Andy Parrish Show

The Fight Against Extremism at Columbia University: What You Need to Know In a recently sat down with Ryan Mauro, a national security expert at the Capital Research Center, to discuss the growing extremist movement in America—particularly at Columbia University. What we uncovered is deeply disturbing. Who Is Behind the Protests? While the media portrays the unrest at Columbia as a simple student protest, Ryan’s research tells a different story. He has identified radical organizations, including Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) and Students for Justice in Palestine, as key players. These groups are not just advocating for Palestinian rights—they are openly supporting Hamas, promoting civil unrest, and calling for violence. The Reality of the F1 Visa Loophole One of the leaders of these movements, Mahmoud Khalil, is not even an American citizen. He entered the country on an F1 visa and was later granted permanent resident status. Many Americans don’t realize that permanent residency does NOT guarantee citizenship, and Khalil’s participation in these protests violates the conditions of his stay. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. has every right to deport individuals who express support for terrorist organizations. Ilhan Omar’s Connection Perhaps one of the most shocking revelations is that Rep. Ilhan Omar’s daughter was actively involved in organizing these radical protests. While the media attacks conservative figures for far less, Omar’s daughter’s participation has been conveniently ignored. Why This Matters If America is to remain strong, we must recognize that our enemies don’t need to invade with tanks and missiles. They are already here, using our own laws and freedoms to sow chaos. The protests at Columbia were not spontaneous; they were meticulously planned. They involved vandalism, property destruction, and even the unlawful detainment of janitorial staff. This is not a partisan issue—it’s a national security crisis. What Can You Do? Stay Informed – The mainstream media won’t cover this, so seek out trusted sources like Capital Research Center. Speak Up – Share this information and let people know what’s happening. Support Those on the Front Lines – People like Ryan Mauro are taking the heat for exposing the truth. Send them messages of encouragement and let them know you have their back. “America isn’t just a piece of land—it’s the spirit of the people who fight to protect it. This is a fight worth having.” – Andy Parrish

What Is a Continuing Resolution? A Continuing Resolution (CR) is Congress’s way of kicking the fiscal can down the road. Instead of passing an actual budget, they pass a short-term funding bill to keep the government running—often loaded with pork and unnecessary spending. The media and politicians use scare tactics, claiming that without a CR, the government will “shut down,” leaving grandma starving in the cold and soldiers without pay. Except that’s not true. The Truth About Government Shutdowns If Congress doesn’t pass a budget or a CR, only discretionary spending is affected. Mandatory spending—which includes Social Security, Medicare, veteran benefits, and more—keeps flowing automatically. So no, grandma isn’t eating dog food, and our troops aren’t left stranded. What shuts down? Non-essential government programs Some federal employees get furloughed National parks and “symbolic” shutdown measures get rolled out to make it look worse than it is Meanwhile, the real issue—out-of-control government spending—gets ignored. Why CRs Are a Scam Here’s why conservatives should always vote NO on continuing resolutions: No accountability: Instead of debating a real budget, politicians jam funding bills full of waste and special interest projects. Debt explosion: CRs continue funding at unsustainable Biden-era levels. Where’s the change we voted for? Manipulation tactics: The fear-mongering around government shutdowns is designed to push weak-kneed Republicans into voting for more spending. Backroom deals: CRs let politicians sneak in funding boosts (like FEMA’s massive increase) without scrutiny. Trump Is Wrong on This One As a huge Trump supporter, it pains me to say this: Trump is dead wrong for endorsing this CR. He’s attacking principled conservatives like Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the few people in Washington actually fighting for fiscal sanity. We didn’t elect Trump to continue Biden-era spending levels. We elected him to cut spending and put America First. If Republicans in Congress had a spine, they’d pass a real budget instead of caving every few months. The Bottom Line CRs are designed to keep the spending machine rolling, not to serve the people. Mandatory spending keeps going, so “government shutdown” fear-mongering is a lie. If Republicans actually cared about fiscal responsibility, they’d pass a real budget and stick to it. It’s time to wake up. If you hear someone pushing a CR, tell them: “Nope. That’s not a budget. That’s a scam.” 🔹 Follow me on X @andyparrish for more unfiltered truth🔹 Subscribe to my podcast for more hard-hitting analysis And remember: I’m right. Deal with it.

