Will Cain Country - The Left’s Refugee Standard: Ideology First, Safety Second (ft. Wade Stotts)

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Story #1: Much ado about nothing: Will explains how the economic doomsayers were proven wrong after just 45 days as stocks rise and inflation continues to fall. Story #2: Diving deep into the divide over immigration as the Left rages against the arrival of South African refugees while supporting immigration that runs counter to Western values with the Host of 'The Wade Show With Wade,' Wade Stotts. Story #3: An NFL Draft lottery? Inside the push to change the NFL Draft. Plus, Will unravels Tinfoil Pat's NBA lottery conspiracy theory and shares a top 5 list of the things people miss the most about the '90s.  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, much ado about nothing. The economy all of a sudden, headed north, in the green, inflation, egg prices, stock market, after 45 days of freak out. Yes, just 45 days. Time to find a new narrative. Two. An infiltration of Western culture, a lack of assimilation, the crisis from South Africa to Europe to the United States of America, with the host of the Wade Show with Wade, Wade Stottes. Three, a NFL draft lottery? It is the Will Cane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page.

Every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern Time, jump into the comments section. Set yourself a reminder and be here. Every weekday, you become a member of the Willis. If you're listening on Terrestrial Radio, hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify and leave us. If you think it's so deserved, a five-star review. Wade's thoughts back in the fold today to talk about Europe finally taking a long gaze into the mirror. Kirst Armour, UK Prime Minister says we cannot be an island of strangers. Tinfoil Pat, two a day's Dan with us here this morning.

Morning, fellas. What's going on? Howdy. You know, howdy. Patrick. I got a... How do? I got a buddy taking notes over here, too, so that's...

You can say hi. I see it. I see. Yeah. Somebody in the background. It's helping out. We need some help. Seriously hanging out.

Yeah. Yeah. I know. We do need some help. Man. We need a lot of help. We need a lot of help. We need help.

We need help. Man, my days these days are like a 100-yard dash. I mean, I mean, from, I'd say my day right now starts at 7 a.m. And it's awesome. It's over by, you know, 4.30 Central. But between those two time periods, I just don't have minutes. What are you making faces for, tinfoil?

I don't have minutes. Everything is like, got to go, got to go to the next thing, got to go. What are you making faces? He thinks he's out busy as you. I have no. A hundred percent with you, except I also go to like 6.30. So, you know, I'm with you. I get you.

I totally understand. No, you don't. That was a big league move. That's what that was. That was, oh, you have to go to 4.30. You know, I have to work till 630. That was, that was, he was big leagging trying to act like he works a lot harder than I do. He's being a topper.

That's not true at all. You have a lot more to worry about that. Yeah, he's being a topper. It's 100%. You know the topper name droppers. That's not what I am like. Yeah. He's not a name.

Just did it. but he is a topper. You just did a topper move. Yeah. Patrick, do you think if you ranked you, me, and Dan on workload that you would come out number one? Are you living under this perception? No, I just probably do in the middle somewhere. No, no, that's fine.

That's, yeah. Well, you're in the middle. Who's the least from you or Dan? I don't. Who's got the easiest day? I'm not playing this game. And your top three. And your top three, who works the hardest?

You have now situated yourself at number two. So let's just figure out who's one and who's three, Patrick. That makes me three. That's savage. No, I mean, I'm not sure he's going to put you three. That's the hard part. He's in a pickle here because, you know, he calls me boss sometimes. So it's hard to say boss comes in at number three.

But I do believe he thinks. I do believe he thinks on three. I think if you gave him. All you do is talk on TV every day. So that's not that hard. 100%. Yeah. Oh, you got to work until four.

30 will? Whoa. I think for sure he has me at 3, but he will never say it. You won't say it. Come on. You're the Mr. Truth Teller. You're the conspiracy theorist. You like a little introsine fight. You like to see Dave Smith versus Douglas Murray.

You're into this stuff. So let it fly. Don't be a coward. But lay it on me. If you think I'm third, put me third. No, no. I don't. First of all, you're saying, you're saying four-thirty.

Get him, Dan. God. What the hell? No, man. I work my, I've worked my butt off. I know you do. So now you're saying you work harder than Dan. Yeah. But you've done is now you said, you are harder than Dan.

That's exactly what I said. I think it's one A, B, and C. That's that, you know, that's how it is. You're not kidding. It's this, what do you? You're not thread this needle inside of Congress here. You're not bringing the two parties. You're not bringing the New York Republicans and Tommy Tuberville together on the same page here

by trying to do this one ABC thing. Like, we're all a little more sophisticated. than what you're trying to pull off. And everybody listening is as well. If you put this up right now, two o' days, everyone can interpret what Patrick has said. And you walked into this by suggesting when I said, when I described my day as a topper,

you work harder if you work till 6.30. You did this to yourself. I don't know about harder. Longer, longer, he was saying. I don't know about harder. Yeah, longer. Also, I want to clarify, you're saying 430, which is central time. So that's really like, what,

530? Yes. But you still got an extra hour on him, he said. It's really not that much different. Yeah, but you still have an extra hour on them, so you're working harder. Guy, that's such a back peddler. Now we've got a to pauper back peddler. It's working different. Harder and smarter. What are you, Joe Biden? Come on.

Who knows? Nobody knows. Yeah, I want to see. I want to see your P.E.R. I want to see your player efficiency rating. Yeah. I want to see what it's happening. I got a son that stays up late studying until midnight, and I love that he works hard. He's a grinder, but I'm afraid his shooting percentage is low. I want to see his player efficiency rating. How many times during a four-hour study session has he scrolled TikTok? How many times have you turned to your phone? My indictment of

modern society is, yeah, it's true. You never walk away from work. We all believe that now. The phones have made it so that theoretically we're more efficient but we're never off of work. But my suspicion is all of our player efficiency ratings have dropped. By the way, I'm looking at you two guys. Do you guys work out? I do. No. I exercise, yes.

You do, Dan? What do you do? Do you some weights? Do you even lift, bro? Some cardio. Yeah. You know, nothing heavy, nothing crazy. Some weight. Some weight. Some cardio. My hefty lifting was back in the day, not anymore. Here's where I'm going with this.

when I go to the gym and I first of all if I ever pick up my phone my efficiency rating goes way down the time spent in gym is much longer and then I've noticed even beyond that if I don't listen to a podcast if I don't even put in earbuds then my PER goes up

and I get everything done the same amount I get it done in a much faster time so I think it's best to raw dog the gym Like, you know, no earbuds, no phone, no nothing. Really? And then the most inefficient dudes at the gym are the young dudes, the bros. My son goes to the same gym. I've seen him there with his buddies because the amount of conversation taking place between sets,

it's like you just turned a 45-minute session into an hour and a half, for sure. So. That's my big. I'm pretty sure psychopaths don't listen to music at the gym is my opinion. Try it. Running is different. running without music is great. The gym, not so much.

Ooh, I would have guessed the opposite. I would think running, you would need something going on in your ears. No, I think you should try the gym with no stimuli. Okay. And your time spent in gym versus quality of work done will go up. I have a buddy that turned me on to that. I said, what do you do when you work out? He's like, nothing.

And he's real into mind-muscle connection, you know, that whole thing people are talking about like you get way more out of it if you focus literally on okay i'm doing the bench press i'm working my pecks right um i'm doing because otherwise your body will just start using all of its muscles and it will start trying to do all the things to compensate and it won't get as much out of it so if you want to isolate and work something out you need to focus on that muscle while you're doing it you know i can tell you that this is something you can bring to bear patrick you have a lot of input on on this tell us about your gym routine. I have no gym routine. I just told you that. Because you can't fit it in

because you can't fit it in between 7 and 630. It's not enough time for the gym. He's working too hard, Will. What are he's crazy? He's already told us he's six foot two. He works 13 hour days. It's getting, it's getting very suspect. The legend for the guy based out of Florida. The legend of tinfoil path. All right. Let's get to it all now with story number one. Today, PPI, inflation, the provider, the producer index, how much it cost to make goods has been made public for the latest month. Economist predicted and anticipated that we would go up by 0.2% inflation. Inflation came back today, down 0.5%. Inflation following the same arc as the stock market.

