Matt Walsh (3:25)

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you just. Excuse me. Are you really not gonna plug my book? That is only up for an Edgar for two more weeks before I lose.

Michael Knowles (3:34)

Wait, hold on. You write books? You write books too? No, that's true. Can you get it at the Daily Wire Shop?

Matt Walsh (3:40)

Edgar nominated critical book and a New York Times bestseller as well.

Michael Knowles (3:46)

And named after the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Raisin Cain.

Matt Walsh (3:50)

Exactly.

Michael Knowles (3:50)

There's an amazing tie in. Yes, you can go. If you want a book without words, get mine. If you want a book with Ben's signature, get his. And if you want a book from an actual writer, an actual award winning writer, you get the wrist book.

Matt Walsh (4:02)

The real words.

Michael Knowles (4:04)

We also met. We have you on the show today.

Drew Hernandez (4:08)

Yeah, I mean, it's my favorite show to do, so I don't. How could I not be? You weren't missing. Yeah, no. And this is where I find out about new merch drop, which is great. Terrorist Tears. I mean, whose idea was that? Do we know whose idea that was?

Michael Knowles (4:24)

I think it was Donald Rumsfeld's idea, actually. And I know he's dead, but I think we got through some kind of advanced CIA technology. He came up with the new Terrorist Tears Tumblr.

Drew Hernandez (4:35)

It is the kind of idea I cannot think of. If you're looking for merchandise that's just pure, like boomer baits, Pure Fox News boomer bait merchandise. Terrorist tears, Tumblr. I mean, yeah.

Michael Knowles (4:50)

Beat Mondale. We've got our new Beat Mondale Tumblr. Coming out next week, too. So that one will be great.

Cabot Phillips (4:56)

Be sure to.

Michael Knowles (4:56)

That will be full price, though. That won't be 50% off. We are back in the Middle east, though, Sort of. Maybe, maybe not. There was this amazing, daring rescue mission where the CIA was using crazy advanced technology and subterfuge to pull this guy out. He went down on Good Friday. He hid in a crevice in a mountain, and then he was rescued on Easter Sunday. It's amazing. It's wonderful. Thank God. What's more interesting to me, did you guys see the New York Times piece on the internal deliberations about whether or not to go to war with Iran in the White House?

Matt Walsh (5:29)

The Maggie Haberman piece?

Michael Knowles (5:30)

Yeah, yeah, Haberman. So according to it, the guy arguing most vociferously against the strikes was the vice president, J.D. vance, who as far as I can tell, has exactly my position on the Iran war. He said, look, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think it's gonna work in terms of actual regime change. I think we're being oversold here. Looks like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs agreed with that. Looks like Marco Rubio agreed with that. People are trying to drive divisions between Vance and Rubio. Looks like they were totally un. The same page here. Suzy Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, was on board, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. According to the reporting, Pete Hegseth was more in favor of the strikes. In any case, though, we were supposed to get nuclear disaster last night, and instead, I guess we have a ceasefire. None of us know anything about actual news reporting. So we have Cabot Phillips, who does our actual hard news show, Wired in live. He's joining us, too. Do we have a ceasefire?

Cabot Phillips (6:27)

Yes, of course. Donald Trump says we have a ceasefire, so there's definitely a ceasefire. All right, Michael. I interviewed a former Defense Department liaison last night and he said, look, given what the Iranians are reportedly demanding and given all the complications with Israel, who by all accounts wants this war to keep going, as we saw this morning with their continued bombing of Lebanon, given the Iranian desire to keep control of the strait, he said, you're going to have fighting again within four days. And at this rate, it looks like we'd be lucky to make it four more hours with this thing holding, given all of the latest news coming out in the last hour. And Michael, I remember the morning that the war first broke out. You were here on my lovely new set, which still not as good as your set, but beautiful new set here for Wired in live. Everyone go tune in. And you scoffed a bit. We had a very nice young lady come on the show. I'm not gonna say her name, but she was in big support of this conflict the morning it launched and said, there really are no potential downsides to this war. Do you remember that? She said, there are no potential downsides. And you interjected and said, well, I think there could be some potential downsides.

Michael Knowles (7:37)

I can think of a few, yeah. And that woman too, I mean, she was a nice lady, but she said this war is so important, it's so great that America's involved. Cuz it's such a great day for the Persian people and the Persians have been waiting for this for so long and how wonderful for the Iranian people. And, and I said, well, you know, respectfully, I like Persians and stuff, but why am I supposed to care about that? I'm an American. Why is this the best case you can make for the war? So according to the reporting here, Bibi Netanyahu flies to the White House. They have this high level meeting. Vance at the time was in Azerbaijan wrapping up that trip. But even with the Vice President out, everyone was saying, look, the Israelis are overselling this. I think the CIA director John Ratcliffe said that same thing with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And you're really probably, probably not gonna get regime change. I was always so skeptical of this idea that the Iranians were gonna just rise up and take over their government because all we ever see is these hot Persian women smoking cigarettes, ripping off their hijabs. I said, I don't think that's reflective actually of most of the Persian people. And so obviously we're not getting regime change. The White House hasn't even really pushed that for the last four and a half weeks or so. But by the end of this conflict, the question is the, is the strait opening? Is, does Israel want to go along with the ceasefire? Apparently not. Will Trump do it anyway? Will Trump force it through? And what will we have gotten out of it?

Matt Walsh (9:02)

You know, I just, I want to say just one thing that Israel, you know, as I keep saying every time we do this show, Israel and the US have many areas on the Venn diagram where our interests are aligned. But Israel also has some areas that are quite serious that have nothing to do with us, like the fact that they're surrounded by enemies. They're countries the size of a matchstick and they're surrounded by enemies on either side. Anyone who's ever been to Israel, wherever you stand, you can See people who want to kill you, I mean, it is, it's quite remarkable. It is a remarkable way to live. So the fact that they're still fighting and they're fighting, especially with Lebanon because Hezbollah has been hurling missiles into their country is not necessarily violating the ceasefire. You know, I mean, they're not attacking ir, they're defending themselves against that. And that's something, you know, I'm glad they're doing, but it has nothing to do with what decisions we should make. And I also just want to add about that New York Times piece. When has the New York Times ever reported anything that concerns Donald Trump? That was one, true. And two, even its true, even its truths were not designed to hurt Trump in some way. And I couldn't help as I was reading that thing to think that they, that that piece was written by Tucker Carlson, you know, that it was kind of like the evil Jews came in and overrode the American free. And I just thought, I don't know about that. You know, Trump has been very cautious about war making and I think that he is, I think he's done a good thing and I think that it's probably coming to an end one way or another. But Israel's fight, Israel's not breaking the ceasefire. If they're fighting with Hezbollah, they have to fight with Hezbollah.

Michael Knowles (10:38)

And it shouldn't have anything to do with RC's fire, doesn't have anything to do with.

