The Brian Kilmeade Show

Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmead here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out Collars Co., makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel.

You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office, on a golf course, or a night out. Collars Co. is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the 1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jones.

You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quarter zips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off.

of any purchase of a hundred dollars or more, that's promo code BRIAN. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian.

So, Edge of the Airs, the Brian Kilmey Show moving through a very busy week on this Wednesday, getting closer to closer to Easter, Passover. Dennis Ross is standing by. He's the premier expert on the Middle East and sees all the moving events and moving parts with the Iran war. I got to get his take on how this all ends and where we're at right now. Also, let me just also tell you: go always check out our YouTube channel at the Brian Kilmey Show, and you will love it.

And you'll see clips from here and everything else that I've been able to do. People are sit, that's all everybody's talking about, just like the Trump watches.

So, let's get to the big three. Number three. President Trump gave us the Artemis program during his first term. He's given us the national space policy in his second term. The one big beautiful bill funds, the $10 billion investment into NASA, is what's going to give us the capabilities now to go back to the moon and again, this time to stay.

Wow, that's Jason Isaacman, who's now running NASA, flying to the moon and eventually staying for good. One big step for NASA as we go deeper into space than ever before, why it matters, and once again, we need to beat China. Number two. We clearly see the Democrats trying to punish the rest of the department, the Department of Homeland Security, because they don't like immigration enforcement. Yep, Chad Wolf, bring them back.

Thanks to President Trump, most of DHS is being paid from other accounts, but still many are iced out. It's time to bring Congress back by presidential decree and use it for the first time since 1948. I'll explain. Number one. I would say that within...

Two weeks, maybe? Two weeks, maybe three. They have no leaders. You know, their leaders are all gone. That's why we have regime change.

We have nice new leaders. That is President Trump. Big speech tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern Time on the war as another aircraft carrier, the George H.W. Bush, steams towards the Persian Gulf, and Marines are deployed.

Let's hope we finish the job and not forget that Italy and Spain not only didn't help us. They are banning us from our own bases in Sicily and in that nation's capital. I think that's inexcusable. Look, they wanted to be brief more leading up to the conflict, but also security matters. And we saw the buildup.

I mean, a phone call would have explained it all. Dennis Ross joins us now. Hey, Dennis, what do you think the President says tonight?

Well, I'm not sure. What I hope he says is that he's offering kind of pathway to how this ends. One thing I would say for sure, Brian, it cannot end with the Iranians controlling the straight till moose. that would be a huge strategic gain for them. It would hold everybody in the region hostage to what they wanted to do, what they would allow in, who could export, who couldn't export.

As weak as we have made them in terms of Degrading all their military capabilities. The c the military campaign of both the United States and Israel has been extraordinary in terms of its success. If you look at what's happened to the missile forces, the launchers, the underground bunkers, the whole production chain, the components that go into making producing the ballistic missiles, whether it's the guidance system or the propulsion or the solid fuel, every part of that, basically that whole production chain has been set back dramatically. But if at the same time, they control access to the Gulf, Um Pretty much they will have an economic lifeline. They will charge tolls.

They will determine in an arbitrary way who gets to export and who doesn't. I know. Terrible. We can't end that one. It cannot end that way.

Because then you basically devalue the very achievements that you've made militarily. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Here's what Marco. I want you to hear what Marco Rubio said and tell me what you think. Cut five. We are going to destroy their Air Force.

We have largely done that. We are going to destroy their Navy, which we have largely achieved that. We were going to destroy a significant percentage of their missile launchers. We are well on our way to achieving that. And we were going to wipe out their defense industrial base, meaning the factories that make the drones and the missiles.

We are on our way to doing that. Those were our four objectives because those are the four things they were going to hide behind to then develop a nuclear weapon and threaten the world if they tried to do anything about it. That was not going to happen under President Trump. We are well on our way. We are on or ahead of schedule on each of those four objectives.

And the UAE is among our allies who said, we will help you reopen the strait. But do you agree with those four objectives and the Secretary of State's? A review of them. I do agree with those four objectives, but the fifth objective that should have been there is they will not control the Straits of Hormuz. That I wish I had heard that as a fifth objective.

