Ep. 1679 - The Brazen Attack On Your Second Amendment Rights You Probably Haven’t Heard About
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, there is a major attack on the Second Amendment unfolding right now, and one of the largest gun manufacturers in the world is going along with it. Also, Abigail Spanberger finally answers whether men should be allowed in women’s sports. If you can call her babbling nonsense an answer. And have we finally experienced the dumbest moment in the history of MSNBC? It’s a high bar, or a low one, depending on how you look at it.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1679
- - -
DailyWire+:
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.
Finally, Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available at https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
Equip Foods - Equip’s Prime Bar is a real food protein bar with nothing to hide: just 11 ingredients and 20g of clean protein - made from ingredients you can pronounce like collagen, beef tallow, colostrum, cocoa butter - and sweetened naturally with just date and honey. Matt Walsh listeners will get 25% off one-time purchases, or 40% off first subscription orders for a limited time by heading to https://equipfoods.com/mattwalsh and using code MATTWALSH at checkout.
American Financing - Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Walsh today! Call 866-569-4711 for details about credit costs and terms. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers.NMLS 182334.https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org
Boll & Branch - Get 20% off Bed Bundles at https://BollAndBranch.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today at the Matt Walsh show, there's a major attack on the Second Amendment unfolding right now, and one of the largest gun manufacturers in the world is going along with it.
Also, Abigail Spanberger finally answers whether men should be allowed in women's sports, if you can call her babbling nonsense an answer.
And have we finally experienced the dumbest moment in the history of MSNBC?
It's a high bar or a low one, depending on how you look at it.
We'll talk about all that and more today in The Matt Wall Show.
With rising costs everywhere, we tend to overestimate what things actually cost, including life insurance, where 72% of Americans guess way too high.
PolicyGenius makes finding affordable coverage simple so your loved ones have the financial protection they need.
See if PolicyGenius can help you find 20-year life insurance policies starting at $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage.
PolicyGenius 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.
The platform clearly displays all your options, coverage amounts, prices, and terms, eliminating confusion and guesswork.
As the country's leading online insurance marketplace with thousands of five-star reviews, PolicyGenius 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 how important life insurance is and the peace of mind that comes with it.
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.
them secure your family's future with policy genius today head to policygenius.com slash walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top insurance companies and see how much you can save that's policygenius.com slash walsh in every country where firearms have been banned there has been an inciting incident that has been used to justify the crackdown and very often this inciting incident is either overblown or manufactured or misconstrued in some way in canada back in 2022 for example justin judeau used a mass shooting in the united states specifically
the shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, to justify a national ban on handgun sales in Canada.
So yes, he used a shooting in a foreign country, which was committed with a rifle, to justify a ban on handguns in his country.
And of course, Canadians went along with it.
They didn't even complain because after all, they'd been conditioned over many years to account, rather to accept an increasing number of restrictions on their right to own firearms.
And bit by bit, they allowed the government to whittle away their rights.
So eventually, when it came time for Justice Trudeau to suspend handgun sales entirely based on a pretext that was obviously ridiculous, everyone just kind of rolled over.
We've seen similar stories all over the world in places like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and so on.
Now, every conservative, everyone who wants the United States to continue to exist as a functional country where all these other nations have failed, has to be mindful of similar efforts to undermine our Second Amendment rights here at home.
We have to pay attention when government officials attempt to use some kind of fake inciting incident to suspend our right to possess firearms.
And we certainly have to pay attention when these efforts gain traction, when they appear to be working.
And that's the case right now, because lawsuits and political pressure by various states, particularly California, have successfully intimidated the weapons manufacturer Glock into dismantling virtually its entire product line.
One of the most popular handgun manufacturers in the world with probably the most recognizable brand has been beaten into submission and it didn't take much either.
This is a story that has not received anywhere near the attention that it should be receiving.
It's obviously the first domino among many.
If Glock doesn't reverse this decision, if Democrats win this fight, then many, many more dominoes will fall in short order.
Just like we saw in Canada.
Once you give these people any ground at all, they will just walk all over you.
So let's begin with the inciting incident of this particular power grab.
It was the worst mass shooting in the history of Sacramento, according to the local media.
And it took place in April of 2022.
Several shooters were involved as part of some kind of gang warfare.
Six people were fatally wounded.
12 others were injured.
And one of the men who was apprehended was named Smiley Martin, who's the brother of DeAndre Martin, another suspect in the case.
Smiley Martin was found in possession of a Glock 19 handgun with a switch attached to it, which is a device that enables it to fire rapidly, you know, like a machine gun.
Switches are illegal, but they can be obtained very easily or created with a 3D printer.
And it was determined that Smiley was one of the main shooters in this particular incident.
Watch.
At 2 a.m.
Sunday, people started spilling out of the bars and nightclubs on K Street.
Video on social media shows a fight, then gunshots.
The gunfire lasting nearly a minute in all.
The first fire department crews were sent to the scene at 2.04 a.m.
At 2.13, it was declared a multi-casualty incident as medics raced to 10th in K and 11th in K. Several.
Patients were rushed to area hospitals between 2.25 and 2.45 a.m. as dispatchers confirmed multiple deaths.
We're also learning more about DeAndre's brother Smiley Martin and his lengthy criminal history.
KCRA 3's Lisa Meetree joins us live now in downtown at the scene of the shooting with more.
Lise?
Andreas Smiley Martin has had run-ins with the law here in Sacramento County as early as 2013, just six months after his 18th birthday, according to the district attorney's office.
In a letter last year to the Board of Parole hearings, the DA's office called Smiley's criminal conduct violent and lengthy.
They wrote he committed several felony violations and clearly has little regard for human life and the law, saying if he is released early, he will continue to break the law.
Smiley went to prison in 2018 on a 10-year sentence after a domestic violence incident with his girlfriend and just got out on probation in February.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says that's because he got a variety of post-sentencing credits.
They heard that report that Smiley Martin had a very long criminal record prior to this shooting.
Shocking when you look at him.
You'd never guess.
But they don't explain why he was locked out of prison, if that's the case.
Nor do they provide more detail on what exactly Smiley Martin did when he committed his other crimes.
But that's a pretty big part of the story.
So here's the Associated Press with some more background.
Quote, a suspect arrested in connection with last weekend's mass shooting outside bars in Sacramento served less than half his 10-year sentence because of voter-approved changes to state law that lessened the punishment for his felony convictions and provided a chance for earlier release.
