The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 225 - Outrageous Miscarriage Of Justice In The Smollett Case

Episode Date: March 26, 2019

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, in an outrageous development, Jussie Smollett, who staged a fake hate crime against himself, has been let go. All charges dropped. We will discuss this incredible miscarriage of justice. Also, the president of CNN makes a stunning admission, and a video of Pope Francis that you have to see to believe.  03-26-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, in an outrageous development, Jesse Smollett, who staged a fake hate crime against himself, has been let go. All charges dropped. So we will discuss this incredible miscarriage of justice, and we'll figure out what, if anything, we can learn from it. Also, the president of CNN made a stunning admission about his network and about the nature of journalism. And finally, I've got a video of Pope Francis that you just have to see to believe. It's pretty. It's pretty incredible. All of that today on the Matt Wall Show. Okay, don't panic, everyone. I am in a real studio. I went from, it's kind of a, it's a rags to riches story. I went from homeless in my car yelling into my phone, and then I was in my mom's basement in front of a fake cardboard fireplace.

And now I am, at least temporarily, for a couple of days, in a studio of sorts. It's just, it's a temporary thing. I'm visiting L.A. And they said, yeah, you can go in a studio if you want. You can have the makeup and all the things and all that. it's kind of like a take your child to work day sort of thing. It's just they're just humoring me with with this little setup. So there's a lot that we got to get to, including the Jesse Smollett madness.

But before we do that, let's check in with Freedom Project Academy. This year, nearly $70 billion. Okay, think about that. $70 billion of taxpayer money will be spent on public education. Yet a new report finds that just two and five American students are ready to attend college. So, to be perfectly frank about it, you're better off sending your kids to go be raised by squirrels in the woods for 13 years than you are in sending them to public school. That's basically where we're at.

So many of you are searching for a school that offers a real education, one that is appreciably better than what a squirrel could provide a school with traditional values that helps students develop strong foundations in math, science, English, American history. But most importantly, with a school, the idea with education is you're teaching kids how to think critically, not just what to think, not regurgitating, but actually how to think. Well, the search is over. Freedom Project Academy is an accredited online school built on Judeo-Christian values and classical curriculum for students from kindergarten all the way through high school, so they do the whole thing. This is a complete, interactive educational experience where students

attend live classes with other students, so it's just like they're in a real classroom, a physical, you know, classroom. Freedom Project Academy provides live and recorded lessons, homework, tests, tutoring, grades, transcripts, everything you could possibly need. So go to freedomfor school.com and request your free information packet today. That's freedomfor school.com. Enroll by March 31st. You've got five or six days to do this and you get some discounted rates on that. Don't forget to subscribe to their weekly podcast, a Dr. Duke show available on iTunes and more. Take back control of your kids' education.

That's freedomfor school.com, freedomfor school.com, freedom for school.com, freedom for school.com, freedom for school. dot com. Well, I was planning on, I was flying up here on the plane, flying over here, I should say, and I was planning on starting the show, I have to admit, by doing a bit of gloating about what a great week it's been, you know, for right wingers and what a terrible week it's been for left wingers. But then this Smollett thing happened. And I think that the timing I imagine is not actually coincidental. Just breaking this afternoon, the state attorney's office in Chicago has swooped in to drop all of the charges against Jussie Smollett. Now, that office is headed by a woman named Kim Fox. And you may, if you've been following the Smolett case, you may remember that name because

we were told about a month ago that she recused herself from the investigation. And it wasn't exactly clear why she recused herself, but then we find out that she's got some sort of connection to the Smolette family. But now she's back and she's giving Smolet a walk. So the police department is furious. The mayor is furious. I'll play those clips a little bit later on. And that is, when I talk about the police department, let's remember that the police department is, and I feel like I have to, in this day and age of identity politics, I have to make a note of the fact that the police department is headed by a black police chief. So this, this is, This is not a case of, you know, racist white police officers trying to railroad an innocent

black man. That's not what's going on here at all. What did the prosecutor's office say to justify this decision to drop all the charges? Well, they haven't said a whole lot, but they did say this. After reviewing all the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smolett's volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the city of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to the case. Notice what they're not saying.

