All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 2, 2024 - The Matt Walsh Show
58:58
Ep. 1455 - How Dirty Union Greed Is Holding The American People Hostage
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, there are multiple major catastrophes unfolding across the country and the world as we come to the final days of the Biden-Harris administration.
These are all direct results of the Biden-Harris administration and their historic incompetence.
Also, J.D. Vance turns in a masterful debate performance last night.
One of the subjects covered in the debate is the so-called child care crisis.
But is child care the kind of problem that the federal government should be handling at all?
And the media is raving about a new off-Broadway play about January 6th.
It sounds awful. It's worse than you think.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
♪♪ Get 47% off new Daily Wire Plus memberships with code FIGHT
at dailywire.com.
You'll get uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free shows, real-time breaking news alerts, and more.
But most importantly, you'll get the truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear.
head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join the fight now.
Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
That sounds miserable and time consuming.
But with Bounce of Nature fruits and veggies, there has never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients.
Bounce of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, they freeze, dries them, turn them into a powder, and then put them into a capsule.
You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and then your body knows what to do with them.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first preferred order as a preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code Walsh.
One of the oldest cliches in Hollywood is that if you want a story involving insane levels of corruption and over-the-top mob tactics, you should probably have a lot of dock workers in your film.
Some of the most famous movies ever made, like On the Waterfront starring Marlon Brando, made use of this conceit involving a longshoreman.
For generations, everyone's understood that this industry functions a bit like a fiefdom independent of the rest of the country.
It promotes from within. It protects its own.
And when it wants something, it's not afraid to shut down the US economy in order to get it.
Over the years, various presidents have had to tangle with the dock workers and their unions.
Some of these presidents, like FDR and Obama, have granted dock workers massive concessions.
Other presidents, like George W. Bush, went to court and used the Taft-Hartley Act to end strikes that were costing the US economy billions of dollars a day.
No administration in the history of this country has adopted the approach that the Biden Harris administration is now taking.
Right now without any objection from the White House whatsoever a 78 year old union boss named Harold Daggett is Proudly shaking down the entire country. He's going on television wearing gold medallions and flaunting his $700,000 a year salary As his union the 50,000 member International Longshoremen's Association Shuts down 36 ports including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey These ports taken together handle more than 50% of the
imports and exports to this country The cost to the US economy is more than four billion dollars a day And very soon, the shutdown could lead to shortages and mass layoffs.
And Harold Daggett has made it very clear that he doesn't care about any of these effects.
He doesn't care what happens to millions of Americans as a result of this strike.
He doesn't care if you lose your job and your family and your children suffer.
It doesn't matter to him. All that he cares about is enriching himself, and he's been very clear about that.
Watch. Are you worried that this strike is going to hurt the everyday American, the farmers that need to reach the export market?
They're telling me that they're going to hurt through all of this.
Now you start to realize who the longshoremen are, right?
People never gave a s*** about us until now, when they finally realized that the chain is being broke now.
Cars won't come in.
Food won't come in.
Clothing won't come in.
You know how many people depend on our jobs?
Half the world.
And it's time for them and time for Washington to put so much pressure on them to take care of us.
Because we took care of them and we're here 135 years and brought them where they are today and they don't want to share.
So you notice there's no rational argument here.
He's not arguing that dock workers deserve higher salaries because they can't make ends meet or because they're doing such a great job or because they're so efficient or any of that.
He's saying that they should receive higher salaries because they're holding America hostage.
They have the power, so we need to pay the ransom.
And he also says that nobody cared about us, which is like, dude, what do you want everyone to do?
Are we supposed to throw you a parade every day?
Because you're doing your job? Everybody is doing their own jobs and taking care of themselves and in their own lives and their own families.
What are you doing to show your appreciation for all the other people that are doing important jobs to you in your life?
What are you doing for them?
Have you thrown them a parade?
Have you told them how grateful you are for them?
No. Now, when you look at these specific demands that this union is making, The absurdity becomes even more apparent.
Daggett wants the ports to give dockworkers a 77% pay raise to $69 an hour after turning down a 50% pay raise.
That's far more than dockworkers make on the West Coast.
Daggett also wants more container royalties, which gives money to longshoremen even if they're not working.
And he wants a complete ban on any forms of automation at ports.
Previously, I've talked about the rise of automation and how it's a threat to many Americans' jobs.
There are obviously a lot of important concerns as far as how automation is used and how many jobs it's allowed to replace and all of that.
But in this context, this blanket demand that no automation is used at all is a dead giveaway.
It's evidence that these dock workers don't care about the economy at all or remaining competitive with what other countries are doing.
Here's a look at what they're doing in ports in China, just to give you some idea.
And you can see the footage there.
They still have people working there, as you can see, but they're using cellular connections and computers to remotely unload and offload the cargo.
In many cases, that's safer, faster, cheaper than having humans do it.
Now we don't have any of this, and it's because of unions.
These unions are a big part of why U.S. ports are so inefficient compared to ports all over the world.
As recently as 2020, the World Bank found there was not a single U.S. port that ranked in the top 50 global ports in terms of getting a ship in and out of port quickly and affordably.
