Ep. 1674 - Could This Supreme Court Case DESTROY The Democrats Permanently?
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, we’ll talk about the absolutely massive Supreme Court case that might make it impossible for Democrats to ever win a majority in the House of Representatives again. More people should be talking about this. Also, the thugs who attacked Big Balls will not serve any time in jail. The View complains that Republicans won’t come on the show. Well I know one Republican who would love to come on. And NBC News shuts down its gay news and black news divisions. Why did they have those divisions in the first place? What did those divisions even do?
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1674
- - -
DailyWire+:
Finally, Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. TONIGHT at 7pm ET
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Dose Daily - Save 25% on your first month of subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout.
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion at https://preborn.com/WALSH
Everyday Dose - Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee+ and you’ll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts by going to https://everydaydose.com/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout.
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
- - -
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, Matt Wall Show will talk about the absolutely massive Supreme Court case that might make it impossible for Democrats to ever win a majority in the House of Representatives ever again.
This is big.
More people should be talking about it, and we'll talk about it today.
Also, the thugs who attacked big balls will not serve any time in jail.
Big surprise.
The view complains that Republicans won't come on the show.
Well, I know one Republican who would love to come on the show.
And NBC News shuts down its gay news and black news divisions.
Why do they even have those divisions in the first place?
What do those divisions do?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know, I was shocked to learn that the liver is actually the second largest organ in your body and handles over 500 different functions, yet we barely think about it.
Here's the thing uh about that, though, over 30% of Americans have a sluggish liver, and most of us don't even know uh until it's too late.
That's why I'm excited to tell you about dose for your liver.
This is not another supplement, it's a science-backed drinkable formula that was specifically created to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements while supporting digestion and keeping your body's natural filter running smoothly.
What really impressed me were the clinical results in a double-blind placebo-controlled study, dose for your liver actually lowered liver enzyme levels by 50% in over 86% of participants.
Again, this one shot is equivalent to 17 shots of tameric juice.
When you stick with dose over time, you can experience some incredible benefits: more energy, better digestion, reduced bloating, healthier liver enzyme function, less brain fog, even better sleep.
Plus, it's gluten-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, and vegan.
Save 25% on your first month of subscription by going to Dosedaly.co slash Walsh or Antric Walsh to check out that's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y.co slash walls for 25% off your first month subscription.
When Politico ran that hit piece about the supposedly racist and horrifying messages in that young Republican's group chat, which we discussed yesterday, I have to admit that I didn't imagine in my wildest dreams where the story would go next.
I had no idea that of all people, Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson would do something to help the Republicans who are being canceled in this uh smear campaign.
After all, Kentanja Brown Jackson, like every other Supreme Court justice appointed by a Democrat is a rabid left-wing partisan.
She also has an IQ of approximately room temperature in Celsius.
And despite all that, in her own special way, Kentucky Brown Jackson has uh stepped in.
She's uh come come to the rescue.
She's done the young Republicans a solid.
Now, of course, Jackson didn't defend the young Republicans on purpose.
This is a woman who probably can't spell her own name if we're being honest.
Like a caterpillar or an amoeba, she's barely capable of making any conscious decisions at all.
Instead, Jackson bailed out the Republicans inadvertently without even realizing it.
And she did it by drawing fire away from them.
She ran interference, if you will, by dropping the Supreme Court equivalent of an N-bomb.
It's as if she she read those private messages from the political article and said, these slurs are tame and unoriginal at best.
We could do much better or worse, depending on your perspective.
And so Katajia Brown Jackson decided during oral arguments at the Supreme Court to announce that, in her view, from a highly educated legal perspective, black people are disabled.
Just like people who are disabled on the Americans with Disability Act.
This is a line that no one in that highly offensive young Republican chat was racist enough to utter.
Katanji Brown Jackson really uh she was dreaming big on this one.
It's a line of reasoning that in any other context, you might expect to hear from I don't know, clansmen or Joe Biden.
But for Katanji Brown Jackson, it came naturally in open court.
This is from oral arguments uh yesterday.
Listen.
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities.
And so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able To access these buildings.
And it didn't matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary.
That's irrelevant.
Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible.
I I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here.
The idea in section two is that we are responding to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don't have equal access to the voting uh uh system, right?
They're they're disabled.
In fact, we use the word disable in Milligan.
We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.
They don't have access to the voting system, Kentante Brown Jackson says, referring to black people.
They're disabled.
Now, in a moment, we'll get into the context here and the precise legal argument that she's attempting to make, but if I'm an editor at Politico and I'm not, thank God, this would definitely be a cancel-worthy line.
You will not find any imaginary white supremacist, even in the fevered imagination of Merrick Garland, who would come up with content like this.
But but here we are.
We're being told that black people are basically disabled.
Now, of course, in this case, because Katanja Brown Jackson was allegedly making a legal argument in a case before the Supreme Court, we're supposed to look the other way and pretend that she was making an intelligent point.
Uh the problem, though, for Democrats is that uh no, Katanja Brown Jackson was not making an intelligent point.
And as a result, it looks like they're gonna lose this particular case.
The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court made that clear during these little arguments.
And uh, and and that's that's big news because this is not just any random case.
This is a big one.
If Democrats lose this case, as it appears they probably will, then the result will be totally catastrophic for the Democrat Party.
We're talking about a disaster, unlike anything in political history in this country.
I mean, it's not an exaggeration to say that this is easily one of the most important Supreme Court cases of all time.
It's a case that will finally destroy once and for all a fraudulent system that Democrats have relied on for decades to win dozens of seats in Congress.
They've been rigging the game for generations.
They've been stealing elections in plain sight.
And now it's probably coming to an end.
As a party, Democrats could be absolutely decimated by what's about to happen.
Which of course is great news.
So let's back up and talk at some length about the case that Katanji Brown Jackson was dealing with when she uh made that comment.
Uh here's how they're describing the case on MSNBC to give you some background and some sense of how they're panicking on the left for good reason.
Watch.
Tell me what was argued in front of the Supreme Court today and where it appears the justices were likely to fall.
So lawyers argued that Louisiana violated the Constitution when it drew a second majority black district in order to comply with the voting rights act.
For decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted the voting rights act to require these opportunity districts that have large uh black and brown populations so that these communities can elect the representatives of their choice.
