Ep. 1744 - The Biggest Threat To Our Country Is Inside Our Borders

That's pure automotive joy.

I'm Peter, the owner of Muscle Car Junior.

It started as a hobby, then I started posting about it.

Before I knew it, I built a business for storing muscle cars on Facebook Marketplace, and

the community of car lovers on Instagram.

Today, new customers send me what's that message is from all over.

Not bad for a hobby.

And how meta helps over 35 million American businesses, like Peter's grow, at meta.com slash

community.

Today, Matt Walsh show is the war and I ran continued Secretary of State Marco Rubio

offers a very problematic justification for the war.

Meanwhile, as we intervene in the Muslim world overseas, America is imported and increasingly

large portion of that world.

Why have we done this?

And when will we reverse that mistake?

Plus, Jasmine Crockett claims that white people commit most of the mass shootings and immigrants

commit less crime than native born Americans?

None of that is actually true.

We'll look at the facts.

And a church in Pennsylvania goes viral with a new policy pertaining to loud children in

church.

We'll talk about all that.

And more say, Matt Walsh show.

When Donald Trump announced that he was running for president in 2016, he opened his announcement

speech by insulting his opponents because they sweat like dogs, which was great.

And they moved on to the central thesis of his entire campaign and subsequent presidency.

Foreign countries are, quote, laughing at us at our stupidity, and quote, the United States

has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Just a few minutes later, he recalled his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he opposed

because he believed it would totally destabilize the Middle East.

Then he went on to promise that he would quote, stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

And six months later, after two radicalized Muslims committed a mass shooting in California,

Trump announced a new policy.

He called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until

our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

And at a debate in Greenville, South Carolina, in February 2016, a moderator asked Trump

if he stood by his opposition to the war in Iraq.

And this is what he said.

Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake, all right?

They lied.

They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none.

And they knew there were none.

There were no weapons of mass fuck up.

If you listen to him and you listen to some of the folks that I've been listening to,

that's why we've been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven't won anything.

We've spent $5 trillion in the Middle East because of thinking like that.

We've spent $5, and Lindsey Graham, who backs him, who had zero on his polls.

Let me just say something.

We've spent, we've spent, we've spent, I only tell the truth, lobbyists.

We've spent $5 trillion all over the middle.

We have to rebuild our country.

We have to rebuild our infrastructure.

You listen to that.

You're going to be there for another $50.

All right.

We're going to go for $3 trillion.

Now his campaign was to put it mildly, truly America first.

Trump won his election by running a campaign focused on advancing the interests of our country

of America.

And now with the advent of war in Iran, many of us are asking an obvious question, a fair

question, even if it makes a lot of people upset when we ask it.

Which is, why are we doing this?

Does this benefit our own country first and foremost?

The administration has struggled with that question for days, they just have, until last night

when Marco Rubio finally gave a clear and straightforward response.

The United States conducted this operation with a fair, clear goal in mind.

I haven't got a chance to see a lot of reporting.

I don't understand what the confusion is.

Let me explain it to you.

And I'll do it once again as clearly as possible, perhaps you'll report it that way.

The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range

ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets.

That is what it is focused on doing right now, and it's doing quite successfully.

I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that

and the progress that's being made.

That is the clear objective of this mission.

The second question that been asked is, why now?

Well, there's two reasons why now.

The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United

States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United

States.

The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders.

It was automatic and, in fact, it dared to be true because, in fact, within an hour of

the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the

north for that matter had already been activated to launch, in fact, those that had already

been pre-positioned.

The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack

to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.

And so the President made the very wise decision.

We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.

We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.

And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks,

we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.

And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and did that.

That'd be hard to imagine a worse line of reasoning that could be offered at a time

like this.

Americans were wondering why exactly we're suddenly engaged in a war with Iran, wanted

here a clear and compelling explanation that would justify the cost of the war, including

the loss of American lives.

And instead, we're told that Israel forced our hand.

And now to be fair, the administration has since tried to walk this back.

There are those saying that it was taken out of context.

But the clip we just played was a clip posted by the White House to their social media

feeds.

It's not one that we made.

And he said what he said.

There's no way around it.

The other problem is that this was not a one-off comment either.

Maybe if it was, you could maybe believe that he just mispoked or something.

But this is the message that we're hearing from many different sources.

Shortly afterwards, the Speaker of the House said basically the same thing.

They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S., to our troops, to our installations, to

our assets and the region and beyond.

And they determined, because of the exquisite intelligence that we had, that if Israel fired

upon Iran, it took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have

immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets.

We have troops in harm's way, and we have many Americans in the region, and that was

of a great concern.

If we had waited for all of those eventualities to take place, the consequences of inaction

on our part could have been devastated.

We don't know at what magnitude, but you can assume, because it is common sense, that

if Iran had begun to fire all of their missile arsenal, short and mid-range missiles at

our personnel and our assets and our installations, we would have suffered staggering losses.

So with that in mind, here's some reporting from the U.S. times on the lead up to the war

in Iran.

Not normally, of course, who wouldn't even bother talking about coverage in the U.S. times,

which is one of the least reliable news outlets on the planet.

But in this case, it is worth reading because everything the Times is saying completely

matches what Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are saying publicly.

So there is legitimate reason to think that this is true, or some version of it is true.

And here's what they reported.

Quote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the

morning of February 11th, determined to keep the American President on the path to war.

For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive

against Iran, but Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the

Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israel leader wanted to make

sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.

Two weeks later, the President took the United States to war.

Behind the scenes has moved toward war, grew inexcerably, fueled by allies like Mr. Netanyahu,

who pushed the President to strike a decisive blow against Iran's theocratic government.

My Mr. Trump's own confidence after the successful U.S. operation that toppled the Venezuelan

leader, Maduro, in January, the article continues, quote, there were a few voices lobbying against

military action.

One exception was Tucker Carlson, the right wing podcaster and close ally of the President,

who's met with him in the Oval Office three times in the past month to argue against an

attack.

The President said he understood the risks of an attack, but he conveyed to Mr. Carlson

that he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.

So again, you could say, well, none of that is true.

Everything about this reporting is consistent with what we just heard from senior Republicans,

including Republicans in the administration.

Israel is leading the charge, and by the way, this is nothing new.

According to a memoir written by the U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller, in 1996, Benjamin

Netanyahu visited Bill Clinton in Washington, Netanyahu was the prime minister of Israel at

the time, which is the same job, of course, yesterday, and after Netanyahu lectured Clinton

long enough, Clinton became exasperated and told his aides, quote, who the F does he think

he is?

