Ep. 1535 - Tyrannical, Power-Hungry Judges Attempt To Seize Total Control Of The Government

Missions to Mars, driverless cars, AI chatbots, feels like we're already living in the future. Well, Robinhood is built for the future of trading.
Robinhood's intuitive design makes trading seamless so you can spot opportunities to take control of your trades. You can now even trade your stocks and crypto all in one place.
Sign up for a Robinhood account today. Investing is risky.
Robinhood Financial LLC member SIPC is a registered broker-dealer. Cryptocurrency services are offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.
Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Today on the Matt Wall Show, out of control, tyrannical, power-hungry judges are attempting to override Trump and claim total control over the executive branch.
We'll talk about why Trump's only choice is to ignore the lawless judges that are issuing these orders and dare them to do something about it. Also, J.D.
Vance attends a summit on AI. He says the Trump administration plans to take the lead on AI, which is good, but taking the lead also means putting up guardrails.
We'll talk about that. And a left-wing protest goes wildly off the rails in truly horrifying ways that I will force you to witness.
And the morbidly obese woman suing Lyft made an appearance on Breakfast Club this week. Her whole case and their furniture fell apart almost immediately.

We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. 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 dailywire. That's hometitlelock.com, promo code dailywire.
Whenever a new administration takes over the White House, there are obviously a lot of major changes that take place. We talked about many of these changes already in the past few weeks with Trump's executive orders and so on.
But there are also some minor changes that nobody really talks about or takes into account, even though they may have symbolic significance. In particular, one of the first moves that Trump made when he took office back in 2017 was the installment of a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the White House.
Jackson was a war hero who served in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 when he led American troops to a historic victory in New Orleans. Jackson was also a populist who wanted the United States to expand and grow its borders because he believed it would benefit the average American.
And so for four years, Jackson's portrait remained in the Oval Office. Then the minute he became president, Joe Biden quickly removed the portrait.
No one in Biden's administration could stand to look at Andrew Jackson, but apparently they didn't destroy the portrait, They just put it in storage. So now, four years later, the game of Andrew Jackson tug of war is continuing.
The portrait is officially back. And as you can see, when you look at the portrait in the Oval Office, Abe Lincoln is on the left and Jackson is on the right.
And if you ask a typical Biden supporter about this, they'll tell you that this is an outrage because Andrew Jackson was a slave owner.

On top of that, he wasn't exactly a big fan of the Indians, and therefore, you know, he's canceled. But that explanation actually misses one of the defining moments of Jackson's presidency.
This is a moment that very soon could have a lot of relevance for the second Trump turn. I'm talking about a decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1832

Which held that the Cherokee Indians were a sovereign nation that had the right to govern themselves without interference from the states. This was a ruling that threatened to disrupt Jackson's plans for American expansion into the West.
It was also a major blow to the concept of states' rights, and it would have significant ramifications for Georgia in particular. And of course, as Jackson saw it, it was also an unlawful ruling.
So in response to this decision, according to various accounts, Jackson uttered some version of this quote, Chief Justice John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. In other words, when a court, even the Supreme Court, exceeds the limits of its authority, then there's no requirement that anybody follow the court's rulings.
There's certainly no way for the court to compel the executive branch to do anything. So if a court ever goes rogue and begins to issue rulings that flagrantly disregard the Constitution, as well as the outcome that a majority of Americans want, that's how you deal with it.
Jackson set that precedent. A century later, FDR built on that idea when the courts began to striking down his New Deal legislation.
He threatened to pack the courts. Very quickly, the Supreme Court backed down and started upholding some of those laws.
And depending on who you ask, Andrew Jackson and FDR were either villains or heroes in those stories. But either way, their actions illustrate an important point, which is that in our system of checks and balances, everything depends on legitimacy.
If courts are seen as illegitimate, then their orders are enforced. If courts are seen as illegitimate, then nothing they do really matters.
Donald Trump, as a student of Andrew Jackson, certainly understands that. And judges, we can assume, understand this principle as well.
And that's why the flood of federal injunctions that have already been issued in Trump's second term are best understood as a deliberate provocation by the judiciary. Because every other day, an unelected federal judge, usually a left-wing judge, is issuing a nationwide injunction barring some aspect of Trump's agenda.
And this is happening so frequently that most people don't really understand or comprehend the scale of the problem. So let me run down a brief, non-exhaustive list of just some of these injunctions, okay? These have all been issued in the past couple of weeks.
A Biden judge blocked Trump's halt on federal grant spending. A Clinton judge in Massachusetts blocked Trump's plan to issue buyouts to federal workers and also blocked the Trump administration from transferring a trans-identifying man to a man's prison facility where he belongs.
An Obama judge in New York blocked both Doge and the Treasury Secretary himself from accessing internal Treasury records. A Biden judge in Massachusetts blocked Trump from cutting billions of dollars in fraudulent spending that was earmarked for scientific research, including wasteful overhead, as we discussed yesterday.
Another judge in Washington, D.C., appointed by Trump, halted the suspension of U.S. aid workers who were spending billions of dollars orchestrating foreign coups and sponsoring transgender theater and that sort of thing.
An Obama judge in D.C. ordered Trump to reinstate the head of a special council office.
A Reagan judge in D.C. blocked prison officials from transferring trans-identifying men to men's prisons.
Three judges, including Biden, Bush, and Reagan judges in New Hampshire, Washington, Maryland, blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. And most recently, a D.C.
judge named John Bates issued what may be the single most obviously unconstitutional ruling written by a federal judge in modern history. Now, before I get into that ruling, take stock of the sheer magnitude of orders that I just mentioned and where they're coming from.
I mean, without exception, these are judges located in left-wing jurisdictions, most of them appointed by Democrats. And in every case, they are unilaterally issuing emergency temporary restraining orders, which are supposed to be an extraordinary and drastic remedy according to established legal precedent.
And if you're trying to portray the courts as legitimate, nonpartisan institutions, then put simply, this does not look good. In fact, it's a travesty.
And it gets much worse when you look at what these rulings are saying. So let's go back to the ruling by John Bates that I just mentioned.
Okay, so this ruling prevents the Trump administration from removing, or is supposed to prevent them, from removing content from websites that the Trump administration controls. In fact, the ruling goes further than that.
It requires the Trump administration to keep old content from Biden, the Biden administration, online. And this is not an exaggeration.
The order, by its own terms, bans the Trump administration from, quote, removing or modifying health-related web pages and data sets while also compelling the administration to, quote, restore web pages and data sets that they have already removed or modified. In other words, you have an unelected federal judge who's just named himself the official web editor of the entire federal government.

