Ep. 1465 - Kamala’s Pathetic Plan to Bribe Black Voters with Reparations and Marijuana
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Kamala Harris unveils her plan to win the black male vote. It involves free money, weed, and maybe reparations. She also reportedly has a plan to win the white male vote. It involves an interview on Joe Rogan's show. That would be a disaster for her campaign. I hope it happens. Plus, a major cultural appropriation controversy has broken out: a Hollywood actor is taking a company to task for selling tea. Everyone knows you can't sell tea unless you're Asian.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1465
- - -
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:
Done With Debt - Learn more at https://www.DonewithDebt.com
Ramp - Now get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to https://www.ramp.com/WALSH
Roman - Get $15 off your first purchase! https://www.Ro.co/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, Kamala Harris unveils her plan to win the black male vote.
It involves free money, weed, and maybe reparations.
She also reportedly has a plan to win the white male vote.
It involves an interview on Joe Rogan's show.
That would be a disaster for her campaign.
I hope it happens. Plus, a major cultural appropriation controversy has broken out a Hollywood actress taking a company to task for selling tea.
Everyone knows you can't sell tea unless you're Asian.
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 DEI for 35% off new annual memberships right now.
While you didn't vote for this recession, but you sure as heck pay for it at the pump, at the grocery store, and with that growing stack of unpaid bills.
If you're one of millions of Americans being crushed with financial stress right now, the solution is donewithdebt.com.
Unlike some of the other guys, Done With Debt has created new aggressive strategies designed to get you out of debt permanently without bankruptcy or loans.
what that stands between you and the bill collectors.
They negotiate with your creditors to write off balances, cut interest, and stop penalties.
They have a plan to put more money in your pocket month one and every month until debt is gone.
Best news is that Done With Debt is accepting new clients right now, but you need to hurry because some of their debt strategies are time-sensitive and expensive.
You don't want to miss out.
Let Done With Debt hit the debt reset button for you and make your money yours again.
But again, this is time-sensitive, so you need to visit donewithdebt.com or call 1-888-322-1054 right now.
Chat with one of their debt relief strategists for free.
Go to donewithdebt.com.
That's donewithdebt.com.
There have been a lot of moments in American politics where candidates realize they're trailing badly in the polls, so they do something extreme in an effort to win some support.
Usually doesn't go too well for them.
Think of the Dean scream back in 2004, which was supposed to rally the base after a tough loss in the Iowa caucuses.
Ended up being played about 600 times on cable news until Dean dropped out of the race.
Or if you want to go back further, think of McGovern's plan to shake up the race by picking a totally unvetted running mate.
That was exciting right until it emerged that his running mate had received electroshock therapy several times to treat his chronic mental illness.
And McGovern, of course, ended up losing 49 states.
As we enter the homestretch of the 2024 presidential election, it's clear that the Kamala Harris campaign now finds itself in a similar desperation mode.
They're trailing badly in pretty much every important poll and prediction market that matters.
Kamala and Tim Walz admit that they're now the underdogs in the race.
And so, inevitably, they're feeling the pressure to do something unthinkable in a desperate attempt to win back the voters.
They have to throw out the playbook and try a new strategy.
In recent days, we've learned what this last-minute Hail Mary looks like.
It means that Kamala will actually go out in public and speak without a script.
Now this clearly was not the plan when she first entered the race.
For the first month of her candidacy, Kamala was completely shut off from the media.
It's one of the most surreal periods in modern presidential politics.
We had a presidential nominee who would not talk to anyone.
He wouldn't talk to any journalists at all, even journalists who are friendly to her campaign, which are most of them.
But that didn't last because now Kamala feels she has no choice.
She's facing a blowout loss, historic humiliations.
So now she has an interview with Fox News planned for tonight.
She's also participating in radio town halls with hosts like Charlemagne the God.
Now, unfortunately for Kamala Harris, this strategy is not going well for her, predictably.
Like so many other Hail Marys in presidential politics, it's backfiring.
And it's backfiring because every single time Kamala Harris opens her mouth, it becomes very clear why her campaign was hiding her away for so long to begin with.
But before I play what Kamala says, I'm going to start with one of the questions that Charlemagne the God asked, because the question raises a bunch of its own issues.
When it concerns taxpayer-funded reparations for black people, let's again listen first to the question.
Here it is. My question to you is, what's your stance on reparations?
We all know that America became great, you know, off the backs of free black labor.
How progressive are you on making it a priority and righting America's wrongs?
It's understood that you are running for president for all people of America.
Asking for specifics for black communities doesn't mean, don't do for others, but black Americans are heavily asked to vote Democrat in every election for over half a century, with very little in return.
What are your plans to address these very important issues and change that narrative?
I'm actually not sure if that was the God himself asking that question or somebody else.
It doesn't really matter. The first thing he says, whoever that was, is, quote, We all know that America became great on the backs of free black labor.
Which is interesting because we're pretending, I guess, that slavery didn't cost anything, for starters.
That's being conflated here with the idea that black people weren't paid, which of course they weren't because that's slavery.
And that might seem like an irrelevant distinction, but actually it matters quite a bit to the argument that he's making.
It's an argument we hear all the time.
