Vicki McKenna Show - Saying Communist is Not Enough

gubernatorial race. That's important. It's odd as well. And we'll get into the politics of Bernie's decision to lie, basically, coming up on the program. Before we get to anything, though, I wanted just to walk people through a few facts related to news stories, local news stories in the Madison media. in the last couple of days. The first news story, do we have the audio? Brandon, I know you're having difficulty with the Bernie audio, but you still have the audio from... the independent police monitor, Mika Glass. Do you still have that audio available where she says, burn the city down? Just got to grab it from an old email. All right. Well, just quickly grab that audio because I want to play that again. Because we're going to reference that audio simply because the mayor of Madison, Satch Rhodes-Conway, gave a press conference yesterday where she declared that Arameek Glass, Mika, is what people call her, who is the independent police monitor. who threatened to burn the city down, that that was disturbing, that a city employee would say such a thing, that that was disturbing. Do we have the audio? Let's play it if we do. Here, play it. Just play it. All she did was asking for his badge number. I watched. I told you, I told you they've been wanting. They've been wanting to do this to me. I told you. And I'm not the one. I will fucking burn this city down. I will burn it down. There you go. She's going to burn the city down. She will effing burn the city down. But she didn't realize, as I mentioned yesterday, is that was drone cameras above her. So she was suggesting she was harassed by police. She was not. She walked up to police and started the scuffle herself. So now she's saying, I will burn the city down. And Satchi Rhodes-Conway, who is her employer? who is the one who signed off under $147,000 your job so that she could be an anti-cop activist in Madison calls that disturbing. That's disturbing. We've got another story. It's a companion story. Disturbing, I guess I would also think the mayor would maybe call this disturbing as well. Mika Glass is basically one of the people leading the occupation and leading the protests in Madison. Another group of people is called Freedom Inc. You know, Freedom Inc. who has been agitating in this city for years, Freedom Inc. is an NGO. Freedom Inc. has bailed out 32 of the 50 people arrested who resisted arrest as the Madison Police.

were ordered to clear the occupation of Willie Street and Baldwin Street. Freedom, Inc. has bailed out 32 of the 50 people who are arrested. That's another companion story. Now, the mayor has not responded to the news that Freedom, Inc. has bailed 32 of 50 people out. But I wonder if she's also going to describe that as anything close to disturbing. And here's why. Because the city of Madison... funds, Freedom, Inc. The Wisconsin State Government funds Freedom, Inc. The federal government funds Freedom, Inc. So what do we have? We have two, one organization and one person paid for by taxpayers who are being paid to protest and agitate in the city of Madison. One went a little too far when she said burn the city down and she got the mayor to say that was disturbing. Such a Rhodes-Conway, that's not disturbing. That's a threat. And immediately what you should have said is her continued employment in the city of Madison is under review. And we have reached out to the Madison Police Department for an investigation. But on Freedom, Inc. knowing that they led the protest at your house. This was who led the protest to the mayor's house, knowing that they are part of the organizing structure of the occupation, and knowing that they provided bail money for 32 of 50 people arrested, you should be looking at the outlays from taxpayers in the city of Madison supporting this organization. Between Madison, the federal government, and the state government, Freedom, Inc. breaks in $5 million. $5 million so that they can pay their founder $328,000 a year. $328,000 a year. For Cab Zog Vaj, the founder of Freedom Inc. $328,000. That woman's knocking down $328,000 in taxpayer money. The rest of the taxpayer money, the rest of the $5 million is going to support protests and agitation. Freedom Inc. claims it's helping people with domestic violence services or housing services. It's not. It exists as a political entity. And it just ran a loud, disruptive, invasive protest into the front yard of the mayor of Madison a couple of days ago. You have Arameek Glass. who is there as an activist to harass the police department getting paid $147,000 a year. Functionally, the city of Madison, state of Wisconsin and federal government are paying Kazbag Vag Vag, $328,000 a year. Oh, by the way, and the rest of the Freedom, Inc. board of directors is knocking back over $100,000 per year so that Madison has a paid...

contingent of professional organizers and protesters to be dispatched using city resources any moment, the politics go sideways from them. A police officer who is involved in an officer involved shooting isn't immediately offered up. To be strung up in the streets, that's when Freedom Inc. shows up. That's when Mika Glass shows up. $5 million this organization is being paid. $150,000 here is what Mika Glass is being paid. Why on earth is no one in the press talking about this? Do you know what the Madison media said about Freedom Inc? Their donation supported. No, they're not. They're government supported. If by donation you mean taxpayer outlays from the federal government, the state government, and the city government, okay, yeah, that's a donation if we've suddenly redefined donation. You mean to tell me not a single reporter in the entire city of Madison could grok this stuff? You couldn't need, I mean, you've got information at the tip of your fingers. You don't need an investigative journalist staff. You don't need anything except a smartphone and a chat bot. And you could get this information too. I did.

There needs to be an audit of this organization. The mayor should be calling for an audit of this organization. She won't because she can't bring herself to describe a woman she employs who's threatened to burn the city down as anything beyond disturbing. Or the organization that descended by the dozens into her yard to harass her and her neighbors in a loud protest that went on at length. She can't even be bothered to comment about that. city of madison's underwriting all of this stuff all of it you are paying for the disruption for the chaos you're paying for all of it now maybe you want to pay for all of it But at least 8% of you don't, and they matter. They have no representation. But you know what? Tom Tiffany, call your office because one of the things you can do immediately as governor is order an audit into all of these entities and cancel the funding, at least at the state level. And. penalize any municipal government that continues to use taxpayer resources to fund disruptive protests that shut down business and travel. We'll be right back. Hearing a couple of songs there.

Okay. We're trying mashups, I guess, on the radio station today. We're not experts at that. All right, I wanted to get to the Anthony Fauci stuff because the Senate Homeland Security Committee has just voted to hold Anthony Fauci in contempt. This just happened. It was a unanimous vote by the Republicans, and it was unanimously rejected by the Democrats. Are you shocked? So he has a pardon, a full pardon going back to 2014. Then he refused to answer any questions, right? He pled the fifth. He doesn't have the right to plead the fifth. And so he's going to be held into contempt. Now, the idea behind this, and you heard Senator Johnson talk about this a couple of days ago on the program, is that they're going to get him behind closed doors. And they're going to. you know, basically all day long, put him on the record. And we'll see what he will admit. Will he try to consistently maintain his Fifth Amendment protections, even after he's being grilled in a contempt citation? I don't know. But what is interesting is that... The media still wants to claim that there was, you know, that this is unfair, that there was nothing really going on here, that Anthony Fauci's private diaries were just exposed. It wasn't nice. He shouldn't have been reading those things, even though he put him on a government server so that the government could, in fact, read them. I have John Leak back on the program. We just had John on early last week to talk about this. And John is the author of Mind Viruses. America's Irrational Obsessions. He's worked with Dr. Peter McCullough. He is an expert on all things COVID and all things Anthony Fauci. You know, I guess I'll point to Aaron Rogers, who did more, I think, on this story on the Pat McAfee show than any other reporter did. And they sure didn't want him to do it. I mean, a sports guy, a quarterback. outed more about Anthony Fauci than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC altogether. So let's talk about Anthony Fauci did do. And I mean, we're talking about contempt and Fifth Amendment. This guy ought to be in prison. Well, that's... That's what I think, but my views on this, I'm not really making many friends on either side of the political spectrum because I believe he should simply be prosecuted in federal court. I don't think the Mickey Mouse preemptive pardon is unchallengeable. I think it could easily be challenged. And my concern is, as much as I think that Senators Johnson and Rand Paul are doing the best they can, within the confines of the legislative branch this is really a job for the attorney general but the trump administration really does not want to touch this in federal court in my opinion because if it were to really be analyzed in proper discovery it would be revealed

that every single agency in the federal government knew about what Anthony Fauci was doing and is complicit. And I want to be very clear. Readers think, well, why wouldn't it be a bad thing if the federal government were to suffer incalculable liabilities with respect to all of mankind? And the final analysis, the U.S. government protects itself. It will come as a shock to many viewers, perhaps, for listeners that they're not really about protecting we, the people. They're about sustaining the power and the financial standing of the U.S. government. So it needs to be prosecuted in federal court. And again, I want to stress, I seem to anger people. I like Rand Paul and Ron Johnson. I think they're great. I've met both of them. But I think this is a bit of a distraction. Well, here's why, and you and I disagreed on this before, I don't think it's a distraction because it keeps it top of mind. I don't think it's a distraction because it gets people to say things out loud. Stephen A. Smith, for instance, Aaron Rogers, who took control of a microphone essentially on a sports talk show when they definitely did not want to talk about any of that stuff. You know, Bill Maher finally addresses this on his program, not that these people are, you know, global mouthpieces. So I think it's helpful in that regard. But to the federal prosecution. I mean, yeah, it's helpful in the public forum. But, you know, there's an old historic precedent for this. You know, going back to ancient Rome, we get a bunch of hurly-burly in the public forum. And that's great. I mean, I love Aaron Rogers. I wrote a whole chapter about him in one of my books. He's like the only smart guy in the NFL. So I'm in favor of all of this. But what I am saying is if government is worth its salt, then it needs to get in the business of actual justice, not certain select gentlemen within government inducing a discussion in the public forum. That's great. All in favor of it, I've been doing this in the public forum for six years. So I'm not, I think it's terrific. I just think, like, is this distracting from the salient point? Why isn't he being prosecuted? The evidence is there. I mean, the evidence is he was the mastermind, frankly. The evidence is he was the mastermind of the virus itself. Why isn't he being prosecuted? I don't know. Why isn't Ralph Amy Coney Barrett being prosecuted? Why isn't Peter Marks who knew and lied about the impact of the vaccine? Why isn't Peter Marks being Rochelle Walinsky? And I'm offering what I believe is a well-constructed explanation. for why these guys, why the Attorney General of the United States isn't touching this. You know, President Trump still claims that the messenger RNA vaccines are a great achievement. Now, I have for 10 years supported President Trump at the expense of personal ostracism in some of the places in which I've lived. So I'm not against President Trump.

