Ep. 1662 - This Is What Must Be Done To Put An End To The Left Wing Terrorism Epidemic

Today, Matt Wall Show, another terror attack on an ICE facility.

ICE has been under siege by left-wing radicals for months.

In fact, the entire country has been under siege for months.

We'll talk about it.

We'll talk about what should be done to finally put a stop to it.

Also, new polling data shows that voters prefer Republicans on nearly every issue, including a few you might not expect.

And the rapture was supposed to happen apparently this week.

I'm still here, which I guess was to be expected.

Talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

Your personal data is being collected and sold without your knowledge.

Data brokers track everything you do online, your searches, purchase, location, and they sell it to advertisers, tech companies, and even government agencies.

They're making billions off your privacy while you get nothing in return.

The good news, you can protect yourself and you can do it with ExpressVPN.

I use ExpressVPN to encrypt my internet connection and keep my browsing private.

It's one of the easiest ways to take back control of your digital privacy.

ExpressVPN is a virtual private network that reroutes all of your internet activity through secure encrypted servers so no one can see what you're doing online or use the information against you.

It also hides your IP address.

That's the unique number that identifies you on the internet, which prevents data brokers from building a profile on you.

The internet was supposed to give us the freedom to explore and learn as equals, but data brokers undermine that by selling your info to marketers and big tech companies who then control what you see online.

The best part is that one subscription protects your whole family.

I've used ExpressVPN for years now, and honestly, I wouldn't go online without it.

Anytime I'm traveling or doing some show research, I need to access sensitive information on the go.

ExpressVPN has become the first thing I turn to to keep my data secure.

It's incredibly easy to use.

Just one tap to connect so even your kids can figure it out.

And it works across all your devices, phones, laptops, tablets, TVs, desktops.

You can actually have ExpressVPN running up to 14 devices simultaneously.

Right now, you can get an extra four months when you use my special link.

Go to expressvpn.com/slash walsh and get four extra months of ExpressVPN.

That's expressvpn.com/slash walsh.

Imagine, if you can, that Kamala Harris had won the last election.

In other words, imagine that the same Democrats who ran the Biden administration, the operatives who hunted down the January 6th defendants, who wrote Biden's speeches declaring that MAGA Republicans are the greatest terror threat in the entire country, who launched criminal prosecutions of Donald Trump and his senior advisors, are all still in power.

And now imagine that a right-wing radical shoots and kills one of the most influential liberals in the country on camera.

And imagine that tens of thousands of other conservatives, just normal people, airline pilots, teachers, politicians, everybody, shamelessly celebrate the assassination and openly call for more of them.

And now imagine that in the same week, yet another right-winger shoots up a country club while shouting MAGA, and another right-winger shoots up a news station and leaves behind a manifesto complaining about liberal bias in the media.

And then imagine that a Trump supporter plants a bomb underneath one of MSNBC's broadcast fans.

And now imagine that a week after all of those attacks, a conservative sniper perched on a rooftop fires into a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing or injuring multiple people.

And then imagine that this Planned Parenthood attack was just the latest in a string of them, stretching back several months.

Now, in this scenario, is there any doubt how Democrats would respond?

Is there any doubt at all that they would wage a full-scale war on conservatives?

Have people like me frog-marched in front of cameras and handcuffs and leg irons?

Is there any doubt that they would declare martial law and label all right-wing expression incitement?

Is there any doubt that they would be rounding up conservatives as we speak by the busload and shipping us to Gitmo?

Is there any doubt that they would have Fox News and every other conservative media company shut down and its executives arrested or sued into bankruptcy?

Now, I asked this question yesterday on social media.

It generated a lot of reaction.

Will Kane mentioned it on his show on Fox News.

But actually, this hypothetical really doesn't go nearly far enough in describing the extent of the left-wing terror campaign that's underway in this country.

So let's go through a lengthy, but still not exhaustive, summary of some recent attacks by left-wing criminals.

And we're going to focus solely on attacks on ICE

leading up to the latest attack, which of course happened yesterday.

There have been so many of these attacks that they're almost impossible to keep track of.

It's a staggering number.

So we'll focus on attacks that took place just in the last four months.

So guys, this is just the last four months and only attacks on ICE.

So this is just a small portion of the overall picture.

On June 6th in Los Angeles, hundreds of rioters sprayed graffiti on a federal court building and hurled chunks of broken concrete towards officers.

Border Patrol officers were pelted with rocks and cement.

Per the DOJ's website, more than 1,000 rioters surrounded a DHS branch building, preventing detainees from being processed.

And one ICE agent was injured when a rock hit the windshield of his vehicle.

One man threw a Molotov cocktail at officers, injuring three deputies.

Eventually, as we all remember, the National Guard was called in.

On June 18th, hundreds of rioters surrounded an ICE office in South Portland, which is, of course, a hotbed of Antifa terrorism.

They spent a week targeting the building with bricks, glass bottles, fireworks.

They were not forcibly dispersed at any point.

It was a rerun of 2020 when they sieged courthouses.

In this case, they blocked government vehicles attempting to exit the ICE office.

Several rioters assaulted law enforcement, including by shining a laser pointer in an officer's eyes, causing temporary blindness.

A day later, a rioter tried to drill plywood

doors onto the ICE office to trap the officers inside.

And that same day, in a separate attack, an illegal alien threw an ICE agent to the ground, knocked her head into the pavement, and tore off her body armor.

A week later, on June 25th, as reported by Andy No, Antifa zip-tied and barricaded the building and attempted to set the place on fire while dozens of agents were inside.

And then on July 4th, more than a dozen Antifa terrorists carrying body armor and radios and firearms launched an attack on an ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas.

They used fireworks as a distraction and opened fire from the woods across the street.

One officer was shot in the neck but survived.

More than 20 rounds were fired.

Three days later, a gunman shot a police officer in the leg at the entrance of a Border Patrol annex in McAllen, Texas.

One Border Patrol officer and one Border Patrol employee were injured as well.

Meanwhile, as all this is going on, ICE agents are being doxxed.

Their home addresses are being posted on Antifa websites.

In one case, trash was dumped on an officer's front lawn.

And on July 14th, a congressman named Salud Karbahal joined a mob that attacked immigration authorities as they served a search warrant at a marijuana facility.

According to DHS, the lawmaker doxed an ICE employee who was subsequently attacked by rioters and sent to the emergency room.

On July 31st, two aliens tried to ram a car into ICE officers in Colorado.

On August 2nd, a rioter threw a rock through the window of an ICE office in Washington state.

