Will Cain Country - Why Is Nikki Haley Still Running For President?

Episode Date: February 26, 2024

Story #1: Will gives the four reasons why former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (R-SC) is still in the race after being blown out by former President Donald Trump in her home state. Story #2: Don't we already have a central bank digital currency? Are President Biden's border policies responsible for the death of nursing student Laken Riley on the UGA campus? President of the Brownstone Institute, Jeffrey Tucker joins to discuss.   Story #3: Is Will College Football color blind? A quiz on the official shades of red within College Football. 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

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One. Why is Nikki Haley St. running for president? Is it because of A, money, donors, consultants? Is it B, raising her profile for 2028? Is it C as an insurance policy for a black swan event against Donald Trump in 2024? Or is it D? She's ready to hop third party. She's ready to take up the label

of no labels. Two, don't we already have a central bank digital currency and the horrible border policy that's led to the death of a college student in Georgia with friend of the Will Kane Show, Jeffrey Tucker? And three, am I college football colorblind? Can I tell the difference between maroon, cardinal, and garnet? A quiz on whether or not I can get the official colors across college football. It is the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel every day at 12 o'clock Eastern time, streaming at Facebook at the Fox News channel.

And then always available on demand, wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast, and available for subscription on YouTube at Will Cain Show. I just got back from Columbia, South Carolina, and I took a bigger loss than Nikki. I said what I said. Fried catfish, some hush puppies, a little tartar sauce and some hot sauce, beats fried chicken. I said what I said. And I am taking a bigger loss than Nikki Haley. Let's get into that debate. And why Nikki Haley is still running for president with story number one.

Nikki Haley lost the South Carolina Republican primary. to Donald Trump by roughly 20 points, 59 to 39. It is her home state of South Carolina, where she was once the governor, where she's been described as one of South Carolina's favorite daughters. And she took a historic loss in South Carolina, historic in that no non-incumbent running for president has swept early primary states the way it's been done now by Donald Trump. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Donald Trump has run a clean sweep. What more, we're looking at historic numbers of turnout. Donald Trump just gathered the largest number of Republican votes in a primary in the history of South Carolina.

What more in still historic proportions, no one, as far as we can tell in modern political history, has stuck around and continued to run for president, despite racking up losses. like Nikki Haley. Getting 40% of the vote in her home state, where once again she was once governor, South Carolina, has been painted as some as a small peric victory for Nikki Haley. Carl Rove was on the Fox News channel that night offering voter analysis and said this reflects a party divided. I respectfully, but strongly disagree. At this point, any other conclusion than the Republican Party. belongs to Donald Trump, is simply spin.

South Carolina is the exclamation point on the idea, on the reality that right now, the Republican Party is Donald Trump. A 20-point loss in your home state where you won't once. Governor can in no way be spun as a victory for Nikki Haley, which leads to the question of why. Why is it that Nikki Haley continues to run for president? people look inside the numbers, I think either lying to themselves or lying to the public about what's actually happening. People have suggested, Nikki Haley has suggested, for one, that people want a choice, that this is not a Soviet-style election with only one choice.

What is glossed over there is that people have made their choice over and over. There's nothing Soviet about losing in a constitutional report. public at the voter booth, with the will of the people, having spoken against Nikki Haley. Secondarily, Nikki Haley has said that she is the political outsider set against the Republican establishment that wants her to leave the race for president. I don't know in what world. I haven't had that explained to me in some way that makes sense how Nikki Haley is the political outsider, what Donald Trump is the Republican establishment. And thirdly, although perhaps a little more granular, Nicahalia said that she is the candidate for the youth.

She is tomorrow. And Donald Trump, with his age, like Joe Biden, with his frailty, represents yesterday. Well, youth vote in South Carolina looks like the following. The strongest turnout for Donald Trump was in the age of 17 to 29. Although it only makes up 6% of the electorate, Donald Trump got six. 71% of the vote, according to exit polls, among voters age 17 to 29. There's no spin. There's no lie.

There is no narrative that you can set that leads you to any other conclusion, but the South Carolina is an exclamation point on the fact that the Republican Party belongs to Donald Trump. Now, I have friends, many friends, who will hear that statement and consider that ad. and I find myself continually surprised at the idea that an accurate depiction of reality is somehow internalized as pom-poms and cheerleading. You cannot say you are someone opposed to Donald Trump. Accurately, you cannot actively change reality if you cannot accurately describe reality. And there is no reality where Nikki Haley represents Republicans.

That doesn't mean there aren't some people out there that would vote for Nikki Haley. She won the counties around Charleston and Columbia, more urban, college-centric, educated, more well-off counties in South Carolina. And I know many people who would tell me they simply can't vote for Donald Trump that they are for Nikki Haley. But Nikki Haley is a blank slate. She is Joe Biden. I don't mean that ideologically, although I think they share some similarities, most notably, when it comes. to measuring the cultural winds of the moment and bending to what is the path of least resistance, what will get you the least amount of scorn, even if it cost you the truth.

I think she also shares some similarities with Joe Biden in her willingness to engage in military adventurism, seeing the United States roll in the world as the global police. But what I mean by Nikki Haley, as a comparison to Joe Biden, is that she doesn't represent anything other than a response. to Donald Trump. If you ask most people on the left, do they like Joe Biden? You probably don't have to wait but one or two sentences until they bring up the name Donald Trump. If you ask most people why they like Nikki Haley, you probably only need to wait one or two

sentences until they once again bring up the name of Donald Trump. Everything in American politics is as much as we would like to make it about ideology and much as we would like to make it complex is simple and comes down to two words. For the better part of almost a decade, but easily eight years, American politics has been Donald Trump. And those that vote for Nikki Haley are doing so for the same reason that the left votes for Joe Biden as a response to Donald Trump. But it's not enough. It's not enough to shine a light on a path to victory for Nikki Haley. So then why is she running for president?

