Davos Domination: Trump Secures a Greenland Deal

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. And we're... We have a deal. That's right. The president is posting on true social moments ago. We have a deal on Greenland. Welcome to Guy Benson. It is me, Rich Zeoli, with you. I'm host of the Rich Zeoli podcast, and it's great to be back with you. It's been a while. It's been a minute. This is a big day today. The president speaking at Davos, and just moments ago, I'm going to read this to you. He posted this. Based upon a very productive meeting that I've had with the Secretary General of NATO, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region. The solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others as needed. We'll be responsible for the negotiations. They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. of America. You know, it's interesting. I'm watching Martha McCallel on Fox News, and she has this graphic up on her show on the real story. And it shows the earth and the missile trajectory from Russia of intercontinental ballistic missiles, if they were launched from Russia, and how they would all go over Greenland to hit the United States of America. Really fascinating when you think about it from that perspective. And you think about what Greenland can be used for with this Golden Dome and shooting down ICBMs from Russia. And then you also think about it in the context of protecting and strengthening NATO. So a couple things here. A couple takeaways. We're not going to war for Greenland. We were never going to go to war for Greenland. The president was never going to invade Greenland. I said this on my podcast that was not going to happen. He was not going to send, I mean, we could have conquered it with a dog sled and like 12 guys with carhart jackets, but that was never going to happen. And the president reiterated that today when he said that, said, you know, I'm not looking to have force in Greenland. Actually, we have a clip of that. It was a very good speech in Davos. He's getting praise. Really, I mean, I would say across the aisle, but there may be one or two Democrats that say anything kind about this president. But, I mean, people who are objective about Donald Trump, who may not love everything he does are all acknowledging that this was a very powerful speech today by the president. And most importantly, it's a speech that.

strengthens NATO and our alliance with Europe and European leaders. And it was not hostile. It is not the situation that we have to worry about this Pax Americana coming to an end. I saw a piece written today by Nigel Farage about that. That's not happening. If anything, America is just stepping up and leading the world and what needs to happen now as we enter a new century. and the importance of this tiny, icy, frozen tundra that is Greenland, which is very close to the United States of America, very close to Canada. And strategically speaking, it is the epicenter of the beginning of the Arctic region for securing the northern hemisphere of the entire planet. And that's a key. But we were never going to use force. That was not going to happen. I also should mention, I don't see Greenland becoming the 51st state. I know those people asking that question. There's no need for that. It doesn't have to become a state. It can still become part of the United States of America without becoming a state. And the president reiterated the point of saying, look, we want to be able to protect it. It's easier if we own it versus whether we're, you know, if we're leasing it. Because of releasing it, then. some knucklehead Democrat president down the road could give it back. Kind of like how Jimmy Carter gave back the Panama Canal to Panama. And that was something that I think people seem to be, you know, regretting now in hindsight. So I think it's the point the president's making. It's like, look, if we lease something, whether it's a hundred year lease or it's, that could end, like any other lease. I mean, you could turn your car in early. You may have to pay a fine or penalty, but you can still do it. If you own it, well, then you have to sell it. I mean, you could abandon it, but you most likely would probably sell it, I would think. And that's the situation. And if you own it, you're responsible for it. And it's yours. And you have to take care of it. And you have to make sure that it runs properly. That's also the key with the United States owning Greenland. I never wanted to see this happen if it was going to be done in a hostile manner. The fact that the president has put out this statement today saying that it's going to be done. in agreement with Europe, in agreement with NATO. Everybody working together to make this happen because they all see the benefit of this. And there's a clip I'll play for you from the NATO General Secretary saying exactly why the Arctic region is so important for not just America's national security, but Europe's national security as well. It's a new world we're in now. It's not just Russia we're talking about. It's China. It's North Korea. That guy, that whack job's still there. He hasn't gone anywhere. He's not going anywhere. And we have to think about the context of what the next 25 to 50 years are going to bring in changing technology in the Arctic. I read a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago, maybe it was a few weeks ago. I forget it might have been over Christmas break. We just got a new dog and the dog was hanging out with me, a little Gary, and I was reading this article about how it's really difficult to use modern military technology in the North Pole, for example. Between the northern lights, which affect the magnetic force field of our weapons detection systems and our radar systems. And, of course, that is how they hide Santa Claus. If you saw the Christmas Chronicles, you know that. And things freeze. I mean, water lines burst and oil lines burst and machines just break down. So we have to figure all that out because the Arctic is going to be the next.

frontier for national security, for global security. And a big part of the reason for that is the trajectory of missiles and how they fly. And also, too, because of the rare earth minerals that are their oil and other natural resources that there's a global race for. Let's face it. It's easy to dismiss the importance of that, but you can't. You can't dismiss that, and you also cannot dismiss the fact that Vladimir Putin has eyes on expansion, global expansion. And if not Vladimir Putin, because he's 74 years old, then the next guy who gets in there will have eyes on global expansion. So it really does make sense as long as it's done the right way. Here's the president in Davos cut one. We never ask for anything. And we never got anything. We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that. Okay? Now everyone's saying, oh, good. That's probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians, and others in World War II. We gave it back to them. We were a powerful force then, but we are a much more powerful force now after I rebuilt the military in my first term and continued to do so today. I think it's really important to think about the idea of the president of the United States of America going to Davos and saying, I will not use military force. Very smart of the president to say that. Because obviously the narrative is that he's Hitler. That's what the left loves to say. And there are other people out there saying this guy he wants to conquer. He wants to just go in and take over whatever he wants. He's a madman. He must be stopped. And for the president to come out and say, I will not use military force. I'm not going to. And he doesn't need to. And reiterating that message today is incredibly important, not just for his standing, but for the United States of America standing in the world. We will be the leader in this, but it has to be a partnership with Europe and NATO in order for it to work. So that NATO indoors. And so that that alliance indoors. And so that the Pax Americana indoors, too. Donald Trump is looking at his legacy. He's not going to stay in office. He's not going to run for a third term. He's going to leave. And then he wants people to look back on his legacy. And the legacy he wants is of a peacemaker and a guy who secured America for the next hundred years. That's what he wants. He wants everybody to look at him and say, this guy ended eight wars, hopefully nine wars of Russian Ukraine comes to an end, prevented new wars and not bogged the United States down in another long-protracted Middle Eastern war. And he also secured America and Europe the security of the entire northern hemisphere for the next 100 years. That's what Trump wants his legacy to be. I think today is a big step towards that. I really, really do. It's a big step towards that. And of course, being Donald Trump, he also has to take his zingers. And I remember this from the movie Stripes. It's one of my favorite lines. Cut two.

And then after the war, which we won, we won it big without us. Right now, you'd all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps. After the war, we gave Greenland back. You know, and Japanese is not an easy language to learn. I'm just saying, German, easier, because it is a, you know, it's English is a German language, I think, if I remember correctly. But Japanese, that's a whole other thing, whole other alphabet and symbols. And, yeah, so be grateful that we won that war. But we don't want to go to war with NATO. We want to strengthen NATO. We want to make sure that NATO's around. Again, something very positive the president has done on the international front is to make NATO pay up. Like enough being slackers, enough people that are just always looking in the United States of America to come in and be the world's police. Ending the idea that we are the world's police and that we fund NATO, we fund the world's police department, so to speak, that will also be one of Trump's legacies because it'll avoid the United States having to be in a situation where we spend $200 billion to bail out Ukraine. NATO will be stepping up to do these things. That's what needs to happen. The acquisition of Greenland for our national security, for the Golden Dome, for Europe's national security, I think the president putting in that context today of saying to Europe, like, look, this is really going to be good for you guys too. This is going to be helpful to you. It's not just us, but you will also benefit from this. This is something that will help you and something the entire Arctic. We have to think about it from that perspective. It's not just simply a matter of the United States. It is a matter of the world. It is a matter of the world here doing the right thing. And that's why when we get back from the break here on Guy Benson, I'll tell you what the UN General Secretary said as far as the Arctic goes. But this is a big day. The framework of a deal is here. It's Guy Benson. Don't go away. Filling in for Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioli. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswinshop.com with code FNRadio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly.

I am so sorry that if you were thinking we go to war for Greenland, today you're disappointed. You're hoping for a good, a good ice war. Not going to happen. Not going to happen here on Guy Benson as the president announces a framework of a deal has been reached with NATO and with Denmark, and there you go. Why does this matter to all of us? Well, it's about national security. It is about the rare earth minerals. It's about all these things. It's about securing the Arctic region. for the global security of the United States and Europe. And that was not, that's not something that I thought of myself. That was something that was said by the guy who runs NATO. who worked on this deal with the president, and they had meetings today. And this is what he said regarding that, cut 35. Statements, for me, will not add anything here. And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right. Other leaders in NATO are right. We need to defend the Arctic. We know that the sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic. There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are a member of NATO. That's Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark. Iceland, Canada and the US. And there's only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, and there's Russia. And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence. And that's exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that collectively will we defend the Arctic region. One guy who is the biggest loser in all this today is pretty much a loser anyway is California governor Gavin Newsom. All right, Gavin Newsom. This guy goes to Davos with his oily thick hair, which has a, I don't even know the carbon footprint of that guy's hair, so much oil in it, but goes to Davos and then calls out world leaders and basically says to them, you should not be cooperating with the United States of America. You should not be cooperating with the United States of America. You should not be helping the United States of America, which I think is just egregious. I mean, first of all, we've always said in this country that politics stops at the water's edge. Gavin Newsom wants to run for president. Fine, if you don't want Greenland, you don't have to have Greenland. If that's your policy position, the United States does not have, there's no strategic interest in us having Greenland, fine. But to go over to Davos and then to basically say to Europe, you should stand up to the United States of America. Boy, you talk about America last. And this guy wants to be president. But Gavin Newsom will say whatever Gavin Newsom has to say. He's a political shapeshifter. That's what he does. Here's cut 30. People rolling over, I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders. I mean, handing out crowns and handing, I mean, this is pathetic. Nobel Prizes, they are being given away. I mean, it's just pathetic. And I hope people understand how pathetic they look on the world stage. I mean, at least from an American perspective, it's embarrassing. This is diplomacy with Donald Trump? He's a T-Rex. You mate with him or he devours you. One or the other.

