Again: Yet Another "Sanctuary" Murder

At Walmart, we're helping our associates build meaningful careers. One way we're doing that, investing $1 billion in training and education. Last year, more than 100,000 associates earned promotions. Combined with benefits like 401K matching and paid parental leave, we're proving that Walmart isn't just a place to work, it's a place to grow. Learn more at walmart.com slash grow at Walmart. From the heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson. It is Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. Hello, everyone. I'm Guy Benson. Welcome to Guy Benson. We're here together, as we are every weekday, between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern Time, and then around the clock for free on our podcast at Guy Benson.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm a political analyst at Fox News, a senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. We'll get to our radio lineup here in just a moment, but first a reminder that if you'd like to get in touch with us, you can do so a few ways, including our email, GBS at fox.com. You can also follow us on social at Guy Benson's show. Follow me while you're at it. My personal accounts, Guy Benson. On the program today, we have two members of Congress as DHS remains shut down, Congress out of town. I have some thoughts on that, obviously, and some questions. We'll talk to Chip Roy about it later this hour, Republican from Texas. We'll also talk to Kat Cammack of Florida in our final hour, sandwiched in between. We'll get an update from the ground in the Middle East live. Jonathan Hunt is in Tel Aviv. And then Josh Kressauer on some political stories that we have been following. That's the lineup today. I want to begin on a subject and a theme that I have been flogging now for quite some time, and you might think, all right, dog with a bone, we get it, guy. I'm not going to stop. I cannot believe that in our country, we have large portions of the nation under so-called sanctuary laws. where illegal immigrants are protected, shielded, empowered by the politicians who run those jurisdictions. And I know this is not new news per se. Sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, this has been a controversy now for many years, but especially these days, given all the attention being paid to ICE and internal immigration enforcement, and opposition to enforcing our laws, because that's what's driving much of what the Democrats are up to these days. The reason why the Homeland Security Agency is shut down is because Democrats fundamentally don't believe in enforcing our immigration laws. They don't. They don't. In 2020, I guess it was 2019 leading up to that cycle, at a presidential debate on the Democrat side.

A question that was posed to the entire field running for president, do you support decriminalizing illegal border crossings? Nearly every hand went up. They also asked, do you support taxpayer-funded free health care coverage for illegal immigrants? All the hands went up. So this is a pro-illegal immigration party that incentivizes illegal immigration with their policies. They are hoping that in the midterm elections coming up, people are fed up enough with Donald Trump and affordability and all these other issues. And I think some of them are very fair. Republicans doing themselves no favors in some regards right now. But they are hoping that they can sort of gloss over their own extremism, which continues to make them actually anathema to many voters. And the polls continue to show while the Republicans are really hemorrhaging. And President Trump's approval rating has come down in the number of the polls, although a few of them are better I've seen. But still, not great. The Democrats are even more unpopular. Yet, after a president wins an election and we seesaw back. In the other direction, one party is very motivated to turn out and vote, which is what we're seeing from Democrats. The other one is maybe complacent, fat and happy. The Republicans staying home more than they should. And independent swing voters saying, you know, we want a check and balance on the president. And so we're going to go the other direction. That's how you get these waves. That happened not infrequently in midterm elections. Democrats want those swing voters. to ignore or turn a blind eye to or paper over the real extremism that is driving their ideology that will be imposed once again on this country if the Democrats come back into power. And so I want to remind people, and I think that the lawlessness of sanctuary policies really help underscore it. Because if you ever poll... sanctuary policies and you ask people even in places like minnesota for example if there are illegal immigrants in custody for crimes alleged crimes should local and state authorities cooperate with federal authorities to hand them over for deportation that is a very popular proposition large majority supports that And yet, in these blue states, blue cities, the opposite is the policy where the locals and the state officials, they are not allowed to cooperate with ICE because ICE is the enemy. ICE is the specter of incipient fascism that they keep talking about. ICE are the thugs, not the illegal immigrant violent criminals. who empowering and assisting is just the cost to doing business in left-wing politics right now. And the result is killing. The result is lethal. The result is dangerous. The result is extremely irresponsible, and it's not just cherry-picking one example, because unfortunately, we could rattle off example after example after example after example.

including just a few in the last few weeks in Virginia, Stephanie Minter, where officials there, including the so-called moderate governor, perfect example of this bait and switch that I'm talking about, how they campaign versus how they govern. The Democrats in Virginia look at the murder of Stephanie Minter by an illegal immigrant with 40 prior charges, and they have absolutely dug their heels in. on sanctuary policies, not just keeping the status quo, but expanding those policies statewide. They see the murder of Stephanie Minter and say, we're going to stick with what led to this. Same with Illinois and Chicago, J.B. Pritzker and Johnson, and the murder of Sheridan Gorman just a few days ago along the lakefront in that city that is being so poorly served by its terrible leadership at the city and state level. There was an opportunity to revisit sanctuary policies last year, and at the behest of the mayor and certainly the governor's on board, the city council said no, overwhelmingly. And even with Sheridan Gorman, having been murdered in cold blood by someone with no right to be here with a criminal record being shielded by sanctuary policies, the mayor is giving interviews talking about how we have to stop the rhetorical attacks on immigrants. That's his focus at the moment. So we talked about Virginia and the East Coast, and of course we see what's happening in Zohran Mamdani's New York. He's on board for all of this. We talked about Middle America and the city of Chicago. Let's go to the West Coast. Here's a story that I saw this morning in the New York Post. The Department of Homeland Security slammed a California county for not honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, a detainer. A request that was made for two illegal aliens now accused of murdering a 24-year-old mother earlier this month. So here are two illegal immigrants. Sanctuary County in California refusing an ICE detainer for these two illegal immigrants who now stand accused of murdering yet another young woman. They are both Honduran nationals. And they've both been arrested now in Santa Clara County for allegedly killing Kimberly Flores with a shotgun earlier this year. One of the suspects is the father of the victim's five-year-old son. Now listen to this. This accused murderer was previously arrested, I'm quoting from the story, previously arrested in 2018 for battery and false imprisonment, and subsequently in 2019, again for domestic battery and threatening crime with the intent of terrorizing per DHS records. He was released back into California without ICE being notified both in 2018 and 2019. The alleged accomplice to that killer, listen to this, had an outstanding arrest warrant from New Jersey for the homicide of a 55-year-old in March of last year, according to DHS. He had been deported from the United States in 2013, then again in 2018. He illegally re-entered the country at an unknown date and time before allegedly murdering both the man in New Jersey and the woman in California.

And the local politicians decided that the people who had actually captured this guy and put handcuffs on him after domestic abuse and false imprisonment and all that stuff, they could not, literally could not, not allowed to pick up the phone to ICE and say, hey, we've got this guy. Let's hand him over to you behind bars and you can get rid of him. Nope. That is illegal under sanctuary policies and places like this. And so back out he went. And now this woman. is dead. Another, yet another murder victim. Kimberly Flores. A woman of color, by the way, in case people care about that, keeping score at home. Maybe some of the white people getting murdered. That's, you know, too bad. I don't want to talk about that. What about a woman of color? I don't know really how to appeal to the collective conscience, the collective conscience of the Democrat Party that enables this sort of thing. There is absolutely zero public interest served. By allowing people who have committed violent crimes in our country who are illegal immigrants to put them back out on the street while barring cooperation with federal authorities to deport them. There is no public interest served. There is, in fact, a public safety extreme hazard in doing so. And yet that is the official policy in the name of progress. in places like this. And the body count keeps rising. Not that long ago, the Democrats had a big campaign, 2012, where Mitt Romney was the devil. Remember Mitt Romney, the awful gargoyle. And the theme of that campaign, one of them was war on women. They were talking about abortion. They were making up lies about contraception. Here we have a war on women. with a body count committed by people who have no legal right to be present here, who have been without exception in the cases I've been talking about, arrested previously for other crimes. And the system that Democrats have created in these places, as I keep saying, are not failing the victims. The system is working as they have designed it to work. And the blood on the hands thing, I think is overwrought, overused in our politics. I don't know how else to put it in cases like this. Here is another dead young woman, absolutely avoidable, should have been avoided, but it was guaranteed to happen because of the policies of these sanctuary politicians who have the gall to pretend that they are the compassionate ones fighting for progress. And as long as these crimes keep happening, we're going to keep covering them because God knows a bunch of other journals are not going to do it because they don't want to because they agree with the radical extreme policies and partisan ideological priorities, even if it means putting the public at risk because politics above all else is the rallying cry here and someone has to fight it. Someone.

And we are proud to be a part of that. I wish we didn't have to. It's crazy. It is absolutely crazy. I wish we could just solve it and say, hey, remember that crazy thing we helped defeat? It's all gone now. Thank God we can move on. Nope. If anything, moving deeper into madness on this stuff. We are just getting started on Guy Benson on this Tuesday. Stay tuned. Fresh conservative talk, Guy Benson. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FM Radio 20. 20%. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 older to order. Please drink responsibly. I'm Guy Benson. We're back. We're doing kind of an extended quote-unquote progress report on progressive governance. Here's a soft-on-crime element to all of it out of Illinois, Chicago land, WLS territory. WGN TV had this brief report, cut 35 listen. The police arrested Alexis Laura last night after responding to a disturbance call. They found him behind the wheel of an SUV with his 22-month-old child in the back seat. The officers also saw several open bottles of beer. His blood alcohol level came back as 0.208, according to police, which is more than twice the legal limit. Despite being on probation for a previous DUI, the DuPage County State's attorney says the Safety Act tied the judge's hands in the way that Laura would be released. The Safety Act is what Governor J.B. Pritzker called it. Safety. Isn't it so safe to have someone on probation for DUI? back out behind the wheel, drinking and driving this time with a young child in the car. Thank you, Safety Act. And J.B. Pritzker, this is what you have empowered with your so-called progress. They call it justice. Feels like something very different. Congressman Chip Roy up next.