Not a single one.
Overall, our ports are about as half as efficient as global ports on average.
And now the union representing the workers at these ports are demanding a massive raise.
They want to raise as a reward for being worse than so many other ports in the world.
And they also want to ban on any form of technology that could make the ports more efficient.
Now, if the Biden administration wanted to put an end to this, they could.
They could do what Bush did and take this union to court.
They could apply public pressure.
They could threaten to repeal other laws on the books that already benefit the dock workers' unions.
There's something called the Jones Act, for example, requires that all goods transported between US ports by water are carried on ships that are built in the US and crewed by Americans.
This leads to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs, but unions love the law because it means more union jobs are created.
You know, that law won't change, and no one in the Biden administration wants it to change.
They don't want to upset Harold Daggett, someone the DOJ once accused of being an associate of a mafia family.
And he has quite a life story, by the way.
The New York Post reports, quote, Of course he was.
So Harold Daggett beat that racketeering rap.
We have no idea how he managed to do that.
One can only speculate. And now he's holding the U.S. economy hostage.
Ships are having to reroute to the West Coast in order to prevent economic calamity, all because of this guy.
It's quite a recovery for Harold Daggett's career.
A guy who, again, is making $700,000 a year.
For the rest of us, it's a crisis that has no real precedent in the past several decades.
And this is just one of the several disasters that are unfolding in the final days of the Biden-Harris administration.
And I say that, by the way, there's another theory with the ports issue that this is all a big setup.
It's a big stage play.
And the end has already been determined ahead of time.
And they're just doing all of this so that Biden can come in and Harris can come in and work out a deal, a deal that's already been determined, and then say, look, I saved the U.S. economy.
That's possible, too. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's going on here.
It is interesting that this guy is so willingly playing the role of, like, a supervillain.
I mean, he's basically...
That one clip we play is not even...
It's not even the worst of it.
I mean, this guy is on TV proudly saying, like, he's gonna hurt you and your family.
He doesn't care about anybody.
It's full-on Batman supervillain stuff.
When you see that, you think, this is a weird performance.
Especially if you want the people, America, on your side.
No one's on your side when you're promising to hurt us all and our families.
So is it all a big setup?
I don't know. But what we do know is that there are crises unfolding all across the country and the world.
Yesterday, Iran launched a volley of more than 180 ballistic missiles into Israel.
This is the second direct attack by Iran against Israel in just the last few months.
It's put us much closer to World War III than we've been in recent history, and it comes just a year after the Biden administration's National Security Advisor bragged that the Middle East was quieter than it's been in two decades.
Watch. And what we said is we want to depressurize, de-escalate, and ultimately integrate the Middle East region.
The war in Yemen is in its 19 month of truce.
For now, the Iranian attacks against U.S. forces have stopped.
Our presence in Iraq is stable.
I emphasize for now because all of that can change.
And the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.
So a week after Jake Sullivan made that claim, Hamas terrorists, backed by Iran, committed a massacre in Israel.
And now rockets are flying back and forth.
And despite all of this, Jake Sullivan still has his job.
He was not fired. He wasn't run out of Washington after making it abundantly clear that he has no idea what's happening in the Middle East, which you'd think would disqualify him from being a national security advisor.
They forced Mike Flynn out of a job of national security advisor after, what, three weeks?
And then you have someone like Jake Sullivan, who's obviously incompetent to the point of being dangerous, and he suffers no consequences whatsoever.
Again, nothing like this happened during the four years of the Trump administration.
This level of international chaos and complete ineptitude simply was not present.
Iran was not launching rockets directly into Israel, just like Russia was not sending tanks directly into Ukraine.
Are Iran and Russia taking advantage of the fact that the brain of the current US president is basically applesauce at this point?
Seems like a valid theory, especially since the Biden administration has no alternative hypothesis for what's going on.
If you ask them, everything's fine, until suddenly it isn't.
That's the same story we're seeing in North Carolina, as I discussed yesterday, after failing to evacuate residents from the western portion of the state.
The federal government is now failing to help many of the survivors.
Yesterday I read an email on the show that came from someone named Jason, who's from the rural area of Ash County, and he reported that FEMA was nowhere in sight.
So here's an update that he sent me last night, quote, So the federal government is still failing to help people in the most devastated areas from this storm.
And communications are still spotty, in part because the government didn't want to spend any money on Elon Musk's Starlink system because they have a vendetta against Elon Musk.
As a result, private citizens are now installing Starlink systems in the area themselves.
The journalist Nick Sartor just reported that first responders still do not have reliable communications in North Carolina after four days.
He uploaded this footage of three North Carolina State Police units, giving him a police escort so that he can deploy Starlink systems for others to use.
And he added that the police are, quote, literally using my Windows Starlink to communicate with each other.
Watch.
What I'm trying to do is get the Starlink into the window.
Just because I want to make a point that they're literally the only reason that we can connect with our convoy is because we've got a Starlink sitting in the window.
So the federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars to prepare for disasters like this, ostensibly so that vital communications equipment and supplies are available within hours, but they haven't been doing that.
