Will Cain Country - Where Is The White House Cocaine?

Episode Date: July 12, 2023

Story #1: Where's the cocaine? Story #2: Is health care a right? The difference between positive and negative rights. Story #3: The case for an in-season tournament in the NBA.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, where is the cocaine? Two, is health care a right, the difference between positive rights and negative rights. Three, the in-season tournament in the NBA, the NBA Cup, all in. the Will Cain podcast on Fox News Podcast. What's up? And welcome to Wednesday. As always, I hope you will download rate and review this podcast wherever you get your audio entertainment, Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. You can watch the Will Cain podcast on Rumble or on YouTube. There is the way that it is, and there is the way that it should be. But the way that it should be does not and cannot ever deny simply the way that it is.

At the UFC fight in Las Vegas this past weekend, there was an absolute star-studded audience. People like Mel Gibson and Mark Wahlberg, Guy Fieri, of course, Joe Rogan, broadcasting the UFC event. But there was no bigger star in the building. And the former president of the United States, Donald Trump. Dana White, president of the UFC, ushered Trump around the arena, around the hotel, around the crowd. And it really is something to watch the way people react to Donald Trump. I don't know if he's the most famous person in the world. There might be a new soccer player in Miami who could rival Trump.

But setting aside Messi and perhaps Ronaldo, I don't know that you could think of another person on the planet who is more famous than Trump. But it's not simply recognition. It's not just simply fame. There is a magnetism to Trump that is undeniable, and it's just the way that it is. What I mean by just the way it is versus the way that it should be is this. A magnetic figure is not a sufficient reason to explain why somebody should be the leader of the free world. You know, prior to social media and prior to television, there was probably very little, not nothing, but a much smaller piece of the pie that mattered when electing someone to President of the United States that was attributable to their personality that was due to their magnetism.

Famously, right at the onset of the advent of television, JFK Jr. shocked the world in a debate with Richard Nixon. It showed the beginning of the power of mass communication, but maybe with that, the shift away from perceptions of competency into perceptions of attraction. I don't mean sexual attraction. I mean, magnetism. I mean, who we are drawn to. Richard Nixon was up on that stage.

The reports go sweating and pale. He looked terrible in JFK Jr. on television. The first televised debate looked like a star. And ever since that time, I think it's fair to say we have gravitated towards a more personality-driven choice when we elect our presidents. During George W. Bush's run for president, it was often said, hey, you'd want a president, you'd want to have a beer with. Bill Clinton was, for whatever you think, of his politics, absolutely a man who could command. a room. Still is, to this day. Command a stage and command a room. I was reminded of that last week when I was hosting Fox News tonight. I had on Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida. Now, I'm a big

fan of the governor of Florida. I think he has shown steel and metal. He's shown backbone and he has shown leadership through some of the most fearful and mob mentality, groupthink eras in American history. When the entire world was mocking you for staying open and saying you were Death Santis, Ron DeSantis stood firm and guided that state as really, you know, it's not easy to say for any Texan, but the ultimate free state. People flocked to Florida and still are from New York and California and from every other lockdown state in this country. The net migration of Florida over that time is roughly up 300,000, 350,000 people. It just so happens to correlate to the net decline in New York and California, both down over 300,000 people.

DeSantis has stood strong when it comes to the indoctrination of our children through race ideology or gender ideology, through the trans issues. DeSantis is absolutely a competent governor that executes strong policy. But what we have been told, and this is not me rooting in any rooting interest, I still don't know. I think both DeSantis and Trump would be good presidents of the United States. But what we have started to gather is that DeSantis lacks the exact thing we're talking about is for Donald Trump. Last week on Fox News tonight, I challenged Governor DeSantis on his poll numbers since announcing his run for president.

Donald Trump has not only maintained his lead above 50% in the Republican primary field, but in some polls it's gone up to 60%. While DeSantis came out of the gate somewhere between 20 and 30%, most polls now have in between 10 and 20%. And you wonder why. I asked the governor about that on Fox News tonight. He didn't, in my estimation, have the strongest of answers, and he wasn't the most comfortable. He might not have known I was going to go in that direction,

but it's not always our job. It is not our job to say, well, then we're going to ask you X and then we're going to ask you why. And if you follow the script, ABC. That's not the way it works. We are going to talk about things that you anticipate talk. about like the joke that is binomics more on that coming up in the podcast when we talk about whether or not you have a right to health care but i think in if it were the case with

donald trump i would assume the same we have some questions that need to be asked not all of them will be comfortable i think brett bayer did a good job with donald trump because these men are running for president of the united states and ronda santis whether or not it be in that interview or in other interactions with the press has not yet figured out a way to project that magnetism. Maybe that's not the way it should be. Maybe it should be that we just look for the people who have the best ability to execute a positive vision that can be the remedy for the ailments of the United States of America. I hear you. That's substance. And there's a case to be made for Ron DeSantis.

