Will Cain Country - Clarence Thomas: Progressivism Is an ‘Existential Threat’ to America (ft. Kurt Schlichter & Theo Wold)

Episode Date: April 16, 2026

Senior Columnist at Townhall Kurt Schlichter joins Will and The Crew to discuss Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent claims on the threat posed by progressivism, before sharing his thoughts on what Hasan Piker’s meteoric rise within the mainstream Democratic Party means for the future of the progressive movement. Plus, Former Assistant Attorney General Theo Wold sheds some light on why a certain cohort of Republicans continue to enable the permanent “serf underclass” created by the diversity Visa lottery system, and what can still be done to prevent a soft takeover of the American government.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Take ownership of your country or progressivism represents an existential threat to America. So says Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pry my Texas ranger statue from my cold dead hands. And there's a new attack on Smashburgers. with Kurt Schlichter and Theo Wolt It is Wilcane Country

at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Willcane Facebook page here for you. Always to follow on Spotify or Apple. Tinfoil Pat, two a day, stand hanging out with us here.

Today, Theo Wald is a former White House deputy assistant for domestic policy under President Trump. He's going to join us a little bit later here in the program to talk about half a dozen Republicans voting to extend temporary protected status to some several hundred thousand Haitians who've already been in this country for 15 years raising the question, what does it mean to be temporary?

This is amidst a whole new conversation and significant success, depending on your point of view, when it comes to curbing legal immigration under President Trump. Kurt Schlichter, though, is going to join us in just a moment to talk about his new assault on smash burgers. I'm dressed up today, Dan. I'm dressed up today, Pat, because I find myself in a unique situation. A stage in life I did not expect. So the boys know that I went to a breakfast today, so they probably think I'm a little dressed up in my Sunday finest because it must have been an important breakfast. No.

It was just breakfast with my butt. And they too were like, why are you dressed like you're going to church? And I said, because I find myself an interesting stage in life. It's not. It's not that I went to a fancy place. It's that I find myself in an interesting stage in life. I was on the phone with you. With two teenage boys, it wasn't a fancy place.

It had no dress code, Patrick. It did have a guard at the gate, but it did not have a dress code. That is true. I did have breakfast at a country club, but the attire at a country club is largely, you know, golf casual, which is really bleeding, at least in Texas, into business casual. I think these guys look the same whether or not they're hitting the golf course or the trading floor. I think they're wearing the same stuff, which is basically, you know, some type of athleisure slack. It looks like slacks, but feels like athletic wear.

you know, a short-sleeve golf shirt layered with a vest. Pretty much your attire that you could wear to play nine or to go trade commodities. Either way, it's all kind of the same attire. But that's not, I don't really have that in my bag. I'm getting closer. I'm assimilating. I do have some of those athleisure pants that I wear from time to time. And then I've got some of the athleisure shoes that are.

quasi-dress, quasi-comfortable. All-birds? But my true, I don't wear all-birds, but something like a, I don't know, it looks like it has laces, but it's actually a slip-on tennis shoe type of thing. But my other middle ground is boots and jeans. And so this morning when I get up, I'm like, well, where are my pants? I can't find my pants. There's no pants in my closet.

And all my boots and jeans, not my... boots, but my jeans are largely missing as well. And the issue is that I find myself in this unique stage in life. And I don't think that either of you have arrived there. Maybe or maybe not, will you arrive there? But the problem is that most of my clothes have disappeared into the closets of my sons. And it's not simply their fault. It's also the fault of my wife. She can't tell the difference at this point between my clothes, my 18-year-olds, and my 14-year-olds. She doesn't know, you know, whose underwear is this? Who's pants are these. She can't distinguish. She can't figure it out. So they end up another closet.

Then layer on top of that that my closet from time to time will get raided. And guys will come in and take the pants. And next thing you know, I have nothing. So this morning I found myself, I can't find anything. I find no middle ground. Where are my middle ground clothes? Not my suits. Not my total casual clothes. Where's my middle ground clothes? Where's my middle ground close? Where can I go play nine or trade commodities? I can't find that. Where is it? And I go to my kids closet, and it's a total train wreck in their closets. It looks like tornadoes have hit it. And I don't know where to find anything in their closets. So all I had, literally all I had was like, well, I guess I'll just put on my church clothes and go to work. So you got to match the whole attire.

That's what that's, that's, that's, so the shirt has to go with the nice pants. What you mean? Like the whole attire has to be nice. The same. You can't do half athlete or half. Really nice. Well, I can't wear slacks and dress shoes and like a flannel. Why not? That's goofy. You can do that. You definitely do it.

Because that's goofy. But also, your wife's dropping the ball here. I don't really want to call her out, but like she should be writing your names and your underwear and your like across the back. All your pants. Just like the 80s. You've got to bring that back. Yeah, write your name and your clothes. Yeah.

We're not doing that. We're not writing names and clothes. Maybe we need to. That's clear. as of this morning. Apparently, you have an issue, so I'm just trying to help solve it. I'm a problem solving. I can't imagine I'm the only one out there with this issue.

If you have teenage boys who arrive at a similar size to you, this has got to be, like a cultural problem. This has got to be an issue. I guess there's a lot of people that say, well, my teenagers don't dress like me. So they could be wearing something different, but I don't know. I can't be alone. That's the point. You can't be alone out there. This has got to be an issue, and it finally caught up with me today. Justice Clarence Thomas was in Texas this week. He gave a speech wherein he suggested we are at an existential moment in America.

Do we not seize the moment we could lose our country? Here's what he said at the University of Texas. I think if we don't stand up and take ownership of our country and take responsible for it, we are sluble. slowly letting others control how we think and what we think. I think the beauty of going to school is that you learn how to think for yourselves. You develop the discipline to think things through. If you think it's losing confidence, then you get up and you participate. You don't sit on the sidelines. You think that the state is being run inconsistent with how you feel,

then you get up and you participate. You prepare yourself if you think that the medical profession is not right. When you become a doctor or be a medical person. Joining us now is Kurt Schlotter. He is a senior columnistat Town Hall.com, also the author of Panama Red. Hey, Kurt. Hey, how's it going? Good.

