All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 8, 2026 - The Matt Walsh Show
01:13:10
Ep. 1763 - INSANE: How Gavin Newsom's Entire Political Career Is About To Be Destroyed... By His Wife

I looked into Jennifer Newsom's background and she just keeps getting crazier. She may just totally derail her husband's political ambitions. Republicans betray their voters with an amnesty bill. And a mother was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant released by the Biden administration. When will he hold these politicians accountable for the deaths of thousands of Americans? Ep. 1763 - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMemberExclusive - - - Today's Sponsors: Boll & Branch - Get 15% off your first order + free shipping at https://BollAndBranch.com/walsh with code walsh. Pocket Hose - Text WALSH to 64000 to get a FREE pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of ANY size Copper Head hose. Message and data rates may apply. Grand Canyon University (GCU) - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://GCU.edu to learn more. Homeserve - Help protect your home. Visit https://homeserve.com to find the plan that's right for you. - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dwplus.watch/RealHistorySubscribe 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 📜 Real History with Matt Walsh is available ad-free, exclusively on DailyWire+ https://dwplus.watch/RealHistory 👕 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://dwplus.shop/MattWalshMerch - - - Socials:  Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Jennifer Newsom's Complicity 00:15:29
Imagine that you're Gavin Newsom.
You're clearly the frontrunner to be the Democrats' next nominee for president.
And in preparation for that role, you've done a lot of homework.
You've gone on Fox News several times for debates with Sean Hannity and Ron DeSantis to hone your skills against the opposition.
You've traveled to the Munich security conference to make it seem like you understand foreign policy, even though you just kind of awkwardly walk around the lobby and stare at Marco Rubio the entire time.
You've laughed or pretended to laugh at all the jokes about how you look and act like the guy in American Psycho.
And you've even launched a podcast where you sit down with conservatives, including Steve Bannon, so that you come across as a moderate candidate who can carry a conversation with anyone, even the people you're going to throw in prison if you ever get the chance to do so.
So you've gone to great lengths to create a very specific image for the sole purpose of clearing the field and becoming the undisputed choice of the Democrat Party for president.
Then, after all that effort, imagine that your wife, Jennifer Sable Newsom, decides to go out in public and attract as much attention as possible.
She decides to become the most visible Newsom.
And go on her own speaking tour, even though she's not a public official and no one has any reason to care what she thinks about anything.
And to make matters worse, she decides that she wants the entire world to know about the time that she killed her sister with a golf cart accidentally.
And then, without any hesitation whatsoever, Jennifer Newsom states that this golf cart mishap, which she describes as completely unintentional, is totally analogous to the many violent crimes committed by inmates who are currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.
In other words, you're the leading Democrat presidential candidate.
And one day, your wife goes out in public and states that criminals in California's most hardcore prison are guilty of one thing and one thing only making the same kind of mistake that you did as a child when you ran over your own sister with a golf cart.
Now, unfortunately for Gavin Newsom, no one has to imagine this nightmare scenario.
His wife just went through with it live on camera.
Watch.
I had to be very raw when we interviewed the young men who were juvenile offenders in San Quentin.
I told them about my own loss, where.
I lost my older sister a few days before my seventh birthday, and I blame myself for her death.
And I share that because they ultimately were accused of committing these violent crimes and sentenced for life.
And I think it shocked them that this blonde lady who was interviewing them had a similar story, it was perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But wasn't punished the way they were because clearly it was an accident, but theirs was probably an accident too.
So, anyway, I share that just because I guess.
You know, I quite enjoy spending time with people and being real and unmasking and showing them that it's safe to unmask themselves.
Beautiful.
Beautiful.
Now, Gavin Newsom may not be the smartest politician, despite what he thinks of himself, but even with that handicap in mind, there's no way he didn't throw something at the television when he saw this.
I mean, it's the single most stereotypical on the nose statement possible from an affluent white liberal woman.
The idea is that criminals, even violent criminals who are incarcerated in California, a state that goes out of its way, To allow criminals to do whatever they want, aren't actually guilty of anything.
They don't have free will, and therefore they certainly can't commit any crimes.
Instead, they're like Bob Ross.
They just commit happy little accidents.
There was an episode in that new Star Trek show that covered similar territory.
And there's a reason that no one other than liberal wine aunts watched that show.
Sane people don't infantilize violent criminals regardless of their mental state, we throw them in prison forever at a minimum.
But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered about the first part of Jennifer Newsom's remarks, where she talks about killing her own sister.
I mean, that's quite a thing to just say publicly, especially when your husband's trying to run for president.
Now, I'd never heard that story before, so I looked up some background information and I came across this article from the Los Angeles Times from a couple of years ago.
Quote, Didn't see her sister hiding behind her cart when it went backwards, killing the eight year old, she said.
The second eldest of five daughters, Sable Newsom, was raised in a wealthy conservative family in Marin County.
Now, reading that story, of course, I have no reason to doubt that this was indeed a horrible accident.
She was a child, it's a terrible tragedy, unimaginable.
And I wasn't there, so this is what we're told happened.
But at the same time, it also seems obvious that, or at least likely, that something criminal may have occurred here.
It's not about what seven year old Jennifer was doing.
It's more that if you allow your seven year old daughter to drive a golf cart with so little supervision that she runs over the child, kills her, then it would seem that we have some negligence here.
The parents' job is to make sure that something like that never happens.
And whether they're wealthy or not, the same rules should apply to everybody.
So, at a minimum, this would be a case of parental neglect, which to my knowledge was never charged.
Now, of course, it's a horrible story and it's the kind of thing I'd rather not talk about.
But Jennifer talks about it.
And she uses it, worst of all, to make a political point.
And worse than that, the political point she's making is evil.
I mean, it's nothing short of evil and deranged.
She wants to release violent criminals onto the public.
And she's using the death of her own sister as a cudgel to drive that point home.
The whole thing is unspeakably perverse in every imaginable way.
Or maybe Jennifer Newsom was trying to tell us something here.
Maybe she was trying to communicate that, like the violent inmates of San Quentin, she or her parents had indeed committed a criminal act on the day of that terrible golf cart accident.
It's hard to say.
But the more I looked into this woman, the more I came to the conclusion that no, she's not trying to tell us anything intelligent at all.
On the contrary, Jennifer Newsom possesses an extremely low IQ coupled with a narcissistic personality.
She is, in every respect, an existential threat.
To Gavin Newsom's campaign for the presidency.
And if they're smart, Republicans will do exactly what I'm about to do, which is to conduct a deep dive into her history, which is fair game because, again, she's out in public giving her point of view and also talking about the terrible aspects of her personal history.
But we need to, before we get into that, we need to play a couple of videos first from this woman's recent public appearances.
In addition to being entertaining, these clips could help explain why she's keeping such a high profile.
