Ep. 1499 - This Could Be the Beginning of the End for Gender Ideology
01:07:27 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, I was outside the Supreme Court yesterday as they heard arguments in a case stemming from the law in Tennessee banning child castration. The whole scene, what happened outside the court and also inside.

shows that the gender ideologues are definitely losing, and we'll talk about it. Also, the Women's Golf League finally bans males from competing, but why did it take this long? And the prosecutor in the Daniel Penny case went easy on a guy who murdered an elderly man at an ATM because she felt sorry for the emotional trauma he'd suffered in the past. So why doesn't she have any of that sympathy for Daniel Penny? We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.

Daily Wire Plus is 50% off right now. It's our best deal of the year. It's one full year of uncensored shows, exclusive series, documentaries, and more. Don't wait. This deal ends soon. Head to dailywire.com slash cyberweek and join the fight today.

Open an IRA in gold with Birchgold and get free silver shipped directly to your home. That's right, it's the most wonderful time of the year, the only time of the year that Birchgold gives away a free one-ounce silver eagle for every $5,000 purchased. Here's the best part, you don't have to pay a penny out of pocket. Simply convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold and Birchgold will send your free silver coins directly to your home

Now, you might be thinking, why do I need to diversify into gold? Trump's headed to D.C. come January. Things are good. Well, here's the facts. An administration trying to reverse a $36 trillion national debt in just four years is like a

The field mouse trying to stop a freight train can't even afford to pay the interest on the debt, let alone the principal. So you got to take action now. Text Walsh to 989898 before December 18th for a free info kit on gold and to claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases from Birch Gold. Do this before December 18th. Again, text Walsh to the number 989898 for peace of mind that lasts longer than four years.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments yesterday in one of the most important cases in this country's history. It's a case that will decide whether under the US Constitution states are allowed to outlaw child sterilization and mutilation in the name of gender ideology. Now, in any other generation, this question would not have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The question itself would have been bewildering to anyone who heard it for the simple reason that sterilizing, castrating, and mutilating children is one of the greatest evils imaginable,

Even some of the most barbaric civilizations throughout history wouldn't even contemplate it. You don't need a law degree to understand that. You don't need a convoluted analysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. You just need to be a moral person. You need to be sane and have a basic working understanding of human biology. Now, one of the main reasons that we've come to this point is that trans activists have successfully intimidated everyone else into silence. Trans activists aren't capable of making coherent or rational arguments in defense of child butchery because

Child butchery is indefensible, but they're very capable of shouting down anyone who opposes their ideology. And predictably, that's what they tried to do to me when I spoke yesterday at the rally outside the Supreme Court. Here's part of my remarks in front of the Capitol, just to give you an idea of what the scene was like. Here it is. This case is about the rights of children. It's about the right of a child to be protected from the gender butchers.

That's what it's about. Children have the constitutional right, the human right, the God-given right to live and grow and learn about themselves and the world without being indoctrinated and exploited by people who reject the fundamental realities of existence.

Children have a right to go through phases, to have moments of confusion and discomfort in their own bodies, just like every generation of children before them, without that confusion being seized upon as a pretense to do irreparable harm to their bodies.

Now, as you can probably tell, trans activists were shouting into megaphones the entire time that I was speaking. It happened to the other speakers, too. They were doing it the whole time. The trans activists showed up in large numbers outside the court with the intention of making it difficult for us to speak and be heard. And that's what I expected would happen. It is what happened. Leftists are very good at mobilizing protesters to show up and be as obnoxious as possible. They're certainly much better at that than we are.

They're still losing this fight. They're losing in the state legislatures. They're losing in the culture.

And after yesterday's oral arguments, it's pretty clear that they're about to lose in the Supreme Court as well. Every indication we have at this point is that a majority of the justices will vote to uphold Tennessee's ban on child mutilation. And if that happens, it won't just protect millions of children in Tennessee and many other states have implemented similar bans. It will also clear the way for a national ban on these grotesque practices, which have ruined the lives of untold numbers of children.

The reason we can be confident in the outcome of this case is that one by one, each of the arguments from the Biden DOJ and the ACLU collapsed under questioning from the conservative justices in the majority. And when the liberal justices tried their best to defend gender ideology, somehow they only managed to make matters even worse. We predicted that something like this would happen when they can't shout you down, when they actually have to construct arguments and respond to objections. Trans activists tend to fall apart pretty quickly.

And that was the case for the ACLU's lead attorney in this case, Chase Strangio, a female who, quote, identifies as a man. And to give you some idea of the kind of person Chase Strangio is, she's posted a variety of emotionally charged, unhinged content on social media over the years, including this video in which she declared F the court. So she's not exactly out of central casting for the job of arguing in front of the court. Watch.

So for pride, let us recognize that reproductive justice is trans justice, is queer justice. Our liberation is not going to come from the courts. It is not going to come from Congress. It is going to come from us. It's going to come from our histories of knowing exactly how to take care of each other, how to get each other health care, how to say unjust laws and...

This court, quite frankly, because that's not where justice is going to live. So I am excited to be out here with all of you. I'm excited to build upon the histories of liberation and resistance that have been centuries in the making. So this is the esteemed orator that the ACLU selected to argue in front of the Supreme Court yesterday. Someone who says F the court.

And then uploads it on social media. Now, in case it's not obvious, this is yet another DEI selection. Chase Strangio identifies as trans, so they put her up there to get a headline out of it. She's the first trans attorney to argue at the Supreme Court and so on. That's the logic. And it didn't go very well. Like all DEI hires, Chase Strangio crashed and burned multiple times. At one point during oral arguments, for example,

Justice Alito pressed Strangio on the question of whether so-called gender affirming treatments actually help prevent suicides in children. And this is a question that goes to the very heart of the trans agenda as well as the merits of the case. A core argument in the ACLU's petition that was filed with the Supreme Court is that child sex changes are necessary because they save lives. It's also one of the most common refrains we hear from trans activists all the time. This is a life-saving medicine, they say.

They use that line, would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter, implying that it's better to castrate a child than lose that child to suicide. This is maybe their number one argument, in fact. Now, they don't use this line because it's accurate or grounded in reality. They use it because it's often very effective. It's a tool of emotional blackmail, and it works where it has in the past. And if you don't challenge the premise of the question, which is false, you might fall for it and give the trans activists what they want.

