Ep. 1492 - Why DOGE Is the Key to Destroying Big Government
01:01:36 Share

Meta's open source AI models are available to all, not just the few. Because they're open source, small businesses, students, and more can download and build with them at no cost. Learn more about the benefits at ai.meta.com slash open.

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, Elon Musk has unveiled his strategy for gutting the federal bureaucracy. The left is already panicking and the cutting hasn't even begun yet. Also, Trump's pick for defense secretary has been accused of sexual assault. This was an incredibly predictable development and the claim, in my opinion, is not remotely credible, which is also predictable. Also, Planned Parenthood has been exposed yet again for illegally selling the bodies of aborted babies. Will this finally be enough to convince Republicans to abolish their funding? We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

You know what's interesting about the current state of health and wellness? Everybody's chasing the latest trend, the newest fad, the most exotic supplement. Sometimes those powerful solutions are the most fundamental ones. That's why I want to tell you about Armra Colostrum. Colostrum isn't some laboratory creation. It's literally the first food nature provides to every mammal at birth. We're talking about nature's original superfood packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that

Your body instinctively knows how to use and Armra has perfected a way to deliver this incredible substance in its purest form. The secret is in their proprietary cold chain biopotent pasteurization technology. While other supplements lose their potency through processing, Armra's method preserves these vital nutrients exactly as nature intended. Plus, they source everything from grass-fed cows on America's family farms, supporting our agricultural communities while delivering a premium product.

What I appreciate most is that it's not another artificial supplement. It's a natural whole food that works in harmony with your body, helping to maintain mental clarity and improve immune health and necessity as we head into this holiday season. In times we're surrounded by synthetic solutions and processed products, isn't it refreshing to find something that's both innovative and completely natural? This is the kind of advancement

We should champion one that enhances what nature has already perfected. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15% off your first order when you go to tryarmra.com slash Walsh or enter code Walsh. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Walsh. Usually when you don't hear about a story, that's because it's not especially relevant or important. But every now and then there's a story that's such a dud that no one remotely cares about.

But it actually manages to circle back around and become relevant and important again because of that. The very fact that no one cares about the story in itself is worth talking about. So here's one recent example of what I mean. About a year ago, there was a massive strike in Canada's federal public sector. It's one of the largest strikes in the country's history. Roughly a third of Canada's government bureaucracy, more than 150,000 employees, walked off the job saying they deserved higher wages and the privilege of working from home.

The public sector union in Canada expected that Trudeau's government would immediately agree to their demands and end the strike, but that didn't happen. For once in his political career, Trudeau hesitated before throwing taxpayer money away. And therefore, for nearly two weeks, Canada had to make do without a huge portion of its federal workforce. Now keep in mind, Canada is our largest trading partner. Something like 40 million people live there. They have an army, allegedly.

And yet, no one in Canada, much less in the United States, felt any negative impacts whatsoever from this huge, unprecedented government strike. Everything functioned as smoothly as it did before. The economy was untouched. People went about their lives as they normally did. The strike of Canada's government was neither relevant nor important to anyone. Now, naturally, that led Canadians to ask some rather uncomfortable questions.

They wonder, for example, whether they really needed to pay millions of dollars to the federal government so that bureaucrats could write useless reports about, say, the precise size of all the hydrothermal vents that have been discovered in Canadian waters or the specific number of non-binary vagrants in Vancouver who also identify as indigenous furries.

As one Canadian put it at the time in a post that was widely shared on social media, quote, other than delayed passport applications, who has actually noticed the effects of 155,000 federal servants that haven't been working for a week? If you haven't, perhaps there's no need for them. Reports from CBC News, which is Canada's state broadcaster, focused on alleged hardships that the federal workers were enduring on strike.

They didn't even mention hardships suffered by the public because there weren't any hardships that anybody suffered. Another Canadian outlet, CTV, tried its best to find a downside to what was happening. They ended up saying that it was a terrible thing that Canada's immigration system wasn't able to allow as many foreign nationals into the country as they usually did. Watch.

For many Canadians, this federal workers' strike has created inconveniences, obtaining passports, filing taxes on time. But for people looking to come to this country or to stay here, the consequences are much more severe. The strike is delaying an already overburdened immigration system. While claims are still coming in, all processing is frozen. Canada was already facing a backlog of immigration applications even before the strike because of the pandemic. You know, it's an amazing clip to watch now that just one year later,

Canada's government has implemented a moratorium on most new migration. They're finally admitting that they shouldn't have allowed hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals into their country every year. Housing has become more expensive, crime has gotten worse, people can't find jobs. Now even Canada's liberals have to acknowledge this. But really, if they had allowed the strike to continue, they wouldn't have needed the immigration moratorium. The strike was already accomplishing that in a roundabout way. And as you heard, it was apparently accomplishing other things too. People weren't getting taxed either. It was a win-win for everybody.

But of course, eventually Trudeau caved. He had to pay the federal workers because they're his base. And as a result, Canadians are still being forced to employ a vast bureaucracy that clearly and unquestionably makes their lives worse. This is a burden that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are now promising to eliminate in this country. They've already published a roadmap explaining how exactly their Department of Government Efficiency plans to gut the United States federal bureaucracy.

And it's worth taking a look at it, in part because this roadmap helps explain exactly how our government got completely out of control in the first place. And also the reactions from the left are already hysterical. I mean, they're losing their minds at the thought, the very thought of a smaller, more efficient government. And it's all pretty amazing to watch. So Musk and Ramaswamy outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week that the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE,

There's a very real chance of succeeding where other efforts to curb government expansion have failed. And that's because of the two Supreme Court rulings that the conservative justices helped secure during Joe Biden's presidency. One of those rulings overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine. That's the doctrine that allowed unelected bureaucrats in government agencies to essentially make laws in certain areas as long as Congress has given the agency some general authority to oversee those areas.