They're not saying that the evidence, that the evidence wasn't sufficient. They're certainly not saying he didn't do it. All they're saying is that he's already done some community service, and so there's no point in pursuing this. That's what they're saying. Well, yeah, he tied up all these police resources. he took advantage of racial tensions, he lied, he did all that. But, you know, he's done some community service in the past.

So, eh, that's essentially the statement. They're also keeping his bond. They said in reviewing the case, Smolett's agreement to forfeit his bond is part of the reason why they're letting him go. Now, that is an insane reason to let anyone go. I mean, whether they're, you know, innocent or not. But it certainly isn't a reason that you're giving if the man is innocent. An innocent man gets his bond back. That's the whole point.

And an innocent man doesn't have to do any community service either. So this is not what they say. If it's just you're brought up on charges and then they find out that, oh, you know what, there's no there there. They're going to drop the charges. There's not going to be any talk of community service or, you know, you agreed to let them keep. your bond. Joe Maggots, I don't know how to pronounce it. Interestingly enough, his name is spelled M-A-G-A-T-S, so MAGA-T-S. That's the assistant state's attorney. He has specifically clarified, this just happened recently, that Smollett is not exonerated. This is not an exoneration.

He says, this is what he said. Here's the thing. We work to prioritize violent crime and the drivers of violent crime. Public safety is our number one priority. don't see Jesse Smollett as a threat to public safety. We stand behind the investigation. We stand behind the decision to charge him, and we stand behind the charge. Listen to this part. We stand behind the charges in the case. The mere fact that it was disposed of in an alternative manner does not mean that there were any problems or infirmities in the case or the evidence. Disposed of in an alternative manner. Isn't that nice? If you ever get brought up on You know, if you ever commit a crime, and wouldn't it be nice if they dispose of the charges in an alternative manner?

But that's very interesting. They're saying that they stand behind the charges. We stand behind the charges, but we're letting him go. Translation, they know that he's guilty as hell, but they're giving him a pass anyway. Nitwitz on the left, morons on the left, are celebrating as if Smollett has been vindicated when actually the exact, opposite has happened. I just read for you the statement. They stand behind the charges.

And it's not an exoneration. So not only does this not indicate his innocence, but it actually only further indicates his guilt. And it also indicates the corruption of the judicial system in Chicago, which we already knew about. You've got the state's attorney's office coming in, interfering, going behind the police department's back to let a rich celebrity walk on charges that, that she herself never claims were erroneous and that actually they say they stand behind.

Now, by the way, this is exactly what the left thought was going to happen with the Mueller investigation. What they said there, what they were worried about, they said, they told us for two years. What's going to happen is that a biased third party is going, in this case Trump, is going to interfere to shut down an investigation despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. Now, that didn't happen with Mueller and Trump. It did happen with Smollett. In the end, it turns out that it's always the liberals who do the colluding. Have you noticed that? This is another case of collusion.

So every time you hear liberals talk about collusion, it is always projection. Because you know what they're really upset about? They're upset that you're treading or they think that we're treading on their territory. because what they're saying is, no, that's, you guys aren't supposed to do that. That's our thing. That's our move, okay? Get your own moves. If you're wondering whether justice exists in this world, consider this case and consider

that Smollett will now be worshipped as a hero on the left, and you already see that developing. He'll get his job back. In fact, he'll probably get the raise that he did all of this to attain in the first place. And the left is to embrace him now. Well, unless they are total, absolute brain-dead idiots, which is possible, but they're not all that, okay? The ones who are not brain-dead idiots, they know that he's guilty.

But they're going to overlook the fact that he's guilty. They're going to overlook the injustice that was done here. They're going to overlook the fact that Smollett exploited racial tensions and did all this stuff for his own gain, and they're going to overlook it for ideological reasons as usual. So let me play a couple of clips for you. Here's Smolett's gloating outside of the courthouse. I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one. I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I had been accused of.

