Pablo’s Rhino Welcome to the table read that makes international crime, midlife crises, and questionable decision-making look like an art form. A washed-up accountant, a cartel queen, two bumbling DEA agents, and—because why not—Pablo Escobar’s pet rhino collide in a story so absurd, so wildly unpredictable, that even the characters can’t believe they’re in it. Performed by an all-star cast who bring every unhinged line to life with reckless abandon: 🎙 Tim Friedlander as the Narrator 🎙 Jim O’Heir as Charlie, a brilliant writer turned reluctant action hero 🎙 Darin Toonder as Marcus, a trust-fund playboy with a taste for trouble 🎙 Jeff Bergman as Sam, a closeted man finally stepping into the spotlight (and possibly a fight cage) 🎙 Wayne Lopez as Pablo Escobar, a crime lord-turned-domesticated pastry chef 🎙 Andrea Savo as Lucia, a fierce detective with a soft spot for fools 🎙 Dustin Green & Holden Myers as DEA agents Knowles & Martinez, trying (and failing) to expose the truth 🎙 Keylor Leigh as Audrey, Charlie’s no-nonsense ex-wife who knows exactly how to keep him in line 🎙 Lynette Coll as Maria Chung Escobar, the real power behind the throne Written by Craig Goodwill & Sam Ruano, Pablo’s Rhino is an over-the-top, fast-talking, bullet-dodging, tequila-soaked thrill ride that should probably come with a warning label. Fast, smart, and just deranged enough to keep you coming back for more. Hit play before someone puts out a bounty on you too.
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the DNC met over the weekend to elect their new leadership. It was an unintentionally hilarious circus that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the Democrats have learned absolutely nothing from their embarrassing defeat. Also, Trump's tariffs on Mexico are already getting big results. Trump now has his eyes set on Panama. He says America should control it.
He's definitely right. I'll explain why. And a liberal philosophy professor humiliates himself in an attempt to debunk J.D. Vance. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Freedom isn't free, but what isn't said enough is that online freedom isn't free either. It too has to be defended. While armies defend our physical liberty, encryption protects our digital rights.
That's why I trust ExpressVPN to shield my privacy and keep hackers at bay. Internet providers track and sell your data. Hackers prey on public Wi-Fi and governments monitor every move online. But with ExpressVPN, their powerful encryption reroutes 100% of your online activity through secure servers, making your data invisible to prying eyes.
As a Daily Wire host, I travel the country for rallies and events. I'm often using hotel, airport, and public Wi-Fi. With sensitive information at stake, I never connect without ExpressVPN. It's my first and best line of defense against hackers who'd love to access my personal data. Don't just take my word for it.
They invited the world's top auditors, PWC and KPMG, to verify their revolutionary trusted server technology. It's the only system that physically cannot store your data because it runs entirely on volatile memory. While other companies profit from evading your privacy, ExpressVPN goes the extra mile to protect it. So if you want to join me in defending your online freedom, get ExpressVPN.
You can use my special link to get four extra months of ExpressVPN for free at expressvpn.com slash Walsh. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Walsh. It's still obviously very early in the process, but I think I may have identified the candidate that Democrats are going to run in the next election. This is not a definite prediction. Everything's subject to change at this point.
But after what happened at the Democrat National Committee on Saturday, any reasonable person would agree that I'm onto something here. So for background, on Saturday, Democrats met to select a new chair for the DNC, along with a slew of other roles, including vice chair. And one candidate for the job, her name is Dr. Quintessa Hathaway. stole the show.
Now on her website, Dr. Quintessa describes herself as a thought leader, in addition to being a scholar, a historian, and an entrepreneur. So she's like Socrates, Stephen Ambrose, Elon Musk, Albert Einstein rolled into one, plus she's a doctor on top of that.
Now granted, Dr. Quintessa is a doctor in the sense that Jill Biden is a doctor, which means that she's a doctor in the sense that she's not a doctor. She has some kind of educational degree or something, but she's not letting that slow her down. Her biography states that her goal in life is to, quote, continue to beat the drum of change.
And as she made her case at the DNC on Saturday, the good doctor did exactly that. So here, for example, is how Dr. Quintessa began her opening statement at the DNC. Now, to be clear, this is not some kind of sketch comedy show.
This was broadcast on MSNBC to literally dozens of viewers who are eagerly looking forward to seeing how their party was going to move forward after their massive loss in the last election. And here's how it went. Watch.
We'll begin with the opening statements. Each candidate will have 30 seconds, and we'll start with Dr. Quintessa Hathaway.
Good evening, everyone. It is my desire to be the next DNC chair, and I just want to give you all a little bit of something that's been on my heart here over the last couple of days. You fight on, you fight on. You fight on, you fight on. When your government is doing you wrong, you fight on. Oh, you fight on.
Thank you, Dr. Hathaway.
I just noticed the people on the stage openly laughing at her, which is kind of nice. So try to imagine what it must have been like watching that performance as a committed true believer in the Democrat Party. You know, you're in some ballroom in Maryland. You're hoping to see some kind of new approach to win over voters who are clearly moving away from liberal politics.
Meanwhile, the candidates to lead your party are treating the whole thing like karaoke night. And by the way, Dr. Quintessa didn't stop there. She kept on singing. She was singing through this whole thing. Okay, here she is again.
We shall overcome. We shall overcome.
Well, by the way, how many... pearls. How many oysters had to die to create the 56 pearl necklaces around her neck? But anyway, if you've ever wondered what it would be like to encounter a character in a musical, but in real life, well, now we know. Just someone who sings rather than talking. And it's just as annoying and off-putting as you'd expect. But anyway, in the end, I'm shocked to report
And disappointed to report that Dr. Quintessa, the esteemed scholar, historian, entrepreneur, pop singer, did not receive a single vote at the DNC. Out of hundreds of voting members, not a single one decided that Dr. Quintessa should be the next chair of the party. There is apparently zero grassroots genuine support for her candidacy whatsoever. She couldn't even get a friend to vote for her.