But today, lawyers argued that that is unconstitutional, that taking race into account to draw districts, even if it is designed to boost representation for minorities, even if it is designed to remedy past discrimination against minorities, that that violates the equal protection clause by considering race and that the constitution must be colorblind.
And it sounded like a majority of the justices are leaning toward embracing some form of that argument, which would essentially dismantle the voting rights act as we know it today.
How do you know that that's the way that they were leaning?
All six of the Republican appointed justices uh indicated that they think that the voting rights act has essentially outlaved its usefulness.
If this does happen, if it is overturned, if your assessment of where they're leaning is correct, let us show what could be impacted.
This is a few maps showing VRA protected congressional districts that could be affected.
There's one in Louisiana.
There is another in Alabama, and there is another in Texas.
And those are the number of specific districts that could change.
You see Florida in there as well and a few other states.
So they're upset because the Voting Rights Act was one of the most significant pieces of civil rights era legislation.
And when I say significant, I mean that it's given the Democrat Party an extraordinary amount of unearned political power for many decades.
And now, based on oral arguments yesterday at the Supreme Court, it's likely to be struck down.
Now, on the surface, the voting voting rights act was a reasonable sounding law because it made it illegal to deny any American their right to vote or just discriminate against voters on account of their skin color.
And most people would agree with that basic idea.
The point at the time was to ensure that there wouldn't be a conspiracy to gerrymander congressional districts in such a way as to dilute the black vote.
For example, it would be illegal under the Voting Rights Act for a state government to intentionally draw its congressional district maps so that in every district, black people made up a very tiny percentage of the population.
And this could be a little confusing.
So let's break this down.
Let's say that a town is holding an election for dog catcher, and the winner of the election is the candidate who wins a majority of the town's five districts.
And let's say the town has 150 white people and 75 black people.
Now, under the Voting Rights Act, it would be illegal for the town's leadership to go out of its way to draw the district map so that all of the 75 black people are located in one strangely shaped district while the 150 white people occupy the other four districts.
That would be a clear effort to dilute the vote along racial lines and minimize the black vote so they don't have any impact on the outcome of the election.
And so all that seems reasonable enough.
The problem is that, like every other piece of civil rights legislation, the scope of the voting rights act has expanded dramatically over the years.
And this has happened through amendments and through court cases.
And now, as a result of all these changes, any state that doesn't have enough majority black districts is deemed to be in violation of the law under the theory of disparate impact.
In other words, even if there was no intentional discrimination in drawing the congressional districts, then courts will still conclude that the law has been violated if not enough districts are majority black.
So to go back to the dog catcher example.
Let's say that each of the five districts in the town has uh 15 black people and 30 white people.
In other words, there are no majority black districts.
The black people and white people are evenly distributed, and um, and let's say that happened by accident.
The town split the districts based on geography, and that's how the demographics shook out.
Now, in this case, without a doubt, a court would rule that the arrangement is illegal, even if there is a completely reasonable justification for the map.
There's no racial race has not been taken into account.
The mere fact that black people don't have a majority district by itself is supposedly evidence of discrimination, given that the town has a lot of black people overall.
And then once courts decide that a state doesn't have enough majority black districts, courts will order states to redraw their electoral maps so that more majority black districts would be created.
So we went from a law that's supposed to prevent states from coming up with districts to account for race.
Now the law is used to require states to do exactly that thing.
So a couple of years ago, that's exactly what happened to the state of Louisiana.
In 2022, the state drew a congressional map that had six districts, and only one of those districts Was majority black.
There was no evidence of intentional discrimination by the state of Louisiana or anything like that.
In fact, Louisiana made a strong argument that they had drawn the maps to maximize the political advantages for the Republican Party, not to exclude any racial group.
But under the Voting Rights Act, evidence of intentional discrimination isn't needed.
The mere fact that there was only one majority black district, according to the courts, was a problem.
So you're probably beginning to see the issue here.
Black people as a demographic group overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
And it's rational from a political perspective for Republicans to draw districts to dilute the strength of Democrat aligned voters.
And that's legal.
Both parties do it.
It is completely legal.
The only thing that's impermissible is to dilute black people's votes because they're black.
That's it.
So effectively, Louisiana is being called racist for doing something that they're legally entitled to do simply because it happens to have a disproportionate impact on black people.
So therefore, the state of Louisiana was ordered by a federal court to create a new majority black district because not enough majority black districts existed.
And we keep using this phrase, not enough majority black districts.
Well, who decides what's enough?
That's one of the big problems here.
It's totally arbitrary.
It's just some federal judge looking at a state and saying, you know, you should have more.
You know, you have you have two, you should have three.
Well, where did you come up with that number?
Came up with it.
It appeared to me in a dream.
That's what's been happening.
So in Louisiana, they had to go back and carve up the electoral map and lose a member of Congress in the process to create a new district where black voters were in the majority.
And here's what Louisiana came up with.
Okay, this is the new map.
You can see it on the screen.
This is obviously an absurd district.
If you're listening to the audio podcast, the new district stretches across the entire length of the state from northwest to southeast.
It cuts across urban areas, rural areas, swampland, and so on.
It looks like a stretch mark across the entire state.
It looks like the state of Louisiana just lost a bunch of weight on Ozempic or something.
It's extremely obvious that the people living in this district have nothing in common with each other except our skin color.
In other words, to remedy non-existent racism, the state of Louisiana was ordered by a federal court to draw a map that excludes as many white people as possible.
They were ordered to be racist to fight racism.
And that's what the voting rights act is all about.
Certainly, at least what it's become.
After Louisiana was forced by the courts to draw this district, to their great credit, several citizens in the state filed a lawsuit over it.
And now that lawsuit is before the Supreme Court.
And the question is: can states be forced to draw districts like that one to explicitly exclude as many white people as possible if the states don't have enough majority black districts.
In other words, is it acceptable under our Constitution to openly and flagrantly discriminate against white voters in order to remedy alleged past discrimination?
Now, right now it seems like the Supreme Court is going to answer this question correctly, which is with a resounding no, of course not.
And if that's ultimately the court's decision, Democrats will lose nearly two dozen seats in Congress immediately.
They'd have a very difficult time obtaining a majority in the House of Representatives ever again.
