Ep. 1738 - We Vanquished Canada In Hockey. Should We Vanquish The Entire Canadian Regime Next?
Ep. 1738 frames the U.S. hockey team’s 2024 Olympic victory over Canada as a geopolitical turning point, mocking NBC’s censorship of Jack Hughes’ patriotic interview while blaming Canada’s economic collapse—now poorer than Alabama per capita—on liberal policies, mass immigration, and regulations like Indigenous consultations. The episode ties this to alleged human rights abuses: $750K fines for dissent on gender ideology, 2023’s MAID euthanasia surge (200+ cases in 48 hours), church burnings, and state-funded child murder, comparing Canada to North Korea or Iran. It pushes for U.S. intervention to aid Alberta’s secession, citing Venezuela-style regime-change feasibility, while debating Israel’s right to exist through Huckabee-Carlson tensions over self-defense and "inherent rights." The show ends by promoting Real History with Matt Walsh, a project to "correct" public school narratives on slavery, colonialism, and McCarthy, framing them as lies meant to undermine national pride. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, Matt Wall show, the U.S. vanquishes Canada in hockey.
Is it time to vanquish the entire Canadian regime next?
We'll discuss.
Also, Mike Huckabee and Tucker Carlson have a heated debate about Israel.
Mayor Zoram Amdani opposed voter ID, but still requires 19 forms of ID and 12 blood samples to shovel snow for some reason.
And Gavin Newsome stoops to new lows in his attempt to pander to minority voters.
of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
For the first time since 1980, the U.S. men's hockey team has defeated our chief communist adversary in front of the entire world at the Winter Olympics.
And if you watch the gold medal game and you're an American, you were probably enjoying yourself the entire time.
I certainly was.
It was a close game.
It was a good game.
Went to overtime.
Our goalie looked like this, which is great.
He's got the American flag and a largemouth bass on his helmet there, which is pretty hard to beat.
I never heard of that guy, to be honest with you, until yesterday.
And he's already my favorite professional athlete.
And on top of that, he stopped something like 40 shots during the game.
It was incredible to watch, even if you're not usually interested in hockey, which I'm not.
Meanwhile, Jack Hughes took a stick to the face and lost a tooth, scored the game-winning goal, and then gave a post-game interview that was so patriotic that NBC tried to prevent people from sharing it on social media.
They started copyright striking it.
Watch.
Jack, the first gold medal for the United States in 46 years, and you delivered it.
Can you just describe the emotions of this moment right now?
This is all about our country right now.
I love the USA.
I love my teammates.
It's unbelievable.
The USA Hockey Brotherhood is so strong.
And we have so much support from X players.
I'm so proud to be American today.
This was gross.
This was the spirit that most Americans shared as we watched the game.
We wanted our team to win because we're proud to be Americans.
And then when they won, we celebrated for the same reason.
Canadians, on the other hand, are not actually proud of their country.
And that's because as Justin Judeau famously announced a decade ago, Canada isn't a country at all.
I mean, he said it himself.
According to him, it's a post-national colonialist white supremacist blob.
So really, Canadians hate watch games like this.
They're not rooting for Canada so much as they're rooting for America to lose.
And then America doesn't lose.
And if you're Canadian, this is basically all you have at this point.
The Winter Olympics are your last stand.
Canada's economy is in free fall.
Toronto is 99% comprised of South Asian immigrants.
Canadians were just caught on camera cheating at curling.
Yes, curling.
And on top of that, hockey is the only sport that Canadians play.
It's the only thing that they do, that they're proud of.
It's their only skill.
And then they lost to the United States, where hockey is basically like a niche interest.
It's not even a top five sport in this country.
And after all that, I think reasonable Canadians would have to ask: what are we doing here?
I mean, other than burning churches and killing our own citizens, including children and the elderly, what exactly do we excel at?
But Americans don't need to ask that question because our country is exceptional.
We excel at everything.
We're capable of dominating foreign countries and sports that they invented and play all the time.
Canadians obsess over hockey.
We barely think about it, and we still beat them.
I think what I've proposed is that for our next trick, we should assemble the greatest cricket team of all time and then go win the cricket World Series or whatever it's called.
I don't know.
I want to see hundreds of drunk Americans tailgating outside of the cricket stadium, wherever that is, being as obnoxious as possible about a sport that none of us have watched or understand.
Now, for me personally, this historic victory came at a fortuitous time because I've been taking a lot of flack from leftists, especially leftists in Canada, for briefly making the argument last week that the United States would be morally justified in invading and conquering Canada.
At the very least, we would be just as, if not much more, morally justified in invading Canada as we would be in invading literally any other country on the planet, to include Iran, by the way.
And now that we've conquered Canada on the ice, I think it's a good time to sort of add insult to injury and lay out this case in thorough detail.
Now, I'm not necessarily saying that we should invade, but I am saying that a very reasonable case can be made for it, unironically.
Now, in a moment, I'll outline that case from a moral, geopolitical, and strategic perspective.
But before I do so, I need to address the inevitable counter argument, which is that, well, it'll never happen or, you know, it's crazy.
These aren't really arguments against invading Canada.
They're simply statements about what's likely to occur, but they're not persuasive, especially after the United States took out Maduro in Venezuela.
I mean, there are many, many similarities between Venezuela and Canada.
Like Venezuela, Canada is a poor country that has badly mismanaged its vast natural resources, resources that in a functioning state would produce immense wealth.
Like Venezuela, Canada does not respect freedom of speech.
They're a gross human rights violator.
Dissidents are routinely punished.
Their lives are destroyed for the crime of offending the government.
Like Venezuela, Canada has signaled its allegiance to China, which poses an obvious threat to the security of this entire hemisphere.
And like Venezuela, Canada essentially has no military.
I mean, all we'd have to do is swoop in, activate the discombobulator thing that they used and deport Mark Carney to someplace like London or New York, where he spent most of his life anyway.
It would be a casualty-free, one-night war.
And many Canadians, particularly the ones living in Alberta, would welcome us as liberators.
We could put them in charge if we wanted to, just like we replaced Maduro.
It's not like the left-wing Canadians would fight back.
They don't even have guns.
We did basically the same exact operation just a few weeks ago.
I mean, really, if you could do that in Venezuela and most Americans support it for good reason, then why can't we do it to Canada for all the same reasons?
Now, an argument could be made that a similar operation, one that targets Ottawa, is necessary for, again, all the same reasons and more.