They also set fire to the premises.

And then on August 20th, anti-ICE rioters in San Francisco targeted four federal agents with pepper spray, slashed the tire of a government vehicle, and threatened to stab a law enforcement official.

Five days later, a suspect made bomb threats against an ICE facility in Dallas.

And then four days after that, a woman tried to run over a Border Patrol agent who was arresting illegal aliens in Maine.

And that brings us to September 12th, when an illegal alien dragged an ICE officer with his car, causing serious injuries.

Two days later, an illegal alien drove his car into an ICE officer before hitting an oncoming car driven by a bystander.

And then shortly afterwards, riders in Broadview,

which is in Illinois, threw rocks at police, obstructed vehicles attempting to enter the ICE facility, and launched mortar fireworks at officers.

I want you to see how the local ABC affiliate covered this attack, by the way, and the response by ICE.

This is important to see.

The ABC affiliate goes out of its way to portray ICE as a violent aggressor in this situation, even though they admit that the rioters were committing federal crimes in an attempt to violently interfere with the officers.

But this is how these kinds of attacks are covered.

Watch.

Things escalated very quickly here tonight when just before 8 o'clock, federal law enforcement agents launched several volleys of tear gas into the crowd of protesters that were gathered outside of the detention facility.

Protesters have been here several times already calling for an end to the immigration enforcement operation now known as Midway Blitz.

A cloud of tear gas enveloped the crowd gathered outside Broadview's detention facility tonight.

And while a handful of fireworks were launched back in response, most ran from the fumes, some overcome by their toxicity, among them a Southside pastor.

Not just indiscriminate, but they are laughing as they pepper us with rubber bullets, with pepper balls.

They are laughing, they are pointing, they are making a game of it, of assaulting citizens who are peacefully gathered to express our views.

Tensions have been building all day.

Agents on the detention center's rooftop using what appear to be paintball guns to fire pepper spray pellets at protesters this morning who were attempting to stop vehicles from entering or exiting the facility.

Several hours later, another confrontation.

A woman blocking the gates, getting shot with the spray-laden pellets close up.

They unloaded on her, hit her in the face.

I was trying to block her because she was yelling at them.

They didn't like that.

Brian Brannon himself got hit several times and was briefly hospitalized before coming back to rejoin the protest.

His shirt discarded after being soaked in pepper spray.

I can go home to my family after this, and the people that are inside there don't.

Yes, the people inside the ICE facility committed federal crimes.

That's why they're not free to leave.

But he's wrong when he says that they don't get to go home.

In fact, the entire purpose of ICE is to send these people home.

That's kind of the reason that the agency exists in the first place.

The whole report is a nauseating and very transparent piece of political propaganda, and it's how pretty much every network is covering ICE and the attacks on ICE.

They go out of their way to make excuses for the rioters who are surrounding federal buildings and attacking law enforcement.

And then when ICE launches tear gas in response, they pretended some highly disproportionate use of force.

They accuse the officers of laughing, although strangely enough, they never captured that on film, which is weird.

They downplay the obvious attacks, acts of terrorism that are captured on film and portray the use of non-lethal crowd control munitions as some kind of human rights violation.

The lies are as overt as they could possibly be, and the media endorses these lies.

They are as anti-American as the Antifa communists themselves.

They're doing it because they want to encourage more acts of violence.

And they know that their actions are very likely to result in more acts of violence.

And that's going to be an important point in a moment.

But for now, let's get back to the timeline.

Because we're not done yet, by the way.

We're not done yet.

We've just spent 10 minutes listing all the ICE attacks in four months, and we're not done.

On September 23rd, as reported by Katie Daviscourt, Antifa surrounded a federal building in Eugene, Oregon in the middle of the day.

They pounded on the walls, prevented employees from leaving.

And you can see those images on your screen right now.

They're clearly trying to intimidate everybody inside the building.

This went on for hours.

It took several hours for authorities to begin making arrests for some reason.

But even then, they didn't haul everyone away in handcuffs.

They made targeted arrests, probably because they didn't have the manpower to do anything else,

which is not a deterrent.

It's not effective.

And Antifa knows it.

So the attacks have continued.

And that brings us to yesterday, which, as we've discussed, a rooftop sniper with a history of communist posts on social media, a left-winger for sure,

opened fire on an ICE facility in Dallas in yet another act of left-wing terrorism.

He wrote the words anti-ICE on his ammunition.

He reportedly hated Donald Trump.

There's information that was just released by the FBI, in fact,

just this a few minutes ago,

showing that this person was inspired by the the charlie kirk assassin was looking up videos of that assassination and was inspired to emulate it so this is a copycat attack inspired by the other left-wing assassin but in this case when the guy opened fire he apparently missed his targets and ended up hitting illegal aliens instead so the only people he killed were the detainees watch Here's what we know now is that police first got calls about this shooting just about 6.30 this morning.

This is at the facility just off I-35, also known as Stimmons Freeway, not far from downtown Dallas.

When Dallas officers got there, they found four people shot, including the shooter.

The other three people shot were ICE detainees.

One is confirmed dead.

Two others are critically injured.

Earlier, authorities said two detainees were killed, but they have since revised that downward.

Police say 29-year-old Joshua Yon opened fire, striking an unmarked van at the Immigration Detention Center.

Here's the only photo that we have right now of that suspected shooter.

This is a mug shot from 2015 for an unrelated arrest.

This arrest was for possession of marijuana out of Collin County.

Police say he killed himself before officers arrived today as he was perched on a roof of a nearby building.

The director of the FBI has shared this picture of evidence found at the scene of ammunition with anti-ICE messaging.

So by my count, count, this is the fourth act of left-wing terrorism in just the past year in which the shooter has written left-wing messaging on the bullets.

Luigi Mangioni did that.

The trans terrorists who shot up the Christian church did it.

Charlie Kirk's assassin did that.

And now this ICE shooter did it.

So we have a very well-established MO.

And in these cases and many others, The targets have been vilified by left-wing organizations and social media platforms and the media, which openly encourage precisely this kind of violence.

And that's not even getting into all the other attacks by left-wing terrorists that don't involve ICE, including the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, the murder of those two embassy staffers, the arson attack in the park in Colorado, and on and on and on.

I mean, we could spend the next hour listing all the left-wing attacks in this country in just the past year.

We are well past the point where the federal government should take decisive action, must take decisive action, to shut down every single one of these organizations and platforms.

Donald Trump has declared Antifa a domestic terrorist group.

That's already happened.

But so far, the government is not actually treating these left-wing militants as terrorists.