For the past several days, random people, citizen journalists and volunteers have been doing a better job than the government, than the government agency that supposedly specializes in exactly this, in disaster relief.
Wherever you look, whether it's the Middle East or North Carolina or the nation's ports and everywhere in between, you'll find an ongoing once-in-a-lifetime disaster that's threatening to spiral even further out of control.
This is what the country and the world look like at the end of the Biden-Harris term.
There are multiple catastrophes happening all at once.
I mean, it's impossible for anyone to deny that the world is a measurably worse and more dangerous place today than it was when they took office.
Everybody knows it. There's no way of denying it.
We're all seeing it. We're all living it right now.
Even Kamala Harris knows it.
That's why she had to duck the first question of the presidential debate when she was asked whether Americans are better off now than they were four years ago.
And they're not. This is the Biden-Harris legacy.
And it'll either end in January or inevitably these people will lead us into a major catastrophe that we can't come back from.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Let me tell you about a looming threat to our constitutional republic that the mainstream media won't cover.
The radical left is plotting a Supreme Court coup.
They're not even trying to hide it anymore.
These progressive ideologues want to eliminate the court's conservative majority by packing it with their own handpicked justices.
It's not court reform.
It's a blatant power grab to get the outcomes they want.
And here's the frightening part.
If one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency come January, they could restructure the court overnight.
With a simple majority vote and a president's signature, their plan becomes reality.
It's like they're trying to speedrun the destruction of our judicial system.
We've already seen their playbook, made-up ethical attacks on justices, illegal protests at their homes, open threats from so-called representatives.
It's Venezuela-style court packing, and it could spell the end of judicial independence and the rule of law as we know it.
But hey, who needs checks and balances when you have a rubber stamp for your radical agenda?
But there is hope.
First Liberty is leading the charge to protect the Supreme Court from this radical plan.
They're fighting to preserve the legitimacy of the court and the separation of powers that safeguards our freedoms.
Here's what you need to do. Go to SupremeCoup.com slash Walsh.
That's SupremeCoup, C-O-U-P dot com slash Walsh to learn how you can help stop the left's takeover of the Supreme Court.
The future of our country is quite literally in your hands.
Check out SupremeCoup.com slash Walsh today.
So the VP debate last night, I thought that J.D. Vance was spectacular.
And that's what most people on the right are saying.
And you might say that, well, of course we were going to say that.
But I, for one, have shown a willingness to admit when a Republican performs poorly in a debate that And in this case, he just performed really well.
I mean, I'm not exaggerating when I say it's maybe the best debate performance I've seen in my lifetime.
I can't think of a better one.
There's nothing that comes to mind.
Certainly, it's the best in the past decade or more.
Vance is so much better at this than Tim Walls.
That was clear last night. He's so much better at it than Kamala Harris.
He's also much better at it than Donald Trump.
Vance can do the thing that Trump can't, which is deliver a focused, substantive answer that stays on message.
Trump, of course, has a much more freewheeling kind of style, which has clearly served him well.
But in a debate, in this kind of debate, it's not always effective.
The best debate style is what we saw from Vance last night.
Calm, cool, collected.
Very smooth, very eloquent, substantive, and that's what he delivered.
I thought it was tremendous. As we talked about on Backstage last night, the media and the Democrats really unintentionally did Vance a favor.
They set him up for success because for weeks and weeks, they'd been blabbering about how Vance is weird and he's awkward and he's just this strange guy.
They've been saying that's how they branded him.
The branding was totally divorced from reality.
There have been There have been plenty of awkward politicians.
We know that. Vance is not really one of them.
There have been weird politicians.
Vance was on the stage with a weird politician yesterday.
But he's not weird himself.
He is, if anything, aggressively normal.
If you want to insult him in a way that has some relation to reality, you would say that he's boring.
Right? You'd say he's too normal, if anything.
There's nothing exciting about him.
Now, I don't find him boring personally, but I'm saying if you were trying to criticize him in any kind of honest way, that's the direction you would go.
But instead, they called him weird.
So that's where they set the bar.
He's this weird, awkward guy.
That means that if you're a kind of clueless, kind of ignorant person, Not paying attention sort of American.
Then you turn on the debate last night expecting to see this weird, bizarre, awkward, cringey freak up there.
And instead you get this dude who's totally comfortable, doesn't break a sweat, handling the debate with ease.
And so now you're even more impressed.
They set Vance up to be more impressive than he actually is, and I think that he's already very impressive.
So, that was interesting to see.
It was a narrative versus reality moment that I think was extremely favorable to J.D. Vance.
So, all that to say, Vance won the debate easily.
Walls did better than Kamala.
He actually did better than I thought that he would, in general.
He didn't totally melt down.
Aside from, he had a few rough moments in there, a few moments that didn't go well for him, especially when he was asked about his lies, about going to China and that sort of thing.
Some of the embellishments from his personal history, that was the closest that Walls came to really melting down.
He was a deer in headlights, which is fascinating that he didn't have an answer ready for that stuff, but he didn't.
And that was a rough moment.
Aside from that, Walls, he's fine.
It was like a C+. I give him a C +, for Walls.
