President Trump will become the first president to address the March For Life in person. It's great that he's doing this, but it also highlights the cowardice of previous Republican presidents, who preferred to hide in the White House rather than come outside and acknowledge the pro-life movement. But as significant as this moment will be, there is something far more significant Trump could do: defund Planned Parenthood. Also, are stay-at-home moms engaged in a white supremacist conspiracy? That's the theory put forward by a PhD student. We'll discuss.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Bernie Sanders, reacting to a report about the median American rent payment rising by 60% since 1960, sent out a tweet yesterday saying, So here's all I'm going to say about that.
I read that and I thought, you know, maybe at this point, It would be easiest if Bernie would just provide a list of the things he doesn't want to control.
Just give us that list.
Because I've lost track of all the stuff he wants to control.
That list is far too long, and we could never keep track of all of it.
So, maybe if he could just make a list saying, okay, this is what I won't try to control, and then we can assume that everything not on that list Uh, is, is under his jurisdiction.
So what would that list consist of?
That's what I tried to figure out.
If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were to make a list of the things they don't want any control over, what would it be?
It'd be a very short list indeed.
Um, well of course the first thing they would put on there is, is the border.
They don't want to control that.
Government spending.
Don't want to control that.
A woman's right to kill her babies.
Don't want to control that.
And I guess that pretty much is it.
I think that's it.
That's the entire list.
Three things.
Everything else, though, is for them.
So, glad we got that cleared up.
Alright, let's talk about some good news for a change.
Good news that also has a negative spin to it.
So I will, of course, be talking about that as well, because that's what I do.
Every silver lining has a black cloud, as I always say.
So, President Trump has announced that he will speak at the March for Life, which is happening tomorrow in D.C.
He'll be the first president to ever speak at the March for Life.
47 years they've been doing this.
And they've been doing it every year.
It's in D.C., right where the president, of course, lives.
This will be the first time that a president will appear in person to speak.
So last year he was the first president to speak via video feed to the march.
Now it will be in person that he'll give his address.
And this is going to be a big moment, I think, for the movement, for the march.
But it also highlights, and you know, I think it has to be remarked upon, that March for Life has been happening for 47 years.
And there have been several Republican presidents in that time frame.
And none of them have deigned to come out and address the March for Life.
Not Reagan, not Bush 1, not Bush 2.
I mean, they hid in the White House, probably under their beds, cowering as half a million pro-lifers marched right outside their door, refusing to come out and acknowledge these people in person.
Now, that would be unthinkable in the reverse for Democrats.
Can you imagine 500,000 pro-abortion demonstrators Well, can you imagine 500,000 pro-abortion demonstrators in general?
You can't, because just the pro-abortion movement could never get that kind of turnout.
They especially could never get it in a sustained way.
I guess if you want to say the Women's March in 2016 was basically a pro-abortion march, which it was, but that has been, as we talked about a few days ago, that's been dwindling into irrelevance just in the span of a few years.
Can you imagine pro-abortion demonstrators every year, 500,000 of them, showing up in D.C., and yet no Democrat president addresses them?
Imagine 500,000 pro-abortion demonstrators gathering in D.C.
every year during Obama's term, and Obama refuses to come out and talk to them for fear of what his political opponents might say.
No, that would never happen.
You can't even imagine it.
But that's what happened with Republican presidents for 47 years, and for Reagan and Bush and Bush, that will be a point of shame for them always.
I'm not saying that it defines their presidency, but it is something that will always be a mark, a stain on their records, in my view.
So it's great that Trump is putting an end to that, finally, and this is...
One of the things that people like about Donald Trump is that he's not gonna be concerned about it.
Whatever the other Republican presidents were worried about, which is hard for me to even figure out, you know, you're Republican, they already know that you're supposedly pro-life, they hate you for that as it is.
They're not gonna hate you any more or less if you show up at the March for Life, so you might as well show up for your own base.
But whatever calculation those other Republican presidents had made, how concerned they were with how people will react to it, Trump is not concerned about that.
I mean, you think about what he's done.
The first year, he had Mike Pence show up.
He was the first vice president to speak.
Then last year, he did the video feed, and he was the first president to do that.
And now this year, he's showing up himself in person.
What this administration realizes To some extent, is something that I've been saying forever, that a lot of us have been saying forever, which is that the pro-life issue is a winner.
It's not just a winner because it's morally and ethically correct.
It is a moral and ethical winner, obviously.
Scientifically, it's a winner.
It's the winning side.
Historically, it will be seen as the winning side.
But not to use the wrong side of history cliche, but indeed, the people in favor of infanticide are on the wrong side of history.
It's also a political winner.
There's no reason to be politically afraid of it, to hide from it, to cower in the corner, because our message, our argument, is that you shouldn't kill babies.
Human life is precious, and you shouldn't disregard it, and discard it, and destroy it.
That's our whole argument.
It is the definition of a winning argument.
