Ep. 1432 - This Is The Most Egregious Kamala Flip-Flop Yet
51:08 Share

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Kamala Harris has abruptly changed her position on every issue under the sun, but her flip-flop on the border wall is the most egregious yet. Also, a book claims that Trump made the crazy suggestion of bombing drug cartels in Mexico. Why exactly is that crazy? A child in Tennessee is expelled from school for making a gun shape with his fingers. And Kamala Harris claims that her story is inspirational for our daughters, that she's a role model for them to look up to. But is that true? We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.

Get 35% off new Daily Wire memberships with code FIGHT at dailywire.com slash subscribe to get uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free shows, real-time breaking news alerts, and more. But most importantly, you'll get the truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear. Not too long ago, being labeled a flip-flopper was a big deal in presidential politics. Whatever your policy positions might be, the worst possible sin was to be indecisive

about them. If you remember what happened to John Kerry back in 2004, you know what I'm talking about. A day before his first debate with George W. Bush, nobody was asking John Kerry about his position on the Iraq war or his views on taxes or anything like that. Instead, Kerry was being asked about his image as a flip-flopper.

And he was forced to admit in an interview with the New York Times that it was a major vulnerability. Kerry claimed that his positions had really been consistent, but at the time he also acknowledged that the Bush campaign had succeeded in portraying him as indecisive and untrustworthy, which in reality he actually was. That's why 60% of voters said that Kerry told people what they wanted to hear rather than what he really believed. And ultimately, whether you think Kerry's reputation for flip-flopping was deserved or not, it is a big part of the reason why he lost the election.

20 years later, it's now abundantly clear that the flip-flopper label doesn't really scare Democrats anymore. And the corporate press isn't concerned about it either. In the span of just a month, Kamala Harris's team has systematically reversed pretty much every major policy proposal she's ever supported in her career. And these changes are so significant and so completely unexplained that they would have immediately destroyed Kamala Harris's candidacy if she were running 20 years ago.

But this country has changed a lot in two decades, or at least the Kamala Harris campaign is betting that it has changed a lot, hoping that it has. So they are proceeding to revise her entire platform day by day.

For example, Harris's campaign now claims that she no longer wants to ban fracking, even though as recently as 2020, she said that she supported a total fracking ban as part of the Green New Deal. The campaign also says that Harris no longer supports an electric vehicle mandate, even though in 2019, Harris co-sponsored the Zero Emissions Vehicles Act, and that bill would have required that 100% of new vehicles be electric or hydrogen powered by 2040.

And if any manufacturer tried to make a gas-powered car after 2040, the EPA could shut them down. According to the text of the bill, quote, But yesterday, that all changed. Harris and her rapid response director,

sent out a so-called fact check email that began, quote, fact, Vice President Harris does not support an electric vehicle mandate. Instead, the email states that Harris supports groundbreaking subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles. So they're in the middle of this major policy reversal, one of many, and they're dressing it up as a fact check. They're implying that you're the one who's mistaken when really they're trying to pull a sleight of hand.

And they're fact checking by saying, no, Kamala Harris doesn't support that when that's not the claim. We know she doesn't support it now. The claim is that a few years ago she did, but their fact check doesn't mention that. And there are other reversals too on everything from abolishing private health insurance to closing immigrant detention centers to defunding the police and so on and so on. Harris's campaign has offered no explanation for these changes.

But everybody knows what the explanation is. She wants to win the election and she understands that California leftism isn't popular outside of California. She doesn't have principles. She only has internal polling. And apparently the internal polling on all these left-wing policies is not looking very good. Now to that end, the Kamala Harris campaign has just announced by far its most dramatic policy reversal yet. Contrary to everything Harris has said for the past five years,

Her campaign has just come out in support of Donald Trump's border wall. Yes, you heard that correctly. The Kamala campaign is making a very direct play for John Kerry's title as the most flagrant and notorious flip-flopper in the modern history of the Democrat Party. Out of nowhere, our border czar, Kamala Harris, is now all for, you know, building the wall. As Axios reported this week, quote,

Harris flip-flops on building the border wall. If she's elected president, Kamala Harris pledges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the wall along the southern border, a project that she once opposed and called un-American during the Trump administration. Specifically, Harris has announced her support for the recent bipartisan border security bill, quote-unquote, which requires that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to continue building the wall on the southern border.

