Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we are being led by the dumbest collection of imbeciles ever assembled. The saga of congressman Jamaal Bowman and the fire alarm only prove this point. Also, RFK Jr is getting ready for a third party run. Does that hurt Biden or Trump? And a YouTube "prankster" gets shot while trying to "prank" someone. Was the shooting justified? In our Daily Cancellation, the pause on student loan repayments ended yesterday, and everyone is taking it about as well as expected. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1234
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Watch Episodes 1-6 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation
Text WALSH to 200-300
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, we're being led by the dumbest collection of imbeciles ever assembled.
The saga of Congressman Jamal Bowman and the fire alarm only proves this point.
Also, RFK Jr.
is getting ready for a third party run.
Does this hurt Biden or Trump more?
And a YouTube prankster gets shot while trying to prank someone.
Was the shooting justified?
In our daily cancellation, the pause on student loan repayments ended yesterday, and everyone is taking it about as well as you expected.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Okay, we're on the line with Phillip Patrick from Birch Gold.
What are the greatest threats facing the dollar right now?
The key to a global reserve currency is that it is a solid store of value.
Well, the dollar's lost 16 percent of its buying power since the start of the pandemic alone.
So let me ask you this.
I have a lot of there are a lot of young young people, young families.
What's kind of the pitch for them?
Why should they consider this?
Being a safe haven asset, when we see downturns in the economy, it tends to go up.
The other thing to consider is just track record, right?
Gold has been around for centuries.
It has a proven track record.
We understand how gold works with inflation.
We understand how gold typically performs during times of market correction.
But if you're looking to protect, to preserve buying power, that's where gold has the advantage.
Philip Patrick, we appreciate your time as always, and if you want more information, you can text WALSH to 989898 for your free information kit.
Philip, thanks again.
You know, at first I thought I might not comment on this issue at all.
Everything that needs to be said about it has already been said, and there wasn't much that needed to be said in the first place, to be honest.
But then I realized that this show carries a certain responsibility.
It is my solemn duty, I believe, and I know, to single out and mock the dumbest human beings in the country.
In this country, this duty becomes all the more sacred and all the more essential when you consider that the dumbest human beings in the country are very often the ones running it.
Human beings like Kamala Harris, for example, who is a programmed robot with no authentic opinions or personality of her own.
But she's the worst kind of programmed robot because she's a stupid one.
Kamala isn't the focus today, but since we're on the subject, I do feel compelled to mention this video.
It's a supercut put together by the Twitter account RNC Research, where we see how Kamala repeats the same line over and over again.
And this is, it's not even a good line, or a vaguely coherent one.
But she really, really likes it.
Watch.
I can imagine what can be and be unburdened by what has been.
You know?
What can be unburdened by what has been?
Unburdened by what has been.
What we can see, what we believe can be, unburdened by what has been.
What can be, unburdened by what has been.
Who we can be, unburdened by who we have been.
What can be, unburdened by what has been.
Where we can be, unburdened by where we have been, and unburdened by where we are right now.
What can be, Unburdened by what has been.
What can be unburdened by what has been.
What can be unburdened by what has been.
What could be unburdened by what had been.
What can be unburdened by what has been.
I don't know if you caught that, but she's saying that we should focus on what can be unburdened by what has been.
I repeat, what can be, what can be, up here, unburdened by what has been.
Did you hear that yet?
It's very important that you hear that line, which is why Kamala says it to literally every audience she speaks to.
And by the way, that montage goes on for another two and a half minutes.
And we can even leave aside the fact that the sentiment she's expressing is actually incorrect.
You cannot reach your full potential or focus on what can be if you are, as she says, unburdened by what has been.
That's because you must carry the burdens of what has been.
You must be aware of your past and its lessons, or you'll just repeat what has been over and over again until you die.
But that's not even the point.
The point is that someone on Kamala's team told her this line is brilliantly profound and amazing, and she took that feedback to heart to such an extent that she works it into every conversation.
She probably finds a way to drop that line when she's, like, giving her order in the Starbucks drive-thru.
Yes, hi, normally I get a venti mocha cappuccino, but I'm trying today to remain focused on what can be unburdened by what has been.
So I'd like a grande americana with cream, please.
Thank you.
What I'm trying to say is that our country is run by some fantastically idiotic people, and yet even if you were already aware of that fact, and even if your faith in the intelligence and competence of the ruling class was already as low as you thought it could possibly go, you still were not prepared for this weekend and the saga of Congressman Jamal Bowman and the fire alarm.
So just to get you up to speed, on Saturday, as you've probably heard by now, Congressman Jamal Bowman pulled a fire alarm in the House Cannon office building on Capitol Hill at a time when the Democrats were trying to delay a vote on a GOP stopgap spending bill.
The fire alarm led to, of course, an evacuation, a full response by emergency and law enforcement personnel.
And we know that this happened, and we know who was responsible for it, because security cameras caught Bowman pulling the fire alarm.
Because you're in an office building on Capitol Hill, which means that there are going to be security cameras everywhere, especially right next to fire alarms.
And that means we have him dead to rights, you would think.
And you would also think that his motivation, however stupid it may have been, is pretty obvious.
He wanted to delay the vote.
Like, why else would you do that?
Very, very dumb, and an open and shut case, you would think.
But Jamal Bowman has a different narrative, and it's one that, unsurprisingly, the media and his fellow Democrats were quick to accept without skepticism, accepting it as gospel.
Later that day, Bowman put out this statement.
He said, quote, Today, as I was rushing to make a vote, I came to a door that is usually open for votes, but today would not open.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm, mistakenly thinking it would open the door.
I regret this, and sincerely apologize for any confusion this caused.
But I want to be very clear, this was not me in any way trying to delay any vote.
It was the exact opposite.
I was trying to urgently get to a vote, which I ultimately did and joined my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to keep our government open.
I also met after the vote with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Capitol Police at their request and explained what had happened.
My hope is that no one will make more of this than it was.
I am working hard every day, including today, to do my job, to do it well, and deliver for my constituents.
He vigorously denies that he was trying to disrupt official proceedings.
Of course he denies it, as that would be a criminal charge and expulsion from Congress.
It would be January 6 all over again, an attack on our democracy, an attack on our country worse than 9-11 and Pearl Harbor combined.
