Will Cain Country - Harris Tries To Escape Biden! PLUS, Dems Keep RFK Jr. On Ballot To Hurt Trump

Episode Date: August 28, 2024

Story #1: Michigan and Wisconsin won't let Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. off the ballot. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith re-files an indictment against former President Trump. This leads to the most controversial question you can possibly ask. Story #2: Breaking the big stories of the day and how the far Left views the world with the Host of Making The Argument with Nick Freitas, and Green Beret Combat Veteran, Nick Freitas. Story #3: How many college starts should a quarterback have before leaving for the NFL? Drew Brees has a specific answer, but history might have another. 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, Michigan and Wisconsin won't let RFK off the ballot. Jack Smith refiles an indictment against President Trump, leading to the most controversial question you can possibly ask today in America. Two, breaking it down with the host of making the argument, a wide-ranging conversation with

Nick Freitas. And three, the magical number is 50. According to a Hall of Famer, 50 is the magical number for not just Arch Manning, but for any quarterback to find success in the NFL. It is the Will Cain show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand by hitting subscribe at Apple, Spotify, or on YouTube. It's the most dangerous question that you can ask. It's the one that puts you at the center of potential for censorship.

But it's a question that increasingly, a great number of Americans, are wondering, will the election for presidency be fair, or will there be cheating by the Democrats? Boom. Head explode. The most controversial thing that you can ask, the most controversial topic. It might get us censored, might get us flagged, might get us demonetized, might put us in the penalty box. Speaking of the penalty box, young establishment James remains in the penalty box here.

on the Will Kane show from yesterday. He decided that it would somehow be good judgment when trying to ascertain whether or not our mystery caller upset with how I handle liberals on Fox was not Marshall Blackburn, but instead he thought it might be wise to blow up a 76-year-old lady in Long Beach, California, to sick the internet on Mary.

I heard him say pre-show, he still doesn't even trust himself two a day, so he's not going to turn on his microphone. That would be, that would be good judgment. You have his microphone turned down. You completely down. But I thought that he elected himself to say, but he said, did he not say, I'm not even going to turn on my mic? Yeah, he has no power over that.

That's all me, so. But I would have been proud of him for some sense of humility that he can't trust himself when it comes to the microphone. So. I'm taking that away from him. If he is saying, I should censor myself, that's growth. But we might just get censored on the internet for asking a question that quite honestly, I think more and more Americans ask. Of course, it's more controversial than, you know, questioning the efficacy of a vaccine, actually. It's even more controversial than me saying Dak Prescott is a top five quarterback in the NFL.

It's more controversial than you saying you can switch your gender by simply declaring your male or female. It's the most controversial thing you can ask. ask will our elections be fair or will there be cheating by the democrats but i do think it's a question if we're being honest in order which side of this political spectrum you reside if you're being honest you do know it's a question that more and more people are asking out there in america so let's get into why with story number one yesterday this question was brought up to me me. It was brought up to me by a friend and not someone who was particularly political. And it was brought up almost out of the blue. Hey, do you think that they will cheat? Do you think there will be cheating

by Democrats? I was like, whoa, you just went from zero to 60. I mean, you went from neutral to fifth gear. You weren't political a moment ago and now you're in the dark corners of the dark web. But I don't this is all of a sudden someone who spent too much time on reddit this is a reflection of an increasing sentiment in america and there are several items in the news today that give ammunition provide evidence for that skepticism in america let's just go through for a moment why someone would be taking a position that at least in popular culture is more controversial than again believing that dac prescott is a top five quarterback the reason the reason reason this is not something that exists only in the dark corners of reddit is manyfold let's walk

through just quickly some of the landscape that leads to this type of questioning for years Donald Trump has been described as literally Hitler he's been described as a threat to democracy and if you were confronted with literally Hitler you would do literally anything to stop America being taken over by Hitler and much has been done second in twenty we had what was and is not just a historical but a geographical aberration we had massive mail-in balloting push balloting in many states like colorado much of that remains here it's in the court systems and being challenged but much of it remains here again for 2024 most first world democracies do not trust mass mail-in balloting yet here we are at the forefront of the spear of democracy

taking on one of the most skeptical aspects of democracy, mail-in balloting. Three, media manipulation. That was quite obvious in 2020, and it was been admitted to yesterday by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, saying he bowed to the pressure of the FBI to take down the Hunter Biden laptop story. That's just the most egregious example,

but you and I both know there's many that we could point to where the media plays not just a dumb or ignorant role, but an active role in, swaying the public towards one political party or the other. Four, the transfer of power from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris is not one that anyone suspects is in the spirit of democracy, much like mail-in balloting, much like media manipulation, much like describing Donald Trump as literally Hitler, transferring Biden to Harris wasn't about principle or policy, it was about the prospect of winning.

media manipulation, to win. Mail and balloting, to win. Calling Donald Trump literally Hitler, to win. Transferring power from Biden to Harris. To win. And there's more, protecting Kamala Harris's candidacy, ensuring she gives no interviews, answers no questions. Why? Not to better inform the public about a presidential candidate,

but to win. Reveal no policies. Tell nobody what you believe to the, sense that you do tell somebody what you believe, behave as an artificial intelligence candidate. Copied the former president, first on tax on tips, now, shockingly, on embracing a border wall. Not because she believes in a border wall, but again, if you ran a candidacy through what's popular with the American public, an AI generator, Gemini, Gronk, Grok, would come back with when? all of these things done in the spirit, not of transparency, not in the spirit of principles,

but in the spirit of winning. And that takes us to the three items today that feed into this skepticism in America. First, special prosecutor Jack Smith has refiled his indictment against President Trump. After the Supreme Court of the United States declared that there is presidential immunity for acts done while president, Jack Smith basically refiles the same. same indictment, which was undercut by the Supreme Court, by focusing not on Donald Trump as president, but is Donald Trump as a candidate for president? Seemingly, he's going to argue he doesn't have immunity as a candidate.

