Ep. 1433 - When Wildfires Strike, Canada Blames Racism Instead of Taking Action
48:31 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, governments across the Western world are putting all kinds of policies in place to supposedly fight climate change and stop carbon emissions. But the biggest climate crusader, Canada, is now emitting more carbon than ever. How did that happen? We'll discuss also the FBI claims that the motive of Trump's would-be assassin is still somehow unclear. Kamala Harris allegedly commits her own version of stolen valor. And Kamala brags about one of her greatest achievements, which is to make lynching illegal, even though it already was. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

Get 35% off new Daily Wire Plus memberships with code FIGHT at dailywire.com slash subscribe. You'll get uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free shows, real-time breaking news alerts, and more. But most importantly, you get the truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear.

One of the most basic assumptions about climate change that you're told to accept is that if you give the government enough power and make enough personal sacrifices, you can help change the weather. You can make natural disasters less likely. You can save beaches and endangered species, even entire countries, the entire world you can save. And all you need to do is pay more taxes to fund more government bureaucracy and give up your car and your gas stove and

airline travel and plastic straws and maybe your entire livelihood, and then everything will be fine.

Now, there's no other country on Earth that's internalized this way of thinking more than our neighbor to the north, Canada. They've declared a national climate change emergency. They have a constantly increasing national tax on carbon, which raises the cost of living for pretty much every household in the country. They've banned plastic straws. They've shut down oil and gas permits off their Pacific coast. If you're an insomniac and you pull up a video of a debate in the Canadian parliament to help you sleep, there's a good chance that they'll be debating climate change in some way or another.

So, how's all that working out for Canada exactly?

What have all of these taxes and regulations accomplished, aside from hamstringing Canada's economy for the past decade? Surely we can assume that, at the very least, Canada's carbon emissions are much lower as a result of all of this government bureaucracy. After all, Canada's not even a top 20 country by population. Their GDP barely ranks in the top 10. Shouldn't be hard for them to rank relatively low on the list of global carbon emitters, especially since they've been trying so hard and punishing their citizens so much. But...

As it turns out, Canada is currently one of the biggest carbon emitters on the planet. They're setting new records in the wrong direction. They're adding more of that dreaded carbon into the atmosphere than countries three times their size. And it's all because of a series of wildfires last year that the Canadian government clearly could not control. Watch. New research has found last year's wildfire season in Canada released more carbon emissions than all but three nations on Earth.

The study published in the journal Nature says Canadian wildfires put out 647 megatons of carbon in 2023. That's higher than the total amount of emissions released by seven of the world's ten largest emitters in 2022, including Russia, Japan and Germany. Only China, the U.S. and India released more. The study says although Canadian forests do pull carbon out of the atmosphere, increasing fire activity could reduce their effectiveness.

Now, all told, the wildfires in 2023 contributed more than four times as much carbon into the atmosphere as everything else that Canada did last year combined. So the plastic straw bans and the taxes and industry crushing regulations were completely undone four times over by these wildfires. Now, if you check in with the experts, of course, they'll tell you that the wildfires were only so severe because of climate change.

supposedly the one degree rise and reverted rather reported global average temperature from 2022 to 2023 could be the reason that the wildfires burned more of Canada than any other wildfire season in recorded history. And therefore, we need to redouble our efforts to ban fossil fuels and so on. That's the line they're going with.

As MIT Technology Review put it, quote, fires are part of natural, healthy ecosystems and burn on their own don't necessarily represent a disaster for climate change.

After a typical fire season, a forest begins to regrow, capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it does so. This continues a cycle in which carbon moves around the planet. While climate change doesn't directly spark any one fire, researchers have traced hot, dry conditions that worsen fires to the effects of human-caused climate change. The extreme fire conditions in eastern Canada were over twice as likely because of climate change. The MIT Technology Review concludes with this,

It was already clear that we need to stop emissions from power plants, vehicles, and a huge range of other clearly human activities to address climate change. Last year's wildfires should increase the urgency of that action. Now, what's striking about explanations like this is that they conveniently absolve the government of all responsibility for managing the forests, which is the single most direct way to prevent wildfires from spreading out of control like they did last year. And even the Canadian government admits that.