Who's the effing superpower here?

So this is how Netanyahu comes across in private apparently, but in public, it's a very

different character.

The last night, Netanyahu appeared for an exclusive interview with Foxes Sean Hannity,

President Trump promoted this interview on Truth Social, and I mean, frankly, the timing

could not have been worse if we're being honest.

Just hours after Marco Rubio says that Israel dragged us into the war, the president tells

everyone to listen to Israel's prime minister explain why we're at war.

Well, here's what Netanyahu told Hannity.

The reason that we had to act now is because they were, after we hit their nuclear sites

and their ballistic missiles program, you'd think they learned a lesson, but they didn't,

because they're unreformable.

They're totally fanatic about this, about the goal of destroying America.

So they started building new sites, new places, underground bunkers that would make their

ballistic missile program and their atomic bomb program, immune within months.

If no action was taken now, no action could be taken in the future.

And then they could target America.

They could blackmail America.

They could threaten us and threaten everyone in between.

So action had to be taken and you needed the resident president like Donald J. Trump

to take that action.

Now, a couple of things to note here.

First of all, Netanyahu keeps talking about how America is supposedly at a risk of an

imminent attack by Iran, doesn't even mention Israel for the most part, but obviously that

is his main concern, which it should be, he's the leader of Israel.

And when it comes to Iran, a devastating attack on Israel, of course, is far more likely

than a devastating attack on the United States.

But in this interview, Netanyahu knows his audience.

He knows he has to talk about the alleged threats facing America and that's what he does.

But wait a second, what threat did Iran pose to America?

In this interview, Netanyahu makes the case that while they were months away from making

their nuclear program effectively invincible.

But that contradicts what the White House said last summer when they repeatedly claimed

that Iran's nuclear weapons had been obliterated, that their nuclear weapons program had been

obliterated.

So direct quote.

Now, on top of that, Netanyahu's comments contradict what Ted Cruz said on face

the nation just two days ago, the White House had stated that Ted Cruz received a briefing

was functioning as a White House surrogate.

And here's what he said.

Look, the quantity of nuclear material, I didn't say anything one way or another on that.

What I said is they were building nuclear weapons a year ago and our bombing took that

out.

They also had an ongoing desire to rebuild them.

I don't have present day intelligence on what progress they had made towards rebuilding

nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities.

I have no indication that they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons because our

bombing was devastating.

And Margaret, that's one of the reasons I urged President Trump now is the time.

You know, dictatorships survive because their perceived is invulnerable.

And in this instance, Iran decisively lost the 12-day war that weakened the regime and

set up what the president is doing now.

So he says, they're not present day intelligence on what progress they made towards rebuilding

nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities.

I have no indications they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons.

Well, that is just an inconsistency.

Cruz could have said that according to the latest intelligence Iran was months away from developing

an invincible nuclear weapons program, but he didn't say that.

So then why are we, why are we hearing that from Israel?

In response to one of my posts on X where I asked for a clear explanation outlining the

case for attacking Iran, the White House press secretary responded to a credit and offered

a response.

And I'm going to read part of it.

It's part of a much larger response, which you can go, I retweet it, you can go read

it on my feed.

But as to the nuclear weapons question, this was the explanation that she provided.

Quote, well, Operation Midnight Hammer did obliterate Iran's major nuclear sites.

The regime was fully committed to rebuilding the nuclear program and they refused to make

a deal despite months of extensive talks and good faith efforts by President Trump's

top negotiators.

So they were fully committed to rebuilding the nuclear program.

Let me add, I can believe that.

How close were they?

Were they months away from the invincible bunkers or not?

The press secretary wouldn't say, but U.S. Special Envoy Steve Whitcoff spoke to Hannity

last night and he provided yet another version of events.

He was negotiating with Iran before strikes began and what he said undeniably contradicts

the remarks from White House surrogate Ted Cruz.

It also differs substantially from the implication of the press secretary's post on X.

Watch.

Percent materials show and can be brought to 90 percent.

That's weapon grade, weapons grade in roughly one week, maybe 10 days at the outside.

The 20 percent can be brought to weapons grade inside of three to four weeks.

And let me say this because I forgot this small little detail.

In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with, you know,

no shame that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60 percent and they're aware that that could

make 11 nuclear bombs and that was the beginning of the end negotiating stance.

So they were proud of it.

They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place

where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.

So in the very first meeting, the Iranian negotiator said that they could make 11 nuclear

bombs with the material they currently controlled.

We aren't told how quickly Iran could make those bombs, but right away, that's alarming.

Why hasn't anyone else mentioned that?

Why didn't Trump or Cruz or the White House secretary mention that if that's the case?

Why are we learning this very important fact or alleged fact in an offhand comment during

a Hannity interview?

Well, you know, every day we spend trying to untangle this mess and trying to make sense of

what our elected officials are saying, we're running the risk of repeating the exact same mistake

that the Bush administration did.

Setting ourselves up for the same result, a quagmire oversees while our domestic security

collapses around us.

We can't end up with a situation where we're fighting Muslim terrorists overseas

while hordes of anti-American Muslims continue to stream into the United States,

which is basically the story of America in the 21st century up to now.

And that's a story worth talking about, whether you agree with this operation Iran or not.

Because it's been argued that this war in Iran is really about Russia and China,

you know, asserting our dominance on the global stage against our chief rivals.

And that would be an entirely different justification than the four or five other reasons

that we've been presented and already talked about. But regardless,

dominance on the world stage is fairly meaningless if our sovereignty at home is destroyed.

Now, the border is now closed, which is a massive victory, but we're still sitting at the end of

25 years of unchecked migration, legal and not, mostly from the third world.

If you look at the history of the of Muslim migration to the United States,

and how quickly our demographics have changed, you begin to realize how dire this problem is.

The Iranian-born population in the United States roughly doubled from 1980 to 1990, largely

as a result of refugees from the Iran Iraq War. So we're talking about hundreds of thousands

of new Iranians in the United States. Meanwhile, something like 150,000 Iraqi refugees settled

in the United States post-2007. Another 150,000 came from Bangladesh, mostly from diversity

lotteries. Around 100,000 Afghans entered, arrived in the United States in 2021 alone. We took

tens of thousands of Syrian refugees during the Obama administration. Around a quarter million

Pakistanis have received legal permanent resident status in the past two decades. And hundreds of

thousands of Somalis have entered the US since 2000. Despite the fact that Somalis brutally murdered

American soldiers who were trying to help address their food shortages in 1993, which is of course

what Black Hawk down is about. And despite the fact that Somalis routinely engaged in acts of

piracy against the United States in the 21st century, that last point deserves some emphasis.

