The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1241 - California Passes An 'Anti-Racist' Law So Insane That It Seems Like A Joke

Episode Date: October 12, 2023

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it sounds like a joke but it's true. California has instituted an "ebony alert" system designed specifically for missing black people. In fact, they have started to racially segregate the whole missing person system. And it gets crazier from there. Also, Rep Rashida Tlaib has trouble condemning the murder of Israeli civilians. Teachers complain that their students aren't learning, but are reluctant to take any responsibility for it themselves. And Jada Pinkett Smith proves again why she's the worst wife in America.   Ep.1241   - - -    Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm    - - -    DailyWire+:     Watch Episodes 1-8 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL   Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d   Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! Promo code WALSH https://bit.ly/42PmqaX   Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt Or call 844-RUFF-700   - - -   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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I wrote a little song to remind you, Choice Hotels, gets you more of the experiences you value. The Cambria Hotels got it all. A rooftop ball, have a ball. Cocktails up here feel just right. Is Cambria amazing? Bring a date, your team, or even your mom. Book direct at choiceotails.com.

See you on the room. Today on the Matwell show, it sounds like a joke, but it's true. California has instated an ebony alert system designed specifically for missing black people. In fact, they've started to racially segregate the whole missing person system, and it gets crazier from there somehow. Also, Representative Rashida Talib has trouble condemning the murder of Israeli civilians. Teachers complain that their students are not learning but are reluctant to take any responsibility for it themselves.

And Jada Pinkett Smith proves again why she is the worst wife in America. All of that. And more today on the Matt Moll Show. I've got to tell you about something that speaks to the very core of our values, Americans, about a veteran-owned company on a mission to make a real difference in the lives of our military members. I'm talking about Pure Talk. Here's the Daily Wire.

We absolutely love what they're doing. Our veterans gave everything to protect our nation, and Pure Talk understands the sacrifices they've made. They've set an ambitious goal to eliminate $10 million in military debt by Veterans Day, but they can't do it alone. They need your help. When you switch to Pure Talk's Lightning Fast 5G network, they'll donate a portion of every new order to this noble cause.

You can make a real difference just by choosing superior cell phone service. It's that simple. Pure Talk's plans started just $20 a month, offering unlimited talk, text, more data, and a mobile hotspot. Just go to puretalk.com slash Walsh and make the switch. Let's rally together and show our unwavering support for our veterans. Visit puretok.com slash Walsh and switch to Pure Talk today. It's the right move, and it's the American way. So here's a hypothetical.

Let's say you're a 25-year-old adult male living in Compton, California, and you flip burgers for a living. And then one day after a fight with your parents or your siblings or whoever, you decide that you've had enough of the day to day and you get maybe you get a little high and you decide that you're going to be a no show at work and you go for, I don't know, a road trip with your friends to Las Vegas for a long weekend. It's all very fun and irresponsible behavior. And as it happens, it's not exactly unheard of in places like Compton. And let's say that your boss at the burger shop notices that you didn't show up for work and he reports you missing. And following company protocol, he calls the police and he tells them that you've gone AWOL. He says he has no idea why this is happening or what's going on, but you didn't show up. Well, how should law enforcement respond in that situation?

Starting next summer and the biggest state in the country, the answer to that question will depend on one thing, your skin color. If you're black, the cops will respond to your boss's call by buzzing every cell phone in the state, telling millions of people to be on the lookout for you. State authorities will plaster your name and description all over billboards on the interstate. It'll even put you on television and the ticker at the bottom of all the college football games. That's if you're black, to be clear. Now, if you happen to be white, on the other hand, well, it's a different story. If you're white, the authorities will do precisely none of that. Instead, they'll probably just hang up the phone and tell the pizza guy that he's wasting their time.

Now, if that sounds far-fetched, you should know that actually it's not. It is, in fact, what's coming very soon in the state of California. It's the result of a new law that was just signed by California's governor and future presidential candidate Gavin Newsom. Under this law, if black people under age 25 go missing for any reason, then law enforcement has the authority to issue something called, and I'm not making this name up. It's called an ebony alert. It's kind of like an amber alert, but in several key respects, it's very different. Watch. On our new tonight, Governor Newsom signed a law that can help track down young people of color who have disappeared.

Tonight we're getting answers on how the new Ebony alerts will work and who can benefit from them. California now has a new tool to help find missing black youth. Amber alerts have been around for two decades, and since that time, more than 370 children and at-risk individuals have been located. Time is of the essence when it comes to an actual alert. But some critics say, after, African Americans are often overlooked by the notification system. You see the difference of when white girls go missing and black girls go missing. The sense of urgency is not there. African Americans, whether their children or young adults, are often listed as runaways. State Senator Stephen Bradford is the author of a new law that creates ebony alerts for

community disproportionately impacted by missing youth. The African American young individuals make up almost 40% of those individuals. who come up missing. It's going to put significant change in how we react. Barry Axiess with voice of the youth says many young women who vanish end up being victims of sex trafficking. Here in Sacramento, especially a lot of our girls get exploited. In addition to Amber alerts, California also has blue alerts for suspects who attack a law enforcement officer, silver alerts for missing seniors and people with disabilities, and feather alerts for missing indigenous people. So how is an Ebony alert different?

Expanding the age from 12 to 25 because right now, a amber alert is for 17 years or younger. Okay. All right. So I wanted you hear all that because there's a lot going on here. Starting with the fact that California already apparently has something called feather alerts for Indians. And now they're adding ebony alerts to the mix. Because naturally, when you think of black people, you think of the word ebony, just like feathers come to mind when you're talking about Native Americans. Now, I suppose there are probably more stereotypical and insulting names they could have come up with, but these are still pretty bad. And for the record, I had to double check that news clip to make sure it wasn't satire,

make sure this wasn't some way too on the nose Babylon B skit, but it's real. They really have feather alerts out west for missing Indians. So people in California will be sleeping or watching a football game or drinking some zesty craft beer. Then they'll get a feather alert on their phones, and they're expected to, I guess, drop everything they're doing and scramble to find some missing indigenous person once they see a feather alert pop up. That's a real thing that happens in California, at least since last year, when feather alerts were first implemented. And this didn't strike anyone in California as being completely and totally absurd, apparently. We can speculate as to why that might be.

Maybe a lot of Berkeley grads honestly believe that white supremacist cowboys are still out there tormenting the indigenous peoples at every turn. Whatever the case, they do indeed have feather alerts in California, and they're not joking about it. This is. serious business. Given that simple of incredible fact, you have to wonder why California authorities haven't deployed, or maybe they eventually will deploy, a whole assortment of other stereotypical alerts for every conceivable ethnicity under the sun. I mean, at this point, why not keep going? They have an alert that's tailor-made for Indians, and why stop there? Possibilities are endless. They could have a general so's alert for missing Asians, for example. They could implement a

sombrero alert for Hispanics, a leprechaun alert for missing Irish Americans. Of course, the left doesn't care about two of those three groups, this probably wouldn't happen. But given that they're now embracing every stereotype imaginable in their quest to be anti-racist, it's not hard to picture something like this down the line. And actually, on second thought, by the way, I think Kung Poweler has a better ring to it. And if they don't implement that for missing Asian people, then at least this would be a good system to put in place for when the Uber Eats driver doesn't show up with your Chinese food order. Put out the Kung Powler. Find your food.

