Will Cain Country - Is This Missing General the Key to the Scientists Mystery? (ft. Mollie Hemingway & Nick Freitas)

Episode Date: April 21, 2026

Story 1: , Who is Retired General Neil McCasland, why is his disappearance the most important piece of the missing & dead top U.S. scientist puzzle, and what does the lead singer of Blink-182 have to do with it?Story 2: Author of 'Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped The Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution' and Fox News Contributor Mollie Hemingway helps Will examine the life and legacy of Justice Samuel Alito and the ongoing mystery behind a leak which threatened the lives of multiple Supreme Court Justices.Story 3: Host of the ‘Making the Argument’ podcast and Author of 'The Manbook' Nick Freitas joins Will to discuss the vast differences between how conservatives and liberals view the role of the Supreme Court, before sharing how the concept of masculinity has evolved over the years, and what he believes it should look like. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Reject the narrative, build the case. Not 12 missing or dead scientist, but one. Focus on the case of Major General Neil McCaslin. Plus Molly Hemingway on her new book, Alito, the Justice, who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution. and Nick Fradis on his new book, The Man Book. It's Wilcane Country. Streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page.

Hit follow at Spotify or on Apple. Twelve missing or dead scientists. Thus scream the headlines. That is the all caps story. But the story takes shape in your mind. helps you leap to conclusions, leaves you wondering about foreign powers, Russia, Iran, or China, or perhaps aliens, or maybe dark forces inside the government of the United States that for some reason have oft, half a dozen American scientists. But that's not the way that you build a case. The headline doesn't tell

the story or a story. You start with a story. You start with a case. Yesterday, we spent an hour with Lauren Conlin, a true crime reporter, talking about each and every one of the supposed 12 disappeared or dead scientists. Several of those cases can, if not be dismissed, engender a great amount of skepticism as to whether or not this story is a story, whether or not they're connected. neglected. Nuno Larero, for example, was the scientist at MIT that was killed after the Brown University shooting by the alleged shooter at Brown University. He has no other real connection other than the word scientist to say, for example, Amy Eskridge in Alabama, who said her life was in danger of the Exotic Science Institute. No seemingly obvious connections to government research, not geographically. significant when compared to the connections of some of these other scientists, the majority of which have been found dead or gone missing in either California or New Mexico. Amy Eskridge also having no connection to Nexus points, the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab or Los Alamos. Amy Eskridge, whose family

has said she was suffering, suffering from chronic pain. Watch her videos, and you can also come way with the fact that she was probably suffering from some mental illness. So when you move beyond the headline, when you start looking beyond 12 scientists dead or disappeared, you don't automatically just move on. You don't automatically say what happened today in Iran. You start saying what is true? What is evidence? What do we know in the form of facts? Let's build a case. Let's understand one story. And I would propose to you that the one story that one should focus on is the story of Major General Neil McCaslin. If there is a nexus point between the various scientists that have gone dead or missing, it is the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air Force Research Laboratory, which was in part overseen for some years by Major General Neil McCaslin. The Air Force Research Laboratory provided funding to, projects under the banner of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Air Force Research Laboratory

oversaw some of the funding and projects at Los Alamos Nuclear Research. And in late February, Major General William Neal McCaslin went missing in New Mexico. According to the Albuquerque Journal, McCaslin, 68 years old, went missing on Friday, February 27, 2026 in Bernalillo County. Bernie, Bernalillo County, just out and around Santa Fe, New Mexico. According to Newsweek, his phone, prescription glasses, and wearable devices were located at his residence, but missing items included his hiking boots, wallet, and a 38-caliber revolver. Police also said he suffered from an unspecified medical condition, much like with Amy Eskridge, I give weight to the evidence or the testimony from family. His wife has somewhat scoffed at the idea that he is connected to some larger conspiracy. But his disappearance so odd that she said, I don't know.

Maybe he was beamed up by aliens. Who is Neil McCaslin? Well, here are some of the details that we know. Neil McCaslin is a lifelong Air Force man. He later in his career, starting in 2007, was assigned to the Pentagon as director of space acquisitions within the office. of the Undersecretary of the Air Force. In 2009, he was promoted to director of special programs within the office of the Undersecretary of Defense Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics.

He served as director of special programs for the Special Access Program Oversight Committee. This means he was in charge of oversight and review of secretive and sensitive knowledge capabilities and programs. Reports are that under his watch, he was looking into programs that dealt with outer space, dealt with direct energy. He left Washington in 2011, and he assumed command, and what some say was sort of a retirement position,

at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. That's in Ohio. But there, he led billions and dollars in advanced material science and future weapons research. After retirement, he then went to New Mexico. around Albuquerque. He was a director at Applied Technology Associates. Yes, two a days.

It starts to become more alien. In 2013, he was an associate fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Now, here's where the suspicions really begin. And oddly, they largely center around, as was mentioned yesterday by tinfoil Pat. DeLong, the lead singer of Blink 182. WikiLeaks releases show that Tom DeLong of Blink 182, who is a noted alien enthusiast. Had in fact been communicating with John Podesta, one of the big campaign advisors of Hillary Clinton. In these emails, which again we know of through WikiLeaks,

DeLong says to Podesta about Neil McCleck-Castlin, quote, I've been working with him for four months. I just got done giving him a four-hour presentation on the entire project a few weeks ago. Trust me, the advice is already happening on how to do all this, this seemingly in reference to disclosures about alien and UFO activity. He just has to say that out loud, but he is very, very aware, and he was in charge of all this stuff. When Roswell crashed, they shipped it to the laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. General McCausen was in charge of that exact laboratory up to a couple years ago.

He not only knows what I'm trying to achieve, he helped assemble my advisory team. He's a very important man. Now, that is communication from the lead singer of Blink 182 to John Podesta. John Podesta also apparently somewhat of an alien enthusiast. there's no doubt that McAousen was connected in some way to secretive American government technology. That technology and research looks to be around futuristic weapons and perhaps either the discovery or diversion of UFO and alien activity. Why do I say diversion? Because there is some suspicion out there that what McCausen was actually doing was helping seed stories that were cover stories for secretive research into American weapons.

So, for example, there's a lot of suspicion that Area 51 stuff is actually running cover for the development for some decades of the stealth bomber. McCaslin seems to have been involved in that in some way. Does that mean he has secretive intel and knowledge as to the fact that we've made contact with aliens or we have captured a UFO? Or that he's planting these stories as BS so that we're not focused on whatever is tomorrow in the world of weaponry. Tom DeLong does not come off as the most credible guy on all of this stuff. I know he was appeared on Joe Rogan. And from most people's accounts, his appearance on Rogan was not very convincing. A lot of, I can't talk about this.

A lot of not directly answering questions. I've read some, I've read some recaps. And it even appears that Rogan was kind of, Rogan, also an alien enthusiast, was almost mocking along through this conversation, a social cue, which wasn't picked up on by Blink 182. The point is, there is smoke around McCaslin's career. He was around something that was certainly secretive. Let's put it that way. We know it was secretive, the intent and purpose of that secrecy.

