The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1744 - The Biggest Threat To Our Country Is Inside Our Borders
Aired: 2026-03-03
Duration: 01:12:02


=== Nuclear Concerns in Israel (15:12) ===

[00:00:00]  Today, the Matt Wall Show, as the war in Iran continues, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offers a very problematic justification for the war.
[00:00:06]  Meanwhile, as we intervene in the Muslim world overseas, America has imported an increasingly large portion of that world.
[00:00:13]  Why have we done this?
[00:00:14]  And when will we reverse that mistake?
[00:00:17]  Plus, Jasmine Crockett claims that white people commit most of the mass shootings and immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans.
[00:00:23]  None of that is actually true.
[00:00:24]  We'll look at the facts.
[00:00:25]  And a church in Pennsylvania goes viral with a new policy pertaining to loud children in church.
[00:00:29]  We'll talk about all that and more say in The Matt Wall Show.
[00:00:57]  When Donald Trump announced that he was running for president in 2016, he opened his announcement speech by insulting his opponents because they sweat like dogs, which was great.
[00:01:06]  And then he moved on to the central thesis of his entire campaign and subsequent presidency.
[00:01:11]  Foreign countries are, quote, laughing at us at our stupidity, and quote, the United States has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.
[00:01:19]  Just a few minutes later, he recalled his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he opposed because he believed it would totally destabilize the Middle East.
[00:01:27]  Then he went on to promise that he would, quote, stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
[00:01:32]  And six months later, after two radicalized Muslims committed a mass shooting in California, Trump announced a new policy.
[00:01:38]  He called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
[00:01:46]  And at a debate in Greenville, South Carolina in February 2016, a moderator asked Trump if he stood by his opposition to the war in Iraq.
[00:01:55]  And this is what he said.
[00:01:58]  Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.
[00:02:03]  All right?
[00:02:04]  They lied.
[00:02:05]  They said there were weapons of mass destruction.
[00:02:07]  There were none.
[00:02:08]  And they knew there were none.
[00:02:09]  There were no weapons of mass.
[00:02:11]  Okay, fuck.
[00:02:12]  If you listen to him and you listen to some of the folks that I've been listening to, that's why we've been in the Middle East for 15 years and we haven't won anything.
[00:02:20]  We've spent $5 trillion in the Middle East because of thinking like that.
[00:02:25]  We've spent five.
[00:02:27]  And Lindsey Graham, Lindsey Graham, who backs him, who had zero on his polls.
[00:02:31]  Let me just tell you something.
[00:02:32]  We've spent, we've spent.
[00:02:35]  We've spent.
[00:02:39]  I only tell the truth, lobbyists.
[00:02:41]  We've spent $5 trillion all over the middle.
[00:02:44]  We have to rebuild our country.
[00:02:46]  We have to rebuild our infrastructure.
[00:02:48]  You listen to that.
[00:02:48]  You're going to be there for another 15 years.
[00:02:54]  Now, his campaign was, to put it mildly, truly America first.
[00:02:59]  Trump won his election by running a campaign focused on advancing the interests of our country, of America.
[00:03:05]  And now with the advent of war in Iran, many of us are asking an obvious question, a fair question, even if it makes a lot of people upset when we ask it, which is, why are we doing this?
[00:03:19]  Does this benefit our own country first and foremost?
[00:03:23]  The administration has struggled with that question for days.
[00:03:27]  They just have.
[00:03:29]  until last night when Marco Rubio finally gave a clear and straightforward response.
[00:03:37]  The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind.
[00:03:41]  I haven't had a chance to see a lot of reporting.
[00:03:44]  I don't understand what the confusion is.
[00:03:46]  Let me explain it to you, and I'll do it once again as clearly as possible.
[00:03:49]  Perhaps you'll report it that way.
[00:03:51]  The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their Navy, particularly to naval assets.
[00:04:01]  That is what it is focused on doing right now, and it's doing quite successfully.
[00:04:04]  I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress it's being made.
[00:04:10]  That is the clear objective of this mission.
[00:04:12]  The second question that's been asked is, why now?
[00:04:15]  Well, there's two reasons why now.
[00:04:16]  The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.
[00:04:26]  The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders.
[00:04:29]  It was automatic, and in fact, it bear to be true because in fact, within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the South and in the North for that matter had already been activated to launch.
[00:04:43]  In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.
[00:04:46]  The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.
[00:04:55]  And so the president made the very wise decision.
[00:04:58]  We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.
[00:05:00]  We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
[00:05:04]  And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.
[00:05:12]  And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that indeed.
[00:05:18]  It'd be hard to imagine a worse line of reasoning that could be offered at a time like this.
[00:05:24]  Americans were wondering why exactly we're suddenly engaged in a war with Iran, wanted to hear a clear and compelling explanation that would justify the cost of the war, including the loss of American lives.
[00:05:36]  And instead, we're told that Israel forced our hand.
[00:05:38]  Now, to be fair, the administration has since tried to walk this back.
[00:05:44]  There are those saying that it was taken out of context.
[00:05:47]  But the clip we just played was a clip posted by the White House to their social media feeds.
[00:05:54]  It's not one that we made.
[00:05:56]  And he said what he said.
[00:05:58]  There's no way around it.
[00:06:00]  The other problem is that this was not a one-off comment either.
[00:06:03]  And maybe if it was, you could maybe believe that he just misspoke or something.
[00:06:10]  But this is the message that we're hearing from many different sources.
[00:06:14]  Shortly afterwards, the Speaker of the House said basically the same thing.
[00:06:19]  They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S., to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region and beyond.
[00:06:28]  And they determined, because of the exquisite intelligence that we had, that if Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets.
[00:06:46]  We have troops in harm's way and we have many Americans in the region and that was of great concern.
[00:06:52]  If we had waited for all of those eventualities to take place, the consequences of inaction on our part could have been devastating.
[00:07:02]  We don't know at what magnitude, but you can assume, because it is common sense, that if Iran had begun to fire all of their missile arsenal, short and mid-range missiles, at our personnel and our assets and our installations, we would have suffered staggering losses.
[00:07:22]  So with that in mind, here's some reporting from the New York Times on the lead up to the war in Iran.
[00:07:28]  Now, normally, of course, we wouldn't even bother talking about coverage in the New York Times, which is one of the least reliable news outlets on the planet.
[00:07:34]  But in this case, it is worth reading because everything the Times is saying completely matches what Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are saying publicly.
[00:07:44]  So there is legitimate reason to think that this is true or some version of it is true.
[00:07:49]  And here's what they reported.
[00:07:50]  Quote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of February 11th, determined to keep the American president on the path to war.
[00:07:59]  For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran.
[00:08:04]  But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program.
[00:08:09]  And the Israel leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.
[00:08:13]  Two weeks later, the president took the United States to war.
[00:08:16]  Behind the scenes, his move toward war grew inexorably, fueled by allies like Mr. Netanyahu, who pushed the president to strike a decisive blow against Iran's theocratic government, and by Mr. Trump's own confidence after the successful U.S. operation that toppled the Venezuelan leader Maduro in January.
[00:08:32]  The article continues, quote, there were a few voices lobbying against military action.
[00:08:37]  One exception was Tucker Carlson, the right-wing podcaster and close ally of the president, who's met with him in the Oval Office three times in the past month to argue against an attack.
[00:08:44]  The president said he understood the risks of an attack, but he conveyed to Mr. Carlson that he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.
[00:08:53]  So, again, you could say, well, none of that is true.
[00:08:57]  Everything about this reporting is consistent with what we just heard from senior Republicans, including Republicans in the administration.
[00:09:04]  Israel is leading the charge.
[00:09:06]  And by the way, this is nothing new.
[00:09:08]  According to a memoir written by the U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu visited Bill Clinton in Washington.
[00:09:16]  Netanyahu was the prime minister of Israel at the time, which is the same job, of course, he has today.
[00:09:21]  And after Netanyahu lectured Clinton long enough, Clinton became exasperated and told his aides, quote, who the F does he think he is?
[00:09:27]  Who's the effing superpower here?
[00:09:30]  So this is how Netanyahu comes across in private, apparently, but in public, it's a very different character.
[00:09:36]  Last night, Netanyahu appeared for an exclusive interview with Fox's Sean Hannity.
[00:09:41]  President Trump promoted this interview on Truth Social.
[00:09:44]  And I mean, frankly, the timing could not have been worse, if we're being honest.
[00:09:49]  Just hours after Marco Rubio says that Israel dragged us into the war, the president tells everyone to listen to Israel's prime minister explain why we're at war.
[00:10:00]  Well, here's what Netanyahu told Hannity.
[00:10:05]  The reason that we had to act now is because they were, after we hit their nuclear sites and their ballistic missiles program, you'd think they learned a lesson, but they didn't because they're unreformable.
[00:10:18]  They're totally fanatic about this, about the goal of destroying America.
[00:10:24]  So they started building new sites, new places, underground bunkers that would make their ballistic missile program and their atomic bomb program immune within months.
[00:10:35]  If no action was taken now, no action could be taken in the future.
[00:10:39]  And then they could target America.
[00:10:41]  They could blackmail America.
[00:10:43]  They could threaten us and threaten everyone in between.
[00:10:46]  So action had to be taken.
[00:10:48]  And you needed a resolute president like Donald J. Trump to take that action.
[00:10:55]  Now, a couple of things to note here.
[00:10:56]  First of all, Netanyahu keeps talking about how America is supposedly at risk of an imminent attack by Iran.
[00:11:04]  Doesn't even mention Israel for the most part, but obviously that is his main concern, which it should be.
[00:11:11]  He's the leader of Israel.
[00:11:13]  And when it comes to Iran, a devastating attack on Israel, of course, is far more likely than a devastating attack on the United States.
[00:11:20]  But in this interview, Netanyahu knows his audience.
[00:11:22]  He knows he has to talk about the alleged threats facing America, and that's what he does.
[00:11:26]  But wait a second, what threat did Iran pose to America?
[00:11:31]  In this interview, Netanyahu makes the case that, well, they were months away from making their nuclear program effectively invincible.
[00:11:39]  But that contradicts what the White House said last summer when they repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear weapons had been obliterated, that their nuclear weapons program had been obliterated.
[00:11:49]  It's a direct quote.
[00:11:51]  On top of that, Netanyahu's comments contradict what Ted Cruz said on Face Nation just two days ago.
[00:11:56]  The White House had stated that Ted Cruz received a briefing, was functioning as a White House surrogate.
[00:12:02]  And here's what he said.
[00:12:05]  Look, the quantity of nuclear material, I didn't say anything one way or another on that.
[00:12:10]  What I said is they were building nuclear weapons a year ago, and our bombing took that out.
[00:12:16]  They also had an ongoing desire to rebuild them.
[00:12:20]  I don't have present-day intelligence on what progress they had made towards rebuilding nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities.
[00:12:29]  I have no indication that they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons because our bombing was devastating.
[00:12:37]  And Margaret, that's one of the reasons I urged President Trump, now is the time.
[00:12:42]  You know, dictatorships survive because they're perceived as invulnerable.
[00:12:47]  And in this instance, Iran decisively lost the 12-day war that weakened the regime and set up what the president is doing now.
[00:12:58]  So he says, I don't have present-day intelligence on what progress they've made towards rebuilding nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities.
[00:13:03]  I have no indications they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons.
[00:13:08]  Well, that is just an inconsistency.
[00:13:10]  Cruz could have said that, according to the latest intelligence, Iran was months away from developing an invincible nuclear weapons program, but he didn't say that.
[00:13:18]  So then why are we hearing that from Israel?
[00:13:22]  In response to one of my posts on X, where I asked for a clear explanation outlining the case for attacking Iran, the White House press secretary responded to her credit and offered a response.
[00:13:35]  And I'm going to read part of this.
[00:13:36]  It's part of a much larger response, which you can go.
[00:13:38]  I retweeted it.
[00:13:39]  You can go read it on my feed.
[00:13:42]  But as to the nuclear weapons question, this was the explanation that she provided.
[00:13:47]  Quote, while Operation Midnight Hammer did obliterate Iran's major nuclear sites, the regime was fully committed to rebuilding their nuclear program, and they refused to make a deal despite months of extensive talks and good faith efforts by President Trump's top negotiators.
[00:14:01]  So they were fully committed to rebuilding the nuclear program.
[00:14:04]  I mean, I can believe that.
[00:14:07]  But how close were they?
[00:14:08]  Were they months away from the invincible bunkers or not?
[00:14:14]  The press secretary wouldn't say, but U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff spoke to Hannity last night, and he provided yet another version of events.
[00:14:23]  He was negotiating with Iran before strikes began, and what he said undeniably contradicts the remarks from White House surrogate Ted Cruz.
[00:14:30]  It also differs substantially from the implication of the press secretary's post on X. Watch.
[00:14:37]  Materials, Sean, can be brought to 90%.
[00:14:42]  That's weapon grade, weapons grade, in roughly one week, maybe 10 days at the outside.
[00:14:48]  The 20% can be brought to weapons grade inside of three to four weeks.
[00:14:54]  And let me say this because I forgot this small little detail.
[00:14:58]  In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, with no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%.