Now, at the same time, if you paid close attention to that news clip we just played, you probably have more pressing concerns. For example, you might wonder why black people need a separate system of emergency alerts at all. I mean, for one thing, AMBA alerts don't do much, no matter what your skin color might be. As a recent USA Today analysis found, quote, amber alerts are extremely rare, and even when they're used, it's unclear how much they help bring children home safely. Now, on top of that, the data we have suggests that the Amber Alert system is not discriminating against anyone. Like, in fact, it's exactly proportional. So according to that same analysis, quote, from 2017 through the end of 2021, black children made up 37% of missing child reports and nearly 37% of Amber alerts indicating the issues, the alerts are issued proportionally. So what exactly is the problem here?

It's exactly proportional. What conceivable reason could there be to implement yet another iteration of a useless system that clearly isn't discriminatory in any way? Well, here's an NAACP flack and California state senator Stephen Bradford, who is going to try to explain that to us. Listen. The NWACP California-Hawaii State Conference brought the idea for an ebony alert to state senator Stephen Bradford out of Los Angeles County. The alert would be specifically for black youth and young black women between, the ages of 12 and 25. Under Amber Alert criteria, they say black youth are disproportionately

classified as runaways. Criteria for the Amber Alert is that law enforcement has to believe that there's suspicion of someone being abducted. As for the Ebony Alert, we kind of broaden that language to basically if you're missing under a suspicious or unexplained circumstance. Senator Bradford says for him the data is clear, although African Americans make up 14 percent, of the country's population. They make up almost 38% of individuals who go missing every year. It's unfortunate that here in California and in 2023

that we need separate types of notifications, but we see through the data that these groups are being ignored when it comes to finding them and dedicating the same level of resources to help bring them home. Okay, so first of all, note how they frame this. They say that these Ebony alerts

are for black youth and young black women, But these new Ebony Alerts in California by law will also sound for 25-year-old black males. So let's just be clear about that. But moving on, what they're saying is that a lot of black people who vanish aren't being counted as missing persons and therefore aren't eligible for Amber Alerts. And they're saying that's racist. So understand their argument. You need to know that in order for authorities to issue an Amber Alert by law, authorities need some evidence that a child was abducted or disappeared for some reason against their will. And yes, it has to be a child, not an adult.

If there's no evidence of that, then the child is not classified as missing. They're classified instead as runaways. And you think this especially makes sense for adults. If a 24-year-old person goes missing and there's no evidence at all that there's any foul play, then in almost every case, that's just someone who ran off for whatever their reasons are. It's not actually an emergency that the whole state needs to be alerted to. in the vast majority of cases, if the circumstances are like that. So what the proponents of Ebony Alerts are saying is that the police are deliberately

misclassifying black people as runaways just to cook the missing persons data because, of course, the police are racist. In fact, that's exactly what California legislators say in the text of their legislation on Ebony Alerts. We don't have to guess about this. Here's what California lawmakers put in the bill, quote, being identified as a runaway can also be a legal loophole for law enforcement, because when a child is listed as a runaway, the police are allowed to delay response and investigation time.

In cases where the child is mislabeled as a runaway, this delay is crucial time that could be spent locating a child in danger. So they're just coming out and saying that the police are lying about the large number of black runaways. The cops are taking advantage of a loophole in the law so that black youth can be abducted without any investigation. They're saying that there are many cases, apparently, where the police suspect that a black child has been kidnapped and is an imminent mortal danger, and yet they just classified as a

runaway because they don't care when black kids are kidnapped. That's what they're saying, which is a claim that's spelled out in the legislation from the legislature of the state of California. They can't think of any other conceivable explanation for why a lot of black people might be unaccounted for it. Their theory is that all these young black people are being abducted and there's some sort of epidemic of black kids being kidnapped and all the racist cops have decided to conspire to hide that fact.

They know that all these missing black people definitely can't have anything to do with, I don't know, the fact that 70% of black children are born to unmarried mothers. They also know that it can't possibly be apparently related to the fact that more than 64% of black children grow up in single parent homes, you know, which the chances of a child being a runaway when they grow up in a fatherless home, those chances are much, much higher. And so it makes a lot of sense that if you have a community where there are more father, homeless homes, you're going to have a lot more runaways. All of that makes sense. It's exactly what we see in all the data. But none of that is relevant in their mind. Instead, California's

legislature is convinced that the problem is racist cops who have apparently decided in unison not to investigate missing persons cases involving black people. And the California government's solution to that invented problem is to implement the same solution that South Africa implemented long ago, which is race-based policing, where people with preferred skin colors are entitled to to a police response while people of disfavored skin colors are ignored. They're codifying that into law. Here's the key part of this new Ebony Alert legislation in California. A law enforcement agency may request that an Ebony Alert be activated if that agency

determines that an Ebony Alert would be an effective tool in investigation of missing black youth, including a young woman or girl. That's it. That's all that's necessary. There's no requirement to authority suspect an abduction or some kind of kidnapping. that's the standard for issuing a statewide alert for non-black, non-white people when they go missing under the Amber Alert System. The text of this new legislation in California admits that. Here's what it says. Quote, the Amber Alert system must fulfill strict criteria for the message to be broadcast if these criteria are not met.

An Amber Alert cannot be issued and the child is labeled as a runaway. But the Ebony Alert system does not have to obey any such restrictions. It's enough, according to this new legislation, for authorities to determine that an Ebony Alert would be a, quote, effective tool for finding a young black person who's missing. There's no other standards outlined in the law. Just a bunch of suggestions. The bill goes on a state, for example, that if a black youth disappears under unexplained circumstances, then that could be sufficient to trigger the statewide alert. Non-black victims, by contrast, have to show that they've been kidnapped, essentially.

So let's take stock of what's happening. The state of California is taking a system that doesn't appear to, which is the Amber Alert System, and they're duplicating it, only this time they're baking in a policy of explicit racial segregation. So they're doubling down on something that doesn't seem to actually be working. Classic government move there, and, which is also becoming a classic move, they are racializing it. Now, it's not clear how this will work, by the way. Let's say a 17-year-old black teenager goes missing. Does that teenager get an Amber Alert in addition to an Ebony Alert? And for that matter, what happens if an elderly Native American disappears?

