Ep. 1636 - The Real Reason Democrats Are Panicking About Redistricting
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I will expose how a rigged census, racial gerrymandering, and decades of manipulation have given Democrats an unfair advantage in Congress — and why that whole system may soon be upended. Also, President Trump threatens to take control of DC to put a stop to the violence crime epidemic that has plagued the city. And a high school history teacher argues that human sacrifice by “indigenous” people wasn’t so bad, actually.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1636
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Leaf Home - Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at https://leaffilter.com/WALSH
Tax Network USA - For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit their website at https://TNUSA.com/WALSH
Everyday Dose - Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee+ or Bold+ and you’ll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts by going to https://everydaydose.com/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout. You’ll also get FREE gifts throughout the year!
Helix Sleep - Go to https://helixsleep.com/walsh to get an exclusive discount.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.
During answer the call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.
How do I balance all of this grief, responsibility?
How do you repair this kind of damage?
My daughter, Michaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.
Everyone has their own destiny.
Everyone.
Thank you.
Today, the Matt Walsh Show, we'll expose how a rigged census, racial gerrymandering, and decades of manipulation have given Democrats an unfair advantage in Congress and why that whole system may soon be upended and why Democrats are panicking about it.
Also, President Trump threatens to take control of D.C. to put a stop to the violent crime epidemic that has plagued the city.
And a high school history teacher argues that human sacrifice by Indigenous people wasn't so bad, actually.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
The Matt Walsh Show.
Let's be honest, I have a long list of things I'd rather do than maintain my gutters this summer as they quietly fill with debris.
For me, cleaning gutters ranks somewhere between sitting through a DMV line and filing taxes.
But luckily, there's an easier way.
Leaf Filter is what it's called, America's number one gutter protection company.
So you never have to clean out your gutters again.
Right now, you can get a free inspection, free estimate, and save up to 30% off your entire purchase at LeafFilter.com slash Walsh.
Look, gutters are boring until your basement becomes an indoor pool because that Home Depot mess just isn't cutting it.
Leaf Filter uses actual patented technology with no holes or gaps, keeping debris out with a lifetime no-claw guarantee.
Sure, DIY is cheaper up front, but when you're dealing with flooding or your house becomes kindling from dry leaves collecting in clogged gutters, those savings don't look so smart.
Over a million homeowners have figured this out.
They'll clean, align, and install their system so you can ignore your gutters like a normal person does.
Call for your free inspection because life is too short for gutter drama.
Don't spend your summer worrying about gutters.
Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at leefilter.com slash walsh.
That's L-E-A-F filter.com slash Walsh.
It's a free estimate, free inspection, 30% off at L-E-A-F-Filter.com slash Walsh.
See Representative for warranty details.
One of the worst kept secrets in the government is that pretty much all of the data we have is really just an estimate at best.
And that estimate is usually wrong.
The approximate number of illegal aliens in this country has been locked at 11 million for about 20 years, which is a pretty big clue that the number is a gigantic lie.
And when we learned the other day that the jobs report was supposedly wrong by hundreds of thousands of jobs, it was yet another indicator that the people who compile important data are at a minimum winging it.
More likely, they're committing fraud.
I mean, that's all pretty obvious.
What you may not know, even though it's a very big deal, is that the U.S. census is just as inaccurate as every other government data dump.
And this matters a great deal because the census determines how many seats each party receives in the House of Representatives.
And as a result of a massive counting error that took place back in 2020, error in quotes, Democrats have several more seats in Congress than they actually deserve.
Now, to be clear, Democrats already receive a massive advantage in the census because illegal aliens are counted.
But on top of that, the census also added millions of phantom people to the tally, people who don't exist.
No one really talks about this, but it's very well documented and uncontroversial.
Even NPR ran a story admitting it.
Here's the chart they provided, which came directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, and see if you notice anything about which states in particular were accidentally overcounted.
You see, Hawaii was overcounted by 6.8%, meaning according to the Census Bureau, that some people may have been counted in error or more than once.
New York, population 19 million, was overcounted by 3.4%, which is something like 700,000 people, which just so happens to be the size of an entire congressional district.
What a coincidence.
Massachusetts was overcounted by 2.2%.
Minnesota was overcounted by 3.8%.
Delaware and Rhode Island were also overcounted.
All of these states, you may have noticed, are dominated by Democrats, and most of them have a lot of electoral votes.
Now, by contrast, only two Republican states were overcounted, Utah and Ohio.
And then look at the very long list of states that were undercounted.
Texas was undercounted by nearly 2%, Florida by 3.5%, Mississippi by 4%, Tennessee by 5%, Arkansas by 5%.
These discrepancies are not normal.
In fact, in the 2010 census, the Bureau found that zero states were undercounted or overcounted.
But in 2020, all of a sudden, the census was extremely inaccurate.
And what do you know?
The inaccuracy benefited Democrats in Congress because they picked up several seats they didn't deserve.
But when he was asked about this, the census director said, and I quote, no census is perfect.
Shrug of shoulders.
In other words, deal with it is how it is.
It's just a fact of life that Democrats get a significant number of extra seats in Congress.
See you at the next census in 10 years.
Now, whether you choose to believe that this census count was a mistake or not, and I certainly don't believe that it was a mistake, it doesn't really matter.
The fact remains that Republicans have systematically been cheated out of representation in Congress.
To be clear, I'm not talking about gerrymandering, which means drawing congressional maps so you help your side and hurt your opponent.
That's an inevitable part of the political process.
After all, somebody has to draw the maps at the end of the day, and it's simply impossible to find a truly non-partisan person to do the job.
Those don't exist.
And if you doubt that, take a look at California, which supposedly has a nonpartisan procedure for drawing districts.
Republicans took 40% of the vote in California in the last election, but they won just 12 seats, while Democrats took home 40.
Additionally, gerrymandering is also completely legal, as long as you're not drawing the line specifically to exclude a specific racial group.
Instead, I'm talking about successful efforts by Democrats to cheat Republicans out of seats that they're clearly entitled to under the Constitution.
That's been going on for a very long time, thanks to the census, and no one has done anything about it.
