Today on The Matt Walsh Show, New York City has abolished their jaywalking laws.Now New Yorkers are free to get run over in the street, all in the name of racial equity.
This is just a small taste of the kind of madness we'll see nationwide if Kamala is elected.Also, Donald Trump somehow continues to up his troll game.
His latest stunt is the funniest one yet, and Democrats are running ads claiming that Republicans want to ban porn nationwide.We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Not only is Am I Racist the number one documentary of the decade, it is streaming now exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member, we have a treat for you.Use code DEI and save 35% off your new annual membership.
Take a look at the trailer for Am I Racist right now.
What do you feel in your body when you hear the term white people?
I feel like a cringe about it.
White, straight, cisgender man, it's the top of the pile.
I'm on the top of the pile.It's me. Can I just propose a toast?Raise a glass if you're racist.It's a racist.
Don't deny that you're racist.Try not to be racist, but don't, but also don't realize that you're.Until we're willing to talk about these things, healing can't really begin.My daughter's four years old.
She's still watching Disney movies and choosing a white princess.
Have you talked to her about that?
Is racism inherent to whiteness?Yes.Yep.
Yeah, probably.Well, yeah.Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Did race exist as a reality before?
We made race exist.Does that make sense?
It does make sense.What do you mean?What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.This is more for you and less for you.
Am I racist?Now streaming only on Daily Wire Plus, rated PG-13.
Now I'm saddened to say that I think we all recognize that we are indeed living in a new realm of tyranny.The three largest pharmaceutical companies in the nation are taking aim at taking a new supplement away from you.It's three letters, NMN.
They want to turn NMN into the first prescription anti-aging drug, monopolize the market, and ramp up the prices, and the reason is simple.It's because NMN, it's a game changer.
A recent Harvard study, which you can check out here, showed that NMN can help reduce weight, cholesterol, and even blood pressure in overweight adults.This thing has been dubbed the limitless pill.Some have called it a fountain of youth in a bottle.
Just last week, Black Forest, alongside the Natural Products Association, sued the FDA for trying to take away such a powerful supplement from the hands of the American people.
So arm yourself with knowledge, stock up on NMN, and let's show them that we won't be silenced or subdued.We're in this together, and together we'll rise above it.These guys are fighters standing up for what's right.
I asked them if they could offer a special deal for our audience, and they agreed to an amazing buy two, get one free 48-hour deal. For those of you looking to take control of your health with their NMN supplements, this is your chance to stock up.
I want to personally thank Antonio and the Black Forest team for having the courage to stand their ground.Head to blackforestsupplements.com slash walsh right now.Let's show the establishment that backing American values is good business.
You know, it's not every day that you accidentally stumble upon a vast conspiracy among the nation's various local police departments, especially when it's a conspiracy that relates to the upcoming presidential election.
But yesterday, as I was watching some reporting about New York City's decision to decriminalize jaywalking, that's exactly what I did.Now, in case you missed it, yes, New York City's city council just voted to decriminalize jaywalking.
No one's going to get any more tickets for crossing against the light or for walking in the middle of the street. Now, technically, jaywalkers still don't have the right of way, so I guess they might have some liability if they cause an accident.
But realistically, it's open season for jaywalking in the city.
The mayor, Eric Adams, didn't take any official action on this bill to decriminalize jaywalking, probably because he's busy with the Biden administration's attempts to throw him in prison.So the bill has now automatically become law.
Here's a report on the new law from a local news station, and as you listen to this, you Pay close attention to what the male anchor says in the beginning.
A big and controversial legal change that will allow New Yorkers to jaywalk.You know, cross the street, against the light, or in the middle of the street.This, despite the deadly risks.
Why?Because the overwhelming majority of jaywalking tickets apparently were given to minorities.So why didn't they just level the playing field to these tickets?Meanwhile, kids, do not do this.This can be deadly.
We talked to the city councilwoman who pushed for this, who said jaywalking simply should not be illegal. We're talking about 92% of those summonses are given to the black and brown communities.That's it.
When was the last time you heard somebody say that, I'm happy they caught that Jay Walker?And that would be never.
That's an interesting little hypothetical.The Democrat politician asks, when's the last time you said, I'm happy they caught that Jay Walker?And the reporter says, well, that would be never.
Therefore, we're meant to conclude that we don't need the law against jaywalking.Now, first of all, if you've ever been unfortunate enough to drive a vehicle in New York City, then the answer to that question would actually be a resounding yes.
You would scream with joy if the police arrested every single pedestrian who was walking in the road, even if they were there legally.Pedestrians make driving about a million times slower and more annoying in New York than it already is.
I mean, most drivers in New York wouldn't shed a single tear if it became a capital offense to Jaywalk.But even if we pretend that that's not true, it's a pretty interesting argument that these women are advancing, if you think about it.
Cuz they're saying that if you've never stopped yourself and said, I'm happy they caught that guy for violating Law X, then therefore we don't need Law X anymore.
Well, maybe not a bad way of looking at things, but coming from Democrats in New York, it's a pretty entertaining approach.
Because imagine these people applying this principle to, say, New York's business records law, the one that they accused Trump of violating.
