Ep. 1671 - It’s Time To Crush The Leftist Insurrection Once And For All
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Trump Administration is considering invoking the Insurrection Act. I’ll explain why they should do exactly that. Also, a peace deal in the Middle East. And the Supreme Court seems poised to strike down bans on so-called “conversion therapy.” Plus, the childless cat ladies of the world are very upset with Taylor Swift. There is a giant rift in the Swiftie club. A civil war is brewing.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1671
- - -
DailyWire+:
Go to https://dailywireplus.com to join and get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout.
Mark your calendars — Friendly Fire premieres October 16th at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively on DailyWire+.
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
ARMRA - Receive 30% off your first subscription order when you go to https://armra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout.
Leaf Home - Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at https://leaffilter.com/WALSH
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice
- - -
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
Today in the Matt Wall Show, the Trump administration is considering uh invoking the insurrection act.
I'll explain why they should do exactly that.
Also, a peace deal in the Middle East is happening, and the Supreme Court seems poised to strike down bans on so-called conversion therapy.
Plus, the childless cat ladies of the world are very upset with Taylor Swift.
There's a giant rift in the Swifty Club.
A civil war is brewing.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
We'll be right back.
You ever wondered why elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers are using Armra colostrum?
It's because Armor Colostrum packs over 400 natural nutrients that work at the cellular level to build muscle, speed recovery, and boost performance.
No artificial stuff at all, just pure fuel for whatever you're tackling.
Think of it as your body's natural defense system upgrade.
It strengthens your immune barriers throughout your entire body while supporting your gut wall system for better digestion and less bloating.
Plus, it helps your body absorb nutrients more effectively and keeps your metabolism running smoothly.
You also notice the difference in your skin's radiance thanks to natural antioxidants and collagen boosting compounds.
Plus, there's a reason elite athletes have been using colostrum for years.
It enhances endurance and speeds up recovery so you can bounce back faster.
Bottom line, ArmaColostrum gives your body comprehensive support to thrive naturally.
We've worked on a special offer from my audience.
Receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to ARMRA.com slash walsh or enter Walsh to get 30% off your first subscription order.
That's ARMRA.com/slash wolf.
Ever since Donald Trump took office, federal judges have undertaken a concerted effort to suspend the power of the executive branch, unlike anything else that's ever happened in this country.
The words judicial coup do not even begin to describe what's been going on.
In every case, whether they're blocking the Trump administration from deleting trans propaganda on federal websites or from terminating federal employees or from deploying the National Guard or a million other examples, these individual unelected federal judges have determined that the President of the United States had somehow overstepped his authority under the Constitution.
And this is obviously an unsustainable situation.
If judges are going to overturn every single significant decision the president makes, then the judges have effectively become president.
Eventually, something has to give.
And that's why a lot of commentators, myself included, have called on the White House to simply ignore these rulings.
Other than impeaching and removing judges, which is impossible given that Democrats have too many votes in the Senate, ignoring courts that go rogue seems like the only real option.
Andrew Jackson did it before, and Donald Trump, who happens to be a big fan of Andrew Jackson, can do it again.
But there is actually one additional approach that the Trump administration could take before we decide to simply do away with the court system altogether.
And based on recent reports, it looks like the White House is seriously considering this particular route.
I'm talking about invoking the Insurrection Act, the federal law that permits the president to federalize the National Guard and deploy U.S. troops for law enforcement purposes in U.S. cities.
And when the Insurrection Act is discussed in the press, of course, it's described as the mother of all power grabs.
Democrats pretend that it hasn't been invoked more than two dozen times in this country's history, most recently to suppress the L.A. riots.
They don't want to talk about the fact that several presidents, including some of their heroes like JFK and FDR, all invoked the law, mainly to enforce racial integration.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Republicans point out correctly that the Insurrection Act is necessary to put down lawlessness in cities like Portland and Chicago.
Lawlessness that's reached almost comical levels of absurdity As police supervisors have made it clear that their officers should not assist federal agents who are being actively attacked.
So here's audio if you haven't heard yet from the uh Chicago police scanner.
This is just one example.
Dispatchers told officers not to assist federal agents who are being surrounded by a violent mob.
Listen.
They were saying that they were being surrounded by that large crowd, and they were requesting the police for not sending waving off all the cars heading to 39th place in Cat C. Okay, so important.
And again, for all the units that um we called to go over that way.
Uh 39th police in Kenzie, if you could just hold off.
911-913, uh 923-924, 933-934.
Um, just disregard that.
Um, 39th place in Keski.
They were requesting the police, we're not sending.
That's the decision that's been made by local law enforcement in Chicago, or more accurately, by the Democrats who run the city.
It's an admission, which they also put in writing, by the way, that local police are unable or unwilling to maintain law and order.
That is and always has been a valid justification for invoking the insurrection act and sending in the U.S. military.
I don't need to recount all the scenes of violence and anarchy because you've probably seen hours of it at this point.
We're all familiar with it.
ICE officers are being shot at, they're being ambushed on the streets, run off the road, boxed in, pelted with objects.
On and on and on.
Rioters are blocking federal vehicles in the roadways, mobs are parading through the streets, preventing people from going where they need to be.
The mayor of Chicago, meanwhile, is establishing ice-free zones in a clear effort to interfere with federal law enforcement.
Watch.
Today we are signing an executive order aimed at reigning in this out of control administration.
The order establishes ice-free zones.
That means that city property and unwilling private businesses will no longer serve as staging grounds for these raids.
Now, the red line has always been state and local governments uh can decide not to actively assist federal officials, but they can't decide to actively interfere with federal officials either.