The war in Ukraine isn’t as simple as the media makes it out to be. While social media warriors change their profile pictures and politicians throw billions of taxpayer dollars at the conflict, few are asking the real questions. Why is the U.S. so invested in Ukraine? What are the economic and strategic interests at play? And why does President Zelensky act more like a Hollywood PR expert than a wartime leader? In this post, we break down the history, the stakes, and the uncomfortable truths about America’s involvement in Ukraine.

Tony Evers’ Gender-Neutral Agenda: The Lie He Hoped You’d Ignore Governor Tony Evers recently came under fire for altering legal language in Wisconsin to remove traditional family terms like “mother” and “father” in favor of gender-neutral terminology, including the controversial replacement of “mother” with “inseminated person.” Evers has claimed that this is about ensuring legal clarity for parents using in vitro fertilization (IVF), but the truth is far different. The Legislative Process & the Lie Under Wisconsin Statute § 16.47, the governor is required to submit a biennial budget proposal to the Joint Finance Committee (JFC), which consists of 16 legislative members. This proposal is subject to amendments and must pass both legislative chambers in identical form before it becomes law. After passage, the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) finalizes language and oversees implementation. Evers, however, misrepresented his role in this process. He claimed that the decision to alter these gendered terms was a necessary legal update to accommodate IVF services. However, IVF-related protections have long been covered under existing state and federal law, including the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Wisconsin Statute § 103.10, which already grant leave and protections to individuals who give birth—regardless of how they conceive. Reading the Signs: Body Language & Deception When confronted about the changes, Evers displayed classic signs of deception: Head Down Before Answering – A defensive posture, indicating discomfort. Glancing Down and to the Right – This signals emotional justification rather than factual recall. Direct Eye Contact on Attacks – A technique used to project confidence while evading accountability. His response was not one of transparency but rather a “block and bridge” strategy—dodging the question and redirecting attention to a strawman argument about Republicans allegedly opposing IVF, which is false. The Bottom Line Evers didn’t just tweak some wording—he intentionally manipulated the law to conform to a radical ideological agenda while misleading Wisconsinites about the reasoning. The media failed to challenge him, but the facts are clear: his changes were unnecessary, his justification was false, and his deception was obvious. Wisconsin voters deserve better than a governor who plays word games with the law while gaslighting the public.

In a shocking attempt to push gender-neutral language, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’ budget proposal sought to replace biological terms such as “mother” and “father” with “inseminated person” and “spouse.” This move sparked outrage among conservatives who see it as yet another effort to erase traditional family values. What Did Evers’ Budget Attempt to Change? Evers’ proposed changes included: Replacing mother with inseminated person Replacing father with spouse Changing husband and wife to spouse Changing stepmom and stepdad to stepparent The justification? According to Evers, it was meant to ensure “legal certainty” for individuals undergoing IVF (in vitro fertilization). However, no other state requires this kind of language shift to guarantee IVF rights, making Evers’ rationale highly questionable. Breaking Down Evers’ Weak Defense When asked about the changes, Evers immediately looked down—classic defensive body language. As Andy Parrish explains in the latest episode of I’m Right, Deal With It, looking down and to the right typically indicates an emotional argument rather than a factual one. Throughout the exchange, Evers repeatedly asserted that the change was to “help moms,” yet failed to explain how removing the word “mother” actually benefits women. Moreover, the bill also altered terms like husband and wife, which have nothing to do with maternal healthcare. Who Asked for This? One glaring issue: No major group had publicly requested these changes. The Wisconsin budget process involves submission to the Joint Finance Committee, where amendments are made before being voted on by the state legislature. So, when Evers claims “all we want”, the question remains—who exactly is we? The Bigger Picture This move is part of a broader trend by progressive politicians to erase biological realities in favor of so-called inclusivity. However, inclusivity should not come at the cost of erasing universally understood and respected terms like mother and father. If Wisconsin Democrats truly wanted to help parents, they could focus on expanding parental leave policies or improving childcare affordability—rather than engaging in ideological wordplay. Final Thoughts The bottom line? No one needed or asked for this change. It’s a blatant attempt to push an agenda that most Wisconsinites do not support. Governor Evers should be focusing on real issues facing Wisconsin families instead of attempting to redefine biological terms for political gain.

