Ep. 1544 - Criminals Are Taking Control Over Our Prisons And Nothing Is Being Done

Have you checked lately to see if your home's title is still in your name?

With one forged document, scammers can steal your home's title and its equity.

But now you can protect yourself from this crime.

Home Title Lock's million-dollar triple lock protection gives 24-7 title monitoring,

urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen,

they'll spend up to a million dollars to fix fraud and restore your title.

Get a free title history report and access your personal title expert,

a $250 value when you sign up at hometitlelock.com and use promo code Daily Wire. That's hometitlelock.com promo code Daily Wire.
To the Matt Walsh Show, prison guards in New York have gone on strike. The situation is so bad that the National Guard has been sent in, and yet the national media is mostly ignoring the story.
Why is that? We'll find out. Also, while the media fearmongers about Doge

having access to our personal information, someone in the IRS just leaked the tax records of half a

million people. And an enraged leftist on TikTok threatens to kill Elon Musk and admits to tax

evasion all in the same video. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
you know what's interesting about the current state of health and wellness everyone's chasing the latest trend, the newest fad, the most exotic supplement, but sometimes the most powerful solutions are the most fundamental ones. That's why I want to tell you about Armora Colostrum.
Colostrum isn't some laboratory creation. It's literally the first food nature provides to every mammal at birth.
We're talking about nature's original superfood, packed with over 400 bioactive ingredients that your body instinctively knows how to use. And Armra has perfected a way to deliver this incredible substance in its purest form.
The secret is in their proprietary cold chain biopotent pasteurization technology. While their supplements lose their potency through processing, Armra's method preserves these vital nutrients exactly as nature intended.
Plus, they source everything from grass-fed cows on American family farms supporting our agricultural community while delivering a premium product. What I appreciate most is that it's not another artificial supplement.
It is a natural whole food that works in harmony with your body, helping to maintain mental clarity and improve immune health. And that's always a necessity, as at any time of year.
In times when we're surrounded by synthetic solutions and processed products, isn't it refreshing to find something that's both innovative and completely natural? This is the kind of advancement that we should champion, one that enhances what nature has already perfected. We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 15% off your first order when you go to tryarmra.com slash Walsh or enter code Walsh. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Walsh.
You know, it's always interesting when the news media, whose job is supposedly to keep us informed, fails to even mention one of the most important stories that's unfolding in the country right now. As we've seen, the press will devote days of coverage to the plight of federal bureaucrats who can't respond to a simple email.
The idea appears to be that these bureaucrats, as government employees, are entitled to special protection simply by virtue of working for the government. But for reasons that nobody has explained, these same mainstream media outlets have demonstrated no sympathy or even the slightest interest in the ongoing shutdown that's unfolding in New York's state prison system.
Corrections officers in virtually every single one of New York's prisons are now on a so-called wildcat strike, meaning a strike that is not approved by the union or allowed by the law. This is a strike that is now in its second week.
Nine out of 10 corrections officers in the state have walked off the job because they're saying that the working conditions have become extremely unsafe. Prison guards are now constantly being assaulted and they've just had enough.
And as a result, the National Guard has been called in as part of a desperate bid to prevent a deadly prison takeover like the one that led to mass casualties in Attica back in the 1970s. Now, some of these National Guard units are currently staying in the cells at these prisons in New York.
And as of now, it seems likely that they'll probably be there for a while. Even though New York has offered to double the overtime pay of any correctional officer who goes back to work, it doesn't look like many of them are taking the government up on that offer.
So how did we arrive at a situation where government employees are encouraged

to complain on CNN about an email from Elon Musk, while government employees who say their lives are

in danger every time they go to work are being ignored? You know, it doesn't quite make any sense.

And it's especially confusing when you consider the fact that ordinarily, the fact that corrections

officers are refusing to report to duty at roughly 38 of New York's 42 prisons would be exactly

We'll be back. confusing when you consider the fact that ordinarily, the fact that corrections officers are refusing to report to duty at roughly 38 of New York's 42 prisons would be exactly the kind of story that the news media would be interested in.
It's clearly the setup for a potentially significant disaster, and normally the media loves a story like that. And they especially love stories of government workers who are on strike because they say that they have unfair working conditions.
And in this case, it's actually true that the working conditions are unsafe and unfair and hazardous. And yet the media isn't really jumping all over it.
Why might that be? If you look into what these correctional officers are demanding, the media blackout starts to make a little more sense. But before I get into the specifics, I want to provide some context first, and I'll do that by asking a simple question.
If you had to guess the average life expectancy of a correctional officer in this country, and I remind you a first world country, what would you estimate it to be? Now, for reference, the life expectancy for the general population is around 77 years, which is already relatively low, and it's still dropping. Law enforcement officers as a category have a life expectancy of around 66 years, which is pretty horrifying and very bad.
But for correctional officers, life expectancy is even lower than that. In fact, it's much lower.
The average life expectancy for a correctional officer in this country is 59 years old. Okay, 59 years old.
And a major reason for that is the stress that the job entails, which leads to a very high rate of suicide among correctional officers. So already the baseline is not good.
The work conditions in general are certainly not ideal. But instead of addressing those work conditions in any meaningful way, in 2022, New York passed something called the Human Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act, or HALT Act.
And this is a law that has its origins in the George Floyd era, and it makes it far more difficult for prison guards to confine dangerous inmates to solitary confinement. In particular, the law completely prevents prison guards from putting anyone aged 21 or younger into solitary confinement for any reason.
Yes, they consider 21-year-olds to be a special population, as if they're children, even though these are legal

adults who are in adult prison, but they can't be locked away by themselves, no matter what they do.

It would be unthinkable, apparently, to put them in solitary confinement.

