Will Cain Country - A Look Into The Protests At Over Half Of The Top 50 Colleges

Episode Date: April 24, 2024

Story #1: Once you get past the anti-Semitism and critical theory is there, somewhere buried inside the protests across college campuses, a legitimate point? Our ‘Lunch Break Panel’ with President and co-founder of BASEDPolitics Hannah Cox and Former House Judiciary Council Julian Epstein. Story #2: The reaction to Will’s conversation over the war in Ukraine with David Sacks. Story #3: Host of the Karol Markowicz Show and columnist at Fox News and the NY Post, Karol Markowicz, joins the show to talk about her article ‘How You Control Crime in South Beach’.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain   ✅ 💥 Best Way to Invest in Gold Lear Capital ⚡ 👉 Call them today at 800-920-8388 👉 or go to http://www.LearWill.com ⭐ Get your FREE Gold and Silver investor guides from Lear Capital ⭐ Receive up to $15,000 in FREE bonus metals with a qualified purchase Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, once you get past the obvious anti-Semitism, once you get past the critical theory, is there somewhere buried inside the protests across college campuses now across the nation? Is there anywhere inside of those protests a legitimate point? Two, the reaction to our conversation over the war in Ukraine with David Sacks. Three. I forgot what three is. What is three today, guys? The crew, what are we doing in the third segment?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We're joined by Carol Markowitz over her. article how you control crime starting in south beach miami it is the will cane show streaming live at fox news dot com on the fox news youtube channel the fox news facebook page and always on demand at apple or on spotify or by subscribing on youtube well that's really kind of closer to what i want this to be what I have envisioned here at the Will Kane show. I should have learned my lesson from Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who in a famous GOP debate tried to make three departments, a point

about three departments he wanted to cancel. Unfortunately, after he made the point that he would be listing three departments, he could only remember two. I think it was the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and then he drew a blank, poor Rick Perry. It was a lesson for anybody in broadcasting. Never go. With the magical number of three, which as Steve Jobs pointed out, is a magical number. When making a point, when designing a product, the human mind gravitates to three. But never announce ahead of time that you're going to be making three points, something I do every day as the format of this show. I have three big stories for you, every day on the Will Kane show. And I do memorize for the opening tease what will be those three big stories.

stories. But in Rick Perry fashion, Rick Perry style, I simply forgot what was happening in the third segment of today. But that's closer to what I want this show to be. I want it to be real. I want it to be living and breathing. I want it to be imperfect. And here's in part why. I feel like it is so hard to find the truth. I feel like, after all the production, after all the performance, after all the perfection, we are consistently and constantly manipulated. We are told what to think, which I think is a human instinct as well, because it's hard to learn how to think. And when we are told what to think, you can almost feel your nose being pulled.

You can almost feel us being led around by the news. We're offered conclusion. We're offered ad hominem attack. We're offered passion in the place of critical thinking. I think that happened yesterday here on the Will Cain Show. We had an episode where we interviewed venture capitalist, former CEO of PayPal, co-host of the All In podcast, David Sacks, about his view on the United States involvement in the war in Ukraine. This show has really grown and really taken off, and it's fascinating to see that we achieve well over 100,000,

members of our audience across various platforms and some episodes reaching well over 200,000 where exactly this show resonates. Different episodes and different segments and different conversations resonate on different platforms. I think that in of itself is pretty fascinating about not just social media, but the segmentation of America. There will be an episode, for example, the show we did on from black victims to black victors with New York Post columnist Adam Coleman. that blows up on facebook that episode in and of itself did something like 150 000 on facebook there are other episodes like our debate with streamer destiny that did well over 200 000 on its own on youtube well yesterday's show with david sacks seemed to have struck a chord on twitter

and it's in part because there was one clip on twitter where the quote from david sacks was as follows. When you actually start to examine the case for Putin being an aggressor, it really falls apart. Now, Saxes is a dove. He's a dove when it comes to United States involvement in the war in Ukraine. But he's also skeptical of all the propaganda. I think the undeniable propaganda, again, attempting to lead us to a conclusion, attempting to lead us by the nose when it comes to Ukraine. From flagpins on lapels to flags being waved on the floor of Congress. You're driven not towards critical thinking, but you're driven towards passion. And that was the response towards this conversation on X.

I'll give you one example. Rebecca Heinrichs, who is a contributor at the Hudson Institute, responded with the following. What a tragic disaster that this guy got a platform with otherwise thoughtful people. I guess I'll accept the backhanded compliment that I might be one of those otherwise thoughtful people. But I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the right seems to have joined the left, that instead of engaging in debate or attempting to enlighten an audience through conversation, they've taken the position that you shouldn't platform positions that you think are wrong, that you disagree with, that you think the public shouldn't hear, and over and over what you hear when it comes to someone like David Sachs is that he's a puppet of Putin. I'll tell you what, we're going to break down the reaction to this conversation. We'll put some of what he had to say into context. And we will continue the conversation, not with pundits, not with so-called experts,

but with you, the viewers and the listeners here of the Will Kane show. And that's coming up in a little bit, as we'll be with some shame, but some insight later this week, our review of naked attraction. But let us start with story number one. Joining us today on our lunch break panel on the Will Cain Show, we have with us, Hannah Cox. She's president and co-founder of based politics. And Julian Epstein, he's a former House Judiciary Council. Thank you both for being here with us today on the Will Cain show.

Good to be with you, Will. Thanks for having us. I'm glad to continue that conversation. You know what? I do want to start with somewhat of a provocative conversation. I want to talk about these protests that are taking place on college campuses that are framed as anti-Israel, in many cases, undeniably anti-Semitic. Julian, I'll start with you. I kind of just want to entertain the question of why, why this is happening.

You know, a lot of focus on Columbia, on Harvard, on Yale, a lot of focus on Ivy Leagues. But this is not limited to the Northeast. It's not limited to the coast. It's not limited to Berkeley and Yale. This is happening, I know, today, at the University of Texas. This has happened in all across America. And that leads to the question, why? Well, I, you know, I think it's a good question.