I didn't hear that as a fifth objective. You know, I'll just say, Brian, since after World War two, Every American President had as an objective in this part of the world, as a vital interest. that no hostile power would control the flow of oil out of the Middle East.

Well, if the Iranians, they're certainly a hostile power. If they're controlling the flow of oil out of the Middle East, everything else that Secretary of State outlined, and he's right about those as being both necessary objectives and also we're well on the way to achieving them. But if you haven't dealt with this, then you are not succeeding strategic success, and this needs to be a strategic success. Ambassador, let me ask you though.

So you can take down the Strait of Remouz by putting five mines in there and then nobody wants to ensure a barge coming through, or you send some drones into a barge and then they say, okay, it's too dangerous, we can't get oil through there. How do you ever stop that? Being that drones are so easy to manufacture, how could you ever guarantee? No unmanned boat is ever going to barrel their way in USS coal style into a barge. Look, there is no way you can guarantee it one hundred percent.

But you obviously have to you have to create The unmistakable impression that the Iranians aren't in a position to do this.

So, what are your choices? Your choices are, at this point, for example, you and I had this conversation before. I didn't understand I understand the tactical value of allowing the Iranians to export their oil to try to keep the overall price of oil lower than it would be. But we're in this bizarre, paradoxical situation where they have always had the position that if we can't export, nobody exports. And today, they're the only ones who can export because they're preventing everybody else.

If we were, for example, to say, okay, we're going to blockade, we are not going to allow Any more Iranian exports?

Okay, the price of oil would go up, but you'd also then put them in a position where they lose their entire revenue stream. And you bring China into the equation because China depends heavily on exports out of the Gulf. And if suddenly they can't get it, then their readiness to put enormous pressure on the Iranians goes up dramatically. This is something that, in the end, You have to be able to put the Iranians in a position where they no longer have an interest in doing this. Right now, this is their strategic trump card, so to speak, and they're not giving it up.

Now, we have different choices for how we can deal with it. One is what I just said. Second is what the President has talked about with regard to Carg Island. Third, there are islands in the middle of the strait. The largest one is called Kesham.

From there, if you were controlling that island, it would be difficult for the Iranians to do a lot of what you just described. Or you can or you seize the southern coast, which abuts the straits, again, which is where most of the small boats are. We have been in the process of destroying the drone production capability.

So you can continue to set all this back, but it has to be tied to an objective related to the straits.

So there's a couple of things happening, too, and that is when we have talks. Evidently, the president of Iran we know has limited power, or at least prior to this war, has limited power, being that the supreme Ayatollah is dead, and this new supreme leader seems MIA, and 250 other leaders are dead, minimum.

So let's say the president has some sway. I don't believe he has sway over the IRGC. I think he said a couple of things that were immediately reversed by actions by the IRGC. Would you be hesitant in doing any deal with the President of Iran? Yeah.

First, you're right about Posetkin. He has several times said things and then immediately been reversed. In the end, whoever you do a deal with has to be able to deliver. I don't think that he's in a position to deliver unless he basically works out a deal with Ghalib. There's three people basically running Iran right now, and it's not the supreme leader.

It is Rezai, who was the first head of the Revolutionary Guard from 1981 to 87, whole career tied to them. The second one is Ahmed Vahidi, who is effectively running the Revolutionary Guard right now, was responsible for intelligence for a long time. The third is Ghalibaf, who is a Speaker of the Parliament, but also was the commander of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force and then ran their whole economic empire.

Now he is probably the key player here. He is probably the one that if he is the one, if he makes a decision along with the president, a combination of the two. may be enough for them to deliver. The guys you have to bring around, probably Wahidi is probably the most resistant, probably the most ideological. Rezai, again, the interesting thing I should mention about Rezai and Wahidi, they're both on the red notice of Interpol.

They're both wanted for the bombing Of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994 tells you something about who they are. It does. And the President of the United States evidently was asked personally by the Pakistanis or the Turks that were supposedly conducting and are going to referee these talks in Islamabad. Hey, don't kill the speaker you just mentioned and don't kill the foreign minister. They're the only two people we can deal with.

Did the President make the right move calling off the Israelis who had them in his crosshairs?

