Car and ICE

Leftist Terrorists Have Gotten Away With Their Crimes For Too Long, But Not Anymore

Antifa

Chicago

Democrats

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Leftists

Matt Walsh

New York City

Opinion

Actress Elizabeth Olsen recently made headlines for saying she’s drawing a proverbial line in the sand when it comes to community and shared experiences.
“I think it’s important for people to gather as a community, to see other humans, be together in a space,” the “WandaVision” star <a href="https://deadline.com/2025/10/elizabeth-olsen-acting-movies-theatrical-release-wanda-mcu-1236593646/">told</a> Deadline in a recent interview in which she stressed the importance of releasing films in theaters. “That’s why I like sports. I think it’s really powerful for people to come together for something that they’re excited about. We don’t even audition in person anymore.”
“If a movie is made independently and only sells to a streamer, then fine. But I don’t want to make something where that&#8217;s the end-all,” she added.
It’s not just nostalgia for movie theaters. Olsen, whether she realizes it or not, is alluding to something bigger: the death of shared culture and shared experiences.
In an interesting turn of events, Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh has been warning about this collapse as well. “Pop culture peaked at a specific and identifiable point in our very recent past,” Walsh said in a recent monologue. “And has fallen off a cliff, perhaps irretrievably, since then.”
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
He even named the exact moment: 2007–2008. Walsh pointed to some of the best entertainment from the era, including “There Will Be Blood,” “The Dark Knight,” “The Office,” “Breaking Bad,” and “Superbad,” which came from a time when everyone watched the same things, quoted the same lines, and shared the same cultural conversations.
That’s what Olsen is missing, too. Our society no longer experiences anything together. Instead, they’re fed customized content via the algorithm, guaranteeing that everyone doesn’t wind up watching the exact same things.
Walsh explained it further, saying, “We no longer have a shared cultural experience … All of that has been consumed by an infinite scroll of content created by an algorithm specifically for you.”
He mentioned how there used to be radio DJs, movie premieres, and Thursday-night sitcoms everyone talked about on Friday. Now, everything is individually-tailored and undeniably lonely.
“The algorithm,” Walsh says, “is the only shared culture we have left. And it keeps us staring at the screen alone, isolated, fragmented.”
“As our lives have become increasingly centered around these devices, centered and condensed into these little glowing boxes, we have lost something very important,&#8221; Walsh added. &#8220;We no longer have a shared cultural experience, what some have called the monoculture, or what you might just call mainstream culture.&#8221;
“If I’m very optimistic, which I’m not,” Walsh said, “I’d hope people will rebel against this fragmented, algorithmic pseudo-culture by building strong communities … in physical space.”
Olsen’s pushback against streaming, and wanting people “to gather as a community” is exactly the rebellion Walsh hopes for. She’s advocating for that same thing by taking a stance against streaming projects.
Watching a movie alone on a laptop in your apartment is no different than scrolling through TikTok: solitary, algorithmically curated, and fleeting. Olsen’s defense of theaters isn’t just about art. It’s about returning to in-person human connection. Because once you lose shared experiences, you lose shared meaning. 
Olsen doesn&#8217;t have much in common with Walsh: she&#8217;s not conservative, and predictably, she <a href="https://x.com/PopCrave/status/1849915089031246076">endorsed</a> Kamala Harris for president in 2024. But in her quest for in-person connection, she’s actually advocating for conserving the fundamentals of human existence and rejecting the progressive nature of pursuing all types of technology, no matter the cost. 
Because in the end, culture can’t continue without community, and community dies when we choose solitude.

Elizabeth Olsen

Elizabeth Olsen Is Accidentally Making The Most Conservative Argument in Hollywood

algorithm

Celebrities

Culture

Entertainment

Hollywood

Technology

Firestorm Over Food Stamps Erupts With Funds Set to Expire

The EBT Scam Just Went From Bad To Worse

Amazon

Federal Government

Food Stamps

Walmart

Welfare

It’s been 10 years since The Daily Wire launched and pushed back on the legacy media’s stranglehold on news, commentary, and entertainment. It’s been a decade of fighting the Left at every turn, and a decade of successfully pushing forward conservative values.
And we’re not going anywhere. After one decade, we’re even more committed to staying in this fight for decades to come, and we couldn’t do it without our loyal supporters.
For a decade, we’ve done what no one else would. And now, we’re doing something we’ve never done before.
We’re offering <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/lifetime/">DailyWire+ Lifetime Membership</a>, a single membership that gives you access to all of our content for the rest of your life.
A one-time purchase will give you All Access to everything DailyWire+ has to offer, and you will never again have to worry about renewals or expirations.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/lifetime/">BECOME A DAILYWIRE+ LIFETIME MEMBER</a>
The Lifetime Membership puts you on the top tier of all of our plans. That means you become an All Access member, getting ad-free episodes before they’re available anywhere else, live Q&amp;As where you ask us the questions, early access to offers and announcements, and unlimited access to every original film, docuseries, and investigative reporting. FOR. LIFE.
Plus, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, Isabel Brown, Reagan Conrad, Morning Wire, and Crain &amp; Co. are giving away their own Lifetime Memberships. Yes, their own.
You have a real shot at winning one. All you have to do is download the free Daily Wire app for Android or iOS, follow your favorite host, and you are automatically entered to win. Each host will have one randomly select a winner on November 19th. You never know, Ben, Matt or Michael could be calling you.
When you join as a DailyWire+ Lifetime Member, you also get the Forward Flag Pin, which is accented in 14k gold and reserved only for our DW lifers. Lifetime Members will also receive a signed copy of Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions &amp; Scavengers.”
But there’s a big catch.
Only 10,000 Lifetime Memberships will ever exist. DailyWire+ Lifetime Members will be part of an exclusive club. Just 10,000 people will get the chance to join and become the cornerstone of building the next decade of Daily Wire. So go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/lifetime/">Dailywire.com/Lifetime</a> to secure your spot.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Daily Wire Lifetime Membership | Stand With Us For Life" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WBmVKxbACoQ?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>