This is a principle that expanded the power of the federal government far beyond what anybody probably realizes. You might remember, for example, when the Biden administration came out and declared that 85 million private sector workers had to either get the COVID shot or wear a mask. There was no law authorizing that. There was no public referendum. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, a federal agency staffed with unelected bureaucrats, just issued a rule one day.

They said mask mandates and vaccine mandates fell under their mandate of a workplace safety agency, even though nothing like that had ever been tried before because it made no sense whatsoever. And incredibly, until the Supreme Court stepped in, some federal courts actually agreed with the Biden administration. The Chevron Doctrine made unconstitutional mandates like that possible, along with tens of thousands of other irrational and onerous rules and regulations. Now the Chevron Doctrine is gone.

But virtually all of those illegal administrative rules and regulations remain on the books. They're not gonna be removed unless the federal government or a federal court takes the initiative and strikes them down. And that's the whole idea here with Doge. Specifically, the Doge plan involves placing legal experts inside government agencies who are aided by advanced technology, quote unquote, that will allow them to apply the Supreme Court's ruling to federal regulations. Doge will then turn over a list of the regulations to Trump.

who can cut them instantly with an executive order. That's gonna be the process. There's no need for Congress to get involved here. The administrative state has gained a lot of power over the years. And now Doge is going to use those powers to destroy the administrative state.

That's the first kind of reform that Doge plans to put in place. It's called regulatory rescissions. The second and third kinds of reform, the more prominent ones, are called administrative reductions and cost savings. This involves shutting down government agencies and firing government employees. And that's really the fun part. That's where it gets fun.

As Musk and Ramaswamy wrote in their plan, quote, the number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified. Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. In interviews, Ramaswamy has made it clear that eliminating entire government departments is on the table. Watch. Are you expecting to close down entire agencies like

President Trump has talked about the Department of Education, for example. Are you going to be closing down departments? We expect mass reductions. We expect certain agencies to be deleted outright. We expect mass reductions in force in areas of the federal government that are bloated. We expect massive cuts among federal contractors and others who are overbilling the federal government. So, yes, we expect all of the above. And I think people will be surprised by, I think, how quickly we're able to move with some of those changes, given the legal backdrop the Supreme Court has given us.

Now, both Musk and Ramaswamy have previously signaled their explicit support for abolishing the Department of Education in particular, which I obviously support as well. This is a department that has just failed its third audit in a row, which is almost as bad as the Pentagon, which just failed its seventh consecutive audit for its budget of nearly a trillion dollars. No one can point to anything, any single thing the Department of Education has achieved,

Americans have become dumber and less educated by every metric since the Department of Education was reintroduced in this country back in 1979. Even the defenders of the Department of Education inevitably end up making this point themselves accidentally. So this is one of the better tweets that you'll see on the subject from somebody on the left who's opposed to gutting the education bureaucracy in this country. See if you can follow the logic here. This was a tweet. Quote,

By the way, middle schoolers can't read, high schoolers can't write a proper essay. College students can't differentiate a scholarly based article versus propaganda and adults can't tell what a picture is AI. But sure, get rid of the Department of Education, lol. That person eventually deleted that tweet after about 10 million people pointed out that all of those failures have occurred under the watch of the Department of Education.

This is an agency that is not fixing any of those problems or any problems. It's taking in billions of dollars, wasting it on administrative costs. Now, obviously, we don't know yet whether Doge will actually be able to eliminate this agency or any other agency. A change that significant would probably require an act of Congress. But it's clear that Doge will clearly push us in that direction.

They'll go after other useless government departments too. Recently, Elon Musk reposted this video of the economist Milton Friedman from about 15 years ago outlining all of the government departments that he'd cut. It's a pretty big clue into the agencies that can expect significant downsizing under Doge. Watch. I wanna just go right down the list quickly and have you give me a thumbs up or thumbs down. Keep them or abolish them. Department of Agriculture. Abolish. Gone. Department of Commerce.

Abolish. Gone. Department of Defense? Keep. Keep it. Department of Education? Abolish. Gone. Housing and Urban Development? Bailed. Oh. Didn't even pause over that one. Department of the Interior? Oh, well, but Housing and Urban Development has done an enormous amount of harm. My God. If you think of the way in which they've destroyed parts of cities.

under the rubric of eliminating slums. You know, you remember that Martin Anderson wrote a book on the federal bulldozer describing the effect of the urban development. There have been many more dwelling units torn down in the name of public housing that have been built. - Department of the Interior.

your beloved National Park Service. Well, given that the problem there is you first have to sell off all the land that the government owns. But that's what you should do. But it could be done pretty quickly. It could be done. You should do that. There's no reason for the government to own. The government now owns something like one-third of all the land in the country. And that's too much. Should go down to zero. Should go down to... Well, not entirely zero. They ought to own the land on which government buildings are.

Now, whatever you think of Milton Friedman, it's obviously true that if the US government had listened to him a long time ago, we'd be better off than we are right now. Friedman once stated that it's impossible to have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. You can't promise the entire world free stuff and then allow all of them to enter the country. But the government didn't listen to that kind of logic at the time. And now we have states like California, which are completely out of money as they rush to pay the healthcare bills of millions of illegal aliens.

Later on in the video, Freeman outlined his guiding overall principle in determining whether an agency should be dismantled or retained. He explained why he thinks we still need a Defense Department, Treasury Department, State Department, for example. And Freeman was using similar principles we can assume that Musk is going to adopt with Doge. Watch. What are its fundamental functions?

Preserve the peace, defend the country. All right. Provide a mechanism whereby individuals can adjudicate their disputes. That's the Justice Department. Protect individuals from being coerced by other individuals. The police function. Right.