Well, I do think so because look, in the end, what we're talking about right now, Brian, is the different choices you have for ending this. One is a kind of unilateral decision the president makes, and you get some kind of understanding that the straits will be opened and the consequence. of of if the if the Iranians don't open the straits, that then you continue. Two is you do a deal, a formal deal. And right now, in addition to the Pakistanis and the Turks, there's also a five-point plan that Pakistan and China have put together.

The fourth point of that relates to the issue of opening the straits. It says normal traffic as soon as possible. That's not good enough. What you would have to say is the ceasefire goes into effect the minute the straits are opened. That's how you would change that.

But that would be a formal deal. The third way is basically You know, you're doing it militarily, but that keeps us going for a fair amount of time. To be able to do a deal, if you go back to either it's a first or second option, you need someone on the Iranian side who can deliver.

Well, if you kill everybody who might be who might even be interested in in doing a deal, then you don't you you're you cannot end the war that way.

Now you can argue ending the war through a deal still keeps this regime in power for some time to come. But what I would say, Brian, this is a regime whose inner contradictions are such that when this war overs, for some, people like Vahidi, they don't want the war to end any time soon because their maximum power is right now. As time goes by, when this is over, the contradictions within the regime are going to come to the fore. If you ask me, Within 12 months, this regime will not exist anymore, or you'll end up with a kind of Iranian Gorbachev who will emerge, who will realize the Islamic Republic can't exist unless it is reformed in a fundamental way.

So that's when you have the change in the character of the regime. Whether the Iranian people rise up remains to be seen. But the reality is those contradictions, in time, will mean the people who pull the triggers. They may have killed 36,000 people in less than 48 hours on January 6th and 7th. But the rank and file of the besieged and the Revolutionary Guard...

Who did the killing, you know, they don't have, they have water shortages, they have electricity shortages, they have a currency that has no value. When you wake up and this thing is over, Suddenly, they're going to be taking a look at that. And the reality of that tells me it's only a matter of time. I'm not saying it falls immediately or changes immediately. But within a year or so, we will see a change in Iran.

So finding the way to end this war sooner rather than later, provided the straits are open, giving everything else that Secretary of State Rubio said we are achieving, that combination justifies an end to the war. We should be smart about how we do it. Ambassador, the thing I just can't tolerate is people pretending as if Iran wasn't a problem until the president addressed it. And they're like, well, what's the problem? This is a war of choice.

Among the people that surprised me in how they felt about it was somebody involved very much in the economy, J.P. Morgan Chase, CEO Jamie Dimon. Listen to what he told me yesterday, Cut 24. I mean, I hear some people say they weren't an imminent threat. You know, a threat means I'm threatening you.

I might do something bad. These people have been doing something bad for 47 years. They've been killing people. They've been killing Americas. They funded that terrible Hamas thing.

Several Americans were killed on October 7th. And so they've had proxy wars. They've been threatening people. I think people are surprised to find out that a ballistic missile can go 3,000 miles. These are bad people, and they needed to be stopped.

And just who decided what?

Now, I don't know what the military knows. I don't know what President Trump knows. I just think now we've got to finish this thing and finish it right. And knowing that the economy matters so much, the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase, that gave me hope.

Because he's not political. Yeah, yeah, look, you last time I was on, you asked if I thought there was an imminent threat, and I said there wasn't an imminent threat, there was an ongoing threat. The fact is, look at what they were doing. The fundamental problem, I think we all need to take a step back. The world over a long period of time Allowed them to cross threshold after threshold and live with it.

And every time we accept that outcome, they learned from it. They became more threatening, not less threatening. Think about the fact that they have 440 kilograms. of highly enriched uranium. By the way, That also has to be something that is dealt with before this is over, one way or the other.

And just I'll come back to that in a second. But the Secretary General, the Director General of the IAA, Raphael Grossery, has repeatedly said there is no justifiable civilian purpose for enrichment to 60%.

Okay, if there's no justifiable civilian purpose, Why would the world have tolerated this? The point is, it's not the question of whether you had to do it now or they were about to attack. It is that you were facing something that was building on itself. And the proof of it is: look at the character of this conflict. Look at what they have done in it.

