Ep. 1640 - The Insanely Incompetent DEI Hire Running One Of America’s Most Dangerous Cities
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, while DC fails to get its crime problem under control, the female chief of police publicly acknowledged that she doesn’t even know what the term “chain of command” means. That's no surprise. This woman was hired as their DEI officer, before she was promoted to the head of the whole department. Meanwhile the Attorney General of the city has declared that you can’t solve violent crimes by arresting and prosecuting violent criminals. And a CNN contributor announces that, rather than trying to make DC safe, we should instead “rethink safety.” Also, climate lockdowns have officially begun in Canada. And an American lawmaker is asked an important question: what is an American? Her answer could not possibly have been any worse.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1640
- - -
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:
Boll & Branch - Get 15% off, plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at https://BollAndBranch.com/walsh
Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WALSH to claim $40 off + free meat for life!
StopBox USA - Get firearm security redesigned and save 15% off @StopBoxUSA with code WALSH10 at https://www.stopboxusa.com/WALSH10 #stopboxpod #ad
- - -
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, Mattwell Show, while DC fails to get its crime problem under control, the female chief of police publicly acknowledged that she doesn't even know what the term chain of command means, which is no surprise.
This woman was hired as their DEI officer before she was promoted to the head of the whole department.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General of the city has declared that you can't just solve violent crime by arresting and prosecuting violent criminals somehow.
And a CNN contributor announces that rather than trying to make DC safe, we should instead rethink safety.
Also, climate lockdowns have officially begun in Canada.
And an American lawmaker has asked an important question, what is an American?
Her answer could not possibly have been any worse.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Music.
We've all heard those common myths like we only use 10% of our brains, but here's one that might surprise you.
Thread count is a huge myth that many people believe when shopping for sheets.
Thread count is simply actually a measure of fabric density.
It isn't actually a good indicator of quality.
If you want truly great sheets, you need to look at thread quality, not counting.
That's why Bolin Branch focuses on using the highest quality organic cotton threads, creating long-lasting sheets that actually get softer over time rather than relying on inflated thread count numbers to impress customers.
Bowl and branch sheets are crafted from the finest, 100% organic cotton in a soft, breathable, and durable weave that delivers quality you can feel from the moment you touch them.
What makes them even more special is that they become softer with every wash improving over time rather than wearing down.
And we first got our Bowling Branch sheets several years ago.
We just ordered another set for some of the other beds in our house.
And we found that, you know what, the great thing about them is they're very comfortable.
They get more comfortable as you use them.
So we are devoted Bolin Branch customers.
We have been for a long time.
And look, with their 30-night worry-free guarantee, you can experience this exceptional comfort risk-free, ensuring you'll love how those premium sheets transform your sleep experience.
Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Bolin Branch.
Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlingbranch.com slash walsh.
That's Bolinbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D-Branch.com slash Walsh to save 15% and unlock free shipping as well.
Exclusions apply.
Let's say there's been a mass shooting in Washington, D.C., which is not exactly a far-fetched hypothetical, and several shell casings and bullets were located at the crime scene.
Then the police locate a car full of suspects, and every single one of them is carrying a handgun.
But of course, no one admits to firing the shots.
So as part of their investigation, the police bring everyone to the station and seize their firearms for further investigation.
Now, at that point, if the police want any chance of building a criminal case, they're going to have to rely on the crime lab.
In every major city in the country, this is a pretty straightforward process.
The crime lab runs a series of ballistics tests to determine which gun fired the shots.
This is possible because every firearm will transfer unique individual characteristics to the cartridge case or bullet that comes out of it.
Technicians will then come to one of three possible conclusions about any two pieces of ammunition evidence.
The first conclusion is called identification.
This means that they've confirmed the same firearm is responsible for two pieces of ammunition evidence.
The second conclusion is called elimination.
This means that the two pieces of ammunition evidence definitely come from different firearms.
And the third conclusion is inconclusive, meaning the components are similar enough that they can't figure it out.
They don't know which is which.
Now, the benefit of this system is that among competent experts, you won't find wildly different assessments of the same evidence, usually.
There's some amount of skill and perception involved in analyzing the evidence under a microscope and making the necessary comparisons, But at the same time, it's not exactly rocket science.
Either the ammunition components have distinctive identifiable markings or they don't.
Now, in Washington, D.C., though, this relatively uncomplicated analysis has proven to be an extraordinarily difficult task.
In fact, a few years ago, they managed to botch it so flagrantly and so inexplicably that the entire crime lab was shut down for several years.
To give you an idea of how bad things got, here's how the DC Crime Lab assessed ballistics evidence in one particular case.
This is from a report prepared by SNA International, which is a consultant group that was called in to investigate the lab.
And as you can see, in January of 2016, somebody named Daniel Barrett, a forensic scientist with the DC Crime Lab, did an initial examination on some ballistics evidence.
And he found an identification, meaning that the two pieces of ammunition evidence came from the same firearm.
A couple of days later, another forensic scientist named Luciano Morales checked Daniel's work and he too found an identification.
Then in August of 2017, a forensic scientist named Alicia Valario did a re-examination following Daniel Barrett's departure from the agency and Alicia also found an identification.
And that same day, a forensic scientist named Michael Mulderig checked Alicia's work and he also confirmed an identification.
So we're four for four.
Everyone's unanimous.
Having checked and quadruple checked their work, they compared the same pieces of evidence, item 45 and item 16, and agreed that the same firearm was responsible for both of them.
Now, the problem is that when the U.S. Attorney's Office got involved several years later and sent in some highly experienced forensic analysts, they found that identification was the exact opposite conclusion that these DC analysts should have drawn.
The correct result for these two items was elimination.
In other words, there were several very apparent differences between the two items, making it clear they did not come from the same firearm.
Now, as you can imagine, this is a very big deal when you're trying to put somebody in prison for committing a crime with a gun, but the DC crime lab botched it.
This is a failure that's actually pretty difficult to even comprehend.
I mean, it'd be like four different mechanics telling you that your car is perfectly fine.
Then the fifth one tells you that actually your car won't even start and the engine has exploded.