So, Here's one video from the other day where she talks about Christy Nome and Pam Bondi leaving the Trump administration.
Watch.
Trust me, I'm not a fan of Pam Bondi nor Christy Nome.
But I need to call out that it's no surprise to me that the first two prominent people pushed out of this administration were women.
Let me explain.
The conservative women that Trump handpicks, who align themselves with an agenda that controls women, restricting our rights, limiting our autonomy, and pushing us back into this straitjacket of femininity.
That is only in service of men, there's a familiar pattern here.
Women are brought in, packaged Mar-a-Lago style, and lifted up as long as they commit to wholeheartedly serve the interests of the patriarch at the top.
Now, it looks like power, or proximity to power with a big title, but it never comes with job security and protection.
There's no secure place inside this hand-picked patriarchal body that systemically disrespects, devalues, and discriminates against women and girls.
And this is where complicity comes in.
Because when you align yourself with that value system with a leader who has publicly devalued women, degraded them and been found liable of abusing women, women.
Well, guess what?
You're going to be the first to go.
Well, it's yet another dumb and insufferable video, which is why it's making the rounds on X.
But I don't think people on X are the intended audience of this clip.
I mean, I could be wrong about this, but it seems like Jennifer's putting out this kind of content as part of a deliberate strategy by the Newsom team to appeal to women.
It wouldn't exactly be a stretch.
Everything about Gavin Newsom's operation is highly choreographed and calculated.
These are extremely cynical and strategic people we're talking about here.
So it seems reasonable to conclude that Newsom's wife is posting these videos to appeal to women.
Easily the most left wing radicalized demographic in the electorate.
And while conservatives are laughing, liberal women are eating this stuff up.
But again, something in the video caught my attention.
She's attacking Donald Trump for sex stuff or something along those lines.
But if you know anything about her own personal history, it comes across as an extremely fake, strained line of argument.
As it turns out, Jennifer Sable Newsome claimed that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her in 2005.
But importantly, she did not make that allegation publicly for more than a decade.
Instead, she kept up friendly communication.
With Weinstein.
In fact, two years after the alleged rape in 2007, Newsom's wife again contacted Weinstein for advice on how to handle a sex scandal involving her husband, Gavin Newsom.
Watch.
Jurors in the trial here in L.A. of Harvey Weinstein will be allowed to hear the details of an email sent to Weinstein by the wife of Governor Newsom.
Defense lawyers say Jennifer Siebel Newsom sent the email to Weinstein in 2007 when she was dating the future governor who was then mayor of San Francisco.
She wanted advice about dealing with the media amid a sex scandal involving Gavin Newsom.
California's first partner is among the dozens of women who have accused Weinstein of sexual assault.
Well, this is more than a little bit suspicious, obviously.
If somebody sexually assaults you, then I would think you probably aren't going to reach out to that person two years later as a friend seeking advice.
You're seeking wisdom and advice from your rapist.
We were led to believe.
But that's what Newsom's wife did, and she did it constantly.
Quoting from The Guardian, Weinstein's defense attorneys spent hours going through nearly 70 emails Sable Newsom exchanged with Weinstein in the months and years after the alleged attack.
They contrasted her bright tone and multiple requests for in person business meetings with Weinstein in New York and at film festivals in Toronto and Keynes with her testimony that she had felt fear in her subsequent interactions with Weinstein.
The defense attorneys noted her signatures on different Emails Weinstein received, including warm regards and XX, and flagged that she had once responded within eight minutes to an email from Weinstein about finding a time to meet in New York.
Sable Newsom said she simply did not remember sending most of the emails.
I sent hundreds of thousands of emails to people, she testified.
So that's a little unusual.
She's sending extremely friendly, very friendly, warm messages to Weinstein, hitting him up for campaign contributions.
After he allegedly sexually assaulted her.
Could you ever imagine doing that?
Sending any kind of friendly email to someone who sexually assaulted you, but ending it with XX?
Hugs and kisses.
She also changed some important details of her story after the fact.
Her trial testimony was different from her previous interviews.
She only surfaced with her final version of the story more than a decade later at the precise moment it became politically beneficial to claim to be a victim.
So, this is called a reasonable doubt, and it's why, after Jennifer Newsom testified against Harvey Weinstein, the jury could not reach a verdict on her claims.
Watch.
We're also following developments for you down in Southern California where a verdict reached in the second sexual assault trial of Harvey Weinstein.
The disgrace movie Mogul was found guilty of rape and assault.
Involving a woman known as Jane Doe No. 1, but he was acquitted of another count, and the jury could not reach a verdict on several others, including charges involving Governor Newsom's wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
Weinstein is already serving a 20 year sentence after being convicted of rape and sexual assault in New York.
Within the past hour, Siebel Newsom issued the statement on the verdict, writing, Throughout the trial, Weinstein's lawyers used sexism, misogyny, and bullying tactics to intimidate, demean, and ridicule us survivors.
This trial was a stark reminder that we As a society, we have work to do.
To all survivors out there, I see you, I hear you, and I stand with you.
Now, again, I can't take any position on the merits of the allegations, but it's hard not to suspect we have a Jeffrey Epstein situation here.
So there's a horrible guy who is guilty of several serious crimes, many serious crimes.
But at the same time, because the guy's so horrible, it's a free fire zone for women to come in and claim they were victims and receive an endless stream of positive press and money in many cases.
And then we call them survivors.
If they happen to have a documentary business, which Newsom's wife did, then the publicity is obviously a big help.
What could have actually happened here, and I don't know this, but it's a theory one might formulate, is that Jennifer had a consensual sexual relationship with a repulsive ogre named Harvey Weinstein because she thought it would help her professionally at the time.
And then later she decided it would help her more professionally to claim that he raped her.
I mean, that seems like the other possibility, and you might argue that it's more plausible.
Now, it's not exactly difficult to imagine Newsom's wife pulling off a scam like this either.
As it stands, she uses her business operations, which are supposedly nonprofits, to enrich herself.
This is reporting from the Daily Mail IRS documents from recent years show Gavin Newsom's wife has been paying herself and her company, Girls Club LLC, up to a third of her nonprofit's entire income each year, pocketing over $3.7 million from 2012 to 2023, the nonprofit's most recent figures.
Sable Newsom 51 runs the.
Representation Project, a charity that fights against intersectional gender stereotypes and harmful gender norms.
The organization brings in between $1 million and $1.7 million a year in grants and donations, with roughly $300,000 of it going straight to her and her company in recent years, according to financial records.
Now, if you look into other nonprofits in the state, almost none of them work like this.
Around 95% of the charities and nonprofits in the state, which are comparable in size to Newsom's, pay their executives less than this.
That's according to an analysis conducted by the Daily Mail.
So she's making an awful lot for a nonprofit.
Who exactly is paying her millions of dollars to fight against intersectional gender stereotypes?