Do they get a feather alert along with a silver alert? Is there some way to combine all these categories and have an ebony silver feather alert? All it would take is an elderly black person who identifies as a Native American, and we can do it. We can achieve the singularity. The possibilities are truly endless. Or maybe in that scenario, the 17-year-old black teenager wouldn't get an amber alert because they're getting the ebony alert. Maybe that's the way to work. If a black person goes missing, they get the Ebony Alert, and if a white person goes missing, they get the Amber Alert.

Well, in that case, California will have established a truly segregated emergency alert system with a separate alert for whites and blacks. At that point, they might as well go all the way and change Amber Alert to Ivory Alert. Of course, either scenario is insane and counterproductive, to say the least. It defies logic, really. I mean, think about it. If you're really worried about racist cops and MAGA Republicans who supposedly aren't trying to find missing black people, why would your solution be to categorize all future missing person alerts by race? By your own logic, now the racist cops and MAGA Republicans can simply ignore the alerts for whatever race they don't like. So you're making it easier in that case. Again, we can mock this all day, but all these contradictions and inconsistencies aren't simply the inevitable result of top-down state-driven social engineering. They're also the inevitable result of the worldview of California politicians and liberals more generally who refuse to recognize reality even when it hits them in the face. You know, the truth is that a lot of young black people do run away from their homes. They do it voluntarily. And the reason they do it is that when they were young, their fathers ran away from them.

It's a tragedy that repeats itself generation after generation. It's one of the reasons every urban center in this country is getting more dangerous every year. But predictively, instead of doing something about that problem, instead of addressing the crisis of single-parent homes in the state of California and across the country, Democrats have once again decided to blame their political opponents. They're saying the cops are responsible. They're claiming MAGA Republicans are behind it, etc. That's the explanation they've settled on. As a result, a lot of Californians are about to wake up at 3 a.m. to random blaring alerts on their cell phones, along with all the earthquake notifications and the push alerts about newly deposited poop on the sidewalk. Of course, many Californians will decide to opt out of these alerts indefinitely because they're too constant and too annoying. And a lot of police resources will be wasted pursuing runaways who left home voluntarily. And in the end, black people will continue to disappear, probably at the exact same rate. Unless something extraordinary occurs, this cycle will continue, unburdened, as Kamala Harris might say, by what has been. For California liberals like Gavin Newsom, that's good enough. You know, for everyone else and especially for every non-ebony person who goes missing in the state of California,

this sends a very clear message. It is an explicit betrayal of the race-neutral system of laws that this country has upheld for generations. So this new law in California, I mean, obviously needs to be struck down as quickly as possible. Should be condemned by every Republican politician and conservative power center in the country. You know, a law that explicitly says, if you are a runaway, you only get an alert if you're, you are black and not if you're white. I mean, that kind of law should be condemned by everyone. And if that doesn't happen, if your race can somehow dictate how you're treated by the police, then nothing else really matters. I mean, all the debates about Ukraine and the debt ceiling and

speaker of the House, they all pale in comparison. When they come for you, whatever that charge might be, you'll be judged on the basis of characteristics you can't control. If you're not indigenous or a person of color, then no cell phone alert will sound when you disappear. There will be no signs on the highway telling motorists to be on the lookout for someone matching your description. You'll be isolated and demonized and condemned. You'll be classified as a runaway and forgotten immediately, which is depressing realization in some respects, kind of demoralizing. But in reality, it's clarifying. It tells you something important.

It communicates loud and clear of the intent of the people who hate you more than anything else in the world. It tells you that everything they pretend is an injustice isn't reality, a punishment that they desperately. want to inflict on you. Now let's get to our five headlines. People always say, happy dog, happy life. It's the mantra I live by. And, you know, if it's really the case, you need to be giving your dog rough greens.

Naturopathic, Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of rough greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America. And before I started feeding my dog rough greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food. It contains very little nutritional value. Think about it. Nutrition isn't brown, it's green. but Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life.

Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs. You don't need to go out and buy new dog food. You just sprinkle rough greens on their food every day. Dog owners everywhere are raving about rough greens. It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more. We are wheat, and that goes for dogs too. Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health.

He's offering my listeners a free Jump Start trial bag, so your dog can try it. A free jumpstart trial bag can be able to be. at your door in just a few business days. Go to roughgreens.com slash mat or call 844-Ruff-700. That's RUFF Greens.com slash Matt or call 844-Ruff 700 today. Daily Wire has this report. Representative Rashida Taleb, who has an extensive history of anti-Semitism,

lashed out Wednesday after video of her went viral on Tuesday night, where she repeatedly refused to condemn the brutal acts of terrorism committed by Palestinian terrorists against the Jewish state of Israel. More than 1,200 Israelis were murdered in the attacks on Saturday, with thousands more injured, at least 22 Americans were killed. 17 more are still unaccounted. before. And she was asked while she was walking the halls of Congress, what her, you know, if she's going to condemn these acts, and we have, we have that video where she gives her

answer, which is no answer at all, which is also an answer in and of itself. Anyway, here it is. Terrorists have cut off babies' heads and firm children alive. Do you support Israel's rights to defend themselves against this brutality? You can't comment about Hamas terrorists chopping off baby's heads? You have nothing to say about Hamas terrorists popping up baby's heads. You condone what Hamas has done, chopping off babies' heads, burning children alive, raping women in the street. You have no comment about children's heads being chopped off. Congressman Wydie, have a Palestinian flag outside your office if you do not condone what Hamas terrorists have done to Israel.

No, what happens to you? Do Israeli lives not matter to you? I mean, it's pretty incredible. Well, on one hand, it's not incredible because you can't be surprised when Democrats refuse to condemn the murder of babies. After all, they've been actively funding the murder of babies and cheering it on in this country for over half a century, so this is not surprising on one end. But still, you know, you'd think it'd be very, like, this is, if this is a gotcha question

for you, I mean, you could always say that, the person asking the questions is trying to embarrass Rashida Thalib, and it's a gotcha question. And that might be true, but only because, only because, like, we know that she's a scumbag and that this somehow is a difficult question for her. But if that's a gotcha question, if that's a difficult question for you, that's your fault. That says something about you. Because for any normal person with any kind of functional moral compass, when you're asked, well, do you condemn this terrorist attack against civilians, it's very easy to just say,

Of course I condemn it. It's a horrible thing. It's easy to say. That's it. That's all you have to say. And if for some reason you can't say that, then really we have to assume that you support it. Because why else would you not condemn it? And it's not as though it's an unfair question. I think for a lot of people to go up to them and ask, do you condemn a terrorist attack, it's almost an unfair question because it's like it should be so obvious. Well, of course, of course you could have. To even ask the question is to imply that there is a question about whether or not this person condemns it. And so for most normal people, that's why you would never go up to a normal person on the street and say, do you condemn terrorist attacks? Because you would assume that everybody

does. But in Rashid Talib's case, there's at a minimum a real question about how she feels about this, especially considering, yeah, she has that Palestinian flag hanging outside of her office. And as far as that goes, here's one of her fellow Democrats defending the Palestinian flag outside of the office. Let's listen. Should your colleague Rashida, Tula, Tili, still have the Palestinian flag outside of her office? I don't know it. She's Palestinian. You know, that doesn't mean she's a terrorist. It doesn't mean that she condones this. Rashida. I have a, I fly a Danish flag at my house. Does it mean what?