It's a complex question, and I appreciate very much at the outset you're saying your point about learning how to think rather than what to think. And sort of all of our institutions from our mainstream media institutions and universities, I think, are telling people what to think rather than how to think. And I think that's part of the problem that's happening at the university. Let me just say to your point, to your question that you set up, is there legitimate criticism potentially? You can have an honest disagreement about whether there should be fewer civilian casualties in Gaza. You can have an honest conversation about that. What's going on in the universities is that is not what is occurring. What is going on in the universities is naked anti-Semitism, and there are just cases, if you look to what happened at Yale,

over the weekend with Jewish students being taunted, being assaulted, the kind of language that is being used from river to the sea. All of these are naked statements that we should kill the Jews. The Jews do not have a right to exist in their ancestral homeland. The movement here that is on the college campuses

is being led in many instances by SJP, students, justice for Palestine. There are serious questions that are being raised now about what foreign money is coming in to influence this group. And I think there's a lot of evidence that some of our enemies, some of our adversaries are funding these groups. And I hope that the Republicans in Congress, I'm a Democrat. I used to be Chief Counsel, the Judiciary Committee. I hope the Judiciary Committee will do a serious investigation as to where this money has come from or one of the committees in Congress. So there are a lot of what I would call extremist surrogates who are orchestrating what's going on.

So that's the first point. I think the second point is that there is a romanticization by some of the students that they are fighting or supporting a liberation movement. And this is very disappointing to hear that students, particularly at elite schools, could sort of fall for this, you know, fall for this narrative, which is just demonstrably false. But I think a lot of the reason that people are so susceptible, students are so susceptible, is because universities, particularly elite universities, you know, I got into law school at Columbia. I'm glad I didn't go there now. They are becoming camps of indoctrination and camps of sort of left-wing ideology rather than critical thinking to your point. And I think

a lot of students, you could get into a deeper cultural conversation about the breakdown of institutions, a breakdown of family, the breakdown of religion, students looking for some kind of purpose, so they find something like this, and they glom onto it as sort of a, this romanticized movement. But you have to keep in mind, you know, the Palestinians have been offered a two-state solution in five occasions. They have rejected it every single time. The leadership of the Palestinians preaches genocide. They preach the killing of Jews first and then the decimation or the deconstruction of the West Second. This is not a liberation movement. This is an extremist terrorist movement that uses Palestinians as their front. And the fact that, you know, when you ask

these students if they know anything about the history of this, for example, the West Bank and Gaza were both controlled by the Arabs until 1967. There was no protest about that. There's no protest about the two million Muslims that are killed in Sudan. No protest about what Assad did in Syria with killing 600,000 Arabs. You can go down the list. It's only when Jews want to defend themselves against the genocidal threat. Are they told that they cannot defend themselves and win the war?

So this is a completely anti-Semitic movement. This is basically the clan in Ivy League clothing. well so let me let me go through a couple of things handed and i want to i want to bring you here's in part the reason i ask what would sound like a provocative question of is there any legitimate point inside the protest after you acknowledge all of the obvious antisemitism and ignorance so you heard me talking about our conversation with david sacks yesterday here on the will cane show he also recently talked about the protest on college campuses and one of the points that he made is that we won't fully know about these protests until we have the fullness of time.

His answer to that, his reason for that is he said, you look back at the Vietnam protest of the 1960s, and while yes, there's a lot of ignorance and, you know, caricatures of hippies, you could look back on it with time and say, but was there any point to their protest of the war in Vietnam? Now, Julian, I think laid out something, so if I were laying it out in layers, I would probably do it just like Julian did. I would say, one, this is in part astroturfed, insignificant part astroturfed. This is SJP, Students for Justice in Palestine, that is funded and organized. This isn't organic.

Two, and this is important to me, is the point of ignorance, how little is actually known. And I think the answer to why so little is known is actually something you said as well, Julian. I think it's part of critical theory that has been part of education for half a century. And you could fire as many Columbia presidents as you'd like. but you're not going to solve the problem. You're going to have this crop up at the University of Texas or the University of Arizona. As long as education is centered on activism and oppressor and oppressed ideology, instead of, as we talked about, critical thinking.

But then we get to the ignorance of, is there a legitimate point? So what you hear, Hannah, is students talking about genocide. Well, I would expand the ignorance to the present tense as well. And I'm going to share these numbers, and they're the best that I can do. right now. The Gaza Health Ministry, which everyone dismisses the Gaza Health Ministry, but for the sake of this conversation, we won't, okay? They put the number of debt at 34,000, I think, currently. I think both Gaza and the IDF put the number of combatant deaths at roughly 18,000. That would put a civilian to combatant death ratio. It's something like two to one, maybe three to one, okay? Nobody

celebrates civilian death. Civilian death is horrible, but civilian death is also part of war. It just If it's 2 to 1 to 3 to 1, this is like a historic war. Like, we didn't accomplish that in Fallujah. We didn't accomplish that in Afghanistan. It was way over that in World War II. The point is, in war terms, this is far from a genocide. This is a conservative effort to reduce civilian deaths. And that leads me to the ignorance of the protests.

But I still don't want to dismiss. Is there a legitimate point somewhere inside these protests, Hannah? Well, it's hard to say, because who are the protesters, who are the infiltrators, who's being funded? What are their demands? It is so murky, as you pointed out. And I think that really matters. Because when you look back on history, the Vietnam protests, I think were vitally important. I think they were an actual uprising by the American people, by many of our veterans who had served in that war, who were coming back and reporting what we were doing over there, the failures of that policy, and how it was creating secondary problems. And ultimately, I think, led to the end of that

conflict. I don't know that that's what's happening here. I think it would be really interesting to see the funding of these groups, particularly SJP. I come from grassroots organizing. I come from the groundwork. Things don't pop up like this organically. That's not how these kinds of movements tend to move. So there is something kind of fishy about this to me, how it is so well organized and orchestrated and how it has come about so quickly. To me, that does say there's probably a lot of money at play and larger entities that are coming in and whipping people up. Then you also have agitators. I think if I were a protester, and to be honest, I think there, yes, to answer your question, I think there are some real problems with what Israel is doing.

