Ep. 1725 - I Was Wrong About Online Gambling. It’s Destroying A Generation Of Young Men. Here’s Why.

They told you America invented slavery. They told you the Indians were peaceful. They told you colonialism was evil and that Joseph Carthie was a bad guy. And guess what? They lied. For half a century generations of American school children have been taught to hate our history, hate our country, and hate themselves. Time to set the record straight. And since no one else is going to do it, I will. Who sold us the slaves? What were Indian Africa like before Europeans arrived? What caused light flight? Some of the most well-known stories from American history are designed to demoralize you. Trail of tears, smallpox blankets myth, the red scare. It's all baseless. It's time for a lesson on what they're not teaching in public schools. On the real history of slavery, it's colonialism, the Indians, of America, and the world. It's time for real history with Matt Walsh. Now streaming only on Daily Wire Plus. If you watch this show regularly, then you may have noticed that until recently, I would occasionally read advertisements for various online gambling companies. Every time I did one of those ad reads, somebody in the comment section would object. They would accuse me of promoting immoral and un-Christian behavior, of having no principles corrupting the youth and so on. On top of that, I was accused of shilling for products that I didn't use. The truth is that I read those advertisements because at the time, I supported legalized gambling, including sports betting. I have play spets myself, especially on NFL games. In moderation, my perspective was that sports betting is no different from any other entertainment related expense, as long as you don't turn gambling into a lifestyle, which is something that I've never done or been tempted to do. Then I didn't see much of a problem with it. For people who take things too far, my attitude has been that it's not the government's job to save people from the consequences of their own bad decisions. If you voluntarily take on a financial risk that backfires, well, that's your issue. Shouldn't have done that. That's genuinely how I felt. In many other situations, I still feel that way. I don't believe that the arguments for legalized gambling are spurious or un-serious. But starting today, I've decided that we are not going to have any more gambling ads on this show. All gambling sponsors are banned from the show from this point forward. And that's because I've changed my mind. I think I was wrong. And I want to explain why. I think that there is now substantial evidence that gambling has some of the same corrosive effects on young people, on society at large, but young people in particular, as legalized marijuana use. Years ago, you probably heard me mention this before, I also supported legalizing marijuana. And my opinion changed, though, after seeing the impact that it has had on society. My view on legalized gambling has evolved in the same way and for the same reason. Now, yes, if one person smokes a bowl on occasion, it's not going to destroy society. The problem is that a huge preponderance of people will not smoke weed in moderation. It becomes a habit. It affects their development. It dulls their interests and things that actually matter in life. At a certain point, for weed smokers, marijuana becomes a way of life. And meanwhile, for everybody else, the weed smokers are, you know, at best a nuisance and oftentimes much more than that. They actively degrade our quality of life. It's a clear net negative on society in general. Nobody wants to share the roads with somebody who's high or eat food prepared by someone who's high or attend a class full of students who are high. But increasingly, these are unavoidable scenarios. These are the externalities of marijuana use. There are real costs that are inflicted on innocent people. And now you can't walk through any city without smelling the stench of weed everywhere and seeing people walking around like zombies, stone out of their minds. That is the inevitable result of the mass legalization and acceptance of this drug and we're seeing it all around us. Gambling presents similar problems. It greatly diminishes the lives of millions of people, especially young men, in a variety of ways that aren't always obvious. And it's scamming people, including experienced gamblers, in ways that aren't remotely apparent. They weren't apparent to me either when I first accepted those sponsorships on this show. Now that it is apparent, I can't admit conscious, continue promoting it. So let's start with the basics on that point and we'll work our way down. So here's a fairly straightforward but very important question that by most estimates, 90% of Americans cannot answer. Let's say you log on to a major sports betting platform and you want to place a three-legged parlay, let's say. In other words, you want to make three different bets on one ticket. And if any one of those bets doesn't hit, then you lose all your money. That's the way it works. So for example, the most popular parlay on a fandall right now is that Kenneth Walker, Jackson Smith and Jigba, Ramondra Stevenson and Stefan Diggs will all score a touchdown at some point during these super balls. So that is a forlay parlay. More than 8,000 people have placed bets on this particular parlay. If you bet $100 and all four players score a touchdowns, you'll win $2,890. So extraordinarily high return for a relatively small investment, which is why the parlay has attracted so many people. But what are the odds that it actually hits? Let's assume for the sake of argument that each of these players individually has roughly a 40% chance of scoring a touchdown during the game. It seems like a fair enough estimate. Based on this information, what are the odds that you'll turn your $100 into $2800? You had to give a ballpark estimate of your win probability on this parlay. What would it be? In other words, one of the odds that these four players will all score touchdowns if each player has a 40% chance of scoring a touchdown. The vast majority of adults and people who gamble can't give an accurate response to that question. Certainly the vast majority of young people who are on these sites have no idea whatsoever. It's a math problem that isn't easy to solve unless you've been taught how to do it. Well, the answer is less than 3%, because you multiply the percent together, 40%, times 40%, times 40%, times 40%, and you get to less than 3%. But actually when it comes to parlay, the math is even worse than that. And here's why. On a normal bet where you're only making one wager, the sports book will almost always add a house edge to the odds, otherwise known as juice. So for example, imagine a 50-50 bet on an NFL game. If you bet $100 and lose, you'll lose $100. But if you bet $100 and win, you only make around $91 instead of $100. That $9 loss is the house edge or the juice in gambling lingo. Now general sports books bank around 5% of the total amount wagered on any bet, which is known as the whole percentage. Parlay is those sports books bank far, far more than 5%. The more legs you add to your parlay, the more juice they get. As the washer post put it late last year, quote, as each leg is added to a parlay, the house edge is compounded. And by the time a fifth leg is added, the sports books expected hold percentage has more than quadrupled from 4.5% on one leg to 20.8% on five. Even though the potential payout rises as legs are added, the chances of winning are falling even faster. That's why operators love them. Here's an illustration of what that might look like in practice. Imagine a hypothetical five leg parlay without any juice where you can bet $100 and earn $3,100 in profit. But when you add in the juice, you're only getting around $2,400 in profit. That's a loss of more than 20% of your profits to the juice, which is far more than your loss profits on a single bet as we just discussed. Now for many people who bet on parlay's none of this math is really obvious because it's just, it's not obvious. That's kind of complicated. And certainly the betting sites don't make it