Guy Unravels a Political Mystery

Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for teens. Instagram teen accounts have built-in content settings and limits for who can contact teens. Plus, teens under 16 can't change these default safety settings without parental approval. So parents can help teens connect safely. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. From the heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson.

It is Tuesday, May 19th, 2026. Welcome everyone to Guy Benson. I'm Guy Benson, your host. We're here together for the next three hours between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern every weekday and then around the clock on our podcast, absolutely free at Guy Benson.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm a political analyst at Fox News, a senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. You can read my stuff there. On the program today, we've got a great lineup. Rich Lowry coming this hour, General Jack Keene in the next hour, Mary Catherine Hamm, also later on in the show, and then a few clips of one of the best commencement addresses I've ever heard. And I want to share them with you. That's all coming up today on the show. Quick reminder to get in touch with us, GBS at fox.com. That's via email. You can also follow us on social at Guy Benson's show. Various platforms. You can also follow me at Guy Benson. So this morning I was on with Stuart Varney on Fox Business Network, and we had a couple topics to get to, including some of the rough polling for the Republicans that we talked about here on the show yesterday. As we look ahead to November, I gave kind of my succinct analysis there. And then we turned to a subject that seems to be a pretty sore one on the left and has turned into something of an obsession with the base on the left. and therefore a lot of politicians piling on. And I will admit to being a bit baffled by this myself. I have now been invited probably on three or four occasions to comment on the so-called autopsy of the Democratic National Committee as they looked back on their loss really across the board in 2024. Donald Trump won the popular vote. He swept the battleground states. Republicans won the presidency and the House and the Senate. So the DNC, as parties sometimes do, went and looked in this kind of fulsome way at what went wrong and put together a whole report about it. And they have proceeded to not release that report. And here we are midway through roughly, 2026. We're talking about an election that happened about a year and a half ago. And this has stirred quite a bit of suspicion and consternation and even conspiracy on the left. And the longer they refuse to release it, I think the more upset people are getting. And... The question has just been invited. What exactly are they hiding? Can you just put the thing out and say, yep, this is imperfect. Parties get things right and wrong, but this is what we put together and let's all move on. They're not doing that. They are not releasing, for whatever reason, this project that they undertook. And now the voices are getting louder and louder, demanding transparency, demanding that this autopsy...

get published. So just for example, recently the chairman of the DNC, not sure if you could name him, I barely can, and I do this for a living. His name is Ken Martin. He was on with the pod bros, the Obama guys on that show that they've got, and one of the pod bros was pushing him on the autopsy and apparent hypocrisy. Here's how that sounded and cut 13. When you won the chairmanship in February of 25, you criticized the DNC's refusal to release their 2016 autopsy is exactly what not to do. You said, quote, was there any utility in doing that? And then promised your 2024 autopsy would be different. Your exact quote was, of course it will be released. Why did you change your mind on that? Well, look, I mean, what I said all along, even when I ran for this position, is that we were going to focus on the things that will help us win the upcoming election, right? Making sure that we learn the right lessons that could help inform our victories. And that's what we'd done. We said this when we sent out the press release back in November, saying we weren't going to release the report. We were going to actually keep our focus on those lessons, and we release those lessons. We continue to do that. All right, so that was a dodge. Here's Congressman Ro Khanna, who I think is running for president. One of the lefties out of California. He was on a different podcast, also hitting on this. Where's the autopsy? Cut 14. But I just don't understand the rationale for having a report that finds out why you lost and then hiding it. How can we run as the transparency party as the party that is going to govern differently and not in secrecy if we aren't willing to release things like the DNC report? I mean, I think that's a relatively fair point. Here are some other members of Congress beating the same drum. Cut 15. I haven't we put it out because we got our butts kicked, and I think it's going to be embarrassing, apparently, to some people. They don't want people to know their truth. They messed up. They didn't listen to their Democratic base. I stand with Vice President Harris in wanting to get it released. I'd like to see what the conclusions are. There should be no secrets, no big deal. Let's let the truth come out. Okay, so a little montage there of Democratic members of the House. We've also seen senators calling for this to come out. This has become something of a hobby horse. Governors, high-ranking officials, other prominent figures, including, by the way, Kamala Harris. So that's interesting for a few reasons. The first of which is that, as I pointed out on court packing as some of these other really destructive ideas that we're seeing gain momentum on the left, Kamala Harris is a lagging indicator. She is not a leader. She's not out front leading people with her. She sees where the winds are blowing or feels where they're blowing and then moves there. That's how she's always been.

So with her saying, yes, release the report, release the DNC autopsy, it's because that's where people have already been for quite some time. She's not exactly an early adopter much of the time. It's also interesting because she is one of the theories behind why they're keeping it a secret. that it could be very, very embarrassing to her, and she is running again potentially in 2028, so they don't want to scuff her up even more with whatever's in this autopsy to protect her. They don't want to embarrass her further. I don't actually believe that that's true. I think there are plenty of Democrats who would love actually to embarrass Kamala Harris to encourage her to leave the scene and never come back. They turn on their losers in that party. She was a terrible candidate. She had her say in her book, the little memoir she wrote after the campaign after she lost, with her excuses and her spin, I think she felt like she needed more time. She, in fact, needed less time. The longer the campaign went, it was already truncated because, remember, they had a nominee who they then threw out their entire primary. right they they had an election then they nullified it for democracy and throughout joe biden because of the lies about his you know mental well-being and his uh ability to serve for four more years they all imploded on the debate stage in late june of that year so they had to then abandon the lie and make a change and they just thrust her into the whole thing and they hid her from the media as much as possible for weeks Because they knew the longer voters got to see her, the less likely voters would want her to win. That's exactly what happened. So I don't think that there is, in fact, a disincentive within Democratic politics to lay a lot of embarrassing, humiliating blame on a terrible candidate in Kamala Harris. Protecting her doesn't make sense to me as the theory here. Particularly because, as I said, she's had her prebuttal now that they've held this thing for as long as they have. She has a whole book with her side of the story. I don't think that's it. Another theory has been that the party secretly knew that Gaza was a huge issue and it cost them the election and because of certain donors, wink, this was a huge oversight and it ended up dooming the Democrats and they should have just been much more forceful. against Zionism and against Israel and more hostile and all of that. And I don't think that's true either. I think it probably cost them some votes among some people in certain states. I think the idea that the Democrats just needed to be a lot more hostile to Israel and that would have fixed the election for them nationally is delusional. But it is a preferred theory of a lot of people on the left, right? One fixation bleeding into another. Often the Zionist fixation is something that they attribute to or at least attach to everything. Well, there's something being withheld from us. Why are they withholding it? It has to do with this other thing that we're obsessed with. I don't think that that's true. I don't think it makes sense. But there has to be a reason. There has to be some reason why. Who cares about some dumb autopsy?

And that's what I keep coming back to. And I've been asked about this, as I said on TV, any number of times, now for weeks and weeks. And I've sort of soft-pedaled it and I kind of recited some of the reasons that I just mentioned and sort of thrown a little bit of doubt on them. But I haven't really planted my flag anywhere, not because I care all that deeply. I don't. But after a while, there is something mysterious when a party, especially under pressure from their own people, continues to insist on secrecy like this. It's like, okay, at some point my interest and suspicion gets piqued. And so when I got the note this morning that I was going to be talking about this with Stuart Varney, I was like, okay, let's really think about this. My title is political analyst. Let's analyze. Let's analyze more closely than the surface level, because let's just stipulate for a moment. Here's a quick parenthetical aside, but I think it's actually relevant to the conversation. Maybe the most famous recent political autopsy by a party was the Republicans in 2012. I think they thought, many of them thought they were going to win. on the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012. I hope they were going to win to beat Barack Obama, but he ended up losing. And so the party, the RNC, put out this whole autopsy, post-mortem report about the things that went wrong and making a bunch of recommendations about what the party needed to do. And what's sort of ironic about it is some of the big central tent poll recommendations were basically the opposite. of nominating Donald Trump for president next time out. If you had followed the autopsy, the last thing you would have done under those recommendations is nominate Donald Trump for president, which is what Republican voters did at their very first opportunity, totally ignoring the findings of the autopsy. And then Trump won. An upset victory. Now, of course, he's won again years later in 2024. So, I mean, there's at least a major dispute about whether or not these autopsies from parties are worth really the paper they're printed on to some extent. So couldn't you just put out whatever you've churned out at the DNC, just drop it on a Friday or something, be like, oh, yeah, here we go, and we got some stuff wrong, and look, we've got to lead in the midterms, we've got to win the midterms, and why not just do that? What's in there? And why give it sort of all this cachet that grows and grows when it appears like there's some sort of cover-up? So I was actually, perhaps TMI, but I was in the shower doing some analysis. And finally I had a thought. And I said it to Stuart Varney, and I wanted to flesh it out a little bit here. I think I finally have a theory that makes some sense. that would explain why the DNC, the people responsible for this document, don't want it to see the light of day. It's not about Gaza. It's not protecting Kamala Harris or someone else from embarrassment. It is about self-preservation for themselves because I at this point would be willing to bet. I could be wrong, right? But I think if you try to clear away the options that don't make sense.

