Vicki McKenna Show - Democrats Don't Want Voter ID

Good morning and welcome to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna show. And we've got all kinds of things we're going to get to. And I'll tell you about them in a second here. I am also going to pre-prep people for the high potential that I'm going to have a sugar crash in these next two hours on the program. Robin Stephen Colbert left me a package of peeps. So for anyone who's been listening to this show for any amount of time, you probably know that I have this strange, I've a strange love and almost, you know, cult-like dedication to peeps, the candy. The marshmallow candy. They look like chicks and bunnies and they come in all kinds of fun flavors. And Robin Stephen Colbert was nice enough to purchase a Dr. Pepper. Packaged of Dr. Pepper Peeps. And they're awesome. They're not bad. See, Brandon, thank you for at least being willing to try it. Everyone's like, ew. Now, I don't know where the ew comes from on this candy because they sell like three billion of these things every year. somebody's eating em besides me they're not all winding up in the trash and by the way don't throw them away if you're of a mind you may drop them off and i will turn them into rice crispy treats when they go stale and they're awesome in coffee stale ones the ones that are hard i mean let me tell you what's in these things okay because they're not going bad We've got sugar corn syrup, not high fructose corn syrup, regular corn syrup. So we're doing okay so far, right? We're passing the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. test. Oh, but wait. Artificial flavor. It is nonspecific. Maltodextrin modified food starch. Red number 40. Blue, number one, both of these are problematic, I reckon. Potassium, sorbate, a preservative, and carnobo wax. Yes, the stuff that you put on your car, which I believe is petroleum-based. But whatever, they taste good. Good, so they won't, but they won't go bad. I mean, like, they don't grow mold. These are, these are feats of science. is what they are. So, you know, I throw them in my cupboard. And when I have coffee, I plunk one in and they melt up nice. And, yeah. So there you got. I'm going to eat one now. We're like 24 grams of sugar. Something like that. Tim O'Brien, if you are listening, I apologize. He's probably, if he's listening right now, he's like, oh my gosh, Vicki, don't eat that. I know, I know, I know. And I'm all about, I mean, I've gone, like, Whole Foods Natural. I've become kind of like a crunchy, you know, conservative hippie in these last couple of years. But every now and again, just, anyway, thank you, Robin Stephen Colbert. I meant to repay the favor with a nice little, a nice little box of tulips, but I left him.

I was so tired this morning that I left them. All right. So what do we got coming up on the program? We got a new Marquette Law School poll out. And what does it say? It doesn't say anything that surprises anyone. It does say that a whole bunch of Republicans are undecided about the Republican gubernatorial primary. There's like one guy no one's heard of and Tom Tiffany. What do you mean you're undecided? What the heck does that mean? Who is Marquette law school calling? That we've got undecided. What? What? We have, as well, interesting polling on the Democrats. No real breakouts in the Democrat field. So we'll talk a bit more about the Marquette poll coming up. Ahead on the program as well, election integrity, especially voter ID, is a 80-plus percent. winner in the polls 80 plus percent and yet in key areas Democrats are moving to reduce election integrity and obliterate voter ID or manipulate voter ID to the point where it no longer is a useful tool for us And how is that happening and they're still getting substantial support? That's an easy explanation, but we'll dive into that. As well, we'll talk a little bit of more about something very specific and important that President Trump said last night, or I'm sorry, two nights ago at the State of the Union. And that was, if you're going to have a data center, you're going to have to provide your own power supply. So more on data centers, which are not popular in Wisconsin. That same Marquette poll polled on data centers in Wisconsin. 70% of people think that the risks and the negatives outweigh the benefits of data centers in Wisconsin for a whole bunch of reasons. We'll dive more into that particular question specifically regarding property rights. I keep promising this, and I swear today. Tom Tiffany will be on the program. Derrick Van Orden will be on the program as well. JD Vance is in Plover, Wisconsin. So, you know, by the time we run into the 2 o'clock hour, we may have some updates on the presentation by the vice president. All right. All that stuff. I'm eating peeps. I'm not going to apologize. I can't have one in front of me and not do it. And yeah, I know. My mom told me not to eat with my mouthful either. Oh, they're so good, though. All right. So let's get to the Marquette pull. Hang on. My Facebook has been acting up. desktop Facebook has been acting up and so I'm kind of stuck using my phone here so bear with me on this as far as the Democrat candidates are concerned the best performer of the group is Mandela Barnes by one point They don't like him. I mean, I mean, nobody likes anybody on the Democrat side. They're all like Francesca Hong. I mean, for heaven's sake, you've got Francesca Hong polling near Mandela Barnes who ran twice for statewide office. And here's a nobody out of Madison, a foul-mouthed nobody out of Madison who's polling at, you know, I think 11%, 12% something like that. So what is this? I mean...

It's Tiffany's race to lose if the Democrats cannot even figure out, you know, which law enforcement, hating, immigration loving, left-wing, you know, gender mutilation endorsing candidate they want a back. It's also an opportunity for any other Democrat. So I was looking, and I cannot stand this man, but I was looking at the polling on Josh Call. Because nobody reports on Josh call, despite the fact that this guy is an anti-constitutional lawfare minion of the progressive left money machine who's attacking farmers, who's hiring outside New York climate change lawyers to attack Wisconsin farmers. But he's polling at 45%. Wouldn't that be an interesting race if Josh Kahl decided? to flip his race, which is, of course, still possible. I don't know. It's just something to consider. But the poll is not that interesting except on the questions of immigration, except on the questions of data centers, on the question of gambling expansion, on the question of voter ID and voter integrity. That's where this poll gets interesting. I think the candidate's polls are just a function of the fact that we're really not talking too much about that. But again, more of a deep dive into this. I want to take a break and I want to come back and talk about voter integrity, whether it's the SAVE Act, what the Democrats are trying to do to undermine that, identification, state identification to non-U.S. residents. The implementation of ranked choice voting, that's still a thing. And by the way, it's still a thing in Wisconsin as well because if the Democrats get control of the legislature, we'll have that in our state. Other types of mechanisms expanding the amount of time after election day that ballots can be counted, and the list goes on. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the program. It is the Vicki McKenna show. And, yeah. not yet hit the sugar crash. I'm going to go somewhere around 1045. That's when I think it's going to hit. I was stupid enough to eat those stupid peeps right before the show started, and it usually takes an hour or two before it hits me right. I mean, it'll just drop you off a cliff. Fine, you love those things. If you've never had what Brandon's, you're going to learn. If you've never had a sugar crash, that's what it feels. It feels like you're having like the start of heart attack. Anyway, we're going to talk about elections and election integrity from the honest election project. I have Jason Sneed standing by to talk about all of the shenanigans, even in the face of polling.

that the Democrats are currently involved in in an attempt to undermine election integrity. I don't know, J.C., you probably have not seen this. There is a raft of election reforms in Wisconsin. That include everything from reducing residency to making it easier for people outside the state of Wisconsin to obtain residency documents and voter ID, to make voter ID, you know, something you can print off yourself. And the list goes on to give Milwaukee extra days to count absentee ballots. And that's probably nothing compared to what others. states are doing. Well, I'm not surprised that that's the direction that folks on the left want to go. They're always trying to level down on election security, election transparency, and they're pushing bad policies that most Americans understand are bad policies. You know, this isn't a particularly complicated thing. We know that people want quick and accurate election results. They want secure elections to things like voter ID. They want clean voter rolls. And, you know, when it comes to things like residency. They want, first of all, to make sure that only citizens are voting in our elections. They want to make sure that only people who actually live in our state and in our communities are voting in our elections. And they want to make sure that election officials have the ability to vet and verify that people are qualified and eligible to participate. Again, this is very complicated. It's only complicated to a particular sliver of, you know, far-left democratic politicians. that are, frankly, not answering the public's demand for secure elections. They are much more responsive to progressive elites and donors that are trying to drive our elections in the wrong direction. Well, let's go to President Trump's comments in the state of the union, which was they don't want voter ID. Democrats don't want voter ID. They say it's racist, he said. Why? Because they want to cheat. What? This is such an overwhelmingly popular issue. So if you look at the SAVE Act, that is also overwhelmingly popular, Save America Act, which is photo ID and proof of citizenship. That is an 80%er. No matter how you try to stand on your head to phrase the question, it's an 80% issue. It's an 80% issue in Georgia. We've proved it's an 80% issue in Wisconsin, and yet we can't get... anyone to, you know, make sure that we can just provide enough security in our elections at a time when we know, you know, identity security is a very, very big thing. You know, you've got, instead, proposals to weaken voter ID. They've got proposals in some states to eliminate voter ID entirely. You just show up and you're back on the handshake agreement. I mean, you know, you don't even have to go down. We'll talk about ranked choice voting because that,

thing is still got some life in Wisconsin. But you don't even have to go down that far to understand what undermining voter ID becomes. And in Wisconsin, they want to have a proposal where you can essentially certify who you are online and then print off your ID. Yeah, that's always what the left is trying to do, right? They're trying to say that they're not against voter ID. They're just against any requirement to actually show a government-issued photo ID. So they always want to say that they think people should have to show who they are, but then they want to redefine ID to mean basically anything, right? I mean, take a look at the horrible laws in Minnesota and allow a person to come in and vouch for up to eight other people and get them. registered to vote right there in a polling place on election day without ever having to show even so much as, you know, a piece of paper that has a name and an address on it. They can just get vouched for and then, you know, that counts as voter ID in the eyes of the left. These policies are terrible. And you're right about the Save Act. I mean, this is, this is very basic. It's voter identification and it's proof of citizenship. And those are actually typically even better than an 80-20 issue. Those often pull closer to a 90-10 issue. And yet you have the left constantly calling this Jim Crow 2.0. Well, here's a newsflash. You know what? A couple of decades ago, we passed this thing called the Real ID Act. It passed unanimously in the United States Senate. Chuck Schumer voted for this. And it requires American citizens in order to get a real ID to prove that they are citizens. We are already complying with that law, and it's exactly the same process under the state act to prove citizenship in order to vote. It wasn't Jim Crow for driver's licenses, but suddenly it is for vote. Exactly. No one's talking about repealing real ID. Real ID is the easiest way to implement this. Real ID, which is the law. You're not going anywhere without real ID. Real ID is the law. I have a real ID. I'm sure you do as well. You can gripe about it. The libertarians still like to. to grouse about that, okay, except that it's been the law for what, 20 years? I think it's actually maybe even a few years, a year or two older than that. So you need to prove proof of citizenship or provide proof of citizenship. Now, a foreign national can get a real ID. That's an easy tweak. You just simply say that a foreign national uses a passport and a legal visa to obtain this particular document. First, we shouldn't have allowed that in the first place. But since it's... allowed you simply say that a stamp will be put on their driver's license a stamp will be put on their driver's license that says that they are foreign national and that's simple jason that is the easiest way to get this done. It doesn't cost any money. I mean, it's literally changing a program when you're printing out an ID at a DMV to add a stamp that says foreign national on it. That's how simple the implementation of this would be. And then it would just simply rely on our regular voter ID law here in Wisconsin, and that would be the only idea you could use.