I mean, they couldn't possibly be large institutions that are seeking to garner favor with her husband, who's the governor of the state.
Banning Transgender People 00:07:55
I mean, that couldn't be what this is all about.
This could not just be an elaborate money laundering scheme so that rich people can funnel money.
To the Newsom family through this total bull nonprofit that doesn't do anything.
The article continues Ethics questions have been repeatedly raised over the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to the charity by companies which then received millions in California taxpayer money.
ATT donated $185,000 to the represented project from 2017 through 2020 and received $260 million from the state of California in 2021.
The company also gave $100,000 to Newsom's inauguration fund in 2019.
And executive Ken McNeely gave $10,000 to the governor's campaign in 2018.
Media firm Comcast donated $15,000 over the same period.
And received $20 million, while healthcare company Kaiser Permanente donated $20,000 in 2018 and in 2019 received $172 million.
Now, by itself, this should disqualify Gavin Newsom from ever holding elected office.
Everyone knows his wife runs a useless charity.
They just throw a bunch of buzzwords around.
And there's no reason for this charity to receive massive donations from telecommunications companies and big pharma unless those companies are trying to buy favors from the administration.
It's utterly corrupt.
These people are simply too dumb and I think too arrogant to hide it.
And that's why, if they get into office, they'll do what the Biden administration did they'll lock down social media.
You know, Newsom's wife has admitted that her plan and her husband's plan, by extension, is to censor Americans and, in particular, children who might become right wing.
Watch.
I'll give you one example look at tech at Silicon Valley.
Had more women been Early on in those companies or at the tables of power making decisions, I don't think we would have so much or have allowed for so much sort of bigotry, racism, misogyny, and hate online.
I don't think that we would have the anonymity of it.
I think that there would have been a, ooh, that's unkind.
That's not okay.
You can't make money off of that, about dividing people, misinforming people, you know, belittling people, bullying people.
I mean, again, think about who's the victims online more often than not.
It's women, LGBTQ, marginalized communities, women of color.
We're working on legislation to hold tech companies accountable and help them be a force for good in our kids' and families' lives, to really provide all the best in class resources and support for youth so that they don't go down this rabbit hole of very, very dangerous and limiting narratives around ultimately what it means to be a girl and what it means to be a girl.
A boy.
We owe it to them and ourselves to kind of heal this gift of modern technology, but curb it to be a force for good.
I mean, look, the Gov and I, we have three more years.
We're trying to institutionalize our values so that they carry on beyond our term.
It's all very reminiscent of the NPR CEO, who you may have forgotten about, but she's the one who delivered that infamous line at one of her TED Talks where she says that the truth isn't really that important.
What's necessary, she says, is consensus.
Just to refresh your memory, here it is again.
I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.
This is why Gavin Newsom and his wife would happily ban you from all social media and throw you in prison if you dare to say that a man can't really become a woman.
Now, sure, you might be telling the truth, but the truth doesn't matter to women like this.
What matters is that everybody gets along.
And that is, of course, everyone agrees with her.
Everybody else should be silenced.
That's why, if you're a parent and your child flees to California to undergo life altering castration and gender mutilation, then Gavin Newsom's California will take custody of your child.
They'll call you a bigot while they destroy your child's life and yours.
What I find interesting about the Newsom's is that they both relentlessly promote liberal leftist ideologies that are corrosive to family formation and undermine traditional values.
However, at the same time, they've been in a heterosexual marriage for roughly 20 years.
And they have four children together.
By those measures, they are more trad in terms of their own lifestyle than many Americans are.
Even a lot of conservatives aren't married with four kids.
Now, of course, Gavin Newsom is on his second marriage, and his wife has the Weinstein stuff in her past.
But in terms of their current relationship, at some level, it has more of the hallmarks of a traditional marriage than certainly many other politicians.
But that's not a credit to them, actually, because what it tells me is the Newsomes know.
That the traditional family model is the best.
That's why they chose it when they both could have chosen anything else.
But as elites, they still promote insidious ideologies that end up harming the ordinary people who listen to them.
So the rest of you should not have stable nuclear families, but of course they want one.
Why wouldn't they want one?
It works best, it makes you happy.
Of course, they want one for themselves.
So it's the perfect illustration for them of luxury beliefs.
And it's also why, despite what you may have gathered from this monologue, I truly believe that Gavin Newsom's wife is great.
She's awesome.
I mean, without irony, I really think she's an incredible woman for one reason that she's the perfect feminist.
Not only because she's constantly out babbling about how men are evil, but also because her husband is trying to achieve something great, becoming president.
Wouldn't be great for the country, but that would be a great accomplishment for an individual.
And she's determined to put herself at the center of the story.
And destroy his dream in the process.
If Newsom's presidential ambitions are dashed, which hopefully they are, his wife will be one of the primary reasons for that.
It's great.
It's also a very instructive, cautionary tale for young men.
And the moral of the story is never marry a feminist, she will ruin your life, guaranteed.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Apparently getting a decent night's sleep now requires adding a hundred useless things to your bed.
You need the right pillow, the right gadget, the right app to track how poorly you're sleeping.
It's all very scientific and very exhausting.
And guess what?
You probably don't need any of it.
All you need is a solid pair of sheets and bedding, but you don't always realize how bad your box store sheets have gotten until you finally replace them.
That's why you need to upgrade to our sponsor, Bowl and Branch.
If your sheets are pilling, thinning, slipping off the mattress, or making you overheat at night, that's your sign.
Bowl and Branch's signature sheets are made from 100% organic cotton.
And they're actually designed to hold their shape, stay breathable, and feel luxuriously soft night after night.
You'll fall asleep faster, stay comfortable all night long, and notice the difference the moment you get into bed.
My wife and I have had their signature sheets on our bed for a while now, and they're worth it.
I was very skeptical of the idea that they get softer with every wash, but time has proved me wrong.
They really are phenomenal quality and comfort combined.
Plus, they don't wear out instantly like box store sheets do.
Upgrade your sleep with Bowl and Branch.
Mass Deportations Option 00:11:51
Get 15% off first order.
Plus, free shipping at bowlandbranch.comslash Walsh.
With Code Walsh, that's Boland Branch, B O L L A N D Branch.com slash Walsh.
Code Walsh to unlock 15% off.
Exclusions apply.
All right, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this today because I'm planning to do a big monologue deep dive into it tomorrow.
So we'll spend a lot of time on it tomorrow.
It deserves a lot of time, but I do want to mention it.
Mention this as the ceasefire takes effect in Iran, of course, as I'm sure you heard.
A ceasefire that I hope holds.
I hope it leads to lasting peace.
I think it's too early to say whether that will be the case.
I pray that it is.
I think every American prays that that's what will happen.
And I pray especially that we can now get back to focusing on the United States, on our country, our home, because we have huge problems here.
