Ep. 1259 - The 'Fact Checkers' Have Been Monitoring My Podcast And They Don't Like What They've Heard
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there are a number of left wing organizations you've never heard of that determine what information you can access online. One of them is called NewsGuard, and now they're coming after me for alleged "misinformation" on my podcast. Also, the mayor of Nashville announces an investigation into the leak of the Covenant shooter's manifesto. Schools in Pittsburgh begin a program to make math more "equitable," whatever that means. And Republicans turn in another poor Election Day performance. And now they're trying to scapegoat pro-lifers.
Ep.1259
- - -
DailyWire+:
Introducing Mayflower Cigars - Get Yours Here: https://bit.ly/3Qwwxx2
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
Good Ranchers - Get $15 off your order PLUS a year of your choice of meat!
Use promo code WALSH at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, there are a number of left-wing organizations you've never heard of that determine what information you can access online.
One of them is called NewsGuard, and now they're coming after me for alleged misinformation on my podcast.
We'll talk about that.
Also, the mayor of Nashville announces an investigation into the leak of the Covenant Shooters manifesto.
Schools in Pittsburgh begin a program to make math more equitable, whatever that is supposed to mean.
And Republicans turn in another poor Election Day performance.
Now they're trying to scapegoat pro-lifers for it.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
All right.
Thanks, Bill.
Thanks, Bill.
All right.
All right.
Balance of Nature uses advanced cold vacuum process to preserve the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients of the fruits and vegetables they use.
The capsules are whole food supplements with no additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in their capsules is pure fruits and vegetables.
Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the studio for my team to try.
We all love them.
With Balance of Nature, I get the nutrition of over 10 servings of fruits and vegetables in just a few easy-to-swallow capsules.
This makes my crazy schedule so much more manageable, and no matter what my day looks like, I'll start each morning with my Balance of Nature fruits and veggies.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH for 35% off your first preferred order.
There's an old story from the early 20th century Russian Empire.
It goes something like this.
A man on the street yells, Nicolay is a moron.
A police officer hears this and thinking that the guy is referring to the czar, Nicholas II.
The cop arrests the man.
The guy protests.
Well, no officer, I didn't mean our respected czar, but another Nicolay.
And then the cop responds, don't try to trick me.
If you say moron, you're obviously referring to the czar.
Now, who knows whether that story is true or not.
It's on Wikipedia, so it's probably made up.
Whatever the case, it does reveal a fundamental truth about thugs and autocrats, which is
that the more authoritarian they become, the more amusing they often are, if only unintentionally.
They just can't help themselves.
And of course, we're seeing that today pretty much everywhere we look.
One of the ironies of the death of humor on the left is that without realizing it, leftists
have suddenly become some of the funniest people on the planet, again, unintentionally.
Case in point, yesterday afternoon I opened my email and I found a message from somebody
named Jack Brewster.
Jack said he works for a company called NewsGuard, which says that it applies, quote, "various
metrics of credibility and transparency to news organizations and podcasts" so that,
quote, "consumers, advertisers, researchers, and others can make more informed decisions
about which media they choose to consume and support."
It's all very serious stuff that we absolutely need some shadowy organization with an Orwellian name like NewsGuard to handle for us.
There's just no chance that people can come to You know, informed conclusions about media outlets and podcasts on their own.
You can't be entrusted to decide for yourself what news outlets you like and what podcasts you like.
You need a news guard to help you and guide you along the way.
You need Jack Brewster there to take you by the hand and guide you.
And to that end, Jack Brewster, who happens to be, of course, a former operative for the Democrat Party, provided a series of questions for me about my podcast and the content on my podcast.
He's been monitoring it for a while now, it would appear.
And he demanded that I reply to his questions so that he can rank my show, and of course
inevitably rank it poorly and get me censored on social media, which is the whole idea.
Now I'll get into NewsGuard's real mission and the full text of Jack Brewster's email
in a second, but I'm not going to bury the lead here.
Here's the precise question from my new friend Jack that truly is the single best paragraph I've ever read in my email inbox, which maybe isn't saying much, but it's true.
It brought joy to my day, and so I want to spread that joy to you.
So here it is, the totally earnest question from fact-checking savant Jack Brewster.
Jack wrote to me, quote, The August 24th, 2023 episode of the Matt Walsh Show featured a bonus special segment in which Walsh stated, Michelle Obama is a man.
I'm increasingly convinced that there's some validity out there.
No, I really am.
Look, some people have looked into this.
Shapiro interjected to say, for God's sake, Matt, you're the only one in America who knows that women can't be men.
Stop it.
Walsh replied, I don't know, look, and some information has come out about Barack Obama recently that also confirms what we were told was once a conspiracy theory.
Shapiro interjected again to say, Barack Obama did like dudes.
He did like dudes.
That's a thing he wrote, which is a weird thing to write to a girlfriend, by the way.
Walsh later asked, why are we dodging this question about Michelle Obama's gender?
To which Clavin responded, yeah, Michelle is obviously a man.
Shapiro replied, Oh God, guys, please stop.
She's not a man.
She's a woman, a very bad woman, by the way.
That was the email that he sent us.
That was the question.
Then Jack, smelling the Pulitzer, asks me the money question.
Quote, Why did Walsh and Clavin claim that Michelle Obama is a man?
I'm not going to get into the various high-quality sources I was relying on when I made my remarks, which were obviously serious in every possible respect.
I'm not going to talk about how Michelle Obama conspicuously doesn't list her pronouns in her Twitter bio, even though most prominent Democrats, including AOC and Pete Buttigieg, are proudly doing so.
I'm not going to talk about broad shoulders or deep voices or a weird lack of baby pictures or anything like that.
I'm certainly not going to show you the footage of Ted Nugent's infamous discussion with Kyle Rittenhouse from back in April, where he outlined some of his own observations and the evidence that he has found that Michelle Obama is a man.
I'm not going to show you any of that.
I deeply hope that you don't look up that footage for yourself, which you can find on YouTube or Twitter.
That is the point here.
Instead, I'm going to do what NewsGuard desperately doesn't want me to do, which is to provide some context.
First of all, Jack at NewsGuard immediately gets a couple of obvious facts wrong.
For one thing, I didn't make these comments about Michelle Obama on my show or a special edition of my show, which doesn't exist.
I made the comments on a Daily Wire backstage.
So he got the show completely wrong.
And that backstage took place on August 23rd, which was debate night, not August 24th, as the fact-check guy claimed.
So these are basic facts that this fact-checking, this well-funded fact-checking organization has already got wrong.