Cringe-worthy land acknowledgments are everywhere, but let’s be real—America wasn’t stolen, it was settled, fought for, and built by hardworking Americans. So why haven’t the woke crowd given their land back? Because it’s never been about justice—it’s about control. Let’s break it down.

The Real Story Behind Trump’s Tariff Strategy: Why Mexico and Canada Depend on Us When Donald Trump reintroduced tariffs on North American trade partners, critics predicted disaster: skyrocketing prices, international outrage, and economic turmoil. But reality paints a different picture — one in which tariffs are a powerful tool to protect American industry, secure borders, and assert economic leadership. Tariffs vs. Taxes: Understanding the Difference A critical distinction must be made between tariffs and taxes. Taxes burden American families and businesses, often discouraging economic growth. Tariffs, however, are targeted economic tools designed to correct trade imbalances and encourage fair trade practices. Before the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, the United States maintained a $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico. By 2020, this had turned into a $101 billion trade deficit, as American manufacturing jobs moved south due to cheaper labor and fewer regulations. The same trend was seen with Canada, where the U.S. now faces a $21 billion goods trade deficit despite our critical role in refining Canadian oil. Our Leverage: Exporting Necessities Mexico and Canada are far more reliant on the United States than we are on them: Mexico exports 80% of its goods to the U.S. Canada sends 75% of its exports to the U.S. What do we send them in return? The list reads like a survival kit for modern economies: Pharmaceuticals: Essential medications and medical equipment. Refined Oil: Mexico depends heavily on the U.S. for its gasoline supply. Semiconductors and Technology: Critical components for electronics and modern infrastructure. If these nations retaliated with tariffs, they would only cripple their economies, as they have limited alternatives for sourcing these necessities. Trade Alternatives: America’s Freedom to Source Elsewhere Unlike Mexico and Canada, the United States has abundant options for sourcing goods: Electronics from Taiwan and South Korea Textiles from Vietnam Automotive components from Europe Agricultural products from South America This flexibility underscores America’s strength in global trade negotiations. Economic Wars of the Future As Trump correctly identified, future conflicts won’t be fought with traditional weapons but through economic leverage and societal unrest. By using tariffs strategically, America can maintain its dominance while safeguarding jobs and industries at home. Conclusion Far from being a reckless gamble, tariffs are a calculated move to protect American interests. With Mexico and Canada heavily dependent on the U.S. market, we hold the upper hand. It’s time to use that leverage to ensure a prosperous and secure future for American workers.

The recent collision between a Black Hawk helicopter and a commercial airliner near Washington, D.C., has sent shockwaves through the aviation community and beyond. This tragic event, resulting in the loss of numerous lives, raises serious questions about the safety of our skies, particularly in high-traffic, restricted airspaces like that around the nation’s capital. On a recent episode of The Andy Parrish Show: I’m Right – Deal with It!, I spoke with Colonel Big Joe, a highly experienced Marine pilot, to unpack the complexities of this incident and delve into some of the critical factors that may have contributed to it. The DC Airspace: A Highly Regulated Zone The airspace around Washington, D.C., is one of the most heavily regulated in the United States. Since 9/11, the FAA has implemented an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which requires specific qualifications, training, and communication protocols for all aircraft operating within it. Pilots must be meticulous about who they talk to and the codes they use on their transponders. Failure to comply can result in flight violations, potentially leading to being intercepted and even forced to land. Helicopter Training and Night Vision Military helicopters, such as the Black Hawk involved in the collision, frequently operate in the DC area for training and transport. These flights, often conducted at low levels along the Potomac River, serve to maintain pilot proficiency with navigation, checkpoints, and obstacles. Many of these training flights are done at night, often using night vision goggles (NVGs). While NVGs enhance visibility in the dark, they also present challenges, notably the loss of depth perception. Pilots must train to compensate for this limitation, scanning and moving their heads constantly to create a sense of depth. The Unpredictable Nature of Flight The seemingly improbable nature of this collision is worth examining. I asked mathematicians and AIs to calculate the odds of a collision between a Black Hawk and a commercial airliner, and all returned with the same answer – that it was not probable. Colonel Big Joe compared the situation to a complicated math word problem, noting how even the slightest change in conditions, such as a small change in speed or direction, can lead to unforeseen outcomes. Technological Limitations and Human Factors Both commercial airliners and military aircraft are equipped with various technologies intended to enhance safety, but these are not foolproof. Commercial airliners use ADS-B technology to track aircraft. However, there can be a significant time delay in the information displayed on screens, sometimes by as much as 30 seconds, or a mile to a mile and a half. This delay can be critical in situations where aircraft are moving at high speeds. Additionally, while low altitude warning systems are present in some aircraft, there is not always a system to warn of an aircraft coming directly at you. The investigation into the collision will thoroughly examine the human factors involved. Investigators will scrutinize the pilots’ personal lives, including any potential stressors like divorce, substance use, or medications. Air traffic controller recordings and flight data will also be examined to determine whether there were any errors in communication or instructions. Lessons from the Past Colonel Big Joe recounted a previous incident in the mid-90s where two Marine helicopters collided during night vision goggle training. This underscores the risks inherent in complex training missions, even with experienced pilots. We also discussed the “Miracle on the Hudson,” where Captain Sully Sullenberger’s experience and instinct led to a successful water landing despite the checklist telling him to try for the airport. Checklists are good, but experience is better, and pilots are rigorously trained for these kinds of situations. The collision of the Black Ha