And a significant amount of Trump's second term has been focused on issues abroad, on things happening in foreign countries.
And I want to bring the attention back here.
Starting with this that the party, which is supposed to be pro sovereignty, pro border, often is not.
And that's why Maria Salazar, a Republican, has introduced an amnesty bill, a bill that a number of other Republicans have already signed on to.
It's an amnesty bill called the Dignity Act.
And that name is already bad enough because the dignity alluded to in the name of the bill is for the illegal aliens, not for us, not for Americans.
But it's worse than that because the actual name of the bill.
Which I'm not making up, this is the actual name, is the Dignidad Act, which is dignity in Spanish.
So, this Hispanic lawmaker has introduced an amnesty bill with a Spanish name.
I mean, that's how shameless these people are.
And that's how much they hate you.
That's how little respect they have for you.
And now Salazar is all over the place screaming that this is not an amnesty bill.
It's not going to give amnesty.
Anyone who says it's an amnesty bill is lying, she says.
But of course, she's lying.
And we'll get into the text of the bill tomorrow with much more specificity.
But she is lying, I'll tell you that.
And she's gaslighting, she's misdirecting.
Because one of the ways you know that it's an amnesty bill, I mean, reading it is the one way to find out.
Another way is to listen to her talk about it.
Listen to her own words.
Like this, for example.
Listen.
We give them dignity.
At some point in the future, another legislator will write another law to give them a path to citizenship.
Right now, what we need to do is to buy peace for these people, allow them to stay, to continue working because they are needed.
So, even by her own admission, by her own sales pitch, this is a bill that is intended to keep the illegal aliens around so that someone else will give them amnesty.
Now, it's actually worse than that.
And we'll get it as we'll see.
But her own pitch for the bill is that what she's saying, this is her like putting as positive a spin on it as she can, is that we keep them here and then we wait for the Democrats to amnesty them.
And Salazar says we need to do that because we have all these illegal aliens here and it's our only choice.
You know, so we got it, we have to do it.
And it's the dignified approach.
But that's obviously not true.
There is another option, there is another choice.
See, the illegal immigration issue, as I am always saying, is actually not difficult.
It's actually not complicated.
It's not complex.
It's not really nuanced.
It's not.
It's not some, it's a big problem.
But not all big problems are complicated.
In fact, I would even say most of them are not.
On a national societal scale, most of the big problems that we face are big in terms of their scope and their ramifications.
And their consequences, they are not complicated though.
They're actually pretty simple.
Like we always talk about with violent crime, violent crime is a big problem.
There's a lot of it, it's big in scope.
It's not complicated, it's actually very easy.
You arrest the violent criminals, you put them in jail, andor you execute them.
Problem solved, right?
I mean, that's how you solve that problem.
Pretty simple.
And illegal immigration is the same way, it's a simple equation.
And it goes like this.
If you came here illegally, you need to leave.
That's it.
End of story.
But what if they've been here for 10 years?
They got to go.
What if they've been here for 20 years?
They got to go.
What if they haven't committed any other crimes?
They got to go.
What if they have a family?
They got to go.
What if they're really nice people?
Well, great.
I'm glad they're nice, but they got to go.
It's not hard.
We have laws in this country.
You broke the law.
You don't belong here.
You're not a citizen.
Nothing personal, really, but get out.
It shouldn't be hard for elected Republicans to articulate this point.
And if they do have trouble articulating it, this exact point if you're an illegal immigrant, you got to go.
If they have trouble saying that, or if they say the opposite, then they also have to go, at least to leave from office.
But if we kick them out of the country too, I'd love that as well.
And that's not complicated either.
And yet, this is what we're getting from Republicans the Save Act is not passed.
And instead, so we said, hey, can you do the SAVE Act and protect our elections from foreigners who come here and have no right to vote?
And Republicans said, no, we can't do that.
But what we could do is amnesty.
How about that?
And, you know, this is every new crop of Republicans we get in there, they run on deportations, they run on border security, they run on national sovereignty.
And then once they get into power, they say, well, but we can't actually do that.
This is the same process, the same thing with every issue with Republicans, really.
They run, they say, we're going to do this, and then they get in, and it's like, well, we can't really do that.
We can't really, we can't actually do that.
Why can't you?
Why can't you do it?
What's the reason?
No, you can, you just don't want to.
You don't want to because your donors don't want you to, and that's it.
It's that simple.
Now, when you say we can't do it, what you mean is that you can't do it while keeping your donors happy.
That's what you mean.
You forgot the second part of that sentence.
And this is why, as I say, I'm happy the ceasefire is in place.
Hopefully, it stays in place.
Now we need to obsessively focus on our own country.
And Trump is going to need to take drastic action in our country, in our borders.
As I've said all along, the Iran war was, hopefully, was risky, politically unpopular, drastic.
I mean, even if you were a proponent of the war, you must, if you're a reasonable person, agree that it's.
Going to war at all, there's a lot of risk.
I mean, the polls say it was politically unpopular.
It just simply was with the majority of Americans.
And anytime you go to war, it's a drastic action.
Well, my point is look, if you're going to do something risky, politically unpopular, and drastic, make it this mass deportations.
I mean, mass deportations.
Everyone, all illegal aliens, all of them, every single one.
Because I will fully admit, That doing that politically is risky.
It might prove to be unpopular.
It might not prove to be unpopular, but it could be.
I'm not one of these conservatives who says, oh no, everyone will love it.
It'll be totally fine.
You get 80% approval.
It won't be that popular.
It could end up, depending on how it goes, and we know the media would go into overdrive.
The media already went, I mean, just deporting people who we know are criminals and sex offenders and fraudsters, we know what the media did.
So, if you're really doing mass deportations, like deporting illegal aliens by the millions, including tons of them that never committed another crime aside from coming here illegally, the media would treat it like a nuclear holocaust.
And it's quite likely that that would work politically.
Still needs to be done.
It needs to be done.
Because if Trump's not going to do it, then nobody ever will.
And for that, I'm willing to accept the political consequences.
And I think millions of Americans are.
I'm not necessarily convinced that it will result in a blue wave bloodbath.
It could.
And even if it does, it's worth it.
Because it just has to be done.
And as I said, if Trump doesn't do it, then whoever will?
And if we're going to be using political capital on something huge, something huge, then it should be this.
And also defying the judges all along the way who say you can't do that.
It's just like Congress said, hey, you can't go to war without congressional approval.
And constitutionally, they've got a pretty good argument.
And the argument for the other side is basically, yeah, but we're going to, because that's what people have been, that's what presidents have been doing for a while now.
Okay, what about that attitude with these judges?
The judges could step in and say, Yeah, you can't do that.
Yeah, it's okay, but we're going to.
We're just going to do it.
We're just going to do it because it needs to be done.
And let the chips fall where they may.
Whatever happens next, happens next.