I'm Guy Benson. We are back on Guy Benson, Guy Benson.com, our online home, the podcast, free every day on demand. Joining us now, Congressman Chip Roy from Texas 21. He is running for Attorney General of the state of Texas as well. Congressman, great to have you here. Guy, great to found. I hope you're doing well. I'm doing well, although I have to say I'm fairly exasperated right now with almost everyone in Washington because you've got the Democrats who have caused this DHS shutdown and all the pain and harm that has been inflicted as a result of it, and they've done it over and over again, gleefully doubling down. Apparently they feel like this is a political winner, or at least not a political loser for them. consequences be damned because they want to show how much they hate ice and donald trump so that's what they're doing and then the republicans and i know that you're often critical of your own party so i'm not lumping you in necessarily on this but the republicans which control theoretically both chambers of congress passed bills that are incompatible with each other and then left so The unresolved issue continues. The Democrats can say, look, the Republicans can't even agree with each other. And meanwhile, you guys are like gone on recess for a couple weeks. I think to the average voter, and even to someone like me who pays close attention, I cannot make sense of the choices being made right now. Help me. Well, Guy, I'm in the same camp as you are. And, you know, when we voted, obviously we stayed an extra day late night, Friday to try to pass a bill we thought was responsible in the House that funded all of DHS. You can debate the strategy or not, to your point. I stayed through Saturday. A lot of my colleagues took off. I stayed well into Saturday. I didn't leave until 5 p.m. Saturday when it was clear to me, we couldn't get people back. But I thought we ought to be staying and doing our job. I still think that. I think we ought to go back. Look, we need to use reconciliation. Let's do it. If we need to pass more appropriations bills to put pressure on Democrats. let's take whatever steps we need to do to get it done. But there's too much at stake right now. While we've got this conflict in Iran, while we've got issues here at home with terrorist activities, where we've got now the Coast Guard and ICE and Border Patrol and FEMA and all of these, and TSA, obviously, all these agencies that are dealing with lack of funding. And by the way, we cannot keep funding it by moving money around. We still hit a wall on that. They're in the big beautiful bill last year that gives us flexibility to deal with Democrats. You don't seem to care about the security and safety of the country. But like I said this morning on Harris Faulkner on Fox, look, I just think we need to do our job. We need to be present. We need to show up. But also, Republicans need to be as aggressive in favor of the American people and protecting our country and getting things funded and standing with our men and women in uniform as Democrats are, you know, in lockstep with the illegal aliens and criminals that they seem to want to support.

We've got to stand up stronger and unite to get it done. I think we're all united to fund DHS for just disagreeing on tactics, so we should go back to town and fix it. Okay, so I agree with that point for sure. I want to ask you just a couple technical questions because we've said many times on this show, and it is largely true, and you just repeated it, that the big beautiful bill, working families, tax cut bill last year funded. ICE operations and those agents have been getting paid this whole time. That's one of the real ironies of this. They've shut down DHS withholding paychecks for all these workers while ICE is still operational and still getting paid because you guys funded them last year as you sort of preempted this, saw what might be coming and decided to get ahead of it. So that was a smart move by the Republicans last year. And so much of this really is just a show, a very painful, harmful show by the Democrats. So we keep saying, well, DHS isn't funded, but ICE already is. So what's the concern here about passing the funding for DHS minus ICE if they're already funded? I know my colleague here, Bill Malugian, has said much of ICE is funded and the frontline agents are funded, but there's other people within the agency that aren't getting paid. Can you just explain, like, why is it important? to have more funding for ICE right now while the Democrats are making a stink about it, if the talking point has been ICE has already funded? So I think there are three or four things at play here. First of all, when we say, quote, ICE is already funded, what we're really saying is we put a pot of money in place last summer to give flexibility to the president to his team and Russ voted OMB to be able to use funds. within DHS to be able to advance the priorities of removal operations and building the wall and other priorities. We can use that money flexibly to do certain things. And that is what the president at OMB are doing. But it is not a full replacement for appropriations. To Bill Malugian's point and his great reporting, and in fact, I mentioned this in the Rules Committee last week in debate, that there are civilian and support staff, other important elements of Department of Homeland Security and ICE that are not fully funded. I was also told that HCI, the investigative arm of ICE, is responsible for going after a lot of the child, sex trafficking, and so forth, they are not also fully funded. So we do not have full operations and capacity at the moment, and we should. That's number one. Number two, we should not zero out ICE and Border Patrol as the new baseline in appropriations. You know, that's a mistake for us to isolate them. Explain that. Sorry to just to jump in. I think that's a really important point, but it gets into sort of like, you know, budget wonkery. Explain why what you just said matters, because I think moving forward in terms of a precedent, you're absolutely right. So make this point.

Yeah, so when we do our appropriations, right, we're supposed to responsibly fund all of government. Obviously, every year we have battles and we do things called continuing resolutions or we build off of last year's funding. Now, you and I probably agree that we need lots of reforms to the budget process. But as a matter of the way we do things every year, what zeroing out ICE and Border Patrol means is that they're zeroed out through September. If we get to the end of September in an election year and we're doing a continuing resolution, what do you think happens in October? It means ICE and Border Patrol are continued at $0. And you've now zeroed out their budget, set that as the new baseline. And that complicates things for being able to move forward into the next fiscal year and keep the operations going. We need to fund them at the normal levels. Now, look, can we go to reconciliation to beat the Democrats right now and fund ICE and Border Patrol or other elements of DHS for two or three or five years into the future? Yes, we can and we may have to do that because Democrats do not want to do the right thing. But that is a sticky wicket. That is a dangerous proposition because we're now pulling out of the normal appropriations process this funding for Homeland Security. But we may have to do it because Democrats refuse to do what is right and fund our... law enforcement personnel within DHS. Okay, a couple more things here. One has to do with this temporary paying of TSA agents. President Trump signed an executive order, and my understanding from DHS is... Some of that money is now flowing into the bank accounts of the TSA agents that does not apply to all the many other DHS employees who are still not getting paid. But TSA, with all the painful, you know, chaotic lines at airports and all of that, I think that was causing a problem for politicians of both parties. So, all right, let's get TSA at least backfilled and back paid a little bit. Is that because the Democrats are insisting that TSA be paid, but they don't want to actually do it through funding. DHS, and now they're criticizing President Trump for doing something illegally because they have the power of the purse. I obviously think that these... agents should be getting paid for the work that they're being forced to do while Washington is being completely ridiculous and playing politics with their paychecks yet again for the second time in the last, you know, calendar year. But I also do believe that we can't just have presidents willy-nilly deciding something ought to be done so they're going to do it if they don't have the power to do it. I know that you care about those distinctions too constitutionally. Is this temporary stopgap?

back pay maneuver by Trump legal? Well, that's a really good question. And I'm careful enough of an attorney and a believer in separation of powers that I'm not going to give you a blanket answer without having studied it, right? So I do not know the answer. I've not studied it like a lawyer that would have to defend it in court. But what I will tell you is this, two things. One, I do believe that the president and the OMB director have a lot of latitude within the realm of emergency powers, maybe too much latitude. That's a different debate, right? Because we've given a lot of that and has power to be able to deal with things. Again, when you're talking about Homeland Security and TSA and people coming in and out of our country and protecting safe travel and so forth. The president deems that emergency. I think he has a great deal of flexibility. I've not studied the contours of the law and how far it would go. Anything, generally speaking, that is temporary, has a lot more flexibility, as you know, right? The longer term that he would do that, the more you run into issues as to, well, how much power can he exercise there? Just like the tariffs debate or just like anything else. The problem we've got here is when you've got a party that refuses to do the basic functioning, you know, the basic job of a functioning government, then you leave a president who's got to execute with little choice, but to say, well, I've got a job to do, and we've got to make sure that our people are secure as they move through the country and that we don't allow terrorists to come in and we're checking them and so forth. So, look, I don't think it is the right, the best way to do business. But I think the president is right to move funds around. And I trust Russ Vought and the lawyers over the administration to be trying to do this the right way. And look, we can have hearings and we can review it. But I can tell you this, I'm not going to worry about it for two weeks or four weeks or six weeks. If we were two years into this, then I'd say, well, maybe that's a constitutional question, right? If you get my difference. Yeah, and it's also just unsustainable, right? It might be technically legal now. They've kind of left him no choice because of, you know, he's presiding over all of this. And when things go badly, they're going to blame him for it. It's sort of this catch-22 that they've set up. And they seem to be paying very little political price for it. So they're very emboldened to keep being totally shamelessly about it. It's not sustainable in the even medium term. So that comes back to your point about how this has to be actually addressed substantively, which it has not been. And I think, again, it seems like you and I agree it's a bad look for Congress to be in recess. Different photos cropping up of members all over the country in Vegas at Disney World having a real Housewives watch party while all of this is still going on having not actually been solved. One other thing I want to flag here because part of what the Democrats are blocking. in the DHS funding is border patrol. It's not just ICE. And to me, this is significant. This is a tell because the Democrats, I'm not surprised at all that they are demonizing ICE and going after them and trying to defund and abolish an internal enforcement agency because they don't believe in the work. But the Democrats at least recently have tried to pretend more like they support the secure border, even, of course,

