Ep. 1653 - The Savage Crime That The Media Doesn’t Want You To Know About

loves a challenge.

It's why she lifts heavy weights

and likes complicated recipes.

But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia.

She bundled her flight with a hotel to save more.

Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

You were made to take the easy route.

We were made to easily package your trip.

Expedia, made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify.

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business.

From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need.

There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allberds continue to trust and use them.

With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into.

Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com/slash special offer.

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest-paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, No, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

No, Charlie's sober.

He's going to tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

AKA Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

Today in the Matt Wall Show, a career criminal savagely murders a Ukrainian refugee on a train in Charlotte.

The media refuses to cover the story.

I'll give you one guess why that's the case.

Also, the Trump administration considers banning trans people from owning guns.

The city of Austin ditches their century-old city logo in favor of something that makes the Cracker Barrel rebrand look brilliant by comparison.

And we will discuss the very absurdly viral story of the kid getting his baseball stolen at a Phillies game.

Everyone's talking about it, but everyone is missing the point, as always.

Talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

More than 90% of Americans don't get enough fruits, vegetables, and fiber in their diet.

We're all basically walking nutritional disasters.

And that's where balance of nature supplements come in.

These aren't your typical synthetic vitamins with names you can't pronounce.

We're talking about 47 whole ingredients, 16 fruits, 15 vegetables, plus spices and fibers, real stuff like wild blueberries, kale, turmeric, and shiitake mushrooms.

I've taken their fruits and veggies supplements for a while now.

Honestly, it's nice knowing I'm getting all that variety without having to turn my kitchen into a produce section.

It's especially handy to have while traveling as well.

Plus, their fiber and spice blend is the only supplement on the the market combining 12 spices with four whole fibers.

I'm not saying this replaces eating actual vegetables, of course, but when life gets crazy and your diet consists mainly of whatever doesn't require cooking, it's nice knowing that you're still getting healthy ingredients with Balance of Nature.

So go to balanceofondnature.com.

Use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order as preferred customer.

Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.

That's balanceofnature.com, promo code Walsh.

Just a few hours after a career felon named George Floyd overdosed on the streets of Minneapolis just outside of the store that he was attempting to rob while being restrained by the officers that he had physically resisted, a lengthy video of Floyd's death appeared on every mainstream cable news station.

The footage was disturbing, viewers were warned.

But we were instructed to watch it anyway because it supposedly amounted to clear and convincing evidence that America is unsafe for black people due to the scourge of systemic racism.

Never mind the lethal level of fentanyl in Floyd's system, which prosecutors later lied about during Derek Shelton's trial, never mind the lack of any physical injury to his neck whatsoever.

Focus, they told us, on the footage.

Wasn't exactly a rational argument, but it didn't need to be.

Even alleged conservatives like Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained that they had wept after seeing the video.

That's how powerful the video was, or at least that's the way things seemed at the time to a lot of people.

What's become very evident in the aftermath of the Floyd hagiography is that the footage of his overdose wasn't actually that important to the narrative.

Far more important was the footage that we weren't allowed to see under any circumstances.

And I'm not just talking about the footage of Floyd telling the officers that he couldn't breathe long before he was on the ground.

I'm talking about all the videos of black

career felons, violent thugs who should have been executed a very long time ago.

murdering white people in public places for no apparent reason whatsoever.

These are videos that are rarely shown to the public.

When these videos are released, they're usually edited to the point that you don't actually see the crime itself, and the mainstream media outlets ignore them entirely.

The aggregate effect of this censorship is that to many Americans,

black people are seen as the victims of systemic racial injustice while whites are cast as their oppressors.

That's the kind of pre-existing narrative you need in order to sell a BLM martyr to the public.

Now, shortly after, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee by the name of Irina Zarutska was murdered on the light rail system in Charlotte, North Carolina back on August 22nd, the same campaign of censorship remained in effect.

In early reports about the murder, news outlets omitted some key details from the story.

Here's one example.

See if you can tell what's missing from this report.

Watch.

Turning to this now tonight, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police is voicing their concerns about leadership and safety here in the Queen City.

And this is after the stabbing death of a woman on the light rail just days ago and city leaders' response to it.

WCNC Charlotte Sprea Smith is joining us live right now in Southend.

So, Bria, what is the FOP saying?

Well, Vanessa, in a Facebook post, the FOP says that the mayor, quote, coddled the man responsible for this latest incident.

And it's the reason why city leaders and residents in this area say solutions can be made.

Now, in a statement released by the mayor, she expressed her sympathies to the victim and her family, stating, quote, my thoughts and prayers go out to the young woman's family and friends.

When it came to the suspect, she wrote, while I do not know the specifics of the man's medical record, what I have come to understand is that he has long struggled with mental health and appears to have suffered a crisis.

That report aired nearly a week after the murder.

Authorities knew the identity of the suspect within hours of the attack.

And as you just heard, the mayor clearly knows who he is.

She even knows his medical record, apparently.

But they still don't tell you anything specific.

No photos are provided, so the audience has no idea what the man looked like.

His name wasn't provided either.

And they certainly didn't air any video of the attack, edited or otherwise.

And there's a reason for that.

Democrats in Charlotte wanted to cover up their role in this murder, as well as the broader pattern of black felons targeting white people.

And that's why no major media outlets in the entire country, except for Fox,

have have even mentioned this story.

It's a complete media blackout pretty much everywhere on all the networks and all the newspapers.

You can search the Washington Post, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, the AP, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, the BBC, CNN.

None of them are talking about it.

No national Democrats have weighed in either.

And for its part, Wikipedia is now in the process of deleting its article on the murder completely.

For all their stated concern about Ukraine and refugees, this is one Ukrainian refugee that these people definitely don't want to talk about.

I mean, they'll run a million articles about the plight of Ukrainians and how we should accept them with open arms.

But when one of these Ukrainians is murdered on public transport, they don't even pretend to care.

I mean, we hear all the time about refugees who come to America for a better life.

Well, this is one who came here for a better life and ended up getting butchered on the light rail instead.

which is the kind of tragic story that you'd think people with Ukraine flags in their bios would immediately rally around.

But again, none of them can even pretend to care about this.

They all feel the need to destroy the evidence of this homicide because they know it's proof of a larger trend, one that they have absolutely no answer for.

The statistics on this disparity are not remotely close.