Right. And now, this is both the central government and the state and local governments. The police function is primarily local and central. Right. And those are the fundamental functions of government, in my opinion. Now critics of Doge point out that even if you cut all these departments, the government's still going to be in the red. And that's true. Two-thirds of our spending is on entitlements like Social Security, along with interest payments on the national debt.

I pointed out before that Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme that steals money from Americans. It would be far better, obviously, to allow Americans to keep their paychecks, invest their own money however they want, rather than having the government plan our retirements for us. But Doge can't get rid of Social Security without an act of Congress. But even given that Doge can't get rid of all government spending, obviously, it could still reduce a huge amount. It can make people's lives a lot less burdensome in the process. And on top of that,

Some of this spending is just evil. So eliminating it is good for its own sake, even if the relative savings aren't that big in terms of the entire US budget.

This is from the Wall Street Journal op-ed that Musk and Ramasamy wrote, quote, Doge will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended. From $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

So we're spending billions of dollars to fund propaganda on stations like NPR. We're also paying Planned Parenthood to murder children. That's a pretty big problem. And this is spending that has persisted for a lot of administrations, both Democrat and Republican, even though the vast majority of Republican voters don't support it. It's just well past time to end it. And if Doge could do that just by itself, that would be a major victory.

You can tell the left realizes that. They're melting down over the new Doge blueprint already. Here, for example, was a reaction from a guy named Brian Allen, who's apparently been featured in MSN and Yahoo Finance. So you know he's a real credible guy. He says, quote, I'm not exaggerating when I say this could collapse the government within a year. Musk and Ramaswamy just dropped their first Doge roadmap, and it's a disaster waiting to happen. Here's how they plan to dismantle the federal government step by step.

Sounds amazing. I mean, it sounds absolutely wonderful. Yeah, but here he's presenting the Twitter layoffs as a negative.

Apparently, this is something of a common perspective on the left, even though it boggles the mind that anybody would think this. Elon Musk fired 80% of Twitter employees and everybody on the left said Twitter would collapse as a result, it would just be gone. A lot of software engineers and so on said the same thing on MSNBC. None of it was true. Twitter is now a lot better than it used to be. By getting rid of all the bureaucrats and censorship commissars at Twitter, it's about a million times more functional and useful.

If a top Silicon Valley company has that much bloat, then you can imagine how much bloat the federal government has. I mean, it's really staggering. Even a lot of critics of Donald Trump understand that. Here, for example, is John Bolton praising the idea of Doge, although he then says that we should spend all of the savings on bombing foreign countries, which is John Bolton's favorite thing to do. Watch.

Look, Musk may have a big role here. It's not entirely clear what Trump is going to do with this Department of Government efficiency. If we can save a couple hundred billion dollars, I'd be delighted. We can spend it on the defense budget, which desperately needs an increase.

So this is something we need to look out for, obviously. It's not very productive if we save a ton of money and then use that money to start World War III, as John Bolton really wants us to do. The point is to cut the spending and let Americans keep more of their own money. That's the whole idea. And along the way, we need to eliminate funding for merchants of death like Planned Parenthood and other evil organizations. In Argentina, they've implemented similar wide-scale cuts in government. As a result, their GDP is expected to grow by nearly 10% next year, according to J.P. Morgan. That's one of the highest rates of growth in the world.

This is the kind of growth you get when you destroy needless regulations and government agencies. Like Argentina, we weren't always this bloated and inefficient. As aerospace CEO Jared Isaacman put it recently, quote, take the Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers. The first carrier was awarded in 2008. Construction began in 2009. It was commissioned in 2017. It didn't deploy until 2022 at a cost of $18 billion.

The next carrier in the class, the JFK, will take at least 10 years from construction to commissioning and cost $12.5 billion. These timelines are staggering. During World War II, the USA built over 155 carriers in a handful of years. Or for another perspective, these projects run longer than the time from Alan Shepard's first suborbital flight to Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon. So getting us back to mid-20th century levels of government efficiency is a goal the Republicans have had for decades.

And now there's a realistic chance that it'll finally happen. It's only been two weeks since the election and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have already gotten to work hiring employees for Doge, outlining their agenda in very clear, direct terms. If and when they succeed, it'll be a lot like the situation in Canada last year. Tens of thousands of federal bureaucrats will stop going to work because they won't have jobs anymore. And other than saving a lot of money and having more freedom, Americans won't notice a thing. Now let's get to our five headlines.

You know what keeps me up at night? The state of our country. But at least I'm not tossing and turning because of my mattress anymore, because I sleep on a Helix mattress. Now,

Now, you might be thinking, Matt, aren't all mattresses basically the same? Wrong. That's liberal thinking right there. Helix understands that we're all different. Unlike the left's one size fits all policies, they offer 20 unique mattresses, including their Lux and Elite collections for you hardworking Americans who deserve some luxury. The Helix Plus for you big and tall men and even a Helix kids mattress. Overwhelmed by choices? Don't worry. Helix has a sleep quiz.

that'll match you with your perfect mattress in under two minutes. Here's another reason to love Helix. Their mattresses are fiberglass free, unlike some other brands using fiberglass as a flame retardant. Helix owns this manufacturing facility that's entirely fiberglass free. So you can sleep easy knowing that you're not inhaling tiny glass particles. So

If you're ready to revolutionize your sleep and wake up refreshed to fight the good fight, Helix is offering my listeners 25% off all mattress orders, plus two free dream pillows with any mattress purchase. And if you get a Lux or Elite mattress, Helix is also including a free bedding bundle, meaning two dream pillows, a sheet set, and a mattress protector. That's H-E-L-I-X-S-L-E-E-P.com slash Walsh with Helix. Better sleep starts now.

