Ep. 1565 - Democrats Reveal How They Will Change The Rules To Take Back Power

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Democrat Party has lost touch with the voters completely.

Their only hope of regaining power is to rig the system in their favor.

That's what the Wisconsin Supreme Court election next week is all about.

And speaking of losing touch, Tim Walz declares that Democrats need to proudly embrace DEI and wokeness.

I, for one, think that's a great idea for them.

And Thomas Massey introduces a bill requiring lawmakers to divulge if they're dual citizens with another country.

How is that not already the law?

We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. You know what's interesting about the current state of health and wellness? Everyone's chasing the latest trend, the newest fad, the most exotic supplement.
But sometimes the most powerful solutions are the most fundamental ones. And that's why I want to tell you about Armora Colostrum.
Colostrum isn't some laboratory creation. It's literally the first food nature provides to every mammal at birth.
We're talking about nature's original superfood packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that your body instinctively knows how to use. And Armra has perfected a way to deliver this incredible substance in its purest form.
The secret is in their proprietary cold chain biopotent pasteurization technology. While other supplements lose their potency through processing, Armra's method preserves these vital nutrients exactly as nature intended.
Plus, they source everything from grass-fed cows and American family farms supporting our agricultural communities while delivering a premium product. In times when we're surrounded by synthetic solutions and processed products, isn't it refreshing to find something that's both innovative and completely natural? This is the kind of advancement we should champion, one that enhances what nature has already perfected.
We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 15% off your first order when you go to tryarmra.com slash Walsh or enter code Walsh.
That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A.com slash Walsh. We've now established about a million different ways that Democrats have no intention of learning anything substantive from their defeat in November.
First, there was the disastrous meeting to select new leadership of the DNC, which resembled a bad American Idol audition more than anything else. The various non-binary and BIPOC candidates spent all their time singing and complaining about how oppressed they are instead of reflecting in any way on how they just lost the election.
And then Democrats encouraged a domestic terror campaign against Tesla, which is obviously a surefire way to demonstrate your commitment to a stable, functioning democracy. Now, on top of that, Democrats also decided to go to federal court on behalf of Venezuelan terrorists who had just been deported, because as we all know, that's what swing voters are really passionate about, getting all the violent gang members back into the country.
It would be a pretty significant understatement to say that this is not a winning strategy for the next election. To any objective observer, Democrats are acting like a party that badly wants to go extinct.
But of course, Democrats have no intention of going extinct. Their sole purpose is obtaining as much power as possible.
So it's worth asking, as we watch Democrats double down on every single one of their policy positions from the last election cycle, what exactly their plan is going forward? If they don't intend to appeal to voters, what are they going to do? How are they going to regain power? Recently, the Democrats leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, answered that question because Jeffries is one of those people who's simply too dumb to keep a secret.

We have this footage that makes one thing very clear.

Democrats do not intend to persuade voters based on ideas or policies or anything like that.

That's not a major part of their strategy.

Instead, Democrats want to change the rules.

That's the winning strategy they've settled on.

Specifically, they're going all in on a Supreme Court race that's taking place on Tuesday in Wisconsin. And if the Democrats win the race, they'll retain control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And then Democrats intend to use the Wisconsin Supreme Court to redraw congressional districts in the state so that more Democrats are elected, which, if successful, would ultimately swing control of the House of Representatives back to the Democrat Party. So this is a statewide race that will have major implications for the entire country.
And watch as Hakeem Jeffries explains. There are gerrymandered congressional lines right now in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin's a 50-50 state, as I mentioned, but there are six Republicans and only two Democrats out of an eight-person delegation because the lines are broken. Right.
And as soon as possible, we need to be able to revisit that and have fair lines. The only way for that to be even a significant possibility is if you have an enlightened Supreme Court.
That's one of the creepier uses of the word enlightened that you'll ever hear. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin needs to be enlightened, says Hakeem Jeffries.
And by that, he means the Supreme Court should be composed of left-wing operatives who will do everything in their power to benefit the Democrat Party. This is how Democrats think about judges in every context.
Republicans select judges who will be faithful to the law, supposedly, which inevitably means that they routinely betray conservative principles and vote with Democrats half the time. But Democrats, on the other hand, select judges who vote in lockstep with their party.
That's the only thing that matters to them. That's what they've done in the U.S.
Supreme Court, and it's what they're doing in Wisconsin as well. If you're confused about exactly what Jeffries is talking about, I'll try to explain the general idea.

So Democrats are claiming that Republicans have gerrymandered Wisconsin congressional districts

by drawing the districts in an artificial way so that Democrats are only capable of winning

two districts out of eight total in the state. So in other words, they're saying that districts are currently drawn so that all of the Democrat voters are jammed into two districts.
And now Democrats are promising to use the Supreme Court to redraw those districts in such a way as to guarantee the Democrat voters are spread across more districts. And in the end, the goal is to seat more Democrats in the House of Representatives and then unseat Mike Johnson and unseat the Republicans from power.
Now, one of the many problems here is that Wisconsin's congressional districts, as they stand right now, are completely reasonable. There is no reason to redraw them unless you're trying to find some artificial way to get more Democrats into power.
So here's an image of what the districts look like at the moment. You can see it there.
And as you can see, the Milwaukee and Madison areas in the southern portion of the state each have their own district. And those are the two congressional districts that Democrats control at the moment, districts two and four.
Now, if you compare that district map to the results in Wisconsin from the last presidential election, you'll immediately notice that the Democrats have a problem. You can take a look at it here.
As you can see, the overwhelming number of counties in the state are Republican. Pretty much all of them voted for Trump.
Democrats' strongest base support in Wisconsin is in the southern portion of the state by far, in places like Milwaukee and Madison. Those are the urban centers, so that makes sense.
And this is why Republicans have control of six out of the eight districts in Wisconsin, even though Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in Wisconsin by less than 1%. The Democrat voters happen to be extremely concentrated in those two places, and each of these two places is represented by a distinct congressional district, which again, all of that makes sense.
That's how it's supposed to work. In order to accomplish the result of Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries won, which is something like a 50-50 split in the congressional districts, you need to start carving up districts two and four.
There's just no other way to do it, given that the rest of the state is reliably conservative. That's what Democrats will have the Wisconsin Supreme Court do if they win the election on Tuesday.
Milwaukee and Madison would be divided in various ad hoc, arbitrary ways just for the purpose of creating more districts for Democrats to win. But this is not how congressional districts are supposed to work.
Congressional districts aren't supposed to be drawn so that they produce the same results

