Editor&#8217;s note: A previous version of this article included social media posts that falsely claimed that the Penske Media Corp had contributed more than a million dollars to political organizations associated with Donald Trump. Those donations came from the Penske Corp, which is a different entity. The story has been updated. 
&#8212;
Some Taylor Swift fans have theories about why she didn&#8217;t attend the American Music Awards (AMAs) on Monday despite being nominated for six awards.
One anonymous <a href="https://x.com/repgirlypop/status/1927194423063884012?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1927194423063884012%7Ctwgr%5E07e6f1f2ea34d03e62a6bfb9bc43b867e301bf77%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.dailywire.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D926219action%3Dedit">X post speculated</a> that the pop star might have skipped due to politics, suggesting that it could be because Billboard Magazine, which is affiliated with the award show, was owned by conservatives. But the post, which has amassed hundreds of thousands of views on X, appears to confuse Jay Penske and his Penske Media Corp with Penske Corp, a company owned by his father, the billionaire former race car driver Roger Penske. 
The younger Penske does not appear to have made any donations to Trump, or any affiliated political groups. His media group, Penske Media Corp, owns several prominent entertainment news outlets, including The Hollywood Reporter and Rolling Stone.
Jay Penske maintains a politically neutral public persona. His father, Roger Penske, formally endorsed President Trump in 2020 and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019 . Penske Corp, according to a review of <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/penske-corp/summary?id=D000036594">campaign finance records</a>, has made several donations to Trump and other Republicans. 
Trump is on the mind of Swift&#8217;s fans due to his recent barb, in which he renewed criticism of the singer he once said he hates.
“Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’” the president shared with his followers on May 16.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
While some fans believe Swift skipped the ceremony due to Trump drama, another theory says the singer did not attend because of the ongoing legal drama between her friend, Blake Lively, and Justin Baldoni.
Swift was subpoenaed in one of the lawsuits, but the court order was later withdrawn. An unnamed source told <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14754785/Taylor-Swift-AVOIDED-AMAs-keeps-low-profile-boyfriend-Travis-Kelce.html">The Daily Mail</a> that the legal issues were the real reason Swift skipped the AMAs.
&#8220;She avoided the AMAs because she didn&#8217;t want to deal with 1000s of questions about the Blake Lively saga,&#8221; a source told the outlet.
&#8220;It is all anyone wants to talk about, and Taylor is really tired of it,&#8221; the source added.
Other <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/real-reason-taylor-swift-skipped-143737766.html">fans have speculated</a> that Swift&#8217;s absence had to do with rumors that an engagement to NFL star Travis Kelce is on the horizon.
Swift currently holds the record for most AMA wins in history with 40. Winners of the AMAs are determined by fans voting on social media and through an online platform.
With Swift&#8217;s absence, performers at the AMAs included Benson Boone, Gloria Estefan, Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, Reneé Rapp, Blake Shelton, Gwen Stefani, Rod Stewart, Alex Warren, and Lainey Wilson. Lopez’s performance raised some eyebrows as she proceeded to kiss both a male and a female dancer on stage, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/desperate-viewers-react-to-jennifer-lopez-making-out-with-dancers-at-amas?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=%E2%80%98Desperate%E2%80%99%3A+Viewers+React+To+Jennifer+Lopez+Making+Out+With+Dancers+At+AMAs">reported</a>.

Taylor Swift

Fans Speculate Why Taylor Swift Skipped AMAs

Fans Speculate Why Taylor Swift Skipped AMAs, Blame Trump And Conservatives

Conservatives

Donald Trump

Entertainment

Music

U.S.

Few artists loathe the music industry quite like Tom MacDonald.
The rebel rapper takes glee in taunting labels on his social media platforms. He recently posted a troll video in front of Sony Music headquarters, name-checking industry pariahs like R. Kelly and P. Diddy with a broad grin on his face.
And despite repeatedly crashing the Billboard music charts he’s refused to go corporate for a bigger promotional wallop.
MacDonald is solo to the core, with an assist from his girlfriend/video director Nova Rockafeller. No managers. No publicists. Just the music and his sizable social media flock.
The mind behind “Fake Woke,” “Snowflakes” and “American Flags” still felt influenced by mainstream superstars, from their branding efforts to songs that purport to dig deeper into their personal lives.
<div id="attachment_891745" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-891745" class="size-large wp-image-891745" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: YouTube/Tom MacDonald &quot;Facts&quot; feat. Ben Shapiro" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-1536x865.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-2048x1153.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: YouTube/Tom MacDonald &#8220;Facts&#8221; feat. Ben Shapiro</div>
“As an independent artist, we’re all watching what the biggest artists in the world are doing and what they sound like,” he says. “Even if you’re somebody like me who detests the major label system, you’re taking information in. You’re being indoctrinated … they must know what’s best.”
It took a while to shake free from that thinking, something he accomplished on his latest album.
“Proud to Be a Problem” finds the Canadian native opening up about his life in ways he never did before.
“I’ve never really been good with processing my emotions and explaining the way I’m feeling to other people… it’s the reason why I make music,” the California-based musician says.
<div id="attachment_915575" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-915575" class="size-large wp-image-915575" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-574-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tom MacDonald." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-574-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-574-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-574-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-574-1536x865.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-574-2048x1153.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tom MacDonald.</div>
Time and maturity have let him tap into something vital and deeply personal, witness tracks like “Hell &amp; Back.”
<blockquote>I&#8217;ve been called a loser since first day of 2nd grade 
I&#8217;ve been an alcoholic with one foot inside the grave 
And I&#8217;ve been brave enough to say that I&#8217;m afraid I&#8217;m not okay 
And I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;ll survive another day</blockquote>
Other tracks, like “Man in the Sky,” merge MacDonald’s protest-singer DNA with heartfelt pleas for empathy. He’s an imperfect vessel in an imperfect world.
The musician’s flaws, like his signature tattoos, are visible to all. <a href="https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/goodbye-joe-god-bless-the-usa-top-digital-song-sales-chart-after-election-1235825769/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">So are his successes</a>.
His post-election song “Goodbye Joe” gave him his <a href="https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/goodbye-joe-god-bless-the-usa-top-digital-song-sales-chart-after-election-1235825769/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fourth number-one ranking</a> on Billboard’s Digital Song Sales chart, following “Fake Woke,” “Ghost” and “You Missed.”
His YouTube channel boasts 5 million subscribers and most videos eclipse the million-view mark in days, not weeks.
MacDonald, whose recent pairings include songs with Roseanne Barr (“Daddy’s Home”) and The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro (“Facts”), sounds a little different on the new album. He isn’t giving up on rap, but the newer material offers a rootsy feel, brimming with acoustic guitars.
<div id="attachment_915573" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-915573" class="size-large wp-image-915573" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-57-AM-7387-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tom MacDonald." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-57-AM-7387-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-57-AM-7387-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-57-AM-7387-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-57-AM-7387-1536x865.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-57-AM-7387-2048x1153.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tom MacDonald.</div>
That singing style hearkens back to his earliest days as a musician. He remembers riding in the car with his father as a boy when he came up with a jingle for Ford.
“[My Dad] was bewildered … where did that come from?” MacDonald recalls. 
He started writing music more often, but he felt he didn’t have the classic rock voice, a la Robert Plant or Joe Cocker, to execute the material. “I had to do something else. I was writing poetry, a primitive form of rap. That’s how the rap thing started,” he says.
“Problem” found him more confident in his singing, allowing him to expand his sound in the process.
“I know where my boundaries are and what I’m capable of singing on a song &#8230; if I don’t do it right now I won’t have a good enough excuse to give it a good shot [later],” he says.
Fans can pick up “Proud to Be a Problem” at MacDonald’s official web site, <a href="https://hangovergangofficial.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HangoverGangOfficial.com</a>. That’s part of his indie approach, lashing out at a streaming landscape that pays little to participating artists.
“I have such a big chip on my shoulder for the music industry,” he says, recalling a brush with a major label earlier in his career that ended in rejection. “I’ve done enough for these streaming platforms.”
“A big part of the reason I put the singles on streaming is we keep going to no. 1 on Billboard [charts] … it’s a giant f***ing middle finger to the music industry,” he says.
<div id="attachment_915581" style="width: 334px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-915581" class="wp-image-915581 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842-324x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Instagram/@TomMacDonaldOfficial" width="324" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842-324x576.jpg 324w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842-169x300.jpg 169w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842-768x1365.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842-864x1536.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842-1152x2048.jpg 1152w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-12-10-PM-5842.jpg 1440w" sizes="(max-width: 324px) 100vw, 324px" />Screenshot: Instagram/@TomMacDonaldOfficial</div>
That solo spirit extends beyond the music on “Problem.” He designed the merchandise around the released, mailed signed LP copies of it to fans personally and oversaw every part of the production.
“It hasn’t been touched by Hollywood. That’s the way I want it,” he says.
He shared his feelings about sending out signed copies of “Proud to Be a Problem” to fans on his <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DJIdKXgPXX0/?img_index=1">Instagram account</a>:
<blockquote>I gotta tell y’all &#8211; people didn’t care about me for most of my life. I was one of the forgotten people whose voice was drown out by the noise of the world. Every single day I’m shocked that you guys care about me enough to want my album and my signature. I’m shocked…but I’m thrilled. I felt like a “nobody” for so long that every day I wake up expecting to be forgotten again. Every day that y’all remember me, you prove me wrong. And you absolutely make my day. No one should ever feel like a nobody. But it happens.</blockquote>
That personal connection reflects being a music fan growing up in Canada. He fondly remembers lining up at the local record store and waiting for the newest albums to go on sale.
“When you got that album .. you felt like you might be one of the only people in the world who had it,” he says. “You could hold on to it, a physical product … That’s the way I want my music to be experienced.”
Record labels still reach out to MacDonald about potential deals, and he sometimes will listen to the conversation. Then, he’ll share his reactions on Instagram.
“I’ve been trolling these people for years and years,” he says. “I’d rather roll around on broken glass [than sign onto a label].”
<div id="attachment_915577" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-915577" class="size-large wp-image-915577" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-5929-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tom MacDonald." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-5929-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-5929-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-5929-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-5929-1536x865.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/MixCollage-03-May-2025-11-58-AM-5929-2048x1153.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tom MacDonald.</div>
MacDonald leveraged new media and a collective mistrust of the mainstream to power his music career. Somewhere a fledgling singer/songwriter might want to follow in his shoes, avoiding corporate overlords to make music on their terms.
MacDonald has some clichéd but honest advice for the next generation of indie musicians.
“Just be yourself … there’s always gonna be a better producer, a better rapper, a better singer. You’re the only person on earth who can do you better than anybody else,” he says. “The entire world is fake and bulls*** and disingenuous. The best way to cut through all that noise is to be honest and scream your truth at the top of your lungs … people gravitate towards the truth and what’s real.”
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Millions Of Views And Fiercely Independent. Inside The Mind Of Tom MacDonald.

