Ep. 1760 - Ketanji Brown Jackson Needs To Be Impeached. This Dangerously Idiotic Dissent Is PROOF.
Matt Walsh condemns Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent on Colorado's conversion therapy ban as ideologically driven incompetence warranting impeachment, while attacking the judiciary for an unconstitutional coup that grants judges veto power over the executive branch. He mocks Senator Lindsey Graham and Rep. Seth Magaziner for ignoring crises to enjoy Disney World and reality TV, contrasts this with Noelia Ramos' tragic euthanasia in Spain as proof of Western moral decay, and demands Confederate traitors be tried for treason while praising Robert E. Lee's genius. [Automatically generated summary]
If you've ever made the mistake of installing a bunch of news apps on your phone, then you're probably familiar with the push notification bomb.
And that's when breaking news happens, and within a few minutes, you get a dozen different alerts, all of which tell you the same thing.
If a plane crashes or something, and you'll hear about it over and over and over again until you finally snap and delete the apps from your phone.
Or I guess you could change your notification settings, assuming you're able to figure out a user interface that's designed seemingly on purpose to make everything impossible.
But anyway, every now and then, breaking news involves a topic that isn't cut and dried like a plane crash.
And sometimes breaking news.
Involves a Supreme Court decision consisting of thousands of words, a majority opinion, and a dissent.
And in those cases, the push notification bomb is actually sort of revealing.
So take a look at this swarm of push notifications that were sent yesterday by several different news organizations after a decision came down from the Supreme Court.
The New York Times reports The Supreme Court rejected a Colorado law banning sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapy for minors.
Fox reports that the Supreme Court rules on conversion therapy ban challenged by Christian counselor.
NBC says that the Supreme Court rules against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy aimed at LGBTQ youth.
And the AP declares that, quote, the Supreme Court ruled against a law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that banned the discredited practice.
Meanwhile, ABC ran this report.
Watch.
Breaking news, the Supreme Court has struck down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy.
That therapy includes efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity during talk therapy.
Major American medical groups consider it ineffective and harmful, and 27 states outlaw that practice.
But a Christian licensed therapist alleged the Colorado law violates her free speech rights and prevents her from openly talking with clients about their desire to rid themselves of same-sex attractions or better align with their biological sex.
Now the High Court has ruled in her favor.
Now, what's remarkable is that in that segment and every push alert from every single outlet, the term conversion therapy is used as if it's a real thing, which it isn't.
None of the outlets tell you that it was an 8 to 1 decision in their push alerts either.
Instead, they strongly imply that this was a ruling by the conservatives on the court to bring back a barbaric, or at least discredited, practice, as the AP put it.
Every time this happens, you should take note of it.
When the media starts using a euphemism like conversion therapy with strong negative connotations, it's important to really think about exactly what they're talking about because, in pretty much every case, they're lying.
And to be very clear about this, when they talk about conversion therapy, what they're talking about is the practice of telling a boy that he's a boy and telling a girl that she's a girl.
That's what conversion therapy is to them.
That's what they're referring to.
They banned talk therapy where therapists say things that are true.
The state of Colorado and several other states made it illegal for counselors and psychologists, psychiatrists, to tell their gender confused patients the truth about their sex.
They tried to force medical professionals to affirm the delusions of their patients.
And if they didn't go along with it, they'd lose their license.
Sounds deranged, and because it is, that's what they did.
And it's a flagrant attack on free speech, as we discussed a year ago.
Now, of course, in a sense, every kind of therapy is conversion therapy.
I mean, you're trying to convert a patient from a bad mental state to a good one, from a sort of bad way of thinking about things to a better and healthier way of thinking about things and thinking about themselves and the world.
That's all therapy.
But in Colorado, this conversion was only allowed to go one way.
It was perfectly legal in Colorado for therapists to encourage patients to identify as some other gender, but it wasn't acceptable for therapists to encourage patients to accept reality.
Just so there's no confusion about this, I'm going to quote from the text of the Colorado law that the Supreme Court just struck down.
This is what conversion therapy actually means from a legal perspective.
This is what the left is demonizing.
Conversion therapy, according to Colorado, is any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any Effort to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions towards individuals of the same sex.
And at the same time, the law also allows counselors to provide, quote, acceptance, support, and understanding for identity exploration and development and to assist persons undergoing gender transition.
So the pro trans conversions are totally fine, in other words, as long as they're pro trans.
It's only the conversions that bring them back to reality that are the problem.
Now, under the First Amendment, this is clearly unconstitutional.
The government doesn't get to prevent people from saying things the government doesn't agree with, especially when those things are obviously true.
It doesn't matter if those people are licensed counselors or therapists or anyone else.
The First Amendment applies to every American.
As the majority opinion put it The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace.
Of ideas as the best means for finding truth.
Laws like Colorado's, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments.
It doesn't matter if the government thinks that the world would be a better place if certain people weren't allowed to speak.
Unless someone is committing a very specific offense like fraud or defamation or making a credible and direct threat of harm to someone, then the government has to stay out of it.
This is not the Soviet Union or Canada.
But in this case, Colorado effectively tried to suspend the First Amendment.
When it came to gender issues, the state of Colorado declared that you can hold.
Any viewpoint you want, as long as it's their viewpoint.
They force therapists to lie to their mentally disturbed patients.
I mean, it's one of the most psychotic laws that has ever been passed anywhere.
And that's why eight Supreme Court justices, including two of the leftists, voted to strike down the law.
Now, technically, they voted to apply a much more strict standard to the law, but they made it clear the lower courts need to strike it down.
So if you're keeping track, this is the third time in the past few years that leftists in the state of Colorado.
Which is, as we're learning, one of the worst states in the entire country.
The third time they've been shut down by the Supreme Court after attempting to force Christians to adopt left wing orthodoxy with harassment and lawsuits.
First, they tried to force the Christian baker to make the cake for the gay wedding, they tried to force the Christian web designer to create gay wedding websites.
Now, they tried to force a Christian counselor to affirm the gender delusions of children.
And once again, they've lost.
They caused enormous damage to these.
Christians and to many other people.
And they've made it clear that they want to destroy Christians entirely.
And yet, every time in the end, they've lost, which won't stop them from continuing to try.
We know that.
But there was one justice who wrote a dissent to this ruling.
And that's what I want to talk about today.
And you already know who it was.
Of course, it's Kentonji Brown Jackson, the single dumbest individual to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court, selected by the Biden administration solely because of her race and gender.
