Today on The Matt Wall Show, one of the final acts of the Biden administration is to go to court to defend DEI policies in the airline industry.Also, Bruce Springsteen performs at a Kamala Harris rally.
It's one of the worst things you'll ever hear, I guarantee you that.Donald Trump is toying with the idea of abolishing the income tax.We'll talk about why that would make him, without question, the greatest president in American history.
And Ben Shapiro debates 25 Kamala Harris supporters.The clips are truly tragic, if also hilarious.We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
You know, a question I get a lot from my audience, especially after they've seen one of my movies, is how can I get into the conservative fight?Well, for starters, you need to be strategic about where your money is going.
Most credit cards are funneling millions to left-wing causes and candidates, hoping you're too distracted by cat videos to notice. Now you can align your spending with your values and fight back against the woke mob.
COIN is America's first conservative credit card.That's C-O-I-G-N dot com.A portion of every transaction is donated to conservative causes and charities at no cost to you.COIN empowers us to get woke out of our wallet.
And bonus, it's a good looking card too.Bright red with a we the people on the front. I mean, it practically screeches in bald eagle.Coin works everywhere.Visa is accepted and comes with 100% U.S.-based customer service and consumer protections.
So start earning cash back while fighting the liberal agenda.Apply today at coin.com, that's C-O-I-G-N.com.Be sure to select Daily Wire in the how did you hear about us section.Terms apply, go to coin.com slash disclosures for full details.
Put yourself in the shoes of a senior official in the Biden-Harris administration.Say you're running the DOJ, and right now you know that in just a matter of months, you could be out of a job.In fact, that seems pretty likely at this point.
If there's any important causes that you want to pursue or policies you want to defend, well, now's the time to do it.This is your opportunity to cement your legacy, at least until the next administration fires you and completely dismantles it.
Given that setup, what would you make a top priority?With so many things going wrong in the country, what are the battles you choose to fight with the limited time you have left?
We're not quite technically in the lame duck period, but everyone in this administration is asking this question right now anyway.
And as low as your expectations may be for the Biden-Harris administration, their answer to that question is pretty remarkable.
In what could very well be their final days and weeks in power, senior leaders in the federal government are going to federal court to defend DEI policies.And I'm not talking about just any garden variety DEI policy here.
As we speak, the Justice Department is going to court to demand that the DEI is used in the selection process to appoint an independent monitor to oversee Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer.
The job of this independent monitor is to make sure that Boeing stops making planes that fall apart in the sky or just completely fall out of the sky.
In other words, the Biden-Harris DOJ is fighting to ensure that the second largest commercial jet manufacturer in the world is supervised by a DEI hire. What could possibly go wrong?Well, a lot, as we've seen.
And you know that if you've been following Boeing lately, there's a decent documentary on Netflix called Downfall, The Case Against Boeing, that outlines a lot of the background.But here's the gist.
As you probably remember, there were two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2018 and 2019.A total of 346 people were killed in just a few months.
Investigation revealed that the crashes were linked to Boeing's decision to accelerate production of the 737 MAX to compete with their rival Airbus.The design of Boeing's new 737 MAX was a lot like the older Boeing jets.
But with one key exception, the engines were larger and they were positioned further forward on the plane.While this helped with efficiency, it came with a side effect, which is that the plane had a tendency to pitch upwards during flight.
So to counteract that tendency, Boeing designed a new software program that they installed on their new 737 MAX aircraft. The idea was that the software would automatically lower the nose to a level position if the plane started creeping upwards.
It was supposed to be kind of a subtle fix that the pilots wouldn't really notice.The problem is that the software was completely dependent on one sensor on the plane called the angle of attack sensor.
And if that sensor failed or malfunctioned for whatever reason or provided inaccurate data, the plane would inaccurately believe that it was climbing too quickly and the software in response would make the plane plunge towards the earth.
And that's exactly what happened in both of those cases.Here's coverage of one of the crashes.Watch.
But shortly after takeoff, Ethiopian flight 302 is suddenly out of control. A critical sensor sending information to the plane's new flight control system called MCAS has malfunctioned.
MCAS thinks the aircraft is in a stall and literally takes over the controls, pitching the plane into a steep dive.
Now what's incredible about this crash, the Ethiopian Airlines one, is that it happened after the Lion Air crash several months earlier.
And after the Lion Air crash, Boeing sent out advisories to a bunch of airlines warning them about their software.
They said that if they encounter a similar issue, pilots should just turn off the electrical system of that part of the aircraft to disable the software entirely.The problem is that
When the Ethiopian pilots did that, they encountered a bunch of other unexpected issues that they weren't really trained on, and they were panicking.
And during the chaos, they left the throttle on maximum, which made it impossible to control the plane without the help of the electrical system.
And when they tried to regain some control, they turned the electrical system back on, at which point the plane promptly crashed itself. Obviously, there are a lot of failures that occurred in this whole situation.
The regulators at the FAA delegated a lot of their responsibilities to Boeing, which meant that Boeing was in charge of certifying the safety of its own software.
Additionally, Boeing knowingly made false representations about its software during the certification process.That part is not in dispute.Boeing admits this.
This summer, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the government concerning the 737 MAX's software.And then Boeing and the DOJ filed a plea agreement so that a judge could review it.
And the plea agreement essentially makes Boeing, as a company, like the company equivalent of a convicted felon. And they're still making our airplanes that we fly on, so that should make you feel good.