In 2009, Somali pirates seized a US-danish cargo ship called the Merck

Alabama around 240 nautical miles southeast of Somalia. It was the first time since the 19th

century that pirates seized a ship that was registered under the US flag. You might have seen the

Tom Hanks movie about this incident called Captain Phillips. Two years later in February of 2011,

Somali pirates seized an American yacht and four American citizens.

Seal team six gold squadron attempted to free the hostages, but all of them were shot to death by

their captors. There have been several other incidents where Somali pirates have fired on

US warships, apparently, because they mistook them for trading vessels. And those attempts didn't

end well for the Somalis. This is the culture that we've been importing in massive numbers to

states like Minnesota and Ohio. These are people who still see piracy a barbarian pastime that peaked

centuries ago as a viable career path in the 21st century. They've slaughtered our troops and

paraded them like animals. And we invite them into the US and shower them with stolen tax money.

And then when a majority Americans vote to, of Americans vote to get these people out of our

country, our leaders essentially back down or heavily moderate because leftist winers mostly

women became hysterical. In 1920, according to Pew, we had something like 50,000 Muslims in the

country tops. By 1970, the number had risen to 200,000, but 1990, we were up to a million.

In 2000, just before the beginning of the war and terror, there were around two million

Muslims in the US. Now we're at around 3.5 to 4 million, so about double.

To put it another way, most Muslims living in the US arrived in this country after 9-11.

Something like 60% of our Muslim population right now is foreign-born,

and they're much younger than the typical American.

Now, if you're the cynical type, you might suspect that all this migration is related to the

Patriot Act and the mass surveillance regime that both parties implemented after 9-11.

After all, if you flood the country with Muslims, you'll have no shortage of investigations

and wire taps to conduct. That's a guarantee. So maybe all this migration was a way to facilitate

the growth of the surveillance state and the gradual eradication of civil liberties in the US.

I don't know. We can only theorize why else would you after 9-11 make a concerted effort

to import as many Muslims as you can into the United States?

But more likely, all of this migration is part of the larger effort to dilute the votes of

American citizens by replacing us with foreigners who despise the United States.

Whatever the case, the top priority of this administration should be to reverse this catastrophic

and deliberate effort to fundamentally alter the demographics of this country.

This is the top national security threat we face, and it's not even close.

So even if you support the current war in Iran, you should be on board with this. Every single one

of these third world foreigners is a clear and present danger to the lives of American citizens.

Particularly when we're going to war with a Muslim nation right now, just the other day,

according to prosecutors, an illegal alien from Sierra Leone named Abdul Jalo,

murdered a white woman named Stephanie Mentor to bus stop on Richmond Highway in Fairfax County.

And you can see the victim there. Supposedly, this is one of the nicer areas of the country,

but lately Northern Virginia has been overrun with foreigners, particularly Muslims.

So now residents have to contend with brutal stabings with no apparent motive, just done for the sake of it.

Now, the alleged killer, according to the New York Post, quote,

entered the U.S. illegally from Sierra Leone in 2012 and had an iced detainer lodged against

him in 2020 with a judge granting him a final order of removal to a country other than Sierra Leone

DHS said in a statement, the accused killer has been arrested more than 30 times for a

laundry list of offenses, including rape, malicious wounding, assault, drug possession, identity theft,

trespassing, larceny, firing a weapon, contributing to the frequency of a minor, and pickpocketing.

But none of this, the illegal entry, the 30 crimes, the order of removal,

resulted in this barbarian being deported. Actually, 30 crimes is understating it.

According to the local ABC affiliate, he has more than 40 crimes on his record.

And in every case, except one, the Fairfax County DA dropped all the charges.

Watch.

A Virginia woman was killed at a Fairfax County bus stop. We're learning the man charged in

her murder is in the U.S. illegally. His name is Abdul Jalo from Sierra Leone, according to

the Department of Homeland Security. I'm at the Fairfax County Courthouse where I discovered

this man has a lengthy criminal history. More than 40 charges in the past, ranging from

stabbing to malicious wounding, and much more. And almost every case, Fairfax County commonwealth

attorney Steve DeScano dropped charges against this man. Only secured one conviction in the past,

he served very little time. He was let back out into the community where then he allegedly stabbed

this woman of Frederick Sprague. Now, this woman's family is heartbroken, according to an obituary

her family describes. This woman's Stephanie Mentor as a jolly, happy individual, a light

and dark places. And tonight, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is calling on Virginia

governor Abigail Spamberger and Fairfax County officials to hand this man over to ICE so they can

deport him. Now, we'll put that prosecutor's image up on the screen. There he is for you.

That Steve DeScano, according to the American Enterprise Institute, quote, DeScano is an office,

is an office because of left wing billionaire George Soros. DeScano raised about a million

dollars between the primary and the general election, a shocking amount for a down ballot county

race. About two thirds of his cash came from two Soros funded organizations, the Justice and Public

Safety Pack, and the new Virginia majority pack. DeScano also tried to singlehandedly turn Fairfax

County into something of a sanctuary county wherever possible. DeScano, DeScano's website declared

Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences.

Well, that's why he won't charge illegal aliens when they commit 40 crimes. He doesn't want

them to be deported. He wants violent criminals to remain in this country roaming free,

where they can brutally murder random Americans that they come across.

The mission of George Soros and his prosecutors is to spring barbarians loose so that Americans

are slaughtered. It happened to Irene Zorutzka, it happened to Stephanie Minter,

it happened to the victims of the mass shooting in Austin, a 30-year-old man, a 19-year-old man,

a 21-year-old woman, and it will continue to happen. Whether or not we achieve our objectives

in Iran, objectives that to this day still have not been fully articulated. As it stands, this is

the status quo you're expected to accept. We can terminate the supreme leader of Iran despite

all of his security in paranoia and power, but we can't deport Somali fraudsters in Minneapolis.

We can't denaturalize scammers and grifters who openly declare for the world to see that they

despise the United States and seek to destroy it. We can't get gangster thugs and illegal aliens

like Kilmara, Brego Garcia out of the country without 10 different female judges, all of them with

foreign last names issuing an immediate nationwide injunction. We can't imprison the insurance

executives who are ripping off Medicaid by sending massive payouts to fake autism treatment clinics

and leering centers while keeping a cut for themselves, of course. None of that is possible,

apparently. So we can eliminate a threat thousands of miles away, a threat that's supposedly urgent.

We can't do anything about the clear and obvious threats that are living in this country right now.