DailyWire+ Lifetime Membership

A Decade Down, Forever To Go: Introducing DailyWire+ Lifetime Membership

Andrew Klavan

Ben Shapiro

Daily Wire

Isabel Brown

Jordan B. Peterson

Michael Knowles

Reagan Conrad

The EBT Program Is A Massive Scam, And The Government Shutdown Just Proved It

Amy Klobuchar

Food

Government Shutdown

Schumer Shutdown

Taxes

One year ago, Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh asked a question that most Americans dared not say out loud: “Am I racist?”
That simple yet provocative question became the title of his documentary, which helped to expose the grift of America’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) industry. What began as a satirical inquiry quickly evolved into a defining cultural moment. 
A year after “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/am-i-racist">Am I Racist?</a>” was released on DailyWire+, it remains one of the most significant and successful pieces of documentary filmmaking in recent history. The film continues to expose hypocrisy, invite reflection, and shake up the status quo like never before. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/am-i-racist">WATCH &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
When the film premiered last fall, fans were delighted with the unexpected humor that came from simply exposing lies. “Am I Racist?” took the DEI movement’s own language, placed it under a microscope, and dared to ask if the people profiting from America’s obsession with race were really solving anything at all.
Walsh interviewed well-known DEI advocates such as Saira Rao and Robin DiAngelo. Some of the comments made by the race-obsessed activists would almost be unbelievable if they hadn’t been filmed and turned into a documentary for the world to see. 
In one scene, Walsh, sporting a man bun, convinces DiAngelo that she had a “powerful opportunity” to display her commitment to anti-racism by giving his black producer, Ben, money from her purse.
Another scene features Rao lecturing her “Race to Dinner” guests about how racist they are. In his disguise, Walsh joins the conversation and makes some hilariously ridiculous remarks that the guests go along with. Rao later called “Am I Racist?” a “fascist Nazi white supremacy film.”
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
That premise struck a chord not only with conservatives, but also with a surprising number of viewers across the political spectrum who recognized the absurdity of the movement.
The results spoke for themselves. “Am I Racist?” became the top-grossing documentary of the past decade, earning over $12 million domestically after it hit theaters a month before its release on DailyWire+. Critics largely refused to review it, yet audiences responded by watching it anyway. It was one of only 15 documentaries ever to open in over 1,500 theaters and earned the third-highest opening day gross for a documentary in the last decade.
“Am I Racist?” was predictably snubbed from the Oscar shortlist despite the film’s record-breaking box office success and massive cultural influence. 
The film’s near-perfect audience score coupled with a conspicuous silence from the mainstream press only proved Walsh’s point. While regular people were ready to have an honest conversation about race, power, and the industry profiting on outrage, the mainstream media who had been supporting this nonsense wasn’t ready to take a look in the mirror.
The film’s success wasn’t an accident. It’s proof that when you strip away buzzwords, Americans still crave truth more than comforting lies.That statement holds up even more today.
Twelve months later, the same institutions satirized in “Am I Racist?” are deeply entrenched in many cases, but slowly people are starting to wake up. While DEI initiatives remain fixtures in corporate and academic life, there have also been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dei-focused-teams-hit-hardest-in-mass-nbc-news-layoffs">mass layoffs</a> and elimination of entire departments devoted to identity politics. Even the White House clamped down on DEI being pushed in the federal government and at public schools and universities after President Donald Trump was sworn into office earlier this year.
Walsh’s approach was unorthodox but effective. He didn’t lecture; he listened. He attended DEI training sessions, spoke directly with self-proclaimed “experts,” and treated their jargon with seriousness, allowing the experts to prove out their ineptitude onscreen. Walsh wasn’t mocking them. He was giving them a platform to express their beliefs and letting the results speak for themselves.  
The genius of the documentary lay in its tone. The humor served a purpose as it helped to reveal how the modern language of “anti-racism” often conceals deeper contradictions. What Walsh uncovered was not an effort to heal division, but a lucrative enterprise that profits from keeping it alive.
In January, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/now-streaming-clearing-the-a-i-r-the-making-of-am-i-racist">released</a> “Clearing the A.I.R.: The Making of Am I Racist?,” a companion film that pulls back the curtain on how a deceptively simple question became one of the year’s most challenging cultural commentaries. Those behind-the-scenes insights only deepened public appreciation for the documentary’s impact, not merely as entertainment, but as a jumping off point for a cultural movement.
What distinguishes “Am I Racist” from other documentaries is its refusal to moralize. Walsh does not tell the viewer what to think. Instead, he shows them the DEI industry operating in real time and allows viewers to draw their own conclusions.
That restraint is rare in modern media, and it’s part of why the film continues to resonate. At its core, “Am I Racist?” isn’t just about race, and it’s not a political statement either. It’s about discovering the truth and refusing to be quiet. 
The first anniversary of “Am I Racist?” marks more than a milestone for The Daily Wire or for Matt Walsh’s filmography. It represents a pivotal shift in how the public tackles big ideas that progressive institutions have taken for granted far too long.
The DEI establishment will not vanish overnight, nor will the culture wars end anytime soon. But “Am I Racist?” has shown what’s possible when conservative filmmakers aren’t afraid to ask the questions you’re not allowed to ask.