And he was very clear about that.
They set out to find a black woman for the job.
They weren't looking at any other race or sex, made that clear.
And they tell us they found the most qualified black woman around.
And it's Kentonji Brown Jackson, which is a sad state of affairs.
I'm going to go through this dissent at some length because you really need to understand how dangerously incompetent this woman is and why it's important for conservatives to get serious about protecting their Supreme Court majority, which we'll talk about in a second.
But for now, let's get to Kentonji Brown Jackson's dissent and we'll start with the very beginning.
This is the first line, the very first line.
It says, There is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate.
To the police power of the states.
This was true 100 years ago, and it should be true today.
This is truly an amazing passage, given the source.
It's like a vegan opening their argument by saying, It's obvious that animals don't have rights.
Really?
Is that obvious to you?
She just destroyed basically her entire ideological project in one sentence.
Now, it's not to say that her statement is incorrect in a vacuum.
The idea is that whatever a doctor wants to do, ultimately, doctors are subordinate to the power of the government.
If the voters in a state pass a law that restricts doctors in some way in order to protect the public, then the doctors have to abide by that.
Doctors are subordinate to the ability of the state to keep the public safe.
And that's what she's saying.
It's a very broad principle.
As she says, it's a very traditional principle.
And she opens her dissent with it.
It's obviously not an unreasonable position by itself.
The problem is that in every other major case that's dealt with anything medical, Katanji Brown Jackson has taken the exact opposite position.
She clearly does not actually believe the principle that state power or the will of the voters trumps the opinions of the doctors always.
You know, when it comes to abortion, for example, Jackson doesn't care about what the government or the voters want.
She thinks it should be available on demand.
The government shouldn't interfere with health care decisions.
I mean, this is the mantra trumpeted constantly for decades by Katanji Brown Jackson and her left wing counterparts.
She definitely doesn't think that the state police power should override the woman's so called right.
To murder her child.
Or maybe she does.
Maybe she's finally coming out in support of a total abortion ban.
And based on this decision, that's the only conclusion you could draw.
On top of that, Katanji Brown Jackson just ruled in the Scremetti case that people have no right to overrule the wisdom of doctors who want to sterilize and castrate children.
She agreed with Sonia Sotomayor, who said that the Tennessee's law against child castration would cause, quote, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.
And that was a different case with different issues, but without a doubt, in Scrometty, Kentonji Brown Jackson did not endorse the principle that, quote, there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the state.
She didn't mention that principle at all.
She's never mentioned it.
So apparently, with this so called conversion ban case, we've stumbled on the one area of medicine where, according to Jackson, the power of the state and the voters is really, really important.
In every other area, she doesn't care what the voters think or what lawmakers think.
Now, already this tells you that Katanji Brown Jackson is not a real judge.
She's an activist.
She doesn't make rulings based on principle.
She decides what outcome she wants, and then she works backwards from there.
It doesn't really matter if her opinion on one case gels with what she says on other cases.
It doesn't make a difference to her.
In this case, the outcome Jackson warned is clear.
She wanted the state to have the ability to regulate speech and to force people to accept trans ideology.
And don't be fooled by the fact that this case is about therapy.
The First Amendment applies to everybody, not just therapists.
If Jackson can force a therapist to endorse gender ideology, it's only a matter of time before she writes an opinion forcing everyone else to do the same.
Let's put this section from her dissent up on the screen just to drive that point home.
Jackson writes, Though these prescriptions certainly promote a certain viewpoint in this context, that alone does not suffice to establish a First Amendment violation.
My colleagues' conclusions are puzzling, for a standards based healthcare scheme cannot function unless its regulators are permitted to choose sides.
So she's just coming out and saying it.
In her view, regulators should be able to choose sides.
In an ideological dispute and force everyone else to agree with them.
In her view, that doesn't amount to a First Amendment violation somehow.
Let's continue.
Quote In my view, it is obvious that the minor conversion therapy law is regulating professional conduct insofar as it prohibits providing a particular therapy.
The aim of the statute is not suppressing speech.
So, in other words, she's saying that even though the Colorado government is explicitly banning speech by outlawing so called conversion therapy, nevertheless, Colorado isn't actually suppressing speech.
And that's because, according to Katanja Brown Jackson, the government is only banning speech in the context of some other conduct, which is the talk therapy session.
So, really, as Jackson understands the situation, the government of Colorado is banning conduct, not speech.
She thinks the ban on speech is incidental to the ban on conducting therapy sessions in a certain way.
Now, let's think about this for a second.
Every form of speech involves some kind of conduct in addition to the speech.
If you send an email or post a tweet, You're engaging in both conduct and speech at the same time.
Sitting in a chair, typing on a keyboard, looking at a screen on a computer, on your phone, all of that behavior amounts to conduct that's occurring alongside your speech.
Speech is conduct.
By the same token, if you go to a protest and wave a sign around, you're engaging in both speech and conduct.
You're saying things, but you're also waving a sign.
You're walking on the sidewalk, and so on.
And this goes for all forms of speech.
If you go out in public and yell and scream psychotically, And someone says that they disapprove of your conduct, it wouldn't make any sense to reply, but I wasn't engaging in conduct, I was only engaging in speech.
Speech is conduct.
And under Kentonji Brown's Jackson's understanding, all speech could be banned as a kind of conduct.
But if you have an IQ above room temperature, then you understand how absurd this is.
There needs to be some limiting principle.
And as luck would have it, over the past 50 years, courts have established exactly what these limiting principles are.
And those limiting principles, in general, Go like this.
Whenever the government wants to ban speech, it cannot discriminate against a particular viewpoint while allowing others.
Additionally, the government can't ban speech at all unless it's closely related to some kind of unlawful conduct beyond the speech itself.
So, for example, if the government passes a law that says no one can participate in a loud protest in the suburbs after midnight, that's obviously completely fine.
The government is not discriminating against any particular viewpoint.
Instead, they're shutting down all expressions of viewpoints in that form at that time in that context.
Experts Cannot Force Agreement00:12:49
They're doing it for a very important reason.
A protest after 3 a.m. in the suburbs is very closely related to the separate crime of disorderly conduct, protesting without a permit, and so on.
So, in that case, someone could be prosecuted for creating a disturbance.
That's very different from saying that the government will only allow, say, pro BLM or pro trans protests after 3 a.m., that'd be a very different situation.
To say no one can protest loudly at 3 a.m. is one thing.