She had precisely zero support. And you know what that means? It means that Quintessa is a shoo-in to be Democrats' next presidential nominee. After all, if Kamala Harris can do it, so can Quintessa. In today's Democrat Party, the fact that no one actually wants to vote for her, that nobody likes her, even though she's a strong, independent black woman, is far from a liability. It's an asset.
So you might as well start printing the Dr. Quintessa Hathaway yard signs now. She's basically a lock to break the glass ceiling in four years. Or to be broken against the glass ceiling, as has happened to the last two women who ran. But at the same time, as history-making and inspiring as Dr. Quintessa is, she was just a small part of the show that the DNC put on this weekend. One by one.
Democrats made it very clear that they have learned absolutely nothing from the last election. Not a single thing. Every speaker, without exception, was clearly obsessed with identity politics and in particular racial grievances. So here are a couple of speakers who repeatedly begin their remarks by telling the crowd to be quiet because a black woman is speaking. Watch.
Hello, Democrats. Hey, I am speaking, and I would love your attention. There is a black woman at this podium, and I deserve your attention like the 11 people who went before me. Yes, I am speaking.
Good evening, Democrats. Look up here.
Three strong black women standing before you.
Three black women who, rather than just grabbing a chair, ran for chair. We are sick and tired of being the last one hired and the first one fired.
We are sick and tired of the... Yeah, I might try a version of this at my next speech. Hey, everyone, shut up. There's a white man speaking up here. How dare you speak while a white man is addressing you? Silence, you fools. I am a white man. Try it. I mean, that would probably go over a little differently than it did at the DNC, I'm guessing.
But Democrats have marinated in racial politics for so long in every aspect of their lives that they didn't see any problem with this. And if you go and pull up footage of the DNC's internal selection process back in 2017, after Trump's first election, You'll notice that it was not like this. Not exactly like it, anyway. CNN covered the whole thing at the time.
It was a primetime event, and they were talking about their plans to impeach and investigate Trump and form a resistance. They talked about how motivated they were to come up with a coherent message for Americans. Watch.
Donald Trump has already done a number of things which legitimately raise the question of impeachment.
This energy is electric. January 20th was undeniably an important day, but January 20th and 21st and beyond was even more important because people are rising up and saying, Donald Trump, you do not stand for our values.
So I think it's really important that the Democratic Party focuses on an overarching message that's going to speak to all Americans.
Now, the whole thing was obviously still deranged in its own way, but it was not like what we're seeing now. We're now seeing a party that has no idea how to be effective, no idea what it even wants to do. A party in total disarray with no vision for the future whatsoever. So instead of coming up with anything unifying or coherent, they're going completely off the deep end.
And in fact, they're now reciting land acknowledgements. Because of course they believe America sits on stolen land and that's their winning message for the next election. The way that everything went in the last election, the way the culture is moving right now has not dissuaded them. They're leaning into it. And here's how the DNC's voting meeting began this weekend.
I would like to express my gratitude to all of you for your support. Welcome. The Democratic National Committee wishes to acknowledge that we gather together to state our values on lands that have been stewarded through many centuries by the ancestors and the descendants of tribal nations who have been here since time immemorial.
We honor the communities native to this continent and recognize that our country was built on indigenous lands and hope.
Now, of course, as always with this kind of thing, I must always ask, which indigenous people did we allegedly steal the land from? The ones who most recently possessed it before white people showed up or the ones that those indigenous people slaughtered and took it from or the ones that those people slaughtered and so on and so on down the line.
And we never do get an answer to that question, no matter how many times I've asked it. All we're told is that the line of legitimate possession of the land stopped for some reason in about the 16th century. The moment white people showed up, it was no longer legitimate to conquer the land and take possession of it.
It was only legitimate to do that for the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years that Indians were doing it before Europeans landed. That's the idea. But, you know, there's no time to dwell on that one bit of absurdity.
The whole thing was a parade of absurdity that went on for hours, like this moment where the proceedings eventually came to an abrupt halt because one candidate identified as non-binary. And that created some confusion because the DNC apparently has strict rules requiring gender balance among the party chairs who are elected. So what do you do when someone shows up and they are none of the genders?
When they don't fall into any of the 95 invented genders at all, what do you do? Well, here they are trying to deal with that problem.
Rules specify that when we have a gender non-binary candidate or officer, the non-binary individual is counted as neither male nor female and the remaining six offices must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections, our elected officers are currently two male and two female. In order to be gender balanced, we must elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender.
So again, this is what we have to do for this vice chair race. We have to elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender. To ensure our process accounts for male, female, and non-binary candidates, we conferred with our RBC co-chair, our LGBT caucus co-chair, and others to ensure that the process is inclusive and meets the gender balance requirements in our rules.
To do this, our process will be slightly different than the one outlined to you earlier this week.
So they conferred about this question, and I'm sure they did confer about it. I mean, and if you're wondering why the Democrats... no Democrat can ever be an effective leader, why they cannot effectively lead the country. It's because this is what they're spending time on.
I mean, they're spending hours and hours conferring and caucusing and meeting to discuss what to do with their non-binary candidates. And watching that, you have to wonder what they would do with the DNC if they ended up with a candidate who belongs to one of the other 10 million genders out there.
If one non-binary candidate, quote unquote, can throw the whole process out of whack like this, imagine what they'd do if they had a two-spirit running for office or a bi-gender candidate. But if there's a gender-fluid demi-queer thrown into the mix, what do you do then? To avoid being transphobic, they probably just have to shut down the whole party at that point.
And by the way, just for the record, of course, This is the, if you're wondering, this is the allegedly non-binary quote-unquote candidate they're talking about. He was running for vice chair. Watch.
My name is Troy Blackwell. I know that I'm a new face to many of you, but I'm a proud Afro-Latino from the South Bronx, New York. I got into this work because at the age of 18, unfortunately, I was the victim of a hate crime. Today I stand before you as one of the first non-binary candidates to run in the DNC's 177-year history. I'm proud to be the only Afro-Latino in this race.