Additionally, no matter how old an inmate is, the law states that the maximum amount of time

an inmate can be placed in solitary confinement is just 15 days. So in other words, even if you're

I'm going to go back into general population. Now, New York Democrats passed this law on the theory that solitary confinement for more than two weeks.
After that, you can go back into general population. Now, New York Democrats passed this law on the theory that solitary confinement is a form of legalized torture.
Now, of course, if you're a sane person, then the idea of being forced to interact with other inmates in a New York state prison outside of solitary confinement probably sounds a lot like torture. And also keep in mind, we're talking about an extremely dysfunctional group of people here.
I mean, the only people going into solitary confinement are criminals who ended up in prison, right? Because they're in prison to begin with, and then commit additional offenses after they're already in prison. Okay, so these are criminals who the message isn't getting through to them at all.
Nobody is torturing these people. We've simply run out of places to put them.
But New York's political leaders disagreed. They decided that it's more important to have compassion, quote unquote, for criminals than compassion for prison guards or for anyone else.
And the results have been clear. In the three years since the Halt Act was passed, inmate-on-inmate assaults have increased by nearly 170%.
There's also been a 75% increase in attacks by inmates against prison staff. And that's why during the strike, the correctional workers have said that their top priority, their main demand, is repealing this awful HALT Act.
Watch. For the first time, we're getting our hands on a letter from the state corrections department that really shows the state making an effort here to try to meet some of these correctional officers' demands.
If we go to some video now, we can show you that letter. And the number one thing that they're addressing here is the HALT Act, which has been the biggest concern for these officers throughout this.
The letter says that the HALT Act has been temporarily suspended until staffing levels are improved. And for those of you who don't know what the HALT Act is, it's a prison reform that limits solitary confinement.
It's only a few weeks at most when in the past it could have been months at a time. And in many ways, takes a lot of leverage away from these officers when they try to punish inmates for misbehaving.
We asked a few folks today if this temporary pause changes anything and we'll listen to what they had to say here. No, we don't want a temporary because you're going to come back in two weeks and reinstitute it and then we did all this for nothing.
We're not punching bags and we're not stabbing dummies, right? We can walk in there and not have to worry about feces thrown at us, getting stabbed, getting sexually assaulted, if we can go in there and just a little bit is lessened, then that's why we came out here. I mean, you know, we're used to seeing these videos of striking workers, striking government employees in particular, and quite often the complaints are absurd and the demands are egregious and sometimes obscene.
In this case, though, what they're demanding is that they don't get stabbed or sexually assaulted or have crap thrown on them. That's a pretty reasonable demand, I think.
You should be able to expect that, at least, in your work environment. Or at the very least, you should, if you're working in a prison, you should know that the law has your back and that everything is being done legally to protect you as much as possible from that sort of thing happening to you.
So, you know, we give government employees a hard time, rightfully so, I certainly do. But these are government workers, these prison guards, correctional officers, who actually perform a necessary job.
In fact, it's not just necessary. Civilized society cannot exist without these people.
These correctional officers are, you know, they're not putting together DEI training sessions at the Pentagon. They're not auditing people over $600 because, you know, who received over $600 on Venmo.
They're nothing like the government workers we talked about yesterday. These people are our last line of defense that's keeping extremely dangerous criminals locked up far away from the rest of us.
They are doing a very difficult, necessary job that I personally, I don't know about you, would never want to do in a million years. Somebody needs to do it.
I'm really glad they're doing it because I don't want to do it. And when you have people like that doing a job like that, well, those are people who, if they're coming to you and telling you that the work environment is terrible and there are some things they need, you just give them whatever they need.

I mean, this is one of very few cases where I would say, okay, just triple their pay, first of all.

Whatever they're getting paid, triple it.

Let's start with that.

And then just work down the list. Just give them everything they want.
I would rather give prison guards everything they want so they can get back to work and have as good a morale as you can expect people to have when they're working in a prison. And yet they've been ignored and it seems completely abandoned by the leadership in their state.

If anything, the state has been actively sabotaging their ability to do their jobs.

