Will Cain Country - Trump Attends SCOTUS for Major Birthright Citizenship Showdown (ft. Congressman Riley Moore)

Episode Date: April 1, 2026

Story 1: Today may be April Fools, but headlines you’ve seen about former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s husband are unfortunately no joke. Will and The Crew take a look at one of the most bizarre political scandals to come out in recent years.Story 2: Congressman Riley Moore (R-WV) joins Will to discuss the ongoing Supreme Court case over Birthright Citizenship, going over what he believes are some of the strongest arguments for overturning 100 years of legal precedent.Story 3: Will and The Crew react to comments from you, ‘The Willitia,’ before sharing their perspectives on the arguments for (or against) Birthright Citizenship. Plus, they take a look at the “Christian revolution” forming across America’s sports leagues after Jaden Ivey expressed concern over the NBA’s endorsement of Pride Month conflicting with his Christian values. 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

In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees can grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields. Learn more at aboutamazon.ca. Style and substance. Fake boobs, pink spandex, and cross-dressing, this sordid story of the husband of Christy Knoe. arguments before the Supreme Court on whether or not subject to the jurisdiction thereof precludes illegal alien children from becoming United States citizen today at the Supreme Court of the United States. In country, streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page. Hit follow. We would love it if you would.

As Spotify or on Apple. 10th will pat two a days, Dan, and beginning the show with a bit of news. After the dream of broadcasting from Texas, Fox News Management has alerted me that consolidation and costs require that almost every show now soon will be broadcast out of New York City. In the coming months, this program and this studio will be moving to 1211 Avenue of the Americas. We will be broadcasting from the Fox News headquarters of New York City. I'm glad. It is about time. Yeah.

Yeah, welcome. Come back. You buying it? I won't be there. You're not buying it. Scott's buying it. Scott bought it. I saw it on his eyes.

I saw it on his eyes. You bought it, Scott. I saw it. You bought it. For five seconds, you bought it. He did. You did. Scott bought it.

Did you buy it for a second tinfoil? No. I bought it. That was Scott. I did not buy it. Happy April Fool's Day, April 1st. Now, man, we are stuck. We are grounded.

We are rooted in the great state. That was a low blow. Texas. Where's what's funny about April Fool's? So far, my April Fool's today. I came up with that about 10 minutes ago. Nice one. I knew no one would buy it.

Is this, I have now been subjected to two April Fool's jokes. For everyone listening today, here's the two April Fool's jokes I've been subjected to this morning. Okay, first thing. on our morning call, Patrick announces that he is considering and perhaps accepting an offer from Newsmax, that he is moving to Newsmax. It did occur to me that our morning call with, I think, what is it, five people on the call probably wasn't the venue where Patrick would be having this discussion, that he probably would have talked to me individually.

And so immediately my antennas went up and I go, this doesn't seem like the format for this conversation. Then I walk into the office and my security guard Juanita says to me, I hope you have better news today. I'm like, what? She said, well, Ed has accepted an offer to move to D.C. A lot of money. He's going to D.C. I'm like, really?

And I bought it. She was good. I bought it for a good 15 minutes. Ed messed up his own joke. I don't know how he did, but he just did. And then it occurred to me. then it occurred to me the level of ego

involved in everyone on this show their version of an April's fool's joke is you're going to lose me Patrick and Ed's April Fool's joke was this will really get him I'm leaving when you know if in

any you know what Dan what they could have considered is the April Fool's joke could have been on them if I or anyone would have been cool enjoy DC God I wish you Or, do you need a recommendation over at Newsmax? Yeah.

Like, what if I had just responded that way? The level of ego that we would be devastated by your news and your April Fool's joke is really interesting. But I know what the show is and, you know, how I hold it together. I'm the glue of the show. So it's, you know, I know you couldn't do, you know. You don't have to say that. Your April Fool's joke illustrates that. We know you think that to be the case.

And that's what I learned from your April Fool's joke. I don't have one, Will, sorry. You know it'll really get them? I'm leaving. To be fair, I didn't think you'd be on the call already. I didn't think you'd be there. I was going to make a joke that was becoming more conservative. But I didn't do that.

It's more on Ron. Yeah. Oh. Well, speaking to that, Dan and I got, and Patrick, got into a pretty interesting debate, I would say yesterday about the nature and objectivity of morality after our conversation with Bishop Barron of the Archdiocese of Minnesota. And the audience has really chimed in. And they do have some things to say about you, Dan, so that April Fool's joke would have been interesting.

This, which we're going to get to a little bit later here on the Wilkins show, along with, by the way, the Jaden Ivy story in the NBA, it's not a by the way. This is the one that captured my mind last night. I think the NBA has made a crew. I think I could be wrong. I might be in the moment. And I might be captured by my algorithm. This feels big.

It feels bad for the NBA. What a branding choice. And you're beginning to hear from other athletes now supporting Jaden Ivy. But this is not an April Fool's joke. This is real. Of all the stories today, Patrick leaving for Newsmax, Ed leaving for DC, this show being moved to New York City. This one is actually the most unbelievable, and yet it's real. It's not an April Fool's joke.

The headline from the New York Post reads as follows. Christy Noem weighs in on report. Husband lives cross-dressing double life, the family blindsided by this. Over in the New York Post, it reads as follows in the article. Former Department of Homeland Security Chief Christy Noam is devastated, quote, by salacious allegations her husband Byron lives a double life where he cross-dresses and chats online with fetish models. According to the Daily Mail, Byron Noam chatted up women for the so-called bimbofication fetish scene in which adult performers augment their breasts with massive amounts of saline to achieve a Barbie doll-like appearance. You all right, Dan?

You're all right, Dan? You hold it together? Yeah. citing hundreds of messages purportedly sent by three women from the scene. What scene? That's an interesting phrase. I want to know the scene. What scene?