We don't know. And now he has disappeared under highly suspicious circumstances. McCaslin is the place to begin to build your case. What really happened to Neil McCaslin? What were his real connections to Monica Reza, whose research he funded at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who also went missing on a hike in California? We talked about that yesterday with Lauren Conlin in more detail. Her disappearance is suspicious, but suspicious in the way that you can only come away with foul play,

with the people that were with her that day on the hike, who apparently have been cleared, or just freaking beamed up by aliens, because I don't know how she goes disappearing in such a short amount of time. in what I would think would be a hiking trail with some traffic. Also, Air Force Research Laboratory seemed to fund something out of Kansas City, where Stephen Garcia has gone missing, has funded some projects at Los Alamos, where Anthony Chavez and Melissa Casillas have gone missing.

Now, that's all suspicious, but you have to build each case. What really happened with their disappearances? and what real connections did they have to McCaslin before we can really run with all caps the story that somebody is disappearing, unaliving, a dozen American scientists. We'll keep paying attention here to Neil McCaslin, learning more,

and I think focusing on a couple of other of these disappearances. I'm particularly interested in Anthony Chavez. I continue to be interested in Melissa Reza. And we will continue to look into these because this is how you actually build a case, how you actually get to the story, not the all caps. St.O-R-Y story. Molly Hemingway is the author of Alito, the justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution. Molly's also a Fox News contributor and the editor-in-chief at the Federalist, and Molly joins us now. Hey, Molly. Great to be here with you, Will.

I've said, Molly, and I've said it in the past week, I think I've said it on air and off air, that I think Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the greatest justices in the history of America and that he probably belongs carved into a mountain. And one of the only things that hold back Justice Thomas's full recognition is that he served concurrently with maybe the greatest American justice in Antonin Scalia. The point of me bringing up those two is they get a lot of credit. They get some acknowledgement to the extent that people pay attention to the court. Meanwhile, somebody that even for me doesn't get as much attention is Justice Samuel Alito, who you've taken the time to tell us deserves much more attention.

Why? Well, I previously wrote a book with Kerry Severino on Justice Kavanaugh, and we interviewed many Supreme Court justices for that book, talked with other really high-level, you know, constitutional scholars, federal judges, and they all kept talking about, why is it that nobody says anything about Sam Alito? He's this giant on the court. It is true that unlike the two great men you just mentioned, Scalia and Thomas, Alito is very reserved, but he's the one who has cobbled together these amazing majorities that get the work done at the Supreme Court, and he does it quietly and without attention. So with so many people I respect saying, you should pay more attention to Sam Alito, I knew I wanted to write about him. And I actually knew that

before he authored the decision that finally overturned Roeby Wade, which had been a goal of the conservative legal movement for literally 50 years. All right, you mentioned two moments and two names there that a case name and a name of a justice that I think become seminal moments in your book on Alito. And so let's follow up on both of those, starting with Kavanaugh. You talk about this. that Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court represented then in its wake a huge divide. And what I mean by that is a divide in the personal relationships, the nature, and the way the court works behind the scenes. You know, I've always heard, just to advance this conversation a little bit forward, the way it worked in the past is really honestly with a lot of, I hate to use this word, all of some, I'm back in law school, comedy.

People, I don't mean COMEDY, I mean COMITY, that people like D. other that Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg while disagreeing, you know, sometimes like in aggressive fashion in writing and opinions, were buddies behind the scenes and had a lot in common. And I know that Justice Thomas, for example, is very well liked, not just with the other justices, but with the people that work at the court. But that changed after Kavanaugh. Well, I actually think that even when Justice Kavanaugh,

came onto the court, you still saw this situation largely in play. And you're absolutely right. These people will tear each other to shreds in their opinions or their dissents or their concurrences, but they actually work really hard to get along. And that is still true that they work hard to get along because these are lifetime appointments. You only have eight colleagues for the rest of your life, you know, unless they're replaced by someone new. And you really want to get along. But the leak of the Dobbs decision definitely harmed the relationship between the justices. And not because anyone thought that it was a justice who leaked it. They don't think it was a justice who leaked it.

But the behavior by the liberal justices after that leak was truly reprehensible. And you have picked up some frustration with that from some of the justices. The people who authored or signed on to the Dobbs decision literally had their lives threatened on a daily basis from the moment that leak happened. And the proper thing to do, since a decision is not final until it's issued publicly from the court, would have been to just issue it right away or have the dissent, make sure that the dissenters got that in within the week so that they wouldn't be facing these death threats, which got quite serious, as we know, with even someone being arrested for trying to kill Justice Kavanaugh and his family. So instead, what I report for the

first time in Alito is all that happened behind the scenes, where in fact, those justices did plead with their colleagues to please help them in their time of need where they were being, where their lives were being threatened. And instead, the justices went out of their way to slow walk the release of the decision, first by not even writing it until June. And then they include, once they finally filed it, they included a footnote in there that was a reference to a decision that was still being worked on, thereby delaying it an additional three-plus weeks. This is, it's actually amazing that they get along as well as they do, given that these people had their lives threatened and their children's lives threatened, and the liberal justices

worked to delay the decision. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation with the editor-in-chief of the federalist, Molly Hemingway on her new book, Alito. This episode is brought to you by FedEx. These days, the power move isn't having a big metallic credit card to drop on the check at a corporate launch. The real power move is leveling up your business with FedEx intelligence and accessing one of the biggest data networks powered by one of the biggest delivery networks. Level up your business with FedEx, the new power move. This week on the Fox True Crime podcast, Psychotherapist and author Lena Durhally breaks down the mind of Chris

and the warning signs behind one of America's most disturbing family murders. Listen and follow now at Fox True Crime.com. I'm Dana Perino. This week on Perino on Politics, I'm joined by Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Malusian. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast.com. Or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Must listen to podcasts from Fox News Audio. Welcome back to Will Kane Cunt.

We're still hanging out with author Molly Hemingway, whose new book is entitled Alito, the justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution. All right. Let's dig more into that just for a moment, Dobbs. So this is one of America's great unsolved mysteries, along with what happened to General Neil McCaslin and UFOs. Like, who leaked the opinion of Dobbs? And the significance of that leak, which you're telling us about now, which is serious threats. We have heard about Kavanaugh.

We do know about the man showing up to Kavanaugh's house. but you also write about Amy Coney Barrett wearing a bulletproof vest. So I'll ask you that sort of double-barreled question. What is the deal with the Dobbs leak? Why is it a great unsolved mystery? And what exactly did that mean for these, like tangibly, what did it mean for the lives of these justices? So first off, we want to acknowledge that it is a challenge to deal with this type of situation and what was going on in the court.

The court doesn't have very many people working in that building. You have the nine justices. They each have four clerks. They each have three other staff members. And then there are some permanent staff like, you know, janitorial or police people who are working there as well. Of the three branches of government, it is far and away the smallest. So they understood that the leak obviously came from someone within the court. And it is difficult to know who in part because it's so easy. like the entire secrecy of the court rests on people being good people. It's very easy to get documents out.

If you want to, you can work on things at home, and your home computer can have access to someone else. Now, having said that, having acknowledged that it's difficult, one of the things I show in Alito is how poorly the investigation was run. They didn't even start for weeks until after the leak. They didn't even have a handle on how information is shared on the court. And then instead of asking truly probing questions of the clerks who were probably, you know, some of the main targets of the investigation, they would instead say, did you leak the opinion? No. Okay, moving on. Instead, if they were doing a proper investigation, they might say, do you know the reporters who published this leak? Did either of those reporters go to your wedding? Did you or any member of your family go to their wedding? These types of questions that would get a little bit closer. to understanding who had relationships with the reporters or who had relationships with people who did have relationships to the reporters.

