Ep. 1307 - Democrats Courageously Defend The Rights Of Illegal Immigrant Drunk Drivers
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats in Congress have come to the defense of illegal immigrants who drive drunk. They insist that illegals have the God given right to get DUIs and still stay in this country. Also, a school puts a tampon dispenser in the boy's restroom. It takes the kids 20 minutes to tear it down, which is way too long. Nikki Haley makes the most bizarre mistake I've ever seen from a presidential candidate. Richard Dawkins finally speaks out in defense of biological reality. And women on TikTok keep coming up with different "tests" for their husbands and boyfriends. We'll take a look at these tests, and what you can really learn from them.
Ep.1307
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 15% off your Jeremy’s Razors Founder Kit here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Renewal by Andersen - Shop Renewal by Andersen’s New Year’s Sales Event by Texting WALSH to 200-300
Good Ranchers - FREE Bacon for a Year! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
Ramp - Now get $250 off when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.com/WALSH
- - -
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 Wall Show, Democrats in Congress have come to the defense of illegal immigrants who drive drunk.
They insist that illegals have the God-given right to get DUIs and still stay in this country, apparently.
Also, a school puts a tampon dispenser in the boys' restroom.
It takes the kids 20 minutes to tear it down, which is way too long.
Nikki Haley makes the most bizarre mistake I've ever seen from a presidential candidate.
Richard Dawkins finally speaks out in defense of biological reality.
And women on TikTok keep coming up with different tests for their husbands and boyfriends.
We'll take a look at these tests and what you can really learn from them.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
If your house is feeling chilly right now, you may need to consider window replacements.
I get it.
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've ever done before, and it may seem like a bit of a daunting task.
Luckily, there's a company that will do the work for you.
Renewal by Anderson is your one-stop shop for window design, manufacturing, and installation.
Windows play a crucial role in regulating indoor temperatures.
If you notice a spike in your heating or cooling bills, it may be due to inefficient windows.
Don't put it off any longer.
Renewal by Anderson offers limited, fully transferable, and best in the nation warranty coverage.
Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home consultation on quality, energy efficient,
affordable windows or patio doors with special financing options as well.
Text Walsh to 200-300 for a free consultation to save $375 off every window and $775 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 terms and conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message data rates may apply.
Reply stop to opt out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
There were not many moments in the 2020 presidential campaign
when Joe Biden appeared in public and answered questions on the fly
without any notes to guide him to the extent Biden did sit for interviews.
He only talked with friendly outlets that went out of their way to help him answer their questions.
But despite that assistance, sometimes things still went very wrong.
And one of the more notable debacles came in January of 2020.
When Biden participated in an election forum at Vice, Biden was asked how he would change the culture at ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
His answer involved the usual angry yelling and finger pointing, but the substance of what Biden said was so bizarre that it actually left the Vice interviewers speechless.
Let's watch that again.
What exact changes would you bring to ICE as an agency?
I would hold ICE agents accountable if in fact they stepped over my executive orders, which is no arrest of anyone outside of their school.
Look at the, you know, one of the things that's happening is, particularly for Latino and Hispanic kids.
Is the incredible pressure on them in terms of their, their, their, their sense of security.
They go off to school wondering whether when mom comes and picks them up, is she not going to be there because an ICE agent was there to arrest her?
Or they take, he, she takes him to the doctor that she's going to not be there because she is quote undocumented and an ICE agent is going to pick him up.
So how do you change the culture?
You change the culture by saying you're going to get fired.
You're fired if in fact you do that.
You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that's committed and I don't count drunk driving as a felony.
Now, even for Vice, that was a little much.
Biden pledged to fire any ICE officer who arrested an illegal immigrant for committing a federal misdemeanor, even though that is in the job description of ICE officers.
Enforcing the law is what they are supposed to be doing, and Biden just publicly threatened to terminate anyone who did the job that they signed up to do.
And Joe Biden declared that drunk driving is a misdemeanor, even though in many cases it's actually a felony.
So it's an insane series of statements for any presidential candidate to make, but it was especially odd coming from Biden, who claimed for many years that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver, even though in typical Biden fashion, the story was a lie.
But completely unprompted, in any event, Biden gave the green lights for illegal aliens to drink and drive in the United States without any fear of deportation or even arrest.
So he affirmed the right of non-citizens to drive drunk in the United States.
Now, if you wanted to terrorize as many American citizens as possible and ensure that thousands more people die in drunk driving accidents every year, this is exactly the kind of policy you would adopt.
You would provide incentives for degenerate criminals living in this country to commit even more crimes by removing any fear in their minds that they might get deported if they disobey.
Four years ago, it was easy to try and dismiss Biden's remarks as a gaffe or a misstatement.
At the time, that's exactly what many on the left did, but it was not a misstatement at all.
It was instead a de facto part of the Democratic Party platform that, indeed, illegal aliens should be able to drive drunk as much as they want without having to worry about the consequences.
That is the platform that Biden ran on.
Let the illegals get drunk and kill your family in fiery car wrecks on the highway.
That was basically the campaign motto.
And it's what most of his party's delegation in Congress believes in.
And that is why Yesterday, 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted no on a bill that would allow for the automatic deportation of illegal immigrants who drink and drive, whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor.
The bill also would make it harder for non-citizens convicted of DUI to enter this country in the first place.
Again, the overwhelming majority of Democrats tried to block this bill.
So they have no problem with foreign nationals entering into this country and then committing a dangerous crime, one that could easily get American citizens killed.
Unfortunately, the bill passed by a 274 to 150 vote margin, with 59 Democrats joining the Republicans, but it was far closer than it should have been.
And there should have obviously not been a single person voting against it.
Of course, the only real issue with the bill, if there is an issue with it, is that we should automatically deport all illegals anyway, sober or not.
But since that's not happening, this seems like a logical place to start.
Especially with all of the many cases of illegals killing Americans by driving drunk.
It happens all the time.
That includes the case of Jose Menjivar, who just killed two American citizens after racking up more than a decade's worth of probation violations and DUIs.
And that record didn't stop Jose from getting in his Toyota Tundra while drunk and doing it all over again last month.
And here's how that turned out.
Watch.
A driver accused of killing a mother and son near Broomfield High School has a long history of drinking and driving.
Our Shawn Boyd has been digging into this case.
She is live right now.
So Shawn, you have learned that the suspect went before a judge in Boulder just days before this crash.
And Alan, he pled guilty to drunk driving on two separate occasions on top of three prior drinking and driving related convictions, multiple probation violations and failing to appear in court repeatedly.
Despite all that, he walked out of here on December 8th and four days later got behind the wheel while drunk, according to investigators, and killed a Broomfield mother and her son.
Court records show Jose Menjiar-Ales has a history of drunk driving dating back to 2007.
