Will Cain Country - Kimmel Under Fire Again—Doubles Down After Melania Joke, Trump Responds (ft. Rep. Eric Burlison & Wade Stotts)

Episode Date: April 28, 2026

In May 2024, an Air Force Intelligence Officer agreed to testify on alleged secret government UFO programs. Within months, he was found dead. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) joins Will to help shed some light on whether any foul play was involved in the death of Air Force Whistleblower Matthew James Sullivan, and share what he knows (and can’t say) about the extent of our government’s information on alleged extraterrestrial spacecraft.Plus, Host of 'The Wade Show With Wade,' Wade Stotts joins Will and The Crew to discuss Hollywood’s ‘quality plateau’  before revisiting some of the best political gaffes in American history and weighing in on the media firestorm over Jimmy Kimmel’s "expectant widow" joke.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@silicanes⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How is TD making banking more human? Easy. With less bank talk and more real talk. Less your call is important to us. And more, how can we help? Less confusion and more clarity. It's things like being able to buy partial shares with TD direct investing. And tracking your spending and saving with TD My Spend.

It's getting more of what you want and less of what you don't. That's how TD is making banking more human. Staged, staged, staged. There will be no slowdown. The left will not tone down their rhetoric. Jimmy Kimmel will not apologize. I suggest we familiarize ourselves with Brandenburg versus the United States. There will only be one set of breaks on.

this runaway train. There will only be one hurdle for free speech leading to violence with Wade Stutz. And Congressman Eric Burleson on UFOs, UAPs, alien spacecrafts, and missing scientists. It is Wilcane Country. Streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel. The Wilcane Facebook page, always available by following us at Spotify or on Apple. Coming up in just moments, Congressman Eric Burleson has been making some incredible statements

on major mainstream media outlets talking about the missing scientists and the existence of alien spacecrafts held by foreign governments buried under a modern structure. In fact, Congressman Eric Berlinson has said, said that scientists who have gone missing or are dead promised they would not commit suicide

and yet turn up some short time later purportedly having committed suicide. Here is, Congressman Eric Burleson. I sent a letter to the FBI investigating the suspicious suicide of another individual who had worked alongside, you know, other whistleblowers like David Grush and Jake Barber who had come forward. So their colleague is mysteriously committed suicide. We've already sent the letter to the FBI to investigate that, and that is an ongoing investigation. We join in just moments here by Congressman Eric Berluson. But there will be no apology. There will be no tone down. There will be no slowdown when it comes to the language and accusations, the rhetoric that has led to now the third attempt on the life of President Donald Trump.

Morgan J. Freeman, a commentator on the left, posted a very simple message onto X, repeated what looks like something over 50 times in all caps, the word staged. And that seems to be a sentiment as at least somewhat prevalent on the left. Anna Navarro famously of the view, she's had something similar. She's taken up this acceptable and I guess some how mainstream point of view. Here's Anna Navarro. It talks to me that in a place that is teeming with Secret Service, with Washington, D.C. police, with all sorts of law enforcement, this could happen.

But also, I think people jump to that conclusion that it is staged because Trump lies. He lies constantly, daily, and pathologically. So people do not trust and do not believe anything Trump says. His lips are moving. The likelihood is he is lying. That's a laundromat for lies. That's called whitewashing insanity. That is Anna Navarra.

talking about President Donald Trump. This rhetoric is, of course, out of control. And just the day before the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump, Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about the First Lady, Melania Trump, having the glow of an expectant widow. President Donald Trump and the First Lady essentially have called for Jimmy Kimmel's firing that this is enough. Enough is enough. One too many. That should be at ABC. It should be no more for Jimmy Kimmel.

But Jimmy Kimmel will not apologize, much like his initial instinct after suggesting that Charlie Kirk's assassin was MAGA. Jimmy Kimmel will hold his ground. And what I would suggest to you this is all evidence of is that there will not be any course correction. There will not be any self-reflection. There's not going to be a long look in the mirror. There's going to be no change in behavior. We are now reaching political terminal velocity. We're getting to the point where it can only go in one direction, and that is worse.

We had this debate yesterday about whether or not it would get better under, for example, the president, J.D. Vance. But it's not going to go in any other direction, but increased callousness and calls for violence in our world of politics. And I would say you need to familiarize yourself with Brandenburg versus the United States. The limitations on free speech in America were set in 1969 about the Supreme Court of the United States. The case is called Brandenburg. For those that know much less but like to opine as though they know more, they will often say things like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That is, of course, untrue. You can yell fire in a crowded theater. In fact, you're encouraged to if in fact there is fire. The point is that was a case that was several

decades before Brandenburg. And the law on free speech continued to evolve up until about 1969. They set the limits in that Supreme Court case at a direct incitement to violence. That's the limitation. Will someone say something that is a direct incitement to violence? You ask yourself, well, what is a direct incitement to violence? Basically, the bar, which is very high, amounts to something like this. Hey boys, there goes Dan. Go get him. Two of days, Dan is said enough.

Kill him. Hey. Don't clip that. What the hell? That is a direct incitement to violence. I would say. Short of that, it's really hard for the government to do anything to limit free speech. But my point in telling you to familiarize yourself with Brandenberg is not to defend this rhetoric, but to tell you, we are rapidly

approaching that rhetoric. I do believe that we will soon see government intervention when it comes to free speech because I do believe that free speech is beginning to push the boundaries of the limitations of Brandon Bird. I'm not telling you what I want or do not want. I'm telling you where we are headed. And when I look at the language of Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reed, hell, anybody that worked for Barack Obama quite honestly at this point that still makes appearances on MS now, When I look at the rhetoric of Hassan Piker, I see that we're basically like two steps away from the Brandenburg test. My point is what Piker says is really only generalized. It's an obvious call to violence, but it's not direct.

He gets a get out of jail free card in that it is a generalized called a revolution in violence. It has to be more direct and imminent. And I'm just telling you, he's standing on third base waiting for somebody to bunt so he can run on home. That rhetoric is coming. Partially out of ignorance, partially out of a lustful desire, a foaming mouth, blood dripping from their teeth, desire to ramp up this rhetoric. I'm serious. The imagery is apt.

It's essentially demonic because it's driven by things that are like one of the seven deadly sins. That might be top of mind. Last night, my two sons, my wife is out of town. We were having dinner. when the dudes are sitting around, dinner's pretty simple. Entertainment's pretty high. They were like, hey, let's watch something. I was like, okay, what do you want to watch?

And then ensued a huge debate, as dudes will. My youngest son just watched Whiplash over the weekend, and he now contends it's the best movie that he's ever seen. He says Whiplash is amazing. And he wants to rewatch it. And he wants to rewatch it while we watch it, essentially, so he can sort of get some kind of extensionary credit, I believe, on having discovered Whiplash.

Of course, I saw Whiplash. I saw Whiplash 20 years ago. whatever it was, 15 years ago. But the other two contenders in the debate were Fight Club and Seven. All right. So my oldest son hasn't traditionally loved Harry movies. And I'm like, dude, I'm telling you, I don't know about scary, but there's really no more disturbing movie than Seven. So do you really want to do this?

And he kind of took that on as a challenge. They accused me of reverse psychology, having manipulated the playing board. so that we ended up watching seven. And that's what we did. Thus, Seven Deadly Sins at the top of my mind after having watched Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman in Seven. And it led me to this conversation this morning in this topic, which we'll revisit here at the end of the show.

Seven holds up, dude. And Seven is 30 years old. 31 years old. It came out in 1995. And it holds up. So I got to think about this this morning. When Seven came out in 1995, had you watched a movie 31 years older than that, 1964, 1965, would it held up over a 31 year period in the same way that 7 has held up to 2026?

And I got to think, and I think movies have stalled out. I know Patrick's probably going to readily agree with that. I think plots, I think directing, I think writing has stalled out. I think acting to some extent has stalled out. It's not that they're not good. They're good writers. They're good actors and they're good directors. But to some extent, it's stalled out.