And the frustrating thing is that to whatever extent this argument has failed to win the day, which it has ultimately failed to win the day, but that's largely because we've been afraid of making the argument.
See, a winning argument is useless if you're afraid to make it.
You have to be willing to make the argument.
Now you can disagree with the argument, a lot of people do, but our position is not one to be embarrassed by.
The opportunity to talk about this and make this argument should be something that any Republican politician is jumping at.
They should be fighting with each other, they should be clawing at each other for an opportunity to speak on the stage of the March for Life.
I mean, just from a political perspective alone, to have that opportunity to be there talking to a group of hundreds of thousands of people, young people mostly, women, mostly female, mostly young, to be able to talk to—excited, you know, and energetic—to be able to talk to this crowd about the issue of saving babies from being killed, I mean, Again, you could not ask for a more winning point.
And it's something that we should put front and center.
We're not the ones who should be embarrassed by it.
We're not the ones who should be embarrassed or ashamed of our position on this issue.
And I say that with all the so-called social issues.
Gender is the other big one.
This is a winner.
The argument that men are men and women are women and that men shouldn't be in women's locker room and men shouldn't be competing against women in track and field and wrestling and MMA It's a winning argument.
There's nothing that can be said on the other side of it.
We have all the points in our favor.
But if we are not winning the argument, it's just because we're not making our argument.
You could have a really good point.
There could be someone screaming at you and saying a bunch of nonsense.
And you could have the most devastating rebuttal possible.
But it won't amount to anything if you don't say it.
If you sit there silently, whimpering and crying, then you're not going to win.
So that's why we should be proud of our position on this subject, because it's sane, it's moral, it's rational.
It's the other side that should be embarrassed and ashamed, and Trump realizes that, which is to his credit.
But that realization is not complete, because speaking at the march is Awesome.
And I think it will be a milestone moment.
But the most significant thing Trump could do, the main thing that past Republican presidents refused to do with respect to the pro-life issue, is to defund Planned Parenthood.
Speaking is great.
Speeches are fine.
That stuff is important.
Using the bully pulpit of the presidency to make the case for life is really, really important.
And it's meaningful.
But money talks, right?
Money talks more than words do, most of the time.
And so far, every Republican administration, every Republican Congress, Including the Republican Congress that we had for the first two years of Trump's presidency, and including the Trump administration, every single one has chosen to continue sending half a billion dollars a year to the abortion industry, to the billion-dollar conglomerate that kills 300,000 kids every year.
Every Republican presidency, every Republican Congress has chosen to do that, and this has so far not been an exception.
Every time you read about a spending bill being signed, and there was just another one last week.
Trump signed another big spending bill.
Trillion dollar boondoggle.
Every time you read that, this is the Republicans actively funding the abortion industry.
It's not a passive thing.
It's not like it's happening against their will.
The funding for Planned Parenthood is in that bill.
And they are passing it along and then signing it and saying, yes, let's give $500,000 or $500 million, excuse me, $500 million to the abortion industry.
But Trump still has a year left in his term.
He still has a year to send the message to Congress that he will not sign a spending bill that funds Planned Parenthood.
This would be a great thing for him to say tomorrow.
I mean, this would be, you want to go out with a bang?
And you want to have that speech really mean something?
This is something he could say tomorrow.
He could announce that he pledges to defund Planned Parenthood with the final year of this term.
And he's not going to sign any spending bill that has even a dime going to the abortion industry.
He could do that.
Now, it would have been a lot easier to do back when Republicans controlled Congress.
Back when we had both chambers of Congress and the presidency, could have easily done it then.
Easily.
But the Republicans didn't care to do it.
Now you can do it.
Now, are Democrats going to go along with it?
Of course not.
But the Republicans could come up with a spending bill that doesn't include funding for Planned Parenthood.
Democrats would need to sign off on it.
They're going to refuse.
We know that's how it will go.
They shut down the government.
If they want to do that, if Democrats want to force a government shutdown in order to protect the half a billion dollar welfare payment to the abortion industry, in order to protect the gift that they give to their own donors in the abortion industry, if they want to do that, let them do it.
Let them take that argument to the public.
This is an argument, again, that we should want to have.
Yes, definitely.
Let's have the government shut down.
Let's have a news cycle about this.
You get out there in front of cameras, Democrats, and you explain to the public why you are not willing to let the government even function unless the abortion industry gets its $500 million.
There are still plenty of people in this country, I'm willing to bet, who don't even know First of all, don't know that we're giving money to Planned Parenthood.
And of the people who do know that we're doing that, many of them, as mind-boggling as this is, many of them don't even know that Planned Parenthood does abortions.
They've done surveys on this.
There are tons of people out there who don't even know Planned Parenthood does abortions.
And if they do know it, many of them probably still buy this nonsense about, oh, it's only 3% of what they do, which is a total absolute lie.
Not even close to true.
The vast majority of their non-governmental, non-tax income is from abortions.
The vast majority.
I think it's something like 40% total.
