Puncturing Obama’s Latest Lecture

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. 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. This is going to be an extremely busy month. I have to watch 104 soccer games. Follow the pregame, the post game, yell useless opinions at the TV. It's a lot. So I knew that when it comes to screening for colon cancer, the choice was clear. The Colagard Plus test. It can be used at home and can only take 15 minutes, so I can do it during halftime and not miss any action. If you are 45 or older and at average risk, ask your healthcare provider about screening for colon cancer with the Coligard test. You can also request a prescription at colagard.com.

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 Thursday, April 30th, 2026. I'm Guy Benson. Welcome everyone to Guy Benson. We're live. We're in the Pacific Northwest today and tomorrow. We're so glad that you're here with us. Guy Benson.com is our website. The podcast is free. Every day on demand, no charge, plus bonus Guy Benson on the weekends. It's Guy Benson.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm a Fox News political analyst and a senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. On the program today, our first guest later this hour, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg retired on Iran and Russia and beyond. Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal in our next hour. along with U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn later that hour. Then Senator John Cornyn of Texas will join the fray just after 5 p.m. Eastern. That is the roadmap ahead here on the show. Speaking of, if you want to get in touch with us, we've got an email address for that. GBS at fox.com. You can follow us on social at Guy Benson. Follow me as well at Guy Benson. Well, a couple things that I want to get to here at the top, and they tie back to yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling out of that case in Louisiana on the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, and congressional districts. And what we have seen is the Supreme Court say that racial gerrymandering is, broadly speaking, unconstitutional and needs to stop. They are undoing. unconstitutional institutionalized racism i know a lot of people talk about being anti-racism and against institutional racism but are they actually because it seems like whenever the supreme court steps in to end institutionalized racism, whether it's in college admissions or here in racial gerrymandering, they get very, very angry because in fact they view their political and ideological projects and success as wrapped up in forms of institutionalized racism, which is interesting. Keep that in mind. So there's been a flurry of action, and you've seen certain governors and other people saying, all right, time for special sessions. We need to redraw our maps because of what the U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday, and we opened the program yesterday with Shannon Bream, breaking that all down with us and for us, and we appreciated that very much. If you missed it, worthwhile conversation, you can go check it out on the podcast. We've already seen action from Florida.

And when that happens, by the way, you talk about a one-two punch, the VRA and the 2030 census and people leaving these blue states because of failed unaffordable governance run by these Democrat politicians in those regimes there. They're voting with their feet. Then you end up having a situation where white Democrats. elected officials are going to either have to talk a big game on diversity and representation and then say, sorry, black elected Democrats, now that your VRA carve out districts don't exist anymore, we're going to run anyway. Or they can very selflessly, and I would recommend that they do this, somewhat tongue in cheek, but if this is what they believe, these are their principles, why not just voluntarily step aside? and say, you know what, we need people of color, we need this to look like America, and I'm just a white person, so I'm going to give up my power for someone else to, and I'm going to endorse this person of color instead. How many white Democrats are going to be willing to do that, as opposed to putting out furious tweets and press releases about this thing? And I think that the resulting chaos among Democrats... And these internecine battles in a number of these places with a shrinking number of seats for Democrats in fairly conservative places, that's probably going to tear apart their coalition to some extent because identity politics is a big, big part of how their coalition operates. So that could get rather ugly. Now, I just want to say quickly about Florida, which did this. very rapidly, again, because Ron DeSantis was ready for this, and then the Supreme Court made their decision, and already the legislature has passed the new districts. And if you look at the new map, by the way, there's no crazy gerrymanders to the naked eye. Unlike Virginia, if you look at that map, unlike, I mean, my goodness, you look at Illinois, for example, the Florida map looks completely normal, actually. I'm not sure it is fair. It is certainly not representative. of the vote breakdown in Florida, but neither are all of these gerrymandered places that the Democrats have gerrymandered to the hilt. California, Illinois, all of New England, and now potentially Virginia as well. So a little bit of a tit-for-tat action going on here. And we did get, in addition to the just... title wave of outrage and hyperbole on the left, and maybe we'll address some of that hyperbole, we did get a very, very concerned and upset tweet from one Barack Obama, who said yesterday, this was in a social media post. Today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymender legislative districts, to systemically dilute and weaken the power of racial minorities so long as they do it under the guise of partisanship rather than explicit racial bias. And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current court seems intent on abandoning its vital role of ensuring equal protection in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is such

setbacks can be overcome, but that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers, not just in the midterms or in high-profile races, but in every election and every level. Now is Obama, attacking the court as he has many times, trying to sound, it's all for democracy, very high-minded. It's the high-minded pro-democracy, Barack Obama against this nasty right-wing Supreme Court. which in fact has said, we are putting an end to racial gerrymandering. It's amazing that the people who view themselves as progressive, in their definition of progress, that entails enshrining racial gerrymandering. That's what's required, apparently, in their minds, for true progress, which I think calls into question their definitions of everything, quite frankly. And he also did not characterize what happened accurately. Ilya Josh Shapiro, constitutional law expert and professor. He responded with a fact check. As with your characterization of Citizens United, not true. And he's referencing back to a State of the Union address when Obama was president where he completely mischaracterized. The Citizens United Free Speech decision by the Supreme Court. Samuel Alito was sitting in the audience for the state of the union address. Samuel Alito, by the way, also wrote yesterday's major opinion on VRA. And Samuel Alito could be seen melving the words not true when Obama was lying about that Supreme Court case. And here he is mischaracterizing again. And you have this comment from Ilius saying, today's voting rights blockbuster was the right call in a victory for the colorblind constitution. The bottom line is that the Voting Rights Act doesn't require majority, minority districts, and states can't use race to draw district lines absent some extraordinary justification like remedying actual intentional discrimination. But the ruling, which corrects a long-held lower court misrepresentation, of governing law shouldn't be surprising. After all, Section 2 of the VRA says nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. This is a big deal, Ilya-Josh Shapiro writes, ending the untenable Goldilocks standard where states were supposed to engage in some racial gerrymandering, but not too much. That's now finally over. Well said by Ilya. I would love to see him debate that one-on-one with someone like Barack Obama. But Obama's just coming down from on high, less, I will say, less caustic, less demagogic than other Democrats, but nevertheless, I think framing it wrongly. And by the way, you might have noticed that here we have Barack Obama wringing his hands about how now legislatures can gerrymander. Well, the previous... status quo was gerrymandering for racial reasons. That's somehow better than now getting rid of the racial gerrymandering. But he's against some gerrymandering, but not other gerrymandering, as we have learned from Barack Obama, who on principle was very opposed to gerrymandering. What a terrible thing. Bad for democracy.

Just like he was against big money in politics and was a big fan of public funding of elections until he wasn't because he realized it would benefit him and his campaign in 2008 to flip-flop on that quote-unquote principle and spend John McCain into oblivion, which is exactly what he did. Bye-bye principle. Hello power. Same thing here. He's been against filibuster. Excuse me. He actually is also a total hypocrite and flip-flopper on filibusters. That was a slip, but it's also true. Gerrymandering, very much against. And here he is, upset about it again, bad, bad gerrymandering. Literally last week, he was congratulating Democrats on their giant gerrymandering project in Virginia, which he was a starring feature player in their propaganda campaign. I saw Barack Obama's face lecturing me to support the gerrymandering power grab of his party dozens of times on my television in Virginia. So he's against gerrymandering until he's for gerrymandering, and then days later he's back against it. And it might seem like this tangled web. How can we discern what his actual position is? And the answer is very simple. And it is the answer always with Barack Obama. Cut away all the flowery language and the high-minded sentiments and slogans and all the things that he is haughtily lecturing us about on any given day. Ignore the rhetoric and just understand one thing. If an outcome is perceived to benefit the power of his party and his ideological movement, he is for it. If it's not, he's against it. And it doesn't matter. It can be day to day. He will frame it elegantly, but you can just ignore the words and understand the actual principle, which is power for his side. Yes, good. Power for the other side. Less power for his side. Boo, bad. No. That's it. I know it sounds simplistic. It sounds a bit grubby, but... core that is precisely what the calculation is don't buy the high-minded act it's just pure politics and power with him and so many others couple more points to make on this front i will get to them when we come back just getting started on a thursday it's Guy Benson In the swamp, not of the swamp. Guy Benson. And we're live from the living room as Doug eyes up the match day spread. He's reaching for the Buffalo wing. Perfect. Hang on, what's this? Oh, he's gone for a can of Pepsi, too! Incredible!

