Journalistic Scandal Explodes at NYT

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. Hello, I'm Max Rushden. The World Cup is back and Football Weekly is going daily. If you want award-winning soccer coverage from a podcast that's been over-analyzing the game for more than 20 years and still hasn't run out of opinions or just repeats the same ones over and over again, this is where you'll find it. We'll be producing 33 daily episodes across the tournament, breaking down all the action, the results and of course the drama. Can the US make it out of the group stage and into the spotlight on the biggest stage? World Cup daily, listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch full episodes on YouTube. At Walmart, we're helping our associates build meaningful careers. One way we're doing that, investing $1 billion in training and education. Last year, more than 100,000 associates earned promotions. Combined with benefits like 401K matching and paid parental leave, we're proving that Walmart isn't just a place to work, it's a place to grow. Learn more at walmart.com slash grow at Walmart.

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 Friday, May 15th, 2026. How is it mid-May already? Wow. Happy Friday, everyone. Welcome to Guy Benson. I'm your host, Guy Benson, Fox News Political Analyst, Senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. We are live in Northern California, Sonoma County, just beautiful here. KSRO, the studios of our great affiliate out here after a fabulous event at a winery last night with so many of our listeners sold out. We'll give you that recap later in the show, including quite a night for producer Christine. But here we're together for the next three hours, three to six p.m. Eastern time, then around the clock for free on our podcast at Guy Benson.com. or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your favorite podcast, bonus Guy Benson on the weekends as well. Email us, GBS at Fox.com. Follow us on social at Guy Benson. You can follow me as well at Guy Benson. On the program today, we'll get to our first guest in just a moment. U.S. Senator Roger Marshall later on in the show talking about the president's trip over to China and a few other issues. We'll also welcome back to the program, Dr. Mark Siegel, Hanta Virus. What are the facts? What's the fiction out there? We'll ask the medical doctor. And then David Harsanii of the Washington Examiner on a big journalistic scandal at the New York Times. He's all over that story. We will discuss it here. But we open the show today with another candidate. for governor of California. Since we are out here in the Golden State, we had Sheriff Chad Bianco on the show yesterday, and with us now is Steve Hilton. He's a businessman, former Fox host, of course. I was on his program, privileged to be on that show several times, and he is now a Republican candidate for governor of California. Steve, it's great to have you here. Welcome back. Well, it's fantastic to be with you, guy, but I'm very sorry. I'm not with you in person. I'm just 70 miles or so away in the Bay Area. So there you are. I'm beautiful Sonoma. I'm very jealous. Welcome to California. How about that? We're very happy to be here. The weather is amazing. It's funny. I was talking to the crowd last night, and I said sometimes you see this parade of insanity and awfulness in California. And you wonder why people stay, those who do stay. Why? And then we were standing under crystal clear blue skies. It was like 70. degrees and I looked to my left and it was the Sonoma Valley. I said, okay, you know what? I actually get it right there. There are some really amazing things about this place, but there are a lot of problems, which is why you're running for governor. I asked Sheriff Chad Bianco this same question yesterday and I want to just be fair and do the same thing here with you right out of the gate. If you were to win.

And I know it's an uphill climb for anyone who's on the right in this state. But if you won, what would be your top three priorities? You probably have a thousand things you'd like to do. But the three realistic things that you would prioritize, what would those be? Well, we have to cut taxes, and that's something that I would propose in my first budget that we sent to the legislature on day one, because we have the highest taxes in the country for the worst results. And you just saw Gavin Newsom put forward a budget yesterday, and if you look at the numbers, it's a 72% increase in spending compared to his first budget. And nobody in California can point to a single thing that's got better. He's just... spending more and more of our money, and everything gets worse. So we have to reduce spending so we can reduce taxes. The first line of my tax plan is to help those who've been hurt the most by these years of Democrat failure, and that is working-class California. So we're going to cut taxes, especially for working-class people, small businesses, your first hundred grand tax-free, and then an associated set of changes to help small businesses, and there's an $800 a year. Small business fee, registration fee that you've got to pay, whether you make money or not, that's going to go. A vehicle registration among the highest in the country, some people pay over $5,000, $700, sometimes over $1,000 a thousand a year, sometimes even $2,000. Just to register your vehicle in other states, it's under $100. We're going to get it down to a flat fee of $70. These are very specific changes we can make on day one. That's number one, tax and spend. Secondly, though, we've got to reduce the regulations. We have the worst business climate in the country, according to Chief Executive Magazine. Right there in Sonoma, there's an example. I met someone as a small independent winery. She wanted to increase her patio for her guests, from 30 visitors to 50. It took six years of bureaucracy. That's crazy. A million dollars, a million dollars in fees and permits, inspections, environmental reports, lawyers. It's insane. The level of regulations is insane and directly through the executive branch. And you have thousands of appointments to hundreds of agencies will get there on day one, cutting the regulations. And then the third thing, which is incredibly important, is just to sit down and talk to the legislature about how we can bring things back into balance in California. Because on all of these issues, on crime and homelessness and... spending and tax and regulation, it's gone so far left. And actually, I think that the election of a Republican governor really will shake the system in Sacramento. It's so corrupt. The unions run everything, far-left activists, the climate extremism that's given us the highest gas prices in the country, the second highest electric bills. All of that has to change. The governor, on many of those things, can't act alone, so we're going to have to do it with the legislature, which looks like it's still going to be controlled by the Democrats, although, of course, I'll be fighting very hard when I'm in the general election, top of the ticket, going into the November election, the general election, I'm going to be fighting to help elect Republicans at every level in our state, especially to the state legislature, so we can start to reign in some of this far-left extremism. You know, you mentioned something that I want to circle back to, and it was very interesting. Gavin Newsom, in his first budget, proposed a certain level of spending, and here in his final budget as governor, you said that...

increase has been 72% in spending. And then you ask Californians, have things gotten 72% better? Had they gotten 1% better during his governorship or have they gotten worse? And it's more and more spending, which is, of course, extracted from people by force in the form of taxation. And I think the mentality, or at least part of the mentality on the left, Steve, and this is often true, but it's, I think. illustrative of this particular situation is they actually substitute spending levels with success. It doesn't really matter what the outcomes are because the more spending is the outcome in their mind. And look no further than a tweet. This is from Gavin Newsom's press office. They put this out yesterday where they're bragging. Quote, student funding in California has now reached in, and all caps, record high. Since Gavin Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student as the state makes historic investments in public education. So they're boasting about record high spending per student on public education in California, which seems like the end goal for them because if you actually talk about student outcomes as those numbers have skyrocketed. it becomes a very different story and actually kind of disproves the boast. 100%. If you look at the scores as measured by objective test scores, we're among the worst in the country, nearly the highest spending for nearly the worst results. We have just 47% of students in California meet basic standards in English and literacy. With math, it's just 35%. Two-thirds of students don't meet basic standards in math in exchange for the highest spending. I mean, it's completely outrageous. One way I look at it is... That $28,000, whatever it is per student, it's gone up, as it were. The number before that I used to cite is 27,000. But that's per student in the state system. Private school tuition in California, an average across the state is 19,000 a year. Imagine if you went to a private school, you'd want to send your kids there, and there's an open house, and the principals welcoming you and saying, you should really send your kids here. Nearly half of our students meet basic standards in English. You just laugh. And I don't understand why the expectation of what we get out of this, especially when we spend more money, should be any lower in the public schools than in private schools. But that's what we've ended up with. And it's exactly what you say. It's expanding the budget and spending more money is the goal in itself. And that's what you've got going on here in California, which is... Over the last 16 years now, they've run everything. They've controlled all the statewide offices. They've had two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the legislature, all the big cities, all the big counties, the state Supreme Court, 6-1 Democrat majority is a very political Supreme Court. And so there's no excuse. This is what you get. California is what you get when Democrats get everything they want with no check, no balance, no restraint. And look at the results, the highest poverty rate in the country.

tied with Louisiana. The highest unemployment rate of all 50 states. The highest cost of living. By far, you look at more qualitative measures. US News and World Report ranked states on a variety of measures. California, 50th out of 50 for opportunity. And so on. I mean, Wallet Hub ranks as 50th out of 50 for affordability. I mentioned the business climate chief executive magazine ranks as bottom for that 10 years in a row. We pay the highest gas tax in the country. Our roads are ranked 50th out of 50. It's not just that California is doing badly. We are literally the worst performing state on nearly every measure that matters. That's the proof. Finally, if anyone was... Paying attention that this left-wing governance model is a total calamitous failure. There was a headline that I saw yesterday. It came up at our event last night, actually. New York Times headline, strategists tied to Xavier Becerra and Gavin Newsom pleads guilty to three felonies. And I think that almost understates the connection that this person had, both to the current governor and to the man who might be the Democrat frontrunner to replace Gavin Newsom right now. And I'm not saying that they are directly tied into that criminality or, you know, corruption. However. These are felonies. These are guilty pleas from someone very high up in that whole world, which at least in my mind speaks to kind of like the arrogance and often lack of accountability. There's going to be some here, I guess. But at the highest levels of this one-party rule machine in California, is this a headline worth paying attention to or is this a bad apple? No, no, you absolutely nailed it, Guy. That's exactly what's going on. I've seen it many times before. Back in the UK, where I was there and all around the world, actually, there's a whiff of death about this regime in California. They've been in power too long, and at the end of that, they just get arrogant, they get complacent, and they get corrupt. It's what always happens. You actually saw it just now in Hungary with Viktor Orban. Very similar, 16 years. in power there. You know, I agreed with many of the things that Viktor Orban did. My parents are Hungarian. I've got a lot of family there. So I appreciate what he did, for example, on controlling immigration. But by the end, people were sick of it because there was a level of corruption that was just too much to take. And that's what's happening here. You look at Xavier Becerra. If those haven't been paying attention, he's now, you know, really up there in the polls. I'm leading the polls. The real clear politics average still has me ahead. But he's creeping up. And so really it's looking like a two-horse race now for the top to myself and this guy, Xavier Becerra. He is an absolute, he's almost the living embodiment of the corrupt.

