Transcript

Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People | Ep. 1732

From Matt Walsh · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 13 min · 12,227 words · 118 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People | Ep. 1732", an episode of Matt Walsh published February 10, 2026 (1 h 13 min, about 12,227 words). It mentions 15 people, works and ideas, including Matt Walsh, Tracy E. Davis, Redfin, Christopher Thompson, Maryland.

What this episode is about

The discussion focuses on a black female judge who reduced the sentence of a convicted rapist by half, citing racial considerations, highlighting deeper systemic anti-white sentiments. Additional topics include a critical look at statistics surrounding deported illegal immigrants, a humorous controversy over squatters' rights in Maryland, and a debate on the significance of equality in marriage as presented by the New York Times.

Key takeaways

  • Justice is subjective: a judge halves a rapist's sentence based on race, sparking heated debates on fairness.
  • If 14% of deported immigrants are violent criminals, what about the other 86%? Context matters in complex issues.
  • Squatters’ rights debate in Maryland proves humor exists even in social justice conflicts—laughter is often the best response.
  • Is equality the marriage goal or a picturesque trap? Baby formula debates reveal deeper relationship dynamics.
  • Super Bowl ads are now dull reminders of cultural shifts: creativity lost in a sea of identity politics and victimhood.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Redfin, Matt Walsh, Bad Bunny, Puerto Rico
  2. – 20:00: Christopher Thompson, Robert Kraft, Tracy E. Davis, Hims and Hers
  3. – 40:00: Cook Unity, CBS, Ammo Squared
  4. – 50:00: Maryland, Matt Walsh
  5. – 1:00:00: Leaf Filter, Nona Willis Aronowitz, New York Times
  6. – 1:12:49: Matt Walsh

Notable quotes from "Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People | Ep. 1732"

  • Equality really something that you should be striving for in your marriage at all? All of that and more today on Matt Walsh Show.
    about Matt Walsh · at
  • That's the reason why Bad Bunny's performance included a bodega with the sign we accept EBT. By the way, you can see it here on the left. It was a reminder to white.
    about Bad Bunny · at
  • Who steals black people's cars, which happens approximately 0% of the time in the real world. Redfin knew exactly what they were doing here. When they posted this ad on their…
    about Redfin · at
  • Bowl, major corporations took pains to portray whites as maliciously as they possibly could. Here's a Super Bowl ad from the healthcare company Hims and Hers, for example. And see if you notice anything.
    about Hims and Hers · at
  • Reason to not simply kill somebody like this legally after they've been convicted in a court of law. But Judge Tracy Davis didn't want this man to serve 65 years, much less face execution.
    about Tracy E. Davis · at
  • The disruptions continued throughout the entire hearing. Thompson was convicted in December of robbery, kidnapping, sodomy, and sexual abuse. In 2023, the 24year-old abducted a woman, robbed her, and sodomized her twice.
    about Christopher Thompson · at
  • Starts in Maryland, Bethesda, Maryland, with a controversy over squatter rights. This is a squatters rights controversy which shouldn't be a controversy because squatters…
    about Maryland · at
  • All right. Finally, I wanted to mention this. The New York Times has an article this week giving us the formula for marriage equality. And the formula is they say formula. It's baby formula. So you can.
    about Nona Willis Aronowitz · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Matt Walsh — Person · Host / main speaker · 4 mentions · first at
    He narrates and frames the episode’s arguments, critiques media/corporate messaging, and comments on legal and cultural stories.
  • Tracy E. Davis — Person · Referenced judge / central case figure · 2 mentions · first at
    Presented as the judge who reduced Christopher Thompson’s sentence; Walsh argues her rationale was race-based and ties her background to DEI work.
  • Christopher Thompson — Person · Referenced defendant / convicted offender in discussed case · 3 mentions · first at
    His conviction and sentencing reduction are used as the episode’s main legal example to argue bias and institutional failure.
  • Nona Willis Aronowitz — Person · Referenced journalist / author of NYT piece · 2 mentions · first at
    Credited as the writer of a New York Times article about 'marriage equality' and baby formula, which Walsh critiques at length.
  • Bad Bunny — Person · Referenced performer (Super Bowl halftime show) · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited as part of Walsh’s critique of Super Bowl cultural messaging; used as an example in his argument about race and welfare references.

Companies & orgs

  • Redfin — Company · Case study · 4 mentions · first at
    Discussed for its controversial Super Bowl ad and legal issues regarding racial discrimination.
  • Hims and Hers — Company · Case study · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned for its Super Bowl ad that portrayed racial and economic disparities.
  • New York Times — Company · Referenced media · 3 mentions · first at
    Cited for an article discussing marriage equality and baby formula.
    The most unintentionally hilarious video of the year. You have to see it for yourself. Finally, the New York Times says that the key to equality in a marriage is baby formula.…
  • CBS — Company · Referenced media · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned for its reporting on immigration statistics under the Trump administration.
    Into our system than most people realize. We'll talk about that. Also, CBS claims that only 14% of illegal immigrants who've been deported by Trump were violent criminals, but…

Places & events

  • Maryland — Place · Setting · 4 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of a squatters rights controversy.
  • Puerto Rico — Place · Referenced location · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed in relation to welfare rates and cultural attitudes towards food stamps.
    That's the highest rate of any US jurisdiction. Nearly 43% of them receive food stamps, which you're paying for. yes, that means that almost half of the population is on food stamps, which is.

Sponsors

  • Robert Kraft — Person · Referenced advertiser / public figure in ad example · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in connection with a Super Bowl ad used by Walsh to argue media narratives about antisemitism and race.
    Vicious Jew haters and black people as the stalwart allies of the oppressed Jews. Here was Robert Craft's Super Bowl ad just to drill that point home. Watch.
  • Cook Unity — Product · Sponsor · 3 mentions · first at
    Advertised as a meal delivery service with chef-crafted meals.
    Today and become a member like me. when I'm busy and running all around, our sponsor Cook Unity makes it simple to enjoy meaningful chef crafted food without the extra effort and all the time of cooking it ourselves.
  • Leaf Filter — Product · Sponsor · 3 mentions · first at
    Promoted as a gutter protection system.
    Gutters before installing. Don't settle for a knockoff. Protect your home with Leaf Filter. Start protecting your home today with Leaf Filter, America's number one gutter…
  • Ammo Squared — Product · Sponsor · 1 mention · first at
    Promoted as a service for building an ammo reserve.
    Prepared people don't complain when things get inconvenient. Unprepared people do loudly. And that's why I'm a member of Ammo Squared. Ammo Squared lets you build an ammo…

Full transcript with timestamps

Today, the Matt Wall show, a black female judge reduces the sentence of a convicted rapist by half, explicitly because the offender is black. Anti-whitism is embedded far more deeply into our system than most people realize. We'll talk about that. Also, CBS claims that only 14% of illegal immigrants who've been deported by Trump were violent criminals, but context is needed, as the fact checkers say. And a controversy over squatters rights in Maryland gives us what may already be uh the most unintentionally hilarious video of the year. You have to see it for yourself. Finally, the New York Times says that the key to equality in a marriage is baby formula. But is equality really something that you should be striving for in your marriage at all? All of that and more today on Matt Walsh Show.