I, as I was mentioning, had breakfast with my friends this morning. And there's a question that I get a lot. I get this question a lot. Who is your dream interview? And I've told the people that I have a couple of different people that I'd love to interview. Like, I'd really love to interview Honky Tonk Angel, the supposed only fans model frequented by James Tala Rico, the guy running for Senate in Texas. Blow us up. Wow.

I'm on the track. I'm on, I'm hunter down. There's just a lot of questions. Yeah, I don't want anything to do with his history. Nope. Count me out. Yeah, you do. I think this is a great mystery.

It's a great mystery. Is the whole honky-tonged angel thing a reflection of potential Swalwellian behavior? Or is it a beard? And there are some suggestions out there that the honky-tonged angel online activity is actually to throw you off the scent of where the real interest may lie. Yeah, well, let me tell you, there are some rocks I just don't want to turn over, Will. And anything having to do with Tala Rico. But yikes. You're wrong because there's $276 million going to him. He just raised that in the last quarter.

This is going to be a fight here in Texas. We're going to have to turn over every rock. It is. Remember. James Tala Rico, Senator. Well, he spent $14 million to make that $27 million. So as with all Democrats, he's not exactly handling money. You know, I wrote about the Paxton Cornyn race today in town hall. Oh, yeah?

Yeah. Yeah, I took an example of Johnny Corny Cornyn's buddy Tom Tillis. Six years of unrestrained John Cornyn. That's straight up nightmare. Oh, are you saying that Cornyn, six years of Cornyn at this stage in his career as well, would look a lot like what we see today from Tom Tillis? Yeah, we'll look back on him working with Democrats on gun control thinking those are the good old days. Isn't this the guy who sits around dreaming about amnesty?

I really want comprehensive immigration reform. Well, so do I. Let's throw them all out. There's my reform. There we go. Nahed. I didn't agree with that. Well, you know, I wasn't going to talk about this with you, Kurt.

I was going to save this for Theo L. But this is worth talking about yesterday. Six House Republicans voted with Democrats, a bill advanced by Representative Ayanna Presley, which would provide temporary protected status for Haitian, in the U.S. for three more years. The motion passed 219 to 209. Here are the six House GOP who voted with Democrats. Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska.

Congresswoman Maria Salazar of Florida. Congressman Carlos Jimenez of Florida. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Congressman Mike Lawler of New York. Congresswoman Nicole Mellia Takas from New York. Why? Why? What are these Republicans doing?

Why are they? By the way, the Haitians, apparently, they have temporary protected status because of a earthquake that occurred 15 years ago. They've been here 15. They need three more. What does temporary mean to these Republicans? Well, apparently nothing. Now, look, if three, I think it's 350,000 Haitians, you know, if you had a whole, you know, if these guys are such a great addition to America, wouldn't Haiti be? paradise because it's got millions of them. Just saying, just throwing it out there. Look, I mean, uh, Salazar's the one with the dignity, uh, the dignity plan. It's definitely not amnesty. I mean, it gives amnesty, but it's, it's something totally different because reasons and shut up racist. I don't know what's up with her. Don Bacon is an Air Force general. I'm just going to leave that, you know, over there. Go Army. Um,

you know, Loller, whatever. The other guys, I don't know. It's madness. We need to increase our margins because we've got way too many marginal Republicans. I don't think we should just, you know, everyone's, we're going to lose the house. I don't want to lose the house. Why don't we expand our margins?

Let's not aim to simply not fail. I get it that a congressman, Republican, Congressman from New York will not vote or look or act in the same way as a Republican congressman from Alabama. I get it. I get that Mike Lawler has to, in order to remain a Republican in Congress, has to vote a certain way differently than getting elected outside of Mobile. I get that. What I don't get is what, okay, temporary protected status, refugee program. We got a big heart. You had a horrible earthquake. We're going to take you in. But that comes to an end at some point, right? That does come to an end. So what's the political reason to continue this for these six Republicans? Those Haitians with temporary protection status theoretically aren't voting for you. I wouldn't even assume they have a lot of family of legal status voting in this country. So why? Why this? What? What? What? What? What's the political reason?

Well, I think there are donors out there who love the idea of having an imported surf class to work for subpar wages. I mean, that's clearly it. You know, Democrats want new voters. And when Republicans vote for this amnesty garbage, it's because they're business donors don't want to pay Americans to do the work. and I'd rather have my country than them have a better bottom line. Let me take a quick break, but continue this conversation with townhall.com's Kurt Schlichter when we come back on Will Kane Country. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with townhall.com's Kurt Schlichter. More on this coming up in just a moment with Theo Wald, who's a White House deputy assistant, former White House deputy assistant for domestic policy under President Trump.

So what I was saying, Kurt, is at breakfast this morning, some of my buddies I was talking about this, talking about Justice Thomas, because Honky Talk Angel is not like my actually in my dream interview, Justice Thomas is. And Justice Thomas just gave this speech, you know, in Austin where he says that we're really at an existential moment here in America. Justice Thomas is really interesting. I said these words. I said he belongs being carved into a mountain. That's the only thing hurting the only thing hurting Justice Thomas's claim to being carved into a mountain is that he served at the same time as Justice Scalia. And Justice Scalia might be the greatest Supreme Court justice in the history of the court. And but Justice Thomas is so divisive.

There are people like, what? Justice Thomas, their opinions on who he is. I mean, he's brilliant. His life story is amazing. And here he is. sending a warning to the country. Yeah, the guy's a legend. And, you know, if he sticks around a Supreme Court a couple more years, he's going to be the longest serving justice,

which I think is a beautiful example of justice on its own after the hideous way he was treated. Leftists hate him because he dares to be a black man who thinks for himself. Conservatives love him because he's so consistently dedicated to the Constitution. And look, I was a lawyer for 30 years. I know my way around an opinion. He is a clear writer. He is a concise writer. He cuts right to the heart of things.

You know, he famously doesn't ask many questions from the bench. And when he does, they're inevitably straight to the point. Excellent questions that really illuminate the issue. I adore the guy. I wish he could live to 120. And his chilling warning about participating in our country, I think is very well said. This is a constitutional republic. People use the word democracy.

