Today on the Matt Wall Show, Kamala Harris and her allies have rolled out their October surprise.The only problem is that it's not a surprise.It's also totally bogus.
And a study proving that puberty blockers have no mental health benefits for kids was buried because it didn't fit with the narrative.More and more female athletes are refusing to compete against male athletes, which is a great trend.
Kamala Harris has asked some standard job interview questions at a town hall.She still finds a way to flub them.She also claimed repeatedly that she raised children. which is just another made up detail of her phony life story.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. In four days, my new movie, Am I Racist, the decade's number one documentary, streams exclusively on Daily Wire Plus October 28th.But you need a Daily Wire Plus membership to watch it.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.Use code DEI for 35% off your new membership.Don't miss out. We've got a big election coming up, and there's a lot at stake, regardless of who's sitting in the White House, though, or in Congress.
The fuse on the economy has already been lit.Four years of a conservative presidency will not be enough to turn the tide on our $35 trillion national debt.And if the left wins, it's like throwing gas on a dumpster fire.
You don't have much control over the election's outcome, but you can protect your savings by diversifying now into gold from my friends at Birch Gold.
That's right, for millennia, gold has stood firm in the face of greedy governments, economic upheavals, and global strife.And it can protect you right now.Birch gold will help you convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold.
And the best part of it is it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.Think about this.In the past four years, the buying power of the US dollar has declined.The price of gold has increased, though, 40%. Coincidence?Probably not.
Text WALSH to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold, then diversify.As the exclusive gold partner of The Daily Wire for the past eight years, you can trust Birch Gold, as I do, to protect your savings.Text WALSH to 989898 today.
Again, that's WALSH to 989898 today. Three years ago, The Atlantic Magazine published a long-form article that took a lot of people by surprise.It was called The Great Fake Child Sex Trafficking Epidemic.
It dismissed the supposed moral panic among conservatives on the issue, saying that it amounted to an Internet conspiracy theory, quote-unquote.
The Atlantic published this piece just days after a CNN staffer was arrested for attempting to persuade minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity.It was also published while the Ghislaine Maxwell trial was going on.
Maxwell, of course, conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to operate a sex trafficking ring that exploited multiple children over the course of a decade.
And the piece in the Atlantic came after several reports indicating that the United States, thanks largely to its open southern border, is one of the top destinations for child sex trafficking in the entire world.
So why would the Atlantic run that article?
Could it be these internet conspiracy theorists wondered that some of the wealthiest and powerful people in this country, like the people who run the Atlantic, might have some ulterior motive to downplay child sex trafficking?
If so, then we can be sure of one thing, which is that A lot of very powerful and wealthy people are panicking right now.Donald Trump clearly has the momentum on his side.
And this is the same Trump who just a month ago promised to release the full and unredacted list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
He said he would allow the public to know who exactly visited Epstein's private island, which is a piece of information that the government has fought to conceal.
And that brings us to yesterday's alleged bombshell in The Atlantic magazine, which may be the single most desperate attempt at an October surprise in certainly the recent history of American politics.Here's a summary.
Out front tonight, the breaking news, the kind of generals Hitler had.
An 11th hour bombshell report from the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, quoting Trump touting the loyalty of Hitler's generals and reporting that Trump complained about picking up the tab for a fallen U.S.soldier's funeral, calling her an effing Mexican.
All right, well, let's start with Hitler's generals.Goldberg reporting that Trump asked former or that he asked Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, about claims that Trump once asked him, quote, why can't you be like the German generals?
So Goldberg then writes, well, he told me that when Trump raised the subject of German generals, Kelly responded by asking, do you mean Bismarck's generals?He went on, I mean, I know we didn't know who Bismarck was or about the Franco-Prussian War.
I said, do you mean the Kaiser's generals?Surely you cannot mean Hitler's generals.And he said, yeah, yeah, Hitler's generals.And the Atlantic goes on to cite then two more sources who were at the Trump White House.
They claimed that they heard Trump say, quote, I need the kind of generals that Hitler had, people who were totally loyal to him that follow orders.
So the article from Jeffrey Goldberg makes two central claims.First, Trump said he wanted generals like Hitler's.
And second, he complained about the funeral costs for a slain service member, saying that he doesn't like the idea of spending a lot of money on a Mexican, which we talked about yesterday.And then I guess he said, this is MAGA country.
Now it's honestly, it's not even worth going through the effort of debunking this.And not just because it sounds like a cliche that Jussie Smollett would have come up with if you told him to invent a way to smear Donald Trump.Now maybe,
You know, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, in a different era when people actually trusted the news media, sort of, an article like this would convince some people.
But we've been through so many high-profile media-driven hoaxes at this point that everyone already assumes the story is false without even reading it or hearing anything else about it.
In fact, several of those high-profile media-driven hoaxes came from Jeffrey Goldberg.He was one of the leading propagandists pushing for the Iraq War.He was also a major source of Russiagate lies.
And more recently, you've probably heard about Goldberg's article claiming that Trump called fallen soldiers suckers and losers when he visited a French cemetery, if only because every Democrat repeats that story ad nauseum.
Now that article cited an anonymous source that's widely believed to be John Kelly, Trump's chief of staff at the time.Not a single person went on the record to confirm it.
Instead, a lot of Trump officials, including people who hate Trump, like John Bolton, denied that Trump had ever said that.And John Bolton was on the trip to France with Trump when the comment was supposedly made.
But none of that matters to smear merchants like Jeffrey Goldberg.His job is to serve the interests of the Defense Department and of the security state, which are profoundly threatened by the possibility of another Trump presidency.
So Goldberg launders these hoaxes relentlessly.And that's what Jeffrey Goldberg is doing once again with this Hitler October surprise.Except in this case, it's not even really a surprise.