This has been an incredibly difficult time, honestly one of the worst of my entire life. But I am a man of faith and I'm a man that has knowledge of my history and I would not bring my family, our lives or the movement through a fire like this. I just win it. Okay, I can only stomach so much of that. What an absolute sociopath. But he wins. Let's face it. And why does he win?

Well, he certainly doesn't win because he's innocent. The evidence against him was and is overwhelming, including the fact that his two friends admitted to the whole thing. Okay, they've got the accomplices confessed and said, yeah, this is what happened. Have you noticed that they're not resolving Smollett and his attorney and the prosecutor? They haven't resolved to go out and find the real culprits and find out,

who are these racist white people that are prowling the streets looking for black people to assault? Nobody is saying that they want to go find those people. Why is that? That's because they know that the real culprit is the guy who just waltzed out of the building, a free man. In fact, Smolette's lawyers today came out and in a really incredible admission, they admitted that the Nigerian brothers, the friends of Smolet who were arrested and they're the ones who confessed to this whole thing and spilled the beans, his lawyers today in the press conference admitted that they were the ones who attacked Smolet. So they said that Smolet, yes, okay, Smolet was attacked by these two Nigerians who Smolet knows. yet somehow his attorneys claim that Smolet wasn't lying.

Well, hold on a second. If I'm not crazy, I thought the whole thing here was that Smolet said that it was two white racists who attacked him and shouted, this is MAGA country, right? So to believe in Smolet's innocence, here's what you have to believe. You have to believe that two Nigerian friends of Smolet decided to randomly assault him on the street at 2.30 a.m. know in the morning in December and scream, this is MAGA country, and that Smolet not only did not recognize them as his friends, but didn't even recognize them as Nigerian and instead thought that they were white. That's, you're going to have to accept that if you want to believe in Smolette's

innocence, and that is simply impossible to believe. So back to the question. Why does he win? Why does he get away with it? The answer, I think, gets us closer to understanding the true nature of privilege in this country. He gets away with it, first of all, because he's rich and famous. All right. There is a two-tier justice system in this country. There is the track that plebs like you and me will be on. If we commit a crime, we're going to be on the normal track.

And if we did it and they have evidence, we're going to go to jail for it. We're going to face the consequences. And then there's another tier for people like Jesse Smollett, who have the money and have the clout and the fame and all that kind of stuff. So don't make the mistake of thinking that, oh, so, okay, so now we're allowed to file false police reports. And now I'm going to go and file false police reports until my heart's content. No, don't make that mistake because you need to get a few TV gigs first and then maybe get a high-rise apartment somewhere in Chicago. and then maybe you can get away with it. Although even then you might not get away with it.

Because, you know, think about this. James Woods, let's just say, is a famous celebrity, right? White conservative celebrity, I assume pretty wealthy. Well, do you think that if he had fabricated a story about two liberal black men assaulting him and, you know, on the street corner? Do you think that if he had made up that story, he would have faced no consequences for it? No, of course he would have. Because there's one other factor that matters here, and that factor is identity politics.

Smollett has everything going for him. He has wealth, he has fame. He has a whole fistful of victim tokens by virtue of his race and his sexual orientation. And he's a liberal. He's a Trump hater. I refer you back to the victimhood flowchart that we talked about a few weeks ago. Well, Smollett just has too many victimhood points. He is simply untouchable, which is why there was really never any chance of him facing real justice, especially in a place like Chicago.

And the state's attorney's office, they may have well just come out and said, did you really think we're going to prosecute this guy? Come on. Come on. Their whole statement should have just been that. Come on, guys. What did you think was going to happen? And I would have respected that. I would have respected that statement a lot more because at least it's honest.

All right, I want to play a couple other clips for you because not everyone in Chicago is taking this lying down. So here's Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago speaking out. Where is the accountability in the system? You cannot have because of a person's position. One set of rules apply to them. And another set of rules apply to everybody else. in another way you're seeing this play out in the universities where people pay extra to get their kids a special position in universities.