=== Why Are We Inviting Them In? (06:32) ===

[00:15:12]  And they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs.
[00:15:16]  And that was the beginning of their negotiating stance.
[00:15:20]  So that's, they were proud of it.
[00:15:22]  They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.
[00:15:32]  So in the very first meeting, the Iranian negotiators said that they could make 11 nuclear bombs with the material they currently controlled.
[00:15:39]  We aren't told how quickly Iran could make those bombs, but right away, that's alarming.
[00:15:45]  Why hasn't anyone else mentioned that?
[00:15:47]  Why didn't Trump or Cruz or the White House Private Secretary mention that, if that's the case?
[00:15:53]  Why are we learning this very important fact or alleged fact in an offhand comment during a Hannity interview?
[00:16:00]  Well, you know, every day we spend trying to untangle this mess and trying to make sense of what our elected officials are saying, we're running the risk of repeating the exact same mistake that the Bush administration did.
[00:16:14]  Setting ourselves up for the same result, a quagmire overseas while our domestic security collapses around us.
[00:16:22]  We can't end up with a situation where we're fighting Muslim terrorists overseas while hordes of anti-American Muslims continue to stream into the United States, which is basically the story of America in the 21st century up to now.
[00:16:37]  And that's a story worth talking about, whether you agree with this operation Iran or not.
[00:16:42]  Because it's been argued that this war in Iran is really about Russia and China, you know, asserting our dominance on the global stage against our chief rivals.
[00:16:52]  And that would be an entirely different justification than the four or five other reasons that we've been presented and already talked about.
[00:16:58]  But regardless, dominance on the world stage is fairly meaningless if our sovereignty at home is destroyed.
[00:17:06]  Now, the border is now closed, which is a massive victory, but we're still sitting at the end of 25 years of unchecked migration, legal and not, mostly from the third world.
[00:17:18]  If you look at the history of Muslim migration to the United States and how quickly our demographics have changed, you begin to realize how dire this problem is.
[00:17:27]  The Iranian-born population in the United States roughly doubled from 1980 to 1990, largely as a result of refugees from the Iran-Iraq war.
[00:17:36]  So we're talking about hundreds of thousands of new Iranians in the United States.
[00:17:40]  Meanwhile, something like 150,000 Iraqi refugees settled in the United States post-2007.
[00:17:47]  Another 150,000 came from Bangladesh, mostly from diversity lotteries.
[00:17:51]  Around 100,000 Afghans arrived in the United States in 2021 alone.
[00:17:56]  We took in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees during the Obama administration.
[00:18:00]  Around a quarter million Pakistanis have received legal permanent resident status in the past two decades.
[00:18:06]  And hundreds of thousands of Somalis have entered the U.S. since 2000, despite the fact that Somalis brutally murdered American soldiers who were trying to help address their food shortages in 1993, which is, of course, what Black Hawk Down is about.
[00:18:19]  And despite the fact that Somalis routinely engaged in acts of piracy against the United States in the 21st century.
[00:18:27]  Now that last point deserves some emphasis.
[00:18:30]  In 2009, Somali pirates seized a U.S.-Danish cargo ship called the Mersk, Alabama, around 240 nautical miles southeast of Somalia.
[00:18:40]  It was the first time since the 19th century that pirates seized a ship that was registered under the U.S. flag.
[00:18:46]  You might have seen the Tom Hanks movie about this incident called Captain Phillips.
[00:18:51]  Two years later, in February of 2011, Somali pirates seized an American yacht and four American citizens.
[00:18:58]  SEAL Team 6 Gold Squadron attempted to free the hostages, but all of them were shot to death by their captors.
[00:19:03]  And there have been several other incidents where Somali pirates have fired on U.S. warships, apparently because they mistook them for trading vessels.
[00:19:10]  And those attempts didn't end well for the Somalis.
[00:19:14]  This is the culture that we've been importing in massive numbers to states like Minnesota and Ohio.
[00:19:21]  These are people who still see piracy, a barbarian pastime that peaked centuries ago, as a viable career path in the 21st century.
[00:19:30]  They've slaughtered our troops and paraded them like animals.
[00:19:35]  And we invite them into the U.S. and shower them with stolen tax money.
[00:19:38]  And then when a majority of Americans vote to, of Americans vote to get these people out of our country, our leaders essentially back down or heavily moderate because leftist whiners, mostly women, became hysterical.
[00:19:53]  In 1920, according to Pew, we had something like 50,000 Muslims in the country tops.
[00:19:59]  By 1970, the number had risen to 200,000.
[00:20:02]  By 1990, we were up to a million.
[00:20:04]  In 2000, just before the beginning of the war on terror, there were around 2 million Muslims in the U.S.
[00:20:09]  Now we're at around 3.5 to 4 million, so about double.
[00:20:14]  To put it another way, most Muslims living in the U.S. arrived in this country after 9-11.
[00:20:21]  Something like 60% of our Muslim population right now is foreign-born, and they're much younger than the typical American.
[00:20:29]  Now, if you're the cynical type, you might suspect that all this migration is related to the Patriot Act and the mass surveillance regime that both parties implemented after 9-11.
[00:20:38]  After all, if you flood the country with Muslims, you'll have no shortage of investigations and wiretaps to conduct.
[00:20:43]  That's a guarantee.
[00:20:45]  So maybe all this migration was a way to facilitate the growth of the surveillance state and the gradual eradication of civil liberties in the U.S.
[00:20:52]  I don't know.
[00:20:53]  We can only theorize, why else would you, after 9-11, make a concerted effort to import as many Muslims as you can into the United States?
[00:21:02]  Well, more likely, all of this migration is part of the larger effort to dilute the votes of American citizens by replacing us with foreigners who despise the United States.
[00:21:12]  Whatever the case, the top priority of this administration should be to reverse this catastrophic and deliberate effort to fundamentally alter the demographics of this country.
[00:21:22]  This is the top national security threat we face, and it's not even close.
[00:21:28]  So even if you support the current war in Iran, you should be on board with this.
[00:21:34]  Every single one of these third world foreigners is a clear and present danger to the lives of American citizens, particularly when we're going to war with a Muslim nation right now.