But to his credit, the judge, whose name is Reed O'Connor, isn't signing off on the plea deal, at least not yet. This is a bit like the situation with Hunter Biden this summer.
Just because both parties agreed to a plea deal, it doesn't mean the judge has to accept it.And in this case, there's a very important reason why the judge won't accept it.
Quoting from the judge's order this month, quote, the agreement mandates an independent compliance monitor to assess whether Boeing has adequately mitigated the risk of providing false or fraudulent information to the Federal Aviation Administration and other government regulators.
Like many of the agreement's other provisions, the victims strongly oppose the agreement's compliance monitor requirements.
Among other reasons, the victims argue the court should reject the agreement because it allows the government, not the court, to select a monitor with input from Boeing and in keeping with the department's commitment to diversity and inclusion.
Now, in other words, just to translate, both the judge and the victim's families have an issue with this provision, and you can see why.
When both the regulator and the airline manufacturer mess up, causing the deaths of hundreds of people, then you would think you'd want to bring in the most competent people you can find in order to make sure that that never happens again, but that's not what's happening here.
When the judge asked the government's attorney, Sean Tinole, to explain what exactly this diversity, equity, and inclusion policy would entail, Tinole responded that he's not an expert in the topic.
But he eventually got around to saying that diversity refers to race, gender, background, and any number of factors, including background and experience.
Tannoli added that inclusion is, quote, another way of maybe saying the same thing and not excluding people because of any characteristic that would be included in diversity.
Both of those explanations are incredibly circular, but he tapped out after that.He said he couldn't provide any more information than that, but he did insist that the government wouldn't pick somebody who was unqualified.
Well, that led the judge to ask, quote, did the department used to exclude certain people on race, gender, and other things?And in response to that question, Tannoli responded, not to my knowledge.
Which was an alarming answer, to say the least, especially when you're talking about making sure that more planes don't fall out of the sky.The answer should be an unequivocal no, we definitely wouldn't exclude anyone based on race or gender.
It's wrong to discriminate on that basis in any context, but it's completely insane to do it when you're talking about regulating Boeing, which if you haven't noticed is having a lot of problems right now, both on this planet and in space.
So the judge asked Boeing for their input, but they just deferred to the government's answer.And then the judge pulled up Boeing's website where he found that the company has a set of aspirations that it plans to achieve by next year.
And those aspirations, which are based on DEI, include explicit quotas on the basis of race, including Boeing's efforts to quote, increase the black representation rate in the US by 20% and close representation gaps for historically underrepresented groups.
The judge also found that Boeing pays its executives bonuses depending on how many of their DEI goals they have achieved.Now, at the moment, we don't know exactly how this legal battle will play out.
The judge has said that he wants a full hearing on all of this before he signs off on any plea agreement.
He wants to make sure that the Biden-Harris administration is gonna select someone who can do the job before any more people die in Boeing airplanes.
And based on the statements of Boeing and the Biden-Harris administration so far, the judge doesn't have those assurances.Now, if you look at any corporate media coverage of the story, you'll find a lot of snark directed at the judge.
Reuters, for example, ran this headline, quote, how a US judge injected culture wars into Boeing 737 Max plea deal.They interviewed a lawyer who criticized the judge saying that he was acting incredibly unusual.
CNN, meanwhile, accused the judge of engaging in a politically tinged courtroom battle. This is the same debate, the same tactic we've seen in the trans debate and in so many other areas.Left-wing activists implement some new insane policy.
And when you push back against it in any way, or even just ask questions about it, You're accused of injecting a culture war in a way that's somehow inappropriate.
So it's not injecting a culture war when Boeing and the federal government both decide to begin with this DEI insanity in the first place.
But it is a culture war when a judge asks if we're hiring the most qualified people to make sure that more planes don't crash themselves into the ocean.
Now, the reason these outlets are lashing out like this is that they recognize that this judge's ruling is significant.
They realize that they're indeed losing the culture war on this topic, the war that, like every other battlefield of the culture war, these are all wars that they started, wars that the left started.
This is the first time that I'm aware of that a federal judge has explicitly called out DEI in the context of an ongoing case, and he's demanded to know what exactly it entails.
And in response, the government and Boeing, which both practice DEI, couldn't even answer the question.
It's yet another sign that the tide is turning pretty sharply against the whole concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly when lives are at stake.
That's why, you know, when I started working on my film, Am I Racist?, a few years ago, developments like this were pretty difficult to imagine at the time.But throughout the process,
We all knew that taking down DEI meant exposing exactly what it is in practice.Once reasonable people can see exactly what diversity, equity, and inclusion entails, then they turn against it.
As with so many other things on the left, when people just see what it actually is, and they see past the euphemisms, once you've revealed what it actually is to people, many times you don't even have to explain why it's wrong because it's so self-evident.
People recognize that it's immoral and unethical, not to mention incredibly dangerous in cases like this.And they also recognize that the high priests of the DEI cult actually have no idea what they're talking about.
Like Boeing's lawyers or the various experts and activists I spoke to in the film, these people can't even define the terms that they're constantly repeating. And that's the big reason why I'm excited about the streaming release of Am I Racist?
As you may have heard, my new film is coming to Daily Wire Plus on Monday.We'll be able to show the film to people who, for one reason or another, weren't able to see it in theaters.
Or if you were able to see it, now you'll have access to it whenever you want at your house.We'll be exposing the DEI grift to an audience of millions of more people.And when it comes to DEI, exposure is fatal.