Drew Hernandez (10:43)

The question still is, I think there's one question still has not been answered, which why exactly was this necessary for America to get involved in right now? I don't think we've ever gotten to my mind a sufficient answer to that. Not like, well, maybe it'll work out, but why was it necessary? Why did we have to do this right now? I don't think there's been, I don't think there's been a good answer to that. And especially when the nuclear program is used as the answer. Well, we were told that it was obliterated back in like June. So it's difficult to understand how those, both those things could be true, that the nuclear program was obliterated, but also the nuclear program is why we had to launch this, this war. I don't think we've gotten a good answer to that. And I also think that, and then, and then how, how are we better off? How has America benefited from it, you know, getting the strait back open? Well, great. It was already open before this. So it's hard to see that, that, that we could say that that was a good reason for the war to start. And I also think that, in my own personal view that I've been very open about is that I don't think this is in America's best interest. I think that there are a lot of breezy assurances made by proponents of this war. Early on, you guys were talking a little bit about that, that there's, like, basically no downside, It'll be perfectly fine. It's treating Iran like they're not even a country. It's just. It's. It's. It's. Or comparing it to Venezuela. Totally different situation and not enough wrestling with the real ramifications of doing something like this. And I got to say, that's one thing that's really frustrated me about this entire thing, and I think it was reflected in the conversation yesterday about Trump's truth social post about how we're going to. The entire civilization is going to die. And for someone who tries to be reasonable about these things, it's really frustrating. Because what I see is, on one side, you have some people who do panic about it, and they act as though there's a chance that Trump will actually just nuke Iran and kill everybody. And I think that most of us who are rational knew that that was just not gonna happen.

Cabot Phillips (12:57)

Yeah.

Drew Hernandez (12:58)

But on the other end of the spectrum, you have people who are proponents of this war and reflexive defenders of it acting as though there is no reasonable criticism a person could make of a president saying publicly the entire civilization will die. Like a reasonable person, a rational person can, obviously, without panicking, you're not being a panic in. You're not saying that the sky's falling. You can look at that and say, huh? You know, I don't know if that's the best strategy. And I also don't know if morally it's, like, ever okay to threaten to kill an entire civilization, even if you get your way. So that. That's a conversation we can have. And just like the bad faith and the dishonesty from people on both sides, I find really frustrating. Because, look, here's the thing. I agree with the people who say that, yeah, there's no way Trump was actually gonna do that. He's not gonna do that. I get it. Okay, well, then. But why are you saying it then?

Michael Knowles (14:00)

Because I'll give you an answer on this.

Drew Hernandez (14:02)

Well, Jose, but if you're not gonna do it and everybody knows you're not gonna do it, then the threat is totally meaningless. Like the Iranian regime, they have access to Twitter. I mean, they can see the conversation also. And so if everybody in the world knows he's not gonna do it, then the threat has no meaning. And if they think that he will do it, but then he doesn't, well, now you just look like a fool. You look like you're full of blossoms. Well, I was like, when you make this threat. Hold on. If you make this threat and you will never actually do it, ever, no matter what they do, then all you've done is made your threats completely meaningless.

Michael Knowles (14:43)

No. So the thought, the fear is that. And I've seen people say this, they went from criticizing Trump for bombing Iran to criticizing Trump for not bombing Iran. Bill Kristol came out, he said, this is a taco. Trump chickens out. And so the criticism is, well, this means you can't trust what Trump says. But I don't think that's true. I think you can trust what Trump says if you know what he means. And so, yes, no reasonable person thought that Trump was gonna drop multiple nuclear weapons on Iran and genocide the entire population. So no one thinks he's gonna do that. But people do think he might do something. And this is one of the arguments for some strikes in Iran. Again, I'm a skeptic on the strikes, but one of the arguments for it is Trump is a dove. He advocates for peace. He doesn't wanna get in these quagmires. And then he kills Soleimani, or he drops the Moab, or he takes out Maduro, or in this case, he takes out the Ayatollah, the most senior Muslim leader in the world. And he does these things that allow him to maintain some unpredictability. So with that tweet that he sent out, he goes, open the effing straits or you'll all be living in hell. Praise be to Allah. To me, what I really liked about that tweet is it seemed very disciplined. It seemed reckless at first. But when you read that dry humor line at the end, all praise to Allah, you can see he's being disciplined here and he's mocking the way that they speak. The Iranians are the ones who I say, the great Satan will go down in a ball of fire. You know, Allah, whatever. And so he's kind of mocking the way that they speak. My argument for what he's doing, just in a short way, a concise way, is there was good to be achieved here. I never thought the Iranian regime was going to fall. I always thought that those kinds of comments were way overselling the war. The goods that are achieved are you further weaken their nuclear program, which they're gonna continue to pursue. You really mess up their ballistics missiles program, which was being used to defend the nuclear program. You sink their military, you kill the top like 15 layers of their government. But the regime remains in place in a similar way that we saw in Venezuela. And especially if you can make sure the Strait of Hormuz remains open so that the best card that the Iranians have to play doesn't actually redound to their benefit, then you have achieved some strategic objectives that the US has had for 47 years. Again, I'm very skeptical of the whole thing, but it doesn't mean you don't accomplish nothing.

Matt Walsh (17:00)

I wanna break in here on two points. First of all, Pete Hexseth, the God of war, said that, or Secretary of War, whatever they call him. He said that the Iranians knew exactly what Trump was talking about, that they knew exactly what he was gonn hit. There was nothing they could do about it. I think that that is probably exactly accurate. So Trump was making a big fuss for the press and driving the press insane, as he loves to do. But in fact, the Iranians knew exactly what was coming and it was bad. You know, it was stuff. They were going to get hit on Car island, they were going to get hit in their infrastructure. And I think that he was making a deal insofar as it goes. But the other thing about this, and look, my point about this war from the very beginning was if it ends well, it'll be good. If it doesn't end well, it'll be bad, like every war, essentially. But I thought that there a good reason for doing it. Although whether we should be doing it now or not is a fair question. All kinds of questions are fair. I agree with Matt. These people who say there's no downside to a war are out of their freaking minds. That's ridiculous. A war they can recall a kinetic reason. We are fighting to build a country. Trump is fighting to build a country and a North America that can stand up to the onslaught from China that is coming, I would say approximately 15 minutes. And I think that one of the things that he has done when, when he went into Venezuela, a lot of the people running out of that country were suspiciously yellow, you know, suspiciously look like Chinese people. When he went into Iran, a lot of that oil coming through the strait is going to China. Something like 40% of their oil is for China. And that's stuff that, that China needs. And as they go forward and as Donald Trump sits down with Xi and says, oh, my friend, my good friend, we get along so well. It would be a shame if you couldn't get your oil. It's going to be, Matt, it's going to matter who is in charge of the Strait of Hormuz. And so I think that this is all about, I mean, Trump is actually doing a visionary thing, which in America is forbidden because we live from not just election to election, we live from poll to poll. But I think he actually is doing a visionary thing. I think it is a good thing. I don't think it has to involve us changing the regime in Iran. I think it has to do with our crippling them, which he seems to have done almost completely, as far as I can tell. And yeah, you know, Matt is right again about that. We didn't obliterate their nuclear program before. I think now we may have buried a lot of their nuclear goods underground such that it will be tough for them to get it out without our seeing them and going after them again. So I don't know. I think he has accomplished something and I think that he would like to get out. I've been, you know, for the last two friendly fires, I've been saying time is running out. And I think there are a lot of people who are, you know, thinking that we have to go in and destroy everything in Iran, get rid of the leadership or change the regime. That's not going to happen.