=== Murder in Fairfax County (03:09) ===

[00:21:45]  Just the other day, according to prosecutors, an illegal alien from Sierra Leone named Abdul Jallo murdered a white woman named Stephanie Minter at a bus stop on Richmond Highway in Fairfax County.
[00:21:57]  And you can see the victim there.
[00:21:58]  Supposedly, this is one of the nicer areas of the country, but lately Northern Virginia has been overrun with foreigners, particularly Muslims.
[00:22:04]  So now residents have to contend with brutal stabbings with no apparent motive, just done for the sake of it.
[00:22:12]  Now, the alleged killer, according to the New York Post, quote, entered the U.S. illegally from Sierra Leone in 2012 and had an ICE detainer lodged against him in 2020, with a judge granting him a final order of removal to a country other than Sierra Leone.
[00:22:25]  DHS said in a statement, the accused killer has been arrested more than 30 times for a laundry list of offenses, including rape, malicious wounding, assault, drug possession, identity theft, trespassing, larceny, firing a weapon, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and pickpocketing.
[00:22:40]  But none of this, the illegal entry, the 30 crimes, the order of removal, resulted in this barbarian being deported.
[00:22:48]  Actually, 30 crimes is understating it.
[00:22:51]  According to the local ABC affiliate, he has more than 40 crimes on his record.
[00:22:55]  And in every case except one, the Fairfax County DA dropped all the charges.
[00:23:02]  Watch.
[00:23:04]  A Virginia woman was killed at a Fairfax County bus stop.
[00:23:08]  We're learning the man charged in her murder is in the U.S. illegally.
[00:23:12]  His name is Abdul Jallo from Sierra Leone, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
[00:23:17]  I'm at the Fairfax County Courthouse where I discovered this man has a lengthy criminal history.
[00:23:23]  More than 40 charges in the past, ranging from stabbings to malicious wounding and much more.
[00:23:29]  In almost every case, Fairfax County Commonwealth's attorney Steve Descano dropped charges against this man.
[00:23:36]  Only secured one conviction in the past.
[00:23:38]  He served very little time.
[00:23:40]  He was let back out into the community where then he allegedly stabbed this woman of Fredericksburg.
[00:23:45]  Now, this woman's family is heartbroken.
[00:23:48]  According to an obituary, her family describes this woman, Stephanie Minter, as a jolly, happy individual, a light in dark places.
[00:23:57]  And tonight, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is calling on Virginia Governor Abigail Spamberger and Fairfax County officials to hand this man over to ICE so they can deport him.
[00:24:10]  Now, we'll put that prosecutor's image up on the screen.
[00:24:14]  There he is for you.
[00:24:15]  That's Steve Descano, according to the American Enterprise Institute.
[00:24:19]  Quote, Descano is in office because of left-wing billionaire George Soros.
[00:24:24]  Descano raised about a million dollars between the primary and the general election, a shocking amount for a down-ballot county raise.
[00:24:29]  About two-thirds of his cash came from two Soros-funded organizations, the Justice and Public Safety Pact and the new Virginia Majority Pact.
[00:24:38]  Descano also tried to single-handedly turn Fairfax County into something of a sanctuary county.
[00:24:43]  Wherever possible, Doscano's website declared, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences.