And that's because, as you saw earlier, Louisiana isn't the only state that has artificial majority black districts like this.
Several other states in the South do as well.
Here's CNN assessing the potential damage to the Democrats.
Listen.
Don't forget the Supreme Court is considering what could really be the end of the voting rights act, which would protect minority groups.
So you don't have a state that's half black, for example, that elects only one congressional member and everybody else goes to the Republicans that would represent that population in some way.
So if that is gutted, Democrats could lose 19 seats.
This would be a huge amount.
Now, to put this number in context, Democrats currently have 213 members in the House.
That's six fewer members than Republicans in the Voting Rights Act, if the Voting rights act is ruled unconstitutional, then Democrats will potentially lose 19 seats, more than three times the current differential in the House.
That's how important this civil rights era law has been for Democrats' political prospects as a party.
They've been completely dependent on this corrupt and obviously immoral law.
And obviously unconstitutional.
Here's another way to visualize the potential change to the electoral map.
As you can see, an awful lot of blue districts will be wiped off the map instantly.
And most people don't have any idea about this, but it's true.
The key to Democrats' political power is that they have fundamentally rigged the system.
Democrats have been rigging it for decades.
When Trump says that 2020 was rigged, he's right.
And every election before that was also rigged, stretching back decades.
That's why they've been trying to intimidate and assassinate Supreme Court justices.
They know that a conservative court could dismantle their entire party, and it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen.
And this is obviously the right outcome.
First of all, as the lawyers pointed out yesterday at the Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act, as it's currently being implemented completely ignores situations where white people are in the minority.
There are no congressional maps that are being redrawn anywhere in the country because a state doesn't have enough majority white districts.
And that's not because we don't have white people in the minority in many places in the country.
There are plenty of districts in California where white people are in the minority.
You know, that wasn't the case when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, but it's true now.
And yet the state of California is not being forced to redraw districts so that whites have a majority anywhere.
Instead, white people are told to enjoy their minority status as the street signs all transition to Spanish.
Here's another moment from yesterday's oral arguments where the deputy solicitor general makes exactly this point to uh Sonia Sotomayor.
That even white Republicans or white Democrats won't won't vote for black candidates.
Right.
But if these were white Democrats, there's no reason to think they would have a second district.
None.
And so what is happening here is their argument is because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district.
If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn't get a second district.
That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.
If these were white Democrats, there's no reason to think they would have a second district, none.
So their argument is because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district.
If they were white, we all agree they wouldn't get a second district.
That's literally a definition of race subordinating traditional principles.
That's what he said.
Now, no matter how much, no matter how much Democrats scream about equity and past discrimination, there's no getting around it.
Our Constitution does not permit open racial discrimination, period.
Even if you're supposedly doing it for the right reasons or whatever.
It is, they're not the right reasons, but even if you are, doesn't matter what your intentions are, The Supreme Court was willing to entertain the idea of affirmative action for many years, which is a disaster.
But we're past that now.
And the Supreme Court has passed it too.
We'll play one more clip from these oral arguments because it summarizes how weak the arguments from the left were and are.
Here's an attorney with the NAACP.
Listen to this.
That's right.
And in the state of Louisiana, that that analysis was conducted in the Nairn case, and it was clear that regardless of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates, whether they were Democrats or not.
And we know that there is such a significant chasm between how black and white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that even if there is some correlation between race and party, that race is the driving factor.
Her argument is that, quote, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates, whether they were Democrats or not, and therefore we need to have more majority black uh districts.
Now, now think about what they're saying here.
In effect, the NAACP is making the argument That unless black people get elected, then our democracy isn't working, and the Constitution is being violated.
Black people now have a constitutional right to be to get a lot of votes, apparently, as well.
Um, instead of like earning the votes.
They just have a they have a right to them.
Never mind the fact that white people vote for black candidates all the time.
Barack Obama was the president for eight years.
There are plenty of black politicians who hold elected office in the GOP.
Never mind the fact that with this argument, the NAACP is basically admitting that they see black people as a monolithic voting block that always supports Democrats.
None of their arguments make any sense under their own framework.
It's complete debacle.
And the Supreme Court recognizes that.
What we're seeing here pretty clearly is that Democrats are flailing around, desperately trying to preserve those 19 stolen seats in the House.
They're throwing every imaginable argument at the wall, and they're being uh, as usual, as dishonest as they possibly can be.
But it wasn't that long ago, you know, back during the Obama years when Democrats were more transparent about their goals as they related to the voting rights act.
Under the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ rejected a North Carolina town's effort to switch to nonpartisan voting, saying the change was, quote, likely to reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.
In other words, according to the Obama DOJ, black people just vote for Democrats automatically.
Out of habit.
So if the candidate was nonpartisan, then the argument was that Democrats that uh wouldn't be able to figure out who to vote for.
And therefore, in order to comply with the voting rights acts, states have to elect more Democrats.
That was the official position of the Obama DOJ.
They put it in writing.
They just admitted that the whole point of civil rights law is to benefit one political party.
Nearly two decades later, Democrats' arguments have become even more convoluted.
But they haven't become more persuasive.
Everyone, including the conservatives on the Supreme Court, see exactly what's going on here.
The Voting Rights Act, like so many other relics of the civil rights era, is anti-white.
It's morally wrong.
It's unconstitutional.
It's an impediment to America's progress.
The only beneficiary has been the Democrat Party, which has used the Voting Rights Act to rig thousands of elections.
And when they lose that power, which it seems is about to happen, then we'll see exactly what voters think of them.
We'll see if they really deserve to have those 19 extra seats in the House.
And nothing is more terrifying to these self-described defenders of democracy than that.
Nor should it be.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
In a world where misinformation spreads fast and the truth can be hard to find, Linda's story shows what happens when someone gets the support they really need.
When Linda found out that she was pregnant, she felt completely overwhelmed, even though she believed abortion wasn't right.
The fear was almost unbearable.
She didn't know who to talk to, where to go.
That's when she found a pre-born network clinic.
The people there didn't judge her.
They prayed with her, listened to her, and helped her to see past the fear that was clouding everything.
With their support, Linda chose to have her baby.
And uh pre-born, they do this all the time.
They help mothers in their most uncertain moments, giving them the clarity and compassion they need to choose life.