Two years ago, a book quoted John Kelly, the same guy who was probably behind the Suckers and Losers smear, saying that Trump wanted his generals to be like Hitler's.
A bunch of outlets wrote up stories about it at the time, just in time for the midterms.
NBC News, for example, reported, Former President Donald Trump once complained to his White House Chief of Staff that his generals weren't totally loyal like Adolf Hitler's during World War II, according to a book excerpt published Monday.
You effing generals, why can't you be like German generals, Trump asked then White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.
According to the excerpt of The Divider, Trump in the White House 2017 to 2021, co-written by New York staff writer Susan Glasser and New York Times correspondent Peter Baker.So that was way back in 2022.
So we're doing a rerun of this same exact hit job.This is the laziest October surprise that's ever been attempted because again, it's not even a surprise.It doesn't even qualify as one. But predictably, Kamala Harris is pretending it's a surprise.
Yesterday, she spoke outside the vice president's residence in what can only be described as a completely deranged attempt to rile up as many lunatics as possible in an election year, when two people have already tried to kill Donald Trump.
Here's what Kamala had to say.
Donald Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, a retired four-star general, confirmed that while Donald Trump was president, he said he wanted generals like Adolf Hitler had.
Donald Trump said that because he does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution.He wants a military that is loyal to him.He wants a military who will be loyal to him personally.
one that will obey his orders even when he tells them to break the law or abandon their oath to the Constitution of the United States.
On X, Kamala Harris' account doubled down on this rhetoric.Whoever's running the account wrote, quote, Donald Trump is out for unchecked power.He wants a military like Adolf Hitler had who will be loyal to him, not our Constitution.
He is unhinged, unstable, and given a second term, there would be no one to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses. Now, there's really no other way to look at this.
Kamala Harris is laying the groundwork for preventing Donald Trump from becoming president if he wins the election.And she's also inciting someone to assassinate him in the meantime.
She's openly saying that he's going to turn America into Nazi Germany.And if she really believes that, and more importantly, if the deep state that controls Kamala Harris really believes that, then we can't be surprised by anything they try to do.
This is a very dangerous moment. The entirety of the Biden-Harris administration is now pushing this rhetoric also.It's just a full on, it's a full court press.Here's the press secretary yesterday, watch.
Is the president aware of John Kelly's assertion that Donald Trump meets the definition of a fascist and that Trump wanted the kinds of generals Hitler had?
You have heard from this president over and over again about the threats to democracy.And the president has spoken about that.You've heard from the former president himself saying that he is going to be a dictator on day one.This is him, not us.
This is him.And I can't believe I even have to say this, but our nation's veterans are heroes.They are heroes.They're not losers or suckers.They are heroes.And to be praising Adolf Hitler is dangerous and it's also disgusting.
So just to be clear, when you said we do agree, President Biden believes that Donald Trump is a fascist?
I mean, yes.Well, you've said.He said himself.The former president has said he is going to be a dictator on day one.
So there's just so much flagrant lying in that one clip.The dictator on day one quote, which we've heard about a million times, isn't even close to what Trump actually said.He was asked explicitly to respond to claims that he'd be a dictator.
And then he joked that he wouldn't be except for day one when he closed the border and lift moratoriums on oil drilling.He's referring to executive orders that he'd sign on the first day.And of course, in context, he was joking around.
They're pretending like he seriously announced that beginning on day one and continuing throughout his entire presidency, he'd be a dictator.Which again, even if you take his joke totally seriously, that's still not what he said.
It's just not close to what actually happened.And it's especially outrageous considering that this is coming from the party that plans to censor Americans to fight quote unquote misinformation.And this latest Jeffrey Goldberg smear isn't any better.
The claim is that Trump praised Hitler as a role model. And yet John Kelly, the source of this story, didn't resign, didn't reveal this publicly, didn't say anything about it for years.He left the White House in January 2019.
The book where he makes the Hitler claim initially came out in 2022.So why didn't Kelly think to mention this sooner?Why does he only mention it right before elections?Why does he wait to put it in a book?
Now, of course, the bigger problem with making Trump is Hitler into your closing argument is that, as I've said many times, we all experienced four years of Trump in office.
So we don't have to talk theoretically anymore about what a Trump presidency is like.And that means that even if the guy had a shrine to Hitler where he burned incense and offered sacrifices every night,
The fact would still remain that he did not govern in an authoritarian way at all.As I've often pointed out, his flaw, if anything, was the opposite.
He was, if anything, too hesitant to wield power, which is a mistake I'm hoping he doesn't make if he gets a second chance.Trump ran the most restrained presidential administration in modern American history.
We could start and end with the fact that he's the only one in modern American history who didn't start any wars overseas. Which if a president wants to expand his power, as we've seen, that's the way they so often do it.Trump didn't do that.
And they still call him a fascist dictator.If that's the case, then he may as well go in, if he's elected, and wield power ruthlessly, yet constitutionally.
Because as many of our parents used to say back in the old days, he should just give them something to cry about.If they're going to cry and call him a dictator anyway.
But beyond the Hitler allegation, there are about a million other holes in this Atlantic story.Each one of these problems independently was reason enough to kill the story.Specifically, Jeffrey Goldberg also claims.
Like we talked about yesterday, that Donald Trump offered to pay the funeral expenses of Vanessa Guillen, a 20-year-old army private who was murdered by a fellow soldier at Fort Hood in Texas.
And later, when Trump was told that the expenses totaled $60,000, The Atlantic reports that Trump said, quote, it doesn't cost $60,000 to bury an effing Mexican.
So there's no on the record source for this claim, but there are a lot of people who are going on the record denying it.