Let’s cut through the noise and get straight to the facts. Birthright citizenship, the notion that any child born on U.S. soil automatically becomes an American citizen, has been the subject of heated debate, especially in the context of immigration. But the truth of the matter? It’s not as simple as people make it out to be. Born from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, birthright citizenship is rooted in a post-Civil War effort to guarantee equal protection under the law. But does it still hold the same weight today? Is it truly the right we think it is, or has it morphed into a tool of political exploitation? The 14th Amendment: A Glimpse Into History The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, was intended to ensure that newly freed slaves had the same rights as all Americans. The amendment is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Simple enough, right? But let’s break it down. The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” And this is where a lot of folks get it wrong. It wasn’t a blanket provision to allow anyone who sets foot on American soil to claim citizenship. In fact, the language was meant to exclude certain people, like the children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants, who were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Dred Scott Decision: A Precursor to the 14th Amendment Before we dive into the modern debates, let’s take a quick trip back to the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be U.S. citizens. That decision, grounded in racism, was one of the key catalysts for the 14th Amendment’s passage, designed to ensure citizenship for all Americans—especially former slaves. So, when people argue that the 14th Amendment is some kind of blanket approval for anyone born here to become a citizen, they’re missing the point. The original intent was to ensure that all people, regardless of race, were treated equally under the law. It wasn’t about opening the floodgates for illegal immigration. The Birthright Citizenship Debate: Is It Time for Change? In recent years, birthright citizenship has come under fire, with some arguing that it’s been abused by illegal immigrants who use it as a loophole to anchor their children to the U.S. While the law is clear about who qualifies for citizenship, the practice has become a contentious issue—especially when it comes to “anchor babies,” children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents who use their child’s citizenship to gain entry or stay in the country. Here’s where we need to ask ourselves: What does it mean to be American? If we open the doors to automatic citizenship based on birthright alone, do we risk cheapening the value of citizenship itself? The law was never meant to create a system where people can exploit our borders for gain, and that’s something we need to take seriously as we reevaluate this policy. Immigration and the Trump Administration It’s impossible to talk about birthright citizenship without bringing up President Trump’s attempt to address the issue through executive action. His administration aimed to curb the practice, arguing that the 14th Amendment didn’t automatically guarantee citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. While the debate is far from settled, one thing is clear: The issue of birthright citizenship goes beyond political theater. It’s about the future of this country, the integrity of our laws, and what it truly means to be an American. Conclusion: Let’s Honor the Intent of the Constitution It’s time we stop letting the debate over birthright citizenship devolve into sensationalized soundbites. The 14th Amendment was a monumental step toward equality, and it’s important that we honor its original intent. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a di