And mockery is intolerable also for them. And we do a lot of both of those things in this film.And thanks to everyone who's supported us in the theaters.We produced the top documentary of the decade.
We showed how some of the biggest names in the industry are complete and total and hilariously frauds.And we had a lot of fun doing it.
So if you're not subscribed to Daily Wire and you want to watch the film, you can get 35% off your membership right now with code DEI.I hope you'll support us.
We didn't start this particular culture war, but because of your support, it's very clear that we're winning it now.Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, I've been thinking a lot about the holidays lately, not just because of the incessant commercialization or the yearly debate over whether it's okay to say Merry Christmas anymore, but I've been pondering what it means to give a truly meaningful gift in this era of soulless consumerism.
That's until I stumbled upon Paint Your Life. Now, I'm not one for sappy sentimentality, but even I have to admit this is something special.
Imagine giving someone a hand-painted portrait of a moment that actually matters, not some AI-generated nonsense or a cheap print, but a real painting by a real artist.
All you have to do is choose a photo of our family and paint your life, turns it into a painting.The process is surprisingly simple, no bureaucratic red tape, no endless forms to fill out.Just upload the photo, choose an artist, and that's it.
You're set.I received the painting from them over a year ago.I still have it hanging in my living room.You can even combine multiple photos or add things that weren't in the original.Want to add a lost loved one to a family portrait?
Well, they can do that.Want to add embellishments, change a wardrobe, or put yourself in a location you've always wanted to go to?They can do that too. The best part?It's not just a gift, it's a statement.
A statement that says, hey, I actually put some thought into this thing instead of just grabbing whatever was on sale at the big box store.
Get started with your holiday shopping early this season and give the most meaningful gift you've ever given from paintyourlife.com.And there's no risk.If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded guaranteed.Order now.
to get Paint Your Life's early bird holiday special, 20% off your painting.That's right, for a limited time, get 20% off and free shipping.To get this special offer, text the word Matt to 87204.That's Matt to 87204.Text Matt to 87204.
Paint Your Life, celebrate the moments that matter most.Message data rates may apply.See terms for details. Thought it'd be nice to start off the headlines with a little bit of a musical interlude.
The boss himself, Bruce Springsteen, came out to support Kamala Harris at a rally last night.He performed a couple of songs, and we'll play a little bit of one of them in a minute.
But first, here is Bruce Springsteen on stage giving a little speech, making the case for Kamala, listen.
I'm Bruce Springsteen, and I am here today to support Mahla Harris and Tim Walz for president and vice president of the United States.And to oppose, to oppose Donald Trump and J.D.Vance.Now here's why.I want a president who reveres the Constitution.
Who does not threaten but wants to protect and guide our great democracy.Who believes in the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power.Who will fight for a woman's right to choose.
and who wants to create a middle-class economy that will serve all our citizens.There is only one candidate in this election who holds those principles dear, Kamala Harris.Kamala Harris.She's running to be the 47th president of the United States.
Donald Trump is running to be an American tyrant. He does not understand this country, its history, or what it means to be deeply American.
Well, first of all, he's mispronouncing her name, which is racist.He keeps saying Kamala, is what he keeps saying.So I'm very offended on her behalf for that.
The second problem is that almost everything he said there, almost all of Kamala's alleged selling points that he's given are right wing coded.
If you leave aside the right to choose, that part, quote unquote, right to choose, the rest of it, restoring the rule of law, defending the Constitution, has a deep respect for American history.
Obviously, none of that is true about Kamala Harris, and that's the point.They're trying to sell her using essentially conservative language.And I don't think it's gonna work. This is maybe the best indication that Trump is winning.
The fact that they're not trying to sell her as a progressive, even though she is the most liberal presidential candidate in American history by far.In spite of that, that's not how they're selling her.
They're not selling her with defund the police and put a stop to police brutality.And the Constitution is a living document and it needs to be updated.They're not doing any of that. Instead, it's rule of law, constitution.That's what they're doing.
They're running to the right in the final days of the campaign, just as they have since August, and running to the right on everything except abortion, which just makes the overall pitch all the more disjointed and confused.
So that was Springsteen's speech.Now let's listen to a little bit of him performing his classic hit, Dancing in the Dark, We'll listen to as much of this as we can tolerate.
Now it's time for some entertainment.Here we go.
Wow.Why is that so bad?And I don't even say that as a Springsteen hater.I mean, I am kind of a Springsteen hater, but... How did Bruce Springsteen do the worst rendition of a Bruce Springsteen song that we've ever heard?That's what I want to know.
He sounds like he's doing bad karaoke to his own song.He sounds like a tone-deaf drunk guy trying to sing Springsteen, which is probably being generous.I mean really his singing voice sounds like a like a hyena drowning in a river.
And that's why I say we really need a new law, and I'm totally serious about this.I wish this is something that Trump would have put on his platform.
But we need a new law that rock stars aren't allowed to keep performing past the age of 55, let's say. I mean, 60 is pushing it.Okay, fine, I'll give you a 60.Past the age of 60, well, and I'll be even more generous.
After the age of 60, if you want to keep performing as a rock star or a musician, you need to get a license.And then that license has to be renewed every three years.
You have to go somewhere and sing and get, you know, sing for Simon Cowell or something.And you'll get a, if you pass, then you get your license renewed.Because this guy, I mean, Bruce Springsteen is, he's like pushing 80 now.And it's just sad.
It's sad to witness.Like, you can't force us to watch this. And seeing these aging rock stars just decaying on stage, butchering their own material.I mean, it should literally be a crime.It's a moral atrocity.But that was Bruce Springsteen.