Including the governmental income or something like that, but it's a vast majority of their non-governmental income is from, um, is from abortions.
So, but this is, see, this is the case we could make.
If this is what we're talking about, if this is what the news cycle is about, let's talk about it.
See, the Democrats don't want to do that.
That's the last thing Democrats want to do.
They want to fund Planned Parenthood.
And just that's it.
Fund it and move on and not talk about it.
That's what they want.
You think they want to defend it?
You think they want to actually talk about what Planned Parenthood does?
You think they want to acknowledge publicly that they themselves as Democrat politicians receive millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood in donations?
You think they want to talk about how this is basically a money laundering operation for them?
Where they send money over to Planned Parenthood and then Planned Parenthood sends money back to them in the form of donations?
You think they want to talk about that?
No, they don't.
So, let's force the conversation.
I see no downside.
I don't see one.
What's the downside?
Some government workers, you know, have their paychecks delayed for a few weeks.
I understand it's an inconvenience, I do.
But this is an inconvenience that's worth the cost.
All right, now a word from LifeLock.
If you want a New Year's resolution that's easy to keep, you can resolve to help protect your identity and personal info with LifeLock Identity Theft Protection.
LifeLock alerts you to potential threats to your identity.
They see more than what you can see by just monitoring your own credit.
You know, this is something we should be doing, of course, and you should sort of be on top of that, but there's a lot that you can't see.
Like info on the dark web, for example.
And if you have a problem, LifeLock's U.S.-based restoration specialists know the steps to take to help resolve your case.
After all, only one in five identity theft victims who had accounts open in their name discovered their theft through a bank or credit card company.
And you think about all the others who didn't find out.
Of course, no one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but LifeLock is the New Year's resolution that's not only easy to keep, it'll help you protect what you've worked so hard for.
This is the most fundamental thing, right?
It's like your identity.
This is who you are.
And somebody can come in and take that, take that from you.
Well, if you want to stop that from happening, Think about all the things that we protect.
Well, this is something that we need to protect.
Get LifeLock for up to 25% off your first year.
Go to LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for up to 25% off.
Okay, did you know that there's a Taylor Swift documentary film coming to Netflix?
If you didn't know, I feel like you should because it's... I'm certainly looking forward to it.
The trailer for this Taylor Swift documentary was released yesterday.
Taylor Swift fans are really excited about it.
It is, it's noticeable, or notable I should say, because it is quite, quite possibly the most insufferable thing you will ever witness in your life.
And that's just the trailer for this thing.
I can only imagine what the actual movie is.
But here's a little bit of the trailer.
Check this out.
Throughout my whole career, label executives would just say, a nice girl doesn't force their opinions on people.
A nice girl smiles and waves and says thank you.
I became the person everyone wanted me to be.
I think that Taylor Swift, she is annoying.
All of her model friends.
She's too skinny.
Nobody physically saw me for a year.
And that was what I thought they wanted.
I had to deconstruct an entire belief system.
Toss it out and reject it.
It woke me up from constantly feeling like I was fighting for people's respect.
I saw the scoreboard and ran for my life.
It was happiness without anyone else's input.
It's been a long time coming but you and me, that's not wrong.
I want to do this.
I need to be on the right side of history.
Taylor Swift broke her silence on politics over the weekend.
So this is basically self-importance, the movie.
That's what this is.
And the whole plot, or point, is Taylor Swift heroically, courageously deciding to break her silence and let the world know that she's a leftist.
That's what it is.
We're supposed to be in awe of her courage.
Of her courage that she, a celebrity, in a left-wing industry, in the midst of a left-wing pop culture, with the left-wing media, she was willing to take a very popular stance, a very popular political position, one that would be sure to receive applause and adulation and would make all of her friends happy.
Wow.
What heroism.
What incredible heroism.
I am, I'm stunned by it, personally.
To be rich and famous, a celebrity, and then on top of that, to come out and say popular things that everybody around you is going to applaud, and most of your fans will like.
I don't know if I could do it.
I don't know if I would have the wherewithal for something like that.
Speaking of heroism, Becca Lewis is a PhD student, apparently, and she also has a large social media following for whatever reason.
She took a rather heroic stance against stay-at-home moms the other day.
She was reacting to a tweet from BBC Talkback, which said, let me pull it up, so the tweet from BBC said, we will introduce you to a trad wife.
A young woman who has chosen to be a traditional wife, staying at home to take care of the household chores while her husband works.
And she is fine with submitting to her husband as he makes the key decisions in their lives.
That was the tweet.
Talking about stay-at-home moms who are basically culturally conservative and take that approach and live that kind of lifestyle.
Becca Lewis responds, who needs YouTube rabbit holes when you have the BBC
broadcasting literal white supremacist propaganda?
And then she follows that up with, for those in my comments who don't seem to know,
so-called trad wives are white supremacist women who devote themselves to domestic duties
in the service of perpetuating the white race.
It is a dog whistle meant to sound less white supremacist than it is.
