Ep. 1456 - Why Debate “Moderators” Prove That The Media Is The True Enemy Of The American People
59:08 Share

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media has done a lot of fact-checking during this election, and especially during the debates. Unfortunately, every single fact-check has been wrong. We'll go through the list today. Also, Kamala Harris takes the side of the dock worker union that's threatening to cripple the economy. A lib journalist gets horribly offended when a flight attendant tells her to have a blessed day. And Jussie Smollett emerges from hiding to explain to the world why he's still a victim. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.

Get 47% 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'll get the truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear. Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join the fight now.

With the Federal Reserve recently dropping interest rates, it's time to make a smart financial move and call my friends at American Financing today. With mortgage rates now in the fours, yes, the fours, now is the perfect time to consolidate your debt and reduce your monthly expenses. And let's be honest, a lot of us have been forced to use credit cards because of the ridiculous prices at the grocery store, on power bills, even for childcare. It's getting out of hand. That credit card debt, it's not just expensive, it's insanely expensive. But here's the good news. With mortgage rates dropping, now's the time to wipe that debt out. American Financing is helping homeowners just like you

save over 800 bucks a month on average. That's real money you could be using to, I don't know, maybe actually enjoy your life a little bit.

They're even closing some loans in as fast as 10 days. And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments, two whole payments, plus there are no upfront fees to find out how much you can save, none at all. So here's what you got to do. Call American Financing today at 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or if you're more digitally inclined, visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.

NMLS 182334, NMLSconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the fours starts at APR 5.672% for well-qualified borrowers. Call 866-569-4711 for details about credit costs and terms.

For all the differences between the presidential and vice presidential debates, there was one glaring similarity. The moderators weren't able to keep their mouth shut. In the first debate, the rules allowed the moderators to fact check, whatever that means exactly. In the second debate, the rules didn't allow fact checking, but in both cases, the moderators couldn't help themselves anyway. They weighed in over and over again.

And every single time they interjected to help whatever Democrat was standing at the podium, of course, and the format of these fact checks was always the same too. The moderators would wait for Donald Trump or J.D. Vance to stop speaking, and then they'd hastily recite a rehearsed one-line correction, and then they'd immediately try to change the subject so that Trump or Vance couldn't respond. And this would be disgraceful even if these moderators were telling the truth. The whole point of a debate is to hear from the candidates, not the moderators. But

Even if you disagree on that point, I mean, even if you think that it's good for the moderators to intervene when they think a candidate is lying, it's still not clear why they would refuse to let the candidates respond to their fact checks. This wasn't an accident. It was how they approached every single one of these fact checks across two debates and two sets of moderators. And it's worth figuring out why that is.

Now, it could be that many on the left don't engage in any kind of critical thought anymore. They just look at the consensus view as reflected by the fact check, and they declare that no further questioning is allowed. They genuinely can't conceive of a situation in which there might be a consensus, but the consensus might be mistaken.

On the other hand, it could also be that in this context, the moderators realized that their fact checks would fall apart under any form of scrutiny. And indeed, with every day that passes, that's exactly what's happening. One by one, every single one of these fact checks from these two debates is collapsing. And these are not small errors that we're talking about here. Take, for example, this moment from the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Trump was asked about his position on abortion, and he gave a long answer. And then

The moderator, Lindsay Davis, fired off a one line fact check before pivoting immediately to Kamala Harris. Watch. They have abortion in the ninth month. They even have and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor is doing an excellent job. But the governor before he said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby.

And that's why I did that, because that predominates. Because they're radical. The Democrats are radical in that. And her vice presidential pick, which I think was a horrible pick, by the way, for our country, because he is really out of it. But her vice presidential pick says,

Abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth. It's execution, no longer abortion because the baby is born is okay. And that's not okay with me. Each individual state is voting. It's the vote of the

people now. It's not tied up in the federal government. I did a great service in doing it. It took courage to do it. And the Supreme Court had great courage in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices. There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born. Madam Vice President, I want to get your response to President Trump. Well, as I said, you're going to hear a bunch of lies, and that's not actually a surprising fact.

Now, at the time, a lot of people pointed out the obvious problem with this fact check. Donald Trump never actually said that it was legal to kill babies after they were born, but he did say that it was happening. And he cited a very specific and well-known piece of evidence. The former governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, strongly suggested to a radio show in 2019 that in certain cases, such as fetal abnormalities, his bill would allow doctors to kill children after they're born. Actually, he didn't really even suggest it. He flat out said it.

Quote, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant will be delivered, the infant will be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and

And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. Now defenders of Ralph Northam recognized how twisted and demonic that quote is. So for the past several years, they've insisted that he wasn't talking about euthanizing children who survived failed abortions. And they claim the governor wasn't actually talking about allowing newborn infants to die either. Presumably that's the spin that Lindsay Davis had in mind when she corrected Donald Trump during this debate. She declared with authority that

There's no state in the entire country where it's legal to kill children after they're born. What was missing from her fact check is what John Solomon at Just the News has now proven, which is that children are being born alive in this country, and then doctors are allowing them to die without even attempting any life-saving intervention.

