Will Cain Country - Trump and the Pope Clash Over War and Immigration (ft. Michael Knowles & Rep. Andy Ogles)

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

California Gubernatorial hopeful Eric Swalwell has officially suspended his campaign after an avalanche of scathing allegations surfaced, but who stands to benefit from his sudden withdrawal? Host of ‘The Michael Knowles Show’ Michael Knowles joins Will and The Crew to examine the circumstances leading up to Swalwell’s character assassination, explaining the Democratic Party’s numerous prior attempts to oust him, and what it means for the future of Republicans in the Golden State. Michael also sheds some light on the politics of Catholics and Protestants in the wake of President Donald Trump’s spat with Pope Leo XIV.Plus, Congressman Andy Ogles (R-TN) shares his efforts to right the wrongs of the Hart-Celler Act, explaining how unchecked immigration has led to the “conquering” of various European cities, and what America can do to stop the same thing from happening here.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Trump versus the Pope, Catholics versus Maga, with the host of the Michael Knowles show, Michael Knowles, California. Somebody please save California, but we know now that its savior will not be Congressman Eric Swalwell. Can we reverse the trends of 1965, fix the influence. Immigration Nationality Act with Congressman Andy Ogles. In Country, streaming live with the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, Wilcane Facebook page.

We're here for you. Please hit follow at Spotify or on Apple. California. California dreaming. I spent my weekend in California. And I remembered something that I had long forgotten. I remembered after four years at Paris. And college is not really an experience where you get to know where you live.

I think now with my son headed off to college and him going to the University of Texas and his time in Austin. It won't even be like my time in law school at Texas because by that point you're 22 to 25 years old and you're interested in sort of figuring out your surroundings. I went to hole in the wall bars, awesome little pool halls, all the quirkiness and character of Austin back in the the days. And I ended up at that time, it's changed, but absolutely loving Austin. I got to think, my son's not really going to get to know Austin. He's going to be at frat parties and on 6th Street, and your little world is so small, as was mine in California in the 90s. Pepperdine. I barely even knew Malibu, much less Los Angeles. I sure didn't know the state of California. And last week, we hosted the Will Kane Show from Los Angeles. And afterwards, I got in my car,

I texted two a day, and Patrick, and I drove three hours up PCH. That's what Way's said to do, so I was happy to accept the invitation. I drove past Santa Monica, past Malibu. I saw the old stomping grounds of Pepperdine. I kept going, beautiful mountains just spilling into the ocean. I got to Leo Correo and thought about Big Lobowski. I drove past Point Magoo. I got to Oxnard, Ventura, kept going, hit the 101.

Now I'm in Montecito. I'm in Santa Barbara and I'm going, my goodness, this state is incredible. And then I get to Galetta and I start wondering what kind of politician, what series of politicians, what kind of bumbling buffoons can ruin California? And by the time I get to the place where they film the movie sideways, which is where I met some of my old water polo teammates and we had a little bit of a guy's weekend playing golf there, San Diego, Lompoc, Boulton, all the place where they feel. filmed sideways with Paul Giumati, Thomas Hayden Church.

I'm just blown away. I'm like, this is incredible. And I played public courses with my buddies, not fancy. Like in a house, it was kind of like a ski-in, ski out at a golf resort, you know, but it was a ski-in, ski-in, ski-out for golf, public course. Had a great time. And it was just stunningly gorgeous. And I kept thinking, this is like the third-generation billionaire's kid who's taken his inheritance,

and he's dwindled it down not to nothing. He's just turned his 700 million into 20 million. And that is what Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass and a series, generations of politicians have done to California. And I start thinking, buy low, sell high. Maybe the time is now. Get in on some of this Western Spanish architecture. See if you can get a home up here.

But I don't know that you can. Because even though the fools are leaving the state and they're headed to Texas and Florida. The real estate, for whatever reason, is still obscene in California. And you start wondering, is there any value investor? Is there any politicians? There's any leader that can step in and actually save it? And what we know today is the answer will not be.

Congressman Eric Swalwell. He posted on X. I am suspending my campaign for governor. To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I'm deeply sorry for mistakes and judgment that I've made in my past. I will fight the serious false allegations that have been made, but that's my fight, not a campaign. It's all false, but it's enough that I'm going to drop out of my race for governor of California. Swalwell's been accused of a ton of things, being a dirtbag mostly.

He's been hooking up at peers with sex workers. He's been accused of what, sexual harassment or assault? Misconduct. Yeah, just general dirtbaggery. And as a consequence, the one thing you see first off is just the obscene fraudulence, the obvious hypocrisy. I mean, this is a guy who posted stuff like this in the past. Who wants to tell him when you enable sexual assaults and your party protects you, you are the swamp? In response to Congressman Jim Jordan, here today, Swalwell is accused of sexual assault.

Despite in the past posting, support survivors, believe survivors. We are with you. But don't believe these survivors. Believe all women. But don't believe the women that are accusing me of General Dirt Baggery, says, Congressman Eric Swalwell. It does look a bit like a hit job. I mean, he's getting it. All of his endorsements have been pulled.

Everything is off the table. He's out of the race. And in the jungle race, that is California, where he's trailing both Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, both Republicans, all his votes look like they're going to go to Katie Porter. So not only California do you not have your savior coming in the form of Elix Swalwell. It looks like the destroyer cometh. The rotundity of Katie Porter's coming in to tell you how to cook mashed potatoes and get out of her shot. There'll be no by-low opportunity in Santa Barbara because soon you get Katie Porter, Golden State.

Joining's now as the host of the Michael Knowles show. It is Michael Knowles on Wilcane Country. What's up, Michael? Good to be with you, sir, and really good to be out of California. you know, every so often you say, should I have given up that great weather? Should I? And then you see it a new story like this. You say, yes, the free air of Tennessee is the place to be. Did you live in California before going to Tennessee? I did. I was there for, I'm a New Yorker by birth, but I was in Tennessee for six years.

We saw the writing on the wall. And then when Governor Bateman shut everything down during COVID, we said, we got to get out of here. You can't do business here. I remember my wife was seven months pregnant before we left. And some guy in a residential neighborhood on the opposite side of the street started yelling at her to put her mask up over her nose. We said, we're out of here. We're out. We're gone.

And the craziest part of the Swalwell story is that Swalwell's political career imploding, leading Democrat for governor dropping out of the race is, by my estimation, actually bad news for Republicans. That's how bad things have gotten in California. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Because first of all, six years in California, I presume you're probably in Southern California. Were you in the Los Angeles area? Yeah.

Yeah. L.A., which is not necessarily what I came away impressed with this weekend. It wasn't a reminder of how great is L.A., but just how great is California in general? Meaning, it's just got everything. It's got everything. And again, I just think that's such an indictment on the people that run California that you can take that. And you can say, hey, we're going to make this so miserable that people run off to Texas. And I love Texas.

