Will Cain Country - Michael Shellenberger! Plus, Who’s Responsible For Violent Rhetoric? Trump Or The Left?

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

Story #1: The left ramps up their rhetoric, and says that when it comes to assassination attempts, former President Donald Trump had it coming. Story #2: Fighting the battle for free speech with Best-selling author of "Apocalypse Never" & "San Fransicko"; founder and journalist at the ‘Public’ Substack at public.news Michael Shellenberger.  Plus, Michael opens up about how he was prosecuted for speaking his mind in Brazil. Story #3: Will responds to comments from you, the Willitia.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, Donald Trump's asking for it. He was wearing his skirt too short. He just wouldn't shut up. And that's why there was a second attempt on his life. That's what we're told. So let's analyze the case of Donald Trump's violent rhetoric. Did he create the atmosphere that leads to assassination? attempts.

Two, Michael Schellenberger. I'm being hunted in Brazil and the deteriorating state of free speech, not just in Brazil, not the UK, not Canada, but the United States of America. Three, you, the Wallitia. It is the Will Cain show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand. Hit a subscribe on Apple or on Spotify. Streaming live?

At least that's the plan. Every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time on Facebook and on YouTube. I get the sense we might be having some trouble today streaming live as. I'm not sure our video feed is reaching out to the audience today. I don't know if the guys in the control room in New York are panicking or if they can tell me what's going on, but our boys in New York are missing their fearless technical leader two a days. Dan is off because he's getting married.

He's joining the crowd of the betrothed. And he's going to go away for his wedding, and he's going to go away for his honeymoon. So that brings us to the boys in New York, where we are now streaming live. Our video feed is up on YouTube and on Facebook. Are you nervous, Justin? I'm asking you to pull your camera up,

increasing the technical difficulty. We shoot out of the gates. We are good to go, Will. With a placard. What would you put today, Justin is on his maiden voyage here on the Will Kane show. What would you put your nervousness scale, 1 to 10.

Where are you on this first trip with the Wilcane? 4.87. 4.87 on the nervousness scale. I appreciate that rating. Well, I'm glad that you're not too nervous. You missed some of my fancy camera work because I'm becoming the director of the Will Kane show as well, bringing you around the studios in Dallas, Texas.

But now we're up, we're running. We've crossed the threshold. We've got the Willish. We've got tinfoil pat. We've got young establishment, James. and we don't yet have a nickname for him, but if he's going to be with us over the next week and a half, we're going to have new guy Justin filling in for two days. So now that I have forced the issue, broken the seal, maybe he's on camera, he's had to talk,

he's had to adjust a few camera movements. Maybe Justin's ready, because we're going to throw a few things at him today as we work our way through some of the biggest stories, including bringing in guest Michael Schellenberger today. He is an expert on free speech. He has a substack, public, and in fighting the battle for free speech, Michael Schellenberger has been on the front lines. He has experienced government prosecution in Brazil. How far away are we from that in America? Jumping in the common sections on YouTube, jump into the comment section on Facebook. Let's bring you in today to the Will Kane show. But first, let's prosecute

the case. Let's take the argument. We're told Donald Trump has created a climate. of violence, and now he is reaping the whirlwind. He's asked for it. So let's prosecute the case against Donald Trump with story number one. CNN, the view, mainstream media. We are told that Donald Trump for years has built a climate of coarseness of extreme rhetoric and in fact a climate of violence and that today after the second attempt on his life he cannot look up and claim victimhood i could play for you the clips where they will explain this is not a both sides issue certainly

they will not take responsibility for the rhetoric on their side in calling Donald Trump a demagogue a would-be dictator in calling him a threat to democracy in calling him a threat to the soul of America and calling him a threat to the world and calling him literal Hitler. No self-reflection on that. In fact, not even willingness to say toned down the bipartisan rhetoric. Instead, no, no, no, this is Donald Trump's fault. I give you, Whoopi Goldberg. Part, they're knowingly misleading and where the truth is.

And also, let's stop this thing. You know, let's stop this both side stuff. It's a bunch of, yeah. Because it's not correct. It is not both sides. It is one clear side. And you can point to many, many reports. You can point to all kinds of stuff that's been reported.

You guys have to, you have to pull it back. This is not us or them. This is you got to stop doing what you're doing, J.D. And what you're doing, Mr. T, because you are, you are not helping the situation. We'll be right back. you got to stop what you're doing jd and you got to stop what you're doing mr t donald trump so before we get into the obvious evidence of the climate of violence has been created toward donald trump let's take the proposition let's take the case has donald trump created an environment that he ultimately

cannot control and engulfs his own the threat to his own life let's prosecute the case against Donald Trump. Our interpreted producer, Tinfoil, Pat, put together a list and did so by doing something I have not yet learned to utilize. I always feel insecure about the word utilize. Why did utilize replace use? A tool that I've not yet learned how to use artificial intelligence. He went to Grok, the ex-artificial intelligence, and said, give me the examples of Donald Trump's violent rhetoric. Grock turned out ten examples that could be used. to illustrate the climate created by Donald Trump. I wanted to walk through those 10 examples with you quickly here today

and see if it stands to reason, to see if Whoopi Goldberg has a point. If this is, in fact, Donald Trump's skirt being too short, he created the opportunity to assassinate Donald Trump. Here is the top 10 reasons that Donald Trump has created this environment according to GROC. Number one, the lock her up chant. During the 2016 campaign, Trump encouraged chance of lock her up against Hillary Clinton,

implying a desire for his opponent to be imprisoned, which may, many saw, as an indictment of political violence or incitements of political violence, or at least a call for punitive measures outside due legal process. Now, this, I think, I don't fault GROC, because GROC's job here is to survey the landscape of arguments made by the left about Donald Trump and the climate. he has created. I do not think this is a valid piece of evidence. Lock her up was not an incitement to do something outside of due legal process. That was an argument made that Hillary Clinton had broken laws, many laws, and some of that we know, for example, retaining classified

emails on unclassified servers, unsecured servers, violation of federal law. Same kind of thing, in fact, they attempted to lock up Donald Trump for in the classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago. No, in fact, the lock-her-up chant was simply rhetoric, where in fact the lock-him-up movement was an actual process with multiple legal cases looking to imprison a political opponent. I don't think this is creating a climate. I think that was a call for what many could say was due justice, and what more was simply words.