He's saying, in effect, that the executive branch has no power whatsoever.

I mean, they can't even control what they're putting on the Internet.

Trump, as the president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world,

actually doesn't even have the power to make alterations to a website.

Specifically, the ruling comes in response to the Trump administration's executive order ending gender ideology in the federal government. Pursuant to that order, the administration removed a lot of content from websites that are run by the CDC, HHS, FDA, and other agencies.
And some of that content was related to sex changes and cross-sex hormones. Some of it included activist research on the risk of suicide among trans-identifying individuals, which of course has been used to justify child castration instead of treating their obvious mental health condition.
Some of the materials had to do with nonsense concepts like environmental justice. Some of it was about drugs that gay people can take in order to prevent the spread of HIV while they're engaging in reckless and inherently dangerous sexual activity and on and on.
Now, whatever you think of these materials, and you should think that they're garbage because they are, it's clearly within the federal government's purview to delete them from their own websites. This is why we have elections.
But Judge Bates disagreed. He ruled that, quote, by removing long relied upon medical resources without explanation, it is likely that each agency failed to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.
And he goes on to say that the Trump administration has violated something called the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is a law that nobody knows anything about or cares about at all. But there's more to the ruling.
But let's stop there and just address this part of it. Okay, he's saying that there's no explanation for why this content was removed.
So apparently we can't reduce this particular paperwork. And this would be a compelling argument if the judge were, say, living in a cave with no internet access or access to newspapers or other human interaction for the past decade or so.
But everyone else understands exactly why the Trump administration is gutting these websites. As we discussed yesterday, activists have taken over scientific and medical research in this country.
They've promoted child butchery and other obviously immoral practices, which the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. And Trump ran against all of that.
And he won a resounding victory. So that's all the explanation the federal judge should require.
That's if, as though we need to explain anything to him anyway. Like his personal opinion about their reasons for deleting something from a website is irrelevant, or it should be.
But then the judge goes on to offer another explanation for his ruling. Quoting again from the decision, he says, quote, if those doctors cannot provide these individuals the care they need and deserve within the scheduled and often limited timeframe, there's a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe life-threatening conditions.
So now what's happening is that the judge is claiming that doctors are reliant on government websites in order to treat their patients. And as proved this, he cites a doctor from Yale who says that it now takes her a little bit longer to prescribe contraception for her patients.
And without these websites, she's totally clueless, apparently. Her medical school training wasn't enough.
Her residency wasn't enough. Her years of practice weren't enough.
Her access to thousands of research papers is not enough. She needs a small handful of government websites in order to do her job, apparently.
Now, if we take this claim literally, of course, it means that this doctor is incompetent to practice medicine. But instead, the judge takes as proof that he needs to dictate what content goes on the internet.
If you go through any of the other 10 million injunctions that judges have filed against Trump so far, you'll find that this kind of reasoning, as egregious as it is, is pretty much the norm. The judges are taking anecdotal claims from activists and they're using them to throw up roadblocks in the way of the new administration.
And they're doing it so that CNN can report that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis when in fact the judges are the ones doing that. Watch.
We are three weeks into the second Trump presidency, three weeks, and tonight there are warnings that the U.S. is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis.
Now, the first shoe on this dropped when a federal judge today said the White House is defying his order to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal aid, marking the first time that we've had a judge expressly accuse the Trump administration of ignoring a court ruling. And in a separate case today, federal employees here in Washington told a judge that the administration was defying another order by not reinstating workers who had been put on leave.
Now, this all has prominent Democrats and many of the nation's top constitutional scholars declaring that the U.S. is on the brink of a reckoning.
The Trump Justice Department says the president should have the authority to decide how to run the government and that these judges are overreaching. And some of the president's allies say the judges should not be judging any of the moves to shrink the federal government.
As you just heard, there are hints in that reporting that the Trump administration may not comply with some of these orders. Trump himself hasn't come out and said that.
He's apparently weighing his options at this point. But as this continues, which it inevitably will, the Andrew Jackson solution is going to become more and more appealing.
And ultimately, it will be necessary. It is necessary.
You know, to be very clear about this, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives any random federal judge absolute power to override anything the president does or any decision he makes at any time just because they personally don't like it. You know, if a single judge in a place like New Hampshire or Washington can decide that the president can't reduce foreign aid or fire his own employees or kick men out of women's prisons or even control the content that's posted on government websites, then essentially the president has no power.
The judges are the presidents. They have all the power.
Nothing else matters. And that's the result the left obviously wants.
Now it is anyway. And now that the deep state and career bureaucrats are being terminated, they see the courts as their only hope.
That's why Chuck Schumer just spoke on the floor of the Senate, declaring that courts are essentially infallible and their rulings must always be honored no matter what. Watch.
Donald Trump is not free to bulldoze his way through the rule of law. Donald Trump is not free to bulldoze his way through the rule of law.
He is an executive, not a monarch. He swore an oath faithfully to execute the duties of his office.
And when the courts speak, Donald Trump must accept their judgments and honor the Constitution. When the courts speak, you just have to honor their judge, no matter what they say.
No matter what. If a federal judge tomorrow issues a ruling saying that, you know, everybody has to wear a red shirt on Tuesday, well, he just got to do it.
You know, the fact that he has no power to issue that ruling and no power to enforce it, and he's way outside the bounds of the Constitution, doesn't matter. He's a judge in a robe.
He said it, so we all got to do it. I mean, that's what Chuck Schumer is saying.
But if you remember just a couple of years back, Democrats like Chuck Schumer were standing in front of the Supreme Court threatening individual judges over their rulings. AOC was telling Anderson Cooper that Biden should just ignore Supreme Court rulings, and he did.
He admitted the court had struck down his plan to cancel student loans, for example, so he just went ahead and did it anyway. Now these same Democrats are maintaining that judges should never be questioned under any circumstances.
The same Democrats who are organizing protests outside the houses of Supreme Court justices. Now they're saying, well, no, if the judge says it, honor it, doesn't matter.
Now, the reality, of course, is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes that the Democrats have bounced between. Judges are not infallible.
They can deliberately and maliciously violate the Constitution, just like anyone else can. And when that happens, when a judicial coup is underway, a response is necessary.
We're not talking about one or two bad rulings here. We're not talking about rulings that block a handful of policy goals or anything like that.
We're at the point where the president is not being allowed to do anything. He can't even edit a website.
Left-wing judges are issuing emergency injunctions on everything without even deciding actual cases. You know, the only way to get us out from under this judicial tyranny is for Trump to disregard these orders and for Congress to impeach the judges responsible for them.
Throughout our history, there have only been a handful of times when presidents have needed to consider drastic actions like that. The country was clearly better off because Andrew Jackson did it.
And now two centuries later, it's equally clear that this country would be better off if the Trump administration followed in Jackson's footsteps and dared these judges to enforce these rulings. They can't do it, obviously.
They complain and issue more injunctions and more opinions. Fine.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, people who want to see this country improve, will get exactly what we voted for. Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you own a handgun, you know the dilemma. You either keep it locked away somewhere secure, but tough to access, or you compromise on security for quick access.
Neither option is ideal. So that's why I was genuinely impressed when I tried out the Stopbox Pro.
I've had mine for a while now, and it solves that access versus security problem brilliantly. What makes it different is that it uses this incredibly clever push-button mechanical system.
No keys to lose, no batteries to fail, just reliable access when you need it. What really sold me was testing it out at home.
The build quality is exceptional, and it should be since they make everything right here in the USA. I could access it quickly in the dark, which gives me real peace of mind while simultaneously making whoever is breaking and entering learn what regret is very rapidly.
Plus, for those of you who travel, it's TSA compliant, so you can actually fly with it properly secured and check baggage, because it turns out TSA isn't a fan of just throwing loose weapons into your bag. Don't try it.
For a limited time only, our listeners are getting a crazy deal. Not only do you get 10% off of your entire order when you use code MATTWALLSHOW at stopboxusa.com, but they're also giving you buy one, get one free for their Stopbox Pro.
That's 10% off and a free Stopbox Pro when you use code MattWallShow at StopBoxUSA.com. But they're also giving you buy one, get one free for their StopBox Pro.
That's 10% off and a free StopBox Pro when you use code MattWallShow at StopBoxUSA.com. Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with StopBox.
Daily Wire reports, Vice President J.D. Vance addressed world leaders at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris on Tuesday, pointing to the U.S.
as the global leader on one of the most promising technologies we've seen in generations. The conference included world leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canada's outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, other leaders, tech executives as well.
In his speech, the vice president outlined four key points. He says the Trump administration will strive for in its AI policy, making America the gold standard of AI, fighting excessive excessive regulation in the industry, preventing political bias in AI and advocating for American workers as the technology continues to develop.
Here's some of Vance's address to the summit. AI, we believe, is going to make us more productive, more prosperous, and more free.
The United States of America is the leader in AI, and our administration plans to keep it that way. The U.S.
possesses all components across the full AI stack, including advanced semiconductor design, frontier algorithms, and, of course, transform applications. Now, the computing power this stack requires is integral to advancing AI technology.
And to safeguard America's advantage, the Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the U.S. with American-designed and manufactured chips.
Now, just because we're the leader doesn't mean we want to or need to go it alone, of course. And let me be emphatic about this point.
America wants to partner with all of you, and we want to embark on the AI revolution before us with a spirit of openness and collaboration. But to create that kind of trust, we need international regulatory regimes that fosters the creation of AI technology rather than strangles it.
And we need our European friends in particular to look to this new frontier with optimism rather than trepidation. So, you know, I agree with him that we should lead the way with this technology.
This is the correct position for a presidential administration to have. There's nothing he said that I disagree with.
That said, I don't think that our approach to AI should be to simply embrace it wholesale unquestioningly, which isn't what Vance was saying.