So was that a symbolic designation or was it a meaningful one?

Was there any practical implication to being designated a terrorist group?

You would think there would be.

If it was meaningful, then why is Antifa allowed to surround a federal building for even one second?

How is there not an overwhelming law enforcement response immediately arresting every single person there?

Why isn't every single one of these militants, including that lying pastor, in solitary confinement right now?

Why weren't they all arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay to await trial?

They're terrorists.

Right?

And for that matter, why are websites like Reddit allowed to openly encourage acts of political violence?

I mean, pretty much the whole site is like this.

This is not legal.

You cannot create a platform to host

incitement to violence and people where people can talk about who they want to kill.

That's not legal.

That's not free speech.

On Reddit, 99% of the content about ICE involves either a flagrant smear about the organization saying they're kidnapping babies or whatever, or even more commonly, it's an explicit incitement to violence.

So, for example, this is one of the most popular stories on Reddit this week.

It's from NBC News.

This was the headline: quote: ICE held a five-year-old autistic girl in Massachusetts to pressure father to surrender, family says.

So they held the girl, pressuring the father.

It's like holding the girl hostage.

Well, if you're a moron and you just believe a headline like that, take it, take it

at face value, then it sounds pretty bad.

But it wasn't remotely true.

NBC now admits that.

They've changed the headline to read: Video shows ICE with five-year-old girl while agents attempt to arrest her father.

And they admit in a correction that they had mischaracterized what ICE was doing.

But of course, they knew what they were doing.

They knew that the illegal alien who had prior arrests for domestic abuse and strangulation had abandoned his own child in his car.

They knew that ICE, far from holding the child hostage, was saving the child.

but they reported a lie anyway.

Why did they do that?

Because of this, because they want exactly what I just laid out, because they want more violence.

That is the point.

That is why they're doing it.

And it would cause more left-wing terrorists on Reddit to demand more violence, which they did.

So here's just a sampling of what I'm talking about.

An account on X collected many of these.

And each one of these sentences is a separate post on Reddit.

Okay, so these are multiple people.

I'm just going to go through the quotes.

This is what they're saying.

People need to start blasting.

Shoot first, ask later.

Those are kidnappers.

Take them out.

They pushed us to the point of violence.

Those agents should be handcuffed behind their backs and given a 10-second head start.

They've made the first shot.

Now it's time to return the favor.

Let's escalate.

Smoke the mother effers.

They shot first.

Now it's open season on ice.

Now again, those are all separate comments.

They're all highly upvoted, meaning they're popular with the community.

This is not legitimate or legal political discourse.

You're actually not allowed to do this.

This is against the law.

You can go to prison.

You should go to prison.

for going on the internet and saying, yeah, we need to start killing these federal agents.

None of these people are advancing a political opinion.

These are actual direct threats of violence.

They qualify as incitement under the law.

In this country, the freedom of speech does not include the right to call for violence with the intent of causing imminent violence if that statement is indeed likely to cause imminent violence.

That's where the line is.

It's a very clear line.

And as we've seen very clearly, leftists have crossed that line repeatedly.

Reddit will ban virtually all conservative speech, no matter how tame it is,

but they'll tolerate criminal activity like this.

That needs to end.

Reddit should not be allowed to allow this kind of speech.

Okay, there's

all of the pretense that you need legally to start making arrests, start making arrests of the users and of the people running the platform.

And yet it's not happening.

You know, federal funding for most universities, including Georgetown, should come to an end.

This is an actual sign that's currently hanging outside several dorms at Georgetown.

It reads, hey, fascists, catch, the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.

So they're quoting the message that Charlie Kirk's murderer used on his bullet.

And they're directing students to join something called the John Brown Gun Club, which is a communist group that's popular with Antifa.

If you follow the QR code on that flyer, here's what you'll see.

It takes you to a website that reads, quote, We're building a community that's done with ceremonial resistance and strongly worded letters.

If you want to make a real change in your community, let us know below.

Again, this is not legal.

Everybody involved should be in prison.

Why are they not currently in prison?

They are openly recruiting assassins on the campus of a major American university, one that receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

This is incitement.

Everybody involved in producing that flyer,

everybody in the organization, everyone at Georgetown that allowed this to happen

should all be arrested.

It's not legal in this country to post a flyer that reads, now hiring people who want to kill Republicans.

And that's effectively what this sign is.

I mean, not effectively, that's what the sign is.

A threat of violence doesn't literally have to be, we're going to kill you.

If you send a conservative a note with a quote from Charlie Kirk's assassin and you tell them that the time for debate is over and that you're joining a socialist gun club, that's a threat.

Obviously,

it's a threat to every conservative in Georgetown and the FBI needs to act accordingly.

But as of now,

that's not happening.

Georgetown didn't even take the flyer down.

Why would they?

Their administration presumably endorses political violence too.

They certainly endorse it.

So does the National Democrat Party.

This is not hyperbole.

Nearly everyone who runs the National Democrat Party is perfectly fine with ICE officers being shot and killed.

Like all of them are.

The entire administration of Georgetown, we're perfectly fine with it.

They'd love to see it happen.

That's what we're dealing with.

These are not just people on Reddit.

These are the people running these organizations.

They want this to happen.

They are bloodthirsty maniacs and they want people to die.

Just the other day, Gavin Newsom declared that ICE is authoritarian and that the Trump administration is an illegitimate government that's going to suspend elections in the country.

Democrats want more national violence, just as we saw in 2020, and they're getting it.

If we want to have a First Amendment for much longer, there needs to be a full-scale crackdown on left-wing radicals before this terror campaign progresses any further.

If the FBI could round up grandmothers in Alaska who walked around the Capitol building on January 6th,

if they could concoct a fake sting operation to catch random hobos who supposedly wanted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer,

then they can certainly find every single one of these people posting these death threats and flyers,

every single one of them, and arrest them all.

Executive orders are not going to be enough.

These people, people,

the left-wing terrorists, have declared war on the United States.

Well, the United States should declare war on them.

Every militant who commits, facilitates, funds, coordinates, or incites political violence must be treated exactly as we would treat any American who did any of that for ISIS or al-Qaeda.

They are contributing material support to a terrorist enterprise.

They are providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

And they should be treated accordingly.

Exactly as we would treat anyone who affiliated themselves with Al-Qaeda, is precisely what we should do with these people.

And yes, I'm well aware that the word incitement gets tossed around a lot to justify unconstitutional crackdowns on speech all the time.

Most of the time, when speech is labeled incitement these days, it's bogus.

I've been accused of incitement for stating basic facts about biology.