And they've been ignored, and it seems completely abandoned by the leadership in their state. If anything, the state has been actively sabotaging their ability to do their jobs, and they've had some help along the way.
In fact, local news stations in New York are still producing sob stories for these criminals, and just the other day, a local news station in Buffalo aired this segment about a convicted murderer who says that the prison guards are wrong and that we really need the Holt Act to remain in place, And here's his reasoning. This is one of the most deranged segments you'll see on a news station.
Watch. It is torture.
It is torture in every way, shape, and form. I probably would have rather them pull out my fingernails and get it over with than have spent a year, two years in solitary confinement.
But that pain would end then sol that pain would end then is still with me now. Co halt solitary campaign, was incarcerated for 32 time for second degree m He says he spent seven of confinement.
Just think a bathroom living in your b hours out of the day in solitary confinement. Just think about this.
Think about your bathroom, living in your bathroom for 23 hours out of the day every day for a year. Think about, do it for a week.
Think about for a week. How do you think that would make you feel? So notice how the reporter just kind of casually slips in the whole second degree murder thing in the middle of the segment.
They introduced Jerome as this reasonable guy who's upset with solitary confinement. He says it's comparable to getting your fingernails pulled out.
He calls it torture. And then they just kind of drop in the fact that he killed another person and just sort of get it out of the way.
They also didn't mention anything that he did while he was incarcerated, which might explain why he was placed in solitary confinement. Instead, they just move right along to the analogy that he makes where he says that normal people wouldn't want to live in their bathrooms for any amount of time.
And the logic is pretty solid right up until you realize that Jerome Wright has committed murder, manslaughter, robbery, and burglary. Once you kill another human being along with a slew of other very serious violent crimes, then you don't get to complain about your accommodations in prison.
On the other hand, if you don't murder another human being, then you don't have to live in your bathroom. You can live anywhere you want.
See, that's one of the perks of being not a murderer. That's how the system works.
We don't want to encourage people to commit murder. We want to discourage it.
And one of the ways that we do that is by placing murderers in places they don't want to be. Okay, so when Jerome says, well, can you imagine being in this? I don't have to imagine it, Jerome.
I didn't kill anybody. You did.
Okay, you're a scumbag criminal. Hopefully you're reformed now.
I don't know. But that's what you were.
And so you were punished for it. I don't have to do that because I'm not someone who's killing and robbing people.
It's pretty easy to not end up. It's like not ending up in solitary confinement in prison is like the easiest thing in the world.
Okay. That's the lowest bar you could ever expect somebody to clear.
It is the easiest thing. You know how easy it is for me every day to not end up in solitary confinement in prison.
It's so easy. I don't even have to try.
That's how easy it is. You just have to not kill people.
And even then, even if you kill someone, that probably is not enough to get you in solitary confinement. So to not get in solitary confinement, you have to not kill anybody.
And then also, even if you do kill someone, don't continue trying to kill people. If you can't clear that bar, then you deserve to be in solitary confinement forever.
I don't care at that point. Throw them in solitary confinement for 50 years.
If you can't get over that bar, you're just not welcome in society. And if you're the kind of person who we can't even trust you in prison, putting you in a cage in prison, even that's not enough to get through your skull, then at that point, why should we care about your plight? And by the way, when Jerome Wright was paroled, he tested positive for cocaine during a drug test and then signed a confession admitting he had used cocaine.
But we're supposed to believe that that was all a big misunderstanding as well. The Washington Post wrote up a whole sob story about it.
So this guy's never responsible for anything that happens to him, essentially. While he's busy killing people and failing drug tests, it's our job to not disappoint him.
And we just keep failing. Now, on the bright side, I can think of one solution that would solve Jerome Wright's problem and the problems created by many other murderers like him.
It turns out that no one, not a single person has been executed in the state of New York since 1963. The state has essentially abolished the death penalty.
And that means that all of the worst, most violent people in the state just stay in the system forever until they die of old age. If we actually had a sensible system of capital punishment that we used on the worst kinds of criminals, then the chaos in our prisons would be greatly reduced at the very least.
And you also wouldn't need solitary confinement. At least you wouldn't need it as much.
Certainly people like Jerome Wright wouldn't complain about their bathroom-sized cells anymore. And prison guards wouldn't get assaulted every day.
Seems like a win-win. Then again, no one's floating that as a possible solution here, just like no one in the mainstream press is talking about this prison strike at all.
They're not talking about the strike because it's yet another example of how so-called criminal justice reform is in fact a disaster waiting to unfold. And once again, we're seeing how compassion for criminals in the end causes suffering for innocent people.

Compassion to criminals is cruelty to innocent people. Every single time, that's how it works.

That is the lesson of the Halt Act and the ongoing crisis unfolding in New York.

And before criminals completely seize control of the prison system in one of our largest states, it's a lesson that more people in power need to learn, and quickly. Let's get to our five headlines.
Attention investors, while this is a paid endorsement, we've got some good news to share. We believe that we've turned the tide in the battle for the soul of America.
Donald Trump has been elected. He's beginning the Herculean task of pushing back against the forces of wokeism in America.
It's true that many businesses are beginning to mothball their DEI, CRT, and ESG programs and focus on serving customers, all customers, rather than political interests. What about you? Have you joined the movement of Americans who are using their investments to hold companies accountable for their ethical behavior? I'm not a client of the firm, but if you'd like to join other patriotic citizens by aligning your investments with your conservative values, go to constitutionwealth.com slash Matt for a free consultation.
Constitution Wealth is a registered investment advisor. You should review Constitution Wealth's disclosures at constitutionwealth.com to understand their services and fees.
All investing involves risks, including the risk of loss. Here's another big story, the Post Millennial reports.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee revealed that over 400,000 taxpayers were affected by the leaking of tax records by a former IRS contractor, including the records of President Donald Trump. Relying on data analysis by the Treasury Spectre General for Tax Administration and the IRS, the IRS mailed notifications to 405,427 taxpayers whose taxpayer information was inappropriately disclosed by Mr.
Littlejohn. Approximately 89% of the taxpayers are business entities.
Charles Littlejohn, a former IRS contractor, was sentenced in January 2024 to five years in prison after leaking the tax records of Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. And he pled guilty in October.
And the other part of this is that we were initially told, so we knew about this leak. This guy went to prison for it.

But we were originally told that the leak affected 50,000 or 60,000 or 70,000 people or whatever it was.

It was a relatively small number.

And now it turns out that, oh, well, actually it was 400 plus thousand.

And then maybe next week we'll find out that, oh, sorry, we meant 4 million.

That's kind of how it seems to be working.

So, you know, this is great.

We were told that we should be deeply afraid of Doge and Elon Musk having access to our information.