I went on the website of Canada's Natural Resources Department and found that in addition to blaming fossil fuels,

They acknowledged that they could do more to prevent wildfires from spreading. Quote, "As wildfire risks will continue to intensify as the climate warms, Canada needs to adapt fire management and mitigation strategies. There are different ways to manage wildfire risk, including controlled burns, revised forestry guidelines, and procedures to manage fuel around communities and infrastructure. It's a balance of these techniques that can help deal with future challenges." Now, one scientist with the Canadian Forest Service put it this way, quote,

"A change in climate means a proactive approach must be taken. Studies like this can offer important lessons to be better prepared for the next time a devastating event like this occurs." Now, they don't mention that

You know, preventing arson is another way to stop these fires, even though that's true as well. While the majority of these fires were apparently caused by lightning or some other natural events, there was at least one guy who pleaded guilty to arson for setting more than a dozen separate fires in Canada last year. But even if you set that aside, there's a glaringly obvious solution here, which Canada's government acknowledges.

And that solution is for the Canadian government to do a better job preventing and containing wildfires by improving their management capabilities. And that brings me to the broader lesson from this disaster in Canada, which is that the government in general should focus on doing basic things competently. They shouldn't set out to save the planet with complicated carbon cap schemes and climate emergencies, which is what Canada is doing.

preventing and containing forest fires is a very tangible, straightforward, important responsibility for the government. And when you get the basics right, then very often you don't need the more convoluted schemes at all. Not that a convoluted scheme to control the weather makes any sense in the first place anyway, because

We actually have very little control over our environment. That's the unspeakable, very terrifying truth that the climate alarmists don't want to contend with or deal with, that we have very little control over nature. It just is going to do what it's going to do most of the time. We don't have the capacity to fight climate change in the way that they're suggesting. All of the climate change activism in the world can't change the fact that forests go up in flames all over the world every year, as the MIT Technology Review admitted.

And volcanoes erupt too, like the one I talked about last year that drove temperature changes all over the world. You may remember that. The eruption sent 40 trillion gallons of seawater into the stratosphere. Researchers called it an unprecedented water vapor injection that trapped a lot of heat, and that may have contributed significantly to global warming. Well, nobody was responsible for that eruption. It was a natural event. And sometimes those happen. And we have to accept that they happen and that there's nothing we can do to prevent it.

But there are no indications that the Canadian government is going to accept that they can't control the weather or that they're seriously going to revise their forest management or take any responsibility whatsoever. Instead, predictably, they're turning the wildfires into yet another opportunity to harp on racial grievances and divide their country even more. True North reports this week, quote,

The Public Health Agency of Canada wants to review the way wildfire evacuations are conducted because they supposedly disproportionately impact minorities. Part of this impact is that evacuating people from First Nations communities traumatizes Indigenous people due to colonialism and the history of residential schools.

A rapid review released by the agency in July included an intersectional analysis arguing that wildfires disproportionately impacted First Nations groups, minorities, women and non-binary people. Yes, they've turned their worst wildfire season on record into an opportunity to complain once again about non-binary people. Yes, non-binary people are more impacted by fire than the rest of us. The rest of us are impervious to fire.

It turns out as a straight white male, I can be, they could set me on fire and I would be unharmed by it. But please don't do that. In the face of an actual concrete problem, forests burning down and people dying, the Canadian government is worried about a small and

highly narcissistic subset of its population with this identity of non-binary. So here's a couple of lines from the Canadian government's report to give you some idea how unhinged the country has become. Quote, the impact of wildfires on indigenous peoples

is influenced by colonialism and has forced many indigenous peoples to live in isolation or in communities that are isolated from the rest of society. The evacuation measures conducted in indigenous communities served as traumatic reminders of being taken away to residential schools and/or the 60s scoop as some were forced onto buses and separated from their family. So I guess it's what, better to not evacuate them and let them all burn to death? Is that the... To avoid the trauma of evacuating them from a fire,

Just leave them there? Is that the solution? Not that you needed it, but this report is your admission from the Canadian government that they don't actually care about climate change or preventing wildfires. Their only concern is to preserve and expand their power at every available opportunity. And they've determined that dividing people with crude racial guilt is the best way to do that. And that's why Canada, for all its promises to save the world from carbon emissions, is now one of the single biggest carbon emitters on the planet. It's a perfect illustration for why