A white person is more than 30 times more likely to be violently attacked by a black person than the other way around.

In 2019, roughly 85% of the 560,000 violent interracial incidents involving whites and blacks were black on white crimes.

These are statistics that are hard for most people to comprehend.

They don't just destroy the narrative about white supremacy or about a mental health crisis or whatever.

They also demonstrate very clearly that white people are being hunted and killed by an extraordinarily dangerous demographic, which is an urgent problem that rises to the level of a national emergency.

I mean, you often hear it said that 13% of the population accounts for 50% of the homicides, but it's actually far worse than that because most of the murders are being committed more specifically by young black males between the ages of about 15 and 40.

So that's more like 3 or 4% of the population that's doing all that damage.

But at the end of the day, these are just numbers.

Without graphic videos airing 24-7 on every cable news network showing the reality of of this racial violence in everyday life, these statistics are hard for people to hear about or to understand.

And that's why over the weekend, Charlotte's political leaders were very quickly thrown into a state of panic and horror.

The city's public transit system, upon the request of journalists invoking the state's public records law, released footage showing the moments before and after the murder of that Ukrainian woman in Charlotte.

Several weeks after the fact, after the authorities initially refused to release this video, it finally became public.

And this is a moment that Charlotte's mayor clearly did not want to see, nor was she prepared for it.

And as you can see,

the footage shows the victim entering the light rail car.

She has her AirPods in.

She sits down in front of a large black male without interacting with him in any way.

You know, these are people.

There are other people sitting nearby

in other seats on on the train.

It's a full, busy train.

The woman is wearing the uniform of a pizza restaurant, so presumably she's just getting off of work.

And then after a few minutes, which is condensed in the video into a few seconds, the black man stabs the woman several times

out of nowhere.

The footage pauses, so it doesn't actually show the stabbing, but then the attacker walks throughout the train with nobody responding in any way, as blood is dripping from his knife.

The attacker was later admitted to the hospital with a wound to his hand, so it's possible the knife also cut him as he was murdering his victim.

So, again,

compared to the Floyd footage, it's sanitized.

It doesn't actually show anyone dying, and it's not airing constantly on every single news channel, or almost any news channel, in fact.

But although it's censored, it's still extremely damaging for the city of Charlotte and the narrative of the Democrat Party, which exists to protect criminals

who attack white people.

And that's why when the transit system released the footage, the Democrat mayor of Charlotte, a black woman named Vi Lyles,

did not issue a statement condemning the killer.

She didn't provide any background information about the man, including any previous arrests and convictions he might have.

She did not explain how the city could have easily prevented this murder from occurring.

Nor did she say a word about black on white violence in general, of course.

Instead, in a post on social media, Vi Lyles denounced everyone who shared the footage.

That's what she's mad at.

Here's what she wrote, quote, the video of the heartbreaking attack that took Irina Zarutska's life is now public.

I want to thank our media partners and community members who have chosen not to repost or share the footage out of respect for Irina's family.

That's an actual message from the mayor of Charlotte.

According to Lyles,

if you shared the footage that the city transit system provided, then you're not demonstrating respect for the victim's family.

The respectful thing to do in the mayor's eyes is to bury all of the evidence that this happened.

It's to pretend that it didn't happen.

It's to pretend that this woman never existed.

That's the respectful thing.

And if you don't see that, then you're just not as altruistic as Vi Lyles.

You have no decency.

Now, of course, the reason that the mayor wanted to memory hold his footage is not to respect the victim, but really the opposite of that.

The reason is that the killer,

somebody named DeCarlos Brown Jr.,

has predictably an extensive criminal record.

Specifically, he has at least 14 prior arrests for crimes like armed robbery, assault on a female, felony, larceny, breaking and entering, shoplifting, you know, all the crimes you would expect somebody like this to have.

He has mug shots like students have yearbook photos, and there's a new one every year, basically, if not more often than that.

One of his more recent arrests came after he misused the 911 system reportedly by claiming that man-made material was inside his body and controlling his mind.

And he was brought to court on that charge.

A judge named Teresa Strokes, a Stokes rather, was reportedly assigned to the case.

And now let's...

Let's think about this for a second.

Put yourself in the judge's position.

You have a violent felon with a, at this point, lengthy history of attacking people.

According to the police, he's now experiencing psychosis in addition to committing even more crimes.

He's certainly demonstrating antisocial behavior that's clearly incompatible with life in a civilized society.

And yet, despite that track record, the judge, a black woman who reposted pro-DEI content on LinkedIn and who just happens to run a treatment facility that treats mental health disorders in her spare time,

allowed DiCarlos Brown to go free with no cash bail.

Just went, just let him go.

She didn't lock him in a prison.

She didn't commit him to a mental hospital.

She allowed him to board a light rail car and murder an innocent white woman.

Given every opportunity to imprison a repeat offender, a clear danger to everybody around him,

the justice system just turned him loose.

Didn't even make him pay bail money.

Now, this is a point that cannot be overstated.

Our society is held hostage by a tiny minority of violent, antisocial degenerates like De Carlos Brown.

And what makes it all the more infuriating is that it doesn't have to be like this.

We could have all of these criminals off the street permanently in the span of a few months if we had the will.

Now, here's a statistic that

you almost never hear about.

And it tells us this: that if we rounded up every criminal with three or more prior arrests, crime would drop by 80% nationwide.

Yes, 80%.

And you can make this determination by looking at the percentage of new inmates in prison systems who have a prior arrest, which is virtually all of them.

And this is exactly the result that you would expect.

And the lesson is obvious.

The single best way to predict future criminal behavior is to look at past criminal behavior.

And the single best way to prevent future criminal behavior is to begin implementing ruthless punishments for serious offenders.

And when I say ruthless, I mean public execution.

for violent criminals and habitual offenders.

There is, again, a very, very small percentage of barbarically violent sociopaths causing almost all of the problems.

Our communities are unsafe and unlivable.

You can't even sit on a train with headphones on because of a tiny fraction of the population.

If not for this fraction, nearly every city in America would be a utopia compared to what it is today.

We could easily deal with this problem, again, simply by punishing criminals.

At a minimum, long prison sentences, as well as hard labor.

I mean, to Carlos Brown, when you look at his rap sheet, when you look at the fact that he was just a dysfunctional person with

nothing of value to add to society, he should have already been serving 30 years in a labor camp.