Apparently, all it takes is some low testosterone schizophrenic

weirdo fighting with border patrol while armed with a handgun, along with an unemployed lesbian

extremist driving an SUV directly at a federal agent to completely derail immigration enforcement

within our borders. Now, for the past several months, I've been told continuously that we can't

actually do mass deportations, much less mass denaturalizations because it's impractical,

expensive, politically unpopular, risky, deporting illegal immigrants who haven't

committed additional crimes, who have no criminal record aside from being here illegally,

is especially fraught, I'm told, we're all told. That was the argument we heard when

Los Angeles burned and Trump had to send in the National Guard. It was the argument we heard when

ICE was forced to flee Minneapolis. Maybe there's some truth to it. You know, maybe mass deportations

and mass denaturalizations are impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, risky.

I can't say for sure that a deportation operation targeting all illegal aliens, again,

not just the criminal, not just the additional criminals, but all of them. I can't say that

such an operation at the kind of scale we would need wouldn't result in massive backlash from

the electorate. I think those fears are overblown, but maybe they aren't.

Well, Mr. President, the war in Iran is also impractical, expensive, politically unpopular,

and risky, even if it all works out. Even if in the end it was the right move. It still is all

of those things. That in and of itself doesn't mean it's wrong, and I acknowledge that it's your

call to make in the end. You're the Commander-in-Chief after all, but if we're going to do something drastic

and explosive and unpopular, thousands of miles from home, why not do it here, too?

That's the question that the base is asking. If we're going to give a major prize to the donors

and pundit class, people who have tried to undermine you every step of the way, people who oppose

your domestic agenda, people who many of them want you to be impeached and imprisoned,

if we're going to reward them, then will we also reward your America first base? Will you bring

back the Muslim ban, restart workplace raids to spend the legal immigration system? Strip

citizenship from paper Americans who use the word they when they describe our country.

Strip citizenship from Americans who can't even speak English and don't respect our laws.

Finish the big beautiful border wall. You can capture Maduro and kill the Ayatollah,

both impressive feats, even if I'm skeptical of the objectives and downturn effects related

to the latter, but if you could do all that, then I would ask you, we ask you, will you finish the

thing you set out to achieve? Will you make America, America? Great again.

Now let's get to our five headlines.

Did your old wireless contract and trade up to pure talk? My wireless company, the one that

actually respects your time, money, and intelligence for just 25 bucks a month, you get unlimited

talk text and data, no contract, no cancellation fees, and no waiting for overseas representatives,

they provide fast, simple service. Make a switch, go to puretalk.com slash

wall, and you'll save 50% off for first month. That's puretalk.com slash wall,

switch to a wireless company that shares your values, pure talk, America's wireless company.

So we just mentioned the mass shooter from Senegal, the one who should not have been in the

country to begin with, Jasmine Crockett has weighed in on all this, and you'll never guess,

you will never guess ever who she is blaming. Listen. Once again, another mass shooting this time,

I'm on Sixth Street in Austin, and just before you went on stage, I saw that your primary opponent

Greg Abbott had kind of gotten into it on X, and they both chose to use this moment to scapegoat

the immigrant community. The shooter was a actualized citizen. We've seen efforts already from

the Trump administration to denaturalized citizens by mother-in-law as a naturalized citizen who is

incredibly scared. How are you going to balance comprehensive immigration reform, which we do

need, and still treating our community with dignity and not using them as a scapegoat in these

moments? I don't know how it is that we got here, that what one person does somehow is then

impugned on an entire community. The facts are the facts. The facts are that the immigrant community

actually commits less crime in this country than anyone else. So the idea that we take this one

incident, and that's what they do. Listen, every time there's some crazy situation like this,

black folk sit around and say, oh, I hope they're not black, because we know that that's going to

be an additional target on our backs. We know that the immigrant community was probably holding

their breath and saying, oh, I hope it wasn't an immigrant, because then there's going to be another

target on their back. Listen, no one, in my opinion, is born in this country, and somehow when they're

born, because of where they were born, they somehow now are automatically a criminal. That's not

like a real thing, but that's essentially what you do when you decide to impune an entire

community. If I was to give you the facts on who the shooters have been in these mass shootings,

I can guarantee you the vast majority of them have been white, male, and homegrown.

Okay, so that's all nonsense, of course. And by the way, this matters,

I mean, this matter is obviously matters for the obvious reasons, but also because Jasmine

Crockett, as tragic as it may be to consider, is an influential national political figure.

And I'm guessing that she runs for president in 2028. So we may be treated to a primary

battle featuring AOC and Jasmine Crockett, which of course, have good on history as the political

race with the lowest collective IQ ever. And I don't know if she could actually win. I mean,

Jasmine Crockett could be the Democrat 2028 candidate. You heard it here first.

Maybe you didn't hear it here first, but you heard it here. So her nonsense matters, and this is

nonsense. The claim from Jasmine Crockett and from every leftist and Democrat politician is that

is that number one white people are doing most of the mass shootings.

And that immigrants actually commit less crime than native born Americans do.

Those are the two things we so often hear. Are they true? Well, no, none of that is true.

It's all lies every bit of it. And it's not hard to break down. So first of all,

most mass shooters are not white. And we've been over this. And it really shows you

how these kinds of these sort of statistics are so easily rigged. Because you start with,

well, what is a mass shooting? Anytime anyone says, oh, white people are the ones committing

all the mass shootings, what do you mean by mass shooting? Really, what is it? We use this term

as if it has some clear, clean definition, but it doesn't really, at least not the way that it's

so often used, is a mass shooting, just any shooting where a mass of people are killed or wounded?

What is a mass of people to or more? I mean, that would be the cleanest definition, right? A mass

shooting is a shooting where more than one person is shot. How many more doesn't matter for the

statistically shot or killed, you know, whatever it is, more than one person is shot. That is a,

by the strictest definition, that's a mass shooting. And it's certainly the least arbitrary way to

define it. And if you define it that way, well, black people make up a wildly disproportionate number

of the culprits. The only way to make white people more likely to commit a mass shooting,

the only way to make them, you know, the culprits who are responsible for the most, especially the

most per capita, is if you get very specific and very arbitrary. So for example, one of the most

common definitions of mass shootings used by the media in many cases is a shooting where four

or more victims are wounded or killed. And in some cases, they require that all four are killed

in order for to count as a mass shooting. Why four though? So why not two? Why not three? Why not five?

Why not six? What do you why four? Well, there's no reason other than the fact that once you get to

four victims, that's about where the racial dynamics start to change a little bit. But even there,

black people, if we're doing four people are shot wounded or killed, black people account for 20%

25% of the culprits of the offenders, which is still more per capita, a lot more actually.