He has four convictions in Boulder County alone.
Again and again, he's been put on probation.
And again and again, he's violated it.
Continuing to drink and drive until his next arrest.
In each case, he's been released on no or low bond, failed to reappear for his hearing, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
That may explain why he didn't face sentencing for two DUI cases from 2016 and 2019 until this month.
He was allowed to plead both down to lesser charges of driving while ability impaired, despite having three prior drinking and driving-related convictions.
A Boulder County judge sentenced him to probation, community service, and work release.
He left the courthouse, and four days later, investigators say he got drunk, got behind the wheel, and drove his truck into a car outside of Broomfield High School, killing Melissa Powell and her 16-year-old son.
What's not mentioned in that report, because local news stations don't like to talk about illegal immigration, is that this man has a record of four deportations.
He was kicked out of this country in June 2009, June 2013, November 2014, and January 2015.
But the border is completely open, so he just kept coming back.
And after a while, the federal government just stopped deporting him, even though they had ample opportunity to do so.
He was arrested multiple times in this country after his last deportation, in particular for DUIs on December 7, 2016 and May 7, 2019.
None of that mattered to the DOJ or to the left-wing judges in Colorado, so here we are.
Prosecutors wanted to send him to prison for a year, but the judge, whose name is Zach Malkinson, again released him.
And now, as a direct result of that decision and all the decisions before it, two people are dead as a result.
And here's the kicker.
All he has to do is come up with $10,000 out of his $100,000 bond, and he can get out.
And he can get drunk and kill some more American citizens.
This is the kind of degeneracy that Democrats want in this country.
They just voted to make it harder to deport illegal aliens just like this killer.
And there are a lot of killers like him.
In 2021, there was the case of Ernesto Lopez Morales, a Guatemalan who was illegally living in Florida.
Ernesto was driving a Suburban with no lights on when he plowed into another vehicle, pushing it 600 feet off the road and killing a five-year-old girl inside, and then he fled the scene.
Now, what happened to Ernesto?
He was charged with manslaughter, given a $22,500 bond, which he could post within just a couple, with just a couple thousand dollars.
He was not immediately removed from this country or even forced to stay behind bars after killing a five-year-old.
Then there was the case of the illegal alien who killed NFL linebacker Edwin Jackson and also his ride-share driver around 4 a.m.
on a Sunday morning.
Jackson became sick, so the driver pulled over to the shoulder of the interstate in Indianapolis.
Both men got out of the car, and that's when another intoxicated Guatemalan national named Manuel Araigo Zavala drove his Ford F-150 into the emergency lane and killed Jackson and his driver.
Now, this incident never should have happened because Manuel shouldn't have been in the United States in the first place.
Manuel had a previous DUI conviction and two deportations, one in 2007, another in 2009.
In other words, he's exactly the kind of person that those 150 Democrats want to keep in this country.
There are many more examples along these lines.
There's the case of Alefio Agustin, who had two convictions for driving under the influence.
One in September 2019, another in January 2020.
He got deported because of the latter arrest, but of course had no problem getting back into the country, where on one Sunday night late last year, he got drunk and nearly killed a man with his Chevy Malibu.
Then there's the reported illegal alien Juan Felix Avendano, who according to Wisconsin
Now was driving 106 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone when he slammed into the
back of a vehicle carrying Jan and George Schimming, 76 and 78 years old, and their
son Craig Schimming, 52, while the family was on the way to church.
And Schimming later died.
Just weeks earlier, also in Wisconsin, an illegal alien named Ernest Regalado killed a 20-year-old nurse in a DUI wreck.
And yeah, we could go on all day through the list of illegal aliens who have killed American citizens and their prior rap sheets.
Suffice it to say, the fact that we're not enforcing immigration law, even against DUI offenders, is clearly getting people killed.
These are incidents that should fill us with absolute rage and disgust.
Now, of course, it's an outrage and a tragedy any time somebody is killed by a drunk driver, but the idea that we're allowing the dregs of humanity from other countries to come here illegally and kill good, productive, law-abiding citizens of our community, it's just unconscionable.
So, what then is the argument What's the argument against deporting illegal aliens who have been convicted of DUIs?
Here's Representative Pramila Jayapal to try to explain what that argument is.
Let's listen.
Once again, the majority is wasting our time by putting forward a piece of legislation that has zero chance of becoming law and that is extraordinarily broad.
No one condones driving under the influence.
We should do everything we can to prevent people from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
But this bill, designed to scapegoat and denigrate immigrants, will not solve the serious problem of DUIs.
Public safety threats, including those who have been convicted of serious DUI offenses, are already inadmissible and removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and this bill would not change or enhance that.
Under the INA, a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude where the punishment can be for a year or longer makes an individual deportable.
Courts have ruled over and over again that serious DUI offenses that put others at risk are CIMTs and make the perpetrators deportable.
But this bill isn't about serious offenses, Mr. Speaker.
Far from it.
The bill says that a conviction for a single DUI offense, misdemeanor or felony, makes you instantly deportable, and an admission to such an offense makes you instantly inadmissible.
No questions asked.
I can understand, maybe, the appeal of something that sounds like a zero-tolerance policy.
But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we had that kind of policy here in the House of Representatives, there would be several members that would not be members of this chamber.
So the last part there is a complete non sequitur, of course.
Whether lawmakers have driven drunk is irrelevant because we're talking about a bill that applies to illegal aliens, people who have already violated the law and who have no legal right to be in this country and then commit another crime on top of that.
So it's not clear why she's suggesting that some members of Congress would be affected by this legislation in any way, unless she's admitting something about the immigration status of one of her colleagues.
Which isn't that hard to imagine, actually.
And I will say that if there are any illegal alien congressmen or women, I absolutely am in favor of deporting them immediately.
And, you know, no need to wait for them to drive drunk.
So that should solve it.
In fact, actually, I'm in favor of deporting 95% of Congress, even if they're citizens.
So we could talk about that.
That's a separate piece of legislation we could work on.
But the crux of Jayapal's argument is that she doesn't condone DUI, and she thinks that we should do everything we can to prevent people from driving while intoxicated.
But at the same time, she opposes the bill because it's broad, and it, quote, scapegoats and denigrates immigrants.
Specifically, Jayapal complains that this bill doesn't focus only on serious offenses and instead would make an immigrant instantly deportable for any DUI offense at all.
Now, reasonable people see that part of this bill as a feature, not a bug.
The only difference between a serious DUI and one that Jayapal and apparently Biden don't deem serious is that nobody was hurt or killed by the non-serious one.
But that's only a matter of luck.
Okay, the reason why it's bad to get behind the wheel when you're drunk is that you could kill someone, or yourself, or multiple people, even if in most cases it doesn't end that way.