Yep. This demonstrates exactly what they intended to do. Thank you, Ambassador. And you're the most missing the fundamental point. I know, and we're up against a break.

But I like because you're coming to this from you work for Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, and you always kept the eye on what's going to work in the Middle East. That's why you're such a valuable voice right now and one of logic. Ambassador Dennis Ross, thanks so much. My pleasure. Good to be with you.

Thanks. Back in a moment. Coming to you on a need-to-know basis because Mandy, you need to know. It's Brian Kilmead. Uh The more you listen, the more you'll know.

It's Brian Killmead. Hey, welcome back. I'm sorry I went long with Dennis Ross, but I mean, who better to talk to that doesn't have the bias, is not rooting for or against the president, that just can talk about what's happening in the region. Yeah, I do not want to leave the Strait of Vermuz unopened. I don't want to give the Iranians that win.

I know the president's frustrated with our NATO allies for they didn't step up, but not letting us use our bases got me incensed too, and you're probably incensed as well, regardless of where you stand in the war. We have bases in Italy, let us use them. In Spain, let us use them. To me, it drives me insane. Saudi Arabia originally says, hey, I don't know about it.

Now they understand it. UAE understands it. Qatar understands it.

So we'll see where that goes in the future. It looks like we got better allies there. Maybe it's for self-preservation reasons. But I just think leaving the Strait of Ramuz is giving Iran a win. Quick note: I'm going to be doing a Beirino, Nevada History of Liberty and Laps on stage at the Bartley Ranch, May 30th, July 11th, Pensacota, Florida.

Make sure you go there. To the Sanger Theater, Redbank, New Jersey, the 16th of October, the 17th in Westbury, New York, November 7th in Clearwater, Jacksonville, November 8th to November 21st in Chesterfield, Missouri. FrankKillme.com. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead.

I've been one of the strongest defenders of NATO during my time as a United States Senator because I found great value in it. But when we need their help, not their help, we're not asking them to conduct airstrikes. When we need them to allow us to use their military bases, their answer is no. Then then why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question.

Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, trillions of dollars, and all these American forces stationed in the region, if we can only use we can we in our time of need, we're not going to be allowed to use those bases.

So I think there's no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is is concluded, we are going to have to re-examine that relationship. No doubt about it. It has to be reexamined. They talked about a pay-for-play, that if you're not paying up your fair share, and now it's at 5%, it doesn't have to be 5% solid military. It could be bridges and reaffording and reinforcing bases to expand that type of investment in your military.

If you do that, if you don't do that, then you're not going to be allowed on the planning or the exercises. And the president's indicated. Too many that he wants to get out of NATO anyway. I don't think he can do it without Congress, but I'll tell you what, he could send deputy undersecretaries to NATO meetings, no longer hear it from the other side. And they have a situation where France has got terrible military.

The Navy for the UK is rusted over. Spain puts 1.2% into their military. Is it a flat-out joke? Italy hasn't done much better, so listen to what Italy did. Italy Uh has denied us.

Our access to our bases in Sicily. Spain says can't even use our airspace to fly over it. You believe that? Poland has no plans to send Patriot air defenses to the media. They've been a good partner, but that's a little surprising, although they got to be worried about Russia, so that's understandable if explained.

But the other countries. The ones who get it are the Baltic countries. I mean, and Norway and Sweden get it. I'm very curious to see if they're going to step up. The UAE says we're willing to fight to open up the strait.

So that's great, and they do not want us to end our military. Uh maneuvers. They said they'll do mind-clearing, direct combat support. Howard, listen on COIL in beautiful Omaha, Nebraska. Hey, Howard.

In Iran, we should not be trying to make a deal with evil IRGC third stringers who can't be trusted. Instead, we should demand surrender, arm the partisans, bring Pahlavi to Tehran. The people of Iran then will be able to rise up and take back their country. They don't have a g uh Pahlavi doesn't have guns. The either do is people, so it'll be the IRGC will have target practice with them.

We could get help from our Arab allies, the Israelis, the Kurds, all converge on Tehran. It's the only way to fix the root cause and actually get a solution. I hear you. Thanks so much for the call. It's going to be a regional shift.

