The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1746 - The TRUTH About The Radical Far Left Heretic Who Just Won The Primary In Texas

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, low IQ Jasmine Crockett lost her senate primary race. But the man who beat her -- and who the media has been championing and celebrating for months -- is a deranged, depraved heretical satanist. According to the media, he represents the "moderate" option in the Democrat Party. What does that tell you? Also, congress blocks an effort to release all of their own sexual misconduct files. Apparently they want transparency for the Epstein files, but not for themselves. And a man with 131 prior arrests is arrested again, this time for setting someone on fire. There is actually a solution to the crime problem in America. We don't have to live like this. And I'll explain what that solution is. Ep. 1746 - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMemberExclusive - - - Today's Sponsors: Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save. Balance of Nature - Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that’s changing the world. Go to https://BalanceofNature.com to subscribe and save today. Leaf Home - Schedule your free inspection at https://leaffilter.com/WALSH - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dailywire.com/subscribe The Real History of the American Indians is available now, exclusively on DailyWire+ Watch now: https://dwplus.watch/RealHistoryAmericanIndians Subscribe here: https://dwplus.watch/RealHistorySubscribe The Real History of Slavery is available for free on youtube: https://youtu.be/UivhqdhcHNI 🍿 The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin is now streaming exclusively on DailyWire+ https://dwplus.watch/ThePendragon 🔥 Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available: https://dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire 👕 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://dwplus.shop/MattWalshMerch - - - Socials:  Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today in the Matt Wall Show, low- IQ Jasmine Crockett lost her Senate primary race, but the man who beat her and who the media has been championing and celebrating for months is a deranged, depraved, heretical Satanist. According to the media, he represents the moderate option in the Democrat Party. What does that tell you? Also, Congress blocks an effort to release all of their own sexual misconduct files. Apparently, they want transparency for the Epstein files, but not for themselves. And a man with 131 prior arrests is arrested again.

this time for sending somebody on fire. There is actually a solution to all this. There's a solution to the crime problem in America. We don't have to live like this. And I'll explain what that solution is. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walls show. The other day we eulogize the political career of the great Jasmine Crockett of Texas. She lost her bid to be the Democrats nominee in the Senate primary, a race that she felt compelled to join because Republicans gerrymandered her congressional district away.

In other words, because Republicans redrew the congressional map, Jasmine Crockett had to choose between running for a totally new congressional seat or running for the Senate. You can't run for both seats at the same time. And she chose the Senate and she lost. And as a result, her political career is likely over. Now, as tragic as Jasmine's defeat is, she was by far the most entertaining member of Congress who can barely speak English. There's a bigger story here. Jasmine Crockett's defeat is part of a major shift in American politics and it really doesn't get enough attention. For decades since the civil rights era, Democrats have been allowed to draw and redraw congressional maps in order to boost black representation in Congress. So if a district was 80% white, Democrats could redraw

the district in absurd ways so that more black people who overwhelmingly vote Democrat were included. And that's what happened in Louisiana, to give just one example. We'll put this ridiculous map up on the screen. I think we've shown it before. A federal court forced Louisiana to draw a district across the entire length of the state solely to include more black people. This is what happens in many different states. Essentially, Democrats have been allowed to dilute the white vote, knowing full well that non-white voters tend to side with Democrats. Now, this is cheating, of course, but under the guise of racial equity, courts have allowed it. But that's all ending now, all over the country because of federal court decisions and Supreme Court rulings,

Republicans are being allowed to redraw congressional districts that have been rigged for years. So they're basically unrigging these districts. And this is called gerrymandering. And yes, Republicans are explicitly drawing the districts in order to maximize their political advantage. There's nothing unusual about that, nothing illegal or unethical about it. Both parties do it. That's how the game is played. The difference is that for the first time in 50 years, Democrats don't get to scream racism and stop Republicans from gerrymandering.

A bigger Supreme Court ruling on the issue is pending. And if it goes the way we think it will, Democrats stand to lose around two dozen seats in Congress. So it's a very big deal. But already, the impact is being felt. Jasmine Crockett is done. And the man who defeated her in the Democrat U.S. Senate primary, James, Tala Rico is now being touted as a moderate Democrat who has a real chance of flipping the state of Texas. No Democrat, by the way, has won a Senate race in Texas in about 50 years.

But according to Stephen Colbert and the DNC and MSNBC and everybody else in the mainstream left, Tala RICO can do it. He's the guy. And that's because, as MSNBC reminded us yesterday, Tala RICO is supposedly a moderate candidate, who will win over independence and, you know, non-political voters. And he's so sane and normal and moderate that he's a big tent. He's a big tent guy, a big tent candidate, we're told. Watch. What is the sense in Texas of how James Talleyco upset Crockett?

Yeah, so Congressman and Crockett definitely came into this race with the name recognition. And these two candidates were fairly similar in terms of their policy positions, but they had two very different pitches for voters. Crockett really pitched herself as a fighter, someone who was going to take on Donald Trump and stand for Democrats, whereas State Representative James Tolariko was talking about taking on economic and political systems that are run by billionaires, saying that yes, he was going to take on Trump, but also that he was pitching himself as sort of this big tent Democrat who would bring in independents, who could bring in disaffected Republicans, whereas Representative Crockett was really focused on bringing in and juicing the

Democratic voter turnout. And so two very different strategies there. Now, this idea that Tala Rico is a down-the-middle politician with broad appeal is everywhere. Leslie Marshall, who's on Fox News all the time as a political strategist, called Tala Rico a more moderate option. Newsweek describes Tuller Rico as a rising Democrat and a moderate focused on economic populism and broad voter appeal. This is how they sold Tala RICO to left-wing Democrats in Texas. Tala RICO, Democrats were told was the sane and rational alternative to Jasmine Crockett. So white liberal women cast their votes for Tala Rico, even as they openly wept about the fact that they were oppressing a strong, independent woman of color. Watch. So yes, we need a fighter. And I was so ready to vote

for Jasmine Crockett because I love her. But I voted for Talarico because we need some who can win. Yeah, it's just a shame. We love her so much, but we had to, we love this black woman and we want black women in positions of power, but, you know, here was one that we had to deprive her of that position of power for, for the greater good, is what they're saying. And, you know, it's easy for conservatives to be pessimistic right now as the midterm election season begins. Midterm elections generally don't go well for the party that controls Congress in the White House. Historically, the incumbent party loses a lot of seats. We all know that. That's how it's worked, especially in recent years. And although the polling looks pretty good for Republicans right now,

the expectation is that things will shift, as they tend to do, towards the Democrats, as we get closer to November. But despite all that pessimism, I will make a prediction. Now that the Democrat Party establishment is seriously trying to run candidates like James Tala Rico with the messaging that they're normal and moderate and appeal to a big tent, it's very likely that Democrats will not know what hit them in November. If this is how they're going to play it, if this is the guy, the Democrats' political operation is going to rally behind on the theory that he's totally relatable to the average person in Texas of all places, then this party is probably toast in the midterms. James Tolariko is not simply a far-left activist who's never worked a real job.

