Ep. 1675 - Don Lemon’s Violent Fantasies, Democrat Money Laundering Schemes, S*x Robots, & More

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock.

It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month, and Lifelock has tips to protect your identity.

Use strong passwords, set up multi-factor authentication, report phishing, and update the software on your devices.

And for comprehensive identity protection, let Lifelock alert you to suspicious uses of your personal information.

LifeLock also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back.

Stay smart, safe, and protected with a 30-day free trial at lifelock.com/slash podcast.

Terms apply.

Ray-Band Glasses come with open-ear audio so you can listen to your favorite music without blocking out the world around you.

Hey Meta, play Gorgeous.

Here's Gorgeous by Doja Cat.

You can also ask Meta AI questions.

Hey Meta, when's Doja Cat's next concert?

Doja Cat is playing at the Los Angeles Theater next Tuesday.

Sweet.

Ray-Band Meta Glasses.

Available at Ray-Band stores and other authorized retailers.

This Marshawn Beast Mode Lynch.

Prize Pick is making sports season even more fun.

On ProzPicks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, it always feels good to be right.

And right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5.

The app is simple to use.

Pick two or more players, pick more or less on their stat projections.

Anything from touchdown to threes.

And if you're right, you can win big mix and match players from any sport on Progs, America's number one daily fantasy sports app.

PrizePicks is available in 40 plus states, including California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe, and secure.

Download the PrizePicks app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

PrizePicks, it's good to be right.

Must be present in certain six.

Visit PrizePicks.com for restrictions and details.

Today, NatWall Show, the governor of Illinois mysteriously won over a million dollars in Vegas last year.

Is he really just a lucky guy, or is this yet another example of blatant corruption among Democrat politicians, which is a widespread problem?

We'll take a look at it today.

Also, Zoron Mamdani hits Andrew Cuomo for failing to visit enough mosques.

What has happened in America that now this is a line of attack against political candidates?

Don Lemon tells illegal immigrants to buy guns and shoot ICE agents.

How is he not in jail yet?

And the libertarians over at Reason Magazine are here to tell us that even though AI sex robots are becoming increasingly popular, it's nothing to be worried about.

In fact, you know, they say actually it might be a good thing.

Well, I am worried, and I'll explain why, all of that, and more today at the Matt Walsh Show.

Our society works because of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Americans should be able to speak openly about honesty, family, and traditional values without retribution.

And that's a principle PureTalk proudly supports.

They sponsor my show, which allows me to stand strong behind the microphone every day and share the truth with you.

Support the brands that defend freedom and pro-American values.

I encourage you to switch your wireless service to PureTalk.

You're going to get great 5G coverage on an extremely reliable and secure network.

I'm a PureTalk phone, and I love it.

Besides, it's working great.

It's nice to know that I'm supporting a company that supports my values.

For just $35 a month, you'll get a plan with a ton of data.

You'll also get a free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus.

And that's how much PureTalk believes in what we do at the Daily Wire.

They also believe in creating American jobs and supporting small businesses.

So if you're a small business owner, you can even save while enjoying white glove service.

Go to puretalk.com slash walsh, switch to PureTalk with with a qualifying plan of $35 and get a free one-year membership to DailyWire Plus.

That's puretalk.com slash walsh for a wireless company that's not afraid to share your values.

Courtesy of Hunter Biden, all of America recently received a crash course in effective ways to launder millions of dollars.

As it turns out, it's nowhere near as complicated as the movies make it seem.

In reality, even when you're the son of the president of the United States, you can collect dirty money.

in plain sight.

And one way to do it is to get a do-nothing job, which you're not remotely qualified for, and then collect paychecks without ever showing up to work.

Another tactic is to start a bunch of fake companies and accept massive investments from foreign governments, saving some of the money for your father, of course.

Alternatively, if you're feeling especially bold, you could get into finger painting and sell your great works of art for millions of dollars to anonymous buyers.

Or if you're Hunter Biden, you could do all of the above.

All this to say, if Hunter Biden could get away with flagrant corruption like this, then there's very good reason to be skeptical of other prominent Democrats who are making a suspiciously large amount of money from bizarre, unusual sources.

And that's why, even though he's a billionaire and presumably doesn't need any extra cash, it's worth taking a close look at this story about the finances of the anti-American and pro-crime governor of Illinois, J.B.

Pritzker, who's being touted as a potential presidential candidate for some reason.

This is from the New York Post.

Quote, Billionaire Illinois governor J.B.

Pritzker and his wife pocketed $10.7 million worth of taxable income last year, including $1.4 million that he won from playing Blackjack in Las Vegas, according to tax filings released by his campaign.

Pritzker will be donating the money to charity, his campaign added.

An heir to the Hyatt Hotels Corporation family fortune, Pritzker has a net worth of about $3.9 billion, according to the latest estimates from Forbes.

In the prior two years, the Pritzkers reported much less taxable income, including $3.2 million in 2023 and $2.3 million in 2022.

Now, right away, there are some unanswered questions here.

First of all, why did he only donate the money after the story came out?

If he doesn't need the cash, why not get rid of it immediately?

He's a high-profile governor.

He clearly recognizes the optics issue here, which is why he's donating the money.

But why did he wait until people asked him about it?

Now, it's true that J.P.

Pritzker is a billionaire and that for somebody with that kind of money, $1.4 million isn't a whole lot.

But at the same time, $1.4 million is more than 10% of Pritzker's total annual income from 2024, and it's roughly half of his annual income from 22 and 23.

He's making around $10 million a year in taxable income, most of which is capital gains from investments that he sold.

The overwhelming majority of Pritzker's wealth, in other words, is tied up in hotels and various trusts.

So a million dollars is certainly money that he could use, at least in the short term.

unless he wants to liquidate some assets.

And for all we know, he wasn't keeping the money for himself.

Maybe he he was sending it to someone else.

Maybe he was holding it for someone.

We have no idea.

So without a doubt, we need more information about how exactly J.B.

Pritzker acquired this money.

And yet, in a press conference the other day, when he was asked about this report, the governor didn't provide very many details at all.

Watch.

Obviously,

and I've explained this, or at least we did in a statement, you know, that I went on vacation with my wife, with some friends.

I was incredibly lucky.

You have to be to end up ahead, frankly, going to a casino anywhere.

It was in Las Vegas,

and

I like to play cards.

And so, you know, that I founded a

charitable poker

match here in Chicago called the Chicago Poker Challenge that raises millions, has raised millions of dollars for the Holocaust Museum here.

And particularly to stand up for civil rights, that's much of what the Holocaust Museum does.

Now, even if you don't know much about casinos or blackjack, and I don't,

you could tell immediately that something is off with this answer.

He doesn't provide any specifics at all.

He just says that he got lucky in Vegas, laughs a little bit, and immediately pivots to talking about a completely unrelated topic, which is some charity poker organization that he has in Illinois.

Doesn't mention a specific casino or anything about the hands he supposedly played.

He actually doesn't even say it was blackjack, although his staff has made that claim.

Seems extremely eager to change the subject and just move on.

Now, imagine if you were in Pritzker's position here.

Let's say you're a big fan of playing Blackjack.

You're a public official, and you managed to make $1.4 million at a high roller's table on a vacation with some friends in Vegas.

An extremely unlikely outcome.

by any measure, you know, mathematically, very unlikely to happen.

And now a reporter is asking you about your big win.

Assuming you have nothing to hide, why not talk about how you did it?

Why not throw in a single verifiable human detail about your time in the casino?

Like what your friends thought or what friends you were with or what casino you were in, how many hands you played,

whether you had any particularly amazing plays, anything at all.

Even if you're bashful and you don't like bragging about your wins, you must have some understanding of how bizarre the whole situation looks.

You're the governor of a state and you won over a million dollars gambling in Las Vegas.

It's like you can't do that as the governor without explaining yourself.

You can't have big financial windfalls like that out of the blue

without explaining it.

