The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1593 - Disturbing Investigation Into Planned Parenthood Reveals SHOCKING New Details

Episode Date: May 9, 2025

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a new investigation reveals that Planned Parenthood is shipping gender transition drugs to children across the country. This raises an important question: Why exactly are we funding these people? And of course, the major news: a new pope. What do I think of the pope? What is my analysis of his papacy—which has lasted for 18 hours so far? We'll talk about it. And yet another parent has been criminally charged for violence committed by their children. This is happening more and more, but there is a certain pattern with these prosecutions that we need to discuss.   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6   Ep.1593   - - -   DailyWire+:   Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we’re keeping it.   “Parenting” with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson premieres May 25th. https://bit.ly/3RXTL07   Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -   Today's Sponsors:   ARMRA - Go to https://tryarmra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout to receive 15% off your first order.   Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WALSH to claim $40 off + free meat for life!   Harvest Hosts - Head to https://HarvestHosts.com and use code WALSH for 20% off a Harvest Hosts membership.   - - -   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

Today, the Matt Wall Show, a new investigation reveals that planned parenthood is shipping gender transition drugs to children across the country. This raises an important question, among others. Why exactly are we funding these people? And of course then, the major news, a new pope. What do I think of the pope? What is my analysis of his papacy, which has lasted for about 18 hours so far? We'll talk about that. And yet another parent has been criminally charged for violence committed by their children. This seems to be happening more and more, but there's a certain pattern with these prosecutions that we need to discuss. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Ever wonder what gives elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers their edge? Many are turning to Armra Colostrum.

This remarkable superfood is nature's original whole food supplement containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level. Armra helps build lean muscle, speeds up recovery time, and enhances overall performance without relying on artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients. Whether you're running a company, pushing your limits in training, or simply looking for a natural advantage, in your daily life. Armour Cholostrum optimizes your body systems for peak performance and sustained energy. Research has demonstrated that Cholostrum does more than just strength and performance. It enhances your body's ability to absorb essential nutrients, supports the development of lean muscle mass and improves endurance. At the same time, it works at the cellular level to accelerate repair and regeneration, helping you bounce back faster after intense physical exertion.

Plus, Armour Cholostrum can also support your microbiome and balance and strength and immune defenses throughout the body. And who doesn't want a stronger immune system? We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmor.com slash Walsh. Enter Walsh to get 15% off your first order. That's T-R-M-R-M-R-A.com slash Walsh. We've spent a lot of time on this show discussing psychiatric drugs like SSRIs.

And the problem with these drugs is that they're incredibly potent, potentially dangerous, and they affect the mind in ways that the doctor's prescribing them don't fully understand. And all these problems are compounded by the fact that, they are increasingly easy to obtain. In fact, as the problems with psychiatric medications become more evident, the barriers to access those drugs only become lower. It seems that things should be working the opposite way, but that's not how it goes. And if you want to get a highly potent, dangerous, mind-altering drug these days, you can get it. In fact, you probably don't even have to leave your house to get it. You can get it mailed to you. And this trend is becoming more and more common with an ever-increasing array of drugs.

they are very easy to get. There's very little oversight, and you don't have to leave your house to obtain them. This is a major problem. We'll require all kinds of legislation to fix, but there are some steps we can and must take immediately to address this problem, address the problem of fraudulent life-altering drugs

being handed out in large quantities to young people in particular, basically on demand. One of those steps is to defund some of the largest distributors of these life-altering drugs, which is something that should have happened a long time ago, of course.

If we can't ban these people from operating outright, then at the very least, we should stop giving them money and we should stop giving them tax breaks. What's happening is a genuine crisis, and it's not limited to SSRIs. They extend to a whole host of other drugs as well. And a new investigation by live action, the pro-life nonprofit, has just brought renewed urgency to this crisis and how completely out of control the problem really is. We're about to play is part of an undercover investigation by live action where they contacted various. Planned Parenthood locations posing as a 16-year-old girl. And in these conversations, live actions, 16-year-old girl requests, quote-to-quote, gender-affirming care, including cross-sex hormones.

And Planned Parenthood responds by saying that this is completely fine. They say that they'll do it virtually over, you know, Zoom or something like that. And then they suggest that if the girl goes to a clinic in person, she does not need to be accompanied by her mother in the examination room. Watch. Thank you for calling Planned Parenthood. Thank you for choosing Planned Parenthood, Greater New York. Thank you for calling Planned Parenthood, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. Hello, good afternoon.

Thank you for calling Planned Parenthood. Hi, my name's Sophia. I'm just trying to schedule some gender affirming care. I really just want to be able to get some testosterone to start my journey. So we just have to start by booking your initial appointment so you can come in to see one of our providers. Are you over 18? No, I'm 16. You're good to be seen here.

than 16 and older. Okay, good. You're okay to do it for minors. Yes, you can legally get hormones under 18. How old are you? 16. I know my mom has to come in with me. Does she have to be in there the whole time?

Like, how does that work? Because I don't know if I'm comfortable with that. At some point at the appointment, maybe she doesn't have to be in the admoning room with you. You said I could do it virtually? Yeah, you could do it virtually. So what would that look like? So I just talked to a doctor and then they'd just talk to a doctor,

and then they'd be doing it? be able to prescribe me. Yeah. If it's virtual, you'll still meet with the doctor and then go over like all necessary information. At the end, they will then be prescribing hormones that would then be scripted out to like your local pharmacy. I don't need any like therapy or anything first.

Like you don't need any record of that? Not that I know of. I don't need any sort of like records of having gone to therapy or anything like that, right? Yeah, so unless you have TRICARE insurance, it would be. insurance, it would not be required. Now, this footage is part of an extensive investigation by live action into Planned Parenthood, and the full report was just released this week.

To put things in context, Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion mill in the country. They commit roughly 40% of the abortions in this country, all by themselves, and they receive something like $700 million from taxpayers every single year. So what exactly is that money buying, aside from abortions and irreversible drugs for children? According to live action, citing various investigations, it's allowing Planned Parenthood to traffic and human body parts, commit all kinds of health code and privacy violations, engage in anti-white racism at all levels of the operation. And I'm not going to go through the entire report now. It's online if you want to view it, and you should. But I will highlight this one particular section, quote, at least 40,000 patients went to Planned Parenthood for gender affirming care, quote unquote, in 2023 alone, a number that has risen tenfold. since 2017.