job in his life, although he is that. He's not simply a creepy-looking heretic and fake pastor who pathologically lies to Christians over and over again about what Scripture says. Now, James Talarico is all those things, as we'll discuss in a moment, but he's also completely insane. He genuinely makes Jasmine Crockett out to be totally normal. In a race between the two of them, she is actually the normal and moderate one by comparison. That's how bad this guy is. Tala Rico's rise as a moderate was such a con job, such a flagrant bait and switch, that even now, it's likely that most Democrats don't realize exactly what just transpired. So let's fill them in. We'll start with this post from James Tala Rico on May 8th of 2020.

This is what he tweeted in the context of complaining about alleged cases of police brutality, which were not in fact police brutality. He says that these non-brutality cases are symptoms of the virus of racism. and adds this, quote, white skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus, but we spread it wherever we go through our words, our actions, and our systems. We don't have to be showing symptoms like a white hood or a Confederate flag to be contagious. Now, and then he continues, he says, quote, the only cure is diagnosing the virus within ourselves and taking dramatic actions to contain the spread. the first small step is proclaiming loudly and unequivocally that hashtag black lives matter.

Now, we've all become accustomed to hyperbolic and deranged rhetoric from the left. We all know how often these people will be clown themselves in the service of their ideology. But even with that in mind, I mean, this is something special. The Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate in Texas, just a few years ago, declared that white people, simply by virtue of their genetics, spread racism wherever they go like a, virus in everything they do. He declared that we are all carriers of a virus. He's saying that white people in every case are a plague on society because they are white and therefore diseased. And by the same token, he's saying that it's impossible for a white person to be victimized

because of the color of his skin. White people, according to this guy, cannot be discriminated against. They cannot be the victims of hate crimes. It's not unjust to punish whites for being white because in his worldview being white is itself a crime against nature, or at the very least, as he puts it, a disease. But put mildly, this is not going to play well in Texas, nor should it. In a sane Democrat party, these posts alone would be disqualifying. The African warlords who chant kill the boar. I mean, even they would find James Tala Rico to be a little too on the nose. Even they would tell him to tone it down a little bit. But for Democrats, Tala Rico is apparently the best they have to offer. So they're going to present him as a moderate, even though he thinks that tens of millions

of Texans carry a virus because of the color of their skin. Now, to be clear, this is a much bigger problem for Tala Rico than just was one post. He's also on the record declaring that prison is violence and that we should imagine a world where prisons don't exist at all. Watch. is violence. Pollution is violence. And yes, prison is violence. Dismantle this system of violence, build something new, something better, something rooted in love. It's hard to imagine a world about prisons, but it's also hard to imagine a world without telegrams and cassette tapes. Just because it's hard to imagine doesn't mean you shouldn't. Prison is violence. It's hard to imagine a world without prisons, just because it's hard to imagine, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

This is the message that the national Democrats have just committed to. This is what they view as moderate. They're trying to suggest that abolishing prisons, a policy that would obviously destroy society and lead to the deaths of thousands of people, that that is a big tent policy. Let's go poll that one. Maybe Reuters can go pull that one. What do American citizens feel?

How do you feel about abolishing prisons? Now, needless to say, of course, if we abolish the prisons, which is what James wants us to do, James himself will not be living in the neighborhoods where the freed convicts will be settling. We know that. And he's a lot of other big ideas, including the notion that there are somehow six biological sexes. Watch. I want us all to be aware of is that modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six, which honestly, Representative Hepner,

surprised me to surprise me too, because I, you know, am not well-versed in this issue area. I'm not a scientist. I'm a politician. A lot worse than a scientist. So he says it's obvious that there are six biological sexes according to modern science. there's the arrogance we're all familiar with from these people. And then he suggests that modern science is infallible. So we all need to agree that effective immediately, there are six biological sexes. So fortunately, he doesn't provide the names of those six biological sexes, which is what we always find with these people that say there's more than one sex. They can never name it. But as best I can tell, he's referring to people with chromosomal disorders like Turner Syndrome, where children are born

without the typical XX or XY chromosomes. A child might be born with a single X chromosome, for example. This doesn't mean that the child belongs to a new biological sex, obviously. What it means is that the child has a developmental abnormality that exists within the established sex binary. And we know that because these developmental abnormalities do not lead to the creation of new reproductive cells or reproductive pathways, which is the definition of a biological sex. If you're a member of a distinct biological sex, it means that your body creates,

distinct reproductive cells that when combined with other reproductive cells from another biological sex create a new organism. So put another way, somebody with a developmental disorder might produce eggs or sperm or neither, in which case they'd be infertile or sterile. But they don't produce a third type of cell that enables the creation of a new organism. And it's absurd to suggest otherwise. Now, what's important to understand about Tala Rico, and this might be why some Democrats were fooled into thinking that he was a moderate, is that he will deliver complete falsehoods with total sincerity. I mean, he'll look you in the eye very calmly and just lie with impunity. The more you listen, the more unsettling it becomes. For example, watch how he voiced his opposition to a bill that would prevent boys from competing in girls' sports.

Let's see exactly why Tala Rico wants men to compete against women. Here it is. Before my constituents elected me to this body, I taught middle school. And my students are the reason I'm here to make public policy that improves their lives. But instead, we're doing this, endangering the lives of some of our most vulnerable children, to solve a problem that doesn't exist. when she laid out this bill in front of the public education committee Representative Swanson summed up the justification for this legislation in one sentence

she said if one girl loses a game this bill is worth it I guess we just have a different moral yardstick because I say if one trans child dies to protect someone's damn trophy this bill is grotesque is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary. Trans children are God's children, made in God's own image. There's nothing wrong with them, nothing at all.