Birthright Citizenship! If you’re born on U.S. soil, congratulations—you’re a U.S. citizen. The 14th Amendment was a direct response to reject the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision.  The Court ruled that a man born into slavery couldn’t be a citizen because his mother was a slave. The Court also ruled that enslaved people and their descendants could never be U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment erased this injustice: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen, regardless of your family’s background or your parent’s status. But let’s be clear: a child’s citizenship doesn’t “magically” extend to their parents. If parents are here illegally, they’re not entitled to citizenship. We have laws for a reason, and breaking them has consequences, including deportation. If deportation separates families, that’s on the parent who chose to break the law, not on the United States for enforcing it.  Respect for the rule of law is what keeps our society functional, fair, and free.I’m Andy Parrish for WIZM.

As I see it, I’m Andy Parrish. The La Crosse County Board has been asked to approve a $250,000“grant” for the La Crosse Airport. Why? The funds would go towards a $1.5 million, what they call a “minimum revenue guarantee program”, which I call corporate welfare, aimed at bringing DeltaAirlines back to the region. Now, to be fair, I applaud the board for listening to their constituents. And thankfully, the board has not yet made a decision on this request. But let me be clear. There is no justification for taking money from hardworking individuals and local businesses to guarantee revenue for a private company. Corporate welfare should never take precedence over offering relief to taxpayers who are already burdened by sky-high taxes. If the board can find $250,000 to guarantee Delta’s revenue,they should have already cut your taxes by the same. For WIZM, I’m Andy Parrish.

Bye TikTok: America’s Stand Against Digital Espionage In a move that’s been years in the making, America is finally banning TikTok—a decision that’s not just about an app but about the very fabric of our national security. TikTok isn’t just a harmless platform for dance videos and viral trends; it’s a meticulously crafted tool for data collection, internal division, and digital warfare, all serving the strategic goals of the Chinese government. A History of Digital Warfare Warfare has evolved. Gone are the days of muskets and battle lines, and even the era of tanks and aerial bombings feels outdated. Modern warfare is about data, influence, and internal disruption. TikTok exemplifies this shift, operating as a digital battlefield where the real weapon is information. Since 2017, when China passed its National Intelligence Law, every Chinese entity, including ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company), has been obligated to share data with the government upon request. This includes user activity, location data, and even what floor of a building you work on. Think about that: your phone, with TikTok installed, becomes a tool for mapping critical infrastructure for a foreign government. How TikTok Divides Us Perhaps even more dangerous than data theft is TikTok’s role in fueling internal conflict. By promoting divisive content and amplifying cultural flashpoints, the app subtly erodes the social fabric of America. As Andy Parrish pointed out in his latest podcast episode, the damage caused by riots linked to political and social unrest in recent years is staggering. And yet, many of these events were fueled, organized, and magnified through platforms like TikTok. Why China Doesn’t Allow TikTok Here’s a telling detail: China itself restricts TikTok. While the app flourishes abroad, the version available in China, Douyin, operates under strict government oversight with limited content. Why? Because the Chinese government knows its potential to destabilize societies and would rather not risk the same outcomes domestically. The Economic and Security Threat The TikTok ban is not about suppressing free speech or creativity. It’s about protecting Americans from a government that has demonstrated its willingness to exploit every avenue of vulnerability. From collecting personal data to manipulating social narratives, TikTok is the tip of the iceberg in China’s broader strategy of undermining global competitors like the United States. What’s Next? As the ban takes effect, skeptics will argue about VPNs and workarounds, but the reality is clear: America cannot afford to compromise its security for fleeting digital trends. The free market will undoubtedly fill the void left by TikTok with safer alternatives, but for now, this ban is a critical step in safeguarding our nation. Let’s not be naive about what’s at stake. TikTok isn’t the product; you are the product. And the sooner we stop feeding into this global surveillance machine, the better off we’ll be. Adios, TikTok. It’s time to reclaim our digital sovereignty.