I'm asking you to take a chance on someone like me, a proud non-binary Afro-Latino from the South Bronx.
The final tally of votes, Troy Blackwell, zero.
By the way, is he an Afro-Latino? He didn't mention it. I can't remember. Did he say that? I'm watching. I'm wondering, is that guy an Afro-Latino? Oh, no, he did mention it 46 times in the span of 30 seconds. Now, looking at that guy, there are a lot of signs that seem to point towards a specific binary and that he's a member of one side of that binary being the male side.
There's the facial hair, the voice, the build. But then he opens his mouth and dispels all those assumptions. He tells us that he's one of the first non-binary candidates in the DNC's history. And you might ask what it means for someone to be non-binary. I mean, what does it take to claim that identity? Well, all it takes is for you to say it out loud.
If someone is non-binary, it means that they have said out loud the words, I am non-binary. And through that mystical incantation, they have become something other than male or female. Even though they can't explain how exactly they are something other than male or female, or what it means to be something other than male or female, still they are somehow. Now, it's all nonsense, obviously.
At some level, Democrats seem to realize that, and that would explain why that guy, like the doctor, received zero votes. And things went on like this for a while longer at the meeting. Take a look at this footage, for example, showing every single candidate for DNC chair, and each one of them has asked the same question, and you'll never believe how they answer it. Watch.
In this round, so I'm going to have a show of hands. How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris's defeat? OK. So that's good. You all pass.
So when the moderator says you all passed, he's making a more revealing statement than he probably realized. The question was a test, and specifically it was a test of loyalty. He's trying to determine who's willing to affirm party orthodoxy, even in the face of clear evidence that the party orthodoxy is false.
The vast majority of Americans understand that Kamala lost because she was a terrible candidate who played a key role in a terrible administration. That's why she lost the popular vote as well as the election. But in the Democrat Party of 2025, you're not allowed to criticize the party establishment, which Kamala Harris represents. And or at least did.
And you're certainly not allowed to criticize a black woman for any reason. So this is what you're left with. And that's why the ultimate results of this DNC meeting were not surprising in the slightest. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. And that is why, in the end, David Hogg, the man who built a lucrative career on the bodies of his dead classmates, was elected vice chair of the DNC.
Yes, David Hogg is now a major party, a major figure in the Democrat Party. And here's that big announcement, which, of course, is prefaced by a guy quoting the sage words of Beyonce.
You Democrats!
In the words of Beyonce, America has a problem, but Democrats, we're about to fix it. God bless you. Thank you so much. Let's get to work.
David Hogg. First of all, thank you, Chairman Harrison. Can we give a round of applause to Jamie? Thank you. Thank you. Who's ready to take the fight to the Republicans and win this thing? Are you guys ready to fight? It's been a long day, but guess what? We have a long road ahead. Let's go and kick some ass.
Now, there's an old adage about never interrupting your enemy when he's making a mistake. And in this case, the enemies of civilization are clearly making a massive and unforced error. So really, I probably shouldn't say anything here. But in this case, I can't resist because even David Hogg himself has explained to Democrats why this is a terrible idea. So let's put this image on the screen.
Here's what here's what Hogg has written, quote. Like I'm already one of the most politically toxic people in the country. Any politician doing anything with me is in effect committing political suicide. Close quote. And that about sums it up. And there's a reason that Hogg wrote that. I mean, he's on record making some of the dumbest and most politically damaging statements imaginable.
Here's just a small collection of them. And there's, I mean, hundreds you could choose. As you can see, David Hogg has written, quote, abolish ICE, defund the police. The NRA needs to be designated a terrorist organization. He also predicted Joe Biden would win the last election pretty confidently. These are ideas that Kamala Harris tried to run away from. And it still didn't work.
And now Democrats are embracing all of it. And things get even worse when you look at the man who won the office of DNC chair. This is the guy that David Hogg will be advising as vice chair. It's a guy named Ken Martin who currently leads Democrats in Minnesota.
And if you don't know anything about Ken Martin, which nobody does, here's how he answered one very important question during this leadership contest. This is just about the simplest question and the easiest one he could have possibly been asked. and he managed to give the wrong answer. Here it is.
In October of 2024, a large part, about one-third of Trump's advertising budget, went specifically to this one ad. It was about gender-changing surgeries for a small number of transgender, incarcerated, undocumented immigrants. These particular ads ended with the line, Kamala is for they, them, President Trump is for you. How should Democrats respond to this attack?
Our party has to live its values. Everyone has dignity. Our party believes that no matter where you're from, no matter where you live, no matter who you love or who you are, you have dignity and we're going to fight for you. And that's what we're going to do as a Democratic Party.
Now, a lot of polls, including Democrats own internal polls, show that this kind of thing is what cost the Democrats the last election. And the DNC chair has just doubled down on it. Instead of saying, no, we shouldn't fund sex changes for illegal aliens, he gave pretty much the same response Kamala Harris gave.
He has embraced what is perhaps the single least popular, it's the single least popular position in maybe political history. It'd be hard to think of one less popular than this. Funding sex changes for illegal aliens who are in prison is the kind of thing seemingly designed to piss off nearly every group and demographic in the country.
Save for the demographic of pink haired people with septum piercings. Those are the only people you're appealing to with a position like that. And as we found, there's not enough of those people to win a national election. Thank God. Meanwhile, his vice chair admits that the party's committing political suicide just by associating with him.
And in the background, there's a chorus of non-binary men and angry BIPOC screaming about racism. That's the state of Democrat Party in 2025. And the point here is not just to make fun of Democrats, although that's a big part of it, and it's always a lot of fun. The real point is that the DNC clearly has not learned a single thing from their recent humiliating defeats.
The Democrat Party is a bicycle with only one gear. This is it. Identity politics is just too deeply embedded in the core of the institution. It's all they know how to do. And that means that one of two outcomes is possible here going forward. Either the Democrats are headed towards a generation of irrelevance, or they will somehow
successfully pull the culture back into the sort of fog of wokeness that we only recently seem to be emerging from. And watching what happened at the DNC this weekend, the latter option admittedly doesn't seem very likely at this point, but as long as these people are still running a major party in the US, we have to consider that possibility as remote as it may be.