They are perfect, they are beautiful, and they are sacred. bullying children is immoral it's a sin a special kind of sin well there it is if you don't let a boy playing girls sports then you're responsible if the boy decides to kill himself over it

and trans children are perfect and sacred even though nobody's perfect already children are perfect no they're not what what that's that's the least of our concerns, but that is also definitely not Christian teaching, that anyone is perfect. But anyway, he says they're perfect and sacred, which is why we need to pump their bodies

full of hormones that sterilize them and cut apart their bodies because they're perfect and sacred. And, oh, by the way, if you are not on board with gender ideology, then you're not a real Christian because God is non-binary. Now, if you actually care about the well-being of children or if you care about Christianity, which most Texans do in both cases, then both of these statements are not simply wrong. They are appalling. They are speaking of grotesque. They make normal people react with disgust and revulsion. Now, if you think a child is going to kill himself because you can't join the girls team, the appropriate solution is to that problem is not to let them join the girls team, is to address the profound mental instability that would cause a boy to

believe he's a girl and to want to die in service of that delusion. And that's not even getting into the fact that the ACLU's very own trans-identifying attorney, Chase Strangio, has admitted before the Supreme Court that there's no evidence anywhere that affirming a child's subjective sense of, quote-unquote, gender actually reduces suicide rates. So logic, basic morality, all the data, all of that contradicts everything that James Telerico is saying. Then you get to the part where he says God is non-binary, which has to rank pretty high in terms of heresies. Even for James Telerico, he outdid himself on that one. Imagine taking an incoherent, meaningless, made-up concept that was created on Tumblr a few years ago for the benefit of

delusional narcissists and saying that God fell for the same propaganda. Now, the problem, of course, that when humans declare that they're non-binary, they aren't actually changing the fact that they're human beings with a biological sex. They're simply declaring out loud that they don't identify with their biological sex, whatever that means, and that everyone needs to give them as much attention as possible. That's really what they're asking for. That's what being non-binary means in practice. It means absolutely nothing, you know, in reality. God, on the other hand, is not a disgruntled, unemployed teenager on Tumblr. The thing about non-binary is that if it were a real thing, which it definitely isn't, it would be a part of the biological system that God

created. God transcends the system that he creates. Talariko is basically arguing that God transcends the system by being a part of it and subject to it, which makes no sense. But anyway, non-binary is not part of the system. It's a made-up concept made up by humans, not by God. not the God who created us male and female and thought that that fact was so important to get across to us that it's one of the very first things we're told in the Bible. What James Tolariko is doing, and he's not being very subtle about it, is bringing Gnostic heresy to the mainstream. He wants to convince Democrats that they can still consider themselves to be Christians, even as they support the murder, sterilization, and castration of children. He wants to convince Democrats that they can still consider themselves to be Christians, even as they deliberately unleash violent criminals on. innocent men, women, and children. He wants to convince Democrats, they can still consider themselves

Christians, even as they reject every core tenet of Christianity. The Gnostic element is, I think, important to emphasize here. Nostics are heretics who believe that the physical world is evil. They don't believe that Jesus's resurrection changed anything. They believe in total separation of the soul of the body. It's a heresy that underlies a lot of trans ideology, actually. And It's what Talariko promotes in his fake sermons at his satanic temple masquerading as a church. Watch. Being Christian and being pro-choice are absolutely consistent because Christianity is a feminist religion. Our oldest scriptures, 3,000 years old, reject embryonic personhood while affirming female personhood.

In fact, modern mass Christian opposition to abortion is a relatively new phenomenon. The Southern Baptist Convention itself was pro-choice until the 1980s. Feminist, womanist theologians are helping us remember Christianity's feminist tradition, a tradition that has been obscured and hidden by generations of men. did they teach you in Sunday school that men and women are created equally in the book of Genesis? Did they teach you in Sunday school that the Bible sometimes describes God as a female, calling her Sophia?

Did they teach you in Sunday school that Jesus Christ himself was a radical demonist? I don't claim to know what Jesus thought about abortion. He never mentions it either, which is. maybe that should tell us something right there. In the Gospel of Thomas, which was later omitted from the Bible by church officials, the Gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus is saying, when you make the male and female one in the same, when the male is not male, when the female is not female,

then you will enter the kingdom of God. Well, it's hard to know where to begin with this. the so-called gospel of Thomas, which wasn't written until the mid-second century and which wasn't actually written by Thomas or anyone who knew Thomas or anyone who knew someone who knew Thomas, is a collection of Gnostic heresies. Really, it's a collection of disconnected and incoherent statements that contradict the actual Gospels, which is why it's not in the Bible. And in particular, it stands for the proposition, actually, that women can't enter the kingdom of heaven. that's the actual point of the passage he's quoting incredibly.

In an effort to make a feminist point, he's citing a text that explicitly denies that females can enter the kingdom of heaven. And he's quoting it in a favorable way. He's saying we should give credence to this text because he can twist the language around to make it sound like an endorsement of 21st century gender ideology. And it should tell you something that these people who,

and by the way, all of these heretics, who try to make these claims about God's non-binary, the Bible is feminist. This is where they're pulling a lot of it from. It's from apocryphal texts that are not actually in the Bible. And that should tell you something. There's also the incredibly dumb argument that the Bible never mentions abortion as a way of arguing that abortion is somehow compatible with Christianity. I guess there's supposed to be an appendix appendix to the Bible

where it explicitly lists all of the 20 million ways you can kill someone. And if your preferred method of murder isn't in the appendix, that means that it's fine. And under James Tlerico's understanding of theology, if your specific method of murder isn't on the list, then you're good to go. Because the Bible is silent on the topic of whether or not you're allowed to drop a piano on somebody's head to kill them. Well, that means you can drop a piano on somebody's head. Drop a piano on their head and kill them. And then someone says, well, that's not a Christian thing to do. What do you mean?

Jesus never says you can't do that. Very curiously, Jesus never says you can't drop a piano on someone's head. Maybe that should tell us something. I mean, if Jesus didn't want us to drop pianos in people's heads, then he would have said specifically in the sermon on the mount. And also, by the way, don't drop pianos on people's heads. That's the logic. Meanwhile, the Bible does explicitly forbid murder, actually, which covers abortion. and it explicitly states that unborn children are humans created in the womb by God. Not to mention the fact that Jesus Christ himself began his life on earth as an unborn child in the womb. So abortion is not only incompatible with the Bible, but it is in many ways the most incompatible thing you could possibly imagine. Just pick up the Bible and read it sometimes. Psalm 139 states that God knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Luke states that when Mary arrives, Elizabeth's unborn child, quote, leaped in my womb for joy. And I could go on. So Tala Rico uses the same argument, of course, to justify his support for same-sex marriage. He says that the Bible doesn't talk about same-sex marriage and therefore it's permissible. As Robert Gagnon at the Wesley biblical seminary has pointed out in response to Tala Rico in a lengthy tweet, is a very superficial at best and idiotic way to read the scripture. The reason why Jesus and biblical writers didn't talk about quote unquote gay marriage was the same reason why they didn't talk about marriage with your mother or sibling or child.