As a factual matter, slavery involved massive investments that ultimately slowed the progress of this country dramatically.
It turned out to be a much worse investment than the alternative, leaving aside the fact that it's also a great moral evil.
A professor at Brown University named David Meyer has said that in the South, prior to the Civil War, quote, investments were heavily concentrated in slaves relative to the North.
And that led to the South's failure to, quote, build a deep and broad industrial infrastructure that includes services like railroads and schools.
So once slavery was abolished, that infrastructure is what led to this country's success in the generations following the Civil War.
We became the top economy in the entire world once we jettisoned slavery.
What didn't lead to this country's success before or during the Civil War was slavery itself.
The majority of slaves were involved in growing or picking cotton, but as the Foundation for Economic Education has found and reported, cotton didn't account for a large portion of the overall U.S. economy.
Economic historians, quote, have observed that although cotton exports comprised a tremendous share of total exports prior to the Civil War, they accounted for only around 5% of the nation's overall gross domestic product, an important contribution, but not the backbone of American economic development.
So if you're saying that slavery was instrumental to this country's success, it's just not true.
And by the way, we should be happy that it's not true.
That's a good thing.
There's no reason to vastly overstate the case and try to sort of puff up the contributions of slavery to America's economic success.
And it's an argument that applies to many other countries, by the way, far more credibly than it applies to ours.
Africa was the last continent to officially abolish slavery, and that didn't happen until the 1980s.
So why exactly is this America's burden to bear?
Why are we uniquely responsible for slavery?
And why would we want to stoke the kind of generational race hatred that's led to the murders of white farmers in places like South Africa?
These are rhetorical questions.
I know the answer to them. But continuing with the tort questions, when is Kamala Harris going to pay her reparations?
The Washington Free Beacon has reported that Harris was the descendant of an Irishman who owned a slave plantation in Jamaica.
So why hasn't she pulled a Robin DiAngelo from Am I Racist and opened her purse to offer black Americans some of her own money?
She hasn't even handed over a single dollar, as far as I can tell, much less $20 or $30 like Robin did.
It's an outrage. But it's not one that Kamala Harris has ever addressed.
Maybe she'll explain her reasoning in my next movie.
I don't know. But instead, in this radio town hall, Kamala predictably chose to focus on the systemic ideal of reparations.
And here is her plan in that regard.
Thank you. And thank you for your work.
So to your point, yes, I am running to be a president for all Americans.
That being said, I do have clear eyes about the disparities that exist and the context in which they exist, meaning history, to your point.
So my agenda, well, first of all, on the point of reparations, it has to be studied.
There's no question about that.
And I've been very clear about that position.
In terms of my immediate plan, I will tell you a few of the following.
One, as it relates to the economy, which is a lot of what you have addressed.
Look, I grew up in the middle class.
My mother worked hard, raised me and my sister, and by the time I was in high school, she was able to afford our first home.
We'll cut it off there because she starts rambling again about growing up in a middle-class family or whatever, even though she didn't actually grow up in a middle-class family, and even though, as always, it's completely irrelevant to what she's talking about.
It's actually amazing that she keeps starting sentences with, I grew up in a middle-class family.
I mean, it's a punchline at this point, and she keeps saying it.
She can't stop herself from saying it.
But already, just from this short 30-second answer, it's clear that Kamala herself doesn't even know what she's saying.
In response to that question about reparations, she said, it has to be studied.
I've been very clear about that position.
But she hasn't been very clear about that position.
In fact, you can find multiple clips of Kamala stating that she supports reparations.
She doesn't support a study of reparations.
She actually thinks they should be paid out in some form.
Watch. Pay on some form of reparations for black people.
Well, look, I think that we have got to address that.
Again, it's back to the inequities.
America has a history of 200 years of slavery.
We had Jim Crow.
We had legal segregation in America.
The Voting Rights Act was only strong for 50 years, and then they wiped it out with this United States Supreme Court in the Shelby decision.
To the point that 22 states immediately thereafter put in place laws that one court found were crafted with surgical precision to have black people not be able to vote.
So... We've got to recognize back to that earlier point, people aren't starting out on the same base in terms of their ability to succeed.
And so we have got to recognize that and give people a lift up.
And there are a number of ways to do it.
Part of my initiative, again, around the LIFT Act is that same point.
Lifting people up who are making less than $100,000 a year.
What I want to do about rent is the same thing.
What we need to do around education and understanding disparities, what we need to do around HBCUs.
But we have a history of racism in America.
So you are for some type of reparation?
Yes, I am. Should black people get reparations?
I think there has to be some form of reparations, and we can discuss what that is.
By the way, she says that America has a history of 200 years of slavery, I believe is what she said.
That is nonsense.
America has a history of about 90 years of slavery, before it was officially abolished anyway, which means that of all the countries in the world, America had slavery for the, is among the least amount of time, in terms of the amount of time that they had slavery.
Now, slavery existed on this continent for, in fact, slavery existed on this continent for thousands of years, if you go back and include all the native tribes that were here that practiced slavery.
But from the time when the United States of America was formed, when it actually existed as a country, to when it was officially abolished, you're talking about 90 years.