To say you can only protest after 3 a.m. if you're saying this, this, and this.
And that latter scenario is analogous to what Colorado. Was trying to do here.
This is all very basic stuff.
Again, this was an eight to one decision for a reason.
But the more you read Jackson's opinion, the more problems you find.
So let's continue with her reasoning or lack thereof.
She writes The medical community has determined that efforts to change a patient's sexual orientation or gender identity will necessarily be ineffective.
The American Psychological Association, for example, has found no empirical evidence that providing any type of therapy in childhood can alter adult same sex sexual orientation.
And no research has been published in the peer reviewed literature.
That demonstrates the efficacy of conversion therapy efforts with gender minority youth, nor any benefits of such interventions to children and their families.
Now, notice what's happening here.
She's saying that because the left wing medical groups haven't written a study that specifically states that it will help children if you tell them the truth about gender, therefore, we should not allow counselors to tell the children the truth about their gender.
But here's the thing there's no need for a study in this case, one way or another.
It doesn't matter if researchers at the Berkeley Trans Factory.
Claim to discover that children become unhappy when doctors tell them the truth.
The emotional response of children, regardless of what that response may be, does not override the First Amendment, nor does it override the responsibility of a healthcare practitioner to do the right thing and tell the truth.
Now, of course, we have plenty of evidence, not to mention common sense, which tells us that it's a terrible idea, actually, to affirm the delusions of children.
The ACLU's lawyer had to admit last year before the Supreme Court that they have precisely zero evidence that so called gender affirming care.
Actually, it reduces suicide rates, even though they constantly claim otherwise.
But again, whatever data or study you come up with, the truth is what matters.
And in a free country, no one can be forced to affirm a lie, period.
Now, we all know what's going on here with this dissent.
This is yet another attempt, one of many, to give the so called experts a veto power over what Americans are allowed to say out loud.
First of all, even if the experts were always right about everything, which they aren't, this whole line of argument is un American and unconstitutional.
So called experts don't get to force other people to agree with them, which is what this law attempts to do.
And as we all know, these experts are some of the most corrupt, least trustworthy people on the planet.
Last year, as you may remember, the Daily Wire published footage of a private video call featuring the president of the AMA, which is a leading medical association on the planet.
And in that call, the president of the AMA made it very clear that the organization is basically a rubber stamp for other smaller organizations.
They're not actually vetting anything.
They'll endorse so called trans medicine, and then when they're asked about it, they'll claim total ignorance.
And when the president of the AMA was informed that these smaller organizations, organizations the AMA is relying on, are staffed by extremely biased activists, he just simply didn't care.
I won't go through everything else in Jackson's dissent, but I did want to mention this one paragraph as well because it actually approaches an intelligent argument from Katanji Brown Jackson.
And for that reason alone, it's historic.
Maybe the first time.
So we need to talk about it.
Quote When a state establishes a standard of care or punishes a doctor for providing care outside of that standard, it necessarily limits what medical professionals can say and do on the basis of viewpoint.
The state can prohibit the administration of specific drugs, particular medical uses, but not for others.
So too may it prohibit a doctor from encouraging a patient to commit suicide.
Now she's actually right there, at least in part.
It's true that the government can punish doctors who encourage patients to commit suicide.
Well, unless we're talking about euthanasia, in which case they're allowed to.
But outside of that context, They're not allowed to.
And at some level, that does count as a restriction on the free speech rights of these medical professionals.
But there's a very big difference between that situation and Colorado's ban on so called conversion therapy.
Colorado was attempting to force counselors in their official capacity to lie to their patients and to claim that gender ideology was settled science.
Colorado was forcing doctors to take a specific position on a contested issue, and calling it a contested issue is being very generous.
To the pro trans side, it's actually not contested at all by reasonable people.
On the other hand, in Katanja Brown Jackson's example, doctors are telling patients to harm themselves.
In other words, they're encouraging patients to commit a crime.
And that kind of speech can be regulated for the same reason that I'd get in trouble if I told all my viewers to go commit a crime.
Again, unless I'm a leftist, in which case you're basically allowed to do that, but technically under the law you can't.
So it falls under a very narrow category of speech, which is incitement to violence.
It makes sense for the medical profession to restrict doctors from encouraging their patients to commit violence against others or themselves.
That should be restricted much more than it is.
This probably seems logical to you or me, but for Kaji Brown Jackson, who spends most of her time on Broadway or at the Grammys, logic is irrelevant.
And for that reason alone, Republicans should impeach her.
AOC tried to impeach Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Even though they're obviously competent and accomplished justices, she introduced articles of impeachment and everything because they went on some vacations with their rich friends.
And if that's the standard, then by tomorrow morning, Republicans should introduce articles of impeachment against Katanji Brown Jackson.
She was nominated for a Grammy, supposedly because of her audiobook.
We all know the actual reason.
That's a pretty big gift from some pretty rich friends in the entertainment industry.
You can make an argument based on that.
But really, the reason to impeach Jackson is that she's totally mentally incompetent.
She's dangerously stupid.
She's not even attempting to be honest or fair in her rulings.
We could go through her entire career and establish easily, as we've done in the past, that she's grossly unfit and unqualified for the job she has.
But really, all we need is this ruling.
A woman who believes that therapists should be forced by law.
To lie, to confuse children is not suited for the Supreme Court or any other prominent position in society.
She rejects the Constitution.
She rejects common sense.
She's either insane, you know, to rule this way or try to rule this way, to dissent means you're either insane or you're pretending to be.
And I mean, like, actually mentally insane.
And in either case, she should not be on the court.
And there's a much better argument for impeaching her than there ever was for impeaching Clarence Thomas.
That's for certain.
And once we're done impeaching her, we need to have a serious conversation about retirements now that we're on the subject of the Supreme Court.
Clarence Thomas is 77.
Samuel Leto is 75, or 76, around there.
John Roberts is 71.
All three of them should give serious consideration to stepping down right now.
And that's not because they're bad at their jobs, except for John Roberts.
Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time.
He's a brilliant man and a good man.
It'd be a shame to see him go.
I admire him a lot, but he will go one way or another sooner rather than later.
He's mortal, as all human beings are.
And he's getting very old.
And if Democrats retake the Senate in November, then we'll have no chance to replace them with conservatives.
There's a very real possibility that Democrats take the Senate this year and then the White House in 2028.
And if that happens, it would be catastrophic.