Everybody who commits a DUI is putting lives at risk, whether they actually kill somebody or not.
And an illegal immigrant should be given zero latitude to put American lives at risk at all, under any circumstance, and to any degree.
So, these are not exactly strong arguments so far, but she keeps going, so let's keep listening.
Moreover, by including every single type of DUI offense, this bill would make someone deportable for not driving under the influence.
That's because states have a wide variety of opinions on what is a DUI.
For example, Arizona's DUI statute allows people to be charged with a DUI if they are intoxicated and have, quote, physical control of their vehicle.
The Ninth Circuit found that the breadth of this statute means that, and I'm quoting here, one may be convicted under it for sitting in one's own car in one's own driveway with the key in the ignition and a bottle of beer in one's hand.
End quote.
Because of this, the Ninth Circuit determined that a conviction under this statute was insufficient to count as a deportable offense.
As the court put it, drunken driving is despicable.
Having physical control of a car while drinking is not.
Their words, not mine.
As many places across the country experienced cold spells in the last week or so, there are states that would allow prosecution of someone simply if they were sitting in their car with the heat on while inebriated, even if it was in their own driveway.
Nothing about that made any sense.
I'm starting to think that maybe she herself was drunk while delivering that speech, so maybe she's a little bit biased.
Even her, she emphasizes the law, she says, you would go to jail for sitting in your own car?
How is, yeah, like as opposed to sitting in someone, yes, yes, if you're sitting in your own car and you're drunk, then that's a DUI.
Is that supposed to be shocking?
So here she spends a long time complaining that some states consider it a DUI if you're sitting in a parked car, in your own car, your own car, with a key in the ignition drinking alcohol but not driving.
And Jayapal apparently considers it absurd to criminalize that kind of behavior because the most liberal appellate court in the country says so.
She also seems to think that the cold temperature might necessitate somebody sitting in the car while they drink a beer.
I'm not sure I follow that logic.
How does that excuse work?
Well, sorry officer, I'm just sitting here chugging this beer in my car with the key in the ignition because it's cold outside.
So it's an interesting argument because as we saw, Jayapal herself just said that we should do everything we can to prevent people from driving drunk.
But apparently doing everything we can to prevent people from driving drunk does not include arresting them before they start driving.
So we gotta wait for the intoxicated person to actually start driving the 4,000 pound hunk of metal down the road and through a neighborhood before we arrest them, according to this logic.
But it seems to me that there couldn't possibly be any valid reason for a person to sit in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition while inebriated.
Like, it's a very safe assumption that their intention is to drive.
And we often arrest people for attempting to do things even if they have not done the thing yet.
Take attempted murder, for example.
If you take overt steps towards killing someone, but you don't, you still go to prison for a very long time.
And by the same token, if you take overt steps towards drunk driving, like getting drunk and then getting in a car and putting a key in the ignition, then you should go to prison.
And if you're an illegal alien, you should be deported.
But really, this is a moot point, because there's a very simple answer to the question of how much leeway should we give illegal immigrants who are already committing a crime just by being in this country in the first place.
The answer is they deserve no leeway and no leniency whatsoever, whether they're driving drunk or not.
They should all be deported if they're in this country, and they should be barred from entering if they're not.
Right now, though, a lot of Republicans seem to disagree with that.
They're close to agreeing to a border deal with the Biden administration that would still permit thousands of illegals to enter this country every day.
And here's their reasoning behind that.
The height of stupidity is having a strong opinion on something you know nothing about.
I'm extremely disappointed in the very strange maneuvering by many on the right to torpedo a potential border reform bill.
If we have a bill that, on net, significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do.
People will make up whatever reasons they want to.
There's a number of them, I'm sure.
But it would be a pretty unacceptable dereliction of your duty.
Now this compromise position will still allow 5,000 illegal immigrants to enter this country every day.
That's nearly 2 million illegals every single year.
It's not a compromise.
It will just encourage more illegal immigrants to come here in the hopes that they'll be allowed in.
It's not going to reduce illegal migration whatsoever.
But even if it did, a reduction isn't enough.
It's not enough.
A simple reduction.
We now have illegal aliens who are so emboldened that they're attacking police officers and then immediately getting out of jail while flipping the bird to the camera.
Just happened in New York the other day, as you might have seen.
Anyone telling you to try to compromise on this doesn't want you to realize that we've been trying to compromise for several decades now.
And with every American citizen who's killed by an illegal migrant or beaten in Times Square, it becomes abundantly clear that the time for compromise is long over.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You're gonna love getting free bacon from Good Ranchers when you subscribe to any of their 100% American meat boxes.
They'll add one and a half pounds of applewood smoked bacon to your order for free for one whole year.
Good Ranchers sources all of their meat from local farms and ranches in the U.S., meaning you can trust every bite.
But it's not just about taste.
It's about the experience and memories associated with it.
Whether it's the mouth-watering smell in the kitchen on a Sunday evening, or the joy of sharing a plate of bacon-wrapped appetizers with friends, Good Ranchers has a way of creating moments that linger in people's hearts and taste buds.
So fall in love with beef, chicken, seafood, and especially bacon all over again by subscribing at GoodRanchers.com.
Use my code WALSH to claim $240 in free bacon.
This offer is an exclusive offer for my listeners.
You can't get it anywhere else.
That's GoodRanchers.com.
Use code WALSH for the best bacon in the USA.
Good Ranchers dot com, American meat delivered.
I mean, pretty normal.
I don't really see the point in showing everybody, like, nice things that two random people said to you, as if that's going to move the needle, as if anyone's going to see that and go, you know, I don't like Nikki Haley, but these random people are right.
Actually, I think I'll vote for her for president.
But it's still pretty standard operating procedure until you get into the details.
So let's look at the tweet.
First of all, let's pull up the caption first.
of the tweet. Americans want a choice in this election, not a rerun. I'm overwhelmed by all
of the kind words. We'll keep working hard to make you proud, she says. And then here are the
screenshots of the two messages. Well, one's an email and one is a letter,
a snail mail letter that was sent to her. So here's the letter.
I want to encourage Nikki Haley to keep pressing on.
We need a competent and committed leader to stay the course in the bid for the presidency.
I'm an independent and I have voted for the best candidate every election cycle, and this year it's Nikki.
Signed, Mary A. And then the next one.
Says, Please do not give up your fight.
In a world that's become crazy with strife, we need a level-headed conservative leader to navigate us through the insanity.
No one is more capable than you are to right the ship and heal this great nation.
We need you, Nikki.
This country needs you.
Our allies and the beautiful people of this world need you.
I don't want you to give up, and I guarantee you there are millions more out there who feel exactly as I do.
Okay.
So, the content-wise, content is a pretty standard issue.
The problem is the presentation.