So this is, but all that aside, this is once again a complete retreat from what Kamala previously claimed to believe.
We can add it to the list of policies that she supported back in California but disavows now or pretends that she never held.
That's a list that includes decriminalizing illegal immigration, providing free health care to illegals, abolishing private health insurance, banning gas-powered cars, banning fracking, confiscating guns, and so on.
Now taxpayer-funded reparations are on the chopping block, at least temporarily.
Now Kamala Harris says that reparations must be studied.
And that's already happened too, by the way.
And it happened in Kamala Harris' home state of California, as I discussed earlier this year, all the way back in February.
California established a reparations task force.
And that task force suggested that it'd be a good idea to pay more than a million dollars to every descendant of a slave, which altogether would cost something like a trillion dollars.
Then a bunch of lawmakers decided to reel that back in because it's, of course, insane.
They suggested that reparations shouldn't consist of cash payments after all, after Gavin Newsom pointed out that the state is broke and doesn't have the ability to pay anything much less a trillion dollars. This was a whole conversation that lasted for years in Kamala Harris's home state, but apparently she's not aware of this conversation.
She wants to keep having it again and again for the rest of time.
This is a dodge that's meant to hide the fact that the Biden-Harris administration has already announced massive race-based reparations plans and continues to do so.
They started with billions of dollars in race-based aid to black farmers.
They continued with various affirmative action programs in the government, which as I outlined last week now involve filing a lawsuit against any fire department or police department that declines to hire black people regardless of how unqualified they may be.
And just the other day Kamala Harris herself personally announced an openly racist policy to send money directly to black people solely because of their race.
Here's an image of the plan that Kamala Harris's account posted on social media.
Maybe she's not even aware of this plan.
Who knows? But here are the key bullet points.
Quote, So first of all, a loan that is fully forgivable is not a loan.
That's just a cash payout.
The government's never going to see any of that money back.
But even if this were just a loan, it'd still be a completely unconstitutional, overtly anti-white racist policy to the point that it's insane that any presidential candidate would ever put this in writing.
This is a stage of desperation that has no parallel in American politics.
Kamala's campaign is now so underwater among black voters that they're straight up offering to hand them cash and, I guess, give them some weed too.
Oh, and they're going to protect cryptocurrency investments so black men know their money is safe.
You can read that 20 times and still have no idea what they're even talking about.
Does Bitcoin work differently for black people?
And why wouldn't we want to make sure that everyone, not just black people, feel that their crypto is safe?
No one knows. Kamala Harris doesn't know.
Imagine asking her to explain any of this, explain what that line means, or any of those lines.
She probably has no idea that somebody wrote that and posted it to her account.
What's underlying all of these proposals isn't just anti-white racism, although that's a big part of it.
This is also about Kamala Harris' deep and abiding disdain for America and its history.
I mean, this alone makes her unqualified for the position that she's seeking.
It's the same reason she posted on social media the other day about Indigenous Peoples Day instead of Columbus Day.
She's previously gone on the record saying Columbus Day should no longer exist.
We played this clip a few days ago, but it's worth playing again.
Here it is. So I'm wondering, would you support efforts on a federal level to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day?
And why does that matter so much?
Sure. Sure.
Yeah. And why it matters is, to your very point, we have to remember history.
And this question, I think, really is connected to the last question about our morals and our compass and our goals and our aspirations.
We have to remember our history.
Uncomfortable, to your point about truths, though it may make us.
Actually, we didn't play that clip the other day.
We played a different clip of her talking about the evils of Columbus Day.
So this is something that she's talked about quite a bit.
And we're at a point in this country where the political left and right celebrate different national holidays.
And we're in this position because of politicians like Kamala Harris, who have nothing to offer.
So in the absence of any substance, she's trying to destroy anything Americans have in common.
She's trying to revise America's history, which is the go-to move for communist dictators throughout the ages.
And for good measure, she's looting the treasury for the benefit of her preferred racial groups.
Fortunately for the Trump campaign, Kamala Harris isn't capable of hiding any of this.
Every time she sits down for an interview, Kamala makes it very clear that she doesn't know anything.
She also doesn't have any idea what she's saying.
She wants to simultaneously signal that she's backing off reparations, even as she proposes explicit payments to Americans on the basis of their skin color.
This is the kind of incoherence that defines the last days of a desperate and dying campaign.
And it's a sign that Kamala Harris' campaign, like so many other transparent train wrecks in modern politics, is on a path to a very public implosion in just a couple of weeks.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
If your current system feels about as useful as a chocolate teapot, got a solution that'll make you wonder how you ever lived without it.
It's called Ramp. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.
Picture this. You get every employee a card, but you're in complete control.
You can even set limits, tighter than my patience for small talk.
Plus say goodbye to wasting your life, deciphering expense reports at months end.
Ramp categorizes your expenses in real time and collects receipts automatically.
You'll be closing your books eight times faster, but Ramp isn't just about saving time, it's about cold hard cash.
The average business saves 5% in their first year with Ramp, not to mention Ramp is so easy to use, gets started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000, and now get $250 when you join Ramp.
Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh, R-A-M-P.com slash Walsh.
That's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank members, FDIC, terms and conditions apply.