Well, that's right. And we've actually put together model legislation. We've been working with lawmakers in several states to get it done. It does exactly that. It marks driver's licenses, not just real IDs, but driver's licenses that are issued to non-citizens as non-citizen. But you know what? Here's the rub. Every time we're pushing this forward, once again... Far left Democrats in state legislatures insist that this is racist, insist it's discriminatory, and they resist it. And then at the national level, they say, well, you know, it would be great if we could just use our real IDs to demonstrate citizenship except there's no visual distinction. They won't change the law at the federal level, and they fight like heck. to prevent states from doing exactly what you and I are talking about, that would then allow American citizens to be able to use the licenses that they already have. Because you typically, even in order to get a regular license, end up showing something that not just demonstrates identity, but also demonstrates citizenship. We should be leveraging that and we should be making it easy to comply. At some point, you have to ask the question. Why does the left want to make this difficult to comply with? Well, so it's because they don't want us checking citizenship. They don't want us verifying citizenship before people are voting. Are they actually just interested in getting non-citizens voting? I think it's becoming harder and harder to answer that in any way other than, yes, they're okay with non-citizens getting on our voter rolls and casting ballots. Well, John Fetterman has been pretty blunt about this. Obviously, we need photo ID for elections. You know, obviously, we need proof of citizenship for elections. So there's a guy. Now, I know the Democrats hate him. He's actually underwater with the Democrats in Pennsylvania. So there's a guy, though, who's saying. You know, the obvious, an obvious thing that 15 years ago, 50% of elected Democrats would have been in favor of, obviously we need these things. So it's a huge winner. But there's no attention to the undermining of these efforts. This is the simplest thing you could possibly do. The two things you could do that would overnight transform people's trust in elections would be. Using an ID that showed proof of citizenship, so Real ID is the easiest mechanism to do that. You know, right now in Wisconsin, for instance, you can get a regular driver's license if you want. You can't travel with it. So you can just drop the hammer and say, we're going to start, you know, removing federal funds unless you guys implement full scale implementation of Real ID. So use Real ID and clean the voter rolls. If you clean the voter rolls. and you use real ID, then overnight you've improved the trust in elections probably by 50 to 75%. You go back to paper ballots, and we're probably closer to 80 or 90% of people who start trusting elections again. Yeah, that's right. I mean, this isn't difficult. We know what the American public wants. They want elections that are transparent, where they want elections where the rules are followed, where we apply common sense.

to the voting process and and ultimately we know how to do that voter ID clean voter rolls citizenship requirements and guess what that doesn't make it hard to vote it doesn't make it make it difficult or impossible for people to vote i keep getting told you know the sky is going to fall if we try to impose voter ID requirements and yet every time a state does participation rates go up These so-called restrictive voting laws that states have adopted, like Georgia, for instance, actually wind up driving more people to the polls to participate. While the access-oriented laws, the left is always pushing in places like California and Oregon, wind up driving participation down. At bottom, it comes back to the fact that people want to know that their vote is going to be counted. They want to trust the process. And when you secure that process, people want to participate because they believe that the result accurately reflects the will of the public. And that is why it is so important to fight for these laws and to overcome all of these objections. Because right now, when the left says that we're just trying to make it hard to vote so that we can keep people from voting. That is really a by-faith belief. They are deliberately ignoring decades of data that says the opposite. And it's because they want black voting laws because they want to win elections using their preferred GOTV mechanisms that frankly tap into some very seedy tactics that these laws are designed to ban. Not for partisan gain, but because things like vote trafficking wind up leading to coercion and intimidation. And ultimately that harms individual voters. And we want to stop that. And the left is okay with that. You know, illegal aliens or non-citizens voting is cheating, period. Cheating, cheating, the C word cheating. That's what it is. It is to cheat their way to victory. You do not cleaning the voter rolls and having illegal people on the voter rolls. That's cheating your way to victory. Let's take a look at Virginia and California. First, Virginia went first with Abigail Spanberger, who said that we've got to protect the polling locations from ICE. From ICE, California decided to do the exact same thing. Was it two years ago now that California decided to move to same-day registration in... and weaken their voter ID laws. Virginia is working to do the same thing. You have this across the country at the same time. You have totally opaque voter rolls. In states like Wisconsin, there's nothing we can do about it. You can sue us, but we are protected because we are not a voter voter state. So there's no way that we can be compelled to show the information or the Wisconsin Elections Commission to do its job. And we just saw there is at least 42. thousand non-matches on the voter rolls in with at least 42,000. And those are the ones we can actually see. There are millions we can't see because they're just in a different database. So this is, all it does is it makes people, like in my state, a purple state say, well, what's the point?

What's the point? You know, if they're just going to cheat, what's the point? If we're just going to give Milwaukee the ability to wait around and figure out how many absentee ballots need to be generated in order to win a close election, what's the point? And that depresses voter turnout, and that makes people not trust democracy. Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. And I think that the case study in Virginia right now, the lesson for everybody is that there's really no such thing as a moderate Democrat because when they win elections, they are running to the far left, no matter what they present themselves as in the actual election. But I think it is so incredibly telling that whether you're talking about Virginia or Michigan when Democrats took over there or really any other state, one of the first... things that they always do is make the cheating legal. They change the rules, they rig the rules for themselves so that they'll almost certainly never lose power. And that, to your point, is 100% the easiest way to depress participation. and to ultimately instill doubt in the democratic process is to put a thumb on the scale for yourselves. The first thing you do when you win power is to basically make sure that you're never going to have a fair election again where the people could vote you out. Yeah, and I want to one more time about, you know, being lectured about no kings. No kings except that you want to rig it so that you are the only people who can win. I just pulled this up real quickly. It was again, it was information. generated from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, 41,784 non-matches on Wisconsin voter rolls that they were able to get their hands on that they were able to get access to. People with no driver's license records, people with names that are just not matches, people with completely different birth dates, completely different addresses. We have no idea. No idea. How many illegal aliens are voting in Wisconsin? None. Jason, we have none. We're told it zero. But of course, it's not zero. We just had the governor say that Wisconsin's economy would collapse if we got rid of all the illegal aliens in Wisconsin. So if we have so many illegal aliens, our economy would collapse. The answer is not zero illegal aliens voting, particularly in places like Milwaukee, where we get constant reports and in Madison, where people only... glance at cards and don't even bother to check IDs. Well, yeah, that's right. And, you know, here's something else that's really telling. A few years ago, the argument was nobody ever votes illegal in elections. And then over time, as we've been able to show, for instance, non-citizens on the rolls and casting ballots, it's turned into, well, it doesn't happen that often. And it's already illegal anyway. We've done enough. But the reality is... that if you are not enforcing those laws, and if you're actually making it hard to even find people who are illegally registering and voting, then you're sending a pretty strong signal that if you do illegally vote, nothing bad is going to happen to you. Why not? And then on top of that, you've also got this incredible defense by, again, far less Democratic politicians.

of organizations or even government agencies that during the Biden administration, for instance, were handing packets of materials to illegal aliens that were crossing the border to get them signed up for welfare and government benefits and voter registration forms. And they're trying to tell you that actually we have a legal obligation to do that, which is absurd. They, every single time when they have the opportunity to help us to clean up the voter rolls, identify non-citizens and get them off, they will decide to try to fight to keep them on. And again, the case study here is Virginia in 2024, right before the 2024 presidential election, the governor of Virginia and attorney general, Republicans at the time. found non-citizens, self-identified non-citizens on the Virginia voter rolls, and they moved to get them off. And you know what? The Justice Department did under Joe Biden's administration sued Virginia to keep non-citizens on the voter rolls. That is where the Democratic Party is. And you're not going to see any prosecution. See, in order to prosecute a voter fraud case, you need an enormous amount of manpower. You need bodies. You need money to do it. It takes a long time. And by the time it gets processed. And we've had them in Wisconsin. You know, Sheboygan County is actually a place where you've seen this happen. Back when Brad Schimmel was not the attorney general, but was the district attorney in Waukeshaw County, we would have some voter ID. voter fraud prosecutions, but not many. Why? Because it takes a lot of time. And by the time it's over, your vote counted. You cheated and it counted. And there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. It already counted. So what's the risk? It's very low because prosecutions are highly unlikely. No one's looking for it by and large unless, you know, unless something falls into their lap. And essentially the investigation has been done for them. You're not going to see district attorneys even pursue it. And even when that happens, in a lot of counties, they won't pursue it. Right? So give me a break. Let's make the cheating stop on the front end because we can't stop it on the back end. That's right. I mean, the reality is that a voter fraud prosecution will take years. And when we were tracking these cases, when I was at the Heritage Foundation, there would be usually a one to two year lag because you've got to get through the election, you've got to do the investigation, you've got to do the prosecution, and then you've got to actually convict these folks, right? So there's this huge lag. And, you know, on top of that, you've got...