And what I would do too, so you always say, what's the next day? We can't leave without opening up the strait, and we've destroyed the weapons manufacturing. You heard us do that with Dennis Ross. We went through that. But what the President should do is to make sure China doesn't get back in there and arm them up.

That is, go to the Gulf states, who China desperately wants to do business with. and say we are done with you if you spend one dollar in Iran. Good. Make a choice. You want to be with industrialized countries that want to be free and want to do business and have money to invest and give you people jobs, meaning the Chinese people jobs?

Because they need to get these people to work, there's huge unemployment over there, and they got to be able to sell their products. You say, well, I'm not doing any of it. Saudi Arabia especially. They have this deal with they like Austin, they like the Chinese, not anymore. You use that.

And the President of the United States got to make it clear to the Gulf states that for doing this, that makes you safer, and you're so much more in danger than you ever thought. That's one thing you got to do. Don't let us be the only ones sanctioning and tariffing China.

So Hughes Donald Trump yesterday cut four. We have had regime change.

Now, regime change was not one of the things I had as a goal. I had one goal. They will have no nuclear weapon. And that goal has been attained. They will not have nuclear weapons.

But we're finishing the job. And I think within Maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer to do the job. But we want to knock out every single thing that Yeah, and we are. And we're doing it great using AI and things we're doing. All I could ask you is this.

I know some of you did not vote for Trump that are listening to me right now. Whatever you do, do not look at the Washington Post and New York Times and think we're losing the war. Don't pick up the economist and see advantage Iran. The only thing they've done is shut down the Strait of Hermuz, which is difficult to reopen. Got it.

But there's nothing else that they've done except for hammering allies to make them enemies. It's crazy what they've done.

So, Nikki Haley came in. We haven't heard much from her. I really respect her foreign policy. Talked about what's been accomplished, Cut 12.

So, a win for the U.S., in which President Trump has said, is destroying their ballistic missile drone naval capability. We're 75% there, so made really good progress there, making sure they don't have any nuclear production.

So, I think one phase that President Trump's going to have to make a decision on is how to extract that enriched uranium or dissolve it. That's going to require a special units force, which I guess is already on the way to take care of that. And then you want to make sure that they are economically hardened so that they can't continue to pay their proxy. That's a win for the U.S. A win for Iran is different.

They just want to survive. Their goal is to put enough political pressure and economic pressure on President Trump and the Allies so that they cave. And don't. Mr. President, I know this is a little like the pandemic.

When he had this unbelievable economy, the pandemic shuts down, he realized it gets briefed by people, whether you like voucher or not. All these experts came in and said, Mr. President, everyone's dying. Everyone's going to die if you don't tell everyone to go home for 10 days to stop the spread. And next thing you know, our economy craters, oil goes down, people stop working, we have to go print money in order to flood the zone with all this COVID relief.

And the President said, what happened to my economy? Then he loses the election.

So now he's got his economy humming. He's got it on track. Got to get prices down, inflation down, cut rates. And he realizes there's no turning back. I got to take down Iran.

So he's got a deal with oil at about $105 to $95 a barrel. He's got to deal with the gas being $4 a gallon. But he also knows in the big picture, he's a student of foreign policy. He's always talking about it. Even when he was in the 1990s and he's running the USFL and he's doing his apprentice thing in 2000, always thought about this stuff because I got to do the responsible thing.

No other president's going to do it. But you've gone this far, Mr. President. Don't end prematurely. Buster, you're in Virginia.

Hey, Buster. How you doing, Bonnie? Thanks for checking my call. Hey, my I I'm for totally getting out of Nebu because they the way they've reneged on this trading, but the amount of money That we have put into these foreign economies by the stationing of our military there through all the money that they spend in their economy could be in the billions. And they can't let us use our own air bases.

It's crazy, isn't it? This is unfathomable. We need to get out of NATO and get out of NATO now.

So, a couple of things, Buster. I think Congress has got to be involved in that. But if, for example, we're involved with Cuba and Venezuela. I could see Europe going, hey, guys, I have nothing to do with that. I'll help you out.

What do you need? But that doesn't really, it's not in my self-interest to worry about Venezuela. It doesn't matter to me. Cuba, I don't care. You know, we don't even go there.

