Ep. 1690 - Why We Need 50 Million Deportations Instead Of 50 Year Mortgages, AI Music Tops The Charts, And More
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the Trump Administration announced their 50-year mortgage plan, but this is a really bad idea. I’ll explain. Also, Kristi Noem gives a tone deaf response to legitimizing immigrants. This is not the advocacy for Americans we were asking for. An A.I. country song dominates the charts. And the author of the Left’s favorite book is whining about book banning. How is this still a prevailing narrative on the Left? We will discuss.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1690
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to https://www.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:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH
Ammo Squared - Stay prepared without the hassle. Head to https://AmmoSquared.com for a special offer.
Lumen - Head to http://lumen.me/WALSH for 10% off your purchase.
Christian Care Ministry (Medi-Share) - Go to https://medishare.com/matt or text the word MATT to 70246.
- - -
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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Like the conservative movement has to seriously address these kinds of problems.
The entire movement will be left in the dust if we don't work on ways to actually improve Americans' lives and address the real challenges they face every day.
Or, oh, it's a hit song made by AI topping the charts, which is deeply depressing.
I hate everyone who listened to this song unironically.
If I could commit an AI genocide, I totally would.
Yesterday was Veterans Day, a day in which we honor the brave men and women who've sacrificed so much for our country, but- But if we're honest about it, our veterans deserve more than just a pat on the back one day a year.
They need real support.
Every day, 20 veterans take their own lives.
One company that's fighting to change that is PureTalk, a veteran-run cell phone company that can help you cut your monthly cell phone bill while also supporting our vets.
This month, PureTalk is teaming up with Canines for Warriors, a nonprofit that pairs highly trained service dogs with military veterans suffering from PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and other trauma.
When you use Pure Talk, you're using the same towers as everybody else.
You're just paying half the price for it.
Some of that money goes towards helping veterans.
In addition to Canines for Warriors, they also support America's Warrior Partnership, and they've committed to eliminating $10 million in veteran debt.
That's why I am a Pure Talk customer.
No contract, no hidden fees, unlimited talk and text.
Plans starting at $20 a month.
You can bring your own phone, get access to nationwide 5G, make calls from almost anywhere in the world.
And if you have a problem, their customer service reps are right here in America to help you.
And if you end up not liking the phone, well, they offer a 30-day money-back guarantee.
So there's no risk at all.
Ditch the woke carriers who fund causes that you hate.
Switch to a veteran-led company that loves America.
Go to puretalk.com slash walsh.
That's puretalk.com slash walsh.
Support veterans, save money, and get the reliable service you deserve.
PureTalk, proudly American, proudly veteran-led.
Even if your name isn't Joe Biden, it's still very easy to forget pretty much everything the Biden administration attempted to do during their four years in office.
It's one of those administrations that everybody, regardless of party affiliation, wants to wipe from memory as soon as possible.
Biden was obviously a historic failure whose only legacy, if you could even call it that, is employing operatives who hunted down and jailed the political opponents of the Democrat Party.
But especially if you're a young person right now and you're trying to buy your first home and take part in a foundational component of the American dream, it's important to take a step back and consider very carefully what the Biden administration attempted to do.
At every turn, the Biden White House took pains to make homeownership more challenging and more expensive for American citizens.
In retrospect, you could make the case that this was, in fact, the primary goal of the Biden administration.
Every major policy proposal, every executive action, regardless of how it was advertised, was in reality geared towards raising the cost of homeownership, among other things.
It's not an academic exercise to make this point now, even though the Biden administration is out of power.
It's actually extremely important because, first of all, we have to reverse what the Biden administration did.
And secondly, when conservatives are crafting their own rules to make it easier to own a home, they can't emulate the Biden administration's proposals in any way.
But at the moment, that appears to be what's happening.
The Trump administration is going down the same road as the Biden administration, whether they realize it or not, and the need to reverse course immediately, unless we want to see everyone under the age of 40 vote for Democrats in next year's midterms.
So we'll start with this headline from the Biden era, which sounds like it can't possibly be real, but it is.
This is a direct quote from ABC News, quote, why having good credit could cost you more on a home mortgage.
In some cases, people with better credit scores may pay more in fees, while those with lower credit scores will pay less.
The Biden administration's stated purpose behind making these changes is to help make it easier for borrowers who have historically been disadvantaged and have a hard time accessing credits.
Now, in practical terms, the proposal would penalize anybody with a credit score above 680 with an additional fee of roughly $40 a month.
So you get penalized for having better credit.
That's the idea.
And if you put down a large down payment between 15 and 20 percent, then you pay an even larger fee.
And the goal, according to the government, was to redistribute funds to reduce the interest rates paid by less qualified buyers.
Now, at the time, the story was covered as an effort by the Biden administration to buy votes, which it clearly was.
But the other effect of this proposal, of course, was to make it more difficult for Americans to buy homes.
I mean, this is a zero-sum proposal we're talking about.
People were being punished for doing the right thing and saving up and being financially disciplined to buy a home.
They're being punished for that in the form of additional fees.
They deliberately made housing more difficult to obtain, and they made it more difficult to obtain precisely for the people who should be obtaining it, for those who are financially responsible, have good credit, have saved some money.
So precisely for that group.
And indeed, this was nothing new for the Democrats.
The Obama administration famously filed lawsuits against various suburbs, including Westchester, New York, for failing to construct low-income, high-density housing complexes inside their suburbs.
They wanted to tear down suburban homes and replace them with apartments, essentially, and they went to court to do it.
Now, coincidentally enough, all of these policies and many more like them, coincidentally, were very beneficial for America's rapidly growing population of illegal aliens.
If you live in a suburb that's suddenly been overtaken by rapid demographic change, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
At precisely the same time that Americans are struggling more than ever to own their own homes, it's never been easier for illegal aliens to buy property without putting anything down.
The solution is not to double down on these Biden-era proposals and make it even easier to put people inside houses that they can't actually afford.
Democrats pushed those policies because they needed a place to put all their new voters.
And in doing so, they raised prices for everybody else.
But Republicans have no reason to emulate that strategy.
We elected them to make housing more affordable for Americans, to make life more affordable for Americans.
As we briefly discussed the other day, the Trump administration, his current policy proposal is not going to succeed in accomplishing that objective, to put it mildly.
Instead, in an interview with Fox's Laura Ingram, the president seemed extremely cavalier about the introduction of the new 50-year mortgages idea, which would be a catastrophically bad idea in about a million different ways.
According to Politico, what happened is that the federal housing director, Bill Pultey, who also serves as the chair of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, showed up at Palm Beach Golf Club with a 3x5 poster board in his hands.
