Ep. 1461 - This Shockingly Easy Test Has Been Deemed "Racist." Here's Why.
59:45 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, Biden's DOJ has announced that a test given to firefighter applicants is racist because too many black applicants were failing it. Today we will go through some of the sample questions from this test that was allegedly too difficult. You will truly be shocked and possibly terrified by how easy it actually is. Also, a college professor has been placed on leave after announcing during class that men who refuse to vote for Kamala Harris should be lined up in shots.

And all of the major sports leagues in the country have teamed up for a courageous campaign to put an end to hate. Just wait until you see how inspiring this campaign truly is. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

DW Plus and Jordan B. Peterson bring you the Mastering Life Collection, essential guides on everything from marriage to mental health, including his newest series on depression and anxiety. Get unlimited access to Peterson's Wisdom Plus upcoming series on negotiation and success. Join Daily Wire Plus at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code Jordan for 35% off your annual membership.

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 team 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 the 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.

You know, one of the things you learn as you get older is that sadly, Schoolhouse Rock was a lie. They told us that if the government wants to enact a major policy change that affects the lives of millions of people, there's supposedly a procedure in place that they have to follow. A bill needs to originate in Congress, then Congress votes on the bill, then the president signs it, and it becomes law. Of course, there are about a million different ways that the federal government gets around this whole procedure. In fact,

Just a few years ago, the Obama administration pioneered yet another tactic to circumvent what voters actually want. This is a tactic that's had enormous ramifications for this country over the past decade. Their tool of choice was something called consent decrees, which are basically court settlements. And here's how the scam worked. The Obama DOJ would accuse local police departments all over the country of being racist. They'd use the massive resources of the federal government to file lawsuits against these local police departments.

which threatened to deplete the much more limited resources of local governments. And so in almost every case, police departments would settle the lawsuits and agree to oversight by the DOJ, which in plain English meant that they stopped enforcing the law. After all, they didn't want to be accused of racism anymore. And this is how, without ever passing a law, the Obama administration kick-started the end of policing in this country effectively.

One of these consent decrees came about in the aftermath of Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri. As you probably remember, Brown violently robbed a store and then he attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun before the officer shot him in self defense.

That's the version of events that even Obama's DOJ eventually admitted was true. But the DOJ knew that in order to lend some legitimacy to the BLM riots surrounding this event, they had to come down hard on Ferguson's police department somehow. They had to find a way to make sure that the police stopped trying to arrest violent thugs like Michael Brown. To that end, the DOJ

went to court and they accused the Ferguson Police Department of being systematically racist. The DOJ said that the department was guilty of, quote, using criteria or methods of administration that have an unnecessary disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin.

And the DOJ won the case. Ferguson settled and agreed to years of oversight by the DOJ, which basically meant that there would be no more policing in the city. And Ferguson, as a result, became an even more deadly hellhole. Afterwards, racial equity was therefore achieved. So what was the evidence that Ferguson's police department was racist exactly?

Well, let's see. The DOJ alleged that Ferguson PD engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination. And here's their evidence. I'll put it up on the screen. You can see it there. As you can see, this chart reads, between 2012 and 2014, African Americans represented two-thirds of the population of Ferguson. But they represented a much higher percentage of those stopped and arrested. And the data shows that blacks made up 67% of the population, but accounted for 85% of vehicle stops and 93% of arrests.

Then there's this chart from the DOJ, which reads, quote, 90% of people who received a citation in Ferguson were African-American. 95% of all manner of walking and roadway charges were filed against African-Americans. 94% of all failure to comply charges were filed against African-Americans. Now, you might notice something missing from this analysis. They're not addressing the rather important question of whether African-Americans are committing more crimes than

than other demographic groups and whether that's the reason why they are being arrested more. They're just assuming that because they make up 67% of the population, black people must only be committing 67% of the crimes. Any other outcome must be racist, according to the DOJ.

If black people make up 67% of the population, but 68% of people who are arrested are black, then clearly the department is 1% racist. That's kind of the extent of their thought process. That's the way the math works in their diluted version of reality. They just don't consider any other variables, at least in these charts they don't. Now, if you go and pull up the DOJ's full investigative report on Ferguson, it's

you'll find that they do eventually attempt to address sort of this objection. They include one paragraph about controlling for other variables. And here's that paragraph, quote, these disparities in the outcomes that result from traffic stops remain even after regression analysis is used to control for non-race-based variables, including driver age, gender, the assignment of the officer making the stop, disparities in officer behavior, and the stated reason the stop was initiated.

Upon accounting for differences in those variables, African Americans received 2.07 times more likely, remain 2.07 times more likely to be searched, two times more likely to receive a citation, and 2.37 times more likely to be arrested than other stopped individuals. Now, there's still a lot missing from this analysis, as you may notice. They don't account for what happens after the traffic stop begins. You know, they say they account for disparities in officer behavior, but

But they don't say anything about disparities and suspect behavior, which is really the question here. So that leaves a pretty big thing, a big factor out of the equation. If you get pulled over and you tell the cop to go to hell in no uncertain terms, and then you start running away, the odds are that your traffic stop probably won't go very well. You might get searched. You might wind up with a citation. You might get arrested.