a very, very, very strong case to be made for Ron DeSantis. And maybe before the advent of television or before the advent of social media, he could be someone like Calvin Coolidge, who was probably never known for lighting up a room, but is probably as well one of the most underrated presidents of the United States. But the way that it is requires you to persuade and persuasion involves not just and we don't sit here and celebrate this fact but we say it is a fact it requires you to do something besides simply do it you have to show people that

you can do it everyone listening right now who's ever sold knows exactly what i'm talking about everyone listening right now who's ever been involved in marketing knows what i'm talking about and i'm not sitting here telling you as someone who stands atop the mountain of achievement it's one of my I think it's one of my weaknesses I don't think I market this podcast as well as I could I don't think I market our content as strongly as other personalities and yet I think that the content that we produce like executing an action in governance in Florida is some of the best that exists out there and of course I'm probably biased but I think I can step back in some self-awareness and say hey I know what we're doing and I know what I consume and I don't feel unhumble to tell you. you, this is some of the best out there, but I'm not very good at screaming it from the mountaintops. I'm not good at marketing. And that's just the way that it is, whether or not it should be. And Donald Trump absolutely owns the way that it is. He fills a room. I've met Donald Trump. I don't know whether or not you have, but I will tell you something that I think

those that judge him from a distance, or those that only know of him through a CNN headline, and then who only know of him through atmospheric rumors, what I mean by that is a lot of opinions that we hold, me included, you step back and you think, why do I think this about this? You can't even pinpoint an article you read or a headline you saw. You can't pinpoint a television personality that told you, you just sort of think it because it exists in the atmosphere. It's a collection of late-night comedy jokes, of barbecue conversation with your neighbors. It's like who gets to control the zeitgeist. And it tells you in a lot of ways what are proper opinions to hold.

And one of the goals of this podcast, and I think one of the goals of the modern day media environment is we do a better job of breaking outside of that atmospheric acceptability because that atmospheric acceptability will have you saying things like don't be insane you have to embrace lockdowns of course masks work don't ever question a vaccine the hunter biden story is a right wing fever dream because that atmosphere is controlled it is defined by those you know that's the at the New York Times, the Washington Post, who control what is acceptable in the atmosphere. And Donald Trump is most certainly not acceptable in that atmosphere.

So if your opinion is all predicated on, the atmosphere or a CNN.com headline or your wife's best friend, it might be surprising to learn that Donald Trump, should you ever meet him in person, is extremely charismatic. he's fun he's funny he's intentionally funny he's self-aware he's a hell of a storyteller like a top-notch storyteller he makes eye contact where it's necessary when he chooses to listen he listens intently it is a very fascinating thing to witness someone who has that magnetism and you meet it from time to time in your life and that's what we're on display in Las Vegas at the UFC fight.

YouTube stars came up to him, shaken hands, excited to meet him. Mel Gibson, Mark Wahlberg coming up, Guy Fiery coming up to meet Donald Trump. Trump got up and went over to shake hands with Joe Rogan. We don't know what was said in any of these things.

Rogan smiles. They talk for a good 20 seconds, 30 seconds. Fighters who had just won their fights, over the cage jump down to go meet and talk to Donald Trump he returns compliments of course until he

doesn't he returns an insult but it is absolutely true in a stadium full of stars with a real like literal main event there was no bigger event no other main event than Donald Trump

and that's just the way it is whether or not it should be and when you're making your case to people on a one-on-one basis or through mass communication you have to be able to in some way project that magnetism does it translate into leadership yes of course in some ways it absolutely translates into leadership should it also require the ability to execute on that persuasion on that magnetism yes of course because that's what our lives are really about We're not all just attending a concert, looking for someone who is a good performer. We have to have governance that can execute.

But we can't pretend it's not the way it is. And right now, the way it is, is dominated by Donald Trump. We'll be right back with more of the Will Kane podcast. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play. Play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com.

Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at fox acrossamerica.com. Story number one. Where is the cocaine?