I've been accused of stochastic terrorism for saying that, you know, a hospital is chemically castrating children when, in fact, that is what they were doing.

But incitement is a real thing,

even though it's misused, the term, it is a real thing.

The fact that the left has misused the term endlessly and maliciously does not neutralize the concept of incitement, and it doesn't mean we can't prosecute it.

There is a legal precedent on this.

There are laws on the books.

We should use them.

When you go around claiming that ICE agents are Gestapo, that they're kidnapping innocent autistic children, that it's time to start blasting, you're openly inviting and encouraging violence.

When you call your opponents Nazis, when you casually accuse them of genocide, when you accuse them of trying to bring back Jim Crow or slavery, you are inviting and encouraging genocide.

When you celebrate and justify assassinations and then provide a list of people who should be hit next, as they did with Charlie and the healthcare executive, you are inviting and encouraging violence.

When you post a flyer on a college campus telling people to join your militant firearms organization because debate doesn't work anymore, and you cite the words of a political assassin, you are inviting and encouraging violence.

Now, some of the examples I just gave probably don't cross the line into legal incitement.

Calling your opponent a Nazi, saying that person's a Nazi falsely

is effectively incitement.

I mean, you are saying that because you want that person to be killed.

That's what you're doing.

Now, something like that probably can't prosecute,

but a lot of those examples are,

can be prosecuted, legal incitement.

And

all of those things are intended to lay the groundwork for violence.

They should all be loudly condemned, and whatever qualifies as legal incitement, which is a lot of it, should be prosecuted as such.

Now, to be clear, I'm not even advocating for Republicans to do everything that Democrats would do if the roles were reversed.

Yes, they would haul every Republican directly into a gulag if they had the opportunity, whether or not they made any threats.

If anything like this was happening on the right, anything like it, where you had

this epidemic of right-wing political violence coupled with

hundreds of thousands of conservatives openly calling for more violence.

If anything like that was happening and Democrats had power,

it would just be over.

You would not be allowed to be a conservative in this country anymore.

They would throw the rules out.

They would chuck the Constitution into a wood chipper.

And they would ruthlessly persecute every single one of us if conservatives engaged in the kind of systematic campaign of political terrorism that the left is currently conducting.

But

that doesn't mean that we should do the same.

I believe in the rule of law.

Even though they would mercilessly persecute all of us

if this was happening on the right, I don't want to see anybody persecuted.

What I do want, and what we all want,

what all decent Americans want, is for the Trump administration to do absolutely everything legally in its power to prosecute, not persecute, prosecute and punish every leftist responsible for committing, coordinating, funding, encouraging, inciting this epidemic of political violence.

I want them to actually treat Antifa like the terrorist organization that it is

and handle its adherents and affiliates the same way we handle ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Don't shy away from prosecuting terrorists and criminals who are obviously inciting and committing violence.

Now is the time.

I mean, at this rate, we can't go two days without another left-wing terrorist attack.

At this point, it is not a question of whether or not there will be another left-wing terrorist attack, whether or not there will be another high-profile conservative shot and killed.

It's not a question of whether this will happen, it's only a question of when it will happen.

And my bet is that all that stuff's going to happen again very soon.

This is unsustainable by any metric.

Lives hang in the balance.

We must act.

Crush the terrorists.

Do it now.

There is no more time to waste.

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.

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 pursuit to serve others is yours.

Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable.

Visit gcu.edu.

Nearly half of American adults say that they would suffer financial hardship within six months if they lost their primary income earner.

As a father and husband, I know how important it is to protect my family's financial future if the worst were to happen.

That's where policy genius comes in.

Policy genius takes the complexity out of life insurance, making it easy to find and purchase coverage that ensures your loved ones have the security they need if something happens to you.

Whether it's covering everyday expenses, paying off debts, or providing funds they can invest for long-term growth, the right policy gives you peace of mind.

With Policy Genius, you can quickly compare quotes from leading insurers to find coverage that works for both you and your family's needs and your budget.

With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for $1 million in coverage.

It's an easy way to protect the people you love and feel good about the future.

As the country's leading online insurance marketplace, Policy Genius simplifies the life insurance process by letting you compare quotes from America's top insurers with just a few clicks to find the lowest price.

Their team of licensed agents walk you through everything step by step, answering questions, handling paperwork, and advocating for you throughout the process so you can make informed decisions about the future.

Secure your family's future with Policy Genius.

Head to policygenius.com/slash Walsh to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you can save.

That's policygenius.com/slash Walsh.

So, we don't spend much time on polling data on this show, but this one is interesting.

This is Reuters, certainly not a conservative outlet by

any measure.

But they polled a sampling of voters, or I guess potential voters,

adults in America, and asked them which party has a better plan on a host of issues.

So, we'll put this up on the screen, and you can see it.

You can see

the graph here.

And you go down the list, right?

It gives you the issue, and then what percentage think that Republicans or Democrats have the better plan.

So, crime, Republicans 40%, Democrats 20%, immigration, Republicans, 40%, Democrats, 22.

Foreign conflicts, Republicans, 35%, Democrats, 23%, U.S.

economy,

Republicans, 34%, Democrats, 24%,

gun control, Republicans, 32%, Democrats, 28%,

Political extremism, Republicans 30%, Democrats 26%.

Respect for democracy, Republicans 29%, Democrats 31%.

So they're slightly ahead there.

Corruption, Republicans, 27%, Democrats, 21%.

Healthcare, Republicans, 25%, Democrats 34%.

Women's rights, Republicans, 25%.

Democrats, 38%.

And then the environment, Republicans, 23, Democrats, 37%.

So Republicans have the better plan, according to

these

respondents, have the better plan on everything

but respect for democracy, health care, women's rights, and the environment.

Now, never mind the fact that obviously Democrats don't respect democracy at all.

They're also awful on health care, and the only woman's right that they care about is the right to murder your child.

And they don't really care about the environment either.

It's just a tool.

It's a Trojan horse for the communist agenda.

But never mind all that.

The point is that Republicans are leading on everything else, including crime, guns, corruption,

foreign affairs, immigration, everything.

And this is part of a bigger picture.

It's a bigger picture that seems to tell us that the left is losing badly.

You know, the polling data tells us that.

The last election told us that.

Lots of anecdotal evidence is telling us that.

And I think the reason, and I was thinking about this,

that the reason

why we're seeing this shift, or one of the biggest reasons, is what I said briefly yesterday.

And just to reiterate, because I think it's an important point,

the big change over the past few years has been that conservative voices have access to the big social media platforms.