But the DOJ just leaves that out of its analysis entirely. They pretend in their analysis that every single person who gets stopped responds exactly the same way, which is insane, of course. There are other variables they don't consider either, like the criminal history of the person being stopped, which can obviously influence whether or not they're searched, particularly if they're on probation or if they have a warrant that's discovered after the stop is initiated. They don't account for any of these variables because their goal is to conclude that the police are racist so that they can destroy the police department.

And they know that nobody will ever look closely at the government data anyway. And by the way, pretty much all government data is basically like this. It's full of lies and manipulation. It falls apart the moment you look closely at it. Now, in any event, this is the disparate impact theory of law, which has been used to dismantle police departments all over the country, from Ferguson to New Orleans to Cleveland,

This is a tactic from the DOJ that was mostly dormant during the Trump years, but the Biden-Harris administration has brought it back. And they're not just coming for police officers anymore, they're also coming for firefighters now. So the Biden DOJ has just announced that the fire department in Durham, North Carolina has to change its screening test for new applicants and pay massive damages because the test is supposedly racist.

They also have to hire a bunch of failed applicants who couldn't pass the test. Watch. Durham Fire Department is reaching a new settlement agreement tonight amid accusations of discrimination in its testing. And now the city is going to have to pay out nearly a million dollars. CBS 17's Ben Boken is in Durham tonight getting some answers about what took place.

A new complaint tonight claims the Durham Fire Department is screening job seekers with a written test that discriminates against black candidates. And just hours after the announcement of a settlement, Durham Fire Chief Bob Zoldos is responding. We were a little shocked that our test, which shows validation, shows vetting, and is produced by a company that produces tests for hundreds of fire departments, and they've reviewed thousands of candidates. We were a little shocked that our

our test was no longer considered valid by DOJ. Under the terms of the agreement, the Durham Fire Department must pay $980,000 in back pay to black applicants who were disqualified with the challenge test. They also must hire up to 16 of those candidates who successfully complete the new firefighter selection process, and the department must stop using the test and replace it.

With this Title VII violation, the Justice Department says Durham Fire's test does not distinguish between who can and cannot perform the duties of a firefighter. We're going to have to really work hard to make sure that we have a test that is understandable to everyone. Now, the fire department's understandably shocked that the DOJ has suddenly labeled their test racist, and now they're being forced to hire a bunch of applicants who cannot pass the test.

But that's exactly what's happening. Quoting from the DOJ's press release, the city's fire department screens applicants with a written test that discriminates against black candidates. The complaint, filed yesterday in the Middle District, North Carolina, alleges that the city's uses of the written test called the comprehensive examination battery disproportionately exclude black candidates from employment as firefighters. The department further alleges that the Durham Fire Department's uses of the test are not job related and consistent with business necessity and thus violate Title VII.

So, what is this test exactly? How can a test be racist? And how can it be not job related? Well, to answer those questions, I went and pulled up a study guide for the comprehensive examination battery test, which is what these firefighters have to take. And the study guide was created by Fire and Police Selection Incorporated. It's a company that deploys and validates the tests that are used by thousands of local agencies all over the country, including police departments and fire departments.

So this study guide is coming from the right source and we can learn if the test is racist somehow, this is where we would find that out. So here are some representative practice questions from the hardest section of the test, which is the math section. Here's one, and this would be a fun little trivia quiz for anyone listening at home.

You could try to solve these questions yourselves. Find out if you could be a firefighter. Question one. A firefighter determines that 350 feet of hose is needed to reach a particular building. If the hoses are 60 feet in length, what is the minimum number of lengths of hose needed? Is it three lengths, four lengths, five lengths, or six?

Now, the test allows you to perform the calculation in the booklet if you need to. You can use a pencil and scribble some notes. But this is such a basic question that it shouldn't require that. I mean, there are students in elementary school who can answer this question in about 10 seconds. Five lengths would be 300 feet of hose, which isn't enough. So you need six lengths to cover the 350 feet of hose.

Now, I'm far from a math whiz myself, but even I could answer that without a calculator. And all of the questions are like this. Here's another one. Office sprinkler heads spray water at an average of 25 gallons per minute.

If four sprinkler heads are flowing at the same time and the same rate, how many total gallons of water will be released in 15 minutes? Is it 100 gallons, 315 gallons, 375 gallons, or 1,500 gallons? So let's think about this brain teaser for a moment. Four sprinkler heads would be spraying 100 gallons per minute since one sprinkler head sprays 25 gallons per minute.

Therefore, to find out how many gallons of water you get in 15 minutes, all you have to do is multiply 100 times 15, which should get you 1,500. And by the way, even if you can't do that calculation easily, you should still be able to look at the multiple choice questions and immediately identify that the first three options are definitely too low to be the correct answer, which leaves you with 1,500 just by the process of elimination.