And think about incentives. This one is at least very plausible. I would be willing to bet that after they got their clocks cleaned, after they lost the popular vote in every battleground state to Donald Trump, lost total control of Washington, D.C. They were like, oh, man, this is messed up. We're in big trouble. And they probably did make some recommendations in this autopsy that might actually make some sense. Like, for example, we as a party need to moderate on issues like immigration. This was very harmful to us in the election. We've got to be more sensible. We've got to support the enforcement of the border and laws more than we have. Let's moderate on that. Let's moderate on some of the extremist, like, bleeding edge trans stuff. Maybe let's moderate on crime. Maybe rather than doing all resistance all the time, we need to recognize this guy has won. He's duly elected. He won the popular vote. Let's not reflexively oppose him all the time. Let's work with him where we can and still oppose him in principle where we must. That sort of thing, which none of that is crazy. I think that would all probably be pretty good advice to the median. voter or at least from the perspective of a median voter in this country if democrats longer term want to be less extreme more electable more viable in let's say a neutral electoral setting but given the appetite of the base right now given their passions given their priorities Given the fact that they raced immediately into full resistance all the time. And if you're not resisting as hard as possible, then you're complicit, right? You're collaborating with the Nazis and you're enabling authoritarianism and all the things that they say. That is just commonplace on the left. It's what their base believes loudly. If this document came out and said, let's moderate on key issues and not totally oppose Trump all the time. You might get a mob with pitchforks and torches walking down to the DNC demanding a total cleaning of house. I think that is what might be lurking in this document, which is why they don't want to put it out and incur the everlasting wrath of their own base and find themselves out of a job, perhaps performing a career autopsy. That is my best theory, and it came to me today. And as this continues to royal the left, I wanted to put that out there because I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Back with more of Guy Benson on this Tuesday. Stay tuned. New talk for a new generation, Guy Benson. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FM Radio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. I'm Guy Benson. There is a sickness and an evil in this world. We see it in various forms and manifestations, one of which,

came in the form of so-called journalists with city press passes in New York attending the trial of the accused assassin of a health care CEO in New York City. Brian Thompson, the victim of that murder. Here are quote-unquote reporters talking about the murder. These are left-wing activists, fans of the accused killer. Cut 26. I say what I said. I don't give it like... His children are better off without him. me like their dad and enjoy the blood money kids. What was that? I didn't get that what you said. I'm standing on business for Ryan Thompson. I don't give a flying. Millions of Americans suffer every single day. Millions of Americans suffer every single day from Florida. We had an Because of how negligent her health insurance was, she died. An infant died. So if you guys are okay with someone like Ryan Thompson being around and that being a part of our society, that's more about you as a person. These are fans of murder. With press passes somehow, mayor's office said they're going to review that process.

That the victim's kids are better off without him. And by the way, enjoy the blood money. Bleep Brian Thompson. I don't give a flying bleep. I liked it. Talking about what happened to him. Sick, demented stuff. And it's less of a fringe than it should be. Guy Benson returns with Rich Lowry next. Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. Welcome back, everyone. Appreciate your listenership. Guy Benson.com, the online home here, podcast free every day. Joining us now is Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, at Rich Lowry on social. Hey, Rich, good to have you back here. Hey, thank you. All right, so I want to talk politics here with you. We mentioned yesterday some of the really pretty gruesome polling out there for Republicans, not just the New York Times poll, but the RCP average, both on the congressional ballot and on President Trump's approval rating, a shaping up, at least for now, not to be. A very positive night for the GOP in November, months to go, of course, but in this moment, they're slumping in a way that is not promising. Against that backdrop, we have some moves here, including today this afternoon, President Trump endorsing Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate primary after the initial primary, where John Cornyn, who's the incumbent senator, and Ken Paxton, the AG, went to a runoff. There were reports and rumors that Trump was going to endorse John Cornyn, who came in in first place in that primary. And I guess he got talked out of it, and the whole thing sort of has dragged on, very expensive, very ugly. I would say that Ken Paxton, and I'm sure we have listeners who are fans of his, but he is a very, very flawed candidate. And now with Trump's backing, it seems very likely that he will be the nominee. in Texas. It's not over yet, but, you know, with Trump hopping on board, that could be all she wrote for John Cornyn, in which case we will have an unbelievably expensive and ugly general election with this left-wing radical in James Talarico who looks and talks like a youth pastor, but votes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and this guy with so much baggage on the Republican side. I wonder what you make of this endorsement decision and the timing and the whole thing and what it might mean for that race and then the Senate picture more broadly. Yeah, so how you set this up sort of highlights how this doesn't seem to make sense. If you're in a good political environment and you feel real safe, you can make risky candidate choices. If you're in a tough political environment and you're an incumbent president with 40% approval or below with midterms about six months away, you should be kind of worried and make sure you're making safe candidate choices. So Ken Paxton is the opposite of that. I think...

He can still win the general election, but they're going to absolutely nuke him and have a lot of material to work with. And at the very least, it will be more expensive than it would have been otherwise. Now, look, John Cornyn doesn't, you know, John Cornyn is not a fantastic senator. He's not a MAGA senator, but he's a safe choice. And this would be a year, I think, where you want to be safe, but it doesn't look like the president's thinking the same way. My understanding is really close to endorsing John Cornyn right after the initial vote. Right. point out, got talked out of it, and now he's maybe front-running, and maybe that, you know, Ken Paxton was going to win regardless, and the president wants to be with him. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the mentality is of the electorate in Texas, the Republican electorate, saying, we want to throw out John Cornyn, and we want to bring in Ken Paxton. Because let's say you take some of the Trump loyalty in... ideological stuff out of it just in terms of somewhere they with a track record of winning that senate seat even in relatively thin years winning usually pretty comfortably in john John Cornyn versus you know Ken Paxton who's been hammered with all this personal stuff some some very unfortunate things from his ex-wife and that divorce and the revelations about the affairs and then the alleged corruption i mean there there is a ton that is out there and maybe there's sort of an impulse among republican voters that comes from like trump the more you throw at someone maybe they're over the target so we've got to rally to their cause but You are really rolling the dice here just from a political perspective, right? Setting aside the ethics involved here and whether this is a good guy, politics is in many ways transactional. If you want to maximize your chances for winning. and also minimize the amount of money you'd have to spend to drag someone across the finish line, and therefore potentially at the expense of funding other races with a bunch of really important ones. This is one that I don't really understand. I don't generally get involved in endorsing or primaries who have cornered on the show fairly regularly. I haven't endorsed him per se, but it just seems like a high-risk proposition by the Republican voters moving in that direction in Texas. Yeah, absolutely. But Ken Paxton is the more mega candidate, and that doesn't have to do with just voting. I think Ken Paxton and John Cornyn probably vote for President Trump or for Trump's agenda probably roughly equal amounts. But you look at John Cornyn, again, nice guy, but he just, he's an establishment figure, right? You can judge a book by a cover. He just look at him, say, oh, he's with the establishment. He's been there a long time, and he is. And Ken Paxton is an outsider, even though he's held office as well. And the fact that he's so radioactive, I think you put your finger on something important there, gives him some more maga credibility than if he's safe and totally clean. So I don't think it makes sense to do this this year, but it looks like Republicans are, and then they're going to have to make it work against James Talarico. And again, I think Ken Paxton very well could win, but it's going to be a nail biter. Well, James Talarico is going to have a bucket of money.

You think about 2018, right? That was a blue wave year where there was a lot on the line, including in Senate races, where the Republicans did better in Senate races than they did in the House. Ted Cruz, by the skin of his teeth, got through against Beto O'Rourke, who spent, I mean, truly astounding piles of money to try to win that race. And it was close. It was, you know, low single digits. Cruz pulled it out. And Cruz, you know, has a lot of... positives and assets and attributes. He also has some weaknesses in Achilles heels as a politician. You know, Paxson, I think, is a much more target-rich environment, at least in terms of, you know, political attacks that we've grown accustomed to over the years. And James Talarico is not going to be hurting for money. I just wonder, a guy like James Talarico... And you look at his positions on everything and, you know, giving literal sermons invoking trans abortions and saying God is non-binary and a lot of the extremism that we've seen on almost every issue from him where he's almost, you know, indistinguishable ideologically from members of the squad. You know, the Democrats have also made an interesting choice in nominating someone like that. I guess the alternative was also deeply, deeply flawed in that Democratic primary. But can, in an environment, well, yes, you know, like Texas has shown it can be close, but Trump easily won Texas. I think 14 points in 2024. Is that a state that's going to elect someone with the beliefs and record on camera of James Talarico to the U.S. Senate? I don't think so. I think he's a highly annoying candidate. I think he has so much on the record that's constantly of vulnerabilities for him. And he's kind of preachy. You know, he presents his progressive values as though they're the logical end result of the gospel, which is going to annoy people more than just saying, no, I just believe this stuff, you know, for secular. reasons. So I think he has a lot of vulnerabilities to... Right, like, let me explain to you, Texas, why Jesus teaches us that we must provide state-funded trans abortions. Yeah, exactly. That is quite a sound. Abortions without the Jesus part, it's going to be less offensive to voters down there. But the scary thing about Texas is, you know, Trump made a lot of gains among Latinos famously in 2024, and it has completely lost it, completely given all that back. So how much does that play in Texas? I think it's going to be a nail-biter again, but I would bet on Ken Paxton. Yeah, we'll see. It's going to be, I mean, just a brutal war down there. And I saw a poll out today that has the race tied against either of the Republicans with James Talarico. But James Talarico's... in the green, if you will, in the black when it comes to favorability. So the Republicans are underwater. Talariko is still relatively unknown, and so he's got this net positive favorability and what the Republicans are going to do for the next several months.