I think you're going to find a great movie from 65. I mean, I remember as a kid watching The Sting and thinking the Sting is really good, but I think that's from the 70s. So I could find some movie, I'm sure, that I watched from 1965 that holds up. I'll bet there's one. But by the end of this program, not right now, I'd love for you guys to look up the top 10 movies from 1965 and the top 10 movies from 1995. And let's see if they hold up, because my contention is we saw massive. progression in movies over the latter half of the 20th century and we stalled out through the first half of the 2000s. Because seven, my friends, seven holds up. And that imagery of the seven

deadly sins is where we're headed with the rhetoric. That's what I think is about to happen. We are on the verge of really violent calls for action that will put the Brandenburg test and our embrace of free speech to the test. We're going to revisit that. I'll play for me some of this sound from Jimmy Kimmel and others. And just a moment with the host of The Wade Show with Wade, Wade's thoughts coming up here on Will King Country. But we're joined now by Republican Congressman from Missouri's 7th Congressional District. It is Eric Burleson on Will King Country.

Congressman, it's good to have you. Good to be on. Congressman, I have been seeing you on multiple platforms. Now, just as a bit of background, and you may be aware. I've been pretty interested in both the missing scientist story, and I've been interested in the UAP story. I think I've had conversations at this point with Congressman Tim Burchett, multiple different other peoples,

and broken down, by the way, the individual cases of whatever the number is we're up to on the missing nuclear and NASA jet propulsion lab and other scientists in this country. What I'm trying to suggest to you is I am curious, I am open-minded, but I'll be honest, Congressman, I'm becoming more skeptical. of this as a story that has an obvious connection. I can't connect Amy Eskridge to Monica Reza to Melissa Cassius to William McCaslin. I'm beginning to think that the story is stretched.

Now, you have been saying things that suggest otherwise. So I would like to just start with an open question. Where are you on this notion that there is an overarching story when it comes to these missing and dead signs? Yeah, I think that it's both things can be true at the same time. So I would agree with you that there to say that all of these scientists that have been mentioned, that there's some kind of commonality and that they are all somehow strung together in some in some way, I think is implausible. It's certainly not.

And I don't know where many of these individuals, who's been adding to the people who's been adding them to the list, right? I think the media kind of has been the ones that's pulled these names together. What I would say is don't get caught up in all of the names, because some of them are absolute outliers. They're not, for example, Nuno Lurio, right? His name's really hard to say.

But he was a MIT scientist working on plasma science and fusion, basically what the type of technology you would need to create nuclear fusion. And he was on the cutting edge of that. He was killed in his home by someone that I think that they identified, that they were in grad school together. So to me, that is, you know, lumping him into this mix is not exactly the same. The people that I think are mysterious and deserve us looking into

is General, you know, William, Neal, you know, William Neal McAasteland and the people that were connected to him. The fact that you have a former U.S. General who was overseeing billions and billions of dollars in advanced research, R&D, he was, I mean, if there was a UAP, you know, individual, he was, his nickname was General UAP, right? The people that were associated with him that just vanished, walked out of their homes, and the pattern is very similar, left their devices behind, left their wallets, left everything behind, and just walked out and never were seen again.

To me, that's what needs to be focused on, and the investigation needs to be laser-focused on those individuals. Let's take a quick, Greg, but continue this conversation with Congressman Eric Berluson on the Missing Scientists and UAPs on Wilcane Country. Okay, flights on air Canada. Where do you want to go? The Azores? For its hot springs and volcanoes? Hmm, speaking of volcanoes, what about Japan? Mmm, you know I love sushi. Not as much as I love tapas. Maybe, Mallorca.

We could hit the beach, then go hiking. Hiking? Or how about a seaside stroll in Sicily? Ooh, I do love canoes. Wait, what do you think of... With a world of destinations to choose from, good luck picking just one. Air Canada. Nice travels. Sorry, investing, trading. That isn't a personality.

You don't need the voice. You don't need the jargon. You don't need the podcast. You already know how to trade. You've done it your whole life. And TD Easy Trade taps into that instinct. So you can build something real. No minimums.

No monthly fees. 24-hour support. No investor personality required. Because you are made to trade. And TD Easy Trade is made to help. Download it now. Welcome back to Will Kay and Country. We're still hanging out with Congressman Eric.

Burleson of Missouri, who's made some very big statements when it comes to the missing scientists and UAPs. Okay, I do believe that to some extent then you and I have a similar outlook on this. While I'm skeptical of the overarching narrative, I'm open-minded as to whether or not there is a deeper story. And I do believe that the ones that should be focused on are the ones that seem to have gone missing. They don't have readily plausible or rational explanations for what might have happened to them. That being said, I think the appropriate thing to do is to look at each one of these cases individually and see if the facts lead us in a direction of seeing something more connected or deeper. So off the top of my head, the people whose pattern of disappearance is very similar to General William Neal McAslin are Anthony Chavez, 78 years old, 13 years retired from the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico. Stephen Garcia, who worked for, I believe, a Kansas City research laboratory that was receiving funding from Los Alamos as well.

He was in Albuquerque when he disappeared. Correct. Yeah. Also, New Mexico. Those three that we've just mentioned so far all have the connection of New Mexico. I believe Melissa Casillas also has very similar situation where she seemingly just walked away. And I believe that one was also in New Mexico. The issue that I have in looking at these is that in the case of Melissa Cassias, her family does not think there's something more here. Beyond, they do think there's foul play. I do believe that their belief is domestic in nature. They believe there was something that happened with either former lover, ex-husband, current husband, or so forth that explains what happened with her.

Chavez is 78 years old. The most suspicious detail to me was that he walked away from his cigarettes. I just don't know a lot of smokers who walk away from their cigarettes. Your phone is one thing. Your cigarettes are another. And then Garcia, there are suggestions that he might have had mental health troubles, as is the case in the hint of suggestion on many of these. I even think that McCaslin's wife suggested he was struggling with something.

Do the testimony of these various family members, what do they do for where you are on this story? And I agree with you one other thing, by the way. the focus should start with McCasland. Yeah. My heart goes out to these family members, and really as a nation, I think the one thing that we should recognize

is that we've, all of these scientists, whether they're connected or not, or whether there was some nefarious reason or not, the loss of lives of these brilliant people is a detriment to the United States. And in many cases, if they are missing, it's a risk and a security risk for the fact that General McCasland is missing is a national security risk. What he knows would be extremely

important to any adversary. So to me, he's the number one person that should be, that they should focus on that investigation. But to your point, like, these were all amazing, brilliant people who were working on the cutting edge research, and they all have unique stories that deserve looking into. But to suggest, to your point, I don't think that there is one common thread with everyone that's been mentioned. And they're not all scientists either. So you have to kind of fair it out what the press tends to do, which is just take them all together and say,

another scientist missing, another scientist missing. Well, for example, one of the people that my office has been researching, investigating is Matthew James Sullivan, who was not a scientist. He was working at, you know, he worked for DARPA. and he worked for the Air Force. He was high up in intelligence, and he was working on the UAP topic.

His death is very suspicious, and we were researching his death long before General McCaslin went missing. But he's not a scientist, yet the press seems to just, you know, it makes for, I guess, a better headline or a cleaner headline to say, one more scientist found. And Michael James Sullivan committed suicide after saying he would not commit suicide to have the details of his situation correctly or right before he was scheduled to testify, either before Congress or brought in by your office for an investigation. Right. So David Grush was working with Matthew Sullivan to bring him in. They had already scheduled a time for him to be able to come and talk to members of Congress. This was not a scheduled hearing. it was going to be the first kind of iterations of what would become a hearing, right?

And he suspiciously committed, he suspiciously died of an overdose. And from what I can tell, there's not evidence that he was a substance user, that he had, that he had some kind of addiction. So that, when you talk to the people that worked with him, that interacted with him, Look, he was given serious authority and ability to see some of our intelligence. The fact that he was trusted at that level, that in and of itself, I mean, it's hard to believe that he had a substance abuse problem. And when you talk to David Grush, who worked with Matthew Sullivan and Jacob Barber,

who is also a whistleblower, they both adamantly believe that there was foul play when it came to their friend Matthew Sullivan. What information did Sullivan have to offer you or a congressional investigation? Like, what was he supposedly privy to? UAP information? What did he have that was sensitive? So he's the type of witness that we've been trying to get to. Someone that has been actually part of the legacy program who has actually touched, put their

eyes on, seeing the physical evidence, seeing the craft, seeing the bodies. That was James Sullivan. Every time, all of the whistleblowers that have come forward so far have been people that are on the outside of the onion, if you will. So they've been read onto these programs, but they've not actually seen the bodies. They've not actually seen the craft personally. I mean, they may have seen, there's some whistle whistleblowers or people that came forward that said that they had any, they saw a UAP flying. But as far as like encountering it physically, it's really hard to get a hold of these people. So I've seen you talk about this, Congressman, and I'm going to be blunt with you.