So here's what the audit found specifically: quote, the review of the materials determined clear class characteristic differences between the two cartridge cases, specifically the breach face impressions of the two cartridge cases, which are caused by the head of the cartridge case pressing against the breech face of the firearm during firing, were significantly and sufficiently different and support a conclusion of elimination.
The incorrect conclusion of identification rendered by some DC examiners is so distinct from the correct conclusion of elimination that it represents a significant issue relating to the competence of those examiners.
In other words, the identification criteria of the examiners were not sufficiently rigorous to distinguish between coincidental correspondence of striated marks produced by different firearms and correspondence due to being fired from or in the same firearm.
So that's a lot of words, but basically means an entire team of forensic scientists in the DC crime lab managed to repeatedly come to the wrong conclusion about evidence in a criminal case.
And it wasn't an especially close call, according to people who came in and actually knew what they were doing.
But these people simply had no idea what they were doing.
And it wasn't just the ballistics either.
Over in the latent fingerprint unit, they were also just sort of winging things.
Basically, in the latent fingerprints unit, their job is to figure out if a piece of evidence might contain prints that could be useful at a trial.
And if one analyst finds no useful prints, then automatically another analyst has to verify their work.
So it's supposed to be a pretty foolproof process.
But the DC Crime Lab managed to botch it.
Once again, the audit found that the latent fingerprint unit had, quote, improperly evaluated the latent prints for suitability in 42 of the 45 cases that were independently tested.
That's a failure rate, if you do the math, of more than 90%, which is worse than what a lab full of monkeys could accomplish by jumping up and down in the lab and randomly pressing buttons on the computer.
Now, I could go through the whole audit, which revealed that the DC crime lab, quote, faced serious issues, including deliberate concealment of information, violations of accreditation standards, and fraudulent behavior.
But you probably get the idea.
The crime lab was useless.
The problems were so staggering and so incredible that no prosecutor could use anything they produced.
As a result of this complete incompetence, D.C. did not have a crime lab for several years.
In fact, as Katie Pavlich reported on Monday, the District of Columbia still doesn't have an accredited ballistics lab to this day.
If they want to analyze ballistics evidence, they have to rely on contractors, many of whom are out of state.
On the bright side, nearly two years ago, the lab did receive approval to reopen for other purposes, including drug testing.
This was heralded as a major victory for the city.
Watch.
Meanwhile, major news in the effort to hold criminals accountable.
D.C.'s crime lab has been partially accredited for forensic testing in biology and seized drugs.
Daniel Hamburg joins us live in the newsroom with Warren Daniel.
The district crime labs lost accreditation almost, what, three years ago.
Yeah, Mark, in fiscal year 2022, a third of cases were not prosecuted.
That has since increased due to partnerships with federal and local labs to get some of that testing done.
But having an independent lab right here in D.C. is crucial to getting criminals off the streets.
D.C.'s Department of Forensic Sciences hasn't been able to test drugs since April 2021.
Its accreditation was revoked for a variety of issues, including errors, lack of expertise, and engaging in fraudulent activities.
Which meant that we lost the ability to charge almost all drug cases.
That's a big reason.
Only 33% of cases were charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2022.
That's since increased to about 58%, but only between July and September of this year, once outside lab testing was secured.
So they tell you that the crime lab is partially accredited now, but they don't tell you what exactly is partial about it.
And they act like it's a big win that instead of only being able to charge 30% of cases, prosecutors are up to 50%.
So that's something.
But the real story here is not that the crime lab is barely functional in Washington or that prosecutors can't even charge most cases because the crime lab is offline.
That's very bad, of course.
It's also a symptom of a much larger problem, which is that in pretty much every aspect of society from air travel to restaurants and on and on and on, basic services are becoming unreliable.
Incompetence is now the norm.
This is what inevitably happens when the government forces hundreds of thousands of competent workers out of the workforce in the name of public health and then imports millions of fake asylum seekers from the third world to replace them while also elevating unqualified Americans on the basis of irrelevant characteristics like skin color or gender.
What you end up with is universal mediocrity or worse.
The machinery that's necessary for a functioning society starts breaking down piece by piece until nothing works and no one can be held responsible.
Really, the reason Washington, D.C. is in the news this week isn't because of anything Donald Trump did.
It's because D.C., more than any other city in the country, is a monument to the sustained managed decline of the United States.
As our capital, the district is an unmistakable symbol of a pervasive mediocrity at every level.
Yes, the crime lab amounts to a group of morons throwing darts at the wall to see what conclusion they should draw, but every other aspect of the city from top to bottom operates in exactly the same way.
So go over to the police department, for example.
By now, you've maybe seen the viral clip of the police chief, a woman named Pamela Smith, at a press conference with the mayor the other day.
And in this footage, she appears perplexed by the term chain of command, as if she's never even heard those words before in her entire life.
Now, a lot of people mock that clip, and rightfully so.
A police chief who doesn't understand the concept of chain of command is a bit like a cook who's never heard of the word kitchen.
It's the kind of jaw-dropping moment that doesn't seem like it could possibly be real, but actually, it is real.
And as bad as that clip was, the entire answer that Pamela Smith gave is even worse.
The more context you provide for the clip, the more excruciating it becomes.
But This is important to talk about.
So we'll play the full context.
So I want you to watch as a reporter tries for more than a minute to ask Pamela Smith about the extent of the federal government's control of the DC Police Department.
For all practical purposes, as we know, the White House has assumed command of the D.C. police for the next 30 days, pursuant to their legal authority over the district.
But Smith seems to struggle with this concept.
She implies repeatedly that the D.C. police are going to be working alongside the federal government as partners without giving any indication of who's actually in charge.
And then when the reporter finally asks the question, as directly as he can, the police chief gives her now infamous answer, watch.
Chief, what's your role in all this?
I am the chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department.
And being the chief of police, I am certainly the one who champions to ensure that we reduce violent crime across our city.
That is why the mayor appointed me to do that job, which is why you've seen the reduction in crime across our city.
This effort will only help us enhance and build upon that.
Are you answering to Terry Cole?
I answered to Mayor Muriel Bowser.
And let me just say this.
Let us not have any controversy with that, okay?
Because I know people want to build upon and create division.
We're here to work together with our federal partners, and that's what we're going to do.
Chief, how are you going to do that?
Can you explain what the National Guard is likely to do?
What the federal agents are likely to do?