Am I Racist?

‘Am I Racist?’ Celebrates One Year: How Matt Walsh’s One Question Exposed The DEI Grift

Am I Racist

DailyWire+

The Daily Wire&#8217;s October lineup of film and television programming features three mission-oriented documentaries and a popular faith-driven horror-thriller.
“This year, we’ve been quietly curating a powerful content library that goes far beyond our world-famous podcasts,” said Mike Richards, Chief Content Officer and President of Daily Wire Entertainment. “What unites our growing slate is a commitment to telling great stories that speak truth, reflect the values our audience cares about, and give voice to those long underserved by the mainstream.”
Here’s what was released on DailyWire+ in October and what&#8217;s still to come:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-K-Wjin5RJY?si=NBXQSJZj4n_zlhny" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
<h3>USS COLE: Al Qaeda&#8217;s Strike Before 9/11</h3>
This three-episode docuseries from BIG Media chronicles Al Qaeda’s suicide bomb attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. Based on the book “Front Burner” by retired Navy Commander Kirk Lippold, the series tells the untold story of a blast in Yemen that left 17 sailors dead and became the blueprint for 9/11. More than a tragedy, it was the warning America ignored.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eTvFDubU86g?si=oNiVtsMzLYn9uaMW" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
All three episodes are available to stream now.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/uss-cole-al-qaeda-s-attack-before-9-11">WATCH USS COLE: AL QAEDA&#8217;S STRIKE BEFORE 9/11</a>
<h3>The 1916 Project</h3>
Over a century ago, Planned Parenthood was built on racist “population control” — targeting the poor, the weak, and the unwanted. This feature documentary, directed and produced by David Coonradt, shows how the organization grew into the behemoth it is today — and reveals how much it still has in common with the eugenic organization it was launched as.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u7otoZHOHXY?si=6j6Ag5IsdoP2ruKJ" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/the-1916-project">WATCH THE 1916 PROJECT</a>
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN DAILYWIRE+ TO STREAM THESE TITLES &amp; MORE. 40% OFF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS DURING THE FALL SALE</a>   
<h3>Nefarious</h3>
On the day of his scheduled execution, a convicted serial killer gets a psychiatric evaluation during which he claims he is a demon, and further claims that before their time is over, the psychiatrist will commit three murders of his own. Starring Sean Patrick Flanery and Jordan Belfi, directed by Cary Solomon, and inspired by the novel “A Nefarious Plot” by Steve Deace, this popular Christian thriller is sure to delight DailyWire+ audiences.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8vkFMdrtnsY?si=xiZIdNLiy-eYTy2t" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/nefarious">WATCH NEFARIOUS</a>
<h3>Hiding in Plain Sight: America’s Trafficking Epidemic </h3>
Your children&#8217;s phones could be their greatest danger. &#8220;Hiding in Plain Sight&#8221; takes you inside the shocking world of digital predators who use everyday apps to hunt, groom, and traffic children from their own bedrooms. Produced by Our Rescue, the renowned nonprofit organization dedicated to combating sex trafficking and child exploitation, “Hiding in Plain Sight” offers unprecedented access to undercover law enforcement stings and harrowing survivor accounts. This documentary exposes how traffickers have turned the internet, including social media and online gaming, into hunting grounds — and why no family is safe.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AOS9VUHpDpE?si=V5uuOP25kv0e29N2" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Directed and executive produced by Nick Nanton and produced by Katie Tschopp, “Hiding in Plain Sight” is streaming free on DailyWire+ starting October 30.
<h3>Friendly Fire</h3>
Friendly Fire is the next decade of The Daily Wire — unleashed. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and Andrew Klavan go head-to-head in a biweekly clash of ideas, laughs, and cultural combat, joined by special guests like Isabel Brown, Jeremy Boreing, and more.
It’s unscripted, unfiltered, and the loudest way to launch the next chapter of the movement.
Another episode of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire?contentProgram=Friendly%20Fire%20%7C%20Tonight%207pm%20ET&amp;contentType=Show&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;location=Home%20Tab&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Home%20Featured%20Carousel">Friendly Fire</a> drops on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. ET.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN DAILYWIRE+ TO STREAM THESE TITLES &amp; MORE. 40% OFF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS DURING THE FALL SALE</a>
Don’t miss other recent DailyWire+ releases, including:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">&#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-b2-bomber">How to Win a War in 37 Hours</a>,&#8221; a behind-the-scenes look at the top-secret operation that dismantled the Iranian nuclear program.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">&#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-pope-and-the-fuhrer-the-secret-vatican-files-of-world-war-ii">The Pope and the Führer: The Secret Vatican Files of World War II</a>,&#8221; a 4-part series hosted by Michael Knowles exploring the Pope, Hitler, and the Holocaust from a perspective you’ve never seen before.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">&#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/journey-to-the-ufc-joe-pyfer">Journey to the UFC: Joe Pyfer</a>,&#8221; a documentary that follows Joe Pyfer’s experiences with homelessness, a toxic family life, and numerous injuries as he made his way to UFC stardom.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">&#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/ben-after-dark">Ben After Dark</a>,&#8221; a late-night show hosted by Ben Shapiro, featuring unscreened guests, unsolicited opinions, and unchecked sarcasm.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN DAILYWIRE+ TO STREAM THESE TITLES &amp; MORE. 40% OFF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS DURING THE FALL SALE </a>

