Ep. 1572 - The Rise Of 'Assassination Culture' In America
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a majority of left-leaning Americans say that it would be justified to assassinate Donald Trump. So-called “assassination culture" is rising in America. Why is this happening? Also, Republicans introduce a bill designed to make it easier for mothers to stay home and raise their children. It’s well past time to start having this conversation. And scientists claim that they have resurrected an extinct species. Have they really done that? And more importantly: why?
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1572
- - -
DailyWire+:
We’re leading the charge again and launching a full-scale push for justice. Go to https://PardonDerek.com right now and sign the petition.
Now is the time to join the fight. Watch the hit movies, documentaries, and series reshaping our culture. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today.
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
ARMRA - Go to https://tryarmra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout to receive 15% off your first order.
Helix Sleep - Go to https://helixsleep.com/walsh to get an exclusive discount.
StopBox USA - Get firearm security redesigned and save with BOGO the StopBox Pro AND 10% off @StopBoxUSA with code MATTWALSHSHOW at https://stopboxusa.com/MATTWALSHSHOW #stopboxpod #ad
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a majority of left-leaning Americans say that it would be justified to assassinate Donald Trump.
So-called assassination culture is rising in America.
Why is this happening?
We'll talk about it.
Also, Republicans introduced a bill designed to make it easier for mothers to stay home and raise their children.
It's well past time to start having this conversation.
And scientists claim that they have resurrected an extinct species.
Have they really done that?
And more importantly, why?
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
elite athletes
Thank you.
turning to Armra Colostrum.
The remarkable superfood is nature's original whole food supplement containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level.
Armra helps build lean muscle, speeds up recovery time, and enhances overall performance without relying on artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients.
Whether you're running a company, pushing your limits in training, or simply looking for a natural advantage in your daily life, Armra Colostrum optimizes your body system for peak performance and sustained energy.
Research has demonstrated that colostrum does more than just strength and performance.
It enhances your body's ability to absorb essential nutrients, supports the development of lean muscle mass, and improves endurance.
At the same time, it works at the cellular level to accelerate repair and regeneration, helping you bounce back faster after intense physical exertion.
Plus, Armra Colostrum can also support your micro-missory.
We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 15% off your first order.
Go to tryarmor.com slash Walsh or enter Walsh.
To get 15% off your first order, that's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Walsh.
Normally when a major new law is proposed, it's given a name that makes it catchy and appealing to as many people as possible.
Of course, pretty much every time the name is an obvious lie, but it's still an effective lie because every time someone says the name of the law, they're giving you a positive soundbite.
Obama's health care plan, of course, was famously called the Affordable Care Act.
So all the news articles and cable news segments that talked about the law, even if they were critical of it, ended up reinforcing the message that it would make health care affordable.
And the same principle applies to the so-called Equal Pay Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Fair Housing Act, and so on and so on.
Now, with that in mind, it's worth taking a look at the name of a new ballot initiative that was introduced last week in the state of California.
And this ballot initiative was proposed by a retired lawyer in the state.
And it would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for medication or procedures, unless those insurance companies could demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the medication or procedure is completely unnecessary in every way.
In other words, they can't reject the procedure because it's too expensive.
If they do that, they'll face a lawsuit that will almost certainly be successful.
In practical terms, this would mean that the cost of health insurance and medical procedures would skyrocket.
I mean, it would have the exact opposite of its intended effect.
Insurance companies would probably go bankrupt very quickly.
And a lot of people would lose access to health care as a result of that.
So calling this bad policy would be an understatement.
But that's not really the point.
The point is the name of this ballot initiative.
It's not called the Better Health Care Insurance Act.
It's not called the Save Lives Act or the Free Money Act or anything like that.
Instead, this ballot initiative is called...
Yes, a law has just been proposed in the state of California that's named after someone who just allegedly shot a healthcare CEO in the back on camera after stalking him for weeks.
And as much as I'd like to say that most people in this country have rejected this legislation, that's not true.
It's actually getting a lot of support and mainstream attention at the moment.
Watch. For now, it's officially called the Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act and the name, as you might guess, stirring a lot of controversy for it seems to honor an accused killer.
As Mangione faces a New York trial for the murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson, Californians will soon be petitioned on whether or not an initiative inspired by his alleged actions should make
it onto a ballot in November of next year.
Now, the words delay and deny were written on the bullet casings found in December at Thompson's murder scene.
The proposed legislation would make it
amputation, or death.
The initiative specifies that delays and denials can only be made by doctors on behalf of insurers.
So evidently it's not enough for the ballot initiative to be named after an alleged murderer.
On top of that, the text of the ballot initiative also referenced the words that the assassin wrote on the bullets that he used to murder Brian Thompson.
So this is about as sociopathic as things can possibly get, but it's got a fighting chance to pass in California.
Already many people are supporting the proposal on social media, as you can probably imagine.
They're especially fond of the idea on Reddit, which has become a breeding ground for domestic terrorists as of late.
And the state of California is well known for passing ballot initiatives like this one.
Reason Magazine reports that, quote, California has a history of gadflies getting far-reaching policies on the ballot and then end up winning.
Liberal California likes to point to Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases as a canonical example of this.
Another example would be Proposition 103, an initiative pushed by consumer advocates that created California's current regulatory regime for property and auto insurance.
Prop 103 limits insurers'ability to raise rates on policyholders and creates a laborious system to justify whatever price increases they are still permitting.
Close quote.
And there's another reason to think that this initiative will pass.