Certainly to a much greater extent than they used to.

First with Elon, of course, taking over Twitter, and then many of of the other platforms following suit.

And now finally, even YouTube is relenting.

I just saw yesterday that Alex Jones is back on YouTube.

So

this is not a coincidence.

You know, we're seeing unprecedented numbers of young people who are shifting to the right.

We're seeing polls like the one I just showed you that also seem unprecedented.

And all that is happening at a time when conservatives are able to basically engage freely on social media.

On X, they can engage completely freely.

And then on most other platforms, most of the

most egregious and stringent speech restrictions have been lifted.

Not all of them, but most of them.

And this puts us in, not to keep overusing the term, but it puts us in an unprecedented situation.

You know, most of these platforms have always,

until recently, tightly restricted the kind of speech, right-wing speech,

that could be expressed.

And prior to the existence of social media, all you had was the media and Hollywood and the entertainment industry and so on.

And they were the only ones with a megaphone.

And we know that they were entirely owned by the left.

Well, you had talk radio.

That was the talk radio was the only exception.

Everything else was owned by the left.

And talk radio's reach was, even though it was highly influential, especially guys like Rush Limbaugh, but talk radio was always, its reach was always limited.

And now,

what's different is that the biggest megaphone

is here.

It's where you're watching and listening to what I'm saying right now.

And

conservatives are mostly able to use it.

So as soon as conservatives could use it freely and openly, everything started to shift.

As soon as there was a forum, as soon as the biggest megaphone available,

as soon as conservatives had access to it,

mostly equal access,

then everything shifts, which simply tells you that our ideas win.

They win if and when they get a fair hearing,

if and when they're allowed to be heard.

I mean, it's obviously no coincidence that

the peak of wokeness, I think what most people consider to be kind of peak wokeness, which is like the, well, 2020,

but really from like 2018 to 2022, that period, that was also the peak of conservative censorship.

I mean, it was a time when, I mean, you literally could not go on YouTube and say that women don't have penises.

That's a thing that you could not say.

And you would get demonetized and suspended for that.

So that's how strictly

and how, you know, oppressive this speech suppression was.

I mean, that's the only way that, for example,

I mean, you look at

gender ideology, which is now in tatters.

It's still something we have to fight against, but it's in tatters.

And it existed, you know.

It's existed for decades, this ideology, as we've talked about many times, the history of this ideology.

But

it seemed to sort of explode into the mainstream about 10 years ago, and everybody seemed to just sort of go along with it.

And why did that happen?

Well, it's because

you weren't allowed,

if you objected,

you weren't allowed to object.

It was hard to find the voices that would object.

And

so we were in a situation where everywhere you went, every voice you heard was endorsing this madness.

And that has an effect on people psychologically.

I mean, we know that.

There's like tons of psychological experiments that have shown this, have shown the effects of peer pressure, of people wanting to go along with the crowd, of being convinced.

I mean,

you can convince people of almost anything.

You can convince them to go against what, you know, their better judgment.

You can convince them to accept things that they know are totally crazy if it seems like everybody else is accepting it.

That's how people are generally wired.

And

now we're seeing that kind of hypnosis breaking.

And I think it's only because of this.

Actually, as I say this, I'm just now seeing that.

So you, I mean, we talked yesterday about how YouTube admitted that they were doing this speech suppression.

They seemed to indicate they were going to let

these accounts back.

I'm just seeing that Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes

went back to the platform, and then it looks like they were banned again within about like 12 hours, which is totally ridiculous.

There is no reason why either one of those accounts should be banned from YouTube or any other platform.

And in particular, when you consider the kind kind of

speech from the left, as we just talked about in the opening, that is permitted on all these platforms.

And you had

very prominent left-wingers on YouTube all last week celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, for example.

So

a lot more than needs to be done.

I mean,

so YouTube still, and I guess they just put out a statement saying, they put out a statement saying that, well, hang on a second.

Yeah,

we're going to let some of these band accounts back, but hang on, hang on,

not everybody.

So you still don't actually have, of course, total free speech on YouTube or on most of these platforms outside of X.

There's still a lot that needs to be done.

But

you have more of it now.

Like for every degree of free speech that's allowed on these platforms,

as that that increases, we see the rights, cultural power also increasing.

So I somehow missed this.

Apparently, the rapture was supposed to happen a few days ago.

I was blissfully unaware, probably for the best.

I mean, I wasn't going to get raptured anyway.

Let's be totally honest about it.

But it turns out the rapture didn't happen, I guess, as far as we know.

I mean, it's possible that it did happen.

But only like two people got raptured.

It's possible that humanity sucks so much at this point that the rapture happened and like one guy on an island somewhere was raptured and no one else noticed.

There was one rapturable dude living somewhere.

So it's possible that happened.

I don't know, but here's the New York Post.

The rapture didn't happen Tuesday as predicted by a prophet in a viral video that prompted some followers to quit their jobs, sell their possessions, and ditch exams.

And now true believers say they're deeply depressed.

Followers took to social media Wednesday to mourn the fact that Jesus didn't return to earth and float them up to heaven, as promised by Joshua Malakella of South Africa, who was featured in a YouTube video that took TikTok by storm.

And then there's a whole bunch of people on TikTok saying that they

sold their cars and their possessions and didn't show up for exams

because they thought the rapture would happen and it didn't.

So allegedly, a bunch of people thought the rapture was happening.

I don't know how real that is.

I mean, I know the rapture isn't real, but I don't know how true it is that

anyone believed it.

Allegedly, lots of people did.

As far as I could tell, the video that sparked all this is this one.

So, we'll play for you.

This is some, I don't know who this is, but we just mentioned the guy's name, some preacher in Africa talking about the vision that he received from on high telling him that the rapture was happening and the exact date of the rapture.

Listen: From the time Israel became a nation

in 1948,

there will be 77 years

to the Exodus.

Now, he used the word exodus,

but he was talking about the rapture.

Okay,

he's soon coming

exactly.

Remember, I'm not dreaming.

I'm looking at him

as he's talking without his mouth opened.

Remember, he's speaking through his mind.

He says to me,

On the 23rd

and the 24th of September

2025,

I will come

to take my church.

There's a date.

There is a date.

On the 23rd and the 24th of September 2025.

2025.

So, what happens to 2026 now?

2026, what he was telling me is that

by June,

the world is gearing up towards the World Cup, right?

But by June, they think the World Cup will happen.

But after the rapture of September 2025,

the chaos that would be in the world, the destruction, the devastation that would be in the world after the rapture,

there will be no World Cup 2026.

