Ep. 1547 - Trump Puts International Welfare Queen Zelensky In His Place

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media blatantly lies about the meeting between Trump and Zelensky

and the White House. We'll talk about what really happened and who is actually to blame.

Also, there was a land acknowledgement recited on the Oscars red carpet last night as the left

continues to transcend parody. The mayor of Boston mourns the loss of a guy who tried to

stab random people to death. And the Wall Street Journal publishes an op-ed telling white men to

shut up and stop complaining. I've got a lot to say about that and so much more.

I'll tell you on The Matt Wall Show. Tomorrow night, Daily Wire backstage returns live for President Donald Trump's address to Congress, and we're covering it all.
Don't miss the exclusive pre-show at 8.30 p.m. Eastern, followed by the full address, completely uninterrupted.
When he's done, we're back with a breakdown of what it all means. Watch with us tomorrow night on Daily Wire Plus.
Experience extraordinary by creating the perfect foundation for your best sleep this season. Drift effortlessly to sleep in Bowling Branch's signature sheets crafted from the finest 100% organic cotton and offer a buttery soft, breathable foundation.
Pair them with Bowling Branch's Aerie blankets, duvets, and quilts for the perfect summer upgrade so you never have to sleep hot again. What really impressed me is how they get even softer with every wash.
I didn't think that was possible, but after a few months, they felt even more luxurious than when I first got them. And believe me, I've tried some other premium sheets before, but nothing comes close to the breathability and comfort of these.
The best part is they're crafted by artisans and woven from the finest 100% organic cotton on earth with designs and colors for every mattress size, bedroom style, and so you can find the perfect fit for your home. Plus, you can try Bowling Branch sheets for an entire month risk-free.
You can wash, style, and feel the difference for yourself. And if you don't get the best night's sleep, you can send them back for a full refund.
Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Bowling Branch. Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlinbranch.com slash dailywire.
That's bowlinbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash wire to save 15%. Exclusions do apply.
See site for details. For a long time, there's been a debate over whether cameras should be allowed inside the Supreme Court so that oral arguments can be posted in their entirety on the internet.
And every time the issue came up, Justice Scalia was one of the most vocal opponents of the idea. As Scalia put it, what most of the American people would see would be 30-second, 15-second takeouts from our arguments.
I'm sure it will miseducate the American people. A lot of people dismissed Scalia's reasoning at the time.
After all, how could the media successfully distort footage that everybody has access to? But all these years later, it's hard to think of a greater vindication of Scalia's point of view than what happened on Friday following Donald Trump and J.D. Vance's meeting with Ukraine's president in the Oval Office.
Within minutes, footage from this meeting was available in its entirety all over the internet. And yet, if you got your information from the mainstream press, you came away with a completely inaccurate version of what actually happened.
As The Atlantic put it, quote, the president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally. New York Times ran this headline, quote, Vance positions himself as Trump's attack dog during blow up with Zelensky.
Meanwhile, the BBC reported, quote, Vance took the lead attacking Zelensky, and on and on and on and on. If you actually watch the unredacted hour-long footage of this Oval Office meeting, then you immediately recognize these headlines for what they are, which are outright fabrications intended to protect Zelensky, who repeatedly lied and antagonized Trump and Vance throughout the meeting.
The actual takeaway from this Oval Office meeting and its fallout is that most of Europe is fully on board with escalating the war in Ukraine three years after it began, and they're not remotely worried about starting World War III in the process. I'm going to begin by doing what most of the media still refuses to do, which is to show you the context for the meltdown in the Oval Office before it occurred.
In the first 20 minutes or so, everything's cordial. At one point, Zelensky is asked whether Trump is on his side, which was obviously intended to bait some sort of confrontation.
And neither Trump nor Zelensky took the bait at the time. Instead, Trump mocked the reporter for asking such a dumb question.
President Zelensky, do you feel like the US is on your side that the president Trump is on your side at this moment? What do you think? He wants to know do you think that sort of a stupid question. I guess we wouldn't be here if I wasn't.
I think that the United States on our side from the very beginning of occupation. And I think that President Trump on our side.
And of course, I'm sure that United States president will not stop support. This is crucial for us.
It's important for us. Now, later on, a different reporter gave Trump an opportunity to attack Zelensky.
Specifically, the reporter wanted to know whether Zelensky actually owned a suit or any kind of formal attire. And again, the question was rebuffed.
Here it is. What was your second question? My second question for President Zelensky, do you ever, why don't you wear a suit? Why don't you wear a suit? You're at the highest level in this country's office and you refuse to wear a suit.
I just want to see if you own a suit. Yeah, yeah.
Problems. A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the dignity of his office.
I will wear a costume after this war will finish. Okay.
maybe something like yours, yes. Maybe something better, I don't know.
We will see. Maybe something cheaper than, yeah.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, President Trump. You said yesterday that you have...
Are you going to send more arms to Ukraine in case there's no peace? If I can answer. Yes, if I can answer.
Sorry. Please.
Please. And I do like your clothing.
Yeah, really? Even though I have to... I think he's a great guy, by the way.
I don't know if you two like each other, but you know what? I think he's dressed... No, I like this guy.
I don't know him. I think he's dressed beautifully.
So I have more serious things than answer on such a question. I will answer on more serious questions if I can.
Yeah, so please. Now, about an hour earlier, Trump had already teased Zelensky for his ridiculous clothing about as politely as he possibly could.
That happened outside the Oval Office when Zelensky first arrived. And, you know, it was well-deserved.
Zelensky looks like a complete fool attending a meeting in the Oval Office wearing sweatpants. I mean, the guy constantly looks like he's getting ready to run in a track meet, not attending high-level meetings with important world leaders.
His outfits are too casual for a dinner at Applebee's, let alone the White House. But in any case, inside the Oval Office, Trump clearly wanted to set a more serious tone.
He didn't want to sidetrack the point of the meeting, which was to sign a minerals deal with Ukraine. And by the way, the proposed deal was extremely favorable to Ukraine in that it doesn't require Ukraine to use all of its available resources, oil, mineral deposits, natural gas, to repay the $500 billion we've spent on them.
That was the original idea, but now the deal simply establishes a joint investment fund where the U.S. will realize some profits from new revenue sources, quote-unquote, that are identified in Ukraine.
So you'd think Zelensky would be happy about this kind of one-sided arrangement. Instead, as the meeting went on, Zelensky began openly suggesting that he doesn't want a mere ceasefire.
Instead, he said he wants so-called security guarantees, which is another way of saying that he wants the United States to commit to a broader war if Russia violates the ceasefire. Watch.
About just ceasefire, we can't just speak about ceasefire and speak and speak. It will not work.
Just ceasefire will never work because I'm like a president. I have this experience and not only me.
Ukraine, before my presidency, from 2014, Putin broke 25 times. 25 times he broke his own signature.
25 times he broke his fire. But he never broke to me.
He never broke to me. No, no, you were the president.
He never broke to me. In 2016, you've been the president, Mr.
President. You've been the president.
But he had, of course, not with you, but he had during those periods, he had conversations with our side. And we had Normandy format, you know, the France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia.
And he broke in 25 times. That's why we will never accept just ceasefire.
It will not work without security guarantees. So this is the point where Zelensky begins lecturing Trump about how untrustworthy Putin is and how Trump can't possibly broker a successful ceasefire.
And then Trump makes the point that if you want a peace deal, it doesn't help matters to constantly attack Putin, which Zelensky kept doing. I really count on your strong position to stop Putin.
And you said that enough with the war. I think that is very important, Ben, to say these words to Putin at the very beginning, at the very beginning of war, because he's a killer and terrorist.
But I hope that together we can stop him. for us it's very important to you know to save our country our values our freedom and democracy and of course no compromises with the killer about our territories but it will be later and I want to get this thing over with you see the hatred he's got for Putin it's very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate.
He's got tremendous hatred. And I understand that.
But I can tell you the other side isn't exactly in love with him either. So it's not a question of alignment.
I'm aligned with the world. I want to get the thing set.
I'm aligned with Europe. I want to see if we can get this thing done.
You want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you've ever seen. I'd be so tough.
But you're never going to get a deal that way. So that's the way it goes.
So this is the setup for the international incident that you've probably seen by now. Zelensky keeps saying diplomacy won't work because Putin will break the ceasefire.
And Trump says that it's the best chance Ukraine has, especially since there's a new administration in the White House. And you can tell Trump is a little annoyed that Zelensky keeps calling Putin a killer and a terrorist because that's just not the most effective way to begin a successful negotiation.
So everybody's position is pretty clear by this point. But later on, when Vance tries to make the same point Trump was making, Zelensky jumps down his throat throat he sarcastically asks him what kind of