He's a T-Rex and he devours you and you should all have knee pads. I mean, first of all, his homophobic joke aside is not even a joke. This is not funny. Gavin Newsom, to essentially say to Europe, forget working with the United States, forget strengthening global security for the northern hemisphere to ensure that we can control the shipping lanes and we can also shoot down missiles if we have to. Stand up to Donald Trump and tell him no. even though it's in your best interest and our best interest. Think about that. Think about what that says about Gavin Newsom. You know, I don't think any of us were thinking about Greenland that much, all that much recently until this came up. But the United States has always been thinking about Greenland. There's a treaty from 1951. in which the United States can basically do anything it wants militarily. I read this piece in the New York Times about this. We can put military bases in there. We could put in shipping lanes. We could build boats there. We could do whatever we want militarily. We don't need Denmark's permission because of this 1951 Cold War Treaty. We don't need any of their permission. We can do whatever we want. Put troops there, build bases, whatever we want. But this approach of going at it with NATO and with Europe and with Denmark and then buying it is in everybody's best interest because you also know the way Europe is and how you've got leaders in Europe who are very, very wishy-washy. And they are incredibly, incredibly subject to the whims of whatever the mob wants because their governments change hands all the time over there. Our government is much more structured and much more secure. And so if the United States owns Greenland, then everybody will be safer. Everybody will be safer. And not for nothing, but Russia, you know, I don't know what little tricks they'll pull in the future. I don't know what tricks China will pull in the future or North Korea will pull in the future. But even if there's an accidental. nuclear missile that goes off. Don't you want to know that we can shoot it down and not have to worry about them having other ways to shoot down our missiles that shoot down their missiles? And I think that this is another key that we're all missing here. The national security implications of this are huge. Here on Guy Benson, it's me, Rich Zioly, in for Guy. It's great to be with you. We got a great guest coming up, the one and only Paul Morrow. Don't go away.

Hey guys, finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy. Thanks to Goldbelly. Goldbelly ships America's most iconic foods, straight from world famous restaurants, right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stonecrab from Miami, Franklin Barbecue from Texas, or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart, Goldbelly has you covered. Just go to goldbelly.com, and for a limited time, get 20% off your first order with promo code gift. That's promo code gift. Filling in for Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioli. And it's great to be with you. It really is. It's an honor to be back. It's been too long. So thank you for having me back. And I'll tell you what, I'm excited. Because Paul Morrow is one of my favorite guests and one of my favorite people at Fox News. You can see him all over the channel. He, of course, is a Fox News contributor. He's an attorney and retired NYPD inspector. And he joins us now on Guy Benson. What's up, Paul? How are you, buddy? All good, Rich. Thank you for the kind words, buddy. Listen, you know, one of my favorite days is when you and I were both on America's newsroom. And then apparently you sent a note to Dana Perino saying never put me on a newsroom with that guy ever again. Is that any truth to that rumor? That is true. In fact, I sent it up to corporate. I put it on X, but obviously it didn't work because here we are. I don't know. There we are. I guess so. I've got to begin with this. I'm going to play this clip for you, and this is painful. I know, but I've got to get your take on this. This is From the View yesterday. This is the new mayor of New York City, cut 16. Mr. Mayor, and I love saying that. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, let's talk about the unfortunate situation unfolding in Minnesota. I am in support of abolishing ICE, and I'll tell you why. And there is a way to care about immigration in this city and in this country with a sense of humanity. What we're seeing from ICE is not it, and we have not seen that from them in a long, long time. So, you know, it's really nice to have you here. You make sense. Such critical thinkers on the view, Paul Morrow, such critical thinkers, so objective. Yeah, not long on specifics, are they? Neither is the mayor, apparently, because I love how everybody says, oh, this is just terrible. This is not the way to go about immigration enforcement. All right, tell us then how to go about it after 10 to 20 million unvetted were let into the country, many of whom are criminals. and mentally ill, and the municipalities where they are most prevalent won't cooperate with federal authorities. None of what you see, and the left is dining out on here, none of it is necessary if the local police departments will simply stop with the sanctuary nonsense.

hand over the worst of the worst. Were you to do that, the temperature would come way, way down. A lot of this wouldn't even be necessary. And I actually think we'd be having a very different conversation, which would be a little bit more along the lines of the big, beautiful door. If Donald Trump could take a victory lap and say, we got all the worst of the worst out to the extent that we can because we've gotten full cooperation around the country, the people that I hear who are not the worst of the worst, who broke the law coming in. but who have become, let's face it, an important part of the economy. Now maybe we can start talking about path to citizenship for at least some of them who are sponsored, who are not on the government doll, the kind of program that, in fact, W. Bush offered when he was president, which ironically the dams shot down at the time. Paul, it's amazing to me this political moment we're in where this is so much like the summer of love in 2020 all over again. You know, sewing this chaos in Minnesota, all these clashes that you're seeing, the calls for defund ICE, I know that this is a political strategy by Democrats where they think that it will just exhaust the American people and they'll turn around and say, okay, you know what, we're just going to vote for Democrats because we have to make this stop. That seems to be what they're doing here. Do you think so? Yeah, I mean, it's just, you know, I forget what the term was that Gutfeld used. He called it the uni gripe or something like that. The point being that the Omni Grape, that's what he said. And the idea being just that it almost, the cause almost doesn't matter. The same people that are protesting now would be protesting against Gaza or, you know, the actions in Gaza, they'll be protesting on trans rights. They'll be protesting. It doesn't, you know, women in men and women's sports. It almost doesn't matter. It's realistically, you have the, what I've been calling the nose ring militia out there waiting to be activated by the Dem leadership. A lot of them are just mindless and will go running out there. And it's no secret that a lot of them seem to be white women, who many of whom are, it looks to be like soccer moms who are just in search of some kind of meaning. But I think there is something a little bit more nefarious to it. I do think that when you look at the funding, when you look at the organization, I don't think all of it is some master plot from the Democrats to try to completely undermine the American system. I think there's gradations of that as a continuum. But I do think on the far, far left, you do have people who think in terms of revolution taking the country down. It's no accident that there is so much of a communist overlay when you really look into who's funding and organizing this stuff. And I think there's, to use the Leninist term, a lot of useful idiots out there that just buy into it because I think it puts some on the right side of history. I don't think they really understand the issues. Or as we just noted with the view and with Zohran Mamdani, they, it's just they give these highfalutin complaints that are based on some sort of moral reasoning or something with never any specifics to actually make the country safer. And so you have to say to yourself, okay, you know, who is really pulling the strings here? And I do think that there are some really deep, dark, nefarious elements represented by people like Soros and Roy Singham, who sits in Shanghai, that I hope we get to at some point. The OJ says they're going to because that is really a problem. And you see it playing out across the landscape of the American government, not only in the cities, but even comes into play, let's say, Adavos now where you see Alex Soros.

over there with Gavin Newsom. You know, again, he's, you know, Soros wants to see America just dismantled. Yep. So let's not kid ourselves what we're up against. No, in fact, Paul Morrow, you know, his father, George Soros, funded all of these woke protests, prosecutors across the country. Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, the guy out, the two people out in California, Chicago, all sort of money behind these people. And the goal was remake America from the courthouse, not from the top down, but from the courthouse up. And they were very successful in doing it in many different ways because you had criminals on the streets. And the sanctuary city point and something you and I've talked about before, which is that when you're a so-called sanctuary city, it doesn't mean that you're protecting people in churches and in daycare centers. It means that the local police are not handing over criminals who are in the system over to ICE when they get a detainer request. You're literally now, you have criminals in your system, but you're letting them go. And that's what a sanctuary city means. And that term sanctuary city makes it sound like, you know, something out of France in the 1500s where you could run into the church and get sanctuary or something. Right, and the left is very adept at this. They know how to manipulate language and weaponize it for their purposes. They always give these things very benign, you know, nomenclature so that people buy into it. And again, because it gives them, in their minds, the moral high ground, but on the ground is completely destructive. And this is a very good example. You know, when... I was working. The idea that you had somebody who was arrested on a felony, but the Fed say, hey, look, we have a detainer on him, we'll come and get him. That, you know, it was a no-brainer. It was computer systems that would set up, and it was just tricked. And, you know, now they just won't honor federal detainers. Their claim is essential. They're administrative. They're civil, so we're not going to honor them. That's a little gray at law. A lot of this stuff happens sort of in the legal weeds, and that's why, you know, people's eyes glaze over. But this is where I'd like to see the Trump administration really put in some more effort, because if you have federal warrants from a judge, which is what all these sanctuary cities say, well, we'll honor federal warrants. But we're not going to honor administrative detainers from Homeland. Okay, get the warrants. I would have an assembly line. And, you know, you'd have to flood the courts. I get that because there were so many bad guys out there, but do it. And I've been advocating. One of the things they should be doing is get federal warrants for some of the 1,300 perps that are deportable that are sitting in jails in Minnesota. And the reason I've been advocating for that is because almost certainly the Waltz and Fries of the world won't cooperate. And that would be a real mistake on their part, because you could serve them directly, right to them. So we have a warrant for Joe Jay Jones. He's in Minnesota prison. He's convicted of rape. He's deportable to El Salvador. Here's the warrant, Tim Walz, produced that body. And when he doesn't do it, he's in contempt. And he's got all kinds of other problems. And it would be a lever to use against them. And like I said, it gets very legalistic. But the bottom line is, if you have a warrant from a federal judge, the state's...