But instead he claims that he was perplexed by the door, which was an emergency exit, and he pulled the fire alarm to open it.
And several media members and other establishment figures were quick to defend him on social media, claiming that the door and the signage around the door was confusing.
So just a couple of examples of this narrative being pushed should suffice, I think.
Here's political commentator Matt Brunig on Twitter.
Here's what he tweeted.
Bowman was trying to walk from the Cannon Building to the Capitol Building to vote.
Unusually, the Cannon exit he went to wouldn't open and had this confusing sign on it.
He thought it was saying that you had to press the alarm to get out.
This all makes sense.
What am I missing?
The confusing sign, the confusing sign, says this.
Emergency exit only.
Push until alarm sounds.
Three seconds.
Door unlocks in 30 seconds.
That's what the confusing sign says.
Someone else named Armin Dumiluski commented on the sign saying, okay, this sign is genuinely confusing.
And to that MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes responded, it sure is!
And there was a lot of this kind of thing.
Members of the media proclaiming that the door and the sign were downright perplexing.
Just a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
Looking at that sign, it's like trying to decipher an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic.
It's like, who knows?
Now you should know that as Breitbart reports, Bowman actually took down that sign and threw it to the side, then pulled the alarm and ran the opposite way to a different door and left.
So when the media tells us that his excuse makes sense, they're telling us that that is what makes sense.
It makes sense that a grown adult man would walk up to an emergency exit, And in an effort to leave the building, tear down the sign, pull the fire alarm, and run the opposite way.
This, the media says, is a sensible strategy for exiting a building.
It makes sense.
It makes sense that a grown adult man would react to an emergency exit that way.
After all, the sign was confusing.
Which is true.
I mean, the sign only says that it's an emergency exit and you need to push down on the door handle until the alarm sounds.
This may mean that it's an emergency exit and you need to push down on the door handle until the alarm sounds.
Or it may mean that you should walk to the opposing wall and pull the fire alarm and then run away.
Maybe that's what it means.
Or it may mean that you should do cartwheels down the hallway.
Or it may mean that you should stand on your head and sing the 90s hit, Tub Thumping.
It may mean anything.
Who's to say what it means?
It's impossible to know.
The sign is indecipherable.
That is, if you are illiterate, and if you've never encountered an emergency exit or a fire alarm before in your life.
But almost every adult has, which is why, and I think I can say this about you without knowing anything about you, whoever you are watching this, I can say that in your entire time existing on this planet, you have never once heard of anyone, ever, anywhere, pulling a fire alarm in order to open a door.
You've never considered doing that yourself.
You've never done it yourself.
You've never heard of anyone doing it or considering it.
You've never been walking with a friend down a hallway and come across a fire alarm and had your friend turn to you and say, is this what we pressed to open the door?
Nobody has ever said that to you.
Nobody has ever asked you that.
And if your friend did turn to you and say that, you would look at him in stunned disbelief.
You might actually start to weep, as his stupidity would be at such a level that it would be downright tragic to behold.
It'd be like seeing a grown man walking around in Velcro shoes because he doesn't know how to tie his shoelaces.
It is dumbness so dumb that you can't even laugh at it.
It just makes you sad, if anything.
Well, I'll still laugh at it, but nicer people won't.
And to be clear, this is Jamal Bowman's defense His defense is that he's a bewildered dunce who becomes confused and hysterical at the sight of a door.
His defense is that he has the IQ of a hermit crab.
It's a defense so humiliating and so disqualifying that even if it was true, he'd be better off lying and saying that it was an intentional criminal act.
I mean, if that was me and I somehow did something that stupid, I would lie and say, you know what?
Yeah, I was committing a crime.
Put me in jail.
I would rather go to prison than have everyone know that I am that stupid.
I would certainly rather be seen as a clumsy criminal than a guy with a mental capacity of an amoeba.
And here's the thing.
Whichever is true, either way, Jamal Bowman is unfit to serve.
Because either he tried to disrupt a congressional proceeding by staging a false emergency, or he's an incompetent halfwit who doesn't know how fire alarms work.
I mean, it's one or the other.
And frankly, I don't care which one.
Though I strongly suspect that maybe there's a bit of both mixed in.
Whatever the explanation, he should be kicked out of office.
He is just another in a large crowd of people in Washington, D.C.
who run our country and make decisions that deeply impact all of our lives and yet are both morally and intellectually bankrupt.
These are the kinds of people who always are there to preside over the collapse of empires.
People whose moral character is in a constant game of limbo against their intelligence, competing over who can sink the lowest.
These are our leaders.
People who can't even open a door.
God bless America.
We're gonna need it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've done before,
and for many it's not something they really want to do, but rather something they have to do.
If you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news for you.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and free price quote from Renewal by Anderson.
Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer service and experience possible through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive product.
Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable quality, affordable windows or patio doors for $0 down, $0 payments and $0 interest for a year.
All you have to do is text WALSH to 200-300 for your free consultation to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WALSH to 200-300.
That's WALSH to 200-300.
Texting privacy policy and terms and conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message data rates apply.
Reply stop to opt out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
So we begin with some political news once again.
This is maybe the fourth show in a row with politics at the top of the five headlines, and that's not a good thing really, but it is what it is.
Here's the story from ABC News.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
teased an announcement on Friday that he said he said would create a sea change in American politics amid speculation that a Democrat candidate may leave the party.
Kennedy previously refused to rule out an independent run for president in August for the 2024 contest.
Kennedy said in a video on Friday that voters were frustrated with Congress and the leadership of both political parties, and he said that there'd be this announcement next Monday.
So here is the video where he teases this announcement.
Let's watch.
Hi, everybody.
I'm going to be in Philadelphia on October 9th to make a major announcement at the very birthplace of our nation.
I'm not going to tell you right now exactly what that announcement will be.
I can say, though, that if you've been waiting to come to one of my public events, this will be the one to come to.
I'll be speaking about a sea change in American politics and what your part and my part is in that change.
A lot of Americans who had previously given up any hope that real change would ever come through the American electoral process have begun to find new hope in my candidacy.
And I understand the deeply felt concern that people have about the way corruption has overtaken our government.
It's in the executive branch, it's in Congress, it's in the leadership of both political parties.
And so some people feel a kind of cynicism alongside the hope.
They lose hope entirely because they've been disappointed so many times.