=== Unpopular Statistics on Mass Shootings (14:51) ===

[00:24:55]  Well, that's why he won't charge illegal aliens when they commit 40 crimes.
[00:25:00]  He doesn't want them to be deported.
[00:25:02]  He wants violent criminals to remain in this country roaming free where they can brutally murder random Americans that they come across.
[00:25:10]  The mission of George Soros and his prosecutors is to spring barbarians loose so that Americans are slaughtered.
[00:25:16]  It happened to Irina Zarutska.
[00:25:18]  It happened to Stephanie Minter.
[00:25:20]  It happened to the victims of the mass shooting in Austin, a 30-year-old man, a 19-year-old man, a 21-year-old woman.
[00:25:26]  And it will continue to happen.
[00:25:27]  Whether or not we achieve our objectives in Iran, objectives that to this day still have not been fully articulated.
[00:25:36]  As it stands, this is the status quo you're expected to accept.
[00:25:41]  That we can terminate the supreme leader of Iran, despite all of his security and paranoia and power.
[00:25:48]  But we can't deport Somali fraudsters in Minneapolis.
[00:25:51]  We can't denaturalize scammers and grifters who openly declare for the world to see that they despise the United States and seek to destroy it.
[00:25:59]  We can't get gangster thugs and illegal aliens like Kilmar Obrego-Garcia out of the country without 10 different female judges, all of them with foreign last names, issuing an immediate nationwide injunction.
[00:26:10]  We can't imprison the insurance executives who are ripping off Medicaid by sending massive payouts to fake autism treatment clinics and leering centers while keeping a cut for themselves, of course.
[00:26:21]  None of that is possible, apparently.
[00:26:23]  So we can eliminate a threat thousands of miles away, a threat that's supposedly urgent, but we can't do anything about the clear and obvious threats that are living in this country right now.
[00:26:33]  Apparently, all it takes is some low testosterone schizophrenic weirdo fighting with Border Patrol while armed with a handgun along with an unemployed lesbian extremist driving an SUV directly at a federal agent to completely derail immigration enforcement within our borders.
[00:26:49]  Now, for the past several months, I've been told continuously that we can't actually do mass deportations, much less mass denaturalizations, because it's impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, risky.
[00:27:03]  Deporting illegal immigrants who haven't committed additional crimes, who have no criminal record aside from being here illegally, is especially fraught.
[00:27:12]  I'm told, we're all told.
[00:27:14]  That was the argument we heard when Los Angeles burned and Trump had to send in the National Guard.
[00:27:19]  It was the argument we heard when ICE was forced to flee Minneapolis.
[00:27:24]  Maybe there's some truth to it.
[00:27:26]  You know, maybe mass deportations and mass denaturalizations are impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, risky.
[00:27:34]  I can't say for sure that a deportation operation targeting all illegal aliens, again, not just the criminal, not just the additional criminals, but all of them, I can't say that such an operation at the kind of scale we would need wouldn't result in massive backlash from the electorate.
[00:27:54]  I think those fears are overblown, but maybe they aren't.
[00:27:59]  Well, Mr. President, the war in Iran is also impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, and risky.
[00:28:09]  Even if it all works out.
[00:28:11]  Even if in the end it was the right move.
[00:28:14]  It still is all of those things.
[00:28:18]  That in and of itself doesn't mean it's wrong.
[00:28:21]  And I acknowledge that it's your call to make in the end.
[00:28:23]  You're the commander-in-chief after all.
[00:28:25]  But if we're going to do something drastic and explosive and unpopular thousands of miles from home, why not do it here too?
[00:28:35]  That's the question that the base is asking.
[00:28:39]  If we're going to give a major prize to the donors and pundit class, people who have tried to undermine you every step of the way, people who oppose your domestic agenda, people who many of them want you to be impeached and imprisoned, if we're going to reward them, then will we also reward your America first base?
[00:29:01]  Will you bring back the Muslim ban, restart workplace raids, suspend the legal immigration system, strip citizenship from paper Americans who use the word they when they describe our country, strip citizenship from Americans who can't even speak English and don't respect our laws, finish the big, beautiful border wall.
[00:29:23]  You can capture Maduro and kill the Ayatollah, both impressive feats, even if I'm skeptical of the objectives and downstream effects related to the latter.
[00:29:30]  If you could do all that, then I would ask you, we ask you, will you finish the thing you set out to achieve?
[00:29:38]  Will you make America, America, great again?
[00:29:44]  now let's get to our five headlines ditch your old wireless contract and trade up to pure talk my wireless company the one that actually respects your time money and intelligence For just $25 a month, you get unlimited talk, text, and data, no contract, no cancellation fees, and no waiting for overseas representatives.
[00:30:06]  They provide fast, simple service.
[00:30:08]  Make the switch, go to puretalk.com slash walsh, and you'll save 50% off your first month.
[00:30:12]  That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
[00:30:14]  Switch to a wireless company that shares your values.
[00:30:17]  PureTalk, America's wireless company.
[00:30:20]  So we just mentioned the mass shooter from Senegal, the one who should not have been in the country to begin with.
[00:30:25]  Jasmine Crockett has weighed in on all this, and you'll never guess, you will never guess ever who she is blaming.
[00:30:35]  Listen.
[00:30:38]  Once again, another mass shooting this time on 6th Street in Austin.
[00:30:41]  And just before you went on stage, I saw that your primary opponent and Greg Abbott had kind of gotten into it on X, and they both chose to use this moment to scapegoat the immigrant community.
[00:30:51]  The shooter was a naturalized citizen.
[00:30:54]  We've seen efforts already from the Trump administration to denaturalize citizens.
[00:30:57]  My mother-in-law is a naturalized citizen who is incredibly scared.
[00:31:01]  How are you going to balance comprehensive immigration reform, which we do need, and still treating our immigrant community with dignity and not using them as a scapegoat in these moments?
[00:31:09]  I don't know how it is that we got here, that what one person does somehow is then impugned on an entire community.
[00:31:18]  The facts are the facts.
[00:31:20]  The facts are that the immigrant community actually commits less crime in this country than anyone else.
[00:31:28]  So the idea that we take this one incident, and that's what they do.
[00:31:32]  Listen, every time there's some crazy situation like this, black folk sit around and say, oh, I hope they're not black because we know that that's going to be an additional target on our backs.
[00:31:45]  We know that the immigrant community was probably holding their breath and saying, oh, I hope it wasn't an immigrant because then there's going to be another target on their back.
[00:31:55]  Listen, no one, in my opinion, is born in this country.
[00:32:00]  And somehow when they're born, because of where they were born, they somehow now are automatically a criminal.
[00:32:07]  That's not like a real thing, but that's essentially what you do when you decide to impugn an entire community.
[00:32:15]  If I was to give you the facts on who the shooters have been in these mass shootings, I can guarantee you the vast majority of them have been white, male, and homegrown.
[00:32:30]  Okay, so that's all nonsense, of course.
[00:32:33]  And by the way, this matters.
[00:32:36]  I mean, this matters, obviously.
[00:32:38]  It matters for the obvious reasons, but also because Jasmine Crockett, as tragic as it may be to consider, is an influential national political figure.
[00:32:49]  And I'm guessing that she runs for president in 2028.
[00:32:53]  So we may be treated to a primary battle featuring AOC and Jasmine Crockett, which of course would go down in history as the political race with the lowest collective IQ ever.
[00:33:04]  And I don't know, she could actually win.
[00:33:06]  I mean, Jasmine Crockett could be the Democrat 2028 candidate.
[00:33:10]  You heard it here first.
[00:33:12]  Maybe you didn't hear it here first, but you heard it here.
[00:33:15]  So her nonsense matters.
[00:33:17]  And this is nonsense.
[00:33:21]  You know, the claim from Jasmine Crockett and from every leftist and Democrat politician is that, is that number one, white people are doing most of the mass shootings and that immigrants actually commit less crime than Native born Americans do.
[00:33:38]  Those are the two things we so often hear.
[00:33:40]  Are they true?
[00:33:43]  Well, no, none of that is true.
[00:33:46]  It's all lies, every bit of it, and it's not hard to break down.
[00:33:50]  So first of all, most mass shooters are not white.
[00:33:54]  And we've been over this, and it really shows you how these kinds of these sort of statistics are so easily rigged.
[00:34:04]  Because you start with, well, what is a mass shooting?
[00:34:09]  Anytime anyone says, oh, you know, the white, white people are the ones committing all the mass shootings, what do you mean by mass shooting?
[00:34:17]  Really, what is it?
[00:34:18]  We use this term as if it has some clear, clean definition, but it doesn't really, at least not the way that it's so often used.
[00:34:27]  Is a mass shooting just any shooting where a mass of people are killed or wounded?
[00:34:34]  What is a mass of people?
[00:34:36]  Two?
[00:34:36]  Two or more?
[00:34:38]  I mean, that would be the cleanest definition, right?
[00:34:40]  A mass shooting is a shooting where more than one person is shot.
[00:34:47]  How many more?
[00:34:48]  It doesn't matter for the statistically shot or killed.
[00:34:52]  You know, whatever it is, more than one person is shot.
[00:34:56]  That is a, by the strictest definition, that's a mass shooting.
[00:35:03]  And it's certainly the least arbitrary way to define it.
[00:35:08]  And if you define it that way, well, black people make up a wildly disproportionate number of the culprits.
[00:35:16]  The only way to make white people more likely to commit a mass shooting, the only way to make them, you know, the culprits who are responsible for the most, especially the most per capita, is if you get very specific and very arbitrary.
[00:35:31]  So, for example, one of the most common definitions of mass shootings used by the media in many cases is a shooting where four or more victims are wounded or killed.
[00:35:43]  And in some cases, they require that all four are killed in order for it to count as a mass shooting.
[00:35:49]  Why four, though?
[00:35:52]  So, why not two?
[00:35:53]  Why not three?
[00:35:54]  Why not five?
[00:35:55]  Why not six?
[00:35:56]  Why four?
[00:35:58]  Well, there's no reason other than the fact that once you get to four victims, that's about where the racial dynamics start to change a little bit.
[00:36:06]  But even there, black people, if we're doing four, four people are shot, wounded or killed, black people account for 20%, 25% of the culprits, of the offenders, which is still more per capita, a lot more, actually.
[00:36:24]  So you have to get even more specific.
[00:36:26]  Okay.
[00:36:26]  So if you Google mass shooting statistics, one of the first things that will pop up is an organization called the Violence Prevention Project.
[00:36:35]  And I know that because I just Googled it and this is one of the first things that popped up.
[00:36:38]  And it catalogs a lot of this stuff.
[00:36:40]  And I'm just using this as an example, but here's how they define it from their website.
[00:36:45]  We define a mass shooting as four or more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter in a public location with no connection to underlying criminal activity, such as gangs or drugs.
[00:37:00]  I mean, it's amazing that it's just a masterclass in rigging the data.
[00:37:05]  I mean, you know, the phrase lies, damn lies, and statistics.
[00:37:09]  I don't know who, I think it was Mark Twain coined that or something.
[00:37:12]  Well, this is it right here.
[00:37:13]  We define a mass shooting as four more people shot and killed, excluding the shooter in a public location with no connection to underlying criminal activity, such as gangs or drugs.
[00:37:23]  So in other words, we define a mass shooting as the kind of shooting that black people are less likely to commit.
[00:37:30]  That's all they mean.
[00:37:32]  That is all that means.
[00:37:33]  We are specifically defining it so that we can have the maximum number of white people.
[00:37:41]  It really is that absurd.
[00:37:43]  And that's what allows people like Jasmine Crockett to claim that white people are the great mass shooting risk in society.
[00:37:51]  You have to, again, specifically tailor the data to fit the exact parameters in which a maximum number of white people are admitted and a minimum number of black offenders are admitted.
[00:38:07]  It's insane.
[00:38:09]  So then what about this claim that immigrants commit less crime than native born?
[00:38:16]  Well, first of all, just to start, and this is why when you hear these kind of statistics and they don't sound right, the moment you hear that, you're like, really?
[00:38:27]  That can't be, that just doesn't sound right.
[00:38:29]  There's no way that's true.
[00:38:32]  And it turns out that your gut instinct is very often correct, especially when people are using studies, right?
[00:38:40]  They're using studies.
[00:38:41]  They're using alleged statistics to disprove what common sense will tell you.
[00:38:46]  I mean, sometimes your common sense can be wrong about things.
[00:38:49]  But here your common sense is correct because here's what happens.
[00:38:52]  Here's what they do.
[00:38:53]  First of all, just to begin, as we've already covered, the black population commits a huge percentage of the violent crime in this country, as we know.
[00:39:02]  So when you talk about native-born crime, that number is wildly skewed by this one small subset of the population that commits most of it.
[00:39:11]  And even within that subset, within that subset, it's actually a subset of the subset because most of the crime is committed by black males who are between the ages of like 18 and 40, right?
[00:39:25]  Young black males are committing most of the crime or younger than 18, actually.
[00:39:29]  So young black males are committing most of the crime.
[00:39:31]  And so that's, what, 4% of the population, 3%?
[00:39:36]  Wildly skewing the data.
[00:39:40]  And that's what allows, ironically, somebody like Jasmine Crockett to make this kind of claim.