So stay at home moms are perpetuating the white race.
That's what drives them.
And she's got a point, actually, because... I can tell you, my wife's a stay-at-home mom, and... I can't tell you the amount of times she's come up to me and said stuff like, you know, I have to go do the laundry in order to perpetuate the white race.
And it always seemed a little weird to me.
But now that I think about it, I guess it might explain why she gets so mad when I put lights in with darks.
I don't know.
Maybe that's...
Now it's all coming together.
Or maybe actually this argument from Becca Lewis is crazy.
Maybe.
Crazy for too many reasons to count, but let's start with the fact that this is one of those things that to try to break it down and explain what's wrong, there's no way to fully capture the craziness.
But let's start with the fact that white Western culture has been leading the charge away from this kind of lifestyle.
So, a family that decides to live this lifestyle, a woman who decides to stay home with her kids, which I call it a lifestyle, making it sound like some exotic, strange thing, which in our culture it sort of is, and that's the point.
But really, it's not exotic or strange at all.
It's very simple.
People have been doing it for... This is how families have functioned, many families, since time immemorial, since the dawn of human civilization.
But... It's white Western culture, specifically and especially and primarily, that has been rebelling against this.
So, a woman who decides to stay home with the kids and be a stay-at-home mom, she is...
Living a lifestyle that is very similar to non-white cultures.
So this is a lot more, this is still the common way of living in many non-white societies.
And what about them?
Are they white supremacists?
I wonder.
See, that's the thing that, and you find this a lot with the left, where they criticize Conservative views.
Conservative lifestyle choices.
They criticize that.
And they try to pin it, they always try to make it into a racist thing somehow.
As tortured as that argument needs to be, they try to make it into a racist thing.
Meanwhile, in so many parts of the world, in non-white parts of the world, what they're criticizing is the norm.
And so every dismissive and insulting thing they're saying about these white people, they're actually saying about non-white people more so.
But of course, what we know is that when you find this from feminists especially, this hostility to stay-at-home moms, it's such a bizarre thing, first of all, to be hostile to it.
If you don't want to live that way, you don't have to.
A woman who's at home with her kids and is doing the laundry and cooking and taking care of the house and performing a, I won't even call it a job.
I think sometimes you hear people say, in an effort to defend stay-at-home moms, they say, oh no, that's a job.
It's more than, it's bigger than a job.
It's not merely a job.
It's bigger than that, deeper than that, right?
But the people that are doing this, like my wife, they're not hurting anybody.
Even if you disagree with it.
Even if, for whatever reason, you think it's a horrible way to live.
I don't know, can't understand why, but it's not hurting you.
It's not attacking you.
All this stuff you hear from the left about, oh, we have to respect people's lifestyle choices.
Yeah, it's completely bogus, of course.
Because here you have a lifestyle choice that is not hurting anybody, and has definite benefits that can't be denied.
Stay-at-home mom.
They're there with their kids.
They're able to be a greater influence on their kids' lives because they are there and present more often.
There's obviously going to be benefits to that.
And yet you are offended by it.
Well, we know where that stems from.
It stems primarily from a discomfort and insecurity with your own lifestyle choices.
You recognize, maybe at some level, All right, more to discuss, but first let's check in with Paint Your Life.
And so you feel attacked by it because you are insecure about the choices that you have
made.
And it turns out you're not so pro-choice after all.
All right, more to discuss, but first let's check in with Paint Your Life.
You know, when I first heard about Paint Your Life and how they could turn any photo into
a work of art, I first thought, okay, well, this must be a computer thing.
Like one of those Photoshop things you can do where you take a picture and make it look like it's a painting.
And then I found out that no, it's actually a real painting, world-class artist painting by hand.
So then my next thought was, and I'm a pessimist if you hadn't noticed, my next thought was, okay, well, then it must be ridiculously expensive.
But no, wrong again, very affordable, real art done by real artists.
If you want to give then a truly meaningful gift, you've got to try PaintYourLife.com.
You can have an original painting of yourself, your children, your family, special place, a cherished pet at a price you can afford from PaintYourLife.com.
This is a true painting done by hand by a world-class artist created from a favorite photo.
I've done this myself.
It's a very easy process on your end anyway.
All you do is send them the picture, they get to work on it, and they'll communicate with you so that you can see the progress and you can have input on specializing it or personalizing it, customizing it in whatever way you want.
So it's a very easy process, very hands-on.
They're very, very responsive during the process because they know that what they're making is something that's very personal and important to you and they want to get it right.
There's no risk.
If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded.
It's as simple as that.
And right now as a limited time offer, get 30% off your painting.
That's right.
30% off and free shipping to get this special offer.
Text the word Matt to 64,000.
That's Matt to 64,000.
M A T T to 64,000.
64,000 that's Matt to 64,000 MATT to 64,000 All right, we're gonna do emails I
Actually, before emails, I saw this story about a... There's a 111-day cruise that's going to be taking off soon.