It turns out that until 2023, the state of Minnesota kept records on how many infants were born alive during failed abortions. And those records show that from 2019 to 2021, during Tim Walz's tenure as governor, at least eight infants were born alive following a botched abortion. Not a single one of those infants received life-saving care. The two infants in 2021 received comfort care. All eight of the children died. So all of them were left to die, were allowed to die.

which is morally indistinguishable from directly killing them. It's the same thing. And none of the doctors involved were ever investigated or charged for any of this, even though at the time, Minnesota law required, quote, responsible medical personnel to use, quote, all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.

Well, they didn't, and they weren't charged with anything. But just to cover his basis, Tim Walz changed the law in 2023, and now the law does not require life-saving measures at all for infants who survive abortions. Instead, it requires that doctors care for the infant who is born alive without specifying exactly what that care entails. So they changed the law so that it no longer specifies that you actually have to give life-saving care to the infant.

The law also gets rid of the reporting requirement for the state health agency. So nobody can learn how many children are being killed or allowed to die, again, the same thing after they're born. Now, if you look at the records that Solomon found, you can see why Democrats might wanna cover them up. They're as ghoulish as you can imagine. Here's the July 2020 report from Minnesota, for example. In one instance, fetal anomalies were reported, but residual cardiac activity was present at two minutes.

Care of fetus was transferred to the second medical doctor. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive. In one instance, comfort care measures were provided as planned and the infant did not survive. In one instance, the infant was pre-viable. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.

Now, notice that the report doesn't even bother to clarify whether life-saving measures could have saved some of these infants. That's not a piece of information that the health department decided to track for some reason because it's irrelevant to them. They don't recognize that the infant has any right to be alive in the first place. But the report is very clear on the fact that children who survived abortions were consistently allowed to die in the state of Minnesota without any attempt by a doctor to save them. No measures taken to preserve life is a consistent theme here.

You don't get any more information than that. And rather than provide any more transparency on this point, the state under Tim Walz has gone ahead and shut down record keeping entirely. They want us to know less about how these infants are being treated and how many infants are being allowed to die. The dispatch looked into this reporting and they confirmed that it's all accurate.

Charlie Kirk and Solomon's claims are correct. Minnesota Department of Health documents show that eight infants were born alive during abortion procedures between 2019 and 2022. And in 2023, Walls signed legislation that repealed most of a statute designed to protect infants born alive after an abortion attempt. So the truth is that Lindsay Davis either has no idea what she was talking about or she was deliberately lying, probably the latter.

Either way, it's beyond reprehensible that no mainstream media organization in this country has bothered to do any investigative reporting on this topic. Apparently only John Solomon is interested in the question of whether or not children are being systematically killed or allowed to die after they're born. The most we can expect from ABC is a drive-by fact check during a presidential debate with a lot of snark and no substance whatsoever. And also, by the way, just so you understand,

allowing infants to die after they're born is the mainstream view of the Democratic Party. This is what nearly every mainstream Democrat believes in this. Because politically and ideologically, they have to, or they believe they have to. Because if a baby survives abortion and you provide medical care to the child at that point, then you are acknowledging two things. One, you're acknowledging that the baby is a human being.

Two, you're acknowledging that abortion is an act of violence that has been committed against this human. I mean, you're providing medical care to try to reverse what you were just doing to the baby. I mean, think about it. The doctor is trying to kill the baby. The baby survives. And now if he's providing medical care, now he's trying to reverse the thing that he was just doing to the baby 10 seconds ago.

So that's why every Democrat, now they're not going to talk about it. They obviously don't want to talk about it and they'll flat out deny it because they're a bunch of lying scumbags. But no, you're not going to find any mainstream Democrat who actually comes out and says, yeah, yeah, you got to provide medical care for the reasons I just gave. They cannot acknowledge the violence of abortion or the personhood and humanity of the child.

And this alone should be, I mean, the fact, even if it was just eight infants in one state over the course of three or four years who were just left in the corner of a room and allowed to die, even if that was all, it should be a major national scandal. It should be one of the biggest scandals in the country right now that everybody cares about, everybody's talking about. And it's not just those eight, because this is happening all across the country. And yet we just gloss over it.

So to get a sense of how big, even aside from beyond this one incredibly important issue, to get a sense of how these fact checks work in general, I went back and looked at every single fact check from these two debates. And every single one of them was either obviously false or extremely misleading.

Now, I already covered the FBI's crime numbers, which supposedly show that violent crime is down. The moderator, David Muir, cited those statistics in his fact check during the Kamala Trump debate without providing any context, including the missing law enforcement agencies who didn't report data or the DOJ's report showing that crime has actually surged under the Biden-Harris administration. Then there was his claim that no credible reports indicated that animals were being eaten in Springfield. Watch.

I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio, and ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there had been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community. Well, I've seen people on television. Let me just say here, this is the people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager. I'm not taking this from television. But the people on television say their dog was eaten.