obvious. They're not going out of their way to advertise all this stuff. It's very hard to compute the odds on parlay, particularly when the different legs involve the same game. What lawyers gamblers is the possibility of a very large payout for relatively small bet, which is why parlay's are by far the most common form of sports betting. Now in New Jersey, according to the most recent data, parlay is accounted for more than 80% of all majors placed by betters under the age of 24. Now most states don't track that kind of information. It's very interesting information to have. Most states don't track it. But we could probably assume that they have similar numbers as well, which makes a lot of sense because you've got younger people whose brains are not fully developed yet. The prefrontal cortex is not fully online yet not until the age of 25. And they're placing these kinds of bets that, you know, a more rational discerning person would realize it's just not it's not a good investment of your money. Now you might be thinking as I did, well, if the math is confusing and people don't realize that, then, you know, well, no one's forcing them to make bets that they don't fully understand it's up to you. It's up to you to look into this. It's not like it's. You can find all this out. It might might not be information that put right in front of your face, but it's not hard to figure out if you want to. And that's up to you. Right. Individual responsibility. And that's a fair point. And it's compelling point. It was my point for a long time. But here's the thing. Even if you're a competent gambler and you fully understand how parlay's work and you math out the odds properly, you're still going to get cheated if you play long enough. The economist recently ran a lengthy investigation into how sports betting companies identify skilled gamblers called sharps and losers who are called squares. They use a series of algorithms to decide in real time if you know what you're doing. And if you're identified as a sharp, then you'll face restrictions on how much you could bet. In other words, the game is literally rigged against you. The resultations don't apply to many gamblers only around 0.6% of gamblers and Massachusetts are limited, just for example, but that's only because most gamblers lose money. Most gamblers don't know what they're doing. And the sportsbooks know they're going to lose money almost immediately. Quote, the profiling process starts before you place a bet. Are you using a phone like most punter's good or a computer which makes it easier to compare odds? Not so good. Did you deposit by debit card or via the e-walls preferred by syndicates? Are you a woman? That's suspicious. Far fewer women bet than men and many sharps get women to place bets for them. The first wage you place speaks volumes. Normal gamblers bet on the most popular spectacles. Starting around half an hour before kickoff, they generally bet on who will win, what the scoring margin will be, and which statistical milestone a star player will achieve. Paying little attention to the odds. Square players love to combine multiple bets into a parlay. Sharps have the opposite tendencies. They, a target less popular leagues and bet as soon as odds are published when they are most likely to be mispriced. They shop around. They like obscured derivative markets, such as how many points will be scored in the third quarter and they bet on lesser known players to perform poorly. They rarely use parlays. They make big deposits and sell them with draw winnings. Now this analysis is so reliable that according to consultants who work in the gambling industry, sportsbooks can determine the lifetime value of your account with 90% accuracy by the time you place your first bet. And indeed, companies like DraftKings take full advantage of this kind of information. Here's a quote from DraftKings CEO Jason Robbins explaining at a bank of America that last September about why he believes that sportsbooks have advantages over prediction markets like polymarket or calcium. And here's what he said, quote, it's going to be very difficult to ever have as full featured in offering at a prediction market set up as you could in an online sportsbook, one of the chief reasons being risk management. When you're putting as a market maker, a market up on an exchange, you just have to be comfortable with anyone taking that liquidity. Anyone can fill that order versus we're able to place limits on sharps and other people. And that's the only reason we're able to offer the variety of bets and things that we can. This is a very important admission and anyone who bets on sports should be aware of it. DraftKings is admitting that their moat, their competitive advantage over prediction markets like polymarket is that they will throb all the betting power of their most successful customers. They will shut you down if you start making too much money. This is the kind of thing that draftKings investors like to hear because it shows that the company is protecting its profits, but it's not the kind of thing that draftKings wants its customer base to really know about or focus on. So put simply sportsbooks are often rigged against you in several different ways. The profits aren't anywhere near what they should be, particularly on parlias, which are much worse bets than most people realize. And if you start making too much money, they just shut you down. Now in that respect, sportsbooks are very different from most forms of actual investing. No brokerage on the planet will ban you if your portfolio increases. They want your portfolio to increase and of course most forms of investing are not all or nothing. If you invest in a typical S&P 500 EFT and it drops by 2% in one day, you haven't actually lost any money in a real sense unless you sell. There's always the possibility you'll regain your money and based on the history of stock market, you probably will. That might seem obvious to you, but for many people, especially young people, none of this is very obvious. They don't realize what they're getting into until it's far too late. Here's another quote from the economist on that point. Quote, the NCAA survey found that 16% of 18 to 22 year olds engage in problematic sports gambling. A poll conducted by CNN University in January found their quarter of men who have gambling on sports say a friend or family member has expressed concern about their betting habits. Some 28% of 18 to 34 year old men who use sports betting apps said that they have had trouble meeting a financial obligation because of a lost bet. That's pretty stat, numbers are staggering. I found this article to be really compelling when I read it for those reasons. There's also this new paper from the University of Oregon which suggests that in states where sports betting is legal and the home team loses in cases where the home team was the favorite to win, there is a larger degree of domestic violence compared to states where sports betting is not legal. Using data from the 2011 to 2022 national incident based reporting system, we document that in states where sports betting has been legalized, the effect of upset losses on domestic violence is about 67 percentage points larger than in states without sports betting. Furthermore, we find that the effects are driven by home teams on a winning streak, states with legal, mobile betting, Sunday, Sunday's right after paydays and states with a larger betting market. The pattern of these findings confirms that the reaction to gambling laws explains our results. Now the surface, this finding makes sense intuitively. It's logical to conclude that people will care more about the outcome of sports of a game when they're when they've bet on the game and when people lose a lot of money, they're more likely to become upset. And people who are angry are more likely to commit acts of violence against people who happen to be around them. It's another reason to ban or at least heavily restrict sports gambling or at least make it not as readily available as it currently is. But there's another aspect of this research that's worth talking about. You take a look at this chart from the appendix