You seem like a serious individual. You truly do. And I think this is the first time that you and I have talked. And I just feel like it's important again. I need to be sensitive to the fact that you have to leave in like three minutes, probably for some congressional duty. But I am very open-minded on this stuff. But I get frustrated. I really do.

I get frustrated with members of Congress that say, I've seen stuff, but I can't go any further. Yeah, I know. Or I want to tell you this, but I can't. go any further. And in a way, it's even hard for me wrap my mind right. What are you getting to see that I don't get to see? And why does it have to stop with the amount of information you share when you share some information? You know, Will, I kind of can understand. And let me explain my perspective. I've been in these same briefings as some of my colleagues, but what you don't see is me go to the camera and say outlandish things. I don't jump to conclude.

conclusions when I, when just based on some of the stuff that I've seen. I leave. So for example, when you see these glowing objects that look like an orb, I've seen videos of objects that are that are very strange. They look like a ball of plasma that's flying in some way that doesn't follow normal physics that we're aware of. And yet I'm not going to come out and say that that is proof of alien life. been visited, that's extraterrestrial. It could be anything, right? We don't know what this is,

so I'm not going to jump out and make outlandish claims. I think there's a tendency for members of Congress to do that, because that does get you on the bigger interviews. It gets you more clicks, gets you more eyeballs. But I'm just trying to, I'm trying to approach this from a very serious manner and trying to stay skeptical. But Congressman, and I'm not challenging you, you've said two things that caught my attention. One, you've told me that there is an alien spacecraft that has been recovered and it is being managed in a foreign country and there's been an edifice that has been built over that spacecraft. I've seen you say that. And I've also seen you say, and it may not be on this exact subject, but I've seen you say something and go, I need to stop here. I can't go any

further. So I would love for you, and by the way, I hope maybe we can revisit this conversation at a time when we have a little more, because we're both serious about it. I'm not a skeptic. I'm also not trying to get the viral clip from you. I'm truly trying to understand the depth of our knowledge on this subject, because it is probably, at least in the top three most important things, facing humanity, if it's real. So explain those two things to me. Your testimony, or not your testimony, but your interview about the alien spacecraft and why certain stages and interviews, you say, I should stop here. Well, on that, on that, the specific craft that, that they built a facility over. This is something that I have not seen. I have not, I don't have hard evidence for

what I, when I've done those interviews, anytime I do these interviews, I try to be very clear that people have told me. This is what I've been briefed on. It's not something that I, and so I am from Missouri. I say this. What does that mean, by the way, for the audience? Something you've been told and you've been briefed on. When you say I've been told, that doesn't carry a lot of weight because people are always like, well, I've been told a lot of things. But when you say I've been briefed, that sounds much more official. So what does that mean you've been told or you've been briefed? So to me, when I say briefed, that means I've been in a skiff with people who are, who have gone about the official channels. They've gotten permission from the Department of War or the, or intelligence

community to be able to brief us, to be able to speak to us and tell us what they know. That's more of an official channel. Now, I will give a distinction that's not under oath. I still think that it's a big deal for these people to lie to a member of Congress. So I kind of take them at their word, but at the end of the day, what they're telling me often is what they perceived and what they experienced.

And it may not be that what they perceived is accurate. So they may have seen something that they thought was a spacecraft. They thought people were working on something with spacecraft could have been, who knows, like a Russian submarine or something. But in their mind, that's what they saw. That's what I have to kind of take into consideration. And so whenever I'm doing these interviews and I'm asked questions, I try to be clear,

this is what I've been told or what I've been briefed. Right. To me, when somebody tells me something outside of an official setting, then I'll say something that I've been told, if that makes sense. And why do you, so just two questions. Quick follow-ups, I've got like a minute left with you. What about this spacecraft that's in some foreign country that you said they've built an edifice over? Right.

So that is something that I'm continuing to look into, see if there's any kind of tangible evidence that that's real. Find a paper trail, anything before I would even consider going on some kind of wild goose chase to try to go track something like this down across the, across the planet, right? And we get all kinds of my, now our. office, we get all kinds of crazy claims and people come to us telling us all these outlandish things. You can't track everything down. So I try to find out if there's any kind of real evidence and then try to get permission. So the White House has been, I think, unusually helpful. I mean, historically, they told Barry Goldwater to go away, right, when he wanted to know what was going on at a military base. They, you know, Harry Reid had a very difficult time.

I feel very, I think this administration is very open, and they've been very cooperative with me to be able to actually go see some of these locations and see if there's something there, if that gives you, but I'm not going to go across the world, unless I got more. In an interview when you say, in an interview when you say, I should stop there, I'm just curious what's stopping you. Is it because you realize you've reached the limits of what you could share in a classified setting, a skit, what you received inside of. a skiff, your own sense of responsibility, like, okay, I've gone too far in terms of what I can actually support with evidence. Like, when I hear you, and it's not just you, there's some other congressmen I've seen this with, too, they go, I should stop there. I can't go any further. What limit have you reached when I hear you say that? So I try to compartmentalize what I've been told in a secure setting and what classification level they've given us, and they scare the crap out of you when you go into these briefings and they'll tell you, you know, they have you sign a document

that says, you know, you could be prosecuted, you could be all of this if you divulge this information. So I try to be very cautious, particularly if I'm talking to the press because I'm not covered under speech and debate, like I am in a public hearing or on the floor. So when that's the case, you've got to be, I'm very cautious about what I'm going to say. And I have to compartmentalize and say, is this information already public? Did I learn this from someone outside of a secure setting? Have they already said these things that are public? And the reason why I spoke to or responded about the UAP that's too big to move

is because that has been widely mentioned in the public prior to me saying that in the interview. All right. Does that give you an idea? Congressman Eric Burleson from Missouri, it does give me an idea. would appreciate the opportunity in the future to talk to you more when we have a little bit more time to, which I think we're having an honest conversation. And I hope you see as well. This is an environment where I'm just trying to get the best 20, 30 second clip out there to get as many clicks. But I'm actually interested. The difference is I think I'm actually interested in this story. And so I want to know what's true. So when we have some more time. Yeah. Yeah. I'll have my team give you, share my cell phone number. Hopefully we can talk. Okay. Congressman Eric Burleson. We'll let you get about your official business. Thanks for being with us here. today. Anytime.

Okay, there he goes, Congressman Eric Burleson from the 7th Congressional District of Missouri. Burleson, by the way, tweeted just the other day or posted on X. My office was working directly with Matthew Sullivan to testify before Congress prior to his sudden death. It is vital that the FBI investigate these cases and ensure our top scientists and whistleblowers are protected. Michael Sullivan, the individual he just referenced who purportedly had done. direct knowledge, direct encounter with an alien spacecraft, not I heard or I was given testimony

or I did an interview wherein someone told me or I saw granny footage or I even saw in the sky, but rather I laid hands, I laid direct eyes on something and Matthew Sullivan is no longer with this. I approach this topic as always with a great spirit of curiosity and openness, but I think it's time to start subjecting this conversation to some very serious, rigorous, critical thought. It sounds like the Congressman could be one of those individuals we might be able to do so with. I look forward to welcoming him back in the future. Congressman Eric Burleson. Have you ever noticed, though, when the rules start getting rewritten, people are told not to question it? That's why this story matters right now.

The story I'm talking about now is Animal Farm. George Arwell's classic. And it's back in a bold new animated film from Angel Studios. and it's going to bring the story to life in a way that a whole new generation now gets to see. It follows a young pig named Lucky, and through his eyes, you watch hope turn into control and power into corruption. This film doesn't tell you what to think.