Why is she still running for president? I'm going to offer you four reasons, from least likely to most likely, on why Nikki Haley is still running for president. Number one, it's about money. Nikki Haley has the strong support of the donor class. She has all the money she needs to stick around. And the donor class doesn't seem to be flowing away from Nikki Haley despite racking up losses in Iowa, New Hampshire, in South Carolina. She's got consultants around her getting paid. she has got the infrastructure to continue to tell her that there's a path to the presidency,

to hang around the hoop, to see what happens, grab a rebound, you've got the money, and there's many with a vested interest. This is the opinion of my Fox and Friends co-host, Rachel Campos Duffy. By the way, as an aside, as a quick parenthetical, I mentioned that the only person that took a bigger loss in South Carolina than Nikki Haley was Will Cain. Because along with my Fox and Friends co-host, Rachel Campos Duffy, and Pete Hegseth, I entered into unpopular waters. I did so knowingly, but I feel firmly grounded in the truth. I said the following on Fox and Friends.

I'm going to say something controversial before we go. Sure. Fried fish over fried chicken. Oh, my goodness. Oh, I wouldn't say that. It's the most, I dare you to go fried catfish. Walk out this building and say that. Fried chicken.

That is a joke. I think some of America out there is going, you know what, Will's right? No, you should resign. Tartar sauce, hot sauce, over fried chicken with some hushed puppies. Please let Will know, what's your Twitter hanner, Will? I have taken a less popular position. However, I bet you I'm polling at a good 35%. You're pulling at Nikki Haley levels.

That'll go great for you. I said what I said. Fried catfish over fried chicken. Let's check in on the. results. Two days, there's been a poll put out on both Instagram and on Twitter. Did I take a bigger loss than Nikki Haley? So you're close. If you look here at your screen, fried fish took 33% of the poll. Fried chicken

took 67%. So you're right around what you're talking about. Well, that's a bigger loss than Nikki Haley. That's a 34 point loss for me. Her loss was roughly 20. Well, I have an argument, but let me hear from the people two of days. What are they saying about why it's fried catfish over, or fried chicken over fried catfish? Well, this person is just like, Will, what are you smoking? Like, you, that's so wrong. No, fried chicken. Strong argument. And then you can read this one here if you want to. G. Vartouli says, I love fish so much more than chicken, so fried fish any day over fried chicken.

Oh, some support amongst the people. T.J. Rhodes says fried catfish over fried chicken and fried chicken over all other fried fish, T.J. Rhodes, is on to something. And I know that this is a take that was incredibly unpopular when it comes to polling, but I found some support in the comments from people like Missy. Will is right. It's a Texas thing. But I do find myself surrounded on this show by people like tinfoil Pat and young establishment James Laverty and from the Northeast to a days. And my suspicion is, you're going to all. all cast your vote with the masses, that you're going to ride the popular wave, that you are all fried chicken. Quickly, let me get the votes on the show. Tinfoil, Pat, can you make a vote

technologically today here on the Will Kane show? Pat is off writing other conspiracies right now, but I think we don't have him on the horn right now. I think he's like in his den kind of writing out new things. But I wouldn't guess, I'll go first for myself. I'm with you on this. I'm fried fish all the way be honest, I'm a Northeastern. You know, I'm from New England. So, yeah, fried fish. All right. There's one vote for Will. Young establishment, James. I don't have too much of a say since I have the same salmon chicken steak every day for lunch or dinner, maybe a tuna wrap. So kind of split. I'd rather probably have a Popeye's fried chicken sandwich than really anything. But I think the more pressing topic was that the distraction

of the two buttons down on live TV kind of distract me away from the argument itself. Wow. Called you out. Two buttons down, but Bert Reynolds had not really made an appearance. I don't think my chest hair was starring on Fox and Friends, but I was two buttons down, and I had a debate before we took to the air. Should I risk Bert Reynolds or should I risk door-to-door Bible salesman? Because my shirt has, like many men's shirts, the second button in the awkward spot. Do I want to appear as though I'm trying to make Fox and Friends sexy, or do I want to appear as though I'm knocking on your door,

asking, hey, has anyone spoken to you recently about Jesus? So I didn't know which way to go and I did go two buttons down. Also don't know which way that would poll. I know that tinfoil pad is somewhere on a whiteboard with lines going everywhere to make a very passionate argument that I am wrong and that it is fried chicken. Quickly, that my argument before we return to Nikki Haley is as follows. Most people haven't had good fried catfish, understandably. You don't like walk around in a big city with a great amount of options for fried catfish. I happen to like cornmeal. I happen to be from a rural area of Texas.

I happen to grow up around Lake Texoma. And when you get tied into a place that knows how to do catfish, it simply beats. And I've had some of the best fried chicken. I'm telling you right now, I've had sweet tea brined fried chicken. I'm telling you, that's amazing fried chicken. But I will order anytime an opportunity exists or somebody says, would you rather go to Huck's catfish, or would you rather go to Babe's chicken, I will choose fried catfish over fried chicken.

