Ep. 1405 - Is Biden Headed Off To The Nursing Home This Weekend?
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, according to many reports, Democrats are on the verge of finally pushing Biden out. But, the whole premise of this campaign to oust Biden has been false from the beginning. They're pretending that they just learned he's senile, but they've known all along and have been covering it up. Also, Donald Trump delivers a riveting description of his assassination attempt during his speech at the convention last night. More companies are abandoning their DEI initiatives. And, a new poll shows just how widespread Trump assassination conspiracy theories are on the Left.
Ep.1405
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 10% off your tickets to “Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot” at http://angel.com/MATT
We are giving you a presidential discount. Get 47% off annual memberships now with code FIGHT: http://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order + FREE Fiber & Spice Supplements. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
BetOnline - Use code "Walsh" to receive a 50% signup bonus of up to $250 at http://www.betonline.ag
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/WALSH
- - -
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 Wall Show, according to many reports, Democrats are on the verge of finally pushing Biden out, but the whole premise of this campaign to oust Biden has been false from the beginning.
They're pretending that they just learned he's senile, but they've known all along and have been covering it up.
Also, Donald Trump delivers a riveting description of his assassination attempt during a speech at the convention last night.
More companies are abandoning their DEI initiatives, and a new poll shows just how widespread Trump assassination conspiracy theories are on the left.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
One thing is clear in the 2024 election, the fight for America's core values is more important than ever.
The Daily Wire is on the front lines of that fight, but we can't win without you.
Join us right now while we are offering 47% off annual memberships.
Go to dailywire.com and use promo code FIGHT at checkout.
Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
Sounds miserable and time-consuming.
And sometimes I just want an egg sausage McMuffin.
You know, every day I want one of those actually.
But with balance of nature, fruits and veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day.
31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients.
Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, they freeze them, and then turn them into a powder and then put them into a capsule.
You take your fruit and vegetable capsule every day and then your body knows what to do with them.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
Last night, less than a week after an assassin nearly ended his life, Donald Trump delivered a marathon acceptance speech to close out the Republican convention.
It began with a riveting description of his experience on Saturday.
That section of the speech was, I think we can say with confidence, the most compelling thing to ever happen during a speech at a political convention.
Trump seemed like himself, but also like a different man at the same time.
He was clearly grateful to God that he's still with us, and he seemed to relish every moment that he had with the crowd.
And that would explain why, at 92 minutes, Trump's speech was the longest nomination acceptance speech in the history of this country.
And I believe that the speeches that rank number two and three on that list also belong to Donald Trump.
He even pointed to the same immigration chart that helped save his life on Saturday.
And he appeared to pick up right where he left off in Butler.
The address was heartfelt.
It was unifying, especially by the standards of a Trump speech.
And it was yet more bad news for Democrats hoping to win any contested election in November.
Anywhere on the ballot, really.
Donald Trump is a nominee who enjoys, without question, the support of a unified party and tens of millions of devoted supporters all over the country, which is certainly not something we could say for Joe Biden.
We cannot say that at all about the man who is, at least for now, running against Donald Trump.
At this point, the contrast between the two candidates is as clear and as unfavorable for Joe Biden as it could possibly be.
Joe Biden is not compost mentis, let's say.
He's not humble, nor has he ever been humble.
He doesn't have the support of his own party or longtime friends and allies.
He doesn't have the support of any of them.
Everyone from George Clooney to Nancy Pelosi, now Barack Obama, have all knifed him in the back.
And now, according to the New York Times and various other outlets across the political spectrum, Biden's finally considering dropping out of the race.
Supposedly.
Newsmax's Mark Halperin has gone further with his reporting, claiming that Biden has already made the decision to step aside.
Now it's just a matter of when.
Watch.
Carl, according to multiple Democratic sources, this is happening all of a sudden.
Everyone said it would happen gradually and then all at once, and that's what's happening.
According to my sources, President Biden has agreed to step down as a Democratic nominee.
It will happen as early as this weekend.
A speech has been drafted for him.
He will continue on as president, is his intention.
He also will not, I'm told, endorse Vice President Harris as his successor.
They're hoping that he will endorse an open process in which the convention will be open to Vice President Harris and a few other candidates.
This is obviously a fast-moving situation, and it's quite possible that any moment now Joe Biden will announce he's stepping aside.
Then again, it's possible that all of these reports are planted by Barack Obama's team to further pressure Biden to quit the race.
And that could actually mean that Joe Biden entrenches himself even further and refuses to.
But in either event, in any event, it is a humiliating situation for Joe Biden and his inner circle of advisors, which now consists of an openly corrupt crackhead and a narcissistic fake doctor with an education degree.
And that's pretty much it.
All this to say, it's still technically conceivable that Joe Biden, without any support from his own voters or colleagues and without any money from donors, We'll somehow power through this, and power through the dementia and everything else, and cobble together something that resembles a presidential run.
That campaign would be like watching the Hindenburg in slow motion, and it's not especially likely at this moment, I don't think, but the possibility is there, at least for now.
And with all this drama, which is unprecedented in modern politics, it's important to understand one point about all this palace intrigue.
None of it is about the fact that Joe Biden is old and senile.
Like, that's the claim you're hearing, but it's just not true.
The premise is false.
Democrats are not calling on Joe Biden to step aside because they just discovered that he has dementia.
They've known that all along.
So has the media.
And that's the same reason that you and I knew it.
We knew it just by watching him.
And so, of course, the people closest to him knew it even more, and the media also knew it.
But they were perfectly ready and willing to install Joe Biden for another four years, knowing very well that he cannot do the job.
The only thing that's changed is public awareness of the extent of Biden's mental decline, something that should have been obvious to the public also all along.
But it wasn't obvious to everyone, I guess, because Democrats went to great lengths to obscure information about Biden's mental status from voters.
The self-described defenders of democracy took it upon themselves to lie and deceive the electorate so that they could keep their puppet in power.
But the debate, which happened a couple weeks ago, of course, revealed everything they've been trying to hide, and Donald Trump, by the grace of God, was not assassinated last weekend, so here we are.