Smiley Allen Martin was freed in February after serving time for punching a girlfriend, dragging her from her home by her hair, and whipping her with a belt, according to court and prison records.
Those count as nonviolent offenses under California law, which considers only about two dozen crimes to be violent felonies, such as murder, rape, arson, and kidnapping.
Proposition 57 credits include good behavior while behind bars, though correction officer officials declined to release Martin's disciplinary report.
Now, if you listen to the show at all in the past week, this is probably sounding very familiar.
It's similar to what happened in Kentucky with the child killer Ronald Xantis.
Now, as we discussed, Xantis brutally murdered a young boy and assaulted his father and the boy's father.
But his crimes were deemed nonviolent under Kentucky law somehow.
So he was let out of prison after serving just a few years in prison.
Even though the parole board didn't want to release Smiley Martin, they had no choice under the law, just like they had had to release Ronald Xantis.
Now, in this case, just like Ronald Xanthis, Smiley Martin obviously committed actual violent offenses.
He punched a woman, whipped her with a belt, dragged her across the pavement.
But because these offenses are somehow considered non-violent in California under the law that was passed in 2016, Smiley Martin was allowed out of prison after serving a fraction of a sentence.
And he then used that opportunity to commit a mass shooting.
This is also something to keep in mind, by the way, when you hear about prison reform and criminal justice reform, where they want to, you know, make, they want to, they want to have lenient sentences on non-violent offenders.
You always hear the left talk about this, non-violent offenders.
Well, keep in mind that according to the laws they're passing in all these states, non-violent offenders include violent offenders.
In fact, they include offenders who have not just done violent things, but have done very, very brutally violent things.
So how has the government of California responded to this development?
Have they suggested that maybe they should amend the law so that the word nonviolent does not refer to crimes that are obviously violent?
Have they suggested any changes whatsoever that would prevent violent felons from getting out of prison after serving less than half of their sentences?
Well, you probably know the answer to that question.
Democrats in California reacted to this mass shooting by pushing yet another law, one that will effectively ban all Glock handguns in the state.
And for many years, Glocks have had special restrictions in places like Canada and California.
And now the government, in the wake of this mass shooting, decided to go for a total ban.
This is from a video posted by Vince for California, the only account I've seen on X that has pieced all this together.
Watch.
In May of 2017, Smiley Martin was arrested for beating a woman so bloody that a witness said he couldn't see where the victim's eyes were on her face.
And because of the new Prop 57, Smiley Martin was led out of prison after only four years of his 10-year sentence.
He was released in February 2022, even after a parole board denied him.
So you won't believe what California lawmakers have decided as a solution.
Rather than amending the Prop 57 loophole of letting violent felons out early, they've instead decided to introduce AB 1127, which will ban Glock handguns in California.
You can't make this up.
The bill authors even mentioned the K Street massacre as a pretext for the bill.
So yes, you heard that correctly.
Government officials in California cited the mass shooting in Sacramento as proof that we need a new law banning Glocks.
That's not because there's anything wrong with Glocks by themselves, because career criminals, overwhelmingly young black men who pose, you know, posing with their illegally modified Glocks on TikTok all the time and who constantly commit violent felonies and then get out of jail in five seconds, might modify the Glock to make it more dangerous.
Because this relatively small demographic is breaking the law, therefore, the most popular handgun in the world should be outlawed in California.
Now, technically, you can keep your current Glock, but you can't buy a new one.
That's the way that would work.
And that's what they're saying.
That's their plan.
And it's working.
I mean, it's almost as if the entire reason they let these violent thungs out of prison is so that they can commit more crimes, which Democrats will then in turn use to justify more crackdowns on our civil liberties.
This is from a local news station in California.
Quote, Glock handguns, among the most popular pistols on the market, will no longer be available for purchase in California starting July 1st, 2026.
Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1127, which prohibits the sale of Glocks because a small part can be modified or replaced to convert the gun into an automatic weapon.
Although illegal, this modification is becoming increasingly popular among lawbreakers.
Tyler Thompson, a Glock dealer at Reading Guns, said the impending ban has left him with only one Glock in stock.
Now, along with this law, which was subsidized by Soros and Mark Zuckerberg, there have been various lawsuits filed against Glock by Democrats, including cities like Seattle and Chicago, states like Minnesota and New Jersey, which essentially blame the manufacturer for illegal modifications that people make to their firearms.
Now, it's like when Democrats blame Toyota for supposedly making their cars too easy to steal.
Now, for about a million reasons, conservatives should be fighting these laws and these lawsuits with everything they have.
The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation are doing their part in filing lawsuits, but there needs to be a much bigger effort.
You know, for one thing, let's pull up that law that California just passed.
You could see it here.
Quote, this bill would prohibit a licensed firearm dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semi-automatic machine gun convertible pistol, except as specified.
For these purposes, the bill would define machine gun convertible pistol as any semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machine gun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, meaning any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semi-automatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism, and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.
Okay, so among other problems, this law is obviously unconstitutional.
I mean, to be clear, it doesn't apply only to Glocks, but also to any handgun with a cruciform trigger bar.
And here's what that looks like.
You know, you can see there, some Smith ⁇ Wesson firearms, along with some firearms from Shadow Systems and FMK firearms, also have these trigger bars.
And yes, it's true that if they revamp their entire product line, Glock can get rid of these, but Glock shouldn't have to do that, nor should they have any of these other, nor should have any of these other companies.
The Supreme Court has already held correctly that under our Constitution, Americans can own handguns that aren't unreasonably dangerous.
And there's nothing unreasonably dangerous about a Glock.
I mean, it's about as vanilla as handguns get.
And if a handgun suddenly becomes unreasonably dangerous because somebody makes an illegal modification to it, then every handgun instantly becomes unreasonably dangerous.
And of course, that's what California has in mind.
I mean, we all know that.
We all know that no matter what changes Glock decides to make to its handguns in order to comply with this law, it will never be enough.
It's possible to modify any handgun or rifle to shoot full auto within the meaning of this law.
Probably 10 days after Glock changes its handguns to comply with this law, somebody will come up with a switch for the new model.
It's not going to be difficult.
Many firearm experts have already made that point, and it's true.
This is clearly, unambiguously, the first major step in a larger effort by Democrats to ban handguns outright.
The only appropriate response is to fight it right now.