And the poster board, as you can see here, showed a graphic of former President Franklin Roosevelt below the words 30-year mortgage, along with a picture of Trump below the words 50-year mortgage.
And the headline on the poster board was great American presidents.
And then 10 minutes later, as the story goes, Trump posted that image on Truth Social.
So that's how you lobby the president, apparently.
Make sure you have poster board.
But in speaking to Laura Ingram, it didn't appear that the president fully understood the implications of this proposal.
He also seemed to be under the impression that people are currently getting 40-year mortgages, which obviously is not true.
Watch this.
Housing costs are still out of reach.
And another thing that your administration is trying to tackle, many Americans, the average age of first-time homebuyers are now up to age 40, which is sad.
The country you and I.
I inherited that.
Look, you have to understand.
Right, but let me get to the question though, because your housing director has proposed something that has enraged your MAGA friends, which is this 50-year mortgage idea.
So a significant MAGA backlash, calling it a giveaway to the banks and simply prolonging the time it would take for Americans to own a home outright.
Is that really a good idea?
It's not even a big deal.
I mean, you know, you go from 40 to 50 years, and what it means is you pay something less from 30.
Some people had a 40, and then now they have a 50.
All it means is you pay less per month.
You pay it over a longer period of time.
It's not like a big factor.
It might help a little bit.
But the problem was that Biden did this.
He increased the interest rates.
And I have a lousy Fed person who's going to be gone in a few months.
Now, this is one of those clips that even if you're mostly a very strong supporter of what this administration is doing, as I am, I think they've done a lot of great stuff.
You simply cannot allow this to stand because it's a horrible idea and it will hurt the country.
Not to mention it will hurt Trump politically, which is a secondary concern.
But of course, the political concerns are also real concerns.
And as we'll see in a second, there was at least one more clip from this interview along these lines that is very problematic, which we'll talk about.
This was a very strange interview, and nobody on the right voted for any of this stuff.
But before we address that, let's talk about the reality of a 50-year mortgage, because contrary to what you just heard, it is indeed a very big deal, and it's also a very, very bad deal.
If you take out a $400,000 mortgage and you choose a 50-year and you go with the 50-year option, right?
The difference in your monthly payment is probably going to be around $150 a month.
Okay, that's it.
That is the quote, savings that you're getting, $150 a month.
Well, which $150 a month, if you can take, you know, you might think, well, better to save $150 a month than not save it.
You know, that's real money.
Okay, fine.
But the problem is that over the extra 20 years, you're going to spend roughly $500,000, yes, half a million dollars in extra interest payments.
That's the extra part of it.
You're going to spend two decades doing nothing but paying off the bank.
And if you don't make it that far, which you probably won't, then the bank gets your house.
Now, keep in mind, as we just heard, average age of first-time homebuyers 40 years old.
50-year mortgage, well, if you don't make it to 90, then you're never going to own your home.
miss a couple of payments and everything is gone.
All of that to save $150 a month.
And if you want to sell your home at any point, the 50-year mortgage is going to cause a lot of problems there as well.
After 10 years of making payments, you'll have less than $20,000 in equity in your home.
So just say that again in case you missed it.
After 10 years of making every payment, you will have less than $20,000 in equity.
You might even be underwater on the loan.
Meanwhile, with a normal 30-year mortgage, you'd have nearly $60,000 in equity.
So these are massive, massive differences for a very small monthly savings, which is not really a savings because you're spending more ultimately.
It's more expensive.
You're basically renting the property instead of owning it.
So why are we hearing something like this from the Trump administration?
It's indistinguishable from a proposal that the Biden administration might suggest as a way of getting more illegal aliens into more homes.
What we should be hearing from the president is very different.
He should acknowledge that any American adult who works a full-time job and fulfills their basic adult responsibilities should be able to own a home.
Now, it's not that anyone has a, quote, right to home ownership per se.
Home ownership, unlike, say, free speech rights, is a thing you have to work to achieve.
Okay, so no sane person thinks that we should just like give out housing to everybody regardless of, yeah, here you go, you all get houses.
There are plenty of people who've made proposals like that and they're insane.
So that's not what we're talking about.
But you should be able to achieve that.
Home ownership should be achievable for most competent working adults in a healthy and thriving country.
And it used to be in this country.
And if our country is failing to provide that opportunity, then the solution is not to turn more Americans into de facto renters.
It's not to make them more Americans into vassals of the banking system.
A much better idea, one that will actually lower the prices of homes, is to, as we talked about a couple of days ago, deport all of the tens of millions of foreigners who are here illegally and taking up housing that should go to Americans.
A lot of housing.
Give America back to Americans.
You know, how about 50 million deportations instead of 50-year mortgages?
Better yet, how about a 50-year immigration moratorium?
How about we hear a single sentence, just one single sentence from this administration about the fact that, as we so often talk about on this show, Somalis are now so entrenched in this country that they're playing out tribal feuds in municipal elections.
What do you think 100,000 Somalis have done for the housing prices in Minneapolis?
That's not a rhetorical question.
Like someone needs to answer this.
But as far as I know, nobody in the White House has.
So here's my best guess.
Okay, so let's just use Minneapolis as an example, as a microcosm.
The problem's obviously much bigger than this, but let's just use Minneapolis, okay?
And just the Somali, they've got a lot more immigrants in Minneapolis than just the Somalis, but let's just use this one example.
Minneapolis has 430,000 people.
Let's say 5% are Somali, which is a low-ball estimate.
And let's assume that these 20,000 Somalis occupy around 5,000 rental units in 700 homes and the rest are homeless, which again is a very low ball estimate.
So just using these numbers for the sake of argument here.
Getting rid of all the Somalis, even given these very generous assumptions, would double the rental vacancy rate in Minneapolis from 7% to 15% citywide.
lease prices would plummet, allowing young adults to save a lot more money much faster to buy a home of their own.
Median rents would drop like a rock.
And meanwhile, for homeowners, the median prices of a home would drop by around $30,000.
And this is just from deporting one group of third worlders in one city.
And this is an actual tangible result that the administration could get to work on right away.
They could end Somalia's temporary protected status, denaturalize and deport as many as they can, and then they could get to work on every other large population of foreign nationals in this country.
It's obviously worth a try at a minimum.
But as far as I could tell, this administration hasn't done anything on that front.
The president has joked about deporting Ilhan Omar.