And we'll start with the fact that Canada is squandering its vast natural resources, which is a grave injustice that affects millions of lives.
Canada has almost unparalleled access to some of the most valuable God-given resources on the planet, and they're simply not using them.
And people are suffering in large numbers as a result.
Under the Don Rowe doctrine, as we call it now, which our president has clearly laid out, this is a major problem that needs to be rectified.
By most estimates, Canada has around $800,000 in natural resources, natural resource wealth per capita.
That's more than six times the resource wealth in the U.S. per capita.
So in other words, given their small population, there's no reason why every Canadian shouldn't be well off.
Every single one of them should have immediate access to high quality health care, a home, stable income.
On a per-person basis, the typical Canadian should have more wealth than the typical American, especially since the demographics of Canada, historically speaking, until recently, have been relatively homogeneous.
Now, what's happened instead is that Canada has squandered this wealth.
They've passed environmental regulations that make it difficult, if not impossible, to build new pipelines, pipelines, dams, mines.
Before anything can get done, they have gender equity reviews to conduct and emission standards to meet and high taxes to pay.
And of course, Indigenous elders to consult.
Canadians appear to believe that it's important to sabotage their own economy for ideological reasons, which is what they're doing every day.
But whatever their reasoning, they're making themselves poor on purpose, and many Canadians don't appear to even realize it.
That's why there was mass hysteria among Canadians the other day when the Canadian paper Globe and Mail ran a story about just how poor Canadians are.
This was the title of the article, quote, out of nowhere, Canada became poorer than Alabama.
How is that possible?
Now, it's a great headline for a couple of reasons.
First of all, Canada didn't become poor out of nowhere.
There's a very clear line we can trace here.
For 10 years, as you can see here on the chart, Canada's GDP per capita, which is a useful way to measure quality of life, has been going down while ours has been going up.
And that means Americans have the benefit of a much stronger economy, which means more jobs and higher wages.
We began surging when Trump in his first term lowered the tax rate for businesses.
On the other hand, Canada's entire economy stalled the moment that Liberals took over the government, raised taxes, increased regulations, began flooding the country with foreigners, mostly from South Asia.
This has been a very slow and very noticeable decline that's been happening.
To be more accurate, as you can see there, the percent of foreign-born Canadians has been increasing for decades and it's accelerated even more in the past decade.
So there's nothing about Canada's economic situation that should catch anyone by surprise or come out of nowhere.
Also, of course, the headline is amusing because they're acting like Alabama is like a third world hellscape.
They have some kind of South Park cartoon understanding of the world.
In reality, Alabama is a hub for the aerospace industry as well as biotech, defense, cars, and so on.
But every time this topic comes up, Canadian politicians act like Alabama is like on another planet or something.
Watch.
The bad news keeps rolling in from credible financial experts.
This week's Economist, quote, were Canada's 10 provinces and three territories an American state, they would have gone from being slightly richer than Montana, America's ninth poorest state, to being a bit worse off than Alabama, the fourth poorest.
Alabama.
To fix a problem, one has to admit that it exists.
Will the government admit that under its policies, Canada is now poorer than Alabama, America's fourth poorest state?
Now, it's obvious this guy, like most Canadians, has never been anywhere near Alabama, which is fine.
They're in Canada.
But to their credit, the Globe and Mail did venture out to the deep south.
And here's what they wrote in their now viral story.
And I promise this is real.
Quote, for an ego check, the Globe and Mail traveled to the deep South to understand how this happened, meaning how Canada became poor.
Immediately, it was obvious Alabama is misunderstood.
In Huntsville, there are as many Subaru outbacks as there are pickup trucks.
Its economy is booming.
The state's unemployment rate is now just 2.7% versus 6.5% in Canada.
In 2024, Alabama made nearly as many vehicles as Ontario.
The U.S. simply pays more for many senior white-collar jobs, and top personal tax rates in Alabama can be around 40%.
Today, they're 53.5% in Ontario.
So the Canadian journalists were shocked, positively stunned to see Subaru outbacks in Alabama.
They were expecting that everybody would be driving a pickup truck in their wife beaters, bottles of Jack Daniels strewn all over the floorboard.
And what did they discover?
They discovered that almost everyone has a job.
Real estate is cheap.
Salaries are high, and people don't have to wait a year to get an MRI.
And more to the point, people have real jobs in Alabama.
They aren't all working for the government or for government-funded nonprofits, which is the norm in Canada.
And there's something else that Alabama has that Canada does not, and that is free speech.
That brings us to the second major reason why Canada's regime would deserve to be overthrown.
They're committing flagrant human rights abuses on our doorstep every day.
In fact, Canada has now fallen to the point that citizens are being fined nearly a million dollars for telling the basic truth about human biology.
I'm going to spend some time on this case because it's representative of the greater problem in Canada.
This is by far not the only case like this.
This is from the CBC, which is Canada's state-run propaganda outlet.
And here's what it says, quote, the BC Human Rights Tribunal has ordered former school trustee Barry Neufeld to pay $750,000 for violating the human rights code by publishing hate speech and discriminatory content against two SL GBTQ plus people.
Neufeld's publications included Facebook posts, a speech at a gathering, a widely circulated email, and comments at a school board meeting and in the media.
The tribunal found six of his publications were likely to expose trans, gay, and lesbian people to hatred or contempt based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.
$750,000 will cover payments to, quote, teachers association members who identify as LGBTQ between October 2017 through 2022 for injury to their dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Feelings Matter00:15:15
Yes, injury to their feelings.
In Canada, according to the law, if you hurt the feelings of a 2SL GBTQ person, then the government will destroy your life.
It will bankrupt you.
That's what this decision means.
If you hurt an LGBT person's feelings, they'll take your job away, they'll bankrupt you, and they'll send you off into disgrace.
And no mainstream Canadian politician seems to care, as far as I can tell.
There certainly hasn't been any massive outrage in Canada over this decision.
It's just kind of par for the course.
And even before we look at the content of the allegedly offending posts, this decision is, when accurately viewed not as an aberration, but as a symptom of the overarching communist tyranny in Canada, a freestanding justification to depose the Canadian regime.
The right to freedom of speech is the single most important right in the Western world.
That's why it's the First Amendment to our Constitution in America.
And no matter how offensive your speech may be, no matter whose feelings you might hurt, it doesn't matter.
Once you lose the freedom of speech, you become a rogue, tyrannical state.