as statewide elections.

They're supposed to be drawn to give a voice to these specific needs of various districts,

including rural areas, which don't have a lot in common with cities like Milwaukee.

It's a similar reason why we have the Electoral College, which, of course, Democrats are also

trying to abolish.

We want congressional districts to reflect the unique nature of a particular area. That's the

whole point of them. But for many years now, Democrats in Wisconsin have attempted to use

redistricting for a very different purpose, and they've been having a lot of success.

In late 2023, Democrats in Wisconsin installed a judge on the state Supreme Court who had openly

campaigned on the platform of redrawing the state's electoral maps for state and local elections.

This is apparently the kind of thing that judges do in Wisconsin. They tell voters how they'll decide cases once they become a judge.
And that judge won. And indeed, the maps for state-level elections were ultimately redrawn.
And the results were immediate. In the November election, which again, Donald Trump won in Wisconsin, Democrats flipped 14 state Senate and Assembly seats in Wisconsin.
Yes, in an election where the Republican candidate for president was victorious in the statewide vote in Wisconsin, Republicans nevertheless suffered major losses in the state government. And without any irony whatsoever, Democrats celebrated this outcome as a major victory for democracy.
And now that they've rigged the statewide districts, Democrats are taking aim at Wisconsin's federal congressional districts so that they can retake the House and obstruct Donald Trump in Congress. And it's not just Hakeem Jeffries who's admitting this.
I watched a little bit of the debate between Brad Schimmel, the Republican candidate for the Supreme Court seat, and Susan Crawford, who's a Democrat candidate. And it turns out that Crawford received an email invitation for an event about how she can help Democrats gain two seats in the House of Representatives.
And then she attended the event via Zoom. And watch how she tried to explain this.
Judge Crawford, you were recently on a call with Democratic donors who have given to your campaign. The meeting was billed as a chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026.
No matter how long you were on that call, how was that appropriate? Well, I don't think that the email that was sent out was an appropriate way to announce a judicial candidate, to be frank. I appeared in a short Zoom appearance with that group.
No mention was made of the congressional maps while I was in the meeting. I don't know what they discussed for the rest of it, but certainly no mention was made of the congressional maps while I was in the meeting.
You still chose to join that meeting? Right. I also did not see that email or the way it was being billed before i uh participated i only found out about that after the fact i'm going to note this we have to take my opponent's word for it about what happened on that phone call because we've never had any evidence of just what happened except the email that went out and it's hard for me to accept that she didn't see the email invitation that was inviting them to come on this call with her and find out how you can get her on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and they can turn two Republican congressional seats into Democrat congressional seats.
So this is the level of corruption and shamelessness that Democrats are bringing to this race. Their candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court gets caught attending a planning session for how she's going to use her position as a supposedly nonpartisan judge who follows the law to help Democrats in the House.
That's what this event was about. And then she lies about it during a televised debate, and somehow she's still ahead in the polls.
And I watched some more of this debate, and she rattles off the usual lies about abortion and how important it is for women to be able to murder their children for any reason. Then she lies about heartbeat bills and so on.
She is in every respect an atrocious candidate and very dishonest. She's acting exactly like a generic Democrat partisan operative because that's exactly what she is.
Republicans simply should not lose this race. But at the moment, roughly 95% of Kamala Harris voters are backing Crawford, while only around 87% of Trump voters are supporting Schimmel.
And that needs to change between now and Tuesday, or else Crawford will win. And that could potentially be a disaster for Republicans at the national level, at least in the short term.
Now, at the same time, because it's Friday, it's worth ending on a note of optimism here. Regardless of what happens in Wisconsin, it looks like Democrats' representation in the House of Representatives is going to decline significantly by 2030 when the next census kicks in.
That's because, as this map demonstrates, you can see on the screen here, people are leaving states like California, New York, Illinois, and they're flooding into states like Texas and Florida. Democrats have forced millions of people to leave the states that they've mismanaged, and that affects representation in the House, which is based on population, whether those residents are legal or illegal.
And on balance, that likely means that Republicans will pick up around 12 seats in the House by 2030, which is more than three times the size of the GOP's current majority. And because the Trump administration is sharply cutting down on the number of illegal aliens in this country, it's going to be difficult for Democrats to compensate by flooding the zone with foreign nationals, which is their usual strategy.
So in other words, the broader indicators for conservatives are very strong right now. Democrats are doubling down on their most insane and alienating positions, and they're resorting to gerrymandering and promoting judges who are obviously corrupt in an attempt to claw back a couple of House seats.
But whether Democrats win those seats or not, the fact remains that Democrats' constituency is shrinking by the day. That's also why they lost the popular vote in the last election to their great shock and horror.
No matter how much lawfare these people engage in,

it remains true that in this country, voters, not judges, have the power. What we're seeing

is that Democrats, both in Wisconsin and in Washington, apparently believe otherwise.