Or maybe it's already taken off.
111-day cruise.
111 days on a cruise ship.
I guess some of those days will be on land for day trips, but I mean, still, 111 days.
Now, if you've ever been on a cruise, You know how they go, right?
On a five-day cruise, you'll gain easily 10 pounds and spend 500 bucks on alcohol because the drinks are expensive, obviously, very expensive, but they get you because you don't have to pay up front for the drinks.
The food is included, but most of the time the drinks are not, but they don't want you to have to pay.
Because then you'll probably be more eager to moderate what you're buying.
So they give you a nice little, a fun little card.
It doesn't even look like a credit card.
It's just a little card.
And every time you get a drink, you hand them a card.
And they just scan it.
And then they hand it back to you.
And it's real quick, real easy.
And then at the end of the trip, they leave the bill under your door.
Showing you all the times and then you start thinking, oh, you know what?
Maybe I shouldn't have bought margaritas for everybody at the bar that one time.
Turns out that wasn't a good idea.
So, and then there's the food, you know, um, nonstop food, food all over the place, including an overnight buffet.
They're going to have like a pizza and ice cream buffet overnight, opens at midnight, runs all night.
And, uh, and then during the day there's just food everywhere.
And the food is free, so you eat and you eat and you eat, and by the time you stop in Jamaica, they have to actually lift you off of the cruise ship on a forklift, and then bring you down to the street and just roll your rotund body down the street while people stop and try to sell you weed, because this is Jamaica and that's what they do with tourists.
Now, just imagine 111 days of that.
You'll be 850 pounds by the end of it, in need of a liver transplant, Financially destitute.
But it does sound fun.
I have to admit.
Fun and also somewhat terrible.
So let's go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Brian.
Says, I've been a listener of the show for a while now.
Haven't felt compelled to email previously, but after listening to your take on billionaires, I felt obligated to do so.
I tend to agree with most things you say, so I was very surprised to hear your take on billionaires.
First, you almost lost me when you said that many companies essentially use slave labor.
I would love to see legitimate examples of this.
Even your statement that low-wage workers are often exploited by big corporations reeks of liberalism.
What is exploitative about offering somebody money in exchange for doing a service and allowing them to freely go elsewhere to make more money if they desire?
Additionally, your statements that someone owning a large house, private planes, and multiple cars is grotesque and immoral is in direct conflict with your usual libertarian views.
Consider a significantly obese man that you see sitting at McDonald's eating three Big Macs and fries.
Does it become the responsibility of you or the government to inform that man that he is grotesque and immoral?
I look forward to hearing your rebuttals on the show tomorrow.
Thanks, Brian.
the immorality of the situation when just juxtaposed with the situation of somebody living on the street freezing to
death.
By that logic, you should open your home to one of those individuals and allow them to crash on your couch.
I'm sure there's square footage in your home that you don't use all the time,
so by your own logic it becomes immoral for you to possess it.
I look forward to hearing your rebuttals on the show tomorrow. Thanks, Brian. Okay, Brian, um,
I'm glad that you sent this because it is exactly, exactly the attitude, the approach from conservatives that
I was cautioning against.
This is a precise illustration of what I was talking about.
What you're demonstrating here, in my opinion, is exactly the wrong way to go about this.
Because you are recoiling at the very thought that workers are being exploited anywhere And especially that it could ever be immoral to hoard wealth and luxury.
You're saying or you seem to be saying that there's no moral problem at all with somebody owning eight houses and 20 cars and a boat and a plane and while other people are living in the gutter.
Now, I think that that's just a mistake.
So let's go through this one at a time.
First of all, I didn't say that many companies use slave labor.
I said that some have.
Which is true.
You want an example?
Take Nike.
Colin Kaepernick's employer.
They infamously have used sweatshop labor.
Yes, and I think that using sweatshops in a third-world country is essentially using slave labor.
Some companies have done this.
Some companies still do this.
Okay, do you deny it?
Well, you can't deny it.
It's a fact that it has happened and does happen.
Are you going to defend using slave labor?
Are you going to defend sweatshops now?
I don't think you want to do that.
Are you going to defend companies going to third world countries and exploiting impoverished families instead of employing Americans at a decent wage?
Why would you defend that?
It's a crazy thing to defend.
As far as workers being exploited, again, it does happen.
I'm not saying it always happens or that every worker is exploited.
That's what AOC was saying.
I'm not saying that.
But it does happen.
Unless you want to deny and say that it never happens.
So, what you're doing here seems to me is an extreme... This is not really capitalism.
This is an extreme form of corporatism.
Or consumerism.
It's not capitalism.
It's not even really libertarianism.
This is like a defend rich people at all costs.
And it's just, it's unnecessary, and it's wrong, and it's unwise.
I think.
You say that my view reeks of liberalism.
Well, to be honest with you, I don't care.
I'm not worried about having my opinions line up perfectly with conservative doctrine.
I don't care about that.