The largest proportion of about 40% were 18 to 22-year-olds. According to live action, 45 out of Planned Parenthood's 49 affiliated facilities provide this so-called care, and Planned Parenthood is now the second largest provider of so-called gender-affirming hormones in the entire country. The report continues, Planned Parenthood targets minors for gender-affirming care by disseminating pro-transgender ideology online and in schools. It's also stated that it would like to expand its gender-affirming care. to a greater number of minors.

The report cites a video from Planned Parenthood which the organization claims that puberty blockers are, quote, like a stop sign that pauses puberty without any potential side effects, which is completely false. Planned Parenthood also provides sex education materials to elementary schools, according to this report, including, quote,

information about puberty blockers and graphics of pubic hair art. Now, in some cases, live action notes that Planned Parenthood was caught referring a 14% 14-year-old undercover actor to gender affirming treatments at another organization so that he could hide his so-called transition from his parents. And it goes on and on. Every page of this report is extremely difficult to read, and it's all very damning. Even if you put all the baby murder to the side, which you can't, because that's still obviously the most evil thing this organization does, or any organization does on the planet. But even if you did somehow forget about that,

Planned Parenthood still remains one of the most evil organizations in the country. Their explicit goal is to permanently alter the lives of young people with surgeries and hormones long before they're able to consent to anything like that. And as the report outlines, half the time, they don't even follow their own protocols as limited as those protocols already are. Now, what's left unanswered in all of this is why Planned Parenthood still receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Republicans, as you may know, control Congress and the White House.

So why the hell are we still sending all this money to these butchers? To be clear, as Live Actions report outlines, you probably don't even need legislation to stop this funding. There are dozens of violations listed in this report, which document Planned Parenthood's issues with patient privacy, fraud, trafficking of fetal remains, and so on. All of these problems by themselves are grounds for an executive order shutting down the funding immediately. But that hasn't happened yet, and Congress hasn't done anything either. Nor have they done anything about the mass prescription of SSRIs. Now, to be clear, Planned Parenthood should be forcibly shut down by law. I mean, the entire organization should just be, the whole organization should be banned,

and all of its executives and employees at every level of the company should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. There should be a Nuremberg for Planned Parenthood executives. but that's not likely to happen anytime soon, unfortunately. There are a lot of things that should happen but won't, and this is probably number one on that list. So what I'm saying is that defunding them is the bare minimum. I mean, it's not even close to the full extent of what should be done to shut down these butchers and child abusers and bring them to justice.

It's just the most meager first step. It's the step where we at least stop forcing Americans to fund these psychopaths. and yet we haven't even done that. Republicans control the federal government, and yet somehow we are still sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood. Why? What is the reason?

I mean, what would be the negative consequence of defunding Planned Parenthood? The left will be mad. The media will complain. What the activists will scream and sing protest? songs in the street? Now, that last bit is pretty painful, I admit, but is any of that enough to override the great moral necessity of defunding an organization that kills and castrates

children? Obviously not. Especially because the protesters will be shrieking and screaming anyway. The media will complain regardless. The left will be mad no matter what. They're going to cry no matter what. We might as well give them to something real to cry about. Now, that's not to say that Republicans in Congress haven't done anything at all. They're technically still showing up to work. Later in the show, we'll talk about what they accomplished this week, though, spoiler alert, it's not exactly groundbreaking stuff, although it is good. But it's well past time for elected Republican representatives, along with the White House, to take decisive action on the ghouls and butchers who call themselves,

health care providers. You know, last time Republicans controlled the entire government, nothing was done about Planned Parenthood funding. We just kept funding them. And that cannot happen again. It just cannot. If we can defund NPR and the White House says we can, then we can defund these abortionists too. And we can stop corporations from distributing psychoactive drugs like their candy while we're at it. After all, This is what we voted for. Now let's get to our five headlines. With the uncertainty surrounding tariffs, families across the country are potentially facing another wave of price increases at the grocery store.

But there's good news. Good Ranchers.com is completely tariff-proof, thanks to their 100% American supply chain. You'll get stable prices for high-quality meat grown right here in the USA without worrying about tariff-related price hikes. The average family throws away $500 worth of meat and seafood every year. Good Ranchers helps you avoid the waste with their vacuum-sealed, individually wrapped cuts that stay fresh for a year in your freezer. Plus, their cuts are pre-trimmed by professional butchers, meaning you only pay for meat that you'll actually eat. No more trimming 10% off before cooking. You get more value with every bite. I've tried many of their steaks and other choices, and they are quite possibly the most tender, tasteful, clean protein options I've ever had.

And the convenience of delivery to my door makes them so much better. Here's an amazing offer. Visit good ranchers.com right now and use my code Wallstores. you get $40 off your order plus free meat for life when you subscribe. Choose free ground beef, wild caught salmon, seed oil-free chicken nuggets, or bacon in every box forever. That $300 of free meat every year for as long as you stay subscribed. In a world of constant change, your meal time can stay consistent and affordable. Visit good ranchers.com today.

Use code walls for $40 off and free meat for life. Good rancers, American meat delivered. Okay, let's talk about the major historic news yesterday, which is that, of course, a new post. was elected. Robert Francis Prevost, who will now be Pope Leo the 14th. The first American Pope, as you've heard, he's from Chicago. What do I think of this Pope? What is my analysis? That's the question. And I, of course, been asked this quite a bit over the last 24 hours or so. Well, you know, he's been Pope for precisely one day. So it's a little hard to assess his papacy at this juncture. And I will say that it's been very strange to be on social media,

especially on X, over the past 24 hours as a Catholic, because this is the first time that a Pope has been chosen. And then immediately, people start combing through the Pope's old tweets. You know, it's just, it's weird. It's a strange thing. And I get that if you're not a Catholic, it doesn't seem strange to you because you see the Pope as essentially a political figure because you're viewing it from the outside. But as a believing Catholic, you know, that's not how we see it. And so it's just a strange thing. It's a strange thing to see, I mean, this is the Pope.