I'm just putting forward, I'm putting this forward as my own opinion. In fact, Vance talked about needing to advocate for and protect American workers.
And I agree, that's important. And to me, that means that there have to be guardrails put in place.
There have to be lines drawn where AI just will not cross. We have always wanted to make things faster and more efficient and cheaper, and that makes sense.
The faster, the more efficient, the cheaper, the better. That's the idea.
But we're now at a point in history where fast, efficient, and cheap cannot be the be-all and end-all. We can't just say, well, whatever's faster, more efficient, and cheaper is automatically the better way to go.
We're at a point now where it's not that simple. I mean, you could argue it's never been that simple, but it certainly isn't now, because if we do approach it that way, human beings will simply just be replaced and they will be replaced in every facet of life.
We're talking millions of jobs lost, millions. And most of them will not be converted into some other kind of job.
We're not talking about jobs evolving or changing. We're talking about jobs just lost.
If AI is allowed to just simply take over with no guardrails, no regulations of any kind. People like to draw all kinds of comparisons.
Anytime you hear someone like me talking about the dangers of AI, what we always hear from the other side is, well, people have always said that about every new technology, you know, when the car replaced the horse and buggy, there are people saying, well, what about the carriage drivers? Well, yeah, but that's different. You know, AI is just a different kind of technology.
It is its own category of thing. It's not comparable to any of this other stuff.

Because, you know, when the horse and buggy was replaced with the car,

it meant that if you were a carriage driver for a living,

well, now you can become a cab driver in a car.

It just means that the tool that you're using is different, but you're still essentially doing the same thing,

which is getting people from point A to point B.

And now you're doing it in a different vehicle, and now you can do it a lot faster and you can carry a lot more people around. So it's better for you in the long term and in the short term.
And then when cabs started getting replaced with Uber, it meant that cab drivers became Uber drivers. Whether that was actually an improvement for the cab driver is a different conversation, but that's pretty clear.
It's just like the technology that you're using has changed, but it's still you doing the thing. But as AI takes over, many jobs will just go away.
I mean, they're just not going to exist. Self-driving cars means everyone who drives for a living doesn't have a job anymore.
It's not like, well, no, now you go do something. Hopefully you do go do something else, but the tool of your trade has not changed.
Your trade is gone. That's the difference.
The job does not evolve into something else. It's just gone.
And this same thing will happen over and over and over again in almost every area of life. And there will be less and less for human beings to actually do.
And that's the way it goes if we embrace AI wholesale. If we don't value the human component at all, if we view humans as just another type of machine, then we lose the competition because AI

will be a superior machine for many applications from a purely utilitarian perspective. If the only thing we care about is, well, what's the cheapest, fastest, most efficient way to do this, well, then humans are going to lose.
And human beings losing ultimately is not what we want because the whole idea, like what's the point of life? What's the point of any of this? I mean, what's the point of having a country? What's the point of human civilization? We want to see that human life is thriving.