If you've been around a while, you know that the Super Bowl ads used to have a lot of cultural significance in this country. Before anyone had a cell phone and before highspeed internet access was widespread, there was a lot less content for people to watch for hours on end. But pretty much everyone did watch the Super Bowl. And they knew that major corporations with this rare opportunity to reach a large audience would put some effort into being as creative and entertaining as possible. And really didn't take much because again there wasn't any competition with the internet or social media. Budweiser managed to transfix the entire country back in 2000 with their uh ad where you know a bunch of guys called each other on landlines and said what's up over and over again.

Was it high art? No. But at the time it was it was good enough. Now today's Super Bowl ads, by contrast, provide virtually zero entertainment value to anyone. They are soulless and uninteresting, probably by design. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore them. Because if you pay attention to the ads that played during the game two days ago, then you know that they communicated at various points the exact same message as the halftime show, which is that white people are now secondass citizens in the country they built.

That's the reason why Bad Bunny's performance included a bodega with the sign uh we accept EBT. By the way, uh you know, you can you can see it here on on the left. It was a reminder to white people that were forced to pay foreigners on food stamps, two-thirds of whom were overweight or obese, to go out and buy a sandwich at their favorite bodega. You know, the numbers are staggering, although no one ever talks about them. But since the show brought it up, we should mention that roughly 47% of households in Puerto in Puerto Rico where Bad Bunny is from receive some kind of welfare.

47%. That's the highest rate of any US jurisdiction. Nearly 43% of them receive food stamps, which you're paying for. Uh yes, that means that almost half of the population is on food stamps, which is one of the many reasons that we shouldn't have anything to do with Puerto Rico. Uh and the same is true in places like the Bronx where 40% of residents are on SNAP, 20% of the population can't speak English. So food stamps are part of the culture for these people. And instead of treating that fact as a source of shame, they're proud of it. They want to steal as much as possible. And that's exactly what they're doing. and they want us to know it. And by the same token, these Super Bowl advertisements reminded us again and again that we should just shut up and accept our replacement because we are awful people simply for being white.

So, here's an excerpt from one of the uh the advertisements that push this message. It's from the real estate company Redf Fin, which helps people buy and sell homes. But they took an interesting tact with this. Watch.

I know it's hard, sweetie. But you'll still see Dad. Thank you. Stop. Big storm coming in. I have always wanted to have a neighbor just like you.

I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you. So, let's make these beautiful. Now, if you're listening to this uh to the audio podcast, I I'll give you the cliffnotes version. The white family moves into town. There's the implication that the dad is out of the picture. So, we have an absentee father on our hands. And then we see that the white girl, who's trying to make friends with other white girls, has an icy, awkward interaction with the non-white girl when her white supremacist dog starts barking. And then separately, a Hispanic-l looking man tries to be a good neighbor and warn a white guy about an impending storm, but the white guy just ignores him, you know, because he's racist, just like the dog was. And then after the storm hits, the non-white guy starts removing a tree from the white guy's yard, and the white guy still doesn't even say thanks. It's all very reminiscent of about a million other

ads, including those all state ads, where the criminal is always a white guy who steals black people's cars, which happens approximately 0% of the time in the real world. Uh Redfin knew exactly what they were doing here. When they posted this ad on their official social media accounts, Redfin immediately locked down the replies, started hiding as many of the responses as they could. Here's a a sampling of some of the the posts that Red Fin attempted to censor, although you can probably imagine most of them. Quote, "What is the message?

White men are racist." Old trope. Uh here's another one. They would never ever make the Hispanic family the villain. It's always going to be white people as the default. It always is in almost every commercial these days. Competent brown people surrounded by the either incompetent or malicious white people and on and on. Now, what may not be obvious is that a couple years ago, Redf Fin was sued in federal court for supposedly being a racist company that discriminated against blacks. Redfin was accused of redlinining, which in this case meant that they wouldn't offer some of their most expensive services to very cheap homes. It wasn't profitable enough for them to offer, say, professional photography and in-home tours for a dilapidated shack in the hood that was listed for $70,000.

You know, there was nothing racist about Red Fin's decision-making, it makes a lot of sense. But because their rational business decision had a disparit or disproportionate impact on black people, since black people tend to own those kinds of homes, Redfin had to settle the case and agree to provide their services to more people even when it went against their economic interest to do so. This is a very, very common kind of lawsuit in our federal system. Democrats go out of their way to force real estate companies to provide unprofitable services or else they'll sue for racism.

Here's one of the most egregious examples. Under the Biden administration, a company called Townstone was sued into the ground simply because they didn't receive enough housing applications from minority areas. So, out of around 870 applications, the B administration said that Townstone was roughly 30 diverse applicants short. Yes, if they only had 30 more diverse applications, everything would be fine. But they didn't. So, they're racist and they're violating the law. Basically, if you don't meet some arbitrary quota that Democrats just make up, then you get sued. You get sued under civil rights law. If you don't agree to operate your business at a loss for the benefit of black people and foreigners, you get sued. So, within this legal framework, the rational decision for these companies business-wise, if they want to survive the next Democrat administration, is to become overtly anti-white.

They have to prove that they discriminate against whites and give preference to blacks. That's what Redfin is doing with this advertisement. It's a gigantic signal and it's it's an effective way to avoid getting sued and having to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages. So, our legal system is encouraging anti-white racism, which is one of the reasons why when people see ads like this and they say, "Who is this for?" Right? the vast majority of people using your product are white people anyway. Not only that, but they're going to be white people with disposable income. Why would you go out of your way to alienate them with the advertisement? Well, the answer is that the ad is not for the customers.

It is a signal saying, "Don't sue us." That's what it's for. That's one reason why in advertisement after advertisement during the Super Bowl, major corporations took pains to portray whites as maliciously as they possibly could. Here's a Super Bowl ad from the healthcare company Hims and Hers, for example. And uh see if you notice anything.

Rich people live longer. All that money doesn't just buy more stuff. It buys more time.

They say all those rich people who are pretty much all white have something you don't. They have the fountain of youth. And those crafty rich white people, one of whom appears to be modeled after Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, uh they're buying more stuff than you and they're living longer. Then they cut to the black guy holding a child who's very dismayed by all this because he's not white and therefore rich and he'll probably die soon. That's what health equity is all about. And it's a systemic injustice, we're told, which hims and hers is going to solve.

Notice this casting only goes one way. You know, they'll happily cast white actors to play rich people since rich people are mostly white. They'll never cast a black guy to play a car thief in one of those all state ads, for example, even though car thieves are mostly black. And along the same lines, they won't cast black people to play anti-semmites either. even though black people on average statistically are far more anti-Semitic than any other race. So instead, as always, they'll portray white people as vicious Jew haters and black people as the stalwart allies of the oppressed Jews. Here was Robert Craft's Super Bowl ad just to drill that point home. Watch.

Dude, did you see that? Should we tell him so bad, bro? Look at him. Oh my gosh.

Not funny. Do not listen to that. Thank you, man. I know how it feels. So, it's just relentless. One ad after another, one streaming show after another. They're beating you over the head with the anti-white narratives, which are clearly fraudulent. People are seeing it everywhere, not just people who watch Fox News or subscribe to the Daily Wire. It's also, it's also the case that everyday people who don't pay much attention to politics are finally seeing what's going on simply because they can't escape it. And that brings us to a truly disturbing and disgraceful decision this week by a judge in Kentucky named Tracy E. Davis. Now, the judge, a black woman, reduced the sentence of 24year-old Christopher Thompson, a violent black felon, from 65 years to just 30 years. So, it's a reduction of more than 50% in his sentence. And u here was the crime.