So the city manager says it's not credible to suggest that domesticated animals are being killed in the migrant community. And the moderator and Kamala Harris mock Trump for saying that he saw those reports on television. Then it turns out that back in March, the Springfield city manager himself did say that there were quite a few credible reports of horrid things happening to domestic animals in Haitian communities in the town. Watch. One of the things that hurt that I heard that bothered me very much. I've actually had quite a few people contact me here lately.

is some pretty horrid things occurring to domesticated animals in the neighborhood. We've had some stuff in the park that, again, they're being taken advantage of for reasons other than, and if

You shake your head, Brian. No, no, I asked. I asked me if there was proof. People that have confided in me have asked me for anonymity. I'm not I can't give their names up. I mean, we haven't seen the proof that you're dumb. And I've heard I've heard about it. Yeah. So that's another fact check. That was just a complete lie. And actually, Trump called it out in real time. He said the city manager was probably just trying to give a political answer when ABC News called. And and that's exactly what was happening.

So let's go down the list. There was also this fact check from the debate two days ago. Watch. Scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the historic rainfall. Another drive-by fact check that the candidates were not allowed to respond to. And it's also completely false, as I've outlined many times before. Here's how Chris Martz, the same meteorology student that I mentioned the other day on the show,

responded to this particular fact check, quote, there's absolutely zero evidence that climate change makes hurricanes larger in size, i.e. diameter. There's little evidence that hurricanes are becoming stronger. The number of category three to five hurricanes globally exhibit no statistical significant trends since 1980. This is backed by peer-reviewed research. There's no evidence that hurricanes are becoming deadlier because of better warning coordination. Deaths are down by more than 75% since 1900 because of that.

Chris Martz, again, is a meteorology student, and he knows enough to check the actual data before he makes wildly false claims about what scientists say. So what exactly is the excuse of a major media organization for doing this in front of 40 million people? Whatever that excuse is, they're still doing it long after the debate is over. Around midnight, CBS News posted this headline, quote, During the vice presidential debate, Senator J.D. Vance claimed Vice President Harris became the appointed border czar. CBS News confirmed rates this as false.

Oh, they rated it as false. Well, that's all there is to it then. The fact check claims that Harris was just assigned to investigate the root causes of migration rather than to oversee enforcement of the law. But if you pull up articles from CBS's own website, you'll find out very quickly that they're lying. Here's an article from 2021, for example, quote, Harris to lead administration's efforts to stem migration at the border. President Biden announced Wednesday that he had tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the administration's efforts to stem migration at the southern border.

Not just to investigate why migration is happening, but to stem the migration. At this point, I'm honestly looking for a single fact check that pans out. From what I could tell, none of them have any validity whatsoever. It's actually kind of incredible. And of course, there was no fact check that was more incredible than this one, which we talked about the other day. Let's see it again.

Temporary protected status. Well, Margaret, but thank you, Senator. We have so much to get to. Margaret, I think it's important because we're going to turn out of the economy. Margaret, the rules were that you guys weren't going to fact check. And since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on. So there's an application called the CBP one app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at

the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for 10 years. That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to, Senator. Those laws have been on the books since 1990. Thank you, gentlemen. The CBP One app has not been on the books since 1990. It's something that Kamala Harris pre-elected.

Gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we wanna get to. Thank you for explaining the legal process. So that was egregious for all the reasons we talked about yesterday. Cutting the mics, I mean, there's just no reason why you should ever cut the mics during a presidential, vice presidential debate. Especially cutting the mics so that the moderators can talk. Nobody cares about you.

Nobody wants to hear from you. This is not about you. You are totally irrelevant as the moderator. You are completely irrelevant. Your opinions, your everything, irrelevant. We don't care. So cutting the mics so the moderators can talk is just, it's insane.

So the moderators decided to break the rules to enter the debate on behalf of Kamala Harris. Yes, J.D. Vance was right that to the extent these tens of thousands of Haitians are legally in the country, it's only because the federal government has decided to bend the rules and award them mass amnesty. And yes, it's comical that the moderator doesn't fact check Tim Walz's claim that this has been going on to the same extent since the 90s.

But in retrospect, you can kind of see why the moderators decided to cut the microphones. After all, every single one of their fact checks up to this point had been wrong. Some of them were called out in real time while others fell apart immediately on social media. And now after all that, they realized that yet another one of their fact checks was blowing up in their faces, so they pressed the panic button. At this point, the only viable solution, as I've been advocating for a long time, is to eliminate moderators from future debates entirely.

They've inserted themselves repeatedly into the discussion only to spread falsehoods and confuse the issues. And they haven't been right about, they haven't been wrong on insignificant topics either. They've been wrong about really significant things, whether illegal aliens are killing animals. They've been wrong about how many Americans are being victimized every year by violent crimes. They've been wrong about whether children are being allowed to die after they're born. These mistakes, quote unquote, only go in one direction.