But Alito didn't accept the false premise and Strangio had no follow up, had no way of dealing with that. Instead, she admitted that there's no evidence that child sex changes, quote unquote, actually reduced the number of suicides in children. Pretty remarkable moment, watch. But on page 195 of the cast report, it says there is no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide.

What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in the studies that

this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare, and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them. However, there are multiple studies, long-term, longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality, which I think is a positive outcome to this treatment.

So this is what always happens when trans activists have to answer a follow up question. Every single time, this is what you get. They'll make some outrageous claim and then you ask for evidence and they don't have any. They'll shout you down if they can. Or in this context, cuz they can't shout you down at the Supreme Court, they're forced to admit that they were lying, that it's not true. And again, you can't emphasize enough, this is one of the key claims of their whole case, that the lawyer arguing the case just admitted was false.

Now, what happened here is that Justice Alito noticed that the ACLU barely mentioned the cast report in their brief before the court. They put the cast report in a footnote and didn't address it in any meaningful way. So Alito picked up on the fact that they wanted to bury the evidence they didn't like. And then they were called out on it, and they had to admit that the cast report was devastating to their whole argument. Here we have the ACLU's lead attorney admitting that

that according to the data, so-called gender-affirming care doesn't actually reduce the rates of suicide among young people. So what does this gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, accomplish? Chase Strangio goes on to claim that it reduces the number of young people who say they want to kill themselves, but it doesn't really make sense either. I mean, if you really did have some magical treatment that greatly reduced the number of people who say they want to kill themselves, you'd think that naturally the number of suicides would go down too, but apparently that's not happening.

It's enough to make you wonder if anything this Chase Strangio person is saying is remotely true. It also raises questions about how exactly we're measuring the suicidality of young people. But even if this new argument did somehow make sense, it's still a massive retreat from the previous position of the Biden DOJ, the ACLU, trans activists. They claimed for years that child sex changes were necessary because they were life-saving

And now they're finally admitting that they have no evidence to support that contention. They expected us to believe in absurdity that disfiguring a child would save his life somehow on the basis of statistics and expert opinions that they were completely fabricating. This was a devastating moment for the ACLU. The DOJ, the trans agenda, also in general, a devastating moment. And the reason the ACLU and the Biden DOJ

are almost certainly going to lose this case, although we don't want to count our chickens before they hatch, but it looks very likely that they're going to lose, is that the Supreme Court in its current makeup is reluctant to override the democratic will of the voters on account of experts and data that are clearly unreliable, if not totally invented. And what Strangio just admitted is that the experts in the data are indeed highly unreliable, if not outright lies.

In his questions during oral arguments, John Roberts made it clear that this is a big problem for the government's case. The alleged consensus among medical organizations on this issue has collapsed, largely because of countries like Sweden and the UK. And that makes it very hard for the Supreme Court to overturn the democratic will of the people. Justice Kavanaugh made the same point, listen. If it's evolving like that and changing, and England's pulling back and Sweden's pulling back, it strikes me as

you know, pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light for this court to come in, the nine of us, and to constitutionalize the whole area when the rest of the world, or at least the people who have the countries that have been at the forefront of this are, you know, pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment because of concerns about the risks. That's a good way of putting it. And that's what the ACLU and the Biden administration wants. As Kavanaugh points out, the whole rest of the world

They either never engaged in this madness to begin with or they're pulling back from it. And the Biden administration and the ACLU, they want to go the opposite way and put this into the Constitution, engrave it in the Constitution. These doctors have a constitutional right to do this to kids.

Now, the other major problem for the DOJ and the ACLU is that in their understanding, anyone can become transgender at any moment. I mean, that's the entire concept underpinning gender ideology. If you want to be a woman, just say you're a woman. And it's true. If you change your mind at any point, you can switch back. No problem. Somebody can be a man and a woman on the same day if they want.

Now, this is an attractive proposition for narcissistic people who think that they can play God over themselves and biology. But practically, in this case, it creates a lot of issues. And that's because a key argument that the ACLU and the Biden administration are making is that the Tennessee's ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution on the grounds that it supposedly treats people differently depending on an immutable characteristic, namely their sex.

So here's the ACLU's argument. They say that under this law, if you're a boy and you need puberty blockers to address a medical issue like precocious puberty, then you can get puberty blockers. But if you're a girl and you want puberty blockers in order to stall your physical development, in order to affirm your sense of gender identity, you can't get them. Therefore, they say the law is discriminating on the basis of sex. Now, there are about four major problems with this, more than four, but the whole thing is nonsensical. But

Just to highlight four, first of all, the purpose of the medical intervention is vastly different in those two cases I just mentioned. The boy in that example wants to get puberty blockers in order to address the condition of an abnormally premature puberty, while the perfectly healthy girl wants puberty blockers to suppress the normal and healthy functions and development of her body. These are not just different reasons for getting the puberty blockers. They are like opposite reasons.

So the law is treating people differently here, but not based on their sex. It's treating them differently based on the kind of treatment they want and the reason they want it. And it's normal for a law to distinguish between situations like that because certain kinds of medical interventions are far more dangerous than others. They're not the same thing. Okay, if a child has cancer, the benefits of giving the child chemotherapy probably outweighs the risks. If a child doesn't have cancer, then giving the child chemotherapy would be child abuse. It would be torture. It's the exact same procedure.

But in one case it's okay, another case it's not. How could that be the case? Well, because in one case it's treating a legitimate illness and in another case it isn't. So pretty obvious distinction there. Another problem here is that in every other equal protection case that involves sex discrimination, one gender can clearly say that they're losing out in some way. There's usually some obvious injury to a member of one gender and not the other.

So, for example, maybe a man is denied a job while a woman is hired solely on the basis of sex, something like that. But that's not the case here. The Tennessee law applies to both girls and boys equally. It's not negatively affecting either group. In fact, it's positively affecting everybody. It's protecting all kids regardless of sex. But also, regardless, it applies the same regardless of your sex. And that was an observation that Clarence Thomas made at one point during the arguments.