=== Comparing Neighborhood Incarceration Rates (07:01) ===

[00:39:46]  Well, what about white native-born versus immigrant?
[00:39:53]  And what if you narrow it down even more than that?
[00:39:55]  Not arbitrarily, but to narrow it down to talk about the thing that we're actually talking about.
[00:40:01]  Because when Jasmine Crockett says that Americans commit more crimes than immigrants, she is not intending to say that, well, black people are committing a lot of crimes.
[00:40:10]  That's not what she's referring to, obviously.
[00:40:13]  She's trying to create in your mind an image of a white American versus a non-white immigrant.
[00:40:20]  That is what she's actually talking about.
[00:40:23]  That is the takeaway she wants you and any Democrat, any leftist wants you to have.
[00:40:30]  So she wants you to believe very specifically that non-white immigrants are less of a threat than white, native-born Americans.
[00:40:40]  Well, what happens when you compare those stats?
[00:40:44]  White Americans versus non-white immigrants?
[00:40:46]  Who commits more crimes?
[00:40:48]  Well, if you're comparing, if we're talking about East Asians, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, then the immigrants probably come out on top in that comparison.
[00:41:01]  I mean, that subset of the immigrant population, as we all know, they do very well here.
[00:41:05]  Actually, do better than on average than whites, which is, as many people point out, rightly so, really is a problem for the whole narrative about systemic racism and everything else.
[00:41:16]  Well, you've got these non-white immigrants who are coming to this country and succeeding even more than white people.
[00:41:25]  But again, that's not really what we're talking about.
[00:41:27]  Because what about African, Latin American, Middle Eastern?
[00:41:33]  Because keep this in mind.
[00:41:34]  Anytime anyone starts giving you the alleged stats to show how productive and great and law-abiding and successful and useful immigrants are, anytime they're doing that, well, immigrants from China, Japan, and South Korea are doing a lot of the work in those stats.
[00:41:58]  So, what they're really doing is they're using immigrants from East Asia to make the point that immigrants from Nigeria and Guatemala are a net gain to society in America.
[00:42:10]  That's what they're doing.
[00:42:11]  But what if we talk about, again, what we're actually talking about, which is immigrants from the third world?
[00:42:17]  Well, it's almost impossible to find those statistics.
[00:42:20]  That's the first problem.
[00:42:21]  Those are not stats that any governing authority tabulates or keeps records of with any reliability.
[00:42:27]  For the most part, there are a few exceptions.
[00:42:29]  There are a few states, but in the vast majority of cases, that information is just not recorded.
[00:42:35]  Somebody's arrested, charged.
[00:42:37]  Nobody records whether they were foreign-born or not.
[00:42:41]  In most cases, that information just doesn't exist officially anywhere.
[00:42:46]  So then, when someone comes along and says, well, you know, they commit less crimes, well, how do you know?
[00:42:49]  But what do you, it's not, in most cases, somebody's arrested.
[00:42:52]  That's not, the police aren't recording that.
[00:42:55]  They're not telling you one way or another.
[00:42:59]  So, how do we know?
[00:43:00]  Well, we can use common sense.
[00:43:03]  We can use other clues.
[00:43:05]  I mean, one thing you can do is you can compare, for example, a majority white neighborhood.
[00:43:11]  You can compare majority white neighborhoods on average to communities that are majority foreign-born, especially born in the third world countries.
[00:43:22]  Which neighborhood would you rather move to with your family?
[00:43:27]  What do you think?
[00:43:29]  Supposedly, according to Jazzwargo, well, the immigrants are a lot safer to be around, really?
[00:43:33]  Okay.
[00:43:34]  So you're going to move in somewhere.
[00:43:37]  Let's say you're blessed enough to have a lot of different options.
[00:43:41]  And on one hand, you've got this neighborhood that's like 70, 80% white, and you could move there with your family, or you could move to a neighborhood that's 50, 60% Nigerian.
[00:43:55]  Which one are you moving to?
[00:43:56]  Which one do you think your family will be safer in?
[00:44:00]  Which one would Jasmine Crockett move to?
[00:44:03]  We all know the answer.
[00:44:06]  The white neighborhood's going to have lower crime rates on average almost every time.
[00:44:12]  That's just, that's true statistically.
[00:44:14]  Majority white neighborhoods, white American neighborhoods, are almost always safer statistically.
[00:44:20]  They almost always have lower crime.
[00:44:23]  And the other thing about immigrant crime, and this is pretty important, like, well, again, no one is keeping records of a lot of it.
[00:44:32]  And even if they were, if you look into the data, the whole immigrant commit, the immigrants commit less crime thing is based on, if it's based on anything, incarceration rates.
[00:44:46]  Okay, but the problem, maybe you've noticed it, is that saying that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated is not the same as saying they're less likely to commit crimes.
[00:44:58]  We just heard a story about a guy who committed 40 crimes, was an illegal immigrant, and was not incarcerated for 39 of them.
[00:45:10]  So for 39 of those immigrant crimes, that didn't count.
[00:45:15]  That doesn't count.
[00:45:16]  Why doesn't it count?
[00:45:17]  Because the prosecutors and judges say, yeah, you know, we're going to let that go.
[00:45:25]  So jurisdictions can get around this problem.
[00:45:27]  They can juke the stats by not charging certain criminals, not incarcerating them, or simply not recording their foreign-born status.
[00:45:37]  All of the Somali scammers in Minneapolis, are those crimes being officially tabulated on record anywhere?
[00:45:43]  Are they being tabulated as crimes committed by immigrants?
[00:45:48]  When we hear about the immigrant crime stats from people like Jasmine Crockett, does that include the Somali fraudsters?
[00:45:54]  It doesn't.
[00:45:56]  Because most of them haven't been imprisoned or even charged and will never be.
[00:46:00]  And if they are, no one is going to record officially that they were foreign-born, which is why if you went and looked at a list of the crimes committed by Americans, especially in a place like Minneapolis, you're going to see a lot of names that are kind of interesting.
[00:46:19]  You'll see a lot of names like Muhammad Hassan Muhammad.
[00:46:25]  Those are your American, just your down-home red-blooded American criminals, old Muhammad.
[00:46:33]  So this is what they do.
[00:46:34]  I mean, this is how they play the game.
[00:46:37]  And this is how they try to persuade you to disbelieve your lying eyes by playing games like this.