And that's for a reason, which is that they're not mistakes at all. The truth is that there are very powerful forces in this country that want to enable these atrocities. And after these moderators are all discarded, along with their useless fact checks, we need to make sure that those ghouls never hold power again. Now let's get to our five headlines. The White House

Betting with BetOnline is so much fun. Beyond traditional sports, BetOnline gives you the option to bet on political events like the outcome of the presidential election or whether Hunter Biden will serve jail time before 2025. Political betting allows you to wager on real-world events outside the realm of sports.

Or if you're a diehard sports fan, BetOnline makes sports betting more accessible and convenient than ever before. With just a few clicks, you can place bets on your favorite teams or events from the comfort of your own home. BetOnline prides themselves on their higher than average betting limits of up to $25,000 and...

You can increase your wagering amounts by contacting their player services desk by phone or email. So while you're watching your favorite team or the news on upcoming elections, why not spice things up with a friendly wager at BetOnline. Go to BetOnline.ag to place your bets today. Use promo code WALSH for a 50% sign-up bonus of up to $250. That's BetOnline.ag and use promo code WALSH. BetOnline. The options are endless.

Daily Wire reports Vice President Kamala Harris sided Wednesday with dock workers who launched a massive strike this week that threatens to cripple the economy. Harris said, quote, this strike is about fairness. Foreign owned shipping companies have made record profits and executive compensation has grown. The longshoremen who play a vital role transporting essential goods across America deserve a fair share of these record profits.

Harris also threw in a barb at her opponent, accusing former President Donald Trump of making empty promises to workers and promising that she will have workers' backs and fight for an opportunity economy. Donald Trump, on the other hand, this is her now, wants to pull us back to a time before workers had the freedom to organize. Donald Trump makes empty promises after empty promise to American workers but never delivers. He thinks our economy should only work for those who own the big skyscrapers, not those who actually build them.

The dock workers union has donated more than $1.6 million to Democrats. Union President Harold Daggett endorsed Joe Biden. And Daggett himself made $728,000 last year as union president, plus another $173,000 as president emeritus of the New Jersey locals. So he's at about $900,000 this guy's making. Close to a million. Okay, so there are...

This is, and I mentioned this yesterday, this is starting to look more and more like a setup, this whole dock worker strike thing. I mean, there are two possibilities. And the first possibility is that it's all what it appears to be on the surface. So you have this millionaire union boss living in a mansion with his Bentley making $900,000 a year, who's now threatening to cause grave harm to American families in order to enrich himself and his friends and

dock workers who were already offered a 50% raise, which is substantial, but they want a 77% raise, I think, in spite of the fact that by global standards, our dock workers are extremely slow and inefficient, mostly because they've rejected all forms of automation. So by global standards, this is a subpar job is being done.

And they want a 77% raise as a reward. And they're willing to cripple the economy and harm your family in order to get it. That's what's happening on the surface. If that's what this really is, then it's unjustifiable from a moral perspective to hold the American economy and American families hostage so that you, who's already well-paid, can just make more money. Especially as we talked about yesterday, the

They don't even really have any examples. They're hardly even claiming that they're being mistreated or anything like that. It's just they just want more money. You know, they just want more. And according to them, they're willing to they don't care who they don't care who gets hurt. They'll cause harm to millions, hundreds of millions of people. That's what it takes. They just want more money. And OK, I mean, if that's the attitude you want to have, but you're definitely not the good guy, like you are the bad guy.

It's possible this could be a dispute where both sides are bad guys. That happens a lot, but you're definitely a bad guy. The only other thing we heard in terms of specific demands, well, they want a lot more money. We also heard yesterday that they don't feel appreciated. People don't appreciate us. Grow up, okay? Nobody feels appreciated. Nobody does. No one does. What do you want? Do you need the whole country to get together and throw you a pizza party? Make a thank you note?

How much ass kissing do you grown men require? How much appreciation are you giving to other people who do important jobs? So that's one possibility, but that's only if it's all legitimate. The other possibility, which to me seems increasingly likely, is that this is being staged to give Kamala a big win heading into the election. It would be a perfect fake story for her, right? It lines up perfectly. The dock workers are going on strike.

The economy is gonna be crippled. She's losing the union vote increasingly. So what do you do about that? Well, she takes the dock workers side, earns points with the unions, brokers a deal. A deal that in this scenario is already inevitable, it's already on the table, like she's not actually doing anything. But it's all for show, it's a big pageant and the strike is averted.

And now she has saved the economy, she's pandered to the unions, and she can present herself as the ultimate dealmaker undercutting Trump's big selling point. So that could be what's happening here. And if that is what's happening, we'll know pretty soon. And if that's the plan, then it's pretty clever. It's devious, dishonest, evil, but it is clever. I guess it's a question of whether Kamala or at least her handlers are clever enough to have thought of a plan like that.

Am I giving them too much credit by thinking that this might be, that this is all a setup and this is the plan here? I don't know. But as I said, we'll find out. It is, the timing is just, it's, the timing is really convenient. Well, it's either really convenient or really inconvenient for the Democrats.