If that happens, Democrats might be able to swap three conservative justices for three leftists, which would swing the balance of power on the court for generations to come.
Thomas Alito and Roberts know all this.
You know, they saw what happened with Ruth Bader Ginsburg after she clung to power for a bit too long.
And that was bad news for the left, good news for the country.
Well, if this country is going to survive, we simply can't have any more Kentonji Brown Jacksons on the court.
That's what's at stake here.
Imagine a court with not one Kentonji Brown Jackson, but four of them.
Birthright citizenship is the next big topic this court is going to decide.
They're hearing arguments today.
That could be the single most important case in American history.
It could be the case that allows America to remove the foreigners who have invaded this country and prevent them from coming back.
It could restore America to Americans, or it could do exactly the opposite, depending on how it goes.
So we simply can't tolerate any more radical, far left, insane justices who are selected solely because of their race and gender.
It would inflict far too much damage on the country.
So, as soon as possible, we need to give the White House the opportunity to replace at least some of these old conservative justices with three young ones.
Strategically, I don't think there's any argument against it strategically.
We have the power to do that right now.
We either take advantage of that opportunity or we don't.
And if we don't, we're going to pay for it.
And after reading this latest dissent from Kataji Brown Jackson, it's hard to imagine that every conservative on the Supreme Court.
Everybody in the White House isn't thinking the same thing.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Businesses have always been the backbone of this country.
Yet in America today, owning a business feels like a constant uphill battle.
Banks push paperwork, investors chase fads, and people with real drive are told to play it safe.
We need more people willing to take ownership of their lives to build and grow something real.
And that's exactly what our sponsor.
Cardiff exists.
There are almost 36 million small businesses across this country, and over 70% say they need extra capital every single year just to keep up.
Meanwhile, small business revenue is hitting record highs, but big banks are tightening the screws, approving fewer loans than ever.
The typical business funding process can take anywhere from weeks to months.
It's counterproductive to pursuing entrepreneurship.
Luckily, you can go to cardiff.co slash walls for up to 500,000 in same day funding and skip the delays.
Cardiff is the largest.
Privately held small business lender in America.
They've funded over $12 billion since 2004.
Their application takes less than five minutes and there's no hit to your personal credit.
Whether you're expanding your shop, hiring help, or buying inventory in bulk, you decide how to use the money, not anybody else.
Banks try to lock out small businesses.
Cardiff has the key.
Big banks may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does.
If you've been in business for at least a year and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same day business funding.
Cardiff.co slash Walsh.
Again, that's cardiff.co slash Walsh.
Real growth, fast funding.
Cardiff, borrow better.
Some political news to start with.
Christy Nome's cross dressing husband.
That's the political news.
It was reported by the Daily Mail that Christy Nome's husband, Brian, who, by the way, spells his name B R Y O N. Which might still be the most offensive thing about him.
Fake Breasts and Balloons00:11:48
But Brian has a bimbofication fetish and likes to wear women's clothes and fake breasts, apparently, allegedly.
I guess, allegedly.
I mean, the photos are all over the place.
So here's the latest from the New York Post Former Department of Homeland Security Chief Christy Noam is devastated by salacious allegations that her husband, Brian, lives a double life where he cross dresses and chats online with fetish models.
Miss Gnome is devastated.
The family was blindsided by this and they asked for privacy and prayers at this time.
Gnome's representatives told the Post.
According to Daily Mail, Brian Gnome chatted up women from the so called bimbofication fetish scene, which is a thing I didn't know existed, but now I do, and so do you.
In which adult performers augment their breasts in massive amounts of saline to achieve a Barbie doll like appearance, citing hundreds of messages purportedly sent by three women from the scene.
Gnome's husband enthusiastically praised their heavily augmented appearance.
And proclaimed that he coveted huge, huge, ridiculous boobs.
And then another one, he appears to have put balloons in his shirt to mimic comically oversized, lopsided breasts.
And I think we have those photos.
We don't really need to see them, but we have them.
Okay, so there they are on the screen there.
Just so you know what we're talking about.
He looks like Barbie, if Barbie was your 55 year old uncle.
And he uses balloons for fake breasts.
Okay, we can take those off the screen.
That's fine.
Uses balloons for the fake breasts.
How does that work?
What goes into that?
That's the part that confuses me the most.
Like, you see the pictures, and okay, this is a crazy, weird person.
So you kind of like, I have a category for that.
I get that there are crazy, weird people out there, there's a lot of them.
And so, like, okay, but then you think about the whole it, what, what goes into the, I mean, you got to go get balloons.
Does he get in his car?
This is like a normal guy in his 50s wearing normal clothes, gets in his car, drives to Party City, purchases a pack of balloons, takes them home, blows them up.
It's this whole process.
There's, there's a lot of like forethought that has to go into it.
What goes through your head during that whole process?
Don't you stop at any point?
Maybe while you're in line.
What about when you're standing in line at Party City and you've got a pack of balloons and there's a woman ahead of you in line buying frozen themed paper plates with Elsa for her eight year old girl's birthday party?
Don't you stop and think, what am I doing?
What am I doing?
Why am I doing this?
What kind of person am I?
What am I doing here?
When you're leaving the store, don't you catch your reflection in the door and just stop and look at it for a second and think, what are you doing?
Apparently not.
So, this is the news.
This is the news in America circa 2026.
And we got to talk about the news.
So, I'll just say a few things about this.
First of all, Christy Nome says she's devastated by the allegations, she's shocked by them.
Maybe she is.
I don't know.
I will say that Gnome allegedly has been having an affair with Corey Lewandowski very openly for a long time now.
They're not secretive about it.
It's right out in the open.
It's so out in the open that even I heard about it a while ago.
I'm not plugged in at all in DC.
Nobody talks to me.
I don't know anybody.
I'm not at any of the parties or events or anything.
I have no friends over there at all, at all.
And everyone in the space is constantly talking about.
I heard from my sources, I don't have any sources.
I don't want them.
But even I somehow heard this.
It made it all the way down to me.
So, you know, they're not really trying to hide it, allegedly.
They're always together.
I mean, Noam just got fired and she was given some other basically symbolic role.
Doing something.
Now she's off in a foreign country.
And Lewandowski apparently came with her and is still hanging out with her.
So if she's having an open affair, that doesn't prove that she knew about her husband's proclivities, but it does indicate an extremely dysfunctional home life.
And the idea that she was totally shocked to find out that her husband is into weird sex stuff is, to me, not very credible.
It just isn't.
