Ep. 1665 - Everyone Needs To See This Viral Testimony From This Grieving Father

This podcast is brought to you by Carvana.

Carvana makes car selling fast and easy from start to finish.

Enter your license plate or VIN and get a real offer in seconds, down to the penny.

If you accept, Carvana will come pick up your car from your driveway, or you can drop it off at one of our car vending machines.

Either way, you get paid instantly.

It's fast, transparent, and 100% online.

Car selling that saves your time.

That's Carvana.

Carvana.

Pickup fees may apply.

If you're into wine and wildlife, this is your invitation to Adelaide, Australia.

Swim with seals at sunrise, sip Shiraz at sunset, and in between, whoa, a koala.

Wait, how many wine regions?

18?

Is that a wallaby or a baby kangaroo?

Of course, I'd love to try wine from some of the oldest vines on the planet.

Come sip and see all South Australia has to offer on United, the only airline to fly non-stop from the U.S.

to Adelaide.

Netflix has a new, monstrous story to tell.

In 1950s, Wisconsin, Ed Geen lived quietly on a decaying farm, hiding a house of horrors so gruesome it would redefine the American nightmare.

Driven by isolation, psychosis, and an all-consuming obsession with his mother, he committed crimes that would haunt Hollywood for decades.

The third and most harrowing installment of Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan's anthology series.

Watch Monster, the Ed Gein story, streaming now only on Netflix.

Today, the Matt Wall Show, a powerful video goes viral of a father angrily calling out the lawmakers whose soft on crime policies led to his daughter's murder.

You don't want to miss this video.

Very powerful.

Also, Pete Hexeth unveils the new standards for combat troops.

It will finally be one high standard for everybody.

Plus, an unintentionally hilarious new statue of Tina Turner is getting a lot of attention for all the wrong reasons.

And the NFL gives the Super Bowl halftime show to a far-left Hispanic pop star who was boycotting the United States to protest ICE.

Great choice there.

We'll talk about all that and more today at Matt Wall Show.

Our society works because of the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Americans should be able to speak openly about family and traditional values without retribution.

And that's a principle that PureTalk proudly supports.

They sponsor my show, which allows me to stand strong behind the microphone every day and share the truth with you.

Support the brands that defend freedom and pro-American values.

I encourage you to switch your wireless service to PureTalk.

You're going to get great 5G coverage on an extremely reliable and secure network.

It's important to support companies that support you and your values, especially now.

And PureTalk does just that.

And that's one of the many reasons why I love Pure Talk.

For just $35 a month, you'll get a plan with a ton of data.

You'll also get a free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus.

That's how that's how much Pure Talk believes in what we do with the Daily Wire.

They also believe in creating American jobs and supporting small businesses.

So

if you're a small business owner, you can save even more while enjoying white glove service.

Go to puretalk.com/slash Walsh, switch to PureTalk with a qualifying plan of $35 and get a free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus.

That's puretalk.com slash walls for a wireless company that's not afraid to share your values.

You know that saying, look good, feel good?

Well, most dress clothes only deliver at best on half of that.

They look sharp, but they're uncomfortable and a pain to maintain.

That's exactly why I love Mizen and Maine.

These guys pioneered the performance dress shirt concept over a decade ago, and they've perfected it since.

What I love is that their stuff looks incredibly sharp and refined, exactly what you want for elevated menswear, but it's engineered with performance features in mind.

Stretchy, lightweight, moisture-wicking, wrinkle-resistant fabrics that you can literally throw in the washing machine.

No more dry cleaner trips or ironing.

My order of shirts and pants for Mizzen and Maine is currently on its way to me, and I'm really excited to try it all out.

I'm especially excited about the

part where you can just throw it in the washer and take it out, and you don't look like a homeless person when you wear it.

Right now, Mizen and Maine is offering our listeners 20% off your first purchase at mizzenandmaine.com promo code Walsh20.

That's Mizen spelled M-I-Z-Z-E-N and Maine, M-A-I-N.com promo code Walsh20 for 20% off mizenandmaine.com promo code walsh20.

If you'd rather shop in person, you can find Mizen and Maine stores in select states.

In the early morning hours of May 3rd, a 30-year-old man named Alexander Devontae Dickey parked a stolen vehicle on the side of the road in Cypress Street in Columbia, South Carolina.

He then broke into a home and stole several items, including a firearm, car keys, and a wallet.

Dickey then entered the unlocked door of another nearby home where he encountered a 22-year-old aspiring teacher from North Carolina named Logan Federico, who was in town visiting friends.

After dragging Federico out of bed, Dickey pressed his firearm up to a ribcage and shot her.

and killed her.

He also stole several items from the home, including credit cards.

Authorities didn't respond to the home until nearly noon the next day when Federico's body was discovered.

And by that point, Dickie had used his stolen credit cards to purchase numerous items in West Columbia.

He also stole another vehicle, committed arson, and

committed other crimes as well.

Watch.

22-year-old Logan Federico was randomly shot and killed during an alleged home invasion near the University of South Carolina.

Police say Logan had just returned to the house where she was staying when she came face to face with an intruder.

Columbia police believe she was one of at least 10 victims targeted by the same man, a suspect accused of breaking into homes, stealing cars, using stolen credit cards, and eventually setting a house on fire.

Now, friends and family are left mourning a young woman whose life was cut short.

Now, the media describes this murder as, quote, random.

But of course, there was nothing random about it.

For one thing, interracial homicides like this are overwhelmingly committed by black criminals against white victims.

And of course, this murder was the predictable and intended result of a judicial system that exists not to punish violent felons, but to unleash them on unsuspecting, law-abiding Americans.

Now, take a look at the mugshots that Alexander Devontae Dickey managed to assemble in just 30 years on this earth.

You can see it here.

The local news station, WAS News 10, took a close look at Dickey's rap sheet, and here's what they found.

Quote, in total, Dickey faced nearly 40 charges within the past decade, with many of the counts ultimately dismissed.

While the criminal pattern dates back to 2013, his first conviction came the following year.

He was only sentenced in eight cases that involved charges such as robbery, drug possession, and larceny.

In 2023, records show Dickey pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary.

While he was sentenced to five years, he was given credit for over 410 days already served.

Dickey was also placed on probation, which was sent to end next month, but it was shortened for compliance.