It makes you think. And yes, it's a story about the dangers of totalitarianism, about what happens when truth gets twisted and nobody pushes back. If you got kids, especially older kids, who might be reading this in school, be ready because this is the kind of movie that sparks real conversation after it's over. And here's the thing, Angel Studios took a risk bringing this to theaters driven by people who believe this story needed to be told.

Everyone's going to be talking about this one. Animal Farm in theaters May 1st. Get your tickets now and go see it for yourself. Coming up, Wade Stott's joins us as Jimmy Kimmel refuses to apologize and the left embraces the conspiracy that Donald Trump's third assassination was staged on Wilcane Country. Amazon Presents, Jeff versus Texas. Taco truck salsa, whether it's Verde, Roja, or the orange one. For Jeff, trying any salsa is like playing Russian roulette with a flamethrower. Luckily, Jeff saved with Amazon and stocked up on antacids, ginger tea, and milk.

Habaniero, more like habanier, yes. Save the everyday with Amazon. Welcome aboard via rail. Please sit and enjoy. Please sit and sit. Play. Post. Taste.

View. And enjoy. Via Rail, love the way. I mentioned I watched a movie last night with my sons. We've watched Seven. Now we've got to watch Fight Club. By the way, I think Animal Farm would be one of those great movies. My youngest son is super into stories.

Now he's super into reading as well. And super into movies. So I'm kind of curious, like, what he wants to do with all of this? We've talked about it. it's becoming such a passion of his that it's like starting to push soccer to the sideline, which is really eye-opening. But do we agree? First of all, before you give me the list of top tens,

do you think a movie from 1995 holds up better to 2026 than a movie from 1964 would to 1995? Tenfoil, do you agree with that premise? I do. I think that the pacing is a lot different in older movies from the 60s. And that's why I like remakes made sense in the 90s, whereas remakes don't make sense today because it's just repackaging it at all. Totally. So in watching that, the only quality differential, and that's done by David Fincher, who's really good, by the way, is the audio. I noticed the audio is not as good as the audio we get today.

You've got to fight through a little bit of the audio quality. Hopefully we don't hear now with the host of the Wade Show with Way. It's Wade Stokes who's joining this conversation with us. What's up, Wade? Life is good, man. I'm on Will Cain Country on a Tuesday. I just got to hear a fascinating conversations about UFOs and classic film. What a great day.

Well, let's get you in on both of those conversations. What I mentioned was my wife's out of town. So my boys during dinner and last night, let's watch something. I'm like, okay, what do you want to watch? I've got teenage boys, right? And it was a huge debate ensued. And what we settled on was seven. Seven.

So heavy. I've seen it's yeah I I was like guys it's a great movie it's super good but it's like just like it's gonna put us in a mood right before bed but it's so good that I'm willing to endure this mood um but I was pleased Wade at the end of the movie I was like wouldn't that come out and said in 1995 I was like dang that's old and dang that holds up you know and and that's the debate I've having with the fellas. Like, I don't think a movie from 65 holds up to 95 in the way a movie does from 95 to 2025. Yeah. I think one contemporary example is they're remaking Man on Fire. The one that everybody knows is the Denzel Washington movie. Tony Scott. Such a good movie. And it's a remake of a movie that was made in the 70s. And again, so it was like, I think it was 04 that the Denzel Washington one came out. Such a cool movie. Love Tony Scott. That's another great, Like, I'm looking forward to watching that with my boys when they get older.

And Tony Scott in general. But like the remake between the 70s movie and the 2004 movie, those are just different cool movies. This one, I think the most recent one, they're trying to do a Netflix sort of limited series on it. And to me, it just looks totally unnecessary. Everything looks undersaturated. I didn't watch Man on Fire and think, you know what? I wish this were five hours long. It was just, it was like, it leaves you wanting more in the best kind of way.

And yeah, I mean, back to Pat's point, yeah, definitely wasn't quite as interested in the new remake, even though the 2004 one was a remake. But because the other one holds up so well, why make another one? So I think, so what I think happened is from 65 to 95, there was a lot of technological advancement in movie making. It got better. Audio quality, sound quality, video quality, everything got better. And at the same time, to your point, Pat, pacing check. changed. Because even for me, and if anybody's older than us listening and watching, maybe they think this sounds too young and dumb. But like, if you watch a movie from the 60s and to some

extent the 70s, the pacing is way different. It's just slower. And in some ways, that's nice. In some ways, it drags. But what's happened is the pacing, the only thing that's changed, I don't think there's a great amount of technological advancement from 95 to 2025. There's some CGI, all that. But the pacing of seven, the pacing of seven did not feel slow. I'll ask my boys as well if it felt slow. But I don't think they thought it did. And so you had all this growth or technological innovation for 30 years from 65 to 95.

And then from 95 to 2025, we really didn't change the quality of creating movies, I guess, beyond CGI. So I know exactly what you're talking about. Man on Fire is incredible with Denzel. It's one of my favorites. I never even knew, much less solid, there was one from the 70s. And I just last night saw this remake now, and I'm like, it's totally unnecessary.

I don't need to see this. First of all, God help, the guy that tries to play a character that Denzel Washington played. Like, that's like, that's like being the headway champion after Muhammad Ali. No one's going to remember you. You're destined to defend. fail, dude. That's not fair. But the other thing is, coming out of seven, Wade, my boys and I actually

discussed this, everything's a series now. Seven was great. It didn't need an hour on each deadly sin. It didn't need to be a seven or eight episode deal. And I think it actually would have been worse had they done that instead of a two-hour movie. Well, to the point about pacing, I mean, what that does is, what we have now is people turning movies or movie ideas. So people come they've written scripts because that's what you used to be able to do then maybe they've had these scripts sitting on their shells for a long time and then the producers or what they say is what we want is series pitches because that keeps people on the platforms longer and so basically you have people turning movies into even even original stories that they've

any original ideas that they've had into these five episode series and that's what's happening with man on fire that's what happens with again so if you see something that's like oh that's an interesting premise but I don't want to watch that for seven hours. What you what you have is again something that started out as a maybe a cool movie pitch, but that just can't handle the weight of oh, I guess we could add in five characters over here and we could have little subplots where we just spend whole episodes on that. Nobody really wants that, but that's just the way that storytelling has gone. And it's a it's a storytelling media way of storytelling that benefits the platforms. It's designed for binging, but it isn't designed

for making the thing as good as it can be. And yeah, man on fire. these are times where, yeah, you can tell a story in two hours, leave people wanting more. Nobody leaves people wanting more anymore. They just go like, well, I can't wait to slog through episode six so that I can get down to the question that I was been wondering about since episode one that was, I watched, what, three weeks ago? Like, it's trying to blend mediums. It's just not working.

You also mentioned that you listened to that conversation with Congressman Eric Burleson about the UAPs. I'm just curious having, I don't know how long you spent there. that conversation. But I'm curious to reaction. Wait, I don't know exactly. I have no idea where you are on these issues, the missing scientist, the existence of UAPs. And what I found interesting about that conversation is, like, I'm probably one of the more open-minded people on this subject. I'm certainly a curious person on both of these subjects, but I feel like there's no room between being open-minded and curious and seeking out like the most salacious viral thing that you can

find. And it doesn't actually give me anything. Every time now I see, in short, what I'm trying to tell you is when I open my social media and I see clips of people talking about the missing science with UAP, I start to believe these stories less. And that says more to me about the way people are talking about these stories than probably even the credibility of the stories. Yeah, I think that's totally fair. I mean, the fact that there's not been a, you can't, what you're trying to do, which is totally fair and how a rational person wants to approach this, is take your normal standards of evidence and apply them to these claims. The trouble is that there aren't a lot of claims.

There's just a bunch of kind of insinuation. That's something that does well on podcasts, and it's something that does well on sort of reality TV or the first 48 or documentaries about some past crime. You can insinuate and put a bunch of stuff, but there's a reason that relevance is an issue in court. You have to be able to prove some kind of relevance to a case, what's the point that you're trying to prove, and then evidence, quote-unquote,

can be dismissed based on relevance to the case. You can't really apply those standards of evidence to kind of insinuation and stories or claims that can't sort of see the light of day. So it is difficult, but what it does do is it does make people lean in. And that's sometimes the only standard. I want people to listen to me. And so what I'm going to do is sort of insinuate and say, wow, there's some weird, crazy stuff. But yeah, we do want, as rational people, we do want to apply our normal standards of evidence. That's the difficult part.