But I fully understand that I've taken a loss bigger than Nikki Haley, which leads us back to why is she running for president? I offer you reason number two, that she's attempting to raise her profile for 2028. You know, many people wondered during the Republican presidential primary what was in it for Vivek Grandma Swami. Why was Vivek Grandma Swami running for president? One of the things that you can learn from his race for presidency is he can change the dialogue. He can change the conversation.

He probably never had a real opportunity to win the nomination, but he did raise the name profile of a vague Ramoswami when it comes to Republicans. Nikki Haley has stuck around long enough that she is constantly in the news cycle. Her name recognition, her curating have increased. Now, there are people that will say, yeah, but she's taken on some negatives among the Republican base. she'll be thought of negatively as constantly pating herself as an alternative to Donald Trump. And if her rhetoric continues to get more combative, her negatives will only rise. I happen to think that memories are short. I don't know that that will last through 2028.

And she has some strategic upside to keep her name in the conversation that she has, by prospect of losing, maybe increased her opportunity in 2028. But I don't think that's why she's still running for president. That takes us to 2024. Last week here on the Will Kane show, Bill Himmer joined us. We had a conversation about a conversation he had with Nikki Haley on America's newsroom. Bill Himmer asked her if she's attempting to be an insurance policy against something

happening with Donald Trump. What that something may be, who knows right now, or at least for the past several months, the supposition has been that it will be something in a courtroom. One of these indictments, that has not turned out to be the case, one of these cases that turns into a conviction changes the equation for president. But it's getting harder to see, first of all, how anything derails Donald Trump. Certainly an indictment didn't do so. His poll numbers go up.

What would happen with a conviction? Do we have any evidence to believe, at least among the Republican base, in a primary, that anything else would happen but to see his numbers go up? There's other potential black swan events. That was described by Byron York on Fox and Friends, a Fox News contributor and columnist at the Washington Examiner. Byron York said, who knows? It could be anything.

That's what a black swan event is, something unforeseeable. People have talked about. How is it that with so many, first of all, opposed to Donald Trump, So much in the infrastructure of the United States political system, not just positioned against Donald Trump, but throwing everything they've got at him. And a anti-Trump base lathered up into a froth, how something hasn't happened to Donald Trump or attempted to take him out. Yes, physically. Assassination from a race for president. He's also 77, so you could be saying, well, what about his own health trouble?

Could something come up? Whatever it may be is Nikki Haley positioning herself for as an insurance policy. Hang around the hoop. See what you get. See what kind of rebound comes your way. However, even if something happens, I don't see the Republican base. While memories are short when it comes to 2028, memories are crystallized when it comes to 2024. I don't see any scenario where the Republican base or Donald Trump sits there at a convention,

Unable to run for president says, we now must all rally behind Nicky Haley. I think they would find another name for 2024. Which leads me to the fourth option and the one that I find the most likely. Nikki Haley has said she will stick around through at least Super Tuesday. This weekend I had on Fox and Friends, the chair of no labels. His name is Joe Cunningham. He's a former Democratic congressman from South Carolina. And Joe Cunningham said the following when I asked him about,

about Nikki Haley. There's been conversation, there's been speculation about Nikki Haley as a potential no labels candidate. There's also a lot of talk about Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney. Who will be your candidate on the no labels ticket? Well, I mean, the truth is we're talking to a lot of spectacular people right now, and we're not ready to unveil those folks just yet. This has been a project to essentially give Americans another choice if they're unhappy with

the presumptive nominees, which, you know, it appears it's going to be Trump versus Biden right now. Biden right now. But we don't know, Nikki Haley, she's going to have remaining in the race. You can't count her out completely. And hats off to her for staying in it and for sticking with it. But we're looking for great quality people, folks that have broad appeal to independence, Democrats, Republicans. And, and yeah, I mean, Nikki Haley is somebody we'd definitely be interested in. Nikki Haley is definitely someone we'd be interested in at no labels. This to me is the story of 24. Joe Manchin said he will not run for president. Would Nikki Haley as a third party? This could swing a presidential election. This could be Ross Perot of the 1990s. If it's somebody like

Joe Manchin, if it's a Democrat, it could rob the presidency or swing the presidency in the favor of Donald Trump. And Democrats know that. That's why, and I discussed that with Joe Cunningham, no labels has been threatened by Democrats with investigations, with the potentiality of the DOJ. I want to have a deeper conversation here on the Will Cain Show, perhaps later this week, with Joe Cunningham, about no labels. But if that candidate is somebody like Nikki Haley, that could swing the presidential election in the favor of Joe Biden. To me, as I add up why she's still running for president, this makes the most sense that she switches sometime after Super Tuesday to no labels. That is my best guess at why Nikki Haley is still running for president. Do we not already have a central bank digital currency?

And what do we do with the border policy that has resulted in? A policy, definitely, a policy has resulted in the murder of a young student at the University of Georgia. That's come up in just a moment with Jeffrey Tucker here on The Wilcane Show. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly raised. of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast.com. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his all-star

panel and much more. Available now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. digital currency and the horrific story out of the University of Georgia where a young woman is murdered by what appears to be an illegal immigrant. That's coming up just now here on the Will Kane show with story number two. Joining us now is Jeffrey Tucker. He's the president of the Brownstone Institute. You can follow him at Jeffrey A. Tucker on X. He's a friend of the show here on the Wilcane show. We're glad to have him once again. What's up, Jeffrey? Well, terrible things as always. terrible things. We've got to be optimists, but we will work through some negativity here.