This is a poll that was just conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute, which just surveyed Americans across the political spectrum in order to determine their level of tolerance for political violence.
And quoting from Fox, which reported on the results, 38% of respondents said it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump, and 31% said the same about Elon Musk.
But when counting only left-leaning respondents, justification for killing Trump rose to 55%, and for Musk it was 48%.
So yes, more than half of the left-leaning respondents, which include anyone who identifies as a liberal in any way, believes that it would be acceptable to assassinate Now,
before I respond to this, I want to acknowledge that You know, of course, yes, polls can be misleading.
We talk about the bias that exists in polls all the time.
They're not necessarily a reliable indicator.
But in this case, based on everything that's happened in this country in the last few years, I mean, we all know that the poll is probably accurate.
We've all seen the outpouring of support for Luigi Mangione, support that continued even after it became very clear that he's a raging, wealthy narcissist who had no reason to be upset with UnitedHealthcare whatsoever.
In fact, A few months ago, many of Luigi Manigioti's supporters dogpiled one of my videos on YouTube in order to inform me that I should read the room and defend first-degree murder.
Because, you know, if everybody is saying that first-degree murder is cool, that means that you should just accept that it's cool.
It was the message, basically.
We've also played dozens of clips of random Tesla stores and vehicles being attacked, mobs cheering on the carnage.
People are being terrorized solely on the basis of a vehicle they've purchased, which as far as I can tell, has never happened before in the history of this country.
At the height of the Bud Light boycott, no one was violently assaulted for drinking a Bud Light.
But for Tesla owners, it's a different story.
And these attacks are continuing, by the way.
Just yesterday, shortly after midnight in Washington state, an explosion destroyed a Tesla charging station.
Along the same lines, as we discussed earlier this week, there's been a groundswell of support for Carmelo Anthony, who just stabbed a white high school student to death in Texas at a track meet.
Carmelo Anthony's family has now raised...
And at this rate, he'll raise a million dollars for killing a white 17-year-old.
Yes, there's essentially a bounty for killing white people in this country.
It doesn't matter to these people that Austin Metcalf didn't hurt Carmelo Anthony in any way.
It doesn't matter to them that Carmelo Anthony instigated the fight, and then if you could even call it a fight, and then threw away the murder weapon as Austin Metcalf did.
So, And
to give you some idea, here's what they have to say.
This is from CBS.
Stanley Schwartz, a history professor at Cedarville University, tells us violence has a long history in American democracy, but it was still striking to read through the report.
A lot of folks on the left are probably feeling a sense of hopelessness or despair following the election laws, said Schwartz.
Another expert, Daryl Paulson, who specializes in political parties and elections at the University of South Florida, tells us there used to be rules in how you conducted politics, but those rules don't exist anymore.
Those rules of the game have been thrown out, and it's Every man for himself, Paulson said.
And that's the explanation that the academics have come up with.
They're saying that something has abruptly changed and a lot of folks are mad that a Republican won the presidency.
But that doesn't actually capture the magnitude of what's happening here.
So-called assassination culture, as these pollsters have referred to this phenomenon, is not
the result of hyper-partisanship, political
We've had a lot of very intense political disagreements in this country's history, including all-out brawls on the floor of Congress in the 19th century.
What we haven't seen until now are coordinated terror campaigns endorsed by a major political party that are conducted against American citizens on the basis of their political beliefs.
That is new.
When the weather underground bombed the Capitol, both Democrats and Republicans have the good sense to condemn it.
But when the modern weather underground gets to work against Elon Musk and his supporters,
Actually, it's worse than that.
They come out and publicly taunt Elon Musk and his company, and they suggest that he got what he deserves.
We're seeing this response because, at its core, leftism is relativistic, fundamentally amoral, and dehumanizing.
Leftism has, of course, taken over the Democrat Party, and that's been the case for a long time now, and we're now witnessing the consequences of that takeover.
This is why Did any prominent Democrat on the national stage stand up to defend the notion that even CEOs we don't like have the right to...
Exist without being murdered in the street?
No, none of them did.
And that's why they're happy Austin Metcalf is dead.
It's why they're now desperately hoping that they'll get to kill Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
Above all else, leftism is concerned with advancing the interests of the party.
That's the overriding goal.
It's all that interests them.
Nothing else matters.
Ends justify the means.
And they will continue their campaign of violence at any cost.
They don't even feel the need to hide it anymore, as the Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act demonstrates.
The same people who cheered the killing of Brian Thompson would cheer your death as well, if they felt that it advanced their interests in any way.
Countries can survive economic upheaval, political disagreements, even civil war.
But they cannot survive an ideology that is fundamentally anti-human, that's completely uninterested in any form of human progress.
And that is what leftism now stands for.
And a majority of Democrats agree with this sentiment.
It's impossible to overstate this.
I'll say it again.
They will rationalize your murder if you don't agree with them.
They will rationalize your murder, as we've seen with Austin Metcalf, if you're white.
And it's incumbent on every sane person, anybody with a survival instinct, to stay as far away from these people as possible.
And if we accomplish nothing else in the next few years, we should do everything we can to eradicate this ideology.
So that it doesn't result in any more death and destruction than it already has.
Leftism arrived in this country relatively quickly, and if there's one silver lining, it's that it can be pushed out just as quickly.
Let's get to our five headlines.
Nothing says peaceful and rejuvenating slumber quite like waking up feeling like your entire skeletal system has been disassembled and haphazardly reassembled by a leftist with a vague understanding of human anatomy and a strong commitment to creative interpretation.