So you have to get even more specific, okay? So if you Google mass shooting statistics,

one of the first things that will pop up is an organization called the Violence Prevention

Project. And I know that because I just googled it and this is one of the first things that popped

up. And it catalogs a lot of this stuff. And I'm just using this as an example. But here's how they

define it from their website. We define a mass shooting as four or more people shot and killed

excluding the shooter in a public location with no connection to underlying criminal activity

such as gangs or drugs. I mean, it's amazing that it's just a master class in rigging the data.

I mean, you know the phrase lies, dam lies and statistics. I don't know who I think was a

Mark Twain coin that or something. Well, this is it right here. We define a mass shooting as four

more people shot and killed excluding the shooter in a public location with no connection to

underlying criminal activity such as gangs or drugs. So in other words, we define a mass shooting

as the kind of shooting that black people are less likely to commit. That is, that's all they

mean. That is all that means we are specifically defining it so that we can have the maximum number

of white people. It really is that absurd. And that's what allows people like Jasmine Crockett to

claim that white people are the great mass shooting risk in society. You have to again specifically

tailor the data to fit the exact parameters in which a maximum number of white people are admitted

and a minimum number of black offenders are admitted. It's insane. So then what about this claim

that immigrants commit less crime than native born? Well, first of all, just to start. And this is

why when you hear these kind of statistics and they don't sound right, the moment you hear that,

you're like, really, that can't be that doesn't that just doesn't sound right. There's no way that's

true. And it turns out that your gut instinct is very often correct, especially when people are

using studies, right, they're using studies, they're using alleged statistics to disprove what your

what common sense will tell you. I mean, sometimes your common sense can be wrong about things.

But here you come sense is correct because here's what happens. Here's what they do.

First of all, just to begin, as we've already covered, the black population commits a huge percentage

of the violent crime in this country as we know. So when you talk about native born crime,

that number is wildly skewed by this one small subset of the population that commits most of it.

And even within that subset within that subset, it's actually a subset of the subset because

most of the crime is committed by black males who are between the ages of like 18 and 40,

right? Young black males are committing most of the crime, or younger than 18 actually. So

young black males are committing most of the crime. And so that's what four percent of the

population, three percent, wildly skewing the data. And that's what allows, ironically,

somebody like Jasmine Crockett to make this kind of claim. Well, what about white

native born versus immigrant? And what if you narrow down even more than that, not arbitrarily,

but to narrow it down to talk about the thing that we're actually talking about because when

Jasmine Crockett says that Americans commit more crimes than immigrants, she is not intending to say

that, well, black people are committing a lot of crimes. That's not what she's referring to,

obviously. She's trying to create in your mind an image of a white American versus a non-white

immigrant. That is what she's actually talking about. That's what you, that is the takeaway

she wants you and any Democrat any leftist wants you to have. So she wants you to believe very

specifically that non-white immigrants are less of a threat than white native born Americans.

Well, what happens when you compare those stats, white Americans versus non-white immigrants,

who commits more crimes? Well, if you're comparing, if we're talking about East Asians, Chinese,

Japanese, Korean, then the immigrants probably come out on top in that comparison.

I mean, that that subset of the immigrant population, they, as we all know, they do very well

here, they actually do better than on average than whites, which is, as many people point out,

rightly so, really is a problem for the whole narrative about systemic racism and everything else,

well, you've got these non-white immigrants who are coming to this country and succeeding even more

than white people. But again, that's not really what we're talking about, because what about

African, Latin American, Middle Eastern? Because keep this in mind, anytime anyone starts giving you

the alleged stats to show how productive and great and law abiding and successful and useful

immigrants are. Anytime they're doing that, well, immigrants from China, Japan, and South Korea

are doing a lot of the work in those stats. So what they're really doing is they're using immigrants

from East Asia to make the point that immigrants from Nigeria and Guatemala are a net gain to society

in America. That's what they're doing. But what if we talk about, again, what we're actually

talking about, which is immigrants from the third world? Well, it's almost impossible to find

those statistics. That's the first problem. Those are not stats that any governing authority

tabulates or keeps records of with any reliability. For the most part, there are a few exceptions,

there are a few states, but in the vast majority of cases, that information is just not recorded.

Somebody's arrested, charged, nobody records, whether they were foreign born or not.

In most cases, that information just doesn't exist officially anywhere. So then when someone comes

along and says, well, they commit less crimes, well, how do you know? In most cases, somebody's

arrested, that's not, the police aren't, aren't recording that. They're not telling you one way or

another. So how do we know? Well, we can use common sense. We can use other clues. One thing you

can do is you can compare, for example, a majority white neighborhood. You can compare majority white

neighborhoods on average to communities that are majority foreign born, especially born in

the third world countries, which neighborhood would you rather move to with your family?

What do you think?

Supposedly, according to Jasper Kragel, the immigrants are a lot safer to be around, really?

Okay. So you're going to move in somewhere. You've got a lot of, let's say, you're blessed enough

to have a lot of different options. And on one hand, you've got this neighborhood that's like

70, 80% white, and you could move there with your family, or you could move to a neighborhood

that's 50, 60% Nigerian. Which one are you moving to? Which one do you think your family will be

safer in? Which one would Jasmine Crockett move to? We all know the answer.

The white neighborhood is going to have lower crime rates on average almost every time.

That's just, that's true statistically. Majority white neighborhoods, white American neighborhoods

are almost always safer statistically. They almost always have lower crime.

And the other thing about immigrant crime, and this is pretty important,

like, well, again, no one is keeping records of a lot of it. And even if they were,

if you look into the data, the whole immigrant, the immigrants commit less crime thing

is based on, if it's based on anything, incarceration rates.

Okay. But the problem, maybe you've noticed it, is that saying that immigrants are less likely

to be incarcerated is not the same as saying they're less likely to commit crimes.

We just heard a story about a guy who committed 40 crimes, was an illegal immigrant,

and was not incarcerated for 39 of them.

So for 39 of those immigrant crimes, that didn't count. That doesn't count. Why does it count?

Because this, because the prosecutors and judges say, you know, we're going to let that go.

So jurisdictions can get around this problem. They can jute the stats by not charging certain

criminals, not incarcerating them, or simply not recording their foreign-born status.

All of these Somali scammers in Minneapolis are those crimes being officially tabulated on record

anywhere? Are they being tabulated as crimes committed by immigrants?