So the federal agents.
So the way we would do any operational plan across our city, we would create a plan, we would put our resources together, we will allocate and look at the locations around our city where we have, where we believe there are areas of pockets of crime that we would like to address.
We also know that there are opportunities for us to build upon our community engagement with our federal partners who work with us every day.
And this is the time for us to do this.
I won't go into the details and the devils about it, but you will see the Metropolitan Police Department working side by side with our federal partners in order to enforce the efforts of the U.S. Can you tell us what the shade of demand is now?
What does that mean?
Well, is it Pam Bonnie speaking to the mayor or how does this work?
So at the executive order, it's clear.
The president has requested MPD services and our home rule charter outlines the process.
You know, the way that Mayor Bowser swoops in at precisely that moment is probably the most revealing part of that clip.
She knows how incompetent her police chief is, so she takes over before things get any worse.
Presumably, Bowser didn't want the police chief to expound on all of the other words and phrases she doesn't understand.
After all, when your crime lab isn't even accredited and your murder rate is higher than Baghdad's, there's only so many more hits to morale that the city can really take.
Now, after this footage aired, a lot of people pointed out that Pamela Smith was not hired based on merit, unsurprisingly.
Instead, a couple of years ago, she was hired as the chief equity officer in the D.C. police department.
Okay.
Now, so that means she was a DEI hire in every sense.
And then very quickly, she goes from this meaningless job of equity officer to becoming the chief of police.
I mean, it'd be like elevating a DEI consultant to be the CEO of, say, Microsoft.
I mean, it's a decision that makes no sense whatsoever if you actually care about the organization running well and efficiently, which they don't.
At the time when Pamela got the job, local media in D.C. were not interested in asking her about anything substantive.
Instead, of course, they highlighted her skin color and her gender, as well as her life story.
Watch.
And if approved by the city council, Pamela Smith, who you see here, will be the next person to fill that position.
And the chief, let's go ahead and call it the chief, joins us in studio to talk more about this historic nomination and her plans for the department.
It is so good to meet you.
Thank you so much for spending some time with us this morning.
Thank you for having me here this morning.
I really appreciate it.
So I want to get to this moment first before we talk about the business of the district.
You would be the second woman, the first African-American woman to be elevated to this position.
I'm sure that is not lost on you.
What are your feelings when you think about that?
It's very humbling.
You know, when I was the chief of police of the U.S. Park Police, I was the first African-American chief of police in the agency's 230-year history at that time.
And to be able to do this amazing, have this amazing opportunity extended to me by Mayor Muriel Bowser is very humbling.
And I'm so grateful.
And although it's not lost on me, what I hope is that I'm not the last.
I think this is an opportunity for young men and young women to really see how they can aspire to be anything that they choose to be.
But what I did was I used those moments of adversity and turned them into something positive.
I utilized some of the resources like the Summer Youth Employment Program that was available to me in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and meeting a pastor and his wife who thought enough of, I'll say, the little old girl from Pine Bluff, Arkansas to really groom me into the young woman that I am today.
Now, Washington, D.C. is a district that, if it became a state, would have the highest murder rate in the entire country.
It's so dangerous that members of Congress are being carjacked and beaten in their apartments.
The security detail for Supreme Court justice was nearly carjacked before they shot the attackers.
The only relevant question when you're picking a police chief for a place like that is what exactly the police chief is going to do about the carnage that's unfolding every day in the city.
Instead, we're told that she's a nice lady.
She's black.
She had a tough upbringing.
Those were her qualifications for this job.
It's not an exaggeration to say the local media did precisely zero vetting of this woman, nor did anyone in the D.C. government, apparently.
At most, she was asked superficial questions with no follow-ups.
In a separate interview, for example, the local ABC affiliate asked Pamela Smith what she was going to do about all the murdering that was going on in Washington, D.C. And here's how she responded: Finally, what are we going to do about these homicides?
This is one of the things that really upsets folks a lot.
We're going to come up with a plan that is going to be collaborative and impactful across the District of Columbia, and we're going to do exactly everything we need to do to drive down crime.
And you think you'll have the support?
Absolutely.
And of course, you've got fewer officers than, let's say, a few years ago.
We're going to come up with a plan, and I'm confident that that plan will be impactful to the District of Columbia.
So they're going to come up with a plan, according to Pamela Smith.
The plan will address the murders, and it will address the lack of police officers, too.
But, you know, what is this plan?
Well, you don't get to know what the plan is.
I mean, that would just be ridiculous.
What's their plan for bringing down the murders?
Well, their plan is they have a plan.
Their plan is to have, well, they don't have a plan.
Their plan is they're going to come up with a plan to develop a plan for a plan to bring the murder rate down.
Any questions?
Well, that was good enough for the local ABC affiliate.
They asked no follow-ups.
But in retrospect, it seems like we all know what the plan was.
As we discussed yesterday, it looks a lot like the plan in D.C. was to fabricate crime statistics.
Instead of taking a report for a carjacking or a stabbing or a shooting, officers would classify the incident as taking an injured person to the hospital or a theft or a felony assault.
Apparently, according to the police union, when an incident is classified as a felony assault, it doesn't get counted in the D.C. police department's daily crime stats for some reason, or the FBI's uniformed crime reporting system.
And this is a loophole that we can only assume is being used by many, many, many other police departments.
Also, in many cases, D.C. police would simply refuse to respond to crimes, including robberies and assaults, which is another way to cook the books, as we all know.
And for the DEI lady running the police department, apparently that's good enough.
But once again, this is not about one person.
Pamela Smith is obviously inept.
She has no business holding that job, and people are dying as a result.
But really, she's part of a larger problem.
And pretty much everyone can see that.
In the past year, due to various incidents, prison escapes, terrorist attacks, wildfires, Several prominent government officials in major cities all across the country have been, many, many times, these are law enforcement, top law enforcement officials that have been thrust into the national spotlight.
And we'll put some of them up on the screen.
After a jihadi mowed down more than a dozen people in New Orleans, the elderly female police chief informed the world that she had no idea, no idea whatsoever that the city had purchased pedestrian barriers that could have prevented that attack.
Whoops.
That would have been nice to know, she said.
My bad.