Michael Knowles (19:42)

Hold on. Before Matt starts to just scream his rebuttal to that, I want you all to realize out there that a lot is happening and it's hitting everything from your paycheck to your freedoms. So you can either guess or you can know. The Daily Wire gives you live breaking news, investigative reporting, ad free daily shows and experts who are actually part of the story, especially on Cabot's show. Join now@dailywire.com subscribe before we get to Cabot. Matt?

Drew Hernandez (20:08)

Yeah, I think, look, there's this weird thing we do now with wars where we talk about them very theoretically, especially this latest one we're sort of theorizing about. Well, maybe we're doing it for this reason. Maybe this is the reason. As though we don't have leaders who are running the country whose responsibility is not to actually tell us this stuff. It used to be that for most of American history, when we went to war, it was like kind of a big deal. And so the American people had to know why we're doing it. That doesn't mean that the generals have to sit down to your kitchen table and lay out all the blueprints and lay out all the battle plans for you. Okay? Some things are confidential. We get that you want the element of surprise. But a basic conversation about, why are we doing this? Why now? You, as Americans are going to pay the price for this. One way or another, you're going to pay a financial. At least. There's a risk. There's a risk. If we. If America goes to war in any part of the world, there is a serious risk to American people, to American livelihood, to American lives. No one could deny that. And so for that reason alone, we have a right to know, why are we doing this? Why was this necessary right now? And, well, what happens is that, is that, you know, Trump. Trump says things, and then some of us say, well, hold on, but that can't be true. That doesn't sound exactly right. And then we're told by the proponents of the war, oh, well, you know, but that doesn't. You can't take that seriously. He didn't really mean that. So Trump said, obliterate the nuclear program. Well, he didn't really mean obliterate it. Trump said, we're going to. The entire civilization is going to die. Well, obviously, he didn't really mean the entire civilization. Trump said, the Iranian people will rise up and it will be regime change. Well, obviously not really regime change. And then. And then, Drew, you say, well, really, this is about positioning with China. Well, okay, but no one in power has said that. That is not what Trump has said. So that's what's happening. Is that the plan?

Matt Walsh (21:58)

If he says that he's. If he says that he's telling China what he's doing and he doesn't want to do that, look, that's.

Drew Hernandez (22:04)

It doesn't work.

Matt Walsh (22:05)

I disagree with you, Matt. I just think that this is the way it is. You know, I mean, I get it. I wish Trump. I wish Trump were an eloquent, good spokesman for what he's doing. He's not.

Drew Hernandez (22:14)

It's not about being eloquent.

Michael Knowles (22:15)

It's.

Drew Hernandez (22:16)

It's not about being eloquent.

Michael Knowles (22:17)

It's clear.

Drew Hernandez (22:18)

It's about being straightforward and honest about what America is doing with our money and our lives. What are we doing and why? We have a right to know. And this thing that we hear from proponents where basically we have no right to know. Just have faith in Trump. Just have faith. Like, hold on a second. Trump is not God, okay? He's not Jesus Christ. I'm not called upon to have faith in him. I don't have faith in Any politician. Faith. This is what is a call to faith in a politician that doesn't. It's the other way around. No, I don't have. I don't have to trust him. You have to earn that trust always. And it's not just you can't cash in on, on past trust.

Michael Knowles (23:02)

Has he not earned the trust? I think he's earned trust on foreign policy.

Matt Walsh (23:05)

I think he's earned the trust about this, too, on this subject.

Drew Hernandez (23:08)

It's just. Yeah, I thought he did. I thought what he did in Venezuela was great. That doesn't mean that what's happening right now is great. Like, Trump has done some things that are really good. He's also done things that are bad. I thought the way Trump handled Covid was terrible. We all like to foreign policy.

Michael Knowles (23:25)

I'm saying on foreign policy in particular, I think he's earned a lot of trust.

Drew Hernandez (23:30)

I think he's done a lot of good things. I've generally supported what he's done on foreign policy. This thing over here, though, is a whole new thing. And what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that this is in America's best interest or that it was necessary. And no one in a position of power has made the case for why it is. And when they do make the case, I'm immediately informed by pundits that the case they made was not actually the case and that I should know that. Yeah, they're saying that, but that's not really the reason. There's some other reason that they, the pundits can explain to me, but the administration cannot. And I'm saying that that situation is untapped.

Matt Walsh (24:05)

Matt, listen, I think all of these complaints are very. Are absolutely good. But at the same time, I do think that something's happened that has been really good for America. I think what is. What he has done in Iran has already been good for us, and it will appear to be good for us pretty quickly in the, in the course of history. But you're absolutely right. He doesn't explain anything. The, the pundits have been awful about this. I mean, there have been so many pundits on the left, I guess we'll call them whatever, the anti American pundits, who are most pundits who have played this thing as if we were somehow, you know, our cities were being bombed. You know, you read the New York Times and the Wall, it sounds like, you know, a rise in gas, which is bad. It's bad, but it sounds like Hiroshima. In America, the way they play it the Wall Street Journal in one of the funniest, you know, headlines I'd seen. And if Trump, you know, ups this war, then it might strengthen Iranian resolve. I thought about the Black Knight in a Monty Python movie. How much stronger can their resolve be? Nothing seems to convince them that they've been beaten. So I praise them for their resolve. However, however, stepping back from all of that stuff, which is all true, I do look at this and I think, I think we're in a better position now than we were six weeks ago. And I think all the hand wringing has also been wrong. I think the hand wringing is wrong. And I think you're absolutely right about this, Walter. It's been driving me nuts, too. These people say, oh, it's great, it's all right. There's not even a risk, it's not even a problem. Drives me nuts. But on the other hand, I think the hand wringing is equally wrong. I think we are actually in a better place today than we were when the bombing started. And I think if he can get out of it right about now, which is what I've been saying since for the last two friendly fires, right about now is when I think he should get out of it and make sure the Strait is open if he can, and that I think we'll be in a better position.

Michael Knowles (25:57)

Are we in a better place right now than we were five weeks ago?

Cabot Phillips (25:59)

I think it's easy to say if things hold, if the ceasefire holds, then yeah. And if we're able to get anything to the Strait, then, yeah, we're in a better place. The big question, though is can you actually get out right now? I mean, yeah, Trump can say, well, it's a ceasefire, but if it's a one sided ceasefire, if all that means is that we're no longer bombing them, if the strait, if you're having to pay $2 million to get a tanker through the strait, if the Iranians are still holding the energy economy globally hostage, then of course you're not in a better position than you are in the long run. And I do think, Andrew, I agree that the pundit class has been terrible messaging on this, but we can be honest that the White House has been completely all over the place on messaging. One day President Trump is saying, well, we can get out without the Strait of Hormuz. The rest of the world can figure out oil on their own. And then the next day he's saying, if you don't open the Strait, we're going to bomb you in oblivion. So does the strait matter or does it not matter? And then one day, it's regime change. Trump saying, hey, when this conflict is over, this will be the best chance in generations for you all to topple this regime. And then the next day, regime change is not even mentioned by the State Department in the list of objectives.