He will not give it up. This dog has got a hold of its bone. And nothing will happen before the election, but by refiling indictment, he does, again, not give you the prospect of winning a court case, but of an affecting an election. done not for justice but to win let's stay with lawfare second it is scheduled in the next two weeks originally that donald trump would be sentenced in the new york case brought on by payments to stormy daniels convicted of 34 counts he would still face sentencing that sentencing was scheduled to take place here in early to mid september something interesting has happened though

When the Supreme Court of the United States granted that the president has immunity, it undercut the conviction of Donald Trump in New York. Why? Because prosecutors relied on testimony from when he was president to prove a case, even about incidences happen before he was president. So, for example, they relied heavily on Hope Hicks. Hope Hicks and conversations had with Donald Trump while he was president. But those are privileged. Those would be covered on the Supreme Court's grant or recommendations. recognition of presidential immunity. And that would give Donald Trump reason to appeal his conviction in New York. Strong, by the way, legal grounds.

So Judge Juan Mershan, who has been against Donald Trump from the beginning in New York, has an interesting dilemma. He could delay sentencing until the appeals process plays out for Donald Trump. He's already appealed that conviction. Now he has this immunity claim to help his appeal. Well, that would go to the New York appellate court. the new york supreme court and then the supreme court of the united states that appeals process that's months that's years that would delay sentencing possibly years

if he waits for that appeal to play out in the justice system or he could mow forward as he's been apt to do right he's pushed forward he has been hard mershon on on donald he could push forward say no we're going to sentence you can you can go for your appeal but we're going to go ahead and go through sentencing. But right now, Alvin Bragg doesn't even asking Mershon to do that. He's not asking him to sentence Donald Trump. And all of a sudden, the judge has been so hard on Donald Trump, looks like he may punt on sentencing Donald Trump.

Why? Because he's a threat to democracy? Because he's a convict, because he's a felon. Or is it that every time he's been indicted, every time he's been brought before the justice system, his poll numbers have gone up. All of a sudden, every single time, time they've gone after him through lawfare, it's played to his advantage electorally.

My point is, Mershahn may choose not to sentence Donald Trump because he realizes it helps Donald Trump electorally, once again revealing, like with Jack Smith, like with media manipulation, like with the transfer of power from Biden to Harris, like with mail emballoting, you're not in pursuit of principle, you're not in pursuit of justice, you're not even pursuit of revenge against Donald Trump, you're in pursuit of a win. And then finally, news from Michigan and Wisconsin, after months of fighting RFK, the Democratic Party and state politicians in blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin, fighting RFK for ballot access, trying to keep he and Nicole Shanahan from the ballot as an option, a democratic option for the people, now that RFK has dropped out of the race and has said his name be taken off the ballot in some states, in fact, some of those states are. you're going, no, we're not going to take your name off the ballot. Why? How can you flip position so quickly?

How can you go from fighting RFK for ballot access to keeping RFK from removing his name from ballot access? Why? Because you want to win. You think that if RFK's name is on the ballot in Michigan, and Wisconsin, that it doesn't hurt Kamala Harris. Now that he's endorsed Donald Trump, it hurts Donald Trump. nothing is consistent. Nothing is principled. Nothing is there to save democracy. Everything there is to manipulate democracy, to win. Yes, there were some sloppy claims.

There was some sloppy claims in 2020 about irregularities in the election process between Biden and Trump. But it didn't dismiss all concerns about the election in 2020. And they've only furthered enhanced. Since that time, the skepticism Americans have towards elections. If all you ever want to do, and why wouldn't you if you were fighting Hitler, all you ever want to do is when Americans have well earned the skepticism, maybe even cynicism about whether or not the election will be fair

or whether or not there will be cheating by the Democrats. Let's run this. And all of the other news of the day, by an independent and fascinating mind, he's the host of making the argument. It's Nick Fratis coming up on the Wilcane show. The Tunnel Towers Foundation honors fallen heroes by supporting their families. Families like that of U.S. Army Chief Warren Officer Shane Michael Barnes. Officer Barnes enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2011,

earning numerous awards, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. He cherished the camaraderie of military service, and he excelled as a supportive leader. During a 2023 deployment, Barnes perished in a training flight when his aircraft crashed into the Mediterranean Sea. He leaves behind his wife, Brandy, and their two children. To honor Officer Barnes' memory and service.

The Tunnel the Towers Foundation provided Brandy and her children with a mortgage-free home through their Gold Star Family Home Program. This program provides mortgage-free homes to the families of fallen service members honoring their sacrifice with a lasting tribute. Join Tunnel to Towers on its mission to provide mortgage-free homes to America's heroes

and their families that they leave behind by noting $11 a month to T2.org. That's T-the-number-2t.org. Donate now. Nick Freitas coming up on The Wilcane Show. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions. 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 the quiz. Fox. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.com. forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. Are you sowing distrust in an election by pointing out earned skepticism? Or are you breeding trust by having an open conversation? Did James Laverty, young James Laverty, burn up his trust here on the Will Cain show by continuously exercising poor judgment and blowing up 76-year-old ladies in Long Beach, California?