I personally as American do not want to be funding this. That is a valid conversation to have. It's also a valid conversation to say that if we are going to fund these kind of conflicts, if we're going to get more involved, then our Congress needs to actually be voting on entering wars, which they don't do anymore. So these are really valid criticisms that could be brought up. I can't hear those because of all the anti-Semitism. So if I was somebody protesting, the first thing I would do would be to stringently disavow these infiltrators

who are anti-Semitic, who are hateful, and to shout them down, to separate them from your movement, because now your whole message has been co-opted, and nobody can hear anything else but the absolute hatred coming out of these campuses. Can I respond to a couple of those things that were said? And I would add to this, I'll go back to you, Julian. Yeah, let me just add to it really quick, Julian. I would add, maybe there's legitimate debate and protests to be had about the long-term future of this problem, right?

Like, can you actually stamp out Hamas? Is it an accomplishable goal? Or, like, even if you do, then what is the long-term future of the Palestinians in Israel? But I agree with Hannah, that's not what I hear. That's not what I hear taking place at Columbia. That's not what I hear taking place, you know, at Yale. So could there be a legitimate point? Yes.

Is there a legitimate point? It's not audible. So I think Hannah makes a really good point there, will, about if there is criticism, you can't hear it for all the anti-Semitism. I think that's a really, really good point. Let me return to your notion about the civilian militant ratio. If the number of militants is 18,000 and the overall number of deaths is 34,000, then that's a one-to-one ratio, not a two or three-to-one. That's about one-to-one. Normally in urban warfare, the civilian militant ratio is anywhere between four to one and nine to one. Do you go back to Mosul or Fallujah or what we did in Afghanistan, what we did in

Iraq, go back to Japan, sort of any of these instances, the civilian ratios are much higher. So no army in the history of urban warfare, and I challenge anyone to, I defy anyone to challenge me on this, has done more to protect civilians than Israel has done. Now, the criticism to Hannah's point that some make is, well, it should be more surgical, going after Hamas and Rafah should be more surgical. Nearly every expert on urban warfare says you can achieve certain goals with a surgical pinprick approach. You cannot take out the Hamas battalions without moving in a ground army into Rafah. There's no way to do it. You just can't do it because you have to destroy the infrastructure. So you can have that debate. I don't think the criticism on Israel is really well-founded. I think most

military experts would think it's not well-founded. The second point I would make is, you know, if the attacks that you, if the conduct that you see going on in Colombia and elsewhere in the universities, imagine for a minute these attacks were directed at black Americans. Imagine that black Americans were being beat up. They were being bullied. They were being told in instances to go back to Africa. Imagine this was happening on a massive scale. What do you think the reaction of the left would be? The reaction of the left would be, they would lose their minds, which shows you, I think, the bankruptcy of a lot of the civil rights ideology that's occurring. And I speak as a Democrat here, right? I think it's, it shows it,

it unmasks the bankrupt ideology of the sort of oppressor oppressed. We're for civil rights. We're going to help people who are vulnerable. I think it shows it's completely opportunistic and it's driven towards elections, and L.A. maintaining electoral majority. The third point that I think is just important to make here, you can criticize Israel. I don't think it's very solid. I mean, I think you have to have, and this is responding a little bit to where I disagree with Hannah, I think you have to have a little bit of moral clarity here. I mean, what's going on in the Middle East right now is a, is a colonial attempt by Iran to create hegemony throughout the Middle East with an ideology that will kill women for wearing hijabs, persecute and throw gays

off of buildings for being gay that will persecute every religious minority and ultimately believes in destroying the West. And they use through Hamas, the Palestinian issue. issue as a way of provoking this wider war. And this is an ideology that is no different from Nazi Germany. There is nothing. Hamas in its charter talks about killing the Jews, right? It's in their charter. They've openly admitted it. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank basically applauded what happened on October 7th. What it happened on October 7th was the intentional massacring and dismembering of women and children and every civilian they could get their hands on. There's no difference between what Nazi Germany did and what Hamas believes

and what Iran is trying to promote through Hamas. And this is the leadership that the Palestinians have chosen in Gaza and less extreme but also really extreme leadership that they have chosen on the West Bank. And if there were people, People that were confused in World War, too, about whether we should go after the Nazis in Germany and whether it was really in America's interest. You know, if we'd listen to them then, we'd all be speaking German today. So I think while it's in the spirit of what Hannah said, I think it's important to have conversation and debate, I think only a fool would not see the moral clarity that is called for here. I want to move on to something else in just a moment, but I want to give you. chance to respond, Hannah? Yeah, I think you can have moral clarity, but there are many bad guys

out there. There are many terrorist organizations. There's many evil governments. We don't have to wait for them to come destroy us. We're going to destroy ourselves, shipping all of our tax dollars overseas and continuing to let our country decline. Our people can't afford basic groceries. We have a border that we can't secure. So, I mean, you can have moral clarity, but that doesn't mean you always get involved in every conflict. And I think we can see the foolishness of that agenda played out under the George Bush years in the war on terror, where we spent billions of dollars, lost tons of American lives, and basically did all of that just replace the Taliban with the Taliban? If these regions are going to rise up, they have to be able to defend themselves.