When somebody I get these emails sometimes.
When I venture outside of the conservative camp a little bit on some issue, I always get, oh, you sound like a liberal!
Alright, I don't care.
It really doesn't matter to me.
Rather than label the point of view that I'm expressing, just respond to it.
Give a counter-argument.
but labeling it is not a response.
And, you know, I spent the first whole part of the show going through and attempting to dismantle
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's absurd socialist rhetoric about how all billionaires are greedy,
evil, lazy exploiters.
That was my whole point.
I spent 15 minutes on it, refuting that view.
I explained why it isn't true.
It may be true sometimes.
Yes.
Well, it's probably never true that a successful businessman is lazy.
So what she was talking about, how they sit on the couch and do nothing, that's completely absurd.
I don't think there's any successful businessman anywhere who's lazy.
Those are two things that tend to be mutually exclusive.
But greedy and exploitative?
Sure.
Yeah.
I mean, yes, there are rich, successful businessmen and CEOs and companies that are greedy and exploitative, of course.
So why deny it, again, is my question.
Well, I think I know why.
Because then you start talking about how people have a right to buy what they want, and we can't have the government come in and tell people what they can and can't buy, and how much money they can make.
I agree.
That's my whole point.
I went into great detail making that exact point yesterday, and many other days besides.
I absolutely agree that the government cannot put itself in a position of saying, nobody is allowed to make X amount of money.
Here's the limit, you can't make more than that.
Or, here's how many houses you can buy, you can't buy more than that.
I agree with you on that.
I said that specifically multiple times yesterday.
That was my whole point for the first 15 minutes.
So when I say that something is immoral, that doesn't automatically mean that I'm saying the government should get involved.
If I think the government should get involved, I'll say it.
And I have no compunction about that, as we know from talking about the porn issue.
I said, I think the government should get involved.
And I made my argument for it.
You can disagree or agree, but I'm going to say it.
I'm going to be very explicit about it.
See, people struggle with this these days for some reason.
It's like anytime you call something immoral or say that anything is bad, it's automatically assumed by both sides that you're advocating for government solutions.
So the response, anytime you make an argument that such and such is bad, the response is always, well, people have a right to do that.
I didn't say they didn't have a right to do it.
I'm just saying it's bad.
I'm saying it's wrong.
You may have a right to do something that's wrong, but it doesn't mean that it's not wrong.
And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out that it's wrong.
You know, government solutions, and talking about how something is immoral, and then talking about government solutions, those two things are not automatically paired.
They're not the same.
Yes, it is immoral, I think, for somebody to be greedy and excessive and overindulgent.
It's true that nobody needs a 15-bedroom house, and probably nobody should own one.
If the word overindulgent and greedy means anything, it must apply to that.
If you're going to tell me that's not greedy and overindulgent, then I'm going to ask you, what the hell is?
Or are you claiming that nothing is?
That it's impossible for someone to be greedy?
It is grotesque and opulent, and if you have the money for that kind of thing, you should be donating.
And I'm not saying that if you have a 15-bedroom house, you should have just homeless people move into your home.
I'm saying, rather than buying a house like that, that extra money that it sounds like you have to just burn and waste on your own vanity, probably should be better used somewhere else with someone who can use it.
And I'm not saying you just go to the city and throw cash around.
I'm saying, you know, find a, uh, Smart and prudent way of helping others.
I mean, can you really disagree?
If you have enough money to buy a tenth car, maybe instead of that tenth car, you should give it to the poor.
That's what I'm saying.
Am I wrong?
Are you arguing that no, actually, the morally preferable thing is to buy the car?
Or that it's neutral?
There's no moral quality to it whatsoever?
Of course not.
Is it morally superior to spend your excess capital on a 20,000-square-foot house rather than giving the extra money to people who need it and settling for a modest, I don't know, 5,000-square-foot house?
If you have a moral argument, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think you can.
At least, if you're going to make a moral argument, it would have to be very, it would have to be an amoral argument.
It would have to be a nihilistic, like, well, do, you know, hedonistic, nihilistic, do what you want, drink for tomorrow, we will die, type of argument.
But if you have any kind of sense of objective morality, and certainly if you're a Christian, there's definitely no way of getting around what I'm saying here.
Um, your argument about the government not getting involved is irrelevant, because I agree, and I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying it's something people, uh, shouldn't do.
Should the government stop them?
No, but they shouldn't do it.
I think people should be more charitable and giving.
Should be.
Do you disagree?
Probably not.
I mean, I assume you probably agree.
People should be charitable and giving.
Should the government force it if people decide not to be charitable and giving?
No.
I'm just saying this is what people should do.
The guy eating his third Big Mac.
He shouldn't be eating three Big Macs.
Yes, that is overindulgent, that is gluttonous, that is self-destructive, and it's disgusting.
And he shouldn't be eating three Big Macs.
Should the government stop him from eating the third Big Mac?
No.
But he shouldn't be doing it.