No one anywhere in the world should ever trust politicians who say that they can control the weather if only you give them a little more power, a little more influence. They'll happily take the power and influence. That's a guarantee. And then as your country is burning down around you, they won't do anything about it. Instead, they'll call you a racist. They'll demand even more power to fight climate change. And then before you know it, you'll wake up one day and you're living in a country a lot like Canada. And by that point, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

Unless you're an indigenous non-binary shaman, nobody will think to care what you think. If Canada serves any purpose whatsoever, it's to provide cautionary tales like this. We can either pay attention and accept that there are some things we can't control, or we can choose to make the problems we do have much, much worse. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Is America headed in the right direction? A majority of Gen Z supports left-wing policies like open borders and socialism. If we don't reach them and change their minds, the country we know and love will be lost forever. PragerU is the leading nonprofit when it comes to influencing young people. PragerU's educational, entertaining pro-America videos meet young people where they are online and open their minds to the truth. But they need your help. Go to PragerU.com, make a tax-deductible donation, and you'll be able to get a free copy of the book.

Whatever you give right now will be tripled and have three times the impact. Donate $10, it triples to $30. Give $100, it triples to $300. PragerU is 100% free to everyone with no fees or subscriptions. They don't rely on ads or clickbait headlines. Contrary to what the left says, PragerU is not funded by a handful of billionaires. It's funded by people just like you.

In order to keep making great content, reaching millions and changing minds, PragerU needs your help. Please make a 100% tax-deductible donation at PragerU.com today and your gift will be tripled. So here's the news from the New York Post. Here's the headline. Trump shooter Thomas Crook saw rally as target of opportunity, but motive still a mystery.

Here's the article says Donald Trump's would-be assassin considered attacking a number of events featuring both the Republican nominee and President Biden before settling on last month's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Federal investigators said on Wednesday, adding that the gunman's ultimate motive

remains unknown. Thomas Matthew Crooks conducted more than 60 searches related to President Biden and former President Trump as part of extensive attack planning, including queries about both the Republican and Democratic national conventions. FBI Pittsburgh Field Office Special Agent in Charge Kevin Rojek told reporters, he said, quote, he looked at any number of events or targets when the Trump rally was announced early in July. He became hyper-focused on that specific event and looked at it as a target of opportunity.

Investigators determined that Crooks espoused a mixture of ideologies, but didn't appear to have a definitive worldview, with Rojek saying that investigators had found valuable insight into his mindset, but not a motive. Yes, it's very odd. You may have noticed this pattern. If there's an attack targeting conservatives or Christians, the motive is rarely clear. We never find out exactly why it happened. We're never told much about the attacker. It's always somebody with a convoluted worldview. Their ideology is a mixed bag.

Who's to say what their politics are? Who knows? Trans person shoots up a Christian school. We don't know the motive. Who knows? Nobody knows. They can't say. They won't say. Guy tries to assassinate President Trump. Again, we don't know the motive. Who knows? Nobody knows. They can't say. They won't say.

The shooting in Las Vegas was another one. Now, that wasn't targeting conservatives and Christians specifically, but it's another one where we're supposed to believe that there was essentially no motive, that there was no reason behind it, that the guy went through all of that effort to plan this attack and carried it out and had no reason really for doing it. And, you know, there are circumstances where I'd be willing to believe that, where somebody lashes out violently and has no real reason behind it.

But for the most part, the people that are doing that, if someone's lashing out violently without any motive or reason, these are going to be people who these are like the schizophrenic drug addled homeless people that, you know, you can find now in any major urban area. And yeah, I mean, you might get stabbed by a homeless guy on the street for literally no reason at all.

And in a case like that, if that were to happen, if some vagrant runs up and stabs you and you want to know why it happened, like the answer might be, well, there's no just because there's no reason. But that's because people who act without motive generally cannot function in life at all. And that's why they're living on the street. But when you have someone who's clearly lucid, not only lucid, but capable of plotting and planning an attack, in this case, planning an assassination attempt against the president,

For somebody like that, it's very hard to believe that they're acting without reason, without discernible motive, especially with an assassination attempt. That is a highly political act. Okay, that's like political violence in its purest form, trying to assassinate a political leader. I mean, if that's not political violence, what is? And the idea that somebody would engage in political violence without any political motive is just, it strains credulity quite a bit. Is it possible?

