← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1668 - The Case Of The Child Killer Released From Prison Just Got Even More Insane
01:10:44
Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:01]
A
It's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help. Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app? Some cards are labeled no Ding Decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding Decline cards won't hurt your credit scores. If you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.
- [00:28]
B
Experian Today Matt Wall show the story of the child killer who was released on parole after a few years in prison is even crazier than you think. I've been investigating this case and found some new pieces that are absolutely mind boggling. You have to hear this Also, the mayor of Chicago continues his open rebellion and treason against the United States. Why isn't he already arrested? And a Hollywood actress says that it's an act of violence to expect young people to get married. We'll talk about all that and more today. On the mat with rising costs everywhere, we tend to overestimate what things actually cost, including life insurance, where 72% of Americans guess way too high. PolicyGenius makes finding affordable coverage simple so your loved ones have the financial protection they need. See, Policygenius can help you find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage, Policygenius transforms the typically overwhelming process of shopping for life insurance into a straightforward experience. With just a few clicks, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find coverage that fits your needs and your budget. Their team of licensed agents guides you through every step, handling paperwork and answering questions without any sales pressure. The platform clearly displays all your options, coverage amounts, prices and terms, eliminating confusion and guesswork. As the country's leading online insurance marketplace with thousands of five star reviews, policygenius has earned trust by helping customers find policies perfectly suited to their unique situations, making this important financial decision surprisingly simple. As a father and husband, I know how important it is to get life insurance and the peace of mind that comes with knowing that your family will be financially protected and able to maintain their quality of life even if you're no longer there to provide for them and secure your family's future. With policy Genius, head to policygenius.comwalsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you can save. That's policygenius.com Walsh when we outlined the crimes of 42 year old Ronald Exantis yesterday, it was very difficult to imagine how the story could possibly become any more disturbing and infuriating and insulting to our intelligence than it already was. Exantis, as we discussed, brutally murdered a six year old child in Kentucky named Logan Tipton in December of 2015. Before violently attacking Logan's siblings and his father, he stabbed Logan's sister and threw his father across the room, seriously injuring him. On the night of the crime, Ronald Exantis admitted to officers that he deserved to die for what he had done. And he was right about that. But he wasn't put to death. Instead, the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity for killing Logan Tipton and guilty of assault in the attacks on everyone else in the family. And as a result, he is now a free man for a home invasion in which he slaughtered a child. Ronald Exantis ultimately served less than a decade in prison in a state that's overwhelmingly conservative, no less. In other words, unless the slain child's father murders Ronald Exantis, as he's vowed to do, then this particular child killer won't suffer any meaningful form of justice for his crimes. In the state of Kentucky, child murder is now treated like tax evasion. The punishments are equivalent, and that's how things stood as of yesterday. Somehow, though, this story has just become even more incomprehensible and enraging. The more you look into what happened here and how it happened, the more you realize that drastic action needs to be taken. And after, you know, researching this over the last 24 hours, I have a pretty good idea of how to go about that. And we'll start with this new statement from the Kentucky Parole Board. They claim that really they didn't have anything to do with the release of Ronald Exantis. It's not their fault. They say, quote. Despite repeatedly voting for Ronald Exantis to remain in prison, parole board members have faced significant threats over the last several days, even having their personal addresses released publicly. We are encouraging individuals to take these threats seriously and to prioritize factual information, which is that the board did not release Exantis. Instead, a law passed by the General assembly did. Now, first of all, you'll notice that they make themselves the victims in this scenario right off the bat. Forget about the grieving parents who have to watch their son's killer go free. Forget about Logan's siblings who are traumatized for life and who now have to worry that Ronald Exantis will, you know, finish the job that he, that he started with this, with this family. Forget about the millions of Americans who have lost faith in the judicial system as a result of this farce. The real victim, according to the Kentucky Parole Board, is the Kentucky Parole Board. Of course, no one should threaten the Kentucky Parole Board. No one condones that. I don't condone it. But you have to wonder why their first instinct is to talk about themselves in a case like this. You also have to wonder if they actually voted to keep Ronald Exantis in prison, as they claim. Since the parole board's meetings aren't public, this is what they claim now. Oh, no, we all wanted to keep them. Well, how do we know that? We'll just have to take their word for it, I guess. And more importantly, you have to wonder what law passed by the General assembly is responsible for the release of Ronald Exantis and whether or not the parole board could have done anything about it. And this is where the story becomes truly insane. Okay, well, it was already insane. But this is where somehow it gets crazier. So my team, my producers, reached out to the Kentucky Parole board yesterday. And when they reached out, my team was told that Ronald Exantis, who again, broke into a home in the middle of the night, murdered a child, and then tried to kill an entire family. But what we were told is that he is still considered a nonviolent offender in Kentucky. Yes, you heard that correctly. A man who stabbed a child to death so viciously that the blade bent and who then tried to kill the child's siblings and his father is a non violent offender in Kentucky. Now, I'm going to quote directly from the Kentucky parole board spokeswoman in her conversation with my producers, this is what she said, quoting directly, quote, his conviction classifies him as a nonviolent offender. Violent offenders have to serve at least 85% of their sentence. With his conviction being nonviolent, the time he earned in the areas, jail credit, good time credit, education credit, reduced his sentence. That's what we were told. Direct, quote, non violent offender. To put it another way, if you're a nonviolent offender in Kentucky, you only have to serve 20% of your sentence. If you're a violent offender, you have to serve 85%, which is still too low, by the way. Why? Why 80? Why not 100%? Why don't we just require every violent offender to serve 100% of their sentence? In fact, why don't we require every nonviolent offender? This was your sentence. Why shouldn't you serve it? 20% is ridiculous. Leaving aside the fact that this obviously was not a nonviolent Crime. And as it turns out, a conviction for second degree assault, which is what Ronald Exantis received for attacking the father and his children, is considered nonviolent. So the, the murder of the child in Kentucky doesn't count because he was not guilty by reason of insanity. So we just pretend that it didn't happen and then the, the, the, the rest of the crime is nonviolent. You know, breaking in and assaulting the family is non violent. Now, you know, when we heard this, to me it's, I react the same way