diplomacy Putin might respect. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy that's what President Trump is doing.
Can I ask you? Sure. Yeah? Yeah.
Okay so he occupied it our parts big parts of Ukraine, parts of East and Crimea. So he occupied it on 2014.
In 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, Macron and Merkel.
We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire.
All of them told me that he will never go we signed him with gas contract

gas contract

yes but after that

he broken this is fine

he killed our people

and he didn't exchange

prisons we signed the exchange of prisons

but he didn't do it

what kind of diplomacy

gd you are speaking about what what you are what you would mean

i'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of

your country. Now, by now, a lot of people have looked at this footage and concluded that Zelensky went out of his way to adopt a snarky, obnoxious and inappropriate tone.
That's obviously true. At the same time, not enough people are pointing out that throughout this clip, Zelensky is lying.
Other than Aaron Mates and a small number of independent journalists, no one seems to be talking about this. For example, take a look at these images from December of 2019.
The photographs are from a ceremony welcoming back Ukrainian captives that had been freed by Russia in a prisoner exchange, one of several that Ukraine and Russia have agreed to in recent years. In fact, in April of 2020, Zelensky's office put out a statement celebrating the release of dozens of Ukrainians who were held captive by Russia.
So why exactly was Zelensky claiming in the Oval Office that, as a matter of fact, Putin couldn't be trusted when it came to prisoner exchanges? Why didn't he mention all of the prisoner exchanges which went so well that Ukraine bragged about them? And for that matter, why was Zelensky attacking Trump and Vance for suggesting that diplomacy with Putin might work when, again, Zelensky's own government clearly believed that diplomacy could work? I mean, shortly after the invasion began, Ukraine's top diplomats met in Istanbul with Russian negotiators in an effort to end the war. And by their own admission, they came very close to a deal.
Here's one of Ukraine's negotiations. This is my personal view.
Putin in one week

after started his aggression in 24 February last year, very quickly understood he did mistake

and tried to do everything possible to conclude agreement with Ukraine.