Then, after the mob of the festival goers, as they're being called in Cincinnati, brutally attacked white people at a music festival, which has long been a state-sanctioned hotbed of anti-white racism, the female police chief scolded the people who recorded the violence.
Earlier in the year in Los Angeles, as wildfires destroyed entire neighborhoods while firefighters ran out of water, it emerged that the fire chief was a strong, independent lesbian who was committed to advancing the LGBTQIIA plus agenda.
Meanwhile, the deputy fire chief, another fiercely independent girl boss, shot a video in which she downplayed the idea that female firefighters might not be able to rescue a man trapped in a fire by saying, if you remember, and I quote, he got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of the fire.
In other words, it's the victim's fault.
As he's burning alive, that woman can't meet the physical standards necessary to be a firefighter and he's going to burn alive, but it's his fault.
You shouldn't have put yourself in a position where you could burn to death.
Now, and this is just a quick snapshot of these kinds of things.
And just from a statistical perspective, there's an obvious problem here.
I mean, we all know that in the private sector, women aren't typically leading major companies.
That's true in spite of the fact that every Fortune 500 corporation goes out of its way to advance women as part of their DEI agenda.
But still, it doesn't typically work out that way.
And that's because women often choose to raise families instead of climbing the corporate ladder.
In many cases, they find that they're either unwilling or unable to work 80 hours a week, wasting away their entire life in an office building in exchange for a promotion.
Also, men and women are different.
And men are often just more suited for those kinds of jobs.
And women certainly don't choose to become police officers or firefighters in large numbers for obvious reasons.
And yet, it seems like whenever there's a big news story in the past year, we discover that women are somehow running the local police or the fire department.
Now, the only way to explain what's going on is that these departments are hiring women who are unqualified for the job solely because they're women.
I mean, that's not a partisan point.
It's just, it's basic math.
And that's why these women immediately face plan on the national stage the moment that they have to respond to any kind of crisis.
See, the thing about incompetence is that very often it's not particularly well hidden.
I mean, we're not talking about criminal masterminds here.
These people only get away with it because, in pretty much every case, no one checks on what they're doing.
But increasingly, it's becoming impossible to ignore what's happening.
I mean, the degree of incompetence is simply too great.
By taking control of Washington, D.C., D.C., if only for 30 days or so, the Trump administration has the opportunity to highlight this incompetence even further.
The administration can provide a clear contrast between Pamela Smith and Mayor Bowser on the one hand and competent leadership on the other.
They can make sure that every relevant piece of evidence is shipped to a functioning crime lab.
They can unseal the D.C. Police Department's fraudulent investigation into January 6th, including the shooting of Ashley Babbitt.
They can use basic terms like chain of command without freezing like a deer in the headlights.
And in the end, they can expose the extent to which American decline is a choice.
We can shut it down just as quickly as the crime lab was shut down.
And before any more people are forced to suffer in the nation's capital or any other major city, that's exactly what needs to happen.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Oh, my God.
You know, I've got kids running around the house, and as a responsible gun owner, I was stuck in this impossible situation.
Either my handgun is locked away so tight that I need a few hours to get to it, an emergency, or it's sitting somewhere.
My curious kids might find it.
So that's a real parenting win there, right?
I think we can all relate to.
That's why I'm genuinely impressed with this Stopbox Pro.
You can open it with one hand and there's no keys, no batteries that die, the worst possible moment.
Completely mechanical, so it works every single time.
No fumbling around like a moron when seconds are the thing that actually matter.
And here's the thing that really got me: everything's made right here in America.
So while everyone's worried about tariffs and supply chains, Stopbox is just cranking these out in their own facility, creating actual jobs for American workers.
And in my experience, it is the perfect, especially if you have kids and you have a lot of anxiety because you need to have the firearm to protect them, but you also can't have them getting into it.
So you need the perfect way to thread that needle.
And I found that Stopbox does exactly that.
For a limited time only, our listeners are getting a crazy deal on Stopbox.
Get 50% off your entire order when you use code Walsh 10.
And for even better savings, shop their bundles for the best deals on their best-selling products.
Check out their bundles and save an exclusive 15% off site-wide when you use code Walsh10 at stopboxusa.com.
Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with Stopbox.
Well, the media continues to search for a reason to object to Trump trying to turn DC into an actual livable place.
And I want to highlight this moment, one of many that I could highlight.
This is where a CNN contributor tries to explain why more police does not equal safer streets, which is a tough case to make because it's totally nonsense.
But let's see how well she does with it.
Watch.
You don't think more police make streets safer?
No, Joe.
I'm a black woman in America.
I do not always think that more police make streets safer.
When you walk down the streets of Georgetown, you don't see a police officer on every corner, but you don't feel unsafe.
So what is it about talking about places like Southeast DC, right?
Ward 8, if you will, that people say, well, we need more officers to make us safe.
I think we have to rethink what safety means in America.
Rethink what safety means in America.
Now, you know, we know that anytime somebody on the left wants us to rethink what something means, that means they want us to come to a conclusion that the thing means the opposite of what it really means.
That's what rethinking means if you're on the left.
So let's rethink safety.
Let's rethink it.
That's always a bad sign when someone is, you know, when you're saying, oh, this is unsafe, and someone says, well, let's rethink safety.
Not even, let's rethink your conclusion.
It's like, well, let's think differently about what safety is.
Maybe safety is actually when you get dragged out of your car at a stoplight and shot in the head.
Maybe that is safety.
Have you thought about that?
Instead of assuming that you're unsafe just because you have to worry about getting shot in the head, maybe you should consider that getting shot in the head actually makes you safe.
After all, I mean, you know, if you get shot in the head once, you almost definitely will not get shot in the head a second time because you're dead.
So she has a point.
She really has a point.
Like the safest people in DC, the only safe people in D.C. are the ones who've already been murdered.
Look on the bright side.
If you're lying, dying in the street, blood gushing out of your, you know, a hole in your stomach because you got stabbed by a drug-addled vagrant.
Look on the bright side.
Like someone could come up to you and say, hey, well, listen, man, like, here's the bright side: that very soon you won't have to worry about getting stabbed again.
Has anyone ever been murdered twice?
The murder rate for people who've already been murdered is zero.
I mean, so she really has a point.
She's a genius, obviously.