Have you been supportive of her comments? I disagree with some of her comments. She lamented the death on both sides. And I think she condemned, I don't have her statement right in front of it, but she condemned terrorist activity. You know, actually the issue, even before this event occurred last weekend, having a Palestinian flag

outside of your office when you are a politician, your office when you work in Congress, is a problem regardless of any terrorist attack. And it's not the same. Now, I don't like the idea, frankly, of American politicians flying the flags of other countries, of other people anywhere, even at their own home. Now, you can't prevent them for doing it at their own home. But at your office, it's an issue regardless. You shouldn't have any, it shouldn't even be allowed to have any foreign flag flying anywhere outside of your office anywhere.

Because you're an American politician. and that should be as a representative, allegedly, of the American people, the only flag that you should be flying anywhere is the American flag. So it's already a problem. And yes, when you have an American politician who's flying the flag of another people, it does call on the question their loyalties. And except with Rashid Talib, I think there's actually no question at all. It's pretty clear. Okay, I know I've dumped on Lindsey Graham all week, and there's no need to continue because I've made my point, but I'm going to continue anyway because this latest clip from him is somehow, he's just getting more and more deranged as each day goes on. And he's one of the loudest voices right there right now out there explicitly calling for World War III. This is what he wants. He wants World War III, which certainly will result in the deaths of millions of, of, of, of, you know, this is what he wants.

certainly will result in the deaths of millions of people, millions of Americans probably alone. So this is the latest clip from him. And as I said, it's somehow the most deranged of all. Listen to a little bit of this. What I would do is I would bomb Iran's oil infrastructure. The money financing terrorism comes from Iran. It's time for this terrorist state to pay a price for financing and supporting all this chaos. Yes, if you're the Iranians, if we're up,

to me. This war escalates. I'm coming after you. I think this is what I'm trying to clarify here because I I'm wondering us in Israel, us and Israel. The United States and Israel. No, no, I'm crystal clear. The United, so let me just, let me just understand you just to be clear. You're saying that you would want the United States and Israel to bomb Iran even in the absence of direct evidence of their involvement in this attack. Yeah. So if there's an escalation, Abby, if there's people's throats being cut on television as Israel goes into Gaza, and they're threatening to kill the hostages, if Hezbollah is unleashed on Israel in the north, it will be because Iran is supporting that.

If you don't get the connection between Iran and this terrorist activity by Hamas and Hezbollah, you're missing a lot. Okay. This is a terrorist state. So this is Lindsey Graham saying that, even that he wants to bomb Iran, no matter what, he wants to go bomb them right now. And he wants to do it regardless of anything that's going on in Israel, even if we can't, even if, you know, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, if there's no evidence,

if we cannot establish any evidence that Iran's directly involved in this, he still wants to go bomb them. And he wants us to be involved in that. He says us, he means Israel and ourselves and America should go bomb Iran, which obviously is a kickoff of a much, greater war that quickly becomes a world war. I think one of the most relevant things about Lindsay Graham, well, there's a couple of things here. And this is true of, I mean, not all of these Neal Khan Warhawks, but it's true of some of them, Lindsey Graham most of all. First of all, he's been, he hasn't had a real job in, I don't know, 30 or 40 years. He's been three or four decades in public office.

So he's already, for that reason, totally disconnected from average normal people and the concerns of average normal people. And on top of that, too, I think it's relevant to point out that he's an old man, I don't know, pushing 70, I imagine at this point. And he has no kids. He's a lifelong, he's a lifelong bachelor, as we call them, to be polite. And he has no kids. So he's a childless old man who's been in political. office for three or four decades. And he has no, what makes that relevant is that he has no real stake in the future of this country. And if we, if there is a world war, a devastating world war,

well, he doesn't have any kids that will have to live in what the world becomes after that. And he doesn't stand to lose everything that the rest of us can lose if there's a world war. In fact, for people like him, a war means more power and more wealth. That is the conflict of interest for these people. That for them, you know, for us, we think of war and we think, well, that's, sometimes war is necessary. It does happen, of course. Sometimes it is necessary. In my mind, it's only necessary when you're defending your nation, when you're defending your own nation. But either way, in a war, it's a, it's a sacrifice, it's a loss. You lose a lot, right? that's for the citizens.

But for these people, the conflict of interest is that they gain. What we lose, they gain. And so given the fact that they stand to gain from going to war, then we can only, what, trust their judgment and their restraint and their virtue? Well, unfortunately, we don't have a lot of people in public office that have displayed any of those things. And that's what worries me. This is from USA Today. It says they say students have fallen three grade levels behind. They say behavior has never been worse. They say it's as if they have to teach people who have only built one-story houses how to build skyscrapers. And they say they've been too scared to talk about it until now. Teachers are taking to TikTok to express their fears, frustrations and worries about the state of education more than three years after the COVID-19 pandemic prompted school shutdowns and remote learning nationwide. Though the problem with some students underperforming is nothing new, many teachers say the gap between where kids and where they ought to be has never been more staggering.

To make matters worse, these teachers say the education system isn't doing enough to address the issue and that most of their colleagues are too scared to call it out publicly. But thanks to a new viral video, they say they feel emboldened, validated, and feel free to say their peace. It all started when a seventh grade teacher in Georgia spoke out on TikTok last week about how much kids are struggling, revealing most of his students entered the school year performing at a fourth grade level or lower. So this is the original viral video.

Maybe you've seen this. and it's got something like four million views at this point with a teacher talking about what it's like in his classroom and how far behind the kids are in his seventh grade classroom and then many other teachers have joined in and said, yeah, this is exactly what I'm experiencing as well. So before we talk about it, let's watch the video from this teacher. No, y'all, can we talk about it?

Can we please talk about it? Let's take a moment to discuss. Let's take a moment to debrief. Let's take a moment to unpack. So I'm not really understanding why they're not telling y'all. Like, we all know that the world is behind, like, you know, globally, like, you know, because of the pandemic and stuff. But I don't understand why they're not stressing to y'all how bad it is.