You still might not have found it, but they didn't even really do the type of effort that is necessary. And we're seeing the result of this now because just this last weekend there was yet another leak. It was kind of from 2016, nowhere near as important as the Dobbs leak. But why not leak? It's not like the court takes it seriously, right? So, Molly, just doing the quick math, that's 36. I believe clerks at any given time plus the nine justice is 45, some support staff in terms of probably security and maybe some custodial and I would even assume perhaps some administrative like reception,

back office type work. I would assume, but you're putting the over under at some point at around 50, and that's not a necessarily big investigation. I will ask you this, Molly, because you have a deeper knowledge of the court than I do. Do you know how long is a clerkship at the Supreme Court? Is it a year? Is it two years for those four clerks under East Justice? Each justice hires four clerks per term, and the term lasts a year. I mean, really, it lasts from October to June, but they start earlier working for their justice.

And these people are the very top graduates of elite law schools. And then they go from there to becoming very powerful lawyers off the court. Yes. And I guess one could argue with that cycling period. I'm not sure when a when a clerkship begins and when it ends, but you could expand your pool with some turnover and clerkships there probably in the summer as to who could have leaked it. Still a small pool, still under 100 people that you're having to investigate. Well, I would say there were a couple hundred when you add all of the staff that are there. But we're really talking in the low triple digits here. The clerks do turn over in the summer, so that means that there were no clerks who were privy to what was leaked, because that came out in February. It was leaked in May. And so that would have been the same clerk class, yes. Yeah, right.

Limiting us to one clerk class. Okay. And then the effect of that leak, just so we know what I was talking about, we all know the story of Justice Kavanaugh. What else did that do when the public started to learn about what their decision would. be in Dobbs. You know, it's funny because the beginning of the Dobbs decision says something to the effect of we don't know what the response of the public will be, but we have to follow the law. And everyone acknowledges the Constitution does not have some hidden right to abortion, you know, snuck into the middle of the 14th Amendment. It was very much about the original understanding of the

Constitution, the 14th Amendment, the original meaning there, what the historical context was. But of course, within moments of that leak coming out, you had massive protests. You had the firebombing of Christian churches, the firebombing of pro-life centers. You had every single justice who signed on to Dobbs having their home address published. And again, an assassin, an attempted assassin, used that public posting by left-wing groups to go after Justice Kavanaugh, his wife, and children. But all of the justice, all of the justices face this. And not just the justices, but everyone in their chambers as well. One of the things I found interesting in my reporting was finding out from people how prior

to the leak, everyone across chambers, you know, liberal, conservative, they all get together, they do happy hours, they have fun together. After the leak happened when people realized that there was a snake within them, within the court, they didn't trust other chambers. They had trouble communicating with other people. You had, I think it was Justice Kavanaugh's chambers, maybe, I can't remember was Kavanaugh or Gorsuch, sent donuts to Alito's chambers after the leak, just knowing what they were going through over there. When someone sent an envelope with white powder that was with a, you know, threatening, as part of a threatening campaign against Alito's chambers, Justice Breyer stopped in to give his condolences to the chamber staff who'd had to go through this. But it was horrible. People were moved to secure locations. And it wasn't just that it was bad. It's like nobody was doing anything about it. The media were cheering it on.

The DOJ was doing nothing at all. The White House was like, yeah, we're fine if this continues to go on. No big deal. Even though there are laws against threatening justices for the purpose of trying to change the outcome of a decision, which this obviously was. And you write about this. You write that Justice Elena Kagan went into the chambers of Justice Stephen Breyer, both on the quote-unquote, left of the court and yelled at Justice Breyer about the pace of his dissent that he was writing. She wanted him to slow it down so that this wouldn't be sped up to sort of alleviate the pressure.

And the interesting thing about that is you say that Kagan is the one that sort of is taken seriously. I say that because I had a private conversation recently. Molly, Molly, who the person will rename, nameless, however, they said, you know, a few months ago or a few years ago, there was a general consensus that Sotomayor was like kind of an embarrassment to the court, the way that she reasoned, the way that she logicked. Now, Sotomayor, because of context, is like one of the brainier ones because of the presence of Kintagia Brown Jackson. It shows you, by the way, always look at your surroundings. because everything in life is context. But people dismiss Sotomayor somewhat.

They definitely did dismiss Dismiss Jackson, but they take seriously Kagan. So, yeah, what's interesting there, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor all wrote, they co-authored the dissent in Dobbs. And when justices Alito and Gorsuch and others were saying, you know, things are difficult here for us. Could you speed up the dissent

so that people aren't attacking us? our lives. After that conference where they had that discussion, Kagan was heard strongly discouraging Breyer from accommodating those justices. Now, Breyer is old school, hardcore liberal, but he was also widely regarded as a gentleman, someone who everyone else on the court got along with very well. And yes, Kagan is clearly, you know, she's along with Alito, those are the two best at oral argument on the court. She is thoughtful in her opinions and dissents. She is very crafty about how to build together coalitions. She's clearly the intellectual leader on the left. But this was about something just much more basic, which is there were attempts on people's lives

and attacks in the country, and the decision is not final until it's publicly announced. and it's usually not released until a dissent is there to go along with it. And so they really just use this. I will point out there was reporting just last week that they're doing this also in a case from the October term, dealing with an issue that if resolved, if it's resolved in a certain way, would help Republicans in the midterm elections and hurt Democrats. And there have been reports that the liberal justices are once again delaying their dissent because they think if they can delay it long enough,

it will help Democrats in the midterm. Doing this kind of partisan political behavior is not appropriate for judges. I understand injustices. It's not fun to be on the losing side of a case. Conservatives had to deal with that for many, many, many decades. And yet you didn't see them engaging

in this type of political or partisan activity or throwing temper tantrums or yelling at their colleagues and publicly demeaning the quality of the court. So before we go back to Alito, I want to, so back to the what sort of changed. And I asked you about Kavanaugh. It seems to me, Molly, and you've covered Kavanaugh as well as Alito here, that was a big

shift in the court in that it's just sort of outside of Justice's Thomas's appointment, it's the most contentious appointment we've gotten, you know, since the 90s. and you ask yourself why. And I think the answer is pretty obvious. Because if memory serves correctly, didn't Kavanaugh's appointment replace Ginsburg? Kennedy. He replaced Ginsburg. He replaced Kennedy.

Okay. He replaced Kennedy, which is also important because, right, Amy Coney-Barrant replaces Ginsburg, both very important appointments because it essentially shifted the balance of the court. So that's exactly- replacing Kennedy shifted it from a swing vote. Kennedy was a swing vote. It was sort of four, four, and one at that time. And it gave it reliably to what we would call the right. And you can correct that, Molly, for anyone listening. It's not really right and left. It is kind of on a partisan political basis, but it really is about sort of living constitution versus originalist constitution. And Kavanaugh shifted that balance of power. Connie Barrett solidified it in replacing. Ginsburg and made it overwhelming six to three. And that's why Kavanaugh became so ugly. Well, well, you're exactly right on this shifting of the court being the issue in play and why the left is trying to undermine the integrity of the court. For decades, you had left-wing

or liberal justices who were frustrated with the American people for not voting for the policy positions that they wanted. And so they would just say, well, it's hidden in the Constitution. They would just rule as a legislature. The conservative legal movement got going about, you know, just under 50 years ago, really, to change this, to understand that what was happening to the courts was a complete violation of what the Constitution imagined for the Article III branch.