Democrat machine in California. He's been a career politician for 36 years. He's done nothing but be in these positions, appointed to them mostly. He's appointed to being state attorney general by Jerry Brown and then appointed to being Biden's health secretary. And the reason that this scandal matters is because it reveals their arrogance and contempt. What happened was Xavier Becerra, was appointed by Biden to be health secretary. He wanted his chief of staff to go with him to Washington. The salary wasn't enough, and there were travel expenses. So what did they do? They went to Xavier Becerra's California campaign account. They took $10,000 a month out of that. They stashed it in this consulting firm run by Gavin Newsom's former chief of staff, a Sacramento consulting firm. And that $10,000 was paid straight out to the wife of the chief of staff. Now, that is against California state campaign finance law because... campaign money should only be spent on the campaign. It's also against federal law, because as a federal employee, this guy should only have had income from one source, the federal government. Now, the idea that Xavier Becerra did not know about these payments that were purely made to facilitate his goal of having his chief of staff move with him to Washington is simply not believable. So you have not heard the end of this. If indeed he is the candidate running against me in the final, it just adds to the list of his corruption and failure. And the arrogance. I mean, he runs away from the press, wouldn't do the spin room after the debate last night. Earlier this week, made a fool of himself just trying to negotiate on camera with a reporter. It's a profile piece, Steve. Exactly. Don't ask me any tough questions. By the way, it's not just us who think he's a joke. His former colleagues in the Biden administration now have the group chat. where they share stories of his rise in the polls and ask each other, is this a joke? I mean, honestly, when you have Joe Biden and his team thinking you're incompetent, what does that say about you? Yeah, they tried to force him out with they leaked against him. He was picked for. identity reasons. They admit that. He had no business being health secretary at any point, especially during a pandemic for crying out loud. And then he was terrible. So they tried to leak against him to force him out because Biden never fired anyone. And he just wouldn't leave. And now he might be in the poll position within his party, at least, to be the nominee for governor of the state of California. It's remarkable, but it happens to be true. Steve Hilton, just remind Californians of the dates of the votes coming up real quick. Well, the date is today because ballots have gone out. You've got your vote. You've got your ballot. The election day is June the second, but you can vote right now. And there's a very simple point here. There's only one Republican who has a chance of making it into the top two, and that's me. We have to avoid the calamity of two Democrats in the top two. So if you want change in California, there's only one vote. And you can do it today. Vote for me. And then we can start to get California back on track. All right, Steve Hilton on Guy Benson, kicking it off for us on this Friday. He's running for governor, as he mentioned, here in California. We're broadcasting from Northern California today. Steve, thanks so much. Have a good weekend. Great to be with you guys. Thank you. We are just getting started. We'll be right back on Guy Benson. Keep it here. Miss a minute. Miss a lot. Guy Benson.

Have you ever stopped and thought about what's actually powering your day, the coffee you made this morning, the drive you took to get here, even the device you're listening on it? I'm Tanner Faust, and that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to talk about on the energy tailgate, a podcast from Chevron. I'll be your host inviting guests to discuss big energy topics and what they mean for everyday life, all from the tailgate of our truck. This is the energy tailgate. I'm Guy Benson, we're back. Here is a real-life, authentic social media post from NBC News. Just listen to this framing. The resignation of a Southern California mayor who pleaded guilty to acting as a foreign agent for China has sparked backlash and reignited fears of anti-Asian discrimination. Amazing. This is the playbook. The story is that this is yet another Chinese Communist Party spy caught in the United States. This one, an elected official in California. That's the story, not the possibility of anti-Asian discriminatory backlash. Obviously, we should not hold all Asian people responsible for the actions of Chinese spies, right? It doesn't need to be said. I'll say it just to just to be careful, just to check that box. But the story here is not. Well, this could stir racism against Asian people. It's that this was also what they did during COVID. Because COVID started in China in a lab, a Chinese lab with a bunch of lying in cover up from the Chinese Communist Party. And Trump calls it a China virus. People lose their minds like, this. People are, well, were there widespread examples of Americans going out and just like assaulting random Asian people because of that? They do this all the time. They'll be an Islamist terror attack, and the media will immediately run to say, but Islamophobia, this is not about anti-Asian discrimination. This is about another example of active Chinese espionage. And yes, this person does happen to be Chinese. So we should be vigilant about that. But NBC is on the case with the framing that they cannot quit. They're addicted to this stuff. We'll be right back. 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.

Talking about the issues you care about. Guy Benson. Back here on Guy Benson, Guy Benson.com, the website, podcasts always free. So it is now becoming basically the mainstream position of Democrats to demand court packing and to lie in the process of demonizing courts based on outcomes that the left is unhappy about. And the dishonesty runs deep. And the extremism, again, is becoming less extreme, at least within the Overton window of center-left politics. I want to start with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who had some thoughts about the recent decision in Virginia by that Supreme Court to throw out this illegal process on the referendum to change the Constitution. Democrats did it illegally. The Supreme Court ruled. In accordance with the law and the Constitution of Virginia, Democrats didn't get their way, which was this egregiously unfair 10 to one map for four extra house seats in the upcoming elections. So they're very mad. So they are going after the integrity of that court. And they're doing so incredibly mendaciously. Here's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Cut 24. We will fact check her on the other side of the clip. When it comes to Virginia, I think what is extremely disturbing about what has happened in Virginia is less about what's, you know, it's one thing to talk about maps. It's another thing that this court went in. and overturn the will of three million Virginians. They can say whatever they want to say about their reservations on the ballot initiative, but they explicitly chose to issue this ruling after the election happened. They had all the time in the world to issue an opinion or an injunction before allowing this election to happen. So they did not overturn a map. They overturned an election. Okay, couple things wrong here. Number one, she says this was the will of three million Virginians. Now it was the will of half and a handful and change of three million Virginians. And almost 49% of Virginians said, hell no to this, because it was so obviously unfair. They had this crazy ballot wording that was deeply misleading. Even NPR had an article about how confusing the whole thing was. They had a three or four to one advantage on propaganda and still barely eeked out a win in a purple blue state. So pretending like, oh, this is the will of three million people, no. And I think they were expecting to win by a lot more than they did. But it was so unfair and so terrible that even a lot of people who voted for Democrats in the last election voted no on the scheme. But more important than that, the scheme itself was illegal. The way that they went about trying to change the state constitution was unconstitutional. They broke multiple laws and constitutional provisions in getting this election to happen in the first place. That's the whole point of the court case and how it got thrown out.

And we know, based on Democratic insight and information that's gone public, that even Governor Abigail Spanberger's own team was warning fellow Democrats, don't do this. This very well might not survive legal challenges for these reasons. But they plowed ahead anyway. And then they paid for it because Abigail Spanberger's team, those people who were admonishing the Democrats not to do it, they were right. They were vindicated by the High Court of Virginia. And then the most. obvious glaring lie there from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And maybe she just doesn't know, right? She's spouting off, half-cocked, doesn't know her facts. It's not stopping her from going after this court. Maybe she's one of the Democrats who thinks that it would be a great idea to fire all seven justices through this backdoor travesty that they were talking about that finally got shut down. Because, you know, in defense of democracy and institutions, you've got to ruin them. But she said, well, this court allowed the election to happen and they didn't issue this ruling until after the election happened. They could have done this all the time in the world before it and instead they let it happen and then they threw out an election. As we have addressed and as apparently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't know or she's willing to just lie about it aggressively, it was the Democrats' own position. argued in court to the justices of the Virginia Supreme Court that they not rule on this until after the election had happened. The Democrats' position was you can't issue this injunction. You can't stop this from going forward. You have to let the process play out before you look back and decide whether it was done constitutionally. That was not the Republican argument. That was not the right-wing argument. That was the state of Virginia Democrats going to the court saying this is our position legally for these reasons and the court sided with them because of the law. The court accepted the Democrats demand that they not rule on the constitutionality until after it was over. And now that is being wielded as some sort of criticism and attack on the court for accepting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's party's legal position. And by the way, when they finally did hear this in court in the oral arguments and there's audio of this, you can listen to it. One justice asked the government's lawyer, the Democrats lawyer, Jay Jones's lawyer, the murder fantasy attorney general of Virginia said, hey, the fact that the yes side narrowly won, does the outcome of this election have any relevance to the constitutionality of the process that led to the existence of the election? And the Democrats lawyer conceded the point, no, it is not relevant. And yet it is the point Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is hanging her hat on here. which again is either ignorance or dishonesty. Then we have this issue of court packing at the national level. It is becoming almost like a litmus test on the left to support court packing, adding justices to the United States Supreme Court. And the Democrats increasingly are talking about if they can get all of the power back to then blow up the filibuster in the Senate and start structurally changing our whole government.

to help them win elections. They say it's all about democracy. It's about their power. This is extremely dangerous. Like, oh, we'll kill the filibuster. We're going to add some states so we can have more U.S. senators. And we're going to add four seats to the Supreme Court because it's a six to three conservative constitutionalist majority right now forged over decades of hard work and elections in confirmation battles, often despite all of the unprecedented escalations of the Democrats. And they don't like that. They're angry. They're frustrated. They feel like they should get all the outcomes they want, like spoiled children. And so they'll change the whole thing, add four seats, and create a seven, six majority for their side to rubber stamp, whatever they want. That's what they're threatening to do. And Kamala Harris, the most recent presidential nominee for the party is at least willing to be open. to those quote unquote reforms, as she said on some Zoom call with an activist group, cut 16. Say, look, this is a moment where there are no bad ideas. No bad idea brainstorm is what I'd like to call it. And in that no bad ideas brainstorm, we talk about what we need to do and think about doing around the electoral college. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. We invite a conversation about multi-members districts. We talk about... Look, that if we win the Senate, which we should and we will, then the Senate Judiciary Committee should have rules that they put in place. So when these people come before as nominees to the Supreme Court and lie that they are held to account and consequence. So here's a woman who lost the most recent election who now is talking about changing how we run elections in the country. Like the electoral college, what is she talking about, reforming that or abolishing it? Seems a little insurrection-y, right? Little bit of a problem on democracy of the person who lost a fair and square election and not just the electoral college, but also the popular vote, by the way, saying, oh, well, we've got to take a look at that. They are losing in these realms, they are losing under the existing rules and the existing order. And so they're now talking about stomping all over the existing order and the institutions and changing the rules and changing the institutions for their own power. And they're doing it in this high-minded language of how it's all about stopping authoritarianism and promoting democracy when in fact that is just projection. If they do this stuff, they're the authoritarians. They're the attackers of democracy. She says, oh, there are no bad ideas. Yes, there are. And she just mentioned a few of them, didn't she? And keep in mind, she's not a leader. She is a follower. She follows where the winds are blowing within her coalition. If she's out there making noises like this, that is further evidence that this is becoming maybe a majority held position on the left. Deep, dangerous.