I mean, this is worse than North Korea in many ways.
At least North Korea is nowhere near our border.
Now, you might say, well, maybe this guy was threatening someone or saying things that were truly dangerous.
Let's open the tribunal's decision and see.
Quote, on October 23rd, 2017, Mr. Neufeld posted a long public statement on Facebook describing teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity as a weapon of propaganda, which instructs children about the absurd theory that gender is not biologically determined, but a social construct.
He said allowing children to change gender was child abuse.
Mr. Neufeld ended the post saying that he belonged in a country like Russia or Paraguay, which recently had the guts to stand up to these radical cultural nihilists.
In a separate post, quote, he calls transgenderism a way of coping and surviving horrendous physical and sexual abuse as children and says that the most at-risk children are disturbed and mentally ill, especially autistic, obsessive-compulsive, sexual abuse survivors and post-traumatic stress syndrome kids.
Now, everything in those posts is unquestionably true.
As always, what's happening here is that the censors realize they can't win an actual argument.
They know that their ideology doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So instead of allowing debate, they're forcing, going to force everyone to comply.
And the more you read this decision, the more obvious that becomes.
Here's easily the most Orwellian passage to ever appear in a legal decision in memory.
I'm going to read a decent amount of this because it's truly deranged.
And again, it just shows you what it's like in Canada.
Now, quote, trans people are, by definition, people whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth.
If a person elects not to believe that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not believe in trans people.
This is a form of existential denial.
It is not, as Mr. Neufeld argues, akin to religious beliefs.
A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian.
However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth.
As this tribunal has recognized, the question of whether transgender people exist and are intelligent dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another.
Calling transness gender ideology allows anti-trans activists to hide behind a veneer of reasonableness.
It allows them to say, as Mr. Neufeld did in his statements, that they are not attacking human beings.
They are simply opposing a set of ideas.
But behind this insidious veneer is the proposition that transness is not real.
Such phrasing can make it easier to ignore that trans people are human beings.
Well, it's just an extraordinary passage for many reasons.
I mean, first of all, even if he was denying the actual existence of trans people as humans, he should be free to do that.
I mean, if somebody says that I don't exist, they're not harming me in any way by just saying that.
They could only harm me with that claim if I'm so mentally unstable that they might manage to persuade me of my own non-existence.
But in any case, he's not denying the existence of people who call themselves trans.
He's denying the validity of the claim they're making about themselves.
And if you don't have the right to do that, then you don't have the right.
You don't have any rights at all.
The Canadian tribunal says it's not valuable to have this conversation, which again, even if that were true, only a communist dystopian hellhole would have a tribunal that legally declares what conversations are valuable or not.
And then if they decide your conversation is not valuable, they can fine you for a million dollars.
That's what Canada has become.
The tribunal draws a comparison between this and race, saying that it's not valuable to debate whether members of one race could be different from another on average in ways that are positive or negative.
Clearly, they don't think it's valuable to talk about race because they don't think it serves any purpose other than emboldening racists or whatever.
That's what they're trying to say.
But in the same breath, these same people will mandate anti-white racial discrimination and relentless affirmative action on the theory that all racial disparities between whites and non-whites are the result of systemic discrimination and white supremacy.
And that theory would fall apart completely if someone could point to an alternative explanation for racial disparity.
So really, it's not that the tribunal thinks that the debate on race isn't valuable or relevant.
It's that if you allow debate on the issue, then people might start to question some core tenets of leftism.
And the Human Rights Tribunal won't allow that.
They just won't allow it.
You cannot question leftism in Canada.
We will bankrupt you.
We might put you in prison.
Along the same lines, this tribunal says it's simply not valuable to debate the issue of whether a 10-year-old boy can instantly transform into a girl.
I mean, it's transparently an effort to shut down a debate that they know they're losing.
The decision is the codification of trans insanity into law, which will have enormous consequences for children in Canada.
It will ruin thousands of lives.
The decision also amounts to the formal suspension of the freedom of speech in Canada, which has really already long since happened, which is a death knell for the entire country.
It's the position of the Canadian government that if you hold the wrong opinion, then your property is forfeit because you don't actually own anything.
You'll have to hand over your life savings.
This has been coming for a long time.
As we talked about, Canadian courts have already started informing homeowners that the Indigenous tribes actually own their land.
So even though Canadians paid for their homes, they don't really own them.
Similar to what we saw during the trucker convoy when peaceful protesters discovered that their bank accounts had been seized.
Canada is a perfect expression of the WEF's goal, which is that in the future, people will own nothing.
Before this ideology spreads any further, it needs to be stopped.
And that's not even getting into the Canadian government's deliberate and ongoing effort to murder its own citizens.
The outlet Right to Life News took a look at an official report from the government of Canada on this topic.
And we've talked a lot about it, especially recently, but somehow the deeper you look into it, it just gets worse and worse and worse.
And here's what they found.
Quote, an official report by the chief coroner of Ontario's Medical Assistance and Dying Death Review Committee highlighted that in 2023, 65 people in Ontario had their lives ended by Canada's assisted suicide and euthanasia program on the same day that they made their request to do so.
A further 154 people had their lives ended the day after their request was made.
So that's over 200 people in just one area in one year who had, who were put down, were euthanized within 48 hours of putting in the request.
And keep in mind, this is also a government.
This is a government where, you know, this endless bureaucracy, it takes months and months and months to do anything.
You want to get a permit, you know, you want to get a permit to build a deck.
It's going to take months and months and months.
But if you say, hey, I want to kill myself within 48 hours, they're going to be at your door with the lethal injection.
One of those cases involved a woman named Mrs. B., who was in her 80s, and she had heart surgery, was suffering complications.
And so she chose to receive palliative care.
And when her spouse requested a euthanasia assessment, Mrs. B indicated that she wanted to withdraw that request, citing personal religious values and beliefs, preferring instead to pursue inpatient hospice care, palliative care.
But hospice care was denied.
So her spouse again requested a euthanasia assessment.
And that time, Mrs. B apparently relented, even though one of her assessors, quote, held concerns regarding the necessity for urgency and the seemingly drastic change of perspective of end-of-life goals and the possibility of coercion or undue influence, i.e. due to caregiver burnout.
So if you're keeping track at home, they're denying hospice care to people who do not want to kill themselves, but are very sick.
They're denying hospice care and saying, hey, we'll just put you down instead.