Now you have a person because of their position and background who's getting treated in a way that nobody else would ever, sorry about that, don't get near, I'm doing near my sermon here, that would ever get close to this type of treatment. Okay, so he's pretty angry, and it's nice to see that from him. I wasn't expecting that, to be honest. And here is the police chief who also is not happy about this. So listen, I'm sure we all know what occurred this morning.

My personal opinion is that you all know where I stand on this. Do I think justice will serve? No. What do I think justice is? I think this city is still older in apology. And let me digress for a moment. When I came on this job, I've been a cop now for about 31 years. When I came on this job, I came on with my honor, my integrity, and my reputation.

If someone accused me of doing anything that would circumvent that, then I would want my day in court, period, to clear my name. I've heard that they wanted their day in court with TV cameras so America could know the truth, and though they chose to hide behind secrecy and broker a deal to circumvent. the judicial system. My job as a police officer is to investigate an incident, gather their evidence, gather their facts, and present them to the state's attorney. That's what we did. I stand behind the detective's investigation. I let Mary Madame O'Connor further. Now, remember that these are Democrats, okay? At least Rahm Emanuel is. I don't know about the police chief. I kind of assume he is because it would be really hard to get to a position of leadership in a place like Chicago if

you're a conservative, but even these guys are saying that this is bogus and that it's wrong and it's a fraud. So to summarize, let's say there's a new rule now, okay? The new rule is you aren't allowed to complain about wealth and privilege and wealth disparity if you're cheering this on. And if you go on social media, right now, you're going to find a lot of social justice warriors, a lot of liberals who are very, very happy that a wealthy celebrity has gotten away with committing a crime by virtue of his wealth and his fame and his privilege. And so that's just that's just not going to work. All right, I want to go back to Mueller for a moment.

Mueller, Mueller, Smollett, Smollett, Smollett, I don't know, Smollett, Smollett, Smollett, you know who I'm talking about. And I want to talk again about the implosion of the news media. There's a report in the New York Times about news media leaders who are trying to defend their performance in recent months and years, especially with regard to the Russian collusion case. various people were interviewed in this report in the New York Times, but I want to zone in on Jeff Zucker, who's the president of CNN. Now, CNN beclowned itself, perhaps worst of all, but if you're thinking that Zucker is ready to come out and take accountability and admit his fault and pledge to do better or whatever, no, he's about as apologetic as Smolett is. So this is what he told the Times.

Now, this is a really incredible quote, okay? This is, again, I emphasize it. This is from a, the president of an alleged news organization, okay? He says, we are not investigators. We are journalists. And our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did. A sitting president's own Justice Department. investigated his campaign for collusion with a hostile nation.

That's not enormous because the media says so. That's enormous because it's unprecedented. Now, did you catch that? We're not investigators. We're journalists. This is a fascinating statement. It's as if a surgeon went to perform an operation on you with his hands still smothered in like barbecue sauce

from the ribs that he had at lunch. And you go, hey, Doc, can you wash your hands before you cut me open, please? And he said, hey, man, what do I look like? A hygienist? I'm not a hygienist, okay? I'm a doctor. Yeah, but you're kind of a hygienist, too, if you're a surgeon. I mean, it comes with the territory, doesn't it?

You can't properly treat people, which is your job, if you're spreading the infection and you're spreading diseases. So something similar could be said about, journalists. Your job is to report the truth. But you can't report the truth if you don't first find out the truth. Now, I shouldn't have to explain this to someone like Jeff Zucker, who, again, is the president of a news organization. And if you want to find out the truth, that is going to entail some form of investigation. But if you don't investigate before reporting, you're just and you're spreading infections, you're spreading disease.

You're spreading fake news and misinformation and propaganda. So, yes, in a journalist is an investigator. I mean, the quote you see being, you see being tossed around online all the time about how, you know, journalists are like courageous firefighters that are running towards the fire. well, yeah, you're not just running towards the fire to gawk at it, right? You're supposed to be running towards the fire, figuring out what's going on, who set the fire, you know, figuring out all the details.

