs more than the entire defense budget as a share of the economy. And by the Same token, in 1969, this country didn't have any Somali fraudsters ripping us off to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. States like California weren't laundering tens of billions of dollars through fake construction projects like their high speed rail or their little wildlife butterfly bridge to nowhere. This is what we had instead. This is. This is. This is footage from the ending of Apollo 11. It's a fantastic documentary that uses only archival footage of the mission. And watch this,
- [25:40]
Historical Narrator/Documentary Voice
boys. Hell they were men then here they come sittin straight and proud and he's driving her stone blind and would you look at her oh she never looked fine her always better today sweetheart on parade and the people cheered why I even saw a grown man break right down and cry. And the sun it is going down all mysterious me as he's singing with his class of nineteen two oh mother country I do love you
- [26:47]
Commentator/Narrator
so. You don't see many Somali fraudsters in those archival shots. There's no HR department or DEI either. But you do see a lot of very competent people who happen to be white men who did something this country hasn't been able to replicate in many years. If Donald Trump can help reverse our trend towards barbarism and self sabotage and make this a country of builders and spacefarers once again, then in spite of any criticisms one might make against him, some of them valid, some of them not, he will truly have made this country great again. It would be an extraordinary vindication for the entire country, not just the Trump administration. And it would give hundreds of millions of Americans, for the first time in a generation, something they haven't had, which is a sense of pride in our country and even more crucially, hope for the future. 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? What big pharma did to food. They did to skin care too. They ruined it. They used slick marketing to convince us to rub industrial byproduct on our faces. And now skin issues are extremely common. Seems everyone knows someone struggling with bad skin or some sort of skin condition. But good news, there is a solution. Tallow is what we used for generations before chemical companies took over. What your skin actually understands because it's biologically appropriate. An organic compound that is bioidentical to your skin barrier. Cowguys 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 cowguys tallow balm and was really impressed with it. She specifically used it on an area of dry skin on her wrists to clear things up overnight. I'll gladly support companies that still believe in hard work, ownership and American values like cow guys. When I see rancher owned businesses standing up for faith, family and freedom instead of bowing to corporate nonsense, that really earns my Respect. 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 bucks. Again, just search cowguys.com to grab free tallow bomb with your order. All right, this is breaking news hot off the presses. I just saw this headline about a Supreme Court decision just, just came down and here's the fox. Here's Fox News reporting on it breaking moments ago from the High Court 1 of the case. We're watching the Supreme Court ruling against a Colorado law banning so called conversion therapy for LGBTQ children. Shannon Bream watching this and getting the ruling now. What was decided?
- [29:39]
Astronaut Reid Wiseman
Good morning to you, Shannon.
- [29:40]
Fox News Reporter Shannon Bream
Hey, Bill. Good to see you. So a therapist out there in Colorado challenged this law when it was passed, saying I need to be able to counsel clients for whatever services they're seeking. So the court looked at this, finally decided eight to one in her favor, striking down that law in Colorado. I want to read you part of what they said. They said it's censoring speech based on viewpoint specific things. It says the first amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech. Speech in this country. It goes on to say, even if you have good intentions in this law, if you suppress speech based on a particular viewpoint, it just can't stand up. I mean, eight to one, there was only one dissenter here. It was Justice Jackson she has said that this ruling is potentially catastrophic. She says the majority finds at bottom that Colorado likely cannot legislate to protect the children of its state if by doing so it happens to keep state licensed health care providers from separate saying what they want to minors. She goes on to say it will ultimately risk grave harm to Americans health and well being. She says you should be able to regulate the speech of somebody who's providing care to minors. 8 to 1. Majority of the court did not think so.