compared to the actions of those on the left. Number two, Second Amendment remedy. Trump suggests that if Hillary Clinton was to appoint Supreme Court justices, the Second Amendment rights would be under threat, implying that gun ownership might need to use their weapons, which was interpreted by some as an indirect call for violence. Weak, weak. He suggested that a Supreme Court justice appointed by Hillary Clinton

would threaten Second Amendment rights. Now, first of all, I don't know how that extends into an argument that those rights would be protected, in fact, by the Second Amendment. But that is a constitutional, not just argument, that's a constitutional truism. The purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with home protection, self-defense or hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment is a protection against government tyranny. That's a fact. That's not violent rhetoric. that's the constitutional founding if you find that incitement then you do find and you may give an argument

to this belief that the constitution of the united states and the founding fathers were in fact well i guess revolutionaries number three roughing up protesters trump has commented on protesters at his rallies suggesting or appearing to condone physical violence against them like when he said he'd like to see them carried out on a stretcher on this I will suggest there's some credibility. Back in 2016, Donald Trump often talked about this, about protesters at his own rallies. As with anything with Donald Trump,

I want to hear the exact cut. I want to hear the clip. I don't want to hear repetitions of it from AI or a supposedly objective journalist. I want to hear it with my own ears. But I did hear some. I'd like to go back with fresh years and listen to what he had to say,

but I'm not going to reject this one. That's at a minimum, a coarsening of our political opposition. and, in fact, if you're saying carry them out on a stretcher, that is not a climate of peace. Number four, the stand back and standby comment. During a political debate, when asked to condemn white supremacist, Trump told the proud boys to stand back and stand by, which was taken by many as an endorsement or encouragement for potential violent action. This, I think, is slightly above weak. It's weak because Donald Trump has a long history.

of honestly imprecision and sloppiness in his rhetoric he says things sometimes as we pointed out in the debate that are half sentences and half thoughts without without completing in an effective manner his point and this kind of goes back to that truism of the left takes Donald Trump literally but not seriously the right takes Donald Trump seriously but not literally I do not think he was telling the proud boys which by the way I do not think as well is a white supremacist organization

there are people of many races who belong to the proud boys but regardless of who they are I do not think he was calling for them to be ready for violent action I think that he was sloppy

in that moment and his rhetoric should not be taken literally number five retribution and vengeance trump's campaign rhetoric in 2024 often includes themes of retribution and vengeance against his political enemies which while not directly calling for violence sets a tone that could be interpreted as encouraging a violent response from supporters now this is

just thematic this is someone else this is a game of telephone this is echoes in a canyon you know you're you're thematically saying you're not giving specific examples of retribution and vengeance and I would have to go through those because my again I trust no one in their hearsay about something said by Donald Trump but I've paid pretty close attention to him and while he said whoa the left has weaponized the justice system and we might have to look at within the due process of the legal system use of the justice system if they're going to use use of the justice and while he said that which if not rational is a pretty human response to it being done to him I do not think this is a good example of creating a climate. Again, when it's literally been done against him,

not just in rhetoric, but in actions. I do not think this is example of Donald Trump creating a climate of violence. Six, describing opponents as vermin. Trump has used dehumanizing language by referring to some of his political opponents as vermin, which historically has been used by leaders to justify violent actions against groups. They dehumanize. Again, I would have to hear the exact clip. I've heard that repeated that he called somebody vermin, if that's the case, like somebody he just disagrees with, their vermin, I would submit that is a coarsening and very oppositional. I don't, I don't think it leaps to violent, but it's not good if he's called simply political opponents, vermin.

Again, I want to hear the exact clip I do not trust hearsay on what Donald Trump has said. But between take them out on a stretcher, roughing up opponents, or calling simply opponents, vermin, I will give you two that rise above the level of weak examples. Number seven, bloodbath comment. Although Trump later claimed this was taken out of context, his mention of bloodbath, if he didn't win the election, was seen by some as a violent threat, should he not return to power. Beyond weak, an absolute hoax. This is a hoax. He said there would be an economic bloodbath in the auto industry if Kamala Harris, then Joe Biden if Kamala Harris were elected president.

Hoax. Number eight. January 6th rhetoric. His speech before the January 6th Capitol Riot where he told supporters to fight like hell and repeated the election fraud claims was seen by many as an incitement leading to violent events of that day. This is weak. I saw Jen Saki in an interview, I believe it was, with Elizabeth Warren. This week after the second assassination attempt of Donald Trump,

say, him saying fight, fight, fight is, quote, scary. Fight like hell and fight, fight, fight are absolutely not invocations, not incitements and not creating a climate of violence. We talk about fight in sports. We talk about fight in your personal life. We use the word fight often as a illustration of one's effort, effort to win. fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight like hell, weak. Number nine, dehumanizing immigrants.

Trump's references to immigrants, especially from Mexico as criminals and rapists, along with suggesting shooting migrants in the legs or using military force, contribute to a rhetoric that can incite violence against immigrants. Weak. He wasn't talking about all immigrants from Mexico. He wasn't talking about all illegal immigrants from Mexico. what he was talking about is they do not send us their best that's what he has said and that again is a fact that is truth we know for example just as for an example

the proliferation of trend day aragua the violent criminal gang from venezuela that's showing up in aurora colorado el paso texas new york city and wisconsin we know that you know you could go back dating to the 1980s with the cuban boat lift that when refugees and migrants often get flooded into our country, the country from which they're flooding pushes certain people to a new land, helping their homeland out by getting rid of criminals, and in Donald Trump's words, not sending us their best. Using military force to enforce the border, please, again,

it's the duty under the Constitution. This is weak. And number 10. Threats against legal system. Trump's attacks on judges, prosecutors in the legal system, often accusing them of being corrupt or biased against him while not directly violent, undermine trust in institutions and could indirectly encourage violent reactions

against those figures or institutions. Oh my God. Is there something between weak and hoax? Okay, so you criticize those who are persecuting you legally and now you're inciting violence? Well, okay, well, what about Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, everyone on the left, continually dehumanizing, demonizing the Supreme Court of the United States.

Is it just some institutions you're allowed to criticize with very, very evocative in impassioned rhetoric? Or is it all institutions? Like criticism of institutions is seemingly the very foundation of America, from the citizen to the press. That's the idea, speaking truth to power. And if power is being used against you,

you're not allowed to criticize that power? Unless it comes off as your inciting violence? That's 10 examples of Donald Trump. According to Grogh, creating a climate of violence that has led to the whirlwind coming back on him. What I would suggest, to it most, to it most, if there's more examples, you can jump into the comment section

on YouTube or Facebook and let me know. I'll bring you into the show. Here are the best examples you have of Donald Trump creating an environment that supposedly has led to two attempts on his life. That versus what I think is an open invitation by continually calling him a threat to everything, from our democracy to our soul, from America to the world, a threat.

