You can’t say Stephen Colbert didn’t try.
“The Late Show” host spent years spreading every anti-Trump narrative in the media. The “Very Fine People” speech. Russian Collusion. The Ballad of Stormy Daniels. Pee-Pee tapes. If it was critical of the president, Colbert pounced and seized.
True? False? Fake News? No matter. Colbert was on the case, weaponizing his nightly broadcast as an in-kind contribution to the DNC.
Except it didn’t work. Trump returned to the Oval Office earlier this year. And, now, Colbert won’t be around the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York City to watch Trump complete his second term.
<div id="attachment_952651" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-952651" class="size-large wp-image-952651" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225461053-864x576.jpg" alt="People participate in a protest titled 'Colbert stays! Trump must go!' outside the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York City on July 21, 2025. &quot;The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,&quot; a staple of late-night US television, will end in 2026, the CBS network said, days after the comedian blasted parent company Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump as &quot;a big fat bribe.&quot; (Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP) (Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225461053-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225461053-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225461053-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225461053.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images</div>
“The Late Show’s” cancellation sent shock waves through Hollywood. Supporters decry the decision, ignoring the cold, hard math behind the move. Reports say the show loses CBS $40 million (or more) a year.
Why would any business keep a show on the air for that price?
“The Late Show” became free therapy sessions for those who still can’t believe the country elected the real estate mogul – twice. They tuned in to hear their beliefs reflected back at them, aided and abetted by Colbert’s smug delivery.
It must have felt empowering to hear him call Trump Vladimir Putin’s [bleep] holster at the height of the Russian collusion scandal. Did it matter that it was all built upon a lie?
Apparently not. And Colbert never felt compelled to apologize for misleading his audience.
The Colbert we see today isn’t the one we were first introduced to on, where else, “The Daily Show.” His shtick at the time, expanded via “The Colbert Report,” was mocking a Bill O’Reilly-style commentator.
He excelled at the role, earning some respect even among right-leaning viewers. He put the funny first, much like he did as part of the “Strangers with Candy” sitcom years earlier.
<div id="attachment_952649" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-952649" class="size-large wp-image-952649" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-460161346-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 8: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Barack Obama (L) talks to television personality Stephen Colbert during a taping of Comedy Central's &quot;The Colbert Report&quot; in Lisner Auditorium at George Washington University on December 8, 2014 in Washington, DC. This is President Obama's third appearance on &quot;The Colbert Report&quot; that will broadcast its final show on Dec. 18. (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-460161346-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-460161346-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-460161346-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-460161346.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images</div>
He seemed a smart choice to succeed David Letterman on “The Late Show” in 2015, but he initially struggled in the ratings against “The Tonight Show” juggernaut. Then, Colbert found his inner Bernie Sanders and turned the showcase into a hard-Left platform.
The move paid dividends. “The Late Show” soon became the ratings leader before the rise of Fox News’ “Gutfeld!”
The shift didn’t help the show’s longevity. The bill has come due. Why?
He neglected to heed the Ghost of Johnny Carson. The late-night king knew well enough to mock both sides of the aisle and have fun doing so.
The joy seeped from Colbert’s performance. So did any sense of balance. Now, you’re as likely to see a “Pod Save America” host on his show as a Tom Cruise or Sydney Sweeney.
Progressive viewers may vote for Sen. Adam Schiff, but on a charisma scale of 1 to 10 he’s a 3, at best.
What happens next? Colbert vows to go down fighting, slamming President Trump with every sketch and monologue in his waning days. Oh, like he’s done the past nine or so years? The Legacy Media will <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/07/24/trump-epstein-files-late-night-hosts/85356533007/">amplify them all</a>, hoping to sway the public against Trump beyond their cartoonishly biased reportage.
Reporters will miss crafting headlines like this as much as they miss Colbert: &#8220;Late-night guys are giddy with Trump and Epstein jokes after latest developments.&#8221;
How can Colbert possibly do more to attack the Trump administration at this point? He can’t, unless he takes a page from “The View” playbook.
Unhinged conspiracies. Fear-mongering on steroids. Undisciplined rants that cause the studio audience to clap like seals and sane viewers to watch their jaws go slack. That’s all Colbert has left, and he risks losing whatever cultural heft he has remaining if he goes down that road.
Does he really want to start sharing “Legal Notes” like “The View” does to protect himself from lawsuits?
<div id="attachment_952655" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-952655" class="size-large wp-image-952655" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225551799-864x576.jpg" alt="NEW YORK CITY - JULY 21: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert during Monday's July 21, 2025 show. (Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225551799-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225551799-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225551799-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2225551799.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images</div>
Plus, he’s only 61. Surely, he wants to keep working in comedy once “The Late Show” expires. He’s a natural fit for video podcasting, where the modest budgetary requirements all but guarantee his success.
Sane progressives will see right through any “View”-sized transition, meaning he’ll peel off some of his base along the way. Maybe the show will lose more than $40 million over the next 10 months.
The upside for Colbert’s late-night competitors? With “The Late Show” out of the way, they’ll be more progressive viewers for them to attract, at least on paper. No Colbert? Let’s see how Jimmy Kimmel is attacking President Trump today.
It’ll be a sugar high, at best.
Late-night TV is dying. Blame YouTube, the rise of funny social media accounts or comedians who actively chased away more than half the country with their polemics. Colbert is far from alone on that front. Seth Meyers, John Oliver, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel all lean to the Left. And they kissed conservative viewers goodbye some time ago.
“<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/5612703584001">Not good riddance but riddance,”</a> as Kimmel infamously said about his shift to the hard Left.
The format likely would perish with or without Colbert’s handiwork. We stopped collecting 8-track tapes some time ago, too. His Trump obsession, and fueling insults like “Clapter” to the lexicon, a term for jokes meant to spark applause, not laughter, made matters worse.
The biggest irony? While audiences no longer find Colbert’s shtick funny, a certain two-term president is having the last laugh.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

Late Night Collapse: Colbert’s Fall And The Death Of Balanced Comedy

Late Night Collapse: Colbert’s Fall and the Death of Balanced Comedy

Comedy

David Letterman

Democrats

Entertainment

Jon Stewart

Leftists

Legacy Media

President Trump

Stephen Colbert

&#8220;CBS Mornings&#8221; host Tony Dokoupil offered a different take than most of his colleagues — and even some at other legacy media networks — when he conceded on Tuesday that the decision to oust Stephen Colbert and cancel &#8220;The Late Show&#8221; might have been about politics, but not in the way they all thought.
Amid a virtual firestorm of complaints that Colbert&#8217;s cancellation was political — specifically, he&#8217;d been too <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-melts-down-over-colbert-king-trump-is-coming-for-the-court-jesters">vocally opposed to President Donald Trump</a> on a network that was staring down the barrel of a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/big-and-important-win-trump-crows-over-settlement-in-cbs-paramount-lawsuit">multi-million dollar lawsuit</a> — Dokoupil argued that the &#8220;one-sided&#8221; nature of Colbert&#8217;s commentary may have put off more people than just Trump.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH: ‘CBS Mornings’ co-host Tony Dokoupil brings a much-needed reality check to the table of liberal journalists fawning over ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’. His co-hosts dismissed all this, proving his point:
“I don’t have an MBA, but I don’t — [Jon Stewart] is not… <a href="https://t.co/qR5R74g2vY">pic.twitter.com/qR5R74g2vY</a>
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1947754373833977899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Co-host Vladimir Duthiers complained that, regardless of the expense to produce shows like Colbert&#8217;s, they were &#8220;part of the cultural zeitgeist and they have been part of television since the beginning of television. So that’s why people are reacting the way that they are.&#8221;
Over several objections from his co-hosts, Dokoupil laid out his point — and also argued that comedian Jon Stewart was wrong when he suggested that Paramount had felt threatened by Colbert&#8217;s show as the merger progressed: &#8220;No, I understand the emotional views. I don’t have an MBA, but [Stewart is] not right that the merger, the $8 billion, is based on reruns of a comedy show, no. People are buying the movies and the sitcoms, and the sports. They’re not based on reruns of us either, so I think it’s wrong.”
&#8220;And what no one seems to acknowledge is that the politics also changed,&#8221; Dokoupil continued. &#8220;The business changed, and so did the politics. And it got way more one-sided than anything Johnny Carson was ever doing. I think we should reflect on those changes as well. It’s been a big shift culturally in that regard, also for sure.&#8221;
&#8220;People will miss those shows when they&#8217;re gone, that&#8217;s the bottom line,&#8221; Duthiers insisted.