Well, prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that in the summer of 2023, Thompson approached a woman who was sitting in her car in the parking lot of her apartment building. Thompson, wearing a ski mask, pointed a gun at her at her and uh forced her to to move to the passenger seat. Then he drove the woman to an elementary school where he forced her to remove her clothes and he sexually assaulted her. He then drove the woman to an ATM, forced her to withdraw more than $200 before driving her back to the school and sexually assaulting her again. So, this is kidnapping, multiple counts of sexual assault, robbery, and sodomy. And after hearing all the evidence, the jury sentenced Thompson to 65 years, which by any measure is an extremely lenient sentence. He should have received the death penalty. I mean, there's no good reason to not simply kill somebody like this legally after they've been

convicted in a court of law. But Judge Tracy Davis didn't want this man to serve 65 years, much less face execution. So, she cut his sentence in half. Now, keep in mind that under Kentucky law, remorse is the bare minimum requirement to reduce a sentence like this. And with that in mind, we're going to play this local news report at length because it's it's easily one of the most insane reports that I've ever seen from a a local news station. Uh this footage is wild. Watch.

A Louisville man was found guilty last week of kidnapping, robbing, and sodomizing a woman.

A jury recommended a 65-year prison sentence, but the judge in the case that time in half. WDRB's Dalton Godby tells us it brought a spotlight of scrutiny not just on this decision but other orders in this same court.

Comup of Kentucky versus Christopher Thompson. Within seconds of Christopher Thompson's sentencing hearing

before we even get appearances. Mr. Thompson, I'm going to need you to be respectful.

I ain't doing nothing. He insulted Jefferson County Judge Tracy Davis. Well, it's fine. Okay.

What? That's fine. Yeah, because here's the thing on y'all. At the end of the day, I'm the one with the pen.

I don't care. I know you don't. And it's a sad sad scenario. I ain't tripping. So, you just told me eat your

Mhm. And you called me a sucker twice. The disruptions continued throughout the entire hearing. Thompson was convicted in December of robbery, kidnapping, sodomy, and sexual abuse. In 2023, the 24year-old abducted a woman, robbed her, and sodomized her twice.

I don't have sympathy for nobody. Come in here. and you show the court that these are the things we don't need. It's fine.

During sentencing, the prosecutor asked the judge to uphold the jury's 65-year recommendation, but Judge Davis explained she would lower that sentence to just 30 years as Thompson repeatedly interrupted.

I don't care that I don't care. Unfortunately, he fell through the cracks and ended up before this court as a 18 or 19 year old. This court does not believe that Mr. Thompson, if giving the resources that he can get while incarcerated, is beyond being re rehabilitated.

Um, so he admits in open court that he's an animal. Uh, he doesn't care about the victim or anyone else. He says so. He'd happily kidnap and sodomize another woman if given the opportunity. He has stated explicitly that he has no remorse, doesn't care, is not sorry for what he did. Clearly and unambiguously someone who needs to spend the rest of his life in a cage at a minimum. Although again, I say, why is this person still alive? What's one good reason? Give me one good reason to keep this guy still alive. Why should we do that?

Why should we pay to house him and feed him for, you know, until he dies of of of old age? What's the reason for that? It's not just there's no practical benefit to it. So, what's the point? But, I mean, we're way past that cuz this guy's not going to spend the rest of his life in prison. He's 24. They reduce it down to 30. He'll probably be parrolled sooner than that. I mean, this guy will be out on the street again in his 40s, if not sooner. And he's demonstrating the exact opposite of remorse, which is the one thing under the law that could theoretically justify reducing his sentence in any way. Although really there's nothing that justifies it.

And after all that, the judge, a black female, cuts his sentence in half because after all, the guy fell through the cracks. He's saying that she's saying, I mean, it's incredible. She's saying he could be re rehabilitated while this guy is telling us that he can't. I think he can be re rehabilitated. No, I can't. No, I can't. Now, the implication is that if you don't have a good family and a good support network and you're black, then you have no responsibility for your own actions. It's not your fault. So, who is this judge Tracy Davis? What might lead her to make a ruling like this? Well, it turns out in the shock of a of the century that she is a DEI activist. According to her profile on the Kentucky Bar Association's website, quote, "Judge Davis is a graduate of the NKU Chase College of Law. Prior to taking the bench, she owned and operated Tracy E.

Davis Esquire PLLC, a private practice law firm, and ran a diversity consulting company, Diversity uh diversity university limited, where she was a certified diversity, equity, and inclusion professional. Yeah, she is an actual real life certified DEI expert. She's the character I played in my last film, except she's a real person, a judge who can spring violent felons loose on the public based on her DEI training and the night classes she took at the NKU Chase College of Law, which suffice it to say is basically open admission for diverse candidates, quote unquote, like herself.

And it gets worse somehow because this judge's handle on X, and I'm not making this up, is literally diversity Davis. Okay, that is the moniker that she has given herself, Diversity Davis. She has pronouns in her handle as well. Uh, she her in case you were wondering. She's reposted a bunch of anti-Trump content, mostly in the format of Marvel memes because of course. In short, Tracy Davis should be off leading some DEI struggle session somewhere in which she takes money from rich leftists with too much time on their hands. That is all she's qualified to do. but instead instead she managed to win an election by around 1% of the vote a couple of years ago. So now she's a judge in Kentucky, which last I checked is not a far-left haven.

And we can infer based on that video that she's a a walking combination of suicidal female empathy and anti-white race hatred. She's the kind of judge you might find in a war torn African hellscape or even worse, Canada. She's only interested in your skin color and her tribe. And if you listen to the rest of her ruling in this case, which that last news report left out, you'll find that actually the judge admits all of this. Lest anyone think I'm making this about race, she's the one who made it about race, explicitly so. She states effectively that white people are the reason that she's letting this rapist out of prison 35 years early. Watch.

But Judge Davis thought the jury's recommendation was too long. She feels he hasn't mentally matured yet and never had a real shot at getting any help early in life.

But if you were to come in here and instead of being hurt and angry, which is what this court hears, right, as a 20year-old African-American male that has been, you know, experienced this society, etc. and you would show that yes, okay, this is the situation. This is who I am. I don't want to be this person anymore. I don't want to be in jail forever.

Thompson repeatedly stated he did not care not about his sentence, the victim, or her family. But Judge Davis emphasized she's the one that holds the pen, and regardless of what the media may think, she applies the law. To her, 65 years was an extremely long time. as she puts it, it's his whole life. One she doesn't believe should be spent entirely behind bars.

Yeah, it shouldn't be spent behind bars. It should be spent in a box under the earth is where where it should be spent. She says, "As an African-American male, you experience this society. Yes, he's the real victim here. Think of what he went through. Feel some sympathy for the violent sodomite rapist. After all, he had to experience this society. Apparently, experiencing society is a valid excuse that can get your sentence cut in half. That's good news for literally every criminal who's ever existed, given that they all, by virtue of existing, have experienced society.

There could not be a good reason to to do something like this, but I've never heard a weaker reason than that. Well, you experience society, etc. I love the etc at the end. Like, say the vaguest thing imaginable and then just tack etc on the end and it counts as a reason. You know, experience society, etc., you know, it's like the Seinfeld thing. You know, you can't yada yada your way out of there. You can't etc your way out of that. Like give us a real reason why this guy deserves to ever see the outside of a prison ever again.