- [30:48]
Commentator/Narrator
So this is the right decision, obviously, and I think we'll, we'll get more into it tomorrow. There's, there was no way they'd come to any other decision. And just to be totally clear about what this law was, just so you understand, this was a law in Colorado banning therapists from telling gender confused boys that they're really boys and girls that they're really girls. This was a law banning an entire profession from verbally acknowledging basic biological reality. And that's what, because that's what conversion therapy means in the minds of the Colorado legislature, in the psychotic minds of the nut cases that run that state. That's what conversion therapy is. Conversion therapy is telling a boy that he's a boy. You are converting a boy into a boy. That's, that's what they mean. That's conversion therapy. You know, not, not attempting to convert a boy into a girl is conversion therapy. Not converting is converting. Converting is not converting. This is what the law said. And actually it's crazier than that because even if an adult struggling with gender confusion comes to a therapist and asks for help overcoming it, wants it, consents to it, seeks it out, still, the law wanted to bar therapists from providing the therapy that this person is asking for. Basically, if you're a gender confused man and you want help dealing with your mental problems, you, which are obviously substantial, the state of Colorado said, too bad you can't have that. You are not allowed to get help with that. You cannot have that kind of help. Because if you as a man are struggling with gender confusion and you go get help with that for that, that might make other men who think they're women but don't want help feel bad. So you getting better will make them feel bad so you're not allowed to get better. That was literally what the law said. Un, just total absolute madness. Has there been a crazier law anywhere in the entire history of the world? Has there been a crazier law? I, I, I mean, I don't, it's, it's definitely in the running for the craziest piece of legislation that has ever been adopted anywhere, alongside all the other places that have had similar bands, which they have in, in Canada and, you know, as you would expect, some European countries. So that kind of law create. I don't, I don't think anything has ever been crazier. And, and now it's been, it's been struck down and it was. The law was so bad that even the liberal justices on the court came down against it, except for one, who is Ketanji Brown Jackson. Katanji Brown Jackson has apparently. I haven't read it yet because I just saw this. She apparently wrote. She's the lone dissenting voice. She's the lone voice saying that, no, actually, this law is good, actually, yeah, we should ban therapists from telling boys that they're boys. She was the one person to the 1, 1 the lone dissenting voice in the court, and apparently she wrote a 35 page dissent which is longer than the majority opinion. I believe it's longer than there was the majority opinion, a concurrent opinion. It's longer than both of them. Because Ketanji Brown Jackson is a lunatic. I mean, she is. And we've had some bad Supreme Court justices through the history of this country. She's by far the most unfit, most unqualified, most unbalanced Supreme Court justice we've ever had. And we would know that even without all the other stuff. We would know that just based on this, this is what, you know, the, the Supreme Court majority decision is that this is an unconstitutional law because it violates the First Amendment. And like, of course it does. If this doesn't violate the First Amendment, then nothing ever does. This is a law telling therapists, you're not allowed to say this thing. This is a perspective you're not allowed to say out loud. You cannot say it. That is a, I mean, that's, that is just a direct, that's as direct an assault on the First Amendment as you will ever see. And Kentucky Brown Jackson is either too stupid to see that or she does see it, but she's so evil and deranged that she, you know, wants to destroy the First Amendment for the sake of propping up the LGBT agenda, you know, or it's like a combination of the two. And I think it's a combination of two. We'll get more into that tomorrow as I have a chance to go through her deranged opinion. Your gutters are not a DIY experiment or a place to test drive bargain bin gutter solutions. Clogged gutters don't just look bad. They can lead to serious water damage to your roof, your walls, even your foundation. If you're going to do something about it, you do it once. You do it right and you go with a system that's actually engineered to work. That's where our sponsor Leaffilter comes in. America's number one rated gutter protection system. Built with surgical grade stainless steel micro mesh that channels water in and keeps debris out. Every installation comes with a lifetime clog free guarantee and a leaffilter trusted pro will clean, realign and seal your gutters before they install it. No wonder leaffilter is already trusted by over a million homes. Start protecting your home today with LeafFilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com walsh that's up to 30% off at leaf filter.com walsh Speaking of deranged, the Free Beacon reports Michigan's left wing Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El Said told staffers he wanted to avoid making a public statement about the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or taking any public position on it at all because there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad about his death. This is according to audio from a private campaign strategy call obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. If reporters press him to take a position, he said he would change the subject to Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm just going to go straight to pedophilia. Frankly, that's quite a statement. That's quite a statement for, for this guy to make. That's, you know, that's kind of, in a lot of ways that's, you know, Democrat, Democrat, Muslim politician. And he says, and I quote, and I quote, I'm just going to go straight to pedophilia. Frankly. That's what he said, Could be the kind of thing that he means in, in more than one way. Who knows? He says, I'll just be like pedophile president decides that he doesn't like the front page news, so he decides to take us into another war. I mean, this is great because you have someone on, you know, like acknowledging what we already know is the case, which is that the Epstein thing for these people is a game. They don't care about it at all. They don't, they don't, they don't care about the sex abuse of minors. They couldn't care less about it. Which is why, as I pointed out a billion times, they never brought this up. One time during the Biden administration, not one time. None of them ever did. Not once, because they don't care about it at all. And actually, in many other contexts, they openly support the sexual abuse of minors. They're, they're totally in favor of it. They love it. I mean, these are the people that support the sexual mutilation of young kids. So these are the people who support drag queens doing strip teases in front of kids. They support dressing kids themselves up like drag queens and paring them around, around in front of, in front of adults. So they are openly pro pedophilia on the left. All of them are. And, but, but they are just, they have latched on to this, pretending they care now about protecting kids from sexual abuse. And now you have a Democrat candidate on the record saying, oh, yeah, I'm just going to use that as a distraction. I'm totally just using it as a distraction because this topic over here is uncomfortable for me. And he's openly admitting that's what he's doing. Here's a little bit of that clip.