CBS Host Breaks Ranks, Offers Surprisingly Sane Reason For Colbert’s Ouster

CBS Host Breaks Ranks, Offers Surprisingly Sane Reason For Colbert's Ouster

CBS News

Donald Trump

Media

Politics

The View

Many of us fondly remember the days when late-night talk show hosts like Johnny Carson and Jay Leno came into our living rooms every night with one goal in mind: to entertain as many people as possible through laughter.
But with the rise of Donald Trump, late-night comedy shows morphed into nightly attacks on the man over 77 million Americans sent to the White House. Every evening for years now, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel subjected their audiences to non-stop Trump bashing.
It’s vicious, relentless, and, worst of all, not funny.
These “comics” came to view their platforms not as vehicles to entertain a broad spectrum of the American public, but rather a podium from which to blast out their ultra-left politics and Stage 4 Trump Derangement, while cloaking themselves in obnoxiously self-righteous sanctimony along the way.
As anyone who suffered through their childishly acrimonious monologues could attest, if you hated Trump in particular, or anyone to the right of Che Guevara in general, you found comfort in the acid bath of antipathy that came spewing from your screen courtesy of hosts who we were told were comics.
But things might be changing.
Last week, Colbert announced that CBS had cancelled his show, and that they would not replace him. One imagines that Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and Seth Meyers — none of whom are bringing in audiences — will be canned imminently.
Many have met the demise of Colbert — a man whose idea of comedy was dancing hypodermic needles to push a government narrative in a manner that would make Pravda blush — marks the end of late-night talk shows as a whole. But are they really dead? Or is it just the DNC propaganda machine version of these shows bound for extinction?
As I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-sad-politicization-of-late-night-television" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> a while back while lamenting the death of the genuine late-night comedy of Carson — whose last show in May 1992 was watched by an astounding 50 million Americans — several times over the years I did make a sincere effort to watch Colbert or Kimmel.
They were funny on The Daily Show and The Man Show respectively. And I’m willing to be entertained by a truly funny Trump joke. But the level of sheer vitriol and ugliness masquerading as humor on these shows made them impossible to watch. So did the monotony: late night hosts just kept coming at the guy, one Trump assault after another after another. On Colbert one night I literally counted five Trump “jokes” in a row in the opening monologue before I finally had to turn him off. Not because it offended my politics, or my feelings. But rather because it failed to make me laugh. Why else would anyone tune in?
For example, a recent Colbert monologue about Trump sending in the National Guard to quell anti-ICE street violence in California featured the following:
“What’s going on in LA reminds us that it is crucial to speak out against Trump’s fascist impulses, his rampant corruption, and his egregious violations of our norms and our laws…The last time a president bypassed a governor to send in the National Guard was 1965 when LBJ used troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. So, we’ve come full circle. Troops were used to protect protesters by Lyndon B. Johnson. Now they’re being used to harass protesters by Donald B. D***.”
Crickets. Cough. Scraping chair leg.
Who needs to tune in to a DNC stump speech after a long day at work? What normal American wants to be subjected to an obsequious Colbert slobbering over guest Adam Schiff while the serial liar looks at the camera and says in his toughest beta male milquetoast persona: “Donald, piss off”? Hmmm. Maybe I’ll just read a few pages of a book before I turn in.
Hang on to your seat, because the laughs just kept on coming.
Consider such comedy gold as his declaring that the Iran strike didn’t take out all their centrifuges, whether true or not. Colbert said it was “less Operation Midnight Hammer and more Operation M.C. Hammer.” Huh? That barely makes sense, let alone makes people laugh. This is the best his team of 24 writers could come up with?
Despite the predictable howls from the usual suspects — for whom late-night hosts are the pharmacies for their daily dose of TDS — Colbert was not fired because he criticized Trump. It was really just a matter of dollars and cents.
Colbert attracts 2.2 million viewers on average; Kimmel 1.7 million; Fallon, just 1.19 million. Colbert and Kimmel average just over 200,000 in the key demographic of viewers 25-54.
Tellingly, these represent just 60% of numbers put up by the Fox Network’s late-night competitor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/greg-gutfeld-the-new-undisputed-king-of-late-night" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Greg Gutfeld Show</a>.
And then there’s production budgets, really the heart of the matter. Colbert’s show costs more than $100 million a year to produce, including Colbert’s $15 million salary. The problem for Colbert is that his show only brings in roughly $60 million in annual ad revenue.
Megyn Kelly, a former Fox TV host herself, estimates that Gutfeld’s budget for his successful forum is around $10 million. This doesn’t include his salary; the last numbers I saw shows Fox pays their unsung late-night star $7 million annually.
So, even if the total cost of the Greg Gutfeld Show is around $20 million, that’s still a fraction of the cost of legacy media’s failing late-night offerings. Which means there is still a way to make the late night format profitable.
Like its rivals, The Greg Gutfeld Show is certainly political in nature. Gutfeld isn’t Carson, and conservatives will likely feel more at home with Gutfeld and his rotating panel of conservative hosts. But unlike the other shows, Gutfeld is also entertaining, light-hearted, self-effacing, and, most importantly, funny.
In a way, Colbert’s demise is an apt metaphor for the sinking fortunes of the Democrat Party itself. You cannot alienate so many in a market without someone else seeing the opportunity your disregard presents while you steadily lose viewers, and influence. Whether one loves or hates Fox, they have a winning late-night formula that the mainstream media has abandoned by prioritizing divisive politics over entertainment.
Mike Wallace once asked Johnny Carson why he never got into serious subjects. Carson’s response is worth remembering:
<blockquote>“That’s not what I’m there for. Can’t they see that? Why do they think that just because you have a Tonight Show that you must deal in serious issues? That’s a danger. That’s a real danger. Once you start that, you start to get that self-important feeling that what you say has great import. And, you know, strangely enough, you could use that show as a forum, you could sway people. And I don’t think you should, as an entertainer.”</blockquote>
The legacy media should take Johnny’s advice. If they choose to go down the self-destructive path forged by Colbert and his ilk, then good riddance.
Brad Schaeffer is a commodities fund manager, author, and columnist whose articles have appeared on the pages of The Daily Wire, The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, NY Daily News, National Review, The Hill, The Federalist, Zerohedge, and other outlets. He is the author of three <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07MQJBJSD?ccs_id=55112527-86f6-4c89-b82e-a96d6869abed" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07MQJBJSD?ccs_id%3D55112527-86f6-4c89-b82e-a96d6869abed&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1736518135479000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3K_WhJtiUZw7LF1PwSIHtH">books</a>. Follow him on <a href="https://x.com/bschaeffer123" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://x.com/bschaeffer123&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1736518135479000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0P6pRoAqcBhUQ1W0qwN5rH">X/Twitter</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Colbert’s Demise: When Politics Supersedes Comedy In Late Night