What a finish. Sensational combination. Look at the delight on his face. There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better. Match days deserve Pepsi. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a pack of Pepsi Zero Sugar for today's match. It's poetry in motion. I'm Guy Benson. We are back. You know, it's funny, the last week or two, I've been asking to get our friend Dr. Nicole Sapphire on the show for a few different medical-related news stories and just to pick her brain on some stuff. And she's been uncharacteristically unavailable. Normally, she's like, yes, let's do it today or tomorrow. She's great. We love having her here and she's a personal friend as well, but we weren't really getting success in booking her. And today we found out why that was probably the case. Cut 47. On the left is the withdrawal, which will later be transmitted to the Senate. Okay. And on the right is the new nomination form for our new Surgeon General. Nicole, Safar, she's with Fox, was with Fox. Is it with Fox anymore, Peter? But she's great. She'll be the Surgeon General. She's with Memorial Sloan Ketter in New Jersey, sir, and she's an outstanding doctor. She is. She's going to be great. Surgeon General. Thank you. Nicole Sapphire, our friend. is now, it's just kind of surreal, right? It's not new. I have a number of friends from Fox in the past who now have major positions, and you text with them sometimes, you're like sort of amazing to imagine. But now our friend Nicole Sapphire is President Donald Trump's nominee for United States Surgeon General. So she can be forgiven for ducking cookie and the booking for the last couple of weeks. We get it now. And all I can say is a huge, enormous congratulations to our friend. She is sharp. She's a very good communicator. She's extremely well-informed. And we will wish her our very best in the confirmation process. And I know D.C. is blood sport. And I'll be rooting for and prayer for Dr. Sapphire. Does this mean I can't just text her randomly for like minor medical advice from time to time? Will she respond if she's U.S. Surgeon General? It's just so funny to think about. Big congrats, Dr. Sapphire, Nicole, we are pulling for you hard. What a pick, what a choice. And with that, we'll be right back after this break. This is summer at its peak. Whole Foods Market's summer fruit fest is your invitation to eat the season. Fresh, organic, and bursting with flavor. Start your day with peaches and organic blueberries and yogurt. Build a grazing board with fresh fruit, prosciutto, and artisanal cheese. Then fire up the grill with no antibiotics ever proteins and fresh produce. Savor the season. Shop summer fruit fest at Whole Foods Market.

Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. Back on Guy Benson, Guy Benson.com is our website. The podcast is free every single day. So I want to talk about Iran a little bit here. There's some sound I want to play for you. And there's a couple different angles to come at the issue from. One is the development that just in the last couple days, President Trump has rejected Iran's just completely ridiculous counteroffer, which is still not realistic. It seems like that regime is not quite understanding its position and its very weakened leverage compared to what they have used in even the recent past against previous American administrations. And there's also this report, several of them, that President Trump has been briefed and will be briefed on additional potential decisions to resume military operations, to resume bombing against targets. Because between the U.S. and the Israelis, we bombed a hell of a lot of Iran's military targets already. Roughly 80% is what the reporting has been. But there are still thousands of targets, right? 20, 25%, whatever it is, that we haven't actually bombed, that we haven't attacked yet because of various ceasefires that have been temporary in place. And the question is, to me, if we're going to try to wind this thing down in a way that makes sense, to me, as a non-military expert, to put it very, very mildly, but to me, it would seem like it makes sense to finish the job on the bombing runs. to take out the remainder of these known targets and maybe some more because we have really good intelligence. We have almost total air superiority. The Israelis have exceptionally exquisite intelligence. So take out more of the capacity of the Iranian regime to rebuild and reconstitute its weapons programs on missiles and drones and that sort of thing, which they would use as a protective umbrella for their nuclear program that they are still fanatically committed to. despite their lying and some of their misdirection that they've tried to reassure us. No, they are fixated on getting the bomb, and they always have been. So in order to really push back any of those possibilities going after their industrial base, going after their ability to reconstitute these programs, finish the job on the bombing runs, keep the naval blockade in place, which is really causing, I mean, major heart palpitations for what's left of the regime economically, and we'll hear from the Treasury Secretary in a moment on some of those details. But those two things combined. All right, finish the bombing, finish off the targets, keep the naval blockade going, saying, all right, if you want to talk, you let us know, but we're blockading your ports. And then aside from that, be like, we're basically done here.

and see what the world wants to do, helpfully or not, on the Strait of Hormuz. That is my view of a path forward that makes some sense. I know Trump is trying to go the diplomatic route, but I'm not sure this regime still is serious about making the kinds of concessions that they have to make. And to that point, here was the president at the White House on that very question in cut one. Listen. We have talks. We're having talks with them now. And we're not flying anymore with 18-hour flights every time we want to see a piece of paper. We're doing it telephonically. And it's very nice. make a call or I have my people make a call and you know the answer. I always like face to face. You know, I consider it better. But they've come a long way. The question is whether or not they're going to go far enough. So at this moment, there will never be a deal unless they agree that there will be no nuclear weapons. And no nuclear program. Right. No enrichment period. Nuclear program gone. They don't want it for civilian purposes. They could have a civilian program for free. We would give it to them. They don't want that because they want the bomb. Their enrichment is way past the levels needed for civilian innocent purposes. Right? We know they've been lying about that forever. So no nuclear program, no enrichment, no reconstitution of weapons programs like missiles. no funding their terrorist proxies, and it's time to start treating their people and the rest of the region like they're a member of the international community rather than this terrorist pariah state. They can say yes to those things, and this can all end, or they can say no, and the pain will continue. On that score, here was cut 20, rather cut 48, President Trump saying the Iranians want to make a deal. Is that true? Listen. I don't call it a war. You rather have a military operation. We're really... I mean, Iran is dying to make a deal. I can only tell you that. I don't want to get into it. But they cannot be nuclear other than that. But their Navy's gone. Their Air Force is gone. Every ounce of any form of equipment practically is gone. Yeah. So they've been badly, badly degraded and damaged, right? We know that for a fact. There's many different. elements of evidence that point in that direction. I mean, it's very obvious, which is why this defeatist negative drumbeat from the news media and a lot of the international community is very bizarre. I saw the German chancellor, who's supposedly, you know, right-leaning conservative, saying that Iran is humiliating the United States. No, we've crushed...

We've sunk their navy. We've crushed their leadership. We've decapitated their leadership. We have massively degraded their ability to project power. We've obliterated their existing nuclear program, which we're worried they want to keep pursuing. And so we're obliterating and massively downgrading their ability to construct this conventional wisdom umbrella to protect it. We've done all of that in the span of two months. I don't know how the Germans would call that or the German leader would call that a humiliation. I know he really ticked off President Trump by saying that, and Trump has put out a truth social that maybe we're considering pulling some of our military resources out of Germany. Very stupid thing for the German Chancellor to say, in my opinion. But sort of elite, this sneering elite opinion that is quite divorced from the achievements. of the United States military and the Israelis forged over, really a lot of it was less than two months, a lot less than two months, because we've been in this ceasefire kind of holding pattern for a while. And I'm just wondering, is it time to end the holding pattern, unleash the dogs again, and then say, all right, we're basically done for now, except for the blockade, that continues. Because the blockade is just crushing the life force, the economic life force behind the Iranian regime. Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, who's monitoring that element of all of this, was on with Larry Kudlow and was explaining this to that audience. I think this is important to keep in mind what the purpose of the blockade is and how effective it is being, cut six. The port at Karg Island is at a virtual standstill in terms of loadings. We think that the Iranian storage will be full soon. They'll have to start. capping in their wells, which will lead to permanent problems. And, you know, again, the regime won't be able to pay their soldiers. And equally important, Larry, is they won't be able to fund their proxies, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, around the world. Well, they won't be able to do much of anything. Their economy will be in shambles. unable to pay their own people, unable to foment terror, unable to do basic things, which is why they're under so much pressure already from their population, which hates them, not just because of the repression and the abuse and the terror and the murder for years, including tens of thousands just recently. A lot of people in the vaunted international community apparently don't care about that at all. Not just all that. It's just the basic economic needs of the people have not been met to put it very mildly for a long time. This is going to make it even more painful for the regime. And they're pumping all this oil and there's nowhere for it to go because they can't sell their oil. They can't move their oil because of our blockade.

So Carg Island is basically approaching or at capacity. I saw that they brought some like ancient old ship out of retirement to fill that thing with oil, which is not a solution, right? That's a temporary band-aid. They're trying to move some of the oil on like rickety trains in the other direction out of the country. They have a real problem on their hands. because they can't stop the oil flow, and if they do, it'll just destroy their ability to pump oil because they have extremely ancient technology, relatively speaking, because of our embargoes and our sanctions and all of that through the years. So they would do enormous, really permanent damage to the centerpiece of their economy if they try to stop the flow, but if the flow keeps coming, they have nowhere to put it. They're effectively burning some of it already. They are out of options. So people can say, oh, well, that's just not working. Oh, they're getting around our, they're getting around our naval blockade. No, they're not. And their actions show that they're not. These are desperate measures by the regime on the economic side of things. Would their Navy at the bottom of the ocean? Would their skies under almost completely unchallenged U.S.-Israeli control? With their top leadership dead, with a bunch of their missiles and their missile production sort of pipeline destroyed, with their nuclear facilities bombed out, right? This is what we're told is failure or humiliation for the United States. Really? What would success look like, I wonder, according to these geniuses? And unfortunately, I think a lot of those assessments are kind of this bizarre, wishful thinking where they don't, and I've said this before, I don't think they are necessarily actively rooting for the regime. I think like the pro-Hamas crowd, those types of people are, right, because they're awful slash evil. But I think a lot of these other people are just so fixated on hating. Donald Trump, Israel, Pete Hegseth, you go down the list of political figures that they want to fail. They cannot separate that from the excellent work being done against the regime, which is profoundly in the national security interests of the United States of America in the short term and absolutely in the medium to long term. And with that oil capacity starting to come close to hit a ceiling and then the panic from the regime about what to do. That panic is because it just, it infuses a problem throughout their entire economy. Scott Bessent on Kudlow went on, cut seven. To be clear, the president gave the order for Max Pressure campaign more than a year ago. He gave it to me and Treasury last March. It was that pressure that brought the Iranian economy to a standstill in December that led to the...