On the Sunday shows the other day, there were a few signs that this reversal was coming. At one point, ABC anchor John Carl noticed that Kamala Harris's campaign was running ads that prominently featured Trump's border wall as part of an effort to show that Kamala Harris is supposedly tough on illegal immigration, which, by the way, illegal immigration is something that she previously said she wanted to decriminalize. Now she's tough on it. But let's watch that moment. Here it is.

But if you take a look at that ad, one thing that I found striking is if you look, and I think we have the images here, there are at least three points in that ad that show the border wall, Donald Trump's border wall. Is it now the position of the Democrats that they favor the border wall? Now, at first, that looked like some lazy editing mistake. After all, this is the same border wall that Kamala said in 2020 was a, quote, complete waste of taxpayer money.

and that it, quote, won't make us any safer. It's the same border wall that Kamala said in 2017 was a, quote, stupid use of money and that she, quote, would block any funding for it. It's the same wall that the Biden administration with Kamala Harris as VP sabotaged the minute they took office. They immediately killed all border wall construction when they took office. Watch.

It reveals a construction zone frozen in time. Steel border wall bollards are left in stacks and construction equipment sits on staging grounds.

Just weeks before President Biden was inaugurated, the Trump administration pushed ahead to build a four-mile stretch of new border wall into the Patagonia Mountains. This is the end of the road, about 15 miles east of Nogales, Arizona. This is as far as the border wall construction got. And what you see now is this carved-out path sitting next to the pristine, untouched landscape. So this trench, I mean, this is the footer.

where they hope to put these bollards. Eight to 10 foot deep trench. And they literally stopped in mid trench. So Biden Harris ran on killing the wall. They got elected and stopped the construction of the wall. And now Kamala wants to get back in and restart construction of the wall, apparently. Already it's pretty clear how the corporate press and the Harris campaign plan to spin this. They're probably gonna just suggest that, you know, taking down the wall was Joe Biden's call.

And that Kamala Harris had nothing to do with it. Last night, Politico laid the groundwork for that kind of messaging. They ran this headline, quote, J.D. Vance tries to tether Harris to Biden during Michigan rally. Yes, J.D. Vance dared to draw a connection between the presidents and his vice president. Can you imagine? J.D. Vance dared to draw a connection between Kamala Harris and the administration that she was a part of.

Now, one of the many problems with this approach is that Kamala Harris is on tape again and again disparaging the border wall, calling it, among other things, Trump's quote, medieval vanity project. She laughed repeatedly at the idea that a wall could possibly deter illegal aliens from entering the country. Watch. And folks, on the subject of transnational gangs, let's be perfectly clear.

The president's medieval vanity project is not going to stop them. This issue is about a vanity project for this president. Right.

And it is a problem of his own making. Right. And listen, when I travel this country, folks have plenty enough problems that they need their president to focus on instead of a wall that, by the way, because I was a prosecutor for many years, including the attorney general of California. I specialize on transnational criminal organizations. That's that wall.

Hilarious. Notice how Kamala Harris tries to sell the bit at the end about how she was a prosecutor and she's an expert in transnational criminal gangs and how she knows that wall ain't going to stop them.

It's supposed to come off as a natural, unrehearsed, jovial moment. We're supposed to believe that Kamala Harris is speaking in a folksy way about her experience as a prosecutor because she's being genuine and unscripted. But this was not an unscripted moment. She did the exact same routine several times before on tape. Here's one example. What's the deal with the wall? It's the president's vanity project.

You know, I mean, listen, if we deconstruct, get the pun, deconstruct wall. If we deconstruct the issue, you know, let's be clear. And again, let's just point to the facts and the evidence and the data. And the fact is that we are not facing a crisis. The crisis we're facing is a crisis of leadership. That's the crisis.

That's the crisis. And a wall won't cure that. And a wall won't cure that. Plus, the bottom line is this, and I have focused on transnational criminal organizations. Remember, I'm a prosecutor. I have focused on that. That wall ain't gonna stop them. Like, it's just... That wall ain't gonna stop them. It's all fake and scripted. Just everything about her.

And, you know, of course, the entire time the argument was always just incoherent, incoherently ridiculous arguments.

Walls are used to stop people successfully all the time, everywhere. We use walls in prisons. How do you think we keep people in prisons? We use walls and bars and physical structures to block them from going to places we don't want them to go or from leaving places we want them to stay in. Your home is made out of walls to stop other people from getting inside of it.

