The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1501 - Daniel Penny Is Not Guilty. Justice Wins In Spite Of New York's Rigged Court System.

Episode Date: December 9, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, justice prevails against the odds in the Daniel Penny case, as he is finally acquitted on charges that never should have been brought in the first place. Plus, one of the most prominent "gender transition" doctors in the country is facing a major lawsuit—hopefully, many more to come. And another prominent far-left commentator is starting to suddenly warm up to Trump and conservatives. Why are all of these people having these mysterious conversion experiences? And how should we react?   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6   Ep.1501   - - -   DailyWire+:   Jeremy's Razors is becoming an Official Partner of UFC in January. Celebrate with us today by going to https://jeremysrazors.com now to get your own!   My hit documentary “Am I Racist?” is NOW AVAILABLE on DailyWire+! Head to https://amiracist.com to become a member today!   Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -   Today's Sponsors:   Good Ranchers - Exclusive offer for my listeners with promo code WALSH: https://www.goodranchers.com   PureTalk - Exclusive Discount for our listeners at: https://www.PureTalk.com/Walsh   Ramp - Now get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to https://www.ramp.com/WALSH   Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1 [phone] or visit https://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh   - - -   Socials:    Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF   Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA   Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA   Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection, featuring three perfum intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. Tate the Matt Wall Show, justice prevails against the odds in the Daniel Penny case as he is finally acquitted on charges that never should have been brought in the first place. Plus, one of the most prominent gender transition doctors in the country is facing a major lawsuit, hopefully many more to come. And another prominent far-left commentator is starting to suddenly warm up to Trump and conservatives.

Why are all these people having these mysterious conversion experiences and how should we react to them? We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. For anybody who doubts that we're winning the culture war, here's the proof. starting in January, Jeremy's Razors will become an official partner of UFC. That's right, the Daily Wire is stepping into the Octagon with the most dominant premier mixed martial arts organization in the world. More details coming up later in the show. The holiday season is about tradition, gathering with family, sharing meals together, and celebrating what makes America great. But let's face it, between packed grocery stores and uncertainty about where your meat comes from,

preparing that perfect holiday feast can feel more like a burden than a joy. That's why I trust Good Ranchers. They deliver 100% American meat right to your door. We're talking premium steakhouse quality cuts from American farmers with no antibiotics or hormones. In times like these, supporting American agriculture isn't just about getting the best quality. It's about preserving our values and our way of life. What really impresses me is how everything arrives pre-trimmed and individually vacuum sealed, no more discovering freezer burned meat or dealing with waste. And if you're looking for the perfect holiday gift, Good Ranchers offers an incredible selection of luxury gift box. from premium ribbyes to surf and turf packages. There's nothing quite like opening a box of American raised meat. Right now, when you subscribe to any Good Ranchers box and use Code Walsh, she'll get to pick a free gift that's included in every box for a year. Plus, $25 off your order and free express shipping. Head to GoodRanchers.com and use Code Walsh to claim this exclusive offer.

Good Ranchers.com American Meat delivered. We begin with the big breaking news today. In the trial, we've been following very closely on this show, Daniel Penny, The man who stepped up to protect a subway car full of passengers from a violent drug-addled vagrant has been found not guilty. So he is a free man. Justice has prevailed. In spite of all that was stacked against him in a trial that never should have happened,

Daniel Penny will walk free. He should be awarded the Medal of Freedom for the courage he showed on that train that day. And maybe with Trump coming in, that may still happen. But for now, he'll have to settle for, if not the Medal of Freedom, then Freedom. himself. Here's Newsmax, breaking the news. Watch. Emma, this information has just come down from the courtroom breaking news. Daniel Penny found not guilty on count two. Unanimously, the jurors decided he is not guilty of negligent homicide. This is the lesser charge that was against those two original charges against him.

The manslaughter charge in the second degree was dismissed on Friday. The jurors deliberating this morning. And have unanimously decided that Daniel Penny, is not guilty on count two. That is negligent homicide. It is a lesser charge, which did carry up to four years in prison, though there was no minimum sentence in this charge. I can hear behind me the protesters are beginning their chance. There are now police vehicles, sirens going off behind me. The energy in the air is very charged. We can expect the, I'm sure you can hear them behind me. The protesters beginning their chance after the jury came down with this verdict, ultimately not guilty. This case is not being thrown away. Daniel Penny is now

off the hook for these two charges that we're against him. We're going to be out here for the rest of the morning to see how this progresses, how the temperature on the street, what exactly happens outside this courthouse, how that progresses as well. As you can already hear the protesters beginning behind me. But Emma John, this is massive, huge breaking news in this case, Daniel Penny, not guilty of negligent homicide. The only charge, which was is now against him. So this is, of course, a major victory for justice, fairness, the rule of law. But we should not succumb to the temptation to just move on and let bygones be bygones

and forget about the injustice and persecution Penny suffered as if, you know, the not guilty verdict means there's no harm and no foul. Penny's acquittal is a credit to the jury, which ultimately made the right choice in spite of the media pressure and also the violent threats from the crazed mob of BLM protests. protesters outside and around the country. But justice is happening here in spite of the court system in New York, in spite of the corrupt far-left prosecutor and in spite of the judge. So let's go back and review what happened just in the last couple of days before this verdict was decided. Of course, as we've been following this, we've talked about all the corrupt crazy things that have happened

in this trial and before it. But we haven't talked about the most outrageous bit of maneuvering that happened because it happened on Friday and then let, and then we have the verdict this morning. There was an attempt, a rather desperate one at the last minute, to rig this trial once and for all against Penny. It failed, but we should remember it and we should talk about it. And before we do, I want you to remember back to the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse when one of the arguments we heard over and over again was that Rittenhouse had unlawfully carried a firearm across state lines. PolitiFact published a whole fact check asserting that it was false to claim that Rittenhouse had any legal right to possess his AR-15 in Kenosha. Don Lemon, meanwhile, claimed that Rittenhouse was a, quote, white teenager who crossed state lines with an AR-15-style rifle.