Additionally, Clarence Thomas also pointed out that, you know, if you think about it, what the ACLU is seeking in this case would actually produce its own form of sex discrimination. The ACLU wants the plaintiff in the case, a girl who identifies as a boy, to get drugs that would enable her to undergo a, quote, traditional male puberty. But if the ACLU won the case, boys wouldn't get the same result. They wouldn't be able to get puberty blockers to undergo a male puberty. And as Clarence Thomas pointed out, using the ACLU's own logic, that's a form of sex discrimination.

The fourth fatal problem with the ACLU's argument is that, as Justice Alito observed, trans identity is not an immutable characteristic. Through the miracle of gender ideology, somebody can supposedly become a man in the morning and then revert back to being a woman in the evening. In other words, so-called trans status is not fixed.

and only immutable fixed characteristics like race can qualify for protection under our civil rights laws. That's why this was such a big moment in oral arguments yesterday. Strangio was eventually forced to admit that indeed trans identification is not an immutable characteristic. Another huge moment, listen to this. - Does the category of, does transgender status apply to individuals who are gender fluid?

I think that the distinguishing characteristic is to have a birth sex that does not align with, or a gender that does not align with one's birth sex. So it may include people who have different understandings of their gender identity, but I think it is still the distinguishing characteristic of a birth sex and a gender identity that are incongruent. Are there individuals who are born male, assigned male at birth, who...

at one point identify as female, but then later come to identify as male, and likewise for individuals who are assigned female at birth, at some point identify as female, I'm sorry, identify as male, but later come to identify as female. Are there not such people? There are such people. I agree with that, Justice. So it's not an immutable characteristic, is it?

Well, I think people's understanding of it shifts, but the evidence shows that there is at least a strong underlying basis. And I think the normative reason for that particular consideration is whether or not this is something that someone should or could change and whether they should have to change it in order to receive constitutional protections. And I think transgender status squarely fits within.

So once again, it all devolves into word salad. And once again, one of the pivotal aspects of the ACLU's case just absolutely crumbled. They had to admit that trans status is not immutable. That alone means you lose. If that's the case, which of course it is, if it's the case that trans status is not immutable, by the...

And that's accepting the ACLU's and the trans activists' own argument. Like accepting them, just letting them tell us what it means to be trans, according to them even, it's not immutable. So-

The whole case is out the window. So we've already heard two or three examples where if you just took just like one moment, just any one of these moments isolated would destroy the whole case. But then you add them all together and you have just an absolute meltdown, which means that Chase Strangio's big day at the Supreme Court didn't go very well, to put it mildly. No one could have seen that coming, but that's what happened.

Actually, it's pretty clear that everyone saw it coming, which is why the Biden administration's solicitor general, Elizabeth Preliger, did most of the arguing yesterday. In her remarks, she conceded that some of this gender-affirming care, so-called, results in the sterilization of children. But she said it was worth it. Anyway, here's her reasoning.

You mentioned fertility and regret, and I'd like to take both of those concerns head on. I do want to acknowledge that there is evidence to suggest that gender-affirming care with respect to hormones can have some impacts on fertility. I think you have to recognize that the effect of denying this care is to produce irreversible physical...

effects that are consistent with their birth sex because they have to go through puberty before they turn 18. So essentially what this law is doing is saying we're going to make all adolescents in the state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or with their sex assigned at birth.

even though that might significantly worsen gender dysphoria, increase the risk of suicide, and I think critically make it much harder to live and be accepted in their gender identity as an adult. Because if you're requiring someone to undergo a male puberty and they develop an Adam's apple, that's going to be hard to reverse, and they're more likely to be identified as transgender and subject to discrimination and harassment as adults.

Just utter nonsense. This, of course, is the so-called forced puberty argument. She's saying that Tennessee's law is what forces children to undergo puberty, even though they might not want to. She says, quote, what this law is doing is saying we're going to make all adolescents in the state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or with their sex assigned at birth.

Well, no, the law in Tennessee isn't making anyone develop secondary sex characteristics. That's just nature, okay? That's what happens naturally. That's the normal series of events that occurs as children get older.

I mean, it's no different than saying that, you know, if you won't let a nine-year-old get a nose job, that you're forcing the nine-year-old to have the nose that she was born with. No, we didn't create the nose. That's just your nose. And what we're saying is nine years old is too young to go get cosmetic surgery. So what the Biden administration wants to do is to interrupt the natural development of children with completely untested chemicals that will sterilize them.

They're trying to reframe our position as somehow the unnatural one because they recognize at some level that it's grotesque and extremely dangerous to conduct medical experiments on children. And so they have to reduce themselves to these kinds of totally vacuous and absurd arguments. In her questioning, Sonia Sotomayor pretended not to realize all this. She tried to claim that there's no difference between castrating a child and giving a child an aspirin. Watch.

Cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. So it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left. I'm sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin.

there is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So the question in my mind is not, do policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment? The question is, can you stop one sex from the other?

This is one of those moments where we're all supposed to pretend that Sonia Sotomayor isn't a complete idiot. We're all supposed to pretend that she's a wise Latina who adds much needed diversity to the court. It's all very degrading and intentionally so. A JV debate team would disband in shame if they ever made the argument you just heard there. And this is the highest court in the land.

OK, aspirin is one of the most tested medicines on the planet. We know every side effect. We have all the information there is to have about it. We know what ages can safely take it, what ages cannot. We know everything about what the dosage is supposed to be. Aspirin does not pretend to change an immutable characteristic like your sex. There is no aspirin report in the UK that shows that there's no benefit to taking aspirin.

But to Sonia Sotomayor, taking an aspirin and castrating yourself in order to affirm a subjective gender identity are the same thing. No differences that she can detect. But Sotomayor didn't stop there. As a noted feminist, Sotomayor went on to compare a girl with unwanted hair to a girl with, quote, unwanted breasts. She actually drew that comparison without missing a beat. And then the lawyer for the state of Tennessee informed her that, you know, those are two very different things. Watch.

The question is, can you stop one sex from the other? One person of one sex from another sex from receiving that benefit. So if the medical condition is unwanted hair by a nine-year-old boy,

who can receive estrogen for that because at nine years old, if he has hair, he gets laughed at and picked on and his puberty is coming in too early. But a girl who has unwanted hair says or has unwanted breasts or a boy at that age can get that drug, but the other can't.