The administration has gone out of its way to limit their immigration enforcement to illegal aliens who also have extensive criminal records, which, okay, we should, those illegal aliens, we should get out of the country if they have criminal records, but also all of the rest of them, we should get out of the country too, because all of the rest of them don't belong here.
They're not Americans.
They're not citizens.
They committed a crime by coming.
And they're a drain on the system.
And they're taking, and when it comes to housing, they are taking up housing, like millions of units of housing that don't belong to them and that should go to Americans.
Now, in the meantime, the housing market isn't just dire.
It's historically bad.
In 2000, the median homebuyer was around 40 years old.
Now he's 61 years old.
And the number of first-time homebuyers is now down to 21% of all home sales when it was double that number back in 2005.
Private equity firms and institutional real estate investors are buying something like 33% of all single-family homes as of the second quarter of this year.
That's the highest percentage in the last five years.
And if you look at this data from the National Association for Realtors, you'll see where the problem for first-time homebuyers began in earnest.
And as you can see, the median age of first-time homebuyers, which is indicated by the yellow line, began spiking very sharply in 2020.
And you probably remember what was going on in 2020.
We had the COVID lockdowns, massive government stimulus spending to keep the economy afloat.
The money was flowing like a fire hose.
And there wasn't any sober, rational analysis going on.
They were just pumping out the money.
People were getting thousands of dollars in the mail.
You may remember back five years ago, if you stood up and said, hey, I don't know if we should be doing this.
You were shouted down by almost everyone.
And tens of thousands of fraudulent businesses were established to collect on emergency loans.
And at the same time, the Fed also cut interest rates to near zero.
So the government directly contributed to the high price of homes that we're seeing right now.
Stands the reason the government can take action to reduce the price of homes.
It's like you created the problem.
Maybe you could fix it.
Lower interest rates are part of the solution.
Cutting any kind of discretionary spending is another.
But Republicans aren't really doing that.
They just voted to fully fund the SNAP program, which as we've discussed previously is an even bigger fraud than the COVID paycheck protection program.
You know, whenever they have an opportunity to actually lower prices on housing, Republicans aren't doing it.
And the president in this interview didn't seem interested in helping to address the problem either.
At one point, he stated that we need foreign migration into this country because Americans don't have the skills to perform jobs that are necessary.
Watch.
H-1B visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration because if you want to raise wages for American workers, you can't flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers.
We also do have to bring in talent when we have a lot of people.
We have plenty of talented people.
No, you don't.
No, you don't.
We don't have talented people.
No, you don't have certain talents and people have to learn.
You can't take people off an unemployment, like an unemployment line and say, I'm going to put you into a factory where we're going to make missiles or I'm going to put you in the middle.
How did we ever do it before?
I think we have plenty of highly skilled and talented people in this country.
I also think that it's undeniable that we don't have as many as we should because the public school system has been an abject, disastrous failure for decades now.
So it is true.
Like, is there a problem with having sort of like not enough people who are competent and skilled and all that?
Well, yeah, when you've got a public school system that's a total, absolute failure in every respect, then yeah, it's going to have a lot of downstream, a lot of downstream consequences.
And this is one of them.
The solution, though, is not to flood the market with foreigners.
You know, if Trump is right about American workers not having the skills, then that's all the more reason to cut off the H-1B program and train up actual Americans because America is for Americans, as provocative as that idea may be.
At the very least, the absolute minimum, the president should be explaining in detail what he's doing to stop the abuse of the H-1B system and the rampant fraud that's involved, which is so flagrant that everybody in the technology industry talks about it all the time.
He should tell us how he's drastically scaling back the number of H-1Bs, the vast majority of whom are not, in fact, working in highly technical or specialized fields.
That's the other thing that's not mentioned by Trump very often in this conversation.
Like we're pretending that these are all highly technical, very specialized.
That is not the case.
And again, this is the bare minimum.
And personally, I'd like to see the program abolished entirely.
So I'm talking about bare minimum.
Right now, there are accounts on X that are exclusively devoted to exposing how various large companies, including Nextdoor, are defrauding the H-1B system by posting job advertisements on random, no-name online job boards.
Here's just one example of what these ads look like, which you can see right there.
Basically, so to hire H-1Bs, this is the way it works, a company needs to show that they made a good faith effort to hire Americans first.
So, and this is something people that defend the H-1B program, they'll point this out.
They'll say that, well, you're only using that if you can't find any Americans to do these jobs.
Oh, really?
Is that the case?
Well, how does that work in practice?
What they do is they post an ad on one of these job boards, which are not like real.
They get no responses because there's no one looking at the board.
And then they claim that Americans weren't interested.
You know, it's like they walked into an empty forest and said, hey, anybody want this job?
No?
Okay, well, guess we got to hire someone from India.
That's the way it goes.
Now, keep in mind, Nextdoor could have listed this job on their official openings website, but they didn't.
This is a practice that's obviously worth a few criminal investigations, but as of now, only a few ex-accounts seem interested in stopping it, which needs to change.
All of those steps, in the end, would reduce the competition for housing in this country, especially in high-demand areas like Northern California and parts of Texas.
And they are actual, useful steps and not band-aids that will actually make the problem worse, like a 50-year mortgage.
The best thing you could say about a 50-year mortgage is that at best, it is a band-aid solution.
But it's like a band-aid that you put on a on a, you know, on a deep gash on an artery where you're just like bleeding out and you put a band-aid on it.
And maybe that will help for about 10 seconds and then you're going to die.
So, you know, this is this is a basic supply and demand thing.
Also, not to jump on my on my anti-AI soapbox again, but we should probably put in some regulations.
in place before AI wipes out millions of jobs and makes home ownership or owning anything else impossible for millions more Americans.
So if we're talking about actual solutions, this is also a thing that needs to happen.
I don't care how sick people may be of hearing me say it.
Well, you're going to hear me say it a lot more because this is the issue of the future.
And this is coming.
You know, out of curiosity, I went to ChatGPT, figured, you know, go right to the source and just ask ChatGPT to estimate how many jobs it will erase, like AI, how many jobs, ask AI how many jobs AI will release, erase, eliminate in the next 10 years.
And it estimated up to 15%, which is about 25 million jobs lost.
Now, that strikes me as quite conservative, but even just 15% is catastrophic.
I'm not sure how our society can absorb those losses without causing a full-scale collapse.
Does anyone know?
Does anyone know how we're going to do this?
How is this going to work?
What happens in the next few years?
You've got 25 million people who don't have jobs on top of the ones who already don't have them.
Entire industries from transportation to consulting and everything in between are going to be decimated.
I mean, what are the millions of truckers and secretaries and customer support representatives and accountants and lawyers and consultants and everyone else going to do when AI can easily replace them?