There's a wall around the freaking White House. And Kamala Harris understands only the words that she's rehearsed and nothing more. If that moderator had asked Kamala Harris how exactly transnational gangs bypass walls, she probably would have had no idea what to say. She'd just freeze and stare straight ahead for hours. Without her canned talking points, the Democrats' presidential nominee is completely unable to articulate a single thought, even one that's supposedly based on her own personal experience. And that's probably why the Kamala Harris campaign

has just announced that Kamala is going to have Tim Walz sitting next to her during her first unscripted interview as the Democrats presidential nominee. That interview will take place on Thursday with a friendly news outlet, CNN, and it'll be taped. So any especially embarrassing moments can be edited out of the final broadcast. But apparently a taped interview with CNN isn't easy enough for Kamala Harris. So she needs to have Tim Walz by her side throughout the whole thing. She needs to have a man there to hold her hand.

After well over a month of preparation, she still cannot do it alone. Neither can Tim Walz, apparently. According to Political Quote, one of the issues that Harris' world is currently working to address is how to deploy running mate Tim Walz in the media. The danger in sending him out to do big solo interviews is that he might not have a full command of where Harris is on every issue. As someone pointed out to us last night, Harris talks about the opportunity economy, but if Walz were asked to define it, would he know how?

In other words, neither Kamala Harris nor Tim Walz can sit for an interview alone without any assistance. Kamala's problem is that she can't articulate a coherent thought. Meanwhile, Tim Walz has no idea what Kamala Harris's policies are, which you can hardly blame him because she doesn't know what her policies are.

So the solution they've landed on is to send them both out at once to a friendly media outlet that hopefully won't ask about the whole border wall flip-flop. Because if CNN does ask about that, there's also plenty of tape of Tim Walls mocking the idea of a border wall also. Watch.

And I think seeing a plan that's out there, talking about it with folks, knowing that he's not going to do anything. He talks about this wall. I always say, let me know how high it is. If it's 25 feet, then I'll invest in the 30 foot ladder factory. That's not how you stop this.

So if they want to conduct anything approaching an impartial interview on Thursday, CNN has an obligation to play all of the clips that we've just played. Now they have an obligation to ask Kamala Harris and Tim Walz what changed. Why exactly do they now support spending tens of millions of dollars on a wall that they once called a useless vanity project? It'd be interesting to hear Kamala Harris explain all of that in her own words. But of course,

That won't happen. The most we'll get is another canned scripted soundbite from Kamala that totally contradicts her old canned scripted soundbites about the wall. She might tell us all about how, as a prosecutor, she learned that walls do indeed work. They stop transnational criminal gangs all the time. That's why they set up walls at the DNC. It's why they set up walls around the Capitol for Joe Biden's inauguration. It's why there are walls around Joe Biden's many homes.

Whatever soundbite they come up with, Kamala Harris will deliver it with a laugh and some faux sincerity. And in all likelihood, the CNN anchor will nod along and pretend to be convinced by it. But everybody watching at home, the ones who are open-minded and honest, will realize that Kamala isn't really speaking to them. Her handlers are. And as Kamala's handlers adopt Donald Trump's platform piece by piece, while rejecting everything Kamala Harris herself once claimed to believe,

Their candidate is starting to look about as trustworthy as John Kerry. And with just over two months to go until the election, more than any poll or focus group, that's about as bullish a sign as the Trump campaign can possibly hope for. Now let's get to our five headlines. ♪♪

Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns? The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters. Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars. In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.

With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes. Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage. Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement. Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted. If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns, or if you're missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers

We'll update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement. Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt. The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun. Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues. For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit the website at tnusa.com slash Walsh. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.

Get the help you need with Tax Network USA. Now, one of the interesting things during the Trump administration was the constant stream of unsourced anonymous stories alleging all of these crazy schemes and suggestions that Trump made during various meetings and briefings. And the funny thing about the crazy schemes and crazy suggestions is that if the story, you know, if the stories are even true, and basically,

When you're getting unsourced anonymous stories about Donald Trump, we know that it's a giant grain of salt you have to take them with. But in most cases, these crazy schemes and suggestions, if they're true, actually aren't that crazy at all. So here's another great example of this, courtesy of a new book from General H.R. McMaster, a man who we have no reason to believe, but let's just believe him now for the sake of argument. And here's the story from CNN.