Joe Scarborough said, quote, he crossed state lines with an AR-15. Various members of Congress made the same claim, clearly implying that there was something sinister, even illegal, about Rittenhouse possessing and transporting his firearm. Now, ultimately, the entire narrative fell apart, and not just because Rittenhouse never actually crossed state lines within AR-15. Shortly before jury deliberations began in Rittenhouse's murder trial, the prosecution was forced to admit that under Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse had every legal right to possess his rifle. That's because the rifle barrel of Rittenhouse's AR-15 was longer than 16 inches, which is the

minimum barrel length that Wisconsin state law allowed. So with very little fanfare, after months of lying by the press, the judge dismissed the gun charge against Rittenhouse before the jury could ever consider it. Now, the reason I bring that up is because that's the normal procedure that occurs in a criminal trial before the judge sends the jury to deliberate. It's the kind of thing that happens when the judge is interested in a fair trial as the Rittenhouse judge was. Before the jury gets the case, there's an effort to make sure that the jury is considering a specific slate of charges that are well-founded in the law. You want to clarify exactly what charge is.

charges the defendant is facing prior to sending the jury away to deliberate. Otherwise, if you start removing or adding charges after deliberations have begun, then you risk confusing the jury and sending signals that are obviously unfair to the defendant. This is the kind of thing that fair prosecutors and fair judges just simply would never do. What happened in the Daniel Penny case on Friday, on the other hand, demonstrated once again that neither the judge nor the prosecutors were remotely concerned about basic principles of fairness. Now, fortunately, the jury apparently was, but the judge and prosecutor weren't. So after several days of deliberation in the Penny case, the jury announced on Friday that it was deadlocked on the second-degree manslaughter

charge, which requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny deliberately disregarded a serious risk of causing death to Jordan Neely, and that Penny did not act in self-defense. In response, the judge sent the jury back for some more deliberations to make sure that they were actually deadlocked. This is called an Allen charge or a dynamite charge. And it's normal in many jurisdictions when a jury says they can't reach a verdict, including in New York. The judge will send them back and say, you know, try again. And that part is normal. The idea is to remind jurors that it's important that they try to reach a unanimous verdict, if at all possible, without forcing them into finding one.

And then after receiving this Allen charge, the penny jury came back and confirmed that indeed they were deadlocked on the first count. They could not reach a verdict. The jury didn't return any verdict on the lesser included charge of criminally negligent homicide,

which requires that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny should have known he was posing some deadly risk to Jordan Neely, even if he didn't deliberately and consciously ignore that risk. It also requires that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny was not acting in self-defense. Now, at this point, the actually appropriate and lawful thing for the judge to do after they came back a second time is that we can't reach a verdict is to declare a mistrial.

That's why we have a mistrial. It's for these exact scenarios. That's what should happen when a jury repeatedly says they can't reach a verdict after deliberating for several days. and after the judge does his best to remind them of the importance of finding a verdict, any other result risks influencing the jury and suggesting that they should reach a certain outcome.

And it also happens to be inconsistent with New York law. But instead of declaring a mistrial on Friday, the judge, whose name is Maxwell Wiley, decided to do something that, by his own admission, doesn't have any precedent in his state. So he dismissed the manslaughter charge entirely. Again, after it had already gone to jury deliberate, the jury had been deliberating that charge for four days, dismissed that charge, and left the criminally negligent homicide

charge intact. And then he told jurors to come back for more deliberations on Monday, which is what they did this morning. But this again is what was happening on Friday. And watch. The judge has now dismissed the manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny after jurors came back a second to announce that they were indeed deadlocked. Now the jury will consider a lesser charge against Penny, who was charged in the subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely last year. I want to bring in criminal defense attorney, Mark Aglarsh. Mark, are you surprised that the jurors were not able to come to a unanimous decision on the more serious charge? No. When you bring politically based charges, that's what happens, meaning I think that prosecutors normally wouldn't bring a case like this,

dismissing his actions as one of mere negligence, but not criminal negligence. What outrages me candidly is that the judge is setting them back again to deliberate. Every jury, and I've been trying cases for 32 years, they're told if they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the main charge, consider the lesser charge. Well, they did. For four days and 18 hours, seven women, five men considered the main charge and then the lesser charge. Now sending them back, it almost implies that the judge is saying, all right, there may be something to this lesser charge. So go back there and consider it again.

Now, what's not captured in that CNN segment is that by the judges on admission, what he was doing in the penny case has no precedent. It's not just lawyers and CNN commentators who are saying this. As the judge put it himself, quote, I'll take a chance and grant the prosecution's application. Yes, the judge actually said that. He said he'll, take a chance and implement a novel application of criminal law by dismissing the manslaughter charge while retaining a lesser included offense. So basically, he's admitting that he's conducting a little legal experiment in the middle of a homicide trial. He's throwing out the established rules and effectively allowing the prosecution to change their strategy after jury deliberations

have already begun. Where the prosecution realizes it's not going their way. And so in the middle of deliberations, they want to completely change the way they approach it. Now, this was clearly a violation of Daniel Penny's constitutional rights. He has the right to be treated like every other criminal defendant under the due process clause of the Constitution. But the prosecution and a judge abandoned that principle for the most flagrantly political reasons imaginable. Instead of the jury getting an Allen charge, they're now being told to conduct a whole new set of deliberations with new rules. Now, to give you a sense of why this was such a significant ruling, take a look at the verdict form that the jury was considering.

Here it is. You can see it on the screen. It begins by stating that if the jurors find Daniel Penny guilty of manslaughter, then they're done. They don't have to consider the lesser included charge of criminally negligent homicide. Then the form goes on to state that, quote, if you find the defendant not guilty of count one manslaughter in second degree, for the reason that the people have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified, then you must not. consider count two criminally negligent homicide, and you must also find the defendant not guilty of that count. Now, the form continues, quote, if you find the defendant not guilty of count one, manslaughter in the second degree, for some reason, other than a lack of justification, then proceed to consider and render a verdict on count two, criminally negligent homicide. So what is, what this is saying is that if the jurors found that Penny was justified, enacted in self-defense to protect himself

or others on that subway car, then a not guilty verdict on the manslaughter. charge means that there also must be a not guilty verdict on the criminally negligent homicide charge. That's a pretty clear logical progression. Self-defense is a total defense on both charges, not just one of them. But now, very abruptly, the jury was being asked to throw out this whole logical progression. These instructions basically were revised after the fact. Now they're being asked to consider the charge for criminally negligent.

homicide in isolation from the other charge, which is the exact opposite of what they were told when they went into deliberation. Now, again, it's impossible to ignore the natural effect that this was meant to have on the jury. The message was very clear. The judge was essentially telling the jury to compromise and convict on something. He all but said to them, okay, if you don't want that one, then just do this one. Now, officially, the judge's reasoning was that in most other cases, there's a, quote, very clear difference between the primary charge and the lesser included charge, but he said that's not the case in this trial. So that's why he says he allowed the prosecution to dismiss one of the charges while keeping the other after the jury had already deliberated. This is a move that can politely be described as novel, as the defense attorneys put it. More accurately, it's a slight of hand that undermines the legitimacy of the entire criminal court system. But the state of New York is evidently willing to sacrifice the legitimacy of its judicial system, whatever's left of it anyway, in order to punish Daniel Penny by any means necessary. And yet they still failed because God is good and truth wins in the end.