They didn't. Their policies were exactly the opposite. Trump came in and solved the problem. So many of them are saying, okay, well, you know, we went too far and then the closed border is a good thing. And yet, on border patrol, not ICE, on border patrol, they're also playing games with the funding for them, Congressman. I think that is an underplayed element of what the Democrats are up to right now. I could not agree more. And in fact, a guy on Thursday night, when this was all kind of going down and then wake up Friday morning seeing what the Senate had done, I went to bed thinking I was not thrilled, but that I could accept the debate of them possibly passing the bill without ICE ERO funding. That is the internal enforcement and removal operations, right? I thought, okay, I get that they have an issue with that over the very – you know, I disagree. I think we should fund it, right? And that's my position, fully, fully funded. That's my position, to be clear. But was I willing to go, all right, on Friday, let's fund everything except for that, and then we'll figure out how to deal with that in reconciliation? Yeah, I was – Chewing on that, and we were trying to work through what we might do. But then I woke up to see that it was Border Patrol and ICE that were zeroed out. They weren't even just not funded. They literally said zero dollars in the line, which raised the issue that I already articulated in this call about the baseline. It raised the issue that it's zeroed out, and now I'm worried about how the administration can move money around and that they're hitting a wall on it. I don't know that we can get a reconciliation 2.0 done fast enough. It leaves them isolated and dangling, and it sends the message to the world that Congress says we shouldn't be funding ICE in Border Patrol. I just disagreed. If you had that half or that portion of ICE that is ERO, I would disagree, but I could have probably said, all right, to get everything else funded, let's fund it. Don't zero it out, just don't fund ERO, and then we can come back and debate that, figure it out in reconciliation. But we didn't do that. And I had a real problem, and I'm really glad you picked up on that because the not funding of Border Patrol, when they're doing God's work to keep us safe and secure the border for the first time in five years, you have this last year. No, it's like it's a blanket opposition to enforcing immigration laws, both at the border and internally, which I think is very telling about. where the Democrats are and what they would do if they get power back. Very quickly, Congressman, before I let you go, you and I've talked a lot about the Save America Act. Let's say that doesn't end up passing because of various dynamics in the Senate. which I think is likely. I did see, I've mentioned this to a couple of your colleagues' House and Senate, Chuck Schumer surprised me the other day and said, actually, we Democrats are not against voter ID. And I know that they've tried to call them on that bluff a few times here with a unanimous consent and an amendment to a bill.

Would you support at some point down the line a standalone, simple, clean voter ID bill with nothing else attached to it to see if Chuck Schumer actually meant that or it's just like another PR lie? Well, you know, we had conversations about that even on Friday. In fact, some of the conservative Freedom Caucus, we were offering some suggestions to the speaker about sending the funding bill back over to the Senate with voter ID attached. Yeah, I have no problem isolating it if that's what we need to do. I do think it's important that we not lose the pieces on the citizenship issue. Right. I actually think there are things we could do on that about voter roll checking. and try to avoid some of the controversy over any burden on citizens about demonstrating citizenship. I don't think it's a burden. I think it ought to be in there. But nevertheless, there are things we can do to answer your question, yes. And voter ID is one of them. Those are all important provisions. I think all of the Save America Act is important, as I know you do too. But I'm open to whatever we need to do to try to improve our country. So I'd be happy to do that. You know, I know the Senate's tried some. We could try some. I just think we've got to just start moving the ball forward on some of these important issues. But we suggested, as conservatives, the possibility of throwing voter ID into the mix. And I hope we will continue it. I'm just saying if Chuck Schumer said Democrats are for voter ID, it's like, all right, let's test that proposition. I think I know how it would go, but it could also help make yet another point here, although a lot of people are getting sick of making points. Congressman Chip Roy of Texas 21 on Guy Benson, Congressman appreciate your time today. Happy Easter, everybody. Happy Easter, Guy. Likewise. We'll be right back after this short break. A fresh take on the biggest stories of the day. It's Guy Benson. Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat, emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better. Every plan, $15 dollars a month a month, even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending, zero tiers. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upbron payment of $45 for three months, $90 for $1.20 for $12-month plan required to $50.com. See terms. Welcome back to Guy Benson. I have to tell you about a minor miracle that I experienced. I actually saw a television commercial in Virginia opposing the Democrats' gerrymandering scheme on April 21st. With the early voting already underway, I voted. Adams voted no, obviously. I had not seen one ad opposing this thing. And I'd seen, like, literally, probably more than 100 ads in favor of it, dating back to the Olympics and March Madness and all of it that's blanketing the airwaves. Finally, I saw one in the other direction.

It was not targeting a voter like me, by the way, but fine. At least it's something I see Glenn Youngkin is going to be doing some rallies. I don't know how this thing's polling. The Democrats are outspending by a fortune, the no side. $38 million in counting, including from dark money and billionaires like George Soros. Huge issue nationally, I think. Another hour coming up. 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 Well, look what we have here, a brand new, fresh hour of Guy Benson coming your way. Thank you so much for being with us. Guy Benson.com, the website podcast, free every day on demand. Fox News alert as we hit the middle hour. Whoa, the Dow going crazy today, up 1,125 points at the closing bell. And I think a lot of that was due to comments from our president and some Iranian officials perhaps signaling an end in sight for the conflict. Maybe something that gets negotiated. A lot of this is just speculation, but at least an upbeat feeling on Wall Street today about it, more than a thousand points in the green. The Dow closing today up 46,341. That was the number at the bell. And that market update brought to you by Americans for Prosperity. AFP has a mission based on timeless principles, expanding freedom and opportunity for every single American. They've got a lot going on for America 250 as well. Find out more. Join them. Americansforprosperity.org slash guy. With that, I want to go live to Tel Aviv Israel. Jonathan Hunt, chief correspondent here at Fox News, is on the ground in the Middle East, covering everything that's been happening now over the last couple of days. Jonathan, it's good to have you back on the show. What is the latest in Israel? What can you tell us? Well, what we've seen is, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier today, a continued bombardment day and night by Israel and the United States of targets in Iran. They're after the military targets. They are after Islamic Republic regime targets, obviously. There has been some suggestion from Iranian quarters that a lot of civilians are getting caught up in those attacks. We have no way. of verifying those claims, of course. And then on the flip side of it, you have Iran continuing its attacks. We've had, I would say, it's hard to keep track sometimes, guys. But I would say we've had five or six incoming missile alerts here in Tel Aviv alone over the last 24 hours. We have had some impacts from those cluster munitions, which are the missiles which break up at high altitude.

and then drop in about like two dozen or even more sort of smaller bomblets, and they can cause great damage on the ground. Obviously, if you're underneath one of those, it will kill you. Fortunately, no fatalities over the last 24 hours. A few people on the ground are injured, though. And it's a terrifying way to live for everybody, whether you're in central Israel, where we are now in Tel Aviv, whether you're in the north or the south, to live under the constant threat of that, the constant... running to bomb shelters is really one of the extraordinary things you get a real sense of when you're here guy is just what a life it is for the people of Israel to live, and they've lived it for such a long time now. Everybody wants to see an end to this war, but they want to see an end that is done right as well, Guy. Yeah, and those cluster bombs, by the way, over civilian targets, it's a war crime by the Iranians. This is one thing to add into it. There was video that went everywhere yesterday on social media, Jonathan, from Isfahan in Iran, that showed... Allied bombings, the U.S., Israel bombings of some sort of a weapon site. deep inside Iran, and then just absolutely enormous secondary explosions. And the reporting seems to be that that was a major, major weapons depot and missile location, including underground, that it seems that the U.S. and Israel was able to sniff out, locate, and destroy. And it was the secondary explosions that really told the tale. Meanwhile, you talked about the attacks against Israel. There have been a lot of them. And it's torturous for the people of Israel, although, as you said, they want the war to be won. But we've also seen a lot of attacks from the Iranian regime against Arab neighbors. The majority of a lot of these missile attacks have not been directed at Israel, but rather at other countries, including the UAE. That's an interesting twist on this conflict as compared to previous ones, right? Yeah, it's fascinating. surprised a lot of people when this all started. And you're right about the numbers. We checked them just a few days ago. And if I remember correctly, it was something like 85%. of all the strikes from Iran have been aimed at Gulf nations, and 15% of them aimed at Israel. That's still a huge number aimed at Israel, but the vast majority aimed at Iran's Gulf neighbors, which is extraordinary, and it has left a lot of the Gulf countries saying to President Trump, you need to finish this, you need to bring about a long-lasting change. This we can't.