*In the podcast I talk about a foiled attack on the capital in 2011.  I say they tried to kill me.  Upon reflection I was a Chief of Staff at the time for a Member of Congress so in all likelihood I was there but I can’t say I was there on that day 100%.* On January 1, 2025, two terror attacks shook the United States, leaving me—and many others—questioning the official narrative. The first attack happened in New Orleans, where a former U.S. Army soldier drove an electric Ford truck down Bourbon Street, shooting at police officers, detonating IEDs, and tragically killing 14 people and injuring 35. The second attack occurred in Las Vegas, where a decorated U.S. Navy Master Sergeant drove a Tesla Cybertruck into the Trump Hotel, detonated IEDs, and then ended his own life. Both attacks took place just 15 minutes apart (adjusting for time zone differences). When I started digging into the details, I couldn’t ignore the suspicious similarities that suggest these weren’t random, unrelated acts: Both attackers were former military personnel who served at Fort Bragg. Both attackers used electric vehicles. Both attackers rented their vehicles using the same app. Both attacks involved IEDs. The timing of the attacks was eerily close. The Problem of Classified Information Here’s what’s really frustrating: the government has classified key details about these attacks. That means we, the public, don’t have access to information we have every right to know. Transparency is critical, especially in situations like this. Without it, we’re left to wonder if there’s something they’re trying to hide. I believe this lack of openness fuels distrust and suspicion. When the government keeps us in the dark, it’s no surprise that people start to question whether we’re being told the whole story—or if we’re even getting part of it. Echoes of Past Terrorist Attacks If you look at past domestic terror attacks involving IEDs, one thing stands out: they’re almost always isolated incidents. Think about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt, or the 2018 Austin serial bombings. None of these involved coordinated attacks happening at the same time. What happened in New Orleans and Las Vegas on New Year’s Day 2025 is unique in American history. The fact that these two attacks happened so close together makes me wonder if this was a coordinated effort. The Electric Vehicle Connection Here’s another detail that doesn’t feel like a coincidence: both attackers used electric vehicles. I think this could be a trial run for larger-scale terror operations. Electric vehicles are loaded with technology—autonomous driving capabilities, GPS systems, and microcomputers that can be programmed. It’s not hard to imagine how these features could be exploited. In fact, I suspect the attackers might have used secondary detonation methods because cellular signals were blocked, which would align with the use of pre-programmed tech in the vehicles. This should serve as a wake-up call. Technology like this can be a powerful tool for good, but it’s clear it can also be weaponized. Security Failures and the Need for Answers One question that’s been haunting me is how these attacks were allowed to happen in the first place. Take Bourbon Street in New Orleans, for example. Why weren’t there staggered barricades in place? That’s standard protocol in high-security areas, and their absence is a glaring oversight. These kinds of security failures make me wonder: was this incompetence, or something worse? Either way, we need answers. What We Need to Do I’m calling for transparency and accountability. We deserve to know the truth about what happened and why. These attacks shouldn’t be swept under the rug, and I’m not going to let them be. Here’s what needs to happen: The government must declassify and release all relevant information about these attacks. Vulnerable areas need better security measures to prevent somet

As I see it, I’m Andy Parrish. A cancer grows in our heartland.  Homegrown terrorists betraying their neighbors.  And as we have seen this week, they’ve betrayed the very freedoms they once claimed to defend. But remember this.  America wasn’t forged by cowards.  We were born in revolution and bred by patriots with a fire for freedom and liberty deep within their souls.  And that fire, it burns brighter and hotter in every true American today. So to those plotting in the shadows, know this, justice is coming, it won’t be gentle, it will be swift, and it will be just.  You’re not just opening a can of worms, you’re opening a can of pure American whoop–A.  Well, you know.  And let me tell you, we’ve got plenty of stock. Consider this your wake-up call. The United States does not lose. We never have. We never will. May God have mercy on you, because the United States of America will not. I’m Andy Parrish on WIZM.

As I see it, I’m Andy Parrish. Between 2008 and 2021, 379 people have tragically died taking selfies. That’s right, hundreds of lives lost in the pursuit of that perfect Instagram moment. Now compare that to the number of kids killed in school shootings during that same time period. According to the data, between 170 and 190 children have tragically lost their lives in school shootings over those 13 years. We hear about school shootings constantly, as we should. It’s a horrifying reality. But it’s also a reminder to us that sin and evil are an undeniable part of the human condition. No law, no regulation, no political agenda, and no political party can solve the root of these violent acts, which is our sinful nature. This isn’t to downplay the tragedy in Madison, but to remind us of the power of perspective. More laws have not been the answer in the past, and I doubt they will be in the future. Addressing sin and recognizing evil will make a difference. I’m Andy Parish on WIZM.

