Ep. 1464 - Why The Left Is Willing To Do Anything They Can To Take Down Elon Musk
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Elon Musk just accomplished something that nobody in history ever has. This achievement will advance human civilization immeasurably. So, naturally, left-wing bureaucrats are trying to sabotage him. Also, Bill Clinton says that declining birth rates means we have to replace Americans with immigrants. Isn't that a right-wing conspiracy theory? And body cameras shut down another BLM narrative before it even gets started.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1464
- - -
DailyWire+:
My hit documentary “Am I Racist?” Is coming to DailyWire+ on October 28th! Head to https://amiracist.com to become a member today.
Make The Daily Wire your hub for election coverage and tune in November 5th for live, real-time poll results and analysis! Join now at https://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
First Liberty Institute - Go to https://supremecoup.com/walsh to learn how you can help stop the radical Left’s takeover of the Supreme Court.
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit https://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Elon Musk just accomplished something that nobody in history ever has.
This achievement will advance human civilization immeasurably.
So naturally, left-wing bureaucrats are trying to sabotage him.
Also, Bill Clinton says that declining birth rates means that we have to replace Americans with immigrants.
Isn't that a right-wing conspiracy theory, I was told?
And body cameras shut down another BLM narrative before it even gets started.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
The wait is almost over.
On October 28th, my hit comedy, Am I Racist, is finally coming to Daily Wire Plus.
That's right, the number one documentary of the decade will be available for streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code air for 35% off new annual memberships right now.
Let me tell you about a looming threat to our constitutional republic that the mainstream media won't cover.
The radical left is plotting a Supreme Court coup, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore, folks.
These progressive ideologues want to eliminate the court's conservative majority by packing it with their own hand-picked justices.
It's not court reform, it's a blatant power grab to get the outcomes they want.
And here's the frightening part.
If one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency come January, they could restructure the court overnight.
With a simple majority vote and a president's signature, their plan could become a reality.
It's like they're trying to speedrun the destruction of our judicial system.
So... Yeah, and we've already seen their playbook, made up ethical attacks on injustices, illegal protests at their homes, open threats from so-called representatives.
It's Venezuela-style court packing.
It would spell the end of judicial independence and the rule of law as we know it.
But hey, who needs a checks and balance system when you can have a rubber stamp for your radical agenda?
But there's hope. First Liberty is leading the charge to protect the Supreme Court from this radical plan.
They're fighting to preserve the legitimacy of the court and the separation of powers that safeguards our freedoms.
Here's what you need to do. Go to SupremeCoup.com slash Walsh.
That's SupremeCoup.com slash Walsh to learn how you can help stop the left's takeover of the Supreme Court.
The future of our country is quite literally in your hands.
Check out SupremeCoup.com slash Walsh today.
Less than a week ago, as engineers at SpaceX prepared to achieve something that had never been done before in human history, a dozen bureaucrats at the California Coastal Commission assembled to do something that's been done many, many times before in human history.
The commissioners, a group that mostly consists of liberal women, set up a massive regulatory roadblock to impede people who are actually doing real, important work.
And these commissioners established this roadblock in a way that made it extremely obvious to everyone that the root of their frustration was their own jealousy and bitterness.
Now the clips I'm about to play come from a meeting of the California Coastal Commission to consider SpaceX's plans to launch as many as 50 rockets every year from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, which is located in Southern California, Santa Barbara County.
This is a plan that was formally proposed by the Air Force and the Space Force because SpaceX is a military contractor and everything SpaceX does either directly benefits the Defense Department or more broadly advances the interests of the country.
But the California Coastal Commission in its infinite wisdom disagrees.
They voted down the proposal for more launches, but why did they do that exactly?
Well here's one of the commissioners, Gretchen Newsom, no relation to Gavin Newsom, explaining And I want you to pay attention not only to what Gretchen Newsom says, but also how she says it.
Watch. Elon Musk has enjoyed substantial subsidies from California, amounting to over $3.2 billion while threatening to relocate his operations, including his headquarters, from California to Texas, citing his bigoted beliefs against California's safeguards and protections of our transgender community.
This behavior raises concerns about the motivations behind his request for government support.
And here today we have the U.S. Department of the Air Force and U.S. Space Force presenting permitting requests on behalf of SpaceX to the profitable benefit of SpaceX and its billionaire CEO.
Right now Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet.
But this claim in itself to the public benefit is a falsehood because one must first purchase the Starlink startup kit for several hundred dollars and then face a monthly fee of $120 after 30 days.
A sick ploy to gain customers that are facing tremendous burden and dire straits.
They're hurricane victims.
So she's practically snarling over the fact that Elon Musk provided internet access to people in a storm.
This is internet access that the federal government denied these people because the Biden-Harris administration cut Starlink out of a funding program for rural broadband access.
And as you'd expect, many of these people voluntarily and gratefully accepted this internet access from Elon Musk in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
But somehow this is all a sick ploy, says Gretchen Newsom.
And she makes that claim because if they wanted Starlink, people had to pay a couple hundred bucks for the Starlink unit, the normal cost of the device, followed by a monthly fee after 30 days of service, free days of service, which has since been extended, by the way, for free to the end of 2024.