I graded about a 78%, let's say.
But Vance was a 95%.
And that was Walls' problem.
Overall, you know, he did okay, but he's competing against someone who's an A+. And that means that, you know, all told, the debate itself was pretty boring.
When you've got a high C plus against an A plus, it kind of makes for a boring debate.
And I have to say, I don't say that as a complaint.
I kind of like that it was boring.
I think I miss boring debates.
And I think a lot of Americans feel this way.
I want politics in general to be boring again.
And you make it boring by having just competent, serious people...
In these positions, and so I think that's good.
It was kind of refreshing.
When you think back to the least boring debate I've ever seen was the first Trump debate against Biden, or the only Trump debate against Biden.
To see the President of the United States Just disintegrating right in front of us.
It was not boring.
I'll say that for it. It certainly was not boring.
It was the most fascinating...
I couldn't take my eyes off it.
I think we all... That's one of those debates you're going to remember for the rest of your life because I'd never seen anything like it.
That debate. With a president who cannot speak.
So, it was fascinating. It wasn't boring.
But that's what makes this debate refreshing.
It's like, okay, there's just two people answering the questions.
You know, that's fine.
So there weren't many fireworks.
It was a very friendly debate.
Vance was being...
Strategically nice, which was not emotionally satisfying for me to watch, but I get the tactic.
Probably the right call, all things considered.
The closest thing to fireworks was probably this moment where Vance fact-checks the moderators who were trying to fact-check him on the Haitian immigrant problem.
Let's watch that. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status, temporary protected status.
Well, Margaret, but...
Thank you. Senator, we have so much to get to.
I think it's important because...
We're going to turn out of the economy today.
Thank you. Margaret, the rules were that you guys weren't going to fact-check.
And since you're fact-checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on.
So there's an application called the CBP One App, where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole, and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand.
That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for 10 years.
Thank you, Senator. The interpretation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership.
Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process.
We have so much to get to, Senator.
Those laws have been on the books since 1990.
Thank you, gentlemen. The CBP One app has not been on the books since 1990.
It's something that Kamala Harris created, Margaret.
Gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut.
So that was very good.
Not by the moderators. They look like fools.
But... But from Vance jumping in there and fact-checking the fact-check was great.
That was what I was missing from Trump's last debate.
He never really took it to the moderators, never called them out.
And he was getting dishonestly, quote-unquote, fact-checked again and again and again.
And Trump never pointed that out.
He never said, hey, you're fact-checking me, but not him.
Also, by the way, your fact-checks are inaccurate.
So I was hoping Vance would go this direction, and he did.
And it was good. It was also the last time in the debate that the moderators tried to do a dishonest fact check of Vance.
So the move worked. I mean, it paid off.
It had the desired effect.
And that was good. I thought one of Vance's best moments was this, where he's talking about the very difficult job that Walls was facing during the debate, given who he was there to represent.
Let's watch that. If you notice, what Governor Walz just did is he said, first of all, Donald Trump has to listen to the experts.
And then when he acknowledged that the experts screwed up, he said, well, Donald Trump didn't do nearly as good of a job as the statistics show that he did.
No, that's a gross generalization.
So what Tim Walz is doing, and I honestly, Tim, I think you've got a tough job here, because you've got to play whack-a-mole.
You've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver rising take-home pay, which, of course, he did.
You've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver lower inflation, which, of course, he did.
And then you've simultaneously got to defend Kamala Harris's atrocious economic record, which has made gas, groceries and housing unaffordable for American citizens.
I was raised by a woman who would sometimes go into medical debt so that she could put food on the table in our household.
I know what it's like to not be able to afford the things that you need to afford.
We can do so much better.
To all of you watching, We can get back to an America that's affordable again.
We just got to get back to common sense economic principles.
I hope we have a conversation on healthcare then.
So that was a very skillful answer.
And this is where Vance shines, when he's delivering a lot of information and covering a lot of ground, but doing it smoothly and efficiently.
What we heard there was a pretty searing, comprehensive indictment of the Kamala administration in about 60 seconds, which isn't easy to do.
That's why I actually thought Vance's most impressive moment happened at the very beginning of the debate.
I don't think this moment made a lot of people's highlight reels, but it was Vance's very first answer, which I thought was kind of a masterclass.
I don't have the clip, but the debate started with a question about the war in the Middle East.
Vance begins his answer by saying that That he wants to introduce himself first, and then he'll answer.
Then he goes into his backstory about growing up in Ohio and all of that, kind of giving the back of the book summary of Hillbilly Elegy, essentially.
And when he first started his answer, and he said he wanted to introduce himself, I thought, oh no, J.D., what are you doing?
You can't There's no way you can do an introductory bit about yourself and then transition into the war in the Middle East in two minutes and make it sound fluid and natural.
This is going to be awkward.
It's going to be an awkward, disjointed answer.
And you're going into this thing.
You've already been branded as an awkward, disjointed guy.
And now you're going in with this.
And this is a bad move, I thought to myself when he first started talking.
But he pulled it off. It was really impressive.
He pulled it off. He somehow managed to give like a 60-second autobiography of himself, and then he still answered the foreign policy question, and it all worked.