They think judges get to run the executive branch just like they think judges get to award Democrats another two seats in the House of Representatives. But on Tuesday, with the entire country watching, voters in the state of Wisconsin have an opportunity to prove them wrong.
And for the sake of the rule of law in this country and for Republicans' control of the House, let's hope they do so. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Congratulations. You are the unwitting star of the internet's most invasive reality show where data brokers are auctioning off your personal information to whoever's got pocket chains and internet connection.
Your name, address, social security number are all floating around out there like a chain email from 2002 that just won't die. Luckily, Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everybody vulnerable.
For anybody with an active online presence, privacy should be really important. You may need to be visible for work, but that doesn't mean that your home address and phone number should be available to anyone who searches for you.
That's why I'm so glad Delete.me exists. My producer, McKenna, signed up for an accountant.
Knowing Delete.me is there to monitor her personal data when needed is such a great asset for her. They can really give you the peace of mind you need in today's digital world.
Delete.me values your privacy and ensures its protection. Tell their experts exactly what personal information you want removed, and they'll handle the entire deletion process for you, which is great because you probably have better things to do with your time

and chase personal information across the Internet's endless databases.

Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me.

Now at a special discount for our listeners today, get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting Walsh to 64000.

The only way to get 20% off is to text Walsh to 64000000. That's Walsh to 64,000.
Message and data rates may apply. So speaking of Democrats not learning any lessons, Tim Walls has been on tour, I guess.
I don't know what he's doing exactly. Well, I know what he's doing.
He thinks he's running for president in 2028, which I very much hope he does, especially given this video and his, you know, his political insights. So listen to what he said here and also watch the visuals.
If you're watching the video podcast, the visuals are important because look at the audience that he's that he's speaking to. Here it is.
That our strength is our diversity? We've been talking about this for years as a country of immigrants. And we let them define the issue on immigration.
We let them define the issue on DEI. And we let them define what woke is.
We got ourselves in this mess because we weren't bold enough to stand up and say,

you damn right were proud of these policies.

We're going to put them in and we're going to execute them.

Now, before we get into what he actually said, as I said, note the audience.

You look at that audience and it looks downright geriatric.

I mean, I see maybe two people in the crowd who appear to be under the age of 45, potentially. I don't see anybody that looks like they're under the age of 30.
Most are over the age of 60. And I know you might say, well, yeah, who else is going to go to a Tim Walz? It's a non-election year.
Tim Walz is having some sort of rally for unclear reasons. Who the hell would go to that? Well, yes, exactly.
That's exactly the problem. Tim Walls is, he's one of the Democrats' big stars, and he's not a star at all.
But if you were to ask yourself, who are the Democrat Party's biggest stars right now, the people that have the most name recognition, the largest base of support, who's on that list? Tim Walz has to make the list. Just by attrition, he has to make the list list because by default, he's on the list.
He's on the list of like the top five or 10 biggest stars in the Democrat Party, which again, shows you the problem they're having. And something very significant has shifted here.
And I don't think it even shows up in the polls and surveys to the full extent. You do see it there too, but I don't, you see it more just when you watch videos like this and it's the vibe.
It's the overall vibe that young people are not interested in this. The Democrat party feels old and decrepit now and very uncool.
It does not feel like a cool, these are not, it's lame. Feels very lame.
And then there's what he actually said, which is that Democrats should proudly embrace their love of illegal immigration, DEI, wokeness. I hope they take his advice.
I think that is great advice for them. I absolutely think that they should.
And one other note too too, that he said, Tim Walls, talking about conservatives, said, we have to stop letting them define the terms. They're defining the terms.
They're defining the terms of debate. And that is also a really significant statement, because he's right.
And, you know, if I had been in a coma for the last three, four or five years and I had no context and I didn't know who Tim Walz was, and I saw that clip, just that part where he said that we got to stop letting the other side define the terms. If I listened to that clip and also I saw the audience he was talking to, I would assume, well, that's got to be a Republican because it's an older audience.
And that problem of the other side is defining the terms, that has been the problem that Republicans and conservatives have had for decades. And this is something that I've said many, many times,

many conservatives, over and over,

we've said we've got to stop letting them define the terms.

Because we're having all these debates using terms

that have been defined by the left.

Well, that's the other thing that's shifted here.

And Tim Walls is correct,

that for the first time in my lifetime,

Come on. And Tim Walls is correct that for the first time in my lifetime, conservatives, we are having success defining some of these terms.
And it's less defining and more branding. So DEI, for example, we have branded it.
When you hear DEI, you think lame, bad. It's toxic.
It is a toxic brand. We did the same thing with CRT.
Woke, right? It's easy to forget that woke was something that the left came up with to describe themselves.

We took that term for them, rebranded it, made it a bad thing that now they want to run away from.

That, again, is something that conservatives never did.

Ten years ago, that was never happening.