And Istanbul communique, it was his personal decision to accept the text of

this communique which totally far away from the initial proposal of russia ultimatum proposal of russia which they put before the ukrainian delegation in minsk so we managed to find a very real compromise. So Putin really wanted to reach some peaceful settlement with Ukraine.
It's very important to remember. So this is coming directly from a senior diplomat from Ukraine.
And to be clear, these negotiations took place after Putin broke the previous ceasefire agreements, according to the Ukrainians. And yet they were willing to sit down and negotiate with Putin, and they got very, very close to a deal.
So why did that deal go through? And why did all those previous ceasefire agreements fail, including the agreement signed in Minsk in 2014? If you look into the specifics of that ceasefire agreement, the history is actually pretty enlightening. It turns out that Angela Merkel, the former chancellor of Germany, has admitted that the real purpose of the ceasefire agreement in 2014 was to give Ukraine some time to build up its military.
In other words, Ukraine was not entering into the arrangement with the intention of securing a lasting peace. It was a ploy.
None of this came up while Zelensky was berating Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
Instead, Zelensky claimed that Putin was solely responsible for the failures of their past ceasefire agreements. Then Zelensky began suggesting that if the United States doesn't fund Ukraine, then we are going to get attacked.
Listen. During the war, everybody has problems, even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future.
God bless. You don't know that.
God bless. God bless.
You will not have the war. Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
I'm not telling you. Because you're in no position to dictate that.
Remember this. You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel.
We're going to feel very good. You will feel influenced.
We're going to feel very good and very strong. You will feel influenced.
You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position, and it happens to be right about it.
You're not in a good position. You don't have the cards right now.
With us, you start having cards. Right now, you're playing cards.
You're playing cards. You're serious.
I'm the president in work. You're gambling with World War III.
You're gambling with World War III. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that's backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.
Have you said thank you once? That's a lot of times. No, in this, have you said thank you? Your people are very brave.
But you're either going to make a deal or we're out. And if we're out, you'll fight it out.
I don't think it's going to be pretty. But you'll fight it out.
So Trump tells Zelensky that he doesn't hold the cards. In response, Zelensky says he's not playing cards, even accounting for the language barrier.
It's pretty rough. These are high-level negotiations where one side can't understand extremely basic metaphors.
But by the end of the meeting, it's likely that Zelensky eventually began processing what Trump was saying because Trump laid it down pretty clearly. It would be a damn good thing.
Then you tell us, I don't want a ceasefire. I don't want a ceasefire.
I want to go and I wanted this I look if you could get a ceasefire right now I tell you you take it so the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed. Of course we want to stop the war But I say you don't want to see it to you.
I want to see some guarantees because you'll get a ceasefire faster than any green Ask our people about ceasefire what they think that was It doesn't matter for you wasn't with me that was with a guy named biden who was not a smart person that was with obama it was your president excuse me that was with obama who gave you sheets and i gave you javelins yes i gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks obama gave you sheets In, the statement is, Obama gave sheets and Trump gave javelins. You got to be more thankful.
Because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards.
But without us, you don't have any cards. The Pressure One more question to Mr.
Vice President. I'm sorry, here.
The Pressure It's going to be a tough deal to make. Because the have to change.
What if Russia breaks ceasefire? What if Russia breaks peace talks? What do you do then? I understand that it's a heated conversation. What are you saying? She's asking what if Russia breaks the ceasefire? What if anything? What if the bomb drops on your head right now? So taken together, the footage makes it abundantly clear that Zelensky antagonized Trump advance, not the other way around.
Zelensky has always been an entitled, ungrateful brat in his demeanor towards the United States. He showed his true colors again on Friday.
The only difference is that he was actually called on at this time. And three years ago, there were reports that Joe Biden became frustrated with Zelensky's complete lack of gratitude also.
But of course, nothing ever came out of that. And Zelensky never faced any consequences for his entitlement and lack of respect, even after that became public with Biden.
The Biden administration certainly didn't do anything about it. So I keep hearing that Trump's behavior in the Oval Office was shocking.
And in a way, it was because it's shocking that because we are accustomed, we're not accustomed to seeing American political leaders who refuse to lie prostrate on the floor and grovel for approval from other countries that need us a whole hell of a lot more than we need them. And in Ukraine's case, that imbalance is pretty much absolute because we don't need Ukraine at all.
They don't really do anything for us. The existence or non-existence of Ukraine is basically immaterial to the everyday lives of any American citizen who's not a bureaucrat or defense contractor.
But on the other hand, Ukraine depends on us for its very existence.

So that's the way this works. That's how one-sided this whole thing is.
Even now, Ukraine's government seems incapable of admitting that. So does pretty much every country in Europe.
After Zelensky's public humiliation on Friday, the entire continent announced their support for him. And as you can see, Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Sylvania, Austria, Portugal, Croatia, Denmark, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, Spain, Norway, all put out statements of support for Zelensky.
These are countries that in many cases are happy to import massive amounts of natural gas from Russia, but they still want a virtue signal on behalf of Ukraine. But the prime minister of the UK went even further.
He announced psychotically that the UK is prepared to put boots on the ground and assemble a coalition of the willing, which essentially means that the UK wants to start World War Three, because that's what would be the result. Watch.
We will go further to develop a coalition of the willing to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee the peace. Not every nation will feel able to contribute, but that can't mean that we sit back.
Instead, those willing will intensify planning now with real urgency. the UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air.
Together with others, Europe must do the heavy listing. But to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing.
So he begins with this very bold pronouncement that the U.K. and various European nations are going to take the lead because America is no longer interested in this particular proxy war.
And a few seconds later, he admits that they can't do any of this without the United States. And it's a great way to summarize this whole situation.
Both Zelensky and the Europeans are making it very clear why we should pull all foreign aid immediately. Yet another reason.
Like these countries despise us. They're openly admitting that they want to replace us as the world's most important superpower.
And yet at the same time, all these countries come crying and begging to us anytime they need something. Unfortunately, there are signs that finally this particular arrangement is coming to an end.
Lindsey Graham, one of Zelensky's strongest allies, came out and suggested that Zelensky may need to resign after this incident in the Oval Office. So did Dan Crenshaw, who again has been kind of a blank check supporter of the war in Ukraine.
Crenshaw wrote, quote, if you're the leader of a country in a dire situation with no path to peace, without American support, do not come into the Oval Office and argue with the President of the United States in public, just a word of advice. As of today, it doesn't appear that any of this is getting through to Zelensky.
We're at the point where it's clear that he's not going to change his attitude, even though common sense would dictate that the onus is much more on Zelensky to show respect and deference in this context. You know, it's not much different from the proper dynamic between a child and his father.
Like you live in your father's house, he pays for your food, he gives you shelter. You will be respectful to him and obey his rules.
If you don't like it, you can buy your own food and pay for your own house. Zelensky, of course, is the child in this analogy.
He depends on us. He needs us.

So he should be respectful and watch his mouth, especially when he's addressing our president.

Instead, he acts like a petulant brat.

So it makes a lot of sense that the left sides with him instinctively. After all, they're a bunch of spoiled children themselves with bad fathers who never forced them to get in line and follow the rules.