Best to be, Kim. I am interested in hearing your perspective on what happened in Georgia. You know, for the details, young nursing student at the University of Georgia, 22 years old, goes for a run around the campus. She runs around a reservoir that's on campus. From what we know, she's attacked by what appears to be an illegal immigrant. What I say appears to be, because there was some question about confirming his status. And I think most of that, is caught up in semantics or policy gray areas of whether or not he's claimed asylum. But that process has been perverted and corrupted and distorted beyond recognition. So it's, in my mind, somewhat semantic. But she's murdered.

And we had former directors of the Customs and Border Patrol of Homeland Security on this weekend talking about there was at least three different opportunities, Jeffrey, where this could have been stopped. He could have been denied entry at the point of entry, kept him in Mexico. He could have been kept in detention in Texas where he was released because of overcrowding. And he was arrested in New York at one point for an alleged crime. He wasn't ultimately charged. But he came into contact with the system at least three times and still remained free, free to commit crime in the United States. You're a libertarian, I believe, is a fair description, Jeffrey. There is a debate within paleo-populist libertarians about.

immigration and illegal immigration. I'm curious your thoughts on what happened in Georgia. What's happening right now should not be called immigration any more than the COVID response should be called public health. We've got something completely different operating in this country. This is maybe goes best by the name anarcho tyranny, which is to say no law enforcement for some and extreme law enforcement for others. The immigration system has been wildly abused over the last several years, really, as to become like an agent of chaos. This is not immigration traditionally understood as we've always favored and liked for our entire history of this country. This is something else that's using demographics to manipulate political outcomes and introduce chaos.

I would come to this conclusion very reluctantly because I've always been a big champion of immigration, obviously, and I still am, but the strange thing is that legal immigration has never been more difficult and illegal immigration has never been easier. And these two realities are happening at the same time. And, you know, the crime problem is, is an extension of this. You brought demographic issues. You know, on the left, it's often dismissed as, oh, are you going into the conspiracy of the Great Replacement Theory? On the right, anecdotally, when I speak to some of my friends are not as politically plugged in, they wonder, how does this mechanically swing elections? Of course, we know that the census does not limit itself to citizens, but it counts

total headcount. That would benefit anywhere. There is an illegal head count in the United States, but that would seem to benefit not just places like New York. It would benefit places like Texas. So what is the electoral play, if that's a motivation on the left, for allowing this unfettered illegal immigration? Well, you know, part of it, I think, is just, as I mentioned, it's a policy of chaos and how it's going to be used in the future. We don't entirely know. But as we know, what happened after the COVID response, the lockdowns were really an important factor here.

We saw a mass exodus from blue states to red, which would increase the electoral power of the red states and deny the ruling class. the electoral majority they would need to secure their reign forever. So allowing this vast immigration, you know, it does introduce the possibility of manipulating census outcomes. It also, and Elon Musk proved this, and I was shocked by it, there is a greater degree of liberality in the voting system to enable people to vote in elections, in state elections, local elections, and even federal elections, under some conditions. So while it might be technically true that you have to be a citizen to vote, it's a question

of what is the standard you're going to be using for that? Like, how do you demonstrate that, especially on absentee ballots? So if you can manipulate that, you know, the standard by which you judge, whether somebody is or is not a legal voter, then you can introduce potentially millions of people into the voter rolls that actually don't belong there. So, you know, the devil's in the details of these kinds of cases. So I mentioned that you're a libertarian. I don't know. Libertarians love to divide themselves based upon philosophical preferences into so many different microcosms, tribalism within libertarianism, paleo, populist, anarcho. I don't know your particular brand of

politics, Jeffrey, which you can tell us, but I want to say something, I want to describe for you something that I think for some odd reason has become controversial, but to me is simply historically consistent. In my mind, immigration policy should work with the following priorities, closed borders, controlled immigration status, no illegal immigration, obviously at the mercy of the ability for enforcement, but no illegal immigration in a very strong deportation state should you be caught as an illegal immigrant. Secondarily, legal immigration should be a process that factors in skill, merit, contribution to society and the preservation of American culture. That is the controversial part that somehow I think is historically just grounded in fact.

The founders and then subsequent implementation of immigration policy in the United States always thought about assimilation, always thought about bringing people in. their ability to assimilate and in numbers that allowed them to assimilate into what is now, also a controversial thing to say, a greater culture of the United States of America. Sure. That would be a sane immigration policy in my mind. How would you structure immigration? So what you just said, Will, it just sounds like good common sense regardless of ideology. I think what you said is absolutely true.

And look, I have to admit my own naivity about this in the past. I was a little bit of, you know, of an open the borders kind of person, but, but I've learned that this is, you know, potentially very invasive of the rights and liberties of Americans, which, you know, we do have a government. We do have borders and their purpose is really to maximize the rights and liberties of the citizenry of that political commonwealth. It should not be controversial. And American immigration policy has always been about that. You know, there's a great liberal policy in the 1880s. And there's a great liberal policy in the 1880s. was tightened in 1923 in ways I don't think was good. It was loosened again in 1968 in ways that I think is kind of discriminatory. But anyway, as you say, there's always been the issue of how do you allow maximum immigration and within the context of integrating yourself into our political community in ways that are not disturbing of the aspirations of the Commonwealth. I mean, this, and there are various ways you can apply that.