That's the sex-based difference. It's not the medical condition is the same. But you're saying one sex is getting it and the other is not. We do not agree that the medical condition is the same. We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a six-year-old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical treatment as giving it to a minor who wants to transition. Those are not the same medical treatment.

Yeah, right. I mean, yes, it's not the same. And this really has always been the primary challenge of debating

the left on this issue, on so many other issues too, but particularly on this one, that their arguments are so dumb. They are so stupid. They are so mind-bogglingly off base that you don't even know where to begin in responding to them. They can kind of, you might fall into a kind of stupefied silence when you hear stuff like this,

Because when she says that, it's like hair and breasts are two different things. I mean, can we start with the fact that one is a physical part of your body that if you get rid of that part of your body, it will not grow back, but hair does? So we could start with that. Same reason that cutting your hair and cutting off your arm are not the same things.

Well, we let children, we take children to barbershops to cut off their hair. Why couldn't we cut off their arm? Answer that now, counselor. Now, if you understand these oral arguments as a competition among the DEI justices to outdumb each other, then it starts to make a little bit more sense. That's especially true after you see what Katonji Brown Jackson did. She went ahead and compared Tennessee's law to a ban on interracial marriage.

This is the same justice who, lest we forget, couldn't even define the word woman during her confirmation hearing. And now she's saying that, in effect, there's no difference between protecting kids from castration and preventing white people from marrying black people. Watch.

...being drawn by the statute. That was sort of like the starting point. The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever. But, you know, as I read the statute here, excuse me, the case here, you know, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. And when you look at the structure...

of that law, it looks in terms of you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing. So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument. And I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way

that Tennessee is in this case. Yes, I think that's exactly right, that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic. This is what you get when you select justices based on race. They're only capable of talking about race. They have to shoehorn every single issue into some racial framework because it's all they know. It got them to this point in their career, so what else are they going to do?

And in this case, you know, not that it really needs to be said, but there is no comparison between Tennessee's ban on child castration and Virginia's long defunct law banning interracial marriage. For one thing, Virginia's law prevented adults from marrying based on their immutable characteristics. Okay. Tennessee's law, as we've already discussed, does not do any of that. It prevents minors from undergoing experimental sex changes, not because of their immutable characteristics, but because these attempts to change their sex are actively harmful to them and also impossible.

OK, they're trying to do an impossible thing. It's an affront to basic biology. OK, it's a law that's saying we can you cannot do intentional harm to a child all in an attempt to bring about a result that is fundamentally impossible. It's not fundamentally impossible for a black person to marry a white person.

That's a very possible thing to happen. It is fundamentally impossible for a boy to become a girl. And so any attempt to turn him into one will constitute abuse in the worst form. As far as I could tell, based on these oral arguments, this is looking like a six to three decision in favor of Tennessee. The best the ACLU could hope for is that the Supreme Court somehow finds that this law does indeed discriminate on the basis of sex.

And if that happens, the case goes back to the Sixth Circuit for a rerun of their analysis with a slightly higher standard of review of the law. But that outcome also appears to be very unlikely at this point. For the most part, the conservative justices asked good questions, demonstrated their skepticism of gender ideology. There were some moments that raised some eyebrows, like when John Roberts referred to Chase Strangio as Mr., even though she's a female.

There's also the fact that no conservative justice directly refuted the unscientific made up terminology that the Biden DOJ used. Like for example, a gender assigned at birth and so on. The justice mostly accepted some of the definitions and framings of the activists, which they shouldn't have done. But in general, we got exactly what we wanted. The trans activists

appear to be losing this fight and they know it. We are nearing the culmination of the battle that we began, that really began years and years and years ago. But in terms of this law, that could be one of the catalysts of that was the Vanderbilt expose that we published. All of these activists can do now, all they could do as they did yesterday is just scream into the abyss.

In the meantime, we'll continue fighting to ensure that these people won't be able to ruin the life of another child. If this case goes the way we expect it to, it's not the end of the fight. It's the start actually of a whole new fight of an effort to ban this butchering nationwide and then to defeat gender ideology entirely. We can start by cutting all federal funding to the gender industry and that'd be a good easy place to start. Something could be done right away.

And from there we go on with the ultimate goal, a total ban on this practice. So this is a victory that seemed pretty far away just a few years ago. But based on what just happened in the Supreme Court, it's now clear that finally we are very close to achieving it. Now let's get to our five headlines.

You're busy enough this season without having to get up on a ladder to clean out your gutters. With holiday decorations to hang and winter prep to tackle, the last thing you need is to worry about clogged gutters. And let's be honest, nobody wants to be up on a ladder when the cold weather hits. Whether you've been dealing with this headache for years or haven't checked your gutters in longer than you like to admit, there's a permanent solution waiting for you with Leaf Filter.

You know, I used to think gutter maintenance was just another simple home task, but after seeing the damage that improperly maintained gutters can cause, I learned it's best to trust the experts. What seems like a simple clog can lead to serious issues down the line. When you invest in Leaf Filter, you're protecting your entire home. Water damage from clogged gutters isn't just inconvenient, it can lead to flooded basements, damaged foundations, and rotting siding. Leaf Filter's patented technology is designed to

Keep everything out except water. No gaps, no holes, just a clean, maintenance-free system backed by a lifetime no-clog guarantee. Over a million homeowners have already made the switch. When you schedule your free inspection, a Lee Filter Trusted Pro will thoroughly clean, realign, and seal your existing gutters before installing your new protection system. It'll even provide a no-obligation estimate so you know exactly what to expect. Don't miss out on your last chance of the year to save up to 35% off.

when you protect your gutters with LeafFilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection at leaffilter.com/walsh. That's our lowest price of the year, up to 35% off at leaffilter.com/walsh. See your representative for warranty details. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and devastating, folks. From the Maui fires to Hurricane Helene, we're seeing entire towns wiped out in 24 hours with barely any warning.