And as for this discussion that he is pointing to and fact-checking, I figure maybe I should show you the relevant portion of that clip.
Let's watch it.
This was a little unexpected.
I am the most popular game show host in America.
This show we started on the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
It is the yes or no game.
We've sold a bazillion of these games.
We sell out every single time.
We now have the expansion pack.
The expansion pack is the conspiracy theory pack, and the producers of this very show This is a mean one.
This is actually a mean one.
on this game.
Just your, listen, you're not being held to anything.
Media Matters is gonna clip it out anyway, but this is a safe space.
Don't worry, if I say something about 9/11, I'll pretend I never said it in my career.
Hypothetically. - Don't worry.
Hypothetically. - If that were to happen.
Your polls will go up.
These are, I did not write these cards.
I take no responsibility for them.
Just wanna go round robin' a little bit here.
I assume-- - This is a mean one.
This is actually a mean one, I don't even wanna say it.
It's me.
(laughing)
I mean, ask me the question, I'll read it too if you want.
Michelle Obama is a man.
Can I take that one?
Yeah.
I am increasingly convinced that I have some validity to that theory.
I really am.
I've seen, look, some people have looked into this, and I think especially... Wait, who are they?
Joan Rivers.
She looked into it.
For God's sake, Matt, you're the only one in America who knows that women can't be men.
Well, but the question is... I don't know, look, some information has come out about Obama recently that also confirms what we were told was once a conspiracy theory.
He did like dudes.
He did like dudes.
That is a thing that he wrote about.
Which is a weird thing to write to a girlfriend, by the way.
A very weird thing to write to a girlfriend.
I can explain it.
Of course you can.
Okay, so we're playing a game where you're supposed to answer these funny questions.
It's not supposed to be an Inquisition where everyone has to rigorously fact-check and cross-reference all of their statements and provide citations.
It's pretty obvious if you're watching that clip and you don't suffer from any debilitating disorder that affects your ability to perceive humor or sarcasm.
I can only imagine what it must be like to have Jack Brewster over to your house for game night.
Like you're playing Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity or something like that and Jack is sitting in the corner by himself sipping LaCroix, issuing fact checks.
Excuse me, I've rated your answer misleading.
It lacks important context.
I've also reported you to the FBI.
I'm actually a bit disappointed that Jack didn't go further with his fact check, though.
For one thing, Michael Knowles begins this segment by stating that he's the most popular game show host in America, and that's obviously a statement in need of scrutiny.
And then Knowles goes on to say that some dishonest hack from Media Matters is probably going to clip our responses to the game, take them out of context, and pretend to take us literally when we're obviously just messing around on a boring debate night.
Jack should have fact checked him there and pointed out that, in fact, A dishonest hack from Media Matters did not take us out of context.
Instead, a dishonest hack from NewsGuard did.
Now, to be fair, Jack raised a few other pointed questions too.
For example, he writes, during the September 14th, 2023 episode, Walsh stated, there are no clinical trials or studies that demonstrate that it's safe or necessary in any way to give COVID shots to six-month-old children.
Not a single one, not a single study.
However, multiple studies, including this study in pediatrics and this study in the New England Journal of Medicine, have shown that it's safe to give COVID-19 shots to children ages six months old.
Should Walsh have noted such studies instead of making such a broad claim?
Now, this is an example of spreading misinformation while claiming to combat it.
Neither one of the studies that Brewster cites actually prove his assertion that the COVID shot is safe or necessary for six-month-old children.
The first study from the Journal of Pediatrics isn't really a study at all.
It's a research brief, and here's what it says.
Quote, we may have underestimated or missed potential safety concerns if the biologically plausible risk interval for an outcome differed from our specified risk interval.
The researchers say that their analysis is early and therefore has reduced statistical power.
The second study from the New England Journal of Medicine also acknowledges that quote wider scale
use of the vaccine in children after authorization may identify other less frequent or more serious
adverse events and continued monitoring of safety after emergency use authorization is ongoing. So
these are not in fact documents that prove that it's safe to give your six-month-old child a
COVID vaccine and they are tentative assessments of a very limited amount of data.
And they certainly don't even come close to suggesting that the shot is necessary for these children.
That's about the extent of NewsGuard's factual questions for me.
The rest of Jack's email, which was quite extensive, does get even weirder though somehow.
For example, he asks, can you comment on whether the podcast is dominated by one-sided opinion?
Now he wants to know the answer to that question because, quote, quote, one of NewsGuard's criteria for rating a podcast seeks to determine whether a podcast is dominated by one-sided opinion.
Then the email cites a bunch of examples of me providing my opinion without inviting someone on the show to argue with me.
And, I mean, really, he didn't need to provide examples because that's literally every single show I sit here in front of a camera and give my opinion.
Now what's funny about This line of attack is that when other outlets have provided both sides of an issue, NewsGuard blames them for doing that.
So it's a lose-lose proposition.
A couple of years ago, Red State reported that NewsGuard berated them for publishing
an article with the headline, "Doctor disagrees with the CDC/NIH on COVID."
Now what was wrong with that article?
According to NewsGuard, "The headline suggests that there are two opposing sides of a debate,
the doctor and public health authorities, and that both positions are equally supported by evidence.
This is not the case."
So you're damned if you present both sides, and you're damned if you don't.
The only solution they want is for you to parrot their side.
If you don't do that, then they'll do what they're doing to me.
They'll whine because I have too much opinion on my podcast, even though it is an opinion podcast.
The whole show is my opinion.
That is the genre of the show.
It is like complaining about an editorial Editorializing, okay?
It's like reading an editorial in the newspaper and it's like, there's too much editorializing going on in this editorial.
It's like if I had a sports show and they criticized me for not talking enough about the budget deficit.
Apparently NewsGuard has decided that opinion shows simply shouldn't exist as a category.
Or at least not opinion shows that center around opinions like mine.
Now, all of this is absurd and therefore funny, of course.
But below the surface, it's a little less amusing.
You may not have heard of this organization, but NewsGuard is in fact a powerful and influential organization, one that you are funding with your tax dollars.
They recently received a massive grant from Biden's Department of Defense for nearly $750,000.
As Michael Schellenberger testified before Congress earlier this year, quote, both the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard are U.S.
government-funded entities who are working to drive advertisers' revenue away from disfavored publications and towards the ones they favor.
This is totally inappropriate.
Inappropriate, yes, but it's happening.
Inappropriate, you know, to put it mildly.
It's one of the reasons NewsGuard brought on Michael Hayden as an advisor.
Hayden has said that unvaccinated Trump supporters should be sent to Afghanistan.