Music Industry

Rapper

Tom MacDonald

Normally when some influencer posts a video that I find annoying and I feel the need to respond to it, I save it for my Daily Cancellation segment. Today, however, I am going to break that rule. I am going to begin with a video from an allegedly conservative influencer named Emily Wilson.
What makes this video relevant, aside from the fact that it just simply annoys me, is that it echoes a message we’ve been hearing with increasing frequency from women on the Right with, in some cases, very large platforms. Emily’s platform isn’t very large, but it is sizable enough. She has half a million followers on Instagram. I’m sure she’s a nice person. I don’t know her and have no issue with her personally. But she represents a growing, or at least increasingly evident, problem on the Right. The problem, in a word, is feminism.
Feminism is not compatible with any meaningful definition of conservatism. Whatever conservatism is trying to conserve — like marriage, the family, western civilization itself — feminism militates against. And yet many feminists have become mouthpieces in the movement, and are accepted as such, as long as they wear a MAGA hat and say that they don’t like illegal immigration or whatever.
So with that in mind, let’s listen to just the latest submission to the ever expanding conservative feminist genre:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Not to pick on <a href="https://twitter.com/emilysavesusa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@emilysavesusa</a> because I’ve been seeing a lot of girls on the right counter signaling the ‘trad’ stay at home mom lifestyle lately also, but I think this message is ridiculous.
Being a SAHM is not being ‘trapped’ by a man. That’s feminist BS. It’s also not… <a href="https://t.co/2iiwnYCb0T">pic.twitter.com/2iiwnYCb0T</a>
&mdash; Sarah Stock ✟ (@sarahcstock) <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahcstock/status/1917844165893018047?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Well, I am cringing. But not because of the trad wives. I’m cringing at this lame, half-baked attack on stay-at-home moms. And I’m cringing even more at the fact that women with these kinds of views are still embraced as “conservative.”
Try to imagine the opposite of this. Imagine a Left-wing influencer who advocates for every Left-wing policy under the sun but then comes out one day and says, “You know what? I think a woman’s proper place is in the home, raising her children.” It’s impossible to conceive of any Left-wing woman ever saying such a thing. And if she did, she would be immediately excised from the movement. That’s because leftists understand that supporting so-called traditional gender roles is fundamentally antithetical to their worldview. You literally cannot be a leftist and hold that view.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1588-member-exclusive?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
The same is logically true in the reverse. Attacking gender roles is fundamentally leftist. Which means you cannot be conservative if you hold fundamentally leftist views. You have every right to express those views. But you should not be embraced as a conservative, much less listened to as a spokeswoman for the movement. 
Now let’s go through some of the specifics here. Emily says that a woman should have a job and her own income so that she isn’t “trapped” by a man. She envisions the relationship between husband and wife as inherently competitive. Marriage is a zero sum game where both husband and wife are competing for control. Again, this is a fundamentally leftist conception. It is a recipe for divorce. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with a wife earning money. As I’ve conceded many times, a family may feel that they need two incomes in order to survive. Or they may want a second income. Or the wife might have a job that doesn’t require leaving the house and going to an office every day. But if she’s earning money as an escape hatch because she doesn’t want to be “trapped,” that is a very bad sign.
If you want to understand why it’s a bad sign just imagine how it would sound if a man adopted this philosophy. A woman on X commented yesterday that a wife needs a “backup in case their man can’t fulfill his providing roles.”
Well what if a man decided to have a back up in case his woman didn’t fulfill her wifely duties? Most people would find that objectionable, for good reason. The whole point of marriage is that you are devoting yourself entirely to your spouse. Two become one flesh. It is not possible to make that level of commitment while at the same time actively building yourself a nest egg just in case you want to leave. Saying the vows and pledging yourself to your betrothed means not having an exit plan. It means you burn the boats like Cortés and turn towards that wilderness and journey into it together, come what may.
She also says that men want to be mentally stimulated. The implication is that stay-at-home moms are too stupid to provide that sort of stimulation because all they think about is their “sourdough bread.”
This is absurdly dismissive and insulting to millions of good, godly, intelligent women who, while staying home with the children, are also capable of having intelligent conversations with their husbands. It also assumes that a woman who sits in a cubicle all day will somehow have more interesting things to say to her husband at the end of the day. Having a job as a woman does not make you smart or interesting. I hate to break it to the working women of the world, but your husband is almost certainly not intellectually stimulated by your job or your stories about your job. If he was able to choose between listening to a story about your office drama or listening to a story about what you did with the kids that day, he would prefer to hear about the latter. This is the sort of thing you would know about men if you listened to them when they try to tell you what they want, instead of declaring what you think they should want.
But the biggest problem — and the objection you hear most often from these feminist types — is the claim that somehow the stay-at-home mom arrangement is implausible, or even impossible. Emily declares that your chances of finding a man who can provide for you while you stay home and raise the children are, “Slim to none. Actually none,” she says. There&#8217;s no chance that it works out for you. There’s no chance that it works out for you or anyone you know. And yet it has worked out for countless people. It’s worked out for my wife. It’s worked out for many families that I know personally. It’s worked out for billions of human beings across the globe and through history since the dawn of civilization. Emily has written off the most normal and historically common practice as not just difficult but, according to her, literally impossible. And not just impossible, but also absurd and grotesque.
There’s a lot of this kind of thing going around. During my conversation with Tucker Carlson this week, we talked about the absurdity of gay adoption and gay parenthood.
Here&#8217;s a clip of that exchange that Tucker&#8217;s team posted:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Should gay couples be able to adopt? Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson discuss. <a href="https://t.co/q3I5vRRzVF">pic.twitter.com/q3I5vRRzVF</a>
&mdash; Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) <a href="https://twitter.com/TCNetwork/status/1918058750692180235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Plenty of people on the Right, or Right-adjacent, took great exception to this. Glenn Greenwald is one of them. He tweeted in response: 
<blockquote>One has to be morally deranged — or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support — to believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples.</blockquote>
Morally deranged, he says. The view that two men should not be allowed to adopt children was held by nearly everyone in this country, and everyone across the world, until very recently. Barack Obama was against gay adoption when he first ran for president. So was every other elected Democrat. Any elected Democrat over the age of 50 was probably, at one point, opposed to both gay marriage and gay adoption. In fact, gay adoption was so obviously wrong to so many people for so long that it wasn&#8217;t even discussed. It wasn&#8217;t debated. It was just intuitively understood that children need a mother and a father. We won’t let two men adopt children for the same reason that we wouldn’t let a polyamorous polycule adopt a child. Children need a mother and a father. We are not going to deliberately put a child into a disordered environment where he is not only deprived of a mother or a father, but the role of mother or father has been replaced in an unnatural and confusing way.
This was always understood. Now, in the blink of an eye, what was always understood is &#8220;morally deranged.” The thing that everyone believed forever until approximately last Tuesday is not just wrong but shocking and upsetting and baffling. This is the game that&#8217;s played. And I, for one, am entirely sick of it.
Not everything that is old or traditional is automatically good, of course. Slavery is old and traditional — and still practiced in non-western countries. It&#8217;s also very bad. But there are basic truths about how human society is fundamentally structured. Truths that have withstood the test of time. Truths that have, while civilization held fast to them, it flourished and advanced in remarkable and seemingly miraculous ways. Truths that, minutes after our society abandoned, immediately led to decline and chaos and confusion. One of those truths is that a child needs a mother and a father. Only a man and a woman can have a baby, or should. Another one of those truths is that men and women are different, and so have different roles in the home and in society. This was an idea so basic that there wasn&#8217;t even a term for it. We only started labeling it &#8220;gender roles&#8221; at the moment that we decided to abandon it. And I would say that the results of that decision have not been good. Divorce, broken homes, declining birth rates, 60 million dead babies. And those are just the early returns.
That’s why we cannot be embarrassed to hold to a system that is ancient and timeless, and proven, tested, and vindicated by the testimony of our ancestors and by thousands of years of human experience beyond that. As conservatives, if that is not worth conserving, then nothing is.