Prior to Trump, has anyone in the history of New York ever found themselves saying that they're really glad that somebody was held accountable for victimless misdemeanor record-keeping violations that happened seven years ago?
Obviously, the answer to that question is no.So why do we have those laws on the books?It'd be fun to watch that politician and that reporter answer that particular question.
It would also be entertaining to ask these women whether we should get rid of, say, the entire tax code while we're at it.After all, I don't see anyone celebrating IRS agents who audit people for not reporting $600 they just received on Venmo.
So why don't we decriminalize every single accounting offense and tax code violation? These aren't rhetorical questions, it'd be a great idea.
But of course, these questions never occur to Democrats in New York because they're enforcing equity, not logic. In any event, back to my conspiracy, you may have noticed how the anchor and the politician explain the reasoning for this new law.
But let's focus on the anchor for now because he actually seems pretty skeptical of the law.As the anchor put it, quote, the overwhelming majority of jaywalking tickets were given to minorities.
So why did they just level the playing field on these tickets? In other words, the anchor wants to know why they don't simply ticket more white people for jaywalking while ticketing fewer blacks and Hispanics.Wouldn't that solve the whole problem?
If we did that, then instead of 90% of jaywalking tickets going to black people and Hispanics, we could make it closer to, say, 40%.And then racial equity will be achieved.
This is the kind of question you only ask when you've been subjected to decades of lies about crime statistics by Democrats like Kamala Harris and Barack Obama, to the point that you actually believe them.
It's a question that makes a very significant assumption that happens to have no basis in reality.And that assumption is that members of every racial group are jaywalking at precisely the same rates.
You know, if you truly believe that assumption is true, then there is indeed a vast conspiracy among thousands of local police departments all over the country.There's no other explanation for what's going on.
That's because, as I've discovered, these so-called racial disparities in jaywalking enforcement happen to exist everywhere, not just in New York.
Here's a report from San Diego from a couple of years ago, for example, and for some reason, they interviewed a guy who had a beef over his jaywalking ticket
And then they get into the statistics, which reveal just how deep the rot goes in the San Diego Police Department.Watch.
I have seen lots of people blatantly running red lights, and I've almost been hit on a number of occasions by people blatantly running red lights when I had the right to cross, and I've learned to be very, very cautious.
Don Moyer plans on contesting his ticket in a trial next year.Bogus or not, his jaywalking ticket was one of more than 5,000 given to pedestrians in San Diego since 2015. And those tickets disproportionately targeted Black people.
16% of the tickets went to Blacks, even though they make up only 6% of the city's population.Similar racial disparities exist in cities across California.
Black people are disproportionately affected by almost every type of criminalization.
Ann Rios is an attorney and executive director of Uprise Theater, a nonprofit that educates people on their legal rights.She says the disparities are proof of racial bias among San Diego police officers.
So 16% of the tickets went to blacks, even though they make up only 6% of the population.And this is proof, according to the activists, that the police are racist.There can't be any other explanation for the data.
And she doesn't stop there, quote, black people are disproportionately affected by almost every type of decriminalization.Well, that gives you some sense of just how widespread the conspiracy is across every type of crime across the entire country.
The police are enforcing laws in a racist manner.Because it can't possibly be that different demographic groups are committing different rates of crime.That's just unthinkable.
Instead, you're commanded to think that any difference in crime statistics must be due to one thing and one thing only, which is racist cops.
It can't possibly be that maybe black people are getting ticketed for jaywalking more because they're doing it more.
A few weeks ago, I talked about how the DOJ used this reasoning during the Obama administration to sue various police departments for enforcing the law.
One of the cities they went after was Ferguson, Missouri, which also happens to have an issue with disproportionate jaywalking tickets, we're told.That's how vast this conspiracy of racist traffic cops is, watch.
And the report, which will be fully available this week, says black citizens made up 93% of arrests from 2012 to 2014 in Ferguson.88% of the time where police used force to subdue, that person was African-American.
And the investigation also found Ferguson's municipal court targeted blacks on outstanding warrants, as well as small offenses like jaywalking or disturbing the peace.And they were 68% less likely to have any case dismissed.
The data just keeps coming in.If you're keeping track from New York to San Diego to Ferguson, racist traffic cops are targeting black Americans for jaywalking.
In fact, these racist cops are so brazen that they'll often target these black Americans on video.That's what happened in Jacksonville a few years ago.
This is a video from Vox that tries really, really hard to present a police officer as racist for doing his job and enforcing the law.Watch.
What was it that we did wrong, officer? You crossed.Take your camera and point it across there at the red hand.That is a crosswalk.One, you weren't in the crosswalk.Two, there was a red sign.You both crossed over.
That's a $65 ticket if he skids my car.
You are being legally detained.We just crossed the street.We just crossed the street without following the sign.That was it.
And we got stopped.The young man in this video's name is Devante Shipman.And he stopped right here in Jacksonville, Florida, threatened with jail time for essentially jaywalking.
If you're living in the county's three poorest zip codes, you're 5.9 times more likely to receive a pedestrian ticket than anyone else in Jacksonville.