Myra Guillén, the sister of the victim, wrote, quote, wow, I don't appreciate how you're exploiting my sister's death for politics, hurtful and disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members.
President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect for my family and Vanessa.In fact, I voted for President Trump today. A translator who was in the room with Trump and the family, along with the family's attorney, said the same thing.
The attorney said, quote, after having dealt with hundreds of reporters in my legal career, this is unfortunately the first time I have to go on record and call out Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic.
Not only did he misrepresent our conversation, but he outright lied in his sensational story.
And it gets worse, Ben Williamson, who served as a communications advisor in the Trump White House, posted screenshots of his text messages with The Atlantic, and he says they deliberately misrepresented what he told them in the article.
Here's what he said, quote, I sent Atlantic a comment saying President Trump absolutely did not say that, referring to the alleged comments about Ms.Guillen they printed.The Atlantic translated that comment to, didn't hear Trump say it.
Treat this dishonest piece accordingly. So it goes on and on.Yesterday, Jeffrey Goldberg was asked about the family's reaction to this piece, and he basically said they don't know what they're talking about.Watch.
Of the sister, I understand why they're hurt by this story.And I obviously feel very sorry, as we all do, for this family.
But the fact remains, when the family visited Donald Trump, as I note in the story, he said kind words and offered to pay for the funeral.Five months later, when the subject came up, he had very unkind things to say about the funeral.
And I would note that he didn't pay for the funeral. So again, I understand the sensitivities around this, but the truth is the truth.
And people in the meeting, people who had become somewhat inured to Donald Trump's method of speaking were shocked by what was said.And that's how I learned about it.
Yeah.And the detail about how ultimately he did not pay for the funeral is a story unto itself, even without the comments.
So the smoking gun is apparently that Donald Trump didn't personally pay for the funeral.That's supposed to convince us that Trump called this woman an effing Mexican.But those two accusations are not remotely related.
And the accusation that Trump didn't pay for the funeral loses a lot of its impact when the family repeatedly says that Trump treated them extremely graciously throughout all of their interactions. So none of these smears make any sense.
They're clearly convinced that they're going to lose the election, and they're throwing everything at the wall, hoping that something will stick.
That explains why The Guardian just ran with another desperate hack job, quote, a former model who says she met Donald Trump through the late sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein has accused the former president of groping and sexually touching her in an incident in Trump Tower in 1993 in what she believed was a twisted game between the two men.
Stacey Williams, who is 56 and a native of Pennsylvania, has shared parts of her allegation on social media posts in the past, but revealed details about the alleged encounter on a call on Monday organized by a group called Survivors for Kamala.
which supports Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.So this is an alleged episode that happened more than 30 years ago.It never came up, either of the two previous times Donald Trump ran for president.
Instead, this is just coming out now with less than two weeks to go until the election, an election Donald Trump looks like he's going to win.And it's from a woman who, according to the Trump campaign and various reports, was a former Obama activist.
And the allegation was first revealed during a pro-Kamala Harris event that was organized by a campaign group that's currently taking out anti-Trump advertisements in the New York Times.
So every level of it just makes it less credible and less credible, less credible.Additionally, there's no actual proof of any of these allegations in the article.There's a postcard and a note that suggests Trump at one point spoke to this woman.
Strangely though, the note is signed with a signature that looks very different from Trump's other signatures from that time period.It looks more like Trump's signature today, which is interesting.And there are other problems too.
Here's a clip of a portion of the accuser's statement, watch.
Late winter, early spring of 93, I was on a walk with Jeffrey from his brownstone on the Upper East Side down Fifth Avenue when Jeffrey looked at me and said, you know, let's go stop by and see Trump.
And so we went to Trump Tower and went up the elevator.And moments later, Trump was greeting us.
Now one of the big issues here is that, as Zero Hedge pointed out, Jeffrey Epstein didn't move into that particular mansion until 1996.And that's documented all over the place, including in the New York Times and Vanity Fair.
So how was Epstein leaving his brownstone apartment there three years earlier if he did not live there? I guess that's something for the fact checkers to look into, although they're just gonna ignore it.
Now with all these red flags, obviously this allegation isn't gonna convince anyone of anything, but it does highlight one of the many differences between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, which is that Donald Trump is the only candidate who has promised to provide transparency about Jeffrey Epstein and his clients.
He's made it one of his core campaign promises.And that makes you wonder, is Donald Trump trying to incriminate himself by releasing the Epstein client list?
Or is it more likely that Trump's political opponents are accusing him with increasing panic of exactly the thing that they are guilty of?
Now, what we do know for sure is that these people are going to get increasingly desperate and deranged between now and election day.It's not an exaggeration to say that the next two weeks will be unlike any other in American history.
No one can possibly be prepared for the sheer amount of unhinged lying and panic that it's about to unfold.
After two impeachments, two assassination attempts, hundreds of hoaxes, Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of potentially retaking the White House.
And right now, unfortunately for hacks like Jeffrey Goldberg and the deep state that Trump has vowed to dismantle, it looks increasingly like nothing they say can stop it.Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.GCU 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 350 academic programs as of June 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.Okay, the New York Post has this report.
A prominent doctor and trans rights advocate admitted that she deliberately withheld publication of a $10 million taxpayer-funded study on the effect of puberty blockers on American children after finding no evidence that they improve patients' mental health.
Dr. Joanna Olson-Kennedy told the New York Times that she believes the study would be weaponized by critics of transgender care for kids and that the research could one day be used in court to argue we shouldn't use blockers.
Critics, including one of Olson-Kennedy's fellow researchers on the study, said the decision flies in the face of research standards and deprives the public of really important science and field where Americans remain firmly divided.