At least by his, I don't know, fifth arrest.

Should have been in a labor camp somewhere.

And then he could bring some value to society, force him to work in a labor camp.

This is the only way, as our ancestors knew.

We've tried compassion,

we've tried restorative justice,

and this is the result.

It was inevitable.

So, here's another question,

and I want you to think about this:

Why exactly don't we give capital punishment to armed robbers?

And to Carlos Brown had armed robbery on his rap sheet.

Again, very typical.

Why shouldn't anyone who would use violence to rob another person be permanently removed from society?

Until it's safe to ride public transit or walk your dog in the park, what exactly is the argument for showing any amount of leniency to career criminals whatsoever?

Our current system only gives capital punishment and then only rarely to someone who actually kills another person.

But what about someone who, through their behavior, has shown a willingness to kill another person?

What about someone who is willing to murder another human being just to take their wallet or their shoes or their car?

What is the argument?

What is the actual argument for waiting until that already violent offender actually kills someone before giving them the maximum punishment.

I want someone to explain this to me.

If a guy walks up to a woman on the street

or a man,

points a gun at the person's head and takes their purse or their wallet,

why shouldn't that guy be hanging from a rope 24 hours after he's convicted in a court of law?

Why not?

Don't give me some platitude.

Don't just shout the word compassion at me.

Give me an actual argument.

It would certainly make our our communities much safer if we started executing armed robbers.

If we responded with that kind of brutal decisiveness to violent criminals, there's no question that it would make our communities much safer.

So why shouldn't we do it?

Here's the question.

Is the cost

of having much more dangerous communities

worth the benefit of keeping guys like DeCarlos Brown alive?

Does anyone think the answer to that question is yes?

So that the

benefit is that

guys like DeCarlos Brown, we get to keep them alive.

And the cost is that our communities are very unsafe and people like Irina die.

What do we think about the cost-benefit analysis there?

Look, I've been making this point for a long time.

As a society, we have two choices.

Okay, only two.

Either we are going to inflict severe, merciless suffering on the criminals, the violent degenerates, the sociopathic predators, the dysfunctional, the barbaric, or we're going to allow severe, merciless suffering to be inflicted on the innocent.

The women sitting on the train after work, the pedestrians walking their dogs in the park, the Uber drivers, the gas station clerks, and so on.

One group or the other is going to be made to feel immense suffering.

One group or the other is going to be met with brutality and violence.

There's no third option, at least not for us.

Now, other countries may be able to find a middle path.

Japan is one of the safest countries in the world.

It's also completely homogenous.

98% of Japanese citizens are ethnically Japanese.

They are a small, homogeneous country where everybody shares the same culture, same values, same priorities, the same fear of public shame and embarrassment.

And yet, even in Japan, the death penalty is mandated in their penal code.

They don't use it often, but when they do use it, the accused finds out their execution date on the day of the execution.

And then they're taken off to be hanged without any further appeal.

So Japan's secret sauce is homogeneity with severe and lethal punishment dispensed on the rare occasion when it's necessary.

That is not our situation.

We are a very big country.

We are, as we're always reminded, very diverse.

So we are left with the two options I just outlined.

Severe, brutal, ugly punishment of the guilty

or severe, brutal, ugly punishment of the innocent.

Either the former or the latter.

To choose neither, to refuse to choose, is to choose the latter.

It is to say that it is worth it for the innocent to suffer so that the guilty don't have to.

And that's the answer that our system has decided on.

It's decided that it's better for a million innocent women on the train to be butchered in broad daylight than for one violent criminal to be severely punished.

And even worse, the people who give this answer have the nerve to call it compassion.

It is not compassion.

It is callousness in the extreme.

It is monstrous cruelty.

And that is why the outrages continue every day.

Just two days ago, on Saturday, a 59-year-old Auburn professor named Julie Gard Schunelli was butchered with a knife in the city's largest park while she was walking her dog.

She worked at Auburn University's College of Veterinary Medicine, and on Saturday, police say a 28-year-old black man named Harold Rashad Dabney III stabbed her to death and then stole her truck.

Yet another example of black-on-white violence to go along with the other 500,000 that occur every year, give or take.

Yet another example of a murderous degenerate making public spaces unsafe for the rest of us.

Here's another one.

On the left, you see a 34-year-old Lyft driver.

On the right, you have one of the suspects in her murder and robbery.

She was shot to death.

Authorities didn't release the shooter's name because he was a juvenile.

That's how the system works.

You don't see these kinds of attacks happening the other way, period.

There are not constant stories of white people hunting down black Lyft drivers or black men in parks.

The statistics say what they say, and they are becoming increasingly difficult to deny, no matter how skeptical or passive you might be.

At the same time, there are a lot of people, even on the right, who don't want to talk about the racial elements of crimes like these.

But here's the truth.

If I told you that a person was randomly butchered on a train, and then I asked you to guess the race of the assailant, I told you I'll give you a billion dollars if you guess correctly the first time.

Well, every single person is going to go home a billionaire because you would guess black and you would be correct nearly every time.

That's just the simple reality.

It just is.

We all know it.

There's a very obvious pattern here, well established over the course of many decades.

The dividing line is not between those who recognize the pattern and those who don't.

We all recognize it.

The line is between those who are willing to say it out loud and those who aren't.

In response, the only argument you'll hear from Democrats like Vi Lyles is that we need to show compassion for these killers because their mental health is supposedly to blame.

That's what she said about the guy with 14 arrests who who stabbed the woman to death on the light rail car.

Here's the key part of her statement: quote: We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health.

Mental health disease is just that, a disease like any other that needs to be treated with the same compassion, diligence, and commitment as cancer or heart disease.

This mentality is the root of so many of our problems in our society.

It's that we don't talk about in our society.

We don't talk about sin,

evil, vice, bad choices.

All of that has been subsumed under the banner of mental health.

Every evil action is a symptom of a disease.

A guy randomly murdering an innocent woman on the train is merely showing signs of a medical illness.

Savage killers are morally indistinguishable from cancer patients.

That's explicitly what she's saying.

And the reason that black people are statistically overwhelmingly more likely to assault white people, apparently, apparently, is that there's some unknown pathogen lurking in the water supply.

I don't know.

Mental illness supposedly explains why this particular black man lied in wait for this woman to sit down in front of him for several minutes before ambushing her and then taking off his shirt and then fleeing with his knife, you know, dripping blood all over the train.