I haven't yet had a chance to talk to you about one of the most fun, but not inconsequential. Stories in the news cycle over the last two weeks. Who left the Coke at the White House? Just a couple of days before 4th of July, the Sunday before 4th of July. In an extraordinary headline, it was revealed that cocaine was found within the White House. The location of the cocaine has moved on more than one occasion. It has moved, I think, three times. It was at one time, said to be in the library of the White House,

and then at other times it was in some executive cubby holes and an entrance to the White House, a VIP entrance. It has been said to have been found just a few doors down from the Situation Room. But whatever or wherever the cocaine was found, this was not, should not be a laughing matter. In a way, it is, of course, because it's funny. But we're talking about first an unknown substance, a powdery white substance that was later identified to be cocaine, an absolutely contraband controlled substance that should not be in the White House. And yet here we are today wondering, who owns the blow?

And you know, it's always a game to play, but it is such a way to put in the context the way we talk about things. Just imagine if this was the White House under Donald Trump. It would be screaming from every headline. It would dominate the news cycle still today two weeks later. And instead, largely, the reaction of the media was to joke. Come on. Now, I will say, I can't cast the entire media industry under the bus because there were some hard questions asked. Corrine Jean-Pierre, the White House spokesperson, was asked numerous questions and not just by the quote-unquote right-wing news agencies.

And then she went on this incredible spiel about how there's been some irresponsible reporting and that they have addressed this on numerous occasions. That the Bidens had left the White House on Friday. They weren't at the White House, actually, she said on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday they were at Camp David. The Coke was found on Sunday night. The Bidens had been gone since Friday. And then she went on to say that it was irresponsible aspersions. And even the step further, she said, irresponsible questions about cocaine in the White House. Let's address that for a moment, step by step.

First of all, that's a lie, KJP. The Bidens were in the White House. We have the White House logs on Friday. They left on Friday for Camp David. Now, the cocaine was found on Sunday night. In all fairness, and in search for the truth, it is a little bit suspect to assume that white that white powder would sit around the White House, that Coke would sit around the White House for, what is that?

48 plus 12, 60 hours, let's call it over, under 60 hours without going noticed. Say the Biden's left it sometime on Friday, and then it's found on Sunday night. You're looking at 60 hours of cocaine sitting around the White House. That is true. It is hard to believe. Maybe not if it's buried in the back of some cubby or in some cup that isn't checked routinely. But again, this is the White House. We're not talking about your house or my house.

We're talking about the White House. And to think that here we are two weeks later and we don't know, or at least we don't have confirmed, who owns the blow, let us pray. This doesn't fall down the rabbit hole of the same unsolved mysteries as the Supreme Court leaker of the Dobbs opinion that struck down Roe v. Wade. we still don't know or who is the January 6th pipe bomber you remember that pipe bombs left out in front of the RNC and DNC headquarters and still to this day who's the pipe bomber we don't know who owns the blow we may never know despite the fact it's the White House what I mean by that is you don't think there's cameras literally everywhere, every corner, every hallway, every entrance on the outside, and every

room. I counted it up, you know, I think it was late last week when I was at Fox in New York. If I walked from my office to the elevator, I counted four cameras by the time I got in the elevator, like two hallways, a well of elevators, and then one in the elevator. And then when I arrive in the lobby to get to the studio, there'd be two to three more cameras in each, you know, perpendicular hallway of the big lobby. And then I enter another studio set of doors, and there's a camera aimed down every hallway. So let's call that another five cameras on my way down to the studio. And then, of course, once I get to the studio, there's four cameras or so in the studio. We won't count those.

That's not normal everyday life. But also along the way, I passed probably 12 individuals. and each individual had a camera in their pocket. That's a level of surveillance that's unheard of. You know, it's pretty fascinating that those cameras catch every TikTok trend, every Tidepod swallowing contest. But those surveillance devices in all of our pockets have never caught Bigfoot. Never caught one of those aliens in the backyard in Las Vegas.

It really does undercut all of the mysteries if the cell phones aren't catching it, right? And if I went outside the building, a 12-11 6th Avenue in New York City, there would be cameras there are i see them on every corner of that building up top pointed down every street lamp pointed down the street and some pointed down the you know angles down the sidewalk every uber the drives down the street has one pointed forward and usually in to the back of the car as well there's cameras everywhere you're in my life could really at least living in New York City, be broadcast in like a 24-7 loop, like on Ed TV. Remember Matthew McConaughey?