So there are two ways to get the right answer here. Either you can have a fifth graders grasp on the rules of mathematics or a fifth graders basic common sense. If you have both, then you're really in good shape. And to be clear, I'm not cherry picking the easiest questions here. There's another question that just asks applicants to compute the sum of four numbers. And again, they can write in the booklet if they need to. This is as difficult as the math section of the test gets.

which again is the hardest section in the entire test. There's also a reading section, which I can't simulate here because I'm not going to read the entire passage, but they do want to make sure that you can read. But maybe the most alarming, because it's the easiest section in the entire test, is the human relations portion. So here's the top sample question in that part of the packet.

And this is the doozy that black firefighter applicants in places like Durham had to contend with. And this is the kind of question that we're told is racist. And I'm not making this up, by the way. This is real. This is a real question. Quote, you are transporting an injured and intoxicated male who has a large amount of money protruding from his pocket. While transporting him to the emergency room, you notice that money falls out of his pocket.

Identify the most appropriate and least appropriate response. Do you, A, pretend you didn't see the man drop the money, B, wait until you go back outside and take the money if no one else has found it, C, pick up the money and give it to emergency room staff for safekeeping, or D, pick up the money and place it next to the victim's hand? That's the actual question. Do you steal the money? Do you ignore it?

Do you throw it by the hand of the drunk injured guy who's in no position to be carrying it? Or do you give it to the ER staff for safekeeping? Essentially, this is a question meant to test whether the applicant has a moral sensibility somewhat more sophisticated than that of a lizard, let's say. Now, to those who are able to get above that bar,

The answer is obviously C, which corresponds to pick up the money and give it to the ER staff for safekeeping. Hopefully I don't have to explain this, but the least appropriate response would be to steal the money, which is answer B. That is stealing the money is actually never the most, it's never going to be the most appropriate way to respond to a situation.

I can't think of a scenario where stealing from an unconscious man would be the most appropriate thing you could do. I mean, I guess, I mean, well, okay, maybe it depends on what the other options are. If like the other options are kill him, I don't know, set a building on fire, shoot a puppy or steal from the guy. Then like, I guess in that case, the stealing would be the most appropriate of all the options. But

You know, if one of the options is to not steal and the other option is to steal, then like the not steal option is generally going to be the right one. So this should not be a difficult question for anyone to answer, regardless of their skin color. If somebody says that questions like this are racist, which is what the DOJ has said, then they're making a pretty clear generalization about the attitudes and behaviors of certain racial groups.

They're saying that it's racist to ask applicants whether or not they should steal from a drunk, incapacitated man. Again, a child could answer this question correctly. I am quite confident that I could give that stumper to my five-year-old daughter and she would easily answer it correctly.

Any child could, unless the child happens to be a budding psychopath. And even then, I think a psychopathic child could still probably answer it correctly. And the whole test is like this. It's like the most basic stuff you can imagine. There's a map reading section, which is obviously important for firefighters because they need to know how to get to a place during an emergency.

And that's it. You can pull up the practice exam yourself if you want. You can see it for yourself. In no sane universe is this test inappropriate, much less racist. If anything, it's far too easy. The real scandal, if there is one at all, is that the standards are already so crushingly low. But the Biden-Harris administration disagrees. They say the standards are too high.

That's what they say, and they say it for one reason. It's the same reason the Obama administration harassed so many police officers. It's the same reason they decided that the entrance exam for air traffic controllers was racist. The people running this country have determined that they'll gain more power and more profit if they promote certain racial groups at the expense of others. They don't care about competence. They only care about this new racial spoil system they've created. And they certainly also

As much as we hear from the left about difficult conversations, they certainly don't wanna have a difficult conversation about why is it that so many black applicants, if it is the case that so many black applicants were having trouble passing this test at such an alarming rate. Well, they don't really wanna have to dive into that question in any kind of serious way. So instead, we're just gonna say, well, the whole test is racist.

At the same time, they understand that most people wouldn't vote for, you know, vote for this kind of thing. Like most people are not going to vote. If you put it up for a vote, should we lower the standards for firefighters so that they don't have to be able to perform basic arithmetic? Most people are going to say, no, we should not.

Most people of all races will say, no, we should not. So the Biden administration is using lawfare instead to get what they want. They've decreed that any test that might screen for IQ or a well-adjusted personality or a basic moral compass is now racist. They want our police and firefighters and air traffic controllers to be as dumb and immoral and incompetent as possible because ultimately they think that that will advance their agenda. And as a bonus, it will also probably punish the people who vote the wrong way.

And they don't care if the infrastructure of this country collapses as a result. That's why they want to replace your firefighters with people who can't do basic arithmetic and will happily steal from you when you're on your way to the ER. That's why they want to replace your air traffic controller with a moron who will direct your plane directly into the flight path of another aircraft. That's why they want to replace your local police department with seat warmers who have no incentive whatsoever to respond effectively to an emergency.