And we're doing the screenshots of the old tweets. And, you know, because people are, many people are treating this. selection of a pope as if he's as if he'd just been nominated to be a cabinet secretary or something. And it's, as I said, sort of a strange thing to see. Now, as for his old tweets, and you've probably seen some of them, there are some red flags there. I mean, there's some cause for concern. He's taken moderate or left-leaning stances on things like immigration, things like climate change. He was critical of J.D. Vance, which is very unfortunate. He's been and critical of Trump's immigration policies, along with amplifying other people who've,

criticized him, retweeting. So people are going through and finding the Pope's retweets. Now, so that's all, those are red flags. There's no way around it. I mean, that's, that's caused for concern. Now, on the other hand, he's a registered Republican. He was an active Republican primary voter, which is also a weird thing to say about a Pope. You know, it's strange to say that, that the Pope is a Republican voter is strange. Better than the alternative, of course, much rather that than he was a Democrat voter. But so that's on the positive end of things. He's on the record taking very conservative traditional stances on marriage, on the family, on abortion.

And that's all good. the name he took. Leo the 14th is a good sign. Leo the 13th is a great pope. Some people have pointed out that this Pope wore the traditional papal vestments when he first came out to address the crowd, which Francis did not. So that's a signal. That's a nod towards tradition, which is also good. And that's again, a lot of what you're seeing in the Pope analysis is, that's why a lot of it is like cross purposes, because, again, if you're not, I'm not saying that if you're not Catholic, you shouldn't talk about it. or, of course, everyone, it's a major world event. And also as a Catholic, I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that I'm part of the Catholic Church. And when we get a new leader, it's a fact that matters to everybody. I think that's great. So I have no objection to people outside the church offering their analysis.

But you're just looking at it from a very different lens. And so we end up talking sometimes at cross purposes. And so if you're not a Catholic and somebody were to say that, hey, yeah, here are some red flags, but here's a good sign, he wore the vestments. If you're not a Catholic, that might seem totally silly to you. Like, really? What does that have to do with anything? So it's like what, the red, he wore some red on his robe instead of the all white robe. why does that matter? But from a Catholic perspective, as a believing Catholic,

you know, you see this as respect for church tradition, which is very important in and of itself, and also it's important because of what it potentially signals and symbolizes. And especially coming from the previous Pope, who notoriously infamously did not have the same level of respect for church tradition. And that's probably putting it mildly. So I see kind of a mixed bag, although this pope in that mixed bag appears to be conservative in the most important areas for a pope to be conservative.

And this is another thing that I think some people don't quite understand. you know, there are a lot of things that the Twitter commentary that doesn't quite understand about the Pope, and this is one of them. Immigration is an extremely important issue. Of course. I talk about it all the time. But for a Pope, it's more important that he gets the issues of life, marriage, and sexual morality right. Because those issues are more fundamental, first of all.

they are more morally fundamental. And also as a Pope, he's leading the universal church. He's not leading just the American church. He's leading the universal church. And so American sovereignty is incredibly deeply important, but it's not a universal issue in the same sense that the institution of the family is universal. The institution of the family is universal

in the sense that it's important across the entire globe and for all time. The institution of the family existed, you know, since the beginning of human civilism, since the beginning of humanity before the United States of America existed, and it will outlast this country, because all countries in the end are temporal. So, you know, so that's, it's more important to get that right as a pope. Like, so for me, when I'm looking at a new pope, the first thing I'm checking, is where is he on those issues?

That's the most important thing. And then these other things can be important, but they're secondary. Now, look, I think it'd be great if the Pope was a right-wing nationalist like me, but I never had any expectation that that would be the case. I'm not surprised that it isn't. And it's, it would be different if he was the president. You know, if he was elected president of the United States, then his stance on American sovereignty would be of much greater importance, which isn't to say that it's of no importance for the Pope, but we have to see these things in a certain perspective. Now, that said, you know, the Pope's supporting or calling for mass migration, the invasion of the third world into the first world, you know, the third world invasion in first world countries. If the Pope calls for that or supports. it, that's a huge problem. That's deeply damaging. And if this Pope does that, if he does it as

Pope, then I will oppose it. I will come out against it, just like I did with Francis. And that's my whole point here. If this Pope does things as Pope that I personally think are objectionable or harmful or wrong, I'll say so. My track record on that is very clear. But I also want to give him a chance. And I think that's reasonable. So, you know, if, if eight months from now, Pope Leo the 14th comes out and condemns American immigration policy and declares that we have a moral duty to accept an unchecked flood of third world immigrants. And if that were to happen, you don't have to come back to me and say, see, Matt, we told you so. You were wrong. I'm not saying that won't happen. I'm saying I want to see what happens. I'm saying I hope it doesn't happen. And I'm saying I don't want to condemn the Pope's, the papacy ahead of time. I don't want to condemn his tenure as Pope ahead of time. So you can call that cope or whatever. I don't care. I think it's just obviously the most reasonable stance to take. And it's a more charitable stance. And yeah, as a Catholic, I want to take a chance. I want to take a chance.

charitable stance towards the Pope. You got me. Guilty is charged. And I'm also not suggesting that this Pope will miraculously become based on issues like immigration and climate change. That could happen. I don't think it will. I think the more likely positive outcome is that what I'm hoping for, what I think is plausible, though I don't know how likely, is that for this Pope, issues like immigration and climate change are just not a major focus of his papacy. They were a major focus for Francis. My hope is that they're just not a focus. There's just spent a lot of time on them.

And instead he focuses on moral and spiritual matters, on the fundamental moral and spiritual matters. That's what I'm hoping for. Am I predicting that? No. I'm not. I'm hoping for it. praying for it.

