Will Cain Country - Will The Debate Matter At The Voting Booth?

Episode Date: September 12, 2024

Story #1: Win or lose? Did the debate really matter for either of the candidates? Will a Taylor Swift endorsement have more of an impact? Story #2: What are the origins of the deep state? How far does it go back? Will sits down with the founder of American Majority and author of the new book, American Leviathan: The Birth of the Administrative State and Progressive Authoritarianism, Ned Ryun. Story #3: The crew discusses if Wyoming or Fresno State? Can the PAC-12 be saved? Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, win, lose. Did the debate matter for Kamala Harris? Did it matter for Donald Trump? Two, the American Leviathan. What are the origins of the deep state? Edgar Hoover and the FBI Woodrow Wilson in the expansion of federal power or Europhiles in the 1870s? We break it down with the author of a brand new book,

American Leviathan, Ned Ryan. Three, what's a bigger brand? Wyoming or Fresno State? What's a bigger brand? Hawaii or San Diego State? UNLV? What's the biggest brands that now that they're on the hunt should be added to the Pact 12?

Plus, somebody's got you. Who's your daddy? Which celebrity owns the influence over your mind? it is the will cane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the fox news youtube channel the fox news facebook page terrestrial radio market to market and always on demand by simply subscribing at apple or spotify you can also subscribe and watch the will can show every monday through thursday 12 o'clock eastern time on facebook or on youtube just head over to YouTube and subscribe to the Will Kane show. You can get past episodes like our breakdown pre-debate

where former House Speaker Newt Gingrich declared that Donald Trump was the best debater of all time. Or yesterday's episode with former Congressman Sean Duffy, where we fact-checked ABC and played the role of Donald Trump, what I would have said in response to many of those questions from David Muir. The Willisha, the boys in New York, had an interesting little text right before the show, Pat said, Taylor Swift has endorsed Kamala Harris. That's one of the bigger names, maybe the biggest name in American culture, outside of the world of politics, whose endorsement means something. Who is the celebrity that owns your mind? Let's bring in the guys in the wish for just one moment. Tenfoil Pat thinks there's got to be somebody for each and every one of us,

that there is a celebrity that has outsized influence over your opinions. And I got to thinking about this before we went to the air. And we can break this down a little bit later in the influence of Taylor Swift on this election. But I'm trying to be real. I don't think I have one. I mean, who would tell me, hey, I really think it would be wise. What celebrity? There might be people in my life who I have.

have big respect for, but what celebrity that I don't know, or even that I've met, maybe, could say, hey, Will, you really should give a second look to Kamala Harris. And that would be influential. I don't think I have anybody. I don't

hold celebrities in as regard as people do like a Taylor Swift. Like, I love what they do, but I don't think I would let anyone influence a political decision over me. It's an easy thing for everybody to say, and I'm sure that everybody jumping into the comment sections on YouTube or Facebook will say something similar to what you've said to a

day's what I'm saying but I do think that like tinfoils little prompt be honest we all have somebody is interesting just because I always like looking in the mirror and try to establish a little bit of self-awareness is there somebody Jerry Jones is there especially especially you're 24 or five young James I honestly think either one of two things has happened And I, and by extension, two of days, have gotten older. And quite honestly, popular culture isn't as meaningful as it used to be. I think that's fair, even when you're in your 30s, two days. There's a window in your life where celebrities just mean more, for whatever reason.

There are points of commonality. You know, you get with your buddies, you talk about it. And if we're being real, we all want to sneer at Taylor Swift and 24-year-old girls. But look, we're all guys that talk about sports. and the reason that we have outsized influence to sports is because it's a point of commonality for us. So the reason we don't care is either because I've gotten old, two of a days has gotten older,

or it's because it legitimately has lost power. Celebrity culture has lost the power it had in the late 90s and early 2000s. But you think you have a name, James. Thomas Edward Brady. Tom Brady, wow. Tom Brady tells you, Tom Brady says,

against all odds Hey I think James you should give a second look to Kamala Harris And you take a step back and go What am I missing What did he see? Really? I'd hear him out

If he endorsed Kamala I'd hear him out Interesting I don't think I'd ever vote But that way But I'd hear him out It's forgivable I don't know

It's understandable You're a New England Patriot fan He's been The father of half a dozen wonderful memories for you throughout your young life to some extent it's not forgivable it is understandable but let's break down today um not just a little bit later in the show who is that person in your life that celebrity that has outsized influence but let's get into the origin so i think this is fascinating of the american deep state you know my gut tells me j edgar hoover 1930s fbi but the

author for a brand new book, American Leviathan, Ned Ryan's going to join us and says it actually predates that. It's much earlier in the formation of America. That's coming up. And a little bit here on The Will Kane Show. But story number one. Does the debate even matter? Yesterday we broke down the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It's my humble opinion that it was a missed opportunity for Donald Trump and that it amounted to a win for Kamala Harris. But is it a win that actually effectuates any change in the race for president? Immediately after the debate, we started to see headlines from places like CNN. And there was an interesting tone to the headline.

For example, they wrote, Harris still faces a tight race despite a strong performance. It acknowledged in their estimation, their subjective judgment, that Kamala Harris had won the debate, but they didn't declare that as a significant event in determining the outcome of the presidential election. And the reason that I think it's notable coming from CNN is that I think Christopher Hitchens, the famous think writer, once said, if Christopher Hitchens wakes up every day and says, you know, I don't believe in God, it's not news. But if the Pope wakes up one day and says,

I'm not so sure about this God thing, it's screaming headlines. It's about the source. If Fox, and let's be real in all self-awareness, if Will Kane says, hey, we have the debate results. Kamala Harris won, but it doesn't matter. Then it comes off as though it's wishful thinking and maybe even spin. But if CNN is laying the groundwork for a disappointment when it comes to the outcome, it makes you wonder, why? A sudden adherence or devotion to the truth or preparation? for too high of expectations. You see, what we've learned is, it's interesting,

I don't know that there's any singular event that matters that much. A lot like we've lost the power of celebrity culture over the past 30 years. We've probably lost the impact of any singular event because we're inundated with events. I mean it was only now two months ago that Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt a bullet through the air at the stage through the ear at the stage of a rally

that's the kind of news event for being real 20 years ago that it would have driven months of news and yet now and this is not about should or should not but is or is, it's a tree falling in the forest. After that assassination attempt, I remember thinking, feeling, and saying, it's over. Of course, that was with a different opponent, Joe Biden, but it's over.

