Ep. 1654 - The Media Is Outraged That You’re Outraged By The Murder Of An Innocent White Woman

Today, Matt Wall Show, the media have finally taken notice of the brutal killing of a white woman by a black man in Charlotte, but to them, the real outrage is that conservatives are upset about it.

That's what they're upset about.

Also, there's a growing movement to abolish property taxes, and yet a shocking number of tax-paying Americans seem to be opposed to this idea somehow.

And Rand Paul cites the book to kill a mockingbird in an effort to explain why we shouldn't blow up drug cartels.

There are a bunch of reasons why that argument isn't compelling, starting with the fact that the book, despite being force-fed to every American child for decades, isn't very good.

All of that and more today in the Matt Wall Show.

You know, I was shocked to learn that the liver is actually the second largest organ in your body and handles over 500 different functions.

Yet, we barely think about it.

Here's the thing, though: over 30% of Americans have a sluggish liver, and most of us don't even know about any of that until it's too late.

That's why I'm excited to tell you about Dose for Your Liver.

This isn't just another supplement, it's a science-backed formula that was specifically created to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements while supporting digestion and keeping your body's natural filter running smoothly.

What really impressed me were the clinical results in a double-blind placebo-controlled study.

Dose for your liver actually lowered liver enzyme levels by 50% and over 86% of participants.

And get this, one shot is equivalent to 17 shots of turmeric juice.

When you stick with dose over time, you can experience some incredible benefits, more energy, better digestion, reduced bloating, healthier liver enzyme levels, less brain frog, and even better sleep.

Plus, it's gluten-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, and vegan.

Save 25% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co/slash walsh or entering walsh to check out.

That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 25% off your first month subscription.

Yesterday, we talked at great length about the horrific killing of Irina Zarutska, the 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who was savagely stabbed to death on a train in Charlotte by DiCarlos Brown, an evil, psychotic, criminal barbarian with a lengthy rap sheet.

Now, to review, if you're not familiar yet, Irina was on her way home from a shift at the pizza place where she worked.

She boarded the light rail car and sat down in front of Brown without a single word exchanged between them.

A few minutes into the ride, Brown pulled out a knife, stood up, and began butchering Irina to death without warning.

And then he proceeded to walk around the train, leaving a trail of blood behind him.

Nobody attempted to intervene at any point.

We now know that Brown has been arrested 14 times, or had been arrested 14 times, before this awful crime was committed.

So, this is his 15th arrest.

The criminal justice system, which has no interest in dispensing justice to criminals, which should be its one and only job, had 14 chances to get this creature off the street.

They could have permanently removed him from society after the third arrest or the fourth or the seventh or the tenth.

But instead, they gave him 14 chances, even after he committed armed robbery, after he committed assault, after he committed more than a dozen other crimes.

The system simply churned him back out, waited for him to get arrested again, and then churned him out again, like some kind of demonic merry-go-round ride.

This is a huge national story.

A young woman lost her life in one of the most heinous ways imaginable.

It is everything that George Floyd was purported to be, but never actually was.

Floyd's death never really mattered that much.

He was a violent career criminal who contributed nothing of value to society, and then he overdosed.

Irena, on the other hand, is an actual innocent victim of brutal interracial violence.

Her death is a major scandal.

It is the direct result of deep and widespread systemic failure and corruption.

She should have the murals and the streets named after her.

The judges and city officials who let her kill her loose on the street should all get the Derek Chauvin treatment.

Instead, up to the point when we filmed the show yesterday, Irina's case, far from being treated like any kind of national scandal, was completely ignored by the national media.

None of the major media outlets had said a word about it.

CNN, MSNBC hadn't spent even 30 seconds of airtime reporting on it.

The New York Times,

Washington Post hadn't dedicated five sentences of coverage to it.

It was a total media blackout, made all the more infuriating by how utterly, disgustingly predictable it was.

But these days, of course, the media, well, they don't lead the conversation as much as they wish they could and as much as they used to.

The conversation happens without them until they're forced to chime in for fear of being reduced to even greater irrelevance.

So over the past 24 hours, since our episode aired, finally some of the major corporate media outlets decided to acknowledge this case

as we had left them no choice but to acknowledge it.

And their spin is exactly what you would expect.

To the media, the story is not the murder itself,

but rather the fact that conservatives are talking about the murder.

It isn't that a black criminal butchered an innocent white woman, but that we have noticed that this happened.

There are now headlines like this one from Politico, Politico: Ukrainian refugee killed in North Carolina gets dragged into political messaging war.

President Donald Trump and MAGA allies are using the killing of Arinaz Rutska to attack Democrats.

Yes, you see, Democrats are really the victims here.

A young woman bled to death in public, but the real concern is that Democrats are being attacked by conservative pundits on social media.

I mean, they're the ones.

That's the horrifying tragedy that we should all be weeping over.

Axios had a similar spin.

headline, stabbing video fuels MAGA's crime message.

Now they're right, of course, the stabbing video does fuel our crime message.

And that's because our crime message is that crime is bad.

And people who commit crimes should go to prison and not be permitted to stab women to death on the train or anywhere else.

In the same way, you could say that a video of a house fire fuels our firefighting message, which is that it's bad for houses to burn down and we should put out the fires rather than allowing them to engulf entire neighborhoods.

You know, our messages tend to be pretty simple in that way.

But there is one part of this absurd Axios piece that warrants special mention.

I'll read it here: quote, MAD influencers are drawing repeated attention to violent attacks to elevate the issue of urban crime and accuse mainstream media of undercovering shocking cases.

Shocking video of the fatal August 22nd knife attack on 23-year-old Irina Zarutska on a light rail car in Charlotte, North Carolina dominated weekend conversations on Trump-friendly social media.

The rising number of surveillance cameras in public spaces, including on Charlotte's light rail, has become a big accelerant in these cases.

The video is easily shared or leaked and can instantly pollinate across social media.

A visual counterpoint to statistics showing crime decreases.

Well, that's correct.

As we've covered extensively on this show, crime stats can be manipulated in many ways.

I mean, you can show decreases in violent crimes simply by not reporting the crime or not charging the criminals.

If a city decides to pretend that vast categories of crime aren't crimes anymore or to pretend they're not happening, then crime statistically will go down.