Now, in one of his first run-ins with the law back in 2014, Dickey was arrested for repeatedly breaking into parked cars as well as driving a stolen car.

And then over the next decade, he would repeatedly commit similar crimes without spending any significant period in prison.

The article goes on to explain that for some reason, Prosecutors claim that they weren't aware of Dickey's rap sheet when they prosecuted him in 2023.

They suggest that there was a paperwork error with his fingerprints that prevented them from accessing information about his prior crimes.

But even if that's true, and it probably isn't, it doesn't matter.

He clearly should have been imprisoned for life many times over.

The very first time somebody robs several cars and then steals one, he forfeits his freedom.

Believe it or not, that law is already on the books in South Carolina.

The max penalty for two counts of first-degree burglary is life imprisonment.

That's already on the books.

Quoting directly from South Carolina's penal code:

burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment.

The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than 15 years.

Well, that sentence should have been handed down immediately.

Normal, functioning members of society do not commit these crimes.

You cannot rehabilitate the people who do.

Okay, rehabilitation is basically a myth, the way that we think of it.

The way that we think of it, we could take these totally dysfunctional criminals and rehabilitate them and turn them into functioning members of society.

It almost never happens.

Okay, it's mythological.

It's like talking about Bigfoot.

And even if you can theoretically rehabilitate them,

it's not worth the risk to the general public.

Now, critics will object and they'll say, well, are we really going to just, well, what are we going to do?

Give up on people like this?

Yeah,

we should.

We should give up on them.

Alexander Dickey, okay, society should have given up on him a long time ago.

Once you have demonstrated that you have no interest in being a part of civilized society, we should give up on you.

You can spend the rest of your life locked in a cage like an animal because that's how you want to act.

It's not our responsibility to help you or give you another chance

or try to domesticate you like some kind of feral cat.

We're done with you.

Goodbye forever.

That should be the approach.

And if it was the approach, This criminal never would have had the opportunity to murder this young woman.

The time for discretion in these kinds of cases is over.

Any judge who abuses this discretion to release violent criminals like this should be held liable for the murders that inevitably result.

Until now, there really hasn't been much popular support for a change like this.

That's because Logan Federico's murder, as utterly horrifying as it is, is similar to murders that occur every day in this country.

Now, what makes the killing of Logan Federico different from a practical perspective is that, really for the first time in memory, the family of the victim is not resorting to leftist platitudes in response.

They're not urging everyone to come together or preaching about unity and all that sort of thing.

We saw something like that after the killing of Austin Metcalfe, as thousands of leftists, primarily black leftists, danced on Austin Metcalfe's grave.

The father insisted that it wasn't a racial issue and he was being forgiving and, you know, this is just a poor decision that a kid made and all that sort of thing.

Now, I'm not disparaging the father in that case.

It's impossible to imagine being in his position.

But the point is that his response, if adopted on a societal and systemic level,

is how you get a lot more violence.

Well, that's not happening this time.

Instead, the family of Logan Federico, particularly her father, Stephen,

is pledging to devote the rest of his life to changing the laws that allowed Alexander Devontae Dickey to murder his daughter.

He's not letting the left-wing narrative take hold, even for a moment.

And he's a big part of the reason why the other day, lawmakers in Charlotte, North Carolina met for a hearing on violent crime.

And here's what Stephen Federico had to say.

This clip is going viral for very good reason.

Very powerful address from Stephen.

Listen.

Here's what I need you to do.

When I tell you this story, think about your kids.

Think about your child coming home from a night out with her friends, laying down, going to sleep,

feeling somebody come in the room and wake them

and drag her out of bed, naked,

forced on her knees with her hands over her head,

begging for her life,

begging for her hero, hero, her father, me,

that couldn't be there.

She was five foot three, she weighed 115 pounds.

Bang!

Dead.

Gone.

Why?

Because Alexander Devontae Dickey, who was arrested 39 goddamn times,

25 felonies,

was on the street.

How about that?

How good are we doing for our family?

He should have been in jail for over 140 years for all the crimes he committed.

You know how much time he spent in prison?

A little over 600 days in 10 years.

He's only 30 years old.

He was committing 2.65 crimes a year

since he was 15 years old.

But nobody could figure out that he couldn't be rehabilitated.

Well, you'd have to put him in prison.

My daughter laid on the floor for seven hours before somebody in that house recognized that something was wrong.

And that career criminal, an hour later, went on a spending spree with her debit card.

When they saw his face on a video, they didn't have to do a check.

He was arrested so many times they knew who he was.

They knew exactly where to go get him.

Pathetic.

Absolutely pathetic that I'm here today.

Now, what you're seeing there is somewhat unfamiliar these days.

That is righteous anger.

And it's exactly what we need to see.

He is enraged.

He's enraged because he feels like the system essentially chose the violent thug who murdered his daughter over his daughter.

He feels like the system had a choice between being merciful to

this scumbag or to protecting his daughter, and they chose the scumbag,

swapping one for the other.

That's how he feels.

And he's right.

That's exactly what happened.

Now, you'll see a lot of theories online about why when someone is killed in a very preventable homicide, the family members of the victim usually don't have this reaction publicly.

We usually don't see them enraged like this,

even though they must be enraged and they should be.

Now, some people will tell you that in the past, government agents spoke to the victims' families and coached them on what to say, but the more likely explanation is that for many generations, in no small part because of the rhetoric of both parties, it's been considered impolite.

and uncivilized and bigoted to point out the truth.

You're not supposed to talk about the fact that homicides are both preventable and predictable.

For the same reason, you're not supposed to talk about crime statistics or

practice pattern recognition when you're out for a walk late at night.

As this hearing in Charlotte demonstrated, that dam has now finally broken.

Witness after witness exposed the degree to which Democrats have deliberately allowed violent criminals to terrorize entire communities.

We'll play one more of these statements.

It's from Justice Campbell, a police officer with the Charlotte

Mecklenburg Police Department.

His life has also been changed forever by one of these violent career thugs.

Watch.

April 29th of 2024, the Marshal Service was serving a warrant for a convicted felon for possession of a firearm again.

While serving that warrant,

four members of that, or three members of that task force and one member of the Charlotte Medicare Police Department were gunned down and murdered that day, along with five others, including myself, that were injured.