When we hear about the immigrant crime stats from people like Jasmine Crockett,

does that include the Somali fraudsters? It doesn't. Because most of them haven't been imprisoned

or even charged and will never be. And if they are, no one is going to record officially that

they were foreign-born, which is why if you went and looked at a list of the crimes committed by

Americans, especially in a place like Minneapolis, you're going to see a lot of names that are kind

of interesting. You'll see a lot of names like, you know, Muhammad, Hassan Muhammad.

Those are your, those are your American, just your down-home, red-blooded American criminals.

Old Muhammad. So this is what they do. I mean, this is how they play the game.

And this is how they try to persuade you to, to disbelieve your lying eyes

by playing games like this. And it doesn't take much. You don't have to be a genius,

because if you did, I wouldn't be able to do it. But fortunately, you don't have to be a genius

to just think critically about this. And this is the question you should always ask. Any time

anyone makes a claim, anyone in power makes a claim about anything. Your first question should

always be, what, what do you mean? What, where are you getting that? Where are you getting that?

Why should I believe that? If you want better gut health, clear skin, stronger hair,

steady energy, it all starts in the gut. And that starts with colostrum. Cowboy 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, 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

your smoothie. You'll not only feel better, you'll look better to my producers, Holly and McKenna,

love cowboy colostrum. You're already seeing clear skin, stronger hair, energy at last plus.

I think that the flavors are great too. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off

their entire order, just head to cowboyclostrum.com, slash walls, and use code walls at checkout. That's

25% off, and use code walls at cowboyclostrum.com slash walls.

All right, let's move on. This is kind of funny. The Guardian is upset.

Reading now, a recent tweet from the US Department of Defense boasts about the killing

capabilities of the US military as follows. Low cortisol locked in lethality maxing.

To many, that will sound as indecipherable as the teenagers that discuss high-tier beckys,

or the New York Times warning of tape-pilled boys. Many will have now seen the

February 6th tweet that went globally viral, viewed more than 24 million times. And since

discussed in endless analyses and explainers, the tweet which said, Clivicular was mid-gester-gooning

when a group of foids came and spiked as cortisol levels, is ignoring the foids while

mounting and mauging moids more useful than CMV shad fishing in the club.

In 2026, this kind of language has appeared more frequently from America's most prominent newspaper

to the highest tiers of the US government. Why has this disfigured way of speaking become so normalized?

It starts with the rise of the in cells, a growing cohort of men who are involuntary celibate

and think women are to blame. Anyway, it goes on from there. It's a long article

lamenting basically zoom or slang and blaming it on young men and in cells.

So it is funny that the media is doing this puritanical spiral because of tweets from the Pentagon.

But I do want to say, and I was thinking about this, all of this zoom or slang,

and I've heard it defended by older conservatives. I've heard it said that all this,

all the zoom or slang looks maxing, mauging, whatever, that it's actually kind of charming,

kind of funny. Michael Knowles made this argument recently. I've heard a bunch of places,

basically saying, hey, you know, it's not so bad. It's actually it's kind of evocative.

And the thing is, I agree on the surface. I actually think that these new terms are,

many of them are kind of funny, are kind of evocative in their own way. They sort of work.

And sure, every generation has their slang and complaining about it just makes you sound old and

out of touch, which I am on both counts. But I'm not complaining, but I do complain about it,

and I'm not complaining about it because of the words themselves. That's not the issue.

I'm bothered by the slang, especially the volume of new slang that crops up now.

Not because of the word, I don't mind the words themselves. But there's something about it

that I recognize is kind of bad, and I think most people do, police, older people.

And I think it's this. So here's the problem.

You know, each generation comes up with its slang. Nothing new about that.

And you know, and that's that's fine. The problem is that actually the slang doesn't

expand our vocabulary. You're not actually adding new words exactly to people's conversational

vocabulary. It doesn't expand our language. It's not a net game. What happens, and this is the

issue with it. And I think we're seeing this happening now in hyperdrive. So I'm more worried

about where this leads. What happens is that each new slang term becomes a substitute

for other words and phrases that already exist, and not a substitute. It's not like a one-to-one

substitute. You come up with this slang word that's a substitute for a whole class of words.

It's a substitute for 40 different words that all become contained in this one word.

Well, it's not a one-to-one swap. Each new term is like a stand-in for a dozen, two dozen

other words and phrases. So then what happens is our language, our vocabulary,

contracts with each new generation. And I think it's been happening for decades. And it's the kind

of thing that I think we all know that it's happening. I think we all recognize it.

Maybe we can even see it in ourselves. It's very apparent to me that vocabularies are shrinking

drastically. And yet, if you look this up, and I have looked it up, I know that it's another

thing that's hard to study. I mean, how do you measure this? How do you measure it exactly?

It's the kind of thing that's like you either notice it or you don't. But people have tried to

measure this and they've done studies, and a lot of the studies say that, well, it's actually not

true. The vocabularies are not shrinking. If anything, maybe they're expanding.

And yet, we all notice it, I think. It's very clear that it is. And it's become

even more rapid. This is a process that's played out of the last 70 or 80 years. It's kind of

this exponential growth or reduction, in this case, I guess. And it's not that, and this is why it's

hard to tabulate. It's not that the slang words come in and the words they replace suddenly

disappear. The other words still exist, if words can be said to exist at all. They're still

available to be used, and people know those other words. But in everyday speech, in terms of

everyday usage, they just fall away. And they're replaced by these other terms. And so what's

happening now is that most people, they know a lot of words, because we're online, you're

just constantly consuming a lot of information. Most people go through at least 12, 13 years of

formal schooling. So you know a lot of words, but it's not part of conversational usage,

or even non-conversation. So here's what I mean. Take a word like Riz,

which is a term I kind of like, I'm not going to use it, because I'm almost 40. But

like, again, it's sound, it works. I get what you're trying to say. But if you didn't have that

word, you'd say that someone has charisma, which is what Riz is short for, or you'd say they have

charm, or they have magnetism, or they have appeal, they have confidence, they have 10 other

synonyms that you could use. You say someone's mid, right? And without that word, if you didn't

have that word, you would say other mediocre, they're average, they're underwhelming, they're

uninspired, they're forgettable, right? You go down the list, what I cooked, right? If you didn't

have that, you'd say that someone is, or something is exhausted, defeated, you know, embarrassed,

doomed, overwhelmed. And then you got mauled. Another word that I'm not going to ever use it,

kind of because I'm too old. But even before anyone defined it for me, I kind of knew what it meant,

because it sounds like what it means. And so it works as a word. And yet, without that word,

you would say that someone has been, they haven't been mauled, they've been outclassed, they've been

outshown, they've been dwarfed, they've been, they're being towered over. I mean, there's, there's,

you know, 30 different ways you could describe what that is meant to mean. And it just goes like this.