=== Slang Evolution (13:38) ===

[00:46:48]  And it doesn't take much.
[00:46:49]  You don't have to be a genius because if you did, I wouldn't be able to do it.
[00:46:53]  But fortunately, you don't have to be a genius to just think critically about this.
[00:46:58]  And this is a question you should always ask anytime anyone makes a claim.
[00:47:03]  Anyone in power makes a claim about anything.
[00:47:06]  Your first question should always be, what do you mean?
[00:47:09]  Where are you getting that?
[00:47:12]  Where are you getting at?
[00:47:14]  Why should I believe that?
[00:47:16]  If you want better gut health, clearer skin, stronger hair, steady energy, it all starts in the gut.
[00:47:22]  And that starts with colostrum.
[00:47:24]  Cowboy colostrum gives you 100% American grass-fed first day whole colostrum, loaded with immunoglobulins, growth factors, and protein.
[00:47:32]  There's no water-down powder or synthetic junk, just pure nutrient-dense fuel the way nature intended.
[00:47:39]  They only collect the surplus after the calves have had their fill.
[00:47:42]  So you're getting the best quality ethically.
[00:47:45]  Add a scoop of cowboy colostrum to your coffee or your smoothie.
[00:47:49]  You'll not only feel better, you'll look better too.
[00:47:51]  My producers, Holly and McKenna, love cowboy colostrum.
[00:47:54]  They're already seeing clearer skin, stronger hair, energy that lasts.
[00:47:56]  Plus, they think that the flavors are great too.
[00:47:59]  For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order.
[00:48:02]  Just head to cowboycolostrum.com slash walsh and use code Walsh at checkout.
[00:48:07]  That's 25% off and use code Walsh at cowboycolostrum.com slash Walsh.
[00:48:14]  All right, let's move on.
[00:48:17]  This is kind of funny.
[00:48:18]  The Guardian is upset.
[00:48:20]  Reading now.
[00:48:21]  A recent tweet from the U.S. Department of Defense boasts about the killing capabilities of the U.S. military as follows.
[00:48:28]  Low cortisol, locked in, lethality maxing.
[00:48:33]  To many, that will sound as indecipherable as the teenagers that discuss high-tier Beckies or the New York Times warning of tate-pilled boys.
[00:48:40]  Many will have now seen the February 6th tweet that went globally viral, viewed more than 24 million times, and since discussed in endless analyses and explainers, the tweet which said clavicular was mid-jester gooning when a group of FOIDs came and spiked his cortisol levels.
[00:48:57]  Is ignoring the Foids while munting and mogging moids more useful than CMV shadfishing in the club?
[00:49:06]  In 2026, this kind of language is appearing more frequently from America's most prominent newspaper to the highest tiers of the U.S. government.
[00:49:12]  Why has this disfigured way of speaking become so normalized?
[00:49:17]  It starts with the rise of the incels, a growing cohort of men who are involuntary celibate and think women are to blame.
[00:49:24]  Anyway, it goes on from there.
[00:49:25]  It's just a long article lamenting basically Zoomer slang and blaming it on young men and incels.
[00:49:36]  So it is funny that the media is doing this puritanical spiral because of tweets from the Pentagon.
[00:49:43]  But I do want to say, and I was thinking about this, all this Zoomer slang, and I've heard it defended by older conservatives.
[00:49:54]  I've heard it said that all this, all the Zoomer slang looks maxing, mogging, whatever, that it's actually, it's actually kind of charming, kind of funny.
[00:50:02]  Michael Knowles made this argument recently.
[00:50:05]  I've heard it a bunch of places, basically saying, like, hey, you know, it's not so bad.
[00:50:08]  It's actually, it's kind of evocative.
[00:50:10]  And the thing is, I agree on the surface.
[00:50:12]  I actually think that these new terms are, many of them are kind of funny, are kind of evocative in their own way.
[00:50:19]  They sort of work.
[00:50:22]  And sure, every generation has their slang and complaining about it just makes you sound old and out of touch, which I am on both counts.
[00:50:30]  But I'm not complaining, but I do complain about it.
[00:50:32]  And I'm not complaining about it because of the words themselves.
[00:50:36]  That's not the issue.
[00:50:38]  I'm bothered by the slang, especially the volume of new slang that crops up now.
[00:50:45]  Not because of the word.
[00:50:46]  I don't mind the words themselves.
[00:50:48]  But there's something about it that I recognize is kind of bad.
[00:50:52]  And I think most people do, at least older people.
[00:50:55]  And I think it's this.
[00:50:56]  So here's the problem.
[00:50:58]  You know, each generation comes up with its slang.
[00:51:03]  Nothing new about that.
[00:51:05]  And, you know, and that's fine.
[00:51:08]  The problem is that actually the slang doesn't expand our vocabulary.
[00:51:16]  You're not actually adding new words exactly to people's conversational vocabulary.
[00:51:23]  It doesn't expand our language.
[00:51:24]  It's not a net gain.
[00:51:26]  What happens, and this is the issue with it, and I think we're seeing this happening now in HyperDrive.
[00:51:31]  So I'm more worried about where this leads.
[00:51:35]  What happens is that each new slang term becomes a substitute for other words and phrases that already exist.
[00:51:43]  And not a substitute, it's not like a one-to-one substitute.
[00:51:48]  You come up with like this slang word that's a substitute for like a whole class of words.
[00:51:52]  It's a substitute for 40 different words that all become contained in this one word.
[00:51:58]  So it's not a one-to-one swap.
[00:52:01]  It's each new term is like a stand-in for a dozen, two dozen other words and phrases.
[00:52:08]  So then what happens is our language, our vocabulary contracts with each new generation.
[00:52:15]  And I think that's been happening for decades.
[00:52:17]  And it's the kind of thing that I think we all know that it's happening.
[00:52:20]  I think we all recognize it.
[00:52:23]  Maybe we can even see it in ourselves.
[00:52:26]  It's very apparent to me that vocabularies are shrinking drastically.
[00:52:31]  And yet if you look this up, and I have, and I have looked it up, it's another thing that's hard to study.
[00:52:36]  I mean, how do you measure this?
[00:52:37]  How do you measure it exactly?
[00:52:38]  It's the kind of thing that's like, you either notice it or you don't.
[00:52:41]  But people have tried to measure this and they've done studies and a lot of the studies say that, well, it's actually not true.
[00:52:48]  The vocabulary are not shrinking.
[00:52:49]  If anything, maybe they're expanding.
[00:52:52]  And yet we all notice it.
[00:52:55]  I think it's very clear that it is.
[00:52:57]  And it's becoming more rapid.
[00:52:58]  This is a process that's played out over the last 70 or 80 years.
[00:53:02]  It was kind of this exponential growth or reduction in this case, I guess.
[00:53:07]  And it's not that, and this is why it's hard to tabulate.
[00:53:14]  It's not that the slang words come in and the words they replace suddenly disappear.
[00:53:21]  The other words still exist, if words can be said to exist at all.
[00:53:26]  They're still available to be used and people know those other words.
[00:53:31]  But in everyday speech, in terms of everyday usage, they just fall away and they're replaced by these other terms.
[00:53:39]  And so what's happening now is that most people, they know a lot of words because we're online.
[00:53:48]  You're constantly consuming a lot of information.
[00:53:50]  Most people go through at least 12, 13 years of formal schooling.