Even for people who their initial reaction is, I don't want that.
It's against my beliefs.
I don't want it.
I don't want to be put down like a sick dog.
Now, these stories are very, very common, which is why so-called medical assistance and dying in Canada is now the fifth leading cause of death in the entire country.
And again, the MAID program on its own, the widespread systematic killing of the sick and the vulnerable, which is happening right now, would easily be a valid moral justification for invading the country and deposing the regime all on its own, even if there was nothing else going on.
This is happening right over our border, right in our backyard.
Any regime that engages in outright eugenics, executing people who are deemed undesirable, no longer has any moral claim to legitimacy.
In Canada, they have free health care, they claim, but the health care is a lethal injection.
And we also talked about the story of the 26-year-old man who was murdered because he had seasonal depression in addition to diabetes and blindness.
No terminal illness.
So in short, Canada has begun killing its own citizens, been doing it for a while because its healthcare system is, I mean, really, because it's overrun with foreigners and also because they're, you know, they're running out of organs.
Or they say they're running out of room and hospice.
So we'll just put you down.
So they're trying to kill two birds with one stone here.
They want to reduce the population to ease the burden on the healthcare system.
And they also want more organs that the healthcare system can use.
And none of this is some kind of crazy conspiracy theory.
This is what is actually happening right now.
And by the way, the people who are getting put to death, interestingly enough, are not the foreigners.
It's overwhelmingly white Canadians who are being put down, which is weird too, because in Canada, the liberals are really concerned with minority representation.
It's weird how they're not concerned with minority representation when it comes to euthanasia.
They're not concerned about that at all.
Something like 95% of so-called MAID recipients are white.
Talk about disproportionate impact.
So the replacement is occurring on both ends.
They're importing foreigners and they're killing the white people.
There are many more human rights abuses in Canada that we could talk about, from the mutilation and castration of children in the name of gender ideology to the church burnings, which we've discussed many times based on a false trumped up narrative intended to demonize Christians, which was then used as a pretense to go and burn down 30-plus churches.
Almost no one's been arrested for any of those for most of those crimes.
The state-funded murder of children, including partial birth abortions.
There are no federal laws restricting abortion at all in Canada.
That means it is legal to execute a fully developed infant while the child is being born.
And they do that, this.
That's what they do in Canada.
That's what a partial birth abortion is.
It's just straight up infanticide.
Killing an infant who is in the middle of being delivered anyway.
A living, healthy infant is being delivered.
And in the process, they kill the child.
That's illegal in Canada.
And it is, again, all by itself, just as evil as anything that the North Korean or Iranian regime has ever done, period.
Now, we have deposed many governments for less.
And in this case, there's yet another reason to invade Canada, which is that, I mean, we should also mention a lot of people in Canada want us to do it.
And the Canadians who would oppose us, as I mentioned, have already been disarmed.
Like, they're not going to do anything.
They're not going to do anything.
They can't do anything about it.
They're completely powerless.
The Trump administration seems to be aware of all this, which is why the Treasury Secretary just suggested that high-level talks with Alberta officials are currently underway.
Watch.
All the oil and the natural resources coming out of Canada.
Texas is still larger.
Well, look, Alberta is a wealth of natural resources, but they won't let them build a pipeline to the Pacific.
I think we should let them come down into the U.S.
And Alberta is a natural partner for the U.S.
They have great resources.
The Albertans are very independent people.
Rumors that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.
Sounds like you may know something up there.
People are saying, people are talking.
People want sovereignty.
Now, if you live in Alberta, the economic engine of Canada and the province where most of my Canadian listeners live, then this is very good news.
You have an off-ramp as Canada continues its slide into total decay and dysfunction.
Alberta has seen what's happened to Toronto and Vancouver.
Alberta understands how unrecognizable these places have become.
And all along with their tax dollars, Alberta has been funding the collapse of these provinces.
That doesn't need to continue.
In about 48 hours, the U.S. military could put an end to it.
Nation's Right to Exist00:17:51
Now, yes, at the moment, an attack on Iran appears to be imminent.
America may be on the verge of another large-scale military commitment in a region of the world thousands of miles away, but Canada is right here.
It is very easy to argue that not only do we have a greater moral responsibility to respond to atrocities in Canada because it's right here on our continent, right next door, but also, and more importantly, that Canada's slide into a communist dystopia overrun with third world foreigners presents a clear and present danger to our country and our well-being.
It is not readily apparent to me how an evil regime in Iran, and they are evil, presents any real threat to the United States.
No one's been able to explain that.
It is, however, very readily apparent how an evil regime seated 60 miles from our own border does present a real threat to us.
So we already beat them in hockey.
The funny thing is that conquering the entire country would actually be considerably easier and less bloody than that hockey game.
Does that mean we should do it?
Well, I think there's a very respectable argument, which I've just laid out.
It's actually not crazy, especially if you have supported any of America's interventions anywhere else in the world.
Then you have no basis to look at this and say it's crazy.
It's not crazy.
At least we could say today as we celebrate our gold medal that it's something worth considering.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
My show is proud to be supported by Grand Canyon University, an affordable, private, non-profit Christian university based in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
At GCU, academically rigorous, industry-driven programs are built to provide you with practical skills and career readiness.
They believe education should not be a privilege, but an affordable path forward.
Because of this, GCU has kept tuition at the same rate on its traditional campus for the past 17 years, will continue into the 26, 27 academic year.
Plus, they awarded over $444 million institutional GCU scholarships last year to support and encourage education.
Grounded in Christian truth, GCU works to empower the next generation to lead with integrity, serve with purpose, and help transform their communities.
So take action and find your purpose at GCU.
Visit gcu.edu to learn more.
All right, let's see.
So on Friday, Tucker Carlson interviewed, I think it was Friday, maybe it was Thursday, Friday, I think.
Tucker Carlson interviewed Mike Huckabee, who is, of course, now the ambassador to Israel.
And I thought it was an interesting conversation.
There's one clip that I want to play and talk about, but kind of represents a theme, the theme of the conversation, I would say.
But let's watch it.
Here it is.
You've spent a lot of time thinking about the right of the Jewish people to their homeland.
Do the Irish have the same right to a homeland?
As long as they can defend it.
And as long as they, you know.
As long as they can defend it.
But Tucker, here's the point.
Wait, I'm telling you.
Wait, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Now you just flipped out.
You're the minister here.
Yeah, and I'm telling you.