That's how federalism works.
It's how our whole constitutional system works.
But the city of Chicago and many other cities have decided to break this covenant.
And they aren't hiding their intentions.
They're announcing it.
As a result, no reasonable person can deny what's happening or that the insurrection act is not only a valid uh response, but probably the only available remedy to stop the mayhem, as many conservatives have said.
But there is one other major benefit of invoking the insurrection act, which uh a lot of people aren't talking about.
It would finally force federal judges to openly declare their rebellion against the executive branch.
The Chicago Police Department has just explicitly declared its own rebellion, as you just heard.
And if a single federal judge tries to stand in the way of Donald Trump's uh invocation of the insurrection act, then the judiciary would be doing the exact same thing.
The judges couldn't hide behind legalese or strained interpretations of the law in order to justify their fraudulent decisions.
If they attempt to overturn Donald Trump's use of the insurrection act, the only way they can do it is by admitting that they're waging open warfare on a duly elected branch of the government.
And here's why.
The insurrection act, by design, leaves no room for judges or lawmakers to intervene.
The law is based on the president's constitutional authority to act as commander-in-chief of the military, as well as his responsibility to ensure domestic security.
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution states, quote, the Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
And when the insurrection act, Congress awarded the president the unilateral authority to decide when an insurrection exists and how to deal with it.
You could pull up the law and read it for yourself.
Here's the relevant portion.
Quote, whenever the president considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any state by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into federal service such of the militia of any state and use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
That's it.
I mean, that's the law of the land.
It's the law.
Passed by Congress.
There are no qualifiers.
There's no provision that the president's declaration of insurrection has to be reasonable in the eyes of Congress or a judge or anybody else.
There's no provision that puts a time limit on the president's authority.
There's not even a definition Of the word insurrection.
It's just up to the president.
Now, if you're a blue-haired professor at, say, Berkeley, Berkeley, you might hyperventilate about this.
Surely you might say there have to be checks and balances somewhere, but but actually, uh, no.
When it comes to this, there don't have to be checks and balances.
At some point, when you're dealing with a problem like this, one branch of government has to be the final authority.
And there's no way to avoid that.
It's as inevitable as the laws of physics, and the founders understood that.
Yes, they created an intricate system of government in which the three branches of government serve as checks on each other.
That's the ideal situation.
That's how things are supposed to work.
But the founders also understood that if things break down and one branch of government decides to check another branch into oblivion in an attempt to destroy the entire country and our democratic system of government and to override the other two branches, then there has to be a fail-safe.
There has to be a, you know, break glass in case of emergency type of safeguard.
And the insurrection act, which again is based very closely on uh the constitutional text, is that safeguard.
The insurrection act says if things get really, really bad, then the elected president of the United States, who has more of a democratic mandate than any court or any lawmaker, can use the military to restore order.
To be clear, undoubtedly, left-wing judges would try to issue injunctions anyway, not denying that, but the point is that, like the Chicago Police Department, they'd have to be very, very transparent about what they were doing.
The Insurrection Act doesn't give them any room to weasel out of it.
They'd have to state essentially that they don't care about the Constitution or laws passed by Congress, that they're declaring open warfare against the executive branch, and that they are asserting their authority over the executive branch.
And additionally, many of these judges, and you know, all of the left along with them, are on the record already stating, of course, as we've heard countless times, that January 6th was an insurrection.
Several courts, including the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado, attempted to kick Trump off the ballot in the last election on the theory that he had committed an insurrection.
So they've already gone out of their way to declare in no uncertain terms that a group of old ladies, you know, wandering around the Capitol for a few hours constitutes an insurrection.
Their standard is that if a few windows are broken and someone sits on Nancy Pelosi's desk and steals her lectern, then an insurrection has taken place.
And if that's the standard, then there's no conceivable way, morally or logically, to argue that cities like Portland and Chicago and Los Angeles aren't in a state of open insurrection against the United States.
If a mob loitering inside the Capitol for a few hours counts as an insurrection, then coordinated and violent attacks on law enforcement, endorsed by state and local officials, certainly qualify.
They have boxed themselves into this corner.
There's no way around it.
And that's why the arguments from the left are growing increasingly frantically frantic and incoherent.
On social media at the moment, various left-wing figures are doing their best to stoke outrage because they suspect a declaration of insurrection is coming.
Here's uh Robert Reich, for example, who claims to be some kind of professor at watch.
Trump wants to invoke the insurrection act to punish anyone who opposes him.
If you take a look at what's been going on in Portland, it's been going on for a long time, and that's insurrection.
I mean, that's pure insurrection.
I know all of this is frightening, and I don't want to unduly alarm you.
But you need to be aware of this imminent danger.
It's unfolding very, very rapidly.
He's following a four-point plan that you need to know about.
Step one is to deploy ice into so-called blue cities owned by Democrats.
These masked and armed ice agents are wreaking havoc on American cities and violating due process.
They're arresting people outside immigration courtrooms.
They're raiding homes in the middle of the night and detaining children and adults, including American citizens.
Trump wants to stoke actual violence, which would make it easier for him to unleash the final step in his plan, which is step four, invoke the insurrection act.
The insurrection act empowers a president to federalize the National Guard and use the U.S. military to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or armed rebellion against the government.
Everything done by Trump has been a preamble to invoking this act and being able to unleash troops against his perceived political enemies who oppose his regime in advance of the 2026 midterms.
It would be the ultimate step in Trump's authoritarian power grab.
This is what their argument is going to be.
They're going to claim that Trump wants to round up his political opponents and anyone else he doesn't like.