And by the presentation, you can tell that these are clearly 100% fake.
So, Nikki's team made these things up and wrote them and posted them.
So, that's what they decided.
They're making up fake fan mail for Nikki Haley and then posting it.
Now, how do we know?
Well, first of all, Um, the message online, can we go back to the message that's on lined paper?
We know this message on lined paper is not real, because that's not, that's a font, and that's not real lined paper, because like, number one, if somebody sent you, um, Like a letter on paper, and you wanted to post a screenshot, it would look like you took a picture of the paper.
Now, unless we're supposed to believe that she got this letter in the mail from Mary A., and then she scanned it to the computer and uploaded it and saved it and then posted it.
But even if you did that, it still wouldn't look like that.
Okay, so that's a font.
And I guess, look.
If you have not used a computer since, like, 1992, if your last computer was one of those computers with, like, a small monitor and a console the size of the International Space Station, and it's a black screen with green letters.
You kids don't know anything about this.
This is the first computer I ever had was this.
We had Tetris on the computer, and you could write on it, and it was green letters, and that's all you could do.
So if that was your last experience with a computer, then you might be fooled by this, because you'd be like, I didn't know that You can do a font that looks a little bit like handwriting?
I had no idea.
Now when we got, a few years later, we got another computer, it was a little bit more updated, and we had a word processor, and the most impressive technology on that computer was the fonts.
You could change the fonts.
You could have all these different fonts.
And me and my siblings, we'd have a lot of fun just typing things and trying different fonts.
And this is what we did back in those days.
This is how we spent hours a day, just like, fun with fonts.
That's what we did.
So, but ever since then, most of us know that you can do a handwriting font, and that's what that is.
And then we go to the... So that's bad enough.
Like, that's made up.
That's fake.
Then we go to the email one.
Okay, what are the problems here with this email?
I don't know where to start.
First of all, I don't know what email screen this even is.
If we're going back in time, is this like dial-up AOL 3.0 email screen?
So I don't know what email server she's even using, but it says to Nikki Haley at the top, which is not an email address.
It just says Nikki Haley.
You could just go into your email.
You could go to your internet machine, and if you want to send Nikki Haley an email, just type in Nikki Haley, and the internet will know where to send it.
And then you got the whole thing, no subject lines.
So we're supposed to believe that Nikki Haley is opening emails from people she doesn't recognize that don't have subject lines.
We're supposed to believe that.
And then finally, of course, the biggest problem is that there's the send button at the bottom.
You included the send button, which you don't, if this is an email you received, there wouldn't be a send button.
The send button is there because you typed it.
They specifically cropped it to include the send button.
They made a point of making sure the send button was still there.
Which, it's just, it's amazing to me.
I don't, like I said, I'm baffled.
I'm baffled by it.
Why would you, why would you do this?
Why would you fake the messages?
And then go out of your way to make them look as fake as possible?
You don't even have to, if you want to fake a message, you could have just Copy and pasted?
She could have said, I just got this message from James K in Iowa.
And you just copy and paste it into the actual text of the tweet.
And yeah, most people would probably say, that looks fake.
But we couldn't prove it.
You know, you have plausible deniability.
But when you give us a screenshot, we know that it's fake.
And here's what I don't get.
Like, if you're on, now I'm going to assume, I'm going to give Nikki Haley the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know why, but I'm going to assume that she didn't do this, that this is her team, her team came up with this, which just shows you that, you know, it shows you how incompetent, like the crisis of incompetence is nationwide at this point, and especially in politics, right?
And yeah, Nikki Haley's presidential campaign is fake, it's not going anywhere.
But still, it is a presidential campaign.
And if you're in politics and you're working a presidential campaign, any presidential campaign, even if you're working Doug Burgum's presidential campaign, you've made it up the ladder a bit.
So the people working her campaign have made it up the ladder a bit, and yet this is how stupid they are.
These are the ideas they come up with.
But if you wanted to do this, and you said, okay, we want to post some messages to Nikki Haley, some positive messages to Nikki Haley, you can't find actual messages.
I know that I say nobody likes Nikki Haley.
I mean, I was half kidding.
Some people like her.
She does get a few points in the polls, right?
She got her 10% or whatever it was in New Hampshire.
Most of them were Democrats.
But like, she does have, there are some people out there who like her.
So it's not literally nobody.
So you would think if you wanted to post some positive messages, you could just go to your DMs or your email inbox and find some real ones.
So I have to assume from this that they couldn't find any real ones.
I have to assume what happened was they said, people don't like Nikki Haley.
We need to show that Nikki Haley is more beloved than she really is.
Let's go find some positive messages.
And then they went and looked.
And they scrolled through months of messages and found none.
They could not find one person who messaged her to say, we like you.
And so then they said, rather than abandoning ship on the whole idea, they said, well, we got to make it up.
What's the most realistic way to make it up?
To write our own email and keep it in the send box and then post it.
So it's, wow.
Incredible.
Really incredible.
Okay.
Let's move to some good news.
Well, that was kind of good news, too, because it was hilarious, but this is from the New York Post.
A state-mandated tampon dispenser inside a boys' bathroom at a Connecticut high school was ripped down 20 minutes after it was installed this month, according to the building's disgusted principal.
He's disgusted.
The dispenser was placed in the Brookfield High School boys' bathroom at 9.30 a.m.
last Wednesday, but by 9.52, it was torn from the wall, leaving tampons littering the floor.
The school's principal, Mark Belanda, said in an email to students and staff obtained by CT Insider, the fixture was put in the bathroom as part of a new state law that mandates each school must provide free menstrual products in women's restrooms, all gender restrooms, and at least a single men's bathroom.
I am aware that the law says men's bathroom, but the actions today that led to vandalism and destruction of property were the work of immature boys, not men, Belanda stated.
It just sounds like a Belanda.
You already know this guy's last name.
Before I even read his last name, I was like, his last name is probably Belanda.
This is exactly how Belanda, Principal Belanda, I don't know why, it just works.
He added that there have been other instances of vandalism in recent weeks in boys' bathrooms, but he found this to be the most egregious case.
The state mandate was put in place so transgender and intersex students could have menstrual products available if needed.
The Department of Education spokesperson was very upset.
Everybody's upset.
Ridgefield resident Alex Harris, who's on Ridgefield Connecticut Pride's Advisory Board, told the outlet that this sad incident is a perfect teaching opportunity for the school.
Schools are charged with imparting knowledge and understanding of reality to our youth.
Menstruation and trans or non-binary people are simple facts of reality that threaten no one.
Now the only thing about this story, the only sad thing, I mean, well there are a lot of sad things about it actually, but as far as the behavior of the boys, the high school kids, the sad thing is the implication that they've put these things up in other bathrooms, in other schools, and they haven't been torn down.