So staying on the subject of desperation moves by the Kamala campaign, this would be, I mean...
Bye.
This would be the ultimate, this would maybe be the most desperate thing we've ever seen a political campaign do in modern American history.
Here's Reuters with the news.
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris could sit down for an interview with popular podcaster Joe Rogan, whose audience leans heavily towards young men as she works to shore up support with male voters.
Harris campaign officials in the final stretch of the presidential campaign met with Rogan's team this week, but an appearance has not been confirmed yet, according to two sources who have knowledge of the matter.
And we know that Trump hasn't announced that he's apparently going to be on Rogan's show.
I don't think we know when that's going to happen, but supposedly Kamala is considering this as well.
So, a few things here.
First of all, there's no way this actually happens.
I mean, I just can't...
Granted, several things have happened during this campaign that seemed pretty unimaginable, so who knows?
But I'd put the likelihood at, like, less than 1%.
But the fact that they're even considering it, the fact that it's in the realm of possibility at all, just goes to show, again, how desperate the campaign is.
I mean, they're losing. They're in trouble.
They know it. And I hope they're desperate enough to actually do this because it would be a catastrophic mistake for Kamala.
I mean, an absolute disaster.
It may be, honestly, it would be maybe one of the greatest political miscalculations in modern history.
It would be that bad.
So I really hope that it happens.
Now, I have seen some conservatives suggesting that Maybe other conservatives are overstating what a bad idea this would be for Kamala.
There have been some, I've seen some people saying, well, it's a...
It might actually help Kamala that it's a bad idea for Joe Rogan to do this because it would help Kamala.
It would make her more likable.
It would give her access to millions of new potential voters and so on.
But I think that analysis is very wrong, very much off the mark for a couple of reasons.
Number one, the biggest one, the most obvious one, is that Kamala Harris is incapable of speaking both casually and coherently.
For any length of time.
Let alone two to three hours.
Right? Now, even assuming that she wouldn't do a full-length Rogan interview, like assuming she wouldn't go for the marathon two-and-a-half, three-hour Rogan interview, let's say she did an hour.
I mean, I don't think...
You can't get away with less than an hour.
You can't go on Joe Rogan and talk to him for 20 minutes.
She could probably get away with an hour, but even an hour.
The same problems emerge for her.
I mean, this interview format, even aside from the interviewer, just the format is not in her wheelhouse at all.
And the second thing is, you know, yeah, Joe would not go in there looking to embarrass her because that's not really his style, but he will ask insightful questions with good follow-ups, even about subjects that aren't necessarily political.
But the only kinds of questions that Kamala can answer intelligibly are the ones that she has scripted brief answers for.
But Joe's a good interviewer.
That's why he's so successful.
And so you can't stick to a script.
You can't go into a Joe Rogan interview and stick to a script.
It's just not possible. Sang is someone who's been on the show twice.
It's just that it's not possible to do.
And, you know, the reason why he's such a good interviewer is because of the follow-up question.
He's very good at listening to someone and then responding to what they actually say, rather than just going through questions that he has planned ahead of time.
Which should be, I mean, anyone who's an interviewer should be able to do that, but...
Interviewing is kind of a lost art.
I mean, there are a lot of interviewers out there, a lot of podcasts with people interviewing, and long marathon interviews is a very common format.
Most people are really bad at it, including most very successful podcasters who do this, and they do these long interviews, and they're terrible at it.
They just absolutely suck at it.
Joe's one of the best because he has this ability to listen to what you say, and then I'll respond to it, and I'll have a question.
And that is just not, that's her kryptonite.
I mean, any question is her kryptonite, but a follow-up question where she says something and then you listen and go, oh, why do you say that?
Have you thought about this?
She can't. She would not be able to handle it.
And finally, the other thing, and this really can't be overstated, is that The interview is kind of a lose-lose for Kamala, really, because of her base.
Her base will expect her to go in there and hold Joe Rogan accountable because he's a right-wing radical Nazi, etc., etc.
They're going to want that.
So if she goes in there and she does manage to have a friendly back and forth where she actually comes off likable and they just have a nice conversation and it goes for an hour or 90 minutes, that would be a win for her, except that it would piss off her base.
Because her base is going to see that and say, well, how could you platform this?
How could you sit there and you're talking to this person who's guilty of hate speech and misinformation?
You didn't hold him accountable.
So that becomes a real problem for her.
And then there's pressure for her to go after him and make it contentious.
And if she tries to do that, then she's really in trouble, because he'll wipe the floor with her.
So again, it's really a lose-lose.
So I hope she does it.
I'm not saying all this.
I don't want to dissuade her campaign from making this massive error, but the good news is they're not listening to me.
They don't listen to me anyway, so it doesn't matter.
I don't think I'm giving anything away by revealing what a disaster this would be for her.
Alright, this is a pretty remarkable clip.
A writer named Ryan Jarduski appeared on a CNN panel discussion yesterday.
They were supposed to be talking about the election.
But things took a turn when Jarduski mentioned, as they were discussing crime, he mentioned the Floyd effect.
That most people are aware of what the Floyd effect is.
You would think, but the people in this discussion were not aware of it.
