The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1751 - The INSANE Left Wing Law That Is Causing Another Mass Exodus. What Happens Next?

Episode Date: March 17, 2026

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, there's a mass exodus of left-wing billionaires from blue states to red states. They pushed he policies that destroyed their home states, and now they're fleeing like locus, searching for new places to destroy. We'll discuss. Also, the Senate takes up the SAVE act. Mamdani unveils a new government office for LGBT affairs. And a billionaire Silicon Valley guy says that if you want to achieve anything in life, you should not engage in any introspection at all. Is he right? Ep. 1751 - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMemberExclusive - - - Today's Sponsors: Leaf Filter - Schedule your free inspection at https://leaffilter.com/WALSH Seven Weeks Coffee - Save up to 25% with promo code 'WALSH' at https://sevenweekscoffee.com/WALSH Cowboy Colostrum - Get up to 25% off your entire order at https://cowboycolostrum.com/walsh and use code walsh at checkout. - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://dailywire.com/subscribe 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 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 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, the Matt Wall Show, there's a mass exodus of left-wing billionaires from blue states to red states. They push the policies that destroy their home states, and now they're fleeing like locusts searching for new places to destroy. We'll discuss. Also, the Senate takes up the Save Act. Mom Donnie unveils a new government office for LGBT affairs. And a billionaire Silicon Valley guy says that if you want to achieve anything in life, you should not engage in any introspection at all. Is he right? We'll talk about all that and more today in the Matt Wall Show. So they didn't get much attention for obvious reasons. Believe it or not, a handful of white people actually managed to win major civil rights lawsuits

during the BLM Revolution as the largest companies on the planet began discriminating against white employees, denying them promotions, firing them, putting their CVs at the bottom of the pile, and so on. A small number of white people decided to invoke their constitutional rights. They went to court, and they came away with tens of millions of dollars. And we should talk more about these stories, especially since they could inspire more victims of anti-white discrimination to take their case to court. And one of the most egregious examples involved Starbucks, which was run by CEO Howard Schultz at the time.

Now, you may remember this sordid episode in American history when a couple of black guys walked into a Starbucks and sat down without placing an order. The store wouldn't let them loiter or use the bathroom without making a purchase, which makes sense, since it's a private business and they don't want the property to become a crack house. But the two black guys decided that this was their Rosa Parks moment,

and they refused to leave to the point that they were arrested for trespassing. In response, instead of demonstrating a semblance of integrity or courage in the face of a mob, Schultz shut down every Starbucks store for racial bias training, issued a payout to the black customers, attacked his own employees, and then, of course, groveled on CNN. Watch. Welcome back. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York. And this afternoon, 8,000 Starbucks stores across the country will close to train employees on racial bias. This all stems from an incident last month that sparked nationwide uproar.

Two black men, Dante Robinson, Roshan Nelson, were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks. The store manager called the police after the men said they were in the store just two minutes without placing an order. They were there to meet a friend. The backlash was swift. It sparked many to talk of a Starbucks boycott. I've gone through the training myself, as has the entire leadership team of the company last week and we did that so that we could experience it firsthand. It's interactive, it's been co-authored by Brian Stevenson, Sherlin Eiffel, Heather McGee, and I think we wanted to try and really get professional people to help us understand and walk in the shoes of people of color

and understand that racial bias does exist. You are Starbucks, Starbucks is you in many ways. So can you just tell me your gut, what did you feel when you realized this happened to these two men because of their rights. I was personally horrified by it. When you think about the values of Starbucks, providing health insurance, free college tuition, the things we've done for opportunity youth, veterans, refugees, all of these things for this to happen is such an anathema.

Horrified by it. He was horrified. He was like a genocide. The emotional experience he had, knowing that two black men were simply required to follow the same rules as every other customer in the store, the emotional experience was like the experience he has witnessing a genocide. It was that evil. So Howard Schultz went on national television and, of course, threw his employees under the bus, accepted the premise of CNN's question, which is that these

black guys were only thrown out of the store because they were black, even though there was precisely zero evidence of that. And this store served black people all the time without any problem at all was only these particular black guys where it was an issue, which should tell you that it was them, not the store, that was the problem. And what happened next is that amid all this hysteria, Starbucks fired a white manager who had nothing to do with the incident whatsoever. They couldn't fire the black manager who actually oversaw operations in this particular store. So Starbucks told a white regional manager named Shannon Phillips to terminate a white manager at a nearby district who didn't do anything

as a way of demonstrating that Starbucks was serious about racial equity. And when Phillips refused, they fired her instead. So then she sued and she won more than $25 million. Watch. The next year, Starbucks was in hot water again. Hit with a lawsuit from the regional manager

who oversaw that store in approximately a hundred other locations. Shannon Phillips, who is white, claims she was fired after the incident because of her race. In the lawsuit, she says she was not involved in the arrests in any way and that Starbucks did not take any action against the black district manager who oversaw that store and had promoted the person who was responsible for making the call to police. On Monday, a federal jury in New Jersey sided with Phillips, awarding her $25.6 million in damages. What was ultimately determined by the jury was the

