Ep. 1732 - Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People
Ep. 1732 exposes Judge Tracy E. Davis, a Kentucky DEI activist with ties to diversity consulting, who slashed Christopher Thompson’s 65-year sentence to 30 despite his violent crimes and threats against her, citing systemic racism as justification. Critics argue this reflects racial bias in courts, comparing it to the O.J. Simpson trial, while DHS data shows 60% of Trump-era ICE arrestees had criminal records—far beyond CBS’s misleading 14% claim. The episode also dismisses "marriage equality" as a harmful fiction, blaming societal upheaval on rejecting natural gender roles, and accuses schools of teaching distorted history, like America inventing slavery, to foster resentment. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, the Matt Wall show, a black female judge reduces the sentence of a convicted rapist by half explicitly because the offender is black.
Anti-whitism is embedded far more deeply into our system than most people realize.
We'll talk about that.
Also, CBS claims that only 14% of illegal immigrants who've been deported by Trump were violent criminals, but context is needed, as the fact checkers say.
And a controversy over squatters' rights in Maryland gives us what may already be the most unintentionally hilarious video of the year.
You have to see it for yourself.
Finally, the New York Times says that the key to equality in a marriage is baby formula.
But is equality really something that you should be striving for in your marriage at all?
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
If you've been around a while, you know that the Super Bowl ads used to have a lot of cultural significance in this country.
Before anyone had a cell phone and before high-speed internet access was widespread, there was a lot less content for people to watch for hours on end.
But pretty much everyone did watch the Super Bowl.
And they knew that major corporations with this rare opportunity to reach a large audience would put some effort into being as creative and entertaining as possible.
And it really didn't take much because, again, there wasn't any competition with the internet or social media.
Budweiser managed to transfix the entire country back in 2000 with their ad where a bunch of guys called each other on landlines and said, what's up over and over again?
Was it high art?
No, but at the time, it was good enough.
Now, today's Super Bowl ads, by contrast, provide virtually zero entertainment value to anyone.
They are soulless and uninteresting, probably by design.
But that doesn't mean that we should ignore them, because if you pay attention to the ads that played during the game two days ago, then you know that they communicated at various points the exact same message as the halftime show, which is that white people are now second-class citizens in the country they built.
That's the reason why Bad Bunny's performance included a bodega with the sign, We Accept EBT, by the way.
You know, you can see it here on the left.
It was a reminder to white people that we're forced to pay foreigners on food stamps, two-thirds of whom are overweight or obese, to go out and buy a sandwich at their favorite bodega.
You know, the numbers are staggering, although no one ever talks about them.
But since the show brought it up, we should mention that roughly 47% of households in Puerto Rico, where Bad Bunny is from, receive some kind of welfare.
47%.
That's the highest rate of any U.S. jurisdiction.
Nearly 43% of them receive food stamps, which you're paying for.
Yes, that means that almost half of the population is on food stamps, which is one of the many reasons that we shouldn't have anything to do with Puerto Rico.
And the same is true in places like the Bronx, where 40% of residents are on SNAP, 20% of the population can't speak English.
So food stamps are part of the culture for these people.
And instead of treating that fact as a source of shame, they're proud of it.
They want to steal as much as possible.
And that's exactly what they're doing.
And they want us to know it.
And by the same token, the Super Bowl advertisements reminded us again and again that we should just shut up and accept our replacement because we are awful people simply for being white.
So here's an excerpt from one of the advertisements that pushed this message.
It's from the real estate company Redfin, which helps people buy and sell homes.
But they took an interesting tact with this.
Watch.
It's a beautiful day.
Beautiful day for a neighbor.
Would you be mine?
I know it's hard, sweetie.
Could you?
But you'll still see dad.
It's a neighborly day.
This beauty would, a neighborly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Big storm coming in.
I have always wanted to have a neighbor just like you.
Always wanted to leave the neighborhood with your tall.
Let's make the most of this make you story.
Since we're together, we might as well stay.
Would you be mine?
Would you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?
Now, if you're listening to this, to the audio podcast, I'll give you the Cliff Notes version.
The white family moves into town.
There's the implication that the dad is out of the picture.
So we have an absentee father on our hands.
And then we see that the white girl who's trying to make friends with other white girls has an icy, awkward interaction with the non-white girl when her white supremacist dog starts barking.
And then separately, a Hispanic-looking man tries to be a good neighbor and warn a white guy about an impending storm, but the white guy just ignores him, you know, because he's racist, just like the dog was.
And then after the storm hits, the non-white guy starts removing a tree from the white guy's yard, and the white guy still doesn't even say thanks.
It's all very reminiscent of about a million other ads, including those all-state ads where the criminal is always a white guy who steals black people's cars, which happens approximately 0% of the time in the real world.
Redfin knew exactly what they were doing here.
When they posted this ad on their official social media accounts, Redfin immediately locked down the replies, started hiding as many of the responses as they could.
Here's a sampling of some of the posts that Redfin attempted to censor, although you can probably imagine most of them.
Quote, what is the message?
White men are racist?
Old trope.
Here's another one.
They would never ever make the Hispanic family the villain.
It's always going to be white people as the default.
It always in almost every commercial these days, competent brown people surrounded by the either incompetent or malicious white people.
And on and on.
Now, what may not be obvious is that a couple of years ago, Redfin was sued in federal court for supposedly being a racist company that discriminated against blacks.
Redfin was accused of redlining, which in this case meant that they wouldn't offer some of their most expensive services to very cheap homes.
It wasn't profitable enough for them to offer, say, professional photography and in-home tours for a dilapidated shack in the hood that was listed for $70,000.
You know, there was nothing racist about Redfin's decision-making.
It makes a lot of sense.
But because their rational business decision had a disparate or disproportionate impact on black people, since black people tend to own those kinds of homes, Redfin had to settle the case and agree to provide their services to more people, even when it went against their economic interest to do so.
This is a very, very common kind of lawsuit in our federal system.
Democrats go out of their way to force real estate companies to provide unprofitable services or else they'll sue for racism.
Here's one of the most egregious examples.
Under the Biden administration, a company called Townstone was sued into the ground simply because they didn't receive enough housing applications from minority areas.
So out of around 870 applications, the Biden administration said that Townstone was roughly 30 diverse applicants short.
Yes, if they only had 30 more diverse applications, everything would be fine.
But they didn't.
So they're racist and they're violating the law.
Basically, if you don't meet some arbitrary quota that Democrats just make up, then you get sued under civil rights law.
If you don't agree to operate your business at a loss for the benefit of black people and foreigners, you get sued.
So within this legal framework, the rational decision for these companies, business-wise, if they want to survive the next Democrat administration, is to become overtly anti-white.
They have to prove that they discriminate against whites and give preference to blacks.