In other words, according to the California Coastal Commission, it's not enough for Elon Musk to swoop in and provide basic services that the We're good to go.
There's so much going on in this clip that we just played that it's not even clear where to begin, but I wanted to start with the Starlink part because it highlights the anti-human ideology that's consumed so much of the left.
I mean, they don't care if Elon Musk is saving lives in disaster zones in states like North Carolina.
They don't care if people are voluntarily paying him money so that they can access a vital service like the Internet.
They only care about damaging Elon Musk as much as possible.
And from that clip, it's pretty clear why they want to damage Elon Musk.
Gretchen Newsom says that Musk has made, quote, bigoted remarks about the, quote, transgender community.
She claims he's spewing and tweeting political falsehoods about FEMA. Now, first of all, it would be hard to imagine a more direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment than these statements, saying that he's being denied because of things that he's saying on the Internet.
That's a violation of the First Amendment.
Elon Musk has already said that he's suing the California Coast Commission over this, and he absolutely should.
But on top of that, the things Elon Musk was saying also happened to be true, by the way.
Men can't be women, and FEMA did waste more than a billion dollars on services for illegal migrants.
If the Constitution protects anything, it's statements like these.
That's how the Constitution is written anyway, but obviously that's not how things work in places that are run exclusively by Democrats like California.
We saw that just a couple of weeks ago when the governor, Gavin Newsom, tried to ban satire and memes.
He didn't like how people on social media were talking about Kamala Harris being a DEI hire, so he tried to outlaw it.
He just came right out and said it.
And Gretchen Newsom, again, no relation, surprisingly enough, has taken the exact same approach right out in the open.
There are a few other things that Gretchen Newsom said that I could quibble with.
For example, no, Musk is not requesting government support.
This meeting, again, is about a request by the Air Force and Space Force for the California Coast Commission to get out of the way.
Nobody wants the support of the commission.
They don't need Gretchen's support.
We don't need her to do anything. They just want the commission to stop bothering them, just get the hell out of the way.
Now, of course, technically the military can override this commission if it wants to, but right now they're working to find some kind of compromise solution, and that may not last very long.
And that's because it's not just Gretchen Newsom who thinks like this.
The majority of the Coastal Commission in California is the same way.
So here, for example, is Carol Hart, the chair of the commission.
And this clip may be even more embarrassing than the one that I just played.
Watch. But here we're dealing with a company that is the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and made it clear what his point of view is, and he's managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.
That compounded with their refusal.
My understanding was that they would be here today on Zoom.
I am very concerned that even after meeting with me, my expressing my feelings...
Chair? Yes? Sorry to interrupt.
They did participate on Zoom today.
Okay. Oh, okay, that brief comment, but in a more significant way.
Let me put it this way, in a more significant way.
So I just am very concerned that by concurring today that we then will lose our ability going forward with a potential change in administrations, potential loss of your leadership.
I mean, those things concern me very much.
So she tries to ding SpaceX for not showing up on Zoom during the meeting, and then she's told that in fact SpaceX did show up by Zoom.
In fact, somebody named Matthew Dunn, the director for government affairs at SpaceX, gave a whole presentation.
He explained that SpaceX is currently supporting the Defense Department and Boeing and NASA.
He pointed out that SpaceX is the only operational US provider for astronaut transportation to the International Space Station, which is kind of a big deal because astronauts are trapped up there at the moment.
And he went into detail about how Starlink assists the Pentagon in addition to disaster victims.
But somehow, the chair of the California Coastal Commission missed all of this.
And when she's informed that SpaceX had shown up and done a whole presentation, she just instantly waves it off.
It wasn't enough for her, she says.
So obviously she made up her mind long before this hearing.
And again, it's clear what she's really upset about.
She complains that Musk has, quote, aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and made it clear what his point of view is.
Which, it's like, okay, what does that have to do with launching rockets?
Who cares about that?
So what she's saying, in other words, he's exercised his First Amendment rights in a way that the California Coastal Commission doesn't approve of.
He has political opinions that this woman doesn't like, therefore he's not allowed to launch a rocket.
For good measure, Carole Hart also complains that Musk has, quote, managed the company in a way that's very disturbing.
Now, it's hard to know exactly what that's a reference to.
Maybe she's complaining about that lawsuit by some former SpaceX employees, which accuses Musk of posting insensitive memes on X. Those memes were allegedly very traumatizing to these employees, particularly the meme that depicted Bill Gates as a pregnant man.
Very disturbing.
Very disturbing stuff. They're traumatized by it.
Or maybe she's referring to how SpaceX was fined several hundred thousand dollars because of alleged launch license violations last year, even though those launch license violations wouldn't have been violations at all if the FAA had responded to SpaceX's various applications in time.
So maybe that's what the commissioner finds disturbing.
Or maybe she's talking about how SpaceX is doing things that no one has ever done before in all of human history.
Maybe she finds that disturbing.
As a useless bureaucrat, when she sees people doing and accomplishing things, she's confounded.
She's like, what is this? They're doing a thing?
They're actually doing something?
This is scary.
I'm scared by it.
Maybe she doesn't see any benefit to reusable rockets or colonizing Mars or rapidly deploying satellites to provide internet access to millions of people.
Maybe the idea of human progress itself upsets this particular bureaucrat.