Two decades ago, a book was published entitled, Who Owns the Future?
And it's one of the few serious explorations of this question that I've seen, even though it didn't deal with AI explicitly.
And it's worth a read for that reason alone.
The author, Jeron Lanier, proposes that people should be compensated for contributing to various online economies and free services like Facebook and Google and helping to train their various algorithms.
So if an AI uses your posts on Reddit for training data or your Facebook arguments or whatever, then you get royalties.
And this is even more.
Now, with AI, like all it's doing is plagiarizing all the time.
Every time you ask AI anything and it gives you an answer, it's just plagiarizing it.
And if you ask it to generate something, create something, then it's not creating anything.
It's just plagiarizing it from somebody else.
Now, if AI is truly going to generate trillions in revenue, then these payouts would be trivial for the companies and potentially life-saving for everybody else.
I mean, that's one thing.
That's one idea.
There are other solutions too.
Elon Musk has proposed that when his robo-taxis go live with nobody in the driver's seat, Uber drivers will be able to manage entire fleets of taxis and make money that way.
Although, again, bare minimum, that's a bare minimum kind of solution as far as I'm because personally, I think we should pass laws banning companies from wiping out entire categories of jobs in favor of AI.
That's what I think we should be doing.
We should be looking at legislation saying you can't do this.
You cannot just wipe out tens of millions of jobs.
Our society cannot, we can't, you can't do it.
It's going to destroy society.
That's why you can't do it.
Now, that's the sort of thing that makes free market conservatives like me very uncomfortable.
But we're at a moment in history when we have to choose between doing things that make us uncomfortable or allowing millions of people, millions at a time, to lose their jobs and their livelihoods and any chance of owning a home or experiencing anything like the American dream ever.
So yeah, you have to do something.
You can't just sit back and let it happen.
And the bottom line is that the Trump administration needs to be talking about solutions like this.
I'm not pretending I have all the solutions.
I certainly don't.
I also wasn't elected to come up with the solutions.
The people we did elect need to start talking about this stuff.
What are we going to do about this?
People can't buy homes.
They're not able to live in homes.
It's going to get worse.
There are people who are in industries right now.
They already can't afford a home.
They are being actively replaced by algorithms as we speak.
It's going to get worse.
What are you going to do about it?
There's almost nobody in a position of power offering any solutions at all.
They're not even trying.
It's not enough to try to just band-aid over the problem.
We need solutions.
What are we going to do about this?
Now, politically, there's simply no other option.
Like the conservative movement has to seriously address these kinds of problems.
The entire movement will be left in the dust if we don't work on ways to actually improve Americans' lives and address the real challenges they face every day.
The only point of any of this, the only point of politics or economics or anything, the only point of anything that we talk about on the show every day, the only point of anything that any of us talk about is or should be to see to the well-being of American citizens.
All of our systems should serve exactly one purpose and one purpose only, which is to help our citizens live good lives.
That is the only point of any of it.
Anything that does not serve that purpose is bad or useless.
Anything that does serve that purpose is good.
It's pretty simple.
I'm very simple, and it's as simple as that.
You've got an idea.
Okay, does it improve people's lives?
If the answer is no, it makes it worse.
It's a bad idea.
We shouldn't do it.
That's it.
We should not do it.
There's not any, yeah, but it does this.
Well, I don't care what else it does.
It actively harms Americans.
We shouldn't do it.
Period.
Now, this is not socialism we're talking about.
Socialism, in fact, is bad precisely because of this, because it does not enhance the well-being of the citizenry, but instead it makes their lives worse by every metric.
That's how we know socialism is bad.
And this is the metric.
This is the thing we should be focused on.
It's why the homeownership issue is obviously crucially important.
It's why our leaders, speaking again from a political perspective, even though the politics are, again, are a secondary concern.
I mean, when it comes to homeownership, the main concern is like people need homes and they need to be able to live in homes and they need to be able to experience homeownership.
But from a political perspective, our leaders in the conservative movement need to take this on and need to take this seriously.
Like so much of the conversation on the right is about, has been about foreign policy, you know, global affairs.
Meanwhile, the average American is wondering if he'll ever be able to buy a house and if the industry he works in will still exist five years from now.
The average American is sitting there thinking like, what am I going to do?
What am I going to do with my life five years from now?
Those are very real concerns.
I mean, they're the most important concerns that a country can face.
And if Republicans don't want to address them, then another party, the party that openly seeks to destroy civilization itself, will do it for them and do it in the worst ways with the worst answers.
But one thing we've learned is this.
People with bad answers always beat the people with no answers.
So what are your answers?
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You remember the great ammo shortage of 2020?
Shelves were bare and even online options were wiped out.
Well, there's a company making sure that never happens again.
It's called Ammo Squared, and they've been helping over 100,000 members stockpile ammo automatically since 2015.
Here's how it works.
You sign up, pick your ammo from over 70 different calibers, set an auto-buy budget and choose a shipping frequency or just let it grow.
Over time, your ammo accumulates and is stored for free in Ammo Squared's climate control facilities in Texas and Idaho until you're ready to ship.
No minimums, no extra fees.
It's perfect for small budgets or anyone who wants to build up a stockpile without spending thousands or hundreds of dollars up front.
Setting up an account is simple and straightforward.
Plus, with so many options to choose from, you'll never need to visit a store again.
Everything is right there waiting for you.
Plus, with the holidays right around the corner, it's the perfect gift for the gun lover in your life.
It's the easiest way to stay prepared without the hassle.
But you got to head to ammo squared.com.
Take the work out of buying ammo.
100,000 members and thousands of five-star reviews.
Cannot be wrong.
That's ammo squared.com.
Check them out today for a special offer.
A healthy metabolism is one of the best things you can have for your overall health and energy.
But what if you could have a real-time metabolic coach that tells you your metabolism is what it's doing at any given moment?
Well, Lumen makes that a real option.
Lumen is a portable device that measures, tracks, and analyzes your metabolism.
It's the world's first handheld metabolic coach, and all you got to do is breathe into it.
Each morning, one breath can tell you whether you're burning fat or carbs.
You can check in before and after meals or workouts to see what's happening in your body in real time.
And Lumen gives you tailored tips to optimize your nutrition, your workouts, your sleep, and your stress management.
Your metabolism is your body's engine.
It's how you turn food into fuel.
So it's at the center of everything your body does.
A healthy metabolism means easier weight management, better energy, improved fitness results, and quality sleep.
That's why my producer McKenna decided to try Lumen.
