Ep. 1556 - Trump Just Played His Trump Card Against This Insane And Unlawful Judge

Today on the Matt Wall Show, a federal judge tries to force President Trump to return a plane full of foreign terrorists to the United States.

Trump rightly ignores him. Now the Democrats are screeching about a constitutional crisis we'll discuss.

Also, Trump has declared Biden's last-minute pardons null and void because Biden didn't personally sign them and he was senile at the time.

The Democrats have found the person who will win back the youth vote for them.

She's 82 years old and looks 182 years old.

An Amazon driver goes viral after she yells at a customer for ordering packages.

We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. On St.
Patrick's Day, people often celebrate by consuming green beer, Irish whiskey, or Guinness stout, sometimes to excess. But here in America, the superior country, there is no better way to celebrate the day than with 45-47 Patriot Edition American whiskey produced by the team at Wise Spirits right here in our hometown of Nashville.
Their masterfully handcrafted American whiskey pays homage to the very essence of our great nation, celebrating its rich history and vibrant culture. Each batch is carefully selected from the finest barrels, with each drop representing a testament to precision and quality.
The best part is this whiskey is made by patriots for patriots and embodying the spirit of the American dream. I've had the pleasure of enjoying 4547 whiskey, and let me tell you, it hits hard with a strong taste and a clean finish.
You can tell this isn't some cheap bottom shelf stuff. It's the kind of drink that makes you want to lean back in your chair and have another.
Experience the 4547 Patriot Edition Whiskey, where every sip tells a powerful story of heritage, craftsmanship, and indomitable spirit. Here's to freedom, to tradition, and to the spirit of America.
4547 Patriot Edition American Whiskey, crafted with honor, inspired by courage, crafted by Wise Spirits, Nashville, Tennessee. Please drink responsibly.

45-47 premium American whiskey, 46% alcohol by volume. Copyright 2025, Wise Spirits Incorporated, Nashville, Tennessee.
It must be 21 or over. It took just a couple of days after Donald Trump's inauguration for a judge to issue an injunction blocking one of his executive orders.
And from that moment, the floodgates were open. Since January, federal judges, almost all of them appointed by Democrats, of course, have issued four dozen rulings that blocked or limited some aspect of the Trump administration's agenda.
And that's not an exaggeration. In just two months, there have been nearly 50 rulings by federal judges that restrict what the executive branch is trying to do.
And we've discussed many of these rulings before and how obviously absurd they are. In one case, a judge ruled that the Trump administration can't even fire its own probationary employees.
In another ruling, they require that the White House update federal websites to restore promotional content about child castration in the name of gender-affirming care. So in other words, according to federal judges, Trump effectively has no power whatsoever.
He can't manage his personnel. He can't even manage a website.
At this point, it's impossible for any serious person to deny that these judges are going out of their way to interfere with every aspect of executive authority. They are ignoring the fact that under our Constitution, the executive branch is not a subordinate branch to the judiciary.
It is a co-equal branch of government. And they're doing it to provoke what the media likes to call a constitutional crisis.
The judges intend to assume the powers of the executive branch for themselves, and they won't stop until the Trump administration is forced to ignore the courts, which is exactly what Andrew Jackson, who happens to be one of Donald Trump's favorite presidents, did nearly two centuries ago. As drastic as it may seem under normal circumstances, other than impeachment, this is the only check against a

rogue judiciary that exists in our system of checks and balances. So over the weekend,

as you probably heard, for the first time, a judge finally crossed the red line and pushed the Trump administration to exercise this remedy, or at least something very close to it. On Saturday night, an Obama-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C.
named James Boesburg attempted to block the White House from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan terrorist gang Tren de Aragua, which had seized, you may remember, entire apartment buildings in Colorado last year. And that was during the Biden administration.
Biden did nothing about it. In fact, facilitated this takeover of our communities by terrorist gang members.
And the law, though, allows the president of the United States to declare an invasion and to deport invaders without waiting for an immigration hearing. Trump declared that the Tren de Aragua has been invading this country for some time, because they have.
So he ordered several members of the gang to be deported under the Alien Enemies Act. But just hours after Trump made that proclamation, Judge Boasberg attempted to overrule him.
Following a brief hearing, the judge stated that, quote, any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, however that is accomplished. Make sure it's complied with immediately.
So we know the judges have already assumed the role of web designers. Now it appears that they fashioned themselves air traffic controllers too.
As Bozberg said those words on Saturday evening, two planes carrying these Venezuelan gang members and terrorists were already on their way from Texas, bound for El Salvador. They had taken off around 2.30 p.m.
Flight tracking databases appear to show that these planes were very close to their destinations, flying off the Yucatan Peninsula at around 6.51 p.m. when the judge issued this order commanding the planes to turn around.
But they didn't do so. They proceeded as scheduled to El Salvador.
Axios is reporting that the White House intentionally ignored the judge's order because the planes were over international waters, and the White House determined that the judge had no jurisdiction. But meanwhile, the White House press secretary actually disputes that characterization because the order itself was unlawful.
Essentially, she's saying that they didn't ignore an order. There was nothing to ignore.
Quoting from the press secretary, the administration did not refuse to comply with the court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TDA aliens had already been removed from the U.S.
territory. In other words, the White House determined that Judge Boesberg does not have the jurisdiction that he claimed to have.
So they did not return the planes to the United States as he commanded. So it's less an ignoring of an order and more, it's more that the order didn't exist.
This is not a lawful order to begin with. It may as well have been me saying, turn the planes around, even though I would never say that.
But you may as well have been just any random person on the street saying, turn that plane around. Now, if some random person on the street said that, you wouldn't say, well, the Trump is ignoring their order.
It's not an order. It doesn't exist.
You have no jurisdiction. Now, regardless of how you frame it, this is a giant, unambiguous warning sign to every federal judge in this country.
They've just been told by the White House, in no uncertain terms, that their rulings do not create policy. Whatever a judge might say, his rulings do not always have to be carried out.
Now, what these judges expect is that they'll be given the benefit of the doubt every time. So if they issue a probably unlawful ruling, they expect the ruling will just be followed anyway.
And then after the fact, we'll figure out if it was unlawful or not. So if they decree suddenly that Trump can no longer play golf or that he has to stop eating his steaks well done or whatever.
Trump just has to do as they say, under the assumption that it must be lawful because they said it. But even though I would actually agree with the second ruling about not eating your steaks well done, this is not how it works.
Trump does not have to, and now it seems is not going to, comply with rulings that the judges have no authority to issue to begin with. That's the message here.
That's also the message that the president of El Salvador wants to communicate as well. Within hours of the planes touching down, Naib Bukele mocked the judge's ruling.
He wrote, oopsie too late, incidentally marking, I think the first time that the word oopsie has ever been used in a diplomatic communication. And then he added that the United States had also deported nearly two dozen MS-13 members to El Salvador.
So in total, according to Fox, 137 aliens were deported on Saturday under the Alien Enemies Act. 101 were removed via regular immigration proceedings.
21 were MS-13 members and two were MS-13 ringleaders. And their crimes include the sexual abuse of children,