And that's why, if I'm being honest, I can't bring myself to care about Democrats' recent complaints about what the state of Texas is doing to redraw its congressional districts.
The president has said that the GOP is entitled to five more seats in Texas.
For his part, Texas governor has openly admitted that the new planned congressional map in Texas is political in nature, which again is a normal part of the process.
And in response, Democrat state legislators in Texas have fled the state, you may have heard about, which prevents a vote on the new map.
Meanwhile, other Democrats states are threatening to gerrymander their districts in retaliation.
Watch.
Fight over redistricting in Texas has exploded into a full-blown national standoff.
Members, a quorum is not present.
Democrats have fled the state, blocking a vote on a Trump-backed map that would add more Republican seats ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The GOP-led House issued arrest warrants for the missing lawmakers who are staying in Illinois and New York with the support of those states' governors.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott defended the redistricting plan on Fox News, openly acknowledging the partisan nature of the map.
Gerrymandering can be done or drawing lines can be done on the basis of political makeup, as in Republican versus Democrat, and there's nothing illegal about that.
And then when you look at the outcome of the most recent presidential election, all these districts that are being added are districts that were won by Trump.
There's some honesty from Greg Abbott in that clip, which you don't see very often from politicians.
He just comes out and admits that, yeah, Republicans are trying to gerrymander and they're, you know, gerrymandering Texas on the basis of political makeup.
And that makes sense.
Every party does this.
It's both legal and rational to do so.
So it's time to stop pretending otherwise and to stop imagining a world where one political party will voluntarily help another party get elected out of like good sportsmanship or something.
That doesn't exist.
That world does not exist, will never exist, never has existed.
Period, let it go.
If I had the patience to entertain any of the counterarguments on this point, this is the part of the monologue where I point out how horribly disfigured all of the Democrats' congressional maps are compared to the planned map in Texas.
I'd show you how Democrats for years have intentionally carved out absurd districts so that they dominate house races in states like Illinois and California.
We'll throw some of those maps up on the screen in case you need the visual.
As you can see, in addition to rigging the election in California, Democrats also manipulated congressional maps in several other states.
Illinois is a great example.
Democrats currently have more than 80% of the House seats, despite Kamala Harris receiving only around 55% of the vote.
Democrats also gerrymandered Oregon into oblivion.
They won more than 80% of the House seats, despite Kamala barely getting over 50% of the vote there, primarily by quadruple counting the city of Portland.
Meanwhile, Democrats took home more than 70% of the House seats in New York, despite winning only around 50% of the vote and on and on and on.
None of this is surprising, nor is it worth exploring in any great detail.
Everyone knows this is going on.
Democrats gerrymander all the time.
So why would there be any outrage whatsoever on the fact that Republicans are doing the same thing?
Why are Democrats out of nowhere in a frenzy about congressional districts?
That's the really interesting question.
The answer involves the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in the 1960s alongside other civil rights legislation.
And just like other civil rights legislation, the point of the Voting Rights Act was never to ensure equality among the races.
Instead, the objective was to grant special status to certain demographics, particularly black people, on the theory that, as Henry Rogers, a.k.a.
Ibram X. Kendi so eloquently put it, the only remedy to pass discrimination is more discrimination.
And to that end, the Voting Rights Act has been used for generations to strike down congressional maps that don't have enough so-called majority minority districts, meaning districts where white people are in the minority.
In other words, states have been forced because of the Voting Rights Act to create congressional districts where so-called minorities are in the majority, no matter how absurd the boundaries of that district might be.
It goes without saying that because black people vote for Democrats at an average rate of about nine to one, this has been a massive built-in political advantage for Democrats since the 1960s.
But that advantage may soon be gone.
That's because the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a challenge to Louisiana's new congressional map.
This is a case that could upend the entire Voting Rights Act regime.
Essentially, what happened is that Louisiana wanted to have a congressional map with only one majority black district.
And so they drew the map at the beginning of last year.
And here's what that map looked like.
And you'll notice the map looks pretty reasonable.
At the very least, there are no extremely odd shapes.
When they came up with this map, Louisiana claimed that they were not discriminating on the basis of race, but Democrats disagreed because Louisiana is roughly one-third black and there was only one majority black district.
Meanwhile, Louisiana maintained that it was drawing the districts, the district boundaries, for political reasons, which again is legal.
But a federal court disagreed and ordered Louisiana to go back to the drawing board and come up with one more black majority district, or rather to come up with more, not just one more, but to come up with additional black majority districts.
So Louisiana then added a second majority black district.
And here's what the new map looked like.
They added the district in light green, which snakes across the entire state.
And you can see immediately how much stranger this map is as compared to the original.
The light green district in particular, which is District 6, stands out.
It's like a knife that cuts through the map.
In case you need a clear visual, here's a black and white version.
The new district doesn't remotely take into account any natural features like the Mississippi River or the Red River.
It has a very odd shape.
It spans hundreds of miles across swamps and urban centers that have nothing in common with each other, whether it's religion or economic interests or anything else.
The only reason that this new district exists very clearly is to include as many black people as possible.
This is the madness that the Voting Rights Act has mandated for many decades now.
It's a system that goes out of its way to disenfranchise white people in the name of civil rights, quote unquote, and racial justice.
But in a matter of months, this could all change.
And that's because a group of plaintiffs who simply identify as not black sued Louisiana over this new map, alleging that the Voting Rights Act, as it's being applied, is unconstitutional, which it is.
And a panel of judges on a separate federal court in Louisiana agreed in a two-to-one opinion, quoting from their opinion, District 6 divides the four large cities and metropolitan areas in its path along clearly racial lines.
Among these are three of the four largest cities in Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Shreveport.
And the maps in the record are clear that the division of these communities is based predominantly on the location of majority black voting precincts.
Well, now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on this case with a decision expected sometime next year.
If they overturn the idea that the Voting Rights Act mandates the creation of majority black districts, it will be an unmitigated disaster for Democrats.
It would remove the single greatest weapon they have in their effort to control the House of Representatives.
That's why J.B. Pritzker, Gavin Noosa, other prominent Democrats are pretending to be outraged about gerrymandering and redistricting, stuff that, again, they do all the time in places like Louisiana and Texas.