Democrats have no choice but to turn on Biden.
They're engaging in a historic effort, post-primary season but pre-convention, to oust their party's democratically chosen candidate from their ticket.
And if this effort succeeds, it'll set quite a precedent for the Democrats.
It'll mean that winning the Democrats' presidential primary comes with an asterisk, which is that, you know, the voters' decision doesn't really matter.
It's not final.
The party elites can remove you at any time if they want to.
This is what they're going for.
And they're all in at this point.
Pretty much every significant politician in the party has made it clear at this point that they want Biden gone.
At the same time, Democrats also appear to be trying to cover up the extent to which they lied about Biden's senility for the past several years.
The extent to which they knew it, but didn't tell us.
And they're doing all of that quietly, but very aggressively.
As Trump was speaking last night in Milwaukee, Joe Biden's DOJ filed a motion in court to oppose the public release of audio tapes of Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hurd.
That interview, you may remember, involved Joe Biden repeatedly forgetting key biographical details about his own life, including the year his son died.
It was an interview that went so poorly that Hurd decided Joe Biden was effectively incapable of being prosecuted because the jury would sympathize with his senility.
He was not mentally competent to stand trial.
Which, of course, raises the question about how is he mentally competent to sit in the Oval Office.
But as Trump delivered his acceptance speech at the RNC, the DOJ claimed that the audio of that interview can't be released due to, quote, pending investigations and reasonably anticipated future investigations.
But that doesn't make sense.
The transcript is already available.
Herr has already testified about his interview with Biden.
And the audio was clearly newsworthy and relevant to the public interest because it would show the extent of the mental decline of the President of the United States.
The only conceivable reason to hide the audio, when again, the transcript has already been made public, the only conceivable reason to hide the audio from the public at this point is if it's different from the transcript that the DOJ released.
So that would make sense if they're trying to hide it in that case.
Did the DOJ sanitize the transcript in any way?
Does the audio contain damning evidence of Joe Biden's mental decline that hasn't been revealed publicly yet?
Those are fair questions.
And at this hour, the DOJ is doing everything it can to avoid answering them.
At this point, it's fair to conclude that they're not simply covering up Joe Biden's senility, they're covering up their role in covering up Joe Biden's senility.
So the cover-up is worse than the crime, as they say.
So then what do we say about the cover-up of the cover-up?
You might remember that just a few months ago, Adam Schiff, who has now publicly called on Biden to step aside, grilled Robert Herr about his comments in his report about Joe Biden's obvious cognitive failures.
Schiff suggested that Herr had completely made up his observations about Biden because he wanted to hurt Biden politically.
Watch.
What is in the rules, Mr. Herr, what is in the rules is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice the subject of an investigation when you're declining to prosecute.
You don't gratuitously add language that you know will be useful in a political campaign.
You were not born yesterday.
You understood exactly what you were doing.
It was a choice.
You certainly didn't have to include that language.
You could have said vis-a-vis the documents that were found at the university.
The President did not recall.
There is nothing more common.
You know this.
I know this.
There is nothing more common with a witness of any age when asked about events that are years old to say, I do not recall.
Indeed, they're instructed by their attorney to do that if they have any question about it.
You understood that.
You made a choice.
That was a political choice.
It was the wrong choice.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona.
Did the special counsel wish to respond to that final question?
Yes.
Congressman, what you are suggesting is that I shape, sanitize, omit portions of my reasoning and explanation to the Attorney General for political reasons.
No, I suggest that you not shape your report for political reasons, which is what you did.
That did not happen, Congressman.
That did not happen.
Well, that was a few months ago, and now, just a few months later, Schiff admits that Joe Biden has major cognitive issues and needs to step aside.
But of course, nothing changed with Joe Biden in the past few months.
Adam Schiff knew during that hearing that everything Hurst said in his report was accurate.
Yet he was hoping to deceive the electorate for long enough to keep the Democrats' puppet in office.
But we're still not allowed to listen to the audio of Biden's interview with her, probably because that would be even worse for Biden than the transcript, in whatever way.
Again, maybe they changed the transcript.
Maybe it's just they're worried about the experience of actually listening to that and how it's even more disturbing than reading it.
Either way, the cover-up continues.
Even as Democrats admit what we knew all along, they're still hiding information from us.
But there is some video that Democrats can't hide because it's all over the internet.
For months, Democrats told us that Joe Biden was fine and that only right-wing propaganda outlets would claim otherwise.
Here's one of my favorite before-and-after videos showing MSNBC's Nicole Wallace pre-debate and post-debate.
So she begins by saying it's a cheap fake to say that Joe Biden was lost on stage at a fundraiser, even though the video clearly shows that he was frozen until Barack Obama led him away.
This was a fundraiser that George Clooney attended and said that Biden was visibly, you know, just out of it for the whole night.
And then post-debate, she's talking ominously about how Joe Biden has lost the support of his party.
Watch.
There's a growing and insidious trend in right-wing media broadcasts, print and social media.
It is to take highly misleading and selectively edited videos of President Biden directly from Republican National Committee social media accounts and then use those videos To spread messages virally to cast doubt on President Biden's fitness for office.
Here is this headline from the New York Post quote Biden appears to freeze up has to be led off stage by Obama at Megabucks LA fundraiser.
The full video posted by Biden finance chair on Twitter shows something entirely different.
Biden reacting to applause and then walking off stage with former President Obama.
And there is a conversation happening inside Biden's circle and certainly a much more frank conversation happening inside the Democratic coalition.
And I think there will be stories of a lot of concern about the performance tonight.
And I think what- When you say conversations happening, what do you mean?
I think people are talking, I think the conversations range from whether he should be in this race tomorrow morning to what was wrong with him.
So in the span of about a week, videos of Joe Biden's decline went from an insidious trend To something Democrats couldn't deny anymore.
This is the kind of whiplash you get if you watch MSNBC.
But the fact that Democrat Party propagandists even tried to deceive their viewers like this in the first place tells you everything you need to know about their views on democracy.
They don't believe the voters have a right to know anything.