He said that today's Republicans are the most violent ideological force he's ever seen in the world.
He suggested that Senator Tuberville should be killed.
He also lied to Congress about the CIA's torture program.
None of that bothers NewsGuard because Hayden didn't make fun of Michelle Obama or anyone on the left.
And NewsGuard's only job is to censor the political enemies of the Democratic Party.
That is why the Democratic Party is funding them.
Now, to be clear, it's not just the U.S.
government that's backing NewsGuard.
One of NewsGuard's early investors was the Publicis Group.
Who are they?
Well, they have a subsidiary called Publicis Health Media, which works with the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet, including Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and many others.
And Publicis Health Media has already announced explicit partnerships with NewsGuard.
Maybe you're starting to get the picture here.
The government and Big Pharma have a very close ally in NewsGuard.
And now, coincidentally enough, NewsGuard is going after conservatives who question the wisdom of giving the COVID shot to your six-month-old child.
And NewsGuard's lieutenants, like Jack Brewster, are active on Twitter haranguing Elon Musk for daring to suggest that Tony Fauci might have a funded gain-of-function research that made COVID deadlier.
So, they get funded by organizations and by interests, and then they go out and they enforce the interests of those organizations.
That's the way it works.
And not just targeting me.
They've done the same thing to Breitbart, Revolver, The Federalist, Fox News, Red State, Life News, PragerU, The Daily Wire, broadly speaking, and various other publications.
And they're being as transparently partisan about all this as you'd expect.
As the Federalist reported, nearly every outlet that opted to ignore or discredit the New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop maintains a near-perfect rating from NewsGuard's accuracy and credibility score.
Politico, NPR, New York Times maintain a favorable 100 out of 100 rating, which means that they are always, I guess, they are always honest.
Always.
Well, CBS News scores a 95 out of 100.
The New York Post, on the other hand, suffers a grade of 69.5 out of 100, and The Federalist a 12.5 out of 100.
NewsGuard also promotes pro-abortion resources and punishes pro-life sites, as you would expect.
So, if you lie to protect the Bidens, you're credible.
If you point out the corruption of the Biden family, you are not credible.
NewsGuard is becoming big now for a very specific reason, which is that the Missouri vs. Biden case is pending before the Supreme Court.
And that's a case that could punish the Biden administration for pressuring social media sites to censor conservatives.
In anticipation of a bad ruling in that case, the Biden administration is outsourcing its censorship apparatus to cutouts like NewsGuard.
And that's why all this matters.
You know, it may seem like an organization like NewsGuard just exists to send annoying emails to people like me, and if that's all this is, then who cares, right?
But it's not.
They exist to suppress opinions that the ruling class disapproves of.
They are the government's way of getting around the First Amendment by enlisting third parties to carry out their censorship campaign.
So we are not looking at some corrupt, rogue, left-wing blog.
NewsGuard is a core component of the left's evolving censorship apparatus.
And already, it's powerful.
Its ratings have an effect on what you can see online.
They help to determine what you can see, what you can access.
Microsoft, the Defense Department, the World Health Organization, the State Department, all have affiliations with NewsGuard.
Specifically, Microsoft's search engine Bing licenses NewsGuard's technology, and NewsGuard is pitching it to other companies as well.
What you have to realize about this is that there are no GOP-funded equivalents to NewsGuard.
There is no right-wing effort underway to smear leftists with fraudulent fact checks in order to censor them online.
Nothing like NewsGuard or Media Matters or any of these organizations exists on the right.
This is a fight they're winning because they have the field completely to themselves.
And so we have to come up with an answer that goes beyond just mocking them.
But in the meantime, I must admit, it is fun to mock them.
And that's why I sent Jack Brewster a response to his emails informing him that I cannot answer his question about Michelle Obama being a man until he provides me with a definition of the word man.
Brewster emailed back last night saying hi, Mr. Walsh. I understand what you're driving at
But my question about the Michelle Obama segment was not about the gender ideology debate
I was asking whether you or mr.
Clavin have any evidence to support the claim that Michelle Obama is or ever claimed to be a man
To that I responded quote hijack It's difficult to have any conversation about whether
Michelle Obama is or isn't a man until we are sure what the word means
As someone who works for a fact-checking organization, I would certainly hope that you could provide a definition of this basic term.
If you cannot define it, then will you provide a disclaimer in your report stipulating that you are unable to personally dispute my assertion that Michelle Obama is a man because you do not know what the term means in the first place?
Thanks again.
Now Jack did not answer after that.
He has been stumped apparently.
I guess we'll never know what a man is or whether Michelle Obama is one.
And that is all very funny, but also disturbing when you consider how much power these people really have.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Instead, head over to Good Ranchers.
That's good stuff.
Their Black Friday Your Way Sale is live, and it's something you don't want to miss.
This November, you get to pick your favorite meat to get free for a year.
Pick a year of free steak, salmon, chicken, or bacon.
When you subscribe to any box right now, better yet, when you subscribe to any box at GoodRanchers.com, you not only get a free gift of meat worth up to $480, but you also get $15 off with code Walsh.
The only big deal your grocery store has is on expiring food.
So ditch the meat aisle and subscribe at GoodRanchers.com today.
Claim your year of free meat, $15 off and free shipping with my code Walsh at GoodRanchers.com.
Good Ranchers is the number one place to get all American beef, pork, chicken, and seafood.
That's promo code Walsh at GoodRanchers.com.
Good Ranchers.
American meat delivered.
We'll begin with NBC News, which reports the mayor of Nashville, Tennessee, called Monday for an investigation after images reported to be the writings of a shooter who killed six people at the Covenant School in March were posted online.
The three images of writings, which were posted Monday by a conservative podcast and YouTube show host, are said to be from the shooter.
NBC News has not confirmed whether the documents are authentic.
Audrey Hale was killed by police after having opened fire on March 27th at the private Christian school.
The shooter killed three children and three adults.
Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell said he directed Metro Nashville Law Director Wally Dietz to initiate an investigation into how these images could have been released.
I am deeply concerned with the safety, security, and well-being of the Covenant families and all Nashvillians who are grieving, O'Connell said in a statement.
Podcast host Steven Crowder posted the images online Monday.
The writings in the images appear to have language about carrying out a shooting at a school and a date.
And just skimming through this article, of course, I'm not
seeing any quote of what, of what, you know, of what those documents
actually say.
No surprise there.
Somebody who doesn't mention that she talked about killing white people because of their white privilege and so on.