That's the only thing about this that I find distressing, is that we can assume, based on what's being reported, that this is the first time this has happened.
And that's what worries me.
Because the idea that a tampon dispenser could be put in a boy's restroom in a high school and not be torn down and vandalized and destroyed within minutes, like, the idea that that wouldn't happen is the most disturbing thing to me.
Like, I'm trying to imagine when I was in high school, you know, 20 years ago.
22, 23 years ago.
And they put a tampon dispenser in the men's bathroom.
There's just no... All hell would break loose because of all the different ways people would want to vandalize it and all the different things.
It would not survive.
It would not be intact.
20 minutes would be... There's no way it would make it even 20 minutes.
20 seconds at most.
And that's because kids who see something like this, and they tear it down, are doing exactly the right thing.
That is a healthy, good, and moral response.
So if my son went to this high school and was involved in tearing down the tampon dispenser, and I was told about it, I would take him out for a nice dinner to congratulate him.
Okay, I would, if the principal called me about it, I would laugh in his face.
In fact, if this happened in my son's high school, and I found out that it happened, I would call my son in to the room right away, and I would say, mister, did you tear down that tampon dispenser?
And if he said no, he'd be in trouble.
Like, why didn't you?
They were all tearing down the tampon dispenser and making fun of it.
Where were you when this was happening?
Were you in your class doing your studies, you nerd?
Okay, next time they put a tampon dispenser in the bathroom, I need you in there, helping to tear it down.
You understand?
Because that's healthy.
Okay?
That's a healthy response.
And this is how you know you have a healthy, normal son.
If he treats a tampon dispenser in a boy's restroom as a total farce, a complete joke, something hilarious and unserious, that is a sign of psychological and emotional health in a boy.
But the problem is that we have gone way, way, way too far in the anti-bullying direction, right?
We've obviously gone way too far in the sermons about tolerance and being nice and all of that.
And we have at this point, many of us have, raised children who do not treat ridiculous things as ridiculous.
Who do not mock things that should be mocked.
Who do not jeer at things that should be jeered at.
And that's a problem.
Now, sure, kids can be cruel sometimes.
They can be callous.
So can adults.
But kids also naturally, at least historically, naturally have a real respect for authenticity.
And they can sniff out when something is ridiculous and inauthentic.
They can see that.
They have a sense for that.
And they can treat that thing as it should be treated.
At least that's the way it used to work.
But now we're brainwashing kids into treating inauthentic, ridiculous things with a seriousness that they don't deserve.
You know, I've told this story before about the first time when we were out in public somewhere.
And we happened to see, just walking down the street, and a guy, a man dressed in women's clothes, happened to walk by.
And my daughter noticed it, noticed this, and looked over and said, well, that man's dressed in women's clothes, that's silly, that's silly.
And we did not respond, as I think a lot of parents do now.
A lot of parents these days would respond to that, say, well, it's not silly, let's be respectful.
That's not as silly.
No, we responded, yeah, it is silly.
It's very, very silly.
That's a very silly thing to do.
Yeah, that's weird.
That's weird and silly.
I don't know why he's dressed like that.
Because that's the reaction.
That's a natural human reaction.
It's the correct reaction that I want you to have.
I'm not going to train my children to see that and treat it like it's normal because it isn't.
Um, but, aside from being, putting the tampon dispenser, you know, the tampon dispenser in the boys' room is ridiculous, it's a farce, but worse than all of that, it's a lie.
You know, it's there as part of a lie that the school and society is telling, and the lie is that there are men who menstruate.
And, but that isn't true.
So, really, by putting it there, The idea is to condition these kids to accept a lie and to go along with a lie.
But they shouldn't.
Because despite what the Pride Advisory Board guy, whatever the hell the Pride Advisory Board is, he said menstruation in trans or non-binary people are simple facts of reality.
No, they aren't.
No, they are not.
They are not facts of reality.
Which is why they didn't exist until the left invented them 45 minutes ago.
All right, speaking of which, I also want to mention this briefly.
Richard Dawkins tweeted this out.
It's kind of a long tweet, but it's good.
He says, the way the non-binary faithful obsess about intersexes and about the individuals who can't produce gametes amounts to a pathetic clutching at straws while they drown in postmodern affluent.
Yes, some fish change from sperm-producing male to egg-producing female, or vice versa.
That very statement relies on the gamete definition of male and female.
Ditto hermaphroditic worms and snails who can produce both male and female gametes.
In any case, the existence of intersexes is irrelevant to transsexualist claims, since trans people don't claim to be intersex.
Also, as if it matters, humans are not worms, snails, or fish.
The rare Tetra Amelia syndrome, babies born without limbs, does not negate the statement that Homo sapiens is a bipedal species.
The rare four-winged Bithorax mutation does not negate the statement that Drosophila is a dipteran two-winged fly.
Similarly, the occasional individual who can't produce gametes doesn't negate the generalization that mammals come in only two sexes, male and female, defined by gamete size.
Sex is binary as a matter of biological fact.
Gender is a different matter and I leave that to others to define.
So, this is all completely true.
It may sound familiar to you.
It may sound like the kinds of things I've been saying and you've heard me say a million times over the years.
Especially the point about how the whole debate about intersex is irrelevant anyway to transgenderism.
Transgender identified people will use intersex The existence of intersex to make some sort of point about themselves, but you are not intersex.
So they're basically saying that, well, you know, there are people out there who are intersex, and for them, you know, you can't say whether they're male or female.
That's not actually true, right?
They do have a biological sex, they just have a deformity.
But even if it did happen to be true, that would do nothing for you as the trans-identified individual who is not intersex.
So even if I were to say, well, intersex, yeah, they're an exception to the rule.
You know, they can be whatever sex they say they are.
Even if I said that, I don't say that.
But if I did, that doesn't help you out.
You're not intersex.
So what does that have to do with anything?
It has nothing to do with anything.
But in any event, as Richard Dawkins points out, We are, you know, we are human beings.
And there are biological realities of being a human being.
And there are, and if you look at other species, like different moths and worms and snails, in some cases they have different biological realities.
But there are different species.
And so that also does not apply.
So, you know, that's like the whole trans argument.
Is based on pointing to intersex people, even though they themselves are not intersex, and then like snails and other species, even though you're not that species.
So all that is true.
The issue is that if you're Richard Dawkins, we needed you to say this like eight years ago.
We needed guys like Richard Dawkins, biologists, and Richard Dawkins is a Preeminent biologist.
Even if I disagree with, obviously, as we all know, he's an outspoken atheist.
I'm not on board with him there, but there's no denying, as a biologist, he's an expert in that field.
So, we needed guys like Richard Dawkins to speak out eight years ago.
And instead, Because guys like Richard Dawkins were not willing to, because they were afraid.