And they were able to place people on the court, people like Scalia, as you mentioned. But they never really had that solid majority until quite recently. When Kennedy stepped down, he voted with the left on all of the issues, on all of the issues they really care about, redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, supporting a belief that abortion is somewhere hidden in the Constitution.

Replacing him with Kavanaugh, who's also a moderate, but someone less likely to join in some of the more ridiculous things that Kennedy did, it angered them. And by the time Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies and is replaced by Amy Coney-Barritt, it truly enrages them. That was the really big shift. Ginsburg also well,

respected by her colleagues on the court, never in a position to really move it in the way that she wanted to, but replacing with Amy Coney Barrett, who is a solid originalist, even if people are frustrated at the pace by which she moves along, that was such a huge switch. And it happened, I just want to say one other thing. Mitch McConnell in 2016 held open the Scalia seat, which ended up affecting Donald Trump winning. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump precisely because of of the Supreme Court, 25% according to polls. But then when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies close to the election in 2020,

Mitch McConnell did not hold that seat open. He said it was because Republicans controlled both the presidency and the Senate. But it did frustrate Democrats and liberals who had thought that they would be able to quickly, you know, gain back control of the court in short order. And you see that frustration in their calls to destroy the court, pack the court,

or otherwise harm the working. of the court. So back to the subject of your book, Samuel Lido. So as a, you know, casual observer of the court, any of the big important decisions, I shouldn't say important, but the most public attention seeking decisions kind of break down somewhat like this. You have two reliably originalist, quote unquote, conservative jurists. You have Clarence Thomas and Samuel Lido. Then you're in the we'll sea range with Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch. Then you have the, I would say at this point, politician of the court in Justice Roberts. That is, his job, as he sees it, I think, is less to

interpret the Constitution and more to protect the reputation of the court. And his opinion of protecting the reputation of the court is find consensus, change things incrementally, don't be radical. And then you have a block of liberals or living constitutionalists. But Alito is there right next to Thomas. And he is the guy who you can, along with Thomas, probably most easily predict the way that he will vote. And he has said recently, Molly, that he's going to be around for another term. There was some question. Will we lose Alito?

He's 73, I think. Thomas is older. I think he's the second oldest jurist. But, you know, I did say he starts an interview. I think Thomas and Scalia will go down in history. Are you here to make the case today? So too will Alito? Oh, absolutely.

There's no question that Alito is an incredibly consequential justice. One of the things I do in the book is compare his jurisprudence to each and every other member of the court that he's ever served with. And Thomas and Alito, you know, people say they're predictable. Well, no, they're consistent. They have a consistent judicial philosophy, which means they don't make decisions based on the partisan result. They've kind of laid it out in Thomas' case for many, many decades. In Alito's case, now he's in his 20th year on the court, and he doesn't, like, swing wildly back and forth, and neither does Thomas.

Thomas is more the libertarian originalist, and Scalia, I'm sorry, Alito is more the conservative originalist. In that libertarian originalist framework, we also had Scalia, and I would put Gorsuch in there as well. There are five sitting members of the court who identify as a richlymouth. This is actually a pretty big thing to be dealing with. Kavanaugh and Barrett both said before they were confirmed that they were originalists. You are correct about the Chief Justice. He thinks he's preserving the integrity of the court by doing things like making a small decision instead of a big decision,

which usually just results in a flood of people who are confused about what the result of that opinion is, you know, coming to the court and asking for clarification. He is frequently in the majority. He does want to be perceived as moderate. He unfortunately also is really able to be pressured by the media in many cases, which undermines the integrity of the court. If they think they can control you through peer pressure, that's obviously a path to more peer pressure.

But it's worth remembering that even Chief Justice Roberts, who's the most lefty of these, is solid on a bunch of stuff, including affirmative action and other cases. that are near and dear to many conservatives. That's true. That's absolutely true. And this is a man that deserves more attention, Justice Samuel Lito. So Molly's written a whole book on him, The Justice, who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution. Molly, thanks so much.

I love, I think, probably more so than even the audience. I love talking about the people and the thought processes inside the minds of each of these justices. Thanks for being able to see today, Molly. Thank you, well, very much. Take care. Coming up, the host of the Making the Argument podcast, and author of a new book, The Man Book, Nick Freitas on Will Kane Country.

All right, there she goes, Molly Hemingway here on Will Cane Country. Matter of fact, Nick Fratis, who has a new book out entitled The Man Book, is joining us here as well. And I understand Nick has a lot of thoughts on originals in the Supreme Court as well. And that might be a good transition before we start talking about how you drink whiskey and other such, more important issues than what it means to be a man. But what do you think? I know you were listening to some of that conversation about the Supreme Court. court. Yeah, well, Molly's awesome. Everyone should go out and buy anything she writes, but especially

this one on Alito, because I think she brings a really good point. I love how she makes a differentiation between originalism from more of like a conservative worldview, which is kind of a libertarian worldview, because I think that's an accurate way to differentiate. But it's amazing how originalism has become conservative. Originalism used to be just the way justices were supposed to interpret the law because if you're not interpreting the law based off of a clear understanding of the text at the time it was written well then what are you doing you're legislating right and and and this is one of those things where for the same people that are screaming about our democracy what could be first of all we live in a constitutional republic second of all what could be less democratic than

unelected judges essentially handing you legislative victories as opposed to doing what they're supposed to do which is faithfully interpret what the people's elected representatives have done. And yet here we are. If you're an originalist, you're a conservative. Can you name one left-wing justice that is an originalist? And if they're not, well, then what are they? Well, they're legislators posing as justices. Yeah, that's exactly right.

Now, I want to do something, Nick, not to say, hey, check out the big brain on me. I went to law school. But because I don't want to presume that anyone in the audience actually knows what we mean when we talk about originalism. And so just if you'll indulge me and you can correct me where you think I get it wrong or add to it where you think I get it right. So the job technically of the Supreme Court of the United States is to interpret the Constitution. They're confronted with issues, most notably laws written by either federal or state government

that are asked the question, is this law that was written constitutional? A democracy is majority rules. Write the law, the law is good. That's not what we are. We're not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. And that means that the majority rule has to be measured up against the limitations placed on it by the Constitution and the original thinkers of the Constitution. Here's a funny thing.

Not all of the Constitution was written at the same time. Your brain goes back to 1776. But it doesn't, you know, 1793. Your brain should go to when the particular part of the Constitution you're analyzing against was written. So let me give you a modern day example. Okay. Birth right citizenship. That is an issue before the Supreme Court.

Well, the 14th Amendment was written in what was it, Nick, probably 1883, somewhere in that range, I think. I'm not sure. But an originalist would say, okay, here's what the 14th Amendment says. Does the 14th Amendment accommodate laws that ban or support birthright citizenship? And in order to get to the answer to that question, a justice would go, here's one mechanism, textualism. We've had guys of that ilk in the past. That means they literally read the words and nothing more than the words and they go, that's what was meant, whatever they wrote.