The Tragedy in Madison First off, my heart breaks for everyone affected by the school shooting in Madison. It’s a horrific tragedy that should never have happened. But let’s be real, folks. We live in a world with sin and evil, and until we address those underlying issues, no gun law will ever truly protect us from people who intend to do harm. This 15-year-old girl, who by the way, was not legally allowed to possess a handgun in Wisconsin, committed this terrible act. Ask yourself: what law would have stopped her? School Shooting Drills: Propaganda or Preparation? Now, let’s talk about these school shooting drills. I’m calling it out: they are nothing more than propaganda, designed to make kids hate guns. These drills are more traumatic and harmful to our youth than helpful, especially since many school shooters come from the very schools where these drills are practiced. It gets kids to think that they’re going to die at school and that guns are the cause, when in fact, there is a very low probability of that happening. Think about it: during the Cold War, we were told to hide under our desks in case of a nuclear attack. Did that do any good? No, it was just propaganda to make us fear the Russians. The left is using that same playbook now, using these drills to make kids hate guns so they can push their agenda. The Second Amendment: Not About Hunting The Second Amendment isn’t about deer hunting, it’s about protecting our freedom. It was written to ensure that citizens have the same weaponry as the government. The founding fathers wanted us to have the ability to defend ourselves from tyranny. If the government has the power to disarm us, they control us. It’s that simple. Putting it in Perspective The media is obsessed with school shootings. They make it seem like it’s the biggest threat to our children when the reality is different. Here are some things that are statistically more likely to kill you: Taking a selfie Car accidents Drowning Lightning strikes Shark attacks Alcohol related deaths Falling down the stairs Choking on food Bee stings Medical errors Hypothermia Dog attacks Sleeping with bedsheets Getting crushed by a vending machine Dying from being left handed The odds of dying in a school shooting are about one in 2.5 million. While any loss of life is tragic, we need to keep these things in perspective and stop letting the media and the left incite fear. The Continuing Resolution: A Monstrosity Now, let’s talk about this continuing resolution that Republicans are trying to force through. It’s a 1,574-page monstrosity that adds all sorts of unnecessary spending. Here’s a taste of what’s included: $100 million to rebuild a bridge in Baltimore Disaster relief for areas that will likely be destroyed again Molasses inspections A farmer bailout A new memorial in DC Funding for community health clinics that often provide abortions A 6G task force This is nothing more than pork spending to get politicians reelected, and it’s coming out of your pocket. They claim that if they don’t pass this, the government will shut down and people will lose their benefits. This is a lie! The programs they are talking about are funded by non-discretionary spending and they will keep rolling. This is about power and control, not about helping anyone. Enough is Enough We need to stop this nonsense. We need real leaders who will stand up for what’s right. We need a budget, not these last-minute, bloated resolutions. I am calling on Republicans to vote no on this bill. If they don’t, we must remove them from office in the next primary or general election. What You Can Do Here’s what you need to do: Tell your state and federal representatives that gun control is not the answer. Tell them to vote NO on this continuing resolution. Share these statistics and this information with anyone who’s anxious about school shootings. Opt your kids out of school shooting drills. Stand up for your rights and demand

As I see it, I’m Andy Parish. A Dane County judge just turned Act 10 into legal origami, folding established law into something completely unrecognizable. This isn’t judicial review, it’s judicial rewriting. Act 10 was our fiscal firewall, saving taxpayers billions, by simply requiring public employees to pay their fair share for their health care and, their pensions. The law also introduced accountability into public sector unions, and prioritized performance over seniority. The judge claims that the law is unconstitutional, because it treats general employees and public safety employees differently, even though this was upheld by higher courts in 2014. When courts start acting like legislators, democracy isn’t just compromised, it’s turned into a high stakes game of judicial roulette. And the taxpayers? We’re the ones left holding an empty wallet and a broken, promise of fiscal responsibility. This, folks, is judicial activism at its most reckless. I’m Andy Parish on WIZM.