Like, I'm not even trying to be funny, but these kids are... I'm going to just say this. I teach seven grade, they are still performing on a fourth grade level. I don't care how you flip it, turn it, swing it, swing it, swindle it. They still performing on a fourth grade level. And nobody's talking about how they just keep moving, passing them on. They just keep passing them on, passing them on, passing them on, passing them on, passing them on. I can put as many zeros in this grade as I want to.

they're going to move that child to the eighth grade next year ain't nobody talking about that why they're not talking about that why they not telling y'all that and why don't y'all know that y'all kids not performing on their grade level why y'all don't know why y'all don't know talk about it let's unpack because y'all be quick to talk about oh the teacher this the teacher this it's your job it's your job baby I just got here 30 days ago

she was performing one on the fourth grade level since fourth grade why we not talk well let's talk about it you're the teacher you're supposed to be again she's been on the grade level since the fourth grade we in seven grade now so you let this child go three years and you never knew that your child was still in the fourth grade ain't never left the hang it up flat screen and fourth grade is being nice i still have kids performing on grade k one two and third grade i can probably count on one hand how many kids are actually performing on their grade level so just imagine you don't know that church i've been on the second grade since the second grade

and they now went the seventh or eighth grade are you joking right now and these our future leaders Is that future doctors, that future nurses, that future, please, please. Let's talk about it. So he says, let's unpack twice. You don't need to use that phrase once in your life, really, certainly not twice in a 90-second video. But putting that aside, okay, yeah, it is, it is something we should talk about. And it is, it is like, it's, it's a major, it's just, it's a major problem. I don't know how else to put it.

We've got a generation of kids who are not being educated and who they're going to graduate, like barely knowing how to read. Okay. It's coming. It's happening right now. Everything, idiocracy, you know, that movie imagined, I think it was 500 years in the future when we lived in a world dominated by sub 75 IQ morons. That was being way too optimistic.

like 500 years? Okay, we're talking about the next like five years. That's what we're looking at if we're not already there. And yes, it is a major problem. And he's right to point it out. He's also right that he's right to put much of the responsibility on parents because there are a lot of parents who are not aware of their own child's abilities and their own child's struggles. They're not aware of it or don't seem to be concerned about it. They're not working with their kids. This is not the case for every parent at all. And I don't even know if we could say most parents, but there's certainly a large preponderance of parents, way too many. I mean, one is too many, but there's way too many parents who are not concerned with their kids' education.

They just ship the kid off to school and then the kid comes home and they've taken care of that. And the kid comes home and they're just, they're playing video games or they're on TV, they're on their phones, and that's all they do. And that's all the parents want to do also, which is part of the problem. All the parents want to do is be on their phone, staring at screens. and so that's all the kids do when they're at home, and there's no kind of real intellectual life, intellectual engagement of any kind between parent and child. And then for a lot of these teachers,

they become very frustrated because then they try to talk to the parents about it. Parents don't want to hear it. And then they just put the onus back on the school, and so that's what goes on. And so that's true, and that's a major problem. However, it is also true that the school system itself, and the teachers themselves bear an enormous amount of responsibility here as well.

And when I watch a video like that and I see a lot of these other teachers that are joining in, I don't see enough personal responsibility. Yeah, you're calling on parents to take responsibility. Great, fine, agreed. But where's your personal responsibility? Okay, it's easy enough to say, oh, I just got here 30 days ago. Fine. That might be the case for you personally with this next group of children

when the school in the school system, the school year just started last month. But the school system itself, and the school system is run. When we're talking about the school system, we're talking about teachers and administrators. Okay, the system is not some sort of organism. It's comprised of people. And so we're talking about teachers and administrators. And they have also failed miserably. And I don't hear, I don't hear nearly enough discussion about that.

I mean, you want to have a conversation? This guy's saying, let's talk about, let's have a conversation. Okay, let's have it. So what's going on on your end? Why have you guys failed so catastrophically? Because the thing is, this problem is not, it didn't just start now. In fact, it's been trending this way for decades. Okay, it's been trending this way for a long time.

Years and years and years, way before COVID, it was trending in this direction. We already had a major problem years ago of people graduating high school with no grasp on basic subjects like civics, geography, history. We already had a major problem of kids coming out of high school, 18 years old. And if you ask them to name 10 of the 50 states in the country, they'd be stumped. Okay, if you ask them to tell you what century the civil war occurred in, they'd be stumped. So we already had that problem. And now the problem is getting much worse.

And there's no way you can't absolve the parents, but you also can't absolve the education system itself, which too often is how this conversation goes. It's actually, it's easy to blame the parents. Everybody blames the parents. Everyone blames the parents for everything. And any problem that happens in society, we all turn to the parents say, oh, it's all bad parenting. And there's always an element of that.

Okay, there's truth to that. But that's the easy thing to say. What's more difficult, what people don't want to say is, you know what, we also have a problem of there are a lot of really bad teachers. They're just bad at their jobs. On top of the bad parents, we also have bad teachers. And we have an education system. Yeah, it's true that if you're, you know, you send your kid off to the education system,

you should not just assume that that takes care of it and you don't have to participate in your own kid's education. You shouldn't assume that. So no matter where you send your kid to be educated or if they are educated at home in a homeschooling environment, Either way, you should be participating actively every day in your child's education. That's true. But also, we do have this thing in this country called the education system. And so it's not unreasonable for parents to expect that if they send their kid to the education system, that their kid will be educated in that system.

And that's not happening at all for a lot of these kids. And when we hear representatives of the education system talking about it, they always put the onus back on the parents. They never take any responsibility for it themselves. They refuse to. And if you try to, if you, everyone acknowledges that there are bad parents out there. But the moment you say, you know, they're also bad teachers, how dare you? Teachers are saints. They're martyrs.

They're perfect in every way. It's bad teachers. How dare you? No, you know what? There are a lot of horrible, stupid teachers who don't even have a grasp of the subject that they're supposed to be teaching. That is also the case. And until you're willing to talk about that, you're not actually ready for this conversation

at all. Guess what? Also, we can't put all the blame on COVID here. But that really amplified the problem. and it sped up a lot of these trends, a lot of these troubling trends that we already saw. Well, who decided to shut the schools down? And in fact, who was in the streets marching,

demanding that the schools stay closed? Who was that? It was the teachers, wasn't it? The teachers were marching in the streets, demanding that schools remain closed for their own sake because they're so scared of getting a cold. Any accountability for that? Schools closing, the schools themselves were behind that.

And insisted on it. And for a lot of these teachers, schools opened up again across the country. I mean, they closed for at least, almost every school was closed for at least like half a year, which is a long time for a child to miss out an education. Some of them were closed for over a year, a year and a half. But when they did start opening up again, the teachers were the ones. saying, keep them closed. I don't know. If Randy Weingarten and company had their way, maybe the schools would still be closed. I don't know. If it was really up to them.