It's a win for Donald Trump. And now it's distant in the rearview mirror, as will be this debate and the determination of this debate. Still, there has been some movement. it is not significant but there has been some movement in the race for president first let's start with the polymarket betting market going into the debate these are the betting odds from bookmakers who will bet on the outcome of the race going into the debate Donald Trump had roughly a 53% odd of winning the election. Kamala Harris, 46% odds. Since the debate, that has flipped.

Kamala Harris now stands at 50%, Donald Trump at 49%. Now, that's a short-term change in the odds as a direct result of the performance in the debate. But if you're watching us on Facebook or on YouTube, you can see that the betting market shifts over the time. It's not so much a weather forecast as much as it is a thermometer of the temperature in the room. It doesn't tell you what's going to happen in November. It tells you where we are today. You want to narrow in on when these betting markets shifted. You can take a look in here at Betfair Exchange. This is the betting markets through the course of the debate. This is again, according to Betfair market. But at the start of the debate, Donald Trump was just under a 52% chance of winning the election, 46.3% for Kamala Harris.

And then the debate starts. And almost immediately, as you have a time clock here from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Almost immediately, 20 minutes into the debate, you see a dramatic drop in the betting prediction for Donald Trump and a dramatic spike in the betting prediction for Kamala Harris. By the end of the debate at 11.10 p.m., betting markets peaked for Kamala Harris at 51.3% and dropped to 47.2% for Donald Trump. That's the short-term impact of the debate on the race for president. Fox News power polls are out. They show the effect of the debate on the election. These were published today by Fox News.

and the important point to focus in on this map, again, if you're watching on YouTube or on Facebook. If you're listening on podcast or on radio, I will explain red, solid Republican, blue, solid Democrat, yellow, toss-up. In the wake of this debate, states like Wisconsin expected to be a toss-up remain yellow. But importantly, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, all moved yellow, all to toss up. And going into this debate, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina were lean Republican. Pennsylvania being at that point, the only real toss up. It seems to suggest that the debate had a real impact where it matters on the United States. battleground states now of course in this debate we saw a tilted playing field we saw an away game

for donald trump we saw unfair moderating we saw fact checks one way four five six for don't trump zero for kamala harris one of the things that was fact checked is when donald trump said they're eating the cats they're eating the dogs they're eating the pets now We said going into the debate, I argued with some of my producers, Tinfoil Pat, this was a mistake if he brings this up, because it's not about, again, well, not he should or shouldn't or whether or not it's true or false, but what is, and what is that it sounds crazy.

It sounds crazy. And she gets to be apoplectic. Talk about extreme and gave us the one place I think of the debate where she cackled, where she laughed. But let's move beyond, what is and let's talk for a moment about what should be what should be is was it true and the mainstream media has dismissed this story as in fact crazy real time in the debate david mure said to donald trump we have called the city manager of springfield i ha ohio about whether or not haishan migrants are

eating ducks geese and cats he said there have been no known reports well here would be my question again for David Muir. When did journalism become simply stenography for politicians? When did that become the source of a fact check? Stenography, like a court reporter, regurgitating the word of a politician. That is what we're looking at with a city manager in Springfield, Ohio. The same politician, same type of politician in Aurora, Colorado denied the existence of Trenda, Aragua, the Venezuelan gang taking over apartment complexes in that city. Of course, it's true. Trenda Aragua has taken over as property managers collecting rent in Aurora, Colorado.

Now, it's interesting what's happened to journalism. Here's what I would say. Testimony on the ground, somebody saying, I heard, is not very valuable. Neither necessarily. I would actually submit this. it is less valuable, one singular testimony, than a city manager saying we have no reports. Okay, but neither are dispositive. Okay, I hate that word, I apologize for using it, but it means it doesn't prove the case.

It doesn't give you the ability to fact check, right? One person, even on video where we've seen a video of police officers approaching a woman kneeling over a cat and somebody off camera going, she's eating the cat, it still isn't proof because we don't see her eating the cat. We don't know whether or not that person standing off camera is trustworthy. We don't see it in the act. But we also don't give credit to the city manager saying it's false, it's fake, it's a hoax, it's viral. And the source of a fact check.

What a real journalist would do is, well, you'd go to the police department. You'd file a freedom of information request about that police body cam video. You'd interview that officer. You'd hit the streets of Springfield, Ohio, and see if there's more than one person, testifying you would judge are any of these single single individuals credible and in the end in determining what not that story is true or false a responsible position would be why is this being brought up is it just salacious is it racist as contended to by CNN to villainize black migrants or is it symbolic of a culture that has been commandeered 50,000 people being inundated with

20,000 migrants, regardless of where they come from if they do not share a common culture. And if you want some evidence that that larger issue, that important issue might be the case, I give you, the governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, has deployed resources and law enforcement to Springfield, Ohio to deal with the problems, he did not say pets being abducted and eaten, 100 of them in a van. But he did say the strain on that community, caused by 20,000 migrants. This is not just, the cats and pets are symbolic of a larger conversation about what's happening in Springfield, Ohio.

And Springfield, Ohio is a larger conversation about what's happening in America with unfettered refugee, asylum, and migrant claims, and also illegal immigration. And that is journalism, not the momentary fact check of your call to a city manager with all the resources of ABC. The point of me talking about that is to set the record straight and also say, no matter what happened on Tuesday night? Well, more's about to happen in September and October. And the long-term end result of that debate is that it won't mean much on the race for the president. What are the origins of the American Leviathan? A conversation with Ned Ryan coming up here on the Wilcane show.