And that would really explain a lot.
Now you can go through the whole hearing and you won't find a serious explanation for the commission's ultimate vote, which was to deny SpaceX the additional launches.
But you will find a lot of hysteria.
There's a user on X using the handle Robin who assembled some of the better examples.
Here's two of them. The first clip is a commissioner named Dana Bochko who announced that the Air Force and Space Force are wrong and that really SpaceX has nothing to do with our national defense.
She just comes out and unilaterally declares that SpaceX doesn't benefit the government in any way.
She knows more than the Pentagon and all of the engineers on this point.
We should listen to her. The second clip is a woman, a member of the public, complaining about the sonic booms from the launch.
Watch. Reluctantly, I'm going to vote no.
And the reason I am is that I do believe that...
The Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense, necessary to be decided under a federal consistency rather than a CDP.
I was on the Channel Islands in August when a Falcon 9 rocket was launched from Vandenberg.
The sonic boom was terrifying to everyone that was present and sleeping.
They woke up terrified in the morning, not knowing what the loud explosion was.
I felt it through my bones.
And SpaceX is, yes, a private company.
They have the nickname of WasteX.
Their satellites last about five years, so they're constantly wanting to increase their launches.
It's a profit-driven, wasteful model.
So there's all sorts of back and forth on this sonic boom issue.
SpaceX disagrees on how many of these booms are audible in populated areas and how loud they are and so on.
Let's just put all that aside for a moment.
Let's concede for the purposes of the argument that every now and then there's briefly a loud noise from a SpaceX launch and that some people can hear it for a second or two.
In what universe does this justify denying SpaceX the ability to launch rockets at all?
I mean, this would be like denying construction crews the ability to work at all at any time ever.
Imagine if people like this had their way during any other significant moment in this country's history.
Imagine if somebody like that lady was bothered by all the noise they were making in Los Alamos and had the Manhattan Project shut down.
Imagine being the kind of person who hears a couple seconds of a sonic boom and feels terrified as a result.
Especially when you know what it's from, so there should be no confusion.
Now, when this woman says sonic boom, this is what we're talking about here, just to give you some idea.
Watch. So, that's it. I mean, the rocket makes a loud noise.
And that's reason number 10,000, to shut down SpaceX, apparently.
You know, if we're going to...
Yeah, advancing human civilization is great and all, but if it makes a loud noise that bothers me once every six and a half weeks, well, then never mind.
Can you quiet down with all your civilizational advancement over there?
I'm trying to watch TikTok.
I haven't even gotten into the DOJ's lawsuit against SpaceX for not hiring enough asylum seekers, which is what they're calling illegal aliens now.
And of course, the European Union has about a million of their own reasons and their own issues with SpaceX as well.
The only positive thing to come out of this pathetic meeting at the California Coastal Commission is that it established by sheer contrast.
How useless all of these regulators and bureaucrats and critics really are.
I mean, they could not have picked a worse day for them anyway to hold this meeting.
Because less than a week later, Elon Musk demonstrated that unlike his critics, his companies are actually accomplishing things.
They are benefiting humanity in very real and tangible ways.
It's maybe the least flattering juxtaposition in the history of juxtapositions.
On the one hand, you have useless, bitter, complaining, whining bureaucrats trying to slow human progress for their own political reasons.
On the other hand, you have this.
I mean, that's real, by the way.
That's not like computer animation.
That actually happened.
And that's what Elon Musk is doing while these dumb women sit around in their conference rooms and they're having their committee meetings talking about, I'm troubled.
I'm troubled by this tweet.
This tweet is offensive.
While they're doing that, he's doing this.
What SpaceX just accomplished, what you saw there, is one of the most significant technological advancements in history.
I mean, it will make interplanetary travel, in particular travel to Mars, an order of magnitude cheaper.
They prove that they can catch their rocket boosters in midair, which is just mind-boggling.
They also prove that they can precisely land the ship itself in the water.
As Elon Musk put it last night, when you can reuse extremely expensive equipment like this and then rapidly redeploy it, you make it literally a thousand times easier and less expensive to colonize a planet like Mars.
When you're talking about trillions of dollars, that's a big difference.
I mean, it's the difference between colonizing Mars and just staying on this planet forever.
Now, the reason that Musk's critics don't care about this is that when you get down to it, they're not just bitter and jealous and unhappy, although they're all of those things, certainly.
They're also anti-human.
They don't want humans to colonize another planet any more than they want humans to have free speech or to reproduce above replacement level on this planet.
It should tell you something, that pretty much the only issue these people are passionate about is abortion.
That's the thing they care about the most, because it means fewer humans will exist.
That's why Joe Biden and Kamala Harris didn't bother to congratulate Elon Musk or SpaceX on their historic, civilization-changing achievement that will alter the trajectory of humanity forever.
It's why they're engaging in open lawfare to shut his companies down.
These people do not want to save this country or civilization for that matter.
They want to destroy it.
And they'll complain about any pretext imaginable, whether it's sonic booms or launch licenses or hiring asylum seekers in order to achieve that end.
The only reasonable response is to dismantle the vast web of bureaucratic agencies like the California Coastal Commission along with the Biden-Harris administration.
This election isn't really even about Democrat or Republican anymore.