Fascinating. Is that a physical scene or like in the scene? I'm in the scene? Yeah, yeah. Nome's husband enthusiastically praised their heavily augmented appearances and proclaimed coveted, huge, huge, ridiculous boobs. Okay, well, that's not the story. That doesn't make him any...

That's not odd. Oh, wow. It's discovered online. Christy Nome's husband likes big boobs. Wow. Stop the press. Shocker. No, the story is he put them on. Warning to our audience.

If you're watching us on, why is it a warning? I don't know. I just feel like I have to say that. I just feel like I have to say that. Facebook. It's Christy Nones' husband in some prosthetic boobs. They're gigantic. Congress of Mora's waiting.

Some pink spandex with his leg spread. And then another. one where he's making like kissy duck face. Back to the New York Post. He appears to have put balloons in his shirt to mimic comically oversized lopsided breasts complete with fake protruding nipples. His face is fully visible in the photos. And I mean, so it goes on to say the way he appreciated some of these other women. But again, that's not the story. The story is he participated. I also find this story in the New York Times.

The headline is, in South Dakota, neighbors feel sorry for Christy Nome's husband. And apparently they took these photos around and showed a bunch of, like, ranchers and small towners up in South Dakota. And they're like, that's got to be AI. Because, of course, it does. It feels, I saw this story, by the way, and I kind of scrolled past. I was like, ah, AI, not real. But it is. It is real.

Well, it's allegedly real, we should say. Did you guys get that tweet that I asked you to get? Yes. Yes. I just tweet is something else. It went viral. I feel compelled to share it with you by somebody named Tandy. Is it possible that after all it witnessed, maybe Nome's dog shot itself?

A lot going on over there. I know the story of course of Christy Nell apparently executing one of her hunting dogs for poor performance. Is it possible after everything this dog saw? And it was going on. Because of course, there's also the allegations. Patrick, you have a visitor who doesn't seem like this conversation is appropriate for your visitor. Behind you, Patrick. Behind you.

There is a small child in the room, Patrick. There's a small girl in your room, Patrick. I think it's my niece. My niece is visiting. She looks like she's about six and wholly inappropriate for this conversation. It's like one of those things you see on the news. Which is totally real. Just a crazy, crazy story.

Yeah, I was saying the stories about Christy Knoem, allegedly have an affair with Corey Lewandowski. Now you add this into the mix. And you've got a story that is decidedly not April Fool's. Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Cain Country. Meanwhile, on the substance, I am glued. I really am, fellas. I don't care if this makes me a dork or not. Fox News is live streaming Supreme Court arguments right now as we see. Please don't leave. We will recap it at 4 o'clock Eastern Time on the Fox News Channel. It is Supreme Court arguments over birthright citizenship. And I am fascinated by this stuff. to hear the justices, you never really hear from United States Supreme Court justices.

And to hear them question the attorneys in this case about whether or not the children of illegal immigrants are, by virtue of having been born on the soil of the United States of America, United States citizens, is endlessly fascinating to me. And the merits of this argument and also sort of where this goes, like your projection, your prediction, your prognostication, are not one in the same. What I mean by that is it makes imminent sense to me that the draftors of the 14th Amendment in the late 1800s certainly didn't mean for Chinese billionaires to pay for hundreds of surrogacies, for children to be born in the United States, then go get raised in China and be able to run for

president in the United States, a real-life Manchurian Canada. There's just no way. Things change. That's what they had envisioned when they drafted. Huh? Things change. I agree What does

What does that mean? What does that mean? Like the 14th Amendment needs to be... Are you... Are you pro Chinese surrogacy, Mentory and candidate

birthright citizenship? I was agreeing with you. I had to talk him down earlier. I'd explain everything. He's definitely in favor. He's all in on ice. No, I'm totally kidding. He's all in on what?

Ice and just all of it. Just like he's a... all in. Everyone out of the country. Yeah. Dan, well, he's going to love our next guest. It's Congressman Riley Moore, Republican Congressman from West Virginia's second congressional

district who now joins our conversation. Congressman, you've got to start with my producer, Dan. I mean, if we can't win Dan over, I don't know how we win over America. And I think that's actually a real conversation, Congressman, which we should get to in a minute. Like, I've heard the drumbeat that you've

beating, which I appreciate. I've heard the drum beat that Congressman Andy Ogles has been beating. The drum beat that Congressman Chip Roy has been beating, and it is one that I agree with. Selling it to the American public is a whole nother ball of wax. Let's get to that in just a moment. I'd love to get your thoughts on what's happening right now at the Supreme Court with the arguments over birthright citizenship. Yeah, thanks. Well, sorry, I was on mute there for a second. What you just discussed right there is kind of, I think, the linchpin for the argument in favor of all of this. Really not widely known, but the Northern Mariana Islands, for instance, which is a territory of the United States. A lot of people don't think about that, but those are U.S. citizens living in the Northern Mariana Islands.

Chinese nationals can travel to the northern Mariana Islands without a visa because that territory gets to say whether a visa is required or not. And they go there constantly and have their children there because it's the closest U.S. territory to mainland China unfettered. And so now they're all U.S. citizens. So there's a loophole that's been created in this that is being exploited by one of our greatest adversities. on the face of the planet, the greatest adversary. And so we've got to think about this. I mean, you know, the Chinese birthing houses in California are a real concern. This is the, you know, used to say this years ago, and people were like, you're crazy.

This isn't, it's happening. This has been happening. It's been happening for a long time. The Chinese are exploiting our current immigration system for that type of Manchurian candidate that you just laid out. Like, this is happening. I mean, and also it's like if people are here, like, Because those people could run for president by virtue of their citizenship.