They want to do all of this so that eventually when the U.S. becomes a third world country, which we're well on our way to being, they have all the power. And you will have no one to call for help. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Let's talk about something that's been on my mind lately, the war on masculinity. It seems like everywhere you turn, society is trying to feminize men. We're bombarded with estrogenic chemicals from plastics, junk food, and sedentary lifestyles. It's not just talk. Testosterone levels have been declining for decades. Did you know there was a 17% drop among 60-year-olds in 2004 compared to 1987? That's right, in less than 20 years,

We lost nearly a fifth of our manhood, but I'm here to tell you there's a way to fight back. Enter Black Forest Tercosterone with Tonkat Ali. This isn't just another supplement, it's what you might call a feminization killer. It combines two of the most potent natural testosterone boosters out there. Tercosterone is a natural anabolic compound that supports muscle growth and improves endurance. Tonkat Ali is a natural herb that's been used for ages to increase testosterone and reduce stress levels.

This supplement is designed to boost your testosterone to exorbitant levels. It's exactly what we need to push back against an environment that's constantly trying to feminize, control, and weaken you. So if you want to take control of your health and your life, hurry and take advantage of this amazing 48-hour promo. Head to blackforestsupplements.com slash Walsh now for a special buy two, get one free offer. That's blackforestsupplements.com slash Walsh, blackforestsupplements.com slash Walsh.

All right, so the Post Millennial reports, a professor at the University of Kansas has been put on administrative leave after telling students during a recent lecture that men who do not vote for a female president should be lined up and shot. The comments were made by Professor Phil Lowcock. Is that actually his name? Lowcock. That's his name. That's his name.

Anyway, the director of International Student. I mean, you know, you can kind of understand with a name like that, this guy, what a life this man has led. Who knows what that does to a man's psyche?

The director of international student athlete support who works in university's health, sport and exercise science department is the one who said this. A video of the incident posted to social media has since gone viral. So let's watch Lowcock in this video here. Here it is. Guys are smarter than girls. You got some serious problems.

That's what frustrates me. There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don't think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don't understand the way the world works. Did I say that? Scratch that from the recording. I don't want the deans hearing that I said that.

Okay, so that's just a violent fantasy from Lowcock that he's expressing out loud. It's not even a joke. There's no joke there. There's no punchline. He literally just said that people who disagree with him on this topic should be lined up and shot. That's it. There's no...

It's not like an inappropriate joke or a joke where he revealed too much about his own political views or whatever. He really, he just simply articulated a desire to see any man who doesn't vote for Kamala Harris executed. Not a joke. This is how Lowcock feels. Now, needless to say, even before we get to the violent fantasy,

part of it. There's no reason for Lowcock to be talking about this subject in the first place. He works for the, what was it, the health sport and exercise sciences. He works in the, he's an exercise science person, which he's a professor of exercise science, and yet he's getting winded just walking back and forth giving this, he's out of breath talking.

And yet he's in exercise sciences. So there's all kinds of problems here with this guy and Lowcock and all of that. But why is he talking about the election in the first place is the question. What does that have to do with anything? The University of Kansas, though, did put out a statement responding to this.

And they put the professor on leave. They said, the university is aware of a classroom video in which an instructor made an inappropriate reference to violence. The instructor is being placed on administrative leave pending further investigation. The instructor offers his sincerest apologies and deeply regrets the situation. His intent was to emphasize his advocacy for women's rights and equality, and he recognizes he did a very poor job of doing so

The university has an established process for situations like this and will follow that process Oh, he's just trying to advocate for women's rights That's all and the best way to do that was to call for men to be lined up and shot And this is a pretty it's a pretty accurate summation of the feminist agenda He was in fact articulating the feminist division for the world when he said that so you have to give him that at least and this is the ultimate way to virtue signal if you're a white liberal male and

or a liberal male of any race. You virtue signal by displaying a homicidal hatred towards your own demographic, your own, you know, towards people that are just like you. And if you're a male, you present yourself as a totally emasculated, castrated man. So his name is Lowcock. Maybe it should be Nocock. Hopefully we can keep that in without bleeping it. We don't need to bleep that. It ruins the joke.

And what he's doing here, of course, aside from calling from the murder of people he disagrees with, what he's doing is he's, of course, setting up the excuse for Kamala ahead of time. If she loses, it's because people didn't want to vote for her because she's a woman. Even though literally nobody is saying that, I have not heard a single person, you go to the farthest right fringe, I have not heard a single person

say that the only thing stopping them from voting for Kamala is that she's a woman. I have not seen or heard that opinion expressed anywhere by anyone in the entire country, even on the internet, where you can find someone, whatever the opinion is, just imagine any opinion in your head, make it as repulsive as you can imagine. You could find someone on the internet who has sincerely articulated that opinion.