There's no limiting principle here.
It's like saying, you know, it should be illegal to own a car because car bombs exist.
The fact that somebody can come in after the fact and make a product more dangerous by committing a felony does not mean that we should ban the product.
But Glock isn't fighting back on principle.
They're not running ads in California, pointing out that Gavin Newsome let this mass shooter out of jail early, or that California already outlaws switches, or that the mass shooter was a felon who should have been allowed to possess a firearm in the first place, or that he had a high-capacity magazine that's also illegal in California.
Glock isn't running 24-7 ads, which make the extremely obvious point that California could solve its gun problem overnight by actually enforcing its existing laws and by punishing violent criminals.
Instead, Glock is caving.
They're punishing every law-abiding gun owner in the country.
They just announced that they're ditching Gen 5 and starting to make a whole new V-series of handguns that are supposedly compliant with this new law.
They just sent this marketing material around.
And you can see here, as part of Glock's commitment to future innovations, we're making necessary updates to our product lines to align with upcoming offerings.
So they don't even mention why they're doing this.
They don't demonstrate a shred of interest in defending American Second Amendment rights or contesting this flagrant overreach by Democrats in California, New Jersey, Minnesota, and so on.
They don't even provide any indication as to whether this new series will be compatible with Gen 5 parts, including performance triggers and so on.
Nor do they explain how they could possibly make a handgun that's impossible to turn into a machine gun under the law passed in California.
They're just hoping for the best, I guess.
And meanwhile, where is the Republican Party on this?
Has a single prominent Republican made an issue out of the fact that Democrats just strong-armed Glock into dismantling its entire product line?
If so, I'm not aware of it.
This is a total capitulation.
There's no other way to understand what's happening here.
It's capitulation on Glock's part.
It's capitulation on the part of our elected representatives.
And that would be unforgivable in normal times.
It's especially egregious now.
After we've seen again and again in country after country where total capitulation leads.
Glock's decision is going to embolden Democrats to do exactly what leftists have done in Canada and Australia and so many other places.
They didn't release Smiley Martin from prison or fund these massive new changes to the law so that Glock would release slightly altered versions of his existing handguns.
They released Smiley Martin from prison and they passed this law so that no one can buy a handgun ever again.
They want to disarm the entire country.
That is their ultimate objective.
It's always been their objective.
And with this decision by Glock, without much fanfare, they're one very important step closer to achieving it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Do you guys ever read protein bar labels and feel like you're reading off a candy bar?
Most protein bars are loaded with sugar and processed junk that leave you bloated and unsatisfied.
My team was hunting for something better, a clean protein bar that actually keeps us energized.
Now enter Equip Foods Prime Bar, the first grass-fed beef protein bar made with only real food ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide.
Starting today, my listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Bar, which has become our team's favorite protein bar on the market with 20 grams of protein in every bar.
I've tried a lot of protein bars on the market and none of them taste like real food.
They taste artificial and strange, but Prime Bar actually tastes like real food and it's good.
With just 11 clean ingredients, including collagen, beef tallow, and colostrum, naturally sweetened with dates and honey, you get 20 grams of clean protein without the bloat.
No whey, no seed oils, no gluten, artificial junk.
They're third-party tested for heavy metals, microplastics, and pesticides, so they can actually back up their cleanest bar on the market claim.
If you want to try the cleanest protein bar on the market that already sold out once, go to equippeds.com slash MattWalsh and use code MattWalsh at checkout for 25% off one-time purchase or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time.
That's equippfoods.com slash MattWalsh.
Use code MattWalsh at checkout.
What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
That's right.
Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room ahead of the holidays.
It's possible when you call American financing today.
If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas, bills piling up, you're not alone.
Most Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards, and credit card rates are insane in the 20s or even 30s.
American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt with rates in the low fives.
Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners, just like you, restructure their loans and save money every month, all without upfront fees.
Their customers are saving an average of $800 a month.
That's like a $10,000 raise without having to change jobs.
Call now before it's too late.
American Financing, 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711 or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.
So Abigail Spanberger, a few days out from the election of Virginia, has to this point kind of avoided the trans topic like all Democrats do now.
But now she's finally answered it, sort of, although not really.
And just to show you how terrified Democrats are to say anything intelligible about this topic, I want you to listen to how Spanberger handles this when she's asked about it.
This apparently is on Katie Couric's YouTube channel.
So listen to this.
And I think the real challenge is there's a lot of people who've never met a trans person, whether they're a trans youth or an adult.
And so there's a real effort to engage in some level of fear-mongering.
And I really do believe that we should, as a society as a whole, demonstrate a fair amount of grace to people who are confused about when we're talking about bathrooms or when we're talking about sports participation.
Like what are we talking about?
And I recognize, and I'm a parent.
I've got three daughters in Virginia public schools.
And so I understand the fact that there may be confusion about what is my opponent as a very clear example kind of threatening.
And importantly, the willingness to fear monger with or against kids who are trying to figure out who they are, who are in a challenging point in their life.
Middle school and high school isn't easy for most people, let alone if you might be struggling with or trying to come to terms with your identity.
And so just as a basic issue of principle, I do find it really objectionable that there would be kids who turn on the television and is in an effort to attack me, see images of themselves sort of reflected as a villain.
Okay, so I've transcribed the key part of Abigail's answer, if you can call it an answer.
And here's what she said.
I really do believe that we should, you know, as a society as a whole, demonstrate a fair amount of grace to people who are confused about, you know, when we're talking about bathrooms or when we're talking about sports, you know, what are we talking about?
And, you know, I recognize, and I'm a parent, I've got three daughters in Virginia Public Schools.
And so I understand that there may be confusion about, you know, what is my opponent, as a very clear example, kind of threatening.
And importantly, the willingness to fear monger with or against kids who are, you know, trying to figure out who they are.
That's a verbatim transcript.
And as I read it, I feel like I'm having a stroke.
I feel like Joe Biden.
I feel like I've contracted dementia somehow.
Now, we know based on context clues that Spanberger is attempting to say that she's okay with dudes in the girls' bathroom.
That's her position.
She's attempting to sort of gesture towards that position.
But the actual answer is incoherent.
hearing.
I mean, those aren't even sentences.
Fear mongering with or against kids?
What?
Fear mongering with kids?
I understand there may be confusion about what is my opponent as a very clear example kind of threatening.