Luckily, that's where Helix Sleep comes in.
I never realized how badly I needed a new mattress until I finally got one.
My Helix mattress actually supports my body the way it should and I'm sleeping straight through the night.
For the first time in years, the best part is waking up actually feeling refreshed instead of dragging myself out of bed.
What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress.
They actually customize and match you with the perfect one for your body and sleep style.
Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, or somewhere in between, they've got you covered.
Helix has a sleep quiz that'll match you with your perfect mattress in under two minutes so you can get better sleep and a better start to each day.
Trust me, when you find the right match, You'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else.
Right now is actually the perfect time to upgrade your sleep because Helix is offering an incredible deal with their Spring Savings Event.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh to get 20% off site-wide.
That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh for 20% off site-wide.
Find your perfect mattress today and start sleeping better tonight.
helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
Yesterday we responded at length to John Oliver's latest diatribe defending men and women's sports.
Trying to explain why trans women, quote-unquote, should be in women's sports.
Well, today the Daily Mail has an article revealing one of the reasons why maybe Oliver keeps obsessing over this issue and seems determined to die on this hill.
Daily Mail reports, John Oliver has been hell-bent on defending transgender athletes as of late, and some recently unveiled correspondence coming from one of his staffers appears to show why.
Dee Brent, a transgender fact-checker for Oliver's show, Sent a strongly worded comment request to the Women's Liberation Front Wednesday, and the latter, a self-admitted radical feminist organization, has laid it bare for all to see.
In it, Brent, also the show's researcher, is seen asking a series of seemingly slanted questions aired ahead of a Last Week Tonight with John Oliver segment that went to air the following Sunday.
Billed as the main section of Sunday's show, it saw Oliver again expressing support for transgender women competing in women's sports, claiming to have debunked a prevailing myth That women have lost 900 medals to trans athletes in a mere year.
In the process, the comedian presented his word as fact.
He also attempted to cast doubt on data, bringing up rare events like an all-female Irish dance competition held in Glasgow in 2023, won by a trans woman, and three poker competitions won by trans competitors that year as well.
However, what Oliver did not mention is the 900 number refers to 890 medals won by trans women since April 2024, a number proven by publicly available data.
Okay, so the article goes on into detail about Oliver's attempts to frame this figure about the lost metals as somehow absurd or false.
And he did that with slanted, misleading articles, misleading framing.
But the point is, the point is that in the revelation, I suppose, is that John Oliver's fact checker, his researcher, and also listed as associate producer on the show, Is trans.
It's a man identifying as a woman.
So this obviously discredits everything that Oliver says on the subject.
I mean, everything he says on the subject is already discredited because it's absurd and false and easy to debunk, as I did yesterday, without even knowing that a trans guy is behind all of this pro-trans propaganda.
But this really drives the point home.
You know, a trans-identified person is not going to be capable of being remotely honest about any of these issues, with rare exception.
I mean, I know there are a few, a handful of trans-identified people that you could name who are honest about the sports issue.
But for the most part, the vast majority are not capable of looking at this objectively.
And that's who John Oliver has feeding him information.
His researcher is a trans person.
And that obviously is a problem.
First of all, these are people who are either deeply confused.
About human biology, which discredits them in the debate.
Or they're committed to the lie, to the fantasy, which also, again, discredits them.
But more to the point, keep in mind what I've said a few times now.
One of the reasons why the left will not drop this subject, one of the reasons why they will die on this hill, is that a lot of them are closely tied to people who identify as trans.
And I'll tell you this, by the way, if you...
If you listen to them, they will proudly say this.
They'll often say, of someone like me, someone that's critical, they'll say, well, you don't know any trans people.
I know a ton of trans people.
These are nice people.
Famously, what was it, the Sex and the City actress who got up on stage at some rally and said that basically all the kids she knows are trans.
Her kid is trans.
Like, her nephew is trans.
Her kid's friends are trans.
This is not the reality for the vast majority of normal people.
But for elitist leftists, this is the world they live in.
There's trans-identified people everywhere.
Most of us could go about our lives, our everyday lives, for an entire two or three months and never run into a trans-identified person.
But if you're on the left, it's kind of like most of us could go about our lives at this point and never run into somebody wearing a mask.
But if you're a committed leftist and you live in one, as I discovered when I was in Sacramento, California, testifying at the hearing over the women's sports bill.
So if you're on the left, especially if you live in a place like California, This is still like a part of your reality when it's not a part of anyone else's reality.
But they'll proudly say this and talk about all the trans people they know as if it gives them more credibility in the debate when it actually does precisely the opposite.
Because all it shows is that you are emotionally tied to this issue in a way that makes it almost impossible for you to be honest about it.
And what that means, and this is in particular if you're on the left in places like Los Angeles, New York, D.C., you probably are closely tied to some people who identify as trans.
And so that means that a large number of the leftists who are on TV, who are in positions of influence in government, whatever, a large number of them have friends, have colleagues, have siblings, have children who have quote-unquote transitioned.
And those people are in this for life.
They're in it too deep.
They've sacrificed things to the trans god that they can't get back.
And so when people say, why won't the left drop this?
Why are they dying on this hill?
Well, this is the reason.
I mean, it's maybe not the whole reason, but it's a large part of the reason that they themselves or people that they know are in it too deep and they can't leave it.
And so they feel like they have to just defend it until they die.
Because the other option is too horrifying to even consider.