And yet, even then, you're not going to find anyone saying that. Every single person who doesn't want to vote for Kamala Harris, it's because of who she is. It's because of her policies, because of how incompetent she is. There's a million reasons. But again, I have not heard a single person who said, yeah, I like everything about her. I think she'd be a great president. I would vote for her, but I'm not going to because she's a woman. I haven't heard that.

And, you know, we talk a lot about the race hustling that goes on. We just covered it in the opening monologue and obviously made a whole movie about it. But I think we are moving to a place where, and we're not there yet, but I think we're moving to a place where gender hustling is going to become even more prominent than race hustling. The so-called women's rights movement, the feminist movement,

I think is going to supplant the race hustle as the most prominent form of LGBT or of identity politics. LGBT will also be in the mix always, but it's kind of like the LGBT hustle, the race hustle, they've been vying for cultural prominence and to be on top. But I think you're starting to see the feminists are coming and they're gonna end up atop that pyramid.

And I think that's especially the case because of this next election. Remember the last time Trump won, right? In 2016, the last time he beat a woman politically, we immediately had the women's march where he had a million angry feminists descending on DC and screaming to the heavens about how sad they were. And then right on the heels of that, you had the Me Too movement. So if it happens again, if Trump beats another woman politically,

challenger. It's going to be women's march, Me Too movement times 10. That's what it's going to be. That's what it's going to be for the next four years. And you're starting to see them kind of set that up already, I think. All right. Easy transition into this, actually. I think Melania Trump is on a book tour. She's got a book coming out. Maybe it's already out. I think it hasn't come out yet. Melania Trump has a book coming out. Hillary Clinton

just put a book out. So there's gonna be a competition here between these two. Hillary Clinton's book, by the way, did basically flop. I think it sold 27,000 copies in a week, which by most standards for most authors would be a whole lot of copies to sell in a week. But for Hillary Clinton, I mean, the book she wrote before that, she wrote a book right after the 2016 election called What Happened or something like that. And it sold 300,000 copies, something crazy. And

And so this one, by those standards, a dramatic fall off. But anyway, Melania Trump has a book coming out. She stopped at Fox News recently and talked about some of the some of the what she's experienced in society because she's Donald Trump's wife. And she talked about having her donations to a university rejected on political grounds. Listen to this.

The university, I was all agreed that they will accept my donations for the foster students. And because of the board directors, they called back. They find out that it was me. They didn't. They said we cannot go on. And it's very sad.

Very sad because who suffered? They were children from foster community. They didn't have a scholarship that somebody will provide for them. They didn't want to do business with me because of political affiliation, my political beliefs. And, you know, that was one of them, one of the canceling project. Hmm.

So that's absurd, obviously. Melania Trump has been treated in a very despicable way. Even if you don't like her husband, the way that the left treats her is gross. And I have to say, I do have to say that it makes her passage in her book with that passionate defense of, quote unquote, abortion rights, all the more perplexing when you consider this.

when you consider how despised she is by the left and will always be, even though she hasn't done anything wrong, even if you hate her husband, she didn't do anything wrong. But it makes that passage all the more confounding. What do you think it's going to achieve exactly, Melania? These people hate you. They despise you. I mean, you're talking about it here. They don't even want your money. You're trying to give them money and they won't take it. That's the ultimate form of hatred.

That is the ultimate expression of hatred is when you won't even take somebody's money. The whole pro-abortion movement hates you. They all hate you. They will always hate you. You cannot win those people. Now, you might say that, hey, it's okay, fine, but it's what she believes. She's just saying what she believes. She's pro-abortion. She's expressing that. Free speech. Okay, sure.

I mean, fine, it's what she believes. It's wrong, but she's wrong about what she believes, but that's what she believes. But why now? Why now of all times? You know, she could have put out a book at any time spewing pro-abortion talking points. She could do that at any time. She could have done it a year ago. She could have done it two years ago. She could have done it at any point before her husband ran for office. She could do it a year from now. I mean, I'd prefer if it never happened.

But, you know, any time you could you could you could put out that book any time. Why right now? Right now of all times. Why now? A month before a presidential election, you come out with this full on defense of abortion, which, again, we should be clear, at least what Melania Trump has said in her book and some public statements she's she's made recently. This is not simply a well-

We have to have exceptions for rape and incest, life of the mother type of thing. This is a full-on defense of abortion, period. Staking out ground on the topic that is indistinguishable from Kamala Harris's position. So why that? Why now? That's not just her expressing herself. That's a political strategy.

Obviously, you know, you come out with a statement like this right before an election. You're obviously doing it's not a coincidence. It's not like, oh, I didn't notice there's an election happening. No, it's it's a political strategy. It's a play. It's a move. It's a tactic. And I think it's a really bad one. I think it's a really stupid one. I don't know how many times I have to say it. The people who care deeply about so-called abortion rights, the people who would even use the phrase abortion rights, right?