Take a look at where we stand today in the market. Stocks have recovered from initial tariff shock from Liberation Day. We went down, but stocks have rebounded, I believe the S&P 500 today, or as of yesterday was around 414,000, leaving everyone's 401K in about the same shape they were one month ago and up over the long arc of several months. It makes you wonder about people like a friend of the Will Kane show, Barstall Sports, President Dave Portnoy. This was last week, like Clay Travis, Will Kane. they're like since those just don't look at your 401k since when do people care about the stock market

that's bullshit that's let's be honest and i prefer trump and he says it sometimes he's been like i don't want things to go down i would rather people on the right who support trump no matter what he does what he says like when you say stuff like that to me it's like well trump could cut someone's head off You're like, well, you know, did he really? Like, let's call a spade of spade. Everybody has the right to panic, panicking party, and be worried about the stock market, their 401k, their portfolio. I want to kind of dig into that for a minute.

I'm not mad at Dave. I don't mind him calling me out if he thinks I'm wrong. The problem is I'm right, and he was wrong, and he wet his pants, and he panicked. And it's not someone who thinks Trump can do no wrong that is capable of seeing a moment in time outside of the five-minute window they exist. It was pure panic.

It is living in the moment to say, hey, you shouldn't be living day to day by the ups and downs of the stock market. Dave is more wealthy than I am, and I'm not going to compare our stock earnings or losses over time. Perhaps Dave has outperformed anything that I've ever chosen to do, but the truth is, I don't really choose to do much. That's not to say I'm not invested in the market.

You know, to the extent that I understand finance and care, I've always idolized one man, one man when it comes to markets, one man when it comes to investing, Warren Buffett. And to a lesser extent, his partner in business, Charlie Munger. I don't care about their politics. Don't talk to me about the way they vote. I'm talking here about making money. And Warren Buffett has a couple of different maxims that stuck with me throughout life.

I don't invest in things that I don't understand. I don't. The stock market isn't a horse race. You're not betting on random lines going up and down based upon current public sentiment. You can do that, and many people do. In fact, the majority of people do. The stock market is a measure of public sentiment. It is just a voting mechanism in the short term.

That's all it is in the short term. And how do people vote? God, who knows? That is hundreds of millions of decisions. There's hundreds of millions of people making thousands of decisions every day it's almost like a EQ index over the short term. How do you feel? And I'll grant that when Trump comes in with a radical tariff proposal,

everybody feels panicky. All that does, though, is reflect that if you are like Dave in that moment and you panic, there's a lot of sheep in the herd. There's no shame, but it's just a lot of sheep in the herd. Buffett never made money by being a sheep. Buffett made money by trying to look in the long term. hey what is this play what is the true intrinsic value of this company what is their P&L what is their price to earnings ratio what is their debt load and that should play out in reality but not in the

short term you can't bet on one year six months certainly not 30 45 days now you've reset subjected yourself once again to the public voting mechanism so I stand by what I said 45 days ago. You cannot live and die by the momentary ups and downs of the stock market. Because here we are 45 days later, and you have to look back and, for example, if I had Dave on today, I'd say, Dave, hey, explain why your britches are wet. And Dave's answer would me to be, hey, you know, I did panic. Or it would be, hey, these momentary short-term fluctuations matter. And my response to that should be, it shouldn't matter. You shouldn't be conducting your personal finances, or making short-term bets on the market.

It's the same as going to the horses. And I know Dave loves the horses and he loves to bet. So that's fine. But that's not how I, nor the President of the States, nor the Secretary of Treasury or anyone else, thinking about America's success over the long term, should be thinking about it. We don't run America like Santa Anita. So I was right.

And it wasn't because I think that Trump can do no wrong. By the way, if you're sitting here saying today, Will, oh, you're claiming a victory in a stock market. You know, that's another short-term picture. No, what I would say is that is an exhibit, a piece of evidence, and where we sit, 45 days later. Here's another one. Egg prices, down 14%. Do you know that this is the biggest drop last month? Our chart shows almost 13%.

It's the biggest drop one month in the price of eggs since 1984. since 1984 so inflation down egg prices down stock market up and all of this contrast against the narrative that existed 30 45 days ago which was everywhere from page of cnn.com screaming from CNN and even you know of course cnbc here's jim kramer the president doesn't try to reach out and board these countries and companies that play by the rule than the 1987 scenario, the one where we went down three days and then down 22% on Monday has the most cogency. We will not have to wait out too long willing. We'll know by Monday. Fortunately, we had an excellent set of employment numbers, say at least it makes it less likely

a crash will necessarily lead to a recession. But if President Trump stays intransigent and does nothing to ameliorate the damage that I saw these last two days, I'm not going to be constructive here. I will contain my anger, but only because I lived through 87 and in the I came out okay. I was in cash for the crash. I know what this feels like. Oh, and if Europe moves against our fabulous tech companies next week, then I will be furious. That I promise you, because it should not happen. There we go. Once again, Chicken Little predicting the sky is falling. You know, the crash buried inside that. Dark future. He did recognize one more piece of evidence, another exhibit. Unemployment numbers have been very good. So inflation, egg prices, stock market,

unemployment, all very good, despite the hand-wringing and steam blowing out of the years of everyone suggesting that Donald Trump was crashing the economy. And in fact, that's a narrative that exists today. Two days, who is our resident correspondent among the liberal mindset, told me that's what all your friends are saying, right? That's what you're hearing from the Brooklyn brunch crew that Trump tanked the economy. Yeah, the biggest thing I'm hearing is about GDP and the economy is shrinking and that's why inflation because people aren't buying things as much right now. So it's more about the economy shrinking

in the GDP is their complaint. And so $5 eggs doesn't really matter to them when the tariffs are making their way through the economy and, you know, everything's shrinking. But that has... The everything's shrinking thing. Okay, that should result in unemployment. Well...

If nobody's buying anything and GDP is shrinking, that should result in unemployment. Okay, and so here's the thing. I don't want to be a short-termist either. We're still waiting to see how this is going to play out. And as everybody who had any sense of sense had to say, this is going to play out over nine to 12 months. And in the end, what I'm getting at is this.

For 30 days, you heard, doom, gloom, so much so that the Brooklyn brunch crew today thinks that the economy has tanked. And yet every reasonable and objective metric tells you, you know what, it's actually on the right path. Okay, will it stay on the right path? I'm not here to predict. But I do think that what is happening is a long-term play. And instead, what you had was a media narrative.

of the sky is falling and the sky is falling for 30 days, and here we are 45 days later, and the sky is risen. It's gone up. It's bluer than ever. And so when Dave Portnoy suggests that the motivation for me saying not look at your stock portfolio at the moment is because I don't think Trump can do anything wrong, I'm here to tell you that I think the narrative that defies the evidence is because there is such a popularized mindset,

so much so that it can even inflict somebody, afflict somebody who has been supporter of Donald Trump, like Dave Portnoy, because it's contagious. It's contagious this popular mindset. But a mindset that says nothing Donald Trump does can be right. And if that is everywhere, and you're constantly looking for how he's tanking the world, as we're sitting here setting a new world order of treaties in alignment with Qatar and Saudi Arabia and UAE, and maybe even this morning Iran, maybe even a nuclear deal with Iran. Or even, are we cold, are we hot with Israel? We don't know. Tariffs. Reimagining how we interact with China. In the midst of all of this, you know, I don't know is the right position. Looking pretty good is a more accurate position.

Sky is falling? Man, that's the Trump can do no right. That's what that is. And as the media today has beclowned itself. If Dave Portnoy, I'm accusing of wetting his pants, they pooped in their britches over Joe Biden covering up his senility. So I don't know why we're concerned, but they still somehow get to set the narrative. All that we know now is, the narrative is as stinky as their pants.