And then it's an IRS employee who turns around and leaks our tax records. Okay.
This was not a Doge employee who did this. This was not Big Balls.
Big Balls didn't do this. Don't try to put this on Big Balls.
Everybody wants to blame Big Balls for everything, but Big Balls is a man of honor and integrity. Your tax records are safe with big balls.
And I'll tell you another thing, big balls won't leak anything. Big balls never leaks.
But it's the IRS, and they're decidedly small balls. That's where the leaks are coming from.
And that was always going to be the case. That's why it's absurd when the media fear mongers about Doge having access to our stuff, because our stuff, our records, are already fully accessible to countless federal employees.
Right? I mean, how many? Well, there's no way to know exactly. How many in federal employees have access to your tax records? How many federal employees have access to everything about you? No way to know.
I mean, hundreds, thousands? Essentially, it's an unquantifiable number. And these are people that we don't know anything about, just anonymous bureaucrats, and that's always been the case.
Why should we trust a random person at the IRS or any other agency more than we trust big balls and doge? Makes no sense to me. All right, Daily Wire reports, Bill Maher, the host of HBO's Real Time, said during an interview last week that Democrats need to drop their support for the transgender movement if they want to start winning again.
Maher made their remarks on the leftist podcast Pod Save America with the former Obama speechwriter John Lovett. We have some of that conversation.
So here's a clip of it. Do I think in most of America they did that in schools? I don't.
But I think in enough of them, in enough far-left places, they did constantly have this idea in the minds of children that maybe you're not in the right body. I mean, the New England Journal of Medicine advocated for taking sex off of a birth certificate, I believe.
It was like, you're assigned sex. Assigned sex of birth.
Assigned. You're assigned.
I think that's right. I was assigned it by my dad, okay, when I was born.
Yes. And again, to tell kids, it doesn't always have to be and isn't always the default setting, but that's a different mentality than they put in the minds of kids.
And that's why this debate goes on. And the fact that you think, or a lot of people on the left think that even if you just have this debate, it makes you a bigot.
You just have to roll over. That was, you asked about the Biden administration.
That was their position. For a long time, people said, oh, older gay people are recruiting kids to be gay.
And they wouldn't really be gay. It was they were being recruited.
They were being groomed. That they were being drawn.
That was their conservative position. The Christian right position for a long time was the reason you didn't want to have gay teachers is they're going to recruit.
That the gay lifestyle is going to look so enticing and so exciting that it's going to bring these poor defenseless boys, mostly boys, into the gay lifestyle and destroy their lives. But of course, that wasn't true.
Really, all gay teachers were an example. Right.
Right? Yeah. Look, there are a few examples of people getting older and realizing that they shouldn't have transitioned.
That happens. It's real.
That's real. Yeah, more than a few.
But there are also really important surgeries that people get for their heart and they go wrong and somebody dies. And nobody says we must stop the cardiologist.
And what you say is, let's make sure that this version of it is being practiced well. We don't get rid of the specific surgery.
We don't throw out a whole field of medicine. We say, let's make sure we're doing it in a way that's healthy.
And that gender affirming care saves a lot of lives. And the truth is, we talk about these edge cases, talk about athletes, talk about locker rooms.
But for the most part, what we're talking about is a very small group of people that just want the opportunity to live and express themselves. Okay, so a bunch of things to go over here.
First of all, Bill Maher, as usual, is defending basically the weakest version of the right side of this argument. The fact that me and Bill Maher are ostensibly on the same side of the trans debate is just a reflection of how insane the left has gotten, of course, because in actuality, Maher still has a leftist view of the trans issue.
You know, that's the crazy thing is that he's seen as this kind of voice of reason on the trans stuff.

And he is in comparison to the guy that he was just talking to.

He is.

But he still has a liberal view of the issue.

Which, by the way, I don't think he would object to that characterization.

He doesn't object.

He doesn't object.

He is a liberal.

I don't think he would deny that.

So now he objects for the most part to castrating kids, which is good that he objects to that. But he doesn't really deny the validity of transgenderism in principle.
Right. That's the point.
Because if there's a quote unquote conservative position on this, it's not just that, oh, we shouldn't be harming kids. It's that transgenderism itself is a category error.
The category itself is made up. That's the conservative position.
That's not Bill Maher's position. In fact, I believe he said recently in the last couple of weeks that the right goes too far when they say that sex is only male and female.
He kind of alluded to it there, where he said that, you know, his position is basically like most of the time you can tell if a baby is male or female from birth, but that's not always the case. It's not always the default setting.
So he thinks there are exceptions, which means that Marr's position on transgenderism is the left-wing position of 15 or 20 years ago. The difference is that he did not keep sliding insanely to the left.
He just stayed in his spot while the rest of the left drifted you knowed that way. And that's what makes Marr the reasonable one in all these conversations.
It's not that he's conservative at all. It's that he's the exact same liberal that he was 15 years ago.
He has the exact same liberal positions that he did 15 years ago. His progressivism did not progress.
It didn't go into remission either. It just kind of stayed in one spot.
And that's important to emphasize because whenever you see Marr debating transgenderism with a leftist, you have to remember that the position he's defending is actually a very liberal position, but it's still too much. It's too conservative.
It's too sane for the more left-wing person he's arguing with. That's always the dynamic in these conversations we've seen, and that's the dynamic here.
And then we hear from the other guy, John Lovett, and his answer, as expected, is a total mess. First of all, he says, hey, remember when conservatives claimed that LGBT activists were recruiting kids? That was crazy.
That turned out to be false, right? So clearly what they're saying now about the trans stuff is also false. And his point is that conservatives were obviously wrong about LGBT activists recruiting kids, which means that they're also wrong about the trans stuff, except that we weren't wrong about kids being recruited.
That's exactly what happened. Yeah, you're right.
We did claim that and we have been proven correct.

That's why what happened. Yeah, you're right.
We did claim that and we have been proven correct. That's why you see an explosion in LGBT identification over the past 10 years.
The last number I saw, this was in a poll, a Gallup poll in April or March or April of 2024, I think. Maybe there's been a more recent one.
But the number was about 20% of Gen Z identifies as LGBT. And you hear these kind of numbers, maybe you hear them so much you get numb to them, but really think about that.
20%, 20% of the entire generation identifies as LGBT. That is double the LGBT identification rate among millennials and like 20 times the number among boomers, which would be their grandparents.
So how did that happen? How does that happen? Well, it happens because there was a concerted effort to use the public school system and the media and Hollywood and so on and social media to indoctrinate children into

this lifestyle. Again, think about this in the terms of theories.
A good theory should have predictive power. If a theory is true, then I should be able to, based on this theory, predict what will happen in the future if my theory is true.
So take the idea that children are being indoctrinated into the LGBT lifestyle, that there's an actual recruitment effort underway to indoctrinate and brainwash kids into this. Somebody like myself, who has made this claim for years is putting forward a theory.