This is why truth matters now more than ever, because when a mother hears it, lives are safe.
Just $28 provides that truth through a free ultrasound.
And uh listen, this uh the fight, the pro-life fight very much continues.
It's the most important fight in the culture and has been for decades, and the work the pre-born does is indispensable.
And this is your chance to make a difference that uh echoes for generations to come.
Pick up your phone, dial pound 250, and say baby, that's pound 250, baby, or donate securely at preborn.com/slash wolf.
That's pre-born.com/slash walsh.
We all know that person who can't function without their morning coffee, swears by it, won't shut up about their fancy beans or whatever special creamer they add.
Then they spend the next two hours dealing with the bloating and stomach issues that come with it.
It's the same story every morning, sacred ritual followed by immediate regret.
No one's about to give up their coffee routine, but generally people also aren't thrilled about feeling like garbage for half the day.
Classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, except it's coffee, and it is destroying your gut.
That's the fact of the matter.
And that's where everyday dose comes in.
Everyday dose is coffee plus benefits.
They combine high quality coffee with powerful ingredients like lion's mane, chaga, uh, collagen, protein, and uh nootropics to fuel your brain, boost focus, and give you clean, sustained energy all day long.
It tastes like coffee, because that's what it is, but it has uh no downside, no crash, no jitters, just clean, sustained energy.
I always start my day with just a standard cup of coffee.
But now I use everyday dose and I can feel the difference in my energy levels throughout the day.
And uh also, by the way, the coffee is truly delicious.
I'm a bit of a coffee snob myself, I will admit.
And uh definitely past muster with me.
It's finally a solution that doesn't require choosing between your morning routine and not feeling terrible.
Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of coffee plus.
You'll also receive a starter kit with over 100 in free gifts by going to everydaydose.com slash walls for entering walls to check out.
That's everydaydose.com slash walls for 45% off your first order.
Okay, so uh day three on the new set.
Again, and I guess we nailed the set because I haven't seen a bunch of comments picking it apart and pointing out all the flaws.
And uh I know I can count on you guys for that feedback, which I do appreciate.
I do appreciate, I actually do.
You know, everyone else in this space, it seems like they have fans who are constantly like, you're so amazing.
Everything you do is wonderful.
And meanwhile, for me, my comments are always hey Matt, your shirt looks gay, comb your hair, your set is terrible.
You know, it's always like that, which I do legitimately appreciate.
Um, so but now I know that people do like the set because otherwise they tell me.
Like the set, they like the fish.
The fish is the main thing.
Um, which is great.
We begin with a report from the postmillennial uh and uh it says reading now the teen attackers who jumped former Doge employee Edward Corstein on August 3rd, otherwise known as Big Balls, have been sentenced only to probation.
This is despite the Trump administration's best efforts to clean up not only the streets of Washington, D.C., but also to deal with problematic justice system in the district.
Um, the two teens were able to avoid jail time after pleading guilty to simple assault.
Judge Kendra Briggs noted that as both were charged in juvenile court.
The goal is rehabilitation, not punishment.
Uh those teens, a boy and a girl from Hyattesville were sentenced to probation only.
Briggs said to one of them, the girl, I know you're not unfamiliar with trauma.
I don't disagree that the trauma you've suffered in life is how you ended up on U Street that day.
But I think you have to think about the trauma that you're inflicting on others when you engage in the activities that you all chose to engage in a couple of months ago.
And the girl's attorney said, I've seen a positive change just in the time that I've known her.
I've seen her making friends, seen her start work, I've seen her make real attempts at following the conditions in this court.
And then uh the attorney said that the girl is anxious and stressed while in court.
Well, if she's anxious and stressed, then yeah, well, then we have to let her go.
We wouldn't want the poor girl who viciously beat an innocent person.
Wouldn't want her to feel anxious.
We wouldn't want her to have anxiety, would we?
Um.
Because that's what they did, by the way.
They viciously beat uh these innocent people.
Now, you know, a lot of people are assuming that this absurdly lenient treatment from the judge is politically motivated.
She's doing this because big balls worked for Elon Musk.
And I'm sure that didn't help his case, but you know, politics, I don't think were the decisive factor here.
Even if big balls worked as a as anything, even if he worked as a manager at Target, okay, if he was manager big balls at Target, I think the result would have been the same because the determining factor is not politics.
The determining factor is race.
You know, the attackers are black, and that means that they are victims of a systemically racist system.
And that means that their crimes are the system's fault and they should be let go.
That's the logic.
That's why that's why the judge made this decision.
It's about race.
And you know, I get attacked all the time now as uh because I'm a woke right.
I'm a member of the woke right.
Whatever that still don't know what that means, but that's what I'm accused of.
There's been another flare-up of these attacks over the past few days.
And one of the things that makes me woke right, I'm told, is that I talk about race sometimes.
But this is why I talk about it.
You know, I make something about race if it is about race.
Taking the position that race is always irrelevant, it should never be talked about is asinine.
And there are some conservatives that that's what they want to do.
They don't ever want to talk about it.
They want to pretend that it's never relevant.
Um, that it's not a real thing, it's not relevant, we should never, it's and and that's that is ridiculous.
And and how how has that worked out, by the way?
Just pretending it doesn't exist and it's not relevant to anything and refute like how has that worked out?
How has that worked out?
Sometimes it's a very relevant fact.
And when we're talking about the problems in the criminal justice system, you cannot avoid talking about it.
If you want to actually say something true and useful, then you can't avoid it.
You know, one of the primary reasons why we have what is often called a soft on crime system is because of the belief, the doctrine that black offenders are automatically victims because they're black.
So yeah, race is a factor here.
If these attackers were white and the victims were black, then we all know.
We all know, we all know the sentence would not be nearly as lenient.
We all know that.
So don't pretend, don't, don't stop, stop, stop with the bull.
Just stop with it.
Um we all know that.
And if acknowledging that makes me woke right or whatever, then fine.
Fine.
But let's go back and look at this.
The section of the article where she says um trauma.
I know you're not unfamiliar with trauma, the trauma you've suffered in your life.
And, you know, they want to rehabilitate.
So, you know, she only committed those crimes because of the trauma that she's experienced.
If her life had been different, then she wouldn't have ended up on U Street that day.