I understand there may be confusion about what is my opponent as a very clear example kind of threatening.
That's not a sentence.
Those are words, but they don't mean anything.
There's no way to even make sense of that.
Well, I do know what it means.
It means that you, Abigail Spamberger, know that trans ideology is total nonsense and you're afraid to give any one single soundbite that supports it, but you also aren't going to come out against it because you're a coward and you're also a bad mother who would sacrifice your own daughters to some creepy dude in the bathroom before you would take a stand that upsets your Democrat base and your Democrat donors.
That's what it means.
I mean, that's the actual content of what you're saying, but when you take the words at face value, it doesn't mean anything at all.
But that really is the game.
That's why when Democrats, when they talk about this issue now, their objective is to not say anything that could be used in a soundbite.
Right?
That's their objective.
And it wasn't always that way.
Now, Democrats, ever since trans became a thing, their stance on this topic has been nonsensical, of course, because it's a nonsensical position.
But it used to be that they weren't afraid of the soundbite.
So they would at least say, they would at least utter clear sentences.
And they would say stuff like, well, we believe in trans rights.
Trans rights are human rights.
We should treat these trans women with dignity.
They'd say stuff like that.
That doesn't really, again, it doesn't mean anything, actually, but it's at least like on its own.
You can understand those sentences pieced together.
So it's a coherent sentence, at least, even if what it's trying to convey doesn't make any sense.
But now they don't even want to give you a coherent sentence.
They don't want to have any sentence on the record that on its own would indicate that they actually support this.
And so they just kind of dance around and they say sentences like this that you can't even clip that and make it into a soundbite because anyone who hears it, they're not going to know what that means.
And that's really the objective, of course.
Speaking of people who babble nonsensically, this was kind of funny.
Here is Sonny Hoston on The View telling a rather fantastical story.
Listen.
As a mother of black children, I know that black boys are not given the presumption of innocence and the presumption of youth.
She's calling the police and saying they're trying to steal her car and they're 11 years old.
They don't know how to drive.
And so for me, what was interesting was I have had to be in the position where I have gone to my local police department because I know my son is going to be training for the junior Olympics running around the neighborhood in an all-white neighborhood.
And I have brought him to the police and said, he belongs to me.
This is my son.
Do not harass him.
Do not stop him.
So she was doing what so many black mothers do, and she was killed for protecting her child.
So first of all, that never happened, obviously.
You didn't go to the police and tell them that your son will be jogging and so they shouldn't stop him.
That didn't happen.
Or maybe it did.
Maybe Sonny really is such an absolute psychotic egomaniac that she actually did that.
I don't know.
She actually went to the police department and declared that her son must never be stopped or questioned by the police.
As if that's how it works.
As if the police would then refrain from ever stopping her son or questioning him about anything because they'd been instructed by Sonny Hostin.
Like what happens if the police have a legitimate reason to stop or question him?
I guess they'll have to hold back because they'll say, oh, no, we can't stop him.
That's Sonny Hoston's son.
Remember, she told us not to.
Yeah, but I just saw him steal a car.
Yeah, you know, we can't.
But Sonny has spoken.
All hail, Sonny.
So a lot of people are saying that Sonny is lying about having this conversation with police, but they may be giving her too much credit.
I mean, she might actually be that much of a lunatic narcissist.
She might be so clueless that she thinks she can go to the police station and give the police a parental permission slip stating that her son is allowed to do whatever he wants without ever getting stopped by the cops.
Maybe that part is true.
I don't know.
Here's what I do know, though.
The safest place a black kid can be is in an all-white neighborhood.
The most unsafe place it can be is in a predominantly black neighborhood.
That is, you know, and how can I say that?
Well, because literally all the data tells us that all the statistics, all the crime stats, everything points to that fact.
In an all-white neighborhood, your chance of being hurt or killed or maimed as a black person or any other kind of person at any time, day or night is basically non-existent.
In an all-white neighborhood, you can go for a walk at night with $100 bills.
You could have $100 bills sticking out of your pockets and go for a walk at night and you'll be fine.
If you drop one of your $100 bills, somebody will stop you and tell you that you dropped it.
If anything, they'll be mad at you for littering.
Excuse me, sir, you're dropping $100 bills.
Please don't litter.
Can you pick up your $100 bills, please, sir?
We don't litter around here.
So that's what happens in an all-white neighborhood.
Certainly in the kinds of all-white neighborhoods that Sonny Hoston is talking about and that Sonny Hoston would live in.
Which, by the way, Sonny, why are you living in an all-white neighborhood?
Why did you, Sonny, decide to move to an all-white neighborhood?
That's interesting, isn't it?
It's interesting how all these race hustlers, when they get some money, they immediately leave the neighborhoods that are predominantly black and go to the all-white neighborhoods.
I mean, if you think that an all-white neighborhood is dangerous for your son, why are you there?
There are a lot of all-black or predominantly black neighborhoods you could live in.
A lot cheaper, too.
So, Sonny, why did you move into that neighborhood?
Why are you there?
Oh, it's because those neighborhoods are a lot safer for your son and you, and you know it.
Now, if you're in like a trailer park in an economically depressed area hit hard by drugs, then it's a different story that I wouldn't go walking around with a $100 bill stick in your pockets.
Although I think that you'd be hard-pressed to find a trailer park that's all white at this point.
Those don't really exist.
So we're back to Sonny being full of crap, you know, because it's an all-white neighborhood.
It's almost certain that this is going to be a very safe place because the stats clearly show, as I've said before, that the whiter a community is, the safer it is.
Regardless of socioeconomics, regardless of anything else, the whiter, the safer.
Those are the facts.
They just are.
And that's why the Sonny Hostins of the world, that's immediately where they move as soon as they can.
Although I'm sure Sonny Hostin's probably lived in those kinds of neighborhoods her entire life.
I don't think she's, you know, I don't know that she moved into them so much as she's always lived in them.
But anytime she does move, if she wants to move into a bigger house or whatever, she's looking for the all-white neighborhoods.
With no self-awareness or without ever stopping to ask herself, hmm, why is that?
Why do I do that?
Angel Reese, the WNBA player, is complaining again about not getting paid enough or something.
Here it is.
We all did it.
Yeah, the CBA is coming up.
I can't wait.
Girl, y'all benefited from everything.
Y'all youngins benefited from NIL.
What does that mean?
We deserve more.
Of course.