[00:53:54]  So you know a lot of words, but it's not part of conversational usage or even non-conversational.
[00:54:05]  So here's what I mean.
[00:54:06]  Take a word like RIS, which is a term I kind of like.
[00:54:10]  I'm not going to use it because I'm almost 40.
[00:54:12]  But again, it works.
[00:54:16]  I get what you're trying to say.
[00:54:18]  But if you didn't have that word, you'd say that someone has charisma, right?
[00:54:22]  Which is what RIS is short for.
[00:54:24]  Or you'd say they have charm or they have magnetism or they have appeal.
[00:54:29]  They have confidence.
[00:54:31]  They have 10 other synonyms that you could use.
[00:54:34]  You say someone's mid, right?
[00:54:36]  And without that word, if you didn't have that word, you would say they're mediocre, they're average, they're underwhelming, they're uninspired, they're forgettable, right?
[00:54:46]  You go down the list of what I've cooked, right?
[00:54:49]  If you didn't have that, you'd say that someone is, or something is exhausted, defeated, you know, embarrassed, doomed, overwhelmed.
[00:55:01]  And then you got mogged.
[00:55:03]  Another word that I'm not going to ever use it because I'm too old.
[00:55:07]  But even before anyone defined it for me, I kind of knew what it meant because it sounds like what it means.
[00:55:12]  And so it works as a word.
[00:55:14]  And yet without that word, you would say that someone has been, they haven't been mogged.
[00:55:18]  They've been outclassed.
[00:55:20]  They've been outshone.
[00:55:21]  They've been dwarfed.
[00:55:23]  They've been towered over.
[00:55:26]  I mean, there's 30 different ways you could describe what that is meant to mean.
[00:55:32]  And it just goes like this.
[00:55:34]  And again, you can still say all those things.
[00:55:36]  I get it.
[00:55:38]  Those words have not disappeared and those words and terms have not disappeared off the face of the earth.
[00:55:42]  But in practical everyday usage, all of those other forms of description are subsumed by the slang words.
[00:55:50]  And the internet just makes this process play out again exponentially.
[00:55:54]  It's the same thing with people relying on emojis and gifts and that kind of thing.
[00:56:00]  It becomes a replacement.
[00:56:02]  It's like rather than, that's why I've been complaining about emojis forever.
[00:56:05]  It's, okay, you're excited or happy about something, and so you use a smiley face emoji.
[00:56:12]  Well, without the smiley face emoji, you could just describe, you could actually describe, you could talk about the fact that you're happy.
[00:56:19]  You could describe it.
[00:56:20]  You could use descriptive words.
[00:56:21]  You could use like adjectives.
[00:56:23]  You could expand a little bit.
[00:56:25]  And it just makes your communication richer.
[00:56:28]  It makes it a richer communication for everybody involved, but it all just gets consumed.
[00:56:32]  Everything gets condensed.
[00:56:34]  Everyone's everyday vocabulary, their conversational vocabulary gets condensed and condensed and condensed.
[00:56:40]  And you really see this.
[00:56:41]  It becomes undeniable if you go back and read pretty much anything that was written 100 years ago or more.
[00:56:51]  And I don't just mean classic works of literature.
[00:56:55]  Obviously, that's not a fair comparison, right?
[00:56:58]  There is a little bit of a survivorship bias in that most of the writing that still exists, that's 100 years old or 200 years old or whatever, was preserved because it's great writing.
[00:57:11]  And so we don't get a lot of the mediocre writing from 100 years ago, 200 years ago, or further back than that.
[00:57:16]  And so I get that.
[00:57:18]  So it's not fair to compare the vocabulary of some live streamer to, you know, I was just reading The Death of Ivan Ilyich again, which is a Tolstoy novella.
[00:57:30]  And I think one of the greatest works of fiction ever written.
[00:57:33]  It's really short.
[00:57:34]  If you haven't read it, it's 50 pages.
[00:57:35]  You should read it.
[00:57:36]  I think the most insightful work of fiction of all time.
[00:57:38]  I was reading it again over the weekend, like my fourth or fifth time reading it, and I'm marveling at, it's just, it's actually sad.
[00:57:45]  I mean, it's a sad story.
[00:57:46]  It's depressing a lot of ways.
[00:57:47]  It's also kind of weirdly funny in a satirical, really dark black humor kind of way.
[00:57:51]  But it's also depressing because you're reading.
[00:57:53]  It's like no one can write like this anymore.
[00:57:55]  The way that he's able to describe the exterior and interior, like be able to describe the environment these characters are in and also what's happening inside them.
[00:58:06]  And he's able to describe it so vividly.
[00:58:09]  And he's able to describe what someone is experiencing so that you feel like you're also experiencing it.
[00:58:17]  I mean, the entire book is about someone dying, hence the title.
[00:58:20]  And you read it and you feel like you've now experienced dying.
[00:58:24]  You know what it's like to die because you read it described so vividly.
[00:58:27]  And anyway, no one can write like that anymore.
[00:58:29]  That's not a fair comparison.
[00:58:30]  But if you read even, I've made this point before, if you read, you go and read Civil War, go read random letters that were written during the Civil War.
[00:58:43]  And I don't just mean by Stonewall Jackson or Abraham Lincoln or something.
[00:58:46]  I mean, just any random soldier in the Civil War who wrote a letter back to mom or wrote a letter back to the wife.
[00:58:52]  And there's plenty of places you can go and find databases of these letters.
[00:58:56]  Many of the people writing these letters were not even formally educated at all.
[00:58:59]  And there might be spelling mistakes and grammatical mistakes, but the writing, even with these random soldiers on the front lines of the Civil War, it is descriptive and rich in this kind of natural, fluid, effortless way that it doesn't exist anymore.
[00:59:16]  People don't speak like that.
[00:59:18]  They don't write like that.
[00:59:20]  So much so that when you read it, even without context, you immediately know that, oh, this had to have been written in the 19th century.
[00:59:26]  Not because it's really flowery or formal, but just because it's so descriptive in a way that nobody writes anymore.
[00:59:35]  And so there's this kind of poverty of language that's happening that I find really sad.
[00:59:41]  The numbers don't lie.
[00:59:42]  Financial stress in this country is through the roof.
[00:59:44]  And if your debt is crushing you, you're not alone.
[00:59:48]  But doing nothing doesn't fix it.
[00:59:49]  It just lets interest keep bleeding you dry.
[00:59:52]  You don't need another loan.
[00:59:53]  You don't need a bankruptcy court.
[00:59:55]  You need a real plan.
[00:59:56]  Luckily, our sponsor, Done With Debt, can help.
[00:59:58]  They don't offer gimmicks.
[01:00:00]  They build smart, personalized strategies that actually reduce what you owe.
[01:00:03]  Whether you're facing 10,000 in debt or 10 times that, their goal is simple.
[01:00:07]  Get your payments down and your freedom back.
[01:00:09]  Debt is horrible, ruins lives and opportunities, but you can start doing something about it today.
[01:00:14]  Take five minutes for a free consultation, lay out your situation and see what's possible.
[01:00:18]  Because no matter how bad it feels right now, you don't have to stay stuck there.
[01:00:22]  Go to donewithdebt.com.
[01:00:23]  That's donewithdebt.com.

