Ep. 1605 - These Federal Judges Are Trying To Stop Trump From Dealing With The Fentanyl Crisis
01:10:18 Share

This is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Watch Parenting, available exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. We're dealing with misbehaviors with our son. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums. Our son turned to some substance abuse. Go to dailywireplus.com today.

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the activist courts are at it again. At this point, it's clear that in the view of most judges in this country, the president has no authority to do anything at all. Also, schools across the country are moving to a no-zero grading policy. Homeschooling looks better and better by the day. And in their desperate quest to appeal to men, the Democrats have called in an expert, a self-professed plus-size disabled queer Latina feminist. Who could possibly understand men better than her? All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.

One thing before we kick things off, this is your chance to save 40% on your new DailyWire Plus membership. Use code DW40 at dailywireplus.com to save and join now. If your mattress has the supportive qualities of wet cardboard and you wake up each morning feeling like you need an on-call chiropractor, then it's time to check out Helix Sleep. Improve your nights and start genuinely sleeping well so you can wake up each morning feeling like you actually got some rest

and you're ready to take on whatever the day has in store. I never realized how badly I needed a new mattress until I finally got one. I've had my Helix mattress for a few years now and couldn't be happier. It does incredibly well with temperature regulation, which really eases some of those annoying middle-of-the-night wake-ups. Keeping cool and comfortable is essential as the temperatures continue to warm up and we head into the summer.

It's easy to connect to other wearable devices so you can actually see the data to back up your sleep improvements each night. No more questioning. What makes Helix different is that they don't just sell you a random mattress, they actually match you with the perfect one for your body and sleep style. Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, or somewhere in between, they've got you covered. All you have to do is take their sleep quiz and find your ideal match

Right now is actually the perfect time to upgrade your sleep because Helix is still offering a fantastic Memorial Day sale. For my listeners, go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh to get 27% off site-wide plus a free bedding bundle, which includes a sheet set and a mattress protector with the Luxe or Elite mattress order. That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh for 27% off site-wide plus a free bedding bundle with any Luxe or Elite mattress order. helixsleep.com slash Walsh.

We've been trending in this direction for some time now, but after yesterday's ruling by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of International Trade in Manhattan, which struck down all of the Trump administration's tariffs, it's now official. We don't need any more rulings from federal judges about what the president of the United States isn't allowed to do. Those are completely pointless. Instead, what we need in our alleged first world democracy is

is a ruling from some federal court explaining in as much detail as possible what exactly the president does have the authority to do while in office. That would be a much more efficient way forward because apparently it's a very, very, very short list.

Now, just the past five months, federal courts have held that the Trump administration has no authority to change federal government websites. The Trump administration has no authority to fire any executive branch employees. The Trump administration has no authority to ban mentally disturbed individuals from joining the armed forces. The Trump administration has no authority to eliminate slush funds for corrupt NGOs. The Trump administration has no authority to stop funneling billions of dollars of taxpayer money to anti-white universities.

The Trump administration has no authority to eliminate wasteful administrative spending that is tacked on to every single scientific grant. The Trump administration has no authority to deport illegal alien gang members, even the wife beaters and the terrorists. The Trump administration has no authority to cut federal funding to child castration services for children. And now, after all these rulings, and there are dozens more like them, we heard last night from the U.S. Court of International Trade that the President of the United States also

does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs on foreign nations. Now, in a minute I'm going to go into some detail about this ruling and the problems I have with it. But before I do that, there's a very important point that needs to be made here, which is this: Even if you think that tariffs are a terrible idea, and really even if you believe that the Court of International Trade made the right ruling in this particular case,

which they didn't, you simply cannot deny that the judicial system in this country, because of its own overzealousness, has never been less legitimate than it is right now. I mean, the sheer number of injunctions that have been issued blocking every single agenda item that the democratically elected president has attempted to execute is unprecedented in the history of this country. We are in

Jump the shark territory to a comical degree. And that's a very big deal because courts don't have militaries. They cannot enforce their own rulings. When they lose legitimacy, they lose everything. And with this latest ruling on top of all the other rulings, legitimacy is long gone. So who does have legitimacy? Where does legitimacy come from? For judges, legitimacy comes from restraint and consistency and adherence to the rule of law.

For presidents, it comes from democratic elections. It comes from campaigning and openly telling voters what you plan to do if and when you're elected. And with that in mind, you will not find a single person, even the most deranged anchor on MSNBC, who will disagree with this statement.

Donald Trump explicitly campaigned on imposing massive tariffs on foreign nations in order to return manufacturing to the United States. That was always a core plank of his domestic agenda. He's been talking about it for decades. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him. You can feel however you want about tariffs, but it does mean that Trump's plan was put to a vote and the American people decided that Donald Trump's economic agenda was the best way forward. That's legitimacy.

And if that's not legitimacy, then legitimacy has no meaning. And neither does democracy. Again, even on MSNBC, they concede this point. Last night, as he was celebrating this court decision, the perpetually unhinged Lawrence O'Donnell admitted that Trump's entire campaign was about tariffs. He says he was talking about tariffs the whole time, and he blames the campaign press for not talking about tariffs enough. Watch.

The Trump tariffs were always illegal and unconstitutional, and you heard that on this program every time we covered Donald Trump's comments about tariffs, including very much during the presidential campaign when they campaigned press corps. Never, ever reported to voters.

that the Trump proposed tariffs during the campaign were completely illegal and unconstitutional. The campaign press corps never reported to voters that those proposals were constitutionally insane. And the person pronouncing those proposals at those Trump rallies was constitutionally out of his mind just based on what he was saying about tariffs alone. The campaign press corps completely failed

Now, the point of this little diatribe from Lawrence O'Donnell is to suggest that if only the campaign press had covered Trump's tariffs a little bit more, then the voters would have rejected his entire candidacy. This is a familiar tactic on the left. They did the same thing with Russiagate. They claim that if only people knew that, you know, the Russian government had spent $100,000 on Facebook memes back in 2016, then they would have never voted against Hillary Clinton. You poor, poor voters. You're always being tricked by Donald Trump.