We just wouldn't have to hire a camera crew. We just got to get access to all that footage, you know, like they do. You know, like the NSA. NSA. I mean, we're literally on camera always, and we're not at the White House. I'm just a TV host. You are you. You're telling me there are some corner.

at the White House where people can do some lines and nobody sees it, that's literally unbelievable. Now, the irresponsibility suggested by KJP is the leap to conclusion. Many people, yours truly included, have immediately brought up the name Hunter Biden. Now, we do not yet have facts to back up the suspicion that it's Hunter's Coke. but we don't have to also be complete dumbasses and pretend that it's not logical if there's some coke in the vicinity that it could be hunters. We're not required to check our common sense at the door.

It doesn't make it fact. It doesn't make it reality, but it does absolutely justify suspicion. It is 100% not irresponsible. If the guy who has been a drug addict throughout his life, who has been a crackhead, which is Coke, but, you know, cooked up Coke, if that guy doesn't own the Coke, well, then we have another question to ask. And the question is, like, that scene in the hunt for the Red October. You remember in the end of the Hunt for October, I love this scene when the Russian ambassador goes to see, I believe he's the chief of staff at the White House, after the whole. like search for the Red October, the Russian sub, and then, you know, the other Russian sub who was hunting down the Red October got blown up, but no one was supposed to know. And

the Russian ambassador says, we're missing another submarine. And I can't remember the character's name, but the American ambassador's like, Sergei, Sergei, how many subs exactly do you have missing? If the Coke's not hunters, how many cracker? How many cracks, heads exactly do you have in the White House? You know, at first they wondered if this was anthrax. This shows the seriousness to which this story was taken should be taken, not simply laughed off by anchors on CNN, which it was. I mean, it could be anything.

This is a serious story. But I think there's even a more serious conclusion or question or revelation beyond simply the fun parts of the cocaine. and here they are right now this exists in the realm of unsolved mysteries if kjp will play this kind of deflection if the bidens can never answer the question about whose coke it is if they can make this story sort of fade away imagine what they could and what they would do with a real story a real story a real crime, like bribery, like influence-pelling, like treason. What I mean by that is this. Think

about the worst fallout if it came out to this was Hunter Biden's Coke. Like Hunter's already a deadbeat. He's a, he likes prostitutes. He's got a child that he will not recognize. Quick, parenthetical here. It is stunning that Joe Biden thinks it's appropriate to continue to put out material saying, he put out a tweet this week, I always will stop any meeting. no matter how important to take a call for my grandkids. At the same time, there is reports that he's told the protocol inside the White House is, you're not to acknowledge his seventh grandchild. He's got seven grandchildren.

He only acknowledged six. They will not acknowledge Hunter's illegitimate daughter from the former stripper in Arkansas. Navy, I believe, is her name. London was the mother, is the mother. Navy is the daughter. After a court case a few weeks ago, it was denied that Navy could use the last name Biden. Oh, but she gets to pick one of Hunter's paintings once a month.

That's so gross. For all the people that say, oh, I could never vote for Donald Trump because of his character, his personality. Okay, but surely then you're not going to vote for Joe Biden. Like, this goes back to that atmospheric thing. Set aside the atmospheric acceptability of opinions. Just use your own critical thinking for a moment. What kind of thing does it say about one's character that you deny the existence of a grandchild?

Which, by the way, has been proven to be your grandchild through paternity test. Yes, fact. Why do the women of the view think this is beyond the pal? It's the view. Whoopi Goldberg, Joy, whatever. They think this is again. Right-wing fever dream, below-the-belt punches. Why is that a below-the-belt punch?

I think Alyssa Farron the View said, well, we do have to say if Trump had an illegitimate grandchild, or child, we would cover it. And then I think Behar's once said, he probably does. So you think it's above the belt to throw hypothetical punches, but below the belt to throw punches that are real. This is true. And it's an absolute indictment of Joe Biden, of course of Hunter Biden as well, but if Joe Biden's character don't acknowledge my seventh grandchild, they cannot have the last

name. I'll take a call from any of my grandchildren, except for the one that I don't claim. What an indictment of character. But what's the fallout? It's Hunter's Coke. Okay, Hunter's reputation

himself couldn't be lower, so that's fine. What would the fallout be for Joe Biden? That he's a doting, relaxed, permissive, maybe enabling parent? Well, probably already there. And, again, Anna Navarro and the women of the view, they would excuse him anyway. They'd paint that in a positive light.

So what's the fallout? None. Okay, let's say it's not Hunter's Coke. Let's say it's a staffer, right? What are we going to do now? Are you run a chaotic, out-of-control White House? Okay, not good. So, but, I mean, not a career ender either for Joe Biden.