Any sexual behavior of the sort, whether in a one-time act or an attempt at a committed relationship, was prohibited as an extreme sexual sin abhorrent and attestable to God. Jesus thought that a male-female prerequisite for marriage was so important that he used it as the foundation for rejecting any sexual bond involving more than two persons, whether concurrent or serial. According to Jesus, the two-ness of the sexes, the sexual binary, God's intentional design of two and only two sexual counterparts,

is the basis for limiting the number of persons in a marriage to two. That's Jesus' moral logic behind his citation of male and female he made them. Now, what heretics do in every case is disregard the teachings of the Bible in favor of grotesque misrepresentation. they just they they of course start with the conclusion that they want to draw and then they go through the entire Bible and they just pick the little pieces of it here and there because not even taking

an account context or what in any specific passage is meant to address in the context or what you know this passage is actually trying to do because you have many different types of The Bible is a compilation of many different types of writing over the course of hundreds of years. But if you're somebody like James Salarico, you can just pick up the Bible and just kind of flip through the pages and you find one little sentence here and one little word there and a sentence over here. And you just kind of stitch it together and you find what you're looking for. And if you can't find it in there, well, then that's no problem because you can just throw the Bible aside and then go looking through like apocryphal texts and heretical texts and things aren't even in the Bible and and you can find what you're looking for in there. That's what they do. And Talarico keeps doing it. Watch. And when a woman decides to do theology instead of doing housework, Jesus affirms her decision. Jesus honors her choice. In fact, the only person to ever beat Jesus in a debate. in the Bible was the

Sira Phoenician woman. Think about that. The only person to teach Jesus something was a woman. Even the son of God had something to learn from one of God's daughters. The church should start to listen to them again. Okay, so this is another

ridiculous lie. There is no debate that takes place in the Bible where a woman outwits Jesus in some kind of intellectual argument. There is no debate in the Bible where Jesus loses the argument to anyone, man or woman. There is a test of faith, which is what he's referring to, the passage is referring to, where Jesus suggests to his disciples that a Canaanite woman as a Gentile wouldn't benefit from his teachings, and the woman states that she would, in fact, benefit using a clever turn of phrase and context,

and Jesus is happy with her response. It's a way of demonstrating that his teachings aren't just for Jews. you know, to James Talarico, this is a sign that Jesus was totally owned by the woman. He didn't see it coming, right? And it's a sign that the Bible is really a piece of third wave feminist literature. He has reduced the scripture, mangled and perverted it, all for the sake of propping up like the modern girl boss fantasy. He constantly makes many other misrepresentations along these lines. and here's another one. This is when he was on the, with Joe Rogan a few months ago. And this is,

this is James Alarico using the enunciation to justify abortion. But I say all this in terms of, in context of abortion, because before God comes over Mary and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary's consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in in Luke. I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do. And she says, if it is God's will, let it be done. Let it be. Let it happen. So to me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that we engage in as human beings, but that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom. And to me,

that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus. And so that's how I come down on that side of the issue. Oh, that's how you come down on that side of the issue by lying. You know, the way I come down on my side of the issue is by lying. The way I come down on it is actually by being full of it completely. So again, where do you be? begin with this. I mean, even if he is, if his reading of Luke was correct, which it's not, it still doesn't help make his case. Women in the vast majority of cases consent to the sexual act that leads to the conception of their child. So women are providing consent to the reproductive act, which results in reproduction. And they're doing that in the way that

James Tellerico is claiming that Mary consented to conception. But Tala Rico supports abortion at any time for any reason. I mean, he's not simply advocating for abortion in cases of rape. He's advocating for abortion on demand across the board. And not to mention the fact that abortion, as I've covered so many times, abortion is not even the prevention of conception. That's not what we're talking about. I mean, he's equating, what he's trying to do is say that if Mary had said no, that that would be equivalent to abortion. But it wouldn't be because that would, that would mean that conception

would not occur. And abortion is not the prevention of conception. Abortion is not the prevention of reproduction. Abortion is when you kill the child that has already been conceived. But the bigger problem, as I've already pointed out, is that Talariko is simply making all this up. The word consent does not appear in the Gospel of Luke. The Archangel Gabriel appears and tells her that according to God's will,

she is going to bear God's son. He doesn't say, do you consent? He tells her what's happening, and Mary replies, let it be to me according to your word. So she's enthusiastic about bringing a new life, Jesus' life, into the world. For James

Salarico to twist this passage into a biblical endorsement of child murder up to and including the moment of birth is, I mean, it's demonic. That's what it is. There's no other way to describe it. The demonic wing of the Democrat Party isn't a wing anymore. It's the whole thing. It's the whole organization. This is nothing less than Satanism. I mean, to take that moment into scripture and use it as a argument for abortion is what a Satanus would do. That is Satan. It's like something you would, if you went to a satanic temple and listen to their homily, that's the kind of thing you would hear. Now, the problem Talarico has is that for an alleged moderate, he's no longer capable of talking like a normal human being. And if you listen to

enough of his sermons, that liability becomes very obvious. Watch. This summer, more than half our population became second class citizens. Every one of our neighbors with a uterus, became the property of the state. And nothing, nothing is more unchristian than that. Before we go further, I want to acknowledge that our trans community needs abortion care too. Defending trans Texans is something we have to do every day at the state capitol. And you better believe I'll be giving sermons on that too. So when I use the word woman, it should not be understood as an exhaustive term,

but rather as a lens through which to understand, examine, and interrogate patriarchy. You know, the other thing you notice when you look at these clips of James Telerico preaching to his fake church, his Uber, you know, insanely leftist fake church, the other thing you notice, aside from all the nonsense that he's spewing, is you look, you can see the congregation. And what do you see? Number one, very spark. attended, and the average age of the attendance is like 70. And that also tells you something, and that's the way that it goes with these liberal churches are all, I mean, that's kind of the good news, is that they're all literally and figuratively dying. But anyway, he says, our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the state. When I use the word woman,

it should not be understood as an exhaustive term, but rather as a lens through which to understand, examine, and interrogate patriarchy. You know, it's like chat GPT in a human skin suit. Nothing you're saying makes sense. In a matter of seconds, he managed to find several dehumanizing ways to refer to women. Neighbors with a uterus. They're not really women. They're a lens. What big tent is going to show up and vote for this guy exactly? How many neighbors with penises and neighbors with uteruses will go to polls to elect this? Nothing about James Tolerico comes across as even human. That includes this tweet where he pretends to be happy about receiving the single worst Christmas gift that anyone has ever received,