You got to be honest about it.
And this goes to show why people with dysfunctional lives should not be in positions of political leadership.
And I've always said that.
You know, if you.
I've never been one of these people that says, oh, your personal life is your personal life.
No, it's not.
Not necessarily.
If you can't keep your own personal life together, if you can't even keep your own personal life in a state that is not a total freak show, then you shouldn't be leading anything.
Like, I've never agreed with the idea that the personal lives of our leaders are somehow irrelevant or none of our business.
I've never agreed with that.
There are people who have an enormous amount of control over our lives, for better or worse, usually for worse.
Noam was the head of DHS.
That's an extreme.
Extremely powerful position to hold.
While she was in that position, she was one of the most powerful people in the world.
And so, yeah, your general character, the state of your personal life, your general sort of competence and clarity of thought and of action, all of those things matter.
And no, again, I wouldn't blame her for the fact that her husband is into this weird, degenerate stuff, but allegedly, she's also in this open affair.
It's just weird and dysfunctional.
It's just the whole thing is weird.
Your husband's off doing this, and you're hanging out with this guy.
You're having an opener.
Like everyone knows you're not even ashamed of it.
And it's just weird and bizarre.
We don't need that in leadership.
Find people who are not in really weird, awful situations.
It's not like it shouldn't be that hard.
Now, all of that said, it's very interesting to see the reaction to this story.
The media is reporting on it gleefully.
Everybody on the left talking about it, mocking this guy, calling him a cross dresser.
That's interesting to me because, like, apparently you're allowed to mock cross dressers again.
That's a new development.
That's very new.
Because I saw those pictures and I was grossed out and nauseated, but as everybody was, but that's always been my position when it comes to cross dressing men.
I've always thought that it's weird and disgusting.
But I thought for the left in the media, this is something you're supposed to celebrate and take seriously.
Why isn't the New York Times running any articles applauding Brian Gnome for his bravery?
In living his true identity?
Why aren't they telling us in a really inspiring way about his trips to Party City to buy his balloons that he turns into fake breasts?
This is an expression of his inner self or something, isn't it?
Isn't this what you guys always tell us?
Why aren't left wing influencers speaking up about the horrific transphobia being directed at this man or this woman?
I don't know.
Maybe he's actually a woman.
I mean, suddenly they're acting like it's.
Suddenly.
They're all acting like it's ridiculous for a man to dress like a woman.
They're all acting like that.
Site that we all, that I just forced you to see, is absurd, ludicrous.
As if the very sight of such a thing is farcical.
They're acting like a man with fake breasts is some kind of sideshow circus act, some kind of freak show for us to point and laugh at.
Which, sure, I agree, but I seem to remember the previous administration had a middle aged man with fake breasts and long hair running HHS.
I mean, at least Brian Noam is doing this.
He thought in private.
He thought not forcing the rest of us to see it.
Quote unquote, Rachel Levine was out in public, he was forcing everyone to see it.
I seem to remember, in fact, multiple such men in positions of leadership in the White House.
And at the time, it was something we were told to take seriously.
When quote unquote Rachel Levine played out his fetish in public, we were supposed to nod solemnly and say, Yes, this is normal.
This is totally healthy.
When Levine walks around with the fake breasts and the ridiculous wig and the dress and everything, we were supposed to go, This is very normal.
This is all totally healthy and fine.
In fact, it's so normal that this person should be in charge of health.
This person should be in charge of public health for everybody.
That's how normal and good and amazing it is.
And now, suddenly, out of nowhere, it's making fun of cross dressers is back on the menu.
Okay.
Okay.
I mean, for some of us, it was never off the menu, but okay.
If this is like where we are collectively, fine.
But that's going to apply to everybody.
It's not just going to apply to Brian Gnome.
I mean, we have a member of Congress in office right now doing exactly this.
We have a member of Congress in the Democrat Party right now who's doing the exact same thing that Brian Gnome is doing walking around, playing out his fetish in public, pretending to be a woman, fake breasts, the whole thing.
I mean, he might use slightly smaller balloons for his fake, you know, womanly figure, but it's just as ridiculous.
So, back on the menu, and that's how it's going to be now.
Sounds good to me.
I'm on board.
If you've heard me talk about Equip's Prime bars before, well, now I'm also really liking their Prime protein, also.
Men's Health called it the cleanest protein on the market.
Starting today, My listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Protein, which has become our team's favorite clean protein.
The stuff is really delicious without any of the junk and toxins that fills a lot of the powders on the shelves.
Equip keeps it simple, real food ingredients with your choice of clean sweeteners.
Each serving has 20 grams of grass fed beef protein, no whey, no seed oils, no junk.
Plus, every batch is third party tested for heavy metals, plastics, pesticides, mold, you name it.
When they claim to be the cleanest protein out there, well, they can actually prove it, and they have great flavor options.
So adding it to your daily routine.
Drinks, baking, anything really is simple chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, even chocolate, mint, and cinnamon roll.
Try them all, and they're all great, so you can't go wrong.
Disney for Adults00:14:38
It's time to clean up your protein powder.
Go to equipfoods.comslash Matt Walsh and use code Matt Walsh at checkout to get 25% off.
Prime protein purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time.
That's EQUIPfoods.com slash Matt Walsh and use code Matt Walsh at checkout.
Let's see.
ABC News reports the Trump administration must restore the legal status of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States legally through a Biden era pathway.
Federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said the Department of Homeland Security acted unlawfully last year when it sent a notice.
Telling many of the over 900,000 immigrants who use the CBP1 app, it's time for you to leave the United States.
During the Biden administration, nearly over 900,000 immigrants.
What kind of sentence is that?
Nearly over 900,000 immigrants.
I don't want to get hung up on it, but this is.
Do they have editors anymore working for these sites?
I read so many news articles a day, and the editors are gone.
No one's editing anything anymore.
There are no standards when it comes to news reporting.
And I'm not just talking about the bias in the reporting.
I'm talking about the way that it's delivered.
The writing is terrible.
Nearly over 900,000.
So you're saying it was less than 900,000?
Less than 900,000 becomes nearly over 900,000.
Well, okay, sure.
I mean, yeah, technically, but that's a weird way of putting it.
Anyway, 900,000 immigrants use the app to make appointments with immigration officials at ports of entry in hope of later applying for humanitarian parole or other forms of immigration relief.
That would allow them to enter the country.
Those who were granted parole were allowed to temporarily receive work authorization while their cases were adjudicated.