For the National Institutes of Health funded study, researchers chose 95 kids who had an average age of 11, and gave them puberty-blocking drugs starting in 2015.
The treatments are meant to delay the onset of bodily changes like the development of breasts or the deepening of the voice.
After following up with the youths for two years, the treatments did not improve the state of their mental health, which Olson Kennedy chalked up to the kids being in really good shape both when they started and concluded the two-year treatment.
However, the Times pointed out, her ROSI assessment contradicts earlier data recorded by the researchers, which found around one quarter of study participants were depressed or suicidal before receiving treatment.
And it also doesn't make any sense anyway, because if you're telling us that these kids were in really good shape before they got the treatment, then why did they get the treatment?
I mean, the whole argument, and it's a terrible argument, it's a fraudulent argument, as we see here.
But the whole argument is that, well, you gotta give the kids puberty blockers, and you have to sterilize and chemically castrate them, and sometimes even perform surgeries on them.
And you have to do that because their mental health is in such a state that if you don't do that, it might kill them. What they're really saying when they say well, it might it's a lot when they call it a life-saving treatment.
I mean, dr. Johanna Olsen Kennedy would she'd be one of the first to say that these treatments are life-saving and What does that mean?it means that according to her it prevents these kids from hurting themselves because they're that's the
state of their mental health.So that's the argument.But now you turn around and say, well, yeah, but these kids in this study, they were all in perfectly good, they were all fine.They were all feeling great.
Well, then why did you, there's even less reason then.I mean, there's never a good reason.But now the only reason you even provide for doing these procedures, you've just admitted, you've just negated.
It says, the result also does not support the findings of a 2011 Dutch study, which is the primary scientific research cited by proponents of giving kids puberty blockers.
That study of 70 kids found that children treated with puberty blockers reported better mental health and fewer behavioral and emotional problems.And yet this study contradicts that study, and so it was buried.
You know, yesterday we talked about how we have won on the trans issue.Team Sanity won.And we won, I should say, politically, primarily.We won the issue politically.And we know that because the leader of the political opposition,
The leader of the political movement that supports this stuff and promotes it, Kamala Harris, has waved the white flag.She's running from this issue as fast as she can.
And in fact, most recently in an interview, she said that she'll follow the law on gender surgeries and gender procedures.Well, the law in many states now forbids these kinds of treatments for minors.So she's saying that she would follow that.
Which is again, politically, a total surrender.I don't know, if that's not a surrender, I don't know what is.But I also said that the political victory doesn't mean that the other side will just go away or give up.
And even if the Democrats have surrendered politically, the fact is that many children are still in harm's way.Many are still being subjected to quote unquote gender affirmation indoctrination and medical abuse.
So in that sense, in a very real sense, the fight very much continues, which we can see from this story.And this is what the other side is doing.The advocates for child abuse, sterilization, mutilation, this is what they're doing.
If a study doesn't support their cause, they just bury it.And this is how science is so often done now, you should understand.So when someone says trust the science or they believe in science, this is what they mean.This is science to them.
It means you go into something, with an outcome already predetermined, and then you do your study and you run your experiments, and if it confirms the outcome that you already had in mind, then great.If it doesn't, then it doesn't count.
That's science.And that's why you can always just ignore the left whenever they claim that the studies support whatever nonsense they're spewing.You can just ignore it. Like it's at a point now where you should just ignore it out of it.
Anytime somebody on the left cites a study, you should just ignore the study.You don't have to even look at it, you can ignore it.Because there's an established pattern for years now of this.Because you see what it means.
It means that the studies that, so when someone on the left says, the studies support us. What they mean is that the studies that we allowed to be published and seen support us.
Yet even then, if you actually look at the studies that were allowed to be published, that were allowed to see, in many cases, they're still overstating the case.
In many cases, even those studies don't really support them to the extent that they claim.So it's just lie upon lie upon lie.And when it comes to this subject, You know, you don't need studies anyway.
Basic common sense, basic human moral intuition should tell you that it's bad to sterilize and chemically castrate children.There should not be any studies on this because a study on it requires you to do that to kids.
So we'll do it to kids and then we'll find out whether it helped them or not.That's morally reprehensible to begin with.I mean, kids are not lab rats.
And, again, basic common sense, basic moral intuition tells you that, yes, sterilizing and chemically castrating children is bad.It's a bad thing to do.You don't need a study to tell you that.
Just like you don't need a study to tell you that murder and rape are wrong, okay?You don't need a study for that.And why is it that puberty blockers don't improve mental health?
Well, I probably don't need to explain that to this audience, because I think you already know, but in case anyone's watching who might be confused on this point, just to elaborate a little bit, you cannot improve a child's mental health by giving them drugs that interfere with and stymie the normal and healthy growth and maturation of their bodies.
Obviously. If a child is upset about the normal and healthy growth and maturation of their bodies, if they're experiencing poor mental health and blaming it on that, then the problem is their perception of themselves.
It's their perception of their bodies, it's not their bodies.That's not the problem.
The only way to truly improve their mental health is to help them to accept and love themselves for who they are, who they naturally biologically are, which is the kind of thing.I mean, first of all, that's what affirmation should actually entail.
Because it is affirming in a certain context is important.And it's important to affirm the truth, and it's important for you as an individual to affirm the reality of yourself.
The things about yourself that cannot be changed, the immutable characteristics that cannot be changed, it's important to affirm those.Now, if you don't affirm those, you can't change it.That's the point.It's why it's immutable.
So it's not like your biological identity needs you to affirm it in order for it to be your biological identity.But no, if you want to be a mentally healthy person, then you need to affirm the things that are just simply true.
You have to be willing to admit to yourself what is true about yourself.And that's the way you improve mental health.It's not by giving these drugs, obviously. Julia Louis-Dreyfus posted a video with this caption.