And that's why after laughing at these people and sharing as many of these clips as possible because they're objectively hilarious, We need to do everything we can to make sure that they never hold power again. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs, as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are, provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. Pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu. Delaware reports Canada and Mexico announced tariffs against the U.S. on Saturday in retaliation for a slate of new import duties President Donald Trump ordered against the U.S. neighbors in China.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Saturday that Canada is working with Mexico to push back against Trump's tariffs. Trump ordered increased tariffs on goods from Canada, China and Mexico over a lack of sufficient action against human and drug trafficking that is poured into the U.S. Trudeau said, I think Canadians understand that we need to respond to this.
We're certainly not looking to escalate, but we will stand up for Canada. Trump issued his own statement on Truth Social saying that condemning his critics and supporters of the decades-long ripoff of America, both with regard to trade, crime, and poisonous drugs that are allowed to so freely flow into America, those days are over.
Trump ordered 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico with a lesser 10% tariff hike on Canadian energy imports. Trump also ordered a 10% additional tariff on Chinese goods. In return, Canada and Mexico announced their own 25% tariffs on a slate of US goods. So Trump is imposing these tariffs. The reason is pretty simple, pretty clear.
For Mexico and Canada, it's because they're not doing enough to secure their side of the border and to prevent the tidal wave of drugs that is flowing into our country, as Trump said. And we've asked these countries nicely for a long time to step up and do their part because it's just not acceptable that this stuff is coming across their borders into our country. It's just not acceptable.
And, you know, when you're the most powerful country in the region and in the world, in fact, you say to the countries that border you, hey, you need to fix this. OK, this is not allowed to continue. So you need to figure whatever you got to do. You need to figure out a way to fix this. And that's what Trump is doing.
And Trump is trying to basically force the issue because the thing about the carrot and stick approach is that eventually you got to use the stick. And so here it is. Here's the stick. And it was a long time coming. Now, of course, the media and the left and even some conservatives are freaking out about this, acting like Trump is imposing these tariffs for no reason.
Acting shocked and like Trump is deranged or something and just doing this randomly. When first of all, Trump has been talking about this since forever. I mean, since way before he even ran for president. So this is Trump doing exactly what he said he would do, what he ran on. That's what gets me about the reaction from a lot of people is he ran on this. He's been talking about this forever.
And so now he's doing it. Why wouldn't he do it? He ran on it. He won. So, OK, now he's going to do it. And again, there's a reason for it. These countries are directly facilitating the deaths of thousands of Americans by allowing poison to pour across their border into our country. And, you know, does that count as a reason to do it? I'd say it's a reason. It's a pretty good reason.
Now, meanwhile, Democrats are hysterically warning about the cost of a quote-unquote trade war with China, well, China, yes, but with Canada and Mexico in particular, as if we couldn't easily win such a war, as if we don't obviously have the upper hand in both cases. But Democrats are claiming we don't. Here is Chuck Schumer.
Let's just take Super Bowl Sunday, okay? It's gonna affect beer. OK, most of it, Corona here, comes from Mexico. It's going to affect your guac, because what is guacamole made of? Avocados, both from Mexico.
OK, well, while Chuck Schumer was was babbling there, I just saw the latest on this. In fact, there's an update beyond what I what I just told you. Delaware just reported this. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Monday that she's moving 10,000 members of the country's National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border to stop drug trafficking.
Sheinbaum made the announcement after speaking earlier in the day with President Trump following his decision to hit the country with 25% tariffs. She said that Trump administration agreed to pause the implementation of tariffs for one month. Okay, so Trump is apparently pausing the tariffs because we've already gotten, there's already been a response and concessions made by Mexico.
And exactly what, this was exactly the point. This is the whole point of the tariffs. Wasn't just something frivolous, just doing it for fun. It was to get precisely this reaction. And it looks like, at least according to this statement from the Mexican president, it looks like they've already gotten a response.
So, I mean, you've got, we just played that clip of the Democrats, and that was Chuck Schumer, I think it was yesterday, talking about how the Super Bowl's gonna be ruined because we can't get guacamole and beer. And meanwhile, Trump announces these tariffs and has them in place for like a day, and already there's a response. And why do we get results that quickly?
Well, it's because what else are they gonna do? This is what happens when you are the most powerful country in the world and you actually use your power, you wield it without this feeling of embarrassment about it. What else is Mexico gonna do? They can't win a trade war with the United States. They can't win any kind of war with the United States, obviously.
The only thing they have to hold over our heads, well, you just heard Chuck Schumer, well, beer. You're not gonna be able to get guacamole and beer. Now, by the way, Guacamole, sure, I think probably in a situation where there's a standoff, a Mexican standoff between us and Mexico over tariffs, probably guacamole becomes more expensive. But beer, even that is actually not true.
Because Mexico, he claims in that clip that Mexico accounts for most of the beer that's sold in this country, most. No. The vast majority of beer sales in this country, I think 78 to 80% are domestic beer sales. Now, Mexico accounts for a big chunk of imported beer sold in this country, but that's still a minority of the sales.
So all told, Mexican beer accounts for like, I think 10 to 15% of the beer sales. And then there's another chunk that's imported from other countries. And then the vast majority of it is domestic. So then what happens? Let's say that this were to play out and we didn't get a concession from Mexico.
And then, yeah, Corona, which, by the way, looks and tastes like stagnant rainwater that's been sitting in a rusty bucket for three weeks. So not much is lost there. But, yeah, Corona becomes more expensive. This Mexican beer becomes more expensive. So then what do American consumers do? Well, you just don't buy that.
There's a thousand other options of beer that's brewed right here in the United States. Go support your local brewery. It's not that much more expensive and the beer is way better. All that ends up happening in that scenario is that these Mexican beer companies are destroyed because American consumers don't need Corona, but you go without it.