And of course, that's precisely what Joe Biden's administration actually did.
They jailed every Trump aide and ultimately Trump himself in order to prevent a democratic election from taking place.
And Joe Biden didn't need the insurrection act to do any of that.
He just did it.
Well, people like Robert Reich won't do, even though it would solve the whole problem, is admit what they're really interested in.
In the first Trump administration, the argument from the left was that he put kids in cages and separated families or whatever.
That argument never made any sense.
Families are separated all the time when the parents commit crimes.
But it's what they went with.
And this time around, their argument is even more tenuous.
They're saying that ICE agents are the modern day Gestapo because they're rounding up illegal aliens while wearing masks and making lawful arrests in public spaces.
They say ICE is arresting American citizens, even though there isn't a single case of ICE deporting an actual American citizen anywhere.
It has not happened.
There is a case of an illegal alien taking her children with her as she was deported, which is obviously a completely different scenario.
But uh there's they've yet to have a real case of an actual American citizen being being uh rounded up by ice.
What's really going on here, although no one on the left would want to say it, is that the Democrat Party demands open borders.
They do not want any federal immigration enforcement of any kind.
That is their platform.
But they never say it out loud explicitly because they understand how unconvincing and unpopular that is.
So leftist judges hide behind various legalese while Democrat activists make outlandish claims with no basis, in fact.
That's what they're forced to do.
That's what's been happening for the last 10 months.
And as a result, we have arrived at the absolute limit of checks and balances in our system of government.
And if courts and local governments want to keep pushing things, they'll rapidly find out that under our constitution, they will lose any one-on-one battle with the executive branch.
That's how our constitution was structured.
It's how the insurrection act was structured.
Now, in an ideal situation, of course, this fail-safe wouldn't be necessary.
We shouldn't have to rely on a final line of defense like this, but at the moment we do.
Democrats are daring the administration to invoke the constitutional response to their lawlessness and depravity.
And in response, the administration has no other choice but to follow the guidance of the founders and send in the military to quell an insurrection that has rapidly spiraled out of control.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Fall's a great time of year with the trees changing and bold colors all around, making everything look sharp and rugged.
Autumn leaves look nice until you know they end up clogging your gutters, causing headache and potential damage.
With Lee Filter, America's top gutter protection company, you can enjoy the season without worrying about cleaning them out ever again.
Right now, you can schedule a free inspection and uh and estimate, plus save up to 30% on your entire purchase at Leaffilter.com/slash Walsh.
Look, you could keep messing around with those cheap DIY fixes from the hardware store, but let's be honest, how many times do you really want to climb a ladder and scoop out gunk with your bare hands?
Leaf filter is the permanent solution built with patented technology that only lets water uh through, no gaps, no holes, no excuses.
Every installation comes with a lifetime no-claw guarantee, so once it's on, you're done.
And here's kicker.
Leaf filter pro doesn't just slap it on and leave.
They'll actually clean, realign, and seal your gutters first so everything works the way that you know it's supposed to.
Over a million homeowners already trust it, probably because they're tired of wasting Saturdays cleaning out gutters.
Don't spend the season worrying about gutters, schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash walsh.
That's L E A F filter.com slash walsh.
That's a free estimate, free inspection, 30% off at L E A F. Filter.com slash Walsh.
See representative for warranty details.
Let me paint a picture for you.
It's Tuesday morning.
You reach for your supplements and vitamins and empty bottle.
Great.
Now you gotta spend your lunch break driving to some overpriced vitamin store because you forgot to reorder again.
Or, and hear me out, you could just make it automatic.
I became a balance of nature preferred customer because honestly, I have better things to do and uh than remember when I'm running low on supplements.
Every 28 days, they just show up like clockwork, no brain power required.
And here's the part that's actually pretty sweet.
You get the lowest price they offer every single time.
No coupon hunting, no flash sale nonsense, just the best price automatically and shipping totally free every month.
Nice to see a company that doesn't nickel and dime you to death.
But here's what really surprised me you get your own personal health coach, an actual human who checks with you and helps keep you on track.
They look at the whole picture, mind, body, spirit, pretty solid approach, if you ask me.
Look, consistency, it's uh not about being perfect, it's about showing up every day.
And the easiest routines are the ones you don't have to think about.
Go to balance of nature.com and get 35% off your first orders per customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice that's balance of nature.com.
Promo code Walsh, your future self will thank you.
Daily Wire report, praise for President Donald Trump has started to roll in after Hamas and Israel announced that they have agreed to the first phase of the peace plan to end the war in Gaza, potentially create a path to a Palestinian state.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the first to credit Trump for the plan's framework that Hamas and Israel negotiators had just reached an agreement on.
Netanyahu posted through steadfast resolve, powerful military action, the great efforts of our great friend and ally President Trump.
We have reached this critical point.
I think President Trump for his leadership, his partnership is unwavering commitment.
Former Hamas hostages and the families of the hostages still trapped in Gaza hailed the agreement, which, if carried out, would see the release of the remaining 20 hostages still alive in Gaza by Monday.
Okay, so we'll see how this plays out in the coming days and weeks.
But but right now, I mean, this is a monumental achievement by Donald Trump.
He uh has billed himself as the peace president.
I think he's lived up to that building billing, certainly.
He deserves as many people have, at least on the right have said, he deserves he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Um certainly deserves it far more than Obama did, who won it for doing absolutely nothing.
And this is why, you know, even when I have criticisms of the current administration, and I'll voice those criticisms whenever I have them.
But ultimately, there's no question that this is this is the greatest uh presidency of my lifetime, hands down.