kind of went after people that were not involved with that situation at all, making those decisions based on appearance and the race of the people that they disciplined, who were associated with the Philadelphia store, but not with the events that occurred. Now, you'd be hard pressed to find a better illustration of how self-described progressives like Howard Schultz operate. He makes a big show of major reform in the name of equity. He says that he'll make Starbucks lobbies. and bathrooms opened everybody, whether they make a purchase or not. So he'll turn them into, you know, basically like refugee camps. And he goes on national television to berate his

employees for being white supremacist. And then just a few years later, he's gone from the company. Starbucks has started opening offices in Tennessee for up to 2,000 employees to escape the mayhem of Seattle. The bathroom policy returned because vagrants were treating Starbucks like a crack house. And Starbucks has to pay tens of millions of dollars because in fact, there were no white supremacists working at Starbucks. But Starbucks did have an awful lot of executives who despise the white working class. But Starbucks isn't the only thing that Howard Schultz has left in ruins without any sense of shame or reflection or self-awareness. After decades of relentlessly promoting left-wing politics, which have destroyed his hometown of

Seattle, Schultz has now fled to Florida, just in time to avoid a massive new wealth tax that Washington State is implementing. Watch. Starbucks founder Howard Schultz announced he and his family have moved to Florida. Just one day after the millionaire's tax passed the house, Schultz says the move is part of his retirement. But some Republicans argue this timing is no coincidence. It's called Capitol Flight. We spent 24 hours talking about why you shouldn't do things like

pass income taxes when you don't need them. He is just a harbinger of things to come. Now notice that Schultz, even as he's abandoning the city where he lived for decades, still can't bring himself to condemn any aspect of the left-wing politics that have destroyed Seattle. He can't condemn the fact that leftists have turned downtown into a drug den. He can't condemn the anti-white racism that just cost his company tens of millions of dollars. Can't even condemn the fact that leftists are attempting to confiscate 10% of all household income over $1 million, even though the Constitution of Washington State makes it illegal to tax income.

something like 30,000 residents will be directly affected, although, of course, the actual effect is going to be much larger than that. When businesses close and rich people leave, the result is fewer jobs and less tax revenue. It's pretty simple. It's important to understand that Howard Schultz is not the exception. There's now an epidemic of rich leftists fleeing from Democrat-controlled jurisdictions. These people supported Democrat policies, and now they're in help to get those policies passed. In fact, now they're running away from the natural consequences of those policies. Jeff Bezos moved from Seattle to Florida in 2023. Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin moved from California, which is also planning a massive wealth tax to Florida in the past year.

Ken Griffin, the co-founder and CEO of the hedge fund Citadel, who donated to both Obama and Biden, just moved from Chicago where Citadel employees were getting robbed all the time to Miami. Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, moved from California to Austin. Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg, who spent half a billion dollars to help elects Democrats in 2020, just announced the purchase of a mansion in Miami. So he's apparently leaving California as well. Watch. Mark Zuckerberg could be the latest California billionaire to land in Florida. The Wall Street Journal reporting, the meta-CEO bought a waterfront mansion in the sunshine

state and plans to move by April. Zuckerberg is among the latest of the ultra wealthy fleeing California as state lawmakers threaten a massive wealth tax. And Florida real estate agents are telling the journal they've been working nonstop showing properties to Californians since the new tax was proposed. And on and on it goes. We're witnessing a mass exodus of billionaires from states that have been destroyed by their politics. In every case, these billionaires either endorsed left-wing policies or they didn't object as those policies were taking hold. And now that things have gotten out of hand and major American cities are becoming overtly socialist, they're all just running away, predictably. And as you just heard, it's not just the billionaires who are fleeing.

Here's one way to put the numbers in context. Right now, without any foreign migration, California would lose something like 120,000 people per year. New York would lose around 100,000. On the other hand, Texas is on track to gain hundreds of thousands of residents, even without any foreign migration. So is Florida. So a lot of people, not just the wealthy, are escaping these hellholes that Democrats have created. For the most part, the only people who are willing to live in New York or downtown Los Angeles

are coming here from the third world. So they don't mind seeing people, you know, crap on the streets and all of that. Feels like home. Those are the only people who see America's urban centers as tolerable places to live or even still a step up as bad as they are. These are the kind of people who are doing most of the damage, by the way. Let's put them up on the screen here. These are lawmakers in Washington State after they pass the wealth tax there. It's a group of women who are elated.

they're genuinely thrilled to be taking other people's money. They're making a major change to the state's economy without any understanding of what's going to happen. Overnight, they've transformed Washington from a very desirable state for high-income earners to one that high-income earners have every reason to flee. And they could be happier about it.

And we know how this ends. Countries like France and Ireland and Sweden have all implemented wealth taxes. And in every case, the wealth taxes were ultimately repealed because they ended up losing money for the government when all the rich people left town. A study in Switzerland found that if you increase the wealth tax by 0.1%, the total amount of taxable wealth declines by 3.5%. So the math just doesn't exactly work.

But Democrats in Washington State, well, they're not concerned about any of that. They have an openly socialist female mayor in Seattle who admits that she relies on her parents to pay her bills, even though she's 43 years old. So their plan apparently is to girl boss their way through this. And CNN is going to help run cover for them, of course. Watch. So I want to ask you one other thing, because you sit here as a mayor elect. You're in your early 40s. You've accomplished so much at such a young age.