On Monday, a spokesman for those parents, for the parents of the Covenant parents, called whoever posted these documents a viper and said the person released evidence that was gathered in our most vulnerable moment.
Okay.
A few things.
You have now allowed the shooter who terrorized our family with bullets to be able to terrorize
us with words from the grave, said the spokesperson Brent Leatherwood, whose three children were
at the school and survived.
Okay, a few things.
First of all, the claim from the mayor that this somehow puts people's safety in jeopardy
is total nonsense.
They've been saying that from the beginning.
One of the reasons why they can't release the documents is that it would jeopardize people's safety.
And he says that it puts not only the families in jeopardy, but it puts all Nashvillians' safety in jeopardy.
In what way?
How does it jeopardize anyone's safety?
That was always nonsense.
That's one of the many reasons why We demand to see the documents.
Is that the reasons they gave us for not releasing them were obviously nonsense.
So they're clearly lying.
We talked about yesterday.
One of the reasons they give us is litigation.
They say we can't release it because of litigation.
Well, the litigation is over the fact that they're not releasing it.
So if they release it, then the litigation goes away.
So that is such a bogus excuse.
A total insult to our intelligence.
You would have to be a moron to buy that, or at least deeply confused.
And then on top of that, they say that, well, and this is another thing they told us, that
it had blueprints about how to carry out an attack, and they don't want to inspire copycats.
Clearly, if there's something like that, if there's really something in there that could
actually put someone's safety in jeopardy, some sort of how-to manual for carrying out
a shooting.
Obviously you could redact that.
You don't have to release that part of it.
I mean, they're the ones who tell us that there's a lot of documents, a lot of things written, you know.
Well, if that's the case, then no one's saying that that specific portion needs to be released.
But you're not releasing any of it at all, and so that is why there are so many questions.
Now, as I said yesterday, I'm obviously extremely sympathetic to the parents who don't want this stuff released.
I understand why they don't.
I understand their position.
I'd probably feel the same way if I was in their shoes.
They don't want to relive the nightmare.
They don't want to have this case back in the news.
They don't want people talking about it.
They're trying to pick up the pieces and find a way to keep moving.
And so I get all of that as much as anyone could possibly understand it when they haven't
suffered such a tragedy.
And you know, it doesn't help in their grieving process to have the killer's manifesto in
the news a year later.
So all of that is, I totally understand.
But this is why, again, they should have put this information out months ago when it first
So tell the truth right away, and then there is no reliving of the trauma.
I mean, if you go through something like this, unfortunately you're going to relive it all the time in a certain way, but there wouldn't be this, there'd be no need to drudge it up in the news in November when the shooting happened in March.
If they had just been honest right away.
The fault here lies with the officials, with the authorities, who chose not to tell the truth from the get-go.
And here's the other point, too.
That we feel great sympathy for the families of the victims.
Our hearts break for them.
Also, public policy and these kinds of decisions have to be made with the entire public in mind.
You know, it's like It's similar to when you have families of victims calling for gun control, you know, and when that happens, as it does sometimes, I understand why they're saying it.
I understand emotionally.
I don't agree, you know, I don't agree with calling for gun control, but I understand emotionally why they would feel that way.
At the same time, however, we don't make decisions about basic legal rights.
Based entirely on what devastated and distraught families, you know, are saying about it.
We listen to them and we feel for them.
And basic principles remain.
You know, the Second Amendment is a basic principle.
The need for transparency is a basic principle.
And so while we understand emotionally and we can Empathize with how people feel about it.
The basic principle is that there needs to be transparency when something like this happens.
Like, it's just not acceptable.
It is just not acceptable for some crime like this to be carried out, and then you tell us that, oh yeah, well, this person explained why they did it, but we're not going to tell you.
No, no, no.
Unacceptable.
That's not a tenable situation.
You have no right to do that.
And besides, this is not a statement about the families.
I'm not saying we should release it because I disagree with the families.
It's a statement about the government, about the FBI, the officials who've You know, been the ones ultimately who make the decision not to release the documents.
The families feel how they feel about it, but they don't have the power to determine what happens with these documents on their own, right?
This is a determination that ultimately is made by government officials.
And they say, those government officials do, they say their reason is because they're respecting the families, and because of litigation, and because of safety.
We know the litigation excuse, the safety excuse, we know that's bogus.
Do you believe that they actually give a damn about those families, or about any families?
Well, the FBI, they know what's in those documents.
You think they care about anybody?
No.
I don't trust them.
So, when we're told that the writings won't be released, we're also being told that we should trust the judgment of these officials, who are the ones who make that call.
And I don't trust them.
And I have no reason to.
And you have no reason to.
And you don't trust them either.
Which is why you always end up back in a position where it's not up to you to decide.
It's not up to you.
Maybe you release the documents, ultimately, and people look at it and they say, yeah, you know, you can't make much out of this.
Not much to make of this.
It's just a bunch of incoherent, contradictory rambling.
Maybe that's the case.
And if it's the case, then we know, right?
But don't tell me I have to take their word for it.
Don't tell me I have to take the FBI's word for it.
Don't tell me that.
That is not acceptable.
Nobody should accept that.
Alright, Daily Wire has this report.
A school district in New Jersey partnered with a sex education group that has offered to provide schools with so-called gender-affirming kits that could include tucking underwear, chest binders, and devices allowing girls to pee standing up.
New documents and videos obtained by Parents Defending Education and first shared with the Daily Wire show evidence of the Princeton Public Schools District's partnership with High Tops, which is a leftist sex education non-profit.
The partnership, which the district has previously said it would reconsider, was first revealed
by Project Veritas back in September.
HITOPS, based in Princeton, describes itself as an organization dedicated to inclusive
and youth-informed sex education and LGBTQ+ support for young people throughout New Jersey.
Correspondence obtained by PDE show HITOPS sending lesson plans and promotional flyers to PPS.
A lot of acronyms going on here.
PPS is the school district.
One of the flyers sent to PPS from Hightops was promoting a gender-affirming kit.
The kit included things like chest binders, packing tape, tucking underwear, packers, chest forms, and stand-to-pee devices.
This is what they're sending to a school district.
Items that are, at the very least, promoting this stuff.
Reading now from the flyer.
Their gender journey.
gender-affirming kit is a groundbreaking resource designed to support transgender, non-binary,
and gender-expansive students while promoting inclusivity within your school community.
The kit is a comprehensive package that equips administrators, teachers, school counselors,
and nurses with the knowledge and tools they need to empower students on their gender journey.
Their gender journey. That's what sex education is now.