People, like random people, like me, had to be the ones to step up.
And we were all screamed at, and we were all told that we don't have the scientific credentials to be saying any of this.
And that was always a red herring, that was always ad hominem.
You don't need scientific credentials to make some basic points about the physical reality that we all inhabit.
But what makes it frustrating is that The people who had their credentials, like Richard Dawkins, were hiding in the bushes, right?
Letting us take the slings and arrows.
For years!
And now that the coast is a little bit more clear, and we have kind of prepared the ground a bit, and we've already taken the brunt of the backlash, But now he comes in and says, hey, by the way, all those things that those other people have been saying for years now, I agree.
Except he won't even say that.
And that's what frustrates me the most about these people that come in so late to the game.
Better late than never, I guess.
At least acknowledge, right?
Give some acknowledgement to the people that were before you and had this argument while you were hiding because you were too afraid.
They won't even do that.
Like, they pretend that we never said anything.
We don't exist.
He's the first person to make this point.
And I know you might say that none of this matters, right?
Sour grapes.
Like, again, better late than never.
He's speaking up now.
That's all that matters.
But it does matter.
It matters because this is the pattern that we see in our society again and again and again.
That, you know, they're, something insane is happening.
The left is pushing something crazy.
And there are very few people that are willing to say anything against it.
Right?
Until it has been judged safe.
Like, you've got the so-called experts and the people that supposedly have a lot of credibility and all these things, and they don't want to speak up first.
They want to wait until there's sort of a critical mass that's already on their side, and then they'll come in at that point.
And because this is a pattern that repeats again and again and again, it happened with the trans issue, it will happen again with the next issue, that's what makes it.
That's why it matters.
Now time for the comment section.
That's why I'm so excited to have RAMP as a new sponsor of my show.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is the corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.
With RAMP, You can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions, automate expense reporting, and stop wasting time at the end of every month.
RAMPS accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time, so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again, and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster.
RAMP is easy to use.
Get started in less than 15 minutes.
Whether you have five employees or 5,000, get $250.
When you join RAMP, just go to ramp.com slash Walsh, spelled R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Members FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
First comment says, how do smartphones harm kids?
Can they be used by kids in a safe way with parent supervision and parental controls?
No, I don't think that smartphones with internet access can be used in a safe way.
All you can by kids.
Safe in this case is relative and it's like safer than You could maybe set it up so that it's safer for your kid than the situation that other kids are in.
You know, you can mitigate.
So really, that's the thing.
Once you hand the smartphone with internet access to your kid, all you can do at that point is try to mitigate the harm that will definitely occur.
There's no way to make this phone a positive tool in their lives.
There's no way that the phone is going to enrich their lives.
There's no way that the phone is going to make their lives better or make them better people in any way whatsoever.
And I think I don't think anyone would even deny that at this point.
I just don't.
I don't think anyone with a straight face Certainly, I don't think any parent, maybe a kid would, but I don't think any parent with a straight face would look at me and say that, you know, I think my kid became a better person and happier and more fulfilled when I gave him the iPhone.
No, that's just not true.
So, that's the thing here.
That we're giving kids these phones and whatever, what was it yesterday, I forget now the stat, Of kids are given phones before the age of 10.
And everyone knows that it's going to harm them.
That it's going to make their lives worse in a lot of different ways.
The hope is just that we can mitigate that harm as much as possible.
But to me, it's just crazy.
It's crazy that millions of parents are giving things to their kids that they know will harm them.
And that they don't need.
It's an unnecessary risk.
There's a certain amount of risk you have to be willing to take as a parent.
Otherwise, you'd never let your kid leave your sight, right?
I mean, I'll let my kids go run and play outside.
You know, depending how old they are, it depends on how far they're allowed to go without parental supervision.
But, you know, my 10-year-old son likes to go out in the woods on our property and, you know, he'll be out there for hours building forts and whatever and all that kind of thing.
But there's risk.
There are bad things that could happen.
You could climb a tree and fall off.
There are snakes potentially.
There's risks involved.
But there's a certain level of risk that we're willing to take because it's necessary in order to raise a human being and let them have experiences and let them enjoy life and let them gain skills and knowledge and all of that.
The risks are pretty minimal, and at the same time, allowing him to go out in the woods and build forts and do all these things that he wants to do and be out in nature, that will make him a better person.
That will have a positive impact on his life.
I know for a fact that my son, when he's my age, is not going to look back on his childhood and regret all the time that he spent out in the woods.
Okay, it's not going to happen.
If he was spending all that time on his phone, he will look back and regret that.
I know that too.
So that's the way, you know, the way that I judge it.
It's like, you are, there's a certain amount of risk that you have to be willing to accept.
But if it's all risk, you know, if it's all risk and there's no benefit attached to that, All downside, no upside for your child?
Then why?
Why do it?
Another one says, I've had conversations with many other parents about ADHD, and every time I suggest simply turning off all the screens in the house for two weeks to reset the kid's dopamine system, the resistance to this idea is fascinating.
Many parents can't imagine a world without screens.
Yeah, this drives me nuts.
You've heard me rant about ADHD before, and given my feelings about things like depression and anxiety and how I don't see those as mental illnesses, it would shock no one that I certainly don't see ADHD as a legitimate mental illness, especially these days.
How can you, as a parent, Be confused about the fact that your child is easily distracted when he's surrounded by distraction all the time.
So you could raise a kid who's just surrounded by screens and lights and noise and sounds and messages and, you know, stimulation from the screens and the shows and the advertisements and everything all the time.
It's like everywhere he goes there's screens and lights and messages and sounds and noise blaring at him from all directions.
Right?
And then he's easily distracted.
And you look at that and go, well, he must have a mental illness.
We need to put him on drugs.
What?
Why do you think that no one talked about ADHD?
ADHD did not exist even as a concept a hundred years ago.
Right?
Nobody was talking about it.
Why do you think it exists now?
Like, why is it that now?
There's an epidemic.
Millions of kids have ADHD.
Millions of kids are distracted all the time at a moment in history when their lives are surrounded by distraction.
And the fact that we would ignore that obvious cause of the problem in favor of drugs is crazy.
And so then what ends up happening is that you give the kids the drugs and keep them on the screens.
So you keep the distractions there, but you just put them on the drugs, to sedate them.
That's all it really is.
It's just to sedate them and make them more cooperative.
And speaking of the screams and being easily distracted, you know, there are exceptions to that, because it also amazes me that I'm told about, I hear someone tell me, my son has ADHD, you don't understand, he can't sit still, he can't pay attention.
You don't get it.
You don't know what it's like.
Yeah, the guy with six kids?
The guy who has four boys and two girls?
You think I don't know what it's like?
I love that every time the ADHD conversation comes up.
People tell me, oh, you don't know what it's like.