He's just beat the hell out of him to really introduce him with a ton of money to a Texas audience saying, we can't elect this guy to the Senate, and that's going to go very negative. And then he'll have so much negativity and fodder there to go after Paxson if Paxson wins this runoff. So brace for a very, very costly, ugly campaign down there, which could come again at the expense of money being spent elsewhere in other really important races, including U.S. Senate races. Rich, I also want to talk about sort of the direction of the Republican Party and some of the decisions Trump has made. He endorsed against another incumbent in Bill Cassidy down in Louisiana. He's been on this show. I think he's a good man. The number one crime against Trump that they talk about with Bill Cassidy was his vote in the immediate aftermath of January 6th to... impeach or I guess to convict in the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. And so, you know, deep red state, Trump very popular. They're saying, look at what Bill Cassidy did. And he came in third last weekend in a Republican primary. He didn't even make the runoff. So he will be a former senator. And I have a lot of sympathy for the position that he took in 2021. And I think he's a bright, as I said, good guy in a lot of ways. You feel free to weigh in on the Louisiana race, but you also look at, for example, the Indiana state senators who were thrown out by voters, most of them, who had bucked the White House on redistricting. I have mixed feelings on that one. I have less mixed feelings, and certainly less than I did even a few months ago, on Thomas Massie, the Kentucky congressman, who's up, I believe the primary indeed is tonight. Trump has endorsed against him because, I mean, this guy votes kind of against the Republicans. He is a Republican, but he votes against the party leadership constantly. Like in a very tightly divided house, they often have to count on losing his vote over and over again. Often he dresses it up as principal. Maybe it is sometimes. He is not a team player for the party. And then he's really been leaning into a lot of this anti-Israel conspiracy theory stuff because he's got a real dog fight on his hands against the Trump endorsed guy in that primary race. And this may not have been the case that long ago, but I find myself kind of rooting for him to lose for a number of reasons and for Trump's thumb on the scale to prevail in that Kentucky race. I wonder what you think about that race. Yeah, I want them to lose, too. And I have a lot of time for go-it-alone libertarians or people who are obsessed about a certain substantive issue and will vote that way no matter what. I really like Justin Amash, right? The former Michigan congressman would always explain his votes. But Thomas Massie's a conspiracy theorist. And he's anti-Israel and an isolationist. And he's been crazy on the Epstein files. He's crazy on January 6th. So I look forward to him going into retirement, and he can air his grievances and conspiracy theories in private life like Marjorie Taylor Greene. You know, he doesn't need to be in Congress for an eighth term. But the common thing of all this guy, though, is it is totally Trump's party. Totally. He has a grip on the party like we've never seen. I think maybe.

comparable to FDR or Andrew Jackson in their times, but maybe even more than that, because I don't think either of those guys were so directly involved in going and playing in primaries and had the direct ability, the ability just to end people's careers, almost with a snap of his finger. And here we are, what are we, 10 years into the Trump phenomenon, and it's as powerful he's ever been with in the party. Do you think that Thomas Massie is going to lose tonight? My guess would be he will. He will. Yeah, I think that the polling is not good for him. He's not acting confident, and he's, you know. No, not acting confident. And just if you had to say, Republican primary, there's a Trump-endorsed candidate and a candidate Trump-Ats who's going to win, it's going to be the Trump-endorsed candidate. Ned Gowardin down there, who's the Trump-endors candidate, a former Navy SEAL. A nice guy. He's not going to make a huge mark in Congress, but he's going to vote the right way and not be a conspiracy theorist. I do want to ask about the last subject here, and this may not be a popular one again with much of the audience, which loves Trump, but there are these stories about all these stock trades that Trump's been doing. This includes millions of dollars worth of companies' stock like Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, that Trump has promoted those companies and, you know, flown overseas with the CEOs and that kind of thing. The Trump organization says, well, the transactions are all handled by third-party institutions, and the president and his family, they aren't directing those changes. But... You see the president, of course, shaping world events and then potentially benefiting financially from those things, even if he's not directing the stocks. I know the left is up in arms on this, and they're saying everyone was mad about the, you know, the Biden family corruption, what about this? I think there's something to it, at the very least, in terms of the appearance of impropriety or some kind of a... not just a double standard politically, but a conflict of interest. I just feel like maybe this kind of thing shouldn't happen at all, Rich, 20 seconds. Yeah, I don't think it's necessary. It doesn't seem like these companies, they're companies that most people would know to invest in whether you're president of the United States or not. But I do think to Congress take the house in 26th, we're going to have just nonstop investigations over this, over crypto, or a lot of other stuff. Yeah, get ready for that in 2027, if that comes to pass, which it might. Rich Lowry of National Review on Guy Benson. Thank you, Rich. We'll be right back. Not the same talking points here, Guy Benson. Welcome back to Guy Benson. Just an update on the story that we brought you yesterday. It was unfolding as we were on the air, an active shooter situation at an Islamic Center in San Diego, California. And now that we have learned more...

The details are as follows. Three innocent victims were murdered in what authorities say appears to be a targeted hate crime. The suspects, both deceased, were in their late teens and apparently left behind some evidence indicating that this was driven out of hate and some sort of supremacy. And what a waste of young lives. Going down, obviously, what seems to be a very dark path. We see, unfortunately, young men getting radicalized in various forms and turning to violence somewhat regularly in this country now. This being another horrifying example. And... We will, of course, wait to get all the information as it comes out. But if the authorities are correct that this was a hate crime directed at Muslims, there is simply no excuse for this, no place for this in a society like ours. It is heart-wrenching. People should be free to worship as they please and be safe in sanctuaries like mosques and churches and synagogues. And the fact that increasingly those places have been targeted is totally intolerable in the United States of America. And I've seen certain arguments about people who attended this mosque or this Islamic Center and certain things that have been said in the past. And to me, those are irrelevant and do not pertain to the morality of an attack. And if you are attacking an Islamic center as some sort of vigilante effort against what you perceive as terrorism, you have become the terrorist yourself. So this is sickening and our hearts go out to the families of the victims. We will continue to speak out and tell the truth about Islamism and some of the issues where I think elements of Islamism are incompatible with Western civilization, while also always pointing out, A, that Islamism and Islam slash Muslims are not readily interchangeable. They are not the same thing. These are two different categories. And B, violence is and cannot be the answer or so-called solution to any of these disputes, no matter how serious. So just a horrible, horrible... incident and atrocity really in southern california and because we mentioned that it was happening yesterday and the details were scant i wanted to make sure that we filled you in as we have learned more and on that dark note we will turn to our second hour of Guy Benson coming up next general jack keene is here on iran ukraine and beyond looking forward to that conversation straight ahead

Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat, emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better. Every plan, $15 dollars a month a month. Every plan, even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending, zero tears. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up front payment of $45 for three months, $90 for $1.90 for $1.20 per month plan required to $50.00. See terms. A new generation of conservative talk. Right here, right now. Fair, fun, and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of Fox News. Fox News. You're listening to Guy Benson. And now, here's your host, Guy Benson. It's a brand new hour here on Guy Benson. It's our middle hour of three Tuesday edition. Thank you for joining us. Guy Benson.com podcast free every day on demand. Let's bring you a Fox News alert. As we enter this hour with the Dow tumbling 321 points at the close today, finishing in the red at 49,364, market update sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and their mission based on timeless principles of expanding freedom and opportunity for every single American. I was actually over at one of their headquarters today doing some filming, reciting part of the Declaration of Independence. As part of our America 250 celebration in this country, they've got some really cool stuff cooking. Go to Americans for Prosperity.org slash Guy. Find an AFP chapter near you or get involved. Well, joining us now is General Jack Keane, a retired four-star general. He is chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. He's also Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst. General, welcome back. You're glad to be here, Guy, with you and your audience. I want to get to Iran in a moment, but let's just start with two other subjects briefly. Number one, the Ukrainians, gaining back territory, gaining on the Russians, striking deep inside Russia, in fact, right near Moscow in recent days, which makes the foreign war a lot closer to home. for a lot of Russian elites, it feels like the tide is shifting in that conflict just in the last couple of weeks. What can you tell us? Yeah, that's absolutely true. I mean, the Russians literally for the past two years have had difficulty taking a significant amount of territory. But in 2026... They have really been challenged. And it's almost been a stalemate. And for the last several weeks, the Ukrainians have begun to actually take territory back. And for the first time, Russia cannot keep up with casualties. In other words, the personal replacement system.