And we'll see how many people are inspired to vote.I mean, that's reason enough to vote against Kamala Harris. If she's elected, what does, I mean, are we gonna have to hear more of that?Is he gonna perform at the inauguration or something?
You start to worry about that.Reason enough to vote against her is just that performance alone.
Now, speaking of musicians who are 40 years past their prime, Cyndi Lauper came out with, fortunately she's not singing, but she endorsed Kamala Harris and gave her own pitch for Kamala.Let's listen to that.
Hi. I'm touring the country.I'm very excited to see my country.I love my country.Mostly, I want to tell you that this November, I'm voting for her, Kamala Harris.You know why?
Because she's a woman and she's going to understand that I don't want to be a second-class citizen anymore.I want to see a woman in the White House.I would like to see that.Right now, we have no equality.
We're not even able to say whether we want to have a kid or not.I don't have to worry about that anymore, but I do have to worry about the fact that my nieces and whoever comes later is going to be second class, will be told.
about our bodies and what we're to do with them because for the good, for the good of who?Men aren't told what they're going to do.I want equality, real equality.
I don't want to be talked into anything anymore, being told what I'm going to do with my own body because that's too creepy.That's not small government. That's dictatorship.And I don't want that.So, ladies, can we stand together?
Okay.Once... That's enough of that.There it is again, by the way.Small government.She's making a pitch for... Since when do you care about small government?Sidney Lopper.And since when does Sidney Lopper sound like Lois Griffin from Family Guy?
Has she always sounded like that?I guess I've never heard her talk before.And I wish I never did.So, you know, it... Of course,
This does, number one, raise the question, the great question that still has not been answered by anybody on the left, which is, what is a woman?She said she's voting for Kamala Harris because she's a woman.And she just came out and said it.
She's not even pretending there's any other reason.Yeah, I'm voting for her because she's a woman.All right, well, what's that?What is this mysterious creature you speak of, Cindy?Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
And then she goes off on the whole abortion spiel.It's just, it's funny how these people, I mean, for one thing, they continue to pretend that there's some kind of federal abortion ban in place.
It's not even that they're pretending that Trump is going to put a federal ban in place, even though Trump repeatedly has said he is not gonna do that. The way they talk about it, they're pretending that it has already happened.
And they're ignoring the fact that every single one of these women who come out in support of Kamala Harris and start giving these speeches, especially the famous women, they all, all of them live in states where abortion is 100% legal still from conception to birth and in some cases beyond birth.
I don't know where Cyndi Lauper lives, but I'm gonna, pretty safe assumption, she lives in a state where it's already legal.So all of these women, it is already legal entirely where you live, and it has been for 50 years.
And Trump is, if he was elected, would not do a single thing to change that. If I were elected, I would do something to change that.I think there should be a federal abortion ban.I make no apologies about that.But that's not Trump's view on it.
It's not Trump's view.So they're just ignoring that.They are ignoring it because so that they can tell the story, as we heard from Cindy Lauper, that women are second class citizens.
that they're being singled out, which by the way, of course, even if there was a national abortion ban in place, that still would not mean that you're a second class citizen, that you're not equal, that you're being somehow singled out with some kind of law that only applies to you.
It wouldn't mean that.All it would mean, you know what, if you live in a state where there's an abortion ban, or if there was a federal ban, And if you're a woman, all that would mean is that that would actually be equality.
Banning abortion is equality.It's equality for one thing, because we're recognizing the human rights of the child in the womb who is a human, who is a person.
And when the person in the abortion conversation who's being deprived of equality under the law is the unborn child,
But also, all that would mean is that you are not allowed to directly kill another human life, which is already the law for everybody else.Men are not allowed to directly kill innocent human beings.
It's not as though men have that privilege and women don't.So when abortion is legal, It makes women, that is an inequality in the law.
Not only because, again, we're depriving the human rights, we're depriving the unborn children of their basic human rights.But we are carving out this exception, this murder exception.
And we're saying that, yeah, you're not allowed to take innocent human life unless you're a woman and you're killing your child. So, Cyndi Lauper does not want equality under the law.Equality under the law would be an abortion ban.
That's the last thing she wants.She wants women to have extra rights, extra rights that nobody else has.All right, New York Times has this headline, a wonderful headline, Trump flirts with ultimate tax cut. no income taxes at all.
Article says former President Donald J. Trump has spent much of the presidential campaign brainstorming new and sometimes untested ways to cut taxes.
In the election's final stretch, he raised the possibility of going even further, eliminating income taxes entirely. During a Fox News segment on Monday, Mr. Trump took questions at a barbershop in the Bronx.
When asked if the United States could potentially end all federal taxation, Mr. Trump said the country could return to the economic policies in the late 19th century where there was no federal income tax.
Mr. Trump said it had all tariffs, it didn't have an income tax.Now we have income taxes and we have people that are dying, they're paying tax and they don't have the money to pay the tax.
In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs.
Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it's unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only the individual income tax.
Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive.Yeah, I love that when people say it's mathematically impossible to do something that we've already done.
Okay, the income tax was put in place in 1913.Prior to that, there was no income tax.So how could it be impossible to do anything that we already did for over a century?
And I'm not joking when I say that if Trump pursued this and was able to see it through, it would make him the greatest president in American history.
I mean, even if he just pursued it in a serious way and wasn't able to, and didn't succeed, it would still make him arguably the greatest president in American history.But certainly if he was able to abolish the income tax, it would.