So maybe there should have been more teachers. I know it wasn't every teacher. There were some teachers said from the beginning, no, schools need to stay open. You can't just stop educating kids. You can't do that. But there weren't nearly enough. So maybe there should have been more teachers who, instead of being out in the street, say, no, keep them closed. I'm scared. I don't want to get a cold. Maybe there should have been more teachers in the street saying, open these schools up. We need to educate our children. We care about them. You know what? Maybe there should have been more teachers saying, you know what, I am willing to risk getting sick for the sake of educating. That's how much I care about my job. I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

If you weren't willing to make the sacrifice, if you're so terrified of getting a cold, because you're a coward, that you're willing to sacrifice a child's education, don't come complaining now. What about that guy? I mean, I have no idea with that guy. I have no idea where he was. was on COVID back in 2020. Maybe he wasn't even teaching at the time. I don't know. But, and I could be totally wrong about this. I would be somewhat surprised if it turned out that that guy in particular back in 2020 was

a voice crying out in the wilderness saying keep the schools open. Could be wrong. But one thing I can say, a lot of teachers now are complaining about kids are far behind. And I know for a fact that many of those teachers were not only happy that. that schools closed, but were insistent on it and wanted to keep them closed for longer. And now they pretend to be so concerned. Now when it's like too late, honestly, I hate to say it, but it's too late for a lot of these kids. A lot of these kids, they don't have parents who are going to teach them.

They just don't. They should, but they don't. And you sacrificed a year of whatever education they were getting in the public school system. You sacrificed a year of it, and they fell way behind, and they haven't been able to catch up. And now a lot of those kids are feeling just like overwhelmed and they've given up. You know what happened? The school system gave up on these kids around COVID. And a lot of the kids have responded by giving up on school.

That's what's going on here. All right, finally, most important news of the day before we get to the next segment, the Daily Loud on Twitter reports is where I get most of my news. Breaking, a couple in Colorado, rather, shared footage they captured on a train of what they believed to be the legendary Bigfoot. Let's watch this video of Bigfoot. An elusive creature. I just squat it down. Let me see your camera.

Yeah, there's big. I mean, you can really tell, you can tell that it's Bigfoot. I think all the evidence is. play this video one more time. So I want everyone to notice all the different nuances of this video that I think proved. So there you see a creature. He's obviously very hairy. It doesn't look like any human being. Let me see your camera. I'll do it. He's taking a squat. He's doing his business. He's just trying to do his business out. You know, where else is he going to go? He's Bigfoot. And this train, and now he's on camera, which is pretty embarrassing for him. Now, I will say that there's a

community note on this post on Twitter, which says this. This is located in Silverton in Durango. It's part of a quite popular Bigfoot themed expedition trailer company called Sasquatch Expedition Trailers. The owner regularly dresses up as Sasquatch. To me, that doesn't mean anything. That doesn't prove anything to me just because this was in a theme park, apparently, where people dress up as Bigfoot. That to me is not, I don't find that to be compelling evidence against this being the actual Bigfoot at all. If anything, I think that only further proves that it probably is the actual Bigfoot. Because if you're the actual Bigfoot, where else would you go?

You would probably go to a place like this where you know that you'll be welcomed and accepted. So to me, that only makes me even more certain that this is Bigfoot. Basically, look, I believe this couple. I believe them. I don't think that they would lie. and I think it's frankly just like with the UFO sightings, it's frankly offensive to

just assume that they made it up. I believe their testimony. It's right there on video. That's high quality footage. I think. It's as good as you're going to get for Bigfoot. Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong? Okay, a couple of comments.

We only need a couple because many of them are on this same theme. Taz Hahn says, Matt's definition of the colonization on Europeans in America seems like a contradiction because he speaks of colonization as good, but decolonization as bad, I'm just not following, sounds the same to me by his logic. Another comment says,

so if colonization has historically been good, then why are you so opposed to being colonized, creating open borders, let them take your jobs, your lands, and hopefully when they're done, murdering you in 200 years, they'll get you flying cars, cure for cancer, teleportation, et cetera. Yeah, the people that are coming here as illegal immigrants are, they're going to be the ones that come up with the flying cars.

Sure. Now, so a few things on these two related comments. First and most importantly, the early European settlers, because I hear this, you know, of course, this is a very common argument that, that, hey, if you think the European settlers had every right to come here and set up shop as they did, then how could you possibly object to immigrants coming across the border? the early European settlers were themselves illegal immigrants is the claim. Well, the early European settlers came, they were not illegal immigrants by any definition of the term.

There was no illegal implies that there's some sort of law in place. There's no law. There was no law governing the wilderness that these European settlers came to. It was a mostly unpopulated wilderness. there was a relatively sparsely distributed assortment of warring primitive tribes. There was no nation. There was no country. There were tribes.

And the settlers came into this wilderness and they built a civilization. They built a country. There was not one there. And they made one. They made it from scratch. And yes, they fought for it. And this to me is obviously very different from illegal immigrants. coming into a fully formed modern country with a central government and setting up shop in an

already established neighborhood and reaping the benefits and the entitlements and everything else. On one hand, you have a settler in a savage wilderness surviving and building a civilization. On the other hand, you have an immigrant in Dallas, Texas on food stamps and welfare. Okay? It's just not the same. I think very clearly these are two different categories that we're dealing. with. Second point, which is related, is that things are different now. Okay, not everything is the same as everything else. In earlier times, the whole world was governed by one law. I said there was no law governing what would become the United States when the settlers came here. And that's, that's true on the books anyway, because there were no books. I mean, there wasn't even a written

language, okay? But there was one law, one unwritten law, and it governed the entire world. And that was the law of conquest. The world at this time was largely unsettled, that vast portions of it, unexplored, unknown, and you have people from different areas all seeking the same land and all fighting over it. That's what everybody did. Okay. And when you had a whole bunch of disparate groups fighting over the same land, they all came to this land. Okay, none of them popped out of the ground there. They all came to it and fought over it. There, who had a right to it. Who had a right to it? You know, as I'm always pointing out, if you say the so-called indigenous people had a right to the land, which indigenous people?

They were not a homogeneous group. These were tribes killing each other. So which tribe had a right to them? Which tribe? Well, it's just, we could break it down by regions of what is now the United States. The northeast. Which tribe had a right to that, to that territory? Is it the tribe that happened to be there when the European settlers first came to that part of the continent? Because that tribe killed the other tribe that was there, and they killed the one before that, and before that and before that. So to speak of who had a right to it, it's incoherent. And that's why you had the law of conquest. And it's the law that all people of that time understood and lived by, Indian tribes certainly included.

If you wanted land, you had to fight for it. And if you wanted to keep your land, you had to defend it. And if you couldn't fight for land, you weren't going to get in. If you couldn't defend it, you weren't going to keep it. Simple as that. Everyone understood this. Everyone across the entire world. I know it seems scandalous to us these days, but this is the way the world worked.