It's a shorthand. Okay, let's use that. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is a participation sport. If every one of us doesn't participate, then we're going to leave our governance to the people who do. And we all know from that Simpsons episode, we're all the guys from, the local brainiacs took over the town. We know how that goes. Not to be the lawyer elitist, you know, not to do that thing. But so, you know,

one of the things I talk about from time to time, Kurt, is I did go to law school, is I did not actually grow up Republican. My dad was a lawyer and he was a Democrat. Now, he was in every way culturally conservative, but tort reform threatened his way of living. So he's like, I'm voting for Democrats, like, because I can't literally have my way of life taken away. But that being said, so when you're little and it's a team sport and your dad says he's a Democrat, you think you're a Democrat. I really became what one would say is conservative outside of the cultural influences of religion and, you know, how we act, how we behave, and all. that that sort of seep in. Intellectually, I became conservative in law school. And the reason

why, and I wish everybody could have this experience, is reading those opinions like you talk about. First, you really learn the Constitution. Like, here it is in black and white. It's pretty easy to read, right? It's not complicated. And then you read, really honestly, about 150 years worth of interpretation of that constitution through different examples, different cases, i.e. cases. And you read people's ability to think. You read their ability to logic. And so you get to see, and they're all Supreme Court justices. So we're talking about really all Supreme Court justices we're talking about.

Really stupid ones. Really stupid ones. Now, whether or not they're stupid or they're torturing logic to get to an end result that they want, that's a tomato-to-top-type debate. And then you see the really clear, concise thinkers. And reading Clarence Thomas, reading Antonin Scalia, that is what I'm like, whoa, these guys make sense. This is like completely understanding. Reading Sotomayor or Cantonji Brown Jackson, I'm going to tell you something, will make you dumber. It won't just make you wrong.

It will make you dumber or you will see. I'm not even being mean. I'm literally telling you, if you go read it, you will come away going, why could I ever agree with this person? They cannot make an argument. Like, not one sentence flows to the next, to the next paragraph, to a conclusion. It doesn't make any sense. So to your point, Kurt, like getting a chance to actually read Thomas is what made me a fan of Thomas. Then I learned about his life story.

Then I learned about everything else. But actually seeing his brain in practice, that's what will win. Well, you know, and Justice Thomas is a pretty rare guy. I've appeared before of a lot of judges, state and federal. And there are some out there who just don't have any idea what they're doing. They don't think clearly. They don't think concisely. They can't write.

They don't forge a coherent argument. Look, I can lose a motion or an argument or even a trial. Okay? Somebody always walks out of the courtroom unhappy. Somebody always walks out happy. That's just the way it is. I don't mind. I'm not offended by it if they can give me a good reason, if they have a clear reason why my legal position is wrong. I don't have to like it, but I'm not offended by it. I do get offended when you have, you know, I was ordering it from a court of appeals once. And one judge said, well, you know, I was talking about this case with my daughters at breakfast. I swear to God, she said that. And I'm like, Get her in here.

You know, let me argue to her. Maybe she knows what the hell she's talking about. It's, you know, it can be disappointing. It can also be very elevating. One of the best arguments I ever had was in front of a very liberal judge. It wasn't a political case, but he was very smart, got right to the issue, knew the case and the facts inside out, it's pleasure to do it. And Justice Thomas, I, you know, I've never argued in front of the issue.

the Supreme Court, if I was ever going to go back to law, that would probably be the only thing I would do just for the chance to go up there and, you know, stand toe to toe with Justice Thomas, take his questions, addresses concerns. Yeah. You know, I mean, wow, that's, you know, that's the stuff. From time to time during a show, I checked my text to see what the guys have told me. Like, we had a technical issue. It's solved and everything. And I just checked my text and I got this from my wife. or maybe y'all can just start washing your own clothes

so patrick maybe the answer isn't putting our names in our clothes maybe it's that i can start washing my own clothes you don't messed up buddy yeah or that's i guess sweetheart that would be another option as well no she's not she's not um she's scotch-irish like every everybody else in the southern united states um But, okay, so Justice Thomas says that he literally said progressivism represents a real existential threat to America. On the flip side, Kurt, you've got the it boy of the moment, Hassan Piker, who is not just a popular streamer that young teenagers know, and they do, they know him. With big numbers and an audience, he's a streamer that Democrat politicians are gravitating towards.

And not just the crazies, not just the. AOCs and the Bernie Sanders, but increasingly, quote-unquote, mainstream Democrats are gravitating to San Piker, who said this just now in the last couple days, speaking at Yale. Empires never die quietly, and we must end the American Empire regardless. But we must manage the retreat of a superpower from the world stage. This is a challenge for our time. Actually, this is the challenge for our time. Because if we do not do this, then the American Empire will come to an end in a much more violent way.

Hey, do you know, Kurt? I don't know. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, that banging among the audience? What does that mean? Does anyone know? Is that approval or disapproval from the people listening to it? I think it's a bunch of...

I don't know what that... I think a bunch of overly feminine Yalis who don't know which end of a gun goes bang, playing it being tough guy revolutionaries. Hassan, you want to take down my empire? Roll the dice. Cross the Rubicon. Let's go. Because I'm not going to live under whatever kind of weird empire or dictatorship. The guy who says America deserve 9-11 wants to impose.

the guy who says Hamas is a great organization. These guys are awesome. No, not in the cards. You want it? Come take it. Let's go. I have an answer for you. Well, what is it?

Tapping tradition is seen as indicate for approval or agreement with the speaker. Really? So they're all approving the end of the American Empire. And he says if it doesn't end, then it will end violently. He goes on to say, and we can play this, the great tragedy is not the end of the American Empire, but the great tragedy of history is the end of the USSR. The fall of the USSR was one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century. Just wait. Listen, maybe you'll agree.

Not only was there incalculable harm done to every single country under its banner. Child prostitution. skyrocketing suicide rates, life expectancy plummeting, but America was no longer contested around the globe. Okay, so the great catastrophe of the 20th century is the fall of USSR, to which I heard both support, banging, and then hissing, which Dan tells me, hissing is disagreement. So we got some of both on that statement, Kurt. Well, look, I was literally in the Cold War.