You have no agency whatsoever. And thankfully, the courts will correct that little problem for you. Now, this is about as undemocratic as it gets. It is asinine, narcissistic, above all totalitarian. Of course, it wasn't just this one MSNBC blowhard who discovered that Trump was talking about tariffs all the whole time. The entire country heard Trump talk about tariffs. And then they overwhelmingly decided to elect that guy. And that should matter more than anything else.

Unless the president clearly and unambiguously exceeds his authority under the Constitution, then the court should respect the will of the voters, whether they agree with it personally or not. In this case, if you read the ruling from the panel of judges on the United States Court of International Trade, you'll discover that Donald Trump did not actually exceed his authority. In order to come to the opposite conclusion, a lot of mental gymnastics were required on the part of this three-judge panel.

And I want to start with the court's handling of Trump's fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. At the moment this ruling was issued, the tariffs stood at 25% for Mexican and Canadian products and 20% for Chinese products, with an exception for Canadian energy, which remained at 10%. Now, normally the president cannot issue tariffs that are quite that high. However, as you probably remember,

The Trump administration determined rightly that fentanyl trafficking is a national emergency because tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year from fentanyl that's imported from overseas or from other countries. And therefore, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the White House asserted its authority to impose substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, tariffs that are much higher than they otherwise could be.

And under this emergency act, the president is allowed to quote, "Deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the U.S. to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such a threat." And I'll say that again. The president can quote, "Deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the U.S. if the president declares a national emergency

with respect to such threat. That's a direct quote from the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which became law in the 1970s. That's the authority that Congress delegated to the president. And under this act, the president can impose substantial tariffs to deal with any extraordinary threat as long as he declares a national emergency. So...

You might be asking, isn't that exactly what happened in this case? Didn't Trump impose the fentanyl tariffs in order to pressure countries like Mexico and China to stop allowing fentanyl into this country? Under the terms of this law, isn't the president implementing these tariffs to deal with the fentanyl crisis? Now, according to the trade court, the answer to that question is apparently no. And here's their reasoning. They focus extensively on the words deal with in the law that I just read. And here's what they said. Quote,

Deal with connotes a direct link between an act and the problem it purports to address. A tax deals with a budget deficit by raising revenue. A dam deals with flooding by holding back a river. But there's no such association between the act of imposing a tariff and the unusual and extraordinary threats that the fentanyl trafficking orders report to combat. The fentanyl trafficking order do not deal with their stated objectives. Rather, as the government acknowledges, the orders aim to create leverage to deal with those objectives. Close quote.

So in other words, the court is acknowledging that the fentanyl tariffs are being used by the Trump administration as a form of leverage, which can force foreign countries to deal with the fentanyl problem. But they're claiming that under the law, that's not allowed. That's not how you're supposed to deal with fentanyl, according to this three-judge panel. The judges are saying that, you know, the Trump administration is assuming too much power and that leverage isn't the appropriate way to deal with an emergency. And therefore, apparently, the Trump administration needed to impose a tariff

What, specifically on fentanyl imports or something like that? Even though we obviously would accomplish nothing at all because nobody is declaring their fentanyl shipments at the border. Now, I want to emphasize this a little bit more because this part of the ruling really deserves much more attention than it's getting. Congress passed a law that allows the president to deal with any emergency that he declares. And now decades later, this trade court is saying, in effect, well, no, you can't deal with it like that.

But there's nothing in the law that justifies their ruling. The court just makes it up. The only reasoning that the court provides, which is contained in two paragraphs at the end of their opinion, is that the Trump administration's approach would justify any kind of tariff they wanted to impose, no matter how ridiculous. They're saying that if Trump can use leverage as a justification, then he can impose whatever tariff he wants. But that's not true. There has to be an underlying emergency, first of all, and the deaths of thousands of Americans every year certainly qualifies. Additionally, there's evidence that

In this case, Trump's leverage is indeed working. Within days of Trump sweeping tariffs on Canada, for example, Trudeau appointed a fentanyl czar and pledged to screen exports more carefully in order to prevent fentanyl from entering into this country. So we're not talking about some arbitrary tariff that has no connection to reality. We're talking about a tariff that has already produced tangible results that will stem the flow of fentanyl. But apparently that's not good enough. And again, even if you think that this is not going to be an effective way to deal with the fentanyl crisis, that's fine. You could think that.

But that doesn't mean that the president doesn't have the authority to do it. The president has the authority to do things that you might find ineffective or that some random court finds ineffective. Now, I'm highlighting this part of the ruling because it underscores the extent of the judicial coup that we're witnessing. Congress delegated authority to the president to deal with an emergency. He attempted to do that.

And then the court overrides him based on ad hoc reasoning that invalidates the will of the voters who elected the Trump administration and the members of Congress who passed that emergency tariff law. And again, it's fine if you think the tariffs are a bad idea or a good idea or if you have mixed feelings about them. The solution, if you don't like the tariffs, is for Congress to rescind the tariff power in whole or in part legally. The solution is not

Which I don't think they should do, by the way. But if that was your opinion, then that's who you know, if you think that if you don't like tariffs and you think they should, then that's the that is the the those are the people who can deal with that, not some random court. The solution is definitely not for random courts in Manhattan to override the president and the Congress based on very strained interpretations of the law.

Now, this ruling has already been appealed, and it's clear the Trump administration can still impose tariffs, albeit reduced ones, under the non-emergency tariff powers that have been passed by Congress. So the ultimate outcome here is still uncertain. What's not uncertain is that federal judges once again have undermined what's left of their legitimacy with this ruling.

If this had been the very first injunction against the Trump administration policy, it wouldn't be as much of a crisis. People may even give the judges the benefit of the doubt throughout the appeals process. But we've seen more than 100 rulings like this by now. This is unsustainable to the point that if one of these federal judges somehow manages to issue a good ruling, no one will follow it. That's not the ideal outcome for this country or the rule of law, obviously.

With this decision from a court that no one's ever heard of, which erases the president's con- congressionally approved authority to deal with national emergencies, it's the outcome that now appears to be inevitable. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Mayflower Cigars, founded by Daily Wire host and lifelong cigar aficionado Michael Knowles, is a tribute to tradition, craftsmanship, and luxury within reach. Father's Day is fast approaching. Mayflower delivers perfect gifts from fresh packs, accessories, boxes, to gift bundles for dads who appreciate craftsmanship, character, and a well-earned pause. Must be 21 or older to purchase. Avoid where prohibited. Conditions and exclusions apply.