kidnapping, robbery. And just so you know, this is how these criminals were received

in their home country of El Salvador. Watch.
All right, so you can see it there. Not the warmest welcome for these gentlemen, but this is how a country that's serious about its own national security receives a plane full of terrorists and gang members.
You know, they don't put them up in a fancy hotel and offer them free legal services like they do in New York. They meet them with a full military convoy and then throw them in the highest security prison that they have.
Now, in a moment, I'm going to get into why this judge's ruling deserves to be ignored on the merits and why it sets up a genuine crisis for the legitimacy of the judiciary in this country. But first, it needs to be said that even if the judge had some legal basis for blocking these deportations, which he didn't, it would still be outrageous for him to order a con air to turn around and head back to the United States.
And pretty much everyone recognizes that. From a public relations perspective, you could not script a worse hill to die on than the right of Venezuelan gangsters and terrorists to be flown back into this country after they've already been deported.
The Democrats pretend to be big fans of democracy. Well, what do you think would happen if we put this up for a vote? Now what if there was a national poll That was conducted And the question was Should a plane full of Venezuelan gangsters

And child rapists

Be returned to the United States? How many yeses do you think we would get? What's the final score? 95% no, 5% yes Would the yeas even make it to 5%? But this is what Democrats and their judges stand for at this. At this rate, they're going to be telling Trump he has to open the asylums and say, import thousands of Haitian cannibals into small towns in this country.
Can you imagine that? I mean, they're going from one obvious losing issue to another, from one 80-20 or 90-10 issue to another, and then they're wondering why they can't win a single swing state. Not that it should need to be said, but judges do not have the authority to direct the movements of the federal government's planes when they're carrying out missions related to national security, especially when those planes have already left the country.
Now, this is an argument that the Trump administration made in its emergency appeal to the D.C. appeals court on Saturday night.
As the Trump DOJ put it, quote, if this temporary restraining order were allowed to stand, district judges, district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national security action just upon receipt of a complaint. District courts might next block drone strikes, sensitive intelligence operations, or terrorist captures or extraditions.
Now, separately, the White House press secretary made a similar point. She said, quote, federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the president's conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S.
soil and repel a declared invasion. A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft full of foreign alien terrorists who are physically expelled from U.S.
soil. And just so you know, despite what you may hear from the media, this is not an unprecedented decision for a White House to make.
During the Vietnam War, an anti-war judge on the Supreme Court named William Douglas issued a ruling blocking the military from bombing Cambodia. Within around six hours, the full court reversed that injunction.
But in the intervening period, the bombing did not stop. The Pentagon simply continued its attack during those six hours as if the ruling had never happened.
And of course, that makes sense because the ruling was completely and utterly insane. It's an obvious infringement on inherent presidential powers.
And it's the same reason why these planes weren't turned around before they landed in El Salvador on Saturday night. If the White House had allowed a single judge to control the movement of the government's aircraft overseas, then effectively the executive branch would have no authority left.
But the even bigger problem with the judge's ruling, when you zoom out a bit, is that he's not simply trying to take control of government planes. He's also trying to block the president's ability, which is clearly established under Article 2 of the Constitution, to conduct foreign affairs and to keep the country safe from foreign invaders.
And this gets back to the negotiations that the Trump administration has been conducting with El Salvador. There's a kind of a rare combination of innovation and basic common sense at work here, which is what you find with the Trump administration, especially the Trump administration 2.0.
There's innovation, unique ideas, but also these ideas are very simple and common sense. So the Trump administration is paying El Salvador about $6 million to imprison around 300 of these gang members after we deport them from the United States.
This is a deal that El Salvador has clearly been very happy to take because it's a lot of money for them, relatively speaking. And in exchange for paying them $6 bucks, which is not much to us, we don't have hundreds of gang members taking over our apartment buildings and murdering people in broad daylight.
So it's a win-win. It's exactly the kind of deal that the president is supposed to engage in using his Article II powers.
And no judge can strip the president of those powers. That's because the judiciary is not in charge of foreign affairs.
The president is. And once again, the executive branch is not subordinate to the judiciary.
That's not how this is supposed to work. Now, this is the strongest argument for rejecting this particular judge's ruling, along with dozens of other rulings that have been made against the Trump administration in the past two months, regardless of whatever Congress or the judiciary says about how the president can fire federal employees or what content needs to appear on government websites or anything else, the fact remains that the Constitution has a higher authority than any law passed by Congress or any ruling by a judge.
when acts of Congress or rulings by judges are used to interfere with the inherent power of the president, then they are just invalid. They don't exist in that case.
And in this particular case, Trump isn't even being contradicted by any act of Congress. Instead, he's following the rules that Congress established with the Alien Enemies Act, which became law all the way back in 1798.
And despite, again, what you may have heard, there's no expiration date on it. Just because it was made law a long time ago doesn't mean that you can't use it anymore.
And that law allows a president to expedite deportations when, quote, any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the U.S. by any foreign nation or government.
Now, the Trump DOJ maintains that Trend de Aragua is acting as an agent of Venezuela to the point that this gang is basically indistinguishable from the country's official government. And they're clearly invading our country because they're entering without permission and with intent to cause harm.