You know, barely use the Caribbean. We got our own islands. I would say yeah, it's not in their interest. I'd be a little surprised. But The but Iran has been a problem.

They've been taking British hostages and French hostages and we know what they've been doing with Hezbollah and France has invested in Lebanon. They've got a rich history in Lebanon. It was a colony. And they see what they've done there, let alone getting through the straight-over moves themselves.

So they might not like the way it started, but they have to see it's in their self-interest. And I really like the General Secretary. He's got to step up right now and save that organization. Michael in Oklahoma. Hey, Mike.

Brian, excellent. As always, just wanted to make the comment that Judas is here at home. are the reason why the Europeans and the Iranians are not as concerned as they should be. What do you mean?

Well, the Supreme Court not allowing President Trump To utilize the tariffs to their fullest extent is taking this leverage with regard to the European Union away to some degree. And then the limiting of President Trump's continued action, even though it was a nuclear threat that we averted by his action. The Democrats aren't going to give President Trump anything to make his actions look like a success, even though they are an absolute success.

So I think there's merit to what you're saying, Michael, but how about this? If I'm the Europeans, I look at this and say, wow, you know, he drove a hard deal. And by the way, they're still reviewing the deal. It's going to be approved. I talked to Scott Bessett on Tuesday, and he thinks it's on track to get approved.

So and by the way, 60 days you have tariffs in place, and once the deal is done, everything goes away.

So once they do the deal, don't worry about the tariff structure of South Korea, too, as soon as that passes. But it's in their interest to have us happy with NATO because this way they continue to spend on their social programs and still have the protection of the U. S.

So it's not even their interest To act like this.

Now, people have brought up to me, they're worried about their own Muslim population.

So if you've if you're hostage To an immigrant population, instead of doing what's right for your country, you're worried about their votes. We're taking off the community even though it's not in your national interest. You've let your immigration go awry, which is exactly what Trump said. Italy's been overrun. France has been overrun.

Do I have to tell anybody about what we're seeing in London's stand? With their Muslim mayor, it's been a magnet. The British have lost their total identity, let alone their economy.

So, thanks for the call, Michael.

So, there's a lot going on. Jared Baker. You know, on America Reports yesterday. He talked about how Trump has got to get one message when it comes to Iran. And also, on the deal, the chances of it really affecting the markets, Cut 15.

The U.S. has obviously inflicted enormous military damage on Iran, which will take a long, long time to repair. Iran does maintain this stranglehold on the Strait to Formula.

So it does seem to me that there is the possibility there for an opening. That if Iran is willing to accept some sort of a deal in which maybe it agrees to no more nuclear development to keep the strait open, then this war can end and we can go back to normal. But at the moment, you just have to treat these stories with a certain amount of skepticism because neither side seems willing to desist. We'll see. I mean, the President of Iran, who has not been denied yet, has said he wants a ceasefire.

So the President and you asked a question. How much power does the President have? I mean, by their laws, they are subservient to the Supreme Leader.

Okay? The Supreme Leader's MIA, the other one's dead.

So then, who's in charge?

Well, the IRGC.

Well, most of their leadership is dead, too.

So, who else?

Well, the Speaker of the Parliament. Who's I think on our most wanted list. We could have wiped the Israel had him in the crosshairs. And Pakistan leaned in and said, Do me a favor, don't kill him. We can deal with him.

If you kill him, we have no idea who we're dealing with with the IRGC.

So it's a complicated situation, but just so you know, the president didn't create it. He's addressing it. I'll talk about more than this. We also have birthright citizenship, pretty extraordinary. The president is hearing the Supreme Court arguments today.

I believe it's the first time ever a sitting president came into the Supreme Court to hear the arguments. Why he did it and what's he trying to say? And the argument itself, done from a non-legal expert, but for something I think you can relate to, that story when we come back. Big guests, bold opinions, better information. This is the Brian Kilmead Show.

Yeah. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. I think I could be president of the United States. I could definitely run this country better than.

Then Donald Trump.

Okay. Yes. You would need market improvement. As an independent, though, there would be a hard time for me to run for anything because, you know, the way the system is set up, I'd have to choose a side. And so, you know, I probably would I probably would have to become a Democrat.