- [39:48]
Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El Said
Listen, I also want to remind you guys that there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today. So, like, I just don't want to comment on commodity Khomeini at all. Like, I, I don't think it's worth even touching that. Like, they're going to try. This is what we practice. But, like, isn't. Isn't Khomeini a bad guy? Isn't it great that he's dead? My first amendment was 86 years old. He was going to be dead sometime soon anyway.
- [40:15]
Commentator/Narrator
So, you know, not a lot to say about this other than the fact that this is the consequence of the foreign invasion of our country. You have a foreign political candidate with a name like Abdul Al Said who doesn't want to celebrate the killing of an enemy of the United States for fear of upsetting his constituents who are also foreign and also have names like Abdul Al Said. This is an actual voter base. This is a political constituency in this country that openly sides with America's enemies, which is to be, which is to be distinguished, of course, from people who are not in favor of the war on the grounds that it doesn't advance our country's interests. That's my view. But that is very different from actually being actively in favor of and sympathetic to the Iranian regime, which I'm obviously not. And yet this is an actual constituency here now that we have imported. And this has been my point all along. You know, I think there are a lot of reasons to not get involved in interventionism in the Middle East. One of those reasons, not the only one, One of those reasons is, is that we have over the past 20 years, imported the Middle east into this country. So we have opened the floodgates and brought that region of the world into the country, and now we want to turn around and go to war in that region. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem here. This is just something you don't do. You don't bring in millions of people from a certain part of the world and then turn around and, and go to war in that part of the world. Like, just anyone should be able to connect the dots here. And that's why I say if I ever could favor interventionist wars in far flung regions of the globe, even theoretically, it would need to be preceded by mass deportations. We, we would need the foreign enemies and operators out of our country first. That has to be the first step. You have to do that first. You just have to think about World War II. Okay, internment camps get a bad rap. But the idea at the time was, hey, we're at war with this foreign country, which is Japan. And hey, we all, we all like Japan now. But this is at the time on X, right now there's all kinds of posts from Japanese, like really based, right wing, because now X translates Japanese automatically into English. And so we can see kind of like what they're saying. And turns out they are super right wing. And, and a lot of them love America. They're talking about American barbecue. I just saw one pop up. It was like a Japanese, this Japanese kids playing like bluegrass music. It was good. They were playing it well. And so, hey, you know Japan, I said a couple days ago, there's, I think there's like, yeah, I'd say there's four or five good foreign countries. All the rest suck. There's only four or five good foreign countries. Japan's one of them. But at the time we were at war with Japan and the idea was that, well, we have thousands of people here with ties to this country. That puts us in a vulnerable position. And so that was the logic behind it. Well, now we're at war with jihadists and we have potentially millions of them here. There were like150,000 Japanese in this country in, you know, in 1940, something like that. We're not talking 100. We're talking about millions of potential jihadists or people that are sympathetic to jihadists. Not thousands, millions. Now, I'm not arguing for internment Camps. But I am saying the diametric opposite approach, which is to say, you know, rather than intern the people loyal to our foreign enemies, we are going to instead invite them in by the millions. I'm saying that approach is very dumb, and it. It puts us in an extremely vulnerable position. All right, let's check in with our dear friends over at the View. They got very upset by a clip from cpac, actually, featuring our very own Isabel Brown, who was encouraging people to have kids. It's a very controversial view these days. Of course, the idea that you should have kids and that the human race should continue is really controversial. If you go around saying, you know, the kind of thing you go around saying, hey, I think people should have kids. I. I think human beings should continue to exist. That's the kind of thing, especially on the left, that's going to make people very upset. They're gonna go, whoa, whoa, hey, what. What is this. What is this stuff about? Oh, you. You think the human race should not go extinct in the next 60 years? Whoa, hey, hang on. Whoa, whoa.