And therefore, whether you're looking for a justification under an act of Congress or from the president's inherent authorities under the Constitution, the deportations of these Venezuelan gangs are clearly lawful on multiple levels. And by the way, not that this is the biggest point here, but Judge Boesberg didn't actually rule that the deportations were unlawful.
He didn't even get that far. Instead, he issued an emergency preliminary restraining order in a matter of minutes on the theory that the gang members would suffer irreparable harm unless he paused the deportations immediately.
And we wouldn't want to do irreparable harm to foreign gang members. Now, the whole theory of irreparable harm is something the Supreme Court needs to take a very close look at because it's the way that all of these judges are justifying their various insane power grabs over national policy.
In reality, the only irreparable harm that's being done in this scenario is the damage that these judges are doing to the rule of law and to the democratic principles that we hear so much about all the time. These rulings have a lot of people wondering why we bother with elections in the first place.
If a random Obama judge in Washington gets to pretend he's actually the president. If judges can overrule anything the president does at any time, then why do we have a president? And with every decision like this, that question becomes more and more valid.
Of course, Democrats will always be able to find an unelected judge in some left-wing city to rule against the Trump administration on any issue at all. And that's why there will be many more confrontations like this one until either the judges are ignored completely or the Supreme Court steps in and ends the practice of individual federal judges dictating policy for the entire country.
In the meantime, what happened on Saturday night is the clearest indication yet that the Trump administration is going to fight to make sure Americans actually get what they voted for, which is entire planes full of foreign criminals leaving the country. No other president would probably think to pay El Salvador millions of dollars to house these violent gang members, much less use a law passed in the late 18th century to expedite the process.
But that's exactly what the Trump administration has just done. And as a result, regardless of what judges appointed by Barack Obama might rule, it's all but certain that a lot more terrorists and gang members are about to be kicked out of the country.
Now let's get to our five headlines. Congratulations.
You are the unwitting star of the internet's most invasive reality show, where data brokers are auctioning off your personal information to whoever's got pocket change and internet connection. Your name, address, and social security number are floating around out there like a chain mail from 2002 that just won't die.
Luckily, Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breachers are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. As somebody with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me.
As you can imagine, I need to be visible for my work, but that doesn't mean my home address and phone numbers should be available to anyone who searches for them. Lots of people are searching for them.
That's why I'm so glad I found Delete.me. They're always working for me, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information I don't want on the internet.
Delete.me values your privacy and ensures its protection. Tell their experts exactly what personal information you want removed, and they'll handle the entire deletion process for you, which is great because I have better things to do with my time than chase my personal information across the internet's endless databases.
Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now to special discount for our listeners today.
Get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting Walsh to 64000. The only way to get 20% off is to text Walsh to 64000.
That's Walsh to 64000. Message data rates may apply.
Daily Wire reports President Donald Trump on Saturday announced that the U.S. had launched a military offensive against Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.
Is it Houthi or Houthi? I don't know. Anyway, they're dead.
They're pronounced dead. Houthi.
Houthi and the blown to smithereens by drones. That's their new band name.
Anyway, return to the muscular foreign policy that was a cornerstone of his first term. New York Times reported that the large-scale strikes specifically targeted radars, air defenses, and missile and drone systems.
Trump said in a message that the terror group had waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against American and other ships, aircraft, and drones. The strikes, believed to be only the opening salvo, were expected to last several days.
Trump said Joe Biden's response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going. It's been over a year since a U.S.
flagged commercial ship safely sailed through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Aden. The last American warship to go through the Red Sea four months ago was attacked by the Houthis over a dozen times.
Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at U.S. aircraft and targeted our troops and allies.
These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and the world economy many billions of dollars, while at the same time putting innocent lives at risk.
And so now he's striking back against them. And you know, I'm as America first and non-interventionist as they come.
My first instinct is always to avoid foreign conflicts and foreign entanglements whenever possible. But there's a distinction between being non-interventionist and being just a pacifist, empty-headed wimp.
And you can see, so here's kind of where the line is drawn with a case like this, because part of actually being America first is supporting your country's right to defend itself. You do have a certain subset of people who call themselves America first, who at this point will not support, it seems, any use of the American military at all for anything ever.
And that is not America first. America first means we can defend ourselves.
It means if you attack us, you're going to pay for it. And so this to me is an easy one.
If some little country in the Middle East is shooting at our ships, they need to pay. I mean, there's absolutely no reason for us to tolerate that.
You don't attack American ships. And by the way, America has a long history of this.
I mean, this goes all the way back to the founding. This has been the stance of the United States of America since the beginning, that you do not attack our ships.
We have never tolerated that. Only in very recent years have we started tolerating that kind of thing.
And we shouldn't. And all other countries and adversaries and terrorist groups need to know that if you so much as shoot a BB gun at an American ship, whether it's military or commercial, we will vaporize you.
And that's the approach Trump is taking, which is the correct approach. It is the America first approach.
I've seen some people on the right, on X anyway, criticizing this decision. They're saying that, well, you know, the Houthi are only attacking our ships because they're mad about our support for Israel or whatever.
Okay. So who cares what they're mad at? Well, they're upset that we're, I don't give a damn what they're upset about.