I have to comply. I would have an assembly line going to get the worst of the worst, warranted out from federal court so you can go and grab these bodies and launch them overseas. And they'd have no way to go. The states would have no way to go against that because that's where they always claim they'll hold the line. And they'll try to gum it up. They'll fight the warrants and everything else. And that'll put them in the optic of fighting to keep murderers and rapists here. And I don't even think our speculous media. we'd be able to countenance that. Paul, what do you make of these incidents like the one in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, where this woman says that she was stopped and she's an American citizen. We have some audio of this. This is cut 14 Brooklyn Park Police Chief. In Brooklyn Park, one particular officer that shared her story with me was stopped as she passed ice going down the roadway. When they boxed her in, they demanded her paperwork of which she's a U.S. citizen and clearly would not have any paperwork. When she became concerned about the rhetoric and the way she was being treated, she pulled out her phone. In an attempt to record the incident, the phone was knocked out of her hands, prevented her from recording it. The officer had their guns drawn during this interaction, and after the officer became so concerned, they were forced to identify themselves as a Brooklyn Park police officer in hopes of slowing the incident and de-escalating the incident down. The agents then immediately left after hearing this, making no other comments, no other apologies, just got on their vehicles and left. All right. What's your take on that, Paul Morrow? In light of the behavior of the Minnesota Police Departments so far, I just don't believe it. It didn't happen that way. You're asking me personally, I'm telling you, I don't believe it went that way. My own gut tells me that this officer probably blew through an ice checkpoint that was set up where they were looking for somebody specific. And just the fact that he noticed something that he did there. He gave you his side, that is her side of the story. And then at the end, says as a last resort, she identified herself. Right. Right there, he gives himself up. Your first move, not only logically, but by protocol in almost every police department I've ever heard of, is when you get involved in any sort of a police incident, you immediately identify yourself by the procedure. So the fact that he tells us, after all that she pulled out of phone, she tried to videotape them and, you know, get them on record, and then they slapped it out of her hand, and they had their guns drawn and everything else. Why would they pull their guns in a circumstance like he describes? They wouldn't. You know, and if you say, oh, well, they did what Renee Good. Yeah, they did because it was an arrest situation. She was being arrested. And in fact, one of the things that's lost in the Renee Good situation is the fact that not only did the shooting officer have his gun out because it was an arrest situation and she was noncompliant and in a 2,000 pound weapon, the car, but he actually showed that he was conscientious because he pulled out his own phone and started recording it. Well, why did he do that? Because they don't have body cams yet. All of ICE doesn't have the body cameras. They've been rolling them out, but they don't all have it. And so because it was an arrest situation, which is a situation where you turn on the body cam, he used his own phone. And luckily he did because it showed his side of the story in the car coming out of him and very clearly hitting him. So no, the way he couched out, there are a number of tells in there that tells me he's grandstanding. And realistically, look, they're all under the thumb of hyper-left mayors. The mayors are running those police departments.

And that's why the cases that are being built by Pam Bondi here, notice Pam Bondi's up in Minnesota. You've got a Florida girl going up to Minnesota in the middle of the winter. Do you think she wants to beat it? That tells me she knows she's got to get her arms around this thing. Make sure it goes right because obviously it's controversial. But she also just lost six AUSAs that resigned. So the whole situation is up there is quite symbolic because she knows she can't depend on her troops on the ground. If she had somebody she could depend on, she'd stay in Washington and continue to run everything and say, give me a briefing every day at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day, I want to be tightly looped in. So she felt like she had to go up there. That tells me she's not getting a lot of assistance up there. And there's a lot of deep state nonsense still going on with DOJ. That's what those tea leaves reveal. And so I'm sorry, but I don't believe that officer, that chief of police. And when you see how the chiefs of police in Minneapolis and St. Paul. have comported themselves, or in fact not comported themselves because they have responded to nothing, I'm just calling them out. I don't believe him. I think that's disingenuous, and frankly, he should be made to answer for him. Why did she only pull her ID out at the end? He didn't even have the wit from where I sit to tell the story accurately or in a way that makes him look better. Yeah, you're right. I mean, there isn't a cop in this country who, if they were pulled over, wouldn't immediately show their tin to the officer who walks up to their car. Of course. Of course. Of course. I mean, he's either and she's either completely incompetent and they both have to be because the way he told the story reveals her incompetence. Well, the lying. And I'm sorry to do. You know, I'm notorious on the network, I think, for taking the side of law enforcement, although I try to be even handed. I just try to give what it looks like from the police department side and try to reserve judgment. But this one I don't find to be close. And like I said, I just don't trust them because they're under the thumbs of these mayors and they're falling all over themselves to virtue signal so that they can try to survive it. But I'm going to tell you this, Rich. When they start getting into the weeds of the discovery here, because they're serving grand jury subpoenas already on Fry and Waltz on Ellison and others, once the cops, maybe not the top people, but the executives under them who've had to grit their teeth and bear the fact that they're not allowed to be police up there because this must embarrass them all. The rank and file must be mortified up there. You watch how fast they start flipping on these guys and saying, these are the orders that I was given, and I will testify to it, I want whistleblower protection, or if I have any culpability, I want immunity. And you'll see the floodgates open, because I can't imagine the rank and file up to, let's say, mid-level to maybe even executive-level supervisors. I can't imagine they're on board with this stuff. I think you call it like you see it, my friend, which is why we love you on the network. Paul Morrow, thank you, my friend. We'll talk soon, of course. Appreciate your time today on Guy Benson. Thanks, buddy. Anytime. Appreciate you. And we'll be right back. Filling in for Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioli. By the way, is Cookie's Jar?

Available? I'm just curious if producer Christine. For what? I, oh, excuse me. I was just going to say thank you for having me back. I was so hostile. My goodness. So hostile. I just wanted to say thanks for having me back in to host Guy Benson. Well, it's been a while, so we were very, very exciting. You're my buddy. It's been a minute. It's been a minute. Because Tara on X said, loves guy, love guy, love you. This is perfect. So I just, and I, and I, and I, I tagged you in, but I had to remember your Twitter handle because it's insane. Cookies jar 1980. I mean, what is that? That sounds like an only fan's page. Cookie's jar, 1988. If you have been a long time, Guy Benson, listener, you would know. It's a very, very deep, deep poll inside joke. Cookie because, cookies jar, because everybody calls me Cookie. And 1988, because that's the year, Guy thinks that I moved from Russia as a spy to the United States. He likes to tell everybody, I'm a former secret Russian spy. I think you are. And it's very obvious from that Twitter handle that is something that a Russian bot came up with. I'm just saying. So there's no doubt in my mind about that. Are you worried about the snow because I just got asked to go in America's Newsroom on Monday? I don't know how I'm going to get up there. Maybe a sled snow dogs. Maybe I can buy one from Greenland. I don't know. I'm very worried about the snow, but I'm also lucky. I have coverage for my daughter. So I was the shining star here. I got to go tell the bosses. I'm like, hey, listen. If you want to get me a hotel Sunday night, I can work all the shows on Monday. I could help out wherever you need. Not all heroes wear capes, Rich. No, not all heroes wear capes. I think what are they saying now? It could be anywhere from one inch to 127 inches. Yeah, I think we're going to have to get a weather person on tomorrow on Friday when we narrowed down because like you said right now it is like one inch or 20. We don't know. And also this is such a widespread. Oh, I sound like a, don't I sound like a meteorologist? This is such a widespread storm. Yes. Rich, you know, it's going from the south to the mid-Atlantic all the way up to the northeast. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. We're going to get some people on about it. We got to run. But our two of the Guy Benson shows coming up straight ahead with Jonathan Fahey, former acting ICE director. So don't go away.

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 Great to be with you here on Guy Benson, and I am very excited as we continue to cover the chaos in Minnesota and the latest that's going on out there. Welcome back to Guy Benson, Jonathan Fahey, former acting ICE director. Jonathan, thanks for joining us here today. I appreciate it because this is still besides Greenland, the biggest story of the day. So thank you. Well, thank you for happening. You know, I saw your tweet how President Trump's enforcement over immigration laws makes Americans safer. A point I want to make is that the president ran on this, right? I mean, he ran on securing the border. He ran on cracking down on illegal immigration. It's not like he ran on giving everybody amnesty and then did a big switcheroo after he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. So he's doing what he said he would do. And when he campaigned, he won every single swing state, the electoral college, and the popular vote. So obviously, this is what most. Americans want him to do? Yeah, I think you're exactly right. And remember, he even ran on it in 2016. And it's like, this is what he said he's going to do. And he's doing, he's not only doing what he said he was going to do politically, but he's doing what he's required to do under the Constitution, which is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, which is something the Biden administration, Mayorkas, didn't do. But, yeah, I said that tweet just because. When you look at the numbers of the people that are being deported, which is 400 and something thousand of them had criminal records. And this year, we have the lowest murder rate on record. They started keeping records in 1960. And this year, Trump's first year, lowest record murder rate ever. And then other crime is down roughly 20% or so. So it's made a massive difference in these areas. And ironically, places like... Chicago are doing fantastic in terms of crime because of President Trump going in there. It's so, it's amusing on one hand because these Democrat leaders get the benefit of all of Trump's policies and get to oppose them at the same time. You know, and it seems, and this is something I asked Paul Morrow earlier in the show, it seems like they're trying to create chaos here because they think they're going to win politically if America just turns on the news every night. and just sees all this chaos in the streets and people get exhausted and tune out. I mean, there definitely is a calculated strategy here. And you go back to, and a lot this last week, we've heard from Democrats in the past who at one point talked about going after illegal immigrants. We heard Bill Clinton's radio address from the 90s, Nancy Pelosi's comments, Diane Feinstein's comments, Chuck Schumer's comments on this. I mean, they have gone so far on this issue where I just don't really believe them. I think they see a political opportunity here. And they love the chaos. And obviously this chaos that we're seeing is very organized.

Yeah, you're exactly right. And remember 2020, you know, the George Floyd riots and protests, the Democrats viewed that as almost, that was a heyday for the left. Remember, they for about a few months, they controlled everything. They controlled police and they controlled what we talked about. They controlled corporations were giving them money and all of these things. So they view the chaos as a good thing. And also politically, at some point, the Democratic Party switched to being the party of like sort of the workers. to the party of the illegal aliens. You can't really represent both. But their whole strategy is, and I think it's hard to argue with this now because of the way they're reacting now that President Trump's being successful and they're upset about it is they want open borders and mass amnesty because they think it helps them electorally. And that's, you know, and they are sticking to that because it's interesting. You know, there are a lot of Democrats that played lip service to border security or border enforcement during, you know, 2024. But there's undoubtedly, President Trump has achieved that to a level that no one even thought possible. And yet other than John Fetterman, you don't see a single Democrat saying, hey, that's a really good thing that he's done. And by the way, overdose deaths are also down like 20%. So it's chaos, but they ultimately want illegal aliens to vote. They view it as a constituency. Governor J.B. Pritzker even said, remember at the beginning of the administration, you're not coming after my people, his people, illegal aliens. It's amazing that they, you know, probably they're up there, you know, head to head with the teachers union for power within the Democratic Party now. When you hear people say abolish ICE, for example, or they make the accusations that ICE is just randomly going around and just picking up brown people or knocking on people's doors and, you know, saying to the neighbors, identify the brown people in your neighborhood. I mean, when you hear this kind of nonsense that's being speared out there, as a guy who wore the badge, as a guy who ran the place, I mean, how does it make you feel? Well, it's bothersome because on multiple levels, one, they're not doing that. They're going out there targeting people. And if you see when, you know, Todd Lyons or Bovino or any of these people on TV, they are going out to areas and they have particular people on a list or that they're going after. So they're not just randomly stopping people. But it's also really shameful if you think about it. Because whatever your view on the immigration issue as a matter of policy. Everyone should recognize these agents are just carrying out the law. They have an oath to fulfill and the oath is to enforce the law. So if, you know, if you want open borders in mass amnesty, which the Democrats, which makes what they're doing so much more cynical, they cannot win at the ballot box on the issue and they cannot win in Congress on the issue. So what do they do? They, they, so all these subversive tactics that put agents in danger, all of us in danger. And it's like, hey, if you can't win our system. You live with the consequences of the other size policy. And that's the way it works. And we all have to recognize that that's the deal. We may not like when the Democrat, I live in Virginia, the Democrats win, and we're going to pay more in taxes. I don't get to just say, oh, I'm not going to pay more taxes because I'm mad and I wanted the Republican to win. It doesn't work that way.