Daily Wire asked PPS about the extent to which the manuals from HITOP were used in classes throughout the district.
and Eric Sanze, director of outreach at PDE, said in a
statement to the Daily Wire, "These trainings are a child safeguarding nightmare. Not
only do they tell teachers to ask for the gender pronouns of every student, but they
also instruct teachers to ask students how they want to be referred to in front of their parents.
It's an explicit invitation to keep secrets from parents." Yeah, that's, so did you get
that there?
So they're being asked, not being asked that in front of the parents, just to be clear, they're asking the kids, what do you want us to call you in front of your parents?
So that it's a way of saying, if you want, hey, if you want to, the teacher is saying to the student, if you want to keep a secret from your parents, you know, but we can do that.
Inviting them to keep these secrets.
And this is all about guiding them again in their gender journey.
Now, none of this is surprising.
It should not be surprising to you.
And I'm saying that not just because of the left's recent embrace of this kind of insanity going on gender journey.
It's like this was not Nobody was using phrases like this this way even when I was in high school when I was in grade So not all it was a while ago, but it wasn't all that long ago The phrase gender journey would have meant nothing like nobody would have had any idea what you're talking about And there were no, you know, nobody was getting chest binders.
Nobody was getting packing tape.
Nobody was getting The stand-to-pee device like none of that Existed, certainly it was not being promoted on any kind of mainstream level.
And yet everybody was fine.
Like, there were no kids when I was in school that were in great pain because they weren't able to obtain a chest binder or a stand-to-pee device.
Right, and if you go farther back than that, if you go to my parents' generation or before that, all throughout, it's, there's, it was not needed, nobody needed it, nobody was talking about it.
And yet, all of a sudden, now, we're told that there are all these kids, this is desperately need, it's not just, they need it.
If they don't get it, then it may have catastrophic, fatal implications.
All of that is nonsense, of course.
But what we have to always keep in mind, When you see this kind of insanity in the sex education programs is that, yeah, some of this, this is the most recent manifestation, but it's also what sex education is fundamentally and has always been designed to be.
Government school, sex education.
You've heard on this show, so if you listen to the show, you know where that traces back to.
It goes back to Alfred Kinsey, you know, these sexologists and sex researchers and these psychotherapy quacks from the mid-20th century and before that.
That's where the whole idea of comprehensive sex education comes from.
It comes from them.
And it was always an explicit agenda To sexualize children from a young age.
That's why these so-called sex education programs exist.
And it's why they should not exist.
So we should not... Yes, we rightly react with disgust at these especially egregious examples of the sexualization of children happening in schools.
But our response should not be, no, we need to come up with a more reasonable and more appropriate sex education curriculum.
That should not be our response.
And our response should also not be, you know, we need a sex education program that emphasizes abstinence.
These are all false choices.
Our response should be that none of this belongs in the schools whatsoever.
This entire subject does not belong in school.
It is crazy that this is happening at all.
This is not what the schools exist for.
If the topic of reproduction is going to come up, It comes up in science class.
Some of this will come up if you're talking science, biology, anatomy.
But to have a separate course set aside to talk about sexuality with the kids, that should not exist.
There is no version of that conversation that will ever be appropriate for a strange adult to have with a child.
There is no version of that conversation about sexuality that will ever be appropriate for some teacher to have with a 10-year-old That is just one kid in a class.
It will never be appropriate, and that's what we have to realize, and that should be our response to this.
Alright, staying with madness in the public school system, CBS News reports on efforts to make math more equitable.
Let's watch this.
Hitsburg Public Schools hiring a consultant to teach a new method of instructing kids.
It's intended to be anti-racist and what some find curious is that the subject involved is math.
KDK lead investigator Andy Sheehan talked with the district leader who recommended it.
No matter how math is taught, 1 plus 1 will always equal 2.
But Pittsburgh Public Schools is now offering what it calls an anti-racist approach, saying it is trying to address racial inequity in math classes.
We think of math as addition, subtraction, multiplication.
We're talking about really a mindset, and it's an approach.
So whether we use the term anti-racist or we talk about racial equity, it's the same.
Last week, the school board approved a $50,000 contract to the consulting group Quetzel to provide workshops for district math teachers to more fully engaged students of color in learning math and hopefully improve performance.
According to the most recent test scores, 11.6 percent of the district's African American grade students scored proficient in math, compared to 47.5 percent of white students.
The district has long sought to close that gap and says it will now be taking this approach.
It's one thing to say that, you know, African American students in the district are underperforming.
It's another thing to say that the instruction by math teachers is racist.
We don't use any language to call any approach racist, but what we do is we talk about approaches that are anti-racist.
Okay, pause it there for a second.
So you notice with these, they can just never answer anything directly.
On the left, no, it's not just what is a woman or what is a man, as we discovered with our friend Jack Brewster.
It's any question at all, any question relating to their Any item on their agenda, they can never answer it directly.
Never answer a direct question.
They refuse to answer direct questions.
And it's not because they don't have an answer in mind.
It's not because they don't know the answer.
It's because they realize that fundamentally their agenda is absurd and insane and extreme.
And so they can't answer it directly.
So, clearly, the whole idea here is that math education is racist, and so it needs to be anti-racist, and then he's asked directly, well, how exactly could math education be racist?
Well, we're not saying it's racist, but we're saying it should be anti-racist.
Well, first of all, it is kind of what you, but earlier in the discussion, he did indicate that it's racist.
And now he's saying it's, well, it's not racist, but it needs to be anti-racist.
So, but what's the opposite of anti-racist?
So it's not anti, is it, right now it is not anti-racist.
So if it's not anti-racist, does that mean that it's racist?
Like, just explain it in more detail.
And he can't do that.
Let's keep watching a little bit of this.
To Assistant Superintendent Dr. Shawn McNeil, this means addressing historic inequities in educating students by exposing them to black professionals in STEM fields to tell students of the African American legacy in mathematics, emphasizing its practical applications in a hands-on welcoming way.
And McNeil says the emphasis is on concepts and reasoning rather than putting importance on getting the answer right.
Is this not sort of dumbing down the curriculum, the math curriculum, to say, hey, you know... Alright.
You know, every time I see stories like this...
I have a few reactions.
My first reaction is that this is crazy.
But then I always have, there's a little, I have to admit, I'll admit, a little tinge of envy that I feel every time I hear about something like this.
A little tinge of envy that they didn't have policies like this in place when I was in school.
I would have loved If when I was taking math classes and performing very poorly in them, I would have loved if they had a policy that, well, we're not really emphasizing getting the answer right.
I would have really appreciated that when I was in school, you know, 25 years ago.