It's not hard to make a city safer on the stat sheet, but making it safer on the light rail car, however, is a different matter.

You know, a city can be safe on a sheet of paper, but not safe on the street or the sidewalk or at the gas station or on public transportation and so on.

The videos break through the false narratives and the juked crime stats by showing us what's actually happening.

I mean, it's one thing to hear that a city has X number of murders.

It's another thing to see what that means, to see how these murders are happening and where they're happening and who they're happening to and who they're being committed by.

And that's why all the security cameras and police body cams are becoming a major problem on the left, especially because of that last point, who the crimes are being committed by.

Don't be surprised when there's a major push to get rid of the cameras, you know, all these security cameras and everything, in the name of privacy.

I mean, as we've talked about many times, we've already seen the beginnings of this process with police body cams.

The left-wing race hustlers demanded the body cams, and the body cams proceeded to annihilate all of their narratives about police brutality.

And now they're not so hot on body cams anymore.

A similar thing will happen and is already happening, or rather beginning to happen anyway, with security cameras.

And

here's a story on that note out of Canada.

Watch this.

A Hamilton man has been ordered by the city to take down the security cameras on the outside of his home, even though he says a lot of the videos have been used to help with police investigations.

Sean Cowan has more.

There, I have one on the other side.

I have one there.

I have one there.

One there.

One there.

Dan Miles says he has 10 security cameras outside his home on McNabb Street North, downtown Hamilton, and he says he needs them.

Because we had a lot of attempted break-in enters into our home and other homes around us.

Miles has posted videos of break-ins online.

He also says police have asked him for his videos over the years to help with investigations.

We reached out to Hamilton Police and they say they can't confirm the use of Dan Miles' videos, but told CHCH News they often work with homeowners, businesses, and drivers to get footage.

CHCH has used videos from Miles, like this one seen here, showing the moments before a fatal crash two years ago at Barton and McNabb.

These cameras are imperative to our neighborhood watch.

They're imperative to the safety of our community.

But last week, Miles received an order to comply with the city's fortification bylaw asking him to remove his cameras.

The bylaw says homeowners are not permitted to view or listen beyond the perimeters of their own property.

The city of Hamilton has confirmed the order to remove the cameras to CHCH News.

Okay, so this guy has 10 cameras.

And why does he have 10 cameras?

It's not because he's paranoid, but because of a rash of attempted break-ins at his house.

So now he's got a camera to cover every single angle of his house.

The cameras have been used not only to protect himself against burglary and other crimes, but to help solve and prevent crimes in the neighborhood.

So all of that you would think is good.

The only thing that's not good is that he needs the cameras in the first place.

The fact that he needs 10 cameras is the bad part.

But the fact that the cameras have been effective, that's good.

You would think.

Well, now his local city school marm bureaucratic tyrants are telling him to take the cameras down because of privacy concerns.

But we all know the real concern.

It's that the cameras are not only documenting crime, but they're documenting who is actually committing most of the crime.

And that's the thing we aren't supposed to notice.

You see, the noticing, it's the noticing that is the problem.

And that's certainly what CNN is worried about, as we can see here.

Watch.

Certain people have been

looking for an opportunity to find a case like this.

They've been looking for opportunities to make this some sort of like reciprocal George Floyd situation.

And

that's the part that I think he's almost giving away the game.

And it's sad to see a lot of people going along with it.

You know, let me just say a couple of things.

One is, what happened to that young woman was horrible.

And it's everybody's nightmare.

If you're in any public space, subway, whatever, that something bad is going to happen to you or somebody you care about.

So it does strike a chord.

We don't know why that man did what he did.

And for Charlie Kirk to say, we know he did it because she's white when there's no evidence of that is just pure

race mongering, hate mongering.

It's wrong.

Then he says that if something like that had happened the other way, there'd be sweeping changes imposed on society.

Where is the George Floyd Policing Act?

It didn't pass.

Really, over the weekend, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, other Trump-aligned figures succeeded in making this senseless death a symbol of big city crime.

We heard President Trump asked about it yesterday when he was heading home from New York City.

He didn't seem to know much about it.

He said he would get briefed.

And then today, Trump did know all about it.

That's exactly what has happened here.

This story has trickled up from local news to social media and now to the president's attention.

And it's being used, as you said, Brianna, as a political symbol with MAGA media calling for more forceful punishments and more incarceration.

I have to say, some of the replies to Musk, some of the comments around this story are baldly racist, stoking fear of African Americans because this man attacked a white woman.

The open racism on sites like X Today, it's eye-popping.

So the narrative we hear from the media is exactly what you would expect.

They are infinitely more outraged at the alleged racially charged language of conservative pundits than they are at the actual butchery of an innocent woman by a 14-time career felon on public transportation.

They are not angry that this woman was killed.

I mean, they couldn't care less.

They wouldn't even be talking about it if they had their way.

Instead, they're outraged by the racism, quote unquote, of conservatives who have noticed that the murders are happening.

And then we hear from Van Jones that, you know, we can't say for sure whether that black criminal killed Irina because she was white.

Can't say that for sure.

So just to review, the media can say for sure that it's racist to say mean things about a black guy who killed a white woman, but they can't say for sure that it's racist for a black guy to actually kill a white woman.

So the murder is not racist necessarily, but the commentary about the murder, well, that is racist.

That's what these despicable snakes are actually claiming.

Keep in mind, this is coming from the same person.

This is coming from all the same people who declared from the first moment that the George Floyd footage went viral that it was a racist hate crime.

There was nothing in that video, if you recall, not a single thing.

that indicated any kind of racial motivation whatsoever.

And yet when a black suspect ODs while being detained by a white cop, it's a racist killing.

Automatically.

Automatically, it's a racist killing.

When a black criminal slaughters a white woman on the train, it's a mental health episode.

This is what these soulless goblins expect us to believe.

Hey, Van, listen,

here's what we know, okay?

Here's what we know.

Statistically, a white person is 30 times more likely to be killed by a black person than the other way around.

We know that.

That's just true.

In 2019, there were about 560,000 violent interracial incidents between blacks and whites.

470,000 of them were black on white.

That's 85%.

85%.

240 black people were killed by whites.

560 white people were killed by blacks.

And this is all in despite of the fact that white people make up 60% of the population.

Blacks are 13%.

Just by raw numbers, not even per capita, but raw numbers, there are more black interracial killers than white.

That is extraordinary.

That's like impossible.

That should be impossible.

There are 171 million more white people in the country, and yet there are more black interracial killers.

By raw numbers,

that kind of disparity should be impossible.

Again, and yet it's real.

It's happening.

Per capita, the situation is even more dire.

Black people, young black males in particular, are an order of magnitude more violent and more likely to commit crimes than any any other group in the country.

Black men are 5% or 6% of the population.

They commit the majority of murders in the country.

That makes black males in America more dangerous than perhaps any other demographic in the entire world, let alone in this country.

And we know all this despite the efforts by the FBI and every other institution to hide and bury racial crime statistics.

Imagine how much worse it really is.

Imagine how grisly it would look if they let us see the whole picture instead of just pieces of it.

But we can see enough to know without without any doubt whatsoever that the violent crime epidemic is driven by one demographic to an overwhelmingly disproportionate degree.

And all of that has happened while you, Van, and your propagandist cohorts have spent years claiming that the reality is exactly the opposite of this.

You didn't just deny that this is happening.

You have the gall to claim that the opposite is happening.

You paint a picture of a country where black people walk around in fear, trembling in fear of white violence, where black people are constantly tired and exhausted by the brutality inflicted upon them by the villainous whites.

But those of us who you condemn as racists,

no, we are the ones who are tired.

We are tired of not being able to walk down the streets in our own cities.

We are tired of losing good, productive citizens at the hands of violent degenerates who contribute nothing of value to society whatsoever.

We are tired of the total lack of accountability and responsibility.

We are tired of a system that prioritizes the restoration and rehabilitation of violent psychopaths over the protection of innocent, law-abiding people.

And we are tired of pretending that all of this isn't happening.

And we're just not going to pretend anymore.

It's that simple.

Now, let's get to our five headlines.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

GCU believes in equal opportunity that the American dream starts with purpose.

GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.

By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.

Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.

Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.

With over 340 academic programs, as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.

The pursuits of others is yours.

Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.

Private, Christian, affordable.

Visit gcu.edu.

Did you know that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 1990s when big corporations switched to cheap processed seed oils that cause inflammation?

So MASA decided to actually do something about the garbage that passes for tortilla chips these days.

They ditched all the seed oils and went back to just three ingredients, organic

nixtamylized corn.

I don't know what that means, but I'm sure it's good.

Sea salt and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.

And here's the kicker.

They don't taste like some sad health food compromise.

These chips are crunchier, tastier, and sturdier enough that they won't snap in half when you dip them.

Plus, unlike regular chips that leave you feeling bloated and sluggish, Massa actually makes you feel satisfied and energetic.

The beef tallow makes them way more filling, too, so you're not mindlessly demolishing the entire bag and still feeling hungry.

I'm always on the go with the kids, so I need snacks to actually fuel me instead of leaving me feeling worse.

Massa chips keep me satisfied whether I'm packing lunches or need something quick after a busy day, and they don't crumble all over my car either.

That's another bonus.

Massa chips is beloved by tens of thousands of customers and has been endorsed by industry-leading experts and nutrition experts as well.

Ready to give Massa a try?

You should.

They're delicious.

Go to masterchips.com slash Walsh and use CodeWalls for 25% off your first order.

That's massacre.com slash Walsh.

CodeWalls for 25% off your first order.

Well, there's a growing movement, the media tells us anyway, against property taxes.

And CNN reports, with real estate prices climbing and household budgets under strain, a once-fringe push to eliminate property taxes is drawing new energy and the backing of high-profile conservative figures.

Republican firebrand Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia recently argued for making it a national priority.

Billionaire Elon Musk has likened property taxes to a de facto lease from the government that should be abolished.

And in Florida, Governor Rod Santos, a once-impossible future presidential contender, has vowed to move his state in that direction.

Santos said, if you own your home,

to truly own it, you have to own it free and clear of the government.

For decades, property taxes have underwritten the basic functions of local governments, schools, parks, roads, police, fire departments, trash collection.

But as some values have surged, as home values have surged, rather, tax bills have ballooned in tandem, fueling what David Schleicher, a Yale professor of local government, described as a property tax revolt, shaking cities and states alike.

Schleicher said, there's a really big trend that's below the radar because it doesn't involve President Trump, but it doesn't need fireworks to announce itself.

It's already changing our relationship with government and how schools work and property markets.

The frustration is cutting across partisan lines.

Last year, voters in nine states approved referendums to cap or curb rising assessments from tying bills to inflation in Georgia to New Mexico and

Colorado expanding tax exemptions for veterans who own homes there.

So

Florida is considering abolishing property taxes.

A few other states have had proposals like this discussed.

I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the article, but Wyoming, North Dakota, I think, have had proposals like this.

In Florida, they have no income tax.

So Florida, if they go this route, would have neither income nor property tax, which is amazing,

is incredible.

If not for the climate, if not for the fact that it's

just disgustingly humid and hot year-round,

you'd almost want to live there.

That's the one thing that Florida doesn't have going for it.

And to me, it's a deal breaker.

But that is, I mean,

that would be amazing.

And before we get into property taxes specifically,

and I know maybe when you, I don't talk about tax policy very often on this show, and I think that it just feels very boring, even as I say it.

When I just saying the word, let's talk about property taxes.

I'm like, I'm almost in boring myself,

but it is really, it is extremely important, obviously.

And we should all be able to agree

before we get into the discussion about whether property tax should be abolished.

We should be able to agree,

should,

that taxing both property and income is obscene,

just egregious.

And yet, that's the case in like 40 or 41 states in the union.

Now, if you want to make the argument, well, we can't abolish both,

if you want to make the argument that, no, well, Florida can't do that because they don't have an income tax either, I don't agree with that argument.

I'll explain why in a second.

But that's one thing,

it's another thing

to

to be in favor of both of these kinds of taxes.

I mean, there are only eight or nine states that have no income tax.

Florida is one of them.

Tennessee has no income tax.

New Hampshire, you know,

five or six others.

Right now, all states have property taxes.

So in the vast majority of states, they tax you on your income and your property, and they have sales tax.

So most states have income, property, and sales tax.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but this is,

we take it for granted because

it's the situation that most people were born into.

But it is really crazy.

It really is.

They tax your wages and then tax them again when you spend the wages and then tax your property in perpetuity.

They tax everything.

It's a machine gun-style taxation, spraying taxes all over the place.

And that's to say nothing of all the other taxes, and then, of course, the federal taxes.

For most Americans, every dollar they earn is taxed like 10 different times

in one form or another.

I mean, you can just think about this.

If you live in, let's say you live in,

you know, we'll take

one of the worst examples, but

if you live in New York

and you earn, say, $150K a year,

you get your paycheck on a Friday.

And then, let's say, on your way home from work, you stop and get a week's worth of groceries.

Well, how many times do you get taxed during that process?

Well, just during the process of getting paid and then go spending, going to spend some of that money on groceries.

Well, your paycheck is taxed by the feds.

That's about 20 to 25% out the window.

Then New York State comes in, takes another 6%

or more.

So you're out like 30% right away.

And then you drive to the store and you buy groceries.

What is the sales tax in New York?

It's also ridiculously high.

What is it?

Like I think it depends on what part of New York you're in, but it's 6%, 7%, 8%.

So that same paycheck is taxed once for 25%, again for 6%,

again for 8% on the amount you spend on groceries.

And if you got to stop for gas, God forbid, you get to pay taxes on that.

And since this is New York we're talking about, you'll probably get hit with tolls on the way home.

So that's more taxes.

Your paycheck has now been taxed like five times before you even make it home for dinner.

Why would anyone put up with this?

I mean, why do millions of Americans put up with it?

Why do we all put up with it to some degree or another?

I mean, I don't live in New York and I never would live there, but I'm getting ripped off too.

I'm in a tax bracket now where I'm basically mugged at gunpoint every time I get paid.

So I'm getting scammed too.

We're all getting scammed.

It's highway robbery.

And yet it's amazing that when some states consider dropping the property taxes, you have people.

I mean, I don't know what the polls are on this.

I'm sure people have, I'm sure there have been some polls done on it.

If there haven't, then there will be.

But just looking anecdotally at the conversation online, it's pretty obvious that there are people,

lots of people, actual American citizens, who are opposed.

to getting rid of the property tax.

I've seen a lot of commentary about this proposal in Florida, and much of it is very critical.

And this is not just from government officials who are worried that they're going to have less of your money to play with.

That's one thing.

I mean, you understand where they're coming from.

I don't agree with it, but at least you can understand at

a self-interest level.

But I have actual American citizens who are like, no, I want you to keep, no, don't, don't, keep, keep taxing, take, take more of my money, please.

Now, yeah, I'm fully aware that a number of the people who are saying this,

you know, it's on property tax, you have people that don't own property.

You have people that are all in favor of the income tax, and they don't really pay any income tax because they don't have an income, they're on entitlements.

So that explains some of it also.

I realize that.

But even so,

it's like Stockholm syndrome.

You know, we're all getting taxed to death.

We're getting taxed 10 ways to Sunday.

We pay dozens of taxes every single day.

And yet, when a political leader actually suggests dropping one of the taxes, you have people saying, oh, no, don't do that.

Please, please keep stealing my money.

Again, I know a a lot of them are saying, no, please keep stealing their money because I'm not paying anything.

But it's not just them.

I mean, there are people who pay taxes.

Like, no, no, keep, keep, I want to keep stealing it.

It's pathetic.

It's like if you're kidnapped and you're locked in a basement and you're beaten every day by your kidnapper, and then one day your kidnapper says he's going to start beating you slightly less severely and you object

and demand that the beatings continue just as harshly as they've been happening.

It's like some very bizarre psychology at work here,

like some kind of fetish or something.

I don't know if that's what's happening with tech people get a some kind of sexual thrill out of being scammed and robbed.

It's weird.

It's just bizarre to me.

Property taxes are, in particular, arguably the most egregious of all taxes.

It kind of, if I'm,

it kind of amazes me that there's anyone who is not in favor of abolishing property taxes.

That's the kind of idea that the moment someone, a politician suggested, how is there not 100% agreement?

Yes, absolutely, please stop doing this to us.

How is there not 100% agreement?

What is wrong with all these people?

The property tax is arguably even worse than the income tax, which is itself an abomination from the depths of hell.

But the property tax is even worse.

To tax property, not just tax it once at the point of purchase, but to tax it in perpetuity, forever,

every day,

always forever.

That's just pure tyranny.

And it means that you never own your property.

It's never yours.

Nothing is yours.

That's what it means.

You know, I was talking to my wife recently about, you know, let's come up with a five-year plan to pay off our mortgage.

And I want to pay it off so we really own our property because while you have a mortgage, it's like you don't really own your property yet.

The bank owns it.

But then, of course, I remember, well, yeah, but even if I pay off the mortgage, I still don't own it.

Even then, I have to pay a substantial fee every year to the government.

You know, not to the mortgage company, but to the government for the right to continue living on my own land, in my own home.

I have to, property tax, you are paying rent to the government for the right to live in your own home on your own land.

Does that make sense?

Does it make sense to me?

These are what we would call, what we should call,

existence taxes.

Property taxes, income taxes are existence taxes.

You are taxed for existing because owning property and earning a living are basic elements of existing for

most people, or at least they should be.

The government is taxing you for simply existing and then also taxing you when you stop existing.

You get taxed for existing and for ceasing to exist.

So I'm not against taxation in principle.

Yeah, we do need taxes in order to fund some kind of government and you need a government to have a civilized society, sure.

But existence taxes, those I am opposed to in principle.

And they aren't necessary.

Like, I don't care what anyone says,

right?

You get rid of the income tax at both the state and federal level.

You can do that.

We could have no income tax.

We could have no property tax.

And would that mean that nothing gets funded?

No, it wouldn't mean that.

It would just mean that you're relying on consumption taxes, sales tax, tourism

taxes.

I mean, it is one of the things that makes it easier for Florida to do this because of all the tourism.

But,

you know, luxury taxes.

And

you combine that with deep, meaningful spending cuts to get rid of all the billions and trillions of dollars that are wasted.

And

you could have a state, you could have a country where we have a government,

we have all the necessary public services, but nobody is taxed for existing.

That is possible.

But it's never going to happen.

I mean, it's like a utopian vision of

society.

It feels utopian.

It doesn't need to be.

It doesn't need to be, but it feels utopian because there, to this point, is not,

and maybe, maybe, maybe the voices are growing a little bit louder, but there is not a real movement right now to get rid of these taxes.

There's not a real movement.

There's no real outcry.

There's no real overwhelming outcry from the American people saying, we are tired of being taxed,

you know, for the crime of existing.

We are tired of getting taxed 10 different times before we even make it home for dinner.

We're sick of it.

We don't want to do it anymore.

There's not any real outrage over that.

I know people always say, oh, there's too much outrage.

No, you know what?

I think there's not enough outrage.

That's what I actually think.

When I hear people say, enough of the outrage.

What do you mean?

Like, we have the opposite.

What the hell are you talking about?

You think we live in a society where there's too much outrage?

What world are you living in?

How out of touch do you have to be if you think that our problem in society is that we're not outraged enough by things.

It is exactly the opposite.

Our problem is a lack of outrage.

Our problem

is numbness.

Our problem is indifference.

Our problem is people are distracted and not paying attention and

easily

anesthesized by

entertainment and all these different things.

And because of that, they aren't outraged by the things they really should be outraged by.

And one of them is that that you are getting ripped off.

You are getting ripped off every single day.

You are having your money stolen from you, and it doesn't have to be this way.

I mean,

your family is suffering because the government is taking this and they are just wasting it.

They're just burning it.

And/or, well, these are they're giving it to somebody else who doesn't deserve it, did not earn it, has no right to it.

That is an outrage.

There should be

know outrage all across the land over that and I think there isn't all right here's something I want to play it's a bit bit

tough to watch

not nothing nothing graphic is seen but so more more tough to listen to

but this is a report from the New York Post listen

this is a new one for me I've just been discharged from hospital

and

I was admitted unwell with sepsis, of unknown cause, but there were some complications of my

hospital treatment and I lost both my legs below the knees.

This 49-year-old vascular surgeon was once named the bravest in Britain after he had to amputate both of his legs.

But now Neil Hopper, who performed hundreds of amputation operations of his own, has pleaded guilty to two fraud charges after he told insurers that his legs needed to be removed because of sepsis and not because of a self-inflicted injury.

According to reports from inside the courtroom, Hopper actually froze his own legs with ice and dry ice to ensure his legs would be removed.

In insurance claims totaling more than $625,000, a friend of Hopper allegedly told him to milk the payout.

The now former surgeon spent some of the money on a $30,000 camper van and $340,000 on home improvements and a hot tub.

According to testimony laid out against Hopper in court, the surgeon wanted his legs to be chopped off because of an obsession with removing parts of his own body and a sexual interest in doing so.

In a disturbing twist of the story, the Welsh surgeon also admitted to possessing extreme pornography.

Investigators found that between 2018 and 2020, Hopper bought three videos from a now-defunct webpage called the Eunuch Maker, an extreme body modification site which showcased disturbing disturbing mutilation live streams and videos.

Hopper was reportedly identified during investigations into the website's creator, Marius Gufsesen.

Guffseson made over $400,000 by showing his website's roughly 22,000 subscribers gruesome videos of him mutilating the bodies of apparently willing volunteers.

All right, well, uh...

Sorry, I had to share that with you.

So this guy had both of his legs removed on purpose.

Obviously a very confused person.

I mean, you could even say that he's

stumped,

you know, but,

you know, but look, getting his legs removed, that was his,

I will say that was his right

and his left.

So he's got one foot out the door and the other one too.

You know, so

and he tried, he tried to, you know, he's in prison, as I mentioned, two years in prison, but he tried to defend himself in court, but he, you know, he didn't have a leg to stand on, literally.

Okay, I was saying,

I'm just practicing my stand-up routine.

I'm going to go on the road as a stand-up.

As you can tell, I got a real talent, and I'm going to go on the road, and it'll just be puns.

It'll just be puns about amputees.

That's the whole bit.

That's a killer act right there.

Anyway, all right.

I did want to make, what point did I want to make besides the dad joke?

Well, I mean, there's the obvious one, which is that,

you know, there is really zero difference.

There is zero difference between this and transgenderism.

It's the same thing.

Except that we put people in jail for this, and we condemn them.

We condemn this behavior.

There is no one saying that we should normalize it or affirm it, certainly, or take it seriously.

But it's the same thing.

It's a very small minority of people who feel like they're in the wrong body, who feel like they'll be made whole, they'll be made complete through extreme body modification,

and who in many cases get a sexual thrill out of it.

Same idea, same concept.

It's body dysmorphia.

I mean, that's what it is.

It belongs in the same bucket.

It's the same psychiatric category.

It is the same

disorder just manifested in a slightly different way.

In fact, the only difference difference really is that this,

I mean, the case

I just played for you, this is less extreme.

That's the only difference.

Cutting off your legs to become an amputee is less extreme and by comparison, healthier.

So when people see this, they'll say, oh, slippery slope, you know, first we allowed, first we normalized

transgenderism.

And now we have this crazier thing that came along.

No, actually, no.

By all rights, if we were on a slippery slope, it should have been this was normalized first and then you get to transgenderism.

I mean, this is still very extreme and very unhealthy, obviously, but by comparison, less so.

Why is that?

Well, for the pretty self-evident reason that a man who wishes to become legless

can actually be legless.

You know, he goes through the body modification and now he actually is the thing that he wanted to be.

The illness, the delusion, is in the fact that he wanted it, right?

It's in the fact that he desired it.

The problem is that he desired to be this thing, but he can actually be it.

When somebody says, oh, I wish to have no legs,

well, your answer to that is, or should be, well,

that's a bizarre thing to want.

You shouldn't want that.

But you wouldn't say, oh, well, that's impossible.

You can't be that.

And yet, on the other hand, a man who chops off body parts to become a woman

isn't actually a woman after the extreme modification.

The disorder is both in the wanting,

you know, the wanting to become a woman, and in thinking that it's been done,

that he actually has become a woman.

So it is deeply disordered on two levels rather than just one.

And that's why I've made this point about the slippery slope argument that

we talk about slippery slope.

I've talked about it.

It's kind of a shorthand

way of describing a certain sort of phenomenon.

And there's a lot of truth to it.

But

when we talk about slippery slope,

all we're pointing out is that

someone

is that

there's something that's being normalized or that we're being told we have to accept or tolerate, affirm, celebrate, welcome, whatever.

And there are arguments being made in favor of that thing, whatever it is.

And when we make the slippery-silap argument, all we're saying is that, well, okay,

these arguments that you're making to

defend, affirm, promote this thing, I could take those arguments intact, I could take them totally whole

and use them to also argue for X, Y, Z other thing.

And these other things over here,

you would even agree are bad.

So you're making an argument in support of something that you like, but I could take that exact argument and change nothing and use it logically to defend this other thing over here that even you think is bad.

And

the point of that argument is, you know, if the argument is true, if it's valid, which it almost is when conservatives make it,

what it proves is that either the thing that they are promoting, the thing that they're arguing for, is wrong,

and or the arguments they're using are bad arguments.

And in the case of the left, it's both.

They're using bad arguments

to promote a bad thing.

Or maybe it's not even a bad argument.

It's more like the thing they're arguing for is bad.

The argument that they're using is the best one available, but it's terrible because it's arguing for a terrible thing.

So that's all that the slippery slope is really proving.

But what it doesn't necessarily mean is that

the next thing in line will be worse because what we haven't, you know, what the slippery slope brings to mind this idea that, okay, well, we'll start with one kind of bad thing, and then because that's been normalized, we'll go to another thing that's a little bit worse and then another thing that's a little bit worse than that and another thing that's a little bit worse than that until we get all the way down the bottom super slope and it's just total anarchy and chaos and depravity but what we find is that

it doesn't usually work in that kind of really neat linear way

that

and this is what the left does is they they go for the most extreme version of the thing whatever it is they're going to go for the most extreme version of it and they're going to and they're going to try to get you on board to accept the most extreme version of it.

And then all that other stuff just comes in the bargain.

It's not like that's coming next.

It's just that's all part of it.

Automatically,

they're sort of skipping ahead.

Right?

We've talked about this with gay marriage, for example.

When people say that, oh, slippery slope, that it...

you know, we accept gay marriage, next thing you know, it's going to be polygamy.

Well, polygamy is not nearly as bad as gay marriage.

Polygamy

is a much less extreme thing.

In fact, polygamy has a lot of historical precedent to polygamy.

Polygamy makes,

historically, it made a certain kind of sense.

You had to populate the earth, you know, by populating society, populating civilization, and this was one way to do it.

So

it's in accordance with nature in that

it's productive, you know, it's reproductive, procreative.

So it's still wrong,

but it's not nearly as disordered or wrong as a gay marriage.

So they went, when it comes to marriage, when it comes to messing with the definition of marriage, they went for the most extreme version of that, which is two men getting quote unquote married.

And all the other stuff is just, you kind of circle back and cover that later.

If you're still stressed about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline or your books are a mess, don't wait any longer than you already have.

The IRS is cracking down.

Penalties add up fast, 5% per month up to 25% just for not filing, but there is help.

Tax Network USA can take the burden off of your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse.

They have helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or have filed, haven't filed in years.

Messy books, no problem.

They've seen it all and they know exactly how to clean it up.

With direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side, Tax Network USA knows how to win.

You'll get a free consultation.

And if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe.

More importantly, they help protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies.

So don't wait for the next IRS letter.

Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash walsh to talk to a real tax expert at Tax Network USA.

Take the pressure off.

Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.

Whatever plans you have for tomorrow night, well, I need you to cancel them because we need you here with all of us to celebrate a decade of the Daily Wire with the live premiere episode of our new show, Friendly Fire, at 7 p.m.

Eastern Time.

We're not gathering to tell stories of the past.

This is not a nostalgia hour.

Instead, we're giving you a first look at what's coming next.

New series, new projects, huge announcements, surprises that we've been holding back until now.

This is the start of our next decade, and you don't want to miss a single moment.

It's the live debut episode of Friendly Fire.

All of us will be together to do what friends do, argue, debate, probably smoke a Mayflower cigar or two, or maybe not.

Watch live tomorrow at 7 p.m.

Eastern at dailywire.com and on the Daily Wire app.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

After the Pentagon blew up a boat full of drug traffickers last week, J.D.

Vance immediately celebrated the bombings on social media.

He wrote, quote, killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.

And then when someone suggested that the White House had committed a war crime, Vance replied simply, I don't give a sh ⁇ what you call it, which is a great response.

As you can imagine, there were quite a few replies to J.D.

Vance's post.

The vast majority were positive.

People are tired of seeing overdoses in their families and their communities.

They recognize that foreign drug traffickers operating in international waters aren't entitled to any due process under our Constitution.

But not everybody was thrilled with Vance's reply.

In particular, a fellow member of the Republican Party, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, unloaded on J.D.

Vance.

And there's a specific portion of his reply that needs to be discussed at some length.

Here's what Rand Paul wrote, quote, JD,

Don't Give a Sh advance, says killing people he accuses of a crime is the highest and best use of the military.

Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?

Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial and representation?

What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.

Now, if you had to classify this form of argument, you'd call it an appeal to authority.

or an appeal to fiction, really.

And this is when to bolster your point, you cite some established expert or legal case or study or something like that.

But in this case, instead of citing anything with any substance whatsoever, Rand Paul cites To Kill a Mockingbird.

And he wonders whether J.D.

Vance, the vice president of the United States, has ever read the book.

That's the kill shot in Rand Paul's foreign policy argument.

Now, just in case you're one of the 10 people in the country who was not forced to read this book at some point in your life, I should make it clear that To Kill a Mockingbird is a work of fiction, and it's written at a child's reading level.

Middle schoolers and high schoolers are the main audience.

And even children, when they're ordered to read this book, which nobody ever would have read it if not for the fact that everyone is forced to read it, but even they generally understand that it was written by some random woman who invented a story in her head.

It's not a documentary.

It's not a textbook on constitutional law.

It's certainly not a manual for how to approach drug cartels.

It's a dumb story and not an especially well-written one either.

Now, it's true that for generations, To Kill a Mockingbird has always had the full backing of every establishment institution in the country.

Every school and government relentlessly pushed the book on young people as soon as it was published in 1960.

They want to pulitzer within a year of its release.

A group of librarians in Britain declared that To Kill a Mockingbird was just as important as the Bible.

This book was force-fed on everyone, just like that U2 album that Apple installed on everybody's phone without their permission several years ago.

That doesn't mean that the book is any good.

And it certainly doesn't mean that the book is relevant to a foreign policy debate with J.D.

Vance.

And that's why, predictably, Rand Paul's post was mocked all over the internet.

Even people who like and respect Rand Paul, as I do, by the way, joined in on the fun because it was just too hard to resist.

For example, here's a post showing a scene from the movie 300 with the caption, quote, disgusting.

Leonidas brutally executes Xerxes' emissaries without trial.

Hasn't he read To Kill a Mockingbird?

And then there's this one for the Lord of the Rings fans.

Quote, disgusting.

Aragorn brutally executes the mouth of Sauron without trial.

Has he read To Kill a Mockingbird?

And then one more.

I mean, I think we basically get the idea.

Unbelievable.

Odysseus cold-heartedly kills the suitors without trial for for making sure they're or making sure they're not mentally ill.

Has he read To Kill a Mockingbird?

And on and on and on.

Put simply, not many people were convinced by Rand Paul's attempt at an appeal to authority.

At the same time, there's an even more fundamental problem with Rand Paul's reasoning.

The problem isn't simply that To Kill a Mockingbird is a work of fiction that was written for middle schoolers.

I mean, by itself, that's pretty bad, obviously.

But even if you accept that fact, there are some other issues here.

In particular, To Kill a Mockingbird is a scam.

I mean, although the story is fictional, it's based on lies.

There are very relevant facts about the production of the novel and its aftermath that no one really talks about.

And the reason that no one talks about these facts is that they undercut the propaganda that the book is intended to convey.

And the book is propaganda, which is why they feed it to force feed it to kids.

It is all part of the effort to teach kids in school that America is a racist country with a racist past and all these terrible things.

And this is what you should feel guilty about.

That is the only reason.

It's not because the book is some great

novel, some great piece of art.

It is purely for that reason and no reason other than that.

Imagine if, say, someone as famous and widely read as George R.

R.

Martin released a new Game of Thrones book, and then collectively everyone just agreed to ignore it because it contradicted some political narrative from a previous book he wrote.

It seems hard to imagine something like that happening.

The sheer popularity of the author's existing books would make it seem impossible, in fact.

But that's what's happened with To Kill a Mockingbird.

And before we get into that, if you've never read the book, here's just a quick plot summary, which I pulled from Wikipedia for the most part because it's been 25 years since I was forced to read it.

Or maybe longer.

I don't even remember when exactly, but I do remember being given this infernal book.

It's Kill Magenberg takes place in Alabama during the Great Depression.

A black man named Tom Robinson is accused of sexually assaulting a white woman.

Atticus Finch is the white lawyer played by Gregory Peck in the movie, of course, who has to defend Tom Robinson.

The whole town wants Tom to be lynched because, of course, all the white people in Alabama are racist with low IQs and no capacity to engage in any kind of independent thought whatsoever.

We're led to believe that in the South this is how pretty much everyone was and how every lynching worked and how justice worked in the South.

But Atticus Finch, a man of great moral character, presents a defense.

He points out, for example, that Tom Robinson's left arm had been caught in a cotton gin, leaving him with a severe physical disability.

Specifically, his left arm was useless and also 12 inches shorter than his right arm.

Atticus Finch, being the clever attorney that he is, used this fact to demonstrate that Tom couldn't possibly have beaten the girl since she was mostly hit on the right side of her face.

Supposedly, that makes some kind of sense, even though there are ways of beating someone on the other side of the face from

where your good hand is.

But in any event, as the novel or Wikipedia summary continues, it emerges that the white girl had actually made sexual advances on the black man and that the white girl was beaten by her own father, meaning that there was no sexual assault of any kind committed by Tom Robinson.

Yes, that's the twist.

The white girl is the sexual aggressor against the black man.

Bet you didn't see that coming unless you were a smart kid in school and you knew that, well, like every book, like every book that deals with race, if we're reading it in school, the white person is always going to be the villain, every single one, every single book.

So if you were a smart kid in school, you would have picked up on that.

But they were certainly surprised back in the 1960s when they read this.

But then, despite that fact, the jury still convicts Tom Robinson anyway, and that's how racist white people are, as we all know.

And then for a good measure, the white people kill Tom Robinson at the end.

Supposedly he was escaping, but honestly, they probably just shot him because he's black.

And that's the gist.

So, you know,

really, really bad white people doing really bad white people stuff.

That's the book.

That's what the book's about.

Again, pretty much everyone's familiar with the broad outline.

As a child, you probably, you know, at least pulled up the spark notes.

What you're probably not familiar with, by contrast, is the backstory for how Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird, came up with this plot.

And it turns out that in real life, Harper Lee's father was an attorney named A.C.

Lee, and he mostly handled contractual disputes, wills, estates, that kind of thing.

Wasn't exactly a big trial attorney, but in December of 1919, several years before Harper Lee was born, A.C.

Lee took on a criminal case.

This was the first and last criminal case that he would ever handle.

Here's a newspaper clipping describing the facts of the alleged crime.

Quote, aged Confederate veteran is killed in Monroe County, four Negroes charged with murder of Bill Northrup.

That's the headline.

And the article begins: News reached here today of the murder of Bill E.

Northrup, an elderly farmer and storekeeper living six miles from Lower Peachtree.

Now, back in the early 20th century, it wasn't particularly uncommon for inexperienced white attorneys to take on cases like this.

No one else really wanted to do it, so that's what AC Lee did, even though the facts were pretty dire from a legal perspective.

The article continues: quote, what is thought to be bloodstains are visible on the overalls worn by Brown Ezel.

Mr.

Northrup had only one arm and it is believed he leaned down to get merchandise from under the counter.

He was struck over the head and shoulders with a piece of scantling with such force as to fracture the skull and shoulder.

This occurrence on Friday night, over $150 is thought to have been stolen.

$70 were recovered by one of the captured Negroes and it is said that they had been spending money freely.

So the elderly white store owner with only one functioning arm is beaten to death in his own store, and the police later found bloodstains on overalls worn by a black man named Brown Ezell, the father of Frank Ezell, who was also arrested for the murder.

So this is all sounding familiar.

And to kill Mockingbird, the black suspect, Tom Robinson, only has one functioning arm.

That's a key piece of evidence that's supposed to convince the audience that he's a really sympathetic and innocent figure in the case.

But in real life, the black suspects brutally murdered a white guy who had only one functioning arm.

So in other words, Harper Lee was inspired by true events, which you might have heard about that in school, except she was inspired to completely invert these true events and make it so that the sympathetic person with one functioning arm wasn't the white victim who was murdered, but instead was the black suspect.

It's a bit like writing a book based on the moon landing, except the entire mission control team at NASA is a bunch of DEI hires,

which actually sounds familiar with some movies that have been made.

But things get even worse

to kill a Mockingbird when you realize that the younger suspect confessed his role in the murder just before he was hanged.

So

that was back when they used to hang criminals.

So we're not exactly talking about a frame job here.

This was not a case where Harper Lee's dad did anything heroic or impressive.

He took on a criminal case for the first time in his life.

He lost.

His client confessed and was executed.

And that's what actually happened in Alabama when Harper Lee's father decided to take on a criminal case involving black defendants.

But of course, if Harper Lee had written that story,

that actual story, she would not have won the polls.

And no child would have been forced to read her book.

In fact, they probably would have you know, burned her book and made it a hate crime to read it.

I mean, the book would have been banned from schools, not made into mandated reading.

Now, you probably didn't know any of this.

It's not part of the mythology of the book that's taught to students in middle school.

It's not part of the mythology of

American history, of the South.

Part of that mythology where every single white person in the South were a bunch of racist bigots and horrible people, and they were just killing black people randomly all the time.

Neither is the fact that Harper Lee actually wrote a sequel of sorts many years after the publication of To Kill a Mockingbird.

The sequel, which maybe you heard of,

is called Go Set a Watchman.

And really, Go Set a Watchman began as an early draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, but it was released after the fact by Harper Lee in 2015, just a year before she died.

And in that book,

Atticus Finch is not portrayed as some noble crusader who bravely wages war against all the southern racists.

Instead, very early on in the novel, Atticus is discovered in possession of a pamphlet called The Black Plague.

Plague, and he attends white supremacist meetings and introduces racist speakers.

He tells his daughter that blacks in the South aren't ready for civil rights, which is a direct quote from the book, quote, do you want your children going to a school that's been dragged down to accommodate Negro children?

Atticus also says, quote, what would happen if all the Negroes in the South were suddenly given full civil rights?

I'll tell you, there'd be another Reconstruction.

Would you want your state government run by people who don't know how to run them?

Negroes down here are still in their childhood as a people.

They've made terrific progress in adapting themselves to white ways, but they're far from it yet.

And it goes on from there.

Quote, all the Democratic Party has to do with Jefferson these days is put his picture up at banquets.

Jefferson believed full citizenship was a privilege to be earned by each man, that it was not something given lightly nor to be taken lightly.

A man couldn't vote simply because he was a man in Jefferson's eyes.

He had to be a responsible man.

I'd like very much to be left alone to manage my own affairs in a live and let live economy.

I'd like for my state to be left alone to keep house without advice from the the NAACP, which knows next to nothing about its business and cares less.

So this is not exactly Gregory Peck's version of Atticus Finch.

This isn't the version you were forced to read in middle school.

He's a guy who rages against the Supreme Court for outlawing segregation, hates the NAACP, and thinks the civil rights movement is a fraud.

And then towards the end of the novel, when Atticus' daughter freaks out and says she wants to drive away from home, saying this isn't the same Atticus Finch that she thought she knew, her uncle Jack slaps her across the face

and he tells her that she needs to start facing reality, quote, you have a tendency not to give anybody elbow room in your mind for their ideas, no matter how silly you think they are.

That's the message of the sequel of To Kill a Mockingbird, which again is more like a first draft of that book.

So to put it mildly, it should be a pretty clear sign why no school assigns this book for children to read.

It's also pretty clear why when Ghost of the Watchman was released, various news outlets wrote articles about how terrible it was and how it never should have been published because it destroys Harper Lee's so-called legacy or whatever.

Now,

did you know about any of this?

Was Rand Paul familiar with the backstory here?

Probably not.

And if we're being honest, that's probably the most interesting part of To Kill a Mockingbird.

All historic context surrounding the book, from its origin story to its sequel, has been memory hold.

Just read To Kill a Mockingbird, children are told.

It contains important life lessons, supposedly.

And then when some of those children go on to become U.S.

senators, they repeat the mantra.

When they're confronted with someone who doesn't believe in civil rights for foreign narco-terrorists who are not American citizens,

the very first thing that comes to mind is not a rational argument.

It's not a clever retort.

Instead, they simply ask, as Rand Paul did, have you read To Kill a Mockingbird?

As if that should end the entire debate.

The better question for people like Rand Paul is: have you read Ghost Set a Watchman?

Or did you skip that particular children's book?

And if so, please stop citing the prequel when the sequel is available.

I mean, there's a whole backstory within the Harper-Lee metaverse that you really need to explore immediately.

It'll change your whole perspective, believe me.

Give Rand Paul a copy of Ghost Set of a Watchman, who knows?

He might start calling for nuclear bombs to be dropped on drug cartels overnight.

As long as we're letting Harper Lee control our foreign policy from beyond the grave, I mean, anything's possible.

Of course, for everyone else, people who prefer to address facts as they exist in the real world instead of children's literature from the 1960s, really neither book is worth reading, and none of this matters.

In particular, To Kill a Mockingbird, is not based in reality.

It's not an accurate reflection of life in Alabama during the Great Depression.

It's not even an accurate reflection reflection of what Harper Lee's father experienced during the Great Depression.

It is instead a very heavily promoted piece of racial propaganda, one that's intended,

as with every other piece of racial propaganda promoted by our establishment, to demonize white people and portray black criminals as sympathetic victims of circumstance.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a poorly written book whose history has been sanitized relentlessly in order to continue promoting that narrative.

And that is why To Kill a Mockingbird, a book that you've almost certainly been forced to read at one point in your life, is today, very belatedly, canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.

Godspeed.

Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.

And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.

We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.

Watch and listen to Morning Wire seven days a week, everywhere you get your podcasts.