Or am I the one sowing distrust by simply pointing it out? It's the Will Cain Show, streaming live at. Fox News.com. The Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page, hit subscribe at Apple, Spotify, or on YouTube. We're joined now by a Greenbrae combat veteran. He's a Virginia House Delic. He's also the host of Making the Argument, an extremely popular show you can find on Spotify and on YouTube. It's Nick Freitas here on the Wilcane show. What's up, Nick? Hey, doing well. Well, how are you? Good. You got anybody on your staff, Nick, that you just, I mean, you just wonder sometimes what happens. There have been,

there have been times there have been times yeah yeah and i know the feeling we got this person that called in the left is a voicemail nick and she sounds a lot like marshal blackburn so we've been debating did senator marshal blackburn lodge a complaint with the way i've been handling lefties on fox or on a reverse phone look up is it this old lady in long beach california in which case we don't need to blow her up the public doesn't need to know her name I thought that was pretty intuitive, Nick. Sure, sure. No, it seems to make sense.

It seems to make sense. Yeah. You were hanging out here at the beginning of the show. You heard what I had to say about what I do think is a well-earned, but also growing skepticism about our democracy, about America. I don't want the audience nor you just to trust me, right? I'm honest with the audience about my bias, Nick, meaning I'll let you know I have opinions and my best opportunity to validate my opinion.

opinions is to put them up for scrutiny. So I think it maybe is a little more weighty for the public. When you hear it from the likes of Nicole Shanahan, it was a lifelong Democrat, right? She was Robert F. Kennedy's vice presidential running mate, and she tweeted the following, Nick. She said this when it comes to why they're now supporting Donald Trump. She said, I'll admit I used to kind of roll my eyes when people claim that President Trump was being persecuted. I was looking at it through the distorted filter of the media. Well, I just completed my first cross-examination in our second New York ballot access case

with the DNC-aligned PAC attorneys question me like a criminal. Okay, I get it now. Our justice system is clearly being co-opted and abused by nefarious people with the malevolent political agenda. Nick, that's Nicole Shannon saying the DNC has been weaponized

and the justice system weaponized against a lifelong Democrat, not for any particular principle, but to win. Yeah. No, look, I think one of the things

that we need to understand is 10 years ago, I don't think we would be having the conversations that we're having now. But the reason why we're having them now is because I think there's been an overwhelming stack of evidence to suggest that things aren't operating

the way that we used to assume that they did. And when we talk about questioning things with elections or a lawfare, this didn't come out of nowhere. It's not like a bunch of Republicans were just upset that we lost an election and blamed Democrats of cheating. We've lost elections before and we haven't behaved this way. We've accepted the outcomes.

There hasn't been problems as a result. So what's different? Well, the difference was is that we do have a certain degree of evidence that things like stuffing ballot boxes went on. We do have concerns about the way that voting is being handled ever since COVID, right? And these are valid concerns. These are not based out of nowhere. Now, are they overblown at times? Yes. I think sometimes they are overblown. Yes. In part because I think the much, the much more

relevant concern and the thing that has become so apparent to everyone now is that the way that elections are manipulated is not some foreign power spending a couple hundred thousand dollars on social media. It is not somebody in Philadelphia obviously stuffing ballots in a ballot box. It's the use of the federal government, the DOJ lawfare. It's the use of what are supposed to be legitimate government organizations for objective and legitimate purposes being weaponized against your political opponents. And there's no denying that that's going on anymore. There's just zero denying that that's going on anymore. It's the manipulation of a political process when it comes to something like a primary in order to one minute keep people off the ballot

and the next minute insists that they be on. And here's what I think people need to understand. The Democratic Party that a lot of people used to join, they thought of it as the party that kind of stuck up for the little guy or start up or serve for the working guy um that democratic party doesn't exist in that form anymore the the modern democratic party not every democrat but the modern democratic party is largely a party that is bought into a leftist ideology which divides the world into oppressor and oppressed and if you're an oppressor well then you're a bad guy that's it whatever needs to be done to keep you off the ballot whatever needs to be done in order to keep you from a position of power, whatever needs to be done in order to put you in jail, bankrupt you,

take your property, deny you credibility, de-platform you. It is automatically morally justifiable if that's the worldview you've adopted. And the Democratic Party has. Of course. So we're sitting around here looking at this going, this doesn't make any sense. And what I'm trying to say is, no, no, no, it makes perfect sense within the worldview that the Democratic Party has adopted. The Democratic Party has pushed within higher education, now within your primary education. This is their worldview. This is what they believe. And so when they engage in these actions, they believe they're morally justified in doing so. And I think if you just understand it that way, that the issue is never the issue. The issue is

the revolution, right? The issue is the good guys getting power at the expense of the bad guys, the oppressed, liberating themselves at the expense of the oppressor. Once you see within that worldview, everything they're doing makes perfect sense. And they're absolute hatred for Donald Trump also makes sense, because this is the first ticket in my lifetime that is recognized that the real problem that we're experiencing right now is not CNN being biased, right? It's a massive, unelected federal bureaucracy, which will utilize its power in order to tip the scales in its favor at the expense of whatever the election outcome might be. And the fact that they are running on saying, we are going to take power away,