They'll lie to their faces again and again with no shame whatsoever.
Not a single Democrat politician or media personality has apologized for lying, deliberately, about Joe Biden's incompetence for the past few years.
Nancy Pelosi, who's now pressuring Biden to step aside, certainly has not apologized, nor is she capable of doing so.
Pelosi was telling us just a year ago that Joe Biden's age was irrelevant and that he's youthful, like a kid.
Watch.
I couldn't be prouder of him and again we're very fortunate that he is in that position.
But again age is relative. I was in LA for some democratic stuff recently and I met with Norman
Lear who's 100 going on 101. He was telling me some new shows he was involved in. I was meeting
with Frank Gehry, a 90-something architect, showing me new buildings, these buildings throughout the
world and they were like 80. He's a kid but it's relative.
He's younger than I am so he's a kid to me.
There's well the president is.
So I'm very excited about the re-election of the president.
His Bidenomics are very kitchen table issues.
How do we address the kitchen table concerns of America's working families?
Yeah, Biden is...
Younger than someone who's a hundred and so therefore he's basically a kid.
He's just a kid to Nancy Pelosi because, you know, he's 80 years old and she's three years older than he is.
Now the problem is that people's brains don't all age the same way.
Some people develop dementia by the age of 80.
Some people don't.
Everybody starts to decline physically and mentally as they get into their 80s, though.
It happens to everybody.
Your chance of developing dementia increases exponentially with each year into your 80s.
And Nancy Pelosi knew when she gave that interview that Joe Biden had developed dementia.
But she laughed it off.
So did Joe Scarborough.
Now, both of them have the new memo, and they're saying the exact opposite.
They're shocked by the extent of the decline.
And speaking of Scarborough, his about-face is actually one of the more striking ones.
I've played some of his videos before, but it's worth repeating because of how over-the-top it was.
So four months ago, Scarborough was saying that Biden is sharper than he's ever been, than he's ever been at 81.
Even after the debate, Scarborough was defending Biden.
Now he's saying he has to go.
So here's the before and after.
Watch.
But comparing that guy's mental state?
I've said it for years now.
He's cogent.
But I undersold him when I said he was cogent.
He's far beyond cogent.
In fact, I think he's better than he's ever been.
Intellectually, Analytically.
And when your top fundraiser over the past five, six, seven, eight years is telling you the money's gone, the donors have all gone away.
You know, it's it's really incumbent on people that are around Joe Biden to step up at this point and and and help the president and help the man they love and do the right thing.
This is not going to, this is not going to end well if it continues to drag out.
I know Joe Scarborough is obviously impervious to embarrassment, but if we, you know, if we had a media with any self-respect at all, then Scarborough would not have a job right now.
I mean, for many reasons, but just on that alone, like looking into the camera and claiming that Joe Biden is better than he's ever been.
We could all see him collapsing, and that he had succumbed to senility completely.
It's just, you have no credibility after that.
But I guess you're on MSNBC, so credibility is besides the point.
So whether it's Joe Scarborough, or Nancy Pelosi, or Adam Schiff, or the DOJ, all of these people know exactly what they're doing.
They engaged in a concerted effort to hide Joe Biden's dementia, and now they're pretending it's a major issue, but only because they can't deny it anymore.
This is a cover-up that reveals exactly how much the self-appointed defenders of democracy really care about democracy and this country.
They were planning to launch us headlong into a constitutional crisis with a late-stage dementia patient starting a fresh four-year term.
This is the same party that rigged a primary against Bernie Sanders and that prevented anyone from debating Joe Biden the head of the primaries this year.
They have no interest in democracy.
They don't care what voters want.
Whoever they find to replace Biden, remember that their ideal candidate isn't any more competent or intelligent than Joe Biden is right now.
Their ideal candidate is one they can control just as easily as they've controlled him.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Betting with BetOnline is so much fun.
Beyond traditional sports, BetOnline gives you the option to bet on political events, like the outcome of the presidential election or whether Hunter Biden will serve jail time before 2025.
Political betting allows you to wager on real-world events outside the realm of sports.
Or, if you're a diehard sports fan, BetOnline makes sports betting more accessible and convenient than ever before with just a few clicks.
You can place bets on your favorite teams or events from the comfort of your own home.
BetOnline prides themselves on their higher-than-average betting limits of up to $25,000.
You can increase your wagering amounts by contacting their player services desk by phone or email.
So, while you're watching your favorite team or the news on upcoming elections, why not spice things up with a friendly wager at BetOnline?
Go to BetOnline.ag to place your bets today.
Use promo code WALSH for a 50% sign-up bonus of up to $250.
That's betonline.ag and use promo code Walsh.
Bet online.
The options are endless.
So as mentioned at the top, Trump gave his acceptance speech at the convention last night.
By far the most compelling part was the beginning where he described his near-death experience.
You've probably seen that by now, but here's a brief clip of that.
Watch.
When I heard a loud whizzing sound and felt something hit me really, really hard on my right ear, I said to myself, wow, what was that?
It can only be a bullet.
and moved my right hand to my ear, brought it down.
My hand was covered with blood, just absolutely blood all over the place.
I immediately knew it was very serious, that we were under attack.
And in one movement, proceeded to drop to the ground.
Bullets were continuing to fly.
As very brave Secret Service agents rushed to the stage, and they really did, they rushed to the stage.
Now this is, as I said, the most incredible thing to ever happen during a speech at a political convention.
Just the subject alone automatically qualifies it for that title.
I know there's a lot of hyperbole we hear all the time in politics and in general.
You might even hear hyperbole on this show, on occasion, sometimes.
Very rarely, very rarely, but it does happen that I might engage in a tad bit of hyperbole.
This is not one of those times, though.
I mean, this really is.
Like, there's never been anything like this at a political convention, in this country anyway.
A presidential candidate describing his own attempted assassination, which happened less than a week earlier.
Just, again, never seen anything like that before.
Now, there have been other candidates and presidents who've survived assassination attempts, and they all went on to talk about their experiences in various forums, but never in a forum like this so soon after the fact.