Oh, listen, brother, I live in Jersey. I hear, I feel you. Our two states, you know, it's, and already your new governor is already implementing crazy policies. So she hasn't even been there a day. I want to play a clip for you, Jonathan Fahey, former acting ice director, if I could. This is Pam Bondi from Fox News. Let's cut number nine. Whether it's a public official, whether it's a law enforcement officer, no one is above the law in this state or in this country. And people will be held accountable. This state is a mess right now. We've seen the chaos. And it's constant. And our men and women in law enforcement deserve to be safe. And that's what we're going to do in Minnesota. Now, that's a good message from the Attorney General. I know that she's up there right now, and she's in the freezing cold, and she's dealing with this because you had, I think it was six Deputy Attorney General who stepped down. What would you like to see the Attorney General do? I think a couple of things. I think they need to charge the people that went inside of that church under the FACE Act. I think that's egregious conduct. So that's number one on the sort of overall broader immigration issue. I think what, and I think they're going after this, they need to look into these officials. for not only obstruction, which, you know, impeding law enforcement, but also alien harboring. Because alien harboring is a federal felony. It's Title 8, USC 1324 that says basically, if you're doing something to shield illegal aliens from or harbor them from detection from ICE, that's a felony. Or if you're doing anything to induce or encourage them to stay in the country illegally. And that seems to be what they're doing. And it'll be very interesting to see if they're setting policies or directing officials to do things like. say, for example, tell police not to help ICE or to hide alien status of people within their jail and things like that. It would be very interesting to see that type of thing going on. But also anyone that lays hands on an ICE agent, they need to be locked up and they need to do some time because this is not the way our system works. And unfortunately, people like Tim Walz will not stand up for law and order. And we saw it in 2020, right? I mean, he basically. figuratively hit under his death. Jacob Frey was busy performing while their city burned. And it's ironic that I don't know if you've heard some of these quotes from Jacob Frey that are like, well, if we want the city to be safe, ICE just has to leave. Ice doesn't make the city safer, which is ironically, I mean, it's not even true. But if you look at during his tenure as the mayor of Minneapolis, murders are up. like 66 to 70% from the prior eight years. He's been an utter disaster for public safety, never supports the police. It's not just ICE. He doesn't support his own police. And you'll see some things from the Minnesota Porto Alto Police online that talk about how they support ICE. But yeah, they need to go in there, hold people accountable. If public officials are breaking the law, they should be held accountable. But it's certainly fair to be investigating them because just their public statements.

alone are really skirt the line of obstruction. As the former acting director of ICE, I'd love for you to respond to this. This is Jason Houser, who is on MS now, former ICE chief of staff. This is what he said, cut 18. I must say, I've talked to dozens, if not hundreds of state local law enforcement as well as keep in touch, you know, all the time with my former colleagues. Any officer or former or current that I hear from, the sort of sort of. how this is being carried out, no one sees as sort of in the public safety interest. And we're starting to see the outcomes of that in our community, starting to personally affect not just migrants, but our communities, because of whether it's political opportunism, or whether it's sort of quota arrest targets, whether it's just sort of driving fear is sort of a deterrent to kind of stop individuals from some seeking asylum or coming to our country in our immigration system. I used to see. This was not built to oversee 14 million individuals on the immigration docket. Do you want to respond to that, Jonathan Fahey? I think we'd all appreciate that. He's alleging he spoke to hundreds of law enforcement. There is zero chance. This is true. I've never spoken to law enforcement. They love Donald Trump. They love Tom Homan. Not just ice ages, but federally. I've never spoken with a law enforcement officer that voted for Kamala Harris that would at least admit it. There is zero chance that that's true. I cannot believe it. The agents hated Mayorkas. They hated everyone in the Biden administration. They had no respect for them whatsoever. I find that to be, I would love it as somebody say, just saying like. five of them because there's zero chance these people exist. And the idea that there are dozens or hundreds, it's like, come on. And nobody in law enforcement would talk to Biden people or anything else because they know they did everything they could if Biden, Obama, to cut the legs out from law enforcement and to demean them and disparate them every time it was politically expedient. So I think that is at leastly false. And just, yeah, just the other thing is. It does make the community safer. I mean, again, the numbers speak for themselves. Look at Chicago before, what was it, Operation Midway Blitz. Look at it after. Crime went down like something like 20% just during that surge or whatever you want to call it. It does work. And communities are objectively safer. It's just preposterous to argue otherwise. The numbers don't support that. And the idea, you know, people who are here illegally need to go home. And the funny thing about it is, The state, you know, the public administration's being heavy-handed or whatever. It's like, well, they are offering people $1,000 and a free plane ticket to leave on their own. What other law in the history of this country do you get paid just to stop violating the law? Yeah, I mean, it's insane. They've been incredibly generous, and that's worked quite well. We've had 1.9 million people self-deport. But it's like, the bottom line is these people need to go. The Democrats are doing... Nothing, their whole thing is the sort of the emotional blackmail game, but there's nothing virtuous or altruistic about importing a bunch of people because you think they'll vote for you. And by the way, and it doesn't get talked about a lot, illegal aliens cost the American people money. I think the average per year, it's like $150 billion in tax dollars, not to mention the average American gets poor, less educated, less healthy.

lower wages, higher rents. All of those things are objectively true. So, you know, illegal aliens just not to say anything bad about them individually, but as a full, Americans suffer in many ways and quality of life because of it. And if you think about the tax dollars, $150 billion a year that we're spending on this, what have we spent that money on childhood cancer or something else? If it really is for altruism, why, as opposed to subsidizing? illegal aliens. It's insane to me. Well, he got an MS now. So there's that. He got some TV time. Jonathan Fahey, thanks for joining us here on Guy Benson. We certainly do appreciate it, my friend. Thank you. And as we continue, we got Snowmageddon on the way. How bad is it going to be? We'll find out. We're also going to talk to KT. McFarland, former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor. The president just spoke a short time ago and said, we have a deal, baby. We got a deal. Don't go away. filling in for Guy Benson it's rich zioli it is Guy Benson it's me rich zioli in for guy please subscribe to my podcast it's the rich zioli podcast Michelle Defoy is going to run for Senate in Minnesota. Good. I'm glad she is. I think it's fantastic. She was on with Martha McCallum earlier on this story talking about this. I think she's very well liked. She's got name recognition. She's very popular. Minnesota's a tough state, though. You know, one of the things that I never understood, I mean, Tim Walz is the worst pick in the history of vice presidential candidates. There's no doubt about that. Guy brought nothing to the table. I had to crack up when they said that they asked him about being a potential agent for China. Well, I mean, he probably was an agent for China, just not a good one. He's not the guy's good at anything he does. But now, he went to China a lot on trips. They also asked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro if he was ever an agent for Israel or ever met with an undercover agent for Israel. And actually like his response when he said, well, how would I know if they were ever an undercover agent if they were? undercover. But they went with Tim Walz. They were going to win Minnesota. Minnesota is a tough state to flip. They were going to win. But how do you not see the fraud that's there? And it just makes you think that they knew the fraud was there and they just didn't care. Either they were so arrogant and thought they were going to win or they just figured, well, if the guy is able to hide all this fraud, he can probably help us make a ton of cash for our campaign. I mean, let's not forget, they did blow $1.5 billion on that campaign in Minnesota. I like defoy his chances because now with all the fraud being exposed and there's more of it coming out, Nick Shirley out there talking again today on Fox News about another fraud scandal that they've exposed here in Minnesota, more of it. And they're saying the estimates could be anywhere from a billion dollars to maybe $8, $9 billion, maybe $10 billion of fraud. That's the kind of thing that could be a political game changer in a state.

That and you think about all the chaos that's happening. You see the chaos in the streets. And obviously that has done. Democrats believe they take a page out of 2020 in the summer of love. They show all this chaos on TV and they exhaust people. And then people say, okay, fine, fine, we're going to turn around and just vote Democrats just so the chaos stops. But. I don't think that's going to be the issue around midterms. I think the issue around midterms is going to ultimately be the economy. And it's always the economy stupid. It's a roll of the dice of if the economy is going to be better. And I think it will be. You know, Gavin Newsom came out earlier and said that he predicted that because of this Greenland acquisition, the markets were going to tank. The markets had a great day today with news of the Greenland deal. Something we'll talk about with KT McFarland in the next segment here on Guy Benson. But the markets rally. They were very excited about this over the announcement that we have a framework for a future Greenland deal. It's great. They're thrilled. But it's, I think about the war on energy that the Democrats wage and how that war is over and gas prices are coming down. It'll be interesting to see with home heating oil prices this winter. And then by next year, I think the economy is going to be rolling full steam ahead. I really do. Consumer confidence, lower energy prices. These are the things that drive that. And so I think it's a good time for a Republican to do it. If anybody can, it would be somebody like DeFoya who has name recognition, is great on television, great on radio, and can run a good race. It's going to be a fight. It'll be a battle. Absolutely. No doubt about it. But good for her for throwing her hat in the ring. I think it is great. So what is the framework for the future Greenland deal like? We'll find out with the expert herself and KT. McFarland, as we continue here on Guy Benson, don't go away.

Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioli. Big day today, big day. The President of the United States announcing the framework of a deal, the acquisition of Greenland, and we could not have a better guest. We talk about it. I've been KT. McFarland, former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor. He's worked under four presidents, President Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and, of course, President Donald Trump. KT. McFarland, thanks so much for joining us here on the show on this very historic day. I assume you watch the president's speech in Davos like we all did, and give us your 30,000-foot view. Well, the speech at 6. with all of Trump's greatest hits, right? He's rebuilt the military. He's fixed the American economy. He's done this most favored nation drug treatment. So American drug, people who are going to buy drugs, not drugs, prescriptions won't have to pay all of the R&D costs. So our prescriptions will be the same price, if not lower, than anyone in the world. But he'd use the opportunity to really call out NATO and the Europeans. to say, look, you guys can't defend yourselves. You've chosen to have open borders. You've chosen the green new scam, as he says, the Green New Deal, and you've destroyed your economies. And so you can't defend Greenland. And then he talks about a number of things, but particularly about Greenland, he said a few things that he'd not said before. One, he said that we're negotiating now. We're going to be negotiating a deal. Everybody's going to be happy with it. And he also said, that he would rule out the use of excessive force. And when I heard those words, I realized, oh, he's already halfway to the deal. And that's what they announced this afternoon. We have the audio of the president announcing that deal, KT. McFarland. Let's take a listen to it. It's a deal that people jumped at. Really fantastic for the USA. It gets everything we wanted, including especially real national security and international. How so? Can you give us some details, please? Well, the deal is going to be put out pretty soon. We'll see. It's right now a little bit in progress, but pretty far along. It gets us everything we needed to get. What do you think? I mean, it's amazing, right? He comes out. He gives a speech. He talks about this. He says, we're not going to go in there militarily. We're not going to use force. The head of NATO comes out and says, look, the Arctic is essential to this, national security. KT. McFarlane, I don't think a lot of people realize that point about the role that Greenland plays and how if Russia would ever fire intercontinental ballistic missiles, they would go over Greenland. So we're going to have a golden dome to shoot them down. It's to Europe's benefit as well. Yeah, and I think that President Trump, frankly, didn't make as much of this as he could, which is, you know, we have no defense against nuclear weapons. Russia, China, North Korea, they decide to shoot a nuclear weapon to the United States. You know, there's nothing we can do. We're going to receive that nuclear weapon. A lot of people are going to die.

So, President Trump has proposed the Golden Dome, which is really a follow-on from the 1983 speech that President Reagan gave about Star Wars. I wrote that speech. Did you really? Wow. I did. I wrote the part, Reagan wrote the important part, but I wrote the part, the main speech. And Reagan, in that speech, Reagan said, look, we don't have any defense against nuclear weapons. But we do have brilliant scientists, and I challenge our brilliant scientists and our military personnel and inventors and developers to go to the drawing boards. figure out how to do it, but let's make a defense system that could shoot down, at the time, Soviet nuclear weapons. So they wouldn't hit the United States. So we could live in a world free of nuclear weapons. We wouldn't have to worry about nuclear attack. So we did not have the technologies at the time. I was in the Oval Office when President Reagan gave the speech from the Resolute Desk from the Oval Office. But what he did was he started a program, and it lasted six, eight years. But then once the Cold War was over, The defense budget got cut, that got cut out of the funding. So we didn't do. We never developed Star Wars, but the Israelis did. They took our technology and our studies, and they developed the Iron Dome and David's swing. So we've seen how greatly effective it has been. with a missile barrage attacks against Israel, they just shoot them out of the sky. So President Trump wants to come back to that original concept and say, let's have a dome over America. They're not a physical dome, but in effect a dome that would be multi-layered, it would be space-based, it would be land-based, and we would be able to see if Russia, China, North Korea is starting to shoot a missile. So we would see it just as it leaves the ground. and then could destroy it. You know, we would then shoot a missile at it, and it would stop it in its tracks. It would not get anywhere near the United States. But to do that effectively, you have to have it based in Greenland. And that's why when President Trump talked about national security, and then he said international security. And the point being that it wouldn't just protect America. It's going to protect Canada. It's going to protect Northern Europe, all of Europe. And to me, I was just stunned when the Europeans were so angry about this. Because it was like Donald Trump said, hey, wait a minute, I'm going to pay for it. I'll spend the hundreds of billions of dollars to create this. shield that will protect us all from nuclear attack. We just need to base it in Greenland. We're not going to do it unless we have guarantees that we can control the land, whether we buy the land, whether we lease the land. Those are details that President Trump will be revealing in the next few days. But that, to me, is the most significant part of it. Is it true, Katie McFerlin, that, I mean, the Democrats called it Star Wars as a pejorative back then, like trying to mock it. Yeah.

Yeah, but I always thought, so I wrote it, and it was called the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI. What a boring title. And New York Post had a headline the next day saying, you know, Reagan plan to zap red nukes. Star Wars plan. And at the time, that's when the first Star Wars movies were coming out. And then I said to the Secretary of Defense, I even mentioned it to the president, hey, wait, this is a great name, Star Wars. It was a movie where, you know, good guys were fighting the evil empire and they were winning. And to me, it was exactly what the missile defense system was supposed to be. Good guys fighting the evil empire. But no. The Democrats thought it was a pejorative term. I've always thought it was a terrific way of talking about it. I do, too, because it's relatable to everybody. And, I mean, these missiles do fly. You know, I mean, in space. So, you know, it doesn't, it makes perfect sense, KT. McFarland. All right. So let me ask you then. You said in order for that to work, it has to be based on Greenland. And is that because if you go any further north, it just gets too cold and you get the northern lights and the magnetic fields and everything else? It's just, that's kind of the cutoff point. No, it has to be land-based. So that's the, I mean, it's ice, but that's the only land that you could base it on. It has to be land-based. It has to be space-based. So in other words, we would have intelligence networks that could see the missile coming, you know, out of the missile launch. And then we would also be able to shoot out, usually with lasers probably, or some kind of directed energy beam, whether it's a hypersonic missile or an intercontinental ballistic missile or a cruise missile. So we would want to shoot out at it before it reached its apogee. So before it left the atmosphere to come down in New York and then go and hit the United States, hit Canada, hit Europe. You want to get it early on. And to do that. you would have to base it in part in Greenland. I would like to play this for you. This is Russian state TV cheering Trump on Greenland. Americans are delivering a catastrophic blow to NATO, they argued, to NATO. Now, this is obviously before the deal was announced. This is cut 27. Americans are delivering a catastrophic blow. to NATO, to NATO, because one country that is a member of NATO is taken away the territory that rightfully belongs to a country that is also a member of NATO. I think this benefits us. I guess that's kind of an irrelevant clip at this point, huh? KT.

Yeah, and we're not taking away. This is a deal that will be done. Money will change hands. Sure, it'll be expensive. It'll be enormously expensive to build. But this is not seizing land. This is working with our NATO allies, particularly with Greenlanders and particularly with Denmark, to find some way that we could put these kind of facilities in Greenland. Now, the big loser in all this, of course, is Russia and China, because they have particularly China, which had already started putting... facilities, really natural resource extraction facilities in Greenland. China really wants to have Greenland, a lot of space in Greenland to itself, and they wanted to preclude the United States or NATO from using Greenland. And frankly, that was the sense of urgency, I think President Trump had, make sure that the Chinese, we have to head them off at the past, make sure that the Chinese can't use it. Not that the Chinese would have used it for military advantage, but they would want to use it for commercial advantage. developing the rare earth minerals and the energy resources oil and natural gas. But they would also want to, China would want to control it and use it. and use it as a way of dealing with the maritime trade route. So the quickest way to get goods from Asia to North America or to the Western Hemisphere is up over the Arctic. It's not all the way around the Atlantic, all the way around the Pacific. It would be over the Arctic Ocean. And the routes that it would take would be to the east and west of Greenland. So it's important to make sure that would be free and open trade. that we could have maritime trade that everybody would be able to participate in. And again, that requires somebody like the United States, like our NATO allies, to have control over Greenland. Right now, nobody's there. As President Trump said, the defense of Greenland is two dogfleds, one of which was added recently. So we need to have a military presence. And by having that military presence, it deters Russia, China. North Korea from making mischief in the North Atlantic or against NATO or the United States or Canada or Europe. Fascinating stuff from the woman who wrote President Reagan's SDI speech herself. K.T. McFarland, former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor, thank you so much for joining us here on Guy Benson. We appreciate it. It's an honor and a pleasure. Thank you. And we got more to talk about. We got a lot more to talk about. We are just getting warmed up here on the show. But this is a very, very historic day to day, no doubt about it. We'll get a whole other hour to go. But before we do, Democrats in Virginia have introduced a bill that discriminates against white men in government contracting. No, I'm not making that up. How could I make that up? It would be impossible to make up. But I'll tell you all about it. I'll give you all the details. As we continue along here on Guy Benson, don't go away. Billing in for Guy Benson. It's Rich Zioli. So Democrats in Virginia have introduced the bill.

There are going to be a lot of bills interviews, obviously. But now you have a new governor, Abigail Spanberger, who won that election. And unfortunately, Governor Glenn Youngkin is now out. The question is, will she go along with this? Democrats in Virginia, according to a tweet from Christian Heinz on X, have introduced the bill that discriminates against white men in government contracting. For discretionary contracts under $100,000, white men are barred from even being considered unless there's literally no competition. And even then, this bill allows agencies to award contracts to women or minority-owned firms that are 5% more expensive than a bid from a business owned by a white man. All right, so let's break that down a little bit. Not only is this discrimination, obviously, because you're saying now if you're white, white males need not apply. And there's lots of different ways you can be a white male. Like you could be Irish, you could be Italian. And there used to be signs like that, you know, Irish need not apply. And then they would put derogatory statements about my people need not apply. And I'm not going to say those on the radio, but I think you know what I'm talking about. So, you know, we overcame that. But now we're back to this. White man, bad. So basically, you can come in to the taxpayers and say, hey, listen, you got this request for proposal. I've got this, this solution for you. Here's my offer. And they'll turn around and go, yeah, but here's the problem. Yes, you're 5% cheaper, which in government could mean tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, could mean literally, I mean, who knows? It has to be under $100,000, right? So it could be, I'm no math guy, but as this all adds up, you're going to get into the millions of dollars. It's contract after contract. States do a lot of business. They have a lot of contracts. They do a lot of different requests for proposals. So then you're going to talk about getting into the tens of millions of dollars, maybe even the hundreds of millions of dollars. If it's contract by contract by contract, contracts under $100,000 add up very, very quickly. So now you turn around and go, all right, so I'm 5% cheaper. Yes, you are, but you're white and you're a dude. So sorry, we're going to actually make the taxpayers pay more because you're a white guy. So we're not just going to punish you and not give you the job. And it doesn't matter. You may employ people who are not white males. So you may have a business. And maybe you have people that work for you who are maybe black, maybe brown, maybe women, maybe women who are black and brown.