providing less people than those who are being killed and wounded. And that has never happened before going into the fifth year of war. That's number one. And number two is the long-range fires that Ukraine is delivering are now penetrating deep into Russia, taking down manufacturing capabilities, all storage sites. And as you accurately pointed out, taking down targets in Moscow. And those two things are clearly shifting momentum for the first time to Ukrainians since the very beginning of the war when they so successfully pushed back against the Russian offensive operations and took some territory that the Russians had initially grabbed off. And so, yeah, there's been a momentum shift taking place in favor of Ukraine. All right, well, it's welcome news from my perspective. On another subject, President Trump, a return from China and this major trip over there to meet with Chairman Xi Jinping. A lot of takeaways from that in terms of the economy and global security and all of it. One of the concerns, at least among some, as reported by Axios, is that Trump's team now increasingly worried. about China's and specifically the Chinese Communist Party's designs on Taiwan in the next couple of years. Any sense on movement there? Is there a reason why there would be the Trump team coming back from China with renewed worries about that? Well, I think it had to do with what President Xi Jinping was choosing to emphasize. So what we were promoting was the stability of the relationship itself, and so did the Chinese. I mean, they both value this is the most important bilateral relationship for each country that it has in the world, and both leaders value the personal relationship. But our objectives was largely economic, correct trade and balance. increased procurement of very items like soybeans and airplanes, and also deal with the tariff issue and help businessmen do more business in China. But President Xi Jinping was focused primarily on one objective, and that was Taiwan, and he was vocal about it. And he was actually threatening that if this wasn't resolved favorably. It could lead to actual conflict. So, yes, I think people came away from that. So our audience understands that President Xi Jinping has designs over Taiwan, despite the fact that Taiwan has never been under Chinese communist control when they took over in the late 1940s. That's where the nationalist... who they defeated, fled to. And they've occupied that island for years. And for a couple decades now, it's been an autonomous democracy. And that's how the people want to keep it. 85% of them think of themselves as Taiwanese as opposed to Chinese. But President Xi Jinping has it as an objective during his term to gain control of Taiwan, much as he took control of Hong Kong.

That's number one. And number two, technologically, he desires it because the Taiwan Semiconductor manufacturing company, the so-called TSM, is the largest producer of advanced chips in the world, and the largest producer of the nano-7 AI advanced chips. And that, by that I mean, is the... As one commentator referred to it, PSMC and Taiwan is the factory floor for the development of AI going forward. So this is something that China desires. If they take control of that, they will win the AI battle with the United States and who's going to achieve domination. So they want to control it geopolitically, but they want that technology. And I think the United States certainly their antenna has gone up as a result of it. Also, for our audience to understand, TSM has a factory that is manufacturing advanced chips in Arizona. They set that up with the United States, but they're not doing the AI chips yet. And they still have to send capability back to Taiwan to finish it off. So yes. Taiwan is on the antenna for President Xi Jinping, and therefore it is for us as well. All right. Let's turn now to Iran in the few minutes that we have remaining in this conversation general. President Trump announcing that he had put a halt to what was going to be a major attack against the regime, so resuming military operations. He said it was very close to happening an hour away, but he was talked out of it to give more time for these negotiations at the request of various leaders in the Middle East of other countries. We've seen this a few times now where he's threatened, sometimes in very striking terms, and then foreign leaders come in and intervene, and he says, okay, well, we'll hold off again. seems like Iran is at least somewhat using this quasi-seas fire to build back up. We obviously have a lot of targets that we could still hit. There's worries about what kind of remnants of their nuclear or missile programs are still left with more work to be done here. I'm not sure if this regime or whoever is representing it now will ever get serious, truly, about a meaningful deal. What is your understanding right now of the state of play? Yeah, well, I think upper most in the administration's mind is to make a deal. And I think that is really driving policy going forward. And I think that's where their energy is. I think I have confidence that President Trump will not make a bad deal. But I will say this, even if we do make a deal, and it's almost perfect.

A deal has serious limitations. By that I mean, one, as part of a deal, we would have to remove some of the frozen assets that were holding up $100 billion. Not all of it, make a condition base. Remove some of the sanctions. Not all of it either, make a condition base. But that would begin to recover the regime. In other words, the regime survives for sure. And then we help the finance. It's recovery. We extended a lifeline for years to come. The second limitation of any deal, and we have to have our eyes wide open here, despite the fact that we sign on a dotted line and we agree to X, Y, and Z, and it's all what we want. We know these guys will reverse that at some point. They will begin to recover their nuclear program. They will begin to recover their ballistic missile program. They will clandestinely and covertly begin to fund their proxies again. Because why? Because that's who they are. And they will cheat to do all of that. Why? Because that's what they've done in the past. Those are two serious limitations in my judgment. We extend the lifeline to the regime so that they can financially recover. and stay in power for years to come. And also, they're going to cheat on any deal that we make. I'm just worried about whether the deal would even come at all, an acceptable deal. And in the meantime, they're kind of up to no good, seemed to be stringing the Americans and the administration and the president along. And there were at least indications that Trump really was getting serious about, you know, dropping the bombs again. yesterday with lots of logistics put into place to do it, and then he's held off. Do you still think there's a legitimate chance that he will order the resumption of hostilities here? Well, I would hope he means what he says, and I have no reason to doubt that, that there is no deal, then we should return to combat operations. But I do know, just stating clearly here, that what is uppermost in the administration's mind, is to try to work a deal. And I don't know what that means. We're just going to try to work that in the next three or four days, and we're going to find ourselves extending this again. We're six weeks into an extension of the ceasefire, and we don't have much to show for it. Right. Other than the fact that Iran has, and you're accurately saying it has been recovering, and I know you've got to run, but that is my concern here. We keep kicking this can down the road, and it benefits Iran. Yeah, because they were on the ropes after the actual military part of this kinetic conflict, we and the Israelis together really damaged them very, very substantially with the help actually of some of the Arab states as well. And to me, it's like you've got to either make a really good deal that you can verify. Or you've got to, to the greatest extent, finish the job militarily, and we're in this kind of gray zone now. And a lot of us are hoping for clarity. And we'll see what the next couple days or weeks brings. And we'd love to have you back to talk about it because it matters a lot having started all of this in a very worthwhile endeavor. General Jack Keene, retired four-star general, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. He is a senior strategic analyst here at Fox News. General, we always appreciate your time.

and your insight. Thank you. Yeah, great talking to you, Guy. You and your audience. Thank you. And we'll be right back. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. I'm Guy Benson. We are back glad to have you with us. What you're about to hear is a soundbite from the governor of Illinois. And he is just ripping on the mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, who is, admittedly, a disaster. And I'm 100% here for anyone who wants to lay into Johnson because he has been terrible, as was obviously predictable when he was running. And the voters of Chicago in a very low turnout election made a terrible decision to go from bad to worse, and the results are what they are with Mayor Johnson, as unfortunately our audience at WLS is very familiar with. So J.B. Pritzker's going after Johnson here over this whole fiasco involving the Chicago Bears and a new stadium that might end up moving out of the city to Indiana, potentially. We've covered that. Or maybe to the suburbs. It seems likely or at least very, very possible that the city of Chicago will indeed lose the Bears. And J.B. Pritzker seems exasperated. I want to hear what he has to say and then add to it on the other side. Listen to cut ten. I know that the mayor has no plan. He has come up with no plan at all about how the bears would end up in the city of Chicago. So that's problematic. I'd love them to be in the city, but we're three years in now, and he still has no plan. And in fact, this is kind of typical. The mayor has shown up every spring at the end of session to pronounce what he would like to see happen. And as you know, the budget gets put together starting in November. I present my budget, well, really we start at the beginning of a fiscal year, but about in November, you know, we're in the details of the budget. I present that budget to the legislature in February. So that seems like a good time period to come talk to the governor's office. Then there's February to May, there's all that time to come talk to the legislature, which has my budget in hand, or the governor's office. Again, we've seen almost nothing out of the mayoral admission. here on that subject or really any other. And so to show up in May and have a bunch of demands seems like late in the game and it's unfortunate that's happened most years. So those are some grievances there from J.B. Pritzker about the mayor of his political party in the big city and his state. And yeah, I mean, fine, points well taken. Johnson is terrible. We know that. But some of this also feels like punting and scapegoating. Because Mayor Johnson is not the only influential leader in Illinois. In fact, the person who outranks him in most ways is the governor. So when he's saying, well, the mayor doesn't have a plan, that is, I'm sure true. This guy is an incompetent ideologue at best.

But when it comes to something as significant, financially, politically, in terms of morale, identity, all these things involving the people of Illinois, and to say, oh, well, you know, it's kind of just the mayor's fault. He doesn't have a plan. He's never had a plan. That kind of feels like an attempt at self-absolution for the governor, passing the buck down the chain to someone else. And it's not only the job of the mayor. To get involved in the budget process, which is awash in red ink and dysfunction. I mean, it's a basket case in Illinois. We all know that. There's a reason why people and businesses have been streaming out of that place. It's been terribly run, not just at the city level in Chicago, but at the state level in Springfield. And I know that J.B. Pritzker really wants to be president of the United States. And he doesn't really want to think about or talk about the giant failures of his own leadership. And it's a very juicy, inviting target to go after Brandon Johnson. I'm not even going to disagree with him on those points. Yes, that's all true about Mayor Johnson. But leadership also requires understanding other people's shortcomings or challenges. understanding that in a budget process, maybe you should initiate some conversations with the leader of the city of Chicago if you're the governor of Illinois and then not get all annoyed and surprised when yet again he shows up at the very last minute. Yes, that is annoying, but you can maybe cut that off at the past. You can do something about it through leadership. So I endorse all the negativity about Mayor Brandon Johnson, deserved richly. But to pretend like it's not something of a two-way street, to remove culpability from the governor for all sorts of the problems facing the state of Illinois, including this mess with the bears, that is political blame shift and not leadership. So in going after Johnson the way that he did. It is a scapegoat, a deserving scapegoat, but still a reflection on his own decisions and so-called leadership in Illinois as he is looking elsewhere, looking aloft for a job promotion from the American people. I don't think so. I will say no thank you. Hard Pass. Guy Benson. Back with more. Mary Catherine Hamm joins us after the break.

Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Halflight through Guy Benson on this Tuesday. Thanks very much for being with us. Guy Benson.com is our website, podcast free, every day on demand. Well, we are very pleased, as always. So welcome back to these airwaves, Mary Catherine Hamm. Best friend of the program, Fox News contributor, Outkick columnist, and co-author of our book, End of Discussion at M.K. Hammer on Social. Mary Catherine, welcome back. Hello, thank you for having me. Looking forward to being on kind of a cool little journey together for the rest of the week. We will fill the audience in on that upon our return. Before we leave the country, though, I want to talk about commencement season, graduation season. I'll be playing some excerpts of one of the best speeches I've ever heard, at least in that category, in the next hour. That would be Eric Church at the University of North Carolina. For the purposes of our conversation, Mary Catherine, and it kind of dovetails into subjects that we touched on in our book end of discussion. Let's do basically the annual topic of coddled university kids getting very, very angry when a commencement speaker was not the type of person they feel like they should hear from. And we know that it's always totally out of balance, a right-left divide when it comes to the invited speakers. That's just the way the academy is and has been for many, many years. Those reports are released on an annual basis, and it's like, yep, almost all left-wingers. That's always the case. It seems like in order to imbue meaning into their lives, a lot of kids, this again has been fairly common for years, they get together and sign petitions or pass resolutions in the student government because someone who might disrupt exactly their worldview, their cloistered idea of what the world should look like. They have... virtually no tolerance for that at all. And they're like, oh, this is an affront to us, and it's going to be a distraction from the celebration of us, and how dare you confront us with ideas or people that we may not love and completely agree with. And there are a few examples of this over the last couple of weeks, including amusingly, fittingly, Professor Jonathan Haidt at NYU. Talk about that example, because I think it kind of almost feels too on the nose, and yet it's real. No, it is almost the perfect one because this guy, Heights, is an interesting thinker. He is accepted in all the sort of liberal podcast circles. You know, he can do those interviews. He can exist at NYU, the place where he's speaking as a professor. And yet, when the student body finds out he's speaking, this... social psychologist who has ideas about how, oh, I don't know, students should confront things that they disagree with and they should support free speech. And all of that is like icky and right coded now. And so they're like, no, we don't want him. And so he wrote this book along with Greg Lukianoff, one of our favorite people, who's the head of the fire, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called the coddled mind, the thesis of it. Yeah, the coddling of the American mind.

Codling of the American mind that mostly young people were being taught to be anxious, were being taught to be fragile, intolerant, and that this was actually very bad for them and made them anxious. Haidt has since written the anxious generation that goes into the social media component of this. All very interesting stuff, and apparently on point, because the coddled generation... The anxious generation got anxious and coddled and walked right out of his speech in some cases because they couldn't countenance this very normal famous speaker. Yeah, he's one of the foremost academics in the country, very well known, very well respected, and they were basically saying he's called us coddled, our whole generation. So let's run away from that, which is... entirely proving his real thesis as opposed to the cartoon version that they came up with to convince one another that this was some sort of terrible slap in the face. So there was this big push to get him uninvited or literally canceled. That didn't work, thank goodness, and he spoke anyway. There were some booze when he was introduced and then some people did walk out. And those who didn't, the vast majority, by the way, and it often is a very loud group of people who don't represent everyone who stir the pot the most, right? It's always important to remember that because there's a contagion where they make it seem like they're speaking for this majority when they aren't, even in left-wing places like NYU, those who remained for the speech. Mary Catherine, I saw excerpts of it. I know you watched a lot of it. We're treated to a very good, worthwhile speech, unsurprisingly, from someone thoughtful and wise, like Jonathan Haidt. Well, and someone thoughtful who studies perhaps the major conflict of our lives, which is how to... live with social media in a way that makes you a healthy and happy and successful person, right? That's what he studies all the time. And he basically told them, treasure your attention, do hard things, do hard things with real people in real places, do not get captive to all of this. And it wasn't at all condescending. It wasn't, it wasn't tisking. It was simply... Here's some decent thoughts about how to live as you move forward in your life from a thing I've studied a lot. But apparently expertise matter not at all to the expertise in elite class if it doesn't completely comport with everything that they want to hear. He was delightful. He was insightful. And, of course, that requires a walkout among certain people who would, of course, consider themselves extremely enlightened. And they actually are not. Their minds are coddled and in some ways broken. which is part of his point, although he was not lecturing and hectoring along those lines in this commencement address. He understood the moment. He rose to it because he's talented and knows things. And if people decided to miss it in some sort of hissy fit very much their loss, there was, however, in another example of this, a successful so-called cancellation.

The former president of Northwestern, where I went, I'm a big wildcat. And by the way, Meng Chang is our brand new hired president. That was announced yesterday. We poached him from Purdue University. And without getting too deep into it, I'll just say I'm hearing really, really good things about this guy. He comes from the hard sciences. Purdue, where he was the leader for several years, has a very strong score on free speech, for example, and not indulging anti-Semitism and some of the other terrible things that we've seen on various campuses. Purdue didn't do that. And now that leader has come to Northwestern. And again, what I'm hearing from a lot of people that I trust are pretty rave reviews for this gentleman, including... A strong endorsement, and I'll leave it at that, from former Senator Ben Sass, himself a former university president at the University of Florida. So I'm very, very high on this hire. And regular listeners know that I've been critical from a place of loyalty and love and concern about some of the things happening at Northwestern under the previous president who resigned a while back. I think that was a long time coming. Looks like the new hire is going to be a major upgrade. So I'm very excited about that. Go Katz. A previous president, so before the big mess that happened post-October 7th, there was a guy named Morty Josh Shapiro, who was president there for years. He was a lefty in a lot of ways, and I disagreed with him from time to time. I think he was generally pretty good at standing up to the mob. He would not tolerate the sort of Hamas anti-Semitic crowd. They tried to protest his house at one point, and he was having none of it. He had a very pointed, your concerns are noted good day style email to one of these demands that they put forward. He was just like, no. He would not go along with the big anti-police craze that they tried to force upon him. So Morty Josh Shapiro, a man of the left, a very decorated academic, was invited to be the keynote speaker, the commencement speaker, at Georgetown Law. in Washington, D.C., and the students there, Mary Catherine, melted down, circulated their petition, erred their grievances, and said that this was someone who was very controversial, whose views were problematic, including on Zionism. They said that his beliefs are harmful, likely a reference to Zionism, but also... policing and not being against it and they basically said these are dangerous harmful ideas and he should not be our speaker and when given the heads up that this was all brewing Josh Shapiro as we called him Morty was just like you know what I need this like I need a hole in the head and he just withdrew and decided not

to put himself through that. And I have mixed feelings on that. I wish actually people wouldn't withdraw under this kind of pressure, but this was more or less a successful cancellation at Georgetown Law. Again, a so-called elite law school, Mary Catherine, where... They decided a certain percentage of the class decided, oh, this person has harmful ideas, which basically are any ideas that cut against the zeitgeist on the left in any given moment. And they don't want to hear that. And in this case, they got their way. The tantrum worked. I wouldn't want to hire any of these people as lawyers. I don't know if you're aware guy, but you have to argue with people in law. You have to read things that often are not your personal position. You sometimes have to write things that aren't your personal position because that's your job. And yet they can't sit in an auditorium. I am disappointed, and I understand why he would withdraw, but I am disappointed because I do think it incentivizes this behavior. Georgetown's like, woo, now we can just get some crazy lefty, just like everyone wants. And everyone's not happy because everyone's free speech had gone down at that point, because the heckler's veto has worked. And it's amazing to me every year. You know, we've covered this forever. And it is a phenomenon of the left when it comes to commencement speeches because... universities are left and these speakers, if even like a centimeter center of where they want them, must be taken down. You know, we've talked about the past. Condoleez-R-R-Rice, of course, was canceled. Attempted canceled at one point, I can't remember if it went on or not. Christine Lagarde of the IMF. So French economists not liberal enough for Smith College, I believe it was. Michael Smirkanish of CNN was once successfully canceled at a 2024 address. It's like these are the people they can't tolerate. It's actually insane. It has become this embarrassing right of passage that actually indicts the people running these mobs. And it's a shame. It should be resisted and overruled. And sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. And I hope Georgetown law had a fun left-wing address from whoever they decided was sufficiently woke or ideologically pure. What a way to go through life. And these are the future... Top Flight Lawyers of America, supposedly. Speaking of which, Mary Catherine, let's talk about a setback for Democrats in Virginia and their reaction to it as soon as we come back on Guy Benson, Mary Catherine Hem, our guest, keep it right here. In the Swamp, not of the Swamp. Guy Benson.