Until now, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster has held his fire about his stint in the Trump White House. McMaster served with distinction in key American conflicts of the past decades, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan. But as McMaster recounts in his new book, At War With Ourselves, My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House, in some ways his most challenging tour as a soldier was his last one, serving as the national security advisor to a notoriously mercurial president. Now, before we get to the thing here,

We should say that this is the way it always goes, that we're told, yeah, up until this point, this person who worked with Trump has stayed out of the spotlight and hasn't said anything and hasn't revealed all the terrible things going on that went on behind the scenes. But now they're coming forward. And they're always coming forward when they have a new book. It's interesting how that works. So in other words, what we're being told is that, yeah, this person didn't want to say anything, didn't want to reveal this stuff until they were able to profit directly off of it.

Because you would think that if things really happened in the Trump White House that General McMaster witnessed and maybe was a part of, and he's very troubled by it, and it's a terrible thing, and he wants to let America know about it, you could have come out at any point prior to this. You could have come out while you were in the White House or at any point thereafter and just told us about it. But no, you don't want to tell us about it until it's in a book that you can make money off of.

Which is why I really immediately discount any shocking revelations that are made in a book of this kind, right? If it's like a history book or something and a historian has a new take on it, that's one thing. But this kind of like autobiographical expose type of thing, I just count it. Because if it's really that important for you, to you, that everyone know about this, you could have told us.

But the fact that you saved it for your book tour so you could sell books on it just makes you, it takes any credibility away from you that you may have otherwise had. But what terrible things does he even reveal? Let's see. In his blistering, insightful account of his time in the Trump White House, McMaster describes meetings in the Oval Office as exercises in competitive sycophancy,

During which Trump's advisors would flatter the president by saying stuff like, your instincts are always right, or no one has ever been treated so badly by the press. Meanwhile, Trump would say outlandish things like, why don't we just bomb the drugs in Mexico? Or why don't we take out the whole North Korean army during one of their parades? So that's the crazy idea. One is to take out the whole North Korean army during a parade.

And the other is to bomb the drugs, and presumably that means bombing the drug cartels that have all the drugs, and to do it in Mexico. Now again, who knows if he actually said this? Who knows if he actually asked this question? But if he did, well, why don't we? Can we get an answer to the question? I read this whole—I'm not going to buy McMaster's book to read it, but I read the whole article. There's no indication that he answers the question,

Why don't we bomb the cartels? Seriously, why don't we? That's a great, I'd love for someone to answer that. Hillary Clinton tweeted about this, about this revelation from the book. She remarked on how irresponsible and crazy Trump is or whatever. Well, Hillary Clinton loves bombing people. It's her favorite thing to do is to drop bombs. Why not them? Why not drop a bomb on the drug cartels?

Out of all the bombing that we do all the time and have done for the last 30 years, why don't we bomb the foreign criminal organizations that are poisoning and killing thousands of Americans a year? They're actually killing thousands of American citizens every single year. The drug cartels have killed more Americans by far than every Arab terrorist organization combined times like a thousand, I don't know.

So, you know, I could sooner justify that military operation than I could justify anything we're doing overseas or anything we have done overseas for the last 30 years. Because this would be a military operation expressly and directly designed to defend American lives. It would not be done for the sake of any foreign country. It's not done for our allies, quote unquote, but for us, for our people, for our country.

Basically, we're going to go and kill the bad guys. And why are we killing the bad guys? Well, because they're killing Americans. And so we're going to kill them. I don't know. That sounds like a great idea. I mean, I am as reflexively non-interventionist as they come. But I would wholly support, I would support a full scale military invasion of Mexico to destroy all the cartels. We could do it. What are they going to do about it? You know, it's not like we haven't given them time to figure out this problem. Thousands of Americans are dying every single year.

I think we're more than justified to say, you know what, we've had enough of this. We're going to go anywhere that's going to kill these people. We're going to wipe them from the face of the earth and that's going to be it. But we don't even need to do a full scale. I mean, you could use drones. You could do the whole job with drones. Has there ever been a drone strike, a single drone strike on a single cartel boss or drug cartel ever? Why not?

So this idea only sounds crazy because we're all so fundamentally brainwashed by decades of military adventurism that has nothing to do with protecting American lives. And it's at the point now where the idea of going out and killing bad guys who are actually hurting Americans is like shocking. We hear that and we say, what? Go to war to fight?

protect actual American citizens? What kind of sorcery is this? So to me, this is where Trump is at his best. It's really when electing somebody like Trump pays off. Because you need a guy who's completely outside of the establishment programming. Somebody who will look at the situation and say,

kind of say the same thing that maybe you or I would say in that situation. Coming up with the ideas that a normal person who's outside of the establishment just plopped into one of these meetings. That's one of the great things about reading these, whether they're fanciful accounts or not. I do enjoy actually reading these accounts. I'll never buy the books, but I enjoy reading it because it kind of makes me think like, well, if you just drop me into the middle of an Oval Office meeting, that's probably the kind of thing I would say. It's the kind of thing that just any normal person would say.