Every term used in political discourse was one that the left came up with and defined. So he's exactly right that, yeah, that's a problem for you.
And I don't see any solution for Democrats at the present moment. All right, Congressman Thomas Massey, who's one of my favorite members of Congress, and I don't have very many that I would describe as favorites, but he tweeted this yesterday.
He said, today I introduced HR 2356, the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act. If we continue allowing dual citizens to run for federal office, candidates should disclose to voters all countries in which they hold citizenship.
Thank you, co-sponsors, Representative Andy Biggs, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Clay Higgins. Now, the only thing shocking or outrageous about this is that apparently it isn't already a requirement that they disclose this kind of information, but it isn't, evidently.
So obviously, yes, any elected official who holds federal office or office at any level should be required to disclose if they are dual citizens of some other country. It's insane that we don't even know how many of our members of Congress are citizens of a foreign country.
We don't know that. I found that hard to believe.
I looked it up and sure enough, that information is not available. We don't know.
You'd think that that would be information that you could find somewhere, but apparently not. It's not available.
That information is not. So we are not allowed to know.
We are not allowed to know how many members of Congress are citizens of another country, aside from our own. They're not mandated to disclose it, and they're not mandated to renounce their citizenship in another country.
How is that even possible? I mean, if you have dual loyalty, if you consider yourself and are considered legally to be a citizen of some other country, we need to know that as voters. That is just a basic level of accountability and transparency that we should have.
And the fact that we don't, the fact that this law likely won't even, it won't be passed or even come up for a vote, most likely, that really makes you wonder how pervasive the problem is. What are they trying to hide here? How many members of Congress are citizens of a foreign country? And in fact, I'll take it a step further.
If you're a dual citizen, you should not be allowed to hold public office at all. A requirement of running for office in this country should be, or being appointed to a position in government, should be that you renounce your citizenship in any other country.
Of course, why would we allow this? And I'll take it a step further than that. Dual citizens should not be allowed to hold elected office, and they should not be allowed to vote and decide who holds elected office.

If you're a citizen of another country, you should not be allowed to vote here.

If you have the interests of another country in mind, if you are loyal to some other foreign

country, you should not be given any say in our elections.

If you want to vote here, renounce your dual citizenship.

Go all in, right?

Be an American.

If you won't renounce it, that tells us that you have at least a split loyalty to the other country, which should disqualify you from taking part in our elections at all, either as a voter or as a candidate. So the whole thing is just insane to me.
I mean, forget elections and voting. I don't know why do we allow the concept of a dual citizenship at all? I mean, there are people out there, lots of people, we don't know how many, who live in another country, have lived there their whole lives, have never even been here or have been here, spent very minimal time here, and yet are citizens of the U.S.
and their vote counts just as much as mine does. How do we allow that? Born in another country, live in another country, citizen of another country, and yet you can vote here? What?

It truly is. It's baffling.
I can't even conceive what the argument for it would be. I understand why for a dual citizen, it's a nice little perk.
As I understand, the dual citizens argument is like, yeah, but it's cool to be a citizen of two different countries. How does it help America?

How does it help our country?

How is our country stronger by allowing anyone to have a dual loyalty, much less an elected representative? It's just crazy. Should not be allowed.
It's crazy. So let's move to this.
Democrat Pennsylvania State Senator Lindsey Williams delivered some remarks ahead of a vote on the Save Women's Sports Act in Pennsylvania. And this is kind of along the lines of what of Tim Walz yet again.
So yet again, we have Democrats not not learning anything. She's opposed to the bill to save women's sports, of course.
And here's the argument that she presented. Female bodies are just as strong as fast and capable as male bodies.
For what reason, other than political gain, are we spending time and taxpayer dollars on a completely made up issue? There are 8 million high school athletes across the country, and maybe 160 of them are trans. This is the fifth time we are voting on this bill that targets less than 0.002% of high school athletes.
I was a three-sport athlete in high school. Participating in sports gave me the

confidence, time management skills, and ability to work collaboratively that led me to run for

office. Absolutely nothing, nothing about having a trans teammate or competitor would have taken

those things away from me. Female bodies are just as strong, fast, and capable as male bodies, she says.
Now, it's just not possible to have a conversation at all once the other side is reduced to saying stuff like this. If they're willing to just come out and make a demonstrably false claim that contradicts everything we know about biology and human anatomy, then the conversation's over.
There's nowhere to take it from there. We can't talk about anything at that point.
Because when you have a debate with somebody, you assume at the outset as a basic parameter for the debate that the other party is essentially sane, reasonable, has a fundamental grasp on reality, has a certain minimal level of self-respect. These are the kinds of boundaries that keep the debate coherent and which make it possible for one party or the other to win the debate.
People always say, oh, you can't win a debate. It's pointless to debate.
You can't win. You can win a debate.
It's quite possible.

If we're both sane, reasonable people living in reality, then I can win the debate by showing you that your position leads to absurdity.

If I can say to you, well, yeah, but what you're claiming, if that's true, then it would

mean that XYZ is also true. And XYZ, we both know, is absurd, so therefore your argument is wrong.
Or I could say, hey, but if that's true, if that's what you want to do, well, that would lead logically to this result. And we obviously don't want that result to happen.
So these are the kinds of logical process you can take someone through to show them that

their argument is wrong.

But what happens when you're debating someone who has or pretends to have no grasp on reality

at all and who does not hesitate to make even the wildest claims that contradict everything

we know about human existence?