No, no, you don't know what it's like.
Okay, you don't get to do the you don't know what it's like thing unless you've got more kids than me.
So that's the only way.
That's the way that works.
We don't get to play that.
You gotta have more kids than me to play that game, and most people don't.
So no, I know what it's like.
I know what it's like to have kids that are distracted and energetic.
I know what it's like.
I know what it's like more than most people do.
I also know that this is a... that this is... I can see the sources of the distraction.
And I also know that this is also how kids, especially boys, on top of all that, this is how they're wired naturally.
To be energetic and all that.
But what I was going to say is that I hear this, my boy has ADHD, you don't know what it's like, so on and so forth.
And then I ask, how many hours a day does your boy play video games?
So he can sit for four hours still and play a video game, and yet he has ADHD.
So he can sit still and not even move a muscle for six hours if you let him and play a video game.
Okay, but then when he's in school, he's not able to sit still for that long, and you decide that's because he needs drugs?
Or is it because he's just bored by that, and he's not bored by the video game?
So when he's not bored, he can sit still.
It's amazing!
Medical marvel!
It's Groundhog Day, and while the Groundhog doesn't have any control over if he sees his shadow or not, you can control your own shadow with Jeremy's Razors.
Jeremy's Razors is offering 15% off the Founders Kit, which can be your choice between the Precision 5 or Smooth 6 razors.
The Founders Kit is a one-stop shop for your shaving needs.
Razors, shave cream, post-shave balm, and a nice travel bag as well.
So, make sure you go to Jeremy'sRazors.com to get your Founders Kit for 15% off today.
In a day and age where we can trust a groundhog more than scientists to predict the climate, it's nice that we can trust Jeremy's razors to deliver a great shave every time.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
So there seems to have been, at least according to my producers who send me
this stuff because they like to see me suffer, a proliferation on TikTok in
recent weeks of viral challenges that women draft their unwitting husbands and
boyfriends into.
The challenges are really tests, and every week someone on TikTok comes up with a new way for women to test the men in their lives, and if the men fail the test, They're bad, I guess, and if they pass the test, then they're good, at least until the next test comes along.
The problem with these tests is that they are tests in the first place, as we'll discuss.
The other problem is that they're invented by women, for men, with a lot of womanly assumptions about what they mean and what a man's failure or success signifies.
It's very clear that no man was consulted in the devising of these tests, which is a problem because men understand the psychology of men much better than women do, or at least better than women on TikTok do.
So, let's go through these one by one.
First, we'll go back a few weeks to something called the Bird Test, and here's how the Bird Test works.
The Bird Test Theory is basically a predictor for whether or not your relationship is going to succeed and it kind of goes like this.
Let's say that you and your partner are sitting at a coffee shop and you see a bird outside and you mention it to them.
There's a couple different ways that your partner can respond.
Your partner could be like, oh that's a really cool bird and engage with you and take interest in what you just said.
Or your partner can dismiss it all together and be like, Okay, it's a bird.
What about it?
Basically, the Gottman Institute, which is this really big psychology institute for relationships, calls that a bid.
And the idea is, if your partner takes interest in the mundane little small things that you talk about, the relationship is just more likely to succeed because your partner has genuine interest in whatever you say, regardless of whether that thing is a small thing or not.
On the flip side, if your partner kind of keeps ignoring your bids, that's kind of a sign that The relationship is going to fail because whether small or big, your partner is not giving attention to the things that you personally care about just for the sole reason that you care about it.
Now, this is the kind of thing that makes sense if you've never been in a relationship that lasted more than three months.
If you are incredibly naive and inexperienced and you get your relationship insights from TikTok, you might have the expectation that your partner will be, quote, genuinely interested in whatever you say.
But in the real world, which is populated by actual human beings, Nobody on earth will ever be genuinely interested in everything you say.
And they shouldn't be.
You're not that interesting.
Nobody has ever been that interesting.
I don't care if you're married to Socrates.
You're not going to be hanging on his every last word all day, every day, forever.
Now, I find my wife very interesting and intelligent, but if she came into the room and said, I just saw a bird, I would not be especially interested in that information.
I just wouldn't be.
My only interest would be in the fact that my wife has apparently suffered some sort of brain damage.
Otherwise, why would an adult be screaming about a bird?
Bird!
Bird!
Lookie!
At the birdie!
Like, what are you, two years old?
Now, if you saw, say, a bald eagle swoop down and catch a baby deer with its talons and fly away or something like that, then that would be the kind of headline that would interest me.
So there needs to be something spectacular about the bird to garner my interest.
If you saw an ostrich ride by on a scooter, that would be a bird-related announcement that I would like to hear.
Otherwise, what do you want me to say about a regular bird?
Like, how do you want me to react?
She said that, you know, you have to engage about the bird.
What do you mean, engage?
Say what?
Oh, really?
You saw a bird?
Cool.
Was it, did it, did it have wings?
I don't know what the follow-up is.
I don't know what a bird conversation would even be.
Therefore, this entire test fails.
And if your husband passes that test, it either means that he's being extremely patronizing.
Oh, you saw a bird, did you?
Tell me about the bird.
Or that he's an ornithologist.
Maybe he just really is into birds.
Who knows?
Or maybe he sees the cell phone in your hand and he knows that you're filming him for a TikTok challenge.
That could be the other reason why he responds.
Moving on to the next one.
This one is called the Ketchup Challenge, and the New York Post explains it this way.
There's a new trend on TikTok that has people testing their relationship using a table condiment.
In what's being dubbed the Ketchup Challenge, TikTokers are pouring ketchup onto their kitchen counters and asking their male partners to clean it up.
That's it.
That's the whole challenge.
The challenge is seemingly so simple that some are wondering if it can even be considered a challenge, but some videos have proved to viewers that it is indeed a challenge for some.
When faced with the task, the significant other reacts in different ways and has different cleaning techniques.
So that's the test.
Wives and girlfriends are spreading ketchup on their counters and having their husbands and boyfriends clean it up.
And the point of the test, I guess, is to see if they make a good janitor, and also to see if they're obedient, which is really the point.
There are many videos posted by women doing this challenge, and so here's just one, chosen basically at random.
Here it is.
What the f*ck?
Can you please clean this for me?
Yeah.
What the f*ck did you do?
Ew.
That's so funny, bro.
There, it's clean.
(scratching)
What's the correct way to clean it, then?
This is clean?
Yeah.
You're done?
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you want me to spray some?
That's for wood.
Oh, I don't know what to do.
Wow.
Wow.
Oh.
(laughing)
Good job.
Yeah, I'm done.
That's what you're supposed to do from the beginning?
Now, fortunately, my wife values the cleanliness of her kitchen counters far, far too much to ever intentionally spread ketchup on them.