Let's watch that. Just yesterday, Ryan, about how, in the context of riots, he was saying, let's just bring the military into it to deal with American citizens.
I mean, that happened yesterday.
Right, but there are the post-George Floyd riots resulted in excess of over 15,000 black male deaths in this country.
How? How?
The surge of violent crime?
It was like Ferguson. The Ferguson effect and the Floyd effect.
Respectfully, you've got to explain to me how George Floyd's death resulted in 15 years.
Yes, because what happens is after the Ferguson riot and after the Floyd riot, policemen, in fear of their jobs many times and political coverage, pull back from their jobs, resulting in an increased level of crime size.
Listen, I've got to stop you there.
You can look at the Washington Post numbers on this.
No. It's a real thing.
Look up the Ferguson effect.
Look up the Floyd effect. It is a real term.
It's a real term.
I didn't make this up. You cannot just invent a connection between two things just because you want that connection to be there.
It's a little like a name.
It's a real thing. You can look it up.
It doesn't mean it's right. It could be a real thing, but it doesn't mean it's accurate, yeah.
Let's move on. I'll send you a reading list after the show.
Before we move on, I think there's a...
Hold on. I just want everyone to settle down because people cannot hear at home when everybody's talking at once.
Okay? Go ahead. No, I just think there has to be a level of intellectual honesty.
And one of the things we can talk about here when we talk about Donald Trump is he's actually somebody who never spoke out about George Floyd's death.
And for me, it's kind of personal because as a black man, when you have someone with a knee on their neck for nine minutes and some change and you're actually calling out for your mother while you're being suffocated on national TV and you are a parent and a son and a brother, that goes along.
First of all, You don't know what he's talking about.
So let him explain.
You're saying, what is that?
What are you, Floyd effect?
What do you mean? And he says, okay, well, I'll explain it to you.
And then they're just interrupting him.
Shut up and let him explain it.
You don't know, so let him talk for more than 10 seconds.
Shut your mouths and let him explain what he's referring to.
And then we get the whole thing from Bakari Sellers, the guy that was talking at the end there about...
George Floyd's death was personal.
So personal. So personal for me.
We hear this all the time, right, from these race hustlers.
It's such a personal thing.
No, it wasn't. It wasn't personal for you.
You didn't know him. You're not a family member.
Like, what do you mean it was personal? You had no idea who this guy was.
Never met him. Never had any contact with him.
You don't even live in that community.
It wasn't personal for you.
Just leaving aside the fact that George Floyd actually died of an overdose, he was not suffocated on national television, he wasn't on national television at all, and he brought his death on himself by first taking a lethal dose of fentanyl and then committing another crime, then resisting arrest and so on.
All of that is established, but just putting that to the side really, Floyd's death You know, I wish somebody would...
I don't blame Ryan Jurdusky for not calling him out on this.
I would have loved that if he said, Floyd's death was really personal.
Oh, really? How was it personal for you?
What do you mean? Did you know him? Are you his family?
No, I'm a black man in America.
So? Because it didn't happen to you.
So, if someone dies, it's personal for you?
If they have a similar shade of skin?
What the hell kind of nonsense is that?
And if that's true, by the way, then why is it...
If that's so personal, then why don't you take it personally when hundreds of black men are killed by other black men every year?
And I know they'll say that, well, it's black-on-black crime.
That's a cliché.
It might be a cliché because we're forced to bring it up so often, but it's true.
You don't take that personally, do you, Bakari?
Anyway, the real point here is that Ryan brought up the Floyd effect, which is something extensively documented, absolutely incontrovertible.
It has been documented by CNN. They have reported on it.
There are articles on CNN.com about the Floyd effect.
So, it is a fact grounded in evidence, lots of evidence, that the race riots after Floyd led to a huge uptick in violent crime and many hundreds and even thousands of excess deaths, mostly black men.
So, well-known fact, and yet that panel is full of people discussing these issues on cable news who've never heard of this.
And I believe them, actually.
I believe them that they've never heard of it.
I actually believe them. You might think, well, they are just playing dumb because they don't want to talk about it.
But no, I don't think they're playing dumb.
I think they really are dumb.
So I believe their ignorance.
I don't think they're pretending.
And that's one of the ways that the media...
One of the ways that they remain so consistent in their propaganda and that they kind of protect their propaganda is that the propagandists live in a bubble and they're not exposed.
All they care about is their narrative and they just automatically tune out anything that's outside of the narrative.
So they really don't even know anything.
They kind of retain this sort of plausible deniability all the time, where they can always plead ignorance, and the plea of ignorance will normally be at least partially true.
They really are that ignorant, which is pretty amazing.
You may remember that horrifying story a few months ago of the...
The two, I mean, they're referred to as teens by most of the media reports, and technically they are, but we're talking 18 or 19 years old.
Teens makes it sound like they're kids, but they're not.
They're legal adults.
Anyway, the two teens who randomly mowed down a guy on a bicycle who turned out to be a retired police chief, They hit him on purpose just for fun, and they were live-streaming it.
You probably remember that we talked about it on the show.
Well, now we have a rather unfortunate and outrageous update to that story.