The possibility that you yourself or someone that you know, someone that you're close to, has destroyed their lives on the basis of a ridiculous lie, that's something that requires a lot of intellectual integrity.
To even consider that possibility and these are people who have no intellectual integrity to speak of.
Okay, Daily Wire has this report.
West Virginia Congressman Riley Moore and Utah Senator Mike Lee on Tuesday introduced legislation that would ensure that new moms are not penalized under federal law for deciding to leave the workforce and stay home with their child.
The Republican lawmakers introduced a new bill that would amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure that parents are not required to pay back health care costs if they decide to stay home after the birth of a child.
The bill, first shared with The Daily Wire, is titled the Fairness for Stay-at-Home Parents
More said, If passed legislation,
The legislation could save families thousands of dollars if a parent decides to stay home to take care of their child after parental leave.
Currently, employers are allowed to claw back insurance premiums if a parent decides to leave the workforce.
Family insurance premiums cost an average of $25,000 per year.
The legislation would prohibit an employer from recovering any health care premium paid by the employer for an employee if the employee fails to return to work due to the birth of a child.
Now, whatever you think about the specifics of this legislation, it is pointing in the right direction.
Which is trying to make it easier for moms to stay home with the kids.
I mean, it says a parent staying home, but really we know we're talking about moms.
And that's the right thing.
That's the right direction.
That's what our policy should be focused on.
That's what our policy should be focused on.
Rather than, as we talked about yesterday, maternity leave or parental leave.
This is what our goal needs to be.
To have more moms in the home raising their children.
And we have to not be embarrassed saying that or working towards that goal.
You have to be not embarrassed about saying, you know what, our goal as a society should be fewer women in the workforce because a lot more of them are home raising their kids.
We need to not be embarrassed saying that because it's such an obviously good, healthy thing.
And we all...
Kind of know that at some level, I think.
Our current system that we have right now is unsustainable.
I mean, it really is as simple as that.
This system of having both parents leave the home every day, that just can't go on forever.
It's never worked that way before at any point in history.
And when I say that, people will always respond and say, well, that's not true.
throughout history.
Women have actually been involved in all kinds of trades and professions, which, yeah, they have.
And that really, by the way, exposes the lie that women have been oppressed for all of history until the middle of the 20th century.
That isn't true.
It is true that women have been involved in plenty of trades and professions throughout history.
A lot of the guilds in the Middle Ages, for example, had female members.
you did not have at any point anywhere
Which is women in mass leaving the home all day, every day.
So that their children are raised by strangers that the parents are paying.
Okay, that did not exist.
So yeah, you had women who did other things aside from the dishes and washing the clothes, but you did not have what we have now, which is all day, every day, at least five days a week, both parents are out of the home and the kids are being raised by strangers.
That did not exist.
That's a system, that's a setup that has just never existed until right now, until the last few generations.
It's a wholly new approach.
And I think it's clearly a worse approach.
And by the way, having other people help raise your kids, that's not new.
I'm not saying that's new.
I mean, historically, you had multi-generational families and homes and homesteads and farms and everything else.
So you had grandparents, even great-grandparents, aunts and uncles, that were all in the vicinity helping to raise your children.
Nothing wrong with that.
That's the way it really should be.
But what makes this unique, what makes our setup unique, is again, both parents out of the home completely for all day, for five days a week, and The parents being raised, not by other family members for the most part, but by strangers,
whose only attachment to the child is that they're being paid money to care about the kid for certain hours during the day.
So that's the, it's a new setup.
And it's obviously worse.
Like, this is obviously a worse approach.
It's worse for the child, it's worse for the family, it's worse for society.
It's worse for the mother.
Objectively speaking, it's better to have more women raising their children and fewer sitting in cubicles.
We don't need women in cubicles.
No problem is solved in society by taking women out of the home and putting them in cubicles.
You can look at the home that doesn't have mothers there and you can say, we really need mothers.
There's a real need here that cannot be exactly filled by anybody else.
But you don't really look at an empty cubicle and say, We need women specifically here in this cubicle because no one else can do this.
We don't say that.
And I say that this new system is not better for women.
Well, think back to that video that I played yesterday.
It's the viral video of the mother with the twin babies crying because she has to go back to work.
And she says that when she leaves her babies, And goes to the office.
She has guilt.
And she comes home and she is worried that her babies will have forgotten who she is.
She has a lot of guilt.
But then she says that, well, that's just mom guilt.
And she knows that mom guilt, that a lot of moms have it, and you just have to get over it.
This is a very common theme.
This is this theme of mom guilt.
Google the phrase mom guilt and you'll find a million articles about it.
A million videos about it.
How to deal with it.
How to overcome it.
Women talking about their mom guilt and how irrational the mom guilt is.
That's kind of implied always when you hear about this mom guilt.
What's being implied or outright stated often is that it's irrational.
That you feel this mom guilt but you shouldn't.
Because you actually have no reason to feel guilty.
Now, I'm not doubting that moms and dads may feel sometimes inordinate or misplaced guilt.
There is an extent to which parental guilt in general is like a real thing that can be irrational.
Every parent experiences that sometimes.
Some of it is just the fear as a parent that, oh my gosh, I'm screwing up.
I'm screwing these kids up.
You know, you make a small mistake.
You react to something the wrong way, whatever it may be.
And in your head, you've spun this out.
to be, oh, okay, well, now my kid's going to be screwed up for life because of this.
So every parent goes through that to some extent.