That's why I'm a little surprised that so many women were willing to do this challenge.
Like, generally speaking, most women are fiercely protective of their kitchen counters.
They have strong feelings about the counters.
They take great pride in the counters.
Women love counters.
When they walk into a friend's home, the first thing they notice are the counters.
And driving home from the friend's house, they'll talk about the counters.
They'll say, did you see their kitchen counters?
And depending on the tone and inflection, that question could mean either that they're deeply envious of the counters or that the counters were so hideous that they have lost all respect now for their friend.
So smearing ketchup on the counter seems like an act of sacrilege.
It's also a very dumb game that no man should ever play.
If your wife intentionally makes a mess and looks right at you and tells you to clean it, The only way to fail that test is to actually attempt to clean the mess.
The correct response in that situation is any variation of, uh, no?
Are you kidding?
Do I look like your butler?
You did that on purpose.
You clean it up.
I'm not cleaning it.
And sadly, I did not see any man give that answer, which is the correct answer.
The next test is called the Name a Woman Test, and exactly as it sounds, the idea is that a woman Asks her husband, or her boyfriend, to name any woman at all.
And if he does not say her own name, then he fails the test.
So here's what that looks like in practice.
They asked your man to name a woman.
If that guy says any other name than yours, you should- Name one woman.
What the fuck is this?
Just one.
Sidney Sweeney.
[ Laughs ]
What?
So he said Sidney Sweeney, so he failed, I guess?
He named a woman, but not the one particular woman that he was supposed to name, even though that was not mentioned in the prompt.
And that one's pretty stupid, so let's move past it and get to the dumbest one of all, this latest trend, because as I said, there's a new one every week.
is called the Orange Peel Test, or the Orange Peel Theory, because people like to tack theory onto things to make it sound smart.
The Orange Peel Theory test involves women asking their men for an orange, and in order to pass the test, the man must peel the orange before handing it back to her.
In some cases, she will give the orange to him and ask him to peel it, and if he objects or asks why she can't peel her own damn orange, he fails.
So it's a high-stakes gambit.
Let's see how it plays out.
Peace.
An orange, okay.
We only have those little ones though.
Okay, but the cutie is fine.
time.
That video has, like, 70 billion views or something.
Like, all these videos have so many views.
A video of a guy peeling an orange is, like, this is great content.
So, the husband passes the test because he peels the orange.
Okay, it goes on, but I'm just spoiling the ending.
He does, he peels it.
That one seemed to be authentic, at least, but some of these submissions are a little bit dubious in my mind, like this one.
I'm kind of hungry.
You want me to make something for you?
I can cook.
I just actually just bought those steaks yesterday.
I could do some steaks and potatoes, a little broccoli and cheese.
Nah, I kind of want something lighter.
I don't want all that.
Lighter?
Yeah.
Uh, what about Chick-fil-A?
I can get you that 12-pound nugget, medium fry.
Got cookies and cream milkshake with two cherries.
Sound good, but no.
I kind of just want like a little snack for real.
A snack?
Like what?
Just pass me that orange over there.
Okay.
Coming right up.
How you want it?
Freshly squeezed?
You want it sliced in half?
Or you want a bunch of mini oranges running around?
I'll do it.
Just give it to me.
I'll peel it and everything.
Peel what?
Look at those hands.
I just spent $100 on those nails.
Oh my God.
You ain't touching nothing with those freshly painted French tips.
Oh my God.
Kyle, for real, come on now.
No, not how you want it.
Just peel it for me.
Okay, I got you.
Coming right up.
No, I don't mean to be the party pooper here, and of course it's not like me to be cynical usually, but that interaction, a thousand percent scripted obviously.
The problem is that young women on TikTok don't realize that almost all of these cute couple moments on TikTok or any other social media platform are scripted, so they go into their own real-world relationships with false expectations.
There's just no way in reality you're going to get a response like that when you tell your husband that you're hungry.
You're hungry?
Okay, I'll cook something right away.
What would you like?
Steak?
Salad?
Fresh sea bass?
Caviar?
Polar bear?
You want to eat a polar bear?
I can run up to Greenland real quick and get you a polar bear to eat.
What do you want to eat?
Oh, you want an orange?
Can I peel it for you?
Can I peel it and serve it to you on a diamond-encrusted platter?
Can I give you a back massage and recite some romantic poetry while I feed you the orange?
It's just not how human beings behave in the non-fictional universe.
And by the way, if you were married to a man like that in real life, he would get old so fast.
It was old already after a minute.
It's like, just, dude, calm down a little bit.
It's like, it's a little bit, little much.
And that's why the real answer to any of these tests is to not do them to begin with.
Okay, these women are trying to learn something about the men in their lives by testing them.
But here's the first thing they need to learn.
We don't like to be tested.
We are not children in a classroom or dogs in obedience training.
We are not interested in taking your test.
The very fact that it is a test automatically destroys whatever value there could be in the interaction.
So consider the bird test, for example.
Is that your husband is supposed to be interested in whatever you're interested in?
Well, you cannot test that by testing it because you're not really interested in the bird.
There may not have even been a bird.
So the whole, it's a totally insincere, artificial scenario that you have engineered.
You're playing a game.
You aren't testing his willingness to engage with you sincerely because you are not engaging sincerely with him.
Do you really expect him to be genuine with you while you put him on the spot for TikTok likes?
The thing that men hate the most in a relationship, the thing that drives us the craziest, the thing that will make us the most frustrated, is when you play games.
When you say one thing, but you mean another.
When you ask for one thing, but you want something else.
When you expect him to read your mind.
When you create a situation just to see how he reacts to it.
When you say you want something, but really you want something different, all of those are games.
And men are not stupid.
They know when they are in a game.
They resent it.
They feel disrespected, as well they should.
And if he goes along with it, which he shouldn't, it's only because he wants to avoid conflict.
It's not because of his deep love for you.
But deep down, he knows he's being manipulated, and he hates it.
Men hate nothing more than being manipulated.
So, ladies, you may not hear this fact from your favorite TikTok influencer, but take it from me, a man, if you want to make your boyfriend dump you or your husband resent you, the quickest way to do that is to manipulate him, even in small ways.
Now, fortunately, this hasn't been an issue in my own marriage.
My wife's a very straightforward person, so am I. We say what we mean to each other.
We're very blunt.
We don't play mind games.
We don't have time for that anyway with six kids.
The thing is, nobody has the space for that kind of thing in their life or their relationship.
Which is why, if you want to test anyone in a relationship, test yourself.
Go get an orange for your husband.
Let's make that a challenge.
Try to be more interested in whatever he says.
Clean up after him without complaining.
Focus on your own shortcomings.
Take your own tests.
And peel your own oranges.
That's the way.
It's also why all of these TikTok tests are today cancelled.