although, of course, he didn't really receive it. He bought it for himself. But there it is right there. Quote, I got the coolest action figure for Christmas. Thank you to all the healthcare superheroes working today. Let's help by getting vaxed and boosted. And then there's the picture of the Tony Fauci action figure with a mask on its face, which of course is exactly what Texans want to see. You know, all those Texans, all those Texans with their pickup trucks and their Anthony Fauci action figures. They also love hearing that there should be a giant welcome mat on the southern border. Watch. How do you balance your feelings toward ICE versus the people you would represent who support deporting undocumented immigrants? You have 30 seconds. So my family is from the border. My mom grew up

in Laredo, Texas. I feel like Texans understand this issue of immigration more so than people in other states because we live with it, both the benefits and the challenges. So what I've said is that our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front and a lock on the door. We can welcome immigrants who want to live the American dream. We can build a pathway to citizenship for those neighbors who have been here making us richer and stronger. And we can keep out people who mean to do us harm. The thing is we don't just want to keep out people who mean to do us harm.

The intention of the foreigners isn't actually important. What's important is that as a practical matter, our country cannot survive if we import every foreigner who wants to come to the United States. Our welfare system, especially can't survive it, for one thing. And on top of that, this is our country. We're entitled to run our own country. And if we import millions of foreigners who will eventually outnumber us, then we're losing our country. And therefore, we can and must exclude foreigners, even if they do not wish to do us harm. We can go on and on. I mean, there's also the post where he states that radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country. There's the post where he states that,

Thankfully, he didn't turn out to be a domestic terrorist because he was exposed to diversity at a young age and explicitly taught the values of equality, inclusion, and justice. But a set of more Talleyco posts and videos, we'll close with this interview featuring Steve Toth, who just defeated Dan Crenshaw in the primary for Texas's second congressional district. Toth worked with Tala Rico for many years in the state government. And here's what he said. Watch. I put forth legislation to secure our elections. It gets killed by the Democrats. When I put forth legislation to end the social transition of children, it gets killed by the Democrats. It's evil.

Tellerico is part of that group. I served with James Teller Rico from 2019 through to today. This guy is as evil as they come. There is a darkness to this man's life that if you doubt, if you doubt that there's a wickedness and an evil and a demonic presence in the world, you'll have to look at James Telerico. He is an awful, awful person, awful person. Well, there's no reasonable person in the state of Texas who can disagree with that assessment.

I mean, the moment you get any familiarity with Tilarico, it's very obvious. And on that point, you have to give the Republicans some credit here. Throughout the entire primary, the Republicans stayed silent as Democrats sold Tilarico as a normal guy. Republicans had the opposition research in hand. There's a lot of it and more. They knew about all of Tala Rico's tweets and videos and sermons. But they held their fire so that Democrats would elect him as a moderate without having any idea what they were getting into.

At least a lot of the voters didn't. Now as it stands, Democrats are all but certain to lose this race in November. But as much as I want to gloat over these revelations about Tala Rico, I simply can't do so. It's a very troubling development. that this demonic force just received a major party's nomination to represent one of our most important states in the U.S. Senate. Just like as much as I'd like to gloat over Jasmine Crockett's loss, and believe me, I do want to gloat. And I did gloat, actually, already. The satanic

theater kid who beat her is somehow a hundred times worse. He's just an absolute depraved evil freak. There's no other way to put it. At least Jasmine was kind of funny because she's so dumb. But Talarico is deeply sinister. His goal and the goal of the Democrat Party in the midterms ahead is to recast their anti-American anti-human ideology as fully compatible with Christianity. And it's not and it never will be. Christianity is the natural enemy of trans ideology. It's the natural enemy of Gnostic heresy, abortion, wanton destruction of human of all kinds and leftism. Rather than move towards sanity, a move that was desperately needed in the Democrat Party, a move that we were told was happening, they've decided to double

down on these evils, all while claiming to be moderates. Democrats spent an enormous amount of time and money boosting Tolariko because they see his approach as the future of their party. They think they can fool the entire country as they apparently fooled primary voters in Texas on Tuesday. For the sake of Western civilization itself, we simply cannot fall for it in November. Now let's get to our five headlines. Life insurance shouldn't be on the back burner. It should be a top priority. Cross it off the list of your priorities with our sponsor, PolicyGenius. PolicyGenius is an online marketplace, not an insurance company, so you can compare quotes from top insurers side by side and actually see what you're getting without pressure from a salesman. their license team works for you, answers your questions,

handles their paperwork, and helps you lock in the right policy for your family and your budget. Protect the life that you have built with PolicyGenius. You can see if you can find 20-year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage. Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies. See how much you could save. That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.

All right. So this is inspiring bipartisanship in action. This is what we love to see, don't we? Don't we folks? We love to see bipartisanship. So the House of Representatives just voted overwhelmingly across party lines, a vote of 357 to 65, to block the release of congressional sexual misconduct reports. So they voted to block the release of files pertaining to sexual misconduct claims against themselves. 357 to 65 to to block these files. Nancy Mace

had forced this vote in an effort to get the files release, but most of our colleagues voted against it, voted to stop the release. And NBC News reports, the House on Wednesday voted to scuttle an effort by Republican Representative Nancy Mace to shed more light on sexual misconduct allegations

against members of Congress. Mace conservative Republican is running for Governor South Carolina forced a floor vote on a resolution directing the House Ethics Committee to make public all reports and allegations of congressional lawmakers and AIDS engaging in sexual misconduct or harassment. But in a vote of 35765, they voted to refer the Mace resolution to committee, a move that effectively killed it. So that's what happened. Here is Anna Polina Luna, who I think I've been critical of in the past, but I agree with her on this one. Here she is

expressing her frustration about all this. All right. I support representatives. Mace's subpoena here as well as the amendment to it. And I just think it's really disgusting how this institution protects itself because y'all just half of them voted to send this stuff to House ethics where you know it's going to die. We know that members of Congress are using taxpayer dollars to pay off sexual harassment. We just had a member of Congress literally sexually harassed a woman that then lit herself on fire. And you guys all protected him. You guys all protected.

My own side, your side. And so if you guys want to talk about victims, if you want to go out and virtue signal, And then you guys are going to kill her stuff on the floor and then try to pass. Yeah, of course, we should subpoena all this stuff. But just I'm not going to sit here and play games. I think it's a complete fraud. I think that's why the American people hate us. I think the midterms are coming up and everyone should go on record for this.