So when the clips from this Oval Office meeting began coming out, they instantly saw themselves in Zelensky. It also explains the reaction from Europe, which is almost as dependent on the United States as Ukraine is.
And this is a dependency that over time breeds contempt. And now after many years, that contempt is finally receiving the response that it deserves.
Now let's get to our five headlines. Success is not built on resolutions.
Those are made to break. It's built on taking action and building unstoppable momentum.
When it comes to optimizing your health span, living better and longer, certain things are non-negotiable. Quality sits at the top of that list, and in the world of performance, focus, and supplements, Momentus stands alone.
Their commitment to NSF certification means every batch undergoes rigorous testing for heavy metals, harmful additives, and label accuracy. It's why they've earned the trust of all 32 NFL teams and leading collegiate sport dietitians nationwide.
While other brands chase trends and flood the market with endless options, Momentus takes a different approach. They rely on research and expert guidance to focus on what really matters, mastering the fundamentals with unwavering consistency, then tailoring supplementation to your specific goals.
Speaking of fundamentals, protein and creatine form the cornerstone. Momentus sources CreaPure, the highest grade creatine monohydrate available, an essential supplement I will mention two things briefly.
First of all, I have to say, a movie called No Other Land won the Oscar for Best Documentary. It's apparently a movie about how Palestinians are supposedly oppressed or whatever.
The filmmakers were on the red carpet draped in Palestinian flags. So that, of course, they won.
You could see that coming from a mile away. What's funny is that all the headlines are saying how No Other Land was the highest grossing Oscar nominated documentary of 2024, which is true.
It grossed $420,000 in the US. But the Oscar nominated bit is an important qual, of course, our documentary, Am I Racist,

grossed more than 25 times more than the highest-grossing Oscar-nominated documentary.

So put it into more perspective, our film grossed four times as much on the first day of release

than this movie did in its whole theatrical run. And we weren't even on the short list.
Nobody saw this movie. It had no cultural impact at all.
Like none. But it won because it had the right politics.
So that's how it goes. And just pointing it out.
Just pointing it out. That's all.
Just a little disclaimer there, a little qualifier when you hear about highest grossing Oscar nominated documentary.

Speaking of politics Julianne Hough

I think is the last name

Is it Ho or Hough?

How? I think Hough

Julianne Hough was a singer

or something, maybe an actress, actually delivered a land acknowledgement from the red carpet, which is very funny for a lot of reasons. One of them is that it's the kind of troll that I would have done if I was nominated, which was never going to happen.
But she did it for real. This was not meant to be a troll.
This is not a joke. This is completely sincere.
Let's hear it. We gather in celebration of the Oscars on the ancestral lands of the Tongva, Tataviam, and Chumash peoples, the traditional caretakers of this water and land.
We honor and pay our respects to indigenous communities here and around the world. so that's it.
I mean, you really can't even make fun of that. It's a land acknowledgement delivered by a white lady in a $100,000 dress on a red carpet at the Oscars.
It's so on the nose. It's so perfect that what can you even add to it? I will say one thing just for the record, and let's just take the first tribe that she listed there in her little land acknowledgement.
And you can play this game with any tribe in any land acknowledgement that's ever been recited, but she pays respects to the Tongva tribe. And here's the interesting thing about the Tongva tribe.

They've been in the Southern California area for a long time, sure.

But there was a more ancient tribe that was in Southern California for thousands of years before the Tongva.

So the Tongva missed out on being the first tribe.

Like, they missed that distinction by several thousand years.

Thank you. So the Tongva missed out on being the first tribe.
Like they missed that distinction by several thousand years.

Who was the first tribe?

Well, they don't exist anymore.

They existed at one point, but the Tongva killed or displaced them all and stole their land.

So I go back to my point that if the Tongva are indigenous to Southern California, then so are white people. Tongva have been here for a long time.
They weren't first. They killed whoever was here first.
White people have been here for a long time, not first. They conquered the land just like the Tongva did, and the cycle continues.

So, of course, when they start listing all the names of the tribes and all that, they don't expect you to and certainly don't want you to actually Google who these tribes are

and what their history is and how they ended up on the land and how exactly they came to

possess and control the land before the white Europeans moved in. All right.
The ultra-woke mayor of Boston has been featured on this show several times, never for good reasons, of course. And now here she is again with perhaps her most ignominious performance yet.
The Daily Mail reports, Boston's progressive Democrat mayor has been criticized for offering condolences to a knife man shot dead by an off-duty police officer while trying to stab two people. Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu offered her condolences to the family of the unnamed attacker gunned down at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in the city on Saturday.
Boston police said two people ran into Chick-fil-A in Copley Square while being chased by a man with a knife. He was attempting to stab them shortly before 5.30 p.m.
An off-duty cop was inside the restaurant, identified himself to the attacker, told him to drop the knife. The attacker didn't.
And then at that point, he shot him and killed him. And so that's what happened.
The off-duty cop is a hero.

He stepped in and saved lives, put himself in harm's way in defense of others.

That's the headline, or should be. But instead, Mayor Michelle Wu gave a press conference where she said this.
my condolences and and all of our thoughts are with the family of the individual whose life has been lost. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the individual who's been lost.
So our condolences go to the individual who was killed tonight. The individual who's been lost, and they keep saying over and over again.
And how did that happen? How was this individual lost? What do you mean lost? Was he lost at sea or something? What do you mean lost? Oh, that's right. Well, this was a crazed assailant trying to butcher innocent people with a knife, and he was lost because he refused to drop the knife when he was confronted by an off-duty cop.
He was lost because he decided to go out and try to stab people. And yet Mayor Michel, along with the DA and whoever the other moron was, they're all grief-stricken over the death of the stabber guy.
They're sorry he wasn't able to stab more people because to be clear, that was the other option here. Either this guy was going to be lost or he was going to stab somebody to death.
Those are the two choices. And Mayor Michelle is apparently upset that we ended up with the former option where he was killed instead of stabbing people.
She was offering him condolences basically because he wasn't able to do any stabbing.

I want to offer my sincere condolences to the stabber. I'm deeply sorry that you were not able to bury your blade into the flesh of any innocent people.
I know how much that meant to you.

I'm so sorry. But at least he died doing what he loves, which is trying to stab people.
That's why it takes some solace in that. So it's psychopathic.
And I mean that in a very literal sense, in a very sort of clinical sense. Our cities across the country are run by actual psychopaths.
Psychopaths are elected. They're elected to run the largest cities in the country.
And the thing is, when you think about a psychopathic political leader, your mind immediately conjures images of some kind of military dictator, a genocidal maniac, Pol Pot or someone like that. And sure, they are psychopaths, but Michelle Wu is also a psychopath.
Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago is a psychopath. The What's-Her-Face in Los Angeles, Karen Bass, is a psychopath.
They're all psychopaths because to be a psychopath is to be narcissistic, check, antisocial, check, and to lack basically any trace of empathy, check again. So that's clinical psychopathy.
My only disagreement with the clinical diagnosis is that I don't think it's a medical problem so much as a soul problem. These are not medically sick people.
These are evil people. Michelle Wu has no empathy.