not go back to the Iran that is allowed to keep an Islamic Republic, a hardline Islamic Republic, that just wants to rebuild its weapon stock, re-pursue again a nuclear option. So the Gulf Nations, they have been absolutely shocked by this. And we saw, yeah, a couple of important ones attacks last night from Iran, one in particular on a Kuwaiti-flagged tanker. that was anchored off of Dubai at the United Arab Emirates. That was hit. There was a fire on board. Nobody was hurt, thankfully. But it was a very strong message from Iran that if we, Iran, don't like you, in this case, Kuwaiti flank tanker, you are not going to be allowed through the Strait of Hormuz. And that is a bet. Technically speaking, because it was anchored off of Dubai, it was not in the Strait, but it was close to the Strait. And that was a very clear message to the Gulf Nations that if you don't play our game, Iran's game, and at the moment, what they want to do is charge up to 2 million per tanker for any tankers to go through, then we are not going to let you through. And we reserve the right to fire on your ship. So very strong message and one that really disturbs the Gulf Nations. Which is why they're siding with the United States and Israel pretty strongly in all of this. Jonathan Hunt is live in Tel Aviv, Israel covering all of this. Jonathan, stay safe. Thank you very much for that report. You're welcome, guy. Good to be with you. I want to turn to some perhaps surprising words of wisdom on this conflict from one Stephen A. Smith. the sports commentator. He was on Bill Maher's HBO show. He said this on Friday night, Cut 11. You got a lot of damn nerves to be in the face of American people saying for numerous administrations. Iran is a problem. Iran is a problem. They have to be dealt with. And then this man deals with him. And then all of a sudden you're complaining about him now. It doesn't really make sense. It's a lack of the system. Yeah. Iran can never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. That was the consistent position of the United States government for decades. Trump is ensuring that and half the countries now strongly against it for political reasons. Iran's a problem. We stand with the people of Iran. Those are empty words if you then look at what we're achieving and oppose it, in my view. More of Guy Benson coming up, a woke tales type segment next. Guy Benson, more next. I'm Guy Benson, welcome back. Factor follow-up on a story that we brought you yesterday from Providence, Rhode Island. There was this mural that was being painted of Irina Zarutka, who was the Ukrainian immigrant, the Ukrainian refugee, who was escaping the war that Russia has visited upon her home country, came to the United States, was living in North Carolina, and was taking public transit one night when she was brutally and viciously attacked and murdered, from behind, stabbed repeatedly and killed.

And horrifyingly, there is footage of this, surveillance footage, in the train of this attack, which was totally unprompted. And the assailant was someone with multiple previous arrests, I believe at least 14 prior arrests, and violent tendencies, deep mental illness problems. And yet, the system... in all of its glory and wisdom, of course, in the name of progress and equity and justice, had let him out repeatedly and refused to keep him confined. These are decisions that were made by various judges and prosecutors through the years. So he was out walking free to do what he did to poor Irina Zarutka. And in her honor, murals of her as a victim have gone up around the country. I saw one was in New York City where it's been vandalized, where the vandals actually urged other people to deface that mural, and they spray painted over her face, over the face of a murder victim. That's in New York City, because they felt like these murals. are a political statement in favor of tough on crime policies, which they are. So they decide they don't like the political art, so they have to either destroy it or erase it, censor it, which is what we're seeing in Providence, Rhode Island. And we brought you this story yesterday. There's this big exterior wall of actually a gay club in Providence where an artist had been commissioned to paint this large portrait of Irina. And this had become controversial because activists and politicians, Democrats, had decided that it was a bad political cause. Right. Tributes to this female murder victim refugee were just too problematic for their progressive worldview. Why? Because conservatives and President Trump had drawn attention to this case and called for stricter laws when it comes to keeping dangerous people segregated from the population. Because... Elon Musk had helped fund the mural project. So that's strike two in their mind. And then strike three, there were explicitly racial grievances and complaints that were made about this because you had people good progressives in their own mind saying, well, what about all the black lives? Why are we painting this mural of a white woman? Because you have to have. a racial obsession angle to this as well. So they've decided that they were going to protest and cause a real stir over the mural in Rhode Island. And last we checked yesterday, the mural had been paused. It's actually rather creepy when you look at photos of it because you had the outline of her face and the beginning of her face being drawn, but the rest of it was just blank and incomplete when the project was paused.

And apparently you had a lot of people fighting for her face to never be completed because of all of the aforementioned so-called problems with this art. Progressives for art censorship is what we're looking at here. It's amazing. The update, the factor follow-up, as it were, is that they have succeeded in censoring the artwork and the mural will be taken down, never completed, painted over, erased as a matter of fact, because when it comes to the say-her-name phenomenon, there's an asterisk. Some victims need not apply. Cut 30, an update from WJAR, the NBC affiliate. Well, Emily, Gene, it's still here, but not for long. Artist Ian Goddreau tells me he's sad it's come to this point, but after calls from Mayor Smiley and other local leaders to remove the mural, it felt like only a matter of time before this happened. The artwork is going to be removed. Artist Ian Goddrow breaking the news to NBC10 Monday afternoon. The Irene Zarutzka mural is coming down. A lot of people voice their frustrations and voices were heard. And the work is coming down as a reaction to that. Imagine voicing your frustrations over something like this. And then your solution to the problem, quote unquote, is censoring art. Because you don't think the victim, a completely innocent person, by the way, is worthy of that sort of tribute because of the political baggage that surrounds her murder. And so you don't want people looking at that. You don't want people thinking about what that might mean. You don't want Elon Musk or Donald Trump to have won. And so bye-bye, Irene again, even in death. This is their approach. Yeah, the voices were heard. Voices like the mayor of Providence, a left-wing Democrat who called this artwork, again honoring the life and commemorating the murder of this asylum seeker woman. They've decided it's divisive in the community. So we can't have that. You also have a local state representative, a Democrat naturally, David Morales. of Rhode Island, who gave an interview to that same channel. And I'll just let you listen to his spin on this. Cut 23. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe. And we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence's values, nor does it reflect the creativity that we want to see in our city. Okay. Notice how he tries to rope in the journalist. We can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence's values. Well, I'm not sure if the journalist agrees because most journalists are left-wingers, probably, probably a good bet. Generally, a Democrat is fairly safe in the assumption that a journalist interviewing him or her agrees with them on whatever it might be. But it's still pretty bold to try to...

bring his extremism and project it onto the person who's conducting the interview. But did you catch that first sentence? We want to make sure every community member that calls Providence home feels safe. Because apparently seeing a mural of a murder victim that might not align with your political biases and bigotries, quite frankly, might make you feel unsafe. That's a reason to take down artwork. They are safetyisming this, a mural. They're doing it in the name of safety. If we want to talk about actual safety, as it really exists for people, we'd be talking about the murder of Irina Zarutka and the conditions that led to the man being out to drive a knife through her neck. That's an actual safety issue that pertains to her safety and public safety broadly. But that's not what... Representative David Morales is prioritizing. He's prioritizing the feeling of safety, not having to look at artwork that might make you feel uncomfortable about a political message that you disagree with. That's the safety and the feeling that he treasures for his community. Then he tries to say, well, we can both agree or all agree. The mural behind us does not reflect Providence's values. Maybe that's true. Maybe in these very left-wing places tributes to murder victims and not some sort of killing involving the police and not checking a specific identity box or political box on the left, even acknowledging crimes like that may not align with a community's values. I think it is an indictment of his values, certainly, and to the extent that it is reflective of the community's values, it's an indictment on that community. And then to top it off, the cherry on top, the mural also, quote, does not reflect the creativity that we want to see in our city. So artwork, we love artwork. We're good progressives. We love creativity, just not that kind. We love political statements and political art, just not that kind. So if we decide artwork does not reflect our values on one side of the spectrum, one end of the spectrum, and it might remind us that bad things happen and other people have different opinions, that's not the kind of art or creativity that we want. And so be gone. And so it will be. Art censorship for progress. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be right back.

Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Halfway through Guy Benson, Tuesday edition. Thanks for tuning in, Guy Benson.com, the website podcast, free every day on demand. With us now, Josh Krasauer, Fox News, radio political analyst, editor-in-chief at Jewish Insider. Josh, great to have you here. Guy, it's great to be back with you. We were covering this press conference a little bit yesterday during the show. I just want to touch on it again here because I think largely that news cycle passed us by very, very quickly. But federal authorities revealing or confirming that the attack by a man in Michigan on a synagogue. was a Hezbollah linked, Hezbollah-inspired terrorist attack designed to murder as many Jews, specifically children as possible. This was earlier in the month of March. And initially we had a number of media sources and even a candidate for Senate in Michigan, kind of downplaying the attack by suggesting that while, of course, to be sure, it's bad, no one should attack a synagogue. The perpetrator had family members who were killed by Israel in Lebanon, and so you kind of reap what you sow. That was the narrative that was seated there for a while. Then it turned out that the family members who were killed were actually members of Hezbollah, the adults. That would be a U.S. designated terrorist organization. They were taken out for good reason by the Israelis, even if that detail didn't exist. The fact that there were people kind of... adding quasi-defences into a story in the early hours of a synagogue attack by a jihadist was reprehensible. Now we know this was directly linked to this terror organization. And it feels like in much of the media, that news cycle is long gone. Yeah, it does seem like the... reality of a terrorist attack on American soil targeting children at a synagogue in Michigan that could have been just one of the most devastating terror attacks if his plot went through. I mean, this is a guy who made a video of his planned terrorist attack saying this is the largest gathering place for Israelis in the state of Michigan in the United States. I have booby trapped the car. I will forcefully enter and start shooting them. God willing, I will kill as many of them as I possibly can't. This is who we're talking about it. The Hezbo-inspired terror attack on American soil against Jews, against children.