I was in Germany as a lieutenant, part of NATO when the wall fell. I don't miss the Soviet Union. I mean, look, I'm all for the Democrats saying, you know what a real problem was? America winning the Cold War. I think that's great. You guys go with that. You guys go with Hamas is just fine. You guys go with, not only did it was 9-11 great, we need another to completely.

destroy our country and make us subservient to every third world semi-human barbarian out there around the globe. I think that is a great platform for you guys to run in in 2026 and 2028, and I strongly encourage you to do it. And I'm cheered by the understanding that the Democrats are stupid enough to do it because these guys have all been coming up and kissing this guy's tail as if he's an important thinker rather than some internet provocateur. And I'm perfectly happy to have the likes of, you know, Pete Buttigieg and all the rest of them,

Mark Kelly and all like Ruben Gallego, if he can, you know, take a break from the partying, you know, tying themselves to this guy. I think it's wonderful. Y'all go for us. Is Ruben Gallo going to go down? Now there's reporting out, Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona was Eric Swalwell's best buddy. And there's reporting out today about their excursion to Puerto Rico and how much they spent together.

I mean, I don't know. You're probably going to need more than that. But there's a lot of smoke around Ruben Gallego. And to that point, look, gas prices are $4 and $5 a gallon. I don't know. I see various polling all over the place on this war, popular with Republicans. Republicans unpopular with independence. The point is, it probably isn't the strongest position Republicans have ever been in going into the midterms. On the flip side, who? Who? Who are you going to

vote for? Like, and the answer, the answer may be scary, actually, but James Tallerico can't really get more far left. Tom Steyer in California for governor, I mean, he's a boob. You know, Katie Porter, get real. It just keep going around the country that there's nobody that kind of fills the lane of somebody who could be somewhat rational at a vulnerable moment for Republicans. But people have the memories of flies.

So you've got to remember that. Like, they're going to forget that the Democrats did all this stuff two years ago. Well, look, I think that you know, you can't beat someone with no one. The Republicans have some problems. They've got some electoral challenges. They've got the tides of history are against them.

But on the other hand, they're fighting the Democrats. I mean, I think it's a hard thought process unless you're one of these goofy podcaster types to go from, you know, well, you know, we took out an enemy of 50 years who've killed thousands of Americans. And that's so offensive to me. I'm going to vote for the people who want to castrate children to conform to the delusions of their munch house and mommies. I think that's a leap for a lot of normal people. And when people have to start making actual choices, I'm not as worried about the midterms as a lot of Republicans. Obviously, it's something to take seriously. But I don't think it's a slam dunk for these communist freaks.

I don't think it's a slam dunk. But I think Patrick's right, they do have the memory of flies. and they will forget or not pay attention to the insanity of a lot of these people. Because the alternative is truly insane. Let me take a quick break, but continue this conversation with townhall.com's Kurt Schlichter when we come back on Wilcane Country. In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over $24.50 an hour. Employees also have the opportunity to grow their skills and their paycheck by,

enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields like software development and information technology learn more at about amazon dot cae welcome back to will cane country we're still hanging out with townhull dot com's kurt schlichter you've launched kurt a fairly insane war online um you have decided to take up as one of your causes the decline not the decline but the forced resignation of the smash burger. Here's what you posted. It's long, so I don't know that I'm going to read it all. But you said, it's time to talk about something nobody wants to talk about. There's a lot to fear about it, and people don't want to speak up, but I think we need to.

I think it's time. It needs to be said. I'm done with smash burgers. You go on to say that smash burgers are gooey and salty and crusty, and it's time for a burger renaissance. Back to thick, juicy patties, tomato, lettuce, onion. pickle, some mayo, some ketchup, maybe some mustard. I would reverse that. A real bun, fluffy, not gooey. I would say, definitely some mustard, maybe some ketchup. Why the war on smash burgers?

Well, look, I'm sitting here in Houston at the moment. Went out for burgers, last two lunches, and I got to tell you, I am sick of these overly charred, overly salted, little pieces. a crust. Okay? Look, we needed smash burgers to kind of, kind of a, uh, uh, upended a, a, uh, a button to the joint, kind of like punk rock coming along in the 70s, you know, to give a, a kick to all the, uh, uh, yacht rockers. But eventually, you know, the fads over. I'm, I'm kind of done. I'd like a burger with a little juice in it. You know, smash burgers just seem like an excuse to me now to have cooks who can't cook using beef that no one else will eat. If you char it, who cares?

It's just, it's awful. I want my veggies. I want my condiments. It's awful? Preach. They're awful. Most of them are awful. Conner's hissing over here, by the way, Will.

He's hissing. He's not banging the table. He's hissing. I like a smash burger. I'm not saying it should replace a big, thick, juicy burger. Both have their place. But I'm not ready to banish smash burgers to the dust bins of history. Every once in a while, you want something super, I like the crispiness.

I will agree with you that, by the way, way too many of them are way too salty. There's something of, what is it with the salt in the smash burger? but yeah I think but you have by the way you have to get two patties on a smash burger which is the which is the trick you got to get like it's got to have double patties right

yeah that's too well done patties look here's my beef I don't mind a little diversity right you can have your smash burger but you got to have a real burger all these places all these little fancy precious places with their twee little names

they've got one burger on board and it's like our smash burger at the pig and pickle. It's our craft smash burger. Done. No. I want a real burger. I want some juice, people. I want some juice.

I think what happened here is you went to a restaurant that coded left, maybe two or three of them. This is what happened. Kurt went to a restaurant that coded left, and they had the smash burger on the menu. That's what they have. And he started to realize, holy shit, the smash burger has become. in a lefty thing. And he's reversed engineered this because he refuses to accept any cultural leftism, even if they take it. And I would argue, don't let them take it, Kurt. Don't let them have it. If they took steak and started putting it on the menu, that wouldn't mean you need to be anti-steak.

This is what I think happened. You went to Florida Lee, right? And there was a lot of salmon and stuff like that, but they happened to have a burger, but it was a smash burger. And you decided in that moment, I'm anti-Smash Burger. Well, look, this has been coming for a while. But, you know, if they did it to steak, if they cut it to a quarter inch thick and broil it beyond the, you know, until it was like a crispy char, I'd be angry about that, too, okay? It's a medium rare world. You know, smash burgers have their place, but it's not on my plate. Okay. I like the diversity. I would say I have the ratio right, Kurt. If I eat five burgers in a month, one of them is a smash burger. That's fair, don't you think? Because your favorite place is not a smashburger place. It's an important part of the food chain or the food pyramid. It's the base of the food pyramid. It's got everything. But if you're a 20% smash burger, it's a lot.