All right, I want to talk about, spend a little time on this. In a development as predictable as the sunrise this morning, it's come to light that Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for defense secretary, was accused of sexual assault. And I say that this was predictable because Pete Hegseth is a man who is a conservative and who was picked by Trump to hold a position of power and who the Democrats really, really, really hate.

So all of those factors together are virtually guaranteed that we'd hear lurid claims and allegations of various kinds. And here they are. So here they are, right on schedule. They've showed up. Now, what makes this all so ugly, of course, is that there's never any way to know for sure if somebody is innocent of a rape claim made against them. I mean, usually there's no way to know for absolute sure. None of us

or there when the supposed crime was committed. And the accused usually can't prove a negative. It's very hard to prove that something didn't happen. This is what makes false claims so incredibly evil. Even if they are false, and even if most people suspect that they're false, even if most people are very confident they're false, there's no way for the accused to ever fully and definitively exonerate himself. Which just means that bad actors can use the false accusation to smear him for the rest of his life.

Totally innocent, doesn't matter. It could still be used to smear you for the rest of your life. That's what makes this so evil. However, although none of us can know what did or did not happen in any kind of, anytime something happens in a room where you weren't there and there's no video or audio, you can't know for sure what happened. We can still use our judgment to decide what we think is likely true. And using my judgment on this one, I have to say that

From my perspective, this rape claim is among the least credible, the least believable, the most apparently outrageous that I've ever seen. I mean, this is Kavanaugh level stuff. The only difference is that this is a claim for 2017 with Kavanaugh was like 30 years ago or whatever. But everything else, it's about as credible as that, which is to say not at all. So I don't believe it. I don't believe it at all. I just simply don't believe it. Now, admittedly, I'm biased because I went in with heavy skepticism.

Just because the rape claim is such a common tool used against Republicans that the media is trying to destroy. Especially Republicans who are in some kind of position where they've been appointed to something and they're going to go through a confirmation process. Whether it's a cabinet pick or a Supreme Court, this especially, just like you know it's going to happen. And then when it does, you can't help but be very skeptical before you even listen, before you know the story. You're immediately like, okay, yeah, here we go.

But still, I read through the facts, let them speak for themselves. And the facts here just make it impossible for me personally to take the claim seriously. So we'll go through this. And I want to start with how the mainstream media is covering it. So I'm going to play this CBS report. It's kind of long. It's about two and a half minutes. But it's important that you hear the whole report. So I can then tell you what you don't hear in this report, right? But let's listen to it.

We turn now to this newly revealed police report that offers graphic details into a sexual assault claim against Donald Tripp's pick to run the Department of Defense. The police report is now published for anyone to read. Pete Hegg says lawyer maintains it was a consensual encounter. CBS's Nicole Kaelin was asking tough questions today on Capitol Hill.

Vice President-elect J.D. Vance played host to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Capitol Hill today, just as the news broke of a graphic newly released police report that detailed Hegseth's involvement in an alleged sexual assault in 2017. Did you sexually assault a woman in Monterey, California? I have, as far as the media is concerned,

I'll keep this very simple. The matter was fully investigated and I was completely clear and that's where I'm going to leave it. According to the report, a woman referred to as Jane Doe met Hegseth during a conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Both were drinking with a group at the hotel bar when Doe said things got fuzzy. A nurse who treated her later said Doe believed something may have been slipped into her drink.

She then recalled being in a hotel room when Hegseth took her phone from her hand. When she got up to leave, Hegseth blocked the door with his body. Her next memory was when she was on a bed or a couch and Hegseth was over her. His dog tags were hovering over her face. I don't know the young lady. Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullen said Hegseth addressed the allegation in their meeting. I don't think there's any way in the world you can say that this was a sexual assault. What?

What makes you so confident about that? Have you read the report? I actually have. I've got it right here. I read the report, too. It's pretty clear what took place. It was pretty clear that she definitely wasn't drugged to her room. It was two people parking. Well, it also said she couldn't get out of the room. Well, that's one person's opinion.

HEGSETH'S ATTORNEY TOLD CBS NEWS POLICE FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS TO BE FALSE AND CLAIMED IT WAS HEGSETH WHO WAS INTOXICATED AND THE WOMAN WHO WAS THE AGGRESSOR. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE FOX NEWS HOST PAID THE WOMAN AN UNKNOWN SUM OF MONEY AFTER SHE THREATENED TO SUE, FEARING IT COULD COST HIM HIS JOB.

The district attorney in Monterey said tonight that her office declined to file charges against Hegseth because it determined that they could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Nora. All right, Nicole Killian with those tough questions tonight. Thank you. So that's a pretty good representation of how the media is covering the story, which isn't to say it's a good representation of the story. It's a good representation of how the media is covering it.

And it's exactly how you'd expect them to cover it. That is incredibly dishonestly. A lot of extremely pertinent information was left out of the report. So let's go through it. Let's talk about the facts that are, let's talk about the facts, first of all, that are not in dispute. The things that everybody agrees on. The details that we know with relative certainty and which can be proven by witnesses, security camera footage, and so on. So we'll start at the beginning here.

Hegseth and this woman were both at a conference, apparently some kind of conservative conference thing, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in 2017. The woman, and this is something that, unless I missed it somehow, CBS doesn't tell you, the woman is married. And not only is she married, but apparently her husband and children were at the hotel with her. Okay. So this is a married woman who apparently attended this conference with her family.

Why would you not mention that in the report? Well, you don't mention the report because it makes her sound really bad. It makes her sound really bad. Because at a minimum, she's late at night at a hotel bar drinking with some guy and her husband is there upstairs. Automatically, that makes her sound terrible. Well, we don't want to include anything in the report that will make this woman sound terrible. Because if we already know this woman did a terrible thing, well, terrible people do terrible things. Another terrible thing you can do is lie about a rape accusation.

to get yourself out of trouble. So let's leave that out, let's not talk about that, is what the media says. But she's apparently at this conference, she attended with her family late at night at this bar. Her husband is in the hotel room with her children, she's down at the bar drinking with Pete Hegseth. Again, this part not really in dispute. And by the way, just a note for any men out there, if you're at a hotel with your wife and it's midnight,

and she's out drinking with someone who isn't you, she's cheating. Okay, let me just clear up any confusion you might have. Yeah, she's cheating. You're sitting in the hotel room worried. She can't be cheating. No, she is. She is. A thousand percent she is. Apparently her husband went looking for her at 2 a.m. and couldn't find her. Couldn't get her on the phone. Couldn't find her.

Once again, if you don't know where your wife is at 2 a.m., she's cheating. That terrible feeling you have in the pit of your stomach where you're all the worst case scenarios. Yep, that's it. That's what that thousand percent probability. OK, I mean, well, cheating or dead, I guess, are the two possibilities. And I don't mean to be morbid, but that's really it. You know, you can't find your wife at 2 a.m. She's cheating or she's dead. And yet this woman showed back up in her the next morning to her room with her husband,

That's some sort of story about falling asleep in a friend's room. Yeah, okay. Anyway, so back to that night, she goes up to Hegseth's room. She was not dragged up there. She was not carried up there, okay? She walked up there according to the security camera footage. This footage of her walking up to the room and that's all the stuff we know for sure. So now they're in the hotel room, in the hotel room that they both were drinking.

Okay, so you can't use the whole, well, she was drunk, so this automatically is not her consent. He was drinking too, so he could accuse her of rape, I guess. I mean, this is what we're always told, well, if a woman was drinking, then automatically she can't consent. Drunk sex is non-consensual, well, so is he drinking, so she's a rapist. She raped him, he should sue her. So now they're in the hotel room. In the room, there are no witnesses aside from those two. There's no security footage, one would hope. One would hope there's no cameras in the hotel room.

And Hegseth says that they had consensual sex. The woman says that she wanted to leave, but he forcibly stopped her and then raped her. He said, she said there, okay? No other evidence to go on either way. But for that part of the story, we got a bunch of stuff we know. And then there's this part here in the hotel room. We can't know nobody was there. It was just those two. But then we go back and now there's more stuff that we know.

Cuz the story continues. And here's another one that CBS didn't mention, I don't think. This woman did not report the supposed sexual assault until four days later. She says that she didn't remember it until days after the fact. She told her husband about the quote unquote assault three days after it supposedly occurred. Police investigated, as you heard, he was cleared. They found no solid evidence of rape. They found no evidence that she was drugged or whatever.

There was something put in her drink. If Pete Hegseth, okay, I mean, come on. Pete Hegseth at this point, a well-known Fox News host is at a conservative conference slipping drugs in women's drinks. And that's the claim here. If that happened, when she went to go report the rape, they could have done a test. They would have found it in her system. They didn't find it. And she doesn't even know that. I mean, apparently she's saying, well, he might have. I don't know. Things got fuzzy. Well, I don't know. You're drinking all night. Maybe that's why things got fuzzy.

It's midnight, it's 1 AM, you've been drinking all night, things tend to get fuzzy. There was something in my system. Yeah, all the alcohol in yours while it was in your system, it has that effect. Okay, so you've got a bunch of verifiable facts leading up to whatever happened in the hotel room, then a bunch of verifiable facts after the hotel room. All we can do then is draw probabilistic conclusions about what happened during that dark spot, during the gap in the story based on the other stuff that we know with reasonable certainty. And here's what I know

with reasonable certainty about the woman. She walked up to a hotel room with a man who is not her husband, walked, not dragged, not carried, not escorted at gunpoint, walked. There is no conceivable reason why you would ever do that unless you intended to have sex with the person. Was she going up there to play chess? Was she going up there to watch Seinfeld reruns? Which even that, by the way, would be wildly inappropriate for a married woman to do.

But no, she went up there to have sex with him. I feel very, very confident in that assumption. There is one reason and one reason only that a married woman goes to a man's hotel room in the middle of the night or an unmarried woman. Okay, there's only one reason why this happens. And only one possible result can be intended. Now, here's what else I feel confident assuming about this woman. And it is an assumption, but

She's a liar and she's a very, very bad person. I mean, cheating on your husband is very bad. Going to another man's hotel room while your husband and children are in the hotel in a different room is just, if you are not a totally evil soulless scumbag, how could you do that? I mean, how?

Even if you're just like a regular cheater, bad enough. But even if you're just that level of evil, you would think that the presence of your children and husband in this hotel with you would be, that would be too much guilt. You wouldn't be able to get over that to then go through with this. I mean, to do that, it's just, it's monstrous. It's like a monstrous level of treachery.

In my opinion. I'm talking about my opinion. Like I said, I can't say for sure what happened. I don't know. This is my perspective. From my perspective, this woman is a very, very terrible human being who is obviously willing to lie to get her way. So what do I think happened? What's my own theory of the case? I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes here. I think it seems to me that

If I were to explain all these facts, what's a theory that makes sense of all it? Well, here's my theory. Again, you don't need to be a professional detective, a private eye to put it all together. It seems to me

That she cheated on her husband and then a few days later lied and said that she was drugged and raped. Why would she make up the story? Well, because she was drinking and flirting with a famous TV personality at a bar in full view of other people. It seems extremely likely that her husband may have heard about that when he went down to the bar to look for it 2 a.m. and couldn't find her. Like it seems very likely that either then or at some point shortly after somebody said something to him.

Yeah, I saw him with that Pete Hegseth guy. What? He saw him with Pete Hegseth? Seems very likely that he had suspicions, unless he's the dumbest person who's ever lived. Seems very likely he had suspicions. And so at some point, the wife could either, she could either be honest and say, yeah, I'm a horrifically evil person who cheated on you while you were watching our kids in a hotel room down the hall.

Or she could desperately invent some story to try to avoid accountability. And I think that's what happened. I think that that's what happened here. Just based on my own subjective analysis, that's my theory. And I feel pretty confident in it. And this kind of, look, the false accusations, I think, are very common. Now, we can't know how common. That's the thing. They're false. There's no way to quantify them. You hear, you know, sometimes the...

The sort of believe all women types on the other side of this they'll come up with totally made up statistics about oh no false rap rape accusations only happen X number of percentage and Actual rape is way more common than false rap. I say you can't know that it's impossible It's literally impossible to know that because they're false so it if somebody's falsely accused of rape and it's never discovered that it was false that we don't know we don't know how many times that's happened just no possible way to know but

So once again, you're left with just making, using logic and common sense and kind of drawing deductions. And to me, it seems pretty clear that false accusations are probably common. In fact, it seems most reasonable to assume that false accusations are at least as common as rape itself, if not more. Because there are a lot, you know, when you have a case where there's an actual rape that occurs, right?

What kind of man is doing that? What can motivate that? Well, these are, for actual rapists, they are horrifically evil, monstrous men who find pleasure in forcing themselves on women and in the suffering and everything that that causes. It's like, these are just the worst of the worst, evil, evil people. Those are the rapists.

However many men you have in that category is how many rapists you have. And that exists, that's real. Thank God it's not close to the majority of men or anywhere near that. But you do have that population. Over on the false rape accusers, well, what can motivate that? What kind of women do that? Well, you have some women who are just really, really evil monsters themselves, and they get off on destroying men's lives.

And they're kind of the, they're in the same category as the male rapist. This is like their version of rape. They can't actually force themselves physically on men, but they can get their kicks by imposing themselves on men in another way. And they do it that way. So there's that. So it's like, how many horrifically monstrous men do we have? How many horrifically monstrous women do we have? Probably about the same.

So already it's reason to believe it's about equal there. But then you've got these other categories. Then you have women who resort to false accusations who maybe aren't. Maybe it's not because they enjoy it necessarily, but it's self-preservation, trying to avoid accountability. They make up the story because the other option is admitting they did something terrible. That's still evil. That's still very evil. But you have the

the women who resort to this for maybe we'll say more practical reasons. And you add that into the category, which contributes to the false accusers. So you got all the women, these kinds of women, the ones who come up with the false accusations. You got the kinds of men who actually commit rape. Just seems really reasonable to me to assume that it's at least equal in terms of the numbers.

Which is all the more reason why there just have to be punishments for false accusers. There have to be severe punishments for this stuff. It's so terrible. And the effect that it has on men's lives is so severe that it can't even be quantified. And there have to be punishments.

There have to be severe punishments. I mean, I'm not the only one to say that the punishment for a false rape accusation should be the same as the punishment for rape. Whatever penalty, as the woman inventing the story, whatever penalty you were trying to have imposed on a man who's innocent in this case should be imposed on you. Now,

That doesn't mean that in a scenario like this, it doesn't mean that, well, if a man's accused of rape and then he's not charged or cleared, that automatically the woman goes to jail. Of course not. Now that's a whole separate crime that has to be investigated. It just be tried for that. And it has to be proven that she made it up. If it can't be proven, then obviously there's not going to be any criminal penalty there. But we need to start seeing women who are falsely accused put on trial and have their own lives put on the line. That's the only way that you

could have any chance of stopping some of this sort of thing from happening. All right, here's a new report from the Center for Medical Progress. And this is very important. Watch this.

We told you about Planned Parenthood's flagrantly illegal contractual arrangement to sell so-called "proprietary" aborted fetuses to UC San Diego for the "valuable consideration of owning the intellectual property and patent rights developed from experiments on the body parts." This heavily redacted research plan, submitted to the UCSD Ethics Review Board and approved in 2018, states the project will harvest fetuses up to six months old.

from subjects undergoing elective surgical pregnancy termination at Planned Parenthood and who are carrying viable, non-anomalous fetuses. Okay, so this is, yet again, Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies for medical experimentation. This is, you would think, a major, major scandal. It should be. It is. It is a major scandal. Just not treated that way. And we've known about these practices for almost 10 years now. The Center for Medical Progress first revealed them back in, I think it was 2010,

14 or 15, maybe even before that. So it's been at least 10 years that we've known about this. And Planned Parenthood has suffered no consequence. There have been no repercussions at all for them selling the bodies of aborted babies for medical experimentation and for other purposes, any purposes. There can't be any good purposes, obviously, for it. No repercussions, no penalties, no consequences whatsoever.

Not even the revocation of their federal funding and we talked about this, you know This brings us back to the point that was mentioned in the opening monologue But should but needs to be mentioned here again needs to be emphasized again that What should have happened is planned paranoid executives should have been frog marched into prison You know, they should they should be in orange jumpsuits right now with chains around the shackles around their legs That's what should have happened didn't happen at the very least

they should have their $500 million in taxpayer funding, or $300 million, I think it's down to now. Their hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding should have been revoked. In fact, you shouldn't even need this to revoke their federal funding. They never should have been federally funded to begin with, given the fact that even if they're not selling the aborted baby parts, they are aborting hundreds of thousands of babies every year. Forcing Americans to pay for that is just reprehensible, not to mention unconstitutional.

So reason enough to never fund them to begin with. But if you needed additional reasons, well, here you go. And yet, still, they got their federal funding. Every Republican administration, every Republican administration for decades has continued the funding. Republicans had complete control of the government from 2016 to 2018, just like they're about to have again. Still, they continued the funding. There wasn't even an effort to defund them, not any serious one.

Might have been mentioned by a few lawmakers here and there, but there was no serious effort. They weren't even pretending that they wanted to. That has to change this time around. I mean, this should be one of the first items on the agenda. And not that if you save $300, $400 million in taxpayer waste, that doesn't even make a dent. That's not even a tablespoon out of the ocean in terms of all the waste.

But it's not really about that. It's about the fact that you cannot force taxpayers to pay for this. And this is an easy, this should be an easy thing for Republicans to do. This is an easy call. Yeah, the Democrats will freak out about it. Oh, you see, it's the attack on reproductive rights. Let them, who cares? They're going to freak out no matter what. Who cares? Let them.

Let them go out, have them go out and force them to make the case for this. Force them to make the case that not only should Planned Parenthood be open and be allowed to continue killing babies, but you as a taxpayer should be forced to pay for it. Let them make that case, dare them. The fact that Democrats will freak out about it is actually an added bonus of defunding Planned Parenthood. Because that means that they're gonna be out in public now

telling people that they should have to pay for this. How many Americans really want to pay for it? Even among the Americans who are in favor of abortion to some degree or another, how many of them actually want their tax money to go to this? How many? I don't know if any polls have been done on this. And if there have been polls done on it, I guarantee they were done in a dishonest way.

You have to explain to most Americans what Planned Parenthood is and what they do. That's actually not as widely understood as you and I might think. So yeah, without any context, if you go to the average American and say, do you think some tax money should go for the purposes of reproductive health to reproductive health organizations? Probably most Americans would say, yeah, because they don't know what that means. But then if you say, no, this is Planned Parenthood. They abort hundreds of thousands of babies every year. And this money enables them to do that.

Of course, they say that, well, this money doesn't go to the abortion part of our business. Okay, money is fungible, doesn't make a difference. If you're funding the organization, it doesn't matter where, if you give them $300 million, it doesn't matter where they put that specific chunk of change, you are helping them to abort the baby. So they could put it here, they could put it up, doesn't make a difference. That's the point of money, it's fungible. So just takes a little, yeah, you gotta explain it a little bit. It's not that hard to explain.

And once it's explained and once Americans understand what this really is all about and what Planned Parenthood really does, I don't think. Do a majority of Americans want their money to go to abortionists? Want their tax money to go to abortionists? I don't think that that is anywhere close to a majority position. So this would be not only the right thing to do, but a political winner. And this is one of those things.

Now, you might say that, well, it's not a top priority. I think it is. But maybe you're in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, but you wouldn't think it's a top priority on its own merits. I'll tell you another reason why it is. It's because it's kind of a canary in the coal mine sort of thing. If Republicans don't do this, then that's a really good indication that they're not going to do any of the other stuff they say they're going to do. If they don't get this done, which is an easy thing to get done, it's a no-brainer.

And if they don't do that, that's a real bad sign. Okay, if they're not gonna do that, then why would we think that they're gonna do mass deportations, for example? Which is a much larger operation and more difficult. And also, by the way, it will provoke a lot more outrage, although it should still be done. So if they're not gonna do it, then that to me, that's a real bad sign. So let's hope they do and we gotta keep pushing them in that direction. We talk a lot about putting our money where our values are.

Let me tell you about my cell phone company, Pure Talk, and why I made the switch. Pure Talk is veteran-led, and they don't just talk about supporting our veterans. They actually do something about it. They've already alleviated $10 million in veteran debt. Every month, they donate tens of thousands of dollars to prevent veteran suicide.

They just gave $50,000 to MicroWorks to help veterans learn trades after serving our country. Meanwhile, what exactly are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile doing with your money? Pure Talk gives you the exact same coverage, America's most dependable 5G network for half the cost. You get better service, better values, and you're helping our veterans. It's that simple. Right now, Pure Talk has an incredible offer for my listeners.

When you switch your service to Pure Talk on a qualifying plan, you'll get one year of Daily Wire Plus Insider completely free, where you can stream my new film, Am I Racist? But remember, it still is exclusive. The only way to get it is by going to puretalk.com slash Walsh. Support Pure Talk, a wireless company who wants to be a wireless company and nothing more. And remember, it takes courage to stand for your values and takes even more to stand against those who try to silence you. puretalk.com slash Walsh. That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.

Ladies and gentlemen, our Daily Wire Plus Black Friday sale starts now. This is our best deal of the year. Get 50% off annual memberships today. No code needed. Just go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the fight right now. With Daily Wire Plus, you get access to our uncensored daily shows with limited ads, plus breaking news coverage from the most trusted voices in conservative media. Get the facts, get the truth, get it all for 50% off.

That's not all. Daily Wire Plus is home to the number one documentary of the decade, Am I Racist?, and our full library of premium entertainment that's reshaping culture. Save 50% now. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the fight today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

Today we are going to quickly cancel Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin. For those mercifully unfamiliar with this person, she is the formerly conservative, very big air quotes around conservative, media pundit who went insane because of Donald Trump and flipped being a hardcore liberal to spite him. Many such cases, as we know, have been reported.

And just as in all those other cases, it's probably the case that she didn't really flip to being liberal. She always was. Whether she was always also insane is a bit more unclear. Rubin took to her podcast this week to give some advice to Democrats. She thinks that she can help them reach those ordinary voters that they lost this election or rather that they abandoned long before this last election. And here is her brilliant strategy that she outlines. Listen.

And for people who don't get political news, who never pick up a newspaper, who never turn on CNN, who never even bother with Fox News, those people really have no idea what's going on. And that means we have to bend over backwards, not to suck up to these people, not to make excuses for them, but at least to communicate the basic facts. You don't have a vaccine because...

You're not getting a child tax credit because...