The Postmillennial reports on Tuesday the San Francisco Public School District announced a new grading policy that will allow students to graduate classes with a score as low as 21%. The grading for equity method eliminates homework and weekly test scores from a student's final semester grade. Instead, there will be one test at the end of each semester to decide if a student has passed the class, and that exam can be retaken several times.

Maria Su, the superintendent of San Francisco Unified School District, enacted the new guidelines without seeking approval from the board. Changes will impact 10,000 students across 14 high schools. Students may submit assignments late, fail to attend class, or choose not to attend without consequence to their academic performance. As of current, receiving an A requires a minimum score of 90%, while a D is set at 61%. Under the new scale, a student can obtain an A with a score as low as 80%.

and a D with a score as low as 21%. So that's what they're doing there. Some more equitable practices in school, supposedly. I will say I agree with one part of this. I agree with getting rid of homework. That is one supposedly woke education policy that I'm on board with. Because to me, it's actually anti-woke. I think that getting rid of homework itself is... Homework itself is woke, okay? Homework is woke.

kids, I would argue, because the problem with homework is that it allows the school, the public school, to claim even more of the time that should be yours with your own child. It's just the government, it's like the school system's way of intruding into the home even more than they already are. Because when a child leaves home, he should be with his parents, he should be with his family. That should be family time.

And it's important for kids to have time with their families. It's critically, absolutely, essentially important, obviously. And with homework, the school is saying, no, sorry, that time still belongs to us. We're going to take some of that time. And most of the homework is just busy work. So kids are being sent back to their homes with busy work to do. And now, rather than having family time, they have busy work to do. You know, you get the kids are in school for, what, six, seven hours a day.

That's plenty of time if you're the school. If you need to send the kids home with homework, then you're not using that time efficiently. That's a you problem as a school. That's a you problem as a teacher if you feel like you need to send them home with busy work. That tells me you're not using your time efficiently. You've got more than enough time to teach all the stuff you need to teach. Use the time efficiently. Don't send them home to me with busy work to do. Not me specifically because my kid's homeschooled, but...

I'm saying as a parent. So I'm with them on eliminating homework, although, of course, their reason is not the same as my reason. And the rest of this stuff, though, is insane. 21% is a passing grade, which is just another way of saying that every kid will pass every class no matter what. You can get a 21% if you show up

Just show up to class on occasion, sign your name to a couple of worksheets, and you'll get 21%. So every kid passes no matter what. That's the policy. A kid can get, what, 19% of the answers wrong on a test or an assignment and still get an A. There are no consequences for coming to class late or turning in assignments late. It's all just insane. And as more schools turn to these kinds of policies and methods—

they really remove the one single potentially redemptive thing about public school. There are many problems with public school. The quality of education is bad. Much of what the kids are taught is false. The culture in the school is toxic and hostile to your values if you're a Christian or a conservative. The schools are left-wing indoctrination centers, all of that. Even in the midst of all that, the one possible problem

bright spot, the one advantage, which is still not nearly enough to outweigh all the disadvantages. But the one thing that you should be able to say is that going to school in this kind of structured environment could teach kids discipline and help them to develop a work ethic, right? I'll admit that this can be a challenge with homeschooling. Homeschooling, no matter what you do in life, there are going to be challenges, there are going to be disadvantages.

Homeschooling is no exception. Homeschooling can be looser. It can be less structured. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, there are a lot of advantages to that. But what you can lose if you're not careful is some of the discipline. Because kids are not required to get up and physically go to a class and deal with some of the demands that you get in that kind of structured school environment.

So a downside to homeschooling, a potential downside that can happen if you go about it the wrong way, is that, yeah, it can get a bit casual, a bit loose, overly so. And this is one problem that you would think a traditional school environment would not have because they have more structure, more kind of a built-in discipline and accountability. But now public schools are abandoning that.

What could be their one single selling point, their one upside, the one thing, maybe the one thing they might have over homeschooling, they're throwing that overboard. They're saying, we're done with that. The structure, the accountability, you know, like you got to just, a kid has to get up and go to a class physically, just that requirement. Like I said, there could be some discipline that comes with that. But now they're saying, yeah, you don't even have to come in.

You don't have to come to class. So they're getting rid of the structure, the discipline, the accountability. And this isn't just happening in San Francisco, by the way. Fox reports also this week that, here's the report, Chicago public schools officials are debating whether their grading policy is too lenient, with one principal arguing that leniency in grading won't translate into success in the real world for students. When students graduate and are working in jobs, what they experience around grace and flexibility at school is not going to match.

Kennedy is a principal at Richards Career Academy High School. RCAAH is predominantly ruled by Latino and black students. The school piloted a new grading policy before the COVID pandemic that allowed them to redo assignments repeatedly and then submit assignments late. The policy was intended to address rising absenteeism in the district. Even if they didn't complete the assignment, the lowest score they could get was 50 rather than zero, a concept known as no zero grading.

This trend of no-zero grading started across the district and the United States as part of a push to give students more chances to show what they learned. Zakai Muhammad said, "We're not issuing grades without knowing the full story. If the student has not shown up, are we just issuing a zero or are we asking why? We wanted to know, we wanted to show up for our kids first and then grading was secondary," according to a science teacher at RCAHS.

That's what's happening in Chicago and in other districts across the country. No zero grading, they call it. You get a 50% even if you don't do the assignment. They spot you 50% just out of the gate. And then, you know, if they don't want to hand out a grade, they want to ask why. Why did this happen?

Well, the problem with this approach, of course, is that it doesn't, as someone said in the article, it doesn't work this way in the real world. In the real world, all that matters is whether you successfully completed the task assigned to you or not. Nobody cares really why or why not. That's going to be the case. And if you want to be successful, that's going to be the case in any line of work. All that matters is if you perform. That's what matters in the end. And this, again...

should be an advantage to sending your kids to a physical school is that now at least they're in an environment where performance is what counts. You're getting graded by a teacher who's not your parent. There's some competitiveness and competition, all that kind of stuff. But the schools are getting away from that. So then you're left really asking yourself, what

Why would anyone send their kid to a public school now? I mean, I didn't see a good reason to do it. I don't think there's been a good reason for decades to do it, but especially at this point, there just isn't one. I wanted to mention this. You may recall a few months ago, Cory Booker filibustered for 25 hours. Sorry, I was going to say 24. It was 25. And he gave a 25-hour speech on the Senate floor.