Upcoming-Thumb-V1

Here’s What Dropped On DailyWire+ In October

Here’s What’s Coming To DailyWire+ In October

Al Qaeda

Planned Parenthood

NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani Gives Address on Islamophobia In NYC

Muslims Are The Real Victims Of 9/11, According To Zohran Mamdani

9/11

Democratic Socialism

Muslims

Radical Islam

Zohran Mamdani

In every country where firearms have been banned, there&#8217;s been an &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; that&#8217;s been used to justify the crackdown. And very often, this &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; is either overblown, manufactured, or misconstrued in some way. In Canada back in 2022, for example, Justin Trudeau used a mass shooting in the United States — specifically, the shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas — to justify a national ban on handgun sales in Canada.
Yes, he used a shooting in a foreign country, which was committed with a rifle, to justify a ban on handguns in Canada. And of course, Canadians went along with it. They didn&#8217;t even complain because, after all, they&#8217;d been conditioned, over many years, to accept an increasing number of restrictions on their right to own firearms. Bit by bit, they allowed the government to whittle away their rights. So eventually, when it came time for Justin Trudeau to suspend handgun sales entirely, based on a pretext that was obviously ridiculous, everyone just kind of rolled over. We&#8217;ve seen similar stories all over the world, in places like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and so on.
Every conservative — everyone who wants the United States to continue to exist as a functional country, where all of these other nations have failed — has to be mindful of similar efforts to undermine our Second Amendment rights here at home. We have to pay attention when government officials attempt to use some kind of fake &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; to suspend our right to possess firearms. And we certainly have to pay attention when these efforts gain traction — when they appear to be working.
That&#8217;s the case right now. Lawsuits and political pressure by various states — particularly California — have successfully intimidated the weapons manufacturer Glock into dismantling virtually its entire product line. One of the most popular handgun manufacturers in the world, with probably the most recognizable brand, has been beaten into submission.
This is a story that hasn&#8217;t received anywhere near the attention it should be receiving. It&#8217;s obviously the first domino among many. If Glock doesn&#8217;t reverse this decision — if Democrats win this fight — then many, many more dominoes will fall in short order. Just like we saw in Canada, once you give these people any ground whatsoever, they will walk all over you.
So let&#8217;s begin with the &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; of this particular power grab. It was the worst mass shooting in the history of Sacramento, according to the local media, and it took place in April 2022. Several shooters were involved, as part of some kind of gang warfare. Six people were fatally wounded. Twelve others were injured.
One of the men who was apprehended was named Smiley Martin (the brother of Dandrae Martin, another suspect in the case). Smiley Martin was found in possession of a Glock 19 handgun with a &#8220;switch&#8221; attached to it, which is a device that enables it to fire rapidly, like a machine gun. Switches are illegal, but they can be obtained very easily or created with a 3D printer.
And it was determined that Smiley was one of the main shooters in this particular incident. Watch: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Downtown Sacramento" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4FhuYdV4phc?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>
You heard in that report that Smiley Martin had a very long criminal record prior to this shooting. But they don&#8217;t explain why he was allowed out of prison, if that&#8217;s the case. Nor do they provide more detail on what exactly Smiley Martin did when he committed his other crimes. 
But that&#8217;s a pretty big part of the story. So here&#8217;s <a href="https://apnews.com/article/covid-health-shootings-prisons-arrests-f713eff2a31b66e5740eb96f60392baa">The Associated Press</a>, with some more background.
<blockquote>A suspect arrested in connection with last weekend’s mass shooting outside bars in Sacramento served less than half his 10-year sentence because of voter-approved changes to state law that lessened the punishment for his felony convictions and provided a chance for earlier release. Smiley Allen Martin was freed in February after serving time for punching a girlfriend, dragging her from her home by her hair and whipping her with a belt, according to court and prison records. Those count as nonviolent offenses under California law, which considers only about two dozen crimes to be violent felonies — such as murder, rape, arson and kidnapping. &#8230; Proposition 57 credits include good behavior while behind bars, though corrections officials declined to release Martin’s disciplinary report.</blockquote>
If you follow my show or read my articles, you know this is all sounding very familiar. It&#8217;s similar to what happened in Kentucky, with the child killer Ronald Exantus. As we discussed, Exantus brutally murdered a young boy and assaulted his father (and the boy&#8217;s sister). But his crimes were deemed &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; under Kentucky law, so he was let out of prison after serving just a few years. Even though the parole board didn&#8217;t want to release Smiley Martin, they had no choice under the law — just like they had to release Ronald Exantus.
In this case, just like Ronald Exantus, Smiley Martin obviously committed violent offenses. He punched a woman and whipped her with a belt. But because these offenses are somehow considered &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; in California, under the law that was passed in 2016, Smiley Martin was allowed out of prison after serving a fraction of his sentence. And he then used that opportunity to commit a mass shooting.
So how has the government of California responded to this development? Have they suggested that maybe they should amend the law so that the word &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; doesn&#8217;t refer to crimes that are obviously violent? Have they suggested any changes whatsoever that would prevent violent felons from getting out of prison after serving less than half of their sentences?
You probably know the answer to that question. Democrats in California reacted to this mass shooting by pushing yet another law — one that will effectively ban all Glock handguns in the state. For many years, Glocks have had special restrictions in places like Canada and California. And now the government, in the wake of this mass shooting, has decided to go for a total ban. 
This is from a video posted by &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/fixingcali/status/1968266193808277561">Vince for California</a>,&#8221; the only account I&#8217;ve seen on X that has pieced all this together. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 CA Glocks" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uf-r0btKIq4?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>
Yes, you heard that correctly. Government officials in California cited the mass shooting in Sacramento as proof that we need a new law banning Glocks. That&#8217;s not because there&#8217;s anything wrong with Glocks, by themselves. It&#8217;s because career criminals — overwhelmingly young black men who pose with their illegally modified Glocks on TikTok all the time, and who constantly commit violent felonies and then get out of jail in five seconds — might modify the Glock to make it more dangerous. Because this relatively small demographic is breaking the law, therefore the most popular handgun in the world should be outlawed in California. (Technically, you can keep your current Glock, but you can&#8217;t buy a new one.)