prosecutors that are citing very real resource concerns. I've got to go take care of murders and rapes and things like that, and I don't have infinite resources. They deprioritize these things. And then you've got the more political prosecutors that insist that, you know, going after fraud is going to disenfranchise voters. It's really all discriminatory. And they're... playing to a progressive base, and they don't do it. And that all combined means that if you are committing fraud in an election, there's a reasonable chance that you're not going to ever get investigated, much less convicted. And then that's an invitation for it to keep happening. And that's one of the reasons why one of the things that we've been pushing in states across the country is the creation of election crimes investigation units that dedicate resources to actually going after these. monsters. Now, there's still going to be the problem of the time lag, but at least you're sending a message that we're not going to sweep this under the rug anymore. And that can serve as a powerful deterrent to help stop fraud in future elections. Yeah, and an even better deterrent is proof of citizenship and a regularized identification that is not easily faked. Jason Sneed, honest elections project. We didn't get to ring choice voting. We'll have to do that next time you come on because that. awful proposal is still alive. It isn't completely dead in Wisconsin. And if the Republicans lose the upcoming elections in our legislature, it's back with a vengeance. So I do appreciate the time on the program, as always. Thank you. Good to be with you. Good to have you. And we'll be right back. All right. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. I highly recommend not just because... You know, you go to my page or anything. I don't get anything. If you go to my Facebook page, I get literally nothing. I don't get, it's not monetized or anything like that. But I do highly recommend going and checking out the posts that I did today on AI. And also a quick note, just coming up, we're going to talk about data centers, specifically how they are already progressing in Wisconsin. And this is, these things are, are, you know, being built. without any constraint, like President Trump was talking about in his State of the Union speech. In the State of the Union speech, if you missed it, President Trump said, if you're going to build these things, you need to create your own power supply. You can't tap into our grid. You need to build your own utility plant to service these massive... data centers and these data centers are i mean we're talking about just in wisconsin the expectation is that a single data center could use 50 percent of all the power that's generated right now okay so that's what president trump said if you're going to do it you're going to have to have your own stand-alone utility to do this well How many of them have already undergone construction, unconstrained by a comment in the state of the union? It's a nice comment in the state of the union. But it isn't binding. There's nothing binding about it. President Trump suggested that he might use the administration to try to, you know, force this issue. But thus far, that has not happened. Mark Morano, Climate Depot. I do want to talk about this because here's, I think.

Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, these are people, Abigail Spanberger, these are people who have, you know, bent over for data centers in their states, particularly J.B. Pritzker in Illinois. And what are they saying now? They're saying, wow, you know, people are mad about this stuff. And so we're going to say, we're against it. And we're going to need an order, we're going to need assurances for universal basic income. That's what they're saying. That's their new, their new pivot. Yeah, it's actually a very deep issue beyond data centers. And this is where I look at someone like Zohran Mamdani. A lot of the issues he's raising about affordability, even what Bernie Sanders says about older, it's all true. But the solution isn't universal basic income, free health care for everyone, government services. Who's going to provide and run all of those services that these... socialists like Zohran Mamdani and Bernie Sanders what it's going to be a corporate oligarchy that they've been railing against that's the whole problem so i actually think we need to go at this a whole different way i mean it's You know, it's elements of populism. But the idea that I think you got to get, you got to somehow, again, there's no way to really get money out of politics. But I think the idea of, you know, Elon Musk giving Donald Trump hundreds of millions or Kamala Harris raising billions from billionaire donors and foundations, there's got to be a way to stop this on one level because you're never going to get any accountability. On the bottom line. And you're not. And Elon Musk, who we're all grateful for, for seizing back control of the online free speech marketplace via X. asterisk, because some people are still deplatformed on that social media platform, said, this is going around again. He said this in January. Now it's hit again. He also said something similar in late November of last year. You won't need money. Well, you don't need money. Don't worry about it. You won't need money. Don't worry about Nigel Farage being debanked or people during COVID. They didn't get the vaccine. Being the bank, no accident. Don't worry about what happened to Canada. You won't need that kind of money. Yeah, I mean, don't worry. They want everything. Yeah. He said that you don't, you don't even have to worry about saving for retirement because money isn't going to exist the way you understand it. And you're kind of like, well, what is going to exist? Are we going to be trading favors? No. We're not going back to a barter system. This isn't Star Trek next generation in the United Federation of planets for crying out loud. What's going to happen, and this just was anthropic, yesterday, gleefully, it was a clip, it actually wasn't yesterday, it was on 60 minutes, but it was shared yesterday, gleefully saying 50% of all entry-level jobs in the first 12 months of the implementation of AI are gone.

that 50 to 100% of white-collar jobs in 10 years are gone. So, I mean, everyone's justifiably freaking out about that, or they should be. And the answer is have the companies put the power supply on site? The money that everyone is going to be hoovering in, not paying employees, will more than cover the utility plant while we try to figure out how the heck we're going to feed ourselves. Yeah, that's why you know, look at what Yval Harari has said in the past. You know, once AI takes, essentially we're going to become useless eaters and we're going to need psychotropic drugs and video games to basically keep us, you know, satisfied and mollify the masses out there because we're not going to have anything to do. And it's also about control. And this is where Trump has stumbled, hugely, in my opinion, the contract of Palantair, surveillance state, is it pushed for AI, $100 million government contracts from taxpayer money going to... going to AI tech overlords. You have essentially all these tech companies lining up at the trough influencing the Trump. That's this whole ballroom, you know, this whole demolition of the, was it the East Wing of the White House, and this whole, you know, sort of Las Vegas style gilded with gold-plated. That's being funded by big tech in order to, you know, stay on Trump's good side as they're sucking up Pentagon contracts. I don't know what else to say here. This is, it's a huge problem. It's at all levels of government. Someone like Rhonda Bernie Sanders, I hope he's sincere. I hope he seems to be the Republican standard bearer against this and just how this is all playing out. But the only good I see with AI right now is, you know, people having fun playing around with it or chat GPT or, you know, homework. But essentially, it's killed the solar renewable Green New Deal, even when you have Larry Fink come out and say solar and wind can't power. So they've given up on that. That's why Bill Gates is now saying... you know, climate's not a catastrophe. That's why Jeff Bezos is now railing against the Green New Deal and supporting Trump on the endangerment finding the Washington Post editorial board saying, you know, if Congress wants to legislate CO2, they need to pass a bill if the minister, if, you know, if the EPA. So it's just a huge sea change of things, but you do realize that I guess I'll sum it up with this, Vicki. The Uniparty is still alive and well. Trump. may have squandered the greatest opportunity for true populism against the deep state in the history of our planet. He's been great on climate energy environment, a lot of great maha stuff. But I think aggressive foreign policy overspital, you know, not talking about not just record Pentagon budgets, but like a 50% increase. So I'm actually coming in the administration talking about cutting it. And all of these AI deals, this alleged AI arms race with China, I think the midterms could speak very loudly of where we're going. I think overreach with ICE, too. I'm sorry. I don't know what your listeners think. I'm not even sure your opinion. But I don't support armed, armed federal agents with masks on. I railed against the Bush administration back in the 90s for sending in armed, not making this up, food and drug administration, cops.

parade orange juice factories in Florida. You just took us down a side road, okay? I did. I did, but I'm just saying it's all part of it. Well, I will say this, which is different from what the FDA did. or in Wisconsin, the Department of Agriculture did on animal rescue organizations and people. I'm talking about orange juice. This is different. I'm talking about label wars back in the 90s. And here's why. And here's why. Because every single one of those people is being doxed and their families are being threatened. And as far as so the masks. bother me exactly zero. Having known too many ERTs, SWAT guys who go in when they do raids, and they do not have masks on, they have numbers on. And so that bothers me not a bit. The, the, how do we put it, theater of... of the video, of the, of the, you know, the, the, the, the Cory Lewandowski advice given to Kristi Noem to make this thing a circus and to, you know, can continue to make it a circus when it never needed to be, when it could have just simply been executed easily. And the fools would have looked like the fools forever. But to, to have, poked the bear on the circus was, I think, stupid. Yeah, the whole cosplay with Kristi Noem. I think we get rid of Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, and I think Howard Lutnick, I don't know how he survives. I like some of his policies. I like his policies. I like his talk about. I just don't know how he survives the Epstein, so we'll see. Well, yeah, there's another thing. So we're down the road. Okay, we've just gone down the road. So the Epstein stuff, perhaps it will become an historic unforced error by the Trump administration. because a woman who is who is ethically compromised out of Florida as our attorney general is mouthing off for clicks and likes by going on media outlets and bragging and not having the goods to show pulls everyone for 12 months into this dark hole. The only good thing I can say about it is now that files have been released. They are redacted, but 3 million files have been released. The Democrats have shut their mouth about it because most of the people getting sucked in are their people, except, and, you know, Howard Lutnick aside, Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon looks bad out of this. Steve Bannon looks so bad. It's weird how he hasn't done like exclusive interviews explaining it. It seems in my mind to be relatively silent. I haven't heard him respond. Yeah, I'm not, I don't listen every single day. I think he's explaining it and he was trying to, you know, get information or whatever. But it looks bad. So, so, but most of the people looking bad here are, you know, so it's bad, that has boomeranged a bit on the Democrats. But just, it's just ham-fisted stupidity.

to go out there and hand out binders full of stuff nobody, you know, that's not new, that everyone's already seen before. What did you think was going to happen? She must have thought she was like a county supervisor or some kind of lawyer in Florida that she'd get away with it. I don't think she's very good. I think there are, you know, there's 10 people who could have been more effective at that job. I also think she's afraid of what might happen to her after she leaves office. Secondly, on Kristi Noem, Cynthia brought it up. Yeah, that's that she's not she's not awful, but she's not telegraphing competence. She is telegraphing, you know, theater. She does seem to have a flare for that, but she's, like I said, she's not awful. But this could be so much better. This could have been so much less. Law enforcement shouldn't be this cheap part of an issue. Yeah, where you rush to the microphone and just say whatever to support your team or effort. You know, I like Tom Homan. I think that what they've done is exactly what they should have done in the beginning. They brought Tom Homan in. Things have calmed down. They're going to focus on the mission and less of this. theatrical stuff that you're talking about. That's the biggest mistake. Yeah, it's almost like, it's almost like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem are more interested in being influencers than they are being the leaders of their agencies. And I'm going to get hate mail for that, but what can you do? I'm out of time, Mark. Thanks very much for jumping on. Thanks a lot, Victor. And we're going to take a quick break. Mark Morano, Climate Depot, and I'll be right back. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna show. So. Here's a Channel 3 headline and a link to a story on their Facebook page. Pennsylvania man whose daughter is battling cancer arrested by ICE. Just a Pennsylvania man. And his daughter's battling cancer and he's arrested by ice. What are you supposed to think about that headline? Well, why are you just going after random guys in Pennsylvania? whose daughters are battling cancer. How about this? There are multiple felony weapons warrants out for this guy who happens to be an illegal alien. Nope, headline from Channel 3 because they're trying to affect the way people perceive the issue of immigration. says Pennsylvania man whose daughter is battling cancer arrested by ICE. And then you realize he's wanted on multiple felony weapons charges, including sale, a felony sale of a weapon. Okay. One of the best responses to this was in the comments. And that response was perfect. So if I commit a weapons offense, And my parent has cancer. I get off if I'm an illegal alien, but I will be arrested if I'm a citizen. WTF is happening at Channel 3. We don't want to arrest this guy because his daughter's battling cancer. But if Vicki McKenna committed a weapons felony and her husband was battling cancer, nobody would play the smallest violin for me.