You don't attack American ships.

I don't care what the American ship is doing there, why it's there, how they feel.

I don't care if they had a bad day that, you know, they have tummy, their tummies hurt.

They're in a bad mood.

They're sad.

Well, they attacked American ships because, but you don't understand, they're really sad.

They're sad about American form.

I don't care how they feel about it. It doesn't matter.
We're the United States of America. You don't attack us.
And if you do, you're going to pay for it. We are going to incinerate you.
That's the deal here. Should we just allow a key shipping lane to become hazardous for American commercial and military ships

Because we're being understanding of the feelings of terrorist groups Should we just allow a key shipping lane to become hazardous for American commercial and military

ships because we're being understanding of the feelings of terrorist groups? I mean, that is very much the opposite of America first. That is America last.
That is, that is, you're putting America behind the thoughts and feelings and priorities of foreign adversaries. So it's weak, pathetic, and insane.
And I think that this is great. It's exactly what you do.
Anybody shoots at an American ship, every shot you take, we're going to blow up 10 of your buildings. How about that? Peace through strength is a real thing.
That's kind of the mantra that the Trump administration uses. It's the correct mantra.
And that's the way that it should be. All right.
Let's see. We also have this.
New York Post. President Trump said early Monday that he was voiding all the last minute pardons from President Joe Biden that were made using Autopen.
The pardons that sleepy Joe Biden gave to the unselect committee of political thugs and many others are hereby declared void, vacant, and of no further force or effect because of the fact that they were done by Autopen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them, but more importantly, he did not know anything about them.
So this is, well, first of all, here's Trump today explaining more about his decision. Let's watch the video.
give pardons to, as an example, just one example, but the J6 unselected committee. They gave, think of it, they gave pardons with a notepad.
I don't think Biden knew anything about it. And what they did is they deleted and destroyed all of the information that took them over a year to get.
Now, I haven't tracked the left's reaction to this very closely yet. I'm sure they're

apoplectic about it. All I know is that I found out about this on X last night because some leftists, I forgot who posted about it, but screenshotted the post from Trump and captioned it.
This is insane. This is insanity.
Is it really insane? You and I and 300 million other people in this country and billions across the globe all know that Joe Biden was senile. That is a well-established fact.
Nobody denies it anymore. They did for a while.
They don't anymore. When's the last time you met anyone who would deny that Joe Biden had dementia and was not in possession of all of his mental faculties.

Nobody denies it. Nobody does.
And if that's the case, and it is the case, then it has implications. The fact that the president was a senile vegetable actually matters.
It's not just a fun little factoid about recent American history, right? It's not just something to put on a trivial pursuit card, which U.S. president had the mental capacity of asparagus? You know, that'll be a fun question for trivial pursuit, yes, but it's not trivial.
See, we've grown so accustomed to this cycle, and the cycle goes like this. Something horrible happens.
Conservatives point out that the horrible thing is happening. And we say, look at that horrible thing.
That's horrible. And the media denies it and says that anyone who makes the claim that it's horrible is a fascist Nazi conspiracy theorist.
Then a little time passes and suddenly the media says, it's time to talk about this horrible thing. And then they congratulate themselves for bravely acknowledging the horrible thing years after the fact, and after they actively suppressed conversation about that horrible thing.
And then conservatives say, hey, we tried to tell you guys about that. And the media says, did you? We don't remember that.
When did that happen? Anyway, and then everybody moves on, right? That's the cycle with all this stuff. That's what played out with COVID.
That's what played out with the trans stuff. That's what's playing out with Joe Biden's dementia and so many other examples we could name.
And the whole cycle is very frustrating, but it's the end. It's the end of that cycle that's the biggest problem, because it's the part where everybody moves on and nothing happens.
Once everyone is finally on the same page about the horrible thing, nothing happens. There's no accountability.
There are no implications of the horrible thing. This is happening right now with COVID.
Suddenly, five years after the fact, there are all these articles in mainstream publications saying that actually the lockdowns were a terrible idea. Lots of people were hurt by it.
And that's infuriating because obviously they tried to censor us for years for saying that. But the worst part is that nobody's being held accountable.
Okay, if we're all saying that, yeah, it was a terrible thing, it hurt people. Okay, well, then what? Doesn't that have implications? Aren't there some stakes attached to that if we all can agree now that this policy destroyed millions of lives? Nobody's held accountable.
Nobody's punished. And it's the same thing with this.
If we are all now finally admitting that Biden had dementia, then yes, logically that would mean that basically everything he did in office is effectively null and void. If he had dementia, then everything he did has to certainly be at least, we have to go back and analyze it,

and everything is called into question.