He can't simply be evil and unfit to live in civilization.

No, he's sick.

And maybe one day he'll magically get better,

even though he never will.

Call mental illness tell you what, this person will never be fit to live in civilized society.

Never, ever, ever, ever.

And again, we all know it.

Americans have been fed some variation of this excuse for many generations now, and the violence is only accelerating.

We're now at the point where, for some women, you're safer in a war zone in Ukraine than you are in a democrat-controlled urban environment with a large black population.

It's not bigotry.

It's not spin.

It's just a factual statement.

The execution of this Ukrainian woman is infinitely more horrifying and disturbing than the deaths of every BLM martyr combined, times a thousand.

Because she was not resisting arrest.

She was not high on lethal levels of fentanyl.

She wasn't charging at a police officer and trying to steal his firearm.

Instead, she was trying to go home after her shift at a pizza place.

Just like that Auburn professor was trying to walk her dog, and just like the Lyft driver was trying to make some money driving people around.

She was attempting to live a normal and productive life when she was slaughtered without any hesitation by someone who has never done anything productive and who has never been capable of doing anything productive in his entire life.

The video footage erases all doubt about this, and that's why they don't want you to see it.

You know, the media entertainment companies like Netflix, Democrats, and their aligned nonprofits and NGOs, all of them would prefer that you continue to live under the illusion that white people are tormenting black victims and making them feel chronically unsafe as they go about their day in a society that's systemically racist.

But the opposite is true.

And these criminals are more brazen and emboldened than they've ever been, precisely because they know that they won't face punishment for their crimes.

In fact, if anyone tries to stop them, They'll be the ones who are arrested, as we saw with Daniel Penny.

Last night, the president indicated to a reporter that he had just heard of the case and that some action would be forthcoming.

Presumably, that means the arrival of more troops and federal resources in places like Charlotte.

Optimistically, it could also mean the removal of judges who allow repeat offenders like the Carlos Brown Jr.

to avoid prison time as they rack up felonies.

If there's ever been grounds for impeachment, it's using your office to endanger the lives of millions of innocent victims.

The reality is that no one in this country can feel safe on public transportation or in public parks or in any other public space in any major American city.

This is as great a civil rights crisis as this country has ever faced.

You know, we're told that it's a civil right to ride the bus, to use public accommodations.

That's what the Rosa Parks story was all about.

And I agree, it is a civil right.

So what happens when normal, law-abiding people can't use these accommodations anymore because violent criminals might stab them in the neck?

Is that a civil rights issue?

Undoubtedly, it is.

But unlike the 1960s, mainstream news outlets aren't talking about it.

There are no marches or protests on behalf of women who are being slaughtered in lifts in parks on light rail cars and so on.

So maybe that's the first thing that needs to change.

If we could pass a series of laws in the 1960s that reoriented all of American life on the back of a massive social movement, then we could do the same thing today.

And before more people are slaughtered, that's exactly what needs to happen.

Now let's get to our five headlines.

We've all heard common myths like we only use 10% of our brains, but here's one that might surprise you.

Thread count is a huge myth that many people believe when shopping for sheets.

Thread count is simply a measure of fabric density.

It isn't actually a good indicator of quality.

If you want truly great sheets, you need to look at thread quality, not count.

And that is why Bowl and Branch focuses on using the highest quality organic cotton threads, creating long-lasting sheets that actually get softer over time rather than relying on inflated thread count numbers to impress customers.

Bowl and branch's sheets are crafted from the finest, 100% organic cotton in a soft, breathable, and durable weave that delivers quality you can feel from the moment you touch them.

What makes them even more special is that they become softer with every wash, improving over time rather than wearing down.

And one of the other things I love about Bowling Branch sheets is that they're very cool.

They keep you very cool.

And I personally,

I have a rule that if I'm sleeping, the room has to be 60 degrees.

It has to be refrigerator temperature at a minimum.

And that's why I love the sheets because they also keep you cool.

With their 30-night worry-free guarantee, you can experience this exceptional comfort risk-free, ensuring you'll love how these premium sheets transform your sleep experience.

Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Bowl and Branch.

Get 15% off plus-free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlandbranch.com slash walsh.

That's bowl and branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D Branch.com slash walsh to save 15% and unlock free shipping.

Exclusions apply.

If your idea of gut health is eating a handful of tums after every meal and hoping for the best, well, it's time to level up.

Enter Peaks Puer Tea.

Yes, it's fermented tea.

No, it does not taste like compost.

I was skeptical too, but here's the thing.

It actually works.

I recently tried the black Puer.

No jitters, no crash, just clean, calm energy that doesn't make you feel like you're on a caffeine bender.

And after meals, their green Pu'er helps you digest without feeling like you swallowed a brick.

Imagine that.

It's really great.

Puer is fermented,

which means it's packed with probiotics, prebiotics, and all the things your gut needs,

but your current lifestyle is probably ignoring.

Real clinical backing, real antioxidants.

This isn't some powdered gimmick from your local wellness cafe.

This is the stuff top doctors like Dr.

Mark Hyman actually recommend.

Also worth noting is that

this is high quality tea, wild harvested from 250-year-old trees.

Zero pesticides, no additives, no steeping required.

It dissolves in water, and that is efficiency.

And I like efficiency.

Now, here's the deal.

If you go to peaklife.com slash walsh, you get 20% off for life.

Not one order, for life.

Plus, they'll throw in a free frother and a glass beaker with their Pooh Air bundle.

And if somehow this isn't the tea revelation I just said it was, well, they offer a 90-day money-back guarantee.

So literally zero risk.

Again, that's peaklife.com/slash Walsh.

Go there now.

Your gut will thank you.

Okay, just a couple of headlines today as we went kind of along on the opening monologue there, but just

I have a lot to say, as you can tell, about this

issue, which is not one issue, but multiple issues all tied together.

So a couple of headlines here.

A report from the New York Post about a perhaps surprising policy that the Trump administration is considering.

And

if I can pull it up.

Here it is.

New York Post, the Justice Department is discussing proposals to potentially block transgender Americans from buying firearms.

Sources told the Post.

In the wake of the deadly Minneapolis Catholic Church shooting conducted by Robin Westman, who identifies as a quote-unquote trans woman, DOJ officials are mulling the options the Trump administration could take to restrict the Second Amendment rights of some Americans, according to sources familiar with the talks.