And you should, if only to reassure everyone that this wasn't bribe money, because that's obviously going to be the very logical suspicion.

And, you know, you'd probably say something about what happened so as to alleviate that concern.

But J.B.

Pritzker wasn't forthcoming at all.

And for that reason alone, there needs to be an immediate federal investigation.

Someone needs to pull the tapes from the casinos for one thing.

Presumably, if he actually made all this money in one night, there's footage of him at a blackjack table somewhere.

And, you know, I looked online because, again, I don't know a lot about

blackjack and gambling.

I've been to casino like one time in my life.

So I looked online online to see what some blackjack players thought about this whole situation.

And here's one take from somebody assuming that Pritzker was playing

$100,000 hands of Blackjack, which is at the high end, even for high rollers.

But

even to make this like remotely plausible, you have to

assume that he's playing that kind of money.

And here's what it says, quote, that's still 1,400 hands he'd have to play in order to get to $1.4 million.

And that's if he's so good at blackjack, he can maintain that one percent edge, which is on par with some of the best blackjack players in the country.

So, let's say he's an average blackjack player making $100,000 bets per hand.

In 1,400 hands, he would be expected to lose $700,000.

There's no way he made all that money playing blackjack, or someone would have noticed.

So,

that's what it would take.

He'd have to be the best blackjack player in the country,

betting $100,000 hands

and playing

1,400 hands.

Now, admittedly, you can quibble with the numbers.

It's possible that Pritzker was playing with extremely large and unusual amounts of money, like $500,000 hands or something.

But if that's the case, you have to wonder, why is he doing that exactly?

Why would he go to a casino and risk a significant chunk of his annual taxable income when he doesn't need the cash?

He's supposedly just hanging out with some friends and family.

Did the casino notice Pritzker doing anything unusual like card counting, which would enable him to win so much money?

If so, did they stop it?

Does the casino have any connections to Pritzker?

At best, given what we know, this seems like degenerate behavior.

I mean, you don't win a million dollars in Vegas without being a degenerate gambling addict at best.

At worst, it's money laundering or a bribe.

And regardless, again, there needs to be an investigation.

And this investigation should not end with J.B.

Pritzker.

We've spent so much time talking about political violence by Democrats, and rightfully so, that we often overlook the obvious pervasive corruption in the party as well.

For example, you probably missed this story from last April when Kamala Harris was vice president.

Quote, Vice President Kamala Harris's stepdaughter opened her textile exhibition Thursday at a cannabis store on the Lower East Side where she peddled knit portraits for several thousand dollars.

Ella Emhoff, whose father is second gentleman Doug Emhoff, debuted her knit pieces, which she said marks her transition out of the fashion world and into her new phase of life as an artist.

Aires' stepdaughter was asking for $4,500 for a textile of two hearts, heart-shaped Gucci hair clips, a 1,400% markup from the designer accessories after which they were modeled.

Now, you can only imagine why somebody would pay a 1,400% markup for Ella Emhoff's textiles.

Maybe we'll get the answer to that question someday.

After all, Biden pardoned his own family, but he didn't pardon Kamala's.

In the meantime, we're learning about several more Democrat fraud schemes in California where money, including your federal tax dollars, was stolen from programs that are supposed to develop housing for homeless people.

These kinds of schemes are extremely common in states like California.

And now finally, the DOJ is doing something about it.

Here's California U.S.

attorney Bill Asale saying, quote, California has spent billions of tax dollars to to combat its homelessness crisis with very little show for it.

Six months ago, I announced the Homelessness Fraud and Corruption Task Force.

Today, we begin to hold people accountable by announcing two cases where more than $50 million of homelessness funding was fraudulently obtained.

Now, here's one of those cases.

More details about it.

Watch.

This morning, federal agents arrested Cody Holmes, a 31-year-old Beverly Hills resident and the former CFO of Shangri-Law Industries, a downtown LA-based developer of affordable housing for defrauding the Home Key program that is administered by the state of California.

The program awarded grant money, which included federal tax dollars, for specific projects to convert motels into housing for the homeless and to operate the units.

The state agency ultimately paid nearly $26 million directly to the developer for the Thousand Oaks project.

Even though the developer received all the money from the state, the developer did not complete the construction of the Thousand Oaks project.

Instead, our investigation has showed that at least $2.2 million was diverted to pay Mr.

Holmes' American Express bill, which includes purchases at luxury retailers.

Essentially, he stole the money.

As if you needed yet another reason to oppose government-funded housing for the homeless, here it is.

I mean, really, there are only two outcomes that are possible.

Option number one is that the housing gets built and the homeless proceed to trash the place and use it as a drug den.

That's one possibility.

The other possibility is that the housing never gets built and the developer pockets tens of millions of dollars.

I mean, those are literally the only two things that can happen when you start putting tens of millions of dollars into homelessness funding.

Because the problem for homeless people is not a lack of funding, it's that they're all

drug-addicted and mentally ill, like all of them.

That's the problem.

As Fox's Matt Finn reports, one of the fraud cases might implicate a Democrat politician.

Quote, Feds just announced that a former California Democratic state senator's nonprofit is linked to an alleged $27 million scheme using homeless housing funds.

Former state senator Kevin Murray is the CEO of Weingart, which the feds say used $27 million in homeless dollars.

to

purchase a building in 2023 from an alleged criminal developer who just bought it months prior for $11 million.

Murray was not charged or named, but the Fed say the nonprofit he's a CEO of is part of an active investigation.

So just corruption and fraud all the way down.

These housing organizations and housing schemes are probably the single most common vector of fraud in Democrat Party politics.

It's not just happening in California.

It's happening all over the country.

For example, the Somali who's running for mayor of Minneapolis, Omar Fateh, has been implicated in a possible Medicaid-related fraud.

This is from the local news station

KRE11, which has done most of the legwork on this investigation, along with the Stark Tribune.

Quote, Senator Omar Fateh's wife was the listed owner of a housing stabilization company, while the senator himself was pushing legislation to fast-track client approvals without divulging his ties to the taxpayer-funded program.

On March 24, 2025, Senator Omar Fateh introduced Senate File 2741, a bill he said would speed up access for people to be approved for HSS, a Medicaid-funded program to help the elderly and disabled find and maintain housing.

Weeks later, an investigation would expose allegations of widespread fraud in the HSS program, including clients being signed up without their knowledge and Medicaid billed for services never provided.

Now, the fraud was so pervasive, in fact, that the entire HSS program has been shut down.

The acting United States Attorney for Minnesota estimated that virtually all of the $100 million in annual spending on the program was fraudulent, all of it.

And there's reason to believe that Omar Fateh was trying to realize some of those profits.

The article notes that while Omar Fateh was pushing a bill to benefit HSS programs, quote, Senator Fateh's wife, Khaltoum Mohammed, was a founder and owner of Community Development Services LLC, an HSS company with an active website soliciting referrals and clients.

She was still officially an owner, at least on paper, when her husband introduced the bill impacting the HSS industry.

Now, instead of being forced out of the race for this obvious corruption, of course, Omar has the full support of his party.

He's currently shooting videos with Baddies for Omar.

Watch.

Hey, Baddies.

I heard the Baddies are having an event for the campaign this Friday.

Can you tell me more about the details?

Yeah, you heard it here first.

Our first Baddies for Omar sketch and set is happening this Friday, October 17th at Arya Cafe.

A donation of $50 or more will get you into the event and get you a cute t-shirt like this.

Hope to see you there.

So Omar Fatay certainly is not feeling any pressure to withdraw from the race as he hangs out with baddies for Omar.

But in the Democrat Party, as it turns out, even if you're forced out of your job, you can still collect tens of tons of taxpayer cash that you didn't earn.

And to that end, last week, an outlet called LA IST

reported on this very strange story involving the CEO of Los Angeles County, which is the highest ranking unelected position in the county.

And here's what it says.

Quote, L.A.

County officials quietly approved a settlement deal that paid $2 million to the county's CEO almost two months ago.

LA IST has learned.