And if you're black, you're 2.7 times more likely to get a pedestrian ticket than if you're white.30% of Jacksonville's population is black, but they receive 55% of the pedestrian tickets.
That's the highest percentage in Florida among large counties.
Well, they say you're 2.7 times more likely to get the ticket if you're black.Well, that's not exactly true because If you don't commit the particular crime, then you're 0% likely to get ticketed.
So if you don't jaywalk at all, then you're not 2.7 times more likely to get ticketed for jaywalking.In fact, there's no chance you get ticketed for jaywalking if you don't actually do that thing.So if you don't want to get ticketed for jaywalking,
There's there's this other possibility where you could just not jaywalk just use the crosswalk Wait till the little walking man is lit up, you know to let us know you could cross the crosswalk You could always just do that But they never factor that into these reports.
They never It's like it's just that's just not a possibility that the left even takes into account The possibility that well, you could just not break the law You could just follow the rule that everyone's expected to follow There's always that.
Now for this clip, we can conclude that even when there's a video of a cop enforcing law in a calm and impartial way, and even when everyone concedes that these people were jaywalking, we're told it's still racist because of those statistics.
It doesn't matter if black people are on video jaywalking basically, it's illegal to ticket them for it because then you'll have a disparate impact. It's hard to overstate just how widespread this moral panic has become.
Over the past few years, especially at the height of BLM, there were national news stories about supposedly racist jaywalking arrests.Here's one of them in Tulsa, watch.
In other news, the investigation in Tulsa tonight, the disturbing police confrontation, newly released body camera video showing two white officers stopping two black teenagers for jaywalking.
ABC's Marcus Moore in Tulsa tonight with what happened next.
Call my mama.Call my mama.Tonight, Tulsa's mayor and the local police are investigating this incident involving two teenagers.
Dramatic body camera footage shows the officers approached the teens just last week as they were walking down a neighborhood street.One officer grabs one of the teens by the arms.What's wrong?What do you want? Just relax.What are you doing?
What are you guys doing?Why are you trying to choke his neck?Nobody's choking him.Within the span of a minute, the team is on the ground and in handcuffs.Why are you putting handcuffs on? Because.Why are you putting handcuffs on my kid?
Because he had everything on him, sir.All he was doing was jaywalking.We just want to talk with him.One of the teens was arrested and issued a citation.Tonight, his attorney says it never should have happened.
I think about this that is disheartening, particularly in this time where police violence and brutality is everywhere.You would think that Tulsa police wouldn't do something like this at this time.
But the reality is this is the culture of the Tulsa Police Department.
Now the lawyer with the comically large mask on his face is not even arguing that his client is innocent, really.
He's implying that the optics are bad for the police because they should know that it's racist to enforce jaywalking laws against black people.This incident made national news.There was a legal battle that stretched on for years.
Apparently, the police eventually paid a $20,000 settlement over it. And they did nothing wrong.When people are in the middle of the road, you can grab them and arrest them.You can even put them on the ground if they're not responding.
That's how the law should work.But in cities like New York, it's not the law anymore.This is a battle that the left has waged for a very long time.Last year, the left-wing outlet Mother Jones published an article entitled
The case for legalized jaywalking that makes all the predictable disparate impact arguments where they assume that any statistical disparity is somehow proof of racism.There can be no other explanation for it.
And there's this paragraph, which is a real doozy quote. The notion that pedestrians should be relegated to sidewalks and allowed to cross the street only when a walk sign tells them it's safe is a relatively new phenomenon.
Groups ranging from the Chicago Motor Club and the Automobile Club of Southern California to the National Safety Council and the Boy Scouts began using the word jaywalker in the late 1910s and early 1920s to insult pedestrians who had the audacity to enter the roadway outside of intersections.
Los Angeles passed the first anti-jaywalking ordinance in 1925, which became a model for other cities across the country. Discrimination soon followed.
Yes, according to Mother Jones, the idea that you shouldn't walk in the middle of the street is a relatively new phenomenon that only began in the late 1910s and early 1920s.
Now it's possible, and I'm just spitballing here, it's possible that one reason for this change might be that cars themselves are a relatively new phenomenon that only became popular in the late 1910s and early 1920s.
Maybe that's why the idea of jaywalking came about relatively recently, as in a century ago. This is like saying that air sickness is a relatively new phenomenon that only began after people started flying in airplanes.It kind of goes without saying.
But this is the level of argument you get when equity is the objective.You have to act surprised that we didn't have jaywalking laws before we had cars.You're reduced to inventing vast conspiracies to explain inconvenient data.
In essence, you have to make yourself as dumb as Kamala Harris, all in the service of a delusional and counterfactual ideology.In this particular case, the consequences couldn't be any more obvious.
Like, you can visit any third world country to see what it's like when cars and pedestrians share the road equally. which is how it works in most third world countries.
As someone who's driven a long stretch of road in one third world country, I can tell you, yeah, this is people, cars, animals, just all, everyone just sharing the road together.And it's total chaos.It's like really bad and lots of people get hurt.