Some DOJ members believe the move could be approved as a follow-up on Trump's executive order barring military service by transgender people.

Lots of other people disagree, however, as you can imagine.

So, but that's the proposal that they are reportedly considering.

You know, I have two minds about this issue.

I'm kind of dysphoric, you might say.

I have issue dysphoria about this.

On the one hand,

I support the policy, the suggested policy, or I should say I support it in theory

because gun rights are not absolute.

I mean, that's the first thing.

I know gun rights people, and I'm a gun rights person.

I have multiple guns.

I'm a big Second Amendment supporter.

But, you know, gun rights supporters can sometimes talk about gun rights as if they are absolute.

Right?

As if like anyone has a right to own any gun they want, period, end of discussion.

But that obviously, and that's not, you know,

that's obviously not what everyone thinks, but that's the way it's talked about sometimes.

But that's obviously not the case.

You know, no rights are absolute.

The right to life is not absolute.

You could be executed, as we just talked about.

You could be legally shot if you break into somebody's house, unless you do it in California or a place like that.

But still, rights are not absolute.

There are scenarios where you can lose certain rights, up to and including, again, the right to life.

And there are obviously scenarios where a person should lose their gun rights.

A convicted murderer should not be allowed to legally purchase a firearm.

Now, granted, in my opinion, a convicted murderer should not be out of prison in the first place, but we do let murderers out of prison all the time, unfortunately.

And no, I don't think they should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun.

You know, well, it's like this should really be a one-strike and you're out type of deal.

I mean, you use a gun to kill somebody, to murder somebody,

then you shouldn't be allowed to get a second gun after that.

Or if you use any other weapon to kill someone, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

I also don't think that we should be selling guns to delusional schizophrenics.

I mean, if I walk into a gun shop and I'm talking to myself and acting erratic, and then I announce that I am Genghis Khan and I need to purchase firearms because I'm raising an army in Central Asia to go invade China and bring down the Jin dynasty or whatever,

then no, I don't think they should actually sell me the gun.

I don't think the guy behind the counter should say, well, okay, Mr.

Khan, go right this way.

And I think that that should all be pretty obvious.

If you murder someone, then you lose your gun right permanently.

If you're a delusional schizophrenic, if you're actively in the middle of a psychotic break, then you should not be able to buy a gun.

I mean, that's,

I think, a pretty reasonable position.

Now, what about trans-identified people?

Well, these are people who are deeply disconnected from reality.

They are profoundly confused about the basic nature of reality and of themselves.

They belong to a demographic with an astronomical suicide rate.

They are much, much, much more likely to exhibit self-destructive behavior than anyone else by a mile, not even close.

And by the way, the trans activists are the ones who will tell you this.

They're the ones who will go around saying that trans people have a suicide rate that's like 40%,

or at least the rate of suicide attempts among trans-identified people is 40%.

And let's take them at their word on that.

That is,

I mean, so we have someone who belongs to a group with a suicide attempt rate of 40%.

In fact, there was a study in 2015 that found that 80%,

80% of trans-identified people reported having at least seriously considered suicide at one point.

80%.

And these are people who, again, are deeply disconnected from reality.

So

should we be giving firearms to these people?

It seems very obvious that we shouldn't.

Not even a close call, really.

Someone who's extremely confused, disconnected from reality, high, high, high propensity for self-destructive behavior.

Should they be allowed to legally purchase a firearm?

I think, again, no.

I mean, I think there are a lot of reasons, and I just outlined them, why we could say no to that.

Now, on the other hand, of course, the concern is that we'd be setting a dangerous precedent by revoking Second Amendment rights based on mental health concerns.

You know, what is the limiting principle here?

Is there a limiting principle?

What happens when that power is abused in order to take gun rights away from law-abiding conservatives and all that?

Wouldn't we be giving them the rope to hang us with, metaphorically speaking?

That's the counter argument.

And I understand that.

I mean, it's a reasonable

position, but ultimately I'm not persuaded by it because I think that this fear about having our own policies flipped against us has prevented conservatives from actually enacting any conservative policies for generations now.

We are so worried about this.

We're so worried about, you know, setting the precedent.

We're so worried about being hoisted with our own petard

that we don't have any petards to begin with.

I don't even know what a petard is, but you get my point.

We're so worried about establishing a problematic precedent that we just don't do anything.

We don't establish any precedents at all because we don't want it to be used against us.

So on any specific individual basis, this kind of concern seems reasonable.

You could always come along and say, yeah, but if you do this, then the left could do that.

And again, again, looking at it in a vacuum

on a case-by-case basis, yeah, that's a reasonable point.

But taken together, this becomes an argument for paralysis, an argument for being weak and ineffectual and impotent and just not doing anything.

Because here's the fact of the matter.

The left has been trying to take our guns away for decades, mostly unsuccessfully, but they've wanted to do that for decades.

They've been trying for decades.

They don't need any precedent or permission from us to do it.

Nothing we do will make them more or less likely to continue their campaign to take our Second Amendment rights away.

And even if I'm wrong about that, it doesn't matter because when you have the power, you have to use it.

You have to govern.

And

you have to just do the right thing.

Govern according to your principles.

And

some of these concerns, well, whoa, how will the left respond to that?

Well, you deal with that when it happens.

You know, that is a cross-the-bridge when you come to it kind of thing, as far as I'm concerned.

All right, rebrands have been in the news lately.

And of course, we all remember the great Cracker Barrel rebrand of 2025, which lasted about 45 minutes or so before they started backtracking.

And as we talked about at the time, Cracker Barrel is not alone.

Many companies have rebranded in the same same way, and it's always the same kind of thing where they go from

a very distinct look, very distinct feel and aesthetic to something generic and soulless.

And that's always the rebrand strategy, right?

As it turns out, it's not just companies that do this.

Cities are getting in on the action too.

The city of Austin is doing a big rebrand and they've decided to

get rid of the city seal and the logo that's been their official brand for, although they wouldn't have called it a brand, you know,

100 years ago.

But for 100 years now, they've had this city seal, this city logo.

And reading now from the statesman, it says, amid a swarm of online criticism, city officials unveiled a new logo this week as part of a broader strategic modernization effort meant to help residents more easily identify city workers' facilities and services.

City manager T.C.