He did not have possession of his mental faculties.

That's not the kind of thing that you acknowledge

and then say, let's move on.

It's the kind of thing that you acknowledge,

you say, well, the president did not have

all of his mental faculties, which means that, therefore, there are consequences to that. And it starts with this.
Because these pardons, I mean, forget about the auto pen thing. I think that is an important point here that he didn't actually physically sign it.
So I think technically, legally, that is an important point. But that to me is not even the main point.
These pardons were issued at the end of his term at a time when he was completely out of it. At least you could argue that, okay, something he did in his first couple of years, he still had most of his mental capacity, probably, maybe, but maybe not.
By the end, he was totally out of it. So even if he did sign it physically, there was no there, there.
There was nothing in there. There was nothing going on inside his head.
And again, that has implications. I've had so this is something I've had waiting on

on deck for several days

I haven't been able to play it because we have to sort of pace this stuff out. We can only have so much left-wing cringe in one day.
I want to overload you. So now it's time for me to introduce you to someone if you don't know her.
She's named Democratic Representative Rosa De Larro is her name. And when you see her, you'll recognize her because she's the really old one with purple hair.
You can't miss her when you see her. She's like 80 years old, I think, maybe older.
And I remember seeing her down at the joint session speech down in the gallery. And she looked like, and I'm not trying to be mean when I say this.
This is just the most literal description I can give, that she looked like a corpse with a wig. Not even trying to be funny.
I thought that that's what she was at first. I really did.
I saw her there. I thought, oh, there's a dead person.
There's a dead? Are they doing a wake? Is there some kind of wake happening? I've never been've never been to a speech like this before. Do they do a wake for a recently deceased congressman before all these speeches? Maybe that's a tradition.
But then I noticed that she was moving a little bit. And then I thought, oh dear Lord, she's, she's, she's zombified.
It's like a literal leftist zombie with purple hair walking around the floor of Congress. And just a bizarre sight, a very bizarre sight.
But just because she's 64,000 years old, that doesn't mean that she can't connect with the youth. And at least that's what the Democrats seem to think.
And that was the point of this video. Watch.
Yo, this is the Ranking Rizzer on Appropriations, serving Connecticut's third district. It's time to enter your dark academia Congress era.
All right, besties. House Appropriation is the money moves in Congress.
We are not chasing the bag. We are the bag.
Democrats are making life smoother for government funding. It's giving.
It's giving it. So Sigma, main character energy.
But Republicans Project 2025 is mad sus. Eliminating the Department of Education? Negative aura points.
Basically, the biggest phantom tax on the environment, on your education, and your rights. Big L, posting it online, buddy.
Democrats understood the assignment, but go off. See how I keep you informed? Very cutesy, very demure.
Yeah, that's how you reach the young people, by having the Mad Hatter's greatmother do a TikTok video. That's how you do it.
You reach out to the youth with a fossilized troll doll. You reach out to the youth with a TikTok video from the witch from Disney's Sword in the Stone, which that's a little bit of a deep cut.
You've got to Google that one, but when you see it, you'll know what I'm talking about. Purple hair, basically.
Anyway, I can only hope this is the Democrat Party's big plan for youth outreach. But what I'm afraid of is that the Republicans will see this and learn the wrong lessons from it.
They'll see this and think, well, we got to do it. Yeah, this is it, guys.
Look at all the hits this is getting. Look at all the views and clicks and shares.

And so maybe the Republicans will respond by slapping a mohawk on Mitch McConnell or having Chuck Grassley do some skateboard tricks, which that actually would be impressive. So that's not a good example.
This video with the purple hair lady is not impressive at all. It is baffling, though.
It's very baffling because it is in every way the opposite of how you appeal to young people. Young people, and this has been true since forever, basically, young people don't need to hear you use their slang.
In fact, they don't want to hear you use it. The slang exists so that old people don't use it.
That's the whole point of it. What young people have always valued is authenticity.
Now, I say that even though there are a lot of people in Gen Z who are proponents of gender ideology, and they'll celebrate a man pretending to be a woman. So this point about authenticity kind of needs to be highly qualified.
But still, even with that qualification in mind, it remains the case that if you want to connect with younger people, they need to feel like you're being real. And I mean, if you think about it, it's kind of interesting that over the past, say, 15 years, okay, go back the past 15, 20 years, think of the politicians who have managed to attract a loyal, devoted base of younger voters.
And there haven't been many. How many politicians have been able to do that? Well, Donald Trump has done it.
As much as I hate to admit it, Bernie Sanders did it, at least for a time. And then if you go back 15 to 20 year range, go back to around 2006, seven, eight, Ron Paul was another one.
Back in my days of youth, Ron Paul was the popular one with the kids. And what do all of them have in common? They're all elderly.
These are all elderly politicians who managed to attract the pretty large devoted followings of young people. And none of them did it by pretending to be cool or hip or whatever or by using internet slang.
None of them did that. They all have very distinct personalities and styles that haven't changed pretty much at all in like 50 years.
That's the other thing you notice about those three guys in particular is that if you go back to any point in their lives and look at a video of them speaking, they're saying the same stuff. They've been saying the same thing for decades and decades and decades.
And there are other reasons that those three in particular appealed so much to basically their grandchildren and great-grandchildren's generations. I'm just pointing out that this tactic,

the tactic that we just saw in that cringe-fest of a video,

that has no track record of actually working.