Because in one fell swoop, Trump will have done more than any other president to bring freedom and prosperity to the American people.
Abolishing the income tax would mean that he has done more than any other president to bring freedom and prosperity to the American people.He will have increased freedom and prosperity more than any other president ever has.
And I don't think it's gonna happen.I put a very low likelihood on it, but it needs to happen.And I also do believe that Trump is the only guy who would even potentially do something like that. And libertarians like to say that taxation is theft.
And that's not exactly right.Not all taxation is theft.You need to have some kind of taxation in order to fund the government.And the other option is for the government to have no funding, which means that the government can't exist.
And then you have anarchy.So if you're not an anarchist, then you must agree that some kind of tax system is a necessary evil. Which means that not all taxes are theft, but the income tax, the income tax is theft.
So you just have to be more specific when you make that claim that taxation is theft.The income taxation is theft.That I absolutely believe.
For the government to reach into your paycheck and take a chunk of it, take a chunk before you even get your hands on it, getting taxed just for earning a living, that is theft, that is tyranny.
And we've been living under a system of crushing tyranny for over 100 years now.The kind of tyranny that our founders never would have tolerated.In fact, they've violently revolted against much lesser tyranny than this.There's no question about that.
Now, of course, as the New York Times says, in response to this, a lot of people, even conservatives, are going around saying, well, we can't do that.How will we pay for the roads and the schools without an income tax?
Well, first of all, federal income taxes don't really pay for schools, at least they largely don't.I think like five or 10% of the funding for schools comes from the federal government.
And besides, the public school system needs to be abolished anyway, but I mean, that's a different subject.
Whatever else the federal government pays for, or we pay for, I should say, through the federal government, you can replace that funding with other taxes.Trump wants to use tariffs. There have been other plans.
We've talked about the fair tax, for example, and national sales tax.Any kind of consumption-based tax is vastly preferable to an income tax.
And it continues to, I continue to find it rather confounding that abolishing the income tax, I mean, Trump is talking about it, which is great, but it's rather confounding that this is not a subject that comes up more often on the right.
There aren't that many people on the right who talk about this or push for it in any kind of serious way.And I just find that sort of confusing.We should all be on the same page on this thing.The income tax is just an abomination from hell.
It really is, and the only reason that we accept it is just because it's always been in place, at least, and always just means in our lifetime.We've never known anything other than the income tax, and so therefore we just take it for granted.
Just because you're born into a certain kind of tyranny doesn't mean that it's not tyranny.And it also doesn't mean that it's inevitable and there's no other way to have a functioning country.That's just not the case.
And really, when it comes down to it, any other attempt to rein in the extravagantly unnecessary spending of the federal government, any attempt to cut the size of government, any of that stuff.
None of that can really happen while you still have an income tax.While we still have a situation where the government could just come in and take your money out of your paycheck, as long as they can do that,
Yet spending is not going to go down, the government's not going to shrink, you're not going to do anything about the ungainly, massive, gargantuan blob of the federal government, the federal bureaucracy, like none of that.
You won't solve any of those problems or even make a dent as long as they have this power to just go and take your money.They're going to keep doing it.So this is the first step towards really any other improvements we want to make.
All right, here's a writer for The Atlantic trying to explain why Kamala is losing support among black and Hispanic voters.And his explanation is that those voters are just uneducated.Let's listen.
But the sharpest divide in our politics today is education.It's whether you have a college degree or not.That is the likeliest determinant of whether you're gonna vote Republican or Democratic.
And that's why we're seeing larger numbers, and I met some of them in Western Pennsylvania, of Latinos and black voters who are moving toward Trump.
Well, that'll win them back.That's sure to do it. Say, well, you're not voting for us because you're uneducated.But actually, he's right.That's the thing, he's right.
To frame it in terms of education, that's not, the fact that you didn't go to college doesn't actually mean that you're uneducated.
And the inverse of that, the fact that you went to college doesn't mean that you are educated, and it certainly doesn't mean that you're intelligent. You can't tell anything about someone's intelligence based on whether they have a college degree.
And you can't even tell anything about their actual education based simply on the fact that they have the degree.But he is hitting on something true here, which is that as more and more people forego college, the Democrats lose voters.
And this is a trend that we're seeing now where you have You know, it's still mostly taken for granted that when a kid graduates high school, they just go to college.
Whether they know what they want to do with their lives or not, whether they have any idea why they're going to college, whether they know what they want to major in or whatever, doesn't matter, they still go.So that's largely taken for granted.
That's still basically the system, but not as much as it was 10 years ago.The trend lines are moving in the opposite direction. And there are a lot of massive benefits there.
But one of the biggest is that it loosens the kind of stranglehold grip that Democrats have over particularly younger voters.
Because what this guy's basically admitting is what we all know, which is that the universities are left-wing indoctrination camps.And if you have fewer people going there, then you end up with fewer people who are left-leaning.
It's pretty simple math there. All right, finally I wanted to mention this.This is a bit hard to explain to anyone listening to the audio podcast.I'll try my best, but it's too funny to not attempt to talk about it.
So anyone who's too online, like me, is very familiar with a certain meme format.
And in the meme, you see a picture of a man, either like at a bar or sitting in a stadium, someplace noisy, shouting in the ear of a woman who's just sitting there or standing there and looking very disinterested and unamused.
And then the meme is you fill in the dialogue what the man is saying and the whole joke is that the guy is blabbing about something Inane and irrelevant that the girl doesn't care about There's also the reverse of this meme
Where a woman is shouting in the ear of a disinterested man, and for that meme, you write in the dialogue and the woman is babbling about something dumb that the man doesn't care about.And, okay, so that's the meme format.
There's me explaining a meme.But, you know, this is, again, for an audio format, I don't know how else to do this.Well, hilariously, Planned Parenthood tried to do this meme.
And, you know, another meme about memes on the internet is that the left can't meme.They don't know how to do memes for some reason. And there's no better evidence of that than this.
Because the funny thing is that they accidentally, Planned Parenthood, they accidentally did the meme correctly.They actually did a correct and even funny version of this meme, but they didn't mean to.
It makes the opposite point from the point they were trying to make.So let's take a look here.And they deleted this tweet shortly after they posted it, which makes it even funnier.But here's the meme.
So you have the woman screaming in the guy's ear, and then the dialogue that Planned Parenthood put in says, Project 2025 is a complete political takeover of our rights.They want Donald Trump and JD Vance to win so they can ban abortion nationwide.
That's why we need to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, two politicians who have spent their careers fighting for reproductive rights.So that's what the guy's shouting at the man while he's just standing there like, shut up, please.
And this is amazing because like I said, they deleted this because everybody started mocking them for it.But they did the meme correctly, accidentally correctly.This is a perfect representation of what female Kamala supporters are like.
They're constantly shrieking in our ears, screaming about abortion, and they won't shut up.But what's really incredible is that the feminists over at Planned Parenthood, they saw this image.
of the woman screaming directly in the ear of a man who clearly just wants her to stop talking and doesn't care.And they saw that image and they saw it as an inherently positive thing.
They looked at the image and saw themselves in the woman who's doing the screaming and they didn't see anything wrong with that.To them, this image of the woman screaming in the man's ear, it's inspirational, it's aspirational.
This is how they see themselves apparently as a as a kind of drunk boar perpetually shrieking in the ear of a man and To them there's nothing wrong with that I guess
If you want the easiest and most straightforward way to put your sports knowledge to work, you need to download America's number one daily fantasy sports app, PrizePix.Here's what makes it so great.
You just pick more or less on at least two players, that's it, and you can win up to 100 times your cash with as little as four correct picks.
Plus, they invented something called the FlexPlay, which means that you can still cash out if your lineup isn't perfect.You can literally double your money even if one of your picks doesn't hit.
They've even got an injury insurance policy, so if your player leaves in the first half and doesn't return, your lineup stays live.
And if you want to play alongside guys like Druski, Joe Budden, and MMA champ Sean O'Malley, just check out Community Plays under the Promos tab.But price picks doesn't just make winning easy, they make getting paid a breeze too.
All withdrawals are fast, safe, and secure.I'm talking 15 minutes from win to cash in hand. If only the DMV could operate with that kind of efficiency.Imagine where we'd be.
Our show's camera assistant, Mike, has PrizePix and has had a lot of fun with the game.He's excited to submit this week's lineup, including some favorite players like Sam Darnold, Saquon Barkley, and Kareem Hunt.
Download the PrizePix app today and use code WALSH to get $50 instantly when you play $5.That's code WALSH on PrizePix to get $50 instantly when you play $5.You don't even need to win to receive the $50 bonus.It's guaranteed.PrizePix, run your game.
Mark your calendars for Monday because my new movie, Am I Racist, the number one documentary of the decade, is finally streaming exclusively on Daily Wire+.We didn't just bring you the box office hit.
You'll get access to bonus footage that we didn't show you in theaters.We saved some surprises just for you, some stuff you didn't see in theaters.And it's only for you if you're a Daily Wire Plus member.
Plus, I've got exclusive bonus episodes where I break down how I managed to go undercover to troll the left with just a man bun as my only disguise.But here's the thing, you need to be a Daily Wire Plus member to watch it.
If you haven't signed up yet, now's the time.Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.Use code DEI for 35% off your annual membership and be one of the first to stream Am I Racist this Monday.
Don't miss the movie, the deleted scenes, my exclusive behind the scenes breakdowns of how it all came together to create the box office hit comedy and the number one documentary of the decade.Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
There's a series on YouTube produced by the channel Jubilee where one person sits in a circle surrounded by 20 or 30 people who disagree with them.And the people in the circle take turns debating the guy in the middle.
Charlie Kirk went viral a couple weeks ago when he took on 25 woke college students and debated them and did quite well. This week Ben Shapiro was the latest conservative commentator on the chopping block.
Clips of his debates with 25 Kamala Harris voters are going extremely viral all over social media.Which as a side note means it's only a matter of time before someone on our PR team tries to convince me to do this too.
And I'll just tell them ahead of time, the answer is no.I am not doing this.Don't even bother bringing it to my office.I know you're going to.You'll probably do it today.
I don't have the patience required to engage in that many conversations with that many idiots, one after another, in close succession.So I'm happy to let Ben and Charlie handle that shore on their own.And they've got the right temperament for it.
I don't.So anyway, needless to say, Ben wins every debate during this little tournament.But I think, I looked at the YouTube video of this. And it's got like 4 million views in less than a day, which is incredible.And it's like an hour long.
I mean, Ben sat there, and that's with, I'm sure they edited and clipped some stuff, I don't know.But sitting there for an hour, just one of these people, one after another with these morons, I cannot imagine, that's hell, it is hell.
Now there are two clips in particular that I wanna focus on today from this.And the first is a young woman who tries to challenge Ben on the topic of abortion.This clip is a little bit long, it's about two and a half minutes.