I want to tell you now what I've come to understand after six months of campaigning.
There is a path to victory.
The hope we are feeling isn't some kind of trick of the mind.
We all recognize that there's a genuine possibility of national transformation and its source is the goodness of the American people.
Okay, so he's running independent, obviously.
That's going to be the announcement, which is the assumption, is the rumor, and I think pretty clearly based on the campaign video there.
Now, the interesting question, of course, is who does this hurt?
Again, assuming it's Biden and Trump who are in the general election, does RFK Jr.
siphon votes more from Biden or more from Trump?
Who takes the biggest hit?
And to me, the answer is very obvious, which is that it's Trump.
And there are many Trump supporters on social media kind of whistling past the graveyard, claiming that somehow RFK's independent run is a bigger problem for Biden than it is for Trump.
But that's nothing but cope.
Okay, that's rationalization.
It's absurd.
And it's also, by the way, it's what every campaign in this race, in both parties, is
doing.
That's been every campaign, it seems like, just denying reality, whistling along, claiming,
oh, this isn't a problem, everything's fine.
And so we're getting it, once again, from the Trump camp on this one, from some in the
Trump camp.
There are others who are admitting that, yeah, obviously, this is a problem for Trump.
Well, it's because RFK Jr.
has a sizable base of very dedicated, excited supporters.
And who are these people?
Like, who supports him?
Well, these are people who are anti-establishment, skeptical of vaccines, at a minimum skeptical, and very suspicious of big pharma.
They have other beliefs as well, that's not it, but those three things I think describe literally everyone who likes RFK Jr.
And are people who fit that bill more likely to be on the right or on the left?
It's very simple, ask yourself that.
There is no anti-establishment vote on the left.
It doesn't exist.
If you're anti-establishment, If you're skeptical of vaccines, if you hate big pharma, and you should hate big pharma, by the way, then you're on the right.
If this was 15 years ago, it'd be one thing.
If this was 10 years ago, even five years ago.
But back then, there was a chance that you could have views like that and still be on the left, because there was still the vestigial remains of anti-establishment sentiment on the left.
But that's all gone now.
Post-COVID, that is all gone now.
Especially on the vaccine stuff.
I mean, there was a time when being anti-vax or being skeptical of vaccines, if you had that view, there's a very good chance that you were left-wing.
There was a time when arguably you would associate that viewpoint more with the left than with the right, which maybe was never an accurate association, but there was a time when we were way past that.
That is not the case anymore.
So RFK's vote can only come from, can come from the only place where it exists, which
is the right or the center right.
So is this a major problem for Trump?
Well, I think, you know, I believe in facing reality for what it is.
And I think that yes, this is a major problem for Trump.
Now, obviously, RFK Jr.
is not going to beat Trump.
He's not going to win the presidency, of course.
But the question is whether he can pull enough of the vote to swing the election to Biden.
And I think that he can.
And the real risk here is how Trump responds to RFK Jr.' 's candidacy.
Because this is going to require Trump to actually be strategic and thoughtful.
And that sort of thing strategically holds your fire, which is not Trump's strong suit,
but this is what he's going to have to do.
Because if he comes out and just launches a broadside against RFK Jr., mocking him,
doing the whole Trump routine, then he's going to bury himself in the process, because that
will only cause RFK supporters to rally around him even more.
And I mean, this is not, you know, there are some people that Trump goes after and he mocks them ruthlessly and it causes that even that person's supporters to kind of look at them differently and it kind of emasculates them and all that.
And that's proven to be effective with a lot of people.
But I think RFK Jr.
is the kind of guy that's kind of like immune to that because of the nature of his support.
So, the best thing that Trump can do, I think, is to be highly complimentary of RFK Jr., highly supportive, very nice to him, and also publicly offer him a spot in your cabinet.
And even if he won't take it, then you've shown that that's what you want to do, treating him like an ally, and you're signaling to his supporters that you are friendly and that you're someone that they can support.
And that you can make the case then that, hey, RFK Jr.
is great.
Hey, I agree with a lot of his anti-establishment points.
I don't agree with everything.
I agree with a lot of the fact that he's anti-establishment and all this.
The points that he raises about both parties being corrupt, I agree with that.
But if you want someone who has those views and can actually win, then come over here.
That has to be the pitch.
If Trump gets mad and starts lashing out, it's not going to end well, because Trump cannot afford to lose even one single vote to RFK Jr.
He can't afford it.
If he wins in 2024, it's going to be by a razor-thin margin.
The same goes on the other side, too.
Nobody's winning in a landslide.
So anyone on either side talking about, it's going to be a landslide, is full of it.
That's just someone that you should ignore.
Totally.
There's not going to be a landslide.
It's going to be a razor thin one way or another.
And neither of them can afford to lose votes.
And RFK is going to take, and he's got, because he's, you know, to me this is, this would be like if Bernie Sanders had launched an independent bid in 2020.
It's a very similar situation to that.
That would have been devastating for the Biden campaign, because he'd be able to take enough of the vote, and his support is such that it's a smaller group of people, but they're very excited, they're very passionate, and so it's a similar kind of situation, but on the right now, I think, for Trump.
All right, this is a fascinating case, I think.
Reading from The Guardian, a jury on Thursday found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who followed him around a mall food court earlier this year.
Alan Colley, 31, was acquitted of aggravated malicious wounding in the shooting of Tanner Cook, 21, who runs the Classified Goons YouTube channel.
The jury was split on two lesser firearm counts and decided to convict him on one and acquit him on the other.
The shooting on April 2nd at the Food Court in Dulles Town Center, about 45 minutes west of the nation's capital, set off panic as shoppers fled what they feared to be a mass shooting.
Colley pleaded not guilty and said he was acting in self-defense.
The verdict came on Thursday after about five hours of deliberation.
Three hours in, the jury sent out a note saying it was divided in terms of whether the defendant acted in self-defense.
The Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Matthew Snow called the jury back into the courtroom at approximately 3.30 p.m.
and urged them to continue deliberations.
And then they came down with the verdict at the end of that day.
a colleague who's been in custody since his April arrest will remain incarcerated.
Adam Pollyard, his defense attorney, said during Thursday's closing arguments,
as client felt menaced by the six foot five inch cook during the confrontation,
which was designed to provoke a reaction and to draw viewers to Cook's YouTube channel.