New York Post reports, the Las Vegas teen accused of intentionally driving into a retired police chief as part of a violent, laughter-filled crime spree was deemed incompetent to stand trial for the deadly hit-and-run.
Jesus Ayala, 19, was ordered to a Nevada psychiatric hospital on Wednesday for treatment to restore his competency.
The order issued by 8th Judicial District Judge Christy Craig was out of an abundance of caution and suspends criminal charges against Ayala.
Craig had previously alluded to finding the teen as competent, but Westbrook had requested state doctors to review a report from a neuropsychologist before an official ruling was made.
And that's the public defender, David Westbrook, is the one who urged that.
So, for the time being, ruled incompetent.
This is the second story like this that we've seen in the last couple of weeks.
And it is a travesty.
I mean, it's a joke, once again.
A very unfunny joke.
The idea that this guy isn't mentally competent is absurd.
Did he run over the police chief because he was delusional and hallucinating?
No. Did he think the police chief was like a demon or something and was trying to eat his soul or whatever?
I mean, did he not understand what he was doing?
No. No on all counts.
He understood what he was doing. He did it on purpose.
And you can easily see that in the video that these punks filmed themselves.
So in what way is this person mentally incompetent?
Did he not know that it was wrong to run over a cyclist?
Did he not understand that it was illegal?
Was he shocked when the police showed up because he thought it was perfectly acceptable and legal to do what he did?
When they showed up and they asked him about it, did he say, oh yeah, I did that.
Oh, is that a problem? Was I not supposed to do that?
Really? Now, it's pretty clear that's not the case either.
But also, even if it was the case, who cares?
If he doesn't understand that you aren't supposed to kill people, that's all the more reason to throw his ass in prison forever.
No matter what he understands or doesn't understand, who cares?
Why does that matter?
What does that have to do with anything?
And that's why this whole mental competency thing is a sham.
I mean, it's a total sham.
Especially because if you take a broader, and we've talked about this before, if you take a broader view, you know, it's like there are two ways of looking at mental competency, and one is the very narrow view that we just covered, where somebody's not mentally competent.
If they're literally delusional and, like, hallucinating and have no idea what's going on, And in rare cases, you can have someone who actually falls into that category.
They're crazy. They're actually crazy.
They're totally detached from reality.
And what do you do with somebody in that case?
But first of all, those cases are pretty obvious.
It's pretty clear.
When you've got somebody like that.
There's not a lot of gray area.
There really isn't. I mean, anyone who's ever encountered a crazy person, usually you encounter them on a street somewhere.
And yeah, there's no hiding it.
It's one of those things, like if they come off as completely crazy, if they don't come off as crazy, then they're not crazy.
A crazy person is not able to get it together to pretend that they're not crazy.
The very fact that they're pretending they're not crazy means that they recognize that they are crazy, which means that they're not crazy.
So... Now, you could have someone who's pretending that they are crazy because they're trying to avoid the criminal charges.
But even in that case, I think most of the time it's pretty clear.
So that's a narrow set of circumstances.
It's pretty rare. It does happen.
And when you've got somebody like that, that's why we should have asylums for the criminally insane, which is a thing we used to have in this country.
And that's what you have that for.
We have somebody who does something violent, they're not fit for human society, but they really didn't know what they're doing because they're totally crazy.
Well, then you put that person in an asylum for the mentally insane and you keep them there forever.
And by the way, those kinds of places, when they used to exist, they were not the kind of places you would want to go.
So if you're mentally competent, there's no incentive really to pretend you're insane.
Like, why would you want to spend the rest of your life in an asylum for the criminally insane?
That sounds like a horrifying place to live.
Maybe probably even worse than a prison.
So... That's what you have that for.
And if you're taking that narrow view, then that's all it is.
It's like we're finding the really crazy people, and then you have a place for them to go, and that's where you put them, and they're out of society forever.
But that's not what the mental competency is.
It used to be that way, but now it's a much broader view.
They take a much broader view of what is considered mentally competent or mentally incompetent.
The problem is that once you take a broader view, it all becomes a sham because on that view, pretty much every single violent criminal in history is mentally incompetent.
You could quite credibly make the case that, by definition, a mentally competent person would not commit a violent crime in the first place.
Certainly not random, pointless violent crimes.
The sort of violent thugs plaguing our cities all across the country who are just committing violent crime for really almost no reason, none of them are competent in that really broad sense.
You wouldn't call these competent people.
Nobody would describe them that way.
If you go to the inner city and see violent thugs walking around shooting each other over drugs, you wouldn't look at that and say, these are very competent young men.
I mean, you wouldn't say that. So what are we going to do?
Let them all out of prison? Does that mean none of them could ever go to prison?
Well, I mean, that's the thing.
To me, that's why you can't take this broad view of mental competency, because if you apply it consistently, then you've just let everybody off the hook.
You might as well get rid of prisons at that point.
Prisons are full of people who are pretty incompetent.
That's why they're in prison.
That's why they're there. If these were competent people, even if they weren't morally the best people, if they were just competent human beings with a basic level of maturity and sort of well-adjusted, they wouldn't have done the things that landed them in prison.
But that's a problem.
That's a feature, not a bug.