from that is seen as a huge threat to the left. All right. I want to play a little bit as devil's advocate here, but I want to start actually with the part I most passionately agree. And this is what I hinted at when I was talking about in my monologue. The, I think in some scenarios, sincere belief, other cynical belief that Donald Trump is literally Hitler. The left has decided that they are on the side of moral truth,

of moral high ground. And if they can claim that ground, If they can claim moral authority, then they can disabuse themselves of any sins committed underneath that moral high ground. So what's the truth when you are devoted to a moral truth? I totally agree with you. And I think their rebuttal to be, now to move into a little bit of devil's advocacy, their rebuttal would be, well, you didn't complain about it in the past because you never had, and this is what they would say, a big crybaby in Donald Trump, a sore loser as your talisman at the top of the party. And so because he's that guy, instead of Mitt Romney or John McCain, that's the reason you're questioning the legitimacy of elections. But I would also, I think this is devil's advocacy, but I also just, I think I want to think about this a little bit broader for a minute.

Do you, Nick, think that actually something new has taken place? Meaning, I've been reading a lot of history lately. I've been reading about JFK. I don't know that politics has ever been above what we're seeing here today. manipulation in the pursuit of a win. I don't think there was every day when politics was purely principled. And I'm wondering if something else has changed.

And I don't think particularly one party is more pure than the other. Do I think Republicans would manipulate an election if they had the opportunity in order to win? I actually do. I don't trust parties. And I think Democrats have and would as well. But it just happens to be Democrats

that we have the evidence of doing it so far today. And I think they probably do it more effectively than Republicans have or would. I think Republican Party wanted to with Donald Trump in 2016. They just failed. I think the Democratic Party did in 2016 with Bernie Sanders and succeeded. So my point is if we rolled back history and we maybe had a little more transparency like we do now, would we not find in 76 and 72 and 64, whatever, if we just went back that a lot of the same dirtiness was going on,

that we just see it now? Well, I think it's absurd to think that politics has ever been just this, this, this, nice civil discussion with respect to who's going to wield power, right? Like, go back and read what Jefferson and Adams were doing to one another at that time. And you recognize that there's always been an element of that. So I'm not, I'm not like lamenting for the bygone days where we were all nice to each other. I don't think that's ever existed. What I do think has significantly changed, though, is that when you say, would a particular party try to manipulate things? Sure. And there's always a fine line between what is convincing and what is manipulating, right?

Manipulating is typically when you're going beyond the boundaries of the rules, when you're going beyond the boundaries of honest debate in order to try to achieve a victory. What's different now, though, is the full apparatus of the government is now being used to target your political opponents for legal and social destruction. And that is different. Now, keep in mind, I absolutely think that that has happened during like the civil rights movement and under J. Edgar Hoover and when he was running the FBI and the points. But I think we had reached this point in American politics where there was a general agreement

that we all trusted and believed in certain fundamental elements. We agreed in the philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence. We agreed that the Constitution was at its base a very good document. When we agreed that our processes were typically open, transparent, and likely to produce a result which reflected the general will of the people. I don't think we believe that anymore, in part because I don't think the Democratic party is dedicated to that anymore. I honestly believe that when you look at modern leftist ideology, when you start to read about the strategies of Antonio Gramsci, when you start to read Herbert

Marcuse, when you start to read the postmodernist movement, the feminist movement, and how leftist ideology came to dominate, you know, either all of it, either at its inception or as part of the process, it's a different moral dynamic. Republicans, conservatives, when you talk about what are we trying to conserve, some of that is the process. We want to conserve the integrity of the process. The leftist ideology is not concerned with the process insofar as it does not benefit their overall objective of achieving power. That's why you will see a leftist adamantly defend the First Amendment when it's protecting

their freedom of speech, their freedom of the press, their ability to not associate with a particular person or group or organization or religion or whatever it is, and then immediately turn around and say that it needs to be adjusted or, that we need, we don't need censorship, we just need reasonable moderation of social media platforms, which always goes in one direction. It always affects one group, and it's not them. That's because there is a consistent moral imperative. It's just not the one that we've generally relied upon in Western civilization and in American culture. It's the leftist idea. It's the leftist idea of the issue is never the issue. It's always the revolution. How do we get

power on the hands of the good guys? They're the good guys. Insofar as the processes that are currently in place can benefit them, they will utilize them. And when they don't, they will abandon them. And you see this not just with processes. You see this with entire voting demographics. Right. I mean, the same political party that will one minute say, we're the party of the underdog, we're the party of the economically marginalized or whatnot, will then immediately throw various groups under the bus the moment they don't stand in line with the rest of the leftist objectives. And so I do think there's a consistent pattern. I think it's been happening in the Democratic Party over the last 40 years. And I think what we're seeing is that a lot of the

people that were the more radical elements of the Democratic Party 40 years ago are now in charge. They're now the ones running the show. And in addition to that, unlike conservatives, they didn't just compete for politics. They competed for Hollywood. They competed for the music industry. They competed for higher ed. They competed for journalism. They competed for every single culturally shaping institution in the country in a way that conservatives did not. And now we're shot when we lose elections. Right. You know, I'm glad you brought up Hoover because I was just sitting there thinking about this when you were talking.