I also understand, I mean, and because of that is true, because people sort of have gotten by on insinuation in this topic and plenty of others, then sometimes you do miss, like, as far as where the scientists go, William Briggs, who's a great follow on Twitter, he's a statistician, and he talked about the sort of likelihood of when an organization gets this big, which is what you're talking about with with all this stuff there's so many people

if you have a certain group of people what's the percentage of likelihood that any of them are going to go missing or die or even get murdered and the the numbers here can be explained either way so it can be sort of like with this sample size of people you're a certain number of them are going to go missing because people go missing a certain number of them are going to get murdered or die in mysterious odd sort of ways and it so the numbers themselves don't necessarily explain one way or the other. What you need is, again, evidence. And that's not the kind of thing that we're getting.

What we're getting is sort of like, oh, this is weird and this is weird. But it's weird in isolation from the broader, okay, this is a big organization that work that quote unquote works with a lot of different people. And yes, some of them are going to go missing. Some of them are going to get murdered. I right now do not have enough evidence or even to make me go one way or the other on, is this a coincidence or is this some kind of nefarious plot? Yeah, I don't know if it was William Briggs.

I don't follow him, but I will. But in the day and age of the algorithm, it could have been William Briggs. It showed up in my feed. Having not, doesn't matter if I follow someone or not. But I did see somebody saying, if you wanted to create a headline that said dentists are disappearing, you would be able to do that tomorrow. Because of the sample size, the size of the industry. And by the way, if you wanted to even impose a loose definition of what a dentist is, you would find 11 stories over a two to three year period that you would be able to say, isn't it super weird that all of these dentists? And maybe to make this sort of an apples-to-apples analogy, let's include dental hygienists in this.

Yeah. Let's include orthodontists under this as well. And let's include the people that work the counter. The dentist. Oral surgeons. Yes. Assistance. Yeah, probably a national park.

But you could, we could spend time with AI. Probably it wouldn't even take us long. And we'd be able to craft that headline. 14 dentists have gone missing over the last two years. What the hell is going on in America? Yeah, what is about teeth? Are they going after the, yeah, they want us to have bad teeth. Yeah, the establishment wants you to have bad teeth.

They're scared. Let's just take a break. Let's just take a moment. Let's just all get in the nose, out the mouth. Let's call this halftime. I want you to enjoy your halftime entertainment, courtesy of Congresswoman Ilan Omar. The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it was used to detain and deport German, Japanese, Italian immigrants doing World War 11.

Whoa! I didn't know there were so many. World War 11, says the Congresswoman from Minnesota. Holy hell, we miss nine of them. I mean, yeah, I should note. I should note, Wade. I should just note, so everybody feels. feels like they're not dupes. This is a clip that has been resurfaced on social media that is apparently

from January 2025. How it escaped my attention over the past year is of greater consequence. And that could be a conspiracy. But I'm just now seeing her invoke World War 11. Yeah, you know, I consider myself, I'm not a history buff, but I do like history. And so it did, I despaired at the fact that I missed nine World Wars, uh, in my studies. Again, I guess, yeah, I'm a podcast guy. I just haven't gotten to that far in all these history podcasts I'm listening to. It's my fault. It's on me. Trump solved all of them anyway, so. It sounds like a book series. I think I may, I may write this book series. Can you imagine the title,

World War 11? Sells itself. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. The year is 2089. In a war of one man. I joked on Twitter. that like actually a PhD in history here, the definition of a world war is pretty blurry. So maybe, you know, some people say that there are more. Some people say that there are fewer. And I think that the false binary of two world wars is a big problem. And we don't want to be bigots about the number of world wars out there.

I think that's actually an interesting point. And I think that could be a podcast series. Let's just take a minute now. I'll step back and see if we've branded these wars, appropriately. How many actual world wars have there been? Do the two that we reference get to survive the definitional rigor of a world war? I like that. That would be a fun conversation. In the meantime, people have nicknamed her 11 Han Omar. Because obviously, everyone knows what she did here. She looked down at her paper. She saw World War I-I. She saw one-one. She said World War 11. Your brain must just know. name, by the way, is I.L. Two vertical lines as well. So 11 Han Omar is now her new nickname. I do think there's a more substantive point, Wade. And that is, yeah, I do damn well take this as evidence of her ignorance of the culture in which she's immersed and representative of. She is a

congressman of the United States of America to see those two vertical lines having anyone in 90% of the people in this country, even the buffoons that, come on, Will. Have brunch. Jesse Waters. Johnny. Johnny goes on to the streets of Times Square and Bryant Park and interviews these buffoons. I do think if you held up World War II, they'd come up with World War II. They would not say World War 11.

So what does going on, we have a congresswoman whose natural instinct. and seeing this visual isn't to understand. That's a big part of the history of America. Yeah, Blake Neff pointed this out that it's great that she like pauses and knows that something's wrong, but says it anyway. She goes, World War 11.

But it does remind me of, I think there's a, the congressman who is a, he's originally from India, but he is, there's one speech that he does where he's like in the process of, trying to impeach Trump. So he is bringing articles of impeachment before the House to impeach Trump. And during this, he says House of Representatives. And so I personally, maybe it's my, you know, bigotry, whatever, I think that a member of the House of Representatives should be able to say,

House of Representatives. That's sort of a minimum level of understanding of what the job is and where he is. Similar, yeah, with Ilhan Omar, for sure. Well, okay, just to be devil's advocate here is the problem that we have people, and I know that guy you're talking about, and I can't remember his name. And I think, honestly, if you wrote it down for me, I would not be able to pronounce that name. I think it's not argument in rebuttal, devil's advocacy. The issue is not totally explainable by the fact that we have people who have known nothing of American English and nothing of American history. The issue is also heavily rested upon the fact that we have very, very, very stupid people that are also being elected to Congress, regardless of their cultural background. And I would submit, as my evidence on this, the latest video from EPA Administrator,

Zeldon who is getting into a debate at a congressional hearing with the lady, and I don't know her name. I believe she is from the state of New York, a congresswoman. She's the one that dresses like she's headed to a got a got got a goth party, but she's 80 years old. She's got the blue hair, a bunch of rings. Does you know what I'm talking about that lady? Yes, Connecticut. Oh, really? Yeah. She's my neighbor. She's Connecticut? Okay. Yeah. So she's getting on his ass about climate change, and he's like, hey, I'm the EPA administrator. I have to follow the law. The law that we're talking about is this. And it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court through these two seminal cases in the past year or two that affect how this law is applied. And he's like, you know those two cases, right? And she's like, no, I don't. And then they get into it. And she is obstinate about, like, I shouldn't have to know. And you're the bad one here because you don't believe in climate change or something like that. But she's a lawmaker, totally ignorant of the law or the Supreme Court's limitations on that law. And so what I think is you got a bunch of really dumb people, honestly, in Congress.

Yeah, well, and I don't know how many sound bites that this woman has produced, the woman you mentioned, or the kind of soundbites or commercials or whatever, as long as you sort of pledge loyalty to the cause, to the leftist cause, you will get in, you will be protected. And that's really what goes on. So these are clips that we will watch. We will see all of these things. But the people who voted for her are not watching these clips and going, how's she doing really?

I want to make sure that she's actually, you know, but and they may if they do watch it, then they'll go, well, she's a moral person. She's a good person because she believes that climate change is a disaster and are all going to be buried in water tomorrow. It's all moral signaling and it doesn't matter what the details are. And really in this kind of conversation, if somebody brings up the law and says, well, here's how you interpret this. It occurs to these people as a subject change. It's like, okay, well, we're talking about what's, we're talking about science and reality and truth. is what the left would characterize it as. And you're bringing up sort of the intricacies of laws.

See, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is truth and reality. And we're going to save the world from being overcome with the ocean. Let's take a quick break. But continue this conversation with the host of the Wade Show with Wade. Wade Stott's on Will King Country. AI is moving fast across the enterprise. But without visibility, it's just chaos.