What happens when they have no shame and will say things that they know are outrageously untrue? Well, then you've already won the debate. It's not that you can't win.
You've won it. Once the other side says, oh, female and male bodies are exactly the same.
Male bodies are not any stronger or faster than female bodies. Once the other side says that, okay, debate's up.
We won. We won the argument.
You have just been reduced to making a claim that every person who's ever lived on the planet knows is not true. Literally all of the evidence is on our side, all of it.
You have not a shred of evidence on your side. So you're contradicting all of the evidence, all of human experience.
Everything that we all know is true, you're contradicting. Once you do that, we've won.
The debate's over. There's nothing else.
It can't go anywhere else. That's the end of the race, right? We've reached the conclusion.
So, and that's where we are. I mean, we've been there, of course, on this issue the entire time.
And this is what the Democrat party has reduced itself to. They don't have to, they don't have to do this.
They could just stop. You don't have to do this.
You don't have to sit there. This woman, whatever her name was, I forget.
Lindsay Williams. You don't have to, you don't have to embarrass yourself like this.
You know that's not true. You know that makes no sense.
You know that you're defeating your own argument. You can say, well, male bodies and women bodies are the same.
Men are not any stronger. And then you talk about your experience being a female athlete.
Well, by your logic, then we shouldn't even have women's sports or men's sports. Why do we have that in that case? If men are no stronger than women, why do we have the distinction? Right? Why do you have at every high school, you've got a girls basketball team and a boys basketball team.
Why do that? Just have a basketball team. Right? You said that men and women are equal.
Males are not any stronger than females. So why don't we just get rid of the distinction entirely and just have, right, that would solve the problem.
Let's not even worry about boys sports, girls sports. Oh, no, we can't do that because you know that if we had that policy, that no girl would make it onto any basketball team at any level anywhere in the country.
It would be the end of girls playing basketball in any organized league anywhere, at any age, at any level. Okay? But you know that, which is why you still want there to be girl and boy sports while at the same time rejecting the whole basis for there being girls and boy sports.
It's just a total inanity. And everyone sees it.
Everyone knows it.

And the Democrats, they could help themselves so much if they just dropped it. Just stop.
Let the point, whatever percent of trans people in the country, they'll be upset about it. No one else will care You are humiliating yourselves

Every single day for the sake of this small minority, the tiniest little sliver of the population. You've totally destroyed yourselves and all of your credibility, all of your political capital, your political future, you've sacrificed all of it for their sake.
I mean, don't let me stop you. Don't let me stop you.
But it's truly, truly like jaw-dropping to behold every time. I'm used to it by now, of course, but we've never seen anything like this.
Let me play this video for you. I saw this on my feed after it was posted by Tim Miller, who's an MSNBC contributor, and he captured it with this.
He said, this is the sickest I've ever seen in my life. Oh my God.
And so he's saying that this video I'm going to play is very sick and twisted. It's terrible.
It's the worst thing he's ever seen in his life. In his life.
The worst thing in his life he's ever seen. And we all know if you spend any time on X these days, if you spend any time on social media, there are a lot of terrible videos that are circulating all the time.
So, and this is worse than any of that. Turns out the video is Kristi Noem, who's the DHS secretary, of course, at a prison in El Salvador, showing us where they house all the criminal gang member illegal aliens who come to the country.
Let's watch that. Here at Seacott today and visiting this facility.
And first of all, I want to thank El Salvador and their president for their partnership with the United States of America to bring our terrorists here and to incarcerate them and have consequences for the violence that they have perpetuated in our communities. I also want everybody to know, if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face.
First of all, do not come to our country illegally. You will be removed and you will be prosecuted.

But know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people. It's impressive that they got the prisoners to behave like that.
I mean, they're just standing there. They told them to stand basically at attention quietly so they could be paraded in front of the camera and shamed.
And they did so. So it kind of shows you, I mean, these are not the most cooperative people normally.
So one can only imagine what kinds of methods they're using down there in El Salvador to get these prisoners to behave. But that's sick and disturbing, Tim Miller says.
Imagine seeing gang members, murderers, and rapists in prison and saying, that's sick.

But you aren't referring to the fact that they are gang members, murderers, and rapists.

You're referring to the fact that they're in prison.

Just imagine having that mentality.

It's impossible to imagine.

It's impossible for a sane person to put themselves in that state of mind.

But as a sane person myself, I think it's great. And to be honest with you, I haven't been a fan of some of the stunts from Kristi Noem since she's been defense, the DHS secretary.
You know, she wearing the uniform as if she's about to go personally knock on doors. We see these, when she first took the position, she'd be doing these videos where she's got all the gear on and she said they're going to do some immigration raid or whatever, but she's still got the makeup and the hair all perfectly done.
And I think some of that is quite silly. This is not, this is what she should be doing.
She doesn't need to be on the scene for a raid of illegal immigrant gang members. We know that she's not actually going to be going out beating up the bad guys.
You don't need to pretend that you are. We know that.
But this is different. This is simply known as the face of this agency.

Basically, yeah, parading these criminals in front of the camera, making an example out of them,

shaming them, and using them as a warning to any future gang members that this is what might happen if you come here. And I think that's great.
That's exactly what we should be doing. All right, let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a bid. Hey, we're the sweet baby gang.
Trading shouldn't have barriers. When Robinhood started, it was built to make trading more accessible.
Now, Robinhood offers more sophisticated trading tools. Experience the future of trading on Robinhood Legend, the all-new desktop platform that harnesses intuitive design to deliver a seamless experience for traders.
Free to use with a Robinhood account. The future of trading is fast, powerful, and precise.
Experience it now on Robinhood Legend. Sign up today.
Investing is risky. Robinhood Financial LLC member SIPC is a registered broker-dealer.
Other fees may apply. I want a raccoon so badly, but my husband's not giving in.
You've now given me hope for my dream of an adorable raccoon in my future. So thank you, Matt.
Why would you want a raccoon inside your house? What is it about a raccoon that makes you think it'd be a suitable roommate? What part of it do you find appealing? When you see a raccoon out in the wild, what part of you thinks, I want that in my house? Is it the part where he rips through the trash? The part where he has rabies? Are you a rabies fan? Big fan of rabies? This is what I don't get. I am not anti-animal.
I like animals. Actually, said before, I'm not an animal lover like my family.