Yes, they could run for president. Raised under the CCP, indoctrinated in communist China, but because they were born in the United States, can run for the United States president. Right. And if they're both, so Northern Mariana Islands is a great example. They could have spent, I don't know, 12 hours there. Then just go back to China. Never spent any time in the United States at all, but they have a U.S. first certificate. they are a U.S. citizen.

And so it is, the world has changed since the 14th Amendment was adopted, obviously. The country has changed vastly, so we need to change and adopt a new standard for what is acceptable for a U.S. citizen in this country because it's being exploited. So, I mean, there's been a massive compression of time, space, and travel since the 1800s, obviously. People aren't getting on boats to get over here. They can get here in a number of hours. if not minutes from Canada or Mexico for that matter.

So, yeah, I mean, we have to adapt and change to that because it is a, it's a real question of who we're going to be as a country if we continue down this road where we have people that hold U.S. citizenship all over the world, all over the world, who can vote in our elections, by the way. Which, by the way, just sticking on the point of the presidency for a moment, I saw Fox News as Ayesha, Hasni, point this out. Her family immigrated here when she was six. So then she became a naturalized citizen. But she can't run for president. She was raised in the United States from the age of six. And if that isn't compelling enough for you, you could do the same thing with a one-year-old,

right? Somebody that moved to the United States at the age of one, becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, born and raised, I'm not born, raised, educated in the United States. That person can never be president of the United States. I think because. you have to be a natural born citizen to be president of the United States. You can't be a naturalized citizen. So, but, but the inverse of the description we described, which you talked about it through the lens of birth tourism, but there's also birth surrogacy, which is happening in really big numbers. People don't realize how big in numbers. See, surrogacy is illegal in China. And did I read that 41%? Did I read the 41% of U.S. surrogacies or Chinese, they come here,

and some of these billionaires have had like, I don't know, 100, 200 more kids through surrogacy, born here, their citizens, but then they're immediately shipped back to China and then they're raised over there. That kid can be president. It's just that is nonsensical on its face, and one could argue, if not suicidal, like dangerous to your existence. No, it is suicidal. And, you know, we've seen this kind of creeping in. this is a little outside of the question of birthright citizenship, but go look at the Olympics here that we just had. We have two U.S. citizens of Chinese background who competed for China. They've lived here essentially their whole lives, and they're competing for China. This is

happening all over the place. They are trying to infiltrate our country, our culture, and take us over, and we're just like allowing it to happen for whatever reason. I don't think, the intent of the 14th Amendment, by the way, was for birth tourism, surrogacy, people who might just be on vacation in, I don't know, New York City one summer and have a baby, and now that kid's a U.S. citizen, and they return back to whatever country they're from, and now they can run for president. None of that makes any sense. No. And by the way, I think it's important to highlight the things you and I are talking about. But of course, these are sort of the most extreme examples of what's happening under birthright citizenship. Here is the wild stat. By the way, I was right about the

41% thing. So 41% of all surrogacies in the United States are to Chinese nationals. So that's, by the way, just let that marinate for a second. That's a stunning stat. Stunning stat. Here's another one. Nine percent, nine percent. So almost one, one in ten births in the United States are birthright citizenship births, meaning those are citizens born here to illegal immigrants. And because obviously the story is about something bigger than the Chinese. It's about illegal immigration from Central America, from Mexico, from Latin America at large. One in 10 births in the United States, birthright citizenship, citizens of this country. Yeah. I mean, this is a trend that we've allowed to persist. Now, the president has certainly

reversed that course because he has closed the border. I mean, that's part of this issue, is that where you had millions of people streaming across the border, not just from Latin America, by the way. I mean, that's always kind of the prevailing thought, you know, these folks coming. They're from all over the world. They were all coming to the Mexican border because it was wide open. And, you know, the numbers are as high as 10 million people came streaming across the border under Joe Biden's administration. And clearly, you know, they'll get into, oh, you're talking about replacement theory and all this other stuff. There is something, there is a thought to all of this that is going on here of why you would throw your border just wide open to people who then can come here and have kids and vote and run for president back to our original point.

Yeah. Yeah. So the legal argument, I just want to highlight this for the audience. So what's going on right now on the most substantive level of this argument? is that the 14th Amendment reads, all citizens born or naturalized. And then there's a phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and then on. And the question is, what does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Why would the drafters of the 14th Amendment write those words into the Constitution? And the argument being made by the Trump administration's Solicitor General is that that phrase means, not subject to another jurisdiction, not subject to the government of Mexico, not subject to the government El Salvador, not subject to the government of China, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

And that limits citizenry to people born here who are subject to the jurisdiction to this country, not another country. And quite clearly in the drafting of the 14th Amendment, it was done in the wake of the Civil War during Reconstruction that it was intended to apply to, slaves and the children of slaves. And that's what it was doing, granting citizenship after the horrific Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to the children of slaves. And here we wake up today with this brand new application. Now, the problem, Congressman, is that for a hundred years it's been presumed that that's what it means, that just if you're here, if you're here, you're a citizen. And it's really, really rare for the Supreme Court

to overturn 100 years of precedent? It is. And there is, and I can't remember the exact name of the case, but I think it was U.S. government or one of our governmental entities there versus a U.S.-born, but of Chinese origin individual. It's like Yikwu Hopkins, something like that. Yeah, yeah, back in the 1800s. So late 1800s.

So after the 14th Amendment. And so obviously that's what they're resting their case on that. And obviously 100 years of presidents that you just laid out. But you know, something's got to give here because, and you just talked about this dual nationality type thing, which we don't recognize other citizenships, but that doesn't mean other countries don't. And they do.