Everybody.
I agree.
Everybody.
I agree with that.
But we got to get a pace of consequences.
There, we got to get it on the bottom.
Y'all got to go.
We got to do something.
Y'all got to do something.
But the women coming in, not this year, but next year.
Because the ones coming this year will still be in the rookie contract again.
The ones the year after, they're going to get more.
They're probably going to be making more than us.
No, they are.
They are.
Like, yeah.
I've been in the meetings.
They are.
I need to get in the meeting.
I need to get into.
You need to come to the meeting.
I got to get in the meetings because I'm hearing like, yeah, they don't give us, if y'all don't give us what we want, like, we sell out.
That's a possibility.
For real.
Right.
So I don't really care what she's saying.
Not that I even understand it.
I saw this pop up, and I think because somebody posted it, like, oh, there's Angel Reese complaining she's not getting paid enough again, which is stupid.
But to me, the headline or the question that comes out of it is, is why does this podcast exist?
This is apparently the Angel Reese podcast called Unapologetically Angel because she's going to give us her unapologetic takes.
Watch out.
Angel Reese is unapologetic.
This is the innovative new concept for the podcast.
She's giving us unapologetic takes.
No one's ever done that before in a podcast.
It's really filling a hole in the marketplace.
She said, you know what, you know what?
Know that the world needs more of a podcast.
And someone said, well, there's a million podcasts.
Yeah, but in this podcast, I'm going to give my takes, and they're going to be unapologetic.
This is going to be no filter, no holds barred, uncensored.
How literally every other podcast on the market builds itself.
And apparently, these unapologetic takes are just her slouched in a chair mumbling.
You know, there are 100 billion podcasts on the market at this point, and 99.9% of them are just this.
Somebody slouched in a chair, just randomly spluttering words out of their mouth in barely audible whispers.
99.9% of podcasts are just someone who's just sitting there talking to someone else.
Yeah, so like, yeah, that's crazy.
Yeah, man, bro, yeah.
That's crazy.
Yeah, you know, like when the, you know, you know, when that happened?
Yeah, you see that when that happened?
That was, that was nuts, man.
Wow, yeah, that's nuts.
That's crazy.
That's 99.9% of all podcasts.
It's just that.
Like, nothing being even talked about.
Is anyone listening to it at all?
Can you imagine just like throwing on the Angel Reese podcast and listening to that for 45 minutes?
Who would?
Would any person ever?
I see all these other podcasts and I think, why do I put effort into mine?
It may not look like it, but I do.
Like hours and hours, hours and hours of research and writing each episode.
I write whole monologues.
I have my fish cam.
You know, there's a lot going on.
We've got the fish cam.
We've got the fish cam.
We have the beautiful studio, all this effort put into it.
And I'm just like sitting there for hours, seven, eight hours, insane.
And then I see 99.9% of other podcasts on the market, and it's just someone half awake, no prep, just like sitting there mumbling about nothing for seven and a half hours, making small talk with some other random person no one's ever heard of.
And I think, why do I even try?
Why do I try?
What's the point of trying?
Now, granted, Angel Reese's podcast gets like 200 views an episode, so that part is encouraging.
So I asked who would ever listen to that?
The answer is nope, nobody, at least to that.
But I see some of these, and it's like you look at it, it's like they got a huge following.
There's hundreds of thousands of people that are listening to this.
Listening to nothing, listening to two people talk about absolutely nothing at all.
It's crazy.
Yeah, man, it's crazy.
Man, isn't that crazy?
It's crazy, man.
I don't know.
You know what I think it is?
Because I've thought about this.
I see some of these podcasts.
Everyone's podcast but mine.
All the other podcasts are the problem but mine.
No, I'm kidding.
Mine is fine, and then there are six others that are good.
I'll let you guess the six good ones.
There are six good podcasts.
So seven total.
There are six good ones plus mine.
Mine is the fourth best on the list.
I'll let you guess what the other ones are.
It's mine, Angel Reese, Hawktua's podcast.
So those are three.
You can guess the other four.
But anyway, so I was wondering, I was thinking when I see some of these podcasts, I think, like, why would anyone listen to this?
And I think what it is, is that some people don't have an internal monologue.
And so maybe these podcasts serve as almost a substitute for an internal monologue.
Like, it's one thing to be listening to a podcast where someone is presenting a point of view, like I'm doing right now.
You might not like the point of view.
You might think that I suck.
You might not like me, but at least I'm, because I have a point of view and I'm presenting it and I'm making an argument and here it is and something to think about.
So, okay, fine.
But a lot of these other ones, there's no point of view really being expressed.
There's no argument being made.
There's nothing really being discussed.
There's nothing to think about.
There's just nothing happening.
And what is the attraction to those?
I think it is just that.
I think it's like people that have no internal monologue.
And so the podcast just becomes sort of a stand-in for that.
Like I would never listen to something like the Angel Reese podcast because I don't need to hear random just like babbling going back and forth because I already have like that's my internal monologue.
You're always just sort of thinking about things and thinking.
So you don't need that.
But if you have no internal monologue, I think that I think that's what it is.
I don't know.
That's my theory anyway.
Maybe it needs some work.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow up being game.
Okay, comment section, the comments that we'll read.
This comes from Clonez TV Dreamkiller5277.
I can remember in high school, I took an anthropology class.
This was in late 80s.
One day our teacher asked us, if we were able to go back in time 150 years and take a walk, man, what would the people find hardest to understand about it?
Most people guessed stuff about the batteries and electronics, the plastic, et cetera.
My teacher said something I never forgot.
He said, they could get used to all that stuff.
What they could never grasp was the fact that you experience music as a private phenomenon.
For all of history, music required community.
Obviously, someone could bang a stick on a rock or something, but this point was a profound one, and it changed the way I thought about the culture for the rest of my life.
Yeah, it's a really fascinating point.
And it's true.
You know, prior to the invention of personal listening devices, the only way you would ever hear music was in some kind of communal environment.
You know, you could play music yourself with no one around, but then it was something that you were actively doing.
If you wanted to hear music from somebody else, it was communal by definition.
I mean, even if it was just one person playing the piano or something in your parlor, it was still a communal experience.
In that case, it'd be a communal and very intimate experience of someone playing music.
But, yeah, music by definition, for most of human history, was a communal thing.
And that's true.
And it speaks to what I talked about yesterday, which is that prior to the monoculture, you had localized culture, and music was a huge part of that.