They're not concerned that Republicans are about to do the exact same thing that Democrats do, again, all the time.
Instead, Democrats' actual concern is that these states and every other state will come up with new congressional maps that don't discriminate against white people.
These politicians aren't going to say that out loud, of course, but it's pretty obvious if you listen to them for a few seconds.
Here's J.B. Pritzker, for example.
He oversees one of the most gerrymandered states in the entire country.
But in this clip, he's outraged that Republicans supposedly are going to silence minority voters.
Watch.
So Trump came up with a new scheme, rig the system by ramming through a corrupt mid-decade redistricting plan that would steal five congressional seats, silencing millions of voices, especially black and Latino voters.
Now, the argument is that by removing a racial quota system that arbitrarily benefits non-whites, Republicans are supposedly silencing minorities.
It's similar to the argument that merit-based hiring and merit-based school admissions policies are somehow bigoted.
The moment you remove a race-based classification, Democrats complain that you're trying to target a particular race, which makes no sense.
And that's one reason among many why no race-based classification should ever exist.
Aside from the fact that it's immoral, once these kinds of classifications are granted, the Democrat, the demographic that benefits and the political party that benefits will never let you take it away.
It's all extremely insulting to our intelligence.
And yet, Jamie Pritzker is actually one of the saner Democrats to speak about this issue.
The other day, Texas lawmaker Jolanda Jones, after fleeing to Illinois, compared the redistricting debate to the Holocaust.
And Don Lemon, of course, nodded along.
Watch.
And then integration happened and everybody thought they accept this.
They don't accept this.
They are showing us who they are.
We should believe them.
And we better have the courage to stand up.
Otherwise, we will fall for anything.
And in this country, we will be defeated, deported.
I mean, we will lose all of our rights.
And if you think it can't happen, it can.
And I will liken this to the Holocaust.
People are like, well, how did the Holocaust happen?
How is somebody in a position to kill all their people?
Well, good people remain silent or good people didn't realize that what happens to them can very soon happen to me or somebody I love and so you and even so even if you made it man you have an obligation to help people who can't because God forbid they end up targeting you and your family in case it's not obvious this is extreme stupidity but it's also desperation as far as the raw political calculus here Democrats know that they're in trouble this is from the New York Times the other day quote in truth Republicans
may have more cards to play in an all-out redistricting war in 2026 than Democrats do Republican leaders are looking to redraw maps in Missouri Indiana and Ohio as well as Texas and perhaps in more states as well Vice President J.D. Vance plans to visit Indiana to discuss the push on Thursday the state's Republican governor Mike Braun told reporters on Tuesday in the meantime House maps and redistricting laws in Democratic states present significant hurdles Illinois for instance is already so skewed to Democrats that flipping even one of the three Republican seats left would be extremely difficult
for map makers.
Well, you hate to see that.
Democrats have already rigged the game so much that they're out of options to do any more rigging.
As a result, they've opted to shriek and confuse the issue as much as they possibly can.
But the truth is pretty simple.
Democrats have cheated in congressional elections for a very long time using a variety of illegal and unethical procedures.
And one by one, whether it's the Voting Rights Act or the mistakes in counting the census or the inclusion of illegal aliens in the census, these pillars of Democrat power are under a full frontal attack.
The moment these pillars collapse, which could be very soon, the so-called party of democracy will face a crisis that could ultimately destroy the Democrat party.
They'll finally discover, despite all their efforts to muddle the issue and manipulate elections, they'll finally discover what voters actually think of them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you're stressed about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline or your books are a mess, don't wait.
The IRS is cracking down.
Penalties add up fast.
5% per month, up to 25% just for not filing.
But there is help.
Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse.
They've helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or haven't filed in years.
Messy books, no problem.
They've seen it all.
They know exactly how to clean it up with direct access to powerful IRS programs.
expert negotiators on your side tax network usa knows how to win you'll get a free consultation and if you qualify they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe more importantly they'll help protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies so don't wait for the next IRS letter call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash walsh to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA take the pressure off let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues if you feel like you keep juggling expensive supplements
are just getting more unaffordable to keep up with, well, then Everyday Dose will be a lifesaver for you.
Everyday Dose transforms your morning coffee into a powerhouse of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids all in one affordable cup.
Just 30 seconds to prepare and you're getting your caffeine fix plus all the nutrients that your body needs.
One delicious cup, one simple solution.
Everyday Dose isn't just coffee, it's coffee plus benefits.
They've infused their 100% Arabica beans with lion's mane, chaga, collagen protein, and brain boosting neurotropics for clean, sustained energy without the crash or jitters.
You can choose between their mild coffee plus, which is light, smooth, and gentle on sensitive stomachs.
Or you can go with my preferred variety, which is the coffee plus bold, which is a rich, full-bodied medium roast with an extra energy kick.
Both deliver the same functional benefits and undergo rigorous third-party testing to ensure that you're getting the best quality.
Believe me, your brain and the brain are going to be a good one.
and body will thank you get 45 off your first subscription order of 30 servings of coffee plus or bold plus you'll also receive a starter kit with over a hundred dollars in free gifts including a rechargeable frother and gunmetal serving spoon by going to everydaydose.com slash walsh rankering walsh at checkout you'll also get free gifts throughout the year that's everydaydose.com slash walsh for 45 off your first order president donald trump this front postmillennial on tuesday threatened to take federal control
of Washington, D.C. if it does not begin cleaning up crime in the city, including prosecuting violent minor offenders as adults after a former Department of Government efficiency worker was attacked while defending a woman who was being attacked.
President Trump posted, crime in Washington, D.C. is totally out of control.
Local youths and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16 years old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent citizens at the same time knowing that they'll be almost immediately released.
They're not afraid of law enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it's going to happen now.
The law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these minors as adults and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14.
The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs.
Washington, D.C. must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans, and importantly, for the world to see.
If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, this is still Trump, and quickly, we will have no choice to take federal control of the city and run the city how it should be run and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore.
Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago.
So, this continues, I'm going to exert my powers and federalize the city, make America great again.