The tunnel tower's countless veterans villages stand as a beacon of hope for those who've sacrificed everything. These facilities are committed to helping veterans achieve stability and independence by providing housing and services based on individual needs. Within the village, residents will find support and community among those who truly understand the meaning of service. With several veteran villages either completed or in development nationwide, the foundation that supporters believe in the power of unity and that no veterans should be left behind. Through its homeless veterans program veterans villages and national case management network the tunnel towers foundation has provided housing and supportive services to over eight thousand veterans since the program's inception so join tunnel

towers in its goal to eradicate veteran homelessness and support those who've given everything to our country by donating $11 a month to t2t.org 95 cents of every dollar that's donated goes directly to helping America's heroes. That's T, the number two, t.org. Donate now. The deep state. It's origins. Next on the Will Cain Show. 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 five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. when you can thrive

by creating a space that does it all for you no matter the size whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options

to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. Pack 12's on the hunt, and they're inviting brands into the conference. Did they invite the right ones? Plus, is there any celebrity? Be real. Be real.

Any celebrity that retains influence over the way that you think? That's all coming up in a little bit here. On the Will Kane Show. We're streaming live on the Fox News Facebook page, the Fox News YouTube page, as we do every day, Monday through Thursday. You can jump into the comments section, participate, become a member of the Willisha.

Subscribe on YouTube. And if you want to listen to us and you're listening on radio, but you want to catch us after the fact or it doesn't match up with your commute that day, just head on over to Spotify or Apple and subscribe to the Will Kane show. Ned Ryan is the author of a brand new book entitled American Leviathan. He has been on our show in the past. We've talked a lot about the deep state, the administrative state, how it can be dismantled. But now Ned has really gone in and he is understood, which I think Ned is not only a curious, it's fascinating that I want to understand from you today, but I think it's necessary. If you are going to dismantle something, you have to understand how it was built. And you're talking about the origins of the Leviathan. Correct. No, great to be with you, Will. It's been something I've thought about, talked about, research for a long time, which has obviously resulted in this book, American Leviathan, birth of the administrative state, and progressive authoritarianism. But really discussing the origins of it.

I think you're right. The American people need to understand was taking place in D.C. today that over the last 110 years roughly, there was something that was begun in this country that had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. I would argue, quite frankly, very un-American, with the rise of the progressive movement in the early 1900s. And I would say a pivotal moment in our history was the 1912 presidential election in which Woodrow Wilson won, but it was generally accepted that the progressive identity. deals for what government should look like in the future was accepted by most of the American populace. And what the progressive status wanted to do was, well, let's just be very honest, they wanted to annihilate the moral and political legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution. They wanted to do away with our Constitution Republic. They deeply resented will the separation of powers, which is a fundamental part of the machinery of our Constitution. And I think the greatest defender of our natural inherent rights that God gave to us. People want to talk about

the Bill of Rights, and I want to get to that at some point. But there was a great debate of the Constitutional Convention between Alexander, Hamilton, James Madison, George Mason. What's the greatest protect of our natural inherent rights? Well, it's the machinery of the Republic. What do I mean by that? I mean the diffusion of power, the separation of powers, because if you have diffused power, there's not enough power, consolidated power, to actually abuse and take away your rights. And I appreciate the Bill of Rights. I'm glad George Mason, the anti-federalist won out on that. But the progressive status deeply resented the machinery of the Republic and the separation of powers because they thought it was a bug, not a feature of our Constitution, because it impeded progress. So what the progressives wanted to do at the turn of the 20th century was really leave behind the Constitution, the Constitution Republic, transfer the real governance of this country to powerful, unelected bureaucrats, build the edifice of the administrative state, which I call the American Leviathan, and allow all of those various powers, executive, legislative, and judicial to be concentrated inside the administrative state in their minds to achieve greater progress for the American people.

And what we end up with when you have consolidated power in the hands of relatively few imperfect people, you end up with authoritarianism. And I really think that's where we're at right now, Will, in which the administrative state over the last hundred years has gotten to the point of dominating the American people, ruling, instead of actually serving and governing the American people as they should be to benefit. So I just want to underline something. you introduce a fascinating conversation that I don't want to belabor but I do want to underline you know Ned I went to law school and in learning about the Bill of Rights is pretty fascinating if you really because we we adore the Bill of Rights we revere the Bill of Rights and many people listening would of course we talk about constantly like freedom of speech is the first amendment amendments being the Bill of Rights to the Constitution but you know it's

interesting when you're in law school and you're learning about the foundation of America the Bill of Rights is a controversial moment because it flips on its head the understanding of America. See, the Bill of Rights lays out a list of things the government cannot do, rights that are protected from the government. And the original vision of the founders was, whoa, we don't do that, because the implication is if it's not listed here, they can do it. And the founders thought, hey, what we've done here is create a document in terms of the Constitution that lays out what the government can do

and the implication is if it's not listed here you can't do it and so a lot of people we're well past this debate obviously Ned but but many people at Tom thought that was a real bad moment for America because it flipped on its head the powers of the government

are they limited by the Bill of Rights or are they prescripted by the Constitution so this is again the debate between Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Mason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton adamantly fought for an enumerated against an enumerated Bill of Rights because he thought there might be the mistake that somehow was only the rights listed in a Bill of Rights that were actually guaranteed to the American people when in fact, Alexander Hamilton was strongly of the opinion that there was no Constitution long enough that could fully state all of the natural God-given rights that

we as human beings have. And that was a huge debate. debate, but in the end, to ratify the Constitution, they had to give that concession to the anti-federalists. In some ways, I'm very grateful for that. But it does kind of bring up the conversation, Will, there are a lot of totalitarian countries around the world that have their bill of rights, which had been annihilated by consolidated power of that totalitarian state. And I just want to put a fine point on this, again, showing the authoritarian nature of progressives. This summer, the SCOTUS overturned the SEC tribunals. I don't know if you were, everybody focused on the Chevron deference being under overturned by SCOTUS.

I think one of the other important decisions they made this summer was saying the SEC tribunal is actually unconstitutional. People go, wait a minute, what are you talking about? Well, inside the administrative state, there are a lot of tribunals for the various departments and agencies that are administrative law courts that actually 90% of the time with the SEC ruled in favor of the SEC. And the Supreme Court said that it's deeply unconstitutional. over the course of how many decades

that these administrative law tribunals have existed because it annihilated the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. And again, it just kind of puts that point on it, even if you have listed out a right to trial by jury in the Seventh Amendment when you consolidate power inside the administrative state makes it kind of a joke.