She's a genius rethinking safety.
Now, if you aren't a genius like her, you might think that we don't need to rethink safety, that it's pretty obvious what safety means in this context.
And the left, as always, they try to obfuscate.
That's the only tactic they have, really.
Make things seem more complicated than they really are.
They use terms like nuances.
Well, let's think about the nuances.
This is a really nuanced, this is a really nuanced issue.
You can't just go around saying that just because people are getting shot all the time, that it's an unsafe city.
Let's Think about the nuances.
What is safety anyway?
Who's to say?
Who's to say what's safe and what isn't?
Well, let me help you out.
If you want to know if you're in a safe town or not, there are some pretty obvious indicators.
There actually aren't any.
There are no nuances.
In fact, there are safe towns and there are unsafe towns, and there's really no nuance to it.
It's very, very simple.
So, for example, I mean, here's one indicator that you're in an unsafe town.
If you have to consciously remember to remove all the valuables out of your car, or at least to put them out of view whenever you park, you are in an unsafe city.
If you didn't even know that there's an option of not having to worry about that, then you're in an unsafe city and you've never not been in an unsafe city.
Now, if you never worry about that and your car is never broken into or stolen, then you're in a very safe city.
Where I am right now, actually, it's a place where I'll stop at a gas station and I'll run inside with my keys still in the car and my car on.
Not worried at all about it getting stolen.
Like, I have zero concern, and it never is.
Now, you would never do that in D.C. I don't care how liberal you are.
I don't care how enlightened you are.
You would, would you ever in DC in a million years park your car at a gas station, leave your keys in the car, and go inside?
You would never do that.
No, you wouldn't.
Why wouldn't you do that?
Well, because you know that there are people walking around everywhere who, if you give them an opportunity to steal your car, they're just going to steal it.
Okay?
Well, guess what?
Here's something that will shock you.
Okay.
If you're one of these, if you're one of these urbanite liberals, you'll be shocked to hear this.
You should be able to leave your keys in the car.
You actually should, and that's not utopia.
You should be able to do that.
Okay.
There should not be people walking all around your community who will just steal your car if you give them the chance.
That's not normal, or at least it shouldn't be.
Okay, that should not be a normal part of life, and it doesn't have to be.
The fact that you live in DC and you can't even comprehend that you should be able to leave your sunglasses in the car on the dashboard or even leave your keys in the car.
Well, that just goes to show that crime is so bad, it's so normalized that you can't even conceive of doing anything else.
Did you know there are places in America right now where people leave the doors unlocked in their homes at night?
There are places where they sleep with like the first floor window open.
There are places where the murder rate is effectively zero.
There are towns that go a year without anyone getting murdered.
Did you know that?
There are plenty of towns where the number of people murdered by strangers on the street is almost always zero year after year.
There are places where violent crime, when it happens, is almost always domestic related, right?
Which is bad, but it means that you never have to worry about being victimized by a stranger.
There are places where you could, where at night, you could just walk down the street.
You could do that.
Did you know that?
There are places where as a woman at night, you could walk down the street and you'll be fine.
And once again, for all these leftists that are trying to minimize this, they hear that and they're like, that's, well, that's a utopia.
That's not possible.
What is this?
What, you're talking about heaven?
That's heaven.
You can't do that anywhere else.
No, that's a real thing.
And guess what?
That's how things should be.
That is the standard that you should hold.
Every place, the standard should be that as a woman, you can walk down the street at night or as a man, like, you know, because woman or man, in D.C., it's like plenty of places in D.C. where I'm not walking down the street at night alone either.
I don't want to get mugged and killed.
But that should be the standard.
And you shouldn't accept anything less.
Right?
Now, granted, with rampant third world immigration and the increasing urbanization of the country, these actual safe places are fewer today than they were 20 years ago, a lot fewer.
And they are, we're losing them by the day, but they do exist.
They have existed, which means they can exist.
And if you're trying to decide if DC is safe, what you have to do is compare it to actual safe towns.
You have to compare its murder rate of 27 per 100,000 people with places where the murder rate is like one or two.
D.C.'s murder rate is more than 20 times higher than plenty of other towns that are actually safe in this country.
By the way, one other thing: the CNN contributor brought up a point that I also can't neglect to acknowledge.
She said that in Georgetown in D.C., they don't have a bunch of cops patrolling the street, and yet it's one of the safest parts of the city.
And she asked why that is.
Well, ma'am, do you really want the answer to that question?
Do you really want to know?
Do you actually, I mean, you asked, but is that a conversation you actually want to have?
I don't think it is because the answer, since you asked, is that Georgetown is one of the whitest parts of DC.
Okay.
The whiter that the neighborhoods in D.C. get, the safer they are.
That's just, that's a, that's a statistical reality.
Okay.
It's just a statistical reality.
Um, D.C. has a majority black population.
Georgetown, though, is majority white, and uh, it's one of the safest parts of the city.
That's your answer.
You ask, lady, that's your answer.
Um, all right, moving on here, another headline, but staying with the same general subject.
I want you to listen to something that D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwab said as he's seated next to somebody in a COVID mask in the year of our Lord 2025.
But let's not focus on that.
Let's focus on what Mr. Schwab had to say.
Listen during the discussion, residents did not hold back, voicing their frustrations.
Am I playing the system?
Many questioning why kids are being held accountable.
We, as a city and a community, need to be much more focused on prevention and surrounding young people and their families with resources if we want to be safer in the long run.
We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of it.
We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of crime.
We cannot arrest our way out of crime, he says.
This is the attorney general of the city saying that we can't arrest our way out of crime.
Brian, that is exactly what we can do.
That's exactly the solution.
That's the solution.
Remember, I said, like, you shouldn't live in a town where you have to worry about the fact that so many people are walking around who will just steal your car if you let them.
You should expect, as opposed to towns where it's like no one is just going to take your car just because they have the opportunity to, right?
Like as a normal person, I'm relatively normal by most standards.
You could give me an opportunity to steal a car all day long, and I'm just not ever going to steal it.
I would just never, ever do that.
And so your car, you could live, I could be in a lot with a thousand of the most expensive cars that all have their keys and they're all running.
And my temptation to steal them will be zero.
I won't even feel like 1% temptation.