And there have been various ways in which that's been applied. But the way you don't, the worst possible case for applying this is to make it almost impossible to immigrate legally, which is, it's much more difficult now than it used to be. At the same time, you just open the floodgates for this invasive force, you know, with millions of millions of people coring in, getting on welfare, living in, you know, high-end hotels in New York City like we have today. This is a policy designed for maximum civilization disturbance, maximum political upheaval and the introduction of chaos.

And I tell you this will, you know, the great thinker F.A. Hayek, for whom I think you have some affection, warned against this very policy in the 1970s. who was asked about this sort of a huge increase of Islamic immigration to the UK. And he said, well, while I'm in favor of immigration, I think, you know, the human being is an asset. You don't, you have to be careful not to introduce too many profound disturbances to the political community that can cause a grotesque reaction that can lead to authoritarianism and cause people to throw away essential rights and liberties. favor of doing something about what's perceived to be an invasion of an alien, mass alien

force. And so he wrote this in a letter. And that's what, when I read that letter, it began to this, this was like about maybe, say, 10 years ago I read this letter. And I maybe stop and think, you know, I mean, I don't think anybody would accuse Hayek of not caring about, about liberty, right? But even he was warning that this can actually be profoundly disturbing to a political Commonwealth. And sure enough, here we are. We've gone through years of this very kind of thing in the United States. And it's going to permanently affect the demographics of our political community in this country. And I've been very reluctant to come to this position. But a responsible thinker, libertarian or not, really has to think about the long-term implications of this. And they

don't look good. Well, Hayek would be appalled at present-day UK then. And by the way, you, Jeffrey, so there are many my favorite things about you. You're a man of contradictions. You know, your patrician accent. You're certainly well-learned and well-read and your bow-tie and yet you're dipping skull at the same time. But my favorite thing about you is that you is your humility. I really, I really mean that. I love that. I'm learning. I'm changing. It's my favorite thing about you, Jeffrey Tucker. You know, so I want to move to this. Well, first of all, this will serve as a transition. This story is being reported on the mainstream media

with leaving the details out that this man was, you know, most likely an illegal immigrant. Sure. And, I mean, why are we surprised? To the moment that we're broadcasting right now, I don't think Joe Biden has made a statement about it. He may have, I want to have some humility about whether I missed it. But, I mean, like, if this were a crime that fit, you know, as an anecdote into a policy, that he wanted to champion, he would have been there immediately. A gun crime or race crime, whatever it may be, it's been 72 hours.

We would have, and this is a crime tied to a policy, and we'd hear nothing, which just tells you everything you need to know about priorities and importance and reveals, I think, to some extent, the underlying policy. But back to the media and how they're reporting it, I want to transition to the column you wrote where I do think this is fascinating. You wrote about Google. We've all been talking about Google's AI and how it's just. turned reality into a woke reality, history into a woke history.

And you talk about when they launched, their motto was do no evil. Which, if that were the end of the story I agree with you, that would be like super weird. Like, why are you saying your motto is do no evil? I wasn't thinking about evil. So why are you telling me that your motto is do no evil? But what's even making it more weird is, as you wrote, in 2015, when they changed to alphabet, they dropped the motto, do no evil. So that's really weird as well.

also, oh, if you were saying it before, but you're not saying it now, what are you saying? You know, it's the strangest thing. I remember, I remember those days, and Google came along, and that was their slogan. I remember thinking at the time, that's a strange thing for a company to say, and I wrote in my article that if a donut shop opened down the street, but the slogan, we won't poison you. You know, that would already, you know, raise some questions. I don't want to go to that donut shop. I don't understand this for a very long time, but Google was, in fact, established with a grant from the Defense Department or DARPA, why these guys were at Stanford University, and it's been up to no good for a very long time. And my friend Jay Batacharya wrote the other day on X. He said, you know, I'm not sure when I exactly lost trust in Google's search engine, but it might have been around, say, 2017 or so.

And that was about the time that I began to lose trust too, but the last two weeks have been so enormously interesting with the announcement of Jim and I, you know, the great AI program and users went after it and started trying to generate images of found new fathers and Vikings and this kind of stuff and could not come up, could not get Gemini to draw a picture of a white person. It was very strange. And since that time, it's just been one scandal after another. AI program is it's generating crazy results, smearing, you know, conservatives with fake bad book reviews with their books and trashing Republicans and extolling the glories of Democrats. So the bias that you got doesn't quite describe it. But what's interesting about this is that it seems like, you know, their artificial intelligence engine is so bad, but here's the key. It's not an anomaly. So what we're learning from their AI system is the truth about the algorithms behind Google itself. So it's kind of revealed the full truth about Google.

This is very disturbing because Google actually has 96% of the search market, which is just a near monopoly on search, which means that everything that everybody's using it for is wildly distorted. I mean, I run Brownstone Institute, which is now. I'm not even quite three years old, I look at the way Google works, and I'm just amazed that we're getting web traffic at all. I mean, it's so biased and so designed to manipulate the public mind, you know, at the behest probably of some very powerful people in government. They're working very closely together.

I mean, I'm so sorry to report this because I, you know, I went for years thinking that Google was like a scrappy, wonderful libertarian-oriented tech company, you know, everybody just in favor of free information for everybody in free speech, that turns out not to be true. And that's generally not true of vast portions of big tech and vast portions of the mainstream corporate media today. Both are involved in this kind of blob style censorship program designed to manipulate cultural and political outcomes. It's so strange, Will, for me to hear myself say this, because I could tell you, I never, If somebody had said those words to me, four years ago, I would have said, oh, you're one of those weird conspiracy theorists.