One other point, you know, as others have pointed out, and I think it is, it is important to keep this in mind, is that I know that Knowles has hammered this point, that the modern American political paradigm cannot be so easily or cleanly grafted onto the epapecy. It cannot be so neatly applied to a 2,000-year-old institution. So when someone says that the Pope is woke or liberal, that label only goes so far. I mean, even for Francis, who I criticized a fair amount, but even then, it only went so far. So for instance, this Pope, just like Francis, appears to be stringently opposed to abortion, has spoken out against transgenderism,

and spoken out against gay marriage. And it's pretty incoherent, right, by our political standards, to call somebody woke when they have those positions. I mean, those are the high sacraments of wokeism, and he's against them. So, I mean, how could you possible? No one who we call woke would accept you into their club if those are your positions, right? And it's especially incoherent coming from some conservative influencers. There are some conservative influencers who I've seen sort of condemning this pope is woke, or maybe condemning might be too strong a phrase for some of them, but warning

of this pope's wokeness. There are some who have done that, who I know are support gay marriage and also support abortion, at least up to a certain point in pregnancy. Those are the two wokenest positions you can have. And so you're really not in a spot to call anyone else woke. when you are okay with the definitional destruction of the marital institution and the desecration of the sanctity of human life. I mean, if you're on board with that or okay with it, then you are woke on the two most important things yourself. And the problem is that in American politics, this dynamic doesn't really exist. you're not going to find an American politician who is, quote, unquote, far right on homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion, and yet left-leaning on immigration.

That doesn't exist in American politics. I can't think of an example. Can you? Can you think of an example of an American politician who would have what we would call right-wing positions, even far-right positions on homosexuality, transgenderism. transgenderism and abortion and yet have what we would consider left-leaning positions on immigration. I can't think of a single example of that. It basically doesn't exist.

It does, however, exist for popes. And now I'd prefer for them to be on the right on everything like I am. But again, it just shows that American political categories don't fully apply here. which is why if you're trying to apply those categories, you end up either claiming that a guy who marched in the March for Life and came out against homosexual lifestyles is woke, which doesn't make a lot of sense, or you end up claiming that a guy who talks about climate change

and criticizes Trump's immigration policies is conservative, which in our political landscape also is confusing. So that's just something to keep in mind. And that brings me back to I'd like to see what happens. I want to give this pope a chance. One thing I will predict is that whether this ends up being a good pope or a bad pope or something in between, I mean, there have been bad popes and there have been great ones. But whatever ends up being the case, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.

And I'll pray for this pope and the church. And that's where I'm at right now. To be continued, I guess is what I'll say. All right, we have our, we have our dumb Jasmine Crockett segment for this week. I don't think we've done one yet this week. Maybe we have. But it's Friday. So here she is again, being dumb.

They try to act like, oh, political violence. It's the Democrats and it's the liberals. And it's like, actually. Actually, I mean, I'm not going to say that like a left-leaning person cannot be violent because that would be like crazy to say that somebody can't. be but baby baby y'all got the white supremacists galore okay like all of them you got the proud boys you got you got the neo-nazis

you have people that literally should be classified as domestic terrorists because a lot of times that is what they are doing they're engaging in domestic terrorism and guess what they all align with your side yeah including the kKK so like I mean this is this is who aligns with So, like, inherently in, like, who you are, y'all are violent.

Like, y'all, and most of your violence has to do with people that's got a little bit of milling it. But nevertheless, like, y'all are a violent group of people. Like, you attract violent actors. And, like, I'm sorry, I know they try to make Black Lives Matter out to be the most violent. Do they, oh, what about Black Lives Matter? No, no, no. So, well, she's dumb. I mean, I know I call everybody dumb because lots of people are.

but in the term low IQ is probably overused. But she truly is. I mean, I would be shocked if she had an IQ above, let's say, 90. And I mean, that's being pretty generous. So this is a very dumb person. Although you do have to admire the intellectual rigor she applies here. She says that conservatives are the violent ones. And one of the most obvious counter examples to that claim is BLM.

And her way of dispelling that argument is just to say, no, no, no, no. Okay, well, never mind. Hey, Jasmine, I mean, you said that conservatives are viable, but BLM, you know, they burn whole city blocks and murder people in the streets, smash cops in the heads with cinder blocks. Isn't that violent? No. No, no. Oh, all right. Well, good point. Oh, well, never mind then. Okay. So this is not a serious person at all. She tries to prove that conservatives are not just violent, but inherently violent. And yeah, she doesn't know what inherently means, but she's, you know, she picked up that word somewhere along the line and liked it. But that's what she's claiming. Her evidence is the proud boys who haven't done anything or been seen anywhere in years, really, and who, by the way, through the whole course of their existence, committed less violence cumulatively and collectively than BLM did at one single riot in one single city on one single night. So she says them, and then the KKK, which essentially doesn't exist. When's the last time the KKK was a relative?

force in American life. When's the last time you had to worry about the KKK? What, like 1932? So the KKK has not been a relevant force in America since I've been alive, since way before I've been alive. Very few people who, no one listening to this and very few people who could listen to this have lived in a country where the KKK was a thing that anyone had to worry about. And those are her two examples.

an example that would have applied like 90 years ago and then the proud boys. And that's even leaving aside the obvious dunk here, which is like the KKK, we're actually Democrats. But, you know, so there's that too. But that's not even, that's, I won't even reach for the like obvious Republican comeback on this. It's more just, it's not relevant. So obviously the left is more violent. That's clear. There's a reason for that. It's not just, you know, this is not just about keeping tally. It's not

about keeping score. It's not about pointing the finger back at them and saying, no, you're violent. No, you are. No, you. Like, that's not what this is. Leftism is actually inherently violent. It inherently means, Jasmine, I know you don't know this, but inherently means belonging to something by its nature. It's in your nature, right, to be a certain thing. That's what inherent means. And so leftism is violent by its nature. Conservatism is not, I mean, it's right there in the name of the thing that conservatism is not inherently violent. It's conservative. Conservatism is conserving, right?

You're trying to conserve it. There's not a, you're trying to conserve what already exists, which is not an act of violence. to conserve a thing that exists. Now, it can require violence sometimes, but it's always going to be a defensive violence. If you want to protect something that already exists, right, you want to protect your home, you want to conserve your home,

that's not a violent thing in and of itself. Now, it only becomes violent if someone is trying to do violence against you in your home. And then in service of protecting it, then you're committing violence. So it's always defensive. It's always an act of self-defense. But leftism is a destructive force.

And it's right, it's the language that they use, like dismantling. We want to dismantle. We want to dismantle the patriarchy. We want to dismantle, you know, white supremacy. How do you dismal? It's an act of violence. dismantling is by definition, inherently, an act of violence. So, and the other thing, too, is that there are two things, well, this is part of it.