It's just, it doesn't work.And I'm not usually one to defend government regulation, but our roads are clearly safer and more orderly because of the laws and regulations in place.
New York City is getting rid of a common sense law that obviously makes the roads safer for everyone, and that's why the law is there.
And they're doing it because of the same guiding principle that the Biden-Harris administration outlined in a day one executive order, which was to pursue equity in all aspects of government.
Now, we've talked a lot about the specific policy ramifications of electing somebody like Kamala Harris, but this is another consequence that's worth talking about. Presidents don't just set policy, they also set a tone and a broader agenda.
They set an example for people to follow all over the country.A Kamala Harris administration would encourage and incentivize many more laws like the one that just passed in New York.
A second Trump administration, on the other hand, would send a very clear signal that people are tired of the nonsense and the lawlessness.
It would mean that we can finally put an end to the fiction that every police department in the country is conspiring to target a particular racial group.
It would be a rebuke of the policies of racial equity that have gotten so many people killed across every demographic.And that's a rebuke that, for people living in New York, may come too late.But for the rest of us, it can't come soon enough.
Now let's get to our five headlines. What is a wireless company?No, it shouldn't be a big data company.No, it shouldn't be a political action campaign.
And no, a wireless company shouldn't make you believe you only have two options for data, unlimited or unlimited, and both are stupidly expensive.A wireless company, pure and simple, should connect you to the people and things you love.
A wireless company should give you lightning-fast 5G coverage at a lower cost than you're paying now.And a wireless company should have an excellent customer service team based right here in America who can help make switching easy.
Essentially, all wireless companies should be just like Pure Talk, but unfortunately they're not.So you need to switch right now.
And if you do at puretalk.com slash Walsh, you'll also get one year free of Daily Wire Plus where you can stream my new film, Am I Racist?But remember, this deal is exclusive.The only way to get it is by going to puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Support Pure Talk, a wireless company who wants to be a wireless company and nothing else.And here's the kicker. They also support the same values you do.
Remember, it takes courage to stand for your values and takes even more to stand against those who try to silence you.Puretalk.com slash Walsh, that's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Daily Wire reports former President Donald Trump addressed reporters in a garbage truck on Wednesday evening in Wisconsin after landing in the state for a rally.
The move by Trump came in response to Biden saying during a campaign call that 74 million Americans who vote for Trump were garbage. And so Trump responded to that by riding in a garbage truck, which is a great troll.
It's an inspired and hilarious troll.And Trump has had a lot of those in this election cycle.And I have to say that I admire it.I'm humbled by Trump's trolling prowess.As you know, I'm something of a trolling connoisseur myself.
I like to think I'm an expert in the craft, the art of trolling. But Trump is he's the pioneer in the field.I mean, he's the trolling.He's the founding father of political trolling, the the godfather, the troll father.
It's an extraordinary witness, and he's pulling out some of his best trolls at the age of 78, which is amazing.
It's like, I mean, this is, to be in his trolling prime at the age of 78, it's like, I would put it on the same level as Tom Brady winning a Super Bowl when he was whatever, 41.So it's that level.
So here's Trump giving a press conference from the garbage truck.
They're answering some questions from reporters.
I don't think they'll have to be used.I think we're going to have a big victory.And I think 250 million people in this country are going to be very happy, because we're going to bring the country back.
We're a nation in decline, very, very serious decline.And we're going to bring our country back.
Did you know that Elon Musk was in close contact with West and Putin?Did you know about this?Did you know about Elon Musk at all?
I love Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico loves me.I don't know.I don't know anything about a comedian.I just I love Puerto Rico. Nobody's done more for Puerto Rico than me.
I took care of them when they had the big hurricanes and nobody gets along better with Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican people than me.They love me and I love them. I don't know anything about the comedian.I don't know who he is.
I've never seen him I heard he made a statement, but it was just a statement that he made he's a comedian.What can I tell you?I know nothing about him.
I don't say It's a wonderfully absurd sight to behold Him giving and it goes on for another five minutes.He gives the whole press conference from his the garbage truck and it's great and
As kind of a side note, I also like the way that Trump has handled the fallout from the comedian, Tony Hinchcliffe, with the Puerto Rico joke.And as you could hear there, they were asking about it again.
I've heard some people say that Trump has disavowed or denounced Tony Hinchcliffe, but he really didn't.I mean, you heard him there.He said he's never heard of the guy, which I totally believe.
I mean, Kill Tony is a wildly popular podcast, but not among 78-year-olds. And then he said, hey, he's a comedian.What can I tell you?He's a comedian.What are you going to do?Which I think is exactly the right response.He's not defending it.
He's not going to throw himself on the grenade here and spend his final week on the campaign trail defending a joke that somebody else made.I mean, that's not a good use of his time.
But he's also not saying that it's denouncing it or anything like that.He's just saying, hey, he's a comedian.What can you do?I didn't say he did.He's a comedian.Talk to him.I think that's the right way to approach it.
And speaking of which, Trump is actually a pretty talented comedian himself.He went to his rally last night still wearing the orange safety vest.
And we'll play a little bit of this of him telling the story of how the whole garbage truck stunt came to be.Listen.