And again, you can still say all those things I get it. Those words have not disappeared in those

words in terms of not disappeared off the face of the earth, but in practical everyday usage,

all of those other forms of description are subsumed, right, by the slang words. And the internet

just makes this process play out again exponentially. It's the same thing with people relying on

emojis and gifts and that kind of thing. It becomes a replacement. It's like rather than, that's why I've

been complaining about emojis forever. It's, okay, you're excited or happy about something. And so you

use a smiley face emoji. Well, without the smiley face emoji, you could just describe, you could

actually describe, you could, you could talk about the fact that you're happy, you could describe it,

you could use descriptive words, you could use like adjectives, you could, you could expand a little

bit. And it just makes your communication richer. It makes it a richer communication for everybody

involved, but it all just gets consumed. Everything gets condensed. Everyone's every day vocabulary. They're

conversational vocabulary gets condensed and condensed and condensed. And you really see this if it comes

undeniable, if you go back and read pretty much anything that was written 100 years ago or more.

And I don't just mean classic works of literature. Obviously, that's not a fair comparison.

Right, there is a little bit of a survivorship bias in that most of the writing that still exists,

that's 100 years older, 200 years older, whatever, was preserved because it's great writing. And so

we don't get a lot of the mediocre writing from 100 years ago, 200 years ago or further back

than that. And so I get that. You know, so it's not fair to compare the vocabulary of some live

streamer to, you know, I was just reading the death of Ivan Iliac again, which is a, which is

a Tolstoy novella. And I think one of the greatest works of fiction ever written. It's really

short of getting read. It's 50 pages. You should read it. I think the most insightful work of

fiction of all time. I was reading again over the weekend, like my fourth or fifth time reading it.

And I'm marveling at it's just, it's actually sad. I mean, it's a sad story. It's depressing a

lot of it. It's also kind of weirdly funny in a satirical, really dark, black humor kind of way.

But it's also depressing because you're reading. It's like no one can write like this anymore.

The way that he's able to describe the exterior and interior, like be able to describe the

environment these characters in are in and also what's happening inside them. And he's able to

describe it so vividly. And he's able to describe what someone is experiencing so that you feel like

you're also experiencing it. I mean, the entire book is about someone dying, hence the title.

And you read it and you feel like you've now experienced dying. You know what it's like to

die because you read it described so vividly. Anyway, no one can write like that anymore. That's

not a fair comparison. But if you read even, I've made this point before. If you read

you go and read Civil War, go read random letters that were written during the Civil War. I don't

just mean by Stonewall Jackson or Abraham Lincoln or something. I mean, just any random soldier in

the Civil War who wrote a letter back to mom or wrote a letter back to the wife. And there's plenty

of places you can go and find databases of these letters. Many of the people writing these letters

were not even formally educated at all. And there might be spelling mistakes and grammatical

mistakes. But the writing, even which is these random soldiers on the front lines of the Civil War,

it is, it is descriptive and rich in this kind of natural fluid, effortless way that it doesn't

exist anymore. People don't speak like that. They don't, they don't write like that so much so that

when you read it, even without context, you immediately know that, oh, this had to be a bit written

in the 19th century. Not because it's really flowery or formal, but just because it's so

descriptive in a way that nobody writes anymore. And so there's this kind of poverty of language

that's happening that I find really sad. The numbers don't lie. Financial stress in this country

is through the roof. And if your debt is crushing you, you're not alone. But doing nothing doesn't fix

it. It just lets interests keep bleeding you dry. You don't need another loan. You don't need

bankruptcy court. You need a real plan. Luckily, our sponsor done with debt can help. They don't

offer gimmicks. They build smart personalized strategies. They'd actually reduce what you owe,

whether you're facing 10,000 in debt or 10 times that their goal is simple. Get your payments

down and your freedom back. That is horrible. Ruins lives and opportunities. But you can start doing

something about it today. Take five minutes for a free constation. Lay out your situation and see

what's possible because no matter how bad it feels right now, you don't have to stay stuck there.

Go to dumb with that dot com. It's dumb with that dot com.

Rinse knows that greatness takes time, but photos laundry. So rinse will take your laundry and

hand-deliver it to your door, expertly cleaned. And you can take the time pursuing your passions.

Time one spent sorting and waiting, folding and queuing, now spent challenging and

innovating and pushing your way to greatness. So pick up the Irish flute or those calligraphy

pens or that daunting beef Wellington recipe card and leave the laundry to us. Rinse, it's time

to be great. Finally, since I wanted to really quickly mention this, and since I'm in old

old man yells at clouds mode, which is my only mode, I will finish with this very much on the same

theme. So before the Iran war took over all of our social media feeds, I wanted to talk with

this last week and then it got drowned in all the more important news. But there was this little

human interest story that was circulating online as they tend to do. There's some church in

York, Pennsylvania that issued a policy pertaining to loud kids in their church. They're loud

kid policy and they issued this policy. They posted it online on Facebook or something.

And this is going kind of semi-viral before it got washed away in the torrent of more important

news. And most people are responding very positively to it because it's supposed to be heartwarming

and very supportive of parents, which I appreciate in theory. But I want to read this. This is from

this church, Mount Washington Church. It says, effectively immediately, we are committed to

transparency and accountability in all matters of church life. The following document outlines our

comprehensive procedures regarding loud children in worship. Please consider this your official

notice of policy clarification. Effective immediately if a family is considering visiting Mount

Washington Church, they have a loud kid. The following options are available. Option one,

the family should bring the kid. Option two, the family should make sure they bring the kid. Option

three, the family is to see that the child is brought to church. Option four, the kid is absolutely

welcome and expected. We believe the sound of children in worship is not a distraction. It is

evidence of life, growth, and the future of the church. If your child makes noise, you are not

bothering us. You are blessing us. Policy enacted no exception. So like I said, people are responding

very positively to this. I appreciate the spirit of it. Inviting people to bring their kids.

Very pro family. I get it. But I have to say, and it may surprise you to hear me say this, or maybe

not. But I strongly disagree. Loud children are unacceptable at church. They are unacceptable

actually in pretty much any social situation. If you're a parent, your loud kids are they're not

acceptable. They are actually annoying and bothersome and a burden to everybody else, and they

shouldn't be. That is not to say that your children are not acceptable. I'm not saying your

children aren't welcome, or you shouldn't bring them out, or they shouldn't be able to participate,

certainly in worship, or in anything else in your life. They should, and you should bring them.