So there's going to be some element of investigation. You know, so if I know this, if I understand this basic fact about news reporting, it's very disturbing that the guy who runs CNN does not understand it. And that really tells you everything you need to know. I mean, everything you need to know about the modern news media has just been distilled right there in those two sentences. We're not investigators. We're journalists. And as I talked about yesterday, that is actually very true.

At least these days, that's the case, where now, you know, investigation and journalism are seen as these two mutually exclusive pursuits. and in most cases, yeah, a journalist, although he should be an investigator, is not, he's more of an entertainer or a propagandist, a smear merchant many times, but not an investigator. So Jeff Zucker unwittingly told a very profound truth there. All right, finally, I have to play what is without doubt, without. hype, I think, the most awkward 45-second video clip that you will ever see in your entire life. Take the cringiest moments in a show like The Office and ramp it up to 11. And this is so much worse because it's real, as far as I know. Now, before I play this, let me give you a little bit of a setup.

Pope Francis was celebrating Mass as he does. and afterwards he formed a greeting line to say hello to the pilgrims who came out to see him. Well, standard protocol, if you're not Catholic, maybe you don't know this, but standard protocol, if you're Catholic, is when you meet the Pope, you're supposed to kiss his ring. Now, the Pope, I assume, knows this, because he's been Pope for like seven years, I think, six or seven years. But it appears that he's not a fan of,

that particular protocol. So this is just unbelievable. Watch this. Whether it's a movie night or just midday, Skinny Pop is a salty snack that keeps on giving. Made with just three simple ingredients for an irresistibly delicious taste and a large serving size that lasts.

Deliciously popped, perfectly salted. Skinny Pop, popular for a reason. Shop Skinny Pop now. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, you know, I'm going

for the people and that everybody that's this is a man

and many many have many people. Oh my sweet heaven. I really, first time I saw that I almost cringed so hard that I nearly collapsed into myself and formed a black hole

that would have sucked everything into itself and obliterated existence as we know it, almost. I have so many questions about this. number one, if Pope Francis doesn't want to do the ring kissing thing, then why doesn't he have his people make an announcement, like publish the new protocols, right? Let everybody know that you don't do that, so they don't make fools of themselves. Has he really been doing that for seven years?

And the thing is, if you saw in the video, every time someone tried to kiss his ring, he lurched back like he was shocked. He was like, what are you doing? Hey, man. He reacted like I would react. If I went to, you know, go shake someone's hand in a social situation, and they leaned in to kiss my hand, I would have like, whoa, whoa, hey,

I don't know where you're from, but we don't do that around here. That's how he reacted, but this is, people have been kissing his ring for seven years. Second question, I understand why the first couple of people got rejected, but wouldn't the fourth or fifth person in line start to figure it out? I mean, you're all in line. If you see all these people getting rejected, By the time it gets to you, wouldn't you just go in for the fist bump or something? Why do you still lunge for the ring kiss?

It seems like they were really desperate to kiss his ring. Number three, this isn't really a question but a statement. The Pope's behavior here is truly inexcusable. I mean, it's kind of hilarious, but it's also inexcusable. Even if you don't like the ring kissing thing, the fact is that these people apparently weren't told that he doesn't do it, And this was their one chance to meet the Pope, and I'm sure they were really excited, but then this is what happens. They get rejected.