I'm in this beautiful plane.I'm enjoying myself.I have a wonderful suit on.And one of my people came in and said, sir, you know, the word garbage is the hottest thing right now. out there, the hottest thing out there.
Sir, would you like to drive a garbage truck?Now, we're about, you know, 30 minutes from landing.We had to do this pretty quick.I said, sort of cool, though, isn't it?Because, you know, and I said, you know, I think that's OK.
But, you know, I don't feel comfortable wearing a suit. They pulled up this garbage truck.I don't know how the hell they did it so fast.I have very capable people.They put a big sign on the truck.Did you see it?I think they showed.
And then they said, Sir, we have a vest.I said, Well, should I leave my suit on and put it over the vest?But that doesn't look very good. That doesn't look good.So I said, all right, look, let me take it off.
And then I actually said, I climbed into the truck.But here's the so I said, how the hell do you get into the truck?It's way up high.It's a big.This was a beauty.I said, you didn't have to buy it that big, right?You have to get it that big.
They brought this brand new, gorgeous truck, wonderful driver.He looked like Cary Grant in his prime.You know that this beautiful driver and he drove that big thing up. And I said, man, this is bad because now I have all the cameras are all what?
Look, look at all the fake news.They were most of them.Now, most of them, many of them were there.And I'm saying, oh, boy, you know, one little mistake with these guys and your political career is over.You can't even.
So I said, man, if I don't get up there, this is going to be very embarrassing. These stupid people, they'll say, he's cognitively and physically impaired.And I can't do that when I'm alongside of this great athlete.I gotta get up to that.
So, so look, so the stair, the first stair is like up here.I'm sick.So, so I had the adrenaline going and I made it.
So then he goes on and he starts talking also about his decision to wear the vest while he's speaking there.And he said he was convinced to wear the orange vest because they told him it made him look thinner.
He's you know, he's really it's like a stand-up comic He's actually better than most stand-up comics because he can riff off the cuff and be funny with great comedic timing In a way that even a lot of stand-up comedians can't and certainly like no politician can he's the only one who can do this I Mean literally the only one the guy there's there's no other political figure
in the world, maybe, who would be able to do even just that, like five minutes of telling a story off the cuff, making it funny.But the aspect of Trump that's most underrated, I think, is his self-deprecation.He's actually very self-deprecating.
I mean, in that little monologue slash comedy set, he basically calls himself old and fat at two different points.And it's hilarious, like it's endearing to people.Of course it is.When you're self-deprecating, when you can laugh at yourself,
When he's doing things that are, it is absurd, obviously.It's a garbage truck with Trump's name on it, and he's wearing a vest.It's absurd, but he's aware of it.He's self-aware about it, just like going to McDonald's.It's funny.
It's absurd in a funny way, and he's aware of that fact, and that's the point.That's what makes it funny. And it's the kind of thing that Kamala Harris is just totally incapable of.
I mean, obviously, Kamala doesn't have the wit to be funny and speak off the cuff the way that Trump can.But she also doesn't have the capacity to be self-deprecating.When have you ever heard Kamala Harris make a joke at her own expense?
To make a joke at all to make when's the last time you heard her make anything that would qualify as any sort of joke I don't think we've ever heard that but certainly not one in her own expense.
She just doesn't have that capacity and and Trump does so Just a big win all around So let's go from a funny monologue
given by a presidential candidate to a very unfunny one delivered by someone who's supposed to be a comedian, a late night comedian.
Jimmy Kimmel gave a monologue last night and there's one quote unquote joke he told that I want to focus on, but here it is.
I don't know if you guys know about this, but we have an election coming up on... I feel pretty relaxed about it.I've really been enjoying the week.In times like these, it's important to remember that cannabis is legal in our state.
You can vote early, vote early.If you can't vote early, vote on time.If you want to vote for Trump, vote late, vote very late. Two-year voting on Thursday or maybe Friday.This will be my third time voting against Donald Trump.
Fifth if you count the two times.
So he says he's telling Trump supporters to vote late so that obviously the vote doesn't count.And now look, I know we all get a little exhausted by the constant complaints of double standards, right?
On the right, we're always whining about double standards.
And it does get exhausting after a while, but also we have to complain about it because the other option is to just accept the double standards and say nothing about them, which is not an agreeable option either.
So that's why I have to say in this case, a guy named Douglas Mackey was put on trial by the Biden administration and they're trying to send him to prison for exactly the kind of joke that Kimmel just told.
Douglas Mackey, as we've talked about on the show many times, if you listen to the show, you're familiar with the case.He posted a meme encouraging Hillary supporters to vote by text.And apparently some of them were dumb enough to actually do it.
But it was a joke.Because, of course, you can't vote by text.I'm sure we'll get to the point pretty soon where you can, but right now you can't. And Kimmel's telling exactly the same joke.
The punchline is exactly the same, which is that, I'm advising you to vote in a way that you can't really vote.If you try to vote that way, then your vote won't count.It's the same joke.