And I hope that members are exposed for this. I hope it goes back, I think, to the 70s because it's wrong that it's happening. It's wrong that we cover up for it. It's wrong that we can't center our own side because people are busy making deals because you guys want to censure your side. It's a deal that's been cut. People hate us for it. So yeah, support it.

Thank you, Representative. Well, when she's right, she's right. So the argument that has been made against releasing these files, and AOC put out a long tweet because she voted against it, but she didn't want to release it. And she was making the argument in a very wordy way. And basically the argument is that, well, first of all, that it would expose the victims.

Now, the bill would have redacted, or this measure would have redacted the names of the victim. They would have redacted it, but the argument was that, well, they're going to redact it, but it still might expose victims. And also, a lot of the claims are unsubstantiated. So innocent people might end up being implicated. There are plenty of cases of somebody falsely accusing someone of sexual harassment. And if they were to release everything, then it would have the effect of implicating people who are innocent. So you'd implicate the innocent and the guilty at the same time.

That's the argument against it. And that argument in this case prevailed. But the really obvious problem here, the thing that comes immediately to mind for everybody, is that these arguments, the arguments against releasing the congressional misconduct files, also applied to the Epstein files. These same people, almost all of them, voted for the release of the Epstein files, even though all of the same objections applied. it exposes victims, unsubstantiated claims, innocent people might be implicated.

All of that applies. All of that has in fact happened. All that stuff has actually happened. And they voted for it. Three million files. But in this case, those same objections suddenly have become more persuasive. Hmm. Interesting.

I wonder why. Now, I support the release of the Epstein files. I did support it. I still support it. I also support releasing these files. And certainly, if you do one, you have to do the other. And the point is that there is no argument for releasing the Epstein files and not this. In fact, if anything, if you're going to do just one, there's a more persuasive argument for only releasing the congressional files.

because with that, like, tax money has been used to pay out settlement claims. And so for that reason alone, you could say, well, you're using tax money for it. We have a right to know. This is our money. Our, my money has been used to handle this. And so I have a right to know. And even if tax money hadn't been used to settle claims, our money is paying for these people. We're paying their salaries.

And so we have a right to know what's going on. over there. Do I have a right to know about Bill Gates and his exploits with Russian hookers, allegedly? You know, I mean, that's, you could debate that one way or another. Do I have a right to know about the exploits of people who are representing me in Congress? Absolutely yes. But again, I want to really, I think both. That's the only option. And that's what we did with the Epstein files. There's still more than need to come out. But the, I think the only, option here is just put it all out there, sunlight's the best disinfectant, and that's what you have to do. And that was the case with Epstein, and that should be the case here too. And by the way, fun fact,

you cannot access these files with a FOIA request. So you might think, oh, well, can we not, Freedom of Information Act, can't we get them out that way? Well, the fun fact is that the Freedom of Information Act passed by Congress does not apply to Congress. So imagine that. Congress bravely declared freedom of information unless it's information about then, in which case, you know, you can go to hell. This episode is sponsored by Balance of Nature. You know, we've always been told to eat our fruits and vegetables, but nobody really explained that what you're actually after in those foods are the phytonutrients, natural compounds your body uses to adjust repair and respond every single day. The more we've tried to improve food and food.

factories, the further we've gotten from what your body actually recognizes as food. That's why I like balance of nature. They take real produce and run it through a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes its phytonutrition instead of nuking it with heat and chemicals. Their whole health system includes their fruits and veggies and fiber and spice supplements, giving you 47 ingredients of a whole food and their phytonutrients in a simple, consistent routine. They've even rolled out to brand new freeze-dried snacks that go through a similar process so you're not trading convenience for quality. I personally love Bals of Nature because of its convenience when I'm traveling for work or trying to keep up with the kids. It gives me a simple way

to make sure I'm getting all the essential nutrients in my diet. Go to Bousin Nature.com today to subscribe and save, join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with ebbglis, a once-monthly treatment for moderate to disappear eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four and ten 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. Hebglis, Librikizumab, LBKZ, a 250 milligram per 2-millimeter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults in 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.

Ebglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to Epglis. 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 Epglis. Before starting Epglus, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebglis and visit abglis.

Or call 1800 lilyr.x or 1-800 545-5-9. All right, New York Post has this report, a brazen duo, including one career criminal with dozens of prior arrests, was arrested for allegedly setting a sleeping man on fire inside Penn Station this week. Damon Johnson of Brooklyn has 88 prior arrests, was picked up Tuesday morning in charge with attempted murder, assault, and reckless endangerment in connection to the late Monday attack on the 37-year-old victim inside the Amtrak rotunda. So 88 arrests. Actually, it's more than that because there's a report from that I just pulled out from the local ABC affiliate that I've seen that he had 88 arrests. But the local news, which I think we could trust more in this case, says that he had 131 arrests dating back to 1995. And he's currently on parole for an armed robbery in 2015 where he stabbed somebody so badly. They had to be able to. get 100 stitches. So 131 arrests since 1995. That's an average of, do the math on that, that's like one arrest every two and a half months on average for 30 years. 30 years, one arrest every two and a half months. I mean, right, am I doing the math on that? Yeah, I think that's about it. Now, think about this. Just you kind of break that numbers down.

the average American is arrested zero times in their life. I'll say this. The majority of Americans are arrested zero times in their life. 70% of Americans, according to what I looked up, are never arrested. And this guy was arrested 130 times in 30 years. So the average American can live to 85, never be arrested once. most Americans, they live to 85, never arrested one time. This guy 130 times in 30 years.