She found it easy to use, and it helped her create a personalized nutrition plan while giving her a clearer understanding of her overall metabolic health.
Winter is the perfect season to get your health under control.
Stay energized, stay resilient.
Take charge of your metabolism.
Go to lumen.me slash walsh to get an additional 10% off your lumen.
That's l-u-m-e-n.me slash walsh for 10% off on top of any offers or sales running on their website.
So a couple of headlines here that kind of focus on the issues we talked about in the opening.
Speaking of the H-1B controversy, DHS Secretary Christy Noam was on Fox this morning talking about it.
And I guess the idea was to do some little bit of cleanup, mopping up a bit.
But I don't know that she achieved that.
Let's listen.
What is the administration's position on these visas?
We're going to keep using our visa programs.
We're just going to make sure that they have integrity, that we're actually doing the vetting of the individuals who come into this country, that they want to be here for the right reasons, that they're not supporters of terrorists and organizations that hate America.
And that's what I think is so remarkable is under the Trump administration, we've sped up our process and added integrity to the visa programs, to green cards, to all of that.
But also, more people are becoming naturalized under this administration than ever before.
More people are becoming citizens because we're not just streamlining and building some processes back into our immigration policies.
We're also making sure that these individuals that are coming into our country and get that privilege, that they actually are here for the right reasons.
The Biden administration let thousands of terrorists into this country.
They opened the southern border.
They abused our asylum programs, abused our protective programs and visa programs, and we fixed all of it.
It's remarkable what President Trump has done, and it's because he's a great leader.
He's a visionary.
And this man is going to go down to the legend in history as our greatest president ever.
No, that's not.
Okay, put the fish cam up.
Have we seen the fish cam this week at all?
That's the problem.
That's the problem.
We haven't spent enough time with the fish cam.
I think Trump hasn't spent enough time with the fish cam.
Maybe that's why he's on with Laura Ingram talking about H-1Bs and 10,000-year mortgages.
Spend a little time with the fish cam.
Let things settle down a bit.
Let's calm ourselves.
Okay.
All right, that's enough of that.
This is not the answer that we are looking for, Christy Noam.
We don't need more people.
The problem is not that immigrants aren't becoming citizens fast enough, right?
It's not that we're not bringing in enough immigrants.
I think bragging that you've naturalized more immigrants than anyone else is totally tone deaf.
That's that, yeah, it's like that's right.
That's the problem.
We don't want that.
So just forget about the substance of the issue for a moment.
And we talk about that all the time.
So you know where I stand on that.
But going back to the politics, politically, bragging that more people are becoming citizens, promoting the H-1B program and all of that, that is political poison.
Who is it supposed to appeal to?
Who are you trying to impress?
Now, I know that for Christy Noah, when she's up there, she's saying, well, Trump's going to go down as the greatest president of all time and all that kind of stuff.
It's like partly she's trying to appeal to President Trump himself.
We all get that clearly.
But if we want the Republican Party to continue to exist, if we want the conservative movement to continue to exist, then you've got to appeal to more than just Trump himself.
And this is not going to do it.
And just constantly insisting, even Trump in the Laura Ingram interview, he said that this is the greatest economy that the world's ever seen.
No, it's not.
I mean, you can't convince us of that by just telling us that.
People are living in it.
So when you say it's the greatest economy of all time, yes, well, a lot of people are looking around saying, yeah, but I can't afford groceries.
I can't afford a house.
I can't afford groceries.
I can't afford a house.
Tell me it's the greatest economy of all time.
People are drawing the connection here.
They're saying, well, I can't afford groceries.
I can't afford a house.
My parents were living in a house when they were like 12 years younger than I am right now.
But it's the greatest economy ever right now.
Really?
This is the greatest ever?
Doesn't seem like it.
That's the calculation that a lot of people are making.
It's a very rational calculation.
So who are you trying?
Like, who is this supposed to appeal to?
left has already decided.
They've decided on their Trump narrative, right?
They decided a long time ago.
They decided 10 years ago.
It's never going to change.
Trump is Hitler, no matter what.
Doesn't matter what he does.
Doesn't matter what he says.
Never going to change.
So you're not going to appeal to the left.
You can't.
You shouldn't try.
And that leaves all the rest of us.
And for the rest of us, what we want is for someone to unashamedly and single-mindedly advocate for Americans and Americans only.
We want someone to say, you know, the only thing I care about is helping Americans.
Only people I care about in the world are Americans.
And we don't want to just hear that, but we want to see the action taken as well.
You know, I've seen some people on social media say, hey, it's America first, but not America only.
I disagree.
I think it is America only.
It's like I said months ago, I consider myself an American chauvinist.
America first, America only.
I'm American chauvinist.
I don't care about.
This is the only thing I care about.
America should be the only thing you care about, especially as a leader of the country.
Yeah, it's American chauvinism.
You should be saying to Americans, yeah, I put you above everybody else.
And so you're not saying, well, these other people are more talented.
We got to bring them in.
Nope.
Yeah, but you shouldn't care about them because they're not Americans.
So if we have a problem where, you know, not enough Americans have the skills necessary to get the jobs, then we got to train up these Americans.
We got to fix that problem.
Sounds like we got, like I said, we got a big problem with the school system.
Okay, we need major fixes to that.
Let's get to work fixing that.
The solution is not to bring in anybody from another country because they shouldn't matter to you, frankly.
They should matter to their leaders, not to you.
Now, you can have a general concern for them, a sense of Christian charity for human beings in general.
You don't wish them ill, certainly.
But as a leader, the people that you're concerned about are people in your country.
It's like anything else.
I mean, this logic is very obvious to most people in most situations.
It's like if you're the coach of a football team, it's not just my team first.
It's like, no, my team only, actually.
I don't hate those other people.
I don't want them to die.
I don't want anything bad to happen to them.
But this is my team.
I care about my team.
My priority is my team, period.
Yes, my team only.
It's the only team I care about.
I'm leading this team.
Those other teams, they have their own leadership.
That should be the mentality.
So, look, Trump has done a lot of good things in his first nine or 10 months, but now's the time to go all the way.
Take it all the way.
Do the things that no other president would do.
Do the things that you can uniquely do as a president who is already hated by the left and by the media more than anyone who's ever lived.
As somebody who will be out of public office for good in a few years, nothing to lose.
Just go do it.
Mass deportations, actual mass deportations.
What's the downside?
It's obviously the right thing to do.
We all know that.
Yeah, it might be a little ugly.
It's going to force you to do some things that are tough in some cases.
Because yeah, when you're deporting sex offenders and drug dealers, that's very easy.