But what I'm saying is that if mom guilt is this hugely prominent, widespread phenomenon right now, maybe we should stop and ask why.
Are we sure that the mom guilt is always misplaced?
Is it always an unreasonable emotion that we should just overcome?
Or is it possible that a lot of moms feel guilty about leaving their children and going to the office because, in reality, a large number of them should not be leaving their children and going to the office?
I guess what I'm saying is that the feeling that the mom has of, I feel guilty leaving my babies, Explore a bit?
Maybe we should think about that a little bit?
Maybe there's something there?
Maybe that's your heart?
Maybe that's your soul telling you that maybe you should consider not going back to work?
And it seems a bit like if there was an epidemic of people experiencing a painful burning sensation in their hands.
And we're all saying, why is everyone feeling this pain in their hands?
What's going on?
There's a million articles written about it.
We do videos about overcoming the hand pain.
When in reality, if you just look down, you would see, oh, well, it's because we all have our hands on a stove.
So it's not the pain that's the problem.
The pain is actually trying to tell us something.
It's alerting us to something that we need to pay attention to.
And so probably the best strategy is to take your hand off the stove.
And so if the woman in the video is feeling that pain deep inside, maybe she's got her hand on the hot stove.
And we should think about that.
All right.
Yahoo Finance has an article attempting to pour some cold water on Trump's stated desire to abolish the income tax.
And these are always fun because how can you possibly convince people that it wouldn't be an amazing thing if they no longer had to pay the income tax?
That's a tough sell.
So let's see how they do, how they go about it.
They report, President Donald Trump has said that he'd like to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and with it income tax.
His plan would be to replace the approximately $3 trillion per year that the federal government gets from the income taxes with sweeping tariffs.
One issue with this plan is that tariffs high enough to replace that $3 trillion in federal revenue would ripple into higher prices for consumers, so any tax savings would be undercut by a higher cost of living.
In addition, eliminating federal income tax is tricky to implement.
The power of taxation rests with Congress, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Still, if Trump could make it so and personal federal income tax became a thing of the past, how much extra would you take home if you made $100,000 a year?
If you make $100,000 a year, you fall into a 22% tax bracket.
You pay 10% on a certain amount, then 12% and 22% on a set amount as they rise.
This means your effective tax rate on $100,000 is 13.61%.
That equates to about $13,000 of extra take-home pay.
This doesn't take into account FICA, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, which changes the equation slightly depending on whether you're a W-2 employer or pay taxes as self-employed.
Before you get too excited about all the extra green in your account, consider the potential implications of Trump's tariffs.
They're basically a tax on the American consumer, since most, if not all, of the import tariffs businesses pay will be passed on to consumers.
Okay, so I guess we're supposed to think that an extra $13,000 a year is meager savings, but that's more than $1,000 a month, every month, which would truly be a life-changing savings for a lot of people.
Just imagine if you had an extra thousand dollars a month every month.
And that's just the savings you make if you're making $100,000 a year.
Obviously, as you go up in income brackets, the savings are quite a bit more substantial than that.
So this would be transformative for hundreds of thousands of hundreds of millions.
This would be transformative.
Abolishing the income tax would be transformative for hundreds of millions of Americans.
And I'll say this.
Whenever you think about the tariffs, There is something missing from the tariffs plan, and it's this.
This is the other half of the plan that Trump has talked about, but right now it's the missing piece.
The way that you really make the tariffs work is by abolishing the income tax, greatly increasing the take-home pay of every American, the income of every working American, and then you have tariffs as a way of making up the lost revenue.
So right now we're making up the lost revenue, but we don't have the lost revenue part of it.
The government needs to lose revenue from income taxes and you make up a lot of it with tariffs, which I personally think is a great plan.
That's exactly the way it should work.
But you've got to do the second part of it also, which is abolish the income tax.
So we need to be pushing for this.
Abolishing the income tax needs to be a major part of the conservative platform.
It has not been.
It has never really been, oddly enough, a major part of the conservative platform.
This is like a niche sort of fringe position.
That's how it's treated anyway, abolishing the income tax.
But we need to change that.
It needs to be a central part of the conservative platform going forward.
Abolishing the income tax.
And keep in mind, abolishing the income tax is not just about saving thousands of dollars a year.
I think that's the most important part.
But, I mean, the way that it will drastically improve your quality of life instantly.
Instant approval.
Putting more money in the pockets of Americans without giving out any checks.
Putting significantly more money into the pockets of hundreds of millions of Americans.
Without any kind of entitlement, without any kind of payment from the taxpayers.
It's your own money being put back into your pocket.
So that's I think the most significant thing.
But it's also about abolishing the IRS because of course you wouldn't need the IRS anymore and thereby greatly, greatly increasing the freedom, the liberty, the privacy of all Americans.
We basically don't have freedom.
As long as the IRS exists.
We are not really a free country.
We can't call ourselves a free country.
It's a bit of a farce to say we're a free country as long as the IRS exists.
Because as long as the IRS exists, it means that the government has total access to all of your finances.
They can come in and take however much money they want.
The government can just decide to pass a tax increase.
And then they're going to just go take that money.
Whatever amount of money they decide they want to take from you, they can just take it directly from you.
To call us a free country when you have a system like that, it's farcical.
And if you don't pay it, they can take anything they want from you.
They can take your money, they can take your home, they can throw you in prison, they can do anything.
Your rights are forfeit.
They get complete access to your finances.
They can take anything they want.
And if you block them from doing so in some way, your whole life is theirs.