And here we are from the podium of the White House press secretary within days of the second attempt on his life, and you're offered this once again, this time, from Corrine Jean-Pierre. How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president and the vice president and you pick a different word to describe Trump other than threat? Peter, if anything from this administration, I actually completely disagree with the premise of your first.

question, the question that you're asking. It is also incredibly dangerous in the way that you're asking it because American people are watching. And to say that, to say that from a administration who has consistently condemned political violence. That is appalling. She had just got done giving another answer to a different reporter about how Donald Trump remains. And they've said it very clearly, she said, a threat. She once again describes him as a threat. What do you do with a threat? You neutralize a threat. And then when Peter Deucy from Fox News has the temerity to question her on doubling down on that rhetoric, she says, how dare you ask that question? How dare you? In fact, you are becoming a threat with your questions. Oh, you're a threat all right. Yeah. We're a threat.

You know what we're a threat to? The maintenance of continued and monopolized power. People often say, like Whoopi Goldberg, broad brush strokes, I can give you many examples of Donald Trump creating this climate of violence. Well, today, what I've tried to do is give specificity to that echo,

give specificity to that generalization. Take you up on your case, Whoopi, and walk through what you say are many examples, of this climate. In my personal judgment on your case, denied, overruled, thrown out of court, versus continually as evidenced by the actions against him, putting a target on the back of Donald Trump. Let's talk about this plus the status of free speech, not just in Brazil, but here in the United States of America with someone who knows very well. Michael Schellenberger coming up on the Wilcane show.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do.

Take the quiz every day at thequiz. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. Your comments are coming in. You're giving me examples in your estimation of Donald Trump creating a atmosphere of violence or a climate with coarsened rhetoric. I'll bring you in, the Willisha, momentarily here on the Will Cain show,

streaming live at Fox News.com. It's also on the Fox News YouTube channel, on the Fox News Facebook page, on terrestrial radio across the country. If you're listening or watching, you can always be with us here on the Will Cain Show by hitting subscribe on YouTube

or hitting subscribe. Not just to Fox News on YouTube, but the Will Cain Show on YouTube, a separate page underneath this live stream which is streaming on the Fox News YouTube page. There is the Will Cain Show YouTube page. You go over there, you hit subscribe. If you listen to us, you can subscribe on Apple or on Spotify.

We'll get to you, the Willisher, your comments, momentarily here. But for now, we have Michael Schellenberger, He's the author of Apocalypse Never. And San Fran Sicko, he also has the public substack. You can also find it at public.com. News, and I always love having him here on the Wilcane show. What's up, Mike? Good to be with you, Will.

Mike, I don't know how long you were hanging out if you heard me listen. And listen, man, for you and the audience, one of the things I try to do, you know, in my broadcasting careers, look, I don't want to be partisan because partisan is predictable and partisanship is hackery. um i'm honest about my biases like i have my philosophical leanings and how they manifest into candidates i want to be honest with the audience because you don't get truth without that level of honesty i just analyzed the case made against donald trump has he reaped the whirlwind is he creating a climate of violent rhetoric that has blown back on him now that's the argument made by many i just gave the examples of karene john pierre and whoopi goldberg and i find the case very

very wanting that's not to suggest that don't trump has always been you you know, uh, the, the purest of angels in his, in his political rhetoric, but I don't find calls for violence. And I don't find them certainly rising to the level of even those who continuously described him as a threat or as Hitler. And so I'm having trouble, Mike, seeing it as sort of a both sidesism and either or and everybody needs to tone it down. Maybe everybody does. And I don't want to be partisan when I say this, but it's like right now there's one man whose life is in jeopardy. And right now, there is one example of a style of rhetoric that is way out in front of anything given as an example against Donald Trump. Yeah. Is that the pause where I should jump in?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, look, I have my criticisms of Trump, too. I mean, I think that he had a chance after that first assassination attempt to really finish the narrative arc and for him to kind of rise. above. I mean, I was with, I won't say who. I was with someone who was very progressive, a Democrat who was there the first night of the Republican convention with me. And you saw him get a little misty-eyed. He seemed soft. There was even this ad that they were running that I've never seen again, which was sort of this animated ad with Trump. I'd never seen as a kind of a cartoon, and it was sort of a softer side of Trump. And he didn't complete that art with his speech. He kept interrupting his own speech, his acceptance speech, kind of going back to a kind

a bitterness, which I thought was disappointing because I thought it could have been a moment where he would have been like, look, I almost was killed, it renewed my faith in God. He's, you know, ostensibly a Christian. And of course, the central teaching, at least for me of Christianity, of course there's many, but for me, the central thing is love thy neighbor. You've heard it said you should love your neighbors. I'm sorry, love your enemy. You've heard it said you should love your neighbors and hate your enemies. I say, on you, you should love your enemy. Such a radical teaching. It's the most Christ-like, one of the most Christ-like things you can do. So I'm disappointed that Trump didn't do that. And I think it would have been great for the country had he done it.

I think it would have been good politically. You know, I mean, I'm not a political consultant, so I don't know. But disappointed you didn't do that. But I agree with you, like, there's the rhetoric and then there's just what are people doing. I mean, in this effort to stop Trump, look at what they've done. I mean, they, they, I mean, I'm now comfortable saying very, explicitly that the FBI and the CIA interfered in the American elections in 2020 with the Hunter Biden laptop. It's not a theory. This occurred. Mark Zuckerberg just confirmed another detail of it in his letter to Congress a few weeks ago. That's illegal. That's unconstitutional. That's why we have a democracy. We don't want our police officers, our intelligence agencies,

engaged in politics, you know, against the American people. We've also seen this censorship industrial complex gets created after the Trump election. We saw a manipulation of intelligence. We think the evidence is very strong. Matt Taibi, Alex Cootenthal, and I reported that they manipulated the intelligence assessment. These are things that Trump did not do, you know, for whatever else you think of him. He did not censor his opponents. And then, of course, the final thing is the effort to put Trump in prison to incarcerate him on, let's face it, absurd charges.