As long as they can defend it.
And if they can't defend it.
And allowing me to tell you that I think that what is very, very special here is that there is a biblical as well as an ethnic and a historical.
So you can take any one, but if you add them all together, biblical, historical, and ethnic, you have a very strong case that the Jewish people are living in a land that is indigenous to them, that has been their historic homeland for 3,800 years.
You can repeat it as well.
And you can also look in the archaeology.
The stones cry out.
Okay.
You've been to the city of David for the day.
I have.
So you know then that it's an amazing place.
It may be the greatest archaeological discovery in all of history because it's stunning.
And they still continue to find things that date the Jewish people to this land archaeologically for 3,800 years.
We can date the Britain, the British people to their land much longer, much thousands of years longer.
Stonehenge is 3,000 years older than any building built by the descendants of Abram in this country.
And so I just, it's fine.
Yeah.
I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's right.
I'm just wanting you to affirm that right, but it makes you uncomfortable and you won't.
And I don't know why.
Because I've never honestly sat down and asked myself, are the lines around the so we know what the lines are.
But I'm saying, but are those lines, are those rooted in something other than the historical connection?
Well, great.
Then they should have it.
But that's the right to have it.
But then you said if they can defend it, and if they can't defend it, they lose the right.
But I didn't say it was exclusive one or the other.
I think you're really going off the chart.
I just want to know if these principles apply universally or if they only apply to the people of Israel.
This is a conversation, a debate about Israel's right to exist.
And much of the interview centered around that question.
That clip may not have even been the best representative sample of that debate, but it certainly is related to it.
Much of the conversation gets circled around this question, does Israel have a right to exist?
And I just want to say that from my perspective, the whole question, the whole debate really is based on a false premise.
And my answer to this is one that doesn't really make anybody happy because I don't think that Israel has the right to exist.
I don't think that any country has the right to exist.
I don't think there's any country that we could look at and say they have a right to exist.
And let me explain what I mean by that.
So first, I think you have to define your terms, not to be pedantic, but in this case, it's not.
What do we mean by right?
We really got to, this is a word that comes up a lot in our debates about any topic, any topic.
It always comes back to someone making a rights claim.
I have a right to this.
I have a right to that.
Well, what do you mean by that?
What does that mean?
And I think very often the people that are talking about it using the term I have a right to it, they really have no, if you were to ask them, well, what do you mean you have a right to it?
Like, where do you get that right?
Where does that come from?
They wouldn't be able to tell you.
So to me, I think the word right means an entitlement.
That's what a right is.
You are entitled to something.
I have a right to something means I am entitled to it.
And if we don't mean, when we say right, if we don't mean entitled, then I don't know what we mean.
So if you object to my definition of right, then you got to tell me what yours is, because as far as I can tell, that's what we mean.
When someone talks about right, they say when someone says they have a right to something, they're saying they are entitled to it.
So for example, and you can be entitled to things.
Like if you have a contract with your employer, let's say, you have a right to the compensation outlined in your contract.
You have a right to it.
You are entitled to it.
Those words mean the same thing.
You can rightfully say, I'm entitled to that.
I have a right to that.
It's not just about contracts.
My kids have a right to be cared for by me, fed, protected.
They are entitled to that.
They have a right to it.
They are entitled to it, both legally and morally and spiritually and in every other sense.
You know, we have rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.
We're entitled to that.
Protection against unreasonable search and seizures, the ability to own firearms and so on.
We are entitled to that as Americans.
Well, yeah, and the word entitled gets a bad rap because people are constantly claiming they're entitled to things that they aren't actually entitled to.
We spend billions of dollars on entitlements in this country, and not a single cent of entitlement spending actually goes to people who are entitled to what they're getting.
Nobody is entitled to receive anything through our entitlement programs, even though we call it that.
We shouldn't call it that.
So that's the confusion.
But people can be entitled to certain things, and those are their actual real rights.
Okay, so then what does it mean for a country to be entitled to exist?
Well, I don't know what that means.
I truly don't.
Entitled based on what?
You know, the only way that any country has ever come into existence, ever, is through force.
There are no exceptions to this rule on the planet.
And there never have been and there never will be.
No country exists unless it has forced its own existence violently.
And no country continues to exist unless it continues to insist on its own existence through force, through violence.
The very idea that any country, any nation, that the political entity of a nation is entitled to exist is incoherent.
It makes no sense.
You know, I make this point about the Native Americans all the time.
You often hear people who are on the pro-Israel side, they'll say that, well, Israel is the only country that has to justify its own existence.
It's the only country where people have to constantly justify its own existence.
Well, every time I hear that, I think, well, have you ever heard of America?
What are you talking about?
We're built on stolen land.
We hear that all the time.
We heard it at the Grammys.
I mean, we hear it all the time.
We have policies and laws that have been based on that idea in some places.
We have an entire major political party that professes that and at least tries to advance policies and everything based on that idea.
But my whole response to that is that the idea that the natives in the new world were entitled to remain permanent owners over this entire hemisphere is ridiculous.
They only claimed ownership in the first place through an act of sheer force, through violence.
And what does that mean?
It means that they killed and conquered in order to claim this in the first place.
And does that mean that, okay, then no one is allowed to ever conquer them?
So they conquer it, and then they could say, well, we're entitled to have this forever.
Yeah, we used violence to take it, but no one's allowed to use violence to take it from us.
That would be infringing on our rights.
What?
How does that make any sense?
That's not the way it works.
They claimed ownership through force.
They had to defend it through force.
They tried.
They couldn't.
And history played out the way that it was inevitably going to play out.
You know, if you as a nation are able to support and defend yourself, then you can exist.
If you as a nation cannot support or defend yourself, then you have no right to exist.
You're not even a real country.
And I apply this logic to every country on earth.
Now, when people say, well, would you apply it to America?
Absolutely.
If the United States ever got to a point where it could not exist without the protection and patronage of some other nation, then the United States would have no right to exist at that point.
In fact, the United States would already not exist.
If we were in some kind of dystopian future where China basically is our, it owns the United States and we exist at their pleasure, then we don't exist anymore.
We already don't exist.
And we're already a vassal of this other nation.
Our existence would be a phantom, a ruse, a charade.
And the problem now is that we have a world full of like 180 countries, and many of those countries just aren't real.
They're not real countries.
They're fake countries.
I understand that this view is not popular, but that's, I can't see it any other way.