And then there's another 20, 25% of Americans who are arrested once. So 70% or so are never arrested. 25% or so are arrested once. Usually that's going to be when they were younger and usually it's something relatively minor, not a violent crime in most cases. And that's the way you go. So if you were to actually come up with an average, if you were to put all the numbers together and come up with an actual average, like what's the average number of arrests that, you know, the average American is arrested how many times? It's like 0.5, right? That's what you come up with because the majority are never arrested at all. And that would put this guy, he's like 260 times over the national average. And even that understates it because almost all. And this. And, this is the really important point. Almost all of the arrests that have happened in a given year, almost all of them, the vast majority of them, are from like 5% of the population. Because you take out the 70% who are never arrested, you take out the 25% who are arrested one time in their entire

life, and you're left with 5% of the entire population that's actually doing all the work here in terms of committing crimes and getting arrested. And that's it. 5%. I mean, when it comes to crime and chaos and disorder, almost all of it is coming from 5% of the population. If all of these people, the 5% were just thrown in a cage forever, if we were to just round them all up, the 5% were not just committed one crime, constantly committing

crimes, and we were just round them all up, put them in a cage, put them in jail, then the rest of us could live in peace. I mean, that's a fact. We could live in a, in a, in a, as close to a utopia as you're going to get. I mean, you're never going to actually get yet, but as close as you're going to get. We can live in a society where every neighborhood and every city is. is basically safe. We could. You could solve the crime problem, solve it, almost completely, by arresting the tiny minority of the population that commit basically all of the crime. But we don't do that. Instead, we let them roam the streets, continually releasing them back into the public, and then we watch helplessly as they kill, rape, and destroy, even though

nobody on earth, no one in the country can explain why that system makes sense or is fair or just or moral. I mean, you don't even have to round up the 5%. They'll come to you because they keep getting arrested. So you could just put a policy in place where, okay, then, so you got this 5%, percent, they're constantly committing crimes. And so from now on, the next time they're arrested, which will happen, they're never getting out. No matter what they did, no matter what they did. You're in this 5% of the population that are committed, you have multiple arrests. You're a chronic offender. Your next offense, whatever it is, I don't care if it's a parking ticket. Whatever it is, you're done forever. We could do that. We could do that.

We could do that and live in peace. And the fact that nobody wants to face, this is the basic fact that I think very few people want to face, because it's a difficult fact to face, but it is a fact, is that some people, a small minority, it's this 5% here who are the chronic offenders who are committing almost all the crime, they are not capable of living in a small minority. it's this 5% here who are the chronic offenders who are committing almost all the crime they are not capable of living in a civilized society they are not capable of it they will not be reformed they will not be rehabilitated they will not be made into productive citizens there will not be a happy ending for them and we can either face that reality and deal with it accordingly, or we can insist, as we've done for decades, to live in a fantasy world, to live in a fantasy world, a fantasy world where, you know, a guy who's

already been arrested 10 times before he turns 25, that, like, that guy might one day magically reform himself and become a businessman with a wife and three children and, you know, a mortgage that he pays on time every month? No, that guy, the guy there that's in the 5% causing all the problems, he's never, he's never going to get married, he's never going to have a wife, he's never going to own a home, he's never going to have a mortgage, he's never going to like pay a bill, ever. He's never going to contribute anything to society except death and destruction. And that's just how it is. except in rare exceptions. There's exceptions to every rule.

And I'm sure you could look at this and you could find, so you find the rarest of exceptions of people who are totally dysfunctional, chronic repeat criminals and who have this miraculous turnaround. But, and I believe in miracles. as a Christian. But our justice system cannot depend on them. Okay? That's not how your justice system can operate.

It's no different. I believe in people could be miraculously healed from their sicknesses. But a doctor cannot depend on that. If I go to a doctor, I don't want to hear from the doctor that, well, go home and pray. Maybe there will be a miracle. Yeah, maybe there will be. But that cannot be your medical plan. That can't be your treatment plan for me.

And that can't be our plan for these chronic killers, criminals. So, you know, and that's what's so frustrating about it is that this is all so solvable. It really is. It just takes we just have to be willing to do what's necessary. I mean, this is the Buckelly. I'm not saying anything new here. This is not some new strategy I'm proposing. This is the Buckelly strategy.

This is what Buckelly did. He came in and said, we've got total death and destruction and disorder. And so I'm just going to do what needs to be done to put a stop to it. And anybody wants to talk about civil rights and all this other stuff. None of that means anything. You can't have any of that. Like, if you're going to get set on fire by a guy who's been arrested a hundred times already, you know, or if you're standing on a subway platform because you want to use public transportation,

which should be your right as a citizen, and you get pushed onto the tracks by a schizophrenic, by a drug-addled schizophrenic who's already been arrested 57 other times, where are your civil rights? Like what about the basic right that we all should have as citizens to live in a well-ordered, safe, and just society? That's a right that we all have as actual productive law-abiding citizens. And these people, in the 5% of repeat chronic offenders, they are making it impossible for the rest of the of us to exercise that right. Your gutters are not a DIY experiment or a place to test drive bargain bin gutter solutions. Claw gutters don't just look bad. They can lead to serious water

damage to your roof, your walls, even your foundation. If you're going to do something about it, you do it once, you do it right, and you go with a system that's actually engineered to work. That's where our sponsor, Leaf Filter, comes in. America's number one rated gutter protection system built with surgical grade stainless steel micro mesh that channels water in and keeps debris out. Every installation comes with a lifetime clog-free guarantee and a Leaf Filter trusted pro will clean, realign and seal your gutters before they install it. It's no wonder Leaf Filter is already trusted by over a million homes. Start protecting your home today with Leaf Filter. America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at Leaffilter.com

slash Walsh. That's up to 30% off at L-EAFilter.com slash Walsh. Ryan Reynolds here for MintMobil, the message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course,

if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan. equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available.

Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com. All right. Here's something that as we wrap up that doesn't matter at all. There's a new viral game, video game, and, you know,

I'm always up on the video game news. I'm a real gamer. I'm a gamer's gamer. That's what they call me. Constantly gaming. Constantly, it's my, It's my life. It's my lifestyle. And I think everybody knows that. So this is gaming news. And I'm always, I'm always checking the gaming news every day before I go on the show. First thing I do is I go to check gaming news.com or whatever. And so there's this new game. It's called Karen. And you can, let's just play the preview. You can see the preview here. And in the game, you play as a middle-aged white woman. Go ahead and play it. You play as a middle-aged white woman. And you rampage. around, there we go, you rampage around destroying a shopping mall. That's how the game is.

That's the basic idea. I don't know if there's any other objective to this game. I guess that's it. Yeah, she's gone. She's destroying a cell phone store and beating up that guy. There we go. I don't know if you're supposed to collect tokens or what. So that's a game. Now the funny thing about this is that it's attempting to obviously be a pair of. of Karen's, quote-unquote, otherwise known as middle-aged white woman. But the parody is pretty much the exact opposite of what a quote-unquote Karen is. Middle-aged white women are not the ones ransacking and destroying shopping malls. Okay. There's never been a shopping mall that had to shut down because too many middle-aged white women were coming.

No, the middle-aged white women are there who the mall is for. Like, that's the people that you want there. They're the people that are keeping it in business. So that's not what's actually happening. Cairns, and you know I hate the term, it's a racial slur. I object to it. But I'll use it just for the sake of discussion. Cairns are not done, not that.