It's possible. Anything is possible. The problem is that we can never believe the people who are investigating this. We can't believe the federal government or the intelligence community. We can't believe the FBI. Right now, it's Biden's government investigating an assassination attempt against the administration's chief political rival during an election year, a couple months before the election. So if it turned out that this guy was a big-time lefty liberal and he watched MSNBC all the time and was

radicalized by crazy left-wingers on YouTube or whatever. If that were the case, is there any chance that they'd tell us that? Is there any chance they'd tell? Is there any chance they would tell us that in particular before the election? No, there's zero chance whether that's the case or not. So we just, we just, this is what we're left with. We just can't believe them. And we're left with a situation where somebody tried to assassinate

presidential candidate, former president, and they're not telling us the reason. And whatever they do say, we know going into it, again, we just we can't believe them. Here's Kamala Harris giving a motivational speech to a group of high school students and speaking off the cuff. We know she doesn't like to do this very often, but she's braving it. She's

She'll do it. She'll do it there. I think she's has rightly assumed that at least there's not going to be, you know, there's not going to be a lot of hostility. No one's going to ask her any tough questions. But just listen to this. Here it is. Our country is counting on you. All of you. You are leaders by the very fact that you all are here in this country.

Doing what you do at this incredible school, doing it as one big team, understanding all of the different parts that fit together to create a team. Yeah, this woman is just empty. This is an empty vessel of a person. She has nothing to say, nothing to offer.

and not even capable of speaking coherently in anything that sounds like an authentic sort of way, even to kids. And I have to say that there's a little bit of a tangent, not really, but I hate it when people talk to kids like this. If she's talking to these teenagers like they're in first grade. But the thing is, you shouldn't even talk to first graders like that. Talk to kids like they're people because they are. Talk to them like an adult.

not because they're adults, they're not, but because you are an adult. And so you should be speaking like an adult as you are. This is how kids learn to communicate in a mature way, learn how to express themselves.

because it's by listening to adults and talking to adults. But that's under the assumption that adults are going to speak like adults. Like I talk to my own kids the way that I talk to you guys in the audience. The content of what I'm saying is often not the same. There are plenty of things I won't talk to my kids about at this stage of their life. But my tone, the way that I address them is the same tone that I use for anybody else. I talk to them, you know, and kids appreciate that.

Kids don't like being talked down to. They want to be taken seriously as people. And when you talk to them the way that Kamala is talking to these kids, you advertise the fact that you don't take them seriously. It's actually it's inauthentic and condescending. And kids can pick up on that. Now, granted, Kamala talks to everybody that way. So that could have been a group of whatever business leaders or something, you know, grown adults. And and she would probably be using the same tone.

Because this is the reflexive, condescending tone that she uses for everyone. But what does that tell you? All right. Speaking of Kamala Harris, Washington Free Beacon has an interesting story about looking into Kamala Harris's background a little bit and trying to do a bit of a fact check. So here's the report. I won't read the whole thing. But it says, the first all-female audience ever on the Drew Barrymore show was whooping and cheering for Kamala Harris, its guest of honor, this April when Barrymore's sidekick, Ross Matthews,

threw a softball at the vice president. I heard a rumor that you worked at McDonald's. I did. Yes, I did work at McDonald's, laughed Harris. When I was at school, I did fries. And then I did the cashier. I bet you did.

Kamala Harris, you did the cashier, huh? I didn't know that about you, gasped Barrymore. Neither did anyone who followed Harris's long career in public life. That is, until she ran for president in 2019 and began to make the job a centerpiece of her biography. Harris's work at McDonald's, which allegedly took place at a franchise in the California Bay Area the summer after her freshman year in college, is a recent addition to her carefully curated life story.

For decades, Harris never mentioned it, not on the campaign trail, nor in two books. It's absent from a job application and resume she submitted a year after she graduated from college. Third-party biographers did not write about it. Not until Harris ran for president in 2019 and spoke to a labor rally in Las Vegas did she mention the job, telling the crowd that she was a student when I was working at a McDonald's.

McDonald's boasts that one in eight Americans has worked in the fast food chain. And Harris, whose campaign is light on policy and heavy on image, has been using her fast food job to portray what The Washington Post in a credulous piece this month on the Harris-McDonald's connection described as her humble background. Harris is the daughter of an eminent cancer researcher whom her campaign calls a working mother and a tenured Stanford economist who split when Harris and her sister were children. And then it goes on looking into this.