So, Trump is, it won't shock you to hear hear me say exactly right about this this is exactly right and yes any city especially dc but any city that that won't get its crime problem under control, won't prosecute criminals and restore order, should be taken over by the federal government.
This is a human rights issue.
Local governments that refuse to protect their citizens from violent criminals are destroying the human rights of the law-abiding people of the community, which does make it a federal issue.
This is actually one of the most fundamental rights that you have.
And that's not to say that you have the human right to never be the victim of a crime.
That's not exactly it.
Just because you're the victim of a crime doesn't mean that your rights, well, your rights are violated by the criminal in that case.
But just because you're the victim of the crime doesn't mean that your rights were violated by the system, by the government in every case.
But when the system, you know, if the government is doing all the reasonable things that it needs to do to enforce the law, and then you still end up getting your car stolen or carjacked or something, well, that's not a human rights violation that was perpetrated on you by the government, right?
But when your local leaders, when the system aren't even attempting to punish criminals and bring law and order to the community, when in fact they're going out of their way to encourage and promote lawlessness and to release violent criminals back onto the street, very well knowing, of course, what that will mean, then your rights are being violated by the government because you have a right to be protected by the government.
You have a right to a government that maintains an orderly and civilized society.
I mean, that's why the government exists fundamentally.
Why do we have a government?
To maintain an orderly and civilized society.
And in America, we would say we also have a government to protect our basic rights.
But that's all part.
That's all under the umbrella of maintaining an orderly and civilized society.
And if the government is not doing that, then essentially it doesn't, it's not legitimate.
It's not a legitimate government anymore.
So these leaders, so-called leaders of these cities, these are not legitimate leaders.
They have no legitimacy whatsoever.
They are not doing the fundamental job that they're supposed to be doing.
They refuse to do it.
So Trump is right on this.
And as far as arresting 14-year-olds and putting them in prison for a long time, again, yeah.
In fact, if I object to that at all, it's only because I'd go younger, honestly.
I think that I think, you know, certainly 14-year-olds, 13-year-olds who commit violent crimes should be charged as adults.
You can make an argument for even younger than that.
And the argument really is: what other choice do we have?
Right?
Because the fact is you have kids running around, terrorizing people, committing violent crimes, assaulting, killing people, stealing, carjacking.
And these are kids that have not been raised at all, kids from homes that to call to call their homes broken homes, I think is understating it.
That's almost to undersell what's actually happening.
These are non-existent homes.
These are homes where the dad is not anywhere to be found, of course, and mom is just as much of a negligent scumbag as the dad doing absolutely nothing to attend to the moral formation of the kids.
So I just saw a video the other day, in fact, of I don't know when it's from or where, but some kids that were walking out of, I think it was like a Walgreens with just whole huge bags of stuff that they were stealing.
And these kids look like they were, you know, I don't know, 12, 13, 14, maybe even younger than that.
And then they do a follow-up video after the video went viral saying that, you know, they don't care what anyone thinks and also emphasizing the fact that because I guess they saw these kids, these were black kids, they saw that they, so in the inner city somewhere, I don't know where.
The kids saw that people were leaving comments accusing them of being poor and broke.
And that's what they were upset about.
So they issued a response saying that they're not broke and they're not even buying food.
They didn't even need this stuff.
They're just stealing it because they can.
Now, you guys are the broke ones.
So the point is, where are the parents in all this?
Who knows?
I mean, we can assume dad's not there.
Where's mom?
Just no, she might be there physically, but she's not a mom.
So what do you do?
What do you do about this?
What do you do about violent criminal kids?
Well, you have three options.
It seems to me, none of them are good.
Like none of them are ideal because ideally you wouldn't have this problem.
One is to do nothing, just let them run free.
And that's the tact that's been chosen in DC and many other cities.
It's obviously been a disaster.
Horrible for the law-abiding citizens of the community.
Not good for the criminal kids either, because they just get worse and worse until eventually they die in a gang shooting or a drug overdose or they end up in prison anyway at some point after wreaking havoc for another five, 10 years, and then they end up in prison.
But that's where it ends up.
The kids in that video that I'm talking about, what happens?
Is there like, what are the chances that those kids are still alive at the age of 40, let's say?
What are the chances?
Very low.
We all know that.
What are the chances that they're alive and thriving and married and have jobs and are contributing members of the community?
What are the chances that by 40, they're, I mean, almost non-existent.
And I mean, there's always hope.
I don't want to say there's no hope, but less than 1%.
Very, I mean, much less than 1%.
So, and that's, but that's what happens when you do nothing, when you don't hold anybody accountable, you are not only leaving, you're not only abandoning the law-abiding citizens of the community, but these criminal kids who you're supposedly concerned about and you're being so compassionate towards, you are condemning them to an almost certainly brief, violent, miserable life.
So that's not going to work.
The other option is to lock the kids up in a juvenile detention center until they turn 18.
And we know that happens a lot.
What does that accomplish?
Well, you get them off the street for a couple of years, so you don't have to worry about them, right, for a couple of years.
But then they spend that time marinating in an environment with kids that are even worse than them.
And they come out as adults now, even more depraved and violent and devoted to a life of crime.
How many 18-year-old adults, how many 18-year-old young adults, newly minted adults, come out of juvenile detention reformed and ready to go to college or maybe go to a trade school and become a plumber.
How many?
What's the percentage on that?
Well, you can look it up, but I'm guessing it's very low.
Very, very low.
So those are the two options.
And most cities and our culture, society generally has always chosen one of those two.
Do nothing or just put them in juvenile detention, which really is worse than nothing, honestly.
So what does that leave you with?
It leaves you with a third option, which is that when a kid, let's say 13 and above, 12 and above, when a kid commits a violent crime, you lock him away in prison for a very long time.
Decades.
Okay.
The kids who assaulted the Doge worker, Big Balls, as he has previously been known.
I believe this is the same guy.
Yeah, it's the same guy.
But the kid who apparently, this young man who was, you know, according to reports, I think we covered in that report, he was acting very bravely and protecting someone else who had been assaulted.
And I'm looking, what is his actual name?
Edward Coristine.
Okay.
So the story like this, let's refer to him as actual name.