Brodnack said in a statement, we want our community members to be able to identify members of our team as city of Austin employees and trust the services we provide.

Whether they see the brand on a website, a utility bill, a street sign, or the site of a vehicle, they'll know exactly who it's from and what it stands for.

The new logo will replace the city seal currently displayed on trucks, uniforms, and other property.

Designed in 1916 by a San Francisco Illustrator for a flag design contest, the seal is not a brand and does not promote the city's distinctive values and mission.

The city said in a news release.

So they are,

and then the article goes on, people are very upset about this.

People don't like it.

But they're getting rid of the old logo because it's not a brand.

And they want a brand, is what they're saying.

Well, let's take a look at the new logo.

Here it is.

You can see it there on the screen.

It's a kind of a squiggly A.

That's the logo.

And

people don't like it, and you can see why.

And before we comment on this or give it a review, let's first compare it to the old city seal.

This is the one they're getting rid of.

They've had it since 1916, and you could see it there.

And the old logo is great.

It's regal, it's historic, it feels imposing, it feels proud, it feels stately, it feels impressive.

You see that logo, and you think, you know, you want to visit that place.

It's like something you see on a flag if you went to a jousting match in medieval Europe.

That's like something that'd be waving waving outside of an enormous stone fortress.

You know, it's great.

Then you see the new logo,

and that looks like a logo you'd see on packaging behind the pharmacy counter at Rite Aid.

Okay, looks like a brand of

Alzheimer's medication.

And

just so you kind of see it in its natural environment, here's the city manager unveiling the new logo very proudly and wearing it on his chest.

Watch.

The city will be getting a new look.

For the first time in Austin's history,

we will have a logo to represent the city's services and unify us as one organization, one Austin.

We will go from this

to this.

While this effort began before I arrived as city manager, it is a project I was glad to champion.

We will go from this to this,

he says.

We'll go from this awesome thing to this absolute bullcrap.

And you can see the logo on his shirt there.

And

I mean,

he really looks like he works at a bank or something.

He looks like he works at something called Austin Financial.

He looks like he's about to give your teenager a student loan with a 12% interest rate.

It really is awful.

And it's even worse when I tell you that this rebrand took them seven years.

Seven years and more than a million dollars.

Seven years and a million dollars for a logo that looks like ChatGPT generated it.

It looks like if you went to ChatGPT and asked it to generate a logo for an autism awareness nonprofit, that's what it would give you.

So it's really terrible stuff.

But hey, at least it's modern, right?

And modern is very important.

I mean, you wouldn't want a logo that has

history.

You know, you don't want history.

That's yucky.

That's ew.

Who wants history?

The old logo was based on the family crest of a Stephen F.

Austin, who's the father of Texas.

But, you know, he lived a really long time ago, and plus he was white.

So we got to do away with that, of course.

Go from something

with history and meaning to something that means absolutely nothing at all.

And that kind of tells you, that kind of tells you where we are culturally, that

the word modern almost always is a stand-in for meaningless.

To make something modern is to make it meaningless.

Anytime you hear that they've taken something, whether it's a logo or

a film franchise, anything at all, and they've taken it and they've modernized it, it means that

they have taken all of the meaning out of it.

They've also taken the beauty and the aesthetic appeal, but all that is wrapped up in meaning.

They've taken the meaning out of it and replaced it with nothing.

That's what it always means.

All right, I said two headlines, but maybe we'll do one other quick one.

This is the big report from Politico.

Here's the headline on X.

Trump, the fertilization president, has yet to deliver the babies that conservatives want.

Yes, Trump has not delivered the babies.

That's the criticism.

Now, of course, if Trump is supposed to be delivering babies, or I assume that they don't expect him to physically be the one delivering the babies.

But if Trump is supposed to be causing people to have babies somehow, you do have the technical problem that Trump's been in office for, what, eight months?

But babies take nine months to gestate.

So Trump is supposed to be generating babies out of the ether, apparently.

I don't know.

He's supposed to be mass manufacturing babies on an assembly line or something.

I'm not sure.

But I want to read a little bit of this very bizarre hit piece

because there's one point I want to make about it.

It says, Donald Trump this spring dubbed himself the fertilization president, but some conservative family policy advocates say he's done little so far to publicly back that up and are pushing to get the White House in the remaining months of the year to prioritize family policy and help Americans make more babies.

A top priority is a pro-natalist or family policy summit that spotlights the U.S.'s declining fertility rate.

Other asks, which typically run through the White House's domestic policy council, include loosening regulations on daycares and child car seats, further increasing the child tax credit and requiring insurers to cover birth, as well as pre- and post-natal care at no out-of-pocket cost.

Now,

the article goes on, and

we could keep talking about that.

The claim is that Trump hasn't done enough to promote family and fertility.

And you could decide if that's a fair criticism or not.

But here's the point I want to make.

Just imagine for a second that you woke up from a coma and you had no idea who the president was or what party he belonged to or anything like that.

But I read this political article to you without saying the names or the parties.

And you have no idea who the president is, but I read this to you.

I read, Some family policy advocates say the president has done little so far to publicly back up his pledge to promote fertility and are pushing to get the White House in the the remaining months of the year to prioritize family policy and help Americans make more babies.

A top priority is a pro-natalist or family policy summit that spotlights the U.S.'s declining fertility rate.

Now, if I read that to you,

you would immediately know that this is about conservatives and a Republican president.

Family policy advocates, family policy summit, pro-family, pro-natalist.

The fact that the president is being criticized by his base for not doing enough to promote families and promote fertility automatically means that you're talking about a Republican.

You're talking about conservatives.

All of this is conservative-coded.

And I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

This is not some big, bold assertion.

You hear me say this, you go, well, yeah, of course, obviously.

That's exactly my point.

I mean,

just think about it.

Really reflect on this.

Reflect on the fact that pro-natalist,

that is, being in favor of fertility,

in favor of human reproduction,

this is a position with a label now, pro-natalist.

Think about the fact that this is a political position,

which is unique to one side of the aisle.

Which really tells you what you need to know about the culture.

That only one side even pretends to want people to have children and create families.

Promoting the continued existence of human civilization is a conservative thing.

The question of whether or not the human species should exist is, in our culture, a hotly debated political topic.

So if you want to know why political debates seem so fruitless, if you want to know why we can't come to an understanding, why we can't find a compromise, well, it's because of this.

It's because this is what we're debating.