I will die a Texan. Born a Texan, die a Texan. It's in our blood, but it's mostly in our mind. We do not have the beauty of California. But we have taken what we've been given and we've maximized it. And California has taken what it's been given and absolutely made it circle the drain. But it is true what you're saying. I mean, surely all of Swalwell's votes go to Porter.

So this is bad news for Bianco and Hilton and Republicans and saving California. A lot of people were saying, well, why is this coming out now? I mean, I was talking to some friends over on Capitol Hill. The Swalwell dirtbaggery, as you aptly put it, is not exactly news. People have known about this for a long time. In fact, you had some people who had endorsed Swalwell coming out now and saying, you know, I asked him about those rumors. And he told me, don't worry about it. It's not going to affect the race. And obviously now it has. What's so amazing about this attack on Swalwell is it's coming entirely. from the Democrats. This was not a Republican thing at all. This is because of a headline. I actually have it here on my desk from my show earlier today. If you want to know why it's coming out now, very simple headline. Top three candidates in the California governor's race, two of them are Republicans. And so the Democrats had split their vote. You potentially had Steve Hilton or the other guy. Actually, his name escapes Chad Bianco. You have these two Republicans who were leading. Swalwell was the top Democrat nominee. He wasn't getting the job done. And so

The Democrats rallied together, led probably by Katie Porter, and they took him out. It was an amazing political snipe shot. And unfortunately for me, I never thought I'd be sorry about the end of Swalwell's career. But what a strange situation we're in that I find myself sorry to see that dirtbag Eric Swalwell goal. So let's dig for a minute, Mike, about the timing of this, as you point out, and the polling in California. So, first, for years, Swalwell has been saying things like this that he said on the Breakfast Club. Watch. And I was a prosecutor in Oakland for seven years.

And it was very frustrating that many times it felt like the victims had none of the rights and the bad guys had all of the rights. And so for me, it's really focused on like serious, violent, sexual. Those three, if you like throw the book at those three, right, and throw the resources at those three, and then you show compassion and redemption for non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent, and believe that those folks, you know, have a pathway into our community. I think you can get it right. Okay, so on one hand, that's sort of been who he has been, really, I think, driven in large part because he sees the political talking point that is Jeffrey Epstein. And on the other hand, to your point, Mike, everybody knew about the dirtbaggery of Swalwell.

There's people posting today there are like reporters in California saying, well, we knew from the first time he served on the Dublin City Council that this stuff was out about him. So we're talking a decade of Swalwell stories and rumors and behavior that have been out there, but only now is the green light. This is the key. The way you know that the Democrats aren't actually turning on Swalwell because of the weird sex stuff that they've all known about for a long time is because of the. this isn't even the first way they tried to get him out of the race.

When things were looking bad for the Democrats in California, the first shot that they took at him was they pointed out that he probably is not even legally eligible to run because he's supposed to have residency in California, per the state constitution. He's not really a resident of California. He's a resident of Washington, D.C. He moved his family out there. I actually think it's good when congressmen moved their families to D.C. So they spend more time with them. Obviously, he didn't work very well for Swalwell.

But I'm not even knocking him for that. It's just that he's not eligible to run. So they took that shot, didn't work out. Then the next one they fired at him was they said, okay, well, Swalwell looks like he was paying his wife out of campaign funds, which whether or not it's legal is obviously corrupt. And so they tried to take him out that way. He didn't listen to the first two warning shots.

So now they said, okay, well, we have this avalanche of staffers and other women, maybe prostitutes that you've been sleeping with until yesterday. And so we're going to drop all of that on you. He comes out with this non-apology apology, says, I'm dropping out of the race. I'm sorry for everything that I didn't do. You say, okay, I'm trying to follow the logic there. It doesn't totally work out.

But, okay, the reason they're doing this is because the Democrats are always willing to throw their own under the bus when it doesn't affect their power. That's the key. The Democrats are going to come out and say, see, we police our own. We're so much better than the Republicans. Not true at all. They are willing to throw their own under the bus. I mean, obviously, look, we all remember the Bill Clinton era.

they didn't do it then when it would have been politically consequential. But in their defense, they'll do it when it's Al Franken, when it doesn't matter. They'll do it when it's Eric Swalwell, when in this case it'll actually help them to do it. But it's all about power. And anyone who wants to pretend they have a strange new respect for Democrats today because they're being accountable on sex stuff, I got a bridge in San Francisco to sell you. Well, they're not going to ask him to drop out of Congress. They're just asking him to drop out of the race. So, like, it's not going to be a big enough story.

imagine it's going to hurt their power in any way in D.C. And by the way, just to kind of help illustrate the avalanche that's coming at Eric Swallow right now, tinfoil, isn't there a story as well? I think I saw it this morning about his Brazilian nanny, who's an illegal immigrant or something like that, or she was on a visa. She was on a visa that allow, I can't remember, but he, she turned it into a student visa. She enrolled in community college, but then because she got the student visa, she had to stop being a nanny because you can't work on a student visa, but there's like pictures of it at the White House Easter egg roll like

tending to his kids. And by the way, I've seen some bikini shots of the Brazilian nanny. I wonder if there's more stories there than just taking care of the kids. Do I have it right, tinfoil? I believe you're correct. Yeah, I mean, once there's one thing, there's going to be four things.

So in the end, you know what, and I don't think this is, I don't think this is cheap analysis. I think when it comes to Swalwell, we could have done this from the very beginning, Mike. I really do. Look at his face. Just look at him. Look at his face. And you could have known this was all there. It's all in his face. Yeah, this is what's really sad to me about Eric Swalwell's whole political career is he's always been a dufus. That's the most charitable way I think I could put it. He's always been a dufus. Remember, he ran for president

last time, didn't work out. And part of the reason that none of this came out then was it didn't matter. He was a side show the whole time, whatever. They let him go bloviate in Congress and on TV. But you just think this guy has devoted his life to being a leech in politics. He's been in office for his whole career. He's never accomplished anything at all. By the end of it, he just ends up as a punchline, even more of a punchline than he already was. And he's eaten up and spit out by the very machine that he was serving the whole time. So what do Republicans do now?

We've got to say, to give the devil their due, the Democrats handled this very efficiently, and it's probably going to help them keep California. So what can we do? We have to pressure them to kick him out of the house. Obviously, it's insane that this guy is saying, I'm not fit. I don't have the moral character to be governor of California, but I do have the moral character to be in Congress. I have a low bar for Congress, but still that doesn't hold up. So we have to pressure the Democrats to take a vote on this. You're not going to shame Swalwell. He has no shame.

You're not even really going to shame the Democrats in Congress, but at least get them on the record. You know, at least the one thing that Republicans can get out of this, put them in a bad spot, get some attack ads out of it. But all in all, I have to, I have to tip my hat to the Democrat Party. They've handled this ruthlessly, brutally, and efficiently. Take quick break, but continue this conversation with the host of the Michael Knowles show. Michael Knowles here on Will Cane Country. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with the host of the Michael Nulls show, Michael Knowles. Sometimes I think we can over intellectualize, we can over-explain, and we can overly indulge details in an argument, when sometimes there is a lot of

a good little punchy declarative that just does the trick. And it's not fair often, but sometimes it's just right on the nose. And with Swalwell, I think it is. Like, why should he be out of Congress? Look at him. Just look at it. And you ever have somebody use that argument

for you? Like, I don't like your face. Like, what's the come back to? I don't like your face. At the same time, there's no comeback and it feels like the end, like the end of the argument. There's no comeback to that. It's like, yeah. Argue. Rebuttal, closing argument. Look at your face.