or you or anyone else but these this is the perfect object lesson in media narrative manipulation it's perfect now let's go to the marquette poll marquette law school poll was out yesterday it's a big one i hate that they make you have to just scroll endlessly on x to see every single element i wish they would stop doing that one post is fine But here is one of the entries from yesterday. 64% of Wisconsin-registered voters favor the deportation of immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. Period. 64% of Wisconsin-registered voters favor the deportation of immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. 36% opposed. The amount of people. whose support just plain old deport them all has gone up from 56% to 64%. Channel 3 might want to read the room. Because what is in that 64%? What's the breakdown of Democrat versus Republican in Wisconsin? If you're just asking people to self-identify, what's the breakdown? It's about 47.5 to 48% to 47.5% to 48% with the people in the middle calling themselves independence. So if you take the 4% or 5% of people in the middle and you assume all of them are in favor of just deportation, just plain old deportation, That's what we're going to do. Then you're still at 59% of all voters supporting, just pretend the independents are all, you know, you can just subtract five. 59% of all voters who are not independent support just plain all deportation. We like to call this a 60% or. We like to call this a two to one.

So even in spite of the narrative manipulation by the media, even more people now support the idea of just deport them. Just deport them. Not deportation of people with other criminal records, which this guy was, felony gun charges. There's not even a qualifier to the question. Do you support deportation of people who are in the country illegally? Yes, 64%. Yes. That's Democrats. That's Republicans. That's independence. But the media, they have their marching orders. My guess is no one at Channel 3 actually wrote this headline. My guess is it's an AP generated headline. They just threw it out there because it's what you do now. Because the media is on the take. Democrats have essentially declared war on the concept of what it means to be American in the first place. You saw them all sit down when President Trump asked them to stand up. And the media is part of the team that keeps lying about that. They want to make it sound like it's a bad thing what those 64% of Wisconsin voters say needs to happen in terms of policy. When I say the Democrats hate America, when I say they're determined to undermine everything about what it means to be American, I'm not just shooting from the hip. This just out. Gallup poll. Percentage of people by party affiliation identifying as proud to be American. You ready for this? What do you think the Republicans are? 92%. Independence? We got problems with independence, but they're 53%. How about Democrats? 36%. How proud are you to be an American? Extremely proud, very proud, moderately proud, only a little proud or not at all proud. 36% of Democrats said not at all. So that's when we say things like, can't let these people get in charge again. When we say things like Democrats hate this country, they say they do. They say they do. They want to transform it into something that is, I don't even know what it is, but it isn't American. People don't want that. Generally speaking, people don't want that. 64% of Wisconsinites don't want one of their chief policy items to transform America into something that it isn't, which is unfettered illegal immigration. No borders, no sovereign enforcement of our law.

But if Democrats get control again, that's exactly what we will get. And 64% of Wisconsinites say they don't want it. But the media is trying to make it sound like that's not what's taking place. That the real bad guys are those 64% of people who actually want to see deportations increase of just random folks who are in the country illegally. Not even having another charge. All right. Let's take a break. I want to come back and talk about more on data centers in Wisconsin because it's a battle. It's a battle against secrecy. It's a battle against huge money. It's a battle against global financiers. It's a battle for property rights. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. And Lucas Weber from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is standing by to talk about data centers. Now, Lucas, I confess I didn't know Will was involved in anything going on with data centers. I'm pleased that at least with regard to property rights and transparency, we have got you folks on our team on this because it does really seem like these things are being steamrolled into our state. But thanks for being on the show. It's good to have you. Yeah, thank you for having me. It's great to be here. One of the things that isn't being discussed at all is the impact of people that people are going to experience in the community. Some people are saying, well, the water prices are going to go up and the electricity prices are going to go up. Yes, okay, so that is what is being discussed. I watched a report of a woman who had a data center near Chicago. She was a thousand feet away from that data center. And the noise of the generators at that data center were loud enough you could easily record it on your phone. And it was at decibels that are not considered tolerable for a lot of people. So, yeah. How is this happening without anybody being consulted? And then I think of Port Washington. Port Washington's...

Everywhere. And now we're learning the fix is in. And now we're learning, you're not talking to people. You're having folks sign NDAs, town board members, you know, municipal leaders, the landowners who are going to sell their property, cash out big, they're signing NDAs. Nobody's allowed to talk about these things. And by the time community, you know, the community rallies and says, hey, we want a seat at the table here. It's too late. The deal's done. Yeah, and we're seeing a large fight happening right now up in Ozaki County with the proposed data center in Fort Washington. Even though that data center is already being built on the ground, the fight that's going on right now relates to the electrification of it, so running high voltage power lines to it. Obviously, anytime you have a facility of that size and it's going to use almost like, I think, a quarter of the state's power supply will be going towards the data center. You need to run high voltage power lines to it. The fight now is at the Public Service Commission, whether or not they're going to take people's land from them against their wishes. They don't want to sell their land. Whether they're going to use the power of the state to take their land and put these high voltage power lines for the benefit of the data center, which is, of course, owned by a private company. This is not what eminent domain powers for. And it's something that a lot of people don't really think of when they're thinking of all these data centers going up. Oh, no, I don't think people are understanding, especially people who aren't going to be affected by it. If it's not anywhere near you, it's not your problem. But it likely will be your problem. I watched that report on Good Morning America, and I don't normally say anything good about reports on Good Morning America, but this was excellent. One half of all new demand for energy in the United States is going to be data centers. You say in Wisconsin, one single data center is going to demand one quarter of all power capacity in Wisconsin. And that is, that affects everybody. So don't, you know, please people don't think this isn't your problem because it will be our problem. And as for the noise, no one's talking about the noise. No one's just, you know, saying, hey, can we get some information on what the quality of life is going to be? Then you mentioned eminent domain. I mean, I thought we had a piece of legislation. This was back some, you know, back when Scott Walker was governor that protected people's properties being seized for eminent domain for a private company's profit. Exactly. And unfortunately, that is exactly what's going on here and could be if the route that they select is the route that goes through these people's land. It's going to be really a terrible and an unfortunate situation. But as you said, you know, there's a lot of effects of these data centers that go everywhere. I think Wisconsin generally, like pretty much every other state, was caught kind of flat-footed and ill-prepared to deal with the broad ramifications of building these.

They're going to get built, right? It's kind of the future. They're getting built everywhere. You know, we need to make sure we do it in a way that's responsible that respects private property rights that doesn't drive up our utility rates. and kind of as forward-looking rather than just, you know, what's hot right now. Yeah, well, yes. And they're targeting all of these rural communities or these bedroom communities. You know, you're not, I saw that the Madison, I believe it was Madison City Council voted and said that we're not going to approve any new data centers where they're not going into Madison. You know, they're into forests. They're on the outskirts of Janesville. They're Port Washington. They're not in. you know, cities proper that, you know, that, that was nothing more than, you know, than virtue signaling from my perspective from the, from the city of Madison common counselor, I call them the central committee. Oh, you know, we laid down a marker. Well, you're not targeted anyway. So it's not your problem. You'll benefit from it. You won't have to shoulder the burden of it. But DeForest will, Port Washington, wherever else are going up. I know, I know that there's DeForest, Port Washington, outside of Janesville. And there's probably more because we are among the number one targets to cite in these things. And the same process is happening. Company comes in, talks to town officials. Here's all the property tax revenue you're going to get. Here's all the stuff you're going to get so you can raise government spending. Sign this NDA. Okay. Projects going forward. And now, and now we're up against the Public Service Commission, which has zero accountability. See, that's the problem, Lucas. The Public Service Commission is appointed by the governor and it answers to no one except the governor. And this governor is on his way out the door. Exactly, yeah, and it's kind of unclear what this process is going to play out. But unfortunately, you know, it has, the Public Service Commission has over the years been really more of a rubber stamp for any kind of utility project that comes out. So we're hoping we get a fair look at this one. And again, that whatever decision comes out respects those private property rights. Because, you know, obviously, you know, when it comes to eminent domain, you have projects that need it, right? I mean, there are projects. If we need to build a road or a prison or a school, you need to land. Everybody understands that's the last resort. That's what eminent domain exists for. Eminent domain doesn't exist so that a, you know, a power company can take your land to fund a data center to benefit another company. I mean, that's ridiculous. That's not what it was put in place for, and it's never what it should be used for. No, and we have no oversight. That's the thing. There's no broad oversight. There's no task force in Wisconsin. There's nobody looking at the old law. The old law, and I apologize, I forget who crafted the old law. was a good conservative guy, it was a big gun rights guy. The old law was in response to the Kilo decision from the United States Supreme Court, which said, I guess it's okay for public purpose rather than public use. And that way, there was a distinction between those two words. And public purpose can be defined all kinds of different ways. Well, you might have an app that benefits from the data center and benefits from AI, but it isn't public use. And we're not the ones accruing.