And if you're going in a direction that's going to ultimately hurt human beings for the sake of machines,

then clearly it's not the right direction.

A future where millions of jobs are extinct, replaced with nothing,

and that there's very little for human beings to actually do is a dystopian, hellish future. It's an unhuman future.
It's the future that, I mean, it's the future that, like, every dystopian sci-fi writer ever has warned us about. And I'm not saying that AI necessarily creates that future, or leads to that future, or needs to lead to it.
I'm not saying that we, you know, J.D. Vance said we don't want to strangle, we want to be leaders in AI, we don't want to strangle innovation.
I agree, we don't want to strangle it. Total agreement there.
I'm saying that the wholesale, uncritical, absolute embrace of AI with no guardrails, no lines drawn, that leads to dystopia.

Like, guaranteed. I mean, guaranteed dystopia.
So what do guardrails mean? It means that there

have to be lines, again, lines drawn where we say, okay, AI could replace this thing, this job,

this aspect of human existence, but we will not let it. We have to be willing to say that.
And we're not going to say that for everything. That's part of the debate, is where are the lines drawn? But they have to be drawn somewhere.
And I do think there's some people that are really bullish on AI that really don't want the lines drawn anywhere at all.

They just like, let it do what it's going to do. Wherever it can replace a person, let's just do it.
I do believe that's the opinion of some people. And I think that you're just strolling into dystopia.
I mean, it's mind-boggling. So using the cab or the Uber example, truck driver is another example.
In that case, it would mean passing a law that bans self-driving rideshare and self-driving commercial trucks. It would mean passing a law where we say, no, we're not going to allow these entire industries full of jobs that people rely on to feed their families to just be wiped out overnight.
And look, we can debate whether we should pass that law with cabs and trucks especially, or specifically. I'm using that as an example of what drawing the line would

mean and what it would look like. Maybe you could make a good argument that we should just let it

happen. We should let all the truck drivers and Uber and cab drivers and everyone else who drives

for a living lose their jobs. It'd be very difficult to convince me of that argument because I tend to think we should not allow that to happen.
But maybe you can make that argument. My point is that if we're not willing to pass those kinds of laws for anything, well, then AI will just replace all of us and we will live in a future in a world run and operated by computers and not computers that people are commanding and running but computers that are operating on their own.
When people talk about the promise of AI and the excitement of AI that's what they mean. It's what makes it so promising.
It's that it's just, it can do this stuff without people being involved hardly at all.

And eventually not at all.

And we will just be walking willingly into an unhuman future, a future where humanity

has been devalued into nothingness.

And of course, you can look at jobs where this has already happened, where the human

element has been basically removed.

Take something obvious like grocery store cashiers, or really cashiers in or really cashiers in general, but let's just take grocery stores. This is not AI, but it is automation.
And so I think back to when I was a grocery store cashier many moons ago, maybe 24, 25 years ago. There was no self-checkout at that time.
At least it wasn't, if it existed, it was not prevalent. We didn't have it where I worked.
So we had whatever it was, 10 or 12 checkout lanes. And during the busy times, every lane was manned by a human cashier.
And most of the cashiers had baggers, had people that were still behind them did the bagging. And then outside, we had parcel pickup, which really doesn't exist anymore.
But that's where you had people that stood outside. And not only were they putting carts away, but they would actually help you bring, you help the old lady bring the bags to her car, load the bag in the car.
And this was a relatively small grocery store, but there were many jobs. There were many, many jobs, mostly done by young people.
I was like 14 or 15 when I was working at cash register. I was terrible at it.
I got booted out to parcel pickup because I was throwing, you know, watermelons in with eggs and that sort of thing. But anyway, there were a lot of jobs being done.
And because we had actual human beings working all these jobs, it created a kind of a community atmosphere, a relationship with the customers. I remember we had these old men.
One of them looked like, I remember, looked like the old guy from Home Alone, the old guy with the shovel and the beer in Home Alone. And these retired guys,

and they would come to the grocery store. This is what they did every single day.
Every day,

they'd come to the grocery store. They'd get a donut and coffee.
They'd sit outside on a bench

outside the grocery store, and they would just sit there. They would talk to the employees.

They would talk to the customers. Everyone kind of knew each other.

None of that exists anymore. Most of those jobs just don't exist.
They did not evolve. They didn't become, they just don't exist.
They're gone. Everything's automated.
And so you go to the grocery store now and you talk to no one, you look at no one, you check out your own groceries, you have no interaction with anybody, and you leave. And the few employees who still work there have not much to do.
They're much more removed from the customer.