And so to have a system like that run by the IRS, who of course are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, and the Bill of Rights basically don't apply to them.
To have that and then say at the same time we're a free country is, you know, for the third time, it's a farce.
So, you know, I say that the greatest advantage of abolishing the income tax is the amount of money that it saves for everybody.
But probably this is number one.
We actually want to call ourselves a free country?
Well, then, the first step is to get rid of this monstrous system called the income tax.
Which our founding fathers never would have tolerated.
They never would have put up with this.
They are eternally ashamed of us that we have tolerated it for as long as we have.
That's the other piece of all of this.
All this talk about the tariffs and everything, obviously it's an important conversation, but this is the part of it that I don't hear discussed often enough.
This is the step two.
So let's start talking about step two.
Okay, let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow up in hay.
We're the Sweet Baby Gang.
I'm not a thing
Let's face it, current handgun storage options are like choosing between two flavors of terrible.
Either your weapon is locked up tighter than Fort Knox, completely useless in an actual emergency, or it's sitting around like an accident waiting to happen.
Enter Stopbox USA, who apparently realized that forcing people to choose between safe but inaccessible and accessible but dangerous,...was a ridiculous false dilemma.
Their solution?
The Stopbox Pro.
I've been using my Stopbox Pro for a while now, and one reason I love it is because it uses a push-button locking system that doesn't require you to fumble with keys while an intruder casually waits for you to find the right one.
And unlike those fancy electronic locks that inevitably die when you need them most...
This thing is 100% mechanical.
No batteries, no problems.
So, while the rest of the world is busy making smart devices that fail spectacularly when unplugged, Stopbox USA went old school reliable.
Quick access when seconds matter, secure when they don't, and zero dependence on electricity.
Plus, I appreciate that Stopbox manufactures all their products right here in the USA at their dedicated facility.
This homegrown approach guarantees exceptional craftsmanship in every unit while creating valuable employment opportunities for American workers.
For a limited time only, our listeners are getting a crazy deal.
Not only do you get 10% off your entire order when you use code MATTWALLSHOW at stopboxusa.com, but they're also giving you buy one, get one free for their Stopbox Pro.
That's 10% off and a free Stopbox Pro when you use code MATTWALLSHOW at stopboxusa.com.
Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with Stopbox.
You missed the point on maternity leave.
We had exactly this situation at the last place I worked.
What does a woman do after a year of maternity leave?
She has another child.
Rinse and repeat.
We had one employee who spun this out for four years.
Yeah, I don't think I missed the point, but that is a point about this that is true that I guess I didn't mention.
And I said the maternity leave policies, especially when you want to codify them into law.
And force employers to give X amount of maternity leave, which is always going to be an arbitrary amount.
Whatever the number is you settle on, totally arbitrary.
Because whatever you want to say, oh, it's really important for the mother to be home for the first eight months of the child's life.
No, it's just as important for the next eight months and the next eight months and the next eight months.
So whatever number you pick, it's completely arbitrary.
But I said that it's unsustainable also.
And yeah, you point to one of the reasons why.
Anyone that's been in the working world has seen this.
We all have examples of, you know, you could have a woman who has a job and is paid by a job for like five years, but only actually works for, you know, 13 months out of that five years because the rest of the time she's on maternity leave having kids.
It's just, it gets to a point where it's ridiculous.
It's like you have companies that are for years paying someone to not Work.
And obviously that doesn't work.
That's not a sustainable way of doing business.
And we're only going through all of this because nobody wants to say what is obviously true, which is that, yeah, you should be home with your child and then just stay home.
Just go do that.
But this is like the ultimate sort of have your cake and eat it too.
Be home with my kid, but still be paid by a job for years on end that I'm not doing.
It's like, it just doesn't work.
It just doesn't work.
All right, Lance Armstrong's defense, he wasn't doing anything the rest of the Peloton wasn't doing.
He was just better at it and trained harder.
Yeah, I actually don't really care about the steroid scandals.
I don't care in general.
I never cared about any of them.
I never understood why it was always a big, whether Major League Baseball and then the Lance Armstrong thing, it was a...
Always this huge scandal about steroids.
I don't care.
Everyone's doing it.
Doesn't make it okay, but when am I supposed to care?
We pick one random person when everyone in the sport is doing it and turn them into the great villain.
I've never quite understood that.
So yeah, I'm with you on that.
Archery, shooting darts, those kinds of sports are the ones that men and women can compete on a level playing field.
Yeah, those are probably the few sports you can name where men don't necessarily have a significant advantage over women.
I mean, I wouldn't call darts a sport.
That's a game.
It's not a sport.
Archery and shooting, yeah, I think men probably have a slight advantage in something like archery because there is strength and endurance involved just with drawing the bow over and over again and all that.
Although I think the way they build the bows these days, even that, there's not a lot of strength involved.
So basically, the only sports where men don't have a significant inherent advantage are the sports.
That involve little to no strength, endurance, or agility.
Which, if you want to be a purist, you could argue that, well, if it doesn't involve strength, endurance, and agility, it's not actually a sport.
It might be a contest or a game, but it's not a sport.
And, you know, that's a whole conversation.
People take that very seriously.
If you take someone's favorite activity and you say, yeah, not really a sport, they get really offended by that.
I don't take it as that.
I love to fish.
I even will watch competitive fishing.
I'm that insane that I'll watch competitive fishing.
It's not a sport.
It's an activity.
It can be a contest if you do it competitively.
It's not a sport because there's no strength, endurance, or agility involved.
There's strategy.
There's skill.
Look, if you can be 50 years old and overweight and compete in this activity at a high level, it's not a sport.
I mean, I think it's as simple as that.
So if you take that kind of what you might call the more purist, which I think is a rational definition of sport, then there actually is no sport where men don't have a really significant inherent physical advantage.
One root issue regarding maternity leave debate, stop believing the lie that you can have it all.
You cannot.
To choose one thing is to exclude all the other options.
To choose one husband is to forego all the amazing possible husbands out there.
You have to choose.
I pray young women will realize you have such a short time to be a full-time mom.
You have decades to pursue other things.
Please choose your babies.
Yeah, trade-offs.
I mean, that's my point about maternity leave.
And when we see these videos of the women weeping because they have to return to work.
We're dodging the real issue and we're not dealing with the trade-offs.
And this is maybe...
I think feminism has told a lot of lies.
It's lied to women in many ways.
And the greatest lie that feminism has told women is the child in your womb is not really a person.
That's the greatest lie, the most destructive one.
But second...
Second place might be this.
It might be trade-offs don't exist.
You can have it all, right?
That is the second greatest lie of feminism, is you can have it all.
And you can't.
That's not life.
That's not how life works.
There are always going to be trade-offs.
And being a functioning person in society means just accepting that reality.
And facing the trade-offs and making your choice and admit that you've made the choice.
So when you hear these women say, oh, just because I'm going to work, it doesn't mean I'm not prioritizing my child.
Well, yeah, it does.
It does mean that.
Unless you really have to, unless it's true, you absolutely have to work for financial reasons.
You wish you didn't have to, but you're only doing it because of that.
And that's one thing.
If you're doing it as a choice because you love your job or whatever, then however anybody feels about that choice, it is a choice and it is a trade-off and you are saying that, okay, I'm going to prioritize this thing that I love to do over my child.
And I don't know, let's at least have the honesty to face it and talk about it in those kinds of honest terms.
Finally, they act like black people weren't main characters in movies from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.
And funny enough, Aslan would be better played by a black guy from Africa than by Meryl Streep.
I had the exact same thought with Aslan.
I mean, the idea of having Meryl Streep play Aslan is, we're so used to all these diversifying efforts in movies and so many things like that, that it.
You're kind of numb to it by now?
But that one I find really, that offends me at a deep level.
I think it does a lot of people.
Because the story is important to a lot of us.
Especially if you're a Christian and you grew up admiring C.S. Lewis as I did.
So the story really means something to you.
And to do that to that story, it is actually offensive.
But it's also, on top of that, it's so unnecessary because you could diversify Aslan.
Which I don't think you need to do.
But you could do that here.
It's an obvious thing sitting right there.
Morgan Freeman is sitting right there.
He's still alive.
I mean, he's old, but you still have a chance.
And I don't think anyone would object to Morgan Freeman as Aslan, right?
It's a little bit on the nose, and he's played like the God or Christ-like figure in maybe too many films at this point.
But I don't know.
I mean, I wouldn't object to that.
So, if you want to go that route, it's right there.
Instead, they choose Meryl Streep.
It's outrageous.
Right now, the world is changing fast.
The Supreme Court just greenlit deportations of illegal Venezuelan migrants.
Trump is ending bloated federal programs and spending.
The US is locking horns with China over massive new tariffs.
Meanwhile, legacy media gives you headlines with twisted facts and none of the content.
But Daily Wire gives you what actually matters, every angle, every fact, every time.
With unfiltered daily shows and the best investigative journalism, because you deserve the full story.
So don't settle for narrative.
Subscribe to facts.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Around three years after Jurassic Park debuted in theaters, the biggest story in the country was that we had cloned a sheep named Dolly.
And if you think back to that period, the dark ages of the late 1990s, Not really Dark Ages.
They were great.
But this was both a very exciting moment for scientists and the directors of various horror movies and also a complete letdown for most everyone else.
On the one hand, there was the promise that we could soon clone more interesting creatures like, say, T-Rexes or dragons, which are real, I'm told.
That was pretty thrilling at some level.
On the other hand...
There was a very real legitimate concern that by cloning Dolly we had defied the natural order with a Frankenstein creation that contradicted basic principles of ethics and that we had done so in order to clone perhaps the most boring and unintelligent animal on the planet.
However you viewed the debate at the time, in the late 1990s, nobody was quite sure where this technology would end up.
By 2025, would T-Rexes be walking among us?
Would we be able to clone ourselves and have little helpers doing our chores and going to our jobs for us?
Nobody was quite sure.
And that was both exciting and terrifying at the same time.
But now, in 2025, the mystery is gone.
We finally have the answer to all these questions.
Instead of cloning dinosaurs, now we're bringing back random extinct animals back to life using fossilized remains and some kind of gene editing technology.
Specifically, as you may have seen this week, scientists claim to have resurrected, quote-unquote, an extinct canine known as the dire wolf, which was last known to exist around 13,000 years ago.
More recently, it's apparently been featured in Game of Thrones, so this particular brand of wolf has been experiencing something of a pop culture resurgence recently.
Before we get into the implications here, I should note that while this animal does have a cool name, it frankly doesn't look very different from any other wolf, which is, I guess, not something you're supposed to say out loud, judging by all the breathless coverage of this development.
Here, for example, is ABC News' segment on this astonishing new scientific breakthrough.
Watch. We turn now to that remarkable scientific breakthrough.