There are two, leftism teaches two things. One is that the ends justify the means. Any act is a good act, as long as it has what you perceive to be a good end, a good result. This is the argument for every affirmative action policy, every DEI policy, they say, sure, you know, it's okay to discriminate in this case because the end result is greater inclusion of racial minorities, which they see as an objectively positive result. And so it's okay. So ends justify the means. And the flip side of that is that a bad end automatically means that the thing that was done to achieve that resulted in the bad end is wrong. So for example, every leftist in the country wanted Daniel Penny to go to prison. That was a clear example of self-defense, but the end, the result was that a black person died and a white person lived. And to a leftist, that's bad in their mind, which means that whatever happened to bring about that result is also bad.

That's how leftists think. And leftism also teaches that human life is not inherently sacred. It has no intrinsic value. It has no inherent value. And that's the only way to support abortion. It's the only way to support and applaud and celebrate. promote, fund the slaughter of 60 million babies. So the ends justify the means.

Human life is not sacred. We're trying to dismantle things. What does all this mean? It means violence. The ideology expressly justifies even requires in some cases violence. Conservatism doesn't. And this is why conservatives are much more squeamish about violence. Unless the means are obviously justified, like in the case,

of self-defense. And this is why there's almost never a right-wing riot. When I say that, of course, anyone on the left who's listening is, oh, no, January 6th. Yeah, well, right, exactly. There's one that you can name, like ever. I mean, there's only one. If I were to say left-wing riot, if I were to, if I was talking to 100 people and I said, okay, shout out the first thing that comes in mind when I say this, left-wing riot. They're going to shout a hundred different riots. They're not even, they're, they're going to, they'll have, there'll be a hundred different examples of what comes to mind when they think, but if I were to say to 100 people, right wing riot, every single one of them is going to say January 6th, because that's the

only example of that thing that exists in modern American history. So, and why is that? Because a riot is fundamentally left-wing. It is a fundamentally left-wing tactic. It is rampant, random destruction. It endangers random innocent lives. And so it's the kind of thing that you can only justify if you believe, number one, the ends justify the means, and number two, that human life has no intrinsic value. And number three, if you believe that there's that there's a certain value in and of itself to dismantling and destroying. If you see civilization in particular as a thing that needs to be dismantled and destroyed, then again, then what will, then a riot makes a lot of sense actually. A riot is a

random, just random destruction of whatever happens to be around. So that's why the left is is actually violent and will always be the much more violent political movement. All right. Let's see. I'm hesitant to discuss this story,

this next story, only because I might want to do a longer monologue on it next week and I don't like to repeat myself, which may come as a shock because I repeat myself all the time. But I didn't say I don't repeat myself. I just said I don't like to. So, but speaking of repetition, stop me if you've heard this one before. The parent of a school shooter has been charged in connection with the shooting.

This is the third such case by my count in just the last year or so. The third time that a parent has been charged with a crime that his child committed. And so let me read a little bit of this story and the details. And then we'll talk about it. And I'm going to have to read more of this article than I normally would, but there are just important details here so that we can offer any kind of coherent analysis. Wisconsin prosecutors have charged the father of a teenage girl who killed a teacher and fellow student in school shooting last year with allowing her to access the semi-automatic pistol that she used in the attack. The criminal complaint against 42-year-old Jeffrey Rupno of Madison details how his daughter, 15-year-old Natalie, struggle with her parents of divorce. showing her anger in a written piece entitled,

War Against Humanity. Her father tried to bond with her through guns, the complaint said, even as she meticulously planned the attack, including building a cardboard model of the school and scheduling the shooting to end with her suicide. Prosecutors filed the complaint Wednesday, but didn't unsealed until after Jeffrey Rupno was arrested. He faces two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon

to a person under 18, causing death, and contributing to the delinquency of a child. All the charges are felonies. Jeffrey Rupno told a vestigone, that his daughter lived with him but had been struggling with his divorce from her mother in 2022, saying she hated her life and wanted to kill herself. He said she used to cut herself to the point where he had to lock up all the knives in his house. She had been in therapy to learn how to be more social until the spring before the attack.

Her mother, Melissa, told executives that the, or rather detectives, that the therapist told her that Natalie was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the divorce. One of Natalie's friends told investigators that Jeffrey Rupno was frequently verbally aggressive. and that he was a drinker. Jeffrey Rupnoe told investigators that took Natalie shooting with him. Jeffrey Rupnoe told investigators that he took Natalie shooting with him on a friend's land about two years before the abundant life attack. She enjoyed it, and he came to see guns as a way to connect with her, but he was shocked at how her interest in firearms snowballed. He kept Natalie's pistols in a gun safe, telling her that if she ever needed them, the access code was his Social Security number entered backwards.

about 10 days before the school attack, he texted a friend and said that Natalie would shoot him if he left the fun safe open right now. Okay. And then after the attack, he sent a letter, a message to detectives saying that his biggest mistake was teaching Natalie how to handle guns safely and urging police to warn people to change their gun safe combinations every two to three months. And so that was his warning. Okay, so there are two things we need to talk about here. First of all, as to the merits of these charges, and allowing for the fact that there might be details. I mean, there certainly are details we don't know. There might be very salient and important details that detectives and investigators know that we don't. They haven't told us yet.

And so if I'm judging just based on what we read, this could change if there's more we weren't told that comes out and and maybe it will change my analysis of this. But based on what we know, it's in that article, I would say that I don't think he should be charged with a crime. In fact, based on what we just read, I think that it seems like a gross miscarriage of justice to charge him with a crime. Now, did the father make mistakes here?

Yes, obviously. Very serious ones. But this write-up anyway makes it sound like He was a father trying to connect with his daughter, doing what he could. They had her in therapy. Therapy is very often useless and makes things worse. But again, he's doing what he thought was the right thing. Taking her shooting because it's, you know, as the father, the daughter lives with him,

which is a very interesting detail. That's unusual to have a divorce and the daughter lives with the father rather than the mother. So there's all kinds of backstory there that we don't know about. But the daughter lives with him. So he as a now single father, he's trying to bond with his daughter. And so he's doing it in the only way that he knows how as a man with bringing her into his sort of masculine activities. And for him, he's really into shooting. And so he brings her into that.