I think that's kind of high. Maybe 10% I'm thinking it's a novelty. It's a novelty. Am I? I think I am. Nine times. I need one that's mad. I bet I'm five to six burgers a month.

I bet I am. Patrick, are you five or six burgers a week? I don't understand those words. I'm not a big burger guy. I like chicken tenders and I like Taco Bell. I married a vegetarian. so I barely eat them. I made a mistake. What is wrong with you, people?

We're millennials. Well, I'll tell you, Kurt, I think something got exposed here, okay? Here's another thing. You're going to hate this. Oh, no. So Patrick is so conservative that he's falling off the right end of things, right? He's so conservative, he's almost liberal, that he is a little bit younger, okay? So what happened a little younger than us, Kurt? What happened is an entire generation of people raised by mothers that only cooked chicken tenders for dinner because they threw a hissy fit if they didn't get their chicken tenders has now come of age.

And I'm not done here, Dan. I'm on a rant, all right? They ate pizza, usually cheese only, by the way. They didn't even, like a supreme, they would wretch, you know, anything, even a meat lovers. I don't even think they'd do that. They do plain cheese. They do chicken tenders. They are the most plain palette you've ever seen in your life.

This is this generation. I'm telling you. Don't forget the range dressing. What happened? So when they arrived at the burger, they don't want your juice, man. They don't want anything like that. They want something that resembles their well-done chicken tender. And the smash burger is the closest version of that.

So it surprises me not. at all that Patrick doesn't like burgers in general, right? Doesn't surprise me at all. Because he's a chicken tender guy like the rest of that generation. And I think that we've not seen restaurants catering. What do you eat a burger for lunch? What you got there? She's a burger. This.

Hmm. It's a McDonald's? I don't see any sesame seeds on that. Yeah. Is that McDonald's? Is that McDonald's? Are you eating McDonald's right now? Of course.

Cheeseburger Royale. Patrick, it's a random Thursday at noon. You are going to die soon. If you don't make some changes, we are going to need a new producer. You can't be eating a big arch on a random Thursday at noon. That's a luxury item. Okay. Now, I try the big arch, it was the worst thing I've ever eaten.

Holy cow, it's terrible. Big Mac. beautiful a work of art one of my first jobs was McDonald's is the first job I didn't get fired from but the big arch terrible terrible oh it's the worst

really I haven't had one awful I tried one just to try it I got halfway through maybe I should get a big arch on this Thursday for lunch I'm concerned for you Patrick you've been worried concerned for you and you wonder about your gout

it's not a mystery right it's not a mystery you know the reason so I'm totally I'm totally having a burger for a lot check I bet you will

check out his new book Panama read among many other books that Kurt has written or check him out at townhall.com we always appreciate you coming on

Kurt Slichter, thank you Hey thanks for having me okay Let me get off my Let me get off my text So you guys don't see my text when I'm on air Is Theo here? St Theo Wald here Hold on grabbing

Pull him up Pull up Theo Wald Former Assistant Attorney General Former White House Deputy Assistant For Domestic Policy under President Trump I thought he'd be here, Dan Because I'm running 10 minutes late I thought Burger Talk with Kurt.

I only have two laptops, so I can't have all of us on at once. Well, I felt bad keeping Theo waiting while we're sitting here talking about the big arch. I mean, this guy's a serious person with serious jobs in the past. I was like, I've got to get to him, but we're not capable of doing that. And, yeah. Very quickly. If Theo's not here, I want to tell you what I... Oh, because I was just getting ready to launch into the fact that the Dallas Wings have drafted two...

ladies first overall in the last two draft page beckers and the azifud and they are lovers they are partners they are together and if you don't think that's a whole can of worms to open up when it comes to conversation when it comes to sports you're missing out how crazy is that you're going to have i mean what if they break up what if they are accused by their other teammates of only playing together, not passing the ball to others. This is a whole thing, man. This is going to be huge. I mean, we debate Donovan McNabb versus Terrell Owens and their personal relationship.

This is going to be. Or it could be magnificent. It could also be magnificent. They can make beautiful music together. But that is wild and not something we've ever really had to consider in the world of professional sports. And for any left that's listening like, what do you mean? Don't have to consider it. You don't think this has ever happened before?

Not openly. Give me your example. This is not heated rivalry on HBO. This is the real world. Give me your example. I'm not saying there's not gay players. I'm saying, I'm not talking about gay players. Well, in part, I am.

I'm talking about two people in a romantic relationship together, one playing port guard and one playing off guard. That's something. That's something new to the world of sports. Theo Wald, as I mentioned, was the former. What? We're having some technical issues. Former.

Are you really? Yeah. What's the problem? We can't get him on. He can't hear as well. We need our tech person down in DC to help out real quick. Well, I hear, for the audience's sake on this mess of a show, I do want to tell you what I want to talk to Theo about. Have you guys seen these charts really quickly?

I'm going to pull these up. We're having more technical difficulties. I'll figure it out. Swing is like an unfolded lawn chair. Here we go. This is legal. It's really hard to see. I know. Dan, you're really going to have to zoom in on this if you're watching on YouTube or Facebook.

These are legal migration stats under President Trump, okay? Legal migration. This was put together by the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank. They are very, very pro-immigration. So they put this out to suggest this is all really bad. I appreciate the research because I see it as really, really good. So this is what's happened under President Trump on legal immigration. Four different stats. First, you have asylum seekers. You know what asylum seekers are. You have to get beyond the word and what it does to your brain and what you think. Asylum seekers are all the people that have showed up at the southern border, notably under President Biden, as illegal immigrants.

But by simply proclaiming asylum, they're not deported. They're put into the system. they remain here awaiting asylum trial to adjudicate their case, but which can last forever. And, of course, then they'll come to their asylum hearing anyway. And they're here as illegal immigrants. What's happened to asylum seekers in the United States legal points of entry? It has dropped by 99.9.9% in one year. It really happened about within a month.

of President Trump taking office. All right. How about legal permanent immigrant visas in total, right? Cut in half. Legal permanent immigrant visas down 50%. Refugees. Okay? Most of the Somalis, for example, Minnesota came here under refugee status.