of the data prepared by these data scientists at the University of Oregon, which you can see right here. The purple line is the degree of domestic intimate partner violence as they call it in states without legalized sports betting. That's the control basically. As you can see, the rate of domestic violence goes down very slightly when the home team wins a game they're expected to win. And it goes up very slightly when the home team loses a game they're expected to win, which is what you would expect with this correlation. Meanwhile, the orange line reflects states where sports gambling is legal. And in those states, as we just mentioned, domestic violence goes up significantly when the home team loses despite being favored. But here's another interesting find it. The rate of domestic violence goes down by a much greater amount when the home team wins a game that they were favored to win. According to this research, the net effect of sports gambling is that there's actually less domestic violence overall. Many might otherwise do this, beat their wives, who bet on the home team when they're favored, refrain from committing domestic violence when they get a payout. And that happens more often than the alternative scenario by some margin. Of course, you have to take any kind of data like this with a grain of salt, certainly, maybe with a significantly large grain of salt. But in general, these findings are obviously unsettling and the important takeaway is not really whether sports betting increases or decreases the risk of domestic violence. I'm sure you could start poking holes in this. The takeaway is just really the insane degree of emotional investment that sports betting encourages its users to have in the outcome of a football game or any other game. Even aside from domestic violence, certainly the vast majority of sports bettors are not abusing their spouses, obviously. But it just raises a question about whether it's a good thing for society to have so many people so deeply invested emotionally and financially in watching sports and so focused on it and distracted by it. I mean, I'm a sports fan, but is that making anyone's life better? On this show, we've discussed a lot of academic findings, most of which are nonsense or meaningless. But what we're seeing here is not nonsensical. It's a picture that is quite grim when you start really looking into it. And again, this is reminiscent of the problems affecting heavy marijuana users and the users of other drugs. Their relationships are destroyed, their happiness or unhappiness is contingent on the drug. And once that happens, even if things go well for a little bit, inevitably it all collapses in the end. There's also a clear psychological component to gambling addiction, which is similar to what marijuana users experience. It's a compulsion that starts young in many cases. So here's a gambling addiction counselor describing a 15 year old client who stole nearly a million dollars from his grandmother and then spent it on fan do much. How old is your youngest client? But youngest gambling client we have was 15. And are you able to share any other story? So he came from Orthodox family. He was a great kid, great family support system. Mom called because he had been gambling. They thought that there was some shady stuff going on. So when I first started meeting with him, he was very secretive. Do you want to share anything? Then started to share that he had stolen his parents and his grandparents social security numbers. He had four fan dual accounts. Three he got locked out of when we got into the fourth account, which was under his grandmother social security number. He had placed $887,000 in bet. And it was over 12 month period. And when his mom and I went through that and we were looking, he was betting all day during school. He was betting at night when he was supposed to be sleeping. You know, there was so many different bets. And on top of that, he had side bets going on in school with his peers. So then he was stealing the parents social credit cards. And the way he would pay his bookies in school was to order Uber Eats for everybody. And he would pay them off of food. So there was all these, he had all these different avenues to get money forwarded to him. Now this is an extreme case, obviously, but these kinds of cases, even if they don't rise to a level of a 15 year old, you know, stealing a million dollars and betting it over the course of 12 month period. Even if they don't rise quite to that level, these kinds of cases are becoming increasingly common. And that is obvious when you start really looking into it. Dave Ramsey, who spends his time helping people manage debt, says it's the single biggest problem he's seeing at the moment. For their part, vice just ran a documentary on the topic. Watch. He's 300,000 in debt on credit cards. His wife just found out it's all sports betting, which is probably the fastest growing addictive problem that we're running into in the money world right now. That's right. Out of control sports betting. You can bet on whether they're going to dance backwards or forwards after a touchdown. You can bet on anything, right? And they are betting on everything. And it's out of control. Some of you are losing your entire futures to betting on watching someone else earn a living. I won't say his name, but I know an individual is bet $4.3 million total and he's my issue. A lot of young men are not just betting on sports, but betting recklessly and are developing a really problematic relationship to gambling and lose a lot of money. I need to stop gambling. But are you? You're joking a lot, but do you actually think you need to stop? Yes. 1% The problem is, this sounds bad, but I do have like, I work a lot. I make good money for my age. It's not ruining my life by any means. I still have enough money to go do what I want, what I want. But it's definitely building habits that once I start making 60, 70, 80 plus grand a year that, yeah, the units are going to go up. I'm going to lose more. It's definitely a problem that has been a pattern in my family and that I've been told from a young age to stay away from. I think I've diced that too. I'm an arm from my grandpa. He was a gambler. So yes, if we're going to revert to the question, I would say it's definitely becoming a problem. And I would like to stop. Now in an ideal world, people could handle sports betting in a responsible fashion. They could bet a small amount of money, handful of times a year, and it would not affect their lives. People would treat it like a game, not a lifestyle, not an investment strategy, not a career path. And they would enjoy the game and moderation, never spending more than they can afford to lose, never being too emotionally tied, invested in it, tied up in it. That's an ideal world. That's how they bet. I said, I've placed bets in the past. There's not even the inclination to become, for this to become compulsive. It's not that fun. It's just every once in a while, just an amusement, but a few bucks on a game. But that's just simply not what's actually happening at scale. It's not what's actually at scale. That ideal scenario is not what is really happening. And so we got to deal with what is really happening. The Supreme Court eliminated the federal nationwide ban on sports gambling back in 2018, specifically the court with Justice Alito writing the opinion, struck down a federal law from 1992 that took the power to regulate gambling away from the states as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. So it's been almost eight years. And anyone who supports sports gambling, I have just one question, but I want you to answer it honestly. This is the question I had to ask myself. After all that time, has the mass legalization and ready availability of online gambling improved the country in any way whatsoever? Has it achieved anything positive that anyone can point to? Well, I think it's impossible to answer yes to that question. It's easy to point to the negative effects, the money wasted, the time wasted, the relationships destroyed, lives ruined. All that is real, only becoming more and more common. So what are the positive effects to counterbalance this? Are there any at all? Well, it seems clear that the answer is no. And therefore we all need to ask, because I had to ask myself, why are we doing this? Why promote it? Why engage in it? Why endorse it? After a lot of thought, I've changed my answers on those questions. And if you're heavily invested in sports gambling for the sake of your relationships and your livelihood, I hope you do as well. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know what holiday our sponsor, Pure Talk celebrates, President's Day? Because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents, just a Jackson and a Lincoln. That's $25 a month for unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data. Think about it. That's the cost of one or two meals out versus the hundreds. That big wireless charges families every month. There's no reason wireless service needs to be that expensive. Well, makes Pure Talk different, goes beyond just price. They're an American wireless company that actively supports our veterans and invests in US-based customer service team. So when you call, you're speaking with someone right here at home who can actually help you. Not a useless AI chatbot. Plus, Pure Talk uses the same towers as the big carrier. So enjoy Superior 5G coverage without the inflated price, just $25 a month for talk, text, and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. Go to puretalk.com slash wall. And you get 50% off your first month again. That's puretalk.com slash wall. To make the switch to pure talk. All right. By the way, before we get the headlines, let me shock you with something. Here's a shocking headline that I want to see the extended edition of Lord of the Rings. Return of the King yesterday in theaters. It was actually the second one I saw this week. I saw the two towers on Saturday. And I know I'm known as kind of a Lord of the Rings hater, but that's not exactly accurate. I don't hate the films. And so I took my kids. I need to just go by myself. I took my kids to go see the extent because they have the extended edition re-release, like theatrical re-release through Fathom, I think. And my kids are, you know, big time Lord of the Rings fans. And they have it. They've never obviously didn't see it in theaters when it first came out. They weren't. They didn't exist. So I thought it'd be a chance to go take them and they had a blast. They had a lot of fun. I have to say though, all of my criticisms of Lord of the Rings were vindicated as I'm watching them. I just, I have to say this, especially after I spent the first 25 minutes of the show talking about something I was wrong about, which happens on occasion. Occasionally I get something wrong. Here was something I was right about, which is these movies. Now, I mean, the movies are entertaining. I enjoyed them overall. I had fun taking my kids to them. I don't hate the films. I think they're well made. I think they're fun. And it was mostly cool just watching it in the theater with my kids. But my God, subtlety. S subtlety is not Peter Jackson's strong suit. I'll just say that. You know, he pounds you over the head with a cinder block. Whatever emotion you want you to feel, he just pounds. It's like he's got a sledgehammer just pounding you in the head, telling you to f- pummeling you to death. If this is supposed to be a sad part, this is a sad B-sad. This part is sad. That's the entire movie. The score, the dialogue, the visuals, all, very insistent. Very insistent. I just want to leave anything up to interpretation. Which I get to respect that. I think sometimes movies these days are a little too ambiguous. You know, filmmakers these days are go a little too far with the subtlety oftentimes. They want to be more ambiguous. You know, they want to keep things gray and open to interpretation. And I don't like that when it goes too far. Because you should have the courage to tell your story, actually tell the story, and don't leave everything up to interpretation. But I think Peter Jackson just waved too far in the other direction. And the extended edition, it's even worse. Like the theatrical cut of Return of the Kings was already 19 hours. And then you watch the extended edition, and it's a 19 more hours somehow. And you're watching like all these additional, how much did you film? How long was this shoot? Is the shoot still happening somehow? I mean, how, how, how is, how do you have all these extra scenes? And of course, I already knew, you know, Return of the Kings is infamous for the, how many times it ends, it has multiple endings. And I forgot just how egregious that was. And I don't know if I can't remember the theatrical cut versus this one. Maybe they added even more endings. But the one that I just saw, this movie ends like 12 times. I mean, there's 12 different points where you're like, yeah, that could be the end. Or not there. Okay, what about there? What about there? And the most egregious thing is at the very end, right? You got the, what seems like the final, final, final scene, where Frodo and Gandalf go off to Elfland or whatever. They board the ship and they go off to Elfland. And it, you know, and everyone's crying and it's sad and it's bittersweet. And then it fades out. And you think, okay, finally, that's the end. The thing is sailing away, the sun is setting, literally sailing off into the sunset. That's it. And then it comes back again. So we can see Sam returning home to his wife and kids. Why did we need to see that, Peter? What was, why did you decide, how did that make it through the, the edit? Why does that need to be the last scene? We know he's going to go home. We don't need to see him do it. We, we get it like he's has a home. He's going to go back to it. Um, have a little, have a little faith in your audience, Peter. That's it. Just a little faith that we can kind of piece some of this stuff together. We could fill in some of the blanks. We really can't. We don't need every last thing shown to us. Thanks to home surf for sponsoring this episode. There are a lot of perks stoning a home versus renting from a landlord. But one of the things that most people dread about buying and owning a home with the expensive repairs that are bound to happen. Regular homeowners insurance doesn't cover everyday repairs like plumbing failures and electrical issues leaving you on your own to cover the repairs. But now there's another option called home surf. For as little as $4.99 a month, you get back up when things break instead of a frantically searching for a contractor in a panic. It already be on the phone with home serves 24 seven hotline getting something scheduled. Home serve has a lot of different plans to choose from that cover different things. Just pick a plan. It fits your budget and when something goes wrong, all you got to do is call home serve. And they will handle all before you they've been doing this for over 20 years with a network of 2600 local contractors. Home serve could have been great when my wife and I bought our first home instead of spending hours calling around for quotes and costs. Could have just called home serve and would have been done in one call and that would have been it. Help protect your home systems and your wallet with home serve against covered repairs. Plan started just 4.99 a month. Go to home serve.com to find the plan that's right for you. It's home serve.com not available everywhere. Most plans range from 4.99 to 11.99 a month your first year. Terms apply on covered repairs. All right, post millennial has a support newly released footage shows Alex pretty confronting federal agents in Minneapolis 11 days before he was fatally shot on January 24th. By center video from January 13th shows a man identified as this guy approaching immigration customs enforcement agents who were blocking a street in the footage. She sheen she's shouting at agents and kicking their vehicle. And there's there was this video surface yesterday. And there was some people trying to say it's fake it's AI has been confirmed this is real. Is a real videos again is from a couple of weeks almost two weeks before the fatal shooting and let's go ahead and watch