Their one encounter with the Pope was probably the most awkward, cringiest encounter they've ever had in their life with anyone. It's, you know, if the president had some weird thing about not wanting to shake people's hands, I would respect that. I respect germaphobes. I respect people who don't like to make physical contact with anyone. any situation except for close family members. I'm that way. You know, I never want, there are about, you know, five or six people in my life who I ever want within, like, it's like this is my, you can't come closer than this for me, unless I know you very, very well. So I respect that. But let's say the president had a thing like that. Well, then, well, it's

his responsibility to tell people that. So they know ahead of time. So there's not an awkward thing where people go to shake his hand and then, and then there's the, you know, when you go to shake someone's hand, they don't shake yours, and it's kind of like this, you know, you don't know what to do with your hands. So I think that's the Pope's responsibility. Fourth point I'll make about this is as a Catholic, and I know that I may lose some Catholic street cred in saying this, but although I think the Pope handled this terribly, I would be fine with getting rid of the whole the whole ring kissing rigamarole

I do find it a little strange I know that see what Catholics will say is well it's not a sign of deference to the man it's a sign of deference to the office which which is

I get that which is fine but as human beings we don't really deal well with abstract concepts like an office right? We deal with people. And so inevitably, even if we talk about respect the office, pay homage to the office, it's really going to end up being, no, we are paying homage to the

man who holds the office. We can't help but do that. We can't help but draw that connection because, as I said, we don't deal in abstracts. We deal in what is personal and right in front of us. So I think that a lot of the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Pope, I think in many ways it sends the wrong message. And I think that these men in leadership positions in the church could do well to be humbled and to be treated more like just regular men because at the end of the day, that's what they are. They're just men like you and I. So any effort to inject some humility and take out some of the pomp and circumstance, I think that's a good thing. I don't know if it's really helped matters, especially in recent years. And I say that, and that doesn't just go for the Catholic Church, by the way.

Now, other churches might not have the ring kissing bit, but there are churches that, in effect, have that. There are plenty of other churches, other denominations. where the pastors are treated like celebrities, like their own little gods. And in other churches like megachurches, the pastors, they might live in big mansions and people go and they treat the pastor like he's the lead singer of a boy band or something like that. And that doesn't help either. That's no good either. And that's certainly not in keeping with Jesus's style, let's just say.

All right. Let's go to some emails. email the show, of course, at Matt Wallshow.gmail.com. Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. Don't think that just because I'm in this fancy studio that you can't send me emails and now I'm unapproachable or something. It's still, hey, it's still just me. Okay. This is from Lisa. Says, you read my email on your show today and you said that, where this came in yesterday, you read my email on your show today and you said that teacher raises should be given on a case-by-case basis. While I understand that argument, the public school

system is too broken for that to work. Here's why. The raises would come from the school administration, and they define teacher success by their student failure rate exclusively. As I've already in my experience as a teacher, as I've seen already in my experience, teachers will give easy work and hand out A's as grades just so their failure rate is low and administration is happy with them. Admin doesn't care about anything else. So if you're a good teacher who actually holds students accountable for their learning, you probably will have a slightly higher failure rate. Admin does not like this because it puts the school state funding in jeopardy. To admin, you are immediately a bad teacher if you have a failure rate higher than they like.

And that's simply not the case, especially if you teach a hard subject and students are on their phones the whole time refusing to learn. So if admin is in charge of the raises, then the do-nothing teachers you described as giving out worksheets and never teaching would get all the raises. and the good teachers who actually care about learning would not. That would definitely not encourage them to stay or even encourage them to become a do-nothing teacher themselves if they see it works for their lazy colleagues. Basically, the system is too broken for improvement and needs to be demolished.

So this is coming from someone in the system who's saying the system is broken and needs to be demolished. And I have to tell you that I get so many emails from teachers and people who are in the public school system because I talk about these kinds of issues all the time. And you would be shocked, or maybe you wouldn't be, if you saw just how many teachers will say exactly that to me. They'll say, listen, I'm in this system, and it's a disaster zone. That's very concerning, but I appreciate your honesty there, Lisa.

Here's another teacher chiming in. This is from, unfortunately, I didn't get this person's name. Well, it says, hi, Matt, I love your podcast. I just wanted to chime in on your discussion about teacher's salary. I am a second-year teacher teaching kindergarten in a high-poverty charter school in Ohio. That being said, I work there on purpose. Many teachers do. I want you to know that I wholeheartedly agree with most everything you have said regarding teacher compensation.