Okay, so, Collie was acquitted of the more serious charge, still convicted of the lesser charge, and that part makes
no sense.
Because if you buy his self-defense claim, if you buy that claim, so you're acquitting him of the malicious wounding charge, then it makes no logical sense to convict him of the firearms charge.
If he's justified in using self-defense, then Basically, you're saying he's justified in shooting the guy, but not justified in discharging the firearm.
Logically, it makes no sense.
But juries do this all the time now, where they kind of split the baby in a way that makes no logical sense at all, so that at the end of it, you're trying to figure out what their theory of the case even is, and there isn't one.
And his lawyers will, of course, try to appeal the conviction on the lesser count.
You know, they're going to win that argument just because.
The verdict doesn't make sense.
Either his self-defense claim was legitimate or not, and if it's not a legitimate claim, then he should have been convicted of the malicious wounding charge he wasn't, which means that the jury found it legitimate, and so there should be no conviction of anything.
So, the question is, should he have been acquitted?
Of the more serious charge, or of all the charges.
I believe absolutely, yes, he should have.
He should be acquitted of everything, and he should walk free.
He should be walking free right now.
He shouldn't be in jail at all.
And I've been arguing about this on Twitter, which is always a productive thing to do, and lots of people are mad at me, and they disagree.
Even people who profess to be big supporters of the Second Amendment.
I've heard, there's been a lot of that.
You know, I'm a big Second Amendment person, but you're way off on this.
This person was totally wrong.
Well, let's watch the video that this YouTube prankster quote-unquote took where, you know, we can see the whole thing and this is what the prank quote-unquote consisted of.
And I'm going to show you everything leading up to when the shot was fired because that's the important part.
The actual shot itself, if I play that, then the violence and it'll take down the video and everything.
So you can go and find the actual shot itself if you want to find it.
Here you can see what led up to him ultimately pulling out his gun and firing.
Let's watch that.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
What?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
What's that?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
No.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Get out of my face before the cops come, stop.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Stop.
And then right there he's about to pull the trigger.
trigger.
So, that's the prank.
The hilarious prank.
The prank is that this large, massive guy, we just heard 6'5", and the other guy, quite a bit, I don't know how tall the other guy is, but quite a bit smaller than that, So this massive guy comes up, starts weirdly and ominously harassing a random DoorDash driver.
He's just trying to pick up some food and deliver it to a customer.
DoorDash, I don't know what service he's driving for, but he's delivering food.
This guy comes up, and he's got his phone out, and he's like putting, it's repeating this weird phrase, and he's putting it in Kali's face, and he keeps pursuing him, getting very, very close to him, you know, and Kali's backing away, and he says stop three times.
He says stop three times, he's trying to get away, he's trying to leave, it's not like he's trying to leave the situation, he's being pursued.
And after the third warning, he takes out the gun and he shoots him.
And some people have taken issue with it because when he took out the gun, you know, he took out the gun and he did, after taking out the gun, he just fired it immediately.
He didn't take out the gun and say, I'm warning you.
He didn't warn a fourth time after taking out the gun.
He just shot.
And I'm, and I'm, I think it's totally justified.
I have no problem with that.
He had every right to assume that Cook meant him harm.
Because he had no context.
Okay?
He didn't know that Cook was some stupid, dumb, oaf YouTuber who was doing this as a prank.
Okay, he's not, like, put yourself in that position.
This happens, you're not immediately, oh, you're not thinking, oh, this is a YouTube prank.
You're not thinking that.
I mean, you're thinking, why is this massive guy coming after me?
What is he doing?
And he's got this blank expression on his face, and he's just got, like, you think, obviously, you're gonna assume that he's crazy.
He's like some psycho.
And he means you harm.
If I was in that exact situation, I would immediately assume that he meant me harm.
That's what I would assume.
And that would be a safe assumption.
It's a fair assumption.
And it's an assumption that I believe we have every right to make.
And the benefit of the doubt in that scenario has to go entirely to Khali.
Not to the guy who initiated the confrontation to begin with.
So for me, not only would I say that Khali was justified in shooting him, but to me it's like, Clear as day.
There's not even anything, I know I said it's a fascinating case, it's actually not even that interesting to me.
I saw that video, I was like, of course, yeah, shoot him, go ahead.
Don't go up to someone harassing them like that in this ominous way.
They tell you to stop and you keep going after them.
Don't do that.
You don't want to get shot, just don't do that.
It's very easy.
It's very easy to not get shot in that situation.
Just don't do that.
And calling it a prank doesn't all of a sudden make it okay.
What if Khali?
Could Khali try that?
Could he shoot him and say, no dude, no bro, it's just a prank?
Shoot him in the stomach, which is what he did, and then what if he had just stood over him and said, just a prank bro, don't worry about it, just a prank.
Look, you're on camera, see?
You're on YouTube.
Don't worry, it's just a prank.
No, calling it a prank doesn't suddenly make everything okay.
But this is what we find, these clout chasers on YouTube or TikTok or whatever.
Of course, the infamous example of the guy on TikTok who does home invasion, walks into people's homes as part of a prank.
This is not a prank.
This is home invasion, harassment.
These are crimes you're committing.
And I think people have every right to respond.
And I also think, look, I admit that when I look at a case like this, I am not an entirely unbiased observer, I suppose.
I am very much biased in favor of the person who feels that they're being threatened and has to defend themselves.
I'm going to be biased in their favor.
Now, it's one thing, look.
That had happened, and then the guy, the YouTuber, says, ah, it's just a prank, and he kind of like starts walking away, and then Kali is just mad.
He gets pissed off that he was harassed, and he walks up to the guy and shoots him.
Okay, well now it's murder.
So that's a totally different scenario.
We're not talking about that I'm saying that if you carry a gun that you should have licenses to kill whoever you want and if you're pissed off you can just kill someone.
Obviously not.
But what I'm saying is that in the moment, in that moment where someone is confused, they don't know what you're doing, they feel threatened, I'm going to give A lot of leeway personally. I think we should be giving a
lot of leeway to the person who is feeling threatened and who also is not
the one who initiated the confrontation.
And I also think that on a societal level because I know there's always this worry about, "Oh, it's
gonna become the Wild West."
And never mind that in the Wild West, actually, oftentimes the gun laws are quite harsh.