Which is why I am honestly not joking when I say that if Trump is elected, he should have Jimmy Kimmel arrested for that.He should have him arrested.He should open up a federal investigation and have this guy arrested.
have him frog-marched from his studio into a jail cell.You gotta make these scumbags live according to their own rules.It's the only way.So, that's the only way that I stop complaining about the double standard, is if we force one standard.
If we say to them, like, this is the standard you're setting for us, and now we're gonna force you to live by it too.Now, you might say that Jimmy Kimmel's joke is free speech, and it is.It totally is.It was free speech for Douglas Mackey, too.
But are we going to continue protecting the free speech rights of people who are actively trying to imprison us for exercising our own free speech rights?I mean, that's just suicide.
Like, to say, I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it, even as you put me in prison to stop me from saying things.
I disagree with you throwing me in prison for exercising my free speech, but I'll defend to the death your free speech.No, no.Okay, that's not, if that's your attitude, that's not like, I'm being principled.That's not principled.
That's just you being a sucker.That's just you being, that's suicide, is what it is. The only way out is mutually assured destruction.The only way out is to make these people live by their own rules, their own standards.They are not our rules.
We didn't set the standard.The only hope we have to restore sanity and the rule of law and the Constitution and all the things that we want, the only way to do that is to force these people, is to let them know, okay, if this is what you do,
If you start throwing people in jail for jokes, the same thing is gonna happen to you.And yeah, I know that still now, there are plenty of conservatives that feel that they don't feel right about that.It gives them an icky feeling.
But what's the other option? The other option is, okay, you could do this to us and we will never do anything.You can set this standard for us and it will never be applied to you.And so it's only ever gonna go one way.
And you can throw your political opponents in jail and there will be no repercussions ever.Then why would they ever stop?Why would they stop?So this is what I doubt very much that it's going to happen.
That's what I would like to see happen, put Jimmy Kimmel in jail for that joke.And if the left says, well, you can't put people in jail for jokes.
Okay, well then, okay, that means, all right, if that's the standard we're setting now, that's gonna apply to everybody. The Hill has this report.
Two Democratic groups are rolling out an ad featuring a fictitious Republican lawmaker who wants to ban porn nationwide.
The latest installment of the group's $2.5 million ad campaign, accusing the GOP of interfering in people's lives, in the 32nd ad rolled out by Progress Action Fund and Defend the Vote, called Republicans Rubbing You the Wrong Way, a young man is shown watching porn before an actor playing a Republican congressman takes away his phone
The man asks the lawmaker, what the hell, man?How'd you get in here?Congressman says, I'm your Republican congressman.Now that we're in charge, we're banning porn nationwide.The man replies, you can't tell me what to do.
Get out of my bedroom, you creep.The congressman says, I just won the last election, so it's my decision.I'm just going to watch and make sure you don't finish illegally.Now, I'm reading the description of the ad because I'm not going to play it.
You've probably seen it.It's been circulated. I'm not going to play because it's gross and highly objectionable and not the kind of thing I feel comfortable playing on my show.That's where we are now, by the way.
We've reached a point where political ads are too disgusting and pornographic to play on a political commentary show.I mean, that's the level that we've fallen to. And there are a few things we could talk about here related to this.
The first is, once again, the utterly demeaning, degrading way that Democrats talk about and to male voters.And this is maybe the first ad for men that Democrats have put out during the entire election cycle.
Because all the other ads for men are really ads for women. They were for women in the guise of talking to men, but this one is actually for men.This is not an ad that is supposedly for men, but it's supposed to appeal to women.
This is really, this is an ad that is legitimately for men.And what is the message?The message is, hey, vote for us so that you can watch porn.
This is the one specific way that Democrats are promising to improve the lives of men, is by making sure they have plenty of porn to watch.
That's their one, this is the one single pitch that Democrats actually have specifically for men, it's this, porn.Totally insulting, malignant, disgusting.
But we've explored that angle, the degrading and demeaning way that they talk to men about men.We've explored that angle quite a bit on the show in recent weeks. I'll just focus for a second on the specific claims that are being made here.
The claim is that Republicans are pushing a nationwide ban on porn.And the problem with that claim, as hopefully you're aware, is that it's totally false.It's not even close to true.
Not a single elected Republican has advocated for a nationwide porn ban. Not a single one.This is not a position that any elected Republican holds.Donald Trump certainly doesn't hold his position.
I don't think he's ever talked about porn and what sort of policies we should have in relation to it at one time.I don't think it's ever come up.I don't think he's ever brought it up.So it's just a lie.
This is how Democrats are campaigning, by telling lies, and that's obviously not They've always been liars, nothing terribly unique about a dishonest political ad, I'm aware.
But this time around, they're just inventing laws out of whole cloth and claiming that Republicans want to pass these laws that they've invented.And you'd like to think that that would be an ineffective strategy, especially in the information age.
You see an ad claiming that Republicans are gonna ban porn nationwide, and it would take five seconds of Googling to discover that that's a total fantasy.It's just not remotely real.
But the sad reality is that plenty of potential voters are indeed gullible enough to fall for this, and that's who they're targeting with these kinds of ads. There have been laws passed in multiple states, I think like 15 or 20 at this point.