Different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. Service Now turns that chaos into control. With the AI control tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place. What it's doing, what it's done, and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com. Okay. When I sell my business, I want the best tax and investment advice. I want to help my kids, and I want to give back to the community. Ooh, then it's the vacations. shouldn't have a lifetime. I wonder if my out of office has a forever setting. An IG Private Wealth Advisor creates the clarity you need with plans that harmonize your business,

your family, and your dreams. Get financial advice that puts you at the center. Find your advisor at IG Private Wealth.com. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with the host of the Wade Show with Wade. It's Wade Stott's. Well, speaking of the ocean, I just texted Dan and Pat, see if you can grab this very quickly because I would offer as my secondary piece of evidence that not we do have some cultural problems in in the United States Congress. We also have some intellect problems. And I would offer in support of the idea that we have some intellect problems, the famously viral clip from several years ago now, maybe 10 years ago, maybe 15 years ago, but he's still in Congress.

He's from Georgia. His first name is Hank. And I can't remember his last name. But you'll remember during a congressional hearing, he was interviewing, I believe, the time, at the time, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy. And he is worried about them, stationing large ships and heavy equipment onto this island. I can't remember if the island is Guam, but it is an island. I believe it's in the Pacific. And he has some very serious concerns about the kind of equipment we're placing on this island. Dan, you have the audio. And tell me this congressman's name before you play it. Hold on.

Uh, well. Hank Johnson. Hank Johnson. Hank Johnson. It didn't have it in the bio. All right. At it's... Okay, Hank Johnson of Georgia, take it away.

The widest level is, what, 12 miles from shore to shore. And at a smallest level, or smallest, uh, uh, uh, uh, lowest level. location, it's seven miles between one shore and the other. Is that correct? I don't have the exact dimensions. I recall, long. So 24 miles long, do you happen to know? I don't have that figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you if you'd like. Yeah, my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated

that it will tip over and capsize. Wait, Dan, was there more, did you hit pause? Because I just have to hear this intellectual man respond to the prospect of the island capsizing. We don't anticipate that.

We don't anticipate that. I can't be ruled by these people anymore. I give up. Oh, man. And I'm sure that the guy asking the question thought it was a gotcha. He was like, he was like, see, they don't even plan him for the inevitable result of the island capsizing. I have a friend who's from Guam, and I never asked him if after he moved away, if his family leaving had any kind of effect on the balance of, yeah, of Guam. effect on, did it Bob for a second when they left?

I'm going to have, right after this. I'm going to ask. Did you put a level on the ground? Like, oh, that's beautiful. We don't anticipate that. You know, I've heard that clip several times. This time I tried to listen to it with a charitable ear. I truly did.

I was like, all the way up until the end, maybe he could get away with saying that he was talking about tipping the island over in kind of the balance of, you. equilibrium of the ecosystem being overpopulated until he gets to but then he says capsize and he deals the entire game before he was actually headed and once he says capsize no longer can I be charitable on this big analogy he is actually worried about the island sir that's what an island is yeah that's the story of atlantis nobody knows this but not only is it underwater it's upside down the people are walking around on the ceiling on the floor oh my goodness beautiful.

Should there be a test to get into Congress? He's still in Congress. But there is a test, Dan. There is a test. It's called the vote of the American people. And that shines very poorly on the people. We did this. Very poorly on us.

We did this. I would love a thought. I would love, Patrick, I'd love Hank Johnson to come on. And I would be super nice. I'll be super nice. And I will just be like, please explain to me. Please explain to me this. what you were thinking.

What has he, Dan, just look up, has he given interviews since then to explain what he was thinking? Does he say he was drunk? He said it was a joke,

is what he said. A joke? Making a joke. If that's a joke, he deserves an Oscar. His performance is amazing. Oh, man. Well,

so back in, I think the 80s, Jack Handy wrote a Saturday Night Live sketch where it was a talk show and it was, was Frankenstein and the Wolfman and Tonto. And they were the guests on this show

and they were totally not understandable. I would like to get all of these people in a room, all of these congressmen in a room or people in a room, just to see what happens, you know, ask them some very, some basic questions, ABC kind of stuff, Canon Island capsize. I probably couldn't come up with the questions that would elicit this kind of, but yeah,

it's the confident claims and the sort of way that they get away with this. it's amazing. Maybe that should be an episode of Woking Country. Just grabbing these people. You know what? I'm well suited for it because you would have to conduct that interview like this. Not with pointed questions that puts them in a defensive mindset.

You want to do it like you and I are talking right now. You and I had some other topics we were going to discuss and we will, but no idea that we would end up here. And so what you want to do is let them live in the conversation. Just see where it takes them. Because that's when you'll get some real truth. about how they really think. And I think the Fox News audience too often wants, like, a, you can't handle the truth, cross-examination from Tom Cruise on a few good men.

When in reality, what's more revealing is to just listen, listen and let them say what they think. And that is fascinating. It's like, go to the zoo every once in a while. You don't have to just hunt to learn animals. You can also go bird watching and see how the birds behave in their natural environment. I think I keep this reminds me of the Brett bear the great patriot Brett bear interviewing Kamala Harris his strategy in that interview was not like just sort of berating her it was very much more just kind of like let her go and then

maybe hold her to like two points across the 45 minutes and it was yeah it was one of the had some of the best clips of that election cycle and yeah I think that that'd be worth it and I think I do think a round table maybe one-on-one might be a little tough but I think a round table would be the way to go Wait, I want to get, and I'm actually going to ask Dan and Pat this as well, because I'm just, I'm talking about what pops into my head here. And a moment ago, Dan said that the congressman's excuse was that he was making a joke. And my response to that is, he is an incredible joke teller, if that is what he was doing. That leads me to this.

That leads me to this. There is a very, very viral moment right now on many, many people's social media feed. It is Pierce Morgan interviewing Russell Brand. And Pierce Morgan asks Russell Brand about the fact that he's carrying a Bible, that he's carried a Bible into a courtroom where he has faced some accusations. And I believe is he even faced charges or at least an investigation on impropriety with a young woman. The reason I'm choosing my language carefully is because I believe the age of consent, wherever he was, which I think was in the UK, is 16 and the girl was 16. and Russell was in his 30s. Okay, so I'm just being, I'm trying to be precise in how I described this situation.

But Pierce asks him about why he had the Bible and what Bible verse he was referencing. Okay. And Russell says, thank you for the question, right? And then Russell opens his Bible and he begins to search for the passage. And this goes on for 90 seconds. People have timed it. 90 seconds of, and Pierce is silent. He says nothing, which is a great.

broadcasting move. I give peers a ton of credit. It's very hard. If you're being honest, that is a very hard thing to do. It's hard for you in social conversation. If somebody is fumbling, do you want to throw them a life preserver? Everyone does. I remember when one of my first jobs was I owned newspapers in sales. They said one of the most uncomfortable things for people, and if you're trying to sell somebody something, let it sit quiet. Let it sit quiet. Because people are very uncomfortable with silence. So for 90 seconds, Pierce says nothing, and Russell flips around in his Bible. He can't find the passage, but he's dedicated to trying.

I mean, he's going back and forth, back and forth. And the viral thing is, Wade and Dan and Pat, how embarrassing for Russell, right? But it is so, so over the top that I did consider is Russell doing a bit. And Russell is a comedian. So I wondered, is this a joke? Is he doing a bit? And I'm going to be honest, I don't know. I'm not sure.

So I do kind of want to go around the horn. Has everybody here seen it? I'm watching it right now. If not, Dan, if you could play that. I can't. Play for the audience. Don't play the full 90. I don't have the video.

I have the audio, but not the video. Well, just play, play 20 seconds of the audio. Could you do that? Just to get a taste of how this goes. All right. Here, let's, what was your thinking and taking it into court? And what you were seeing looking at some passages? What were the relevant passages for you?

All right. Thank you for asking me. Thank you. I didn't hurt, did it? A little bit. Flipping through. It was this from Isaiah. You're right.

Bear did say, you know, be chilled. Sometimes I lose the chill, man. It's pretty... Ah, he's flipping. It's this. We can hear the pages turning. Sorry. All right.