And in that context, you have been open about the fact that you have done that with your parents' help, that your parents who live across the country have sent you checks to help pay for your toddler's child care, right? That with all the things that you've accomplished, when it comes to affordability, that you still needed that. Now, Fox News and the New York Post framed that in a negative way. They have said, Merrillek, that you are, quote, unquote, living off your parents' money. I'm curious how you see it, because this is something you've been very open about. Do you think that people in Seattle see this as a negative or as a positive that people can relate to? Well, I'll say that my opponents can

campaign and the corporate pack that tried to stop my election certainly cast it as a negative thing. But, you know, campaigning for office is stressful. Seattle's one of the most expensive cities in the country. Our child care is off the charts expensive. And honestly, I think that a lot of people of my generation and younger and older found it very relatable that during this stressful campaign, you know, my parents chipped in to help to pay for the cost of their granddaughter's daycare. And I think, you know, families help each other out. And I certainly acknowledge that. that I'm lucky to be in a position where my parents were able to do that. Not all families have that privilege. And, you know, that's why I'm going to fight for affordable child care and affordable housing for every family in this city.

Well, the problem here is not specifically this woman's parents are sending her money so that she can afford to raise a child. The problem is that she's a 43-year-old socialist who's never had a real job in her life. And also the problem is that if you're a mother and you can't afford, you know, you can't afford to child care, you can't afford child care and also to run for office. Well, maybe that's a good indication that you should not run for office and be home with your children and raise your children. I mean, there's also that option. Contrary to what CNN claims, she has no meaningful accomplishments whatsoever, aside from holding elected office. And she's not even at a point now she hasn't even

accomplished getting to a point where she can afford child care for her kids. That's why she needs the money. She also has a deadbeat husband who chooses not to work. He's been unemployed for something like five years. And while that situation is obviously said, it's also disqualifying. I mean, this is not the kind of person you want to lead your city. The only way she knows how to solve her problems is to rely on other people's money. That's it. That's her only qualification. And you simply can't run a functioning city like that. That would be one thing if these women could point to a way in which all their government spending to this point has actually benefited American taxpayers, but they can't do that because government spending is mostly

fraudulent, as we've seen. Whatever Democrats implement massive taxes, they squander the money on fraud and nonprofits that launder the money. Let's take a look at this data, which was collected by the researcher Charlie Smirkley. And Smirkley puts it, it says, quote, New York City spends more per homeless person than the median New York City household earns $81,75,000. $7,75,000. per person in fiscal year 2025. So I'll say that again. New York is spending more money per homeless person than the median household earns. We're spending enough to provide housing for everyone, in other words.

I mean, in theory. That's roughly 200% more than what New York City was spending on homeless people compared to 2019. 200%. And guess what? In that period, by most estimates, the homeless population has only increased. by at least 30%. And some estimates say the increase was closer to 80%.

So you're spending more on homeless people. You're giving them more free stuff. And as a consequence, you end up with more homeless people. Hmm, I wonder why that could be the case. And this is nothing new. Portland has similar numbers. So does San Francisco, which you can see. They spent over $100,000 per homeless person as of last year.

I'd say roughly 200% increase from 2019. And once again, homelessness has only increased. So where do the money go? Well, I went to Democrat-aligned nonprofits and NGOs and activists. They waste tens of millions of dollars all the time. Here's just one example of how that works. This is from Los Angeles. Watch.

An exclusive look at the Marina Del Rey multi-dollar homeless housing project where for years, neighbors say construction has been slow. Where are the workers? Where is the urgency? The city of LA bought the former Ramada Inn on Washington Boulevard in 2020 for $10.2 million. It was used as interim homeless housing before shutting down in 2022 to be converted into permanent supportive housing. Since then, for almost four years, the property has sat unfinished. Why does it take so long in such a waste of money?

That's not, there's nothing to even show for it. City documents reveal the nonprofit path took almost two years to get permits approved, and by then they needed even more money. The city added another million and a half in homeless housing funds plus loans and grants, bringing the total price tag to around $20 million for just 32 units. $10 million purchase that was gifted to path, you know, without really any other approval from the neighbors. None of these nonprofits of any incentive actually fix the problem of homelessness, because if they did that, the money would disappear. If anything, they have an incentive to make the problem worse, which is exactly what they're doing.

They certainly don't have any incentive to tell the truth, which is that fixing homelessness, top down, is impossible. Practically speaking, you can't force people not to become drug addicts. You can't force people not to alienate their family and friends, so they have no one around them who wants to help them. Even if PATH had built that hotel for the homeless, it still wouldn't have helped them. they would have just destroyed the place. If you want to fight homelessness, the best you can do is create the economic conditions where people can get jobs and close the border

so that fentanyl doesn't flow into the country and then let people make their own choices. But Democrats oppose all of that. What Democrats stand for instead is the prospect that the government should seize even more money from private citizens and corporations. We're meant to ignore all the waste and conclude that the real problem

is that taxes simply aren't high enough. watch. What I can tell the oligarchs is that the American people are sick and tired of their greed. They are sick and tired of billionaires paying

a lower tax rate than the average American worker. They are sick and tired of large corporations like Tesla and SpaceX and many are the large corporations making billions of dollars in profit a year and paying nothing, zero

zilch in federal income taxes. They are sick and tired of people like Sergei Brin, the co-founder of Google, who is spending $20 million to defeat this tax on billionaires. Mr. Brin, you are worth $245 billion. Since Trump was elected, you have become over $100 billion richer. Listen to the needs of working people. Stop threatening the people of California. Start paying your fair share of taxes. Well, this is all just slop.