And it is not registering like you would expect, like after, you know, the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, which really woke America up to the threat that Islamic terrorism posed in this country. We've been seeing more and more episodes like this. This is one of the most gut-wrenching because it came so close to being devastated and, you know, given what could have happened. But we've seemingly lost the vocabulary, especially on the left, of terrorism and the threat that terrorism poses to this country and the threat that... You know, the Iranian regime with it. Keep in mind it's a Iranian-backed terrorist group. Yes. And the fact that we've lost the vocabulary of speaking about terrorism, of speaking about extremism, of playing footsie with some of these radicals, really is alarming. And it's a dangerous time in our politics. Well, a lot of people on the left would say this entire conversation is Islamophobic, right? They kind of try to shut down these types of conversations because they don't want them to happen because it's very uncomfortable for their coalition. Speaking of. Senate candidate in that state of Michigan, this guy Abdul El-Sayed, he had put out a statement back and given a quote when this happened, patting himself on the back for taking the quote risk of condemning the terrorist attack against a synagogue in his own state. And then he, of course, did the what aboutism and the blame shift to Israel, which is, I think, indefensible and grotesque. That was part of the statement, but he thought it was really big of him, exhibiting leadership to take the risk to condemn a jihadist attack against Jews in his state. That's something of a revelation, Josh, when it comes to his mentality about the base of his party in his state. Yeah, look, El-Sayed is a candidate who has been trying to literally run a campaign based on attacking Israel and attacking A-PAC. And we've seen these leaks from his campaign or from someone in his campaign. Not just that guy, but he also talked about the death of Ayatollah in Iran. And he said he didn't want to talk about it on the campaign trail because. uh the you know that there are people that actually supported him in his community yeah in fact here's here's some of that leaked sound to the washington free beacon this was from a campaign internal call the voice you hear is this leading democrat for u.s senate he's not a fringe candidate he is very much in the mix to win the Senate nomination for Democrats in Michigan, cut six. I also want to remind you guys that there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today. So, like, I just don't want to comment on Khmerenei at all. Like, I don't think it's worse even touching that. Like, they're going to try, this is what we practice, but, like, isn't it a Khomeini a bad guy? Isn't it great that he's dead? On my first amendment was 86 years old, who's going to be dead sometime soon anyway. So there he was saying, I don't want to touch this. I want to remind you guys that a lot of people in Dearborn are mourning grieving the death of this arch terrorist. And you hear his staffer say, mm-hmm, yep, they're affirming that. They know it's true, Josh. He went on to say if he gets pressed on the issue, he would deflect to Epstein and call President Trump a pedophile and say that this is all a big distraction from Epstein.

to get that off the front pages. And he was also saying, we're not going to play the game of saying that it's a good thing that this guy is dead. This is a man who led for decades the death to America regime that practiced what they preached and killed many Americans and have been caught. violating rules on nuclear weapons and on missiles lying through their teeth about that, attacking Americans and killing them in the region even recently, attacking all of their neighbors, brutalizing and murdering tens of thousands of Iranians in the streets. And the takeaway from his killing by this Senate Democratic aspirant is especially in a community like Dearborn, Michigan. He doesn't want to even discuss it because a lot of his voters are sad that the terrorist is dead. I don't know what to say about that, Josh, other than dark, dark things. It's very jaw-dropping. There are communities in Europe where you have, you know, very radical elements of, you know, Muslim communities that have functionally, like, prevented politicians from being normal by taking mainstream positions because in these constituencies, the views of sign. It's kind of remarkable to hear. I mean, I kind of try to put the best face on, like, anyone who lives in America and, you know, is voting in American elections. But he's basically saying that his base, a part of his base at least, in Dearborn, is functionally pro-terrorist, and he can't speak out against the death of the Ayatollah and speak out against Iran and the regime, which has murdered Americans and has so much blood on its hands. It's remarkable. It's a remarkable document. It comes, you know, a little less than a year after Zohran Mamdani nomination in New York City where positions that would have been seen outside the... The mainstream in New York City, I'm in the Democratic primary. Globalizing the Ennifada comments along those lines and defending that type of rhetoric was not a penalty. Didn't cost Bundani markedly in that election, and again, and he still managed to become mayor. So you're seeing this kind of an unholy alliance between very radical Islamists that, you know, make up a... significant constituency, clearly in Dearborn, Michigan, plus, like, the left, which doesn't seem to have any moral judgment at all, and it's willing because they're against Trump to align themselves with some of the most disreputable and extreme people in American politics. But it is a very alarming sign of where, I don't think, you know, again, LSA polling in the 20s in the primary polling, so there's not the majority of the Democratic electorate, but the fact that you're getting about a fifth, the quarter of the electorate that is not bothered by this stuff. And that you have this audio revelation that a part of the base is functionally pro-terrorism or is upset about the death of the Ayatollah. Just a real jaw-dropping revelation, but it does...

signal where a politics and a primary politics could be headed in the Democratic Party. Yeah, he put out a statement, El-Sayed did, about this revelation, where he attacked the military action against the Iranian regime, calling it illegal and unjustifiable. I would say it is legal and very justified. He mourns the 13 brave service members who've been lost in the conflict, no mention of all the Americans Iran. has murdered the regime has murdered through the years including uh... recently by the way no mention of the thousands and thousands of people tortured and murdered in the streets of iran by the regime they don't get a mention at all he talks about gas prices he talks about affordability this is the statement about what he said saying i don't want to mourn the ayatola because a lot of my voters are grieving that he's dead And the statement ends with the fact that a right-wing news outlet, right? So he's trying to sort of ghettoize and delegitimize the story from the free beacon. The fact that a right-wing news outlet may have illegally and unethically obtained a deliberation about how to talk about this by way of a disgruntled former employee is only a distraction. He's calling it a distraction. I'm not exactly sure what he's saying in terms of this being illegally obtained. I think that's just, you know, him huffing and puffing. He says they're distracting from the... fact that Donald Trump, Mike Rogers, who's going to be the Republican nominee for Senate in Michigan, and the entire MAGA base doesn't want to talk about the pain they're forcing us all into. That's the spin, which is basically the whole kitchen sink except for the spin he promised he was going to use, which was Epstein pedophile stuff. Yeah. Yeah, he still doesn't condemn the, you know, doesn't relish the death of the Ayatollah. Oh, not one word about the regime at all. It's all about no clarification. Yeah, you would, yeah, I mean, you would look, if he is the nominee, I don't know, then I think he still, you know, faces fairly, you know, he's in contention in the three-way Democratic primary. So he is the nominee. He's going to have to, I mean, that could single-handedly cost him. the general election against Mike Rogers, even in a friendly democratic environment. Look, and this guy has a rap sheet. Now, you know, Abdul El-Sayed, you know, this is bad enough, but he's also holding a rally with this guy, Hasan Piker, who claims America deserved 9-11, who was called Orthodox Jews inbred, denied the homofficities of October 7th. I mean, this is the water in which he switched. And I don't think the media certainly has not been outside of Fox. The media has not scrutinized the radicalism to the level that you would expect. Well, not just Josh. Josh, you're understating it. The media has embraced Hasan Piker. He's gotten. Puff pieces written about him in the style section, and they've sort of ooed and odd giddily about how he could be the left-wing version of the Manosphere and these influential podcasters you've had. The Obama guys, the Obama bros, which I think is mainstream Democrat politics these days, they welcomed with open arms, Hasan Piker. Hasan Piker is not...

out on some extreme fringe of democratic left-wing politics, he is, I think, a big part of its future as telegraphed by mainstream journalists and a bunch of influential Obama alumni. It is stunning, but it's interesting also that when you had one Democrat group speak out and actually call out the radicalism of Hasan Piker and by extension, Abdul El-Sayed, by joining the criminal campaign rally, you know, all of a sudden when Democrats were asked, do you stand for this stuff, they ran away from them, you know, many of them, not everyone, but most of the more mainstream candidates ran away with. from this guy's record as fast as they could. This is, this reminds me of a lot of the radical positions that were embraced by activists in 2020, that people just sort of, they were in kind of a haze, and everyone raised their hands in the 2020 presidential debate for all these very radical positions that had maybe 10% support in the country, you know, legal benefits or illegal immigrants or, you know, defunding the police or all kinds of trans activism. And that was sort of the de facto Democratic Party. position until they realized how unpopular this stuff was, and then they couldn't run away from it as fast as they could. We're seeing the same thing when it comes to anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism, this kind of radicalism right now. And, you know, the question is, when is their haze, when is the kind of the haze going to break? Because this is toxic in any general election. And the fact of this guy has been a Hasan Piker and the views that apparently outside was articulated on that call, if that has any place on the Democratic Party, they're going to be toast for the foreseeable future. Josh, there's another wrinkle to the developments in left-wing politics that's related to this. I want to touch on it, but first we have to break. We'll take it very quickly. Come right back on Guy Benson. Energetic, informed, fast-paced, Guy Benson.