But his votaries of his cult of personality need to start thinking about that. He still says these shots were a great achievement. These shots are at the heart. of what Anthony Fauci was doing. The shots are the whole point of Anthony Fauci's activity. So if the president of the United States can't bring himself to say that the shots weren't a good idea, he'll never be able to endorse prosecuting Anthony Fauci because that's what all of this was about. I think you're 100% right on that. I said I think you're 100% right on that. I think he cannot say. Operation Warp Speed was a bad idea. He's incapable of saying, and it is a bad idea. It was a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea to do an end-run around regulatory safety controls, not that they were ever going to be applied appropriately to this particular drug, this gene therapy. But he cannot give that up. I've talked to Senator Johnson about it. He says, I don't even understand. He's had the evidence. He knows. He sees what we see too. Tauchi was the handmaid and was the midwife. of this warp speed, you know, we finally get to bring messenger RNA technology onto the world in an explosive way. There's going to be no more hesitation about it, no more limitations of funding. We're going to say that this is a global emergency affecting all of mankind. It's game time. It's war. Let's roll out the MRNA. And Trump played along with it. Well, and the ventilators. For heaven's sake. And then we rolled out ventilators. I mean, and then we ended up inducing people to die on ventilators. I could go on. We're talking about the shot. They had that shot ready to go. I know. I've written two books about it. What I'm trying to tell everybody, if anybody's interest is we, the people need to start quit quarreling about these things in the forum and in a unified way start. demanding accountability from our government. If it's just if the executive branch and the judicial are to actually do what the point of them being there and receiving a gazillion dollars of annual funding, it's to do things. like prosecute Anthony Fauci. So they're doing everything except what they should be doing. And this is the big problem. The government is like a magician doing a misdirection trick. They do. I'll give you another example just to illustrate.

It's all of these stupid wars abroad, and they can't even maintain the main sewer line in the greater Washington, D.C., the interceptor that runs along the Potomac. All this crap about global warming and government subsidies for electric vehicles, they can't even protect the Potomac in that estuary going into the Chesapeake. The U.S. government is a sewer. It's a joke. And this is just another example of it. And so instead of calling the U.S. government to account to do its job, we end up talking about, you know, Anthony Fauci and the public forum. Get him out of the public forum and get him into court. Well, I'm hoping that's what the, I hope the contempt resolution does something. that results in at least what Steve Bannon had to endure for a contempt violation or Peter Navarro had to endure. I mean, that would be a consolation. It would be a consolation to see that guy in his jockey shorts with a toothbrush. you know, having to make phone calls on the shared phone. You know, you had mentioned we can't even keep the sewers, you know, operating functionally. You mentioned Washington, D.C. We can't do it in Milwaukee. There's typhus outbreaks in California. There's a typhus outbreak in California. We're supposed to trust. that any of these people who, by the way, just nodded their heads like bobbleheads, when the government said that we have to lock down and we have to have six foot distancing and masks, which, by the way, Anthony Fauci in his diaries said he knew was BS. He knew it was, everybody knew it was BS. We were supposed to just not along. And the same government that told you to do it at penalty of losing your business, losing your freedom, now cannot control typhus in Los Angeles. Let me interject it. Let me interject. Anthony Fauci knew that the vaccines didn't work. He himself was the author on an NIH paper in 2022. in which they explicitly talk about the fact that influenza and coronaviruses begin by rapidly replicating in the nasal mucosa, which is pretty well sealed off from blood antibodies. Blood antibodies don't come to bear on this virus until it's been cooking for about 10 days. and gets down deep into the gas exchange region of the lungs. Only then.

Do blood antibodies come to bear on this problem at all? Anthony Fauci understood that. That's basic immunology. He published it in a paper. I can show you the paper if you wanted in the show notes. He knew this thing didn't work. Anthony Fauci is just a bag man for commercial and political interest. That's all he is. And it's what I want to, what I'm trying to say is we don't need to examine the accused. It's not necessary. The documents get the job done. So bringing this old guy in front of a Senate hearing and asking him a bunch of questions, we all know the answers already. So I'm sorry if I seem a little bit frustrated. It's just, I just find this whole spectacle very frustrating. Well, I don't, I think everybody who is paying attention in the beginning and people who got injured by the process, be it by, you know, not having access to their loved ones, not being able to get access to other treatments. You mentioned it replicates in the nose. We knew that. So why didn't you tell people to use iodine nasal spray? Why didn't you tell people there was a product called Zlear. It had xylitol in it. Zylitol killed the virus in the nasal cavity. Why didn't you let them market it for that purpose? Not only was this not advised, it's just friendly public advice from your caring health authority. These modalities were viciously suppressed. The CEO of Clear is a good friend of mine. He was viciously attacked and sued by the federal government and had to defend itself at the cost of millions of dollars. This is a vicious criminal organized crime racket, and it's so obvious. So anyway, I'm kind of throwing my hands up in despair. I hope that Senators Johnson and Rand Paul are able to do the best that they can within the legislative branch. But I'm really disappointed by the Trump's Department of Justice. Well, I'm disappointed. We don't have. I'm disappointed we don't have substantial report for a piece of legislation that would repeal this immunity protection for vaccine manufacturers. I mean, that seems like a no-brainer. That seems like a layup. We can't get that either. It's almost like this particular issue is flashing neon signs of what the truth actually is. And a significant enough number of people in the government go, What are you talking about? I don't see the neon sign flashing right in front of my face. And you're supposed, again, be gaslit into believing that we can just move past this. By the way, what they're trying to talk about now is like forced dosing statins on people. I mean, they're not done. We just had an announcement.

Let me finish real quick. Jeffrey Tucker Carlson at Brownstone Institute just unveiled a paper where the CDC was saying, hey, we had quarantine camps or concentration camps ready for you people. It was, I mean, these are plans that have already been drawn up. John, I wish I had a bit more time, but I want people to read the book. Please read the book. The book is called Mind. Well, it shows how all of these purported crises since 2001. They all follow the same script. It's terrify us. use the terror, the specter of some mortal threat to suspend our constitutional liberties and then shovel a trillion dollars to federal money into the pocket of people within this complex who are supposed to be protecting us but are in fact exploiting us. And then protect them from being sued. And then protect them from being sued as well. And remember, they're telling you what to do. They can't control typhus in Los Angeles. They can't get the sewers to work. In Milwaukee, even in D.C. in Milwaukee and New York. Thank you, John. John Leak, L-E-A-K-E, Mind Viruses, The Book, Please Get It. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the program. We've got to jump into some of the stuff that's been going on in politics. And we'll come back to Hong and all that stuff. on the program. We'll touch a little bit on it with David Johnson from Strategic Vision, but you've got this El-Sayed guy in Michigan. I mean, you really do have, David, the rise of the, I mean, they're just anti-American. This is the Democratic Party, and they're winning races. And so what I say to people is like, you know, maybe they're not the majority. But they're winning races. So we're going to have to contend with them. And the Democrats are not purging their ranks. So let's talk about this guy in Michigan. Can he win? He could realistically win. Look, Michigan's a tough state for Republicans. And right now, the mood of the country is not the grace for Republicans. I think Rogers will pull it out. I think we're going to see a lot of Democrats go for Rogers over the Democratic nominee. But. You never know. Elections can be strange. And Detroit is infamous for stealing elections. Well, and so Detroit's infamous for stealing elections. Michigan's infamous for stealing elections. But Michigan also has a significant number of people who believe in jihad, who are Islamist, you know, and those are in the city centers. We're organizing voter turnout. is a lot easier than saying rural Michigan or the UP, which is a lot harder. And there aren't as many votes to go grab. So this is, you know, people kind of say, oh, this is not that big of a deal. Listen.

Obama gave the green light in 2009 when he redefined socialism as tax the rich and rich pay their fair share. Instead of talking about what it really is, that sounds really nice. And so we had Uncle Bernie, right? Uncle Bernie. He just seems like an affable nice doofus. We can make fun of Bernie. We can just say the word socialist and not explain it. And next thing you know, now we've got people like this clown at the St. Paul City Council who's saying, you know, disarm the cop sees private property from everyone and is making excuses for political violence. Oh, exactly. And what's so horrifying is these Democratic socialists here in the U.S., they're not like your socialists over in Europe. These people want to destroy the entire system and the country. They find nothing that they like. At least your socialists over in Europe want to operate within the system and keep the existing institutions. And they respect elections. This crew does not. And they are advocating violence, no matter what anyone says. Yeah, this is not that anyone knows their history, but it's very Maoist what you see happening. Again, that doesn't land because nobody knows what that means. Nobody knows what it means to be Maoist. And we got to go explain the Chinese revolution, the people's revolution in China. That takes an hour. So, you know, that's where Barack Obama shorthand back in 2009 when it was fair share. Pay your fair share. You didn't build that. You know, when he started to change the rhetoric into sort of general liberal word salad stuff is when we were off to the races. And he did something else, and this is important, and why El-Sayed could win, and why if Francesca Hong becomes the governor, she could win. It's something he did called Catalyst, and it was a way of micro-targeting that exempted the Democrats from having to have broad appeal. They didn't have to target broad messages. They only had to get specific constituencies to turn out to vote. And so Catalyst was the way to do that. You're talking to a bunch of old women. You're going to say one thing. You're talking to a bunch of young women. You're going to say another thing. You're talking to blacks, another thing. Zohran Mamdani did this in New York, and now he's mayor. Exactly. And, I mean, you have to really give them credit for what they're doing. They know how to win elections. They know how to get out their voters. And unfortunately, the GOP is always running behind. Our base right now is not really motivated. The Democratic base is motivated. Independence are fed up with the economy. Affordability is a major issue. And the socialists are pinpointing the affordability issue. when they target independent. Right. When they're talking to the socialist, they talk about private property. When they're talking to the socialist, they talk about colonialism and white supremacy. When they're talking to other people, they're like, oh, you can't afford a gallon of gas. You know, despite the one big, and this is what the Republicans will say, well, in the one big beautiful bill, we prevented a $3 trillion tax increase. We increased people's take home pay with no tax on tips and no tax on overtime.