it. This is a moment the news movement filmed on January 13th in Minneapolis showing a man who appears to be Alex Freddie interacting with federal immigration agents 11 days before border patrol shot and killed him. Our footage was analyzed by the BBC whose facial recognition technology confirmed his identity to a 97% degree of accuracy. On the morning of January 13th our team received a tip that federal agents were blocking a street at the corner of East 36 and Park Avenue in Minneapolis. We arrived around 1015 am we saw observers shouting at the agents to say walk back to their vehicles. When they started driving away the man kicked their tail light. An agent then got out of the vehicle grabbed him and pushed him to the ground. During the altercation agents fired tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd. They continued to hold the man down before they retreat and he walks away. So again has been confirmed so that is Alex pretty pretty I guess is I had a brown. And he's best of the officers kicks their tail light out deliberately instigates a violent competition. There's another video another angle from the same event the same competition and listen to what Freddie says here. Okay so I don't know what the bleeping I don't know if you can hear it now he says assault me assault me mother effort and then he spits at the guy. Literally asking to be assaulted. So does this change anything does it change our view of the incident that got that got a pretty killed well. For me it doesn't because I already knew that Freddie was a hundred percent at fault for his own death. I already knew that he was a leftist to generate unhinged thug. And I knew that because I'm not an idiot because I have a brain and because we've seen this movie many times before. I didn't need any additional context to immediately recognize who this guy is. And what he is but if you somehow got duped if you're if you fell for the propaganda that Freddie was just an innocent peaceful bystander. Yes it should change your view because what we know now is that this guy was an agitator who repeatedly went out onto the street with a loaded gun. Committing crimes and intentionally provoking violent interactions, confrontations with law enforcement. That's what we know. And obviously that matters. He wanted the confrontation. It was a violent person. I mean you don't kick a tail light out if you're not a violent person. Particularly kicking the tail light out of a law enforcement vehicle. And the fact that he was committing crimes as I've already said makes the second amendment argument totally invalid. It completely erases that argument again you cannot carry a gun and commit a crime you can carry a gun. Right you should be able to cut it carry on you can carry a gun. The law is in different states vary but you can carry a gun. If you commit a crime though and have a gun on you even if you don't pull the gun out you still can get more charges just for having the gun. Like if you go rob a bank and you have a gun on you even if you never pull the gun out or mention it. That's still going to be an armed robbery. And there's not going to be any second amendment defense here. You're robbing the person and doing it armed whether you pull the gun out or not really doesn't matter. This is a very definition of armed robbery. Well what I would say pretty obviously is that these are armed confrontations with law enforcement. How can I say that? Well he's armed and he's instigating confrontations with law enforcement. Period. There is no such thing as legally carrying a gun while committing a crime. There is no such thing as legally carrying in the commission of a crime. And gun or no gun again we know that this was a violent person looking to instigate violent confrontations. The other thing that this new information teaches us is that the law needs to be enforced. It's best for everybody including the leftist agitators themselves. If you come down hard on these people arrest them all throw them in jail cells. Charge them with every possible crime under the sun that you can. Right no bail throw them in a jail cell Alex will be alive today if he if if that had happened. That's the other lesson. If law enforcement is responsible for this guy's death and they aren't really but the only argument that I will entertain that places the blame on law enforcement is that they didn't arrest this guy the first time. If they've done that he'd be alive. And you know the funny thing of course is that the left will tell us they are telling us that pretties history very recent history of violent interactions with law enforcement that that history does not matter. And yet these are the same people who will insist that the fact that he's a nurse matters. So look you square in the eye and they will tell you that yeah he's on video having a kicking the tail light out of law enforcement vehicle spitting on law enforcement physically violently confronting them that doesn't matter. That's background that doesn't that doesn't mean anything. And the next breath they'll say oh but he was a nurse. You're telling me they killed a nurse a nurse of all people. What the hell does him being a nurse have to do with it in that case. So him being a nurse is relevant but the fact that he is has a habit now on video that we have seen of him violently physically confronting law enforcement that doesn't matter. What are you talking about. And this is the way that it always goes this is the way that it always goes with the left. This is why I have no patience for the people who the people on the right who fall for this still. Okay fall for this still if you still fall for this if you're conservative and you still fell for that you know they show him it's the picture of him and the nurse in the scrubs. He was just a he was a great man he was a great peaceful man such a nice guy such a great guy like you're going around like how do you know that anyway. I saw people even some people that I previous not now but had previously respected to some degree. Saying stuff like this. Who was it who's a good man a nurse what the hell do you how do you know he's a good guy what are you talking about. Well because he was a nurse I mean he was like there aren't like there aren't nurses out there who are total scumbags like being a nurse is a reflection of your character somehow. But this is what they do so they start by telling us this entirely fictional biographical story where the martyr was this benevolent humble servant of humanity. And of the oppressed as well they start by telling us that right that's the old gentle giant you know that goes back to the gentle giant Michael Brown. The same thing with George Floyd right and then when it turns out as it literally always does always that actually this martyr was a violent unhinged weirdo. They immediately pivot and insist that his character personal life don't matter. But you just spent two weeks in incessantly telling us about all the details of his personal life what he did for a living his charitable donations right his family his parents his what his neighbors thought right he volunteered at a soup kitchen. What his dog's name was. He tells all that for two weeks and then the minute we say well you know actually here's the real reality of this guy what doesn't matter why are you talking about oh that means he deserves to get shot. Well no but did the fact that he was a nurse automatically mean that it was wrong to shoot him. These people are so there that's why again I just have no. It's okay to get things wrong once again started the show with it you can get things wrong I get it but on this kind of thing at this point. At this point after all that we have seen after all that we have all experience together. In the year twenty twenty six. But usually when people say oh I can't believe you would do that in the in the current year I mean usually that's a cliche. But in this case it matters like in this year. We are six years past twenty twenty. And you're still falling for this. How stupid can a person possibly be. So and we'll probably have more on that tomorrow that point but any conservative who folded on this issue any conservative who