It doesn't matter. You're the owner. So even though you're cheaper, the taxpayers are going to eat that other 5% because you're still a white guy. And that means that even taxpayers who happen to be. people who aren't white males will also have to pay more because of this stupid bill. Think about that for a second. So in other words, a black woman in Virginia who's a taxpayer is going to pay more because the state is going to award the contract to somebody who's not a white male charging 5% more. Does that make any sense to anybody in the universe, in the world? Of course not, but that's how the left thinks. They see people as, they don't see people. They see, they, they, they look at crayons, like a box of crayons. And they love this DEI crap and they love to do this. And then they love to discriminate. I mean, if you ever turned the tables on this and said that black people could not apply for this or, well, you can, but you better really be cheap. Otherwise, we're not going to give it to you. I mean, you would call this out as exactly what it is. Evil, segregation, discrimination, everything else that you want. And not only that, but in Virginia, for example, a couple things about this, the division of procurement enhancement within the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity. will collaborate with all these other various agencies, which tells me there's already way too much government to begin within the state to enhance the development of small businesses, micro businesses, women-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses in the Commonwealth. And then they'll then turn around and then award those contracts. So just out of curiosity, what stops somebody from essentially now? lying about the ownership of their business. I mean, you have a guy who owns a business and then just basically puts it in his wife's name. or or has a business and then puts the business in the name of one of the employees because that employee is is is black i'm just trying to understand all the different ways that this will be able to to be fraudulently abused if this becomes a law in virginia and there'll be lots of ways to do it because one of the biggest scams going is is women own businesses i can't say how many women own businesses are actually owned by men who just happened to make their wife 51% of the company, which is fine as long as they don't ever get a divorce, because then, obviously, now you've got a problem. But it's also really discriminatory to the taxpayers who are not just white males. Like other people who happen to people who are not white males are going to pay more for all of the various things that the Commonwealth of Virginia enters into contracts to because of this stupid discriminatory bill.

This is the goal. And of course, since you're allowed to hate white men in Virginia again, I guess the mission accomplished. I don't know what to tell you. All right, we got a big five o'clock hour coming up. Taylor Riggs is coming up. We're going to talk to her about should we be capping credit card rates? That's straight ahead here on Guy Benson. Don't go away. 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. All right, here on Guy Benson with me, Rich Zioly, filling in for Guy. It's great to be with you. And I'm so excited. One of my favorite guests whenever I fill in on Fox News Radio. Taylor Riggs, co-anchor of a big money show on Fox Business. Watch it every day at noon. I do certainly. Taylor, how's my favorite Maha Mom today? Oh, you're just sweet. It was so fun to see you in a studio the other day. I got to run into you. That was great. And, you know, just... Get to see you. So thank you for having me on the show. Oh, listen, I appreciate it. There's a lot to talk about. First of all, we got credit card rates, which, you know, I agree with you on this point, and I'm so glad that you put out a tweet on this, Taylor, because I think it's really important for people to know. I get it. We're frustrated with what the credit card companies charge. I understand that point. But I think your point in your tweet about how price caps don't work, I think you're spot on with that. Should we ask Venezuela, how price that's a great point, right? Not ideal, right? Don't want to be taking financial advice from socialism or communism. So, okay, let's talk about it. So the president had a good point today. He came out and he said credit card company profits have just topped 50%. That doesn't feel good when the average Americans still feels like they're getting screwed. He had a good point in Davos. He said, people miss a payment, and then before you know it, they lose their house. He's not exaggerating. That is true. But the way to fix that is not through capping credit card rates at 10%. We could argue that, and the host on my show, Daggie McDowell argues this, and I hear her when she says, when rates come down, credit card rates haven't. Credit card rates are 20 to 30% no matter what the Fed does. Let's look at that. Maybe there should be a different spread that we look at. Maybe the credit card company should be pressured a little bit instead of 30 to be 20. instead of 20 to be 15. So when the Fed's cutting rates, the rate on your credit card actually comes down, that's something we can look at, but a 10% cap, I just don't think is going to do it. Overall, generally, I just like the free market. I want the free market to do the work. But maybe I come down in the middle on this issue, too, because I feel really bad for Americans who are paying 30% interest. And it's not, they're not just...

So, look, if I'm buying like my Chipotle delivery on credit card and I can't pay it back, that's on me. But if I'm struggling in living paycheck to paycheck, there's got to be a way to help people out. So price caps don't work, but I applaud the administration for throwing out a lot of ideas on this topic just to get us talking about the conversation, just to get the credit card companies to know, we hear you, we're on to you. Don't take advantage of people, but overall this isn't going to work. I think credit card companies have said that. If we have people at 10%, they can adequately price risk so that that means I just won't loan to you. I'm going to look at risk and be like, nope, don't like his finances. I'm cutting off your credit because you're not worth 10%. You're only worth 20 to 30%. Well, I'm a huge credit risk anyway, Taylor. So nobody would ever loan me money. That's obvious, Taylor Riggs. But I think there's another point to this to another unintended consequence, which is that. Yes, I know people, they could have a medical emergency, they could have a car emergency and then have to put it on a credit card and that could cause financial peril. But if credit card rates are low, there may not be any disincentive for people to... charging everything on their credit cards. Whereas I think that if it's 25 or 30%, I know for me, I'm paying that bill every month is I don't want to get hit with that interest, right? If it's only 10%, I might be like, eh, you know what? I mean, I'll roll it over. Maybe they'll maybe they'll lower it to five at some point. I don't know. Maybe it'll be like Biden's student loans. They'll just pay it all off one day. I worry about that unintended consequence. I think you're right. I think taxes incentivize behavior. And if we're looking at this is a tax or this as a... punishment, it incentivizes behavior. It is incentivizing you to think twice before you put something on your credit card and to think twice before you don't pay off that credit card. So I agree. There are some unintended consequences, but I do. I've also read some other researchers from the Vanderbilt Policy Institute, and they said that the interest saved, if you just did like a 12% cap. $100 billion or something that overall, all collectively Americans would be saving that money. And that would offset more than enough decline in any of the rewards points drop that you would see. Because you get rewards points because you're subsidizing the risky borrower. And so the risky borrower is then coming in and because they're paying high interest rates, you get your rewards, your free upgrades, or whatever you're getting. So the amount of interest we would say collectively would more than offset any decline that you would see in your rewards points.

Just throwing that food for thought out there, but overall, I agree with you. I want the free markets to work. And if credit card companies can adequately price risk, they are probably just going to just deny you alone. I will say, too, that high credit card interest rates have allowed a lot of new companies to come in. That's what I love about free markets. You have a lot of buy, now, pay, later companies. Now, I'm not saying that that's the right answer either because I think this younger generation is getting into a lot of trouble when it comes to buy, now, pay later. But there are other options out there, and it's allowing the free market to work itself out and that people are saying, all right, you know what? Maybe I'm not going to go with this credit card company anymore. Let me look and see what my other choices are. Yeah, like there's an interest saver payment option that I have on my one credit card. So I just pay the interest saver portion every month. Now, I'm still carrying debt. And obviously, if something goes wrong, I may regret that at some point versus paying the whole thing off. But at least it's an option that I have if I want to avoid interest, which I like. And again, that's a free market solution that came around because people were complaining if they were a few hours late and then all of a sudden now they're hit with 25% interest. Taylor Riggs, let me ask you, though, do you agree with Jamie Diamond's assessment? Because he's warning of economic disaster if this credit card rate cap were to be put into place. You know, I don't. I mean, we have to remember who he is. He's talking to book. They do some of the biggest loans out there. They have some of the best credit. I think in my life, I have had a Bank of America and a JP and a... J.P. Morgan and in Amex, I've had all of the banks, right? And so he's talking his book. So I don't think it would be a total economic disaster. You hear in that interview he went on to say, we would be fine. I'm sure they would be fine. They're always fine. They're J.P. Morgan. They've the best balancing the world of all the other banks. But I think what the message he's trying to convey is he would look at that risky borrower and cut them off. And then that would be hard for that person. Where would they go? Would they have to resort to a loan shark, which isn't good, right? And then sort of they spiral. And then they really do lose their home. And so I think he's trying to get across the message that, and you have to remember, you get a low mortgage rate because if you don't pay your mortgage, the bank has your home. If you don't pay your credit card, the bank has nothing. It is an unsecured asset. So they're charging in many cases north of 20%. Because they have no remedy to come after you for anything if you don't pay. They can't seize your home. They can't seize your car. They can't garnish your wages. And so they're adequately trying to price in what is an unsecured asset and what does that look like. But Americans feel frustrated still about... You know, just this affordability. And you and I could have a broader conversation, and this is a little bit outside my wheelhouse, about the populist turn. I mean, if you had told me that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and President Trump would all be agreeing on price cap, would be like, what year am I in? Yeah. But he's talking about solutions because people feel like these big corporations in many ways are kind of sticking it to them. Whether it's right or not, that's how they feel.