And I make this point all the time, but it's an important point.

We see these bleeding heart liberal types crying tears for violent criminals, and we're

tempted to think that they have kind of the opposite problem.

They have almost this overabundance of empathy that they're too sensitive, people say. But that's not the case.
Michelle Wu has no empathy. She doesn't know how empathy works.
Like she's barely human. She's like some kind of alien, you know, reptilian space creature trying to emulate human empathy.
And that's why she goes out claiming to be heartbroken over the death of a criminal. She's not actually heartbroken over that.
She doesn't care about that. Just as she's not heartbroken over the deaths of innocent people.
She just doesn't care at all, is the point. She's a psychopath.
And I don't know what other evidence you need. Offering condolences to somebody like that, it's psychopathic.
That's what it is. Ilhan Omar has some thoughts about Elon Musk.
Let's hear that. He literally posted on X, there's a shortage of top-notch air traffic controllers if you have retired but are open to returning to work please consider doing so how about you don't fire as many as you did uh so you you've got and that that the the retirement thing for um air traffic controllers is is also again it just shows how much he doesn't know.

I know people talk about him as a genius, but to me, I think he's probably one of the dumbest, luckiest people to exist on this earth. The retirement age for air traffic controllers is 55 or 25 years of service.
So unless we raise their retirement age, if they retire, they're not coming back, right? Like they were set to retire. And it is a taxing job.
Like on Friday, I went to the FAA in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport to check in on air traffic controllers.
What we learned is that, you know, they're- That stuff doesn't- So the highlight here is that Ilhan Omar says that Elon Musk is one of the dumbest people on earth. And he's lucky.
So he's dumb and lucky, is what Ilhan Omar says. This is a woman who came here as a refugee from Somalia.
Her family was granted asylum.

They didn't earn it.

They were given it.

So that's her first stroke of luck.

Then she ends up eventually in Minnesota.

That's her second stroke of luck because Minnesota is a hub for Muslims.

It's basically the American Mecca at this point, especially Somalian Muslims.

And that's what enabled her to be elected to Congress.

And while in Congress, she's accomplished nothing. She's done nothing.
And yet she's been reelected multiple times. So all of that is luck.
Okay. Now let's compare her story to Elon Musk.
And I'm not a Musk biographer, but I know a little bit about his backstory. So he came here from South Africa.

Most people know that. I believe in the 80s or 90s.
He founded a software company in 1994, 1995. He did start it with an investment from his dad, but this was not a $100 million investment.
This was a $30,000 investment. Yet in the span of just a few years, he was able to get that company to a point where it could be sold for $300 million.
And he made about $20 million off of that deal. So he went from $30,000 and he was able to turn it into $20 million for himself and $300 million for the company.
And then over the course of the next 20 years, he would go on to found or take majority ownership of six companies and would become the richest person on the planet who's worth $400 billion.

And now he owns companies that make electric vehicles and one that makes rocket ships and,

of course, a social media platform. And he founded The Boring Company, which is a company that makes

underground tunnels and infrastructure. He owns Neuralink.
He owns an AI company. Let me just state what should be the obvious here.
You don't go from a $30,000 investment to all of that if you're stupid, much less one of the stupidest people on earth. Recent experience shows us that you can be stupid and be elected to Congress.
That certainly can happen. But you cannot do what Elon Musk has done and be stupid.
You just can't. And that's all pretty obvious unless you're a moron, a legitimate moron like Ilhan Omar is.
But I think it's obvious even to her. I think she knows better.
And yet people like her, AOC said the same thing recently that Elon is dumb. They keep trying to convince us that the most successful human on earth is dumb.
And you kind of have to wonder why. Why is that? Wouldn't it serve them better and be more credible if they said he was an evil genius? Like, shouldn't they be, if anything, overstating his intelligence? Because that makes him more of a threat, and they're trying to say that he's this great threat to, you know, our way of life.
But this is what the left always does. You know, they have their villains.
They're people that they want us to be afraid of. And they say that these people are terrifying and they're threats to our democracy and our very existence.
But at the same time, they say that the same people are just utter dunces, which makes them less threatening. I'm not worried about a dumb supervillain.
That's why supervillains are always smart. If the Joker had an IQ of 85, nobody would be worried about him.
So what they're trying to do is create this kind of stupid supervillain. Stupid supervillains who are also really, really successful somehow.
And it just doesn't make sense. Why do it? Why insist on calling their enemies stupid when it's clearly not true? And again, it undercuts their own narrative.
And of course, they do this all the way down the line. This is their narrative about anyone they don't like.
You find this, of course, it's going to be. If Elon Musk is stupid, according to the left, then all the rest of us certainly are.
Then there's no hope for the rest of us. If he's dumb, then we're all certainly dumb.
And that's the way that it always goes, even though as you go down the line, there's still this problem of, well, they kind of undercut themselves by constantly insisting that everyone they disagree with is dumb. I can think about this on me personally.
All these left-wing YouTubers out there who incessantly make videos attacking me just all the time. And in every video, they'll always make sure to inform their audience that I'm a huge idiot.
And I always find that kind of funny because we're in the same business, basically. We're in the same game.
And I've had more success than most of them. And I'm better at this than them by almost any metric.
So if I'm an idiot, which I could very well be, but then what does it say about them? We do the same thing. I'm an idiot, but I'm a lot more successful than you are at this thing.
So doesn't that make you a bigger idiot? Wouldn't you prefer, even if I am an idiot, wouldn't you prefer if I wasn't just because of the contrast? So that means you're either a bigger idiot or you're so talentless that you're getting boat raced by someone dumber than you, which is it? It's just very odd. But this is the way it goes.
And I think, and as I said, if they can call Elon Musk stupid, then again, the rest of us, there's no hope. So how do you explain it? I think it's mostly, of course, just intellectual laziness.