The people in those countries have to be willing to stand up for their own countries. Israel has plenty of funding. I don't think this is our war. I don't think we should be involved. And there is a real presence of blowback and secondary causes that occur for this kind of action. So you have to look at the big picture, look at all the secondary effects that could come about. I'm not convinced this is something we should be involved in. And if it is something we're going to be involved in, then once again, Congress should have to take hard.

votes and answer to the American people about those votes if we're going to get involved in wars. That's a basic constitutional principle that has gone out the window since World War II and it's inexcusable. I wanted to see if Julian wanted to jump back in. This Democrat versus libertarian debate. I think, I mean, I think that you can have a good debate about the Iraq war and Bush made a mistake there. I don't see. the honest intellectual disagreement about whether we should be funding Israel here. I mean, this is a fascist ideology that has bent on destroying the West. The amount of funds that we are giving to Israel is a thimbleful to basically protect not only our most important strategic ally,

but the whole idea of Western democracy and Western civilization that Iran and Hamas are trying to destroy. And if it falls there, the repercussions of what happens with uh iran hegemony and the in the mid-east i mean 14 billion dollars is a is a footnote in that kind of world i just i don't understand any honest intellectual debate that disagrees with our need to be involved and to defend israel i just don't from a moral point of view and from a strategic point of view i just don't see it and er israel does not have enough capacity on its own to defend itself just witness what has happened when Iran attacked Israel with 300 missiles. But for the help of the Jordanians, the U.S.,

the French, the British, some of those missiles would have gotten through the Iron Dome. So I think the notion that it has, it is a country of approximately 10 million people, 7 million people in a sea of several hundred Arab countries, many of whom are vowing its destruction. I mean, I just, the notion that you're going to sort of say we shouldn't help because of $14 billion, which is a lot of money, but it's a, it is a footnote in the larger context. It just seems to me to be sort of a bizarre argument. You know, avoiding the deeper question of the necessity of involvement, I do disagree with two things that you said there, Julian. I mean, I think Israel A is extremely capable of defending itself on its own.

I think history backs me up on that, every aggression from any type of player nation, nations, state or terrorist state has been thwarted by Israel. Second, while there might have been French and American and British planes in the air to shoot down those 300 rockets a few weeks ago, it was only because it was part of a choreographed dance. I mean, those rockets were going to come down. That was telegraphed. I mean, that was not some surprise attack. I mean, Israel could have handled it on its own. Maybe it required some intelligence-back channels from other nations involved. But, you know, that didn't show in any way to me Israel's reliance on the greater world stage to handle that weak and choreographed and telegraphed attack from Iran. Yeah, but Will, the Iron Dome is something that was built with not just the financial, but the technological cooperation in the United States and the West.

And every war that Israel has fought after the 48 war, 6773, the Intifadas, all of the other skirmishes that occurred 82 were all done with, U.S. were all supported by the United States and the West militarily, strategically, financially, and with technology. So I, you know, it was, I take your point on the telegraphed attack by Iran, but the notion that Israel should be left on its own to fend for itself in this kind of sea of hostility, again, you're talking about 7 million people in an Arab world of to 300 million, many of whom are avowed enemies of Israel. I just, I mean, I don't really take that argument very seriously. All right.

I want to move on to a couple of the things while I have you both here. I'm hoping that Hannah isn't on a tight timeline. I think I was told ahead of time she might have to be out at a certain time. But we'll start with this. Let's just lighten the mood for just a moment. Democrat, Libertarian, let's sort out this debate on texting etiquette. This is what a problem I had

with my Fox and Friends co-host, Rachel Campo stuff, you watch. If you, and not you, I was talking about, now he's going to give us advice. If people at large, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about people at large. If you meme people, you give them an opening to stop responding. I don't expect a response to.

I know, but that's what I'm saying. Like, once you meme them. screenshots. You know who she then text with those memes? Me. And then I respond. Yeah, you're really good about that. You always give a ha, ha, ha, or a heart on the meme.

Just an acknowledgement. That's it. That's all I need. So I'm a notoriously bad texter, meaning I don't respond. It's incredibly rude. I'm not proud of it. But I do think if you send me like a meme, a joke, a picture, I don't think I'm compelled to respond, especially if it's on a group chat.

Like group texts, I'm a horrific participant. I do not respond to group texts. I think I'm a bad, I'm admittedly bad, but I don't think I'm guilty of a crime in this situation, Hannah. I think that I don't have to lay a heart or a ha, ha, ha, ha on your joke. I wish I could be as free as you are in this because my fiancé is a nefarious reel sender. I mean, he sends me like 20 reels a day, and it really upsets him if I don't watch them. So I feel like I am in real jail.

Like, I have to watch and respond to each and every single one, and I don't know how to get a hat of it. Julie, in a group text requires, I think Larry David actually did this on Curb Your Enthusiasm. I think he did, like, group texts, ha-ha-haz, these are not necessary. No, they're not. And, you know, there aren't any rules and someone should, some etiquette expert should set rules on it. Look, I get dozens of them a day. And, you know, one of the great things we've done. learned in Jonathan Haidt's book on The Anxious Generation is we are so distracted, so constantly

by all the things coming in that we can never do long-form thought. Like this conversation that you and I and Hannah are having about Israel is a very good conversation, a very productive conversation where we're actually thinking critically to use your setup. With all of this stuff coming in nonstop, I mean, you just look at not just that, but our social media distractions, what's happening is our attention spans are getting shorter, our need for that quick dopamine, hit is getting quicker. It's changing the culture in many ways. Again, you should try to get Jonathan Haidt on this podcast. He's really terrific on rewiring our minds. So I think this is part of a larger thing of the culture of distraction that is doing a lot of bad things. I think, you know,

I don't think you have to respond. I respond to every text that's sent to me on a one-on-one text, but on groups, I think you're okay. I'll give you a pass on that. See, that's the problem. I can't run that virtue up the flagpole that I respond to every text that comes in either. So it's like guilty of one crime, guilty of them all. All right, finally, Hannah, I found this pretty significant. And I don't want to find it significant because it came from Bill Maher. Now, the Christopher Hitchens once said, you know, if an atheist wakes up every day and said God is not real, nobody listens. But if the Pope woke up one day and goes, I'm not so sure about this God thing. Everybody'd be like, what? So it is of natural relevance that it came from