Which of course is true.
I mean, that's true of anyone and any choice that any of us make at all.
I mean, you you could take anything that I've done in my life, good or bad.
If my life up to that point had been significantly different, I would not have done that thing.
If I grew up wealthy, then I would have made different choices.
I would have had different experiences.
If I grew up as a goat herder in Mongolia, then every choice I made in my life would have been different.
So you could take any criminal, any criminal, and say, well, if not for these events in your life, you wouldn't have done this.
That's always true.
That's just the nature of human existence.
And so what?
The fact is that your life is what it is.
You had the experiences you had.
If you suffered trauma in your life, I'm sorry about that, but it happened.
It happened.
It just happened.
Uh, nothing can be done about it now.
And you're still a human being who makes conscious choices.
And if you make a bad choice, you gotta be held accountable for it.
So going back and saying, well, I wouldn't have made this choice if X, Y, and Z hadn't happened 10 years ago.
So what does it have to do with anything?
It's like if somebody runs into your, it's like someone, if someone rear-ends you in traffic.
You know, they're on their way to go to Walgreens, they're running an errand, and they you're sitting at stop like the rear-end you, and they hop out of their car and say, no, no, no.
Well, if I hadn't had to go to Walgreens, this wouldn't have happened.
Well, yeah, but so I mean, right.
If you if you had been doing something else today, then this would not have happened.
But this did happen because you did this.
And so I don't see how retracing our steps and pointing out that if you had done something else, you would have done something else.
I don't see what that how that helps anything.
I don't see what relevance that has.
Um that's why these uh, You know, that's why these people should have to pay.
But the judge wants to rehabilitate instead.
And here's the thing about that.
I mean, obviously, you've heard my rant many, many times about this.
You know that in my view, the primary purpose of the criminal justice system is certainly not rehabilitation.
It's not even to segregate dangerous people from society, although that is part of the point.
But the primary point is punishment.
That's why we have the system to punish the guilty.
You know, that's justice.
And that's why these two people should be going to prison for a long time.
But rather than, you know, rather than monologuing about that for the nine billionth time.
Let's instead take this logic at face value.
Let's do that.
Let's take the judge at her word.
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that our primary concern should be the rehabilitation of these violent thugs.
Okay, well, guess what?
That's all the more reason to send them to prison.
That's all the more reason to severely punish them.
If I agreed that our goal should be rehabilitation, I would still be saying, send them to prison.
You know, this is the problem.
When these judges say, well, our goal is rehabilitation, not punishment, it's like saying that, you know, your goal in working out is to lose weight, not to break a sweat.
Which, okay, fine.
The goal is not to break a sweat.
That's not the goal.
But you aren't going to lose weight unless you do break a sweat.
The sweating is a necessary step towards the end goal, which is to lose weight.
And again, I'm making the argument on the judge's term here.
I happen to think that punishment should be the goal or one of the goals of the justice system.
But even accepting her logic, that would mean that rehabilitation is the goal, which means that in that case, the punishment is not the goal, but it is still the way to the goal.
Okay, it's it's the breaking a sweat part of it.
You cannot rehabilitate a criminal without punishment any more than you can have an effective workout without breaking a sweat.
That's the point.
And I think part of the problem is that we're using the wrong word here.
We talk about rehabilitation.
That's not really the right word.
That's not the, I mean, you rehabilitate a broken leg, you rehabilitate an abandoned building.
But in this case, when it comes to criminals, I think we're using the wrong R word.
The R word we should be using is repentance.
If a criminal is ever going to be suited to live in civilized society again, that will only happen if they repent.
That's what we're looking for.
And it's got nothing to do with how much community service they do.
That's why all this stuff about, oh, and we, as we've talked about the last few weeks, good behavior, community service, you know, being well behaved.
They did arts and crafts, they took some classes, they got their GED, right?
They got their whatever, they took some trade classes, they they learned how to change the oil in a car.
Whatever it is, um, great.
I like I don't care though.
Well, good for you.
Uh so good for you, but who cares?
Because you could do all of that and not repent.
You could do all of that because, well, you're bored in prison and you don't want to, and you don't want to end up in solitary confinement, so you try to behave yourself.
It's just, it's it's for your own self-interest that you, you know, exhibit good behavior in prison.
And a lot of these people, of course, are not even capable of acting in their own self-interest, never mind the interests of society.
But uh, if they are able to act in their own self-interests, fine, but that doesn't show that they've repented.
Did they repent?
Now, even if they did, if it's a serious crime, they still should be released from prison.
But when it comes to criminals who are going to be released, repentance is the only thing that matters.
Repentance should be the goal, not rehabilitation, not good behavior, not credits, not GEDs, not education, none of that.
Repentance.
That's the only thing that matters.
Have you repented?
Well, I can tell you right now, a violent criminal who assaults a random person has definitely not repented if they haven't even spent a day in prison.
Repentance requires suffering.
It requires to, it requires for you to experience a measure of the suffering that you have inflicted on other people.
There is no repentance without suffering.
Christ suffered and died for our sins.
He did the saving work through through him we have salvation.
But that doesn't let us off the hook when it comes to suffering.
That doesn't mean that we get to live a life free of suffering.
Quite the opposite.
He says, pick up your cross and follow me.
We have our own suffering that we must endure.
You can't repent without suffering.
You know, let's take an example.
Let's say that you've committed a horrible sin that isn't a crime.
Maybe it should be, but it isn't.
Like let's say you've cheated on your spouse, you've committed adultery.
Can you repent of that sin?
Sure.
And you must, you better.
But if you haven't experienced within yourself true agony, almost like unbearable pain.
The kind of pain where you almost aren't sure that you want to continue living.
That kind of pain, if you haven't experienced that, then you haven't repented.
You're not actually sorry.
If you haven't experienced in yourself the pain that you have caused in your loved ones, then you haven't repented.
And if you're not willing to accept the consequences of your sin, whatever they may be, then you haven't repented.
To repent of a sin of that magnitude is to be an agony.
It is to be in agony.
It is to experience a pain unlike anything you've ever felt.
Because that pain is the recognition of your sin.
That pain comes from your confrontation, your honest confrontation with your sin.
And if you aren't feeling that pain, then you haven't fully recognized the sin, which means that you couldn't possibly have repented of it.