And that's a normal person, a normal civilized person.
That's how you operate.
That's how you are.
So, how do you solve crime?
Well, all the people who you couldn't trust them around your car with the keys in it, all of those people, all of them should be in jail.
Okay?
As soon as you have the opportunity, now, granted, you have to wait till someone actually commits a crime to arrest them.
We're not quite in minority report territory yet.
But all those kinds of people, they all commit crimes.
So, like, if they're the kind of person who would just take a car if it's sitting there, they commit crimes, like they've committed a bunch of crimes.
So, you take them and you round them up and you put them in a cage and you leave them there.
That's how you make your city safe.
The only kinds of people that should be walking around the streets of your town are the kinds of people who would never steal a car, regardless of whatever opportunity they have.
The kinds of people who they could see your door wide open at night and they would have 0% temptation to walk in and murder you and take your TV.
Those are the only kinds of people who should be walking around free in your community.
The other kinds should be in a cage.
That's how you have a civilized community.
That's how you do it.
You either do it that way or you will not have a civilized community.
Those are the only two options.
There is not a third one.
So, saying you can't arrest your way out of crime, it's like it's like running up to a firefighter who's connecting the hose to the fire hydrant and saying, Hey, what are you doing?
What are you going to spray water on it?
Well, we can't water our way out of a fire.
Oh, so that's your plan, huh?
You're just going to use some of this magical, what is this, water?
Oh, yo, look at you, Mr. Magical Fireman.
You're just going to spray water on a fire.
Huh?
You think it's that simple?
You think it's that simple?
You don't understand the nuances of firefighting.
No, we need to do is rethink.
We should rethink fires.
We should rethink it.
Maybe the fire's good.
Maybe it's actually better to have your house on fire.
Oh, there's a family trapped in the house.
They need to be rescued.
Well, hold on a second.
It's not so simple to just run in and take them out and put the fire out.
Let's rethink it.
Who's to say that they're any less safe with their house on fire than they would be otherwise?
Did you think about that?
So it's total madness.
Arrest our way out of crime.
Yeah.
I mean, there are other things you can and should do as well.
There are other strategies that can be employed in addition.
But the fundamental way that you stop violent crime is by arresting and imprisoning the people who commit it.
So that's it.
But once again, the left wants us to think that a simple issue is actually super complicated.
Smart.
So way too complicated.
You can't just put them in prison.
Well, yeah, just put them all in prison.
Well, we're going to run out of space.
Oh, we'll just build more prisons then.
How many prisons do we need?
Hey, you're asking, well, how many prisons should we build?
I don't know.
How many do we need?
You tell me how many violence gumbags we have walking around that need to be in prison and we'll do the math and that's how many prisons we should build.
Well, that would require 100 new prisons.
Okay, build 100, build a thousand.
We got plenty of space.
We're wasting money all the time.
I mean, we spend billions of dollars a year alone just buying donuts for fat people on EBT.
I mean, we could take a couple of those billion and build a few more prisons.
That's one thing I'm willing for my tax money to go to.
I'll donate to a GoFundMe.
You could raise the tax money voluntarily.
Start a GoFundMe to build another prison for the violence gumbags.
I will donate to it personally.
So yeah, it is really that simple.
It actually is.
All right, some news out of Canada because we just, we love news out of Canada, don't we, folks?
And here it is.
Watch.
A leisurely walk in the woods is no longer allowed in Nova Scotia, and it may not be for the rest of the summer.
Effective 4 p.m. today, we're telling Nova Scotians, stay out of the woods.
Nova Scotia's premier announced today a ban on activities in the forest because of extreme dry conditions and the risk of wildfires.
Hiking, camping, fishing, and the use of vehicles in the woods are not permitted.
Trail systems through woods are off limits.
At these walking trails in the heart of Sydney, some agreed with the move, while others didn't.
As long as you're not targeting a fire or smoking, you know, that kind of thing, you should be able to walk there.
It kind of sucks for the campers and anybody out tenting.
But it's probably necessary.
At these wooded trails in Coxeeth, the entrance is blocked off.
The people who run the trails say while they understand the province's move, it's also unfortunate.
So there's some expansions and upgrades that we had hoped to finish this summer.
That depending on how long this goes, it will be slowed down.
According to the province, the penalty for violators will be the same as it is for the burn ban put in last week, $25,000, though camping is allowed at registered campsites, and some exceptions will be made for work in the woods.
So they can get a permit to carry out their operations on Crown lands.
They may need to operate at night, which can take place.
The Premier says, with nothing but more dry weather expected in the coming days, the move is being made now to try and avoid a major wildfire like the one outside of Halifax two years ago.
We've had briefings from Environment Canada about the near-term forecast, and there is no significant rain in sight.
You know, Canadians just blow my mind.
They really do.
They do because I can't understand the Canadian mind.
I'm wired in exactly the opposite way.
I can't understand it.
You heard all those interviews, and everybody was just saying, well, yeah, it seems ridiculous to ban people from walking in the woods, but well, what are you going to do?
They must have a good reason.
I mean, this is the government we're talking about here.
When has the government ever done something without good reason?
So it's pretty amazing.
It's like an entire country of submissives, an entire country of hen-pecked husbands, an entire country of, you know, Michael J. Fox's dad from Back to the Future.
Well, gee, they told me not to walk in the woods.
What am I going to do about it?
Object?
What do you expect me to do?
Object?
Well, that would be impolite.
You know, there should be thousands of Canadians in Nova Scotia hiking in the woods every day just out of principle.
That's the appropriate response because this is nonsense.
I mean, if you're worried about wildfires, you can ban people from starting campfires.
That makes a lot of sense.
That makes sense.
If there's actually a high wildfire risk, then, yeah, you ban campfires, you ban open burning and that sort of thing.
But going for a walk in the woods will not create a wildfire.
That's not how wildfires, unless you're a cartoon character and you're running so fast that there are flames jetting out from behind you.
Then aside from that, a walk or a jog in the woods just does not carry any wildfire risk at all.
But the reason I'm bringing this up is because not because I care all that deeply about Nova Scotians being able to go for a hike.
I mean, they don't care about it, so what do I?
I'm not going to care for them.
But I think we all know what this is.
Well, these Canadians might not, but the rest of us do.