Taylor Riggs, I think that one of the things about President Trump is, I mean, he's not a true conservative in the classic sense of economics. He's a populist. And so it's not surprising that he wants to see this. And it's a similar idea that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have floated because a lot of what Trump economic policies are are actually using the government. But that said, it's popular with a lot of people. A lot of people like to see this is the same thing when he came after private equity and said you can't keep buying. up housing. I don't think that's the answer to the housing crisis in America. I think the bigger problem is that it's so complicated. complicated to build a house. There's so many zoning regulations and it's, you know what I mean? And it's easy to say, okay, black rocks buying up houses. Yeah, but what about the zoning laws in New Jersey that make it impossible for you to even add a frigging deck to your house without going through all the hoops and permits? And then they reassess your house for property taxes and everything else. So again, it's one of those situations where it sounds great, but does it really solve the problem? Solving the problem is pointing out all the blue tape. You call it red tape. We're going to call it blue tape. Yeah, I like that better. Forcing housing developers and suppliers to not build more homes because of all the hoops that they have to jump through. How about, you know, the wild one is telling the big defense companies they can't issue dividends or do stock buybacks. Now, I don't like big government telling a for-profit company of which we are shareholders because it's probably in our 401 what they can and can't do. But then Scott Bessent came out and he said, but they're late. We've been asking for a certain bomber, a certain drone. a certain striker, and they're late. They're over budget on the production. So until they get their act together, we are encouraging them using the bully pulpit, pressuring them to not issue share buybacks or dividends until they get and reward the American tax paper by getting on time all of the defense systems that we have ordered that they are delayed on and over budget. So again, I don't want big government telling companies what to do. But I do like the minute he says that, you know those companies are listening and they're like, oh, okay, we better kind of like speed up the weapons development system a little bit because Trump's coming for us. So he uses it to maybe just bring light to the issue. And I don't want to say bully people around in a bad way, but effectively bully some of these companies around. maybe they'll kind of get their act together. Otherwise, if your company, you wouldn't issue a dividend or two with your buyback, I mean, that's your choice. Yeah. And if it's a shareholder, if I don't like you, I don't have to buy your stock. All right, more to come here with Taylor Riggs. I got to ask Taylor a really important question as the wealth begins to leave. We'll get her assessment here on Guy Benson with me, Rich Zioly. Don't go away. Filling in for Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioly.

All right. Welcome back to Guy Benson. Great to have Taylor Riggs joining us. Co. So the big money show every day, 12 to 2 on Fox Business. Follow her at Riggs Report. Listen, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you this question. Wells Fargo moving their headquarters for its wealth management business to West Palm Beach, becoming the first big bank to run that operation from the heart of the wealth boom in South Florida, Taylor-Riggs. I know this has been a big topic on the big money show, the effect of people like Zohran Mamdani and others getting into office and these banks getting saying and other companies too. And I think, you know, we've talked about the California billionaire's tax with their proposing. Other states now with millionaires taxes. It's like when are these people going to wake up and realize companies can move? They don't have to be there. You know, I love my co-worker Brian on my program because he said the best thing our founding father did was established federalism. It's hard to leave the USA to go to Switzerland. Yeah. But it's really easy for me to go to New York to Florida or from California to Florida. Look, in economics and in finance, money goes where it is treated best. People are leaving. to go to greener pastures because they are being treated better there. It is not surprisingly then that Wells Fargo's wealth management team needs to follow the wealth. The wealth is in Palm Beach. And yes, you and I are still stuck in negative eight degrees in the Northeast. I know. With more snow on the way, by the way, did you hear? We're getting like this monster storm. It could be anywhere from one inch to 150 feet. I mean, that's the range right now. It's wild. But I love it. I love federalism. I love that people can move. I love that you can decide to pick up and relocate, and then eventually ask the people in Detroit. When they filed for bankruptcy, I was covering the city in the municipal bonds there. The rich people left Detroit. You know who was left in Detroit? All the poor people who couldn't afford to leave? And then who's your tax base? Yep. Now you're trying to tax your way into prosperity, but your tax base is all on welfare. You can't tax them. So, you know, there are examples of this and private sectors came back into Detroit and tried to help revitalize that city. I hope that that's not the way we're going, but maybe we have to learn the hard way.

All right, I got to switch over to Maha mom mode or Maha dad mode in my case because, you know, I am a man and I can't get pregnant. So I just want to go on the record and say that. I cannot get pregnant because there's been a lot of confusion about this. Yeah, I'm not a birthing person. And by the way, neither are you. You're a mother, all right? So I just need to also get that off my chest. And you don't just feed. I mean, I guess if you try hard enough, you can milk anything, at least according to me to parents. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a nice, delicious glass of whole milk the other day, and I thought that was a great thing. That whole milk is back, and the war on fat is over. Private companies more and more now are getting into this, and they're putting things right on the packaging, saying no artificial ingredients, no artificial colors, but we still have a long way to go. You know, the other day, I had a daddy day with my girls. I took them to Whole Foods because that's where you can get a lot of the stuff that doesn't have a lot of the crap in it. Taylor, I bought them candy to do a movie day and it was like 60 bucks. And I'm not even joking about that. And it wasn't a lot. We didn't even buy a lot, but it was like 60 bucks. How long do you think until the prices for food that is better for us? Because I know candy's still candy, right? How long do you think until we can start seeing some of this come down to prices where we can actually afford it without having to be up West Palm Beach, you know, millionaire to be able to buy our kids healthy food? Well, I'm glad that you talked about West Palm Beach because money goes where it's treated best. So let's see how these companies do when you and I take our money to greener pastures. It's going to take a while. It could take years because I think people are just waking. I think you and I are in the thick of it, but I talk to my friends and they're just now waking up. You know, my parents for the first time came over and they were babysitting my children and they said, we're not going to get any food with Dyson and them for your kids. I mean, that's only in the last couple months that they've said that. So until you start seeing mass consumer behavior change, These food companies will do food diets because they're making a profit off of you and your sickness and your money. But I think the tight is turning. I love the whole milk because you know what? It provides choice. Why did you ever kill whole milk out of the schools? Just give me a choice. I'm a good consumer. I know what's good for me. And then when it comes to prices, it's going to be up to these food companies to listen to the consumer. And you know what else? I'm not like a big, huge drug person, and I have a lot of worries about all these GLP ones. But these GLP ones are changing the way we think about food and the way we interact with food and the cravings of certain types of food. And I think those GLP-1s are going to be a bigger hit to the snacking industry than you and I not buying red food dye. And that might force them to change to come up with better solutions, which then will benefit people like you and me who don't want food dyes and don't want sugar and don't want these horrible things that are proven to be extremely harmful. And so I think in some areas that GLP1 tailwind could help us a little bit.

Wow. All right. We don't have to end it on that cliff note, but that is, that's a big deal, Taylor Riggs. I have not looked at it from that perspective. I love it. And, of course, I do think this Maha thing is incredibly politically popular, as you and I've talked about. Listen, you're always so generous whenever I guest host here on Fox News Radio. So thank you. Follow Taylor Riggs at Riggs Report and check out the big money show on Fox Business every day, 12 to 2 p.m. Thanks, my friend. Thanks for joining us here on Guy Benson. Always my pleasure. For Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioly. Hey, it's Rich Zioly here for my friend Guy Benson on Guy Benson. Earlier in the show, I spoke to Paul Morrow. We love Paul Morrow. Got his take on ice. This is something you want to hear. Let's do it. I got to begin with this. I'm going to play this clip for you, and this is painful, I know, but I got to get your take on this. This is from the view yesterday. This is the new mayor of New York City, cut 16. Mr. Mayor, and I love saying that. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, let's talk about the unfortunate situation unfolding in Minnesota. I am in support of abolishing ICE, and I'll tell you why. And there is a way to care about immigration in this city and in this country with a sense of humanity. What we're seeing from ICE is not it, and we have not seen that from them in a long, long time. So, you know, it's really nice to have you here. You make sense. Such critical thinkers on the view, Paul Morrow. Such critical thinkers. So objective. Yeah, not long on specifics, are they? Neither is the mayor, apparently, because I love how everybody says, oh, this is just terrible. This is not the way to go about immigration enforcement. All right, tell us then how to go about it after 10 to 20 million unvetted were let into the country, many of whom are criminals and mentally ill, and the municipalities where they are most prevalent won't cooperate with federal authorities. None of what you see. and the left is dining out on here. None of it is necessary if the local police departments will simply stop with the sanctuary nonsense, hand over the worst of the worst. Were you to do that, the temperature would come way, way down. A lot of this wouldn't even be necessary, and I actually think we'd be having a very different conversation, which would be a little bit more along the lines of the big, beautiful door. If Donald Trump could take a victory lap and say, We got all the worst of the worst out to the extent that we can because we've gotten full cooperation around the country. The people that are here who are not the worst of the worst, who broke the law coming in. but who have become, let's face it, an important part of the economy. Now maybe we can start talking about path to citizenship for at least some of them who are sponsored, who are not on the government doll, the kind of program that, in fact, W. Bush offered when he was president, which ironically the dams shot down at the time.

Paul, it's amazing to me this political moment we're in where this is so much like the summer of love in 2020 all over again. You know, sewing this chaos in Minnesota, all these clashes that you're seeing, the calls for defund ICE, I know that this is a political strategy by Democrats where they think that it will just exhaust the American people and they'll turn around and say, okay, you know what, we're just going to vote for Democrats because we have to make this stop. That seems to be what they're doing here. Do you think so? Yeah, I mean, it's just, you know, I forget what the term was that Gutfeld used. He called it the uni gripe or something like that. The point being that the Omni Grape, that's what he said. And the idea being just that it almost, the cause almost doesn't matter. The same people that are protesting now would be protesting against Gaza or, you know, the actions in Gaza, they'll be protesting on trans rights, they'll be protesting, you know, women in men and women's sports. It almost doesn't matter. It's realistically, you have the, what I've been calling the nose ring militia out there waiting to be activated by the Dem leadership. A lot of them are just mindless and will go running out there. And it's no secret that a lot of them seem to be white women, who many of whom are, it looks to be like soccer moms who are just in search of some kind of meaning. But I think there is something a little bit more nefarious to it. I do think that when you look at the funding, when you look at the organization. I don't think all of it is some master plot from the Democrats to try to completely undermine the American system. I think there's gradations of that as a continuum. But I do think on the far, far left, you do have people who think in terms of revolution taking the country down. It's no accident that there is so much of a communist overlay when you really look into who's funding and organizing this stuff. And I think there's, to use the Leninist term, a lot of useful idiots out there that just buy into it because I think you put some on the right side of history. I don't think they really understand the issues. Or as we just noted with the view and with Zohran Mamdani, they give these highfalutin complaints that are based on some sort of moral reasoning or something with never any specifics to actually make the country safer. And so you have to say to yourself, okay, you know, who is really pulling the strings here? And I do think that there are some really deep, dark, nefarious elements represented by people like Soros and Roy Singham, who sits in Shanghai, that I hope we get to at some point. The OJ says they're going to because that is really a problem. And you see it playing out across the landscape of the American government. And for more on that interview with Paul Morrow. Just go to Guy Benson.com and hear the entire thing. It's Rich Zioli in for Guy today. The home stretch straight ahead. Filling in for Guy Benson, it's Rich Zioli. And now it's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on. So I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. I mean, I'm just saying cookie's not wrong on that point. It is the audience's favorite section. And, you know, it's been so much fun filling in for Guy today. And I'm looking forward to being back with you tomorrow. And Friday, that is, if I don't torpedo the show, in the home stretch. So let's do it. First of all, of course, I have to bring in producer Christine for this because it's the Spice Girls. I don't normally care. Actually, okay, I'm not going to lie. Oh, come on. Don't lie. I love the, I, and Posh Spice was my favorite spice girl.