An originalist would place it in its time and place. In 1880, this is what was going on. This is what they meant. And then you can get into more controversial areas like the legislative history. We've talked about that on birthright citizenship. The guy who drafted it said this does not apply to foreign citizens. Okay, but I will say not all originalist jurists think you should lean on legislative history because they'll go, well, that didn't make the cut. Whatever said in the locker room isn't what happened on the game field and the Constitution is the game field.

But anyway, that's the point of originalism. Try to get in the minds of the people that wrote the Constitution to see what they meant through their words and the time. The left, and I'm going to use that quotation marks, they're unbound. They're unbound by any of these constraints. they analyze it against what they think the Constitution should mean. And I think that's a fair characterization. They think it should mean certain things. And therefore, they have a lot more leeway into saying what the Constitution says or doesn't say.

Yeah. I think Scalia did a really good explanation of this where he was saying, you know, it's very tempting to have the more liberal interpretation of the law or the role of the justice, because essentially you get to negotiate. you basically to say what what do i as a judge believe is the just outcome and now i just got to have to i got to figure out some sort of legal legal reasoning that gets me to that outcome and in so far as i do that i have done my job as a judge scalia's argument especially from you know again he would argue against the textualist in the sense that well you need to understand the context of the text

not to mention the fact that certain words changed in meaning to some degree over time So that's why it's so important to understand the original arguments that were that were being made. That's why a good judge actually has dictionaries from several different generations so they can actually look at it at that time to figure out what did they mean by this. But then what Scalia would eventually come to the conclusion of is he would render judgments, which he thought yielded outcomes he did not prefer politically. But he recognized that his job was not to legislate from the bench. It was to interpret what the legislature had done, what the people's representatives had done. what the people's representatives have done. And the way Molly described it before was perfect.

It's the left got frustrated that the electorate was not giving them the results they wanted. So they appointed judges that would give them the results they wanted. Because again, as much as they like to talk about our democracy and everything else, when they say our democracy, they don't include you and me, right? We're threats to democracy. And they're not even talking about a particular process. They're talking about what they believe are socially equitable, socially just outcomes. They've already decided what justice is. Now it's just a question of which judges give them the opinions they want. But anybody should be able to see, well, that's a very, very dangerous way to go about things because every tyrant, every dictator essentially operated the same way. They decided what justice was, and then they appointed the proper people in order to carry it out. And that's the same thing that you see happening within kind of left-wing jurisprudence. And what it means is that there's no objective way that we can actually analyze it.

There's no, there's no what we might call neutral space that we can go to in order to make sense of the law. It's just picking or choosing what judges are going to give us the outcomes we want. And Scalia, Alito, I think, are Thomas, are perfect examples of trying to provide that, again, that consistent, that intellectually consistent and honest interpretation. The problem that we get to is when one side is appointing justices that will give them whatever they want, and the other side is appointing justices that are trying to faithfully interpret the law over time it becomes very easy to lose to the side that again it's the side that wants to be left alone

usually loses to the side that wants to rule and my hope is is that in America we'll still have enough people that actually value our systems or our processes and our ethics in order to fight back against that one more back and forth in this before we get to the manbook because I'm fascinated by this And I'm going to underline something you said and then apply.

You're exactly right. Scalia said, if you do this through our mechanism of originalism, you will get to outcomes that you do not like and you do not want. But it is not my job to get to what I want. It's not my job to moralize from the bench. It's not my job. Justice is me applying the Constitution to the law. And he would say in a lot of cases, like, I don't like this outcome, but this is exactly where the originalist. interpretation and analysis leads us. A liberal judge will never get to a decision that they don't like.

They will like their decision every single time because it's completely empowering as to their own moralization. And then turning the left turning this court into a super legislature that you make a point of is so good. Here's the application, right? They didn't like that gay marriage, for example, was failing at state legislature levels. It was failing. There was very few states that had legalized same-sex marriage. So then you get to the Supreme Court. The case goes before the Supreme Court. Since then, by the way, gay marriage has been accepted democratically more than it was at that time. Remember, Barack Obama was against it. So the Supreme Court then says this is actually a constitutional right. They get to the outcome they want when they couldn't through democracy.

And that's how they've used the court. Get to outcomes even when the people aren't ready or willing to go with you in that direction. And that's what they've seen the court as, just a super legislature. Yeah. No, no, I totally agree. And again, they don't seem to understand because people like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others have used the kind of restraint. because they've tried to come up with objective answers, and they utilize objective truth, reason, logic, intellectual consistency,

they do sometimes come to conclusions that they don't prefer politically. But over time, what will happen if the Democrats and if the left insists on their sort of jurisprudence, is that there will be a backlash against it. And it won't be people saying, no, we have to protect originalism. It will be people saying, fine, if this is the way the game is played, I want right-wing justices that come to the conclusion, I want no matter what the law says. And that's what the left has never seen to appreciate it.

And then, Nick, that's the end of democracy. Yes. That's the end truly of democracy. Because what the justices like Scalia and Thomas are trying to protect is the voice and the power of the people. They're like, we can't do this because we're not a body of nine voting. It's to the people to vote. And if we take away that power from them, we have upended the concept of a self-governing

people. We're an oligarchy of nine. And what they don't, and again, what the left, doesn't seem to understand is like let's let's let's put up a theoretical where a decision is made that is correct with respect to the interpretation of the law but it yields a bad outcome that's not the end of the story right the left looks at then it goes well there was but there was a moral mistake that was made the judge says yes there wasn't a moral mistake that was made but the mechanism for fixing it is in within the legislature not unfaithfully interpreting the law so go do that and the left

says well that's that's not quick enough for us we want it done now And what the originalists are trying to say is, okay, but here's the problem. People disagree on what a moral and just outcome is. The legislative process is one of the mechanisms that we try to go through in order to sure that we get to good conclusions. But if you subvert that entire process, well, then okay, fine. You don't want representative government. You want judicial fiat.

And if you want judicial fiat for what you think is just, sooner or later, the other side is going to want judicial fiat for what they think is just. And now you don't have representative government. You have war. So I don't understand what's so difficult about understanding that concept, and yet here we are. Right. Okay. I think this is a good transition into the man book, actually.

I thought about I could ask you about something light. You've written about a lot of on the surface light stuff, cooking and whiskey, but it's actually much deeper philosophical book about what it means to be a man. And I think you've just given us the appropriate perfect transition. So we've been having this conversation, Nick, about masculinity. I would say in earnest for the past, let's go eight years, maybe eight years or so, of really acknowledging the decline of masculinity and the concept of toxic masculinity and the degradation of masculinity, largely from the cultural left. But then, to your point, there was a whipsaw effect, a whiplash effect,

where there became a almost cartoonish. version of masculinity that's been put forward from some corners that are probably the province of the right. I think that's fair to say. And I mean, you know, I don't know what his politics are, but like today for young men, sort of the avatar of masculinity is, you know, a kid named clavicular, right, who is super into vanity and looks maxing and this becomes the ultimate virtue of being a man and how many chicks can you pull and that kind of. of thing. Trust me, I have teenage boys. You may as well, Nick. I know the power of somebody like that culturally. And so what's happened, Nick, is I do feel, and you're on the right

track here of correcting the course, but because we went so far into degrading the concept of masculinity in favor of a feminine version of society, that now we're seeing this other side, presumably, quote unquote, our side of things, adopt cartoonish masculinity. Oh, no, I think that's accurate. The first thing the needs to be acknowledged is that for about a solid 20 years, young men have grown up being told that masculinity is toxic, that all of their instincts are wrong, that they are responsible for all of the world's ills, that if they were all just more feminine, then everything would be better, right?