Nobody had any idea why he was doing this. He wasn't filibustering any particular law or policy. He was just, he was filibustering to filibuster. What was the point? Well, now we know. The Hill reports, Senator Cory Booker will expand his record-breaking Senate floor speech into a forthcoming book titled Stand to be published by St. Martin's Press in November. This book is about the virtues vital to our success as a nation and lessons we can draw from generations of Americans who fought for them, Booker said in a statement.

The news comes about two months after Booker's 25-hour Senate floor speech, which broke records, blah, blah, blah. The senator and former presidential candidate previously published three books, including Cory Booker's Speech of the Century, the complete text of the inspiring speech that broke the record. Wait, wait a second. So this is his second book about the speech? I missed that initially in this article. So this is his second book about that speech. He's publishing a book about his rambling 25-hour speech.

screed and this will be the second one apparently because he published the whole text of it and now he's publishing another book elaborating even more on the speech so So this is great, you know for all you big Cory Booker fans out there all you all you booker heads out there You can now you can now add to your Cory Booker Library or Cory Booker collection. You can get you can get the whole Cory Booker catalog and

We'll make a great Christmas gift. This is coming out in November, right in time for Christmas. I think that'll be my gift to my wife this year. I don't want to spoil it, but the complete works of Cory Booker, a box set. And I'll give it to her and she'll look at it and say, who's Cory Booker exactly? And I'll say, who is Cory Booker? He's a man of legend.

Tales have been told of this man, this man who stood for a really long time and talked about nothing for no reason. So if you were at all confused as to why Booker was doing this, the fact that he will have published two books about it in the span of two months should, or no, the other one's coming out in November. He's announced two books about it in the span of two months should clarify things. And it should clarify what should already be obvious, which is that he just wants attention.

And, you know, I made this point about Nancy Mace last week. I know it seems obvious and it is, but I think a lot of people still believe that these people, these politicians like Corey and Nancy and Jasmine Crockett and whoever else, a lot of people still believe that these are scheming, power hungry, Game of Thrones types who lust for power and control. And don't get me wrong, they are scheming.

They do want power, they do want control. I'm not saying they don't, but I believe that what they really want, even more than that, is attention, fame. In fact, the main reason they want to be in power is for the fame that comes with it. Yeah, Cory Booker would love to be president. I'm sure he'll run again and he'll get another 1% in the polls. Why does he want to be president? Does he want to control everybody, control our lives? Yeah, but more than that, he just wants to be famous.

And presidents are really famous. So we have a bunch of people in Congress who actually just want to essentially be TikTok influencers. Or, you know, like if you went to Cory Booker and you were a genie and you could give him a choice and you said, well, I can snap my fingers and I can make you a famous celebrity who can walk the red carpet at the Oscars and who will be recognized and sworn by fans everywhere you go. People will be asking for your autograph.

That Cory Booker's like ultimate dream is for someone, anyone to ask for his autograph ever. He dreams of that every day. So as the genie, I can give you that. But the deal is that you have to give up your position in the Senate and you can never hold a position of political power ever again. You got to give up all your political power. But in exchange, you get to be super famous and you get to sign a bunch of autographs.

I believe that Cory Booker would take that deal in a second. He wouldn't even have to think about it. You give him the choice between power and fame, he'll take the fame. And that's what so many of these people are after. They're chasing fame. And that's why they're so useless and vapid and embarrassing, because they're motivated by the shallowest desire a person can possibly have, right? The

Of all the things that could motivate you, the worst thing to be motivated by is a desire for fame. Because people can be motivated by greed, which isn't good. Greed is not, in fact, good. But you could be driven to become a successful businessman and do something useful and impressive. If somebody's driven by a lust for power, it can propel them towards success.

to do great things because they want power. Now, it can also propel them to do awful, terrible things, but at least there's that chance. If you're driven by a desire for fame, then all you're thinking about every day is what you can do to get attention. You're just a child. You have the mentality of a four-year-old child, and that's what we have in Congress. The political scene is full of this now.

that people who just want to be famous, they just want to be known, they just want attention. And, you know, that's one of my main issues with some of the conspiracy theories that you know, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that are true or not even really theories anymore. But then others that you hear sometimes it's like, no, that's not even what drives these people. Actually, a lot of them anyway. Now, there are people who don't want fame

But want power like they're not interested in the fame at all They don't want to be known but they want power now Those are the most dangerous types a lot of these a lot of these people though, especially the front-facing kind of put the politicians who? Sort of against your will you you know their names These are overgrown children who? Would be just as happy probably even happier if they were really successful Using that for a term lightly tick-tock personalities, right?

Speaking of which, Michelle Obama is complaining again on her podcast, which is what her podcast appears to be all about. Let's listen in.

There was a line of people waiting to shake hands with our respective husbands. People reaching over our heads and spilling water on us trying to get to these two illustrious men. And she had the same look on her face as I did.

Here we go, and I looked over at this beautiful woman. Did we even have a conversation? Not until later in that afternoon. So you hadn't met? We hadn't met. You just saw each other. But I just saw the look on her face, which expressed the sentiments that I felt, which was- Pissed off. First of all, I have to ask again, who is listening to this podcast? There are

There are too many podcasts. There are way too many. We need a complete and total shutdown of podcasts until we figure out what the hell is going on. And except mine. Mine can continue, but all the rest, that'd be kind of nice, actually. Just wipe out all the... No one else is allowed to do them, only me. For a little bit, for a period of time. There are certain... This is not... Well, maybe not every... Because there are certain podcasts that are not part of the problem. Okay, so this show...

Even if you think that my show sucks, which maybe it does, but even if it does, this shows at least a show. It may not be a good show. I mean, I think it's good. I like it. I like it personally. My mom likes it. So, you know, it's like, so there's at least one other person out there who likes the show. And so I'm proud of it. But however you feel about it, it's a show. You know, I have segments. I write up monologues, deliver a point of view about things, take it or leave it.