So if what we're looking at right now, and House Republicans are trying to bring in the Secret Service to answer questions about this as we speak about the cocaine in the White House, if this is the worst fallout and this is the links they'll go to ensure it's an unsolved mystery, what would they do for a serious crime? Well, we have some hint. Okay, a guy named Gal Lunt. He's, as reports suggest, not a good individual. He's done business with CEFC, Chinese Energy Corporation, which is tied to the Chinese Communist Party. He's sold out. He has come out. He recorded a video released exclusively to the New York Post.

He has said that in his dirty dealings, he has come across the Bidens, not just Hunter, but Jim and Joe. He said that Hunter got $100,000 a month from CEFC. Jim Biden got $65,000 a month from CEFC. Again, this is connect to the Chinese Communist Party. The question is, does it go to Joe Biden, and does it have a quid pro quo when it comes to U.S. policy? That's what House Republicans are investigating. But now we have a whistleblower, and then with Lunt, we have a witness who are saying, I saw it. I saw the quid pro quo.

I saw the deals. A few weeks ago, we saw the text. You and I talked about it here on this podcast. The text where Hunter said, pay me my money or else, and I'm sitting here with my dad, or else. Well, Lunt recorded this 12-minute video released exclusively to the New York Post, where he lays out his case. He's now been indicted and arrested, I believe in Cyprus, for arms dealing in connections to C EFC. He's not, as in like, a reliable witness in the way that criminals are not reliable witnesses because it's presumed you can't be trusted. But criminals are also the people who have direct knowledge.

of other criminals. And this is a trader doing business with the CFC that says, I know some other traders doing business with the CEFC, CCP, against the interests of the United States. And he's saying it's the Bidens. Of course, it's going to rest on corroboration and evidence. But this story, including his arrest now, is absolutely been, for the better part of two years, not just swept away, but covered as disinformation, ignored.

That's just the media. Then there's the DOJ who won't investigate much less press charges. We've talked about how they've pushed stuff out of David Weiss, the prosecutor in Delaware, his ability to pursue this investigation. He says he wasn't. Could have if he wanted to. But that's what the whistleblower says. No, no, no.

This thing was stymied from the DOJ on down. If they'll do this for Coke in the White House, what will they do for a real crime like treason? You and I both know the answer. We're going to step aside here for a moment. Stay tuned. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast. Podcast.com.

Story number two. Do you have a right to health care? Since the 4th of July week, Joe Biden has gone on a tour of promoting what he describes as Bidenomics. He wants to run on the economy. He wants to brag about binomics. He's making stops across the country, giving speeches, and issuing pretty regular tweets on the things which he chooses to brag. Here is one particular brag

from his Twitter account at POTUS. On my watch, health care is a right, not a privilege in this country. We should start with saying

that is pandering. That's not real. I don't think that's what he believes because he's not advocating for even Medicare for all, much less government issue.

Everyone has it. health care from birth. That's what it means when you say someone or something is a right. It's a freedom, usually, an enjoyment guaranteed by the government, not as the guarantor, but as the protector of that right. Here's what I mean by the difference between guarantor and protector. There are two types of rights in philosophy. There's what's called positive rights and negative rights. The United States of America is an experiment, a republic, founded upon the protection of negative rights. Negative rights are freedoms from, freedoms you enjoy from interference by the government. Government being the one that can, because it has a monopoly on violence, government has a monopoly on violence.

Think about that term. That's absolutely the case. It doesn't mean anyone else cannot commit violence, but if you do, you'll be dragged before a government court and tried for that violence. Perhaps it will be seen as justified violence. But you will have your use of violence tried. Government has a monopoly on the perception of justified violence.

That's through policing, through military, through the ability to incarcerate, which requires violence, you to take away your freedom. So negative rights are rights that you enjoy as a protection against government's ability to limit that freedom. You're endowed with these rights. The government is not the grantor of those rights, as it says in our founding documents, these are inalienable rights granted by your creator, endowed. by your creator. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

In the original conception of the U.S. Constitution, the idea was you have all the rights. You are free from everything. Negative rights abound. The only thing the government can do is laid out in the articles of the Constitution. Here are the powers of the government. The implication was this document is designed to limit the government. And this is going to lay out exactly what the government is allowed to do. That's what the Constitution is.