Now, not that it really needs to be said, but the point of laws, especially criminal laws, is not to be novel. It's to establish rules that apply to everybody so that they can be enforced fairly without regard to politics. Once prosecutors start bending the rules and coming up with creative ways to imprison American citizens, it's clear they're not really concerned with justice. They are activists who want to punish their political enemies, and in New York, the judges are activists too. So they go along with it. You know, last week we talked about the prosecutor in this case, Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Daphna Yorin, just a few years ago.

She dramatically reduced descendants of a black man who brutally killed an Asian man during an ATM robbery because she said that she felt sorry for the trauma in his life. She didn't want to apply the law, which clearly applied to the assailant's conduct because she wanted to try out a novel concept

called restorative justice. In the penny case, this same prosecutor is using a novel approach for the opposite reason. she decided this time around to go out of her way to punish a defendant in a homicide case.

She employed every legal technicality in the book and some that aren't in the book to throw him in prison. In fact, that's the thing. She came up with new technicalities that have never been attempted before. And it's not hard to see why that is. Sure, Daniel Penny acted in self-defense,

unlike the ATM robber. Sure, Jordan Neely was a menace to society, unlike the professor who was murdered while he was just trying to withdraw money from the ATM. But also, unlike the ATM robber, Daniel Penny is white. And for that reason, and that reason alone, the jury in this case was forced to continue deliberations, even after they said they couldn't come up with a verdict. The judge and the prosecutors refused to drop the case long after it's clear that they're legally obligated to do so.

Now, ultimately, again, thankfully, they failed in their scheme. The whole thing backfired, actually. He's a massive backfired. Because now they can't retry Penny for the charge that was dismissed because they dismissed it after deliberations began. So double jeopardy protections apply. Obviously, they can't retry him on the charge that he was just acquitted of. So he's done.

They fail. They lost. And he's a free man. So ironically, if they just taken the mistrial last week, they could have kept trying to throw a penny in prison. But they gambled that this maneuver would result at least at a conviction on a lesser charge, and they'd still be able to throw a penny in prison for four years, and they'd still be able to ruin his life. And so they said, you know, okay, we'll take that instead.

That was the calculation. It didn't pay off. They failed. They tried to railroad him, and they failed. And we should never forget that. Daniel Penny surely won't. But for now, what matters most is that he won, justice won, and justice won in spite of the very people who are supposed to ensure that it wins. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcutory with no synthetic nitrates. Then go seafood. There's an abundance on sale at Whole Foods Market. where it's all sustainable while caught are responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie, and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heatheesh Lorraine, devil-deggs, and fresh-cut fruits to go.

Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. You've seen those big wireless carrier commercials everywhere, right? The ones promising a free iPhone. But let's just take a closer look at what free really means in the fine print. To qualify for that free foam, you'll need to trade in your current device, and not just any device, but one worth about a phone. $1,000. Then you've got to sign up for their premium unlimited plan at $100 monthly, and don't forget the sneaky $35 activation fee they tack on some free deal. It's starting to

look pretty expensive for something that's supposed to cost nothing. That's where Pure Talk, my cell phone company, comes in with a genuinely better option. Here's the deal. You can get a brand new iPhone 14. And yes, it has all the bells and whistles you actually need. Plus, unlimited talk, unlimited text, and generous 15 gigs of data and mobile hotspot capability. Total cost, just $50 a month. Think about all this for a second. You're getting everything you need for half the price

of what the big carriers charge. And here's the best part. They'll be running on America's most dependable 5G network so you're not sacrificing quality for savings. Here's what you got to do. Head over to puretalk.com slash walsh

today. Making the switch is surprisingly easy. And when you use that specific web address, you'll get an additional 50% off your first month. That's puretalk.com slash walsh, Pure Talk, America's Wireless Company. Let's talk about something that keeps business owners up at night, managing finances. If your current system feels about as useful as a chocolate teapot, I've got a solution

that'll make you wonder how you ever live without it. It's called Ramp. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software design to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Picture this. You give every employee a card, but you're in complete control. You can set tight limits and say goodbye to wasting your life to ciphering expense reports at months end. RAMP categorizes your expenses in real time and collects receipts automatically.

You'll be closing your books eight times faster. But Ramp isn't just about saving time. It's also about cold hard cash. The average business saves 5% in their first year with Ramp. Not to mention, Ramp is so easy to use. Get started in less than 50 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000. And now get $250 when you join Ramp. Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh.

RAMP.com slash Walsh. That's ramp. com slash Walsh. Cards issued by Sutton Bank member FDIC, Terms and Conditions Apply. I'll tell you one thing for sure is Daniel Penny. I'm sure I don't need to tell him this, but he better be on his way out of New York. I almost said he better be on the first train out of New York, but, you know, maybe not that. He better be on his way out of New York City.

Can't stay there. Come down to Tennessee, Mr. Penny. We will welcome you with open arms as a hero, which is what you are. But you just can't stay there. I am pleasantly beyond surprised, shocked actually, that I think it was a majority female jury in New York ultimately decided to acquit Daniel Penny on this. I'm shocked by that. And a little bit confused too,

because I don't know if they couldn't come up with a unanimous verdict on the first charge, how did they come up with a unanimous one on the second one? I don't know, okay? I think if I'm reading the tea leaves a little bit, because when they had the, when they went four days and they couldn't come up with a verdict, it was always kind of a question. I mean, it could have been split any which way, but in my mind, it seemed to me, if I was just to assume,

that either the whole jury wanted to convict, and there was one lone hero, you know, a 12 angry man, angry men sort of situation, there was one person standing up against the mob, or the whole jury wanted to acquit, and there was one that was, you know, insisting on guilty. And if I had to, again, just continue making perhaps totally baseless assumptions, But based on what just happened this morning, it seems like it was probably the latter, you know. If you had the majority of the jury against him on the top charge, it seems unlikely that suddenly they would acquit on the bottom. So if I had to guess, you know, probably the vast majority of the jury was wanted to acquit. There was one person, and there were one or two people holding out.