- [45:05]
Apollo 8 Crew / Historical Audio
That.
- [45:05]
Commentator/Narrator
Die. This is. This is. We need some kind of advisory on. On this. This is really offensive stuff. The shriveled old ladies over at the View were especially not happy about it because you have to realize that with ladies of the View either don't have kids of their own, or if they do, their kids hate them more than likely. So that's. And that's. That accounts for 100 of the ladies in the View either don't have kids or their kids hate them. And so. So for them, you know, they hear something like that. They hear a celebration of life. They hear a celebration of marriage and family life. And these are all a bunch of, like, divorced, shriveled old hags that just had, like, they lived awful life lives. They, like, never got married, or they got married and they got divorced. And they hate their husbands, and their husbands hate them, and their kids hate them, and they hate their kids just like awful, miserable people. You have to realize that that's. That's many of the people that you watch on tv, like, that's the life they live. They just lived lives of total dysfunction. They hate everyone in their family. Their family hates them. It's just utter misery. And. And that's why you get this kind of reaction. It starts to make sense. So here's what they had to say about it.
- [46:20]
The View Host
And I think it's just really reckless to be suggesting that people should have children when you now know in this country there's this affordability crisis and for a two person household, a married household, you need over $400,000 for childcare. Over $400,000. Most people don't make over $400,000. So she's at advocating for people to be born into poverty. People not being able to feed those children, people not being able to educate those children, and people not being able to house those children. At the same time, when this government is cutting all of the services that would allow people to have families and big families. $400,000 over the lifetime of the child or what?
- [47:01]
Commentator/Narrator
No, no, a year.
- [47:03]
The View Host
It's an annual income exceeding $400,000 to afford child care. And, and I want to add that this. No, it's all over the country according to lending tree analysis. And finally, this woman makes $10,000 per speaking engagement.
- [47:18]
Commentator/Narrator
So. Okay, that's enough of that. We only stomach so much of it. So just to start with a fact check here. You need $400,000 for childcare. Well, that's insane. That is not remotely true. If she means that childcare costs 400 grand a year, which at first it's kind of what it sounded like she was trying to say. That's only true if you're, you know, I don't know, bringing in Mary Poppins to be your full time in home governess. That's when like you're not sending your kids to, to daycare. You're getting a governess to come to your house. That's. And even then that actually would not cost 400 grand. That would actually be like. Well, you're trying to live in nanny is like 70 or 80 grand. So which is a lot of money. But it Even that like 400 grand, that's a team. That's a team of Mary Poppins. That's like you have a, you have an army of nannies in your home working on like, and you live in a mansion and you have one for each level of your mansion. That's 400 grand of child care. Okay, so like when you're downstairs nanny gets tired of your kids, she can send them to the upstairs nanny and then you like your attic nanny and who knows? So that's not actually what it's like. But even if Sonny meant that a family has to earn 400 grand, which is sounds like what she was trying to say in order to afford child care. That is also insane. That is nearly as insane. Only like 1 or 2% of households in the country bring in 400 grand a year or more. So she's claiming that daycare is a privilege reserved Only for the top 1%, which is not true. If that were true, no daycare center anywhere would be open. I mean, the funny thing is like, those are the people that are, those are precisely the people who are not sending their kids to daycare. Most of them. And this is the kind of psychotic exaggeration you hear when someone is trying to convince you to not have kids. This is what, it's been like this, this is not recent. It's been like this since I, since before I had kids. Where the people that are like this antinatalist, nihilistic, miserable people who don't want you to have kids, all bets are off. They will make up anything to try to convince you not to have kids. You know, so I've been hearing this forever, where they will come in. Did you know that it costs on average a billion dollars a minute to raise a child? Did you know that? Did you know that on a, on average you need to earn $70 million a second and live in a 25,000 square foot mansion on a 100 acre estate with like a vineyard and Olympic sized pool in order to raise a child? Did you know that? And there's, and there's always going to be, there's always going to be the like incredulous morons who hear that and go, oh, really? I didn't realize it was that bad. Wow. Wow. I didn't know it was that bad. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Did you know that everyone who is not a multimillionaire and has kids will be homeless? Did you know that? That's why there's 300 million homeless people right now. No one lives in a house. Everyone is homeless because they have kids. No, I didn't know that. I didn't know that thing you just made up. The voices in your head are not talking to me also, so I did not know that. And as I said, people have been doing this for decades. I heard the same nonsense we were when we were, you know, starting to have kids. The same thing, the same thing. The same demoralizing nonsense, claiming that somehow now it's impossible to do the thing that billions of people throughout all of human history have done. Throughout all of human history, billions of people have done this. And now suddenly it's impossible to do. No one can do it. Which is really interesting because did you know, however much money you make right now, I, I don't care how much it is, you are richer than almost everyone who's ever had a kid. Did you know that? Almost everyone. Because that includes the billions of people that were, by our standards like, are totally impoverished. So the idea that like people have been doing this forever, including people who are far worse off than us in every measurable category and they all did it and for us it's impossible is nuts. You know, when we had our first two kids, I was making 40 grand a year. So adjust for inflation, that's equivalent of like 50 or 55 grand a year today. Not, you know, not poverty, but not anywhere close to $400,000. I can tell you that at the time we had our first two kids, like 400 grand a year was not even. I couldn't even conceive of that. That's. I couldn't even, that's who does. Whoever that's like Jeff Bezos makes that and only him. So we were still well below the average household income then and now. And at the time, according to this kind of anti family propaganda, what we did was impossible. It was impossible. It was impossible to afford one kid, let alone two. I mean we were being told, well yeah, you need, I mean at the time I remember hearing the figure you would hear a lot at the time was like, you know, we just heard 400,000 at the time. Very commonly you'd hear something like, well, it's like, I don't remember what it was, but it was many, many thousands of dollars to, to have a kid. And I think they'd very often you'd hear like through the, you know, if you, to have a kid from birth to 18 is going to cost 250 grand or something or more than that. So, so it can't be done. And then you add two in impossible. But we did just like billions of people before us. You know, we hear today that you have to be wealthy to have kids. Which if that were true, the human species would not exist. If human beings had followed that rule. Even if, I don't know, 20% of humans had followed that rule, even if 20% of humans had said I'm not going to have a kid until I'm rich, I. The human species probably at this point would not exist. Which tells you the rule is fake. Like the rule isn't real. It just isn't. If someone is telling you something or telling you to live a certain way, that if, if a critical mass of people live that way, it would end civilization itself. Well that is a really good indication that what they're telling you is wrong. Now I will admit that when we had first had kids 40 grand a year, it was tough, wasn't easy, and we weren't on any kind of entitlement programs. We weren't getting help from anyone. It, it, I'll even admit it was more financially difficult than I expected. And that's only because just like a year before that point when we had kids, I had just got this new job that was paying 40 grand a year. And prior to that I was making 20 grand. So this, I just doubled my income. And so to me at the time, 40 grand a year was like wealthy. I was thrilled. I couldn't believe. 40 grand a year, that's double. That's two times even I could do that kind of math. And. But then I quickly find out, well, you had two kids to a doubled income and suddenly it feels very much like, you know, rather than doubling your income, your income, you kind of cut it in half. So things were very tight and it was difficult, but it's possible to do. You can do it. And I think most people should do it. It's a struggle, it's a difficult thing, but you should still do difficult things. It can be done. And I truly just despise anybody like this Sunny, what's her name? Hosten. Especially people who are, she's wealthy, she's doing fine. Sitting there with this demoralizing message to younger people and telling them that, like, this hard thing cannot. It's not, don't do it. You can't do it. It's impossible. It don't even try. What kind of message is that? What kind of message is that? For you to sit there in your nice studio with your whatever million dollar a year gig telling younger people that, you know what living like, living a life and having a family and doing the basic things that people have always done, that gives your life meaning. Naughty. Can't be done. Don't even try. Give up now. You can't do it. It's too hard. Yeah, you know what? Just sit on your couch and scroll your phone. That's all you can do. Sorry, that's it. Get whatever job you can find. Sit on your couch, scroll your phone and eat fast food and just do that until you die. Your life has no meaning. You'll never do anything that matters. You're going to leave behind no legacy. You'll have no kids. You will die and be forgotten and your bloodline will end with you. And that's it. That's the message. And I despise it. Like, I hate it. Especially because people hear that message and they take it. A lot of young people hear that and they take it to heart and they Say, well, we have to. I, you know, got. I got to wait. I got to wait until I'm financially comfortable to