Welcome back. It's Guy Benson. Mary Catherine Hamm is with us. All right. Mary Catherine, let's talk politics and specifically Virginia politics and some of the saber rattling on the left on a national level. It's an interesting, nifty little trick that we've seen from Abigail Spanberger, the governor of Virginia, and the Attorney General Jay Jones, who's perhaps best known for fantasizing about murdering his political opponents and their children. They had another setback. And so these two are very upset, having been dealt several setbacks in Virginia. Most recently, I mentioned this on the show yesterday on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court, as predicted by almost anyone who understands things, They decided the U.S. Supreme Court not to touch the ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court overruling, invalidating the illegal unconstitutional referendum that the Democrats forced through to try to change the congressional maps from a very fair one to a wildly disproportionate, unrepresentative one. And they did it. in violation of the Constitution, and therefore the result has been vitiated by the state Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court unanimously saying, we're not going to intervene in this, so the decision stands. You got these. statements put out by Abigail Spanberger, who reportedly her own team had warned against going down this path for exactly the reasons that were borne out in reality. They've been vindicated in those admonitions. Jay Jones seems like an awful lawyer who has almost no experience going into this job, and he had a whole rant about how terrible this was, and the left is now turning again. its rhetorical guns on the U.S. Supreme Court, like this is some kind of partisan intervention or hatchet job by the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Republicans, while just kind of shunting off to the side that this was unanimous. There was not a single dissent, including from Ketanji Brown Jackson, in all of this. So I guess they're sort of addicted to taking their political elves, especially. Attorney General Jay Jones, and this frivolous appeal, which was riddled with errors at various stages of the process, Mary Catherine, has ended down the cul-de-sac up against the dead end that we all knew it would, but they are using that as yet another springboard to try to attack the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court to their followers who they are counting on not knowing that this was 9-0. Yeah, I mean, if you can't get a dissent out of KBJ at this point, like, what are you even doing? Everyone knew where this was headed because, by the way, I don't know if Georgetown law students from this class put this filing together, but everyone could tell what's going to happen. I'm not trained as a lawyer, but I know that you have to bring a federal issue to a federal court. The court of last resort on the Virginia Constitution actually is the Supreme Court of Virginia. You can't get the Supreme Court to rule on it.

Honestly, I think in the past, there has been more like decorum among lawyers who didn't want to appear cynical and partisan who wouldn't do frivolous things like this. But this is probably worthy of some punishment for just, or at least this approbation in public over having filed this at all. But that's not what they want to do. They don't want to do good lawyering. They want to go after the Supreme Court. So they put their loser JV work. in front of the Supreme Court. And when the Supreme Court, all nine of them predictably squash it, they go, aha, foul. Both the Virginia Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have noticed how bad we are at this. And therefore, they are unjust. They're not unjust. They're doing their jobs. And we need them to do those jobs. And Democrats repeatedly go after courts when they don't get their way talking about how they are inherently corrupt. And as soon as they get their way, they forget about that and stop talking about it. This is how courts work. You win some, you lose some, and you mostly lose the ones where you break the law and then don't do the good lawry. They want to reform. the system so that they always get their way. That's what they're almost saying openly. Yeah, the idea is to pack whichever court is not giving them their way at any given time. The audacious democracy norm-destroying idea from the Virginia Democrats and national Democrats was, hey, let's just like force them all under retirement, all seven of the Virginia Supreme Court. justices. And then we'll kind of just throw whoever on there we get a promise from to rule our way, which is like, you know, just a little banana republic. And they want to do the same thing to the Supreme Court of the United States. Although I noticed that Ro Khanna accidentally got his timing wrong. And he was like, we need to expand now, at which point I think Trump should be like, now. Are you correct? Yeah, exactly. Call the bluff. Let's add four seats and make them right-wingers and see if all the court expansionists like that idea. And, of course, they won't because it's not about expanding the court for the sake of expanding the court. It's expanding the court so they can get a progressive, quote-unquote, majority to do their bidding, which is really, really scary. The loudest voices in their party are shouting for this kind of thing right now, and I hope those voices ultimately do not prevail, but it's something we have highlighted and will continue to highlight here because they will exploit. Any opportunity, any excuse to make it seem like the court is a threat to the system, thus justifying their illiberal, dangerous banana republic actual threats to the system in order to achieve specific results that they want because power in their minds is something to which they are entitled. And I hope that we can maybe.

returned to sanity on some of this stuff and that cooler heads ultimately prevail. But at the moment, those are certainly not the incentives on the political left. And we'll see where it goes. Mary Catherine Hamm on Guy Benson, we began this discussion on the subject of commencement addresses. Let's stick with that theme on a brighter note. I promise you, you're not going to want to miss this. Straight ahead. Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit thelongdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson. Thank you. Happy hour time on Guy Benson, our final hour of three on this Tuesday. Thank you very much for being with us. Guy Benson.com, our website, podcast free every day on demand when the show is over in just about an hour. This radio hour brought to you by the finish long drink, our good friends there, a really refreshing and delicious product, especially as the weather gets hot. We served at the baby shower over the weekend, always a hit. Please drink responsibly, of course, 21 plus only, the long drink.com. So we just wrapped up in the last hour our conversation with Mary Catherine Hamm talking about college graduation and commencement addresses and cancellations and all of that, sort of the darker side of it. Let me pull a Ui, go in the other direction now, and talk about one of the best commencement addresses I've ever heard. I had a good one myself when I was graduating from Northwestern. Julia Louis Dreyfus was charming and funny and memorable. Good stuff. This one, though, is next level. And I saw it coming through my social media feed repeatedly for days. So we're a little late to this. It happened just recently. It's not like this is old. But I was not willing to spend the time to watch whatever 18, 19 minutes of this speech, even though people were raving about it. And then finally I had enough time to just sit down and take it in. And boy, am I glad that I did. And in fact, it was so, I think, well done that I urged my family. They were all in town for baby shower over the weekend. to actually have a drink and watch it with me this past weekend. I think Saturday night we pulled it up on the big screen on YouTube, and we all sat and listened. And I am so glad that the graduates of the University of North Carolina got to hear this, along with their loved ones and friends. I'm glad that it has gone viral because I think Americans of all ages should take this to heart, should take the time to listen to it, especially younger Americans, because there's a lot of wisdom. in the words of country music star Eric Church. And so we've taken the liberty, and this is sort of rare for us to take segments like this and devote it to something like this, but I think it's worth it. I really do. These are the highlights of this speech delivered in Chapel Hill by Eric Church, who's obviously a huge UNC guy himself, if you watch the whole thing. And...

My guess is some of you have already heard this. Others of you have heard about it, but haven't taken the time. And for many of you, this is the first you're hearing of it. And I'll just say, in my opinion, you're in for a treat. Let's listen together. to this musician, Eric Church, who said he was struggling to figure out what the concept was going to be for his speech, and he had ripped up multiple versions of it, and eventually he decided he was most at home, most at peace, in a comfort place with a guitar in his hands. And he then built the speech around that, which may sound cheesy, but it's not. It's entertaining, but it's also very profound. Here's part of the introduction, cut 31. If you'll indulge me, I want to start with a sound. You know this sound. It's a guitar that's out of tune. Something that almost gets there that tries, but doesn't. And some ancient, honest part of your brain knows it immediately. You don't need training to hear it. You just know. That sound is the sound of something beautiful that has not been tended to.

Six strings. When all six are in tune, the chords they make can stop a conversation cold. Carry a broken person through the worst night of their life or make a room full of strangers feel for three minutes like they've known each other forever. But if even one is off, the whole chord unravels. Not gradually, not politely. The moment you strike it, you know, I believe your life runs on this principle. And I'm going to break it down for you right now and tell you about your strings, okay? This is not a speech about a guitar or music. This is a speech about the strings of life, starting with this one in cut 32. String 1, the low E, that is your foundation. The low E is the thickest string. It is the heaviest. Every chord a guitar can make rests on this string being in tune. Your faith is the low E of your life. The thing that sits at the very bottom of you, your belief about what this life is for, what you owe, what holds the universe together when science reaches the edge of its own explanation and shrugs. The people who tend to their faith in ordinary seasons do not come undone and extraordinary ones. They still hurt. They still sit in hospital waiting rooms asking unanswerable questions at 3 in the morning, but they have a foundation to return to. String 1, your faith. String 2, cut 33. And the A string is where the music starts to get warm. It gives a chord its body, its richness. It's the string that makes you feel like you're not alone in a room. I want to warn you about something. You're about to get busy in ways that feel important and many are. Professionally ambitious, creatively alive, building the life you've been pointed toward for four years. And family, because they love you with the grace you will spend most of your life trying to deserve, will rarely demand your time. They'll tell you they understand. And they'll mean it. Do not take them up on it. Call your people. Not when there's news, not when there's nothing. Show up when it costs you something. Let them see you when things are hard. The A string is not a holiday string. It's an everyday string. Protect it. And a big round of applause from the audience comprised largely of families and parents. Family being string number two. Protect it every day. String 3, cut 34. The D string, the heart of a chord. On a guitar, the D string sits right at the heart of the instrument, in the middle of the low and high strings, giving the chord its body and its soul. Strike a full chord in a D string is what you feel in the center of your chest. That is not an accident. That is exactly what the right spouse and partner will do for your life. The person you choose to share your life with is the most important decision you will ever make outside of your faith. They will either amplify every other string you're playing or slowly pull the whole instrument into an out-of-tune mess. I said, I know that. I love you, honey. Find your best friend, someone you want to talk to at the end of a long day.