And that the future is female and the job of young men is to sit down, shut up, and just let them run things. Interestingly enough, nobody's happy with this arrangement. Nobody's happy with the results of it to include liberal women. They don't like it either. They're more miserable than they're more miserable than they. ever been despite the fact that theoretically their ideology is winning. And so it was it was always a foregone conclusion that young men were going to revolt against

this idea. They were going to revolt because nobody's going to sit there and get kicked around forever. And so I was actually I actually said this at Cal Berkeley. I said, you know, for those of you who are woke progressives, you need to understand something, you lose, right? There's no way you win. And the reason why there's no way you win is because you've chosen to alienate the one group of people that are absolutely necessary for doing things like fighting wars, policing streets,

building things, and that's young men. This is not to diminish or take away from the important roles that young women play within society, but a quick perusal of history will show that if you're going to actually win a revolution, right, that's what all the woke want to do is, you know, perpetuate the revolution, globalize the intifada or whatever. You don't do that by alienating all of your young men. And you don't do it by having your vanguard of the revolution being a bunch of people that define themselves by their mental illnesses and have a nervous breakdown when they get misgendered by their barista. So you lose. The question is, is what sort of young men are going to revolt against what you've tried to put upon them? Well, one group of young men have decided that

the way to revolt is just check out. I don't care. I'll play video games. I'll watch stuff I shouldn't be watching. And that's it. My life will be a series of dopamine hits until I die. There's another group of men that have decided, no, no, no, I'm going to be strong. I'm going to be capable. I'm going to develop all the things that I need to with respect to those masculine traits so I can have revenge on everybody. So I can sleep with a bunch of women so I can have nice cars. I'm essentially going to be the barbarian. I'm going to get what I want because I have the strength, the power, and the intelligence to do so. And the bottom line is that one of those approaches just decays and destroys civilization. The other overthrows it. And what I'm arguing for and what

used to be kind of have a common understanding with an American culture was biblical masculinity. It's the kind that says, no, men are supposed to be strong. You are supposed to be competent. You are supposed to be capable, but you're also supposed to serve something higher than just your own self or your own interests. You're supposed to honor God. You're supposed to be able to protect and provide for a family. And by the way, you're not just doing this because they're their duties which are thrusted upon you by God or reality. No, you're doing these things because they actually give you purpose, identity, and meaning. I mean, I say all day long and I make this argument throughout the book. You know, we talk a lot of America about freedoms. And freedoms are great.

I want political freedom. But the things that give me identity, meaning, and purpose are my responsibilities. It's getting my identity in Christ. It's being a husband to my wife. It's being a father to my children. It's wanting to serve my country and my community and my church. these things give me a sense of value in what I do. And the things that I talk about in the book, some of it is more of the mundane, right? It's things like, you know, how to cook a steak because that's just good guy stuff to know.

But I also go into things, the physical things. How do you properly kick in a door? See, in modern terminology, oh, that's violent, that's mean, that's why would you want to do that? You would only want to do that for mean and nefarious purposes. What if your kid is locked in a room and the building's on fire? And you don't know, do you want to be able to successfully kick in that door in order to get your child and get them out of there? Absolutely.

I tell young men, you need a violent hobby. It can be shooting. It can be hunting. It can be MMA. It can be boxing, whatever it is. You need a violent hobby. Why? Because you want to be able to protect and provide.

That's not just to give you confidence and capability. It's so the people that you love can absolutely depend on the fact that if they were ever in danger, you're the one that they call to actually get you out of it. And when I talk about this, young men's eyes light. up. They want to be that man. They don't just want to be strong and capable. They want to be honorable. And that's what the book is about, is how do we look at, how do we look at the various things within our life, the spiritual, the emotional, the physical, the intellectual, the professional, how do we develop these things so that we can be the sort of men that, you know, can be good servants of God, can be protectors of our family, and ultimately protectors of our country.

And I think men want that. Men don't just want to be strong. want a noble mission. And that's what a lot of the book is about. Yes. Well, and okay, that's what most intrigues me. So, yeah, take up MMA, learn how to shoot a gun, learn how to kick in a door, those things. But also, but also learn how to me. I write in there a lot about how do you craft a good argument? How do you think about, how do you apply critical thinking? How do you develop a good apologetic for your Christian faith? Because, again, I don't want, I don't want, I don't want dumb warriors and I don't want smart weaklings. Right. I want smart warriors. I want people who are capable along multiple facets of life and who work together in order to build civilization.

Let's take quick break, but continue this conversation with Nick Freitas, the author of the Man Book on Will Kane Country. Local news is in decline across Canada, and this is bad news for all of us. With less local news, noise, rumors, and misinformation fill the void, and it gets harder to separate truth from fiction. That's why CBC News is putting more journalists in more places across Canada, reporting on the ground from where you live, telling the stories that matter to all of us, because local news is big news.

Choose news, not noise. CBC News. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with the host of The Making the Argument podcast and the author of a brand new book, The Man Book, Nick Fradis. But I could see how young men's eyes light up at some of that. The final boss on being a man, in my mind, which you write about, is getting to the part where it's hard to get eyes to light up. And that is sort of when you talk about family, Nick, you talk about, look, a man is the head of the household.

That is the way it works, okay? A man protects the family. A man provides for the family. But this isn't, okay, maybe your eyes light up. Yes, okay, I'm the man. I'm the head of the house. Maybe your eyes. But the point of it is that it is a sense.

of social responsibility and ultimately servant leadership in a way self-sacrifice. And that to me is the final boss because it's hard to get one's eyes to light up to responsibility. It's hard to get one's eyes light up to what it really means to be a man and an adult, which is to really like grind day in, day out in a way that is not outwardly rewarding. You may not have the muscles. You may not have the wealth. You may not have these things, but you're doing the ultimate act of manhood, which is providing and protecting for this family. And that is, I love the term, servant leadership.

Yeah. Well, I think it's also important to understand because we, again, we talk about freedom a lot in culture. We don't talk enough about duty or responsibility. But the other thing I want young men to understand is that I'm not asking them to crawl across broken glass for their entire life so they can one day say I was stronger than everything. everybody else and I did my duty despite it sucking. No, what I'm saying is, is that you actually get true joy, true peace, true meaning by actually taking on noble responsibilities. Like there, I'll give you an example of this. I talk a lot in the book about how to the difference between raising sons and raising daughters and talking about you're preparing them for different things.