have kids. Well, guess what? If you do that, there's a very good chance you will never have them. There's a very good chance you will never feel financially comfortable. Or if you ever do, it won't be until you're too old to have kids. You know, if I had waited until I was financially comfortable, if I'd waited until I was financially comfortable to have kids, at least four of my kids would not exist, and our whole life would be different and not for the better. And one of the really crucial things is that my wife and I would not have had the experience of, like, diving off that ledge and struggling and striving and building this thing together. Our marriage would not be as strong as it is. Most of my kids would not exist. If I had taken Sonny's advice, the advice of all these stupid people, most of my kids would not exist, and I. And my marriage would not be anywhere near as strong as it is. And this is part of it, by the way. I mean, yeah, you should have kids, because that's what marriage is for, and we don't want the human race to go extinct, and you should want to leave a legacy and have descendants and all that. So those are all good reasons to have kids. But also, when you go into marriage overly cautious, and you decide that you're going to sort of fearfully avoid having children until you're basically wealthy, you know, this attitude that a lot of married couples have now, it's a very new. It's very, very new, very new approach. They're very, very worried about everything. And we can't. No, we can't take that step yet. We're not ready. And they, like, wait around for years and years and years, waiting around for years, just the two of them in their empty house, accumulating money in their bank accounts and not ready, not ready. One of the problems with that is that your marriage is running on fear, and it becomes brittle. It becomes this frail, breakable thing. You never learn how to deal with challenges together, how to make sacrifices together. You never allow yourselves to be humbled together. You never put yourself in a position as a couple to deal with big, serious things. You aren't tested. You're not forged. Because the thing is, when you're younger, you don't have a lot of money and you have kids. Yeah, it's hard, but it's like, okay, here we are. We did it. We took the leap. We have kids now. We're parents. So all the stuff, I don't know if we're ready, we might not be ready. Well, it's here now. It's, it's game on. It's, you're here, let's go. And you're forced to just go and deal with it and work together. And if you don't do that, then, you know, you don't have that kind of experience. You also don't give yourselves anything big and important to focus on. You don't have kids, it's just the two of you. So what ends up happening is you end up sort of harping on the smallest, dumbest little things. You get into arguments over the most inconsequential nonsense. The slightest challenge hits your life and your marriage and everything just kind of falls apart. You haven't grown, you haven't matured, you haven't been strengthened, you haven't built this thing together. If you get married and you have your own income and, and, and your spouse is their own income, you don't have kids, you both just kind of earn your money and live in the same house, never start a family, what have you built together? You know, 10 years down the line, 15 years down the line, 20 years down the line. You look at it, you say like, what have we built together? What have we actually achieved together? Well, the answer is like, nothing. You haven't really done anything. I mean, you've achieved together the same way you would if you live with a roommate. And this is the other consequence of this modern mentality that says don't have kids. In fact, don't even get married until you're financially comfortable. Okay, well then what are you and your spouse building? What shared struggle, what shared achievements will you have? In our case, I could look at my wife. You know, I mean, we'd been broke. We started off in a one bedroom apartment. We had six kids. We, we thought we had. We've had the sleepless nights and the 2am visits to the emergency room and the bills and the stresses and the family dramas and that we'd been through the infant phase, the toddler phase, the adolescent phase. Then we did it again and again and again and again. And we've had to move and start over and we've had the heartaches that, and then the, and the, the, you know, stresses that come with a parent. Every child finds their own way to like, stress you out and break your heart and make you proud all at the same time. So we've been through all that we're still in the middle of it in a lot of ways. And so now there's this sense of shared ownership in our current life and shared experience that bonds us together and puts things into perspective. So that I look at a lot of what other sort of married couples fight about, get all hung up on, and most of that stuff doesn't even register with us anymore. You might get annoyed about this or that thing, but you move on 10 minutes later. Doesn't matter. Because you. When you've been through the ringer with somebody, you know, you walk through the wilderness with them. It's not like you, hey, I'll meet you there at that location over there. No, you walk there together and you went through this whole thing and you were sleeping in the tent under the rain together, and. And you've done all that, and you've had a million roots and rocks you've