Then Trump came in and undid a lot of that and apparently repurposed the app primarily to allow migrants to self deport, which is great.
So, this app that was made to create a pathway for illegal aliens was then flipped by Trump so that now it's a self deportation app.
So, just to translate this into English, what happened was this the Biden administration gave illegal aliens a pathway that required them just to press a button, basically, on an app.
The Trump administration came in and said, That's insane, and revoked it because it is insane.
And now, a federal judge, a female judge, as always, or as almost always, has declared that this magical app, which has existed for 10 seconds, is now a constitutionally mandated part of the immigration system and it must exist forever.
Once the federal government does something, it has to always do it forever, always.
It's never allowed to not do it, even if it's crazy.
That's the position of the judiciary now.
The moment the federal government starts doing something, you can never not do it.
It's always now you have to do it.
So if the Biden administration had come in, which they basically did, and had said that, okay, we're going to give free gift baskets with fruit and candy and Amazon gift cards to every illegal alien who crosses the border, that would mean.
That every administration after them, forever until the end of time, must also give the gift baskets.
The moment the government does something, it mystically transforms into a human right, a constitutional right.
The moment it happens, it must always happen forever.
And if it stops happening, then it becomes an infringement on everybody.
That's the ruling.
And that's been the consistent ruling of the judiciary through Trump's whole term.
Every ruling has basically been some female judge saying, Oh, no, you know, you see, the government did this thing in the past, so it has to always do it for infinity years.
The government did this thing.
For one year, and so now it has to do it for infinity years.
And then the Trump administration will argue back and say, well, but that thing is insane.
That's a crazy thing.
And the judge says, yeah, but you got to do it.
I can't even argue that it's not insane.
I just, you just have to do it.
It's in the Constitution.
But where is it in the Constitution?
What are you talking about?
Never mind the Constitution.
Why are we talking about that?
That's how the conversation goes.
And of course, The argument from the judge, to the extent any argument is made, is totally indefensible and wrong.
If anyone should have been shut down by a judicial ruling, it should have been Biden.
The initial thing itself, the app used to create a pathway for illegal aliens, that should have been shut down because the president does not have the authority on his own to just go out and open up new paths to citizenship for illegal aliens.
And that's not up for debate.
Okay.
That's not a constitutional power the executive branch has.
The president can't just say, hey, here's a button to press and you'll magically be a citizen.
But rather than shut down that unconstitutional usurpation of authority that should rest rightly with the legislature, instead the judge is shutting down Trump's attempt to rectify it.
And this is why the judiciary, staying with the theme of today, This is the real war that we should be having with the out of control, unhinged, lawless judiciary.
The judiciary has collapsed.
It has slid into psychosis.
It's going to destroy the country.
It's going to bring down our whole system of government.
These judges are doing whatever they want.
They're claiming absolute power over the country, claiming the power of both the other branches of government for itself, illegally, unconstitutionally foisting their left wing radicalism onto the country, undercutting the executive branch, undercutting the legislative branch.
Branch, random whack jobs in black robes are sitting on their benches and saying, Well, I personally would prefer if things were this way, and so they have to be, and you all have to listen.
And for some reason, the Trump administration is still basically listening to them.
I mean, arguing with them, but still listening.
It is way, way past time to go to war with them.
And the way to do that, I'm not talking about a physical shooting war, I'm talking about The judiciary announces something like this, and you just ignore it.
Pretend they don't exist because they don't.
The judiciary basically doesn't exist anymore as a functioning part of the government.
It's just a bunch of random judges who are completely out of control, have lost their minds, and have declared that, I mean, this is the real coup.
They are trying to claim, taking over the country and claiming absolute authority and power.
And claiming that there's not a single thing the president can do that they can't override.
I mean, the judiciary is claiming that they've decided that in their version of the Constitution, the judiciary has an automatic veto over everything that happens.
Any law, any executive action, any action at all taken by a president or anyone else in government, the judiciary has an automatic veto over all of it.
And just so you know, that is not actually how our system of government is set up.
And so we're way past time where the only solution is just to ignore these people.
All right, you probably saw this picture making the rounds this week.
Speaking of disturbing pictures, here's a.
And speaking of people who are in the closet, allegedly.
This is Lindsey Graham, the biggest cheerleader for the Iran war, walking around Disney World with a bubble wand.
Let's hope that's a bubble wand.
I mean, there's only a few things that can be, and let's hope it's that.
And this is how he spent this past weekend.
He went to visit Disney World, even though he's a childless, elderly man.
The photo was taken by TMZ, which documented Graham's trip to Disney World.
And this is what he was doing.
Even as the country's in the middle of multiple crises, DHS still not funded, TSA problem has not been solved, the SAVE Act has not been passed, and Congress is on vacation, having the time of their lives.
Graham decided to go to Disney World, which to begin with, you know how I feel about that.
Adults without children should not even be allowed on the premises.
And that's an easy thing to enforce.
When an adult shows up at the gates of Disney World, there should be someone there saying, hey, where's your, oh, where's your, welcome to Disney World, where's your kid?
What kid are you with?
Oh, I'm not with a kid.
Oh, well, then you can leave, freak.
That's what they should say.
That should be in the handbook for Disney employees.
That exactly.
That's what you're mandated to say.
You can leave, freak.
It's weird.
Like, why would you, as an adult with no kids, go to Disney World?
It just is weird.
And I don't want to get sidetracked here, but why would anyone do this?
Like, put Lindsey Graham to the side for a second.
Talking about Disney adults in general, as I had plenty of times, I saw a clip last week.
And I didn't even, I was going to bring it up and I didn't because, you know, there were more important things.
But I saw a clip last week since we're on the subject.
It was some kind of bluey attraction at Disney World or Disneyland, one of the two.
And they have some kind of bluey thing.
It was like a show.
I think it was a live show, a live bluey show.
And somebody took a video of the audience, mostly adults, mostly adults at the bluey show.
At Disney.
Now, a number of those adults obviously were with kids, but it didn't seem like they all were.
Imagine being an adult without a child and actually paying for a ticket to go watch a live performance of Bluey at Disney.
And, you know, some people defend it.
I saw people saying, oh, but Bluey is a good show and it has humor aimed at adults too.
Yeah, it's a good show for kids.
And the humor is specifically aimed at adults who have kids and are watching it with their kids.
It's not for you if you have no kids.
If you have no kids, it's not for you and you're an adult.
Okay?
This is not for you.