CEO Faisia Davenport was issued the check in August to compensate her for damages she claimed.

including alleged harm to reputation, embarrassment, and emotional distress, according to records that Elliot obtained from the county.

Now, at the time, it wasn't clear what the lawsuit was about.

All we knew is that the CEO of L.A.

County had just received a $2 million settlement from the city.

But there were indications that the settlement related somehow to a recent ballot proposition known as Measure G, which was, quote, a voter-approved measure that reshapes the county's leadership structure, including transforming the appointed CEO job into an elected one starting with the 2028 election.

It was put on the ballot by a majority of Davenport's bosses on the Board of Supervisors.

So, to recap, it looks like the CEO of L.A.

County received $2 million in taxpayer funds

because she suffered emotional distress when the voters decided to eliminate her position,

specifically by making her position an elected one instead of an appointed one.

It looks like that's why she was paid.

Because she was so disappointed and sad about losing the job.

And indeed, yesterday, that's what LAS reported.

Quote, L.A.

County's secretive $2 million payout to its CEO two months ago, first revealed by LAST this week, was to settle her claims that she was harmed by a ballot measure that will change her job to an elected position and by the county's messaging.

CEO Faisia Davenport had requested a settlement for what she claimed was reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional, and mental distress caused by Measure G.

In letters laying out her claims, Davenport said that while the measure made the case for structural changes, its text impugned her reputation by saying the lack of strong elected executive leadership has impacted our ability to address these challenges.

Close quote.

These are the defenders of democracy, by the way.

The defenders of democracy, if you try to change their job to an elected position so that you can democratically vote on it, you have to pay them $2 million because it makes them sad.

Now, in response to these allegations, a majority of LA County supervisors agreed to give her $2 million as a lump sum, which Davenport demanded, quote, to earn interest on the funds to help mitigate the lifelong impact of Measure G on my retirement allowance.

Now, this is, of course,

obvious fraud.

It's more waste and abuse.

They're paying millions of dollars to politicians who are humiliated that they got fired, essentially.

And if you vote for Democrats, this is what you're supporting.

No party in American history has been more committed to looting the treasury than these people.

It is the same party that spent $140 billion to construct a high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles more than a decade ago, and they still have not even come close to actually building it.

Should we be surprised by any of this?

Of course not.

A party that's willing to murder its political opponents and let violent criminals go free isn't going to hesitate to steal your money.

And stealing your money is probably the least damaging thing these people do.

And that's one of the reasons why it doesn't get the attention that it deserves.

Because people hear it and they're like, yeah, well, they're also killing us.

I mean, what?

They stole, she stole $2 million?

That's nothing compared to when they're literally shooting at us.

But at the same time, every now and then, it is worth talking about just how rampant their grift really is.

I mean, it is staggering by any measure.

And before any more Democrats go to the casino or sell textiles or funnel money to their wife's NGO or sue for emotional distress because they got fired, the Trump administration needs to use the full force of the federal government to shut these people down.

In a very literal sense, we simply cannot afford to tolerate this rampant corruption any longer.

Now let's get to our five headlines.

You guys have heard me talk about the bearskin hoodie.

Well, the smart people are are locking in their winter gear now because this is hands down the best time to prep for the coming winter.

Don't wait any longer than you already have.

Bearskin is running a 60% off deal right now, but only if you get your hoodie early.

This hoodie,

which I am wearing right now, in fact, is built like a tank.

Micro fleece, 10 pockets with a clean, rugged fit that looks awesome.

I think it looks great.

And which is hard to do, which is it's hard to make something look good on me, but somehow they pull it off.

And also, it's very comfortable and

it's got utility.

I mean,

it's practical as well.

So it combines all the things you want: style, practicality, and comfort.

Plus, it zips right into the heavy storm rainjack to become 100% waterproof when you need it.

Now, as you can see, I'm, as I said, wearing my bearskin hoodie right now.

And if you want to get your own bearskin hoodie, I mean, if you're inspired by how dashingly handsome I look in this, then do yourself a favor, text the word Matt to 36912 to lock in your 60% off.

Again, text Matt to 36912.

You get a link sent straight to your phone so you can check it out later if you're busy right now, but you want to get on this right away.

You get free U.S.

shipping, fast delivery, and you've locked in your winter gear already.

And that is a win-win.

So don't wait till you're freezing to realize that your hoodie sucks.

You need to get a new one.

Get a bearskin right now.

while it's 60% off.

Text Matt to 36912.

Do it now.

All right, let me paint you a picture.

It's Tuesday morning.

You reach for your supplements and vitamins and empty bottle.

Great.

Well, now you got to spend your lunch break driving to some overpriced vitamin store because you forgot to reorder again.

Or hear me out, you could just make it automatic.

You know, I became a balance of nature preferred customer because honestly, I have better things to do.

And remember, when I'm running low on supplements, every 28 days, they just show up.

like clockwork, no brain power required.

And here's the part, it's actually pretty sweet.

You get the lowest price they offer every single time.

No coupon hunting, no flash sale nonsense, just the best price automatically.

Oh, and shipping, totally free.

Every month, it's nice to see a company that doesn't nickel and dime you to death constantly.

But here's what really surprised me.

You get your own personal health coach, an actual human who checks in with you and helps keep you on track.

Look at the whole picture.

Mind, body, spirit, pretty solid approach, if you ask me.

And look, consistency.

It isn't about being perfect.

It's about showing up every day.

And the easiest routines are the ones you don't have to think about.

Go to balance of nature.com.

Use promo code WALLS for 35% off your first order.

It's preferred customer plus.

Get a free bottle of fiber and spice.

That's balanceofnature.com.

Promo code Walsh.

Your future self will thank you.

All right.

You know, one of the other

great things about the new studio that I've bragged about is that we have a fancy new camera angle as well.

So we've debuted a new camera angle.

Although McKenna, the producer, just

told me before we started filming that they don't know what to do with the second camera angle.

So they put another camera in here.

so we get a fancy new angle and they don't know what to do with it.

They're not sure what to do with it.

So they've, I guess they've dubbed it, I'm told, the fish cam, which I think is actually a good idea because I think that's what we should do is just every once in a while during the show, cut to a close-up of the fish back there.

I'd like to do that.

It doesn't need to be related to anything I'm talking about.

Just cut to a close-up of the fish.

And speaking of the fish, you know, I was just saying how

pleasantly surprised I was that everyone's been so positive about the new studio.

People aren't making snarky comments.

That would hurt my feelings very badly.

But I did finally see one comment from someone making a criticism of the, and not just criticizing, it's one thing to criticize the studio, okay?

But this, whoever this was, I don't have a comment in front of him, they went after the fish.

Okay, don't don't go after the fish.

I've told you that that's my most prized possession.

This whole studio exists for that fish.

We built the studio around that fish.

Okay, I got that fish and I said, I want the whole studio to match the fish.

And there's one guy who has to be, you know, he's got got to be like the fact checker.

You know, he's got to be the

dork, the, the, you know, the dork in the comment section saying, well, actually,

actually.

And so there's one guy who says, oh, is that even a largemouth bass?

The fins aren't right.

It doesn't have enough fins.

Okay, well, why don't you go carve your own fish before you make criticisms of this one?

Yeah, it is, it's missing.

It is a largemouth bass.

It is missing a couple fins.

It's supposed, I, yeah,

largemouth mouth bass is supposed to have two fins, the front fin and the

first fin and the second fin, dorsal fin.

And then there's the lower fin,

which is called the anal fin,

which don't laugh about that.

They don't,

that's what it's called.

The word, it's not funny, grow up.

Uh, it's missing the, it is missing, the fish is missing the anal fin.

Okay, it is.

It's nothing funny about it.

And that can happen in the wild.

If you actually went fishing, you would know that.

You can, you can pull up fish that are missing all kinds of fins.

You never know what happens deep down in the depths of the lake.

It's tough business down there.

Still a largemouth bass, and that's a beautiful carving.

Priceless.