But then when the judge sent them back for another week of deliberations, those one or two people said, you know what, screw this. So I don't know. But that is, I guess the point is that, you know, you got to give New York a little bit of credit, at least the people of New York, a little bit, that they were, because that's the jury of his peers. And I thought that that meant he's probably screwed for that reason. But the system, you know, you still have to worry about the system. It's a corrupt system. And if you're Daniel Penny or if you're someone who, even if you're not Daniel Penny, if you are not a far left radical, you just, you can't live there.

It's too much risk. So, as I said, come on down. Come on down to Tennessee. All right. Daily Wire has this story. A doctor celebrated as America's best known practitioner of youth gender medicine is being sued for medical negligence by a former patient, a young girl who underwent a gender transition and now feels she was deeply betrayed. 20-year-old Kya Clementine Breen accuses Dr. Johanna Olson Kennedy

of fast-tracking her attempted gender transition, including puberty blockers, hormones, and a double mastectomy when she was a young teenager. Her lawyers argue that Olson Kennedy, the therapist, she referred Breen to. The surgeon who removed Breen's breasts and other medical professionals are all guilty of medical negligence for rushing bring through procedures that have deeply and negatively impacted her future. Clementine is a female who suffered from a complex, multifaceted array of mental health symptoms as a child and adolescent. The complaint states, she's also a survivor of multiple instances of sexual abuse as a child and adolescent, something that was never explored, addressed or discussed by defendants in the course

of their purported treatment. The lawsuit continues her presentation of symptoms and concerns included, among other things, anxiety, depression, autism, undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, potential bipolarism, as has been suggested by one of her psychiatrists, ongoing confusion regarding her gender and eventually psychosis, including audio and visual hallucinations, panic attacks, and paranoia. Her family has a lengthy history of mental health issues. She needed psychotherapy to evaluate, assess, and treat her complex comorbid mental health symptoms. But she didn't get that. Instead, she got fast-tracked, as the complaint says, to puberty blockers at the age of 12, cross-sex hormones, age 13, and gender-affirming surgery, so-called, at age 14. And now she's suing.

So this is a child, was a child, now she's, what did I say? She's 20 years old. this was a child who had myriad of mental health problems, including it says actual psychosis to the level of suffering hallucinations. And some of that, I'm sure, stems from apparently, as the complaint says, that she was sexually abused as a child. And you've got someone, a child coming to you, with that history and those problems,

and your answer is let's start performing medical procedures and giving her drugs that will permanently alter her body, damage her body permanently. I mean, it's just, it is obviously barbaric, and this is what needs to happen, as I've been saying for years, what needs to happen to finally topple this industry is the law, you know, it ends with a lawsuit.

It's big lawsuits, devastating lawsuits for the gender transition industry. And now it looks like that phase is finally beginning. And look, there isn't much for me to, you know, add to this. You already know what my take is, obviously. Yes, this woman, this girl, this child at the time, was horrifically exploited and abused by many adults in her life. But in particular, by Johanna Olson Kennedy, this quack, this Dr. Frankenstein. She deserves to be driven into bankruptcy by lawsuits. In a perfectly just world, she would be left homeless living in a freaking box on the side of the road.

Okay, totally bankrupted and disgraced. And then you'd throw it in prison. That's what I'd like. I'd like make her homeless for a couple of years just so we can enjoy the sight of that and then throw her in prison for the rest of her disgusting life. That's the way it should go. But notice the ages here. Okay, they still try to claim that children aren't getting gender, the surgeries. That's what the transactant, they'll still say this.

They'll say that the surgeries, that's not happening. And even if it were true that that isn't happening, it wouldn't change the, you know, it wouldn't change anything because kids would still be getting drugs that are chemically castrating them, chemically sterilizing them, and through chemicals are. are permanently damaging their bodies. So whether the permanent damage is happening by a scalpel or by injections, there's no real difference there. It's barbaric and hideous and wrong either way. But as it happens, they, in fact, are using all of those things, right? They're using injections, pills, and the scalpel. They're using everything. And so when they say that children aren't getting

these so-called gender transition surgeries, that claim rests on the assumption that double mastectomies somehow don't count as surgery. Physically removing healthy body parts is not surgery somehow. That's the level of gaslighting that we're at now. Because double mastectomies are happening and have happened to many children. This girl was 14 years old, 14, 14 years old. 14 years old. when they removed her breasts. It's indefensible, and this goes back to why I've been calling for the federal ban on gender transitions for minors, because it's the right thing it needs to happen, and also because on top of all that, politically, total win-win. I want to see elected Democrats, mainstream Democrats, be forced to come out and explain to the American people

why it's okay to give a cosmetic double mastectomy to a 14-year-old girl. You come out and tell us that. You explain that. Go ahead. We'll give you the floor. We'll give you as much time as you need. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead and explain it. Forced them to do it. Forced them to do it. to defend it and because they can't. All right. Of course, the big story, we've talked about some of the big stories here at home, but internationally, NBC News has this.

The Assad's family's decades-long reign in Syria came to an abrupt end on Sunday when rebel forces captured Damascus after a stunning lightning strike route across the country. Hassan Abdul-Ghani, senior commander of the militant group, Hyatt Terrier al-Sham, HTS will call them, claimed victory for the rebel forces that stormed across Syria in a matter of days and entered Damascus overnight. Videos circulating on social media and verified by NBC News appeared to show Syrians celebrating

across Damascus overnight and into the day as crowds honked horns, weighed flags, and fired their guns into the air while others posed for selfies standing on top of a tank. So, you know, you guys know, I don't spend a lot of time talking about foreign policy stuff, not my bag, not my area of interest. I focus on America, almost exclusively. When it comes to foreign policy, you know, if I do have to comment on it, I like to keep it simple, because I'm a simple man. And in fact, even when issues related to the home front, I also, I tend to keep it simple. I tend to look at things in a very simple way. And I think most issues are made unnecessarily complicated.

And we like to pretend like there aren't just some basic principles we can apply. And so for me, when I hear about another Mideast dictator getting deposed and everyone's celebrating and our media is celebrating, well, number one, that's red flag number one. no matter what the issue is, whatever happened, if you know nothing about it and you look and you say, oh, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, they all think it's good, it's probably at least not as good as what they're claiming. So you already kind of know that. So that should make you skeptical. But whenever I see this, I always think, is there any reason to believe that this will lead to a better situation? And when I say better situation, I mean primarily, the type of situation I'm worried about, which is, will America be safer with whatever comes next?