Bill Maher. But I think the point, even if it didn't come from Bill Maher, is fascinating. Watch this from real time. So I don't know if this documentary is the talk of your town, but it is out here because it didn't just expose a dangerous workplace. It also exposed hypocrisy, because it must be pointed out that when the evil governor of Florida was saying the exact same thing, about kids and creepy stuff at Disney that liberals now find intolerable at Nickelodeon, he was dismissed as a hick and a bigot. But why would a kids' content factory like Disney

be all that different than the one at Nickelodeon? A 2014 CNN report discovered that at least 35 Disney employees had been arrested for sex crimes against children, and in 2021, Disney Child star Alison Stoner confessed she only narrowly survived the toddler-to-train wreck pipeline. You know, Willie Sutton said he robbed banks

because that's where the money is. And the reason we find pedophiles and the Boy Scouts and the rectory in Kids TV is that's where the kids are. DeSantis wasn't wrong. But we're so tribal now. The left will overlook child if the guy from the wrong party calls it out. It's so fascinating, especially that last line, Hannah. Like, first of all, for Mar to say DeSantis wasn't wrong

has its own, is worthy of its own note. But more importantly, if the wrong guy points out something, it's not only unheard. It's dismissed as conspiracy, Hannah. Yeah, I mean, we've already seen this kind of hypocrisy, I think, play it on the national stage. When you had the whole Me Too movement going down, you realize all the people on the left that have been covering for Harvey Weinstein and then Jeffrey Epstein, and it really did expose how, I think, shallow their professions of supporting women really are. I'm not surprised to see this.

Anybody who's ever had to be in charge of children knows this is a real threat. my dad's a pastor. They have to spend significant resources at churches, ensuring that you don't have predators coming in trying to work in children's departments, get access to them. Of course, you're going to have weirdos who try to attach themselves to these kinds of companies and get access to kids. People need to be on guard against this. It should not be politicized. It should be an open, obvious general concept people can come together on to protect kids and look out for them. I don't really understand how these things ultimately got so politicized, but it is nice some refreshing to hear him acknowledge this and hopefully more people will wake up to it because

it's really sad what's coming out. I think we're going to find out even more of some of this p-ditty stuff that's breaking over the next couple of months. I really think that you have a lot of Hollywood that has been harming kids, particularly at these channels like Nickelodeon. We're really learning a lot about the producers on some of those shows that were harming kids. So it's a national conversation that needs to happen and we need to just set the politics aside and figure out what are the best protocols to ensure that these people don't have access to children. I got to see this thing about Nickelodeon, Julian. Oh, it is, it's unbelievable, the Nickelodeon piece.

I mean, it will just, I mean, if this doesn't shock everyone with any common sense and good sense, I don't know what would. But look, I think Hannah makes some good points there. Let me say, for the last couple of years, I've lived most of the year in Florida. and I live in a building in Miami that is mostly Democrats. And when the whole don't say gay controversy occurred with DeSantis, almost every single Democrat who most of them had were parents. All of them said, this is not just Bill Maher, all of them said, you know what, I think Ron DeSantis is right.

And I don't know why this sort of cottage industry of school administrators across the country think it's their place to start teaching gender ideology to young kids. It's sort of sexualizing young children in a completely inappropriate way. And when you begin to see what's happening in the Democratic Party with black and brown working class voters moving over to the Republican side, the sort of critical gender ideology, critical race ideology with DEI, sort of all of these things are things that most people just find black. complete common sense and are a sort of an ideology of a certain group of elites that is trying attempting to impose it on the rest of the country and in a way that just sort of lacks

common sense you know there's a very important report that just came out of the UK the cast report which you should examine on your show one day which was looking at the gender transition issue and what the report found was that the science on this is almost non-existent. and that a lot of these kids with sort of gender confusion, gender dystoria, have lots of problems, lots of emotional problems. And what is happening with this cottage industry of financially conflicted sort of gender transition, the gender transition industry, is that they are forcing upon, or maybe not forcing upon, but, you know, persuading, pushing young kids towards gender transition in a way, that is abusive. It is making their problems worse. It's making suicidal issues worse. It's making depression issues worse. But this is being pushed by this industry of, you know, there is a, this is a financially conflicted industry that is pushing these issues on kids. And what the cast report is showing is that this might be having really, really serious adverse consequences on the kids to the point where it's becoming child abuse. And, but that doesn't stop people on the far left from, from proceeding with these kinds of things. And to be honest with you, I don't think that's because of financial interest.

I think it's, I think it's an ideology that's lost itself in the insanity of where we started this conversation, that critical theory of, you know, gender politics or bigger identity politics. I saw some of that what you're talking about, which is like the percentage of kids going into this stuff that have, are on the. spectrum of Vasperger's in autism or have a parent who is like, I think they call it like a class B parent, but it's a little bit like Munch House syndrome type of parent who's using their child to virtue signal in some way, like, or those that have been abused, like the percentage of kids that go down this road before the abuse have already suffered for some kind of affliction or abuse and are using this as an outlet. Let me say, the case of the Institute in UK that closed, there was a major institute that

did the transgender procedures on youth and teens that closed. I'm no expert in this area, but there is a lot of criticism that there was a big financial incentive of this UK institution that was pushing gender transition to keep pushing this on as the first option. So when a kid comes in who's got Asperger's, gender dysphoria, all of this kind of stuff, they push it on them as the first option there is a there is a financial element here that was a big part of the criticism when this institute closed so i don't think it's something i i don't watch over that point no and i don't mean to either um it's certainly an element i think but we have a societal insanity that supersedes it's a bigger umbrella over the pockets of financial interest which do

exist driving this entire thing i got to leave it here hannah cox based politics On X, Hannah D. Cox, and Julian Epstein, former House Judiciary Council, also on X at Julian Epstein. Thank you both for being on the Will Kane show today. Thanks so much, Will. Thanks for having us. All right. Really quickly, reaction from the audience. Red Panda says, valid point from Hannah.