When you get

down to the brass tacks,

this is who we're debating.

People who are actively against family, who are against fertility,

which is like debating, I mean, if you're debating someone who is,

you know, anti-breathing, anti-drinking water,

what is there to debate?

That's not an argument you can even have.

I'm not interested in sitting down and having a conversation and understanding the position of someone who is avowedly opposed to the family.

Like, that's not the kind of thing where they can say something and I'll go, oh, okay, wow, that's a good point.

I hadn't thought of that.

Oh, yeah, yeah, maybe the human race should embrace extinction.

Very interesting.

Yeah, you know, maybe we don't need families, the bedrock of human civilization.

Maybe we don't need it.

You're right.

Like,

it's impossible that they could say anything that would

that would elicit that reaction

So there isn't anything to talk about

You know when you're talking to anti-human anti-family nihilists

There's really not anything to discuss We are so far apart.

We're living in different universes and And there's nothing more to talk about

When you're on the pro-natalist side and on the other side you have the antinatalists

What are you debating?

Should babies be born or not

is not the kind of thing that you can have a productive dialogue about.

And yet, this is the kind of, this is what we're down to.

This is really what we're debating.

Finding the right hire can drag on for months.

You're either waiting for decent candidates to apply, drowning in resumes that don't fit, or chasing down people who aren't even looking for jobs.

What should be straightforward turns into a frustrating cycle of waiting and sorting.

Well, the future of hiring looks much brighter.

That's the good news because ZipRecruiter's latest tools and features help speed up finding the right people for your roles so you save valuable time.

And now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash walsh.

ZipRecruiter has really streamlined the hiring process with their latest features.

You can now quickly identify and reach out to qualified candidates in just a few minutes, which is a game changer when you're trying to fill positions fast.

When you spot someone who looks like a great fit, you can get their contact details right away instead of waiting around.

With over 320,000 fresh resumes being added every month, there's always a growing pool of talent to tap into.

So you're more likely to find the right person and get that role filled very quickly.

It's no surprise that they've earned the top spot as the number one rated hiring site on G2.

Use ZipRecruiter and save time hiring four to five employers who post as ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

And if you go to ziprecruiter.com slash walsh right now, you can try it for free.

Again, that's ziprecruiter.com/slash walsh.

ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.

Tires matter.

They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road.

Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack.

Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy.

Fast, free shipping, free road hazard protection, convenient installation options, and the best selection of BF Goodrich tires.

Go to tire rack.com to see their BF Goodrich test results, tire ratings, and reviews.

And be sure to check out all the special offers.

TireRack.com, the way tire buying should be.

Today's a big day big day at the Daily Wire.

Many of you already know Isabel Brown and soon the entire world will as well.

The Gen Z conservative voice America has been waiting for.

The Isabel Brown show premieres today on Daily Wire Plus.

But that's just the start of a huge week at the Daily Wire because Wednesday, for the first time in months, all of us are getting back together to celebrate a decade of the Daily Wire by debuting our new flagship show, Friendly Fire.

We'll be debating, disagreeing, discussing all the news, making headlines right now.

Spoiler, we all have our own opinions.

And Wednesday night, you'll hear every single one of them collide.

The first episode is a celebration of our first decade.

We'll have major announcements, some you've been waiting for, and some will be complete surprises.

Don't miss a moment.

Join now at dailywire.com.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

For the daily cancellation, we have the highly viral and already beaten-to-death story from the Philadelphia Phillies game on Friday night.

This is a game that was never remotely interesting.

The Phillies beat the Marlins by six runs, which is about what you'd expect to happen if you follow baseball, which I don't.

But just like that infamous Cold Play concert, people aren't focused on the product and how mediocre this particular game was.

Instead, everyone's talking about the people in the stands.

So, you know, that's good news for Major League Baseball, at least, I guess.

Now, in case you somehow haven't seen the footage from the Phillies game that has gone massively viral, put it up on the screen.

There's no audio here, so I guess I'll narrate the events that unfolded as enthusiastically as I can.

So there's a home run ball.

It bounces around in the stands for a bit, and a few people are trying to grab it.

And then a man runs in, takes the ball as it's lying in the aisle, and then runs it back to his son, and he places the ball in his son's mitt, apparently as an early birthday present.

But it doesn't last there for very long.

A woman runs in, barks at the man, looks very alarmed and frankly terrified.

And he quickly takes the ball out of his son's mitt and then hands it back to the woman with an effeminate hand gesture telling her to, you know, be gone.

And the the child looks perplexed and frustrated, understandably.

Now, and that's the video.

And this incident follows similar drama at the U.S.

Open, where an adult apparently took a tennis player's hat from a child, from a boy, leading half the internet to dox the man and threaten to murder his entire family,

you know, which is obviously a proportionate response.

You take a hat and

you should be villainized across the globe and have to move.

You should have to move to a new home because you took a hat.

In the case of the Phillies game, as you can imagine, the same script played out.

The woman became the villain.

Mobs of online vigilantes doxed her

or tried to anyway.

At least they doxed someone who looked like her.

They reportedly identified the wrong person, though.

Just like Reddit falsely identified the Boston Marathon bombers, the internet of 2025 went all in on some random lady in Boston.

According to the New York Post, Cheryl Richardson Wagner has been roasted online as the heartless Phillies fan caught on viral video throwing a stadium-sized tantrum at Lone Depot Park in Miami, bullying dad Drew Falwell into turning over a home run ball that he gave to his young son, whose name is Lincoln.

However, the crazed woman falsely claimed the ball

hit by Westchester County native Harrison Bader, was rightfully hers, earning widespread condemnation online over the past two days.

Footage even showed her flipping the bird to fans who booed her at the game.

But the woman's identity remains a mystery, and Richardson Wagner said it's definitely not her.

Okay, everyone, Cheryl Richardson and Wagner posted on Facebook on Saturday.

I'm not the crazy Philly mom, but I sure would love to be as thin as she is and move as fast.

And I'm a Red Sox fan.

Close quote.

The detail about the woman flipping off the crowd is admittedly entertaining.

So she didn't just take the ball from the kid.

Apparently, she also told everyone to go F themselves.

It's enough to make you wonder if this woman in the New York Post story is lying about her identity.

After all, she has every incentive to deny being the woman in the video.

Plus adding in the little, you know, humble brag detail about, I don't know who that woman is, but men, she's really thin.