Let's take a break. When we come back, we're going to be with the host of the Wade show with Wade, Wade's dots on Europe, the U.S., and South Africa. Assimilation and Immigration. Next on The Will Cain Show. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms

and have helped raise $6.5 million. Visit go.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. 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 the quiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did.

Thank you for taking the quiz. You see, white people can never be oppressed. White people can never be victims. White people are just the source of original sin. Therefore, to hell with the refugees. from South Africa. It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page.

Hey, hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. He is the host of the Wade Show with Wade. It is Wade Stats. What's up, Wade? Doing great. Are you, Will? I'm good. Before I jump into the obvious sarcasm of white people can never be oppressed and to hell

with the refugees in South Africa or the immigration crisis that has finally at least being acknowledged in Europe, I know you were hanging out while I was riffing about everybody soiling themselves when it comes to the economy. So I just always want to open it up to somebody sitting on the sidelines to come in and play on the field. Did you have any thoughts on what's happened with the economy and the way everybody reacted for 45 days?

Yeah, I think that at some level, the news is a lot of people's favorite soap opera. And so if you were to interrupt a lady watching a soap opera and say, hey, you know, these are actors. And you know that it would be ruining the illusion at some level. So they like the controversy. They like the insanity. And sometimes when you show like actual stakes or real things going on, people don't know how to evaluate those. So it's, it's an emotional roller coaster. And again, just like clarifying a little bit of reality or at least giving some perspective to what's going on can always be seen as like a betrayal or like, oh, you're putting

me down. Like, hey, let me have some fun here. I'm enjoying this, this misery. But I mean, I'm a guy who's seen enough, you know, Trump experiments or at least Trump controversies to know that we don't really know how it's going to pan out, but usually Trump ends up being right, which, again, I'm not a Trump is always right kind of guy, but it is crazy how many times he has been and how many times people have set their hair on fire saying the opposite. It's totally accurate. So you said two things I find interesting, because I'm going to put myself to the other side of this for a moment. It always happens. I'm trying to think of the best examples of this, but the one that pops into my head is, you know, I'm a big sports fan, Wade,

so I will jump onto X during games, right? And I will comment during games. And I'm a little bit of a pessimistic fan, meaning if the Cowboys are playing poorly, I'll point it out on X. You know, I don't, because of like, superstition, do it when they're playing really good. So if the Longhorns are just kicking ass, I don't go into X and be like, it's a slaughter in the second quarter. But I will, like, yell, it's a slaughter if we're losing in the second quarter, right? And then I always get the commentary, doesn't this look stupid now, you know, this aged like milk, you know, all that. I'm like, it was a moment in time, and I'm having my fun. Let me, let me emote during the game.

I'm doing it publicly with you. Yeah, okay, it turned out the other way by the end of the game, but I was living in the moment. The difference is I don't think news should be done that way, and you use the right word, without perspective because then I do get maybe somebody thinks I'm cheerleading maybe they think I'm actually rooting against the cowboys which obviously I'm not

but in the news it often can come out that way you know and I don't think like for example Dave Portnoy he's not rooting against Trump I don't think he is and I think him doing that in that moment isn't the same thing as Jim Kramer doing that or CNN doing that but it is missing

the perspective and context and you put it perfectly in this case It's not being a cheerleader to say, given a long arc, more often than not, it kind of works out for Donald Trump. Yeah, and again, it doesn't make you a sycophant to say that sort of thing. And also, what I was my position during the whole thing was, hey, let's wait and see. It's a kind of experiment, again, like you said, it's sort of shaking things up. And it's shaking things up with the vision that there are such a thing as tradeoffs. Okay, so if he was saying the whole time, it's going to look a little bit tough in the, in the, in the,

short term, but it will bounce back. Right. And that's sort of what we're seeing at some level. I mean, well, again, I'm still in the position that, hey, we'll wait, we'll wait and see how it goes. I think that as we try to reorient the entire global trade order, it's not going to have zero negative consequences. It's not going to have zero impact on in the short term at all. And I think it's foolish to think that Trump was going to come in and then just not do any of the things that he said he was going to do. Trump has been as consistent on tariffs as he's been on immigration, and we weren't surprised

when he started trying to do deportations, but the deportations thing hasn't worked quite as well as a play for the left, because we all expected that and wanted that, but because people weren't hurting short term when it comes to deportations, deportations, it's easy to explain, hey, this is good for you now, and it's good for you later. when the economy stuff was, when it was looking a little worse, that's easier to convince people who voted for Trump, hey, he's hurting your pocketbook and to shake them up, at least get them in a little frenzy. You introduced deportations, which takes us into the conversation over illegal immigration.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments over Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. I find this absolutely fascinating. I've always loved arguments before the Supreme Court. it's the lawyer in me. It's the rationalist in me. It's the debater in me that loves all of this. I want to hear Contagy Brown Jackson's ridiculous questions. I want to hear Samuel Justice Alito's, I think, very intelligent arguments. So I'm curious, I don't know how well read you are in on the history of this. I can give a quick synopsis for those listening at home.

birthright citizenship popularly derived from the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution has for well over a hundred years been interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend to people who are non-citizens born in America

which does include the children of illegal immigrants the Trump administration is making the argument that although precedent meaning the Supreme Court has said this for 100 years needs to be revisited based upon the original intent of the 14th Amendment

and they have a very logical and sound argument as to why. The argument is that the adopters of the 14th Amendment, and this is, by the way, well documented in the, what do you call it, the legislative notes, which is the background on why they make the laws. Once they create an amendment, it's synthesized and distilled, but they're already supporting notes from debate and so forth that the Supreme Court will rely on, by the way, to determine original intent. And it's pretty clear from the legislative notes that the point of it was to extend,

citizenship to the children of slaves, in that the slaves in America were disenfranchised and had no foreign power that had jurisdiction over them. And the notes say, you know, those not subject to the citizenship or laws of another country, which suggests pretty strongly that would not therefore include someone who migrates to our country illegally and then has children. So I think there's a real strong argument for the government to make before the Supreme Court. An originalist case to make before the most sympathetic years, most likely being Alito and Thomas, but I'm not sure guys like Justice Roberts, who is a institutionalist, will overturn 100 years of precedent. Right. Yeah, I think that birthright citizenship is a good test case, or at least a good,

it's a good example of how left-wing jurisprudence, or at least more progressive jurisprudence, works as opposed to originalist because I mean again original intent is to take care of a particular problem okay we're we're trying to address something that was of its time and then being able to address and then that's used later on by progressives to sort of as a wedge so oh I found a spot where I can get whatever I want and so both of those at some level can be eventually called conservative so because because we've got a justice who wants to hold on to precedent, it's difficult to argue that he's not being conservative, because, again, at some level, it's 100 years of precedent. But it, and it would be at least a, again, you can say

originalist, it's difficult when you get into the labels, because really what you're trying to do is solve a different particular problem. So we've tried to solve a particular problem with the 14th Amendment, and then we have a new particular problem that's been created by a misinterpretation of it or misabuse of it at some level. And then, yeah, so now, I think it's okay to, yes, say it's an originalist position, but it's also we have a new problem that's been created by all this sort of thing. And we have to be okay with precedent that is beyond 100 years, an older precedent that would have made sense at some level to the people who drafted the 14th Amendment. I suspect, Wade, if Chief Justice John Roberts were a Supreme

court justice in 1890, and this issue came before him. He would decide it in a way that you would hope he would decide it today. In other words, I think his intellect would lead him toward, hey, this isn't intended to ascribe citizenship to illegal immigrants. He wouldn't do that. The problem for him is he believes in preserving the integrity of the court and 100 years of precedent and he sees that as revolutionary and disruptive to throw out a century's worth of jurisprudence and therefore he will probably land at a position that is not one that he would strictly on intellect alone right i do believe we're 1890 he'd be on the right side of this issue right and i think that yeah that's that's the uh the way that a lot of conservatives are