I mean, there's that's not really close.
And um, granted, pretty pretty pretty low bar, but but even so, um, you know, Trump has accomplished some monumental things just in the first nine or ten months of his administration.
And really, if if all Trump ever did, if all if his entire term, the only thing he did was shut down the border, which he has, and get a peace deal in the Middle East, if that if those were his only accomplishments, that would still be a you'd count that as a success.
But he's done this in like nine months, and those are not the only two achievements, even in that time.
So very impressive.
And uh, this is also America first, by the way.
You know, it's better for our country if the fighting stops, obviously.
Um, so I guess we'll just wait now.
We'll wait now for that uh for that uh Nobel Peace Prize to materialize.
Um, so the Supreme Court is considering conversion therapy bans.
And this is the ABC News report.
In a case at the heart of the debate over how best to care for young people struggling with their sexuality or gender identity, the use of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday signal that state restrictions on what licensed counselors can say in conversations with adolescents might run afoul of the First Amendment.
The justice heard oral arguments in a dispute from Colorado over the state's 2019 law banning so-called conversion therapy for minors or efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity during talk therapy treatment.
So the media is very concerned because uh you can tell in the oral arguments which way this is heading.
And yeah, conversion therapy bans are done.
Uh the Supreme Court will rule against them.
And they should.
And you know, we've we've we've talked about this, but but just to review.
First of all, it is obviously a violation of your free speech rights if you are told by the government that you cannot express certain thoughts or ideas during a therapy session with your client, with your patient.
Um if that's not a violation of free speech, then the concept of free speech has no meaning.
If the government is giving counselors a list of approved opinions and thoughts that they're allowed to express during a session, then there is no free speech.
Free speech is dead.
So you can't say, oh, but you do have freedom of speech as long as you stick to what's on the list here.
Here, here are the here's the actually it's not even a list.
Here's the one thing.
When someone comes to you and they're struggling with their quote unquote gender identity, here's the one thing you're allowed to say to them.
Here's the list.
There's it's There's one thing on it.
And as long as you stick to that list with one item, you have freedom.
You have the freedom to do exactly what we say.
That's basically the argument on the other side.
And that argument, of course, doesn't work.
And it will be rejected by the Supreme Court.
It should be, it will be, uh, it must be.
And this is why we really need a workable definition of free speech.
I mean, what kind of speech is included under the free speech umbrella?
We're told that this is a hopelessly complicated question, but it really isn't.
I mean, here's the definition.
Or here's what it should be.
Free speech is any speech that expresses a point of view.
If you are communicating a point of view, an opinion, a belief through speech, then that is free speech.
That is speech, and it's free speech, and you should have the right to do that.
Period.
And I think defining it that way, in that simple way, really, it it rules out the kinds of things that you want to rule out, like a threat.
Okay, if I say, I'm gonna kill you, that's not really a point of view.
That's not a uh an opinion exactly.
That's a threat.
It's it's not, I'm not giving my opinion, I'm telling you what I'm gonna do.
An opinion, the opinion version of that would be if I said, I hope you die.
Now you shouldn't say that, it's a bad thing to say, but that's an opinion.
I mean, that's a perspective.
You're allowed to say that.
People say that to me all the time.
I'm quite familiar with those with that kind of expression.
I hope you die is uh is is that's an yeah, that that should be that qualifies as free speech.
Saying, I'm going to kill you is not free speech.
That's that is just you stating what you're gonna do.
Telling someone else, hey, go kill that guy, again, not speech.
I think I think the distinction is easy to see.
Um this also rules out uh defamatory speech.
If speech is just expressing a point of view, expressing opinion, expressing a belief, then defamation that also rules out defamation, like defamation is not free speech.
But what is the what is a defamatory speech?
Defamatory speech is when you're saying something that's not true about someone and you know that it's not true.
That's that is defamation.
But that's not you expressing a point of view.
The whole point is like you know that's not true, it's actually not your point of view.
You're lying because you're trying to defame the person, and that's not included.
Everything else, everything that expresses a point of view, an opinion or a belief should be allowed.
And um, this would also rule out pornography.
Pornography is not the expression of a point of view.
You're not giving your opinion or expressing a belief when you do pornography.
So that would be out.
But you see how this really clarifies things, and as long as you're expressing, communicating a point of view, then uh it you should be covered under free speech, and it really is not hard.
It really isn't.
So, what about so-called conversion therapy?
Well, that clearly is the expression of a point of view.
When a client sits down and says, I think I'm a woman, and you as the counselor say, no, you're a man, that is the expression of your point of view.
It's a, and it's the correct point of view, by the way.
When they counsel you to overcome same-sex attraction, again, they're expressing a point of view, expressing a belief.
Uh I, you know, we act like this is so difficult to understand, but it really isn't.
Although in this case, the most salient, the most important point isn't that uh so-called conversion therapy is free speech, though it is free speech.
It's that so-called conversion therapy is also true speech.
You know, they're outlawing forbidding therapists from saying something that is true.
So if a male sits down and says, I'm a woman, for you to, as the therapist to say, no, you're uh a man, and let's help you to accept that fact.
Not only are you expressing a point of view, but it's the correct point of view, which is the most important thing.
And um, and on top of all that, of course, banning conversion therapy makes no sense because all therapy is conversion therapy.
The whole point of therapy is to convert the patient, convert the client From one mode of thought to another mode of thought.
You know, one way of thinking to another way of thinking.
The point is supposed to be specifically to convert them from a disordered way of thinking, this is the way it's supposed to be, to a properly ordered way of thinking, from from dysfunction to function, from confusion to understanding, from uh despair to uh contentment, from unhappiness to happiness.