Music was one of the things that brought local communities together to have a shared experience.
And then you had the advent of first record players, which could be listened.
You could listen to record players alone, although often they were listened to communally.
Then you had walkmen who could only be listened to alone.
And that gave way to the CD, portable CD players, and eventually MP3 players, eventually iPods.
But through all of that, up to post-2008 era, even when you listen to the music on your personal device, you were still participating in the monoculture.
Because although we often listen to music individually, we were all listening to the same things.
So there was a shared experience.
Even if you get to that shared experience individually, right?
So it's like, it's kind of like if you're going somewhere and you could carpool with somebody and you could get there together or you could meet them and drive individually.
But in both cases, you're having a shared experience because you're both going to the same place and then you're going to get there and you're there together, right?
So the monoculture kind of had that element to it.
And the monoculture also maintained local culture, a less vibrant, less unique version of it, but it was still there.
You know, I go back to like local radio.
Obviously, as a former radio DJ, it's something I feel a certain tie to.
And local radio was great because it really was the nexus.
It was the tie binding local culture to the monoculture.
This is one of the primary, one of the primary things that I mourn having lost from the before times is this.
Because with local radio, your local DJ would play much of the same music that was played everywhere else in the country.
That was the tie to the monoculture.
But they would also play local bands that your station would promote and tell you about.
And so that was the local culture.
You did a lot of events like community events, concerts, charity events, all kinds of stuff.
And so you had these things that were sort of like the tie.
And I was thinking about this too, because I've heard the criticism from some in the audience that I'm just, that as I've talked about the monoculture and the changes in the culture, that I'm just being nostalgic and that people are always nostalgic for the early, for like their early 20s.
And as it happens, when I say the culture peaked in 2007, well, that's right when I was in my early 20s.
And so I've seen these comments that say, oh, what a coincidence.
You know, you think the culture peaked right when you were 22 or whatever.
So do I. And I get it.
I understand that criticism.
It's a fair one.
But I do think I'm hitting on something real and true, regardless of how nostalgic I might feel.
I think I've described my theory of the monoculture and its collapse in a way that doesn't depend on pure nostalgia.
So I think I've succeeded in doing that.
But on the topic of nostalgia, I'll say two things.
Which, first of all, my nostalgia for the good old days is not at this point me mourning that I no longer get to experience them.
It's mourning that my kids never will.
So it's a different kind of thing.
I'm not mourning my own loss, but my children's loss.
You know, as you know, we don't let our kids use smartphones.
We try to do our best to make sure they have a real childhood, a childhood not dominated by the screens.
But the fact is that the world around them is dominated by the screen.
So my kids will never know, you know, the world before smartphones, before the screen took over.
They'll never know that.
And I do mourn that for them.
Because I can give them a version of that world, but it's like we have to construct it for them.
We have to make it.
And the trade-off is that it is more isolating, right?
Because we are, all of their friends are all using phones all the time, and that's how they interact and everything.
And so we're not doing that.
And so in order to give them a real childhood and to preserve and maintain their innocence and to make sure that they're able to use their minds and their creativity and run outside and use their, you know, and all of that, have an active childhood.
One of the trade-offs is that there's an isolating factor to it.
Not totally isolated.
I mean, they have friends, but it's just that they don't live in the, you know, back when I was a kid, we didn't have to, my parents didn't have to like construct that kind of world for them.
It's just the world we lived in.
And there's another point about nostalgia that I wanted to make, which is that, because I've thought about why are we so obsessed with it?
I've talked about before millennials in particular are very obsessed with nostalgia.
And I think there's a reason for it.
There's a reason why every generation now is so nostalgic.
And we take that for granted.
You know, we say, well, sure, that's how it's always been.
Every new generation longs for the good old days when they were younger.
But I don't think that's quite true.
You know, I'm sure people have always, to some extent, looked back wistfully on their childhood.
I'm sure that's a common human trait.
But I don't think this kind of intense, there's this intense, almost like unbearably sad nostalgia that we have now that I don't think was as common in history as it is now.
And that's because the nostalgia that we feel is a symptom of our lack of cultural continuity.
You know, things change so fast now, and they've been changing so fast for the last 100 years.
And so, you know, if you think back, if you think back to most of human history, think about some villager who was living in a village in the year 1140.
Well, his life, his existence, the world he inhabited, would have been very similar to the world inhabited by a villager in the year 940 or what, or 1340, 200 years after him.
Or even really 140 BC.
I mean, I would argue that somebody in the 12th century had more in common with people who lived 1,000 years before him than we do with people who lived 80 years before us.
I would even go further and say that someone in the 12th century had more in common with an ancestor who lived 3,000 years before them in a village in a different country than we do with someone who lived 150 years before us in the same town in the same state in the same country.
And I think that that's kind of undeniable.
That person who lived, if you live in a, you could live in the same house, right, as someone who lived 150 years ago.
You live in an old house in the northeast somewhere.
And you'll have less in common with the person who built that house 150 years ago than someone in the 12th century would have with someone who lived in a different country 3,000 years before them.
I think that that's the case.
And that's not to say that there weren't changes over the course of the millennia back then, but the changes now are so fast and so vast and so earth-shaking that every few decades, it's like we've shifted into a new universe, into a new reality.
I mean, if you think about it, if someone 150 years ago could see our lives now in the year 2025, they wouldn't even understand what they're looking at.
It would be no different than dropping you on a planet in a different galaxy, where you have no frame of reference.
You have no clue what's going on.
There is nothing, there's nothing in their lives in the year 1875 that's even analogous to a lot of these things.
They have no frame of reference.
They have nothing to compare it to.
Understanding depends on analogy.
You can only understand something if you can compare it.
Like if you want to explain something to someone, the only way to explain it, this is the challenge of explaining something to a child, is that they haven't experienced as much, they don't know as much.
And the only way to explain something is to compare it to something that they understand, that they do understand.
And they don't understand as many things.
And so you're always looking for ways to take this really complicated thing they're asking you about and compare it through analogy to something that they do understand.
That's the only way to understand anything is through analogy.
Well, people who, 150 years ago, there are so many things in our lives now that there's no even analogy to anything that they would have experienced.
Now, on the other hand, a villager in the year 300 BC could take a glimpse at a villager in the year 1300 AD, a thousand years in the future, and more than a thousand years, and they would totally understand everything they're seeing.