Because if it's not a setup and they actually are going on strike and the strike lasts till past the election, well, then it is going to cripple the economy. That's obviously going to hurt the incumbent anymore. And Kamala Harris is the incumbent. But these are all Democrats who donate to Democrats. So would they do that right before an election? It's hard to believe. All right. The Guardian has this report, this rather unfortunate report, we must say.

Melania Trump made an extraordinary declaration and an eagerly awaited memoir to be published a month from Election Day. She's a passionate supporter of a woman's right to control her own body, including the right of abortion. The Republican nominee's wife writes amid a campaign in which Donald Trump's threats to women's reproductive rights have played a central role. So The Guardian is doing a little bit of editorializing.

Not a little bit, but she wrote, "It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government. Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman's fundamental right of individual liberty to her own life grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. Restricting a woman's right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body.

I've carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life. So this is a full on pro-abortion. This is not even, you know, we believe in exceptions, life of the mother and all that kind of stuff. This is just full on. This is the view of abortion that Kamala Harris has. It is radically, it is in fact radically pro-abortion. And that's what Melania Trump is saying. Now, a couple of things about this. First of all, just to respond to the argument that Melania is making.

And she is making an argument. She's put it in a book and she's putting it out there for the world. So we should respond to the argument. And it's a bad argument. It's a familiar argument. It's the same one we hear from pro-abortion people all the time. And it's just a really bad argument. Okay. You've heard me say it a million times. So now here's a million and one. But this is not about the woman's body. It is not a question of what the woman does with her own body. There is another body that

in the mix here. That is what we're talking about. And the child's body is his own body. The child's body in the womb is not an extension of the woman's body. It is not a limb or an organ. Biologically, it's not. It is a whole other entity. And you can call that entity what you want. You can use the word fetus as a euphemism if you want. I don't care what words you use. You can make up your own word.

But what you cannot deny scientifically and biologically is that this is a separate body, a separate entity, and that entity is alive. If he's not alive, then the abortion wouldn't be necessary. And he is human because human is a species. And if he's not that species, then what the hell species is he? So we've established that this is a separate body. It is living and it is human.

All three of those things are not up for discussion. Those are just facts. Okay. It is a, the sun is at the center of our solar system. Like it's a fact like that. You could argue it, you, but you're just wrong. Like if you continue arguing past that, the argument's over, you can keep talking, but the argument is actually over because we've said something that's a fact that's undeniable and, uh, and it's self-evident. So that's what we're talking about. Um,

Now, yes, the child's body is dependent upon the mother's body for survival. That's true. So are we saying that if another person's body depends on you for survival, you automatically have the moral and legal rights to directly kill that other person because they depend on you for survival? That's the argument pro-aborts are making. That's the argument Melania Trump is making.

although they won't come out and actually say that. Because their actual argument is not, oh, it's the woman's body. It's not the woman's body. Their actual argument is this separate body depends on the woman for survival. Therefore, she gets to be judged during execution. She has the moral right to kill the child. And that is less a scientific argument than it is a moral argument. And I think it's a morally deranged argument, especially because

The child, yes, is dependent on the mother for survival in the womb. Guess what? The child will also be dependent on the mother outside of the womb. Like singularly dependent on the mother for a long time outside of the womb. Not just in the first couple hours. An infant child is totally vulnerable, totally helpless, and is completely dependent on the

on his parents and particularly his mother for survival and the mother's body. That's what breastfeeding is. And now you could point out that, well, yeah, the woman is not legally required to breastfeed. True. But the woman is legally required to either breastfeed the child or provide a substitute for breastfeeding. Legally required to do it. If she were to say, you know what, it's my body. I don't it's not it's not my responsibility.

So I'm not going to breastfeed this child. I'm not going to give him any substitute for breastfeeding. My body, I'm taking control of my body, and I'm going to do what I want, and that's it. If she says that, the child starves to death, and guess what happens there? She goes to prison. And it's going to be no use her saying, well, I want to do what I want with my own body. No, no, no. You have a special responsibility to that child. You don't have a special responsibility necessarily to the child across the street. If the child across the street starves to death, God forbid, we're not going to put you in jail for that.

Okay, children all over the world, horrible things happen to them all the time, tragically. We don't hold you responsible for that because they're not your children. But your child, we do. And so if your child starves to death, you go to jail. Because outside of the womb, we recognize that you as the parent have a special responsibility to your own child. It is a responsibility that requires a lot of you.

It requires your body, your money, your time, your soul, your energy, everything. Your heart, soul, mind, everything is poured into the job of parenting. And you have autonomy. You have no autonomy as a parent. You have no autonomy from your child. Your child is utterly dependent on you.

And we recognize that as a responsibility. The pro-life argument is simply that, well, that responsibility starts at the moment that the child exists, not at the moment that the child is born. That's our argument, and it makes a lot of sense. I mean, if we all recognize that that responsibility exists from the parent to the child, then why do you get a nine-month grace period where you're not responsible for your child? What? The child exists, doesn't he?