Look at his face. And I think that the argument with Swalwa is pretty easy. Look at him. Just look at him. Should we have pictures to ballots instead of just having the names? Pictures to ballots. That would be interesting. That would be interesting.

The pro and con on putting a visual representation with people running for office. I feel like I just want to punch him. It's like Stuck Brothers. I just want to punch you. I don't know why. It's something about your face. I don't like your face. Mike, this is where we need to.

take it a little more serious and 30,000 feet. And this is, you're the perfect guest today in that I have no expertise on Catholicism. I have, uh, not only because I am Protestant, as we talked about on our morning call this morning, um, I think there's an interesting, there's an interesting world out there that doesn't occur to a lot of East Coasters. Mike, you grew up, he said in a New York area, two days, Dan is Catholic. He's from the Northeast. Patrick is Catholic, but he's a Floridian. But for a lot of us who grew up out here in flyover country from the hinterlands, from the frontier, Catholicism actually isn't much a part of our life. I did not grow up in a small town in Texas with a lot of exposure to Catholicism. Then I go to Pepperdine where I don't get a lot of exposure to Catholicism.

Not until I lived in New York, which I did for 15 years. I really start to learn more about it, have friends who were Catholic, talk about Catholic, talk about Catholic. It's just kind of an interesting thing because it plays such a large role in our national conversation, obviously on the world stage. But there is a huge swath of Americans out there who, you know, not only are Protestant, but just don't have a ton of exposure to Catholicism. And here we are today. And Catholicism is like smack center in the news because of President Trump. President Trump and Pope Leo, going at it, President Trump, I don't want to read this in it. entirety because it's just really long on truth social. But he said Pope Leo is weak on crime,

terrible on foreign policy. He talks about fear of the Trump administration, but doesn't mention the fear of the Catholic Church and all other Christian organizations that they had during COVID when they were arresting priests and ministers and everybody else for holding church service, even going outside and being 10 and even 20 feet apart. I like his brother Lewis much better than I like him because Lewis is all MAGA. He goes on and on. And the, The reason, Mike, just to continue to set this up for everyone that this is happening, is that Pope Leo has basically challenged President Trump. His position on immigration, his position on the war in Iran.

Here is Pope Leo on President Trump. I have no fear that these are the Trump administration that are speaking out loudly about the gospel. And that's what I'm thinking. I am called to know what the church is called to you. It's hard to hear Pope Leo. over the hum of the jet engines on the plane that he's on, but he's basically, I'm not afraid of the Trump administration. So, Mike, what's going on? Trump versus Pope. A story as old as time goes back to Pope Galasius I, fighting with the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius in 494.

Might go even further back than that. You know, what the Pope said there, and it's hard to hear on the audio, is he says, look, I'm not afraid of the Trump administration. He said, but we're speaking on different planes here. And he's a plane, not meaning airplane, though, I guess that too. But two different planes of rhetoric and politics. And he says, look, I'm not going to get into a fight or a debate with the president over this. The Pope has made his views on immigration clear. The Pope's views on immigration are actually relatively moderate.

Some Catholic bishops have been all for open borders and stuff. And Pope Leo is not really that, but he certainly has a more moderate view than some right-wingers. but especially on Iran, he doesn't like the Iran war. And I think that's what really set the president off. And he said, but we're speaking on different planes here. And that, that I think is the key, because you don't have to, whether you're Catholic or certainly if you're not Catholic, you don't have to agree with the Pope on everything. You know, this is a point a lot of Catholics bring up.

They say the Catholics believe that the Pope is only infallible when he's not fallible. In other words, the Pope is only infallible on certain matters on faith and morals defined through a definitive act, X-Cathedra. And therefore, you don't have to assent if you're a Catholic to everything the Pope says about everything. And that's kind of true, but you do also have to be respectful to the Pope. That's the other part that's sometimes left out. You know, a lot of people want to say, look, the Pope should focus on religion and the President should just focus on politics. And, you know, I wish it were that simple, but it's not really because you can't neatly separate those two things.

The President can't totally ignore religion because the President's got to make a enforce laws and laws have recourse to morality and morality requires religion so you need to have some religion in your government and the same thing with the pope the pope can't totally ignore politics because he's got a shepherd of flock that lives in the world so he's got to deal with some political issues too and this has been attention going back 1500 years or 2 000 years. Dante, the author of the Divine Comedy, he famously wrote a tract about this. He had some real fights with popes in his time. He put a couple of popes in hell in the inferno. And he put it really well, I think, in a piece defending the secular power against the Pope. At the very end,

he concluded he said, look, let Caesar look to Peter, that is, let the emperor look to the pope as a son looks to his father. You know, with some respect, with your father, you don't. You have to agree with your father on everything. There are a limited number of circumstances where you really probably should, but sometimes you can disagree with your father. You can do what your father doesn't want you to do, but you usually would treat this with some respect. And I go back 20 years to JP2, JP2, who everyone loved, very strong conservative bona fidez. One of the last things John Paul II did was speak out against the Iraq war. And George Bush, not Catholic, heard him politely, and then just moved on and kept doing what he was going to do. And I think that's the key here.

this point that the president made about the Pope being weak on crime. I don't really get what that's about. I don't, you know, I think the president is probably frustrated that he's done a lot for Christians. He's bailed pro-life Catholic grannies out of jail after Joe Biden imprisoned them. He's defended religious liberty. And, you know, he said, look, you know, I'm great for Christians. Don't criticize me. But the Pope has to do what the Pope is going to do.

You know, the Pope has to articulate moral teaching and church teaching as he sees it for 2,000 years of the magistrate. as the vicar of Christ on earth. And I just, I hope that those two powers can cooperate a little more. They don't always have to agree. That's not the point. But a little bit of respect, I think, would help spiritually and politically. One in five Americans is Catholic. It's the single largest Christian denomination in the United States.

And what I really do not want to see is a split between Protestants and Catholics politically. Okay, you have the left that wants to slaughter the babies, close our churches, castrate our kids, flood the country. You have a real danger here, a left that supports political violence. We cannot afford to split the Catholics from the Protestants, from the Jews, for that matter. You know, religious people generally, we have got to band together at this moment. And what's kind of funny about the president's post is he followed it up with a post that also offended Protestants. So in that way, weirdly, you kind of get a little Christian unity there at the end. Maybe not the best way to do it.