This is the early precursor to climate lockdowns.
This is a climate lockdown.
It's one of the first.
And we know that the bureaucratic tyrants in government have been searching for a way to once again wield the power to lock us in our homes.
And climate lockdowns are, you know, obviously the most obvious backup plan.
Now, I still think they'd probably prefer to have some sort of virus that they could use as an excuse.
But if not that, then climate lockdowns are the way forward.
And this is why it's important when this stuff starts.
And we should know this by now.
We should have learned this by now, that when this stuff starts, you got to push back hard.
Refuse to comply.
Let them know you're not going to go along with it.
Once they start the climate lockdowns and they say, oh, it's too hot to go outside, so you're not allowed to go for a walk in the woods.
We're going to treat you like your mother and tell you, oh, sorry, Junior, it's too hot today.
Scott, we got to stay inside today.
And for the rest of the summer, once you let them treat you like that, then you've just sort of signed up for what comes next.
And we know in Canada that they've long since signed up for it because they've gotten very used to being treated this way.
You know, it's nothing like firing up the grill for the family on a weekend, but I got tired of wondering if the steaks I was cooking were actually what the label claimed that they were.
Turns out over 4 billion pounds of imported meat can still be labeled product of the USA.
Not exactly what I want on my grill.
And I know you feel the same way.
So I found Good Ranchers, and that has been the solution.
100% American meat from actual local farms and ranches.
When I'm grilling ribeyes for my wife and kids or making burgers for a camping trip, I know exactly where that meat came from, plain and simple.
I've been a Good Rancher subscriber for a long time now.
I don't know, three, two, three years.
And we eat Good Ranchers every week.
And look, we found the convenience is unbeatable.
I get $25 off every order, free shipping.
Plus, they throw in extras like bacon or Wagyu burgers.
Perfect for those spontaneous family cookouts and dinners.
And, you know, the other thing I love about Good Ranchers, aside from the fact that it's right here in America, is that it's also just really good, high-quality meat, which is hard to find at your typical grocery store.
And that's why we love Good Ranchers in my house.
Best part, if we're traveling or if I'm or I'm stocked up, I can pause deliveries anytime.
There's no hassle.
There's no commitment stress.
The difference in taste is real.
I notice it.
My family notices it.
My producer Sean has even said the same.
There's no substitute for quality.
Support American ranchers and taste the difference for yourself.
Visit goodranchers.com.
Use my code Walsh for $40 off plus free meat for life.
Again, that's Walsh for $40 off and free meat for life.
Goodranchers.com.
Welcome to the table.
Well, it's summer's last stand.
Days are getting shorter.
Grills are going cold and coffee shops are already trying to seasonally gaslight you with pumpkin spice.
Well, be first in line for everything coming to Daily Wire Plus before the fall chaos hits.
Stream the brand new The Pope and the Fur, the secret Vatican files of World War II.
Michael Knowles just cracked open 80 years of Vatican secrets that the history books, you know, quote unquote, forgot to mention.
And this fall, the Isabel Brown show premieres.
It's a new voice for a new generation of conservatives.
And plus, the decade of the Daily Wire anniversary show, celebrating 10 years of upsetting all the right people.
You get all of it, plus news from the most trusted voices of conservative media and unfiltered, uncensored opinions you can't get anywhere else.
Summer ends, but freedom doesn't get 40% off a new annual Daily Wire Plus membership right now.
Join millions just like you at dailywireplus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Music Representative Dahlia Ramirez from Illinois was in the news recently for, as we talked about on this show, standing in front of a group of Hispanics in Mexico City and declaring that she is a proud Guatemalan before she's an American.
Indeed, she's so proud of Guatemala that her family fled the country, settled here illegally, and have refused to return.
They'd rather break the law in this country than live in Guatemala.
That's how proud of Guatemala they are.
That's the inherent contradiction, of course, anytime an immigrant claims to be so deeply proud of the homeland that they desperately don't want to live in.
But the greater problem, of course, is that Congresswoman Ramirez has announced that she is more loyal to a foreign country than to her own.
Now, granted, her loyalty to Guatemala seems rather uninspiring and conditional.
She's loyal from a distance, but her loyalty to the United States is clearly even weaker.
She puts it second place to the country that her family have spent decades trying to avoid going back to.
Now, it should be uncontroversial to say that any elected representative who declares a greater loyalty to a foreign country than to his own country should be removed from office at an absolute minimum.
In Ramirez's case, it's obvious that she and her entire family should be deported.
If she loves Guatemala so much, she can live there.
The fact that Dahlia Ramirez wasn't on a boat back to Guatemala five minutes after she made those remarks is a disgrace.
In fact, we didn't have to put her on a boat.
She said all that in Mexico City.
All we had to do was lock the door and not let her back in.
That's what she deserves.
This woman is a disloyal, backstabbing, ungrateful Judas who never should have been granted citizenship in the first place.
And there's no time like the present to rectify that mistake, especially after her most recent comments.
Because yes, Miss Ramirez is at it again.
And this time, it was the Net Roots Nation Conference in New Orleans during a sit-down discussion on stage at the conference.
Ramirez was asked a very simple question.
It's a question that everybody running for elected office should be asked.
It's a question that every immigrant should be asked before we even think about granting them citizenship.
It is the question, I think.
It's the new what is a woman.
And that question is, what is an American?
And just as the left never figured out how to define the word woman and still don't know how to, they have just as much trouble, if not more, stringing together an even vaguely coherent definition for the word American.
So let's watch Ramirez as she tries to give it a shot.
I want to ask, it seems like a really broad question, but what does it mean to you to be an American?
What is it for me to be an American?
For me, being an American is the ability to dream, to love, to have dissent, to be able to organize and build a kind of solidarity that recognizes the good and the bad of the formation of this country,
that is willing to reckon with how we have used colonialism to harm others, especially in the Western Hemisphere, and begin to think about and imagine creatively what reparations look like, what building solidarity looks like, what bringing all of us together means.
To be an American for me is the ability to love and also push back.
The ability to be able to fight back and also build community.
And to me, this precise moment is a time for us to ask ourselves, who are we as Americans?
And let's be frank.
We haven't always been great.
And let's be frank.
Our history says a lot about what we've done and who we've done.