So that's how we respond to that argument. As far as the fact that Kamala Harris, as far as the fact that Melania Trump has written this in a book, I think as other conservatives have pointed out, one of the sad realities of the Republican Party is that every Republican first lady since Roe v. Wade has been pro-abortion.

And we could have a whole conversation about why that's the fact, but that is the fact. So, and it is important to note here, I don't think it lets Melania Trump off the hook. She is horribly wrong about this, but she is in company with every other Republican first lady. And that doesn't reflect, her position is not Donald Trump's position. She is not in the position of legislating or governing Trump.

In general, I've always said I want to get first ladies less involved. Like I don't, I don't, and I've been very, I'm not just saying this now. I've always said this, you know, if you listen to the show, I don't care. The first ladies, I don't care about them. I want to see less of them. We don't need to give you a little projects and stuff that you actually are not. We didn't elect you. You really don't matter. You know, you matter to your husband, hopefully, but into your family, but to the country, there's really not.

You're not the queen. You know, this is not actually a monarchy and so your positions your your political views It's actually not that important to me. I don't really care that much And that applies to Melania Trump as well, but it is really unfortunate timing like why are we putting this out right now and and I will only reiterate a something that I've said now a few times a concern that I have is

Which is that most likely, we know this is gonna be a very close election and it's the candidate that can mobilize their own base the most is probably gonna win. Yeah, you gotta win the independence, you have to go and you have to try to steal some from the other side. You gotta do all that, the moderates and everything, but you gotta mobilize your own base.

And one of my concerns is that the pro-life base is just being relentlessly demoralized. I mean, it's every week. It's another thing. One thing after another after another. And yeah, we should say to pro-life voters, you got to vote for Donald Trump. I have said that so many times. I'll say it again. If you're a pro-life voter, you got to vote for Donald Trump. Even if you're pissed off about some of this stuff, you got to vote for Donald Trump.

If you care about saving babies, you vote for Donald Trump. Kamala Harris, there's no question about one thing. She is much worse on this subject than Trump is. Not only do more babies die if Kamala is elected, but also more pro-lifers go to prison. They just sent another pro-lifer to prison, I think, this week. They're on a holy war, an unholy war against pro-lifers. And that will continue and be ramped up. Kamala Harris...

She did this when she was attorney general in California, going after pro-lifers and throwing them in prison. That's like one of her favorite things to do. And the Biden administration is already doing it. She is going to I'm telling you right now for all the pro-lifers who are thinking about staying home and not voting for Trump. You do so at the risk not only of babies, but of yourself, because when Kamala gets into office, she's not going to say, OK, well, you're you didn't vote for Trump. So you're one of the good ones.

No, she is going to try to criminalize, flat out criminalize pro-life activism. It's already happening and it's going to get so much worse under Kamala. Which is, of course, a secondary concern to the greater concern, which is that more children will die. So if you're a pro-lifer, you've got to go and vote for Donald Trump. It shouldn't even be like a reluctant or hesitant or anything kind of vote. It should be a let's go in there,

eagerly and vote for this guy because Kamala would be the most pro-abortion, anti-life president of all time, hands down, right? So all that said, it still is true that politically a demoralized base isn't good. It's not gonna help you. It's gonna hurt you. And so one worry I have is that the pro-life base has been so relentlessly demoralized

And I think that's something the Trump campaign needs to take note of. And it's like you gotta give them something, give them a reason to be excited before election day. All right, I'll briefly mention this. This is a fun story from a few days ago, Fox News reports. Social media users mocked Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffrey after she publicly complained about a flight attendant wishing her and other passengers a blessed night at the end of a recent flight.

Jeffrey ridiculed the flight attendant in a recent ex post, sending her saying her send off was evidence of creeping Christian nationalism in the country and pointing out all the other less Christian adjectives she could have used. What she actually tweeted was creeping Christian nationalism alert. Alaska Air flight attendant just wished us a blessed night as we landed in SFO.

which is the San Francisco airport, to groans. Other adjectives that would have sufficed, great, awesome, fabulous, amazing, fantastic. She added, as my roommate said, this ain't Montgomery, sweetie. So Claire Jeffery has since taken this post down. She deleted it. She was absolutely hammered for it, ruthlessly mocked and derided for complaining about someone saying have a blessed night. Justifiably, justifiably made fun of, obviously,

Meanwhile, of course, the Internet went to work on her and they did what the Internet does. And they very quickly, many people have uncovered several examples, including really recent examples of Clara Jeffrey herself using the term blessed in the same context. She had said exactly the thing that offended her when the flight attendant said it. In fact, she had even specifically praised other people, including Obama, I believe, for using the phrase God bless.

So this woman is a shameless hypocrite, no surprise there. Bless her heart, of course. This story does, I think, illustrate an important point. It goes to show what the label Christian nationalist now means, because it gets tossed around a lot. We're constantly told that we need to worry about these Christian nationalists. And you might think, well, if you don't know any better, you'll think, what's wrong with being a Christian nationalist? Isn't that just a nationalist who is also Christian?