the benefits at all. Back to Port Washington. This thing is 500 football fields. Lucas, that is, I can't even, I mean, I think I'd have to pull up a drone to get a sense of what 500 football fields look like. I think it's over 600 acres. Yeah, I think, you know, any person who thinks they have an idea of how big one of these is would still be shocked if they thought in Burgess's how the sheer expanse. And this is just the first phase, you know, of the data sense being built now, but at full build out, it's going to be absolutely humongous. That's why it uses so much power. That's why it's going to have impacts on, you know, just more than just the Port Washington community. I mean, our client in this case lives in the town of Stockville, just west of their county, you know, and it's going to be. just have impacts across southeast Wisconsin that are felt for years to come. And that's why it's so important to get this right at the front end and not just rush in anything in a way that that is not forward thinking. Yeah, we're talking about high voltage lines as well. You mentioned the high voltage lines. And as I'm listening to this video report, in other areas, high voltage lines were predicted to be as tall as wind turbines. I don't even know how you can do that. That's land. You need land. to erect a structure that can maintain a line that is that high off the ground. That's nuts. And so it's not even everyone, this stuff is going to just, it is going to be, you know, just flotsome across Wisconsin. And you think that it's not near you, but the high voltage line probably needs to be. Exactly. And I think that's the thing that everybody needs to understand is that today, the fight is happening there. Tomorrow it's going to be in your backyard. So it's important to pay attention and to know what's going on and not just to wish it away as somebody else's problem right now. Because one, this is going to impact us all, potentially in our utility rates. And two, it's going to be coming to your backyard next. So everybody needs to be aware and alert. What happens if Open AI goes face down? They are having trouble getting funding right now. They are not Bill Gates. They can't just cut the check themselves. This was just last week, early last week, where they're having difficulty securing the dollars that are necessary to maintain these data centers. What if OpenAI can't hack it? What if they can't, you know, what if they can't float the, the, the project any longer? What is, where does that leave Wisconsin? Is there any indication of, of reclamation, remediation, or, or how, you know, the state of Wisconsin isn't going to suddenly be saddled with a burden of maintaining these things on their own? Yeah, and I think that highlights one of the major problems with the utility proceeding now. You know, we're always told, oh, no, this isn't going to raise anybody's rates. They're going to pay the full cost of this. But it is. And then what happens is they're not there to pay? You know, who's on the hook for these lines? If they're not buying all the power, they say they're going to buy or. Correct. There's very real concerns here.

Yeah, open AI. Everyone should look up Open AI. Go look up what I just told you, that last week it was announced they did not know if they were even going to be able to secure the funding. In Chicago, one of the women who was interviewed said her utility bill went up instantly 27%. And the utility itself told her expect rate increases because of the data center. We are going to see rate increases, period. That is going to happen. Period. I mean, I don't even know how you can avoid it, especially at the startup, you know, level of this. And it will be because, because they'll say it's not fair if it's just we energies, though people who are experiencing the we energies increases, that's not fair. They can't afford the utility bills. You will end up seeing that spread across Wisconsin. Absolutely. And it's not like we're starting from a place of low utility bills. You know, we have the second highest rates in the Midwest. You know, we're already paying more than our neighboring states. And this is only going to increase that burden over time. And so, again, everybody needs to pay attention, needs to talk to public officials and let them know how they feel about this. Well, yeah, and we've had late game, late in the session. There was a NDA bill very late in the session. There was a, you know, a data center bill that would have required a guarantee of the coverage of the power by the company itself. I don't know how that bill was structured. People were telling me it was sort of a just a. not an unsurious piece of legislation that actually wouldn't have required the data centers to do that. But we don't have a task force. We're not even seeing, you know, big headlines about it in our news media. It's like everybody's asleep at the switch. And the moment someone, you know, pitches a fit like they're doing in Port Washington, you know, the lobbyists are sending people into social media to attack anyone who criticizes the data center proposal. I've seen it myself on my own social media. The lobbyists themselves have minions standing by to attack people who are complaining about it on social media. It's stunning. Yeah, and it's just a fight that's happening everywhere, and unfortunately it's going to be right here in Wisconsin over the next six to nine months. This plays out at our state regulator to see if this project can move forward. Lucas, can people, you know, if they're worried about this and they are potentially impacted directly by this, whether it's eminent domain or other things that are in the immediate, sort of the immediate future for them, can they reach out to you? Absolutely. You can do that on our website at will-dashlaw.org. And there's a form on there that can fill out and get right in touch with our legal team. Will-dashlaw.org. That's simple. Just go there. I mean, we're paying attention to Port Washington. There's other projects that are being cited into Wisconsin right now. I do appreciate the time on the program. Thank you very much, Lucas.

Thanks for having me on, Vicki. Great to have you. Lucas Weber from Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and we will take a quick break. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. So, yes, I am going to talk about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and the Epstein Files on the program. Here's the Daily Mail headline right now. Hillary Clinton turns tables on Trump in Epstein Files opening testimony. Get serious. All Hillary Clinton is trying to do is buy herself some headlines so that information on the probe that is going to be taking place through the questioning about the Clinton Global Initiative never actually makes it to headline level. Daniel Greenfield from Front Page Mag, the Daniel Horowitz Foundation Freedom Center Foundation at Front Page Mag joins me on the program. This is... It's a circus. This is going to be turned into a circus and the headlines are going to be about she's standing by her man and it's really Trump who has the problem with the Epstein files, Daniel. They're going to ask her about Epstein's connection to the Clinton Global Initiative, aren't they? And we're not going to hear about it. That's exactly what they want to do. They want to distract it because really the crucial thing about the Clintons is it's not just about whatever Bill Clinton was doing on Lolita Island or whatever. It's the fact that the Clintons had built their entire political machine around the Clinton Global Initiative, which Epstein helped them set up. And that initiative actually took money from foreign donors, including foreign governments. by providing access to Hillary Clinton, who was expected to be the next president, and she became the Secretary of States for a while. So they were literally selling influence to foreign interests. They were using Jeffrey Epstein to do it, and they do not want to talk about it. And the media wants to distract us from that. Ghislaine Maxwell confirmed this, that Jeffrey Epstein helped Hillary Clinton, and this was a Hillary Clinton thing, set up the Clinton Global Initiative. Everybody should remember, although nobody read the book that was out a few years ago called Clinton. cash that details the Clinton Global Initiative, the influence peddling. For instance, how about the uranium deal with Russia, where we sell off our access to rights, uranium rights, to Russia, our arch enemy, in exchange for influence for Hillary Clinton, or selling off access to the State Department for policy initiatives or climate change slop and graft, any number of other things, whether it was, you know, global health initiatives, which really just were excuses for Hillary Clinton to trade influence for cash. It's policy, it's donations, it's opaque NGOs, and Jeffrey Epstein was at the center of the whole thing. He was. This was really Epstein special. I mean, we know we spend a lot of time talking about what Jeffrey Epstein was doing with girls, but really the reason that he was so important was because he was good at moving money around. There were other brothels. What he could do was move millions and billions of dollars around. He set up nonprofits very effectively, and probably the biggest nonprofit that he worked with was the one we don't talk about, which is the Clinton Global Initiative.

So we're distracting ourselves. It's not about Bill Clinton in the hot tub with Galane, is it? It isn't about, I mean, it is, but it isn't. Some people are interested in that. We're never going to get the smoking gun on that, just so everybody knows. Just don't wait for the smoking gun on Bill Clinton in a picture with some underage girl on Lolita Island. Maybe we'll get a smoking gun for Bill Gates. or some of these European politicians, but we're not getting one for Bill Clinton because whoever had that picture is probably dead at this point. But it is about following the money and essentially the United States being for sale, policy being for sale, the military being for sale, our national security being for sale to enrich the power base and the finances of this couple. Yeah. And, you know, they're willing to sacrifice Bill Clinton. They haven't cared about Bill Clinton in a while. They're not ready to sacrifice Hillary Clinton, which really says it all. So it's fine if they're happy to report that Bill Clinton was doing all sorts of things sexually. What they don't want to talk about is where did the money actually go. And we don't know what, do we know, we know some of where the money went. I mean, we've got some vague idea, but there's so many NGOs. There are just pop-up NGOs that were used to launder the money. Hillary Clinton can thank Jeffrey Epstein for that. Hillary Clinton didn't sit down and knock out, you know, these random NGOs with extremely influential people. This was all done by Jeffrey Epstein. And that's, I think that is the story. If you actually just look at the Bill Gates story, Bill Gates. Jeffrey Epstein, J.P. Morgan Chase, DARPA, and suddenly billions of dollars in contracts for whatever his vaccine initiative is doing, whatever he was trying to peddle in the schools during COVID. It doesn't even matter. All of this was facilitated by this guy. It's like he's the key that unlocks the box of global corrupt finance. It is. And we have to remember the key thing is all this money was going to the Clintons because there was this expectation that Hillary Clinton would become president. And this money was being used to finance her political campaign, which means it's not just whatever, you know, one guy Bill Clinton was doing. This money went throughout the Democratic Party, it flowed everywhere. It was really used by Hillary Clinton initially. to buy off anyone who might run against her. They didn't actually succeed as we found out with Obama, but she was trying to buy up everybody at a state level, which also explains, again, why Jeffrey Epstein got so much protection, why he was taken off sex offender registries in three separate states. It does, and it also explains a lot of how the Clinton's managed to maintain such a vast influence, because they... And I don't know how much might have been compromising information that Epstein was able to get on people, because it seemed like that was one of his specialties, that he was able to gather compromising information on people and kind of, in a mafia way, be a real shame if that information made it out to the public, as we now know, is that information is now making it out to the public. But go back to Trump's first term. Russiagate, the dirty dossier, the whole bit, it's a paid-for...

oppo research project by the Clinton campaign. How much of that was through the Clinton Global Initiative or the Clinton Foundation itself? I don't have the answers to that, Daniel. But those are the kinds of questions I'm hoping we're trying to get to the bottom of with Hillary Clinton's relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, even though she claimed she never met the man. Yeah, well, Bill Clinton acted as a functional intermediary there, but we all knew where the money was going in the first place. Because, you know, a former president, nobody really cares very much, especially a former president who left office in disgraced way Bill Clinton did. People were, and I mean foreign governments for that matter, were putting in millions of dollars into the Clinton Global Foundation initiative. They were not doing it because of Bill Clinton. They were doing it because of Hillary Clinton. And Hillary Clinton actually did attend. Clinton Global Initiative events, alongside foreign leaders, which means that they were actually buying access and they were getting access. Well, and I'm just quickly popping things in. We've got arms sales to people who could destabilize national security. We have, as I mentioned before, we have selling of rights to uranium deposits. To our chief enemy, or at least what we've been told is our chief enemy, that's after Barack Obama declared that, you know, Mitt Romney was wrong about Russia. So we have that. So if you just pop into, you know, your search engine or you might need to use an AI bot. Clinton Global Initiative arms sales, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Libya. These are all publicly reported in either international journals or even sometimes in domestic news outlets. And again, Hillary Clinton didn't know anybody on how to do an arms deal with Bahrain, Daniel, right? She had no way of figuring that out. But the person who's setting up the whole network does. I mean, this unlocks how many years of foreign policy debacles? It could be huge. Yeah. Hillary Clinton was very much behind the Libya regime change war. Yes. She aggressively pushed it, and it was pushed to her. We have some of the emails, actually, that this would help make her president. Yes. We sacrificed. U.S. personnel and an ambassador because Hillary Clinton so desperately wanted to be president that she tasked one of her minions, a guy who is not trusted by anyone except Jeffrey Epstein, presumably, to run arms deal, to do an arms deal in Libya. By the way, destabilizing Libya brought us, if anybody remembers this, the rise of ISIS. Just in case anybody forgot, it brought the rise of ISIS and it began with, what was it, 21, Coptic Egyptians and one Muslim, Christian Egyptians who were beheaded on television so the world could see, you can thank Hillary Clinton for that. Never mind the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the CIA, the CIA operatives who were there in the destabilizing that entire portion of the Middle East.