The fact that this mental competency thing could be used to absolve literally every criminal ever, that again is the point.
That's why they do this. And I don't know, maybe the solution here is just rename prisons.
Call them Cages for the incompetent.
Just call them that, and then we're fine.
Oh, he's incompetent?
Okay, well, we got a cage for him.
This is his special cage.
It's the incompetent cage right there.
Looks suspiciously like a prison cell, but we don't have to call it that if it makes you feel better.
And if you don't like cage, call it something else.
Call it a facility, a home even.
Still going to be a cage, but if it makes you feel better, we could call it that.
Men, have you heard of Rose Sparks?
This dual-action prescription merges the powerhouse ingredients found in generic Viagra and Cialis sildenafil and tadalafil into one formidable treatment.
But it's not merely about the ingredients in the medication, it's how you're taking it.
That's why RoSparks are designed to dissolve under your tongue.
That's huge because dissolvable treatments hits your bloodstream faster than old school pills.
RoSparks keeps you present with your partner instead of waiting for a pill to work.
RoSparks leverages the benefits of sublingual administration, meaning the tablet dissolves under your tongue.
This method allows for fast absorption directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the digestive system.
The result, quicker onset of action, reducing the wait time, typically associated with traditional pills.
Plus, Tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, lasts in the system for up to 36 hours.
So when the mood is right, you'll be ready without another dose.
To get $15 off your first order and find out if prescription RoSparks are right for you, connect with a provider at ro.co slash Walsh.
That's r-o dot c-o slash Walsh for $15 off your first order.
Comp added drugs are permitted to be prescribed under federal law but are not FDA approved and do not undergo FDA safety effectiveness or manufacturing review.
Only available if prescribed after an online consultation with the provider.
On October 28th, my new hit comedy, Am I Racist, is coming home to Daily Wire.
Plus, when it hit theaters in September, it immediately became the number one new comedy, and now it is officially the number one documentary of not just this year, but the entire decade thus far.
And that's worth repeating because it's so significant.
The number one documentary of the decade.
Plus, it's verified Hot and Rotten Tomatoes with a 97% score from the audience.
Now, my personal journey through the weird wasteland of woke insanity is coming exclusively to Daily Wire Plus October 28th.
Your couch is your front row seat to witness me going undercover to hilariously dismantle DEI. But Daily Wire Plus is the only place you can stream Am I Racist at home, and it all starts October 28th.
If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use code DEI for 35% off new annual memberships right now.
Your membership also gets you instant access to the cultural phenomenon that is What is a Woman, which is streaming right now.
You can watch that as you prepare to watch Am I Racist when it comes home to streaming a October 28th, only on Daily Wire+.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Our Daily Cancellation today begins with an actor named Simu Liu who has gone viral this week for his valiant fight against cultural appropriation.
NBC News has the story. Actor Simu Liu blasted a pair of Quebec entrepreneurs last week who went on Canada's version of Shark Tank to pitch a drink They say has transformed Boba Tea.
Sebastian Fizette and Jess Frenette, founders of a bottled, popping Boba and alcoholic bubble tea brand called Boba, were seeking $1 million in exchange for 18% of the company.
The company's product, featured on the latest episode of CBC's Dragon's Den, raised concerns online about culturally appropriating the traditionally Taiwanese drink known as boba or bubble tea that's become popular around the world.
The brand's presentation sparked backlash from people who pointed out that traditional foods are often commercialized by people who overlook their cultural significance.
After he took a sip from a bottle, Liu, who joined the show as a guest dragon on Thursday, said he thought it tasted fine, but that he was concerned about this idea of disrupting or disturbing bubble tea.
He mentioned the possibility of cultural appropriation, saying he takes issue with the concept of taking something that's very distinctly Asian in its identity and, quote unquote, making it better.
Yes, how dare you think that you can improve anything that comes from Asia?
Asian people are perfect.
They're gods among men.
Everything they do is flawless and faultless and cannot be improved in any way.
That's why everything manufactured in Asia is such high quality, right?
Famously. When you see made in China on a product, you know that it will work perfectly well and it will last forever.
Everybody sees that when you look at made in China.
Oh, it's made in China?
That thing must be great.
Wow. Can't make it any better, certainly.
Can't improve on it. It's made in China, after all.
Simu Liu expanded on this brilliant point throughout the episode, or throughout this interaction anyway, with these entrepreneurs.
Here's a clip. I am studying your can, and I am looking for anything that tells me where Boba came from.
And where Boba came from is Taiwan.
You know, I started this venture company for a lot of reasons, but really primarily to uplift minority entrepreneurs.
And not only do I feel like this is not happening here, but that I would be...
Uplifting a business that is profiting off of something that feels so dear to my cultural heritage.
I want to be a part of bringing boba to the masses, but not like this.
So for that reason, I'm out.
Thanks. Respect that. Respect that.
Makes me sad how successful this business is.
It makes me sad that people are drinking boba with a raccoon.
It doesn't mean that they don't have the opportunity to change and do that.
That's true, but there has to be a willingness and I have to be able to invest in these founders knowing that change is possible.
They didn't say no. So Simu Liu is very upset.