What happens? People are left without basic resources, scrambling to survive. Now, I know you're thinking, it won't happen here. That's exactly what everyone thinks until they're in the middle of a catastrophe. Being prepared isn't just smart, it's essential. That's where the wellness company's emergency kit comes in. These aren't your run-of-the-mill first aid kits. We're talking about a personalized mini-pharmacy right in your own home. No more relying on overworked doctors or understocked pharmacies when disaster strikes.

Bacterial infections, staph, bite wounds, UTIs, strep throat, respiratory illnesses, these kits have you covered. It's like having a doctor in your pocket minus the liberal indoctrination from med school. Look, you keep a fire extinguisher handy, right? Well, consider this your medical fire extinguisher. It's not paranoia, it's preparedness.

Here's how it works. Just fill out a form online. A pharmacist reviews it. And boom, simple as that. Your kit arrives in two weeks. It even comes with a medical board approved guidebook. It's that simple. And right now, when you go to urgentcarekit.com slash Walsh and use promo code Walsh, you'll save $60 plus free shipping. That's urgentcarekit.com slash Walsh to save $60. This is preparedness simplified. Invest in your family's self-managed insurance plan today. Urgentcarekit.com slash Walsh. USA residents only.

Okay, well, just hit on a couple quick things. I want to play this moment on CNN as the media was covering this Supreme Court case. And there was actually two things that make this moment interesting to me as they were, I think, talking to someone with Alliance Defending Freedom. And I want you to listen to what the CNN anchor says and how this exchange goes. Listen.

I think a lot of people are confused about this issue. They don't know where they stand on it, but where is the room for a conversation about this? I love that we're having one right now in terms of a conversation, and that's what was at issue today. What kid, what girl knows whether she's going to want to have a baby long term or what testosterone will do to her uterus or that she will increase her risk of heart attacks by taking these drugs? Some of them do.

No, no, none of them. No, I don't. None of them. None of them do. Eighty five percent what we know from the science. And again, it's about not putting ideology over evidence. And that's what's happening here. Yeah, I love that moment. Some of them do. No, no, you moron. No, I just the patronizing tone was perfectly appropriate. And I really liked it there. But I think so. Like I said, there are two things here.

First is just the framing by the CNN anchor. And we're hearing this more and more from the left about this issue. You notice how she starts. She says, is there room for conversation? Can't we at least talk about it?

So that's already a retreat, okay? There's very much a retreat going on on the left, especially in the mainstream media on this issue. Because as I've been saying for a while now, they're embarrassed of the issue. Most of these people know that they're totally wrong about it, that they're just on the wrong side. Most of them know that because most of them are not crazy. So they do, I mean, despite appearances, they do in fact know that this is totally wrong. But

But they were much more gung-ho about it a few years ago, even though they knew it was wrong, because it seemed like the winning side politically and culturally. And now it isn't. And so now, if you're on the left, and especially if you're in the public, if you have a platform, and you go out and defend the idea that we should chemically castrate children, or you defend the idea that men can get pregnant or any of this other nonsense, you are saying something you know isn't true,

You're saying something you know is crazy, you're embarrassing yourself, and you're not even on the winning side. So you're doing all that, you're disgracing yourself for a side that isn't even winning. There's no benefit anymore to you. So what you're seeing is this kind of retreat and this recalibration. And so now you get a lot of stuff like this, where the CNN anchor, well, can't we talk about, isn't there room for a conversation?

Yeah, well, you know what? That's that's sure we can talk about it. But that's what we've been saying for years. Let's have a conversation about it. Now, it's it's there's not much to actually talk about because you on that side are just totally, completely wrong. And you have not you have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no logic. You have no common sense. Everything you're saying is is is clearly objectively wrong and not to mention just totally incoherent.

But if you want to talk about it, sure. We're not the ones who have ever been scared about talking about this issue. But you guys were the ones for years that were doing everything you could to shut down any conversation about this. Okay? You were the ones, if we tried to talk about it on any platform, we would get deplatformed, censored, shut down. Okay? So you're the ones who have prevented that from happening, prevented this conversation from taking place.

But now, sure, you want to let's let's talk. We're going to continue beating you and we're going to continue advancing our agenda, which our agenda is just simple truth and common sense and basic human decency. But, yeah, we could talk about in the meantime. And they were talking about it there. And we hear from the CNN anchor that, well, the alliance of the woman with lies defending freedom says that makes the very obvious point that.

When you sterilize a child, when you do these irreversible things to a child, the child is now sacrificing something that they don't understand what they're sacrificing. A child can't actually consent to the decision made.

to, for example, not have kids in the future, to in the future not be a parent. They can't actually make that decision because they have no idea what that means. And they have no idea what they're going to want to do or how their priorities are going to change when they're adults. So no child can know that. No young girl at the age of 10 or whatever can say, oh yeah, I know for a fact I'm never going to want to be a mother when I go. I'll never want that. 20 years from now, I'm not going to want it. No 10-year-old girl can say that.

They can say it, they can physically say it, but they can't know it. And that was the point that we heard there. And the only thing the CNN anchor could say is, well, really, all of them? Are you saying no child, no child could possibly know that? Yeah, that's what we're saying. Yes, no child, no child can possibly know what they're going to want

or what kind of life they're going to want to lead, or what big decisions they're going to make for themselves and about their lives when they're adults. No child can know that. The fact that a child says, as a child, I'm not going to want to have children in the future, that doesn't mean anything. As I've said many times, up until the age of, as recently as the age of 23 or 24, I would have told you that, yeah, I don't even know if I really want to have

have kids. Uh, now I have six of them. So, uh, if you had asked me when I was 10, I was like, yeah, if, if, if you'd asked me when I was 10, do I want to have kids in the future? I almost certainly would have said, no, I don't want what I want to have little me's running around. I'm, I'm a pain in the ass. I don't want, I don't want, I wouldn't want to have to deal with this. Um, of course a child says that and thinks that way. Uh, so just total, total nonsense. Um,

All right, staying on the same general theme,

Daily Wire has this report. The Ladies Professional Golf Association Tour has announced a major change to its eligibility rules for competition for transgender-identifying male players starting in 2025. On Wednesday, the LPGA released findings from its working group, which included experts in medicine, science, sports physiology, golf performance, and gender policy law that found, quote, the effects of male puberty confer competitive advantages in golf performance compared to players who have not undergone male puberty.