It sounds good if you're stupid, but there's a couple of problems here. starting with the assumption that billionaires have all their money just like sitting in a bank account, they don't. If you want a billionaire to pay a massive new tax, he's going to have to offload a lot of company, a lot of the company stock. And when all the rich people are forced to sell their stock, the market will tank, and everyone's 401k will plummet. That's the first issue. The second issue is that there's a reason that most major corporations aren't paying much income tax. In many cases, they've lost a lot of money when they were. starting up, so they're offsetting their current profits with their previous losses. And in other cases,

they're issuing stock grants or investing in new factories, which they're allowed to write off because we want businesses to invest in infrastructure. It's much better for the American economy if companies like SpaceX or Tesla invest in their own growth instead of Bernie Sanders taking the money and redistributing it to some left-wing NGO. Because that's what he wants. That's the option he wants. He wants to take this money so he can give it to NGOs and nonprofits on the left. But what we want, as Americans, we want rockets and robots, not more Somali daycares and leering centers. But I'm not really sure about the – it depends on what the robots are doing. Certainly I want more rockets.

But even if you don't buy any of those arguments, the fact remains that no tax, no matter how big, would actually be sustainable. You know, if Bernie Sanders routed up every billionaire in the country and forced them to liquidate all of their assets and immediately surrender every dime to the U.S. Treasury, the resulting money would fund the U.S. federal government for roughly 10 months. Ten months. That's it. That's if you take all of their money, leave them all broke and poor and unhoused, as we say. You get 10 months out of that. That's it. in exchange for crashing the stock market and bankrupting every billionaire and destroying the economy and sending a clear signal that no one should ever build a new company in the United States ever again in exchange for all that we get 10 months of funding the government what do you do after that all the billionaires are broke who are you tax and then Bernie that's why unless we want to end up like Cuba where the lights haven't been working for the past

two days, and it's vitally important to emulate what the red states are doing. The red states, particularly Florida and Texas, are attracting tens of thousands of new residents precisely because their governments have rejected the ideology of the deadbeats that have seized power in New York, Washington State, and California. The problem is that most of these new residents aren't renouncing the socialist ideology that they're running away from. They're like a Mongol horde, obliterating one town before moving on to the next. Now let's get to our five headlines. 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 a service. surgical-grade stainless steel micromesh, the channels water in and keeps debris out. Every installation comes with a lifetime clog-free guarantee,

and a Leaf Filter Trust 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 LEAFFilter.com slash Walsh. Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with ebbglis. A once-monthly treatment for moderate to severe 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. Emglis, 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. Ebglis 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 and visit ebbglis.com or call 1800 lily. The Hill reports. President Trump vowed to withhold his endorsement from any lawmakers who do not vote for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, Save Act, ahead of a Senate procedural vote on legislation on Tuesday.

Trump runs Truth Social. Only sick, demented, or deranged people in House or Senate could vote against the Save America Act. If they do, each one of these points separately will be used against the user in his or her political campaign for office. a guaranteed loss, get your senators, Republican or Democrat to vote yes on the Save America Act. I will never, ever endorse anyone who votes against Save America. The president also indicated that his endorsement in the Texas Republican Senate primary runoff between Senator John Cornyn and Ken Paxton will hinge on the legislation. Trump has pushed Senate Majority Leader John Thune to invoke the talking filibuster, which would force Democrats to speak continuously on the Senate floor to delay the bill in an effort to overcome Democratic opposition. theoretically, once Democrats seed the floor, Republicans could pass the measure with 51 votes. However, Thune has said that he would not use such a procedure, which he previously said is much more complicated and risky than people are assuming at the moment.

So the Senate takes us up today, and that's already happening as I'm talking. At this point, Thune says that he will not abolish the filibuster or implement the talking filibuster. and in fact he said the measure is unlikely to pass, but it will be good to do it anyway because he wants to get the Democrats on record with their objection to the Save Act. So that's all he's intending to do, unless there's some sort of change of heart.

That's all he's intending to do. This is all a big symbolic move to get Democrats on the record that they oppose this bill, which we already know they do. Well, as I've said, that's just not good enough. That's not nearly good enough. We are way past the point of symbolic gestures.

The Republicans have no excuse if they fail to get this bill passed. They can pass it. They have the means. The president is calling on them to use the means at their disposal. They have the American people on their side. Voter ID is very popular. So there is no excuse. And how will the American people feel if they implement the talking filibuster

in order to get it passed. Do you know what the average American won't care at all? The average American has no opinion about, do you support using the talking filibuster? Sure. So there's no excuse. The only reason they will give

and have given for failing to use the means of their disposal talking filibuster or abolishing the filibuster entirely is that they're worried that the Democrats will do the same. You know, when they get into power, Democrats will do the same, and that's basically what John Thune is saying.

As I've argued many times, that reasoning just doesn't work. It doesn't work because there's no limiting principle to it. If it's justified to decline to push forward your agenda in this case for fear of Democrat reprisal when they get into power, well, then it will always be justified, and you'll never push through your agenda at any point because there will always be the risk. No, the certainty that Democrats will be in power again. Democrats are always either going to be in power or soon to be in power. I mean, it's just the way it works. And as I've said, there will never be a filibuster-proof majority for Republicans ever.