The Haitians came here under refugee status. Cut by 90%. spousal visas we've talked about it on this program family reunification drives 80% of legal immigration 70 to 80% of legal immigration down significantly h1b visas which we've talked about in this program as well cut by 25% some are saying it's because there's a hundred thousand dollar fee on it now so that's cut h1b visas down by 25%. So Trump has cut legal immigration even more than illegal immigration. And while Cato thinks this is awful, I happen to think this is a

massive step forward because we need to get strict, imposed standards, then we can consider who needs to come in. You understand? Like, if we recognize that we have a legal immigration problem, and we do. How do I know that we have a legal immigration problem? Because, first of all, on the macro scale, 70 to 80 percent between family reunification does not vet for people that actually want to be Americans and assimilate into America. We know anecdotally about the stories of a lack of assimilation. Somalis in Minnesota. There's lack of assimilation in many, many pockets across this country when it comes to Latinos. Assimulation should be an essential component along with love for America for legal immigration.

But when you do family reunification, the prism isn't, do I want to be an American? The prism is, do I want grandma to live with me? And that, while it might be nice, does not make one a great American. Secondarily, anecdotally, we do know the price we're paying for many of these natural people that move beyond this status and actually become naturalized citizens. This week, another shooting, this time in Georgia, UK guy. Looks like African via UK becomes American, naturalized citizen. He shot and killed two women, one of whom was an employee of DHS out walking her dog. Maybe she would have been at her job if they had funded DHS.

She was out walking her dog. He kills her. Add that to the shooting adult dominion. Add that to the attack on the synagogue in Michigan. Add that to the attack on 6th Street in Austin. And add that to the children of naturalized citizens in throwing bombs in New York City. And you've got a pattern. You've got five, six situations of legal entries in the United States, all in these cases,

went as far as becoming citizens. And you have a problem. We are bringing people into this country through legal processes that do not make good Americans. This, what we're seeing from President Trump, is an absolute victory. From here, we establish better vetting. From here, we start a strict interview process. Why do you want to be American? What do you love about America?

Do you intend to learn English? From here, we make macro-economic judgments on where we can absorb people from various parts of the world. Religion, culture, how does it fit in the existing predominant culture of the United States of America? There's a lot of talk right now about a lot of different things happening in Washington, D.C., Iran, across the world. Immigration was the biggest driver of President Trump's election to president, the open border. And now, some 17 months later, what we're seeing are some serious, serious victories for the people. people that considered this to be a very important issue. I don't think more people should know about that, not as a cheerleading episode, but as the

fulfillment of promises from Washington, D.C., on things that you're voting for. Coming up, former White House deputy assistant for domestic policy under President Trump, Theo Wold, on Wilcane Country. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive, the Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. All right, I think we're still trying to work through some technical troubles with Theo Wald. I don't know that we're going to get him here today on the program, but that's just what I want to talk to him about. that and the temporary protected status of Haitians and whether or not, but we did talk about that

with Kurt Schluter, whether or not that's going to be extended, why some of the Republicans are intent on bringing them in. So we have Theo. His audio is a little rough, but we're going to give it a shot if you want to give it a shot well here. All right. Let's hear what Theo sounds like. Well, your audio to him.

What's up, Theo? How you doing, sir? My audio to use a little rough I hear? I mean, you sound a little bit like Mr. Roboto, but that's okay. Okay. Well, if you can fight through it, we can hear you perfectly. Awesome. We'll try to have a conversation together.

I don't know if I sounded like Mr. Robot, and you could hear me just now talking about these stats on legal immigration, refugees, asylum seekers, spousal approvals, H-1B visas. These are all down significantly under President Trump has not received a lot of publicity. Tell me from what you know about the mindset within the Trump administration on legal immigration. Yeah, I mean, the first thing I'd say is every time I'm close to blackpilling the Cato Institute is there just to pick me up and remind me that the Trump administration is actually succeeding on the issue core to preserving the American nation. every single one of these visa categories you just named will H-1B adjustments into marital status, U visas, special immigrant visas. They're all down, but they're down for two reasons. Two reasons.

One, this administration, unlike the four preceding presidential administrations, including that of Joe Biden, is actually enforcing the law. So enforcing both provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and existing regulatory rules that govern these visa categories and visa classes. Who's eligible under what terms can they come in for how long? What kinds of documentation did they need to serve? And then, secondly, the Trump administration has done some really interesting stuff, like this rulemaking that requires a $100,000 fee for every new H-1B visa. So look, the H-1B visa was created in the late 80s, early 90s for what was then called by,

Congress a temporary labor shortage in certain highly technical domains of our economy. Here it is, 40 years later, still going strong. So Trump administration imposes this fine to say, look, it's no longer just a pass-through for cheap, exploitable labor for big tech. If you need super talented people, then you ought to be able, you ought to be willing to pay for them. And if not, then maybe they're not that talented. That has led to a depreciation across these, all these categories. Same kind of concept. Apply the rule. and then rigorously require employers or others who are using these visa categories to justify the demand.

The other part, I'll just give quick, quick word to, are the asylum claims. Those are down significantly. And why? Once again, it's just the application of the law. The law on asylum says, you've got to be someone who is fleeing state-sponsored persecution, not someone who grew up like I did

in a really rough neighborhood with gangs, not someone who doesn't like, you know, the hour wage they're getting paid in Guadalajara, you've actually got to be someone who's being persecuted by your home country's government. And so when a lot of these folks are showing up on the border under past presidency, it was, I just want a better life in America.

Can I just come in? And it was stamp approval, yes, go ahead. Now under the Trump administration, it is, what's your claim for asylum? And give us some documentation of your religious status, your racial, ethnic minority status, and show us where the government is, is hounding you or pursuing you, that's the only justification we can acknowledge under the law

to allow you to come into the United States. And obviously, nearly 90% of would-be asylum seekers are fake. They're just people looking to take American jobs. Right. So is this all at the discretion of the Secretary of State, Theo, the improvements that we've seen, the statistics that we've seen over the past year? Is that all at the discretion right now of the Secretary of State? Like, how is this mechanically accomplished? And how can we we ensure it doesn't just go back under a different president? Yeah, I think that's an excellent question, Will, because for so long, that use of the word discretion is exactly right. It's just operated at, like, who's in the seat, who is listening

to who, right? Who's on the telephone calling the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs or the Undersecretary for Policy at DHS? Or is it the big airlines? Is it the processing meatpacking plants? And then, look, the visas go up, the admissions go up. And, And here you have, again, just a rigorous application of the law. What does the law say we have to look at? What does the law say we have to require as far as documentation and proof from individual immigration applicants? And I think the State Department has been leading this. But the real cool thing here, Will, I think that a lot of Americans, folks who support the administration don't quite understand yet, is the collaboration across government.

for the first time, really. I say this just a little hint of laughter my voice here because it's kind of shocking, but you've got the federal government not only applying the law, enforcing the law, but also working across departmentally. So you've got the Department of State that grants visas, rigorously vetting applicants. Are you who you say you are? You say you're Theo Wold applying for this visa. Are you actually, Theo?