you did, which is like, that can't possibly be true. What do you mean? He's a non violent offender. But indeed, apparently, from what I can tell, that is the law of the land in Kentucky. You can stomp on somebody's head, breaking their bones and forcing them to black out and you'll still be considered a nonviolent offender. That happened in a recent case. Only if you're, if you're convicted of first degree assault as opposed to second degree assault, are you considered violent. And the only difference between first degree and second degree assault is that in first degree assault you inflict grave life threatening injuries that bring somebody to the, to the brink of death. Second degree assault is everything else. Every other kind of assault that does not result in absolute imminent life threatening injuries is second degree. And all those kinds of assault are apparently non violent. You are non violent if you violently attack somebody, as long as your violent attack doesn't leave their head like dangling from their, from their neck, basically. Oh, and by the way, if you're a non violent felon, then you can keep your voting rights too. You also have a much easier time getting your record expunged. So there are perks to being a violent psychopath who happens to be non violent at the same time somehow. Now this law, which has been approved several times by the Kentucky legislature over the past decade, obviously must change immediately. Every lawmaker in the state must answer why it hasn't already been changed. You have to explain to us how this is, how have you allowed this to be possible? The idea that a home invader who violently attacks every single one of the victims, who breaks into a house and attacks every member of the family, including the children, is really nonviolent, is such an obviously outrageous suggestion that no reasonable person can possibly defend it. And yet it's in the law. It's a thing that no one can possibly defend, makes no sense at all. And yet there it is, the only rational assumption that can be made or the most generous assumption that can be made is that lawmakers in Kentucky didn't realize what they voted for. They signed off on the legislation without thinking through the implications or, you know, reading the legislation. That's the best case scenario, which is still inexcusable. The worst case scenario, of course, is that they want exactly this. They want child killers to go free as quickly as possible. And you'd hate to think that that is a possibility. But it's hard to come to any other conclusion if they, especially if they don't change the law immediately. Keep in mind that the Ronald Exantis case is, for those of us not in Kentucky, is a new. Is a new case. Like we had. Maybe we hadn't heard of this before. I hadn't heard of it, but it's not a new case. This happened. He was convicted of his nonviolent offense in 2018. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, quote, unquote, in 2018. Kentucky lawmakers have had since 2018, at least to respond to this outrage by changing the law, and they haven't. At the same time, it's also not the case that the Kentucky Parole Board is absolved of all responsibility here. Okay? They do not get off the hook. I want to be very clear about that. So if you've been calling and criticizing the Kentucky Parole board in demanding accountability and letting them know how you feel, you should keep doing that, shouldn't make threats. Obviously, nobody condones that. That's wrong, and it's also very counterproductive. But if you're asking for accountability, if you're asking for answers, yeah, you should absolutely still be doing that. Now, it's true that for nonviolent offenders, very large sentencing reductions are possible. Let's put that section of the law up on the screen. As you can see, inmates can receive 10 days of credit for each month served if they behave well. They can receive seven days of credit per month if they perform meritorious service while in prison, and they can receive another seven days of credit per month if they do something exceptional during an emergency. And additionally, inmates can receive roughly half a year in education credit and a drug treatment program. Now, you add this all together, throw in some time served, and it's not unusual from a purely mathematical perspective for somebody with a, you know, court account with, with the way this is set up, somebody with a 20 year sentence getting out of prison in less than a decade is. Yep, that's. That's how it's set up. Is for that to happen. But the parole board still doesn't have to unleash Child killers on the public with no strings attached. It's true, the law indicates that the state shall release inmates once their credits allow for it. But the parole board is entitled to add conditions on a case by case basis that the convict has to follow after he's been released. And if any of those conditions are violated, he has to go back to jail. Quote. Upon intake of an inmate ordered to mandatory re entry supervision by the board, the department shall establish appropriate terms and conditions of supervision. What are the appropriate terms and conditions on Ronald Exantis? What conditions were placed, if any? Now we don't know the answer to that question. The parole board hasn't said anything about it and they haven't responded to our questions on that topic either. And that suggests, of course, that no serious conditions were imposed. I mean, if they were, then you'd think that they would say that in their statement where they're, they're self pitying, woe is me. Stop being mean to us. You think they'd stay that saying that statement? Hey, we imposed the harshest possible conditions on this guy that we possibly could. And you know what? If he steps out of line even an inch, he's gone back to prison. And we made sure of it. They didn't say that. So, so we can assume that didn't happen, that there was no severe restrictions or at least nothing out of the ordinary was imposed. And if that's the case, it's yet another travesty of justice in this case, one of many. Any reasonable parole board would do everything in its power to put this killer back in prison if the law requires his release. If that's true, that their hands were tied, there was nothing they could do, then you still have the capability to do everything in your power to protect the community with the most demanding restrictive post release conditions imaginable. And in the meantime, you should be calling for a change in the law. It shouldn't. It shouldn't, it shouldn't fall to podcast hosts from out of state and people on Twitter to do that for you. If the Kentucky parole board was really forced by the law, forced to release Ronald Exantis, why haven't they all been in front of cameras every day screaming to the heavens about this outrage that they were forced by law to participate in. If that were me and I'm on the parole board and you're telling me I have to, really, I can't, I don't even get a vote, I'd be out in front of cameras every single day saying, look at what happened. I mean, I wouldn't wait for you to find out in the news. I wouldn't wait for people to call me outraged. I'd be going to them and saying, you guys should be outraged about this. Look at what's happening. Why aren't they working tirelessly to make changes to the law? I mean, you know what I would actually do? You know what you would do? What any normal person would do. If you're on the parole board and this child killer is brought before you and you're told you have to rubber stamp his release and you don't have a choice, you know what any normal, decent, good person would do? You resign. You say, I am not going to put my stamp on this. I am not going to be a part of it. I will resign in protest. And there is no way, I don't care what the law says. There is no way that my name is going to be on this. So I'm going to resign and I'm going to go to the public and I'm going to tell them about this and, and we're going to rally support. We're going to change this law. Did any of them do that? No. Just saying, well, the law made me do it. Sorry, not good enough. Sorry, not good enough. There are many things that they could have done and should have done if they wanted to be the good guys in this situation. They didn't do any of those