Like Corona could just cease to exist tomorrow and it would be fine. Like it would not affect anyone's life in this country at all. It wouldn't really affect any of the bars, any of the liquor stores either, because you just replace that with domestic beer. No problem. And as for guacamole, well, yeah, that becomes more expensive.
But that's a price that most of us, I think most Americans are willing to pay. To keep drugs and poison out of this country, if I got to pay more for guacamole at Chipotle, it's already an upcharge. So add another couple bucks onto it. If it's that important to you, you'll pay the couple bucks. If not, you can just go without guacamole. I like guacamole. Not the end of the world, though. So
That's the position that Mexico's in, which is why there are already concessions. And so we've seen this now with the Trump administration. I mean, the Trump administration is only two weeks old. And we've seen now repeatedly how Trump has gotten results by actually, by setting clear Like making clear what you want. Here's what America needs. Here's what's in our best interest.
You say to the other countries. And if you don't do what we need you to do, then here's going to be the penalty. And it turns out that when you communicate that clearly and you set the guidelines and you set the ultimatum, it turns out you get results pretty quickly. Because whether it's Colombia or Mexico, none of these countries want to tangle with the United States.
There's nothing in it for them. And you got all these morons that are talking as though Mexico could win a trade war with the United States. It's delusional. So already some results there. Here's another area where hopefully we'll see some results. And as far as I know, we haven't seen them just yet, but who knows?
Well, in fact, we actually have seen results already on this as well, which we'll talk about in a second. But Trump last night was discussing his efforts to take back control of the Panama Canal. And here's what he said about that.
Secretary of State Rubio is in Panama right now. And we're talking about the Panama Canal. What they've done is terrible. They violated the agreement. They're not allowed to violate the agreement. China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China. That was given to Panama foolishly. But they violated the agreement.
And we're going to take it back or something very powerful is going to happen.
Okay, so he appears to threaten to use... to use force to take back the canal. At least that's how it's being interpreted by a lot of people. Or maybe he's indicating that taking it back forcefully is an option. So it's not exactly a threat. He's not saying, well, give us back the Panama Canal. We're going to send troops into Panama.
And I don't think that that's... I don't see that scenario as plausible. But, you know, he says... Like, we got to work this out or something very powerful is going to happen. So you kind of interpret it the way you want. But there is a clear ultimatum there, right? And he's right. He's right on this, too. Yes, we should take back control of the Panama Canal one way or another. That canal is ours.
We should control it. And Trump is right that China right now exerts a lot of influence over the canal. So there is some real urgency here. And as I alluded to before, Panama, there already are results on this. It's not settled completely, but Panama has, Rubio, new Secretary of State, went down to Panama. And it was his first international trip as Secretary of State.
And already, Panama has agreed to end a deal with China that had been on the table. So- This is being handled diplomatically. Hopefully it is all worked out diplomatically. It seems to be trending that way. That obviously is vastly preferable. But one way or another, the United States should control the Panama Canal because that canal is ours.
And just some basic facts about this, if you're not familiar with it or with the history of it. First of all, the vast majority of the ships that go through the canal are coming to or leaving ports in the United States. So it's about 70% of the traffic is going to the United States or coming from the United States. More importantly, we built the canal.
Okay, the United States spent 10 years building the canal at the beginning of the 20th century. Thousands of Americans died in the process. Now, I think the official estimates are like 5,000, 6,000 Americans. It was probably way more than that. But either way, thousands of Americans died building the canal. It's one of the greatest construction projects ever undertaken in human history.
One of the greatest engineering marvels in the history of humanity. I mean, they cut a hole in the earth from one ocean to another. It's like inconceivable how they did it. I've read a couple of books now on the Panama Canal, and even after reading the books, in fact, even more so after reading the books and learning about the process, you can't wrap your mind around it. How is that possible?
Just imagine that. Like, imagine...
It's one thing if you go to the Panama Canal, which I never have been, and you look at it when it's already constructed, but imagine standing on that plot of land before anything was constructed, when it was just a jungle, because that's what it was, and trying to conceptualize how we're going to dig a giant hole that goes from this ocean all the way to the next one across...
We're going to split these two continents in two. And that's what America did. And this country built it and paid for it. This was American grit and ingenuity, and we paid for it with American treasure and American blood. So why in the hell should anyone but America have control over it? Why should Panama have control over it? Panama didn't build it. Panama didn't build it.
They didn't pay for it. And they're not even the ones who are mostly using it. America built it, paid for it, and 70% of the time, we're the ones using it. No other country was able to build it. The French tried to build it and failed. And we did it. We built it. And then about 60 years later, Jimmy Carter, the incompetent buffoon that he was, gave the canal away. He just gave it away.
It is one of the most one-sided deals in history. And yet, this idiot, and to call Jimmy Carter a buffoon or an idiot, I think is probably cutting him too much slack because he was also just a bad guy. He was a bad leader and a bad man. And by the way, I know that he lived for a long time afterwards. But that doesn't all of a sudden change the fact that he was a bad leader and a bad person.
And he did a lot of terrible things and he caused immeasurable. This man did immeasurable damage to the country. But then he lived till he was 100. And so all of a sudden it doesn't count anymore. Because for people in my generation or younger, we only remember Jimmy Carter as this kind of frail old man just kind of sitting there all shriveled up.
And so because of that, he sort of like bought goodwill because he was just really old for a long time. But that doesn't change the fact that he was a terrible, terrible president and made the world a worse place. And this is not the only bad thing he did, but it's one of the worst. And he considered it to be his crowning achievement.
One of his crowning achievements, he thought, was this deal of giving away the Panama Canal. Which, how is that an achievement? You gave someone, you gave a thing of immense value to another country and they gave you nothing in return and that's an achievement?
That's like if I considered it an achievement because I worked out a deal with you where I would give you a million dollars and you give me nothing. Maybe not nothing, maybe I bought a toothpick from you for a million dollars. And then for the rest of my life, I brag that I just made this incredible deal. I convinced you. I convinced you to give me a toothpick for just a million dollars.
What a deal-making genius I am. Except it's worse than that, because at least if I gave you a million dollars, well, I earned the million. I can spend it how I want. It's my million. But in the case of the Panama Canal, Jimmy Carter didn't build it. It never would have been built under his leadership because he was a weak, feckless, corrupt leader who couldn't do anything. No, he didn't build it.
Instead, he took a massive dump all over the Americans who struggled and died for years to build it and decided to just give it away. Now, the real reason that it was given away was... Just a sense of white guilt, really, that's what it was. It was just this this this sacrifice on the altar of white guilt.
Because we're you know, America is a predominantly white country, even more so back when the back when Jimmy Carter was in office and. And so it was like. We have no right to it. And so that's really what it was. But beyond that, ostensibly, the reason that it was done was to improve relations with Latin America. That's the reason that was given.
And the problem is that, first of all, we're in a position of power. So we don't need to give them this gift that costs billions of dollars and thousands of lives just to improve relations. We don't need to bribe them. Okay, we don't have to bribe Panama to make them like us. Who gives a if they like us or not? If you don't give it to us, we're going to not like you. Okay, then don't.
What do we care? What possible difference does it make what you think of us? But also, how did that work out, Jimmy? How did it work out, giving the Panama Canal to improve relations with Latin America? How did that pan out? Well, I'll tell you how it panned out.
Latin America has spent the following 40 years shipping drugs and criminals into our country, utterly decimating our national sovereignty while killing thousands of more Americans. So that's what they gave us. I said that they gave us nothing in exchange for the Panama Canal. I'm wrong. That's what they gave us. So as this great token of good faith to Latin America, we gave them the Panama Canal.
And in exchange, they gave us crime and drugs for 40 years. That's the improved relations with Latin America is that. So... So now Trump wants the Panama Canal back, and I hope he gets it. And look, I know that the response is going to be, well, it was a treaty. It's a legal agreement. There's nothing you could do. First of all, Panama has almost certainly violated the terms of the treaty.
It would not be that hard to take a look at it and find myriad ways that they violated the treaty, which would justify us saying the treaty has been violated. It is now defunct. You violated it.
I mean, one of the aspects of the treaty was neutrality, that the canal is supposed to remain neutral, and yet you've got China down there exerting an outsized influence, extending their tentacles from the other side of the globe. So that alone, we'd be perfectly justified in saying you violated the treaty. That's really the answer to the whole thing about the treaty. But then also, look,
I mean, Jimmy Carter had no right to give it away. Are we beholden forever to this terrible, awful deal that hurts America? So how long? I mean, a thousand years from now? We still, it never changes? Even though Panama is this tiny little speck of a country with no power at all, And I mean, we could just show up and say we're taking the canal back. You can do literally nothing about it.
We could do that. But you got to respect the treaty. All right, fine. Well, that's the thing about contracts is like if you get some lawyers in a room that are very good at this, and they can figure out ways that the contract was violated. They can figure out, like I said, they can figure out a thousand ways. And so have them do that. I'm sure they already have.
Here's a thousand ways Panama vitally the treaty. So we're taking the canal back. We could do it legally. If it makes everyone feel more comfortable with it. Let's get to the comment section. You know what's really fascinating? When your metabolism is working properly, you feel the benefits in literally every aspect of your life.
I've discovered an incredible tool that gives me insights to create a healthy metabolism for my body. It's called Lumen. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It measures your metabolism through your breath, and the app tells you if you're burning fat or carbs. It then provides personalized guidance to improve your nutrition, workout, sleep, and even stress management.
Using it couldn't be simpler. I breathe into my Lumen first thing in the morning to understand my metabolism and get a personalized nutrition plan for the day. I can also check before and after workouts and meals to know exactly what's happening in my body in real time. Here's why this matters. Your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how your body turns food into fuel.
When it's optimized, you'll experience better energy levels, improved fitness results, and even better sleep. Lumen gives you all the recommendations you need to improve your metabolic health helping you make informed decisions about your nutrition and your lifestyle. Take the next step to improve your health. Go to Lumen.me slash Walsh to get 20% off your Lumen.
That's L-U-M-E-N.me slash Walsh for 20% off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode. All right. I know three Mats. One is my second daughter's husband. One is my fourth daughter's boyfriend. One is you. You're the only Mat I like. Well... Look, give those other mats a chance is all I'm going to say.
I mean, they're not going to be as good as me, but you can't hold them to that standard. I'm the top of the mat pile here. But they got their names right, at least. That's got to count for something. It can't be all bad.
Matt, it totally amazes me how you can start the day by talking about the serious matter of possible DEI issues with traffic controllers and helicopters and planes, potential crashes, and then move to onesies and the snap versus the zipper.
I just want you to know that every time I listen to you and watch your facial expressions, I grin from ear to ear, shake my head and wonder, how in the world did God give you such a comical, sarcastic, and wise mind? Like I said, you can always send me compliments and I'll read them. Well, I appreciate that.
And what you've just pointed to is the reason to love the show, but also the reason to hate it. It just depends on, you can go either way. It depends on how you're wired. Because we will move seamlessly from really important topics to the pettiest stuff imaginable. And I will discuss all of them with an equal level of seriousness. And I will discuss all of them at length.
So you either appreciate that or you're repulsed by it. And there's not a lot of room in between. As a father of three, I'm glad Matt is finally addressing the snapping onesies. I refuse to buy them after our first and only ones we had were gifted to us. They're a nightmare when doing late night feeding or diaper changes. Yeah, they really are. I hate dealing with them when I'm changing diapers.
I mean, if I ever did change a diaper, I would hate it. I'd hate dealing with them. I'm kidding, of course. I do. Every time I make this joke, people get really upset. I do change diapers. Not like directly. I don't directly. But I facilitate. I facilitate and delegate the changing of the diapers. I pay for the diapers. So I'm very much involved.
I am involved in the process of changing the diapers. But in terms of the actual physical labor of it, that's not so much my role. That's not where I excel is in the changing of the diapers. Let's see. But Matt, the snap on the onesies can help keep your baby warm.
Like when you're changing the diaper, you can only have to open the bottom snaps instead of unzipping the entire onesie and exposing the baby's chest to the cold. Come on, man. Think. Look, the baby will be fine. I mean, what do you mean exposing the baby to the cold? You have heat in your house, don't you? What are you living in the 17th century?
You got one candle in your kitchen heating the whole house. baby's not going to freeze while you're changing. By the way, my wife has given me the same speech. We've had the snap discussion. What are you going to keep? Cause you want to keep, cause they're going to get cold when you, what Eskimos have babies for God's sake, like they live in igloos with their babies. Okay.
So you think about that and here you think that your baby needs a snap on onesie so that, you know, the child doesn't get hypothermia while you're changing a diaper for 90 seconds. Um, Matt, are you mixing up onesies with footie pajamas? I've never seen zippers on onesies, but I've also never seen snaps on footie pajamas. Maybe I'm too old. You know, there have been a lot of comments like this.
There were a lot of comments claiming that I don't know what a onesie is, saying I'm confused about what a onesie is. Like, don't come at me with that, all right? Miss me with that. Miss me with that, bruh, all right? Dead ass. I know what a onesie is. Actually, a onesie is a one-piece garment, technically. That's what a onesie is. That's why it says one.
So if the whole outfit comes in one piece, it's a onesie. All right? So yeah, I'm talking about snap-on onesies, the ones that are torturous to put on a baby that have like 95 snaps, and you have to assemble them. When you lay them out, they're like flat. It's like a flat piece of fabric and you have to fold them and assemble them and snap them. That's what I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about the ones that have the three snaps at the crotch. Like, that's not what I mean. So the full on snap on pajama things is what I'm. And yes, those are one. Those are onesies. So get out of my comments with those aren't any one piece outfit is. So that means, what? That means, yes, Batman wears a onesie. Spider-Man wears a onesie. Like, I got news for you. That's what it means.
Tell me I don't know what a onesie is. Do you know like 60% of all onesie purchases in the United States for the last 10 years have been made by my family? And you're telling me I don't know what a onesie is? Like, back off. No matter where you're watching or listening right now, take a second and hit that follow button.
It costs you nothing, but it makes a massive difference in fighting back against the algorithm that really, really doesn't want you to hear this. But if you want the full show, uncensored, uninterrupted, and unshackled from big tech overlords, there's only one way to do that by becoming a Daily Wire Plus member. As a member, you get unlimited access to our entire library of premium entertainment.
including the culture-shaping documentary, What is a Woman? and the hilariously offensive box office hit, Am I Racist? Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now and join the fight. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Well, I hadn't planned to talk about this again today, but people won't stop being stupid about it.
And when people are being stupid on the internet on those very rare occasions, I have no choice but to respond. So on Friday, we discussed the controversy bubbling around JD Vance after he had the audacity to suggest that we as human beings have a special responsibility to our own families and communities and country.
He provocatively claimed that you should be more concerned about caring for your own child than caring for someone else's child in a country 5,000 miles away. In case you missed it, here is that clip again.
But there's this old school, and I think it's a very Christian concept, by the way, that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.
They seem to hate the citizens of their own country and care more about people outside their own borders. That is no way to run a society. And I think the profound difference that Donald Trump brings to the leadership of this country is the simple concept, America first. It doesn't mean you hate anybody else.
It means that you have leadership, and President Trump has been very clear about this, that puts the interests of American citizens first. In the same way that the British prime minister should care about Brits and the French should care about the French, we have an American president who cares primarily about Americans, and that's a very welcome change. What is President Xi doing?
What is Vladimir Putin doing? He's looking after the Chinese. Putin is looking after the Russians. They're entitled to do that. Thank God we now have an American president who's looking after the citizens of his own country.
As we talked about on Friday, this very obviously correct observation, one that is both biblically sound and self-evident to any functioning human being, nonetheless provoked great outrage on the left. And the outrage has yet to subside.
They feel they must object to Vance's utterly sensible statements about prioritizing your own family and nation over nations and families across the globe because they believe or feel obliged to pretend they believe that our borders should be open and that we have a moral obligation to welcome and care for an infinite stream of third world immigrants.
This is why a large gaggle of self-satisfied college professors and alleged theologians, midwits who tragically see themselves as geniuses, this is why they started posting smarmy rebuttals claiming that Vance's position is unbiblical, quote, pagan, quote, tribal, and a, quote, false gospel.
And of course, this is all coming from atheists, heretics, apostates, false teachers like Father James Martin, who will just as confidently assure us that the gospel endorses same-sex marriage and the chemical castration of gender-confused minors.
So these are people who only open the Bible so that they can spit on it and defile it, and yet they pretend to be, in situations like this, authorities on a book that they've obviously never read. And if they did read it, They would find that Vance's idea about the proper ordering of loves is, again, not only self-evident and common sense, but also explicitly outlined in the scripture.
First Timothy 5.8, for example, says that anyone who does not provide for his relatives, especially those of his own household, has denied his faith. Or you could also flip all the way back to the Old Testament to something called the Ten Commandments. And there we're told to honor our father and mother.
Now, it doesn't say honor your father and mother and also the fathers and mothers of all the people all across the world. No, honor your own father and mother. This is God himself engraving in stone the special obligation we have to our own family members. As for our neighbors, we're told not to bear false witness against them, not to be covetous of their property or envious of their lives.
But it doesn't tell us to honor our neighbors. That command and that phrasing is reserved specifically and especially for our parents. In fact, here's something interesting. If you follow the Ten Commandments from number one down to number ten, you'll find that first our obligations to God are outlined, then our obligations to family, and then our obligations to our neighbors.
So the hierarchy of love The order of love is literally and numerically laid out in the Ten Commandments. But the dumbest rebuttal of all came yesterday, and this is why I've been forced to revisit the topic today. The sheer force of the dumbness compels me, almost as though the dumbness has actual mass and exerts its own gravitational pull upon me. Somebody named Scott Alexander posted this.
He apparently has a blog where he claims to write about science and philosophy. He's also, I'm told by Wikipedia, a psychiatrist in San Francisco. and we know that about 85% of the worst ideas in the history of the world have originated from psychiatrists in San Francisco, so this is no surprise, explains why he tweeted this, quote, I went on a walk and saw a child drowning in the river.
I was going to jump in and save him when someone reminded me that I should care about family members more than strangers. So I continued on my way and let him drown. This is the argument presented by an alleged philosophy writer.
It is a thought experiment meant to reveal the absurdity of Vance's position, but instead all it reveals is that Scott Alexander has the comprehension skills of a carrot cake. Okay, the first problem is that clearly there is a significant difference between a child drowning in front of you in a river and millions of immigrants all across the world.
The point of his analogy is to explain why we're morally obliged to open our borders to an endless army of third world migrants. So he's actually not talking about saving just one child in a river. He's actually suggesting that we must save millions of children from every river in the world.
So yes, Scott, I agree that I should and I would save a child drowning in a river if I happen to stumble upon the scene while going for a walk. But What if I didn't see him drown? What if I decided to stay home? Is his death still my fault? Did I somehow fail in some sort of duty to go out looking for drowning children?
Is America on the hook to provide shelter and aid and a home to every impoverished person everywhere in the world indefinitely? Are we allowed to stay home as it were, shut the door and focus on our own home, our own nation? But we still haven't really gotten to the point.
Because what makes Scott's argument so incredibly, almost unfathomably stupid is that it actually proves Vance's point perfectly. Scott has found the perfect thought experiment to confirm Vance's argument beyond any shadow of a doubt. It's so good that I wish I had thought of it when we talked about this on Friday, which is one of the reasons why I'm talking about it now.
All we have to do is make one adjustment so that it actually reflects the point that he was making. Okay? If you're walking alone and you see a child alone drowning in the river, well, there's no reason why prioritizing your family would prevent you from saving the child. It's just the child drowning.
Even if you do care more about your family than you do about strangers, which you should, there's still no reason why you wouldn't save the child in that scenario, right? There's no competition here between your own child and this child in the river. Now,
Sure, I mean, if the child is drowning in a fast-flowing river 20 feet from a massive waterfall or something, and you have children at home and a family to care for, then that might give you reason to pause before going on a suicide mission to save a stranger. But even so, if there's a reasonable hope of saving the child, then I think most people would take the risk and should. I would.
Still, this scenario doesn't adequately reflect Vance's point. Vance's point is more like this. You're walking along a riverbank. Suddenly, you see a child drowning 50 yards off in the river. Then you notice 50 yards back in the other direction, your own child drowning. Okay, so you got a child you don't know and your own child both drowning in the same river.
And they're 100 yards apart in this case. You can't save them both at the same time. You have to save one first, and the other one will most likely die tragically. So, which child do you save first? Your own or the stranger? What would you do, Scott? Your child is drowning, shouting to you, screaming, dad, save me. Would you do what any morally sane human being would do?
What any decent father would do? What any human who is not a psychopath would do? And immediately jump in to save your own child first? And then if you get him back to safety and the other child is still above the surface, or even if he's not, at that point, you jump in to save the other child.
When tragically, it's probably going to be too late, but you would at least attempt, but you're going to get your own child first. Is that what you would do?
Or would you stay true to your enlightened liberal principles and demonstrate your commitment to equity and inclusivity by leaving your child to drown while you swim off in the opposite direction to save some other kid you've never met before? Would you shout to your child, sorry, son, but I don't recognize any special obligation to love you. I love all human beings across the world equally.
Is that what you would do? Now, if you would not do that, If you would, without hesitation, prioritize your own child and save him first, then you actually understand Vance's point perfectly well. You have a hierarchy in your own mind and heart, an ordering of loves, and you recognize intuitively that you are called to protect, love, and serve your own family before anybody else.
You, in fact, love your child more than you love that other child. You love the other child in a sort of general and charitable sense because he's a fellow human being, because he is a child. But you love your child even more because he is yours. He's your flesh. You are tied to him by blood. You have known him from his first breath.
And even before that, you are called by God to protect him with your life and to give your life for his. It is a deeper and stronger love. which is also why you would mourn the death of your own child much, much more than you would mourn the death of any other child. If a child drowns in the river and you hear about it on the news, you'd be very sad for him and his family.
And then after hearing about it on the news and being very sad, you would still go about your day. But if your child drowns in the river, you will be crushed as though a 10-ton boulder had been dropped on your head and you will mourn him and grieve his loss every day of your life until you die.
So the outside world sees the death of your child and the child down the street as tragedies of equal proportion. And objectively, they're right. But they're not equal to you because that is your child. Now, do I really need to explain this? Is there any chance that Scott would actually tell me that he would save the other child instead of his own? Or even that he'd have to think about it?
Would Scott insist that he would mourn the death of his own child no differently than he mourns the death of anybody else? If so, I certainly hope he doesn't have any kids in real life. Because any man who is that neutral about his own children is not fit to raise them. But the good news is that Scott is almost certainly full of crap.
He understands the basic concept of prioritizing the people closest to us. He does it every day. It would be impossible to maintain any healthy human relationship if you didn't do that every day. And I'm going to assume that Scott has at least a few healthy human relationships. Though that may be a bold assumption to make about a psychiatrist from San Francisco.
But in any case, this river thought experiment that Scott accidentally gave us absolutely proves J.D. Vance's point. If you would save your own child first, you agree with JD Vance, period, end of story. If you wouldn't save your own child first, you are a psychotic monster and should lose custody of your kids. Those are really the only two options here.
It's not a false dichotomy, it's just the actual dichotomy. You are either the type of person who would save your own child Or you're the type of person who would let him drown. Now, I'm not sure how many people would actually be in the latter camp when push comes to shove. But I do know that a lot of people on the left, especially the intellectual leaders on that side, claim they're in that camp.
So either way, they are horrifically and embarrassingly wrong. And they are today, of course, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.