Democrat

Greg Gutfeld

The internet does not have high hopes for Larry David’s newly announced project, a sketch comedy show about American history produced by the Obamas.
Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/larry-david-american-history-sketch-comedy-series-hbo-1236451946/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that David will co-write the new HBO program with Jeff Schaffer, with whom he worked on the long-running comedy show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” David will star in and co-write the six-part series, the outlet noted.
Barack and Michelle Obama are set to executive produce the project through their Higher Ground Productions company.
The show’s description says, “President and Mrs. Obama wanted to honor America’s 250th anniversary and celebrate the unique history of our nation on this special occasion…But then Larry David called.”
Former President Obama commented on the pairing, saying, “I’ve sat across the table from some of the world’s most difficult leaders and wrestled with some of our most intractable problems. Nothing has prepared me for working with Larry David.”
Social media mainly had negative reactions to the news of David and the Obamas teaming up.
“It sounds like it’s gonna be one big lecture. I hope I’m wrong,” one account <a href="https://x.com/EricBalchunas/status/1943381813772325127">predicted</a>.
“Played out. Preaching to the choir. We don&#8217;t need more lectures from Hollywood,” another <a href="https://x.com/AwardsDaily/status/1943367269498917054">wrote</a>.
“This is going to be so awful,” a third commenter on X <a href="https://x.com/imjaredz/status/1943396360692097354">predicted</a>.
“Get ready for the most unfunny experience of your life,” another <a href="https://x.com/EliseMcCue/status/1943494127145955393">replied</a>.
“Trash propaganda I’m sure,” said another, while someone else just wrote, “Yikes.” 
David has been vocal about political issues and recently had a meltdown over Bill Maher having dinner with President Donald Trump. He was so incensed that the comedian penned an op-ed for The New York Times, repeating the tired trope that Trump was literally Hitler. 
CNN Republican Scott Jennings blasted David for publishing the op-ed, saying it was just another example of Democrats attacking anyone who tried to open the lines of communication between people with differing opinions.
“This is the modern Left,” Jennings <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-republican-torches-larry-davids-dinner-with-hitler-column-attacking-bill-maher">said</a>. “It’s an attempt always to intimidate people into not ever doing it again. It’s to silence yourselves, or we’ll do it for you. That’s the purpose of this op-ed, so that the next comedian, or the next person on the American left chooses not to speak to Donald Trump.&#8221;

Larry David

‘Yikes’: Larry David Teams Up With The Obamas For New American History Comedy Series

Barack Obama

Michelle Obama

Television

Longtime filmmaker Terry Gilliam said the reelection of President Donald Trump has changed the landscape of comedy.
The “Monty Python” alum reflected on the change during an <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/terry-gilliam-interview-trump-brazil-mary-poppins-umbria-1236307758/">interview</a> with The Hollywood Reporter that was published earlier this week. Gilliam, 84, said comedy had been hesitant and safe for a long time, but now with the Trump administration, that’s starting to shift.
“I think Trump has changed things considerably. He’s turned the world upside down,” the director said. “I don’t know if people are going to be laughing more, but they’re probably less frightened to laugh.”
He added, “There have been woke activists with a very narrow, self-righteous point of view. That’s frightened so many people, and so many people have been very timid about telling jokes, making fun of things, because if you tell a joke, these people say you’re punching down at somebody. No, you’re finding humor in humanity!”
“So, irony, satire were basically dead,” Gilliam said. “And humor, to me, is probably one of the most essential things in life. You’ve got six senses, and the seventh sense is humor, and if you don’t have that, life is going to be miserable.”
The filmmaker also observed how Trump’s return hasn’t been great for his upcoming comedy, “The Carnival at the End of Days.” The project is a satire about Satan trying to stop God from wiping out humanity and leans heavily on mocking woke leftism, which Gilliam said is very different in the current world.
“[Trump has] f***ed up the latest film I was working on. Because it was a satire about the last several years when things were going as they were. He’s turned it upside down. So he’s killed my movie,” Gilliam said.
“That was how I approached it. I think Trump has destroyed satire. I mean, how can you be satirical about what’s going on in the way he’s doing the world?” he added.
He next joked about adding a “preamble” in the movie to call out the “Trump lost years from 2020 to 2024.”
Gilliam said something similar in an <a href="https://deadline.com/2025/07/terry-gilliam-interview-brazil-next-project-1236450896/">interview</a> with Deadline, also published this week. 
“&#8230;The script, in some ways, is out of date because it was a satire of the world two years ago, and Donald Trump has come along, and he is the carnival. He’s turned the world upside down — everything,” he told the outlet. 
“We may have to rework some of the story because parts of it was very specific about the wonderful world of woke before The Donald took over again. That very narrow way of thinking of life. We’ll see where it goes. At the moment, I may be out of a job for another 10 years,” the filmmaker said.

Terry Gilliam

‘Monty Python’ Alum Said Trump Resurrected Comedy, People Are ‘Less Frightened To Laugh’

'Monty Python' Alum Said Trump Resurrected Comedy, People Are 'Less Frightened To Laugh'

comedian

Humor

As Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neal famously said, “Love means never having to say you&#8217;re sorry.”
Someone should tell that to modern day comedians.
Too many apologize for their past jokes, often years after uttering them. For some, it’s Damage Control 101. The “wrong” joke, no matter how long ago it was spoken, could be a cancel-worthy affair.
Take <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52815624" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jimmy Fallon groveling for forgiveness</a> during a 2020 Tonight Show episode over a 20-year-old blackface sketch. The apology came during the height of the BLM movement.
In other cases, it’s pure virtue signaling, since no one actually remembered the bad joke in question.
The latter may explain Sarah Silverman’s recent mea culpa. The far-Left comic previously got pinched by Cancel Culture when a 2007-era blackface gag <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/sarah-silverman-says-she-lost-film-role-wearing-blackface-2007-n1041621" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cost her a movie role</a>.
She took a rare shot at Cancel Culture while sharing that story.
“You have to ask yourself, would I want this person to be changed or do I secretly want them to stay what I deem as wrong so I can point to them as f***ed up and myself as right?”
More recently, Silverman <a href="https://x.com/RollingStone/status/1924113153228423434">apologized for using the n-word</a> in previous comedy routines.
“I felt like the temperature of the world around me at the time was, ‘We are all liberal so we can say the n-word. We aren’t racist, so we can say this derogatory stuff’ … I was playing a character that was arrogant and ignorant, so I thought it was OK. Looking back, my intentions were always good, but they were f***ing ignorant.”
She’s far from alone.
Tina Fey once blasted the woke mob for policing humor. The “30 Rock” alum said she makes it a policy <a href="https://reason.com/2015/12/20/tina-fey-is-done-apologizing-for-offensi/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">not to explain her jokes</a>.
Post-George Floyd, a very different <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53148316" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fey yanked four “30 Rock” episodes</a> from syndication for featuring various blackface jokes. Said episodes cannot be found on streaming or DVD platforms, according to the BBC.
Fey apologized for the “pain they have caused.” What pain? The subject came up during the BLM protests. How many people cared before…or after? Context is everything, particularly in comedy, and the episodes weren’t designed to attack or belittle black people.
Standup comedian John Mulaney isn’t known for his political musings. Yet he still circled back to apologize for a riff about the 2020 presidential election. He dared suggest it didn’t matter if an elderly Joe Biden or a slightly less elderly Donald Trump won.
“Outrage” ensued, and he <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/john-mulaney-snl-backlash-kimmel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">backpedaled on Jimmy Kimmel Live!</a>
&#8220;I should have said I very much want one to win over the other, and there will be improvements if one wins. I deserved backlash. I flat-out just forgot to do it&#8230; I never was like, ‘Hey, don’t you mean that one guy is worse than the other?’ And I forgot to make the joke good.&#8221;
Taylor Swift is arguably the most famous celebrity in the world, meaning she’s heard her fair share of insults, jokes and more. It’s not pretty, but it comes with the territory.
Comedienne Nikki Glaser still felt the need to <a href="https://www.today.com/popculture/miss-americana-nikki-glaser-apologizes-taylor-swift-t172987" target="_blank" rel="noopener">apologize to Tay Tay</a> after an old crack she made about the pop superstar resurfaced in the Swift documentary “Miss Americana.”
“She’s too skinny; it bothers me&#8230;all of her model friends, and it’s just like, c&#8217;mon!'&#8221;
Glaser called it “projection” due to her own eating disorder issues. Has she apologized to others <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/nikki-glaser-does-a-brutal-hilarious-high-speed-roast-of-biden-trump-and-other-politicians-video/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">she’s hammered with her humor since then</a>? It’s even more ironic because her biggest career boost came when she killed it at Netflix’s “The Roast of Tom Brady” last year.
The Apology Tour isn’t reserved for stand-up comedians. The key forces behind 2007’s “Superbad” — co-star and co-writer Seth Rogen, and star Jonah Hill — have apologized for the movie’s raunchy humor.
Rogen apologized for <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seth-rogen-regrets-homophobic-superbad-jokes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">capturing how real teenagers talk</a> in the hit comedy.
&#8220;There are probably some jokes in &#8216;Superbad&#8217; that are bordering on blatantly homophobic at times. They&#8217;re all in the voice of high school kids, who do speak like that, but I think we&#8217;d also be silly not to acknowledge that we also were, to some degree, glamorizing that type of language in a lot of ways.&#8221;
Hill piled on, blasting his own early comedies as portraits of “<a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/festivals/berlin-film-festival-jonah-hill-wants-to-challenge-traditional-masculinity-1203134534/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">toxic masculinity.”</a>
“I love those films, but I also think that if you look back at those films, a lot of what they’re showing is major bro comedy, and bro masculinity.”
He said he wanted his newer films to educate viewers about the “problematic behavior” highlighted in these box office hits.
Not every comic performer feels this way. Monty Python alum John Cleese isn’t eager to apologize for his past gags, and he occasionally does so <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-cleese-issues-sarcastic-apology-155723976.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">with tongue firmly in cheek</a> to make his point.
Podcasting giant Adam Carolla is even more firm in his “no apology” mantra.
The “Mr. Birchum” star defended his position in 2015 during a <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/adam-carolla-done-apologizing_n_6811940" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HuffPo conversation</a>.
&#8220;Go find a politician or somebody who&#8217;s in charge and poke a popsicle stick up their butt…I&#8217;m a comedian. I&#8217;m done apologizing, I really am&#8230;And by the way, everyone who apologizes is faking it. They&#8217;re only doing it because they&#8217;re gonna get canned.&#8221;
He later started his book, “Everything Reminds Me of Something: Advice, Answers … but No Apologies“ with this promise.
“I’m not going to apologize. S****y times call for s****y language.”
And, bless his heart, 98-year-old Mel Brooks has yet to apologize for “The Producers” and its pro-Hitler ditty, “Springtime for Hitler.”
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Sarah Silverman