And isn't a nationalist simply someone who prioritizes his own nation? So isn't a Christian nationalist a Christian who prioritizes his own nation, which is another way of saying patriot? You might think that, but that's not what the left means when they say it. In fact, it hasn't been exactly clear what they do mean, except that we're supposed to be afraid of these people, these Christian nationalists, whoever they are and whatever they believe. Well, now we know, now we have more clarity about what

what is meant by Christian nationalist. A Christian nationalist is someone who wishes you a blessed day on an airplane. Somebody who says, God bless you when you sneeze is a Christian nationalist. So in other words, a Christian nationalist is just a Christian. Even though, I mean, really, you could say have a blessed day or you could say God bless you and not even be a Christian. But the thing that offends her about it is that she suspects that this is evidence that this flight attendant is Christian. So she's connecting the two.

And what actually offends her is that is the faith of this, the alleged faith of this flight attendant. So a Christian nationalist is just a Christian of any type is now a Christian nationalist. Or maybe we should say a Christian nationalist is a Christian who does or says something publicly to make their faith known.

Because I think Claire Jeffrey would be the first to say that, no, she doesn't have a problem with you being Christian. Just don't, as long as you're Christian only in your head and you don't ever do or say anything publicly to ever indicate that that's your religion, then it's fine. You can be Christian all you want in your own head. She might even let you go to church if you're lucky. For now, anyway. You could even go to church. Well, it depends on what the church is and what they're saying there. But, you know, there are some churches that she would let you go to.

But once you start to, in any way, even in the most benign way, once you start to make your faith known, once you start to, you know, once you start to let the light shine so that it's not hidden under a basket, once you start to do that, then you're a Christian nationalist and you're a terrible person. That's the basic idea.

A new season is upon us and you know what that means. My superior grasp of the subtle art of crafting domestic scentscapes has produced yet another seasonal masterpiece for your olfactory enjoyment. My all-new seasonal candle, Autumn Bonfire, which is right here. This is the very candle. It's on my desk. It's the one you can see. I'm referencing it right now. Here's my candle reference on the desk. In fact, it's been here the whole show.

And it will continue to be this candle. Thecandleclub.com slash Matt is where you can go if you want to get one of these candles. As an added bonus, the mug is reusable. Once you finish the candle, please wash it with soap and warm water before drinking out of it. Don't drink candle wax, you absolute morons. Bring home Autumn Bonfire and more for my collection when you go to thecandleclub.com slash Matt today.

We're just 33 days away from the 2024 election. Now is the time to join Daily Wire Plus. Get 47% off with code FIGHT at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Daily Wire Plus gives you unlimited access to the truth with uncensored daily shows free from ads or moderators. Stay informed with live breaking news coverage and...

the kind of hard-hitting investigative journalism the left doesn't want you to see. This deal is for a very limited time, so don't wait. Join the fight now and take advantage of 47% off new memberships. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code FIGHT for your exclusive discount. That's dailywire.com slash subscribe. Code FIGHT for 47% off new Daily Wire Plus memberships. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

For our daily cancellation today, we turn to the great civil rights icon, Jussie Smollett, who has emerged from hiding to, as they say, speak his truth. Actually, he's promoting a new film that he wrote, directed, and starred in. It's a long-awaited feature, hotly anticipated by the legions of Jussie fans out there, of which, needless to say, I am one, probably the only one.

And as part of his promotional tour, he sat down for an in-depth interview with People magazine, where he, for the first time, I believe, spoke at length about the horrific attack in 2019 that nearly cost him his life and his Subway sandwich. Many people think that the attack

you know, must have been somewhat less devastating simply because he planned and choreographed and paid for it himself. But you could argue that that only makes it more devastating. I mean, it's a terrible thing to be assaulted on a street corner at two in the morning. Imagine how much more terrible it must be when you are the one assaulting yourself. It's kind of the ultimate betrayal. So, of course, in this interview, Jussie does not admit that he assaulted himself. He maintains his innocence to this very day.

And the journalist conducting the interview, her name is Esther Kang, doesn't press him on it or challenge him in any way whatsoever. In fact, she seems to believe in his innocence as well. Here's the title of the piece. Quote, inside Jussie Smollett's darkest day and how they alleged 2019 hoax tested my strength. I was numb. Note how the word alleged is being used here, even though he was convicted in a court of law and found guilty of staging a hoax.

Proper journalistic practice is to drop the alleged qualifier once a person is found guilty of the charge. But if this person was a proper journalist, then Smollett would not be talking to her. So reading on, Justin Smollett doesn't care what anyone thinks. In his eyes, only the universe can right his wrongs. Still, the road to finding inner peace was one of the hardest things he's ever faced.

He's learned how to hold on for five more minutes amid the chaos of the last five years. A close personal mantra he now holds dear to his heart. Yes, this is really happening. They are doing a hagiographic puff piece on a convicted hate crime hoaxer. A puff piece that descends into incomprehensible nonsense by the second sentence. Only the universe can right his wrongs? I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? Is the universe righting the wrongs he committed or the wrongs that are supposedly committed against him?