Like, how do I reconcile what you're saying in this belief, this skepticism I have for both parties on whether or not were Republicans in power, they would do some of the same dirty things that are now being done by Democrats? I was just thinking about this because Hoover was dirty and he was marshaled by every sitting president to bring, up against any potential rival. I mean, if we look at what from basically the 1940s onward, you'd have a hard time not making the argument the most powerful man in America was Jay Edgar Hoover. And I started thinking about that in that something shifted in America. And I would say, if I were pinpointing it, you're looking at around between 1915 and 1938. And that shift in America was all the things you rattled off. Progressivism, although had already been born in the early 1900s

begins to take place in a very, very prominent role, first in democratic politics, but then, I think, in the national security, the national apparatus, the deep state itself, Washington, D.C. I think that we have the advent of the FBI in that same time period.

If we're really looking to roll back, and it's an impossibility to say, like, where is the form of government that reflected the ideals that we're trying to champion? You and I here today, as principles, you're going to have to go back really far in American history. to get me to look past my skepticism, even of Republicans. You see what I'm saying?

Like, where did we go wrong? Where did this skepticism that I think is well-earned for everybody go wrong? And it's somewhere shortly after the turn of the century. No, no, you nailed it. It was the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century where there was actually a fair amount of agreement between both powerful Republicans and powerful Democrats. Like, I love it how people try to make Hoover out,

like or like and i'm talking about uh president hoover um yeah they yeah they're they're trying to make him out like he was some sort of laissez free market capitalist and uh he wasn't he was a major interventionist he was very very progressive with respect to how we viewed how we viewed federal power and and how we wanted to expand it um massive economic interventionist um he he would find his home very very comfortably in many respects within the the modern democratic party but you're right the addition of the 16th Amendment, which added for a federal income tax and forever gave the federal government the power to extort you with your own money. And again, it was originally passed. Creation of the Federal Reserve. Yeah. And that's the same time frame, creation of the

Federal Reserve. You can also add the 17th Amendment, but I think that's less important than, but the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, the creation of the Federal Reserve, that set a lot of this in place, and then the reaction, the federal government's reaction to the economic crash, people seem to forget that if you actually read where progressives were at, if you actually read articles from the New Republic, if you read statements by Hugh Johnson, who was running the, ran part of the New Deal and the Blue Eagle program, the National Recovery Act for FDR, they were very, very cozy with the Soviets early on. They were very, very cozy with Mussolini early on. They love this idea of a very, very powerful central government with a leader who was

going to take charge and, you know, move past all these, you know, these restraints on government power in order to get things done and make the trains run on time. They were enamored by that. They were enamored by it. And you see the, in the midst of a crisis, which the federal government helped create. Most people don't understand when you have the stock market crash in 1929, in less than a year, unemployment was back under 10% and we were growing again. The difference was is that that was the first time the federal government had the power through the income tax and through legislation on the FDR administration was the first time they had the power to massively intervene and attempt to reshape the American government and the federal government's

role in our lives. And ever since then, this has always been a debate on who's going to control the federal apparatus and the immense power and scope that it reserved for itself. And so you're right like if you really want to get back to this idea of you know the government which governs least governs best that you want government closest to home that if we're talking about decisions which are really going to impact people on their daily lives that should be made more at the local or state level not the federal level if you really want to get back to that you have to roll back a whole host of policies which began in the early 20th century and that's going to be incredibly difficult to do but the part that gives me hope for this Trump administration is that again

for the first time in my lifetime, and I'm 45, right, we have an administration that really understands that the unelected, this massive, unelected federal bureaucracy, which can show up on your door regardless of who is president, regardless of who controls Congress, and ruin your entire life based off of a regulation they made that nobody voted on. If you don't understand that that's a genuine threat, then, I mean, we're, then there is no difference between the people running for office. But we have a candidate now that does understand that and wants to genuinely do something about it. And that's why they're determined to crush them. All right. Two more questions. One tied to current events and the other a little more esoteric,

but still tied to current events. Do you think Kamala Harris can win the presidency running, as I've been apt to color now, basically as an AI candidate, offering no real, policies to the extent that she does. It's sort of a repeat of whatever maybe Donald Trump has already said that's been poll tested well, you know, border wall, uh, no tax on tips, but offering no real specifics about the way that she would govern. I'm so torn on this. I'm not torn on this, Nick. I mean, the should inside me is like, this is awful. You can't have a candidate who doesn't reveal this. I mean, Manchurian candidate doesn't reveal exactly who they are on their way to presidency. But the realist inside of me says, that's exactly how she should run for president.

That's her best way to win. And so the question is, can she pull this off before November? Not only can she win that way, it's actually the only way she can win. If Kamala Harris were actually to get out there and run on her record or tell people what she really thinks or talk about her vision for what America would look like four years after her presidency, she probably wouldn't win. She probably would not win. If she kind of hides out and doesn't do much and allows the media to carry the water, allows, you know, an all-star cast of Hollywood starlets and singers and everything else to do their job, she might be able to eke out of victory. She's going to use the Biden strategy of