That's what Redfin is doing with this advertisement.
It's a gigantic signal.
And it's an effective way to avoid getting sued and having to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages.
So our legal system is encouraging anti-white racism, which is one of the reasons why when people see ads like this and they say, who is this for?
Right.
The vast majority of people using your product are white people anyway.
Not only that, but they're going to be white people with disposable income.
Why would you go out of your way to alienate them with the advertisement?
Well, the answer is that the ad is not for the customers.
It is a signal saying, don't sue us.
That's what it's for.
And that's one reason why in advertisement after advertisement during the Super Bowl, major corporations took pains to portray whites as maliciously as they possibly could.
Here's a Super Bowl ad from the healthcare company Hims and Hers, for example, and see if you notice anything.
Rich people live longer.
All that money doesn't just buy more stuff.
It buys more time.
They say all those rich people who are pretty much all white have something you don't.
They have the fountain of youth.
And those crafty rich white people, one of whom appears to be modeled after Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, they're buying more stuff than you and they're living longer.
And they cut to the black guy holding a child who's very dismayed by all this because he's not white and therefore rich and he'll probably die soon.
That's what health equity is all about.
And it's a systemic injustice, we're told, which him's and hers is going to solve.
Notice this casting only goes one way.
You know, they'll happily cast white actors to play rich people since rich people are mostly white.
They'll never cast a black guy to play a car thief in one of those all-state ads, for example, even though car thieves are mostly black.
And along the same lines, they won't cast black people to play anti-Semites either, even though black people on average, statistically, are far more anti-Semitic than any other race.
So instead, as always, they'll portray white people as vicious Jew haters and black people as the stalwart allies of the oppressed Jews.
Here was Robert Kraft's Super Bowl ad, just to drill that point home.
watch.
Should we tell us?
Do not listen to that.
Thank you, man.
I know how it feels.
So it's just relentless.
One ad after another, one streaming show after another.
They're beating you over the head with the anti-white narratives, which are clearly fraudulent.
People are seeing it everywhere, not just people who watch Fox News or subscribe to the Daily Wire.
It's also the case that everyday people who don't pay much attention to politics are finally seeing what's going on simply because they can't escape it.
And that brings us to a truly disturbing and disgraceful decision this week by a judge in Kentucky named Tracy E. Davis.
Now, the judge, a black woman, reduced the sentence of 24-year-old Christopher Thompson, a violent black felon, from 65 years to just 30 years.
So it's a reduction of more than 50% in his sentence.
And here was the crime.
Well, prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that in the summer of 2023, Thompson approached a woman who was sitting in her car in the parking lot of her apartment building.
Thompson, wearing a ski mask, pointed a gun at her and forced her to move to the passenger seat.
Then he drove the woman to an elementary school where he forced her to remove her clothes and he sexually assaulted her.
He then drove the woman to an ATM, forced her to withdraw more than $200 before driving her back to the school and sexually assaulting her again.
So this is kidnapping, multiple counts of sexual assault, robbery, and sodomy.
And after hearing all the evidence, the jury sentenced Thompson to 65 years, which by any measure is an extremely lenient sentence.
He should have received the death penalty.
I mean, there's no good reason to not simply kill somebody like this legally after they've been convicted in a court of law.
But Judge Tracy Davis didn't want this man to serve 65 years, much less face execution.
So she cut his sentence in half.
Now, keep in mind that under Kentucky law, remorse is the bare minimum requirement to reduce a sentence like this.
And with that in mind, we're going to play this local news report at length because it's easily one of the most insane reports that I've ever seen from a local news station.
This footage is wild.
Watch.
A little man was found guilty last week of kidnapping, robbing, and sodomizing a woman.
A jury recommended a 65-year prison sentence, but the judge in the case cut that time in half.
WDRB Stone Godby tells us he brought a spotlight of scrutiny, not just on this decision, but other orders in the same court.
Commune of Kentucky versus Christopher Thompson.
Within seconds of Christopher Thompson's sentencing hearing.
Before we even get appearances, Mr. Thompson, I'm going to need to be respectful.
I ain't doing that either.
He insulted Jefferson County Judge Tracy Davis.
Well, it's fine.
Okay?
What?
It's fine.
Because here's the thing.
At the end of the day, I'm the one with the pen.
I don't care.
I know you don't.
And it's a sad, sad scenario.
So you just told me each and you called me suffer twice.
The disruptions continued throughout the entire hearing.
Thompson was convicted in December of robbery, kidnapping, sodomy, and sexual abuse in 2023.
The 24-year-old abducted a woman, robbed her, and sodomized her twice.
I don't have to say that.
You come in here.
You show the court that these are the things.
We don't need them.
It's fine.
Judge Davis Defends Justice00:14:18
During sentencing, the prosecutor asked the judge to uphold the jury's 65-year recommendation.
But Judge Davis explained she would lower that sentence to just 30 years as Thompson repeatedly interrupted.
I don't care.
I don't care.
Unfortunately, he fell through the cracks and ended up before this court as an 18 or 19-year-old.
This court does not believe that Mr. Thompson, if given the resources that he can get while incarcerated, is beyond being rehabilitated.
So he admits in open court that he's an animal.
He doesn't care about the victim or anyone else.
He says so.
He'd happily kidnap and sodomize another woman if given the opportunity.
He has stated explicitly that he has no remorse, doesn't care, is not sorry for what he did.
Clearly and unambiguously, someone who needs to spend the rest of his life in a cage at a minimum.
Although, again, I say, why is this person still alive?
What's one good reason?
Give me one good reason to keep this guy still alive.
Why should we do that?
Why should we pay to house him and feed him for, you know, until he dies of old age?
What's the reason for that?
It's not just.
There's no practical benefit to it.
So what's the point?
But I mean, we're way past that because this guy's not going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
He's 24.
They reduced it down to 30.
He'll probably be paroled sooner than that.
I mean, this guy will be out on the street again in his 40s, if not sooner.
And he's demonstrating the exact opposite of remorse, which is the one thing under the law that could theoretically justify reducing his sentence in any way.
Although really, there's nothing that justifies it.
And after all that, the judge, a black female, cuts his sentence in half.
Because after all, the guy fell through the cracks.
He's saying that she's saying, I mean, it's incredible.
She's saying he could be rehabilitated while this guy is telling us that he can't.
Well, I think he can be rehabilitated.
No, I can't.
No, I can't.
And the implication is that if you don't have a good family and a good support network and you're black, then you have no responsibility for your own actions.
It's not your fault.
So who is this judge, Tracy Davis?
What might lead her to make a ruling like this?
Well, it turns out in the shock of the century that she is a DEI activist.
According to her profile on the Kentucky Bar Association's website, quote, Judge Davis is a graduate of the NKU Chase College of Law.