I don't know about you, but I'd really like to get the government out of my effing snatch.That's the caption that she put.Nothing gross about that, about a 60-year-old woman or however old she is talking like that.
And here's the video that she supplied along with that caption.Let's watch it.
Okay, let's cut to the chase.Donald Trump and his merry band of yes-men are obsessed with what we women do with our bodies.
They want to reach into our doctor's offices and our bedrooms to control our access to birth control and IVF and, of course, abortion, even though they wouldn't know a uterus if they had to crawl out of one for a second time.
Do you care about reproductive freedom?Kamala Harris will fight to win back our reproductive rights and sign into law the protections of Roe v. Wade.
Go to IWillVote.com, check your registration, make a plan, and vote for Kamala Harris on November 5th.Because I don't know about you, but I'd really like to get the government out of my f***ing snatch.
So we got to hear it twice, great.I mean, this is not the main point, but it's just gross to be like, be a lady.A lady should not be speaking that way.It's just disgusting.Talking that way to begin with.
Like you're a grandma or you're at least grandma aged.And that's how you're speaking.It's just really disgusting.But also it goes to show that It doesn't matter what you actually do or say, the narrative will be the same.
And the left has settled on their narrative about their opposition.The specific details about any particular person are irrelevant.So we hear from Julia Louis-Dreyfus that Donald Trump is obsessed.He's obsessed with so-called women's issues.
That's what she says.Meanwhile, he barely talks about them. Right, Trump barely talks about abortion.He barely talks about abortion.When he does talk about it, he has staked out a position that is moderate.
It is very much a moderate position on abortion.So he's a moderate on the issue who barely talks about it and does not consider it to be a priority of his at all. Contraception, he never talks about contraception.
Donald Trump has never once, she says, oh, they want to take away, Donald Trump wants to take away contraception.Trump has never brought that up once.When has Trump ever even mentioned it?
It's never been a part of his platform to take away anyone's contraception.And then IVF, he supports that.I don't support it, but he does.And she's allegedly talking about Donald Trump.So that's the reality of Trump.
But the narrative has no bearing on the reality.And if you're a Republican, if you're running for office, if you're a conservative, if they consider you to be an opponent, an enemy, then these are your positions.It does not matter what you say.
That is your position regardless. Which to me, again, is all the more reason to, it's like there's no benefit even of moderating on any of this stuff because it doesn't matter.
Trump could be going around saying, yeah, I want a federal ban on abortion from the moment of conception onward.It's like he might as well be saying that because that's what they're going to say he's saying anyway.
And the problem for them is that they, and then they turn around, the left doesn't, they point to the conservatives and say, oh, they're radical, they're being radicalized.
Well, first of all, there's nothing wrong with being radically in favor of what is true and moral and good.There's nothing wrong with being radically pro-life.But if you are worried about that and you wanna know,
Why people on the right are being radicalized, quote unquote, well, this is a big reason why right here.Because you just, you give no incentive, there's no incentive to like negotiate with you or compromise at all, because you won't accept it.
Project 2025, you know, is another classic example.Project 2025 is not, it is simply an outline of basic conservative principles and policy ideas, nothing radical about it.
But, and the left has constantly, and it's just over and over again, saying that Trump, Project 2025 is his agenda.
Trump's been out there, it's like 20 different times, come out and said, I don't know, that's not my agenda, I don't know, I got nothing to do with that, I don't like it, I don't agree with it. Doesn't matter.It doesn't matter.
It's still your agenda, whether you say it is or not.So this is the way they, their narrative, they stick to it no matter what.There's also this, which kind of relates to the first headline.
A trend here, as this article says, that I think a positive trend,
Post Millennial reports, the Bishop Brady High School girls soccer team in Concord, New Hampshire has joined the growing number of female athletes protesting the inclusion of biological males in female sports.
On Friday, the team boycotted their scheduled match against Kearsarge Regional High School, which has a transgender identifying biological male on their roster.
Kearsarge is one of the two schools in the state with a biological male on the girls teams, despite the state having already passed a law designed to prevent such a thing from taking place.
Gearsarge team includes Molly Jacquez, a nearly six foot tall biological male who identifies as female.
Despite New Hampshire's law barring transgender identifying individuals from competing in girls sports, Jacquez has been allowed to play due to a federal judge's preliminary injunction issued in September.
This ruling has allowed him to continue playing and using the girls locker room until a final decision is made. So this other team has boycotted and said, well, we're not going to participate.We're not going to be a part of this charade.
And as this article then goes on to outline, there have been other, let's see, similar protests have been seen across the country, particularly in women's college volleyball.
Schools such as Southern Utah, Boise State, University of Wyoming, Utah State, University of Nevada, have seen players refuse to compete against San Jose State, which is a biological male on its women's volleyball team.This is a very positive trend.
another, yet more evidence of the great success that Team Sanity is having on this issue.It's not over because you still have these biological males.It kind of shows you how, again, you can have the victory.
Like, they passed a law against this in New Hampshire.That's a political victory.And yet, and then the judges come in and you still have at least one male on the girls' team.So the fight continues.But this, as many of us
have been saying for years now, we can put an end to men in women's sports, but the only way, like the only way to finally end it, the only way to really purge this lunacy from the system completely is for the women to just refuse to be a part of it.
To just say, the moment a male shows up to compete, this whole thing's a farce now, it's a charade.It's not what I signed up for, and I'm not gonna take part in it.
Because once the male shows up to compete in the volleyball match, let's say, it's not a volleyball match anymore.It's not what it is, it's a, giant charade meant to affirm, now it's a pageant, really.