can be bullied or sort of they have conservative instincts they want to hold on to something that they grew up under. And I think that the left-wingers on courts, they're not easy to bully that way because, yeah, they're going to just do whatever they want. And if they see some problem that they think, some quote-unquote problem that they think needs to be a quote-unquote solved, then they'll do whatever it takes to take care of that. And yeah, I think that once a certain amount of bad law has grown up around things, we have to be able to judge between good precedent, older precedent, original intent precedent, and what's sort of, again, grown up over the past hundred years. We shouldn't see the past hundred years as being something that's, again,

sacrosanct in the same way that we see the thousands of years of legal thought that have come before it. And at some level, if your interpretation of the Constitution means that we don't get to have a nation anymore, then we can't call that a conservative position. And here's my favorite example of what you're talking about, the wedge that you talk about, is, so civil rights is actually one of the most fascinating constitutional developments in my mind. So I may mess up the exact path of this, but the question is, could the federal government implement civil rights laws that enjoined the states, forced the states to adopt those that did not want to who were still ascribing to Jim Crow? So the hard part for anyone on the left who listen to this conversation is they think if you say the federal government doesn't have power to do that, then you endorse Jim Crow racist laws. That's not true. The question is, by what mechanism can you outlaw Jim Crow racist laws?

And they failed in their first trying. I think it was under the 14th Amendment. They failed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, meaning it went before the Supreme Court and they go, no, equal protection doesn't give the federal law. government the power to do this. So a lot of people don't realize this, but most civil rights laws were deemed constitutional, meaning gave the federal government the power to regulate the states through the Commerce Clause. And that is constitutionally, intellectually, irrational, meaning starting in about the 1930s, the Commerce Clause started to get expanded. It's a clause in the Constitution that says the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, right? So you get two

laws, two states, they're regulating a business that crosses state lines. Well, the federal government can serve as the intermediary. Well, the famous case is, well, what about a black person traveling who can eat in one state but can't eat in another state or stay in a hotel in one state but can't stay in another state? Well, that's a violation of interstate commerce, which is a pretty big logical stretch, but then, therefore, the federal government has the power to put in civil rights laws. Okay, fine, whatever. One could argue whatever mechanism we got there through the Constitution, we got to the right outcome. But the problem with that in ignoring process and in bracing the whatever mechanism is, well, now Pandora's box has been open. And now that door and that wedge

is, is in place. And the Commerce Clause has been the single greatest use of constitutional power of the federal government to expand itself over time. I mean, you name, if you ever wonder, hey, why does the federal government get to regulate X? Whatever. Think about it. Whatever you want. Guns, whatever may be. The answer eight times out of ten is because of the Commerce Clause in front of the Supreme Court. And the Commerce Clause used, again, as something that it wasn't intended to be. And at some level, again, there's a certain kind of, I think that right-wingerers or conservatives need to be okay with saying, hey, we've misinterpreted quite a few things.

And at some level saying that the way that the Constitution, the people that the Constitution was written for, have passed at some level. I mean, it passed literally. But we've been handed this document that we've now warped in so many different ways. And then at some level, how can we say that we're still governed by that Constitution? I mean, you mentioned all these arguments about the Commerce Clause. These were arguments that were happening at the time about the Civil Rights Act. People saw that as a legal stretch at the time. And Christopher Caldwell's Age of Entitlement is a huge piece tells this whole story. But what his argument is that now the civil rights law, because the laws have become so far

reaching, have become a sort of second constitution. And so we have a bunch of people who are loyal to that second constitution, and then another group of people within the same country loyal to the original constitution. And that's a really strange place for us to be. And the judges at some level are having to figure out which constitution to appeal to. It's a strange situation for, again, a people who both say that they love the Constitution, all of which say they love the Constitution. But it's also a tougher position when you're trying to root out judges who say, yes, I love the Constitution. I will defend the Constitution. They take oaths. It's a bizarre situation. But again, I think Christopher Caldwell laid it out. I think

that book came out in 2020. But it's an excellent piece on quite a bit of what you're saying here. I have to take a look at that book. Do you remember the name? Christopher Caldwell. What's the name of the book? The Age of Entitlement, America since the 60s. Very, very good book. He's a Claremont guy and has done some really cool stuff. Interesting. All right.

On this, no, I think it's a good transition to talking about South Africa. We've covered it this week on both The Wilcane Show on Fox News Channel and the Wilcane Show Digital. So anybody who's been listening to us throughout the week understands what's happening in South Africa. 59 South African Afrikaner refugees have been welcomed into America by President Donald Trump. They have been subjected to, at the very least, land confiscations, reversed racial discrimination, and so forth. MSNBC's Richard Stingle this week went on to argue, yeah, but so what? They're white. Watch. These are the descendants of the people who created the most diabolical system of white supremacy in human history, apartheid.

They're not directly responsible for it, but it was a system that actually moved black people off of the arable land. So they inherited the land that the black people had to give up. It was called forced removal. It was something called a Bantustan policy where they moved black people out of the cities and farmlands into these remote areas with non-Arabble land. I mean, it was just one of the most worst processes ever. But what has happened in this strange, bizarre world we're living in is that the Afrikaners have become the darling of these right-wing white supremacist movements around the world. That it's like the lost cause for them. It's like the old Confederacy.

They're held up as these white Christians who are being dispossessed of their land. It's like this is a modern replacement theory in a country where, by the way, white people make up 7% of the population and own 78. percent of the farmland so it's actually there's no injustice here okay so much i want to break down from that way but i give you the first at bat i'll start with the stats so that i've heard those stats quite a bit they have it's a small percentage of the population they have a lot of the land it's the same kind of argument that the left gives for any kind of success so it's it's a strange thing to call something unfair when at some level, again, they're, how did they get there? That's another question. But the fact that they're successful, they own a lot of farmland, but they also produce, you know, 99% of the food. That's, that's an important piece of the, and by the way, Wade, it wasn't farmland before they turned it into farmland. It was nonproductive land that the Afrikaners pushed into the interiors of South Africa and turned into arable productive farmland. Right. The word bore literally means farmer. So, they are proudly, proudly farmers. But the fact that, yeah, that there are, well, there are more

race laws on the books today than there were during apartheid. That is a huge point and something needs to be said. So if you can condemn apartheid, if you'd like to condemn apartheid, then you should be able to condemn the same exact thing happening now. Again, we don't live during that time. But if we think that we're constantly reenacting certain times, then yeah, we're going to, we're going to not be able to read our own situation well. And that's why people start to think, okay, well, if Afrikaners have been there since the 1600s longer than some people's families have been here, then why am I, why, what keeps me from making the exact same argument for white people here? Well, it turns out that a lot of the left does, a lot of the left does say

that European people came here and stole a bunch of land and didn't, and apparently did nothing with it. I didn't realize that all these, everything was still here, everything was here before we got here. But it's a strange, it's not a leap to say, okay, you're, you just hate me. and these Afrikaners happen to like no matter what is happening to them you are going to end up treating them the same way that you would like to treat me it's I don't know where Afrikaners should be safe in in their mind if they shouldn't be safe in South Africa and they shouldn't be safe here where where should they be safe they should just stay put and I think I saw for their grandparents sins I guess I think I saw I literally saw

a commentator say the answer is Germany or the answer is Netherlands like wherever the Afrikaner ancestry came from. They're primarily Dutch, small percentage French Huguenot, small percentage German. So they're arguing for 400 years, as you pointed out, returning to your ancestral genetic

roots, I guess. You said two things. So I'm always sensitive in talking about stuff like this. I think it's interesting, but I think it's legitimate for people to go, what does this have to do with America? But you laid out what it has to do with America. Because, okay, this is the second thing I would do, and I'll come back

to number one. If Richard Stingle was here, I would do this. I would say, hey, let me ask you a quick question. Are these individuals being dispossessed of their lands? Okay. I imagine that's not going, I'm not going to get an easy yes out of him on that. I should, but I think I'd have to fight for it, don't you think? Like, so right now in South Africa and in public commentary, they're playing semantic games. They're calling land confiscation, land reform. They're calling racist policies, racial justice. You know, so we got to push beyond that to say, what do you actually mean by land reform? What do you actually mean by racial justice? And the answer will be, although I have to fight for it for some time, ultimately, we are going to take your land from you, we'll compensate

you. Then we have to have a fight about whether or not that's compensation that is true market value and true compensation. We'll have to have that because they're going to rely on that as some sort of justice. When true justice is, you don't get to confiscate it. I don't like imminent domain in America. I don't like it anywhere. Okay, but, but you are taking it. So I got to get stingled at that. You are taking it. Let's be clear.