Like if you were to go back to the year, say, 1700, there were not nearly as many countries on earth.
It was the same amount of land, obviously, but there weren't as many countries because you had a few empires that owned basically the whole globe.
You had the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese, British, French, Ottoman, Chinese, and so on.
You go back another thousand years, you had different empires controlling most of the globe.
And where you didn't have empires, you had small tribal societies, very small, often nomadic, that were constantly in a state of war with each other.
That was especially the case in much of North America, for example.
And this to me was a much more honest, kind of clear way of dividing things up.
The powerful empires used their power to expand and claim ownership over land.
And now we have this distinctly modern situation, which most people don't appreciate how modern and unusual it really is.
But we've got 180 countries, 190 countries, many of them totally unable to support themselves financially or protect themselves.
We have countries with no military, really, relying entirely on the threat of force from other bigger countries.
We have countries whose economies depend fundamentally on foreign aid and humanitarian services for the most basic things.
They wouldn't be able to feed themselves without it.
You have countries like just as one example, South Sudan, which relies on us for food, health care, basic government programs and services.
This is very common.
And here's my point.
All of those kinds of countries, the ones that can't support or defend themselves, still exist entirely through force.
It's just that the threat of force is from their benefactors.
In the year 1700, you'd have the same kind of scenario, except that we would have called it an empire and the fake country wouldn't exist.
It would be a property of the empire.
Well, it's the same thing right now.
We just have, we've built this fiction, this phantom of these fake countries that can't exist on their own, don't really exist at all, are totally helpless, cannot govern themselves, cannot defend themselves.
And then we start talking about right to exist.
Like, does South Sudan have a right to exist?
Does it?
It doesn't already.
It already doesn't exist.
It's not a real country.
Does Somalia have a right to exist?
How could it have a right to exist when it can't exist on its own?
If your country cannot exist on its own, then it has no right to exist.
I don't know how else to put it.
So that's why I say that no nation has a right to exist.
A nation, which doesn't mean that no nation should exist.
It just means that no nation has a right to exist.
A nation exists if it forces its existence and continues to force its existence onto the globe.
Or else the nation is a vassal.
It is a subject of another nation.
Even if we still call it a nation.
So do I apply that logic to Israel?
Yeah, I apply it to every country on the planet, including our own.
And I'll tell you something else.
Again, in that dystopian future, if China invades and we're about to be conquered, I'm not going to be sitting there saying, we have a right to exist.
This isn't fair.
If we can't defend ourselves, then we don't.
I mean, you could cry about your rights all you want, but to who are you crying to?
Who are you crying to?
Who are you appealing to?
Where are you claiming this right against?
Who are you claiming it against?
Well, you want a country, you better be able to defend it.
Can't defend it, then doesn't exist.
That's it.
And that's the I'm kind of boring in that way.
Maybe you've noticed.
I just, I have these really kind of simple ways of looking at things, and I just apply them to everybody consistently.
That's my due.
That's my thing.
That's my thing with Israel.
That's why I don't fall into either camp because I just like, I just, it's just like any other country.
I just, I have a way of looking at things I apply to every country.
Same for Israel.
It's no different.
That's it.
Why Identification Should Be Simpler00:08:41
We've tried a lot of coffee over the years.
Our sponsor, Seven Weeks Coffee, is the one that my wife and I have landed on.
I personally love their medium roast.
It's super smooth with a sweet, nutty taste.
Perfect for starting the day.
My producer McKenna also stocks up on their coffee and it's a big fan.
But it's not just great coffee.
It directly pushes back against the abortion culture.
Seven Weeks Coffee is America's pro-life coffee company on a mission to fund the pro-life movement one cup of coffee at a time.
Why do they call it Seven Weeks Coffee?
Well, because at Seven Weeks, it baby is the size of a coffee bean.
And it's the same time that a heartbeat is clearly detected on an ultrasound.
They've built their business around saving lives by donating 10% of every sale to pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations nationwide.
They've now raised over $1.5 million and saved thousands of lives.
Now let's talk about the coffee itself.
It's mold-free, pesticide-free, shade-grown, and low-acid, and it's organically farmed.
It's coffee that tastes better and feels better because they did it the right way.
So go to sevenweekscoffee.com, save 15% forever when you subscribe.
Plus, get a free gift with your order.
And exclusively from my listeners, use code Walsh for an extra 10% off first order.
That's 25% total savings on your first order plus a free gift.
Just use code Walsh at checkout.
All right.
Here's a fun story from the New York Post.
Mayor Zorhan Mamdani opposes requiring IDs to vote, but mandates no less than five forms of identification in order to shovel snow.
The New York City Sanitation Department website says that in order to register as an emergency snow shoveler, an applicant must provide two small photos sized one to one and a half square inches, two original forms of ID plus copies, and their social security card in order to shovel snow.
Here is Mamdani talking about it.
There's a bit of this controversy over the snow laborers and the sort of what some see as onerous need to have documentation.
Can you just talk about if that's new and what you make of the controversy?
This is all longstanding.
This is a longstanding program and long-standing requirements.
And this is a way that New Yorkers get paid to shovel snow in assistance with the city's response to a winter storm event.
Federal law requires that employers get authorization and documentation to pay people for their work.
We are not allowed to just cut checks to individuals for their work.
And these are the policies that we've had in place, but I understand that for many, it's the first time that they've ever heard about it.
So, you know, the irony is clear.
And why do you need paperwork to shovel snow?
I have no idea.
Shoveling is one of those things that requires really no experience or qualifications of any kind.
That's the great thing about shoveling.
That's why you can, as a parent, you know, you can have your kids do it.
I force my sons to shovel our porch in walkways, and they don't have any paperwork, which is really great, by the way.
In fact, I was thinking about this the other day.
I was sitting, I was sitting, it was early in the morning.
I was sitting inside sipping my coffee and my boys were out in the bitter cold shoveling away.
And I was just thinking, man, this is wonderful.
This is great.
I'm just looking out the window in the warmth, right?
Having some coffee and they're out there miserable shoveling.
It's good.
This is, it's when parenting really pays off.
We don't talk about it enough.
I think it would help the population crisis if we it would help the fertility crisis.
If we explain to people that one of the benefits of having a lot of kids is that you now have your little army of unpaid laborers.
And I'm not saying that that should be the primary reason to have kids.
I'm not saying it's the main reason or that it's the main benefit, but it is a benefit and it's a pretty good one.