Comedians Apologize…For Jokes? 

Cancel Culture

George Floyd

Tina Fey

Comedian Nate Bargatze recently mentioned some of the failures of people currently running Disney.
The 46-year-old standup artist, who has become popular in recent years for telling clean jokes that are also hilarious, said that Walt Disney is one of his biggest influences, emphasizing that the entrepreneur cared about his audience (other names on the list included Jerry Seinfeld, Judd Apatow, and Adam Sandler). But he said CEO Bob Iger isn’t doing the best job of carrying on Disney’s legacy.
“Now Disney is run by a guy that’s just a businessman,” he told <a href="https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a64621068/nate-bargatze-interview-2025/">Esquire</a> in a new cover interview, seemingly referring to Iger. “Well, that guy doesn’t care about the audience.”
He then referenced his own fans and how much he owes them, saying, “None of this happens without them.”
The article goes into detail about how Bargatze is currently the most successful comedian in the world, outselling Seinfeld, Dave Chappelle, and Sebastian Maniscalco combined last year. What makes his story even more incredible is that his comedy doesn’t include swearing, sex, drugs, or politics. 
Bargatze talked about some of his fellow comedians who garnered attention for saying controversial things and how he attempted to avoid that path. 
“They would skip a bunch of steps,” he said of his contemporaries. “Now they’re mentioned everywhere because they said something crazy. Now Netflix called them and they got a special.” 
“The hardest thing to do is to stay that path because it’s not as flashy,” Bargatze told the outlet. “You got to just sit in it. You got to slowly keep going. Then you get to the point where I’m at now. I’m frustrated by an entire system that’s like, ‘Y’all were just grabbing headlines,’ when I felt like, ‘Why did y’all not look at me more?’”
The comedian also hinted at plans for ending his standup career and working on entertainment projects with broad appeal, plus opening a theme park in Tennessee called Nateland. “I don’t think anybody’s even trying to make stuff for everybody,” he said.
Meanwhile, Disney has not been doing well lately with several high-profile flops in recent years, including the latest disaster, “Snow White.” The film is expected to lose up to $100 million after being plagued by controversies with both the lead stars and the content of the movie itself. 
Iger was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/disney-ceo-bob-iger-promises-to-reduce-output-of-marvel-movies-tv-spinoffs-after-multiple-flops?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Disney+CEO+Bob+Iger+Promises+To+%E2%80%98Reduce+Output%E2%80%99+Of+Marvel+Movies%2C+TV+Spinoffs+After+Multiple+Flops">formerly</a> the CEO of Disney from 2005 until 2020. He was replaced by Bob Chapek and then reinstated to his position in November 2022 when Chapek was fired. In November 2023, Iger said the studio was too focused on sequels.
Last May, the Disney exec promised the company would pivot from focusing on quantity to quality, reducing the studio&#8217;s output of sequels and television spinoffs overall.

Nate Bargatze

Comedian Nate Bargatze Says The ‘Businessman’ Running Disney ‘Doesn’t Care About The Audience’

Comedian Nate Bargatze Said The Person Running Disney 'Doesn't Care About The Audience'

Celebrities

Disney

U.S.

Late night host Jimmy Kimmel has a theory about how Trump won the 2024 election. In his opinion, it came down to comedians being “canceled” for telling funny jokes.
The 57-year-old celebrity shared his opinion during a newly published <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/jimmy-kimmel-trump-late-night-future-interview-1235315906/">interview</a> with Rolling Stone. 
“I don’t put limits on what I laugh at,” Kimmel said. “But for me personally, as I’ve grown older, as I’ve matured, I won’t make a joke that I wouldn’t make if a person of that color or persuasion was in the room. That’s how I look at it. I think a lot of the outrage is completely manufactured, and it’s like, a lot of these people who are angry aren’t really angry. I think these liberals who’ve done such a good job of viciously attacking comedians are a big part of the reason why Trump is the president right now.”
The comedian expanded on what he meant, mentioning how he thought people were fed up with being told what they were allowed to think was funny.
“I just think human beings in general, when you see something that makes you laugh and you see a bunch of other people laughing, and then somebody steps in with their arms folded and goes, ‘That’s not funny, and here’s why that’s not funny,’ it just doesn’t give you a good feeling about a person. And you want to say to that person, ‘Lighten up,’” he said.
Kimmel went on, “There’s no black and white when it comes to comedy. There is no line. The line is different for every person. Dave Chappelle can say things that somebody else might not be able to. I don’t think anybody should be canceled. I really don’t.”
He also mentioned his intention of continuing to focus on President Trump during his nightly monologues. “It was 2016, and I had Hillary Clinton on,” he told the outlet. “I said to Hillary during a commercial break, ‘I hope Trump gets the nomination. I think he’ll be a slam-dunk for you.’ And she said, ‘Be careful what you wish for.’ I’m not in the group of people who thought he might win. Listen, when O.J. was found not guilty, I was just absolutely shocked. I had that same feeling.”
&#8220;I had this faith in America that was shaken, and I still am not over it,” Kimmel said. “I thought that when it comes down to it, this country, we do the right thing. That’s obviously in the past.”