Three businesswomen walking together in an office

Why ‘Conservative Feminism’ Is A Total Lie

Why 'Conservative Feminism' Is A Total Lie

Chemotherapy

Family Values

Fathers

Feminism

Husband

Marriage

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Parenting

Social Media

Women

David Horowitz died on Tuesday at the age of 86.
I knew David really, really well. I used to work at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Truth Revolt, which was a precursor to The Daily Wire, began at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
I knew David for more than a decade before that. He was truly a formative person in the modern conservative movement, a person who spoke the truth no matter the cost.
David started off as a radical communist. He wrote a book in 1996 titled “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Son-Generational-David-Horowitz/dp/0684840057?ref_=ast_author_dp&amp;th=1&amp;psc=1#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey</a>.” In it, he talks about how his parents were communists and that he was a “Red Diaper Baby.”
He began his career as a far-Left writer for Ramparts magazine. He turned to the Right when his friend was allegedly killed by the Black Panthers. Then, basically all of his old friends disowned him and decided he was “untouchable.”
David then turned into one of the most effective conservative activists of his generation. He used to call the David Horowitz Freedom Center a “battle tank” rather than a think tank. Pretty much everybody who&#8217;s anybody in modern conservatism had some initial connection with David Horowitz. I met Charlie Kirk, for example, at a David Horowitz Freedom Center event back when Charlie was maybe 18- or 19- years old and was first getting started with TPUSA.
And that remains true for a huge number of people who got their start in the conservative movement in the 1990s and 2000s. His books are worth reading. He was really an amazing writer, a terrific speaker, and a strong voice.
There are many videos of him online that are really worth watching. Here is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuqTKXZjffE">just one</a>, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="WILL YOU CONDEMN HAMAS: David Horowitz Goes Toe-to-Toe With Terrorism Apologist" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JuqTKXZjffE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
<blockquote>Horowitz: Will you condemn Hamas here and now? 
Radical Student: I&#8217;m sorry, what? 
Horowitz: Will you condemn Hamas? Will you condemn Hamas as a terrorist and genocidal organization? 
Radical Student: Are you asking me to put myself on a cross?
Horowitz: So you won&#8217;t. I actually have had this experience many times. You didn&#8217;t read the pamphlet because the pamphlet is chapter and verse. The main connection is that the MSA is part of the Muslim Brotherhood network, as revealed in the document.
Radical Student: I don&#8217;t think you understood what I meant by that. I meant if I say something, I&#8217;m sure that I will be arrested for reasons of Homeland Security. So if you could please just answer my question.
Horowitz: If you condemn Hamas, Homeland Security will arrest you?
Radical Student: If I support Hamas — because your question forces me to condemn Hamas — if I support Hamas, I look really bad.
Horowitz: Well, if you don&#8217;t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I&#8217;ve had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk, I kept asking them, “Will you condemn Hezbollah and Hamas?” And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask questions. I said, “You know, before you start, will you condemn Hezbollah?” And he said, “Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.” So I said, “Okay, I&#8217;ll put it to you this way. I&#8217;m a Jew. The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn&#8217;t have to hunt us down globally — for it or against it?
Radical Student: For it.
Horowitz: Thank you. Thank you for coming and showing everybody what&#8217;s here.</blockquote>
David was extremely clear in his approach to the world. He understood the morality of many of our foreign adversaries. He was an advocate for Americanism and American strength and security. And he will very much be missed.

2David_Horowitz_(5450881229) copy

David Horowitz: The Most Effective Conservative Of His Generation

Ben Shapiro

Books

Communism

David Horowitz

Obituaries

Republicans

I believe that America’s core ideals are very much linked to its Christian faith. So as Easter has just passed, I thought this would be a good time to take a closer look at the state of the American church and then weep quietly and say it was a great country while it lasted.
Now, according to a Pew poll, 62% of Americans identify as Christian. This is a slight drop from the 1697 poll which showed 99.9% of Americans were Christian with one heretic hiding in the woods hoping some long-haired guy with a buckle on his hat wouldn’t blow his head off with a blunderbuss.
But today’s religious landscape looks different depending on political affiliation. For instance, on the political Left, 43% of those who identify as progressives say they have abandoned Christianity and become Episcopalians. Fourteen percent of progressives say they have renounced the corrupt beliefs of colonizing white men, have returned to the innocent and beautiful natural religion of indigenous peoples, and were preparing to sacrifice a virgin to the volcano God until they realized that by the time they were sure she was a virgin, she wasn’t a virgin anymore, and if they threw her into a volcano there’d be no one left who knew how to make breakfast.
Other progressives say they are sick of the sort of restrictive religions that ruined the 1950’s by making everything so great. Instead they have turned to more modern faiths with practices that reflect the moral progress of mankind. These practices include yogic meditation, ritual mindfulness, and tantric sex followed by butchering any unborn babies conceived during tantric sex, then celebrating the mass slaughter by dancing around a pole in a wild blood-drenched frenzy, getting a full body tattoo featuring goat-headed demi-gods with flaming eyes, then running naked through a forest while grunting inarticulately and listening to music that’s mostly composed of drumbeats and shrieking because classic rock is just the best.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h3>
Among Christians on the political Right, 17% say they believe in Christ so hard they’ll kill anyone who disagrees with them, 14% say their faith is so strong they might even be willing to go to church as long as porn is provided, and 8% say their worship mostly involves posting unspeakably cruel remarks on social media to people who aren’t as Christly as they are. Four percent of conservative Christians say they have abandoned their own egos for Christ’s sake and have thus elevated their souls into a state of suffering-yet-serene agape love, and are now hiding in the woods hoping some long-haired guy with a buckle on his hat won’t blow their heads off with a blunderbuss.
The remaining 57% of Right-wing Christians spend most of their time sobbing and whispering, “Oh God, I suck so bad, please, please, please have mercy on me and don’t send me to hell or California.”
As far as other American religions go, 94% of limousine drivers identify as Muslims, 16% of Christian women pretend they’re Buddhists, and 82% of Jews control 90% of everything except which parts of Ivy League campuses they’re allowed to walk on without one of their professors pointing at them and making that awful insect noise like Donald Sutherland at the end of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
Approximately 29% of Americans have no religion whatsoever and they say that makes life much easier because they&#8217;re able to rotate their heads 360 degrees and spider walk across the ceiling, which comes in very handy when they’re trying to escape from the exorcist.
Around the world, the religious landscape is much more varied. For instance, in Great Britain, while 47% of the people identify as Christian, 70% of them say that Islam is also absolutely great, totally fine, really wonderful and not a problem at all, no, really, it’s fantastic, they’re not just saying that because they’d be arrested for telling the truth.
In France, 49% of the population were excited because they thought they belonged to a dark, obscure, mystery cult with elaborate secret rituals until they found out they were actually just Catholics.
And in China, 23% of high-ranking Communists identify their kidneys as Uiger.
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins).

US-ENTERTAINMENT-FILM-FESTIVAL-CARTOON-COMICCON-RELIGION

Progressives Abandon Christianity, Become Episcopalian

Andrew Klavan

Bible

Christianity

Easter

Episcopal Church

Humor

Progressivism

Satire

Buckley vs. Vidal. Frost Vs. Nixon.
Smith vs. Murray?
Everyone is still talking about the extended debate between Libertarian comic Dave Smith and author Douglas Murray on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”
The Spotify superstar set the chat in motion, knowing the two had extremely different views that would make for a compelling exchange. It’s a sad sign of the times when a debate between two well-meaning adults is increasingly rare in pop culture.
The chat did more than let both pundits share their views. It reminded Rogan of an old saw that Uncle Ben taught a budding web-slinger long ago.
With great power comes great responsibility.
<div id="attachment_909815" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah6kirkSwTg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-909815" class="size-large wp-image-909815" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-23-PM-2662-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Joe Rogan Experience #2303. Dave Smith and Douglas Murray. PowerfulJRE. YouTube.com" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-23-PM-2662-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-23-PM-2662-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-23-PM-2662-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-23-PM-2662-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-23-PM-2662-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Screenshot: Joe Rogan Experience #2303. Dave Smith and Douglas Murray. PowerfulJRE. YouTube.com</div>
The underlying message in the chat? Rogan’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah6kirkSwTg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hugely popular show</a> has been letting some cranks share his podcast microphone. That might not have mattered a few years ago, but now “The Joe Rogan Experience” has the power to shape the political landscape.
Many pundits suggest Donald Trump’s appearance on the show, along with Kamala Harris’ unwillingness to do the same, played a role in the real estate mogul’s victory.
Letting “historians” in Rogan’s studio who resist that label, spread erroneous facts, and refuse to take on their critics, may not be the best way to flex his podcast muscle.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-rogan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rogan</a> has played podcast footsie with conspiracy monger Alex Jones for some time. Now, he’s expanding that practice to the format’s detriment. Think Ian Carroll and Darryl Cooper as two recent examples.
The latter called Winston Churchill, <a href="https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/cooper-koureas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“The chief villain of World War II.”</a>
“I feel you’ve opened the door to quite a lot of people who now got a big platform, who have been throwing out counter-historical stuff of a very dangerous kind,” Murray said early in the conversation. “These guys are not historians. They’re not knowledgeable about anything.”
“I just think, ‘I’d like to talk to that person.&#8217;” Rogan said of his guest choice.
The far-Left Hollywood Reporter, sensing a weakness in Rogan’s podcasting armor, called the podcaster’s recent tilt, “Dangerous.” That’s overstating it, but <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/joe-rogan-douglas-murray-podcast-1236192416/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">it’s neither healthy nor helpful.</a>
A week later, Darryl Cooper arrived to perform his act, which can be described as offering outrageous provocations he then half walks back so he can repeat them all again tomorrow. In September, Cooper had appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast to say that Churchill was the real villain in World War II and that Nazis didn’t want to kill Jews in concentration camps; Jews only “ended up dead” because Germany didn’t have the resources to take care of them.
Murray and Smith didn’t name call or insult one another during the often-tense exchange. Rogan proved an avuncular host, trying to keep the parties on an even keel. The two sparred over foreign policy, the Ukraine war, and, most passionately, the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Murray’s silky-smooth delivery and impeccable grasp of the facts mattered. Smith brought an Everyman’s perspective to the party, often appearing overmatched in the dustup.
<div id="attachment_909817" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-909817" class="size-large wp-image-909817" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-13-PM-5832-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Joe Rogan Experience #2303. Dave Smith and Douglas Murray. PowerfulJRE. YouTube.com" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-13-PM-5832-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-13-PM-5832-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-13-PM-5832-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-13-PM-5832-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-13-PM-5832-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: Joe Rogan Experience #2303. Dave Smith and Douglas Murray. PowerfulJRE. YouTube.com</div>
Who “won” depends partly on who you were rooting for prior to the exchange. Both landed some blows, from Murray detailing the horrors of October 7 to Smith sharing the devastation in Gaza from the extended conflict.
It’s increasingly rare to watch these kinds of debates play out on the pop culture landscape. Hollywood’s near total domination by the Left means there’s little appetite for these healthy exchanges. 
Consider today’s late-night hosts. They all sing from the same progressive hymnal and invite progressive guests on to nod along with the audience. The host of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” just raged against President Donald Trump in a Rolling Stone interview. Here’s part of his <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/jimmy-kimmel-trump-late-night-future-interview-1235315906/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">jeremiad against all things GOP</a>.
&#8220;There’s no decency. It’s just a bunch of animals [emphasis added], and it’s disgusting… I mean, on the Fourth of July, I still put up a flag, and I’m never going to stop doing that, because I’m never going to let them have that symbol.&#8221;
Does that sound like someone willing to host a free and fair debate on his platform? Why can’t Kimmel invite someone like Dr. Jordan Peterson or Greg Gutfeld on his show for a civil conversation? It would make for compelling TV and might boost the show’s ratings.
Plus, audiences might take away something valuable from it beyond demonizing those with whom they disagree. It’s increasingly clear folks on the Left aren’t interested in that kind of exchange.
There is an exception, though. Classical liberal Bill Maher, both on his HBO talk show and “Club Random” podcast, routinely invites Right-leaning guests to talk out their differences. Think Dave Rubin, Kid Rock, and actor Zachary Levi, to name just three.
<div id="attachment_909819" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-909819" class="size-large wp-image-909819" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-36-PM-7260-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: YouTube/Club Random Podcast. " width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-36-PM-7260-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-36-PM-7260-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-36-PM-7260-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-36-PM-7260-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-36-PM-7260-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: YouTube/Club Random Podcast.</div>
Rogan probably didn’t like to hear someone like Murray, well-regarded in many circles, dressing him down on his own show. He needed to hear it all the same. It’s reminiscent of another pivotal moment from the show’s past.
Rogan invited then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on his show for what appeared to be a tepid chat that let Dorsey slink away from his platform’s censorious ways. Rogan got an earful from his fans who felt he had let the CEO off too easily. So he invited Dorsey back on the show, but brought backup.
He added journalist gadfly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tim Pool to the conversation</a>. Pool brought some unflattering receipts, and the exchange proved far more illuminating than the first interview.
Perhaps Rogan needed a reminder of why his show matters and the consequences of having one of the biggest podcasts in the country.
Uncle Ben would be proud if he took that lesson seriously.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-18-Apr-2025-04-07-PM-2073

Joe Rogan’s Smith-Murray Debate Shows The Power And Risk Of Platforming

comedian

Debate

Douglas Murray

Joe Rogan

Libertarian Party

Podcast

Pro-Israel

Pro-Palestinian

Spotify

Ukraine-Russia War

Winston Churchill

World War II

YouTube

A French court has now banned Marine Le Pen, who is highly likely to win the next election in France, from seeking public office for five years. The court convicted her of misusing European Union funds.
&#8220;The court ruled that Le Pen and other members of her party illegally used 4.4 million euros, equivalent to $4.8 million, in EU funding that was earmarked for assistants helping lawmakers in the European Parliament with their work,&#8221; The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/frances-marine-le-pen-found-guilty-of-embezzlement-b8c42dac" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. &#8220;Monday’s sentence bars Le Pen from seeking public office for the next five years, thrusting her far-right party into limbo. Le Pen also received a four-year prison sentence. Half of that term was suspended, judges said, adding that she could serve the remaining two years by using an electronic bracelet or other alternatives to jail time. The ruling takes Le Pen out of contention for the 2027 race, unless she can win a swift appeal. Le Pen had been expected to enter that contest as a front-runner as President Emmanuel Macron will be term limited and other prominent contenders have yet to emerge.&#8221;
This is crazy — but this is part and parcel of the broader attempt by Left-wing judiciary activists across the globe to stop “populist politicians” from being able to run.
We saw it with President Trump, where the DOJ went after him for supposed crimes, the same crimes for which they let Joe Biden off the hook. We saw it in New York, where a New York attorney general filed a civil fraud lawsuit in an attempt to stop then-candidate Trump.
We have seen it in Brazil, where the entire judicial apparatus has been brought down on the head of Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil, in favor of Lula da Silva, who was then freed by that same exact judiciary.
We&#8217;ve seen it in Romania, where Cǎlin Georgescu won the election in 2024 and then the judiciary decided the election had been rigged by the Russians and annulled it. 
We have seen it in Israel, where the attorney general of Israel has been targeting Benjamin Netanyahu on specious charges for literally years, and the judiciary keep saying that Netanyahu can&#8217;t perform the basic functions of an executive, such as fire his attorney general or fire anyone in the executive branch.
And now we are seeing it in France.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2169-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
It is absolutely amazing to watch these unelected officials going out of their way to thwart the will of the people in supposed democracies. It&#8217;s really insane.
You want to talk about undermining democracy itself? This undermines democracy because the reaction to this is, “Okay, what if we just overthrow the judicial institutions?”
Why do I feel like this is a put-up job? Because it takes effect immediately. The point is to get her out of the elections. Thus they&#8217;re suspending her jail sentence but they are not suspending her ban from running.
Le Pen had denied the charges, “testifying in court that it was appropriate for the assistants to perform other party-related work because they were political aides, not direct employees of the European Parliament,” the Journal noted.
In other words, if the European Parliament didn’t want them focused solely on party-related tasks, perhaps it should have hired them directly, rather than paying the party to handle some of its work. That sounds like a strong defense.
Is the idea here that Marine Le Pen desperately needed a couple of million euros in order to pay off her political party? I feel like she probably could have raised it. Her party&#8217;s pretty big in France.
This is just the latest NATO member to reject a populist candidate by some sort of judicial intervention.
If you want to talk about undermining the argument that democracy must flourish in Europe, this would be a great way to do it.

FRANCE-POLITICS-JUSTICE-TRIAL-RN

Marine Le Pen Banned From Running

Corruption

Europe

European Union

France

Judiciary

Leftists

Marine Le Pen

Parliament

Populism

Prison

President Trump’s Tariffs On Aluminum Imports Impact Price Of Beverage Makers’ Aluminum Cans

Paid-Off ‘Conservatives’ Are Fighting For Your Right To Use Food Stamps For Soda

Paid-Off 'Conservatives' Are Fighting For Your Right To Use Food Stamps For Soda

Coca-Cola

Department of Health and Human Services

Food

Food Stamps

President Trump

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Twitter

There are a lot of things I&#8217;m willing to do for my podcast — a lot of sacrifices I&#8217;ve made over the years, both big and small. And usually I don&#8217;t like to draw attention to these sacrifices because no one tunes in to listen to my personal problems. But today I have to make an exception to my normal practice. And once you see the footage I&#8217;m about to share with you, you&#8217;ll see why.
I just endured what could be the single greatest trial of my podcasting career, if not my entire life on this planet. Without the assistance of any mind-altering substances or the YouTube fast-forward button or anything like that, I just listened to multiple minutes of Michelle Obama&#8217;s new podcast called &#8220;IMO.&#8221; Each episode is a full hour, and it features Michelle Obama, her brother Craig, and sometimes, if you&#8217;re lucky, a special guest.
The special guest, however, isn&#8217;t an important part of the formula. Whether the guest is there or not, you can expect to listen to approximately one hour of Michelle and her brother talking about themselves. It&#8217;s actually impressive, the degree to which the entire show is about inane, completely uninteresting details of these two people&#8217;s lives.
Here&#8217;s just a sampling of the first episode. And frankly, it&#8217;s an impressive achievement if you can even manage to get through this short montage of the most banal and uninteresting footage ever recorded. Here it is:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 FIRST EPISODE MONTAGE" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8bcFAL93VHE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
When she says &#8220;blah blah blah&#8221; at the end of that clip — that was the one moment, in this entire hour-long episode, that really resonated with me on a deep level. That was when I thought she recognized that actually, people didn&#8217;t want to hear about her inferiority complex at Princeton, or her mom giving her an alarm clock as a kid, or the precise educational credentials of her husband. Maybe this would mark a pivot point in the podcast, where she starts talking about something remotely interesting. But it never happened. It never even came close to happening.
By far the best part of the first episode was the comments section, which included lines like: &#8220;This should be called “Drop the Mike” with Michelle Obama&#8221;; &#8220;Remember when this guy drowned his chef in a lovers quarrel?&#8221;; and &#8220;Joan Rivers was Right.&#8221; And then Mark Dice chimes in with, &#8220;Which one is Michelle?” — which is, credit where it’s due, one of the funnier YouTube comments I’ve read in quit some time. Then there&#8217;s a bunch of people wondering why she&#8217;s unwilling to be seen in public with her husband anymore. And then there&#8217;s this observation: &#8220;Someone here has got some serious balls, by that I mean whoever hasn&#8217;t disabled the comments yet.&#8221;
And that last person makes a particularly good point. You will not find a single positive comment anywhere on the page. As of Wednesday afternoon, a full 24 hours after this episode launched, it managed to rack up just 65,000 views. And more than half of that figure is from trolls. In the first 15 hours, it had under 20,000 views. Now everyone&#8217;s flooding in to mock it — but in the first two days it did not come close to 100 thousand views, which is the bare minimum you&#8217;d expect a podcast like this to achieve. Overnight it seems to have made it up to 160 thousand views, which means they’re almost certainly paying for views now. But all in all, this show has not resonated, to put it mildly.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1555-michelle-obama-and-dylan-mulvaney-both-flop-in-the-same-week-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
It&#8217;s actually incredible, if you think about it. Someone as famous as Michelle Obama launches a podcast that&#8217;s been so widely promoted and publicized, and yet no one&#8217;s watching it. The media tells us that Michelle is highly popular and would be a shoo-in if she ran for president. But the numbers suggest that the public isn&#8217;t all that interested in her.
Just to be sure I wasn&#8217;t missing anything, I subjected myself to the second episode of the podcast, which was also released on Wednesday. This one features an actress as a guest, but it doesn&#8217;t remotely change what they talk about, which is themselves. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 SECOND EPISODE MONTAGE" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zSzl5i6oYbs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
The lack of self-awareness is genuinely breathtaking, and at least a little hilarious. That last clip came at the very end of the episode, by the way. She spends the whole time talking about herself. And then she nosedives into astrology, and she claims she&#8217;s really interested in trying to understand other people. Having discussed herself for two hours across two episodes, Michelle Obama wants you to know that she&#8217;s really interested in understanding other people. That&#8217;s what this is all about. And once again, the comments are full of people asking what Big Mike did to the chef. This episode has about 75 thousand views in two days. Just for comparison sake, Joe Rogan released an episode on the same day. It has a million views.
Unfortunately for anyone hoping the misery would end here, there was one more video — a &#8220;digital exclusive&#8221; — that they uploaded along with these episodes. Picture the most cliched, trite content imaginable. And somehow this will probably exceed your expectations. Even if you managed to get through the other two clips, there&#8217;s a very good chance this will take you out. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 DIGITAL SHORT HOTDOG" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qJ8pAk4ROqk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Whatever focus group they paid to come up with segments like this, they need to get a refund immediately. It&#8217;s like if you asked AI to generate a relatable podcast. It would come up with exactly this segment, and have everyone say exactly what these people are saying, and then it would give the podcast the name &#8220;IMO.&#8221; This is what Michelle Obama — who again, some people still pretend is major star and a potential presidential contender — is capable of producing. By the way, that video about hotdogs has 25 thousand views.
This is not just a problem that Michelle is facing. This is a broader crisis on the Left. The trans activist Dylan Mulvaney, for example, has just launched yet another effort to get himself some publicity, after falling off the face of the Earth. Specifically he released a new book that promises a &#8220;modern lens to womanhood,&#8221; even though it&#8217;s written by a man who decided he was a woman a couple of years ago. And predictably, his book launch has been a complete disaster, like everything else he&#8217;s ever been associated with. The word &#8220;flop&#8221; does not begin to describe this particular publication. It sits at number 1,081 on Amazon at the moment, just a few days after its release. A day after it’s release it had not cracked the top 500. This probably translates to maybe a few hundred books sold, at most. To go along with a rating of 2.9 stars on Amazon. So it&#8217;s an unmitigated failure.
Initially, I wasn&#8217;t even aware that Mulvaney&#8217;s book had come out. But then I saw that, like Michelle Obama&#8217;s podcast, pretty much every major media publication in the country has been covering it. CBS News, for example, had a friendly sit-down with Mulvaney. They asked him a bunch of softball questions which he somehow couldn&#8217;t answer. Getting a sit-down interview on CBS to talk about your book is the kind of promotion most authors can only dream about. Conservative authors especially. But this is the sort of assistance Mulvaney, as the great trans mascot, gets. And it has not moved the needle for him even one inch.
But maybe Mulvaney&#8217;s most embarrassing media appearance came on &#8220;The View,&#8221; when he didn&#8217;t seem capable of articulating a coherent thought. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 MULVANEY RANS SPORTS" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FxwVHZBl9vA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
So &#8220;Whoopi Goldberg&#8221; begins by distancing herself from Gavin Newsom, because he dared to suggest — dishonestly — that he doesn&#8217;t think men should compete against women in sports. And then she asks Mulvaney about his thoughts on the topic, and it turns out that he has no thoughts. He can&#8217;t defend the idea of men competing against women, because it makes no sense. So instead, he defers to someone named &#8220;Schuyler&#8221; who he says is a &#8220;trans athlete.&#8221;
From what I can tell, Schuyler was a top-performing female swimmer at Harvard. Then she decided during a &#8220;gap year&#8221; that she&#8217;s really a man, so she swam with the men. And in that capacity, she went from a record-breaking swimmer to one of the worst athletes on the team. Somehow this is supposed to be proof of something, I guess. If you ask Schuyler, it&#8217;s proof that men don&#8217;t have any advantages over women in sports, even though Schuyler herself is living proof that the opposite is true.
But as the interview continued, Whoopi offered her own assessment of the situation, in an attempt to pick up the slack for Mulvaney. 
Here&#8217;s how that went:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="011 WHOOPI TAKES OVER THE DISCUSSION" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Glx6e1B8M6g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
What Whoopi pretends not to understand is that no one&#8217;s &#8220;assuming&#8221; that women are weaker. We know that it&#8217;s true. It&#8217;s true in every relevant respect. This is why high school boys can defeat the best women&#8217;s soccer team on the planet. It&#8217;s why women don&#8217;t play in the NFL. And it&#8217;s why no one is watching &#8220;The View&#8221; anymore, or buying Dylan Mulvaney&#8217;s book, or listening to Michelle Obama&#8217;s podcast. People are tired of being lied to, in the name of a political ideology that becomes more discredited by the day.
We could add to this list the total failure of Meghan Markel’s Netflix show, and her Spotify podcast that was just canceled. These are all people — all leftists — who have been heavily promoted by the media and Hollywood. They get the kind of mainstream exposure that nobody on the Right has ever gotten or will ever get. And yet the audience doesn’t care. They can’t sell books or a podcast. The public is totally disinterested.
In fact, just about the only success the Left has had lately is with Gavin Newsom&#8217;s new podcast. That&#8217;s actually doing fairly well. But it&#8217;s only doing well because his guests are all Republicans. If Gavin Newsom were doing a solo show, or talking to other Leftists, it would do about as well as &#8220;IMO.&#8221; In other words, the Left has the same problem culturally that they have politically. 
They have no stars. No leaders in the culture or on the political scene. There&#8217;s a reason nearly all of the most popular political podcasts are right-wing. No matter how aggressively the Left tries to force demented actors and disingenuous politicians and incoherent ideologies on the public, it’s just not working. They can shove all of these people in our face, but what they’re discovering is that they can’t make us care.

IMO Live: Michelle Obama, Craig Robinson & Dr. Laurie Santos – 2025 SXSW Conference And Festival

Michelle Obama And Dylan Mulvaney Both Flop In The Same Week

Dylan Mulvaney

Legacy Media

Michelle Obama

The View

President Donald Trump turned a 47-year-old song into a dance craze. Even NFL stars couldn’t resist doing Trump’s “YMCA” dance in their end-zone celebrations.
What a difference one White House term makes.
Trump’s first four years in office found all of Hollywood turned against him, from late-night TV to shows and movies.
Now, pop culture is veering in MAGA’s direction, a moment the Right never expected. And it’s possible thanks to the democratization of the media, from YouTube to podcasting.
It helps that the public’s trust in legacy media outlets, Trump’s entrenched enemy, has never been lower. More people are willing to give the unusual politician a look through a pop culture filter.
Right-leaning artists like Tom MacDonald can crush the iTunes charts without a major label behind him. The rapper’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kGpohEpuTE">Facts</a>,” featuring Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, crashed the music charts without the press’ help (number one on the Billboard Rap chart). The same happened when MacDonald gave canceled comic Roseanne Barr <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/roseanne-barr-drops-daddys-home-rap-video-with-tom-macdonald" target="_blank" rel="noopener">her rap closeup with “Daddy’s Home”</a> a tribute to President 45/47.
<div id="attachment_891745" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-891745" class="size-large wp-image-891745" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-1024x576.jpg" alt="Screenshot: YouTube/Tom MacDonald &quot;Facts&quot; feat. Ben Shapiro" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-1536x865.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/MixCollage-14-Mar-2025-10-16-AM-4499-2048x1153.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: YouTube/Tom MacDonald &#8220;Facts&#8221; feat. Ben Shapiro</div>
Those aren’t aberrations.
“Justice for All,” credited to Trump himself, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2023/03/21/donald-trump-lands-his-first-no-1-hit-on-a-billboard-chart/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debuted at no. 1</a> on Billboard’s Digital Song Sales chart in 2023.
Trump has been very good to Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” The late-night showcase routinely outdraws its broadcast competitors, although it airs an hour-plus earlier in the evening. The show’s ratings hit their zenith when Trump appeared on the show’s avuncular panel.
The president’s episode gave host Greg Gutfeld <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/donald-trump-gutfeld-ratings-5-million-viewers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">his highest numbers to date</a> – 4.9 million viewers. Most nights, the show’s willingness to praise Trump’s policies while mocking the Democrats’ responses have kept the show’s ratings strong.
Trump’s own reality series “The Apprentice” made a sudden return to streaming this month. Prime Video is releasing the first seven episodes of the Mark Burnett-produced show, and season one instantly hit the platform’s Top 10 chart.
<div id="attachment_891725" style="width: 894px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-891725" class="size-large wp-image-891725" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-138441695-884x576.jpg" alt="SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE -- Episode 16 -- Air Date 04/03/2004 -- Pictured: (l-r) George Ross, Donald Trump, Carolyn Kepcher during &quot;The Apprentice&quot; skit on April 3, 2004 (Photo by Mary Ellen Matthews/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images via Getty Images)" width="884" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-138441695-884x576.jpg 884w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-138441695-300x195.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-138441695-768x500.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-138441695.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 884px) 100vw, 884px" />Mary Ellen Matthews/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images via Getty Images</div>
The show played a critical part in Trump’s branding principles while introducing the country to his now-grown children Ivanka, Eric and Donald Trump, Jr. Now, millions want to rewatch that evolution from the beginning. 
The legacy press told Americans that Tony Hinchcliffe’s raw routine at October’s Madison Square Garden Trump rally marked the end of his presidential hopes. We were told that Hinchcliffe’s “racist” joke about Puerto Rico’s garbage problem would ensure GOP Latino voters stayed home.
Journalists covered the story at great length, making it a key media narrative in the days before Nov. 5.
Except Latino voters, by and large, didn’t care.
And what happened to Hinchcliffe? He just snagged a major Netflix deal to bring his signature “Kill Tony” podcast <a href="https://x.com/NetflixIsAJoke/status/1899113010997661879" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to the streaming giant</a>.
<div id="attachment_891771" style="width: 820px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-891771" class="size-large wp-image-891771" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2180711933-810x576.jpg" alt="US comedian Tony Hinchcliffe speaks during a campaign rally for former US president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York on October 27, 2024. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP) (Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)" width="810" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2180711933-810x576.jpg 810w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2180711933-300x213.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2180711933-768x546.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2180711933.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 810px) 100vw, 810px" />ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images</div>
The pro-Trump label isn’t foolproof. Dinesh D’Souza’s “Vindicating Trump” earned $1.3 million at the US box office late last year, below most of his previous films. It’s still a solid amount for a documentary – most nonfiction films fail to crack the $1 million mark in theaters.
So what changed? How did pro-Trump content gain so much ground?
Independent media kept maturing after Trump’s first term, outpacing mainstream platforms in many regards. New media artists can create content and do it at a much smaller price point.
And, more importantly, a Right-leaning ecosystem of podcasts, YouTubers, and social media types can now spread the word more effectively. Credit Elon Musk’s X takeover for keeping more conservative voices on the platform.
Meanwhile, legacy outlets continue to shrink both in size and cultural clout. And the downsizing continues as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/amy-robach-cries-tj-holmes-podcast-abc-layoffs-2042630" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more media layoffs</a> rock the industry.
Anti-Trump art is having a similarly tough time.
While far-Left late-night shows have mostly maintained their audience shares, the same isn’t true at the local movie house.
Last year’s anti-Trump drama “The Apprentice,” released at the peak of election season, seemed primed to draw the anti-MAGA faithful in record numbers. The film’s cartoonish look at an ‘80s era Trump (Sebastian Stan), under the alleged tutelage of fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong), was catnip to the president’s detractors.
If only they lined up to watch it.
<div id="attachment_891733" style="width: 838px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-891733" class="size-large wp-image-891733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2177860859-828x576.jpg" alt="LONDON, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 15: Sebastian Stan attends the Headline Gala screening of &quot;The Apprentice&quot; during the 68th BFI London Film Festival at The Royal Festival Hall on October 15, 2024 in London, England. (Photo by Dave Benett/WireImage)" width="828" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2177860859-828x576.jpg 828w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2177860859-300x209.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2177860859-768x534.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/GettyImages-2177860859.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 828px) 100vw, 828px" />Dave Benett/WireImage</div>
The critically hailed film flopped with a $4 million haul stateside. That’s despite endless, fawning media coverage. Few films generated more free press, however, than “The Apprentice.”
More recently, another anti-Trump film is struggling to cover its exorbitant budget. Director Bong Joon-ho says his sci-fi thriller “Mickey 17” <a href="https://ew.com/bong-joon-ho-donald-trump-inspired-mark-ruffalo-mickey-17-villain-11688849" target="_blank" rel="noopener">isn’t a direct attack on Trump</a>. Many disagree, noting co-star Mark Ruffalo’s politician character has Trumpian traits and his followers wear red hats.
Subtle.
The film made $19 million domestically during its opening frame. That’s a solid number for some projects, but not one carrying a $118 million budget. Some suggest the film could cost Warner Bros. <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/wb-mickey-17-cut-tested-151954129.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$100 million</a> by the end of its theatrical run.
The most surprising moment of Trump 2.0 from a pop culture perspective? The recent Oscars telecast didn’t feature his name, and host Conan O’Brien indirectly referenced the 47th president once, and via a late-in-the-show quip.
All of the above opens up new opportunities for Right-leaning artists. Their voices are harder to ignore, and the tools at their disposal have never been greater.
Two potential red flags to consider.
If President Trump fails to fulfill his pre-election promises the country may have less appetite for MAGA-aligned content. Hollywood progressives may rise up anew, smelling blood in the political waters.
And if creators think a pro-Trump veneer will make audiences swallow sub-par content, think again.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-POLITICS-CPAC-TRUMP

Riding On Trump’s Pop Culture Coattails

Riding On Trump's Pop Culture Coattails

Amazon Prime

Hollywood

The Apprentice

Working in corporate engagement, I often hear questions about why the ‘long game’ matters in changing woke company policies. If executive orders can instantly push companies away from DEI or ESG initiatives, why take other pathways? The answer is clear: lasting change takes time. JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, just proved this with a major policy shift — one that speaks louder than any theory ever could.
In 2022, JPMorgan Chase <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/opinion/i-was-debanked-by-jpmorgan-chase-but-fought-back-and-won/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debanked</a> former U.S. Senator and Ambassador Sam Brownback, after Brownback opened an account for the newly-formed National Committee for Religious Freedom. The son of a Kansas farmer, Brownback refused to back down. When Brownback asked the bank for its rationale in shuttering his account, he was met with conflicting (and incorrect) explanations as to why.
Brownback’s debanking experience was the start of a major wave of scrutiny over exactly what conditions a bank will close a customer’s account. Victims range from nonprofit organizations like Indigenous Advance, an organization serving Ugandan widows &amp; orphans debanked by Bank of America in 2023, to Melania &amp; Barron Trump, who Melania <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-24-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> as having been debanked in her memoir, prompting further inquiry from the House Committee on Oversight.
Yet JPMorgan consistently ranked as one of the major bad actors in the debanking saga, closing not only Brownback’s account (and actually <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> for his org’s donor list for restoring service) but several other conservative nonprofits. The biggest bank in America was quickly racking up hits on its record of political neutrality and customer equality.
This trend might have gone unaddressed had the Right simply let the issue lie. Luckily, some of the most influential names in both the conservative legal, financial, and government worlds stepped up to the plate. Pressure for increased transparency and commitments to ditch any policies that could lead to a client being debanked for political reasons has come from all directions, from legal giants like <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/19-states-chase-stop-misleading-customers-commit-equality-treatment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> to <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/news/statement-on-debanking-and-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notable financial professionals</a> to <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state financial officers and attorneys general</a>. As that public pressure mounted, shareholder pressure has been growing from the inside for the past three years, spurred on by organizations like the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, with Chase investors like financial advisor David Bahnsen spending literal years <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bahnsen-takes-the-fight-today-to-jpmorgan-chase/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urging</a> the company to clarify its approach to debanking — and fix its spotty track record on political neutrality.
And Chase listened.
In 2023, JPMorgan made the decision to axe its “social risk” policy from its payment processing arm, no longer allowing vague terms like “intolerance” and “hate” to determine whether a customer was fit to continue doing business at Chase. But the biggest win so far came several days ago, when Chase agreed to a policy change explicitly protecting customers and employees from discrimination based on religious or political views.
This is huge. Many stories about companies ditching woke policies consist of the company putting out a public statement (and often the controversy that follows). Statements are great, but they’re not the ideal. Companies can hide behind statements — and do. Several companies that have publicly made statements supporting political neutrality clearly have work to do when it comes to actually putting their policies where their mouths are.
But companies can’t hide behind policy changes. That’s why they’re a sign of both real progress and good faith. Shareholders like Bahnsen, and groups like ADF &amp; Bowyer Research, have been engaging with Chase for years to get this change. Make no mistake: Chase’s willingness to protect against future political/religious debanking is the result of real shareholders using real influence to create real change. It’s a victory for Chase’s customers and shareholders, but also for the company itself. It’s a win for a company to clear up concerns about corporate bias, a win that’s been a long time coming, and a win that hopefully many other banks will find instructive.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Major US Bank Bosses To Discuss Debanking With Senate Committee

Major Win: JPMorgan Chase Ends Political Debanking

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Banking

Banks

Bias

Censorship

Christians

Corporations

debanking

Jamie Dimon

JP Morgan

Woke Culture

This is the second part of an edited <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/michael-knowles-live-at-yaf-ordo-amoris-the-hierarchy-of-political-love" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speech</a>, titled “‘Ordo Amoris’: The Hierarchy of Political Love,” delivered by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michael Knowles</a> at the YAF Freedom Conference in San Diego, California.
* * *
Saint Thomas’ reasoning is, as always, clear and persuasive in his discussions of the order of charity. In the “Summa Theologiae,” Secunda Secundae, Question 26, he writes, “There must needs be some order in things loved out of charity, which order is in reference to the first principle of that love, which is God.” This expression alone proves editor of The Yale Review James Surowiecki had no idea what he was talking about when he <a href="https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1885302779058557080" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> that the ordo amoris is not in the Gospels.
Not only is the ordo amoris in the Gospels, but it is also the principle articulated in the most famous line of the Gospels, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022%3A37-39&amp;version=ESV" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matthew 22:37-39</a>: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
There is, in other words, an order of charity — a hierarchy of love — and this order is the very foundation of Christian morality. We must love God first, and only then and upon that basis do we love everything else. And this order does not just comprise two categories. It isn’t just “God” and “everyone else.”
We find further scriptural evidence of the order of charity in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205%3A8&amp;version=RSV" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1 Timothy 5:8</a>: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” A man does not necessarily disown the faith — he is not necessarily worse than an unbeliever — if he does not care for some random guy on the other side of the world. We have greater obligations to those who are closest to us.
This moral insight is attested to both by philosophy and religion — reason and revelation — and yet many liberals deny it. And we know they deny, not just because of their snarky tweets about JD Vance, but also from social science. Shortly after the ordo amoris debate kicked off, a graph went viral on social media.
<div id="attachment_886629" style="width: 678px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-886629" class="wp-image-886629 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/41467_2019_12227_Fig5_HTML.jpg" alt="Heatmaps indicating highest moral allocation by ideology, Study 3a. Source data are provided as a Source Data file. Note. The highest value on the heatmap scale is 20 units for liberals, and 12 units for conservatives. Moral circle rings, from inner to outer, are described as follows: (1) all of your immediate family, (2) all of your extended family, (3) all of your closest friends, (4) all of your friends (including distant ones), (5) all of your acquaintances, (6) all people you have ever met, (7) all people in your country, (8) all people on your continent, (9) all people on all continents, (10) all mammals, (11) all amphibians, reptiles, mammals, fish, and birds, (12) all animals on earth including paramecia and amoebae, (13) all animals in the universe, including alien lifeforms, (14) all living things in the universe including plants and trees, (15) all natural things in the universe including inert entities such as rocks, (16) all things in existence. SOURCE: “Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle.” Adam Waytz, Ravi Iyer, Liane Young, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham. National Center for Biotechnology Information. National Library of Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31558713/" width="668" height="281" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/41467_2019_12227_Fig5_HTML.jpg 668w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/03/41467_2019_12227_Fig5_HTML-300x126.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 668px) 100vw, 668px" />SOURCE: “Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle.” Adam Waytz, Ravi Iyer, Liane Young, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham. National Center for Biotechnology Information. National Library of Medicine.</div>
It’s from a 2019 <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31558713/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> titled, “Ideological Differences in the Expanse of the Moral Circle.” The graph depicts heat maps “indicating highest moral allocation by ideology.” The “moral circle rings” extend from the center outward. Care for “your immediate family” is in the center, followed by “all of your extended family,” then “all of your closest friends,” then “all of your friends (including distant ones),” then your acquaintances, people you’ve ever met, your countrymen, people on your continent, all people, all mammals, all other animals, all living creatures (including amoebae), all potential life in the universe (including aliens), all living things (including plants and trees), all non-living things (including rocks), and finally all things in existence.
The study found that conservatives, being normal, tend to care more about the things closest to them; they tend to care more about their immediate families than they care about rocks. Liberals, being the sort of people who hug trees and hate their dads, tend not to care more about things closer to them. The study found that “the more liberal people were, the more they allocated equally to humans and non-humans.” A distinguishing feature of Right-wingers is that they are more likely “to morally prioritize humans over nonhumans.”
Some libs have attempted to argue that conservatives simply misunderstand the study. They argue the study shows that conservatives don’t care more about their families than liberals do; it’s just that liberals care more generally. Now, even if that were true — and it’s a perfectly plausible hypothesis given liberals’ frequent inability to control their emotions — it would still be extremely disordered to care more about strangers than about one’s own parents. Even if they cared more overall — which, it turns out, they don’t.
Liberals really do care more about rocks and trees than they do about their own families. We don’t need a chart or study to show us that. Just ask a liberal about climate change and abortion. Liberals will rend their garments over environmental threats to the coral reef, but they’ll dance in the streets to celebrate the murder of their own children through abortion.
And, it turns out, the study shows as much. Because the study “constrained the number of units that participants could assign to each group, forcing participants to distribute moral concern in a zero-sum fashion” (i.e., the more concern they allocate to one circle, the less they can allocate to another circle). And the researchers did this because research suggests that’s how people really do distribute “empathy and moral concern.” Of course: It’s a finite world. We only have so many hours to worry. We only have so many tears to shed.
But just to prove how deep this moral perversion runs on the political Left, the researchers conducted another study to test what would happen if they did not constrain people to zero-sum moral thinking. And what they discovered was that “even when participants’ allocations were not constrained, the same pattern replicated.” Conservatives, the researchers showed, exhibit “greater concern and preference for family relative to friends, the nation relative to the world … and humans relative to non-humans.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h3>
So what conclusion are we to draw from this? Is it just a matter of preference? “Conservatives love their family and friends; liberals love trees and rocks” — de gustibus non disputandum est! No accounting for taste! I don’t think so. Any reasonable person knows that one should care more for his children than for rocks and trees. If liberals do not, it is because they have made a moral error.
And the liberals didn’t even necessarily fall into this moral error because they’re wicked. More likely, I think, they fall into it because they’re trying (and failing) to be good. I suspect most of the time it actually comes from a place of love. But that love is misplaced. It’s out of order. And disordered love tends to evil, just as the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
G.K. Chesterton explains the phenomenon with regard to his friend, the socialist atheist George Bernard Shaw.
“Bernard Shaw,” Chesterton <a href="https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/orthodoxy2-3.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writes</a>, “has a heroically large and generous heart; but not a heart in the right place. And this is so of the typical society of our time. The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues.”
“When a religious scheme is shattered,” he concludes, “it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.”
Our nation’s — our whole civilization’s — religious scheme has obviously been shattered. The vice president invoked Thomas Aquinas, and our political elites were left drooling and scratching their heads.
The scheme has been shattered, the virtues have wandered, and these wandering virtues — these errant loves — have caused our present political ills. The only remedy is to restore order — not just to our streets and our communities but to our loves — if for no other reason than that without order, without caring for ourselves and our own, we can’t properly care for anyone else either.

MixCollage-04-Mar-2025-09-54-AM-7123

Restoring The Order Of Love: The Remedy To Political Ills

Catholics

Environmentalism

JD Vance

Liberals

Michael Knowles

U.S. Politics

Young America's Foundation

Menu