I could have really used that instead.
It would have helped.
Who knows where I'd be today?
I mean, it would have helped my self-esteem tremendously rather than getting all those D's and E's on math tests.
If they could have said, look, you didn't get it.
Yeah, there were 50 questions on this math test.
You got precisely none of them correct.
But we're not, you know, this is not, this is not about getting them right or wrong.
That's not what this is about.
At the very least, I wish I had thought of this myself as an excuse that I could have presented to my own parents when I came home with the report card and said, look, I don't want you to think too much about whether the answers are right or wrong.
It's not about right or wrong.
You know, it's not about grades, mom and dad.
It's about a journey.
That's what it is.
It's about, you know, I'm on the educational journey, and I'm really, and I feel good about it.
I don't know if that would have resonated with them.
But what you have to, the real point with this is that, aside from just mocking it, as we should, that mathematics is sort of like the last stronghold.
If they can do this with math, then they can do it with anything.
If you could take mathematics and start claiming that it's racist, and that we have to fundamentally change our approach to it, if we are at the point of making math equitable, then that's it.
That's the last one.
Mathematics, you would think.
Is as objective of a subject as there can possibly be.
Like, 2 plus 2 equals 4.
It just does.
There's no way around it.
And yet, even with mathematics now, they're doing it.
Because, ultimately, we understand that this is, more than anything, a war on truth.
A war on objective truth.
And that includes 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Let's get to it.
it was Walsh wrong.
Canyon University is an affordable private Christian university based in Phoenix, Arizona.
They're dedicated to making education fit into your already busy schedule, which is why they offer 270 of their academic programs online.
From scholarships to academic support, GCU's graduation team provides you with the personal support you need to obtain your goals.
GCU's online programs offer you the freedom to earn your degree on your own time from wherever you are.
GCU is praised for its culture of community giving and impact.
They integrate the free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview into all of their academic programs.
Achieve your goals with a personalized plan and supportive team behind you.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private.
Christian.
Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Okay, so some comments here disagreeing with my opinion about DoorDash and tipping.
Habening says, "I always tip $10+ food delivery is a luxury, not a necessity."
$10+ on top of the service fees and the taxes you're already paying?
But you throw $10 into it?
Kai Bowren says, on the DoorDash thing, is it not preferable to be informed as the customer about how the system works?
Like, you can not like it, but if that's the case, don't use the service, and then maybe it will change.
But using it and not tipping is just driving out the few good drivers.
And Simon says, Matt, you're completely wrong about DoorDash.
The reason customers have to tip beforehand is because it's a delivery service and there's often no contact with the customer and therefore no opportunity to leave a tip in person.
If the service was bad, you can leave a complaint and get refunded.
Also, drivers like myself are incentivized to accept orders that are high paying, meaning a good tip.
DoorDash pays us like crap, so often the only reason an order is worth accepting is because of the tip.
Yeah, and my point is that I think anyone who does a job should be paid for it.
The question is, who should pay?
of their employees. No tip means it'll be passed over by drivers multiple times in favor
of orders with tips. One final thought, this is not forced charity. I am literally going
to the restaurant, getting your food for you and delivering it.
Yeah. And my point is that I think anyone who does a job should be paid for it. The
question is who should pay? This is what your employer should be paying you for the service.
And with something like DoorDash, if I am already paying for the service, and then you
say in addition, you need to pay more for the employee who is rendering the service,
that is a crazy system.
And it just becomes financially untenable for people.
You know, it gets to the point with something like DoorDash where Unless you're well off, it's not something you can afford to do very often, because the premium you're paying is insane.
And what are we going to do about that premium?
Obviously, you have to pay for the service.
Nobody's saying that someone should go pick up the food for free, and the only thing you pay for is the food.
But here, it's the service on top of the employee rendering it.
That's the issue.
And also, this is not how the incentive structure... I understand this is the incentive structure they've come up with, supposedly, where you get the tip ahead of time, and then people can decide whether they want to take your order or not.
But that's not even an incentive.
There's no incentive there.
You already have the money.
Incentive is supposed to be, if after the fact, it'd be very easy, but you're acting like it's impossible to leave, how could you possibly tip someone, you know, most of the tips are, there's no contact, so you couldn't tip in person.
Nobody's saying that.
It would be very easy to have a system where you deliver the food, person receives it, then something pops up on their phone and says, would you like to leave a tip for the driver?
Right?
So you could be that way, where you tip after the fact.
That's all.
I have done these jobs, okay?
I did pizza delivery before smartphones existed.
And that's the way it worked.
You got tipped after the fact.
And now with smartphones, it'd be very easy to do in a cashless world.
Now, I know the reason you wouldn't want that is because, well, it makes it, you know, then it's easier for people to not tip.
But that's the way tip's supposed to work.
You know, you work harder, you get the food there faster, because you want to get a better tip.
That's how the incentive structure is supposed to work.
This is not an incentive structure right now.
It is a blackmail system.
It's emotional manipulation.
And as I said, these comments are only responding to the DoorDash scenario, but there's also all the other scenarios, like at the coffee shop, for example, where they just flip the iPad over, you leave the tip.
That has no bearing on what happens after that.
There's no incentive at all.
So, at a minimum, I guess this is where I stand on this.
If we're going to have this explosion of tipping, where everybody wants a tip now, at a minimum, if we're going to do that, the fairest way to do it, and the way that you should do it, if you don't want to alienate your customers and end up in a situation where fewer people are leaving tips because they're so sick of it, and that's where we're at now.
And I know if you work one of these jobs, you might not like that.
It may not be, you may wish that wasn't the case, but I'm just telling you, okay, don't shoot the messenger on this, I'm telling you, people are freaking fed up with it.
Because we're just getting harangued everywhere now, for a tip, and people are not made of money.
And they just want to go in, and they're already paying for the stuff, and they just want that to cover what they're, that should cover it.
If a company's not paying you enough, it's like, that should be something you take up with the company.
But if we're going to do this, and if you don't want to alienate all the customers and make them sick to death of it, then it needs to be after-the-fact tipping.
It needs to be tipping as a reward for service.
And yeah, you're going to get less tips in that case, then you've got to work harder for them.
That's the way it's supposed to go.
Or you can just piss everybody off and then you got more and more people throwing up their hands and saying, I'm just not tipping anymore.
It's too much.
It's out of hand.
So those are your choices.
Let's get to the daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Since the overturning of Roe v Wade, the left has lost their minds.
Leftism is their religion, and abortion is their official sacrament.
Meanwhile, pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
Despite the narrative, pro-lifers haven't gone away.