This episode is brought to you by Pocket Hose, the world's number one expandable hose.
Springs here, and that means it's time to get your garden or yard ready again.
But nothing slows you down faster than an old hose that kinks, twists, blocks your water flow, or frankly just irritates you.
That's where the pocket hose copperhead comes in.
Its clever 360 degree pocket pivot keeps the water running smooth no matter where you move, so you can water every flower bed and hanging basket with ease.
When you're done, it shrinks right back to pocket size for neat, effortless storage.
Rust proof, anti burst, and so lightweight you can carry it with one hand makes every watering job feel easy.
Plus, it's built to last with a sturdy design and a 10 year warranty that'll see you through many springs to come.
Once you use it, you'll wonder how you ever garden without it.
The brand new pocket hose copperhead with pocket pivot is a total Game changer.
This product is really cool because it makes yard work so much easier.
You don't end up spending half a day in a wrestling match with an annoying rubber hose, making your time outside more about spending time with family instead of an MMA experience.
For a limited time, my listeners get a free pocket pivot and their 10 pattern sprayer.
Policies Causing Deaths 00:05:02
The purchase of any size Copperhead hose just text Walsh to 64,000.
That's Walsh to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase Walsh to 64,000.
Message data rates may apply.
See terms for details.
One of the reasons it must be done is because of stories like this from the New York Post.
A Haitian illegal immigrant released into the U.S. by the Biden administration's lax immigration policies allegedly bludgeoned a Florida mother at a gas station in a brazen daylight attack.
Robert Joaquin, 40, is accused of striking the 51 year old woman multiple times, leaving her to die in the parking lot outside of a gas station.
She was pronounced dead at the scene.
And now he's been arrested.
He's from Haiti.
This was someone that, as it said, the Biden administration had this person and released them.
And it's just horrific.
Now, first of all, Biden administration officials are responsible for countless American deaths.
I mean, the Biden administration was essentially a terrorist organization.
And they should all be arrested and charged and put on trial like Nuremberg and given the requisite punishments.
I mean, these were traitors who did everything they could to flood our cities with as many psychotic, violent criminals as possible.
They are directly responsible for countless deaths, untold suffering.
It's not an extreme stance at all.
What they did was extreme, intentionally releasing.
Hundreds, thousands of horrifically violent criminals from all over the world into the general population.
It's a crime against humanity.
They should all be on trial.
Every Biden official should be in leg irons, sitting in a cell right now, starting with the old, senile, sickly man himself.
And anyone said, well, he's going to die soon.
He has cancer.
He should die in a jail cell.
That's where he should die.
And if you think that I'm going too far, the video of this attack is online.
You can go watch it.
I don't really recommend it, but it's online.
I saw it.
I didn't want to see it.
Popped up.
I saw it.
That's a direct, direct consequence.
Of the Biden administration and Biden himself and Biden officials.
They are the reason why this woman was bludgeoned to death with a hammer in a gas station parking lot in broad daylight.
And she's one of countless other victims.
We all know that Democrats will spend the rest of Trump's life trying to put him in prison.
Meanwhile, Democrat officials are releasing hammer wielding Haitian madmen on the public.
And not a single one of them will ever face.
Any punishment.
None of them will ever be held accountable.
None of them will ever have to answer for any of it.
And that's the difference in the two parties, really.
I think it's also worth noting that this victim was also an immigrant from, I believe, Bangladesh.
No indication she was an illegal immigrant, but she was an immigrant.
And the reason I point that out is just to make the obvious point, which is that once again, as always, Democrat policies ostensibly meant to help or protect certain communities actually harm that community directly as well.
We've seen this forever with the black community.
Every Democrat policy meant to help the black community, supposedly, has been an unmitigated disaster.
Every single one, the black community is in ruins, destroyed.
Not thanks entirely to policy failures, but certainly those policies didn't help at all.
They only made everything worse.
And the same thing here.
You know, the morbid irony is that violent immigrants released in the public tend very often to end up in areas, in communities with lots of other immigrants because they're poor areas.
And then those immigrants fall victim to it.
I mean, think about Irina Zarutska.
She was a Ukrainian refugee.
Now, she was killed not by an immigrant, it was an American, but by a violent offender unleashed on the public by Democrat policies.
Now, I'm not saying that this aspect of it is the main problem with Democrat immigration policies.
I'm not saying that, you know, Democrat immigration policies are primarily bad because of how they hurt immigrants.
It's primarily bad because of how it hurts our country.
But the point simply is that these policies are a disaster from the top to bottom, right?
I mean, all the way down for everybody.
Biological Female Category 00:10:27
Well, not all the way from the top, okay?
They're a disaster for everyone except Democrat politicians, Democrat officials, and their donors.
That group benefits.
Everybody else, everybody else is harmed.
There is no upside really for anyone else to include the people that the policies are allegedly intended to help.
And meanwhile, American citizens whose well being isn't even factored in, isn't even considered a factor at all, they are, of course, left with the shortest end of the stick.
My show is proud to be supported by Grand Canyon University, an affordable, private, nonprofit Christian university based in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
At GCU, academically rigorous, industry driven programs are built to provide you with practical skills and career readiness.
They believe education shouldn't be a privilege, but an affordable, Path forward.
Because of this, GCU has kept tuition at the same rate on a traditional campus for the past 17 years.
We'll continue that into the 26 27 academic year.
Plus, they awarded over $404 million in institutional GCU scholarships last year to support and encourage education.
Grounded in Christian truth, GCU works to empower the next generation to lead with integrity, serve with purpose, and help transform their communities.
So take action and find your purpose at GCU.
Visit gcu.edu to learn more.
I guess I'll mention this.
A couple weeks ago, the International Olympic Committee announced a new policy of flushing.
Officially declaring that only women, actual women, can compete in women's sports.
So it took them years to come to this conclusion.
The IOC spent years deliberating, trying to figure out if women have penises.
And finally, after years of careful thought and consideration, they decided that no, actually, they don't.
Women don't have penises.
Men don't create babies.
Men don't give birth.
They finally reached that conclusion.
And most people are happy, but Megan Rapineau, the female soccer player who is famous not for her athletic abilities, but for having a big mouth, she's not so happy.
And here's what she had to say Transgender Day of Visibility.
So we just want to wish our trans family the happiest of days.
We love you.
We see you.
We know how trying these times are for you right now.
And just wanted to take a moment to say that.
And Unfortunately, we have to say that all in the same breath as a really horrible rule that came out from the International Olympic Committee.
They've announced a new policy that they're calling.
I can't even believe they're calling it this because it has nothing to do with protecting women.
I feel like two people who played at the very highest level for every competition that you possibly could don't agree with this and never felt like this was an issue at all.
The protection.
Of the female bracketed women's category.
They're limiting people eligible to compete in the women's category to those who qualify as what they're calling quote unquote biological females.