Did she actually work at McDonald's? It appears that she didn't. So this is like the fast food stolen. It's fast food stolen valor. Basically, this is the minimum wage equivalent of of stolen valor. We've got actual stolen valor from Tim Walls at the bottom of the ticket. And at the top, we have the stolen customer service valor.

And someone on Twitter said it's a stolen value meal, we might call it, which is a joke that honestly I did think of and I was going to tweet it and someone tweeted it before I had a chance to. And I'm a little bitter about that. I have to say, I take exception to it as someone who actually does have humble origins in the service industry. I never worked at McDonald's myself, but I did work at various pizza places, restaurants, retail, so on and so on.

And Kamala Harris is not one of us. She's LARPing as usual, which by the way, she says she did fries, which I don't think is the parlance used by McDonald's employees and alumni. And again, I didn't work there, so I don't know, but is that how it even works? Do you have an employee that only does fries? Like, I mean, maybe somebody is selected to be at the fry station or whatever during the lunch rush, but do you have someone whose only job is that?

until they graduate to cashier. Is that how it goes? Maybe it does. I assume that it works similar to how it did when I was in the pizza business, when I was a culinary specialist making pizzas. And if you work there, you did everything. It's not like we had one guy who does the pepperoni and if there's a pepperoni pizza, he throws it on there. But if it's sausage or green peppers, we can't use them for that. Everyone does everything. You do the pizzas, you work the oven, you go and answer the phones. Now, in my case, I will say that they tended to

keep me off the register and phones as much as they could because it'll shock you to learn. You're not gonna believe this, but I wasn't very good with customers. And management would get complaints about my attitude when working with customers. This was a constant theme. And one thing I used to do sometimes is when somebody would call, this is a pet peeve. I hate it. I absolutely hate it. I still hate this. But then now we're way off track from Kamala Harris, but who cares?

somebody would call to order a pizza, but they hadn't decided ahead of time what pizzas they wanted. So this is a constant thing. We're in the middle of the dinner rush and someone calls, I answer the phone,

And there's someone on the other line. There's a big group of people. They're having a party and they're all excited. They want to order pizza. But they didn't pull the room before they picked up the phone to call. So I'm sitting there and there's pizzas coming out of the conveyor belt falling on the floor. And I'm listening to them debate what kind of pizza they want and what toppings they want.

And so in those situations, I would usually say, okay, call me back when you figure it out. And I just hang up and I get back to what I was doing. And I was frowned upon. That approach to customer service was very much frowned upon. And there were complaints about it, but I never got fired because why fire me? Whoever replaces me will probably be even worse. Besides, I show up to work on time every day. That's more than most people in these jobs. Anyway, yeah.

We can talk about our war stories in customer service all day. I mean, I can, you probably can, but Kamala Harris can't, but still does, I guess. And that's how it seems like a small kind of nitpicky thing, right? If she did lie about working at McDonald's, you might say, well, you know, okay, that's a white lie.

And on its own, you might say that, but it's part of an overall story of just this utterly false, fraudulent person who everything that she says is fake and everything about her background is fake. It's okay if you didn't work at McDonald's, if you never really worked a customer service job. Most people at this level in politics never did that.

Because most of them did not start at the bottom and climb their way up. It's just not the reality. Now, they all might like to portray themselves that way, but most of them didn't. And that's fine. You can just admit that. Be authentic and honest about who you are and where you came from. But Kamala Harris can't do that. So this is just part of that overall picture with her. All right, a couple of weeks ago, we talked about Ellen Page, right?

now Elliot Page, who, of course, these days identifies as a man and has had things done to her body to try to make herself look like a man. And I said at the time that it's very telling that Page, despite identifying as a man and supposedly being accepted as a man by Hollywood, it's very telling that she's never been cast as the male lead in a film. She's played trans people in films, but she hasn't played a man in a film.

She is a man, allegedly. That's what we're told. That's the claim. They say she's a man. So why wouldn't she play one in a movie? And the answer is that the audience, no matter how woke the audience is, they could never buy her as a man enough to watch a movie where she plays one. It would just be way too distracting. It strains the suspension of disbelief to its breaking point.