Well, you know, I'm convinced.

I mean, surely if some random African dude on YouTube said that he had a vision about the end of the world, then he must be telling the truth.

What else would you how else do you explain it?

Either this guy is telling the truth or he's lying or he's crazy.

But I mean, when's the last time anyone ever lied?

Lying, that doesn't happen.

Lying doesn't crazy people.

They don't exist.

No, clearly, if this random guy made this random claim, then it must be true.

How can it be not true?

Well, it turns out that it wasn't true, which is kind of mind-blowing.

I don't know.

And what I love about this guy, by the way, is that for him, the most dire consequence of the end of the world is that the World Cup won't happen.

That is the

prediction.

Or maybe it will, I don't know.

Maybe it'll still happen.

It'll just be disorganized.

I'm not really sure why the rapture would affect the World Cup at all, to be honest.

Like, nobody who plays or watches soccer is going to heaven anyway.

The Bible is very clear about homosexual activity, so

I'm just kidding.

God is not going to send most of the World Cup fans and players to hell because they're gay.

He'll send them to hell because they're foreigners, you know?

So

that's a joke.

Relax.

It just, it always fascinates me when people fall for these

rapture predictions, and there's a new one every year.

And you always have a depressingly large number of people who seem to fall for it.

Which is interesting because for one thing, the rapture is totally made up,

just to be be clear, completely invented.

It's not in the Bible.

It was never a part of Christian teaching for centuries.

It was never mentioned.

And then in like 1840 or the 1830s or something, some dispensationalist preacher came along and made it up.

And he just made it up.

And a huge number of Christians today have latched onto this idea, even though you could trace the roots of the idea.

back to the 19th century.

And anytime you can do that,

anytime there's

a novel biblical interpretation where you can actually pinpoint the exact guy

who came up with it, and it was like, you know,

200 years ago and not 2,000 years ago, anytime you could do that, that should be a big red flag.

So there's nothing

in the Bible about the rapture.

And also, it should be very easy to know when an apocalypse prediction is false because they're all false.

They're automatically false.

The Bible is very clear about this.

I mean, when it comes to the end of the world, in particular, many aspects of that question in the Bible are cryptic, are shrouded in mystery,

and

are discussed in very symbolic sort of poetic language.

But one aspect that is very, very explicit is that nobody will know the day or the hour.

Now, that could not be any clearer.

And we are told this directly multiple times.

Nobody will know.

So anyone who tells you they know is lying.

It's right there in the text, plain as day.

So the Bible says

in big bold letters, caps lock,

no one will know the day or hour, not even the angels.

Nobody will know.

So if anyone tells you they know, don't listen to them.

And yet, I guess a lot of Christians hear that and they say, well, yeah, but

I mean, this guy on YouTube, he's an exception, right?

You meant that no one will know except this guy on YouTube, right?

And

I've thought a lot about this, about why people fall for these apocalypse prophecies.

I find it endlessly fascinating.

It's not just Christians, obviously.

I mean, apocalyptic cults have been around, have been a thing in human society since forever.

And there's something about it that appeals to people.

The rapture is its own kind of apocalyptic cult, and that's proven very appealing.

And

that's the reason people fall for it, because obviously they're not persuaded intellectually.

It's not like people are convinced.

When you watch some random person say, I had a vision that the end of the world is on this day, no one is convinced by that.

It's not persuasive.

It's just that people want to believe it.

And so they believe it because they want to believe it.

But that raises the question of why do they want to believe it?

Well, I think somewhat counterintuitively, people glom on to the end of the world predictions and they get very obsessed with it.

And there are plenty of Christians who, even if they don't fall for these things exactly, they still are very obsessed with

sort of like cracking the code and interpreting.

And they read Revelation, they're looking for the,

they're always looking, oh, this is just like in Revelation, and it's happening any day now.

And I think that what motivates that

is a fear of death.

And for the rapture, this is easy to see.

People who believe in the rapture,

they believe in it.

They really.

And people get very defensive about the rapture.

You'll see that in the comments under this video.

Even though it's totally, completely unbiblical, completely made up.

But they get very defensive of it

because they're afraid of death.

And the rapture is an easy workaround.

Well, you don't have to die.

You just get lifted up into heaven.

You don't even have to die.

It is very appealing, I admit.

Like it's really appealing.

And so when you have someone who's like really attached to this idea and then you tell them, well, the rapture is made up.

It's not true.

What you're telling them is that you're going to have to die.

Okay.

You're not just going to float to heaven.

You are going to have to die.

And that's why they get so worked up about it.

But even the apocalypse predictions that involve mass death and destruction, which a lot of them do,

I still think that people

become attached to those because they're afraid of death.

Because what is it that's so scary about death?

Well, there are two things that are really scary about it.

One is that it's lonely.

You die alone.

Hopefully you die with family members who love you and people that are surrounding you who love you.

But the dying part, right?

The part where you actually have to die, that you do alone.

You got to walk through that door by yourself.

And that's scary.

And death is unpredictable, which is also scary.

You don't know when it's going to happen.

Like, I could die today, I could die in 50 years,

I could die tomorrow, like, I could die anytime, and there's no way to know.

So, those are the two things that make it scary: it's lonely and it's unpredictable.

And so, I think with these apocalypse things,

it's popular with people.

They want to believe it because it mitigates those two things.

It's not lonely anymore because, hey, we're all going at the same time,

and

you take away the unpredictable predictability because now I can say, oh, it's on this exact date.

And so now I know.

And

so I think that's what people like about it.

But it's all nonsense.

It's always nonsense,

just to be clear.

So I've got to tell you about something that made my life about 10 times easier.

And I don't say that often.

Meet the Stopbox Pro.

It's a game changer for anyone who, like me, cares about self-defense, but doesn't want their handgun locked away like it's buried in a time capsule or worse, just lying around where your kids can see that it's something that they can play with.

So picture this.

You never need a key or a battery.

No tiny screwdriver, no desperate midnight run to the junk drawer.

The Stopbox Pro gives you quick, reliable access with a slick push-button lock.

I've tested this a dozen times and it works every single time, rain or shine, power or blackout.

Plus, it's all made right here in the USA.

So you're supporting local jobs and getting quality products too.

Even the TSA gives a thumbs up.

You can bring it it in a check bag for travel.

Totally compliant.

I've taken mine camping, tossed it in the car.

It's become one of those rare things I trust and actually use.

If you're tired of fussing around with keys or worrying about batteries failing when you need it most, if you're worried about, if you're tired of having to juggle accessibility and safety, well, you got to get yourself Stopbox Pro.