Hunter Biden’s Pardon: The Death of Equal Justice in America In America, the concept of equal justice under the law has long been a cornerstone of our democracy—an ideal etched into the marble of the Supreme Court. However, recent developments have left many questioning whether this principle is being systematically dismantled. The Hunter Biden pardon saga serves as a chilling case study of how justice appears to be increasingly influenced by power, privilege, and political connections. The Two-Tiered System of Justice In any functioning democracy, the rule of law must apply equally to every citizen, regardless of their last name or political affiliation. Yet, the leniency extended to Hunter Biden, juxtaposed with the relentless legal scrutiny faced by others, reveals a glaring double standard. From questionable plea deals to the looming prospect of a presidential pardon, the Hunter Biden story highlights a growing perception that justice in America operates on two tracks: one for the well-connected and another for the rest of us. Consider the average American who faces similar charges of tax evasion or illegal firearm possession. For them, the consequences are swift and severe, often resulting in years behind bars. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s alleged crimes are met with protracted investigations, reduced charges, and the specter of a pardon that could erase all accountability. How can we, as a society, reconcile this disparity? The Implications of a Pardon A presidential pardon for Hunter Biden would send shockwaves through an already polarized nation. It would signal to the American people that there are, indeed, two sets of rules: one for the elite and another for everyone else. Such an act would not only undermine the credibility of our justice system but also erode public trust in our institutions. Pardons have historically been contentious but have typically been reserved for cases of genuine injustice or to promote national healing. Think of Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon or Abraham Lincoln’s clemency toward Confederate soldiers. In contrast, a pardon for Hunter Biden would lack the moral justification or broader societal benefit that characterized these historical precedents. Why This Matters The erosion of equal justice under the law is not a partisan issue—it’s an American issue. When one political dynasty appears to receive preferential treatment, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the integrity of our democracy. It fosters cynicism, disengagement, and a sense of powerlessness among the American people. After all, why should the average citizen believe in the rule of law if it seems to bend so easily for the privileged few? Call to Action This is not just about Hunter Biden. It’s about the future of our republic and whether we will continue to uphold the principle that no one is above the law. Americans of all political stripes must demand transparency, accountability, and fairness in our justice system. The alternative is a slippery slope toward a system where justice is not blind but selectively applied based on status and connections. Let’s use this moment not to deepen divisions but to unite in pursuit of a justice system that truly embodies the ideal of equal justice under the law. As we delve deeper into this topic on The Andy Parrish Show, I invite you to join the conversation and share your thoughts. Together, we can confront these challenges and advocate for a more just and equitable America. It’s time we, the people, take our government back. Follow me on X, Instagram, and Facebook. I’m Andy Parrish, I’m right – Deal with it!

The city is discussing a new city administrator position for the jaw-dropping price of $185,000 annually. Now, supporters claim the position will make us more efficient and through those efficiencies pay for itself. But hold up. If we can save money just by being more efficient, why not just fix those inefficiencies ourselves? We don’t need a high-priced referee to solve the city’s problems. More government won’t fix what government already broke. And spending more money won’t save us money. What we need is leadership that gets things done. Think about it. If you wanted to lose weight, would you buy a $10,000 treadmill when you already had a gym membership? Of course not. So why are we spending nearly $200,000 on a new boss to, quote, fix things that we can fix ourselves? Efficiency comes from strong leadership, not bloated payrolls and not more government. Let’s save our money and demand real results for our city.

The deer opener. It’s finally here. It’s time to pack our gear and head to deer camp. But before we hit the woods, let’s review some hunter safety basics. Always wear your blaze orange or your bright pink. It keeps you visible to hunters, and it also keeps you compliant with the law. Remember, no deer is worth risking your safety or the safety of others. Always point your muzzle in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot, and only shoot once you’ve identified your target and know what’s beyond it. If you’re in a tree stand, make sure it’s secured before you climb it. And always put on your safety harness. A fall from even just a few feet can cause serious injury. And never, ever climb in or out of your deer stand with a loaded firearm. Let’s make this a memorable deer opener but for the right reasons. Hunt smart, stay safe and bring home the big one! I’m Andy Parish on WIZM.