I mean, you have one employee just kind of standing, monitoring eight self-checkouts, right? And there's no relationship with the customers at all. There's no relationship between the customers at all.
And you just can't convince me that this setup is better than it was back when I worked these jobs. Like, it was just better.
It was better then. That was better in almost every way.
The new setup is better for the CEOs of these companies because self-checkout is cheaper. And so it helps their bottom line.
But it's not better for anyone else. It's not better for the employees because there are a lot less of them and they're a lot less engaged.
It's not better for the customers ultimately. I mean, yeah, it's quicker for the customers, but it's not, quicker is not always better is what I'm saying.
As human beings, it's not always better. And so I'm not saying that we should ban self-checkouts, okay? That ship has long since sailed.
I mean, that's just, that's already happened. There's no putting the toothpaste back in that tube.
What I'm saying is that a world where this process plays out everywhere with everything is not a world that any of us should want to live in. And none of us will actually be happy with it when it arrives.
So that's something we need to think about. And as we're talking about embracing AI and all the promise of AI, there needs to be like a serious conversation about, again, where these lines are drawn.
And that is going to mean somewhere saying, yeah, AI could do this. It could replace this whole industry, but we will not let it.
We're just not going to let that happen. And I think for especially, you know, there's a certain kind of conservative where kind of the market is king always.
And for that type of conservative, that's just a conversation they never want to have. They're very uncomfortable with any notion of ever putting any kind of roadblock in the way of making things just quicker and cheaper.
But if we are human, if being human means something, then it has to mean that there are things we value even above quickness and cheapness and efficiency. And the thing that we should value above that is having a meaningful life, human connection.
I mean, these things actually do matter. You can't measure them, but they do matter.
All right, here's Trump talking about why he is requiring federal workers to work from the office. Let's listen.
We talk about reporting to work, right? I happen to be a believer that you have to go to work. I don't think you can work from a home.
I don't know. It's like there's a whole big, oh, you can work from home.
Nobody's going to work from home. They're going to be going out.
They're going to play tennis. They're going to play golf.
They're going to do a lot of things. They're not working.
It's a rare person that's going to work. You might work 10% of the time, maybe 20%.
I don't think you're going to work a lot more than that. And I think they have an obligation to work.
And they have an obligation not to have a second job when they're supposed to be working for the federal government. You're going to find that a lot of these people have second jobs instead of working for them.
They'll be collecting a federal government check, and they'll be working two jobs. And that's big trouble for them.
So he's right about this, of course. I mean, we can have the debate about working from home generally.
But one thing for sure, in my view, is that government workers should be at the office because they're working on the taxpayer dime. They need to be monitored.
We need to be sure that they're actually doing their jobs. And if they have a job that doesn't require them to do much of anything at all in the first place, then the job should be liquidated.
I know I just talked about preserving jobs, but this is one area where I'm okay with wiping out as many jobs as we can. That's the federal government.
That's one area where drastically shrinking the number of jobs available is a positive step. So for sure, government workers should be at the office.
Tax know, taxpayers shouldn't have to just take, and all these federal employees are saying, no, I work even more when I'm at home. Yeah, okay, you say that, but we don't know that.
And I don't trust you. Sorry, I shouldn't have to.
We shouldn't just have to take your word for it that you're not going off and playing tennis half the time. So you should be at the office.
And of course, we know that even in an office, a lot of time can still be wasted. But if there's any hope of holding people accountable, you got to require them to go to the office.
And so that's for government jobs. I do think this applies to many jobs in the private sector as well.
Not so much the monitoring piece. That's not what it's about.
But I think, look, I don't think you can totally replace in-person collaboration with communication over the phone or through a screen. I think there is real value to being in-person physically together.
And it's not value that can be precisely quantified or measured. The inability to measure it, though, doesn't mean that there's no value.
It means the value is literally immeasurable. And this actually does kind of go back to the AI point.
You know, we have to start valuing things of immeasurable value. Like we cannot demand that everything, oh yeah, well you say that has value, show it to me on this chart.
Show me the study, show me the data that proves that this thing has value. Not everything can be reduced to that.
So, and now I don't feel as strongly about the work from home stuff as I do about AI. A future where everybody is working from home is not nearly as bleak to me as a future where nobody is working because algorithms are just doing everything.
But I do think that this is still important. Okay, some anti-Trump protests this week as a change of pace.
It seems that some leftists are out protesting Trump. So it's not something you see very often.
It had been at least three or four hours since the last one. So I have two clips.
And honestly, I'm not sure if these are from the same protest. I think they probably are, but they all kind of bleed together.
It doesn't really matter. So first, here is Representative Maxine Dexter of Oregon with her, well, just listen.
I've, I've been told I have 30 seconds. So I am going to tell you that we do have to, I don't swear in public very well, but we have to f*** Trump.
Please. Please don't tell my children that I just did that.
I mean, don't tell your husband either. Well, not that you probably don't have a husband.
I don't know. So, you know, look, Trump has, he gets a lot of threats.
But out of all the threats that Trump has ever gotten, this has to be the most terrifying for him. You know, and that woman looks like she means it.
That woman, she's on a mission. She has to.
She says she has to. She has to F Trump.
That's what she said. She must.
She's overwhelmed by her carnal desire for President Trump. If I were Trump, I would be right now, and look, I like to think that I can be brave in some situations, but if I were Trump, I'd be holed up in a White House bunker right now, surrounded by Secret Service, hiding under a table, trembling in fear, knowing what this woman intends to do to me.
So that's, I mean, that's pretty bad. But it's not as bad as this.
Now, so this is from the same protest or a different one. I don't know.
It doesn't matter. All I can tell you is that the clip I'm about to play is a true test of your mental fortitude.
It's two minutes long. I don't know if we're going to play the whole thing.
We probably can't. But I challenge you, I challenge you to not hit mute.
Don't turn off the show. You're going to want to.
I'm warning you ahead of time. You're going to want to.
You're going to want to take your phone or your computer and throw it into a bathtub full of acid if you happen to have one in the house. But I challenge you to stick with it.
We'll get through this together, and we will be better for it. Okay?

Here it is. We'll fight against Doge.
We'll fight Elon Musk. No way, let's get within our walls.
We'll fight from dawn to dusk. Oh, which side are you on? Which side are you on? Which side are you on? Which side are you on? Trump's coming for our unions.
He wants us all to fail. He wants us to bow to him.
But we want him in jail. Oh, which side are you on? Okay.
Which side are you on? Tell me! I mean, I'm on the side of the deaf community. That's the side I want to be on.
That's who I want to be with. You know, I saw a video recently of, I think it was a Siberian husky, a dog, trying to sing.
And, well, he was just howling, but someone was playing the piano and they said it was singing. It's not really singing, but he was a significantly better singer than any of the people in that video.
And because that sounded like 50 huskies with mental illnesses drowning in a river while being eaten by piranhas.

Or maybe that's just the fate that I wish I would have suffered instead of having to hear that.

I'm depressed now.

I actually feel sick in my soul.

I do.