led to the protest. The largest bank in Iran collapsed. The central bank had to monetize the debt, and that created massive inflation. Their currency is down about 60 or 70% versus the U.S. dollar, so they're in the middle of a currency crisis. One more cut eight still Scott Bessent. What we're doing now is, you know, we've been in a long race and we are sprinting for the finish line. President Trump told me three weeks ago to up the pressure again, and we have gone to the buyers of... Iranian oil and told them that we are going, we are willing to do secondary sanctions on your industries, on your banks who tolerate Iranian oil in their system. Meanwhile, we are pumping and exporting oil like crazy here in the United States, a relevant note in all of this. Now, in terms of what might come next. You heard in President Trump's soundbite that we played a few moments ago that he didn't want to call this military operation against the regime a war. And I think some of that is just like a technical parsing on nomenclature because of this War Powers Act and the question about 60 days in, does he need to get permission from Congress to continue? Because this is a disputed law. Often the executive branch says, No, it doesn't apply or it's unconstitutional Congress says or one party in Congress usually says yes, it does. Think back to the Obama administration. That Libya war in our bombing campaign. which I think was far less in America's national interest than taking out the nuclear and weapons capabilities of Iran, the death to America regime with all of its terror tentacles around the region. I think it's much, much, much more central to our national security interest than Obama's adventure in Libya. But that went on for months. That went on for the better part of a year. that bombing campaign. And the administration at the time said, no, we actually don't have to get permission. In fact, top Democrats in Congress said the same thing. No, no, we don't have to do that. I think that's unfortunately just kind of partisanship at this point. So predictably, the Trump administration is saying the same thing. And Republicans who were on the other side during Libya have now flipped and so of the Democrats. You know, it is what it is. But the administration is going to say, no, it's not technically a war. Speaker Johnson also I saw saying, well, that's actually not a war per se. I mean, maybe you can get into the legal leagues of all of it. It seems like a little basic understanding of war, dropping bombs, killing their leaders. I mean, it does seem like a war. I think it's a good one. I think it's a fully justified one. But the question then becomes, when the 60-day mark is hit, does Congress need to get involved? And there's a fight over that, a dispute over that.

Retired General, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg was on TV talking about this, basically saying, no, get out of here, Congress. Cut 14. My recommendation of Congress, honestly, Will, is butt out. You know, you haven't done anything anyway. I don't care what it is domestically or internationally. And you just have to be sitting in Capitol Hill. But, you know, I don't see any leadership at all in the Senate. All right. I mean, I might agree on some level with Kellogg, and we were scheduled to have him today, and we're efforting for him, not sure what happened, but hopefully we'll get him on the show very soon. But his message there very clear to Congress, butt out. But many members of Congress, Democrats, for their partisan reasons, and some Republicans for real reasons, and I'll actually quote one of them a little later in the show, I was looking at some press releases. Some Republicans are saying, no, this is the law, and we have to bring this before Congress. And that will be an interesting question that I intend to ask to at least one of our U.S. senators coming up later in the show. We'll have Senators Blackburn and John Cornyn here. Do they agree with Kellogg that Congress should butt out, they are members of Congress, or do they agree with even some of their Republican colleagues, that it's time for some sort of congressional involvement? It's an interesting legal question, and it's one that we will explore here on the show upcoming. For now, though, we've got to take a break and step aside. Quick break. We'll be right back. Keep it right here. Miss a minute. Miss a lot. Guy Benson. With over two decades of scientific innovation across oncology, Pfizer continues to drive the next wave of cancer breakthroughs. Approximately 40% of all our R&D is invested in oncology. With 90-plus clinical trials across more than 4,000 sites, Pfizer is focused on eight new medicines by 2030, all with a single focus. helping your patients with cancer. Learn more at cancer.fizer.com. Welcome back to Guy Benson. Little note out of the 2026 midterm calendar. Janet Mills is the incumbent governor of Maine. He's made a big show on fighting Donald Trump. to keep biological males in working girls. Right, that's her guess. Where she's been fighting Trump and she's running for U.S. Senate, backed by the party, backed by Chuck Schumer. And her work, thank you. They will talk about the election in her party. She has now put her tail to her legs and is slinging away. She is suspended in her campaign based on the problem. So now unopposed the nominee, presumably, for the Democrats, will be this Graham Platner. Graham Platner, the self-described communist, who has posted derogatory statements about rural white manors, stupid, racist, that kind of thing, who has the Nazi, the Nazi tattoo on his chest. Then he lied about knowing that it was a Nazi tattoo. He's been caught in that lie. Then he had more ink to cover it up and apologized for it than basically unapologized for it. The communist with the Nazi tattoo who hates Israel and thinks that conservatives should be given no peace anywhere.

That is now the nominee in waiting for U.S. Senate against moderate Republican Susan Collins in Maine. Because that's what the base wants. The heart wants what it wants. And what they want is someone with a Nazi tattoo on his heart. The direction of the Democrats, 2026. Welcome to a new era of baseball's great spectacle. The T-Mobile Home Run Derby live on Netflix. The biggest sluggers in baseball put their talents to the test on all-star weekend. Raw power meets star power. Big swagger meets bigger slams. And you don't swing to make contact. You swing to make history. Watch the T-Mobile Home Run Derby live on Netflix this Monday, July 13th, at 8 p.m. Eastern 5 p.m. Pacific. generation of conservative talk right here right now fair fun and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of fox news you're listening to Guy Benson and now here's your host Guy Benson

It's a brand new hour here on Guy Benson from the Pacific Northwest today and also tomorrow. Thank you so much for tuning in wherever you are. Guy Benson.com is our website. The podcast is free every day on demand when the show is over, plus bonus Guy Benson on the weekends. A Fox News alert as we enter this middle hour. The Dow roaring, nearly 800 points in the green today, up 790 at the close. finishing at 49,651 following some strong earning reports on Wall Street. The market's like that. Big, big day on Wall Street as a result. So joining us now as we enter this middle hour is our friend Kimberly Strassel, Fox News contributor, editorial board member at the Wall Street Journal, where she's also a celebrated columnist, a best-selling author, at Kim Strassel on social. Kim, it's always good to have you here. Welcome back. Hi, Guy. Great to be here. I want to pick up where we had left off yesterday on the show on political violence, political rhetoric. I know you've written a column about this. See here and read no evil. Walk us through your thesis here and explain what has you concerned. What has me concerned, Guy, is that we've now seen this enough times that it feels like a pattern. And what this is, is that every time we have an act of political violence from the left, which unfortunately is happening way too often, whether it be assassination attempts on the president or the shooting of those Israeli staffers, if they came out of the embassy or the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, The media and the left rush to try to set the narrative and to try to deep six or tone down or make go away anything related to the politics involved here, to just make them sound as though these are weird, troubled individuals, so as to not allow anyone to think that this is, in fact, being encouraged by. radical leftist politics that are, by the way, deceptive too often. They say things that aren't true. And then they rile people up into thinking that the fate of the republic is at stake if drastic actions aren't taken. And that is clearly playing into some of these actions we see. You know, there is a survey that I've referenced on air, and I'll talk about it, I'm sure, again, because it was just an eye popper to me. There was a survey, a poll of Americans done by the Manhattan Institute, and they were asking people for their views on various things. And among Democratic coalition members, so like center left, Democrats, leftists, they asked people a question about whether they believed the Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt. against Donald Trump, which one bullet clipped him in the ear, another bullet murdered someone behind him. The question was, do you think that was staged in order to benefit Trump politically? And 46%.

of the Democrats coalition in response to that survey question said definitely or probably yes it was staged more than the 39 percent who said no they didn't believe that that is some really like broken brained broken culture stuff there Kim I don't even know what to do with that Yeah, I don't either, but it's all part of, again, so when you have people, politicians in leading jobs, right? Like the folks that traditionally we looked at and we expect the stuff that comes out of their mouth to be true. When they are out there saying, you know, Donald Trump colluded with Russia. You know, Donald Trump, the suggestion of paedophilia and Epstein, even though we all know there's nothing in those documents that anyone's been able to find, when they stand there consistently and suggest, again, that we are on a daily basis seeing the shredding of the Constitution and a dictatorial rise of a king who's taking over and getting rid of all basic civil liberties, again, simply not true. then people are willing to believe almost anything. And this is the concern. I mean, I think there are some other issues to talk to here about slipping trust in the media and in other institutions that are broader. But a lot of this is caused by leading political figures who will not reign in their rhetoric. Oh, I mean, you look at just in the last 24 hours the Supreme Court made there, I think, correct decision against racial discrimination and racial gerrymandering. That came down yesterday. You had the former DNC chairman, Jamie Harrison, saying this is the worst court in the history of the country. He said, yes, including the court that was pro-slavery. That's a completely unhinged thing to say. But that's the DNC chairman until very recently, not some fringe, you know, Reddit commenter. And you had Hakeem Jeffries. the House minority leader who wants to be Speaker of the House threatening the Supreme Court saying that all options are on the table in dealing with the right-wing court in the future, basically hinting at or threatening potentially even court-packing. These are leaders in their coalition, not randos. Yeah, it's appalling. I mean, and again, you can see this reflected in other polls, which I'm sure are as disturbing to you as they are to me. I mean, the Supreme Court was the one institution that has maintained or traditionally maintained a lot more public trust and its actions in the way it worked. And by the way, I don't think the court has done anything to undermine that. Some individual members, I think, occasionally have been saying things about each other that are unfortunate and not helpful. But the way in which the court conducts itself continues to be very stately by comparison to anyone else. And yet we have had Democratic politicians. This has been going on for a decade now. It is their direct intention to tear down the court, to destroy its credibility, to better make the argument in the public that they should be able to engage in things like court packing.