things. And the most important change that needs to be made, and this is true across the country and not just in Kentucky, is that the so called insanity defense must be, at a minimum, drastically reined in, if not abolished entirely. Okay? The insanity defense is insane in and of itself and we don't even realize we can't wrap our head around just how bad it's gotten and how many psychotic killers are currently walking around in our communities because of this. And look, we didn't always have insanity defenses in this country. In the early 19th century, when juries acquitted somebody because he was insane, it was really a form of jury nullification. They were excusing a crime of passion. Usually that's usually what it meant. Like, like when Daniel, Daniel Sickles, a Congressman, shot the attorney general of D.C. because he was having an affair with his wife and it was a crime of passion. And later on, when states adopted a formal definition of insanity, they didn't all agree on the same precise rules. And they still don't. But today, by far the most widely used definition of insanity in most states and in most courtrooms, including in Kentucky, involves a two Part test. So if a defendant fails either prong of the test, then he's insane and can be acquitted, can be found not guilty based on it. And here are the two prongs. Okay? Prong number one. Does the defendant understand the nature and quality of the act that he has committed? In other words, instead of firing a gun, did he think that he was, you know, blowing a feather or, or firing a super Soaker or something? Right. Did he have no clue what he was even doing? And if the defendant fails this test, then he's insane under the law and can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Now, of course, one of the big problems is that you can't possibly know whether he understood what he was doing. I mean, they can have all the fancy tests they want to have, but at the end of the day, you're really, it really comes down to the honor system. Like it comes down to asking the guy, did he understand what he was doing? Because there's no way to read his mind. You especially can't read his mind after the fact. So how do you know whether he knew what he was doing? The only way to do it, I mean, they can have and they'll object and they'll say, well, we don't just ask. Yeah, but that's basically what you do, because that's all you can do. And of course the criminal has every incentive to lie. But even if a defendant does understand what he's done, he still has a potential insanity defense. Okay, so this could be someone who says, yeah, I shot him, yeah, I stabbed that child. And they could still be insane. Because that brings us to the second prong. The second prong is, did the defendant know that what he was doing was wrong or was he so far gone that he couldn't distinguish right from wrong? And if that's the case, then he's insane. And under the law in Kentucky, he can't be held responsible for murdering a child. Under the law in Kentucky and in many other states that lets you off the hook so completely that it doesn't even count that, that now you're not, you count as a non violent person. Like we just pretend it never happened. It's like it never happened. Now, the second prong at least should be eliminated from the law completely. Okay, so that's my, I, I'm making, this is my actual suggestion of how to reform this law. Really, I'd like to see it gotten rid of completely. But if you're going to have it, that second prong should not exist. It's far too easy to abuse. And everybody should be able to see why someone who doesn't understand right from wrong, okay, that is not insane. That's not a medical condition. There's a word we used to use for people like that. You know what the word was? Evil. Okay, nobody commits an evil act thinking or admitting to themselves that it's evil. Unless you're a super villain in a comic book. You are not hatching some evil plot that you say to yourself, this is evil and I'm going to do it because I want to do an evil thing. That's not the way it works. Every atrocity, every genocide, every mass shooting, all of it has been committed by someone who believed or told themselves that it was for some reason necessary or justified. Every single one. So if that's the definition of insane, then every evil act that's ever been committed is an act of insanity. And nobody should ever be punished for anything. I mean, the idea, just think about the idea. Think about this, what we're saying. So you go and kill someone and then the judge asks, well, did you think it was wrong? No, I didn't. Okay, well, never mind then. See you later. Head on back out to the community. Go ahead, move back into your house and live now. Yeah, sure. No, it's okay, everybody. This is someone who doesn't think it's wrong to kill people. So then it's okay for them to be out in the community. I mean, I'm not exaggerating. That is literally what we're doing and we've been doing it for decades and no one is doing anything to change it. People are dying like every day because of this sort of thing and no one is changing it. There is no serious effort to change it at all, anywhere, period. Once you start making excuses for people who can't separate right from wrong and pretend that they're victims in need of some therapy and some pills, you provide a ready made excuse legal defense for, for some of the most evil and dangerous psychopaths on the planet. In the case of Ronald Exantis, the defense team wasn't even even able to demonstrate that he suffered from any specific mental disorder. As ridiculous as those two prongs are, Ronald Exantis didn't even clear any either of those hurdles. He knew what he was doing and he knew that it was wrong. We talked about this yesterday. He, he was on the record saying that this was wrong right after it happened and he still got off. All the defense team had to do was argue that he suffered from some kind of vague mental fog. And that was enough for an acquittal on first degree murder. And defense lawyers have been adopting this strategy for a very long time. This is nothing new. This has been happening for a very long time. When John Wayne Gacy was on trial for murdering dozens of young men and boys and burying their bodies in a crawl space and tossing them in the river, his lawyers argued that he was insane. And after all, I mean, what kind of person would murder so many people who would do this? Clearly, you're not mentally well if you did this. This. I was like, we don't need to sit down and do any tests. That's the other thing that's so ridiculous about this. So you got a serial killer, murdered a bunch of young boys, and then you gotta sit down and do a, do a Rorschach test to find out if he's mentally normal? No, I can tell you that he's not because, well, look what he did. And then the next question is, so what? What does it have to do with anything? Obviously, you know, any argument that even in that case, the defense lawyer Mabel's, well, he didn't know right from wrong. He must not have understood precisely what he was doing in the same way that all, all of us do. Now, in Gacy's case, the jury, thankfully, didn't buy it. But in other similar cases, they did. Take the case of Albert Fish, for example, in the 1920s. Again, it's been going on for a long time. He murdered and molested several children. He was also a cannibal, and the crimes are too horrific to describe. But the point is, at trial, a psychiatrist was asked whether Fish knew the difference between right and wrong. And the psychiatrist responded that he did know the difference, but that his knowledge was, quote, perverted based on his opinion of sin, atonement and religion. And thus was an insane knowledge. An insane knowledge. Yeah, he knew what he was doing, but he knew it insanely. Now, it's obviously hard to make sense of what that means. It's double speak. Insane knowledge is like a, is a, you know, contradiction in terms. But. And a big part of the problem with the insanity offense in general is in many cases is that psychopaths will think they're doing something that's right again. And that's, that's, that's why they're psychopaths. They might not understand, you know, general norms about right and wrong either. So what do we do with them? Well, in the case of Albert Fish