They aren't clever enough to come up with insults that actually ring true or are related to reality

in some way. But also I think leftists are elitists and snobs to their core.
It's just who they are,

right? It's at the deepest level, it's who they are. And that means that they equate

intelligence with a virtue. They think that smart people are just better people.
To be dumb is to be a bad person. That's how they see the world.
That's a core component of their worldview. In fact, you could argue it's like the core of their worldview is this idea.
Well, the problem with this idea, aside from the fact that it's obviously wrong, is that so many of them are deeply mediocre and unimpressive. Like Ilhan Omar, for example, just a very mediocre, unimpressive person.
Not clever, not innovative, not insightful, not interesting, not accomplished, just, interesting to say, just not that smart. And yet that snobbiness, that elitism persists because it's who they are.
It's part of being that. Part of being someone who's a devoted member of the left wing is is to be snobby and elitist.

And to believe that, you know, if you're a good person, then you're smart.

If you're smart, then you're a good person.

So it just kind of requires them to believe that all the people they hate must be stupid.

And yet at the same time, they will also claim that all these people are a huge threat, that they're being oppressed by these people. So according to you, all the dumbest people on the planet have figured out how to one-up you and are now oppressing you.
Again, what does that say about you? Something to think about. Let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a B&A. We're the sweet baby gang.
Freedom runs deep in our nation's DNA. It started when we stood up to unfair British taxes and their overpriced T.
When they tried forcing us to pay, we threw that T right into the Boston Harbor. And you know what? It worked out pretty well for us, I'd say.
Today, it's time for another declaration of independence from Big Wireless and their costly contracts. Why pay $100 monthly just to get a free phone? Like those early patriots, you've got better options.
Pure Talk, my cell phone company, says no to inflated prices. With a qualifying plan, you can choose an iPhone 14 or a Samsung Galaxy for $0.
And yes, this is for premium service on America's most dependable 5G network. Get your iPhone 14 or Samsung Galaxy for $0 with a qualifying plan by going to puretalk.com slash Walsh.
You can make the switch in as little as 10 minutes. No hassle, no gimmicks.
Just honest to goodness, wireless priced right.

Again, that's puretalk.com slash Walsh to claim your new iPhone or Galaxy with qualifying purchase from Pure Talk, America's wireless company.

Visit puretalk.com slash Walsh for details.

Whoever was at Epstein's was most likely at P. Diddy's, so let's get those files and videos.

Yeah, that's another one.

I mean, we're told that Combs is this predatory freak who was having these sexually abusive orgy parties with famous people. And there's no doubt that he is a sexually predatory freak.
And he's now been charged for it. And yet nobody else has been charged.
I thought that these were parties. Other people are at parties, aren't they? So where are the other prosecutions? And it's the same kind of phenomenon.
Epstein was a global pimp, and yet we're supposed to believe, apparently, that he had no clients because no client has ever been charged. it's nonsense course, and it insults our intelligence and really ticks me off.
Destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Anyone who's done so should be prosecuted.
Absolutely. Pam Bondi has accused, I mean, Pam Bondi has essentially accused the FBI, or at least strongly implied, that they're involved in crimes, in a cover-up.
And you can't make that accusation and not follow it up with prosecutions. How did it go from Pam saying that she had all the disgusting files on her desk and we will all be shocked to the New York FBI office refusing to hand them over? Well, that's the question.
You know, that't make sense about the narrative. What we were told by Pam Bondi on Friday, that alone could make sense if she just came out and said, hey, look, trying to get these files.
I'm getting stonewalled right now, but we're going to get to the bottom of it. That would make sense.
The problem is that the night before she said she already had them. So both of these things can't be true.
You can't have already had the files and also you're getting stonewalled. And so it just doesn't make sense.
Zendaya is awful. She's another in a long line of actors like Shia LaBeouf, Emily Clark, and Michael B.
Jordan forced on an audience because Hollywood wants them to be successful. Okay, well, wait a minute here.
Now, I don't have strong opinions about the other two, but Shia LaBeouf is actually a great actor. Say what you want about the guy, but he is a pretty remarkable actor.
And if you want to know how good of an actor he is, there's a movie he made called Honey Boy is the name of the movie. And it's a kind of semi-autobiographical film about a child actor and his abusive father.
And Shia LaBeouf, I believe, wrote the movie. And it's based on his own experiences as a child actor with apparently an abusive father.
In the movie, he plays the dad. He's playing his own abusive father in a movie about his childhood.
And it's a pretty, I think, quite incredible performance. Even without that backstory, it's still a great performance, but with it, it's quite fascinating.
And I don't think he won any awards for it or anything, but it was, I don't know, you can't watch that movie and come away not convinced that he's at least a pretty capable actor. Now, whether it's really psychologically healthy to, you know,

take on the role of your own abusive father in a movie is a totally different deal, but we certainly can't expect actors to be psychologically healthy people. That's, it just sort of comes with the territory.
and finally okay, saying that Sonic movies are, for kids, is understandable, I agree, but saying that Shrek 1 and 2 are horrible movies might be one of the worst takes I've ever heard. Just for that, I took Shapiro's side in your movie argument.
Well, I don't know what to tell you. Look, they're pretty bad.
You know, the Shrek films belong to a genre of comedy that we might call reference comedy. And these were especially popular back in the early 2000s.
You still see them. But back in the early 2000s, they were very popular.
And that's back when the scary movie films were being made and, you know, all those other kind of date movie, disaster movie, whatever else. And basically the style of humor is that they'll, which you can't even call humor really, but they'll reference something in pop culture and it's supposed to be funny just because they referenced it.
They don't make a joke about the thing. There's no punchline.
There's no joke there. They just reference it.
And so they have a plot and then like something from pop culture will just sort of be referenced. And then they point to it and the audience was like, oh yeah, I know that.
Oh yeah, that's from American Idol. That's a show I know about.
That's hilarious. The fact that you recognize it from pop culture is supposed to be funny.
And it's pretty much the most witless form of humor that's ever been invented. And that's kind of the Shrek movie.
So there you go. This is one you don't want to miss.
Tomorrow night, President Donald Trump is addressing Congress at 9 p.m. Eastern, laying out his America First vision, tackling immigration reform, economic revival, and national security.
And you know, we are not going to sit this one out. Join us for Backstage Live at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern, our pre-show breakdown with the entire gang. We'll watch the entire speech together live on Daily Wire Plus.
And when Trump's done, we're back with unfiltered, no BS reactions. You're not going to get anywhere else.
This is the event shaping America's future. So be there, watch it all live on Daily Wire Plus tomorrow night.
Subscribe now at dailywire.com. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Six months from now, you could be running a 5K, booking that dream trip, or seeing thicker, fuller hair every time you look in the mirror. Through HERS, you can get dermatologist-trusted, clinically proven prescriptions with ingredients that go beyond what over-the-counter products offer.
Whether you prefer oral or topical treatments, hers has you covered. Getting started is simple.
Just fill out an intake form online, and a licensed provider will recommend a customized plan just for you. The best part? Everything is 100% online.
If prescribed, your treatment ships right to your door. No pharmacy trips, no waiting restrictions, and important safety information.
Today we cancel somebody named Joanne Littman of the Wall Street Journal for an op-ed with this lovely title, Can White Men Finally Stop Complaining? Now we've obviously reached inception levels of irony when a mainstream media journalist,