bought the leftist line on this case has discredited themselves permanently. And I really mean that from Amazon MGM studios comes Melania this new film takes you inside the twenty days leading up to twenty twenty five. Twenty twenty five presidential inauguration through the eyes of the first lady herself the briefings the planning the private conversations witness what it takes secure her return to one of the world's most powerful roles Melania only in theaters January 30. Now while we're on the subject Bruce Springsteen at the ripe old age of 112 has just released a new song. They tribute to Alex Freddie and Renee good. He put this this song out he says that he wrote it in the span of a day wrote it and recorded it in one day and you can really tell you can really tell it was not a lot of time put into this thing. Here it is. Through the winter's ice and cold down the good. A city of flame fought fire and ice. Me then I could fire his boots King Trump's private army from the DHS guns belted to the coast came to Minneapolis to enforce the law. So their story goes against smoke and rubber bullets in the dawn's early light. Citizens stood for justice their voices ringing through the night. And there were bloody footprints. There you go. That's good. So there you go. It's a generic boomer slop. I'd say it's kind of sad that 97 year old Bruce Springsteen has to be the one to step up to the plate to make the cringe protest anthem. And it's sad because it goes to show something we've talked about before that rock music is dead. And it brings me no pleasure to report that but it is it is. There are not any current relevant bands around to step up to the plate and make the protest anthems anymore. Not that I think that what's happening with ice is worthy of being protested but. You know it it just goes like protest music doesn't really exist anymore and the only people still doing it are these rock stars that that have been passed their prime for four decades. And they're the only ones still doing it because all of it died during the Obama administration. The last gasp of protest music of rock and roll in general was the Bush administration. And as soon as Obama took office it all went away because because none of the rock bands wanted to be seen as racist. So protest music died and rock music died too. Those things kind of go together. Because the energy of rock music the animating energy is all about standing up to the man right and then Obama gets in office. And nutty people want to stand up to it. So it all just dies and now even under Trump there's just nobody around except old Bruce old geriatric Bruce eating a pudding cup writing another protest song. But I would say one thing the liberal women on tiktok liberal women and the cringe liberals on tiktok are going to love this. I'll say that not because they're normally a Bruce Springsteen fans. You know Bruce Springsteen has no fans that are under the age of 80 at this point and most tiktok users are considerably younger than that. But they're going to hear this song they're going to think it's the most profound thing of all time. And there and I'm I guarantee I don't even checked but there's going to be a million videos of liberal millennial women and men who function basically as women getting ready to go. Here's what we're going to see we're going to see the video of like it's the selfie video this cringe songs playing in the background and we see them suiting up right getting ready getting their gloves on getting their jacket on putting putting the vest on getting ready to go protest. We're going to see that time inevitably marches on which means you get old is just a fact a stiff joins energy dips those nights were sleep just doesn't hit like it used to luckily for us there's helped c 15 from our sponsor fatty 15 c 15 is the first essential fatty acid discovered in over 90 years of legitimate scientific breakthrough strength is ourselves and up slow biological aging at the cellular level and when ourselves age our bodies age to a wild part is a lot of things. Wild part as many as one of three people worldwide may have low c 15 levels and something called cellular fragility syndrome and it's a different type of fragility syndrome than a majority of democrats likely have in my opinion. That's just a little joke a little joke for you in the ad read hilarious one to glad that one was in there that's funny stuff fatty 15 repairs that age related damage that we all experience protect cells from future breakdown. It helps regulate sleep cognitive help and our bodies natural repair mechanisms 72% of customers report real benefits within 16 weeks better sleep healthier joints improved energy plus it has three times more cellular benefits that omega three I'm excited to start using it and look forward to some of the sleep and cognitive benefits especially all the family activities that my kids get me into. We're just having fun with this copy with a lot of jokes. This is everyone settle down settle down for a second from the laughter so I can finish like a finished I want to tell you about this and I just everyone just. Appororiously laughing for this hilarious ad read fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your c 15 levels to help support your long term health and wellness especially as you age you get additional 15% off there 90 day subscription starter kit by going to fatty 15 dot com slash wall. Using code wall at checkout. And that's the other thing the amount of cringe that we have seen from these people. Is we're used to it but it's truly staggering. So I want this is just one example I think we have of hundreds hundreds and hundreds you see his videos pop up all the time. This is a millennial liberal this is a man in this case allegedly whose handle is fire breather. And here's what people have been asking when's the time. After today. The song is been some. These are the days. It's time. He was he loved that so much he was so impressed you know you watch that video back. A hundred times before he posted he was so proud of it. The song has been some. You love that line. You're so proud of that line. The song has been some. You know how many times you probably shot that you know how he takes how many takes went into that. I owe any time I see this cringe to take that videos it's the first thing I think about is how many takes what take was that. There's a wasn't the first take I'll tell you that right now. And he's in his bathroom like at least at least take the little mermaid bath towel down before you do your superhero routine. You're standing right in front of the bath towel like no one could be intimidating in their bathroom with a bath towel right there. You know his kids are out in the living room. His wife's out to dinner with her boyfriend and this guy's in the bathroom filming this weapons grade cringe. All the kids are looking around like where's dad. Dad can I get in the bathroom I gotta use the bathroom. Sorry hang out be out in a minute I gotta. I'm acting like I'm in a Marvel movie. This is what happens when you have this generation of sheltered scrawny skinny fat dorks who grew up on Marvel movies and Harry Potter. And now they want to pretend they're guerrilla fighters. I'm surprised they're not out there wearing capes. I really am. I mean maybe some of them already are. I'm surprised they're not out there in capes. I'm surprised they're not out there in rubber suits. I mean you do see some rubber suits but that's usually different context like an LGBT type of thing but I'm surprised they're not. I'm surprised they're not like taping you know when you're in fifth grade you tape pencils to your knuckles. Like your Wolverine. I'm surprised I'm not doing that. Total cringe. And yet these people have been allowed to just run roughshod over the country do whatever they want. Here's a story you probably didn't hear about ABC News. A New York school district is erasing its Native American heritage and violating civil rights law by changing its name from the Thunderbirds to the T birds federal educational officials say US Department of Education to Thursday that the connect Quack Central School District can voluntarily reserve