Prior to taking the bench, she owned and operated Tracy E. Davis, Esquire, PLLC, a private practice law firm, and ran a diversity consulting company, Diversity University Limited, where she was a certified diversity, equity, and inclusion professional.
Yeah, she is an actual real-life certified DEI expert.
She's the character I played in my last film, except she's a real person, a judge who can spring violent felons loose on the public based on her DEI training and the night classes she took at the NKU Chase College of Law, which suffice it to say is basically open admission for diverse candidates, quote unquote, like herself.
And it gets worse somehow because this judge's handle on X, and I'm not making this up, is literally diversity Davis.
Okay, that is the moniker that she has given herself, Diversity Davis.
She has pronouns in her handle as well, she, her, in case you were wondering.
She's reposted a bunch of anti-Trump content, mostly in the format of Marvel memes, because of course.
In short, Tracy Davis should be off leading some DEI struggle session somewhere in which she takes money from rich leftists with too much time on their hands.
That is all she's qualified to do.
But instead, she managed to win an election by around 1% of the vote a couple of years ago.
So now she's a judge in Kentucky, which last I checked is not a far-left haven.
And we can infer based on that video that she's a walking combination of suicidal female empathy and anti-white race hatred.
She's the kind of judge you might find in a war-torn African hellscape or even worse, Canada.
She's only interested in your skin color and her tribe.
And if you listen to the rest of her ruling in this case, which that last news report left out, you'll find that actually the judge admits all of this.
Lest anyone think I'm making this about race, she's the one who made it about race, explicitly so.
She states effectively that white people are the reason that she's letting this rapist out of prison 35 years early.
Watch.
But Judge Davis thought the jury's recommendation was too long.
She feels he hasn't mentally matured yet and never had a real shot at getting any help early in life.
But if you were to come in here and instead of being hurt and angry, which is what this court hears, right, as a 20-year-old African-American male that has been, you know, experienced this society, et cetera, and you would show that, yes, okay, this is the situation.
This is who I am.
I don't want to be this person anymore.
I don't want to be in jail for forever.
Thompson repeatedly stated he did not care, not about his sentence, the victim, or her family.
But Judge Davis emphasized she's the one that holds the pen.
And regardless of what the media may think, she applies the law.
To her, 65 years was an extremely long time.
As she puts it, it's his whole life.
One she doesn't believe should be spent entirely behind bars.
Yeah, it shouldn't be spent behind bars.
It should be spent in a box under the earth.
That's where it should be spent.
She says, as an African-American male, you experience this society.
Yes, he's the real victim here.
Think of what he went through.
Feel some sympathy for the violent sodomite rapist.
After all, he had to experience this society.
Apparently, experiencing society is a valid excuse that can get your sentence cut in half.
That's good news for literally every criminal who's ever existed, given that they all, by virtue of existing, have experienced society.
There could not be a good reason to do something like this, but I've never heard a weaker reason than that.
Well, you experience society, et cetera.
I love the et cetera at the end.
Like, say the vaguest thing imaginable and then just tack et cetera on the internet.
It counts as a reason.
You know, experience society, et cetera.
You know, it's like the Seinfeld thing.
You know, you can't yada yada your way out of that.
You can't, et cetera, your way out of that.
Like, give us a real reason why this guy deserves to ever see the outside of a prison ever again.
Give us an actual reason.
Can you do that?
Well, but this is why he kidnapped and raped and brutalized an innocent woman.
You know, it's all white people's fault.
He had to experience a society where black people get the benefit of the doubt in everything they do at every level.
What a shame.
And even at this, as this violent criminal tells her to her face that he wants to sexually assault her as well, she doesn't care.
Now, I'll ask the same question that I asked yesterday.
Have any Republicans at the national level even mentioned this case?
Republicans in Kentucky are proposing legislation that would allow the public to learn more about decisions like this, but this is not a local issue and it's not an issue of transparency, merely.
I mean, if unapologetic, violent black criminals are getting 50% sentencing reductions because black female judges want to strike back against white people, we have a major civil rights problem in this country.
If the Biden administration could shut down the military to root out white supremacy, and if they could haul a presidential candidate to jail because he said he won an election, there's nothing that should stop the Trump DOJ from launching a civil rights investigation into this judge immediately.
You cannot admit from the bench that you're making rulings on the basis of race, period.
But she just did that.
We cannot allow this kind of ruling to stand.
Nor can we allow openly anti-white police officers to remain employed.
And that's apparently a problem as well.
This is a story that Libs of TikTok just broke.
It's a video in which a black female officer with the Shreveport Police Department in Louisiana states in full uniform as she eats lunch for some reason that she is the black officer your wife fears.
Okay, so there it is.
No matter where you look, TikTok, the local court system, the Super Bowl, anti-white hatred is thrust in your face.
You can make the argument that nothing like this has happened at this scale in this country in more than 30 years.
That takes us back to the O.J. Simpson trial when tens of thousands of black Americans publicly celebrated the brutal execution of two white people.
They have to ask, has anything changed since then?
Have race relations improved after all of the affirmative action and equity we've experienced?
They knew OJ did it at the time.
No sane person could claim otherwise.
Everybody knew it.
And when the verdict came down, everyone knew exactly why black people were celebrating, as whites were shocked and dismayed.
Had nothing to do with the evidence of the case.
It was about anti-white racial hatred.
That's it.
And the difference is that with the OJ trial, most of OJ's supporters claimed as a pretext that they were interested in finding the real killer.
A poll showed that most black people claimed to believe that OJ was innocent, even though they were lying.
In fact, only around 22% of black people said OJ was guilty during the trial.
And that number is well over 50% now.
So there was still a sense in the 90s that in the United States, it was wrong to openly admit that you were happy that two white people were brutally slaughtered.
Today, you probably wouldn't even need the pretext.
O.J. could admit in open court that he murdered his wife and her friend because they were white, and a judge would forgive him because the system made him do it, because he had to experience society.
The judge would have apologized to OJ and said that he fell through the cracks.
Actually, not everybody went along with the pretext at the time.
In fact, one of the OJ jurors came out and admitted that the case was a form of payback.
And this clip is making the rounds again.
And if you haven't seen it, it's really important that you do because it tells you where we are, where we were at the time, but where we are now.
Watch.
Do you think that there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?
Yes.
You do?
Yes.
How many of you think felt that way?
Oh, probably 90% of us.
90%?
Did you feel that way?
Yes.
That was payback.
You think that's right?
That might be right.
It might be wrong, but we did it anyway.
Now, yet you watch that and you think, okay, well, that was the most high-profile murder trial in American history.
And we know, because they're telling us, they're telling us the black members of the jury let him off the hook because it was payback against white people.
Like they knew he was guilty.
They let him off the hook anyway.
And they're telling us that.