It's a choice between unimpressive, profoundly cynical bureaucrats on one hand and people who advance civilization in meaningful ways on the other.
After what SpaceX accomplished this week, that fundamental distinction is now clear to everybody with an internet connection or a television.
And that's what they're actually upset about.
And it's why in just a few weeks...
There's a very good chance they're going to lose the power that they never deserve to have in the first place.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
History, economics, the great works of literature, the meaning of the US Constitution.
Did you study these things in school?
Probably not.
Or even if you did, it's probably time for a refresher.
That's why I'm so excited that Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses in the most important and enduring subject.
You can learn about the works of C.S. Lewis, the stories in the books of Genesis, the meaning of the US Constitution, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses, all available for free.
I personally recommend you sign up for Marxism, Socialism, and Communism.
This brand new online course is unlike anything Hillsdale has produced before.
Over the course of six documentary style episodes, you'll hear from Hillsdale professors of history, politics, and economics as they look at Marx's life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of cultural Marxism in America.
You'll explore how many ideas in American politics today are rooted in In Marxism and also how they differ from Marxist thoughts, it's vital that we take these ideas and historical figures seriously so that we can see the injustice and evil inherent in them and are better equipped to defeat them.
Start your free course, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, today.
Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash walsh to start.
It's free. It's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash walsh to start hillsdale.edu slash walsh.
Bill Clinton is out on the stump campaigning for Kamala.
There's been a few notable moments, one where he went to a McDonald's and the employees didn't recognize him.
They thought that he was Joe Biden, which is pretty rough.
Not really fair to Bill.
I mean, Joe Biden is older than he is.
And think about that for a moment.
A guy who was first elected president more than 30 years ago is currently younger than the guy who is president right now.
Technically president right now.
And actually, every president that we've had since 1992 is younger today than the current president.
Which is why it was always insane for anyone to have ever supported Biden for president.
I mean, there are many other reasons, but that reason alone...
So anyway, there was that moment.
There was another moment where Bill on the stump admits that Lakin Riley's death was the result of the government not properly vetting the illegal immigrant who killed her, which is a direct and correct, by the way, attack on Biden and Harris.
Whether he meant it that way or not, that's what it is.
Actually, let's go ahead and play that clip.
Here it is. Yeah, that's...
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, nothing to add.
Nothing to add. That's exactly the point.
That's precisely the point that we're making.
The only question is whether when you hear these kinds of comments from Bill Clinton, when you see Joe Biden out directly undermining Kamala, as he's been doing increasingly lately— The only question is whether this stuff is because they're old and confused and they're just babbling or whether it's intentional, whether they are intending to undermine her because they don't want her to win.
In Bill Clinton's case, it could go either way.
For Joe Biden...
It's certain that, of course, he doesn't want her to win.
Like, obviously, he doesn't want her.
Now, he's also old and confused, so it's a little column A, a little column B in his case always, but he certainly does not want her to win.
How could he? How could you, if you get pushed out of your job Somebody schemes behind your back, somebody that you elevated and you promoted, and they scheme behind your back to push you out of the job, how could you be rooting for them?
Of course you want them to fail.
So that's pretty obvious.
And it could be the case for Bill Clinton, too.
I mean, Kamala Harris is not...
Nobody likes Kamala Harris.
Least of all in her own party do they like her.
Because they know that she's this unimpressive, really dumb person who has never really achieved anything, doesn't deserve to be in the position that she's in.
And everybody knows that.
They know that, especially the people close to her know that.
So she's just kind of despised by everyone.
There was also this moment from Bill Clinton...
Where he again, and this time I think it was unintentional, but he again undermined a leftist talking point.
Let's listen to this. A new direction to manage an immigration crisis in a tough time where there's all this upheaval all over the world.
Where there are border problems all over the world.
Where millions of people are trying to escape the misery they're in.
And other people are saying, well, I want to do what I can and take what I can, but maybe there's a limit to how much we can do.
In other words, I don't think Americans are anti-immigration, they're anti-chaos.
Right? They don't want us to do more than we can, but they recognize, at least most people do, we got the lowest birth rate we've had in well over a hundred years.
We're not at replacement level, which means we've got to have somebody come here if we want to keep growing the economy.
Unless one of you is one of these artificial intelligence geniuses and figured out how we can all grow with no work, which I'm not sure would be good for us.
I think, you know... Wow.
Wait a minute. I have it on good authority that what Bill Clinton just articulated there is a right-wing conspiracy theory.
A horrifically racist right-wing conspiracy theory.
Haven't we been told that?
Hasn't that been shrieked at us incessantly for years now?
What you just heard from Clinton is the great replacement.
That's what it is. Importing immigrants to replace Americans.
That's the great... It is a replacement.
He just used the word.
It's a replacement. And it's also great in terms of the size and scope.
So it's the great replacement.
So once again, we see here the common trajectory on the left.
This is how it goes with everything.
This is how it goes with literally everything.
First, they deny that it's happening.
And then they admit that it's happening and say that it's good.
It goes from, that's not happening, to, it is happening, and it's good, actually.
It is happening, and it should happen more often.
It is happening, and you should be cheering it on.
That's the way it always goes.
That's the way the denials...
That's the evolution on the left.
And... It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but I will, that there is another way to solve the problem of declining birth rates in America.