So you got rid of the guy. We've seen this play out a million times. You get rid of the guy. It's a bad guy. Everyone says, terrible guy. Okay. But what happens next? And is that better?

Because if it's not better, then why would we be happy? And I think in this case, when Islamic rebels are taking over a country, recent history and also not so recent history, very clearly shows that the answer is no. It's not better. I can't think of a case when it has been. I can't think of a case when Islamic rebels took over a country and things worked out better than they were before. Now, I'm sure Assad is a bad guy. I'm sure he's not a pleasant person. but I absolutely do not believe that Syria will be in a better position with Islamic rebels controlling the country. And more importantly, I don't think it makes America safe or puts us in a better position. Also importantly, there is a community of Christians, as some people have been pointing out on social media, there's a community of Christians living in Syria. And they're living

there now. I mean, they're living there now. And what does that tell you? It means that they that, well, they were able to live there under Assad. What happens to the Christian community under this new Islamic rebel regime? I think we all know. I think in six months, there will be no Christian community left, and it's going to be because they fled or they were killed before they were able to flee. Because we've also seen that. We've seen that play out many times in the past. We've seen that movie before. So this would seem to clearly be bad for Christians. in Syria, probably worse for America because it puts terrorist forces in charge, which means

it's a net loss. It's a net negative. Those are really the only two things that I am looking at that I care about. And if it's not better on those two fronts, if it leads to more Christian persecution and it puts America in a more destabilized position, there's really nothing else you could point to say, yeah, but this. over here is better. Well, yeah, I don't care about that. That's, that's all, that's at best third on the list. Um, so I'm not particularly celebrating. Okay, what else do we have here? This is an

important one. Maybe not important, but it is, it is, this is a video that just went, it went viral last week, even though I think it's, I think it's from this summer. And for some reason, we're just finding out about it now. So here we see, uh, is a 72-year-old man named Dennis Wynn, who's an American icon, he's a legend. Not to Daniel Penny level, but still, he's, and I don't know anything about him. I'm just saying he's a legend because of what we're about to show you. So here he is getting arrested in Florida

for shooting at apparently a Walmart drone that was flying above his house. And so there's two issues here. One is just, it's hilarious how he handles this situation. But also there is the kind of important issue of what are we supposed to do by the fact that the sky is full of drones now and you've got Walmart flying drones around right above your house. Like, do you not have the right to defend your privacy against this, you know, thing? You don't even know what it is. So we'll talk about that.

But here's how Dennis handles it when the cops show up at his house. Watch. At some point today, did a drone fly over your house and you shoot at it? I'm going to be real glad with you and ask. Yeah. You did? Yeah. Okay, why'd shoot at it? Because I thought it was somebody

and turned around playing games on my house. I got you. Where did you see the drone at? Very well, me. How is your trouble on my end? Quite a bit. You've been honest with me? I'm going to be honest with you. Quite a bit, actually. So there's a federal charge that goes along with it.

There's a felony charge that goes along with it. That's kind of like where we're at. Okay. Okay. What happens and what happens and what? Well, Before we continue this conversation, I'm really just, thank you for you being honest, you really just took me off guard. I'm not going to do. I'm not going to do. I'm going to lie.

True. All right, sir. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say again? You're up putting me under arrest. I'm just going to arrange you the Miranda warning just so I can get it out. That way you can continue our conversation, okay? I understand a Miranda warning. I don't have to speak to you unless I want an attorney. Okay. I got you. Let me just read you this real quick and then we'll go from there, okay? Waves are off and everything. Never left. I went inside, went into the safe, got the weapon, came out, tried to shoot it off again. It didn't move.

I fired one round at it. Now, they say I hit it, so I must be a good shot. Want a coffee in the front? Whatever it's come, whatever you need to do by protocol. We've been fine. There's no issues. We're not, you know. I don't know if it's too tired, right?

Yeah. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. So in case he missed it at the end, he starts joking that he can't breathe. He's lucky he was getting arrested in Florida because if he did that like in California and New York, they would charge him with another crime just for making fun of George Floyd. They'd make up a crime on the spot, besmirching the good name of George Floyd in the first degree. Sir, that's 15 years you're looking at now.

Maybe charge him under, you know, blasphemy laws or something. But so this guy is obviously a legend and it turns out that he was ultimately charged with multiple crimes, including federal crimes for shooting at an aircraft because a drone counts as an aircraft. So this should be on the federal charge. I think there was a law. There was state and federal charges, but this should be a day one pardon for Trump on the federal charge. And Trump should also move to change the law that classifies a drone as an aircraft because at least to make. some distinctions in the law. I mean, it is an aircraft. But when they wrote the law saying that you can't shoot at an aircraft, I think they probably had in mind people shooting at airplanes. You know,

when there are people inside those airplanes, this was a small little robot from Walmart. And I personally think it should be legal as shoot at drones flying above your house. Certainly shouldn't be a federal crime, that's for sure. And by the way, even if it is a federal crime, you should still just give this guy a slap on the wrist, you know, like a $100 fine or something. I mean, I wouldn't give him anything. I wouldn't give him any fine, but I would just shake his hand and, you know, that would be it. But if you feel like you have to do something, give him $100 fine, whatever you feel like you have to do, and send him on his way. This is the kind of guy that courts should go lenient on. Okay, there's a lot of people getting lenient treatment

in the court system all across the country. I tend to be. law and order I tend to be about throw the book at somebody. But not always. There are times when even I would say, okay, that's someone that, okay, even if they committed a crime, we don't have to, we don't have to throw the book at that person. And this is a perfect example of a time when you go easy on someone. Why? A elderly man, probably no criminal record. I don't, you know, I haven't seen one way or another, but I'm assuming probably not a criminal record, not a danger to his community, you know, good-natured guy, good neighbor. I'm sure all of his, if you ask his neighbors, they probably all love him.

They all think he's a great guy. So it's the kind of guy that you have compassion for in the court system. You know, you're not making the community safer by throwing that guy in jail, okay? But going back to the drone for a moment, there are some really interesting legal questions here and some additional changes to the law that should be made. because the question of whether we can shoot at drones above our house really goes back to the question of who owns the airspace, right, above your head when you're in your backyard or in your front yard.

And I believe, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that what's been typically determined and interpreted by the courts is that you do own the airspace above your house to a point. Now, your ownership does not extend eternally into the sky, which makes sense, but it typically is understood to go, I think, like 500 feet, especially in a residential neighborhood.