And actually, on the third point is that I say things are different now, and they are. But even so, underlying all of it, the law of conquest still applies. It's still there. It's never really totally defunct. Because even now, if a country wants to exist, it has to defend itself. Every country on Earth is where it is and has the borders that it has, because at some point in the past, whether recently or farther back in the past, it fought for it. Okay? Every country on this planet was born in blood, every single one, every single one.

It is where it is because people fought for it and killed the other people who were there before. And they probably killed someone else and so on and so on, going back through the ages. And so it still applies that if you want to stay where you are, you have to be able to defend yourself. And if a country cannot or will not defend itself, it will cease to exist. And that goes for America. You talk about the immigrants. If America will not defend its borders, then America, will cease to exist. And not only that, but America will deserve to no longer exist if it lacks the

will to defend its own existence. So I actually don't expect the rest of the world to just sort of lay off and say, hey, leave them alone. They're, you know, let's say, they, let's, they've had a, they've had enough. They've had a rough time. I don't expect that. As far as the illegal immigrants pouring across the border, I don't expect them to not try to come here. Okay, as I've said many times, if I lived in Mexico, I wouldn't want to live in Mexico either. I'd probably try to sneak across the border. If I thought I could do it, that's probably exactly what I would do. And if I looked and I looked at the process to become a legal immigrant and I saw how much more, how much longer it would take and how more difficult it is.

And I thought I could just walk across the border and be out of this hellhole governed by drug cartels, then I'd probably do it. Yeah. So that is why I don't put the onus actually on the illegal immigrants. I'm not saying, it's not like, I don't think we plead with them and say, please just, please just leave us alone, please, respect our laws. Honor system, guys, please, come on. I don't think that's how you defend a border.

I don't think you defend a border, though. I don't think you defend it with, hey, come on, guys, come on, please. We've had enough. Will you leave us alone for a minute? That's not how you do it. No, you defend a border with walls and guns. You defend it with force because you recognize that you can complain about it all you want, but there are always going to be people who want to come in, they want to sneak in,

either because they want to set up there and they want to reap the benefits of this country that is not their country, or because they have other more nefarious intentions. They're always going to be out there, always. For as long as the world exists, they're going to be there. And so you have to be able to defend yourself against them. And if you can't or you won't, you will not exist anymore as a country. And again, as I said, you will not deserve to exist as a country. There's no, I mean, you can cry out and you can complain about it.

You can say, this isn't fair. This isn't fair. It doesn't matter. No one cares that it's not fair. It's not the way the world works. Defend your land. So yeah, it still applies. It all still applies.

It's the way it goes. It's the way the world works. You can either accept it or not. And, I mean, if you don't accept it, it doesn't matter. because the world still works the way it does. Well, it's that time of the week again. This week's episode of Convicting a Murderer introduces an unlikely truth seeker, a cadaver dog named Loof might just uncover the hidden secrets found on Avery's property.

Last I checked, dogs don't carry hidden agendas or ulterior motives like, say, a filmmaker might. But as you might expect, this loyal and honest good boy was not featured in the other docu-series because he discovers powerful and incriminating evidence against Stephen Avery. Take a look. Coming up on Convicting a Murderer. Brendan Dassey had confessed to burning Teresa Hallback's clothing, but you don't see anything about her clothing or the gene rivets in making a murderer.

He told me to go throw it on the fire. Throw what on the fire? The clothes. And it's not the only detail that they left out. Other items were found in the burn area. One of them was Teresa's tooth. Her ashes, her bone fragments, were found in his backyard. And what do you do once she's on the fire?

We threw some tires on top of her and some branches. branches. Also left out are the tools that were found around the pit. There was a shovel, there was a rake. Do you like try to take the shovel and try to break the bones apart? You know why you don't know about that? Because they're not tracks. Because they didn't want you to know that. Yeah, but because they were showing us dogs. Life in prison he's going to get and he's only 16. What am I supposed to do? I had told you all along. Keep this f*** about stuff.

This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new Elixir Collection, featuring three perfume intense scents. inspired by a unique orchid accord paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein. Episode 8 of Convicting a Murder is now available to stream exclusively on DailyWire Plus. New episodes of convicting a murder are released every Thursday exclusively on DailyWire Plus.

If you're not a member, head over to DailyWirePlus.com slash subscribe to sign up and get exclusive access to this groundbreaking series and the rest of Daily Wire's content. Don't wait, subscribe today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. If you're a young person, it's important to find marriage role models. Older couples who have been together for a while, navigated many of the sorts of challenges that you are facing or will face, and have maintained and strengthened their bond through it all. It's important to find people like this, and hopefully your own parents can provide that example. If not them, then maybe another relative or a friend or someone else. Unfortunately, there aren't many public figures who can fill this role for you. If you're looking for a

roadmap to a healthy marriage, the celebrity community isn't the place to find it, but they can still be of some help. There aren't many people in public life who can serve as positive role models for married couples, but there are plenty who can be negative role models. They can show you, they can't show you which way to go, but they can show you which way you should not go. You can observe them and how they behave and endeavor to do the opposite of whatever they're doing. When it comes to negative role models,

the good news and also the bad news is that the supply is endless. But perhaps there is no famous married couple on earth that has been more helpful in this regard than Will and Jada Smith. That's with all due respect to Prince Harry and Megan and John and Giselle Fetterman and Kim Kardashian and whoever,

she's married to this month, Will and Jada are, without a doubt, the greatest negative marriage example you could ever hope to find. If you want a happy and healthy marriage, all you really have to do is just do nothing that Will and Jada do and everything they don't do. They're like a lighthouse in a storm, except you always want to go the opposite direction from wherever this lighthouse is pointing. It brings us to the latest in the Will and Jada horror story. The couple has made it back into the news this week with Jada now on the interview circuit to promote her upcoming memoir, which is called Worthy. I don't know who would ever purchase a Jada Pinkett Smith memoir,

but I do know that if I was in charge, I would keep a database of everyone who purchases the book, and I would immediately and permanently revoke their voting rights. These are the kinds of fresh ideas we need in Washington, but we're not getting, but that's a topic for another day. In any case, Jada made a personal announcement in her memoir, which came out in her interview with NBC this week. Watch.

There are so many surprising things in the book, but the thing that surprised me the most, that I actually had to reread it because I said, is this true? Right. Was that in 2016, you and Will decided that you were going to live completely separate lives. It was not a divorce on paper, but it was a divorce. So from the year 2016, which is seven years ago now, y'all have been apart. Yeah. She can't even hide her glee.

She's so happy about it. She's so happy about having an estranged, being estranged from her husband. Now, first of all, someone needs to tell the interviewer that we don't need the clapping sound effects while she's asking questions. But as for Jada, she goes on to explain that she's living a completely separate life from Will and that they split up in 2016 because they were exhausted from trying. the words of a true hero. This revelation is especially humiliating for Will Smith because everyone immediately drew the connection to the slap heard around the world.