The statement read, quote, under the new policy, athletes who are assigned female at birth are eligible to compete on the LPGA Tour, Epson Tour, Ladies European Tour, and in all other elite LPGA competitions. It added, quote, players assigned male at birth and who have gone through male puberty are not eligible to compete in the aforementioned events. The policies governing the LPGA's recreational programs and non-elite events utilize different criteria to provide opportunities for participation in the broader LPGA community.

The move comes after trans-identifying male golfer Haley Davidson had competed in the NXXT Tour before the group changed its rules and was removed. The move on Wednesday now cuts off Davidson's possible path to the Tour or Epson Tours after competing in Q School in the fall as the player inched closer to qualifying for an LPGA Tour card. Davidson, who formerly played on a men's collegiate golf team, took to Instagram after the gender eligibility rule change was announced. Davidson wrote, quote,

Can't say I didn't see this coming. Banned from the Epson and LPGA. All the silence and people wanting to stay neutral. Thanks for absolutely nothing. This happened because of all of your silence. And somehow people are surprised the suicide rate for transgender people is around 50%. Situations just like this are part of the reason. So the trans golfer has the emotional blackmail there at the end as usual. As we covered in the opening, this is a favorite tactic of these people. He essentially threatens to

kill himself because he didn't get his way. And this is what trans activists do. They put a proverbial gun to their own heads and say, give me what I want or I'll pull the trigger. And for a long time, the country acquiesced to their ransom demands. But that isn't happening anymore. You know, the tactic isn't working because now the answer to this kind of threat is the answer it always should have been, which is, look, we don't want you to hurt yourself. We hope you don't.

We hope you get the help you need, but we're not going to let you manipulate and control us. OK, it doesn't work that way. You can't say, give me everything I want or something bad is going to happen to me because I'm going to do it to myself. It doesn't work that way. You can't get what you want in adult life that way. I mean, for a while you were able to, but that time is over.

You're going to make whatever choice you're going to make. You're going to respond, whoever you choose to respond. We can't control that. We can't control your actions, but we can say that you're not going to control ours. And that has been the response finally. And even now, an organization like the LPGA is getting it right. I mean, mostly right.

Because they stipulate that if an athlete was assigned male at birth and has undergone male puberty, then they're not eligible to compete in women's golf. The effect of this policy is that it's going to eliminate the vast majority of trans-identified males who would want to play in women's golf, like Haley Davidson, the person who uses the name Haley Davidson. But it does technically leave the door open for males to compete.

they just have to be males who never underwent male puberty, which is to say males who were chemically castrated with gender transition drugs at a young age. Like that's, that's what the, um, the policy actually says and allows. And this is a door that shouldn't be left open. Uh, first because even a male in that camp is still a male. And second, because such a policy implicitly, even if unintentionally endorses and even encourages the use of puberty blockers and all of that, it becomes an argument against,

For giving these drugs to children a bad argument, but an argument that you will hear from the trans activists And they're gonna say okay well I guess that means we gotta that's all the more reason why we got to give these drugs to kids at the youngest age possible so the decision here isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than the previous policy of letting any male who says he's a woman into the competition So it's a marked improvement

And aside from leaving the door cracked open a bit more than it should, it's a common sense policy. It's the kind of policy that should have been in place all along. And it really is, well, it's frustrating for me at one level when I see all of these organizations reversing their so-called trans-inclusive policies and embracing common sense and science again. And what's frustrating about it, even though I'm happy

about the policies, I do have to think, okay, great. Was that so hard? Why didn't you say this from the beginning? You know, when I hear the LPGA now in the year 2024, say, well, we've looked into this and we decided men can't compete. Why couldn't you have said that 10 years ago? Why did it take you all this time? It wasn't very hard to say, was it?

Now we don't have to dwell on this aspect of things right now There will come a time for that maybe in the future for now We don't have to dwell on it for now the only thing that really matters is that everybody gets on board with common sense and biology and protecting women's spaces protecting children Protecting men too. So we need everybody on board. I welcome everybody on board I throw up in my arms and I embrace any of the prodigal sons who return home to the the land of reality Okay, but I can't forget

the past 10 years where so many people, seemingly the majority of people really, openly affirmed or silently kowtowed to this insane agenda that went along with this idea that men can become women and vice versa and all of that. And I can't forget that. And all the people who went along with it and all the organizations that went along with it, I remember that. And we should all remember it because we'll never be able to trust

any of those people again or take them seriously again. And that, once again, I'm not saying, yeah, we welcome everybody in. Please come in. Please come in out of the cold. Leave this madness behind and come back to reality. And I certainly welcome that. But it doesn't, you know, it's a little bit of a forgive but don't forget kind of thing that we can't just pretend all this didn't happen. And there is a price for getting something like this wrong. Like,

The trans ideology issue, if you got it wrong, there's a price. And the price is simply that your credibility is permanently shot forever. And we don't have to hash that out right now. Let's finish the job of defeating gender ideology. And then we can figure out what happens going forward. And we can talk about whose voices and opinions can be taken seriously in the future and whose can't. Because...

If you didn't immediately sniff this thing out for what it is and understand that it had to be opposed, if you didn't have the common sense or the gumption or the courage to do that, then, like I said, it's just something we keep in mind in the future. We just can't rely on you, and we can't trust you, and you have no credibility. But...

Even so, welcome to the LPGA. Very, very glad to finally have them on board with this basic common sense thing. You know those tasks that seem to drag on forever, like that mountain of unread emails that somehow multiply overnight, or that simple office chair that comes with a 50-page instruction manual? Maybe you've watched a plant grow at a glacial pace or spent what feels like half your life on hold with an airline's customer service.

Well, if you're an employer, finding the right talent can feel just as time consuming. But here's the good news. ZipRecruiter is changing all of that. They find qualified candidates and they find them fast. And today, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.

What makes ZipRecruiter different? Well, they're ranked as the number one hiring site by employers on G2, and it's easy to see why. Their smart technology starts working the moment you post a job, instantly connecting you with qualified candidates. Their powerful matching technology does all the heavy lifting, saving you precious time and resources in your search for top talent. Let ZipRecruiter find top talent for all of your roles in no time at all. See why four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. And if you go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh right now, you can try it for free today.