the trumping up so to speak of the of the felony charges by the new york court in particular supposedly around fraud that i mean it's just the 36 so as a felony it was a complete manipulation of what the intention of that law was and certainly grossly disproportionate to whatever harm i mean really no harm caused by those violations so i think what you're seeing on one side for me is a guy who's 79 years old who's who's who's who's who's rough and tumble comes out of a rough and tumble world of development he speaks in a crude way he says he says crude things some of which i don't like he did say poisoning the blood of the people which i don't love that's any language around poisoning blood is ugly and has an ugly history and i condemn it

the same time the people that are really weaponizing government censoring engaged in a lawfare it's all on one side. And those are totalitarian tactics. And so for me, I see one side that's engaging in a kind of totalitarianism, which is characterized by at least three things. The first is the hunt for heretics. The second is this kind of whole of society effort to stop your political opponents, this cancel culture, the government censorship, the lawfare. And then I think this other part of it is, and this is from a Polish psychologist, that this the sense of entitlement and grandiosity on the part of these government bureaucrats to interfere in elections and to engage in this kind of disinformation and censorship like we saw in Hunter Biden. So that would be my summary view, Will, of how I see it. I agree it's not equal. There's some things I would like to see Trump rise above on, but certainly this move towards totalitarianism. I mean, it's crazy. It's deranged. It's dangerous. It's unconstitutional. It's un-American has to be wholly condemned, has to be investigated, and we've got to get beyond it.

And I fear what happens if those things are never properly investigated and exposed. A lot to dig into in that first opening answer from Michael Schillenberg. I'm just going to bounce around my curiosity on different angles of your initial answer. So I'm going to start with this. Let's talk for a moment about poisoning the blood. Now, here's why I want to bring that up. I agree with you about the choice of rhetoric, okay? Because poisoning of blood is tied in a metaphorical way to race.

It is tied in a metaphorical way to individual human anatomy. It's suggesting inherent characteristics of various people. Now, here's why I bring that up. Okay, here's a comment that I've already gotten today here on the wheel can show. Rick McDonald says, I'll ask, can you Trumpers quit your racism against Haitian Americans? Now, this is tied to, Mike, the conversation around Springfield, Ohio. Now, I don't, are there examples that can be brought up of someone saying something to make this an issue over race? Perhaps. I don't think this is an issue

over race what's happening in Springfield, Ohio, where this just is an objective fact. I don't know. It's tens of thousands of Haitian refugees. being deposited into a town of, what is it, 50,000 over under 50,000 people in Springfield, Ohio. And I thought about this topic when I thought about you, Mike, because this is what it's about, I think. It's not about race. It's about culture. And culture and race are not one in the same, okay? They're not. If you want to make the argument, they're one in the same. Now you are the one walking us down, the proverbial you, Mike, not you. But you are the one walking us down the path of race, race being inherent to culture but there are all kinds of cultures across the world and they're not

of equal value they're just not okay that if that sounds controversial i just say okay well what about infant mortality rates health care um literacy rates what embraces a free speech and you know first principles not all cultures embrace these what we would all describe as as universal goods not all cultures embrace them equally leading us to not all cultures are equal. And the reason I'm talking about this now, and I reject somebody like Rick McDonald's saying this is racism against Haitian Americans, no, it's a deeper conversation about culture. And can you dramatically and radically impact the culture like that of Springfield and Ohio without huge societal cost? And here's where it comes to you, Mike. As a guy who's lived in San Francisco

and written a book about San Francisco, I just feel like on many levels you're looking at a microcosm of a radical shake-up in culture. Yeah, well, this is why I love talking to you. I mean, I love your podcast because I'll say the important thing about podcasts because you can actually take the time to unpack these things and get into it. And this is obviously this massive issue. So, you know, as context, I should say, you know, I've lived in a lot of other countries or I've spent a lot of time in other countries.

17. I was on the radical left. I went to Nicaragua when I was 17, was with the San Anistas. I've been to Africa, central Africa. I've also spent time in Germany. And, you know, a lot of your perceptions of these places have a lot of truth to them. You know, like, I go to Germany and everything works. Like, it's incredible, or the Netherlands.

Like, it's just incredibly efficient. I mean, the proverbial trains are on time. You know, just these little details, you know, food, you know, infrastructure, civilization at the super high, tight functioning level. And the Germans, a little uptight, like, if we're being honest. Like, you know, the famous Robin Williams joke, you know, Robin Williams was like talking about being in Germany and they were like, how come there's no, you know, how come there's no good comedy in Germany? And Robin Williams says, did you ever consider that maybe it's because you killed all the funny people?

You know, and it's a controversial joke at the time. It's still funny. There's some truth that. I mean, here you have this incredibly rational scientific, you know, organized, tightly wound society that is the peak of enlightenment. I mean, it's Kant, it's, you know, Beethoven, Bach. I mean, it's incredible, you know. And they produce this horrible war and genocide, kind of, you know, some people think

the worst thing humans have ever done, doesn't, whether or not you think it rises to that status, obviously a horrible thing comes out of, out of this really enlightened society is super tightly wound, you know, wound. you go to places like central Africa, Brazil, you know, other, you know, poorer parts of the world. And things are not as well organized, not as tightly won. And the people are so warm and generous, they'll invite you into their home. They'll cook you a meal. They'll literally give you their shirt off their back.

There's so much to be said for so many of those cultures. And certainly plenty of, you know, violence as well. But I do think, like, yeah, to your point, the things that go into making, civilizations run smoothly are not specific to any culture or race, you know, hard work, having clear laws and following them, you know, making, having independent judiciary, having cheap energy, equal justice under the law, meritocracy. These are the pillars of civilization without which you have crime and violence. And so you see you let up on those pillars just a little bit, like in San Francisco. Oh, well, you know, if they look like they're,

you know, mentally ill or have a drug problem, then we won't enforce the law. Or we will not enforce the laws against shoplifting up to $950. Or, well, hey, you know, we'll let people camp on the sidewalk or we'll let people deal drugs publicly. It just immediately, it doesn't take much. You know, I had a, the director of security for Denver, brilliant young man. I say young, he's in his 30s. He said to me, he goes, you know, Mike, the bottom line is, you'll, you'll, you'll, you'll get what you allow. So if you allow those kinds of behaviors like you see on the streets of San Francisco or the disorder that you might see in places like Haiti, like Latin America, like some parts of Africa, if you allow those things, you'll get them. So it's not specific necessarily to any

of the culture. Certainly people will follow norms. But I think the thing that we have done so well in the United States compared to Europe, compared to any country that's ever existed, is that we have assimilated many, many different cultures. We are a mongrel country. We're a country that assimilated many cultures. At the same time, we have a culture, we have a set of a civilization that definitely comes from Western Europe. And so these attacks by the radical left and the woke left on civilization, and by extension on Europe and on Eurocentrism and on white people and blah, blah, blah, you know, all of that is, you know, an attack on kind of the most special thing about the country. So we've managed to do two things at once. We've had a civilization

that respects the pillars of civilization advanced upon really what they were able to do in Europe. I mean, just look at the censorship that's going on in Britain right now. The United States said, no, we're going to have this really radical free speech culture. We're not, you know, speech comes before government. And we're going to assimilate all these different cultures from around the world. So I guess I'm agreeing with you, but also acknowledging that, yeah, like, I think the brilliant, brilliant idea of America, the United States is that you can have a civilization, you have to defend those pillars of civilization, and you can have assimilation. But if you stop trying to assimilate, you know, or if you give up on those pillars of civilization, then you're going to become, it's going to become disorder. So I like so many things you said there. So first of all, cultures are not like human beings.