Michael Knowles (27:02)

Can I bring a little Thucydides in here? Just a little? To go back to the OG historian of war in the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides writes that nations go to war for three reasons. Fear, interest, and honor. And the late great historian of ancient Greece, Don Kagan, who was a right winger, also one of the few in academia, he said, everyone takes seriously the fear part. Everyone takes seriously the interest part. No one takes seriously the honor part because we live in this materialist society. And so when you say, Matt, well, hold on. Why is it give me the one reason why we went to war, or Cabot, you just mentioned that the rationale keeps changing. I don't think it's changing so much as there were multiple reasons to go to war. There is the fear that Iran could get a nuclear weapon. Iran has been pretty open about pursuing a nuclear weapon for decades now, and it might be overhyped how close they are to actually achieving a nuclear weapon. I agree with that. But they clearly want it. And so that causes rational fear, certainly for the United States, but for the rest of the world, in terms of interest, there is a lot of interest when we're talking about specifically this rate of Hormuz, where 20% of the oil for the global market flows through, to say nothing of petrochemicals, to say nothing of fertilizer. They're in a geopolitically very important position. And then there is honor. And this gets to your point, Drew, when we're talking about China, you know, the United States is the global hegemon. American hegemony is predicated in no small part on the petrodollar. If we were in a position where Iran has really strengthened its hand, where China rather, has really strengthened its hand in Iran, where countries, the Gulf states, are starting to look more toward China than to the United States to protect them, we could be in a world in which the petrodollar goes away, we end up with the petro yuan. China all of a sudden is running the show globally, and America's stature would not just diminish a little bit. We would lose our role as the global hegemon, which benefits us greatly. So I think the answer is there were a billion reasons to go to war in Iran. The regime change part of it would just be kind of a bonus, I guess, if we could have a regime that is favorable to the west in there. But there were all these reasons. This is why so many presidents had considered doing it. So I'm the guy. Had I been on the nsc, I would have argued against these strikes, as I've said again and again. To your point, Drew, can we trust the New York Times? I certainly don't, reflexively. But it is curious that the left is always trying to stoke division within the Trump administration. The fact that here they're showing that Vance and Rubio, who were supposed to be so far apart, are actually aligned. Yeah. They're trying to hit Trump and say that he's the one who's the lone wolf here. Being duped by Bibi and the rest of the admin is really smart in America first. Yeah. The New York Times has its own rationale, certainly, but it seems to me here that we might be able to rely on some of the reporting that's coming out. And I just think it's a tricky call. And he had to get out after five weeks. And the point that I would make on the ceasefire is Trump said at the beginning, this war, it's gonna go on for about five weeks. And then when five weeks and one day hit, my Twitter mentions blew up with, hey, Michael, are you gonna start freaking out now? Are you gonna start getting concerned? I said, well, I'm starting to get a little more concerned. But if the ceasefire holds, it will have come into place five weeks and two days after the war began.

Matt Walsh (30:10)

Originally, he said four to six weeks, I think. So he's right in there. Listen, I just think that there are political considerations. I keep saying this. I do not want the left to take this country back. I mean, the left is far more dangerous. The inside left is far more dangerous enemy to us than the Iranians. And so I think Trump is playing with fire when he. It lets his popularity sink as low as it has. But I still do think that you have to be able to think beyond the interests of the press. The interests of the press are Thursday. They think like we're thinking as far as Thursday, and this could go bad if gas prices go up. The disaster predictions that have come out of this event have been so absurd that you can't even read the paper without kind of just throwing it away and thinking, I can't get any information out of this. The disaster predictions are absurd. Certainly the nothing could possibly go wrong idea is nonsense. The way that the other thing I agree with you, Matt, about is the way that people are savaged for talking about this as if it were a complex event with good and bad things involved. But, but I do think, but I do think that Trump has earned our respect in terms of foreign policy and in terms of visionary foreign policy, which in America means foreign policy lasting beyond, you know, six weeks from now. And thinking about the fact that the Chinese are serious, you know, they're seriously going after Taiwan, they seriously mean to replace our hegemony with their hegemony. And I think that Trump is basically confessing what he has to confess, which is which we all have to confess is we're an empire. We are an empire and we have to solidify the Western hemisphere in order to remain the good empire instead of the bad empires that are actually good growing as we speak.

Michael Knowles (32:01)

There's something there.

Drew Hernandez (32:02)

Any reason, though, is there any reason to think that let's say the ceasefire holds and I don't know how likely that is to happen, let's say that it does. And then, so then this is the, you know, the status quo. Whether or not this was worth it, whether or not it worked, whatever that means, because as we established, we don't really exactly know what the goals are. That's not something we can judge right now. And that's the other frustrating thing about the war proponents, is that as soon as the ceasefire was announced, you had people saying, you see, it all worked out fine. It's been 10 seconds. I mean, if this goes bad. I'm not saying it's gonna go bad cuz we're gonna have a nuclear war. I'm not. I know maybe there's some people saying, oh, it's gonna be world wars, it'll be a nuclear holocaust. I am not saying that. I think that most skeptics of the war aren't really saying that. Maybe some of the loudest voices are, but most aren't. I think most of us who are skeptical are saying that, yeah, it might work out fine in the short run, but there's no reason to think that in the long term we're going to be in a better position with Iran than we were before it. And there's good reason to think that it might end up worse. Because what history has clearly shown us, including the recent history of the Middle east, is that when you create a power vacuum, if they've even successfully done that, which I don't know that they have, but even if they did do that, especially in the Middle east, what happens is the power vacuum gets filled. And it's going to invariably be filled not by like the nicest, most democratic, most liberal minded, secular people. It's going to be filled by the people who are the most brutal and the most ruthless and the most, especially in the Middle east, the most fundamentalist.

Matt Walsh (33:47)

I don't agree with this.

Drew Hernandez (33:47)

Who are willing to kill the most people to claim power. So hold on.

Michael Knowles (33:51)

One point, just before you both start attacking each other on this. Well, hold on, I have to shift my framing here. I'm mirrored here. So before you both. Anyway, before you guys start going at it on this, it is worth pointing out I'm pretty opposed to regime change in Iran. Not because the regime is good, it's an evil regime, but because of your concerns. Matt, the issue is, if this ceasefire holds, then we actually are in a situation that is much closer to, to what we saw in Venezuela, which is they didn't get rid of the regime, they didn't get rid of the party, they got rid of the top of it. They pointed a gun at number two, Delsey Rodriguez, and said, play ball with us or you're next. It'll be worse for you than it was for Maduro. And the same could be true here if you get rid of Khamenei. And who knows, Khamenei's junior seems to be in a coma right now. And you just keep taking on all that top level leadership. You leave the Islamic regime in place, then you avoid the fear of total chaos there, where the genuinely bad actors might come in. You cut off the potential of a flourishing democratic, whatever, Iran. But you might have a rump regime in place that can maintain order and also deal on friendlier terms with the United States. Before we get to Drew's point about how. Matt, you and I are totally wrong. I have to say goodbye to Cabot. I am looking forward to welcoming Isabel. But more important than any of that, I want to talk about our sponsor policy genius. I don't know about you folks, but it's very difficult to track all of the things that I'm supposed to do. I disregard most of my obligations in this world. And you have a big obligation that's an obligation to your family. Okay, what happens to you? What happens to your family if something happens to you? Everyone knows this is something you're supposed to handle. But navigating life insurance on your own is a preposterous exercise. Carriers looking out for themselves. Jargon meant to confuse you. No one in your corner. Drew, I don't wanna be rude I assume. I hope you've thought about this more than the rest of us have thought about. Have you? You're gonna disappear someday.