And that's a good thing. It's a good thing to have a normal person there who will just say, hey, why don't we, okay, if you're worried about North Korea, they get their whole military together for a military parade. Why don't we just bomb them then and kill all of them? They won't have a military left. What are they going to do then? Now, I'm less of a fan of that idea than the other one, only because North Korea really is not a threat to our people. But even so, you know, it's not a bad idea. And it's not a crazy idea, at least.

And if we're supposed to believe that a country like North Korea is a threat to us, then yeah, why not? I mean, again, not a crazy idea. It's certainly the kind of thing, like, why not throw it out there? But the drug cartel idea in particular, it's not only not crazy, but it seems to me to be plainly a really rational, reasonable thing to do.

My only problem with these ideas is that they're just ideas. I'd like to see Trump actually push forward and enact some of these ideas. I'd like to see him not just suggest one of these quote-unquote crazy things, but then actually go do it. So that would be my hope for any future administration. All right.

Reason has this story. A Tennessee 10-year-old was expelled from school for a full year after he pointed his finger in the shape of a gun and made mock machine gun noises, according to a pro-publica investigation. The boy was expelled as part of a zero-tolerance law in Tennessee that mandates any student who makes a threat of mass violence be expelled for at least one year.

While the law originally signed in 2023 following a shooting by a former student at a private school in Nashville, was recently amended to direct schools to expel students only for valid threats, the provisions of the law are still vague and schools have considerable enforcement leeway.

In the process, expulsions for threats have considerably increased in many school districts. ProPublica reported that during the 2023-24 school year, Metro Nashville Public Schools expelled 42 students for making any threats, including 16 threats of mass violence. The prior year, only 22 students were expelled, despite the district investigating a similar number of alleged threats.

Another school district reported expelling 33 students for making threats in the 2023-24 school year, including a whopping 27 for mass violence threats. The year before, the district had more alleged incidents, but only six students were expelled for making threats. So what was that? One district had 33 kids expelled in one school year for making threats. And then the question really is, how many of those are this kind of threat victims?

something along the lines of making a gun shape with your fingers. And you have to think that 33 expulsions, probably a lot of them were along those lines. I mean, did you really have 33 kids in one year in one district making credible, real threats of shooting up the school? 33 of them? It's kind of hard to believe.

But this is what zero tolerance policies are all about. They are, they're really, you know, they call them zero tolerance policies. They're really zero prudence policies. They're zero, zero judgment policies, zero reasonable judgment policies. The whole point is to absolve the schools of any responsibility to assess an individual situation and make a reasonable judgment call about it. That's the point of zero tolerance policies is to make it so the schools don't have to do that. But that's exactly what they should be doing.

Which is why you shouldn't need any kind of new policy or law to deal with students threatening mass violence at school. Why was there a new law passed about that a year ago? Why do we need a new policy on that? It's completely ridiculous. That has very much—making actual physical violent threats has been very much against the rules in every school in the country since forever.

And it's against the law everywhere in the country since forever. So there is no reason at all for a new policy. If a student is actually threatening to shoot up the school, yeah, you kick them out. That's easy. You call the police and you kick them out of school. The only thing that may be difficult in some cases is determining whether the threat was actually made. If it's not on video, if it wasn't posted to social media, whatever.

If no adult witnessed it, then you have to worry about the possibility that some other kid is trying to get the kid in trouble who allegedly made the threat. So those are the kinds of things you have to navigate. But to the extent that you can verify whether these threats were made, the question of what to do about them is pretty simple. No new policy needed. If a kid actually made a violent threat and intended it as a threat, call the police and kick him out of school. Pretty simple.

It is extremely easy to exercise discernment and figure out how to distinguish between a kid joking around and making a gun shape with his fingers and a kid actually threatening to become a school shooter. These two things are really not similar. They're very easy to distinguish. You just have to exercise the most basic judgment. But these policies are put in place, again, to absolve the schools of any responsibility to make those judgment calls, to use judgment.