And that theory predicts, if it's true, it predicts, that we should see a massive, disproportionate jump in LGBT identification in a generation that is being indoctrinated. So if we're going around claiming that, hey, they're indoctrinating kids into the LGBT lifestyle, and then you look at the numbers and you see, yeah, well, yeah, but kids, this youngest generation, they identify as LGBT at about the same rate as the last 10 generations before them.
And if that was the case, then that would be a fact that really disproves the theory that kids are being indoctrinated. Then there's just, there's no evidence of it.
Except that we do see this massive jump. The thing that our theory predicts came true, which is very good evidence that the theory itself is true.
So John's argument, if you can call it that, falls apart already. And then he starts droning on about studies.
He says that gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, saves lives and studies prove it. Again, simply false.
We've gone over these studies many times, and all of the studies, and I mean all of them, literally all of them, that allegedly prove the efficacy of quote-unquote gender-affirming care, all of these studies are bunk. The methodology is insane in all of them.
Often these are studies funded by people who have a vested financial interest in a certain outcome. And the studies are, as I always point out, are impossible anyway.
I mean, it's actually impossible to have, even at this point, even at this point, it is impossible to have a reliable study that proves the efficacy of this quote unquote treatment. And that's because the question has always been, it's not really a question, you know, to normal people, to sane people, it's not a question, but just using the term loosely.
The question has always been about the long-term effects of sterilizing and castrating somebody and trying to change their gender. The question is the long-term effect.
How they feel about it a month later is irrelevant. It doesn't matter.
How they feel about it a year later is irrelevant. Five years later, even that is not really the question.
Although a lot of them, a year later or five years later, will regret it. The regret sets in very, very quickly for many of these people.
But even that's not the question. The question is, what is their life going to be like 20 years from now? Especially if this is being done at 13 years old.

If you've got a 13-year-old kid who was, quote unquote, transitioned,

well, checking in with that 13-year-old when he's 15 isn't going to tell us much. He's still a kid.
So, no, what I want to know is that 13-year-old kid, how is he doing when he's 35? When he's a full-grown man, how is the 35-year-old version of that 13-year-old kid feeling about the fact that he can't have kids ever. And he's stuck in this body that is still male and will never be female, but it's sort of in this state of like permanent prepubescence.
How does he feel about that as a 35 year old man? How does a 13 year old girl feel when she's 35? How does the 35-year-old version of that 13-year-old girl feel about not having breasts and not being able to ever bear children? What that means is that we are still like 10 years away from being able to do any kind of reliable follow-up with the, for lack of a better term, the first batch of kids who this stuff was done to en masse. We're a decade away from being able to even follow up in any kind of meaningful way.
Which is why all along there were two options. One of them is, well, let's just do this to a whole bunch of kids

and hope it works out and use them as lab rats

and check back in two decades and see how their lives are working out.

That's one option.

That's the insane, you know, mad scientist option

where you are using human beings as lab rats

and performing human experiments.

That's one option. The other option is to use your common sense and say, well, no, I don't need to check back.
I already know that it's not going to improve their lives or their well-being in the long run or even the short run to mutilate their bodies and interfere with its natural processes. So you can just use common sense.
Your basic common sense will tell you that. Your basic human, you know, basic human decency tells you that, or should, anyway.
Let's see. Daily Mail headline, Airlines could soon charge overweight passengers more for plane tickets.
Do you agree? A debate is brewing over whether airlines should adopt weight-based pricing, charging passengers based on their weight to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. This discussion follows a broader trend of U.S.
airlines implementing fees for checked baggage. While Samoa Air's 2013 fat tax failed to gain traction, Finnair recently conducted a three-month voluntary data collection initiative, gathering passengers' weight along with their carry-on luggage.
This synonymized data, including age, gender, and travel class,

will be used to refine aircraft balance and loading calculations from 2025 to 2030.

A separate study of about 1,000 U.S. adults examined the public's reaction to three pricing models, the current system, a weight threshold model, and a body weight model.

Okay, so there's no actual story here.

The headline makes it sound like there's an airline actually adopting a policy of charging fat passengers extra doesn't sound like that's actually going to happen anytime soon but um but should it happen yeah absolutely it should obviously obviously it should happen uh and the policy should be pretty simple you know if you're over a certain weight you should have to buy buy two seats. And then you'll actually get two seats, right? And you'll get the middle seat of your row and either the aisle or window.
That's the most fair thing. It'll also be the more comfortable thing for everybody involved.
But requiring another passenger to be squeezed into a seat and pressed against the body of a morbidly obese person, I mean, it's just, it's inhumane. It really is.
And I don't use that word lightly, but it is inhumane. If I'm paying for a ticket on an airplane, and this is bare minimum stuff.
If I'm paying for a ticket on an airplane, I should not have to make bodily contact with another person for the whole flight. No part of my body should have to be in constant contact with a stranger.
But that's what ends up happening if you get seated right next to a morbidly obese person because their body is spilling over into your space. Now, there are some nuances to work out.
What is the weight limit is a question. How do you adjust it according to height? Do you adjust it? We can figure that out.
I mean, I'm inclined to say that it should be something pretty simple. Like if you're over...
Pretty simple. And I also think it could be generous.
You know,

I'm not saying that there should be, you have to be under 200 pounds or you got to pay extra

because there are also plenty of people that could be over 200 pounds and not actually overweight.

So let's just say 350 pounds, I think is a pretty, that's a pretty, pretty generous

bar, I think. 350 pounds, if you're over that, you have to pay for an extra seat.
And that would include a small number of very tall people who are 350 pounds and not overweight or not that overweight. I would say even they should have to pay extra, even though it's not their fault.
That's not their fault. But these are people who are so big that, again, requiring someone to sit right next to them

means that you're not even... I paid for a seat.
I don't even get my whole seat because this huge

person is sitting right next to me and spilling over into it, which is just not right.

So to me, that's a pretty simple solution. Could it create awkward situations? Yeah.
And it would mean that there would have to be some kind of scale in the airport. Like they have those kind of bins so you can measure your carry-on to make sure it's the right size.
There would need to be something like that, but for people. And it would mean that if you are a fat person and you go to the airport, and it's not clear just by looking at you if you're over 350 or under it, yeah, you'd have to get on a scale at the airport.
It would be very humiliating.