Now,

that day

was chaos.

Responding to that call, multiple officers, not only dead but injured, were taking gunfire from an elevated position by a known convicted felon.

During the process of extracting the officers,

I end up breaking my foot, which resulted in me being

diagnosed with regional complex pain syndrome.

It's a miserable diagnosis, which led to the amputation of my right foot.

His entire arrest report.

And in this report, it starts in 2009, where he burglarized a residence with a stolen firearm.

After he was taken to jail, he was released where he can

where he committed multiple other offenses prior to him going to prison.

He was released from prison and again continuously committed violent crimes with firearms.

Now, confronted with testimony like this, it's abundantly clear that Democrats have no idea what to do.

Without total narrative control, they are in very serious trouble.

And in particular, there are now so many victims of violent crime as a result of Democrat policies that Democrats themselves can't even keep them straight.

So many victims are now coming forward that they can't keep track of the whole roster.

And it's gotten so bad that at this hearing in Charlotte, one Democrat representative, a woman named Deborah Ross, appeared to confuse Logan Federico with Irina Zrutska, the Ukrainian refugee who was murdered on the light rail several weeks ago, Stephen Federico had to correct Deborah Ross' mid-statement.

Watch.

I also want to express my deepest, deepest condolences to the family of Irina Zarutska.

What happened to her is simply unimaginable and unconscionable.

And I hope that we will take to heart her family's request not to remember her by her last moments or politicize her death.

The majority has brought us here together and I would say I went to the Philadelphia hearing, I've been on the Judiciary Committee since I was in

ever in Congress, but to be honest and for our victims, this hearing is too little, too late.

We should have been doing more to prevent crime and address the lack of mental health care

long before this hearing.

Particularly.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I am so sorry.

I am so sorry.

Thank you so much for bringing that.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I am so sorry for you.

And she was before Irena.

I am so sorry.

I am so sorry for your loss, and my heart goes out to you.

My heart goes out to you.

They do not know her.

So we should have been doing things to prevent Logan's death and Irina's death and I am so sorry.

So there's a hearing to discuss victims of violent crime.

There are three key witnesses, none of whom were killed by anyone suffering from a mental illness.

And Logan Federico's picture, along with her father, was directly in front of Deborah Ross when she made her statement.

And yet, despite all these cues, Deborah Ross apparently thought that she was looking at Irene Zrutska, starts talking about mental health issues, which have no relevance to the murder of Logan Federico or any of the other witnesses in front of her.

And Stephen wasn't going to stand for that, nor should anyone.

I mean, if you look at the media coverage of this case, you'll find a lot of excuses for why Alexander Devontae Dickey was constantly being let out of jail.

Here's just one example from Law and Crime.

Listen.

Like how you said, there's been a lot of past convictions, so many mug shots, so many just charges and accusations against him.

How does a person that's described as a true criminal even have the chance to do something like this again?

Do you think that this is just some type of failure somewhere?

He was able to slip through the cracks?

You know, most people don't go to jail for life in prison for

breaking and entering.

Let's say if it was auto break-ins, those smaller petty crimes that really do make people feel unsafe and it really makes people feel violated.

It just may not rise to the level of 20,

40 years of a sentence.

So there are people who have been convicted who may have done two, three, four years for these crimes and then they're back out.

But under the laws, generally, there aren't those max penalties.

The analysts talk about the law as if that's something that we can't immediately change.

It's just a fact of life, we're told, that criminals can repeatedly commit acts of violence without receiving mandatory life imprisonment or the death penalty.

As we discussed earlier, that's not even true in South Carolina.

This guy could have been

sentenced for life a long time ago under the current law.

But to the extent that this is, you know, that you don't have those laws anywhere else, well, then you need to change that.

Change the law.

Instead of engaging with any of this, Democrats will say that in reality, the solution is spending more tax money on shelters and mental health treatment.

That's what happened at the hearing in Charlotte.

And there was a viral post on X to the same effect.

It racked up several million views in reference to the murder of Irina Zarutska, who, again, was stabbed in a light rail car by an apparently schizophrenic black man who said, I got that white girl as he walked away.

This person wrote the following, quote, the right has zero solution to this.

Paranoid, schizophrenic, violent outbursts require an integrated care system to ensure he has access to and is taking his medication.

They just defunded school lunches.

They won't fund this.

Yes, an integrated care system.

That's the framing that they've settled upon.

They apparently believe that unless we fund school lunches and daycare for schizophrenics, then we simply have no conceivable way of stopping innocent women like Irina Zarutska from having their throats cut on the subway.

We're just completely powerless.

But you know, there actually is a pretty clear solution, one that most people on the right would endorse.

Most people, most common sense people in general, would endorse.

As I said on X,

you know, my solution to violent criminal sociopath lunatics is to convict them in a court of law and then kill them.

That's my solution.

Kill them.

You know, we like to hear violence is never the answer.

Yeah, no, sometimes violence is definitely the answer.

I mean, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

There are obviously scenarios, there are obviously situations you can be in where violence is the answer, and it's the answer here: legal, constitutional violence used against convicted criminals and administered by the state.

That kind of violence specifically.

But it is violence.

And it is the answer.

I mean, it's a solution that would have saved Irina's life.

There is one

absolute 100% way to ensure that a violent criminal does not kill a woman on the light rail car, and that is to convict that person and execute them.

If they're no longer on earth, then 100% guarantee that they will never hurt another person.

So, yeah, I would call that a solution.

It would save hundreds of lives every year.

Like, believe it or not, you can just kill the worst and most dangerous people.

You can do that.

There is no real discernible downside, especially these days

with forensics being as sophisticated as it is, everything's on video now.

So, the one argument against it, which is that, well, what if you execute execute an innocent person?

We can rule out that possibility completely.

Okay, we know who killed Irina Zarutska.

There's no question about it.

There is a 0% chance that it was anyone but that guy.

It's on video.

It was done in front of dozens of witnesses.

We know who did it.

So that is out the window now.

We don't have to worry about that.

And so now there's no downside.

Can anyone think of one?

The guy who killed Irina Zarutska or Logan Frederico, what is the downside to just executing them?

Can someone explain?

I really want to hear, what is the downside?

This is the solution that's been deployed to great effect by almost every civilized society on earth for thousands of years.

We can deploy it again.