In fact, they're getting more and more active.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one's in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortion, state by state.
They've opened a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they continue to grow in volunteers.
They now have 1 million volunteers in 1,500 cities.
40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities in an effort to change hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states.
You can help 40 Days for Life fight ongoing legal battles to protect free speech for their volunteers by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
You know, if you've watched any Backstage, then you know we love two things.
Good conversations and great cigars.
And that's why we're excited to... Matt!
Michael!
What are you doing here?
You didn't see me come in.
Sitting over on the side.
I didn't know this was gonna happen at all.
Can I offer you a cigar?
Yes, you may.
Okay, so this would be a Mayflower cigar.
This is my personal blend of cigars.
We have the Mayflower Dawn.
That's the morning cigar I gave you, because it's morning.
Am I supposed to...
Go all the way off camera?
You should.
I don't know.
You can go.
Should we just kind of lean in together?
This cigar is one full year of intense work in the making.
It's 15 years of my thinking about this blend.
It is 400 years in the making because it's about the Mayflower.
Which is the ship that founded our country on which four of my non-Italian ancestors sailed.
The blend is made, I'll give you a little behind the scenes, at the absolute finest cigar factory in Nicaragua, Esteli, Nicaragua, arguably the best cigar city in the world right now.
It's a factory that I've had a personal relationship with for a very long time.
My mother gave me a box of cigars from this factory.
15 years ago, 16, 17 years ago, it's one of my most prized possessions.
I save them for the great moments.
This cigar is what I'm telling you.
I am 99.997% confident this will be the best cigar you have ever had in your entire life.
Each blend comes in three distinct sizes, whichever you prefer.
We have samplers.
We've got, we've got everything.
This is a way to celebrate America.
It's a way to celebrate Thanksgiving.
It's going to celebrate Christmas.
We are going to sell out, so make sure if you are at all interested, order yours today.
You must be 21 years or older.
Some exclusions apply because we don't ship to every state.
Mayflowercigars.com.
Mayflowercigars.com.
Matt, I'm going to leave these for you.
Are you going to get off my show now?
I guess I'll go.
All right.
The rest of the Matt Walsh Show continues now.
Yesterday was Election Day in a few states around the country.
It was not a good day for Republicans.
This should come as no surprise, as Republicans haven't had a good day on Election Day since 2018.
It's been loss after loss after loss since then.
Last time Republicans lost the governor's race in Kentucky, they lost the statehouse in Virginia, and the most troubling result of all, they lost on a ballot initiative in Ohio that has now enshrined child sacrifice as a constitutional right.
Reading for the Daily Wire, quote, "Voters in Ohio voted Tuesday to approve a ballot initiative that
places a right to an abortion into the state's constitution.
Pro-life advocates say the measure will effectively make abortion legal at any point in
pregnancy. The initiative brought in millions in spending, with more than $18 million being spent in
favor of the pro-abortion initiative, with just $7 million being spent in opposition since August
9th, according to NBC News.
The effort to put abortion into the state constitution was backed by the Ohio Democratic
Party, the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood, and Ohio's Women's Alliance.
Martin Haskell, a proponent of partial birth abortion, gave $100,000 to Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, a political action committee that opposed a Republican-backed measure that would have made it more difficult to amend the state constitution and has advocated for passage of Issue 1.
Prominent Ohio Republicans like Governor Mike DeWine and Senator J.D.
Vance spoke out against enshrining abortion into the state's constitution, calling the measure extreme.
This victory for baby murder was, of course, cause for celebration in the media and among child sacrifice enthusiasts across the nation.
In Ohio, they applauded and cheered and embraced with tears of joy in their eyes.
Watch.
Abortion is healthcare.
And abortion access is the law of the land in Ohio!
Tonight, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights passed Issue 1 and put Ohioans back in charge of their decisions about pregnancy and abortion.
Together, we successfully enshrined the right to reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution.
Just imagine reacting that way to the news that children in the womb just lost all of their human rights.
Because that's what this constitutional amendment does.
It says that children in the womb have no rights at all.
If you are not yourself a bloodthirsty sociopath, it is impossible to fully imagine reacting this way.
Which is why, if you're like me, when you see them joyously celebrating the mass slaughter of children, you become more resolved than ever to fight and defeat these people.
But if you're like many milquetoast Republicans, you become more resolved than ever to cower and compromise and give these people whatever they want in hopes that they will have mercy on you.
And that has essentially been the analysis from a great many alleged conservatives since last night and before that.
They have determined that not only was the result in Ohio an indictment of the pro-life message, but that the other results were also indictments of the pro-life message.
In fact, these Republicans insist that every Republican defeat in every recent election is because of abortion.
We must abandon the issue or compromise significantly on it in order to have any chance of winning, they say.
According to this conventional right-wing wisdom, the overturning of Roe in the Supreme Court was not a great victory for human rights, but was in fact a political disaster that is solely to blame for all of the losing the Republicans have been doing.
The fact that this Republican track record of losing stretches back before Dobbs, the fact that they have been getting wiped out since before the Supreme Court issued any decision on this topic, has apparently not occurred to these people.
Or it has, but they find it convenient to blame pro-lifers anyway.
If you turned on Fox News last night, and I'm not sure why you would ever want to do such a thing, you would have heard a lot of this kind of capitulating and blame shifting.
Here's just a short taste of it.
Democrats are trying to scare women into thinking Republicans don't want abortion legal under any circumstances.
And I go back to Pennsylvania 2022.
The Republican candidate for governor, if I remember correctly, no exceptions for rape, incest of the mother's life, and lost to a non-incumbent gubernatorial candidate, Democratic candidate.
By a margin that was not seen since the 1940s.
So I have to believe that is an indication that the women in America, suburban moms, want it probably legal and rare and probably earlier than, you know, at the point of viability.
How do they stop bumbling on abortion?
What's the answer?
Well, number one, the Republicans have to clear up this issue across these states with clear lines, like a 15- to 20-week abortion ban with exceptions for life, incest, and rape, and make it clear.
You look at states where that is set in stone, and we don't have these problems.
We don't have these problems in Florida.
We don't have these problems in Georgia.
We don't have these problems in North Carolina.
And part of that is because of that particular issue.
So that's Sean Hannity and Rince Priebus talking about how Republicans can start winning.
Now you may ask yourself, what in God's name do these two know about winning?
What wins do they have under their belt?
In what way has either of them ever in their entire careers helped conservatism win anything?
Serious question.
What have they ever done?
What victory have they ever achieved?
What ideological battles have they fought and won in their lives?