Yeah, which is, I think, extremely dangerous. I talk about a threat to our democracy and a threat to institutions and norms. And what's interesting about that is the Supreme Court still has much more credibility and favorability than Congress or the executive branch. But, you know, you've got these politicians trying to tear them down, as you note. I think it is extremely short-sighted. It is totally political. And, you know, Kim, reading Molly Hemingway's new book about Samuel Alito and reading Sarah Isger's book, Last Branch Standing, both in the Supreme Court, for decades, and I think it's like a very short memory thing. For decades, the left dominated the Supreme Court. Any outcome the left wanted, the Supreme Court gave them. And they were never... talking about disregarding the court or packing the court in those types of things decade after decade when they got their way. Now they're not always getting their way, and therefore they're making these types of threats. Quickly, last word to you. Yeah, absolutely. But we see this in everything, right? I mean, just how many weeks ago when we were having the Virginia gerrymandering vote, you know, Barack Obama. Last week. Like last week that this is what is necessary to save democracy, Democrats must gerrymander their districts. And now in Florida, they just go to pass it and you have Democrats holding bullhorns saying that by Republicans gerrymandering, they're tearing down democracy. I mean, trying to keep up with their standards is impossible because they change. Yeah, because they don't have them. The standard is power. And I mean, maybe the Republicans in Florida can say, well, just restoring fairness, just use their talking points and see if that changes anything. Spoiler, it won't. Kim Strassel, thanks so much. We'll be right back after this. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. Adobe Firefly is the all-in-one creative studio with AI-powered image and video editing for today's creative process. Built for creators of every kind, Firefly helps you generate, edit, and experiment fast, because the asks aren't getting smaller, the budgets aren't getting bigger, and the timelines, oh yeah, still tight. With all the best creative AI models in one place, Firefly brings your ideas to life. Unlock a better way to make with Adobe Firefly. I'm Guy Benson. We are back. I want to talk a little bit about Argentina and Javier Milei, who is the libertarian leader down there, who won a huge election a few years ago. Then his party did very well in the sort of midterm elections and for good reason. There has been, to a large extent, an economic miracle and turnaround in Argentina, applying free market principles, reducing the scope of government in a very drastic way. There were all these economists, these experts, who signed letters saying none of this will work. He's going to destroy Argentina, which was in very rough shape, part of the reason why he won. And he's proven them wrong over and over again.

He inherited a GDP that was in a very bad place, soaring debt, horrible inflation, exploding annual deficits, and much of that has been reversed or brought at least to heal and under control. There are still some issues and some nagging problems, some of which are growing, some of which are getting better, and voters by their nature are impatient. So his approval rating has come down pretty substantially. But if you look at what he inherited versus what he's done now, I mean, just look at inflation. Start there. A lot of big ticket successes for Javier Milei. I like the fact that he has been a stalwart ally of the United States of America. I like the fact that while a lot of the foreign, like, international community leadership sneers and turns their nose up often at the United States and President Trump and all that, Javier Milei is on board and an actual friend. He's also been terrific on Israel and combating anti-Semitism and not going along at all, forcefully rejecting the pro-Hamas hate crowd and all of that. Good for him. There are a lot of things that I really like about Javier Milei. That being said, I saw a tweet from him a few days ago that sort of concerned me, and I actually wondered, now that his approval ratings come back down, is this just him doing kind of a populist pander move to certain elements of his population to try to buy himself some time or to deflect away from some of the other issues? And I was very sorry to see him tweet in all caps. The Malvinas were, are, and always will be Argentine. That is a reference to what the Argentinians refer to when they're talking about the Falkland Islands, which is the actual name of that territory. It's a British territory off of Argentina. It's been British for a very, very long time. And in fact, I can't believe that I believe this is now the second Falklands War reference that I've made on this show in the last couple of weeks, which is not one that I had on the bingo card. but there were people making inaccurate, I think very silly comparisons in the Falklands War when we were talking about the Brits and their help or lack thereof in Iran. Anyway, you can go back on the podcast archive. I did mention the Falklands War and did a little fact check there. Having read a book about it, I've read one book about the Falklands War, which is, I think, more than most people, honestly, doesn't make me an expert, but I know a few things about it. Because I saw a couple depictions like many ones in various shows and movies. And I said, what was that story? A war in the 1980s between the British and the Argentinians, like a far distance from British territory. And Margaret Thatcher decided to go for it. And a lot of people said she shouldn't. It was just kind of a fascinating thing. Like, how did that happen? So I read the book. Anyway, the British won that defensive war, which was 1982.

The Argentinians, I think at that point under the control of a military regime, that was having all sorts of domestic problems on the economy and popularity. So they said, you know what, let's make a move to try to bring the people onside, rally around the flag. Let's invade the Falkland Islands. It was a war of aggression by Argentina at the time. And the Brits defended successfully their territory with their Navy. And it was touch and go there for a while. The U.S., the Reagan administration was somewhat skeptical of it, but ultimately we were very helpful to the Brits on refueling and logistics and intelligence and that kind of thing. And the British won. They won decisively. The Falkland Islands are British, and they, by the way, have had like referendums, a referenda in the Falklands. And when I say that the vast majority of the inhabitants, the residents of those islands want to remain British, it's not like 5545. It's 99% ballpark want to remain British. It is a British territory. populated by people who see themselves and identify as Brits and they want to keep it that way. I, of course, agree. It is British territory, self-determination for those people, don't mess around with it. And to see Javier Milei getting involved in sort of indulging some of this stuff and beating the drums a little bit, oh, calling the Malvinas, by the way, Obama when he was president. tried to cozy up to the Argentinians by also going with this anti-British propaganda. Obama had a real issue with the Brits for a number of reasons. One of the many reasons I'm not a huge fan of Barack Obama, but he, in his pander, clumsily got the Spanish word wrong or the Argentinian term for these islands wrong. He called them the Maldives, which is in the Indian Ocean, way off Barack. Anyway, I digress. The British... control the Falklands, the people of the Falklands are British, and the Argentinians have no right to that territory. They are not, they were not, and they will not always be, contra Javier Milei, Argentinian. They're not. And so I'm not just saying that as a callback to the special relationship and standing by the Brits that we were talking about yesterday. I just think in terms of territorial sovereignty and all these other things, international law, if you care about that sort of thing, and just basic fairness. I don't like when Argentinian leaders talk this way, even if it's a leader that I generally like in most respects, like Javier Milei. But the last point I want to make about this is when I see some of this, and it may not be serious, saber-rattling, it might just be sort of cheap pandering. Again, I'm not a fan of it either way. I can't help but worry. On behalf of our friends, the British, And this goes to choices that voters have made. This goes to decisions that their leadership has made while they're being quite unhelpful and waffling and Star Wars a disaster on Iran and other things because he wants to appease a certain base in his country, a left-wing base, an Islamist base. If the Falkland Islands needed to be defended again now, hypothetically, under Thatcher, they did it successfully. I am not convinced at all that the British could.

Like literally, I don't know if they could. Their Navy has been in very bad shape. We learned that just recently, right, where they had virtually no ships that were ready to deploy. when the conflict with Iran started, even to defend some of their own people and bases in that region. It's an embarrassing look for a country who has the slogan in their famous song, Rule Britannia Rules the Waves, not so anymore. Would they be able to muster a naval defense and win a largely naval war now, like they did in the 80s? I am absolutely not convinced. to even imagine if they would wage war. Because the way Keir Starmer operates, the British Prime Minister right now, he tried to give away the Chagos Islands to a country with no right to them at all. In fact, a country closely aligned with the Chinese Communist Party for identity politics reasons over loud objections internally at home from the United States, he was trying to give. Those islands in the Indian Ocean, hugely strategic for the UK and the U.S. We have the Diego Garcia base on those islands, military base. He was trying to give them away and, in fact, pay this hostile government money for the privilege of taking British territory. So not only am I worried that the British military couldn't get this done, we were talking yesterday with Nile Gardner about the SAS elite troops quitting because they're being hounded at home by so-called human rights lawyers, they're in a bad way in a lot of respects. But I'm not sure the leadership would even say, yes, let's defend our territory, even if they felt like they could, because Keir Starmer's instinct seems to be like, oh, I'm so sorry, please take it. We'll pay you, Argentina. Don't get any ideas, Javier Milei, please. But that is the sorry state in which the U.K. leadership has placed itself in recent years, which is why, even though the special relationship is vital, it's a little bit strained right now. They have their reasons on their side of the ocean. Fair enough. But we certainly have ours. And I'm looking at these situations. And as a friend, I'm just saying I'm a little worried. We'll take a break. We'll come right back on Guy Benson.

Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FM Radio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Have time here on Guy Benson Thursday edition. Thank you for tuning in, Guy Benson.com, podcast, always free. We are joined now by United States Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican in Tennessee. She's running for governor down there. Senator, always good to have you. Welcome back. It is so good to be with you. Thank you. I just want to start by asking, because we played a lot of the clips of the speech yesterday on the show. Earlier in the week, were you part of that joint session of Congress addressed from Charles III III? Were you there? And if so, just give us some of your thoughts on that state visit. Yes. I was part of the group that was invited to the British Embassy. And we were able to meet the king and queen. They were very gracious that... He is taking the time to come to the U.S. and to celebrate our 250th anniversary. Let's turn to domestic politics and the Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the Voting Rights Act and the implications in terms of majority minority congressional seats and redistricting. And now a lot of states, we saw just... very recently yesterday, in fact, Florida moving swiftly in that direction. I know that you are calling on some changes as a result of this new constitutional imperative from the Supreme Court in your home state of Tennessee. As you see it, and you've been a member of the Judiciary Committee, what does Tennessee need to do in light of the new ruling? And what they will need to do is to call a special session. And they can do that. Our primaries are not until August. It is possible to cut our state so that all nine districts are going to be Republican districts. I think that our legislature should do that. They should come in right now. We are eight with one Democratic seat, and I think that they should review that. After this decision, they would need to do it in short order so that they could get ballots. printed and the balance that go to our military members would be arriving on time. So going to 9-0, number one, do you think it's practical, just from a purely partisan perspective, to have nine safe, quote-unquote, Republican districts in the state like Tennessee, which I know is very red. How much of that also, in your opinion, is what the court is now mandating now that?

certain gerrymandered districts on racial lines are gone. Is that something that has to be done constitutionally? Or is this a political move in your mind to retaliate against what we've seen the Democrats doing, which they say is retaliation, of course, against Texas, but moves in Virginia and California, are you just saying, well, if that's the hardball they're going to play Republicans in Tennessee have to do the same? Well, no, I don't think, if you look at Tennessee, I don't think this is like Virginia at all. Virginia is a 50-50 state when it comes to Democrat-Republican. So their representation ought to look like that. Tennessee is a conservative, a solidly conservative state. We don't have a state in contact. Virginia has that. We don't have... a liberal, progressive governor. We have a conservative governor. And we don't allow illegal aliens to run our state. And it looks like they're always providing cover for those that are in Virginia illegally. So I don't see that as an apples-to-apples comparison. And when you're elected to represent, you represent everybody. And we indeed do that. You look at other states that are blue states. You look at somewhere like Massachusetts, and they don't have any Republicans that are... elected. You look at Connecticut. All of New England, right? The entire New England region has zero Republican congressmen because the districts have been drawn. That's right. She's the only senator, right? There's zero members of the House and one member of the Senate, which is a statewide office, and they're coming after her hard this cycle. But in terms of maps that have been drawn for congressional seats, they have drawn Republicans out entirely of New England. That's exactly right. And when you look at Tennessee, we are a conservative state. So having a revisit of this map is something that is appropriate for the legislature to do. I have encouraged them to do it. I've encouraged the governor to do this. I was pleased to see that President Trump weighed in on this earlier today. And with his true social... post and it's appropriate to do. You know, the thing about the decision yesterday that we all have to keep in mind is basically what the Supreme Court did was to return the Voting Rights Act to its original intent. And I think that now, if these states in the South in particular are going to make moves like the one that you're recommending for your state, there's a catalyzing reason to do so, which is the aforementioned Supreme Court decision. I want to turn to more breaking news that occurred earlier today, the U.S. House overwhelmingly supporting that actually needed a two-thirds majority for various reasons, but it was a unanimous vote.

in the House of Representatives to adopt the Senate pass bill and reopen DHS after a 75-day shutdown by Democrats, but you still have ICE and Border Patrol that are not funded as part of this vote. That's going to be done separately through reconciliation along party lines. That's the Republican plan, at least. Your reflections on this incredible... Well over, what, two months, like two and a half month shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which is finally coming to a close. And then are you concerned about even if Republicans do fund Border Patrol and ICE through reconciliation? Once that runs out at some point off into the future, Democrats now have a new baseline of not funding ICE and CBP in existing. funding levels and appropriations, is that something that worries you as you look forward? Well, we had felt that they would fight funding ICE because their goal has been to abolish ICE. They've been on this for about five years to defund the police and abolish ICE. So we had pre-funded much of Border Patrol and ICE in the big, beautiful bill. They're paid through 2029. What we're doing now is DHS will be... funded through the entirety of the president's term. And, you know, Guy, this is the way we can get around what they're trying to do with these defunding mechanisms. Now, you're right. After that funding runs out, then the Democrats are going to, again, maybe, if they're, and this is why we have to make certain they do not take the House and they do not take the Senate. And they do not win the White House and the presidential. And what we have to do is move forward funding this through the rest of the president's term so that we take this issue off the table. And then we're able to give certainty to the Secret Service and the TSA and to FEMA and to Homeland Security investigations and Border Patrol and Customs and ICE that they are going to get their paychecks. These are individuals that are working hard to protect our country. They deserve to be paid. Senator, you've mentioned ICE here a couple times, and I did raise it, obviously. It's one of the core issues and one of the big disputes between Republicans and Democrats, and Democrats are effectively a pro-illegal immigration party, open borders, internal enforcement there against that, defund the police. This is their new version of that. It's been established. I'm not mischaracterizing their view. This is what they've done in word and deed. You are trying to figure out different ways around.

that kind of pig-headed obstruction and pro-illegal immigration policies that they have particularly tried to enforce at the local and state level in so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. And you have a bill. that would provide incentives to try to kind of pick off some of these local authorities to help ICE and to cooperate with ICE. Tell us about this model that you've introduced. Yes, it is called the 287G Enhancement Act, and there is a program. It is the ICE 287G. It's the Department of Justice program. And this allows your state, local governments to work with federal governments when it comes to immigration. And having that partnership is important. Now, in 39 of our states, you've got at least one jurisdiction that has a 287 agreement with the federal government. And in Tennessee, we've got 49 counties that have these agreements. And I think that encouraging these local jurisdictions, they may be in a blue state, but it may be a local jurisdiction that says, hey, we'll sign up for this program because if we sign up, according to the Enhancement Act, we're going to get an extra 10%. on our repayments that come to us for helping detain and apprehended and detain these illegal aliens and on grants that we apply for. Our JAG grants, the Verns Memorial Justice grants. So this is a way to incentivize that. We would like for every county in this country to have an agreement with the federal government to work with ICE. and to apprehend and detain and then help deport these that are in the country illegally. So these are funding incentives from the feds that you would say, hey, if you cooperate, you'd get this money and there would be the local politicians who would then agree to that, theoretically. That's exactly right, because, see, we have jurisdictions in 17 states and in D.C. that do not have any cooperation with ICE, and that undermines the effectiveness of the 287G program nationwide. It undermines the effectiveness that we have for deporting those that are in the country illegally, because those that are in the country illegally. cities in these blue cities or blue states. And that is where they harbor and where they live. And many of these, it's why the crime rate is why it is. And so to incentivize these local jurisdictions to create these agreements with the federal government, so that let's say they got a grant, it's $100.

then this would allow them to get $110. And they will be incentivized to enforce the rule of law. Okay, a few more here with you, Senator, and I saw you reacted to this story on social media, the Daily Wire reporting, that the Biden administration, officials within that administration used a code word. to hide loans, taxpayer loans that were being made to a major abortion provider in Planned Parenthood. The code word apparently was Benghazi for some reason, and that was how they were trying to get around FOIA requests where people wouldn't figure out where the money was flowing. You wrote another day, another story about how the Biden administration may have broken the law. We need an immediate investigation. Your reaction beyond that to this story, which definitely does not seem like, at the very least, they were being transparent. Let's put it that way. Well, they were being deceptive. I think it's worse than not being transparent. The Democrats, under Joe Biden and that administration guy, look how hard they worked at making illegal actions legal. It is like that was whether it was the border or whether it was funding measures, whether it was enforcement of law, picking and choosing laws to negate or laws to enforce. They worked overtime on making illegal. And I think we do need to look at this. I do believe it calls into question. Many of the funding... and options and decisions that were made or delivered during the Biden administration. And what else were they hiding? Because what we have seen is this pattern. How do we skirt the law? How do we circumvent the law? How do we hide this from people? Because we know the people would never agree with this. It is pretty outrageous because people are allowed for transparency reasons to search government emails and communications under the Freedom of Information Act. And if you're looking for certain key words to focus in on an issue that you want to investigate, that's how you actually hold government accountable. So if they're using... code words in order to prevent people from doing those basic searches. That is an end run around transparency. It is actively deceptive. You're absolutely right to point that out. And that is what appears to have happened under the Biden administration in order to get money flowing. to this major abortion provider. And why they use the term Benghazi is very, again, strange and beyond me. And you do have to wonder if they were doing similar things and other machinations and manipulations on other fronts as well. When we come back, I want to turn to Iran and War Powers. Marsha Blackburn, stand by. We'll be right back after this short break. America is listening to Guy Benson.