These policies are made so that the schools can basically act like they're run by AI, like they're run by computers. You have to just input the programming and let the computer apply it indiscriminately, and there's no way to make it more discerning than that. But this zero tolerance policy stuff has been around for a long time, and it's always been stupid, worse than stupid. I remember we had this when I was in school. This is where the whole idea came from that

You know, when I was in school, we heard all the time that if there's a fight in school, that there's zero tolerance. And so both kids will get suspended. And it doesn't matter. Both kids are equally punished for it. Doesn't matter who started it. Zero tolerance. Doesn't matter the circumstances. Doesn't matter the reason. Doesn't matter who started it. Both kids are punished. Both kids are suspended. Maybe both kids are expelled. And that never made sense.

Because even at the time, we would always ask, like, wait a second, what do you mean it doesn't matter? Shouldn't it definitely matter, right? If Johnny runs up and punches Jimmy in the face and Jimmy defends himself, isn't Jimmy much less at fault? And should that really factor into the punishment? It makes no sense, but it's zero tolerance. And it allows the schools to come in and say, we're not going to spend any time trying to investigate this. We're not going to spend any time being human beings and assessing this situation, right?

based on the context of this particular situation. We have our policy and this is what it says, and it doesn't matter if it's fair or not. So that's zero tolerance policies for you. Let's see, a couple other things. I wanted to mention this from Daily Wire. Disney is hiring a diversity, equity, and inclusion director who could earn up to four times the national average income, pushing a far-left agenda.

A job posting from the Walt Disney Company for a DEI director role advertises a minimum salary of $197,000 a year, a maximum salary of a little over $241,000. The average American salary in 2024 is $59,428 annually.

The job description reads: "We're seeking a director of strategic external engagement, Enterprise DEI, to lead our efforts in building strategic relationships with external stakeholders, driving community engagement, and generating valuable insights to support our diversity, equity, and inclusion objectives. The new director will be tasked with advancing the company's left-wing program and be required to lead initiatives focused on specific dimensions of diversity and amplify DEI content and communicate progress."

So this is still happening at Disney. And that's one takeaway here is that any hope that Disney will unwoke itself and get away from wokeness, any hope I think is greatly misplaced because this is what Disney is to its core at this point. It's what much of corporate America is. And in some cases, some of these companies might get a little embarrassed about some of the DEI stuff because it's,

I think now, roundly recognized by most Americans as a waste of time at best, although it's much worse than a waste of time. So they might get a little embarrassed about it. They don't put it front and center. I think you're going to find some of these companies start rebranding. I'm actually surprised that they still use the letters DEI at all, that they haven't already rebranded it. Still keep it in place, but just call it something else. Even move the letters around.

Maybe call it IDE, inclusion, diversity, and equity. So I'm surprised they haven't done that yet. They will do it eventually. But we are far from the point where Disney will be anything but a radically left company. Because again, this is down to the core of who they are, their corporate identity. Now, since they are hiring a DEI company,

you know, leader in the company, I do have to say, and I'm just throwing this out there, that I am, I don't know if you heard this, but I am officially DEI certified. And I would happily take on this role. This is something that I would do. I would tackle this important task. And I'm well equipped. I have the skills necessary to, what was it, amplify DEI content and communicate progress. I don't know what that means. I suspect it means nothing.

But I'm ready to do it. Whatever it is, I'm ready to do it. I can amplify content all day long. Amplifying content is easy. Give me the content, I'll amplify it. And as far as communicating progress goes, well, you know, that's easy to do. I don't know how, I guess communicating progress is just letting people know, hey, we are progressing, folks. There, I just did it. I communicated progress. And the great thing is that, that,

Literally anyone can do these jobs because this is not a real thing like we talked about yesterday Robin DiAngelo caught up in a plagiarism scandal and there's so much plagiarism that goes on with these people because It's not a real subject. It's not a real thing There's only one central ideas. There's only one idea that they have which is that white people are bad and racist and that's really it That's all there is there and being a DEI expert

All that means is that you have accepted that doctrine, and if you accept it, or at least pretend to accept it, then you too can be a DEI expert and maybe get a mid-six-figure job at a place like Disney. All right, Rolling Stone has a very important and lengthy, quite lengthy article about the accounts that John Cena follows on Twitter.

Reading now. John Cena has a rosy reputation, beloved 16-time champion pro wrestler, blockbuster movie star, Guinness World Record holder for the most wishes granted through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. In the eyes of the public, he's a wholesome all-American entertainer. So why is he following prominent white supremacist anti-Semite and hate accounts on ex-formerly Twitter?