Give us an actual reason. Can you do that? Well, but this is why he kidnapped and raped and brutalized an innocent woman. You know, it's all white people's fault. He had to experience a society where black people get the benefit of the doubt in everything they do at every level. What a shame. And even at this as this violent criminal tells her to her face that uh he wants to sexually assault her as well, she doesn't care. Now, I'll ask the same question that I asked yesterday. Have any Republicans at any at the national level even mentioned this case? Republicans in Kentucky are proposing legislation that would allow the public to learn more about decisions like this, but this is not a local issue and it's not an issue of transparency merely. I mean, if unapologetic violent black criminals are getting 50% sentencing reductions because black female judges want to strike back against white people, we have a major

civil rights problem in this country. If the Biden administration could shut down the military to root out white supremacy, and if they could haul a presidential candidate to jail because he said he won an election, there's nothing that should stop the Trump DOJ from launching a civil rights investigation into this judge immediately. You cannot admit from the bench that you're making rulings on the basis of race. Period. But she just did that. You can't we cannot allow this kind of ruling to stand. Nor can we allow openly anti-white police officers to remain employed. And that's apparently a problem as well.

This is a story that lives a TikTok just broke. It's a video in which a black female officer uh with the Shreport Police Department in Louisiana states in full uniform as she eats lunch for some reason that she is the black officer your wife fears. Okay, so there it is. No matter where you look, Tik Tok, the local court system, the Super Bowl, anti-white hatred is thrust in your face. You can make the argument that nothing like this has happened at this scale in this country in more than 30 years. That takes us back to the OJ Simpson trial when tens of thousands of black Americans publicly celebrated the brutal execution of two white people. They have to ask, has anything changed since then?

Have race relations improved after all of the affirmative action and equity we've experienced? They knew OJ did it at the time. No sane person could claim otherwise. Everybody knew it. And when the verdict came down, everyone knew exactly why black people were celebrating as whites were shocked and dismayed. Had nothing to do with the evidence of the case. It was about anti-white racial hatred. That's it. And the difference is that with the OJ trial, most of OJ's supporters claimed as a pretext that they were interested in finding the real killer. A poll showed that most black people claimed to believe that OJ was innocent, even though they were lying. In fact, only around 22% of black people said OJ was guilty during the trial, and that number is well over 50% now. So, there was still a sense in the '9s that in the United States, it was wrong to openly admit that you were happy that two white people were

brutally slaughtered. Today, you probably wouldn't even need the pretext. OJ could admit in open court that he murdered his wife and her friend because they were white and a judge would forgive him because the system made him do it because he had to experience society. The judge would have apologized to OJ and said that he fell through the cracks. Actually, not everybody went along with the pretext at the time. In fact, one of the OJ jurors came out and admitted uh that the case was a form of payback. And this um clip is making the rounds again. And if you haven't seen it, it's really important that you do because it tells you where we are, where we were at the time, but where we are now. Watch.

Do you think that there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?

Yes, you do. Yes. How many of you think felt that way? Oh, probably 90% of us. 90%. Did you feel that way?

Yes. That was payback. Uhhuh. You think that's right? Well, it might be right. It might be wrong, but we did it anyway. Now, you you watch that and you think, "Okay, well, that was the most high-profile murder trial uh in, you know, American history." And we know because they're telling us, they're telling us the black members of the jury uh let him off the hook because it was payback against white people. Like, they knew he was guilty. They let him off the hook anyway. And they're telling us that. Well, you you see that, you wonder, well, what is is is that the last time that's ever happened? Have things gotten better since then? How many other criminals have been let off the hook, not just by judges, but by juries for this reason?

Or was OJ just it was a one-time thing? Uh I I think it's very unlikely that it was a one-time thing. And the problem with that excuse is that in every context from country to country, we see a clear racial bias in the jury system. It's a very consistent trend. And it has nothing to do with OJ or celebrity cases or anything like that. You take a look at this data which was published in the journal uh law and human behavior which you can see here. As the researcher uh Jonathan Palison summarizes the findings, quote, "Over 34 studies of jury behavior and more than 7,000 participants, white jurors show essentially zero racial bias while blacks have strong bias in favor of their own race." Now, you can see an illustration of those findings here.

White jurors in mock trials were mostly fair to defendants regardless of their skin color. Meanwhile, black jurors demonstrated a high degree of favoritism to members of their own race. And another study in the UK found in addition that black jurors uh are far more likely than white uh jurors to convict white people. So, we'll put that data on the screen as well. In short, the West has not progressed towards a mythical colorblind society. The OJ verdict wasn't really about Rodney King. It was about the hatred that many non-whites in Los Angeles felt towards white people. And many non-whites in Los Angeles and the country at large still feel that way.

And now with very powerful financial support, they're making their hatred for whites very apparent. I mean, it's evident in our culture. It's increasingly evident in our legal system. For all intents and purposes, we now have a new constitution in this country without anyone ever voting for it. In this new constitution, whites are not entitled to equal treatment under the law. And this DEI regime is propped up and fed by a two-tiered media system, our own Radio Randa, in which the media focuses excessively and obsessively on relatively rare instances of white-on-black crime and rare police shootings. Their sole objective is to fment race hatred just like the Democrat party and just like Red Fin and Robert Craft and so on.

It's possible that a lot of people were finally awakened by the Super Bowl halftime show and that millions of Americans now realize what's going on. But you have to wonder if that's the case. Why did it take so long for this realization to set in? And there's another question we have to ask, we have to answer as well. If all of the country's major institutions from the courts to the corporations to the bureaucracy to the schools to the media, nonprofits and so on are oriented towards replacing white people and making them the new minority majority uh uh or rather rather making them the new minority as we know a congressman has said openly he wants to do. And if all available evidence suggests that these new demographic groups will vote and render judicial decisions on the basis of ethnicity and race, then what happens next?

I mean, this situation is not self-correcting. It's going to proceed until one of two outcomes is reached. Either white people have civil rights or they don't. And if they don't, then white people will become tribal, too. Which is an outcome that most on the left genuinely don't think will occur. But if this continues, it will. If they continue to deny basic civil liberties to white people, that's the inevitable result. And with each passing day, police officers, judges, and major corporations are making their position very clear on that particular issue.

It's well past time, more than 30 years overdue for conservatives and white people in general to take note. Now, let's get to our five headlines. You know, prepared people don't complain when things get inconvenient. Unprepared people do loudly. And that's why I'm a member of Ammo Squared. Ammo Squared uh lets you build an ammo reserve of uh your caliber steadily month by month without drama or excuses. This is not extreme behavior. It's baseline competence. Uh I love it. It's super convenient and sensible. Plus, I know I always have a supply ready to go whenever I want it. They they uh offer over 75 caliber variations from over 85 ammunition manufacturers. So, whatever I'm looking for, they have. It's also great because you don't have to have a ton of extra storage space laying around your house to store ammunition. anytime you want to buy it. They do all the storage for you so you can get it on

demand anytime you're ready to have it on hand. Uh Amos Squared is designed for the people who think ahead. Go to amosquared.com today and become a member like me. You know, when I'm busy and uh running all around, our sponsor Cook Unity makes it simple to enjoy meaningful chef crafted food without the extra effort and all the time of cooking it ourselves. Cooking quality uh meals takes time, but it doesn't have to be your type. No clean up or meal planning. Meals are delivered fully cooked. Just heat up in as little as five minutes. Choose from a rotating seasonal menu of over 300 meals. Or let Cook Unity's platform provide personalized recommendations based on cravings, dietary restrictions, and even wellness goals. New celebrity chefs are always joining like New York City restaurant tour Marcus Samuelson or Michelin star uh Rick Bis. Commitment free subscriptions start as low as $11 a

meal. I ordered the red wine braced short rib with mac and cheese and it was ridiculously good. Their chefs definitely know what they're doing and the variety means that I'm never bored. It's a service that doesn't make convenient taste like cardboard. Plus, Cook Unity offers flexibility when you need it. Skip, pause, or cancel anytime. Taste, comfort, and craftsmanship in every bite from the award-winning chefs behind Cook Unity. Go to cookity.com/walsh or enter codewals before checkout to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order by using codewalsh or going to cookity.com/walsh.