And I think this is the conversation that we have to have with the American people. Well, I think for a moment there, I almost felt like, Ned, you were, you were quoting or you were giving sort of like improvisational class on Justice Anton and Scalia. Anybody, I don't have the clip to play for the audience right now, but it is an incredible clip. Scalia is sitting in front of Congress, along with, I believe, Justice Breyer, one of the furthest left justices on the Supreme Court, and they're having a conversation about what makes the American Constitution or the American experiment unique.

What's the most important? And I think the question he presents to the congressman is, what's the most important part of the Constitution? And he's like, you're tempted to say the First Amendment or whatever it may be. And he goes, it's not. And to your point, there are a lot of constitutions guaranteeing rights around this world. The Soviet Constitution lists more rights for the American Constitution. Right. He says, it's not these.

Those are what are called parchment guarantees. You can write them down, but they mean nothing in practice. The only thing that protects our rights and practice is what Ned Ryan just. said the diffusion of powers, the separation of powers, the three branches of government, the separation from the Senate and the House, all making it so no one can consolidate power to then trample our rights. And you know, by the way, while he's doing this, Breyer's looking on with admiration, which is pretty honest, interesting and awesome, to just see Breyer's face as Scalia geniusly lays this out. You should go watch it on YouTube, anyone watching or

listening, because he's right. And to your point, the administrative state has become the workaround to the separation of power? 100%. And the amazing part to me, Will, is when you go back and actually research the original people that found the progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Crowley, Robert Lafellette, Theodore Roosevelt, John Burgess, all of these folks, they wanted to do away with that separation of powers. And I tell people what they've done with the administrative state, which resides mainly

inside the Article 2 branch, the executive branch. they took the legislative power, they took judicial power, and they consolidated all into that administrative state, again, primarily resides inside the executive branch. And then what you have is, again, judge, jury execution, or all in one branch, this consolidated power in which the thing that really struck me in this researching for this book, Will, is they truly believe that power should be consolidated for progress. They felt that it could achieve the apotheosis of mankind, which is the deification of us. Herbert Crowley actually said our views on democracy, our belief in democracy, rise and fall on the perfectability of mankind. And so they

wanted to consolidate this power to advance mankind to advance progress because they thought somehow they could reach some state of perfection. But what you end up with, again, is that consolidated power. And I make the point in the book, well, the founders got one thing very right when they put together our Constitution, and it was all based off the correct understanding of human nature. They believe that we are imperfect human beings in an imperfect world who have the ability to do great good but are incapable of sustained good. We have been given natural inherent rights by our creator. So how do you create a government that protects those rights that takes none of them away at the same time as a realistic view of human nature, never trust imperfect human nature with

consolidated power. And this is what they came up with. I would argue the Constitution is one of the greatest political documents, if not the greatest political document ever written. And progressives looked at that document and said, we don't accept that premise on human nature. In fact, we think we actually have to consolidate power and we trust human nature with this power because we think we'll reach perfectability of mankind and the here and now. Okay, just to illustrate what we were talking about with ned and i when it comes to this this document here is justice anton and scalia talking to congress what do you think is the reason that america is such a free country what is it in in our constitution that that makes us what we are and i guarantee you that

the response i will get and you will get this from almost any american including the woman that he was talking to it, the supermarket. The answer would be freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no unreasonable searches and seizures, no quartering of troops in hope, those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights. But then I tell them, if you think that a Bill of Rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy.

Every banana republic in the world has a Bill of Rights. Every president for life. has a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. It was much better.

We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of the speech of the press of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff.

Of course. just words on paper, what our framers would have called a parchment guarantee. And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union, you think of the word constitution, it doesn't mean a bill, it means structure. Say a person has a sound constitution. Here's a sound structure. The real constitution of the Soviet Union, which is what our framers debated that that whole summer in Philadelphia in 1787. They didn't talk about the Bill of Rights. That was an afterthought, wasn't it?

That constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is... Wow. Wow. There's more to that clip, and you can continue to watch. Have you not, Ned? Oh, you've got to go see the clip because it goes on and I almost feel guilty for ending it at that point. It's incredible.

He goes on to talk about it more. Yeah. That's, well, it's, he's right. I mean, I would like to say I very much fully 100% agree with him that the parchment barrier in this bill of rights is just a, you know, it's a parchment barrier when in fact, the real threat or the real protector of our freedom is either diffusion of power or consolidated power. That's what this comes down to. And that's what the founders knew. That's why they constructed the machinery of the, I write about machinery of the republic in my first book, restoring our republic in more detail. But that's what the progressives hated.

And the progressives, our founders did not trust human nature. They felt that government was a necessary evil, right? James Madison, we're no angels. So there has to be some form of government to restrain us from our worst impulses. At the same time, it's a necessary evil. Not for progressives. Progressives truly believed that the state was the march of God on earth. They truly believed that the state was salvation.

And it's kind of interesting. I was looking at some of Elon Musk posts today on X. I still want to call it Twitter, but on X, in which he was talking about government spending and the growth of government, that's a feature, not a bug of the administrative state will, because the progressives viewed the state of salvation. And if you view the state of salvation, why would you ever want to limit it? You would continue to expand, expand, expand, until it comes into every aspect of your life to bring salvation.

And then he brought up the question, well, why does it continue to grow, and why do we keep on spending, and why do we have this massive national debt? It's because you have to fund salvation. And that's why they started the IRS. That's why they started the income tax. That's why they're talking even now about 87,000 new IRS agents to hoover up those $600 of PayPal transactions. Because if there is to be salvation for society, the state must be funded. It is a fundamental philosophical view and belief system of progressive status that undergirds the entire administrative state.

I want to stick with the history for just one moment. So you focus in on the early 1900s, Woodrow Wilson, and Teddy Roosevelt, the rise of the progressive movement. We often talk and use the word progressive as though it's a modern invention. Like, even for people listening, when did liberals become progressives? Well, progressivism as an ideology

has been around for more than a century. And I like that you have put yourself in the course of our conversation in their seat. Because I think it's a, I think it is a get out of jail free card if you just always presume those who have a different vision than you are motivated by evil.

They are motivated by what they believe is progress. and the perfection of society. And you accurately point out, Ned, but the mistake for them is the inherent fallibility of the human condition. So you can't, you can't perfect society. You can't perfect men.