You know, I have a friend that always talks about, I'm a big believer that, like, in your individual characteristics, your strengths are also your weaknesses, like, as an individual, uniquely to you. I think you can probably find your weaknesses in the same place where you're looking at your strengths. And no one's perfect. And the same thing can be said about cultures. Like you're talking about Germany versus Africa, you know, we can see the pros and the cons of German culture, not even going back to the 40s. Today, you could look at German culture today and say, here's what's good about the culture. hear the shortcomings of that culture. And you can do the same thing with Africa. You can do the same thing of any culture. Um, and that measurement that we do kind of is where we weigh out, which

culture is better, which culture is, is worse. Second, you said, America has a culture. That's the thing that's constantly denied. We don't have a culture. That's just simply not true. To me, that's like, uh, David Foster Wallace, the famous writer talks about, um, you know, two fish swimming past each other and one fish saying to the other, how's the water? And, and, and, and the other fish goes, what's water. You don't know something when you're immersed in it. You know, you don't know there is an American culture until you can get out of the water, go somewhere else, see a different culture, and then you realize, oh, there is such thing as American culture. And then thirdly and finally, the idea then, now to take it to, in this case, Springfield, but Springfield

as a microcosm of America is you have to retain your culture. So whenever we, I do agree with you, the experiment's awesome. Like, what was the idea of America? Well, we have this foundational culture, to your point, pillars of civilization. And then we take from the best of everybody else coming in and we adopt and we integrate and we melt it together so that we end up with the best of all cultures. But that takes foresight. That takes purpose, not unfettered illegal immigration, not radical change to Springfield, Ohio, and not radical change to the United States of America. San Francisco, to your example, is an example of undercutting the pillars of the foundation of this culture. Springfield is an example of completely radically watering it down and

not asking for some level of purpose or assimilation. Yeah, 100%. You know, and even, you know, even on the like, if you go to Boston, which is a super progressive Democrat city, they still protect these particular norms, these, you know, you can say Western European norms, you know, but also law and order, you know, they don't allow the kind of things that they allow in San Francisco. So you do see even a difference in culture, which is really a difference in norms and law enforcement between East Coast, Boston, and West Coast, California. People complain about New York, Manhattan. And I'm always like, okay, there's some stuff on the edges.

But compared to the chaos in San Francisco and Los Angeles, there's no comparison. So, yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, the other thing, I think keep in mind, so I don't know, I'm not a, I haven't reported out on spring I am interested in looking at it. My understanding is that, yeah, there were some people brought in, but it was also some chain migration that were Haitians coming to the United States. I mean, I think when you interview most immigrants that come here, particular those Haitian immigrants, they're going to say they want to be in the United States. They don't want to be in the chaos and craziness of Haiti. They're coming here for a reason. There's still going to be some cultural differences. But I think the thing we should not forget is that we want people coming from around the world to the United States as immigrants. I want them coming legally, not illegally. You want them to follow some rules. You want them to work hard. That's a really important American value, you know, work hard, play by the rules. You should have insurance. You should be able to afford a home. You should have a have a retirement. That seems very basic to me. And you don't want to be taking in people that are not going to work. You don't want to take in people that are criminals or sociopaths.

That seems also, you know, fundamentally basic. So, yeah, I mean, are people being racist around Springfield? I'm sure some people are, you know, some people aren't. This issue of assimilation is absolutely maybe one of the most important issues. Certainly when it comes to immigration, maybe one of the most important issues in the future of civilization overall, you know, getting back to Germany, they do a terrible job of assimilating. So do the French, you know, and the Europeans do nearly as good of a job as we do.

You know, we're in a position, I'm in California, you know, Our, you know, the Latinos, you know, which is, you know, Mexicans, Central Americans, Latin Americans, we call them Latinos, call Hispanics. They are assimilating. I mean, basically all the evidence is we had this terrible idea in California at one point where we were going to not require Latin American immigrant kids to learn English in schools. That was terrible. That was a dumb, woke idea. We got rid of it. You know, people, immigrants come and generally, it's often harder for that first, the immigrants themselves, but their kids, they go to. to school, they learn English, we know how to do this, we intermarry, you know, there's a kind of mixing there, but you do protect this core set of norms and rules and culture, which includes, you know, working hard, you know, playing by the rules, obeying the law, you know, you don't want those things to become degraded. And I do, so I think that, like, I do blame the radical

left, the woke left, for confusing these things with suggesting that somehow asking cultures to follow the laws and the norms and to assimilate that that's somehow racist, that's absurd. Obviously, it's not. Every country in the world should want their immigrant populations to assimilate. And that doesn't mean, like, you know, becoming Christian necessarily or whatever, but it does mean, you know, these kind of basic things. Obviously, you see South Asians, Indian Americans, you know, maintaining their Hindu values, you know, Jewish Americans maintaining, you know, know, they're Jewish, you know, Catholics, whatever, that's like kind of a big part of the countries that we're going to have, you know, people from different religions and different

cultures. But there's a set of norms and rules and laws that everybody is expected to follow in any effort to chip away at those things, even the smallest things like you see in California, kind of go, oh, well, maybe we should reduce the penalties for supposedly minor crimes. It creates chaos. Like, you just can't allow people to be going into stores and shoplifting. It's obviously gone way too far and hopefully, and I will make a plug for it, anyone in California, vote for Prop 36 because it's going to actually restore some of that law and order in those rules. But yeah, I do think it's, I think it's helpful the ways in which we're attempting to kind of unpack here, you know, what parts of this, you know, might be prejudice and what parts

of it are actually essential to having a functioning society. Well, let me tie it together then, because I think this goes into a bigger issue, which you're on the front lines of. So, people often point to the United States embrace of free speech, and the first thing they reach for is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. What I would suggest is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is the final straw to protect free speech. That you, having lived across the world, know this. We're unique not because of the First Amendment. I mean, we are unique because of the First Amendment, but that's not all. It's because of our cultural embrace of free speech.