That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re saying. That&#8217;s their plan. And it&#8217;s working. It&#8217;s almost as if the entire reason they let these violent thugs out of prison is so that they can commit more crimes, which Democrats will then, in turn, use to justify more crackdowns on our civil liberties. This is from a local news station in California.
<blockquote>Glock handguns, among the most popular pistols on the market, will no longer be available for purchase in California starting July 1, 2026. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1127, which prohibits the sale of Glocks because a small part can be modified or replaced to convert the gun into an automatic weapon. Although illegal, this modification is becoming increasingly popular among lawbreakers. Tyler Thompson, a Glock dealer at Redding Guns, said the impending ban has left him with only one Glock in stock.</blockquote>
Along with this law (which was subsidized by Soros and Mark Zuckerberg), there have been various lawsuits filed against Glock by Democrats — including cities like Seattle and Chicago, and states like Minnesota and New Jersey — which essentially blame the manufacturer for illegal modifications that people make to their firearms. It&#8217;s like when Democrats blamed Toyota for supposedly making their cars too easy to steal.
For about a million reasons, conservatives should fight these laws (and these lawsuits) with everything they have. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation are doing their part, and filing lawsuits, but there needs to be a much bigger effort. For one thing, <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1127/id/3209201">here&#8217;s the law</a> that California just passed.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990593 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-824x576.jpg" alt="" width="824" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-824x576.jpg 824w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-300x210.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-768x537.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel.jpg 987w" sizes=" (max-width: 824px) 100vw, 824px" /></div>
Credit: LegiScan/California Assembly Bill 1127
The bill reads:
<blockquote>This bill would prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define “machinegun-convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machine gun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, meaning any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.</blockquote>
Among other problems, this law is obviously unconstitutional. 
To be clear, it doesn&#8217;t apply only to Glocks, but also to any handgun with a &#8220;cruciform trigger bar.&#8221; 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990597 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-1024x428.webp" alt="" width="1024" height="428" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-1024x428.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-300x125.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-768x321.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar.webp 1280w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Credit: us.Glock.com
Here&#8217;s what that looks like. Some Smith &amp; Wesson firearms, along with some firearms from Shadow Systems and FMK Firearms, also have &#8220;cruciform trigger bars.&#8221; And yes, it&#8217;s true that, if they revamp their entire product lineup, Glock can get rid of these.
But Glock shouldn&#8217;t have to do that. Nor should any of these other companies. The Supreme Court has already held — correctly — that under our Constitution, Americans can own handguns that aren&#8217;t unreasonably dangerous. And there&#8217;s nothing unreasonably dangerous about a Glock. It&#8217;s about as vanilla as handguns get. If a handgun suddenly becomes &#8220;unreasonably dangerous&#8221; because someone makes an illegal modification to it, then every handgun will instantly become &#8220;unreasonably dangerous.&#8221;
And of course, that&#8217;s what California has in mind. We all know that, no matter what changes Glock decides to make to its handguns, in order to comply with this law, it will never be enough. It&#8217;s possible to modify any handgun (or rifle) to shoot &#8220;full auto&#8221;, within the meaning of this law. Probably ten days after Glock changes its handguns to comply with this law, someone will come up with a switch for the new model. It&#8217;s not going to be difficult. Many firearms experts have already made that point.
This is clearly, unambiguously, the first major step in a larger effort by Democrats to ban handguns. The only appropriate response is to fight it, right now. There is no limiting principle here. It&#8217;s like saying it should be illegal to own a car, because car bombs exist. The fact that someone can come in after the fact and make a product more dangerous by committing a felony does not mean that we should ban the product.
But Glock isn&#8217;t fighting back on principle. They&#8217;re not running ads in California, pointing out that Gavin Newsom let this mass shooter out of jail early, or that California already outlaws switches, or that the mass shooter was a felon who shouldn&#8217;t have been allowed to possess a firearm in the first place, or that he had a high-capacity magazine that&#8217;s also illegal in California. Glock isn&#8217;t running 24/7 ads, which makes the extremely obvious point that California could solve its gun problem overnight by actually enforcing its existing laws and by punishing violent criminals.
Instead, Glock is caving. They&#8217;re punishing every law-abiding gun owner in the country. They just announced that they&#8217;re ditching Gen 5 and starting to make a whole new &#8220;V series&#8221; of handguns that are supposedly compliant with this new law. They just sent this marketing material around.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990599 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-460x576.jpeg" alt="" width="460" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-460x576.jpeg 460w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-240x300.jpeg 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-768x961.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi.jpeg 1029w" sizes=" (max-width: 460px) 100vw, 460px" /></div>
Credit: us.Glock.com
It reads: &#8220;As part of GLOCK&#8217;s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product lines to align with upcoming offerings.&#8221;
So they don&#8217;t even mention why they&#8217;re doing this. They don&#8217;t demonstrate a shred of interest in defending Americans&#8217; Second Amendment rights or contesting this flagrant overreach by Democrats in California, New Jersey, Minnesota, and so on. They don&#8217;t even provide any indication as to whether this new &#8220;V series&#8221; will be compatible with Gen 5 parts, including performance triggers and so on. Nor do they explain how they can possibly make a handgun that&#8217;s impossible to turn into a machine gun, under the law passed in California. They&#8217;re just hoping for the best, I guess.
And meanwhile, where is the Republican Party on this? Has a single prominent Republican made an issue out of the fact that Democrats just strong-armed Glock into dismantling its entire product line? If so, I&#8217;m not aware of it.
This is a total capitulation. There&#8217;s no other way to understand what&#8217;s happening here. It&#8217;s capitulation on Glock&#8217;s part. And it&#8217;s capitulation on the part of our elected representatives.
That would be unforgivable in normal times. It&#8217;s especially egregious now, after we&#8217;ve seen — again and again, in country after country — where total capitulation leads. Glock&#8217;s decision is going to embolden Democrats to do exactly what Leftists have done in Canada, Australia, and so on. They didn&#8217;t release Smiley Martin from prison, or fund these massive new changes to the law, so that Glock would release slightly-altered versions of its existing handguns. They released Smiley Martin from prison, and they passed this law, so that no one can buy a handgun ever again. They want to disarm the entire country. That is their ultimate objective.
That&#8217;s always been their objective. And with this decision by Glock, without much fanfare, they&#8217;re one very important step closer to achieving it.