So we have a lot of dual nationals who currently reside in the United States. And I do want to give a quick shout out to Bernie Moreno, the senator from Ohio, has introduced legislation to say, we will not recognize dual citizenship in the United States. We're not going to do that anymore, no more. And by the way, Bernie Moreno was born in Columbia. He was born in Columbia and naturalized U.S. citizen who grew up his whole life here in the United States and says, no, we should not, you know, I took an oath to this country, got my citizenship. We should not have allowed for dual citizenship, in the 14th Amendment essentially opens the door wide open to that.

Let's take a quick break but continue this conversation with Congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia here on Wilcaine Country. The moment you've been waiting for is here. GMC's truck month is on. For a limited time, get zero percent financing for 72 months on the 2026 GMC Sierra 1500 crew cab pro graphite. Feel the strength of GMC Sierra's 5.3-liter V8 engine. elevate your confidence with a factory two inch lift and off-road suspension ready for whatever lies ahead power capability confidence all at zero percent during GMC's truck month don't wait visit your local GMC dealer today and make it yours welcome back to will cane country we're still hanging out with congressman raleigh more of west virginia yeah we need to i i agree with senator merino that's the

so that's a good transition to some of the stuff that you've talked about congressman so um let's talk So I'm going to transition this through birthright citizenship, actually. So 20 years ago, a poll reveals something like 45% of Americans agreed with the concept of birthright citizenship, meaning they agreed that it should be a thing. Something like 55% were like, no, that shouldn't be a thing. Here we are in 2026, 20 years later, and it's like 65% agree with the concept of birthright citizenship. And whatever it is, 40, 35% disagree. So the public has moved in a direction of accepting birthright citizenship, which one could argue, therefore, the Supreme Court should allow this to go, I guess, to a Democratic vote.

I don't know how this would play out in a Democratic vote, but the transition is into something you've talked about. Ogles has talked about, denaturalizations, maybe even further down the road, remigration, a real strict focus on. legal immigration. And what I'm curious about is, like, while intellectually I think all of us are on the right track, I'm not, if where we are today with the American public, certainly the left, and I would argue a lot of conservatives, getting squeamish about the deportation of illegal immigrants, or even criminal illegal immigrants, how are we ever going to have a public that understands the real, real necessity to have a reexamination of legal immigration, the 9th? 1965 Immigration Act, Heart Sellers, and so forth.

Well, yes, and I mean, this is a bill that I'm going to introduce once we get back into session here that I've discussed at length. There's currently a really arduous and difficult process of someone who has been a naturalized U.S. citizen who has joined a terrorist organization for us to be able to denaturalize and deport that individual. So we had that attack down there in Virginia. That individual down there, Muhammad Jalo, was in the United States military, naturalized U.S. citizens, and then was providing material support to ISIS and trained in Nigeria and was given some prison time, and that was it, and let back out, and then decided to do a mass shooting down at Old Dominion University in Virginia. then your home state in Texas. We had a Senate of Belize guy show up with property of Allah on his shirt,

another naturalized U.S. citizen, mass shooting there to Beer Garden. We had a naturalized citizen up there in Michigan, drive his vehicle into a synagogue in Michigan. So at what point are we going to say enough of this? We have to have the ability to denaturalize and deport people that are not just committing terrorist attacks, But supporting terrorist groups, if you remember, this is a question about Mom Dami, by the way, at the time of his naturalization. We've now looked back at that. You have to swear that you are not part of a communist organization. And that was back in, obviously, the 1950s in Cold War era that was put into that statute, that that was part of that.

We should put into our law, and this is what part of my bill wants to do, that you will not join support, provide material support, or otherwise. to any terrorist organization. And if you do, your citizenship may be revoked and you can be deported. This just makes sense. This is, and somebody might say, is this a loyalty test? You're damn right. It's a loyalty test. That's exactly what it is.

Damn right. And that's what they were talking about when they put the question about communism in during the Cold War. Yes. That's not, that's exactly right. It's not extreme. It's not foreign. It's a part of what we've at. This loyalty, yes, loyalty tests.

Yes, not dual citizenship, singular citizenship. We're just, the idea of citizenship is itself totally been, I don't even want to say watered down. It's been obliterated through birthright citizenship, through dual citizenship, through accepting people in our country through the refugee programs or family sponsorships who have no interest in actually being Americans, in many cases, actually hate Americans. So what are we doing? Why have we made the concept of citizenship so cheap, so worthless, so easy? Yeah, and you're 100% right. There's been a massive erosion of what citizenship means in this country. And it's kind of like the dying American citizen, unfortunately, because what's the difference in between someone residing in this country illegally or illegally and a U.S. citizen?

And you might say, well, you can vote in some place. They've been trying to pass laws like in New York City to allow illegal immigrants to be able to vote. Well, you can get a driver's license. You get a driver's license there too if you're an illegal immigrant. So what is the difference other than at this point being able to, I guess, maybe carry a gun legally? There's not a big difference. They can pay taxes. They can do these things or not pay taxes. They are subject to our laws. They have almost every right that a citizen does at this point. and all the rights of protection of our laws as well. So, yes, it's a massive erosion.

So what do we turn into is just like some economic free trade zone where everybody in the world can just show up and profit from it? And look, citizenship is not just about rights. It's not just about rights, but it's also about duties and duty to your country. And those two things we've like separated. We're always talking about rights. but what about duty and responsibility? And that's also part of this.

So it's like we're giving all the non-citizens, all the rights and all the benefits, but none of the duties and none of the responsibilities. Yeah. Yeah. Well, okay, let's just button it up with this. So your proposal, which you said, I'll introduce a bill to denaturalize and deport any naturalized citizen who commits an act of terrorism, plots to commit an active terrorism,

joins a terrorist organization or otherwise aids and abets terrorism against the American people. I mean, to be honest, Congressman, at a minimum. At a minimum, I think. Yeah. And we should take a moment to say the Trump administration has increased denaturalization. It has significantly increased self-deportation. We're seeing that in fact, by the way, in a lot of different places and in a lot of different metrics. From rents going down in a lot of cities.