PolicyGenius Sponsor (35:50)

No, no, no.

Matt Walsh (35:50)

I never die. Haven't you caught on? Now, when you talk about the Persians, I was thinking. Yeah, I remember them at Thermopylae, wasn't it?

Michael Knowles (35:56)

Oh, goosey.

Matt Walsh (35:58)

That was a hot. Yeah, but you gotta get it especially. And especially young people. This is the thing. So young people don't like to face this. Old people are like. It's just, you know, there's a guy with a scythe standing in back of me half the time. But young people don't want to think about it. But you got to think about it because this is the time to get the insurance. Because it's cheap and you can actually move forward. And by the time you're ready to cork, you know, you'll have an investment that will keep your family safe. And things do happen. It's. It's insurance. It's insurance against the bad things that can happen in life, you know?

Michael Knowles (36:28)

Matt, do you take care of your family or are you as irresponsible as I am?

Matt Walsh (36:31)

No. Look at him, for crying out loud.

Drew Hernandez (36:36)

They each have a piggy bank in their room. And I put a quarter in a piggy bank.

Matt Walsh (36:39)

Nice.

Drew Hernandez (36:40)

Every month. And hopefully I live a lot of months so they'll have money when I'm gone. But right now, that's my whole plan.

Michael Knowles (36:46)

Yeah, that's good. Well, all the more reason. We need to maintain dollar hegemony. You don't want that inflation to kick in. Policygenius fixes this. They are not an insurance company. They're a marketplace. You compare custom tailored quotes from top insurers side by side for free. Their licensed team works for you, not the carriers. They handle the paperwork. They answer your questions. They advocate on your behalf thousands of five star reviews from people who simply want it to do right by their families. Protect your family with a policy that grows with your life. With Policygenius you can see if you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for $1 million in coverage. Go to policygenius.com fire F I R E to compare life insurance quotes from top companies. See how much you can say. That's policygenius.com fire cabot. Next time I'm gonna try to shut these other guys up so I get to hear more from you. Good to see you. Everyone go check out Wired in Live. An actual excellent show that in spite of ourselves, we have now put on the Daily Wire. I'm very excited to see Isabel Brown. But first, last word, gentlemen. Ben. Sorry. Matt and Drew. Last word.

Matt Walsh (37:51)

Yes. Let me.

Michael Knowles (37:52)

Matt is wrong. You say Drew?

Matt Walsh (37:54)

Yes. I want to take a moment here. You know, now, I was alive during Vietnam. A terrible mistake. Awful. The worst thing we ever did. America sucks. It was all this bad news you never read. There is no such thing as a book that praises the war in Vietnam. All I know is for 30 years afterwards, you didn't hear a peep out of the Chinese because they were so scared of how crazy we were to fight them the way we did in this nowhere backwater and try and keep them out. I mean, it actually had a good effect ever since Trump's first presidency. And I would go further and say George W. Bush, who. I did not like what he did in the Middle East. I did not like the way he handled the things he tried to do. But the situation in the Middle east has steadily improved. It is better now than it ever has been in my lifetime, which, as I say, goes back to Thucydides. The, The. The mistake that. Or if it was a mistake, if it wasn't just sinister that Obama made in strengthening Iran made. It created an opportunity for Trump to go to the other powers in the region and say, look, do you want to deal with Iran or do you want to deal with Israel? And mostly, they wanted to deal with Israel, the one free country in the Middle East. So now you've got the uae, you've got a fairly progressive regime. You've got even Saudi Arabia kind of scratching their chin and, and saying, look, we hate these guys. They hate Iran. They're bullies. They're the cause of all the violence in the region. And they're saying that, you know, we actually would rather deal with Israel than with these guys. The situation in the Middle east is better than it has been, as I say, before the 9 11. But, you know, 911 was the turning point, and it has now gotten better. These guys are tired of being bombed. They're tired of bombing. They're tired of seeing they're kids go off and get killed. There's sophisticated people in these regions. If you take a look at the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, they call her in, in the uae. She is one of the most sophisticated politicians alive. These are smart people who understand that if they want to be part of the future, they're going to have to stop killing and raping people and acting like savages. So I think that this is an opportunity And I do think that a very clear path to something better has been opened by this war in Iran. All of the rest of it. That there's no complexity to it, that there's no negative to it, that it has to go on forever because Israel wants it to happen. All of that stuff I think has got to be thrown out the window. And I do trust this is where I agree with you, Knowles. I trust Trump on this stuff. Cuz I realize what he wants is strength, American hegemony and prosperity. That's his whole thing. He wants people to say that wonderful Trump, he gave us prosperity. And, and I think that this is part of his scheme to do that over the long term.

Michael Knowles (40:34)

Now, I agree that we need to bring a little dignity onto this show instead of just having it be all of us.

Matt Walsh (40:41)

I'm leaving.

Michael Knowles (40:42)

So we're very happy to have Isabel Brown joining us because there's this new act. Well, we're all debating, we're all focused on Iran. There's a Republican member, sorry, Republican member of Congress, Maria Eliza, what's her name? Maria Fernandez, whatever it is.

PolicyGenius Sponsor (41:00)

Salazar.

Michael Knowles (41:00)

Salazar. I was gonna say Elazar. Maria Salazar is a Republican who decided the best way to respond to the first popular vote victory for Republicans in 20 years, a victory won largely on mass deportations, is to propose a mass amnesty bill for illegal aliens that she is now calling the Dignity Act. But the actual bill is not called the Dignity act, it's called the Dignidad Act. Hola. Hola. Andalay. Andalay. Isabel, you got into a kerfuffle exposing the bill.

Isabel Brown (41:34)

Oh, Michael, Michael, Michael, I love that you're pointing out that this is all happening while the entire media apparatus and virtually everyone in government is banking on the fact that you are just going to keep your eyes on the Middle East. Of course, there's also other disappointing things happening here in Washington. It's tough to live here down the street from Congress, I gotta say. Makes you pretty nauseous several times a day. These are the same people who are still on like a three week recess because they refused to enact voter id, which we also delivered a mandate on in November of 2024. Dignity Dodd act is wildly frustrating. This was introduced by a Republican member of Congress and she insists to her dying breath is not a mass amnesty bill, but quite literally is a mass amnesty bill. It would allow for a pathway for millions of people who came here illegally as children to stay as permanent residents in the United States. Would even allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to welcome back up to 4 million people who were deported from January 2017 on while they can reapply for dignity status from outside of the United States and be granted permanent residency. It even prohibits the government from looking at criminal gang databases at the federal or state level to determine if someone should stay in America. It is bonkers, insane. And there are upwards of like 30 Republican members of Congress supporting this. You should be about this.