I don't think that way. I don't believe what you just said. And here I am saying that very same thing. But, you know, the evidence is nowadays overwhelming that I have lost trust in so many of the institutions that I once believed in. And not because I've been converted to a new, you know, politics, is because I've looked at the evidence. The evidence is overwhelming.

You know, our innocence is lost these days. You're exactly right, which I don't think as many people as should have treated this AI philosophical programming revelation as the revelation it is into the rest of Google. This isn't just about images. This is about the search that we all use and the results that we're getting, which help us understand reality. That same ideology is going to be right there in the algorithm of your search. on Google. Absolutely. That's right. And people have their cell phones, which is like, you know, their best friend in a way. They never, you know, never leaves their pocket or their purse. But, but, you know, the Samsung and the iPhone are both set to default to Google search, which is a kind

of setting that Google paid tens of billions of dollars to get from both these companies. And how many people, I mean, really, realistically, how many people know to go to their preferences and their properties on the on the browsers they're using on their on their smartphones and change it to something else i mean i it's got to be less or less than fewer than one percent of users would even think to do that so this is sort of wired into our lives and people are just unaware of the extent of the manipulation of the way we think about reality it's it's a very serious matter and in one of the things that always made us feel better, made me feel better. I don't know about you in the past when it comes to tech,

is the idea that before Facebook there was MySpace, you know, before Google there was Yahoo. And what that made us believe is that the kid in his garage could disrupt the gigantic behemoth that perhaps has gotten corrupted. But I'm not sure we can have faith in that future anymore. I don't know that there is a kid in the garage that can take down Facebook, that can take down Google, not because we've lost genius, but because we've lost an even playing field. Well, you said it very well, and thank you for saying that. I hadn't quite thought of it that way, but you're exactly right. We came of age in a digital world where we thought it had even the playing field,

anybody with a good innovation could disrupt anything else. Yeah, MySpace went away. Facebook came along. We thought Facebook was going away. Google came along and disrupted, you know, the prevailing search engines. We thought something better was coming. So we were convinced of this process. What we had not anticipated, in which I don't think we fully.

realized is the extent to which all these companies have become sort of state-protected monopolies that are so woven into the core of our lives, they're going to be very difficult to disrupt. And, you know, the patent system is now created a sort of a thicket, a legal thicket for any disruptor that comes along, the copyright systems. And also the extent to which the deep state is woven into the fabric of their operations. You know, when Elon Musk, took over Twitter, he said, well, he discovered that many people working there were, in fact, you know, sort of moonlighting with the FBI. Believe it, he said at some point, I don't care what your conspiracy theory is about Twitter

1.0 is worse than you think, right? He said that. It's kind of, you know, makes the imagination go wild. But this is the reality. And, you know, Supreme Court is going to be looking into this within the, you know, the coming weeks. I think the date is March 18th. They're going to start hearing oral arguments about this, whether and to what extent government can use these third-party institutions to manipulate the press, whether it's major media or social media or tech companies,

to, in effect, not just censor a dissonant voices, but to push out a prevailing propaganda line that is loved by the CIA or FBI. So the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this. And we're probably up to 10,000 pages worth of documents from discovery showing that, yeah, the problem is real. And the Supreme Court absolutely needs to deal with it. We do have a First Amendment in this country, which is supposed to guarantee that the way we speak,

the information we get is not supposed to be so heavily manipulated by government agents to the point that we become like a Soviet-style system. And yet we're becoming that way, and the Supreme Court's going to weigh in on it. I hope that they decide the right way, because that decision goes the other direction. This is very early stages, by the way. They're going to be looking into an injunction those passed by the Fifth Circuit. And if it doesn't go our way, it's going to give a free hand to all these government agencies that have been routinely manipulating information outcomes and public propaganda now for years.

It's going to give them a free hand to continue doing this. And at that point, I don't know what we're going to do. We're going to monitor those Supreme Court cases, which begin, some of them begin, by the way, this week here on the Will Cancho. So last thing I want to hit with you, Jeffrey. So you mentioned Brownstone Institute. You guys have an article up about central bank digital currencies. This is the idea that we'll all move to sort of a cryptocurrency. that is controlled by the government.

And the fear, I believe, is that it is a direct path to a social credit system, government control over our monetary system, but also then the implementation of social behaviors as a way, as an enforcement mechanism to get us to do what they consider to be virtuous or the right behavior. So I just want to run this by you. COVID taught us that human beings are motivated. by fear, perhaps secondarily to fear, human beings are motivated by the path of least resistance. We run like water, and we will trade away, we as a group, as a herd, will trade away privacy

for convenience. We've done it over and over. We do it every day. We give away privacy every day for an easier life. And I'm wondering if we haven't already done so when it comes to the CBDC. See, I believe something like 70% of in-store and obviously online transactions at this point are credit card-driven, Jeffrey. Very few people. Cash has taken on a much diminished role in society.

Our bank accounts, it's not as though we have safety deposit boxes full of cash. Our bank accounts are ones and zeros. They're computerized. They're all in a system. And to believe that the government doesn't know where all my money is, or, could find out as quickly as they desire is extremely naive. All you have to do is watch a crime documentary. Local police can figure it out in about 24 hours, much less the FBI or higher levels of the Department of Justice. And I'm just wondering, like, we've already done this

in the name of convenience. We've already all traded away, essentially, privacy and into digital currency. What's the difference? Like, when they come along and they issue a CBDC, how does it actually change anyone's life, I know what the dystopian vision of it is, but in the short term, everybody's going to react with, aren't we already kind of doing this anyway with Apple Pay and my bank and my credit card? Okay. What's important here, Will, is that you're describing a situation when they can observe what you choose to do.