That's the same price as laughing so hard that your sides hurt or getting a compliment from a random stranger. It's all free. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.

Only a few days left to join the fight and save 50% off. If you've ever thought about joining Gailiwire Plus, now's the time. Right now, new annual memberships are half price. It's our best deal of the year. That's one full year of uncensored daily shows with limited ads, groundbreaking documentaries, and hit movies like Am I Racist? Series including Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's The Gospels, along with our entire entertainment catalog. Plus, you get unlimited access to BendKey, our kids app packed with content that reflects your values.

Already a member? Give the gift of Daily Wire Plus this holiday season at 50% off. This deal ends soon. Go to dailywire.com slash cyberweek now and join the fight.

Well, I lied, actually. There is no daily cancellation this time. Because there were two massive news stories unfolding yesterday, and I wanted to have a chance to talk about both of them, which means that our normal closing segment has to be pushed off for today. And that's because today marks the third day of jury deliberations in a trial that never should have occurred in the first place.

That's possible, but by the time you listen to this, the verdict will have already been decided and announced. But as I say these words, they are still in deliberation. New York, of course, is prosecuting Daniel Penny for the crime of defending a subway car full of passengers from a violent maniac named Jordan Neely. On May 1st of last year, Neely, who at the time had an active warrant out for his arrest for assaulting a woman on the subway...

boarded a subway car in Manhattan and announced that he wasn't afraid to go to prison and that, quote, someone is going to die today. Multiple people on the train later said that they had never been more terrified in their lives. Penny then put Neely in a neck restraint and eventually Neely died. New York Medical Examiner's Office says that Neely died of neck compression, but a Texas-based forensic pathologist retained by the defense said

says that New York's experts are wrong and that Danili, in fact, died due to a combination of factors, including a sickle cell crisis caused by exertion, schizophrenia, and his use of synthetic marijuana. So it's a George Floyd-type scenario all over again. And we've been through the outline of this case many times before. We've been following this case closely, as you know, ever since the incident first occurred on the subway. And I believe it is one of the most important murder trials ever.

in American history. And so at this point, the details don't bear repeating. If you've been listening to the show, you know all of them. It's well established that a functioning, sane society would be giving Daniel Penny an award for doing what the state refused to do, which is to protect its citizens from an unstable, lifelong criminal with dozens of prior arrests. But as these deliberations stretch into their third day, it's becoming clear that at least some people in New York disagree. This is not an easy verdict for these jurors, apparently.

It should be, but it isn't. And just by itself, that's a very stark commentary on where things stand right now in our nation's largest city. The fact that Daniel Penny wasn't acquitted in two seconds tells you that, for all intents and purposes, the right of self-defense has been nullified in New York. You can act to defend yourself and others in the most obvious manner imaginable, and yet still face a very real prospect of spending up to 15 years in prison.

So unfortunately, no matter what happens from here on out, and hopefully they come back with not guilty, but it cannot be a truly happy conclusion at this point. The happiest conclusion is that after deliberating for days and days, they find him not guilty. It's obviously what we're praying for. But we couldn't even call that a happy conclusion at this point because, number one, the case was brought in the first place, and number two,

the jury had to deliberate about it for days, rather than going back and talking it over for two minutes and maybe having a lunch break and then coming out and saying, yeah, of course, not guilty. Now, the more you look into why exactly this case was brought and how it was conducted, the more it becomes clear that this case really isn't about Daniel Penny or anything he did. It's about something called restorative justice. And you don't have to look very hard to see that restorative justice in practical terms

is a system of race-based punishment. So here, for example, is a video that's been going viral the last couple of days of the prosecutor in the Penny case, a woman named Daphna Yorin. She's an assistant DA in Manhattan. And in this clip, she's discussing a previous case from 2019 in which she explains her decision to go easy on a 57-year-old black man who killed an 87-year-old Asian college professor while robbing him at an ATM machine.

And Yorin says that she felt sorry for the 57-year-old black man, and so she decided to pursue manslaughter charges instead of felony murder. Watch. I had a murder case where the defendant did not intentionally kill the victim. He went into an ATM on the Upper West Side and tried to rob an individual.

Unfortunately, it was an older individual. He was 86. And in the course of the robbery, he fell to the ground and as a result, he died. This is under the law, a felony murder, which is akin to intentional murder. However, when I first got the case, I learned, I took the time to learn about the defendant.

And it was a strong case, so it wasn't about who done it. I knew immediately who did it. I could prove it. I could take it to trial that day and win it. But it wasn't about that. It was that the more I learned about the defendant and his life and the circumstances, the kinds of things that Jarrell was talking about, that one should take into account the trauma of that individual,

I really felt incredibly sorry for him that he had gotten to that point in his life where he felt like there was no other choice but to commit this robbery. So Yorin is very concerned about the emotional trauma that the killer supposedly suffered, but she's much less concerned with the actual trauma that the 85-year-old man suffered, trauma which killed him. And therefore she came up with an arrangement that would reduce the killer's potential sentence from 25 years to life imprisonment all the way down to 10 years.

And he won't even serve anywhere near the full 10 years. He's eligible for parole next year, in fact. And to be clear, because it's not obvious from that clip, the victim in this case didn't like slip on a banana peel while he was being robbed. This wasn't some freak accident. The 87-year-old victim was hit in the back of the head by a man 30 years younger than he was. We're talking about a violent felony that occurred. There was clear intent to cause serious and potentially fatal injury at a minimum.

So what might explain Daphne Yorin's sympathy for a murderer who killed someone while committing a felony, even as she demonstrates no sympathy whatsoever for Daniel Penny? Unlike the ATM murderer, Daniel Penny didn't set out to commit a violent felony. He didn't attack an innocent elderly man so that he could steal $300. Instead, he responded to the actions of a violent felon who was terrorizing everybody around him. But Yorin's sympathies are strangely absent this time around.

Now, online, there are reports that Daphne Yorin is a lesbian who's married to a BLM activist. And that's not particularly surprising. What we're seeing in this case is a clear example of race-based restorative justice. The ATM killer was black. Daniel Penny's white. So he's not entitled to sympathy. He's not entitled to the right of self-defense either.