That's not even true. I do love animals in the same sense that I love the ocean.
I love the ocean. I like to go to the ocean.
I think the ocean is beautiful. I don't want it in my house, you understand.
If I lived near the ocean and suddenly the ocean ended up in my house, I would be upset.

And then you might say, You understand. Okay, I don't, if I lived near the ocean and suddenly the ocean ended up in my house, I would be upset.

And then you might say, oh, but you're a hypocrite, Matt.

You say you love the ocean, but you don't want it in your house?

You hypocrite.

No, I love it out there. I love it out there.

I want it, like, out there, it's great.

I just, I don't need to, I don't need it in my living room.

Okay?

And it's the same thing with animals.

I let's go, I like to go for hikes in the woods. I like to see the wildlife.
I like going to the zoo. I'm a big zoo fan, in fact.
Okay. I like the zoo more than my kids do.
We take my kids to the zoo. It's more for me than it is for them.
I really enjoy the polar bear exhibit at the zoo. I think it's a great exhibit.
But I don't need that thing in my house. I like it behind the glass.
It's swimming in the water. It's having a good time.
It's playing with a beach ball. That's fantastic.
That's as close as I need to be. And then I get to leave.
And so I have access to the polar bear anytime I want. I can just go to the zoo.
Why would I want it in my house? That's how I feel with all animals. I like dogs.
I actually like, I don't hate dogs, right? If someone, if a family member or a friend has a dog, you visit the house, you pet the dog, that's a lot. It's great.
And then I get to leave. I don't need to bring the dog away.
You take care of all the stuff. You buy the food, you feed it, you take it out to poop.
I'd rather you do all that. I don't need that part of it.
So that's the way I look at it. Of course you think your husband, men are simple and need the three A's, acknowledgement, affection, and appreciation.
That might explain why mine has stuck around for almost 40 years. Yeah.
And women need the same, of course. I think that's, but I think that's generally acknowledged.
You know, we talked yesterday about gratitude in a marriage and in particular, the kind of emotional burden that men carry that is not talked about. And that's kind of the difference because even if women don't always actually receive the three A's, as you say, everybody understands at least in theory that you should acknowledge and appreciate and be affectionate towards your wife.
That's at least understood conceptually. But that need going the other direction, I think, is not acknowledged as much.
Your point about men not even mentioning the catastrophes they're avoiding is worth dwelling on. Men are cautious about emoting their stress for fear of escalating it in their wives.
It's a stabilizing instinct. Right, and it's a good thing, by the way.
When I said that men are bearing all these burdens that they don't talk about, I generally think it's good, certainly a good instinct to not talk about them.

To not try to offload the burden onto their wives, which doesn't mean that you should never talk about the burdens or never share them. But my point is that women should know that men do this, that they carry these unseen burdens and that they shoulder things for your sake and they don't tell you.
That's just something that you should know, even if you don't always know what the thing is. And there's the kind of dramatic things that I mentioned.
One example of this.

You have a man at his job.

Let's say he's worried he's going to get fired or laid off.

He's reading the tea leaves and all that kind of thing.

But most men, when they come home from work, if they have this worry, if this is kind of this specter, this possibility of this bad thing happening in the future, they're not going to tell their wives that. And again, they probably shouldn't.
Because coming home and saying, yeah, I think this horrible thing might happen, but I don't know. I'm not sure.
I just want to let you know that there's this horrible thing that might happen, just so you know. Most men are not inclined to offload the burden in that way.
They're just going to carry it themselves, which, again, they should.

But those are the dramatic examples that a lot of men have dealt with.

But there are little things, too, little examples of this.

Like little things like, I don't know, maybe if you're the wife, you're in the car, he's driving.

Suddenly the weather is really bad.

Conditions are hazardous.

And you, as the woman, are freaked out. And because you're a woman, you're probably verbalizing your concern.
And you look at your husband and he's not saying anything, not showing any signs of concern. And you think maybe it's because he doesn't care or because he's not taking the situation seriously or whatever.
No, what's actually happening is that in his head, he's just as freaked out as you are. And so when you're saying, oh, no, we're going to get in an accident, everyone's going to die, he's thinking the same thing, but he's just not going to say it.
He's not going to say that out loud because he wants to remain calm for your sake. So what you might interpret as a lack of concern and a lack of taking it seriously is actually him trying to be a calming presence for you.
And there's a million, I mean, it's the same thing that happens if you hear a strange noise, right? In the middle of the night. And you wake your husband up and he says, I heard a noise.
And you will say, as the woman, you'll probably say something like, oh, there might be somebody in the house, right? You'll verbalize that worry that you have. And he will probably say, that's fine, it's fine, just wait here, I'll go check it out.
He says it's fine, but in his head, he's definitely also thinking that there might be somebody in the house who's going to try to kill the whole family. That is in his head.
He's certainly thinking, he's just not going to say that to you. But in his head, he's prepared to go fight this person to the death if they're in the house, which hopefully he's more prepared to do if he has a firearm.
But anyway and anyway, so, but I think because women are,

women, women are different from men. They don't, right? Women have their own way of thinking and

dealing with things. They, the mistake, well, there's two mistakes we talked about yesterday

is there could be a lack of gratitude because you don't understand everything that your husband's

doing exactly. But also even worse than that, what is actually a very positive thing where he is being strong for you can, as I said, be interpreted sometimes by the woman as like the opposite.

He's not concerned.

He's not taking this seriously.

And so that's where some of the friction can come in. Let's see.