Yeah. The president posted an image of himself. It seemed a bit like Jesus, healing, somebody. I believe as we speak right now, the president's deleted that post, which is a rarity for the president to take something down. Man, I feel like Trump. I'm hearing it for the first time because I thought, look, I love Trump, man. I have as strong pro-Trump magabona Fides as anybody out there, okay? And so some people, they always want to read the worst intentions into what the president does. And the president gets it right. I say 99.7% of the time. But he's only human. Sometimes he, he, he may. messes up. And I thought, look, one can, I didn't like the tweet about the Pope. And I, I hope that even if he disagrees with the Pope, he can do so in a respectful manner. But I thought

that second post, that image, I said, look, I don't think he had bad intentions here. I don't, but this is, this ain't it. You know, this is bad. And I think we all love Trump and we want him to succeed. And but this is just not going to work. And I just think politically and certainly spiritually, it would be good for the president to delete it. And this is what I love. Twelve hours later, he says, okay, look, I made a mistake. That was, I didn't mean to offend people. I didn't mean to be sacrilegious.

I'm going to delete it. Moving on. I love that. And I think if the conservative movement can behave this way and say, hey, that was too much. Hey, that was a misstep. I know it's in a reverent age, but this is a legitimate taboo and you shouldn't cross it. And you say, okay, you know what, my bad. Let's focus on the real bad guys is beautiful.

Will, you have just, after 24 hours of horrible political news, that's the first little glimmer of hope. I thought, oh, good, all right. We're getting back to normal again. I love that. Let's fact check me two a days. Fact check me tinfoil, Pat, but I do believe he's deleted that post. Okay, but I want to challenge the, I don't know that I'm challenging you, Michael. I don't know that I'm challenging the papacy, and I don't know that I'm challenging Trump,

but I do want to dig in on a couple of things I find tough to square, tough to rationalize. Let's start with the Catholic Church, which isn't fair. Let's talk about the Pope and a few of the Cardinals who gave an interview last night on 60 minutes. It seems to me that at least some very high-level leaders within the Catholic Church want to have their cake and eat it too. And so what I'm talking about is there is rhetoric given to, yes, of course, there's such thing as just war. and yes, of course, the Iranian regime is terrible. But we don't think this is a just war. We can't prosecute this war.

Yes, of course, we believe in nations. Yes, we believe in controlled migration policy. But, say the Cardinals, we don't like the way this is being implemented in the United States. It's as though the position is one where you take a seemingly virtuous stand rhetorically, but you're not willing to go the step of making an actual reality. And I think that is a bit of trying to have your cake and eat it too, either politically or morally. You can't wish, and let's be real, in many occasions you can't just pray your way into a just world. So the question is, what does one do about it?

And for many of these Catholic leaders, the answer seems to be nothing. Yeah, I think the point you made right at the top there will is really key. I think a lot of what the president was reacting against when he was pointing his rhetorical fire at the Pope. I think it was probably aimed at those bishops who went on 60 minutes. And just a little inside baseball, a lot of people wouldn't know this. Some of the Catholic prelates that the liberal media loves to feature are outside of the norm. They're extremely liberal. They're all boomers.

And I would just say from within the church, I've noticed that the younger you get when it comes to the bishops and certainly when it comes to the priests, the more, you hate to say conservative or liberal, because you can't totally fit the left, right paradigm onto the church. But let's just say there are a lot more conservative, the younger you get. So I think really the bishops and the priests that the liberal media want to focus on are outliers. And especially when it comes to the immigration issue, I think the, I hate to, I don't mean to speak for the Pope, but I think the Pope's views on immigration are substantially more moderate and reasonable than some of the more liberal bishops. And then when it comes to the Iran war, the Iran war, you know, can be hotly debated because to be a just war, you have to have exhausted diplomacy.

A lot of people would say we've exhausted diplomacy for 47 years in Iran. You have to have a reasonable chance of success. That's a little trickier because you don't even know what success necessarily is. Is it a regime change? Is it obliteration of the nuclear program? Is it destroying the ballistic missiles program? There, I think that's really tough. Proportionality, the goods to be achieved have to be proportional to the, you know,

the losses. You have to not there again, that's a little dubious. You have to not target civilians. Obviously, the U.S. doesn't target civilians, unlike Iran, which does target civilians. So I guess my point on the Iran war is it's far from clear if you're looking at the principles of just war, how exactly we think about this strike. In fact, what constitutes the war is a little bit unclear now, because there are multiple war aims that are being achieved, and success does seem to be slipping out of our grasp. You know, the biggest issue, I think, where the Catholic bishops are rightly deserve criticism is on that migration issue because it's a lot of charities tied to the bishops that have really

promoted the open border over the years. And that, I don't think you're going to get any disagreement out of conservative Catholics on that point. I would just say, if I were advising the president on this, I would say, rather than pointing your fire at the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo, whose views, I think are actually much more moderate on that issue. I'd say maybe just focus on the the organizations, the not the NGOs that have been funneling that open border. You know, that criticism I think is totally deserved. I just think it's spiritual considerations even the side. I think it's political

malpractice to go after the whole Catholic church. You know, now you're, you're going after one in five American voters. You know, the Catholics are less uniformly right wing in their voting than the evangelicals are. But still, that's a lot of voters. You don't want to, you know, We've got to be careful about going after the Papa. Right. So that was the second place I wanted to push really quickly just in the time we have left together. We looked it up this morning, right, fellas? What percentage of Catholics vote Republican versus percentage of Catholics to vote Democrats?

Mike probably has that off the top of his head. But the president does seem to put, he is putting Catholics, it seems to me, in a position of having to choose. Like, he's being pretty direct. He's putting it to Catholics. It's me or the Pope. Yeah, I'm hoping that he backs off of that a little bit because I think the numbers change a little bit, but it's roughly 50-50 for the Catholics vote Republican or Democrat, which is insane. I mean, it's not acceptable for a Catholic to vote Democrat.

Abortion is a non-negotiable political issue. But a lot of people who are nominally Catholic have that sticky identity because they were baptized when they were kids, but they don't really practice the faith. So when you look to practicing Catholics, they tend to be much, much more conservative in their vote. voting habits. And I think the president's looking at him and saying, look, the evangelicals are pretty stalwart Republican voters. And you Catholics, I've given you a lot of stuff you want, and you basically need to bend to my will. But I would just say within the historical context, it's always the case that the big strong rulers, this case we're talking about America, the global

hegemon, they often have conflicts with the Pope. And I would say it's not a good thing to do, especially too, because as you mentioned, Will, within the conservative movement, Catholics do have a disproportionate role within the active political order, the Supreme Court justices, the think tanks, the activists, the commentators. And so I just say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here and don't make unnecessary enemies because that truly could fracture the right-wing coalition. And I don't think we can afford to do that at this moment looking ahead at the midterms. Okay, last thing with you, Mike, because I think you're probably plugged into this. And I'm always sort of sensitive to just because something is happening on.