Now, of course, there's always somebody like Teddy Roosevelt who was shot during a speech and then got up and continued giving the speech.
But aside from that, this moment with Trump really stands alone historically.
Now, of course, the speech did not end with this section.
This was the first 20 minutes or so, and then it went on for another 75 minutes.
And the media and Democrats have latched on to that.
They're desperate.
They're desperate.
We know they've never been more desperate politically.
And so they've latched on to that.
The fact that the speech continued for a while after that initial 20 minute very riveting section where he talked about the assassination attempt.
And so their narrative now is that the speech was a disaster for Trump because he rambled for an hour and a half and they say overshadowed his powerful moment.
With what came after, which was essentially just a standard Trump stump speech.
And that's what they're saying.
The cope, we've never seen, this is like nuclear-grade cope going on among Democrats.
And they're looking for any glimmer of hope they can find.
And so that's it.
Never mind.
All the momentum is gone.
Everything's finished.
And now Democrats are going to win now because of this speech.
Now, it's true that most of the rest of the speech was a standard stump speech.
And it's true that, yeah, obviously 93 minutes is long.
It's not humanly possible to give an absorbing and interesting speech that lasts an hour and a half.
It's just never happened.
Maybe somebody can come up with an example, but I'm not aware of a single example ever in the history of public speaking where someone has held the audience's interest for an hour and a half.
I mean, that's a feature-length movie, and most feature-length movies feel too long.
So what are you going to do when it's just you talking to the audience?
But does that make the speech a disaster?
Does it breathe new life into Biden's campaign?
No, on both counts, especially on the second count.
That's all just wish-casting by the media.
That's fantasy.
Now, you could argue, in fact, you could argue, as some on the right have argued, that actually a 93-minute speech, mostly off-the-cuff, helps Trump because it shows a kind of stamina that Biden could never manage.
So there's that argument, that actually for him to speak for that long, mostly off the cuff, even though he had written a speech, but he seemed to ignore most of it, and to do that less than a week after assassination attempt and everything else that's happened this week, Biden could never do that.
Which is true.
That's an argument.
I'm not going to argue that.
I think that goes too far in the other direction.
I will say instead that it probably doesn't matter all that much one way or another.
People only remember moments.
We've talked about this this week, that moments are what people remember.
We can't remember everything, right?
You can't even remember everything about what you did yesterday.
If you're Joe Biden, you can't remember anything about what you did two seconds ago.
But nobody has a perfect memory, and we only remember moments, especially when it has to do with, like, You know, things happening in the public that don't directly involve us.
And the stuff at the beginning of that speech is what most people are going to remember.
The vast majority of the television audience, and we'll see the ratings I guess today at some point, they haven't already come out.
And I think we can be pretty certain that the ratings are going to drop off dramatically about 20 to 25 minutes in.
The vast majority of the audience, that's all they saw.
It's only the Trump diehards who are going to watch the entire 90 minute extemporaneous speech.
The people you need to reach only watch the first part and they'll remember the first part and that's what matters.
But, so that's kind of how I, if I were to predict kind of the political impact of it, I think that's how I would That's how I would break it down.
But really, we have to remember that a speech, whether it's a great speech or a terrible speech or something in between, whether it's the greatest speech of all time or the worst speech of all time, a speech is a speech and it only matters so much.
And by the time we get to Election Day, it probably won't matter that much either way.
That's the way things go these days.
Things just move very fast and people forget things very quickly.
I mean they go so fast that.
Donald Trump was almost assassinated on Saturday, and obviously we've talked about that a lot this week.
I've talked about it on the show every day.
It was a clear, you know, for good reason, a subject of a topic that was revisited frequently during the convention.
But it still feels like we should be talking about that more than we are.
Like, it feels like that should still be more of a focus than it is.
Even though it's still a really big story, treating it like a big story, it's still just... This is a historic event that just happened.
I mean, this is crazy.
We just all saw that on live television.
We'll probably never see anything like that again.
Hopefully we never will.
And even something like that, it sort of feels like even, you know, if social media is your guide, a couple days later, other things were trending as the top topic.
Which is nuts.
And it just goes to show that's the world we live in now.
Things move very fast.
And so this is just an argument for not being complacent.
There's a long way to go.
Narratives can change on a dime, you know.
And now I continue to be very confident that Trump will beat Biden, and probably pretty comfortably.
Doesn't mean that you should be complacent.
Again, you still need to go out and vote.
But Trump does have an enormous amount of momentum and Biden can't speak.
You can't campaign if you can't speak.
You can't get your message across if you can't speak.
So that just has to be, even with all the shenanigans and everything else, any other trick Democrats have up their sleeve, there are some challenges that are just insurmountable politically.
And one of them is if you can't speak, then you cannot get your message across.
So, I feel pretty comfortable about that.
But if they dump Biden, well, then who knows what will happen.
I've seen a lot of predictions on both sides of the aisle about what will happen, what it will mean for Trump and for the Democrats if they do get rid of Biden.
I won't even try to predict that at this stage, because there's just no way.
I mean, it's a question of who they replace him with, first of all, how the replacement process plays out, I could see a world where they replace him and end up in a worse spot than they are right now.
They could replace him, the base revolts against them even more than it already is, the party splinters completely, total civil war, and meanwhile they're starting from scratch with a candidate that voters don't really know that well against the most famous man in the world.
Right?
So much of national politics, so much of presidential politics is name recognition.
You can't beat Trump's name recognition.
He's the most recognizable figure on the planet.
He's the most famous man in the world.
And I think we could say one of the most famous men to ever live on the planet.
He truly is.
You've already got that, and then you're coming in late with a candidate and kind of starting from scratch unless you can get somebody in there who doesn't have Trump's name recognition, because that's basically impossible, but has a significant amount to start with.
So there's enough there that I could see a world where it's just a catastrophe and Trump wins in a landslide.
I mean, it's possible they replace Biden and Trump wins by more than he would have otherwise.
Now, there is another world, one where they select someone younger, energetic, focused.