And I think a great illustration of this, Ned, is that the same people, and how about this, even if I grant them empathetic or beneficial motivations, right? they're still fallible and what did they end up doing in pursuit of progress they wanted to sterilize black people they wanted to euthanize they wanted to euthanize people with mental disabilities they oh and eugenics i am not being conspiratorial this is history folks like it's out there right about they were tied to the eugenic movements go ahead ned no i absolutely write about this i write about

the gospel of scientism that progresses believed through the power of the state and applied science, it leads to perfectibility. And it led to this pseudoscience of eugenics. They were deeply racist, Will, at the end of the day, they felt that the living organism of the state must reject anything that they viewed as parasites to the state, for the good of the state, right, the living organism. So they got infatuated with this idea of eugenics.

And the one who actually got me thinking about it was Michael Crichton, at the end of his book, state of fear and state of fear is about the global warming hoax and the pseudoscience of that and he wrote at the end of the book we've dealt with this before and he started writing about the progressives infatuation with eugenics and that really got me thinking i've got to write about this an american leviathan but it also just leads to where we are today they they believe and i talk about the gospel of scientism will that they think that somehow science is a perfect art when in fact it's really just the pursuit of greater knowledge, not the perfection of knowledge.

Because, again, I would ask a very basic question. How do you think a finite mind in an imperfect world can ever come up with perfection? Yet progressives think that scientism will actually be a perfect thing that will lead us to perfectability, but they have been mistaken for so long in so many different ways. They eventually got to the point, Will, where a lot of the American progressives realized, if you go down this path of eugenics and trying to get to a pure blood race, and yes, they wrote about them of this, you're going to end up being deeply racist, deeply anti-Semitic, and you might actually, some of them talked about actually chloroforming some of the imperfect aspects of society,

they realized we can't go that far. But guess who started taking up progressive race law and using it to frame out what they were going to do in the 1930s? The Nazis. Yes. The Nazis. This is the one thing that is staggered me. A guy wrote a book about Hitler's race laws about how they used some of American laws to actually frame out what they were doing. What the guy that wrote the book didn't understand, those were progressive race laws based off eugenics that the Nazis then used to take it to its final and ultimate end, which of course led to the Holocaust. And I want to complete this circle because I would like to think, I would like to think that there might be some people listening and watching. who don't share my political bias.

I would, I, for no, maybe for just even selfish reasons as perhaps my own pursuit of persuasion. Like, maybe I can convince you. But the thing that you have to remember is those progressives didn't know they were evil. I mean, if we can agree and submit that eugenics is an evil concept, they didn't know that at the time. They weren't all sitting around, you know,

tapping their fingers together going, ha, ha, ha. They thought they were pursuing a moral good. But real quick, I want to say, The point is what Ned said about fallibility. That progressive today will excuse himself by saying, but I am. They were mistaken. That's ancient or they were racist.

And I'm not. But the point of fallibility is you don't know where you're failing right now. You don't know what moral failing you hold that you will execute, that you will adopt in pursuit of all this power you want. You want the power to achieve your progress. Right. you don't know what you have inside you that is fallible they trust human nature far too much they trust themselves far too much and again it's it is a far more like the founders far more realistic

again this is the amazing part to me again the progressives trust themselves the founders didn't trust themselves think about it you're sitting in philadelphia 1787 you know that you are going to probably be the presidents the vice presidents representative senators judges of this newly formed federal republic it's in your best interest to create a form of government that would actually consolidate power into your hands guess what they did yeah the exact opposite because they didn't trust themselves will so this is the thing that that that again you just juxtapose the founders versus progressives founders didn't trust themselves they are fully aware of their imperfect nature progressives were fully convinced of the goodness of their nature and it became almost this religious

dogma in a sense of righteousness that we're doing all of these things for the right reasons and anyone who resists is an unbeliever submit or else it's it's a it's a fascinating when you juxtapose the world views behind a constitutionary public and administrative state and it really does boil down how do you view human nature so ned is advancing a little bit in history and getting more specific beyond the philosophy that underpins it i would have to guess fDR big moment forward big league forward for the administrative state, the New Deal, a huge leap forward. And I'm going to ask you about that. But also, even though it's only one department under one branch of government,

I just have to think that Jay Edgar Hoover and the advent of the FBI is another great leap forward for America in growing the administrative state. 100%. I say that there are three major progressive statist waves. Obviously, Woodrow Wilson was the foundation of the administrative state saw massive burst of growth under FDR. then saw another burst of growth under LBJ. And over the course of time, what's also taking place is Congress, the Article I legislative branch abdicating its role in actually governing and unconstitutionally sub-delegating its legislative authority to the Article 2 branch where the administrative

state resides. I fully agree with you on the FBI thing, Will I actually make the argument that we survived, what, 120 years or so without an FBI? I think we need to re-examine and examine an FBI. explore what we want to actually do in the future with the FBI if it even exists in its current form. But I also discuss there's administrative state. We talk about this overarching branch of the administrative state. There's the deep state or surveillance state, of course, FBI and the CIA and the NSA and all those. There's the regulatory state, which I truly believe is not only

impeding our progress or economic freedom, it's also a national security issue because of all the regulation that is pushed offshore, vital manufacturing, manufacturing that is vital to our national security. And then there's the DMV state. They're retired in place. I live in northern Virginia. The District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia is obviously DMV. It's the retired in place. And the administrative state is also a patronage system for Democrats to, quite frankly, launder taxpayer money into Democrat contributions. I mean, this is the one thing I discussed a little bit where most of these people sitting inside the administrative state for self-preservation are firmly behind the Democratic Party because they view the patronage system of the administrative

state, that is self-preservation. And so when Donald Trump wins, and I say this with great hope that he wins November 5th, day one, he needs to declare war against the administrative state because of self-preservation not only for our republic, but also for two-party rule. If you do not figure out how to break apart the administrative states, I think we are headed down that path the one-party rule a lot sooner than we would like to actually think about. And I make the point in the end, too, Will, he talks about draining the swamp. Great theme, great, you know, theme for his campaign. I think he's finally realized that the foundation of the swamp is the administrative state.