and the, you know, the jury had a solution. They decided that Fish was insane by any conventional definition. They agreed. They said, well, yeah, he's a cannibal and he's killing children. Yeah, he's probably insane. But you know what they did? They convicted him anyway. They simply discarded all of the ridiculous contortions about insanity that the lawyers were talking about and they convict him anyway. And Albert Fish was sent to the electric chair and he was executed. And that was the end of him. That's how every criminal defendant who commits a depraved act of psychopathic violence like Ronald Exantis, should be treated by our legal system. From now on, forget the academic discussions of insanity and who you know, who understands right and wrong and who doesn't. If a criminal commits a heinous and unspeakable act of violence, he should be executed. That's it. This is an approach that we need to adopt as quickly as possible because every other day a new violent felon is being released from prison or not tried at all on the basis of a fraudulent insanity defense. Just a few weeks ago we discussed the case of 18 year old named Cora Vitus who, who ambushed her friend for no apparent reason in her home, stabbed her friend so many times in the neck that she lost her ability to speak. And at trial she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which in California means that she could be out of prison in a few months. There's this case from Aurora, Colorado. A man, quote, a man accused of attempting to kidnap an elementary school student during recess last year is expected to have his charges dropped. According to multiple outlets. The 18th Judicial District Attorney's office at Colorado intends to dismissed charges against Solomon Galligan. The 33 year old was arrested and charged with attempted kidnapping in April 2024. Eric Ross, a spokesperson for the district Attorney's office, shared that a doctor has found Galligan incompetent to stand trial. Authorities said Gallagher has a criminal history which includes a 2012 conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. Now in cases like this, the defendant goes to a psychiatric facility. Then at some point in the future, he's released with no criminal record. That's it. That's what happened with Ronald Exantis. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity for murdering Logan Tipton. In theory, that means he'd have to spend an indefinite period of time in a psychiatric hospital. But in practice, after he stops taking drugs, he's suddenly normal again. So he's allowed to go free. That's the way it goes. Here's a similar story from the New York Post. Quote, a Woman who authorities say fatally stabbed a three year old boy as he sat in a grocery cart outside of an Ohio supermarket and wounded his mother, has been found incompetent to stand trial. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John Rousseau issued the ruling on Friday, said that Bianca Ellis of Cleveland will remain hospitalized indefinitely and could eventually stand trial if she improves. Or maybe they just release her one of these days. They probably will. That's the way these things go. We shouldn't have to wait for a trial in any of these cases. We shouldn't, we, we, we, we shouldn't give doctors any leeway to, to unleash these killers on the public. Nor should we allow parole boards to tally up good time credits so that criminals are released 10 years early. There should be an immediate trial within a week, especially in a case when the guilt is beyond any doubt whatsoever. We know they did it. No question about it. So you have the trial. You still, we still have trials in this country. You have the trial, have it quickly. And if you're found guilty of killing a child or trying to kill a child, then you should die quickly. That's a very workable system. We've had it in the past. We should adopt it again. There is no downside at all, except the considerable downside experienced by the child killers. But if your first priority in dealing with child killers is to protect them from uncomfortable experiences, if the first thing you're worried about is how they're going to feel, then you are nearly as evil as they are. And I mean that sincerely. In the meantime, in Kentucky, everyone from state legislatures to legislators to the parole board, all of them, need to take action immediately so that Ronald Exantis and everyone like him is returned to prison as quickly as possible. Stop pretending that violent attacks where somebody clearly tries to kill another person or does kill another person are somehow nonviolent. Stop conflating evil with insanity, and above all, stop conflating insanity with something that anyone in society should have to deal with. Once you are insane to the point that you kill or attempt to kill another human being, you deserve the Albert Fish treatment. Nothing more, nothing less. Now your lawyers can prattle on about how you're nuts and how you have no idea what's going on and you didn't understand what you did and you didn't know right from wrong. They can do that all they want. In response, we can and we must do exactly what the jury and Albert Fish's case did. Don't listen to a word of it doesn't matter. Oh, he didn't. Oh, that's what he was experiencing. Okay, well what did he do? Oh, he killed. He murdered someone in cold blood. Okay, well, that's all that matters. That's what jury should do. And then you put them to death. And then once we have a system like that, then and only then will we have some semblance of justice in our country again. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, I was shocked to learn that the liver is actually the second largest organ in your body and handles over 500 different functions, yet we barely even think about it. Here's the thing though. Over 30% of Americans have a sluggish liver and most of us don't even know until it's too late. That's why I'm excited to tell you about Dose for your liver. This is not just another supplement. It's a science backed drinkable formula that was specifically created to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements while supporting digestion and keeping your body's natural filter running smoothly. What really impressed me were the clinical results. In a double blind placebo controlled study, dose for your liver actually lowered liver enzyme levels by 50% and over 86% of participants. And get this one shot is equivalent to 17 shots of turmeric juice. When you stick with dose over time you can experience some incredible benefits. More energy, better digestion, reduced bloating, healthier liver enzyme functions, less brain fog, and even better sleep. Plus, it's gluten free, dairy free, sugar free and vegan. Save 25% on your first month of subscription by going to DoubleDaily, Co Walsh or entering Walsh should check out that the dose D A I L Y Co Walsh for 25 off your first month subscription. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. GSU believes in equal opportunity and that the American Dream starts with purpose. GC equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career, calling you impact your family, your friends and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable Visit gcu. Edu all right, we got a couple of quick, just quick headlines today before we get to the cancellation. Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago had a big announcement yesterday. Let's listen to that. And today we are signing an executive order aimed at reining in this out of control administration. The order establishes ice free zones. That means that city property and unwilling private businesses will no longer serve as staging grounds for these raids. Here's a little more from the Daily Wire. Chicago Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson will create ice free zones across the sanctuary city as the Trump administration continues its immigration sweeps while facing an uptick in violence. The Windy City's mayor said during a news conference on Monday that his latest action is focused on reining in this out of control administration. And so basically what we just saw, so this is a, this is a treasonous conspiracy against the United States states, which he is announcing publicly and proudly and not for the first time. So my question is then, and not to sound like a broken record, but my question is, why is he still a free man? Why hasn't Brandon Johnson been cuffed and shackled? Why isn't he being dragged in front of cameras in chains? Okay, why aren't there leg irons around this guy right now as we speak? Why not, Let me put it. Because if you think that, and I think that there are still, of course, everyone on the left, they're very scandalized anytime I talk like that or anyone talks like that. Because even though they'll try to put Donald Trump in prison for crimes they make up, it's like, well, the moment you try to hold one of them accountable, then it's a big scandal. But I think even conservatives, many conservatives think that this, that this is, you know, that it's a little overdone, that. Well, okay, and this is a response I get a lot from, from even people on the right, they'll say, oh, we're not real. You really think that, do you honestly think that Trump should send in federal agents, break down his door, put him in handcuffs, the mayor of Chicago and arrest him? You really think. Yes, I do. Yes. That is actually what he should do in real life. And I think here, so imagine this hypothetical, just, I think clarify things a little bit. So imagine that a Republican mayor, or even a Democrat mayor, actually, I think that this would apply for either party. Imagine that any mayor were to announce that he was setting up IRS free zones in his city. And in these IRS free zones, individuals and businesses would be exempt from paying taxes. Okay, imagine that. I imagine that some city makes the mistake of making me the mayor somehow. Imagine that, that horrifying scenario. And let's say I get up and I say, okay, this is, here are, these are our IRS free zones. And if you're in these, these zones, you don't have to pay federal taxes, any of them. And, and, and, and also my city is a sanctuary city for people guilty of tax evasion. If you commit tax evasion, come run to our city and we, we won't let them get you. And, and if any IRS agents show up to try to collect, well, they're, we're, we're going to bar them from, they won't be allowed. We're not going to allow them in IRS free zone, sanctuary city. So imagine that. I say that as the mayor of this. Here's my question. How long would it take before the, I'm not asking if this would happen, but just how long would it take before the feds are knocking down my door and carrying me away in handcuffs? Would it be even, would it be a day? Like, do you think I'd make it a day from the moment let's say I give that press conference at 11am on a Tuesday? Do I make it to dinner time before I'm in a federal prison? Well, we all know the answer. The answer is no. I mean, it would be, I don't, I don't think I'd make it off the stage. Like, I don't even know if I'd make it to prison alive. That, that, that is how much they would crack down. I, I don't, I, I think your, your life is in danger at that point. I mean, they're coming out, guns drawn, like an army of them, and you make one false move and it's good night. I mean, that is the amount of force they would use in the scenario I just described. And whatever the exact time frame and however much force they use, what, what is clear at any rate, is that, is that I'd be in prison for that for sure. No question about it. No question about it. I'm getting, I'm getting arrested. I'm not seeing the light of day until my trial and I'm getting convicted and I'm going to prison for the rest of my life. Now also, I'd be the most popular mayor in the country for about 45 minutes before I'm arrested. But, but I would certainly be arrested, right? I mean, and that's and that's the point. So then my question is, what is the difference between that hypothetical scenario and Brandon Johnson? What exactly is the difference? Well, there's, there's one difference that I can think of, which is that the income tax is actually immoral. So that hypothetical mayor could, it could at least make a moral argument in favor of his actions. Like you can make a moral argument, you can make the moral argument that the income tax is, is, is a, is a, an abomination. That's not, it's not a good legal argument. Like legally, you're screwed. There's no legal argument for it whatsoever. But, so, so that, that's maybe the one difference. Whereas on the other hand, enforcing immigration law is not immoral. Quite the contrary. Our leaders are not only are morally entitled to enforce immigration law, but they are morally responsible to do so. But putting aside that, you know, the, the, the situations are identical. Okay, let's put, let's put aside the fact that the, that again, the income tax is actually an abomination. The situations are identical because in both cases, a mayor is acting in a lawless manner to aid and abed criminal activity. And he is, he is going to war against the federal government and federal law. He is saying that not only am I not going to follow federal law, I'm going to openly defy it and I'm going to assist anyone else who openly defies federal law. I am saying that in my city you are allowed to commit federal crimes and, and I will protect you in doing so. Okay, in both, in the tax situation, the ICE situation, that's what's being said by the mayor. It's treason. It is treason. Again, this is not overstating it. This is not being hyperbolic. Okay? Words like treason get thrown around a lot. People get emotional. They call everything treason. This is actually treason. So I go back to my initial question. Why is Brandon Johnson still a free man? How is he, why are you letting him do this? Why have you not arrested him the same way you would if he did that exact same thing with taxes? And I think we're at a point where we really need an answer to that question, you know, because also if you, if you let him, you know, one of the big reasons why me as the fictional mayor, why they would break down my door and haul me away to prison if I declared a tax free zone, is that they would know that if they don't respond that way, that well, okay, now you have set a precedent and next thing you know, nobody's paying federal Taxes and that's a, that's a disaster. If you're the federal government, you can't allow that to happen. Same thing applies here. You let him get away with this. You let him just get up there and say, yeah, you know what, I'm not even. You aren't even. You're not allowed to be here. I'm going to keep you out in my city. Immigration law doesn't exist. You let him get away with that as, as these sanctuary, so called sanctuary city mayors have been getting away with it for years. But the more, you know there's escalation, escalation, escalation. And the more you allow it, the more you have guarantee that you're just going to get more of it. And then you end up with a, then you have anarchy and then, and then you have the total delegitimization of, of the, the government. The whole system collapses at that point. Like Brandon Johnson is throwing down the gauntlet and he's saying that he's, he's putting the challenge down, right? He's calling your bluff. Basically. That's what's happening here because the Trump administration has been, have supported a lot of what they've done. They're sending ICE out, they're sending, they're trying to mobilize the National Guard in situations where I think it's warranted. But you know, Brandon Johnson's calling their bluff and he's saying, yeah, you know what, you'll send the National Guard out, you'll send ice, you'll round up some illegals, but you're not actually, you're not really, you're not ready. You're not really gonna go to the mat on this, are you? That's what he's saying to the Trump administration and he's calling the bluff. You gonna let him do it or you're gonna, or, or not? That's the question. Let's talk about this. This feels like kind of a throwback, but it's not really a throwback because the race hustle is still alive and well in this country, which is evidenced by this. So a mom in Florida has gone to the media to cry and demand an apology because of a racist song that her child's teacher sang to her child. So that's the, it feels like a story out of 2020. But no, this is from, this is this week, I think, and it's a big controversy in the school. Here's the story. Listen. Hi, legend. Did you have a birthday last week?