California Gov. Newsom Discusses State’s Economic Advancement And Growth

The Brazen Attack On Your Second Amendment Rights You Probably Haven’t Heard About

California

Gavin Newsom

Gun Laws

Guns

Sacramento

Second Amendment

NYC Mayoral Candidate Mamdani Holds “Our Time Has Come” Rally

Foreign Socialist Mamdani Doesn’t Want To Assimilate Into America. He Wants Us To Assimilate To Him.

American History

MSNBC

By all accounts — including his own — 36-year-old roofer Joe Gonzales was an evil human being who deserved to die. In 1992, in the state of Texas, Gonzales murdered a 50-year-old building contractor who supposedly owed him $200. Gonzales robbed the man and attempted to make his death look like a suicide. But it wasn&#8217;t a very convincing defense, because people who kill themselves normally don&#8217;t rob themselves after they do it. At trial, Gonzales told the jury, “I am a man who has no regard for the law. I am a man who has no regard for humanity.&#8221;
Within just twelve minutes, in November of 1995, the jury <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/19/us/on-death-row-10-months-man-is-executed.html">convicted</a> Gonzales and recommended the death penalty.
If you had to guess how long it took Joe Gonzales to actually be put to death, what would you say? What&#8217;s the approximate timeframe for how long you think Joe Gonzales sat on death row, before he was finally executed?
Maybe you&#8217;re thinking this is a trick question, and that the answer is: He was never actually executed, he&#8217;s still on death row, appealing the jury&#8217;s decision, to this day. That&#8217;s normally how death penalty cases go. We all know that. But in this case, surprisingly enough, Joe Gonzales was indeed put to death. And he was put to death very quickly, relatively speaking. Just ten months after the jury recommended the death penalty, in September of 1996, Joe Gonzales was executed by lethal injection. It was the fastest execution in U.S. history since Gary Gilmore was executed in Utah in 1977 by firing squad, just three months after he was convicted of two murders.
The reason both of these men were executed so quickly is that, unlike most death penalty defendants, they weren&#8217;t interested in dragging the process out. They didn&#8217;t have any interest in appealing their sentences. So they allowed the government to proceed with the executions, without undue delay. And the government obliged. Left to their own devices, without any frivolous appeals, states like Texas and Utah were able to dispense justice in a reasonable timeframe.
This is not ancient history. We&#8217;re not talking about executions in colonial New England, or anything like that. In modern America, it&#8217;s entirely possible to put violent criminals to death, promptly. One of the key steps we need to take, as these cases demonstrate, is to get rid of the idea that death penalty defendants are entitled to an automatic appeal. These appeals can take decades to resolve. They&#8217;re almost always unnecessary.
But ever since the 1970s, because of a Supreme Court decision, these appeals have been mandatory (unless the defendant waives them). As a result of this decision by the Supreme Court, the average time that inmates spend on death row has ballooned.
<div id="attachment_989217" style="width: 799px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-989217" class="wp-image-989217 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-789x576.jpg" alt="Source: Death Penalty Information Center" width="789" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-789x576.jpg 789w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-300x219.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-768x560.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row-1360x994.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Chart-Death-Row.jpg 1362w" sizes=" (max-width: 789px) 100vw, 789px" />Source: Death Penalty Information Center</div>
In the 1980s, as you can see here, the average time spent on death row was around 74 months. Now it&#8217;s over 260.
So it didn&#8217;t take long, after the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in 1976, for everything to slow down. They introduced mandatory appeals, and now inmates are spending three times as long on death row.
<div id="attachment_989223" style="width: 779px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-989223" class="wp-image-989223 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-769x576.jpg" alt="Source: Death Penalty Information Center" width="769" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-769x576.jpg 769w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-300x225.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age-768x575.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Death-Penalty-age.jpg 1370w" sizes=" (max-width: 769px) 100vw, 769px" />Source: Death Penalty Information Center</div>
Along the same lines, as you&#8217;d expect, there&#8217;s also been a dramatic change in the average age of a defendant who&#8217;s executed on death row. In 1975, the average age was 36. In 1980, the average age was 24.
By 2005, the average age was up to 44. Now it&#8217;s over 50. In fact, more than 570 prisoners on death row are over the age of 60, as of 2019. Back in 1996, that number was just 39.