2020. The difference is she doesn't have COVID as an excuse. But the American people, let me go it this way. It's not that the American people have already decided they don't like Kamala Harris. Democrats decided they didn't like Kamala Harris back in 2020 when she ran for president. And then they decided again when she had the lowest approval ratings of any vice president in modern American history. So she's not. not a likable candidate. She just has to be the anti-Trump. I said this initially. As soon as Kamala got the nomination, they were going to try for about five minutes to get people excited about Kamala Harris. That wasn't going to work. And then they were immediately going to go to, she's our only hope to

defeat these fascists. And it's not just Trump that is the evil, mean, fascist, bigots. It's all of us, right? They've now put all of us into this category. They're attacking all of us. And that is going to be the strategy through November is they're going to limit her interaction with the public and they're going to try to maximize negative aspects of Trump or perceive negative aspects of Trump. That's it. All right. Last question. I described it as esoteric, but it's not removed from the news cycle and it's certainly not removed something that's near and dear to your heart, a subject, which is free speech. So if you were asking me, Nick, to define what truly makes America an exception, makes America exceptional. And I've done that. And I've made my top five reasons. But without that,

of doubt two of those reasons for example one for example would be um i think there's a spirit of frontiersmanship and the modern manifestation of that is entrepreneurialism a general risk tolerance that's unique to america that from its founding through modern day there is a spirit anybody that visits from europe or anywhere else realizes it immediately there's a spirit here of yeah effing do it go for it here in america but the second is with that same sort of bravado say what you have to say believe what you want to believe and no one's going to stop you this is the land of free speech now we saw the arrest of pavel durav the founder of telegram in france we've seen the most recent revelations from mark zuckerberg about the government putting

pressure on facebook free speech is interesting nick it's both cultural in america and it's enshrined in our constitution meaning when i say cultural people generally walk around believing in the idea and they're tolerant of other people's points of view. The whole thing of, we used to say like, you know, I hate what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death. You're right to say it. It's pretty well held in the U.S. But that, I think, is deteriorating.

I truly do. For some reason, there are more people willing and excited to yell shut up to people they don't like. They disagree with. So the question for you is, is the enshrined part of this, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, enough of a damn. Is it enough of a wall to keep us the exception in the world if we lose the cultural devotion to free speech?

No. No, not even close. There's been a lot of people. We actually had a debate on our show on whether or not the U.S. Constitution has failed. And my argument was, no, the U.S. Constitution hasn't failed. We failed. Because the U.S. Constitution is essentially the, yes, it's a legal document, but it's also the establishment of certain principles which inform that legal document. but without people that actually believe in it are willing to fight for it and are willing to risk

something for it like this is really important americans a lot of times like to talk about fighting for things with this expectation that they're always going to win because they're right you know it morton blackwell calls it the sir galahad approach to politics i shall win because my cause is just i got news for you history is a long list of the good guys losing and part of the reason why they lose is because they get so comfortable with this idea that truth must prevail. Truth demands an advocate. The Constitution, without people to defend it, is a very, very beautiful, wonderfully written document, but it's ultimately calligraphy on parchment, sitting behind a bunch of glass of the National Archives. You have to have people that actually believe

in it. What I don't think a lot of people understand is that for several decades now, because they wanted their kids to get a good college education, they have sent their kids to institutions of higher education, where they have increasingly been taught that that belief is born out of this kind of archaic, you know, patriarchal system designed to uplift one group of people at the expense of another, right? Oppressor versus oppressed. And so, yeah, you say freedom of speech, and that works good for you as a white man within a society that was built upon white supremacy.

But what about the marginalized people that have constantly had. their voices suppressed. And then our response is, well, yeah, they shouldn't have. That's bad. That's a violation of that underlying principle. We didn't live up to it, but we're trying to live up to it now. And their response is, no, no, that's not good enough. You have to shut up. It's your turn now to sit there and be silent and to listen. And a part of us thinks, okay, we get that when somebody has been suppressed for a long time, maybe they should be able to speak more. But you don't get to deny me my speech. So here's the question. why is that the exact argument that we're having, though?

No, no, no, you must be denied your speech. You're not allowed to talk. You must say, okay, if you understand leftist ideology, leftist ideology does not have any firm commitment to freedom of speech. Classical liberalism does, but that's not what leftist ideology is. And so under leftist ideology, under oppressor versus oppressed, why would you ever give the oppressors the ability to share their message of oppression? They're evil. They're bad. They're not to be negotiated with. They're not to be heard. They're not to be debated with. They're to be defeated.

And again, on some level, we understand that if we're talking about the Nazis, but what happens when the left turns everybody they disagree with into Nazis? So again, if you understand the moral framework that they're operating under, this all makes sense. And if you are sending your kids to an institution of higher education that is going to teach them this because you really want them to be able to get a good job one day, can I just say, honestly, you might be failing as a parent. Because I can tell you this, it's not good enough for my kid to be able to say, oh, I've got a degree. I want my kid to understand why they believe what they believe, that they're willing to fight for it. I want them to be able to stand up to authority.

I want them to be able to stand up to this notion that somebody else should be silenced as opposed to getting an opportunity to express their beliefs in a civil and respectful way. I want them to be able to fight for those things. And I have to teach them that. Reagan said it best. It doesn't get transferred in the bloodstream. It is taught. It is taught as a foundational principle which makes our society work.

And if you remove those foundational principles through the education system, through arts and entertainment, through media, if you remove that, then don't. expect that people can just appeal to the First Amendment and say, well, no, you can't do that because the law says no. Ah, and that's why we must get power so we can change the law because you're an oppressor. So no, it's not enough of itself. It is a tool to be used by good people who are willing to defend the sort of society we have. But if you expect the rule to defend you, you're a fool. Really good stuff. You can get more of that type of argument. on making the argument with Nick Freitas. It's on YouTube, also on Spotify.