He made the transition.
That's not easy to do. I say this as someone who is in the public speaking business also, different kind of public speaking, different context, obviously, but public speaking all the same.
And from that perspective, again, very impressive.
And this is one thing it's easy to lose sight of, that the modern debate format is And I complain about the modern presidential debate format all the time because it's ridiculous, really.
Giving people one to two minutes to answer questions, it's not enough time.
Covering, really they cover too much ground in these debates, which might sound counterintuitive, but they just talk about too many things.
And really what we want to hear is, what we should hear is lengthy discussions.
We don't need to cover 20 different topics for one minute each.
How about cover like three or four for 30 minutes each?
That's what I would like to see.
That's the debate format that would be much more productive and tell us much more about these guys.
But this debate format...
Even though I think it's a lot less revealing, it tells us less.
It is very difficult.
It's a high degree of difficulty.
It's easy to lose sight of that.
Giving one to two minute answers, saying everything you want to say in one to two minutes, while avoiding the stuff you don't want to say on national television, right?
Most high pressure situation.
Extremely difficult. And we should all appreciate that to some degree now because we've seen in the last several years Some truly awful performances in that forum.
I mean, we've seen what it looks like when you've got people in there who really, this is not their skill set.
And it is a total meltdown.
It's terrible.
Again, Biden bombed so hard that he had to drop out.
Like, that's how bad it can be.
But for Vance, he's in his element in this kind of thing.
I also think he would do really well in a better format where they could talk at greater length.
I want to move on to this. I did want to discuss one of the issues from the debates.
In fact, this is one of the issues that they should not have covered.
Because it's not an issue for the federal government to solve.
But even so, the conversation turned to what was described as the child care crisis.
And let's just watch a little bit of that, and then we'll talk about it.
There is a child care crisis in this country, and the United States is one of the very few developed countries in the world without a national paid leave program for new parents.
Governor Walz, you said that if Democrats win both the White House and Congress, this is a day one priority for you.
How long should employers be required to pay workers while they are home taking care of their newborns?
You have two minutes. Yeah, well, that's negotiable, and that's what Congress worked.
But here's what the deal is. Americans sitting out there right now, you may work for a big company.
Look, we're home in Minnesota to some of the largest Fortune 500 companies.
Kamala Harris knows that in California.
Those companies provide paid family medical leave.
One is, I think they're moral and they think it's a good thing, but it also keeps their employees healthy.
We in Minnesota passed a paid family medical leave.
You have a child? You.
And I had to go back to work five days after my kids were born.
His answer doesn't really matter.
It's more the question, and they both answered it, and they both gave a spiel about what the government should do to solve this problem of the childcare crisis.
And so I want to say a few things about this, none of which will be popular.
I don't have a popular view on this.
I understand that. And I'm setting myself up to be attacked as a cruel, heartless person who doesn't understand and all that kind of stuff.
And I get all that, and that's going to happen, whatever.
First of all, Can we just calm down for a moment?
Not everything is a crisis.
Not every problem we face as a country is a crisis.
It is possible to have an issue, an important issue, a problem even, in your country that is not a national crisis.
But what happens is we call every problem a crisis.
If we recognize that there's a problem in the country, it's automatically a crisis.
And so the word has no meaning anymore.
It just doesn't mean anything. We label everything a crisis automatically.
And so now when you call something a crisis, it doesn't, I don't know, that does not tell me anything about this problem, how serious it is.
Second thing, more to the point, if childcare is a crisis, or if it's a problem but not a crisis, however we describe it, the issue is not primarily a lack of affordable daycare, It's not a lack of paid family leave.
The crisis, just using the word, we'll stick with that word for the sake of argument.
The crisis is being driven not by a lack of affordability, but by single motherhood.
Okay? So, can we just be honest about that?
Now, yes, I realize that there are married couples with kids who struggle to find affordable childcare options.
I get that. I know that.
But the thing that brings it to crisis level, if that's the level that it's at, the primary thing driving that is that we have far too many people having kids but not getting married or having kids but not staying married.
That is what's driving this primarily.
What's the solution?
Get married first, then have kids, then stay married.
That's the solution. If we are not doing that, then there will never be a solution.
Child care, here's another hot take for you.
Child care is not an issue for the government to solve.
This is not an issue for the federal government.
You should not be looking to the President of the United States to figure out child care solutions for you.
I mean, do you realize how insane that is?
Looking to the president to figure out childcare solutions.
I mean, does the president need to come into our kitchens and make us dinner too?
At what point does it become a problem for us to solve?
Are there any problems that just American families solve on their own anymore?
And maybe not even entirely on their own, with their own families, with their own communities.
But is there any part of our lives anymore that we don't turn to the federal government to figure out for us?
Can there be any aspect of our lives that we say, well, you know what?
This is probably not for you guys.
And I say this as someone who has experience with these challenges.
Because I'm automatically going to be accused of, you don't know what it's like.
Yeah, I do. I was making $40K a year when we had our first two kids.
We had twins. First kids.
And that's a family of four on a $40,000 income, not poverty-level wages.