Michael Knowles (42:57)

Why are they. It's a dumb question, but you just think this is the most cartoonishly preposterous bill that Republicans and it's about a dozen, I think it's dozen or 14 Republican members of Congress could propose. This woman, by the way, now she's saying it's not amnesty. It's not amnesty. There's video footage of her saying, well look, I mean eventually some legislator's gonna come along and give these people amnesty, so it's gonna give them a pathway to citizenship, I should say, but right now we just gotta give them peace, we gotta keep them here. So she's admitting on camera, by the way, it would also effectively pass the DREAM Act. The DREAM act which was formulated by Democrats 15 years ago to say that these doe eyed little dreamer illegal aliens who are now like 50 by the way, that they all need to get mass amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. I mean this thing is as rancid a bill as ever I have seen. Why? Why are they doing it?

Isabel Brown (43:55)

Oh, I think we all know the answer.

Matt Walsh (43:57)

Lose enough seats during the midterms?

Isabel Brown (43:59)

Yeah, literally. It's so infuriating, honestly, because it is a betrayal. It's the American people. But it's also just like rocket science apparently for most people in Congress to how to govern on offense as a conservative and to conserve American borders, culture, way of life, legal system. It's like we're so afraid of the potential that we might disappoint some theoretical middle of the fence voter out there that really doesn't exist in 2026. So you just change your entire strategy the minute that you get in office. I'll actually add this too before opening it up to the rest of you guys. This is really interesting stuff. This bill was introduced almost a year. All of a sudden it's just now picking up traction while they're hoping that you don't pay attention to any of this stuff. It is 261 pages. So it's a whole lot more complicated than some simple way to reform immigration. And the byline of this bill is literally called to secure the border and reform the immigration laws. Secure the border. But you know, go off. I actually interviewed Congressman Brandon Gill about this. This will be our episode for Tom. He's one of the good ones left here in Washington and I loved his take on it. I think I have a clip for you guys.

Brandon Gill (45:10)

You know, we're not going to sell out our entire country for an extra 5 basis points of GDP growth, which seems to be the bargain that sort of the libertarian wing in our party has made for a long time. We've got to move away from that. And that is what we ran on, by the way, to your point, we ran on a platform of deportations. And whenever you tell the American people that you're going to push mass deportations, you cannot turn around and introduce an amnesty bill. You know, that really is like two middle fingers to the people who voted us and elected us and got us a trifecta and got President Trump the popular vote. I mean, it's really a grotesque betrayal of everything we've been saying for years now. If we betray our voters like this Dignity act does, which again is an absolute, absolute abomination, I think it will be unforgivable. It will be absolutely unforgivable and we'll be dealing with this a decade from now.

Matt Walsh (46:10)

Yeah, that's exactly what they did in Britain, right? They keep voting in people to stop the migrants coming in and they keep letting the migrants coming in, whether it's left or right. It's exactly the way that Britain has become, whatever it is.

Michael Knowles (46:21)

Now I have a bill proposal. It's called the all new Denizens actually Leave en Masse bill or the on delay bill. And I want, I don't, maybe I'll send it to Brandon Gill and maybe he can introduce it. I don't, you know, to me this is the most important issue that I voted on. I want mass deportations. I don't just want the face tattooed criminals gone. I want. We have upwards of 20 million illegal aliens. We don't know how many illegal aliens we have. I want them gone. It's not even anything necessarily about them. I'm sure the abuelas are really nice, but Abuela has to go too. Most abuelas have to go. Maybe a few exceptions. They have to go too. Because you cannot have a system where you have the highest foreign born percentage of the population we've ever had. A massive collapse of social solidarity, no trust in the most basic laws that we have in our country and a popular election, an election where you win the popular vote on this issue and then you don't deliver on this issue, Matt, are they doing enough to deliver, not forget Congress, is the White House doing enough to deliver on the issue?

Drew Hernandez (47:29)

Well, this is the thing. I mean, I've not to bring it back. I'm trying to avoid bringing our conversation circling back to Iran again.

Michael Knowles (47:39)

We're going back to Iran. I can't make a Farsi joke. I can only make Spanish jokes.

Drew Hernandez (47:44)

I will admit this is one of the main reasons why I have opposed it, opposed the Iran war. And I still do. It's like the first thing I thought of when I, because of how my mind works when I, when I heard we were launching these strikes, is that if Trump is going to do something that is politically risky, potentially politically catastrophic, although maybe not drastic, you know, raises some constitutional questions and all of that. Like if a huge swing like that, you know, and using a lot of political capital, I would much rather it be on mass deportations of every single illegal immigrant in the country. And also, and this is where we get to the constitutional questions, defying every federal judge who tries to stop him. And here's the thing, unlike some right wing commentators, there are right wing commentators who are calling for mass deportations and will also insist that, yeah, we could do it, the people will love it. We're not going to suffer any big political backlash. If anything, it'll be a red wave because people will love it so much. Maybe it works out that way. I tend to doubt it. I'm not sure exactly politically how this would play. I mean, if you did mass deportations, not just. Michael, to your point, not just the face tattooed criminals, but you're actually deporting people who've been here for 10 years, have never committed an additional crime aside from coming to the country illegally. And you're, and you're deporting millions of them. I'm not sure how that plays, what that looks like. We know that the media propaganda campaign, they would treat it like a nuclear holocaust. We saw what they did when we were only deporting the face tattooed criminals. We were deporting sex offenders, pedophiles, Somali fraudsters. And they treated it that way. Look, imagine if it was actual, yeah. If it was actual mass deportations of non criminal aliens, except for the crime of coming here illegally. So I don't know. But what I'm saying, it is possible, I will admit this right now, that if you were to do that and you were especially to do the second part, which would be necessary of basically flipping the middle finger to the federal judges and saying, yeah, I get you guys don't like this. We're going to do it anyway. It needs to be done. The federal judges are completely out of control. They've claimed power over the entire government. They claim executive, judicial, and legislative power for themselves. There's no way to solve that other than just, we're gonna ignore you and do it and let the chips fall where they may. And if you were to do that, I don't know how it plays out. It may end up being a political catastrophe. I mean, it may end up being blue wave in the midterms. Democrat, president, maybe that's a risk that I'm willing to take for that result, because it must be done. And I think a lot of Americans are willing to take it for that result. You know, what? If we did mass deportations, we did what had to be done. We reclaimed our country. And the consequence, I'm not convinced it would happen. But if the consequence was that a Democrat gets elected in 2028 because people are really mad about it, to me, that's a price. It's not a price I want to pay. It's a price worth paying. I'm not willing to pay that price. Not that I get a choice in the matter. I don't want to pay that price for Iran. I want to pay it for this. And here's the thing. I think that especially recent history showed us that as a president, you typically don't get to take multiple huge swings like this. You don't get, time is finite, and the attention of the American people is finite, and there's not a lot of time. So it's like, if you're gonna take a big swing, if you're gonna do something huge, you probably only get one. And I would hate to think that we've used it on Iran. I think that. And if we're getting out of Iran now, great, because then you could argue that maybe it doesn't end up being a huge thing if it only lasted a few weeks. And so let's go do this thing over here, actual mass deportations, and I

Matt Walsh (51:28)

have to say, let the chips fall. I think that's a totally reasonable point of view, except for the fact that the idea of Trump focusing on something and remaining focused on it is such a fantasy. It's like trying to imagine infinity. Your mind can't comprehend it. But I think in terms of normal politics, I think that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. If you're going to take the chance, you'd rather he take it on illegal immigration. I think, all told, I would Agree with that. I just can't imagine Trump focusing on anything for more than it takes, more time than it takes to send a tweet.