All right, I'm seeing this report circulating. Uh, you know, liberals are very excited about it. CBS News has this headline. Less than 14% of those arrested by ICE in Trump's first year back in office had violent criminal records. Document shows. article says less than 14% of nearly 400,000 immigrants arrested by immigration customs enforcement in President Trump's first year back had charges or convictions for violent criminal defenses offenses rather. The official statistic contained in the DHS document provided the most detailed look into who ICE has arrested. Uh the statistics show ICE has dramatically increased arrests since Mr. Trump's return. Nearly 60% of ICE arrestees over the past year had criminal charges or convictions, the documents indicate. But among that population, the majority of the criminal charges or convictions are not for violent crimes.

So this is supposed to be some kind of big uh big gotcha. So let's dig into this now. Now, first of all, even if it were true that only 13% were violent criminals, even if none of them were, you know, even if 0% were violent criminals, I would still support the deportations and I would still want even more deportations because they're here illegally. You know, the argument being made here, as always, is well, hey, uh, a lot of illegal aliens who got deported only committed the crime of coming here illegally. That's like that's like if I got a speeding ticket and I said to the police officer, "Well, officer, all I did was speed. I didn't do anything else but speed." Officer, you give me a speeding ticket, but it's not like I'm also a serial killer.

I didn't I didn't also commit violent crimes. Why are you giving me a speeding ticket? Well, because speeding tickets are for people who are speeding. You You don't need to do other things, too. You don't need to be a violent criminal who was speeding. Okay? The law does not say, "Oh, here's a speed limit, 50 m hour for violent criminals." Okay? But if you're not a violent criminal, you can go as fast as you want. if as someone who's not a violent criminal, it would be nice if that was the way that it worked, but that's not how it works.

So, speeding tickets are a particular kind of enforcement that is designed for people who are speeding. They might be nice people who are speeding. They might be uh otherwise law-abiding citizens except for the fact that they're speeding, but they're speeding. And likewise, deportations are for people who are h who have no legal right to be in the country. That's what deportations are for. You don't have to commit extra crimes in order for the deportation to uh to to activate. But if you look into the numbers, you find that of course they're they're not just making a red herring argument.

They're they're lying. So you take a look at the pie chart that CBS News provides in the article. and uh the total deportations and then they're broken down into what crimes were committed, if they committed crimes, although again they all committed crimes because they're here illegally. And the first thing you notice is that a huge portion of the pie are crimes. Like this is a this is a pie chart being presented by the liberal media that's supposed to lead us to the conclusion that these deportations are unfair or mean or something. You look at it and 60% of the illegal immigrants, most of the pie are people who also committed other crimes.

And what about those other crimes? Well, we've got uh 11% committed assault. Then we see the portions for kidnapping, homicide robbery burglary sexual assault. That already brings us over 14%. That gets us to like 15% or over that. And they said it was but they said it was less than 14%. That's because they're not counting burglary as a violent crime. You know, breaking into somebody's car or house and stealing, even though it's a it's a crime. You're it's a crime. Number one, you're invading someone's private property.

You're stealing. You're using some element of force. You have to in order to break in. And um doesn't count as violent crime. They they also are not counting DUI. There's a lot of DUIs there. That doesn't count as a violent crime. Even though DUIs can and do kill people every day, uh, weapons charges are on there. They don't count that as a violent crime. And this is the most confusing one. They have a sliver of the pie for dangerous drugs, and that doesn't count as a violent crime. Well, what the hell are dangerous drugs as opposed to safe drugs?

Like, what what are the safe illegal drugs? So you've got dangerous illegal drugs and as opposed to what? The safe ones. Which are the safe illegal drugs? Can you tell me what are the the safe illegal drugs that don't harm anybody? Like I dare someone to throw a drug out that you're saying doesn't harm anybody. Go ahead. But even if we grant this weird distinction between dangerous drugs and I guess non-dangerous drugs, we now have what about 30% of the deportes who committed crimes that involved either directly hurting or killing another person or potentially hurting or killing another person or stealing someone's property or or buying or selling poison that could hurt or kill someone. That's 30%.

And whether you want to call these violent crimes or not is totally irrelevant. Like at that point, violent crime becomes a an arbitrary distinction. These are serious crimes committed by 30% not 14% of uh the people who are deported. And then we get this other huge slice which just says other crimes. Other crimes. Well, what are those other crimes? Doesn't that matter? We don't know. We aren't told. So, you've got, well, only the small amount have done these violent crimes. So they they want like they'll give us the Have you noticed that? Like they'll give us the really small sliver. They they specify, you know, murder, rape, arson, even though it's a small little sliver. Why do they specify that?

Because it's a small sliver. Like why do you need to give arson its own? Like there's not that many arson. And but uh you give it's they list it. Well, but then other crimes just one big chunk. if they don't tell you what the other crimes are because if they did they would have to show you that oh well what are these other crimes uh we're not talking about speeding tickets we're talking about like for example the Somali who are scamming and stealing millions of dollars that's a nonviolent crime but it is also a really serious crime that hurts people they don't want to give you that they don't want to show you that so that multi-million dollar fraud schemes that's just oh that's uh other crimes that's just the you know that's the other crimes you know we here on the Matt Walsh show believe that it's important to stay healthy and uh one of the most essential components to your overall health is having a healthy

liver. Your liver is your body's ultimate filter. It works overtime processing everything you consume while juggling 500 daily functions like energy production, digestion, and more. But when it gets overworked you really feel it. That's where our sponsor Dose for Your Liver comes in. The dose is a clinically backed supplement that comes as a daily 2 oz shot. Helps cleanse your liver of unwanted stressors that are slowing it down and supports your daily liver function so everything can run smoothly. It also doesn't taste bitter like most supplements do, which is a huge bonus. Ready to give your liver the support it deserves? Head to dosedaily.co/walsh or enter walsh to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body does so much for you. Let's do something for it. That's d a ly.co/walsh co/walsh for 35% off your first month subscription. Here's a pretty wild story um with one of my one of my favorite videos of the year. And

the year is young, but I think I do think that this this was a strong contender for best of the year. So, it starts in uh Maryland, Bethesda, Maryland, with a controversy over squatter rights. This is a squatters rights controversy which shouldn't be a controversy because squatters rights should not be a thing. Uh and in fact they are not a thing in Maryland that as we'll see. But um here's a report from Fox Baltimore. It says neighbors in a quiet Washington DC suburb have watched what may what many say feels surreal. An alleged squatter uh has taken over a $2.3 million home unfolding not on television but outside their own front doors. The property at the center of the controversy has been tied to Tama Good and her partner Corey Pard, who neighbor neighbors allege unlawfully occupied a bank-owned home in Bethesda. Videos posted to social media add to the friction, including one Tik Tok and

Instagram clip attributed to good that it included the line, "You can't be doing regular people." The purported squatting incident took a dramatic turn last Monday. Less than two weeks of being uh less than two weeks of being incarcerated, Tamika Good is back in the house. said neighbor Ian Chen. Court records show Good and Pard were charged last July with trespassing and fourth degree burglary based on filings initiated by Chen, a 19-year-old college student who lives with his parents next door to the disputed home. Good's attorney told Spotlight on Maryland that there are loopholes in the system that people do take advantage of, but loopholes are loopholes.