Under a CBDC, what they can do is direct what you can do with your money. So the money itself becomes programmable. So this unit of currency can be used for food. This can be used for housing. And if you use your food budget for your housing budget, it can be cut off. So the money becomes programmable and directable. That's a different level of control. And, of course, you can be shut off, too.

Or you can be shut off for some things and not other things. So you get a situation where the central masters can control how you use your money. I mean, here again, we're a little bit of. on this pathway right now with the tax system, you know, we have health savings accounts so you can only use for certain purposes and other accounts you can only take out when you're 65 and that sort of thing. But this is very rudimentary. You expand this to every element of your personal finances so that every aspect of your spending is directed, not just in terms of how you use the money, but when you use it too. So a certain amount of infusion of funds you get,

you know, like you did during COVID, they dropped, you know, $4,000 into your bank account. If you can make that money expire by, say, the end of the year or the end of two years, so that it becomes demonetized after a certain period of time, that's a different level of control. So it's not just what you use your money on, but when you can use it. That gives them full control over a velocity of money, the rate at which it changes hands, which gives them new powers over monetary policy, and then what you're using the money on. So you can sort of redirect the path of inflation.

That's going up in price, that's going down in price, based on the central controls. It's absolutely dystopian, but it is possible now technologically to do this now. It's a question of how are they going to manage the transition to this? There's no question that this is the ambition, all right? So, and once again, this is another conspiracy theory that turns out to be true. If you told me five years ago that it would be on this podcast saying this kind of stuff

I would have said about the now me, that man's insane, but all the documents are there with the executive orders are in place. There's no question the ambition is there. The only question is what is the transition mechanism they're going to get from our current dollar system, which is, as you say, heavily compromised, but nothing like what they imagine is possible. And they have every ambition to do it. Whether they're going to get away with it is another question. One thing I do like is that, first of all, that you're having me on this podcast and you're talking about it. It was never the intention to make this a point of public

controversy. Ron DeSantis has been very vocal against it, Vivek Rameshwami, because he read Aaron Day's book, who's a fellow Brownstone, also talked to Trump, and Trump made a big statement against CBDCs too. So it was never supposed to be a point of public controversy. The goal was just to do this turnkey solution, and we all just kind of went along with it. But now the word is getting out and it's become a point of controversy, which I think might slow them down just a bit. So part of me recognizes the step, and it would, in theory, be a large step between adoption of CBDC and then adoption of a policy of how to use CBDC to control behavior and spending. But the other part of me hears you, well, it's not a big step because they've already laid out

their intentions and motivations. And then beyond that, logically you'd say, when is the government ever granted themselves an ability or a power that they didn't ultimately avail themselves of? And you can even boil that down into more specific. When have they ever developed a weapon that wasn't eventually used? Every weapon is eventually used. So the adoptions for from the adoption step isn't that far from controlling behavior step when it comes to CBDC. Yeah. It's only going to take a financial crisis or something, and they can move on this right away. The same thing with COVID, you know, whether the crisis is real or not.

We know they can do it. Unfortunately, it was Churchill that said never let a great crisis go to waste. Jeffrey Tucker, thank you so much. Always love having you here on the Will Cain Show. Thank you so much, Will. All right. Check him out on X at Jeffrey A. Tucker. And check out the Brownstone Institute. He's awesome. All right, coming up, can I fail or succeed at a college football colorblind test? Can I tell the difference between Maroon and Cardinal and Garnet? How about this? You can play long. And we'll set the over under on how many I get right on a quiz of college football colors. Next in the Will Kent Show. It is time to take the quiz.

It's five questions in less than five minutes. Ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. And my college football colorblind. It's the Will Cain show streaming live at foxnews.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel,

the Fox News Facebook channel. Always on demand at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Hit subscribe and get the audio version. into your feed wherever you get your audio entertainment go over to youtube and grab will kane show put it into your search bar find it hit subscribe you'll get exclusive interviews soon will be putting up exclusive content you get youtube shorts right there for the will kane show last friday on our sports exclusive podcast can on sports my guest was brandon siler who played for the university of florida but he thought about going to usc that would be the university of southern

California. And I said this about the colors at USC. We'll talk about it. It came down to Florida versus USC. And I describe USC's colors as maroon and gold. Ongoing debate here on the Will Kane show. Why do I not understand the various shades of burgundy? I don't and I don't care and I don't apologize. I mean, how many sports fans out there know that Florida State is garnet and USC is cardinal and the Texas A&M Aggies are maroon? I mean, it's all some shade of dark red. could you possibly can you do that can you name the official the official colors of all these college programs we need to do that in the future let's do that let's like name a college program and you tell me with the right terminology the color

of their uniforms so here we are let's do it today right here first of all before we do this and we find out whether or not i'm college football colorblind what's the bet amongst the will cane show establishment james two a days tin foil Pat, like two days. What is the current running odds inside the control room on how many? How many we going to do? Ten? Ten schools? Yeah, I got ten here. Patrick, what do you think? You go first? I think you might get four. You actually got pretty close on the ones that you were talking about on Friday. So, but I mean, they're, I mean, this is going to be really hard. When I put this together, I'm like, this is, this is stupid. Yes. It is stupid. Okay, so four.