He notices her spiraling. He keeps the guns locked up. And then it, like I got one. important thing I think I skipped over as I was skimming is that he, a couple days before the shooting, let me see if I can find it, he took a gun out to clean it so that Natalie could clean it, but then he got distracted and he wasn't sure if he put the weapon back in the safe or not. Okay, so that was like the biggest mistake of all. So, and that's a serious mistake. Those are very serious mistakes.

But here's what we don't see. We don't see, we clearly don't see, a father who was in any way directly or intentionally involved in this terrible crime. We don't see what appears to be criminal neglect. The worst thing we hear about his parenting style is that he could be verbally aggressive, whatever that means. I mean, that could mean anything. Not even verbally abusive, but verbally aggressive. Okay, well, I mean, again, that can mean anything. So we don't see evidence of any intentional involvement. We don't see criminal neglect. What we do see as a father with a daughter spiraling mentally and emotionally who doesn't know how to handle. And he, as the father, doesn't know how to handle that. And we see that, you know, if there was one action taken by the parents that we could connect directly and most directly to this crime, it was the divorce. The divorce is what, by all accounts, made everything start crumbling down. If they hadn't got divorced, probably this never happened.

Are we going to arrest every parent who gets divorced after their child goes and commits a violent crime? Is that what we're going to do? And that brings us to, I think, the greater point here is this crime the father's fault? Directly, no. Kids, they do have their own free will and they make decisions and they can make really awful decisions. And I've talked before about, we use this phrase about controlling our kid. You know, if you see a kid that's wild, that's acting wild, we will often say, oh, that kid's out of control. Control your kid.

Control your kid. Well, when you become a parent, you discover very quickly that you can't control your kid in the most literal sense. In that your kid is not, there's no like remote control where you can make your kid. kid do a certain thing. Now, you can, especially as they're young, you can physically, you can pick them up and take them somewhere. That's forcing them. You can physically force it. They want to go to their room or you send them at the time out and they refuse to go. You can pick them up and bring them there. So like you can, in that sense, control them. But especially as they get older, you can't literally directly control everything they do say and think,

obviously. So when we say control, what we really mean is influence. As parents, there's a little bit of direct control that goes into it. When they're very young, there's a lot. As they get older, there's less and less of it. Of direct, like, physical control of what they're doing. As they get older, there's less of that, and then the influence becomes more important. And so when we say, kids out of control, what we really mean is that they have not been properly influenced by their parents. Their parents are not influencing their behavior at all, or their parents are influencing their behavior in the wrong kind of way. Right. And so in this case, you know, this is a child who was not being influenced the right way. who was, who was, the father apparently was trying to influence or trying to bond with her. And that wasn't connecting. It wasn't working. Or it was, or it was, it was being interpreted in the wrong way. And, and that's what we're seeing. So, you know, is he indirectly at fault for this? Well, maybe partially. He got divorced. Apparently, I mean, I don't know who's at fault for the divorce, right?

But they got divorced. That's a big thing. And it sounds like they didn't properly handle their daughter's mental collapse after that. But so my answer is, no, he's not directly at fault, obviously. Is he indirectly at fault? Probably. To some extent. In the same way that if you're a parent, whatever your kids do, like, it can at least be indirectly tied to you. Because you have a lot of influence over your kids.

And if you don't have influence over them, then that's also goes back to you. That's bad parenting. That's a failure as a parent if you've lost influence over them. But if that translates to criminal charges, if this is enough to hold him criminally liable, then the question is, how in God's name can you justify not also charging the parents of literally thousands of violent criminals who are in prison right now? every damn day in this country there are kids in the street committing violent crimes including murder and including with guns guns that the parents usually the mom because in this scenario the dad is completely absent these are guns that the parents either know about or don't know about because they're incredibly

neglectful and not monitoring their children at all you know we so we could say oh well so the father should go to jail here because it was his gun um Okay, well, so if it's a 14-year-old kid running around the streets of Baltimore with a gun that he got from somewhere else and the mom doesn't even know about it, is that better? Is she off the hook even more? I'd say, if anything, that's like worse. That's worse. If your kid's going out on his own and getting a gun at the age of 13 or 14 and you don't even know about it, you're at least equally as neglectful, right? at least.

So, but none of those parents are ever charged. You know, they, you have these kids who, kids, teens, young adults also committing crimes. And the parents, through their inaction, through their recklessness, through their lack of parental oversight, allowed it to happen. every day this happens every single day every single day right now as we are speaking there is a 15-year-old kid out in the street in some city about to take out a gun and rob a liquor store and his mom is a block away at home okay and here's what we know that mom will not be charged with a crime no one will even consider it, even if it turns out that that mom is at home on methamphetamine. And so that's why she was too busy with meth to be worried about what her son is doing.

She still won't be charged with the crime. And we know that. It will not happen. So, look, people don't like it when I say it. But the only parents who are charged in these kinds of cases are middle class white parents. And, you know, people are going to say, oh, Matt's making it about race again. what, if that's what you're saying, just shut up. Shut up, you fraud, you lying, sniveling little weasel, weakling coward, because what I am noticing is a very clear and unmistakable pattern. It just is real, okay? It's just a thing that's happening. Okay, what do you want me to tell you? What do you want me to tell you? There are thousands of violent criminals and cities all across the country with awful, terrible parents who have done nothing to raise their kids properly.

and none of those parents are ever charged, ever, ever, ever, not ever. And so what do you want me to do with that? I was just going to pretend it's not happening? Is that the better solution here? So don't tell me that I can't notice it. We're not doing that anymore. We're not pretending that these patterns don't exist. Go cry about it.

I don't care. You know I'm right. You know I'm right. This is a standard only applied to white middle class parents. And you know what? If I'm wrong, then don't come crying. making, making it about race. Don't do that.

Give me a counter example. Go ahead. Go ahead. Please, please do. Find me the violent young black criminal who committed a crime, a violent crime, and his parents were charged for that crime. Go ahead and do it.

I dare you, but you can't because it doesn't happen. And that's a problem. That's a problem. And it also just means that we can't. even really have a conversation about the principle here of should we be charging parents with crimes that their kids commit. That's an interesting conversation. I think we should have it.