Edward Coristine is his name.
So anyway, those kids who assaulted him, what do you do with them?
A couple of them have already been arrested.
Well, you round them up and you throw them in prison, not for years, but for decades.
These kids, I think, are 15, 16 years old.
Put them in jail for 20 years, if not longer.
And that way they're off the street.
And so they are suit for it for a significant period of time.
So we don't have to worry about them.
And you've established a very real deterrent because right now there is no deterrent factor.
And this is why I have no patience for people who say, well, studies show that deterrence doesn't work.
You can't.
It's impossible.
Right?
These sociologists who tell us this, these academics constantly telling us that everything that our common sense, everything our common sense intuition tells us is wrong.
All of the evidence that we find just by looking at history, all of it is just wrong.
Turns out it's all just wrong.
Basic common sense, human nature, the testimony of the history of human civilization all tells us that deterrence is a thing.
People respond to incentives and disincentives.
That's human nature.
It's not just human nature, it's nature.
I mean, this is cats and dogs and mice and human beings have this in common, that they respond to incentives and disincentives.
So if deterrence doesn't work now, it's because there is no deterrent.
It's because it doesn't exist.
We haven't tried it or less, we gave up on it.
And now we say, oh, well, prison is not a good deterrence.
Yeah, because they know that they'll go to prison.
They'll be there for like a year and they'll come out.
It doesn't work in that case.
The death penalty is not a deterrence.
Yeah, when you execute somebody 40 years later, there was somebody executed just yesterday.
There's a story this week.
There was a story about how his is a guy that I believe in 1988 murdered a woman, his girlfriend, and two children.
40 years later, they're finally executing him.
And we're supposed to feel upset about it because apparently they're worried that he might have felt some pain, that maybe the drugs didn't work, right?
That he felt some pain.
Oh, God forbid.
God forbid that this monster who earned his punishment for murdering three people, including two kids, God forbid he's uncomfortable while we're killing him.
I mean, it's totally, it's grotesque, really.
But we'll look at cases like that and we'll say, oh, it's not a deterrence.
Yeah, because you waited 40 years.
Okay.
Yeah, you can't use a deterrence 40 years in the future.
Every, every look at this on a really personal, take violent crime and prison and execution out of it.
But just the concept of deterrence, incentive, and disincentive on a really small personal scale, every parent knows about this.
That when you have children, that if they, if they misbehave and you tell them that three weeks from now, you're going to regret it, that doesn't work.
They're not worried about three weeks from now.
That punishment has to be immediate.
Parents also know that if you take a child who's misbehaving and you say, you're going to regret this, and the punishment is stand in a corner for two and a half minutes.
And then the parents are perplexed that that's not working and their kids aren't listening to them because they don't care.
I'm going to put them in a corner for two.
What does that matter?
Or you're going to go to your room.
Go to your room where your TV and video games and your phone and all your toys are.
Mr., if you do that again, I'm going to send you to your room to play with your toys for an hour.
It doesn't work.
My kids are still out of control.
In fact, they're even worse now.
Why could that be?
Oh, could it be because the thing I'm trying to disincentivize their behavior with is actually an incentive, right?
So this at every level of life, I think you either understand incentives and disincentives or you don't understand it and your life is in total chaos all the time because of it.
So going back to the criminal justice system, deterrence works if the penalty is immediate, number one, and severe, number two.
Right now, these kids know that, as Trump said, they can do whatever they want.
Nothing will happen to them.
I mean, imagine being a kid, being around a bunch of other juvenile delinquents all day, right, as these kids are, and knowing that no matter what you do, there's no parent at home who will care, right?
Because that's the situation these kids are in.
When you're a kid, when you're a kid, if you have good parents who actually love you, then the greatest deterrence of all is that you'll get in trouble with your parents.
That's the deterrence that will keep you relatively in line, right?
Most of the time is that you're actually worried about what your parents will say.
Right.
So it's not getting suspended, getting after school detention.
The only reason why, if you're a kid, the only reason why that scares you, if it scares you at all, it's only because of what your parents, because now your parents are going to know.
You don't want your parents to know.
And even, you know, getting arrested, right?
If you're a wayward youth, as many of us were, and you get into some trouble here and there, let's say you're a teenage boy, getting arrested, right?
Maybe you caught underage drinking or something.
I mean, you know, you're not going to go to prison for 10 years for that.
The thing that makes getting arrested scary, if you have good parents, is that now your parents will know.
So the problem is that these kids don't have parents who care, don't have parents who love them.
I mean, let's just be real about it.
A lot of these kids, their parents don't love them.
I mean, you know, I know we like to say, oh, well, parents love their kids.
No, they don't.
No, they don't.
These kids who assaulted this young man, the Doge worker, Edward, their parents don't love them.
You know, if you're doing nothing at all to attend to the moral formation of your child, you don't love your kid.
You don't care about your kid.
You claim that you do, but you don't.
So you don't have parents who love you.
So you don't have the, like you don't care about, you're not going to get in trouble.
You don't respect your parents.
You don't care what they think or say.
So that incentive, that disincentive is totally gone for these kids.
And then what ends up happening is that actually getting arrested, considering you don't have parents you got to worry about, right?
You're not thinking, oh, if I get, and I got to deal with my dad, no way.
At least none of these kids are thinking that.
None of these kids are thinking, oh man, I'm getting arrested.
What am I, what's my dad going to say?
Right?
Dad is not even in the long, who knows who dad is.
So if you don't have parents, then getting arrested is actually not only is that not a scary thing, if anything, it increases your street cred.
Now these kids know, these 15-year-old kids know that they can get arrested.
They'll do a couple of days in jail.
Nothing serious is going to happen.
They're not actually going to go to prison.
Doesn't matter what their parents, the parents are cracked out and don't care.
So what's the downside?
Like, really, if you're a 15-year-old delinquent running the streets of DC, what's the downside of getting arrested?
There isn't one.
It's all upside.
Now you get street cred.
Now you have a story to tell.
Right?
So the only way to solve that problem.
I mean, I'm just describing this is the problem that we're facing.
The only way to solve it is if these delinquents know that when you get arrested, you're not going to spend two days in jail and get out.