Because if you want to appeal to younger people again,

and I would say this is, and you could always say, well, everybody wants authenticity.

Maybe in theory everybody does, but I think it's a lot more important to younger voters. Younger voters are a lot more likely to see someone being totally fake and phony and kind of roll their eyes and say, that's lame.
That's cringe. I think boomer voters, older voters have a much higher tolerance for that kind of thing.

In fact, this video that we just watched is really made to appeal to older people.

That older people are the ones that are going to see that and go, oh, look, isn't that silly and fun?

But as for appealing to younger people, it doesn't work at all.

And yet they keep doing it. And I hope they do.
I hope they continue. This is a great strategy.
Keep pursuing it. Let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a bid. Hey, we're the sweet baby gang.
Tax season is here, unfortunately, again. And the IRS isn't messing around in 2025.
Look, I get it. Tax problems are about as fun as a root canal.
Maybe you've got some unfiled returns collecting dust, or you're sitting on a pile of back taxes that's giving you night sweats. And with April 15th breathing down your neck, it's tempting to just walk into the woods alone, never look back, and hope it all goes away.
But here's the thing. You're trying to ghost the IRS.
Well, that's like trying to outrun a bear. Spoiler alert, it does not end well for you.
That's why you should let Tax Network USA deal with this headache for you. These folks, they are not your average tax people.
They've got a direct line to the IRS, and so they know exactly who to talk to. Whether you're in the hole for 10K or 10 mil, they've got tricks up their sleeves that actually work.
They've already sorted out over a billion dollars in tax debt, so they must be doing something right. Talk with one of their strategists today.
It's free. Stop the threatening letters.
Stop looking over your shoulder and protect yourself from property seizures and bank levies. Don't let the IRS control your future.
Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh. April 15th is just around the corner, so act now before the IRS acts first.
Matt, today's opening reminds me of something that the late great Rush Limbaugh said when asked what he was most proud of concerning his radio show, and that was the fact that all or most shows that were successful were conservative, something he started, and with that fact, his show never lost popularity. Yeah, there's no question that every successful right of center podcast owes a large debt of gratitude to Rush Limbaugh.
But this does again raise the question of why the right knows how to make a successful podcast or news talk show, and the left just doesn't. And this is something that goes back to talk radio.
This is the case back in the talk radio's heyday, that almost all the successful talk radio shows were conservative. Almost none of them were liberal.
And now that podcasting is very much supplanted talk radio, the same thing holds true, even in the podcast era. And it seems even more confusing when you consider that the left, they know how to make successful films and TV shows and music.
So they can do all that, while the right historically has struggled hugely in that regard with all three of those. So why is it that if the left, if they can, not that I'm lamenting this fact at

all, but if they know how to make a movie, they know how to make a show, they know how to make

music, these are all different forms of media, yes. But if they can do all of that, then you

think making a podcast wouldn't be that difficult. Making a successful podcast, you think they'd be

able to do it. And they have so many of the famous people in their back pocket.
Most of the most famous people in the country are liberal because they're all in Hollywood. So why can't you make a successful podcast? I think the answer is pretty simple.
That conservative, and this is maybe a bit trite, but I think it's true, that conservative ideas appeal to the intellect, right? They appeal to the rational mind, to the intellect. And that's what you're engaging when you listen to a monologue or you listen to an in-depth conversation on Joe Rogan's show or wherever.
You're engaging your intellect. You're engaging your rational mind.
Liberal ideas appeal to emotions, and that's largely what's being engaged by films and shows and music in particular. So I think that's why the dynamic is the way it is.
I think that's why you have this kind of dividing line. And I also think that it's why whichever side figures out how to cross that line,

that will be the side that will be in a position of cultural dominance

for the next 25, 30 years.

So if the right can figure out, we know how to engage the mind.

If we can figure out how to engage emotionally also through these art forms, then we'll own everything. We'll have all these art forms, films, TV shows, music, and we'll have all the podcasts and talk shows and everything.
And then the entire culture is dominated by conservatives. Now, if on the other hand, the left can figure out how to take this skill they have, I think it's a diminished skill, but they still have this skill of creating films and TV shows and everything.
And if they can figure out how to apply some of that to podcasting and to commentary and to the talk show space, then that will sort of seal the culture for them for the next 25 to 30 years. So I think that's going to be the deciding factor here.
Let's see. Damn, Matt, rich guy on podcast thinks poor people should pay taxes.
Great take. Well, I think everyone should pay income taxes, or no one should.
That's my position. And I'd prefer that nobody does, to be entirely clear.

I want no one to pay them.

But I think that if some people are, then everybody should.

And I understand that this loses me points in the populist contest.

I get that.

I don't care.

I had this same view when I was broke.

I have it now when I'm not.

My view on this has not changed.