We should vote on how we spend foreign money. We are more fastidious. Every once in a while I break out at the source word. We are much more devoted to voting on foreign. aid than we are to actually foreign military intervention. We are, it's somehow easier to send planes and bombs than it is to send money. We haven't had a declared war, and I don't remember how long. Luke Walker says Julian is right and Hannah is wrong.

Hannah needs to be reminded America needs Israel. This type of conversation about, you know, as Julian pointed out, the moral clarity when it comes to the position of Israel versus the greater, not just Arab world, but the influence of Iran, is something that I find ever present when it comes to foreign policy decisions, especially when it comes to war. And in some ways, I don't like it, especially don't like it in response to the conversation we had yesterday about Ukraine, because as opposed to what we just did, an argument isn't made as much as a performance is put on. In response to our conversations with David Sacks, it is, why did you platform David Sacks, and you both are puppets of Putin.

The reaction to our conversation with David Sacks next on the Will Kane show. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.

This is Jimmy Fala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. Reaction to our conversation, our devil's advocacy debate with David Sacks, here on the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand. Just wherever you are right now.

Just go hit subscribe. If you're listening on Apple or Spotify, hit subscribe. If you're watching on YouTube, it's in the Facebook. text description underneath this live stream, just hit subscribe. Reaction to our debate over Ukraine with David Sachs. But first, quick reaction to the mannerisms of Wilcane. Let me bring in two a days, Dan and Young Establishment, James. I had a conversation the other day with somebody internally at Fox, and he said to me the following, I'm not saying you should stop. I'm not saying it's a problem, but I've noticed something about you, Will. It will. It

was also noticed in the comment section of our debate with destiny and the reaction video to our debate with destiny. Have you guys noticed something about my mannerism specifically here on the Wilcan show? Like this? You do this? A lot of mic playing. Yes. A lot of hair. You do very, you're very, a lot of people will make comments about this and then moving the mic a little bit like this and then you put your hand on the mic like this a little bit. Yes. Yeah. Yes. I'm a little bit Ricky Bobby and Talladega nights. Yes. What do I do? What do I do with my hands? hand. And here's the thing. I don't. I'm not doing it on purpose. It's not an affectation. And this was a friend of mine in an executive at Fox. And he said, I don't know why you're doing it.

And I don't know that I have a problem with it. But even me, I've noticed that I'm doing it. Sometimes I'm talking, I'm like, what are you doing with your hands? I put my fingers together. I wrap them together. I make, and a part of it I think I don't do it on Fox and Friends. I do it here. on the Will Cancho. I think part of it's where my desk is sitting and I get my elbows up and the next thing you know I'm here. And when you were here the other day, you didn't know what to do because you didn't have a desk in front of you.

So I noticed you kind of like trying to figure out where to put your hands. We thought our camera had been moving for a second or the chair was moving. But your body was moving. And then we're like, oh no, it's just Will. Well, I've decided, look, when I used to host the Will Can Show on ESPN radio, I would get that thing about the microphone a lot. That I put my hands on the mic. Well, I've tried to stop that. And what's that result?

melted in is this, you know, ten points of light between my fingers, putting them together like this. And, okay, it is what it is. And I'm just going to, I'm going to dismiss it as me being Sigma. Just another, it's another move, Sigma. I want to talk about some of the reaction to our conversation with David Sachs here on the war on Ukraine. I want to go through some of the feedback we received. I think it made the most waves on Twitter. Here's a response. SWXT says, nodding your head at this nonsense says more than any words. The other response was kind of similar. There were those that kind of asked, why would I even have this conversation?

The fun guy says, damn, and people thought your sports takes were absolutely dumb. You're a Putin worshiper, sympathizer, and dare I say, lover. Let's do one more for now. MVP Harris is here. I think that's a reference to Kamala Harris, says, history will be harsh to you and all Putin apologists. Let me make two points here. So first of all, not all of these responses came from the left. A lot of them came from the right. When you have managed to upset both the left and the right, you are either way far afield and off base, or you're right over the target.

In this case, forgive me if I think that I'm right above the target. The target in this case being have valuable conversations. I'm just so disappointed the right has indulged the same type of rhetorical tricks as the left of don't platform someone who you disagree with. And oh, I know you can be dismissive of it by saying it's not about disagreement. It's about being so ill-informed or being so morally flawed that it shouldn't be part of the conversation. Nonsense. B.S. As we pointed out earlier, Rebecca Heinrich from the Hudson Institute kind of indulged in this deplatforming nonsense. Well, here's my response to that. Rebecca Heinrichs of Hudson Institute is invited at any point here to give her point of view on the war on Ukraine on the Will Kane show. I think of all the

things in the world where we might have open conversation. We might consider putting at the top of our list war. And it's just not going to do. It's not going to do for David Sachs to come on here and make, I think, very coherent, intelligent, even if you think they are wrong arguments and you're rebuttal to be Putin apologist. It's just not going to work over debate with war. Now, one of the things that David said that got the most people upset was he said the case for Putin being an aggressor falls apart. Watch. You know, when you actually start to examine the case for Putin being an aggressor, it really falls apart. Now, in terms of the Russians wanting a sphere of influence in their backyard, I suppose that there's some truth to that. But that doesn't mean Russian

domination of these countries in the manner of the Soviet Union. What was Russia looking for in Ukraine. They were looking for neutrality. They simply wanted Ukraine to remain neutral. Now let's take a look at a few of the comments in response to that clip. I don't think many people actually watched the clip. Much more did they go ahead and click through to the YouTube, which they should see the entire conversation. They just saw the line. Putin is the case that Putin is the aggressor falls apart. Andy Sappington says, shameful that Kane has this Russian propagandist on to show his lie. Again, another. I think we have a lot. I think we have a a lot of comments we brought in today. Oh, Roland Martin. Putin, not an aggressor. This is sheer

stupidity. These right-wingers are insane. Not a single, coherent, intelligent point made in that response. Just ad homonym sputtering. Davy Procket says, his clear, strong arguments, talking about David Sachs, were crafted in KGB in a KGB lab. And here you are spouting commie bull crap like you stumbled upon the truth. Let's do one more. R.C. Texas fellow says, Will, you do not have a nut job on your show talking about Russia. OMG is Tucker next. I'll stick with the Five and Brett Baer. My idea of journalism isn't giving far-right Putin lovers a platform to spew their bile. Man, there's just such a pride in ignorance. Such a pride and not exposing yourself to something that might make you actually think.