Marsha Blackburn is still with us, kindly, here on Guy Benson Happy Hour. Finally, Marsha Blackburn, I do want to ask you about Iran. I saw a statement put out by Senator John Curtis, your colleague from Utah, a Republican, saying... Quote, from the beginning, my position has been that the president's actions in Iran have been consistent with his legal authority under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. However, that same law is clear that after 60 days, military action must begin to wind down unless Congress provides formal authorization. And he goes on to explain his position further. But that's a Republican from a conservative state saying, I'm supportive of the president, but now it has to go to Congress. Do you agree with that? Should this now come up for a vote, the continuation of the military operations against the Iranian regime? Do you agree with that or disagree with that on principle? And if there should be a vote, would you vote yes? Are you concerned about congressional involvement here? What we need to do is give the president time to work through these negotiations with Iran. And as you hear from people that are involved in the work that is taking place across the Middle East, and as you begin to see things like the UAE coming out of OPEC and a realignment in the Middle East. The president is within his authority. We are getting results. There are negotiations that are going to come forward. And to prejudge or to say we need to decide what we're going to do at 60 days. What we need to realize is that as we have been in the Middle East for the last couple of decades, what they will say many times is they have the time, but we have the clock. And we go by the plot and that they've got all the time in the world. I think we need to give the president and the Department of War and our allies time to continue to work on this. The goal is to make certain that Iran never has a nuclear warhead. U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee on Guy Benson. It's a subject that we will also raise in all likelihood. In our next hour with Senator John Cornyn of Texas upcoming. Marsha Blackburn, thank you so much for your time. We'll talk soon. You got it. That final hour, as I mentioned, with John Cornyn and a few other topics as well is straight ahead. Don't go anywhere.

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. hour here on Guy Benson our final hour of three we're on the left coast today and tomorrow thanks so much for tuning in Guy Benson.com is our online home podcast free every day on demand including bonus Guy Benson on the weekends this radio hour sponsored by the finish long drink oh it's so good please check it out if you're 21 plus always drink responsibly the long drink dot com with us now is u.s senator john John Cornyn of texas senator welcome back to the show thanks guy Let's talk about the House unanimously voting to reopen DHS after 75 days of shutdown, which was forced by the Democrats. They were able to basically strip out CBP and ICE funding, although you guys are going to put it back in via reconciliation. What do you make of this battle that's finally coming to a close? And as I asked Marsha Blackburn last hour, are you worried? But the Democrats now have this zeroed out baseline for key immigration enforcement in the future, even if you guys fund it for several years. Well, it doesn't bode well for a regular appropriations process. So we know that a lot of innocent people get hurt. And when Congress doesn't fund, it's the government's functions like the TSA workforce, which, as you know, were without pay for many, many weeks. And these are not wealthy people. And I think, frankly, using them sort of as collateral damage for another fight is just shameful. But I'm glad the House was able to pass this bill. I think, you know, part of what the House is reluctance was based on an misunderstanding about what we had done to pre-fund ICE and CBP and the Working Family Tax Cuts Act. So we are going to plus up those figures using a reconciliation bill, which is currently being processed. But I'm glad that we will be able to... to pay everybody that's working for the Department of Homeland Security, including the Secret Service, Homeland Security investigations, the Coast Guard, and so many other of the functions of the Department of Homeland Security. But all this is because Democrats don't want to enforce immigration laws, which is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, I mean, that is their position. And we were just talking about this in the last hour with your colleague. She, Marsha Blackburn, has one measure that she has introduced to try to incentivize localities in perhaps sanctuary states or bluer states to cooperate with ice, which is the sensible thing to do. You have your own version of that. It's a different approach. You've called it the Sanctuary City Elimination Act.

How does that work? How would it work? And I know that you're an attorney. In fact, I'm going to pick your brain legally on a few other issues here in a second. But I still don't understand how sanctuary policies are illegal at all, where you have state and local officials actively undermining. federal enforcement of federal immigration law. I've always been just sort of bewildered by that. If you can maybe explain that to me on a legal basis and then tell us about the Sanctuary City Elimination Act that you've put out there. Well, Guy, just to be clear, I'm a recovering lawyer. But I have had a little bit of practicing law and a little judging in my background. But here's the argument. You're exactly right in terms of the federal law is the law of the land. There's something called the Supremacy Clause and the Constitution. The problem is the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot commandeer, which is sort of the magic word, local and state resources, including law enforcement. So what's happened is the sanctuary city policies are basically a non-cooperation decision with federal law enforcement, which leaves ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies not a lot of options when it comes to actually enforcing federal law. So it's basically kind of a passive-aggressive approach, but it gets back to the same old defund the police. mentality and approach this time just applied to immigration. But this bill I've introduced will... withhold the federal funds that typically go to cities and states that are sanctuary jurisdictions. And while we would carve out law enforcement, because we don't want to defund law enforcement, obviously, we want to make sure it is funded, but it would create some financial disincentives for non-cooperation with ICE. There's a number of good bills out there, Senator Blackburns and others, and my hope is we can all get coalesce. Well, it sounds like they'd actually be very complimentary, right? She'd be coming in with incentives to cooperate. You'd be coming in with disincentives to not cooperate, right? So I can see that sort of as a vise squeezing some of these jurisdictions. Just the last quick question, though, about this, because I understand the argument that the feds cannot, quote, commandeer.

right, local or state officials or authorities to enforce these laws. That's fine. I'm not against that. But to me, sanctuary policies cross a line from, it's not just not commandeering. It's actively obstructing, it seems to me. And I guess maybe that's a legal distinction that doesn't matter, but that's as a non-lawyer. That's my sort of confusion on this. No, it's, you're right. It is sort of a, it's sort of a gradation of what we're talking about, commandeer on one end and, and local jurisdictions enforcing those laws on the other end of the spectrum. And this is kind of somewhere in the middle. And these sanctuary jurisdictions take advantage of it. But what happens is, When local jurisdictions don't cooperate, you see tragic incidents like we saw in Minneapolis a few, well, maybe a month or so ago now, where two citizens tried to intervene in a lawful enforcement action by ICE and ended up dead tragically. So that doesn't happen in non-sanctuary jurisdictions because the immigrant, the illegal immigrant is handed off basically from jail cell to ICE. Oh, yeah. What also doesn't happen in non-sanctuary jurisdictions is that you don't have illegal immigrants who are arrested repeatedly and then released back out into the communities who then rape or kill someone after three or four or five or ten or 40 run-ins with the local officials. That's another thing that doesn't happen in non-sanctuary jurisdictions. And for the life of me, I don't understand why. Fine. Say you can't commandeer the locals to enforce the law. why the locals are allowed to be ordered to obstruct enforcement of the law, as at least as I see it, is beyond me, but it is what it is, which is why bills like the one that you've introduced, I guess, are necessary. You mentioned that you've done some judging, and I think you're being a little bit humble in that characterization. You were a justice on the Texas Supreme Court for years. And so on that front, I do want to ask you about yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision out of Louisiana, that case, involving redistricting and racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act Section 2. We've seen, of course, this furious reaction from the left. It's all they ever do. Jim Crow, thundering all that stuff. It's racism. It's all of it. We've seen that from your colleagues. As a former justice on your state Supreme Court, what do you make of the legal decision here by the high court? What does it actually mean compared to the rhetoric spewing from the Democrats? And what are the implications moving forward now that states are making decisions on redistricting? Well, as Chief John Roberts once famously said, the best way to – quit discriminating based on race is to quit discriminating based on race. And what he was referring to is in the context of redistricting.

Historically, the only way you could use race as a consideration is as a remedy for past discrimination. That's basically what the original Civil Rights Act provided in 1965. But those days are long gone, and actually the Civil Rights Act has been enormously successful. Most of these Old South... places where you saw the worst sort of discrimination, minorities actively participate in greater numbers and percentages than the white majority populations. And so the reason for using race is as evaporated. And in this case, they've used this provision, turn it on its head to explicitly draw a district. based on racial considerations and not as a remedy per past discrimination, which is the narrow exception to the general rule. So the court correctly held in my view that this was unconstitutional and applied scrutiny to the decision by Louisiana to do it. So I think it's exactly what... We should do, and, you know, kudos to the Supreme Court for having the courage to do it. What it means is that going forward, if there's redistricting, then you're going to see a lot of white Democrats losing their seat when these districts have been drawn strictly to provide for racial majorities based, again, strictly on race, not based on popular political support. On another constitutional question, I read part of a statement last hour to your colleague from another one of your colleagues. This is Senator Curtis from Utah, who's a conservative Republican. And this pertains to Iran and the U.S. military operation against the regime there. And this 60-day... deadline for the war powers resolution to kick in. And I know that there's questions around whether that's even constitutional in the first place. Senator Curtis, your colleague, on your side of the aisle, says in his position and in his mind, the president has been lawful in what he's done so far as commander-in-chief. But he said the law quote is clear that after 60 days military action must wind down unless Congress provides formal authorization. Do you agree with that? Should there be a vote on this in Congress? What do you think? I don't think the laws as clear as my friend Senator Curtis believes it is. You alluded to the fact that this has long been controversial between the executive branch and the legislative branch. Obviously, Congress has the authority to declare war, but that hadn't happened since World War II. And as you know, we've been in a lot of various conflicts.