It's always been the same. You can check me on that.
I've always said this. And it's not going to change now.
If this burden is being put on Americans to pay an income tax where the government is coming in and taking your income from you before you even spend it, it is not fair. It is immoral.
It is wrong to put that burden on some Americans and not others. If this is part of being an American, it shouldn't be.
But if it is, then that is a cross that we all should have to carry. And by the way, if we ever want to actually get rid of the income tax, which is what needs to happen, then, you know, because there are some people that have said, and I think this is the most rational argument for the people that are, this began with the conversation about Trump's plan to basically abolish the income tax for anyone making under $150,000 a year.
My point was, no, I don't want to abolish it just for them. I want to abolish it for everybody.
But if we're going to have it, then everyone should have to pay it. And I think a reasonable argument in favor of this is that, well, hey, this is a step.
This is an incremental step. And so let's get rid of the income tax for as many people as we can now and then work our way towards abolishing it completely.
I understand that argument in theory, but I don't think it works that way. I think that the more that the government can use it to choose winners and losers, the less likely it is that we're ever going to get rid of it.
Because if you're getting rid of it for certain groups, then those groups don't care anymore. I mean, they're not going to be calling for the abolition of the income tax.
So you get rid of the income tax for people under $150,000, then that means that all those people, any hope of any kind of popular uprising against the income tax is basically gone. Because a lot of the people that you need to be involved in that movement don't care anymore because they're not paying it.
And this, by the way, is one of the reasons why the government likes to do this. They like to manipulate people using the income tax.
And this is why, this is one of the reasons why we don't have a flat tax. Because if everyone is paying an equal amount, at least, well, not an equal amount, but if everyone is paying an equal percentage, then that just makes it all the more likely that people will band together across party lines even and rise up against the income tax.
It's just less likely to happen. So let's see.
I agree with you, Matt. Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income equally, no matter tax bracket.
And if it is this way with you paying your percentage, it's also your right to vote. If you're not participating in society and cannot prove paying taxes, you don't get to vote, even if you're a citizen.
Yeah, somebody posted this on X as a comment under one of my posts about it. I forget who posted it, but his point was that certain people are being saddled with an incredibly disproportionate amount of the burden to fund the government, and yet they don't get any more of a say over who runs the government.
And that is also unjust. If everyone has an equal vote, then everyone should pay an equal share of the income tax.
Again, if we have an income tax, because I'm pretty sure that nobody would support the alternative, which is that, okay, fine, not everyone has to pay the income tax, but if you don't pay it, you don't get to vote.

And then what ends up happening is that people who are not, and this is already the case now, but you've got people who can go and they can cast a vote and they can decide how

the money is being spent, but they're not paying into it.

So they get to have some say over the purse strings essentially, but they're not paying into it. So they get to have some say over the purse strings, essentially, but they're not putting anything into the purse.
So they're voting for other people's money to be spent on the things they want, but they are not putting money into it. And I don't know.
If we can call that system fair, then I think the word fair just has lost all meaning in my mind. America is on the comeback, but the culture war is not over.
That's why we're releasing episode one of our series, The Case for Derek Chauvin, tomorrow. If you want to be a part of the movement, fight for the truth, reason, and great storytelling, then it's time to become a Daily Wire Plus member.
Stream my show ad-free with exclusive content.

You're not going to find anywhere else. Get unlimited access to premium entertainment.

Connect with a community of thinkers, not followers. Watch anywhere, anytime on desktop and the Daily Wire Plus app for mobile and TV.
Join the fight at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we have another viral video that has, as they say, sparked conversation. And the conversation in this case is even more inane and mind-boggling than usual.
Before we get into any of that, let's start with the video. And what we're apparently seeing here is doorbell camera footage of an Amazon driver venting her frustration at one of her customers.
And I say apparently because it's the internet and you always have to account for the possibility that everything is fake. But even if it is fake, the reaction to the video has revealed that the dumbifying of our culture is continuing at a record pace.
Here's a video. in this whole neighborhood.
You're inconsiderate. You're full of shit.
I hate everything about y'all.

I hate it. All you have to do is order the store from Walmart pickup or Central pickup or whatever

and go put the shit in your own truck and go do it yourself. You are the laziest sons of shit ever.

And if people bring this shit, we break our backs, we break our necks, we break our nails,

we break everything to bring you this shit. If you're ungrateful to shit, I hope you know that.

Thank you. We break our backs, we break our necks, we break our nails, we break everything to bring you delivery driver is very upset at an Amazon customer for ordering things to be delivered.
This is a woman who went online and applied for a job as an Amazon driver, waited for a callback, did at least one interview, we can assume, took employee training, went through the orientation process, went through the whole laborious process of getting a job delivering packages, only to then fly off the handle and have a temper tantrum when she discovers that her job delivering packages would involve delivering packages. Now, in a rational society, there wouldn't be much to talk about here.
She is cussing out a customer for using the service that she signed up to work for. She is angry because she has to do the job she applied to do.
So she is 100,000% in the wrong. She is completely and totally out of line, and she should be fired immediately.
And I don't say that lightly, taking away someone's job, but yeah, if you're treating customers like that, you need to be fired. And that's what we would all say if we lived in a rational society, but we don't live in that kind of society, which means that there have been many comments taking this driver's side somehow.
Let me read just a few of them. First one says, nah, I've seen people order stuff all day just to have it delivered.
They're home and just being lazy. I've seen houses with Amazon, Instacart, Uber Eats all delivering at the same time, and they've been home all day doing nothing.
So I understand that it's this Amazon driver. People take advantage of it from ordering water and it's heavy as F.
Another one says, as a former delivery driver, I agree with her. Stop ordering 12 cases of water, dog food, and cat food.
Unless you're elderly or disabled, go to the grocery store like everyone else. Another one says, replies in here remind me of how people used to make arguments for how slaves got jobs and were fed.

Stop being lazy and go get your own stuff.

This lady is dropping off 12 boxes to a rich upper middle class house.