Don't quote me on that. Don't go shooting at drones, you know, above that, and then say, because I told you to. You got to look, you got to Google it, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is. But again, I think these laws have mostly been written with airplanes and helicopters in mind. The point is that an airplane flying at 30,000 feet above your

house is not trespassing, obviously, but drones are a whole different deal. Because now we have aircraft that could fly 600 feet above your house and actually be intruding on your privacy. And when you see a drone, you don't know what the drone is there for or what they're doing. Obviously, drones all have cameras. You don't know what is. It could be Walmart. It could be some pervert down the street with a drone with a camera on it, you know, looking in your bedroom window. So, and even if it is Walmart, what right does Walmart have to the airspace above your house? Why should they have any right to it? So, and plus, it's a lot of fun to shoot at drones.

I'm betting. I'm not saying I've done it, but it's also a lot of fun. Great, great opportunity for some target practice. I don't know if you can write that into the law necessarily, but I don't know. I do think there's a leak. So I think there's a legal case for this guy, but mainly the case is the guy's awesome. So let's just cut him some slack. Let's talk about something that affects all of those taxes. The October 15th deadline is passed, and if you're not prepared, you could be in for a world of hurt. Do you owe back taxes

are your returns still unfiled? Did you miss the deadline to file for an extension? Well, now that we're past October 15th, the IRS is probably gearing up for some aggressive enforcement. And trust me, you don't want to be on their radar. We're talking wage garnisements, frozen bank accounts, or even property seizures. It's not pretty folks, but before you start panicking, they're still hoped. Tax Network USA has helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt and filed over 10,000 tax returns. These guys specialize in reducing tax burdens for hardworking Americans like you.

Look, I get it. Dealing with the IRS about as fun as a root canal, but ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So here's what you got to do. Don't wait any longer for a complimentary consultation. Call today at 1-800-958-1,000, or visit their website at tnusa.com. slash waltz. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you can save. That again is 1,800-958-1,000, or visit tnusa.com slash walsh today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with Tax Network USA. The tide is finally turning.

More corporations are finally growing a spine and abandoning woke ideology, but the daily war has been leading the fight on this from day one. Now we're taking it to another level. We are proud to announce that Jeremy's Razors is an official partner of UFC starting January 1st, 2025. Yes, that means Jeremy's Razors will be in the Octagon on Dana White's Contender Series and the Ultimate Fighter. Want to know what makes this perfect? Well, Dana White, a man who actually understands what masculinity means, was one of our first customers. So now we're partnering with the most unapologetically fearless brand in sports, the UFC. This is more than a partnership.

This is the next step in our fight. And we're just getting started. Celebrate with us today by going to Jeremy's Raisers. Rosers.com now to get your Jeremy's razors. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. In recent months, especially since Trump's win, but even before that, we've seen some well-known figures on the left move to the right. Now, although in basically every case, they'll deny that they're moving to the right. Instead, they'll say something like the left, left me, which always turns out to be at most only partially true, but also partially their

way of not having to actually admit that they were wrong about something. So you probably remember Mika and Joe on Morning Joe, solemnly explaining their decision to go to Mara Lago and meet with Donald Trump. They said that they agreed to restart communications with Trump and find common ground in order to heal our national divides and put an end to political warfare. Watch. What we did agree on was to restart communications. My father often spoke with world leaders with whom he and the United States profoundly disagreed. That's a task shared by reporters and commentators alike. We had not spoken to President Trump since March of 2020, other than a personal call,

Joe made to Trump on the morning after the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania. In this meeting, President Trump was tearful. He was upbeat. He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats. Democrats on some of the most divisive issues. And for those asking why we would go speak to the President-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't we? Five years of political warfare has deeply divided Washington and the country. We have been as clear as we know how in expressing our deep concerns about President Trump's actions

and words in the coarsening of public debate. for nearly 80 million Americans, election denialism, public trials, and January 6th were not as important as the issues that moved them to send Donald Trump back to the White House with their vote. Joe and I realize it's time to do something different, and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump, but also talking with him. So they talk about this meeting as if it was Lee and Grant, at Appomattox or something. In reality, it doesn't actually matter whether Morning Joe gets along with Trump or not. They have zero impact on the country either way. But in any case, before,

you know, that was still them sort of moderating a bit. And before Morning Joe's big kumbaya moment, there were other examples of this sort of thing. Anna Kasparian of the young Turks had been making the rounds for months, criticizing the left for its excesses. Of course, somebody like Bill Maher has been doing the same thing for much longer. And there are several other examples of this kind of thing. And these are all different people and different cases that shouldn't necessarily all be thrown into the same basket. But I do have some concerns about this now familiar routine of leftists seeing the light or sort of seeing it and then being immediately embraced by many on the right, even celebrated and amplified as voices of reason. And I think the best of the best of

best way to explain my concerns is to point to another one of these newly minted voices of reason. This one also comes to us courtesy of the Young Turks. In fact, it is the creator of the show, Jank Yugar. Now, Jank has been a passionate, some would say vicious, unhinged, hysterical, critic of Trump and MAGA and conservatives generally for many, many years. And yet two weeks ago, he tweeted that he is now somehow feeling optimistic after the guy he despised and the movement he has opposed with his whole heart and soul just won. He wrote, quote, I've been trying to figure out why I'm more optimistic now than I was before the election, even though I was so against the guy who won. I know now. Maga is not my mortal enemy, and neither is the extreme left.

My mortal enemy is the establishment, and they have been defeated. Now, despite being a far left commentator who has demonized conservatives for literally decades, he now says that MAGA is not his enemy. The establishment is his enemy. In other tweets and comments, he's called for unity between the two sides. He's criticized the extreme left, or as he now apparently calls them, the max left, and has assured us that if the folks on both sides can unite against the villainous establishment, we will be invincible. Last week, he appeared on the PBD podcast to explain this new approach, he won't really admit is a new approach, but even so, here you go. Here's what my left wing friends don't understand.

They think you guys are all MAGA, and MAGA means it's a cult, and you're never going to disagree with Trump, you're never going to disagree with each other, and that you are like their father's Republicans, but you're not their father's Republicans. And so our side, I've been trying to get them to realize that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, all these folks that take the money, they're not on your side. They're on the establishment side, right?

And guys, today, I think that, you know, we could do something historic. I think that we could actually unite the left flank and the right flank. And I've got a model for how to do that. And I want to run it by you guys. Before, when I battled the right wing, it was a wall, right? I'm just like, we're all, nobody's listening to one another. They're just doing talking points. I hated it.