- [45:21]
C
Yes.
- [45:21]
D
Legend whitaker just turned 6 years old. Can we sing Happy birthday to you? He attends Floral Avenue elementary in Bartow, where his class and teacher celebrated with a song, Happy birthday to you. But what happened next?
- [45:36]
B
Would you like the funny song?
- [45:38]
D
Now that I sing to you? Stirred up hurt feelings and anger.
- [45:42]
B
Happy birthday to you. You live in the zoo, you look like a monkey and you smell like.
- [45:53]
E
One, two in my clap everybody.
- [45:57]
C
I don't like stuff like that.
- [45:59]
D
Legend says the song hurt his feelings. His mother, Desiree Prather, says the teacher sent her the video and she went straight to the main office.
- [46:07]
C
I automatically said, that's unacceptable. And I don't feel. I don't think nothing's funny about it.
- [46:13]
D
Prather says there's a history of black people being described that way, which makes it extremely upsetting.
- [46:19]
C
My skin is boiling. I don't even like racism. And to know where we come from and our ancestors and for us to be labeled like that, because when they call us money, they basically saying that we're ugly, we act like a monkey and all this and that. I don't like that at all.
- [46:33]
D
Polk County Public Schools, district staff and the HR department are reviewing this. I followed up with additional questions, like, is this the first time this teacher has sung this song to students? And I also asked, while this is being reviewed, will the teacher still be in the classrooms? I have not heard back yet.
- [46:49]
C
I don't play games about my child.
- [46:51]
D
In a letter to the school board, Prather asked for an apology, immediate disciplinary action and counseling for her son. After receiving no response, she decided to show up in person.
- [47:02]
C
That is. Just kept saying it's an active investigation. They can't. They can't answer no questions or anything like that.
- [47:09]
B
Unacceptable, she says. Unacceptable, I think, is what she was trying to say. It's unacceptable. Well, I'll tell you what's unacceptable, first of all, ma', am, is naming your child Legend. Okay? It's not a real name that you. You can't name your child. That you're just. You can't. You shouldn't be allowed to. That's not. And it also, by the way, it's like way too much pressure on your kid. That is way. That is setting the bar way too high. Your child was born, you got an infant, and you're saying Legend. Okay? Icon. Is that his middle name? Icon? That is. That is way too much pressure on a child. Because now you gotta, like, now. Now it's. It's. You're setting your child up to be ironic. That's either he has to live up to that and do something truly legendary and be one of the great figures in history, right? You have a name like that, you. You gotta go out and do you, like, go cure cancer or some land on Mars. I mean, do something. But the reason I wouldn't give my kid a name like that is because now I'm worried that I've set them up for, you know, for. For. For something, for irony. Because now if they grow up and they're like 30 and unemployed, can't hold down a job, right? And their name is Legend, I don't know. I feel like you're setting your kid up for that. So that's the first problem. Second problem is that. Well, this is obviously nonsense. I mean, that. That version of the birthday song, right? You. You. You. You live in a zoo. You smell like a monkey. You look like one, too. That. That's a classic. I mean, we were singing that when I was a kid. And not only that, the teacher asks the kid in the video if he wants to hear the funny version of the song, which also shows you that this is a thing they do in the classroom. It's pretty clear from the context that she does this for all the kids. She sings the birthday song. It's on their birthday. And then there's the funny version. And she asks them. She asks them, do you want to do that? And he said, yes. So she's likely done that version of the song countless times for countless kids, which is why she sent the video to the mom, thinking that it was just a cute, fun little thing. Not knowing the mom is a sociopath who will gladly take this fun, you know, kind gesture and use it to try to get the teacher fired. That's what gets me. That's what gets me about this sort of thing, is just how casually evil these race hustlers are. Now, granted, this mom is obviously not the brightest bulb in the bunch. Not even a dim bulb, okay? She. She's a. She's a bulb that was in a. That's in a. Like a recess light in the basement. Hasn't been changed since 2013. Just nothing going on. Nothing going on upstairs. Her internal monologue is like, hold music. Okay? That's so. So that's what we're dealing with. And yet she obviously knew that there was no offense intended, that it wasn't racist. Her kid's teacher did not call her child a monkey as a racist slur and then send her a video of it, okay? That obviously didn't happen. And even this mom, who isn't fluent in English, even though it's the only language she speaks, understands that she's just doing this to take advantage, to get some attention, maybe win a few bucks in a lawsuit. Right? And in the process, just like casually destroy the life and career of a woman who didn't do anything except try to honor her child on his birthday. And the fact that she has the mom's phone number also tells me that I. I mean, I guess she would have the phone number as a teacher, but I don't know. Just having the phone number, sending a text, that kind of tells me they, maybe they've communicated in the past and it's the child's teacher. So they're probably on friendly up to this point. On friendly terms, right? You come in, you drop your kid off, you have a friendly conversation, and they're on those terms. And she sends A's. And the mom takes that and just says, okay, I'm just gonna destroy your life now. Nah, just because. Just because I feel like it. I mean, you gotta be totally soulless. So it is evil and wrong. And this is what shows us that as much as we want to tell ourselves that wokeness, quote, unquote, is dead, I think the reports of the demise of wokeness were premature. Now, maybe that term. I think the term is dead, right? It's an outdated term. It's like 10 years ago, everybody, nobody call said woke. It was SJW, social justice warrior. And after a few years, nobody used that term anymore. But was the sjw, was that phenomenon over just because the term isn't used anymore? No, of course not. And now it was woke. And that lasted for five years. And no one really