or rather resolve the federal law violation by restoring the rightful Thunderbirds name the long Island district like others in the state. Change its name in order to comply with state regulations banning Native American sports names and mascots. The federal education officials argue the state mandate violates civil rights law because it allows schools to continue using names derived from other racial or ethnic groups. Such as the Dutchman and the Huguenots. So aside from the specific specifics of this one name Thunderbirds versus T birds the point here is that I didn't know this. I was surprised that New York has a law apparently an actual state law banning Native American team names no other ethnic team names are banned only Native Americans. Just Native American names and the great thing about a law like this is that it's so bad and so dumb and so counterproductive that it's fundamentally racist against everybody somehow. The good manages to you're not sure which group is it's more racist against. I mean it is a legitimately racist law that somehow manages to be racist against everybody. Now most obviously it's racist against all the races and ethnicities that it isn't trying to protect. Not that anybody really needs to be protected from a mascot or a school team name but the premise of the law the claim is that it is harmful somehow to base a team name on an ethnic group. But then the law says we are only going to protect one group from this kind of horrible harm that they're being threatened with. And that's obviously racist but on the other hand the effect is that it just further erases references to an appreciation of Native American culture because that's obviously what these team names represent. You know you name your team after something that you admire something that you revere. So this has been our point all along about this dumb Native American team name controversy all across the country. The whole point is that this is a sign of respect and admiration. Okay, if you hate a group or you think they're pathetic or beneath you you're not going to you're not going to march under their banner. You're not going to put them on your jersey. You're not going to name your team after them. So all in all it's just the dumbest kind of law imaginable and just as the overall nationwide campaign against Native American mascots has been incredibly dumb and self defeating. That's what happens when you come up with laws and policies that are grounded in a sense of guilt and a deeply cartoonishly skewed view of history. Which is what this is all really about. That's what any discussion of Native Americans is wrapped up in. It's wrapped up in guilt and historical nonsense. Which is why our second episode of my new series Real History, I must mention, deals with this subject and as you know we launched my new documentary series Real History a couple of weeks ago. And this is an effort to confront and clarify tell the truth about the real truth about some of the most important episodes in American history and in world history. And we'll tell you the things that the schools don't teach you and that the media doesn't tell you and Hollywood doesn't tell you our first episode is available now in daily wire was about slavery. The next one which I'm excited about deals with the real history of the Native Americans. On the morning of June 14th 1786, Captain James Moore's family woke up on what seemed to be a normal day in Southwest Virginia. But as they left the family's cabin to tend to their farm animals, the fearful war wound was heard and a rating party of Ohio Valley Shawnee Indians rode down a ridge line and attacked them. Captain Moore was shot seven times before being tomahawked and scalped. The Indians then murdered three of his children, leaving only his family members who were locked inside the cabin. Much like the Barbary pirates, the Indians broken to the house, shot the dogs, plundered and burned the home, killed the livestock and took Moore's wife and surviving children captive. The rating party stole horses and embarked on a journey to Detroit, which was then an open air market for humans captured by Indians. Okay, so that was my was wrong. This actually clip from the first episode on the second one, which is now yet but deals with the deals with the subject. And if you want to see that episode about slavery or the next one, which is going to be about the Native Americans, and it's going to give you a, I hate to use the term because it's so overused, but it is an actual nuanced view of the topic because what we don't want to do is replace one cartoonish view of history with a not with a different competing cartoon. We're not going to do that either. And when it comes to, you know, the history of this country is Native Americans. It's not true that the Native Americans were these noble savages. It's not true that they were helpless victims. It's not true that there was a campaign of genocide waged against them. None of that is true. We get into that. However, there were examples of savagery against the Native Americans that that did occur. Just as there were examples, it's going the other way and we'll get into all that. And if you want to see that and you want to get more of these kinds of episodes, you need to subscribe to the daily wire, which you should do right now or at least after after we're done here. Finally, you know, as a, as a happily married man, I very often come across things that make me think, wow, I'm glad that isn't me. I very often come across that sort of thing where I see what's happening in the personal lives and relationships of other people. And I think, I think I'm just glad I'm not that person. And which I, it's not a gloating thing. It's more of a gratitude. It's an actual, it's a sense of gratitude that wow, okay. I'm glad I'm not in that situation. And I had that experience when reading this op-ed in the telegraph written by Celia Warden, who happens to be apparently the wife of Pierce Morgan. Pierce recently fell and broke his hip. And that was about two weeks ago that this happened. But already his wife is fed up with the relatively minor inconvenience that this has caused in her life. And she wrote an entire editorial complaining about this. Here's the headline. Here's the headline. Carrying for my invalid husband, Pierce is the biggest test of our wedding vows. I signed up to Insignus and Health, but it's almost two weeks since he broke his hip and my patience with my patient is wearing thin. Wow. Now granted, again, two weeks, two weeks. Now, I think this article granted is supposed to be funny to some extent. It's not really funny. But I think that's some of what she's going for. It's always hard to tell when women try to write something funny. You can know it, because it's not going to actually be funny. So you have to think like I think that it's a translation thing. It's like listening to someone speak in a different language. And they're gesticulating wildly and you're just trying to interpret. I think what he's trying to say. So when a woman is trying to be funny, you're like, I think what she's attempting here is comedy. I think I'm not sure. So I think they're supposed to be some of that. But what it is is just one very long, very public complaint that a wife is making about her husband who committed the sin of getting injured. And so here she is describing her thought process when she found out that her husband broke his hip. And that's when the doom montage started up in both our heads, you know, the little horror movie that plays out in an emergency when all the forthcoming miseries and complications are spliced together in a chilling fast forwarded sequence, general anesthetic, the operation itself, the crutches, the rehab, the massive hit to your professional life, the canceled holiday. Very few things live up or down to the doom montage as challenging as the aftermath of accidents are, they don't tend to be quite as bad as we think they'll be in the moment of diagnosis. This however, so much worse, certainly the biggest test of the vows we've had to endure so far. I signed up to in sickness and health, but there was nothing in the small print about