Any rational person can agree, get those people out.
They're not sympathetic at all.
Absolutely.
When you've got drug traffickers on a boat and you could just blow them out of the, just blow them up from a drone, go ahead and do that.
Fine.
Sounds good.
Yeah, going in and taking out like a whole, taking a whole family, dragging them into a bus or a van, taking them back to their home country when they haven't committed any other crimes aside from coming here in the first place.
I'll be the first to admit, yeah, that's a little ugly.
That could get a bit ugly, but it needs to be done.
Leaders have to do ugly things sometimes.
And when you've got a really ugly situation, such as the collapse of our national identity and sovereignty, our economy and everything that's being caused by this, you've got an ugly situation.
Well, the only solutions are also ugly.
There are no pretty solutions to ugly situations.
They don't exist.
So go do it.
Expel the Ford and students from our universities, especially Chinese students.
That was another thing that came up in this interview.
Trump was trying to explain why we need to bring in these foreign students from China, 600,000 Chinese students, who come here to our universities and then go back to their own countries.
So they're taking advantage of the education here and then going back to their own country.
Why will we allow that?
What's in it for us?
What's in it for us?
Why will we ever allow that?
What are we, just being good sports?
And look, if Trump won't do it, then who will?
And the worst case scenario for Trump is that he is despised by everybody on the left, which has already happened, can't be undone, won't change.
But he doesn't take his own agenda all the way and ends up demoralizing his own supporters.
And then this whole thing ends, you know, like it did in 2020, basically, with just total demoralization and chaos.
Except there won't be another shot this time around.
There's not going to be a third term.
There won't be another go-round.
And that's the worst case scenario.
All right.
Barons.com reports a country music song featuring a male singer's voice generated by artificial intelligence reached the top of the U.S. charts for the first time this week.
Walk My Walk by Breaking Rust.
An artist with no identity, but widely reported by U.S. media to be powered by generative AI technology, made it to the top spot on Billboard magazine's chart ranking digital sales of country songs according to data published on Monday.
AI generated songs are creeping onto the music charts in various scenes, and country music is no exception.
So allegedly, this is like a hit song now.
And we've heard this story before, by the way, about AI songs that, oh, they're big hit songs.
They're topping the charts.
And a lot of times that has turned out to be not exactly true.
In this case, I think it is.
But before we talk about that, let's play, just so you know what we're talking about.
And I know you're curious, as I was.
So here is this AI song.
Listen to been beat down, but I don't stay low.
Got mud on my jeans, still ready to go.
Every scar's a story that I survived.
I've been through hell, but I'm still alive.
They say, Slow down, boy, don't go too fast.
But I ain't never been one to live in the past.
I keep moving forward, never looking back with a worn-out hat and a six-string strap.
You can kick rocks if you don't like how I talk.
I'm gonna keep on talking and walk my walk.
Ain't changing my tone, ain't changing my song.
I was born this way, been like a so that's the song.
Uh, it sounds real in that it does sound like a human singing.
That's the scary part.
If I heard that, I mean, it sounds like a person.
Um, AI music, even, I mean, we did a segment where we played AI songs, I don't know, less than a year ago, and they all sounded, they sounded like AI.
And this, this does not.
I mean, it sounds like a person.
It's also totally soulless and empty.
I mean, it sounds like a song from like a Jeep Wrangler commercial or something.
It's like a song from a network TV.
It's like the soundtrack of a network TV cop show that plays at 9 p.m. on a Tuesday on CBS, like that kind of thing.
Totally devoid of any artistry or soul or meaning or human talent.
And yet, allegedly, this song is some kind of hit.
And as I said, I've heard these claims before.
Oh, it's a hit song made by AI topping the charts.
Often it turns out to not exactly be true.
But in this case, I looked up this quote-unquote artist on Spotify.
It has over 2 million monthly views on Spotify, apparently.
So 2 million, or listeners, rather, 2 million, 2 million monthly listeners on Spotify, which is deeply depressing.
I mean, it is an outrage, honestly.
I just, I hate everyone who listened to this song, unironically.
Everyone who listened to it, unless out of a sense of morbid curiosity, as we just did.
But anyone who's like an actual listener, and I found this on YouTube, and there were comments.
And even some, many of the comments are probably bots in AI.
So who knows what's real anymore?
That's the world we live in.
But there were a lot of comments saying, oh, this is actually pretty good.
It's not too bad.
I kind of like this.
And I'm just thinking, like an actual fan of this soul-sucking AI dystopian slop.
I just, well, I don't hate.
I can't, I don't, I don't hate you.
Hate is too strong a way.
I'm Christian.
I don't hate anybody.
So I, hate is not the word.
I find you, if you would listen to that and say, oh, this is pretty good, but not too bad at all.
Hey, why not?
AI music, just as good as any other.
Who cares if it was made by an algorithm?
Who cares if some soulless algorithm is just pumping this into my empty skull?
It's not too bad.
I mean, I don't hate you.
I don't, I don't, but I resent you and I have no respect for you, but I don't hate you.
I hate AI.
That I do hate.
If I could commit an AI genocide, I totally would.
In the future, if there are AI robots walking around, everybody thinks they have souls, even though they don't and they never can, I will be like the bad guy in the movie hatching an evil plot to just kill them all.
I will be an AI, anti-AI Genghis Khan, just killing entire countries worth of these robots.
An anti-AI pole pot.
Yes, an anti-AI Hitler.
I'll finally be, all the people calling me Hitler will finally be proven right as I carry out my genocide of the robots.
That's how much I hate it.
Of course, I'm saying all of this, which is so what that actually means is that I'll be the first person that the robots come and kill or enslave, so I'll never get a chance.
This is all just a fantasy that will never actually happen.
What will really happen is that while I'm eating my breakfast, they'll just, a drone, AI drone will snipe me through the window.
And that's what's actually going to happen.
So anyway, the point is, AI music is the death of the soul.
AI art is impossible.
It can't exist.
AI can kill art.
It can wipe it out, but it can't do art.
It can't perform or produce art.
And that's because art is all is all about what it means to be human.
Like we said yesterday, art is the creation of beauty.
It conveys beauty.
It conveys meaning.
You can't have beauty without meaning.
And algorithms cannot create beauty or convey meaning.
Algorithms have no minds.
They have no souls.
They have no consciousness.
So when I think about this possible future, which is coming, it's coming faster than even I thought with AI and AI art in particular.
I mean, if we're already at the point where one of these AI quote-unquote artists has 2 million monthly listeners on Spotify, then I think we are, I mean, maybe I would have thought five years away.