Because that's happening, and that is a problem.
So if you have declining birth rates in America, one thing you could do is just replace Americans with third world immigrants so that America is no longer even America.
That's one strategy.
The other strategy is that you could increase the birth rate.
I mean, if we're all agreeing that that's the fundamental problem here, then what about just Americans have more babies?
Here's an idea. Americans have more babies and also stop killing the babies that we do have.
There's a two-pronged approach here.
We could turn this thing around.
Have more babies, don't kill them.
It was a crazy idea.
Is it possible to encourage Americans to have more kids?
Yes. I mean, that's what any functioning society, any functioning country should be doing.
That's like functioning society 101 level stuff here is creating a situation where people are encouraged by To start families and have kids, and you make your society as welcoming as it can possibly be to young families.
You facilitate the formation of families.
That's what you do.
Or you just turn your country into the third world so that it's indistinguishable eventually from the countries that these immigrants are fleeing from to begin with.
Okay, a couple weeks ago, Georgetown Women's Basketball posted a tribute to one of their players.
And I think we have that tweet.
Let's put that tweet up.
Okay, so this is from September 20th, 2024.
Georgetown women's basketball mourns the tragic loss of Sidney Wilson.
Class of 2013. Forever a Hoya.
And you can see her there.
Okay. Sydney Wilson was her name.
She was killed. Killed tragically, Georgetown says.
And I have seen, by the way, some indication or some claims on Twitter that Wilson was trans, that she's actually a man who identified as a woman.
I don't think that's true, as far as I can tell.
I'm pretty sure that Wilson was actually a woman.
So I'll call her a her on that assumption.
Anyway, this is...
It was being mourned. BLM activists were also mourning her death because it turns out that she was killed by a police officer.
And so that was the tragedy.
Well, now we know more about this tragedy because this quote-unquote tragedy, the police have released the body cam footage.
And I can tell you that the footage, it's like something out of a horror film.
I mean, truly, when I first saw it, I didn't think it was real.
I thought it was like an AI or a skit or some weird skit or a scene from a movie.
I didn't think it was real. And I wish I could play it for you, but I can't because if you're watching on YouTube, the problem is that YouTube basically makes it impossible to play videos like this on the grounds that it's violent or whatever.
But I have to blur it to the point where you can't actually see what's happening, so there'd be no point.
So I'll just describe it for you, which won't do it justice, but it's the best I can do.
So in the footage... An officer named Peter Liu knocks on the door of Sidney Wilson's apartment, apparently to conduct a welfare check.
And Wilson opens the door, immediately starts slashing at him with a knife.
I mean, there's no conversation that happens at all.
She opens the door, immediately starts attacking.
So Liu retreats down the hallway and is backpedaling down the hallway.
Wilson is charging at him with the knife.
I mean, like the knife raised over her head, like I said, like a horror film.
Slashing at him. Manages to cut him multiple times in the face and hands, and I think other parts of his body as well.
And I can't show you the footage.
I think I can get away with at least showing you this picture.
So here's a screenshot.
I mean, that's a real picture.
This is what the whole footage is like.
She's running at him, screaming.
That blurry thing you see in her right hand is the knife.
So you can tell just from that screenshot alone that it was obviously a good shoot.
Totally justified. No question about it.
I mean, no question. She's lunging at him with a knife.
She's pursuing him down the hallway.
He keeps saying, back up, back up, back up, telling her to stop.
Pursuing him with a knife actually makes physical cuts, slashes him in the face.
She's 100% in the wrong.
She brought this on herself. She deserved the response that she got.
Now she's dead, and it's her fault and no one else's.
There's no doubt about that in the slightest.
So there's nothing really to talk about that's interesting in terms of weighing the decision of whether or not to shoot.
Georgetown may be treating this like Wilson is the victim of a tragic shooting, but every sane person in existence knows that the victim here is the officer, not Wilson.
That's clear. But what we do need to talk about, and what you can really see in the footage if you go and watch it, is that the officer actually waited...
Way too long to pull the trigger.
She opens the door, immediately lunges at him with the knife.
He should have blasted her right then and there.
Not to be crude about it, but the moment she starts slashing at him with a knife, he should have...
He should have unloaded. Instead, he backs away down the hallway with her running at him, and only after he gets physically cut with the knife does he actually open fire.
It was almost too late.
If she had managed to cut him his neck or hit an artery or something, then he might have been the one who ended up on the ground dead instead of on the ground injured, which is how he ended up after all this was over.
So he waits too long.
He waits way too long. There's no reason why that woman should have ever been able to actually inflict any injuries on this officer.
He should have taken her out long before that.
Now, my point is not to criticize the officer.
First of all, He's in this horrific, terrifying situation, one that I've certainly never been in, so I'm not trying to Monday morning quarterback it.
What I'm trying to point out is just how hesitant many officers are now to use their firearms, even in situations when it's clearly necessary.
Why didn't Officer Liu shoot this woman several seconds earlier?
Why didn't he open fire the moment she started attacking him?
Well, I can't read his mind, but it seems very likely that he was trying to avoid becoming the next Darren Wilson.
It's impossible to imagine that officers don't have You know, George Floyd and all of that constantly in their minds in situations like that.