I think it's the first time, what, in maybe a half a century, that we have seen the foreign-born population actually decrease in America. Net migration actually decrease in America. But the same with what your proposal, we could do so much more. We should do so much more. I think what you're talking about is at a minimum. This seems obvious. But, yeah, it feels like a layup.

It should be a layup, right? I mean, like, this should not be difficult. And the Trump administration has been doing a great job on this. But to a degree, their hands are tied a little bit because they don't have. have all of the tools necessary legislatively to be able to do this. I mean, Cash Patel, I'd put this proposal out and he was like, yes, please give this to us. We need this. This is something that we want, who's the director of the FBI for the listing audience, which I'm sure aware of that. But this is something that he wants. The administration wants this as well.

Do you think it can be sold to the American public to take this full circle? I am so like intellectually committed to this. It's so obviously the right thing on all of these. these fronts. And then my pessimism comes when I see these polls about birthright citizenship or I see the freak out over ICE deporting illegal immigrants. You know, I just, and by the way, I don't know, I don't know where we are on public polling on ISIS deportations right now. I just get a little, honestly, I get a little pessimistic on where the public is on these issues and I'm concerned. It's not where we are. Well, I go back to that 2024 election and the reason President Trump won. and it was to make America safe again, which was getting these illegal, or by the way, on this case, legal people have been naturalized, people who are in our country, getting them out.

That's what people want. They want their communities safe again. And that's why President Trump was so successful in 2024 in large part. And that's why he won, you know, large swaths of the Hispanic population and everything else. And I know everybody's got little polls here and there that say, oh, numbers are dipping and this and that. I still think he has. has that mandate, absolutely. And but this, I think the end of the day, people just want to live in safe communities where they don't have to worry about some terrorists showing up on their kids' college campus who we've turned into a U.S. citizen and can legally buy a firearm. Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, I think you're starting with one small win. I think Dan says he's convinced.

I think. So, Dan, you, you got Dan. Where are you, Dan? You're ready? Yeah, I think you guys convince me. On what? On what? On what?

Deporting terrorists? Yeah. Oh, on birthright citizenship. Yeah. Wow. And obviously deporting terrorists. And deporting terrorists, of course. Obviously.

Yeah, I mean, it's a no-brainer. Yeah. I mean, the old lefty in me is fighting this, but, you know, you guys make great points. I just can't say no to this. We have a poll up. that there's an old leftian there that somehow needs to be convinced we should deport terrorists. Like what? To the Congress's point, this is a layup.

Like, well, I don't even understand where the guard is. Like, I have a free run to the basket on this. That's what it feels like to me in the Congressman. And you're telling me, ah, you did a good move on the defense. What defense? What? Who is back there trying to defend the layup? I'm learning.

I'm learning here at Fox News. You know what I mean? And we had a poll up, by the way. The poll has changed significantly in that we should change the law for birthright citizenship as you guys have been talking. So you've turned some heads. All right. It's moved during our conversation? During your conversation.

You're talking about with us? Yeah, here. Really? I put up a poll at the beginning of the show that says, is it time to end birthright citizenship? It says, yes, change the law? No, it's constitutional. And it was starting a little in the middle. Yes was winning a bit.

But now it's 93% yes and 7%. No. 93. Congressman, I've wanted to start a debate show where you start. A real debate show would start like this. You start with a proposition. The audience votes on the proposition at the beginning. And then you make your arguments. And I will grant you, we don't have a contrary voice in this debate. We don't have somebody other than Dan pushing back on it. I folded very quickly, by the way. And then you measure at the end of the arguments and you see who moved the needle.

So we did move the needle today with no opposition. We'll take the show on the road. We'll put Dan on the other side. I'll get all the tomatoes that thrown my way. You're the modern day Alan Combs, Dan. Just put you on the other side and just beat the hell out of it. Me and Jesse Tarloff will hang out. All right, Congressman, Congressman Raleigh Moore,

it's really good to have you on the show. Thanks for hanging out with us today. Hey, thanks. Well, appreciate it. Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Cain Country. All right, there he goes, Congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia. It is an important bill that he proposes. Congressman Andy Ogles is going even further. And then, well, it's like there's more.

There's, there's Roy who's got the Paws Act. There's Ogles, who's got a couple of different things he's about to propose. If it goes the way it did on our internal polling today, then maybe there's hope. But we didn't have any opposition. What would Jessica Tarlov have said? Like, what would Jessica have said? She's a little more to the left than me, too. So.

Well, yeah. Yeah. Don't make yourself the Will Cancho's Jessica Tar. That is a recipe for disaster for you. Not for me. For you. Yeah. I agree.

I know what I'm doing. And you're not. You know what? I want to talk about Jaden Ivy for a minute, but actually this is a good point to transition into because we're talking about you sort of providing another perspective to us. This conversation we ended up in yesterday, I don't even know how to recharacterize it, But there's a fascinating conversation we had with Bishop, Robert Barron, about where our sense of morality comes from. His argument was, I have made the argument that immigration is an existential issue for the United States of America.

But I asked him, what's the biggest threat to Western civilization? He said, the loss of God. And he made the argument to us that God is core to the project, not just of the United States of America, but of Western civilization at large. And if you lose God, then you don't, then everything that comes after that is sort of subsequent to the fall of the West. And then we got into a debate with Dan a little bit about how you know right from wrong. And Dan seems to believe that you, as a product of human evolution, and in right and in right and can arrive at. Without it. Can arrive it right and wrong.

But that does presume, once again, that people over time, always in the long arc been toward morality. That does kind of presume that, right? If it's just a natural evolution. Yeah, I mean, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, you know, they had levels of morality and laws, things like that before Christianity.