It's a priceless work of art.

And I think we should feature it in the show all the time, even more now that people are making their comments.

You're going to fact-check my fish, really?

Is that what we are now?

Can I get a break?

Can anyone just cut me some slack?

I mean, really.

Now you're even fact-checking my fish.

I mean, it's just, look,

it's a bit much.

Okay, it's a Friday.

All right, well, there was apparently a debate yesterday for the mayor's race, and I didn't watch it, of course, but

I did see one clip from this back and forth that I want to talk about.

Here's Zoran Mamdani, who is the far-left radical Muslim socialist.

And here he is hitting Cuomo on a particular point.

Listen.

He had more than 10 years, and he couldn't name a single mosque at the last debate we had that he visited.

And what Muslims want in this city is what every community wants and deserves.

They want equality and they want respect.

And it took me to get you to even see those Muslims as part of this city.

And that, frankly, is something that is shameful and is why so many New Yorkers have lost faith in this politics.

Yeah, except

that is totally fault.

I worked with the Muslim community for many, many years.

Name a single mosque you went to when you were the governor.

Can you name a single mosque you went to in 10 years?

You were ever here.

Before I was here.

Now, I'm not really interested in defending Andrew Cuomo.

He's certainly more sane and less anti-American than Mamdani, but that bar is low.

That bar is not even low.

That bar is

under the, it's buried 100 feet under the ground.

I mean, you could crawl on your stomach and get over that bar.

So I'm not really interested in defending him, but I want you to think about this line of attack.

He's attacking Cuomo for not visiting a mosque or being able to name a mosque.

And this is really a significant moment in American politics.

And I don't think that's making too much of it.

This is the first time, to my knowledge.

To my knowledge, first time that any candidate for any office anywhere in the country has ever been criticized on the basis that they cannot name a mosque.

Okay, this is the first time that you can't name a mosque has been used in an attack line against an American politician in America.

This is a very new development.

In New York, of all places, in New York, which,

as we all know, the New York skyline was rearranged by jihadists.

And there,

you haven't visited a mosque is now an attack line.

It is, I mean,

if you could go back in time and tell people,

if you go back to like 2002 and go to New York on the heels of 9-11 and tell them that in a couple of decades, there will be a far-left Muslim socialist from Uganda who is the favorite to become the mayor of the city.

And not only that, but he's attacking his political opponents for not spending enough time in mosques.

If you had told someone that, they wouldn't have believed you.

They just would not have believed it.

Now, I agree with Andrew Colvette from Turning Point, who posted this clip, and he said, the fact that Mamdani just attempted to shame Andrew Cuomo for not knowing the name of a mosque is exactly how this works.

They immigrate, they set up shop, and then you work for them.

Welcome to 2025, where mayoral candidates in America are expected to kiss the ring of Islam.

Well, that's exactly it.

I mean, these are the fruits of mass migration.

This is the lie exposed.

Assimilation was a lie.

As a foreigner who was not born in this country, Zoran Mamdani is saying that Cuomo, but really all of us, have to assimilate to him.

He's not going to assimilate to us.

We have to assimilate to him.

This is something that conservatives have gotten wrong.

This is something that I've gotten wrong,

or at least phrased it the wrong way.

I mean, I've said many times, many of us have been saying that, oh, well, they don't believe in assimilation.

on the left.

They talked about assimilation.

They talked about the melting pot.

That used to be a thing, but

they don't really want assimilation.

Well, we're actually wrong about that.

They do want assimilation.

It's just that they want assimilation going the other direction.

They want us to assimilate to them.

That's what they want.

And you see, the same process has played out.

And I was thinking about this today,

and this is what people need to understand, that the same process has played out with immigration that played out with LGBT,

trans, everything else.

And we've been over this many times.

When it comes to the LGBT and trans and that sort of thing,

gay marriage and all that, we've been over this kind of this trajectory, this progression, this evolution or devolution many times, but it applies here as well.

So let's go over it again.

Here's how it works.

Right.

The left comes along with some thing they want to do, some agenda item,

something, something bad always.

And

the first reaction from everybody usually is, well, that sounds terrible.

Why would we want that?

No, let's not do that.

Oh, you want to destroy the institution of marriage?

You want us to pretend that men are married when they're not?

No, let's not.

Oh, you want to castrate kids?

You want men in the women's locker room?

No, that's insane.

We're not doing that.

Oh, you want to flood our country with third worlders?

No.

Like, there's literally no benefit to us whatsoever.

Why do we want to do that?

And so that's usually people's first reaction.

But then the left, they get to work and they demand tolerance.

That's the first thing.

They demand tolerance.

They say, well, you know,

you might not like it, but you should

put up with it.

It should be tolerant.

And then they demand affirmation after they get tolerance.

And then they demand celebration.

And then they demand participation.

Okay, so it's tolerance, affirmation, celebration, participation.

First tolerance, then affirmation, then celebration, then participation.

This is always how it goes every single time with everything.

First they said with LGBT, they said, tolerate our lifestyle.

You don't have to like it.

You don't have to agree with it, but put up with it, allow it.

What two men do in their own homes is none of your business, right?

What people do in their own, none of your business.

If a man wants to put on a dress and walk around, none of your business, just tolerate it.

And then,

and they convinced a lot of people.

Because that first ask,

For a lot of people, especially just normal, polite people that just kind of want to get along and don't want things to get contentious, don't want to be confrontational.

For a lot of people, that first ask seems kind of reasonable.

And they say, okay, fine.

You know, yeah, it doesn't affect me.

I'll tolerate it.

And so people did.

But then they went back and they said, well, actually, no, we need you to actively affirm this.

To just tolerate, see, that's not good enough.

Because when you tolerate, right, when you just tolerate it, you're still kind of implying that you disagree with it.

And that hurts our feelings.

You can't disagree with it.

You need to affirm it.

You need to tell us that what we're doing is good.

And so a lot of people did.

And they came back and said, no, actually, no, we need you to, we need to, we actually, what we need you to do is we need you to stand on the street corner and applaud as we march by in our parade.

We need you to applaud us.

We need you to actively, it's not enough to tolerate, not enough to just affirm.

You need to actively celebrate.

We need holidays.

You need to set aside entire days and months on the calendar to tell us how great we are.

And then, and many people went along with that.

And then finally, we get to the last step where they said, you know what?

Tolerating, affirming, celebrating, all that is fine, not good enough.

We need you to participate.

We need you to actively be involved in what we're doing.

You see how so quickly we went from, yeah, this doesn't affect you, doesn't involve you, just put up with it, to, you know what, actually, it does involve you.

And you need to be an eager participant in what we're doing.

And

so with LGBT, it was, you know, say the pronouns, invite us into your bathrooms,

so on and so on and so on.

Tolerance, affirmation, celebration, participation.

That's how it always goes.

Tolerance, affirmation, celebration, participation.

And this is why we must cut them off at the pass.

This is why we must shut them down at the tolerance phase.

This is why I'm such a mean guy.

This is why I upset a lot of people all the time.

I always have, because I'm so mean.

Because

I don't even want to do the tolerance part.

But this is why.

Because I know where it leads.

I know where it goes.

Before we get all the way to participation, we should say no.

Now, you know what?

I'm not even going to tolerate this.

I am actively opposed to this.

I think it's bad.

I don't want it in my community and I don't want it in my country.

We need to be intolerant.

Intolerance is a virtue.

Intolerance is good.

Intolerance is holy.

Intolerance is Christian.

Intolerance is moral and courageous.

Intolerance is biblical.

Intolerance is loving.

Loving to your family, to your country, to your way of life that you should be protecting.

And so we've seen something similar happen with mass migration.

You know, it's been happening for decades.

And now we have finally arrived at the participation phase.

Here we are.

It's finally happened.

We passed the tolerance phase a long time ago.

Tolerance is when they said, hey, you know,

you might not like third worlders

infiltrating your country en masse.

You might not like it, but

you should put up with it.

You should tolerate it because, look, these people have had a hard life.