He needs to be punished solely on account of his skin color. That's what this is really about. That's why throughout the trial, the prosecution has repeatedly referred to Daniel Penny as the white man. So here's one exchange from the courtroom, for example. This is the DA asking questions and a witness answering, quote, question, when you saw the white man holding on to Mr. Neely, how were they? Answer, his arm was on his neck. Question, where is Mr. Neely's back with respect to the white man? Was Mr. Neely laying on top of the white man?

Answer, like this. He had him held. The doors opened. Question, did the white man's arm ever leave Mr. Neely's neck? Answer, not that I saw. The racial emphasis was so overt and so over the top that Penny's lawyer made reference to it when it was his turn to cross-examine the witness. He began, quote, the prosecutor kept calling him the white man. I'm going to call him Danny. Is that okay? The witness replied that it was indeed okay.

The defense has also sought a mistrial over this, which of course the judge denied. In New York, Soros DAs have no problem reminding jurors that white people deserve to be punished, while black defendants should get out of jail as quickly as possible, even when they bludgeon elderly Asian men to death. The prosecution has used a bunch of other dirty arguments too. For example, they used Penny's interrogation footage to portray him as callous and indifferent to Jordan Neely. Here's part of that footage.

- Daniel? - Yeah. - I'm Detective McCarthy. I'm Detective Medina. I actually work here at the police. This is where you're at right now. - Cool. - How you doing today? - I'm doing well, how are you guys? - Very good, very good. I'm doing well.

- You served in the Marine Corps down here? - I did, yes. - Served in the Marine Corps. - Oh, nice. Nice. - Got my little death before the sign of test. - There you go, nice man. - What'd you do, what was your MLS in the middle of all this? - I was in O-351. - I was in O-331. - Oh, cool, machine gun, yeah, weapons platoon, nice man. - I was not in the military, so I don't know what that stuff is. - It's like another language. - Third battalion, six Marines. - Okay, there you go, 36. - 96 to 2000. - Nice man. - Two METLOs, did my thing, and then I ended up here, now I got close to 22 years here now.

Good pension coming off of it. Yeah. It was on there. I forget what stop it was at, but some guy came in and he's like whipped his jacket off and he's like,

I'm gonna kill everybody, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I can go to prison forever, I don't care, I don't do this. At that point, I looked to the person next to me like, hey, just hang on to this phone for me, I had my headphones in and took it off, and just kind of like grabbed him from behind, because he came in, just to like, because he was acting like a lunatic, like a crazy person. So, and he was rolling around the floor. Yeah, absolutely. Something like that. I mean,

Those that K2 that they're smoking, pushing people in front, like these people are going crazy. So, so he seemed, he seemed more physically. Now, a key point here is that at this point during the interview, Daniel Penny did not know that Jordan Neely was dead. He also thought that law enforcement was on his side. So he spoke to them without a lawyer, which is always a huge mistake. Then he proceeds to describe Jordan Neely as a crazy unhinged crackhead, which is true.

And now a big part of the prosecution's closing argument is that Daniel Penny in this interrogation wasn't using nice words to describe Jordan Neely. They're saying that he shouldn't have called him a crackhead or referenced all the other violent thugs who pushed people in front of subway cars. That's their evidence that Daniel Penny should go to prison. That he wasn't telling the cops that Jordan Neely was a talented Michael Jackson impersonator. He wasn't mourning the BLM martyr. He was saying things about Neely that were true. He was revealing

Perhaps that he has a negative opinion of violent crackheads just like everybody else on the planet who isn't a violent crackhead or who isn't apparently a New York DA. This is an injustice that's so undeniable that the city's mayor, Eric Adams, has just come out once again to essentially say that Daniel Penny is getting railroaded. He didn't use those exact words and he says he can't comment on jury verdicts and so on, but he makes it clear that this prosecution is completely corrupt and

He also criticized the media for portraying Jordan Neely as a Michael Jackson impersonator instead of a career felon. Listen. You can look at that on a multifaceted approach of everything that's wrong with the system that we're facing.

One, look at the photo that they used to show the victims. It seemed like it was a young, innocent child who was brutally murdered, and it gave that impression. When you looked at the photo that was being used, it wanted to set up in the minds of people that we were dealing with, a young, innocent child that, you know, just a Michael Jackson intimidator that...

you know, was just brutally assaulted. Then you look at the complete failure of our mental health system, a complete failure from the days of closing psychiatric wards and having those who needed help just turned over into the street. Now we're on the subway where we're hearing someone talking about hurting people, killing people. You have someone on that subway who was responding.

doing what we should have done as a city in a state of having a better mental health facility. Those passengers were afraid. I'm hoping that the jury will hear all the facts.

Based on all the facts that's laid out, a jury of his peers would make the right decision. And I don't want to prejudge that. I'm just looking at all the facts that are involved here and what we did to get to where we are and what we're seeing, because that could have easily been a case where you saw three innocent people murdered on our street of two weeks ago.

So Eric Adams says that the media portrayed Jordan Neely as a Michael Jackson intimidator instead of an impersonator because words are very challenging for the mayor of New York. We can't expect too much here from the leader of the biggest city in the United States. But you do have to give Eric Adams some credit for being the only Democrat in the entire country to contradict the official narrative on this thing, even if he's doing it as tepidly as he possibly can.

In New York, this is what passes for bravery at the moment. Pretty much no one else is standing up for Daniel Penny. There are BLM mobs outside the courthouse every day. They're so loud that jurors can apparently hear them inside the courthouse, 13 floors up. It's like the trial of Derek Chauvin all over again. Everyone on the jury knows that. They all know that if they acquit, the city will probably burn, which makes this whole procedure totally invalid. But again-

Whether the jurors ultimately bow to that pressure or not, the fact that the jury has taken so long to reach a verdict is already a pretty clear sign that the right of self-defense doesn't exist anymore in New York City. There are no guarantees in New York that you can defend yourself or others, even when a violent felon storms your subway car and vows to kill people. Instead, especially if you're white, your only guarantee is that a Soros DA will try to destroy your life. That is the reality that the Daniel Penny trial has laid bare. It's an utter travesty of a prosecution.

And until all of these DAs are removed from office, we can be sure that it won't be the last one. And that'll do it for the show today. Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.