Well, You see that, you wonder, well, is that the last time that's ever happened?
Have things gotten better since then?
How many other criminals have been let off the hook, not just by judges, but by juries for this reason?
Or was OJ just it was a one-time thing?
I think it's very unlikely that it was a one-time thing.
And the problem with that excuse is that in every context from country to country, we see a clear racial bias in the jury system.
It's a very consistent trend.
And it has nothing to do with OJ or celebrity cases or anything like that.
You take a look at this data, which was published in the journal Law and Human Behavior, which you can see here.
As the researcher Jonathan Palison summarizes the findings, quote: Over 34 studies of jury behavior and more than 7,000 participants, white jurors show essentially zero racial bias, while blacks have strong bias in favor of their own race.
Now, you can see an illustration of those findings here.
White jurors in mock trials were mostly fair to defendants regardless of their skin color.
Meanwhile, black jurors demonstrated a high degree of favoritism to members of their own race.
And another study in the UK found, in addition, that black jurors are far more likely than white jurors to convict white people.
So we'll put that data on the screen as well.
In short, the West has not progressed towards a mythical colorblind society.
The OJ verdict wasn't really about Rodney King.
It was about the hatred that many non-whites in Los Angeles felt towards white people.
And many non-whites in Los Angeles and the country at large still feel that way.
And now with very powerful financial support, they're making their hatred for whites very apparent.
I mean, it's evident in our culture.
Evident Hatred in the Legal System00:02:25
It's increasingly evident in our legal system.
For all intents and purposes, we now have a new constitution in this country without anyone ever voting for it.
In this new constitution, whites are not entitled to equal treatment under the law.
And this DEI regime is propped up and fed by a two-tiered media system, our own radio Rwanda, in which the media focuses excessively and obsessively on relatively rare instances of white on black crime and rare police shootings.
Their sole objective is to foment race hatred, just like the Democrat Party and just like Redfin and Robert Kraft and so on.
It's possible that a lot of people were finally awakened by the Super Bowl halftime show and that millions of Americans now realize what's going on.
But you have to wonder if that's the case, why did it take so long for this realization to set in?
And there's another question we have to ask, we have to answer as well.
If all of the country's major institutions, from the courts to the corporations to the bureaucracy to the schools to the media, nonprofits and so on, are oriented towards replacing white people and making them the new minority majority, or rather making them the new minority, as we know a congressman has said openly he wants to do.
And if all available evidence suggests that these new demographic groups will vote and render judicial decisions on the basis of ethnicity and race, then what happens next?
I mean, this situation is not self-correcting.
It's going to proceed until one of two outcomes is reached.
Either white people have civil rights or they don't.
And if they don't, then white people will become tribal too, which is an outcome that most on the left genuinely don't think will occur.
But if this continues, it will.
If they continue to deny basic civil liberties to white people, that's the inevitable result.
And with each passing day, police officers, judges, and major corporations are making their position very clear on that particular issue.
It's well past time, more than 30 years overdue, for conservatives and white people in general to take note.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Ammo Squared Membership00:02:06
You know, prepared people don't complain when things get inconvenient.
Unprepared people do loudly.
And that's why I'm a member of Ammo Squared.
Ammo Squared lets you build an ammo reserve of your caliber steadily, month by month, without drama or excuses.
This is not extreme behavior.
It's baseline competence.
I love it.
It's super convenient and sensible.
Plus, I know I always have a supply ready to go whenever I want it.
They offer over 75 caliber variations from over 85 ammunition manufacturers.
So whatever I'm looking for, they have.
It's also great because you don't have to have a ton of extra storage space laying around your house to store ammunition anytime you want to buy it.
They do all the storage for you so you can get it on demand anytime you're ready to have it on hand.
AmmoSquared is designed for the people who think ahead.
Go to ammo.com today and become a member like me.
You know, when I'm busy and running all around, our sponsor, Cook Unity, makes it simple to enjoy meaningful chef-crafted food without the extra effort and all the time of cooking it ourselves.
Cooking quality meals takes time, but it doesn't have to be your time.
No cleanup or meal planning.
Meals are delivered fully cooked.
Just heat up in as little as five minutes.
Choose for a rotating seasonal menu of over 300 meals or let Cook Unity's platform provide personalized recommendations based on cravings, dietary restrictions, and even wellness goals.
New celebrity chefs are always joining like New York City restaurateur Marcus Samuelson or Michelin star Rick Bayless.
Commitment-free subscriptions start as low as $11 a meal.
I ordered the red wine braced short rib with mac and cheese and it was ridiculously good.
The chefs definitely know what they're doing and the variety means that I'm never bored.
It's a service that doesn't make convenient taste like cardboard.
Plus, Cook Unity offers flexibility when you need it.
Skip, pause, or cancel anytime.
Taste comfort and craftsmanship in every bite from the award-winning chefs behind CookUnity.
Go to cookunity.com slash Walsh or enter CodeWalsh before checkout to get 50% off your first order.
That's 50% off your first order by using CodeWalsh or going to cookunity.com slash Walsh.
Less Than 14%00:07:53
All right, I'm seeing this report circulating.
You know, liberals are very excited about it.
CBS News has this headline.
Less than 14% of those arrested by ICE in Trump's first year back in office had violent criminal records.
Document shows.
The article says less than 14% of nearly 400,000 immigrants arrested by immigration customs enforcement in President Trump's first year back had charges or convictions for violent criminal defenses, offenses rather.
The official statistic contained in the DHS document provided the most detailed look into who ICE has arrested.
The statistics show ICE has dramatically increased arrests since Mr. Trump's return.
Nearly 60% of ICE arrestees over the past year had criminal charges or convictions, documents indicate.
But among that population, the majority of the criminal charges or convictions are not for violent crimes.
So this is supposed to be some kind of big gotcha.
So let's dig into this.
Now, first of all, even if it were true that only 13% were violent criminals, even if none of them were, even if 0% were violent criminals, I would still support the deportations and I would still want even more deportations because they're here illegally.
The argument being made here, as always, is, well, hey, a lot of illegal aliens who got deported only committed the crime of coming here illegally.
That's like if I got a speeding ticket and I said to the police officer, well, officer, all I did was speed.
I didn't do anything else but speed.
Officer, you're giving me a speeding ticket, but it's not like I'm also a serial killer.
I didn't also commit violent crimes.
Why are you giving me a speeding ticket?
Well, because speeding tickets are for people who are speeding.
You don't need to do other things too.
You don't need to be a violent criminal who was speeding.
Okay, the law does not say, oh, here's the speed limit, 50 miles an hour for violent criminals.
Okay, but if you're not a violent criminal, you can go as fast as you want.
As someone who's not a violent criminal, it would be nice if that was the way that it worked, but that's not how it works.