It doesn't qualify as poverty-level wages for a family of four, but it's not rich.
It's a big challenge, you know, taking care of a family of four on that income.
And so, yeah, we had this problem.
We faced this problem many people have faced where it's like, well...
I'm the one earning the income.
Now we've got four mouths to feed here and not a lot of money to do it with.
We've got all the other expenses, all the other things that we have to pay for, the rent and the car and everything, the groceries.
And we said... Well, my wife could go to work and earn an income also, but then if she does that, then we've got to pay for daycare for the kids.
And we also lived in Kentucky at the time.
We were eight hours away from our nearest family member, so we were totally isolated from any family or anybody we knew, friends.
There was nobody around that we knew, or we could depend on.
And so it was a big challenge.
And what we decided to do, in our case, was my wife did not go to work.
She stayed home with the kids.
And so we didn't incur that childcare cost.
Also, we wanted her to be with our children.
And it was a big sacrifice.
It was hard.
It was hard. And ultimately, the decision we finally made was to pick up and move, to leave.
We put our two kids and all of our stuff into a car, and we drove back to Maryland.
We made the eight, nine-hour drive, and we just decided we've got to have some kind of support system around us.
And that's not easy to do.
You can't talk about moving like it's easy.
That's not an easy solution.
So when someone is facing something like what we were facing, where you don't have any support system, I know what that's like.
And someone says, well, why don't you just move to where your family is?
Not as easy as that. That's not a simple thing to do.
But ultimately, it's what we did.
It was very, very difficult. We did it.
And I guess the point is that At no point during that process did I ever think to myself, what is the President of the United States going to do about this?
At no point.
Many conversations with my wife about how are we going to, like, what are we doing here?
How are we going to make all this work?
At no point did we say, what is the President?
What's the President going to do about it?
Never even crossed my mind.
Because there are some problems that are not for the federal government to solve.
And there are some problems that when the federal government tries to solve them, they just make it worse.
And I think that this is one of those problems.
Of course, the great, really morbid irony here is that many of the people who say that child care is a problem for the federal government to solve Would be the first to say that the decision of whether or not you kill your child to begin with, the federal government should have nothing to do with that.
So the federal government should have no say in whether your child gets to live or not.
But once you decide that your child's going to live, now it's the federal government's job to figure out how you're going to care for your kid.
We not see any kind of disconnect there?
So you're saying the government should have no, like, whether or not your child gets to live in the first place is no concern of the government's.
But then if you decide the child is going to live, now it's an issue that the government needs to solve for you.
So we want the government to go from, like, total disregard for your child's life to, oh, this is our issue.
It's like, there's a disconnect here.
I would say. Um...
There is not a disconnect the other way, though.
For the government to say, you know what, you can't kill your child.
Like, we're not going to get involved in your family and tell you, you know, figure out childcare for you and all that.
We're not going to do that. But you can't kill your child.
Like, that's not, there's no hypocrisy there.
That's not a disconnect.
It's just like basic laws.
That govern society.
You can't deliberately harm your child.
But to flip it around the other way is just totally backwards and bizarre.
And so...
Yeah, we don't need Tim Walls.
I don't need Tim Walls.
And now with six kids, I don't need Tim Walls to tell me anything about how to care for my kids.
I don't need his help. I don't want it.
I don't want the president to get involved.
I got it. Thank you, though.
Let me briefly mention this from a report from the New York Post.
Speaking of child care, Doug Emhoff, the current second gentleman, You know, is now famous for having slept with the nanny.
So we know how he feels about child care.
And here's some more information that has just come out about Doug Ebenhoff's past.
And not very distant past, I have to say.
New York Post reports, Vice President Kamala Harris' husband is being accused of slapping his ex-girlfriend for flirting with a valet worker at a ritzy gala in 2012, a new report claims.
Second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, 59, supposedly struck his then-girlfriend, a successful New York attorney, in the face so hard she spun around while in a valet line after an event at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2012.
Three unnamed friends of the woman reportedly told the Daily Mail.
All three sources requested not to be named due to fear of retaliation from Emhoff.
They shared a series of photos showing Emhoff posing with the woman in 2012, as well as other documents related to the allegations.
The woman herself apparently declined to comment.
So she has not said anything, but these friends have come out and said that.
So Emhoff has been accused of sleeping with a nanny and conceiving a child.
Not just accused, he's admitted to that.
And now he's accused of abusing a girlfriend in 2012, not that long ago.
And so this is not back in his misguided youth.
He would have been in his mid-40s at the time.
And that's the claim. Is it true or not?
I have no idea. And I will say that generally, I would say that this is the kind of thing, it's basically politically irrelevant.
If he did abuse his girlfriend, that's terrible.
He's a scumbag. But there's not a lot of news value in that.
And if Kamala Harris is married to a guy who's a philanderer and an abuser, then again, that's terrible, but it's not really politically relevant.
That's what I would say. I would say that.
Except, unfortunately, the media has been propping Emhoff up as the paragon of masculinity.
He's been telling us that he's a new icon.
He's a new role model for men.
And Emhoff himself has gladly stepped into that role.