disruptive, destabilizing radicalism on the left. I cannot overstate how worried I am about this. And lastly, Ro Khanna, left-wing congressman here in California, he tweeted, the Supreme Court has engaged in ugly recidivism that has marked the fastest rollback of black political rights since reconstruction. That's a lie, in my view, or a gross distortion. But then he says 18-year term limits on justices now. Expand the court from 9 to 13 justices now. I would just say no to both of those ideas, period. But expand the court from 9 to 13 justices now, Congressman? The Republicans are in charge. Trump is president. Are you calling for a 13 to 3 conservative majority? That's what doing this now would mean. Of course, that's not what he means. He means wait for them to get the power, then change the rules for their side. He doesn't really mean now, but he's used to the activist cheerleading, and that's what they usually say. When do we want it now? In this case, it'd be, what do we want? Court packing. When do we want it at some point in the future when we're in charge? Doesn't quite roll off the tongue the same way, does it? This is something we're keeping an eye on and we'll continue to. Big, big deal. We'll be right back.

We are back here on Guy Benson, and it's time for this. Been a while on Awoke Tales, and this is one that came to my attention on social media. It's actually interesting. There's a comedian that I used to enjoy maybe in the 90s, had not heard from her in a long time. Margaret Cho is her name. And it's actually weird because her name came up in conversation like last week randomly. And it was over a particular word that she used in a stand-up act. Just a side note here. Hadn't thought about her in years. And then this conversation came up. And then a few days later, she was actually back in the news. And this was written up a number of different places. She is at least claiming that she was offered and then turned down a role in the television series Heeded Rivalry. And I'm not sure. I think that might be on HBO. It's a Canadian-based show, and it's about hockey players who are secretly gay, and a lot of the gays watch this show. And I don't, myself, I'm an actual hockey fan. So I go to hockey games. We have devil season tickets. And so I'd, like, post from NHL hockey games. And then the response on Twitter would be a bunch of people like, oh, heated rivalry. I'm like, no. Hockey, actual hockey fan. So I've not seen the show, but it's culturally relevant and it's been all over the place. So, of course, I'm aware of it. And I guess Margaret Cho had been offered the role of one of the player's mothers or something like that. But she turned it down, she says. And the reason why is why this story is a woke tales story. She is saying. that she couldn't bring herself to go film the show in Canada because she was afraid of coming back into the country what her interaction might be with ICE. She said it's all because of Trump. And she thought that maybe after returning to the United States, there would be some sort of problem because she had been very outspoken. in her opposition to Trump and ICE. And it's like, oh, she's so stunning and brave. Not all heroes wear capes. Amazing. Although now it seems like she's angling for a role in season two. So has her fear subsided? Now that the show's a hit, can she go back and get over this paranoia that she's got about ice? So here's the thing. I was like, that's a very weird take to begin with. And if I remembered some of the substance of her comedy back in the 90s when she was more relevant, and I'm not saying that, you know, as a shot at her, I'm just thinking back to those days. Like, I'm pretty sure she was born here. I think she's a U.S. citizen. So I googled, and indeed Margaret Cho is a natural born citizen of the United States.

And so in my mind, one of two things are possible, and maybe it's a combination of both. Number one, she's lying about this for clout, right? She wants people to know that she was so worried about ICE and deportation or whatever being retaliated against because she's a woman of color and she'd said these things about politics. So she would get a hassle at the border. from ICE because Trump or something, she wanted to put that out there to earn brownie points, woke credit with the people in order to get increased relevance and visibility, because here we are talking about her. Or her brain is so poisoned and misinformed by propaganda that she actually believes that as a United States citizen. Going to do some work in Canada and coming back could become an occasion for a run-in with ICE. You're a citizen. It's not like you're even a green card holder or a legal immigrant, in which case you'd be fine as well. You wouldn't maybe be fine if you're an illegal immigrant. That's the whole point, Margaret. But you are a citizen of the United States. You will be fine at the U.S.-Canada border or anywhere else coming back into your country. And if she doesn't know that, or if she somehow doubts that, or thinks that she could be targeted by ICE because she's been so outspoken, I had missed that apparently, that is not a reality-based. reflection of anything that's going on. It's not how any of this works, Margaret, with all due respect. And I think it might be both. I think she is overstating all of this. evidenced perhaps by the fact that she's, I guess, trying to get on season two, overstating it for that clout with the fellow wokes while also having this brainworms thing where she's convinced herself that because she's not a MAGA supporting white dude, she could have a run in with ice at the border, even as a U.S. citizen. And I just can't imagine living my life this way. And, I mean, it's like this paranoia and fear and misery and so much of his performative. It's not real. It's not rooted in anything. But I guess she feels, at least on some level that it's true, which it's not, and that she has to advertise it and broadcast it to the world because she wants to impress certain people. with how committed she is, right? It's like, oh, there's a victimhood here that she is completely constructed and invented for herself based on all this propaganda. And that wouldn't actually do anything for her unless other people, as many as possible, knew about it. Hence, all this preening and posturing and nonsense. I would love to know, has Margaret's show not traveled abroad once during the Trump administration? Really? Is that true?

I would love to see those travel records or as she managed, managed to be so brave as to do that, except in this case she wanted to tell everyone that she didn't. I don't know. That's, I guess, her business. But I just wanted to put out a public service announcement that if you're a citizen of the United States of America and you have gone abroad, no matter how critical you are of ICE or the president, you're going to be fine. You can come home. Get over it. Please, please try to at least attach some rationality to decisions that you make in your life. And if you're going to be completely irrational and misinformed, maybe don't put that out there for public consumption as, again, like a billboard of your own ignorance. Although, on the other hand, perhaps that is the whole point. Another hour of Guy Benson coming up next. Dr. Roger Marshall, a U.S. Senator from Kansas, will be here talking Trump's trip to China and beyond. That's coming up.

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 new hour here on Guy Benson. We're at KSRO, our great affiliate in Sonoma County, California. Thank you very much for tuning in today and every day. If you miss a moment of the show, there's a podcast for that. It's free. It's on demand every single day, including bonus Guy Benson on the weekends, Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. Send us an email if you like, GBS at Fox.com. Follow us on social media at Guy Benson. I'm at Guy Benson, if you are interested. Oh, with us now is U.S. Senator. Roger Marshall, who's also a medical doctor, a Republican from the great state of Kansas. Senator, welcome back to the show. Guy, it's great to be with you. I'm in God's country, Hillsborough, Kansas, at a sonic heaven, just an incredible one. So it's good to be with you. Well. Great to have you here. Hello to everyone in Kansas and everyone at the Sonic. So I want to ask you about something that's been happening the last couple of days far, far away over in China, this much-anticipated trip from President Trump to meet with his counterpart. Chairman Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party and a lot of big ticket items on the agenda. Of course, we've had huge coverage of it at Fox News. From your perspective, what were you hoping to see from the president in terms of achievements on this trip? What are your impressions of what happened? Well, I think I wake up every morning guy asking, is my family safe? Is your family safe? And I think that President Trump did a really good job of going in there with his eyes wide open. And as they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. So it's great that there's at least talking going on between us. Selfishly, though, what I'm excited about is just trade deals he's got done. I think about Boeing so important to Kansas, Boeing beef and soybeans, 200 Boeing airplanes ordered maybe more after that. On the beef side of things, they were using non-tariff barriers to keep Kansas beef, all American beef out of going to China. They weren't certifying the processing plans for the plants.

for the past year. So we got those open back up and back to normal commitments of soybeans as well. So from our standpoint, from agriculture from trading Kansas, this was a three-run homer. Now, with the Chinese, right, there can be a lot of promises, right? And they all, the pomp and circumstance that they put on, the big show for the president, and that's what you've seen these types of state visits. But I'm always suspicious of... communists generally, frankly. And they can say, oh, yes, this, that, and the other. And then there's just the concern that they might renege on certain things or they were going for big headlines. But the devil's in the details. Is this a trust but verify situation on follow through? You know, absolutely, Guy, and I opened by stating, you know, President Trump went there with his eyes wide open. Right. And he waves these tariffs over their head like a big hammer. And I think that at least they respect him, that he's not bluffing, that he will do that, and whatever it takes. So I would not go to the bank on any of these deals yet, but I think it's a great first, second, and third steps. Just reading some of the readout from U.S.T.R. Jameson Greer, our trade representative ambassador, I'm pretty optimistic, though. And again, if China wants to... continue to sell us, you know, TVs and rare earth minerals and pharmaceutical ingredients, all those things, and they really need to buy some of these goods from us. So I'm cautiously optimistic. Yeah, I mean, they definitely need us from a trade perspective. They need our market. There's no question about that. I want to turn to reconciliation, which is not exactly a sexy topic, but it's a very important one in the U.S. Senate because Congress... Finally ended the Democrats shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. And the Democrats did not agree to fund either ICE or Border Patrol, which was, I mean, the second part, I think, such a tell from these Democrats. And the argument was from Republicans. Well, That's okay. We'll get DHS back open because this has been dangerous and bad. And then we will top up the funding for years on both of those agencies on border enforcement. And we'll do that without Democrat votes. We'll do it on party line votes in this process called reconciliation. Late last night, the Senate parliamentarian had a ruling. And I know this is very in the weeds, but it actually does matter, where the parliamentarian said some of the elements of the reconciliation bill that you guys were pushing. on that front don't actually fall under the allowed process for a reconciliation bill. So the Democrats are saying, in their mind, this is good news and they're sort of hyping this. The parliamentarians saying that Republicans can come back again with different language to try to address.