And that goes. on. This continues to go on and on for 90 seconds. So I want your votes. Like since Dan's just now seen it the first time, Wade, you've seen it? I have seen it, yes. Oh, yeah. I think that Russell is a comic.

He's very funny. I like Russell Brand. His style of comedy is much more over the top and fast talking. Maybe this is a change of pace and he decides that this is going to be the funniest thing. I don't know if it's a joke, then it's just a big self-deprecating joke. Like, oh, I don't know. I mean, I'm kind of a, you know, I'm new to this whole thing. But it's not his style.

So it makes me think that he was trying and that Pierce was just letting him hang there. I hate to say that. Again, I like, I think Russell Brand is a very funny guy. But yeah, I know this was, I think it was a genuine searching. he was doing what I do Patrick playing a bit yeah right Oh yeah

I think it was dead serious Looking at his face Like Wade said Knowing his style of comedy You could see the panic on his face a little bit So I think I think he was not joking It actually gave it gave Ricky Jervais

It's like if Ricky Jervais was doing it That would be a bit Right exactly yeah Because he's a lot lot more subtle. All right. The scheduled topics here today with Wade Stats, the host of the Wade show with Wade, was to talk a little bit about this third assassination attempt. This is what our show becomes. You should come here on a Friday and see what it is. It's just insane. Oh, yeah. Let's do it. I like it like this. Wade, it's, we're in a situation now.

We've seen the third attempt on the life of President Donald Trump. I think it's very obvious after the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the successful assassination of Charlie Kirk, the third assassination attempt of President Trump, that we are in a place where heightened political rhetoric coming from the left has led to violence, has led to action. We are seeing, I think, in the wake of this story, literally zero slowdown in the rhetoric. Very little contrition, very little self-reflection, and very little slowdown. One of the people that have been the focus of this is Jimmy Kimmel, who made a joke about Melania Trump having the glow of an expectant widow. Well, Jimmy Kimmel has now, just like after the joke he made after Charlie Kirk's assassination, come out and decided that he does not need to apologize.

Here's Jimmy Kimmel. It was a pretend roast. I said our first lady Melania is here. Look at her so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow, which I'm a... Obviously, was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination, and they know that.

I've been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence. There you go, Wade. That's Jimmy Kimmel. What do you think about you and I both love the concept of free speech? think that shutting down free speech is a natural or good instinct. However, I'm of the position that we are headed on a runaway train. And I don't think anybody's found the brakes. And I don't think it's going to get better even once we say goodbye to Donald Trump. Yeah. I think regardless of the subtext of that particular joke, the reason that people are linking Jimmy Kimmel with this assassination is based on what we know about the attempted assassin, he was just kind of a regular

liberal, sort of a blue sky liberal would retweet anything that went viral there. He went over to blue sky when it happened or when that came up. And we don't get the indication that he was some kind of like found some dark corner of the internet where everybody's saying all these things. Essentially what we have is a guy who got radicalized by mainstream culture. And it seems like the kind of guy who it's, if you say, if you leave like an unsolved math problem in front of this type of guy, then he's going to go up to the blackboard and finish it for you. A lot of what's happening is that people are just sort of insinuating what they would like to happen using all kinds of rhetoric. People like Jimmy Kimmel and people like, you know, John Stewart and all this sort of stuff.

It's not, when you get down to the particulars, they would never, of course, do this sort of thing. But that's why it's so it's easy to tie these people together is he is not, he is not repeating something from some crazy leftist blog. He's repeating stuff from mainstream culture. That's if you read the manifesto, if you read any of the tweets that are reportedly his, again, just a regular old blue sky liberal. That's what actually terrifies people is that mainstream culture has at some level is this sort of like mass recruitment thing. And what they're hoping for is some kind of, it's like mass marketing where you're just hoping for some kind of conversion rate. So not everybody has to buy, but you have to have some kind of conversion rate to get people there. And so when the guy actually purchases the product, when the guy actually buys into what everybody's been insinioring,

for the past decade, then people go, hey, not like that, don't do that. What you're supposed to do is talk like me, make millions of dollars, and then have no consequences afterward. That's the actual terrifying thing. But when you get people like Barack Obama saying that like the motive, who knows, who knows what this motive is when it actually is pretty clear that he's, again, just been radicalized by watching the news, reading mainstream blogs, reading mainstream news, that's what's terrifying to regular old Americans

because I mean Trump one of the truest things Trump ever said he said a lot of true things is that they don't hate me they hate you and I'm standing in the way that's that is what's happening so people see themselves in Trump because they go well I'm actually and I look at Trump and I go I'm actually more right wing than Trump is like I'm a Christian I want laws to look more Christian he's not exactly that I mean I totally support MAGA a very MAGA guy but If I'm more conservative than Trump is, then what do they think about me?

What do they want to do to do to me? And the only reason that they go after Trump is because he's successful. And he is a vehicle for normal people who want their country to look like their country. And yeah, it makes sense that people, but like the older picture of sort of assassins was like the parallax view, talking about 70s film again. And you've got these weirdos that get recruited and they get brainwashed into assassinating public figures. what's happening here is that brainwashing is happening to everybody and again they're just hoping for that like what one percent conversion rate and if they can get that then they get what they want and then they get to go complain and say actually gun violence is a terrible terrible thing but they

got the desired result from all their 10 years of brainwashing totally agreed the scary thing about cole allen is how normal he is this isn't somebody that can be dismissed as a crazy person In fact, I saw an article this morning about the manifesto is scary in that he shows humanity. I know that's actually hard for people to wrap their minds around. He talks about not wanting to hurt other people. He talks about, like most people that are psychopaths and have lost their own will to live, and these types of things are willing for self-sacrifice. Or like, I'll kill whoever gets in my way.

I want to kill everybody, right? even if you have an intended target, everybody else in the way is perfectly acceptable collateral damage. But Allen in his manifesto was like, I'm going to do my best, not to hurt anybody else in that room, but go after just administration figures and President Donald Trump. And that in itself shows how he is essentially a mainstream assassin. He is a person who has not lost his mind. He is a person who is honestly too common at this point. His language is indistinguishable from the language of so many people on the left at this point. And what's being mainstreamed is increasingly, you know, the point is not that Cole Allen is normal, but he's normal for today.

So we've normalized all these ways of talking. Then he talks that way. That makes him normal, right? So is somebody like this, this is Mia Farrow. we're staying on the movie theme today. Mia Farrow posted on blue sky talking about Trump. He's forcing us to wonder. He has lost a war he is unable to end,

and now he is so desperate to raise his approval ratings, would he? And then she's talking about this thing being staged. Would Donald Trump stage his third assassination attempt? This is the process of normalizing a crazy thought that quite honestly is getting normal. I think the Washington Post had a story today, one in five. One in five people on the left believe this was staged.

Well, and that goes back to, again, if these tweets that have been resurfaced that are reportedly his, reported the attempted assassin, then he thought that Butler was staged. And so you've got an attempted assassin who thinks that a previous attempted assassination was staged. So the mechanics of this are not convinced people that Trump is, yeah, it's exactly what we said. It's normalizing it, such that people go, it's not happening, but I wish it were happening. So I'm going to do it anyway. So anything that it can do, it cannot make Trump look like a victim because in their mindset, victims equal holy. And so if somebody's going after him, if somebody is actually doing something that he doesn't deserve,

And if they're saying that gun violence is bad, then they're saying that he doesn't deserve this. So if they're actually doing something that he doesn't deserve, then that would be a really bad thing. But, yes, acting like it was staged is a way of justifying it, at least making people think, oh, that's not really what's happening. And so, yeah, you've got the message that sends to people is it hasn't happened yet. And it would be fine if you did it because you're, again, taking on the exact logic that we've been laying out. If somebody, again, if you lay out two plus two equals to a certain kind of person, put that on a blackboard, lock him in that blackboard room for 10 years, then he's going to walk up there with a piece of chalk and he's going to finish the problem for you. At some point and go forward. It's just the logic. Yeah, at some point. And so do you agree with me in my initial premise here? We will, we will approach essentially the Brandenburg test. That's the Supreme Court limitation on free speech, direct incitement, imminent incitement to violence. Like, I think we're headed there in pretty short order. Like, I could see Hassan Piker saying that.