X doesn't mean it's happening in the real world. It's certainly happening on X. And by the way, that's increasingly true with the fact that all of our algorithms are incredibly tailored to whatever it thinks that we want to hear or see. But it does seem like there is this burgeoning Protestant versus Catholic thing on X. Maybe in my algorithm. I don't know. But it's something that didn't even seem to exist six months ago. And there is something going on a little bit where people seem interested in fanning the flame. of Protestant versus Catholic. Yes, I think that is mostly an X thing. And I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, I love it, man. I love getting into theological debates. It really interests me. What's funny is the more you dig into theological debates,

you'll find that the most hardcore Catholic and the most hardcore Calvinist actually have very subtle distinctions in their theology. It's not quite the huge gulf that a lot of people would imagine it to be all the time. But I love it. You know, I think, I mean, I adore Ali Stucky. Ali Stucky is more Calvinist than John Calvin. And I love getting into theological debates where I think that's great. It's very edifying. It's very important for our eternal souls. But we need to do that in the spirit of charity.

And furthermore, we need to recognize that when it comes to the political order, our enemies who are very powerful, who wish us ill, do not see a huge distinction between Presbyterians. and Anglicans and Baptist and Anabaptist and Catholic and Jews for that matter. They don't see a lot of distinctions there. And so we do have to recognize that as a political matter, good. Hash out your theological disagreements. I hope you all become Catholic. That sounds great to me. I'd love to welcome you into the church.

And then when you go out to vote, don't think that your closest allies are secretly your enemies. There is an op underway to do that. And the only beneficiaries are they going to be the people who wish us all harm. All right, he's the host of the Michael Nostle. I agree. Some of those theological debates and conversations are nothing but edifying. I don't think we're on the verge of the troubles in the United States. And I think those conversations are more worthwhile than they are troubling.

Michael Nose, always good to see you. Thank you for being with us here today on the Will King. Good to see you, Sarah. Coming up, Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee is ready to revisit half a century worth of immigration policy. And he's going to lay it out for us on Will King Country. All right, there he goes. By the way, over on Facebook, several of the Wollisha chiming in, Mican 617 says, one lives in Vatican City telling us about borders, crying face emoji.

It is an interesting proposition how people can be open borders with a locked front door. Lillian Stofo says, the Pope needs to stay in his own lane. Suzanne Carter says Leo should be condemning the terrorists. And then Jada Copper says, seriously, the Pope needs to step aside. Just to show you how this back and forth has sort of materialized. I want to play this for you well. This is President Trump talking about Pope Leo in his position, as you heard mentioned by Michael Knowles, his position on crime. I don't think he's doing a very good job.

He likes crime, I guess. He hit us think of it. He's worried about fear. What about the fear when the ministers and the priests and all of those great people that were arrested during COVID? And in many cases, they're outside 10 feet apart and they were arrested. So the fight continues. The Pope versus President Trump. This is a conversation that we've been fascinated in for some time here at Wilkins Country.

I remain fascinated. I think it's the biggest issue. I honestly think it's the biggest issue facing America, more than war. more than even honestly our current political fights, except in that they manifest into this issue. And this issue determines the future of America. And the issue is immigration, immigration writ large, not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration, our immigration policy. And why is that so important?

Because the nations have nothing if it's not a culture. We have wonderful documents. I give a speech about this from time to time. We have wonderful documents written by geniuses. And I truly believe the founders of the United States were geniuses, not of their time, but genius of any time. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the separation of powers. These are genius documents drawn from the Magna Carta, derived from the Enlightenment, from the Greek and Roman traditions. These are genius documents, but they do not

survive in a vacuum. They do not survive, as someone once told me, you could copy them on a Xerox machine and airlift them and drop them over Laos, and that's not going to make Laos a Jeffersonian democracy. What makes America, America, what makes those documents, documents work is that they rest upon something that is more important than even that parchment. It is our culture. And we have a culture, despite what is said by the left. I often talk about this. Two fish swimming past an old fish in the ocean. And the old fish says to the two young fish, hey, boys, how's the water? The two young fish swim along and go, what's water? That's how we treat culture. We don't even know that we swim in it. We're just the beneficiaries of it. And if we

slowly turn up the temperature on that water, we boil, we lose our culture, and we lose it through the lack of assimilation and widespread immigration. And this all became something threatening in 1965. Yes, we've always had immigration, but we were smart and calculated about it. We weren't stupid and willfully blind to the effects on culture and the future of civilization here in America. I do find that Congressman Andy Ogles is somebody who is concerned about this, who's talked about this, what works in America, how should it work, how should we be bringing people over? The easy conversation to have is to talk about the border. And we should talk about the border. You close the border. You stop illegal immigration. Of course. But what about the rest of

it? Everybody coming in and do they assimilate to America. And we're joined now by Congressman Andy Ogles, and it's good to have him on the program. And Congressman, you know, I've talked about this on the Fox News Channel. It really does kind of go back to 1965. That's right. And you know, what I find interesting is, you know, people will try to bring up the founding fathers. And, you know, I've been very critical of Islam and the fact that they come here and they don't assimilate. They don't want to be a part of our culture. And you don't have to just, that's not political rhetoric. Look at London. Look at Paris. You have no-go zones. Look at the crime rates in London, Paris, Rome, et cetera.

Sweden, which used to be one of the safe countries in Europe is now number two. As far as a rape capital of Europe because of the migration. and quite frankly, the Muslim migration. And so let's go back in time when you look at the Founding Fathers and you look at as they contemplated religion. And in the Danbury letters where the Baptists were not wanting there to be a national religion. I mean, that's what we fled from, right? And then they were like, oh, by the way, if you do have a national religion, it should be Baptist, right? So they put a plug in for themselves while saying, hey, this is not what we came here for.

And then you fast forward to 1965, as you said, where it's like we had smart immigration up until that point. Hartzeller kicks in, and that set the stage for this chain migration, the abuse of the H-1B visas, open borders that Biden, where they fled our country, and I'm sick of it. I'm tired of it. And I don't want Nashville or Chicago or Memphis to become, you know, London or Paris. And if we don't do something today, that's where we're headed. So let's, for the audience to say, Congressman, in the time that we have here together, it's not it's not to become professorial to talk about the history of this, but it's important to distinguish immigration policy pre-1965, immigration policy post-1965. And it's not as though the period pre-1965 was constant. We had waves, right? Late 1800s, early 1900s, we had a more open immigration policy.

And then politicians in the late-19, teens, early 1920s go, man, this is getting a little overwhelming. You know, we've got some issues due to immigration. Let's dial this back. Let's figure this out. Let's set some quotas. Let's consider which nations have the best prospects for success and assimilation. And that carried us through 1965. And then in 65, we get the Hart Sellers Act and it blows it up. And here, I would be curious what your thoughts are on this. At the time we adopt the Immigration and Nationality Act, I think it's guys like Ted Kennedy, maybe LBJ, who are saying stuff like, this will not disrupt the cultural cohesion of America. This will not disrupt the ethnic mix of America. This will not disrupt. They were acknowledging things that today would be dismissed as, by the way,

racist, but they were acknowledging things that are kind of important when you're determining the national characteristic. And they said, we promise it won't. Were those guys lying or were they mistaken, Congressman? You know, I would like to think they were mistaken. And quite frankly, I don't know that you could forecast and see. I don't think even they, as they were looking to loosen immigration and allowing people to come here that they envision quite what's happened in this country. But look, we have a problem.