And in this sense, in this kind of interesting sense, fiction is more real and more honest than reality in a certain way, you might say, because there are a lot of people who can pretend to see her as a man in her daily life. But in fiction, on film, nobody can pretend.

And that's why, again, trans people are not cast as the sex they identify as in movies or in TV shows. They may be cast as a person who identifies as that sex. They might be cast as a trans person, but they're not going to be cast as a person of that sex. So to use their language for just a moment, you don't see trans people being cast as quote unquote cis people. And I'm just using their language. That's me using their language. I would never use that term myself, non-ironically. But you don't see that.

Most of the time and there are exceptions and the exceptions really prove the rule here There have been a few cases a few cases of a trans person being cast as the sex they identify as and they just show how absurd the whole thing is So yesterday a guy named Bill Moon on Twitter posted a thread about what he says is one of the worst movies ever made that he just watched It's a film I never heard of but it came out apparently a couple of years ago It's called dr Jekyll and it stars the comedian Eddie Izzard who these days identifies as a woman and in the movie apparently

He is playing a woman. He's not playing a quote unquote trans woman. He's playing a woman, just a straight up woman. That's what we're supposed to. This is just a woman. And and that's what he's playing. And by the way, this is not a comedy. This is like a drama slash horror film, I guess. And Bill Moon goes into detail about why this movie is terrible. I'm sure it is. But the main point for our purposes here is that they have a man playing a woman and they

At no point does the film apparently acknowledge that this is a man in a dress. The audience is supposed to just take him seriously as a woman. And here's a clip to show you just how ridiculous this looks in practice. Here it is. - I'm dangling baits, Ron. - What do you mean? - With my mouth. I was baiting you. You must have played a lot of chess in prison. - Well, there was this guy who taught me and he was pretty good. - If Eddie was not that good, check.

Yeah, so that's it's a little confusing because you watch that clip and you say, well, there are you know, there's there are two men in that clip and there are. But the man with the deep, gravelly voice and wider shoulders and a bigger chin than the other man in that scene, the other one that's actually playing a man, that guy is supposed to be the woman. Like arguably the one who's supposed to play the woman looks more like a man than the man that's a man in the scene.

And we're supposed to watch that and experience this character as a woman, believe him as a woman. We're supposed to see something when we watch that, something other than a guy in a dress. But nobody can. There's a reason this movie was a total failure. I mean, sure, it's bad in many other respects, I'm sure, but it never had a chance to get off the ground because...

You know, I mean, think of the suspending our disbelief in a literal in a literal physical sense. The wires that are suspending our disbelief just kind of snap the moment we see this guy on screen. The whole thing comes tumbling down. It's like if it's like if someone did a biographical film about, let's say, Shaquille O'Neal and they cast like Sidney Sweeney to play him.

And imagine that the film never at any point acknowledges that Shaq in this movie is a tiny white woman. There's never any joke made about it. It's not played for a laugh. There's no wink to the audience. We're supposed to just like see this tiny white woman as though she was a seven and a half foot tall black man. It's like that. And for a comedy, it might work. But this Dr. Jekyll movie apparently appears to be something other than a comedy. And so it just doesn't work. And this is how...

I guess you might say this is how we will know that we've actually entered our progressive utopia. When somebody like Eddie Izzard can play a woman in a movie and everybody watches it and nobody is distracted by the fact that this is a dude in a dress. When that happens, we will know that the trans activists have won. They've actually changed. They've succeeded in changing our perception to such a dramatic extent

that we can just accept that on screen and not be bothered by it or distracted by it. Because that, of course, has been the goal of the trans activists. This is what they, this is, this is what it's all about. This is what the, you know, insisting on the pronouns and everything else. Yeah. It's about controlling our behavior. It's about exercising control and power over us. And they take a lot of, they get quite a thrill out of exercising that kind of control and power. But

But beyond that, and at a deeper level, they are actually trying to change our perception. It's very much a fake it till you make it kind of strategy where they want us to fake it. They want us to fake like we, you know, like we accept a quote unquote trans woman as an actual woman. They want us to pretend that we do and keep pretending so that we condition ourselves so that eventually we actually do see that. So that our perception, our perception of reality is distorted.