Biden steps down and gives some kind of speech, gives a 10-minute speech, manages to communicate it clearly and use English words the whole time, and plays himself up as the statesman making this heroic sacrifice, which would be totally nonsense, of course, because if he does step down, it's only because they forced him to.
So, any claim that we want to make that Biden made a sacrifice or did something humble, you know, chose to step away from power George Washington style, you could make that argument if he had announced six months ago or eight months ago that he wasn't going to run for re-election.
At this point, you can.
If he leaves, he's leaving in disgrace no matter what, which is actually an argument for why he might not leave at this point.
He has nothing to gain.
It's disgrace for him either way, right?
If he stays in and he loses, especially if he loses badly, it's disgrace.
If he leaves now, it's disgrace.
So from his perspective, it's like, well, might as well just stay in and try to win.
I don't know if that'll play out, but let's just say he does step down.
He gives a little 10-minute speech.
He positions himself as the new George Washington.
Totally nonsense.
The media will eat it up, though.
They'll love it.
They'll be ready to run with that.
That's the narrative they want.
The second he steps down, it's gonna be a propaganda campaign like we've never seen before.
They're going to switch so quickly from attacking Biden, which they've been doing over the last several weeks, to just a sudden U-turn.
And now Biden is one of the great statesmen of all time.
He's a hero and all this kind of stuff.
That happens.
You know, it robs the momentum and the spotlight from Trump.
And then let's just say in this scenario, they managed to select some candidate who is not Kamala Harris.
And someone young and articulate who can actually speak, the base actually rallies around that person.
If there's not a civil war, not a splintering, you know, that person immediately challenges Trump to three debates.
And Trump, of course, would have to accept them.
And, you know, the momentum starts moving in that direction.
And we find ourselves in a very different political world all of a sudden.
That could happen too.
Who knows?
And I guess the The only takeaway here is that we have to stay focused.
This is the most unpredictable presidential campaign in our lifetimes.
Anything could happen.
I mean, this is why I'm saying it's very hard for us these days with just information being beamed into our faces at light speed every second of the day.
A million things taking our attention away.
A million things happening in the world and we're always finding out about them.
It's hard for us to stop and appreciate when something actually significant has happened.
It's very hard for us to do.
But we should try to do that here because we've never seen anything like this, the way this presidential campaign has worked out.
The possibility for like multiple unprecedented historic things to happen within the same presidential campaign, it's quite, it's just, it's historic.
Keep going back to that word, but it really is.
Anytime you find yourself living on a page of a history book, you should at least stop and appreciate that fact.
All right.
A couple of stories here that are related Daily Mail says the beloved tractor firm John Deere has backtracked on its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in the face of opposition and a damaging boycott from farmers and conservatives.
The company said in a statement it would drop socially motivated messaging and diversity quotas and pronoun identification and distance itself from cultural awareness parades.
The $61 billion-a-year firm had come under fire over sponsoring a pride event for children as young as three in other DEI efforts, even as it shuttered plants and sacked American workers.
Our customers' trust and confidence in us are of the utmost importance to everyone at John Deere, the company said in a statement.
We fully intend to earn it every day in every way we can.
The backlash against John Deere echoed a similar boycott against Tractor Supply, a retail chain, in last year's high-profile campaign against Bud Light.
Critics had slammed John Deere for supporting the Little Rainbow run at the Capital City Pride event last month in Des Moines, Iowa, which involved toddlers in the LGBTQ plus festivities.
Probably Starbucks launched a pressure campaign against the firm last week saying managers had forgotten who their customers are.
And now they're reversing that.
So that's John Deere.
They're reversing their DEI initiatives.
And we can pair that nicely, I think, with this story from Daily Wire.
Microsoft laid off a diversity, equity, and inclusion team this year with a team leader sending an email saying the initiatives were no longer needed.
The email is from an individual whose name has not been released.
It's unclear how many team employees were laid off.
Quote, true systems change work associated with DEI programs everywhere are no longer business critical or smart as they were in 2020, said the email.
The email reportedly said the DEI team was eliminated due to changing business needs.
Now, this was all totally inevitable that this was going to happen.
DEI was a bubble.
It was the bubble to end all bubbles, really, in that the value of DEI initiatives, the business value, was not just inflated.
This was not just an inflated value.
It was totally imaginary from the very beginning.
There was never any chance at all that DEI would do anything but lose money for these companies.
There was never even any coherent, cogent theory as to how they would profit from this.
So it was all just fantasy, right?
It was all fairy dust from the beginning.
This idea that we'll have DEI and it's not just ideological, no, this is gonna make our business stronger, it's good for the business.
They could never convey, no company could ever convey how that is exactly.
How are you gonna, how does this help your business to focus on this kind of stuff?
They could never communicate that because it's completely fantastical.
And so it was destined to fall apart pretty quickly.
Because one thing we know about businesses, and we learn again and again, is that you can have businesses that are run by far leftists, you can have businesses that, maybe even more likely, are run by people who don't care that much ideologically, but see leftism as a profitable Virtue signal.
All of that could be the case.
And that's how we end up with these, we call them woke companies and everything else.
But when it comes down to it, the only thing the business really cares about is making money.
That's the only thing they really care about.
And if they do anything else, if they, you know, with rare exception, the thing they care about is making money.
And if they do anything else, if they present themselves as woke or whatever, It's because ultimately they think that in some way that's going to profit them.
If it was not going to be profitable, they wouldn't do it.
And there was just never any chance that any of this stuff would be profitable.
And so that's why it's falling apart.
I want to mention this briefly before we get to the last headline.
NBC News reports Instead of simply treating sexually transmitted infections with antibiotics, a new public health movement seeks to use one such medication to prevent STIs in the first place.
Promising research into variations on this method has raised hopes but also concerns about whether this method might also contribute to another public health crisis, drug-resistant infections.
One thing is clear, the nation is in dire need of game changers to battle the STI epidemic, as gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis have largely soared during the past decade.
And then it goes on to how all these STDs have become an epidemic.
Enter doxycycline, a common, well-tolerated antibiotic long used for multiple purposes, including treating acne.