I love the fact that Matt just got done saying that when you're getting paid to do a job,

you have the responsibility to put aside your own opinions and do the job,

then goes on to tell his listeners to not buy a candle that he's paid to advertise. That's

hilarious. That's different, though.
That's a candle that exists only to troll me.

They made a candle called Waffles

named after the damned goat that my wife bought.

And I don't think you should buy it.

I object to its existence.

Don't buy the Waffles candle.

It's too expensive anyway, like it really is.

So I'm dead serious.

Don't buy it.

It's at dailywire.com slash shop

if you want to buy it, but you shouldn't.

And finally, a bunch of comments all in the same lines. Matt, that vest is really making you look like a farmer today, enjoying the goats, are we? Matt, that vest, though, you're going to fish right after the show or what, bud? Is that a goat skin vest? Waffles, is that you? Cool vest, Matt.
I remember my first fishing trip. Yeah, you know, I knew this was going to happen.
So wardrobe picked out some new outfits for the show.

And this isn't new, but yesterday it was new.

And so they're sprucing things up a bit, I guess.

And adding a few new elements here and there.

And I just knew, I knew that if I wore anything but a simple flannel,

if I wore anything but a Walmart flannel, I'm going to get ripped to shreds. And sure enough, that's exactly what happened.
But you know what? I like the vest. Thought it was a nice vest.
I think it's practical and fashionable. I think it's pretty snazzy.
I think it looks nice. It's got a bunch of pockets.
I can put different items in them. Any items that I might want to store.
I've got plenty of pockets for storing all my various items that I might pick up along the way. So I think it's great.
They showed me the vest a couple of days ago. I said, that's a cool vest.
I'll wear that. So you people can make fun of the vest all you want.
I thought it was nice. I'm a vest guy.
I like vests. And guess what? There are other vests that you're going to see.
We got a whole array of vests that we're about to roll out. So we're going all in on vests.
There's going to be jackets. There's a whole lineup.
So they said that I'm going to start layering. There's going to be layers.
That's a big step. It's a major step forward in my fashion journey is with layering.
And I'd appreciate a little bit of moral support instead of being relentlessly bullied. You jerks.
But at the same time, I would have been disappointed if you didn't roast me for the vest. I would have actually been let down by that.
So I don't know. It worked out, I guess.
stream my show ad-free and watch along with my producers in the chat. Plus, get exclusive content

you won't find anywhere else. Access premium entertainment.
Join a community of thinkers, not followers. Watch anytime, anywhere on desktop, mobile, and TV with the Daily Wire Plus app.
Don't just watch the culture war happen around you. Be part of the movement.
Subscribe now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Scott Shamblin, a radio host in Colorado, posted this clip from a hearing in the state legislature yesterday in Colorado. This is Speaker Julie McCluskey in Colorado talking about the cost-saving benefits of abortion.
Listen. That savings comes from the averted births that will not occur because abortions happened instead.
So a birth is more expensive than an abortion. So the savings comes in Medicaid births that will not occur.
This bill will actually decrease costs for our health care policy and financing department, our Medicaid expenditures in both this year and out years, as the savings from averted births outweigh the cost of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans. This bill requires all abortion services to be state funded.
The bill requires an increase to general fund of $1.5 million to cover the cost for care. But again, a reminder that ultimately the state will see a cost savings.
And ultimately, it is truly an honor to be here carrying this bill alongside Rep. Garcia, and I ask for your support of Senate Bill 183.
Savings from averted births. A birth is more expensive than an abortion.
This is her argument. We can save money by killing babies rather than allowing them to be born, or by, as she says, averting their births.
This is an argument that you hear all the time. The left often talks about the cost-saving benefits of abortion.
After Roe was overturned, there were a million articles like this one in the New Yorker headline, another likely effect of the Roe reversal, higher health care costs. Article goes on to explain that carrying a pregnancy to term and then delivering a living baby rather than killing the baby ahead of time requires more health care resources and is quote unquote higher risk, which will make health care more expensive for everybody.
PBS published an article around the same time lamenting how much money it would cost to birth and raise all of these extra kids. The article says, quote, the out-of-pocket cost of giving birth with insurance is $2,854.
Giving birth is only the first expense. Raising a child poses its own financial burden.
And previous research has shown that people who are denied an abortion face significant economic harm. The significant economic harm, to be clear, is that their children are alive rather than dead.
So it's better to save money by killing the kids. This is the argument being made very explicitly.
And as we saw from Julie McCluskey, they are not ashamed of it. So it makes me wonder, if we're okay with killing human beings in order to save money, then why do we stop at babies? Why do we start there? Why do we start or stop there? Why are we talking about babies at all?