Things are pretty bad in their home countries, and it's good for them to come here.

It may not be good for you.

There's no possible argument we can make that it's somehow good for you to import, you know, 100,000 Somalis just to start with.

We can't make that argument.

Like, obviously, it's not good for it.

It doesn't, like, it benefits you, not at all, but you should put up with it.

And then they said, well, actually, we need you to affirm this as a positive good, as a wonderful thing.

And then they said, no, you know what?

Actually, we need you to celebrate it.

We need you to celebrate it.

Not just affirm, but celebrate it.

Celebrate multiculturalism.

Go around claiming diversity is our strength.

We've been at that stage for a while, and now here we are.

Here we are at the participation phase at long last.

Now they're saying, actually, we need you to participate

in our foreign culture that we're bringing into this country.

We need you to actually show up at the mosque and pay your respects.

That's where we are.

We didn't shut them down at tolerance, and now we're at participation.

And this is how it always goes and how it always will go

until we learn.

All right, let's see.

I guess we'll play this real quick.

Don Lemon still grasping for a shred of relevance on his show Nobody Watches.

This might have been on someone else's show that nobody watches.

Oh, this is the uh, it is.

This is the left hook with Wajahat Ali.

Talk about a show nobody watches.

The left hook is the name of the show.

You know, all of, I'm sure that's getting a,

this is a show that gets tens of downloads, tens and tens.

And anyway, here he is, Don Lemon.

And just listen to this.

Here it is.

Black people,

brown people of all stripes, whether you're an Indian American or a Mexican-American or whoever you are, go out.

in your place where you live and get a gun legally, get a license to carry legally.

Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn't that what the Second Amendment was written for?

Go back and read what the Second Amendment says.

And perhaps it will knock some sense in the head, in the heads of these people who are saying, well, it's all great.

I don't believe they're doing it without due process.

They're asking people for papers.

They're not really beating people up.

These people are doing things that are illegal.

Nobody is illegal.

It is a misdemeanor to cross the border.

Well, it's frustrating to listen to Don Lemon.

This is a time when we need the fish cam.

Just cut to the fish.

We can all,

you know, it is, it's like the Zen.

It's a moment to collect ourselves.

Things get a little heated on the show sometimes.

And so we just cut to the fish cam, calm down, and then we jump back into it.

And we're going to skip over the part at the end where he says that

nobody is illegal.

It's a misdemeanor.

Actually,

well, first of all, it's a misdemeanor on your first offense, just to be clear.

Many of these illegals have crossed the border multiple times, many times, and it's actually a felony on your second offense.

And so a lot of these illegals are multiple felons because they've crossed the border multiple times.

But whatever, that's not the point.

The first cross is a misdemeanor.

Well, guess what, Don?

Misdemeanors are illegal.

That's why we call them misdemeanors.

They're crimes.

What do you mean nobody is illegal?

It's a misdemeanor.

What do you mean it's not illegal?

It's a misdemeanor.

What?

Do you think misdemeanors are legal?

I mean, what do you think a misdemeanor is?

Do you think a misdemeanor is a legal infraction of the law?

Do you think a misdemeanor is when someone breaks the law legally?

Your honor, I broke the law.

Yes, I did break the law, but I did so legally, Your Honor.

So a misdemeanor, it's like kind of like when you get married, but you're still a bachelor, or when you build a house that's a circle, but also a square.

It's a paradox.

It's a contradiction in terms.

It's a mystery.

That's what a misdemeanor is.

No one can say for sure.

It's this ambiguous concept, and no one is sure what it means.

No, Donna.

A misdemeanor is illegal.

It's a crime.

You doofus.

I'm bringing that.

That's an insult we need to bring back into circulation, doofus, because it really applies to Don Lemon.

That's just the first.

Every time I see him, it's actually the first thing that pops into my head.

I don't know why it's fit.

There are a lot of insults that fit him really well.

Some we can say on camera and some we can't, but Doofus

is a good one.

And it just fits him, suits him well.

But anyway, that's not the point.

The point is that Don Lemon just explicitly encouraged people to go out and buy a gun and use it against federal law enforcement officers.

That is a crime.

Speaking of crimes, that's a crime.

And not a misdemeanor either, by the way.

Threatening government officials, and that's what this was unambiguously, is a felony, published, punishable, rather, publishable.

Well, it was published on that, but punishable by five years in prison.

And given that he was encouraging people to commit this crime

in order to avoid being arrested for committing another crime, then you could also say this is obstruction of justice.

I mean,

there's at least two felonies that Don Lemon just committed, at least two.

So he should be arrested today.

He committed a crime.

That's not free speech.

You have no right to say that.

You don't have a right to just say whatever you want, actually.

There are some things you don't have a right to say.

And one of those things is to tell people to go out and shoot and kill federal agents.

You don't have a right to say that.

You should go to jail.

You do go to jail, or that's the way the system is set up.

And that's why, by the way, the bit about the misdemeanor at the end is really important.

Because if not for that, right, he would have the quasi-defense where he could say, well, no, what I was saying is that we should use the Second Amendment to resist tyranny from the government.

And so if someone is coming to illegally seize an American citizen and throw them into Gitmo, you know, if the fascist Nazi Trump government or whatever is

imposing this illegal tyranny, then we need firearms to defend ourselves.

He could try, he could reach for that defense.

But not here because he admitted he was talking specifically about actual illegal aliens confronted by ICE agents who are carrying out the laws of the land.

You know, because he says, at first, he says, when you have people taking you away as a citizen, right?

So he does say that.

But then he immediately qualifies that by saying that nobody is illegal.

It's only a misdemeanor.

So when he says citizen, he's talking about illegal aliens, and he thinks that illegal aliens are citizens.

He just rejects the idea that anyone is not a citizen.

When he says citizen of America, he means literally anyone on the planet, because that's what he considers a citizen to be.

And so that means that

he was calling for violence

by illegal

foreign people in the United States against federal agents, and he should go to jail for that.

All right.

We do have a

kind of a longer daily cancellation I want to get to, but I don't want to skip over this.

You know, we've gone back and forth with reading comments on the show, and

we're going to settle on a rhythm now that I think think will work.

And I've never been quite sure what to do with the comment section, but now that we're here and we've got the fish cam and we've got the fish and it's just calmed me down a bit, made me see things clearly, I think what we're going to do is we're going to read one comment, the most interesting comment,

or at least the one that tees me up to talk about something that I want to talk about.

And we'll do this once a week.

We'll do it at the last show of the week.

And so here we are.

And so we've got several comments with the same theme.

And these are not the most interesting comments, but they do tee me up to talk about what I want to talk about, which I said is the other.

Either interesting and or it's just an excuse for me to talk about something I want to talk about.

So

let's see.

Herbert Knott Hoover says, well, now we have to know what these top 10 albums are.

Moria says, give us the albums, big bro.

Sweet baby Bartnick says, please give us your top 10 albums of all time.

Right.

So I mentioned like a week ago that, I think it was a week ago.

that despite what people may assume about me, I am not someone who hates all modern music or insists that they stop making real music in the 70s or whatever uh i think people would probably assume that's my they would assume that i either have that opinion or that i just don't listen to music at all and i think that all music is terrible um and that's actually not true i actually love music and my top albums my personal favorites are all from the past or mostly almost all from the past like 10 or 20 years uh so i'm a big uh fan of modern music i am an apologist for modern music i actually think that there's a lot of great modern modern music um

some of the best music has been made in the last 20 years i think some of the best movies have have been made in the last 20 years, too, by the way.

And so, some people have asked me to go ahead and give my list my top albums.

I'm told that the control room is also very interested in hearing this.

They may be the only ones interested.

It may be just them and me.

And so, you know, I don't know.

But regardless, I will provide my list.

We'll do that now.

And to be clear, this is not a list of the greatest albums of all time.

I'm not saying these are the greatest.

I'm saying these are my personal favorites.

That's it.