This will require a once in a lifetime screening of all women's athletes for the SRY gene.
And if an athlete tests positive for this gene, they will have to compete in the male category.
We already know that biology.
As much as we want it to be just nice and clean and tight and perfectly in one category or another, it's not.
We know that.
So now what we're doing is subjecting everybody, all women, and all people who are identifying as women to this really invasive testing that only to me just says, like, oh, so we're just trying to whittle it down to a certain type of woman.
Is that what we're doing?
Like, that's really the whole game here.
Like, there's been, you know, they sort of like, Lost the battle on gay marriage and lost about all these things.
So it's just like, we're going to have this whole campaign for all these years to just hate trans people, which is such a small percentage of the population.
It's actually like on a single hand when we're talking about sports and just like thread the absolute tightest needle thread that you possibly could.
This committee is framing it as based in science, which it's not.
And this will ultimately just prevent people from competing within the women's.
Category that they feel like have an unfair advantage.
It's just really hateful.
By the way, the invasive test that she's talking about is a cheek swab.
And the certain type of woman that the IOC wants in the woman category is the type of woman that is a woman.
It's kind of like when we call something a tree, we're only referring to a certain type of tree, which is the type of tree that is a tree.
So the term tree is very exclusive, it's very discriminatory towards all the trees that are not trees.
By only calling trees trees, we are ostracizing rocks that are trees and fish that are trees.
It's kind of like that.
There's not much else to say about this.
I mean, not much else that needs to be said.
Megan Rapineau represents a dying ideology and not even a dying ideology so much as a, I mean, it's that, but it's also kind of like a mass psychosis, a mass delusion that has lifted for the most part.
There was a moment in time when a lot of people in the culture pretended to take people like Megan Rapineau seriously, a time when people pretended that there was some kind of good argument for allowing men into women's sports.
Nobody ever explained what the argument was.
Nobody ever made a good argument, but lots of people pretended.
And I think that hallucination has lifted.
And once it lifts, this is why rapino is kind of a fruitless endeavor.
Because once it lifts, there's no going back to it, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Right.
It's kind of like I was thinking about this today.
Somebody mentioned on X that NFTs, remember the little monkey pictures?
A few years ago, these monkey pictures were selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars around the same time that the trans craze was in full swing and the BLM craze and COVID.
It's like all these just the all of human society lost its mind, basically.
I mean, really.
And But NFTs were also a thing.
Nobody really knew why.
No one could explain it.
It's like, why are we doing this?
Why would you spend hundreds of thousands?
What is this?
And nobody could explain it.
It was just sort of happening.
And then it stopped.
And now the monkey picture sells for 19 cents in a paperclip.
And as an analogy for transgenderism, it's maybe a bit unhelpful.
Not much connecting trans ideology to NFTs, except just that people get swept up.
People are very susceptible to getting swept up into fads.
And that's ultimately what trans ideology was or is.
I mean, it existed prior to a few years ago, but its mass adoption, its mainstream acceptance was a fad.
And like most fads, nobody could rationally explain it or defend it.
Nobody who got carried away by it could really justify it.
And now the thing has faded.
Now, I will say, though, the fad could have become potentially a more permanent fixture of American culture.
It could have metastasized, to mix metaphors, if we hadn't fought back.
So it had a lot of the hallmarks of a fad, a very deranged fad, destroyed a lot of lives.
But with a fad like the kinds of jeans that somebody wears, that kind of comes and goes on its own.
This had to be.
Beaten back.
And it was successfully, and much to Megan Rapino's chagrin.
Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode.
There are a lot of perks to owning a home versus renting from a landlord.
But one of the things that most people dread about buying and owning a home are the expensive repairs that are bound to happen.
Regular homeowners insurance doesn't cover everyday repairs like plumbing failures and electrical issues, leaving you on your own to cover the repairs.
But now there's another option called HomeServe for as little as $4.99 a month.
You've got backup when things break.
Instead of frantically searching for a contractor in a panic, you could already be on the phone with HomeServe's 24 7 hotline, getting somebody scheduled.
HomeServe has a lot of different plans to choose from that covers different things.
Just pick a plan that fits your budget.
And when something goes wrong, all you got to do is call HomeServe and they will handle it.
They've been doing this for over 20 years, the network of 2,600 local contractors.
HomeServe could have been great when my wife and I first bought a house.
Instead of spending hours calling around for quotes and costs, could have just called HomeServe and Could have been one and done if we'd had it then.
Help protect your home systems and your wallet with HomeServe against covered repairs.
Plans started just $4.99 a month.
Go to homeserve.com to find the plan that's right for you.
That's homeserve.com.
Not available everywhere.
Most plans range from $4.99 to $11.99 a month for your first year.
Terms apply on covered repairs.
Well, yesterday we talked about a story that to me, narcissistically, seemed as though it had been written to antagonize and annoy me personally.
Here's another one of those.
This is from a woman named Zoe in The Guardian.
There's basically no chance.
And then there's a picture of her, too.
She's got like short hair.
I don't even need to see the article.
A woman named Zoe with short hair writing in The Guardian.
There's zero chance that I am going to agree with anything she says, no matter what the subject is.
And certainly not on this.
Searching the Infinite Universe 00:09:56
So she says, let's stop going into space.
There's nothing to see and no one to talk to.
It's absolutely self evident to me that space exploration is pointless.
And the more urgent the crises besetting the planet we live on, the more pointless it becomes.
I can see why people got excited about it in the 1960s, back when the world was young and we still thought they're Back when the world was young, in the 1960s?
When do you think the world came into being, Zoe?
Anyway, the world was created in 1900, according to Zoe.
The most serious opinion, however, has now settled on the where is everybody paradox, first framed by the physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950.
If there is intelligent life anywhere, why has it not sought to make contact?
Well, it's because there isn't.
There's nothing out there except planets infinitely less beautiful than this one we live on.
And blah, blah, blah.
She goes on for a while about why we shouldn't have space exploration.
I mean, first of all, as to her claim that there's no life anywhere, even if that were true, it wouldn't follow that we should not explore space.
But Yeah, talking about the Fermi paradox.
Well, the Fermi paradox is pretty stupid.
I mean, it's really quite dumb.
The fact that no life has contacted us and we haven't seen any does not even begin to indicate that we're alone in the universe.
The reason we haven't heard anything, I mean, aside from the fact that maybe we have heard something, I mean, we're assuming we haven't, but fine.
The reason is both distance and time.
You know, the universe is unfathomably vast.
And every time somebody makes this point, well, it's a parrot.
If there's something out there, why haven't we seen it?
It's like people say that you really have no idea how big the universe is.
Now, nobody has any firm idea, but some people just have not reflected on that at all.
It's like in your mind, you think the universe is as big as a large home that you rent on Airbnb or something.
Let me put this in perspective for you.