But that's beside the point.
So yes, you need 18 forms of ID to shovel snow in New York City.
And in the same breath, he'll tell you that it's racist to require any identification to vote, which again is ironic for all the reasons that we know.
But there's another point about this voter ID thing, if we were to transition from shoveling snow to voter ID, that I think isn't made enough.
And I haven't really made this point that I'll make now because my primary point has always been, as you know, that even if it is somehow complicated or difficult to get an ID, which it isn't, well, if you're not able or willing to deal with that complication, then you shouldn't, we don't need you voting.
You're either lazy or dumb, and we don't need you voting in that case.
But there is another point because now we have a bunch of Democrat politicians who are going out there and they're saying that they don't even have their birth certificate or other documentation and they don't know how to do it either.
Gavin Newsom said this recently and then Bernie Sanders made the same claim in an interview a couple days ago.
Watch.
Now you're not talking about voter ID.
That's the way Trump defines it.
But you're talking about, now I don't know about California's initiative, but I do know what's going on in Washington, is that some geniuses think that before you can, maybe I have it wrong here, register to vote, you need a passport or your birth certificate.
Do you have the passport of your birth certificate?
At the moment?
Do you?
I do.
But millions of people don't.
I don't have my birth certificate.
God knows how I get it.
God knows.
God knows how I get it.
Yeah, God knows, Bernie.
Well, I can think of somebody who should know how to get a birth certificate, and that would be a United States senator.
I mean, that, I mean, God knows, yeah, God knows everything, but also a United States senator should know.
And this is the funny thing, because their argument is basically that the bureaucracy is so convoluted and inefficient and complicated that getting a new birth certificate, if you've lost yours, is impossible.
God knows.
Only it's a mystery.
It is a mystery of the cosmos.
It is so complicated just to get a new birth certificate if you've lost yours, which sure, a lot of people have.
It's so complicated that only God knows how to do it.
Well, if that's true, then maybe you guys as representatives of the government should fix that.
Yep.
Maybe you should clean up that system.
Because that's all, again, like if I just adopt their premise here, if I accept the premise that getting some of this information is really, really hard.
Well, okay, it shouldn't be, should it?
If you really think that obtaining basic identification is so difficult that it's essentially impossible, then shouldn't your response be to streamline and clean up the system?
Like, doesn't that point to a problem with the system that you work in and work for, that you're in charge of?
Isn't that something that you as a representative of that system should be working to fix?
It's very interesting that all these Democrats, when there's a law that says, hey, you need, here's some basic identification you need to vote.
All they do is complain to, oh, it's too hard to get that.
None of them have suggested, oh, you know what?
Let's make it easier.
Let's make it easier to get that identification if you're an actual citizen.
Is that, why can't we do that?
Make the process more self-evident, make it quicker, make it cleaner, make it easier to navigate.
Because even I'll admit that, now, if you're an even with this convoluted system, if you're an adult, if you're a competent adult, you should be able to navigate it.
But, yeah, I'm not going to say that we all know that going to the DMV or trying to get paperwork can be unnecessarily complicated and it could take a lot more time than it should take.
Clean Up The System00:04:20
Absolutely.
So maybe go clean that up, Bernie.
Have you thought about that?
When you prioritize your health, you're investing in your ability to show up fully, think clearly, and stay resilient through whatever life throws your way.
Take charge of your health with our sponsor, Armra Colostrum.
Armra Colostrum taps into nature's original superfood packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that strengthen your gut and boost your immune system from the inside out.
Unlike probiotics that only address one piece of the puzzle, colostrum strengthens your entire gut wall system, easing bloating and supporting healthy digestion.
The result is a stronger immune system, healthier metabolism, and noticeable improvements in your hair and skin.
It's a secret elite athletes have relied on for years to boost performance and speed up recovery.
We've worked out a special offer from my audience.
Receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to armra.com/slash walsh or enter walsh to get 30% off your first subscription order.
That's armra, armra.com slash walsh.
All right, Somalis in Minnesota are now demanding essentially reparations because they're traumatized by ICE and all the deportations.
At least I think that's what they're trying to say.
It's a little bit difficult to tell.
Listen.
We have suffering starting for ICE.
We want to, whoever bring over here, we want to debate.
Only that's what I'm saying.
And I'm asking our governor and our state.
We are taxpayer.
We need pay back whatever they committed to ICE.
Thank you very much.
Leave programs fit into our criteria for Somalia of small business owners, not those who make $200,000 and a buck.
We don't make that much a month.
We have been suffering since the crisis of ICE.
We also demand an immediate help to evictions so families are not pushed to homelessness during the crisis.
Our community deserves accountability.
Our community deserves safety.
We need also justice for those who lost their lives defending the community.
Our community deserves.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a video that better encapsulates all the problems with the modern immigration system.
The word deserve should not even be in the vocabulary of an immigrant, especially not an immigrant from Somalia.
But it shouldn't be in the vocabulary of an immigrant.
It really shouldn't be in the vocabulary of any person, of any adult, but especially not an immigrant.
Because it's like that, what was that scene from Unforgiven where Gene Hackman's character is lying on the ground about to be killed?
And he says to Clint Eastwood, I don't deserve this.
And Clin Eastwood says, deserve's got nothing to do with it.
Then blows his head off.
Different kind of context here.
Nobody's shooting anybody, but I would say the same thing to Somali immigrants like the ones we just saw there.
Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
You don't get to come here and start talking about what you deserve.
You don't deserve anything because we don't owe you anything.
I mean, do you get that?
You obviously don't.
But we don't owe you anything.
We are not in debt to you.
We are not in your service.
Don't tell us what you deserve.
Deserve is a fairy tale.
Deserve is, that's nothing but your ego talking.
And this is why I have no patience for anyone who tries to draw parallels between or comparisons to these, between these modern third world immigrants and historical immigrants to America.
I have no patience for it.
I never have.
Because immigrants in the 19th century were not coming here talking about what they deserve.
It was a completely different attitude.
Okay, a German immigrant showing up in some frontier town in 1883, right, showing up in Dodge City or something.
He wasn't rolling into town, hopping out of his wagon and then saying, hey, listen up, folks.
Here's what I deserve.
Let me tell you people what I deserve.
Why HomeServe Matters00:03:10
Just got here, just got off the boat.
And I got some news for all of you.
I deserve a lot.
That's not what was happening.