I think we're a year away at most from having a, you know, from having a situation where the charts really are dominated by just this.
And when I think about that, like, who could, how could, could we really get to, can we really get to a point where the mass of people in this country, in our culture, are willing to consume this, where they know that it's AI, they know that it was produced by an algorithm.
It was produced by something that has no mind and no soul and is not trying to convey anything to you.
Will we really get to a point where the mass of people will just consume that anyway?
Choose, it's eating at their souls, killing them inside, and they will eat it anyway.
Will we really get to that point?
And I think the only way we'll get there, because I don't, I don't know.
I don't think the mass of people could really like consume AI, listen to AI music, watch a totally AI generated film from start to, you know, a 95-minute movie.
It was completely generated by AI.
I think the only way people can get there where they're willing to do that is if they've convinced themselves that actually this art is conveying meaning because the AI does have a soul and it is trying to like tell them something.
If there's anyone that actually likes AI music right now, I think that's probably why they like it.
Because they've convinced themselves that, oh, you know, wow, this algorithm has a soul.
This is its soulfulness coming through.
And that's a scary thought.
That's a scary thought when we get to a point where most people begin to believe that this stuff is like conscious.
And the other interesting thing is, as I talk about AI, you know, AI is the battle of the future.
It just is.
I think there are a lot of the things, a lot of things we're arguing about right now that five years from now will be totally irrelevant.
It just won't matter at all.
And this is the battle of the future.
But I think one of the reasons why it's not being taken nearly as seriously as it should be is that the political battle lines have not been drawn around it yet, from what I can see.
So this is one thing, one of the only things right now in the culture, and it's a huge thing, but it's one of the only things where you don't know whose team you're on.
If you're anti-AI, is that the conservative position?
Or is it the liberal position?
Well, the answer is it's kind of neither.
It should be the conservative position.
This should be something that conservatives are rallying around.
That AI is a problem.
It needs to be contained.
It needs to be regulated.
We need laws around it.
We need to protect people.
That should be the conservative position, but it doesn't seem to be.
Because conservatives also have this other part of them pulling them towards just accepting the AI takeover, because that's the part of them that says, you know, free market, capitalism is a religion, and we must always abide by it no matter what.
And putting anything in place to control these trillion dollar companies that are creating this stuff is bad.
We can't do it.
And so that's kind of the war going on inside the minds of most conservatives.
And I think that a lot of them don't really know where to fall on this.
Well, we got to figure it out and figure it out soon.
When it comes to healthcare, people are really frustrated with how much it costs and how to pay for it.
Premiums go up, coverage goes down.
Even with insurance, deductibles are so high, you end up paying out of pocket for medical care anyway.
It's a broken system.
And that's why MediShare is such a welcome relief.
It's called healthcare sharing.
It's different and it works.
Unlike traditional insurance, health sharing is a system where members with shared beliefs pay into a fund to help cover each other's medical expenses.
More than a million Americans are now doing this.
And MediShare has been a great option for more than 30 years.
So really, you could save thousands of dollars a year on your healthcare and be happy.
Now, imagine that.
If you've heard about it and you want to know more, there are two easy options.
Go to metashare.com slash matt.
It's metashare.com slash matt or just grab your phone and send a text.
You get the info, which could really help you and your family out.
Text the word Matt to 70246 to get the facts.
Text Matt to 70246 and you'll get the link.
That's Matt to 70246.
In one week, Friendly Fire returns.
Join Bench Piero, Michael Knowles, Andrew Clavin, and me Wednesday night at 7 p.m. Eastern on Daily Wire Plus as we do what we do best, debate, discuss, and disagree on the biggest stories in politics and culture.
Plus, we're premiering the first official trailer for the Pendragon cycle, Rise of the Merlin.
Don't miss it.
Friendly Fire, Wednesday at 7 p.m. Eastern, only on Daily Wire Plus.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
You know, it's long been known that leftists have read precisely two books, no more, no less.
Out of hundreds of millions of English language works of literature, leftists have only read Harry Potter as children and as adults, and The Handmaid's Tale, as adults, hopefully.
And that's it.
A liberal's library could fit inside a port-a-potty.
And if you want to understand a leftist worldview, that's an important fact to comprehend.
They don't know anything about history because they don't read history books.
They don't know anything about good storytelling because they're addicted to Netflix.
And they're not creative thinkers, nor are they familiar with the concept of nuance because their minds have been dulled by decades of constant exposure to streaming services and cable news propaganda.
Reading requires and inspires patience and contemplation.
And in general, the left don't have time for either of those things.
And rather than address this obvious vulnerability, say by encouraging their audience to open a new book for once in their lives, left-wing media have decided to double down on this.
They've continued to obsess over these two books and their authors because it's the only way they can relate to their audience.
And that brings us to this recent segment on 60 Minutes, in which the 85-year-old feminist author Margaret Atwood, who wrote The Handmaid's Tale, is once again warning about the imminent dangers of fascism and Trump and all of that.
Now, 10 years ago, you could maybe to some degree see the appeal of promoting somebody like Margaret Atwood from a left-wing perspective.
They needed to fearmonger about what the first Trump administration was going to do, about how women all over the country will be subjugated and forced to cover their entire bodies, sort of like they do in Afghanistan or Minneapolis.
So they dug up Atwood's 1985 dystopia novel, turned it into a six-season Hulu series beginning in 2017, and gave it every Emmy award in existence.
That was the gambit.
And it obviously didn't work for the same reason that climate scientists failed to convince America that a new ice age was going to destroy the planet in the 1970s.
With the passage of time, it became abundantly clear that Margaret Atwood had no idea what she was talking about, just like the climate scientists.
So you'd think by now everybody would have moved on.
The ship has sailed on this particular fear-mongering technique, but 60 Minutes under the new leadership of Barry Weiss apparently disagrees.
They've decided to go back to the well one more time.
And here's how that segment began.
This week on 60 Minutes, we sit down with Canada's best-known author, Margaret Atwood.
Now 85, she has published 64 books and counting, including the best-selling The Handmaid's Tale.
Hundreds I. Under his eye.
Published in 1985, The Handmaid's Tale depicts a near-future America overtaken by religious dictatorship, where a dwindling number of fertile women are forced to cloak themselves in red and bear children for the elite.
The book would sell more than 10 million copies and spawn an Emmy-winning Hulu series.
These are rare books.
At the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library in Toronto, Atwood has archived stacks of her research.
That is the hundreds of news clippings that substantiate her plots.
Women forced to have babies.
Communists are making women have babies.