This would, and the president retains his authority under the Constitution to protect American interests and American troops, say, in the Middle East. So I think the president's acting with his authority. I applaud his courage, political and otherwise, in dealing with a problem that's long been a can kick down the road by previous administrations when it comes to Iran's nuclear aspirations. And now we've seen what the most extreme elements in the regime have done in the Strait of Hormuz. There is a serious question whether the war powers resolution is even constitutional, but unfortunately this is not an issue that any court, including the United States Supreme Court, is likely to decide. They're likely to call this more political question. Okay. Finally, I do want to ask you about some Texas politics. I know that you are locked in a very protracted and pretty ugly and very expensive. primary to represent the Republican Party in the general election in November. The Democrats have already made their choice in an earlier primary with James Talarico, this state senator, who's going to be the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, and he's way, way out there on the hard left. But at least in one new poll that I saw, he is leading both you and your Republican primary opponent in a general election setting. Are you concerned? that it is realistic that the people of Texas might elect a hardcore left winger to the U.S. Senate in the person of James Talarico. And do you have any comment about the reported remarks from the pulpit of Talariko's minister at his left-wing church who said the day after the most recent assassination attempt against President Trump last Saturday the next morning, the minister reportedly said that a lot of people have mixed feelings. about the assassination attempt, which prompted laughter from the pews, if you can believe that, kind of almost like a Jeremiah Wright-type church in some ways, plus radical gender ideology mixed in. If you have a comment on that as well. Yeah, I think, you know, there's been a lot of inappropriate comments being made after the third, I guess third or maybe even now of the fourth assassination attempt against President Trump. And a lot of this, unfortunately, I think, is affected by... and irresponsible rhetoric falling on the ears of people who are already unstable and who are willing to act on that sort of rhetoric and with violence. And obviously people say, well, nobody encourages violence, but when you see here are some of the things that are being said, you can't help but believe, I can't help but believe that that doesn't contribute to it. But James Talarico is a wolf and sheep's clothing. I agree with you. He's a dangerous, he's a threat because he raised $27 million in the last quarter alone. And he basically pretends to be something he's not.

He just graduated from seminary, so he likes to quote from scripture, but frankly, I think a lot of that's just to cover for more progressive politics in the image of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And that will not hunt in Texas. The only way James Talarico would have a chance would be if Ken Paxton, our corrupt attorney general, were the nominee with all the baggage he brings into the race. And I think that's one reason I'm hoping that I am the nominee come May the 26th. Okay, well, Talariko, I like to say he sort of looks like and speaks like a youth pastor, but he votes like Ilhan Omar. So Texas voters have some very important decisions to make in a primary and in a general moving forward. Senator John Cornyn of Texas on Guy Benson. Senator, thank you. Thanks, Guy. The happy hour continues right after this. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson.

As we continue here on Guy Benson, Happy Hour. Just recently we had Spencer Pratt on the show, who's running for mayor of Los Angeles, former reality star, really ticked off for very good, righteous reasons about what has happened to the City of Angels. And he is gaining steam, gaining momentum in the polls. He's out with a new ad that I think is extremely effective. Cut 39. This is where Mayor Vass lives. You notice something? Or here, where Nithya Raman's $3 million mansion sits. They don't have to live in the mess they've created where you live. This is where I live. They let my home burn down. I know what the consequences of failed leadership are. That's why I'm running for mayor, for my sons and the rest of us, Angelinos, that want to stop these corrupt politicians from destroying our city. We are going to get the golden age of Los Angeles back. So the ad begins with him in these very ritzy neighborhoods where the politicians live. And then he's walking the streets in the tent cities and Skid Row. He says, this is where I'm living. And he points to his airstream like the trailer because his house burned down, as did his parents' house. And I just think that was really, really sharp. And it's shot well. It's compelling. It's making the contrast that I think needs to be made. And the question is, can he keep the momentum going and win over enough people to actually have a chance at prevailing in the election? Because the other choices are a failed incumbent, and then the leading choice seems to be a Zohran Mamdani-style, hardcore left-wing socialist who would arguably be worse than Karen Bass. Like we've seen the bad trajectory in New York City and Chicago, will L.A. voters follow down that path. Spencer Pratt says, don't do it. And for our KABC audience, I think a lot of you are saying, don't do it. It's a race that we will follow here closely. On Guy Benson, we'll be right back.

Talking about the issues you care about. Guy Benson. Earlier on Guy Benson, Kim Strassel, Fox News contributor, Wall Street Journal. She was here talking political violence. Here's part of our conversation with Kim, if you missed it. Walk us through your thesis here and explain what has you concerned. What has me concerned, Guy, is that we've now seen this enough times that it feels like a pattern. And what this is, is this. Every time we have an act of political violence from the left, which unfortunately is happening way too often, whether it be assassination attempts on the president or the shooting of those Israeli staffers, if they came out of the embassy or the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, the media and the left rush to try to set the narrative and to try to deep six. or tone down or make go away anything related to the politics involved here, to just make them sound as though these are weird, troubled individuals, so as to not allow anyone to think that this is, in fact, being encouraged by radical leftist politics that are, by the way, deceptive too often. They say things that aren't true, and then they rile people up into thinking that the... fate of the Republic is at stake if drastic actions aren't taken. And that is clearly playing into some of these actions we see. You know, there is a survey that I've referenced on air, and I'll talk about it, I'm sure, again, because it was just an eye popper to me. There was a survey, a poll of Americans done by the Manhattan Institute, and they were asking people for their views on various things. And among Democratic coalition members, so like center left, Democrats, leftists, they asked people a question about whether they believed the Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt. against Donald Trump, which one bullet clipped him in the ear, another bullet murdered someone behind him. The question was, do you think that was staged in order to benefit Trump politically? And 46%. of the Democrats coalition in response to that survey question said definitely or probably yes it was staged more than the 39 percent who said no they didn't believe that that is some really like broken brained broken culture stuff there Kim I don't even know what to do with that Yeah, I don't either, but it's all part of, again, so when you have people, politicians in leading jobs, right? Like the folks that traditionally we looked at and we expect the stuff that comes out of their mouth.

To be true, when they are out there saying, you know, Donald Trump colluded with Russia, you know, Donald Trump, the suggestion of paedophilia and Epstein, even though we all know there's nothing in those documents that anyone's been able to find, when they stand there consistently and suggest, again, that this, that we are on a daily basis seeing the shredding of the Constitution and a dictatorial rise of a king. who's taking over and getting rid of all basic civil liberties, again, simply not true, then people are willing to believe almost anything. And this is the concern. I mean, I think there are some other issues to talk to here about slipping trust in the media and in other institutions that are broader. But a lot of this is caused by leading political figures who will not reign in their rhetoric. Oh, I mean, you look at just in the last 24 hours the Supreme Court made there, I think, correct decision against racial discrimination and racial gerrymandering. That came down yesterday. You had the former DNC chairman, Jamie Harrison, saying this is the worst court in the history of the country. He said, yes, including the court that was pro-slavery. That's a completely unhinged thing to say. But that's the DNC chairman until very recently, not some fringe, you know, Reddit commenter. And you had Hakeem Jeffries. the House minority leader who wants to be Speaker of the House threatening the Supreme Court saying that all options are on the table in dealing with the right-wing court in the future, basically hinting at or threatening potentially even court-packing, these are leaders in their coalition, not randos. Yeah, it's appalling. I mean, and again, you can see this reflected in other polls, which I'm sure are as disturbing to you as they are to me. I mean, the Supreme Court was the one institution that has maintained or traditionally maintained a lot more public trust and its actions and the way it worked. And by the way, I don't think the court has done anything to undermine that. Some individual members, I think, occasionally have been saying things about each other that are unfortunate and not helpful. But the way in which the court conducts itself continues to be very stately by comparison to anyone else. That full interview available online at Guy Benson.com, part of the free podcast, the whole show every day on demand, no charge. Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcast. When we come back at the home stretch, producer Christine is willing to fully concede that I was right about something. But will that make any difference in her actual decisions? floor coming up. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. 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 Thursday from the Pacific Northwest. Thanks so much for being here. Guy Benson.com podcast, always free. So I saw this headline. Students swap screens for stories. Dallas School District. book checkouts soar amid states' first cell phone ban for public schools. Jonathan Haidt, the professor who's been a leader on this whole issue, noting that when schools go phone-free, which is something that I have been passionately arguing for now for years at this point, and he's been very much one of the leading voices nationally in that conversation. Sorry, there's something wrong in my voice today. And he's been one of the... leading national voices in that conversation. He's noting that the outcomes are good. The events involving discipline go down because kids are better behaved. There's less of this distraction on phones, less of the bullying on phones. Kids are improving in their academic performance. There's laughter and chatter in hallways and in lunchrooms. People are once again actually interacting with one another, these kids, as opposed to sitting there, neck tilted downwards, looking at a screen. And now, at least out of Dallas, this new piece of information, kids are actually going to the library, checking out books and reading. It's just... Good on good on good. You hear about vicious cycles. This is a virtuous cycle. And I think it's insane for any adults not to be adopting cell phone bans in schools. And someone who was very much in on the insanity for a long time was cooking. I thought that... Smartphones in schools should be banned completely. Cookie was hardcore against that because she had her reasons, which I thought were weak. And months ago, I think she started to sort of concede that maybe based on all the data on academic performance and discipline and mental health and just everything, maybe I was right. as I often tend to be in my disagreements with cooks. Now that you've seen even more evidence, Christine, are you willing to totally throw in this towel? Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed. You just said, stop the insanity. Remember Susan Powder? That was her very famous line. But yes, I don't like doing this. And it's not going to be a regular thing, Guy Benson. But I think you're right. You mean admitting that I'm right? Yeah. It's not going to have it all the time. Because I am right most of the time. Let me ask you this, you're not, but let me ask you this. Are phones banned at your daughter's school? No. No, she has a phone. Do you let her take her phone to school? I do. I do. Okay, so you are admitting theoretically that I'm right, and yet you are not implementing the thing into your own life and your own daughter's life. That's correct. Why?