But I think it's worth watching the whole thing or most of it.Here it is.
Abortion would be the forcible termination of an unborn human life.
Yes, but why do you hold that definition?Would you not assume something like a C-section would be considered an abortion?
No, because the baby is born alive, so how would that be an abortion?
Why does the definition of abortion have to include the death of the fetus?
Because that's literally the definition of abortion.
It literally isn't, though.Where are you getting this definition from?
Where are you getting your definition from?
Let's go to like, what, like, do you like f***ing like Mayo Clinic?Like any, any f***ing, like, hospital you've ever gone to before?
A C-section ends with the birth of the child.
Right, but abortion, but abortion, but abortion generally, yeah, I understand.
I'm here, I'm talking to you.
I understand this, but like, yes, but like, no, well, yes, but like, no. But no, you could simply say that abortion is simply the ending of a pregnancy, right?So the ending of a pregnancy outside of the natural birth of a fetus.
So I don't see why you would say that it would have to end in the death of a fetus, which is why I'm pro-abortion all nine months, right?
Because say if a woman is not able to pass a fetus in the natural way, we could have these other abortion processes that would say like, okay, she needs some type of induction that doesn't include the actual natural expulsion of a fetus.
But it doesn't always end in the death of a fetus.So I don't see how you could say that Kamala Harris's stance is immoral
I just don't understand how you're removing the death of the fetus from the equation about abortion.That's literally the entire moral issue.You and I would not even be arguing if we were talking about C-sections or about natural birth.
But it seems like at its core, though, we disagree on what the inherent definition of abortion is.
Okay, then, you could leave away—I mean, we could very easily solve this.Let's just not talk about the word abortion.Let's talk about the forcible termination of a baby's life.
Okay, so then what do you value in the fetus, then?
Okay, so then you said it begins at conception?Yes.And why is that?
Because that is literally the biological definition of when an independent life begins.
Yes, but like why does it have moral value?
It has moral value because that's literally the biological definition of when a human life begins.
Right, but like why does that have moral value though?
Okay, why does any life have moral value?I would value sentience.But why?Based on what?
This is simply what we value, like you and I value.Is it okay to unplug a brain-dead patient, for example?
I mean, the question as to whether it's okay to unplug a brain-dead patient is actually quite a controversial one in sort of religious circles.But as far as why, I'm just wondering, if somebody's in a coma and you know they're going to wake up,
Do you have the right to unplug them?
Well, coma's not brain death, though.We know that there's future sentience there.Like, it would be like a matter of, like, a conjunct of, like, past-future.I'm sorry, past, present, or future sentience.But, like, a person in a coma has- I agree.
And guess what?Fetuses also have guaranteed future sentience.
Well, no, because you're only valuing one half of the conjunct.That's not- Right, so it would be past, present, or future.
Now you're changing the topic.I mean, we started with what's the value of the fetus.
Thank you so much.Thanks a lot.
You know, it's actually more challenging than you think to debate someone who is that fundamentally wrong about everything.I think people make the mistake when you watch something like that and you go, I could do that.That woman's a moron.
It's harder than you think, because the challenge is that, as you can see in the clip, Your opponent will jump from one irrelevant inane point to another rapid fire style.
And each point is so baseless and so preposterous and so disconnected from reality and so unrelated often to the topic at hand that it's hard to know where to begin when you engage with it.
I mean, she was wrong on every level about every single thing she said in that conversation. And just as you start engaging with one wrong thing, she's hopped off that lily pad and onto the next one.
So it's a bit like trying to wrestle, metaphorically, a giant slug.The slug is so ungainly and big and slimy that it's just difficult to pin down.You're probably not going to lose the match to the slug, but there's nothing to grip onto here.
That's the position that Ben was in during that two and a half minute exchange.He did a remarkably good job given those challenges.
But what you really see in that clip is the fundamental moral and scientific confusion that lies at the root of leftism.The woman is sure that she supports abortion, but she doesn't even know what abortion is.
or what human life is, or when human life has value, or why it has value.She has a position on abortion, but not on any of the individual points that should inform her position on abortion.
Logically speaking, if you have a position on something like abortion, then that should be built on top of a bunch of other positions that lie underneath it that lead you to supporting abortion.
But what you find with these people is that when you look deeper, all the points underneath the larger point, they have no clue.They don't even know, they have no idea.
This is a woman so helplessly confused that she has gone through life thinking that a c-section is the same thing as an abortion.This is a dangerous level of confusion and ignorance.But confusion and ignorance don't have to be dangerous.
If you're confused and ignorant and aware that you're confused and ignorant, then that could be the starting point on a journey towards greater knowledge and understanding.
The problem is that the leftists sitting around that circle are confused and ignorant, and at the same time, arrogantly self-assured.
These are people volunteering to debate Ben Shapiro, one of the best rhetoricians in the country, who's like, this is what he does.I mean, rapid fire debates with a bunch of people, that's like, this is, and you're volunteering for that?
despite having no grasp on any of the topics that are going to be discussed.It's just a lethal mixture of ignorance and arrogance.On the plus side, it does make for some funny viral videos.
On the negative side, it's completely destroying our country and civilization.So, you know, those two things, I don't know if they balance out or not.
And that brings us finally to this clip, which has all of the problems of the last one, but is somehow even worse.Watch.
Wow, okay, we're gonna take this chair.Look at that.Hey, Ben.Like a bro, my friend.All right.How's it going?Let's break open a beer or something.