You cannot repent without pain.
And repenting of a small sin means a small amount of pain that you're going to suffer.
Repenting from a very large sin means a large amount of pain.
If you haven't felt it, then you haven't repented.
By definition.
So going back to the criminal justice system, if you want repentance from criminals, the best way you can get it.
The best thing for them is to give them pain, to give them suffering.
And here's the thing if they've actually repented or been rehabilitated to use the language we use now, then they'll accept that.
They'll accept the punishment.
Like I already know that every criminal who's actually guilty and yet sits there in court trying to weasel out of the punishment.
I already know that none of them have repented.
Not a single one of them.
Literally every guilty criminal who has ever tried to avoid prison time has not repented.
And I understand it seems, again, very much in your self-interest to avoid prison time.
Seems understandable.
You don't want to go to prison even if you're guilty.
But if that's what you're doing, you haven't repented.
You can't claim, oh, I'm sorry, but don't send me to prison.
Well, if you're really sorry, then you would know you deserve to go to prison and you would welcome it.
And if you don't welcome the consequence, if you're not willing to experience it, if you don't recognize that you are worthy of it and you deserve it, then you haven't repented.
They do something wrong.
I had this conversation with one of my kids recently.
Did something wrong, said he was sorry.
And I said, Well, it's good you're sorry.
Here's your punishment.
And he said, but I said I was sorry.
Well, no, but apparently you aren't sorry.
Because if you were sorry, you would know you deserve to be punished.
No, see, what we've learned here is you're only saying you're sorry to get out of the punishment, but you're not actually sorry.
If you were actually sorry, then you would, then when I tell you what the punishment is, you would say, well, okay.
You're right.
I deserve that.
And yeah, it's very rare anyone responds that way to a punishment, which would what does that tell you?
It tells you that repentance is very, like it's it's hard.
And most people don't do it, and most people who claim that they have actually haven't.
Speaking of people who should repent, Joy Behar of The View says that she uh wants to have more Republicans on the show, but they're too scared to come on the show.
Let's watch that clip.
I think that we should have more Republicans on the show, but they don't want to come on.
They're scared of us.
Come on.
It's like Marjorie Taylor Green says that she finds the Republican men afraid of powerful women.
Well, that may be true of all the political persuasions.
But if they would come on this show and they can explain to us what they're trying to do to this guy.
Now, this is of course hilarious because literally every conservative commentator in existence would love to go on the View.
We've all made pitches to the View countless times.
There's a list of Republicans a mile long who not only would come on, but have asked to come on and have been turned down.
Because what they're really looking for, of course, is a Democrat light, is a Democrat in Republican skin suit.
And that's what they want.
And if they do actually have a real conservative on the show, which which has almost never happened, it'll be that'll be it.
Right?
If they were actually sincere about this, oh, we'd love to have these people on.
Well, that it is it's only gonna happen once.
Only one of us will get a shot because after that, it'll never happen again.
And that person will ruin it for the rest of us.
And if that's in, if that's the case, bearing all that in mind, let me just say to Joy Behar, I'm your guy.
Okay?
I'd love to come on.
I'm the one.
Pick me.
Put me in, coach.
I'm ready.
Okay.
Let's let's do this.
Now, you know, it's quite possible, I think that Joy isn't very familiar with me.
I'm sure she doesn't really follow conservative media very much.
I assume the other hosts don't, the producers don't.
You know, nobody involved with the view has any idea.
Probably don't listen to very many right-wing podcasts.
So let me, I thought this is a good opportunity to just sort of introduce myself and make my appeal.
And I'm hoping that somebody will show this clip to the powers that be over at the View, show it to Joy Behart.
And let me just say that Joy, first of all, I believe you.
Okay, I know a lot of conservatives are like, well, you don't really want a Republican on.
I I think that you do.
I because from what I can tell, watching the show every day, and I watch it every day, I'm a big fan.
Uh, and I have great respect for you and for the other brilliant women, women of the view.
And and I, and I know that you're sincere.
You would never say something that you don't believe.
And and um, and that's why I have so much I'm always talking about how much respect I have for you.
My audience will vouch for that.
They'll they'll tell you every time I talk about the View, the audience goes, Oh, there's Matt, there's Matt again talking about his favorite show that he loves and respects so much, you know, it's kind of a it's a thing, it's like an inside joke now in the audience.
And um, you know, you and I have disagreements.
I'm not gonna deny that.
But if you have me on the show, it will be a respectful dialogue.
Um and listen, I I'll admit you guys are brilliant.
I'll probably lose, okay?
Can I admit that?
I'll admit it.
I'm not afraid to admit it.
Just being honest, I don't like my chances.
When I watch this show and I watch you guys dealing with the issues, I think, man, they know their stuff.
And I'm a little nervous to come on, but but geez, I I think it would be such a fun dialogue.
It's all about the dialogue, you know?
That's that's what I always say.
It's just about it's about the dialogue and it's about having fun.
Those are the two things that matter to me.
And you know, I'm I'm a very warm and positive guy.
I'm very um friendly.
Uh there are I don't get into anger, shouting, sarcasm, not my style.
Like to keep it light, I like to have uh fun, keep it positive.
So let's just try a couple of segments.
You know, I'll come on next week, we'll do a segment or two.
If we don't have fun, I'll leave.
You know, but it but I think we'll have a blast.
That's what I think.
I think afterwards we'll all go out and get a cup of coffee and a pastry.
Okay, that's actually what I think is gonna happen.
And you know, there are a lot, there are a lot of conservative commentators I've seen who are responding to that clip of you, Joy, and they're saying, oh, hey, have me on, I'll destroy you.
I'm not saying that.
And you shouldn't have any of them on.
You know what?
Forget about those people.
Have me on, let me come on the show.
I'm the nicest one out of all of them.
I'm the I'm the friendliest, I'm the nicest, and um if I'm on the show, it will not turn into anything contentious or or or uncomfortable.
It's not my thing.
Contentious, uncomfortable, not my thing, not my vibe, not my style.
And can I also tell you these other conservatives that are pitching your show?
The other conservatives on the company I work for have pitched you also.
And I like all these guys, but but just between you and me, they're pretty extreme.
But let's be honest.
Very right wing.