This is for parents.
Like, the humor is very specifically for parents.
Stop appropriating our culture.
Okay?
Our culture is not your costume.
I like Bluey too as a parent.
You know, I can sit with my kids and watch an episode and not want to drive a fork directly through my eyeballs.
Because that's where the bar is with children's entertainment.
And it doesn't have that effect on me.
I'm not going to sit in my living room by myself with no kids around and watch it, though.
I mean, I kind of enjoy the quiet at night after all the kids are in bed.
And a lot of times the wife goes to bed before me.
And so I have some quiet time to myself.
It would be, and usually I'll like read a book or something.
I cannot even imagine.
I have that time to myself.
I go in the living room and I turn on Bluey.
If my kids came out and just saw me watching Bluey by myself, they would flee the house.
They'd be afraid because they would assume that I've gone insane.
They would say, oh, dad's finally lost his mind.
Dad has finally gone full psychotic.
And same applies to Disney and all this stuff.
This is for kids and families.
It just is.
It's not for adults without kids.
And every time I bring that up, childless adults will say, Well, I can't go to Disney.
Where am I supposed to go?
I don't know anywhere.
I don't know anywhere on the planet.
Literally anywhere.
No, we as parents and young families, we have only certain places we can go because we're not welcome in a lot of other places.
There are many places in society where For better or worse, usually for worse, young families are not welcome.
And we get a lot of dirty looks and people don't want us there.
So there, but there are some places that are specifically for us, for families.
And the childless adults, they show up there too.
And they say, this is also for me.
There, nothing is not for me.
I'm too important.
Now you're at Disney World as an adult.
Okay, you obviously have disposable income, you obviously have time off work.
You could go anywhere.
If you're in the Senate, you have 389 vacation days a year.
You have more vacation days than there are days, apparently.
So you could go anywhere and enjoy yourself.
Why would you choose a place for families?
Why would you choose in your free time to go wait in lines with a bunch of eight year olds?
So, anyway.
Let's table that.
The point is that Lindsey Graham should be doing his job.
Instead, he's wandering around Disney World.
And TMZ has documented a lot of this kind of thing.
They're tracking down all of our elected representatives and finding out how they're enjoying their vacations in the middle of the shutdown.
They also have this report.
U.S. Representative Seth Magaziner's leaving political drama behind during his two week vacay, and he's replacing it with some good old fashioned reality TV drama.
Partial Government Shutdown Be Damned.
The congressman from Rhode Island announced last week he'll co host a watch party.
For the Real Housewives of Rhode Island, the newest edition of the long running Bravo franchise, when the show premieres April 2nd.
Again, a similar question why is a grown man watching Real Housewives?
That should be an impeachable offense already.
But more importantly, these people have not done their jobs.
And TMZ has a lot of coverage like this.
Congress on Vacation00:03:04
Members of Congress vacationing in Scotland and other places didn't do their job.
And they just get to leave.
They get to not do their job and just go on vacation.
I mean, do you understand?
I'm sure you do understand how screwed up that is.
Like, to put this into perspective, I'm a podcaster.
I'm not in charge of anything.
I have no power.
And yet, even I can't just go on vacation and leave work undone if it needs to be done.
Like, I'm actually going on vacation in a couple of weeks.
I have to do extra work ahead of time and pre record content and stuff like that so that I can go on vacation because we have sponsors, we have.
Financial responsibilities, and I can't just up and leave.
I can't abandon my post like that.
And my post is a podcast.
And yet, members of Congress can abandon theirs during a war, during a shutdown, air travel crisis, elections still unsecured.
And they can just get up and leave.
And then when we complain about it, they say, well, we want to, what are we supposed to do?
Knock on vacation?
Yeah.
Yeah, actually, you should just skip vacation.
In fact, you shouldn't have any vacations at all in the first place.
You barely work as it is.
How many workdays a year do members of Congress even have?
Now, I've had this conversation with people in Congress, and many times they'll say that, well, that.
Yeah, we get a bad rap because if you look at our work schedule, yeah, we're only spending so much time in DC, but the rest of the time we're in our districts.
Yeah, and what are you doing there?
You're not doing anything there.
You're not actually doing anything most of the time, and you know it.
So you're spending most of your time, what?
Going to fundraisers and, you know, sitting in meetings or whatever.
You're not doing anything.
It's totally outrageous.
And that's why I'm happy that TMZ is getting into the politics beat.
Which apparently they've, it seems like they've pivoted very hard and very kind of suddenly into politics.
And I think that that's a great thing.
And I'll tell you why it's great.
Well, it signals two things.
Now that you have TMZ tracking down politicians, tracking down random congressmen and taking pictures of them when they're on vacation, it signals two things.
One, it signals that Hollywood is over, movie stars, that kind of celebrity is done.
Because that's obviously one of the reasons TMZ is making this pivot, is because nope, there are no like celebrities anyone cares about anymore.
And there aren't that many movie stars left.
And so their whole thing of the normal paparazzi deal just doesn't work anymore.
And so they got to find something.
So, but then also, most of these politicians get into this because they want to be famous.
That's why they're there.
And so I think it's about time.
Okay, you want to be famous?
The Right to Dignified Death00:11:54
Here you go.
You can't complain about it and say, oh, I'm on vacation.
I'm in my personal time.
Why are you tracking me down?
Hey, you want to be famous, you want to be on TV all the time.
This is what you wanted.
Well, here's the part, you know, there's the other part of fame that really sucks.
And now you're going to get that part too, where you don't get privacy and anything you do at any time can be documented and potentially misconstrued and people are going to have opinions about it.
You don't have a personal life anymore.
Comes with the territory.
So this is what you wanted.
Now you can have it.
All right.
Let's see.
I'll briefly mention this.
There's a story from last week that we never had a chance to talk about.
Didn't have a show on Friday, and we only had an abbreviated show last Thursday.
It's worth talking about, even though it's one of the most horrifically depressing stories ever.
And that's Noelia Ramos, the young woman in Spain who was euthanized last week.
Euthanized after being injured in a gang rape attack by migrants.
She was not terminally ill, but she was injured and understandably deeply depressed.
And the solution the medical industry in Spain and the Spanish government came up with was to put her down like a dog.
And so they did.
And here's the latest New York Post Noelia Castilla Ramos made headlines around the world when she died by euthanasia at the tender age of just 25 on Thursday, so last Thursday.
The paralyzed gang rape victim had fought her own father for two years in a lengthy legal battle that reached the country's highest courts before she won the right to end her own life.