Yeah. And all this really begins with this interface, the Clinton Global Initiative between the Clintons and Hillary Clinton is at that point in the State Department and this network that was set up for her by Jeffrey Epstein to move money from foreign governments, foreign leaders, foreign billionaires. to them. That's a massive bribery operation. And we still are really not talking about the victims. They're not being called survivors of Jeffrey. I've seen some of whom actually help traffic girls to him. We're not talking about the real money trail and what was really going on there. Yeah, and that's part of the problem. This is a multi-layered story that is the prurient aspects of it are capturing almost all of the attention. And the other aspects, which are, you know, essentially people say, well, there's a one-world government. You know, people who kind of go off on conspiracy, on a conspiracy train on that. I don't know. You kind of look at the Clinton Global Initiative. You look at the work ups he did with Bill Gates and J.P. Morgan and DARPA, which is the U.S. Defense Department. You look just, I mean, just at arms deals. You just look at tech and tech deals that were done through opaque NGOs that are receiving USAID money. And you're saying to yourself, I don't know. Maybe those NWO people weren't so crazy after all. I mean, maybe they are on the edge a little bit, but their fundamental gut check that said, don't trust this stuff. This is what we mean by the deep state. It's probably right. And Hillary Clinton probably is one of the keys to unlock this. So he was a sex offender before she even started working for him. Right, Daniel? She, he was, I mean, he was a known sex offender before Hillary Clinton decided this was going to be her ticket to the presidency. That never bothered her with Bill Clinton. It certainly never bothered her with Jeffrey Epstein. There's no reason to think that it would. So ignore the headlines. This isn't about rhetoric. This isn't about, you know, Hillary Clinton doing Tammy Wynette. This is about Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the media apparatus that has been covering for them forever. Why did CBS years ago not do this story? Remember, we also saw that famous video of the reporter saying, I had the goods. I had the goods on Jeffrey Epstein. I wanted to do this story. It was killed. is because of Hillary Clinton. That's why the media didn't do this story. Daniel, we need to re-up people's attention span on this stuff. Where can people find more at Front Page Mag or the David Horowitz Freedom Foundation, or Freedom Center, where can people find more?

Well, front page mag.com, we've been covering the Jeffrey Epstein story for a long time since the very beginning before a lot of the people now talking about it. I've been writing about it. We're still continuing to cover the latest developments, including the fact that Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer was a former federal prosecutor, was the judge that signed off on the search warrant for the Mar-Aago raid of President Trump. It can't be possible. That's just a coincidence. You know it, right? That's what they're telling us. No, this is really about Bill Clinton in a hot tub. It's not. Frontpage mag.com, Daniel Greenfield, thank you very much for jumping on the program today. Thank you. And we'll take a break on the Vicki McKenna Show. I'll be right back. All right. Let's just go over some of the things that Jeffrey Epstein facilitated by helping Hillary Clinton launder money and influence through the Clinton Global Initiative. These are things that are confirmed. They were research documented and confirmed in a book called Clinton Cash by Peter Schweitzer. The uranium one deal. The uranium one deal was... The United States selling off our stake, which was 20% of uranium deposits, to a Russia state-owned firm in exchange for $145 million in shareholder value to the Clinton Foundation. And we're so worried about Russia. We sell. Our stake, which is 20% in a wildly productive uranium deposit to Russia's Rostom in exchange for $145 million to Hillary Clinton. You can thank Jeffrey Epstein for making that deal happen. Then there are arms sales. I had mentioned the arms sales. There's multiple arms sales. But the biggest arms sale... was the arms sales that were taking place to the benefit, the financial benefit of the Clinton Foundation by a Hillary Clinton totally disgraced go-between in Libya. The destabilization of Gaddafi in Libya was necessary for the arms sales to take place. So Gaddafi had to go. We came, we saw, we killed him, or whatever she said, something to that effect. The arms sales netted the Clinton Foundation $141 million in total. Not just the Libya arms sales, but the Bahrain arms sales, the Saudi Arabian arms sales and the Libyan arms sales netted $141 million to the Clinton Global Initiative and was funneled into the Clinton Foundation. Then there was the Indian nuclear deal. i'm old enough to remember and many of you are old enough to remember when we were worried about nuclear proliferation and so we were working with india at the time

to restrain their access to nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton, courtesy of Jeffrey Epstein, and wanted dollars into the foundation. And so what India wanted was the ability not to be constrained on their nuclear proliferation. A deal was done. The Clinton Global Initiative gave an award to India, humanitarian award to India, and the Clinton Global Initiative raked in $20 million. The Columbia Free Trade Agreement, and we can go on and on. The Haiti earthquake relief, foreign donors are starting to launder their money into the Clinton Foundation. Again, laundered courtesy of the network that was set up by Jeffrey Epstein. In exchange for preferred contracts and deals to, quote, rebuild Haiti, which has never been rebuilt, incidentally. It never got rebuilt. We could go on and on and on. Is the Jeffrey Epstein story about child sex trafficking? Yes. But is that all the Jeffrey Epstein story is about? No. No. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. During the time, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and Jeffrey Epstein was a known and convicted pedophile. He got a slap on the wrist and house arrest, which he violated routinely. That is when he was working with Hillary Clinton to set up the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative. So she knew. Bill Clinton knew, of course, Bill Clinton knew because Bill Clinton knew exactly what Jeffrey Epstein was all about. But this is about money, power, and influence. Money, power, and influence. What I don't have, and I certainly hope Congress is willing to do investigation on, is how the Clinton Global Initiative worked with the Bill Gates Foundation, J.P. Morgan Chase, DARPA and the U.S. Defense Department on pandemic simulations and vertical integration of systems to create a profit model for pandemics. Does CGI intersect with that? I don't know. You want to know what I'm going to say? Probably. It probably does. But we don't have that. Everything Jeffrey Epstein was doing if you're just poking around randomly in those files, you're just putting names in, was about influence. It was about influence, connecting, you know, person A with person B, which is why some names are appearing who have nothing to do with any of this, because Jeffrey Epstein was working on connecting a person with somebody he didn't know. But he knew a whole bunch of people who knew that person. So that's on Joe Rogan, by the way. His name wound up in those files. His name wound up in those files because Epstein was trying to collect him into his stable of influencers and was working on people who did know him. Can you get me a meeting with him? Can you get me lunch with him?

So what was really going on, what is starting to emerge at the 30 to 50,000 foot view is the influence. Anyway, I'm going to take a break until 2 o'clock. We'll be back here at 2 o'clock with Derrick Van Orden. We will talk about the vice president's visit more on the Marquette University Law School poll. Tom Tiffany as well will join me. This is the Vicki McKenna Show. Good afternoon and welcome to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. We've got Tom Tiffany and Derrick Van Orden joining me on the program. Both of them, I believe, we're in attendance with the vice president's appearance in Plover today. So we'll get, you know, a sense of what that was all about. Definitely don't trust the mainstream press on that. And we'll, of course, we'll cover lots of other things with both of them. Derrick Van Orden being target number one. for the Democrats, the national Democrats with a case, a lawsuit that is continuing to proceed through Wisconsin with an expectation that they're going to try to get it enacted, voting boundary changes, district boundary changes enacted before the upcoming midterm. So we'll talk a little bit about the Marquette poll as well. It had some interesting... interesting outcomes of the Marquette poll on some issues. Most of the horse race political stuff wasn't terribly interesting. It shouldn't surprise anyone that name recognition of candidates is very low. I am concerned that so few people in such a short time before the Supreme Court election don't seem to know who Maria Lazar is. But again, we'll touch on a lot of that coming up. I want to just start here. This is sent out as a press release by an organization called the Democracy Defense Project. The Democracy Defense Project sounds very noble, does it not? The Democracy Defense Project, the Democracy Defense Project currently is being repped by Tom Amy Coney Barrett, former mayor of Milwaukee, Mike Tate, the former chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, J.B. Chris Van Hollen, the former Republican Attorney General, and Scott Klug. a very ex-GOP congressman who was taken out after a boundary change way back in the early 2000s. Okay, so you've got two has been Democrats and two has been Republicans, and they've got a featured editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What would it take for me to get a featured editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? I don't know. And what they're saying is that we can't federalize elections. President Trump the other day had made a comment about federalizing some elections, national elections, so for federal office, in some places that have shown persistent resistance to election integrity, which teed up this editorial.