And there were, you know, many towns you go into, you're not allowed to bring your firearm in.
But, you know, it's going to be the Wild West.
People are just shooting all over the place.
That's the concern.
I don't think that is the concern.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think the concern is more what we, the situation we currently have in society where you've got these, these thugs and these punks Who have no compunction, they have no fear, they'll just go up, they'll harass you, they'll assault you, they'll do whatever, with no fear at all.
No fear of the legal consequences, and especially no fear of the physical consequences in the moment.
I think it is good and healthy in a society for people to fear for their lives before deciding to victimize or harass someone.
I think it's a healthy, it's a sign of a healthy society.
If you're about to harass someone randomly for clicks, and then you stop and say to yourself, I don't know if I want to do that, I might die.
I might die if I do that.
That's a healthy society.
Where you have to take those kinds of things into consideration.
And then, if you're not insane, you'll probably say to yourself, yeah, you know, it's not worth it.
It's not worth it.
I think I'll just, you know what, I'll just be a normal person instead.
And I'll leave this person alone, and I'll let them make their delivery, and I'll go about my day, and that'll be it.
Okay, a healthy society, to me, is one where people are incentivized to make healthy choices.
And to be just normal, well-adjusted, contributing member of society.
If you are incentivized in that direction, and there are strong disincentives to be a burden, to be a leech, to be just a punk, a thug, that to me is healthy.
Which is why I think we should Be very, very generous to people like Kali in that situation, which the jury almost was, you know, if not for the ridiculous splitting the baby bit there at the end.
Okay, here's a headline from Politico.
It says, he, she, they, the pronoun debate will likely land at the Supreme Court.
And the article says, "Once again, a pitched battle in America's culture wars is making its steady way to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In this round, the emerging question is whether public school children have a right to choose names and pronouns
affirming their gender identity, or whether parents' rights to manage the upbringing of
their children overrides it.
Three separate federal appeals courts have already confronted this issue,
which has left school administrators across the country having to pick between the wishes and needs of the student
on one hand, and the demands of parents that they be alerted to their
children's gender and pronoun preferences at school on the other.
The legal issues in this case are not easy ones, pitting children's rights against their parents' rights.
Upset parents contend that by using a child's preferred pronouns without their knowledge, government actors are illegally providing medical care without the parental consent of their state law mandates.
Weighing against the parents are the kids' requests as well.
as state laws requiring that schools provide non-discriminatory environments in which students
can safely express their gender identities.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws
protecting students from harassment based on gender identity.
The outcome, while centering around school administration rather than civil rights of
transgender Americans, is likely nonetheless to have far-reaching impacts.
Not only does it invite the unelected justice to take sides in the clash between conservatives and progressives over what should be tolerated and taught in public schools, but it could wind up sending a powerful signal about the extent to which the court will permit discrimination on the basis of non-conforming gender identity under the Constitution itself.
It talks about the latest case.
There's been several cases like this, but the point is that Politico is predicting, and I think rightly so, correctly so, that this debate over pronouns, the pronoun question, at least in the context of schools, will eventually be in the Supreme Court.
And that's good news, I think, because I'm reasonably confident that the court, how it's currently constructed, will arrive at the right conclusion.
Not totally confident.
I mean, you never know with somebody like Roberts, but I'd give it a greater than 50% chance the Supreme Court does the right thing here and affirms the fact that schools cannot change a kid's pronouns or, you know, identify them as an opposite sex without alerting the parents or having parents involved.
And even if the Supreme Court did come to that determination, that would not at all settle all of the issues around pronouns and the transing of kids and everything else.
But it would be a very powerful thing.
I do want to make one point here, though, and it's an important one.
Obviously, the political article is framing this dispute in a way that is meant to be as favorable as possible to the trans agenda.
Obviously, we know they're going to do that.
It's important to notice the framing though.
So what I just read to you, what is wrong with what I just read?
Okay, where is the dishonesty?
What are they lying about?
And there are a few little, not little things, but there are a few things that you can point out.
I mean, everything they said is at least either a lie or intentionally slanted in a certain direction.
But the big thing is this, they say that This is a dispute that pits a child's right against a parent's right.
And that is a lie.
When we frame it that way, you're framing it that way because anyone who says that, it's very clear what side of the issue they're on.
It's just not true.
That's not the dispute.
And one way that you know that it's a lie is that the right of a parent and the right of a child are never at odds.
Okay?
Parental rights properly understood are never at odds with a child's rights properly understood.
This is one of the ways that we know, you know, there are artificial, fabricated rights, imaginary rights that are codified into law in a corrupt and illegitimate way.
That's true.
And those rights, in that sense, can just be whatever the government says.
Well, you have this right, or you don't have this right.
But if we believe that human rights have some underlying, there's an underlying fundamental reality to human rights that go beyond the government, that rights are not just arbitrarily and subjectively determined by whatever governing authority happens to be in power, if we believe that, then we can talk about what are actual rights and what aren't.
And so the point is that actual human rights You know, if there's ever a dispute where you have one person making a human rights claim and another person making a human rights claim, and those claims conflict with each other, then that always tells us that someone in this dispute is wrong, that they're claiming human rights that they don't actually possess, or maybe they both are.
So, for example, take abortion, for example.
Oftentimes this is framed as a dispute between the right of the mother and the right of the child.
But it's not.
It's not actually.
There's no conflict there.
You know, the right of the mother is not bumping up against the right of the child.
That's because the mother has no right to commit murder.
Has no fundamental human right to murder her child.
That right doesn't exist.
We can arbitrarily concoct it.
By corrupt governing authorities, but it's not an actual, fundamental, natural human right that exists.
It's not.
It is another, again, a fabricated and artificial one.
So, same goes in this case.
What we have here is not the child's right and the parent's right conflicting.
That's not the case.
We have instead the rights of both parties, the parent and the child, being infringed by the state.
That's what has actually happened.
When a child goes to school and, you know, when a boy goes to sixth grade and is identified by, you know, is treated as a girl and they use a girl's name to identify him and girl pronouns and all the rest of it.
And the girl's bathroom is opened up to him.
And the parents are not even alerted to it, and this is kept from the parents.
This is not a case where the child's right is like superseding the parent's right.
No, this is a case where both the parent's right and the child's right are being infringed by the school, which is to say by the state.