There hasn't been one in like 100 years, more than 100 years. And there won't be one again, especially if you don't get voter ID passed. And the reality is that Democrats are going to do this anyway when they're in power. When Democrats get in there, they are going to do it. Maybe not if they win in the midterms because Trump will still be president and abolishing the filibuster won't do much because they won't be able to get anything passed

because Trump could veto it. But the next time that the Dems have Congress and the White House, which might be in 2028, gloves are off, bets are off, and they're going to do it. They're going to pursue their agenda ruthlessly, which they always do, but even more now. and they're going to be doing this in every way, by the way. Abolishing the filibuster.

They're going to do all the things. This is always the story. They're going to do all the things that the Republicans did not have the gumption to do themselves. Abolishing the filibuster will just be, that'll be child's play compared to everything else they're going to do. Because the other thing that's happened is we had the assassination of one of the most important conservative political figures in the world. And that was just one example of brutal left-wing militant violence, and that is what it was, left-wing militant violence. And in response to that, has there been any kind of major nationwide crackdown on left-wing

militants and extremists and those who are funding and facilitating and encouraging and promoting this violence? has there been any kind of nationwide serious crackdown on it? No. I mean, Charlie Kirk was murdered by a left-wing militant, and yeah, left-wing militants running rampant in the streets of Minneapolis again. And in response, there has not been a concerted campaign to root these people out everywhere and their funders and their backers.

and the corrupt NGOs that are facilitating all this and throw them in prison. Well, guess what? When Democrats get in office, they're going to do that to us. The only difference is that we haven't committed any crimes. It doesn't matter to them. Right-wing extremist violence basically doesn't exist. It essentially doesn't exist. I mean, it almost never happens. And anytime it does happen, it is going to be a true, quote-unquote, lone wolf, just someone acting of their own accord. we don't have the organizations, institutions set up funding and facilitating this kind of thing. That doesn't matter to them. Democrats are going to be out for blood. They're going to be out for vengeance.

And so we're going to see a nationwide crackdown of right-wing political figures of conservative activists, almost all of whom will be innocent of any crime, but it's going to happen anyway. Meanwhile, in the case of the left, you've got this actual. conspiracy to commit violence all over the country. Assassinations, rioting, and there has not been any serious major crackdown. There just hasn't been. I mentioned this the other day and someone said, well, they just arrested seven Antifa people in Texas or whatever.

Okay, great. I mean, good. That's not good enough. See, this is the attitude we must have. We should have had all along. It's not good. Like, the bare minimum is not good enough. It's not good enough.

You're not empowered to do the bare minimum. Go pursue the agenda that you ran on aggressively. And that's why this, the SAVE Act, well, you got to pass through the House. So you held a vote in the Senate. You got them on the record. We tried. We tried not good enough at all.

Thune just kicked off the debate with a speech about why the bill should pass. So here's some of that. Democrats are done playing. Mr. President, today we are kicking off an extended debate on the Save America Act. A package of common sense measures united around two themes, protecting our elections and protecting our youth. You're going to hear me use the adjective common sense a lot in this debate, Mr. President, because if there's any word that is suitable to describe the measures we're considering, it's that.

Mr. President, if there's anything essential to the integrity of elections, it's ensuring that those who are registered to vote are eligible to vote, and that those who show up to vote at polling places are those who they say they are. And how do you do that? Well, by requiring that Americans show proof of citizenship when they register to vote, and that they show photo ID at polling places. That's what the Save America Act would do. It's just common sense.

And polls show that the American people overwhelmingly agree. But to hear Democrats talk, you'd think that demonstrating citizenship or showing a photo ID is an intolerable burden. And yet, Mr. President, I haven't heard Democrats, complaining about the thousand other circumstances in which we require photo ID in this country. Democrats are aware that Americans have to show photo ID to get on a plane, right? And to start a new job. And when they head to the doctor's office and to rent a car and to stay in a hotel,

heck, if you want to get a library card, you have to show a photo ID. Right. It's crazy. It's crazy that it's not required to vote. It's crazy that anybody could oppose it. It's crazy that the argument doesn't make any sense, especially coming from people who do not object to IDs being shown and any of IDs being required in any of the circumstances that John Thune just mentioned. If the idea is that there are all these people who just can't get their hands on an ID and it's not their fault and this is an enormous burden. And so this will be disenfranchising them effectively. It'll be effectively banning them from voting by requiring this. Well, then by that logic, these people have also been excluded from pretty much every other aspect of society. And why don't you object to that? Why aren't you calling on calling for policies and legislation that bans airlines and airports from requiring IDs and hotels and all the rest of it? rental car companies.

Well, because the argument makes no sense. The people making the argument don't even believe it. John Toon's right about that. So what does that mean? It means get the thing passed by any means necessary. We tried a lot of coffee over the years. Our sponsor, Seven Weeks Coffee is one that my wife and I have really landed on. I personally love their medium roast.