You need someone who's who's moderate, who's down the middle, and that's me.
I'm that guy.
I'm more of a, you know, I'm like a Bill Crystal Republican.
I'm a I'm more of a Michael Steele.
I'm a, you know, I'm like a Colin Powell type Republican.
That's my that's my thing.
I'm an ad I'm an Adam Kinzinger Republican.
You know.
So that's it.
You want to have those other guys on, that's fine too.
I would say, but let me go first.
Let's get warmed up.
Let's get warned.
I think you should have a guy like me on.
It's a little bit easier.
It's gonna be, it's gonna be much much less contentious, much less.
And uh, and so you just kind of get into the flow of it.
And if you want to have more Republicans on after me, then you can or not, but really it's up to you.
And so um anyway, I'm just hoping we can get this in front of the view producers and hosts, and um they don't know much about our world, so I'm just kind of a little bit of an introduction.
That's it.
And um I'm hoping we can have this conversation.
I really am.
I think it's gonna be productive.
Okay, let's get to the daily cancellation.
With rising costs everywhere, we tend to overestimate what things actually cost, including life insurance, where 72% of Americans guess way too high.
Policy Genius makes finding affordable coverage simple.
So your loved ones have the financial protection they need.
See, you can see if Policy Genius can uh help you find 20-year life insurance policies starting at just 267 dollars a year for a million dollars in coverage.
Policy Genius transforms the typically overwhelming process of shopping for life insurance into a straightforward experience.
With just a few clicks, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find coverage that fits your needs and budget.
Their team of licensed agents guides you through every step, handling paperwork and answering questions without any sales pressure at all.
The platform clearly displays all your options, coverage amounts, prices, and terms, eliminating confusion and guesswork.
As a country's leading online insurance marketplace, with thousands of five-star reviews, Policy Genius has earned trust by helping customers find policies perfectly suited to their unique situations, making this important financial decision surprisingly simple.
As a father and husband, I know that I'm uh that uh that you know, in life insurance is very important.
And the peace of mind comes with it as well.
Knowing your family will be financially protected and able to maintain their quality of life, even if you're no longer there to provide for them.
Secure your family's future with Policy Genius.
Head to Policygenius.com/slash Walsh to compare top life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you can save.
That's Policy Genius.com slash Walsh.
October is packed with new releases on Daily Wire Plus, and tonight is a big one.
The premiere of Friendly Fire.
Join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Claven, unscripted, unfiltered, no moderators, nothing off limits, live at 7 p.m. Eastern Plus.
Special appearances from Isabel Brown and Jeremy Boring with your first look at the Pendragon Cycle.
It's all kicks off tonight.
Don't wait, join now and get 40% off a new annual membership with code FAL40 at DailyWire.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, we began the show by talking about how some of the worst and most destructive relics of the civil rights era are now finally being eliminated.
So uh to the end of the show, to end the show on yet another happy note for the daily cancellation.
We have some similar news.
Some of the worst and most destructive relics of the BLM era are now also meeting that fate.
And um, here's the wrap with the report: quote, NBC News eliminated its teams dedicated to covering issues affecting black, Asian American, Latino, and LGBTQ plus groups as part of its layoffs of about 150 staffers on Wednesday, according to two sources familiar with the matter, a significant calling as the Peacock Network separates from its sister network, MSNBC.
The cuts mean that the verticals, NBC BLK, NBC Asian America, uh, NBC Latino, and NBC Out will no longer have dedicated teams bolstering their coverage.
The total reductions which affected NBC News' entire news operation make up about 7% of MBC News's newsroom of about 2,000 staffers.
Yes, although you may not have realized that NBC had entire news divisions with names like NBC BLK as an NBC for black people and black stories.
They also had a whole division for gay people called NBC Out, in addition to NBC Latino, NBC Asian.
They had segregated news divisions for different identities, essentially.
Strangely enough, there was no NBC Indian or NBC Midget or there wasn't even an NBC furry, which I thought was interesting.
So they didn't cover every single demographic group in the country with all these different uh news divisions, but to be fair, they made a good faith effort.
And now that effort is being dismantled piece by piece.
But as we all know, great ideas like great minds are often only appreciated when they're gone.
And therefore, to be sure that I wasn't missing anything here, I thought it'd be a good idea to take a look back at the extraordinary journalism produced by some of these highly specialized NBC news divisions.
In particular, I took a close look at the work product of NBC BLK and NBC Out over the years.
Just to get a sense of what will be missing going forward.
And to set the stage, and bear with me here, I'm gonna show you this dash cam footage from a traffic stop in Camden County, Georgia from back in October of 2023.
And I promise it's highly relevant.
Watch.
I'm telling you that right now.
Why am I getting tasked?
Because you are under arrest for speeding and reckless driving.
I'm not driving.
Nobody was hurt.
How was I speaking?
You passed me doing 100 miles an hour.
Okay, so that's a speedy ticket, right?
Sir, tickets in the state of Georgia are criminal offenses.
I don't have a ticket in Georgia.
You do now?
Why?
You passed me doing a hundred miles an hour.
I'm not going to jail.
Hands behind your back.
Yes, you were going to jail.
Hands behind your back.
Put your hands behind your back!
*Clears throat*
Yep.
yep That was footage from the detention of a black man named Leonard Cure two years ago to the day.
It happened on October 16th, 2023.
As you saw, he was pulled over for reckless driving.
And then rather than comply with the officer, Leonard attempts to strangle him to death on the side of the road.
So it's not the ideal response.
The officer then struggles with cure as Cure taunts him and tries to kill him.
And then finally, to save his life, the officer fires one shot, killing Leonard Cure.
Now that's the background.
Now, if you had to guess, how did NBC Black or NBC BLK or whatever you want to call it cover this particular story?
What angle did they take?
Well, here's the headline.
Quote My Soul aches.
Mother speaks out after exonerated son is killed by Georgia police.
The Georgia officer who fatally shot Leonard Kiore has been placed on administrative leave.
So they don't mention the fact that Leonard Kjore tried to murder the officer or that the officer fired in self-defense.
Instead, the headline states that Kior had been exonerated and that his mother was devastated by his death.
Now they don't tell you how he was exonerated or what that means exactly, but the clear thrust of the headline is that this is a very sad story, and the cops may have made a grave mistake.