But hopefully it's a wake-up call.

That's the other advantage to something like this.

It's a fairer system.

It makes more sense.

And you're not setting out to humiliate people.

But if that happens, then it becomes also an incentive. That's a pretty good incentive to lose weight, isn't it? If you knew that you're going to be traveling in six months because you're going to a wedding or something, and that you might get weighed at the airport, I can't think of a better incentive to lose weight.
So I think it's a win-win across the board. Let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a B&A with a sweet baby gang. Congratulations.
You're the unwitting star of the internet's most invasive reality show where data brokers are auctioning off your personal information to whoever's got pocket change and internet connection. Your name, address, social security number are floating around out there like a chain email from 2002 that just won't die.
And these data brokers, well, they're building their empire on your digital paper trail. While you're fending off endless spam calls and suspicious emails, they're profiting from every detail of your life that they can get their hands on.
However, I recently found a solution in a service called Delete Me. Delete Me is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers, which is great because I have better things to do with my time than chase my personal information across the internet's endless databases.
You tell Delete Me what information you want gone, and their experts handle the cleanup. They'll send you detailed reports showing exactly where they found your information and what they've removed.
And unlike those unsubscribed buttons that never seem to work, Delete.me actually stays on the job, constantly monitoring and removing your personal information. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete.me.
Now at a special discount for our listeners today, you can get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting Walsh to 64000. Text Walsh to 64000.
That's Walsh to 64000. Message data rates may apply.
See terms for details. I too had to rewind to make sure that was a smoke detector beeping.
How do people live with that constant beeping noise? Yeah, 95% of the comments for the show yesterday were about the smoke detector beeping in the video of the IRS employee crying about losing his job. So there's about 95% of the comments were about the smoke detector.
And I have no idea. I don't know how people can live with the beeping noise.
It drives me insane. I can't deal with it.
And usually it's a pretty simple fix. You can just change the batteries.
Look, why is this such an accurate stereotype? I have no idea. I mean, the funny thing about the video yesterday, of course, is that there's this long-running internet meme that if you're a very online person, as I sadly am, you're quite aware of it.
This sort of running joke about videos of black people in their homes, and there's often a smoke detector beeping in the background. And that meme, that stereotype exists for a reason.
It's definitely a trend. I don't know why, but it's a thing.
I mean, it's certainly a thing. We all know that it's a thing uh actually i've thought about this and my my theory to now up to now has been i mean just to be totally frank uh my theory has been that fatherlessness is endemic in the black community it's 70 or 80 percent and the dads are the ones who usually change the smoke detector batteries i mean that's that's that's kind of been my Now, in that video, it was a grown adult man whose smoke detector was beeping.
So that doesn't really explain that video. But generally speaking, I kind of think that's why.
I mean, someone should do a study on that. Taking different demographics and then looking at their fatherlessness rate and then comparing that to, on average, how long a smoke detector is allowed to beep in the home before someone changes the batteries.
That is a study that someone should do. And USAID should fund that study, should put $40 million into that study.
Some professions, like nursing and nearly every other patient care staff have to document what the heck they're doing in critical and excruciating detail throughout an even routine shift, hour by hour, if not by minute, with others basing later care on what they write as well. Nobody with writer block there.
Well, yeah, now you know that you're being oppressed, that you're expected to give an account of what you've done at work.

So you didn't know that you're being oppressed, but now you know.

So it's a good thing to know.

I tried doing the obligatory quarantine beard during COVID and gave up six days in because it was freaking ridiculous looking and itchy as F.

I'm sorry, you said six days?

Was that a typo?

Did you miss the zero? Because you must have meant 60 days, right? I mean, you're not actually coming to me. You're not leaving a comment under my show claiming that you tried, you tried to grow a beard for six days.
You don't expect me to accept that excuse, do you? Six days is trying? That's not trying. You didn't even, you barely got to the point of itchiness.
I mean, you had one itch and you turned back. I just explained yesterday You hit the itchiness wall

The itchiness threshold

When you're growing a beard

And you have to push through it

It'll take a couple of weeks

But you didn't make it one day into the itchiness

The itchiness threshold when you're growing a beard and you have to push through it. It'll take a couple of weeks, but you didn't even, you didn't make it one day into the itchiness.
The itchiness set in and you panicked. It looks ridiculous.
Yeah. For six, you're six days in.
Yes. For the first few days, you're going to look like you're just lazy and you forgot to shave.
Right. For the first few days, you're going to look just unshaven as opposed to bearded.
You go from a shaven person to unshaven looking and then bearded. So you were very much smack dab in the middle of the unshaven period.
You didn't even get to bearded. You never had a beard.
had stubble You tried Don't give me that I don't want to hear that How dare you You're banned from the show, obviously Stop listening to the show With that kind of weak sauce Grow a beard Give it three weeks and then you'll be allowed to listen to the show again. Matt, you're so wrong.
Each Lord of the Rings movie is three and a half hours long or longer, and that's more than justified. But I'll concede that no other movie has any right to be that long.
A lot of comments about this, too, saying, you know, I said no movie should be three and a half hours long, like The Brutalist, that awful movie was. And a few attempts to come up with exceptions to the rule, and Lord of the Rings was mentioned by several people.
Sorry, not only is Lord of the Rings not an exception, but it's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Okay, so let's just take Return of the King, which I think was the longest one of all three movies.
And I liked those movies, by the way. But the theatrical release of Return of the King was about three and a half hours.
It was about what The Brutalist is. And then there are all these extended cuts that are four and a half hours long, which is just obscene.
That's offensive. I'm offended.
If I pick up the Blu-ray, not that I watch Blu-ray anymore, but it says four and a half hours long, I'm offended by that. That's so insanely long.
How would you, how do you, that you would dare even sell that, that you would put that on the shelf for anyone to watch. Four and a half hours? So, but no, let's just take three and a half hours.
That was too long. That was way too long.
Okay. That you could have cut Return of the King.
You could have cut at least 45 minutes out of that movie, at least 45 minutes, and it would have been a better movie. And if you cut 45 minutes, it's still a movie that's two hours and 45 minutes long.
It's still a long movie. I mean, two hours and 45 minutes is a long freaking movie.
So can you just cut it down from epic marathon length to very long? Can we just make that? It would be a better movie. Quite infamously, the movie has three endings.
Let's start with that. Just pick one.
You don't need three. Okay, pick one ending.
I mean, the movie really ends with Frodo and Sam. They're stranded on the rock, and the lava's all around, and then the bird comes and picks them up.
And as many people, so many people, of course, have pointed out, and it is true, it's a major plot hole, that, well, why didn't they just ride the bird to Mordor?