So, this is the controversy. Tama Good broke into a home, occupied it illegally, despite the fact that she doesn't own the home, has no claim to it whatsoever. As far as I can tell, this is not even a case where like someone is renting a house and then stops paying but refuses to leave, which is bad enough, you know. But in this case, it looks like she just broke in, invaded, took over the house, and then she went to jail as should happen. She's and now she's out and she's back in the house again. So there is no controversy here.

This is very straightforward. I mean, this would be like if she mowed someone down with her car and then fled the scene and the news report said controversy tonight over a hit and run. What's there's no controversy. She's guilty of a hit and run. I mean, she she hit someone. Pretty straightforward. And she's guilty here of a number of crimes that she's already done time for and now she's back. So, you know, why haven't they already arrested her and thrown her in jail again? I don't know. Throw her in jail for longer this time.

I I you know this so controversies are created where we don't need to have them because I I don't know what is the court system what what's law enforcement saying now? Are they saying what are we supposed to do? We already arrest. Yeah, arrest her again. Put her in jail again. What if she gets out and she does it again? Then put her in jail again. What if she does it after that? would you just just keep putting her in jail or or better yet put her in jail and keep her there? So really one of those two I either of those options I think the better option just keep her in jail forever. This is not somebody who needs to be free in society. Um but if you want to just keep arresting her if if if this is fun for you to just keep arresting her and putting her in jail, fine. But just like yeah keep that's why that's why we have jails. That's why they exist.

So um that should be pretty easy. But I want you I want to I want to take you to the video. This was posted by Gary Collins who's a reporter in Baltimore because you have not met the most comical character in this particular sitcom. Uh, and that would be the lawyer of this woman who in fairness does not have an easy job. How do you defend a woman who is clearly committing breaking and entering a burglary and then she goes to jail, gets out and does it again? Like, how do you what defense could one possibly offer? Not an easy job.

But this is a person uh Alex Webster who is uniquely ill-fitted uh to to you know live up live up to the task here. Watch.

Get off my face. Ma'am, why are you in a $2.5 million property? After months of delays, Good was convicted on all counts on January 22nd, sentenced to 90 days in prison. Pard continues to face extradition for multiple vehicle theft related crimes in Pennsylvania. 11 days later, Good was released on appeal on February 2nd after posting a $5,000 cash bond. Activities at the house started again soon after her release. For days, a woman wearing similar shoes and green pants was seen moving in and out of the alleged Bethesda squatter home. We spoke with Alex Webster about his client.

Look, there's a question. It's really the number one question on everybody's mind. How would your client, Mr. Jamaica good get inside a $2.3 million property.

Cut. I don't know if I can answer that. Allegedly. Can I cut? We're rolling. We're Yeah. I mean, we're we're rolling, my friend. Yeah. All right. Can you re ask the question?

Sure. Absolutely. So, the number one question on everybody's mind is how your client, Miss Tika Good, got into a $2.3 million property.

Um, well, Miss Good did her research. um she found out that a certain property was under um was under the control of a certain group um and that there was a title issue um due to the title issue she was able to assume the property um under squatterers rights.

So in Maryland there isn't a particular squatter right. Am I missing something? Well, there's not a particular squatter's right, but it's known as squatter rights.

Amazing. I mean, if anyone still has any doubt somehow that DEI has allowed the most unqualified, ridiculous people to get jobs they are not suited for and not equipped for. Well, there you go. Meet Alex Webster. Meet Alex Webster, attorney at law. I have so many questions. You know, of course, the number one question is how did this absolute dunce cap manage to get a law degree? Did he get his degree at the bottom of like a serial box? Was this was this do they even still do that? I don't think they do. Was this at the bottom of a of a box of a Captain Crunch? He got his uh got his law degree. Do they give it to him with a happy meal? How did that happen?

Well, it's a rhetorical question. I know how it happened. It's DEI. DEI is how it happened. Uh but there's other questions also which which really all go back to the same answer which is this person's a and you know should not have ever been given a law degree. But also like why did you agree to the interview if you didn't want to answer the most basic and foreseeable question imaginable? What what questions did you think would be asked? So the the news station called him up and said, "Hey, you're representing the lady who's uh squatting in the big ugly McMansion. can you talk to us? And he says, I'm the absolutely count me in.

I'm there. And then he sits down and they open with the most obvious question, which is, okay, well, how did she get into the house? Whoa. Cut. Cut. Cut. R-roll. Okay. Places. Everyone, reroll. We're going again. Cut. This guy got so scared that he tried to try to become a squatter in the camera crew. He tried to tried to pretend he was just part of the crew. That would have been a better way of handling it. Actually, that would have been that would have been still not good, but better than what he did. He should have just said, "Hey, man. Why you asking me? I'm just the sound guy."

Yeah, I wear a suit. I No. Oh, I thought we were doing a sound check. Is that Is that not what we're doing? Yeah, I wear a suit because I'm the sound guy. And uh Someone give me the boom mic. I like how he throws the word allegedly into it. Like he doesn't even know what it means. This is a lawyer, remember? And he says, "Uh, I can't answer that." He looks in the camera. I mean, he's I can't answer that allegedly. I can't answer that allegedly. That's what he did. What do you mean you can't answer it allegedly? Like, can you answer it or not? This is Why are you alleging things about yourself?

And the reporter is sitting there and he's loving every second of it. He cannot believe his luck. He is so excited. He is so excited because he knows he's getting the most iconic and hilarious footage imaginable. And I don't blame him. I'd be excited, too. And I like how he reanswers the qu like he he reasks the question as though it's going to the first question will be cut, but he but he the reporter knows they're not going to be cutting anything. Um, and that's not even the best part. The best part is when the attorney finally gets around to offering some kind of answer and he says, "Well, she took the home under squatters rights." And the reporter says, "But squatter rights don't exist in our state."

Well, yeah, but still. Well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, but you know, you know what I mean? Come on. You know, I mean, come on. You know, you know that that you know, just amazing stuff. But all all of it shows all at once, you know, the lowly state of American culture right now. And also how easy it would be to reverse it if we have the will. Like in America right now, we're giving law degrees to characters from the office and we're letting random hobos take over million-dollar homes. But we could easily just not do those things.

We could. You could arrest the squatters, put them in jail, put the most basic standards in place to weed out people who are too dumb to be shift managers at Chipotle, much less lawyers. And a lot of these problems just go away. It's that easy. It is that easy. This episode is sponsored by Leaf Filter. Leaf Filter isn't just another gutter guard. It's a trusted name built to last with years of relentless engineering behind it. Those DIY and hoodstyle knockoff gutter guards can't keep up in heavy rain. Water pours right over the edge and straight to your foundation.