Josh Krasauer, our guest here on Guy Benson, Josh, really kind of you to stick with us through the break. I do want to mention this topic to you as well. I know that you've been writing about it. The DNC is apparently considering a condemnation resolution of APAC, which is this Israeli-American... organization that's been fairly influential, although its spending has been dwarfed by other organizations, but you never know that. They talk about APEC like it's this singular behemoth with all this money buying everyone in politics for the Jews. Like this is how they talk about APEC now, and now it seems the DNC is playing along with that. The center-left no labels group saying the Democratic Party is now singling out A-Pact. While giving the far left a pass, will they also condemn the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, an outside group that defended the October 7th attacks, blamed NATO, not Russia, for the invasion of Ukraine, and praises communist Cuba as a beacon for liberation? That might be a rhetorical question, Josh, because it seems like APEC is the bogeyman in left-wing politics today. Yeah, and just to clarify, it's not an Israeli-American group. It's an American group where Jews and pro-Israel supporters give money to help advocate in elections. Right. These are American citizens. These are people who are not a foreign advocacy group. It's entirely made up of American supporters of Israel. And it's no different than any other advocacy group, whether it's unions, whether it is, you know, we see a lot of these up-disc groups. So there are a lot of other corporate. advocacy groups that spend money in primary and general elections. That's part of democracy. It's part of, you know, that's part of how I've been covering politics for the two decades. I've been covering elections and never has any group been seen as unusually sinister because they spend money in primary or general elections. And because of how far to the left and kind of the extreme views that we just were talking about in Michigan that are percolating within the party, you have these activists, you have these pretty extreme folks. that are trying to, like, essentially say we don't want Jewish money. We don't want Jews to participate. We don't want people who are supporting of Israel to participate in the democratic process. It's pretty ugly. It's pretty toxic. And the fact that you have this resolution that only singles out AIPAC as opposed to a lot of other incomes. for example, running for governor of California. He's been one of the biggest spenders. He's a billionaire. He spends a lot of money in Democratic primers. His pet causes, climate change being the biggest among them. He has spent a lot more money. He's been in a lot of elections. Yeah, but more than double. More than double. And he has and he has the audacity to say that AAC should be banned and, you know, they're dark money and they should not be participating in American politics when he has spent more than AAC and more than, frankly, a lot of other outside groups. with his outside packs and so on. So, I mean, the hypocrisy is bad enough, but calling on just one group that stands for the bipartisan, strong U.S.-Israel relationship to call them out and only them out. It's pretty ugly, and it goes to show the activism.

side of the party and we're we're glanted right now well it's the type of double standard that people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have explicitly decried as anti-semitism in the very recent past as i like to point out repeatedly democrats are not opposed to big money in politics at all they love big money in politics they oppose conservative or right-leaning money in politics and now increasingly they oppose jewish money in politics what a look what a scene as i said pretty dark And it's something that we are chronicling and talking about here on this show because it does not portend good things. Societies that go down this path, generally it does not end well. Canary in a coal mine territory with anti-Semitism that seems to be mainstreamed increasingly these days in quarters that are expanding for political reasons and beyond. Josh Krasauer, Fox News, radio political analyst with us here on Guy Benson, editor-in-chief at Jewish Insider. You can follow him at Josh Krasauer. Josh, thank you. Thanks, Guy. Final hour of Guy Benson coming up. Congresswoman Kat Cammack joins us in Florida talking about this shutdown. Is there any end in sight? That and more straight ahead.

Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit thelongdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson. It's the happy hour on Guy Benson on this Tuesday. Grateful for your listenership always. Guy Benson.com, the website here at the program, lots of content there, always absolutely free and on demand, including the podcast, which is the whole show every day, Guy Benson's show.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. This radio hour is sponsored in part by our very good friends at the finish long drink. We recommend it strongly, so, so good, but please always drink responsibly, 21 plus only the longdrink.com. Email us, GBS at Fox.com. Follow us on social at Guy Benson. You can follow me as well at Guy Benson. But with us now, Congresswoman Kat Cammack of Florida's third congressional district, Congresswoman, always great to have you. Welcome back. God, my friend, it is good to hear your voice, and thanks for having me back. Likewise, let's talk about what's going on, and I voiced some frustration about this on the show here yesterday, and also on special report with Brett Bayer. We were just a stone's throw from Capitol Hill talking about this still ongoing DHS shutdown, which is unresolved, right? And I blame the Democrats for the shutdown for all kinds of reasons. I think it's cynical and reckless, and I've invaded against them. time and time again. But I also made the point by the same token, Republicans at least nominally have majorities in both houses of Congress and to see the Senate pass one thing. and leave town, and then the House passes a different thing, and then leave town. With the situation unresolved, it just feels like a political gift to the Democrats to be not in D.C., fighting this out and trying to get this fixed, and instead allowing a lot of the chaos to just keep percolating out there for potentially weeks. I'm just kind of confused by the thought process here. Is there any help you can give me? No, I agree with you that it is absolutely ludicrous that this has continued as long as it has. And I've been pretty dang critical of Republicans and Democrats. This is an absolute failure of the Senate in my mind. And I'm being an equal opportunity offender here. There was a pro forma session that opened up yesterday.

And the left had a representative in town. They had a senator in town ready to object in case the Republicans put forward unanimous consent to take up the House version, which was just a clean CR, a standard, you know, all of the same programs, same funding levels, but get everything up and running and everyone gets paid, right? And we didn't even try. The Republicans in the Senate didn't even try. And to me, that's just, that is incompetence. It is unacceptable. We've all been through the airports. We've all stood in the lines. Well, at least some of us have stood in the lines, I'll say. And it is. unconscionable that people are going without paychecks. I've talked to some of these TSA agents. I had one tell me that their mother, who they had an assisted living, they couldn't afford to pay the bill anymore. They've had to move her into the house with them, and they are really struggling. They're visiting food banks, if that's any indication of how bad things are getting. And so to go on break for two weeks, absolutely unacceptable. And I blame Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this one. Okay, so a few things here. Number one, the president says that at least temporarily there's some money he can put in to help back pay some of these TSA agents at least a bit. Democrats say that's illegal. I do think it's not just some small detail. It has to be done properly. But it is interesting watching them bellyache that Trump is trying to find a way to pay the people that they are refusing to pay because they won't agree to a bipartisan compromise when it comes to reopening DHS because they hate ICE and federal. immigration enforcement, right? So it's a bit much for them to be all upset about the rule of law on paying TSA, but they're against the rule of law. They're against the rule of law on immigration. And that's the whole reason behind the driving force behind this shutdown, which is now about a month and a half deep. All these problems still languishing. And so they did pass on a voice vote. So unanimously in the Senate, this. so-called compromise, which would fund almost all of DHS, and then the plan was, and we had Senator Ron Johnson here talking about it. And he's not exactly, you know, a squish or a moderate. He's very conservative. He's saying, listen, the Democrats aren't going to bunch. They didn't care about all this pain. They didn't care about the TSA lines. They didn't care about the four terrorist attacks on the homeland. During the shutdown, they are not going to move. They feel like they are not getting the blame or paying a political price. So they're going to keep this going indefinitely. The responsible thing that we finally had to do was reopen most of DHS. And then we want to start immediately a reconciliation bill to then top up the funding for years for ICE and CBP elements that aren't already funded, a lot of which is already funded through the big, beautiful bill from last year. That was the plan from the Senate Republicans.

which was rejected by you guys. But then you guys passed at Clean CR. I think there's an argument for that. I don't have a problem with that. But we know that the Democrats were going to say no to that because they've been filibustering effectively that for a month and a half. And they had Chris Coons waiting there to block it from unanimous consent, as you mentioned. And then the House left town. So I just, I don't understand on either side of Capitol Hill knowing that what passed one side was going to cause problems on the other side, speaking of the House and the Senate. Why leave town and then leave the American people in the lurch? Like, I'm not blaming you specifically, but I just don't get the thought process of saying, all right, we're going to pass something that's incompatible with the other chamber, and then we're gone for a week or two. While all of this stuff is still happening, it just seems like there's a signal being sent to the American people that we can't govern and we're not actually even interested in staying here because that's inconvenient for us. It is absolutely sending the wrong message collectively as we stared on the barrel of midterms. And again, you're 100% right. I have to disagree with my friend, Senator Johnson, a little bit here on the package that they sent over. Reconciliation is not something that you whip together over the course of a few days. It is a multi-month process. And we have to remember that you can only use reconciliation once in a fiscal year. So we have one shot in fiscal year 26 to actually. move forward a package that covers and encompasses all the things that we need to do to make life affordable and really codify the work that the president is doing. But make all the real changes that need to happen to get our energy dominance back to make housing affordable again, bring down the energy prices and the gas prices at the pump. There's a lot. Let's not forget that they're asking for money. for Iran in that reconciliation package, something that is going to not be an easy lift, given that there's a lot of different opinions and perspectives on the engagement that we have there. And so reconciliation to say, oh, we're going to fund most of Homeland Security, but then we're going to figure out the rest on the back end. No, no, no, no. That's akin to basically saying, I'm going to lock the front door, but hey. criminals and terrorists, the back, the back doors wide open, just come on in. There's a reason why all of these agencies are under the banner and the umbrella of Homeland Security. You can't have half homeland security. You either got it or you don't. And every single one of these agencies plays a critical role in ensuring the safety and security of Americans. And that is why we sent back a package that said, no, it's all or nothing. And for the left, and this is where I was a little bit like you guys. And by the way, just to jump in on the all or nothing thing, it sounds like it's an R-way or the highway ultimatum coming from Republicans, but you have to remember, and this is in defense of congressional Republicans, the DHS funding bill on appropriations that the Democrats have just blocked in the Senate with the filibuster for a month and a half was a bipartisan bill with overwhelming bipartisan support until they decided this was going to be their –