I know it would be for me.
So they're constantly aware of the lose-lose situation that they're in, and all that has done is make them hesitant to protect themselves and innocent members of the community.
Understandably hesitant. So the blame here goes entirely at the feet of BLM activists and the media.
It's their fault. They almost got this man killed.
With that said, I saw somebody on Twitter make a good point about this, that body cam footage, body cameras, have really backfired on the BLM activists and the race hustlers.
They insisted on cops wearing the cameras.
And it's good that they did insist on it, because what have we learned ever since we put cameras on pretty much every police officer?
We've learned that almost every police shooting is justified.
This is how it almost always goes.
The BLM narrative about a shooting is disconfirmed by the body cameras in almost every case.
I mean, it is disconfirmed much, much, much, much more often than it is confirmed.
How many times have we seen this exact situation?
Where we're told by the activists that, oh, it's a tragedy, this person.
And then the body cam footage comes out And most of the time, it's not even close.
It's not even like, okay, well, you know, that could have gone either way.
Most of the time, it's like, yeah, well, of course he shot her.
What else was he going to do?
So, body cameras are a very good thing.
I'm glad they're there. And this has proven to be, I mean, this, body cameras, as I said, ironically, I mean, there are a lot of reasons why the BLM movement is effectively dead now.
One of them is that they're a bunch of con artists and scam artists, and they're all getting caught up in their own scams and everything, and all the scandals that came.
But another big reason is body cameras.
It's like, now that we can all see what these cops are dealing with, and now that you can actually see these would-be BLM martyrs, like, when you have the image, we just play.
I mean, think about this.
If... Body cameras didn't exist.
If there was no body camera, then Sidney Wilson would be the next BLM writer.
And the image that we would all have of her is whatever, her at her college graduation, her playing basketball, her smiling.
We wouldn't have that image of her snarling and waving a knife like a crazy person, like a horror villain.
We wouldn't have that. We wouldn't know about that.
I mean, the cops would tell us, they would say, oh, but we wouldn't have the image.
We wouldn't know what that's like.
And I mean, go back to the infancy of BLM and Michael Brown.
You go back to that.
And imagine if there was body cam...
There was never a body...
We didn't have... There was no body cams.
We didn't have body cam footage of Michael Brown charging at the officer and trying to take his gun, trying to kill him.
And so we didn't have the body cam footage.
All we had was, you know, we had the police, we had the ballistics.
There was a lot of evidence. Even the DOJ looked into it.
Obama's DOJ. It's very clear that this was a justified shooting.
But the BLM narrative...
As they say, the falsehood made it all the way around the world before the truth got its pants on.
And that's what happened here.
But imagine if we had the body cam.
What if we had the body cam footage?
It would have looked very similar to that.
Michael Brown, minus the knife, Michael Brown lunging, charging, enraged at the officer.
But we didn't have that.
And for so long, the BLM activists have acted like...
The lack of body cam footage has hurt them and hurt their cause.
But no, that's the whole reason that your cause exists.
Your whole movement only exists because body cameras were not very common 10 to 15 years ago.
Once you start putting body cameras on all the cops, you can try.
They can still try to get it going.
They can try to get the narrative going, but When you can see it, when you can see it on camera, it's just hard to get around that.
All right.
That was two headlines. We're good to go.
Their expertise is your advantage.
Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance and settlement.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities, such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted.
If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns, or if you're missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement.
Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000, or visit their website at tnusa.com slash wallstreet.
That's 1-800-958-1000.
Or visit tnusa.com slash walsh today.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
On October 28th, my new hit comedy, Am I Racist?, is coming home to Daily Wire+.
When it hit theaters this September, it immediately became the number one new comedy, and it's now officially the number one documentary of the decade.
That's worth repeating to really irritate our friends on the left.
Am I Racist? is the number one documentary of the decade, plus it's verified hot on Rotten Tomatoes with a 97% audience score.
Now my personal journey through the weird wasteland of woke insanity is coming exclusively to Daily Wire+, October 28th.
Your couch is your front row seat to witness me going undercover to hilariously dismantle DEI, but Daily Wire+, is the only place you can stream Am I Racist? at home.
It all starts on October 28th.
If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code AIR for 35% off new annual memberships right now.
Your membership also gets you instant access to the cultural phenomenon What is a Woman streaming now.
You'll be the first to watch Am I Racist at Home streaming October 28th only on Daily Wire Plus.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So now we have my favorite kind of daily cancellation.
Today we deal with a controversy where everybody involved is wrong.
This week, a post from Reddit has gone viral on Twitter, and this post apparently originated on the Millennials subreddit.
I've never visited that forum, but I can only imagine what sort of horrors one might find there.
And in this case, the post is from a millennial man, a guy in his late 30s, he says, who is complaining bitterly about his parents.
On Twitter, much of the commentary seems to be on his side, on the guy's side.
I would imagine that the good folks over at the Millennial Reddit forum were also largely sympathetic to him.
But here's what the post says.
Quote, WTF is wrong with our parents.
My wife and I have spent almost two decades leveling up in jobs and careers and are now in our late 30s with two small children in a HCOL state.
We scraped and suffered to buy a small ranch house and two used larger cars for our family.
Our credit is suffering.