So both Emhoff himself and the media and the Kamala campaign have presented this guy as the...
We just played the clip yesterday from Jen Psaki.
Saying that he... What was the phrase?
He's redefining masculinity.
And again, Emhoff himself is embracing that title.
And so... Well, when you present yourself that way and when you are presented that way, then all of this stuff becomes relevant.
Now you have, kind of in the court of public opinion, you have entered that into evidence.
You have made all of that stuff relevant.
Because if you want to be looked at that way, well, if you're just...
The husband of the woman who's running for president, and you're kind of staying out of the limelight and all of that, and you're just there, then I would say, well, who really cares about you?
But if you're coming out and saying, yeah, I'm the new, men should be like me.
Well, now we've got to find out about you.
I mean, now it's like, well, okay, well, You're claiming, and people are claiming about you, that you are a role model for men.
Maybe you are. Who knows?
I don't know anything about it. Well, now we've got to go find out.
We've got to go find out more about you.
And what we're finding out is not great.
And it doesn't really support the claim that he's any kind of role model for men at all.
In fact, we've heard terrible stories about this guy.
Don't know how true all this stuff is, but we've heard terrible stories.
Have we even heard a good...
What are the good stories?
They keep telling us that he's a role model, he's the icon, he's redefining masculinity.
They haven't even given us any examples of like, okay, well, here's something great that he did.
You know, he rescued a cat out of a tree or whatever.
We haven't gotten any of those kind of stories.
There are no positive stories, really, about this guy.
The only stories we're getting are negative, and he has made all that relevant by trying to present himself a certain way.
And it's pretty clear what kind of guy this person really is.
What is a wireless company?
No, it shouldn't be a big data company.
No, it shouldn't be a political action campaign.
And no, a wireless company shouldn't make you believe you only have two options for data, unlimited or unlimited.
And both are stupidly expensive.
A wireless company, pure and simple, should connect you to the people and things you love.
A wireless company should give you lightning fast 5G coverage at a lower cost than you're paying today.
And wireless companies should have an excellent customer service team based right here in America who can help make switching easiest.
Essentially, all wireless companies should be just like Pure Talk, but unfortunately they're not.
So you should switch now.
And if you do, at puretalk.com slash walsh, you can also get one year free of Daily Wire Plus where you get to stream What is a Woman for Free and watch me debunk yet another myth.
Support PureTalk, a wireless company who wants to be a wireless company, and nothing more.
And here's the kicker. They also support the same values you do.
And remember, it takes courage to stand for your values and takes even more to stand against those who try to silence you.
PureTalk.com slash Walsh.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
We're just 33 days away from the 2024 election.
Now is the time to join Daily Wire Plus.
Get 47% off with code FIGHT at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Daily Wire Plus gives you unlimited access to the truth with uncensored daily shows free from ads or moderators.
Stay informed with live breaking news coverage and the kind of hard hitting investigative journalism the left doesn't want you to see.
The deal is for a very limited time, so don't wait, join the fight now.
Take advantage of 47% off new memberships.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code FITE for your exclusive discount.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe code FITE for 47% off new Daily Wire Plus memberships.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
In theaters now, get your tickets at amiracist.com.
I'm not just trying to draw a contrast between poor quality art and my film, which is good quality art.
That's part of it, but it also just happens that there's been a lot of this terrible stuff recently.
We're experiencing a surge of cringy lib content, perhaps none cringier than this.
The media this week is raving about a new off-Broadway play called Fatherland.
The play tells the true and we're told heroic story of a son, Jackson Reffitt, Who turned his own father into the feds and testified against him for his role in January 6th.
The real-life father, Guy Wesley-Refit, is now serving a seven-year prison sentence, thanks at least in part to his son's testimony.
The play dramatizes the son's allegedly noble decision to betray his own father.
And based on the clips that have been aired on MSNBC, the whole thing is about as overwrought and self-important as you might expect.
Let's watch a clip of this thing.
Because I didn't break any laws.
Tell me the law I broke. You smashed through police barricades and you overtook the United States Capitol.
I didn't break any laws. You carried your weapon on the federal grounds.
Okay. Okay, I carried my weapon on the federal grounds that we own, that American citizens own.
Paying taxes gives you no right.
You said I'd pay taxes. What?
I had every constitutional right to carry a weapon and take over Congress.
Just because a law is written does not mean it's the right law.
We went in there, they scurried away like rats and hit.
That is how you do it.
That was a scene from the new off-Broadway play, Fatherland, which opened last week.
First of all, maybe I'm...
I went back and listened to that like three times to see if I heard it right.
Did he say yeppers?
Did I hear that right?
At the very beginning of the clip, the son is like, you stormed the Capitol.
And then the father emerges from the shadows.
Yeppers! Did he say that or did I imagine that?
What did he say? A guy like that would never say yeppers.
What? Did he say yes, sir?
I mean, what did he? It's an honest question.
I don't know what he said. I think he said yeppers.
Second, nothing about the dialogue that you just heard there reads as authentic.
It instead reads as exactly what it is, a left-wing theater kid's fever dream, which is even more apparent in this next clip that was also aired by MSNBC. Let's watch that.