a female one at that,

is complaining about other people complaining.

On the other hand, they say we should trust the experts,

and she is certainly an expert on the subject of complaining.

So let's read on.

Quote,

The Manosphere won.

Bro podcasters top the charts.

Meta's Mark Zuckerberg declares his company

needs more masculine energy. Elon Musk shares a post saying only high status males should run the country.
The White House kills diversity, equity, inclusion policies, and so do multiple companies from Target to McDonald's. In 2021, Joe Rogan famously said, it'll eventually get to straight white men are not allowed to talk.
It will be, you're not allowed to go outside. I'm not joking.
It really will get there. It's that crazy.
But Rogan's complaint is actually an old one that has exploded as a rallying cry every decade or so for more than 50 years. White guys have blamed others for their job losses, educational failures, economic problems, and drug addictions.
Somebody else is always at fault. The mighty white guy, it turns out, is quite the delicate flower.
Racism and sexism are at oldest as time, but the oppressed white man trope is a relatively modern invention with roots in the civil rights

and women's rights victory of the 1960s. Now, from here, Lippman gives us a lengthy historical

overview of what she calls the oppressed white man trope. The whole diatribe is dripping with

unmitigated resentment towards white men, but she does offer this generous disclaimer.

Quote, to be clear, white guys aren't all sexist or racist or whiners, nor do all or even most buy into the white guy persecution complex. Well, that's nice of her.
We aren't all sexist, racist whiners. There are some white guys that pass muster with Joanne Lippman.
I'm sure there are even some white guys whose work she admires. David Hogg must be one.
Pete Buttigieg, Tim Walls, Rachel Levine, Joseph Stalin. But for the most part, she's done with white men.
She's just had it up to here. She wants them all to go to hell.
Well, first, she wants them to buy a subscription to the Wall Street Journal because 62% of the journal's readers are men. But then they can go straight to hell.
And here's how she wraps things up. With white guys now dominating government, popular culture, the airwaves, and our brain space, it's puzzling why the victim mentality still persists.
The cries that DEI has somehow ruined white men's lives are particularly head-scratching, considering that, as a recent Wall Street Journal analysis revealed, corporate diversity initiatives have had relatively little impact on the workforce. Yet white guys are still insisting that they're being terrorized by the scary DEI monster, blaming it for everything from California wildfires to the Potomac plane crash to the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse.
And the most powerful and privileged among them continue to complain the loudest. Really, guys? Enough already.
Now, there's a lot that could be said in response to this fantastically stupid article. Littman simply dismisses the claim that white males have been treated in a systematically unjust and unfair way.
She doesn't debunk it or make any attempt to engage with it. She just kind of waves it away.
But for all her waving, the reality remains. It is just a fact that affirmative action and DEI have discriminated against white males for decades.
Every single institution in the country has put in place policies that deliberately make it more difficult for white males to be hired. And once they are hired, more difficult to advance.
That's not some sort of wild theory. It's the whole point of these policies.
But we don't even have to get into that. All we need to say is this.
This article itself is proof of exactly the kind of anti-white male bias that it's denying. Okay, no mainstream publication would ever in a million years publish an article like this targeting any other demographic group.
So try this. Swap in any other group you can think of, any group at all, and hear how it sounds.
For example, can black people stop complaining? Black people have blamed others for their job losses, educational failures, economic problems, and drug addictions. Somebody else is always at fault.
The mighty black person, it turns out, is quite the delicate flower. Really, black people? Enough already.
How about this? Can women finally stop complaining? Women have blamed others for their job losses, educational failures, economic problems, and drug addictions. Somebody else is always at fault.
The mighty woman, it turns out, is quite the delicate flower. Really, women? Enough already.
Those are articles that would never and could never exist in any mainstream publication. No media outlet in America would ever publish anything like that.
Now, it would be easy to disprove my point here. All you'd have to do is find one single article in any publication comparable to the Wall Street Journal where a white person talks about black people that way or a man talks about women that way.
Just a single article, even a tweet from somebody who works at one of these places. Anything.
But you can't. And we all know you can't.
And that's because this is the kind of sneering contempt that can only be expressed towards one demographic group and no other. You are allowed to openly despise one group and only one, and that is white men.
That's it. And Joanne Lippman can't deny this.
She doesn't even really try. Her point is simply that we shouldn't complain about this blatantly unfair dynamic.
We should just accept our role as a societal punching bag, because we're white men after all. We deserve it.
Lippman isn't really upset that we're complaining. She's upset that we, at least some of us white men anyway, are rejecting that role.
White men have had enough of this. We're not just complaining.
We are speaking up in our own defense. And that is what's so upsetting to her.
When white men speak up in their own defense, they are demonstrating some semblance of pride in themselves as individuals and as a group. At least enough pride to say, hey, we don't deserve to be mocked and belittled like this.
We deserve at least the same basic respect that every other group receives. That's the really ominous thing in the mind of somebody like Joanne Littman.
White men must not have any pride. Women are allowed, in fact, encouraged to be proud of the fact that they're women.
Black people certainly can be proud of the fact that they're black people. Asians, Hispanics, gay people, every demographic group you can name can and should be proud of their membership in that group except white men.
The only feelings that white men are permitted to feel about their group identity are remorse, shame, and disgust. That's been the rule in our society for many years.
What startles Joanne Lippman is that some white men are not following that rule. I'm certainly not.
I am proud to be a white man. I think that if anyone's writing an article singling out white men, it should be to thank us.
After all, as I said recently, this country could not exist without white men. Nearly every good thing you have in your life, everything that makes your life safer, more comfortable, more enjoyable, was given to you by a white man.
The vast majority of the greatest pioneers, inventors, thinkers, leaders in the history of Western civilization have been white men. White men have been by far and away the main ones to fight our wars, achieve every political and scientific advancement, build basically every aspect of our society.
Without white men, you would not have airplanes. You would not have phones.
You would not have air conditioning. You would not have cars, computers, trains, modern medicine, microscopes, elevators, x-ray machines, calculus, the periodic table, rocket ships, rocket science, democracy, the abolition of slavery.
And I could go on and on and on. Now, you might point out that these things were achieved not by white men collectively, but by specific white male individuals.
Just because I'm a white guy doesn't mean I get to take credit for the fact that air conditioning exists. And that's true, of course, in a literal sense.
But if it makes no sense to lump white men together when discussing these accomplishments, if it makes no sense to give us all credit for what specific white men have done, then why does it make sense to lump us all together for the sake of lecturing and scolding us? You cannot have it both ways. Let me see if I have this right.
As a white man, I get no credit for the good white men have done, but I do share the blame for the bad. Is that how it works? Well, yes, that is how they want it to work.
And yet again, this is a rule that does not apply to any other group, not a single other group. Black people are frequently celebrated as a group and black people individually are encouraged to take pride in the good done by other black individuals Women also are celebrated as a group Women are very much encouraged to take pride in what women have done Nobody would think it was strange if a black woman said That Harriet Tubman makes her proud to be a black woman, right? Nobody would criticize a black woman