This country has never been great for poor people, for black people, for Indigenous people.
And so to be American for me is to be able to live into what we should be, not what we have been.
So Representative Ramirez says that being an American means that we can dream and love.
And also that we recognize all the evils of colonialism and all the bad stuff that America did in the past.
That's her answer.
And there are a lot of problems here.
First of all, Ramirez, what is this we stuff?
You're an anchor baby.
You became an American thanks to a paperwork loophole.
You have no ancestral ties to this country.
You don't love it.
You don't respect it.
You don't even like it.
You've made no effort to assimilate into our culture.
In fact, you hate our culture and our people.
Your family showed up here illegally.
Their very first act as residents, illegal residents of this country, was to break our laws and violate our sovereignty.
You and your family are squatters.
I mean, using the word we is like if a junkie broke into your house while you were on vacation, refused to leave, and then started referring to it as our home.
And now imagine that that was a home that your grandfather had built with his own hands, a home that you had lived in since birth, a home built and maintained by your family's sweat and blood and sacrifice.
And now some random vagrant who broke in through a downstairs window five seconds ago has announced that it's just as much his home as it is yours.
Now, you wouldn't take very kindly to that.
And we don't take very kindly to it either.
There is no we here, ma'am.
This is not your home.
And we know it isn't because if it was your home, you'd be able to speak at length and with real depth and feeling and meaning when somebody asks you what this home means to you.
But instead, when you were asked what it means to be an American, you started with third-rate Hallmark pablum about how being an American means that you can dream and love.
In fact, it's worse than Hallmark.
I mean, I wouldn't accept that answer if it was written on a July 4th greeting card.
I wouldn't accept it on a second grader's book report.
You are a grown adult and an elected representative of this country.
And the best you can do, in fact, the only positive thing you can Say about America is that Americans can dream and love.
Does that mean that people in other countries can't dream and love?
Is dreaming and loving unique to Americans?
Do your fellow Guatemalans never experience love or have dreams until they sneak across the border into our country?
I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't make that claim, which means that your definition of an American is generic and meaningless.
Being an American means that you can dream and love and laugh and look at pretty colors and have tickle fights.
If my five-year-old daughter said something like that, I'd be embarrassed.
You are an adult.
You should be deported just for saying that and for about a dozen other reasons on top of it.
But somehow it gets worse.
We learn that Americans are people who dream and love, whatever that means.
And also, and this is the only other qualification you provide, they are people who feel the requisite amount of scorn and resentment for the alleged evils committed by Americans in the past.
I mean, never mind the fact that the United States only had slavery for about 90 years while many other countries in the world had it for millennia.
Never mind the fact that white people, Americans and Europeans, were among the last to adopt slavery and the first to abolish it.
Never mind the fact that if we're supposed to feel bad about slavery, then literally every other nation, race, and ethnicity on earth should feel even worse.
Never mind the fact that there were countries in Africa practicing legal slavery as recently as the 1970s.
Never mind all that.
Also, never mind the fact that colonialism, which you decry, is the reason why you currently live in a civilized society where you don't have to worry about being kidnapped by a raiding party in the middle of the night and having your beating heart cut out of your chest to appease the sun god.
If not for colonialism in the Western hemisphere, there would still be slavery here today.
The entire hemisphere would still be locked in perpetual wars of conquest, and you as a woman would be the property to be bought, traded, stolen, used, and discarded.
Because that's how it worked among the indigenous tribes whose conquest and subjugation you lament because you're a stupid, ungrateful, historically illiterate, spoiled little child.
But as I said, never mind all that.
Even if we pretend that America has all these unique and terrible sins, which it doesn't, still, couldn't anyone anywhere in the world recognize those sins?
Couldn't anyone anywhere in the world dream and love and also hate America as you do?
If that's the qualification of being an American, then by your definition, anyone anywhere at any time at any given moment can be an American.
Now, considering there are a lot of people in the world who hate America, mostly out of envy like you, and considering that most of those people are presumably capable of dreaming and maybe even loving, that would mean that there are billions of Americans currently living in the world today.
And most of these Americans have never even been in this country.
The Middle East is now full of Americans, apparently.
The entire country of China is America.
North Koreans are all Americans.
Everyone's American.
Which means, of course, that no one is American.
It means that being an American actually means nothing.
And that is your real answer, isn't it, Ramirez?
You just don't want to say it out loud.
Being an American means nothing to you.
America means nothing.
America is nothing.
It's not even a country.
It's not a place.
It's not even an idea.
It's nothing.
It is at most in your mind a vague feeling, a fleeting sense of something or other.
There's nothing solid that defines it, you said.
Now, if I were to ask you what it means to be a Guatemalan, you'd have a lot more to say, wouldn't you?
You talk about the culture.
You talk about the people.
You talk about the pride you feel for Guatemala, the fidelity you have to it.
Guatemala is a distinct country to you.
In fact, every country on the globe that isn't predominantly populated by white people is a distinct country.
It's only white Western nations, America principle among them, that are not allowed to have an actual national identity.
That's what you really think.
You just won't say it.
I mean, you'll come really close, but you won't say it.
So let me answer the question, since you can't or won't.
America is not a feeling of love.
It's not a dream.
It's certainly not a set of Marxist claims about the evils of white colonialism or whatever.
America is a country.
It is a country with borders and laws and a language.
It is a people.
It is a culture.
It is a history.
It is a tradition.
It is also, in addition to those things, not on its own, but in addition, it is also a set of values, values rooted in Christian thought.
This land was conquered and this country was established by Christian men who did it for the glory of God and for the sake of spreading the gospel from sea to shining sea.
And they were very explicit about that.
That is America.
It is a nation.
It is a home.
It's my home, not yours.
It's the place where I was born and I will die.
It's where my children will have children and where their children will have children.
And all of them will love this country just as I do and celebrate its history and fight to preserve its culture and its traditions because I'm an American and I put no country before this one.
You cannot say the same because you are not an American.
You can't even convincingly pretend to be one.
So what is an American?
Well, to begin with, certainly not you.
That's why you are today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Godspeed.
you The D.C. Chief of Police struggles to understand English.
Immigrants are self-deporting by the millions.
And a Harvard astronomer warns that aliens might land in 115 days.