It's really smooth with a sweet nutty taste, perfect for starting the day. I producer McKenna also stocks up on their coffee and is a big fan. But it's not just great. coffee, it directly pushes back against the abortion culture in this country. Seven Weeks Coffee is America's Pro Life Coffee Company on a mission to fund the pro-life movement, one cup of coffee at a time. Why are they called Seven Weeks? Well, because at seven weeks, a baby is the size of a coffee bean, and it's the same time that a heartbeat is clearly detected on an ultrasound. They built their business around saving lives by donating 10%

of every sale to pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations nationwide. They've now raised over $1.5 million and saved thousands of lives. Now, let's talk about the coffee itself. Well, it's mold-free, pesticide-free, shade-grown, and low acid, and it's organically farmed. It's coffee that tastes better and feels better because they did it right. So go to 7weekscoffee.com and save 15% forever when you subscribe. Plus, get a free gift with your order, and exclusively for my listeners, use Code Walsh for an extra 10% off your first order. That's a 25% total savings on your first order plus a free gift. Just use Code Walsh at checkout.

The city of New York under Mayor Mamm-Dani has unveiled a brand-new agency, very important. It does very important work. It's called the Office of LGBTQIA Plus Affairs. Just unveiled this yesterday. So this is what he's focused on. Really, really crucial stuff. Watch. What we are doing is to create a central office solely focused on the well-being of queer New Yorkers so that their needs may be better met by every city agency across our administration. The queer community, as well as intersecting communities and adjacent communities, are under, extreme attack in this country, from all angles, it seems, from the highest levels of government to society in general and to even sometimes people that we consider friendly fire, unfortunately. And so now more than ever in this moment, it is so critical, I think, to have trans leadership

because New York City is where the LGBTQ civil rights movement started. The so-called queer community is under attack, he says. In what way exactly? Well, you can't say. I mean, can anyone list even one way in which the quote-unquote queer community is under attack? Well, of course they can't. But here's what I want to say about this. You know, you look at this, you listen to that guy talking.

You hear this guy in a dress. And it feels like a relic from an ancient world. It feels like the ancient world of 2021. And that's because the left seems to have mostly moved on from or at least tried to minimize, try to marginalize. It's LGBT extremism. You don't hear about it as much anymore. You don't see them shoving drag queens in our faces like they used to. They aren't talking about trans rights, nearly as much anymore, if at all.

They're not parading cross-dressers around like they used to. I mean, it wasn't all that long ago when they had so-called drag kids. Kids in drag showing up on like daytime talk shows. good morning America or whatever it was. That's how much they had mainstreamed this or tried to anyway. And you're not seeing that anymore. And all that is the case. But here's Mom Donnie opening up a whole new office, a new agency for quote-unquote LGBT people

and appointing this man in address to lead it. And what that tells us is that if these people get back into power on a national level, if they get back to back into the White House, Congress, we're probably going back to this. I mean, this is all coming back. It has to. Because they really can't move on from it in reality. They can't move on from it permanently.

It is a fundamental part of their agenda. Leftists are waging war on civilization, waging war on God. And the LGBT agenda is an integral part of that battle plan. They can't really put it to the side. And also it's narcissism. I mean, that's what the LGBT agenda is all about. Worship of the self, celebration of the self, putting your own proclivities and desires above everything and everybody else.

And leftists definitely can't move on from that. I mean, that is their ideology. That's what leftism is fundamentally. So this is all coming back. First chance they get. I think when you look at this is the benefit in some ways of having somebody like Mamdani in charge of New York, because you can look at that. You can see, well, this is what's coming to the entire country if Democrats get into the White House in 2020.

This is a preview. If you want better gut health, clear skin, stronger hair, steady energy, well, it all starts in the gut. And that starts with colostrum. Cabo colostrum gives you 100% American grass-fed first-day whole colostrum loaded with immunoglobulins, growth factors, and protein. There's no water down powder or synthetic junk, just pure nutrient-dense fuel, the way nature intended. They only collect the surplus after the calves have had their fill. So you're getting the best quality ethically. Add a scoop of Cowboy Colostrum to your coffee or smoothie.

You'll not only feel better, you'll look better to. My producer, Holly McKenna, love Cowboy Colostrum. They already are seeing a clearer skin, stronger hair, energy that lasts. Plus, they think the flavors are great as well. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off. their entire order, just head to Cowboy Colostrum.com slash Walsh and use CodeWalsh and check out.

That's 25% off. You use CodeWalsh at cowboy colostrum.com slash Walsh. Here's something interesting has gotten some attention. Mark Andresen is a billionaire businessman and he went on a podcast and made an interesting, mostly wrong historical claim

that people are talking about on social media. Here it is. Listen. You don't have any levels of introspection. Yes, zero, as little as possible. Why? Move forward. Go.

Yeah, I don't know. I've just, I found people who dwell in the past, get stuck in the past. It's just, it's a real problem. And it's a problem at work and it's a problem at home. So I've read, obviously, 400, I think, now 10 buyer-fists-grates entrepreneurs. And that was one of the most surprising things. Like, what's the most surprising thing that you've learned from this? They're like, oh, they have little or zero introspection.

Like, Sam Walton didn't wake up thinking about his internal self. He just woke up. He just woke up. I like building Walmart. I'm going to keep building Walmart. just kept doing it over and over again. And you probably know, if you go back, before 100 years ago, it never would have occurred to anybody to be introspective.