or cure, quote unquote, those issues. Is this a bump in the road or is this a real problem because Republican voters have been told and people who support immigration enforcement? Don't worry. Reconciliation is going to get this thing done. Is that in jeopardy now? Well, Guy, it certainly is a bump in the road, and this parliamentarian leans left, if you speak, if I could say that. But think of it as like you're bargaining with a judge what you're going to allow to be said in court, not set in court. In this case, what can we do on record? And it is in the weeds. I don't know how to make it, how to not go in the weeds. But your listeners do a good job of staying educated. So, you know, we got the Mike Lee and Ted Cruz's of the world and Josh Hawley's and Eric Schmidt. I mean, these guys are good at arguing with her. So I'll take my chances going back in there. Lindsey Graham, of course, he won't admit to it, but he's a lawyer as well. And this is his baby, right? This is his baby. And John Thune, Barassas, we've got some pretty strong people. We'll go back in there. We're going to keep batting. I'm not sure what it is. She took out. I think it's early in the game. We'll be back out and fighting here, you know, probably Monday when we get back after her with the plan. I'm still optimistic. We'll have votes next Thursday to get this thing packaged and taken care of. So you think it can be tweaked and then remedied and then pass? That's what I'm hearing. Yes, and for your listeners, this has to be more about the budget than policy. So she's obviously found something that she thinks this is a policy issue. I'm not sure what part of that is, and I need to dive down. And like I said, I'm going to rely on our great lawyers to go in there. This is a legal juggling game that I don't even understand. But we'll figure out something. We just got the working family tax cuts bill through this process. The exact same thing happened, right? On every little piece of that, she wanted to remove this piece of it, but we were able to defund planned parenthood, you know, in that process. So we have to figure out how to do it. We'll find the way. You are not a lawyer, but you are a doctor. So I do want to ask you about this. Marty Makary is out at FDA. We know that our former colleague and a dear friend of ours here, Dr. Nicole Sapphire has been tapped by President Trump to be Surgeon General, some changes in shifting in personnel within sort of the medical establishment within those agencies and the Trump administration. Any thoughts on that, Sapphire, or any of those changes? So Dr. Sapphire, she's on the best communicators. I've seen, especially for being a doctor. You know, sometimes doctors aren't the best communicator. So she's going to be a great communicator. I think that she truly cares about making America healthy again. And then she's down in the weeds, understanding the cost of health care issues. She came out early supporting our Marshall plan to drive down the cost of health care, so excited about her. Dr. McCarrie, he was a really good friend. So, guys, it's hard for me to, I'm the first to admit that I got blinders on.

was a good friend before this. I thought he was a heck of a doctor, a good communicator. In my humble opinion, the swamp got him. You know, the swamp that there in every agency, these people, the political hacks that have been there forever, slow walks, so many different things. tried to sabotage him, make him look bad. And I just feel horrible about this situation. And there's probably more to it than I know. But so I'm sad to see him go, regardless of FDA, a very important agency, we need to be more efficient there. It shouldn't take 10 years. and $5 billion to get a new medication from point A in the laboratory to across the finish line. So that's what's sad as well, is just how they slow walk everything. So we'll see who the new person is, and I'm rooting for that person. Medical doctor and United States Senator Roger Marshall, Republican of Kansas, here on Guy Benson. Senator, thank you very much. Yeah, Guy, it's great to be with you. Everybody have a great weekend. Thanks. Bye-bye. And you too. When we come back, I want to talk about education. We complain about the state of U.S. education, quite rightly. But are there ways to improve things? I'm always on the lookout for those. There's a major one having huge success here in Northern California. I think it really matters a lot. We'll tell you all about it as soon as we return on Guy Benson. In the swamp, not of the swamp. Guy Benson.

I'm Guy Benson. Welcome back. We're here at KSRO Studios in Sonoma County. And the guy who owns the stations here and put on the event last night, our friend Lawrence is just amazing. And a huge shout out to him and his team will talk all about last night's event in the home stretch. He was telling me about an initiative that he's involved in here in Northern California to try to kind of pick up where the government is frankly failing kids. When it comes to literacy, we know what a disaster. That has become so many places around the country, including here in Sonoma County. And rather than complaining about it or waiting for the government to get better, which might be a wait, there's a group that has taken this on. And I just think nationally there should be interest in ideas that work. especially when it involves educating children. And with us here in studio is Michelle Leeson with Read on Sonoma. It's great to see you. Thanks for coming in. Thank you so much. I'm so excited to talk about literacy. Lawrence very kindly picked us up with his beautiful wife from the airport the other night, and we were talking on the drive up to Wine Country about this program. And I was like, we have to talk about this on the air. So talk about the problem briefly. Let's start there. And then I want to hear about the solution you guys are exploring. Awesome. as you know, it is abysmal, right? Not only just in California, but countrywide. I think there's something like 50 million illiterate adults in the United States, which obviously means functionally illiterate. So they can't fill out net job application, worse health outcomes, long term, all that stuff that you already are aware of. And in California, it's no better. We're actually... We have a really big problem with our third and fourth grade literacy rates. So specifically in the state of California, there are 60% of our fourth graders who are not reading at grade level by the end of fourth grade. 60%. See, to me, that is a scandal. That is such a disservice to the kids. Absolutely. And we've slid backwards on them. Correct. It used to be much better. It was declining before the pandemic and has just continued to decline since the pandemic. And then you know that if you're not reading at fourth grade level by the end of fourth grade, all kinds of long term. It's a predictor. Exactly. So high school dropout rate four times as high, et cetera, et cetera. And then it also creates a cycle of illiteracy in a home, all the things. lower income potential, right? So that's how bad it is. Incarceration, like you go down the list of bad and a lot of it traces back to these issues early in childhood. Third and fourth grade literacy rates. 70% of our incarcerated individuals share in common that they are functionally illiterate. So it's something that obviously we're trying to fix way out. We're 25 or 26. You can't fix it. Right? When we're adults, we have to focus on early childhood literacy. And that's what we're doing with Read on Sonoma. Read on Sonoma. I believe in incentives. Human nature revolves around incentives. That's right. And some of the incentives you guys create for these kids are just truly amazing. Talk about the program and how it's working.

Yeah, so what we do is we create a game. And Guy and Lawrence did an amazing job. Guy Fietti and Lawrence Amateur are our co-founders. The other guy. The other guy. Yes. He's from Flavortown. Yes, the guy from Flavortown. And they created a game. So kids see a game, a reading game. We create a culture of reading in their schools. And you're exactly right. We set up short-term individual goals that everybody can reach their goal. So all of us in this room would have a different reading goal. And we would be just... better than our former selves. So we're not competing against each other. We're just trying to be better with every single book that we read. And we use a national program called Accelerated Reader, which helps students track their progress. And then they set new benchmarks with an assessment program called Star Reading. So as you become a better reader, your goal gets higher and higher, and you just become better and better with every book you read. And you can't just, it's not just a reading log guy. It's you have to actually prove you understand. what you're reading. Yeah, there's like a test that's administered in school. Yeah, you take a comprehension test exactly during the school day, so we know it's them and not older brother or sister. And they sit down, you've read Harry Potter, for example, you take a 20 question quiz and then you get points based on your understanding of the book. Lawrence was telling me there was a kid, a young kid who read War and Peace. Yes. And passed. The quiz, he actually read it. He really wants to be the inspirational reader of the year. And so he started working in the summer. Which is one of those lofty goals and incentives. That's right. And so he started reading over the summer and we all thought, yeah, right, kid. You did not read Warren Peace. Called home, looked at the book log, saw that he took the quiz during the school day because I can zone in. to make sure that everyone's being honest. And the parents are like, nope, he's been working at this all summer. This was his goal. He is a very, very high superstar reader. But the program helps all kids. And we really focus on that lower quartile, the struggling readers. And if you end up, give us one example of a... big incentive that these kids are shooting for. Oh, yeah, we're way past pencils and erasers. So we're talking about Safari West, which is a local wildlife park. You can earn a $300 educational scholarship fund at a local bank, really fun things. You can take your friends. We really focus on being able to treat your friends. So, for example, movie tickets, not just for you, but you and three friends. So everyone's going and you get to treat because you met your reading goal. That's awesome. So good. I mean, I remember doing this when I was a kid, it was Pizza Hutts. Yeah, we're, I mean, right? That was great. Yeah. That was awesome. You wanted that personal pan pizza with the stickers on the thing that you had read the books, right? Scholastic, I think it was. So this is a localized better, frankly, version of that. Very quickly, talk about some of the results. How long have you been doing this? And then. Are you seeing the needle moving? Oh, my goodness, absolutely. So they started after the pandemic. Guy and Lawrence would say they did not totally understand how bad literacy was at the time. When we started our fourth grade readers in all of our schools, we're reading about the first grade fifth month level. Which, as you can imagine, you can't. Not only are you not picking up books that are fourth grade, but you're not understanding fourth grade math. You're not understanding fourth grade science. So this is our now fourth. We just wrapped up our...

full fourth year of the program. And the results are immense. We are seeing a, our kids are reading books and words read about three times the national average. So for example, Roseland Elementary just right down the way. Rosalind serves students who have some traditional challenges with reading about 90% living below the poverty line, about 87% English learner. Those kids just wrapped up reading 60 books. on average this school year. Per kid? Yes. Wow. So amazing results. And now going back to our fourth graders, how they started out in the program, last year are fourth graders in all of our school sites, end of the year, fourth grade, fifth month instructional reading level. I mean, game changer in that classroom. It's stunning. That is, that is. True results very quickly. Very quickly. It works. I'm a believer in looking at what works, especially on something this vital. If someone's listening right now... anywhere else in the country. And they're thinking, we need something like this. I want more information. Where can they go online? Readonsanoma.org. Read on Sonoma.org. And there's info there. Yep. There's a great video with our co-founders talking about the program. A lot of our kids and educators are on the film, talking about how it creates a culture of reading at their schools. Kiddos are telling us that, you know, they started out reading for the rewards, right? And then what they realize is that they truly do love to read. Oh, it's, I mean, it's just, it warms your heart, and you need good news, and you need examples of concrete success, and this is one of them. Readonanconoma.org. Michelle Leeson, thank you for your work. Thank you so much. You bet. We'll be right back.

Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. We are already halfway through Guy Benson on this Friday edition from Northern California, KSRO. Thank you so much for joining us. Guy Benson.com is our website, podcast free every day, bonus Guy Benson on the weekends. With us now is Fox News medical correspondent, Dr. Mark Siegel, author of the bestseller, The Miracles Among Us. Doctor, welcome back. Great to be with you, guys. Thanks for having me. You bet. Well, it's been a very busy couple weeks for you because a lot of people have been worried about this hantovirus situation developing overseas and people coming back here. I know Fox sent you to the heartland for a very specific reason. Talk about your coverage on this issue. Well, it's been pretty amazing. You know, actually, I'm going to break over the weekend this, the actual plane flight that went from the Canary Islands back to Nebraska. Dr. Brett Major was on there. He has a big military background. He's infectious disease specialist. And I talked to him yesterday morning, and we're going to be talking about how he said, you know, I said, look, you're ending up in close quarters with these people. And didn't you feel afraid? And he said, well. How do you feel standing three feet from me? And I laugh because in our profession, especially if we've dealt with very sick people, you know, we don't think of it that way. We think of it. How are we protected? And that's not really the public mindset. And that is what we need to get kind of breakthrough because there's way too much fear associated with this. And it's not really the way the people that are working with even patients. who have been exposed to it or even the few that have had it, are not looking at it that way. They're looking at it more guy like, what is the risk here of something bigger happening? I get questions a lot, and I've been getting emails and DMs and that sort of thing from listeners saying, hey, you've talked a little bit about this disease, this virus. How serious is it? People are saying it's so deadly, but harder to contract. Does that mean it will or will not become something broader or even an epidemic? My understanding is not going to become a pandemic situation, but I want to let you do the explanation because... You're the doctor. I'm just the person who's been reading about it. For that basic question, like, how concern should people be? How would you respond to that broadly? And I'm in a really good position to answer that because I went to Nebraska to their quarantine center back in early 2020, and I asked them the same questions about COVID that I'm asking now. And I got very different answers, which should reassure the public. COVID, they said, this is brand new. We haven't seen this virus before. I said, are we containing it or controlling it? You only have 100 test kits. They go, we need more test kits.

Because, and this was the president of the university, the president of the medical center said to me at the time, Jeff Gold, we feel this was already going through the communities. I said, which communities? He says, even here in Omaha, when we're trying to contain it, this was in February of 2020. I had a total feeling that COVID was not being contained. This virus, they said, this virus we've known forever. It's been around for decades. The particular strain we have occasionally will pass. human to human very, very rarely. The reason that they're being so vigilant is because there's been a couple of periods of time in the past, most recently in 2019, right before COVID, where they had a little bit of spread. because of one patient that had a very unusual reaction where they had a lot of virus. And, you know, we tend to call those super spreader events. But I don't like that term, Guy, because that's a fear term. And we're talking about very limited spread that got into the New England Journal of Medicine of 30 patients. It never went beyond that. And with these quarantine measures they're doing, and the fact that it's not spreading. And the fact that they've looked at this virus carefully now, structure, is not any different than the one I described from 2019. It didn't change. I'd say the chances of this causing a widespread outbreak is about zero, which doesn't mean that we shouldn't be vigilant and cautious about it the way they're being. But it's also being hyped. Now, why is it being hyped? Of course, there's a political advantage. I don't want to... jump outside my lane here and i haven't said this before but there's a political advantage for certain groups that want to get into power to say well what is this what's this outbreak what's being done but the the truth is you think that's exploitive Yes, and I don't think it's accidental. Now, the media does that deliberately. We don't do that, but some parts of the media does that deliberately. That's how, if it rates, you know, if it bleeds, it leads, right? And then there's another political idea, which is let's show before the midterms that the government isn't ready to handle an outbreak. They're handling this really well. The HHS is handling it. CDC is handling it. I talked with all of them. They're having daily, you know, meetings on this. They're involved with leads on the ground there. They're integrating their response. But in the whole, it's actually the medical centers themselves that are handling it, Nebraska, Emery, and they're doing a good job with it. This is not going to spread. This is an opportunity to study this virus. Because anytime, and someone said this to me yesterday, I interviewed a ton of people. One of the experts I interviewed said, anytime. a virus goes human to human, even if it's extremely horrid to contact, that's a time to be studying it. And I think I agree with that answer.

Couple questions along those lines, because it sounds, I think, very reassuring to know that this is not new. This is familiar. This is not something where the doctors are scratching their heads and saying, oh, gosh, you know, what comes next? These are patterns that have been established, and there are protocols that are being followed. That's all good news to me. There have been a few things, I think, that are confusing to some people, including this nugget, this development. That was reported in the last couple of days that the known patients, or at least people who are known to have been exposed to Hanta virus on the ship, are being offered the opportunity to stay in Nebraska at that center, at that facility. during the incubation period and to quarantine. But others are being allowed as an option to go home and quarantine at home. And some people are saying, why are we giving people that option at all? Shouldn't they all be under watch from doctors? What's your response to that? Because I think people just see the option there and some of them gets them a little nervous. Explain the thinking medically. You know, Guy, we obsessed on that exact question in Nebraska because the producer I work with is fantastic. And she thinks in the terms of what the viewers are thinking and our listeners are thinking. You know, they're thinking the same question over. And here's the answer. We got a very smart answer, which is this. Every expert we talked to that worked in that quarantine center said we would stay there. But only because... They're nearby, if anything goes wrong, the biocontainment unit. So they would stay there because they have ability for ramped up care if it's needed. They also felt that, though, at the same time, that the home quarantine works if you actually follow what... CDC guidelines are, and the CDC will be monitoring that, and people will be reporting in about temperatures. But, you know, my slight concern would be what about close contact, so you're staying away from them properly. But again, the chances of a sustained spread are really, really close to zero. I do agree with the experts that say staying there is better. But Craig Spencer said to me, the guy who had Ebola in 2014, I talked to him. And he said, yeah, but you have no idea how, you know, confining it is. Right. He actually had Ebola, but it's not easy thing. Right, and that's Ebola. It's a free country, right? There's a balancing choice here, a balancing act, right? Tradeoffs. Yeah, that's what he said. It's a free country. It's a matter of choice, and you can quarantine just as well at home if you follow what they tell you. Yeah, as long as the actual risk is very low. Right. The quarantining protocols have to be followed, but it sounds like if you're following them, wherever you are, it can be successful and has been successful. That's the underscore here on this virus in the past and these small outbreaks. A couple more here. The incubation period, my understanding is weeks. Then I saw a headline yesterday that with certain sexual activity, it might actually be latent potentially for years. Is that any sort of concern? Does that change the calculus at all?

No, but let me give you the science on that. First of all, most of the time spread is within the first two weeks. Second, which is me telling our listeners who are your big following, I'm telling them that most of the people who you're going to see from that ship have it. have it already. And I actually believe that that physician who was in the biocontainment unit in Nebraska, I tried to get this answer, but you know they're not going to give me this exactly. I believe and they believe, but they don't know for certain. They believe and I believe that he already had it. So that what the scenario with him is that he was on the ship, he's an oncologist. He took over as the ship doctor because he's heroic. He was taking care of patients. He got flu-like symptoms. He got fatigue for two weeks. He got fever. He got tested, and he was positive, and then he turned negative. Well, we see that with COVID, too. So you get something, and then you turn negative, but you had it. So I think that he had it. But I'm emphasizing that I think most people that were going to get it got it already. Last question on this, and I have to ask it just because I don't want to make it seem to the audience like, oh, the answer is or the party line is, no big deal, don't be worried, everything's fine. And you've got some people who don't necessarily believe that or aren't inclined to assume everything's fine because a lot of people I think are scarred from COVID and then the reaction to COVID and all of that. The one that I think gives some people pause, they're listening to everything you're saying, you're like, okay. That makes sense. That's good. That's all good news. But unlike COVID, if you do get this one, it is far, far deadlier than COVID ever was. The mortality rate much higher. And I had read 35, 40%, which is obviously alarming to people. Can you address that? Because they might say, yeah, well, it's harder to spread and probably not going to become a giant pandemic, but it seems like the risk is a lot higher. That comes back to a balancing act here. How would you address that concern? You know, that's a really good point. The risk of getting it is so much lower, though, that it reassures me about that. We're talking about Hanta virus pulmonary syndrome, and I had that explained to me really in a very sophisticated and boring detail, which I won't share with you. Okay, I appreciate that. Essentially, there's about a 30 to 40 to 50% chance that this particular strain. will cause that lung infection and that lung infection is pretty severe and it's hard to survive like that you know that that french woman we're looking at where they're talking about an artificial lung that's actually something called ecmo where you have to oxygenate the blood outside the body we saw a lot of that with with covid though at the beginning covid was was hit us very hard at the beginning i think the focus here is the ease of spread or transmissibility is extremely low, but what is spreading is the fear of this virus, big time. I mean, it's like, I'm getting the question, should I go on cruise ships? I go, sure. Should I go to the Western United States? Absolutely. I wish I was there. So I am here, by the way, just for the record, I am here right now. So I'm taking these lessons to heart. I think it's very important to just remind the audience, you know, Dr. Siegel and a lot of our great doctors here at Fox were very