by these two has been Republicans and these two has been Democrats in this new lobbying organization, because that's what it is, called the Democracy Defense Project. And they say, no, no, we can't have that. We can't have federal rules for elections because that will weaken. our democracy, well, weaken our democracy, can't have federal rules for elections. So presumably saying that we can't have federal rules for elections would apply to the Save Act, right? The Save America Act, which would mandate voter ID, standardized voter ID, and citizenship verification in every state, with some flexibility for the states on how they want to implement that. That's what the Save America Act does. But this editorial says, no, no, no. Our individual states management of elections, that's what makes democracy strong. So, you know, when Pennsylvania allows a week to go by before they count unpostmarked ballots, that makes democracy strong in Pennsylvania. And it makes democracy strong in Wisconsin. When we've got a Wisconsin elections commission that just never wants to share any information and be transparent about our voter registration list, right? That makes democracy strong. So all the Save Act would do is mandate standardized ID. At least the elements on the ID would have to be standardized, not the idea itself, although real ID is, of course, the lead contender because we all have them. And it already has proof of citizenship if you're a U.S. citizen. So I wonder, since the whole argument is we can't have nationalized elections, we can't have federal law intervening in the experiment, the laboratory experiment of the states, can't have that. Of course, we have that everywhere, right? We can't have that. So I'm just going to throw something out. If you hear this, oh, it makes us strong. Having the federal government, we don't want to centralize any kind of power of the federal government. I mean, this is my eye roll. Can you hear my eye roll? Because my eyes are rolling down the hallway right now. Voting Rights Act. Does anybody know what the Voting Rights Act is? The landmark legislation passed in 1965. that was meant to solve the problem of voting discrimination against black people. The Voting Rights Act. It was a giant scaffolding of federal rules mandating that the federal government either prescribe the rules of voting or get veto authority over the states if they would like to change the rules of voting. The Voting Rights Act is still in place, including the most controversial element of it, Section 5 Preclearance. Section 5 Preclearance says Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota must submit.

requests to the federal government if they want to change the rules governing their elections. So if they would want to have voter ID, they would have to ask, please, mother may I, from the federal government. If they would like to change voting locations or voting hours, they would have to ask, please, mother, may I, from the federal government. I noticed nothing in this editorial from the has been Democrats and the has been Republicans. And why is it always that the has been Republicans sound a whole lot more like modern Democrats than they do Republicans? While the has been Democrats sound exactly like modern Democrats, too? But I would like to know why they didn't include Section 5 preclearance of the Voting Rights Act as they were pounding their fists in this editorial about the horrible fascist dictator Trump who wants to take the states that are persistently resisting voter integrity for a time under federal guidance. I don't know. We'll take a quick break.

Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. The Save Act, the Save America Act, voter ID, and proof of citizenship. It is plus 75%, depending on which poll you're looking at, plus 75%. Black voters, by the way, 76% of black voters say they support photo ID for voting. Anyway, just don't I throw that out there as Democrats continually scream that it is racist. Tom Tiffany, who is candidate for governor. Also congressman, Tom Tiffany, is on the program, fresh from a visit with the vice president in Plover. I assume you were there at least. And Vice President JD Vance was in Wisconsin because Wisconsin is a target for the Democrats, Tom, including the governor's race. and a couple of congressional races, those being Derrick Van Orden's and style seats. So let's just start there with a visit by the vice president. And then we'll go into some really interesting Marquette University Law School poll numbers, if you don't mind. Sounds good. Good afternoon, Vicki. And yes, the vice president was in flover. I was there also along with others and enthusiastic audience. at point precision, a great advanced manufacturing company, one of those that we see across the state of Wisconsin that have made Wisconsin the best manufacturing state in America. You do know we are the number one per capita manufacturing state in America, right, Vicki? Sure. Not if the Democrats have their way because they will repeal the manufacturer tax credit the first chance they get if they get power. That is correct. So great message from the vice president, but he highlighted this is what's going to happen if you allow Democrats to take over your state. And that's exactly what they're shooting for, as you've been telling your listeners regularly, is that they don't want just the Supreme Court now. They want to maintain the governorship, and they want both houses of the legislature. They want full on control. And that's really one of the two messages Vice President JD Vance was delivering today is one. We are making progress in terms of the economy. There are some good things happening. Interest rates coming down, inflation coming down, a lot more work to be done. Of course, crime is way down. There's so many good things that have happened. And the American people, I think, are just finally getting their heads wrapped around it. And especially with tax season now, I think more people are going to see, okay, they were telling us the truth. We are going to get more money back in... our pockets as a result of no taxes on tips over time and social security. So that's one. The second thing is that do you want to go back to crazy? Do you want to go back to the Biden news? Because that is what will happen if you elect Democrats in 2026. Okay. And there's a lot of ways that that's actually provable, what you just said. Things will be going back to crazy. We will get rid of the manufacturer tax credit. So point precision, the company that you were at is a company that would benefit from the manufacturer tax credit. They add jobs. They get a tax break in Wisconsin. They don't add jobs. They don't get to take advantage of the tax break.

No tax on overtime. That's a federal law, but guess what? The Eberts administration would not sign off on no tax on overtime or no tax on tips. And so hopefully as people are filling out their taxes, that aggravates them. Because that was a pure political move just to stick it to Donald Trump because he was on the campaign trail talking about no tax on overtime, no tax on tips. Well, on your federal return, you're going to be fine there. But you're in Wisconsin, no. And two more things. One. is the repeal of act 10. The second would be what I talked with Rick Essenberg about yesterday, and I'll continue to talk about, the lawsuit that wants to obliterate any constraints whatsoever in education spending and make the demand infinity. So if you're worried about taxes, which they are in the Marquette poll, 60% say they would rather see a tax break than increase school spending. 60% say they will vote against a school referendum. If you would rather see your property taxes go down, then you probably shouldn't be cheering on the obliteration of the school funding formula and Act 10 and then an obliteration of the manufactured tax credit. That is correct. And by the way, I announced today, and this would be the first media show that I announced it on, is that we, as governor, I will have no taxes on tips in overtime. We're going to introduce that in Wisconsin also. Don't you think we should be consistent with federal law? I think that would be a really good idea. But the thing that struck me as we were talking about this, or as the vice president was speaking, is that here's these good things that are happening, but it's getting eaten up on the other end here in the state of Wisconsin. Look at people's utility bills. I mean, huge increases through February. as we've gone to the second highest cost date for utility bills here in the Midwest. And, of course, the 400-year property tax increase, largest increase in property taxes in 30 years back in December. And so people are getting eaten up on the other side. by the state of Wisconsin, just when they might be getting ahead with the federal government getting out of their way, allowing them to be able to keep more money. Wouldn't it be so much better if Wisconsin would do the same thing now and say, you know what? You're going to get more money back as a result of federal actions. We're going to double down on it, and we're going to do it at the state level also by reducing your property taxes, your utility bills, and giving you more money back in your paycheck. Well, here's the problem that, and it shows up in the Marquette poll, if you take a look at the question specifically on the 400-year property tax increase, people aren't sure what they think about it. I don't think they know what it is. We have not done a good job of explaining this to people. Now, people see their property tax bills and they're mad about it. It's actually one of the highest levels of commitment by people saying they support property tax relief over-increased school spending that we've ever seen in polling.

So they're mad about the property taxes. But when asked directly, well, what do you think about this 400-year veto? I don't know. People are still undecided about what they think about it. Well, the reason your bills went up by 8% on minimum. is exactly because of that veto. So we're a long way away. Inflation, it's the number one issue, according to this poll, among people in Wisconsin. I think that if you asked 100 people, maybe 10 could tell you what causes inflation, and that's money printing, government spending, debt printing. So they're mad about inflation, but nobody quite understands whose fault that is. But there was a little nugget in there, and I think they even noted it that for the first time, what is it, in 13 years and 26 polls. that the people said they wanted their property taxes brought under control, not to increase school funding. That is moving in the right direction. So there are some people that are figuring it out. And quite honestly, that's going to be my campaign's job, right? I'm going to have to paint a very clear picture. This is what the 400-year property tax increase and other things, but mainly the 400-year property tax increase. This is why you're getting hammered every December on your property tax bill. That is going to be one of the jobs of my campaign because I think this is a central issue to how we can win in 2026. You know, and on energy bills, that's easy. Again, but people just get mad at the utility company. You want to get mad at the utility company. That's fine. But policy created the problem. Policy that tells the utility company, number one, you get a guaranteed profit. Number two, you can shut down perfectly good facilities. Keep charging people the exact same rates for zero energy while you bring on a solar field or a wind farm, the uplands wind project. People are so mad about that thing. It's only going to increase their electricity costs. Now, I know President Trump said something in the State of the Union about data centers, but right now in Wisconsin, that is not. controlling. And so people are worried that what's going to happen in Wisconsin is what's going to happen, what already happened in Illinois with bills going up 27, 37, 47, 47 percent. You know, again, our job is to do what the media refuses to do, and that is to explain to people how we got here and what it will take to fix. It is a golden opportunity in 2026. Let's go back to the Marquette poll, and it really highlights. I mean, think about it.

There was a part in there where the people trust Republicans versus Democrats. And think about it, we've got a Republican president, and they're saying in a non-presidential year, we trust Republicans more than we do Democrats. To me, that is a great opportunity for us to be able to deliver this message to the people of the state of Wisconsin. We can do so much better. Great state, wonderful people. But the leadership is lousy in Madison coming on to the east wing, driving up your property taxes, your utility rates. And the red tape that we have as a result of regulations strangles people. We can do so much better. And that's going to be my message. We're going to provide the leadership to make Wisconsin one of the great states in America once again. One last thing, and this is probably my favorite. note out of the Marquette Law School poll, which by the way, you know, is released. I think it's on their website now, but you typically got to just scroll endlessly on their on their X account to see all this stuff, which is really annoying, by the way, is the 64% of Wisconsin registered voters favor the deportation of immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. Period. Exclamation point. Not 64% say they want to get rid of illegal aliens who have criminal records. People just want illegal aliens out of the United States. The Democrats are insisting not only do we not do that, that here in Wisconsin we give them Medicaid, that we give them work permits, jobs. Tony Evers flat out said that Wisconsin's economy would collapse without illegal aliens. And here's 64% of Wisconsin, which necessarily includes Democrats, says, get them out of our state. Get them out of the country. On Tuesday night with the State of the Union, we saw the Democrats sitting in the House chambers. We saw their true colors. And they sure aren't red, white, and blue, are they, Vicki? Oh, my goodness. Sitting down when you just simply state the actual purpose of the American government is to protect the citizens of the United States. That's actually uncontroversial to say that. And all the Democrats sat down. So, you know, if you take a look at it just polling, these are snapshots on the horse races. You know, I don't know how anyone's like, well, geez, I'm kind of undecided in the Republican primary. It just kind of makes you want to drop your forehead onto a slab of concrete until it hurts. But at the same time, that typically is the case, you know, right ahead of the big election season. One last thing, and that is to go to the Democrats, where are they? There's zero name recognition for anybody except Mandela Barnes. And he's only a point above Francesca, never heard of her hong. who is out there is probably the, you know, the more radical than Zohran Mamdani candidate. So think about it. Mandela, actually was shown to be trailing by one point, right? It was 11 Francesca and then 10 Mandela. So think about it if you're Mandela Barnes at this point, and you got all this name ID far more than everybody else, and you're losing to F-Bomb Franny. Think about that.