Look for shared values over shared interest. You don't need to love the same food or music. You need the same compass. Faith, family, spouse. He's hitting the big themes and doing it so compellingly. And the audience of young people is transfixed. He continues in cut 35, string number four. The G string drifts faster than the others on a guitar. I can promise you that is true. I have dealt with it my whole life. It's because ambition and resilience both live on this string, and they pull in opposite directions. I want you to want things. You should want things. The world has more than enough people standing at the edge of their own potential, waiting for a permission slip that was never going to arrive. Want the thing. Say it out loud. Build toward it with everything you have. And when you fail, and you will fail. Hemingway wrote it plainly right in the sternum. The world breaks everyone. Afterward, the best of us are stronger at the broken places. Get back up. Tune the string. Keep playing. Ambition and resilience framed, I think, in a very healthy way. That was string number four. Here's fifth in cut 36. The B string is about community. Your generation faces a temptation no generation before has ever faced. The temptation to perform for everyone and belong to no one. To be globally visible and locally invisible. To have thousands of followers and no one knows actually where you live. Resist this. Plant yourself somewhere. Put down roots with the full intention of growing there. Learn the actual names, not usernames, of the people around you. Volunteer. Coach the team. Build the thing your community needs, even if the internet will never see it. Carry this community with you as you plant your roots. It will reap a bountiful harvest and make your song richer and full. Boy, do I love this one. And I saw recently there was a study about how young Americans have hit basically rock bottom when it comes to knowing, interacting with, building relationships with their own neighbors. And I've talked about this a little bit before. I was guilty of this when I was a bit younger living in a condo building. I kind of knew a few people in the building to say hello to perhaps forged some friendships, but nothing that deep. Since we moved into the house, years ago, we just made a concerted effort, generally led by Adam, by the way, to get to know and befriend on a deep level our neighbors. And we now throw block parties with them. We have one another over to our houses for drinks and barbecues and that sort of thing. We've traveled together. We've celebrated together. We have grieved together. And if someone needs something, there are two, three, four, five households ready to spring into action to help.

And that's something that's been built and tended to over the years. And there's a sense of community and neighborliness on my block that I feel like is one of the great blessings of my life. And it's something that we risk losing if we don't pay attention to it. And you don't really know that you've lost it until you've experienced how great and enriching it can be. And for Eric Church, I think to succinctly explain it in 50 seconds there was really impressive. because it is somewhat unique to this upcoming generation. A temptation, he said, no generation before has ever faced to perform for everyone and belong to no one. The world sees a curated version of your life on a screen, but very few people actually know real you. And that gets creepy and even dystopian very quickly. I love the turn of phrase to be globally visible and locally invisible. To have thousands of followers and no one knows actually where you live, he urges the graduates, resist this. I love how he says, learn the actual names, not usernames, of the people around you. Because this will reap a bountiful harvest and make your song richer and fuller. And that is the truth that I can attest to in my own life. And he is really just building toward this conclusion. Bangor after banger of really important life advice put into perspective in a way that is so digestible and relatable and accessible. I think for people of all ages. And this is a masterpiece of a speech. Up next, the sixth and final string of the guitar and life. And then the conclusion and some music from Eric Church. I've heard this three times. I'm enraptured again. I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am. And you don't want to miss the finish up next. Miss a minute. Miss a lot. Guy Benson.

Back on Guy Benson, it's the happy hour here, and we're walking through the commencement address by Eric Church, the country music legend at UNC just recently, and he was drawing this parallel between a guitar and life. He's explained five of the strings, so let's turn now to the sixth and final string of life in cut 37. And finally, the high e-stream. This is the thinnest string. It's the highest note. The one that carries the melody, that single line above the chord that everyone in this room recognizes and takes with them on the way home. It's also the one bent most easily by outside pressure. Social media is going to show you a thousand versions of a life that looks better than yours. The comparison will be relentless, curated, and a lie dressed up in really good lighting. Someone's comments, someone's criticism, someone's cold opinion is going to try to convince you to retune yourself to match what they think you should sound like. Do not let them touch your string. You were made uniquely, wonderfully, distinctly. There's a sound only you can make, a voice that has never existed before you and will never exist again. A contribution only you can bring, a way of seeing that belongs to only you. The world does not need another cover song. It needs an original. Individuality, uniqueness, meaningfulness. Again, I can't speak highly enough of this message in the way it was delivered. And here comes the wrap-up, the conclusion from Eric Church at UNC, this commencement address this spring, cut 38. Six strings, six strings of life and willingness to keep them in tune. Six principles, six pillars. When all six are in tune with each other, the cord your life makes is full and resonant and true. All six will drift, not one or two, all six, in their own time, in their own season. Your faith will go quiet when you need it loud. Your family will get complicated in a way only the people who love you most can complicate things. You will go through hard seasons with your spouse. Your ambition will hollow out and your resilience will wear thin. Your community will start to feel like an obligation and your world will try to sand down the edges of exactly who you are. This is not failure. This is not weakness. It's the inevitable universal experience of living in an imperfect world that doesn't stop to let us tune up. And the difference between a life that sounds like music and a life that sounds like noise is whether you stop and listen. Stopping and listening and gut checking in the silence of your soul, a lost art amid the noise. Here's the very end from Eric Church at UNC, Cup 39. Whether you're honest enough to hear which string has drifted out of tune and humble enough to make the adjustment instead of just turning up the volume and hoping nobody notices, because you will notice. The part of you that knows what the chord should sound like will always notice. It will not let you go. Life won't be right until it is tuned.

Trust what your heart hears and is telling you about your song. So graduates, now I encourage you to take your six strings, make it something worth hearing, and play your song as I leave you with mine. And then he performed one of his hits, which I was not familiar with, admittedly, a beautiful song fittingly entitled Carolina. And let's just listen to Eric Church, send us to break after that beautiful, profound message to the graduates. I think there's something in that for every single one of us, regardless of age. And without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, Eric Church. Sometimes I grow weary. Staying on this road all the time. Yeah, I love to take a minute and let your mountains ease my mind.

Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. Earlier in today's program, we welcomed back General Jack Keene, retired four-star general, chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, and Fox News senior strategic analyst, talking Iran, of course, but also some big developments in Russia's war against Ukraine, not going the way the Russians wanted it to, and a couple other geopolitical issues as well. If you missed it, here's part of that conversation with General Keene. Let's just start with two other subjects briefly. Number one, the Ukrainians, gaining back territory, gaining on the Russians, striking deep inside Russia, in fact, right near Moscow in recent days, which makes the foreign war a lot closer to home for a lot of Russian elites. It feels like the tide is shifting in that conflict just in the last couple of weeks. What can you tell us? Yeah, that's absolutely true. I mean, the Russians, literally for the past two years, have had difficulty taking significant amount of territory. But in 2026, they have really been challenged. And it's almost been a stalemate. And for the last several weeks, the Ukrainians have begun to actually take territory back. And for the first time, Russia cannot keep up. with casualties. In other words, the personal replacement system is providing less people than those who are being killed and wounded. And that has never happened before going into the fifth year of war. That's number one. And number two is the long-range fires that Ukraine is delivering are now penetrating deep into Russia, taking down manufacturing capabilities, all storage sites. And as you accurately pointed out, taking down targets in Moscow. And that's... Those two things are clearly shifting momentum for the first time to Ukrainians since the very beginning of the war when they so successfully pushed back against the Russian offensive operations and took some territory that the Russians had initially grabbed off. And so, yeah, there's been a momentum shift taking place in favor of Ukraine. All right, well, it's welcome news from my perspective. On another subject, President Trump, a return from China and this major trip over there to meet with Chairman Xi Jinping. A lot of takeaways from that in terms of the economy and global security and all of it. One of the concerns, at least among some, as reported by Axios, is that Trump's team now increasingly worried. about China's and specifically the Chinese Communist Party's designs on Taiwan in the next couple of years. Any sense on movement there? Is there a reason why there would be the Trump team coming back from China with renewed worries about that? Well, I think it had to do with what President Xi Jinping was choosing to emphasize.