And in lighter rain, leaves and debris flow right in the gap. Leaf filter works better because it's topped by uh stainless steel and micro mesh, so water is channeled in while debris is filtered out. Every installation comes with a lifetime clog-free guarantee, and they're trusted by over a million homes. A Leaf Filter Trusted Pro will even clean out, realign, and seal your gutters before installing. Don't settle for a knockoff. Protect your home with Leaf Filter. Start protecting your home today with Leaf Filter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com/walsh.

It's up to 35% off at leaffilter.com/walsh. See representative for warranty details. All right. Finally, I wanted to mention this. The New York Times has an article this week uh giving us the formula for marriage equality. And the formula is they say formula. It's baby formula. So you can uh make your marriage equal with baby formula. This is the writer. The writer is Nona Willis Aranowitz. And here's what she says. In the middle of the night, a few days before Thanksgiving, I woke up with excruciating abdominal cramps. A CT scan revealed that my appendix had perforated and I needed emergency surgery. There were lots of things to stress about. I had a three-month-old, Pearl, whom I'd never been away from overnight. I had a three-year-old, Dory, who would once again uh worry about my sore tummy just as I'd finished my postpartum healing.

But one thing I felt mercifully calm about was Dom, my husband, and his ability to care for Pearl on his own. The previous 3 months had been a crash course in parental equality, our conscious attempt to reverse the infuriatingly lopsided dynamic we had experienced with our first child. At the heart of it was a simple strategy. Use baby formula early and often. Every parent instantly learns that feeding is paramount. Let me pause there for a second. How did this make it past an editor? Do they still have editors at the What is this? New York Times. Do they have editors there? Every new parent learns that feeding is paramount.

How did that uh Yeah, great insight, Nona. That's amazing. It Yes, feeding is paramount. What? Nona, you should write a parenting book. I know you've only been parenting a few years, but you should write a book. 10 rules of raising children. Rule number one, feed them. Rule number one, you have to feed them. And all these people are going to read the book and go, "Oh, you're Oh, you're supposed to feed them? Is that what I've been doing wrong this whole time?" Oh, you mean you have to feed the kids? Really? Actually, I I This is how advanced I am.

She said that parents learn that you have that feeding is paramount. I actually I'm so ahead of the game that I knew that before I had kids. I don't mean to be I don't I don't mean to be arrogant. I don't mean to brag at all. Okay, I'm not saying I I don't I didn't have every everything figured out, but I had that figured out going in. I I learned that feeding is paramount actually when I was a baby. That's how long I've known it. So, incredible wisdom. Anyway, um let's see. So, in an age when the vast majority of parents support the concept of equal parenting, why don't we openly discuss one of the most one of the best ways to avoid that imbalance? There are plenty of good reasons to breastfeed from passing on protective antibodies to your baby in the first few months of life to bonding in a lovely way. Uh women will not be surprised to hear this. Our society bombards us with the benefits of breastfeeding, many of

which, like the claim that increases a baby's IQ, are tenuous at best. By contrast, finding guidance on how to fairly distribute the mind-boggling amount of care required for a newborn feels like going on a treasure hunt through Reddit threads and mom group chats. Um, it's not a mind-boggling a lot of amount of care, by the way. To feed to take care of a newborn is not mind-boggling. It's really not. It just isn't. You know, night times are can be stressful because they don't sleep a lot, but other than that, it's like there's actually not much. Like they don't need I mean you do have to feed them. So feeding is paramount. Feed them, change them. It's like real basic stuff. It's not mindboggling. It really, trust me, it's not. Uh formula has been hotly debated ever since its invention as a commercial product in the mid-9th century. Oh, who cares? All right, so it goes on and on. Uh you get the idea.

Lots of parenting decisions involve trade-offs. It's time to explicitly tell parents to be before they're in the trenches that the two worthwhile enterprises of exclusive breastfeeding and equal parenting are a zero sum game and that it can be utterly life-changing to choose the latter. Okay. Um I want to say a couple things about this. I'm not going to weigh in on the formula versus breastfeeding debate. I don't really care that much. Obviously breastfeeding is preferable. Obviously it's healthier for the baby. Clearly, um I'm not one of these people who will judge you if you feel that you have to uh use formula. Um but I will certainly judge you if you go around talking about equal parenting and marriage equality, equality in a marriage.

I'll judge you for that. Whether you're using formula or not, the idea of marriage equality, the idea of equality in a marriage, uh, an equal marriage, equal parenting, that's all total nonsense. There's no such thing as marriage equality because equality means sameness. And men and women are not the same. Husbands and wives are not the same, which means they are not equal. Okay? Now men and women are equal in the sense of possessing uh human dignity as as children of God. We we all possess human dignity. And so in that kind of spiritual sense there is equality. And also you could say that we're equal allegedly under the law.

You know laws apply to both men and women equally in theory. Now in practice that's not the case because women have all kinds of legal advantages over men. They have they have advantages. They're favored in in family courts. They're favored in criminal courts. They get lighter sentences for the same crimes. But in theory, they're equal under the law. And they're also equal in their human dignity. Outside of that, especially in the context of a marriage, there is no equality. The concept of equality, it ends there as this kind of spiritual concept, as a as a theoretical legal concept. Outside of that, it it has no meaning in your everyday life and it doesn't exist.

Outside of those contexts, it's a myth. Men and women in particular are not equal in in any way. Which means in in any other way, which means a marriage cannot be equal. And if equality, this is what you have to understand. Okay? If equality, if making everything equal, everything even, everything the same, if that is the motivating principle in your marriage, you will get divorced. Not will, not might, not maybe. I'm saying it will happen if if you're I mean they don't tell you this when you look at the the divorce statistics they'll tell you that oh x amount of marriages end because of money or they end because of this or that adultery all that stuff factors in but the the real thing that kills most marriages or most of the marriages that that that end up breaking up the thing that killed most of them is this idea uh that everything has to be equal.

And so you've got both spouses in the marriage who are keeping score and they feel like it's uneven. It's unfair. I do more than they do and they don't appreciate me. That's the thing that destroys most of the marriages that are going to be destroyed. So if you organize your marriage around this idea of equality, either your marriage will fail or um you'll have to give up on the fiction of equality. That's what happens when you organize your marriage around something artificial and impossible. Either you give up on the fiction or you give up on your marriage.

Men and women are different. They are different people. They bring different traits. They have different strengths, different weaknesses, uh different innate abilities, different a different essence, you know, that they bring to the marriage. Either you embrace that and you harness it. You say to each other, "Okay, you go over there and do that because that's what you're most suited for. I'll do this because this is what I'm most suited for." And either you do that, which is another way of saying gender roles, god forbid, or you insist that everything h everyone has to do all the same things.

I'll do 50% of this. You do 50% of it. We'll do fif everything will be split right down the middle. Everything's equal. And if you do that, you're approaching marriage in the way that children approach chore time, right? It's like when you tell your kids to do chores. Everything has to be equal. Everyone has to do the same things for an equal amount of time. That's not fair. He did less than me. I'm telling mom, you know, you're like a child. If you bring kids to a an ice cream, you get ice cream and and one kid gets like two toppings and the other kid gets only one. That's not fair. He got two. That's not fair.