So in the end, I say, simple to say this, albeit monumental an application, you break the state, you drain the swamp, and you got a shot at restoring the republic. So that touch on history is enough to go get American Leviathan. I have one last question for Ned Ryan, but you talking about three waves of the growth of administrative state is exactly what I would have guessed, by the way, on the big waves. LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, there is your growth of the modern American deep state. I bring up the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover because of the power they ended up being able to wield

over the presidency for half a century. something on everyone, giving him, I mean, I need to read more about Hoover. I need to read more Hoover books, but one of the most powerful figures in American history. Total abuse of power. No, but funny you bring that up, the FBI. I bring up Watergate. I bring up Watergate and Russia Gate in which I feel that they are different sides of the same coin, in which Richard Nixon in his reelection of 1972 said, I'm going to go after the administrative state. I'm going to to deconstruct it, wins overwhelmingly will in the electoral college. I don't think people realize how definitively he won in 1972 with a major premise of his campaign being, I'm

going to deconstruct the administrative state. And then a high-ranking official in the FBI using two corporate propagandists at the Washington Post, feeding them information to help bring down the duly elected president that they think is a threat, an existential threat to the administrative state. Now, some people listening to that might be thinking I'm talking about Russiagate and Donald Trump. No, I'm actually talking about Richard Nixon and Watergate. We have gotten to the point where these unelected, powerful bureaucrats feel that they are the ones who decide. They are the ones who are supposed to be governing this country.

And anybody who presents a threat to them needs to be dealt with. And I told Trump this a couple summers ago when we were sitting together. I said, you know what your greatest sin was in the eyes of the administrative state and the people in D.C.? I don't know. What's your theory, Ned? They deeply resent that you think you decide. which is crazy when you think about this will and the government of by and for the people in which all power flows from the people to the duly elected representatives. That's how it's supposed to work in a Constitution Republic.

Donald Trump showed up and said, I'm the duly elected president of the United States. I'm the one who decides both foreign and domestic policy. And the administrative state actor said, no, we don't think so. We think we're the ones to decide. And I told him, honestly, sir, over the last few decades, they're correct because I truly believe we're living in administrative state, not a republic. And the question is, well, the American people wake up. and realize and have to have the conversation with themselves to go, what do we want for the future?

Do we want to restore a republic or we can continue slouching down this path toward full and complete statism? Okay, last question, Ned, do you have a note of optimism? Because I'm going to be honest. On this topic, like you saying, can you restore a republic and deconstruct administrative state, I'm going to be honest with you. I have trouble seeing optimism on that mission statement. it feels a little bit like the horses out of the barn.

And I don't know how, how about this, Ned, I don't have a historical example either in American history or across the world where it's been done. Outside of bloodshed, to be quite honest, in the mechanism of revolution. I don't see it done where like a Donald Trump can come in and go, we're reducing a significant percentage of the employment jobs within the administrative state of Washington, D.C.

I just give me the mob. model? Can this actually be done? So you're almost quoting in some ways Ronald Reagan without knowing it because he was wanting to go. The last two presidents that rejected the premise of the administrative state were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan before Donald Trump. And Reagan told his staff, I have studied bureaucratic statism and no country that has gone this far down the path of bureaucratic statism has ever come back from it. And he's saying this in the 1980s will. So he understood the battle that was at how hard it was going. going to be. I will say this. The reason I have optimism is the administrative state resides inside

the executive branch. If you have a powerful executive, President Donald J. Trump, who actually has the political courage and has the right personnel decisions placed in the various departments and agencies, you have a shot. And you have a Supreme Court that has decided with cases this summer, no more Chevron deference, no more private administrative law tribunals with the SEC and other departments and agencies, you have a shot. And like I said, If you have the political courage to do it and the right personnel, you have a shot, but there are no guarantees because you're right. We have been experiencing this for over 110 years, if you want to think about when it really started. That's very hard to undo, but I will leave you with this.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of the Progressive Movement Administrative State, said, we are not bound to adhere to the ideals of the founders and the writers of the Declaration of Independence. We are free to make or unmake government as we so. choose. I would challenge the American people. They thought that we also can think that we can unmake the administrative state if the American people will reject any legitimacy of the administrative state and say, we want to restore a republic. What a fascinating book, American Leviathan by Ned Ryan. Go check it out. It's out now. What a fascinating conversation today here on the Will Kane show. Thank you, Ned, so much. Thanks, Will. All right. We've got a lot of comments

coming in. I can see them right now. A lot on YouTube, Facebook as well. Let's get to some of your comments. Plus, I'm going to ask you, let's pivot to a little bit. Celebrity endorsement. Any that has be real, real power over you and let's rebuild the Pact 12. Next on the Wilcane show.

Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at foxtruecrime.com. Taylor Swift endorses Kamala Harris.

Any more impact and who won or lost in debate in the race for president? It's the Will Kane Show. Streaming live, Fox News, YouTube, and Fox News, Facebook. On Demand, Will Kane Show YouTube. Hit subscribe. Streaming on radio stations across this great country, including KRLD in Dallas, Texas, Las Vegas.

State, New York, San Francisco, Houston. And all of you listening can also subscribe to the Will Cain Show on Spotify or on Apple. Hang out with us anytime. And also jump into the comments. We ask, with Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris, we can bring in the guys in New York as well, is there anybody that has this kind of power of you? By the way, tinfoil Pat, my producer, this was his idea. And I'm going to give him a chance to speak on the microphone, trepidaciously.

I Who is the person in our control of in New York That every time the camera comes on Goes bailing out of the control room I can see it in the background And somebody's in the witness protection program And doesn't have to be on camera Well I am training a couple people

Because I'm getting married next week So I got to train some people to do my job I know it man I know it here we go But that's what's happening They're going to be on camera They're going to be on camera camera when they fill in for you two a days. B, congratulations. We need a full report,

wedding and honeymoon. Tinfoil, you asked this with some self-awareness, like you're acknowledging. There is some celebrity that has power and influence over your conspiracies. Who is that, tinfoil? Well, dead, it would be Norm MacDonald. I would definitely think about a lot about what he has to say, even if he went with Harris. But then there's also one of my favorite movie stars, Mel Gibson. I just, I don't know. I feel like we are simpatico in a lot of ways.

You're Sympatico with Mel Gibson? Not in the bad ways. Oh, my goodness. Oh, you've already been clipped, like very fine people. I already clipped it. I already clipped it. You were too late. It's going on social media.