And um Yeah, so, you know, am I at that point now? No. And I know people are going to say Don Lemon is crazy. But yeah, look, why can't I think about running for office? Why can't I think about being president of the United States when look at what we have?

When anybody, did anybody think Barack Obama, as he says, this guy with a funny name that's from a mixed background, did anybody ever think that he would become president, that he had that aspiration? I don't have an aspiration to become president, but I do think that I could run this country a lot better than Donald Trump. Yeah, I'm sure you do. Most people do. Robert Te Niro thinks he could do the same thing.

So does Bruce Bringstein. They think they could, they all do that. You know, we know every single Hollywood celebrity thinks they could do that. Every late-night talk show host outside Greg Guttfeld feels as though they can do that.

So, of course, it's easier. Of course, you couldn't have won twice. You couldn't have defied the odds. You couldn't have beat the Clinton family. And then.

Also taking out the Biden machine, then the Kamala Harris Democratic machine and all the hate and everything the president overcame. But Don Lemon says ridiculous things all the time. There's another. Here's the most comical thing about what he said. I'd have to declare aside, I couldn't be independent.

Does anybody think that for a second he isn't a liberal Democrat? The question is, is he a socialist, communist, or is he someone who's just liberal? That would be the only question. But pretending as if he's balanced, that's interesting.

So birthright citizenship is up. What is birthright citizenship and why is the courts hearing it? First off, for people think it's already been determined. If it's already been determined and this is constitutional, The Supreme Court wouldn't be looking at it.

So there was enough interest to hear it, and they're going to hear the arguments, and Trump's going to sit there today. Word is, it gets kind of boring.

So I don't know how long Trump can sit in that courtroom. I know he's had to in the past because he's been told to, compelled to. But essentially, is this: if your parents are illegal immigrants and you are born here, you become a citizen. Is that the intent?

Well, the intent and when it was brought up, and I'll just give you the layman's term to look at it. The 14th Amendment said Lincoln realized that there was a whole bunch of segregationists, you might want to say racists, that said, I don't think black slaves should be citizens.

So Let's make sure of it. And when this Civil War comes to an end, they're citizens. 13, 14, and 15th Amendment put into play. Of course, they're citizens, and of course, their kids are citizens.

Something else is in play. Didn't know this, that they wanted to make sure that American Indians weren't, because you can't have an allegiance to another tribe, or another country, or another service.

So We could have dual citizenship, but they want to make sure the American Indians were ineligible for it. That's since been ameliorated. But in 1952, they revisited this and they upheld it. But what's different now?

Now it's basically looking at tourism. People coming over here, not American citizens, having kids here, and say, My kids are here, and therefore, my kid is an American citizen. Therefore, I'm going to bring my parents over. And many times it's happening. At the very least, the Chinese situation compared to dual citizenship: I have kids here, and Chinese citizens become American citizens, and many times they come into spies.

Plus, that's not the way you do it. You're circumventing the system for people that are doing it correctly, doing it the right way. And that's what's going to be argued today. What was the intent of law?

So optimistically, the administration put Gabrizella, past her out. She was from the office of the White House counsel. She talked about the legal argument with Laura Ingram last night, CUP 46. The left would have you believe that this issue has already been settled, that the President's arguments are radical, but that's just not true. The Supreme Court has never resolved this issue in our nation's entire history.

And President Trump is absolutely right. The Citizenship Clause was passed in order to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not illegal immigrants.

So the arguments of critics are just wrong. You know, the Constitution grants citizenship to those, one, born in the U.S., and two, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And what does that mean?

Well, tomorrow, we're going to be arguing in front of the Supreme Court that history shows that it means that an individual owes their primary allegiance to the United States and not a foreign power. The lead editorial in the Wool Street Journal today by Randy Barnett. Trump is right on birthright citizenship.

So, for people who think it's got no merits on the Trump lark, it's not true. It's going to be a good fight, and hopefully, people look at this in a very intellectual way. I don't think Democrats should be against this. I really don't. It shouldn't be a Democrat-Republican issue unless it's whatever Trump thinks, you think the opposite.