There have been laws that deal with porn, but these are all laws and policies that require some kind of age verification for access to pornography.
They require porn companies to take at least some meager steps to make sure that children aren't accessing their product.
And if you're very astute, you may notice that age verification laws are already in place for literally any other age-restricted product.Alcohol, gambling, firearms, those are all age-restricted.
And in all those cases, those industries are expected, they're required by law to take some kind of step to make sure that the customer that's accessing that product is legally old enough to access it. And nobody ever has a problem with that.
If you hear about a liquor store being fined because they were selling alcohol to minors without checking IDs, and that happens all the time, nobody's gonna say this is some great injustice that someone's rights are being violated.
No, in that case, you take the side of the government.You would say, yeah.In that case, you would say to the liquor store, what are you doing?Why are you selling alcohol to minors, you scumbags?
So all that these age verification laws will do is simply put porn in line with these other age-restricted items.And that's really the sinister thing here, is that these ads are actually targeting those laws. That's what the ads are doing.
They're actually targeting the laws that protect children from porn, because those are the only laws that have been passed.But these Democratic groups, they know that they can't go out and make an explicit argument in favor of exposing kids to porn.
They can't make an ad saying, my gosh, Republicans are gonna stop 10-year-olds from watching porn.Vote against them to make sure more 10-year-olds can watch porn.Democrats, they know they can't say that.That's how they feel.
They want 10-year-olds to watch porn.They want millions of kids to be exposed to hardcore pornography.That's what they want. But they know they cannot make that argument.They know they'll lose it.
They know they'll come across like pedophilic dirtbags.So instead, they do this.Instead, they cast these policies as porn bans.And where have we heard that before?It's just like the Republicans in, say, Florida that have taken gay porn out of schools
And then Democrats turn around and say, it's a book ban.No, it's like if it's a ban of anything, it's a ban of gay pornography in the schools.But you're not gonna come out and actually defend that.
You're not gonna take the book and show people what's in the book and say, yes, we think that this stuff in this book should be allowed in the schools.You're not gonna do that.So instead, you'll cast that as a book ban.
forgetting to mention the rather salient detail of like what's in those books.And they're doing the same thing here.Calling it a porn ban, forgetting to mention that if anyone is being banned from watching porn, it's children.
And the ban isn't even obviously targeting children in that case, it's targeting the porn, the companies. just as we do with alcohol, cigarettes, guns, gambling, and all the rest of it.
According to research, a major challenge that many employers face is the pressure to hire quickly.It's incredibly time-consuming to search for great candidates and sort through applications.
Half your week gets eaten up just sifting through resumes and applications, trying to find someone who's actually qualified.If you're an employer who can relate, well, I have one question for you.Have you tried ZipRecruiter?
ZipRecruiter has figured out how to solve this very serious problem.In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
And if you want to be part of that, all you have to do is try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com.ZipRecruiter is the hiring site employers prefer the most based on G2.
Their smart technology immediately starts showing you your job to qualify candidates.You can even invite top candidates to apply, encouraging them to apply sooner, taking a proactive approach. instead of just sitting there waiting around.
So relax, employers, and let ZipRecruiter speed up your hiring.See for yourself.Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh right now to try it for free.
That's the same price as a genuine smile from a stranger, a picture-perfect sunset, or a cute dog running up to you and licking your hand.All things that I love.Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Many of you are most likely looking for the perfect Halloween movie.Well, Am I Racist?Is it?Now, I know what you're thinking.Am I racist?Is that really a Halloween movie?Well, of course it is.
For starters, we released it in theaters on Friday the 13th.And I used such a good disguise, the left couldn't even recognize me.Plus, they're absolutely terrified of it. That checks all the boxes for a Halloween movie, if you ask me.
Not to mention, Am I Racist is officially the number one documentary of the decade.It had the biggest opening day in Daily Wire history.So unlike many Halloween movies, it's actually good.Here's the plan.
Take the kids trick-or-treating, snag some of their candy, and settle in to watch Am I Racist exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. If you're not a member yet, we've got an extra treat.Use code DEI at emiracist.com for 35% off a new annual membership.
That's emiracist.com with code DEI for 35% off.Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we go up to Canada, a country that achieves very little and serves no real purpose, but at least provides plenty of quick and easy fodder for this segment whenever I'm pressed for time.
So let's check in on our woke neighbors to the north, where the province of British Columbia is making a significant change to its education system.Watch.
The province replaced letter grades on K-9 report cards with a proficiency scale, using the terms Emerging, Developing, Proficient, and Extending to indicate how a child is doing in school.
The report shows while 91% of BC parents say the letter grade A was clear and easy to understand, with 65% correctly identifying its meaning, only 34% were able to say what Extending was. but that doesn't mean there aren't benefits.
We've also are looking at a focus that moves away from labeling people.
So kids in grades K through 9 will no longer be sent home with report cards featuring the traditional letter grades that schools have been using forever and that everyone understands.
The letter grades will be replaced with what they call a proficiency scale.And so instead of an A, the report card will say extending, instead of B, proficient, instead of C, developing, and instead of D, emerging.