But that will never happen. Like that will never, ever actually happen. They will, they will using this Dr. Jekyll movie as a litmus test. I will, I am, I feel quite secure saying right now that there will never be a time at any point in the future when a majority of people can watch that movie and see anything but a man in a dress. It will never happen.

Because, as I've said many times, reality always wins in the end. You cannot escape reality. We're all living in it, whether you like it or not. And that means that the trans activists will never actually win and can't, which is the good news. 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. TaxNetworkUSA.com.

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 are missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will 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 the 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.

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, went after the global media cartel GARM that was censoring conservative voices, and guess what?

dismantled it now we're disrupting hollywood with our debut nationwide theatrical release am i racist in theaters everywhere september 13th watch me infiltrate the weird world of dei and give you a first-hand 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 this because of the support from our members. When we fight, we win, but we need you in the battle with us. Join Delaware 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. One of the criticisms of Kamala Harris that you often hear on this show and many other places is that she has not achieved anything of note. Her political career has been marked by

It's mediocrity. It's lack of accomplishment. Even when she became her party's presidential nominee, she did it without earning any votes. Her only real skill, you might say, is accomplishing things without accomplishing them.

This is a problem for the Harris campaign. To put it mildly, it's a problem. And they need to find a way to present this mediocre middling woman as something much more than that. Need to find a way to highlight her achievements in spite of the fact that no such things exist. And that explains why this tweet was published from Kamala's account yesterday. Emmett Till was murdered in 1955. This is her now writing this. He was only 14 years old.

As a U.S. Senator, I led the effort to make lynching a federal hate crime. As Vice President, I proudly stood beside Joe Biden as he signed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act into law. As President, I will continue the fight for equality and justice.

This is accompanied by a photo of her, as she says, proudly standing beside Joe Biden. Now, earlier in the week, the Kamala campaign was desperately trying to distance itself from Biden. There was even an article published hitting J.D. Vance for his attempts to tie Kamala to Biden because what sort of fake news peddling misinformation merchant would make the outlandish claim that the vice president has any ties whatsoever to the president? That's just J.D. Vance being a weirdo again, I guess. But now Kamala is linking herself to Biden once more in an effort to bolster her own resume.

This is a woman desperate to be seen as accomplished. And what is the accomplishment here? She stood beside Joe Biden while he signed a bill. A very impressive feat, we all must admit, the way that she's standing there watching as someone else does something.

Yeah, not much of an accomplishment, but it'll have to do. Yet the real problem here is the law itself, the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act that Biden is signing in the photo. We talked about this back when the bill was passed two years ago. But now that Kamala is bringing it up again, it's worth remembering and reflecting on the utter shameless absurdity of this piece of legislation. Before we do that, let's get a quick rundown of what this bill is about.

and why it was passed from ABC News Watch. Tonight, a historic moment in Washington after more than a century of failed attempts. Lynching is now set to become a federal hate crime. We take a look at the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act by the numbers. The Senate unanimously passed the law late Monday in this divisive political climate. That means all

100 senators agreed to it. This comes after a stunning at least 200 efforts to pass some version of this bill over the past 100 years. Once signed into law, lynching will be punishable by up to 30 years in prison. The bill has been championed by Representative Bobby Rush of Chicago since 2018. The act is named after Emmett Till, who was from Chicago's South Side. Till was 14 years old when he was kidnapped, beaten, and lynched in Mississippi in August of 1955.

after being accused of whistling at a white woman. The museum now stands in Montgomery, Alabama, paying tribute to what's reported to be nearly 6,500 racial terror lynchings between 1865 and 1950.

Black Americans remain the most targeted group in the U.S. when it comes to reported hate crimes. They made up 34 percent of all hate crimes in 2020, according to the FBI. Senator Tim Scott, who has spent two years leading the push to get this passed in the Senate, called this a necessary and long overdue step toward a more unified and just America. Yes, a necessary step, Tim Scott said.

And apparently the entire Senate agreed. As the report mentions, this thing was passed unanimously. Not one member of the Senate could find any reason to object to it. That's how necessary it was. Not just necessary, but historic. So necessary and historic that two years later, Kamala Harris is still bragging about it as one of her signal achievements, even though all she did was stand there and smile while Biden signed the bill. But was this bill necessary? I guess obviously it was. I mean, lynching had to be made illegal.