It would look a little different, but the basic rhythm of life would be very similar.
And whatever new technology they saw, it would at least be analogous to something they have in their time.
And that's not the case for us.
If you were to show someone 100 years ago a smartphone and AI, they would not be able to even comprehend what this thing is, much less how our lives are centered around it.
And I think that's why nostalgia is so intense now.
It's not the nostalgia simply of someone who's grown older.
That's not the nostalgia.
That's the common human nostalgia of you grow older, you long for your youth.
Sure, I'm sure that's common.
But what we feel now and what I feel, you know, what I feel when I think about my kids, it's more like the nostalgia you would feel for Earth if you moved to Mars.
It's like if you move to a colony on Mars and you had kids there and you mourn the fact that they will never know what Earth is like.
And it's the mourning of a lost world.
Not just a changed world, but a lost one.
And so I think that that's what's going on.
I don't think that even responds to the original comment, but speaking of podcasts where they just babble on nonsensically, here I go.
Honestly, I never thought to switch up my betting with the seasons.
Sheets are just sheets, right?
Well, wrong.
One Bullen Branch bundle upgrade later and my bedroom actually feels like a retreat instead of just where I crash after a long day of dealing with all the stupidity in our culture.
They're 100% organic cotton isn't some flimsy stuff that falls apart after a few washes.
And now I'm actually looking forward to those crisp fall nights.
I'm not usually the guy who gets excited about betting, but Bolen Branch and Bolin Branch's bed bundles especially just make sense.
Instead of piecing together sheets, blankets, and whatever else one by one, like you're building IKEA furniture, you just click once, you get everything you need for a decent night's sleep.
They've got different bundles depending on whether you're the type who runs hot, cold, or just wants to feel like you're sleeping on a cloud.
Before you ask, yes, it's all made from 100% organic cotton so you can feel good about yourself while you're passed out for eight hours.
Plus, they throw in a 30-night guarantee because they're confident you won't want to return to your old sad sheets.
Honestly, it's probably the easiest room upgrade you'll ever make.
We just added these sheets to the kids' rooms too, and my wife keeps commenting on how they actually get softer with every wash, which is pretty much the opposite of every other bedding that we've ever bought.
After trying them, we cannot go back and you won't be able to either.
Bowling Branch makes upgrading your bed easier than ever with curated bundles for a sanctuary of comfort.
For limited time, get 20% off.
Bed bundles plus free shipping and returns at bolenbranch.com slash walsh.
That's Bolinbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D Branch.com slash wall to save up to 20% and unlock free shipping.
Exclusions apply.
The first decade of the Daily Wire proved that when the left tries to silence us, we fight back and we win.
But that was only the beginning.
The next decade of the Daily Wire is going to be bigger, louder, and unstoppable.
We're celebrating with the deal of the decade.
This is your chance to be part of everything coming next.
Join now for as little as $7 a month.
And yes, the seven-part cinematic series, The Pendragon Cycle, is coming, our most ambitious release yet, exclusive on Daily Wire Plus starting January 22nd, 2026.
All access members get the first two episodes early on Christmas Day, but you have to be an all-access member for that early access.
So don't miss a moment.
Join now at dailywire.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For today's daily cancellation, it seemed appropriate to spend some time checking out the content that's being produced over at MSNBC, the cable news station that is about to be canceled due to its extremely catastrophically low ratings.
By my account, we have only about three weeks left before MSNBC is removed from the airwaves and replaced with something called MS Now, which will also inevitably be canceled soon afterwards.
So out of a morbid sense of curiosity, I decided to watch some Morning Joe, their marquee program that's lost about 50% of its audience since the election.
They're apparently less popular than CNN's morning program, which no one has ever even heard of.
In other words, morale is probably very low and dropping fast over at Morning Joe.
And that may explain why, instead of producing compelling segments, they're just pulling up random New York Times editorials and reading them out loud.
Watch.
So Molly, you have a guest essay out in the New York Times this morning, your new place of work, entitled Democrats Need to Chill About the Electability of Women.
You're right in part.
The specter of 2024 and the reign of Trump terror that has followed has Democrats on edge.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the governor's race in New Jersey.
Representative Mikey Sherrill, the Democrats' great on-paper centrist nominee, is ahead in the polls, but still being second guest.
One of the biggest problems facing Mikey Sherrill's bid for governor may have nothing to do with Mikey Sherrill and everything to do with a certain pundit class miasma about the supposed unelectability of women.
After all, this is a party that has run two super competent women for president on its ticket, and they both lost against Mr. Trump.
One of the Democrats' 2025 big bets is on the national security mom.
There's also an off-year election in Virginia where Abigail Spanberger, a former House member and CIA officer, checks similar competent centrist boxes.
Both are being asked to save the party while simultaneously being questioned about their electability.
That's code for how sexist is the electorate.
That's sad.
Well, it is sad on multiple levels.
First of all, there's no logic whatsoever in that hysterical rambling wall of text that she just read.
We're told that Trump's administration is a reign of terror and that a woman named Mikey Sherrill is the victim of misogyny, even though she's attracting large crowds, leading in the polls to be the next governor of New Jersey.
Somehow this qualifies her as a victim of sexism, all because some unnamed pundits are questioning her electability, which means, of course, that every female candidate from now until the end of time will be a victim of misogyny.
And secondly, somewhere in there, I heard the phrase, national security mom.
This is a phrase that should never be uttered by any human being in any context.
It makes no sense, for one thing.
It's a phrase that's intended to empower and lend legitimacy to some of the dumbest women we've allowed to seize power in this country.
That includes women like Nina Jankowicz, the buffoon who made songs about how the government should censor conservatives online.
It also includes Victoria Newland, who oversaw the war in Iraq, the overthrow of Ukraine's government, pretty much every other disastrous foreign policy decision in this country's recent history.
It includes CNN analyst Juliet Kam, the imbecile who recently tried to claim that the guy who shot up an ICE facility had no discernible political motivation.
So these women are all national security moms, and the world would be a much better place if every single one of them had stuck to just being a mom instead of getting involved in national security.
But the MSNBC clip does not stop there.
Somehow it becomes even more embarrassing and pathetic for everybody involved.
Watch.
You can't take anything for granted and you can't dismiss it.
There is some misogyny that is in the electorate that needs to be confronted.