I think that's a pretty big assumption that human morality as a consensus is something to take for granted that it just naturally evolves towards the good. And I don't think that is something that should take for granted. And my argument, I think Patrick's, was that God as an objective truth lays out morality for all of us.

And the more that we adhere to that, the better chance we have at arriving at a moral truth. And a lot of people wait in. This is a long one, but I think it was directed at you, Patrick. No, it was directed at me. They thought I was tinfoil. Oh, they thought you, Teddy thinks you're tinfoil? Yes. If you read it, you understand.

Yeah, you're two of days. Yeah. Okay. Here's what Teddy writes. Two a days. Because we just are isn't any ground in objective truth. There is only one source of objective truth. Everything else or anything else is subjective. If you could only see that foundationally, your argument falls apart since your foundation is solely on personal experience, i.e. subjective. Therefore, what may be bad for one person is good for another. This is an important indeed point right there, Dan. I understand. Which is the point Will is trying to make that racism and woman beating is accepted and encouraged as a good thing. He's talking about in some places, right?

Because their personal experience, and if that is your foundation for truth, then how can you say your personal experience is any more truthful than the person's experience that sees bad as good? So my argument fell apart there for sure. My argument fell apart there for sure. I got emotional about it because it was a personal thing that I've experienced. But yes, objectivity is a step away from personal experience. So this person is correct, but I still feel grounded in that you can find morality without having a religious basis from it. You know what I mean? Okay.

Okay. But what you just said is possibly true. Now, I think some Christians might disagree with this. I think when I was studying for the bar exam, one of the most – fascinating little logic illustrations to me that's just stuck with me over time is this. And I think that it's not profound, but it becomes more profound over time. Okay? All baseball players wear hats, but not all people that wear hats are baseball players.

Okay? Think about that for just a moment. Okay. All baseball players wear hats, but not all people who wear hats are baseball players. Okay? Does it make sense to you? You get it? Yeah.

It's a logic exercise because people confuse that when you take it out of with the obvious analogy I just gave you, right? Try it. Like, let's just try it with something else. Okay. Well, like, this is, uh, I mean, any. I don't want to do this one. Any debate. Go ahead.

The left would say, all Republicans are racist, but not all racist are Republicans. Yeah. You follow? I've heard that. I don't think all Republicans are racist. But I'm saying you can see that when you apply. it to another thing. So you said you can arrive at morality independent of Christianity, but that doesn't mean

that morality is independent of Christianity. Both can be true at the same time. I mean, they could all follow the same principles. I do think you can potentially bump around. I do think you can, I do think you can potentially bump around in the night and end up moral. I know that's, that diminishes it. Sure.

And by the way, this is where I said some Christians would disagree with me. Some Christians would disagree with that proposition. I didn't say it would get you to heaven. But I didn't say that's going to make you a good person. But I will say you could behave morally without it or ethically without it. But you have to recognize that at some extent you bumped into it. You happened into it. You got lucky in some ways that you see, Dan, as natural evolution.

I don't think that's true. I don't think it is natural evolution. It's community. It's human suffering, understanding human suffering. But I also think there's a lot of religious people that are immoral as well throughout history. You know, people that are with God and are immoral. I mean, even Christians, there's a dark period of history with Christianity with violence. And I feel like we...

Because human beings... Exactly. Because human beings who are inherently flawed are the enactors on this earth of that morality. But you can find morality in humans, is my point. That's like, yeah, go ahead. It's me. It's over on Facebook, it's Meeshop. I don't know how to pronounce yet.

Right's another long one to you. But where do you get the idea that hurting people is wrong? This is directed at you, Dan. That's grounded in Christianity, the only nonviolent religion. Not true. Buddhism is nonviolent? Where do we? get the idea that one race is better, that one race is better than another. The bishop said,

all men are created equal. Go live in India where people are born into a caste system. He brings up the Old Testament as violent. What religion follows the Old Testament alone? And then they go into Gaza and Israel. Yeah. But Christianity has a violent past as well. In humanity, with Christianity, not necessarily in the New Testament. She says, it's truly getting lost because our foundation is fading and combined with importing people who don't share those values all makes the problem even worse. Exactly. Before we move away from this conversation, you did gather a bunch of interesting comments from the audience. What are you laughing at?

There's one that was really funny. Oh, this one? Yeah. Fam Rips official says this show is so much better with Dan on mute. I control the mic so hot jokes on you And that was not April Fool's by the way That was yesterday I like Dan

Full volume Yeah Go back to the notebook That's not a comment That's not a comment That's Christian Ome's husband In some boobs In spandex

Oh sorry I felt so awkward With the congressman sitting Because I could see his face And no one else can And so the congressman is sitting Watching us do this story And you could just see him

Like fidgeting I'm just like oh God He hates this so much. Let me ask you a question. What if you walked into your buddy's house or his room and he was sitting in front of his computer in this get-up? What if one day, Patrick, you want to do an April Fool's joke, you should have shown up in this game from that room

that you broadcast it right now. I don't have been so funny. I want you to happen into a situation where a dude is wearing this stuff. What would your reaction be? it would be dude what dude

you know like what would you react to your buddy I would look at the date and be like Halloween's not even close he's like no man I was just

no you don't no you don't understand it was a dare I swear it was a bet I lost a bet wait going back to morality

what what do you think Dan is this how do we uh toy the line of this hey man I'm not going to king shame

so Russell Smith says, if the Bible calls it a sin, your opinion doesn't matter. It's just like your opinion, man. That's just like, yeah. It's one of my favorite lines from Bigelbowski. Eric David says, in my opinion, belief in God fills a hole in your heart of a yearning question that can drive you nuts if not sooth. I actually agree with Eric. And that's what I tried to talk about yesterday, how I love the intellectual argument, especially with the bishop.