And the implication being, if it's not listed here, you can't do it. Government. And everything else is for the enjoyment of the people. The Bill of Rights, which was a controversial document at its adoption, then granted certain rights the government can never intrude upon when it comes to the individuals of the United States of America. Now, why was it controversial? It was controversial because it disrelevant. the implication that we enjoyed all rights, but for those powers granted to the government.

The minute we laid out, you know, our 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, now it was like, whoa, these are the things that the government cannot do to the people, where before we only had enumerated things that the government could do. Once you start saying, here's what the government cannot do, the implication changes. And it changes to, oh, you can do anything as long as it doesn't interfere with these 10 things you can't do. it changed the underlying assumption still though we were focused on negative rights think about the first amendment the right to free speech the right to free exercise of religion of you know organization we can we can come together we can protest we can say what we want we can worship how we

want you're free from interference to do those things you're free from soldiers entering your home you're free to own guns to have arms a second amendment everything is about what the government cannot take from you cannot intrude upon again the implication is

I have all these enjoyments in life I can do what I want lifelab in the pursuit of happiness you cannot come and touch these things and take them from me those rights don't have much to do with each other like you coming to my house and intruding upon me. I mean, those rights, and they're really not even about the states, but it has been since then,

has been incorporated into protecting you from state laws as well, which is another debate within constitutional law. But the relationship between citizens, because you'll hear people say, I have a right not to be shot, you do. And the government does its best to protect us from crime. But that's actually not a constitutionally guaranteed right. That's the consequence of freedom. You see, what we are protected from is the government inflicting violence on us.

But the negative externalities of freedom, that's part of life. And we'll do, and we'll come together and we'll decide policing or laws and stopping each other from doing things, right? But those are the consequences of freedom. The documents, like the foundation of this thing is about our relationship with the government, not with each other. and those negative rights tell us what the government cannot do what we are free to enjoy. That's very different from the idea of a positive right. A positive right is the implication that by virtue of birth, you should be able to enjoy certain things. That you are entitled to certain things.

And these positive rights through philosophy and then through governance have been laid out over time. They were laid out in the Constitution of the U.S. USSR. That's a great one for us to start. The Constitution of the Soviet Union was chock full of positive rights. I mean, it is a great. Talk about salesmanship throughout this conversation. It's a great brochure to sell a vision of governance. You had a right under the Soviet Constitution to a home, to a roof, to food, to a job. We have none of these rights in the United States of America. You had a right to recreation, a certain amount of vacation. A certain amount of vacation and time off and enjoyment.

Think about this. Like, if you, if I went to Twitter and I was like, I believe that this is how we should frame our founding documents, but I didn't attribute it to the Soviet Union, like, you have a right to a home, you have a right to vacation, you have a right to a dignified job, how do you think it would go over? It would be gangbusters. I'd be selling like hotcakes. Because, of course, people love that kind of pandering, all those promises.

But it's all they were. They didn't even try to uphold those promises in the Soviet Union. Not even try. Those were, if anything, were like the perks of being in the Chinese Communist Party, a commissar. You got in. You got those things. The plebs and the people out there, keep selling them those false promises while we confiscate their wheat. It didn't end, unfortunately, at the USSR.

are. During the administration of the Franklin, Delano Roosevelt here in the United States, there was a movement to try to incorporate many of these rights. Roosevelt advocated for many these rights as an update to the United States Constitution. And I believe it was in the 70s. I'm not quite sure when exactly it was adopted, but the South African, I think it was later actually, later than the 70s. The South African Constitution basically echoes the Constitution of the USSR and lays out a whole menu of positive rights. Now, these, again, are positive rights,

so there are things that you're entitled to. But here's the problem. Here's why they're not just... Here's why the problem isn't only that they're false promises. Like, if there were a government that could actually execute on giving you a right to health care, a right to a home, or right to a job, or right to a vacation,

those rights would, by their very nature, negate negative rights. the government has nothing. You have to remember that. It has no money. The government has no property. It only has what it takes from people, from the people. Its revenue and its money come from taxes.

Confiscatory. Remember, the monopoly on violence. The ability to take your money through the process of taxation. That's what the government has. Commendere land. the government is not a creator it has no wealth of resources on its own it only has what it can take from the people and if i guarantee as the government someone a home i have to take that from someone else someone has to build that home at some rate okay let's say the builder gets paid where does the government get the money to pay the builder from from taxes where do the taxes come from a citizen who pays into it it's force every step of the way and And ultimately, it's negating a negative right. If you have a right to health care, you are, in essence, forcing a doctor to provide that health care.