Now we have the clip. We are, Mel Gibson and I are Sympatico. and then it doesn't matter that a sentence or two later you said not in the bad ways it's over for you we just we now have your moment your very fine people moment to go pat i don't know i don't know that i have anybody i really don't i think when i was james's age and he says tom brady i might have had a name i don't know who it would have been to this day no i never outsourced any type of influence to sports figures i just i really didn't If you're picking a sports figure that I loved the most, it was probably Dirk Novitsky,

and I don't want to know where Dirk is on politics. I just, I don't want to know. I have some feelings that he doesn't listen to the Will Kane show. Do you think he's like really passionate about Eastern European politics? Oh, Dirk on what's going on in Germany would be fascinating. Fascinating. What if we offer Dirk the opportunity to not give us a single opinion on American politics, but can we break down migration in Europe?

Can we break down Germany? I would love that. I don't know. I mean, again, I'm into Zach Bryan right now, but I don't presume that we agree and don't want to know, so don't care. I don't think you do. I don't think you agree. I just going to throw that out there.

What about Mack Brown back in the day? No. No? No. I don't have this person. But jump into the comment section. Let me know who I might be forgetting. Speaking of that, the hands-on gang says, I went to a Taylor Swift YouTube video and told all of her listeners not to follow her politically.

Doing God's work there, gang. Hope they saw. Good job. Wonder how many people you persuaded over there in the comment section on the Taylor Swift YouTube video. Unknown Valors said, this is interesting, celebrities have impact. Trump is a celebrity and businessman. Musk is in the same boat. Okay. Fair point. Both. Very influential.

And obviously Trump, for his own sake and running for presidency, but Musk not, and he has a lot of swing right now. What's up, two days? Speaking of Tom Brady, too, do you think he, like, would ever go into office? I feel like he would have a lot of sway over people if he ran for some sort of office. Do you see that ever happening? No. Really? No. He's too dedicated. I think he is too dedicated to being in a...

I think Tom Brady is okay being not liked, but not as a 50-50 proposition. Got it, yeah. I'm just guessing here. I think Tom Brady wants to be in a 70, 30, 80, 20 type of situation, you know? Because once you've tasted that, that's hard to let go. And he's tasted that. He's tasted 90-10 proposition as far as like him versus hate him. Here's what's more interesting than Tom Brady, Matthew McConaughey.

Will he really run for governor of Texas? Rachel can't post-duffy thinks he'll run for Governor Texas. But he's got the same issue. And I've been around people in sports who have been, who've tasted the forbidden chalice of likability. And once you have that, you don't keep that when you go to politics. You're playing for a 55% proposition. You know what I mean?

So does Matthew McConae-Hade trade, what? A 90% favorability rating for 55? I don't think so. He's not, he's very hard to be unlikable, though. Even if you don't agree with his politics. I don't agree with what he's saying, but I still like that guy. That's how he would be doing. Dude, the minute you put a D beside your name and you run on a ballot, you become a target,

and people will find all of the least likable things about you and highlight them. Nobody cares about, I'm sure there are unlikable things about McConaughey. There are about all of us. And politics is about shining the light. Trump was, had to have been 70, 30 or 80, 20. Like before 2010, right? Might have been. Might have been, yes.

The apprentice, yeah. Yeah, that's a great point. WWE, sports, The View, late night television. Trump was probably 70, 30, 80, 20 before he ran for president. Deborah A says on YouTube, Taylor Swift doesn't have to worry about food or inflation. Her opinion doesn't matter. Cheeky Chops says, Will is a savage on Fox and Friends. Is that your burner, James?

No. James, is that a burner for you? Chicky jobs? Well, I had to make a new burner because... No, that's James' brother's burner. So many burners. Paul Fiesel

says, when did Texas in Florida not become toss-up? They were in 2020 and 2016. I don't remember Texas ever being a toss-up. I remember people pretending it's going to be a toss-up. I don't remember ever really being a toss-up. And Florida, to the point, is a recent move.

You're right. It was the swing. state. Honestly, before DeSantis. Especially Miami did. DeSantis won it the first time by like two points and then the second time by, what, 18? DeSantis won it by like a few hundred thousand votes.

It came really close and then we had a large influx of Republicans coming in here. I mean, that's why all of our property taxes and stuff are across through the roof. But yeah, I mean, it's now

Are they eating cats? No, they're mostly northerners. All the people move from northeast. They're eating crooks. Yeah, corned beef. Oh. Yeah, coming in, raising your rents, eating the pets. That is true.

That raising your thing is true. Danny on YouTube says, why worry about Taylor Swift? A majority of her fans are, one, spread across the globe, and two, in the under-18 age bracket. I'm not sure that's true. That's not. The Swifty, what do you think? Prime Swifty is right now. Is she 26? She's 34.

No. Taylor Swift is 34 years old. She's two years younger than me. Like my fiance loves Taylor Swift. All her friends. We grew up with her. Like that era grew up with her. The younger millennials. As a dude too, like you just, you don't, you don't say anything bad about her around girls.

Hell, no. There's no point. I've made that mistake before. Prime Swifty is 34. Yes. I would say 30 as a media. woman. Yeah, 30 to 34, that younger millennial. Yeah.

But so, so that's prime. Is there an older Swifty? Is there a 40-year-old Swifty? I think there's some. You don't, I don't mean, I mean, like, if you bell curved out Taylor Swift's audience, does it sweep in early 40s? Because I will say this, Patrick, you can probably speak to this better because you have daughters. She's, there are definitely 12, 13, 14-year-old Swifties today, like big time, right? yeah so she's got a 20 year easily a 20 year audience bracket there and maybe more if they go older than 34

go ahead yeah across a generation so I just looked it up well 40 45% of SWIFs the US fans are millennials like the 34 year old herself 21% are gen X and 25% are boomers according to a 2023 survey well that doesn't even bring in like alpha yeah which I would assume is huge like Gen Alpha, which is So middle-aged

Middle-aged Swifties are there. Huh. She came on the scene in 2007 with you along with me and all those songs. Look at you. Look at you.

Look at you fan of Taylor Swift. 17 years now. Cecilia Black says on YouTube, no celeb owns my mind. They are politically illiterate. That was always my thing on ESPN. Like, should athletes be able to talk about politics? Yeah, of course.