It's probably not on purpose. If, as seemed more than probable, these accounts were indiscriminately followed by Sina's team without knowledge of the content they share, it underscores a crucial brand safety problem with X since Musk acquired the platform in 2022. But given Sina's persona and the rise above hate hashtag in his bio, it's strange to see that he follows someone like Andrew Torba, the anti-Semitic CEO of Gab.

Or Steve Saylor, a notorious eugenicist who writes for the anti-immigration hate website VDare. Or Erin Elizabeth, a health influencer who claims that more people have died from vaccines than were killed in the Holocaust. Other figures on Sina's following roster include Keith Woods, an Irish YouTuber with ties to white nationalists, Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes. Jory Micah, an influencer who shares anti-Semitic memes and conspiracy theories under the guise of pro-Gaza activism.

H. Pearl Davis, an anti-feminist influencer who was platformed by Nick Fuentes, and on and on and on. And then they keep listing other people that John Cena follows. I have to say, I read this article. Like I said, it goes on and on. It's a long, long article all about the people that John Cena follows on Twitter. And I read it, and I am extremely disappointed in the article. It's actually shameful because...

John Cena follows me also. And they didn't hit him for that. You know, I don't usually do this thing where I read articles and look for my name to be mentioned. I did it in this case because I thought, OK, like I'm certainly I'm going to get a mention here. I have a hate account, don't I? Rolling Stone would say. I don't know what hate account means, but I know in their world. Well, I know what it means. A hate account in their world is it's the accounts that they hate. Those are the hate accounts. They hate my account and he follows me.

So why did John Cena get slandered for that too? There are many Rolling Stone articles where they label me a hateful extremist and so on. So how did I make the list? I don't know. Are they planning a whole second article about how he follows me and how bad that is? Am I getting my own separate hit piece with this? I'd hope so. That's the only answer I would accept at this point because otherwise I've been shamefully excluded from this.

Now, I should mention, by the way, that John Cena actually follows like 800,000 accounts on the site, which is an insane amount. I don't know why he follows that much. But what that means is that he or more likely his social media team, for whatever reason, is just indiscriminately following every account they come across. So unfortunately, the fact that he's following me doesn't actually mean anything. I cannot conclude as much as I'd like to. I cannot conclude that John Cena is a member of the Sweet Baby Gang. He might be.

You know, he might be, but probably not. Because when you follow 800,000 people, it's, you know, a lot of people get caught up in that web. And that's all the more reason why this story from Rolling Stone is just absolutely ridiculous. I mean, even if he had intentionally followed all of the accounts that are on this list that are mentioned in the article, it would still be an insane thing to make a news article about.

But considering that he's just following everyone on the site, apparently, it's even more absurd. In fact, the guy who wrote the article admits that Cena follows him too because he just follows everybody. But we call it ridiculous. It is. We can say that it's laughable. It's that too. But there is a sinister intention under all of that. And that is for the left, the media, Rolling Stone,

They want to make it clear that, hey, here's a list of people that you cannot associate with under any circumstance. We want these people to be totally ostracized, completely from society. And so that even if you're a major celebrity following 800,000 accounts on a social media platform, a celebrity who, by the way, probably never even uses the app ever himself, but even then,

Now, if somehow some of these accounts we have singled out as inappropriate and these are people that should be shunned, blacklisted, if they somehow get caught up in that net, then we're going to put out a hit piece on you for that. So that's basically the idea here.

For a very limited time, get 35% off new Daily Wire plus annual memberships with code FIGHT when you go to dailywire.com slash subscribe. Every single day at the Daily Wire, we're fighting the left and building the future. We've taken on huge battles like when we sued the Biden administration over mandatory COVID vaccines and won. We went after the global media cartel GARM that was censoring conservative voices and guess what? We dismantled it.

Now we're disrupting Hollywood with our debut nationwide theatrical release, "Am I a Racist?" in theaters everywhere September 13th. Watch me infiltrate the weird world of DEI and give you a firsthand look at the insanity from the inside. And I should mention, theaters are selling out fast, so get your tickets now. Here's the truth, we can only do all of this because of the support from our members. When we fight, we win, but we need you in the battle with us. Join Daily Wire Plus today, stand with us in this fight, and get 35% off your new annual membership

with Code Fight. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Now I have canceled Kamala Harris enough during this segment. There's no reason to do it again. The point has been made. We all get it. She's terrible. There would be absolutely no reason to dedicate another daily cancellation to this point.