Tragically, despite his unwavering determination to keep his daughter alive, her father had stopped calling her or visiting her the days before her death.
The young woman left paraplegic after her suicide attempt in 2022, said in a TV interview hours before her death, Why does he want me alive just so I can stay in the hospital?
And, um, And so the father fought to keep her alive and lost the battle.
So it's just horrifying beyond all comprehension.
Can't even imagine what the father's going through standing alone in this fight to prevent his daughter from being euthanized, having to fight the state and the doctors and everybody.
And it's also impossible to imagine what the young lady, Noelia, was experiencing raped by a pack of migrants, abandoned by the institutions that should have been there to protect her, left believing that her only recourse was to be killed, which is what should have happened to the rapist, should have been executed, not her.
I mean, this is where we are now, where rather than executing the migrant rapists, we're executing their victims.
It's so dark.
It's so unfathomably awful.
And in many ways, in the darkest way, it's a perfect illustration of what's happening in the West.
A woman raped by migrants, and the only recourse, the only justice she's given, is to be put down, to be killed, to be discarded, to exercise her so called right to die.
We hear that phrase a lot.
Right to die.
I mean, we heard it just in that article I read.
Think about how grotesque that is right to die.
And this is the point that if we don't, as a country and a civilization, unequivocally affirm the right to live, then the only other alternative is the right to die.
Life and death.
I mean, this is the ultimate binary, it's inescapable.
It's one or the other.
And what we're finding out is that if you don't have the right to one, you have the right to the other.
A right to death, a right to not be.
You don't have a right to be necessarily, but you have a right to not be.
This is the alternative that we've chosen in the West.
And it's morally deranged and it doesn't make any sense logically.
Because here's the thing about this that I always think about that even if I agreed that people have some kind of moral right to kill themselves, which I don't, euthanasia would not be needed to exercise that quote unquote right.
This is one of the aspects of this conversation that one of the many that makes no sense, and I don't hear brought up very often because there's no way to put it that isn't crude.
And it could be misinterpreted as though you're encouraging people to harm themselves, which you're not.
But it is kind of like, well, I have a right to commit suicide.
Well, okay, but then why do we need a whole?
You can already do that.
That's one of the few things that anyone can do.
You shouldn't.
You can already end your own life.
So if you're claiming you have a right to do it, like no one can actually stop you.
Even when there are laws against suicide, which in many places there are, you can't really enforce it.
Clearly.
The idea that people need some kind of state sponsored system just to commit suicide is totally incoherent on its own terms.
And those terms are totally deranged because, in truth, again, there is no moral right to suicide.
But that's almost a separate question, or at least it's further downstream, because when it comes to euthanasia, the first and most immediate question is not whether people have the right to harm themselves, which they don't.
That's not the first question.
The first question is whether the state and the medical industry have the right to intentionally harm innocent people.
Should doctors be in the business of deliberately killing humans?
Should we have a bureaucracy for suicide?
Those are the real questions.
And even if you, this is the point, that even if you wrongly think that humans have a moral right.
To murder themselves, you should still be able to see why doctors and bureaucrats ought to not have a role in that.
And here's my other question again, this is the points that are hard to make without sounding crude.
But if suicide is death with dignity, which we're told that it is, this is what they say death with dignity, as if there's something undignified about dying.
A natural death?
Because if euthanasia is death with dignity, then obviously that implies that the other kind of death is undignified.
If somebody does have a terminal illness and they die of the illness rather than ahead of time of euthanasia, it's somehow undignified.
Is that what we're saying?
Apparently so.
But if killing yourself is death with dignity, then how exactly is it more dignified to be put down like a dog?
In some sterile room under fluorescent lights, after filling out paperwork, than to do it yourself completely on your own terms without dragging accomplices into it and asking for their permission ahead of time.
Now, again, I categorically, unequivocally reject the idea that any form of suicide is dignified or ever okay or ever advisable or ever the right move.
I'm anti that in any iteration whatsoever.
I'm just pointing out that even if you accept the extraordinary premise that suicide can be more dignified than a natural death, it still would not follow that euthanasia should be legalized.
I mean, when you look for any kind of historical analog, there have been, unfortunately, societies across the world, even back in ancient times, that have believed wrongly.
In committing suicide in some cases to preserve your dignity, to preserve your honor.
That is something that has historical precedent.
It's wrong, but there's historical precedent for it.
But what you notice is that in all of those cases, Japan, the seppuku, the ritual suicide, the thing that supposedly made it honorable and supposedly made it dignified was that you were doing it by your own hand.
And often in a way that was deliberately more painful than a natural death would have been.
So, this, this, and that was wrong, but ours is the first society in history to suggest that being euthanized clinically in the exact way that stray dogs are put down and by someone else's hand, not your own, is the dignified way to go out.
We're the first ones to ever come up with that idea.
And it's incoherent.
It fails even by its own logic.
And you find this with leftist ideas all the time that, you know, whether we're talking about abortion or we're talking about euthanasia or we're talking about transgenderism or any of their craziest and darkest and most depraved ideas, what you find is that their argument rests on.
A premise and the premise itself is wrong, but their argument is so bad that even if you accepted their premise, even if you kind of, for the sake of argument, said, okay, I'll buy that, it still would not lead you to the conclusion that.
That they want to lead you to.
And that's the case here.
Where the ultimate position they're trying to justify, which is the legalized killing of patients by doctors in a manner, again, totally identical to how we put down dogs.
That's what they're trying to get.
That's the position they're trying to.
Trying to support.
And yet, this all rests on a premise that, which is that, you know, suicide is dignified sometimes.
That even if we accepted that, as crazy as that is, it still would not vindicate their actual position.
That's what we find.
So they're wrong.
They're so wrong that even if they were right, they'd still be wrong.
That's how wrong they are.
And that will do it for the show today.
We'll leave it there.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
I do believe that if people have committed treason against the United States of America, their statues should not be in the Capitol.
History is written by the victors.
And since the 1960s, we've been told, mostly by people whose ancestors didn't even live here during the war, that the South committed treason.
Treason and Confederate Statues00:00:41
But if the Confederates were traitors, then why was Jefferson Davis never put on trial for treason?
What were Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson afraid of?
Do they know something they're not allowed to say today?
It's time for the truth.
So here it is.
Robert E. Lee was a military genius and a man of immense honor.
He was beloved by Americans from the North and South for a century after the war.