Jimmy Kimmel

Jimmy Kimmel: Libs ‘Attacking Comedians’ Over Jokes Is A ‘Big Reason’ Trump Is President

Somehow, John Oliver from HBO — who did an entire monologue this week about why men who want to play with ladies in sports should be allowed to do so — still has a show.
I don&#8217;t know why we gave him citizenship. I don&#8217;t know what he added to the country except for being obnoxiously smarmy with a British accent.
The other night he delivered one of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flSS1tjoxf0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dumbest monologues</a> I&#8217;ve ever heard.
John Oliver is so trapped inside the Left-wing echo chamber that he actually believes it&#8217;s necessary for him to defend the idea that men should punch women in a boxing ring, that “trans athletes” must be allowed to play with members of the opposite biological sex.
In order to make this claim, he somehow has to square the circle of pretending that men playing with women is not unfair to the women, which means he now has to pretend that men are not better at sports than women.
He bloviated:
<blockquote>When it comes to trans athletes who&#8217;ve medically transitioned, studies of cis athletes are not necessarily relevant. A lot of medical, gender-affirming treatments like hormone therapy have a meaningful impact on body and hormone composition. So the question then becomes, what do those impacts mean for athletic performance? We spoke to scientists on all sides of this issue, and the one thing they actually agree on is that, in part, because the number of trans athletes is so small, the body of research specifically about them is extremely limited.</blockquote>
This is amazing. He is essentially saying, “We can&#8217;t look at studies that say that men are stronger than women because we&#8217;re now talking about men who have had a bunch of hormone treatments. So we don&#8217;t know. And so we have to look at the studies of men who have had hormones. But there are no studies. Therefore, men who have hormone treatments don&#8217;t have any sort of excess abilities over women. Therefore, they should be allowed to play with women.”
This is a classic in the genre of &#8220;absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.&#8221; In other words, absence of evidence that men with hormone treatments have an advantage over women does not mean evidence of absence of that advantage.
This is a classic logical fallacy in which he is engaging: “We can&#8217;t look at these studies that say that men are stronger than women, we have to look at the non-existent studies. But those studies don&#8217;t exist, and therefore men don&#8217;t have an advantage over women.”
That is not how logic works. 
He continued: 
<blockquote>There are a bunch of studies comparing specific anatomical features like muscle mass in women who transition but which don&#8217;t directly speak to their impact on athletic performance. But we were only able to find 12 studies that actually tested trans adult women&#8217;s physical fitness in a lab or other performance scenario. Eight have a sample size of less than 20. And two are the single athlete. And look, I don&#8217;t have any scientific experience, even though I look like a cross between a scientist and the profoundly sick mice he&#8217;s studying. But you probably shouldn&#8217;t draw broad conclusions of a sample size of one. Those 12 studies generally find that medically transitioning does impact trans women&#8217;s performance, but disagree on how or by how much.</blockquote>
This is hilarious. He&#8217;s laying out a bunch of studies that don&#8217;t support his own position, but then he&#8217;s dismissing the studies because the sample size is too small. So he&#8217;s literally cited zero evidence for his proposition so far, and somehow he&#8217;s going to magically transform that into the idea that men playing against women is somehow fair. 
He continued:
<blockquote>That research you saw earlier actually published the only longitudinal study to date of multiple athletes studying the impact of transitioning on eight long-distance runners. She found after at least a year on hormone therapy their race times turned out to be more athletically, similar to those of cisgender women than cisgender men. But she herself will tell you the study was limited and its conclusions were nuanced. Here she is explaining what we do and don&#8217;t know at this point: “It is undoubtedly true that trans women will maintain advantages in some sports, probably not so much in endurance sports, but in size and strength sports. Trans women will also have some physiological disadvantages. Our larger frames are now being powered by reduced muscle mass and reduced aerobic capacity, and that can lead to disadvantages in terms of like quickness, recovery, endurance, things that maybe aren&#8217;t quite as obvious as being bigger and stronger” Right. Bigger and stronger bodies are not automatically advantaged in every scenario.  </blockquote>
He still provided no evidence to the proposition that it&#8217;s fair for men to play with the ladies. We should point out that the expert he is citing is a former man, a person named Joanna Harper. Joanna Harper transitioned to female in 2004-2005. Joanna Harper is in his 60s and he cites his proudest athletic achievement as running 2:23 marathon as a young man. And that&#8217;s the person who&#8217;s being cited as the unbiased source on trans athletes in opposite sex sports.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2177-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Does this lead Oliver anywhere? Nope.
He continues to argue, based on no evidence, that it&#8217;s totally fair for men to play with the ladies, because he says so. After having come up with zero evidence for the proposition that it&#8217;s fair for men to play with the women, he then says it shouldn&#8217;t be an issue anyway, because no man is transitioning just to play with the women. 
That’s weird because there actually are a bunch of men who are transitioning and playing with the women. Not that they wouldn&#8217;t do hormone treatments and surgery in the absence of playing athletics, but — they seem to really want to play with the ladies. They could continue to race with the men, but they would lose.
You don&#8217;t see a lot of women who are transitioning into “men” who are desperate to play with the men. You don&#8217;t see a lot of women who say, “I&#8217;m cutting off my breasts and I&#8217;m having a fake penis attached and now I want to box the men.” It never happens. I wonder why?
Then John Oliver moved away from his zero evidence to this proposition: Why are you even noticing? Why do you even care? Sure, there are people doing this, but they&#8217;re not doing it because they want to beat up on the women. What does that matter to the women? Why should the women care about the motivation for why a gigantic man like Lia Thomas is now racing against Riley Gaines?
Why should Riley Gaines care what the motivation is? I’ll tell this clown why: She now has to race against a dude who was a low-ranked male swimmer but blows the other women out of the water because he’s a dude. 
<blockquote>The thing is, hypotheticals like that, circulate constantly and often center around someone transitioning solely to gain a competitive advantage. But as this trans researcher points out, that is an absurd proposition. </blockquote>
He then showed Harper stating, “Trans women don&#8217;t transition for sports. No one has ever said, &#8216;Yeah, I think I&#8217;d like to be a woman so I can do well in women&#8217;s sports.’ When you go through a gender transition, you lose so many things in life. My own mother said she never wanted to speak to me again. You know, I lost friends, family got divorced. You&#8217;d go through all of that just to win a medal in sports? No. Trans people transition because it&#8217;s the only way that we can live happily.” 
Oliver replied:
<blockquote>Right. No one says I&#8217;m going to transition just for the sake of sports. The same way no one says, “Could you please send me more messages about two factor authentication?&#8221; Or “when I walk down the aisle, I&#8217;d like a solo violin cover of Bawitdaba by Kid Rock.” That is just a made-up person. </blockquote>
Who cares? Who cares about the motivation of the person who wants to play with the ladies? You can have two different motivations, a motivation to add some fake boobs and cut off your penis, and a very different motivation: wanting to play with the ladies now that you are bigger and stronger than all the ladies. It doesn&#8217;t have to be the same motivation.
He&#8217;s silly and reductive. “Silly and Reductive” should be the name of John Oliver’s show. 
<blockquote>The underlying premise of that question from the world&#8217;s most famous sports cheater that those assigned male at birth are automatically going to have certain immutable physical advantages, that gets raised constantly, which is why we&#8217;re going to spend most of our time talking about trans women and girls, even though in these five states (Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) these bans impact trans boys in schools, too. 
It is obviously true that on average cisgender men and post-pubescent boys have some specific athletic performance advantages, though the relative size of that advantage also depends on the sport and the event in swimming. For instance, my life size and performance advantage is roughly 13% in the 50 meter freestyle, but less than 6% in the 1500 meter free, which is still clearly significant but in general, there’s a lot of overlap in the average performance ranges of men and women.
Basically, it is not the case that any man is going to be stronger or more athletic than every woman, which is sometimes what gets implied here. </blockquote>
That wasn&#8217;t the argument. What gets implied is that if you are looking at the ends of the bell curve — which is where top athletic performance happens, the end of bell curve, not the average — if you have men who have transitioned into women at the end of the bell curve, they are almost always going to outcompete women because they&#8217;re at the end of the bell curve.
By the way, you can make this dumb argument about anything. Why should we have age ranges in sports? Seriously. Why not have a bunch of 12-year-old Little Leaguers play the Major Leaguers in baseball? Every so often you might have a 12-year-old who is huge, a gigantic 12-year-old kid who can actually hit the ball. 
What the hell, if the bell curves overlap at all, then probably we should just get rid of the categories entirely.
We should do this with everything. It makes perfect sense to Oliver.
Or maybe what Oliver is saying is just stupid.
He got mad at House Speaker Mike Johnson because he cited Scripture to the effect that men and women exist.
You don&#8217;t have to quote Scripture that men and women exist to know it, but Scripture does say it, and Scripture has a much better record than John Oliver and his stupid glasses.
Oliver mocked the Bible, saying:
<blockquote>It is not just about denying trans women the right to play. It&#8217;s about denying them the right to exist. Mike Johnson basically said as much of the House passed its ban on trans athletes when he said this. We know from Scripture and from nature that men are men and women are women, and men cannot become women. That&#8217;s right, Mike. As Scripture tells us, man are man and women are women and God is his own son and some mothers are virgins and some mothers-in-law are pillars of salt, and some daughters are sex partners and colorful coats are dream-tellers and brothers are murderers, but also brothers are back-up husbands for wives and babies can be for splitting in half and water is wine &#8230; </blockquote>
You’ll notice that he completely elided Speaker Johnson&#8217;s statement adding “and Nature.” Johnson’s saying, “For those who believe in the Bible, Bible, the Bible says this, and for those who don&#8217;t, there&#8217;s a thing called Nature,” which Oliver is ignoring.
But then he does get to dunk with his peculiarly simplistic read on the Bible, which I&#8217;m sure has made him a very happy person, deliberately misinterpreting Biblical scripture and religious beliefs.
That particular argument isn&#8217;t played out at all, making fun of miracle stories in the Bible. No one&#8217;s ever tried that before.
John Oliver is clearly not the brightest bulb in the basket. And  somehow he parlayed his shtick into an American citizenship without having to pay President Trump $5 million.
But he’s still a moron.