I also think they're good, obviously, but I'm not trying to make some kind of all-time list here.

these are just my go-to's my favorites and some of these are also kind of obscure so

i think if you're hoping for some kind of contrarian shocking take about albums you've heard of where you know i come out and say that actually my favorite albums are taylor swift and cardi b or something then you're going to be disappointed because that's not my take i'm just going to i'm just going to tell you so this is my uh i'll give you my top like

six, five or six in no order.

So first, I like southern rock.

I like country rock.

There's a southern rock band called the Drive-By Truckers,

and they're what I would consider to be like real country music, the kind of country that I like.

They have an album called Decoration Day, which is my favorite of theirs.

They also have another one called Brighter Than Creation's Dark that I might like.

I might like that one even more, depending on my mood.

Just good southern rock.

Now, they're also definitely a liberal, and I think they endorsed Biden in the last election.

Total libs for sure.

But look, if you're going to refuse to listen to any musician with progressive politics, then you've really ruled out like all of them, almost all the good ones, unfortunately.

So artists are crazy.

They're dumb.

They have dumb political, they're dumb about politics very often.

And so that's all kind of baked in the cake.

It is what it is.

Next, there's a Scottish, I told you these are kind of obscure.

And I'm not trying to be cool.

Like I'm not, I'm not trying to be cool by saying, oh, you know, all my favorites are stuff you've never heard of.

It's just, it is what it is.

So there's a Scottish indie rock band called Frightened Rabbit.

And

definitely not beating the hipster allegations with this, but it is what it is.

And anyway, Midnight Organ Fight is a great album.

There's a song on that album called Modern Leper that is fantastic.

One of my favorite bands of all time.

I like Scottish rock in general, Scottish alternative rock for some reason.

I just like it.

And I think they're the best of the bunch.

Then I would say, A little more well-known, Arcade Fire.

They have three classic albums.

Their new stuff kind of sucks.

I think they get a bad rap these days because they they because their new stuff isn't very good and also because they get blamed for spawning a bunch of really bad hipster copycats in the early 2000s and i think that that's unfair you know that's like blaming tarantino for all the bad tarantino rip-offs

can't blame him for that right so um

so their my favorite album of theirs is called neon bible suburbs and funeral are both also really good i think most people probably say funerals are best.

I don't know.

But

I like Neon Bible.

Next, I would go with, again, these are just my favorites.

White Lighter by the band Typhoon.

Typhoon is another indie rock band.

I like indie rock.

I don't know what to tell you.

I like indie rock and I like IPAs.

I do.

I'll listen to indie rock while I drink an IPA.

Okay?

So deal with it.

Just deal with it.

It's a good album.

I mean, it wrestles with some really deep, weighty themes like death, mortality,

but the sound is not bleak.

This is one of those bands that has like 12 members and they've got a horn section.

I like big bands with

lots of instruments.

And so they've got, there's this kind of tension between the lyrics, which are sometimes really kind of angry and

in some ways bleak, but the sound, which is really vibrant and kind of joyous.

And I think that's interesting.

And so I like bands like that.

And I also like,

and then I like artists.

I like the big bands like that.

And I also like if it's just a guy, an acoustic guitar and a harmonica.

So I like that sound as well.

And that brings me to my next one.

Maybe my least well-known pick,

or I don't know, but my favorite folk artist alive today, and I think the best songwriter alive today is a guy named Joe Pug.

And his album, actually, it's an EP called Nation of Heat, is one of my personal all-time favorites.

I love all his albums.

All of his stuff is fantastic.

Nation of Heat is the one I probably play the most.

He's got a song on that album called Him 101, which I think is one of the greatest folk songs of all time, period.

He's kind of the proper successor to Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, those guys.

His lyrics, especially on this album, are a little bit more enigmatic, but he writes poetry.

He's a poet.

He's an artist.

Nation of Heat is a masterpiece, I think.

And if there's one guy that you hear,

if there's one band or artist that, because of what I'm saying, you go look them up, I would say it should be this guy.

And then finally, one more.

So this is my top six, I think.

I think I'm on six.

I have one album not from this century, a personal favorite.

And I was thinking about this because as a 90s kid, I love 90s music.

And I'm a defender of 90s music.

I think that 90s music,

I actually think the first decade of the 2000s had better music, but I think that 90s music was really good, was great.

And I will go to the mat to say it was a better decade for music, certainly than the 80s and even than the 70s.

My personal favorite from that time, at least the one that holds up the most for me,

would be Counting Crows, August, and Everything After.

And I don't know how much of my enjoyment of that album is just pure nostalgia.

It could just be that.

If you don't have the nostalgic attachment to it, you've never heard the songs and you listen to it, I don't know what your experience will be.

But, you know, it's hard for me to separate the two.

And

Mr.

Jones, Rain King, Omaha, Murder of One, just

nothing but 90s hits.

Lyrics for Counting Crows in their heyday were nonsensical.

You listen to the song Mr.

Jones, it doesn't make any sense.

It makes no sense at all.

But it's vibes.

It's just pure vibes, really.

It's just it has a, it feels like, like the lyrics don't mean anything, but it kind of feels like something.

You kind of get what he's, you kind of understand what he's trying to convey because the song feels a certain way.

And

I like that.

So

those are my top.

I mean, there are others that

kind of honorable mentions.

You know, there's a couple different old crow medicine show albums, Bluegrass Band that I like.

I used to really like the Avett brothers.

I haven't liked any of their albums in the last 10 or 15 years, but

in the first decade of the 2000s, they put out some good stuff.

You know, and then there's other guys like Tyler Childers has definitely gone woke big time, but his album Purgatory is great.

Zach Bryan, I think he's got some good stuff.

He just put out an anti-ice song that was really cringe and embarrassing.

But again, just kind of like bluesy American folk.

I like bluesy American folk.

If you got a guy singing a folk song about his sorrows and his troubles and he's got an acoustic guitar and he's got the harmonica, I'll probably like it.

Like, I won't hate it.

I can listen to almost anything like that.

And then

most of the classic indie bands from the early 2000s I like, you know,

I can listen to still.

And there's some other 90s stuff.

You know,

some of it doesn't hold up for me.

I mean, even the one, like I would say that Nirvana Nevermind is probably the best album of the 90s.

I don't listen to that anymore.

I couldn't sit down and listen to a grunge album at the age of 39, but I respect it anyway, for at least artistically.

So, okay, there's my list.

There you have it for all those few who are interested.

It's no secret that things are getting expensive.

Buying a car and a house might feel permanently out of reach, and you've probably seen videos on social media telling you to just give up and blame the system.

But what if I told you that your American dream is not out of reach and you could achieve it faster than you originally thought?

That's where kickoff comes in.

You can start building your credit right now for just $1 your first month.

Just set up autopay and you'll never have to stress about missing a payment.

The whole thing only takes a few minutes to sign up from your phone.

No credit check, no hidden fees, no interest.

Users with credit under 600 grew an average of 84 points in their first year with on-time payments.

It's no wonder kickoff is the number one credit builder on the App Store with over 1 million users and hundreds of thousands of positive reviews.

You can't go wrong.

The American dream is not out of reach, but having good credit is a critical component to being able to buy a home or a car.

Fortunately, kickoff makes it so much easier to be able to build your credit.

Start building credit with Kickoff Today and get your first month for as little as $1.

It's 80% off the normal price.

And you go to kickoff.com/slash walsh.

That's kickoff without the C, get k-i-k-o-f-f dot com/slash walsh.

Must sign up via getkickoff.com slash walsh to activate offer.

Offer applies to new kickoff customers first month only, subject to approval.

Offer, subject to change, average first-year credit score impact of 84 points, Vanta score 3.0 between January 2023 and January 2024 for kickoff credit account users who started with a credit score below 600, who paid on time, who had no delinquencies or collections added to their credit profile during the period.

Late payments may negatively impact your credit score.

Individual results may vary.