And that's a geographic outlier. That just doesn't exist in other places, like Canada. or the UK. People don't believe, you know, in the saying, I despise what you have to say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it. They believe shut up. That's misinformation. That's hate speech. And we don't have hate speech in America. We didn't in the past have misinformation. But we're culturally, there's a clear shift going on in America when it comes to our cultural embrace of free speech. And it manifests not just in the people listening, or that might feel at times like yelling shut up, but Tim Walts saying, you know,

misinformation and hate speech are not protected as free speech. That's misinformation, by the way. They are protected. Or Gavin Newsom with this newest thing in California, which you can speak to, Mike, where, I mean, what you post something that is a deep fake or, or, I don't know, even parody and memes, and it's, he's proposing, it's illegal in California. we're losing our cultural embrace of free speech. And once we lose culture, we'll lose the legal fight for free speech.

Yeah, I mean, gosh, so much to say there. So first of all, I've, you know, I am the CBR chair of free speech censorship and politics at the University of Austin. I'm now a professor. I'll be there January through March. But I am a newcomer in many ways to free speech and First Amendment issues. I've been on a steep learning curve for the last, you know, year and a half since we did the Twitter files. you know, there's so much to say about it. But I mean, yeah, I mean, so first of all, the First Amendment was totally radical.

Like, it turns out, like, it's just, and you really learn it when you go around the world and you realize how many more speech restrictions are in other parts of the world. Like, it was the anti-federalists, the people that didn't really want to have, you know, a unified United States, they kind of regurgently accepted the creation of the United States. The first thing they wanted to do after they ratified the Constitution was they were like, we got to have a First Amendment that protects free speech. I think it's important for people to know for the United States, speech comes first. Speech, you have speech, and then you create the government. The government doesn't give you permission to say things. In basically every other part of the world,

particularly Europe, it was more like the king decides what you're allowed to say. You may petition him and ask whether you can say these things. And so speech was sort of gradually achieved. Here it was like, no, no, no. The First Amendment is written in this really absolute way. And then the Supreme Court, over a couple of hundred years, carved out some exceptions. You can't lie to steal people's money. That's fraud. You can't lie to destroy someone's career or life that's defamation. You can't immediately incite violence, immediately being the key thing.

That's the Brandenburg v. Ohio test of 1962, reaffirmed in 1978. But very radical. And just like you said, well, you're totally right. And everybody agrees on it. all the historians and scholars and sociologists, if the people don't support free speech on the First Amendment, then it's just not going to matter. Like it just, you have to have the culture of supporting free speech. So these kinds of conversations are essential. You have to fight it out in court, but you also have to get out there and, you know, moralize, frankly, make the case for free

speech. And, you know, one thing I thought, because I'm a Gen Xer, born in 71, you know, I was like, Doesn't everybody just intuitively know that we believe in free speech? The answer is no. You actually have to learn it. And I do remember when my father told me that the Supreme Court upheld the right of Nazis to march through not just a neighborhood of mostly Jewish Americans, but Holocaust survivors in 1978. I remember being horrified by this because I was very woke, you know, young and sensitive. You know, you're like, that sounds horrible.

Why do we allow that? And my dad kind of explained it to me. I think it probably took me a while. but we were taught why free speech matters. We were taught why you could not possibly make it illegal for people to lie. Everybody would be in prison. You could not possibly make it illegal to make fun of people or to have parodies. I mean, the whole history of this country, the 18th century in particular, our founding fathers were really nasty.

I mean, you kind of look back at the things they would say about each other. It was crazy. And so, of course, we have this tradition that goes, okay, well, somebody lies about you. It's awful had it happen. You go out and you say, that's not true. And here's why it's not true. And that's how you deal with that. So this crazy bonkers law in California, which is almost certainly going to be ruled unconstitutional, probably will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't know. But it's just obviously, like, how, I mean, you know, it's so funny because it's like they go, okay, so parody is now illegal. What about Sarant Live? You know, or what about, like, I mean, comedy. Now, you could say, well, but. if it's obvious, you know, if it's really misleading or whatever, well, you have to, you have, you correct it. Like, you have community notes on X or you have people replying on X. I think it's been working really well. Community notes. It's not perfect. But this idea that the government's

going to get there and decide and ban these things. I just think, yeah, it's just like you said, it's like you've got a bunch of, and this is the totalitarianism. In other words, one of the, they're one of the great theories of why what is totalitarianism is basically that it comes from the most dogmatic and intolerant people of society that are out there hunting down heretics heretical thought whether you know conservatives or libertarians or heterodox people or classical liberals that these totalitarians are just they just can't stand it they're just so sure of their rightness that they that it's like a kind of intuitive emotional reaction they've got a make you shut up. And that's Gavin Newsom. That's Kamala Harris and Tim Walls. That's Hillary

Clinton. They're just so full of self-righteousness and certainty that they're out there to shut the rest of us up. And I think it's important for us to say that's not the American way. That's really, okay, that's really good. First of all, I want to give an appreciation to you and color in for the audience. You bring up Brandenburg. You know, this isn't, I went to law school. I did. I went to law school. And so there are certain things that stick with you. For example, I don't just always remember all the intricacies of tort law. But people, I do remember the Brandenberg test. And just the reason I'm saying this for the audience is you're going to hear this often. You'll hear from the highest levels of government that the limits on the free speech

embrace in America is you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. That's just simply not true. That was one point was a example given in a case that has since been overrode. which by the way you can yell fire in a crowded theater uh we want you to if the theater is on fire um but but the test is later i believe that was a 1930s-ish decision the fire in a crowded theater uh the test is i thought it was 69 you said it was 62 but brandenberg versus uh the united states which is the limits are direct or immediate incitement to violence and that was brought up in the january sixth stuff like did what donald trump say amount to a direct or immediate incitement of violence and historically i believe it's pretty

much got to amount to this go get them boys there he is go get them now my speech is not protected right that it's got to be that obvious and and that extreme so i just wanted to underline because that's really educational for people out there to understand the limits of free speech but the other part of what you had to say this is good um is i get it like we're living in the world of AI and deepfakes and it's hard to know what's true and Mike I'm super skeptical and I'm super skeptical on X and I do love X but I see so much stuff now and I'm like I don't know I don't know I don't know if it's true and I get the plight of people like how do we how do we help people understand what's true and the answer that can only be more speech because yes there's no