The Voyager space probe left Earth in the 70s, I think 1977.
It's currently 15 billion miles from Earth.
That's the farthest any man made object has ever gone.
Surrounding our solar system is something called the Oort cloud, which is like a really big debris field, basically.
It's like ice and rocks and stuff.
And Voyager, and this is just the surrounding our solar system, Voyager will not make it to the inner edge of that cloud for another 300 years, traveling at 38,000 miles an hour, which is 70 times faster than a commercial airline.
300 years to make it to this cloud.
It'll be another 30,000 years, yes, 30,000 years before it leaves the Oort cloud.
That's how big just this random cloud of dust around our solar system is.
Just to pass through it, it will take the Voyager longer than the entire history of human civilization.
Like, think about the time that's passed between the ancient Egyptians and us.
It's that times 10 just to get through this one little piece.
Of the universe.
Even when it gets through, it'd still be another 10,000 years before it makes it within the vicinity of another solar system.
So, if there is life just next door to us in the nearest solar system, our next door neighbor, if there is life, maybe the Voyager will find some indication of it in 40,000 years.
And even then, it probably won't actually find any indication because it's not exploring the solar system, it's just kind of passing by it.
I'm just saying the distances are incomprehensible.
I mean, they're so great that even if we could travel the speed of light, which we can't, obviously, probably never will, but if we could, it would still take 25,000 years to make it to the closest neighboring galaxy, like 100 billion galaxies in the universe that we know of, just to make it to the closest one.
This is, again, galactically, we're talking about next door to us.
And it would be 25,000 years, 300 lifetimes, traveling at a speed that's impossible.
So, why haven't we, as far as we know, been contacted by any Life in the universe?
Well, because everything is really, really, really far away.
I mean, that's actually the reason.
It always is funny to me when people kind of blow that off as, oh, come on, that's a lame excuse.
No, it's not.
I mean, that's the reason.
It's just, it's huge.
It's really big.
I don't know how else to put it.
It's like imagine if somebody told you that, told you about blue whales and you never heard of blue whales before.
They told you about the largest animals on earth and you never heard of them.
They said, there's blue whales.
You said, where are the blue whales?
And they said, oh, they're in the ocean.
And so you go to the Atlantic Ocean.
And you go to the Outer Banks, North Carolina, and you swim out into the surf, and you put on a snorkel and you swim a little bit farther, and you don't see any blue whales.
And so you come back to the shore and you say, Well, the whole blue whale story is a myth.
I mean, if these whales are really out there, why didn't I see one?
It's the blue whale paradox.
It's a paradox.
Yes, it's a paradox.
You say there are these big creatures out there, yet I was in the ocean for five minutes and I didn't see one.
It's a paradox.
It's a mystery.
I mean, the only way we can explain this is if there are actually no whales.
No, the reason you didn't see one is that the ocean is big.
That is the reason.
The ocean is really big, and there are comparatively few blue whales, but they are there.
It's just that your likelihood of seeing one when you inspect like half an acre of vast ocean is extremely small.
And this analogy doesn't even capture it because, of course, the universe is a zillion times bigger than the ocean.
But you get my point.
Like, if you went to the ocean for 30 minutes and actually saw a blue whale, That would be infinitely more shocking than not seeing one.
It'd be so shocking that I wouldn't believe you unless you got a picture of it.
You know, even though I know the whales are out there.
But the size of the ocean combined with the small amount of time you spent looking and the tiny space you searched makes actually seeing a whale really implausible.
Now, if you spent a decade searching over the entire ocean and you came back and said, I finally saw a blue whale, then I'd believe you.
Or if there was a blue whale in the In a tank at SeaWorld, you'd need a pretty big tank.
And you told me you searched that tank for 10 minutes and saw one, I believe you.
But a short time and a huge space, those factors together make seeing one really unlikely, or hearing one, or getting any glimpse of one at all.
And for us, the amount of time we spent looking for alien life or potentially able to receive communication is basically 30 minutes.
I mean, more like 30 seconds in the proportion to the age and size of the universe.
I mean, that's the other thing, too.
Earth could have received contact 10,000 years ago, and we wouldn't know it, right?
So we've only been searching and listening in this infinite expanse for a very, very short amount of time.
We're still a single lifetime, right?
The entire space age has only lasted for less than a lifetime.
One lifetime.
Okay.
The president of the United States was 10 years old when the first satellite was launched.
My dad is older than the oldest man made object currently orbiting the Earth, which is a US satellite that is out of commission and just space junk now.
But the point is, we just started.
We just started doing this.
That's what's so absurd about these people.
And this goes to a larger point.
These people will say, oh, we've been going to space forever.
Why?
Why?
We haven't even made it past the moon yet.
It's been like 70 years.
Can you give it a minute here?
It's been 70 years.
That's nothing.
That might as well be 70 seconds.
That's nothing.
That's barely, I mean, that's not even a human lifetime.
The space age of exploration has lasted 70 years.
If previous generations had given up on their explorations after 70 years, nothing ever would have been discovered.
The age of sail, the age of oceanic discovery, lasted for centuries.
It lasted for longer than the United States has existed as a country.
Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492.
Say Hawaii, which is the last state that was entered into the Union, wouldn't discover it, wouldn't discover that the landmass exists at all for 300 years after Columbus.
300 years later, they're still sailing around on boats that look almost the same and finding massive plots of land that they didn't know about.
And there are places on Earth today that we still have, there are places currently on Earth still that we've never seen, deep in the Amazon, down at the bottom of the ocean.
And so, you know, we've basically been doing the space thing for like 10 seconds, and everyone's already looking at their watch.
NFL Affair Excuses 00:12:04
Hey, what's going on?
Why are we out of the solar system by now?
Why haven't we colonized the solar system?
Why don't we have a colony on a moon of Jupiter yet?
Come on.
What's taken so long?
It's absurd.
All right.
Finally, here's something I want to mention briefly.
This is some gossip, some salacious gossip from the sports world.
Not the kind of thing that I would usually discuss on the show, but there's a reason that I'm talking about it.
I think there's a takeaway.
So, page six has photos secretly taken of a meeting.
Shall we say, between New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel and a prominent NFL reporter named Diana Rossini.
And we'll put the photos up on the screen so you can see it.
Page six reports exclusive photos obtained by Page six appear to show the New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel, Vrabel, I don't know why I'm having trouble with his name, and New York Times top reporter holding hands and hugging at a luxurious hotel.
Vrabel and Diana Rossini, former anchor on ESPN's flagship sports center, were spotted two weekends ago at the NFL.
Ambient in Sedona, Arizona.
And you could see them photoshoot the two hugging at sunset, weaving their fingers together as they stand face to face.
And the spy said they saw the pair briefly dance together.
Now, Vrabel and Rossini have denied that anything inappropriate happened.
They said that they were actually there with a group of people and it was all very professional and they're just friends.