I feel this deep well of despair in the depths of my soul after listening to that. And I know we said that we'd get through it and we'd be better for it, but we're not.
We're not better. I was wrong.
We are not better for it. I actually think that all of our lives are ruined now.
I think I just ruined your life and my own. Because your dreams will be haunted by the sound of boomer

feminists singing so off pitch that it actually causes brain damage when you hear it. And I,

I already had brain damage, so I don't, I, you know, I can't afford this. I cannot afford

to have suffered this, but I just did. And, um, wow.
Anyway,

I can't even think anymore. I've totally lost my train of thought.
This is really the left's problem in a nutshell, illustrated in both of those videos. And the problem is they can't sing and they secretly want to have sex with Donald Trump.
I mean, that's the surface level problem. But what's underneath it is that they're just lost at sea and they have no message.
And then so you end up with this. I think we just need to quit while we're ahead.
Let's get to the comment section. If you're a man, it's required that you grow a bid.
Hey, we're the sweet baby gang. Tax season, that magical time when we all remember how much fun it is being a responsible adult.
Still haven't filed those returns. Well, if you're operating on a maybe if I ignored it'll go away type strategy, let me save you some suspense.
That is not going to work. The IRS has a whole menu of ways to make your life, let's say, interesting.
Wage garnishments, frozen accounts. And if you're really

lucky, maybe you get some property seizures thrown in. It's like a game show where all the

prizes are things you do not want. And now that we're in tax season, they're feeling particularly

motivated. But before you consider moving to a remote Ireland with no extradition treaty,

look, there's Tax Network USA. They've been playing this game of tax chess for years and

All right. particularly motivated.
But before you consider moving to a remote island with no extradition treaty, look, there's Tax Network USA. They've been playing this game of tax chess for years, and unlike most of us who can barely remember which receipts to save, they actually know what they're doing.
They've helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt and filed over 10,000 tax returns. Because let's face it, you've got better things to do than argue with the IRS about tax deductions.
Look, I get it. Dealing with the IRS is about as fun as a root canal, but ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away.
So here's what you got to do for a complimentary consultation. Call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA. No amount of Sesame Street will influence a culture.
I was raised in Puerto Rico, U.S. territory.
We have Sesame Street in absolutely every American movie, music, and shows. Assimilation has never been accomplished.
They have their own culture and identity, very different from Americans. We are lovely people, by the way, but Sesame Street has nothing to do with it.
Right. And by the way, that's precisely why Puerto Rico should never be the 51st state, because it's not American.
As you point out, it's not an American. It's just, it's not American.
It has some aspects of American culture, mainly American media and entertainment, but it's not American and it will never be. So if parents are making the decision to lobotomize their kids with their child's doctor, that would make it okay.
The why do you even care? It doesn't affect you argument is so stupid. Yeah, I've made the lobotomy comparison many times.
I mean, people listen to the show know that this is something that through the years of combating gender ideology and the gender transition racket, I've brought up this comparison. And if you aren't familiar with it, if anyone isn't familiar, you should really go back and look into it.
Because this was a widely accepted medical practice for many, many years. And lobotomy was as barbaric as it sounds.
And when you go back and research this stuff, you'll be shocked to see how often the most barbaric and disturbing forms of quote-unquote medical treatment became widely accepted and practiced by medical experts. And the thing is, you don't have to go back to the Middle Ages, right? You don't have to go back to a time of bloodletting and using leeches for whatever.
No, you don't have to go back far at all. I mean, this has been happening in modern medicine for a long time.
And in fact, the most barbaric practices that are practiced by and accepted by mainstream medicine are happening

today. We have gender transitions, which hopefully are on their way out, but then abortion also.
And even that, you'll hear the argument all the time that abortion has existed forever and And it's always been a practice.

And in a sense, yes.

In the sense that murder itself has always existed. Like people have always murdered each other since Cain and Abel.
I mean, so it's always been a part of human existence and abortion is murder. And so in that sense, yes, we've always had it, ever since the fall of man.

But the difference is that abortion now, not just the fact that it's legal and there's a whole industry,

a billion-dollar industry behind it, but that it's a whole industry, a billion dollar industry behind it,

but that it's presented as a medical procedure. You know, if you go back centuries to find societies where unborn children were killed and that did happen, they didn't pretend that it was medicine.
and so this is an innovation.

So abortion itself is not an innovation of modern medicine. But pretending that it is medicine is an innovation of modern medicine.
And so when you look at these things, when you look at, you know, it wasn't all that long ago that doctors, that mainstream medicine would have told me that lobotomies are okay. It is, it is in the current day where the mainstream medicine tells me that, you know, we should chemically castrate children and that dismembering an infant in the womb is a form of medical care.
And you look at that stuff, it's just your faith in the medical industry. There's no way that it is not almost entirely destroyed.
And anytime you say that, you'll always hear from the other side, well, are you telling people not to trust their doctors? You know how dangerous it is to tell people that? It is dangerous, I agree. It is not good that we can't trust the medical industry.
And I don't, I don't have an exact answer for that. I don't, I don't know how to make that better right now.
I don't have some, like, there's nothing I can say that will, I agree. It's a terrible situation to be in, but it is the situation we are in.
And that's not our fault, right? That's the fault of the medical industry. Rather than funding shows like Sesame Street, why not encourage missionaries to go to these countries and share the gospel? Churches already fund overseas missions, so the government doesn't need to spend anything.
The government can focus on ensuring missionary safety and access. The gospel can change lives in ways that Big Bird never will.
Yeah, that's precisely it. I talked about the problem of spreading our values, you know, this idea that we need to go

and spread our values overseas. We heard this from Senator Chris Coons yesterday when he was