But I've had people look at me before and be like, gosh, you guys sacrifice so much to homeschool your kids. And I look back. I'm like, you sacrificed a whole lot by doing something else. The question is not whether or not you sacrifice. The question is what you sacrifice and for what purpose. You're going to sacrifice something. But what I talk about is, yeah, could we have made more money if we had made different decisions? Could we have more toys if we've made different decisions? Can we take more vacation? Yeah, absolutely. But instead, what we chose in this particular thing was we wanted to completely invest in our relationship with our children. I have a 22-year-old daughter who's married to a great guy. I have a 20-year-old son who's currently in the

military. I have an 18-year-old daughter that just graduated. I love hanging out with all of my kids. The teenage years were the easiest. They were the easiest in raising our kids. Why is that? Well, it's because scripture has something to say about how husbands and wives interact and how mothers and fathers raise kids. And when you try to faithfully interpret that and carry it out, is it difficult at times? Absolutely. Do you have to sacrifice? Absolutely. Is it worth it? 100%. 100%. I don't know a single person that is bragging about the car that they drive, who is when they emphasize, oh, this is my nice car,

but the relationship with their kids is garbage, they don't favor the car. They know something is missing from that. And so I don't want young men to think this is all just a slog. No, it's about understanding that actually taking on the proper responsibilities in life, right, and doing it correctly is going to give you a, you an amount of joy that will never be replaced by hookup culture will never be replaced by just buying new toys. When I spend time with my kids who are all adults now, I just,

I'm like, I know exactly why we did the things that we did and it was all worth it. It was all worth it. You know what? You have this phrase I really like. You brought a praising daughters. Unfortunately, and I do mean this unfortunately, it is a hard thing. for me, identify with. I just did not have daughters. And I would have probably benefited as a human being had I had daughters. I'd have at least one daughter. I would have had a window into a world that I have no touch point. Honestly, Nick, I just, I have very, very few, you know, all my friends were always guys. I was in a guy culture. That's not to say I'm, you know, special forces, military, anything like that. But it's, I grew up in a guy culture around guys. I've raised two guys.

And then you say this about raising sons. Your job is not make a clone. Your job is to find or create or help create your replacement in the world. And that's interesting, your replacement in the world. Because that concept of replacement, I think every father hopes, is not my clone, is better than me. Yeah. No, there's a statement I heard a while back, or it's one day you learned that your father was the one man in your life that wanted you to be better than him. And that's not true for every. The only man you'll ever encounter.

The only man you'll ever encounter in this world who wants you to be better than him. Yeah, because men are competitive. And that's a healthy thing, right? Men should be competitive for one another. We should also be, there's also an element of being supportive through that competition. But I absolutely 100% want my son to be better than me. And I will tell you, the immense amount of joy I see when I look at his spiritual maturity compared to mine at 20 years old. when I look at how he's developing from a character perspective, from a professional's perspective,

and I see my son becoming better than I was at that age. And the reason why that's so great, right, is not because I, you know, I'm trying to stop developing. I'm trying to be everything I talk about in my book. It's being able to transfer on that knowledge and wisdom to another generation so they can stand on your shoulders and be better. That's what you want. I want to glory in the fact that my children are learning, from mistakes that I made, that I was able to transfer that knowledge in such a way

to where they don't make the same ones and they make better decisions. And then guess what? My grandkids are going to have an even better environment. When you start, when young men start thinking about legacy instead of cheap dopamine hits, when they start thinking about legacy, now all of a sudden they have a physical manifestation

of something to work for. They have this daily reminder when they get up. Now, I will say this too. I understand why young men are so frustrated because while 70% of young men are identifying as more conservative and more religious, only 30% of young women are. What I want young men to understand is that if you're waiting for women to come around before you become the sort of men that our society needs, they'll never come around.

But when you proactively seek to be that kind of man, when you provide that kind of character, when you provide that kind of leadership, it attracts. And I realize that Hollywood and academia and everything else is trying to get women. They're trying to get women to believe their own lives right now. And it's making women miserable, by the way. If you look at women ages 18 to 29 and who identify as liberal, over half of them have been diagnosed with a mental illness. And conservative women, it's like 17%.

Liberal women is 52%. So at a time where liberal women are living in the most liberal, the most feminist society has ever been, the ones who have adopted that ideology are the most miserable. And what it's doing is it's causing more and more young women to look for alternatives. They're starting to realize they were sold a bill of goods. But as young men step up and actually play their proper role, young women are also going to look at that same thing.

Like, what do we need to do to do something different? Because what we were sold isn't working for us. And so I want young men to be encouraged. That as they lead, right, they're going to get the results they want. But if they stay back, if they wait for the world to change in order to properly appreciate them, it's never going to happen. The man book, it is philosophical, but not always philosophical. Practical applications, like, for example, I was intrigued by the dating culture world. I have teen boys like what Nick's approach was to dating and that it should be actually not just having fun or promiscuity, but it should be about in pursuit of learning for marriage and so forth.

There's a lot of practical applications, like he said, and how to cook steak, kick down a door as well. It's entitled The Man Book. It's Nick Freitas. It's really good to have you on the show, as always, Nick. Thank you. Thanks, well, I appreciate it. All right, there he goes. Over on YouTube.

Let's check in where, what's going on here? That should be working. Let's see. Dan, what's going on? It's not working over there? Can't get my thing. Hold on. Hold on. Let's see.

Oh, well, I don't know. I want to read them out loud here for everybody watching. First round by says having kids sound. like it sucks. What about that conversation makes you think that having kids has sucks? It's the best. That's why I gave you that one because I'm like, that doesn't make any sense.

Owner, Texas says these kids today can't start a lawnmower. That's true. That's probably true. Yes. They're going to be automatic one day. Having kids Why aren't they already? It's your robot's going to be mowing the lawn.

Yeah. It's ridiculous. Why is there not. Why, what is that thing that goes around the floors that people have Rumba? What is that thing called? A Rumba. Are there not Rumbaas for the lawn yet? They've got to have those, right?

They do. They do have them. Connor Sallon and Bryant Park. Yep. Oh my God, everybody's watching him be like, he speaks. He speaks. The silent person in the background of Dan Schott speaks. You're not supposed to talk He does. He's not a mute.

Connor speaks. So he's actually my fact checker. There's lawn rumbas. Lawn rumba is out there in New York City. Will, have your sons mowed along before? Everywhere. Patrick, let's move on. No, I'm just curious, because my 12-year-old is, like, starting to dabble, so I was just curious.

No, my kids have never, ever mowed along. That was my one chore. Now, they lived in New York for, they lived in New York for the first half their life. Sure. No excuse, Will, because that's when they don't. But middle school and high school should be when they mow the lawn. No, no, they don't mow the lawn. Patrick, they barely pick up their room.

I'm in a... And they steal your clothes. I'm frustrated right now. When they steal my clothes, correct. So I'll talk over here on Will Cain Country. Ed Blakesley says, way too many males in high school can't make it through gym class. And as a result, couldn't make it to military basic training. and it is totally pathetic.

And then he gives a sunglasses smiling face emoji, which throws me off, and I don't know what to do. My man is also wearing a beret in his profile picture. Yeah, the physical standards thing. I mean, that's, is that worse than not being able to mow along? Like, if you can't do whatever is required, presential fitness test, I guess. Yeah. Yeah.

I think it is. I mean, people are chronically inside. in front of screens. I hate to be that guy, but it's true. Like, I like, I like this, I like what Nick said about having a violent hobby. I think that's a great thing. Or a physical hobby.