Michael Knowles (52:01)

There's another problem here, which is I was speaking to some members of Congress. This is a while ago, this was right when they came in last year. And I said, guys, it's really all about the deportations. You really just have to get it done. I was making really your points, Matt, which is this is it. It's gonna be. Could be politically costly, but the American people do really want it at a deep level and it's transformational. The left has been open about the fact that their long term electoral strategy is to radically transform the demographics so that they can have a permanent majority. We have to stop that. Time is running short on that. We're talking about time running short on the Iranian nuclear program. Time might even be shorter on the domestic program of the Democrats. So you really have to do it. Just go and deport Abuela. And I was speaking to these members of Congress off the record, I won't say their names, but a lot of them did bring up the point. They said, michael, that's all well and good, we would love to do that. The problem is it's not only opinion polls that we have to answer to. We also have to answer to the donor class or we're not gonna get a crack at that. We also have to. And the donor class, by the way, doesn't wanna deport Abuela. We also have to answer to the media because the media, even today still has a lot of power to tank these guys. And I'm sympathetic to their point of view because politics is very complex and, you know, it's easy for a pun.

Isabel Brown (53:22)

Can be honest, though. Yeah, can I be honest? Just tired of that excuse. And maybe this is a generational. But particularly when it comes to Congress, I am sick and of people sitting down the street from me in Washington D.C. who have been here longer than twice the time I've been alive, who run every two year on the same empty promises to fix all the issues in our country. And that then they have no incentive to fix because they have nothing to run on in 24 months for, will receive a blank check from the donor class and also get to manipulate the stock market behind our back and make a net worth of $413 million. All on Nancy Pelosi, who, oh, by the way, has served in Congress for the last 38 years, consecutively. This woman was born before the invention of the microwave oven and the pen and These are the people who are telling young people, oh, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Like, the level of societal disconnect is astounding. And I'm honest tired of being told from so many people in Washington, oh, well, that's just the way Washington works. Like, we don't have to accept that. We don't have to live that way. Our framers and our founders designed a system of government that was supposed to serve the people and not the other way around. And the people mandate on a silver platter in November of 2024 that is inexcusable. Now, to turn this around, I think it's perfect how Congressman Brandon Gill said it. It is unforgivable for Republican members of Congress to introduce mass amnesty bills then not.

Michael Knowles (54:43)

Okay, look, I agree with stance because

Matt Walsh (54:46)

I agree with it.

Michael Knowles (54:48)

We all agree on that. We're all sick of it, and we say this is totally unacceptable. But there is that old maxim from systems, which is that the purpose of a system is what it does. And the fact is we can complain until we're blue in the face, but if the incentives of the system are such that the incentives and the disincentives are such that the congressmen don't have any real power to do it, and that they might even be able to get away with proposing a mass amnesty bill in 2026, and they might not even suffer political consequences for that, you just think, okay, there's a structural problem here that needs to change. This is why, by the way, to your point, Matt, I had the same reaction, again, as someone who before, during and after was quite skeptical of the Iran strikes and argued against it, I do actually get why Trump is doing more stuff in foreign policy than he might be able to get done in domestic policy. There have still been, what, over 700,000 deportations formally in the first year, Another million or more self deportations, which we can track on multiple levels. So there was something. We all want 10 million deportations, we want 15 million deportations. But the reason he's playing more in foreign policy is actually because there are no district judges in Bahrain. The reason he's doing it is because he has a lot more control to actually affect things in foreign policy than he does in domestic policy. You can say that's a terrible system. I agree that it is. But they're the ones who actually have to go out there and do the things in the political order. It's much easier for pundits to complain about it, myself included. As one of the people who Complains.

Drew Hernandez (56:14)

And that's, I mean, I think that that's correct. But. And so doing something like this, I mean, it is, to your point, it's easy to talk about mass deportation, especially for those of us who don't actually have to do it, but we have to acknowledge, we have to be sober minded about it if we're going to advocate for something like this. That acknowledge, as we've talked about it, could be politically disastrous. And more than that, it's like it is a system shaking. It shakes the very, the system itself potentially catastrophically. I mean, it could tear everything down because as I said, it would require. You can't do it if you're going to listen to the judges. And so we're talking and when I say that, oh, defy the judges, I don't mean to say it in some kind of breezy, kind of casual way. I understand what I'm saying. That's not a small thing. Everyone says, oh, it's gotta be a constitutional crisis. Yeah, it probably would be, but we're already in the crisis. That's the point. We're in a constitutional crisis already. And so someone has to be willing to say, now is the time. We're gonna have this out right now. Whatever happens is whatever happens afterwards, we'll deal with that afterwards. But it must happen. And here's the thing about Trump, I also want to say this because I think from Trump's perspective, he probably looks at right wing commentators like myself who criticize him pretty strenuously for things like Iran. And his attitude is probably, hey, you're so ungrateful. I mean, I've done all these things that no other president has ever done. No one else has done these things. And I'm actually doing, yeah, maybe I'm not doing full on mass deportations, but we went in, we got rid of some of the Somali fraudsters, we've done more deportations than other presidents have. If you add self deportations in, that is a real thing. We've shut down the border. I mean, no president had done that before me. And he probably looks at that and feels like, well, there's kind of a lack of gratitude there. Like we should be more appreciative of the actual good things that he's done. And he has done some really significant good things. And I get that. Like, I actually understand, if I were in his shoes, I'd probably feel something like that. But here's the thing. The reason why it's important, even for those of us who support Trump and have supported A lot of the things that he's done, the reason why it's important for us to say it's not good enough. Like, yeah, be kind of ungrateful about it. Because you know what? Being grateful to politicians, that's not part of the arrangement. We're not called upon to have an attitude of humility and gratitude before our great politicians who run the country. It's actually supposed to be public servant. Like, that's the word we use for these people. That's not what the relationship has been anytime in recent history, but that's what it's supposed to be where actually, you're our servant, you work for us. That's what is supposed to set our system apart from any other systems that have existed. And so, number one, it's not enough for us to just say, oh, I'm grateful for that. At least you did something. But number two, it's because we recognize that Trump is willing to do things that no other president is willing to do. That is why we cannot. That is why we cannot.

Cabot Phillips (59:24)

Yeah, right.