An Irish immigrant in Tombstone, Arizona was not showing up talking about what he deserves.
He wasn't on welfare.
He wasn't on food stamps.
These immigrants were not sprawling out comfortably on this vast trillion-dollar social safety nets, requiring American citizens to care for them while they rant about what they deserve.
That was not happening.
That attitude did not exist.
It couldn't have existed.
And now it does.
And so along with all the other many differences between then and now, and between the immigrants then and the immigrants now, that is one of the most important differences is the reason why they come and the attitude they have when they get here.
Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode.
There are a lot of perks to owning a home versus renting from a landlord.
But one of the things that most people dread about buying and owning a home are the expensive repairs that are bound to happen.
Regular homeowners' insurance doesn't cover everyday repairs like plumbing failures and electrical issues, leaving you on your own to cover the repairs.
But now there's another option called HomeServe.
For as little as $4.99 a month, you've got backup when things break.
Instead of frantically searching for a contractor in a panic, you could already be on the phone with HomeServe's 24-7 hotline, getting someone scheduled.
HomeServe has a lot of different plans to choose from that cover different things.
Just pick up a plan that fits your budget.
And when something goes wrong, all you got to do is call HomeServe and they will handle it.
They've been doing this for over 20 years with a network of 2,600 local contractors.
HomeServe could have been great when my wife and I first bought a house instead of spending hours calling around for quotes and costs.
Could have just called HomeServe and would have been one call and done.
Help protect your home systems and your wallet with HomeServe against covered repairs.
Plans start at just $4.99 a month.
Go to homeeserve.com to find the plan that's right for you.
That's homeserve.com.
Not available everywhere.
Most plans range from $4.99 to $11.99 a month, your first year.
Terms apply on covered repairs.
Right now, more families are being forced to rely on high interest credit cards to cover expenses than ever before.
Even with a steady job, if you're a homeowner caught in that cycle, carrying balances with interest rates in the 20s or even 30s, you know, it's time to get some relief.
Mortgage rates are currently at a three-year low, and my friends at American Financing are helping homeowners pay off that high interest debt at rates in the low fives.
Their salary-based mortgage consultants don't just push loans, they build exit strategies from debt.
On average, they're saving their customers $800 a month.
Plus, if you start today, you may even delay the next two mortgage payments.
There are no upfront fees or obligations to find out how much you can save.
America's Home for Home Loans is American Financing 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711, or visit AmericanFinancing.net/slash Walsh.
Gavin's IQ Pander00:05:48
Finally, moving quickly to this, which we'll only touch on briefly, but Gavin Newsom is going viral today.
I just saw this before we started filming, going viral for all the wrong reasons.
The wrong reasons if you're on Gavin Newsom's team, but for the rest of us, it's pretty great, pretty hilarious.
So here's Gavin Newsom addressing a heavily black crowd in Georgia, trying his best to relate to them.
And here's what he says: I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to impress you.
I'm just trying to impress upon you, I'm like you.
I'm no better than you.
You know, I'm a 960 SAT guy.
And, you know, and I'm not trying to offend anyone, you know, trying to act all there if you got 940.
But literally a 960 SAT guy.
I cannot, you've never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.
Maybe the wrong business to be in.
Well, there you go.
By the way, there's no additional context that will rescue this clip.
It's exactly what it sounds like.
Gavin Newsom told an audience, predominantly black, that he can relate to them, that he's just like them because he did poorly on his SATs and he can't read, which is just extraordinary.
I mean, this is Gavin Newsom's way of pandering to you.
Hey, guys, I'm just like you.
I'm retarded.
I'm just like you.
I am also retarded.
You know, guys, I can really relate to you because, hey, look, I'm dumb.
I can't read.
I don't read books.
I'm a criminal.
You know, a lot of politicians, they'll deny that they're a criminal, but I want you guys to know I'm just like you.
I commit crimes all the time.
I'm just like you.
So really, it's up to this is the most egregious example of this kind of thing, but this is what Democrats do all the time, of course.
And really, it's up to black voters to decide when they're finally fed up with this insane level of patronizing, insulting pandering.
It's really up to them.
And I will also say, though, not to defend Newsom here, but this is a form of pandering that politicians do to all voters these days.
In fact, there were white people in the crowd as well.
And so this is, it's not, this is the tack they take with everybody.
And we should be, so it's, it's, which doesn't make it any better, but where they basically try to impress us by being unimpressive.
This is that kind of mentality, this kind of faux populist mentality, which we've seen for a long time now, where they don't want to seem elitist.
They don't want to seem like they're an elite.
So they go, they kind of dumb things down and in this case, bragging about low SAT scores and struggling to read.
I don't know about you, but I don't want that in a politician.
I know the elites get a bad rap and for good reason.
But I actually want someone who's going to lead the country to be elite in a certain sense.
I don't want them to be elitist necessarily in the sense of being, you know, having a degrading and demeaning view of normal people, but I want them to be elite.
I want them to have elite levels of intelligence, leadership skills, competence.
I mean, that's what I want.
I don't need someone who, this whole dumb thing about, oh, you want someone, it's like someone you could sit down and have a beer with, someone you could sit down and have a car.
I don't care.
I'm not looking for a friend.
You don't need to be my friend.
I don't care.
And even if I was looking for a friend, I'm not looking for dumb friends either.
So this wouldn't even work for that.
Because here's the thing.
If it's actually true that Gavin Newsom got a 960 on his SAT, if he's not lying about that, if the first time he's ever told the truth is when he confessed to getting a 960 on his SAT, then that's reason enough why he should be president.
I mean, there's plenty of other reasons.
Don't get me wrong.
There's a lot of other stuff he's done since he took his SATs that would also disqualify him.
But we don't even need to get to that stuff.
If you really got a 960, it's a pretty good reflection of your IQ, then you should not be president.
You are actually too stupid.
And if it's true that you can't read coherently, if you struggle to read, well, I'm sorry for that.
But yeah, you can't be president.
That's something I would like to, you know, that should be a follow-up once we get to the, once he announces, once he inevitably announces that he's running for president, that's something that should come up again.
Hey, Gavin, so is it true?
Like, are you actually as dumb as you just said you were?
Do you actually struggle to read?
You got a 960 on your SATs and you want to be president of the United States?
So that should be disqualifying along with all the other things that have already disqualified him or should have.
All right.
Well, end it there for today.
They Told Us Lies00:01:08
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, 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.