tripped over, and. And you've made it this far. So now what, am I going to get upset? Because what. You're like, I don't like how you load the dishwasher or, you know, or the. The thermostat is changing or, who cares? I hear these things. People, they go to, like, marriage counseling, and they. I don't like it when she. It hurts my feet. I feel. It hurts my feet. Like, you're soft, you're weak. You haven't been through the fire together. You haven't allowed yourselves to struggle enough. You're focused on the dumbest bull. Get over it. And that kind of comes with the territory when you live a life and you have kids and you build a family and you're doing something together and you've been through all these struggles and you've done all of that. And then, you know what happens is that all the new problems that come up in your life, they're not new problems. You get to a certain point and it's like every problem you have just exists in a category of problems you've already been through. So you get like little buckets. And so, okay, well, this is that, well, here's a financial thing, here's a medical thing. It's like, we, We. We got a bunch of things in all those buckets We. We know. I mean, yeah, a version of the problem could come along that's worse than the ones you had before. But. But it's you. You've been through it. And I think a lot of people don't prepare themselves in that way. And the last thing I'll say, circling back to the child care costs, Bringing back there one really great way to avoid child care costs, which are lower than what she claims, but they still are high. One great way to do it is to have the mother stay home and raise her own kids. And we are the first society in human history to decide that both the man and the woman should leave the home every day. That is a radical break from what every other society on the planet since the beginning of civilization has done. That's not an exaggeration. No other society has ever done this. This is a totally new way of doing things. It has never been done before. People don't appreciate how new this is. Both parents are going to leave the house every day like that. No one's ever done it that way. So maybe what we're discovering is that this radically new system doesn't work. It just doesn't work. So you could say, oh, but I want, I. I want to be able to go. I want to be. It doesn't matter what you want. It doesn't work. There's a reason why all of your ancestors would look at you like a maniac. They look like all. At all of us like maniacs. There's a reason why it never worked this way. It can work this way. You know why? Because it turns out that, like, someone has to raise the kid. There's a reason why they did it that way. Oh, we'll just get a stranger to raise them. Yeah, but you got to pay them and you don't know them and all kinds of things, all kinds of problems that come with that. It's not sustainable. If it was that easy, like, our ancestors probably would have done it a long time ago, but they didn't because it doesn't work. And rather than adjust to that reality and say that, okay, well, like, maybe we should. There's already a model here that worked really well for thousands of years. Maybe we just go back to that rather than doing that. The leftist solution is to give up on having kids entirely. That's their solution. Rather than just, well, it's $400,000 for child care. It's not, but okay, if it is, then, well, maybe you should not. Maybe there, there's two parents here. Most of the time is another. So you got a child care person, like, already there. The leftist solution is to give up on having kids entirely. Because you know what? They would. They would rather usher in the extinction of the human race than do something or say something that makes feminists upset for the sake of feminist sensibilities. We're just going to give up on humanity completely. That's basically the idea. I think it's a bad idea and we will leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
- [67:58]
Apollo 8 Crew / Historical Audio
I do believe that if people are
- [68:00]
Commentator/Narrator
have committed treason against the United States
- [68:02]
M
of America, their statues should not be in the Capitol.
- [68:07]
Commentator/Narrator
History is written by the victors, and since the 1960s we've been told mostly by people whose ancestors didn't even live here. During the war, the south committed treason. But if the Confederates were traitors, then why was Jefferson Davis never put on trial for treason? What were Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson afraid of? Do they know something they're not allowed to say? Today, it's time for the truth. So here it is. Robert E. Lee was a military genius and a man of immense honor. He was beloved by Americans from the north and south for a century after the war. This is the real history of the Civil.
- [68:59]
M
High interest debt can be a real vibe killer. Credit cards, personal loans, and more can make you feel uncomfortable even in the sanctuary of your own home. Well, what if you knew that SoFi could help you leverage your home's equity to feel more at ease? It's called a SOFI Home Equity Loan, and it could consolidate your debt at a typically lower interest rate than existing debt with lower monthly payments payments, and all while keeping your existing mortgage rate. View your rate@sofi.com payoffdebt today. Mortgages originated by SoFi bank and a member FDIC, NMLS 696891 Terms and Conditions apply. Equal Housing Lender.