I wonder what Julie would say or what PBS or The New Yorker would say to this modest proposal. If we're going to kill babies to save money, couldn't we use the exact same argument to save money by killing the homeless? And hear me out on this.
I'm not encouraging anyone to run out and commit any acts of violence. I'm saying by by the pro-abortion logic, why don't we pass a law and put a system in place for doing this humanely? Which is very important to me.
I wouldn't want any back alley homeless terminations to take place. I want to make sure it's done very safely.
I mean, it's not going to be safe for the homeless person, but it'll be safe for everybody else. So just think about this.
Homeless people cost taxpayers upwards of $50,000 per year. So the cost savings by averting all of these homeless lives would be very significant.
So if you advocate for the mass extermination of the unborn on the basis of cost savings, I mean, you must support this proposal as well. Now, you might want to object and say, well, no, abortion is totally different.
After all, the homeless are human beings. Well, yeah, you're correct.
Human is a species. What species do you think a fetus, quote unquote, is? Fetus means offspring in Latin.
So he is the offspring of two human parents. Evidence would suggest that the unborn child is also then a human being.
We were pretty sure that he's not an elephant or an oak tree. Now, maybe you'll object and say that, sure, the unborn child is a human being, just like a homeless person, but the homeless person is alive, whereas the unborn child is not.
Well, but then what is the abortion doing precisely if the child is not alive before the abortion is performed? Is the abortion killing something that's already dead? Is it killing an inanimate object? They call an abortion a termination. Well, what is being terminated? If a woman went in for an abortion and then shortly after she gave birth to a live baby, that would tell her that the abortion was botched, that it didn't work.
How would she know that? Well, because the abortion is supposed to convert a living baby into a dead one, because the unborn baby is living. It is a life.
It is a human life by any definition of the term. So both homeless people and unborn children are human lives who happen to cost a lot of money.
Which brings us back to the original question, why aren't we mass executing the homeless? Serious question. Now, maybe next you'll object and say that unborn children are a different case because they're fully dependent on their mothers for survival.
Well, yeah, but the homeless are fully dependent also. If we withdrew all tax funding from the homeless tomorrow, we would be told in very panicked terms that thousands of homeless will die.
Why is that? Well, because they're fully dependent on us for their survival. If dependence makes you less human or takes away your moral right to existence, then the homeless are in the same boat as the unborn.
They have no moral right to exist. In fact, they're in a worse boat.
After all, in the vast majority of cases, a woman is pregnant because she chose to participate in the reproductive act. Both her and the father chose to do the thing that is biologically designed to create children and which has created children literally billions of times before in history.
That child exists because of them and because of their actions and for no other reason. But the homeless guy down the street isn't homeless because of me.
I had nothing to do with it. He's dependent on me as a taxpayer, completely apart from my own involvement.
Indeed, he's almost certainly homeless because of his own actions, his own choices. The unborn child did not choose to be conceived.
The unborn child didn't do a single thing to put himself in that position. The homeless guy did.
He started smoking crack or something, and now he's homeless. And now as a taxpayer, I got to pay for it.
So if anything, that would make him even more eligible for abortion by the logic of pro-abortion people. Now, you might try to offer one last objection.
You might say that, sure, the homeless are expensive, just like children. Sure, we could save money by aborting the homeless, just as we save money by aborting babies.
Sure, unborn children are just as human and just as alive as the homeless or anyone else. Sure, the homeless are dependent, just as the unborn are dependent.
but the difference is that the unborn have no conscious experience, whereas the homeless do. In other words, babies don't know that they're being killed, but the homeless would know it.
Now, I find that to be a rather demented and morbid argument. The idea that it's okay to kill someone as long as they don't know you're doing it seems fraught with all kinds of difficult implications.
It would seem to be bad news for anyone who's ever been under anesthesia or, I don't know, just gone to sleep at night. Be that as it may, this argument doesn't rescue the homeless.
I mean, we don't know what sort of conscious experience the unborn have or don't have, but we do know that a great many homeless people are barely self-aware or aware of anything at all, frankly. I mean, the other day I saw a homeless guy having a full-on argument with an ATM machine.
Is that guy more aware than an unborn child? Would he even know what's going on if he were aborted? Highly debatable. And we also know that the homeless guy who has lost his mind will likely never get it back, whereas the unborn child, if he is unaware, will soon be aware if we only leave him alone.
The unborn child is at worst unconscious or semi-conscious on his way to being fully conscious. The homeless man is semi-conscious on his way to being even less conscious.
So it seems clear to me, literally every argument that you can make for aborting children would not only just apply to the homeless, but would apply to them even more. So why don't we abort the homeless then? Why don't we save a whole lot of money and trouble by just rounding them all up, bringing them to their local Planned Parenthood clinic? I mean, often abortions are justified on the basis that the child is unwanted and might end up on the streets and forsaken by society if they're allowed to be born.
Well, the homeless guy is actually already on the street and forsaken. There's no might here.
We don't need to speculate. At least the quote-unquote unwanted child has a chance of becoming a productive member of society.
The homeless guy has already not become a productive member of society. So again, why don't we just abort them all? We've aborted 60 million children.
Why not throw 800,000 or so homeless into that mix?

Like what? It barely even leaves a dent compared to 60 million. Why don't we do it? Well, the

reason, of course, is that it would be horrifically, unspeakably evil to exterminate the homeless. That is the only reason we don't do it.
The only reason is that it would be really, really bad to do. We don't do it, and we shouldn't, because the homeless are human beings.
Even if it costs us money, even if they cause a lot of problems for society, even if they're unwanted, even if they are burdens, which they are, we as decent and humane people would never consider mass murder as an acceptable solution to the homeless problem. And we shouldn't.
So then why is it a solution for babies? Now, I understand, of course, that one of the hazards of taking this kind of Jonathan Swift rhetorical approach to the abortion issue is that the abortion industry has been rooted in eugenics from the very beginning. So there's always the risk that a pro-abortion person will listen to my, just to be clear, satirical argument for mass murdering the homeless and actually agree with it.
I mean, some Western countries are already well on their way getting rid of the undesirables later in life with euthanasia. But I guess I'm very hopefully betting that the majority of pro-abortion people in this country have at least enough humanity and decency and understand that you can't solve the homeless problem by killing all of them.
Although with somebody like Julie McCluskey, that assumption may well be too optimistic, which is why she is today finally canceled.

That'll do it for the show today and this week.

Have a great weekend.

Talk to you on Monday.