reliable sources of information during COVID. And they are all saying this time around, this is totally different. Do not freak out. And you should take that to heart. On a somewhat related note on hanta virus, but not about the disease itself, I know that you have written a column. about the World Health Organization and its response to all of this. And I have a very low opinion, frankly, of that organization after COVID. I was horrified by what they were up to. I think they were involved with CCP propaganda. I was very critical of WHO. My own observation this time around is that they seem to be pretty early and quite. transparent and candid with people in a way that seemed refreshing, at least to me, are you taking a second look at the World Health Organization? How are you feeling about that international institution right now? Yeah, there's a lot of issues with that. The World Health Congress is occurring next week, and that would be the last chance that the United States would have to say we're staying in. But one of the issues that would have to be addressed there, and I didn't address this in my column, is that, you know, we're supposedly owing in arrears of something like $400 million. That's a lot of money, especially since the president was absolutely right the first time, which is we were paying more than anyone, and they were coutowing to China. And I think that they participated in China. COVID, we're talking now, COVID. Regional problem only hasn't spray the slowness with the reaction, the China reaction. There was a top Chinese health official that was in charge of pandemic alerts for the WHO. I don't see that right now. I've met with the WHO in Geneva. I met with Tedros last spring, you know, and I feel they still got problems, and there's still a political organization, and they still... But I see a lot more right now of what they're supposed to be. Coordinating care, service, and caution and information between the various member countries and beyond. I spoke to Maria von Kerkopf. She's their lead. She's a top epidemiologist, infectious disease, born in the United States and American. I think that they're of value to us. I think the president was right the first time. I think that the WHO has value to us. in terms of the information that they share. So they're not perfect by any stretch, but I do think we should stay in. Okay. But I don't think we should pay more than anyone else, by the way. That's the other thing that he was right about. Yeah, I think that's fair. I also am just like so skeptical of them after their performance in COVID. I think it would take a lot of better performance over years to maybe win me back over. But that is definitely a worthwhile perspective to hear from you. When we come back, I want to turn to a very different subject, pancreatic cancer, which is a really dark phrase. But is it getting lighter out there?

Talk of breakthroughs. How realistic are those? Let's ask Dr. Siegel on the other side. America is listening to Guy Benson. We are back. It's Guy Benson. Dr. Mark Siegel, kind enough to stick around with us. Dr. Lastly, we just have a few minutes left. I have seen this blizzard of really hopeful headlines in the last week or two about, and you wrote a book about miracles. What seems to be miraculous breakthroughs, specifically on pancreatic cancer treatments, that was always regarded as this death sentence. That's the last thing you want to get diagnosed with. And now it looks like there have been major, major developments. What can you tell us about this? Are doctors and experts right to be extremely enthusiastic about what they've discovered? They're right to be more optimistic because of all things going on on all fronts. It's usually diagnosed way too late because you don't get symptoms until it's really spread a lot. So people are stage four by the time they get diagnosed where it's spread all over the body too late to save. With artificial intelligence, Mayo has developed a model where you can find it probably two or three years earlier before we usually diagnose it you can then remove it. before it ever spreads. That's cures. Those cause the cure 25% of the time. Then there's the idea that we have a new drug that Ben Sass has been getting, the Act's been getting, where we are targeting the mutation that's found in 90% of cases of pancreatic cancer. 90% of the time across K-R-A-S gene mutates, that's doubling the survival. The best of all, is that we're starting to look at how to alter the immune system specifically to target the mutations on this, on patriotic cancer. That's keeping people alive. Six years, but that's in early stages. The future is going to be, Guy, you diagnose it early, you remove it early, you prevent it in those that are high risk with immunological and genetic treatments. It's like a double win. You're catching it earlier, which of course makes it far easier to treat earlier on, and then when people do have it like Ben Sass, he's... already dramatically outlived his prognosis. That is another cause for optimism. Dr. Mark Siegel, Fox News Medical Correspondent, author of The Miracles Among Us here on Guy Benson. Doctor, thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

Fantastic. And have a lot of fun out there. There's no hunter where you're going. You're not anywhere near any rodents anyway. I hope not. I certainly do. All right, doctor, thank you so much. The final hour of Guy Benson coming up next. There's a big journalistic scandal at the New York Times. David Harsanii of the Washington Examiner joins us to break it all down. 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. Happy hour time on Guy Benson on this Friday, almost the weekend together. Thank you for tuning in. Guy Benson.com is our website. The podcast is free every day on demand, including Bonus Guy Benson on the weekends. Check that out. This radio hour is sponsored by the Finnish long drink, which is fantastic. It is delicious. It actually got a shout out at our event here in Northern California yesterday. We'll recap that later this hour in the home stretch. But you should check it out if you haven't already. 21 plus only, please. Always drink responsibly. Thelongdrink.com. You can email us if you'd like, GBS at fox.com here at the show. You can follow us as well at Guy Benson's show on social. My personal social media footprint at Guy Benson. Well, it's time for a very important conversation with our final guest of the day. David Harsani is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. We are colleagues there. He's also the author of most recently the book, The Rise of Blue Anon. And I just want to warn everyone and just put it out there right now before I welcome in David that the conversation we're about to have is disturbing. It is graphic. So just to keep that in mind, especially if there are kids around. be talking about a journalistic scandal at the New York Times involving sexual abuse and that sort of thing. So I just wanted to put that out there as we begin this conversation with David Harsani. David, thank you for joining us. Pleasure to be here. Thanks for having. All right. You have written a piece called Nick Christoph's grotesque, journalistic malpractice. And this stems from an op-ed or a column that this New York Times columnist published in which he reports, quote, unquote, widespread sexual abuse by Israelis of Palestinian prisoners. And the story has gotten widespread. criticism from a lot of people. And there is this firestorm underway. The New York Times, this newspaper has put out, I think, four different statements on this in the last couple of days. There are rumors that there are people inside the newsroom, even that newsroom who are horrified and embarrassed that this was able to go to print. If you can just summarize what he said in the column and then talk about...

the backlash and why you've described it the whole episode as grotesque, journalistic malpractice. Well, I should start by saying it's grotesque, I think, because, or at least I'm offended by it, because of the story itself, because I'm Jew and because I'm an American, but also because I'm a journalist, and the ethics of this are terrible. So the story is, in essence, a regurgitation of a bunch of largely online conspiracies about Israel. Again, I'll preface that by saying, it's not implausible that there is some Israeli soldier somewhere who rapes a Palestinian woman or man or whatever. Of course, it's a normal country that has people who do evil things. But Christoph's contention, in essence, is, and the way he constructs this column is to say that there is a systemic government-approved that is meant to sexually intimidate, sexually assault. And part of that includes having dogs raping people. Like the Israelis are training dogs to commit sexual assault of people, which a bunch of animal experts have come out and saying that's literally physically not possible. That is not true, but this is in the pages of the New York Times in this Christoph column, among all these other claims. I mean, you can delve more into... the experts on the canine aspect. I know this is lurid and horrible stuff. There's also the allegations from people. That's the comeback from Christoph and the Times and his defender saying, oh, well, you have, what, 14 people who are making these claims. How can you dismiss all of them? But we know who some of these people are, and they have track records that are proven that they are liars, right? That's another element to this. In the Code of Ethics for journalism, there is, one of them is that you must provide context for what you're saying, but also that you have to consider the sources you have and their motivations. So every source that we know of by name in that story has a motivation to do, to say things that aren't true. That doesn't mean everything they're saying is a lie, but to not even. provide that creates a huge red flag. And just to go back to the dog raping thing, which I can't believe we have to talk about, dogs don't understand human physiology. They cannot be trained to do that. There is no evidence that's ever happened. But I bring it up because an editor, we're always talking about Christoph and not his editors who allowed this to go through. Any good editor, any real editor, I've been in journalism for over 20 years. would ask a million questions about that before publishing. There would be a high level of skepticism, and it doesn't seem like there was any here. But, you know, everyone's talking about the dog rape part, but I just want to give a quick example of one of the stories he...

to prove and verify things people say, or you're not doing journalism at all. And, you know, those statements that you're talking about by the Times, they always sort of intimate that this is in the op-ed section, as if, listen, op-eds, you have an opinion that's, I mean, most journalism has opinions, but they're more, more nakedly, you know, opinionated. Still, you have to live by the ethics of journalism. You can't just make accusations that aren't true. You still have to verify facts. Being on the op-ed page doesn't change what journalism is. Especially if you're presenting your column as reporting, which is what he's doing. And he's saying, hey, the Jews train these dogs to rape people, and they just ran it. It's crazy. And I'm happy you said the Jews, because I do think that this is an effort to demonize people. Like I've had a little debate with some other conservatives who are critical to this, but they mock it and laugh at it. And it's true. It is so ridiculous that it is, in a sense, funny. But also the motivation for it we should understand is to demonize people, to demonize an entire country, which doesn't do these things. The other people do these things. It's almost like these accusations come from people. do evil things. Yeah, it's a complete projection of how they view the world. Like, I'm sure you've seen it. These Islamic countries and Arab countries are constantly coming up with conspiracies about how Israelis are training animals, sharks, dolphin, lizards, cows, pigs. And by the way, that's true. There have been. These claims, and maybe Nick Christoph can write some more columns about the sharks that the Jews have trained to go after Palestinians. I'm not, I know it's sort of preposterous, but this is what they have claimed. This dog thing is a long line. It's part of this tradition of psychotic animal-related conspiracy theories about the Jews, I guess, controlling the weather and also controlling animals. It's... I can't overstate how nuts it is. And then to have it in the pages of the supposed self-appointed paper of record is an embarrassment at the very least. And by the way, one other thing about Nick Kristoff, this columnist in question, I saw a number of years ago he had to retract an entire column. Did he not because he believed sources who turned out to have lied. He wrote this sort of mea culpa when sources lie. I mean, maybe a lesson not learned there, David? Yeah. Well, he's a Pulitzer Prize winner, they tell us. So like that, the other day, the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for a picture of a boy who they claimed was starving in Gaza who actually had terrible palsy, and they had to issue a correction, but they still won a Pulitzer. So I don't really care about any of Christoph's Pulitzer's. We all, as journalists know, someone brings you a perfect story. that just fits the entire narrative you love that there might and probably is a problem with it. And Nick Christop doesn't think that way. He actually has a whole slew of stories that he messed up, you know, because he's just a terrible journalist.