I'd set the over under at six and a half Oh much more faith in me from young James I have even more I have more faith than that I'm going to say seven I think you're going to get seven Wow but it's also Big swing two days and I are looking at the Are looking at the answer key

Pat doesn't have an answer key in front of them And when you have an answer key it always kind of looks a little easier Than when you don't know So we'll see Oh maybe five and a half Let's start it let's go see how many I can get I know All right

All right here me yeah Seven four How many will I get? get here we go on our college football color blind quiz what are you doing you just showing me a color yeah oh stanford this is the university of stanford okay well that's easy it's also their name it's cardinal okay that would be one for one correct one number one here we go Texas A&M that's maroon I got to get that right gigamaggy's two for two two for two cool all right well I know this one because I got that. I mean, tinfoil Pat is a fan, and I think he said it numerous times. I don't know if

you'd ask me, like, a couple of months ago that I got right. That's Garnett. Let's go ride Garnett's three for three. Three for three. All right, number four. Okay. Ohio State. That should be an easy one. Ohio State. They talk about it all the time. They do? Yep. I'm actually, uh, I'm debating, is it? Is it... Just for the listeners here. Red, don't tell me. Yeah, it's a deep bright red.

A deep bright red. I'm going to... I'm going crimson. No. Okay, what is it? Wrong answer. It would be scarlet. Ohio State Buckeyes are scarlet.

Yeah, there you go. You're right. They do say that. All right, three for four. All right, number five. Mississippi State. Yep. Well, they're the same as A&M.

I mean, do they call it something different? It's the same damn color. So, do they call it burgundy? Do they call it? I'm going to go maroon again. You got it. What am I at? Four for five?

Yep. All right. It's not looking good for me. This one's kind of easy. I just gave it away. Yeah, it's the crimson-tide, Alabama, so crimson. Yep. There you go.

Patrick, why did you think this was hard? Five for six. I'm, I'm, I'm going to ace this thing. I don't know what's wrong with me. All right. I know this one. South Carolina, I was just there. So they talked about it.

Their colors are garnet and black. That's back to garnet. That is. It's hot. Six for seven. Here we go. Number eight. Well, this is the one I got wrong last week.

I would not have been able to get USC. I don't know. What did I say? crimson last week I don't know but I know no I said yeah I think that's what I said it's cardinal USC is cardinal

that's correct what are we looking at now seven for eight seven for eight oh Wisconsin Wisconsin Badgers what do you got for them well it's

identical to Ohio State but no way they call it scarlet there too um Wisconsin why didn't anybody just say red? I know Nebraska's big red. Nebraska will say red. I'm going to just say Wisconsin says the same thing. Red. Just red? Yeah. Just the color red. Is that too? Why didn't anybody do

that? Why don't anybody just say our color's red? It is red. That's way too generic. What are you talking about? No, it is Scarlet. Scarlet. You had it originally. No. All right. So what am I at? How many are left? All right. Last one. So you're seven for nine. Okay Oklahoma Got it You're hitting close to home They're crimson and cream

That's right Nailed it I beat everyone's expectations Eight for ten I was the closest I win At my guess But you also said there was one or two

That you wouldn't have gotten If you didn't do this last week So maybe a six or seven Correct Yeah Correct Hey real quick What's wrong

Why is You guys laugh at red Like you think red is just generic like you're not fancy enough if you say your color's red. No, that's the whole point of this game is different shades of red. So you can't just be red. But if Nebraska the only school that's just like telling the truth, we're red? Is Georgia just red and black?

Yeah, what is Georgia? They call themselves the red and black, I think, right? Red and black. Yeah, exactly. So Georgia and Nebraska out here not being fancy. Everybody else is being fancy. My high school used, we just copy and pasted all the Georgia logos and Georgia jerseys. Oh, yeah.

We called it Garnet in Black. Like, if I'm thinking, if you ask me, there's, if, shades of depth, you know how, like, I always give Tennessee fans a hard time. They wear, like, Hunter, orange, right? And I'd say, you need to leave your orange out in the sun a little bit, and then you arrive at burnt orange. So you're talking about a deeper shade, right? So from least deep to deep, tell me if I can get in this right, if you think.

So red, then Scarlet, then Cardinal, then Garnet, then maroon. I think that's all of them. Oh, Crimson. Crimson. Crimson, then maroon. Crimson more than Garnet. So Oklahoma's more maroon than South Carolina in Florida State. I think.

I'd say crimson's deeper than Garnet. Or less deep. that like I think garnets deeper less deep yeah you're right like Florida states darker than Oklahoma yeah also yeah the reason I thought this would be more difficult for you is because I'm looking at it at putting it together and all these all these shades of colors are like five different shades and they all look different like if you really sat there and looked at them side by side the garnet of South Carolina is different than the FSUs and the scarlet of Wisconsin is different than Ohio states.

So there's different colors, then, is what you're saying? Slightly, there's slightly different colors. I'm so proud of myself. We've got to go, is red the only one that this applies to? There's yellow, like gold versus yellow. That's a hard one. Like, USC calls themselves gold, right? Or do they say yellow at USC?

I don't even know. I'm not sure. What about Michigan? What's that yellow? Mays. Mays. Mays. Mays.

There you go. That's easy. Yeah. What I'm getting at is we might need to do this with a few other colors, blue, yellow, I'm not sure. All right, that's going to do it for me today here on The Will Kane Show. Be here again tomorrow at 12 o'clock Eastern Time and download us wherever you subscribe to your audio or video entertainment, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Fox News, podcast. I'll see you next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts.

And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at foxtruecrime.com.