who expressed that sentiment. In fact, if you criticized her for it, you'd be a racist.

And yet, if I said that Isaac Newton makes me proud to be a white man,

I would be both condemned as a racist and mocked for saying something so absurd.

Look, there's just no logical way to defend that double standard. And yet it exists.
And we all know that it exists. In fact, as we know, all of these groups have their own months on the calendar set aside for the purpose of reflecting on their group achievements.
White men do not, even though, frankly, we have the most achievements. Just a couple of weeks ago, speaking of black women, today.com had an article with this title, 25 Influential Black Women Who Changed History.
And the list is, I'm afraid to say the list is not terribly impressive. Beyonce and Michelle Obama made the cut, just to give you an idea.
In fact, one of the names on the list isn't even a black woman. Laverne Cox is on the list, and he's a male.
And even if he wasn't, how does some random actor make the list of the most influential figures in all history? Yet this is the kind of article, one of the many thousands I could cite, that can be written to highlight the achievements of any group, any group besides white men. You will never see an article on today.com listing the 25 most influential white men who changed history, even though our list would have some real heavy hitters.
It would have like the most important humans who've ever lived on the planet. Isaac Newton, Alexander the Great, Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Plato, George Washington, Magellan, et cetera.
Okay, not going to be any room for B-level actors on our list, but that's a list that you will never see published anywhere by anyone ever.

A couple of years ago, the Boston Globe published an article with this title,

What We Mean by Black Girl Magic.

And the article is about black girl magic, which is a phrase we hear a lot these days,

meant to describe the special magic, the beautiful essence of black women.

And here's how the article begins.

When I see a black woman, I see a revolution.

She's here in a country determined to rest its back on her shoulders while calling her

worthless.

I see magic.

I don't see a superhuman.

I see an architect.

I know she's doing a lot of groundwork to be present, to walk that walk with swagger

and self-determination.

I know she's becoming more and more herself, building the truth in a world that lies to us about who we are. Now, not to belabor the point, but this is the kind of article that could never be written about white men.
It's the kind of article that could only not be written about one group, and that is white men. But let's just hear how that would sound if that article was written.
Imagine this in the Boston Globe, okay? What we mean by white man magic. When I see a white man, I see a revolution.
He's here in a country determined to rest its back on his shoulders while calling him worthless, I see magic.

I don't see a superhuman. I see an architect.
I know he's doing a lot of groundwork to be present, to walk that walk with swagger and self-determination. I know he's becoming more and more himself, building the truth in a world that lies to us about who we are.
That article can't exist. Even though one could certainly argue that it applies more to white men.
After all, white men are explicitly demeaned as worthless in a way that black women literally never are, ever. And this country has, just, I want to pause on that for a second, because this is something we hear about.
The narrative in the media has been forever that black women are not just oppressed, but the most depressed. The most depressed of all groups.
Constantly belittled. And yet, in reality, never.
You know the only place where you're going to hear black women explicitly belittled and demeaned? The only place, the only place is in rap music performed by black men. Outside of that, never happens.
Never, ever, anywhere. But with white men, it's a little different.
You'll hear that kind of stuff everywhere all the time. And also, this country has largely rested on the shoulders of white men since its inception.
As for magic, you know, I wouldn't say that white men have magic, but they are the ones who learned how to fly, who walked on the moon, who traveled to both poles of the earth, who made it to the deepest depths of the ocean. It's not magic, but it's as close as human beings have ever come to it.
But we aren't supposed to talk about any of that. And just not supposed to talk about it.
Just not supposed to acknowledge that any of that is true, even though we all know it is. And the reason is obvious.
If white men are allowed to think of themselves as a group in anything but an explicitly negative context, then they'll quickly realize that they aren't, in fact, the great villains of history. Far from the villains, they've been, in so many cases, the heroes.
And once they realize that all the guilt and shame they're supposed to feel, and that some of them actually do feel, will melt away. The left left's whole narrative collapses.
Their emotional blackmail stops working. The jig is up.

And that's what they're afraid of. That's what Joanne Littman is afraid of.