It's a show. Not the greatest sales pitch. We got to work on the marketing pitch a little bit. I'm not saying I would put that on like the banner ad if we were running ads. The Matt Wall Show. It's a show. It's a show. What do you want me to do? If you're looking for a show, here's one. So, but it is a show.

But now we have this massive glut of podcasts that are just, that are not even, it's like, there's no show here. It's just people sitting in a room talking about nothing, rambling, making small talk, talking about nothing at all. Not even interview, like I'm not talking, interview shows, that's it. Interview shows are also shows. And there are plenty of interview shows that are terrible, but it's at least a show.

But it's not even that. It's just people having conversations, boring, rambling, pointless conversations. Why do they exist? Why would anyone listen? Does anyone want to hear Michelle Obama and I think that's her brother make small talk three times a week or whatever the schedule is? Now, there are a few. There are very few podcasts in this style and that style that are actually interesting, right? It's basically like Joe Rogan, Theo Vaughn, Tucker Carlson, and

a couple of others. And that's it. Joe Rogan is the master of having a long, wide ranging, off the cuff conversation that where there's, he has no, he doesn't bring any, as far as I could tell, having been on the show twice, as far as I can tell, he's like, doesn't bring any notes into the conversation. And, but that's what he does. And then it goes to interesting places. And so you'll, you'll sit and you'll listen to like this two and a half, three hour conversation.

But Theo Vaughn is really good at it. Tucker is an expert at the craft because there's actual skill involved in doing that well. These guys are highly skilled in the art of the conversational interview. It's not an easy thing to do because here's the thing. Every day across the world, millions of conversations are happening. Millions and millions of conversations are happening all the time.

And almost none of them are remotely interesting. Like 99.999999999% of them are not interesting. Studies have shown. Not interesting to an outside observer, that is.

Making a conversation, not a traditional interview, but an actual conversation, making it interesting to millions of outside observers is really difficult because conversations almost always tend to only be interesting to the people involved in them and often not even interesting to those people. And the problem is that now you have millions of people who say to themselves, oh, I like to talk. I like to have conversations. I can be the next Joe Rogan. No, you can't. No, you can't.

You like to talk, but you don't say anything interesting ever. So you can't be the next Joe Rogan. And more importantly, you don't know how to draw interesting things out of the person you're talking to. Again, Joe Rogan is a master at that. There's a skill there. There is a skill involved in that. It's a very rare skill. It's not something you can just do. There are plenty of skilled professional broadcasters who can't do that. I mean, I've been in broadcasting for...

18 years dear God I've been I've made two movies that involve interviews so I know how to do that a lot I'm familiar with a with with the general world, but I could never do a Joe Rogan style show I could be a guest on one. I couldn't host a show like that. It would suck It'd be terrible. I'll tell you right now definitely because that's not my skill set so the arrogance of just thinking that you can turn on a camera and film a conversation with some random person and

and that it will somehow be fascinating to the outside world, it's outrageous. It's actually outrageous. Every time I hear about a new podcast that's just, we're going to sit in a room and have a real conversation. Real conversations are not interesting. I don't want to hear your real conversation unless you are one of like, as I said, five or six people on earth who can have a real conversation that is actually interesting. If you're not one of them, I don't want to hear it, okay?

Which is why when you're sitting at a coffee shop or something and you can hear a conversation that's happening at a table, it's annoying. That's a real con. You're not turning around and listening. Oh, these are real people having a real conversation. I don't want to hear your real conversation. It's boring as hell. I don't want to hear it. So anyway, Michelle Obama is, all that to say, she is not, and maybe other people will come along.

You know, that crew of Joe Rogan, Tucker, Theo Vaughn, like that, you know. Other people will come along, maybe, who can compete in that space. Michelle Obama is not one of them. She is not one of them. Although her podcast is kind of fascinating, though, in a way, completely by accident. It's not fascinating in the way she intends. It's fascinating because it gives a glimpse into the mind of this woman who lives this incredible life, this life of immense privilege.

And yet still finds reasons to be constantly angry and to feel persecuted. You know, now she's talking about the resentment she felt when her husband was getting attention. And the funny thing is that apparently this story she's telling, if you listen to the whole context, which I didn't because I don't care that much, but I read about it. She's talking about from a time, this thing she described was when Barack was in the Senate.

So all the way back then, she was resentful of the attention that he was getting. So just imagine how much angrier and more bitter she got once he was the president. And this is something that men need to watch out for. This is a major red flag that you need to be looking out for, especially if you have big dreams as a man. If you intend to go out and accomplish great things, if you want to be a man of achievement,

a man who is admired and respected, which you should want that. Every man should want that. But you need a woman who will support you in that and cheer you on and root for you and be your biggest fan and your biggest admirer. Because there are two kinds of women. There's that type, the type that cheers on her husband, feels proud of him, feels proud of his success, feels proud of the praise and attention that he gets. There's that type. I'm very happy to say I married that type.

Thank God, because the other option is unthinkable. The other type of woman is the type who resents her husband's achievements and secretly roots against him and wants to see him humbled and wants to see him fail, really, and is competitive against him and is envious. And when other people are praising him, she's liable to jump in and say something embarrassing about him. And then we'll justify that by saying, oh, I'm just keeping him humble.

But you're denigrating him and you're tearing him down and you're trying to deliberately hurt his reputation. And there are plenty of successful men who marry women like this. And it leads to disaster every single time. And Barack Obama married a woman like this. I mean, married a person like this. Anyway, let's get to the comment section. If you're a man, it's required that you grow up with a sweet baby gay.

So for the comment section today, I wanted to go back to our cancellation two days ago about the TikTok mom who cried and complained about her husband in a viral video. And there's some interesting comments there that we didn't get to read a few of these.

Bethany says,

Yeah, this should be marriage 101 here. Playful teasing is one thing. I think that's important in a marriage. My wife and I enjoy trolling each other. We believe in trolling. We believe families that troll together stay together. It's one of our core principles in our family. But that's something we both find funny. And of course, the point is never to make the other actually look bad or anything like that. You should never want your spouse to look bad in front of other people like we just talked about.

You should be going the other way. You should be going out of your way to make your spouse look good and to enhance the reputation, to enhance their standing. And we've talked about why wives should do this for their husbands. But, of course, it goes the other way, too. Husbands should be doing this for their wives. And it's like...

You should want your spouse to look good. You should be protecting their reputation. You should be protecting their sort of standing in the community and everything. You should be doing that for their sake, but also for your own sake, too. It's like this is why it's kind of baffling these spouses that tear each other down like this because you're also making yourself look bad.

So you're a wife, you're trying to make your husband look like a loser. Okay, well then you're advertising yourself as the person who married a loser. So even just from a self-interested perspective, you would think that people would want to always be protecting their spouse in that way, but a lot of people don't. Lex says, and Matt wonders why a lot of men are checking out of marriage. No, I don't wonder why. I understand why they are. I just don't think checking out is the answer. I get...

the argument. I understand, or at least I understand the catalyst, but checking out is surrender. It's retreat. It's the death of civilization if enough men do it. And I think that something that kills civilization is a bad thing. I kind of like civilization. I prefer it to the alternative, and so will you if you ever get the chance to experience the alternative. So I understand why men are checking out, but

they shouldn't, right?

Yeah, I agree with Manon on a lot of things, but I'm really scratching my head with this one. His stance and all the comments here are disturbing to me. Okay, fine, you have a problem with the wife making a TikTok about it, but no one's addressing the main problem. The absolute hurt a person feels when they're excited about something and get shot down about it for no good reason. It really does hurt. It makes you feel like you can't share yourself with someone. And if the husband has a pattern of doing that to her, she has every right to be upset about it. The fact that the husband even straight up said, your excitement is annoying, is an unbelievably...

A hurtful thing to say to someone you supposedly love. And no one's even addressing that. So lame. And then Elle agrees. Elle says, yeah, this comment section is so insane. She obviously shouldn't have posted this for the world. But does it not possibly seem a little emotionally abusive to plan a special date night for your wife and then get annoyed at her excitement? Like she's only allowed to express her emotions on his terms? I don't know. My mom married a dirtbag like this who will do seemingly nice things to make himself feel good, but then have stipulations on how she's allowed to react to them.

Well, no, you're wrong, both of you. The main issue here is not that the husband was slightly dismissive to the wife when she was excited about the movie. The main issue is the premeditated, calculated decision to denigrate her husband on social media and make him the object of scorn for thousands of people. You know, this is not an, oh, yeah, well, she shouldn't have done that, but whatever type of situation. That is a cruel, malicious ploy to denigrate her husband in front of the world.

And if you think that a slightly dismissive comment about a movie comes anywhere close to that, then I don't know what to tell you. And I also think that you're not, you know, assuming these comments are from women. Well, Elle, I think, is a woman. So imagine if your husband did this to you. Imagine that you have some kind of seemingly small fight with your husband.

where you did something wrong and you apologized for it and you guys hashed it out and you thought you moved on. And the next day, imagine that you are now trending on Twitter and TikTok because you find out that your husband made a video about it that went viral and there are thousands of people talking about what a terrible person you are and that you should get divorced. How would you feel about that? Would that just be like, oh, you shouldn't have done that? Or would you be

blindingly furious about it because I'm pretty sure it will be the latter. I'm 64. I've been married for 18 years, second marriage, first husband, passed. Anyway, we, number one, never disagree or argue in public. Number two, we never talk negatively about one another to anybody. And number three, we never go to bed angry. We don't shame one another. That's how we've stayed married. Respect. It goes a long way.

Well, I agree with the first two rules. I have to say that I disagree with your third rule. Now, I can see that you're the more experienced veteran of marriage. I don't doubt your wisdom on the subject. But, you know, the don't go to bed angry thing is just one of those really common pieces of marital wisdom that I have found to be personally not useful. I actually have adopted something close to the opposite approach. I'd say, you know,

I would say yes, definitely go to bed angry. Not every night, hopefully, not often, but go to bed angry if the other option is to stay up and hash out whatever disagreement you're having with your spouse, because that is the other option. Don't go to bed angry is advice that specifically applies to a situation where you and your spouse have some kind of argument

and it's getting to be late at night, and you can either go to bed, kind of pissed off at each other, or you can stay up and continue the discussion. And in that case, I think in my experience, it's way better to just go to bed. Nothing good comes of hashing out a disagreement when you're both tired. Like, go to bed, get some rest.

Nine times out of ten you'll wake up in the morning way less angry. In fact, you'll wake up less angry and Really happy that you did not continue the the the battle, you know I don't I think it's very it's a very rare occurrence that someone in a marriage wakes up in the morning and and regrets not having continued an argument into the wee hours of the morning and

This is actually where I would distinguish between an argument and a fight. You know, you hear people say sometimes that fighting is normal in a marriage. It's healthy even. And I would say that it's not. Arguments are fine in a marriage. They can be healthy. You shouldn't be having them every day. But having an argument every once in a while is a normal thing. Fights are not healthy. Fights are bad.

Fights are always bad in a marriage. There's not a good one that you can have. And the difference between a fight and an argument is that in an argument, you're trying to get your spouse to see your point of view. An argument happens because you have a point of view about something, your spouse has a point of view, and you disagree, and so you're trying to get the other to understand your point of view and to agree with you on whatever the thing is. And

So that's an argument. It doesn't have to involve yelling. It doesn't have to be angry. But that's what an argument is. Now, in a fight, you're trying to hurt the other person. Hopefully not physically, but emotionally. A fight is when you say the thing that you know will hurt them, you know will tick them off, you know will hit them in their insecurities, whatever it is. That's the fight.

So the objective of any argument is to get your point of view across without turning it into a fight. The moment your argument crosses over into a fight, it's all bad from there. Nothing good. There's no positive resolution possible once it becomes a fight. And this is how it relates to the go-to-bed thing is that if you're already in a fight, then yeah, the best possible thing you can do is just shut up, both of you, and go to bed.