Watch What Happens Live With Andy Cohen – Season 22

John Oliver, Moron

Ben Shapiro

Gender

John Oliver

Opinion

Transgender

Transgender Athletes

On his show this week, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-oliver">John Oliver</a> decided to spend 45 minutes defending the idea that men — or “trans women,” as he calls them — should play in women&#8217;s sports. The trans issue has destroyed the Democratic Party and utterly demolished the Left’s cultural and political credibility. But they can’t let it go. Transgenderism is a religious conviction. They must remain committed to it. Which is disturbing and bizarre and uncomfortable to witness — and extremely fortunate for Republicans. It&#8217;s also, let’s be honest, really funny. In fact, John Oliver’s commitment to the transgenderism bit is, by far and away, his funniest routine. It is in fact his only funny routine. It&#8217;s the one time when he lives up to his billing as a comedian, if unintentionally.
So today we’re going to pick through Oliver’s arguments for “trans inclusion” in women&#8217;s sports. We’ll go through it piece by piece. And in the process we’ll see how utterly vapid and hollow and deceitful John Oliver’s whole schtick is. And how morally and intellectually bankrupt gender ideology is. As one of the most morally and intellectually bankrupt people in all of media, it’s no wonder that Oliver is so attracted to it.
As we’ll see, Oliver trots out all of the standard tropes in his desperate attempt to make gender ideology seem like it isn’t insane. He blabbers for 45 minutes, hitting each talking point one by one, punctuated every five or six minutes with something that, I can only guess, is supposed to approximate a joke. But in this whole long diatribe he never once addresses the core, fundamental argument of the other side. He never once acknowledges, much less makes any attempt to respond to, our actual point. Instead we get all of the tropes. Starting with <a href="https://youtu.be/flSS1tjoxf0?feature=shared&amp;t=59">this one</a>:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=60&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
So he starts with the old “why are you so obsessed with this” routine, as expected. He then says that this “obsession” by Republicans is the reason why 6 in 10 adults don’t want men in women’s sports. The actual number is more like 8 in 10. But either way, he says that Republicans have waged a relentless propaganda campaign against trans people and that is why so many Americans now agree with them. Oliver has this, of course, completely backwards.
John, let me ask you this. What did the polls on trans athletes say 20 years ago? What about 30 years ago? If the poll numbers today are the result of a recent propaganda push by Republicans, that should be born out by comparing the poll results on the question today to the poll results 30 years ago, right? So what were the polls saying on this question 30 years ago? What do you think, John? Have you checked?
Well, don’t bother. I’ll help you. There were no polls on this question 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Organized sports have existed in this country for like 170 years. And yet you’ll find no polls on the topic of “transwomen” in women&#8217;s sports, you’ll find no discussion about the subject at all, until very, very recently. Women’s sports in particular have existed in some form or another since the late 1800s. And yet, again, there was no discussion about whether men who think they&#8217;re women should be included in women&#8217;s sports.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1571-member-exclusive?row=2&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
If someone had conducted a poll in, say, 1950, and asked whether men who identify as women should be able to compete in women&#8217;s sports, what do you think the result would have been, John? Do you think you would have found at least 60% who responded in the negative? You’d find a lot more than 60%, wouldn&#8217;t you? It would be more like 100%, wouldn’t it? And that&#8217;s in spite of the fact that in the 1950s there was precisely no one pushing what you would call anti-trans propaganda. Republicans weren’t talking about the issue at all. And yet everyone agreed — everyone, literally everyone on Earth agreed — that if a thing is called “women’s,” it should only be for biological women.
So what does all of this tell us? Well, it tells us first of all that Republicans and conservatives aren’t the ones who started this conversation. We were all living our lives contently, without having any discussion about transgenderism, or whether men should be in women&#8217;s sports or bathrooms. Nobody was talking about it. Nobody was obsessing over it. Until the trans activists, to include yourself, came along and started screaming in our faces about it. You guys brought up this subject. You guys started marching and waving your flags and injecting your propaganda into schools and TV shows and films and everywhere else. Your side started giving castration drugs to children. Your side started listing your pronouns. None of this existed, this entire subject didn&#8217;t exist, until you guys brought it up and started obsessing over it.
Those polls you mentioned are not a result of our propaganda but of yours. The fact that there are 40% of Americans according to the poll you mentioned — or 20%, if you&#8217;re using an accurate poll — who actually think men should compete in women&#8217;s sports is a result of the relentless propaganda from your side. Again: if we’d asked this question 50 years ago, there would have been 100% of people on our side. But the question wasn&#8217;t asked. It wasn&#8217;t asked because when 100% of people are on one side, it’s not the kind of thing you even think to poll in the first place.
Moving on, Oliver next does the thing he always does, where he finds the weakest and most easily mocked version of the counter argument, and then frames the entire rest of his rant around that <a href="https://youtu.be/flSS1tjoxf0?feature=shared&amp;t=348">one example</a>. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=345&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Now, if you wanted to find an example of someone making the case against men in women&#8217;s sports, you have literally thousands of options to choose from. Thousands and thousands of people have made this case on camera. Female athletes, biologists, doctors, highly credentialed scientific experts in any number of related fields. But John sifted through all of that and went with Lance Armstrong, because Lance Armstrong is infamous for cheating in a sport. I’d say about 99.9999% of all the people who have made the case against men in women’s sports are not themselves famous for cheating in a sport, but Oliver went searching for the .0001% who had. And he uses the silly hypothetical offered by Armstrong — Rafael Nadal suddenly transitioning to a woman — as the framing mechanism for the rest of his argument. So Oliver has chosen the absolute weakest version of the opposing argument, offered by the weakest possible spokesman, and that will be the only argument he responds to the whole rest of the way.
Of course, even the weakest version of our argument, offered by the weakest spokesman, is still totally devastating to John’s side. Our weakest argument is made of steel compared to the flimsy, fantasyland nonsense that you hear from the pro-trans side. Armstrong is, in fact, correct. If all it takes for a man to be a woman is to identify as one, then if Nadal identified as one, he would now be a woman, and there&#8217;s nothing stopping him from dominating women’s tennis like Shaquille O’Neal in his prime playing basketball against a bunch of nine-year-olds. The point isn’t that Nadal is actually likely to make this transition. It&#8217;s that the policy that John Oliver advocates for, and the position he takes, would make that sort of absurdity possible. 