And what this hearing in Charlotte demonstrates is that for the first time since the crime crackdown of the 1990s, There's a real popular will for punishing degenerate and violent criminals as harshly as we possibly can.

And now we need to start handing out those punishments.

And in doing so, like Stephen Federico, we should be unapologetic and forceful.

You know, that is the fight that this righteously angry father has just devoted his life to.

And every single American, people who don't want their daughters to be executed as they sleep, should join him.

Now, let's get to our five headlines.

Did you know that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 1990s when big corporations switched to cheap processed seed oils that cause inflammation?

So MASA decided to actually do something about the garbage that passes for tortilla chips these days.

They ditched all the seed oils and went back to just three ingredients, organic,

nixtamelized corn.

whatever that is, but I'm sure it's important.

Sea salt and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.

And here's the kicker: they don't taste like some sad health food compromise.

These chips are crunchier, tastier, and sturdy enough that they won't snap in half when you dip them.

Plus, unlike regular chips that leave you feeling bloated and sluggish, MASA actually makes you feel satisfied and energetic.

The beef tallow makes them way more filling, also, so you're not mindlessly demolishing the entire bag and still feeling hungry.

I'm always on the go with the kids, so I need snacks that actually fuel me

instead of leaving me feeling worse.

Massa chips keep me satisfied whether I'm packing lunches or need something quick after a busy day.

I mean, I don't pack lunches, but, you know, I mostly enjoy just eating them myself.

And I also enjoy that they don't crumble all over my car.

That's the main thing.

That's the most important thing.

Massa Chips is beloved by tens of thousands of customers and has been endorsed by industry-leading health and nutrition experts.

Ready to give Massa a try?

Go to massachipips.com slash walsh.

Use code walsh for 25% off your first order.

That's massachips.com slash walsh and code walls for 25% off your first order.

You ever think you're buying good old American meat at the grocery store?

Yeah, well, so did I, until I learned that the labels can say product of the USA for meat that never even met an American cow.

Over 4 billion pounds of the stuff imported last year, to be exact, all dressed up to look local, but it isn't.

I mean, what else are these labels trying to pull on us?

Makes you, you really have to wonder about that.

So I started looking for something that I could actually trust, especially with kids to feed and a wife who can spot a so-so steak from a mile away.

That's when I found Good Ranchers.

These guys only work with local American farms, 100% of it.

Not a single mystery meat cut in the bunch, guaranteed.

Honestly, I joined up for the deals, $25 off every box, free shipping, a free lifelong gift, hard to beat.

We rotate between bacon, Italian sausage.

My personal favorite, those chicken thighs.

And if life gets hectic, well, you can pause or skip a box easily.

No guilt trips, no subscription shenanigans.

I also love their steaks.

They're so unbelievably good and tender that they make pricey steakhouse cut taste like side dishes at a drive-through.

You just can't beat the quality that Good Ranchers delivers.

Best part, my code Walsh gets you $40 off and free meat for life when you subscribe.

That's right.

$40 off and free meat for life with code Walsh.

Just go to goodranchers.com and get fully American meat delivered straight to your door.

Goodranchers.com.

Welcome to the table.

Okay, Pete Hegseth, who I think is doing a really great job in his role, today addressed an assembly of top military leaders, and he unveiled a bunch of changes that he's making, has already started to implement.

And a big focus is that, you know, is the standards.

Standards are being raised.

They're raising the standards.

Watch.

This, and I want to be very clear about this.

This is not about preventing women from serving.

We very much value the impact.

of female troops.

Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world.

But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral.

If women can make it, excellent.

If not, it is what it is.

If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.

That is not the intent, but it could be the result, so be it.

It will also

mean that weak men won't qualify because we're not playing games.

This is combat.

This is life or death.

As we all know, this is you versus an enemy hell-bent on killing you.

To be an effective, lethal fighting force, you must trust that the warrior alongside you in battle is capable,

truly, physically capable of doing what is necessary under fire.

You know this is the only standard you would want.

for your kids and for your grandkids.

Apply the War Department Golden rule, the 1990 test, and the E6 test?

That's really hard to go wrong.

Now, think about this for a minute because people are going to freak out about this.

The media, the left, they're going to say that HegSeth is trying to drive women out of the military and so on.

They're already saying that.

They've been saying that.

But at the same time, according to their own claims, HegSeth actually isn't changing anything.

I mean, they're the ones who have insisted for years that we didn't lower the standards for women.

They insisted that women should be allowed in combat because they're just as capable as men.

I mean, that has been the argument.

At no point,

the people that support

recruiting as many women as possible and diversifying the ranks and all that kind of crap,

at no point have they ever admitted that the standards are being lowered.

At no point have they explicitly argued, or rarely have they explicitly argued, that

we should put women in these positions, even though they are technically less qualified, but it's worth the risk for the benefit of greater diversity.

They've never explicitly made that argument.

Instead, they pretend that the standards are not being lowered.

So

if that's true, then HegSeth isn't changing anything.

There will be one standard.

There's one high standard.

Anyone who meets it will be allowed in.

I mean, isn't that what you guys said we've been doing all along?

When the left freaks out about this, think about what they're admitting.

All Hanks, because he said, look, we're not going to rule, you know, we're not going to say that women can't be in these positions.

We're going to have one high standard.

And you hear that, if you're on the left, and you go, well, you're discriminating against women.

Women can't meet a high standard.

But then at the same time, you'll say women are exactly the same as men.

They can do everything that men can do.

So which is it?

Which is it?

Well, we know which way it is.

And this new policy is as sensible as it gets, it's as fair as it gets.

One standard, one high standard.

If you pass it, great, you're in.

If you don't, too bad.

I really appreciate Hegseth's attitude here.

This should be the attitude of any leader, especially someone leading our nation's military.

And the attitude should be,

okay, if you don't meet the standard, like, that's problem.

Well,

what if we end up with a force that's 96% male?

Okay, well, then those are the people that met the standard.

Great.

Whatever we end up with, those are the people who met the standard.

So who cares?

Now, granted, I would be in favor of just flat out banning women from combat roles entirely, even the small minority, the very, very small minority who can live up to

this policy of equal, high standards.

If it were up to me, I would still exclude them because I think on moral and ethical grounds, women just simply should not be in combat.