And then MAGA looked like they were 100%. I'll be honest. I mean, in 2020, I was super pissed. And I said, you know, look, I don't want to talk to Trump supporters. All I hear is the same thing, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, and they never wavered. So what I'm saying to the left now is, no, I'm seeing something new and different here. The MAGA base has changed. Okay.

That doesn't mean they don't like Trump. It doesn't mean that they're not right wing. but there is a significant portion of the MAGA base now that is, in my opinion, right-wing populists who are actually anti-establishment, actually anti-corruption, actually anti-war. And what I'm trying to tell the left is, take the win, take the win. We've been standing a poster here for 20 years trying to cut the Pentagon, trying to be anti-war, getting money out of politics. If people say yes, for God's sake, that's our lost tribe.

Those are our right-wing brother and sisters who are Americans, who are populists, who agree with us. Let's go fight the establishment together because if we're united, they cannot stop us. Brothers and sisters. Very nice, very nice sentiment. Jenks says that he has a plan. In fact, he said in the neighborhood he had a plan to unite us all. He's all about unity. And he says that the MAGA base has changed.

Now it is actually anti-establishment, anti-correct. and anti-war. But, you know, there's some rather significant problems here. And the first and most obvious is that the MAGA base has always been anti-establishment, anti-corruption, and anti-war. Those have been by far the defining features of the base from day one. But Jenk pretends that this was only a recent development, so that, again, he can avoid actually admitting that he was wrong.

In fact, he goes further. He takes credit. He pretends that the MAGA base has come to him, that this is. This is a left-wing win, basically. But the other problem, and it's a big one, is that Jenk extends this olive branch to Trump's supporters and praises them for their stand against corruption and war. But here's what he was saying about Donald Trump as recently as last October. He's a dictator. He's a fascist. That's not hyperbole.

And here, I'll upset a bunch of people on the left. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are not fascists. They're terrible people for other reasons. But they've never done a coup against America. They don't use direct Nazi quotes that Trump does. The only fascist that is an actual threat to democracy is Donald J. Trump. He already tried to end this democracy once. And guys, last thing.

The other day, he said, immigrants are poisoning the blood of our nation. That quote has only been used by Adolf Hitler and Donald J. Trump. So he's telling you ahead of time, I'm a Nazi. It's not like I didn't warn you. I used absurd Hitler quotes. I pulled them out of history and I said them for no reason just to let you know I am a Nazi. All right, by the way, that was a interview that Jank did when he was running for president because apparently he ran for president.

Now, I follow politics for a living. I literally never heard that he ran for president. Not once did that news cross my radar. So, in other words, the run did not go very well, I think, is you may be surprised to learn. So anyway, let me see if I understand this correctly. Trump is a fascist Nazi dictator, and yet his win makes you optimist. for the country and the supporters of the fascist Nazi dictator are not your enemies? They're your brothers and sisters? Is that it, Jank? You're optimistic that Hitler himself was elected?

And you want to unite with Hitler's supporters? You want to unite with literal actual Nazis? So what are you coming out as a Nazi sympathizer? Is that what's happening? Now, you might say that I'm not being very charitable. Now, after all, that was a year ago. Now, granted, I could probably find about 300 examples of Jank calling Trump Hitler in the last two months, but I didn't feel like spending that long watching Jank clips on YouTube, so this is the one we're going with. Maybe there aren't any clips more recent than that. I don't know. Maybe Jank had headed this conversion experience and became a reasonable moderate right after that segment was recorded. Maybe he's been a reasonable person for a whole year.

Now, that would mean he spent 53 years of life as a left-wind crackpot and one year as a rational human being. That's good enough, isn't it? Why should we listen to him and embrace him as a thought leader? Okay, so let's not reach all the way back into the ancient past of 14 months ago. What if we went back three days or one day before that interview with PBD that we saw earlier at the beginning. Three days ago, Jank was on his show condemning me for the speech that I gave at the do-no-harm rally outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Now, in this speech, I condemn the abuse of children and the ideology that promotes it. I say that this ideology must be entirely defeated.

I use the word erase in direct reference to the ideology, not to the people, but to the ideology. And I say that about the ideology because it is an ideology that rejects basic reality and promotes and carries out the horrific medical abuse of children. Jank didn't much like what I said. It didn't make him feel very unified, apparently. I don't think I'm one of these brothers and sisters of his, it turns out. Watch. So in this case, the ACLU lawyer you're talking about.

I love that the brother set history there and is the first trans person to argue in the Supreme Court. That's a great day in America. Just another stepstone in equality, right? Now, at the same time, he was on TV the other day saying two-year-olds know if they're trans. And I'm like, that's nuts, totally nuts. Two-year-olds don't know anything. Two-year-olds often don't know their names.

How do they know if they're trans and ready for hormones? Are you nuts? So I don't agree with him on that at all. I don't know why he would say such an absurd thing, right? Okay, now let's go to the max right in the clip we just showed you. Far, far, far worse. Talking about what? they're not going to stop until trans ideologies entirely erased from the earth.

Now, when you talk with that kind of language, what do you think that trans people are going to think? It sounds like you're trying to wipe them off the face of the earth. Like, don't tell me that this is just about, hey, a disagreement about puberty blockers. Because we're about to have that conversation. That's not the conversation you're having. You and Marjorie Taylor Green, when you say it's satanic, are having a conversation about how we should all. hate trans people and we should wipe them out. And so if you say, oh, no, no, he has plausible deniability because he didn't say trans people.

He said ideology. Okay, shoe on the other foot. Let's try. Oh, yeah, the left is not going to stop until Christian ideology is entirely erased from the earth. Does that sound good? You like that one? Until white ideologies wipe from the earth. Does that sound good?

No, it doesn't sound good. It sounds terrible. Why does it sound terrible? because you're obviously attacking that group. Okay, and you're hiding behind one word pretending that you don't mean to. But you're not even hiding anymore. Like Marjorie Taylor Green is saying trans people are satanic. So, I mean, how is that not deeply, deeply hateful?

So right wing, if you want us to have a reasonable conversation in this country, I'm not going to have conversations with the Max Wright who are lunatics on this. Okay, well, it's fine because no one's trying to have a conversation with you in the first place, Jank, that's not, if you keep back like this, I'm not going to talk to you, okay? That's fine. I'm fine with that. Deal. So Jank begins right off the bat by affirming that the female ACLU lawyer is a man. He said he disagrees with the lawyer about transing two-year-olds, but then declares that what I said is far, far worse. My opinion about an ideology is worse than physically castrating a two-year-old.