Here's the problem, and this is that I guess they don't understand the sort of way people perceive political policy. Once you have gotten used to it, and they are. You're not thinking about that anymore. It's like Act 10 in Wisconsin. We're used to Act 10. We don't know what it means to repeal Act 10. I say it'll cost $30 billion. And people are like, I don't know what that means. I have no idea what that means. They've already banked on no tax on tips. They're already banking on no tax on overtime. Nobody's out there with gratitude to the Republicans for the one big, beautiful bill over this. They're looking at $4.20 a gallon gasoline and griping about it, even if it was higher under Joe Biden. because it is the immediate environment and immediate reality that people perceive. Exactly. Well, this is a problem. Now, we have some advantages. The Democrats aren't raising money. The Republicans are. And so that's good. How are we spending that money? Well, so far, we're not really spending that effectively. Texas, we've got a real dog fight with Ken Paxton. That blows my mind. Okay, go ahead, please, on Texas. But no money's been spent because they assume Texas is a red state. Democrats always fail. James Talarico spend over $27 million so far. Our guy since the primary has spent $42,000 and hasn't even been out campaigning. That's an issue. Well, I want to say this, though, in defense of Ken Paxton, not in defense of being stupid and not campaigning when there's a pile of money for you. But in defense of Ken Paxton, $20 million, and he's still a point behind Ken Paxton. So, I mean, that's a lot of money. That's a lot of money to make anything. For granted. Right. Well, exactly. Exactly. But this is the way the Democrat or the Republican Senate campaign committee operates in their heads. We don't need to send money there. We hadn't planned to send money there because John Cornyn was the was the anticipated candidate and he was an incumbent. And so we weren't planning on spending any money in Texas. Well, now we have to spend money in Texas, but we also have to spend money in Michigan and we have to spend money in Georgia and we have to spend money in Wisconsin. So all of the... George is looking worse and worse for Republicans, and that's the problem. Our candidate's flawed, and he hasn't raised any money. And Jon Ossoff is on the air nonstop. And you have a lot of traditional Republican voting blocks say, you know, in the six years, he might vote liberal on a lot of stuff. But when we've needed something, say the agriculture industry, for example. He's always provided the best constituent services we've ever had. And that's a problem. Republicans have no argument against him right now. Exactly.

We have no argument. You're kidding me. Of course you have an argument. The argument is the fact that the man is part of a team that wants to rip this nation to shreds. But we needed to be making this case when Barack Obama began the process of this. And we were afraid of being accused of being racist because very smartly, they weaponized individual situations like George Floyd or Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin. And the Republicans are terrified of being labeled with racist, bigot, Nazi, whatever. And so we've been behind this curve for a good couple of decades here. Now, I'm not saying that I think we're going to lose. I actually think we're going to do okay in the midterms. But. We should be, this should be easy. This should be easy. It should be and it should be a no brainer, but it's not. And the reason is we don't have a compelling message that we're getting out. Do we have a compelling message? Of course we do. But we're not getting it out. And that's hurting us. Yeah. And here in Wisconsin, you know, everyone's like, oh, gosh, Francesca Hong is going to be so easy to beat. Don't count on that. We all thought Tammy Baldwin was going to be easy to beat. She was the most radical member of the United States House of Representatives. She was one of the most radical members ever in the Wisconsin State Assembly and Wisconsin State Senate. Yeah, I mean, and she defeated easily the one of the most beloved people of Wisconsin history, which was Tommy Thompson. So this idea that, oh, this is going to be a layup, that's dumb. You want her to win because the contrast is so easy. But I'm being told that south of central Wisconsin. We have limited name recognition for our candidate, Tom Tiffany, south of central Wisconsin. Oh, I believe that. For reasons that are kind of befuddling, we don't have high name ID for our candidate. So every time, you know, we talk about Francesca Hong, but don't mention Tom Tiffany, that helps Francesca Hong. But it doesn't help Tom Tiffany necessarily. No, it doesn't. It gives her name recognition. And look, you mentioned the Tommy Thompson race that we lost with Timmy Baldwin. The same thing's going to happen is Princess Han's going to come out and begin defining that race, begin pouring money in. Republicans need to be able to counter that right away. We need to define her from the very beginning and get it out. Because if we don't... She will define Tom Tiffany. She will define this race and will have a lot of soft spots for her on what a great and nice woman she is. Yes, that's a problem. So that's another thing is that right now, all eyes are on her and her negatives because the Democrats want her out. They don't think she, they think she is the easiest one to beat Tony Evers just recently said that, that he doesn't think she could win statewide. And so that's a tell. All this oppo that you're seeing is not being dug out by and large by Republicans or conservative. It's being dug out by Democrats. So they reckon she is the easiest one to beat as well. And so do we. But then they'll rally behind her once she's the nominee. We're seeing this in Virginia. Exactly. So the media. You'll never hear another negative thing from the media about Francesca Hong if she becomes the nominee. I will also say this, in this gap, where she is now easily defined.

Tiffany needed to be out there and still can, needs to be out there defining himself while also treating her as the presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee. Run the campaign like it's already going, you know? David Johnson, thank you very much for joining me on the show. Thank you. It's great to be on. From Strategic Vision based on the near Atlanta area. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna show. So you've got another chance to win $1,000 in our nationwide inflation vacation cash contest. Here's your word. It is Rich. R-I-C-H-H-R-I-C-H-H. Go to W-I-B-A.com and enter the keyword rich, or you can use the iHeartRadio app as well. If you're listening on the app right now, you can play the contest on the app. You probably already know that. But in case you didn't, scroll down, you'll see the contest link. fill out the information, your personal information. We need your phone number so we can call you if you win. And definitely enter the keyword. Don't make a mistake on that, Rich, R-I-C-H. You've got till 55 minutes past the hour to play. It's our last week of this particular contest. Here's a quick hint. I just saw this in the all corporate email. The I Heart Radio Music Festival is coming up. My guess is we will be doing another very similar contest for you to win. a flyaway trip to the IHeart Radio Music Festival. And in the past, that has also included money to spend, you know, gift cards and things like that. So listen for details on that. That's going to be my guess on what our next contest is going to be only because they just told us it was confirmed in the all corporate email that we get from the company capital T, C. All right. Let's get to. Bernie Sanders. Do you have the audio ready for Bernie Sanders? Okay. Bernie Sanders was asked if he is going to endorse. in the Wisconsin race. Let's have a listen to, this is on some left-wing podcast or I have no idea who this guy is, but he's kind of making the, they're making the rounds on his podcast, so I probably should learn his name, but right now I don't care. But here's Bernie Sanders' answer to the question. Here it is. I noticed you haven't yet endorsed in the Wisconsin governor's race. What's your thinking there and might you endorse? I don't think so. I met Francesca a couple of years ago. I was in Wisconsin. It seems very, very nice. But again, this is a race I just am not that familiar with. We have not gotten involved in many governors races. Then we did one in Maine with Troy Jackson. You know, obviously my major concern right now is seeing that we have a Senate and a House that is going to stand up to Trump. That's really where my focus is. So as of now, we've not been involved in that race. That's a lie. He's lying. Bernie Sanders is lying. Bernie Sanders is involved in the race in Wisconsin. Bernie Sanders PAC, Our Revolution, is the organizing pack for Francesca Hong. Bernie Sanders founded the PAC, Our Revolution. Our Revolution has endorsed Francesca Hong.

Here is an explanation. Yes, our revolution has endorsed Francesca Hong for governor of Wisconsin, the progressive group founded by Bernie Sanders in 2016 after its presidential campaign announced its support in June of 2026. So he says, we're not involved in any of the gubernatorial races. Yes, you are. You're involved in Wisconsin. You're endorsing Francesca Hong. Why don't you want to admit that? Why doesn't Bernie Sanders want to admit that he's endorsing Francesca Hong? Why doesn't he want to go out and campaign with her? It's a good sign he doesn't. It's a good sign he thinks he needs to lie. By the way, Bernie also lied when asked a question about abolish the police and he said he didn't know anybody who believed in abolishing the police. Well, you endorse Francesca Hong. Your PAC is her organizing entity in Wisconsin. She wants to abolish the police. So it is interesting that Bernie does not want to lay claim to this race. And I think that has everything to do with the fact that Democrats in Wisconsin, this is exceedingly helpful. Democrats in Wisconsin are very worried about her. Here's what she did yesterday. So we find the tweet on Thanksgiving. It wasn't the only holiday. She felt the need to trash. But we found the tweet on Thanksgiving, where she said, cancel Thanksgiving. Just flat out said, cancel Thanksgiving should have done this in 1621. If it takes a worldwide pandemic for us to realize we should stop celebrating colonialism in the original super spreader event that killed indigenous folks with an ex and women, so be it. That was unironic. She wasn't joking. She wasn't being silly. She said cancel Thanksgiving. So Caitlin Susan Collins of CNN five days ago asked her about that tweet. Cancel Thanksgiving should have done it in 1621. And what Francesca Hong said was, I'm a chef. I cook meals for people. But Thanksgiving is painful for many people. So she didn't take it back. She re-declared that Thanksgiving is painful for people. Okay? As of yesterday, according to Politico, Thanksgiving is now her favorite holiday. No lie. As of yesterday, she says, no, no, no, no, it's actually my favorite holiday. My favorite. So we went from cancel Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving is painful to it's my favorite holiday. These are some of the reasons why. Even though Bernie Sanders organization is her organizing entity in the state of Wisconsin, they don't necessarily want to publicly tie Bernie's name to Francesca Hong. Now, as I said with David Johnson at the same time, this is happening, and she is still likely to be the candidate. I mean, I don't have recent polling. The latest polling we had was about a week old. But she's over 30 points ahead of the next closest person on the Democrat's slate. So it's quite likely. All the hot shot left-wing podcasters, not mainstream Democrats.