I'm personally in $20,000 of credit card debt that I'm slowly working down.
Our kids attend daycare that bled our savings dry.
Typical millennial shit.
Quick editor's note here, this is typical millennial stuff.
Most of all, the part where they're bleeding their savings dry for the sake of having two parents work while the kids are in daycare.
I know that my fellow millennials aren't typically fans of quote-unquote gender roles, but this would be a compelling argument in favor of the wife staying home and raising the kids.
I mean, maybe they have a circumstance where they can't do that for some reason.
But very often, this is a very common scenario where you've got both parents working, and actually it would make more sense financially to have only one parent work.
So... That's something they might want to think about, at least.
But let's continue. Last week, I came across my father-in-law's account summary.
Ten plus million dollars.
Later that week, I mentioned I saw that to my own dad.
He said, well, he's doing just a bit better than me.
Literally, what the F? I would give my last dollar to my son to make sure he was more comfortable, to make sure he didn't suffer debt or bad credit as long as he was working.
Here are our own effing parents sitting on their piles of gold watching us navigate a new level of effed-up economics and shopping for discounts and raising our children in subpar school districts and for effing what?
So that's the whole sob story.
And as I said, most of the social media peanut gallery seems to be on this guy's side.
The consensus is that boomers are selfish, greedy hoarders who'd rather live in luxury than help their own children.
One comment summarized it this way, quote, boomers deserve excruciating deaths.
That comment has 6,000 likes, by the way.
That's how you know that things are going well in American society, when the generations are wishing painful deaths on each other.
Always a good sign.
Now, putting these rather over-the-top comments to the side, it is true that our current system, maybe not created by the boomers, but certainly popularized by them, is not only backwards, but also very unique to the modern age.
In most cases, parents should not wait until they're dead to share their wealth with their children, but that is how it goes very often these days.
You know, you should want your children to have everything that you have and more.
The modern approach, again, emphasis on modern because this is not at all the traditional way of doing things.
But the modern way is for the older generation to accrue wealth over the course of many decades, hang on to nearly all of it, blow through a huge portion of it in the final, like, five to ten years of their lives.
Really, the final, like, two or three years of their lives.
And then... Give the rest to their children when their children are in their 50s and their own kids have already moved out of the house.
And then those kids will hang on to all of that wealth, blow through most of it, and give the remainder to their kids when their kids are in their 50s, and so on and so on and so on.
Just repeating these steps while the inherited wealth dwindles and each successive generation becomes poorer and poorer.
The system makes no sense.
The goal of each generation should be to ensure greater prosperity for the next generation.
We should want our children to be richer and more comfortable than we are.
The boomer generation as a whole has failed in this regard.
Plenty of individual boomers are good people and were great and loving parents who provided all they could for their children.
My own parents are in this group, but the generation as a whole is leaving behind a poorer country than the one they inherited.
Their kids are poorer than they are, which means that the generation as a whole has fundamentally failed to do the thing it is supposed to do, which is to create a better world for their children.
They have not done that. And the scenario that the Redditor describes is emblematic of this.
It should be a point of shame to be wealthier and living in greater luxury than your children.
Instead, it's kind of become the new normal with older people hanging on to their wealth with like a vice grip until death pries it from their hands.
This is a major problem and it's certainly not the approach that I intend to take with my kids.
So, That's all true.
On the other hand, you should also be embarrassed to be in your late 30s with a family of your own and kids of your own and still crying because mommy and daddy won't give you an allowance.
You especially shouldn't be crying about it on the internet, even if anonymously.
It's hard to imagine any scenario where it's appropriate to complain about your family on the internet.
But if there is one, this certainly ain't it.
And no matter the forum, whether on the internet or anywhere else, this is not the mentality that a grown adult should have.
It's true that if you're working and struggling and your parents have literally millions of dollars stashed away, or even only, quote-unquote, hundreds of thousands of dollars, they should help you.
But you should not feel entitled to their money.
See, that's the dynamic here.
This is a lesson that I try to teach my own kids who are all under the age of 12.
I certainly hope they'll have absorbed it by the time they're pushing 40.
I'm blessed to be able to provide my kids with a wonderful life, all kinds of luxuries that many kids across the world will never have.
But they shouldn't expect it or demand it or feel entitled to it.
The moment they start making demands is the moment they start losing the wonderful things.
My kids understand this because I've told them many times.
I am required by law to feed them, clothe them, shelter them.
I'm also morally obligated to provide these basic necessities.
But everything beyond that is a luxury.
I provide some luxuries because I'm generous and I have the means.
They should accept those luxuries humbly and with a grateful heart.
If they have any other attitude about it, they will lose the Those things.
Here's a very small-scale example.
Typical example. For many parents.
A few weeks ago, I was out running a few errands with my four-year-old.
And we were at the store.
We walked past, at the store, the toy section.
And she said, Daddy, can I get a toy?
Now, I was actually already planning on buying her a toy.
It wasn't her birthday. There was no special occasion.
I just felt like being generous.
And I thought it'd be a nice thing just to get her, just because.
But I wasn't ready to buy the toy yet.
You know, and that's because I was still getting other things I needed.
And so if we're going to buy a toy, we're going to do it on my time, not hers.
So I said, we'll see.