uses that term anymore. But the phenomenon that it's describing, that it's labeling, that is still very much alive, sad to say. You know what's amazing, actually? Sleeping through the night. I know, Revolutionary concept. For years I dealt with waking up with back pain, tossing, turning, because my old mattress was absolutely shot. I'm talking the discomfort where you wake up feeling worse than when you went to bed. My wife wasn't thrilled about it either, especially when I'd be tossing and turning at 3am trying to find a comfortable position. Then we got a Helix mattress. And honestly, it's a complete game changer. They have this sleep quiz on their site. Takes like two minutes and they match you with the right mattress for how you actually sleep. Slide, side, sleeper, back sleeper, whatever it is, they've got you covered. We've had ours for a while now, and I wake up feeling every night like not feeling like I got hit by a truck, actually feeling well rested. My back doesn't hurt anymore. I'm not overheating in the middle of the night and actually sleeping through the the night until the morning. It's made a massive difference and how I feel during the day. Turns out being well rested makes everything easier. Who knew Being exhausted and miserable all the time isn't fun for anyone. Now is the perfect time to fix that. Go to helixleep.com walsh for 27% off site wide. That's helixleep.com Walsh for 27% off site wide make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know that we sent you helixsleep.com Walsh this month Daily Wire plus members are getting more than ever before. From USS Cole, Al Qaeda strike before 911 to the 1916 project, the Halloween thriller Nefarious and hiding in Plain sight. October is packed with must see premieres. Plus on October 16th, that's on Thursday, the debut of our new live show, Friendly Fire. Join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Clavin and special guest Isabelle Brown for live debates, uncensored disagreements and unfiltered discussions on the headlines that matter most. And Jeremy Boring stops by with your long awaited first look at the Pen Dragon cycle. So don't miss a moment. Join now and get 40% off new annual memberships with code fall40@dailywire.com now let's get to our daily cancellation. For our daily cancellation today we have Emma Watson. The Harry Potter actress appeared on the Jay Shetty podcast a few days ago to share her philosophy of life and the conversation ran for two and a half hours. Due to the law that was passed, you know, eight years ago, I think it was requiring that every podcast interview must be 120 minutes at a minimum. Nobody's allowed to have a 15 minute conversation anymore. If you've noticed, that's because like, yeah, there you see all these kinds, you think, is there some law required? Yeah, there is actually. You can't just get a quick update about Emma Watson's life if for some reason you were interested in that. Instead, you need to give you her entire life story. We need her to tell us everything she thinks about everything. We need every Emma Watson opinion thought musing in one YouTube video. We need a, we need a video with a runtime nearly as long as the first Godfather film. Except it's just this random celebrity sitting in a chair and rambling. Which by the way, if you're Joe Rogan. So Joe Rogan came along and his thing was these, these epically long conversations that are actually interesting. He's really good at that. He's good at having an interesting conversation that goes for three hours. But just because he did that and he's good at it and it's popular, it doesn't mean that every podcaster needs it. You don't need to do that. Just so you know, for all the new pod up and coming podcasters out there, I don't think this guy's really up and coming. But for all the other podcasters and you want to do the interview thing, podcast thing, I was like, I don't think we need any more. We've already got plenty of them. But you, you don't need to go for two and a half hours and you really shouldn't actually. Being able to keep a conversation interesting for that long is a, is like the rarest of skills. Almost no one has that skill. Joe Rogan has it, A few other people have it, you probably don't have it. So just make it a 10 minute interview, 15 minute interview, and, and we'll move on. Okay. Anyway. There was one brief section of this epic saga of an interview that has gotten some attention. Emma spoke out against the violence being inflicted on people, especially young people, especially young women. But she was not talking about the violent crime epidemic, certainly was not talking about the problem of political violence, which is being inflicted nearly exclusively by the left on the right now. This is a different kind of violence that she's worried about. Listen, you talked about how getting asked the question, when are you getting married?
- [56:54]
E
Yeah.
- [56:54]
B
Or why aren't you married yet?
- [56:56]
E
Yes.
- [56:57]
B
And there's something every woman's hearing. Well, what's your reaction when you hear that?
- [57:02]
E
I'm just so happy not to be divorced yet. Like that sounds like a really negative answer, but I just like, I think that we are, we're being pressured and forced into this thing that, like, I believe is a kind of miracle. I might never be worthy of it. I hope it happens to me. Any point. Basically, before about a year ago, it would have been carnage. I just didn't know myself well enough yet. I didn't have a clear enough idea of what my purpose, my vision, like how I was going to be of service. I didn't know where I really felt like I needed to be. I think I have some of those answers now. So when I meet someone, I can say, hi, I'm Emma. This is what I care about. This is where the people I love the most live. This is where it's meaningful for me to be in the world. And then they can decide whether they can see that there's a way that I can serve what they're trying to do and they can serve what I'm trying to do. But before that, they would have just got a very mixed signal. I mean, there's some parts of me that have stayed utterly consistent, but there are some parts that I was really still teasing out and figuring out. And I think it's such a violence and it's such a cruelty on people, and especially young people, I think, and especially women, to make them feel like they have no worth or like they haven't succeeded yet in life because they haven't forced to its culmination something that I just don't think can or should ever be forced.