So, first question, can men get pregnant?
Okay, awesome.Definitionally.Definitionally, okay.Do men experience SA?Sexual assault?Sure.Got it.What about the existence of trans men?
What about the existence?Do you mean women who believe that they are men?What are we talking about here?Women experiencing gender dysphoria?
So my other question is, do you benefit from white supremacy in any way, shape, or form?
I'm gonna need more specifics on what you mean by white supremacy.
Well, here, let me give it to you then.Sure, please.So I'm a transgender man.Okay.I've experienced SA.Okay.And abortion rights affect me directly. So if we're talking about the American dream that you live, why don't I have access to that?
Because there's no legislation, what in the history of America, that legislates a man's body, so why does mine have to be legislated?I've got a vagina.
I'm not interested in what your genitalia are.
Clearly you are.I mean, it's all over everything you make, buddy.I'm sorry.I hate to say it to you, but... I think you can read on my face that I radically am not.
I think you can read on my face that I radically am not.When we're talking about abortion... No, I know.
I mean, you can present it here, but in most of the content that you have, you attack my community constantly.
And you don't even realize guys like me exist, who actually share a lot of similarities to you and everything, because I'm a married man of 20 years.
I recognize that you exist.
I disagree with your claim that you're a male.
That goes on by the way for another three, four minutes. The M Night Shyamalan twist in that clip is that the man is actually a female.
Of course, it's not much of a twist because even before she reveals herself as a female, you could already tell she was interrupting constantly and bringing up a whole bunch of irrelevant personal details in an argument.So, that was a dead giveaway.
Also, the flipping the chair around, the exaggerated posture, all of it had the cartoonish quality of somebody playing a character And I really love flipping the chair around to sit down, because that's what you think a man would do.
When in reality, a man, when we see a chair, we just sit in it. I like having the back of the chair available so I can sit back.That's what men do.We don't see a chair as an opportunity to perform.
But then she gives up on that 20 seconds in and just flips the chair back around the real way and then sits down.But once again, you see the inherent challenge of debating a leftist.We watched that clip for a minute and a half, and by the end of it,
It still isn't clear what point she's trying to make or what position she's supposedly even defending.Like if I showed you that clip and I didn't tell you that they're supposed to be talking about abortion, you wouldn't even really know that.
She's bringing up all these things that have nothing to do.I'm a trans man.I'm married.I've been married for 20 years.I was sexually assaulted. Okay, what does any of that have to do with the topic?
In theory, she's supposed to be arguing against Ben's claim that Kamala's extreme pro-abortion stance is morally indefensible.
But she opens by informing Ben that she has a vagina, that she identifies as trans, that she's been sexually assaulted, and that she's been married for 20 years.Now, being sexually assaulted, that's tragic.It's a tragic point.We pity her for it.
We feel sympathy for her. None of those details, though, again, have anything to do with the topic.Anything.None of it amounts to an argument of any kind.
What she's trying to establish, apparently, is that she has a personal stake in the abortion issue.But her personal stake doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her more credible.In fact, if anything, if anything, it goes the other way.
When somebody is personally invested in an issue, it can create a bias, which can interfere with their ability to assess the arguments objectively.
What happens here, this is the other thing you see in that little clip, is that the left constantly tries to hold our objectivity against us, as if we are discredited by our lack of personal bias.
So they like to point out that pro-life men are not harmed by abortion, right?It's not our body.It's not our lives at stake.Don't like abortion?Don't get one.That's the refrain.We've heard it a million times.And they're right to a certain extent.
It is no skin off my nose personally if a woman gets an abortion.I am not personally harmed by it.I suffer no personal injury.And it doesn't directly impact my life in any tangible way.And yet, I'm still opposed to it.I gain nothing from opposing it.
I don't benefit from opposing it.I don't benefit if I agreed with it. I have no benefit.It does not benefit me.I have no personal stake in this.That's right.But that only makes me and other pro-life men more credible.
If anything, it increases our credibility.It means that we oppose abortion purely because we have assessed the arguments for and against and come to the conclusion that the arguments against abortion are better and more persuasive.
That, again, is called objectivity. It doesn't make you less credible, it makes you more credible.As we see in the clips, they, in principle, oppose any objective analysis of the facts.
In their world, whoever has a deeper emotional investment in the subject always wins.That's really why, in both these clips, you see them bring up irrelevant things and why she's going through all of her personal past history and trauma.
Because in her mind, if I can prove that I have a deeper emotional investment in this issue, I'm automatically right.I automatically win, just because it would hurt my feelings more if I don't win.
And the other good thing for them is they always have the deeper emotional investment in their minds, because their emotions are always deeper and more profound than anyone else's.
That's how you end up with people who are so fantastically wrong about everything and yet so sure of their rightness.Which is why I could never sit down and debate 25 of these people one at a time.
But I'm glad that guys like Ben are willing to do it.And that's why his 25 interlocutors are today cancelled.That'll do it for the show today.Thanks for watching.Thanks for listening.Talk to you on Monday.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.
Putting it 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 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.
You know, as someone who's been able to smell since a very young age, smelling is one of my specialties, smelling things.And I know what smells good.So in order to share this special gift with all of you, I've partnered with The Candle Club.
I made my own personal collection with my favorite scents.You can get my seasonal exclusive Autumn Bonfire for a limited time.It won't be here forever, so get yours now.Go to thecandleclub.com slash Matt to shop my collection today.
Sign in