Like, it's the whole idea. I mean, just all of the modern conceptions around introspection and therapy and all the things that kind of result from that are, you know, kind of a manufacturer of the 1910s, 1920s. Say more about that. Great men of history didn't sit around doing this stuff at any prior point, right? It's all, it's all a new construct. It was, you know, first Western civilization had to kind of invent the concept

of the individual, right, which was like a new concept, you know, several hundred years ago. And then, you know, for a long time, it was all right, the individual runs, right? And, like, does all these things and builds things and, you know, builds empires and builds companies and builds technology, does all these things. And then, you know, kind of this kind of guilt-based whammy, you know, kind of showed up from Europe, a lot of it from Vienna, you know, 1910s, 1920s, Freud and all that entire movement and kind of turned all that inward and basically said, okay, now we need to like, you know,

basically second guess the individual, we need to criticize the individual. The individual needs to self-criticize, right? The individual needs to feel guilt, needs to look backwards, needs to dwell on the past. It never resonated with me. Okay, so this is clearly ridiculous at face value. He's claiming that the great men of history had zero introspection. And something like the opposite of that is the case. I mean, to begin with, all the great philosophers in the history of the human race existed during the time of zero introspection, according to Mark.

So apparently Plato and Aristotle were not introspective Or else they weren't great men of history I don't know which either way either way it's retarded So you think about all the great philosophers, artists, writers Was Tolstoy not introspective? Was Dostoevsky not introspective? What about, you know, like Michelangelo? I don't know, based on his body of work, I'd say that seems like someone

who had a fair amount of introspection a pretty rich inner life. What about St. Augustine? What about Thomas Aquinas? What about Shakespeare? And the list goes on and on. Now, you could say, well, those are all artists, theologians, philosophers. Introspection was their profession.

It was their craft, in a sense. So what about the great men who were doers, you know, who were rulers and warriors and inventors and leaders? Well, again, what you find, if you look back in history, is the opposite. of what Mark Andreessen is claiming. And by the way, this is a guy who's like in the tech field, I think does some works with AI and that sort of thing. Silicon Valley, it's very, it's pretty haunting, actually. When you think about the fact that you've got these tech CEOs

who are denying the existence of an inner self at all. Like that's not, that does not bode well for us. But anyway, historically, the great doers, the great leaders were men of deep introspection. Marcus Aurelius was the most powerful man in the world and also one of the most introspective men to ever live. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, you know, Ben Franklin, Napoleon, Columbus, Andrew Carnegie. I mean, basically just random great men of history. You could just list them and all of them fit the bill because these guys wrote journals and they wrote diaries and They wrote letters. In many cases, they wrote memoirs, books. Some of them wrote poetry. Some of them were artists in their spare time. They were well read. They studied. Many of the great men of history, in fact, were romantics. They were sentimental. They were highly driven by feelings of love and devotion, a sense of honor. That's the thing that probably above all, if you read history, what you find, what is the thing above all? Above all,

else that seems to have driven the great men of history honor, a sense of honor. But you can't pursue honor or live honorably without introspection. So it really is the opposite. The men of history had rich, vibrant interior lives. It's people today who are dead inside, who are unthinking, who have no introspection. I was just using the example the other day when I was talking about something else. I don't even remember what, about Civil War letters. You know, you read letters from soldiers in the Civil War writing home to their mothers and wives. And what you find is emotion, introspection, sentimentality, romanticism, even as these guys were locked in a deadly struggle for their lives, dying by the hundreds and by the thousands in the most gruesome ways

on the battlefield, still, this is how they spoke and this is how they thought. So this is all wrong. However, there's a way of thinking about what he's saying that could be kind of true. I don't think this is what he was trying to say. Because he is right that therapy did not exist until basically the 20th century. Maybe there were some rudimentary forms of it in 19th century. But basically, therapy, as we know today, talk therapy, is a 20th century invention and certainly did not become common mainstream until the 20th century. So men were not sitting around prior to about 100 years ago whining about their feelings to a therapist,

to whom they pay top dollar to listen to their complaints. That definitely wasn't happening. He's right about that. So there is a form of self-obsession today that didn't exist 200 years ago, especially among the great men, but I wouldn't call it introspection. You know, I would almost say, the way that I would put it is this.

I was thinking about it. The great men of history had a rich interior life. They were contemplative, they were introspective, but they weren't full of self-pity, and they didn't focus much on how they feel or how they felt about themselves. See, that's the difference. I think if you look at what they wrote

and what they did is clear that these were people who felt deeply, but it doesn't seem that they were too focused on how they felt about themselves. So today, introspection involves this obsession, not with the state of your soul or your inner life, but with how you feel about yourself. 200 years ago, there was an emphasis on knowing yourself. today the emphasis is on feeling good about yourself. So it's not what you know about yourself, it's what you feel about yourself. That is the switch.