Now, normally my four-year-old is pretty patient by four-year-old standards, but she wasn't feeling patient on this day.
So she started pouting. And I guess she was assuming that she wasn't actually going to get the toy or upset maybe that she wasn't getting it as quickly as she wanted.
And then she said the fatal words.
She said, that's not fair.
I want a toy. It's not fair.
Oh, really? It's not fair that you aren't getting a toy the second you ask for it?
So I owe you the toy, do I? Well, now you aren't getting it.
See, I was going to buy you a toy, but now that you're demanding it, you're not going to get any toy at all.
I'm happy to buy you a toy unless you think I owe you the toy, in which case I'll buy you nothing.
And if you use the F word with me, fair, then you're really out of luck.
Because there's nothing fair about buying you a toy.
I'm giving you something and getting nothing in return myself.
That's not fair.
And billions of children across the world never get any toys.
Even when I was a kid, my parents rarely just bought us random toys.
We couldn't afford it. So the toy isn't fair.
It's not fair. It's a blessing.
And the only acceptable attitude when receiving a blessing is one of gratefulness and humility.
Now... Back to the Redditor.
Is it fair for his parents to give him money to pay off his debts and live a more comfortable life?
Hell no. It's their money.
It's not his. It is their money.
They earned it. He didn't.
He's an adult now. He doesn't live at home.
It's not their job to give him the necessities of life.
He doesn't need the necessities. He has all that.
He's not dying. And so all the rest of me, they probably accrued that wealth by working hard.
Most boomers who are doing well, they did work hard.
Some would say they emphasized work too much, but they worked hard.
They accrued the wealth. And they probably exercised a hell of a lot more financial discipline than he seems to be capable of, which is how he got in $20,000 of credit card debt.
So is it fair for them to help him out?
No. It's not really fair.
Most people around the world have no one to help them.
He isn't going to die without his parents' help.
He isn't going to starve. Neither are his children.
He's surviving. He's not destitute, right?
He's not homeless. He's not impoverished.
But they could make him more comfortable and they could reduce his stress level.
Should they do that for him?
I think yes, absolutely.
Unless he thinks he's owed it, which apparently he does.
So, if I was that guy's dad, I would probably want to give him the $20,000 to pay off his credit card debt.
I'd probably also want to buy him better vehicles, maybe even a nicer house.
But I'd want to give him money.
I'd want to give him, rather than waiting until I'm dead so he can inherit my wealth, I'd like him to inherit right now.
And I'd like my grandchildren to benefit from that right now.
I'd rather be alive to see them benefiting from that than watching from the grave.
But if I saw that Reddit post, And I said to myself, wait a minute, I remember having that conversation with my own son.
Wait, that's him, isn't it?
If I saw that, well, then you get nothing.
Figure it out for yourself.
Because I want my son to be prosperous and comfortable, but even more than that, I want him to be strong and humble and resilient in the face of hardship.
And I want him to be stoic, stoic enough that he can deal with the hardships without complaining to the whole world about it.
I don't want him to be the sort of grown man who cries on the internet because his parents won't give him money.
And if he is that sort of man, well, we've got a problem to fix that money can't fix.
In fact, money will only make it worse.
So this is a thing that millennials in general need to understand.
You know, we spend a lot of time discussing the flaws of the boomer generation.
And there are plenty of flaws.
But what about our flaws?
And I would say our greatest flaw of all is that, speaking again generally, this does not apply to all of us, generally, we sit around stewing in our misfortunes and whining about the unfairness of the world instead of accepting the situation, acknowledging the reality for what it is, and working hard to improve it.
Okay, like, yeah, we get it.
The boomers should have done a better job.
We constantly are talking about it.
Millennials always, constantly, all the time, the boomers that should have done better, look at the world, it should be better than it is.
Things should not be like this.
It should be better. It should not be this.
It should be a better thing than this.
Yeah, okay.
Still could be a lot worse, by the way.
Like, it's still pretty damn good in comparison to the world that the majority of the human species...
Lives in or has lived in through history, right?
Like, you still, I mean, if you could choose any time to live in, maybe you would choose a few decades ago, but you wouldn't choose much further back than that.
But yeah, yeah, it could be better.
Okay. Like, that's established.
The boomers, all that, you know, yeah, okay, right, but...
And they should have left a better world.
They didn't. Are we going to waste our whole lives crying about it?
Are we going to go to our graves whining about the way things should have been and all the things that we should have been given but weren't?
But it appears to be the plan for many of us.
And that's a shame.
And it's also why this guy on Reddit, I mean, and his parents probably, are today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
The question everyone in America is asking...
Am I racist?
Get a Daily Wire Plus membership to see Am I Racist?
This is all I have. Did you want to?
I can help you guys out. Yeah.
Go to amiracist.com and sign up now.
I've been told because I'm a white male, kind of at the top of the pile, how do I get down from the top?
I don't think you necessarily can.
They get past all the talk about racism.
We have to love each other.
It can't be that simple. How do we get to a point of racial harmony?
Good to talk to you. We're still on a journey, all of us together.
I think you've got some journeying to do.
Just talk to me about the statistics.
We have an epidemic. 20 million crimes a year, 6,000, 7,000 hate crimes.
No, there's no epidemic. Why are we talking about statistics?