All the good things that are happening at the state level, they have to know why they're getting those things. Oh, you have a chip manufacturing plant because a Democratic president put that into effect and a Democratic governor went out and solicited bids. And now you have X number of thousands of jobs. It's that simple. You can't talk broad themes. You have to boil it down to nuts and bolts and you have to be pithy.

What do I mean by pithy? How about this? Republicans want to kill your kids. It's actually true. If you're going to oppose vaccinations, if you're going to stop breakthrough medical research, if you're going to allow minors and all sorts of people to get semi-automatic weapons, which they use to shoot up schools, well, then you are responsible for kids' health and death, unfortunately.

It has to be that simple and that direct, and it has to be over and over and over again. Okay, a few points here. First of all, I know it may sound ironic for me to say this on my podcast, but I do have to say that not everyone needs a podcast. We need to get a grip on the podcast. Just because you have the vague ability to formulate words and put them together into sentences doesn't mean you should be starting your own podcast. It really doesn't.

Whoever you are, if you're thinking to yourself right now, maybe I should start a podcast. No, you probably shouldn't. You probably shouldn't. Who is listening to the Jen Rubin podcast? It's a serious question. Why does it exist? Have you ever met anybody in your entire life who would identify themselves as a Jen Rubin fan?

Have you ever met anyone who even mildly cares what she thinks about anything? I mean, sure, I'm doing a segment about her right now, but it's Friday and this was an easy one. And I'm just trying to get to the weekend at this point, just to be honest with you. Anyway, the point is that there's no reason for this person to have a podcast. There's no reason for 98% of the people who have podcasts to have them. Okay, podcasts at this point have become like visual diaries for self-satisfied gas bags to talk to themselves. Whether that also applies to the present podcast is up to you to decide.

Second, let's get to the central insight being offered by this genius political analyst. She's decided that the way for Democrats to connect with voters, at least the uninformed ones who don't watch CNN, she says people who don't read newspapers or watch CNN. So you mean 100% of the population under the age of 75, that's what you mean? That's everyone, doesn't read newspapers or watch CNN. That's literally everyone who was a

born at any point in the last 70 years. But anyway, the way to connect with them is to make simple declarative statements like Republicans want to kill your kids. Never mind that Democrats are the ones who literally want to kill kids and have killed them, over 60 million of them to be specific. You just don't get to accuse anyone of wanting to kill kids when you have funded, facilitated, and fought to legalize the mass slaughter of children. You don't get to do that.

But as proof of this Republican desire to murder children, she mentions our resistance to vaccines and also the fact that we give semi-automatic weapons to minors. Now, the latter is entirely made up, of course. It is not legal for minors to obtain or possess semi-automatic weapons anywhere in the country. Literally no Republican anywhere at any point has ever suggested that we should make it legal for kids to purchase those weapons. It's never happened.

When a child tragically shoots up a school, he has done so in defiance of the laws forbidding him from possessing those weapons. And in defiance of the laws forbidding him from bringing those weapons onto school grounds. And in defiance of the laws forbidding him from using those weapons to murder innocent people. Our only point is that when somebody is breaking 10 laws already, adding an 11th law for them to break as well probably won't solve the problem.

As for vaccines, if you're still completely dismissive of all vaccine skepticism, even after our experience with the COVID vaccine, then you're just not a serious person, which is obviously the case here. But all that's beside the point. Now, that's not what makes this analysis from Jen Rubin so crushingly stupid. It contributes to stupidity, but it's not even the dumbest thing about this clip. Here's the dumbest thing.

Rubin is recommending that Democrats make hysterical panicked declarations like Republicans wanna kill your kids. As if that hasn't already been the entire Democrat political playbook for years now. This has been not just part of their strategy, but essentially their only strategy for at least a decade. Jen Rubin, who's paid by a major corporate media company to analyze politics for a living,

Apparently hasn't noticed that Democrats have spent 10 years doing the thing that she recommends they start doing. If overwrought, simplistic, frenzied, not to mention wholly false, or as Jen Rubin calls them, pithy statements are what you want. Well, Democrats have them in abundance. It's all they've had and they still got demolished. This is not a coincidence.

In fact, they lost largely because they followed the playbook that Jen Rubin is now recommending as if she invented it. For years now, the left has been screaming that their ideological opponents are racist, are bigots, are Nazis. They wanna bring back slavery. They wanna create a handmaid's tale, patriarchal dystopia. They wanna kill kids. None of that means anything to voters anymore. They've heard it a million times.

See, this is the problem. You've used the most dramatic possible language and made the most hysterical possible claims you can. You have accused your opponents of the worst possible things, killing kids, being Nazis. There's nowhere to go from here. You can't ramp up the rhetoric even more. You can't get any more dramatic than you've already been. The public is numb to it. You've used up all of your credibility. Nothing you say means anything anymore. That is the problem.

that Democrats face. I don't know how they solve it. And I'm not much interested in helping them to figure it out, to be honest with you. But I do know that a good start is to stop listening to people like Jen Rubin, if anybody ever was, because she is today, certainly, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. Talk to you on Monday. Have a great weekend. Godspeed.

in a world where traditional values are under attack the candle club stands as a beacon of truth started by a mom who refused to be silenced by cancel culture the candle club is now america's premier conservative candle company each hand-poured candle supports family values while filling your home with premium toxin-free fragrances

with nine unique brands from Salty and Lit's faith-inspired collections to exclusive Daily Wire host collaborations with yours truly, and others like Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro, and Brett Cooper. We're literally and figuratively letting truth burn bright. Find gifts under $30 and bundles perfect for moms, aunts, neighbors, teachers, or any conservative who cherishes quality, family, and tradition. Visit thecandleclub.com today.

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but OnDeck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top-rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit OnDeck.com for more information.

Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.