who are hoping to stave off the disaster that she may be bringing to the ticket in Wisconsin. But all the left-wing podcasters, all those people, Hasan Piker, people like that, they love her. So the idea that, you know, there's a, I suppose there's an outside chance she won't be the candidate. But. We don't have Tom Tiffany with high name recognition. We got to do something about that. Now, I'm going to connect with Megan Novak coming up from AFP. They have just completed their 500,000th door. So they're doing doors. They're knocking on doors and they're telling people about Tom Tiffany. No one's knocked on my door, by the way. Be nice if somebody would knock on my, not that I mean I would just send them on, right? I already know. Thank you very much. But we need that because. Francesca Hong, Francesca Hong, Francesca Hong, great. Who are the Republicans? Who are the independents going to necessarily need to choose? Well, Tom Tiffany. That's who they're necessarily going to need to choose. And a lot of people don't even know his name. We'll get to that in just a sec. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. So broadly, favorability for socialism among Democrats is about 80%. Okay? That's the number of Democrats who say that they would have no problem voting for a socialist, a Democratic socialist or a otherwise socialist colored candidate, 80%. And then you take the candidates and you say, don't call yourself a socialist. And now you're talking about all Democrats, pretty much being willing to vote for the Democrat. That's just not the way it is on the Republican side. There are Republicans who just won't vote at all. How enthusiastic are Democrats have a very high level of enthusiasm going into these elections. The idea that the money that is not flowing in, that we are hearing, the DNC, not being able to raise a lot of money, a lot of donors, sitting it out, doesn't seem to be dampening enthusiasm. Again, because Barack Obama created a condition where... You don't need a broad messaging strategy. You need a turnout operation. And guess what? We need the turnout operation too. And we need the broad messaging strategy. And we need to up the name recognition. And Megan Novak, who's the Wisconsin director for Americans for Prosperity, joins me on the program. You're on door number 500,000. This is great. because we keep hearing that name recognition for our candidate Tom Tiffany is low south of Wausau. So you get, you know, in the northern areas and a lot of people seem to know who he is. And you get to the southern part of the state and we're having more problems, which blows my mind. But yet here we are, knowing what Democrats will do and how hive minded they are, how can we close the gap? Yeah, thanks for having me on, Vicki. This is exactly why we are already at an exceeding half a million doors for Tom Tiffany from AFP because we know that the Dems will have their turnout operation once they get through this bloody primary. They will coalesce, as they always do. And so we started all the way back in February and making sure we could get our base voters and independent voters aligned with the vision Tom Tiffany has for Wisconsin, which is...

literally just common sense solutions to make your life better. And that's the hard work we're going to be doing all the way through Election Day to turn out every single vote for Tom that we can. All right. So we need like five more organizations like AFP doing the exact same thing. That's what we need. Or just a million more volunteers. We'll take volunteers to us here. By the way, AFP doesn't only, you mean, volunteers are great, but you actually have paid positions too for people to canvas. So, you know, be part of that. Here's what the Democrats will do. They will hand their voters a list. The list will have names on them. It will be irrelevant whether anybody knows anything about the candidates. That's what they do. And then they drag people to the polls or they put an absentee ballot in their hand and make sure that ballot gets collected or they have a drop box or they have a knock and drag operations. That's what they do. We are not as good at that. We just aren't. That's life. Okay, but we've been given a gift here. Francesca Hong, who is, I mean, maybe she's not the worst in the state legislature. There's some bad ones. I mean, she's, Calder Royce is also a candidate. And is equally awful. I mean, you've got other people in the assembly who are just nuts like Ryan Clancy and some of these others. So, I mean, she's, she's among the worst. But. Let's talk about some of the things she's proposed. Everyone, we should probably go over her legislative record. This woman has proposed is 17% tax, the highest tax in the entire country. This woman has proposed legalizing prostitution. Okay? I mean, this woman is proposed that we turn a blind eye to child groomers. She voted against a piece of legislation that would have penalized groomers. Megan, we've got. quite a bit of material on this woman just in terms of what she's actually done as a legislator. It's disturbing. I mean, from her economic policy where she will destroy our state. I mean, she wants to repeal Act 10, repeal right to work. raise our taxes while claiming she's somehow going to lower property taxes. It's not going to happen. The math does not work out. She is going to make life unaffordable for every single Wisconsin, whether you own a home, whether you rent. Her reliance on the green new energy scam trying to push us towards more solar and wind is just going to cost rate payers more and more and more while getting us less reliable energy. And then like you said, there's the things like child grooming. There was only six people in the entire legislature who voted against making child grooming a felony. Francesca Hong was one of them. That's inexcusable. How do you not protect kids that you want to be our governor? Child grooming.

And she voted against protecting kids from child grooming. But again, this is a woman who was part of the, whatever it was, a resolution. I don't know what it was called. It was some kind of recognition of a porn star during Holy Week. She wants legalized hookers. So let's talk about affordability because that's really, you know, where the hardcore Republicans are going to vote for Tom Tiffany because Francesca Hong's insane. She doesn't have an answer for affordability. She says things like stop the landlords from raising rent. Well, you can't do that. If you make it unaffordable for the landlords, then the landlords will have to raise rent. How do we make housing affordability something that is accessible again in Wisconsin? It used to be very affordable to buy a house here. But you've got regulations in place, moratoriums on building in place. You've got the DNR demands. You've got energy demands on new construction. You've got government in the way. And then you've also got local zoning requirements that stop the express creation of housing opportunities for people in Wisconsin. It has almost nothing to do with interest rates and almost everything to do with supply. And it is the Democrats who have gotten in the way of assisting in expanding that supply. It is. And if you're lucky enough to actually be able to afford the ridiculous regulations and zoning requirements, the Democrats have placed on us, then you're going to be slapped with a 400-year property tax hike that's completely unaffordable for any family, regardless of what income level you're at. And so the Democrats say, Francesca Hong say she's for the working class, that she's with Wisconsin families. It's simply not true. You cannot be for... more regulations, unaffordable housing, and higher property taxes, and also say you're for the working class. No, and you also can't say, you also can't say things like we need more wind and solar. Nobody wants that crap. Literally nobody wants it. There's a, somebody was just complaining about another solar. There's 88 more solar arrays that are going to go up. All it does is raise utility rates. That's all it does. Nobody wants these things. Literally nobody wants them. Not even Democrats want these things. But there's Francesca Hong saying we need to take more hydrocarbon capacity offline, charge people for that, even though no electricity is being generated, and, you know, erect another solar array or put up some wind turbines or something that nobody wants. So that's not for working families. She voted against repealing the 400-year property tax. That's not for working families. Working families are the ones that have the hardest time with that property tax. Renters who don't even know they're paying the property tax have an enormously hard time with that property tax. Exactly. And when you think about all of the wind and solar, it's families want to be able to turn the lights on when they get home from work. They want their air conditioner turn on and their heat to work. And when we have this over-reliance on solar and wind that, like you said, creates no actual reliable energy for our state. That's going down the wayside while they're paying more in a monthly utility bill than there is their car payment. That's unacceptable for Wisconsin. Well, that's a good point. You're actually, I mean, your utility bills are starting to become even more expensive than your vehicle. And just on property, but back on property taxes, you know, what Tom needs to do and what I would like to see the conservatives do and the conservative groups do is target renters and knock on the door and say, do you think this is something that affects you? And they likely say it really doesn't.

But if you actually look at the average yearly outlay for property taxes from renters. And I'm just looking at Madison, Wisconsin. The average yearly outlay for taxes in your rent is $2,100. It just went up. If you have a higher, you know, rent payment, it's going to go, it's even higher than that. But it's on average $2,100 a year. That used to be $800 a year, maybe 10 years ago. And now it's $2,100 a year. I remember my first house I bought in Madison, Megan, I was paying $2,400 a year and I had a whole house. And now it's $2,100 a year just for the average renter in Madison, Wisconsin, because of the property tax increases. Yep, and the more that goes up, the less people are actually going to be able to save to buy that first house. And when you can't buy a home, you can't live out that American dream and have that place where you're building equity for long-term family investments. And it's just ridiculous to think about, I mean, it truly breaks my heart that you have an entire generation of people who have practically given up on that American dream of owning a home. A lot of them have misplaced anger of understanding why they can't afford a home. That's true. It is Democrats' policies that make housing unaffordable. It's as simple as that. That's the thing. And Tom needs to do a better job of articulating this very clearly and directly as well. He needs to start tightening up in saying, I'm going to lower property taxes for everyone. I don't know. I think you could do it by 20%. Because if you just roll back a few key regulations, which he has already planned to do in the state of Virginia, automatically housing prices dropped by 20%. And that was without adding any supply. I'm going to make supply easier. But I think what we need to do is get to those young people. Let's not write them off and say, you know, your $1,000, $2,000 a month rent. That's high. That's too high. But did you know that you're also paying thousands of dollars a year in property taxes? And every single time a referendum passes, every single time the state government decides to do crazy things like what Tony Evers did and what all the Democrats support, your bills go up again and again. And the average increase is going to be 8 to 10% per year in perpetuity. And that's part of why we actually just need someone who's going to get in there and actually audit our government. So we're not throwing dollars at whatever wasteful grant has existed on the books since 1972 or whatever and actually fund the priorities of government. And when you start doing that, we're going to see a lot lower property taxes. We're going to be able to have a lot lower income taxes.