Bring them to the grocery store, bring them to church, bring them to a restaurant. I'm all about

that. I bring my kids out, places all the time. It's like I'm out to a restaurant last night.

But you shouldn't allow them to be loud and disruptive. That's the part that I don't like.

So welcoming children. Yes, welcoming loud children. No. And if I'm out in public somewhere,

I'm in a restaurant. I'm at a church. Yes, I'm very happy that you brought your kids.

But if they're being loud and you're worried that people around you are annoyed, they are. And they

should be. And that is not acceptable. And this is the kind of thing that should not need to be

explained. It shouldn't even be a controversy. And I made this point and asked that people are

disagreeing. Like, what are you disagreeing with? Are you actually disagreeing? No, it is not

acceptable to just let your kids be loud in public. I shouldn't have to explain this. It is not okay.

Take them out. You say, well, what am I supposed to do? Take them out. If you're out somewhere

and your kids are being disruptive, remove them from the situation. Take them out, discipline them,

have consequences, then maybe bring them in or if you can't get them under control, leave.

And if it's a baby being loud, you obviously aren't disciplining them. But if they're having a

crying fit and you're in any situation where you can leave the situation, you should. If you're on

a plane, obviously, you can't. It is what it is. You're in a restaurant and they're crying. Take them

out. That is your responsibility. And I don't want to hear any parents say, I can't do that. It's

too much. I have six kids. I've done it many times. You can't get that past me. You cannot sneak

that one past me. Any of the sob stories, it's impossible. I can't. Then I'm going to miss out.

Well, then you're going to miss out. Guess what? We bring our kids out to restaurants all the time,

like I said, and especially when they're younger, we have, you know, sometimes they become disruptive.

And there have been plenty of times where it's like, okay, I guess I'm not eating. Like, I guess

I'm, hey, take, get me something to go. I got to bring this kid out to the, out to the car. I've

done that many times. I've done it many times because I'm not going to force everybody else to have

to listen to us. It's just basic decorum. This is just basic consideration of the people around you

and it's bad for the kid. It's awful for your child. If he learns that he's allowed to behave

this way in public, awful for him. It's awful for your kid. It's awful for society. It's awful for

everybody in the room with them. It's bad. The only person that benefits is you because you're

being lazy and you don't want to have to miss out on the meal or the movie or whatever.

They're your kids. They're your responsibility. You know, we don't tolerate our kids being

disruptive in public at all. And the thing is when you raise your kids that way, and that doesn't

mean, does that mean they're always perfect? No. As I said, they might still be disruptive. That's

when they have to get taken out. That's when there have to be punishments. That's when you got to

do all that stuff. But when you are clear about this, what will happen is that at a much younger

age than you think, you can have kids who are able to be quiet and not disruptive even in church.

At the age of four, your child should be able to sit in church for an hour and a half and not

be disruptive one time by the age of four. If not sooner, if your kid can't do that, it's because

you have not put the work into making it happen. That's what it means. I'm sorry.

You know, our youngest twins are, they just turn three, which really for church, church-wise,

that's the hardest age because they're obviously mobile. They're verbal. They love to talk.

But they're still not quite old enough to understand. They just have no concept of time.

They don't, you know, all these things. So it's like the hardest age for this kind of thing.

But we bring them to church. And it's two of them. That's the other reason I have no sympathy

for these parents that have like one kid is being disruptive. And they don't want to bring them out.

Like, well, I don't know what to do with the one kid. I get two, three-year-olds. And yeah,

it's tough. But they get disruptive. You bring them out. You take them out of the church.

You know, you do whatever. And then maybe you bring them back in. If you can get them under control

or if you can't, then you don't bring them back in. There's a certain amount of low-level noise

that just comes with the territory for young kids who are like three years old. But loudness? No.

If either one of my kids are being loud at that age, they could take it out.

This idea that strangers should tolerate your loud children is not actually pro-family.

Because a properly ordered family is one where the children are not in charge. The children do

not get to do whatever they want. If your children run the show in your family, like, I don't want

to be around you. I don't want to be around you or your family, frankly. If you're the kind of

family that you're that the kids run the show. Like, you're a walking disaster. It's like,

it's like, yeah, it's it is burdensome to everybody all the time. Get together. Get it together.

Reclaim authority in your family. You're the parent. It's dysfunctional. Yes, I'm pro-family,

but we should be pro-properly ordered families, pro-functional families, not pro families where

the kids do whatever the hell they want because they run the show. I think everybody agrees 60 or

70 years ago, like, pro-family society. It was such a pro-family society 60 years ago. You

wouldn't even call it pro-family. It's just the way society was. Of course, it's pro-family. What

else would you be? Right? Larger families on average. Yet, you didn't have kids running around

in public and disrupting and disrupt disrespecting their parents and elders all the time. Loud

children were not tolerated in the 40s. I can tell you that. The thing is that loud kids in

public have come to annoy me more now. I'm actually less tolerant with for it of it and less patient

now than I was before I had kids because I think before I had kids, I thought like, yeah,

maybe it's just impossible to get these kids under control. I don't know. I haven't been there.

Well, now that I have six, I'm like, no, it's definitely possible. What the hell are you people

doing? Get it together. I was at a hotel in Nashville recently going to a meeting in a conference

room there. A really nice hotel. Very upscale. Like, $1,000 a night type hotel, cathedral,

ceilings, marble floors, like the whole nine yards. This family walks in. Actually, there's three

families and they each had like one or two kids. The kids are just running around the lobby.

It's a playground. They're treating it like a playground. It's exactly what my kids do on the

playground. What my kids do if they go around the front yard playing a game. Just running around.

They're playing tag in the hotel lobby and the parents just not doing anything. Totally fine with

it. Totally fine with it. Every person in that building is now disrupted because of your kids

and you could do something about it, but you refuse to because you want to sit there and drink a

coffee in the lobby with your friends. We see this out. I see it all the time. We all see it everywhere.

It's just, it's not acceptable. Bring your kids out. Yes, bring them out. It's great to have

kids included in society they should be, but they also need to behave. That is your responsibility.

That's my closing inspirational message. Tell your damn kids to shut up. Not really. I mean,

actually, that is basically the message. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day.

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.

I guess what? None of it is true. The Native Americans were some of the most savage fighters ever known

to men, ratings, scalping, torturing, and eating enemies. It was better to lose a battle to the US

Army, but 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 of the American Indians than Hollywood directors and schoolteachers

want you to know. This month, we've bloked the biggest myths about the American Indians and

reclaimed the real history that was stolen from us. This is the real history of the American Indian.