Here's what I think should be to listen to. Why not you agree or disagree? agree with Sachs. Let's talk about the aggressor point. He's talking about that the incremental growth of NATO and the flirtations of NATO with Ukraine and the involvement of America factually in Ukrainian elections provoked Putin to then invade Ukraine. People say, oh, how is it not the aggressor you invade Ukraine. And that's a legitimate point. The point in rebuttal from someone like Sachs would be, well, all of the encroachments into Eastern Europe were a provocation to Putin. Now, I made the argument back to sex. I played devil's out. I said, listen, Putin clearly wants his fear of influence. He clearly wants to grow. He's got historical reasons

and contemporary reasons to, yes, interfere in Lithuania, in Belarus, in Ukraine, in Georgia. Russians run paranoid of Europe from Napoleon to Hitler and an invasion from the East. So yes, he wants to reestablish. That's getting to his motivations, I think he has a clear motivation to be an aggressor. think that Sacks is wrong and not factoring that in fully. I think he's also right that there has been provocations from NATO in growing to the East that would have made him more paranoid. I think that there was never, and there never is, and there never was any of those responses a coherent argument made about how this serves America first. That being said, I still play devil's advocate with Sacks. I said, what about taking minerals or rights or energy products

as a part of helping to fund this war in Ukraine? That would serve America First. First, Sachs' response, why can't you do that, through trade. Whether or not it's platforming someone like David Sachs, understanding what he meant by aggressor, looking into the motive and debating and disagreeing on the motives of Putin, or getting to the most important part of the equation is, regardless of who's the provocateur, regardless of the history of Eastern Europe, how does getting involved serve America first? This is a place I will have that conversation, unapologetically, And guess what?

You two who disagree with David Sacks are invited right into the comments section, right on to the show, and those with an opposing point of view who are brave enough, strong enough, and curious enough to be platforms. We'll find it home as well right here on the Will Cain Show. All right, coming up, cracking down on spring break in Miami Beach, plus perhaps a response to what I just said with the New York Post, Carol Markowitz, and my fingers coming together here as we go to break. on the Will Cain Show. Hey, here's a few mind-blowing stats for you. Government debt, it's growing at a rate of $1 trillion every hundred days. That's number one. Number two, since 2020, every dollar in your wallet has lost 24% of its purchasing power.

Okay? And then there's three. In just the last 18 months, the cost of groceries and basic necessities for a family of four has gone up an average of $11,000 a year, over $1,000. a year, over 18 months. Now, I don't care who you are, that's outrageous. Those numbers are outrageous, so what are you going to do to protect your savings? Tell you what I did.

I bought gold, which, by the way, has hit record highs, is expected to hit $3,200 an ounce this year. And who better to work with than Lear Capital, the leader in precious metal investing. I encourage everyone to call Lear at $800920-8388 and get their free $3,200 gold report. 25 years of experience, countless five-star reviews, 24-hour risk-free purchase guarantee speaks volumes to their credibility. So for that free $3,200 gold report, also, by the way, check and see if you qualify for up to $15,000 in bonus gold. Here's what you have to do. Just call 800920-8388.

That's 800-920-83-8, or go to learwill.com. That's L-E-A-R-W-I-L-L.com. Carol Markowitz, next on The Will Cain Show. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Or wherever you download podcasts.

All right. She's been patient. She's waited. and she has some disagreement. So Carol Markowitz is coming up on the Will Cain show, streaming live at Fox News.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, and the Fox News Facebook page.

And there she is, having patiently waited to which I am eternally grateful, it's New York Post Carol Markowitz. Hey, Carol. Hi, Will. Thanks for having me. I want to talk about this new column you have up at foxnews.com, but I know you had to wait around

and hear some of what was said. And interestingly, I was told you have a disagreement with David Sacks, but not on Ukraine, on Israel. So it's funny. You know, I think David Sachs is really interesting. I follow him on Twitter. We follow each other, actually.

And he's a really smart guy. He says interesting things that I agree with, disagree. I agree with your overall point that we should engage with all kinds of opinions. But he said that the situation of Israel is comparable to what was going on with America in the Vietnam War. And I just find that to be not even remotely correct. And he's said similar things. on Twitter before. He thinks Israel has lost the war in Gaza. I just think that's very premature. But additionally, I think by every measure, Israel is winning. And I think probably, you know,

not just militarily, but also, you know, the idea that Israel is shunned by the world is one that really got challenged recently when Iran attacked it. We saw Saudi Arabia step in and help. We saw Jordan step in and help. Suddenly the economist cover that. head Israel alone didn't seem correct anymore. So I think that people expect Israel to be an open book about their military strategies and about their goals and successes and failures and all of that. But that's not how war works. And I think that that's where I disagree with him most. That I think the victory is, you know, at hand and not here yet, but certainly in the near future. So let's go back and forth on this one more time.