Last month, the CDC issued guidelines for using the doxycycline after sex as post-exposure prophylaxis to lower the risk of bacterial STIs among gay and bisexual men and transgender women.
The recommendation was limited to this population because a recent clinical trial of doxypep among cisgender Cisgender quote-unquote women failed to demonstrate any benefit men who have sex with men also have a disproportionately high STI rate so And you see these stories pop up every once a while that they're they're developing some new Well, either it's a new drug.
It's a drug.
It's already been in the market that could be used ahead of time to prevent STDs And you know I'll call it right now.
Well, it's not me calling it because this article mentioned in the first paragraph that So I'll just underscore what is said in the first paragraph.
We're going to have drug-resistant super STDs in the near future.
That's what the big pharma is guiding us towards.
What they're setting us up for.
Which, you know, from a purely selfish perspective, will be really no skin off of my nose, frankly.
As a faithfully married man, I'm impervious to these kinds of threats.
It's one of the many reasons why it's just great to be monogamous and married and committed and faithful.
So many benefits from it.
And this is just one of them.
Certainly not the top one, but it's on the list.
So a lot of things, if you reject that, there are all kinds of things you have to worry about now that I can look at and say, I'm not worried about it personally.
It's like things that, if you're living this lifestyle, if you're living a lifestyle of hedonism, there's like fear and anxiety in your life all the time that for those of us outside of it, we just don't, we don't experience it at all.
Which is why as scientists look for ways to curb the STD epidemic, I think they should take a look at my method.
For curbing it.
And the method used by many of you in the audience, right?
Our method.
We have our own method.
Our own, if you want to say, vaccine against STDs.
And, you know, what we found is the best way to not get an STD is to simply not have sex with people with STDs.
And the best way to accomplish that is to be married and stay married and remain faithful to your spouse.
That's the best way to accomplish it.
But what we found is that When you look for ways around that, when you look for ways to, rather than curbing reckless behavior, the STD epidemic is happening because of reckless, selfish behavior.
That's what's driving it, right?
What's driving it are people who want to go out and have sex with strangers all the time.
They're the main drivers of this stuff.
And so we could curb that, By curbing the reckless behavior that's driving it, or we can say, no, don't make any lifestyle changes at all.
Don't change your behavior at all.
Continue the reckless behavior.
We're going to try to find some end run, some way to insulate you from the natural outcome of your own reckless behavior.
And of course, this is the great project of science and of medicine right now, it seems.
You can find ways to do it, seemingly, for a time, but there's always a cost.
There's always a price to pay.
There are no true shortcuts in life, at least not ones that come without a cost, I'll say.
All right, I want to talk about this finally.
Here's a little short viral video that some people are talking about online.
There are no audible words in the video, but I'll play it for you and then describe it for those listening to the audio podcast.
Just about 10 seconds long.
Here it is.
[MUSIC]
Okay, so it's a video of a young lady crying on camera with the caption,
my mom just came in my room and casually kicked me out.
I graduated two months ago.
Suggestions?
And so this is the very common thing now that we find of young people who are upset about something and the very first thing they think to do is make a video about it and post it online.
This was shared initially on Twitter by Ian Miles Chong as a conservative account, and he says that parents who do this to their kids, parents who kick out their 18-year-old, their kids as soon as they turn 18, are deplorable, he says.
And this echoes what has become an increasingly common view on the right, For a while, the kind of stereotypically conservative thing was to say that when a child turns 18, they need to move out of the house and take care of themselves and, you know, learn how to support themselves.
But there's been an interesting backlash against that recently, with many conservatives saying that, no, actually, kicking your adult child out of the house is wrong, and also not conservative.
Because, as they argue, the traditional arrangement is a multi-generational household where child, parent, grandparent all live together.
Lauren Chen made this point, and I've seen her make this point several times in the past, but she made this point in response to the video.
She tweeted, And a lot of people seem to be agreeing with that.
Now, I personally look at this a little bit differently, and I kind of think that both sides of the argument, you know, like should you kick your adult child out of the house or not, but both sides of the argument are missing the point.
Because there's not enough information in the question.
Should you kick your adult child out of the house?
Well, it depends.
It's like asking, should you put your three-year-old in timeout?
Well, I mean, it depends.
You shouldn't just do it randomly.
You shouldn't go and walk into the room right now where your three-year-old is and say, hey, you're in timeout for no reason, unprovoked.
But does that mean you never should?
Of course not.
It depends.
So with an adult child, if they're a contributing member of the household, that is if they are hard workers, if they're respectful of you and your rules, then the fact that it is your house and not theirs, If they, again, contribute in some real and substantive and helpful way to the household, if they're putting in nearly as much work or more than you are to keeping everything running, whether that's by having a full-time job and paying some of their bills or even contributing to some of the bills, the household bills, or by helping in the home in some significant way that isn't just cleaning their room once a week, but actually, depending on your situation in your home, maybe there's
Maybe you have an adult child, someone who's 18 or 19, who could be helping in the home in some way, again, in some significant way.
And if that's all happening, then in that case, making them leave automatically at 18 is crazy.
In that case, if you kick your child out anyway, It's because you just don't want to be around them.
Like, that just means you don't like your kid and don't want to spend any time with them.
And it's your legal right to kick them out for that reason, but it's not the right thing to do.
And I agree with Lauren in that case.
They have absolutely no obligation to help you later in life.
You know, because that means that you just want to do the bare minimum.
You did everything you legally had to do, which was keep them around until they're 18 and feed them and clothe them and all that, because you have to.
If you didn't, you'd go to prison.
But the second you didn't have to anymore, you stopped.
And if that's the case, they really don't owe you anything.
Like, they don't owe you any gratitude.
They don't owe you anything.
You just did the bit.
You did only what you had to to not go to prison.
Nothing beyond that.
And if that's all you give to your kid, then they just, you know, there's just, there's no bond there.
There's nothing.
There's really no debt that they have to you.
I'm sorry.
And they can just ship you off to the nursing home and put you out of sight and out of mind like you did to them.