=== Kids In Church (10:53) ===

[01:00:26]  Finally, since I wanted to really quickly mention this, and since I'm in Old Man Yells at Clouds mode, which is my only mode, I will finish with this, very much on the same theme.
[01:00:37]  So before the Iran war took over, all of our social media feeds, I wanted to talk about this last week and it just got, and then it got drowned in all the more important news.
[01:00:46]  But there was this little human interest story that was circulating online, as they tend to do.
[01:00:50]  There's some church in York, Pennsylvania, that issued a policy pertaining to loud kids in their church, their loud kid policy.
[01:00:59]  And they issued this policy.
[01:01:01]  They posted it online on Facebook or something.
[01:01:04]  And this was going kind of semi-viral before it got washed away in the torrent of more important news.
[01:01:09]  And most people are responding very positively to it because it's supposed to be heartwarming and very supportive of parents, which I appreciate in theory, but I want to read this.
[01:01:19]  This is from this church, Mount Washington Church.
[01:01:22]  It says, effective immediately, we are committed to transparency and accountability in all matters of church life.
[01:01:26]  The following document outlines our comprehensive procedures regarding loud children in worship.
[01:01:31]  Please consider this your official notice of policy clarification.
[01:01:34]  Effective immediately, if a family is considering visiting Mount Washington Church and they have a loud kid, the following options are available.
[01:01:40]  Option one, the family should bring the kid.
[01:01:42]  Option two, the family should make sure they bring the kid.
[01:01:45]  Option three, the family is to see that the child is brought to church.
[01:01:48]  Option four, the kid is absolutely welcome and expected.
[01:01:51]  We believe the sound of children in worship is not a distraction.
[01:01:53]  It is evidence of life growth and the future of the church.
[01:01:56]  If your child makes noise, you are not bothering us.
[01:01:59]  You are blessing us.
[01:02:01]  Policy enacted, no exceptions.
[01:02:03]  So, like I said, people are responding very positively to this.
[01:02:07]  I appreciate the spirit of it, inviting people to bring their kids.
[01:02:11]  Very pro-family.
[01:02:13]  I get it.
[01:02:14]  But I have to say, and it may surprise you to hear me say this, or maybe not, but I strongly disagree.
[01:02:21]  Loud children are unacceptable at church.
[01:02:25]  They are unacceptable, actually, in pretty much any social situation.
[01:02:30]  Okay, if you're a parent, your loud kids are, they're not acceptable.
[01:02:35]  They are actually annoying and bothersome and a burden to everybody else, and they shouldn't be.
[01:02:43]  That is not to say that your children are not acceptable.
[01:02:47]  I'm not saying your children aren't welcome or you shouldn't bring them out or they shouldn't be able to participate certainly in worship or in anything else in your life.
[01:02:55]  They should, and you should bring them.
[01:02:57]  Bring them to the grocery store, bring them to church, bring them to a restaurant.
[01:03:00]  I'm all about that.
[01:03:02]  I bring my kids out places all the time.
[01:03:04]  I took them out to a restaurant last night.
[01:03:07]  But you shouldn't allow them to be loud and disruptive.
[01:03:11]  Okay, that's the part that I don't like.
[01:03:15]  So welcoming children, yes.
[01:03:17]  Welcoming loud children, no.
[01:03:21]  And if I'm out in public somewhere, I'm in a restaurant, I'm at a church, yes, I'm very happy that you brought your kids.
[01:03:27]  But if they're being loud and you're worried that people around you are annoyed, they are and they should be.
[01:03:33]  And that is not acceptable.
[01:03:34]  And this is the kind of thing that should not need to be explained.
[01:03:37]  It shouldn't even be a controversy.
[01:03:38]  And I made this point on X and people are disagreeing.
[01:03:41]  Like, what are you disagreeing with?
[01:03:42]  Are you actually disagreeing?
[01:03:44]  No, it is not acceptable to just let your kids be loud in public.
[01:03:48]  They shouldn't have to explain this.
[01:03:50]  It is not okay.
[01:03:53]  Take them out.
[01:03:54]  And you say, well, what am I supposed to do?
[01:03:56]  Take them out.
[01:03:58]  If you're out somewhere and your kids are being disruptive, remove them from the situation.
[01:04:04]  Take them out, discipline them, have consequences, then maybe bring them in.
[01:04:11]  Or if you can't get them under control, leave.
[01:04:13]  And if it's a baby being loud, you obviously aren't disciplining them.
[01:04:17]  But if they're having a crying fit and you're in any situation where you can leave the situation, you should.
[01:04:23]  If you're on a plane, obviously you can't.
[01:04:25]  It is what it is.
[01:04:27]  You're in a restaurant and they're crying.
[01:04:29]  Take them out.
[01:04:32]  That is your responsibility.
[01:04:33]  And I don't want to hear any parents say, I can't do that.
[01:04:35]  It's too much.
[01:04:35]  I have six kids.
[01:04:36]  I've done it many times.
[01:04:38]  You can't get that past me.
[01:04:39]  You cannot sneak that one past me.
[01:04:42]  Any of the sob stories, it's impossible.
[01:04:44]  I can't, then I'm going to miss out.
[01:04:46]  Well, then you're going to miss out.
[01:04:47]  Guess what?
[01:04:48]  We bring our kids out to restaurants all the time, like I said, and especially when they're younger, we have, you know, sometimes they become disruptive.
[01:04:55]  And there have been plenty of times where it's like, okay, I guess I'm not eating.
[01:04:58]  Like, I guess I'm, hey, take, get me something to go.
[01:05:00]  I got to bring this kid out to the, out to the car.
[01:05:02]  I've done that many times.
[01:05:04]  I've done it many times because I'm not going to force everybody else to have to listen to us.
[01:05:09]  It's just basic decorum.
[01:05:11]  This is just basic consideration of the people around you.
[01:05:14]  And it's bad for the kid.
[01:05:17]  It's awful for your child if he, if he learns that he's allowed to behave this way in public.
[01:05:25]  Awful for him.
[01:05:26]  It's awful for your kid.
[01:05:27]  It's awful for society.
[01:05:29]  It's awful for everybody in the room with him.
[01:05:31]  It's bad.
[01:05:32]  The only person that benefits is you because you're being lazy and you don't want to have to miss out on the meal or the movie or whatever.
[01:05:42]  They're your kids.
[01:05:43]  They're your responsibility.
[01:05:46]  You know, we don't tolerate our kids being disruptive in public at all.
[01:05:53]  And the thing is, when you raise your kids that way, and that doesn't mean, does that mean they're always perfect?
[01:05:58]  No.
[01:05:59]  As I said, they might still be disruptive.
[01:06:01]  That's when they have to get taken out.
[01:06:03]  That's when there have to be punishments.
[01:06:04]  That's when you got to do all that stuff.
[01:06:06]  Okay.
[01:06:08]  But when you are clear about this, what will happen is that at a much younger age than you think, you can have kids who are able to be quiet and not disruptive, even in church.
[01:06:23]  You know, at the age of four, let's say, your child should be able to sit in church for an hour and a half and not be disruptive one time by the age of four, if not sooner.
[01:06:36]  If your kid can't do that, it's because you have not put the work into making it happen.
[01:06:39]  That's what it means.
[01:06:40]  I'm sorry.
[01:06:42]  You know, our youngest twins are, they just turned three, which really for church, church-wise, that's the hardest age because they're obviously mobile, they're verbal, they love to talk, but they're still not quite old enough to understand.
[01:06:59]  They just have no concept of time.
[01:07:00]  They don't, you know, all these things.
[01:07:02]  So it's like the hardest age for this kind of thing.
[01:07:04]  And, but we bring them to church and it's two of them.
[01:07:09]  That's the other reason I have no sympathy for these parents that have like one kid that's being disruptive and they don't want to bring them out.
[01:07:15]  Like, well, I don't know what to do with the one kid.
[01:07:17]  I got, we got two three-year-olds.
[01:07:20]  And yeah, it's tough, but they get disruptive.
[01:07:23]  You bring them out.
[01:07:24]  You take them out of the church.
[01:07:26]  You know, you do, you do whatever.
[01:07:28]  And then, and then maybe you bring them back in if you can get them under control.
[01:07:31]  Or if you can't, then you don't bring them back in.
[01:07:34]  There's a certain amount of low-level noise that just comes with the territory for young kids who are like three years old.
[01:07:40]  But loudness?
[01:07:42]  No.
[01:07:43]  If either one of my kids are being loud at that age, they get taken out.
[01:07:48]  This idea that strangers should tolerate your loud children is not actually pro-family because a properly ordered family is one where the children are not in charge.
[01:08:01]  The children do not get to do whatever they want.
[01:08:05]  If your children run the show in your family, like, I don't want to be around you.
[01:08:10]  I don't want to be around you or your family, frankly, if you're the kind of family that the kids run the show.
[01:08:16]  Like, you're a walking disaster.
[01:08:17]  It's like, it's like, yeah, it is burdensome to everybody all the time.
[01:08:21]  Get your together.
[01:08:23]  Get it together.
[01:08:25]  Reclaim authority in your family.
[01:08:28]  You're the parent.
[01:08:30]  It's dysfunctional.
[01:08:32]  Yes, I'm pro-family, but we should be pro-properly ordered families, pro-functional families, not pro-families where the kids do whatever the hell they want because they run the show.
[01:08:44]  Now, I think everybody agrees 60 or 70 years ago, like pro-family society.
[01:08:49]  It was such a pro-family society 60 years ago, you wouldn't even call it pro-family.
[01:08:53]  It's just the way society was.
[01:08:54]  Like, of course it's pro-family.
[01:08:55]  What else would you be?
[01:08:56]  Right.
[01:08:57]  Larger families on average.
[01:08:59]  And yet you didn't have kids running around in public and disrupting and disrespecting their parents and elders all the time.
[01:09:05]  Loud children were not tolerated in the 40s.
[01:09:08]  I can tell you that.
[01:09:11]  And the thing is that loud kids in public have come to annoy me more now.
[01:09:15]  I'm actually less tolerant of it and less patient now than I was before I had kids.
[01:09:22]  Because I think before I had kids, I thought like, ah, yeah, no, no, maybe it's just impossible to get these kids under control.
[01:09:28]  I don't know.
[01:09:28]  I haven't been there.
[01:09:29]  Well, now that I have six, I'm like, no, it's definitely possible.
[01:09:32]  What the hell are you people doing?
[01:09:34]  Get it together.
[01:09:35]  Like, I was at a hotel in Nashville recently going to a meeting in a conference room there.
[01:09:40]  Really nice hotel, very upscale, like $1,000 a night type hotel, cathedral ceilings, marble floors, like the whole nine yards.
[01:09:46]  This family walks in.
[01:09:47]  Actually, it's three families, and they each had like one or two kids.
[01:09:50]  And the kids are just running around the lobby screen, like it's a, like, like it's a, like it's a playground.
[01:09:58]  And they're treating it like a playground.
[01:09:59]  It's exactly what my kids do on the playground.
[01:10:01]  What my kids do if they go, if they're out in the front yard playing a game, just running around.
[01:10:04]  They're playing tag in the hotel lobby.
[01:10:09]  And the parents just not doing anything.
[01:10:11]  Totally fine with it.
[01:10:12]  Totally fine with it.
[01:10:14]  Every person in that building is now disrupted because of your kids.
[01:10:21]  And you could do something about it, but you refuse to because you want to sit there and drink a coffee in the lobby with your friends.
[01:10:28]  We see this.
[01:10:29]  I see it all the time.
[01:10:30]  We all see it everywhere.
[01:10:32]  And it's just, it's not acceptable.
[01:10:36]  Bring your kids out.
[01:10:37]  Yes, bring them out.
[01:10:39]  It's great to have kids included in society they should be.
[01:10:44]  But they also need to behave.
[01:10:48]  That is your responsibility.
[01:10:51]  So that's my closing inspirational message.
[01:10:54]  Tell your damn kids to shut up.
[01:10:57]  Not really.
[01:10:58]  I mean, actually, yeah, that is basically the message.
[01:11:02]  That'll do it for the show today.
[01:11:03]  Thanks for watching.
[01:11:04]  Thanks for listening.
[01:11:04]  Talk to you tomorrow.
[01:11:05]  Have a great day.
[01:11:12]  What do Snow White, Cinderella, and smallpox blankets have in common?
[01:11:17]  They're all fairy tales.

=== On Stolen Land (00:43) ===

[01:11:19]  For decades, you've been told that you live on stolen land.
[01:11:23]  We are right now on stolen land.
[01:11:24]  That the Indians were peaceful.
[01:11:26]  Native Americans, we massacred them.
[01:11:28]  Your ancestors committed genocide.
[01:11:31]  And guess what?
[01:11:33]  None of it is true.
[01:11:34]  The Native Americans were some of the most savage fighters ever known to man, raiding, scalping, torturing, even eating enemies.
[01:11:42]  It was better to lose a battle to the U.S. Army than to get wiped out by a rival tribe.
[01:11:46]  And why did the story completely change in the 1960s?
[01:11:49]  It turns out there's a lot more to the American Indians than Hollywood directors and school teachers want you to know.
[01:11:55]  This month, we blow up the biggest myths about the American Indians and reclaim the real history that was stolen from us.