So not only do I know what you're talking about, I heard him say it on the All-In podcast. I brought it up yesterday with him here on the Will Cane show, and we talked about it at the top of the show today. What he had to say. First, what he had to say about the protests on college campuses is that he made the comparison to Vietnam War protests and said, we'll only be able to judge the entire message of the protest with the fullness of time. I don't think he was dismissing the presence of anti-Semitism or ignorance, but whether

not there was any hidden legitimacy in the protests will only be able to be answered in the fullness of time, comparing that to the protest of Vietnam. But he said his point on the war itself and its comparison to Vietnam, I know Carol, he made one large point, which is that it might be impossible to ever fully stamp out Hamas. It's whack-a-mole, you knock them out in one place, they pop up in another. Once you move to the new place, they're back in the old place. Right. And if that's the case, then you run the risk of getting bogged down in a Vietnam-style never-ending war. Well, yeah, except, of course, the difference is that the U.S. had to go to Vietnam to fight that war. Israel has to fight that war in its borders. They had, obviously, the attack of October 7th, they have to constantly be vigilant. And the truth is that America could have did just pack up and leave Vietnam, whereas Israel can't do that.

So they have a completely different situation where they have to win. They can't say, oh, okay, well, this didn't go the way we wanted. We're going to go home now because obviously that's not possible for them. So that was my distinction on the Vietnam War in terms of what sex set. All right. So Carol is also here today. So Carol, I have, can I just, so I have breakfast with some friends in Dallas pretty often. And I'm just going to tell you a recurring theme.

And, you know, criminal justice scholars and law school students can all debate, you know, the effectiveness of punishment. So you learn this in law school, right? There's like five different reasons that you punish someone for a crime. They include rehabilitation, but also deterrence. And when you're having breakfast with your friends, man, there is a lot of weight on deterrence. There is a belief out there. And it's pretty, they make a pretty compelling common sense argument. Like, let me just get this straight.

Okay, if we didn't even talking about the death penalty, and I've had my back in force on the death penalty currently pro, and I've gone back and forth for moral reasons and also for honestly political ideological reasons. Like, I don't like the idea of the government making even one mistake with an innocent person, you know, but I don't dismiss the idea that it has deterrence. And you've written about like spring break and Miami right now are like, like, a huge piece of evidence on the value in existence of deterrence. Yeah, so it's wild because deterrence actually worked here. And look, if you had told me when this first began, so two months ago, in November,

Miami Beach gets a new mayor, Mayor Stephen Minor, and he runs on being tough on crime and specifically on ending kind of what they call the spring break problem, where Miami Beach is just deluged with tourists, but specifically people who come there to cause problems, to get wasted and really mess up the city. And they have these dampedes every year and they have violence and they had two murders last year. So he runs on, I'm going to put an end to this. And they put out this ad campaign saying Miami Beach is breaking up with spring break and how they're not going to stand for it and how they're going to arrest people and how if you're coming there to cause problems, pick somewhere else. And somehow it worked because not only was crime down,

which amazing, but I assumed arrests would be way up, right? How did they get crime down? They arrested all the people that would be causing problems. But the ad campaign actually dissuaded people from coming that were going to, you know, go to Miami to get nuts. And they went elsewhere. Georgia, for example, is having some problems. I wonder if that's where they went.

Well, that's the whole idea with deterrence. It's not that you end up with a massive prison population. Right. And this is controversial, but I'll say this. look. I was spanked, okay? And I don't have any problem saying. Corporal punishment was part of the toolbox as I've raised my voice. And by the way, same thing, no matter how controversial, with various dogs that I've had. But here's the trick. I've never, like you do it like twice. And then you don't have to anymore. Like I will guarantee you the number of times that there's been

any type of physical repercussion or reprimand for a dog or for a child. in my life is probably smaller than the ugliest angry verbal assaults from most people. But the point is, because it was in the toolbox, it never had to be used. And I think that's the thing with deterrence and crime. If you enforce it, if you crack down, a weird thing happens. All of a sudden, you don't just have less crime because everybody's locked up that's a criminal, but other people go, I'm not going to commit that crime. And you don't have to, you don't have to arrest.

Yeah. That's exactly it. I think when they told people you're going to have to behave on spring break in Miami Beach, people decided that maybe they couldn't behave or that they wouldn't and they decided not to go there. They got the message that Miami Beach was not going to stand for it. Honestly, I avoid Miami Beach usually in March and April and our family's staycation there recently. It was so much better. It was cleaner. It felt safer. It wasn't like a giant police presence, but they were around. kind of saw that the police were around and doing their jobs, but not like a police state or anything. It didn't feel oppressive or excessive. It was really, really nice. And it's nice to see the change. I love seeing places better themselves. I'm glad Miami Beach did it. And I'm rooting for them. Yeah, you are. You've become like the biggest cheerleader for Florida. Like you've been there like a year. What has it? Been two years? Carol, right now. Two years. Where is your desk. Like, I'm just watching, you have a very nice posture. This is a real problem for me.

Like, do you have a desk? Yeah, the microphone's sitting on a desk. Yeah. So what are you doing with your hands? Oh, my hands are in my lap. I saw your whole thing with the hands. I also don't touch the mic because I'm afraid to do anything, you know, to mess anything up. You can't see, but I have a cowboy's bobbleheads above me, behind me. Right. Carol's a cowboy fan. I can't sit for an hour with my hands in my lap so the elbows go on the table the hands are here now i got to do something and then now we're off and running some ridiculous affectation all right if any point you ever hear anything that you disagree with you are welcome here on the will cane show your post carol markowitz thank you well thanks so much all right um let's i don't know that any of you're going to care but

i'm going to tease it i think we need to break down naked attraction i think we're going to need to break down the show that apparently is on like season eight, season 12 in the UK and has gone all around the world everywhere but America. And I have watched that trash, but I also have thoughts. And that's going to come up tomorrow, plus the historical oddity that is Archmanning. And we'll look at Trump's immunity case before the Supreme Court all tomorrow right here on the Will Kane Show. Hey, I'm trade gouty host of the trade goutty podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together

and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.