There's a very real risk that you might be in that cage for 20 years.
Okay, your life will be effectively over.
That's what's going to happen.
That's the only way.
So I know people get squeamish.
Oh, you don't want to put a 14-year-old kid in prison for 20 years.
Well, I've just described to you.
It's that or we continue with this.
It's that or total chaos and disorder.
Is it an ugly thing?
Yeah.
I mean, to give a, you know, to put a 14-year-old kid in jail for 25 years, it means their life's basically over.
Yeah.
It means that they're like, yeah, they'll get out and, you know, they'll be, they'll get out when they're 40 or something.
But their life's basically over.
And so you are kind of like giving up.
You're sort of throwing in the towel on that kid.
I mean, this does not, right?
This kid's, this is a kid's not any chance of going to college and living a functional life, probably out the window.
It's an ugly thing.
But as I've said many times, ugly problems require ugly solutions.
We've tried the pretty nice solutions, you know, the nice, polite, neat, clean solutions to ugly problems.
And what do you end up with?
You end up with more ugliness.
This is the only way.
Someone tell me some other way, some other real way grounded in reality, not in your fantasies about how things should be.
All right.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I wanted to mention it just, you know, because, but the little entertainment news, the Sun reports, the Howard Stern show on Sirius XM is set to be canceled after a stunning 20-year run.
Sources exclusively told the U.S. Sun.
Stern, who's 71 years old, has had a megabucks contract for decades.
The subscription satellite radio provider will likely cut some sort of deal for Sirius to keep his catalog upon his exit.
But the reports are saying that the contract will be canceled.
And so that'll be the end of an era for a guy who's been on the radio for, I don't know, 40, more, 40 plus years.
Now, Stern is getting paid $100 million a year, I think, still, something crazy like that.
Obviously, that gravy train could not keep chugging along forever, especially because nobody listens to radio anymore.
I guess some people do, but who's turning on serious radio?
I mean, when you've got podcasts and you can just turn on podcasts whenever you want, turn it off whenever you want, check back in on it.
You can't compete with that.
You can't compete with the convenience of it.
More to the point, Howard Stern, as everyone has noticed, is a shell of his former self.
He joins a long list of these guys, all from the same generation, who used to be kind of countercultural and edgy and funny and provocative.
And I was never a big Howard Stern fan, ever really listened to his show.
He's always been a degenerate creep.
He's still that.
But now it's the worst of all worlds.
He's a still a generate, degenerate creep, creepy old man, but not even like provocative or edgy anymore.
So he's got it all.
He's a degenerate creep who's also soft milquetoast, you know, this castrated eunuch.
And that's what's happened to a lot of these, like pretty much all of these guys in this generation.
And I was thinking about this today.
And I was really, and this is, this is maybe, so think about this.
And let me know if you can think of some names.
So let's make it clean.
Say 2005.
Almost every person who was funny in the year 2005 and is still alive is now completely lame and unfunny.
Can you name someone who was really funny in the year 2005 and is still alive and still funny?
Because I'm going down the list in my head and I can't think of almost anyone.
I mean, Louis C.K., but he really wasn't widely known in 2005, so he probably doesn't count.
But he's one of the very, very few comedic voices that's been around for a long time, hasn't lost his edge.
If anything, he's gained more edgier now than he used to be.
So, but I don't know that you really count him.
Some people would say Chappelle, but I think most of Chappelle's new stuff just isn't that funny.
I mean, I agree with him on the trans stuff, but the material isn't funny.
It doesn't hold a candle to Chappelle stand up from like 2004, 2005, that's for sure.
So I don't know if you could say him.
Ricky Gervais, maybe.
He definitely hasn't gone woke or anything, I wouldn't say, but I don't know.
I mean, I love Ricky Gervais's work.
He's the creator of what I think may be, for my money, the two funniest shows ever made in the British Office and Extras on HBO.
And that might be maybe my favorite comedy of all time.
And I love both of those shows, but I don't think he's made a really hilarious show in a while.
And certainly nothing that competes with that era from like 2001 to 2010.
But aside from those guys who are the only possible contenders for having been funny in 2005 and still funny today, 20 years later, outside of them, there's just no one.
I mean, think about any comedian, comedic actor, radio host, media personality, anyone who was funny or edgy 20 to 25 years ago, and they all suck now.
I mean, they're all lame and bad, and most of them are uber woke.
So Howard Stern has a lot of company.
Bill Burr is an obvious other example.
Even when you think about the actors and filmmakers, Will Farrell, Seth Rogan, Judd Appetow.
I mean, all those guys.
When's the last time any of them did anything that was funny?
Hate to say it, but even like South Park.
I mean, certainly Family Guy, The Simpsons hasn't been funny in like 30 years.
Family, I don't, I don't, that's, I think, to the extent that it was ever funny, it fell off a long time ago.
South Park, too.
Like, I don't really watch the show anymore.
And I'm not just saying this because, oh, they made fun of Trump.
I couldn't care less about that at all.
But I see these clips.
I don't really sit down and watch the show anymore these days because I'm an adult.
But when I see these clips circulating, and this has been for years now of South Park, and people are saying, oh, South Park's still got it.
And I watch the clips and I go, no, they don't.
They've lost a lot of the edge.
This is not what it used to be.
So I don't know.
Why has that happened?
I mean, what's going on here?
Well, part of it is the political and social pressure for sure.
These are people who want to be accepted in the mainstream.
Howard Stern in particular started hanging out with A-list celebrities in his private life and decided that he didn't want to do anything or say anything that would jeopardize those friendships.
I think it's probably the story with all these people who used to be Bill Burr, you know, is another one, started hanging out with rich people and started doing all the TV shows and going to the Emmys.
And then you just don't want to upset these people that you are really friends with, right?
When you're at a spot where you can, I don't know, call up George Clooney and say, hey, George, what's going on?
You don't want to jeopardize that.
And also, look, when you become obscenely rich and you reach a point of total creative freedom where nobody can say no to you, and that's when in many cases you start to fall off.
You get too comfortable, you get soft.
There's no, you know, there's no, there's no tension.