He's so conversational and so intellectual. about this stuff. But ultimately for me, my pullback has not been intellectual. My pull back has been something deeply spiritual. David Hubble is kind of on Dan side of things. He says, no, it's about acceptance. Acceptance of other cultures. Christians, Muslims, Jews, gays, trans, African Americans, atheists, Asians, Buddhist, Hindus, all, all caps. Sometimes you guys just have an issue with humanity in its totality. Okay. I think that That's an interesting transition into talking about former Chicago Bull, Jaden Ivy. I think, by the way, what this man writes is total and utter BS.

I don't think there's even any, well, first of all, one should not accept all. Okay? One should not. There are good ideas and bad ideas, good behaviors and bad behaviors, good morality and bad morality and one should not accept all. The second part is you don't. And honestly, I'm just going to put it bluntly because I just think it's important to David Hubble. You're full of shit. Like you really don't accept all. You're pretending to on the internet, but you don't in your real life. I know you don't because nobody does. Because we all have judgment and judgment is discernment

and discernment is good. And you don't walk around. I'm sorry. You're not the person you pretend to be on the internet. And you can get mad and defensive in wherever you're watching or listening right now, but you don't. Because none of us do. No one is the person you're portraying yourself to be. Not you, not your side, not the other side that you see different than you. Okay? Nobody is as you describe because human nature is not that. And it is not something to overcome in his totality. Human nature in some ways, to the extent that we accept tribalism over superficial differences, is something to overcome. But we don't escape tribalism based upon discernment and judgment of good behavior and bad behavior, of good ideas versus.

bad ideas. We do not do that and you do not do that, David. So the question and the real conversation, besides preening on the internet, I'm getting more worked up than I actually feel. But besides peacocking on the internet, then you get to the real conversation. What is good behavior and what is bad behavior? What is acceptable and what is not acceptable? And thus is the real, the real conversation for humanity. Okay. You don't live, David. You don't live in Syria, nor would you, nor would you go live under Sharia, nor were you in Sharia, sit there and go, this is all cool because I'm into accepting all. You wouldn't.

You wouldn't in Afghanistan. Why does that obvious fact not escape you? Or why does it escape you? Why? You would not. You sit here in the privilege of being a United States citizen preaching tolerance of something that is inherently intolerance would not tolerate you and you would not tolerate in Kabul.

So why pretend on the internet? Then get to the real conversation of what is and what is not a good idea. What is a good behavior and what is a bad behavior? What is a good ideology? What is a bad ideology? And then you get to the real stuff. And I do think that's a pretty good conversation transition into Jaden Ivy. yesterday we discussed

Chicago Bulls basketball player Jaden Ivy who went on to social media and posted a video wherein he said the NBA forces us I think the word he used

is proclaims pride pride okay you know somebody said by the way we think of pride as June and I think the total

LGBTQ population like when you add it all together I don't know where we are would you say 7, 8, 9% of the population, maybe, in totality? I don't know. But you have like 100 days now scattered throughout the calendar, you know, acknowledging pride. It's not June, which is 30 or 31, I can't ever remember.

Of those days. He looked up. Yeah, we had a transnational. Visibility a couple days before, right? Last week sometime. Yeah, so you're up to, you're up to, you're up. to a third of the calendar is basically pride at this point. Oh, I don't know.

Apropos of nothing, this just came up again. I don't know. Sorry, if you're watching on YouTube or Facebook, I don't know why that keeps popping back up. So, Jaden Ivy is basically fired, fired from the Chicago Bulls for saying that he believes, what do you mean allegedly? They didn't say they fired him for that reason. You don't know. They said conduct detrimental to the team. Conduct, and it was in the, what, hours after he posted this.

Because he said pride is unrighteous. He said LGBTQ is unrighteous, which is an opinion that is basically held by every major world religion. Many people yesterday, and I said that, you know, a private employer can make any decision that they want. Maybe I was wrong. Because a lot of you're pointing out, Pam Bonnie, I check this out because this is religious discrimination. Like, he gave in a religious. point of view that is very widely held in common, and he was fired for his religious point of view. I think that in of itself is interesting, but I also think, go ahead.

No, but the, I mean, when you have a religious point of view that affects other people, it's different. It becomes not just a personal view. If his name, I got a question for you, Dan, if Jaden Ivey's name were Muhammad Jaloh. And he said those very same things, would he have been fired by the Bulls? Probably, yeah. You really think. If he was a mother. Muslim and he gave those points of view. Sure. They would have fired him?

Yeah. No way. No damn way. No damn way. They don't fire those European soccer players when they do it. True. And they're even more crazy in Europe about this stuff than we are on the pride stuff and all that. They don't fire those Muslim players when they do it.

And they do it. Are all the owners of those teams from England? Well, I don't know. I don't know. That's what I'm saying. I'm not just talking about England, by the way. I'm talking about Germany, Italy, all these places. Right, but you have owners from Muslim countries. All these leagues.

No, I think there are players who have done it. It's not owned by United Arab Emirates or Qatar. It's owned by whoever. I disagree with you. I think if he was Muslim, they wouldn't have fired him, which is interesting in and of itself. But the NBA, you know, gigantic pride, rainbow flag all over a stadium, right? but if a player says it's unrighteous, he's fired. They're forcing their players to co-sign onto something that in this case,

J.Nivey says, I do not co-sign. And they fire him. First, from a branding perspective, I think that this is a potential for really bad for the NBA. And you saw some athletes starting to speak up. Here's a few examples I saw last night. Tucker Kraft tied end for the Green Bay Packers posted Jesus Christ is king. Juan Ye Thomas, who is a safety for the Dallas Cowboys posted, Jesus Christ is King. And then Daniel Gafford, who plays for the Dallas Mavericks in a postgame press conference had,

Faith is Not for the Week on his T-shirt. And when pressed about it, you know what he said? He goes, I think it's self-evident and it's obvious. And I don't want to talk about it because I don't want to get waived like Jaden Ivy, which is wild. That's how scared one would be to expound upon. faith is not for the week in the NBA. And then Trevion Henderson of the New England Patriots running back said, he just posted a Bible verse,

for a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths, 2 Timothy 4 3 through 4. He posted that, Travion Henderson. Okay. Patrick, you want to talk about Mike Vrable? Mike Vrable was asked about it.