And now we know that Will not only embarrassed himself in a desperate attempt to impress his wife, but that he did all this for a woman who'd left him five years earlier. Keep my wife's name out of your effing mouth, he famously declared, but apparently that woman doesn't really consider herself to be his wife.

Jada could have kept their unique marital arrangement to herself, shielding Will from further embarrassment. But then again, she has a memoir to sell. So she decided to keep the separation of secret until she figured out a way to monetize it. Of course, this is just the latest in a long line of ritual, public humiliations.

Jada has subjected her estranged husband too. There's another one very recently when she posted an Instagram video of her and Tupac in the 90s, dancing to Will Smith's song, Parents Just Don't Understand. It's well known that Jada still pines for her deceased lover, Tupac.

So this was seen by many, accurately, I think, as a not-so-settled dig at the man that she is still technically married to. And, you know, that's what she does. She finds little ways to twist the knife. It's her specialty. There's, you know, for example, this video from a few years ago where she decides to film herself not respecting Will or his boundaries. Watch. You know, Stan Ferrell is coming to the table. She's going to be at the red table.

Would you say she has been instrumental in you and not redefined? I would say don't just start filming me without asking me if you could film me. I'm saying come help us again please. I'm still dealing with foolishness. Don't, no, no, she, yeah, because she don't just... Would you say that she helped us heal the hurts that we cause between one another? My social media presence is my bread and butter, okay? So you can't just use me for social media and not, you know, don't just start rolling.

I'm standing in my house. Don't just start rolling. That's pretty rough to watch. I think for obvious reasons, I will. I mean, just, I can't imagine my own wife. I'm just trying to imagine my own wife. First of all, filming me without even asking me for her, she wouldn't do that. But then if she started to film me and I said, please don't film me.

And she did it anyway. And then she posted it on the Internet. I would be furious. Fortunately, I'm not married to a woman who would ever do that. But this is, this is Jada Pinkett Smith. Pretty rough. But of course, nothing. since we're on the subject, we cannot avoid what is possibly one of the cringiest videos of all time.

Nothing can possibly compare to the infamous red table talk where Jada pulled Will in to have a conversation about the time when she cheated on him. Let's all relive that cringe together. You during that time launched into an interaction with August. What do you feel like? you were looking for. I just wanted to feel good. It had been so long since I felt good.

And it was really a joy to just help heal somebody. I think that has a lot to do with my codependency, which is another thing that I had to learn to break in this cycle, just that idea of needing to fix, and being drawn to people that need help, whether it's your health or whether it's your

addictions, there's something about that childhood trauma that feels as though it can be fixed through fixing people. Man, still, tough to watch every time. Imagine your wife cheats on you and you say, how could you do this? I'm broken. I'm devastated. And she says, well, I just wanted to feel good. Oh, okay.

Well, if that was your reason, but I wasn't sure what your reason was, but if it was that, then never mind. And that was actually somehow the least cringy segment of that video, but the whole thing is brutal. The cuckolded Will Smith describes his wife's affair as launching into an interaction. Why did you launch into an interaction with that man?

And for her part, his wife shows no remorse and, in fact, congratulates herself on her infidelity by claiming that she slept with another man in order to help heal him. Then to add another terrible insult to an already grievous injury, she declares that it makes her feel good to fix people. Yet her own husband is sitting there broken into a thousand pieces. And all this frustration would build for several years until the moment when Will set his career on fire

by taking it all out on Chris Rock at the Oscars, Jada meanwhile sits there and watches, making no attempt to stop him from walking up on stage to commit assault in front of a live audience. and also makes no attempt after the fact to defend him or come to his aid in any way. She is in short, as I've already dubbed her, the worst wife in America, and Will Smith is without a question, the most pathetic husband in America, which is a sad reality, especially when you consider that before his wife got to work

exposing and humiliating him, Will Smith was, it's easy to forget now. He was perhaps the most polished, clean-cut, marketable, you know, seemingly together star in Hollywood. Now he's a laughing stock, thanks to his wife. You know, a good wife builds her man up, a bad one breaks him down. And Will Smith is nothing at this point, if not broken down. That's why they're such a powerful, albeit negative example. They reveal pretty much every facet of a bad relationship. They embody everything that a married couple can do wrong.

And they model one thing in particular, and that is the need for respect in a marriage, especially a man's need for respect. Jada has clearly never respected her husband. And he has never demanded respect or commanded it, most of all. And the end result is heartache and humiliation. When a man feels respected at home, he'll be happy and confident and eager and ambitious. You know, I want to go out and conquer the world because he feels like his wife respects him and is proud of him. You cannot put a price on that.

It's impossible to describe just how important that is to a man and what it can do for him. Now, when he's deprived of that respect, it's likely to make him frustrated, temperamental, sullen, all the other things that Will Smith. has become. In fact, the decline of his career in his public image precisely tracks with the decline of his marriage. The more disrespect that he was by his wife, the less respectable he became. This is the way it works. The more a man is respected, the more respectable he becomes, and the less than the less. The good news is that it's usually pretty easy to avoid marrying a woman who doesn't respect you. All you have to do is not marry a woman who doesn't. and respect you, okay? It is that simple most of the time. It's possible, it is possible that a woman

might hide her inner Jada. She might present herself as wholesome, affectionate, respectful, supportive, and when she's not. But most people, most women and most people in general, don't have those talents of deception. Like Jada Pinkett Smith doesn't. I saw one clip of her and I knew everything I need to know about her. 30 seconds is all it takes. It's hard to believe that Will didn't know. They're almost always red flags like this. And most of the time they're obvious. For example, you see this kind of thing all the time for people. If you're dating someone and that person ever does or says anything in public to intentionally make you look bad.

Okay, we're not talking about just playful teasing back and forth. I'm talking about they're trying to make you look bad. They're trying to actually embarrass you. If that ever happens, that is a glaring siren, telling you to leave the relationship. Like if you're a day before getting married and that happens, leave immediately. You dodged a bullet because the propensity to publicly belittle and disrespect you will only get worse, not better.

And your woman's instinct is completely backwards of what it should be. Her instinct should be to cover you, to prop you up, to show that she's proud of you. If someone complains about you to her, she should want to defend you, not join in. a woman should brag about the man that she's with, not deliberately try to make him seem lesser in the eyes of the public. As I've said before, my wife's supportive nature was obvious to me, almost from the moment I met her. It hasn't changed in 12 years.

And I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that Jada's unsupportive, resentful nature, her propensity to humiliate the people she supposedly loves. I'd be willing to bet that that was all obvious, okay, to any person with eyes and ears from the moment, Bill met her. He ignored those warning signs and now look at him. This is what happens. And it's why both Will and Jada Smith are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk to tomorrow.