And I can get them there eventually through enough cross-examination. And then the question that they get to the institute. Go ahead. Yeah, sure. To support that point, they just recently and have been operating, trying to make this law for years since I think 2018, that they can confiscate land without compensation. And so that was their argument for a long time. And then now they say, no, it's not without compensation.

it's with zero compensation, which is different. So, yes, they don't just want to give compensation. So it's actually worse than that. Okay, and then we get to, okay, you're taking it. And then you have to get to date. Why is that okay? Okay, you are taking it from this person. And Stingle gives us his answer here, by the way.

I mean, but it just can get laid out in a much more obvious manner. You're taking the land from this person because of, in your argument, something done, perhaps in their own family, perhaps not. Maybe it's been sold since then, right? 400 years ago. So you believe that people should pay for the sins of their ancestors. And that's justice to you, which, if you're ready, go down that path, it's going to be a fun time in the news.

It's going to be a lot of fun researching everybody's past. It's also wild that all it took was 59 people for them to just say out loud what they've been thinking the whole time, which is, like, these people should be safe nowhere. There's no safe place for these people. And anybody whose great-grandparents did anything that I deem immoral must therefore be punished by me. It starts to, again, not sound like something that somebody's just trying to get justice, impartial justice, because we've got to do the right thing. And it starts to feel like revenge, and it starts to feel like personal animus. 100%. Which is different. It's a different sort of thing. I mean, as you studied the law, you know that

There are, like, the way it's supposed to be applied is not in a way that where everybody's sitting around furrow-browed and angry at the person. You have to execute justice as is seen fit. Again, we're having lots of conversation about laws. But, yeah, that's not the way that political stuff should be happening. It is revenge, 100%. Once you peel it all back and you strip it of its BS, it is revenge. and it is revenge specifically against one racial group.

And it's a dumb racial group because it's distilled into white, right? Okay, who are white people, by the way? Because we're actually talking about South Africa here. In America, do you argue that the white people are what? Scott's Irish largely? What are you talking about? And therefore, we're going to trace the racial injustices back to the origins of Scotch-Irish culture. No, no, no.

Okay, Afrikaners in South Africa. So, okay, we're doing it. It just gets really dumb fast where it's just anti-white. and this is where it matters to America because at the end of DEI was all this. It was. If that development wasn't arrested, you were headed down this path.

And here's an example of it in America. I did this a little bit earlier in the week, but I mean, it's worth sharing again, the Episcopal Church's response to these refugees. And they said basically, hey, it doesn't matter. We don't see that this is racial justice

to help out people dispossessed. I think we have the Episcopal Church's response we may not have it today. Yeah, we do. Let's put it up. It's actually a bishop, an Episcopal bishop, he lays out the case. Listen. We can't be ourselves in the Episcopal Church and take the step of resettling white

Afrikaners from South Africa. Our church has a long commitment to racial justice and reconciliation. And we have historic ties with the Anglican Church of South Africa. Desmond Tutu is a part of, I've got a partner in this work for us. We're just not able to take this step. it's not in line with with anything that we're about man the church the church it's not what they're about helping people out or refugees yeah and i think i think that the one particular episcopal ministry so that they weren't going to do any refugee resettlement efforts at all they weren't

going to be working with any refugees from here on rather than help out maybe like 50 white people from South Africa. So it's either help out. Rather shut it all down, man. Yeah. Oh my God. Now it includes white people from South Africa. Shut it down. I'll never help anybody again. Yeah. No, it's bizarre. It's bizarre. But yeah, I mean, like you said, it shows that it's not just somebody like coldly, rationally going like, well, this injustice versus this injustice. Again, the amount of racial laws, there are more racial laws on the books. I've seen a chart developed by the guys at Afri Forum, which is great. But yeah, more, I think more. actually racial laws on the books now than there were then if you can say that apartheid was a problem then you should say that this whatever's happening right now which is which includes the government

have like the acting government the ANC having chance that are killed the bore kill the farmer doing machine gun sound effects again this is not and the government basically cheering on the murder of its citizens and and you mentioned you mentioned earlier about the the sort of how it blurs the the distinction between different kinds of people. I mean, there's an English, South African population, and there's an Afrikaner population. And the fact that those two very distinct populations with different ancestries and different cultures and religious beliefs and different languages have been lumped, yes, have been lumped together as being the same thing, shows, again, this is not just about the, I don't know, it's not as, as nuanced as people might

I like to say. Or that it is more nuanced, but they are just dumbing it down. Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, their reaction isn't as nuanced. Yeah. It's like everything that makes us not just individuals, but complicated creatures of history, is washed away. Like, and I wish I knew more about my ancestral lineage way.

Like, I'm probably, I'm pretty sure. I've done some. I'm Scotch-Irish, and I think it's fascinating to know a lot of that. Most people from the South or Texas are, and that's got its own interesting story as to why. You know, and, you know, Afrikaners, as you point out, have a different history from the British colonialist settlers of South Africa. And then, of course, the most important distinction in all this is each and you have one of us as individuals, you know, and what sin did I commit versus somebody 300 years ago. And all of that is washed away into simple terms. white, black. That's it. That's it. That's all that matters. White, black. Nothing interesting

beyond that. Yeah. And not even just versus unjust. Yeah. Yeah. Not even just versus. Yeah. Principal. Right. Yeah. More of the Will Kane show right after this. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. 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. Welcome back to the Will Kane Show. Finally, this, they're sounding smarter in the UK. Here's Kirstarmer. These rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together. So when you have an immigration system

that seems almost designed to permit abuse that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth you're not championing justice

or however else people defend the status quo you're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart so yes I believe in this I believe we need to reduce immigration significantly I gotta say something

like part of me wants to part of me wants to kick him in the nuts but part of me actually really believes him Wade like there's a kind of a sound of conviction in his voice like I think he believes that which is great and he's Labor Party right yeah he comes from the left in in the UK

somebody pointed this out to me the other day I think it was could have been Julian Epstein no I can't remember who I had this conversation with oh I think it was Ben Shapiro yeah it was Ben Shapiro yesterday He pointed out that the case for the right-wing populist movement in Europe is less accurate than the case against unfettered, unassimilated migration across Europe. And he points to Denmark, where the social Democrats have taken charge, a left-wing government, but they did so by being anti-unfettered immigration, right?

What drove a lot of right-wing populist movements in Hungary and other places was, yes, economics, a lot of things, but undoubtedly it was about their refugee. crises and immigration crises. And my point in thinking about what Shapiro told me when it comes to Denmark, which I was familiar with, is here you have a guy in the left, and they're all on the left in the UK, let's be real. But on the real left in the UK, saying things that are going to be popular with Brits. Oh, by the way, and Hungarians and Americans. Yeah.