Some elderly prisoners — like Vernon Madison in Alabama — are spending so much time on death row that they&#8217;re developing dementia and having strokes, which makes them ineligible for the death penalty because they&#8217;re supposedly &#8220;incompetent to be executed.&#8221; Yes, that&#8217;s an actual category of inmate. You might argue that competence is kind of irrelevant for the death penalty. You don’t need to be competent. You don’t need to do anything but die. But this is the system we have now. Even if you were competent to stand trial, it&#8217;s possible for you to lose your mind on death row. And then you go back to general population, as a confused vegetable, while the victim&#8217;s family wonders when they&#8217;re going to get the justice they were promised. This is supposedly the &#8220;humane&#8221; solution, according to the Supreme Court. We need an absurd amount of appeals and bureaucratic wrangling, lasting years and years, before we can actually execute anyone.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1677-have-you-forgotten-about-iryna-zarutska-they-want-you-to-here-s-why"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Keep in mind, the Supreme Court made this decision in an era before advanced DNA evidence, modern ballistics techniques, or widespread video surveillance. The general sentiment, at the time, was that innocent people might be convicted and sent to death row. So therefore, because evidence wasn&#8217;t robust, we supposedly needed mandatory appeals, to make sure that innocent people weren&#8217;t executed.
But that&#8217;s not the case any more.
Most death penalty cases are similar to the murder of Iryna Zarutska.
It’s an important case, even amid all of the other things happening in the country. And we cannot forget what happened to her.
That’s why I want to give a brief update on the case and tell you what’s going on with it now. The answer, as we’ll see, is that nothing is going on. There is no update. No movement at all. And that’s the point.
Now, of course, there is no doubt whatsoever as to who is responsible for Iryna&#8217;s death. The killer in this case has more than a dozen prior arrests. He committed the crime on camera, as we all remember. In a just society, the man responsible — Decarlos Brown Jr. — would be given a speedy trial, under our Constitution, and then put to death.
That&#8217;s true even if you buy his defense, which is that he was &#8220;mentally ill&#8221; in some way. But really, the defense is nonsense. This is a surveillance photo from the light rail, a second or so after he stabbed and mortally wounded Iryna. It&#8217;s the photo you&#8217;ve probably seen many times before.
<div id="attachment_989213" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-989213" class="size-large wp-image-989213" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-575x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Surveillance video, Charlotte Area Transit System" width="575" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-575x576.jpg 575w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-300x300.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-150x150.jpg 150w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2-768x769.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Char2.jpg 1070w" sizes=" (max-width: 575px) 100vw, 575px" />Screenshot: Surveillance video, Charlotte Area Transit System</div>
It&#8217;s obvious that Decarlos Brown went out of his way to target a defenseless woman who wasn&#8217;t even looking at him. He sat in wait for his victim. After he killed her, he said something along the lines of, &#8220;I got that white girl.&#8221; And then, as this surveillance footage from the train station, which was just released, demonstrates, he changed his clothing.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Watch: Video shows Iryna Zarutska’s accused killer being arrested at Charlotte light rail station" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GcCtpUL9hrs?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>
Credit: WBTV News/Charlotte/YouTube.com
This is the footage of the arrest of Decarlos Brown. The officers swarm him pretty quickly. But as you can see, he&#8217;s not wearing the red clothing anymore. He&#8217;s carrying his sweatshirt. So it looks a lot like he understood that he had just killed someone, and wanted to avoid detection.
Whether he &#8220;heard voices&#8221; or not, or whether he has &#8220;impulse control issues&#8221; or not, it doesn&#8217;t matter. Someone who decides to murder an innocent woman, for any reason, forfeits his right to live. And that&#8217;s clearly what happened here.
But because our death penalty system is a bureaucratic morass, Decarlos Brown will not be executed anytime soon.
This is the latest reporting from a <a href="https://www.wbtv.com/2025/10/15/hearing-determine-if-north-carolina-will-pursue-death-penalty-alleged-light-rail-killer-delayed/">local news station</a> in North Carolina. Here’s what’s happening with his case right now.
<blockquote>The man accused of killing a Ukrainian woman on a Charlotte light rail almost two months ago was scheduled to have a crucial court hearing on Thursday. Decarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of killing 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska back in late August, was scheduled to have a Rule 24 court hearing on Thursday, Oct. 16. A Rule 24 hearing is for the state to determine whether or not they would pursue the death penalty. Court documents said that the hearing has now been pushed back until April 2026. The decision to delay the hearing came from Brown and his attorney, Daniel Roberts. However, the reason for the delay was redacted, according to court documents.</blockquote>