How can I charge for something that you have a right to? How can I charge you? How can I make money? How can I run a profit? How can I advance through capitalism, sophisticated health care? If you have a right to it and I have to give it to you. If I have to give it to you, what am I? If I'm compelled

Through the concept of a right To work for free for someone else What am I? I'm a slave I'm a slave Positive rights Only come by the negation Of negative rights

And so You can't have a society that has both You can't If you have a positive right to never be offended a modern day movement, free speech. If there's such a thing as hate speech, right? Hate speech. And you have a right to be free from hate speech.

And the pursuit of happiness in their estimation through some twisted form of logic requires that you never be offended. Well, then I must intrude upon someone else's negative right to free speech. Any material good that you have a right to, any material good, then I have to confiscate the property of someone else to pay for that material good. And the crudest to form, you have a right to house, then I have to take his house and give it to you. And then I have to take that person's house and give it to that house, that person. Too crude, okay, we can just use the fluidity, the liquidity of money.

Then I have to take money from this person to build or buy you this house. That's the same thing. It's just done through the abstraction of money. You can't have both. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice always celebrated today, looked at one point and said, you know what, we don't have the best constitution. I could play that sound. We don't have the best constitution, the United States.

She said the South African Constitution beats our Constitution in so many ways. The South African Constitution, which is basically an echo of the Soviet Constitution. It's chock full of positive rights. And so when Joe Biden says, you have a right to health care. On my watch, health care is a right and not a privilege in this country. It sounds, it's, in the course of the conversation we've had this entire hour, it sounds atmospherically great. Oh, everyone, dignity, born a certain, you know, you should have a right to health care.

Where does it come from? It comes from someone else's negative rights. We, what made us unique was our focus on a constitutional republic with checks and balances, three branches of governance, within the legislative branch, a house and a Senate, all designed to slow down and stymie power. But more importantly, yes, even more importantly, Underneath that, the constitutional part of our republic resting on a foundation of negative rights. This isn't simply pandering to say that health care is right. Oh, it is pandering.

He doesn't even mean it because he's not trying to extend health care to everyone. It's not simply pandering. And I'm not overstating this. It's philosophically evil. Why is it philosophically evil? Because he might as well tweet, I do not believe you have. have a right to free speech. I do not believe you have a right to property. I do not believe that you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe you are a slave,

designed to help me transfer, giveaways to the public in exchange for votes. Today, it's a right to a health care. Tomorrow, it's a right to a home. Then it's a right to a job, but probably even more immediately, a right to leisure. And before you know it, we have no rights. You do not end up. home or with that job or with that vacation you only end up with giving away your true freedoms your negative rights it's not simply a pander it's philosophically evil story number three the NBA cup all in the NBA has announced that they will start an in season tournament for the NBA cup. And as opposed to other sports personalities who think this is stupid or funny, worthless and not worth your time, I'm all in. Here's how it would work. The NBA is divided,

I believe, into six group stages, three in the West, three in the East. Those groups have five teams each. In the group stage, you play. play everyone in the group, I believe twice, and from that, the best record in each division will advance to a one-and-done NCAA tournament-style race for the cup, six teams plus two wild cards, eight teams in the one-and-done tournament. The NBA regular season games will double count towards group stage games, and I believe as well, tournament games in arriving the NBA Cup. So teams won't be playing more games.

The last thing we need is more games in the NBA. But what it does is it gives meaning to early season, previously meaningless games in the NBA. Now, you know, I'm a soccer fan. So this was easier for me to adopt. But I actually remember when I first adopted soccer, and I had trouble understanding all the different competitions. You know, let's say you're a fan of Manchester City, like I am. You have sort of the big one, which is the Premier League.

That's your league, your season. That's the NBA. That's the NFL. That's Major League Baseball. And it's a season-long quest to win the Premier League. Different than in America, there's no playoffs. You simply play all the games on your schedule. And the team with the best record, the most points, three points for a win, one point for a tie.

wins the trophy, wins the championship. But at the same time the Premier League is going on, you have two tournaments in England. There's the Carabao Cup, which is kind of like no one cares about as much about it. And there's the F.A. Cup. The F.A. Cup is a yearly ongoing tournament that's open to everybody, not just the 20 teams in the Premier League. It's like a little more democratic, a little more meritocratic. Anyone can win. The little guy's in there. It's an open format.