arguing for taxpayer funding for Sesame Street in Iraq and Afghanistan, wherever else. But one of the biggest problems with, quote unquote, spreading our values is that the people that are doing the spreading, the establishment, I don't agree with what they consider our values to be in the first place.
And most of us don't agree. Because these are the same people.
You bring up missionaries. Well, I guarantee you, I feel rather confident that Chris Coons, who says we need to spread our values through Sesame Street and taxpayer-funded theater plays for the LGBT community or whatever the hell.
That's what he thinks. But if you were to ask him about missionaries going into these third world countries, I bet he would tell you that, well, that's a little problematic.
Imposing your belief system, it's problematic. So the same people that say we should spread our values will tell you that missionaries are problematic because they don't actually think that we should, well, we should just be spreading values.
They have a very specific set of values, and those are left-wing secular values that they want to spread. And that really is the fundamental problem.
When you join Daily Wire Plus, it's not just a subscription, it is a statement, a refusal to be spoon-fed the nonsense shoved down your throat by the media and Hollywood and every self-righteous blue-haired activist with a TikTok account. You've heard the lies, you've seen the manipulation, you know the game is rigged, and you refuse to be played.
Becoming a Daily Wire Plus member isn't just about access to content, it's about standing up for truth in a world that treats truth like a disposable inconvenience. It's about rejecting propaganda.
It's about demanding facts and logic and reality when the culture wants you gaslit into submission. So when you join, you know exactly what you're doing, backing a movement that doesn't just report on the culture but reshapes it.
Every dollar you spend goes directly into building the future because America's future won't build itself. Join the fight today at dailywire.com.
With reliable connectivity, enhanced cybersecurity, and advanced fiber solutions, Comcast Business helps turn today's small businesses into engines of modern business. Powering the engine of modern business.
Powering possibilities. Now through April 21st, new customers can get started with 150 megabit internet and security edge for $49.99 a month for 12 months with a two-year agreement.
Plus, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card on a qualifying gig bundle. Call today.
Restrictions apply. Equipment tax and other fees extra and subject to change.
Flash, subscribe. You know, it's no secret that it's very hard, if not impossible, to sympathize with the vast majority of lawyers.
We have lawyer jokes for a reason after all, and it's especially true when lawyers are bringing frivolous lawsuits and doing the whole ambulance chaser routine. You'll find more popular support for acne and herpes than you'll find for these people.
But even with that in mind, there are a couple of lawyers that, if you have any heart at all, you have to feel kind of bad for at this particular moment. These are lawyers who are clearly being punished for some sins they committed in past life, and those sins must have been truly horrific, because right now they're having a very bad time.
I'm talking, of course, about the legal team of a Detroit rapper who uses the name Dank DeMoss. These are not ambulance chasers so much as they are, I guess you would say, chubby chasers in the most literal sense.
You might remember that a couple of weeks ago, we discussed the sordid story of Miss Dank DeMoss. She's the woman who was far too obese to fit into a lift.
She weighed something like 500 pounds. So the driver told her that she couldn't enter his vehicle.
And in case you somehow missed the story, despite its plus-sized importance to our country, and indeed to the whole solar system, here's a very quick recap. Blanding tells us she was just trying to get to a Detroit Lions watch party this month when her lift rolled up.
As I'm walking, I see him making faces or whatever. I'm like, oh, man.
She already knew. I can fit in this car.
No, believe me, you can. Yes, I can.
Believe me. He told her there's not enough room in his car.
The kicker part was when he started to talk about his tires. You know, I feel like that was a slap in the face.
That was like my tires, you know, like. The driver said his tires could not handle her weight.
Every big person you turned on because they can't fit in your car? Yeah, because they need to order the Uber XL. Know what? I don't never have to order Uber XL.
Now, as we talked about at the time, Madam Dank does not come across as a sympathetic figure in this footage. But her lawyer saw an opportunity there.
They claim that in Michigan, it's a crime to discriminate against anybody on the basis of weight. They said that being obese is basically a protected class.
So in this case, they're arguing that the Lyft driver might as well have said no black people are allowed in his car. They're equating this woman's decision to be heavier than a polar bear with being born with a certain skin color.
And now they want Lyft to pay up millions of dollars. If Dank could not fit in his car or exceeded its weight limit, then I guess by these lawyers' logic, it was his responsibility to come back with a dump truck or whatever vehicle could handle the load, you know.
But I have to admit, as something of an amateur observer in the area, it didn't seem like the most compelling legal argument at the time. Kind of seemed like a shakedown where they're basically just demanding a payout from Lyft so that the story goes away.
Naturally, that led me to the conclusion that Ms. Dank's lawyers deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
But then I saw this footage of Dank DeMoss appearing on The Breakfast Club. And in just the first 30 seconds of her appearance, Dank DeMoss completely obliterates her lawyer's case.
She wastes absolutely no time in wrecking every hour of work that these attorneys have put into this lawsuit. It's like watching someone spend a month laying the foundation for a house only to see a morbidly obese woman walk on top of it and collapse the whole thing.
Metaphorically, I mean. And one might even say that Dank de Moss, you know, chewed up her lawyer's and then, in an uncharacteristic display of restraint, spat it out.

There is nothing left to work with at this point after these 30 seconds.

And here's the moment that I'm talking about.

Wake that ass up.

In the morning.

The Breakfast Club.

Peace, Big Dank.

How are you?

Good morning.

You good?

Good morning. What's going on? Nice to meet you.
Hi. How are you? Stormy.
What's happening? Peace, King. How are you? Good morning.
You good? Good morning.

What's going on? Nice to meet you.

How are you? How are you?

Nice to meet you, Keys.

This the only seat y'all got?

What you want? What you need?

A bigger chair or something.

She already little.

This is what I'm talking about.

Good. This is accommodation.
There you go. Now, in case you couldn't make it out, Dank walks into the studio and then tries to sit in the chair and immediately asks, is this the only seats you all got? She's not satisfied with the chair that they're offering, even though it looks pretty large.
And the other people are confused because they're like, well, what do you mean? It's a human chair. Like, the only chair.
It's a chair. What other kind of chair do you want? And then, I mean, it's like if she walked in and like broke through the floor and then said, is that the only floor y'all got? You got any other kinds of floors? No, it's a floor.
It's a floor. It's like the floor.
It's a floor. It's worked perfectly fine for every other person that's ever walked across it.
But then she said she needs a bigger chair. So they roll out a couch for her.
Okay. Now, which by the way, you know, in case you're not familiar, a couch is a seat made for like multiple people.

Like three, four people.

And she took up the whole thing.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but if you're trying to make the claim that you could fit in a Lyft driver's tiny sedan

and that he violated the law by turning you away,

then it stands to reason this particular moment poses a few problems for your case.

Dank, by her own omission, cannot fit into an oversized office chair in a large studio with no other obstructions. Unlike a sedan, there's no roof over your head, or at least not one directly over your head.
There are no doors right next to you. There's no seat belt you have to put on.
Total flexibility, but it still was not enough. She needed an entire couch.
so by her logic, if the Lyft driver was bigoted, then Dank is also bigoted against herself, I guess. If the law still means anything in this country, which it probably doesn't, if we're being honest, then Dank DeMoss' case has just imploded.
So pour one out for her lawyers, but the interview didn't end there. Somehow everybody maintained their composure after this little snafu, and as the continued Denk actually drew something of an interesting parallel that's worth taking note of.
Here it is. Oh! I'm not saying that word.
Yeah we don't use the word in my house either. I thought you were talking about the gay slur.
I'm like wait I'm confused. No no no no no no.
But um I just feel like it should be accommodated. Bigger people should be accommodated.