F-bomb Frannie. I'm stealing that. Tom Tiffany, great to have you on the program. Thanks very much for joining me on the show today. Always glad to help, Vicki. All right. Thank you. You did help. You actually helped lighten the mood. We'll take a quick break on the Vicki McHen show. Derrick Van Orden is going to join me momentarily. All right, welcome back to the program. We're waiting for Derrick Van Orden. He's... I'm about a minute early for him. He's sometimes a minute or too late. But I wanted to get back to the Marquette poll here because this is an interesting part of the poll. And it just goes to show you how really in particular the Democrats are not, they don't have allegiance to ideas based on principles. They have allegiance to ideas based on current events and politics. So here's a startling. note from the poll that shocked me. 70% of Democrats in Wisconsin said that Alex Prattie had a constitutional right to have a gun at the protest. Where the blank does that come from? Because consistently, in Wisconsin and across the country, Democrats do not believe you have a constitutional right even to own a gun. They support candidates that argue on the campaign trail that the Second Amendment was just about the military. They carp and cry every single time a new state passes a concealed carry law. Never mind the now more than 50% of states that have permitless carry, constitutional carry, but Alex Prattie had a constitutional right to have a gun at that protest. You're going to be there when the guy isn't Alex Prattie? I'm going to give you another example of someone that the Democrats had no right to have a gun. Jake Gardner. Jake Gardner was defending himself against a man who had him in a sleeper hold during the BLM riots outside of his father's restaurant. Jake Gardner shot the guy off of him. He had illegally owned and carried, concealed carry, permitted gun, shot the guy off of him, and the Democrats demanded he be charged with murder. And he was. So again, this isn't based on principle. It's based on politics. Whatever the convenient politics of the day are. Now, happily, Republicans are still on principle on this one. Alex Prettie had a concealed carry permit. It is not against the law to carry a gun to a protest. You know what it is against a law to do? Obstruct a police officer. But as far as the permit and the gun, the Republicans were actually able to understand there's a difference between that act and an act of obstructing a police officer. Democrats, they're just like, heck yeah! But when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse or Jake Gardner or anybody else,

Suddenly the principle of self-defense goes out the window. Let's put them in jail or string them up. All right. Congressman Derrick Van Orden is standing by fresh, again, just like Tom Tiffany, from Plover, Wisconsin, able to see the vice president of the United States here in Wisconsin laying out for people, getting the attention that's necessary for these issues because our media doesn't want to cover them on the successes of the Trump administration. and what needs to happen to make Wisconsin as strong as it can possibly be great to have you on the program. I know they're out for your neck. They are, you are target number one in our state. And so, and again, why they don't want your district to make it better, to make those manufacturing facilities stronger. They want your district so that they can just concentrate power so that we can have unrestrained illegal immigration and mutilation of kids. Well, you know what? That's a fairly good wrap up there. I'm actually, I'm number one in the state of Wisconsin. I'm the number five-ish in the entire country for Republicans. They're gunning hard. But you know what? We're winning hard. And I was at the State of the Union. And it was amazing when the way that President Trump told the story of America was just fantastic. And the lineup of the actual heroes that we should be looking up to and saying, you know, these are people to be emulated. And then, you know, victims of crime that did not happen because Biden opened up the open borders. Hopefully more people see that because, as you said earlier, you know, the mainstream media doesn't want people to know the truth. They don't want to know. that there's been thousands of American citizens raped, robbed, and murdered by people that shouldn't be here to begin with. They don't want people to know that right now there's no tax on tips. There's no tax on overtime. They don't want the American people to know that 88% of all seniors are going to pay zero federal tax on their Social Security. And that's really important that people do get to know that. I went to a place that's called a Woodenickel School spot. Carol was there and she was talking about her farm and her and her husband own a farm and they want to give to their kids but they're worried about it. I said, man, you do realize that there's a $15 million per person set aside for the death tax. So you get to give your farm to your kids without paying 30% of the value of the farm to the federal government. She started crying and that's because the mainstream media refuses. to tell the good stories that are coming out of Washington, D.C. and the work that the Republicans in the House and the Senate have done with President Trump. They just want people to know the truth. I got to tell you. I don't know if you caught this yet. The Democrats have drafted and introduced a piece of legislation. It was introduced on February 6th to reestablish the estate tax in Wisconsin at 40%. 40%. So she better make sure she votes Republican downstream. Okay, listen. People, rightfully so, say, you know, we are losing family farms at an alarming rate, and we are. This is why they don't understand that a farm is an economic unit made up of three different legs for a stool. It is land, iron, and labor.

So you have to have enough land, you have to have enough iron combines and whatnot, and you have to have the labor there. So when you have to give money to the federal government through taxes, it's about 30%, this would be 40%. Something has to give because farmers are land rich and cash poor. So what you do is you wind up selling your combine or you sell, you know, X amount of acres of land to pay the tax on the federal government. That upsets the three-legged stool. And that's why family farms have been closing. Yes. So Democrats in Madison. You know, they're like, we love family farms, then act like it. No, they don't. I drove past, I drove past acres and acres and acres of farmland that have been sold off for... apartment complexes. So don't give me that. That's Dane County. Acres and acres and acres and acres have been in the southwest side of Dane County sold off. So come on. We're losing family farms and we're not, nobody here in Wisconsin is seemingly, certainly not your opponent. She doesn't have anything to say about it. She sure is about cheering everything that Hakeem Jeffries tells her to cheer, whether it's, you know, sit down for a declaration of what the purpose of this country is or. look down your nose at the amazing American heroes and the optimism or lie about the actual legislation that's passed that's helping people. And then, of course, the media is helping them. Derek, I want to switch to something here. I'm looking at a graph that has been tracking pride in being an American, Democrat versus Republican going all the way back to 2001. Pride in being American. It was about the same. until about 2016. Suddenly, Democrats don't have pride in America. Republicans are about the same. They always have pride in America. Democrats who say that they have pride in the United States, 36%. 36%. And it's been like that since about 2016. Yeah, that's because they are believing the lies that they're getting bombarded with constantly from the mainstream media. They get it on radio, they get it on television, they get on cable, they get it on TikTok, they get it on these other social media platforms. And why would you say that about your country? They did a whole bunch of interviews after this awesome event. We just did JD Vance in Plover. And I'm like, it's okay. to love your country. It's awesome to understand that America, in fact, is the most awesome country that has ever existed. A lot of these people have never traveled. I lived and worked on five continents. Five.

And I'm telling you, this is the only country where my story and JD Vance's story can be told. JD Vance was raised in abject real poverty by a single mom and his grandma. He joined the military and then he made something out of himself. I was raised in abject rural poverty by a single mother. I dropped out of high school and I was 16 years old. I've been supporting myself since then. I joined the military and then unfortunately I failed up and a member of Congress. But the point being is this. This is the only country where in a single generation, you can go from the most meanest circumstances ever, abject, real poverty, broken home, the whole thing, to being the vice president of the United States or a member of Congress in the most powerful, great country that has ever existed in the history of the world. And that means something. The people on the other side of the aisle sat on their hands. When that was presented to them, they couldn't even stand. Not standing for, you know, the victim of violence, thanks to open borders, not standing for a declaration of intent, which should have been uncontroversial. Just, I mean, it was, I will say this, it was the. It was the best series of campaign ads I've ever seen handed to the Republicans by the Democrats in a good deal of time. But at the same time, you're thinking to yourself, how do we ever get back to a place where, again, I go to 2015. This is where the convergence takes place. Democrats and Republicans, Democrats were always more critical of the United States, but they were. Within three points of each other of having pride in this country, the Democrats were at 87%. The Republicans were at 92%. So with a handful of points, so five points, okay? I can do math, believe it or not. And it was like that for years, for years and years and years. It was, we could at least trust in that. And now I say, after that state of the union, Democrats hate this country. They behave like they hate it. And the, you know, they have the media carry water. I'll tell you something, Derek, what Trump did in the State of the Union, putting American heroism on display of all kinds from all types of people. It was so invigorating that I was out of my chair half the time watching that speech. And it was two hours long. It was brilliant. And so, you know, it's funny, Al Green, who is this cantankerous guy, waves his cane around, he's holding up some stupid signs. And I got, you know, I'm kind of a junior guy, and if you want to get it like a really neat, you got to get there a couple hours early. Well, I had meetings all day. I chaired a subcommittee, so I couldn't sit there in the chamber. So I'm kind of sitting in the back. And then I see Al Green get ejected for being, you know. for not having the appropriate decorum. We'll just leave it like that. And I was like, oh, hey, wait a minute. So I got up and I went over there and I took his seat. It was a great seat. I was actually a senator's seat that wasn't there. I totally scored. I saw you by Mark Kelly. Yes. It was awesome. Chuck Schumer was right in front of me. And so when the president's cracking wise, you know, I'm laughing and I'm just looking at this guy. He's seething. He was so angry.

And then when the president said, you know, stand up and you think the American government's, you know, first job should be to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. And I swear you could just feel the hate coming from these guys. I'm like, you guys, you're America. So, Vicki, what else is with JD? I got to go, Darren. I'm on a hard out. Sorry, man. Thank you. Take care. We'll be right back. All right. All right. Thanks, Vicki. See you. So this just in. Teachers want to adopt a homework tool that gives kids the ability to use AI to complete assignments. So what's the point of spending $10.5 billion in Wisconsin on education when an $14 app can do everything else? Anyway, we're out of time. We'll see on tomorrow's program.