It really is incredible when you have Abigail Spanberger, Mikey Sherrill, her background, all the different jobs that she has held in the military.
And also like Alyssa Slotkin.
I mean, my God, these women are incredible.
And to them, I would say fight, fight, fight, because we need them.
We need them.
And Mikey is like, she's doing a ton of interviews.
You know, when I talked to them, when I was in the car, you know, it was this car.
She'd gone from interview to interview to talk to talk.
But, you know, you still see the anxiety.
Yeah, Cheryl did have a few missteps in her campaign, but she still has, as you say, about a five or six point lead per polling.
Spanberger's leading Virginia a little bigger than that.
But, you know, both still competitive races here heading into the last couple of weeks.
But to Mika, to Molly's point, I mean, this is something that a lot of Democrats are grappling with right now.
They've nominated women two of the last three elections for the presidency, lost both.
There are some who say, well, we can't do that again.
The stakes are too high.
But of course, that does fall into the same misogynistic trap.
Other countries have no problem electing women.
So they're blaming sexism for the fact that Abigail Spanberger, the Democrats' nominee for governor of Virginia, is struggling in the polls.
And once again, there are about 10 different problems here.
We'll start with the fact that like Mikey Sheryl, Abigail Spanberger is not in fact struggling in the polls.
She's ahead by a lot.
According to most polls, she's up by eight points.
So they're just making that claim up out of thin air and presenting it as fact.
Secondly, if Abigail Spanberger were actually down in the polls, it would make perfect sense.
She's a horrible candidate.
She was asked on stage during a debate to explain her support for Jay Jones, the Democrat who's running for Attorney General in Virginia, who sent several text messages talking about how badly he wants to see the children of conservative politicians get murdered.
And in response, Abigail Spamberger just grinned like a sociopath.
Watch.
That's why I'm wondering why my opponent won't say beyond its abhorrent and disgusting why she won't say it is not okay and that he must leave the race because Jay Jones advocated the murder, Abigail, the murder of a man, a former speaker, as well as his children who were two years, two and five years old.
You have little girls.
Would it take him pulling the trigger?
Is that what would do it?
And then you would say he needs to get out of the race, Abigail?
You have nothing to say?
Abigail, what if he said it about your two children, your three children?
Is that when you would say he should get out of the race, Abigail?
You're running to be governor.
Now, by itself, this should have tanked Spamberger in the polls.
In a normal country, one where Democrats didn't want to murder every single one of their political opponents, Spamberger would be down by about 20 points after this.
And of course, that video reveals yet another major problem with the MSNBC lady's argument, which is that Abigail Spamberger is running against a woman.
Not just any woman, but a black woman, as you can see right there.
So how exactly are we supposed to shake our heads as we watch the Virginia's governor race and condemn America for being a sexist misogynistic hellhole, which will never elect a woman, unlike all those other more sophisticated countries, when a woman is inevitably going to emerge as the winner of this election?
How does it make any sense at all?
Now, if MSNBC wasn't going to disappear in about five minutes, then maybe someone would have been awake enough to notice this fundamental flaw in the reasoning.
But really, that's just being too optimistic.
This is a perfect illustration of how effortlessly, how reflexively the identity-based victim card is still thrown around.
Even after the last election, which you'd think would have been a pretty big wake-up call, this is still their go-to.
Even when it makes no sense whatsoever, blaming sexism in a race between two women.
That's what they're doing.
What's especially interesting about this particular segment is that it shows how the left doesn't even respect their own victim hierarchy.
Because according to their hierarchy under normal circumstances, the black woman is above the white woman.
No questions asked.
You know, they should be talking about how Winsome Sears is only trailing in the polls because she's black and Virginia just isn't ready to support a strong, independent black woman.
But, you know, black women are carrying the country on their backs with no credit, with no gratitude from anybody.
That's usually what they say in these kinds of situations.
But of course, politics overrides everything in the end, as we know.
So instead, we're treated to wailing about how Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were supposedly super competent, even though Hillary Clinton was a criminal and Kamala couldn't even pronounce her own name.
Kamala was asked the world's biggest softball question on national television, and she flubbed it.
She was asked point blank, as you recall, whether it's a good thing to provide taxpayer-funded sex changes for illegal aliens in federal prison.
Anybody with political instincts whatsoever, anybody with an IQ higher than an amoeba, would say, no, we shouldn't do that.
That sounds like a policy that's cooked up in a lab somewhere to be the worst policy idea ever proposed in the history of this country.
Obviously, we should do that.
But Kamala didn't say that.
She told Brett Baer that whatever the law is, she would follow it.
Too stupid to comprehend the idea of changing the law, just like she's too stupid to carry a friendly interview with CBS without heavy editing that bails her out.
After watching this very dire segment on MSNBC, the only question that remains is whether the left could ever bring itself to play the sexism-racism card on behalf of a white male Democrat running against a black female Republican.
Now, that'd be an interesting hypothetical.
And in that case, I'd say probably not.
I don't think they're willing to go that far.
Politics overrides everything on the left, except their deep and passionate hatred for white men.
Some bridges are just too far to cross.
MSNBC would rather die out completely and fade into nothingness than come out in defense of a white man in that scenario.
And what do you know?
In just a few weeks, that's exactly what's going to happen to MSNBC anyway.
All 10 of their viewers will have to go online to read dumb and incoherent New York Times op-eds about sexism because MSNBC won't be around to read it to them.
The endless identity politics simply aren't keeping the lights on anymore.
And after watching this extremely grading segment, it's not hard to see why.
And that is why what is left of MSNBC, which apparently isn't much, is today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you on Monday.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
Is Donald Trump Hitler?
Or is J.D. Vance Hitler?
Or is Hitler not even Hitler?
The Democrats have fallen into the Hitler paradox right now.
J.D. Vance is the focus.
Check it out on the Michael Knoll show.
Matt, say something that'll get us canceled.
If you really want me to.
Friendly fire is back.
Should we ever do this again?
No.
No safe zones.
Do not unify around your craziness.
I don't want your olive branch.
Screw you.
It's absolutely despicable.
Nothing off limits.
You will get to sound off on whether or not black people are disabled as the Supreme Court reliable.
Huge announcements.
Brand new, massive, incredible series, The Pendragon Cycle.
Ambitious and big and beautiful.
And this is the thing that sets us apart.
More revelations on the way.
I just want to make one more point here, and then you can eat whatever you want.