Well, in particular, Kier Starrmer, if there's any little flame of love for England and what it was a hundred years ago, then, yeah, this stance makes perfect sense. I mean, he's talking about something that would make sense to a lot of Brits, which is an island of strangers. That doesn't sound fun to me. That doesn't sound pleasant. I'd like to be able to at least be able to have maybe some unwritten rules between me and somebody else or looking around and going,

these are my people. I grew up in this area, areas that become entirely taken over by people who are outsiders who don't even speak the language. it's turning your own country into a foreign country is not something that necessarily has to be labeled right wing or left wing or like opposition to that doesn't have to be labeled right wing or left wing what it does have to at some level again it's just about affection for the thing it's affection for where I grew up and I think everybody can see that unless you're poisoned by an ugly ideology who just says like no Britain is not worth saving it's not worth preserving but all the people that that brits admire are are people who tried to preserve the British Empire, or at least preserved the British Commonwealth, after that whole empire thing stopped. But, again, the appeal to manners at some level, I think, is a stronger appeal than many other versions of the right-wing appeal there, liking the idea that, again, unwritten rules, unwritten standards, we know the way each other operates. I was listening to a

video by Carl Benjamin, who I've interviewed on my show, and he, He talked about going to, you've had one here. Great, great, love Carl. But he talked about going to West Virginia for the first time and realizing on the travel that he was being rude to people. And he said, I'm a good British boy. I was, you know, an English boy raised up with good manners. I know how to treat people.

But he realized that he had closed himself off more in recent years. And that this has happened within his lifetime, that he's become more guarded and realized, oh, I'm treating these people who are being very kind to me, and open and smiling and happy to see me, or at least aren't angry that I'm there. I'm treating them poorly. I'm being rude. And then solely had to realize that says something about the place where I am.

It's become a different place than even the place that he grew up with, and he's not old. Talking about U.K. So the climate of the U.K. taught him to treat everyone as a stranger and was making him rude. He came to a new place like West Virginia and was like, I'm not surrounded by people who are standoffish or I'm the one who is. because of the previous climate. He's been transformed to be able to live in the place where he grew up.

And again, the place he grew up was much more like West Virginia or much more like a friendly place where everybody kind of knows manners and treats each other well, smiles, shakes your hand when you see them. And again, that's the kind of stuff that nobody, that doesn't fit into an ideology. People smiling, people shaking hands, that's not something that ideologues want to protect because they have to make everything flat. They have to make everything exactly the way it should be in their utopia. but it destroys a lot of really good stuff

that took years and decades and centuries to develop to the point where it was when Carl was a kid. Carl was born into a long line of people acting a certain way and benefited from that and then now is seeing it being thrown away. Again, I don't want to speak for him, but I think that's a tragedy,

not just for him personally, but also for all the people who worked to build that sort of culture over, again, the centuries. I want to ask you something that I didn't plan on talking about here today. I just got one or two more things I want to hit with you, Wade, the host of the Wade Show with Wade, Wade, Wade's thoughts.

You're a smart guy, and I think you have a similar reverence for the founding of America and our documents and our Constitution, but at the same time, have an equal, if not greater level of reverence for American exceptionalism and American culture. And those two things should work hand in hand. But there are times when they seem to be antagonistic to one another. And they do, and I haven't been able to reconcile for myself this issue yet. But it manifests right now in this debate over, for example, Epic City here outside of Dallas.

You're probably familiar with it. If you're not, I can recap it. But Epic City is a development that is catered towards Muslims, Islam, since around a mosque, a school. I don't know if they're going to have a call to prayer, you know. They seem to suggest they're going to be following the laws of the land in terms of non-exclusionary policies, non-Muslims can buy houses in the development. They're not going to be, this is by their own testament, not going to be implementing Sharia law and so forth. I think that a lot of Texas politicians have been able, and federal politicians, there's been an announcement that the DOJ is going to investigate. They've been able to skirt the real issue by saying we're going to investigate those things.

Well, if any of those things exist, it's easy to shut it down. it's easy to say no you can't have that but the truth is even if those things don't exist it's not the end of the conversation right it's not the end of the conversation if they're simply not exclusionary and they're not implementing sharia law our our constitution does say we have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of association and freedom of speech and those are real near and dear to the american heart and they're a big part of what makes us unique in our founding by that same by those rights we can see the expanse of Mormons into Utah. We can see the Quakers and the others in Pennsylvania,

you know, who choose self-assimulation, right, or self-segregation in their own societies. The question is, when you have that with a Muslim population, do you end up in the same place as Europe has, what you just described, right? And that is no-go zones out of Paris, no-go zones around London, you know, unassimilated populations then outside of Dallas. But how do we reconcile those two things, you know, which, by the way, the easy answer is, I don't want to let you do that, because we're going to agree, is it reinforces and highlights how intentional we should be about refugee resettlement and open, open immigration policies. Like, that's the first thing we should revisit.

But if we have this here, you know, once you get past that, then what do you do? between the Constitution and the prevailing culture. Yeah, I think that a lot of this has to do with what we were just talking about, which is I think the separation between the culture and the documents. And so if you recognize that at some level, the documents that we wrote were designed to preserve America, designed to preserve this thing that had been built over centuries at the point of the Constitution being written, Um, if you recognize that and recognize that there's a relationship between the documents and the people and the culture, um, then you start to, if you separate it, if you start to think, oh, the documents are over here and I can rationalize or try to see these as sort of words in the air or concepts up there. Uh, if I, if I treat it like a pure rationalist, then I'm not going to be able to even see why anybody wrote it down in the first place. Um, so the, the, I think that the freedom of religion, in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights is a way of saying one thing, and then we've

turned it into that the government is a relativistic institution, that it is to have no preference between one activity and the other. Whereas it was built, America was built as, again, a Protestant experiment, Anglo-Protestant experiment, and anything that I think serves as a threat that should at least be evaluated not just in terms of what does the document say, but what did the people want when they wrote down that, when they wrote that document. I do, I do think that, I mean, as a Christian, I do think that every nation has a duty to honor Christ. And I think that that extends to the government of the United States. Like the First Amendment doesn't give us right to, you know, turn down Jesus, to say, oh, actually, you're not in charge here. And so I think

I think that is a problem, and why I think it's a problem, is that it wouldn't have even occurred. There are lots of things that wouldn't have occurred to the framers, to the founders, to even write down, hey, you shouldn't build huge Muslim cities. It wouldn't have popped in their head. I was thinking about this with the guy, the Indian gentleman who is bringing charges against Trump, impeachment charges. As he's giving his speech, he uses the phrase House of Representatives, but he mispronounces the word representatives. And my first thought was, okay, the people who wrote the Constitution would not have thought to write down. And if you can't pronounce House of Representatives, then you shouldn't be a representative in the House of Representatives. But that wouldn't have occurred to them, but we should be able to recognize, okay, that's how far we are away from the people who wrote this thing.

And maybe our conversations about the wording of the document should have in mind what these people wanted, what they were trying to preserve. And they were explicit about it. I mean, the framers did say, like, all of these freedoms do not work if you don't have limitations, cultural limitations on the behavior of the citizenry and shared values. And they did couch those cultural limitations in terms of religion and notably, most specifically, Christianity. And not just that, like you said, it was a Protestant experiment. So, in other words, I think it was Ben Franklin.

It was like, this will fail if basically the people don't have a culture that sort of monitors their behavior. And it's not just about doing right or wrong, but it's having shared values as well. Like, we believe certain things are values beyond what we limit the government's ability. The government isn't our permission slip. The government is a permission slip for the government.

The Constitution is a permission slip for the government, not the other way around, but we still need a permission slip, right? And their idea was, people's permission slip comes from God. It comes from the shared value in cultures rooted in Christianity. Yeah, and John Adams said that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.

And when he said that, it wouldn't have, again, it wouldn't have occurred to him to say, and by religious, I mean Christian. Because it was obvious, oh, we've settled on what the true religion is, which is, again, a strange way of thinking for us, but it wasn't strange for him. He didn't feel the need to clarify in the same way that when the Constitution was ruling, was trying to gather in a bunch of places. that already had state churches. And when it was saying, hey, we're not going to have a national church, it's a different thing

from saying there's no difference on this continent between the activities of this religion and that religion. Religions animate everything. They animate everything about your behavior, what you see as off limits or as being permissible. It's not an insignificant political reality. So again, I don't have any particular recommendations for the Epic City people. or for the people who are trying to fight this. But again, this is a question that wouldn't have occurred to the founders, mainly because they were way healthier than we are. All right, last question for you, Wade, because you've referenced it.