He's a Virginia House delegate. He's also a Green Beret combat veteran. And it's the second time we've had him on the Will Kane show. We hope to and look forward to having you again, Nick. Thanks so much. Thanks, Will. All right, there he goes. Nick Fradis and the Will Kane Show.

All right, comments are blowing up. I see it in the section here. Let's take a quick break, come back, and bring you in the Willisha plus the magic number of 50. How many starts? According to a Hall of Famer, you need before you're ready to be an NFL quarterback. It's coming up on the Will Cain Show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his all-star panel, and much more.

Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. 50. That's the number of starts you need before you get to the NFL. in order to be an NFL ready quarterback, according to one Hall of Famer. It is the Will Cain show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify or on YouTube. Let's check in with the Willis show.

David Ramos says, when Republicans win, is it fixed? Well, here's what I would say to that, David. Make the argument. Point out in what way you are skeptical. of the outcomes of an election. When it comes to these specific accusations, which include massive mail-in balloting, a COVID accommodation that has never gone away, switching your candidate at the last hour after a failed debate and just before a convention, just months before an election, a candidate that received

no primary votes and wasn't subjected to the democratic process, campaigning in a bubble, never answering any questions, giving your first interview tomorrow night, Thursday night with CNN. Everyone keeps saying Dana Bash is great. I mean, I think you can't get more friendly than CNN and doing it with your running buddy. Tim Walts is just shy of keeping your candidacy in a bubble. Copying your opponent's policies, having the media on your side, have Republicans had any of these strategies in their playbook? Have you seen any of this in order to affect the outcome of an election in order to ensure a win? I haven't.

So come up with your list, David. And if you have a case to be made, should Donald Trump win in November of 2024, I'll hear your case. John Meissner on YouTube says, winning is everything. So is it Trump you're referring to when you say nothing is principled? First of all, you know what? I don't think Donald Trump is the most principled politician. In fact, and this is going to make it sound like I'm turning it in. to a virtue. I think he's one of the most pragmatic politicians that we've had. He scrambled the

political lines. I think he is one of the least far-right candidates for president under the banner of Republican that we've had in my lifetime. But he's pragmatic. Now, that being said, the things that I lay out when I talk about Democrats, RFK can't get on the ballot. Now, RFK can't get off the ballot. Marshawn wants to sentence and throw the book of Donald Trump. Now he wants to delay sentencing because it could help Donald Trump electorally. These aren't just a lack of principles. This is a lack of consistency. This isn't a lack of a principle, an idea that exists outside yourself that you're always adherent to. This is a lack of adherence to your own standards you set a few months ago. This is saying Joe Biden is

mentally competent and days later saying he can't be the candidate. This is beyond. being unprincipled. This isn't, as you could argue, it is pragmatic. It is anything to win. But it also breeds a little bit of skepticism when the next time you tell me that you're the, you're the bulwark, you're the life preserver, helping protect me, saving me from a tyrant, that you are the protector of democracy. When you subvert democracy in order to win, all of a sudden I start thinking maybe your opponent's not Hitler and you're not here to save democracy but you're here for yourself and you're just here to win Charles Smallwood says I wish I could wake up tomorrow and it was November 6th I don't actually believe you Charles I think you enjoy this

my evidence here you are proud vet says politics 101 accuse the other side of what you are actually doing I don't know if it's 101 201 201 3001 it seems like an advanced course but it's true It's a simple truism That took me a while to realize Maybe I'm just a dummy It took me to realize consistently That is an overt strategy And then Brandon Yuri says

Trump is about doom and gloom And yesterday And Harris is about joy and happiness And the future All right Brandon I'm going to bet you Brandon That you have a sign in your yard that says, in this house, we believe love is love.

What does that sign say? I can't remember it. Does anybody have it? Can we pull it up? What is that sign say? Love is love? I know. I know it.

You don't know what I'm talking about? I know. Live, laugh, love? Come on. No, no, it's like science is real. Hold on. No, it's the most... Yeah, you're still in the penalty box.

Quiet. He's trying to steal my microphone. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, he's in your mouth. I'm turning over here. I can hear him in the background. I'm going far away over here. I don't know when you're going to get your privileges back, but it ain't today.

Here's what the sign says. You tell me you've never seen this sign. In this house, we believe black lives matter. Women's rights are human rights. No human is illegal. Science is real. Love is love and kindness is everything. You've never seen that?

Oh, yeah, I have. I have. Westchester. I see that all the time. That's the one you're talking about, I'm right. This is like, let me take every cliche. that has been fed to me, like the chorus of a Taylor Swift song.

Let me take every cliche and use it as my personal brand so much so that I'm going to put it in my yard. Have you never seen that tinfoil? I mean, you're peering into the camera. Have you never seen that sign? I was trying to see if it had anything about Ukraine. Yeah, that'd be...

No, but it's usually accompanied by a Ukraine flag. Or get vaccinated. But this, this... I don't think they ever added vaccination to the same. sign but they certainly believed it it was before it was before that time i think yeah so trump is doom and gloom and harris is joy and happiness trump is the past harris is the future good job you've got the chorus of the taylor swift song down so fellas i don't know if you saw us but the magic number is 50 drew breeze hall of fame quarterback for the new orleans saints said that he believes a quarterback

coming out of college on his way with the NFL is better served by starting 50 quality starts, quality starts of 50 before he gets the NFL and then he's ready to go. And his evidence is, for one, Bo Nix, who's just been named the starter for the Denver Broncos, started 61 times in college. By the way, how many colleges do Bo Nix play for? Is it just two? Is it just Auburn and Oregon? Or was it a third in there?