I don't know who that thin, beautiful woman is.

It's definitely not me.

But no, according to the New York Post, they are definitely two completely different people.

The school district, which employs the woman who was falsely identified online as a culprit, has confirmed it.

Safe to say this is not the person.

In any event, whatever her actual name is, the woman is predictably being called a Karen because she's white and racial slurs are fine to use against white people.

And meanwhile, MLB has sprung into action.

They gave the kid a gift basket, had him meet the Phillies team, and he got a signed bat and a bunch of other swag and stuff.

It's a story that pretty much is custom-made for shows like Good Morning America as viewers weigh in on whether the man should have taken the ball or not, even though obviously he had every right to take it since it was in the aisle.

That's the way these things work.

But contrary to what the 10,000 outlets covering the story would have you believe, this whole ordeal isn't actually a completely meaningless event.

Now, to be clear, it is a completely meaningless event by itself.

It's about as interesting as the hat theft at the U.S.

Open or the two executives at the Cold Play concert.

Now, I don't think the lady should have taken the ball.

Okay, just to be clear, I'm not defending the lady,

but this is not a national emergency, okay?

I mean, at this point, we're treating the boy like he just lost his entire family in a fire.

Yesterday, Marcus Lamonas said that he was going to give the kid World Series tickets and a free RV for his family.

Okay, so he meets the team, he gets the ball, he's getting interviewed, he gets World Series tickets, he gets a free, he gets an RV.

I mean, it's a little much at this point.

Next thing

we know, we're going to have like the flags at half mast.

There's going to be a period of national mourning over the lost baseball.

And again, I'm on the kid's side.

It's just like, calm down, everybody, a little bit.

Okay.

It's not that big of a deal.

It's bad.

It's not that big of a deal.

It's not the worst thing that's ever happened.

Now, all that said, if you look deeper, there is something meaningful in this story.

If you think back to the topic that we discussed at the beginning of the show about the Ukrainian woman who was killed on the light rail car, there's actually a connection that's worth thinking about.

In order to understand the connection, you have to...

look beyond the consequences of these respective events, which obviously could not be any more dramatically

distinct.

And instead, you have to think about broader social attitudes and how they're reflected in day-to-day behavior.

And once you do that, you realize that in a very striking way, it's actually fitting that these two stories are going viral at the precisely the same time.

Now, think of it this way.

We all know why that killer was allowed out on the street instead of being locked away for the rest of his life after committing 14 separate crimes.

It's because our criminal justice system is run by and tailored to the sensitivities of

women like the one who stole the baseball from the kid at the Phillies game.

Now, I'm not saying this woman herself is in the criminal justice.

I don't know who she is or what she does, but it's these kinds of women.

These women feel immense compassion for the animal on the light rail car on the right-hand side of your screen.

Every poll shows it.

Women, especially on the left, overwhelmingly favor so-called restorative justice and open borders and all that.

But in many cases, these women are themselves deeply cruel and callous people,

like we talked about in the open.

And you saw that on display in this Phillies cam.

Their sympathies are limited to the most destructive, dangerous, and also non-white savages in the country.

And they extend no further than that.

Put another way, it's not that our criminal justice system has been feminized exactly, as you hear people say sometimes.

It's that it has been feministized, if that's a word, which it isn't, but I just made it up.

If we're being honest, it's also fitting that the mayor of Charlotte literally looks like a black version of the Phillies woman.

I mean, you can see her right there.

It's like she gets the

Tropic Thunder treatment.

Put some glasses on the mayor, subtract maybe 50 pounds, and it's reasonable to ask the mayor where exactly she was on Friday night during that game.

As we see in so many cases, physical appearance is often a window into beliefs and behaviors and attitudes, and that's certainly the case here.

It's like they both came off the same assembly line.

The other aspect of this story that's not being covered, at least not nearly to the extent that it should be, is that the father, to my mind, is clearly the biggest villain in this story.

And it's amazing to me how many people are defending him.

He took the ball.

The woman did not take the ball.

Okay, she demanded it.

She didn't take the ball out of the kid's glove.

The father took the ball out of his own son's hands.

and gave it to this screaming harpy.

I mean, it is an act of submission made out of fear.

And his kids will never forget it, I'll tell you that, nor should they.

You can tell if you watch any of the post-incident interviews with the father and his children, you can tell that they've lost all respect for him.

Watch.

I wasn't very happy that we had to give it to her, but

we can't win.

She was gonna get it anyways.

Sure.

She wasn't gonna take it, but

I decided to give her the ball.

I apologize to you, but

it was the right thing.

We just wanted her to go away.

Yeah.

And it worked out.

You got a bat.

Yeah.

Pretty cool.

She was

very, very, very close.

And I'm, you know, I'm dad of the family, so I didn't want to

do something I'd regret.

And that was the choice I made is to just hand the ball back and tell her, go away.

So his son can barely muster any kind of enthusiasm whatsoever as his father seeks assurances that he made the right decision.

And then his daughter gives him, you know, side-eye as he repeats the same effeminate hand gesture that he performed during the game.

And then he emphasizes that he doesn't have any regrets, even though he clearly should.

When your own children are obviously humiliated by your cowardice, which was also broadcast to millions of people, you should absolutely feel regret and shame.

Now, this is not to make too much of a minor kerfuffle at a baseball game, but I don't think it's overstating the case to say that our culture is in the shape it's in because men like this father constantly, in virtually every case,

surrender to shrill harpies like that woman.

Women like that can successfully browbeat many men without much effort, and they know it.

This incident was modern American culture in microcosm.

A shrieking, angry, short-haired, middle-aged woman browbeat a cowering, frightened, pathetic man into submission.

And then, confronted with the consequences of his cowardice, the man insists that he couldn't have done anything differently.

But the thing is, of course, things could have gone very differently at that game.

And they could go very differently in this country, too.

At least if men stop behaving like this Doric at the Phillies game.

And this is why the woman who stole the baseball and also the father who allowed her to steal it are both today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.

Godspeed.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, the media ignore the stabbing of a Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina, and the reason is perfectly predictable.

After the president authorizes the destruction of a boat carrying Venezuelan drug traffickers, Democrats, and a few Republicans, don't sackcloth and ashes.

And Chicago remains on edge as Trump prepares for a federal intervention.

All that on today's Ben Shapiro Show, give it a listen.