We can fix it. So, you know, problem, solution. Let's do that. You know, you and I can debate history over the past all we want. But at the end of the day, the immigration system is broken. We have people coming here who hate this country.

We have a denaturalization process that needs to be clarified. It needs to be implemented. And we need to start denaturalizing people that should have never come here to begin with. So I have three pieces of legislation. The first one deals with people coming into this country from nations who don't have proper vetting. So that's, you know, obviously a lot of your Arabic nations, but also look at South America and Africa, where we just don't know who they are.

The second piece of legislation is the Assimilation Act, which, you know, we talked about a little bit. And then this next piece of legislation that will be rolling out really focuses on denaturalizing and deporting people in mass, because that's what we're going to have to eventually get to. Okay, hold on. I'm not quite done with history because it puts the context of these three pieces of legislation in. The reason why is what I think people don't realize, and I didn't, and I'm going to say it's just in the last couple of months I started to dig in. So 65 part sellers, legal immigration, in people's minds, they think, oh, that's somebody coming over here to get a good job in America. And there is a portion of it, let's call it 15%, maybe.

I'm not sure what the percentage is that is that. Which, by the way, still isn't good enough. Just because you want to have a good job doesn't make you a good prospect to be an American. Not good enough, but better than 70% of legal immigration is through family reunification, right? So you said we got people coming over here who hate America. Well, that's a problem. I think it's a problem if you have people coming here who don't love America. Like, there's a big gap between hate and love, and I think the standards should be,

do you love America? Do you really, really want to be an American? And the problem with family reunification is it's bringing in. hundreds of thousands, millions of people whose primary motivation is to live with grandma or to live with cousin. And that doesn't necessarily suggest you love America. That suggests you love your family. And now we've seen these acts, right? You and I've seen them.

We've talked about him. We see the guy who shoots up a college. We see the guy who shoots up a temple. We see the guy do these things. And a lot of them came with no desire to love America just to be with family. That's right. Well, I mean, again, look at the data. So, you know, Afghanis, for example, you know,

45% of Afghanis that have come into the United States are on food stamps. I've got the data points right here in front of me. 68% of Afghanis that have come into the United States are on Medicaid. So we have people that have come here. And instead of contributing to society and helping to make America greater, truly loving America, they come here and they're getting free food and they're getting free health care. And yet the suicide rate amongst our veterans is still 20 to 22 a day. So we're not providing for our veterans.

We're not providing for our children. we're providing for Afghans and people coming from, whether it's South, Central, America, Africa, etc. And again, America first means Americans first, not immigrants, illegals first. It means Americans first. And these people are not Americans. Right. What about you not talked about this. Let's talk about number two and three.

So the vetting thing seems clear, and you not talked about that. That probably requires much more strict in-person interviewing on the process to become an American. I don't know. Do you take macro, in your proposal, Congressman, are you going to take macro scale into account like, you know, like we had pre-65, so quotas from certain countries. Quotas from certain countries where we know there's a greater likelihood of assimilation and success. Absolutely. So when you look pre-1965, the immigration system really favored countries, quite frankly, from Europe. And as you said, you're going to have greater cultural assimilation, you know, similers in background, religious affiliations, etc, etc. But as we go forward, so again, we can debate the past, we can debate, baked the mistakes. And by the way, it's important to know where you came from to understand where we're going to go and where we need to go.

But we need to decide what cultures, communities, countries, those individuals have something that we need in America. And that's the thing that we need to have an honest conversation about in this country. is that immigration, the needs of our country, the needs of our country come first, not your desire to live with grandma. So we may have a period of time where we need doctors and lawyers, whatever, or, you know, farmers or technical workers. So the types of people that are allowed to come in today may be different than the folks that come in six months from now, two years from now, based on the needs of America

and the American economy, not your desire to come here. It's our country. We get to decide who comes in. we also get to decide who has to leave, and that's what we need to get back to is common sense of immigration. Okay, take me to the second point, though, the assimilation one. So I've talked about this on there. Like Turkey, for example, has very strict immigration policies. They actually have an assimilation requirement. I think it's five years or something like that that you need to show certain levels assimilation to Turkish society. How do you ensure assimilation in an immigration policy?

Well, I don't know that you can ever really guarantee it, but if you're, you know, you have better vetting on the front end. So it's just like if you're hiring for a job, you know, how you run your company, the culture that you set, you know, that there's parameters that you're looking for of, hey, this individual is going to be a good fit for our country. They have something that they, that they're offering that we want. And look, if you and I wanted to go to the UAE and I use this example all the time, just look, they're going to expect us to have a job before we arrive. They're going to expect us to pay our way. And we have to abide by their laws. We can never become a citizen. We can never vote. And if we do break

their laws, they're going to put us in jail and then they're going to deport us. It's common sense. I mean, I don't know why this has to be so complicated. Our country's been invaded. And I'm saying, stop. Let's just shut it down. Right. And people are going to cry and well and say, they also have language requirements, right? Yeah, exactly. Show that you've learned the language in five years. If you haven't learned the language in five years, you're not assimilating. Yeah, exactly. And so again, we're going to have to have some tough conversations, some honest conversations, but we're seeing it all across Europe.

What happens if you don't do this? And when you look at the, you know, in Rome, and I'll use broad numbers across Europe, you know, Rome, Paris, France, that migrant population, especially that that Muslim population that's come out of Africa is anywhere from 6 to 12 percent, yet they're committing 50 to 60 percent of the rapes across Europe. Like, enough is enough. at what point do we understand that those folks don't think and behave the way you and I do. And I'm not saying America is perfect, but what I am saying is if you have a culture that believes in raping 14-year-olds, we probably shouldn't let them into this country.

Am I wrong? Seems pretty obvious. No, I don't think you're wrong and I don't think you're controversial. And yet somehow this is a controversial conversation. And you said that a moment ago, and I agree. This just needs to be a much more open. Like the Overton window on this has been so closed. You can't even have a conversation about this stuff.

Excuse me. And beginning the conversation, because I do think most Americans would agree. Like, this is rational. This is just rational. The last stage, which you began talking about denaturalization. And we should also acknowledge in our conversation here, the Trump administration has made progress on all this stuff. Net migration is down. Self-deportation is up.

denaturalizations are up, not gigantic, but they're up. And what we mean by denatualization is a naturalized citizen of the United States doesn't get to maintain that forever, no matter what. It's the no matter what. Like the dude that shot up Old Dominion was a naturalized citizen. He had prior been convicted of conspiring with ISIS. Like, in what world does he get to keep his citizenship? This is before he shoots up a school, right?