I very much tend on the side of what we shouldn't. I understand the argument for doing it. It's not an unreasonable argument. I understand the argument. But the problem is that the standard is not being equally applied. So, you know, that's the theme that we're dealing. with this week and we deal with all the time, is that there's a standard that we can't even really talk about because first we have to deal with the fact that that standard is not equally

applied. And so first, we have to equally apply it. And then once we've done that, then we can have a really interesting, honest, productive conversation about the standard. And if you would say, well, but we can't apply that standard equally because that would just be insane. You might say that, well, yeah, but we can't really do this equal. Because then, like, then we're, tomorrow, we're going to be locking up 100,000 parents. We can't do that. Well, if that's the case, then, like, maybe that tells us something about the standard. If that's our answer, and maybe it is, maybe the answer is like, yeah, you know what, in the interest of justice, there's an argument to be made for it, but practically we just can't do that. Okay, well then, but we shouldn't be doing it over here then.

So then why are we doing it randomly with these few cases if we're not going to do it consistently? This is one of the reasons why I harp so much on consistent standards is because, you know, that's just justice. That's right. its fairness, but also one of the ways to discover whether a standard is prudent, whether it is just, whether it makes sense, is to consistently apply it. If you're taking a standard and only applying it in a minority of random arbitrary cases, then you might, there might be a lot of problems with that standard that you're not going to really discover because you haven't expanded the scope of it in the way that you should. And I think that this is a perfect,

example of that. Take that standard, apply it universally, and see what we're at. And if it's a standard that applied universally means that we have to go out right now and build 600 more prisons to put all the parents in, then we might say to ourselves, well, I just don't, you know, I don't think we can do that. And then by the way, like those parents all have other kids who are now orphans. And what are we going to do about that? It causes all kinds of problems. But you've got to apply the standard equally. And this is a conversation that we just have to have. You know, I've got vacation days to use, but I'm bored visiting the same places.

I'd love to just pack up an RV and see all of America with my family and check back in here at the studio in a few months. Well, you know, if you can relate and you rent or own an RV and you're tired of parking your RV and the driveway, gas tank on empty with no trips even remotely planned, then you need Harvest hosts. With Harvest hosts, $79. a year gets you unlimited fee-free overnight stays at 9,500 amazing stops across North America. You can wake up at distilleries, farms, museums, golf courses, even drive-in theaters. Your home on wheels deserves better than another rest stop. And with their wide selection means there's something for everyone. Discover beautiful new places, support local businesses, and finally use your RV for what it was meant for.

Actual Adventure. Looking at some of their location options makes me want to take a break from the insanity in the culture and rents an RV. stuff all six kids into it, you know, why not? And head out to do some sites saying some of these locations are truly must-seas. My family and I would probably start with their fishing spots and dark sky preserves. Plus, using Harvest Hosts to map out your trip takes all the stress out of it. The host locations are vetted, safe, and well-reviewed, which means you can travel with no worries. And with over 50,000 five-star reviews, you're sure to love your journey.

head to Harvesthost.com and use Code Walsh for 20% off Harvesthost membership. Once again, that's Harvesthost.com for 20% off and make sure use my promo code Walsh so they know I sent you. Being a parent is hard, especially if you're trying to do it right. And this Mother's Day weekend, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has a few things to say about that. Here's the trailer for his new series, which is coming to DailyWR Plus. It's called Parenting. Here it is. There is nothing you'll do in life that's more challenging, difficult, and rewarding than

being a parent. Nothing with greater highs or lower lows. You have little kids for a very short period of time. It is a major mistake not to notice that and not to appreciate it. We're dealing with a pattern of misbehaviors with our son, who's three years old. Whenever we want to leave the house,

starts running away. We have to be places at certain times. When a disciplinary issue arises, you need to make space to master it. I have to not do what I thought I was going to do for 10 minutes. to set this right. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums quite often

when he doesn't get his way. We spoiled the heck out of him. When you spoil a child, so to speak, you take away from them the opportunity to develop their own competence by doing too many things for them. The consequences of his abdication of thought is that other people think for him. That's what'll happen.

Our daughter was bullied at her school. As this is happening, our son turned to some substance abuse. Look for mood changes and behavioral changes and then you can tell your kid, look, it might be an unpleasant conversation that we have to have, but I'm not going to let you be miserable and drift away. Discuss the disciplinary strategies. Discuss the rules. Discuss what it is that you want from your child. Talk that through so that you're the same person. The more effective you are in laying out these disciplinary rules,

the more they'll like you. Rules consistently applied with minimal force and plenty of patience. You don't want to let your worry destroy the pleasures of the moment. Just because children know less about the world doesn't mean they're not paying attention and certainly doesn't mean that they're stupid.

They're not stupid and they're watching. Excema is unpredictable. But you can flare less with ebbglyse, a once-monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four and seven people taking ebbglis achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librikizumab, LBKZ. A 250 milligram per 2-millimeter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema.

Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to ebbglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebbglis. Before starting Ebbglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask your doctor about Ebbglis.com or call 1-800 lilyr-R-X or 1-800-545-9-9. Parenting with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson premieres May 25th only on Dailywireplus.com. Don't miss it. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. The biggest criticism that you can level against Republicans in Congress at the moment, as we alluded to at the beginning of the show, is that they aren't doing enough to codify the Trump administration's agenda. Donald Trump can sign a dozen executive orders,

but unless Congress turns them into laws, that we can be certain that the next Democrat president will reverse them. On top of that, there's a lot of issues that Congress could tackle by itself, like cutting spending, especially to demonic organizations like Planned Parenthood, and they don't seem interested in doing that either. At the same time, we do have to give some credit to Republicans, Republicans in the House. And that's because yesterday, they managed to pass a bill that officially changes the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which of course was

one of Donald Trump's first acts in his second administration. Watch. The ayes are 211. The nays are 206. The bill is passed. With that House vote, the Gulf of Mexico is one step closer to becoming the Gulf of America under federal law. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order renaming the body of water. The Republican-led bill not only changes the name but also requires federal agencies to update maps and documents with the new title. As we rename the Gulf, the Gulf of America, we are also taking pride in those waters. The legislation now moves to the Senate for consideration, though it's unclear if it will pass there. But it appears the Trump administration is not done making changes to the map.