Well, first of all, I just learned about this news. So thanks for bringing it to my attention. Second of all, I'm still terrified that if she needs to get to mommy, that's the quickest way. And I will have to talk. Okay, so you actually haven't changed your position at all. You look at all the data. You're like, Guy is right, but I'm going to keep doing the wrong thing because of my irrational fear. It's not irrational. It's a parent fear that is not irrational. So you, there's two things can be right. Uh-huh. When you were in elementary and middle school back in the 60s and 70s, they didn't have cell phones. And if you needed to get in touch with your parents, you would go down to the office. Yes. You would say, I need to call home, and that's how it would work. There are now many other options to get in touch with you if she needs to. You also work in the city. It's not like you could do something immediately anyway if she needed something. So why not look at all of the positives and... actually implement that reality into the life of the child that you're in charge of, rather than coming on the radio and saying, oh, I guess you're right after all, but I'm going to do nothing about it with my own kid. I don't understand it. I don't understand it either. And I just think two things can be right. I think my fear is rational and just. And I think your facts are right. I do. I see it all around. I see like a lot of people and a lot of kids are getting off their phones more. Obviously it would be better and beneficial to anybody, not just kids. But yes, there's still that little fear inside of me saying if Megan needs to get to me or talk to me, this is the best way to do that. Now, if I find out... Does she have your phone number memorized? Yes. She definitely has Bobby's. Okay. In the event of needing something... She could find a telephone in the building and call you. No, no, no. It doesn't work like that. If there's something, God forbid, going on it. It is. It's how we both did it. It's how we did it actually going up. It's exactly how it works. You know what happened when I would go to the office and say, I want to call my mom and they would call her? I would hear her through the phone going, she doesn't need to talk to me until later and click. She would hang up the phone. See, that's good parenting, actually, for the most part. We need more of that, in my opinion. Judge E. Joyce was right. And obviously, you wouldn't say that. You would say, yes, of course, I'll speak to her right away. What's the problem? And then she could talk to you. And then if it's a very urgent thing, you can deal with it. And if it's not, you can say, Megan, this is not the reason to call. And it would actually focus her further and realize that she's more independent and has to like take care of issues when she's at school. And she seems bright and capable. She should be fine. Yes. I mean, she's very level. She's level-headed. She's not going to bring the phone out if you're not supposed to. The only thing we had to talk to her about was she was bringing her phone out around lunchtime to text Bobby and I just asking, what are we thinking about for dinner? So we had to say that's not a good use of your phone. So listen, am I going to take the phone away from her going to school? What do you think? What do you think, Dylan? No. The answer is now. Yeah. But I get what you're saying. So it's a win-win for everybody. Do you make her leave her phone like downstairs in the kitchen or with you guys when she goes to bed or do you let her have the phone with her in bed?

I know the right answer. Because that is like, that is like well known to be extremely negative for kids. And there's a high correlation with like suicide attempts and all sorts of horrible things when they're late at night on their phones by themselves unsupervised. Like you can make a lot of excuses for other habits. But. Having the phone in bed at night is like the biggest neon red flag flashing sign. Do not do it. What's your parenting position on that one, Cooks? I agree with you, but there's always an end. What if she needs to text you in the middle of the night? No, I mean, she really doesn't. She doesn't need the phone, and I could go into what if a robber comes in the house and she needs to call 911, but I feel like you're just going to. Pooh that. So I won't use that argument. That's really crazy. No, it's not. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Okay. Hold on. A robber comes in. The chances of a of a home invasion. Yes. In which her cell phone would make the difference between life and death. is such a remote scenario compared to the oodles of data that especially younger, like, tween and teenage girls at night having their phones by themselves is extremely detrimental to their mental health. How old is your daughter? It's a tween age girl. Is that correct? She's 13, but there is no social media on her phone. that you're aware of. Oh, she better not. Oh, she wouldn't. How would you know she's got it on her at all times? Because she's not allowed to download anything. It has to get approved by us. Anything she downloads or like say she wanted to download Instagram, that has to get approved by us. She can't just go do it. Can she browse the internet? She does. She does. Okay. I mean, I have nothing else I can add to this other than. you're conceding that I'm right. Yes. Actually is so empty if you're not implementing any of the lessons. This is what happens with us. I give you good advice. You ignore it. It takes you like a year. And then you realize I was right. And then you change absolutely nothing. And that's fine because Cookie makes bad decisions. But these are bad decisions for Megan. So I'll go home tonight and be like Guy Benson says, give me your phone. Hand it over right now. What I would say is talk to Bobby, although I'll talk to Bobby right now because he listens Bobby, Google teenagers and girls' smartphones at night. Just Google it and then decide from there. And you might have to man up and make a parental decision here as the dad because the mom's worried about the home intruder. There's not a cost-benefit analysis happening here. Real fear. It's a real fear. I mean, it might be a real fear, but it's not a rational fear. Those are different things. Didn't she just have a phone problem on vacation? Well, yeah, she completely broke her phone. So she didn't have a phone on vacation. There's a solution. Just don't replace it. Well, well, first of all, it's a very expensive phone. And second of all, she, for her birthday, somebody got her one of those little pouches that apparently if you put your phone in.

she could go into the water with it and put it under the water, like go into the ocean and go into the pool. And we had explained her, don't do that. Even though someone bought that for you, that's not a good idea. And why would you need to do that anyway? Do not do that. Well, she did it. And just one quick thing. Did you also tell her that she's not allowed to be on social media on her phone? That's different. I don't. Is it? Sort of. I don't think I want to do this topic with you. You just told her not to do something with her phone on vacation. Yeah. And she explicitly did it. But you're saying don't worry about all the mental health problems was because the phone was broken. That's true. Yeah, that's true. I don't like this. Because she want to get back on that phone that doesn't have social media, I'm sure. It doesn't. She would, there would be a very, well, anyway, we said her. We said, you were told. not to do something. And you did it anyway. So now you will have no phone for the rest of this trip. You will not use our phones for the rest of the trip. And when we get back, if the phone cannot be fixed, you will have no more phone. That's it. And then Bobby took it. And how did that end? The phone was able to be fixed. But it cost a lot of money. So we told her, fork it over. Like, we're not just going to pay for your mistakes. You have to pay for your mistakes. Now, we didn't make her pay the whole thing. That's good. But my little wheel and dealer, she goes, all right. And I know she has cash on her because she just had a birthday. She starts pulling out all the gift cards. She goes, and she's like dropping them down. She's like, All right. How about a $50 target card? You want that? Sure, I'll take that. How about a Sephora gift? She's giving you gift cards? She's paying me in gift cards. I got a Sephora gift card. Oh, man. She is a wheeler and dealer. Back to her days, back to her days as a bracelet monger at school where she got in trouble for selling little. bead bracelets to the older kids. I remember that as well. She's got an entrepreneurial spirit. That's definitely true. But Bobby, again, Google the data on nighttime phone use, especially for girls of a certain age. Trust me on that. Christine admits I'm right, but won't do anything about it. So I think, you know, it's got to be dad to dad. It's got to be you. And now I've got to go. Got an event this evening out here in the Pacific Northwest, delighted to be here. It's beautiful. Despite the crazy politics, it is beautiful out here. More on that tomorrow. When we come back on Guy Benson in 21 hours, we'll talk to you then. I'll go home tonight and be like Guy Benson says, give me your phone. Hand it over right now.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.