This movie, it's, so we get, between the three movies, we get like 12 hours of screen time.

It could have been 30 minutes total if they just hopped on the bird, go drop the ring off in the volcano or whatever, and they'd be fine.

But fine.

So the bird picks them up, and they're flying away on the bird into the sunset. You know, last shot, you've got the, they're flying away from, you get the lava and everything and Mordor is collapsing.
But then you see them on the bird and they're going off into the distance and you see it's green and green pastures ahead. And it's a great closing shot.
And it tells you everything you need to know. We don't need to then see, oh, now he's laying in bed and he's meeting and he sees his friends again.
He's happy and he's jumping on the bed and hugging them. Like, I know that that's going to happen.
I don't need to actually see it. And then we get another scene where everybody is congratulating Frodo again.
We get like five scenes after the end of people congratulating Frodo, which again, we get it. And it's even more grating because Frodo didn't even do a good job in the first place.
He whined like a baby the entire time, and then he tried to turn back at the last moment and not even do the

job. And it only happened because Gollum tackled him.
So by accident, he actually completed the journey. And then we got to go through 45 minutes of just watching people kiss this guy's ass.
It's a little much. It's a little much.
So you could have cut that. And you could have cut from Return of the King.

This to me is a problem with the movie

that almost ruins it for me entirely, is the whole subplot of the ghost soldiers or whatever it was, where Aragorn goes and recruits these ghost soldiers to go and fight the big battle at the end. And you could have cut the whole thing with the ghost soldiers, and that would have saved you 40 minutes or so, probably.
And then you lose this massive plot hole, which is that the ghost soldiers show up halfway through the battle. I don't know why they're late.
And then they just go, it's pretty lame. We get this great battle scene and then the ghost soldiers show up and they just go through.
They're like swarming army ants and they easily kill everybody. They kill all the bad guys and the battle's over.
And they're able to easily kill everyone because they're already dead. They're invincible.
They're these corporeal creatures that can't be harmed, can't be killed. There's no stakes for them in the battle.
They got literally nothing to lose. They're already dead.
So why didn't you just get the ghost soldiers from the beginning? You could have had the ghost soldiers fight every battle through all three movies. They would have easily won.
Again, the movie's over in an hour. And then at the end of that, Aragorn is like, oh, you've proven yourself in battle, ghost soldiers.
Be free now. How do they prove themselves? It required no courage for them to fight that battle.
They were already dead. And they're hanging out in a cave somewhere for eternity.
So you did them a favor. They're bored to death, literally, hanging out in a cave underground.
You let them come up to the surface and fight a battle where they can't lose, and somehow they've proven their mettle. They've proven their courage, and now they get the curse lifted.
And now the curse is lifted, they just disappear into nothingness. They become dust, which is, I don't know what kind of reward that is.
So anyway, now I have complained about Lord of the Rings, and it has taken as long for me to complain about it as the movie is also. So this has just been a total waste of time.
The question has everyone talking right now. What did you do last week? No idea why this is causing so much drama, but well, here's what we did last week.
The entire Daily Wire gang went back to DC for Backstage Live at CPAC. Ben Shapiro and Christopher Ruffo broke huge news when they leaked tapes exposing Department of Education contractors supporting sex tapes in schools.
Michael Knowles faced off against 25 LGBTQ plus trans activists in Jubilee's most explosive debate yet. I released Clearing the Air, the behind-the-scenes look at the number one documentary of the decade, Am I Racist? And that list is just to be compliant with Doge's asks.
Seems simple enough. Don't miss a moment of the news, the shows, the entertainment that we have at Daily Wire.
Become a Daily Wire Plus member now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A few years ago, you might remember the national manhunt that took place after a viral incident in the city of Lufkin, Texas, about 120 miles northeast of Houston.

A teenage girl filmed herself removing a tub of Bluebell ice cream from a grocery store freezer. And then on camera, she licked the lid along with some of the ice cream before placing the whole tub back at the freezer for someone else to find.
In response to this, Bluebell, which is headquartered in Texas, dispatched an emergency response team, which they have on hot standby at all times, just in case something like this were to ever happen. If there's a licking incident, they're there.
And to their credit, Bluebell quickly identified the store in question because, of course, their staff recognized the freezer from the storage. After all, they didn't become the number two vanilla ice cream brand in the country without a deep understanding of their local markets.
And then Blue Bell's people rushed inside the store like a SWAT team, removed all ice creams of the same flavor that the woman licked in the video. For the record, the flavor was Tin Roof, which, according to the New York Times, a highly detailed investigative report of the story, features vanilla ice cream with chocolate fudge swirl and roasted peanuts dipped in dark chocolate.
I don't know anyone would ever want to eat ice cream with peanuts in it, but that's a whole different story. Meanwhile, doctors spoke to various media outlets about the dangers of consuming Bluebell ice cream that had someone else's saliva on top of it.
And surprisingly, not all the news was bad. One doctor, for instance, claimed that the risk of infection was, quote, partly diminished because of the ice cream's low temperature and high sugar content, since freezing could cause the water and bacteria to freeze and expand, destroying the bacteria, and sugar could leach water out of the bacteria, close quote.
Now, eventually, mercifully, the saga ended when police caught the 17-year-old responsible for this particular incident, although they didn't have much luck with the 10 million copycats who sprang up. But as media attention subsided, as far as we know, the licking stopped, at least we hope it did, and people went about their lives.
Customers could buy Bluebell ice cream in peace without fear that somebody's saliva might be part of the ingredients. But there was one question about that video that was never addressed, even though it's the most interesting part of the whole thing.
And that question is this, why did the teenage girl do that? Why exactly did she film herself committing a crime and then upload the incriminating footage on the internet for everyone to see? What psychological factors are involved in a decision like that? Is this something that's more common among women or is it equal among the genders? And how can we stop young women or people of any, or young men from engaging in this kind of behavior for their good and the good of everyone who wants to eat sanitary, unmolested ice cream? Well, unfortunately, despite the wall-to-wall coverage, no one ever addressed that aspect of the whole situation. But this is a discussion worth reopening today after a woman using the name Sarah Roberts uploaded perhaps the most incriminating footage that has been posted on TikTok.
This does not involve ice cream or anything being licked, but this is kind of the blue bell licking incident times about a thousand. If the blue bell licking incident resulted in a long form New York Times article and segments on every major television network, then this one deserves a primetime special of some kind.
So behold, as Sarah Roberts informs the world of two relevant pieces of information, neither of which advances her own interests in any way. First, she declares that she wants Elon Musk to be murdered.
And then for good measure, she adds that she has not paid her taxes for the better part of a decade. Watch.
I promised myself I would avoid the news. But obviously I haven't.

Here's my one thought. I mean, I have many thoughts.
Elon Musk.

Like, we need to X him. And by ex I mean, formerly known as assassination.
And as a woman from F here, is gonna show up, I don't... Arrest me.
You don't have enough people to even investigate me at this point. I haven't filed my taxes in like eight years and yet no one's covered me.
So I'm gonna say it. Let's assassinate some other.
Now what's great about this clip to the extent that anything this woman says can be described as, is that she starts by using coded language. She says that somebody needs to ex-Elon Musk.
And if you're not really paying attention, you might not get the message right away, I guess, if that wasn't clear enough. After all, ex is the name of the social media platform Elon Musk owns.
So maybe she means that everyone needs to reach out to Elon Musk on ex and voice their disapproval of his various political

positions. Keeps it kind of vague.
I mean, she makes the throat cutting gesture, so

also makes it pretty clear. But in case it wasn't clear, within about two seconds,

she comes right out and says, by X him, I mean assassinate. So, you know, so much for subtlety,

I guess. Unfortunately for Sarah Roberts, in the end, she was probably a little too explicit for her own good.
The post went all over the internet in a matter of hours. And in response to this video, Elon Musk posted the following message on X, quote, death threat and admission of multiple counts of tax fraud.
Then Musk tagged Ed Martin, the US attorney for the District of Columbia. And Martin, for his part, responded, quote, duly noted.
Thanks for letting us know. We'll put you in the system.
Talk soon, ma'am. Hashtag no one is above the law.
So this is what's known as instant karma. And it's becoming a theme of the second Trump administration.
When things happen that are obviously wrong, very quickly they're being corrected. That happened just the other day when Libs of TikTok posted this image on X.
And it shows a medical form that's being given to service members at a U.S. Air Force base.
And as you can see, it demands to know their gender identity and pronouns and so on. And one of the possible gender identities is non-binary, but there's also an other option, so service members can fill in the blank.
Now, in any other administration, this would have been completely ignored by the government, but that didn't happen this time. It's a clear violation of Trump's executive order on gender identity.
And the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, recognized that immediately. Within 24 hours, Hegseth responded, quote, all over it.
And something similar happened last night when Tulsi Gabbard fired 100 intelligence officials for participating in lewd and disturbing conversations on the NSA's internal communication system. That was a story that City Journal and Chris Rufro broke.
It went viral. And within 24 hours, 24 hours later, there was a decisive response.
This kind of thing would have been unheard of just a few years ago, but now there's immediate accountability. So in a sense, the point is you can't blame Sarah Roberts for thinking that no one would actually do anything about her video.
In the federal government, this kind of responsiveness isn't exactly the norm. That's why her video is a fantastic demonstration of the sheer entitlement and this kind of false sense of security on the left.
They've been held to basically no standard and lived lives free of consequence or accountability for years now. Up until a couple of months ago, she could have actually made that video and made a death threat and admitted to tax evasion and been relatively confident there'd be no repercussion.
But the world is changing now. For what it's worth, I went looking for Sarah Roberts' various social media accounts after all this blew up, and it looks like she's either removed them or made them all private.
So Sarah Roberts seems to understand that this time around, maybe there will be consequences for her actions. But I was able to see that the biography on one of her social media accounts appears to have she, her, hers pronouns listed along with the message, I bless lives.
In other words, this is yet another instance of someone who repeats all the stock liberal mantras of peace and love only to turn around and endorse the idea of murder and tax fraud. But the larger point is that these kinds of videos are always, to me, a fascinating study of human psychology.
Again, I circle back to my original question, which is, why post something like this? What's the win here? It's an extremely incriminating video that can achieve nothing but making your own life worse. There's no world, even a few years ago, if you post this video, there's not any world where you benefit from it.
It can't make anything better. There's no win aside from a few likes and nods of approval from random people on the internet.
So that is, that's it. That's the win.
For the sake of that meager amount of social media clout, she will risk going to prison. It's amazing that a grown adult woman would think that this is a trade worth making.
But Sarah Roberts did think this was a trade worth making. And as a result, right now, she has about eight years of tax payments to send into the

federal government.

And she has put me in a position for the first time in my career, ever probably, of rooting

for the IRS to collect some tax money.

And that is why, more than anything, Sarah Roberts and every other leftist who broadcast

their crimes on the internet on the assumption that nobody will ever do anything about it

are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day.
Godspeed.