But the other thing is something you bring up Europe several times. started to do, and that's remigration. Like Sweden is offering all those people they, they open their doors to, money to go back home. Hey, if you want to take, I think it's like 30 grand. I can't remember what the number is in Sweden. But like take the 30 grand, go back home. I can't remember the figure, but I think it's pretty high. And they're not the only ones. I can't remember the other country off top of my head, but it's a good, maybe close to a half dozen who've begun this process of saying, hey, we're going to set the incentive in reverse, remigration. Yeah. Well, and I think that's part of the European mentality. You know, they've let

these people in that, quite frankly, don't belong. They're committing crimes. And instead of punishing them and just deporting them, they're going to like try to buy them off. Like, no, like, you came here under false pretense, buy. In the story. And so like, you know, Vice President Vance, you know, talked about how Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud. I mean, that's a case, barring. statute of limitations that should be pursued. Like can she be denaturalized and deported because she blatantly defrauded, you know, how she and her husband got here or her brother or husband. I don't know what you call him. Is he her brother or her husband or both? Did they divorce? I don't know exactly what happens there. But but then look at Mom Dini. You know,

there's a section on the immigration forms that talks about your affiliations specifically to communism. He did not disclose his affiliations to communism. He lied on his immigration forms. He could be denaturalized and deported. And that's what we should be doing when you have people who come here to subvert the U.S. government. They come under false pretense. Enough is enough.

Deport, deport, deport, deport. Let's take quick break, but continue this conversation with Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee. When we come back on Will Kane Country. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles. And people don't even realize that, Congressman, you just said. That's still in the books, right? Like, if you are an open supporter of Congress, we're still.

Communism. If you're an open support of communism and you don't disclose that, you have defrauded us on your immigration. That's a relic in some ways of where we stood in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, but it still stands. It's still on there. There's a whole section. We did have some barometer. We're not enforcing it. Absolutely. And so again, back to your previous point to talking about having this conversation, having that Overton window. So I've been vocal. I've been outspoken. I've been literally just quoting data. So like when I'm talking about the rapes across Europe, that's not my data. That's from the London police. That's from the Interior Ministry of France.

Like this is actual data points. And I'm actually assuming it as bad as this data is that it's sugar-coded. Now, my guess is it's actually worse. But that being said, it's like we can look at the data and we know what happens. But the moment I start speaking about it, they came after me. They tried to vilify me. And so I had two choices. I could continue to fight the good fight.

I could continue to speak truth or I could run and hide. and I just turned up the volume and said, you know what, let's have this conversation. And the more you attack me, the more you bring attention to this, the more people are going to understand that we are being invaded in the same way Europe has been invaded. And quite frankly, in some cases, conquered. You know, hold on, put a pin in that. That's going to be my final question to you. But first, so they're coming after you.

Yeah, what, you're being called an Islamophobic. You're being called a bigot towards Islam. I've had this conversation. Is your position that no Muslim can assimilate into American culture? Is your position that the odds are so low that the vast majority of Muslims believe things that are not coherent with American or Western civilization? Or is your position we just need to be much stronger vetting anyone, including Muslims that comes to the United States? Because we can point to, you know, Azra Namani's and I and Hersi al-Eys who come to the United States, who are Muslim. So what is your position on Muslims in America?

Well, I think it's a great question. So as the attacks began, I said, all right, you know what? Let's have this conversation. So there were four terrorist attacks. You had the shooting in Virginia. You had the shooting in Texas. You had the car ramming into the synagogue into Michigan. And you had the attempted bombing in New York.

All Muslim, all on the U.S. soil. So I put out an open letter to, there's roughly between 2,900 and 3,000 mosques. So 3,000 mosques in the United States of America. And I said, I will meet with any imam who is willing to condemn the violence and disavowal the attackers. You know how many imams have come forward and said that we are not the religion of violence, that we are going to condemn the violence and we're going to disavow those attackers? Zero. Their silence is louder than anything that I might say, open letter to every single imam in this country and not a single one of them stood up to defend America and to defend Americans. Okay, and so where does that take you on your policy?

Does that mean you think fit? How do we allow people from other countries? That's right. How do we, pardon me? I'm sorry. I was curious, did you take that to Islam itself is incoherent with Western civilization in America that the majority of Muslims therefore are? Or what I offered a minute ago, you're suggesting, I'm genuinely asking that

therefore raise the bar on vetting, raise the bar on vetting when it comes to Muslims. Yeah, raise the bar, period. Whether you're a Muslim or Central American or South American or African, it just so happens that we have people coming here literally preaching to kill Americans. It's not the Hindus. It's not the Buddhist. It's not the Catholics. It is the Muslims. And so, again, honest conversation, their words from their imams, from their mosque in the United States of America. So, again, facts are the facts. But would you still say there are, I mean, would you say that the Ayn Hersees, Ali's of the world, show to you there are Muslims who can make great Americans. Therefore, what are we looking to do? Are we looking to simply create a very high bar that one must satisfy before they're invited to be Americans? Are we putting an end to all immigration from Muslim countries? And I know you've said this broader than Islam, but we're talking about Islam specifically right now. What is the right immigration approach to someone coming from a Muslim country?

I think we have to have extreme vetting to know who they are, why they're coming, and what they're going to do once they get here. And quite frankly, unfortunately, the violence proves that out. Okay. Last question you said a moment ago, you were talking about Europe, and I've heard this before. I didn't hear from you for the first time. That in many cases, we're worse off than European countries. And you use the word conquered. So what are you saying about where we are right now in America? Well, I was saying certain cities and countries in Europe arguably have been conquered because

of their open borders, their migrant policies. And if we don't learn from those mistakes, we are going to see that happening here in the United States. And it'll start in the blue cities. You'll see Minneapolis, the Chicago's, etc. Essentially fall and have no-go zones like you have in London, in Paris, where police are not allowed to go. And again, think about that for a moment.

You have the sovereign nation. with sovereign cities that should have law and order and the police are not allowed to go there because of these migrants and these migrant populations that are so violent. And so we're going to have to have this tough conversation. And again, we have all the data from Europe, from their interior ministries, from their police departments. We know what's coming if we don't get honest about immigration. Raise the bar. Better vetting and quite frankly denaturalize those who don't belong here. All right. I think we got it. Congressman Annie Ogles. By the way, I have to follow up with this. Are you getting any traction? Do you see anything in Congress to suggest there's any movement in this direction when it comes to immigration policy? And the reason I ask you this is it's hard not to be pessimistic when you see the Dignity Act being discussed among many Republicans, the absolute freak out in large swaths of the American public when it comes to the enforcement of existing immigration policies on illegal immigrants. We're talking. talking about legal here, you and I mostly, but you see the way the public has reacted to the enforcement of illegal immigration. So I put those two things together, and I think as much as I

you know, am interested in this conversation, is it going anywhere in Congress? Yeah, you know, I think part of the problem is that, you know, the media tends to report on the loud mouths who are protesting versus, you know, I was just in Memphis with the president and talking to residents of Memphis. And these are individuals primarily from minority communities who historically have voted Democrat, who are now huge Trump fans, because literally, and I'll paraphrase one of the ladies I spoke with,

she said, my son can go outside and play. He couldn't do that before. And so this is the difference. When you actually go to the people who are benefiting, who now get their communities back and their children can play and actually be kids again, This is the different that's being made across this country. And look, is it going to be messy?