And thank God that it finally was made illegal. As you know, prior to Joe Biden heroically passing this legislation and Kamala Harris heroically standing and smiling while she watched it get passed, lynching was legal in most states in the union. As recently as the year 2021, you could go out and do a lynching anytime you wanted. Actually, in some localities, I don't know if you knew this, but you'd even be rewarded for lynching someone. Like they come out and they give you a free coupon and a pack of stickers and a lollipop, and they'd say, good job on the lynching.

And it fell to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and a bipartisan group of senators to step in and say, no, stop this. Lynching is bad. You can't. We're done with the lynching, folks. Without their intervention, I think the lynchings would have continued. At least that's what we're supposed to think, I guess. But back here in reality, Bill, which is where I prefer to spend most of my time.

lynching was actually, of course, already a crime. And if anybody was lynched, even though nobody has been lynched in this country in like 40 years, but if it did happen, the person responsible was already sure to go to prison for a very long time. Lynching was already very illegal. Murder was also illegal. Now, of course, the claim is that, and we've seen this being argued again on social media after that tweet from Kamala Harris, the claim is that, well,

Yeah, lynching was already very extremely illegal in this country, but it wasn't a hate crime. The Anti-Lynching Act performed the important and necessary service of turning it into a hate crime. But leaving aside any philosophical problems that a smart person might have with the legal concept of hate crimes in general, we should note that

In fact, lynching was already a hate crime too. Before this bill was passed, if a black man was lynched in this country, something that again, hasn't happened in many decades and almost certainly will not happen ever again anyway, but if it did and a black man was lynched, it would qualify as murder and therefore be illegal.

And it would qualify as a hate crime because it would be a racially motivated murder. Racially motivated murders, whether done through lynching or by any other means, were already hate crimes in this country. It was already very much, completely and totally, a hate crime to lynch a black person before this bill was passed. It was illegal. It was a crime. It was murder. It was a hate crime. It was all of those things already. So it was illegal about three times over. This bill made it illegal a fourth time.

I mean, is that even enough? We have to wonder. Perhaps we should pass a bill making lynching illegal a fifth time and a sixth time and a seventh. I won't rest until every person who commits a lynching in the modern United States, all zero of them, can be charged with the same crime 10,000 times. I say we throw them in prison until they die, then dig them up, put them on trial again, and then put them in prison again until they die again, and so on and so on for all eternity. This is apparently the thinking, I guess.

You know, this week, Donald Trump is being excoriated by the media for, as they claim, staging a photo op at the Arlington National Cemetery. Trump was there for a wreath-laying ceremony for the service members killed in Afghanistan during a suicide bomb attack at the airport in 2021.

Now, the photo op claim is ridiculous, of course. It's pretty standard for photos to be taken during a ceremony like that with a presidential candidate in attendance. So this is the gaslighting the media does, because you might you might hear about the outrage that the photos were taken at Arlington National Cemetery. And you might hear that and think to yourself, well, wait a second, aren't there photos taken all the time? Like, haven't haven't I seen many photos of politicians and presidents at Arlington National Cemetery? Isn't that a very normal thing? I've seen a thousand freaking times.

The answer is yes, you have. But you're supposed to pretend that none of that's ever happened. This is unprecedented to have a photo taken there. And the real scandal, they tell us, is not that, you know, well, the actual scandal is not that Trump attended, but that Joe Biden did not attend. That's what we should actually be focused on. He's the one who got these service members killed, and yet he couldn't even be bothered to show up and pay his respects. He's too busy lounging on the beach right now.

which is how he spent the majority of his non-existent presidency. The claim is that Trump was using the graves of our fallen soldiers to advance his own political agenda. And that claim, as I said, is incredibly ridiculous and unfair. But if you want to know what using graves to advance your political agenda looks like, well, look no further than this. Look no further than the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act and politicians like Kamala Harris who are still waving it around for brownie points.

Lynching doesn't happen in this country anymore. If it does, it's illegal in 20 different ways and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as it should be and obviously will be. But these kinds of crimes have occurred in the past. People have died this way. And people like Kamala Harris are shamelessly using those tragedies as a way to virtue signal and boast about accomplishments that don't exist. And that's why the anti-lynching bill wasn't just unnecessary and absurd. It was also grotesque.

And that's why it is today, finally, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. 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 along 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 certification. 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.