Now, you won't find a more succinct explanation for why we should never pander to any group of deranged activists for any reason.

She's saying that because society tolerated the insanity of gender ideology, we should also tolerate her insanity.

And in a certain way, she has a point.

I mean, that's why the solution is to never accommodate any of this nonsense at any point.

Once you start entertaining complete and total lunacy, then you get a lot more of it. And as the interview continued, that's exactly what happened.
Things really went off the rails, particularly when DeMoss' healthcare provider, who uses the name Stormy, showed up to the set. Watch as Stormy, who of course is wearing her white doctor coat for the interview, explains that Ms.
Dank isn't really responsible for weighing 500 pounds. Instead, we're informed that the real culprit is Dank DeMoss's thyroid problem.
Watch. I do.
I work on myself, you know, and when I feel like I'm getting, it's getting too much, I try to fix it, you know, like at my pace, you know, but have weight specialists right here. Fix her a weight specialist fix her mic.
What's your name ma'am? Stormy Anderson. Stormy Anderson.
Stormy gonna get it right. Dr.
Stormy. Thank you.
One time you know when you have these conversations with plus-size people it always comes up that oh everybody that's you know big isn't unhealthy and you some people just can't lose the weight. They're dealing with issues.
Like, you know, she has a thyroid. What do you, talk to us about that.
So I've been dank provider for a little over three months, right? And she's lost 80 pounds. Your 80 pounds gonna look different from her 80 pounds, right? Because she started at 580.
So even with her being at 500, people be like, she's still not losing, but that's not the case. Well, her thyroid makes it very difficult for her to lose weight because her hormones is unbalanced.
So when your hormones is unbalanced and they're all over the place, it controls a lot of things, and it makes it very difficult for you to lose weight, but keep it off as well. So I think for her, she's consistent because she done lost 80 pounds.
It's a medical provider, a doctor. She done lost 80 pounds.
She done lost it. But she's wearing the white coat, so it's okay.
That's what's important. Let's just assume here that Dr.
Stormy actually collected the blood work and analyzed it. Let's assume that Dr.
Stormy is correct, that indeed, Dank DeMoss has a thyroid problem. That's a real thing.
It's possible. But there is no thyroid condition on the planet that causes anyone to weigh a quarter of a ton.
Okay, there is no thyroid condition that makes you gain so much fat that you now weigh more than two full-grown male ostriches. I looked it up.
Okay. You cannot blame a medical condition for the fact that you weigh as much as a Harley Davidson motorcycle.
Okay. And that's probably enough weight comparisons.
I'm just trying to put it into perspective. At most, thyroid conditions make it a bit harder for some people to lose weight and easier to gain it.
That's it. The only way that it's possible to exceed 500 pounds is to commit to a lifestyle of extreme sloth and gluttony.
I mean, it requires an obsessive commitment to at least two of the seven deadly sins. And if you disagree with that assessment, then your problem isn't with me.
Your problem is with the laws of physics. Energy doesn't spontaneously create itself.
Calories are a measure of energy. Therefore, calories do not appear out of thin air and just invade Dank's body.
She is consuming them. And in fact, based on her size, she's probably consuming them at every available point in the day.
But Stormy won't acknowledge any of this because she wouldn't make as much money if she did. Dank wouldn't hire her.
And then certainly, or at least there'd just be one consultation where she would say, okay, well, how much are you eating? And Dank would say, here's what I'm eating. And then she would say, okay, eat like a 10th of that.
Let's start, cut out 90% of that that you're eating and you will start losing weight right away. Okay.
It's like that easy, but she doesn't want to say that, and she also would not get to appear on shows like Breakfast Club if she did. So we've talked a lot recently about how doctors and scientists have discredited themselves, and this is another way.
They've refused to be honest about what actually causes obesity. Lazy people who eat too much become fat.
Extremely lazy people who eat extreme amounts of food become extremely fat. That is the whole formula.
But the medical industry has not been honest about it. And it's not the first time that this has happened.
I mean, the medical industry took a similar approach with something like HIV. They were not and still are not honest about the fact that pretty much the only way you get it, the only way people who get HIV, people who get HIV, the only people who do get it are homosexuals and intravenous drug users.
So if you don't use intravenous drugs or engage in sodomy, you almost certainly won't get it. You might get other diseases, but you almost definitely will not get that one.
But doctors didn't want to seem insensitive to homosexuals, so they pretended that HIV is an equal opportunity disease. It is not.
More recently, we saw the same approach with monkeypox. We were supposed to believe that this was some grave public health emergency that would affect, say, a straight 80-year-old man just as much as it would affect a gay 25-year-old in Manhattan.
The common threat here is that there is a refusal to be honest in the name of sensitivity, which has led to a lot of needless death and suffering. It's also led to a ton of footage that is frankly embarrassing to this country and to humanity in general.
I began this segment with some of that footage, so it's only fitting to end things in the same way. Here, reportedly, is one failed stunt performed by Dank DeMoss in Detroit not too long ago.
Watch. So if you're listening to the audio podcast, she fell over.
That's what we just played. Just to be clear, the failed stunt, the stunt she was trying to perform was standing.
Okay, that's... She tried to pull off the incredible stunt of standing, and she was not able to.
So she fell over. It doesn't quite stick the landing.
And yes, I played that clip, you know, mainly for the entertainment value. But if I had to find some other reason to justify playing it, I'd say the footage of Dank DeMoss falling over backwards in front of a crowd is, in fact, a solid metaphor for this whole story.
Dank's story began with so much promise. Her lawyers thought they had a multi-million dollar case against Lyft.

Her doctor thought she had a totally plausible explanation for why her patient weighs more than a young hippopotamus.

And then it all fell apart when people thought about it for about five seconds.

It collapsed like so many other stationary objects in Dank's life. And that is why Dank DeMoss and her doctor, Stormy, who claims that people can balloon to 500 pounds

because of a thyroid problem, are today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

I see what you're about to do.

I'm just going to take my earpiece out so that it doesn't,

I won't hear it.

Anyway, have a great day.

Godspeed.

Which side are you on?

What's up?