So the age of entitlement, and the other thing is I've been meaning to pick up another book which you've referenced with me more than once, and that's Samuel Huntington, right? Yes, yeah. And which book is it by Samuel Huntington? He wrote a book called Who Are We? challenges to American identity in the 21st century. And he was a guy, I think he taught at Harvard and worked in several different administrations, some Republicans, some Democrat. But he's a great guy. And he also wrote a book called The Clash of Civilizations. So his whole idea was that the

Right. Yes. So the 20th century was characterized by clashes of ideologies. And he said, the 21st century is going to be characterized along, these dividing lines are going to be along civilizational lines. And civilization, he sees as the highest level of abstraction when it comes to culture. So if you take it to a certain level of abstraction, all of a sudden now you're hitting a different culture. So these civilizational blocks, he sees those as being the conflicts. And I think that as we've seen, America has to see itself as the, at least the torchbearer for Western civilization, because if we don't have it, then nobody does. And if we can't define ourselves as Western, then we're going to be in a lot of trouble. So that's Samuel

Huntington. I recommend everybody read those two books. All right, the Wade Show with Wade. Wade's dots. Always enjoy the conversation. Thanks, man. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. All right. There he goes. Make sure you check out his program on YouTube and several other streaming platforms where you can find Wade, I'm sure, on podcast and Spotify and Apple as well. All right, let's take a quick, quick break. We come back. Let's hit a little sports, including Should There Be? an NFL draft lottery. Next in the Will Cain Show.

I'm Benjamin Hall, Fox News Senior Correspondent, and New York Times best-selling author, and I'm searching for heroes. Every Monday, I'll speak with a few silent but noteworthy heroes, everyday people who illuminate stories of compassion and our true embodiments of heroism.

Make sure you subscribe to my podcast searching for heroes with Benjamin Hall wherever you download podcasts and please leave a rating and a review. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me, Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week.

Download and listen at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. 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 the quiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did.

Thank you for taking the quiz. Top five things Americans miss about the 90s and should there be an NFL draft lottery. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. The NBA draft lottery, was earlier this week. We've talked about it. I'm super pumped because the Dallas Mavericks drew the right ping pong balls. They have the number one overall pit, pat, pick. And it is renewed

hope. It is a godsend for the people of Dallas. Redemption. Tenfoil, you've been off earlier this week. It is a miracle. Tenfoil, do you see it as justice, cosmic justice, social justice? Is it justice that the Maverick's got the number one? This is true social justice. This is true social justice. There are no basketball guys. We stand with the Mazz. This is all rigged by the top. Big NBA. Who cares? If you're going to rig it, rig it for justice. I know. But that's literal fraud, isn't it? Who's like looking into these groups? I mean, like, I don't think anybody's looking into it to, to, you know, attribute real justice on them. Let's get Judge Janine on it. Maybe she'll find something.

I'll have a call with her. I like, I like the way he, I mean, in the generic conspiratorial lingo, he said it perfectly. Who's looking into these groups? What groups? Are there some NGOs behind this? Like, what groups are we worried about is rigging the NBA draft lottery? Yeah, like help me with the groups. What I'm saying, like, who's looking into the NBA rigging itself? Like, nobody would like... Oh, so it's singular, one group.

Or the NFL, or, you know, I mean, the NFL definitely, you know, stepped on the weight a little bit with some of the calls for the chiefs for a few years there. Oh, yeah, here we are. Here we are. I think it's pretty clear. Shadowy plural groups. Shadowy plural groups. Yeah, I mean, the Trump administration, I've heard this point made, like, that is fraud to Dan's point.

It's literal fraud, and they could be investigated, if you are right, tinfoil. So, NBA is based out of New York. I don't know what jurisdiction the federal prosecutor in D.C. Judge Janine Piro would have. But would you encourage her to look into the NBA? I think she should, but, I mean, it's not going to go anywhere because it's New York, it's leftist, and they side with social justice, you know. so it's all it's all scam it's all scam so it doesn't matter it's fine just don't do anything in life ever then i don't i don't you know i'm out of sports i'm just disconnected except for the panthers

hopefully they make a run but you know you know it's my only hope that's over that's college football's gone because that was there's no because that was rigged too that was rigged that was literally i don't know how you cannot say that was rigged Do you think it was rigged so that the Mavericks could, like, let's just dig into the rigged for a moment. Sure. How would they rig it? How would they rig it? So, I don't know.

I haven't looked into it so much. Started with Luca talks. Oh, oh, oh. But Luca, so. I started with Luca to the Lakers, I read. You have to move Luca to the Lakers. Yes. Now, L.A. has a superstar.

LeBron's getting older. You don't know how much. lagging was a factor. Okay. All right. You got a motivation. All right. Now you got a motivation.

Now play it out for me on how. See, that's the thing about conspiracies often. And I love conspiracies. I think they're fun. And I think that they're on a hot run through the Biden administration and they were real. But let's just, let's just dig in now. How did they rig it? Now, I mean, they could have done weighted balls, you know.

They could have done. Wated balls. They weighted balls. You have the, the, uh, the frozen envelope. theory from the 85. Yeah, but this is ping pong balls inside a machine, I believe, managed by Pricewaterhouse Cooper, so they'd be have to be prosecuted as well. And it sucked up into the ping pong balls.

And I think it was a six ball combination. Maybe it was a five ball combination that had to add up to one of the combinations that the Mavericks owned. They had, of course, a 1.8% chance. But, okay, you skip several steps in the conspiracy, right? So, all right, you got the motivation. they trade Luca. Now we've got to get the Mavs into the loto. We've got to get them there, right?

And they spent much of the season in the playoff run. You know what I mean? Like, and the only way they didn't make the playoffs was a series of events. So let's go through those events. So if it's rigged, we've got to assume this is all part of the conspiracy, right? You have to. Because you got to get them into the lottery. Sure.

Because you said the motivation goes back to when they traded Luca. So the idea is you do this for the NBA, better ratings, in L.A. We're going to award you with Cooper Flag. That's the, that's the theory. If you get into the lotto, right. I mean, like, oh, no, wait, wait, wait. What do you mean? If you get into the lot of. What do you mean? I mean? Well, you have to get into the lottery. Right. So, you have to get in the lottery. So then, then it's like, well, you already know Kyrie gets injured a lot. You already know Anthony Davis gets injured a lot. A lot of factors. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, this, so hold on. After they trade Luca, then,

and Anthony Davis gets injured, right? So he has to be in on it. He has to be in on it. Take a fall. Or he could just get injured. And then after him, Kyrie gets injured. Right? And so he has to be in on it.