And yet I'm going to do it anyway, because as you all know, the one single deciding question I ask myself when I'm prepping this segment every day is just what happens to be annoying me the most at this very moment. And at this very moment, at least the moment when I decided on the content for the segment, it's this tweet from Kamala Harris. She posted this on Monday. It's not very notable. It is indeed pretty standard stuff coming from her. But even so, I find it irritating. So here's the tweet.

Above a picture of herself at the podium at the DNC, she has this caption. I want every little girl across our country to know this. You can do anything, even if it's never been done before. Now, I want to review very briefly all of the problems with this message. Really, there are two big problems. First of all, this has been done before. Kamala, you are not the first woman to stand at that podium as the Democrat nominee for president. This tweet is Hillary Clinton erasure, and I won't stand for it.

She won't stand for it either. And I wouldn't recommend getting on her bad side. We all know how that worked out for Epstein, allegedly. Second, your story, Kamala, is not inspirational. Okay? This is not exactly an inspirational movie. This isn't exactly Rudy. At least not any version of Rudy that I would want to watch. You're in the position that you're in after getting your start in politics by sleeping with a married man three decades older than you. Some people climbed the ladder to success. So did you. But your ladder was named Willie Brown.

And then after an unremarkable tenure in the Senate where you achieved nothing of note, you were selected as Joe Biden's vice president because he needed a black woman. And you're a woman and about as black as he could get at that point. So you got the nod. You went on to have, by all accounts, one of the most disastrously embarrassing terms as vice president that we've ever seen. And finally, you ended up the presidential nominee despite receiving zero votes. Indeed, the last time primary voters had the chance to vote for you, they roundly rejected you.

Now you are the nominee, a position that you wrestled away from an old, senile man who didn't have the awareness or wherewithal to defend himself. And you've been the nominee, in effect, for a month. During that time, you've hid from the press, refused to answer any questions, and been so afraid of scrutiny that you wouldn't even sit down for an interview with journalists who actively support you and are sure to spend the entire interview kissing your ass. Even that prospect terrifies you. You're so terrified by it that it was just announced that you're going to do your first interview, finally, but you're doing it with Tim Walz.

So you can't even sit down for a Puffbeast softball interview without a man there to hold your hand and guide you through it. You have all of the girl power credentials of Snow White poisoned by the apple and lying unconscious waiting for Prince Charming to bring you back to life. You have the political career of a damsel in distress that is in all the worst kinds of ways and none of the charming romantic fairy tale kinds of ways. You have accomplished nothing.

Yes, you sit on a lofty perch. Yes, you have advanced high up in the ranks. But you didn't accomplish that. It was given to you. And no, I don't reflexively say that about everyone I disagree with or even despise. I'm not undermining your achievement because you're a woman or whatever. Oprah is a woman.

And she's black. She's also, you know, a radical leftist, probably a pretty bad person in general, but I'll readily admit that she has achieved remarkable things in her life. She started from scratch, built a billion-dollar empire. That's impressive. I wish she used it for good instead of using it to make the world a measurably worse place all the time, but I can't deny the achievement. Your achievements I can deny because they don't exist.

So you could keep your message to little girls to yourself. You never had any children of your own to impart your message to. So stop trying to talk to our children. Yours is not a story that any competent parent will present to their daughters as a source of inspiration. Now, my own daughters have heard your name and they have asked me about you. And I told them that Kamala Harris is the name of an awful woman who lies and cheats and steals and cares about nothing except her own power, which she lacks the skill or strength to gain on her own.

I told my daughters to be the opposite of you, to do exactly everything you wouldn't do and nothing that you would. So in that sense, you are an inspiration. You are a great example, a negative example, but a great one. And one that I can use for my daughters and my sons. Because I can point to you and say, look kids, you see, this is why Jesus says that it profits nothing to gain the whole world and lose your soul in the process. This is what he means. This is what it looks like to have everything in the world but your own soul. It looks like Kamala Harris.

So thank you for that, Kamala. And also, you are today, once again, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed. Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn. I'm on this journey. I'm going to sort this out. I need to go deeper undercover.

Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certifications. What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. This is more for you than this for you. Is America inherently racist? The word inherent is challenging there. I'm going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. America is racist to its bones. So inherently. Yeah. This country is a piece of shit.

- White. - Folks. - White. - Trash. - White supremacy. - White woman. - White boy. - Is there a Black person around? - What happened? - There's a Black person right here. Does he not exist? - Hi, Robin. - Hi. - What's your name? - I'm Matt. - I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. - Never be too careful. - They gonna say you racist! - Buy your tickets now in theaters September 13th, rated PG-13.