That's the point of therapy to convert in that way.
The therapist is trying to help change the way the person thinks about themselves and the world.
And if that doesn't need to be changed, then they shouldn't be in therapy.
If therapy has any use whatsoever, then that would be the use.
When you have someone who has a dysfunctional way of thinking, and you are helping them to come up with a functional way of thinking.
Someone has a has a uh a mistaken view of themselves or of reality, and you're helping them to have a have a correct understanding.
So to ban conversion therapy is to ban therapists from doing literally the only thing they should be doing.
It it would be like banning, you know, podiatrist from uh touching someone's foot.
It's like, well, what else am I what else am I supposed to do then?
This is the only reason why this job exists.
And uh that's also why, of course, affirmative care is such an absolute joke, such a farce.
Um affirmation is the last thing you need in therapy.
And uh, you know, it it it it is uh the desire to have your your dysfunction affirmed is one of the things that the therapist is supposed to be helping you to overcome.
Uh now yesterday we played the video of Katie Porter from former former Congresswoman, current candidate for governor of California.
We played the video of her melting down in the face of a total softball interview.
Well, when it rains, it pours for poor Katie.
And now there's another video that's come out.
This is from this is from a couple of years ago.
This is back when she was in Congress, and she was doing some kind of interview, some kind of Zoom call, I don't know.
And she chews out one of her aides for wandering into the shot and does this on camera, and now a couple of years later, two or three years later, this video has uh made its way to the public.
Here it is.
You ready for stat number two?
I am all right.
Six hundred and thirty two dollars.
632, which is how much you save in fuel and maintenance costs when you replace your traditional car with an EV with an electric vehicle.
So I drive, I lease a Chevy Bolt.
It is the best car that I have ever owned.
I just plug it into the garage, three whole prong plug, and I never have to go to the gas station.
That's awesome.
And $632 is real money.
And I know here at UCI, we have a national fuel center research center, and they're also doing work on how to make electric vehicles affordable, including for low and moderate income people, working moms, single moms like me, people who really could benefit from an extra $632 in their pocket.
And it's also not just the individual savings, but it's also the total savings for our economy.
So I'm on the oversight committee, you might know.
And that is where we did a study recently this fall in September, and what it showed is if we don't um electrify our transportation sector, that we're gonna lose more than half a million Californians dying prematurely to air pollution and other problems, and the state could lose four out of my shot.
I want to tell me that that's actually incorrect.
It's not that it's electric vehicles, it's that if we don't need a commitments under the Paris climate report.
Okay, it does okay.
You also were in my shop before that.
Stay out of my shot.
Okay.
I'm gonna start again with um electric vehicle savings money.
Perfect.
Okay.
Now, in fairness, I will say, uh, she was in the shot.
So, you know, you can't wander into the shot like that.
But her reaction was obviously unhinged and disrespectful.
And again, I go back to two things.
First of all, just how sheltered and coddled Katie Porter has been as a Democrat female congr Congresswoman, um, that you know, and that not only explains why she treats people that way, but also why she felt comfortable lashing out like that on camera.
I mean, she was sitting there on camera, cussing out her staff.
Obviously, not live, whatever they were doing, it was not a live shot.
So she had total confidence that she could do that, and the video would just never come out.
And if it was leaked to the media, that the media would just bury it for her.
And uh, and that's what they and that's the level of confidence she had.
And you know what?
If she had stayed in Congress, I think what happened is she ran for Senate and lost, so she decided not to run for re-election in uh as a representative.
She ran for Senate and she lost.
If she hadn't done that, if she just stayed where she was, then that video never would have seen the light of day.
And she also wouldn't be catching any flack from the left for uh the interview that we played yesterday.
And that's because you know, she would have been useful to the left in her position.
And so they would run cover for her.
But now she's running for governor and she's running against other Democrats, and that makes her an inconvenience.
And uh so the moment they decide that you're not useful anymore, same thing happened to Andrew Cuomo.
He was the the left, I mean, it's weird to think of.
There's a lot of things from the last five years that are weird to think about now, especially from 2020.
But back in 2020, he was the he was not only was he in the good graces of the left, but he was their hero.
I mean, he was they wanted, they wanted they actually wanted to give them a Nobel Peace Prize.
They were he was a he was their their favorite.
And um, but as time went on, he became less useful to them, and so they decided to uh throw him to the wolves.
And same thing's kind of happening with Katie Porter.
Should have just stayed where she was.
But the problem is that these people, of course, have egos the size of Jupiter.
They all think they should be president.
You know, Katie Porter wants to run for president, we can assume.
This is all part of her plan, become governor and then make and then try to run for president.
Well, she doesn't realize Kamala didn't realize this, uh, you know, a lot a lot of these people don't realize it, is that if you're a miserable, charmless, like viscerally repugnant, uh unpleasant person, there's just a limit to how far you can climb in politics.
It's not doesn't, it doesn't, it's not gonna kill your political dreams entirely.
You can still have a long career in politics.
Uh you can get into Congress, definitely.
You know, Congress is a congregation of some of the most repulsive and tiresome people who have ever lived on the planet.
I mean, you could be a really awful and just like the kind of person that nobody likes or could ever like.
You could be the biggest loser on the planet and still get into Congress.
You don't need to have any political skills, you don't need to have any interpersonal skills, any social skills to make it into Congress.
You don't need to be smart, you don't need to be skilled at all.
I mean, look at you know, Jasmine Crockett.
So then you get all these like dull, tiresome bastards who make it into Congress, and then they come to believe that they're the second coming of JFK or something.