That's the pivot. That's the thing now that everybody is so focused on. And when he's talking about introspection, that's probably what he means, which is not introspection at all. Because in fact, feeling good about yourself all the time means in many cases, in practice, not knowing yourself. So a lot of therapy and the way that our culture works in general is to encourage you to lie about yourself to yourself so that you can feel better about yourself or to put you on drugs so that you feel better while your inner self is obliterated. So what we have today is the obliteration of the inner self or certainly a great de-emphasis on self-knowledge in favor of feeling good.

feeling good about yourself. And that's the question. If you were to go to your great-grandfather, if he's still alive, or if you could go to him in a time machine, your great-grandfather, your great-great-grandfather, and say, you know,

what do you know about yourself? He'd be able to talk about that. He'd be able to talk about what he knows about himself. If you would ask him, how do you feel about yourself, that question might be even sort of incoherent. because that's what they're not focused on. So for modern man,

the question that they ask themselves is, how do I feel about myself? For historical man, we'll call it, the question was, what do I know about myself? And what do I know about the world beyond myself? That's been the change, and it has been a pretty devastating one. Finally, we just passed a major holiday,

I feel I should mention, I hope you had a chance to celebrate, long COVID awareness day was observed on Sunday if you didn't know. I'm assuming you did. How could you not? Unheard.com has this. Niagara Falls was lit in a teal color last night to mark International Long COVID Awareness Day. What I mean lit in a teal color?

Isn't teal like blue-green? So how would you know that a waterfall was lit in that color? Isn't that just what the color of a waterfall already is for the most part? I don't know. I'm colorblind, so I don't know. I don't know. Among other locations illuminated to recognize the occasion was Canada's tallest structure, Toronto's C-N Tower, or the Tower regularly changes color to celebrate a variety of events during the year, including Kwanza, Human Rights Day, and Transgender Day of Remembrance. So all the major holidays there. Long COVID Awareness Day, Kwanza, Human Rights Day,

and Transgender Day of Remembrance. What other holidays are there? I can't think of any. Those are the big ones. anyway so that's long COVID awareness day which is great I mean for me if they're going to have a you know an awareness day to bring awareness to a mythical phenomenon I prefer like Bigfoot Day Lochness Monster Day something fun like that I think would be better but this is fun too and by the way since since we just passed long COVID awareness

day in case you're wondering if you have long COVID I did look up the updated list of symptoms on the CDC website and here's what it says tiredness or fatigue, fever, difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, fast, beating or pounding hard, difficulty thinking or concentrating, headaches, sleep problems, dizziness, pins and needles feeling, what that means, change in smell or taste, depression, anxiety, diarrhea, stomach pain, constipation, joint pain, muscle pain, or rash. So basically, a long COVID symptom is literally anything. Any kind of uncomfortable physical or mental experience is a long COVID symptom. So if you're wondering if you had long

COVID, all I have to ask is, has anything ever, have you ever, have you had any kind of physical sensation or mental experience ever? Yes. Well, then you have long COVID because it all, it's all falls under that umbrella. There's basically nothing that isn't a long COVID symptom. Long COVID is everything. It's everywhere. We all have long COVID. We all are long COVID. Long COVID is in all of us. We have all become long COVID. Long COVID is the friends we made along the way. And these are the kinds of diseases that people just love to have these days. People love these diseases. They love them. Liberals in particular. Liberals love these kinds of, there's nothing that a liberal loves more than a disease like this. They can't get a, literally cannot get enough of them.

They just rack them up. They love diseases that can't be tested for, can't be diagnosed in any kind of objective way and that any physical or psychological symptom proves that you have it. They love those kinds of diseases. Those they can't get enough. The kind of disease that the whole diagnostic process is you go to the doctor and say, hey, I think I have this. And the doctor goes, okay, well, then you do. Oh, I mean, basically, if you think you have it, then you do. Because there's no, we can't test for it. And anything at all is a symptom of it. And so if you think you have it, then you have it. It's one of the weirdest features of modern life. I mean, whole books can be written about it.

Probably books have been written about it. But the fact that so many people in our society want to be sick, it's mind-blowing. We invent diseases like long COVID or a million others. ADHD is another one. People love that. And they get so defensive of it. Every time I talk about ADHD and I point out that it's not a real disease because it isn't, people get so offended. it's like their child.

It's like you insulted it. It's like you slapped their mother. They take it so personally. They cherish it. But we invent all these things so that everyone can be sick because everybody wants to be sick. It's pretty difficult. It's hard to understand the psychology of it.

Actually, it's not hard at all. Being sick, even when you aren't sick, gives you two advantages. For one thing, it gives you an excuse, which is what a lot of people are looking for. They're looking for excuses. You can excuse all of your shortcomings. You can blame it on your ailment.

That's the thing that many people are pursuing in life. They just, their life has not worked out how they want. And they're looking for an excuse. So they'll latch on to anything. And then a new one comes along. And they're like, oh, I got that too.

Yep, I have that one. That's, I call dibs on that. I call dibs on long COVID. And then, too, it brings you pity. And people today have a deep desire to be pitied. as the great men of history had a desire to have, you know, honor to be respected, to be admired. Those were the things that drove people in the past. And now most people aren't driven by that.

They're not driven by any deep desire to be respected or admired because that takes effort. And so they go for pity instead. Pity is kind of the runner-up prize. and that's the idea behind long COVID, which is why you should not give pity to someone who has a made-up illness. The best thing you can do for them, the best remedy,

the best actual treatment plan that you can give to them is to not pity them and to not take it seriously. If anyone tells you they have long COVID, you should just laugh hysterically at them. Point at them and laugh. Maybe that'll wake them out of their stupor.

It's for the best. It's for them, really. And even if it doesn't help them, it at least is satisfying for you. And so that matters also. All right, that'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day. 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 land. 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.