Cairns are the ones actually trying to enforce the rules of decorum. I mean, they're the last line of defense, manning the rampart. defending civilization. They're the ones who are actually, they're the only ones trying to enforce and defend basic rules of decorum and politeness in public. I mean, I made this argument many times. And they will do this, the quote unquote Karen's will, in a way and in circumstances where most men won't. Because in most every other context, men are the defenders and protectors, or at least they should be. But in this specific, context. Like, for example, if there's a group of people who are being disruptive in the movie

theater and somebody has to go tell security about it, it's going to be the white woman who goes to do that. She's going to be the one. Which is why when there's someone being disrupt, when there's a disruption in the movie theaters, when there's, you know, when there are, quote unquote, rowdy teens in the movie theater who are causing a disruption, Everyone looks around for where's the middle-aged white woman who's going to go and get the security for this? Because we know it's like someone's going to step up. It's going to be her. And that's what happens.

If they're shoddy customer service, right? If you're all waiting in line for customer service and you've got the customer service rep there who's lazy and doesn't care and it's like on his phone or whatever, it's going to be the middle-aged white woman, the quote-unquote Karen. who goes to get the manager, brings the manager in. Right, that's the classic Karen the day. Oh, can I speak to your manager? Yeah, what's wrong with asking for the manager? That's what the manager is supposed to do. I mean, everyone kind of rolls their eyes.

Oh, she's asking for the manager. Yeah, he's the manager. Get in here and manage this thing. You see this lying that's out of control? You see I have an employee who's doing nothing? Do you see how your employee is totally incompetent and doing nothing at all? Do you see that? Like, how about managing?

So, but here's the thing, I'm not going to go to the manager and say that myself. That's what you need the caring for. If somebody brings their dog to a park where there's not supposed to be a dog, there's a sign that says no dog in this park, this is a dog free park. We don't want the dog poop all over the park. Somebody brings the dog anyway. Who's going to go up to the person and say, hey, excuse me, the rules are the rules here? There's a million dog parks all around. You can bring your dog anywhere these days.

You can bring your dog inside places. You can bring your dog everywhere. Here's just like one little sliver of a place where you can't bring a dog. Can we have this place? Can we have it, please? Can we have this one little place without your dog? Is that okay? Can there be one place in society where your dog is not?

Is that okay? Can we do that, please? Somebody needs to go up and say that. And it's going to be the middle-aged white woman. It's going to be the quote-unquote Karen. And this is, for whatever reason, this is a type of confrontation that men are considerably less likely to want to deal with. And I don't know all the psychology behind it. It's just the way it is. I'm a very direct person, I think. I have no problem with confrontation. I have no problem calling

you on your, I'll do that. But in those particular circumstances, in those kinds of situations, I'm more likely to say, eh, whatever. Whatever. It's not worth my time. I don't want to deal with it. Whatever. Fine. They brought their dog. It's not my part. Like, I don't like it's annoying, but I'm just not going to, I don't feel like dealing with it. If I get handed a meal at the drive-thru that isn't exactly what I ordered, I'm more likely to say, eh, whatever, I'll eat this, fine. Yeah, I, it's fine. It's happening at McDonald's, like, actually a couple weeks ago.

I ordered a Big Mac that gave me a quarter-pounder, which actually is better anyway. So in that case, I thought, well, that's a better call. Actually, good call. I should have went with that. But oftentimes, even if it's not exactly what I wanted, I'll say, I really do it. I don't feel like getting back in line and dealing with the whole thing. And it's like, it's just, it's all slop anyway.

I'm sitting here ordering slop that's, that's going to kill, that's killing me. So I'm ordering poison anyway. So who cares what form it comes in? I don't even want to call attention to the fact that I'm even here to begin with. It's embarrassing. So that's going to be my attitude. And the problem is that the lazy people, the rude people, the incompetent people, the rule breakers, they get away with it.

They get away with it most of the time because most people don't want to deal with it until the Karen rides in on her gallant steed to vanquish her foe. And the people who hate the so-called Karen's hate them because they are themselves lazy, selfish, rude jerks who think the rules don't apply to them. That's it. It's just like the customer service people who hate the person who asks for the manager. It's because 95% of the time, you know you're wrong. Of all the times, I've seen a manager, I've seen someone request a manager.

I don't know, like maybe twice in my life they were being unreason. Almost every time, it's like, yeah, the manager should come in. The manager should come in. She's right to call for the manager. And I say that as someone who's felt the wrath of the Karen on occasion. I remember a couple of summers ago. I had this exact experience. I was driving by a pond.

And in the summer, I always had my fishing rod and some tackle in the car with me in case I drive by like a nice looking fishing hole. And I can just jump out and take a couple casts because it's actually kind of junky behavior. But that's what I do. Anyway, I pulled over at this pond and to take a few casts because it's a little. looked like a good, it was like a shady, it was a nice, and it was an overcast day, and it just looked like it was clear water. I thought maybe I got to catch a good one, and I didn't, but anyway, this woman walks up to me and says, excuse me, sir, and then she tells me this is a no fit, you're not allowed to fish, because there's a sign that says no fishing in this pond.

And I may or may not have seen that sign, and I may, I may or may not have disregarded it entirely. And she said that, and, you know, so I took the scolding and I left. It's like, yeah, Okay, rules are rules. I was breaking the rules. I may or may not have broke them intentionally. And this person's here. They're here to enforce the rules. And I'm actually glad. I'm even as someone who's falling on the other side of it, I'm glad that we have these people, the guardians of civilization, the defenders against chaos and disorder. Someone's got to do it. So either that or like I said, the other option is put 5% of the population in prison. So that's the other thing we could also do. And that's something to contemplate over the weekend as we wrap it up for today.

Talk to you on Monday. Have a great weekend. Godspeed. What do Snow White, Cinderella, and smallpox blankets have in common? They're all fairy tales. For decades, you've been told that you live on stolen lands. We are right now on stolen land that the Indians were peaceful. Native Americans, we massacred them.

Your ancestors committed genocide. And guess what? None of it is true. The Native Americans were some of the most savage fighters ever known to man, raiding, scalping, torturing, even eating enemies. It was better to lose a battle to the U.S. Army than they get wiped out by a rival tribe. And why did the story completely change in the 1960s? It turns out there's a lot more to the American Indians than Hollywood directors

and school teachers want you to know. This month, we blow up the biggest myths about the American Indians and reclaim the real history that was stolen from us. This is the real history of the American Indian.