there's no omnipotent person to put in charge it's certainly not Gavin Newsom and the guilt the guiltiness within them Clinton and Newsom okay there's some of those are just craving for the power but to me it's just a lack of humility I think it is the underlying flaw of progressivism

honestly it's a lack of humility like you're not good enough to be the arbiter of what is true I'm sorry neither am I by the way in case you think it's personal I'm not good enough to be the arbiter of truth I just do my best to arrive through a process at the truth

and that's why I own my biases And so you're not good enough to run a health care system. You're not good enough to run an economy. You're not, you and all your big brains aren't good enough to control the climate. And you're not good enough to ascertain from high on the mount what is true. And that's the flaw. The flaw is the total lack of humility, Mike. Well, 100% agree.

And yes, thank you for the correction, by the way. You write, Brandenburg is 1969. It's not 1962. And so we just proved there's no need for some government committee to go. and correct me. You did, and I acknowledge it. And yeah, I, so gosh, so much you just said there. Yeah, I mean, I think, well, let me say a couple of things. Okay, let me give an example that I've been obsessed with. My colleague and co-author, we've been debating whether I should try to go out and correct it. So there is somebody on X named Jeremy Kaufman. Let me call you out right now,

who, who's part of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party and the New Hampshire Libertarian Party hosted on X, something like, you know, Kamala Harris, if somebody assassinated Kamala Harris, she'd be a national hero. The New Hampshire Libertarian Party deleted it and Jeremy Kaufman posted on X, a video that has now been retweeted something like 50,000 times viewed like tens of millions of times of two FBI agents coming to his house to apparently ask him about this tweet. And I saw it and I reached out to Jeremy, you know, we follow each other. And I was like, what was the context of this? And he didn't tell me right away that it was about that tweet. And he said that that tweet would have passed the Brandenberg test. And I don't know if that's true, maybe. But he did take it down or the

New Hampshire Libertarian Party took it down. But I think that the video that he posted is totally misleading and irresponsible. So I may not end up writing about it, but I'll denounce this, you know, with you here, he should have said that the FBI was apparently concerned about a potential threat against the vice president. I have written dozens of articles criticizing the FBI for abuses of power. I think the FBI is a mess. It needs to be cleaned out. It needs a new director. They need to fire the psychopaths and narcissists that are weaponizing the FBI for political purposes. I have very strong views and strong words about the corruption of the FBI. Because of that, because of my concern, it is irresponsible to be accusing the FBI of abusing its powers when it's not.

I do not think, I think actually I agree that when somebody makes a threat or suggests a threat against a political official, they should be investigated. It is illegal for anybody to threaten violence against anybody in the United States. That is one of the limits to free speech. Could that be abused by the FBI? Absolutely. Could the Secret Service abuse it? Absolutely. But I think we all have seen, given the threats against the things that Trump, that they actually haven't done a good enough job in investigating these threats and protecting our elected officials. So I think it's wrong to go out there and suggest the FBI is abusing its powers when actually in that case, it appears to have been doing its job. So I mention that because I do think it's important to call out that kind of bad behavior when we see it. I don't know if it's worth me doing a whole article about it, but maybe I satisfied myself by just mentioning it to you. On your other point, I also 100% agree. I think it is this demand, this totalitarianism, this demand for censorship, the desire to weaponize government agencies to engage in lawfare and incarcerate your political opponent. It's coming from hubris, which is

of the oldest sins, not just in Christianity, but in prior pagan religions, remember it's Icarus. You know, it's this attempt to behave like gods. It is a way of saying we're humans, we're fallible, we're not like gods, we're not omniscient, we're not omnipresent. There's limits to what we know. We make mistakes. We're fallible. We ask for forgiveness and we're aware of that. And we're also in Christianity, we're actually, you know, some of the central teaching, our understanding our own wickedness, our own flaws. Jesus says, you're so quick to see the speck in somebody else's eye, you don't recognize the log in your own eye.

So I totally agree. I think that that impulse to hunt down heretics, that self-righteousness fundamentally stems from a lack of self-awareness and a lack of humility. All right, last thing with you here, Mike, telling me about Brazil. So I understand, so Brazil, you know, outlaws, X through their legal mechanisms of whatever. You have to have a local agent.

Elon wouldn't do the local agent thing. So X gets outlawed. Keith Ellison, by the way, Minnesota AG under Tim Walt, says, Abragado, Brazil. Thank you, Brazil. But I understand you went to Brazil and you've suffered some consequences. Yeah, I mean, really the whole thing starts because I was invited to speak at a free speech meeting in Brazil. We had done several pieces on the censorship in Brazil, and we've been working with two journalists

in Brazil. They asked me, again, before I came down, can you please see if there's any Twitter files, Brazil? I had looked before, couldn't find anything, but then I did find stuff, and I published it, you know, three days later, somebody asked Elon, someone that's blocked, a Brazilian who's blocked in Brazil, asked Elon if he would please unblock them, and Elon says, we're going to release these files and show because the censorship demands are so extreme. That was back in March, you know, I was criminally investigated. At some point, like, you're like, do I take this seriously or not because it's so absurd, but I was criminally investigated. The police did two separate reports. And then the Attorney General of Brazil recommended that I'd be prosecuted for having

written completely accurate and legal Twitter files, Brazil. So I was a little worried about going back to Brazil. Certainly, some people in my life didn't want me to go, but I did feel like it was important to go and take a stand against this person that's basically acting like a dictator. And I did. And on Saturday of last week, a week ago, Saturday, I was there on this huge sound truck in the middle of San Paulo, and there was like several hundred thousand people around us. And it was one of the most beautiful, inspiring experiences of my life. I gave a little talk, a little speech to rally everybody up. And yeah. And now, and finally, yesterday, Corrine Jean-Pierre, you know, said that, you know, I think we can overstate it,

but basically criticize the Brazilian government's decision. There's now going to be at least two pieces of legislation introduced yesterday, hopefully today or tomorrow in Congress with multiple co-sponsors, condemning what Brazil's doing. The biggest risk is that this kind of thing becomes normalized and people see it as okay to just ban an entire social media network in Brazil. We have to keep fighting and not let it go because I do think that's how it kind of creeps around the world,

that government suddenly kind of go, oh, well, Brazil got away with it. Maybe we can get away with it here. So, yeah, we've got to fight. That's why I think a lot of people go, I don't care about Brazil. I don't live in Brazil or, you know, that's their problem. But it's actually, that is one of the ways that pro-censorship people, including in the United States, hope to get censorship here is you start to get ex-band in all these countries around the world. And the next thing you know, and I don't think Elon would, but certainly I think, you know, meta and Google might, they kind of go, well, we'll just go ahead and censor it for everybody for a variety of reasons.