- [58:51]
B
So the violence that Emma Watson is worried about is the violence of asking somebody when they're going to get married. It's the violence of pressuring young people to get married and have children. And, you know, she'd be making a good point, admittedly, if young people were frequently threatened at gunpoint for not getting married soon enough. But that is not exactly a regular occurrence, as far as I know. In fact, in our society, the pressure to get married is not only nonviolent, but. But is considerably less intense than it's ever been for any generation of young people since, like, the dawn of humanity. There is more pressure on someone in their early 20s to not get married than there is on someone in their late twenties to get married. It is, like, inarguable that there is less stigma around being unmarried or marrying late than at any other point in the history of Western civilization. Young people today face less pressure than ever to get married. But they also complain about the meager pressure they do experience more than any other generation ever has. You know, the term shotgun wedding was coined for a reason. It used to have a very literal connotation. And yet even back then, nobody considered the pressure to get married as an act of violence. That description is only used now at a time when there is, comparatively speaking, basically no pressure. And this is, of course, the pattern on the left. They. They complain that their lifestyle choices are not accepted. And the more that those choices are accepted, the more they complain about the lack of acceptance. We, we could throw a parade in every city in the country to celebrate childless cat ladies. We could have a national holiday in their honor. We could renovate the Statue of Liberty so that she's holding a cat and a glass of white wine and engrave the words Childlessness is awesome across the front of it. And still, if even one person amid the cheering throngs looked at Emma slightly askance, or God forbid, asked her when she's getting married, still she would complain that she's being unfair, unfairly pressured. She would claim that she's essentially the victim of a violent crime, which is a very, very close to the exact scenario we've seen with the LGBT camp clamoring for acceptance. They get way more of it than they ever should have, and yet their whines and cries of non acceptance only grow louder. That's how it works with, not with narcissists. Now, putting that aside, what do we make of the rest of Emma's cat lady soliloquy? Well, she says that it would have been carnage had she attempted to get married before she had figured herself out. Or in her words quoting, if I tried to get married at any point before about a year ago, it would have been carnage. I didn't know myself well enough. I didn't have a clear idea of my purpose, my vision, how I was going to be of service. I didn't know where I really felt like I needed to be. I think I have some of those answers now. So when I meet someone, I can say, hi, I'm Emma. This is what I care about. This is where the people I love the most live. This is where it's meaningful for me to be in the world. And then they could decide whether they can see that there's a way that I can serve what they're trying to do and they can serve what I'm trying to do. It's not clear why it took her until the age of 35 to figure out where her family lives. I don't know what that means. She can tell people this is where my loved ones live. It's that. Do you not have gps? You can't. You couldn't have figured that out before. It's also not clear what the phrase this is where it's meaningful for me to be in the world means. She's looking for a meaningful place in the world, but still hasn't figured out how to speak a meaningful sentence might be part of your problem. If you want to find meaning in the world, learn how to speak meaningfully could be the first step. But if we could sift through all the self actualization mumbo jumbo and get to the core of her message, such as there is any kind of core or any kind of message, she appears to be saying that she didn't know herself well enough to get married until about a year ago at the age of 34. So she had to wait until she figured out herself before she consider. Consider getting married. But there are two big problems with that approach. And the first is that it's. It's mostly pretentious, narcissistic nonsense. You know, people like Emma like to think that they're very complex, deeply nuanced, enigmatic, which is why it takes them decades to understand themselves. And we hear this all the time from people. I just got to understand myself. There's so many, there's so many facets to me. I'm so. I'm just so complicated. You never know. I just don't. I don't know. I. The vast tapestry of my identity is so, it's so. I can't get. It's astronomical in its size. I can't get my arms around it. Well, it really isn't that complicated. Emma needed to stare longingly at her own reflection in the mirror for 34 years to crack the code of her own identity. I could do it just by listening to her ramble for two minutes. She is a pompous, self indulgent, insecure snob. So there you go, Emma. I've figured it out for you. That's the answer to the riddle. I have just assembled the jigsaw puzzle of your life for you. Turns out it wasn't like one of those hard puzzles with a thousand pieces. It was more like a paw patrol puzzle for toddlers with four pieces. The other problem is that the extent that you need to sort of come into your own, find yourself, achieve some level of personal growth, none of that is going to happen just by sitting around and thinking about it. Personal growth and discovery are not achieved by mentally and emotionally willing them into existence. And even less are they achieved the way that I suspect Emma thinks she achieved it by watching a bunch of self help videos on YouTube and doing yoga. You will grow and figure yourself out by doing. Not by thinking in a vacuum, not by feeling in a vacuum, not by meditating, not by trying to self actualize, but by doing. By taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. I was not mature enough to get married when I got married at the age of 25. And if I waited until this magical moment of maturity to materialize on its own, then I would. I'd still be waiting today at the age of 39. I have grown enough now to be a father and a husband. Because I became a father and a husband. That. That's why. Why, how, how did I become Qualified to be a father and husband? Well, I became qualified by doing it. Was I qualified before I did it? No. How could I be? I've never done it before. Am I qualified now? Yeah. I've been doing it for 14 years. You know, you grow and come into your own through responsibility and through obligation and expectation. This is what I think a lot of people, young people and people in my generation miss that. This obligation, expectation, responsibility. You can't wait. You can't say, well, I'll take on all that stuff when I'm. When I feel like I'm ready. You'll never be ready. That is the fire in which your grown adult self will be forged. And if you wait until you feel ready to enter into that fire, you'll never be ready. You need to be in the fire to be ready for it. And I don't mean to say that family life is like being burned alive in a fire. I'm not trying to say that. I'm only saying that you. You need friction, you need pressure, you need toil, you need work in order to create anything good, anything worthwhile. And this is true, especially true when it comes to creating your own mature, responsible, competent, unselfish adult self. Now, Emma spent nearly two decades of her adult life trying to get herself mentally and emotionally prepared to be a grown woman, to be a wife and a mother. But after all that time, she's no more prepared at 35 than she was at 25 or 22. Like you can't learn how to swim by sitting around and staring at the pool. It doesn't matter how long you stare at it. You can stare at it for 10 years. You walk up to the pool, you don't know how to swim. You say, I'm going to sit here and look at it and think about it until I'm ready. 20 years later, you're still going to be just as unqualified to jump in the pool as you were when you first got there. There's no way to do it except by getting into the water. And Emma, like many women in her generation and many men, has refused to get in the water. And now she thinks she'll be able to swim flawlessly just because she's psyched herself up for it. If anything, that false confidence will make her more likely to drown, not less. And the same is true of marriage. By waiting, by spending nearly two decades of adult life living for herself. All she's done is create habits of selfishness that will make marriage more difficult, more challenging, not impossible, still worth doing. But it's. It actually adds difficulties. So she has achieved the opposite of what she intended, but at least she knows where her family lives now or something. So that's, that's at least one positive. And that is why Emma Watson is today canceled. That will do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Hey, there. I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.
- [68:46]
D
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.
- [68:49]
B
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
- [68:52]
E
Watch and listen to Morning Wire seven.
- [68:54]
D
Days a week, everywhere you get your podcasts.