Here's the sitch. One, every teacher in America knows the deal before they sign up for it. You can Google median teacher salary any minute you please. I didn't start teaching and think, wait one damn minute. Where are the riches I was promised? If you're trying to make a lot of money cool, don't be a teacher. Two, but teachers have the most important job in America. They mold the future.

They need to be paid more. Hell yes, my job is extremely important, and the perks I enjoy from it are extremely rare compared to other professions. A, into work at 7.30, out by 330. B, you can tell this person's a teacher, by the way, by how they've organized their email. It's great. A, into work at 730, out by 330. B, federal holidays, random days off at least once a month. See fall break, Thanksgiving break, Christmas break, spring break, summer vacation.

I mean, come on. D, children come to work with you and ride home with you. Three, wait, though. Teachers don't really work for only eight hours a day. They work way more than that. Yep, we definitely do. But again, this is the profession you chose. You knew going in that teaching is a unique profession.

I work many evenings and most weekends newsflash because I want to. Four, okay, but still, even with all those ridiculous benefits, teachers don't make enough money to pay their bills. I make 44,000. That's enough to pay the bills, including the monumental loan debt that I knowingly signed on to incur the debt, pay the debt. Additionally, some teachers suck, like really suck. Raising wages across the board is ridiculous. Performance-based raises, yes, blind raises for people who teach because you can literally glide on without being questioned. How about no? I think teacher burnout occurs from having to perform not only as a teacher, but as a stand-in parent. This is the failing of the family. And it goes on from there. It's just a great email. Concerning email in many respects, but great and very honest. And the last two emails that I read, this is what I was talking about yesterday. There are really great teachers out there who, as I've said many times, are up against it.

Because they're up against a broken system. And they're also up against, as this emailer mentioned, they're up against these parents who don't do any parenting, and then they send their awful kids into school, and the awful kids behave awfully, and what happens when the teachers try to deal with that problem and instill some discipline? Well, now the parents are going to swoop in and finally take an interest in their child in order to come to their defense and interfere with the discipline. So that, it's not anything that I would want to deal with. That's for sure. Finally, this is from Phil says, since you have three children, do you find it easier to raise one sex over the other?

This is an interesting question. And the standard answer to this question is that boys are way easier. And I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with the standard answer. I have a five-year-old boy, a two-year-old boy plus a five-year-old girl. And the boys are no big deal, honestly. It's just like having a couple of like rabid raccoons running around the house. They're climbing things, knocking things over, eating everything, emitting strange odors all the time. But it's pretty straightforward. And you know how to deal with them. And plus, I know what kind of games to play with them and everything.

One of our favorite games is we call it tackling. And it's a really interesting game. We just go outside. We run in circles and tackle each other. And that's the game. But my daughter is much more complex. She's more like having. I don't know, a really moody cat or something in the house.

If you've ever been around a cat, they always seem like they're up in their head, like they're plotting. It's kind of like that having a girl. And she gets upset for reasons that are often mysterious to me, and I can't snap it out of her by making a farting noise like I can do with the boys. She's a lot trickier than my son. Like she can hatch these various schemes and plots and enlist her brother into them and then set him up as the fall guy when it all goes to, when it all goes to hell. It's impressive that she could do that at five, but it's also sort of terrifying. I will say she's much more helpful around the house.

Like she's, my son is useless when it comes to chores, but my daughter likes to clean and cook and do dishes and fold laundry and all that kind of stuff. She's very helpful, very smart, very joyful when she wants to be, but also prone to drastic and mysterious mood swings. And she's terrifyingly adept at manipulation. So she's a girl, in other words, and God love her. And God love them all. But it is the greatest joy in the world to have these raccoons and cats running around your house. We'll leave it there. Thanks, everybody for watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.

Hey, everyone, it's Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven Show. How is it the press so disgraced itself in their miscoverage of the Russian non-collusion scandal? Easy. They didn't cover the corruption of the Obama administration. Who appointed all the clowns who got the scandal rolling, Obama. We'll take a look on the Andrew Claven Show. I'm Andrew Claven.