But Oliver is determined to miss the point, which he continues to do here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=432&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Oh, they don’t? Well first of all, John, how do you know that? There are many examples of mediocre male athletes who, after a while of not succeeding against the men, suddenly discover their latent female identity. Lia Thomas is just one of many examples. How do you know that the fact that he could go from the middle of the pack to first by a mile isn’t what motivated him to make the switch? That trans “sports scientist” says that the social cost of transitioning is too high. He says that he personally lost his marriage and family when he transitioned. In other words, he willingly blew up his marriage and family for the sake of living out his fantasy of womanhood. What does that tell us? It tells us that he is extremely selfish. So the argument seems to be that trans identified people would never transition just to succeed in sports — because they&#8217;re too selfish for that. But I’m not sure that logic tracks.
And at any rate, none of this matters. None of this is even remotely related to the actual point. The reason for their &#8220;transition&#8221; is totally irrelevant. It does not matter. It makes no difference. Nothing that John has said to this point — nothing — even comes close to actually addressing our argument. And that trend will continue here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=509&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
&#8220;It’s not the case that any man is stronger and more athletic than every woman,&#8221; says John Oliver. And in saying this, he has expertly knocked down and dismantled an argument that literally no one on Earth, at any point, anywhere, has made. Nobody claims that every man is stronger than every woman. John Oliver himself is proof of that. He would likely lose an arm wrestling match against my 11-year-old daughter. It’s true that scrawny, pathetically weak men do exist in this world. We’re looking at one of them.
But that’s not the point. The point about athletic advantages is that ON AVERAGE men are significantly — not slightly — significantly stronger and faster. This is because men and women are built differently. Women on average have 20% less muscle mass in their legs, smaller fast-twitch muscle fibers, smaller lungs, smaller hearts, shorter legs, much more estrogen and much less testosterone, and a lesser capacity to produce oxygen when they exert themselves. That’s why a team of high school boys could beat the women’s national team in soccer. It’s why the top ten male finishers in nearly every Olympic event always beat the top ten female finishers in the same event. In fact, the top 25 or 50 or 100 male finishers will beat the top 10 females.
It’s why you can find hundreds of examples just like this one. Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, both males, finished first and second in the 55-meter dash at the women’s state indoor track and field championships in Connecticut a few years ago. Miller also finished first in the 300-meter. Miller won the gold with a time of 38.9 seconds. Second place was a full second behind him – a near eternity in track time. But if Miller had raced against the boys in the same event, he <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1101274590586851330">would have been</a> two seconds behind the guy who finished in 25th place. 
To reiterate: his “winning” time against the girls would have put him far outside the top 25 in the men’s field. The worst guy on the men’s track team can instantly become the best on the girl’s team. That’s the point. Or at least it&#8217;s the point about the athletic advantages. But even that point is not THE point. John Oliver still hasn’t addressed the actual point.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=682&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Now, John goes on for a while about the dearth of studies dealing with “trans women” in female sports. He’s perplexed that there haven&#8217;t been more studies on the subject. But of course trans women are men, and there is ample scientific evidence and many, many studies demonstrating the physiological differences and athletic advantages enjoyed by men. He wants a study that specifically studies trans women, as if the fact that a man sees himself as a woman will in and of itself fundamentally impact his biology. But that is not the case. Which is why no one has bothered to study it. No credible scientist would ever say, “Hey, we know that men are faster and stronger than women. But what about men who think they&#8217;re women. Are they also faster and stronger?”
Their perception of themselves as women does not alter their biology. We don’t need a study to show us that, John. We just need to be not insane.
So what John is really talking about here are men who have undergone a “medical transition.” We’re being told that after “transition,” the physical advantages are diminished, supposedly. Does this mean that John Oliver is saying that only male athletes who’ve taken the drugs should be allowed to compete against women? No, he’s not saying that. At least he doesn&#8217;t appear to be saying that. His only real argument in favor of men in women&#8217;s sports is that, supposedly, men who&#8217;ve taken the transition drugs become weaker and slower. But he actually doesn&#8217;t follow that argument through to its conclusion and say that only men who’ve transitioned should compete. So again this whole thing is a red herring.
Also, why are men weaker and slower after transitioning? Why do they have less muscle mass? Well because the drugs are destroying their bodies. John Oliver is, here, proudly demonstrating that medical transition destroys the human body. It has a destructive effect on the physiology of the men who undergo these “treatments.” John seems to have little curiosity about that fact. He doesn’t linger on it or think about it very hard. Instead he just declares, “Look at that! Their bodies have been destroyed! Now they&#8217;re just like women!”
He doesn’t see any problem with equating a destroyed male body to a female body. He doesn’t see any problem with giving people supposed medical treatments that are designed to physically harm them. And he doesn’t even really think these treatments are relevant to the question of whether or not a trans woman is actually a woman or not.
That brings us to the argument that John has spent this whole diatribe studiously ignoring. The reason why our side actually opposes men in women’s sports is, as I explained during that hearing in California last week, very simply because men are not women. No matter how great or small their advantage. No matter if they’ve “transitioned” or not. No matter how they self-identify. Men are not women. The fundamental claim of the trans woman — that he is a woman — is false. It is objectively, scientifically, logically, empirically, in every way, and from every angle, false.
If there was a 30-year-old adult who wanted to play in a t-ball league against six-year-olds, we would all — even John Oliver — tell him no. But what if this 30-year-old was really un-athletic? Would that change our mind? What if he was very short, as short as a child? What if this 30-year-old would be only the tenth best t-ball player on the t-ball team? Would we let him play against the six-year-olds? No. Why? Because he&#8217;s not six-years-old.
Now what if the 30-year-old thought he was six.? What if he identified as six? What if he spent his whole life and had built his entire personality around the fantasy that he is six? Would we let him play in the six-year-old league in that case? No. In fact, we’d be even LESS accepting of him on the six-year-old team. Because not only is he still not actually six-years-old — he’s also deranged. The fact that he is deranged doesn’t make him six, and it doesn&#8217;t make us any more eager to let him play with six-year-olds. It has the exact opposite effect.
The same logic applies to women’s sports. Men are not women. Men who think they are women are still not women, and are, if anything, even less fit to be competing against them. This is the argument John Oliver won&#8217;t address. He will talk and talk and talk about the issue, but he won’t go anywhere near the actual point. The point that so-called trans women are not actually women. That’s our whole argument, John. I dare you to spend even five minutes addressing it. You’ve spent plenty of time on this topic. I think it&#8217;s time you actually get to the point.