She's right. People are the worst.

Sorry, Matt, I'm taking her side on this one.

I despise these people who order everything online.

Online order does have its downsides like making people more lazier and isolated.

Very inhuman. No, y'all really be crappy customers, point blank.
Y'all think because someone signed up for that job, this is what they should expect, especially the mother effers that don't want you to park in the driveway or walk in the grass, inconsiderate as F. That's just a sampling.
Their argument, if you can call it an argument argument Is that people are lazy And they order too many things to be delivered Now this is fine and mostly true As a general observation of American culture We could talk about, you know, the value Like having everything delivered Not leaving your house Is that good for society? Is that good for a person? Fine. But it doesn't make sense as a complaint from a delivery driver.
You cannot complain about consumer habits that keep you employed. You certainly can't complain about them to the consumers themselves.
I mean, it's like if I walked into Cold Stone Creamery and the guy behind the counter screamed at me for buying sugary junk food.

And he screamed at me for buying sugary junk food. And he screamed, what do you want? Are you here for ice cream? Is that what you want, you big fatty? I mean, yes, he'd be correct that the food is sugary and unhealthy, but the problem is that his whole job is to serve sugary, unhealthy food.
If you really object to it that much, get another job. If you've chosen a livelihood that depends on customers using a certain good or service, you cannot resent the customers who use that good or service.
Or at least if you do resent them, keep it to yourself and find a new job. Now, as customers, of course, we've grown accustomed to this attitude from the representatives of the businesses that we patronize.
To participate in the modern economy is to be treated like absolute filth by the people whose wages you are subsidizing. I mean, we're all so used to this.
It's like Stockholm syndrome as customers. We've grown so used to it, you don't even complain about it anymore.
When your customer service treats you like total dirt, they hate you, they hate your guts, they hate everything about you. They're not even trying to hide it.
And as customers, we all just walk around like, okay, yeah, I deserve it. You're right.
How dare I? I mean, I saw the sign said open. And so in because I, the store exists and it's open and I need stuff that's inside the store.
And so that's why I'm here, but I'm so sorry. Nevermind.
Nevermind. Customer service is abysmal.
It's never been worse. It basically no longer exists.
As a customer, you are constantly encountering customer service representatives who openly despise you for purchasing a product or service from them. They signed up to do a job, but they hate you for making them actually do it.
Because in their ideal world, apparently, the company they work for would get no business, and yet they would stay employed indefinitely and even get regular raises. If they have to actually do anything at their job, they feel persecuted.
But if there's nothing to do because the business dries up and they lose their jobs, they'll also feel persecuted. If Amazon customers heeded that delivery driver's demands and stopped constantly ordering stuff online, it would mean that thousands, thousands of Amazon drivers would be laid off immediately.
People like that who order everything online, they get multiple deliveries a day. Those people are keeping thousands of these drivers employed.
If they stopped doing that, they would all be laid off. And she would certainly be one of them if she hasn't been fired already.
And then she'd be back on camera angrily ranting about how she lost her job. So she wants to have her cake and eat it and then complain that she's eating it and then complain when someone takes it away so that she can't eat it.
This attitude and the prevalence of this attitude seems confusing until you realize what lies at the bottom of it. Underneath all of the people bitterly complaining about having to do a job they signed up to do is something that we've talked about a lot on this show, namely a denial of the necessity and inevitability of work.
This is a common attitude shared by many people today. Fundamentally, they believe that they shouldn't have to work at all.
And that's why they have this attitude. On the show, we've reacted to many videos of people making exactly this claim explicitly.
They believe that they are actually entitled to do no work of any kind and yet still magically somehow have the money and resources to live comfortably and carefree forever. The Amazon driver is angry about doing the job she applied to do because it is a job.
She would be angry about any job, right? That's the thing. We all know that too.
She could get another. It's not that, well, she feels this way because Amazon drivers are treated poorly.
We all know that if she gets another job somewhere else, she'll have exactly that attitude anywhere, anywhere in any job at any salary level. We all know that.
And that's why she sees no point in quitting and finding something else, because if it's a job that requires her to do something, she will hate it. Because what she really wants to do and what she feels entitled to do is nothing.
Nothing at all. She wants to do nothing and still survive and even thrive.
But she can't, and that's what makes her angry. And this is why it's so important to instill in our children a simple truth from an early age, that you will work, everyone must work, you must do some kind of work, all human life is, always has been, and always will be sustained through work.
That doesn't always mean you have to have a nine to five job and a W-2. If you're a woman, maybe you'll marry a man who's willing and able to be the breadwinner.
But even then, you have to work still, take care of the house, take care of the kids. That's work.
Everyone has to work. And if you refuse, you will either die or you'll be a leech living off of the work of others.
Even then, work is still sustaining you. It's just that you're not taking part in the work that makes your life possible, which is dehumanizing both to you and to the people that you're forcing to work on your behalf.
Now, I've given this speech many times on the show. You can only imagine how many times I've given it to my own kids.
And that's because I don't want them to end up dejected and resentful and whiny like the woman in that video. The way to avoid that is to drill it into their minds that life is work, life requires work, work sustains life, and therefore work is good.
You may as well just accept it and be happy about it. Because even if you don't accept it and aren't happy about it, it will still be the case.
You will not escape this reality. You will just be miserable within this reality.
And you'll still be working. Just working badly.
And sadly. And that's the road that this delivery driver has chosen.
And that is why she is today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day. Godspeed.