So speeding tickets are a particular kind of enforcement that is designed for people who are speeding.
They might be nice people who are speeding.
They might be otherwise law-abiding citizens, except for the fact that they're speeding, but they're speeding.
And likewise, deportations are for people who have no legal right to be in the country.
That's what deportations are for.
You don't have to commit extra crimes in order for the deportation to activate.
But if you look into the numbers, you find that, of course, they're not just making a red herring argument.
They're lying.
So you take a look at the pie chart that CBS News provides in the article and the total deportations, and then they're broken down into what crimes were committed if they committed crimes.
Although, again, they all committed crimes because they're illegally.
And the first thing you notice is that a huge portion of the pie are crimes.
Like this is a pie chart being presented by the liberal media that's supposed to lead us to the conclusion that these deportations are unfair or mean or something.
You look at it and 60% of the illegal immigrants, most of the pie are people who also committed other crimes.
And what about those other crimes?
Well, we've got 11% committed assault.
Then we see the portions for kidnapping, homicide, robbery, burglary, sexual assault.
That already brings us over 14%.
That gets us to like 15% or over that.
And they said it was less than 14%.
That's because they're not counting burglary as a violent crime.
Breaking into somebody's car or house and stealing, even though it's a crime, it's a crime, number one, you're invading someone's private property, you're stealing, you're using some element of force, you have to, in order to break in, and doesn't count as violent crime.
They also are not counting DUI.
There's a lot of DUIs there.
That doesn't count as a violent crime, even though DUIs can and do kill people every day.
Weapons charges are on there.
They don't count that as a violent crime.
And this is the most confusing one.
They have a sliver of the pie for dangerous drugs.
And that doesn't count as a violent crime.
But what the hell are dangerous drugs as opposed to safe drugs?
Like, what are the safe illegal drugs?
So you've got dangerous illegal drugs and as opposed to what?
The safe ones?
Which are the safe illegal drugs?
Can you tell me?
What are the safe illegal drugs that don't harm anybody?
Like, I dare someone to throw a drug out that you're saying doesn't harm anybody.
Go ahead.
But even if we grant this weird distinction between dangerous drugs and I guess non-dangerous drugs, we now have what, about 30% of the deportees who committed crimes that involved either directly hurting or killing another person or potentially hurting or killing another person or stealing someone's property or buying or selling poison that could hurt or kill someone.
That's 30%.
And whether you want to call these violent crimes or not is totally irrelevant.
Like at that point, violent crime becomes an arbitrary distinction.
These are serious crimes committed by 30%, not 14%, of the people who are deported.
And then we get this other huge slice, which just says other crimes, other crimes.
Well, what are those other crimes?
Doesn't that matter?
We don't know.
We aren't told.
So you've got, well, only the small amount have done these violent crimes.
So they want, like, they'll give us the, have you noticed that?
Like, they'll give us the really small sliver.
They, they specify, you know, murder, rape, arson, even though it's a small little sliver.
Why do they specify that?
Because it's a small sliver.
Like, why do you need to give arson its own, like, there's not that many arsons, but they list it.
Well, but then other crimes, just one big chunk.
They don't tell you what the other crimes are.
Because if they did, they would have to show you that, oh, well, what are these other crimes?
We're not talking about speeding tickets.
We're talking about, like, for example, the Somalis who are scamming and stealing millions of dollars.
That's a non-violent crime, but it is also a really serious crime that hurts people.
They don't want to give you that.
They don't want to show you that.
So the multi-million dollar fraud schemes, that's just, oh, that's other crimes.
That's just the, you know, that's the other crimes.
You know, we here at the Matt Walsh show believe that it's important to stay healthy.
And one of the most essential components to your overall health is having a healthy liver.
Your liver is your body's ultimate filter.
It works overtime processing everything you consume while juggling 500 daily functions like energy production, digestion, and more.
But when it gets overworked, you really feel it.
That's where our sponsor, Dose for Your Liver, comes in.
Dose is a clinically backed supplement that comes as a daily two-ounce shot, helps cleanse your liver of unwanted stressors that are slowing it down and supports your daily liver function so everything can run smoothly.
It also doesn't taste bitter like most supplements do, which is a huge bonus.
Ready to give your liver the support it deserves.
A Wild Squatter Rights Tale00:10:50
Head to dosedaily.co slash Walsh or enter Walsh to get 35% off your first subscription.
Your body does so much for you.
Let's do something for it.
That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 35% off your first month subscription.
Here's a pretty wild story with one of my favorite videos of the year.
And the year is young, but I do think that this is a strong contender for the best of the year.
So it starts in Maryland, Bethesda, Maryland, with a controversy over squatter rights.
This is a squatter's rights controversy, which shouldn't be a controversy because squatters' rights should not be a thing.
And in fact, they are not a thing in Maryland, as we'll see.
But here's a report from Fox Baltimore.
It says, neighbors in a quiet Washington, D.C. suburb have watched what may, what many say feels surreal.
An alleged squatter has taken over a $2.3 million home, unfolding not on television, but outside their own front doors.
The property at the center of the controversy has been tied to Tamika Good and her partner, Corey Pollard, who neighbors allege unlawfully occupied a bank-owned home in Bethesda.
Videos posted to social media add to the friction, including one TikTok and Instagram clip attributed to Good that included the line, you can't be doing regular people.
The purported squatting incident took a dramatic turn last Monday.
Less than two weeks of being incarcerated, Tamika Good is back in the house, said neighbor Ian Chen.
Court records show Good and Pollard were charged last July with trespassing a fourth-degree burglary based on filings initiated by Chen, a 19-year-old college student who lives with his parents next door to the disputed home.
Good's attorney told Spotlight on Maryland that there are loopholes in the system that people do take advantage of, but loopholes are loopholes.
So this is the controversy.
Tamika Goode broke into a home, occupied it illegally, despite the fact that she doesn't own the home, has no claim to it whatsoever.
As far as I can tell, this is not even a case where like someone is renting a house and then stops paying but refuses to leave, which is bad enough.
But in this case, it looks like she just broke in, invaded, took over the house, and then she went to jail, as should happen.
And now she's out and she's back in the house again.
So there is no controversy here.
This is very straightforward.
I mean, this would be like if she mowed someone down with her car and then fled the scene.
And the news report said controversy tonight over a hit and run.
There's no controversy.
She's guilty of a hit and run.
I mean, she hit someone.
Pretty straightforward.
And she's guilty here of a number of crimes that she's already done time for.
And now she's back.
So, you know, why haven't they already arrested her and thrown her in jail again?
I don't know.
Throw her in jail for longer this time?
So controversies are created where we don't need to have them.
Because I don't know.
What is the court system?
What's law enforcement saying now?
Are they saying, well, what are we supposed to do?
We already arrested.
Yeah, arrest her again.