Now let's read on.
Quote, Leonard Kjord died Monday morning during an altercation with a Camden County Sheriff's Deputy on Interstate 95 near the Georgia, Florida border.
The death came three years after he served 16 years in prison for an armed robbery conviction he was exonerated of.
The 53-year-old had been visiting his mother in Port St. Lucy Friday and was returning home in Metro Atlanta.
Mary Cure recalled the last conversation she had with her son early Monday morning before they parted ways.
He said, I love you and I'll see you soon.
That's the last I heard from.
She said, I was uneasy every time he left because I was like, will he get a traffic stop?
Is he going to be a victim of that?
Mother said.
For the time that he was released, he was never set free.
She continued.
Lived in constant fear.
Is this going to be the day that they're going to lock him up, beat him up, or kill him?
I live with that.
That is torture.
And well, you know, there's a.
You don't need to worry about traffic stops at all if you could just refrain from trying to kill the officer.
That's the one weird trick.
The one weird weird trick to survive a traffic stop is to not try to kill the police officer.
I've been pulled over a bunch of times, and I've used that trick every time.
I've had to remember it.
You know, I have it written down in my notes.
I have it written in my phone in notes.
Don't try to kill police officer if he gets pulled over.
And so I just go check it, and I'm like, oh yeah, right.
Check.
And then I survived the traffic stop.
It's crazy how that works.
There's also a quote from Cure's brother saying, quote, he really should be alive.
The officer hit him with a baton and tased him twice, as a matter of fact, but he did not have to shoot him.
Now, eventually the article gets around to saying that a fight ensued between Cure and the officer without making it clear that the cure was clearly the instigator of the fight.
Now it's not hard to see what's going on here.
MBC Black existed for one reason to stoke racial resentment and open racial warfare in this country.
It was explicit propaganda of the worst imaginable kind.
They deliberately ran cover for violent black felons, even when their crimes were caught on camera, in order to spread the false narrative that innocent black people were being hunted by the police.
And by the way, not that it's the most important part of the story, but Leonard Kure probably did commit that armed robbery that sent him to prison for 16 years.
He wasn't really exonerated.
You know, what happens in virtually all of these cases, which it's like not talked about enough, but when somebody is supposedly exonerated decades after the fact, what almost always happens is that a left-wing court applies unrealistic standards of evidence to an ancient case long after the witnesses are gone, DNA evidence, you know, long after DNA evidence could have been collected.
And then they let the criminal loose and claim that it's an exoneration.
And really, it wasn't, it was not an exoneration, it was just equity in action.
In this particular situation, QR received more than $800,000 for his alleged wrongful conviction.
That's nearly a million dollars.
And if this guy were really an upstanding citizen who had been wrongfully accused, he'd take that huge sum of money and go live a normal life.
But guess what?
That's not what this guy did.
Just three years after getting out of jail, he tried to murder a deputy on the side of the road on camera for no reason.
And he was driving 100 miles an hour, endangering everybody's life on the freeway.
And then he tried to commit premeditated murder.
That's the guy who was exonerated for committing armed robbery.
Right.
You know, this is almost as if that, you know, he was like a violent felon all along.
It's almost as if the vast majority of these exonerations are total nonsense.
But let's not pick on MBC Black too much, even though everyone who worked there deserves to rot in the unemployment line.
As I mentioned, NBC Out was also dismantled this week, and that's very good news because, like their counterparts at NBC Black, the folks at NBC Out were also engaged in the business of spreading hoaxes on a full-time basis.
Here's one example from a couple of years ago.
Quote, it's been 25 years since Matthew Shepard, a gay 21-year-old University of Wyoming student, died six days after he was savagely beaten by two young men and tied to a remote fence to meet his fate.
His death has been memorialized as an egregious hate crime that helped fuel the LGBTQ rights movement over the ensuing years.
Now, notice the sleight of hand in that paragraph.
It's actually pathological.
They don't say that Matthew Shepard was actually killed in a hate crime because they know he wasn't.
He was killed as part of a meth deal gone bad, and one of his killers was a former gay lover.
That's been widely reported at this point.
NBC Out knows that.
Everybody knows that.
So instead of directly lying, NBC Outwrites that Shepard's death has, quote, been memorialized as an egregious hate crime.
In other words, they're saying, you know, basically, people said it was a hate crime.
And even though we know that's wrong, we're going to repeat the lie without providing any context.
Again, this is a news division at a news network.
And it clearly exists to spread hoaxes and propaganda, and now predictably left-wing media outlets are crying about these layoffs, saying it's a sign that white supremacy is on the rise or whatever.
Now, I could give dozens more examples, of course, of the propaganda produced by these NBC divisions, like the time an NBC black pundit demanded that the FCC punish anyone who misgendered, meaning correctly gendered so-called trans individuals.
Or I could talk about the time NBC outpushed a Catholic school to hire a lesbian lacrosse coach.
Instead of going through all that, I'll just say that we need many, many more layoffs like this.
And it looks like we're going to get them.
That's the good news.
Over at CBS News, the new boss, Barry Weiss channeled Elon Musk and asked every employee to send a memo documenting what they do all day.
And here's how the CBS Union responded quote We're aware of the email that was sent asking CBS employees to provide information about their jobs.
Many of you have expressed concern to us about the purpose of the email, and we share those concerns.
we suggest you refrain from responding.
Yes, they're horrified about the prospect of telling their boss what they do all day.
The union is directing the employees not to respond because this is such a grave intrusion.
As you might have guessed, mass layoffs are now reportedly planned at CBS News as well.
And presumably they're going to start with the people who refuse to answer that email.
So very soon, CBS News, the same outlet that doctored an interview with Kamala Harris to help her campaign, then paid out millions of dollars because of it, is going to be gutted from within.
We need to see many, many more stories like this.
Along with the Supreme Court case we talked about in the open, it's much needed.
Much needed good news.
A sign of real progress in the culture.
People can see through the identity-based slop and the partisan propaganda posing as news, and they're tired of watching it.
And that is why NBC Black and NBC Out, along with the CBS News employees who don't want to tell their boss what they do all day, are all today canceled.
But I'll do it for a short day.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Music Hey there, I'm Daily Wire Executive Editor John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the host of Morning Wire.
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