their pressure lever, right, their hinge point of leverage to make a big stink and a big show about ice. This is not some hardcore partisan bill that they're blocking. They have been blocking a bipartisan Homeland Security bill. Yes. Yes, and I'm glad you brought that up because there were five specific reforms to ICE that the White House and that Republicans had come to the table and said, yeah, we can work with this. Things like body cameras. I mean, for me, I said, absolutely, put body cameras on every ICE agent so that the rest of the world can see absolutely how crazy some of these protesters are and people who get up in their face. You know, I think that that was a no-brainer. There were five very specific reforms that we came to the table and said, hey, we're willing to do this. And then they left. They left the negotiation table. And it makes you scratch your head a little bit when you see folks like my colleague Jim Himes on national news saying it's illegal for the president to be paying TSA agents. Well, you know what, Jim? You sure is heck ain't. So somebody's got to take action here. I don't understand what their point in fighting the folks that are actually working but not getting paid. is i'm not sure what their strategy is there i think the strategy themselves are taking a paycheck yeah not not to speak for them because i i think that they're responsible for this and it's extremely cynical and reckless are the words i keep using yeah but i think the strategy is We hate ICE. Our base wants us to fight ICE and Trump as loudly and performatively as possible. This is one area where we have some leverage. So we did a shutdown last year that didn't really hurt us. We're going to do another shutdown this year and show that we're fighting, fighting, fighting. And our base will be happy about it. And ultimately, we'll blame Republicans because they have the majorities and they have the presidency. And people don't get in the weeds on parliamentary procedures. So we'll say it's the Republicans' fault. from most of the news media that agrees with us and hates ICE as well and doesn't want federal immigration laws enforced. So this is what we're going to do. And we have a separate set of rules for our shutdowns than the Republicans have had in the past. I think that's the mentality. And I think it's terrible, but I think that they aren't necessarily wrong about that, which is why it comes back to the point. If the Democrats are not going to agree to anything sensible that funds fully DHS, even in a bipartisan way coming out of the House, sending them a continuing resolution to yet again block, will simply extend their shutdown even further. I want to give you an opportunity, of course, to respond to that, but I'm up on a break. So let me take it very quickly. Congresswoman Kat Cammack having a great conversation with me here on Guy Benson. More coming up. You're listening to a new generation of talk. Generation of Talk. Guy Benson.

Back on the happy hour here on Guy Benson, Congresswoman Kat Cammack of Florida, kind enough to stick around. And Congresswoman, you were just before the break being critical of what the Senate has done, and I get it, points well taken. But then the House did a version of the same thing, sending their bill that was going to go nowhere in the Senate over and then leaving town. So I just don't know. why the house would do that, knowing that they were going to block it anyway. And you could say, well, because we need to have this fight and we're not going to let them get away with it, fine, then stay in D.C. and have the fight day after day, vote after vote, as opposed to going off to, you know, Disney World and other places. Well, the only person I saw was a bubble one at Disney was Lindsey Graham. Although, in fairness, I saw there was a House Democrat who was caught, you know, at a poker table in Vegas. Like, everyone skeddattle and went and like went off to do whatever. And that's fine on your own time. But with the Homeland Security shutdown, it's still going and people not getting paid properly, I just, I think it's very frustrating to a wide swat of voters. A thousand percent. And that was expressed to leadership. We said we shouldn't be leaving. This is a bad idea. We need to sit here and figure it out. I think the problem that we see, and I can't tell you how many of my Senate counterparts I've had conversations with, the reforms that we were willing to work with, the Democrats said, no, that's not enough. And I am not about to endanger the various agents. that make up ICE and their families with what the demands are of the left. That's just simply untenable. They also, like, here's the other thing. If you guys want to, like, defund and abolish ICE and do all these crazy things, it's their new version of defund the police, right? It's the 2026 version of that. If that's what you want to do, then fine, you can go out and say, we're campaigning to abolish ICE, and we are in favor of illegal immigration, and we're against enforcing immigration laws, even against criminals. And go win elections on that. And then you can try. Right. But they lost an election over immigration largely. And now they're trying to dictate the terms of immigration enforcement from the minority position that they earned for themselves. And they're shutting down the government to do it. Again, I view them with great disdain and condemned. And again, I take a very dim view of what the Democrats are doing here, to put it mildly. I just think Republicans have to recognize they are fully dug in with the protection of the news media and sitting there pointing across the hall at the other chamber and saying, you should have done this and you should have done that. And then everyone leaves town. It's just mystifying is the word that keeps coming to mind. Well, you and I are in the exact same boat on this one, my friend, because I said that, and I'm like, you guys aren't even trying. What's the argument to be charitable, to be charitable to leadership? Because we've had Speaker Johnson on the show. We've had leader Steve Scalise. I like these guys. They're smart. They're not crazy. They care about how the rank and file feel. They want what's best for the country. What would be their argument for doing what they did, passing the CR and leaving?

I think there was a bit of frustration, and the speaker alluded to this in his remarks to media and to us, candidly, that there's been bureau dialogue between leadership in the Senate. And if they want to go it alone, then they're going to have to go it alone. And so there was a tremendous amount of frustration, and they felt like it was a waste of time to keep members in D.C. in the House where, you know, we've done our part multiple times. I think that was the fourth time that we voted a couple days ago to fund Homeland Security the fourth time. Yeah. And... So it was frustrating. Here's what I would say, just to jump back in. Since we're having this dialogue, my thing is I am very sympathetic to what you're saying, to the frustrations of House leadership, and to the frustrations, by the way, of Senate leadership, because I think there's a reason that. Bill passed by voice vote unanimously. I think there was a lot of people fed up across the ideological spectrum about what was happening in the Senate. I actually understand the argument from the perspective of Senate Republican leadership and House Republican leadership and the rank and file. I get all of it. And I am sympathetic, but where the voters won't be sympathetic is to the idea that, well, we're now fed up and the frustration is going to now manifest itself in us all leaving with the issue unresolved, which I think makes it even easier for the Democrats to just point their finger and say, see, the Republicans are in charge and they can't even agree with each other. It lets the Democrats off the hook for the horrible shutdown that they've caused and sustained. That's my last point on this. Mm-hmm. No, I mean, if I were the Speaker of the House, I would recall every single one of us back to Washington. And more than that, more than just sitting around and waiting for the Senate to do something, I would be passing bills. I would be moving items that have been demanded, demanded by the American people. I mean, making good on the promises that, you know, we campaigned on in the last election, I would be passing the bills. And I would stack them up on the doorstep of the Senate. Because the American people need to have some hope that, you know, hey, there are people up there fighting for us, that there are people who are listening to us. Because everywhere I go, and it doesn't matter if you're Republican, Democrat, or independent, I hear all the time, what are you guys doing up there? Yeah. And you guys have passed a lot. You have passed a lot this session already. But, of course, there are different rules in the Senate. The minority has more power. It's a different ballgame over there. But still those conversations have to happen. I know the White House is talking about maybe bringing everyone back for a special session or something like that. I think everyone on the Republican side of the aisle across Pennsylvania Avenue.

and on Capitol Hill need to get on the same page and do something different than whatever this is. That's my pitch on this. And we've got to leave it there for now. It sounds like you and I agree broadly on that point. Kat Cammack, Congresswoman from Florida on Guy Benson. Congressman, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so much, Guy. Have a good one. We'll be right back. Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. In the first hour of today's show, I had a lot of thoughts on so-called progress in places like California and Illinois. Some updates on those fronts. Here's a piece of my opening monologue. Listen. And you might think, all right, dog with a bone. We get it, Guy. I'm not going to stop. I cannot believe that in our country... We have large portions of the nation under so-called sanctuary laws, where illegal immigrants are protected, shielded, empowered by the politicians who run those jurisdictions. And I know this is not new news per se. Sanctuary, cities, sanctuary, states. This has been a controversy now for many years. But especially these days, given all the attention being paid to ICE and internal immigration enforcement and opposition to enforcing our laws, because that's what's driving much of what the Democrats are up to these days. The reason why the Homeland Security Agency is shut down is because Democrats fundamentally don't believe in enforcing our immigration laws. They don't. They don't. In 2020, I guess it was 2019 leading up to that cycle, at a presidential debate on the Democrat side, a question that was posed to the entire field running for president, do you support decriminalizing illegal border crossings? Nearly every hand went up. They also asked, do you support taxpayer-funded free health care coverage for illegal immigrants? All the hands went up. So this is a pro-illegal immigration party that incentivizes illegal immigration with their policies. They are hoping that in the midterm elections coming up, people are fed up enough with Donald Trump and affordability and all these other issues. And I think some of them are very fair. Republicans doing themselves no favors in some regards right now. But they are hoping that they can sort of gloss over their own extremism, which... continues to make them actually anathema to many voters. And the polls continue to show while the Republicans are really hemorrhaging and President Trump's approval rating has come down in a number of the polls, although a few of them are better I've seen, but still not great. The Democrats are even more unpopular, yet after a president wins an election and we seesaw back. In the other direction, one party is very motivated to turn out and vote, which is what we're seeing from Democrats. The other one is maybe complacent, fat and happy. The Republicans staying home more than they should. And independent swing voters saying, you know, we want a check and balance on the president. And so we're going to go the other direction. That's how you get these waves. That happened not infrequently in midterm elections. Democrats want those swing voters.

to ignore or turn a blind eye to or paper over the real extremism that is driving their ideology that will be imposed once again on this country if the Democrats come back into power. And so I want to remind people, and I think that the lawlessness of sanctuary policies really help underscore it. Because if you ever poll... sanctuary policies and you ask people, even in places like Minnesota, for example, if there are illegal immigrants in custody for crimes, alleged crimes, should local and state authorities cooperate with federal authorities to hand them over for deportation? That is a very popular proposition. Large majority supports that. And yet, in these blue states, blue cities, the opposite is the policy where the locals and the state officials, they are not allowed to cooperate with ICE because ICE is the enemy. ICE is the specter of incipient fascism that they keep talking about. ICE are the thugs, not the illegal immigrant violent criminals. Who empowering and assisting is just the cost to doing business in left-wing politics right now. And the result is killing. The result is lethal. The result is dangerous. The result is extremely irresponsible. And it's not just cherry-picking one example, because unfortunately, we could rattle off example after example, after example, after example. including just a few in the last few weeks in Virginia, Stephanie Minter, where officials there, including the so-called moderate governor, a perfect example of this bait and switch that I'm talking about, how they campaign versus how they govern. The Democrats in Virginia look at the murder of Stephanie Minter by an illegal immigrant with 40 prior charges, and they have absolutely dug their heels in. on sanctuary policies, not just keeping the status quo, but expanding those policies statewide. They see the murder of Stephanie Minter and say, we're going to stick with what led to this. Same with Illinois and Chicago, J.B. Pritzker and Johnson, and the murder of Sheridan Gorman just a few days ago along the lakefront. in that city that is being so poorly served by its terrible leadership at the city and state level. There was an opportunity to revisit sanctuary policies last year, and at the behest of the mayor and certainly the governor's on board, the city council said no overwhelmingly. And even with Sheridan Gorman. Having been murdered in cold blood by someone with no right to be here with a criminal record being shielded by sanctuary policies, the mayor is giving interviews talking about how we have to stop the rhetorical attacks on immigrants. That's his focus at the moment.