It might be easier or politically expedient. And then suddenly our internet is controlled by the government. And that is, at that point, we're well into George Orwell's 1984. I think to illustrate your point of the creep, I mean, the Attorney General of Minnesota, thank you Brazil for what you have done. Does that not show an appetite to do that in America? All right, we're glad you're free back in America, Michael Schellenberger. always great to have you here on the will cane show public dot news public on substack apocalypse

apocalypse never in san francisco great to have you mike thank you so much to be with you well thanks man all right awesome conversation with michael schellenberger right there check out either of his two books or the reporting he's done which we just got some good journalism there when it comes to that fbi i um visit to new hampshire new hampshire libertarian party representative, which you can check out at public. All right, you, the Wilicia, your comments. I said, I want to bring you in. You can push back on my monologue today or anything we've said.

Let's hear from you next on the Will Kane show. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. Now we've got to get back to some sports at some point. I was on today, the Ricky Cobb show on Outkick.

You should head over there where you hear us break down. Texas Longhorns, Quinn Ewers, Archmanning, Dallas Cowboys, and more over there at the Ricky Cobb show. But this is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com, Outkick.com. The Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News, Facebook, page. and just hit subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or go find the Will Kane show and subscribe on YouTube. Comments on Facebook and YouTube, we bring into the show, and I laid out my case of

what is the examples. We went through 10, 10 from Grok, examples of Donald Trump creating a climate of violence. I found them all accepting to rising nothing above the level of weak. But I asked you, what have I missed? What do you think? So here we bring in the Wallitia. All right, Mariska Maselli says, Donald Trump faced criticism during his 2016 presidential campaign based on the aggressive atmospheres of many of his rallies where tension and intimidation repeatedly spilled over into violence.

Now, this, I believe, is a reference to protesters showing up. Aggressive atmosphere, very, very vague and generalized term. But confrontations at the rallies, between protesters, disruptors, and rally attendees? Yes, that did happen. Now, to the extent there is a confrontation, is that the product of the protester, the rioter, the disruptor, the rallygoer, or the speaker on the stage?

I think we have to do a little better, Mariska. Good and riddance says, hello, my name is Clifford. Please do not vote for Donald Trump. Thank you. Okay, good riddance. You just made your way onto the Will Cain show on the comment section

here on YouTube. Eric Miller says, don't people realize that both parties contribute to all the problems by having a constant state of rhetoric nothing ever changes, all while those in power

keep getting richer. I think there's legitimacy to that point. No one's an angel. Neither side is pure. So, of course, there's a pox on all houses that doesn't make it equal. You know, that doesn't,

as we just talked about Michael Schellemberger, I do think there is some really dangerous stuff at this point coming from the left, manifesting in not only the attempt on the life of Donald Trump, but as laid out by Schellenberger, actions taken to advance a totalitarian state by dividing the people. Divide us. Tell us everybody's racist. Tell us Maga is a threat to the soul. All the while, give me more power. Keep me at the top of the totem pole. Cal Vidian says, when Trump says he hates Taylor Swift, it is political violence.

and some will take these words as an incitement to violence against that person. No, no, Cal, no. I mean, you know, I don't think that was smart, by the way, Donald Trump. I hate Taylor Swift. He put that out on Sunday before somebody tried to kill him. It's not smart. Like, why? What's the net upside?

You know? A lot of swifties. So, like, see the downside. What's the upside in saying, I hate Taylor Swift? But among the downsides, I don't think it's an incitement to political violence. Patty Gerriga says I hate Taylor Swift as well is my saying that inciting violence

I mean I'm trying to think which musicians I hate I actually don't use the word hate very often it's just so far there's a lot I don't like so is the line between don't like and hate I'll bet you a lot of people listening

how a lot of times they've said I hate this movie I hate this actor I hate this actress I hate this song is that all a call for violence Frida Jasper says, let's start birtherism. She's talking about Donald Trump questioning the birth origins of Barack Obama. And if Frida jumped on the show right now, I would just ask this, okay, you can criticize and we can talk through that entire issue. But why, even if you win every argument, Frida, really, honestly, if you win every argument, why is that creating a climate of violence?

why perhaps ridiculously let's just grant that questioning the birth or origin of Barack Obama equate to political violence could you explain that to me if we were together here now could you explain that to me Frida Teresa Lucas I was always told when you point the finger at someone else there's three fingers pointing back at you whoopee from the view and then Jepi Anderson says on YouTube did the founding fathers think the constitution included free speech but it had to be reiterated in the first amendment that's a fascinating um point jeffy here's what i would say to that you know there's a deep debate and we've touched on it a few times here on the will cane show whether or not there was a necessity for the bill

of rights which includes the first amendment to the constitution because the idea is the constitution of the united states through its articles laid out the powers of the government explicitly said this is what you are allowed to do. The Constitution wasn't a limit on the people. It was a limit on the government. And by enumerating and explicitly laying out, the powers of the government, the implication was,

if it's not listed here, you do not have the power. Now, when the debate was one to incorporate the Bill of Rights, those that did not want a Bill of Rights said, you're flipping it on its head. What you've done now by saying the government shall not infringe on free speech or freedom of religion or freedom of association

or the right to keep them bear arms. By saying you are not allowed to do this, you flip the presumption. And if it's not listed here, the presumption is now, well, the government can do it. So while the Constitution is a limit specifically on the federal government, we could have ended up with a system where states could have limited free speech. And because of the incorporation clause in the Constitution, the states have to abide as well by the United States Constitution, but the Bill of Rights specifically included free speech at the same time sacrificing the presumption of an unlimited power of the federal government beyond what is prohibited. It's a fascinating debate. We're well past it. And now we're all embracing the Bill of Rights. And we should because we're

well past it. But it is a seminal moment in defining the limits of the power of the United States government. All right, that's your comments on YouTube and Facebook. We'll be back again tomorrow at 12 o'clock Eastern time on YouTube, on Facebook, always on radio, on Spotify, on Apple. Love having you in the show, and we will see you again next time. Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.