A couple of things here. There have been now a lot of protests, including physical protests outside the New York Times building about this, I think, libelous story. Ben Rhodes, who was the foreign policies fengali for Barack Obama, his nickname inside that administration from his colleagues was Hamas, which gives you a sense of where he's coming from. He quote tweeted, a tweet about these protests at the New York Times, and Rhodes asked the question, why not be angry at the conduct instead of the reporting of the conduct? So, unsurprisingly, Ben Hamas Rhodes, again, that's his own colleague's nickname for him, is just assuming the accuracy of this uncorroborated and in some cases wildly baseless. column from Nick Christoph and saying these people, rather than being offended by the dog rapes, are offended at the reporting of the dog rapes. It's like, well, because the allegation is false, Ben, that's why. Can you understand that? And I don't think he wants to, David. No, I mean, you know, it's this thing where they want you to take ownership of it. So if Israel now has some kind of responsibility to investigate everything everyone says on the Internet and whatever's listed up by the New York Times columnist, I mean, first of all, what are they supposed to investigate? There are literally no time, place, person, nothing. There's nothing for them to investigate here. There are no facts. There's no specifics. There's nothing to go after. I mean, Ben Rhodes, you know. So, I mean, here's the thing, David. And I want to just, I want to be very clear here that I'm illustrating a point and not actually doing this because I am much more responsible than Nicholas Christoph, apparently. But if you and I sat here on this show right now and said, well, I heard from a source that Ben Rhodes trains dogs to rape people. And then Ben Rhodes said, what is wrong with you? How dare you? That's a lie. The response from us should be, wow, the gentleman doth protest too much. Why don't we all, why doesn't Ben Rhodes look inward and ask himself why he trains dogs to rape rather than complaining that the allegations being made? That is the equivalent of what we're talking about here. It would never be accepted by him. that framing of it, as it shouldn't be, because it's ludicrous. And yet that's the position that he's taking on this, again, in a way that is very much on brand for him and that whole crew that he hangs with, which is really disturbing. David, standby, there's a few more angles to this that I want to address. Let's take a quick break and come back with David Harsani on Guy Benson. Stay tuned. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson.

We are back. It's the Guy Benson's show. David Harsanii of the Washington Examiner is our guest, and we're talking about this unraveling journalistic scandal at the New York Times. One more piece on this, David. Israel, Israeli officials, are now suing the New York Times. They've initiated a defamation lawsuit process against the newspaper. I wonder what you make of that, because on one hand, I get it. On the other hand, does it help? to have the Israeli government getting involved legally against the New York Times here. Where do you come down on that? I'm not sure if it's helpful, but I'm open to persuasion. I have not taken a deep dive on what kind of legal history there is on this exactly. I've read some things. I think it's a bad idea because, first of all, it looks like a foreign country getting involved in the media and affairs of America, which is not good. I understand their frustration about this, but also I don't think anything will come of it. I don't think the New York Times will pay them anything or give them access, and it's just a process that I think people will forget. by the end, how it started. So I just don't think it's worth it. What Israel should do is expel the New York Times from their country. It is not a legitimate newsgatherer. They're constantly running in more sophisticated ways, pseudo-journalistic stories about Israel that aren't true, about regurgitating Hamas talking points all the time. So kick them out of the country. I think that that's fair. The suit, I think, will... just not worth it. That's just, yeah, I mean, that's just my first impression of that. Last question here, a lot of people making the allegation that the Christoph column might have been timed deliberately to head off and deflect from a deeply reported and documented research. study that was done on what actually happened, which was widespread sexual abuse and assault by Hamas of Israelis, with tons of actual evidence and substantiation, which came out around the same time. It's been printed in multiple sources, but it's gotten a lot less attention than this Nicholas Christoph situation. Do you think there's something to that? Because on one hand, we have deeply reported substantiated... not just allegations, but proof of what Hamas did. And then here's the almost like the pre-buttal saying, oh, yeah, well, the Israelis did it too. Right. And that report has names, has pictures, and has video because these animals took video of it. And it has the terrorists themselves admitting to those things. Yeah, I do. I don't know if Christoph knew that. I don't, because I don't think he's very bright, frankly, but I don't know that others didn't give him that information and try to time it in this way. And maybe he did know. I don't know. I don't actually don't want to give him any credit. But it doesn't matter if they knew that's what this did.

Yeah, this is just such a black mark here on the New York Times, even just from a journalistic standpoint, setting aside the subject matter. And I would encourage people to go look up the actual study and all the reporting on it about Hamas' sexual atrocities amid their orgy of violence and murder on October 7, 2023. That's real. That is proven. That is documented as opposed to this garbage. David Harsani, senior writer at the Washington Examiner, where I also write. can read his latest book, The Rise of Blue Anon. David, thank you very much. Tough subject, but we had to tackle it. Anytime. Thanks for having me. More of Guy Benson up next. Talking about the issues you care about. Guy Benson. At the top of today's show, we welcome to the program, Steve Hilton, businessman, former host here at Fox News, and now a Republican candidate for governor in the state of California since we're out here. We had Chad Bianco, the other Republican, on yesterday. Steve Hilton kicking off the show today. Here's part of that conversation. I asked Sheriff Chad Bianco this same question yesterday, and I want to just be fair and do the same thing here with you right out of the gate. If you were to win. And I know it's an uphill climb for anyone who's on the right in this state. But if you won, what would be your top three priorities? You probably have a thousand things you'd like to do. But the three realistic things that you would prioritize, what would those be? Well, we have to cut taxes, and that's something that I would propose in my first budget that we sent to the legislature on day one, because we have the highest taxes in the country for the worst results. And you just saw Gavin Newsom put forward a budget yesterday. And if you look at the numbers, it's a 72% increase in spending compared to his first budget. And nobody in California can point to a single thing that's got better. He's just... spending more and more of our money, and everything gets worse. So we have to reduce spending so we can reduce taxes. The first line of my tax plan is to help those who've been hurt the most by these years of Democrat failure, and that is working-class California. So we're going to cut taxes, especially for working-class people, small businesses, your first 100 grand tax-free, and then an associated set of changes to help small businesses, and there's an $800 a year. Small business fee, registration fee that you've got to pay, whether you make money or not, that's going to go. A vehicle registration among the highest in the country, some people pay over $5,000, $700. Sometimes over $1,000 a thousand a year, sometimes even $2,000. Just to register your vehicle in other states, it's under $100. We're going to get it down to a flat fee of $70. These are very specific changes we can make on day one. That's number one, tax and spend. Secondly, though, we've got to reduce the regulations. We have the worst business climate in the country, according to Chief Executive Magazine. Right there in Sonoma, there's an example. I met someone as a small independent winery. She wanted to increase her patio for her guests, from 30 visitors to 50. It took six years of bureaucracy. That's crazy. A million dollars, a million dollars in fees and permits, inspections, environmental reports, lawyers. It's insane.

The level of regulations is insane and directly through the executive branch. And you have thousands of appointments to hundreds of agencies. We'll get there on day one, cutting the regulations. And then the third thing, which is incredibly important, is just to sit down and talk to the legislature about how we can bring things back into balance in California. Because on all of these issues, on crime and homelessness. spending and tax and regulation, it's gone so far left. And actually, I think that the election of a Republican governor really will shake the system in Sacramento. It's so corrupt. The unions run everything, far-left activists, the climate extremism that's given us the highest gas prices in the country, the second highest electric bills. All of that has to change. The governor, on many of those things, can't act alone, so we're going to have to do it with the legislature, which looks like it's still going to be controlled by the Democrats, although, of course, I'll be fighting very hard when I'm in the general election, top of the ticket, going into the November election, the general election, I'm going to be fighting to help elect Republicans at every level in our state, especially to the state legislature so we can start to reign in some of this far-left extremism. You know, you mentioned something that I want to circle back to, and it was very interesting. Gavin Newsom, in his first budget, proposed a certain level of spending, and here in his final budget as governor, you said that... increase has been 72% in spending. And then you ask Californians, have things gotten 72% better? Had they gotten 1% better during his governorship or have they gotten worse? And it's more and more spending, which is, of course, extracted from people by force in the form of taxation. And I think the mentality, or at least part of the mentality on the left, Steve, and this is often true, but it's, I think. illustrative of this particular situation is they actually substitute spending levels with success. It doesn't really matter what the outcomes are because the more spending is the outcome in their mind. And look no further than a tweet. This was from Gavin Newsom's press office. They put this out yesterday where they're bragging. Quote, student funding in California. has now reached in, and all caps, record high. Since Gavin Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student as the state makes historic investments in public education. So they're boasting about record high spending per student on public education in California. which seems like the end goal for them, because if you actually talk about student outcomes, as those numbers have skyrocketed, it becomes a very different story and actually kind of disproves the boast. 100%. I mean, if you look at the scores as measured by objective test scores, we're among the worst in the country, nearly the highest spending for nearly the worst results. We have just 47% of students in California meet basic standards in English and literacy. With math, it's just 35%. Two-thirds of students don't meet basic standards in math in exchange for the highest spending. I mean, it's completely outrageous. One way I look at it is,