The fact that they're too physically weak to do the job is part of the reason why they shouldn't be in combat.

It's a big part of the reason.

But the overarching reason is that they're women.

And women, it's just not right to have women in these positions.

It's not suited.

It's not proper to have women in these positions.

But I think Heg Seth is approaching this in a sensible way.

And the end result will be almost exactly the same anyway.

So I think it's great.

And

it's even better when you consider the freak out that is going to happen, has been happening,

where you're going to have all these people accidentally admitting that women can't live up to

high standards in this sort of context.

Here's a story from our friends up north.

This is out of Quebec, Canada.

And you know, nothing good comes out of Quebec.

No exception in this case.

Listen.

For the last seven years, Jonathan Bedard, Eric Leblanc, and Justin Mau have been waiting to become parents together.

Something that officially happened yesterday.

She's perfect, of course, like any.

She's curious, she's energetic, she loves to play, she loves to jump, she loves to dance.

They adopted their three-year-old through Quebec's youth protection services, but first had to be approved as foster parents, something that required a lot of work and openness, they say, to their relationship.

We had a lot of things to go through in order to be able to be to have that accreditation.

And it's through that process that they learned that we are a little different because we're three, but we're not different from any other family.

Some other Canadian provinces, including Ontario and British Columbia, legally recognize more than two parents.

Quebec does not.

Last April, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled the government has a year to modify the civil code to allow a child to have more than two recognized parents, saying the current situation is unconstitutional and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since it discriminates against different family models.

Yes, unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional to not allow three men to have a baby.

So nature itself is unconstitutional, apparently.

Nature already

prohibits three men, two men, any number of men from having babies.

Nature has already decreed that men cannot start families on their own.

Neither can women.

So I guess nature is infringing on the rights of the LGBT community.

And this is the difference, by the way, between the traditional understanding of human rights, the American understanding,

and the leftist version.

Because the original idea was that human rights belong to us by our nature, endowed by God.

And so when I say that nature has decreed it as so, this is what I mean.

It's human nature, endowed by God, created by God.

But the leftist idea would say that

our rights stand in opposition to nature.

We get our rights not from nature, but against nature, to contravene nature.

So it's the opposite.

It's the opposite of what was intended.

It's a subversion.

So where does the right for three men to have a baby come from exactly?

Where do you get this right?

Now, the answer they'll give is they'll say, oh, the Constitution.

But it's not in there, okay, first of all.

Well,

honestly, I don't know much about the Canadian Constitution, but that's irrelevant anyway, because what I know for sure is that if a change was made to the Constitution anywhere, including in Canada, to prohibit gay couples or gay thruples or gay quadruples

from adopting,

the left would say that gays are having their rights violated in that case.

But if the right allegedly comes from the Constitution and then it's removed from the Constitution,

well, they can't say their rights are being violated because it's not, because you said your rights from the Constitution.

Well, it's not in the Constitution anymore, and so end of discussion.

So, as I've, you know, as I've argued,

they are appealing to an authority above and beyond the Constitution.

Whether they admit it or not, they are still appealing to an authority above and beyond that.

What authority exactly?

Well,

that's the question they can't answer.

They won't answer.

And now we're left with this.

We're left with three men adopting a baby.

And this kind of abomination was totally foreseeable.

It's the reason why gay adoption should never have been allowed

at all in any configuration for any number of partners.

And yet there are still conservatives who don't understand this.

You know, I was on Tucker's show a few months ago, and as you may remember, we talked about gay adoption.

And I think we started this.

I think Tucker, we started the show with him.

He threw that at me right out of the gate,

which was great.

And I said, of course, I'm against it.

And I had people on the right attacking me for that, criticizing me for that.

You know, well, here you go, guys.

Congratulations.

Like, this, this, this, you know, this, no, don't, don't turn around now.

Okay, if you were getting on my case, because I said we shouldn't have gay adoption, don't turn around now and say, well, this is too far.

I don't agree with this.

If you're in favor of gay adoption,

you don't get to complain about this.

You don't get to.

Okay?

I won't allow it.

It is disallowed.

It's prohibited.

You support this.

If you support gay adoption, you support this.

That video we just saw, three men adopting a baby, you support it.

You do.

You may not know you support it

because you're not smart enough to even understand your own positions, but you do support it.

I'll tell you why you support it, because there's not a single argument, not a single argument in favor of gay adoption that would not also be a defense of three men adopting a baby.

And the other way is true, too.

There's not a single argument against three men adopting a baby that wouldn't also be an argument against two men adopting a baby.

That's really the point here.

So anyone who's tried to, and there are a lot of people on the left too, not on the left and but even some on the certainly on the left, but some on the right,

who try to draw this line.

You know, they're all in favor of gay adoption.

If somebody like me goes out and says, no, I don't think two men should be allowed, I think they should be legally barred from adopting a baby.

If they hear that, they'll say, Oh, that's bigoted.

How dare what is this?

This is the year 2025.

How could you say such a thing?

And then they see this and they'll say, Well, that, this is what's going on here.

Well, go finish that thought.

Go ahead.

What's your problem?

Why shouldn't three men adopt a baby?

What's the issue exactly?

Can you finish the thought?

What is your argument against it?

I really want to hear.

What is your argument against three men adopting a baby?

Or four men?

Or five?

Okay,

what if you had

a whole squad of gay men going in there?

five of them to adopt a baby.

Why shouldn't we allow that?

And this is, now, for a lot of you listening, this is not a stumper at all.

You can easily explain why.

What I'm saying specifically is: if you think gay adoption, two men adopting a baby is fine, but you don't like this, well, then for you, I would like you to explain why the three men can't adopt one.

What is the argument?

Because the problem for you is that the only argument against it,

the only one,

is that three men adopting a baby is unnatural

disordered

and unhealthy

that's the whole argument they're that's it that's the entire argument babies are not meant to be raised and parented by three men that is not meant to happen that is not a that's not how these things are supposed to work That's the entire argument.

There is no other argument but that.

But we don't, and it's a very good argument.

It's the only argument.

It's the only correct argument.

It's the only argument you need.

Well, the problem for you is that that is also the argument against two men adopting a baby.

Same applies.

It's unnatural, clearly,

therefore disordered,

therefore unhealthy.

And it's not meant to be.