Yeah, we've got 10 million people here illegally. A lot of them don't love this country and are, you know, links to MS-13 or Trinderwag or whatever. They're committing crimes and communities. We've got to put it into it. We've got to enforce it. And look, you know, again, look at Europe. Just look at your open eyes, look at Europe to see what's happened there and know that that's

coming to the United States of America. And so I do see this getting. traction, it'll take time and it's not going to happen overnight. But look, I'm on financial services and Homeland. I also happen to be one of the chairman on Homeland. So I get classified information that most members of Congress don't get. And what I can tell you is I am shocked that we haven't had a mass casualty event yet in this country because of all of the Hezbollah terrorists, quite frankly, that we know that

are here. And so this is what's coming down the pike. So keep your head on the swivel. Pray to our Lord and just know that we're doing, I'm doing my best. to protect you and this country from those that are trying to do us harm. Specifically in the last couple of months when it comes to this war, like the threat of inspired by or affiliated Hezbollah? So you see that nexus between Venezuela, Iran, and China, but there's something else going on there. So what was happening is Iran was taking Hezbollah terrorist to Venezuela.

Venezuela was giving them fake IDs and helping them get to the U.S. border. We recently caught an Iranian sniper in Alabama, of all places, in Alabama. And so this is why that nexus of terrorism to Venezuela was literally being imported into our country, smuggled into our country. Fortunately, our intel services are on top of it. We're investigating individuals or tracking individuals, and ultimately we'll shut all of this down. But we have to be right every single time. So it's kind of like cyber attacks.

They attack, they attack, they attack. You have to be right every single time. they only have to be right once. Wow, that is an ominous way to end this interview, but it's a fascinating conversation that we intend to continue here. Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee, thanks for being with us here today on Will King. Absolutely. Thank you.

All right, there he goes. Congressman Andy Ogles. Let's finish off today talking about weakness and fear. Here's the headline. Sabrina Carpenter, apologizes for mistaking fans' cultural chant with yodeling an awkward Coachella moment. I saw the video this morning. Can we play it?

We have the clip. This is clip. Epic clip, courtesy of tinfoil. Take it away. Is that what you're doing? I don't like it. That's your culture. Is yodeling?

Is this burning man? What's going on? This is weird. Canceled. This is up there. Yeah, this is out there with like the Sydney Sweeney disgusted face meme. Cancelled. Cancelor.

So it wasn't yodeling. It was that chant or that thing that women do in Muslim countries and African countries and or both. I know African countries can't be Muslim. I don't know. Is this a Muslim thing or is it a cultural thing to certain countries that isn't just Muslim? I don't know. And it has a name.

Yeah. Congressman, what is the name of it? Zagruta. Zagruta? Zagruta. Zagruta. Is an Ululation performed to honor someone in the Arab world. traditional Egyptian weddings.

So yeah, it's really in the Muslim world. It's to honor a person. Okay, it's a celebratory deal. And everyone's heard it. You've heard it before, like, you know, whatever, street videos of various events that sounds like all-tong, high-pitched thing.

I hear it a lot in New York. Rolling your tongue over and over. You hear New York a lot? Some protests, yeah. Really? Mm-hmm. I don't think I've ever heard it in real life just on videos and somebody's doing it at Sabrina Carpenter concert

she doesn't recognize it she calls it yodeling she does have disgusted face or whatever like you're talking about she thought she was being so funny I don't like it she thought she was being what so funny and like she thought he's been funny yeah I don't like it I don't don't do that then she finds out later that it's this Arab cultural thing and she's like, oops, I'm sorry. I don't, I'm sorry.

Which is about to be over. Like, why do you, why do you have to apologize for that? Like, why do you? To get sales. You can not like something. Do you know her fans? You can not like something culturally. No, I don't know her fans.

Her fans are probably very liberal. So, and this would be like, you cannot slam any. There's only upside for her to apologize. There's really no downside. They're not playing in the Fox News crowd. Right. Do you think she walked off stage and they were like, Sabrina, we got a problem? What?

They weren't yodeling. Yes. They were. A team of people. A team of people met her. She's like, what is Zagruiskiing? And they're like, that thing they do. And it's appalling that you said you didn't like.

it. And she's like, oh my gosh, I just alienated all of my Arab fans, which no, you didn't, you know that's not what it was. It's, I just alienated all my white single girl fans who are not going to like that I am performatively unvirtuous. That's exactly how that went down. Because you know her behind the scenes is kind of like that, just like, whatever. Who cares? She doesn't seem like She kind of just says what she wants, but her audience is not that. No.

Really? I don't know that. Is Sabrina Carpenter? That might be the first video I've ever seen of Sabrina Carpenter. That might be. That's false. Do I know a song? Do I know a Sabrina Carpenter song? That Mi Espresso song? Yeah, that was like the song of the summer last year.

Give me a little. How's it go? That's Mi espresso. That's all I know. And then there's, please, please, please. That's the other song. I'm doing a very good job at singing these, so you're welcome. Yeah, we're going to get banned now.

If I pull it up on Spotify, if I pull it up on Spotify, will we be violating some type of rights thing? We can only do it under 10 seconds. I can do 10 seconds of Sabrina Carpenter. Okay, I'm going to see what number one song is. Okay, here's please, please, please, okay. Yeah, go a little forward in the song. I can play 10 seconds. Yeah, go a little forward where the chorus is like a minute in. Okay, hold on. This is tricky broadcasting. Oh, no. I'm, I've got to take it off my screen. Hold on. We're going to do this. I don't know why we're going to do this, but we're going to do it.

Oh, I'm asking baby. That's like LALLLLL. Never heard that song before in my life. Never heard that song before in my life. You don't listen to radio, though. That 10 seconds. Sports talk radio. Yeah, see, I don't play that. I listen to sports talk radio. radio and I listen to music on Spotify. Don't use it as a bumper.

You hear it. Going into Cowboys season. It's like, please, please, please. And it's like maybe the Cowboys can win a Super Bowl this year. And then you've really got to dig him on that. Shut up. Shut up, Patrick. That's a stretch.

It's draft season. This is the season of hope. It's draft season. We're almost there. It's a season of renewal. It's like football Easter. It's a season of hope and renewal. And we start afresh with a draft.

Sound like a crazy person. And every team, 32 teams are ready for football resurrection. Am I being blasphemous right now? I might be being blasphemous right now. Football. Football Easter, the NFL draft. And you hopefully listen to Will Kane Country. Congratulations, by the way.

While you're in your car on Spotify or Apple at, huh? Congrats on Roy, by the way. Back-to-back Masters? Yes, congrats to Roy, back-to-back. Thanks to Roy McElroy. Congrats, hopefully one day we're going to get back the state of California. Make sure you listen to Will King Country on Spotify or Apple. And we will see you again next time.

Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad free on the Amazon Music app.