Right? Those people are not voting for Donald Trump, period. They're not voting for him. Anyone who would speak in a positive way about abortion rights, they're not voting for Trump. It doesn't matter what he says, doesn't matter what his wife says. You're not gonna win any of them. Now, that doesn't mean that the only people Trump can win are hardcore pro-lifers like myself.

There are plenty of people who would consider themselves to be, you know, moderate or in the middle on this issue who certainly will vote for Trump or at least are winnable for Trump. That's true. But the hardcore pro-aborts on the other side, the ones, again, who would go around talking about abortion rights and abortion, you know, there should be no restrictions on it. Abortion is a basic fundamental human right, which is the position that Melania Trump took. Those people are not up for grabs. Why would they be?

Like if abortion is that important to them, they have Kamala Harris. As we've said a million times, Kamala Harris, abortion is the one issue that Kamala Harris has actually been consistent on. It's the only issue where she has any credibility actually. Now, she doesn't have intellectual credibility or moral credibility certainly. Her position on it is horribly morally wrong, but

But she has been consistent. And when she goes around claiming that she's fought her whole career to protect so-called abortion rights, yeah, she actually has. That's the one thing she's cared about consistently through her whole political career. Every office she's held, every ounce of power she has possessed politically, she has always used it to advance the pro-abortion cause. And

So, the idea that you could ever win anyone who's deeply pro-abortion when you're competing against that, it's just delusional. And the only thing you can do by attempting to win them is disenfranchise and demoralize. Well, demoralize, not so much disenfranchise. You demoralize your own base. That's the only thing you could achieve. All right.

This is something we need to discuss. You know that this is an issue that's deeply important to me. And so I have to weigh in again because I saw this viral clip and, you know, people are talking about it. Everyone's wrong, as always, on this. I'm not sure what the context is, but I don't think we really need a lot of context. It's apparently a guy on a plane retaliating because the guy in front of him is reclining his seat. So it's a very brief video. Let's watch this first.

Okay, this provoked another debate. Who's right? Who's wrong? The funny thing about it is that the guy in the front looked like he was about to get out of his seat and fight the guy behind him. But then as far as I can tell, he forgot to unbuckle his seatbelt when he tried to stand up. And then it's like he's going to get up. He forgot to unbuckle his seatbelt. And then he just gives up. I guess after that mishap, he was too embarrassed to

So he decided not to assault the guy behind him, which I understand. I mean, once you've made that mistake, you can't really recover. You've lost the intimidation factor because you forgot how to work a seatbelt for a moment. And so I think that's what happened there. But as for who is in the right, obviously the guy in the row behind is in the right. The guy who is pummeling the other guy's seat and forcing him to sit up straight, that guy, the supposed aggressor,

in this case, is in the right. He's totally in the right. We've been through this many times. Let's review it again because apparently we need to. If you are in coach, you are not allowed to recline your seat. Yes, the seat has a recline function. Yes, you are physically able to recline it. Yes, airline policies even allow you to recline it once you're at cruising altitude. All of that is true, but I forbid it.

I am personally forbidding it. I am telling you that it is illegal. It is unconstitutional for all intents and purposes. You cannot recline your seat in coach. You want to recline your seat? Buy a first class ticket. In first class, you can recline your seat about 20% is what I'll allow. So if 100% represents the full amount that the seat will recline in first class, you can do 20% of that. So it's a slight recline will be allowed in first class because there's more leg room.

In coach, there's just no way. When you recline, you are lying in the lap of the person behind you. It is, I mean, who would even want to do that? How can you be comfortable relaxing knowing that you are directly lying on the legs of a stranger behind you? It's like an act of physical intimacy with the person behind you. You have to be, what are you, some kind of sex offender

So yes, okay, that's what I'm saying. Every person who reclines their seat in coach is basically a sex offender, among other things. It's disgusting. It's like, why would you want to crowd someone else's physical space that much? So I'm like, yes, it's rude. You're being a jerk. But doesn't that make you uncomfortable to know that you're doing that? You are actively choosing to take the personal space away from the person behind you, which is morally unjustifiable.

And the rationalization is always, well, the seat is able to recline, so I'm going to recline it. What kind of two-year-old logic is that? You have the moral reasoning of a toddler, okay? I mean, if you sit in the exit row, you can open the door. The door's able to be opened, so I'll just open it when we're 35,000 feet in the sky. If I wasn't supposed to open it, why am I able to do it? What kind of reasoning is this?

This is what people say, the seat recliners. I mean, this is not a straw man, this is their argument. They'll say, well, if I'm not supposed to do it, why am I able to do it? What? You're able, I could list a million things you're able to do that you still shouldn't do. I can even list things that you're able to do and it would be legal to do, but you still should not do. When you walk through a door,

in a public place and there's somebody walking in behind you. You're able to swing the door shut in their face without holding it for them. You're able, the door swings shut. That's a thing the door is able to do. It's not against the law, but you still shouldn't do it. You're still a jerk if you do it. I think this is the best analogy that I've come up with for this. I can't remember if I've used it before. I probably have. But I think it's very much like a

It's very much like a TV volume. Okay, so your TV goes up to volume 70 or whatever it is. The volume goes up that high. You...