What ideological battles have they fought at all?
Why the hell would anyone come to them for insight on this issue or any other?
These are all very good questions, but unfortunately they are not alone.
Republicans are losing because of the abortion issue.
The issue is unwinnable.
Pro-lifers are screwing everything up, and we must come out and endorse legalized abortion in order to win.
That is the message from many.
I mean, you heard Hannity say it.
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
That's what he said.
He's literally repeating pro-abortion talking points from the 90s.
He's a 1990s Clinton-era Democrat, which is not exactly breaking news, I suppose.
But just to be clear, if you are a supposed conservative now saying that we should embrace legalized abortion, that safe, legal, and rare should be our mantra, then you are, make no mistake, advocating for a full-scale surrender on one of the most pivotal, fundamental issues of our time.
You're free to take that position, but please, for the love of God, don't pretend to be a fighter if you do.
You're waving the white flag.
You're doing the thing the left never does, and Republicans always do.
But before you hoist that flag, let me offer a few thoughts, a few counter-arguments to the Sean Hannity's of the world.
First of all, you can blame pro-lifers for the Republican Party's string of electoral defeats.
Or, again, especially given that this string of defeats began before Dobbs, you can consider instead the possibility that Republicans by and large have been running bad candidates and bad campaigns.
It's especially worth considering given that many of the Republican losers over the past few years have not exactly been pro-life hardliners.
In plenty of cases, they've been essentially pro-abortion.
Dr. Oz lost in Pennsylvania.
I mean, we heard Hannity blamed the loss in the governor race because supposedly the person was a hardline pro-lifer.
Dr. Oz, liberal on the issue in Pennsylvania, and he lost.
So how does that work with your equation, Sean?
Second, the claim that conservatives should moderate on abortion is not some brilliant new insight, okay?
I love all these people acting like they just came up with this.
You know, I've just been thinking about it and I think that this is not some bold political innovation.
This is what the Republican establishment has been saying for my entire life, since I was born and before.
The Republican establishment has insisted that the only way to win is to go soft on abortion, compromise, hide from the issue, undersell it, This has been the conventional milquetoast Republican wisdom forever.
Does it appear to have been effective?
Does it have an actual track record of success?
Ask yourself that.
The Republican establishment has been losing and scapegoating social conservatives forever.
They have been blaming us for their failures since always.
This is nothing new.
Why would you buy into it now?
The truth is that social conservatives are the only ones on the right who have been doing anything or winning anything recently.
Not only are we not to blame for Republican losses, but we are the only ones who can claim any wins in the last few years, especially.
Who else has done anything?
Anybody?
Hardcore social conservatives know how to fight the culture war.
In fact, we're the only ones on the right who do.
Third, this is most important.
Before you tell me that the pro-life message is a political loser, answer me this.
How many Republican candidates fought back hard and effectively on this issue, actively went after the left, ran ads attacking their opponents for supporting the dismemberment of fully developed infants, which nearly every Democrat does, and actually countered the left's pro-abortion narrative with a strong and affirmative pro-life narrative?
How many did that?
See, this is the problem.
The pro-life message is being blamed in races where the pro-life message was never even articulated.
It's being blamed for losing when there was never any fight.
Pro boards in Ohio outspent the other side nearly 3 to 1 since August.
And that's emblematic of the situation across the country.
Our side is, you know, pro-lifers.
Are fighting.
Republicans are not putting up a fight.
So, it doesn't mean we can't win, but it does mean we won't win if we don't even try.
Consider this.
Has any Republican, anywhere, run an ad saying, essentially, here's what happens in a third trimester abortion.
My opponent supports this.
This is the most basic strategy, and I'm not aware of anyone who's even attempted it.
Now, I'm not saying that they should show an abortion in an ad, because nobody would run it if they do, and you need people to run it, but they can describe what the procedure involves, okay?
There's a way to get this message across.
And it's just very—and people don't know this, okay?
A lot of people don't know this.
They don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to this issue.
They don't know what this issue is.
They don't understand.
And so, has there been anyone who's run an ad saying, look, here's what this is.
Here's what this guy over here is running against me.
He supports this.
And so if you agree with him, then vote for him.
You know what, if you agree with him on that, I don't even want your vote.
But if you're a decent person, then I think you know what you need to do.
The point is to go on offense.
To flip the script.
To flip the conversation.
Focus it on the horrors and barbarity of abortion and the abortion industry.
This has not really been done.
It has not really been attempted.
Most of the losing candidates have not done this.
They have hid from the issue instead of going on offense, which is, of course, the Republican specialty.
You know, Democrats want to spend their entire time talking about the hard cases.
Rape, incest, life of the mother.
The cases that account for fewer than 1% of all abortions.
They focused the whole conversation on that.
Republicans allow themselves to get baited into focusing the conversation there, where Democrats want to focus it.
Rarely have they responded by saying, we're not going to talk about the 1% of cases until you answer some questions about the 99%.
Here's what abortion is.
Here's why 99% of abortions are performed.
Here's what happens.
In most of these abortions.
Here's what happens in a third trimester abortion.
You need to answer for that before we talk about anything else.
We're not going to even talk about the 1% until you talk about the 99.
That should be the mantra.
Not safe, legal, and rare.
No, the mantra is we're not going to let you people dictate this conversation.
We're not going to let you hide from the difficult questions that you need to answer.
Now, very few Republicans have had the balls or wherewithal or intelligence to respond that way.
And so they lose.
Now, the truth is, for me, I wouldn't compromise on abortion, even if it really did mean losing every election from now to kingdom come.
To accept child murder is to forfeit your soul.
If we are really a country, if it is true that we are now a country where child murder is so fundamentally popular that it's impossible to win by opposing it, Then we are not a country worth saving anymore.
Then who cares about this country?
Why are we even trying to save it?
You're telling me that if that's the country?
That's like fundamentally grounded in the slaughter of children?
Where that's as popular as apple pie?
And that's the country we're fighting for?
No, we deserve whatever destruction is coming our way in that case.
I will never accept abortion.
I will never compromise on it.
I would rather die.
That's where I stand.
But the good news is that the whole premise is flawed.
I don't believe that it's true that this country as a whole is so enamored with abortion.
I don't believe that it's true that we are, in fact, a country of baby killers.
There are some baby killers in this country.
I don't think they're the majority.
The pro-life message can win in this country.
But only if we have the courage to fight for it and the intelligence to fight well.
That's where Republicans tend to fail.
Both in the courage and the intelligence departments.
And that is why they lose.
And that is why those Republicans are today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