And how will the universe do that if the wrong that was committed against him was also committed by him? It seems like there's not much for the universe to do in this situation. If I'm the universe, I'm going to look at that and say, well, I mean, that basically worked itself out. So it's not clear what any of this means, but...

Let's continue anyway. In an exclusive sit-down with People since the 2019 incident, Smollett, 42, joins the Zoom conversation, ready as I'll ever be, from his hotel room in New York City. Five years ago, Smollett, who identifies as a gay black man, claimed that on January 29, 2019, while on his way home from a Subway sandwich shop,

He was attacked by two men late at night, yelling racist and homophobic slurs, putting a rope around his neck and dousing him with bleach. After an investigation conducted by law enforcement, prosecutors alleged that Smollett staged the attack to get media attention and paid $3,500 to two brothers, Bimbola Alabinjo, and then whatever the other guy's name is. Despite the narrative, he says so many have assumed Smollett maintains his innocence to this day.

Now, again, just to interject, it's not a narrative or allegation. He was proven guilty in a court of law of committing a hoax. Although he was, of course, quite obviously guilty even before the verdict. So he didn't really need that in order to be able to say conclusively that he was guilty. But People Magazine will not let any of that get in the way of Jussie continuing to victimize himself. Quote,

I was numb, he says, recalling the incident to people. I didn't know how to connect the dots. I really genuinely didn't know. I couldn't make sense of what was going on. And I couldn't make sense of what people were actually thinking. What exactly do they think happened? I couldn't put two and two together. Yes, he was confused. He couldn't put two and two together. Couldn't connect the dots. It was bewildering. He paid two guys to pretend to beat him up. And then those guys that he paid to do that thing went ahead and did that thing that he paid them to do.

Uh, so the thing that he was doing to himself was done and, but it's, it's straight. It's a mystery. It's bizarre. He doesn't, how did it happen? Aside from the fact that it happened because he deliberately set it all up and made it happen. But, but still how, how does, how is it? I it's, he's confused. It's like if I'm, if I'm walking down the street and I'm looking at my own legs and saying, how am I?

How am I moving across? I don't understand. How is this happening? I started there and I'm heading there and I don't, what is happening right now? How am I getting there? I mean, I am actually bringing myself there, but how is it happening? It's very confusing. It's very existential. But the good news is that Jussie is very resilient.

Continuing, quote,

They can do whatever they want. They can even put you behind bars. They can control your physical, but they can't control my mind. They can't control my spirit. They can't control my soul. They can't control the knowledge that I have of who I am. Now, the article goes on like that for many paragraphs. I'm not going to subject you to any more of it, but I do have to read this one line, one more line, a couple of lines, because it's just great. Continuing, quote,

I'm not gonna sit here and victimize myself and be like, woe is me, because there's so many people that don't have the platform or resources that I have to protect themselves, Smollett says, saying that people often admit to crimes they didn't commit because they feel it's the easier way out. Yes, Jussie Smollett said he's not going to victimize himself. Now, the irony is glaring enough that I don't need to point it out, even though I guess I just did. Ultimately, though, I think that this interview is

if you read the whole thing, which I did for some reason. It proves, number one, that the media are shameless, just shameless to a degree never witnessed before in human history. But we already knew that. It also proves that Jussie Smollett is a pathological liar who lies so compulsively that he probably doesn't even recognize when he's lying anymore. I mean, he might actually believe at this point that it really happened. He might have convinced himself of it at this point. But we already knew that also.

I think most of all, it shows what a person becomes when their whole identity is tied up in victimhood. Like Jussie Smollett committed the hoax in the first place because he was desperate to be a victim. Now he's a national disgrace and a punchline, but he clings to his faux victimhood anyway because he doesn't know what else to do. He has no identity outside of his perception of himself as a victim.

It is pitiful to watch and grotesque, but also, we have to admit, very funny. And that is why Jussie Smollett and the woman who wrote this fawning article about him are both today 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. 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 here? 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. In theaters now. Rated PG-13.

Pennsylvania's future hangs in the balance. And here's a fact that might surprise you. Pennsylvania has nearly 2 million conservatives who don't vote. That's almost one out of every five people you know. But there is something you can do about it. Take 10 to 15 minutes and make a real difference in Pennsylvania's future.

How, you might ask? By identifying friends, family, coworkers, and fellow church members who aren't planning on exercising their right to vote. Many people are shocked to discover non-voters among their own family members or in their church communities. These are voices that could be heard, but aren't.

The best part is the effort costs nothing but a few minutes of your time. And those few minutes could help shape the future of the state and our country. It's a simple process. Visit 10xvotes.com and use their easy tools to find non-voting conservatives in your circle. That's 10xvotes.com. Don't wait. Go to 10xvotes.com, get your 10, and help us win. Remember, it costs nothing, takes just a few minutes, and you can play a crucial role in Pennsylvania's future. Head over to 10xvotes.com today.