I think creative genius, particularly comedic genius, comes from tension, from this like friction, frustration, a little bit of that.
You have to have some of that.
Some of that hunger that comes from that.
But they don't have it anymore.
They're not trying to prove anything to anyone.
And that's death, right?
Creatively, that's death.
Nothing to prove, everything to lose.
Fat, comfortable, rich.
Who can stay funny and edgy in a situation like that?
It turns out that it's very difficult to, which is why, which is why I wish that some of these guys, to include Howard Stern, would just go away.
Just go.
You can leave.
You've made, you know, you've made all the money.
You made enough money that you would take you a thousand lifetimes to spend it.
You've accomplished everything you're going to accomplish.
Just go away.
Just leave.
You don't have to stay on camera deteriorating in front of us, right?
Don't make us watch this.
If you're a creative genius, especially someone who's funny, you hit your peak.
And once you lose it, you know you're losing it.
You know you're losing it.
You know it's not like it used to be.
You don't have the edge anymore.
You don't have the spark.
You don't even have the, you don't want to cause problems.
You don't want the controversy.
You don't want any of that anymore.
You just want to be comfortable.
When that happens, I get it.
Just leave.
Don't make us watch.
Don't make us watch you become this disgusting, pathetic puddle, this sort of gelatinous, boneless, spineless monstrosity.
Don't make us watch it.
Go away.
Go away.
Live the rest of your life.
You know, leave us.
Leave us with the good old days.
That's what I, that would be my request.
If your mattress has the supportive qualities of wet cardboard and you wake up each morning feeling like you need an on-call chiropractor, well, then it's time to check out Helix Sleep.
Improve your nights and start genuinely sleeping well so you can wake up each morning feeling like you actually got some rest and you're ready to take on whatever the day has in store.
I never realized how badly I need a new mattress until I finally got one.
And I've had my Helix mattress for a long time now.
I refuse to sleep on anything else.
I'll never own anything but a Helix mattress.
And I mean it sincerely.
Couldn't be happier with it.
It does incredibly well with temperature regulation, which really eases some of those annoying middle-of-the-night wake-ups.
Keeping cool and comfortable is essential as the temperatures continue to warm up and we head into summer.
Plus, it's, or in fact, we're already in summer, really, you might say.
Plus, it's easy to connect to other wearable devices so you can actually see the data to back up your sleep improvements each night.
No more questioning.
What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress.
They actually match you with the perfect one for your body and sleep style.
Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, or somewhere in between, they've got you covered.
All you got to do is take their sleep quiz and find your ideal match.
And trust me, when you find the right match, you'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else.
We've been wondering that for years now.
Right now is actually the perfect time to upgrade your sleep because Helix is offering a fantastic Labor Day early access sale.
So go to helixleep.com slash walsh to get 20% off site-wide.
That's helixleep.com slash walsh for 20% off site-wide.
Make sure you enter our show name after checkout, say they know we sent you helixsleep.com slash walsh.
There's a lot coming to Daily Wire Plus, and it's not inclusive.
It's not safe.
It's not moderated by NPR.
So you'll love it.
On August 13th, the Pope and the Fuhrer unburies the lie they hoped we never fact check.
It exposes how Pope Pius XII didn't stay silent during World War II.
Now the Vatican receipts are wide open.
This fall, Isabel Brown's new show joins the lineup alongside the most trusted voices in conservative media, all ad-free, uncensored, live chat.
So you know you're not just watching.
You're part of the conversation.
We built this because no one else would build it.
Now it's yours too.
Go to dailywire.com, become a member today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
When we discussed the upcoming Aztec Batman film a few days ago, one of the many outstanding questions was, who's going to watch this exactly?
Who's interested in seeing Hollywood convert Batman into a bloodthirsty Aztec warrior who presumably spends his time rounding up children for human sacrifices while evading conquistadors with vastly superior technology?
Doesn't seem exactly like the most compelling content in the world.
And indeed, in the comment section below my monologue on Aztec Batman, a lot of people identifying as Hispanic and Mexican agreed that they would never watch the film.
So again, what's the target audience for a cartoon propaganda film about how really human sacrifice wasn't so bad?
Does such an audience exist?
Well, it turns out that indeed such an audience does exist.
And it consists of women like Emily Poole, who claims to be an AP European history teacher.
Poole posted this video on TikTok from her recent visit to Peru, in which she marveled at how advanced the Incan civilization was.
Watch.
You were telling me the Spanish looked at this and said I'm civilized.
The Inca who built the Moray Terraces as an agricultural laboratory because each separate circle created a different microclimate so they could figure out exactly what to grow at what elevation.
The Inca, who cultivated 44 types of corn and 4,000 types of potatoes.
The Inca, who built this stuff 600 years ago and it is still standing because it's all earthquake-proof.
The Inca, who created salt flats that still to this day aren't privatized.
They're all sharing it from the same hot spring in the mountain and everyone gets a share.
Not to mention Coriconcha, Machu, Pichu, the fact that all of their cities were made intentionally in the shapes of animals that were important to them.
This reminds me of exactly what happened in Tenochtitlan when Cortez laid eyes on that city for the first time.
He wrote in his diary that the temples were grander than anything he would have seen in Sevilla.
Yeah, you're telling me the Spanish saw this and they said, inferior.
Now, to recap, the Incas made cities in the shapes of animals that were important to them, and they apparently deserve credit for the fact that the salt flats still aren't privatized for some reason.
And on top of that, she states that the Aztec temples were impressive to Cortez, and therefore we should infer that the Spanish were also impressed with the Incas.
Now, strangely enough, Emily Poole omits a few things here.
For example, Cortez also wrote that the Aztecs, quote, have a custom that is horrible and abominable and deserving punishment, and which we have never before seen in any other place.
They take many boys or girls and even grown men and women, and in the presence of those idols, they open their breasts while they're still alive and take out the hearts and entrails and burn the said entrails and hearts before the idols, offering the smoke of the sacrifice to them.
Most of those who have seen this say that it is the most terrible and frightful thing to behold that has ever been seen.
There is no year, as far as we have until now, discovered and seen when they do not kill and sacrifice in this manner some three or four thousand souls.