That full segment in all of today's show available online as part of the free podcast. It's every day on demand, no charge at all, the entire program start to finish for free. Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch, busy, busy times in Cookies household. She's got a few updates for us when we return. For the full interview and more, go to Guy Benson.com. 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 Tuesday edition, Guy Benson.com podcast always free. So, Christine, a few big doings in your household. I know you were just talking to us yesterday about the father-daughter dance that Bobby and Megan enjoyed this past weekend, but there's already more breaking news out of your home. So let's start with last night a big... change in terms of your ride. Tell us about this. Yes, Cookie finally got herself a new ride. So she's cruising around in a new car. And I just want to say this because I'm sure a lot of people out there deal with this. I cannot believe in this day and age. It's 2026. How long it takes to buy a car at the car dealer. hours. And I don't know what they're doing in that back room. They're always going in the back room. What are you guys doing back there? I'm guessing there's probably a lot of paperwork that you have to sign, right? Oh, yeah. Well, I made Bobby do that. But yes, there was a lot of paperwork. And, you know, not a ton of negotiating because I had already done that part. Okay, so, all right, so hold on. How many cars do you guys have? Just one. Just one. So were you trading in an old car here? Was the lease up on the previous? The lease was up. Lease was up. Okay. So are you going back to the same dealership or is this a new victim? Nope, new victims. Victims. Do you do this on purpose because you don't want to go back and use your whole bag of tricks on people who've seen it already? I mean, it's scary how well you know me by now. Yeah, so you're like, oh, we can't go there. They've already seen all this. So we're going to have to pick a new dealership, a new brand, all of that. Yep. And then I also make sure that that new dealer, even though it's not the same company at all, they have to take my lease back and they have to go deal with it. Okay. So, all right, so you marched in. So what's the new car? What kind of car is it? Oh, okay. Here's another problem. I, Bobby and Megan have been making fun of me because apparently I pronounce it wrong. Oh no. Yeah. What is it? It's an Accura. A what? Josh, could you help me? An Accura? Accura. Accura? Accura. Accure. Where is this? What are you doing? Adding a r. That's what they said. I can't, I don't know. That's the way I say it.

Accur. It's like you're adding a little extra R word to this, actually, this pronunciation. So, Accurr, why do you say Accur? I'm not, I'm saying A-C-U-R-A. Okay, the last letter being A. Is there a er-sound in A? No, but when it comes out of my mouth, there is. Because it's either that or I have to really think about it. Okay. There's another. There's another brand. I'm sounding special now and I don't mean special in a good way. You are. I know. I know. So the brand T-O-Y-O-T-A. Toyota. Not Toyota. No. Toyota. M-A-Z-D-A. What brand is that? Mazda. Yeah, I don't, I don't. Accurr is even harder to say because of the previous R. I don't know what to tell you, but this has been a battle. I mean, they won't stop making fun of me. I mean, they make fun. I would have just avoided an accurate altogether if you couldn't say it. Well, that was the one thing Bobby kept saying because I was pushing him on this car. And he's like, you can't even pronounce the car. Why am I going to go get it for you? Your pronunciation is inaccurate. Yeah, that sounds. That doesn't sound. Yeah, I know. Well, we can skip over this because, like I said, this is not making me sound very smart. Well, I just took a little detour there because I'm just completely baffled by that. So you go to the Accur dealership to get your new Accur lease. And what were your tricks? Did you do the thing? Were there any tears? Uh, no, because I pulled, um, I, a fan, I know a guy that, that trick. Okay. I had a, I have a cousin in the business. So does he work for Accura? Honda, who owns that, the other brand. Okay. So, all right. So rather than tears, you did a, I know a guy. Did you do the thing where you stormed out of the negotiation? Correct. Yes. You got everyone. You got everyone together. We're leaving. Mortified Megan. Because she doesn't really remember the last time because I've pulled out tears. I mean, I've done all the tricks. And Megan doesn't really remember the last time that. Oh, maybe she didn't go. But she said she was mortified because I made everybody get up, put their jackets on, and we are leaving. And then we get in our car, which is a Buick, and we leave. And they call us back. And the manager was on the phone. And he was very apologetic because... He didn't realize who I was. And so the numbers... What does that mean? Because I know a guy. So I had... It was supposed to be different numbers that I was given. Which, mind you, this whole thing is a racket. Let me just tell you. Because... On your end? No, on their end. Like on all car dealer ends. Sorry to any of our car dealers out there. We love you. And if Accura wants to sponsor us. So you just said it correctly. Did I? You did. Okay.

You got it. You got it. Correct. Accura. Okay. So they called you back, apologetic. And did you get the special friends and family, whatever? We sure did. We sure did. All right. So this might be asking a lot, especially in light of the Accura saga. But percentage-wise, how much did you save compared to what they initially were asking versus what you got? If you're going month by month, like say a monthly payment. The difference was $150 a month. Okay. That seems fairly substantial. Huge. And then the down payment. I don't like to put a ton down on a lease because it's just you're just throwing away money. Although a lot of people would say you're throwing away money in a lease anyway. But. I like getting a new car every three years. Yeah, I do not. I think you buy a car and just drive it for as long as you possibly can safely. So that's what Bobby is saying about this car. He's like, this is a really nice car. So I think at the end of the lease, we're just going to buy it out. And then I said, that's great. We'll give it to Megan. And he's like, no, she's not getting this nice of a car for her first car. Is this a new car or a pre-owned vehicle? No, brand new. Okay. So are you feeling accomplished? Is that accurate sitting in your... In your driveway already, or are you still waiting on it? No, no, no. It's sitting in our driveway. We got at home last night. So we really haven't been able to drive it because we got home late last night. And, you know, I had to get to work earlier today. So we'll take a nice family cruise tonight. Megan's very excited. What color is the car? Ooh, this was controversial in my home because we found this really pretty blue, like a dark blue. Okay. And a lot of people kept telling us, don't get the blue. It's going to get dirty. And then they were pushing a silver that was beautiful. And I was like, you know what? I'm good for the silver. But Bobby and Megan, they stuck to their guns. So we had to wait a little longer. But it's blue on the outside. And the interior is like a light, light gray leather. It's gorgeous. Gorgeous. Okay. So this was a successful. Outing. How long did this take start to finish? Three hours last Saturday and two and a half last night.

Okay. That's insane. Don't you think? A lot of time. Did Megan at least bring along her homework so she could... She did, actually. She had a science test of studies for. So we gave her some money. She went and got herself some snacks and sat in that waiting room and studied. They were shocked that she was there. She loves this stuff. She loves looking at real estate. She likes looking at new cars. She's like an old soul. She'll ask me on Sundays if we can just go find if there's any open houses to go look at real estate. I know. I know. There's actually a house under construction in my neighborhood where it actually hasn't started going up yet. They're still excavating the land. They tore down an old house and they're in the process of getting the property ready, like getting the land ready, the little parcel of land to build on. And apparently they had an open house. There's no house just a home to ground. You could like show up, look at the hole in the ground, see where the lot of land is, and then they had a QR code that you could scan on your phone, and then it would bring up within a few miles other builds that this builder had done in the area, and you could go drive and see other examples of their handiwork. I think that's kind of cool. Would you and Megan drive your blue accurate to go look at a hole in the ground? Why did I tell you this? You know we would. You know I would. And then I would try to convince Bobby to buy this hole in the ground without a house on it. Just the land, Bobby, the land is so valuable. Surprise. Imagine. Imagine my whole family and I, we moved down right near you. It would actually be, it would be smart, wouldn't it? No, it would not. Yes, it would. You would have your senior producer. No. Always there. I... I don't think that this is a good idea. I don't think you should even look at it, honestly. Also, Christine, I saw what the asking price is going to be. I can text you that information. Oh, okay. I have a suspicion that that's going to be a hard no from you. A little out of our price range. I gasped at the asking price. So we'll see if they get it. Meanwhile... Your very mature daughter is about to become a teenager. I know that you've got birthday party upcoming for the big one, three, some of her requests, what the party is going to be and not be. But we're out of time, so we can't discuss all of that today. C-Sysa will just forward-promote a future home stretch some point this week, maybe tomorrow. Megan's birthday coming in, big birthday planning energy from Christine. She loves to produce a party. So we will get those details in due time. I've got to run, though. On Guy Benson, Ben, Ben, Back here in 21 hours. We'll talk to you then. Accura?