Many of the dumbest people in the audience were also very upset, which is why the Pitchfork mob assembled to express its overwhelming outrage at this can of tea.
Each cultural appropriation controversy is dumber than the last, of course, and this one certainly continues that trend.
Now, I don't need to explain why cultural appropriation is an incoherent concept.
We've covered that base many times.
To appropriate is to take without permission to steal.
And that means that a thing must first be owned in order to be appropriated.
Cultures cannot own things.
That's why you've never heard of an entire culture obtaining a patent or a copyright.
This type of tea might be traditionally Taiwanese, but Taiwan does not claim ownership rights over it.
And it's unlikely that boba tea entirely originates in Taiwan anyway.
Boba tea, or bubble tea, was made in the 1980s.
Okay, it's not like this goes back to ancient times.
It's from the 80s.
It's not any older than I am.
Which means that there are almost certainly ingredients in this tea that themselves originate in places other than Taiwan That's how it works cultures are influenced by other cultures cultures borrow from each other They change over time they evolve or devolve in our case This is one of the many reasons that cultural appropriation is nonsensical at least Simu Lu himself better Hope that cultural appropriation is nonsensical after all Lu is A man of Chinese descent who got his start in television by
playing a Korean in a Canadian sitcom Okay, he also had a role in the Barbie movie, but Barbie's an American brand invented by a Polish Jew from Denver.
If cultural appropriation is a thing, then this man is a chronic appropriator.
He's a serial offender.
And it gets worse. In that clip we just played, he appears to be wearing some kind of suit.
Now, suits are traditionally Western style, invented by white people.
He's also wearing a T-shirt, but T-shirts originated with white working class people in late 19th century America.
I mean, T-shirts are, that's American culture, through and through.
It's like blue jeans, also American culture.
It appears he's also wearing some kind of loafer for a shoe, and it's not clear which culture invented loafers.
You could give the credit to Norwegian fishermen in the early 20th century or the Brits around the same time.
Or you could argue, as some do, that loafers are really a form of moccasin, which means Native Americans invented them thousands of years ago.
It's not clear, which again is the problem with trying to play this game, but we do know that the Chinese didn't come up with them, so take those off your feet, Simu.
How dare you? By the way, the Chinese also didn't invent aluminum cans.
Those were pioneered by William Coors, a white man from Colorado, grandson of the guy who founded the Coors Brewing Company.
Aluminum cans are therefore a part of white culture, and yet this Chinese guy would dare to express an opinion about the design of that can?
And he would do so without first acknowledging that cans belong to white people and that he's grateful just for the opportunity to hold the can and give his opinion about it?
Not to mention, Simu Liu is having this conversation on a TV show.
The invention of the television can be credited to multiple people, all of them white, none of them Chinese.
And he's being filmed by video cameras, which were invented by a Scottish engineer.
Of course, all of this is made possible by electricity, also discovered and first harnessed and used in consumer products by white people.
And that clip has been viewed millions of times on the Internet.
The Internet was invented by white computer scientists.
And the show that he's appearing on is part of the reality TV genre, which was pioneered and popularized by a guy named Alan Funt, a Jew from New York who created Candid Camera in the 1940s.
So this all means that Simulu culturally appropriated in like 20 different ways while accusing someone else of culturally appropriating.
Haven't even mentioned the fact that he was making these accusations in English, so make that 21 different ways.
This is the problem for the cultural appropriation crusaders.
If they really want to play a game where every culture only gets to use the things that it pioneered or invented, well, that'd be really bad news for people like Simulu.
And the truth is that white people would make out pretty well if those were the rules.
We'd lose the best takeout food, yeah, but we'd still get to fly in planes and use air conditioning, electricity, modern medicine, the internet, even wear blue jeans.
Most other groups of people would have a much tougher time with those rules.
This is something that the entrepreneurs who were getting lectured in that clip could have pointed out.
But they didn't. Instead, they walked away with their tails between their legs, and then they issued a formal apology, of course.
NBC News again reports, On Monday, Boba's founders issued a statement on social media apologizing for the harm we've caused by our words and actions on the show, adding that they take full responsibility and that Lou raised very valid points on cultural appropriation.
We'll also commit to further learning about the impacts of cultural appropriation to ensure that we are equipped with the skills to effectively work cross-culturally, the statement read.
In Boba's apology statement, the business owners clarified that their comments about being unsure of its content and their claim that their drink is healthier was intended to refer to other ready-to-drink products like theirs, not traditional Boba tea formulas.
Well, that was inevitable, of course.
And it's why, despite everything I've said here, I'm not actually defending these people.
I mean, go ahead and cancel them.
Drive them out of business. Go ahead.
They deserve it. If you're going to curl into a little ball and totally debase yourself this way, you're not worth defending.
So there are no good guys in this situation at all, which is why Sumu Liu, along with the outrage mob, along with the company that they're outraged about, are all today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.
of a great day. Godspeed.
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.
Pretty good past all the talk about racism.
We have to love each other.
Well, it can't be that simple. How do we get to a point of racial harmony?
It's 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. Twenty million crimes a year.
Six thousand, seven thousand hate crimes.
No, there's no epidemic. Why are we talking about statistics?