Anybody who was there on the 6 should be locked up for the rest of their lives.
Everyone. Are you recording this?
What? Are you recording this?
No! I am not recording.
You better not be here. Don't betray me.
Don't ruin this family.
Do not put this family in jeopardy.
I am not the one that is putting our family in jeopardy.
They will have no other choice.
Choose a side!
Choose a side or die!
I put you in this world, I can take you out!
Don't turn your back on me!
I'm not turning my back!
Whoever turns his back on me is a traitor!
Is that what's happening here?
If you turn me in, you are a traitor.
And traitors get shot!
It legitimately looks hilarious.
Actually, if I lived in New York, I would go to this play.
I would go to the play and watch it.
Because it looks great.
Not for any of the reasons they want it to be great.
But if I wanted to make a parody of a liberal play about January 6th, it would be exactly this.
No edits, no notes.
Perfect. It works perfectly as parody.
The total lack of subtlety and nuance just gives it the feel of satire.
It didn't have to be this way.
They could have made an actually interesting play on this subject if they had been willing to portray the father as a real human being and not a cartoon.
But that was not an option for them because in the liberal mind, January 6th is one of the darkest days in human history and the people involved are some of the greatest villains of history and they will not allow themselves to see it any other way.
The left likes to talk about empathy and compassion but of course they are sorely lacking in both departments and this is one of the reasons why their art is so subpar.
It also makes them less effective politically.
Because you have to understand your opposition in order to counter it and defeat it.
But they don't understand Trump supporters, and they never have.
They refuse to allow themselves to understand.
Their pure seething rage blinds them.
Hillary Clinton, of course, famously called Trump supporters deplorables back in 2016.
That was her explanation for why people support Trump.
Nobody on the left has ever come up with another explanation.
That remains their one single insight.
People support Trump because they're bad.
Why did January 6th happen?
Well, because Trump supporters are bad.
That's as deep as their analysis goes.
That's a shame because when it comes to this particular case, there are some interesting angles that could be explored.
The most interesting and troubling is not that the father was at the Capitol on January 6th, but that the son turned on him.
So here is the son, the real-life son, Jackson, on MSNBC, explaining his decision.
Let's talk a little bit, if you don't mind, about the real-life incident here after January 6th.
What compelled you to work again?
Turn in your father. Well, the tip actually came in from before January 6th.
My dad was getting way more radicalized as time went on following Trump and isolating himself more and more, and it was terrifying.
What were some of the signs you saw?
You know, he's watching all sorts of media that was terrifying.
He isolated himself to online groups that were far-right, radical, and he was growing more and more violent, not to just the family, but to the people around him.
And it scared me.
And then when you saw it January 6th, how soon after did you realize your father was involved, that you had to act further?
It was while they were pointing guns at the doors of the house.
You saw him there? He was texting my mom and facetiming her.
And it was...
It's delusional. And did you have any hesitation about going further?
I mean, he is your father, but as you say, you saw him there with guns, and prosecutors said he lit the match of January 6th.
Of course. It was the hardest decision I've ever made, and it continues to haunt me to this day.
But, you know, I don't regret it, and I still feel for him and my family.
So Jackson was scared by the media his father was consuming.
We don't know what kind of scary media it was, but scary in this guy's world doesn't have to mean that his dad was, I don't know, perusing neo-Nazi forums in some dark corner of the internet.
He could have just been watching Sean Hannity, for all we know.
Like, the father's watching The Five on Fox News, and Jackson is cowering in the corner, trembling, terrified.
That's probably what happened, but I don't know.
But the real point here is that Jackson did exactly what the left wants all of us to do.
Whether we have family members who were involved in January 6th or not, they want us to choose the state over our families.
That's what the story is actually about.
It's a son facing a choice.
He can remain loyal to his father, his own blood, the man who raised him.
Or he can align himself with the government against his father.
It was his father or the federal government, the family or the state.
He would have to defy one for the sake of the other.
He could either be a loyal son or a loyal subject.
And he chose to be a subject.
He chose the state. That's what makes him a great hero to the left.
While the rest of us normal people see him as a treacherous backstabber, a turncoat, who took sides against his family.
This is what the left seeks to do to all of our families, even if in less dramatic fashion in many cases.
They want to drive a wedge between child and parent, between husband and wife.
The bond of the family is a threat to their agenda because, in their minds anyway, it undermines the authority of the state.
A man who honors his father more than he honors the bureaucracy in D.C. is a problem.
It's harder to manipulate, harder to control such a person.
Jackson Reffitt is then their perfect role model, the example that they want us all to follow.
And that is why the cringy play meant to honor this deeply dishonorable person 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. Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
Never really seemed to matter that much.
At least not to me. Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you love...
I'm trying to learn. I'm on this journey.
I'm gonna sort this out.
I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certifications. What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
This is more for you than this for you. Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
I want to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument.
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently. Yeah, this country is a piece of...
White folks. Trash.
White supremacy. White woman.
White boy. Is there a black person around?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist? Hi, Robin.
Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
Never be too careful. In theaters now.
▲
Export Selection