Comic Relief Stand-Up for LA:  A Benefit For LA Wildfire Recovery

Debunking John Oliver’s Insane Defense Of Men In Women’s Sports

gender ideology

Matt Walsh

Women's sports

Late-Night TV may never be the same.
HBO’s John Oliver, host of “Last Week Tonight,” is facing a <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/01/media/healthcare-exec-sues-john-oliver-for-defamation-over-toilet-hygiene-rant/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new defamation lawsuit</a> from health care executive Dr. Brian Morley who claims the comedian slurred him “for ratings and profits.” 
In an April 2024 telecast, Oliver played an alleged audio clip of Morley at an administrative hearing <a href="https://ew.com/john-oliver-sued-by-healthcare-official-he-called-out-on-last-week-tonight-11708201" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, “People have bowel movements every day where they don’t completely clean themselves and we don’t fuss over [them] too much. People are allowed to be dirty … You know, I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.”
Oliver’s immediate on-air response: “F*** that doctor with a rusty canoe! I hope he gets tetanus of the balls.”
Morley’s lawyer claims the recording was altered by the program.
Suing comedians for telling the wrong jokes seems an uphill legal battle at best. The First Amendment allows for plenty of creative embellishments, although Oliver’s comments proved highly specific and potentially damaging to the doctor’s reputation.
The courts will have the final say on the matter.
Should Dr. Morley emerge victorious it could have a much larger impact. Yes, “Last Week Tonight” would take a sizable hit, but consider the big picture.
What if other satirical comics have to watch what they say moving forward? Will they require fact-checkers on set? Should Stephen Colbert run his anti-Republican rants by CBS Legal before hitting the stage each night?
Comedians have considerable leeway when it comes to political satire as opposed to everyday citizens. Those wide guardrails matter, allowing for satirists to skewer elected officials without fear of political ramifications.
How far is too far, though? Thanks to the sorry state of modern late night TV, the question matters more than ever.
<div id="attachment_903043" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-903043" class="size-large wp-image-903043" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2176959872-864x576.jpg" alt="NEW YORK CITY - OCTOBER 8: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and guest Vice President Kamala Harris during Tuesday's October 8, 2024 show. (Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2176959872-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2176959872-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2176959872-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2176959872.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images</div>
The hosts in question, however, bend the truth so regularly it’s often unrecognizable. It’s not a bug but a feature. Yes, Legacy Media outlets warp reality in damning ways, too. The list of Fake News narratives continues to grow in the Age of Trump.
Colbert and co. often walk in lockstep with their journalist pals.
Look no further than the Russian Collusion Hoax™. Yes, the media fed that narrative beast for far too long, but late-night hosts parroted even the most extreme collusion talking points while assuming they had the goods on President Donald Trump.
They didn’t.
CBS’s Colbert hit the lowest low when he called President Donald Trump Vladimir Putin’s <a href="https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/you-cant-say-television-colbert-edition" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BLEEP holster.</a> in one incendiary monologue. He also played up the Fake News story known to many as the Trump “pee-pee tape.”
The litigious world leader could have had something to say about that.
Colbert and fellow far-Left host Jimmy Kimmel also defended President Joe Biden from accusations, later confirmed, that he was suffering from dementia-like conditions during the 2024 presidential campaign. Both comedians had seen Biden up close during separate fundraising events.
They must have witnessed his diminished state firsthand. They didn’t share what they saw with their audiences, and Kimmel took that a step further. He used his “Jimmy Kimmel Live” bully pulpit to call anyone who said Biden froze up during his <a href="https://www.tvinsider.com/1140442/joe-biden-freezing-video-fundraiser-jimmy-kimmel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fundraising effort a liar</a>.
The projection was strong that night.
Other hosts have taken the media’s warped baton and run with it. Take the host of NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers.” The “Saturday Night Live” alum skewered President Trump in 2017 for <a href="https://time.com/4705083/seth-meyers-trump-meals-on-wheels-budget-cuts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gutting</a> the “Meals on Wheels” program.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fake-news-did-trump-just-kill-meals-wheels-not-ben-shapiro" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Except Trump didn’t.</a>
Meyers also played down the rampant violence spreading in Portland in 2020, as did some press outlets, in ways that felt like propaganda, not satire. And he wasn’t alone.
<div id="attachment_903053" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-903053" class="size-large wp-image-903053" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1248172738-864x576.jpg" alt="LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS -- Episode 1405 -- Pictured: (l-r) Comedian John Oliver during an interview with host Seth Meyers on March 13, 2023 -- (Photo by: Lloyd Bishop/NBC via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1248172738-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1248172738-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1248172738-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1248172738.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Lloyd Bishop/NBC via Getty Images</div>
Oliver also downplayed the ongoing violence swirling around parts of Portland, <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/john-oliver-media-portland-violence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">serving up this epic distortion</a>.
“Protests had been mostly peaceful there… it’s about one block that was actually starting to see fewer confrontations between protesters and police before federal agents moved in.”
Fake News? It’s beyond debate. But is it worth suing over? That’s where the conversation gets sticky.
What about late-night alum Amber Ruffin? She briefly hosted an ill-fated talk show on Peacock and has written for “Late Night with Seth Meyers.” Ruffin recently cited the serially debunked <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amber-ruffin-dropped-white-house-correspondents-dinner-response_n_67eb51c2e4b0ff137ab490b4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Very Fine People” hoax</a> anew during a late-night chat to smite President Trump.
Said hoax claims Trump praised Neo Nazis following a 2017 Charlottesville rally which left one woman dead. The lie proved so brazen even Snopes called it out (albeit several years after the lie gained cultural ground).
It’s not just late-night comedy, of course. Comedians use their considerable platforms to spread lies that could be seen as libelous.
Take <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-burr-goes-full-ahole?row=0&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;author=Ben+Shapiro&amp;title=Bill+Burr+Goes+Full+A**hole&amp;category=News" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bill Burr</a>, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist during his Netflix special “Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill.”
<div id="attachment_903055" style="width: 730px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-903055" class="size-large wp-image-903055" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1428254659-720x576.jpg" alt="BURBANK, CALIFORNIA - SEPTEMBER 27: Comedian Bill Burr performs at the Bob Golub Stand-up For Deaf, Hard Of Hearing Fundraiser at Flappers Comedy Club and Restaurant Burbank on September 27, 2022 in Burbank, California. (Photo by Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images)" width="720" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1428254659-720x576.jpg 720w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1428254659-300x240.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1428254659-768x614.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1428254659.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 720px) 100vw, 720px" />Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images</div>
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020 fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, agreeing with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and they couldn’t pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.
Burr picked up that false narrative, saying Rittenhouse was a <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/bill-burr-kyle-rittenhouse-white-supremacist/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">White Supremacist.</a>
“You gotta drop me off like two blocks away so my other racist friends don’t see my mommy drove me,” he cracked in the special, channeling Rittenhouse.
Comedians have more leeway when it comes to politicians, but no one elected Rittenhouse to elected office.
There’s a better solution here, one that doesn’t require legal challenges for First Amendment squabbles. A healthy, robust press would let viewers know that much of what’s said on late-night TV just isn’t true.
Journalists routinely regurgitate late-night jokes. They do the same with “Saturday Night Live” skits. That’s all well and good, but that practice is hollow if it doesn’t include fact checking when appropriate.
If comedians knew they’ve be held accountable for twisting the truth into so many pretzels, they might crack smarter gags that actually speak truth to power.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

76th Primetime Emmy Awards – Show

The People Versus John Oliver: The Murky Ethics Of Modern Comedy

Lawsuit

Media Bias

Satire

U.S. Politics

Woke Culture

Comedian and actor Michael Rapaport slammed a leftist Canadian politician for encouraging lawmakers to ban him from doing stand-up comedy shows in the country.
The 54-year-old made his opinions known in a <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/michael-rapaport-comedian-canada-ban-antisemitism">column</a> he wrote for The Free Press in which he mentioned Canada’s New Democrat Party member Heather McPherson encouraging others to protest the comedian’s performance.
McPherson referenced Rapaport’s “significant criminal history,” history of “Islamophobic speech,” and tendencies towards “inciting violence” as reasons for the proposed ban.
“We are witnessing an alarming increase in Islamophobia in Canada and globally,” she <a href="https://x.com/HMcPhersonMP/status/1895235206522818866">wrote</a> as part of a lengthy X thread shared late last month. “All Canadians deserve to feel safe in our communities. New Democrats are calling on the Liberal government to deny entry to Michael Rapaport.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Statement calling on Canadian government to deny entry to Michael Rapaport &#8211; February 27, 2025 New Democrats are alarmed that American personality Michael Rapaport is scheduled to perform in Canada. <a href="https://twitter.com/nccm?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nccm</a> 1/x
&mdash; Heather McPherson (@HMcPhersonMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/HMcPhersonMP/status/1895235093876330981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
She concluded by saying, “Hate has no place in Canada,” and tagging several other members of the Canadian Parliament in the post.
Rapaport called McPherson’s reasoning the “craziest campaign against me yet.” 
He also responded to all the parliament member’s charges, writing, “I have no criminal history other than calling my ex-girlfriend Lili Taylor too many times back in 1997. (I’m not ashamed; I was in love). I have no outstanding warrants. I don’t have any parking tickets. As far as racist Islamophobia, my only phobia currently is of radical jihadists. I’ll admit: I have a phobia of anybody who wants to kill, hurt, or dehumanize Jews.”
Rapaport continued, “The irony is that McPherson, in her post, asserted that ‘hate has no place in Canada’—except, of course, when hate is directed toward Jews, which Canada apparently has no problem with,” he wrote, linking to a report which found a “670 percent increase in antisemitic incidents in Canada since October 7, 2023.”
“Rather than call attention to that—or the horrific antisemitism sweeping her own country—this member of Parliament is spending her capital making pleas to keep me out, rather than fixing whatever is going wrong in her own backyard,&#8221; he wrote. 
Rapaport noted that his shows were still going on as planned later this week. “Luckily, at least for now, it seems [Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau and his party aren’t listening. I’ll still be crossing the border this week,” he concluded.
“If you’re reading this, Heather, I have front-row seats reserved for you and the New Democrats. That’s a genuine offer.”

Michael Rapaport

Comedian Michael Rapaport Blasts Canadian Lawmaker Trying To Get Him Banned From The Country

Canada

World

Menu