That's what he just said. Then, Jank wants to know how I would feel if he said that Christian ideology should be erased or white ideology should be erased. Well, I'm happy to answer that for you. So, if you said that white ideology should be erased, I would be opposed to that idea because I would have to assume

that you meant that you wanted to erase white people. I know you're going to say, oh, see, there, I got you. No, but that's because, Jank, white ideologies. isn't a thing. It doesn't exist. There is no ideology shared by white people across the whole world. If you made that statement, you could only mean that you want to erase white people because there is no such thing as white ideology. Now, there is, obviously, such a thing as trans ideology. That is an actual thing. It's the ideology that Jank himself mildly disagrees with by saying that he wouldn't want to trans a toddler. As for a race in Christian ideology, I would strongly disagree with that statement because Christian ideology or Christian teaching, which is what I would take that statement to mean, which, and by the way, if you wanted to switch it over and say trans, rather than trans ideology, trans teaching, we could call it that too, okay? But when it comes to Christian teaching, Christian ideology, it's a positive force in the world. It has done immeasurable good for mankind. It has shaped Western civilization.

for the better. So not all ideologies are created equal. So there are things you could say about one ideology. And if you say it about that ideology, it's a fair thing to say, whereas if you said it about another one, it would not be fair. How could that be true? Well, because not all ideologies are the same. And on that point, I've got a question for you, Jake. What have I said that white supremacist ideology should be erased? Would you object to that? Would you accuse me? Would you accuse me of calling for a genocide against white people? No, you wouldn't. In fact, you would wholeheartedly agree. That's because you understand the distinction between people and ideologies. You understand that obviously your fundamental goal when you oppose an ideology is for it to eventually no longer

exist. If you think an ideology is evil, if you think it does nothing but harm, if you think it hurts people, then you want it to be gone, to no longer exist, to be erased, not by killing the people who profess the ideology, which would be not only wrong, but also, as history shows, a very ineffective way of actually erasing an ideology anyway. Instead, you want to rid the world of it by exposing it and defeating it and discrediting the ideas that it espouses. This is a distinction that I know you're smart enough to understand, but you pretend you don't in this case, because you actually agree with trans ideology. That's the problem.

You don't have a problem with the way I oppose it, but rather with the fact that I do, which I know because you start by fundamentally agreeing with the ideology when you affirm the manhood of somebody who is 100% female. Now, Jenks says that I'm a lunatic on the trans issue. Even though I have been right about the issue for 10 years, while he's just now coming around to mildly criticizing some of the excesses of this, what he perceives to be excesses of this ideology.

But even if his criticisms are weak and tentative and toothless, which they are, he is still inching ever so slightly in my direction. I have not come his direction even one centimeter. He is cautiously tiptoeing towards me on this topic while still condemning me as a lunatic on the same topic. Now, the case of Jank Yugar's non-conversion conversion perfectly illustrates all of the reasons why conservatives must take these sorts of people with a giant, boulder-sized chunk of salt. Now, it's, of course, possible that somebody who was once an extreme leftist might actually

see the light. When that happens, we should embrace them with open arms and generous spirits. But if it's genuine, we should see on their part some amount of remorse. they should be willing to admit they were wrong. They should apologize to the people on our side who they have unfairly demeaned and slandered and villainized. If all of that happens, then I'll be the first to shake their hand

and welcome the prodigal son as he returns. Yet even in that case, I would not immediately take that person and put them on stage and listen to their ideas like their thought leaders of a movement they just joined 80 seconds ago. If you've been wrong about everything forever and have now changed your mind, I'm glad you changed your mind.

But you certainly have less insight, less wisdom, and less to offer intellectually than people who have not spent their entire adult lives on the wrong side of literally every issue. So you as the person crossing over should recognize that and have humility and be willing to take a back seat. and yet out of all the janks in the world, out of all the radical leftists who have been reborn, either as moderates or conservatives or whatever they're calling themselves now, almost none of them fall into the category I just described. Almost none of them have ever shown any remorse or any humility.

Almost none of them have apologized to any of the people who they lied about and defamed and whose reputations they tried to destroy. Almost none of them have even been. been willing to admit that they were wrong. Instead, they claim that they've remained consistent while the left abandoned them. And this is, as I said, at the absolute most, only partially true. There is always at least another part, the part where, in fact, they have drastically changed their tune on a number of serious issues, but they won't admit it. At the very least, these are people who ignored and probably scoffed at and demean the conservatives who told them that the left

was on a slippery slope into madness. They didn't listen. So at the very least, they were wrong about that, but they won't admit that either. And yet they show up and they have all their ideas and we're supposed to listen to them. And they even have the gumption to turn around to conservatives who have been in this movement forever and try to lecture them. And so I'll tell you how to really argue on these issues. What the hell do you know? You've been wrong about everything. You just started being sort of right about a few things 10 seconds ago. Maybe have some humility and shut up and listen for a few. You haven't listened at all your entire life. Maybe you should be listening now. So what all this tells us at best is that these people still have all of the same

arrogance and ignorance that made them radical leftists in the first place. It also tells us that these are not credible voices we should be listening to or taking seriously. Not everybody is a thought leader. Okay. Not everyone has a platform with a large audience. In fact, most people don't. And if you've been wrong about everything and are still too arrogant to even admit it, even while you try to cozy up to the people you've demonized for years, then you should certainly be in the non-thought leader cat crowd. Okay, especially considering that about 99% of the people who are not thought leaders on our side are vastly more equipped for the role than you are.

But of course, this is all just the best case scenario. You know, so far I've only really considered the possibility that these supposed former radical leftists have sincerely converted, but are just too egotistical and shallow to admit their own errors. There is the other scenario, which I think in many cases is far more likely. That's the scenario where the conversion is not remotely sincere, where somebody like Jank Yugar pretends to have turned a new leaf and discovered a strange new respect for the conservative base for the one simple and straightforward reason that his traffic is tanking and the clicks are drying up

and he's looking for a new schick. He's going where the money and the audience are. Now, I can't see inside the souls of any of these people or read their minds, but I can read between the lines. And when I look there, I see the word grifter in giant bold letters. That's why I'm not interested in hearing Jenks' ideas for how to unite and heal the country. I'm not really interested in hearing his ideas about anything because he has no credibility. And he is still today, I'm afraid to say. Cancelled.

I'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed. John Bickley here, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief. Wake up every morning with our show MorningWire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less. Join me and my co-host, Georgia Howe, for daily coverage of all the biggest stories on Morning Wire.