So there&#8217;s going to be a &#8220;hearing&#8221; to &#8220;determine whether or not&#8221; the state will &#8220;pursue the death penalty&#8221; — as if there&#8217;s any doubt that they should. Decarlos Brown should&#8217;ve been put down somewhere after his 10th conviction. And he certainly should be executed now. But this hearing won&#8217;t take place until April of next year.
Of course, the best part of all is that you don&#8217;t even get to know why the hearing was delayed. You get no information whatsoever. All you can be sure of, at this point, is that the trial isn&#8217;t going to take place for a very long time — if it occurs at all. Even in a case where the defendant&#8217;s guilt is obvious to everyone in the entire country, we&#8217;re told to put up with endless delays, for no reason.
These delays are downstream from that Supreme Court decision in the 1970s. And that Supreme Court decision was downstream of the belief — which is false — that innocent defendants are sent to death row all the time. That wasn&#8217;t true in the 1970s. And it&#8217;s certainly not true anymore. We don&#8217;t need a neurotic number of hearings and appeals to determine the fate of animals like Decarlos Brown. The evidence is overwhelming. And it&#8217;s overwhelming in every other death row case, as well.
So why haven&#8217;t any states attempted to bypass this Supreme Court decision, with lawsuits or new legislation? Why haven&#8217;t we seen legal challenges to this absurd framework that essentially renders the death penalty moot? Why don&#8217;t states say, actually, we don&#8217;t need mandatory appeals anymore, or endless hearings. We can just hold a trial, present the overwhelming evidence, and then get on with the execution. There&#8217;s certainly no constitutional basis for making the death penalty effectively impossible to enforce. On the contrary, the Founders approved of the death penalty — explicitly, in many cases. So why don&#8217;t we see any legal challenges on this point?
The only explanation that makes sense is that — in the case of Decarlos Brown, and every other case like his — the people in charge of the state government want us to forget what happened. They want the outrage to subside, which it usually does. And then they can get away with giving as lenient a sentence as possible. That&#8217;s what the mayor of Charlotte clearly wants. Remember, she put out a statement saying we should feel sympathy for people like Decarlos Brown, and attacked anyone who shared the footage of Iryna&#8217;s murder. She doesn&#8217;t want Decarlos Brown to be executed. If she can arrange it, she wants him out on the streets, as soon as possible, so he can terrorize more innocent women.
And it&#8217;s not crazy to think the mayor of Charlotte might accomplish that goal. Just a week ago, we covered the case of a convicted child killer who managed to get out of prison in less than a decade. Fortunately, in the case of Decarlos Brown, there are federal charges as well — and those charges are also death-eligible. But that prosecution — and any potential conviction — could be undone by a future Democrat administration. And at this point, particularly if Decarlos Brown isn&#8217;t executed, that outcome seems like a distinct possibility. But it shouldn&#8217;t be possible. The right to a speedy trial doesn&#8217;t just apply for the benefit of the defendant. It also applies for the benefit of society at large. We have a constitutional right to see violent criminals punished, swiftly, to the fullest extent of the law.
Every once in a while, over the past month or so, I&#8217;ve come across a post on X with that picture of Iryna, along with a message like &#8220;We haven&#8217;t forgotten you,&#8221; or something along those lines. I hope that&#8217;s true. But as months turn into years, inevitably, people will become distracted. There will be more violence and chaos and tragedy — Democrats will make sure of that. And it will be easy, despite our best efforts, to forget what happened to Iryna. That&#8217;s what they want us to do. That was the whole point of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in the 1970s, and all the state laws that followed. Now&#8217;s the time for those laws to change. And it&#8217;s time for Iryna Zarutska&#8217;s killer to receive a fair trial, and then a speedy execution in a matter of weeks, if not days — which is, admittedly, a far more dignified death than he deserves. But under our Constitution and our common law tradition on the death penalty, which has been ignored since the 1970s, it&#8217;s the fate that Decarlos Brown should receive.
* * *
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

MixCollage-08-Sep-2025-02-31-PM-2293

Have You Forgotten About Iryna Zarutska? They Want You To. Here’s Why. 

Charlotte

Criminal Justice

Death Penalty

Iryna Zarutska

Murder

Anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ Rally Held In Cities Across US

‘No Kings’ Protest Turns Into A Rallying Cry For Political Violence

'No Kings' Protest Turns Into A Rallying Cry For Political Violence

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Liberals

Protests

Utah

Menu