So what we were promoting was the stability of the relationship itself, and so did the Chinese. I mean, they both value this is the most important bilateral relationship for each country that has in the world, and both leaders value the personal relationship. But our objectives was largely economic, correct trade and balance. increased procurement of very items like soybeans and airplanes, and also deal with the tariff issue and help businessmen do more business in China. But President Xi Jinping was focused primarily on one objective, and that was Taiwan, and he was vocal about it. And he was actually threatening that... If this wasn't resolved favorably, it could lead to actual conflict. So, yes, I think people came away from that. So our audience understands that President Xi Jinping has designs over Taiwan, despite the fact that Taiwan has never been under Chinese communist control when they took over in the late 1940s. That's where the nationalist... who they defeated, fled to. And they've occupied that island for years. And for a couple decades now, it's been an autonomous democracy. And that's how the people want to keep it. 85% of them think of themselves as Taiwanese as opposed to Chinese. But President Xi Jinping has it as an objective during his term to gain control of Taiwan, much as he took control of Hong Kong. That's number one. And number two, technologically, he desires it because the Taiwan Semiconductor manufacturing company, the so-called TSM, is the largest producer of advanced chips in the world, and the largest producer of the nano-7 AI advanced chips. And that, by that I mean, is, as one commentator referred to it, PSMC and Taiwan is the factory floor for the development of AI going forward. So this is something that China desires. If they take control of that, they will win the AI battle with the United States and who's going to achieve domination. So they want to control it geopolitically, but they want that technology. And I think the United States certainly, their antenna has gone up as a result of it. Also for our audience to understand, TSM has a factory that is manufacturing advanced chips in Arizona. They set that up with the United States, but they're not doing the AI chips yet. And they still have to send capability back to Taiwan to finish it off. So yes. Taiwan is on the antenna for President Xi Jinping, and therefore it is for us as well. My full interview with four-star general retired Jack Keene, Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst. The entire thing is available online as part of our podcast at Guy Benson.com or Fox News Podcast.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch, producer Christine got an interesting offer.

involving her house. We'll reveal what that's all about up next. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson. And now... It's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home Stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on. So I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. Homestretch on Guy Benson on this Tuesday, Guy Benson.com. Podcast always free. Just some reminders there. And the programming note, I'll be out the next couple of days. Long planned trip. fill you in on some of those details upon my return. I alluded to it in the last hour with Mary Catherine. I'm excited about that. So stay tuned. We'll have great broadcasts here for you the rest of the week covering all the big news, of course. So just wanted to make you all aware of that. Well, a couple things to get to before we part ways. Starting with this, Christine, you are rushing out from the show momentarily when we're done here to head back home for your daughter's performance. Is it a play or a musical? What is this? Some school production? Yes, it's Greece the musical. Okay. So she has a pretty big part. So I got to get home, get there to school, help her get a little ready, and then we're going to watch her. debut. What part is it? Is it something I would be aware of or not really? I don't know how much you're, well, so. Is she Olivia Newton, John? She is not Sandy. She's not Sandy. She's not Sandy. She's one of the pink ladies. Okay. So it's a good part. She has a solo in the show. So we're excited to see that. And she is just so excited. She loves to act. I've seen the, I've seen the rehearsal guy. Ah, okay. So you have a little, a sneak preview, if you will. Correct. Coming attractions. Yes. She is adorable. She's very good. I worry about the rest of the show. Okay. See, you have your doubts. I do. I do. Are you bringing your mother, her grandmother, to see any of this? Yes. Yeah, because she's a tough critic. She is. I think what's going to be good... is just, I know it's just going to be like, oh, yeah, of course, it's just only your daughter. I think that, because Megan is that good, I think Blondie is going to be so excited. You mean, Judgey Joyce? Oh, yeah. Megan calls her, instead of Grandma, Megan calls her Blondie. Okay. That's her, her grandparent name. Well, we will have to get the review from Cookie and Blondie at some point soon, but break a leg in the theater sense to Megan tonight. Go grease lightning, tell me more, all of that stuff. Yes. Enjoy. But speaking of productions, Christine, you got an interesting offer involving your house this week. Is Bobby aware of this yet?

Oh, he is. He is. Okay, all right, because you never know. I know. You informed him via this show during a home stretch that you had a realtor looking to sell your last house. So I had to ask, what exactly happened? Was this a note in the mail? Was this a knock on the door? Was this a phone call? What happened? It was a, I think, email and a note. And then another note. And then I believe they might be coming by today. A network has reached out and they would like to use the exterior of our home in a pilot that they're shooting for the upcoming fall season. Pretty big network, by the way. Okay. So it's a TV show. Correct. Do we know the theme of the show? I do. I don't know how much I can say. Well, is it lighthearted? Is it dark? Is it drama? Is it mystery? Oh, that I don't know. I know where it's supposed to be set. So I don't know if you've noticed this guy, but a lot of... You don't even know the genre? I'm not sure if this is a comedy? I don't think it's a comedy. I think it's more serious. Okay. A lot of film production... And TV production is happening in New Jersey, and especially in North Jersey, and especially in some places in Central and by the beach. Well, first of all, Netflix has a huge mark now in New Jersey. And... I think it's just a lot cheaper than, believe it or not, the one thing that's cheap in New Jersey, than filming in New York or L.A. So we've noticed, I think Adam Sandler just wrapped up a movie in the town next to us, and he was there for weeks. So this is not Netflix, by the way. This is not Netflix. Okay, you name check them. This is another network. So they want to shoot the pilot for a new potential show that would air on their network and they want your house to be the exterior of what, like one of the main houses. In the show or just like for a scene? I don't know yet. Bobby was checking in with them and seeing what this is all about, how much we would get paid. Yeah, I assume they're paying you, right? Yes, they did say there would be compensation. Also, we have a town home. So do they just... Could they use just ours? Does the other people, like, need to sign off, like, our connecting? Yeah, I guess they probably need a unanimous yes. Oh, and I, they're such duds. I feel like they're so not going to sign off on this. So you want to do this? Yes, of course. How, what a cool story. Be awesome for Megan. And, you know, it doesn't look like you're putting me on TV anytime soon. So maybe, just maybe this could be my big break.

You want to go impress them. Yes. Like they're shooting the establishing shot of the outside of a home. Yeah. And they're like, and action. And they're supposed to be nothing except the house. I open the door. And you just come bounding out the front door and like a hot dog costume. Oh. Hello, governor. To really to impress the executives at this network. I don't know. What I was thinking of opening the door and like, not real, don't worry, people. Some like huge fake fur and like jewels, you know, like curl my hair. I don't know. It sounds like Elizabeth Taylor, doesn't it? You want to become the star of this show, don't you? I don't even know what the show is about. Or they could like build a new show around you once they discover your brilliance. Well, Dylan, you had some thoughts on what this show possibly could be. Oh, I mean, I was thinking maybe they haven't informed you yet, but maybe it's a true crime show discovering and discussing the murder of a pony named Carousel. Maybe they're really digging deep. Maybe it's a documentary. Maybe they're just pretending. They're pretending, oh, we just need this exterior shot, but they've got a lot more. They're going to spring some interviews on you like to catch a predator style. God, stop that. They're going to confront you with the cameras and what you did to carousel. Or, I mean, they might just get charmed. This is your plan to charm them and to get them to bring you into the fold as a star, either of this show or of a new show. They can just kind of follow you around in your day-to-day life and document these things and turn it into a hit program. And they could call it something like, the new adventures of old Christine, or something like that. Also, there is just like a little, little tiny part in the back of that brain of mine that thinks you had Dylan write and create this letter as a joke. You think I did this? Like a prank. I don't even know where you live, Christine. I've never been invited there. Oh, oh, here we go. How would I know where you live having never been invited there? So definitely not. Plus, like, I've got some other things going on. in my life from like the event last week in California and the baby shower and the kid who's coming and the trip that's coming up. It's like pranks. I don't need pranks. Your whole life seems like a prank. Okay. That's not very nice. I don't know. I say that in a very positive way, but like we're never hurting for cooking material where we have to manufacture it. Don't does that seem true?

It's true. That is true. We're never hurting for content. And on top of the fact that Guy has never been invited to your house, I've never met you ever. That's true. So, I mean, I don't know about this. I don't know about this prank theory. This one's real cooks. You've got to go for it. I'm going to be a star. You're just going to drive a hard bargain on how much you're going to charge for this outdoor shot of your house. Like, ma'am, it's just a flat fee. You're like, no, it's not, not with me. And you're going to be trying to push them higher and higher. Then you're just going to push them, you're going to price them out. Well, I was wondering if, like, it would be enough for a pool. And then Bobby laughed at me. Probably not. Yeah, no. No. I assume a pool is very expensive to put in. And I'm guessing this is like, In the hundreds. That's what I was thinking. Maybe like a thousand bucks, something like that. Yeah. Which is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not going to get you a pool. Maybe an inflatable pool. Can I have a bar? You know those inflatable bars? I think you could probably set up a nice bar in your backyard, like maybe a little tiki bar type thing. You could at least stock it. Could you imagine? You drink all the profits. Could you imagine me just laying in a baby pool with like a bottle of beer? I can. Listening to music. I absolutely can. Living your new lush lifestyle with your big network TV money. From the establishing shot. All right, well, you've got to let us know how Greece goes tonight and whether or not you're able to close the deal to make your house rich and famous on network television. And you will have to bring us those updates to the curious, including myself. next week when i'm back but you still have more shows to produce for the rest of the week christine assuming you're not going on vacation i hope it's maybe not a good assumption to make but we will have a program here tomorrow whether she's producing it or not also thursday and friday on Guy Benson since i won't speak to you until after this have a great holiday weekend memorial day is about memorializing people who have sacrificed it all for this country. So as we enjoy, our fun and our food and fellowship and friendship and all that stuff. It's important to remember why the holiday exists in the first place. And then, of course, we'll be charging into the summer hot months together on Guy Benson before you know it. Have a great night, everyone. Thank you so much for listening. We'll talk to you soon. I'm going to be a star.

Listen to the show ad free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.