And by the way, getting arrested and then we'll have this huge free speech conversation. But, like, we're not that far away from it. We're a couple of steps. We're long past the days of Johnny Carson jokes. Like, what Jimmy Kimmel jokes is not anything what Johnny Carson would have done, right? And now, what political, acceptable political speech is unrecognizable, even from 2008. And at this rate, it won't be long before we have somebody from the left saying, you should kill him. You know, I mean, Piker kind of said that about Senator Rick Scott.

He's got a little bitty out legally on that one. But he kind of said that out of Rick Scott. And we're almost there. Well, they know that. They know that they have to tiptoe around direct incitement. But when it happens, like it did with Luigi Mangione, that is celebrating Luigi is saying that if you do this to our true enemy, the one, again, we've been talking about for 10 years, that we will also see you as a hero. We didn't know the United Healthcare CEO. Nobody knew his name.

It wasn't broadly, it wasn't like broadcast everywhere. Go get this guy. But when everybody celebrates the death of this guy, people try to paint that as like, oh, it's, it's sort of this weird figure who it's nonpolitical. What's going on? But what it does is it does mainstream the idea of assassination culture. It's just that's, that's the way you get rid of your political enemies. And that's the way that the United Healthcare CEO thing was painted.

Celebrating the, and Hassan Piker is an example. of a guy who did says like Free Luigi, Bill Burr, like the, you know, a guy who is, you know, by all, for all intents and purposes, a pretty mainstream comedian jokes about the Free Luigi stuff. That is as direct an excitement that can still be called, well, I'm just joking, well, I'm just talking about something that's already happened. So I can't really be saying you should go do this. Everybody, everybody can be sort of coy. They've been playing around with this game for a long time. and I don't even necessarily think that they have to say go do this.

I think that the work that they've done is insinuation for so long that people are, they've gotten it for a long time. They're just hoping that somebody else will do it. Yeah. Well, you can always check them out at the Wade show with Wade, Wade's thoughts. Missed having them on. It's good to have him back. Let's get you on a little more frequently, Wade, whenever you're available.

We appreciate you having you on, man. It's always a fun conversation. Let's do it. Happy to do it any time. Thank you, sir. All right, there you goes. There's Wade Stott's. Before we go today, I'm going to check in on the Williship.

I want to have Dan pull up, if you wouldn't mind, those movies from 1965 and 1999. And I just want to play that game to continue to bring this conversation full circle. But before we go, bogey scooter over on YouTube says, would love for you to have a super smart scientist on the show who can make or not make these connections for you. Their work is crucial to seeing the links. Well, I appreciate the make or not make. It suggests that Bogie Scooter is open to wherever that evidence leads us. He's suggesting focus on the work of those potential scientists.

Do you have a name? What's the face you're making, Patrick? How the hell am I supposed to book the Super Smart Scientist? I'm just going to look up the Super Smart Scientist database. Yeah. It's always about you, Patrick, in your work, in your 12-hour days. And you're just now, now you're mad at Bogie Scooter for making... Come on, Bogie Scooter.

I'm exhausted. All right, give him the name, Bogey Scooter, give him the lead, see if he can come up with some guests. Okay, before we go today, who has it? Who has the top ten movies from 1965 and the top ten movies from 1995? Is it Dan or Patrick? Patrick doesn't look like he's had as he's exhausted. Dan looks like he has it. What do you got, Dan?

So, 1965, top ten movies are the sound of music comes in at number one. Which is a great movie. Never saw it. The Battle of Algiers. Um, Dr. Chavago. No. Puro Le Foe. French New Wave.

Nope. Repulsion. No. Alphaville. Never heard of it. Darling. Oscar. No.

Juliet of the spirits. No. Cat Ballou. And a patch of blue. No. I've heard of one of those movies. Two. That's the sound of music, and I never saw it.

Dr. Chavago? You never heard of that? Oh, I've heard of Dr. Chavago. True. Yes, I've heard of Dr. Chavago. Who is in that? Is that Marlon Brando? Let's see. Or is that the island of Dr. Moreau?

I don't... Omar Sharif. I don't know who is in Dr. Chicago. Alec Guinness, Julie Christie? No. No. I have heard of it. You probably haven't seen Star Wars either.

I can't say if those movies hold up, because I literally never heard of them. except for the sound of music and Dr. Svago. Okay, now give me the top ten movies from 1995. Okay, number one, we have heat, which is a fantastic movie. Awesome. Gotta hold up. It holds up. And number two, we got seven.

Holds up. Nice. Holds up. Number three, we have Toy Story, which is wild that that's 95. You want a little quick? You want a little trivia on seven? originally they tried to get Al Pacino, Gene Hackman, and another actor to play the role that ended up Morgan Freeman. They were worried about black cop, white cop, because it would be too akin to, like, lethal weapon, and those types of movies.

They were sort of the buddy cop movie when you had the black cop white cop movie, and it was Brad Pitt's attempt to move into something where he wasn't just about, hey, look how pretty Brad pit is. So, a little trivia. Okay, Toy Story holds up. We're three for three. Yeah, this list is insane. Number four is Braveheart. It holds up. I just watched it weeks ago. Yep. Yeah. Number five, Apollo 13 might not hold up as well because of CGI. And fake, you know. I remember it being awesome. I don't know if it holds up. I remember it being awesome. All right. Number six, the usual suspects. Holds it. I think that holds up. Absolutely. You don't think so, Patrick? I just watched it. I think it does. Dude.

Unless you don't, if you don't know the ending, but yeah. I know the ending. Look at these movies we used to put out. I know. It's insane. Number seven, casino. Banger. Mm-hmm.

Yes. Number eight. Every movie, every movie so far, if you said, do you want to watch tonight? My answer would be yes. Absolutely. You're going to watch Toy Story? Yeah, why not? I think it's a good movie.

I just don't think Will would sit there without kids and watch Toy Story. Which last? Among those I choose to watch, it would be last. Number eight, before sunrise, the before series? Good movie. You know, that's the Ethan Hawk movies. I don't think I ever watched any of them. I always heard good things, but I never watched them.

Emotional. Number nine, fantastic movie, 12 Monkeys. Another Brad Pitt? Probably only saw it once. You should rewatch it. Don't remember it real well. They redid it, though, already, and it's really bad. It's a TV show.

Yeah. Number 10, sense and sensibility. Oscar winner. I don't think I saw it. Yeah, me neither. It was fun. Not myself. Leaving Las Vegas was a close contender, too.

Depressing us out. I haven't seen that in a long time. Oh, that's, I was thinking of, uh, that's the Nicholas Cage, uh, alcoholism movie, which, which I never saw. I was actually thinking of the one with, uh, Benicio del Toro and Johnny Depp. What was that one about Hunter S. Thompson? Oh, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which I haven't seen in a long time. Did you know? I just found this out. I watched that one. Pat Buchanan used to be really good friends with Hunter S. Thompson. Really? Yeah. That's an interesting relationship.

I was like, are you serious? That's a really interesting relationship. Yeah. They used to drink together. I wouldn't be surprised if Hunter S. Thompson were a big fan of the presidency of Donald Trump. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. In a bizarre way, I think. Yeah.

People on the fringe, I think, you know. I'm not sure. Yeah. I'm not sure if he was a, I don't think he was like a modern day style type of lefty. 1995. What a banger of a year for movies. I almost feel like we should do this, like, where we're. We did like 20 years worth of movies.

You just did the top 10 like that and see, like, A, which year was the best, and B, when it started to go downhill. Because at some point, you're going to read the top 10, and we're all going to be like, oh, it's gotten pretty disappointing. It's going to be like Avengers 2, 3, 4. You know, it's going to be like that, which aren't terrible movies, but it's just obviously not the same level of what we just did. You think it's 2010.

Yeah. All right. That's not right. They'll put the over under on when it all went downhill. Superman 8, that kind of thing. That's going to do it for us today here on Will Kane Country. We appreciate you hanging out with us. Make sure you follow us on Spotify or Apple.

We'll 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.