13,000 years after the last dire wolf walked the Earth, scientists say they've now brought them back.
Here's our chief national correspondent back up and with the video tonight.
Tonight, a howl 13,000 years in the making.
In a first for science, biotech company Colosso Biosciences says it brought the extinct dire wolf back to life, a species that hasn't walked the Earth since the Stone Age.
The direwolf is the first de-extinct species.
We've taken a gray wolf genome, a gray wolf cell, which is already genetically 99.5% identical to direwolves, and we've edited those cells at multiple places in its DNA sequence to contain the direwolf version of the DNA.
That animal looks like a direwolf, it will behave like a direwolf, and it is a direwolf.
It looks like a dire wolf, she says.
It behaves like a dire wolf, and therefore, it is a dire wolf.
Now, I'm willing to concede that somehow this woman knows how dire wolves looked and behaved back in the Stone Age, even though we don't actually have any records of how they behaved back then.
I'm not sure how this person could possibly have any clue about the mannerisms and personalities of animals that no modern human has ever laid eyes on.
Let's just skip over that for a second.
Even with that assumption, How do we also know that this new creation, which was created by combining fossilized remains with gray wolf DNA, is in fact a dire wolf?
Where is that coming from exactly?
As with so many other modern scientific insights, of course, it's basically made up.
I mean, these creatures are not really dire wolves.
What is a dire wolf?
Well, it's not this.
They are genetically modified gray wolves that have been given some of the features of their extinct cousins.
And even more so than Dolly, these are Frankenstein creations that we're talking about.
To be clear, I mean, it's fine if you want to argue that there's some major scientific relevance to this experiment.
I'm just saying that these things aren't really literally what we're being told they are.
And what's more apparent though is that this latest creation could have a lot of unintended side effects.
And this is where the Jurassic Park comparison really comes into play.
Quoting from the Daily Mail, I want you to listen to this quote.
Although the wolves are being kept in captivity, experts warn that releasing them into the world could have disastrous consequences.
Nick Rawlins, a paleontologist at the University of Otago, compared the colossal bioscience's ambitious efforts with sci-fi classic Jurassic Park.
If released into the wild in large enough numbers to establish a self-sustaining population, this new wolf could potentially take down prey larger than those hunted by gray wolves.
There would also be the potential for increased human and wolf conflict.
This sort of conflict is increasing as wolf populations recover in the USA.
Close quote.
Well, that's comforting.
We may have created a new super wolf that will increase the potential for human and wolf conflict, whatever that means exactly.
Nobody's really sure.
Aside from being the premise for a Liam Neeson film, we don't know what that will look like in practice.
We'll just have to deal with that conflict if these things ever escape captivity, apparently.
But really, what are the odds of something like that happening?
You know, I mean, if you can't trust the genetically modified Frankenstein super wolf to stay in their enclosure, then who can you trust?
This is probably a good time to mention that there's basically no coherent ethical argument in favor of creating these new dire wolf hybrids.
There's a million ethical problems.
There is no answer to any of them.
I mean, the most disturbing thing about this story is that the scientists involved Don't seem to be grappling with the ethical dilemma at all.
In fact, they seem to acknowledge that they're playing God, explicitly and proudly.
According to Time Magazine, Beth Shapiro, the chief science officer at Colossal Bioscience, has said, quote, We are an evolutionary force.
We're deciding what the future of these species will be.
Yes, they're not researchers anymore.
They're not conducting experiments to improve our lives or make new discoveries.
Instead, they are an evolutionary force, which by definition means they're not accountable to anybody.
You know, they are a higher power, supposedly.
This is a trend that extends far beyond the field of wolf experiments.
Recently, the New York Times published an article titled Should Human Life Be Optimized?
It's about how the science of IVF has developed,
Quote, today some form of pre-implantation genetic testing, or PGT, is used in over half of IVF cycles in the United States at a cost of $3,000 to $5,000 per batch of embryos.
The most common options patients have are tests for extra or missing chromosomes, structural chromosome rearrangements that can trigger pregnancy loss and disorders linked to a single gene, such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy.
More recently, with the advent of powerful statistical techniques that can analyze huge databases of genetic information, several American companies have started offering PGTPs.
Which screens embryos for their polygenic risk scores.
The technology has typically been used for adults, ostensibly to assess their probability of developing specific conditions.
For example, people whose tests show a high risk score for heart disease might change their diet or increase their physical activity.
The article continues, quote, But polygenic embryo screening goes further than the dubious promise of health.
Studies have identified sets of genes linked to everything from educational attainment and height to mental health conditions such as depression and schizophrenia.
There is no regulatory oversight whatsoever for this kind of screening.
It's already been heavily commercialized and no one's paying attention to the industry at all.
In other words, American leftists, who will screech relentlessly about how the Trump administration is essentially a Nazi regime, strangely have no issue with an industry that's dedicated entirely to eugenics.
Somehow they're completely fine with screening embryos for certain genetic traits that hasn't caused even a whisper of concern for a lot of these people.
What this tells us is that playing God is incredibly intoxicating for a lot of people.
It's enough to make scientists and self-described liberals forget all about their principles or lack thereof.
But this kind of experimentation will ultimately end in disaster at every instance for the simple reason that man cannot become God.
And that's why decades after we cloned the dolly sheep, the best we can do is create a Frankenstein direwolf.
And it's why everyone who is pretending to have supernatural powers to resurrect extinct species or to choose the ideal embryo is today cancelled.