For the record. Did you go to the concert? No. No, I don't know if I believe you. Posh, really? I thought all the boys loved baby spice. I don't know. I'm a brunette guy. So Posh was my girl. You know what I mean? Wow, there's not many brunette guys. So go on. Yeah, yeah. No, and you are a brunette cookie. So, I mean, I'm just saying. But the drama around the Beckham family. So first of all, so Posh married a soccer player named David Beckham. I got that right. Right? You're good. You're good. Okay. And because I knew you were very nervous about this segment that I wasn't up on my pop culture, but I am. I'm on it. I'm all over it. I was writing to America's newsroom yesterday morning, and I read the entire New York Post article about this because I was worried that Dana was going to ask me about it. Thank God she didn't. But if I'm understanding the story correctly, at the kid's wedding, the son's wedding, Pash did a very inappropriate dance with him at the wedding. He didn't like it, and worse, the new wife didn't like it. Are those basically the details? Yeah, I think the beats for this segment would be that it doesn't seem that Nicola, the wife, is very close. Now, she's a billionaire herself. She's in a very, very, very rich family herself. I don't think her and the Beckham family get along too well, or get on, as they say. Get on. I think it's been back and forth, back and forth. And I think a lot of people in this audience could probably relate to that. Because sometimes you're just not always going to click with your in-laws. No, no. I'm one of those people, by the way. My mother-in-law thinks that I'm a delivery truck driver. I don't dare dare tell her that I'm actually. I had to do a Fox News hit once from their house. And I pretended it was MSNBC just so that she would not. Disconnect the Internet. That is the greatest thing ever. Now, my mother-in-law listens to this segment. So I'm just going to sing her praises. No, she is great. I love my mother-in-law. But my mother-in-law had always said to me a long time ago, she said, a daughter is a daughter for life. A son is a son until he takes a wife. Yeah. And it seems that Victoria Beckham didn't get the memo on that. And they have not been the kindness to Nicola. Now, Nicola apparently does not have rave reviews in Hollywood either. I've heard she's, I've read and heard that she's, you know, she can be difficult. But can't we all, Rich? I mean, not me. Not me. Well, women in general is your point, right? Christine, I'm assuming that that's the question. I mean. I'm not going to comment on that. I'm saying mom on that. So the story here is that finally the husband. decided what the son of Victoria and David decided to put this huge Instagram message out story after story of how bad it's been and how bad the parents and the family have treated him and his wife and he was standing up for his wife and people are going to town on the saying how dare he you know it's just a nepo baby they think they can get what they want but

I took this as, oh boy in-laws, did you overstep? You know, if she showed up at the wedding, and by the way, in that little slinky dress, that's not appropriate for the mother of the groom. And if she, you know, ambushed a dance that was supposed to be for the bride and the groom, that's terrible. That's terrible. And... A lot of people out there say, like, you really want to be nice to the daughter-in-laws and the son-in-laws because that's your, you know, pathway to your family, to your grandchildren, to your child. I know when Megan gets married, I'm going to be so nice to my son-in-law and I'm going to be so nice to his parents because... I want the, you know, she's an only child. I want the invites. I want to be on all the party. I mean, I'm a fun time. I probably would get invites anyway. But I would want to make sure that there is no issues because, you know. It could get dicey. No, and the daughter in particular. So I think that the key here in the in the, the in law dynamics is the daughter in law. Because let's face it, I mean, if you're a parent and you have a son and that son marries a woman, that woman is going to most likely be the determining factor if you have a good relationship. with the with the in-laws in general i think so like i noticed this with my my in-laws they don't really care about me but when i see my my brothers-in-law who are the biological sons they treat their wives who are their daughters-in-law like friggin gold princesses because they know that at any moment those daughters-in-law could cut the whole thing off and the husband for the most part is going to side with the wife. Now, the only exception, of course, is an Italian family. In an Italian family, you're rolling the dice there. It's very possible that the Italian son makes you as the mother over the wife. I've seen that dynamic happen. Yeah, or if that daughter-in-law, like me, is a Jersey Italian, it could really be bad. Yeah. Really be bad. Yeah, no, that nothing good comes from that. That's like a mafia whacking on the side of Route 9. You know what I mean? Like nothing good is going to. come from that. I'm just saying. Whackings on Route 9? It's always on the turnpike. Come on now. Well, it's underneath the turnpike. All right. Let's put it that way. The bodies get dumped off Route 9, really, by the pine barrens. So it's more like that. Do we want to play any of this audio that we have from Peter? Well, I'd also like to bring young Dylan, our associate producer, in because he's a young lad and he's married already. And Dylan, what are your thoughts on this? Yeah. You know, There's, it's such a, it's a layered situation, but ultimately, you know, even though Brooklyn, Beckham is most definitely an epa baby, right? As is his wife. Right. It doesn't mean that they don't get to have like familial autonomy, like between the two of them. And so like, feelings? Exactly. It doesn't mean you can't have feelings. And if they're always constantly like,

Just like dogging Brooklyn's wife in front of them and like saying that she's like I read on because Brooklyn posted this whole like Instagram story thing about the situation saying that like she wasn't blood, that she's not real family. Like if they're saying all this stuff in front of her like obviously I get them cutting them off. The only issue. that I might take with how they dealt with this is whether or not it was it was confronted in private first like obviously if he's like over and over going to his parents saying like you guys need to cut this out like cut this off and then all of the wedding stuff happened on top of it I get him wanting to explain himself on social media but like at the same time like if he didn't confront them in public I get why they the David Beckham and his wife would be caught off guard, I guess, a little bit by it. I think you're hitting the nail on the head. And here's the issue as a Gen Xer, okay? As a Gen Xer, I hate your generation. That's number one. So let's just start there. No, but I think it's the whole issue of them going on social media and trashing the family. I'm old school Italians, so I believe you never go outside the family. I mean, for everyone listening to Guy Benson right now who's seen the godfather, that is rule number one. It's why Sonny Corleone got whacked, that and the fact that he didn't have easy pass, obviously. But you don't go outside the family. You don't do that. So literally now what the Beckham kids are doing is that. It's their trash in the family in public. That's a big no-no. And it seems to be something it happens more and more with... the millennials and the Gen Ziers. And it's just something that Gen X. I mean, we didn't have social media to be able to do that. We had to trash our family the old-fashioned way to their face over Christmas dinner. Oh, yeah. And that's, you know what I mean? And then have bad blood that would last months, but at least it was private. Exactly. I mean, come on. We wouldn't, Italians won't take it to social media, but my God, I will not talk to you for six years. Right. And then one day we will pick up the phone and be close like nothing ever happened. And usually it's at a funeral, right, Cookie? I mean, that's usually what it happens. Yeah, it can be. I've seen people ignore each other. I've seen, I've seen ants of mine over someone's deathbed still not look that other person in the eye. I mean, it can get tough out there. In the Italian culture, they say that, you know, The husband, the wife can control the husband's neck. You know, it can move the husband where he's going to focus. And let's be honest, do you really think Brooklyn decided I'm going to air everything on my Instagram stories? And I'm going to remind everybody when my mother wore to my wedding. No, no, no, no, no. That's coming from the bride. That's the bride. Yeah. That's the bride. The bride was annoyed. that posh spice Victoria Beckham got her Spice Girl freak on at the wedding, which I totally get. I mean, I understand that point. She was upset by that and she doesn't like other things. Part of does not get along with the mother. My guess is that Victoria Beckham is probably not the easiest mother-in-law. I'm going to go in a limb here. I'm going to limb here and say that. I think you may be right. And I think like the story here is just,

Be careful with the in-laws people. It can get dicey and it can get tricky. And, you know, Victoria and David are going to have an issue with the if and when they have children. And they're going to want to see their grandkids. First of all, who the hell names their kid Brooklyn? That's what I want to know. It's a city. It's a town in New York City. It's not a name. I mean, it's a borough. Right. Right. I just don't know. My friends have a dog named Brooklyn because they moved from Brooklyn to Jersey and they name the dog Brooklyn. You don't name a person Brooklyn. Come on. I guess so. But I mean, then again, I want to get a golden retriever and name him Glenn. So, you know. Well, Cookie, I don't know if you know this or not because we have not hung out in a while. And I meant to mention this earlier in the show. I just haven't a chance. But we got a dog for Christmas and his name is Gary. Gosh, see? Oh, you got a dog. You were those people that got the dog on Christmas morning? Yes. Yeah, well, it was a day before Christmas. We got him on the 23rd, but we surprised the kids. We drove to where we were picking up little Gary. We were about a half mile away from there. We stopped the car. We gave them all wrapped gifts. They opened them up. They were all doggy presents. And then we walked in and then Gary came out and the kids fell in love instantly. It was a beautiful, beautiful moment. And then he came home and, of course, you know. pooped all over the house. Bobby, if you're listening, I've been begging and begging for a golden retriever boy named Glenn. If you're listening out there, and I know he does listen, because sometimes he gets his own news of whatever going on he's doing. on this home stretch. Well, I think you're, you're, I applaud the fact that you want to name the dog Glenn and not Fido or, you know what I mean, a poopsie or something like that. Like, I don't know where it's written, because people say, like, who names a dog Gary? I don't know where it's written that a dog has to be named after something silly and can't have an actual name. I don't know where that comes from. I 100% agree with you. But you and I would be similar on names because my dream name for a child was always Reagan. So there you go. And now we're going to wrap it. All right, we'll wrap it. But I'll be back tomorrow, I think. Here on Guy Benson, it's been me, Rich Zioli, filling in for Guy. Great to be with you here. Remember, go to guybenson show.com. And hey, do me if they were subscribed to my podcast, the Rich Zioli podcast. Until tomorrow, thank you for listening. Italians won't take it to social media, but my God, I will not talk to you for six years. Right. And then one day we will pick up the phone and be close like nothing ever happened.