Persistent non-pregnancy will be considered a crime against the state.
I did get a tweet which the guy said, how does Margaret Atwood make up this weird sh ⁇ ?
And I said, it's not me making up this weird shit.
It's the human race.
So we're in the Cold War here.
I was very interested in totalitarianisms, and I was very interested in how they get that way.
But Harvard, you know, I didn't like hearing people say it can't happen here because anything can happen anywhere given the circumstances.
So right off the bat, we have a narrative violation here.
She's supposed to say that Donald Trump and the Republicans are bringing back fascism and all that.
And that's what every leftist who's seen the Hulu show is expecting.
And indeed, later on in the interview, she does get into that.
She blames Reagan and the religious right.
But at the start of the segment, that's not what happens.
Instead, she shows the news clipping that she used for inspiration, and she says that the idea of mandatory pregnancy was based on an old communist policy.
And obviously, if there's a side of the American political spectrum that worships Soviet-style communism at the moment, it's not the Trump administration.
So that's a little awkward.
But the point is, according to Margaret Atwood, something similar could happen in America because, quote, anything can happen anywhere.
But how exactly could the same thing happen in America?
It's been nearly a decade since Trump's first term began.
What exactly are the signs that we're about to have mandatory pregnancy laws or anything like that?
Well, it takes a few minutes, but eventually the segment gets around to answering that question, or at least attempting to.
They show Margaret Atwood shooting a flamethrower at a fireproof version of her book.
And then they portray her as a victim of these mythical book bannings.
Watch.
Here she is taking a flamethrower to her own book.
Atwood was firing back at would-be book burners by torching an unburnable edition.
It was all promotion for a charity auction to benefit PEN America, a nonprofit that champions free speech.
Atwood's books have been banned for content deemed overly sexual, morally corrupt, anti-Christian.
She told us she was particularly peeved when a recent ban came from Edmonton, Alberta, in her own country.
The government put out an edict to all school boards saying that they couldn't have any books in the library that had either direct or indirect sex.
What is indirect sex?
Science fiction.
Indirect sex lately.
Now, just out of a morbid sense of curiosity, because you can't trust anything that airs on 60 Minutes or CBS News, I looked into this alleged book banning that the government of Alberta was supposedly engaging in.
And as it turns out, as you may have guessed, it was an example of malicious compliance.
Essentially, what happened is that the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, wanted to ban pornographic books from school libraries, which makes sense.
So she told the school board to remove books that were not age-appropriate because they contained sexually graphic content, including so-called LGBT books that are really a form of grooming.
And in response, the Edmonton Public School Board, which is made up of leftists, decided to ban 1984, The Godfather, Jaws, and so on, in addition to The Handmaid's Tale.
So they deliberately misread the government's directive to make a point.
They banned the book, along with some classics, in order to cook up a pretext for book bans.
And of course, Margaret Atwood was happy to play the victim.
This is from CBC News, quote, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith slammed the Edmonton Public School Board Friday morning for its banned book list, which features more than 200 titles.
Edmonton Public is clearly doing a little vicious compliance over what the direction is, Smith said.
The point of this book is to keep graphic, sexually explicit content out of elementary schools, she said.
If they need us to hold their hand through the process to identify what kind of materials are appropriate, we will more than happily work with them to work through their list one by one so we can be super clear about what it is we're trying to do.
So that was several months ago.
The government of Alberta clarified the ban, and everybody now fully understands that it only applies to graphic images of sexual content and does not include books like The Handmaid's Tale.
But all of those details are apparently missing from the 60 Minutes segment.
So we're left with the fake victim narrative when it's not even remotely accurate.
But really, this is all the moot point, because even if The Handmaid's Tale were still banned in Alberta public schools, the segment still wouldn't make any sense for two reasons.
First of all, the book is about a rape ritual.
It is perverse and it's a political work of feminism.
It's also bad literature, just a bad book.
It's not well written.
Margaret Atwood is not a good author.
She just writes pulpy trash.
That's what she does.
And so it's completely normal for a parent to want to keep that kind of garbage out of their child's school library.
It's like any of the trash books you see like in an airport, right?
That for middle-aged women to read on the flight.
You're not going to put that stuff in a school library for kids.
A lot of the times the material is not appropriate, but also it has no artistic value.
It has no literary value.
And, you know, you can't have every book in existence in a school library.
Only a small number can be in the library.
And that's because, more importantly, removing a book from a school library is not banning the book because the book is available literally everywhere else.
Okay, so if Handmaid's Tale is banned because it's not in a school library, then that means that almost every book that's ever been written is banned because almost none of them are in school libraries.
So when she says banned, if by banned, she means the book is available everywhere that books are sold and has been obsessively promoted by every major media outlet for decades, adapted into six seasons of a streaming show in Hulu and not actually banned at any store in any form at all, then yeah, the book has definitely been banned.
If by banned, she means you can buy the book in paperback, hardcover, or Kindle on Amazon right now for $9, then yeah, it's banned.
If by banned, she means you can buy it right now and have it show up on your doorstep in 12 hours for $9, then yeah, it's a banned book.
But unfortunately for CBS News and Margaret Atwood, that's not what the word banned actually means.
So what are we doing here exactly?
You know, this banned books narrative on the left has endured.
It's one of the most enduring narratives, even though it makes no sense.
It is not even close to true.
It has never been true.
This has never actually happened.
It's all made up.
But it's just another way for washed up liberal boomers like Margaret Atwood to cosplay as persecuted revolutionaries long after every sane person has forgotten about them.
So at this point, if I can offer some unsolicited advice to the left, it would be this.
Read another book.
Find any other book.
I honestly don't care.
Any book besides Handmade Tell, Handmaid's Tale, or Harry Potter.
Just find a third book that you can fixate on.
Any book, I beg you.
Don't say another word about Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling or The Handmaid's Tale or Margaret Atwood.
There are more books out there.
Like, I don't know if you knew that, but there are actually more.
There are more than two books that have ever been written.
And unlike Harry Potter and The Handmaid's Tale, some of those other books are actually good.
And if you read those books, they can even help you make more clever and timely analogies, which you can use in political arguments in the future.
That's one of the benefits of doing a lot of reading.
But as it stands, you might say that the left is a lot like Captain Ahab and Moby Dick.
They're endlessly chasing the white whale of right-wing totalitarianism, seeing it around every corner, even when it's not there, and it's destroying them.
And that is why Margaret Atwood, CBS News, and every other leftist who's falsely whining about book bans in the year 2025 are all today canceled.
That'll do for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morningwire.
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