And you'll wake up in the morning feeling better, less angry, probably embarrassed that you were fighting like children. If you're in an argument and it hasn't yet crossed the Rubicon into a fight, then again, just go to bed. Get out while you still can. Go to bed before one of you says the thing that makes it a fight. And the longer it goes and the later it gets and the more tired you get,

the more likely it is that because you both have the thing that you could say in your minds, right? Like the pushing, it's like breaking glass and pushing the red button. And the later it gets, the more likely it is that one of you pushes that button. So go to bed and, you know, shut up and go to bed. That's the best. If I were to write a parenting advice book, which I would never do, but if I did, not a parenting, a marriage advice book,

Maybe the title of it would be shut up and go to bed. That's very often the best thing you can do. And if you wake up in the morning and you feel like you still have more to say, like you really need to continue it, well, you can always do that. And guess what? You'll have some rest under your belt. It can't hurt, can it? So, but other than that, I agree with you.

Right now, get 40% off your new annual membership to Daily Wire Plus. Stream uncensored daily shows from the most trusted voices of conservative media completely ad-free. You'll also unlock our entire entertainment library, series, films, documentaries, and Dr. Jordan Peterson's powerful new series, Parenting, streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. Now's the time to join and save 40% on your new Daily Wire Plus annual membership. Head to dailywire.com and use code DW40. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

As we've been following on this show over the past several months, the Democrat Party has a big problem. Well, they have quite a few big problems, but the biggest of all politically is that men, young men in particular, hate them.

As everyone at this point knows, male voters skew heavily to the right and the gap is widening by the day. Democrats are aware of this problem because it's the kind of problem that's very difficult to miss, so difficult to miss that even the Democrats haven't missed it yet or at this point haven't missed it. But unfortunately for the Democrats, they have no idea how to diagnose this problem and they haven't the slightest clue about what sort of prescription might help treat it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, their clumsy attempts to grapple with the issue are often quite amusing. Even more amusing to see what sort of experts they call in to help them navigate this crisis. Now we know the Democrats are big fans of experts, and we also know that they tend to consult experts who don't know anything about their subject of expertise. This has especially been the case when it comes to the Democrat Party's man problem.

Last week, we talked about David Hogg, who went on Bill Maher's show to offer his analysis, which was predictably clueless and out of touch. After all, what does a scrawny 95-pound gun control activist know about masculinity? Is it possible to think of anyone less qualified to speak for or about the men of America?

Well, that question may seem rhetorical, but the Democrats took it as a challenge because they have, in fact, managed to find someone less qualified to speak on the subject. Someone who, in the contest to be the most out of touch on this issue, would figuratively eat David Hogg alive.

And perhaps literally. This week, a Democrat activist and podcaster named Micah Irfan invited a woman named Olivia Giuliana to explain how Democrats might win back young men. Now, Olivia is a 22-year-old far-left activist and influencer, a rabid pro-abortion feminist, and severely overweight. And I mentioned that last point not to make fun of her, but just to emphasize that this is a person who, on the surface, checks precisely none of the boxes that would make her resonate with young men.

She projects precisely none of the qualities that men instinctively respect or find appealing. And on top of all that, she's also apparently a lesbian. Her profile on the website for the National Union of Healthcare Workers, don't ask me why she has a profile there, says that Juliana, quote, identifies as a queer plus-size disabled Latina. Again, this is a personal bio interview.

seemingly designed in a laboratory to be as off-putting to men as possible. And yet, here she is pontificating about men. But let's not judge a book by its cover, even though you definitely can judge a book by its cover, especially when the cover says queer plus size disabled Latina. That's a book that's bound to be full of nonsense. But let's read a few pages anyway. Here it is. I think the Democrats have a really bad problem of every time we message to young men about

We frame it in a way that is wrapped up in the same principles that we critique. We critique the patriarchy. We critique the way that men have hierarchy and power structures. And then we message to them as if not only is that the reality, but that they have to continue to be like that. So the example I use in the article is the issue of abortion.

When we message to young men on abortion or men in general, we do it from the position of, well, real men protect women. And if you care about the women in your life, you should be pro-choice. And that might be true. That is true. But we don't come at it from the approach of this is the reality that young men face about that issue. Because it's entirely possible that a young woman in college gets pregnant unexpectedly. And that could upend her life if she doesn't have access to abortion care. But it's also entirely true that

The young guy who gets her pregnant now he's on the hook to not only take care of this child That could be him that could be coming into the world but also to take care now of the mother of his child Let me cut in here for a moment So Olivia the plus-size queer disabled female expert on men says that the best way to message to a man on the abortion issue is to warn him that if he doesn't kill his child he may be forced to take care of his child

And notice how she actually refers to the victim of the abortion as a child. This is one of the rare moments when the abortion activist forgets the usual euphemisms and just comes out and says it. Yes, the child's a child. And if you don't kill him, you might have to take care of him. And Olivia suggests that this should be the sales pitch to young men.

Well, I can only hope that the Democrats listen to her on this point, because the more honest the pro-abortion side is, the more they lose. It turns out that it's not very endearing or persuasive to walk up to a guy and say, hey, you're not fit to be a father. Have you thought about murdering your child? The only chance the pro-abortion side has to win any argument is to act like it's not the pro-abortion side and to pretend that abortion isn't abortion.

There is no way of honestly talking about the intentional violent killing of a baby without sounding like a bloodthirsty psychopath, as Olivia just showed. Now, there's more to say on that point, but Olivia has more to say, too, and it only gets worse from here. So let's listen to a bit more.

I also think it's just so abundantly clear that the people who say these things don't actually spend time talking to young men. You know this because we know each other in real life, but I spent a lot of time on college campuses. And I spent a lot of time with young men. I love young men. I love frat guys. And in that, I've realized like even the ones that identify as conservative, like

are almost always pro-choice. They're almost always pro-gay marriage. You'd be surprised at the number of them who support a Black Lives Matter. And so I feel like people just kind of lump them into this box when the truth is, again, a lot of them are with us on the issues. Okay, first of all, this woman is not hanging out with frat guys. I don't think a single frat guy on earth has ever thought or said, hey, I know what this party needs, a plus-size queer Latina feminist.

That's never happened, not a single time. And speaking of things that don't happen, there are not any young men who identify as conservative and also profess support for BLM. Okay, that may have been the case. There may have been some guys like that for a brief unfortunate moment in 2020. But those days, these days, that's a quick way to make yourself into a punchline. And support for gay marriage is also dwindling, especially among young men. And in fact, only a small minority of Americans generally, and young men in particular, are

are pro-choice, quote unquote, in the way that she means it. Keep in mind, to a devoted abortion enthusiast like Olivia, you are an enemy of reproductive rights, so-called reproductive rights, unless you support abortion under all circumstances up to the moment of birth.