That $28,000, whatever it is per student, it's gone up, as it were, the number before that age to cite is 27,000. But that's per student in the state system. Private school tuition in California, an average across the state is 19,000 a year. My full interview with Steve Hilton, available online at Guy Benson.com. Part of the free podcast every day on demand, no charge. Guy Benson.com, Fox News Podcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch. Oh, what a night. An amazing event. A stunning evening for cookie. We'll fill you in coming up. Always fresh. Always fair. 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. Home Stretch on Guy Benson on this Friday. Guy Benson.com. Podcast always free. Bonus Guy Benson on the weekends. All that good stuff. It is almost the weekend. But before we go. Here from KSRO in Sonoma County, California, we have to talk about last night in the event that we had at Paradise Ridge Winery, which was spectacular, sold out crowd. It was like standing room only, putting the SRO in KSRO with people all over the place. Every ticket sold. Christine finally got that. That was adorable. It just clicked. Because I was like, what? And it was such an energetic crowd, fantastic people. folks who listened to this show every single day. And we had so much fun. There were a lot of laughs, some serious stuff as well. The wine was flowing. We just had an incredible experience. Shout out to all of our listeners who came and the team here at the station who put on this event. Unbelievable, this team. Christine, you were mobbed, really, by your fans at this event. Guy, I really do have fans. Yeah. Do you think this is going to go to my head? Yeah. Yeah. Totally. I'm concerned. I may have texted like 50 people this morning. You gave out your number to people? No, my friends and family saying, Cookie's a Star. But how many of these are your new friends and family from just yesterday? That's my concern. But it really was awesome. The weather was dropped dead gorgeous. The setting, I'll probably post some photos, some additional ones on Instagram. I put a few on my story. I have a ton. Guy Benson on Instagram. I've got a few on my Instagram story. I might do a post as well. We'll see. But. lively crowd, we were outdoors, which I didn't realize until we got there. How could you not have been? People had their rosé and just whatever they wanted. And you were often double-fisting. I'd be like, where's Christine? You turn around, you'd have two glasses of wine in your hands. You're like, these aren't mine. It's like a likely story. I can't believe how many people are like cooks. We want to have a drink with you. Or. A group of ladies was like, we want to go to Mexico with you. I'm like, well, I'm going in July. Exactly. One woman actually said to me, because you made that joke. You didn't hear her and she looked at me and she said, down in Acapulca. No. She did? No. Oh, yeah, they know. The people know exactly what you're up to and what you're about. And you were so good again. Like.

You guys, Dylan, Joel, he's really good at this. You seem shocked. You seem shocked that I could put on a good event and, like, talk to people successfully. And very funny. And you seem totally astounded by this. Like you were discovering me for the first time, just like you did in Kansas City at the other event that we did together. That was a brewery. This was a winery. So there is a theme here. Maybe the theme should stop soon for cooks. Well, there's a story that we'll get to in a moment on that. Just one thing I do want to say. Because an event like this can remind you that obviously we work hard on this show every single day. We've got a lean, mean team of just four. And I shouted them out at the event. It's the two of us and Joelle and Dylan as well. And people were asking Dylan. And they were like, where's doing Dylan? Yeah. People know the team. And we want to inform. We want to entertain. We want to do all of that. But when you meet listeners, a lot of them in one place, you're reminded how much there's kind of like this radio family environment and dynamic where people get to know us and people are like, I feel like I'm friends with you already. And we just met some people who were so lovely. One woman in particular has gone through a really hard time in her life. And she actually used to be, I think she said on the left and she's changed politically. And I talked to a lot of people, so that detail might not have been her. And if I got that wrong, I apologize. But she did say part of her mental health regimen is listening to our show every day and getting to know us more and listening to our shenanigans in the home stretch. And it has helped her, this show has helped her through a difficult period in her life. And that just means the world to us. There was another gentleman. This one, I can't stop thinking about. Yeah, a man who. is named Kelly. And I'm guessing that he and his wife are listening right now. And he asked very timidly, can we do a favor? And I wasn't sure what that might be. He was wearing a mask, which was unusual at this event. And then it became clear why his wife has very serious cancer. And she had actually come to this event, but was too sick to stay. So he had to drive her home and then come back. And he obviously loves his wife very much. And he asked, would we be willing to just do a little something for her? And of course, it was my total honor to do that. So we sent a video that Christine took on her phone and then personally texted to her last night with a note, hey, it's cookie from the show. We miss you. Please get better so you can come back next time, that sort of thing. And we were very happy to do that. And, you know, he was trembling a little bit, his voice and some tears in his eyes because of that love. And he and his wife. They play cards together almost every day and listen to this show. And it's part of their routine together. And, I mean, it's so meaningful to hear things like that. And then there's plenty of other people who just enjoy the show and what we do, right? It's not as deep, but still meaningful and rewarding and gratifying. Guy, people flew in from other states. That is true. Just to come. One guy came to me and he's like, my wife insisted we fly in from Arizona so she can go me cookie. I was like, what? Is that true?

I just... That's not a... Dylan, he just like... I feel like all morning. You're just looking at me like with disgust, too. Okay, not discussed. Not discussed. However... And you brought me on stage? I did. I sure did. Shocker. I know. It seemed like a mistake at the time. It was a bad idea. Yeah, I did it, though. What was the first thing I said to you when I got up there? Oh, you... I don't remember, actually. I sat up there and I go, before we start talking, could you please tell these people I actually work? There are a lot of people that think I just come in, do the home stretch and leave. You're like, tell them that I show up every day and do all this stuff. Like, well, then I'd have to lie to them that you show up every day rather than going on vacation. That got a big laugh. And then you made Mexico plans with some of these ladies, just proving my point. So then the event ends, and we had this spectacular dinner with Lawrence and part of the team and some of the sponsors. Just amazing. We then go back to the hotel in Santa Rosa. I go to my room to go to bed, which is what I did because we had to get up early today and had to do the show and then fly out. It was a long day yesterday. Today's going to be a long day. I heard Cookie, whose room was right next to mine. Yeah, we have to, next time, no more, we're not doing that again. I heard a giggling cookie leave her room. And I was like, here we go, because you became pals with one of the ladies here at the station, Kim, who's taken great care of us. And you guys were conspiring to do some sort of a nightcap. And much later, I heard you come back in. I did not check the time. And I found out this morning a few things. Number one, you woke up and saw shoes in your room that were not yours? Flip-flops. And I go, whose flip-flops are those? And they were Kim's? And also, there was like a Stanley Cup. And I had to open it and I go, please tell me there's not alcohol in here. I asked for her to go cop because we were in her house dancing. You went to her house? Yeah, we went to her. That's why you got the flip-flops. Yeah. She said that it was probably best that I didn't walk home on my heels. She didn't think you could walk back. Well, you know, she just wanted me to be more stable. It was a high heel I was wearing. More sturdy, if you will? Yeah. So then I was like, did I ask her? Please tell me to no alcohol. It was just a Coca-Cola. It was more like sober up, girlfriend. And then you found out. Or at least I was informed this morning that you forgot which hotel room you were in and were trying to barge into someone else's hotel room in the middle of the night in your state. You were in room 306, but you went to 206. Sure did. Then what happened? Couldn't get, couldn't open the door. Obviously, it wasn't your room. Someone was in there sleeping. Yeah, and apparently they called downstairs and was like, someone's trying to break into my room. Yeah, it was you. It was cooking. Thank God it wasn't your room. Honestly, I preferred that situation than me thinking my room was your room. Yeah, if you were... You would have lost your mind on the door in the middle of the night. We were dancing in the park. I was blasting music. Is that the park with all the homeless people? Sure was. Okay, so choices were made. Oh, my God. Choices were made last night. And for the record, I was asleep, like a responsible person. And Christine was clearly not. And it sounded like...

You were drinking liquor. You ran into some people who were at the event who were trying to get selfies and buy you drinks. Yes. How many drinks? Because you had, you were feeling it on the drive back to the hotel. Like you were, there were people having, you don't really probably remember this. No, I do. Some of us were having conversations and you would just. jump into the conversation loudly and just cut off someone who was talking to just make some loud point. I'm like, oh, she has had quite a lot of wine. And then you went out and had... I mean, I would do that sober, though. Not like this. And then you went out further? Uh-huh. Was it a dive bar? Yeah. It's my favorite. A dark bar? Not as... Yeah. I mean, it wasn't a bright sunny day at that... My favorite thing to do, as we all know. Well, my dream. is to just go into a very, very dark bar on a bright, bright, sunny day. But this was a dark night because it was late at night after a lot of drinks. How many? I'm not even going to ask. You have no idea. You got so many. Not so many. Let's not, you know. I'm surprised you're, like, here at work today, honestly. Good to go. Well. Just a little tired, but Dylan may have gotten a call. This morning? Yeah, yeah, I absolutely did. And there were suggestions that she was too hung over to do this right now. Questioning if she was still under the influence. This is, that was the call that I got at 11 a.m. And I took over the rundown. I went ahead and I paid that right over. Payed them off. She bought my lunch. Get yourself a nice lunch. She bought myself, she bought me a cob wrap for lunch today. Appreciate that one. You are not dispelling any of the reputation that you've earned for yourself at all. You get up there on stage being like, tell them that I'm a professional and that I don't drink too much. And then, and here we are. Yeah, I paid off Joelle a couple days ago. Oh, you did? Yeah, I'm like, let's get this best I've done. Here's some money for coffee. I can't confirm that, and I definitely got a cup of coffee the next day. Oh, my goodness. I just, I can't get over that poor person in room 206. And the flip-flops. And the roadie to go Stanley Cup, which was filled, quote, unquote, with soda. Thank God. Uh-huh. I mean, that was my concern. Of all this, that was my concern. That was the only concern. Okay. I have a few others, but we've got to go. Great. Now Bobby's going to hear this. And now I've got to... And we didn't even get to your bowl cut. So we might have to get to that next week because that's a gem as well, but it's the weekend. So we've got to catch a flight out of Northern California. Back here on Monday for Guy Benson, everyone. Make good choices, unlike Christine. We'll talk to you a Monday on Guy Benson. My favorite thing to do, as we all know, well, my dream is to just go into a very, very dark bar on a bright, bright, sunny day. Listen to this show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.