shower stools and once I'd assembled the most hideous piece of furniture and existence, I said, here's a picture of it captioned, this is what the end of a marriage looks like followed by a laughing emoji. His reply came seconds later way too soon. I had to, I had wanted to be a selfless wife, Jennifer Connolly in a beautiful mind. And an endlessly tolerant nurse, but as the days have worn on and peers as snappiness has increased, my patience has worn thin. It's possible that I have on occasion left the remote control just a centimeter out of reach with a love island on telly. The portion sizes may have been produced a little, the carbs eliminated in the treats with hell desire more from Florence Nightingale into nurse ratchet. And we'll get through this of course we will, but I'll be honest with you right now in one 4 a.m. fall and crutch away from Kathy Bates in misery. I just want to remind you that she wrote this after two weeks of helping her husband. Two weeks and she's completely fed up. And on top of writing this article, she also appeared on some British morning TV show, or daytime show, I don't know, where she did a whole interview about the injury and how it's affected her. And complying that peers is snappy and impatient and said that she's just looking for an excuse to get out of the house because he's so miserable to be around. So two weeks in and this woman's doing a mediator about why the real victim of her husband's injury is her. This is what you get for marrying a feminist. I mean, this is where it leads. This is why it cannot work. This is why it never works. Marriage requires a level of self sacrifice that feminists are constitutionally incapable of and fundamentally opposed to. Like they're not only selfish people, but they're actually opposed in principle to the idea of selfishness or of selflessness rather. They're opposed to selflessness and they have made a virtue of selfishness, especially in the context of a relationship with a man. So this is what you get. And I'll also say, you know, even aside from feminists, and we know that feminists are awful. And if you married one, then it was the worst mistake you've ever made in your life. And it's probably going to destroy your life. I mean, I don't know how else to play. I don't want to be the, I hate to be Debbie Downer, but if you married a feminist, then you've basically ruined your life. But even non-feminist women still, I think, have a kind of, that's some of what's coming through in this, still have kind of an innate propensity to get a little bit annoyed at their husbands for being sick or injured. And, you know, that is kind of a thing if we're being honest, but when you take it out of the feminist context, it comes from a natural place. It comes even from a good place, which is that first of all, the husband is supposed to be a protector and provider. And, and, you know, obviously if they get injured or they're sick, it's not their fault. And so that's the way it is. But it's, it's, you know, unsettling and difficult to see the protector and provider incapacitated. Because men are the captains, men are the pilots. And it's like if your pilot on the plane is sick or incapacitated, that's going to make you kind of upset. And I remember once I saw a pilot, before we were, it's before we took off and, and I could see into the cockpit. And I saw the pilot, just his, all, this is all I saw. Okay, just, I saw him do this. Just like, just rubbing the temple briefly, the universal sign of a headache. I just saw him do that. And he might not even do that. He might have just scratched, but it looked like that. It was enough to, that I caught my eye. I'm like, what? What are you doing? You have a headache? You're not allowed. You can't have a headache. You, you have to fly this plane. You cannot have a headache. That's not okay. Like I'm not at all concerned about your health right now. You, you got to fly this plane and you're not allowed to have a headache. You cannot have a headache. Have a headache when you get home, not right now. And so I think there's some of that with women when their husbands are kind of out of commission. And the other thing is that women are naturally empathetic. So they, they will, they will feel whatever you are feeling. And if, if you're really stressed out, then they get stressed out. This is one of the reasons why I, you know, people get annoyed at me when I talk about it. But is why I say with men that we should, you know, men should not complain very much. They shouldn't unload their emotions. They should cry in front of their, their wives. Now, again, if you're sick or injured, then you can't help that. That's, that's just the way it is. But to the extent that you can keep this stuff internalized. To any reasonable extent that you can, you should because whatever you're feeling, your wife will start to feel that also. In a way that as a man, it doesn't really work as much the other way. So if you're stressed out, then your wife feels stressed out. If you're in pain as a man, they feel that too. And that's not a bad thing in and of itself. Like it's good. That's the different, many women are different. And my wife is extremely empathetic, they extremely. And that's great because I, that's not exactly my strong suit. It may shock you to learn. Empathy is not exactly not exactly my strongest trait. And but she's gotten more than enough for both of us. And that's fantastic. But, you know, these two things can, together can sort of create tension when a man is sick or injured in some way. But this work goes back to. You need your wife to not be a feminist. Because no matter what frustration you might feel as a wife, you know, you have to recognize your obligation. Your duty to your husband. As husbands most recognize their obligations to their wives. But a feminist rejects the idea that women have any obligation to anyone at all least of all their husbands. A feminist will more readily accept that they have an obligation to anyone else on the planet. I mean, a feminist will say certainly will accept obligations from their boss at work. A feminist will feel greater obligation to like a random third world Somali con artist living down the street than they will to their own husband. And, you know, they're fundamentally opposed to the idea of wife, Lee and motherly obligation. So opposed to it that they, you know, feminism encourages women to kill their children to escape the obligation. That is how opposed to this obligation they are. And so if you marry someone like that, then this is what you get. You marry someone like that. Not a good idea. But if that's already happened, then I don't know. Never get sick or never need anything because ever because your wife who is a feminist will resent and hate you for it. Which, which, your, your wife, the feminist, if she's a feminist, she's going to resent and hate you all the time anyway. So I guess it's really not going to be much different. All right, we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. What was it like, Maling, to be alone with God? Is that who you think I was alone with? Martin, I knew your father. I mean, I'm yet convinced that he was not of this world. Oh, man, no of the great Taliesin. You are my father. That the God should war for my soul. Princess Gareth, savior of our people. I know the bull God offered you. I was offered the same. And? There's a new power at work in the world. I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are each giving only one life, singer. And I? And we're giving another. I learnt of Yazoo the Christ. And I have become his follower. He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one. Trust in Yazoo, he is the only hope for men like us. They to Britain never rest in the hands of the great life. Great life. Great darkness. Such things matter to me then. What matters to you now, Mistress of Light? You, nephew. The sword of the High King. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power? You are born to wield. So clean to the promises of a God who has abandoned you. I cannot take up that sword again. You know what you must do. Great life, forgive me. The time has come to be reborn.