Because a parent It's easy enough to see, I would hope to see, the parent's right in this case.
The parent has a right to raise their own children, to bring their children up in the truth, with moral and intellectual clarity, to raise their kids to be well-adjusted human beings.
So the parent has a right to all that.
And when the child goes to school and is told by the teachers, oh yes, you're really a girl, that right is being horrifically infringed.
What about the child though?
Does the child have a right to be treated, does the boy have a right to be treated as a girl in school?
No, that doesn't make any sense.
What do you mean has a right?
What you're asking is, you're asking, does the child have a right to be lied to by the authority figures in his life, by the adults who he's been entrusted with?
You're asking, does the child have a right to be lied to?
It's hard to even answer that.
I mean, the answer is no.
But it's hard to answer because it's such an incoherent question.
What do you mean, does he have a right to be lied to?
Because that's all it is.
He's being lied to.
If the teachers and the faculty and the staff are treating him like a girl and calling him a girl and using girl pronouns and using a fake girl name, That is not the name that his parents gave him.
And they're saying, go ahead and use the girl's bathroom.
They are lying to that child, and they are leading that child deeper into confusion.
Does the child have a right to be treated that way?
No.
It goes the other way.
The child has a right to not be treated that way.
So when you respect the child's wishes, you respect the boy's wishes by calling him a girl, you're not respecting his rights.
You are infringing on his rights.
Because despite what this confused kid says, what he actually has a right to is he has a right to the truth.
He has a right to be properly educated when he's in these institutions.
He has a right to the just basic guidance and clarity that we all had growing up.
He has a right to all those things.
And the school has a responsibility to give it.
That's why the child is there.
That's why the school system exists, allegedly.
And so when you respect the wishes of the boy, the alleged wishes of the boy to be treated like a girl, you are, in fact, taking away all those things that he has a right to.
So, that's really the conflict here.
It's not parent versus child.
Not at all.
No.
It is parent and child versus the state.
It's actually a question of, does the state have a right to indoctrinate your child into this gender madness?
It is the state claiming that right against the parents saying, you do not have the right to treat my child that way.
And I think the legitimate rights claim in that dispute should be obvious to everyone.
And if it's not immediately obvious to you, then you're just, you're hopeless.
You're just a, you're a hopeless case.
Alright, let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
A few comments here.
First comment is in response to our segment about the Sixth Circuit Court upholding our ban on gender mutilation of children, upholding the ban in Tennessee and in Kentucky, which we talked about on Friday.
Big ruling.
This commentator, commenter rather, disagrees with the ruling, says, Matt, you're wrong.
The lower court correctly upheld the right of parents to raise kids according to their values, not the state's.
The ruling you applaud does the opposite.
So by your logic, California can enact a law that makes agreeing with your values grounds for losing your kids.
I always love these comments.
It's a classic argument of, well, if we pass this good law, then the other side might pass bad laws.
Oh, this good law is a slippery slope.
It might lead to bad laws.
Which is a ridiculous argument because, of course, first of all, California doesn't need the precedent that we set in order to pass bad laws, okay?
So, if we were to back off and say, we're not going to pass any good laws, we're not going to try to advance our agenda, we're not going to try to advance what we know is correct and good at all, we're not going to do it.
And this is what the Republican Party, of course, has been doing for decades.
So, you know, when we have power, we're not going to really do anything.
The Republican Party had total power of the federal government from 2016 to 2018, did nothing, did nothing at all.
Passed a tax cut, that was it.
And I guess the argument's supposed to be, well, look, we didn't do anything, and now we hand it over to you and the other side, and we trust that you'll do nothing as well.
It never really works that way, does it?
No, when the left has power, they just look at us and say, you suckers, you idiots.
Now we're just going to ram our agenda down your throat, like we were going to do anyway.
But also, as we just talked about the parents' rights and children's rights, this ban on child mutilation has nothing to do with parents' rights.
It's about the right of a child to not have this torture inflicted on them.
A child has the right to not be sterilized, castrated, and mutilated.
And it is irrelevant whether the parent wants it or not.
Parental rights, of course, are not absolute.
Nobody thinks they are.
Are you going to sit here and say you think parental rights are absolute?
Parents should have the right to just do whatever they want with their kids?
Nobody thinks that.
Of course there are limits on it.
And yeah, when you're trying to establish the limits of any rights, there's all... because no right is absolute.
You know?
I mean, you could be put in prison and have almost all of your rights taken away.
You can be executed.
Your right to life, then, in that case, takes a back seat.
So, no right is absolute, and that means that there's always going to be gray area sort of cases, and you're going to have things like that.
But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to speak coherently about what your rights actually are and where they end.
These broader principles are easy to determine.
When it comes to parental rights, that's definitely the case.
Yes, you have the right to raise your child, but you don't have the right to horrifically abuse and butcher and mutilate them.
That is not included in your right as a parent.
Which is also, you know, it becomes easier to determine what your rights are, what they aren't, where rights end.
When you also look at the other side of the rights coin, which is responsibility.
Responsibilities and rights go together.
You know, for every right, there is a responsibility that comes with it.
And many times, it's more coherent, and I think more useful anyway, to talk about responsibilities rather than rights.
So, rather than talking about the rights of parents, and parents have plenty of rights, But we should also talk about the responsibility of parents.
As a parent, you have the responsibility to raise your child, to love your child, to care for your child, to bring them up in the world, to be well-adjusted, moral, virtuous people.
That is your responsibility, and it's also your right.
It's both.
But if you do something to your child that egregiously conflicts with that, then you are well outside of your rights as a parent.
Where our rights end.
Britney's not a bad mom, Matt.
Yeah, she's done some not cool things, but she should never have been put in the conservatorship
in the beginning.
She wasn't ill or of unsound mind.
She was just a young girl at the peak of fame and those around her took advantage.
It's so sad.
Um, I think I mentioned when we talked about this on Friday that one of the quote-unquote uncool or not cool things
she did to use your phrase was she barricaded herself into her home with her children and had a standoff
with emergency personnel and threatened to kill herself in front of her kids.
So that's just one of the not cool things she did.
And I would say that goes well beyond not cool.
That goes into the realm of you do that and it's unsafe to have you around your own kids.
Now, granted, that was many years ago, but things like that, incidents like that, is what led to the conservatorship in the beginning, in the first place.