You know what my youngest son has started doing in the past week? So it's not a hobby, just in the past week. And I know why. Well, fun, but also vanity. The, uh, so he has said to me, you know, he's like 14. He wants a big back. Like backs are the way you, you know, you, I guess, create the right profile. He's right.

I was like, well, you should have been a swimmer. Swimmers, this is. But then this weekend, I had heard about this. There's this documentary on HBO called The Dark Wizard about a guy who's a little bit like, but predated Alex Honnold. You know, Alex Honnold, free solo, climbed the tower in Taipei, right? this guy kind of was before Honnold and he was screw loose

crazy like climbing Yosemite free solo all that stuff but it was also into this stuff it almost bothers me to talk about it

my hands sweat when I watched slacklining you know slacklining he's like walking a tight rope and he would run a tight rope

between mountain peaks not mountain peaks but like I don't know like jagged points at the top of a mountain in Yosemite. I'm talking 3,000 feet in the air, right? In the beginning, he would have a leash on his ankle, a tether to the rope so that when he fell,

okay, you've got that. But he started taking it off. He started taking the tether off and just doing it, you know, with no catch. And it's on video. You can watch him doing it because it's in the GoPro age. he fell too i mean he would fall but he had kind of mastered how to catch yourself these slacklining guys they can kind of fall and then they wrap their arm and leg real quick and catch themselves but dude 3,000 feet in the air and then by the way to go from that position

back to a standing position i mean this i i'm i feel queasy right now even talking about it but anyway this dude's like 6-6 in his upper body was just like thick thick around his rib cages, his lat. I was telling my son about it, so mysteriously in the past week, he started going to a rock climbing gym. And I was like, yeah. I mean, a rock climbing gym will get you built. By the way, please never, never climb something.

What about rowing? Well, they look like, uh, yeah, rowing's up there. Rower's your shoulders. My wife, uh, brought that up. And, and this dude was also a high school rower. Uh, this dude's name was Dean Potter. Swimming's a way to go, though. Right. So, by the way, if you were ranking it, if you were ranking sports that produce, like, the best physique.

Like, to look at. Now, some people will disagree with this because you like a different style of male physique. But rowing, swimming, and mountain climbing have that V. Like, they have the V. Swimming is the most. I mean, football players and rugby players are thicker blocks of rock. sure, you know, but I would say those are top three in producing that physique, wouldn't you agree? Not baseball.

Yeah, swimming. Greek God. Swimming gives you that. I mean, the Olympics, it's like catnip for women that I've known. There's men swimming in the Olympics because it's like the perfect. It's got the V shape. You got the elongated torso because you have the abs. You have the broadest shoulders in the entire world.

I think swimming's absolutely number one. Wrestling is pretty good. Waterpola, water polo is up there too. Waterpola makes you thicker. So it's like take the swimmer body, but then thicker. How do you get thicker? Combow. Probably because of the physical wrestling involved.

Sprinting. It's like, it's not just swimming. It's like it attracts thicker guys because you've got to have a lot of strength. But I think also produces that too. Right. Treading water makes your legs thick. Um, so basically all the sports that I've been into produced the, the, I was going to say, you're just talking about what I'm trying to get around to. Water pole, swimming, rowing.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But you got a TV host frame. You're looking at right now. Yeah. Which, no, I'd just say, like, what you're looking at might be peak male performance.

Yeah. What you, what you're, if you're on YouTube or Facebook, I don't want you to get intimidated, but you might be looking at. You need a tighter shirt to say that. The optimal male physique. We've seen you at the Navy SEAL swim, so we know. What I've learned with age is you are who you are. There's only so much you can do without serious chemical intervention. And, you know, I'm just never going to be 205, you know.

I'm working on it. Built. I'm down 25. You could be, Dan. I'm down 25 pounds in a month. I'm working on it. Yeah. Really?

He's a. Was you big? No. Died an exercise, baby. All natural. No drinking. Really? No alcohol.

Cut it out. Food. Diet. Disercut. And back now to YouTube, owner Texas says the race for anti-gravity technology is the first one to get it. Wins control of the skies. I actually know we's talking about a little bit here. Anti-gravity technology is what one would presume you need for,

rapid, rapid ascent, rapid change of directions. Like, in other words, what seems to be happening with the physics behind these quote-unquote orbs, these UAPs and what they're doing on video defies the laws of physics in a gravity-based environment. And as some people have said, no human being could withstand the G-forces of that. rapid change of direction at that speed. But there's no, I don't know why we have to presume there's a human being involved either. And I'm not just talking about extraterrestrial, like, you know, drone.

I mean, G-Force literally means gravity. So if you have anti-gravity, then you don't need it. It doesn't matter. I don't know if this is true, but Suzanne Nico says on YouTube, Mark Hoppus, Blink 182's lead singer, helped the U.S. military locate and capture Saddam Hussein to disband Mike's CIA. It's true. It is true.

I remember He told a general He told a general An idea because Saddam Hussein was broadcasting To his followers And Mark Hopp has came up with the idea That they should track by drones The frequencies

And he told this to a general And that's how apparently they used it and found him Yeah How did he tell this general? Did he email him like They're just at a party? They're out of party, yeah, they're just chilling You have access when you're a celebrity

A general was at a party with Blink 182 These are a lot of leaps. I can't just get past. It's true. This one's actual. You literally are friends with the Secretary of War. So, I mean, like, you of all people can't talk. I'm also not in Blink 182.

With the secretary. But I'm not in Blink 182. That is two worlds that I do not see colliding. You could make them. You can make them collide, though. If you're interested in the Army and you're rich and famous, you can do that. Okay. And you meet a general.

Hold on. Let's play out the scenario. Let's play out the scenario. somehow a general, high-level general, ends up at the same party as Blink 182. At that party, and even though the general is a big fan of Blink 1-82, the dude walks up to him and says, hey, I've got an idea. Now, I've been involved in some conversations like this, and you think the general's brain turned on, not off.

When Blink 182 starts telling him about ways to catch Saddam Hussein, He's over there eyeballing the poo-poop platter. He is not taking notes. And so I'm just a little skeptical of this one down and took them back. Took them back to the Pentagon and said, guys, you're not going to believe this. So apparently, Guess what I heard from Blink 182? Suzanne updated us.

Apparently they were playing for the troops. That's how they mean. Oh, there you go. All right. So after he finished his set, he went off stage and said, I got something for you. Yeah. One at the middle of the... Yeah, they use it.

I mean, that's what it looks like. It was in his book, so it must be true. People don't make things up in books. Also, Blink 1-82. Blink 1-82. The... There he is. Even though I can't get it to work, you can see it on my phone.

The lynchpin on the disappearance there of Major General, Neil McCaslin. Luckily, the background of my phone is obscured and fuzzy, so everybody cannot see that I have, what is that, 114 missed text and 1,278 unread emails. That sounds about it right, actually. You might be, like, the only person worse than you is tomorrow's guest. At what? You want to guess? Like, if you have that many unread texts and messages and emails.

Carefully, call that here. She knows. I got it. She said on our show before. Is it Rachel Campos? Is it Rachel Campos stuffy? Yes. There you go. I knew who it would be.

And that is tomorrow's episode of Will Kane Country. That's going to do it for us today. We appreciate you hanging out with us. We hope you will subscribe to us on Spotify or Apple, and 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.