We want some biometric information. We want to ensure that when we give you the visa, you're the person who showed up. on the Qantas Airlines flight arriving in Los Angeles. Okay, so they're vigorously vetting folks, they're requiring information up front. And then the State Department is passing that information along to DHS to ensure that people comply with the terms of those visas. Do you actually have an employer? How long are you staying for?

And when it's time for you to leave, are you actually leaving? This is how the system was supposed to work for the past 50 years and has not. So I think that's the beauty of it. Now, to the other question about how do we keep this so that it's not just a momentary blip because Secretary Rubio actually wants to apply the law. I think part of this is integrating a lot of these systems technologically to ensure that the information that state is collecting is shared with DHS, that the information that DHS is then using is shared with ICE

or some of the enforcement agencies so that when it is time for someone to leave, you know, that they are actually given notification, hey, your visa is expiring, it's time to go. Because look, we still have the same problem we've always had. 67% of the illegal immigration population in the United States comes from people who we allowed to come in legally for a short duration of time for a stated purpose, and then they just stay and they never go home. So I think sharing this information across government is the way to preserve this and to make sure it's not just the disposition of the Secretary of State

or the fickle whim of whoever's in the Sisters and Secretary of position at DHS, that this is built into the hardware of the system itself. So if that's the case, Theo, so I've had Congressman Andy O'Brien, rules on the program. I've talked to Congressman Brandon Gill. There's a few others that have been good on this issue. Is it even really necessary to revisit the 1965 Immigration Nationality Act? Because their proposal is to absolutely change the standards through which we're controlling immigration. Go back. But what you're arguing it sounds like and what's happening now is a strict application of the standards of 1965.

that enough or do we need to legislatively go back and revisit legal immigration through Congress? Yeah, also a great question. I think, you know, part of what's happening right now is, and I don't want to just like blow smoke his way, but this is the brilliance of Stephen Miller, right? Like, he knew that a lot of these things, you'll never be able to change structurally in Congress. So figure out a way just to apply the law rigorously and create some performance metrics for the people who make these decisions, the consular officers, you know, the application adjudicators at USCIS. I think the effort that, you know, Congressman Ogles and Congressman Gill have talked about,

like, that's still very necessary. I mean, like, well, you know, a lot of Americans don't know this, but just one facet of the Hart Seller Act that was then, you know, grafted on by Senator Kennedy, Ted Kennedy in the 80s, is the diversity visa lottery. That's 65,000 green cards, not visas, green cards that we give out every year and to who, literally the qualifications of the diversity visa lottery program say it's essentially people who have no prior ties to the United States. So I had an Uber driver the other day in the DC, the DMV area here in Washington, and I asked him, you know, hey, we got to talking. So where are you from? He said, well, I'm from Sri Lanka.

I said, oh, okay, cool, wow, that's crazy. How'd you come to be in the United States? And he said, well, my neighbor applied for this thing called the diversity visa lottery, and he told me to do it too. So I did. He didn't get it. And I did. I know nobody in the United States.

I really didn't speak much English. I'd never even been outside of Sri Lanka. But here I was getting a green card. And, you know, I'm on my way to becoming a United States citizen. That's absolutely insane. It's crazy. Our immigration system should prioritize people who speak English, who have some familiarity with our rule of law, the Constitution, our civics.

and, you know, at the very least, have a marketable skill that's demanded in our economy. Right now, really, what we prioritize is the exact opposite. So I'm right with the congressman that it's really time to structurally change our entire architecture of how we do immigration. But for right now, what the Trump administration is doing under the current system, the current constellation of laws, is pretty dang effective. Right. Okay. Last question for you, Theo. We're fighting through the technical issues pretty well.

So what fact am I missing in this story? Haitian refugees here under a temporary protected status, I believe largely from an earthquake 15 years ago, are set to have that expire. But Ayanna Presley, a Democrat, joined by half a dozen Republicans, want to extend that for another three years. Why?

I mean, clearly empathy exists, but it also has a timeline. It has an expiration date. Fifteen years is a long time. So why three more? Am I missing something there? Why Republicans? Why those three, six Republicans, Mike Lawler, Don Bacon, Maria Salazar, why do they want to continue to extend it? Does that have electoral benefits to them in some way?

Is it, as Kurt Schlichter just told me? probably because big employers want to keep them as cheap labor, and those particular congressmen and women are influenced by them. Why vote to continue something that is designed to be temporary? Yeah, I mean, I think that's the right way of structuring this, will, which is the first word in temporary protected status is temporary. It's temporary. And look, that happened.

The earthquake in Port-au-Prince was, you know, 15 years ago. you know, the other fact that we now know, close to 70% of the Haitians in the United States currently came in under President Biden 12 to 14 years after the earthquake. Okay, and then, and two, look, I think temporary protected status generally, because this has been the sort of inclination of Democrat presidents, is just to keep extending, keep extending, keep extending, it's, it is making the United States a motel six. That is the message we are sending to the world, because temporary protected status, you got to remember, it protects illegal aliens present in the country from removal. It gives illegal aliens work authorization, and it allows them while they're here to work at finding a vulnerability in our immigration system to adjust into a green card and then eventually citizenship.

So the message to the rest of the world is, hey, you know, if there's some kind of hardship in the United States, just get there as soon as you can, and they'll let you stay forever. That's the top line message. You know, on the specific issue of why these Republicans, look, you know, when I was working on legal immigration reform for President Trump in 45, I, you know, briefed a lot of members of Congress, including every Republican senator at the time. And one Republican senator finally said to me, look, we're not going to do any of these changes on TPS, on temporary protected status, on refugees that are siles. None of this stuff you're proposing. You know why? Because these workers are the best workers we have, Theo. they have nowhere else to go.