Why does it need to go up that high? I don't know. It shouldn't even go up that. Every TV goes up higher than it should. You would never need to actually put the volume up that high. It would be crazy. And if you live in an apartment complex, let's say, with very thin walls and you have a TV, the TV is legal. You're allowed to have the TV. You're able to turn it up to 70%.

You can do that, but you shouldn't because then you're forcing everybody else in, you're forcing your neighbors on either side of you to listen to whatever you're listening to on your TV. So although you're able to turn it up that high, you still should not. And it's the same thing with the seat recline option. I don't, look, of all the random things that I choose to get really worked up about, I'm right about all of them.

We know that I'm a hundred percent right about all of it. Whether it's raw milk or sick days, I'm right. But on this, I'm the, I'm the rightest of all on this. I'm so right about this. I couldn't be more right than I am that you just, you, you are, it is a moral crime to recline your seat and coach. I see somebody do that. And I'm like, I can't even, I can't, I can't respect you anymore. I can't be, I can't, I can't be friends with you.

It says something so deep about who you are as a person. All right, I'm not overstating it. Going online unprotected, it's like leaving your door unlocked when you leave your house. Maybe you trust some of your neighbors, but what about that creepy guy down the block? What about delivery drivers and random strangers?

Do you trust all of them? With ExpressVPN, you can stay safe online without having to trust any random strangers. Here's the disturbing reality: your internet service provider can see every single website you visit, and they're legally allowed to sell that information to advertisers every time you connect to an unencrypted network in a cafe, hotel, or airport. Your online data is wide open. Any hacker on the same network can steal your personal information

And it doesn't take a tech genius to do this. Some kid with a laptop could be swiping your passwords and credit card details while sipping on a soy latte. Your data is valuable. Hackers can make up to $1,000 per person selling personal info on the dark web. That's why I never go online without ExpressVPN. It creates a secure encrypted tunnel between my device and the internet. ExpressVPN's encryption is so secure it would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to crack it.

It's also incredibly easy to use. Even if you're as tech savvy as Biden is eloquent, you can protect yourself with just one click. And it works on all your devices, phones, laptops, tablets, you name it.

I personally use ExpressVPN every day, whether I'm researching for the show or just browsing online. In this age of cancel culture and digital surveillance, protecting your online privacy isn't just smart, it's necessary. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com slash Walsh. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Walsh to get three extra months for free with my exclusive link, expressvpn.com slash Walsh.

Over the past two years, DW Plus has collaborated with Jordan Peterson on a collection of shows to help you win at life, the Mastering Life Collection with Jordan Peterson. Mastering Life topics range from marriage to masculinity and managing mental health with Jordan Peterson's newest series, Depression and Anxiety.

Plus, coming up this fall are Jordan Peterson's two new Mastering Life series, one on negotiation and one on success. Become a Daily Wire Plus member for unlimited access to Jordan Peterson's incredible Mastering Life collection today at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Use code Jordan at checkout for 35% off your new annual membership. It's dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

Over the past several years, professional sports leagues across the country have taken some very bold stands on important cultural issues. Think about the NFL bravely putting the words end racism on their helmets or the NHL holding pride nights to celebrate the three gay people in the world who watch hockey. There are many more examples, each more inspiring than the last, but all of them pale in comparison to this. It's just been announced that

Every major sports league in the country, and also Major League Soccer as well, are coming together and combining forces for a new campaign called hashtag timeout against hate. They're finally taking a stand against hate. They are courageously declaring that hate is bad. They don't like hate. You shouldn't like it either. That's what they're saying.

Here's Today.com with more. Quote, commissioners from the biggest leagues in sports have united to spread a new campaign called hashtag timeout against hate. The first of its kind campaign launched by New England Patriots CEO Robert Kraft's Foundation to Combat Antisemitism is reinterpreting the timeout gesture of professional sports to symbolize a fight against intolerance.

To reach as many sports fans as possible, Kraft has teamed up with commissioners Rob Manfred of Major League Baseball, Don Garber of Major League Soccer, Adam Silver of National Basketball Association, Kathy Engelbert of the Women's National Basketball Association, Roger Goodell of the National Football League, Gary Bettman of the National Hockey League, Jessica Berman of the National Women's Soccer League, and Steve Phelps of NASCAR to help create ads featuring leaders and top athletes. Those ads will play across all major leagues throughout the next year, 2020.

Three of the commissioners, Goodell, Silver, and Berman, joined Kraft for a sit-down with today's Craig Melvin about the anti-hate initiative. And I know you're hoping that that's a lead-in to watch some of that very important interview. And, well, you're in luck because we are going to watch some of it. Get ready to be inspired. Here it is.