I think it was just Auburn and Oregon. And they also point out Jaden Daniels, also two colleges. What is that? Arizona State and LSU for Jayden Daniels. Just two for both. Just two for both Jaden Daniels and Bo Nix. Both started over 50 times, and I believe Jaden Daniels has also been named

the starting quarterback of the Washington commanders. Sadly, there were some rumblings that they may go back to Redskins, but they're not apparently going to go back to Redskins. Same. They're going to stick with commanders. So I think this is interesting, and his advice was specific to Arch Manning, the backup quarterback for the Texas Longhorns, entering his second year, not starting. And that's not a reflection of Arch and how good he is.

It's because he's got Quinn Ewers ahead of him, and Quinn Ewers, by most projections, will be a first round quarterback next year. So he's saying Arch should stick around for at least two years, which wouldn't get him to 50. But he should stick around, and that'll be what gets him ready to be a quarterback. quarterback in the NFL. And I'll tell you, I think Breeze is on to something. And the number might not be exact. 50's a lot because that's five years basically starting. That's starting your freshman year through. I mean, how do you even get 50? I don't know, Drew Breeze only at 41 we looked up. Four years plus a few bowl games would get you to 50. So, I mean, like now with the

way the schedules are, I mean, you have conference championship games. You didn't have, now you have the extra playoff games. You're playing two to three extra games a year. So, I mean, like, you're looking at 16 games a year where we used to have 12. So, okay. And Breeze played early, what, it's still three plus. Yeah. So it's an extra. It's still three plus years. Yeah, it's three, it's three plus. And that's a lot to ask of a quarterback. I mean, Manning wouldn't make it unless he stayed at Texas for a fifth year. He'd have to go junior, senior, and then whatever you call that,

redshirt senior year, to get to 50, assuming he started all those. And he will the minute Quinn yours is gone. But I think it's fair to say, I would want to see two seasons. I think two seasons is a reasonable ask to say,

now I know what you are. And you guys pulled up a list in our pre-show meeting. A lot of guys make that. You know, Mahomes, what do Mahomes have? 30, so two seasons easy. and then guys like trade lance and i mean the lance didn't even start one full season i don't think

if he did it was one season and he's the third overall pick and now he's you know third string with the dallas cowboys i do think that that it doesn't guarantee and you can pull it up in two days you did earlier you like pointed out a bunch of guys who did start this many games but didn't pan out it's not that start 50 and you will but you have a better chance of pending out if you do start more games in college. Well, there's a very small list of guys since 1980 who had at least 50 games, which is Kenny Pickett, Tim Tebow, Byron Leftwich,

Carson Palmer, Chuck Long, and Jim Everett. So that's the list right there. Right. That's anybody, that's, and obviously not all those guys panned out. I don't, I don't know where Kenny Pickett is on the bust versus make it projection chart. Where is Kenny Pickett? Because now he's got Justin Fields and Russell Wilson. and ahead of him in Pittsburgh.

Is he still in Pittsburgh? He gets shipped out when they brought those two guys in. He's with the Philadelphia Eagles right now. Huh, who knew? I need to know. My fantasy drafts are next week. Me too.

Not that anybody will be picking Kenny Pickett. You know, obviously Tebow didn't pan out. So starting 50 doesn't get it there. But I think it's one of those things. Like, let's not get too attached to the 50 number. You and I are sitting here. right now, right? Competing GMs.

Do you want Arch Manning after one year starting or do you want, I don't know, Shadur Sanders after three years starting? I would take Arch after one. I might still take Arch Manning. Yeah.

I would still take Arch for sure. Is it the name though? I don't know. He's an exception because he's been essentially raised by quarterbacks and quarterback coaches his whole life. So, I mean, You know, he has a little bit of a different tilt than, like, Shudur.

Look at this. James gets put in the penalty box and all of a sudden, tinfoil pat gets to talk. It's been revealed. It's because James is skating around out of the ice, just checking people into the boards left and right, talking. He's trying to talking to my ear this whole time, too. It's so frustrating. What do you have? Soriasis over there, James.

Why are you itching your arms? He's doing signs like he's on baseball diamond? The argument is you have situational awareness. You've seen defenses. You know how to run an offense in so much of quarterback play is less about your arm and more about your brain. And so I get it. The more you can develop that brain.

Once you're in the NFL, development time is over. It's over. I feel bad for a guy like Trey Lance who needs to play quarterback. He needs to play. And he doesn't have a place to go. Once you go to the NFL and you're not going to get playing time, where do you go somebody should start like a high high level seven on seven league just for quarterback development i'm not sure that would do it no i'm not because like you need full you need

full on complicated defenses with big 280 pound dudes breathing down on you like you got to have that to see how you make decisions um you got to you got to act like you've been there before because you have been there before so pick the experienced quarterback who's coming up on the show tomorrow, tinfoil? We have Richard Fowler coming to carry on your debate from... Oh, there we go.

I know nobody's going to want to watch it. You're talking about the people that don't want me to platform a lefty. Well, tomorrow we platform Richard Fowler, and we go at it right here on the Wilcane show. Same time, same place. I 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. I'm Janisteen. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly raise of science. sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.