I'm not speculating.

That's not my opinion that it's not meant to be.

It's clearly not meant to be.

In the entire history of the human race, going back into the past and stretching out into the unknown future, there has never been and will never be two men who naturally conceive a child.

It's impossible.

Babies are not meant to be raised by three men, and they're not meant to be raised by two men.

So, you know, that's why it doesn't make any sense to say, well, I'm okay with two men raising a child, but three men,

that's out of bounds.

Why is it out of bounds?

Why is it somehow more absurd for three men to raise a baby than two men?

Can you explain that?

It's the same thing.

And this is a lesson that everybody should understand by now.

And I get it.

I'm not even, again, if you're on the left, I'm not even talking to you on this.

If you're on the right and you don't get this by now,

then I don't know.

You're a hopeless case.

You either draw the line at the one sensible, coherent place to draw it,

or you have no line at all.

That's it.

And on all of these issues, there is

only one, if you want to draw a line, there's only one

sensible, discernible,

objective place to draw it.

And if you've decided to push the line back, to push the fence back, what you're going to find is that there's nowhere else.

You've torn that fence up and there's nowhere else to put the posts back in and rebuild that fence.

And that's where we are now.

All right, we have another fun statue controversy.

These are always a barrel of laughs.

USA Today reports Tina Turner was simply the best, but fans are less than impressed with a new statue paying tribute to the late rock singer.

A 10-foot bronze statue of Turner, who died in May 2023 at the age of 83, was unveiled in the singer's hometown of Brownsville, Tennessee on Saturday during the city's annual Tina Turner Heritage Days celebration.

The monument designed by Atlanta-based sculptor Fred

Ajinoga depicts Turner mid-performance as she strikes a confident pose in a mini dress and high heels.

Ajinoga said he aimed to reflect Turner's ability to move dynamically on stage, the way she grasped the microphone with her index finger pointing out, and her hairdo, which the artist likened to a lion's mane.

However, the tribute did not receive a warm reception from Turner's fans, many of whom took to social media to criticize the statue's design at its questionable resemblance to the real-life Turner.

Okay, so people didn't like the statue.

Let's Let's see if they're being harsh or not.

We'll put the photos up on the screen.

And as you can see, no, they're not being harsh at all.

If anything, they're not being harsh enough.

We've seen a lot of really bad statues in recent years.

This one might be somehow the worst.

I don't know how that's possible, but they pulled it off.

Fred Aginoga, congratulations to the artist.

I mean, you pulled off.

You somehow made the worst one.

Like, if I showed you these pictures and keep the pictures up on the screen, okay, don't take them off.

Actually, zoom it, zoom in on the face.

Let's see the face.

If I showed you this and I didn't tell you who it was supposed to be, you would, you would never guess Tina Turner.

You would have, you would just, you wouldn't be able to guess.

You'd guess that maybe this was supposed to be.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw it for some reason was a sideshow Bob from The Simpsons,

but retarded,

like a retarded sideshow Bob from The Simpsons,

or maybe, I mean, this is a weird one, but like maybe a young,

I don't know, from a certain angle, it's kind of a young Sean Aston with an afro

dressed in drag

with smaller breasts.

Actually, you know who this kind of looks like?

Okay, so this is this is a

this is an even weirder one.

This is a deep cut.

This is obscure, but

it kind of looks like who was that chick from SNL like 25 years ago?

She did the Will Farrell skits

where they were cheerleaders, I think.

Cherry O'Terry.

Cherry O'Terry.

Sherry O'Terry.

Sherry O'Terry.

What is it?

Not Sherry.

Sherry O'Terry was their name, I think.

It kind of looks like Sherry O'Terry playing a, like, if

that, if I'm thinking of the same one, that woman from SNL playing Tina Turner in a 1998 SNL skit is sort of what that looks like.

I don't know.

It definitely doesn't look like Tina Turner.

That I know for sure.

It maybe looks like Tina Turner if she was born with like fetal alcohol syndrome, but it does not look like the Tina Turner who existed.

And of course, this is just the latest really god-awful, ugly statue to be erected around the country.

There have been many examples.

We don't need to go through the list.

We've talked about many of them on the show.

Pretty much every statue that has been unveiled anywhere in public at any point this century has been about as ugly as this one.

Maybe a little bit less so, but bad.

Has there been a beautiful statue made anywhere?

And I don't think there is.

It is a sad and disturbing thing.

I mean, it's hilarious, also,

provides a lot of great comic relief, but it is sad.

It's a tragedy.

See,

we like to think that we've progressed, that we've gotten more sophisticated.

And in some respects, we have, but in a lot of very important respects, we have regressed.

And that's really obvious when you consider art, and in particular, when you think of some of the most timeless and ancient art forms like sculpting, you know, making statues.

And

that's where you see that we have just lost.

I mean, there are a million examples I could give to highlight the contrast, but just consider this statue.

Let's put this up on the screen.

This is

an ancient Roman statue called the Lao Cun or Lao Coon and his sons.

Now, just to give you an idea of how old this statue is, okay, this statue was discovered, discovered

in the 1500s, 500 years ago.

It was an ancient relic lost to the sands of time, discovered in the 1500s.

It was made,

they think, probably about 2,000 years ago.

2,000 years ago.

And you look at that, you see the detail, you see everything about it.

And you see how, I mean, the guy who made this Tina Turner statue said that he wanted to make it dynamic, wanted to make it look like she was moving, and he didn't pull it off at all.

Well, you look at this statue made 2,000 years ago, it is dynamic.

Like it is, it's movement.

You see the movement.

You see the every detail of

the body, the muscles, the everything.

Anatomically, it's like flawless and the face, everything.

So 2,000 years ago, people were capable of creating this kind of art at a level that nobody on earth, not a single human on this planet,

can even get close to these days.

We cannot get close to emulating any of this.

I think we've simply lost the skill.

It's gone.

It's extinct.

And it probably,

that's the really sad thing is that it's probably gone forever.

Because these are skills that are passed down.

And,

you know, a lot of the great artists through history have been under the tutelage of another great artist.

And that's how they learn.

They learn how to do this.

Because it's not, it's obviously, it's not,

it's not obvious.

I mean, it's old, like to all, from our perspective, I look at these statues now, and as I said, you could like, there's hundreds of examples.