The professional sports community calling on all Americans to take a time out. Things are getting out of control out there. It's part of a new ad campaign called Time Out Against Hate, featuring sports figures urging people to pause and regroup in the fight against intolerance. Hate is winning out there. The message powerful enough to prompt a rare sight. Patriots owner Robert

Kraft, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, National Women's Soccer League Commissioner Jessica Berman, and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver all in the same room. Why do people call a timeout during a game? They call it because they have to regroup. They're not winning. Something bad is going on that has to be corrected or fixed. And that was our thinking here.

The campaign is the brainchild of Kraft, who initially launched his foundation to combat anti-Semitism five years ago. Back in January, Kraft joined the commissioners of the NFL, the NBA, the WNBA, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the National Women's Soccer League, the National Hockey League and NASCAR, all for a special closed door meeting to address expanding his mission.

Take us inside that room. What was said? What was done? I think all of us came to learn and to get educated on what's really going on in our society. And as Robert says, with hate across all boundaries. A recognition that hate is a contagion. It's not just about the person or the group that it's directed at. It's harmful to society at large. Wow. Tremendous. Tremendous insight.

Did you hear that? Hate is harmful to society. In the words of Robert Kraft, something bad is going on that has to be corrected. What a profound statement. You can tell that he's reflected on this issue quite deeply. In fact, the last time Robert Kraft put this much thought into something, he was trying to decide which massage parlor to visit in South Florida, allegedly. One thing we know for sure is that the guy likes to take a hands-on approach, allegedly.

And now with this anti-hate timeout gesture, the hands are doing the job once again, allegedly. Anyway, the point is that we really need to stop and reflect on the audacity, the determination, the grit of these billionaires who are standing up and making such a controversial statement. Hate is bad. This reminds me of the time when I embarked on a nationwide campaign to protest stubbed toes.

I had signs and bumper stickers and PSAs made and everything. And I was really spreading the message that stubbing your toe is bad. It's better to not stub your toe. Nobody should ever have to have a stubbed toe these days. Anyone who's in favor of stubbing toes, anyone who's engaged in pro-toe stubbing propaganda is wrong. And I wasn't afraid to call them out.

And, you know, I thought and many people thought that I was a hero for that campaign. And I was. But this surpasses even those efforts. And by the way, you saw a snippet of it in the last clip. But here is the full anti-hate PSA that all the professional sports leagues got together to produce. And by the way, also, if you're a sports fan, as I am, then...

You can look forward to seeing this PSA and ones like it incessantly over and over again in every commercial break for every sport for the next year, which is really exciting. Let's watch it.

Again, I say, wow. Wow. I, for one, am convinced.

I'm going to stop hating. You know, I'd always thought that hate was good. But then I saw Shaquille O'Neal calling a timeout on hate. And and I realized that I was wrong. In fact, I saw I was I was sitting around with some other people. We were all hating. And then this ad came up and I said, gee whiz, guys, you know, let's let's just take a timeout on all this hating. What do you folks say? They said, you're right. You're right.

Now, although come to think of it, timeouts are temporary. So does that mean we all have to stop hating for just a few minutes and then we can start hating again? Are we calling a timeout on hate so that we can catch our breath and regroup and draw up a new play and get out there and hate even more effectively? Is that the point? Is this a chance to swap in some fresh haters who can go in there and hate with more energy?

Also, how many hate timeouts do we get per half? Do we get a new set of timeouts in the second half? What about overtime? If there's an injury in the final two minutes of the fourth quarter, do we lose one of our hate timeouts? What happens when we run out of hate timeouts? Won't the hate get completely out of control again? So there are a lot of unanswered questions, but let's not get hung up on those details. All we need to know is that they've called a timeout, at least for now, and so there will be no more hating. Can we still hate bad things?

Can we hate cancer and hurricanes? Can we hate head lice and juvenile diabetes? Can we hate serial killers? Can we hate hatred? Don't we have to hate hatred in order to participate in the time out against hate? But how can we hate hatred if we aren't allowed to hate at all? Aren't we discovering here that hatred isn't actually bad in and of itself? Isn't a campaign against hate not only so broad as to be meaningless but also morally misguided?

If you have no hatred in your heart for anything at all, it doesn't mean that you're full of love. After all, you cannot love people and also love the things that harm and destroy people. That'd be a contradiction in terms. Loving people, in fact, requires hatred. It requires that you hate the things that interfere with the well-being of the people you love. In fact, that could very well be the definition of love. So if you hate nothing, it must mean that you're indifferent.

Isn't an anti-hatred campaign then actually a promotion of indifference? And isn't indifference itself even worse than hatred? Did Jesus not say that it's better to be hot or cold than lukewarm? Yes, well, that all might be the case, but let's not focus on the negative. We can't anyway. They just called a timeout on that sort of thing. Let's focus on the bravery it requires to

take a moral stand that is not only vague and ambiguous, but also when it comes down to it, actually wrong. That's what matters now. And it's why hatred is today, at least temporarily, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.