Maybe they'll choose to forgive.
That's always good.
But if they don't, well, that's on you.
But this scenario that I just described is one that probably doesn't apply to most or even a large preponderance of the cases where an adult child is kicked out of the house.
I don't think that's happening very often.
It's certainly not common.
Right?
Here's what's more common.
And this is what's justified in my view.
Not just justified, but necessary, I think.
You can and should make your adult child leave your house if they are lazy, non-contributing, not working, whether out of the home or in it, not doing anything productive, not respectful to you and your rules and your house.
If they're entitled brats sitting around all day on their phones and whatever, then yeah, you should kick them out.
Does that apply to the girl in the video there?
I have no clue.
I have absolutely no idea, but I'm speaking in general.
If that's the case, then yeah, you should kick your... Now, it also means that you have gone wrong as a parent, that you've raised a kid that acts like this, but either way, like your child desperately needs to grow up and for their own sake, the only way to force that issue is probably the sink or swim method.
There does reach a point.
And we've all known of cases like this where you have a child of, you know, a child in the sense of a parent, but not a child anymore, an adult who just refuses to grow up and you just have to throw him into the deep end.
And it's like, okay, start doggy paddling and you got to start figuring this thing out.
And I think that's a lot more common.
I think that's more common when you have adult kids who are kicked out of the house.
It's more, it's more that.
And what I will say is that I'm not personally, I'm not saying it's never happened, I've never personally encountered a situation where you had a hardworking, contributing, mature adult child in the house who was kicked out anyway.
I'm sure it's happened.
I've never known that.
I've never seen that in person.
What I have seen many times is when you have a lazy, good-for-nothing adult still living at home who should be kicked out but isn't.
To me, that's a lot more common.
Now, I also think that young men should move out of the house at some point regardless.
It's good for them to learn to live on their own, but I don't think you should evict them out of nowhere if they are, as I said, hard workers, respectful, etc.
But at some point if you're a young man, I think it's good experience.
To live on your own for a while before you get married and have a family of your own.
Young women, I think, don't necessarily ever have to live on their own.
It's perfectly fine for a young woman to go right from living with her parents to living with her husband.
But even in that case, she needs to be contributing to the household when she's living with her parents.
She cannot be infantilized.
She cannot be allowed to be like a lazy bump on a log.
Male or female, you cannot allow that.
And because, yes, multi-generational households are traditional.
That's what you find.
You find it in many cultures still today.
And historically, that's all there was.
But what do you think was happening in a multi-generational household out on the frontier in the 1880s or whenever?
Everybody was working.
Everybody was pitching in.
Everybody was up at dawn doing something.
You didn't have a 23-year-old physically capable adult child sitting around all day while the parents did everything.
That just didn't happen.
It couldn't happen.
It would not have happened.
It wouldn't be allowed.
I mean, if you were a 12-year-old back then, that wouldn't have been allowed.
You had to contribute, even as a child.
But as an adult, especially so.
So when we talk about multi-generational households, traditionally, that's what we mean.
It means that keeping the family together, because you want to keep the family together, but also because you need more hands on deck to help around the house, help out on the farm, go hunting, whatever.
That's what it used to be.
It's just that now, when we talk about multi-generational households, in many cases, that's not what's happening.
You know, that 23, 24-year-old is not out hunting for the family.
He's not, you know, he's not out on the farm.
He's not getting up at 5 a.m.
to milk the cows.
Like, he's getting up at 10 a.m.
and he's on his computer, on his phone all day.
That's what it often means.
And anyone who would try to position that as some sort of conservative, traditional arrangement is just delusional.
Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted.
If you haven't filed in a while and need amended returns or are missing records, Tax Network USA's expert taxpayers will update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement.
Then, they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun, Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-245-6000.
or visit our website at TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh today.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
Well, let's cut through the nonsense.
The 2024 election is coming, and the left is hell-bent on destroying everything that makes this country great.
At The Daily Wire, we're not just whining about it.
We're actually doing something, and now we're giving you the chance to join the fight.
Here's the deal.
We're offering a 47% discount on annual Daily Wire Plus memberships.
Why 47%?
Well, because we're backing the guy who's going to be the 47th president It's not complicated.
This isn't some feel-good discount.
This is your opportunity to access real, unfiltered, conservative content that actually tells the truth, something mainstream media seems allergic to.
With this membership, you get it all.
Shows that don't pander to the woke mob, podcasts that make you think, and news that isn't sanitized by leftist ideologies.
Go to DailyWire.com and use code FIGHT to check out to get 47% off with our presidential deal.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I've already spent enough time this week talking about the left-wing conspiracy theories
surrounding Trump's assassination attempt.
I'm going to revisit the subject one last time today in order to make a couple of points that I think are important.
And the first point is that these theories are not confined to fever swamps of social media.
Anymore on the left. They are incredibly pervasive So here's the latest from the Washington free beacon on
that quote a conspiracy theory has run a bait unabated in Democratic circles following
The assassination attempt against former president Donald Trump on Saturday
It posits that Trump staged the shooting for a photo op That the wound on his ear was caused by something other
than an assassin's bullet and that he was never in mortal danger
It's a baseless conspiracy theory disproven by reams of documentary evidence and eyewitness accounts
And it's a belief held by one third of the Democratic electorate
One in three registered voters believe it is credible that the shooting Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, was staged and not intended to kill Trump, according to a morning consult poll released Monday.
The findings show that large swaths of the Democratic base have fallen prey to the phenomenon known as Blueanon, a play on the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory that once gripped portions of the Republican base and served as an obsession of the mainstream media throughout the first Trump administration.
So, by the way, it's actually worse than it sounds because that was by Monday morning.
A third of Democrats had already subscribed to this conspiracy theory, and that is before you had prominent Democrats promoting it.
And so I think it stands to reason that it's a lot more than a third at this point.
Now this article written by Andrew Kerr at the Free Beacon is correct.
The QAnon stuff was an obsession of the mainstream media, but it can't be overstated just how overstated QAnon always was.
The vast majority of Republicans had never even heard of it.