Last night, we kicked off Decade two of the Daily Wire with the launch of our new show, Friendly Fire, and a lineup of major announcements, including the world premiere premiere trailer of the Pendragon cycle, which you can watch right now at dailywire.com.

Then we did something no one saw coming.

We announced Daily Wire lifetime memberships.

Only 10,000 will ever exist.

That's it.

10,000 members will have every all-access benefit for life.

In less than 24 hours, more than half have already been claimed.

This is your chance to stand with us for the next decade and beyond, become part of the backbone that builds the future and proves the best is yet to come.

Claim one of the remaining lifetime memberships and get your 14K gold forward flag pin reserved only for lifetime members at dailywire.com/slash lifetime.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

If you listen to this show, you know that I've been raising the alarm about AI for a while.

And I'm certainly far from the only one who has been talking about it.

AI is an incredibly impressive technology with a number of valid and useful applications, but it may also destroy civilization as we know it.

And I don't mean that in a terminator sense.

I'm not saying that AI will become sentient and enslave us, although we can't rule that out.

I mean in the sense that AI will wipe out millions of jobs virtually overnight, destroy every creative field, make it impossible to discern reality from fiction, turn 10 people into trillionaires while sending millions into poverty, and create a society of people who are even more isolated, antisocial, and incapable of human interaction and creating and maintaining human relationships.

You know, that's what I mean.

Like, that's what I mean by destroying civilization.

But not everybody shares these concerns.

There are some who insist that despite all the evidence to the contrary, this AI thing would really work out for the best.

And they can't explain why or how it would work out for the best.

They can't really dispute any of the contentions I just made, but they just believe fundamentally that somehow, some way, for some reason, AI will make our lives better, even as we can already see that AI is, as we speak, making it worse in some really significant ways.

They have blind faith in technology.

You know, a technological advancement must be good, ultimately, because it is a technological advancement.

That's what they believe.

And we'll get back to that point in a few moments.

But today, representing that point of view, we have Elizabeth Nolan Brown of the libertarian outlet Reason.

And she is here to defend not just AI in general, but specifically AI sex robots in an article titled, Sex Robots Are Here.

and It's Okay.

Now, she's apparently been on the sex robot beat for quite some time.

Defending sex robots is an issue near and dear to her heart for reasons that we can only wonder about.

And I'm going to read a somewhat sizable chunk of her article and maybe too much of it, but I have some thoughts I want to offer.

But we've got to kind of like, I need to get it all.

We need to get it all out.

We need to see everything that she's saying so that we can respond to it.

So

reading, quote, one of the first feature articles I wrote for Reason was about sex robots.

This was 2015, and both Legacy and social media had cyclical freakouts about the havoc that sex robots would supposedly wreak.

By sex robots, I and everyone else at the time meant anthropomorphic robots that were able to physically intimate, be physically intimate with humans and perhaps romantic too.

The gist of my piece was basically calm down.

Sex robots, as people are imagining them, don't actually exist.

They won't for a while.

And even if they eventually do, it's going to be okay.

Now, sex robots are here.

We're seeing the rise of artificially intelligent chatbot companions, and they're capable of both romance and naughty talk, from the G-rated to the pornographic.

This week, OpenAI founder Sam Altman even announced that an upcoming version of ChatGPT would not have more, would not only have more personality, but also engage in erotica with verified adults.

There are already all sorts of dedicated platforms for AI girlfriends and sex fantasy chatbots.

Meta has been under fire for allowing its chatbots to engage in romantic play that can get graphic even when those chatting say that they are teens.

And Elon Musk's AI bot Grock can go into sexy mode.

Okay, she then goes into some of the legislation that's been introduced to get a handle on this problem.

She writes, quote, an Ohio lawmaker, State Representative Thad Claggett

of Licking County.

I don't know, it's just a great name.

And

somehow,

I don't know, I don't know what to say about that.

Licking County.

Thad Claggett.

That is a great name.

I mean, if you got the last name Claggett, then you might as well name your kid Thad.

It's like you need it.

You can't have like a normal name with a last name Claggett.

Anyway, this is me talking out here.

Let's go back to her.

Has introduced legislation to ban marriages between humans and AI chatbots.

No AI system shall be recognized as a spouse, domestic partner, or hold any personal legal status analogous to marriage or a union with a human or another AI system, states House Bill 469.

This seems to be that nobody, absolutely no, this seems to be that nobody, absolutely no one meme come to life.

I mean, sure, people can say they're married to a chatbot, but no government authority is out there recognizing these partnerships as legal unions, nor are they about to.

This preemptive ban on human chatbot marriages smacks of attention seeking, if we're being charitable, or brainworms brought on by indulging in a little bit too much tech doomerism.

Meanwhile, Senator Josh Holly, who never met a new tech panic he couldn't embrace, is reportedly drafting a bill that would ban AI companions for minors, or Axios.

Okay, so that's the setup.

Now finally, we get to her rebuttal to all these laws and the concerns that her people are raising.

Quote, look, I don't think that AI chatbots should be designed to get explicit with people under the age of 18, but I also came of age in the AOL chatroom era.

I don't think teenagers engaging in a little sexually explicit chatting is anything new or anything to panic about.

And honestly, testing boundaries and exploring sexual themes with an AI chatbot is probably less problematic or dangerous for teenagers than sexting with school peers who may not keep the conversations private or internet strangers who could turn out to be sexual predators or extortionists.

In any event, making it a federal crime for AI chatbots to produce any sexual content while chatting with minors risks doing more harm than good.

It could bar chatbots from providing any sort of sexual health information to minors or offering any sort of education or advice related to sexuality.

And it would, of course, require anyone accessing any sort of AI chatbot that's allowed to talk about sex at all to prove their identity.

Now, she says that even AI sex robots will

probably only really become

the predominant form of sexual relationships for certain subsets of the population.

And that's her main contention, that it's not going to be widespread.

It will only be certain people that really even use this stuff.

Quoting, last quote from the article says, I'm not worried that chatbot relationships will, on a wide scale, overtake human romances or even that sexy chatbots will put human sex workers out of work.

Of course, everyone's different.

Not everyone places the same value on emotional connection.

And among those that do, the level of illusion of humanness provided by AI chatbots may be perfectly sufficient for some.

This minority of users may decide that sexy chatbots aren't just a sometimes fun distraction, but as good as or better than a human companion.

But it'll be a small minority and, regardless, heavy on people incapable or undesiring of sustaining a real relationship.

Okay, I just read way more of that article than I preferred to or maybe needed to, but I wanted you to hear the whole argument, such as it is.

She is following the same formula as everyone else who dismisses the concerns of those of us who don't want AI to take over our lives.

That's why I think it's worth considering her points in detail and considering how weak and self-contradictory they are.

So let's go back and review a few things.

First of all, she assures us that nobody is marrying AI, that no government is or will validate those marriages.

And on a broader level, she says with confidence that AI relationships will not become a thing at scale.

And if they really take hold, it will only be among certain small portions of the population, the misfits and the outcasts.

And to that, I would say, even if it's true,

Your plan then is to, what, just abandon the outcasts and relegate them entirely to, you know, a life devoid devoid of human love and connection?

You say only portions of the population, only the people who are already lonely and miserable will be doomed to this fate, and we're supposed to, what, just be okay with that?

What happens next?

When we have an entire subset of the population, which you've already admitted may and maybe perhaps likely will happen.

Entire subset who are isolated from human contact at a level and in a way previously unknown to mankind,

what then?

What happens to those people?

What kind of people do they become?

What effect does that have on society at large?

And what happens when those people start clamoring for social acceptance?

What happens when they start claiming that they have a human right to have their AI relationships recognized and validated by the state?

It won't be the first time that a small minority of social outcasts have launched a campaign for public and legal validation and approval.

And how did it work out the other times?

Who ultimately won that argument?

I mean, I remember a time when I was told that transgenders are a tiny minority with no relevance to the greater public.

And then I remember how a few years later, acceptance and affirmation of transgenderism was mandated by every powerful institution in the country.

But

Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason says that's not going to happen here.