all while maintaining the core services and limiting it to that of what government is actually supposed to provide. Yeah, all these, all young people want to do is be able to afford rent. I mean, at this point, like to your point, because they said, well, I don't even know if I can own a home. At this point, they don't want $2,000 a month rent, you know, for a one bedroom where you can't squeeze an extra roommate in to make it somewhat affordable. I mean, not long ago, a one bedroom in Madison, Wisconsin was going at about $750 a month, not that long ago. In my lifetime, rent was affordable. And now it's not. Now, I don't care where you go unless you get an inclusionary zoning voucher, in which case you are basically living next to Section 8 people. And most young people don't want to do that either. So there are ways to get to these constituents and, you know, doing the doors is an important one. I hope AFP has a young team that is going to, you know, dispatch into apartment complexes and on campuses and say, hey. What do you think about paying $2,000 to $3,000 a year just for your taxes? Because I bet they don't know they're doing it. They don't. Our team is young. I can't keep up with them on doors anymore. They kick my butt out walking. But I mean, if there's other young people out listening who want to help get that message out, we are always looking for people to volunteer, paid positions. Find me on Twitter, Megan J. Novak. Let's get involved. Let's get more young people working hard to save our state because that's. That's why we're doing the hard work is for the next generation. By the way, anyone can do this. You all have these computers in your pockets. Everybody's got a chat bot. You're all making, you know, fake AI cat videos and things like that. This thing is a resource. So, you know, if you're out on the, you're doing the doors. You're a young person doing doors. You whip open that phone, open up chat GPT, open up GROC and say, what's the average property tax that the average renter in lacrosse? is paying every single year. And what is the expected increase based on the veto? It'll pop up 90 seconds for you. Before you even ring that doorbell, have that answer ready to go. It's really easy to be a super informed canvasser now and a super informed voter. Thank you, Megan, for being on the show. Thanks, Vicki. And we will take a quick break on the Vicki McKenna show. All right. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna show. So I love and hate AI. I love and hate these chat bots. What I like about him is that I can get really fast information. So I have got Janice Fiamengo standing by. Dr. Fiamengo is standing by. He's got a brand new book about feminism on the program. And before I even get into anything, What I just want to share is guess who the people who support the wildest policies, open borders, you know, seizure of private property, no police. Guess who they are? Are they men by and large or are they women by and large? Janice, I bet you can guess the answer to this question. Yes, women do tend to support much more radical. political policies. They tend to think in terms of emotion and inclusion. And so if a good argument can be made that something is unfairly exclusive in some way or hurt someone, that will tend to sway women and women, I think, are more vulnerable to demagoguery of all sorts.

Oh, you're so correct. You're so very correct on that. The book, by the way, that we are going to talk about is called The Goddess That Failed. Feminisms on Ending War Against Men, Families, and Civilization itself. And it's on the civilization itself. Civilization becomes a proxy for the family. Civilization becomes a proxy for men, right? And so when you say the goddess that failed, if you look at the history of feminism, it almost always was meant. to tear down the structures that make civilization possible. I mean, go all the way back to 1791, and I think that was Mary Wallstonecraft. She wanted to destroy the family, and in order to do what she needed to destroy the concept of wanting motherhood, of desiring motherhood or having society be based on that, because in the end, she thought society itself was unfair. Yes, she did. She didn't come out and say that exactly. She claimed that she wanted women to be educated equally with men, therefore they would be able to choose virtue. She framed her arguments in ways that sounded quite reasonable. She said that she thought that women had not been able to demonstrate their capacity for reason because they hadn't been challenged to show it. But if you read... The entirety of her vindication of rights of woman, you see the double standards, the anger at men, the refusal to recognize reality, the revolutionary sort of utopianism that's a dominant strand throughout all of feminism. You really see those clearly in her. And she ended up, of course, going to Paris. In 1792, at the height of the French Revolutionary Terror, when the streets were literally running with the blood of people who were being guillotined because they opposed the new revolutionary regime or didn't support it enthusiastically enough. And she actually wrote an essay supporting the aims of the French Revolution. Even though she had seen her own friends and compatriots executed there. So this was a woman who was in love with... the utopian ideal. And that has been, and exactly as you say, you can't have families, really. You can't have strong families because strong families are a bulwark against state control. And if you believe that society has to be completely reorganized in a way that's, you know, to sort of transform human nature into a more perfect form, then you're not going to be in favor of. families and you're certainly not going to be in favor of male rationality and control over children. Oh my gosh, but here we are. Here we are. Exactly. Where now the majority of young women put marriage and family dead last on their list of things they care about where, you know, a huge number of women despise the idea, the very idea of even being tethered to children. I mean, you have.

You have major political parties. People have major political parties. I'm talking about the Democrats saying, like Michelle Obama, saying that it's a burden, or rather it was Barack Obama, who said it was a burden to have children. So, you know, no, so they never define perfect. Perfect is always the opposite of what exists now. though they won't say it. So you've got to tear it all down. But, you know, you had to target women. You had to make them reject their nature in order to, I think, make what we are living in right now possible, which is this just weird, chaotic world where a significant number of people are willing to just break the whole system. Yeah. Yes, and that is the danger of these kinds of revolutionary movements. They... The conjure an ideal world, they tell you that it can exist as long as you give power over to those people who can engineer it into being. And of course they create scapegoats, objects of resentment, hatred, even those who are slated for extermination, if not literal death, certainly. marginalization in the society, perhaps imprisonment, because they oppose the ideals of the regime. And it does lead to, of course, terrible things. And so what we have a situation now where we have this enormous resentment on the part of a lot of women, especially young women. There was a recent poll out of the UK that found that... While close to three quarters of young men, who are always, of course, targeted for their alleged hatred of women, but three quarters of young men had a positive or very positive view of women, but only about... One third of women had a positive view of men. And so this massive imbalance, twice the number of men as women wanted to get married and have children. So it isn't men who are by and large rejecting the social contract and rejecting the other sex, although a significant minority of young men are starting to walk away as well because they're starting to see. Just how difficult relationships are with these angry and bittered women and just how dangerous marriage is for men. But unfortunately, a lot of... One system, you know, if you think about marriage, you think about family, you think about civilization, marriage and family, which are the cornerstones of civilization, that is a aspirational. It builds things. It is the foundational block of something you then add on to, right? It is forward-looking. It is dynamic.

The opposite of that, which these other, you know, these two-thirds of women have in their mind, is stagnation. So it is death. In a way, it is a death revolution because it is about the utter stagnation of the forward momentum of society. It is about stopping in one place. And what boggles the mind, this has been going on since 1791. And sure, maybe it was never sold as, you know, as death and stagnation. But it's, and they've tried it. This is the thing that blows my mind. Young men, young women, anyone who calls themselves a socialist or thinks we should tear it all down. China, North Korea, you mentioned France, it didn't work in France, it didn't work in China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba. We can go on, Cambodia. We can go on like this. It's been tried. Utopia has been tried, and it never looks like utopia. It looks a lot like hell. Exactly. Well, you can certainly say that the miseducation of our youth. plays a dominant role in that. I don't think most college students are actually thoroughly educated about the dangers of these utopian movements. In fact, they're educated in the opposite direction. Most college professors today, certainly in North America, and I think throughout the West, probably, are left-leaning, many of them are actually Marxists. I had a colleague at the University of Ottawa who had a picture of Karl Marx right up on his door. I mean, I thought it was extraordinary to think of a college professor celebrating, you know, essentially a mass murderer. But, and they miseducate. the youth about what we should be aiming towards and what the results will be. And I think especially now that women are about 60% of college graduates, so they are the impressionable minds that are being shaped in this manner, and they simply don't know what they are being educated towards. And it's very easy, I think, in the young, but especially in young women, to whip up resentment, a sense that they are victims. a sense that they should be angry. I mean, I've read so much feminist literature that encourages women to rage, to let loose. their most deep vitriolic passions. And to direct them at men, there's a whole industry on the internet of women raging against their husbands and boyfriends, talking about why they want to be unfaithful to them or why they have been unfaithful. Recent research shows that more women than men are unfaithful in marriage.

It's 70% of women that initiate divorce. They often get, of course, custody of their children. Some of them deny their husbands, you know, the right to parent their own children. The idea that women don't owe men anything, it's a very popular slogan, of course. We don't owe you anything. Men don't have that feeling, I don't think. No, well. And it's the women who turn their boys into little trans kids, you know? Yes, they do. Absolutely. And it's mostly targeted at boys, where you actually see an overt defense of transgenderism. You're seeing it from a left-wing woman, and it's about her son. It isn't about her daughter who wants to cut off her breast so much as it's about her son. She wants to induce into, I mean, look at the Hollywood leftist starlets. As you were talking there, I was jotting, you know, I was jotting down some things here. We've seen the inversion of virtue. We've seen women. By the way, Mary Wollstonecraft, who said, oh, no, you just haven't let women be reasonable yet. You just haven't given them an opportunity. And you're exactly right. They're induced to rage. They're induced to emotion. They're induced to irrational emotion. And they're taught that irrationality is superior because it's authentic to reason to rationality. And what it is done is it's induced women into rejecting what the very idea of what virtue would be. And so, you know, these same women who hate men and yet they're going to go tramp around with six different guys and cheat on their boyfriends and husbands. Tell me how that is in cognitive dissonance. I know. It's very damaging and there have been lots of studies done over the past decade or two showing that actually women are less and less happy and less and less satisfied with their lives. There was a huge study in 2009 by two researchers at the University of Pennsylvania that showed that since the 1970s female happiness and life satisfaction have declined even as their economic. opportunities and their sexual freedom and personal freedoms have expanded. So, you know, what does it say about a movement that promises all these good things for women, but that makes women less and less happy over time? And I think I would make the exact argument that you've made, this notion that happiness is a feeling and that has to do with being your authentic self. That in itself is a disastrous idea. Happiness as the ancients and the Christian writers understood it is a state of being governed by reason and lived in accordance with the virtues. It has nothing to do with, you know, following your impulses. And so the fact that we encourage women to do these things and, you know, in some sort of pursuit of feeling.