And the numbers bear that out, reading on, quote, The Morning Consult poll shows that Blue Anon adherents among the Democratic base far outnumber their QAnon counterparts on the right.
The poll showed that 34% of Democratic voters found it either definitely or probably credible that Trump staged Saturday's shooting, with less than half, 45%, saying the conspiracy theory is not credible.
By comparison, a widely cited 2021 poll found that only 23% of Republicans were QAnon believers.
The article goes on to talk about the slightly less crazy, though still very crazy, version of the conspiracy theory where Trump was hit not by a bullet, but by shards of broken glass.
Several prominent members of the media have implied or outright claimed that Trump is being weirdly coy and secretive about his injury because he doesn't want anyone to know that the bullet never came near him.
Twitter is full of posts from leftists who see something sinister in the fact that Trump's ear is bandaged.
What's going on under that bandage, they ask?
Pretty convenient, pretty convenient to be wearing a bandage.
Almost like he's hiding something.
He's not fooling me.
Now, the problem with all that is that, first of all, wearing a bandage after you've suffered a bullet wound is just basic hygiene.
You want him to not have a bandage on?
That's disgusting.
You want him to walk around with an open wound in public?
Trump's critics apparently expect him to do that, to parade himself around with his open wound fully exposed and on full display.
Of course, if he did that, they would accuse him of being showy, But wearing a bandage is also showy, I guess.
So apparently there's just no way, there's no way for a man to appear in public after a gunshot wound that isn't problematic, according to the left.
Second, as I said yesterday, there is no secret about Trump's injury.
He suffered it on live television.
Literally billions of people have seen his bleeding, wounded ear.
It's perhaps arguably the most widely witnessed injury in the history of the world.
On top of that, multiple official sources, including the Secret Service, that is, Biden's Secret Service, have confirmed on the record that Trump was shot in the ear.
So, we have official confirmation and visual confirmation, but even that's not enough.
Much like doubting Thomas in the Gospels, these Democrats need to physically touch Trump's wound in order to be convinced, I guess.
Except that even then, they wouldn't be.
And if they are convinced, they can then retreat right back into the more outlandish but very popular conspiracy theory that Trump was shot, but it was all staged by Trump himself.
And here's the point I want to make about that.
We should not be at all surprised to see that this kind of deranged belief, you know, is popular on the left.
The media has for years tried to convince us that the right is far more prone to outlandish conspiracy theories, but that has never been true.
In fact, outlandish beliefs are extremely common on the left.
The theory of Trump staging his own shooting doesn't even make it into the top 10 of craziest nonsense they believe.
I mean, this is, after all, the side of the aisle that believes that biological sex doesn't exist, that humans in the womb really aren't human, that racist cops are out hunting black people, The world's going to end any moment from climate change, and so on and so on.
So there's a key difference, therefore, between the crazy ideas on the left and the crazy ideas on the right.
And I'm not at all denying that there are some crazy ideas on the right.
QAnon was, and I think is overstated, as I said, but it was something that some people on the right subscribed to.
It was totally crazy the whole time.
But, you know, that's an example.
Every once in a while, some truly ridiculous theory finds a foothold among some conservatives.
And not to open this can of worms again, I already have enough people mad at me on the internet this week, but a certain apparently sizable portion of the right believes, for instance, that the moon landing was staged.
And that is definitely false, okay?
And, you know, it just is.
There was a time when a certain segment of the right seemed to think that every major mass shooting was fake or staged.
The term crisis actors was popular for a while.
I don't know how widespread any of that was or is, but these are beliefs that are or were held by, you know, more than a few people on my side.
But here's the difference.
When conservatives veer off into these eccentric and rather ridiculous theories, it's driven most of the time by extreme skepticism in the official narrative and in the authority figures who set that narrative.
And the skepticism in general is totally rational and wise.
I mean, we've been lied to a lot by these people, and so to be skeptical of them, that's not an irrational thing.
The problem is when people assume that the official narrative must necessarily be wrong, and then glom on to some other unofficial narrative that has even less evidence to support it than the official one.
So that's when you run into a problem.
It's not looking at the official narrative and saying, huh, I don't know about that.
It's when you, for no reason other than the fact that it is what most people believe, you reject it, and then you go find some other theory that has no evidence for it, and you, you know, passionately defend that instead.
I mean, that is when it becomes irrational.
And that seems to be what's happened with, for instance, the moon landing stuff, but the point is that they're starting from a rational place.
Skepticism, And they're ending, every once in a while, in an irrational place.
Ironically, if they end in an irrational place, it's not because of an overabundance of skepticism.
Rather, it's because they aren't applying the same skepticism to their alternative theory that they do to the official one.
But it is skepticism that first propels somebody in this direction when they're on the right, most of the time.
On the other hand, the left's craziest ideas, which we must say are much, much crazier than the right's craziest ideas, are not fueled by skepticism in the official narrative.
Indeed, their craziest ideas, especially when it comes to something like gender ideology, often is the official narrative.
So for them, the flight into deranged fantasy land happens, well, for two reasons.
One is that they, rather than having, you know, sometimes an overabundance of skepticism, they have an unhealthy faith In whatever they're told by the, you know, so-called experts.
And then secondly, at a deeper level, they reject truth as a category.
They are relativists.
They don't believe that objective truth even exists.
People on the right may sometimes deny that something that is true is true, but they won't deny truth itself.
You know, that's a fundamental madness of the left.
It's the thing that defines the left.
It's what leftism is.
It's the categorical rejection of objective truth.
And when you reject objective truth, as we've seen, there's no limit to the demented nonsense that you'll come to believe.
Even though you have no basis for believing anything at all, since by your worldview, nothing can actually be true, so you can't really believe anything.
That's just another layer to the incoherent madness that defines their ideology.
And in the middle of all that, you know, a conspiracy theory about Trump's assassination attempt is a relatively minor flight of fancy by comparison.
I mean, as crazy as it is, it's downright rational compared to so many of the other beliefs.
And that is why these left-wing conspiracy theories are today, for the final time, this week anyway, cancelled.