Not going to happen.

Well, why won't it happen?

How does she know that?

This is what you get from the AI defenders.

It's just this.

It's like, yeah, it's not going to happen.

Come on.

That's their whole argument.

It's really just that.

You talk about, well, you know, this is where this is heading.

These are all the terrible things that are going to happen as a result.

That's not going to happen.

That is the whole argument.

Ah, come on.

Come on.

She just, she feels it.

She feels it in her her bones that it's not going to happen.

Well, the problem is that she admitted in the very first paragraph of this same article that she's already been wrong about this exact topic.

She says that in 2015, she wrote an article telling everyone to calm down about sex robots because they don't exist and won't for a while.

And then her next sentence is, now they're here.

Okay, well, turns out the people who warned about this problem in 2015 were right

and you were wrong.

I mean, you've started the article by telling us you were wrong about this precise topic.

And now here you are making the same argument that was already wrong.

She argues that, you know, sexting with a chatbot isn't any worse than the sexually charged AOL chat rooms that teens populated back in her day.

And it's true.

You know,

young people have been exposed to sexually explicit conversations and content online in huge numbers for the past 25 years at least.

She's right about that.

But the part she doesn't grasp, and that libertarians can never seem to get their heads around

when they say, oh, a version of this has been happening for a long time.

That's like their argument for everything.

This has already been happening.

Yes, a version of this has been happening for a while.

And it's been really bad the whole time.

Okay?

Young people in my generation were greatly harmed on a deep psychological, spiritual, eventually even physical level

by their exposure to this kind of thing.

Okay, so the libertarian constantly just waves his hand and says, oh, please, people have been warning about this forever and everything turned out fine.

I mean, I hear this argument all the time.

They constantly.

And they say that, and it's like, well, but everything didn't turn out fine.

What are you talking about?

The people issuing these warnings have been rights all along, every step of the way, on literally every point.

And you're too obtuse to see it or not honest enough to admit that you see it.

I mean, you get this too about,

you come up with a million examples, but

anytime you talk about,

if I talk about how people spent, it's like we're spending 15 hours a day looking at screens.

And the response I'll often get from these kinds of people is, oh, people said that about TVs back 30 years ago, 40 years ago.

You know, back 40 years ago, people were saying that people were all worried about TVs.

People were worried about how much TV everybody was watching.

Look how it turned out.

Well, yes, look how it turned out.

That's the point.

They were right.

People 40 years ago who said,

look at this, people are spending two hours a day staring at a screen.

This is really bad.

I mean, we're going to end up in a society where no one ever does anything but look at a screen.

We're going to end up in a society where people are living their entire life looking through a screen.

That was the argument 40 years ago.

They were right.

Okay?

So if I'm making an argument now that is

a spiritual successor of those arguments, that means I'm right, just like they were right.

What part of this is not getting through your thick skulls?

Whatever like

warnings have been issued about like modern technology over the last 100 years, 50 years, 100 years.

Almost all of it has turned out to be true.

So that doesn't mean that all the technology should have been destroyed.

It doesn't mean that all the technology is inherently bad.

It doesn't mean that

we shouldn't use it in some capacity.

But my only point is that pretty much, I can't even think of an argument made that was wrong.

I can't think of one.

It was all right.

But perhaps our weakest argument is that it's better for kids to sext with AI than with each other.

And even if that were true, that doesn't mean it's good and not extremely harmful for them to sext with AI, but it isn't true.

Okay, neither situation is good.

We should take steps to prevent both.

Do you really think it's better for kids to get involved in sexually explicit exchanges with AI algorithms?

created and run by trillion-dollar corporations?

You think that's a safer situation for kids?

Are you insane?

Have you lost your mind that you look at that and say, well, that seems safer?

Sure.

These freaking mysterious algorithms, no one even knows how they work.

The companies that make them won't tell us how they work.

We don't know what goes into them.

We don't know how they're programmed.

We don't know anything about them.

And I think it's safer for kids to

like at best, it's as bad.

At best.

The idea that it's safer is asinine.

I mean,

it's lunacy.

You are a lunatic.

Amazingly, Elizabeth claims that it's better because conversations with your peers, she says, may not remain private.

Elizabeth, do you think that conversations with AI are private?

Do you really not understand that literally everything you say to a chatbot is not private at all, in the slightest?

Do you not understand that?

That there is a log

that lives forever somewhere?

Okay.

Sexting with a chatbot is considerably less private than with a human.

Kids should not be doing either thing.

Serious, significant steps should be taken to prevent your kid from doing either, doing any of this.

They should not be doing any of it.

But the claim that it's less dangerous and exposes them to less harm to be involved in these kinds of relationships with algorithms is just asinine.

And it reveals a total lack of insight into any of the issues that she's writing about, not to mention human nature itself.

And that brings us to the last point, which was the first point.

The people who have this pathologically dismissive attitude towards the concerns about AI are really operating from a place not of reason.

despite the name of the publication, but of faith.

They have faith in the doctrine of human progress.

They have faith that technological advancements are always good, must never be impeded, much less prevented.

AI is good because it's more technologically advanced than what came before it.

And that was good because it was better than what was before that and on and on and on.

The idea that a technological advancement could be a net negative is impossible in their minds.

And in a certain sense, they're right.

In advancement,

by definition, is progress.

And progress by definition is positive change.

But the problem is that not everything we call an advancement actually is, because not everything we call progress actually is.

In fact, we have an entire party that defines itself as progressive and yet advocates the opposite, as we know.

So these members of the techno-religion have, I think, a simplistic and impoverished and materialistic and frankly really stupid view of what counts as an advancement.

To them, an advancement is any technology that is quicker, more efficient, and more powerful.

But I would say that an advancement, an advancement, a real advancement, okay, is anything that makes human life better.

And in some cases, quickness and efficiency and technological firepower does make human life better.

And in those cases, it qualifies as an advancement.

But there can be cases where a thing is quick, efficient, and powerful, and yet does not generally make our lives better, or

where it improves our lives in some respects, but degrades it in a much greater respect.

And in that case, to call it an advancement is a contradiction in terms.

You know, one of the newest pieces of technology on the market today

are suicide pods.

And these are coffin-like capsules where a person can enjoy euthanasia in a, we are told, clean and painless way.

And the suicide pods are certainly more powerful.

They're more technologically impressive.

They're quicker.

They're more efficient than the methods used in the past.

Does that make it an advancement?

Is this an advancement?

Has humankind advanced through the invention of the suicide pod?

No.

By making it easier for us to destroy ourselves, we have done the opposite of advance.

We have regressed.

Destruction is not advancement.

Death is not progress.

Okay, we would not look at a man who is in the free fall after jumping off of a hundred-story building and say that he's, oh, wow, he's really progressing.

Yeah, he's moving fast.

He's moving efficiently towards a goal, but the goal is to be splattered on the pavement.

And that is not progress.

That is not advancement.

That is not improvement.

And the same can be said of AI.

Yes, it is perhaps the most technologically impressive piece of tech that we've ever seen.

I mean, it's quicker, it's more efficient.

Yes, it is better than what came before it, but better at what?

Better at what?

It is better at doing what it is designed to do, which is replace human beings, replace our jobs, replace our creative output.

even replace our romantic relationships.

That is what it is so good at.

And indeed, it's better at that than any other technology that has ever existed.

And it's not close.

And that is exactly the problem.

And if the folks at reason can't see that,

well, then they are today.

Canceled.

All right, that was intense.

Cut back to the fish, Cam.

One last time.

There it is.

There's the fish with his one lonely fin.

The fish that's, this fish has seen it all.

That's why I relate to this fish so much.

You think that the lack of fins is some sort of flaw, some sort of,

you know, the guy who carved it made a mistake, but I connect with it.

I am in many ways like that

big chunky bass in the lake, swimming with only one fin, but still swimming nonetheless.

All right.

That'll do it for the show today.

We'll talk to you on Monday.

Have a great weekend.

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.

Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2025.