You talk about whatever you want. But like my requirement. is, know what you're talking about. I mean, don't be... Like, I don't have a problem that LeBron James has an opinion about politics because he's a basketball player. I have a problem with LeBron James having opinion about politics because he is illiterate when it comes to politics.

And that's a fact. Like, and if I, if someone wants to challenge me on that, sure, okay, let's do a long-form interview about politics. LeBron, you're invited on. We could even talk about page four of the autobiography of Malcolm X. Not page 5 Truth Nation uncensored said 99% of Tether Swift songs

are about choosing the wrong person I like that one I got that halfway through reading it It's true Choosing her wrong boyfriend Now she chooses a common person Stefan Lumpkin says Did the debate matter when they said Trump won

And then Rigo Hernandez says on YouTube The Will Kane Show Only See One Way he need to open his eye and look both ways I was going to send that one but Patrick said that one Here's a question in journalism

This is a legit question Do you clean up someone's quote Right? Like I think that's an open debate Like say you work for the AP And somebody says something And they say it in super bad grammar Do you clean it up

Or do you print it exactly as they say it? It depends if you agree with them or not I think that's what their rule is I do I think that's their rule but you should definitely not clean it up you should definitely not clean it up you need to do it the way they say

you do though I notice you do with our fans in the live chat sometimes well I think well fans are different than like quoting a politician but Rigo here got the direct quote the Will Kane show only see one way

He need to open his eye and look both ways. One eye. We were talking about your one eye earlier, so. Everything is singular. Only see one way. He need to open his eye. All right, Rigo. I'm trying.

I'm trying, Riego. Yeah, I'm trying to see things as many ways as possible. To your point. Okay, by the way, I want to do this really quickly. We're going to dive into this in more depth and detail on the Will Cain Show, Cane on Sports episode, which is our Friday episode of the Will Cain Show. You need to subscribe on Spotify or Apple to get that. But today, the PAC 12 invited Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, and San Diego State to join Oregon State and Washington State and a new reformed PAC 12.

And it got me thinking, are those the, if you're raiding the country, are those the biggest brands? Like the PAC 12 is the PAC 12. They're a Power 5 conference, I guess. and they need big brands and big brands are defined by I think television ratings recognizability quality of program

and I went and I looked at the the Mac the Mid American Conference the Mountain West the Sunbelt Conference the American Athletic Conference and I was like what are the biggest brands they could have picked from and you need some I don't like what the ACC is doing

where they've got Stanford and Cal in there you need some geographic cohesiveness. And I was like, here's the big brands they left out. I'm sorry, big relatively. Wyoming, UNLV, Hawaii. And honestly, even San Jose State, I was like, is San Jose State smaller than Fresno State? Just got me thinking about these schools.

And if it were me, if you're the flagship of a state, even a small state, I think you have a bigger brand like Wyoming. It's a tiny state. but all hey i don't know who's sitting behind you dan i can't see that person's face all right there's there's the four of us on the will cane show there's a person sitting behind you okay i want you to turn around and i want you to ask that person it's the wyoming what what's the name of the wyoming college football team doesn't know okay all right failure uh what color are they can he can he tell me the color of their uniforms

Doesn't know. See? Well, he's not going to know Fres. Okay, this will be the test. Now ask him Fresno State. If he knows it, I'll blow my mind. Doesn't know. Doesn't know.

Okay. Wyoming Cowboys, that feels like everybody knows it. And they're brown and yellow. Right? Everybody. Didn't you live in Wyoming, though? Me? No, Montana.

Montana. Did they have a big quarterback come out a couple years ago? Josh Allen. Yeah. That was it. Yeah, he's pretty good. That's probably the only reason I would know it. Really?

They have an awesome, they have an awesome logo. I love the logo, I was just going to say. And no one has those colors. They're unique. Like no one else is doing brown and yellow. Is brown, Padres, Cleveland Browns, Wyoming? Is that, have we just concluded the list of teams that use the color brown? Bowling green.

okay I feel like there's a hockey team I really like Brown I can't think of a hockey team no they're blue and black and silver you're looking it up Dan I think Brown's underrated on a uniform

well I personally think like so in the NHL you have the Bruins and the Penguins and the Bruins initially were brown and gold or brown and yellow. I feel like they should go with like a really dark, deep brown to kind of differentiate themselves. But to my overall debate,

well, two days is looking that up. San Diego State's a pretty big brand. I think I don't know its reputation in California in terms of like, is it a commuter school? Is it a big party school? It's a party school. I do know that. Pretty big brand. I feel like Colorado State's a decent-sized brand.

I think most people know they're the Rams, I think. By the way, unique colors there, green and gold. Boise State, because they've been good now as a group of five school for, what are we going on, 20 years, has arrived as a decent-sized brand. UNLV, I still think of Stacey Ogman and Larry Johnson, and I think they have a brand. And then Wyoming, I don't know. If you're building the Pact 12, what they're suggesting is they've taken these teams and they're going to wait. And they're going to wait for the ACC and see who falls out.

They're not going to keep rating group of five. they're going to see as this falls apart what other big group power five schools fall out possibly of your conference patrick the ac c we're we're not going there um bowling green state is brown lehigh university is brown and valaparizo university is brown is that how you say that valaparizo i would have said valparaiso valparaiso valprazo Val Prazo. That's correct. You're correct. I'm wrong. Brown University. You threw an extra A in there.

I did. I did. I tried to sound smart like I knew I was talking about. Is Brown University Brown? For real? Do they wear Brown at Brown? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, good. Mostly. I'd be really disappointed if they didn't. I think they got some red in there. Yeah. More teams. They look like the Cleveland Brown's uniforms. The San Antonio. Oh, we forgot one. The San Antonio Rough Riders. Remember them? football.

What league was that in? What was that in? The XFL, no. XFL? Well, Canadianly. More Brown. I love the conversation about what schools or what out there, like Florida State versus Florida, San Diego State. We're going to break a lot of that down tomorrow on the Canaan Sports Edition with Danny Cannell, former Florida State quarterback.

So make sure you subscribe on Spotify or on Apple. That's going to do it for us today here on the Will Cain. We will see you again next time. to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.