Drew Hernandez (59:25)

That's why we cannot be satisfied. When I'm talking about mass deep, When I'm talking about mass deportations, I. And this is a credit to Trump as well as being a criticism and a call to action, I recognize that if he won't do this, I don't think anyone else ever will. Yeah. If Trump will not do this, I don't think certainly no president in my lifetime before him ever would have done it and didn't do it. I cannot imagine any president doing this if he won't do it. Well, you mentioned that's why our message to Trump has to be, you've gotta do it. If it's not you, it won't be anybody. And we cannot be satisfied unless you do it. Because if we're willing to say, okay, fine, Trump didn't do it, that's not us just saying, fine, Trump's not doing it. It's us saying, okay, fine, it will never happen.

Michael Knowles (60:11)

Well, you mentioned recent history, Matt, I think you have a show that is about recent history. Am I correct about that?

Drew Hernandez (60:21)

Yeah, well, recent history, old history, we kind of go through the gamut. The most recent episode we just put up was about the Civil War. So we've done. Our first episode was the real history of slavery. We did the real history of the American Indian and the Indian wars that were hundreds of years long campaign. And then we put up our most recent one about the Civil War. And look, you gotta become a subscriber, go watch the episodes I think that kind of on whichever side you're on, you might be surprised by the way we handle the episodes because one thing,

Michael Knowles (60:56)

I thought you meant whichever side, like Union or Confederate.

Drew Hernandez (60:59)

What is that? The whatever. Whatever side. All different sides. I think you'll be surprised at how we handle it because what we're not trying to do is take the left wing propaganda that has been disseminated by the school system and Hollywood and all that and replace it with our own sort of overly simplistic, cartoonish kind of right wing version of these events. We're not doing that. And especially with something like the Civil War, you kind of find that where, you know, you've got. You've got the mainstream narrative, which is that the Union, the Confederates were all just evil Nazis, basically, and the Union were freedom fighters. But then you have the kind of response to that, the revisionist side that flips that on its head. And now the Union are the evil demons and the Confederate. And so what we're trying to do is actually take this and look at it objectively and just tell you the story, the real story of this episode. I think we have a clip which is. Which is complex. Oh, we do. Okay, then why am I babbling about it? Just play the damn.

Michael Knowles (61:59)

I wanted to hear the babble. I do believe that if people have committed treason against the United States of

Matt Walsh (62:08)

America, their statues should not be in the Capitol.

Drew Hernandez (62:13)

History is written by the victors. And since the 1960s, we've been told mostly by people whose ancestors didn't even live here. During the war, the war Civil committed treason. But if the Confederates were traitors, then why was Jefferson Davis never put on trial for treason? What were Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson afraid of? Did they know something they're not allowed to say? Today, it's time for the truth. So here it is. Robert E. Lee was a military genius and a man of immense honor. He was beloved by Americans from the north and south for a century after the war. This is the real history of the Civil War.

Michael Knowles (63:00)

Now enough about history. I want to talk about the future. We have very little time left, but in two minutes. Have you guys seen the story about Claude's new AI? Which is so good that anthropic will not allow anyone to use the AI because it could just completely crash our entire global system of data and security. Is anyone Isabelle, have you looked into this?

Isabel Brown (63:26)

I have. And you know, it's interesting. About a week and a half ago, my entire X feed was all Claude pro Claude messaging. And I hadn't really Ever interacted with Anthropics AI before. I've played with ChatGPT and Google, Gemini and all of, all of the fun things. Grok, of course, but I'm Claude. But they announced about a week and a half ago that they released this where Clawd can run your computer, your desktop. You are away from your phone. You can tell Claude, hey, export a PD of that business pitch I was working on and eat to my boss. And it can do all of these things for you or edit a hundred photos of this wedding. I just took a bunch of pictures as a wedding photographer while I'm out using this preset and it'll do all of it for you. It can clean out your email inbox. It can basically be you while you're out and about doing things. That was terrifying to me and I couldn't believe how many people were that excited about it. But I guess now, in the week and a half since it's gotten so good that they're kind of pulling the reins back on some of this stuff.

Michael Knowles (64:24)

All right, we've got like 30 seconds left, but I know, Matt, you despise AI and you think it's going to destroy all of. All of art and everything. Our sponsors over at Kalshi have a prediction market on whether or not we're just going to stop AI. 10% of users believe any of the major big tech AI platforms will pause their research out of concern for public safety. 90% of people know that they're just gonna keep trying to make money. Everyone's definitely become more cynical on this recently because just over a year ago, 30% of people thought that the AI companies would say, you know what? We actually don't want any more money. We're gonna stop this for the common good or whatever is it. I'm like a cautious AI bull. I don't even think it can do many of the things, at least artistically, that people are pretending that it will do. But should we stop it? What do we do? Round the horn, 10 seconds. Should we stop AI?

Drew Hernandez (65:13)

Well, you know that I'm an apocalyptist, if that's a word when it comes to AI. I will say that because, look, there are certain things that AI can't do. And so I take some solace in that. Like, there are innovations, ideas, creativity that AI is not capable of. For example, like, no AI could have ever come up with the terrorist tears tumbler.

Michael Knowles (65:37)

No, it's just too.

Drew Hernandez (65:38)

That's the kind of brilliance. That's the kind of brilliance that's Gonna get Michelangelo.

Matt Walsh (65:44)

That is too creative.

Drew Hernandez (65:45)

You know, you know how badly we're setting up people to get bullied. Like you're gonna be out in public drinking and someone's gonna. What's that? Oh, I'm drinking terrorist tears.

Michael Knowles (65:54)

Yeah, you're about to be drinking a swirly is what you're gonna be drinking anyway.

Drew Hernandez (65:58)

Anyway. But no, but it's a great Tumblr and you should definitely, definitely buy it. All jokes Aside, I like $75.

Michael Knowles (66:05)

They ask me to do the ads, and then they have Matt here to do the anti ads. Say, no, don't. Whatever Michael says to buy, don't buy.

Drew Hernandez (66:13)

How much is the terrace tumbler?

Michael Knowles (66:14)

I think it's only like four or seven hundred dollars, I think. I assume I haven't looked at the prices personally, but you can get it. Buy one, get one for another for the full price of the first one. Drew, are you an A up before we go? We have like three seconds.

Matt Walsh (66:28)

No, I am a believer in the human race. I believe it's a tool. We'll use it as a tool. Tool will make it better. I think that it's. It's spooky what it does. This new one actually can create its own apps. So all those people who were told to learn to code now have to learn to play the violin, I think is what they should. Should have been told in the first place. But no, I think, look, everything that we do needs regulation. There'll be regulations, but it shouldn't be regulations stopping the development of it. It should be regulations against using it for evil instead of good. And I think that once we use it for good, people will add to it and create things. If. If people are not feeding it information, it. It goes haywire. So it's still going to require the human race. And I think it's gonna be a great new tool.

Michael Knowles (67:09)

We'll see what happens. Or there'll be a nuclear disaster tonight instead of last night. We'll all be vaporized, and it won't matter. Isabel. Wonderful to see you. Matt. Drew, you were seen as well. Wonderful to be with everybody out there in the audience. We'll catch you on the next Friendly Fire.

Stamps.com Sponsor (67:28)

Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want, with stamps, dot com, print postage on demand 24, 7. And schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days. Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com print postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small business businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.