And whether or not you lift the conservatorship is really, it's just a matter of, like, is this person now, they were not of sound mind before.
Are they now, though, of sound mind?
Are they able to care for themselves?
Are they no longer a danger to themselves and those around them?
And I think for a long time, the court said, looked at Britney Spears and said, no, she's still, it's just not safe to leave her to her own devices.
And then the social media mob had their say, and now she's left to her own devices.
And I think it's pretty clear that, you know, in this case, the courts were right.
Right the first time.
Finally, this commenter is offended that I said parenting is harder today than it's ever been in history.
Says, quote, making that statement is ridiculous.
You have no idea what it was like to raise kids in any other era than today.
I wonder what it was like raising children in Roman days.
Hmm, St.
Monica raising St.
Augustine during pagan times.
So you're wrong, Matt.
Please stop the sniveling.
I think I acknowledge that it's To have lived, I am happy to live now instead of any other point in history.
For the simple fact that, you know, because I live now and I have six kids, I can be, you know, barring tragedy, I can be confident that they will make it to adulthood, whereas in the past, You don't have to go that far back into the past, and if you had six kids, like, the chance that they would all make it to the altar is very, very slim.
And so for that reason alone, I'm happy to live now, rather than at any other time in history.
But that doesn't change the fact that we have these very unique challenges as parents.
And, you know, the comparison game, it's like, it's pointless anyway, because you live in the time period you live in, you can't compare it to any other time, really.
But I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge what those challenges are and that there are some really significant challenges parents face now that are actually completely unique in the history of human civilization.
And prior to recent times, you really couldn't have said that.
Because it's kind of like, up until recently, parents, there's kind of like the same basic challenges you face when you're trying to raise your kids, and they kind of manifest themselves in different ways as technology changes and culture changes, but it's always kind of like the same thing.
But now, living in the internet age, when you have these devices in the home, and, you know, your child, many children, have direct access to the entire world, and the world has direct access to them, that's just a dynamic that didn't exist at any other point.
There's no parallel here.
Like, what does it correlate to?
Nothing.
And I think it completely changes the game as a parent, and it also does mean that if you raised kids before the internet age, yeah, I mean, there are some insights and wisdom you can offer, but you just don't, you really don't quite understand what it's like now, what the challenges are.
You know, is there anything scarier than gender ideology infecting bedrock American brands and turning them into some insane, woke zombie?
Well, maybe a night in Vegas with Hunter Biden.
It's a good joke.
But the truth is that these companies hate your value, so stop giving them your money.
Back in March, we launched Jeremy's Chocolates and instantly sold hundreds of thousands of chocolate bars.
Now, just in time for Halloween, we're introducing our new bite-sized microaggression bars, still in the same binary nut or nutless bars, just as God intended.
You can order both or each separately.
We gave these she-he bars their own space.
The truth is always sweeter when shared, so go to Jeremy'sChocolate.com and order yours today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
It's a pretty simple transaction.
The government gives you cash and you vote for them.
This is familiar territory in the third world.
And speaking of the third world, we have a lot of these kinds of schemes in our country.
Student loan debt has been at the center of many of these schemes.
And the schemes are always incredibly stupid.
So, for example, three years ago, the government put a pause on student loan payments because of COVID.
For some reason, COVID meant that you shouldn't have to pay your student debt back, even though you still have to pay all of your other types of debt, but student debt was an exception.
And Biden, after taking office, proceeded to extend the pause and then extend it again and again and again and again.
Until just yesterday, on Sunday, just 24 hours ago, Joe Biden's three-year quasi-loan forgiveness program came to an end.
All of a sudden, as of yesterday, tens of millions of people who took out massive loans to pay for their college degrees, whether it was a degree in astrophysics or LGBTQIA plus studies or whatever it was, had to start, once again, making payments on those degrees.
You might remember that Joe Biden came out with what was supposed to be a more permanent loan forgiveness plan a few weeks before the last midterm election.
He said that the government would permanently forgive, quote-unquote, up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for borrowers.
A lot of voters believe that was true, even though the Biden administration knew the plan was never going to hold up in court.
You can't just cancel debt.
He had no authority to do it.
And somebody in the end has to pay for it.
That's the reality.
In this case, predictably, several states went to federal court saying that they have
their own student loan programs, which were funded by tax dollars.
And these states said that they stood to lose a lot of that money if the Biden administration's
plan took effect.
As the Supreme Court heard arguments on Joe Biden's plan this year, a swarm of blue and
purple haired activists popped up in Washington, D.C.
They made a series of incoherent and, frankly, hilarious arguments in favor of this student loan forgiveness plan.
And here's just one of them, for example.
Watch this.
I get paid about $73,000 a year, more than I could have imagined as a young person.
I was thrilled to start making a salary after grad school.
I thought I'd be rich.
And yet I am still drowning in debt.
What's worse is, it's considered less than many people's debt.
Only $30,000.
I'm lucky compared to a lot of people to only have $30,000 of debt, which we have to admit is unacceptable.
Right?
Yes!
This is absurd.
Absurd, yes.
Now, if you're paid $73,000 a year, that's a good salary in most of the country.
A lot of people maintain households on far less money than this graduate student makes.
In fact, she's making more than $10,000 above the median household income in states like Oklahoma and Louisiana and other states.
But no sane person would ever think that $73,000 is ever going to make them rich.
Unless you live in the year 1847 or something, 73 grand does not equate to being wealthy.
So why would anyone presume that $70,000 is somehow going to make them wealthy in the year 2023?
And perhaps most disturbingly, how did someone with this level of financial illiteracy manage to earn a graduate degree in the first place?
The more you watch that video, the more depressing it gets.
Here you have a woman who earnestly believes that going through the motions and racking up degrees should lead inevitably to wealth, because that's how you get wealth.
You check a bunch of boxes your whole life and you follow orders.
You definitely don't innovate.
You don't strike out on your own path.
You don't do something different.
No, you just follow the program.
You go to the classes.
You get the piece of paper that says degree, and abracadabra, wealth should just appear.
This is the expectation, and shockingly for many people, it has not been met.
And she's not alone.
Here's an NBC News segment from a couple of days ago featuring a salon owner who's really upset that she still owes $4,000 for her community college degree, and that now she's going to have to start paying on it.
Let's watch that.