It has disastrous consequences for them and for everybody else. You know, as you said, I have a whole chapter in my book about mothers shaming their sons and, you know, for not being feminist enough, telling their sons that they are toxic, telling them, you know, how to be more feminist, assuming that they're going to be rapists. I mean, this sort of psychological abuse. that feminist women feel is appropriate to unleash on people in their family, especially those dependent on them for their emotional and psychological well-being, is just one of the really disturbing consequences of feminist ideology. Let me drag you into one last thing, and I know we don't have a ton of time here, but that is feminism is also the reason why we have men and women's sports and men and women's locker rooms. Yes. Exactly. And so even the feminists themselves, they don't just need to deconstruct society. They need to deconstruct the idea of womanhood, period. And I think that goes back to the attacks on family and motherhood because a male woman can't have babies. Yes, and the interesting thing about the whole trans agenda and ideology, I mean, it is causing a rift in feminism, and it may well ultimately be productive because there are women objecting, even feminist women, objecting to the presence of men in their daughters, locker rooms, etc. They always tend to focus on the men as predators. They're not concerned with the boys who are transitioning to girls and having terrible things done to them. But at least they're concerned in some cases with the threat to female spaces. But they tend to blame men, and they don't recognize that it would have been impossible without feminism's claims about gender as a social construct, where they claim that gender has nothing to do with... biology. They're finally discovering biology now, and maybe that will be one of the things that leads at least some feminists to repent of aspects of their ideology. People, the book is called The Goddess That Failed, Feminists, Feminisms, Unending War Against Men, Families and Civilization itself. But you're going to get to the book if you just put in The Goddess That Failed by Janice Fiamengo. Thank you so much for joining me. Well, thank you, Vicki. Wonderful to speak to you. And we will take a break on the Vicki McKenna Show. Good afternoon. Welcome to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. You've got a chance to win $1,000. This is our last week of this contest. So you have until 255 to play this hour's contest, and your word is preset. P-R-E-S-E-T. You go to W-I-B-A.com, newstalk-1130.com, depending on where you're listening, or the I-HeartRadio app, and you enter the word preset. Plus your personal details. We'll call you if you win. We don't leave messages. Okay? So we're going to get to school choice because the Democrats are...

going to dismantle school choice. Francesca Hong openly says she wants to dismantle school choice. So we will talk about school choice. And the activist left, also known as the Wisconsin Democratic Party, has been out in force on the school choice question. They are trying to get cities to adopt a line item on property tax bills declaring the, quote, cost. of school choice. They don't declare the savings over K-12. They want to declare the cost. So it looks as if you're paying extra. Okay? That's what they're trying to do. So this isn't some kind of niche fringe thing. This isn't just like the DSA. This is the Democrats. And they've already got a number of cities under their belt. So we're going to talk about that on the program. We'll also talk more explicitly about the socialists. and why that pejorative isn't landing like it used to. So we'll get to that on the program. Let's start here, though. Bernie Sanders was on a left-wing podcast. I had played this earlier on my program because remember I'm on two hours from 9 to 11 as well daily. But I want to play it again. Bernie Sanders is on a left-wing podcast, and he's asked explicitly, about Wisconsin. So one more time, Brandon, please play it. I noticed you haven't yet endorsed in the Wisconsin governor's race. What's your thinking there and might you endorse? I don't think so. I met Francesca a couple of years ago. I was in Wisconsin. It seems very, very nice. But again, this is a race I just am not that familiar with. We have not gotten involved in many governors' races. I think we did one in Maine. with Troy Jackson. You know, obviously my major concern right now is seeing that we have a Senate and a House that is going to stand up to Trump. That's really where my focus is. So as of now, we've not been involved in that race. So that's a lie. That's just Bernie Sanders lying because his organization is her organizing structure for our campaign, our revolution. Bernie Sanders founded Our Revolution after 2016. That's his pack. That's who's organizing our campaign. Our Revolution. They've explicitly endorsed Francesca Hong, and they are organizing for Francesca Hong. Our Revolution has endorsed Francesca Hong. I'm just reading here. Our Revolution has endorsed Francesca Hong for Governor of Wisconsin. This is according to Grock, the progressive group founded by Bernie Sanders in 2016 after his presidential campaign announced its support in June of 2026. So Bernie Sanders is lying. But what's the headline? Bernie Sanders declines to endorse in the Wisconsin race. Bernie Sanders already has endorsed through his organization by providing her organizing resources. They're putting out press for her. They're putting out tweets for her. They're putting out messaging for her. They're doing GOTV for her. But he's saying, I don't know what's going on in Wisconsin. I haven't been paying any attention to what's going on in Wisconsin. It's just a lie. But it telegraphs something.

It does telegraph that they're worried. So this primary is coming up, as I've mentioned, on August 11. Now, here's what I want everybody to do. I want you to go to myvote.w.w.w.I.gov. And I want you to look at your sample ballot and strongly consider. if you don't have a competitive assembly or Senate primary on the Republican side to cross over and vote for Francesca Hong. When they're so worried that someone whose own organization that is actively providing the resources and assistance to the Francesca Hong campaign doesn't want to be publicly affiliated. That's a tell. So I say that, not because I think everyone ought to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary. Mind you, if you vote in the Democratic primary, you cannot vote for any Republicans on the ballot. So understand that. You should take this under prayerful consideration. What's on your ballot? Is there something on your ballot that needs your vote on the Republican primary ballot? Then don't do this. But if there isn't, you might want to just throw your Democratic primary vote for Francesca Hong. Because this is the one that the Democrats are worried about. Tony Evers set up flat out. He doesn't think she can win. Try to make sure she is the candidate, shall we? We'll take a quick break. And welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. I'm delighted to have back on the show, Will Flanders. He is the Ninja Research Nerd at Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on Education Policy. And I say that with love, Will. Thank you for joining me again on the show. Thanks for helping me on. I get all these things I should accolade that should write on my, like right on my plaque on my door. Yeah, put it on your business card. Ninja Research Nerd. All right. There you go. Okay. So I wanted to talk about the new school choice. This is a pretty remarkable noteworthy study that Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty did. And I want to dive into it. And I want people as we're talking to understand that there are multiple cities and the lead candidate for Democrats for Governor Francesca Hong looking to undermine the school choice program. And they're coming up. with all kinds of excuses on why they want to do it. We'll get to specifics of what they're trying to do here in a sec. But what your research did was look at the impact of the school choice program over time, not just a snapshot of one year, you know, six months or a year after some kid transfers, but you looked at what happens when those kids stay in those choice schools. And what did you find out? Yeah, that's absolutely right. And I'll also note for the first time that I've been able to work with data in 10 years in Wisconsin, we had student-level data. So we were able to compare students in the public schools directly with students in the choice schools that are similar on a number of demographic dimensions. And what we found out is that over time, over four years of data that we looked at, you see in the first couple years, some of those kids are behind because they're choosing a new school.

because they're not getting something they need from their traditional public school. But if they stay in the school for three or four years, if they stay in the school choice program, then we see real meaningful academic gains. We see over a year of additional learning in all in the Milwaukee Pernel Choice Program and the Wisconsin Pernel Choice Program. And then in the Racine Pernel Choice Program, we see 1.85, almost two years of additional learning over four years from participation in school choice. And again, these are students that are comparable. with students in public schools. That's amazing. It's hard to make the argument that it's something creamy of the crop. Yes. So these are poor kids in the Milwaukee program and in the Racine program in particular. I don't have as much experience knowing people in the Wisconsin overall program. But these are kids who are way behind. These are not kids who are academically outstanding. These are kids who are poor whose parents for one reason or another. have chosen a Milwaukee or Racine school choice program. And they're getting one extra year of education during the same time period in the Milwaukee program and two extra years of education in the same time period in the Racine program. Two years. I mean, which means we should go look at what Racine's doing so much better than Milwaukee, but it could just be that the demographic challenges are so much worse in Milwaukee. Yeah, that's absolutely right. By the way, with the statewide program, remember, we want to remove the income cast, we do have an income limit of 220%. So the statewide results are also looking at generally low income or very low middle income students. And, yeah, you don't see many things. There are a few interventions in education that have that large of an impact, that are a year of gains over four years. It's very meaningful, not only for just academic achievement, but for also the long time. long-term life prospects of these students, right? If you move that far ahead, you're more likely to be able to get a good job. You could probably actually read. That would be a good start. And that helps in the workforce, more likely to go to college and succeed there as well. Yes. If you're actually two years ahead, you're probably actually reading. Maybe not reading at exceptional levels. Again, we're talking about kids way behind the eight ball here, but you're reading. And that's one of the biggest problems, particularly in Milwaukee and Racine and some of these other school areas, is that... Kids who are qualifying for the school choice program are stuck in schools that have high levels of illiteracy. Functional illiteracy and actual real cannot read a word illiteracy. So that is meaningful in so many different ways. You've actually done studies that also show that kids in these programs and these school choice programs have a better mastery of discipline, have less likelihood of encountering law enforcement, have better outcomes when it comes to high school graduates. graduation, job retention, things like that, soft things we don't measure with education. Yeah, all those are spillover effects from a school that actually functions, right? These are things that when you're in an orderly classroom, teaching can happen. Students are actually able to absorb the information rather than being distracted by the student who is misbehaving, you know, maybe throwing things with the teacher gets sent to the office and is back in five minutes. Kids can't learn in an environment like that.