They're stuck, and they'll do the worst jobs in our economy. That's how Republican, elected Republicans view this. It's cheap, exploitable labor. We can get them to clean bedpans in hospitals or do the butchery and slaughterhouses, and they've got nowhere else. They don't want to go home, so they're stuck here. I think for these particular members of Congress, though,

one thing I'll highly for you will is, look, this is the problem with allowing diaspora's to capture the American. American homeland, you know, a well-mobilized, economically financed group of foreign nationals move into one particular area, the Twin Cities with Somali nationals or Haitians in South Florida, and then they grow, they grow a sort of an outspoken, large political architecture that then starts to influence U.S. policy, U.S. foreign policy, U.S. economic policy. And so for some of these members in South Florida, they're afraid of the Haitian community.

They don't want to anger the Haitian community. For some of these members in New York, they're afraid of the Haitian sort of donor class. Yes, that's a thing in New York. And so you have American members of our Congress making decisions about our economy, our workforce, our foreign policy, because they're afraid of the influence wielded by foreign nationals from another country. And that should anger, I mean, that really should anger any American, that the decision should be made about us, American citizens, not. the Haitians because, you know, there's 100,000 of them now moving on to Staten Island.

All right, Theo Woll, I'm glad we fought through the technical issues. That's incredibly enlightening and a fascinating conversation. And we should go full circle. Something to be celebrated about these gains. I think you're right. I don't think you're blown smoke. I think Stephen Miller has done some really important work behind the scenes to make improvements into how we bring people into this country.

Theo Wold, thank you so much for being with us here today. Thanks, Will. Okay. Yes. All right, before we go, since I began the conversation, you know, I was going to say, Dan and Pat, let's do this on our Friday episode, which is usually pretty wheels off, this Dallas Wings thing. And maybe we should. Maybe that's where we should do this conversation. But, in fact, I want to. I'm going to tease this ahead to tomorrow's episode, which you need to go get Spotify or Apple. Give us a tease of what you want to say about it. I'm curious. Do we put this on YouTube Friday? Yeah. Does Fridays come up on YouTube?

Okay. I mean, that is, I think the word I want to use is crazy. But I think when you say something is crazy, what it intones, what it suggests is bad. I don't know if it will be bad or good. No, no, what? If you say, if you call a woman crazy. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when you say something is crazy, people think you're in.

indicting it. But you can just go, that's crazy. Like, that's wild, you know? The fact that the Dallas Wing's last two number one overall picks, and I can hear a lot of the odds going, it's WMBA, who cares? But think about this. Think about this. Their last two number one overall picks are girlfriends, Paige Beckers, Ozzy Fudd.

They've made a serious investment in these two women, right? Serious investment. and it introduces an potentially explosive dynamic that we've really never explored or experienced in sports. Not high-level sports. Now, here's why I say, I don't know if it's bad or good. I don't know. Maybe it will be a marketing boon. Maybe the Dallas Wings will, everybody will love the soap opera.

Maybe everybody will love the idea that these two are in a romantic relationship and they'll pay attention more. and it's good for marketing for the WNBA. Maybe, I don't know. But it's easier to envision. Think about professional locker rooms as they are. Like, that is as close. That is probably the most heightened sense of intimacy short of romance. Right?

Teammates. You have to deal with personality differences, emotional swings, ups and down, success and failure. Negotiating the relationships within a locker room are literally what? outside of athletic ability and coaching, 30, 40% of the equation of the success of a team? Bad news. And now you put this in there. Now you put this in there.

And who knows what effect that has? It could be that the rest of the team looks at these two and goes, they separate themselves. They're a click. They're always together. They play together on the court that way, and it boxes us out. We're not getting our touches or we're not playing basketball. other way. It could be that. It could be that they break up. And now you've got this toxic

relationship inside the locker room on your two players you've drafted number one overall. It could be a whole host of things. It could be that they go home together at night and others hear that they're talking about their teammates. You know, whatever it may be in a certain way. They pass each other. Right. That's what I was talking about in the beginning. So I think it's absolutely crazy. That doesn't even mean I think they shouldn't have done it. The only other really fascinating factor is this is Ozzy Fudd.

Pagebeckers was a no-brainer, number one overall pick. Like you take Pagebeckers. Ozzie Fudd is really good, but she wasn't a no-brainer, number one overall pick. There was like four other players that kind of could have been number one. In fact, I think the consensus overall, number one, went like third. But don't you just go Yukon anyways? I mean, you're going to take a girl from Yukon. She's going to be great.

I feel like it's the name. Well, I don't know about that. I do. I think teams look at that. But in my opinion, because they both went there. I mean, I know Yukon's good, but I don't know that that. And they've been on a team before. So that's worth saying, too.

They've been on a team wild girlfriends before. So it's worked. The last note on this, everything I've just told you, you will not know by reading in the stories of the WNBA draft. You won't. They do not mention it. You can go anywhere you want, the athletic or ESPN. They do not mention that these two are girlfriends. And that is really interesting.

Why won't the media acknowledge that they are girlfriends? Like, what is the calculation going on in that newsroom? because this is a legitimately relevant detail to a sports story, legitimately relevant detail. Why would they leave that out? Like, what is going on in their heads? They're like, well, we don't want to say that because then it's like, what? There's two soap operative.

Then we're making. I think. Like you're saying, I think they don't want to look like that. I think that, I think inside the New York Times or whatever, they're going, well, we wouldn't do that if they were straight. yeah, but if they're straight, then they wouldn't be together. You see what I'm saying? We're not, we're only, we're doing this.

Why would we highlight a gay relationship? You're not. You're only highlighting a gay relationship because it has the unique capability of impacting this locker room, two teammates that are together. If you had co-ed teams, if you had co-ed teams

and the starting point guard and the small forward, man and woman were married to each other, that detail would be in the story. that detail would be in the story. But because it's to women, they won't mention it. And I think that's really interesting as to why. It's telling.

All right. So tune in tomorrow because there's a lot more to talk about on that Friday episode of Will Kane Country. If you follow us on Spotify or Apple, you'll be sure to have it. We will see you again next time. Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon Music app.