So they try to keep climbing.
And the problem is that generally speaking, to get any higher to become governor, certainly to become president, you know, that's where you have to actually have something.
Like you, you've got to be mildly attractive.
You have to be a mildly attractive person in some way.
You have to be somewhat appealing, at least.
And that's where it all falls apart.
Also, by the way, I wanted to mention on this Katie Porter thing that um as this video has been going around of Katie Porter, uh, the video from yesterday where she's chewing, where she's uh storms out of an interview.
There are also these AI videos that are also making the rounds.
And they're it's a joke.
Like people are posting it as a joke, saying, Oh, well, you didn't, you haven't seen the full version of that of that video, and then the AI video is Katie Porter like lunging at the reporter and strangling her or something, you know, or slapping her.
That's clearly AI.
But and it, you know, it's it's kind of funny for what it is.
It's funny because it's obviously AI, and the people that are posting it are not claiming otherwise.
They're not actually trying to fool you into thinking that she assaulted the reporter.
It's just a joke.
But look, not to hop on this um up on this soapbox again.
Um being on a soapbox is the whole point of the show, I suppose.
But I I look at those videos and I think, well, that's funny.
But it it is not going to be funny soon.
We're we're getting to a point where this is not gonna be funny anymore.
Because you look at those videos, they're still they're still pretty clearly fake.
They look a lot more real now than they did two years ago.
And we are rapidly getting to the point.
I mean, within the next two years, certainly, probably within the next year, where these AI videos are not are no longer distinguishable, where they are indistinguishable from reality.
We are we are very, very quickly getting there.
We are almost, I'd say we're about 85% there.
I think, you know, just like roughly looking at these these AI videos, I think they're about 85% of the way there.
There's about 15% of kind of uncanny valley that you still see in these videos.
Once you get to 95%, now you've got problems, and then eventually you're at 100%.
And what does 100% mean?
Well, 100% means that we will be at a point where anyone who doesn't like you can go and put in a prompt and generate a video of you doing or saying something awful, the worst kinds of things you could possibly imagine, and they could just post it on the internet, and it will be so in, it'll be totally indistinguishable from a real video completely.
And so there will be no way for you to prove that it's fake.
And even if there is, like the best you'll be able to do is is if someone's really an expert, if you have some kind of program you can run that detects.
But by that, by that point, the damage will be done reputationally.
And there will always be, you know, once those kinds of videos are circulating and you've got a video of yourself out there, like that.
Even if you say, Oh, it was AI, there's always gonna be in the back of people's minds.
Like they so we're very visual, we're visual creatures.
And once that here's what I'm saying that even, you know, of course you're gonna come out and you're gonna say it's AI.
And there'll be some people who will believe you.
But we're so visual that once we're able to create that visual of you doing, right?
Like that someone makes a video of you uh drowning a cat in a river or whatever, or something even worse than that.
When it looks totally real, now you've been in people's minds, once they've seen it, they've seen you do it.
And even if they know you didn't really do it, they've still seen you do that.
And so this association kind of is locked in, even if you don't want it to be.
And uh that's where we're heading.
Like this is gonna happen.
And we all know it.
And what and what is so crazy to me is that nothing is being done at all to stop this.
We we have just accepted that this is gonna happen.
And um nothing is being done.
Now you could say, well, there's nothing we can do.
I look we haven't tried.
We haven't tried to do anything.
So we're just waltzing into this future where anyone who hates you can generate any video that will be totally indistinguishable, and it'll just be out there forever.
I mean, do we understand what a nightmare that is?
Uh we're not doing anything though.
Uh there are no laws that are seriously being proposed.
Like no one is doing anything.
No one is trying to do anything.
At least we could at least try.
We could at least try to put some barriers in place.
Something, anything.
Because what's gonna happen is three years from now, we're gonna, it's gonna be chaos.
I mean, three years ago, it's gonna be the scenario I just described.
And people are gonna be looking around like, why didn't we try to stop this?
We can't stop it now.
Why did we do nothing at all to try to do anything to prevent this very like it's it's we all know that it's happening.
We can see the train.
We can see that we're on the train, we can see the tracks going over the cliff.
Maybe we're too close to stop it, but we could at least try, and we're not trying.
And uh that, I mean, it's it's terrifying.
It should terrify everybody.
I don't know.
Um, and of course, if you're just a normal private person, uh you're it won't happen to you first.
Like first, it's gonna be it's gonna hit the politicians, you know, it's gonna be a thing.
Like political campaigns are gonna be destroyed by by these AI videos.
That's gonna be the first thing.
And then it's gonna make it the public figures.
It's gonna start with public figures who are partisan, who have enemies.
So, you know, uh me and and people in in my line of work.
Uh, it's gonna hit us real hard.
And um, and and in that case, we're pretty much screwed because there's a whole group of people, 50% of the country is going to be incentivized to to believe whatever the video is.
And um and so that's gonna be a bloodbath.
But then, you know, pretty quickly, and this is all gonna happen very quickly, pretty quickly, it makes it down to just like normal people.
Um, who, you know, if you have anyone who doesn't like you, and a lot of everyone does, you know, um, it it'll make it there.
And I'm uh and I'm I'm I'm I'm the most worried about that.
Because at least if you're in my position and that starts happening, you have a megaphone where you can say, oh, this is fake.
But what happens when you're just a normal person who works a normal job and someone creates a video like this and just puts it out there?
What do you do?
How how do you address it?
You know, you don't have the megaphone.
So uh I'm very worried about it, and uh I wish that we were doing something about it, but we are not.
This month, Daily Wire Plus members are getting more than ever before from USS Cole Al Qaeda's strike before 9-11 to the 1916 project, the Halloween thriller nefarious, hiding in plain sight, it's another one October is packed with must-see premieres.
Plus on October 16th, the debut of our new live show, Friendly Fire, join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Claven, and special guest Isabel Brown for live debates, uncensored disagreements, and unfiltered discussions.
And Jeremy Boring stops by with your long-awaited first look at the Pendragon cycle.
Don't miss a moment, join now and get 40% off new annual memberships with Fall 40 at DailyWire.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, last time I weighed in on the single most important luminary of modern times, which of course is Taylor Swift, it was to discuss the news of her engagement with NFL player Travis Kelsey.
More specifically, if I recall correctly, I spent about half of the daily cancellation mocking a CBS reporter who giggled like a schoolgirl as she broke into live coverage to announce the engagement.
Didn't exactly seem like professional behavior by the reporter, and I spent roughly 10 minutes making that point.
That was about two months ago.
And now belatedly, I have to do something I almost never do, which is admit that I made a mistake.
I must issue an unequivocal apology to that giggling CBS reporter.
Take it all back.
I had no way of knowing that in retrospect I'd realize that her response was actually the single most dignified way that a self-described Swifty could handle the fact that Taylor Swift was planning on getting married and having kids.
Everyone else in this illustrious community would ultimately take the news far, far worse.
It's not an overstatement to say that at the moment there's a full-fledged mutiny among Swifties now that her new album called The Life of a Showgirl has just been released.
This album contains a few songs apparently about Taylor Swift's personal life, uh focusing on her engagement, as you might imagine.
And the fans uh many of them are not taking it well.
And and their response actually tells us something important about our culture at the moment.
So we'll we'll start with this TikTok, which features a uh small segment from the most controversial song on the album.
And as the song plays for our audio podcast listeners, there's a white woman who scowls through the whole thing, along with a caption calling the song racist propaganda.
So here it is, watch.
Outro Music.
Now, in case you couldn't make it out, Taylor Swift is singing to her fiance here, and she says that she wants to have a couple of children And get the whole block looking like you.
This is one of those lines that, unless English isn't your first language, is a pretty clear meaning.
It means that she wants to have a lot of children with Travis Kelsey.
And then they'll look like him, because that's the way genetics work.
You don't need to be a master wordsmith to decode it.
Throughout the vast majority of world history, no one would take any issue whatsoever with a line like that.
But Taylor Swift's fans are taking an issue with this line, and uh it's not hard to see why.
The the complaints about white supremacy are obviously disingenuous.
It's like a car backfiring or an animal that's vomiting involuntarily.
They don't know what to say, so they're just throwing words out there.
They're really unhappy because like tens of millions of other women, they've been told from birth that they can find fulfillment without starting a family, simply by pursuing a meaningless corporate job and whatever, doing yoga until they turn 65 or something.
And now their icon, their their goddess is telling them in her mid-30s that actually fulfillment does come from starting a family.
It's like the ultimate rug pull.
And they just have no idea how to process this.
Watch.
Not to be the friend that's too woke, okay, but on wishlist when Taylor's like, they all want their dogs that they call their kids, mm-hmm.
That's fine.
But I want a baby.
I want a baby with you.
Like what why is the shade?
Why the shade?
Weren't you just for like the proud cat mom?
Like childless cat mom, childless cat lady.
I'm so confused.
I'm confused.
I want the whole neighborhood looking like you.
Like in the like, I'm just so like in this climate, you want the whole neighborhood looking like you like Travis.
The childless cat ladies are definitely confused.
There's no doubt about that.
Uh, a guy using the name Wayne on X cataloged a bunch of similar clips like this.
Frankly, it deserves hazard pay for rooting through all this, but uh he did, and here's another one.
I have subjected myself to listening to Taylor Swift's new album, and the song Wishlist, yeah, that's trad wife propaganda.
That is straight up trad wife propaganda.
Why else would you put a song about wanting a whole block of kids looking like you while we're going through the apparently thrown by the fact that during the election, Taylor Swift put out a post on social media attacking JD Vance, who had mocked childless cat ladies, and Swift stood up for these childless cat ladies and called herself one.
And to make matters worse, as far as we know, Taylor Swift didn't take uh money from Kamala's campaign to post that, although every other celebrity who supported Kamala was on the Democrats' payroll.
And in this case, it would have been a lot more dignified if she had posted that for, say, uh, you know, a few million dollars, but she just posted it, I guess, on her own.
But in any event, this is a major theme of these enraged TikToks.
They're all really upset that Taylor Swift, who once called herself a childless cat lady, is about to pop out some kids.
She's betraying the childless cat cat lady community.
This is a this is an act of betrayal.
She's a traitor.
Uh, watch.
Taylor Swift is handing the conservative agenda on a silver platter to the masses.
And before I go any further, and before you argue with me, you cannot convince me that the master lyricist of our generation, akin to Shakespeare, the Easter egg master of our generation, um, is not aware of what her entire optics and lyrics and album and everything is giving at this very moment.
He went through this entire thing with Trump, right?
About how she and her fan base did not like being called uh childless cat ladies.
And and now Taylor is calling y'all childless cat ladies because she's about to pop out some kids.
Uh and you know what's coming next?
Taylor Swift line of baby product.
You too could pop out some kids in a live in a racially homogenous neighborhood.
I could spend the next 5,000 years going through TikToks like this, where the women are clearly upset that the rug has been pulled from under them.
In a way, this is similar to the fury that trans identifying people have when they realize that actually they can't change genders.