You know, these schools in general, of course, again, they're probably exceptions, are more orderly. They're able to bring morality in a lot more easily because the ability to engage in religious discussions and all these factors together mold students who are just more prepared for life beyond. beyond K-12. So what we see now, Francesca Hong, who's running for governor, is manifestly against the school choice program. She wants to eliminate the school choice program entirely. And now you see multiple cities, and I'll go through some of the ones you may actually have heard of some new ones, Wawattosa, Madison, Green Bay, Racine, I think you mentioned a Connemawak to me, Nina, Appleton. They all want to put on the property tax bill the, quote, cost of school choice. Out of context, cost of school choice. School choice costs 60% of traditional K-12. You get a 40% discount for students in these programs from traditional K-12 schools. But what these cities want to do is make it look like you're paying... Extra. So they want a line item on the property tax bill. And this is being run as an advocacy operation by the Teachers Union and other leftist organizations. Meanwhile, their handpick candidate wants to dismantle this program entirely. And I mean, the honest thing would be to say, here's what you've saved and here's what you've gained. But nobody talks about that, including the press. Yeah, we finally have new public school spending data. We're up to $18,746 per student on average in public school. That's even $200 more than we were spending the previous year. Our voucher programs, as you said, our K-8 voucher is more than $5,000 less. The K-12 voucher, excuse me, the high school vouchers is more than $5,000. The K-8 voucher is even a bigger gap than that. And yet we're seeing additional years of learning taking place. at thousands of dollars less per student. So, yeah, you know, you hear about candidates that want to end school choice or that it's draining resources from public schools. What they ought to be doing instead is, you know, sending their administrators into these choice programs to see what's working. How can we be getting more efficient use of our tax dollars? Instead, they just want to end it because it proves the lie that more money is needed. Right. So in Milwaukee, just so everybody understands what they're trying to take apart. In Milwaukee, black and Hispanic students comprise 86%. of the Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program. In Racine, that number is about 66% black and Hispanic kids. So these are the black and brown children that the Teachers Union and Francesca Hong want to take out of the environments that is helping them catch up two years extra on education. Two extra years because they qualify for those school choice programs. Yeah, you think these candidates are out there saying there's, you know, the Republicans are racist, we're the candidates that are for minorities. I'd invite these candidates to go visit some of these choice schools, talk to the parents and tell them they want to rob them of their opportunity for a better life. You know, it's really no different than what we saw with George Wallace, another Democrat in the 1960s standing in the schoolhouse door denying folks the opportunity to go to college. We see the same thing today. They're standing in the schoolhouse door to protect teachers unions.

from the evidence that they could be doing a better job for a lower cost. By the way, I also say in the Wisconsin program, generally speaking, 51% statewide, and this is in a state that's, what, 85%, 90% white, but 51% are black and Hispanic students in the statewide program. You're talking about the majority of children benefiting from these extra years of education are black and brown children. Black and brown children. So let's talk about some of the lies that they tell about school choice. You don't cream the crop, do you? You can't say, hey, let's test and see where you are in reading. We'll let you in with a voucher, but we won't let the kid who doesn't know his ABC's in with a voucher. That's illegal. You can't do that. So no crop creaming. In fact, the Parental Choice programs actually tend to take kids at the lower end of academic achievement. Yeah, that's right. That's what we found in this research, that the first one or two years, depending on the program and the program, they might actually look, there might be negative results relative to their public school peers. And that, again, it makes sense because you don't change schools generally, of course, their exception, if you're satisfied with what you're getting from your current school. They're struggling for whatever reason. It could be bullying. It could be the, you know, the way the teacher is teaching the classes just doesn't work for this kid. But they're changing schools because they're dissatisfied with some aspect. And it takes, yeah, often a year or two. to make up for those. To make up to those losses, and then we begin to see gain. Here's the other thing. When you're coming out of Milwaukee, when you're coming out of Racine, when you're coming out of problem schools, and you're now in a competent school that demands discipline, the adjustment is going to be difficult. Not to mention you're behind the other kids academically. So you need to catch up. Now, not only do these kids catch up, they exceed their K-12 peers. That's the thing that's important about this study, because the kids going into these programs. particularly in Milwaukee and Racine, our kids who are behind, and by the time they're there for four years, they are ahead by two extra years. What we're talking about, the gap that got closed by the school choice school is bigger than even your study is reckoning, I think, because of the disadvantage those kids are in the first place coming out of disastrous school environments. into competent school environments. And so they're going to initially in the first year to be measured against kids who are already at competency. Yep, you're right. If you go from the negative to the positive, we're talking about three years of gains for these kids. Amazing. It's a tremendous amount of change, right? It's hard to convey. I know, you know, folks don't like always dealing with numbers, but just think about if you could have a kid that could skip two years ahead in school and be on grade level. That's essentially what we're talking about here. We're catching kids up in these programs that are way behind initially and then pulling them way ahead by the time that we're...

by the time that we're done with the data. And maybe it's even more if we had even more years of data. Yeah. And you know what? It's not like K-12, like Jill Underley is saying, you know, what is the school choice program doing that's so successful? Why do they seem to have such success? You would think at this point that somebody in the traditional K-12 system would say, we're going to model after these schools and why these schools are successful. And I bet you they would start with classroom discipline. That's my guess, is that... One of the major, major issues, and you also studied this as well, when you looked at what the teachers are saying, the teachers are saying, my classroom is chaos. My classroom is dangerous. I'll have one or two or four disruptors, and the entire class has to be beholden to the disruption that those kids who cannot be disciplined. We are not permitted to discipline them. They get to disrupt the classroom. That impacts everybody. Why not? Look at what's going on in the private school. schools that are voucher schools and say, what if we did that as a model instead? Yeah, when we talk to these teachers, some of them are now in private schools, and they'll tell you why did they leave often for less pay is because the environment was untenable. The environment was impossible to teach. It was even dangerous for the teacher to be in. If the teacher can't teach in that environment, then the students can't learn in that environment. And you're absolutely right. These teachers will often say that it's a night and day difference in terms of the expectations for behavior in terms of the ability for punishments to be laid out when kids misbehave. Public schools, again, they want to coddle the kids. They want to blame an IEP in some instances for things that aren't related to the IEP. They want to go through bureaucratic paperwork rather than disciplining students, choice in charter schools as well oftentimes. It's a much more strict discipline policy. It makes it better for teachers. And teachers can do a better job as well when they're not facing constant threats. I think that's part of the problem as well, is that it's not the teacher sucks so bad. It's that the environment is so untenable that it becomes difficult to do your job. People need to go to will-dashlaw.org because I'm telling you this movement to try to get people to, you know, to reject school choice, which saves money and produces... just almost overnight, I mean, but you got to be there for a bit, two extra years of achievement. And if you count how far back they were, it's probably closer to three years of catch up in a very short period of time. If people knew that, they'd want more of it. But what these movements are trying to do is to get people to think that they're paying too much money for a program that successful when it costs so much less than K-12. Absolutely. I'll also mention the study is peer reviewed, so this isn't some right-wing plot. We actually went through the academic peer review process with this data. So it's something that's going to be much more challenging for the media to sail is just some right-wing agenda. Exactly. The peer review process. Will Flanders, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a pleasure. Thank you so much for doing the work.

Thank you. Have a great day. You as well, and we'll be right back. Welcome back to the program. It's the Vicki McKenna Show. And standing by, I have from the Federalist, the Federalist.com, Brianna Lyman, back on the program. And she's got a really interesting piece on why just saying, communist is not enough any longer. But, Brianna, before we get into it, I wanted to have you listen to a piece of audio. This is from the St. Paul, Minnesota City Council meeting. It's very recent. It's a young man, and let me describe him. He's young. He is wearing a full black mask. You can see his mouth and you can see his eyes, but he's wearing sunglasses. And he's also wearing black gloves. And he gets up at a city council meeting, and he says this. Please play the audio. What we're all participating in here is a settler colony. on stolen land. This is a government that represents the settlers and the capitalists and the other neoliberal fascists that live amongst us. Why are they brutalizing all of these innocent, beautiful people? It's crazy. I mean, I'm sure they take care of their pets at home, and they take care of their kids at home, and they kiss their kids, good night and all that. What this government, what this system exists to do is to enforce private property. And if these people think that they can just go live in the park, no, no, no, that'll bring all our property values to. That'll collapse the whole system. So what can we do besides beg and plead for a little bit of humanity? I think what we should do is take their ability away to brutalize us like this. I think we should take away the weapons from the armed group of thugs that they use to brutalize all of us. All right, Brianna, feel free to jump in. I don't think that kid got the message by just saying socialist that maybe that was not the best way to try to organize American governance and society. Oh, 100% agreed. And I think what we also have to start with is he keeps talking about violence and brutality. And with that violence and brutality, it is justifying resistance by any means necessary. And so he is inadvertently calling for violence. That's the biggest problem, first of all. Second of all, you're right. We can't just call someone like this a socialist or communist. That doesn't work. We have to attach to the real life consequences of those policies of the violence that must happen in order to get those policies in effect. So what he's talking about is taking private property because the whole system is the problem. So take away the system itself, the system that he claims exists to protect private property. Private property is the problem. And so, you know, again, he's a radical, right? But there are, what do you think, nine out of ten younger people who aren't that radical, who won't put on a black mask and act like Antifa and, you know, address a city council meeting. But they'll not along to the people that they are promoting either through, you know, elections or the policies that they are supporting. They just not along because we said socialist for 30 years. He's an actual, you know, revolutionary Marxist. And it's not sticking. We got to come up with something new, I think, and let people know how ugly it would be if he got his way.