Mike Vrable gave a whole answer about accepting Trevion Henderson, loving Trevion Henderson, his points of view, but then said he wants to make sure Trevon Henderson is educated. Like he's not fully indoctrinated. He needs to be more educated. His Christian beliefs are uneducated. Yeah, I don't even know what to say with that because it's like I do think that there's a, there's a lot of people who believe what Trayvon Henderson believes. but like if you don't kind of believe what the mainstream believes, then you just don't get accepted. You're an educated. You're just an educated. And it's like, you know, there's a lot of pushback against the pride stuff.

I don't think in a hateful way, just because it's just, you know, it's pushed back against what people view as indoctrination. Yeah, and I agree the pride stuff can be too much too. I agree with that. Like all this pride nights and stuff like that. Do you think calling something unrighteous is hateful? unrighteous hmm

no I mean it's a personal religious belief it's not yeah that's a biblical term yeah that's a religious term to be righteous or unrighteous so if he's saying my religious belief says this is not

righteous moral behavior like who are they to say that's hate so are they saying all of Christianity this is really and not just Christianity but Muslim is hate are they saying religion is hate every religion that says homosexuality is unrighteous.

Is that hate? Well, it's infringing out someone's rights to exist. Is that what the NBA is saying? It's... Is that what Chicago Bulls are saying? No. It's not hateful. But it's infringing on someone's right to exist

if they are gay. I mean, it's not a choice. You just are. But if you say it's unrighteous, it is? No, I mean... He didn't say you should be thrown in jail. He didn't say you should be deprived of your rights.

He didn't say anything like that. He said it's unrighteous. I think they went overboard on this, of course. Yeah. I mean, even Pride Night, you shouldn't have to participate or wear any of this. I don't even know how, forget hate. I don't even know how that can be called anti-gay. It's just, it's a religious reflection.

That's a religious reflection. I'm not agreeing with homosexuality. And by the one, a pretty obvious one. A pretty obvious one. It's like if, if Travion and Henderson, I mean, if Jaden Ivey said, you know, I mean, I don't know how. that's any more doctrinally controversial than saying marriage should be between one man and one woman. I don't even, I'm not even getting into the gay stuff. I'm talking about like poly. No, like poly, poly, polygamy, right?

Polygamy. Like, that would be, yeah, that's a, that's a righteous versus unrighteous perspective from the Bible. It's the same. Right, but people are choosing. to be that way. You choose to be a polygamous. You don't choose to be gay, which you don't believe. Well, there are a lot of polygamy is actually biblical. I mean, like, I mean, you know, Solomon had many wives. But by the way, you're wrong too, Dan. Polyamory is definitely not something people say they choose. Polyamory, polygamy is. Maybe polygamy. I was talking about what you said,

not what I said. Meanwhile, there's the hypocrisy of the. Of the. Meanwhile, there's the hypocrisy of the NBA. So Steve Kerr, head coach for the Golden State Warriors, can say whatever he wants about ICE being murderers or Greg Popovich can call Trump Hitler. It's true. You know, they can say any of these things they want. No problem. Not fired. Also, Bobby Portis can punch Nicola Mara Maritich. Mertich. Nicole Mertich. During practice, break the bones in his face, give him a concussion, force the need for surgery, and force Mertich to miss four to six weeks. But Portis remains employed by the Chicago Bulls.

Portis remains, yeah, he did it during practice to a teammate, but Portis remained employed. In 1996, Dennis Rodman headbutted a referee. He was suspended six games, but was not fired. You can obviously point the difference in the importance to the team on the basketball court, and I hear that argument. But the difference in double standard on what's a fireable offense and what is not is pretty stark. And in this case, it's fireable to be openly Christian if it conflicts at all with the modern day religion of pride, which is not derived by some modern consensus of a bend towards the arc of morality,

but is derived from momentary, fadish consensus. I agree with you on that. I know that because I was alive 10 years ago, 15 years ago. If it's so obviously moral today, then is the NBA of 2010 bigoted? Was President Barack Obama bigoted? If these are eternal truths, Did everybody that came before you in the last five years live a life of bigotry?

Or is there actually a moral truth that supersedes? It's public pressure. Momentary, popular consensus. Yeah, the public pressure is downstream from whatever the perceived consensus might be. All right, fellas. Yeah. You do it again. Here we go.

I think that's going to do it for us today. I saw it coming. Come on. Saw it coming. You saw it coming? Connor is very uncomfortable If you're listening to us on Spotify or Apple you're really missing out

You should join us on YouTube or Facebook It's like a jump scare Connor wave for the people again People wanted Connor to wave Those nipples are really Those nipples are really off kilter Yeah I mean you got one point in north

And one point it south But that's part of the bimboification Because when people get their breast done Like that the nipples are usually just askew So I think he's I think that's factual in his fetish So They're balloons dude

They're balloons They're not Thailand Thailand's better than that. Give Thailand some credit. I'm playing us out. Will this story stick around in the news long enough for you to be able to wear that to Halloween? I'm afraid if you wear it to Halloween, nobody's going to go. Christine Nome's husband?

I'm thinking they're going to go. What are you doing, Patrick? Dress like that tomorrow for April 2nd, tinfoil pat. We'll see you again tomorrow. Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon Music app.