And we should probably be sending the message as a culture that you shouldn't eat three Big Macs.
That's a good message to send.
So part of advocating for freedom, if you're going to have a pro-freedom message, you need to have a moral message, too, as well, to go along with it.
It can't just be people should be able to do whatever they want.
It should be people should have freedom, and here is what we ought to be doing with that freedom.
You're positioning it as though we have to choose between a pro-freedom message and a moral message, as if we can't have both.
And this is the thing that's endlessly frustrating for me about conservatives these days.
This seems to be the...
That's an attitude that a lot of conservatives have now, and it's completely asinine.
I mean, I don't mean to be too harsh about it, but this idea that all we can do is talk about freedom, and you can do whatever you want, and we're never allowed to say, you can do what you want, but here's what you should be doing, and here's what you should not be doing.
I think that's a huge mistake.
And to be ceding the moral ground to the left is a huge mistake.
And for them to be the only ones talking about greed, the only ones pointing out that, hey, you know, there are people, there are children living in the gutter, and so maybe you don't need to buy your tenth house.
Like, they shouldn't be the only ones making that point.
Especially because they do always pair it with government control.
So our response should be, you're right about the moral part, you're wrong on government control, here's why.
But we can't deny that they're right on the moral aspect of it when it comes to this.
All right, more emails to answer.
But first, let's talk about my friends at Rock Auto.
With the ever-increasing numbers of makes and models, it's now, you know, pretty impossible to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront, physical store, brick and mortar.
And so why endure a pointless or seemingly, you know, just never-ending litany of questions?
And you don't really, especially if you're not A total expert on cars.
I'm not.
You get all these questions.
And then at the end of the day, the guy at the counter is just going to order the parts on his computer anyway.
Why do that when you've got a computer probably sitting right in your pocket and you go to rockauto.com and just cut out the middleman?
One reason to repair and maintain your cars is to save money that you can then use for other important things like mortgage and food.
So why would you choose to spend 30%, 50%, 100% more for the exact same auto parts at the store when you could just go online and buy them?
Chain stores have different price tiers depending on if you're a professional or a do-it-yourselfer.
Rockauto.com though, it's the same price for everybody and it's always reliably low for everybody.
And you don't need a membership.
You can just go on, get what you need and leave.
It's really easy.
rockauto.com is a family business serving auto part customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They've got everything from engine control modules, brake parts, tail lamps, motor oil, carpeting for any kind of car that you have.
Whether it's a real nice classic car or the thing that you drive around every day.
Amazing selection.
Reliably low prices.
All the parts your car will ever need.
RockAuto.com.
Go to RockAuto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so that they know that we sent you.
This is from Brennan, says, oh wise and glorious Supreme Leader, I finished your January 22nd show and I was quite taken aback after listening to you ramble on about the issue of the rich exploiting the worker, then proceed to provide no solution whatsoever.
Please allow me some time to explain.
I would like to start by saying I agree with everything you said.
Just to paraphrase, the majority of relevant billionaires today did not make the money, or did not take the money, they earned it with hard work and innovation.
Some are also guilty of sinful overindulgence.
No one person or family needs a 20,000 square foot mansion, three yachts, two planes, et cetera.
The outsourcing of labor to sweat shops in China and using undocumented workers here at home is abhorrent.
And finally, yes, it is impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you cannot afford a pair of boots in the first place.
Yes, that is an accurate summation of my point.
Thank you.
Back to Brennan.
So what is your point?
We, well, that was, that was my point.
You just said my point.
Were you just trying to make your listeners aware that the world is unfair?
Okay, let's just assume we all knew that.
Were you trying to say that the billionaires who do these things are morally in the wrong?
Okay, fine, but let me ask you this.
What law did they break and what law would you implement to solve these problems?
Can you tell me anyone that was kidnapped and forced to work for Apple?
Should we pass a law that says Bezos cannot buy a fourth yacht?
See Matt, my point is, we can admit that these are unfortunate circumstances people are born into, and that it's morally unjustifiable for Zuckerberg to live in his castle, but there is not one single law you could present that would not itself be even more unjustifiable.
Sure, I would like it if Walmart paid its workers more, but at the end of the day, $8 an hour as a greeter is better than nothing, and these companies make that happen.
Well, Brendan, I've already covered much of this in my last response.
By the way, though, Walmart...
It actually is not an example at all, I think, of a company that exploits its workers.
They pay their workers pretty well.
It's one of the better companies in that regard.
Average salary for hourly workers is $14 an hour.
Not bad for full-time workers.
Store managers are comfortably in the six-figure range.
Lots of promotion from within.
The current CEO started as a part-time worker loading trucks at a Walmart warehouse back in the 80s.
So I think Walmart is a positive example.
As demonized as it is, it's actually a positive example, I think, a role model for other companies to follow.
As I said before, I am not advocating laws or government involvement.
I don't think the government can solve the problem of greed, nor should it try.
So what's my solution?