But that's a position that only a minority actually hold. Most Americans support at least some restrictions on the practice. And as we just discussed, that support dips further when the abortion radicals are actually honest about what the abortion is and why they care so much about protecting access to it. Let's continue. What are the issues that are the most important to young men? One of the top issues consistently is immigration.

If you actually talk to a young guy about how he feels about immigration, am I allowed to cuss on this? Yeah, of course. Yeah. They don't give a shit about immigration.

It's this idea of scarcity and competition of if you're a young man in America, you are expected to go to college or go to a trade school, get a certification, get a degree. Then you're expected to get a high paying job. And then once you get your high paying job, you're expected to find your wife and to buy a house and to have kids and to do all of these things. And if you don't do that, then you're a failure.

because you are the man and you are the provider. And if you can't provide, then you're not actually a man.

And so we said the Republicans specifically, they set this expectation and then they make it almost impossible for young men to actually do those things, whether it's through not raising minimum wage, whether it's through the price of tuition going up, all these different things, that kind of little nagging, insecure voice in the back of the head. That's where Republicans really push through the ideology and get to young men is because then they can convince them, well, this is the person whose fault it is.

It's not your fault that you can't get ahead in America. It's the immigrants who are coming here. It's their fault because they're taking your high paying jobs. Right, right. Now, we're going to even we'll just sidestep. We won't even dwell on the claim that Republicans are making it hard for men to support their families by not raising the minimum wage as if minimum wage jobs are supposed to be the kinds of jobs where you could support a family.

Right. Which is not the case. Minimum wage jobs are for teenagers working the cash register at McDonald's. That's what a minimum wage job is for. And anyway, here we finally get to the crux of the issue. This is why Democrats are drastically losing support among men. I mean, Olivia has helpfully demonstrated several reasons, but this is the big one.

She acknowledges that, according to the polls, most young men say they care a lot about the immigration issue. But then Olivia, the mystical man whisperer, declares that although men say they care about immigration, they actually don't.

She will tell us what men actually care about. Men can't speak for themselves. Men don't understand their own political positions. Men can't articulate their own point of view. Men are lost, confused, helpless. Men need a fat, disabled, queer, Latina feminist to tell them what they actually think. And what do you know? It turns out that men think whatever Olivia wants them to think. Isn't that a great coincidence for her?

Olivia doesn't think that immigration is a problem, and that means that nobody else thinks it's a problem either. Even the people who say they think it's a problem, even the people who vote accordingly, don't actually think it. How can they think it? How can anyone arrive at a different conclusion than Olivia? It's not possible, Olivia says. And if you think this moment of obscene pretentiousness and presumptuousness is the worst of it, just wait until you hear how Olivia wraps things up.

America or voters in general, when they're deciding who they want to vote for, they want a mom and they want a dad. Not to be homophobic because there can be same-sex parents here. They want a mom and a dad. They want someone who in times of uncertainty can bring them comfort and can make them feel like there's someone there for them. And then they also want someone who's going to be stern, who's going to have their back, and who's going to say the tough things that need to be said. Right.

And I feel like we offer, we try to offer voters comfort, but instead of coming across as like mom or dad, we kind of come across as like the aunt who you kind of don't like her, but she gets you really good Christmas presents. So like every once in a while you'll go visit. Like, I feel like that's kind of how we come across as like,

well, I don't really trust the Democrats and I don't really like them that much, but the Affordable Care Act was cool. And like, that's kind of, that's kind of the extent of it is, is that is how people feel about us most of the time. Okay. Let me step in here once and for all as someone who does actually understand something about the male mindset. And let me assure Livia that no man

No man with even vaguely normal levels of testosterone has ever said, or would ever say, that when he goes to the voting booth, he's looking for a mom and a dad. That is exactly what a man does not want out of a politician. We are specifically trying to avoid politicians who want to be our parents. And we certainly aren't turning to politicians for comfort or to know that someone is there for us.

In my nearly 39 years of being a male human in the world and having had thousands of conversations with other male humans, I have never heard a single one of them ever say, yeah, you know, I voted for that candidate because he's a really great parental figure for me and he makes me feel comforted and seen. I've never heard that. If I did hear a man ever say that, it would be the last thing I ever heard him say because I would stuff him into a burlap sack and I would throw him into the sea.

Metaphorically, I mean, and also literally. So all of this advice from Olivia is terrible as expected, although she did manage to explain inadvertently why Democrats have so much trouble attracting male voters. But all of my rebuttals and counterarguments really aren't necessary. I could summarize the problem that Democrats are having with men with one statement or challenge. So here it is.

I challenge Olivia or any other Democrat activist or Democrat official or Democrat talking head to do this. Please tell me one positive thing about men in general. Just one unique and positive trait that men on average tend to exhibit.

Now, I'm not asking for a positive thing that applies to men and women equally. I'm asking for a positive trait that men exhibit more often or to a greater degree than women. Now, you can't say, well, that's impossible for me to say because we can't speak that broadly about groups. Oh, yeah, bullcrap. Because if I asked you to do that for women, you could do it in a heartbeat. If I challenge you to list one positive trait about women in general, you would say, oh, that's easy. I'll give you 20.

Right. You would have no problem singing the praises of women. So praise men. Just just I mean, you don't have to do it. We don't need a whole chorus. You know, you don't need to sing a whole song about it. Just one sentence. Give us one sentence of praise for men. Right. Fill in the blank. I think men are great because.

Phil, and it can't be, oh, because they actually agree with me on everything, even though it seems like they don't, because that's all we got from that. Just one positive thing about men. Go ahead. Let's hear it. But you can't, can you? For all of your talk about reaching out to men, you can't even bring yourself to say one positive thing about them. You are as stumped and tongue-tied as you would be if I asked you to list one positive thing about white people.

You can't do it. And that's your problem. It's your problem among so many other problems. And it's why young men and anyone else with a brain will not take you seriously. And especially will not take someone like Olivia Juliana seriously. And that is why she is today finally canceled. That will do it for the show today. Talk to you on Monday. Have a great weekend. Godspeed.