It's not a volleyball match anymore, as it would be if they were just women competing.And this is what all these women signed up for.Now it's a pageant meant to make this male athlete feel good about himself.
And the only way to truly put an end to it is to have the women step up and, well, step up by sitting down and saying, I'm not getting up and taking part in this.We're seeing that more and more.
And so I think that that is, we are getting, we're not quite at the end of this particular brand of lunacy with men competing against women, but we're getting there, which is a good sign.All right.
Briefly mention this also, you know, every year around Halloween we get these stories about some haunted house somewhere that's just too scary, too spooky, too terrifying, too haunted.
And I'm always interested in these stories just from a psychological perspective because Now I've actually been in a lot of haunted houses in my day, but I've never been in one that is actually remotely scary.
Like on a scale of one to 10, and 10 is the most horrifying thing you've ever experienced, I've never been in one that's higher than a two, or like maybe a 1.5 to a two.
And it's not because I'm some big tough guy, it's just that I'm fully aware of the fact that, like when you're in the haunted house,
It's fully present in my mind that the actors in The Haunted House are a bunch of nerdy theater kids, and I just can't get that awareness out of my head.I can't not be aware of that.
So when the guy in the zombie mask comes growling at me, like, I don't know, how can you be, I know that you're just some kid pretending.It's like my, when one of my kids puts on a Halloween costume, ooh, is this scary, daddy?
It was like, oh yeah, it's real scary, buddy, wow. So I don't know how people get over that, get over that kind of psychological barrier in order to be actually terrified by the haunted houses.
So let's see what this latest two scary haunted house is all about.This one's gotten a lot of press.I saw a bunch of headlines about it.This is from the New York Post.A Tennessee haunt, okay, so it's in Tennessee.I can go check this one out.
A Tennessee haunted house dubbed a torture chamber under disguise is still operating, despite the owner being probed for traumatizing visitors and calls for the sadistic experience to be permanently axed.
McKamey Manor, the controversial house of horrors in Summertown, about 70 miles southwest of Nashville, that's just a little bit over an hour away, has for years been dogged by complaints of violence and inhumane treatment against participants who at one point were forced to sign a 40 page waiver just to enter.
Some participants say that they were waterboarded, tased, whipped, taunted with spiders, and trapped in boxes during their no-escape nightmare.
The Twisted Attraction's waiver indicated that tooth-pulling, finger-breaking, or head-shaving also might have to be endured.Owner Russ McCamey says, we're known for no quitting and no safe word.
Either you actually complete the tour, which is not going to happen, or you mentally or physically are at such a breaking point that it's not safe for you to continue, and I need to take you out.
McCamey told DailyMail.com over the weekend, if all those crazy, horrible things said about me are true, I wouldn't be free running around doing what I want to do.And now there's a petition to shut the thing down.
Someone says it's literally just a kidnapping and torture house.All right, well, first of all, this is probably mostly fake.I can't believe that they're actually physically torturing and harming people, even if they do sign a waiver.
I mean, in this litigious society, There's no way you get away with inflicting actual physical damage on your customers and have them pay for the experience.
I mean, unless you work for big pharma, but then you can make billions inflicting physical harm on your customers.But not in this recreational context.I just can't see this.And if it is real, if this is how it really goes,
Head shaving and finger, it's not really a haunted house.This is some weird BDSM sadomasochism thing.Like these are just perverts.Which is disturbing, but doesn't really count as a haunted house.
I mean, obviously you can make the experience intense by physically harming people.But an actual haunted house, like a legitimate one, should be able to scare you psychologically without inflicting any physical damage.
It should be a psychological thing. I'm left with the same question.Is there a haunted house out there?Not a BDSM dungeon for perverts, but I mean a haunted house that's actually scary.
The scariest thing for me in a haunted house is the social pressure that I feel.It's scary in a socially awkward way because I'm aware as I walk through the thing that these people have gone through a lot of effort and I don't want them to feel bad.
So I have to pretend to be scared. But I'm not very good at that, so I just end up, this is what happens when I walk through one of these things, I just end up congratulating everybody.
Like my version of being scared, I say, wow, that's a nice costume, nice work, man.Wow, it's a good one.So it's just not, it's probably not the reaction they're going for, I suppose. Gentlemen, woke corporations are shaving away masculinity.
Take it back with Jeremy's Razors.Over a quarter million American men and 4.7 stars on Amazon agree Jeremy's Precision 5 is a damn good razor.It lets you be a man and shave like one too.
Save 27% when you subscribe to blade refills so you never lose your edge.Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you.Go to jeremysrazors.com now.
Get ready, because in four days, the decade's number one grossing documentary is coming exclusively to Daily Wire+.
That's right, my new movie, Am I Racist?, is arriving on Monday, October 28th, but you'll need a Daily Wire Plus membership to watch it.We've made it easier than ever by putting our membership on sale.
Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code DEI for 35% off your new Daily Wire Plus membership.Am I Racist?is our epic troll of the left, and it's shocked the box office with its success, but taking on the establishment,
It's not cheap, making a movie and getting it into theaters across the country is a monumental and costly endeavor.We're doing the work, but we can't do it without your support.
Join us now as we fight the left and build the future so we can keep standing up for you.Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe today, become a member, get ready for Am I Racist, streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus, Monday, October 28th.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. CNN had a town hall last night with Kamala Harris.She performed very poorly as expected.Her biggest challenge was to explain all of her many flip flops.
And although that's not the main thing I want to focus on, we'll get to that in a moment.But there were many exchanges like this one about her evolving position on the border.Watch.
did raise your hand saying in a debate when asked if border crossing should be decriminalized, but obviously that is not your position.
I never intended nor will I ever allow America to have a border that is not secure.I believe we need to deal with illegal immigration.
There needs to be consequences, which is why part of my plan that I have outlined, and again, please go to KamalaHarris.com.Sorry to throw a website on you, but why not?
And you will see that part of my plan includes what we need to do to actually do more as it relates to putting resources in, including increasing penalties.
So now she not only wants to secure the border, but she says that there should be consequences for those who cross illegally.This is the kind of language from Kamala Harris that would have just been unthinkable four years ago.
But now she's running as some kind of border hawk, which is an awkward shift, to put it mildly, especially coming from somebody who, for years, mocked and derided the very idea of a border wall.But here's what she says about the border wall now.
Under Donald Trump, you criticized the wall more than 50 times.You called it stupid, useless, and a medieval vanity project.Is a border wall stupid?Well, let's talk about Donald Trump and that border wall.
So remember, Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for it? Come on, they didn't.How much of that wall did he build?I think the last number I saw was about 2%.And then when it came time for him to do a photo op, you know where he did it?
In the part of the wall that President Obama built.
But you're agreeing to a bill that would earmark $650 million to continue building that wall.
I pledge that I am going to bring forward that bipartisan bill. to further strengthen and secure our border.Yes, I am.And I'm going to work across the aisle to pass a comprehensive bill that deals with a broken immigration system.
I think Jackson's question, part of it was to acknowledge that America has always had migration, but there needs to be a legal process for it. People have to earn it.
And that's the point that I think is the most important point that can be made, which is we need a president who is grounded in common sense and practical outcomes.
So for years, she called the border wall stupid and useless and medieval.But now she says her biggest criticism of Trump's border wall plan is that he didn't build enough of it. He didn't build enough of the border wall, is what she claims.
She didn't build enough of the stupid, useless, medieval thing.In fact, she pledges that she's the one who can do the stupid, useless, medieval thing.
But as for the specifics of her border plan, she doesn't have very much to offer, despite being given an opportunity to offer those details.Watch.
Regarding the rapid increase in the migrant population, how will you ensure that every immigrant is integrated into American society safely? What benefits and subsidies will you provide them with?
And how long will these benefits and subsidies last for an individual?Most importantly, will the American citizens' taxes pay for these benefits and subsidies?And if so, how much money will be allocated?
Well, thank you, Jackson.Let's start with this.America's immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed and has been broken for a long time.And part of what we need to do is always prioritize what we need to do to strengthen our border.
I will tell you, I'm the only person in this race among the two choices that voters have.I personally prosecuted transnational criminal organizations. in the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.
I have spent a significant part of my career making sure that our border is secure and that we do not allow criminals in and we don't allow that kind of trafficking to happen and come into our country.
And as my opponent has proven himself, he would prefer to run
So that's a good question, a simple question.How much money will be taxed?Will taxpayers be forced to pay to subsidize immigrants?A very specific and clear question.Kamala has no answer.
All she can tell us is that she plans to prioritize the things that need to be prioritized.And what things need to be prioritized?Well, those things which are priorities.
She'll do the things we need to do and prioritize the things that are priorities.That's all the details she can provide. And it's how every specific policy question was answered, or not answered, as the case may be.
But her most hilariously awkward Michael Scott-esque answers came in response to the sorts of broad softball questions you might expect to be asked if you were interviewing for an entry-level job at a retail outlet somewhere.
So for example, she was asked a standard job interview question about her weaknesses, and here's how she handled it.
What weaknesses do you bring to the table, and how do you plan to overcome them while you're in office?
That's a great question, Joe.Well, I am certainly not perfect.So let's start there.And I think that
Perhaps a weakness, some would say, but I actually think it's a strength, is I really do value having a team of very smart people around me who bring to my decision-making process different perspectives.
My team will tell you, I am constantly saying, let's kick the tire on that.Let's kick the tires on it.
So her weakness, she says, is that she likes to have a team of smart people around her, which may be the worst answer to that question that anyone has ever given.
Now, in fairness to Kamala, everyone knows that you aren't supposed to answer the what's your weakness question honestly.So if you're interviewing for a job and they ask you to name your biggest weakness, you should not say, for example, that
You tend to put in effort and show up on time to new jobs for the first month, but then you kind of lose interest and lose steam and just start coasting.That would be too honest.
Even if it's true, too honest, the trick is to name a weakness that's actually a strength.And that's what Kamala is attempting to do here, but she's too dumb to do it subtly.
She would have been better off giving a classic answer like, well, my biggest weakness is that I work too hard.I struggle to find a good work-life balance because I'm so invested in my work.I just care too much about my job.
I'm not saying that that's the most clever way of navigating that question, but it's a brilliant chess move compared to what Kamala came up with.She stumbled again with a similar question.
This time she was asked to give an example of a mistake that she has made.
Is there something you can point to in your life, political life, or in your life in the last four years that you think is a mistake that you have learned from?
I mean, I've made many mistakes. And they range from, you know, if you've ever parented a child, you know, you make lots of mistakes, too.
In my role as vice president, I mean, I've probably worked very hard at making sure that I am well versed on issues.And I think that is very important.It's a mistake not to be well versed on an issue and feel compelled to answer a question.
So her mistake is that she's well versed on issues.That's what she said.Now, once again, nobody's expecting an honest answer here.
Kamala made a mistake when she thought that she could wrestle a nomination from Joe Biden and then coast to the election without answering any questions or being subjected to any scrutiny.That was a mistake.
Nobody expects her to say that out loud, though.Still, if you're gonna give a BS answer, you need to have the skill and intelligence to make it at least sound like it isn't BS.
I mean, I came up with a better answer to that question when I interviewed to be a shift manager at a pizza place like 20 years ago.
I was asked to talk about a mistake I'd made in the past, and I said that I've made the mistake of taking on too much work and too many tasks all at once.My mistake is having too much ambition, really, and being really too determined, if anything.
Again, maybe not the best answer, but at least it's better than what Kamala came up with.She also said that she's made mistakes parenting children.And she returned to that theme a couple of times, actually.
When she was asked how her administration would differ from Joe Biden's, she again, for some reason, cited her experience raising children.Watch.
Considering you have been in the position of Vice President for the past four years under the Biden administration, how can we expect you to deviate from the direction of that administration compared to your own?
How can we differentiate your policy and your beliefs from that of Biden's?
That's a great question and thank you.Well, first of all, My administration will not be a continuation of the Biden administration.I bring to this role my own ideas and my own experience.
I represent a new generation of leadership on a number of issues and believe that we have to actually take new approaches.For example, what we talked about in terms of housing, my experience that leads to that
priority includes what I did to take on the big banks around the foreclosure crisis when I brought billions of dollars to homeowners that were the subject of predatory lending.
I know what homeownership means to the American people, not to mention what it meant to my mother who worked very hard and saved up so that by the time I was a teenager she was able to buy our first home.
I bring to it my experience actually taking care of my mother when she was sick and it was as it turned out dying from cancer. And so I know what it means and have the experience of taking care of an elderly relative and I have raised children.
And so I bring to my priorities and will as president a new approach and a new idea, frankly, about what we need to do to deal with the sandwich generation.
So to review, her administration will be different from Biden's because of a bunch of life experiences that aren't even all that different from Biden's life experiences.
The first problem here is that none of that even comes close to answering the question, never mind the fact that if she was truly proud of her record as vice president, she would proudly say that her administration will be a continuation of the Biden administration.
I mean, it literally is, she's in the Biden administration.
And if it's true that America's in a better place today than it was under Trump, as she has claimed, then why wouldn't she want to continue the legacy of Biden's hugely successful administration?
But if her administration will be different, this answer does not begin to explain how it will be different.
She claims that she represents a new generation of leaders at the age of 60, yet she can't articulate one thing she'll actually do differently or one policy that will be different.
All she can tell us is that she took care of her sick mother and she raised children.And I want to focus on that last point, just for a moment.
Because obviously the fact that she raised children doesn't answer the question that was asked, just as it didn't answer the question the first time she brought it up in the town hall.
Kamala has repeatedly throughout her campaign brought up her experience raising children, which is why I think it's necessary to say, no, you didn't. Okay, I don't know, people let her get away with this, but Kamala Harris has not raised children.
This is another lie that she's telling about her own biography.It's the craziest lie of all, actually.And it's significantly worse than claiming that she worked at McDonald's.
The fact that she claims to work at McDonald's and she didn't has gotten a lot more press, even on the right, than this.I mean, this is, she's claiming to have parented kids, she's making it up, it didn't happen.
It's almost as bad as Tim Walz claiming combat experience that he never had.Indeed, this is stolen valor of a different kind.Kamala Harris has not parented children or raised them.
She has no idea what raising children actually means, what it actually entails, and we need to stop letting her get away with this kind of lie.Here's the reality.Kamala Harris has a stepson and a stepdaughter.They are today 30 and 25 respectively.
She married into the family 10 years ago in 2014.That means that her stepkids were 20 and 15 when she came into their lives.One of them was already a grown adult, so that's out.The other was in high school, three years away from legal adulthood.
She did not raise them.She just did not raise them at all. You come into a 15-year-old's life at the age of 15.You did not raise that child.I'm sorry, you didn't.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to be the biological parent of a child in order to take credit for raising the child.
But if you assume the parent role when they're already adults or just a few years away from being an adult, then you did not by any measure raise them. The vast majority of the raising was done by other people.
And now you're swooping in at the last minute to claim credit.I mean, it's pretty grotesque, honestly.It's like installing the last two shingles on a roof and then claiming that you built the house.
Now, never mind the fact that in the case of Doug's daughter, Ella. This appears to be kind of a troubled person, so you're taking credit for a house that appears to have some very significant structural problems down to the foundation.
But even so, it's an egregious lie.And I admit that I take it somewhat personally as a parent of six kids, an actual parent who is actually raising them.Raising children is very difficult.
And to do it well requires a monumental amount of time and energy and sacrifice.Especially, especially in the first, you know, 9 to 12 years.Especially in that time frame that Kamala Harris has never experienced.Never.
So Kamala Harris knows very little about this. She is the parenting equivalent of a plagiarist taking credit for other people's work.She's also a literal plagiarist, according to recent reports.So she's a fraud all the way around, in every way.
This is just one facet of her phoniness, but in many ways, it is the most offensive.And that is why for probably approximately the 20th time, Kamala Harris is, and not the last time, is canceled.That'll do it for the show today.Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.Talk to you tomorrow.Have a great day.Godspeed.
The question everyone in America is asking.Am I racist?Get a Daily Wire Plus membership to see Am I Racist?This is all I have.Did you want to?I can help you guys out.Yeah.Go to amiracist.com and sign up now.
I've been told because I'm a white male, kind of at the top of the pile, how do I get down from the top?
I don't think you necessarily can.
They're good past all the talk about racism.We have to love each other.It can't be that simple.How do we get to a point of racial harmony?It's good to talk to you.We're still on a journey, all of us together.
I think you've got some journeying to do.Just talk to me about the statistics.We have an epidemic.20 million crimes a year.6,000, 7,000 hate crimes.No, there's no epidemic.Why are we talking about statistics?This is not a matter of statistics.
Well, you asked me about the statistics.
Am I Racist?Coming to Daily Wire Plus on October 28th.Rated PG-13.
Sign in