I mean, it might have been just a little bit of gambling. I mean, like, I don't know. So you're saying that Anthony Davis and Kyrie weren't in on getting injured to help tank the Maverick season to get into the lotto, which, by the way, they barely made it into the lotto they literally lost that last game of the play in tournament had they won it they're in the playoffs and they don't get into the lotto so they survived those injuries and then they tossed the game against the grizzlies in the play in tournament to not advance into the playoffs but get into the lotto so that's three big events right there right that had to happen for them to get in there

before we get to the weighted ping pong balls they had to have a shot with the ping pong balls so in order of that to happen. You needed those two stars to get injured. You needed them to not make the playoffs. And then there was a coin flip with the Bulls on who got that combination, right? The Bulls had the equal shot to get that particular combination. The Mavericks won the coin flip. I'll give you who knows what happened in the coin flip room. But the Bulls might have had to bend on it or they could bring a fraud suit, right? So the Bulls are in on it or they're a plaintiff. Karee and Anthony Davis are in on it, or you're saying it's all a calculated gamble going back to February 1st when they traded the Mavs, and you're telling me that the Mavs made a deal with the NBA

that said, trade Luca to the Lakers, we're going to give you Cooper Flag, if you miss the playoffs, and hey, we think it's pretty likely you'll miss the playoffs because AD and Kyrie get hurt a lot. Yeah, I think that's reasonable. And the Mav said, and the Mavs said, deal or or they figure something out down the line where where they get they get they don't get scruper flagged this time but they miss out of the playoffs next year because they're worse you don't need the mouths look at that combo and go that's a lot of ifs like if Anthony Davis gets hurt if Kyrie gets hurt if we miss the playoffs if we get the coin flip win with the bulls like that's a good deal all you think the mouse take that deal here's what I'll do

I'll agree that you're right on this if you tell me that I'm right about Florida State getting screwed and 23, because that was a much easier one. It was a much easier one. You just want to get back to Florida State. No, that's what I'm just saying. I think that the conspiracy is fun because you can obviously target a motivation, but it's not, it doesn't, it doesn't bear the weight of ifs and evidence. How do we even get on this? Because Mike Greenberg at ESPN has suggested that the NFL put a lot of system in. The worry is everybody's tanking.

Of course, why would you worry about that? Like if the Mavericks have a 1.8% chance and then they got in. But you argue, okay, that's the random ping pong balls. Maybe you should do that in the NFL. But I don't know. Tanking isn't that big of a problem in the NFL. I mean, a couple of occasions, right? the Dolphins famously a few years ago

who openly said we're not trying to win basically But that you can get Like even this year You get guys reps I mean you get guys reps You throw a quarterback in that you want to You know get some experience in It still works

In that way It's not like the NBA And how many teams this year Literally won the last game of the season To rob themselves of the number one overall pick Wasn't it like two or three Yeah, the Giants screw themselves. So it's not a big problem in search of a solution in the NFL.

So no need for a draft lottery in the NFL. Quickly, two days just forwarded me this. Five things Americans miss about the 90s. Let's roll through this really quickly. Hit a little music here for us two days. Okay. Let's see what we think about the five things Americans miss most about the 90s. One, talking to people without checking your phone every 30 seconds.

Yeah. I do miss that. yeah that's huge true engagement yeah no distraction i was say i if you're guilty i i've been trying to be better i really don't i was at a i was at a house party everyone was on their phone like most of the time is ridiculous what's the current stat on how quickly how often we check our phones it is like every 30 seconds it's got to be i would say 20 number two road trips with paper maps and no GPS nagging you. Oh, I'm so torn on this one.

I'm so torn. Like GPS is, every time I don't do the GPS and I hit a traffic jam, then I'm mad at myself. Like, why didn't you just put it into ways you would have known that this is here? But I do remember the days. I loved, I used to carry an Atlas around. I loved an Atlas. And my sense of place was so much stronger. I knew where I was and where what was and everything.

And I actually enjoyed whatever it was that on a road. trip sitting there that last five minutes of a lunch with the Atlas tracing your finger on the path that you're going to do you know which one and then doing the little mileage charts which one's cheaper i mean uh which one's shorter i i remember those days and i really do love that part of the map world yeah i i can't go anywhere without a GPS i'll do it just going to the gas station these days i'm lost completely without it it's very sad i study the app i don't like using it as a crutch. So I just studied the app like at Atlas anyway. So it's not much different for me. But you, you don't put it in everywhere. You go somewhere just to try to avoid traffic?

No. I do that. How often do you got? My mom is like a long way. I get afraid of the interstate. My mom. My mom lives an hour away. And when she comes to visit, I'm like, what time will you be here? And she's like, I don't know, like between this and this. I'm like, it says on your phone exactly what time you'll be there. It has a pinpoint accuracy when you'll be here. here and it and you're just rolling the dice on a massive traffic jam somewhere they could literally derail you for 20 30 minutes yeah i don't get out much i believe you number three tv shows you had to wait for and everyone watched the same night yeah that was good water cooler talk all in on it together i hate binging everything's just binging i watch so much

and it's done. So I'm constantly trying to find new things because I finish something in a Saturday afternoon. And you don't remember them. I don't remember, like, what I watched and what was about. I have two shows that I'm keeping up with as they come out, and that's Mob Land and The Last of Us.

And in other words, I'm not letting the season go by and then watching them all in two weekends or something like that. And so that's a little bit, I actually don't like that. I'd rather binge it because you're still watching it on a once a week basis, but there's no communal nature to it. You know what I mean? You get to it when you can get to it. I have caught up on Mobland this week, but I'm not caught up on Last of Us.

So I have another episode. I need to get to at some point. Yeah, like you have to watch at that time because it's only on at that time. Even if you go to the bathroom during a commercial break, you'll miss something. You know what I'm saying? Now you can go back to streaming. Um, backyard barbecues, number four, with someone filming it for Instagram. Without.

This doesn't bother me. Yeah, but this bothers you, Dan. Like, you were talking about people taking food pictures. I cannot stand it when I'm in a restaurant. And I see people taking videos and pictures, standing up, getting around their table, taking pictures. And people, especially people I'm at a table with, I will actually say something and be pretty upset about it. I think it's ridiculous. I don't know.

That doesn't bother me. Really? That is a New York City thing. Like, just live your life. Yeah. That's not a thing I see a lot, too. I see it constantly. I get the backyard barbecue, everybody taking photos.

Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I don't care. No, no, that's fine. Number five, finally, kids played outside and came home when the street lights came on. Now, I think that is a little overplayed. It's a little overplayed. Like, the whole street lights are on time to go home. Not that it didn't exist.

It did. you know I remember when I broke my leg sledding down hospital hill and when I called my mom to tell her that I broke my leg or I think I might have broke my leg I didn't know yet she said to me it better be broken because I was home I wasn't home and it was dark it was after dark she regrets it to stay because I remind her about it and it was broken I have a question as a family do you have like a set dinner time

With your kids? No, I bet you Patrick does. Do you have a set dinner time with all 12 of them? Yeah, it's after, no, it's like 6 or 6.30. Oh, after you get done with work? He's still working through the meal. He's still working through the meal. Mine floats, unfortunately, especially with, we have soccer practices almost every night.

And sometimes they're late and sometimes they're during dinner. It's not good. like Hegg Seth and Duffy would give me endless amounts of grief about not prioritizing family over the youth sports world and they're right

but we do it so we do eat dinner together it kind of floats a little bit you don't have that part you just have you and your wife Dan you guys probably have dinner together right

yeah I cook dinner all the time I love cooking I do most of it not a set dinner time though that's more for kids like I only ask that because, like, when you're playing outside with your friends, I always knew that dinner was at seven. So I knew seven o'clock I'm coming home, and that's it.

Where else you get your... Well, I will say I hate the damn Xbox. I hate it. I unplugged it, by the way, last weekend. I unplugged that SOB in a huff, storming through the house. Unplug that thing and put it away in my room. And we're going on a week.

So I hate how much time goes into that. But if we're being honest, don't pretend like you were out on your huffy. until sunset every night i mean not you know we watch i can tell you i watched a lot of charles in charge reruns and whatever else was on tv at the end of the school day so we did a lot of that time waste and stuff as well and i had i was that we're the generation of like the big video games so like that started playstation one sega so we were doing a lot of that too so i can't i can't really say that yeah we were outside a lot in the day

The thing about my age of video games is they were more social. Yes. So, like, if you wanted to play TechMobile or Duck Hunt, it was more fun if you were with a friend than rather just by yourself. We had over the Internet. And you couldn't. Yeah, yeah, over the Internet. Okay, that's going to do it for us today here on The Will Kane Show. We appreciate you hanging out for a long extended episode.

We hope you give us a five-star review. Jump into the comments section, and we will see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gatti 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 News Podcast.com.

Thank you.