And you have grown adults who approach their marriage like this and then they're shocked. They're shocked when it doesn't work and they go looking for other explanations. Why? Why didn't it work? And then they'll pin it on the they'll pin it on the the so-called inequality itself. They'll say, "Oh, because he got more toppings than I got." No, it's not the inequality that killed your marriage. It's your attitude about the inequality. It is your it is your unwillingness to embrace and accept the inevitability of inequality in a marriage. That is what killed it.

Now, the beauty of God's design is that is that you are thrown into this right away. That's one thing the article gets right. Like when you have a child, there's no there's no warm-up really. It's like you're thrown into this right away and you got to make a decision. Are you going to embrace the inequality, the differences, the unsaness, which is not a word, but let's go with it. uh in your marriage or or are you or are you going to jam the square peg into the round hole and force yourselves to live by the fiction of equality?

And right there with with a newborn baby in particular, that's a time for choosing because if you're if you're going to force equality, we're all doing the same things. Everything's 50%. Like it's so unnatural with a newborn that you have to go out of your way, right? And that's when you end up with things like the mom is getting up to feed and she wakes up the husband too just because well I'm not sleeping, you can't sleep. That kind of thing. That is how unnatural and sort of out of your way you have to go with a newborn to make everything equal.

Or you could be an adult and say, "Okay, this is going to be unequal because we're different people." Because here's what you discover right away. Women were made to care for newborns. Literally made for it. Men were not. That doesn't mean men can't help, right? A man can help. He can help. He can he can do. But he is merely helping. If you are following the natural course of events, if you are if you are doing what comes most naturally, then the man will merely play a supporting role in the care of the newborn while he plays a starring role in the overall care of the family unit by going out and working and earning a living for mom and baby.

That's the most natural way of doing it, which is why it was the way that every society, every culture has functioned forever. And even these progressive liberal types even they will admit as this woman does in the article that when they first have kids they usually end up falling into that sort of naturally. But they they talk about it later like like it's a horror. They say oh when I first had kids I believed in equality but we we we we fell out of it when we had they have to force themselves. They have to they have to force themselves. So this is what comes naturally is to embrace the inequality of the roles uh the inequality of of of you know man and woman and they have to force themselves out of this sort of natural arrangement and wedge they have to wedge themselves out of their natural roles because the reality is a woman is physically built to care for a newborn. She carries the

child in her body for 9 months. Her body is made to provide nourishment to the child in the womb and out of it. Even if you use formula, that remains the case. The woman was made to provide nourishment to the child. The baby baby wants his mother, right? The baby only has eyes for his mother for the first several months of his life. Baby doesn't really care about dad that much in in in the early months of life. And that's fine. Like, as a dad, that's the kind of Okay, that's that's just the way this goes right now. Like, dad, he can take or leave. He wants his mother and that is natural. This is the way we're made. As a dad, you could disappear for the first 10 months of your child's life and he would barely notice that you're not there. I mean, you shouldn't you should not disappear.

You should be there. Uh it would cause a lot of other major problems for you not to be there. But what my point is that the that a young baby hardly even notices the dad. But if mom is gone, he notices. He feels it. If mom is gone for 10 minutes, much less 10 months, he feels it. Of course he does. Of course he does. He was just inside his mom's body for 9 months. He was physically inside her body for 9 months. Of course, he's going to be much more emotionally and physically attached to her mother uh to his mother than than than to the father. That's totally normal.

And of course, if you go from the baby being physically attached to the mother inside her body to now within a few weeks or months being in a daycare under fluorescent lights cared for by strangers so the mom could go back to her office job, that is going to harm the child. It is. That is bad for the child. Obviously, that is a traumatizing level of separation. Of course, it is. A baby will not be traumatized by being separated from his father for hours every day. That's not traumatizing. Like that's fine. But he will be traumatized by separation from his mother. And that that's not a problem unless you insist on making it a problem. And that's the thing with marriage equality. It takes a bunch of things that don't have to be problems and it chooses to make them into problems rather than following the natural path. rather than sort of going with the grooves, the tracks that are already there in the snow for you to

follow. Um, the natural path, you know, is a, you know, where you say, "Okay, well, obviously the baby needs mom more. So, I as the man will go out and I'll leave the house and provide for the family, and you as the mom will stay here and care for the baby, and when I get home at night, we'll be together as a family." That's the natural path. That's the way it's always been done. There's no nature-based reason to reject that. There is no reason grounded in concern for the child to reject that. It is simply if the woman says, "No, that's not fair. That's not equal. That's not fair."

Then the whole natural setup of the family has to be reorganized and the child has to suffer just so the woman can feel like things are equal. It is selfish. It just is. I don't care whether you want to hear it or not. It is selfish. And and you know it like every we all know it. It's childish and selfish and ridiculous. We have reorganized and reoriented our whole society. We have divorced ourselves from the natural way that things have always been done from the way that is best for families and best for children. And we have done it for one reason only. It is simply so that women can feel like things are equal.

It is simply for the sake of a fiction that all of this has been done. And that sets you off on a course for the rest of your marriage where everything is measured. Everything has to be equal all the time. If you do something, then you know if the wife does something, the husband has to do 50% of it. If the husband does something, the wife has to do 50% of it. Right? I I'll uh I'll unload the dishwasher. You do the you you rinse off the dishes, right? at all load you rinse, which is like on its own. Okay, fine. If that's how you want to tackle it, but also like you could just do the the dishes yourself.

And now we got these people, both spouses say, I I can't this is outrageous. I I can't do the whole thing. This is unfair. It is unfair. And you're going to kill your marriage. It's that simple. Embrace the inequality or your marriage dies. Those are your two choices. You You don't have any other choices, I'm afraid to tell you. That's all there is to it. The good news is you can forget about equality. You just totally forget about it because it's a fiction. It's made up. It's not real. Well, you might as well organize your marriage around Bigfoot.

You might as well organize your marriage around, you know, magical unicorns. You could forget about that and instead you can have a marriage that's organized around love, devotion, service. These are what a healthy marriage is grounded in. Um, and there's no scorecard for those. So that's your other option. And we will leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.

They told you America invented slavery. They told you the Indians were peaceful. They told you colonialism was evil and that Joseph McCarthy 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 India and Africa like before Europeans arrived? What caused white flight? Some of the most well-known stories from American history are designed to demoralize you. Trail of Tears, smallox blankets, smith, 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, of colonialism, of the Indians, of America and the world. It's time for Real History with Matt Walsh.

Now streaming only on Daily Wire Plus.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People | Ep. 1732"?

Matt Walsh (Host), Tracy E. Davis (Guest), Alex Webster (Guest).

What is "Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People | Ep. 1732" about?

The discussion focuses on a black female judge who reduced the sentence of a convicted rapist by half, citing racial considerations, highlighting deeper systemic anti-white sentiments. Additional topics include a critical look at statistics surrounding deported illegal immigrants, a humorous controversy over squatters' rights in Maryland, and a debate on the significance of equality in marriage…

What is mentioned in this Matt Walsh episode?

15 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Matt Walsh, Tracy E. Davis, Redfin, Christopher Thompson, Maryland, Hims and Hers. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Meet The DEI Activist Judge Who Let A R*pist Out Of Prison Early To Spite White People | Ep. 1732"?

The episode runs 1 h 13 min; the transcript is about 12,227 words in 118 timestamped sections.

More from Matt Walsh

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 12, 2026.