You could, you could pull up any statue that was made 500 years ago, a thousand years ago, 2,000 years ago, and

you see this, but you look at it now, it's almost like it looks like magic.

I can't even conceive, none of us can conceive of how you would do that.

How do you take a block of stone and make it look like that?

I don't, I, it's, it may as well be a magic trick.

I mean, that's how

out of our grasp it is.

And that's because the skills are passed down

and they were passed down by the ancients, passed down for centuries, for millennia,

until it got to us.

And we dropped it.

We just, we took this precious

skill and we dropped it on the ground and it shattered like glass and now it's just gone.

And we can't create art like they did 100 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 2,000 years ago.

I mean, I was thinking about this.

If you want to find a historical analog now, like if you want to find something in history,

a monument, a statue,

a sculpture that looks like something we could do today, you got to go back way further than 2,000 years.

You got to go.

I mean, we'll put this up on the screen.

So this is a Venus statue, not really a statue.

It's a small, it's a sculpture of, as you can see, a large woman.

This is like a fertility, a goddess, a fertility thing.

And

this is about the level that we can achieve in modern times.

I think we're about at this level.

And this thing was made in the Paleolithic era.

Okay, this thing was made 40,000 years ago.

So we are, our artistic talents, in some respects, have regressed by about 40,000 years, You could argue.

We are Stone Age in our artistic abilities.

And I would say about the same for language,

communication abilities.

I think we're about at Stone Age level.

We've regressed that far.

And

so I say that, you know,

it's gone for good, but maybe that's not

gone for good.

It might just take us another 40,000 years to get back there

if humanity still exists, which it probably won't.

So if you feel like your regular morning coffee just isn't doing it anymore, then everyday dose is exactly what you need.

Everyday dose transforms your morning coffee into a powerhouse of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids all in one affordable cup.

Just 30 seconds to prepare and you're getting your caffeine fixed plus all the nutrients your body needs.

One delicious cup.

one simple solution.

Everyday dose isn't just coffee.

It's coffee plus benefits.

They've infused their 100% Arabica beans with lion's mane, chaga, collagen protein, and brain-boosting neurotropics for clean, sustained energy without the crash or the jitters.

You can choose between their mild coffee plus, which is light, smooth, and gentle and sensitive stomachs, or coffee plus bold, which is a rich, full-bodied medium roast with an extra energy kick.

Both deliver the same functional benefits and undergo rigorous third-party testing to ensure you're getting the best quality.

Your brain and body will thank you.

I always start my day with just a standard cup of coffee, but now I use Everyday Dose and I can feel the difference in my energy levels throughout the day.

Also, the coffee is truly delicious.

I can tell you from experience.

Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee Plus or Bold Plus.

You'll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts, including a rechargeable frother and gunmetal serving spoon.

By going to everydaydose.com/slash Walsh or enter Walsh to checkout.

You'll also get free gifts throughout the year.

That's everydaydose.com/slash Walsh for 45% off your first order.

This October, we're giving Delaware Plus members more than ever before, including must-see documentaries like USS Cole Al-Qaeda's Strike Before 9-11 premieres October 10th exclusively on Delaware Plus.

I've got your first look right now.

Check it out.

Alawali told us Al-Qaeda is planning to attack a U.S.

Navy ship as it's refueling in the port of Aden.

There was a lot of warning out there to the ships.

Did the Cole get that information?

I can't tell you.

Bin Laden was getting very antsy.

What could be next?

I don't think we missed any specific threats.

It wasn't if it was going to happen, it was when the United States was going to be attacked.

They were walking into a trap.

I saw a boat coming at us.

They were close enough that I could see them smiling and waving.

Then the explosion happened.

Two men in it was apparently not seen as a threat.

It may have been impossible to prevent.

Osama bin Laden had essentially declared war against the United States.

Certainly emboldened Al-Qaeda.

Why were we even operating in that order?

What was the intelligence community doing?

No one connected all the dots until it was too late.

People in the U.S.

didn't comprehend that there was an organization called Al-Qaeda.

People living in caves, basements who actively sought to kill Americans.

I think our government certainly had enough of the information to have done something.

They were focused totally on us.

No one was looking up the chain of command.

We had an opportunity to disrupt what became 9-11.

USS Coal Al-Qaeda Strike Before 9-11.

A three-part series premieres October 10th on Daily Wire Plus.

USS Cole Al-Qaeda's Strike Before 9-11 premieres October 10th only on Daily Wire Plus.

If you're not a member yet, well, you can fix that now by getting 40% off new annual memberships with code FALL40 at dailywireplus.com.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

Well, it's official for the seventh straight year.

A white guy will not be headlining the Super Bowl halftime show, unless you count Eminem's brief appearance in the 2022 halftime show with Dr.

Dre and Snoop Dogg, which you really shouldn't.

The last white performers to headline the Super Bowl were Maroon 5 back in 2019.

And since then, we've been treated to performances by luminaries like Usher, Kendrick Lamar, Rihanna, The Weekend,

and so on.

It's as if the NFL couldn't find a single white person singing actual music anywhere in the entire country for the better part of a decade.

You don't need to be a calculus professor to understand the statistical implications here.

The NFL has made the deliberate decision to basically discriminate against white performers in the name of diversity.

It's the same reason that they still insist on having those dumb slogans in the end zone.

The league is captured by...

at the corporate level anyway, by anti-white leftists who, unlike the vast majority of the country, haven't progressed beyond the George Floyd era.

And as a result, year after year, the Super Bowl halftime performances haven't resembled music so much as they've resembled the barely coherent ramblings of the local strip mall vagrants.

Half of what Kendrick Lamar said was incomprehensible in the last Super Bowl halftime show.

To the extent that he had a big moment during his performance, it was to accuse another rapper of being a pedophile.

So we're talking about, you know,

real fine art here.

With each passing year, the performance has become even more painful, almost almost as if they're sort of a form of ritual humiliation.

And that said, through all of this, at least the NFL had the decency to ensure that the performers could still speak the English language, at least in a nominal sense.

That was a very low bar, admittedly, but the NFL executives were able to clear it.

Even though you couldn't understand what the performers were saying half the time, at least in the abstract, they were...

technically reciting lyrics that have meaning in the English language.