And, you know, it's absurd for anyone to draw any other conclusions.
So, Two points I want to make about this.
First of all, more of a minor point, and some people aren't going to like to hear this, but this is why it is really just absurd to have attractive young females covering professional male sports.
Now, Rossini doesn't appear to be all that attractive, frankly, but the principle still applies.
And I don't mean that young females can't talk about sports or sort of cover it from afar or talk about it on a podcast or something if you're interested in listening to that.
I mean, in terms of being on the ground, being on the beat, heavily interacting with these players, cultivating relationships, sources, that kind of thing, it's ridiculous.
And we all know that affairs happen constantly in these kinds of situations.
And it's like we're supposed to just pretend that, you know, when you have these high testosterone young men and these attractive young women, and the women are allowed inside the locker room while the players are changing, even because it would be sexist not to allow them in.
That was a policy the NFL instated a long time ago.
You know, there has to be equal access to the male locker room for female reporters.
Somehow that's okay.
I mean, we all say that we don't want men intruding into women's locker rooms, but over here it actually happens in reverse all the time.
No one says anything.
But anyway, we're supposed to pretend that the sexual dynamics don't completely change and define the relationship there, which is ridiculous.
But that's what we're supposed to do these days.
We're supposed to pretend that biology isn't biology.
Reality is not reality.
Human sexuality is not human sexuality, which means in this fantasy world, young women and NFL players will have totally professional relationships with each other.
No boundaries will be crossed.
And NFL players are expected to, and coaches, to respect these young women like peers, like professionals, and talk about sports and not have any kind of sexual tension enter the relationship.
That's the idea.
And it's completely ridiculous.
It doesn't work.
It's not real.
It just isn't.
So, and that's why we keep hearing these stories about young female reporters and, oh, I'm just like the guys.
I'm just like, and then they get involved in these sex scandals and things like that.
But more to the point, now I don't know if Rabel and Rossini are having a physical, actual sexual affair.
I suspect very much that they are because I'm not an idiot, or at least I'm not a big enough idiot to believe their excuse.
If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on those two being involved with each other in exactly the way it appears they're involved.
Let's pretend for a moment that their excuses are true, which is possible.
It is possible that, in fact, the physical interaction between those two did not go beyond what was captured in the photos.
Possible.
It's not especially likely, but it is possible.
I don't know either way.
Let's go with that for the sake of argument.
Well, okay.
Well, then this is why boundaries are important for married people.
And the boundaries should be so strict, so absolute, that you could never even reasonably be suspected of having an affair.
I mean, you shouldn't get close enough to the line that you're ever in a situation that could be misconstrued in the first place.
Like, this is how radical I am on this.
If you, as a married person, are ever in a situation with another person who is not your spouse where a reasonable observer would think that you're romantically involved, then you've already crossed the line.
Just the very fact of someone saying, Oh, are you guys like together?
That already means you're too close.
Even without the hand holding and the hugging, which hopefully is obvious to everyone is totally inappropriate for married people.
Even without that, if somebody from afar could look at the dynamic between you and this other person and think, oh, they must be dating, they must be married.
Again, you've crossed the line.
You've already gone too far.
And that should be obvious.
Like having any kind of intimate interaction with a member of the opposite sex when you're married is cheating.
I'll put it that way.
Any form of intimacy at all, period, with a member of the opposite sex when you're married is already cheating.
Intimate conversation, intimate hug, intimate anything.
You're already there.
Or at least you're on the path.
Like intimacy is what comes first most of the time.
Some form of intimacy, and it usually doesn't, it's not right away, it's not in the first 10 seconds that you're jumping into bed together.
That's not how the affairs usually work.
It starts with intimacy.
And intimacy can be like we have an intimate conversation.
We have an intimate relationship that is not at first physical.
We're close friends, you know, closeness, intimacy, as we're talking about.
You should not have that as a married person with a member of the opposite sex, period.
At all.
You're at the very least on the way, you're on the path.
And to be on the path is basically to be already there.
Right?
Flirting as a married person, obviously cheating.
If you're a married woman flirting with another man, that you're already there.
Same goes for men.
Any form of intimacy, any form of personal intimate connection with a person of the opposite sex who is not your spouse is cheating.
Or it is, it puts you so directly on the path to cheating that it's essentially already is.
You know, if you're married, so you say this, and when I say this kind of thing, I hear from some people who are married who, to them, it sounds almost absurd.
Like it's almost unworkable for them.
They can't imagine not having those kinds of intimate connections with members of the opposite sex, even though they're married.
And if that's the case for you, if these guidelines sound too strict, then all that tells me is that you're a cheater.
Like you have already cheated, or you will, or you'll change your view.
Like, one of those three things are going to happen.
You've already cheated, or you will cheat, or you're going to change.
And probably you already have.
Right?
Anytime we have this conversation, there are people that get like offended, get like real.
The people who are married, but will feel really strongly that, no, I should still be able to have intimate relationships with people who are not my spouse.
Okay, you're a cheater.
Like, you've already probably done it, and you know it.
Or you're going to.
And you know that you might.
Like you're leaving the door open for it.
And you know that you are.
So getting mad and yelling at me is not going to change that.
Come on.
It's just you and me talking now.
You know what you're doing.
You know what you're doing.
And there's nothing easier in the world than simply not flirting with or being intimate with in any form members of the opposite sex as a married person.
It's very easy to avoid.
It's actually really easy.
You should have no problem.
If you do have a problem with it, then again, that shows you're too.
That's exactly the point.
You know, you have a connection with some other person that is too meaningful to you.
You know, your spouse, if you're a married woman, your husband should be the most important man in the world to you by a million miles.
No one else should even get close.
In importance.
And so, if you have to choose between your husband and an intimate quote unquote friendship with some other guy, it shouldn't even be difficult to make that choice.
And if you're in a job, especially as a woman that tends to lend itself to this sort of interaction, close, personal, intimate interaction with members of the opposite sex.
It tends to lend itself to or even require you to claim those kinds of relationships, then leave your job.
Then you shouldn't have that job.
Yeah, that's why, like, I was saying about women, female sports players going into locker rooms.
Like, a lot of these women are married.
Can you imagine you're married and your wife is going into like NFL locker rooms and developing friendships with NFL players?
So, none of this is difficult.
If it's difficult for you, if it's difficult for you, you don't love your spouse enough.
You're not serious enough about your vows.
That's it.
And you know that too.
So, everything I'm saying, everyone already knows, which is kind of the whole show.
Just saying a bunch of stuff everybody already knows, and that's one of them.
We'll wrap it up there for today.
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, the South committed treason.
But if the Confederates were traitors, then why was Jefferson Davis never put on trial for treason?
Lincoln Statues and Treason 00:00:21
What were Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson afraid of?
Did 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.
This is the real history of the Civil War.
Export Selection