They've been fed a lie for most of their lives, and then when they realize that they've been deceived, uh they lash out.
But instead of documenting any more TikToks where women lash out, because I think you know, you probably get the point.
Let's move on to this video from an especially deranged psychopath on TikTok.
And admittedly, this is a creepy video, hard to watch.
Because you know, you get some real serial killer vibes here.
But if you listen long enough, it gets to something of a point.
Watch.
Am I the only one who's getting trad wified from Taylor Swift's new album?
Like in the song Wish List, she's talking about how everybody wants these material markers of success, but not her, though.
She just wants a man.
And she wants to have all of his kids so everyone around her will look like him.
And what she really wants is a house in suburbia that has a basketball hoop in the driveway for her kids.
She doesn't want to have sex.
She's hypnotized.
She's under his spell.
It's not that she wants this.
She just can't consent.
And then you have the line, his love was the key that opened my thighs, which reminds me of a lot of slut shaming I heard growing up of, oh, you should only have sex with people you you really love.
It shouldn't be about your own sexual pleasure.
And that line is so gross to me because it's his love that opened her thighs.
It's not that she's choosing this, it's that he loves her and he wants her, so he's going to have her.
And it's so interesting to me because Taylor's entire brand is for being a relatable white girl.
But the average white girl isn't relating to Taylor right now.
The average white girl is probably living paycheck to paycheck, is struggling to buy groceries because grocery prices are up and rent prices are up, and they're losing their rights rapidly.
And it seems like on this album, Taylor isn't even trying to be relatable anymore.
If you listen to a hysterical women long enough in general, you'll eventually find out what they're really upset about.
Might take a while for them to get around to it, but usually they do.
And this video is no different.
She she's she's not upset about slut shaming or trad wife vibes or how Taylor Swift is hypnotized or whatever.
That's what she begins by talking about.
But at the end of the video, as you just saw, she admits her real problem with Taylor Swift.
Her real problem is that from an economic perspective, it doesn't seem possible for many young people to buy a home and start a family.
That's the root of the outrage in this case.
Here's another example from a viral post on social media quote.
Not to be dramatic, and I'll be a Swifty to the day I die, but I actually cried tears this album at how shockingly bad it was.
Not one single song I liked.
I prefer her heartbroken.
Well, there you have it.
I mean, the first problem is that you thought that her music was good in the first place, so then you're shocked when it's bad.
Those of us who've always known that it was bad, it it's not, it's not we're not shocked by it.
We're not gonna, you know, we're not, we're not we're not gonna cry over it.
It's just it's exactly what we expected.
But the line there is very telling.
I prefer her heartbroken.
Which that's a great thing to say, isn't it about someone that you claim to like?
You're you're a Swifty, like you admire this woman.
But you want her to just be heartbroken and devastated her whole life.
I love you so much, I want you to be heartbroken.
I want you to hate your life.
That's how much I love you.
But everyone can see why that is.
If you're a young woman who can't find uh a husband, uh, which is more common now than it's ever been in the history of this country, then um, you're going to be heartbroken.
You're probably going to view family as a luxury.
You're going to fall into the trap of believing that only billionaires like Taylor Swift can possibly get married and have kids, and then you're going to become bitter and borderline psychotic.
Every single criticism of this new album ultimately boils down to this.
It's displaced rage.
These women want to start families.
Like in in innately, they they do want to start a family.
Like at at their core.
Because, you know, zillions of years of human biology demanded.
The sexual revolution and woke politics cannot change human nature.
It's always there.
You'll always feel that pull.
And they're resolving this tension between what they really want and what they've been told to want.
By lashing out at Taylor Swift.
And by the way, gay liberal men are doing the same thing for what it's worth.
Watch.
An album about like an idealized form of like what is a typical American family, ideally, of like living in a suburb, being in a monogamous relationship.
Those are Republican virtues.
I mean, I'm not saying they're bad things, but they are things that Republicans and conservatives and sometimes liberals use.
And ignoring that they are used in that way in our political climate is not like a a gotcha moment.
It is a lack of media literacy.
So yeah, Taylor Swift's new album is clearly political, right?
Even if it's not intentionally so, and it's political in exactly the politics That likes to hide itself, which is conservatism.
Further, doing this album, which is basically like a victory lap that is bad.
All people are literally being disappeared by a Gestapo.
There is a genocide going on and rising fascism in America is distasteful.
It is distasteful to release an album that and have not commented on any of the bad going on that celebrates how ideal and good your life is.
I'm not saying you can't do that, but you have to do so awarely.
And failing to do that, yeah, does normalize the state of existence you're in right now.
Again, the political diatribe is a smoke screen.
It couldn't be any more transparent.
Nobody's mad at Taylor Swift because she's not singing songs about illegal aliens getting rounded up in home depot parking lots.
People are mad at Taylor Swift because she's laid waste to a founding myth of feminism, which is that women are happiest when they abandon the family, demonize men, and worship themselves.
Millions of young women are now seeing in their own lives exactly where feminist ideology leads.
They're watching other people find happiness while they produce impotent, deranged TikToks that launch a thousand wellness checks.
This is where feminism was always going to lead.
And now, even though they were warned for many years, millions of women finally understand that.
And that is why everyone complaining about Taylor Swift's new album on TikTok, instead of looking for the actual root of their own unhappiness, is today canceled.
That will do it for the show today and this week.
Talk to you next week.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
The LA fires might have been left-wing terror too.
Hassan Piker allegedly abuses his dog.
Wow, it's always the ones you most expect.
And California Democrat Katie Porter crashes out on CBS.