Put her in jail again.
But what if she gets out and she does it again?
They put her in jail again.
What if she does it after that?
Would you just keep putting her in jail?
Or better yet, put her in jail and keep her there.
So really, one of those two, either of those options, I think the better option is just keep her in jail forever.
This is not somebody who needs to be free in society.
But if you want to just keep arresting her, if this is fun for you to just keep arresting her and putting her in jail, fine.
But just like, yeah, that's why we have jails.
That's why they exist.
So that should be pretty easy.
But I want to take you to the video.
This was posted by Gary Collins, who's a reporter in Baltimore, because you have not met the most comical character in this particular sitcom.
And that would be the lawyer of this woman, who, in fairness, does not have an easy job.
How do you defend a woman who is clearly committing breaking and entering a burglary?
And then she goes to jail, gets out and does it again?
Like, how do you, what defense could one possibly offer?
Not an easy job, but this is a person, Alex Webster, who is uniquely ill-fitted to, you know, live up to the task here.
Watch.
Get out of my face.
Ma'am, why are you in a two and a half million dollar property?
After months of delays, Good was convicted on all counts on January 22nd, sentenced to 90 days in prison.
Pollard continues to face extradition for multiple vehicle theft-related crimes in Pennsylvania.
11 days later, Goode was released on appeal on February 2nd after posting a $5,000 cash bond.
Activities at the house started again soon after her release.
Four days, a woman wearing similar shoes and green pants was seen moving in and out of the alleged Bethesda squatter home.
We spoke with Alex Webster about his client.
Look, there's a question.
It's really the number one question on everybody's mind.
How would your client, Miss Damika Good, get inside a $2.3 million property?
I don't know if I can answer that.
Allegedly.
Can I cut?
We're rolling.
I mean, we're rolling, my friend.
All right, can you re-ask the question?
Sure, absolutely.
So the number one question on everybody's mind is how your client, Miss Damika Good, got into a $2.3 million property.
Well, Ms. Good did her research.
She found out that a certain property was under the control of a certain group and that there was a title issue.
Due to the title issue, she was able to assume the property under squatter's rights.
So in Maryland, there isn't a particular squatter right.
Am I missing something?
Well, there's not a particular squatter's right, but it's known as squatter rights.
Amazing.
I mean, if anyone still has any doubt somehow that DEI has allowed the most unqualified, ridiculous people to get jobs they are not suited for and not equipped for, well, there you go.
Meet Alex Webster.
Meet Alex Webster, attorney at law.
I have so many questions.
You know, of course, the number one question is, how did this absolute dunce cap manage to get a law degree?
Did he get his degree at the bottom of like a cereal box?
Do they even still do that?
I don't think they do.
Was this at the bottom of a box of a Captain Crunch?
He got his law degree.
Did they give it to him with a happy meal?
How did that happen?
Well, it's a rhetorical question.
I know how it happened.
It's DEI.
DEI is how it happened.
But there's other questions also, which really all go back to the same answer, which is this person's a moron and should not have ever been given a law degree.
But also, like, why did you agree to the interview if you didn't want to answer the most basic and foreseeable question imaginable?
What questions did you think would be asked?
So the news station called him up and said, hey, you're representing the lady who's squatting in the big ugly McMansion.
Can you talk to us?
And he says, I'm the absolutely count me in.
I'm there.
And then he sits down and they open with the most obvious question, which is, okay, well, how did she get into the house?
Whoa, cut, cut, cut, re-roll.
Okay.
Places, everyone.
Reroll.
We're going again.
Cut.
This guy got so scared that he tried to try to become a squatter in the camera crew.
He tried to pretend he was just part of the crew.
That would have been a better way of handling it, actually.
That would have been still not good, but better than what he did.
He should have just said, hey, man, why are you asking me?
I'm just the sound guy.
Yeah, I wear a suit.
Oh, I thought we were doing a sound check.
Is that not what we're doing?
Yeah, I wear a suit because I'm the sound guy.
And someone give me the boom mic.
I like how he throws the word allegedly into it.
Like he doesn't even know what it means.
This is a lawyer, remember.
And he says, I can't answer that.
He looks in the camera.
I mean, he's, I can't answer that, allegedly.
I can't answer that, allegedly.
That's what he did.
What do you mean you can't answer it allegedly?
Like, can you answer it or not?
Why are you alleging things about yourself?
And the reporter is sitting there and he's loving every second of it.
He cannot believe his luck.
He is so excited.
He is so excited because he knows he's getting the most iconic and hilarious footage imaginable.
And I don't blame him.
I'd be excited too.
And I like how he re-answers the question.
He re-asks the question as though it's going to, the first question will be cut, but the reporter knows they're not going to be cutting anything.
And that's not even the best part.
The best part is when the attorney finally gets around to offering some kind of answer and he says, well, she took the home under squatter's rights.
And the reporter says, but squatter rights don't exist in our state.
Well, yeah, but still.
But yeah, yeah, yeah, but you know, you know what I mean?
Come on.
You know, I mean, come on.
You know, that, you know, just amazing stuff.
And all, all of it shows all at once, you know, the lowly state of American culture right now.
And also how easy it would be to reverse it if we have the will.
Like in America right now, we're giving law degrees to characters from the office and we're letting random hobos take over million-dollar homes.
But we could easily just not do those things.
We could.
You could arrest the squatters, put them in jail, put the most basic standards in place to weed out people who are too dumb to be shift managers at Chipotle, much less lawyers.
And a lot of these problems just go away.
It's that easy.
It is that easy.
This episode is sponsored by Leaf Filter.
Parenting Trade-Offs00:15:00
Leaf Filter isn't just another gutter guard.
It's a trusted name built to last with years of relentless engineering behind it.
Those DIY and hood-style knockoff gutter guards can't keep up in heavy rain.
Water pours right over the edge and straight to your foundation.
And in lighter rain, leaves and debris flow right in the gap.
Leaf Filter works better because it's topped by stainless steel and micro mesh.
So water is channeled in while debris is filtered out.
Every installation comes with a lifetime clog-free guarantee, and they're trusted by over a million homes.
A Leaf Filter Trusted Pro will even clean out, realign, and seal your gutters before installing.
Don't settle for a knockoff.
Protect your home with Leaf Filter.
Start protecting your home today with Leaf Filter, America's number one gutter protection system.
Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com/slash walsh.
It's up to 35% off at L-E-A-F-filter.com/slash Walsh.
See representative for warranty details.
All right, finally, I wanted to mention this.
The New York Times has an article this week giving us the formula for marriage equality.
And the formula is, they say, formula.
It's baby formula.
So you can make your marriage equal with baby formula.
This is the writer.
The writer is Nona Willis Aronowitz.
And here's what she says.
In the middle of the night, a few days before Thanksgiving, I woke up with excruciating abdominal cramps.