At least superficially, the NFL was still pretending to be an American league,

even if they

are increasingly hosting games overseas.

But that now has changed.

As you may have seen, the NFL has just announced that Benito Antonio Martinez-Ocasio, better known by his stage name Bad Bunny, will headline the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show.

And here's the NFL's big reveal.

Watch.

Well, there it is.

It's official.

Puerto Rico's finest bad bunny will be the Apple Music Super Bowl 60 halftime show in February on NBC and Peacock.

So there's the whole Puerto Rican humpty-dumpty aesthetic going on.

He's not saying anything because he can't speak English.

None of his songs are in English either.

And then the reporter in English tells us that we should be excited by this development.

We should be thrilled to hear songs like this one, apparently.

There are like, you know, chain restaurants with,

there are Applebee's bars with more talented musicians than this.

But we're told that we're supposed to be impressed by Antonio, which is why he's constantly on SNL, streaming services, the Super Bowl, all over the place, being promoted relentlessly because he represents demographic replacement.

You're not supposed to say that, but that's true.

They want to send the message that America is not for English-speaking Americans anymore.

And it's not hard to identify who specifically is making this decision.

The NFL has the ultimate veto power, but from what I could tell, Jay-Z is the primary decision-maker behind all the selections for Super Bowl halftime shows.

His company, Rock Nation, has had an exclusive deal with the NFL since 2019, which just so happens to be the last year that

any white people were allowed to appear on the stage.

Also, in 2019, Rock Nation and the NFL announced a commitment to

an inspire change social activism campaign, which explicitly advocates for letting criminals out on the street before trial.

And I'm not making that up, by the way.

Look at the fourth bullet point here.

This is from the NFL's website.

Quote, criminal justice reform, providing transition support for the formerly incarcerated and advocating for key reforms to the criminal legal system, including

pre-trial detention.

Now, translation, they want criminals to spend as little time in prison as possible.

They also want to reform policing, meaning they want to get rid of it.

The people who wrote these bullet points are the same people who picked Antonio for the halftime show.

So it's a political pick, period.

To be clear, Antonio is not simply a foreigner who can't sing or speak English.

He's also a far, far rabid leftist who wears dresses and who, like all leftists, lacks any semblance of self-awareness or shame.

It's actually pretty staggering in this case.

Just a few days ago, Antonio issued a very clear promise that he wouldn't perform in the United States anymore, supposedly in order to protect his fans from being deported during his shows.

He said he's willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue solely to protect criminals from getting rounded up and shipped overseas during his concerts.

But now that the NFL called and they backed up a dump truck full of pesos, suddenly Antonio's on board.

Suddenly, the fans don't matter anymore.

He'll be performing at Levi's Stadium in California next year.

100%.

And even though the state is teeming with illegal aliens who could be deported at the game.

This is from ABC News.

Quote,

Puerto Rican Rican musician Bad Bunny said in an interview that he did not include the United States in the 2025-2026 concert tour because of fear that U.S.

immigration and customs enforcement would raid the concert venue.

People from the U.S.

could come here to see the shows.

Latinos and Puerto Ricans of the United States could also travel here or to any part of the world,

he told the magazine.

But there was the issue that ICE could be outside of my concert venue, and it's something that we were talking about and very concerned about.

The musician has has previously been critical of ICE operations, which have intensified under U.S.

President Donald Trump.

He posted an Instagram video in June in which he expressed outrage at federal agents in Puerto Rico for not leaving these people working here alone.

Well, you know what this means.

ICE has the opportunity to conduct by far the single most effective, not to mention hilarious operation in all of ICE history.

This has the potential to be even better than deporting a Brego Garcia to a random country in Africa that doesn't even exist.

If you've seen the movie Trap, or if you've seen the previews anyway, by M.

Night Shanelon,

then you know exactly how this could work.

Except instead of trying to find one serial killer after they seal off the stadium once the musical number starts, they could just deport everyone in attendance.

Now, to be fair, everyone has fair warning from Antonio himself, and they showed up anyway, so

they don't get to play the victim.

Now, for all we know, maybe that's why Antonio signed on to this gig.

It's entirely possible that he's working with DHS as a double agent at this point.

Certainly, if I were an illegal alien in California and I heard a man in a dress using the name Bad Bunny, tell me that I'll be deported at one of his shows, only to see him change his mind a few days later and tell me to attend one of his shows, I mean, I'd be a little suspicious.

Either he was lying before or he's lying now.

And neither option is reassuring.

Now, what would be reassuring for the millions of actual Americans who still follow the NFL would be for the league to demonstrate just once that it understands or even likes its own fan base.

For the better part of a decade, particularly with the social justice BLM messaging and the halftime shows, the league has made it clear that it holds most of the country in contempt, solely on the basis of their nationality, their skin color, and also their assumed political views.

Now, in various conservative circles, as a result, there have been calls to boycott the NFL, just like we boycotted companies like Target and Bud Light.

I have not joined those calls because, by and large,

as I've argued often, sports are one of the few mainstream ways that Americans can express and celebrate important virtues like meritocracy, masculinity,

competition.

And sports are an important part of culture.

You know,

that's going, every culture in history has had sports.

It's important, just like art is an important part of culture.

And despite the best efforts of the league executives, that remains the case.

Professional football, in my view, is an important cultural institution in this country.

So our focus, therefore, should be eradicating the left-wing propaganda and anti-white messaging that the league continues to promulgate.

as we've eradicated it from so many other cultural institutions in recent years.

The backlash to this upcoming halftime show makes it very clear that, you know,

we're making progress in that direction.

And now that backlash must intensify until finally, an American, an actual American who speaks English, performs at the Super Bowl.

And that is why the anti-white and anti-American executives at the NFL, along with Antonio, the man in the dress, aka Bad Bunny, are all 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.

New information comes out about the anti-LDS shooter.

Another killer turns out to be trans, and Gavin Newsom incites violence against Stephen Miller.

Check it out on the Michael Doll Show.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock.

It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and LifeLock has tips to protect your identity.

Use strong passwords, set up multi-factor authentication, report phishing, and update the software on your devices.

And for comprehensive identity protection, let LifeLock alert you to suspicious uses of your personal information.

LifeLock also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back.

Stay smart, safe, and protected with a 30-day free trial at lifelock.com/slash podcasts.

Terms apply.