Right. And one of the reasons why it's so easy for people to not be repulsed by communist ideologies, Marxist ideologies, is because Democrats have done a really good and effective job of separating communism from its consequences. And they have recast every single principle and policy of communism as, you know, equity and equality and inclusion and freedom. they've rebranded it. And that rebranding has stuck with a lot of young people, especially young people who are coming out of these universities, these places of higher education. And they're being told that equity and equality is actually us living up to our founding ideals. And the way to get that equity and equality is by adopting communist policies. They don't explicitly call them communist policies, but they are communist policies. They watered it down. And I can tell you when it happened. It's when Barack Obama redefined socialism as pay your fair share, is the concept of fair share, as if, you know, 1% of the income earners in the United States don't already pay 50% of the taxes or 10% don't already pay 90% of the taxes. When Barack Obama said you didn't build that and said fair share, now we have, we have softened the idea of socialism into something that sounds nice. Fair share. I want everyone to pay their fair share, don't you, Brianna? Of course you do. Therefore, these policies. Right. And fair is the working word here, right? Fair. Fair implies that something is just, that it is right. And so when they use fair share, they're implying that this is just. And what they're talking about, to be very clear, is this forced redistribution of wealth, right? That's what fair share is. We're taking more from people who earned more to give to people who don't have. That is communist Marxism 101. But when you shift that talking point to paying your fair share rather than, hey, we're just going to take away your money and redistribute it, you shift the narrative from. The government should confiscate your property and wealth that everyone has an equal amount of nothing to there's a class of millionaires and billionaires who don't pay their fair share while working people are playing by the rules and getting the short end of the stick. And so they're taking that inherent class conflict, right, between the rich and then the poor, and they're turning it into merely a moral obligation. They're forcing it as a moral obligation. So they don't frame it as a class conflict, as government. confiscation and redistribution. They reframe it as though it is a moral obligation for fairness, for equality. Yes. That's exactly what they do. And then it began with Barack Obama. And everybody kind of blew right past it. We just played past it. And we kept using the S word. And we kept using the C word. We said socialist, communist, communist. Just regular liberal Democrats, we were calling them socialists. We were calling them communists. And we ourselves, I think, dumbed, dumbed down the understanding of the word. But in an economy where a young person is faced with $2,200 a month in rent.

for a one bedroom or maybe a studio and can't afford to ever save enough to buy a house because we're not allowing houses to be built in the first place or seize the price of a gallon of gas or seize the $50,000 price tag in a car. That person who's got a college education who may even have a good job is saying, I'm not getting my fair share. So now it's not just about poor people. Now it's about educated. middle income, upper middle income and upwardly mobile people who think they're not getting theirs either, not realizing that you got stuff, the people who want to confiscate come for stuff, your stuff, everybody's stuff. But we don't, we again, we don't teach it in K-12, we don't teach it in university, and now we're stuck with a whole bunch of people, frustrated, economically unmoored, and willing to vote for these clowns. Well, yeah, especially, I mean, for anybody who's active right now on X, there's this whole debate about a burrito price. And you have one half of the, you know, quote-unquote Republicans saying, yeah, $20 burritos are fine. Suck it up, kids. You're financially irresponsible. But then you have the JD Vance pipes and a lot of these other conservatives saying, actually, $20 for a burrito is a lot of money. That is excessive. And the average person doesn't have money to spend $20 on a burrito maybe three times a week if they eat out, right? And I think that's the problem with Republicans is they are unwilling to say, you know what? One of the reasons that socialists are doing really well right now is they're speaking to the affordability concern, and they are saying $20 or for a burrito is too much. And that doesn't make you a socialist to agree with that. What makes you socialist is if you say that you have to go steal a burrito from someone else to give it to you, right? Thank you. But we should be able to acknowledge that $20 for a burrito is a lot of money. And what can we do to bring that price down, whether it's a burrito or whatever it is? Well, one, we should cut back on our entitlements for welfare, for illegal aliens, for foreign aid. That's a Republican policy, but Republicans don't want to do it. And, too, we need to talk about it's our economy working for working people. And that doesn't make you a socialist to ask that. Actually, Republicans used to be the party of making sure the economy works for the small man. Now they want to say, if you ask that question. you're, you know, financially illiterate, maybe you're irresponsible. They're out of touch, and that out of touchness is going to drive more and more voters away from Republicans and to these socialists who acknowledge these problems. Congressman Glenn Grossman likes to call the people like that. He calls them corporate tax cut Republicans. You know, the answer's got to be another corporate rate cut. And it doesn't do any, it doesn't, it doesn't, you know, go down the line. It doesn't trickle down, as they say. You need to lower the cost of the burrito. That's the answer. The answer from the Republicans to the high cost of the burrito is lower the cost of the burrito. The liberal's answer, the socialist answer, steal the burrito from somebody who can't afford 20 bucks and give it to somebody who didn't work for it. So the two different things, and it should be really easy, but you made an important observation, and that was... You have Republicans calling people like you who point out that the economy is not working. We have basically a capitalist economy, basically a free market economy, but we have rigged the market to favor a certain category of people. It's not working for anybody. And so if we don't have free markets, how are we going to lower the cost of the burrito?

That's the problem. Saying that doesn't make Brianna Lyman or Vicki McKenna a socialist. And I've been accused of being a socialist for saying such things. Right. And they call us a socialist or they accuse us as a socialist. And all that does is further say, okay, well, if that makes me a socialist, that makes me a socialist. Not me, but there are voters out there who say, okay, fine. If I wanted to choose a burrito and that makes me a socialist, I'm a socialist. And the socialist feed on that. They say, okay, look, we got this person hooked. Now we can peddle our other agenda options by softening the language, right? Hey, you deserve to pay cheap prices for medical care or maybe no prices at all. People begin to buy that, especially when you have a lot of desperation right now, especially in places like New York where there is a lot of class conflict and those tensions are being inflamed, not because Republican policies have failed. In fact, it's because Democrat policies have failed. They've been running New York for decades. But because people don't feel like they're being heard. And the average price of living has gone up. The cost of gas has gone up since it's war with Iran. And Republicans answered that is, well, this is the greatest generation's fight again. You know, we're repeating World War II. That's not a selling point. That is not a good campaign message. And guess what? Talk to a mom who's trying to put food on the table when she's being told she also pays $4.50 a gallon. That is not going to cut it. And if another party is saying we're going to figure out a way to lower this gas price. I don't feel surprised when she goes and votes for them. I don't either, especially because most people are coming out a K-12 public education system that did not teach them with the actual reality of communism or socialism. And these are interchangeable. There is a difference between communism and socialism in degrees. There is a difference in degrees. We can functionally interchange them. Well, there's a difference between Marxism and communism, not really in degrees. So you mentioned medical care. My gosh, government and rigged markets. And picking winners and losers and Democrat policy is the reason why young people cannot afford health insurance. The same is true for housing. The same is true for the burmrito. It's, I mean, that's the thing. This is a layup if you actually talk about it, but then follow up with that on policy that actively. acts to put pressure that does help working families. If markets just did their thing, Brianna, then, you know, just like what happened with the PC, we go from a $2,000 machine to a $200 machine because the market worked without intervention. And that's the thing that the Republicans do a very poor job about when they say free markets is they defend the existing system, not the rigged system that is stand in for free markets right now.

Oh, 100%. And also, when we talk about free market, we should also make clear that, unfortunately, we don't have a free market because the free market can do as much as it can, but the free market can't stop Democrats from flooding the country with 20 million illegals who then take up the housing supply. The free market can't touch that, right? That's Democrat immigration policy. The free market can't touch when illegal aliens come here and they disproportionately put black Americans who have a high school degree but no further education out of work, right? That's Obama Civil Rights Commission in 2010 that found that. As much as the free market can do its job, it has to be working hand in hand with other policies, namely immigration, because people want to think that, you know, immigration is a separate policy. Wrong. Everything is downstream from immigration. Culture, economy, you name it, is downstream from our immigration policies. And so you have to look at those two hand in hand. The free market can only do so much. We also need Republicans to keep the border closed to keep up with mass deportations. Amen. This is a great piece. By the way, it's a really thoughtful piece. And I want people to go to the Federalist and find it. And if not, just email me and I will shoot you a link to it. Republicans calling your opponents, communists is not enough. That is the very blunt title of Brianna Lyman's latest at the Federalist.com. Brianna, thank you for joining me on the show. Thanks so much, Vicki. Great to have you. And we'll take a break on the Vicki McKenna Show. That's it for me on the program. When we come back on tomorrow's show, Francesca Hong, she is the author of the Hooker's Bill of Rights, legalizing prostitution. And she's such a true believer, she put a porn star on the payroll. That's on tomorrow's show. Saturday, August 22nd in Tampa. Witness an MMA legend's final fight. Chris Cyborg, one of the greatest in history. She's an absolute pioneer in the sport. Defense her PFL world title, one last time. Unforgetable and to an unforgettable career. Saturday, August 22nd live from Benchmark International Arena. For tickets, visit pfell. info slash Tampa. Oh, I've had no luck lately. Wait, lady luck? Brett Ski, I got you. I've had so much luck on SpinQuest.com. They have all of my favorite games, slot games, live blackjack craps, and bubble craps. You can even get a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks. 10 bucks for 30? I'm headed over to SpinQuest.com right now. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details. Trade screen time for race time at Virginia International Raceway. August 21st through 23rd, IMSA's Michelin GT Challenge brings some of the coolest cars to VIR for an unforgettable family weekend. Explore, meet drivers, see race cars up close, and experience the thrill of racing from every corner of the track. It's more than a race. It's a memory waiting to be made. Kids 12 and under get in free. Get your tickets at VIRFam.com. That's VIRFAM.com. You know what your customers are doing right this second? The exact same thing you are, listening to me, which, let's be honest, is kind of flattering.

But my point is, ads on IHeart Radio actually get heard. In the car, at the gym, on the couch, while people are walking their dogs. Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy? You're a good boy, that's right, you're a good boy. So why not make the next ad about you? Get started today. Call 844-844-Ehart or go to IHeartadvertising.com. That's 844-844-Ehart or IHeartadvertising.com.