Trust me, I wouldn't put my gear in anything less.

For a limited time, our listeners get 15% off at Stopbox when you use code Walsh10 at checkout.

Head to stopboxusa.com, use code WALSH10 for 15% off your entire order.

After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.

And please support our show and tell them that I sent you.

Download the Daily Wire Plus app and bring the entire show everywhere you go.

Inside the app, tap follow under my picture.

You'll get notifications the second I go live or drop a new episode.

Step away anytime and come back exactly where you left off.

Plus, you can watch all the same clips everybody's arguing about on social media without having to suffer through social media to do it.

The app is where our community lives, chatting during live shows, sharing ideas, debating the big questions.

And because it's ours, it can't be canceled, censored, or shut down.

Download the Daily Wire Plus app now in App Store, Google Play, Roku, Samsung, and more.

Now, let's get to our daily cancellation.

For a daily cancellation today, we return to the subject of age verification on the internet.

This is a topic that's gained a lot of steam in recent months.

We're hearing a lot about it.

Arizona is the latest state to

deal with this.

They just put their age verification law into effect, which requires pornography sites to verify the age of its users.

And there are many critics of the law, however, who raise a number of objections.

And I'd like to, once again, respond to those objections because they're extremely stupid.

And this is an important issue.

But this is from KJZZ reporting, quote, starting Friday, Arizona will require age verification to access adult websites.

Users will have to prove they're at least 18 years old.

One option under the new law is to upload government-issued ID.

But this law is raising enforcement questions by opponents, including Michael Stebiel with the Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult entertainment industry.

He says, when forced to verify their age, viewers just move on to other sites.

What we find is that consumers do not comply with this law.

When our members have attempted to comply with this law in other states, 95% of the people have left.

They've gone someplace else because the internet is global, Sebill said.

The law is raising concerns among some opponents who worry that this could have a chilling effect on free speech.

The law is aimed at restricting access to sexual material that is harmful to minors like pornography.

Quote, that's still in the title of the bill, but pornography is not the subject of the bill, says Jean Woodbury.

an associate lobbyist with Creosote Partners, who lobbies for the ACLU.

She says the issue is how sexual material is defined.

And the definition of sexual material harmful to minors is very subjective.

It's open to interpretation.

And so one parent's understanding of what that means could encompass standard sexual education, and it could encompass descriptions and information about even domestic violence, Woodbury said.

Okay, so here we encounter once again the three primary arguments against age verification laws.

These are really the only arguments.

First, they say that it will have a chilling effect on free speech.

Second, that users will refuse to verify their ages and will go someplace else.

And third, that it's impossible to define what qualifies as a pornography site and what doesn't.

By putting age verification on porn sites, you might also be forced to put it on educational sites, they say, and sites with information about domestic violence for some reason.

Now, I'll take these objections one at a time.

Objections which I should point out are never raised about any other age verification policy.

As I have found it necessary

to point out many times, We already have dozens of laws in place mandating age verification for every other adult-oriented product in existence.

Booze, tobacco, guns, gambling.

The producers and distributors of those products are required by law to verify the ages of their customers.

And the age verification cannot just be them saying that they're over the age of 18 or over the age of 21.

They actually have to verify.

They have to produce documents to prove that they are adults.

If a child successfully purchases alcohol from a liquor store or from a bar, that liquor store store or bar will be in a lot of trouble legally.

And nobody objects to this.

Nobody panics over slippery slopes and attacks on free speech.

Nobody says that the free speech rights of the gambling industry are being infringed because they're not allowed to take bets from 12-year-olds.

Nobody has any problem with the concept of age verification laws, which, which nobody has any problem with the concept of it in principle, which is why there isn't even any debate about age verification for any of those other things,

including again, online gambling, which I would suggest is considerably less harmful than pornography.

I would much rather that my 12-year-old be gambling than spending his time looking at pornography.

Like, it's not even close.

It's not even close.

And yet, for online gambling, no issue.

Everyone agrees.

Yeah, you got to verify your age, of course.

Of course.

Only for...

this sexual content is it suddenly an issue.

The critics of age verification

want the pornography industry to be an exception.

They want it to get some kind of magical exemption from the basic rules of the road that govern every other adult-only product.

So let's look again at these arguments and handle them quickly.

First, free speech.

Now, this is an easy objection to handle.

There can't be any free speech concerns here because smut is not speech.

Having sex on camera for money is not expression.

It's prostitution, which is why nobody who consumes the content is consuming it for the messages.

In the whole sordid history of internet smut, not one of its billions of consumers has ever clicked on it because they wanted to know what the naked people on camera were trying to say.

Okay, not one of them has ever been interested in what the naked people are trying to communicate.

We all know this.

Speech is communication.

That's literally the definition of it.

And having sex on camera is not a form of communication.

So the free speech argument isn't one that anyone really takes seriously.

Even if they give the argument, they still don't take it seriously.

And it's even less serious when you consider that this is about age verification.

It's not about an outright ban.

So even if I agreed that pornography is speech protected under the First Amendment, something that none of our founding fathers who gave us the First Amendment would have remotely agreed with, by the way, still that wouldn't apply here because we're not talking about banning it outright, although I, you know, I...

I do think it should be banned.

What we're talking about, though, is simply making sure that children are not exposed to it.

So somebody who makes the free speech argument in this case is not arguing simply that people have the First Amendment right to have sex on camera.

What they're arguing is that people have the First Amendment right to have sex on camera in front of children.

And if that's the argument you're making, then not only are you wrong, but you should probably be on a registry somewhere.

Second, they say that users will go somewhere else if they have to verify their age.

95% of users refuse to verify their age, according to the article.

Well, that's not an argument against age verification.

If users choose not to participate, that's their choice.

This is only a problem if you're deeply worried about maintaining the profit margins of the internet prostitution business.

There's no other downside.

Like, why is that a problem?

Well, then they won't go to the website.

So?

Okay, so then the pornography industry is less profitable.

And that's a problem?

Like, we need to maintain the profits of the industry.

It's worth exposing our kids to this just so that they can still make billions of dollars on this content?

Is that really what you think?

Are you insane?

Are you an insane person?

No, actually, it's an added bonus.

If you're telling me, well, 95% of the customers won't come, great.

I mean, we're not stopping them from coming if they're of legal age.

But if they don't end up coming and this whole industry collapses and it's bankrupted and everybody involved in it is bankrupted by it, that's awesome.

That is great.

I hope that every single person in the industry is bankrupt.

I want them all bankrupted and homeless on the street.

That's what they deserve.

Okay.

That would be justice.

That's what you deserve.

But since we're on the subject, let's think about it for a moment.

95%,

that's the number we were given.

95% of users refuse to verify their age.

Assuming that number is correct, which is coming to us from the industry, that's what they're telling us.

Well, that's pretty incredible because none of the other industries with age verification have that problem.

There is no liquor store or gambling site on the planet that loses 95% of its user base by requiring an ID.

Only the porn industry has that problem.

That's interesting, isn't it?

What does that tell you?

Okay, if there was a liquor store that was not showing, not requiring IDs, and we said that you got to require ID, and they said, well, if I do that, I'll lose 95% of my customers what does that tell you about the customers

well what it should tell you is that first of all a huge percentage of the customer base is comprised of children

okay that that that's a significant portion of the 95 if the liquor store says i'll lose 95 of my customers if i ask for my id okay well that tells me that you are just like giving alcohol to every miner in the in the in the neighborhood and that's all the more reason why you need to require id in fact well you should actually be in prison.

But second, what it tells you is that even the adult users, because I don't think that 95% of the users are children, I think a lot of them are,

but also a big portion of that 95% are adults.

Well, what that tells you is that adult users are deeply ashamed of what they're doing

because they'll give their ID to gamble.

They'll give their ID to buy alcohol.

You know, they'll give their ID to buy, if they want to buy a tobacco product.

They'll give their ID.

They'll have no issue with that.

They're not going to start crying, oh, my privacy, my privacy is violated.

If they go to the liquor store to buy a bottle of wine and they're asked for an ID, they're not going to start, you know, my private.

This is an attack on my privacy.

They don't do that.

They only do it with pornography.

That's interesting.

Why?

Well, again, they're embarrassed.

They feel shame.

And also,

they recognize that these sites are untrustworthy and they don't want to give any other personal information to the sites.

That's the other argument.

Well, you said, you think I want to give my, I'm not going to give my ID to one of these sites.

Oh, really?

Why won't you?

Why will you give your ID to a liquor store

or to FanDuel,

but you wouldn't give it to, why?

Oh, because these are like skeevy, disgusting sites run by horrible, evil people, and you don't trust them with your information.

And also you're embarrassed.

Well, okay, isn't that all the more reason why we should not have children here?

If you won't trust these sites with your identification as an adult, will you trust them with your child?

And finally, we're told that there's a slippery slope.

You know, we won't know where to draw the line.

By requiring age verification for pornographic content, we might end up with age verification for a bunch of other sites as well.

Now, I find this to be perhaps the least persuasive of all of these deeply unpersuasive arguments.

All these arguments, all the arguments against age verification are extremely stupid, and you should be embarrassed

about yourself

if you are on that side of the argument, okay?

You're a dumb person, or at least you're acting like one.

Just consider this:

if you are someone who unfortunately frequents pornographic sites,

When's the last time you went to a site like that and you weren't sure if it was a pornography site or not?

And you keep talking, well, we don't know where to draw the line.

Well, if you're required here, then really?

Really?

We don't know where to draw the line?

Really?

Is that actually true?

We don't know where the line,

where it starts.

Like, where does a pornography site end and a regular site begin?

Really?

When's the last time you were on a pornography site and you were like,

is this pornography?

I don't know.

Maybe that's an excuse you might give.

Maybe if your wife walks in, you say, oh,

and she said, what are you looking at?

Oh, is this pornography?

Oh, I didn't know.

Oh, this is what pornography is.

I had no idea.

Oh, no, I thought I was on a site getting information about domestic violence.

I thought I was on a scientific site.

I thought I was getting, oh, no, I thought, no, I'm doing anatomy research.

Right.

Okay.

You have never experienced the slightest bit of confusion about what sort of website you're on.

When's the last time anyone has ever seen or even heard about a website that might or might not qualify as a pornography site?

That doesn't exist.

It just doesn't exist.

Okay, shut up.

It doesn't exist.

All of these arguments are people like, you know, none of this is true.

You know that pornography is not free speech.

It's not speech.

That's not why you're looking at it.

You know you have no problem with age verification in principle.

You know that you know exactly what we're talking about when we talk about pornography.

And you sit there and go, I don't, how do you define it?

I don't know how to define it.

I have no idea what that is.

I have no clue.

When you say the word pornography, I don't know what you're talking about, Matt.

Shut up.

Just shut up.

Okay, this is not real.

It's not an actual problem.

We all know what kind of websites we're talking about.

They're very easy to identify.

No one has any problem identifying them.

And that's all that needs to be said on that point.

It's all that should need to be said about any of this.

Okay, yes, we should have age verification.

That is the absolute bare minimum of the sorts of protections that should be in place.

And protecting children, putting some sort of thing in place to protect children to the extent that we can, is more important

than your desire to be able to go find masturbation material without having to give your ID.

Okay?

That is the,

we have two competing

interests here.

And one interest is protecting the millions of children who are being exposed to horrifically disgusting content at ages when their brains cannot handle it.

That's one interest.

The other interest is that you want to masturbate to pornography and you want to be able to access it quickly without having to get your wallet out.

Okay.

That is not, that does not, that is, the scale, okay, is like this.

There's not, there's no competition here.

All right.

At all.

So just pull your ID out, or if you're that embarrassed and you don't want to, maybe you should ask yourself why you're so embarrassed.

and like go do something productive with your time instead.

How about that?

You don't want to give your ID, great.

I want to go to the gym instead.

Go take a walk.

All right.

Go out and like talk to your children.

You know, go talk to your wife or go get a wife, you know, instead.

How about that?

Anyway,

that's why anyone who desperately searches in vain for some logical reason to be opposed to age verification for these websites is today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.

Godspeed.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, a sniper shoots two detainees, one to death, at a Dallas ICE facility, and there are left-wing etchings on the bullets.

Jimmy Kimmel makes his triumphant return to the airwaves, and James Comey may be prosecuted.

All of that on today's Ben Shapiro show, give it a listen.

Coverage varies by plan.

View contract and exclusions at endurancewarranty.com.

Do you own a 2005 or newer vehicle with a manufacturer's warranty about to expire or no warranty coverage at all?

With the cost of living on the rise, Endurance is now offering a low-cost vehicle coverage plan designed to save you thousands off costly vehicle repairs.

Get your vehicle protected under this coverage and have all future covered auto repairs paid directly to the repair shop for you.

Roadside service, towing, and rental coverage are included.

Visit EnduranceWarranty.com.

Endurancewarranty.com.