After three years of a pandemic pause, federal student loan repayments are set to restart Sunday, three months after the Supreme Court struck down President Biden's student loan forgiveness program.
Now many people are facing thousands of dollars of debt and they say they still have no way of paying it back.
NBC News business and data reporter Brian Chung has more.
Josie Bridges is a single mom living paycheck to paycheck.
It's hard enough dealing with rising prices at the store.
My student payments are sitting right now at about $400 is what they're expecting each month.
So, I mean, that's my food budget right there.
The pandemic freeze on student loan payments allowed Josie to open up her own salon in Portland, Oregon.
But with $4,000 in outstanding debt from her community college degree, she says she simply won't be able to make the payments once they resume in October.
It's kind of out of my hands at this point.
If I can't make it, I can't make it.
It's a game changer.
The Biden administration's plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt would have wiped Josie's slate clean.
Instead, a challenge from six Republican states resulted in a Supreme Court decision in June striking down the plan, after Josie had already put thousands of dollars in investments into her salon.
I don't know what's going to happen in the future, and that's kind of scary.
Now, you know, I'm a big supporter of small businesses.
I love it when people go out and do their own thing, start their own businesses, showing that entrepreneurial spirit that once made this country get great.
But the message from this report seems to be that Josie took major financial risks on the assumption that the government was just going to wipe away her debt.
Unfortunately, the magic debt forgiveness fairy never arrived, and now she's stuck paying back the money that she decided to borrow in the first place.
So it's hard to think of a better illustration of the fact that this pause on student loans was a self-defeating and ridiculous and pointless policy.
It's the quintessential example of the government kicking the can down the road, which is the only thing they ever do.
And in response, predictably enough, many college grads kick the can down the road also.
It's not like most of them have spent the intervening years saving money.
Whether it's because of Biden's terrible economy, or inflation, or their own reckless spending habits, or some combination of these factors, many of these college grads are now in the same spot they were in when the pause took effect, if not an even worse spot.
Now the unpause button is pushed, and nothing was accomplished.
They're still broke, and they're desperate for more handouts.
Social media right now is ripe with videos from people panicking that they have to pay back their loans again.
Many of them have advanced degrees.
Some of them have multiple bachelor degrees.
They've spent years and years and years accumulating degrees, and now the bill is due, and they're demanding that somebody waive the magic wand and make it all go away.
And of course, what is the magic wand?
Well, the magic wand is someone else's bank account.
Because there is no loan forgiveness.
There is only loan transfer.
And they want their loans transferred from them to you.
As I've argued for many years, this idea is flagrantly immoral.
It's evil.
You know, and it makes no sense.
If it's somehow unjust to expect a college graduate to pay his own loans, then it is self-evidently much more unjust to expect someone else to pay his loans.
Like, someone has to pay the debt, and it only makes sense that the guy who owns the debt should pay it.
Everyone, I think, intuitively understands this point when it comes to most types of debt.
But college debt is somehow treated as an exception.
That's because the whole scheme is just a form of upper class welfare.
Most student loan debt is held by high wealth households.
More than 60% of it is held by the rich and the upper class.
People with graduate degrees account for a half of all student debt.
So these are, for the most part, upper class people.
And they are looking to get bailed out.
And the bailout would inevitably come, in many cases, from people who have less money than they do.
And while college grads try to reach their hands into your pocket to take your money to pay off their loans, the real villains in this story get off the hook completely.
Villains like the university system itself, which is charging these exorbitant fees for what often turns out to be a useless education.
These universities operate like hedge funds, but they're taxed like charities.
They've been raising tuition for decades with the help of federally backed loans, and when the students default on those loans, the university owes nothing.
The student or the taxpayers have to pay.
We've also been letting employers off the hook, as I've pointed out many times.
We rarely blame them for needlessly requiring a degree for jobs that can just as easily be done by people without them.
Corporate America and the education system, they have created this problem, yet they get none of the blame, and the working class is expected to pick up the bill.
It's a tale as old as time.
How many entry-level consultants or government bureaucrats really need a $200,000 bachelor's degree to work an Excel spreadsheet and send some emails?
It's absurd.
And that last point is the thing that I think is rarely mentioned in a student debt conversation, even though it's the most important point of all.
As we see all these college grads weeping over their loan burden, and it is indeed an enormous burden, we rarely state the obvious, which is that most of these people Never should have gone to college to begin with.
We have people running around with multiple degrees who never needed one.
There are people with master's degrees who could have been just as successful, if not more successful, with nothing but a high school diploma.
Now, yes, as already covered, some employers have created a sort of artificial demand for a degree, which means that if you don't go to college, you will not be eligible for those jobs, even though you actually are more than eligible.
Like, you could do them, but artificially they're saying that you can't get in the door because you don't have the degree.
But there are many other career paths that you can venture down where nobody cares if you have a degree.
I am more financially successful than most people with doctorates, and my highest level of formal education is 12th grade.
So, it is possible to find success without a college degree.
I know that from experience.
Now, I'm not denying the hurdles that you'll find in your path if you decide to skip college and free yourself from the scam.
I also know about those hurdles from experience as well.
But the only real long-term solution to the student loan crisis, the only way to put an end to this lunacy, the only path out of this wilderness, Is for the majority of young people to abandon the university system entirely.
That is the only way.
And it's the one thing that we don't talk about when we have this conversation.
I've been screaming it from the rooftops forever, but more people need to join in.
The chorus.
Or nothing's gonna get better.
Because until that happens, Until we see millions of young people going, just bypassing the university system completely.
They graduate high school and they bypass the system completely and they go out and they live their lives and they get jobs and they do something else.
Until that happens, tuition will not go down.
At all, it's only going to go up, because there's no incentive for it to go down.
The university, why would they lower tuition?
They know that parents are going to shuffle their kids into the colleges anyway.
They know that you'll pay anything, and so they're going to keep raising the tuition.
There's no incentive.
And corporate America will continue needlessly demanding degrees for jobs that a well-trained monkey could perform, because again, they have no incentive to stop demanding it.
As long as we go along with the program, the program will not change.
That's the simple reality.
If people reject the program, and they reject the programming, the student debt crisis will eventually become a moot point.
A thing of the past.
This is really the only path forward.
And it's the only way that we will really ever be able to say that the student debt problem is cancelled.