The president is expected to announce next week that the U.S. will soon refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf, a move that Iran has called, quote, hostile. hurt anybody's feelings. I don't know if feelings are going to be hurt. Why have a case right over here? It's called Gulf of America. Now, this is obviously a symbolic piece of legislation. It's not anywhere near the kind of action that we should be seeing from the House GOP at this point. It's, I mean, it's worth doing, but it's not, it doesn't go anywhere close to the full extent of what we should be seeing. But it's still a useful bellwether for where the House representative stands and how they're likely to act on future legislation to codify the administration's agenda.

It's also a logical piece of legislation that everyone should support. But not every Republican did support it. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 211 to 206 with every Democrat and one Republican, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska in opposition. And here's what Don Bacon told CNN by way of explaining his no vote on the bill. It just seems juvenile. We're the United States of America. We're not Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany or Napoleon's France.

We're better than this. It just sounds like a sophomoric thing to do, close quote. So the implication is that Wilhelm and Napoleon, two of the most important figures in the history of Europe, are not worth emulating in any way. In fact, he's saying it's sophomoric to emulate them. Never mind the fact that we're still talking about, you know, Napoleon long after his death because of his significance to the, you know, to the world at large. never mind the fact that in all likelihood, no one's going to be talking about Don Bacon in 20 years unless it's the name of a new special at Denny's.

Instead, we're supposed to conclude that instead of acting like great men of history, we should be as meek and passive as we possibly can. Here's Don Bacon to explain. I just think there's bigger things for us to be working on and voting on too. You know, I get it to, you know, the president campaign on it, but I didn't campaign on it.

And again, I just, I think Americans, see this as a, you know, like a junior high type of move, and I think America's better than us. You know, that objection never makes any sense. Oh, there's better things to vote on. Okay, but yeah, but you are voting on it. So, like, you have to cast a vote one way or another. It takes just as much time to say no as it does yes. So the fact that there are better things to vote on, that might be a reason to object to it coming to the floor in the first place.

But once it's there, it's there, you're voting on it. So are you in favor of it or not? It takes a second, one way or another, to say. So, but he doesn't want to object in principle to the thing. He does object in principle. He doesn't want to frame his objection that way. So instead he's pretending that this is all about not wasting time. And the point about how there's more important things to vote on, it's true.

That's not in dispute. But we're now in the month of May. And the House still has not voted on most of those very important agenda items. So at this point, it's nice to have some progress, even if it's not the most time-sense or urgent piece of legislation. It's also nice to have some sense that Republicans in Congress are capable of, you know, acting like a cohesive unit without random dissenters complaining for no discernible reason. In this clip, Don Bacon sounds a lot like every single Democrat in Congress, which isn't exactly a great sign. Actually, I'll revise that last statement. Don Bacon, as much as I

disagree with his position, does sound quite a bit better than at least one Democrat in Congress. I'm talking about the Democrat congressman from Delaware who uses the name Sarah McBride, after changing his name from Tim. The other day, McBride attempted to criticize the Republican legislation while using the House subway system. And here's what he came up with. Listen. We are on our way to the House floor

to vote on what is possibly the dumbest bill we could be spending our time on legislation to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. This is ridiculous. And look, you might think that we're doing this because it's another opportunity for House Republicans to be sympathetic to the man in the White House.

But the other reason why we're doing this is despite how unpopular this name change is, they would rather us be talking about mixing the Gulf of Mexico rather than talking about how House Republicans are trying to mix health care for millions of Americans. They would rather us talk about the Gulf of Mexico than talk about how Donald Trump's reckless and erratic tariff policy is crashing the economy. changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico in this economy? What the hell are we doing here? Yes, according to this man in address who changed his name from Tim to Sarah,

it's dumb and ridiculous to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. But actually, if you think about it for two seconds, one of those two things is a lot more reasonable than the other. On the one hand, changing the name from the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America makes sense because we're in the North American continent. And clearly, the Gulf doesn't belong to Mexico. It touches a significant amount of U.S. coastline, and it's critical to our economy. We're talking about a body of water that is surrounded by both North America and South America. Therefore, if you want to convey the fact that there's a body of water that's important to multiple countries and continents,

it makes more sense to name the Gulf after the continent rather than arbitrarily picking one of those countries. On the other hand, we have the name change from Tim to Sarah, and that's a name change that makes a lot less sense because we're talking about a man, and it's extremely dumb and ridiculous to call a man Sarah, even if he does put on a dress and wear some makeup. It's certainly a lot less logical than using the term Gulf of America. And this guy's position is especially absurd, given that McBride has previously told conservatives that renaming famous landmarks is no big deal. Here's one of McBride's tweets from a few years ago, quote,

Conservatives are outraged Mount McKinley will be renamed Donali and say we're losing our heritage, forced to Google William McKinley, close quote. In other words, McBride mocked conservatives who didn't want Mount McKinley's name to be changed. He hinted at some indigenous colonizer mumbo-jumbo that no one actually can explain, and then he told conservatives to shut up.

But now a few years later, McBride is pretending to be outraged that the Gulf of Mexico has been re-relivenged, has been renamed to something a lot more sensible. And throughout all this, McBride is putting out videos like this one, accusing Republicans of engaging in absurdity. Watch. Oh, hi. I didn't see you there. You're probably wondering why you're in my Washington, D.C. office refrigerator. Well, let me tell you.

The absurdity never ends in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Yeah, I'm wondering a lot of things about you, but that's not really one of them. If you wanted any more reason to support the name change of the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America, here it is. The single most confused member of Congress, which is quite an achievement, opposes the name change. That should be all the reason you need to celebrate the fact that four months into Donald Trump's second term, Republicans have taken at least one step towards codifying his policies. Viewed as optimistically as possible, it's maybe a sign that some more laws like this are about to be passed. And it's also why Congressman McGrathes, bride, who once again has made the GOP's point far better than the GOP ever could, is today canceled. That'll do it for the show today and this week.

Have a great weekend. Talk to you all Monday. Godspeed.