And they play one and done style all year long until they arrive at the FAA Cup final, which is also everything comes to a culmination in the spring. So in, I guess it would be like May, bleeding into June, you could be playing for the Premier League championship, still trying to win games to win the point total. You could be in the tournament to win the F.A. Cup, not as prestigious as winning the Premier League, but second domestically in the country to winning it at Carabal Cup, third. And then if you are good, like a top 14 in the Premier League, you qualify for the Champions League, which is all of Europe, Germany, Spain, England, Italy, Netherlands, and so on, in a group stage and in tournament style tournament called the Champions League, which is probably the most prestigious.

I say probably because it depends on who you root for. would rather win their domestic title. Some clubs would rather win the title in Europe. And that's really just based upon what they have or haven't won in the past. But the Champions League is really the most prestigious thing. It's just weirdly, sometimes there's some clubs like Liverpool that could win the Champions League but can never win the Premier League in England. So when they won the Premier League, I think every Liverpool fan I ever met was like,

I'd rather win the Premier League than Champions League. For me, it's a fan of Manchester City. We win it all. Like how used we? that was never the case until this year when Manchester City won what's called the treble they won the FAA Cup, the Premier League and Champions League

it's a huge honor so I got used to this at first I was like man I don't know you you should only have one thing a year and it waters it down I can't wrap my arms around it but after a while I understood and I started to like it because from a distance you're like oh it's

participation trophies everybody gets a trophy no it's not participation trophies it's just more competition and the best teams can win all of it, like Manchester City did. That's not a participation trophy. That's dominance. So it's like, why did we develop this idea that you can only win one thing a year in America? And I'm not even saying, I'm not like being a Europhile or saying that's wrong.

There's probably something rhythmically to that. Like, it makes a lot of sense, like the season, right? An off season, prepare your roster, which they have as well in soccer. and then, you know, go through the process of the season culminating in one championship. It does have a neat tidiness to it. But especially in sports like baseball or basketball, where you play 162 games and 82 games, what happens is over the course of that, who cares about all these regular season games? I mean, I'm more into baseball than I've been in years because the Texas Rangers are good.

And I am checking every day. That doesn't mean I'll watch every game. I check the box score every day when I wake up. Did the Rangers win or lose last night and read about the game? Watch some. I mean, but that's because my team is in. Like, they're good. If your team's not good,

wow, do those regular season games become absolutely meaningless so fast. And there's nothing more meaningless in the NBA than the regular season. Don't trust me. Ask the players. They don't even play in the games. They're so meaningless. Load management. People don't even think the NBA season starts until Christmas.

It starts in November. Like Christmas is kind of the official kickoff of the NBA. So that means all the games in November and December are basically meaningless. Which is, by the way, when the end season tournament is going to take place. November with the championship in December before Christmas. So you have double meaning for these games. I think it's great. I love it.

You win the NBA Cup. It won't be as prestigious as winning the NBA. championship, but you're starting from a baseline of who cares at all about these NBA games, regular season games. And all you have to do is go up from there a little bit. Oh, this game counts towards the cup. Oh, yeah, I mean, watch that. Maybe the teams will start putting the best players on the floor.

Port of the players get half a million dollars each for winning the NBA Cup. On one hand, I'm like, that's a lot of money. So surely that will incentivize them. On the other hand, you're like, well, how are you? Irvin makes $40 million a year. Like, what's he going to care about another half million? I don't know. But I think come December, like four teams left in the NBA Cup?

Who's in it? Oh, I think I want to watch that. NBA Cup championship? Yeah, I'd love to see that. See who raises the trophy. It's not a participation trophy. Odds are, maybe odds are, it's the same team that's going to head towards the NBA title. But I also like the randomness of it, the one and done, the NBA with its seven-game series.

It's so, honestly, it's tedious, and it's such a filtering mechanism. Look, if you win the NBA tile, you're the best team. Like, it doesn't allow for flukes because of the seven-game series. But I like a little unpredictability, a little underdog mentality. I like a one-and-done. Oh, wow. The number one seed lost to the number seven seed. That's interesting.

Eight seed, whatever. That's interesting. Like the NCAA tournament, but with bigger brands. You know what I mean? I'm in. I love it. I love the innovation. I don't mind the two trophies. I'm in on the NBA Cup. I promise y'all watch more regular season NBA than I did before because of the Cup. All right, that's going to do it for me today here on the Will Kane podcast. I love hanging out with you.

As always, if you think it's so worthy, leave a five-star review. I'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members. You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon. on Music app. Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped

raise $7 million. Visit go.com forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts.