Ep. 1485 - The Media Panics Over Trump's Administration Picks
01:02:42 Share

The left wants to take away your gun rights, but here's something that really triggers them. Silencers are completely legal, and Silencer Shop makes getting them easier than ever. Look, Silencer Shop isn't just selling suppressors. They're on the front lines fighting for your Second Amendment rights, pushing back against the anti-gun agenda through lobbying and legal action. They offer the largest selection of top brand suppressors, and right now, some approvals are coming back in just days. They're

Their team handles all the paperwork hassle for you. Get started at silencershop.com slash Walsh. Protect your rights and enhance your shooting experience at silencershop.com slash Walsh. Silencer Shop, the easiest way to get your suppressor.

Today on the Matt Wall Show, Donald Trump has begun staffing his next administration. The media is panicking over his choices, which obviously means he's knocking it out of the park so far. Also, CNN and MSNBC have seen their ratings crater since Trump's election. Turns out that being in the resistance, quote unquote, won't be as profitable this time around, perhaps. And a mother is handcuffed and thrown in jail because her 11-year-old son went for a walk in the neighborhood yesterday.

This is why the overzealous nanny state isn't just annoying and expensive, but if you're a parent, it can be downright terrifying. All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. Am I Racist broke records in theaters as the decade's number one documentary, and now it's streaming only on Daily Wire Plus with exclusive extras. See it all now on Daily Wire Plus. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code TRUMP to get 47% off your new annual membership today.

- There's something profoundly meaningful about gathering around a Thanksgiving table with the people who matter most. It's one of those rare moments when you can slow down and appreciate the deeper things in life, family, gratitude, the traditions that bind us together. But let's be honest, between the holiday chaos and questionable meat quality at grocery stores these days, preparing that perfect meal can feel pretty overwhelming and stressful. That's where Good Rancher steps in to transform your Thanksgiving experience. But not just delivering meat, they're delivering peace of mind. Every cut comes from American farms and ranches.

free from antibiotics and hormones. Talking about steakhouse quality meat that's individually vacuum sealed and perfectly trimmed, saving you both time and money. No more settling for imported mystery meat or throwing away freezer burn cuts. And right now, Good Ranchers is offering something really extraordinary,

Subscribe to any of their premium meat boxes and they'll add a free Thanksgiving ham to your first delivery. We're talking about a 10-pound spiral cut ham. That's a $110 value. Absolutely free. Don't wait on this one. Visit GoodRanchers.com. Use code WALSH at checkout to claim your free Thanksgiving ham. Support American farmers. Skip the grocery store chaos and make this holiday truly special with Good Ranchers. That's GoodRanchers.com. Use promo code WALSH. Good Ranchers. American meat delivered.

Try to think back, if you can, to the transition period of the Biden-Harris administration. I'm talking about the personnel decisions and especially the key cabinet appointments that the incoming administration made in the weeks after the media called the race for Joe Biden back at the end of 2020. Now, those personnel decisions were treated as basically non-stories. They came and went, and the media didn't talk much about them.

Wasn't a lot of outrage or debate. Pete Buttigieg, for example, became the transportation secretary because he likes trains and was vaguely interested in airplanes. And he's gay, and those were his qualifications. That was it. So they put him in charge of the Department of Transportation, which has a budget of tens of billions of dollars and oversees the nation's railways and airports.

Why not? Made sense to Democrats at the time. What's the worst that could happen? A train carrying toxic chemicals might derail somewhere in Ohio, let's say. What are the odds of that? Well, there was the nomination of Lloyd Austin to lead the Defense Department. And that was really inspiring. You see, Lloyd Austin was serving on the board of Raytheon, one of the biggest defense contractors in the world. Raytheon was paying him a lot of money. And then without much fanfare, the Biden-Harris administration appointed Lloyd Austin to run the Pentagon.

What could go wrong? Surely Lloyd Austin wouldn't try to enrich his former colleagues in the defense industry by, say, sending billions of dollars worth of weaponry to a tiny corrupt country in Eastern Europe. That would be unthinkable. And there was the appointment of someone using the name Rachel Levine, a biological male originally named Richard who decided in middle age to start wearing a dress and rebrand himself as Rachel. Made perfect sense, we were told, for a man deeply confused about the basic realities of human biology to oversee the nation's health care system.

Now, sure, he might pressure hospitals to castrate and sterilize as many children as possible. He might pose for some uncomfortable photographs with Sam Britton, the cross-dressing nuclear waste expert and kleptomaniac who'd been terrorizing airport baggage claims all across the eastern seaboard for years before also being appointed for a role in the Biden-Harris administration. But that's the cost of human progress, we were told at the time.

I'm going through these appointments to make a couple of points. The first point is that all of these appointments and many others like them, including the appointment of an open borders advocate to run the Department of Homeland Security, were grotesque. None of them should have been allowed to go through, but they did. And the country paid the predictable consequences. Biden, you know, he appointed more crossdressers than we'd been used to seeing in government at that point. But otherwise, his picks were exactly what

we come to expect. A bunch of corrupt and useless bureaucrats who went on to do what corrupt and useless bureaucrats always do, which by the way is expand their own power and enrich themselves and their friends. That's the whole deal. Well, thankfully, it's clear that Donald Trump is not going to follow that typical strategy. Donald Trump's incoming administration is already unlike any other in American history. I mean, this is a transition team that's making a concerted effort to select competent, independent cabinet officials, people who

aren't self-interested cronies or morons who are selected on the basis of identity politics. He's picking people who are actually competent and who might actually advance the agenda that the American people voted for, which is Donald Trump's agenda. Imagine that. So let's start with one of the selections that was announced last night and that has upset a lot of people on the left.

Donald Trump revealed that Pete Hegseth, a Bronze Star recipient who served nearly two decades in the military, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be nominated as the Secretary of Defense. Now, Hegseth is most recognizable at the moment as a Fox News host where he often advocates on behalf of veterans. He's also used his platform to outline changes that, in his view, need to be made to the military immediately. And this gives us kind of a preview of hopefully what we can expect now that he's running the Defense Department.

Let's watch. The Pentagon is in the book the exact amount of years, but in the past X number of years, 10, 12, 15, the Pentagon has a perfect record in all of its war games against China. We lose every time inside the Pentagon war games.

We know what our real capability is. You see, we didn't even get to this part of the war on warriors. I mean, the military-industrial complex, the way we procure weapons systems, you know, we're always... The way our system works, the way our bureaucratic system works, where the speed of weapons procurement works, we're always a decade behind in fighting the last war. Whereas China...

We have, you know, what did Rumsfeld say? You go to the war of the army, you have. China's building an army specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America. That is their strategic outset. Take hypersonic missiles. So if our whole power projection platform is aircraft carriers and the ability to project power that way strategically around the globe, and yeah, we have a nuclear triad and all of that, but a big part of it

And if, you know, 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what does that look like? Well, first of all, you've got to fire, you know, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and you've got to fire this. I mean, obviously you're going to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved, general admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI woke up.

It's gotta go. Either you're in for war fighting and that's it, that's the only litmus test we care about. You gotta get DEI and CRT out of military academies so you're not training young officers to be baptized in this type of thinking. And then, you know, whatever the standards, whatever the combat standards were, say, in, I don't know, 1995, let's just make those the standards. And as far as recruiting, to hire the guy that, you know, did Top Gun Maverick and create some real ads that motivate people to want to serve.

I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated. We've all served with women and they're great. It's just our institutions don't have to incentivize that in places where traditionally, not traditionally, over human history, men in those positions are more capable.

Well, I'm sold. I'm sold on that pick. I don't need to know anything else about the guy just based on that alone. This is all common sense stuff, but it's the kind of stuff that you just never hear from anyone in a cabinet position, any kind of bureaucrat until now. And these are the kind of picks, by the way, that probably only Donald Trump would make. Donald Trump's probably the only guy who would select him as Secretary of Defense.

But again, all comments that the overwhelming majority of countries don't allow women in combat for obvious reasons. We are one of only a handful of countries that do that. And no, the military shouldn't be teaching its soldiers about white rage, nor should the Pentagon be focused on recruiting girl bosses or diverse applicants. That strategy isn't working. The military is now regularly missing its recruitment goals, primarily because they've gone out of their way to alienate white men for political reasons.

As a result, our military is much smaller than China's. Morale is terrible. We're constantly losing war games, as Pete Hegseth pointed out. And making matters worse, our military leaders are clearly inept, as evidenced by the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and also as evidenced by everything else that's happened over the last 20 or 30 years.

So with this track record, the absolute last person you'd want to pick for the job of defense secretary is another Lloyd Austin type. The Lloyd Austins of the world are the ones who created the very situation that Hegseth is talking about in those clips. That's why you need someone who's motivated and equipped to make some radical changes, which actually aren't that radical because you're just going back to what was common sense and what was standard only a few decades ago. But by our standards, it's radical.

And you want someone who knows what it's like to be a soldier in a war zone and who hasn't been corrupted by his connections to the military industrial complex. In short, you want somebody like Pete Hegseth. Now, as you'd expect, Democrats don't see it that way. They lost their minds when Trump briefly paused the flow of military weapons to Ukraine. And now they're losing their minds because Pete Hegseth might spurn the defense industry, too.

Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts, was especially enraged. She was sneering last night along with a lot of her colleagues. She wrote, quote, a Fox & Friends weekend co-host is not qualified to be the secretary of defense. I lead the Senate military personnel panel. All three of my brothers served in uniform. I respect every one of our service members. Donald Trump's pick will make us less safe and must be rejected. So right away, the woman who pretended to be an Indian tries to dismiss Hegseth as a weekend co-host.

completely ignoring his military service and his ideas and his advocacy for veterans. And by the way, it's funny that the fact that he is a combat veteran is not relevant, but she's a greater authority because her brothers are veterans. So his own experience doesn't matter. He's just a weekend cause, but no, she is an authority because my brothers served. So how does that apply to you? How does that make you qualified to say anything?

Oh, she's also on the military personnel panel. She's on a panel, everybody. I mean, this guy actually served in war zones, but she's on a panel. She sat on so many panels and talked about things. So we're supposed to believe based on her word that if Hegsath had served on the board of Raytheon, he would somehow be vastly more equipped for the job. We apparently want defense secretaries who are bureaucrats or defense contractors first and foremost, because that's obviously worked out really well over the past three decades.

And in the context of a second Trump administration, the criticism of Pete Hegseth makes even less sense. Because recall that under the first Trump administration, the Pentagon actively sabotaged Trump's policy objectives. Our envoy to Syria has admitted this. It's one of the most incredible admissions ever printed, but it never got much attention. The envoy stated that officials in the first Trump administration were, quote, always playing shell games in order to hide the actual number of US troops in Syria from Trump. That's an actual quote, shell games.

In other words, they were lying to the commander in chief. Trump wanted troops to leave Syria and they told him the troops were already gone. And it wasn't true. They were lying to undermine his agenda. People should have been put on trial for that. I mean, that's criminal, but it just faded from memory. And it's faded from maybe the media's memory and the public's memory, but it hasn't faded from Trump's memory.

So given that background, you can understand why this time around Trump wants someone he can actually depend on, someone who agrees with his agenda and will try to enact it, wants people he can trust. That's the single most important quality that a cabinet pick can have. You got to be able to trust them. And that's very obvious to Trump now after what he experienced in his first term. But Democrats are still going to resist this nomination anyway for reasons that they can't really articulate.

They just know that it would be a disaster for them if an outsider took control of the Defense Department. That's why one of CNN's hosts tried to push back on Scott Jennings' argument for Hegseth last night on CNN. Let's watch that. Anyone have confidence in the current leadership of the Pentagon and the way the defense works?

situation has been operating for the last several years. I mean, from the Afghanistan pullout, which was an extreme debacle for which no one was held accountable. We've had spy balloons flying over the United States. We built a $300 million pier as a public relations stunt, which wound up killing an American service member. I'd say I've had just about enough of the so-called insiders running the Defense Department. I think we ought to give Pete Hicks the chance because he's got insiders. I

I all the criticism of him is that he's not the expected Washington pick and I'm just saying to you that the American people just voted against the expected Washington picks I he's got 20 years in service Afghanistan Iraq two bronze stars Princeton Harvard yeah he's on TV but so are the rest of us I by the way and I and I just gave the I think he ought listen you just gave us really interesting because you highlighted a bunch of things that the civilian leadership

of the country decided on. And the military, their job was just to execute. They executed. How did it go? I'm just saying. I mean, how did it go? In terms of the decision making, you're assigning decision making responsibility to the military over things that civilians are responsible for. So you make a good point. The civilian leadership made decisions, and then the people they put in charge of the Pentagon carried it out. And it was all pretty much a disaster.

So for starters, it's pretty amusing for starters, as Jennings points out, for television pundits to attack Hegseth for being a TV host when they're all television personalities also. So either being on television makes you an idiot or it doesn't. And if it does, then all these people should quit their jobs now before CNN closes down and fires them anyway, which appears more likely to happen with each passing day.

Then the anchor says that civilians give the orders in the military, which is obviously true. But it's the Pentagon, which is also run by civilians, that has the job of carrying out those orders. And as Jennings pointed out, the Pentagon has repeatedly failed to do its job. They were wrong about the spy balloon and what it was doing. They were wrong about the logistics of the Afghanistan pullout, which resulted in the deaths of American service members. Couldn't even build a pier properly. And so what exactly is the argument for keeping those kinds of people in control of the Defense Department?

How could we possibly do any worse than they've been doing? That's a point that Tom Homan, the incoming border czar, just made on Fox News. He was asked whether he was worried about having the title of border czar, given that Kamala Harris has done everything she can to run away from that title. And here's how he responded.

Hey, Tom, you know, the last person who was Bordersar, she didn't want to be called Bordersar. You're proud of it, right? You know what? I want to look like a genius because when you follow failure, you can't help but succeed, right? To the American people,

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GOING TO SECURE THIS BORDER. HE'S GOING TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES. HE'S GOING TO -- BY SECURING THE BORDER, WE'RE GOING TO DROP ILLEGAL AILING CRIME, WHICH IS SKYROCKETING. LESS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE FROM FENTANYL. LESS CHILDREN ARE GOING TO BE SEX TRAFFICKED. LESS WOMEN WILL BE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER. THE CRIMINAL CARTELS WILL BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY THIS PRESIDENT. GO GET THEM, TOM HOMAN. APPRECIATE IT.

I think that's the right attitude. I'm gonna look like a genius because when you follow up failure, you can't help but succeed. And that is true. And also it's all the more reason to go in there and make radical changes. Can't get any worse.

And so go in there and make the changes and whatever risks are involved in that politically, take those risks. And that pretty much sums up the entire transition so far. We're so used to administration officials who lie to us, who try to use emotional blackmail and manipulation. That's pretty much impossible to be disappointed by the incoming Trump administration at this point.

I mean, just by demonstrating that they don't care about the media's manipulation and false narratives, they're already well ahead of their predecessors. It's also clear the federal bureaucracy, which functioned to undermine Trump at every possible opportunity the first time around, isn't going to exist in the same form the second time. So last night, Trump officially announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will be running the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE,

Trump said the goal of this new department, which actually is not gonna be in the government, but it's going to be an independent outside the government organization. But the goal will be to dismantle government bureaucracy slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies. He said they'll be done within two years, what he called the perfect gift to America on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

And this is good because the task of, as he says, dismantling government bureaucracy should be the number one focus of Trump's second term. Because nothing else can be done unless that is done first. And Elon Musk is just the guy to do it. He showed up to Twitter and immediately axed 80% of the staff. And of course, as we remember, everybody in the media said it would destroy the company. They said the whole site would crash and burn and be forgotten. And yet here we are two years later,

Place is running better than ever. Now the problem in the federal government is like what the problem was in Twitter, except multiplied by about a factor of let's say a million. Unlike every other company on the planet, the federal government doesn't undergo mass layoffs. It just grows and grows year after year, siphons more and more money from taxpayers without any accountability.

These bureaucrats call themselves public servants, but really the public is serving them. We're the ones who go to work every day to pay their salaries. And what exactly do they do for us? Do we really need these people to spend tens of thousands of dollars on gender equity in places like Honduras? Do we need them to develop new bat coronaviruses and secret labs in Wuhan? Do we need them to use our money to subsidize some of the most useless college degrees in existence?

Do we need them to conduct fraudulent criminal trials of the leading presidential candidate? Do we need them to issue insane new regulations in the name of saving the environment, like banning the sale of gas-powered vehicles or gas stoves or plastic straws or whatever else? Of course we don't. We've never needed any of that.

What we have needed for a long time now is for the government to get out of the way of human progress. They need to stop spending and printing money as if it's endless. They need to do what every American in the private sector has to do, which is justify their salaries. They need to explain how exactly they're serving the public instead of the other way around. And this is a reckoning that would have been unthinkable if Kamala had won this election. We'd be dealing with another parade of useless BIPOC, trans, whatever appointees who exist only to check boxes.

And now things are different. And giving Musk and Ramaswamy the hacksaw with a directive to go to town on the federal bureaucracy means that maybe, maybe for the first time ever, some real and substantial cuts will actually be made. No Republican president in modern times has ever actually done anything to cut the size of government. They've all talked about it. None of them have done it.

Much less have they taken any steps to gut the federal bureaucracy and get rid of all the useless people and their useless departments and programs. In fact, Republicans, of course, have only contributed to that problem. They've added to it. There's pretty good reason to think that this time will be different. Trump has picked the right two guys for the job, which is why the federal bureaucrats are panicking. And their panic will only become more unhinged in the days ahead. For everyone else, for people who actually earn their living, it's a time to celebrate something that's never happened before in modern American history.

the behemoth federal bureaucracy is hopefully about to get what it deserves, what's been coming to it for decades. If Trump fulfills his promises, and that means simply letting the people he's hiring do the jobs they've been hired to do, if that happens, it will mean ultimately that America becomes a freer, safer, more prosperous place. And if this is the fascism they warned us about, then well, it can't come soon enough. Now let's get to our five headlines.

♪

You know, we talk a lot about putting our money where our values are. Let me tell you about my cell phone company, Pure Talk, and why I made the switch. Pure Talk is veteran-led, and they don't just talk about supporting our veterans. They actually do something about it. They've already alleviated $10 million in veteran debt. Every month, they donate tens of thousands of dollars to prevent veteran suicide, and they just gave $50,000 to MicroWorks to help veterans learn trades after serving our country. Meanwhile, they've

What exactly are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile doing with your money? Pure Talk gives you the exact same coverage, America's most dependable 5G network for half the cost. You get better service, better values, and you're helping our veterans. It's that simple. Right now, Pure Talk has an incredible offer for my listeners. When you switch to your service to Pure Talk on a qualifying plan, you'll get one year of Daily Wire Plus Insider completely free, where you can stream my new film, Am I Racist? But remember, this deal is exclusive. The only way to get it is by going to puretalk.com slash Walsh.

Support Pure Talk, a wireless company who wants to be a wireless company and nothing more. And remember, it takes courage to stand for your values and it takes even more to stand against those who try to silence you. PureTalk.com slash Walsh. That's PureTalk.com slash Walsh.

Some more good news from our friends at Outkick. It says viewership for MSNBC and CNN has tanked since Donald Trump steamrolled Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Mediaite obtained viewership data from Thursday to highlight the concerns both channels face. For the day, MSNBC averaged 596,000 viewers, while CNN recorded just 419,000. That's a decline of 23% for MSNBC and 40% for CNN year over year.

But the primetime numbers are even more concerning. While CNN saw a 30% decline, MSNBC declined an unprecedented 54%. So this is kind of interesting. The conventional view is that left-wing media outlets and news channels should see a surge of ratings after a Trump win because now they're the opposition.

And for the past four years, they've been in the position of defending the powers that be. And now they get to play the role of the critic, the resistance. They get to slide back into that role. And so typically, you'd think that that would help their ratings, not hurt them. But that doesn't seem to be happening. In fact, the situation is so dire for MSNBC that they're, from what I saw, the report I just saw, they're looking at possibly selling the company. That's how bad it is. So why aren't they getting...

The resistance bump that we've seen in the past. Why aren't they getting bigger ratings as the outsiders, the ones bravely standing up against the fascist regime? I think there are a few reasons. And the first is that they've been obsessively criticizing Trump for almost 10 years now. And with him winning another four years, that means that it'll be another half decade or so of relentless Trump hate on these networks.

And I think many in the audience are just tired of it. It's just simple exhaustion and boredom. People are bored of it. How could they not be? By the end, this will be 15 years, right? This will be almost a decade and a half of focusing your programming primarily on attacking one guy, one specific guy. And it's just not interesting.

Even if you agree with them, even if you hate Trump at a certain point after ten years of it, you've kind of heard it all. And you don't need to keep hearing it every day. It just gets boring. It's boring. It's as simple as that. And the second factor, I think the bigger factor is that MSNBC and CNN have just proven themselves to be irrelevant. They had dedicated themselves for the past four years to the project of making sure Trump does not win again. And he won.

He was a landslide and so they failed in historic fashion, thus demonstrating that they have very little influence. They have no real ability anymore to set the narrative and influence people on a national scale. They're just irrelevant. Trump's victory has not so much made them irrelevant as exposed how irrelevant they really are. And that's why the ratings are tanking, I think.

Pretty simple. Mayor Adams in New York was asked whether he will cooperate with Trump's mass deportation plan. And well, he didn't say no. We'll put it that way. Let's watch.

Will you express concern about mass deportations in the city? My concern is one concern. We keep tinkering around the edges. We keep having this philosophical conversation about it. The voters communicated loudly and clearly.

We have a broken immigration system. It needs to be fixed. That's the only conversation I want. New York City was devastated by that broken system. 220,000 migrants and asylum seekers have made their way here. How can migrant New Yorkers be sure that they won't happen here, given that ICE can make arrests in New York City without police cooperation? Why should New Yorkers, including migrant New Yorkers,

trust that you will advocate for them with the new Trump administration. But you said, how can I advocate for New Yorkers? So I should only advocate for one type of New Yorker or New Yorkers? So the media wants Adams to say that he will valiantly stand up against Trump's deportation plans, his deportation agenda. But he didn't say that. In fact, he agreed that illegal immigration is a major problem.

That needs to be addressed. And I think that more Democrat governors and mayors are going to, more will cooperate or at least not obstruct than we think. There'll be more people in the Mayor Adams camp than maybe you would otherwise anticipate.

And yes, some of them have already said that they're not going to cooperate. They're going to try to sabotage Trump's efforts to, you know, enforce the border, enforce our immigration laws. We know that that's been happening. I mean, that's what sanctuary cities are all about. So that's been happening for a long time. And, you know, that's fine because Trump doesn't actually need them to cooperate. He can do it without their help if, you know.

Where there's a will, there's a way. And so if there's the will in the Trump administration to carry this out and enforce our immigration laws, regardless of what any mayor or governor says or thinks, if there's a will to do it, if there's a willingness to do it, then it can be done. Even so, I think there will be maybe, and maybe I'm just

high on the fumes of optimism right now, which rarely happens to me. But I think there will be a surprising amount of cooperation. And the reason is just simple politics. I mean, there is wide public approval for mass deportations. Democrats are on the losing side of this argument. The American people are basically decided on this issue, and they're done with it. They want it to be over. They want their borders back. They want their sovereignty back.

This is not a far right position anymore. It's not even a conservative position anymore, uniquely. And it never was. I mean, never was. It never should have been, rather, a conservative position. It should just be an American position. Or if you're in this country and you're a citizen, you should want us to have borders that are protected. No matter what else you think about politics, you should want that. And I think that that's where people are now. And people want their communities back and they want their culture back.

And they're kind of done with the emotional manipulation. Not everybody. There's always going to be the gullible people, the morons. There's always going to be the dupes who fall for the emotional manipulation tactics. That's always going to happen. But I don't think that's where the culture is anymore. And so all the more reason why this can be done. And look, we all know what will happen. I mean, we can play this out in our heads. And we know that the moment...

They actually start with the deportations. We're gonna, I mean, the propaganda machine is gonna rev up on the left at a level we haven't even seen before. And we've seen a lot of it with Trump. And we've seen a lot of anti-Trump propagandizing. And we've seen there have been many hoaxes and all of that. We've seen all that, including on this issue in Trump's first term.

Remember, what was it? The ridiculous hoax about a border agent whipping an illegal immigrant. That was the story anyway. They had a whip and he was just whipping them. And then it turns out that's not what happened at all. So there's gonna be a lot of that kind of thing. And there's gonna be a lot more of it. And we know that. And they're gonna start, we're gonna get all the

The tear jerking weepy stories about families being ripped out of their homes and sent back and we're gonna get the videos and the cell phone footage and all that's gonna happen. And the left is hoping that that will be enough to turn the tide of public opinion. They're hoping that after a few rounds of that, after a few weeks of that,

Right. When we've seen a few of these videos of the illegal immigrants crying and being sent away and all of that, they're hoping, they're expecting that that will be enough and that the American people say, well, never mind. I didn't know if deporting illegal immigrants means that they're going to cry. Well, then never mind. I thought they'd be happy. I thought this would be a cheerful thing. I thought everybody would be happy. I didn't know it would get ugly like this.

That's what they're hoping will be the response of most people in the public. And I think they're gonna be disappointed. That's my theory. I don't think it's gonna be that easy. I think it's gonna take more. It's gonna take more than a few viral videos of illegal immigrants crying cuz they're getting deported. I don't think that's gonna be enough to turn public opinion against this. We will see. All right, I wanna talk about this for a moment.

Reading now from the Express Tribune, it's the name of the outlet. Marla Rose, a Jewish feminist activist, has sparked debate following an alleged altercation with far-right commentator Nick Fuentes at his Illinois residence. Over the weekend, Rose reportedly approached Fuentes' home, rang the doorbell, and was allegedly met with pepper spray in a physical confrontation.

She claims Fuentes pepper sprayed her, kicked her down a flight of stairs, and took her phone, which was later returned by the police. Emergency services, including the police and ambulance, arrived following the incident. In a Facebook post, Rose elaborated on her motivations, citing Fuentes' controversial reputation. Quote, what would you do if a neo-Nazi white supremacist who called on a holy war against Jews and is a loud, proud misogynist lives in your town, she wrote.

Encouraged by a friend, Rose explained, so I rang the doorbell. He immediately swung the door open like he was at damn Waco, sprayed me with a burning liquid and pushed me down the stairs onto his sidewalk. Rose noted that a passerby called the police after which EMTs checked for injuries. And she says she was assaulted and all that. Okay, so just filling in some details here. Fuentes got doxxed over the weekend. It was a pretty major doxxing.

I mean, I saw his address all over my Twitter feed. It was just all over the place. And a picture of his home, address, all of that. Very thorough, very viral doxing event. Then you started seeing posts from people talking about how they're going to his home or driving by his home. And then you've got this left-wing activist, Marla Rose,

shows up, she posts about it on Twitter and makes it very clear in her post that she's there to harass him. It's not like she knocked on his door to say hello or to sell door-to-door magazine subscriptions or something. I mean, she was there for a reason. It was very clear what the reason was.

And on his property, unless somebody's in an apartment, in most cases, if you're knocking on the door, it means you're already on their property. So she's on his property and is there to harass him. And that's not really debatable, which is why it's absurd to take her side in this, as I've seen some people doing, including conservatives, taking her side just because you don't like Nick Fuentes.

Now, I admit, I'm kind of biased here. I am biased. I'm very biased, in fact. And I take this kind of story perhaps more personally than most people do. And that's because, as you know, if you've been listening to the show for a while, I also have been doxxed. You know, I mean, really doxxed. People talk about doxxing. And sometimes you'll hear somebody is like an anonymous account and their real name is posted somewhere. And we call that doxxing. And that can be. I mean, that's a form of doxxing.

But I'm saying doxing like real doxing, okay? Like here's the person's home address and a picture of their home. That's doxing. That's what doxing actually is. And most people just have not had that experience. And you're lucky if you haven't. Most people haven't. You probably have not had the experience of having your home address going viral on the internet for millions of people to see, many of whom do not like you. And if you've never been through that,

Well, be grateful. I've been through it more than once. And putting someone's home address out there because you don't like their political opinions or because you're mad about their mean tweets or because you think that they're a rude person who says terrible things. I mean, that is just psychotically evil behavior. It's just evil. You are trying to get them killed. 100%, that's what you're doing.

So in the past, when this has happened to me, I was like, you're trying to get me and my family killed. That is what you're doing. There's no getting around. It's not dramatic to say that. I mean, that's the point. Why else would you put someone's address on the internet? That's why you're doing it. The whole point is that you're trying to send negative attention to the person's home where they live with their families. So yes, you are trying to get them hurt along with anyone else who happens to be in their home. And, uh,

And in fact, when you get doxxed, many of the people doing the doxxing are very explicit that this is the reason they're doing it. They're often very clear that they want people to go to your house and burn it to the ground and kill you. It's not subtle. It's not a subtle thing. So if you do that to someone, you are the bad guy. I don't care who the other person is. I don't care what they've said. It doesn't matter. And if you actually show up to somebody's house, if you...

show up, if you show up at all, but especially if you show up in this context, in the midst of a doxing campaign, when the person who is being doxed is necessarily on high alert and in a very defensive posture. And you can say, well, you're scared. Like, yeah, you're sending whack jobs to my house. Yes, that makes me nervous. Who wouldn't? Any human being on earth would be. So now I have to be defensive. And so if you do that,

And someone's getting doxxed and you show up to their house, you get what's coming to you. You put someone's address out there and then you walk under their property. As far as I'm concerned, they are within their rights to respond however they feel they need to respond. However they feel they need to respond, they are within their rights to do it. And whatever happens to you, you had it coming, you had it coming.

It's not like you just don't go on their property. It's not, you know, it's not, we're not, this is not any, we're not expecting anything. We're not, we're not, we're not expecting much here. This is not some great imposition that I'm, but just, just don't, that's their house. Stay away from their house. You don't belong there. That's their property. Just wandering. I mean, you got these left-wing activists and this is how entitled they feel that like, what the, what the F do you think is going to happen? Someone's in the middle of being doxxed.

People on the internet are very clear, hey, go to this house and kill this guy, we hate him. And then you show up, and then you're surprised that you get a physical response? What are you doing? How could you respond that way? I don't know, maybe there's a million crazy people who wanna kill me and know where I live. Maybe that's why I'm responding this way. What are you gonna do? Open the door and say, hey, come on in, let's have a talk. You want some lemonade?

So I don't care how you feel about Nick Fuentes. Obviously, no love lost between the two of us. It doesn't matter. I mean, doxing is despicable. Coming to someone's house is way, way, way, way outside the bounds of what is appropriate or acceptable. And I'll tell you this, if you're on the right and you're cheering on a doxing campaign against anyone, you are extremely foolish. OK, you are extremely foolish because eventually they'll get to you.

Eventually it'll happen to you. And what are you going to do then? What are you going to do when it happens? What are you going to do when your address is viral on the internet and you start complaining about it? And then people pull up your tweets where you were cheering it on when it happened to somebody else. So, you know, now if that would happen, I would still be against it. You know, you're, you're a hypocrite in that case, but I'd still be against it. Uh, uh, cause just, it's just what you don't go to someone's house. You just don't do this. Um, and, uh,

And this should be, I'm not even saying you have to be some great principled person to take a stand like this. This is like basic self-preservation. We should all be on the same page here, that this is not okay. We're not in favor of this. This is wrong, and you just don't do it to anybody. I don't care who they are, and I don't care how much you don't like them. All right, let's see. Two stories to mention briefly. The Postmillennial has this California voters campaign

have said no to an initiative that would have amended the state constitution to ban any forced labor in prisons. Forced labor is already banned in the state constitution with the exception that it could be used to punish a crime, the Associated Press reported. 53.8% of Californians voted against the measure, according to the Secretary of State's office.

Prisoner rights advocates opposed the punishment exemption for labor, saying they don't think incarcerated people should be forced to do any work while serving their time. They also say the state does not fairly compensate them for work performed, which generally amounts to less than $1 per hour. Prisoners are routinely expected to do cleaning and maintenance work at prisons, manufacturing license plates, or do light gardening at cemeteries. The measure was also part of a larger set of reparations aimed at compensating black Californians for allegedly being subject to racism and discrimination over the centuries.

And so this is another initiative that failed. So there's a, we talked about a few other kind of pro crime initiatives that failed as even in California. And these are all like baby steps. It does not mean that California is now a bastion of sanity and common sense in the world. Certainly not. But even California has had enough of a lot of this. And the forced labor and prison thing, that's just obvious. I mean,

Yes, of course there should be forced labor for prisoners. There's not nearly enough of that. I think we are not doing nearly enough with forced labor for prisoners. And if they're compensated $1 an hour, I'm actually kind of outraged by that because that's too much. They shouldn't be compensated at all. You should get nothing. You should be forced to work for free if you're in prison and work hard. Light gardening is to make them do hard labor for free.

You're in prison. This is the punishment, right? So, and it's a win-win. It's like it's, this is a great resource. Prisoners, people in prison, it's a great resource that we should be using a lot more. And it's a win all across the board because you're getting free labor out of it. And we're getting people to do these jobs and you don't have to pay them, which is fantastic. It adds to the punishment of

Because prisons are supposed to be punitive. You're getting punished. Well, that's, it's, but doing forced labor is hard and it makes them, it's supposed to be. You're being punished. You did something bad. We're punishing you. That's part of the punishment. So it's part of the punishment. And that's another advantage. And also, it's good for them. You know, if we want to talk about rehabilitation or anything like that, and I think that there are a lot of people in prison that basically can't be rehabilitated, or at least we can never,

trust that they've been rehabilitated, which is why they should just stay in prison forever, many of them. But if there's any hope of, I mean, rehabilitation can happen. It's not like it's impossible. And it's not as though I think that every crime should be life in prison. I think a lot of them should be, but not all of them. And so if you have someone who's going to be not in prison for the rest of their life, then you do hopefully want to hope that they can be rehabilitated

This is one of the best ways to do it. Putting someone to work, giving them, you know, giving them something to do. If you just are having them sit around doing nothing all day, it's just a waste, you know. And by the way, it's not free anyway. It's still not actually free because we as taxpayers are paying to house them. We're paying for their food. We're paying for their lodging. We're paying for all of it. So this is just you giving back to the taxpayers. It's not even free, actually. This is, to me, a very obvious one.

All right, another quick thing. Postmillennial, also another postmillennial, says, following a raid on a local raw milk farm, Amish people in Pennsylvania reportedly turned out in unprecedented numbers to vote in the 2024 election. Lancaster Farming reported in January that Lancaster County farmer Amos Miller was raided by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture on January 4th, following reports of illnesses traced back to raw milk. In 2022, Miller reached a deal with the federal government to avoid jail time over not complying with food safety laws.

And now they're saying that the Amish turned out in record numbers in part because of this, this raw milk controversy. And you know what? If raw milk is what inspired the Amish to vote and it helped to flip Pennsylvania for Trump, then fine. Raw milk is fine. I mean, it's not fine. It's not fine. It's disgusting. It's gross E. coli juice still. It's a disgusting fecal flect secretion that

But I will tolerate it. I will retract my previous statements that raw milk drinkers should be deported into a volcano. On second thought, that was slightly overboard. A little bit overboard, maybe. Maybe we don't have to go that far. Maybe. But what you have to understand is that I always associated raw milk

with hippies. So that's what this was all about. I mean, this was my bigotry against hippies, which is totally understandable. I'm sure you would agree. And so that's where it all started. And also because it's unsanitary and repulsive. But I always thought it was a hippie thing. And so I wanted to throw hippies into a volcano. Turns out I was throwing the Amish also.

Never intended to do that. I love the Amish. I think the Amish are great. I would never throw the Amish into a volcano. I'll be very clear about that. So that's one. I'd take a firm stance on that one. Firm stance. So anyway, raw milk is, I mean, look, if it helped, then it's fine. I mean, it's not fine. It's bad, but it's fine. That's my new position. It's bad, but it's fine. Now, if you tell me that anime flipped one of the swing states too, then I'm really going to be in a moral crisis. I don't know what I'd do about that. I don't know what...

But I don't think anime fans are voting for Trump anyway. They weren't voting for anyone. They weren't allowed to, you know, use their mom's car that day to go vote. So anyway, that's a topic for another day.

All right, let's talk about something that affects all of us, 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. Trust me, you don't want to be on their radar. We're talking wage garnishments, frozen bank accounts, even property seizures. It's not pretty, folks. But

Before you start panicking, there's still hope. 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 is about as fun as a root canal, but ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So here's what you need to do. For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Walsh. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you can save. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.

Am I Racist, the biggest documentary of the decade in theaters is now Academy Awards submitted and streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. If you saw Am I Racist in theaters,

Thank you. You're part of history, but there's even more waiting for you. Catch a deleted scene featuring the beloved children's book character, Johnny the Walrus, making a cameo, plus exclusive behind-the-scenes footage showing exactly how we pulled it all off. The only way to see it is with a Daily Wire Plus membership. If you're not a member yet, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code Trump to get 47% off a new annual membership. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

On the surface, Fannin County, which is located in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwest Georgia, isn't exactly a place you'd confuse with a nanny state. For one thing, it's one of the most rural counties in the United States. They're famous for their apple orchards and fishing and scenic railway through the countryside. And it's an overwhelmingly conservative place. In last week's election, Fannin County went for Donald Trump by more than 82%.

All that's to say we're not talking about some highly neurotic sheltered enclave of Brooklyn here. We're talking about people who go outside and think about more important topics than the latest strain of COVID that's been detected in the wastewater. So when something happens in Fannin County that seems like it should have happened in Brooklyn, it's worth taking notice. And that brings me to this new reporting from Reason Magazine, which to many people is

may seem like it can't possibly be real, but apparently it is. Here's what happened. On the evening of October 30th, according to Reason, police in Fannin County arrested a mother named Brittany Patterson in front of her four children. And they fingerprinted her and put her in an orange jumpsuit

and sent her off to jail. She's now facing up to a year in prison and a fine of $1,000. So what was Brittany Patterson's crime exactly? Did she rob a convenience store while high on meth and fentanyl? Did she torch a federal courthouse and assault the guards? Did she follow a random guy around at night and then pound his head into the pavement?

Well, you know, Brittany Patterson didn't do any of those things because if she had, the left would be defending her right now. Kamala Harris would probably be raising money to bail her out. What Brittany actually did, and this isn't an exaggeration, is allow her 11-year-old son to go for a walk. That's it. Specifically, he walked to a small town that's less than a mile away from their home. And to give some context here, Brittany lives on a 16-acre property with her children and their father who works in another state.

They have family all around the area, including her sisters and mother who live just two minutes away. So this is not a situation where they're living in, say, the south side of Chicago, where they don't know anybody and people get shot every day and it's very dangerous. This is very much a familiar environment, a safe environment that we're talking about. And here's what happened. Quote, Patterson had driven her eldest son to a medical appointment. Her youngest son, 11-year-old Soren, intended to come along but wasn't around when it was time to leave.

I figured he was in the woods or at grandma's house, says Patterson. Soren, however, was not playing in the woods. He decided to walk to downtown Mineral Bluff, a town of just 370 people. It's not quite a mile from his house. A woman who saw him walking alongside the road, speed limit 25 in some places, 35 in others, asked him if he was okay. He said yes. Nevertheless, she called the police.

Now, eventually a female sheriff showed up, picked up Soren and dropped him off with his grandmother. She also lectured the mother about how her son could have been kidnapped or been hit by a car. Then the mother scolded her child for leaving home without telling anyone. And then the female sheriff left. Now, already this is a situation that's escalated well out of proportion. There's nothing out of the ordinary about an 11-year-old going for an unsupervised walk in an area that's familiar and safe.

We're talking about a county where the crime rate is well below the national average. So in this scenario, maybe you can understand why a well-meaning bystander would see an unaccompanied child and ask if everything's all right. I mean, even that seems a little overboard. I don't know why. Just because you see an 11-year-old walking, I don't know why you would even think to ask if they're all right. There's no reason why they wouldn't be, unless they look distressed for some reason.

But regardless, in no universe does it make sense for that bystander, having heard that everything is fine, to then immediately call the police. This is a psychotic level of meddling. Also, by the way, the sheriff brought up the child could have been kidnapped. The chances that an 11-year-old gets kidnapped by a stranger in broad daylight is significantly less than a million to one. It's the kind of thing that almost never happens.

There are thousands of other horrible things more likely to happen to your child than that.

Statistically, kidnappings are almost always related to family disputes. They're almost always carried out by family members. They're almost never just random person being a kid being taken off the street. It does happen very rarely, but it almost never happens. That's just a fact. That's the statistical reality. So a fear of kidnapping should not prevent an 11-year-old from taking a walk in a safe neighborhood. What should prevent them? What is there to be seriously worried about?

Now, this is normally the point where I'd talk about how the fake experts are wildly out of touch on this issue. But in this case, even the fake experts agree with me on this. You can go to the American Academy of Pediatrics and they'll tell you that in their esteemed opinion, a child older than 10 years old can indeed go outside from location to location and walk around without an adult monitoring their every movement. So in case you were wondering, in case you needed their blessing, you have it. It's not remotely a controversial point.

Anyone who has children who has ever been around children can probably tell you this. But in this case, the story didn't end there. Quoting again from Reason Magazine, at 6.30 p.m. that night, the sheriff returned with another officer. They told Patterson to turn around and put her hands behind her back. As three of her kids watched, Patterson was handcuffed. The sheriff took her purse and phone, put her in the cruiser, and hauled her off to jail.

To Patterson, none of this made sense. She had grown up in the area with plenty of unsupervised time to wander and play and was raising her kids that way too. Patterson was soon released on a $500 bail. The next day, a case manager from the Division of Family and Children Services came out for a home visit and even went to interview Patterson's oldest son at his school. So now we're at the point where the local government is criminalizing parenting practices that were standard for every generation of Americans up until like five seconds ago.

In an attempt to supposedly look after the interests of a child, they've decided to arrest that child's mother in front of him. That couldn't possibly cause any issues with the child's mental state or his ability to get to school and live his life. Sure, his father works out of state, but who cares? Just throw the mother in prison. The state has determined that it's in the best interest of this 11-year-old for his mother to be incarcerated for up to a year.

But the story still doesn't end there. Local officials in this tiny county in Georgia kept on going. In Georgia, officials decided that it wasn't enough to arrest this mother and drag her away from her children. They had to go further. This is from Reason Magazine once again. A few days later, the Division of Family and Children's Services presented Patterson with a safety plan for her to sign.

would require her to delegate a safety person to be a knowing participant and guardian and watch over the children whenever she leaves home. The plan would also require Patterson to download an app on her son's phone, allowing for his location to be monitored. So the government is demanding that this woman agree to conditions that are clearly unconstitutional, not to mention completely unreasonable, not to mention she's being essentially punished without being convicted of any crime, which is how it can often happen when

You've got these sorts of issues. And they think that if they threaten her with jail time, she'll agree to them. But to her credit, she's not doing that. She's telling the government that this is obscene and she's trying to get legislation passed to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening to another parent in Georgia.

At the moment, that's where things stand. It's unclear what will happen next. The government will either make good on its threat and jail this mother, or they'll move on and harass people who are actually breaking the law, hopefully. But whatever the government does, there are a few takeaways here that I think are worth keeping in mind. The first takeaway is that no matter where you live,

You can't really escape the nanny state. There's all the more reason why, and this is not a federal issue in this case, but still all the more reason why the federal bureaucracy, the bureaucracy across the board needs to be, is public enemy number one. If the nanny state can come for a mother living in the mountains in Northwest Georgia, it can come for you too.

We've spent so much time over the last few months talking about national politics, but the truth is national politics aren't everything. Local politics aren't everything either. In the end, there's a very real possibility that your freedom and the freedom of your children could come down to the whims of one power-tripping district attorney or one sheriff who's having a bad day. If that sheriff thinks that she can raise your children better than you, then she can throw you in prison.

This is the terrifying reality that parents everywhere face. And there are many horror stories just like this one. There are also horror stories of actual criminal abuse being inflicted on children by their evil parents. That does happen. And that is abuse that is often not noticed or not stopped by the people and agencies tasked with noticing and stopping it because they're too busy chasing down good and loving parents who parent in a way that was, again, totally commonplace up until very recently.

This mother is certainly not the first to be arrested for something like this. You know, when I was growing up and anyone my age or older would say the same thing. We all say the same thing. My parents would tell us to leave the house, go play outside, come back at dinnertime. We'd trek all over the neighborhood. We'd go into other neighborhoods. We'd go to the woods. We'd go anywhere we wanted. There were no cell phones. There was no nothing. Just my parents said, go have fun. We'll see you in eight hours. Just go do whatever you want. And we did. We came back around dark. And this is how most of us grew up.

But now as parents, we face this scenario where if we give our children even a fraction of the independence that we had as children, we face the possibility of arrest and imprisonment. I mean, it's insane. As I said, there are a lot of stories just like this. Take, for example, the mother in Georgia who was jailed a couple of years ago for leaving her 14-year-old daughter to babysit her younger siblings for a few hours while she was at work. And, you know, she was arrested for that. Now, I can remember when I was a kid,

And my older sisters were left in charge of the house at an age, at that age or even younger. And we all survived. It was normal. Now it's the kind of thing that could get you handcuffed and thrown in a jail cell. You know, parenting in the modern age is difficult enough. And introducing more independence and responsibility into your children's lives is already stressful and worrisome, though it is necessary. It's part of parenting. You have to do this.

But now as a parent, you face the very real possibility that if you introduce that independence and responsibility in a way that happens to offend the sensibilities of a nosy neighbor who then calls the police or CPS, you could find yourself standing in front of a judge and labeled a child abuser for life because that label never wears off.

Now, the good news is that in this case, the mother, Brittany Patterson, didn't back down. She didn't install some location tracker on a child's phone or cower in the face of the government's threats. She didn't sign the nanny state safety plan they presented her with. Instead, she went out and sought some exposure for her story. Reason magazine covered it. Now I'm covering it. The Daily Mail has also picked up a story. As a result, a lot of reasonable people are hearing about it.

And any reasonable person who hears about the story will be outraged by it. This is at least one recourse that you have in this kind of situation. Although you don't have many recourses, that's at least one. You can expose the tyrants and what they're trying to do to your family. Maybe that makes them back down and slink away. These people are cowards after all. At the very least, you will have shed more light on the kind of tyranny that many parents face in this country every day.

And that is why the nanny state, and in particular the bureaucrats and police officers who are threatening to imprison a woman for allowing her 11-year-old son to go for a walk, are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.

This is an important message for military retirees, their families, and active duty family members. Did you know you have a TRICARE Prime option that gives you more without costing you more? For more than 35 years, Johns Hopkins U.S. Family Health Plan has delivered high quality care to military beneficiaries. Visit belongathopkins.com to learn more about the difference Johns Hopkins U.S. Family Health Plan can make for you and your family. That's belongathopkins.com.