Well, it seems like an important bit of context, as long as we're citing Cortez and the Aztecs.
As for the Incas, it's true that they were indeed one of the most advanced Indian civilizations in the entire Western hemisphere.
And yet, remarkably enough, they still didn't have the wheel or a written language.
They stood at the very cutting edge of Indian advancement, and yet they were still far less, far, far less advanced than the Roman Empire, which preceded them by 1500 years.
And on top of that, Incan temples were considerably less impressive than, say, Egyptian pyramids that were built thousands of years earlier.
Meanwhile, they were still burning children alive or beating them to death or sending them off to freeze to death to appease their gods and also practicing ritualistic cannibalism.
Now, the Incas may have built stone structures that were a few stories high, but Europeans were coming from a culture that had massive cathedrals.
They had universities.
Oxford University was founded 400 years before the Incan Empire existed.
I mean, think about that.
Expecting the Spanish to be impressed with big stone temples in 1530, it's like expecting somebody in 2025 to be impressed by a society that just started using the printing press.
And this is why the Spanish were able to conquer the Incas with just 200 men, an even smaller force than they used to destroy the Aztecs.
We're talking about fearsome, warfaring civilizations, the most advanced, again, in that part of the world, that had conquered and slaughtered their way to dominance.
And the Spanish came in and whooped their butts in a short period of time while being outnumbered a thousand to one.
Now, I know all this, even though I'm not an AP European history teacher, I didn't even go to college and I know this.
Imagine that.
That's because, unlike Emily Poole, I want to understand history, not entertain a delusional audience on TikTok.
But credit where it's due, Emily Poole has successfully appealed to this particular demographic.
Her video has something like 600,000 likes.
All the top replies claim that it's racist to disparage the Incas and that Christian bigots are just hating on a strong, independent Indian civilization.
At the same time, not everyone bought into the propaganda.
Some people did point out that the Incas, like the Aztecs, also engaged in child sacrifice.
And that seems like a pretty inconvenient detail if you're trying to make the case the Spanish were highly impressed by Incan civilization, the Incan civilization was so advanced.
And Emily Poole noticed these responses and she produced the following rejoinder, one that should disqualify her from ever teaching in a classroom ever again.
Seriously, watch.
I will die on this hill.
I'm specifically talking about the Inca here.
We're not talking about the Mexica.
That's a whole separate type of sacrifice.
If we're just looking at Tawantin Suyu, the Quechua people of the Incan Empire, they practiced sacrifices like most other civilizations throughout history did in times of crisis.
So famine, natural disasters.
But the unique thing about the Quechua is that when you're looking at like the Incan civilization, you essentially have the elites and then you have everyone else.
Sacrifices were volunteers from the elite class because they believed that the elites were closer to the gods and could therefore appease them better.
Also, in terms of sacrifice, they were kind about it.
Hear me out.
Because unlike the Mexica, when you're like ripping out a still beating heart out of someone's chest, the Inca would intentionally use coca leaves and would use chicha and would drug up the sacrifice and then leave them on a mountain, a cold chilly mountain, to be exposed to the elements.
Which, if you're a volunteer sacrifice where you're heavily drugged before you die.
Also, I mean, I can equate human sacrifice throughout history to so many things.
And I think the fact that a lot of people are commenting, oh, but the sacrifice is again indicative of the fact that you have received a quite white education because you are knowing them for the bad things that they have done and not all of the wonders that they accomplished.
So I hope that this maybe helps you understand a different part of my most favorite civilization of all time, the Inca.
Yes, she says the Incan form of human sacrifice was, quote, kind and also voluntary.
It's the elites who suffered the most.
Children were merely left to freeze to death after being drugged out of their minds.
Which isn't so bad when you think about it, she says.
I mean, that's not bad.
I mean, that's not a bad deal.
Someone offers you a deal where they'll drag you to the top of a mountain and leave you with no food and no clothing to freeze to death.
That's not so bad.
Emily's thinking about it.
She's like, hmm, that's, I don't know.
I'd have to really think about that one.
That's an interesting proposal.
Then she blames white people for having a judgmental view of human sacrifice because, you know, she could equate, she says, a lot of things in modern culture to the ritual savagery that was performed by the Incas.
Now, this kind of comes off like a parody of what a leftist female academic would say, except she really said it.
You know, it's real.
A history teacher has just uploaded a video in her own name defending Indians for brutally murdering children.
And needless to say, the claim that eight-year-old kids, keep in mind, these human sacrifices were often kids between the ages of like six and 15 years old.
And the claim that a kid who was, you know, eight years old volunteered to die of starvation and hypothermia is insane.
And if this woman thinks otherwise, then people need to ask what's going on inside her classroom.
It's also notable that she doesn't explicitly state what modern practice, in her view, can be equated with human sacrifice.
What does she have in mind?
I mean, that's a pretty startling claim.
I could equate a lot of things with ritualistic child sacrifice.
Oh, oh, really, Emily?
Like what?
I'd love to hear more.
What is the modern equivalent of carving up a living child?
Well, we all know the answer to that question, even though women like Emily Poole can't say it out loud.
The modern equivalent is abortion.
People like Emily Poole are making excuses for human sacrifices by Indians because they want to justify today's human sacrifices by liberal women.
That's why she's explaining in her sing-song-y voice that the Incas were kind when they executed human beings.
Presumably, she also believes that it's kind when women execute their own children today.
This is your child's education, by the way, if you send them to public school.
This is what they're going to hear.
And I don't know what's more deranged, the idea that it's kind to leave somebody to die on a mountaintop, as long as you give them cocaine and hallucinogens ahead of time, or the idea that an eight-year-old child sacrifice could in any sense be considered a volunteer who consented to this practice.
Maybe that's the kind of question that they wrestle with in Emily Poole's advanced placement history class.
They probably spend hours cooking up the most disturbing and unhinged arguments imaginable, all in the service of feminism and anti-white race hatred.
And for everyone else, people who opted to homeschool their children, Emily Poole's AP class is yet another reminder that you made the right decision.
And that is why Emily Poole and every other lunatic who's defending child sacrifice is today canceled.
That'll do for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Godspeed.
Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