I don't have one.
I don't have a solution.
I don't think anybody does.
And this is going to sound strange, maybe, but I actually get a little annoyed sometimes by the insistence on solutions.
Because sometimes there isn't one.
And sometimes I feel like it's almost, it is almost, again, I know it sounds strange, but it's almost a dodge sometimes to say, oh, let's talk about solutions.
Because there isn't always a solution.
Sometimes we're talking about human nature.
And, you know, I might not have a way to solve it.
It's certainly not an easy solution.
Not a switch you can flip.
Not a five-point plan, like, let's do this, then this, and this, and then the problem's solved.
So maybe there isn't one.
But does that mean that there's no point in talking about it?
Are you saying that there's no point in ever talking about anything that cannot be solved?
I mean, well, you've certainly disqualified all of philosophy, for one thing.
Philosophy is all about talking about the nature of reality and of the human condition.
Not solutions-oriented, not because you're trying to solve it, but just because it is.
And we're talking about what is, and there's a real value to talking about what is and to understand what is.
So, you know, you say that, well, let's assume everybody knows.
Everyone doesn't know.
You heard my last email.
There are a lot of conservatives who would actually deny, and do deny, I think unwisely and absurdly, deny that there is really any real problem with workers being exploited or with greed and overindulgence and opulence and everything.
That is, in fact, denied.
And you just heard it.
I think to talk about it, just to emphasize and to explain that no, this does exist and it is a problem, I think there's value to that.
With something like this, I mean, what is the solution?
I guess I shouldn't say there's no solution, there is.
It's just, it's not a solution that can be implemented from the outside, is my point.
And no, there is not a governmental solution, really.
But the solution is, People just need to act differently, you know?
If we're talking about the greed of people who, you know, are materialistic and, you know, rather than helping the less fortunate are living lives of opulence and luxury.
Which, by the way, it's not just rich people that do that.
This is very much a vice now shared by lots of people in the middle class, myself included.
To some extent or another.
But what's the solution to that?
I mean, just be better.
Act differently.
Rather than being materialistic and greedy, think more about your fellow man.
That's the solution.
That's it.
I don't think there is any other one.
If you're saying, well, what if people don't want to make better choices?
Then what's the solution?
There isn't one.
I mean, we just go back to step one.
Make better choices.
They don't do that, then we go back and say again, make better choices.
That's all that we can do.
But does that mean we shouldn't talk about it?
No, I do not think it means that.
And let's see.
I guess we'll leave it there for today.
In fact, though, before we do, before we wrap up, If you're a regular listener, you know, we were just talking about the March for Life and Donald Trump speaking at the March for Life.
March for Life is tomorrow, by the way.
It's not too late.
If you live anywhere around D.C.
and you want to make plans to show up, I very much recommend it.
And, you know, the pro-life issue is something you've heard me talk about a lot because of how crucially important it is.
But we know that it's getting increasingly difficult.
We know it's most difficult, of course, for the babies that are being victimized and brutalized and killed.
And those who speak up on their behalf are increasingly punished.
We know that, you know, last year the left went further off the cliff, passing the New York state law that allows abortion up to birth, the Illinois state law allowing partial birth abortion.
So the left is getting more and more extreme, entrenching itself more and more on the side, on the pro-death side of things.
And in order to protect that position, they are trying to punish, and they're going after Us, for example, and they, you know, to try to shut us down, going after our advertisers.
And this is not unusual.
And we're not the only ones that go through it.
Live action is one of the biggest pro-life voices in the movement.
They continue to do some of the most important and crucial work in the movement, raising awareness, educating, you know, activism.
When we did that, the big rally in Philadelphia, back a few months ago, in response to the pro-lifers
who were being bullied there, live action, they took the reins, and once I went to them with it,
they took the reins and organized it, and so this is the kind of thing they do.
Along with undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood and so many other things.
They've been banned from advertising on Twitter for their calls to defund Planned Parenthood.
They've been banned from Pinterest altogether.
They've seen their advertising efforts thwarted on many other platforms as well.
This is why our DailyWire.com members are so important.
Your membership helps keep our cameras on and our microphones on so that we can spread the message of life.
And that is why from now until January 31st, a portion of any DailyWire.com membership will be donated to live action with promo code LIVEACTION.
Remember that promo code LIVEACTION?
And that way you can support awareness and education around the world on this very important issue.
So join dailywire.com and make your pro-life voice heard.
And we will leave it there.
To everyone who's going to the March for Life tomorrow, travel safe.
And to everyone else and those at the March, of course, Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Yesterday, President Trump announced that he would become the first president in American history to attend and address the March for Life, which is taking place as we speak.
We will examine how a man who once called himself, quote, very pro-choice, became the most pro-life president in American history.
Then, Democrat impeachment manager Adam Schiff accidentally explains why Democrats are so eager to oust Trump before November, as the impeachment trial enters its agonizing second day.
And Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for defamation because we are living in the greatest timeline.