A CD scan revealed that my appendix had perforated and I needed emergency surgery.
There were lots of things to stress about.
I had a three-month-old, Pearl, whom I'd never been away from overnight.
I had a three-year-old, Dory, who would once again worry about my sore tummy just as I'd finished my postpartum healing.
But one thing I felt mercifully calm about was Dom, my husband, and his ability to care for Pearl on his own.
The previous three months had been a crash course in parental equality, our conscious attempt to reverse the infuriatingly lopsided dynamic we'd experienced with our first child.
At the heart of it was a simple strategy: use baby formula early and often.
Every parent instantly learns that feeding is paramount.
Let me pause there for a second.
How did this make it past an editor?
Do they still have editors at the, what is this, New York Times?
Do they have editors there?
Every new parent learns that feeding is paramount.
How did that?
Yeah.
Great insight, Nona.
That's amazing.
Yes, feeding is paramount.
What?
Nona, you should write a parenting book.
I know you've only been parenting a few years, but you should write a book, 10 Rules of Raising Children.
Rule number one, feed them.
Rule number one, you have to feed them.
And all these people are going to read the book and go, oh, you're supposed, oh, you're supposed to feed them?
Is that what I've been doing wrong this whole time?
Oh, you mean you have to feed the kids?
Really?
Actually, this is how advanced I am.
She said that parents learn that you have to, that feeding is paramount.
I actually, I'm so ahead of the game that I knew that before I had kids.
I don't mean to be, I don't, I don't mean to be arrogant.
I don't mean to brag at all.
Okay.
I'm not saying I didn't have everything figured out, but I had that figured out going in.
I learned that feeding is paramount actually when I was a baby.
That's how long I've known it.
So incredible wisdom.
Anyway, let's see.
So in an age when the vast majority of parents support the concept of equal parenting, why don't we openly discuss one of the best ways to avoid that imbalance?
There are plenty of good reasons to breastfeed from passing on protective antibodies to your baby in the first few months of life to bonding in a lovely way.
Women will not be surprised to hear this.
Our society bombards us with the benefits of breastfeeding, many of which, like the claim that it increases a baby's IQ, are tenuous at best.
By contrast, finding guidance on how to fairly distribute the mind-boggling amount of care required for a newborn feels like going on a treasure hunt through Reddit threads and mom group chats.
It's not a mind-boggling amount of care, by the way, to feed, to take care of a newborn is not mind-boggling.
It's really not.
It just isn't.
Nighttimes can be stressful because they don't sleep a lot.
But other than that, it's like, there's actually not much, like they don't need, I mean, you do have to feed them.
So feeding is paramount.
Feed them, change them.
It's like real basic stuff.
It's not mind-boggling.
It really is.
But trust me, it's not.
Formula has been hotly debated ever since its invention as a commercial product in the mid-19th century.
Oh, who cares?
All right.
So it goes on and on.
You get the idea.
Lots of parenting decisions involve trade-offs.
It's time to explicitly tell parents to be, before they're in the trenches, that the two worthwhile enterprises of exclusive breastfeeding and equal parenting are a zero-sum game and that it can be utterly life-changing to choose the latter.
Okay.
I want to say a couple things about this.
I'm not going to weigh in on the formula versus breastfeeding debate.
I don't really care that much.
Obviously, breastfeeding is preferable.
Obviously, it's healthier for the baby, clearly.
I'm not one of these people who will judge you if you feel that you have to use formula.
But I will certainly judge you if you go around talking about equal parenting and marriage equality.
Equality in a marriage.
I'll judge you for that, whether you're using formula or not.
The idea of marriage equality, the idea of equality in a marriage, an equal marriage, equal parenting, that's all total nonsense.
There is no such thing as marriage equality because equality means sameness and men and women are not the same.
Husbands and wives are not the same, which means they are not equal.
Okay, now, men and women are equal in the sense of possessing human dignity as children of God.
We all possess human dignity.
And so in that kind of spiritual sense, there is equality.
And also, you could say that we're equal allegedly under the law.
You know, laws apply to both men and women equally in theory.
Now, in practice, that's not the case because women have all kinds of legal advantages over men.
They have advantages.
They're favored in family courts.
They're favored in criminal courts.
They get lighter sentences for the same crimes.
But in theory, they're equal under the law and they're also equal in their human dignity.
Outside of that, especially in the context of a marriage, there is no equality.
The concept of equality, it ends there as this kind of spiritual concept, as a theoretical legal concept.
Outside of that, it has no meaning in your everyday life and it doesn't exist.
Outside of those contexts, it's a myth.
Men and women, in particular, are not equal in any way, which means in any other way, which means a marriage cannot be equal.
And if equality, this is what you have to understand, okay?
If equality, if making everything equal, everything even, everything the same, if that is the motivating principle in your marriage, you will get divorced.
Not will, not might, not maybe.
I'm saying it will happen.
If you're, they don't tell you this.
When you look at the divorce statistics, they'll tell you that, oh, X amount of marriages end because of money or they end because of this or that, adultery.
All that stuff factors in.
But the real thing that kills most marriages or most of the marriages that end up breaking up, the thing that killed most of them is this idea that everything has to be equal.
And so you've got both spouses in the marriage who are keeping score and they feel like it's uneven, it's unfair.
I do more than they do and they don't appreciate me.
That's the thing that destroys most of the marriages that are going to be destroyed.
So if you organize your marriage around this idea of equality, either your marriage will fail or you'll have to give up on the fiction of equality.
That's what happens when you organize your marriage around something artificial and impossible.
Either you give up on the fiction or you give up on your marriage.
Men and women are different.
They are different people.
They bring different traits.
They have different strengths, different weaknesses, different innate abilities, a different essence that they bring to the marriage.
Either you embrace that and you harness it, you say to each other, okay, you go over there and do that because that's what you're most suited for.
I'll do this because this is what I'm most suited for.
And either you do that, which is another way of saying gender roles, God forbid, or you insist that everyone has to do all the same things.
I'll do 50% of this.
You do 50% of it.
We'll do 50%.
Everything will be split right down the middle.
Everything's equal.
And if you do that, you're approaching marriage in the way that children approach chore time.
Right?
It's like when you tell your kids to do chores.
Everything has to be equal.
Everyone has to do the same things for an equal amount of time.
That's not fair.
He did less than me.
I'm telling mom.
You're like a child if you bring kids to an ice cream, get ice cream, and one kid gets like two toppings and the other kid gets only one.
That's not fair.
He got two.
That's not fair.
And you have grown adults who approach their marriage like this, and then they're shocked.
They're shocked when it doesn't work.
And they go looking for other explanations.
Why?
Why didn't it work?
And then they'll pin it on the so-called inequality itself.