It's not one of those modern educational innovations that I would have personally loved when I was in grade school, which is only further evidence that it's a terrible idea.
I must admit that I often had the unpleasant experience of bringing home Cs and Ds, and certainly I would have greatly preferred to present my parents with a report card indicating that I am developing and emerging.
Look, Dad, I've been emerging in algebra for three quarters in a row.I'm just getting warmed up.Wait until I start developing. You'll notice that the new system in Canada doesn't include E's at all.
I guess it was already impossible to actually get a failing grade, which is not a surprise, I guess, in Canada.But if they did want to add a level below emerging as a stand-in for an E or an F, I would suggest maybe you call it surfacing or arising.
I'm just trying to think of what would come before emerging.Because of course, the new system is built on the totally fanciful notion that all of the kids with bad grades are on their way to getting good grades.They're just emerging.
It's all part of the life cycle.First they emerge, then they develop, then they become proficient, and then they extend. whatever that last step is supposed to mean.It's like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.
In fact, maybe they could scrap the new system and instate a new new system entirely modeled after the life cycle of a butterfly called the butterfly system.If you get a C or a D, you're a caterpillar.If you get a B, you're a cocoon.
If you get an A, you're a butterfly. But I guess that system would be still a little bit too clear.The whole idea here is to confuse the parents so that they have no clue how their children are actually performing.
Emerging and extending are on opposite ends of the grade spectrum.But it's not intuitively clear which is the bad one and which is the good one.And that's, of course, the point.
The National Post has more on this, quote, A's are gone from British Columbia report cards, but BC parents, hoping to gauge their children's performance, find the newfangled descriptive grading system confusing. according to a new report.
Last year, the BC government scrapped the traditional ABC grading system for kindergarten to grade nine students in favor of a descriptive grading system that saw students progress judged along a scale from emerging to extending.
Parents, by and large, do not understand the new descriptors, emerging, developing, proficient, And extending, says Michael Zwagstra, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
The report conducted by the Ledger for the Fraser Institute asked parents of school-aged children ages five to 18 enrolled in public and independent schools across Canada to match extending to its BC government definition.
In BC specifically, 43% of parents made the wrong choice.The highest proportion of any province extending per the government's decision means the student is meeting the learning standard expectations with increasing depth, This is not perfection.
While 83% of Canadians said the letter grade C is clear and easy to understand, only 36% of parents could correctly identify what an emerging grade means.
99% of BC's K-12 parents said they want clear academic assessments for their child's report cards.
Now the only really shocking thing there about that last figure, the 99% figure, is that apparently 1% of parents don't want clear academic assessments for their children.
But all the rest, not surprisingly, would prefer to actually know how their kids are doing in school.That's a novel concept.And the new system makes that effectively impossible.
This may seem like a bad thing to most parents and most sane people in general, but the experts are here to tell us, once again, that our basic common sense perspective is wrong.
Reading on, quote, Victor Brawer, a University of British Columbia professor with expertise in K through 12 education, said the descriptive grading system was met with opposition because the traditional letter system is ingrained into our psychology.
Quote, it's the only system that we've ever known and you can't see an alternative, said Brar.I think a lot of parents, given this was a system they grew up with, are comfortable with it and don't understand anything different.
BC Education Minister, Rakhna Singh, previously said the new system is intended to help students better understand each subject instead of just striving to get a good grade. Parents, said Brar, need to reorient their thinking on the grading system.
Quote, we're looking for a mastery of the competencies, he said.If you put it to students and parents that way, I think the adoption and acceptance would be much greater.Now, of course, the whole exercise is pointless.
They don't want kids to be labeled or to just strive to get a good grade.God forbid, They don't want kids to strive for good grades.We certainly don't want that.We don't want kids to strive for good grades.
That's the biggest problem in the school system today, in fact, I would say.You just got too many kids striving for good grades, and they're trying to prevent that.
But all they've done is replace the letter grades with different words that mean the same thing.So now, rather than striving to get an A, kids will hopefully strive to be extending.
Which means that even by your own logic, you haven't really achieved what you're trying to achieve, but the premise is flawed anyway.Because contrary to popular opinion these days, there is in fact nothing wrong with labels.Labels are good.
We use labels so that we know what things are.So it's very popular these days.We heard in the clip we played, the first clip we played, well, there's too much labeling.We don't want to label. No, labels are good.
All a label does is let you know, okay, that's what this thing is.And it's usually better to know what something is than to not know what it is.So that's the case for medicine in the medicine cabinet.You want it to be labeled.
You want to know what it is.It's the case if you're buying meat at the grocery store.You'd like for it to be labeled.You'd like to know what kind of meat it is you're buying.And it's also the case for a child's performance at school.
Yes, we do want to label success and failure.If a child is failing, they need to be given a label that makes it clear that they're failing.It's not a permanent label, at least it shouldn't be.
But if you don't like the failing label, then you do better, you work harder.That's the whole idea.
And that is why this new grading system in British Columbia and the entire province of British Columbia and the entire country of Canada, I guess, again, because why not, are all today cancelled.That'll do it for the show today.Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.Talk to you tomorrow.Great day.Godspeed.
Sign in