They'll say it's, oh, because he got more toppings than I got.
No, it's not the inequality that killed your marriage.
It's your attitude about the inequality.
It is your unwillingness to embrace and accept the inevitability of inequality in a marriage.
That is what killed it.
Now, the beauty of God's design is that you are thrown into this right away.
That's one thing the article gets right.
Like when you have a child, there's no warm-up, really.
It's like you're thrown into this right away and you got to make a decision.
Are you going to embrace the inequality, the differences, the unsameness, which is not a word, but let's go with it, in your marriage?
Or are you going to jam the square peg into the round hole and force yourselves to live by the fiction of equality?
And right there, with a newborn baby in particular, that's a time for choosing.
Because if you're going to force equality, we're all doing the same things.
Everything's 50%.
Like it's so unnatural with a newborn that you have to go out of your way.
Right.
And that's when you end up with things like the mom is getting up to feed and she wakes up the husband too, just because, well, I'm not sleeping.
You can't sleep.
That kind of thing.
That is how unnatural and sort of out of your way you have to go with a newborn to make everything equal.
Or you could be an adult and say, okay, this is going to be unequal because we're different people.
Because here's what you discover right away.
Women were made to care for newborns, literally made for it.
Men were not.
That doesn't mean men can't help, right?
A man can help.
He can help.
He can do, but he is merely helping.
If you are following the natural course of events, if you are doing what comes most naturally, then the man will merely play a supporting role in the care of the newborn while he plays a starring role in the overall care of the family unit by going out and working and earning a living for mom and baby.
That's the most natural way of doing it, which is why it was the way that every society, every culture has functioned forever.
And even these progressive liberal types, even they will admit, as this woman does in the article, that when they first have kids, they usually end up falling into that sort of naturally.
But they talk about it later like it's a horror.
They say, oh, when I first had kids, I believed in equality, but we fell out of it when we had.
So they have to force themselves.
They have to force themselves.
So this is what comes naturally is to embrace the inequality of the roles, the inequality of man and woman.
And they have to force themselves out of this sort of natural arrangement and wedge.
They have to wedge themselves out of their natural roles.
Because the reality is a woman is physically built to care for a newborn.
She carries the child in her body for nine months.
Her body is made to provide nourishment to the child in the womb and out of it.
Even if you use formula, that remains the case.
The woman was made to provide nourishment to the child.
The baby, maybe wants his mother, right?
The baby only has eyes for his mother for the first several months of his life.
Baby doesn't really care about dad that much in the early months of life.
And that's fine.
Like as a dad, that's the kind of, okay, that's just the way this goes right now.
Like dad, he can take or leave.
He wants his mother.
And that is natural.
This is the way we're made.
As a dad, you could disappear for the first 10 months of your child's life and he would barely notice that you're not there.
I mean, you shouldn't.
You should not disappear.
You should be there.
It would cause a lot of other major problems for you not to be there.
But what my point is that a young baby hardly even notices the dad.
But if mom is gone, he notices.
He feels it.
If mom is gone for 10 minutes, much less 10 months, he feels it.
Of course he does.
Of course he does.
He was just inside his mom's body for nine months.
He was physically inside her body for nine months.
Of course, he's going to be much more emotionally and physically attached to her mother, to his mother, than to the father.
that's totally normal.
And of course, if you go from the baby being physically attached to the mother inside her body to now within a few weeks or months being in a daycare under fluorescent lights cared for by strangers so the mom could go back to her office job.
Setting the Record Straight00:03:44
That is going to harm the child.
It is that is bad for the child.
Obviously that is a traumatizing level of separation.
Of course it is.
A baby will not be traumatized by being separated from his father for hours every day.
That's not traumatizing, like that's fine, but he will be traumatized by separation from his mother and that's not a problem, unless you insist on making it a problem.
And that's the thing with marriage equality.
It takes a bunch of things that don't have to be problems and it chooses to make them into problems.
Rather than following the natural path, rather than sort of going with the grooves, the tracks that are already there in the snow for you to follow um, the natural path that you know it is uh, you know where you say okay.
Well, obviously the baby needs mom more.
So I, as the man, will go out and i'll leave the house and provide for the family, and you, as the mom, will stay here and care for the baby, and when I get home at night we'll be together as a family.
That's the natural path, is the way it's always been done.
There's no nature-based reason to reject that.
There is no reason grounded in concern for the child to reject that.
It is simply if the woman says no, that's not fair, that's not equal, that's not fair, then the whole natural setup of the family has to be reorganized and the child has to suffer, just so the woman can feel like things are equal.
It is selfish, it just is.
I don't care whether you want to hear it or not, it is selfish and and you know it like every, we all know it it's childish and selfish and ridiculous.
We have reorganized and reoriented our whole society.
We have divorced ourselves from the natural way that things have always been done, from the way that is best for families and best for children, and we have done it for one reason only.
It is simply so that women can feel like things are equal.
It is simply for the sake of a fiction that all of this has been done and that sets you off on a course for the rest of your marriage where everything is measured, everything has to be equal all the time.
If you do something, then you know if the wife does something, the husband has to do 50 of it.
If the husband does something, the wife has to do 50 of it.
Right, i'll unload the dishwasher, you do that, you.
You rinse off the dishes.
Right, i'll load, you rinse which is like on its own okay fine, if that's how you want to tackle it, but also like you could just do the dishes yourself.
And now we've got these people, both spouses say, I, I can't.
This is outrageous, I can't do the whole thing.
This is unfair.
It is unfair and you're going to kill your marriage.
It's that simple, embrace the inequality or your marriage dies.
Those are your two choices.
You don't have any other choices, i'm afraid to tell you.
That's all there is to it.
The good news is you can forget about equality.
You just totally forget about it because it's a fiction, it's made up, it's not real.
Well, you might as well organize your marriage around Bigfoot.
You might as well organize your marriage around, you know, magical unicorns.
You could forget about that, and instead you could have a marriage that's organized around love, devotion, service.
These are what a healthy marriage is grounded in.
And there's no scorecard for those.
So that's your other option.
Time To Set The Record Straight00:01:09
And we will leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
They told you America invented slavery.
They told you the Indians were peaceful.
They told you colonialism was evil and that Joseph McCarthy was a bad guy.
And guess what?
They lied.
For half a century, generations of American school children have been taught to hate our history, hate our country, and hate themselves.
Time to set the record straight.
And since no one else is going to do it, I will.
Who sold us the slaves?
What were India and Africa like before Europeans arrived?
What caused white flight?
Some of the most well-known stories from American history are designed to demoralize you.
Trail of Tears, Smallpox, Blanket Smith, the Red Scare.
It's all baseless.
It's time for a lesson on what they're not teaching in public schools.
On the real history of slavery, of colonialism, of the Indians, of America, and the world.