And hopefully, it won't be this case here. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Kill Meet Joe coming to you from 48th and 6 in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world. Got a busy hour coming your way. Rebecca Heinrichs is queuing up. She's a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Her keen knowledge and instinct for world affairs. And man, we need her now. Michael LaRosa, the direction of the Democratic Party. We know they don't like Trump. We know they seem to like communism and socialism.

If I looked at the No Kings rally, what do they stand for? What's going to be the winning message? Michael LaRosa, who worked for the Bidens for years, will be joining us too. And with House leadership, I should say.

So let's get to the big three. Number three. President Trump gave us the Artemis program during his first term. He's given us the national space policy in his second term. The one big beautiful bill funds, the $10 billion investment into NASA, is what's going to give us the capabilities now to go back to the moon and again, this time to stay.

And hopefully they're going to be taking off this afternoon, flying to the moon and eventually staying for good. One big step for NASA as we go deeper into space than we ever have before, why it matters, and once again, we need to beat China. Number two. We clearly see the Democrats trying to punish the rest of the department, the Department of Homeland Security, because they don't like immigration enforcement. Yep, there you go, Chad Wolf.

Thank you very much. Bring them back. Thanks to President Trump. Most of DHS is being paid from other accounts, but still many are iced out, pun intended. It's time to bring Congress back for the first time since Harry Truman did it in 1948.

I'll explain. Number one, I would say that within. Two weeks, maybe, two weeks, maybe three. They have no leaders. You know, their leaders are all gone.

That's why we have regime change. We have nice new leaders. Big speech tonight as the war and another aircraft carrier steams towards the Persian Gulf and Marines deploy. Let's hope we finish the job and not forget Italy, Spain, UK have left us high and dry, not even letting us use their bases. Not smart.

Rebecca Hendricks joins us now. Rebecca, I'm somebody who always thought the merits much more than the president of NATO. And I do not surprise that Our European friends aren't joining in because we didn't really brief them extensively about our mission, even though they should have anticipated it. But when they said we couldn't use our bases in Sicily and in Spain, that was a bridge too far for me. What about you?

Yeah, no, I think it's outrageous. And I will say, look, I mean, I am a big proponent of the United States leading the NATO alliance. I think that everything that President Trump has done, both in his first term and in his second term, to push our European allies to spend more on their defense, to get off of the dependence of Russian oil, to get back to nuclear power and stop this essentially their equivalent of the Green New Deal stuff, which is killing their countries. All of that has been good. And I think it's good for Americans to have these people in our corner.

And so all of that's been good. And so for them to, in this time where the United States is taking out the Iranians, which has been the greatest source of instability, not just for our interests in the Middle East, but for European interests. Who rely on that strait of Hormuz as well, and also the fact that the Iranian missiles can range, can reach European capitals. It is such a shame. It's a huge mistake on the part of our allies.

And I really hope that they're working hard right now to address these problems with President Trump.

Well, I think right now the President just responded to the fact that he said the President, and I know he has got limited powers in. Iran during the old structure, who knows who's left now, said that he's looking for a ceasefire. And the President said he's open to talking, but open up the straight first.

So that would be new, but Rebecca Heinrichs, how much if this in fact holds up? And the President of Iran wants a ceasefire. Presky and How much should we Uh how much power does he actually have? And would you need to hear more? I think we would need to see more.

And I think that's how President Trump's instincts are wired to work. I mean, we need to see, does Pazeshkin have the power within the rump IRGC regime that is essentially left standing at this point to make this decision to make good on essentially what's reported as what he wants to do. Clearly, President Trump seems to be putting pressure, which is why he's calling this possibility out publicly to see if he can make good on it. And I think what President Trump's comments about how regime change and what the U.S. and the Israelis are trying to do is simply want regime change and behavior.

President Trump is happy, you know, not completely eliminating everything in the regime if we can actually get them to comply to do what we want as Americans for American interests. That's to be determined, but it's still a core American interest to have freedom of navigation and get that Strait of Hormuz open so this terrorist regime does not have the ability to hold 20% of global energy markets. I worry the Russians are going to press the Iranians not to do that. Because they're liking the fact that more or less attention is on the Ukraine war, and we're able to pull some of their oil in. Here's what President put on Truth Social.

Iran's new regime president, much less radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a ceasefire. He put it in caps. We'll consider when the Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion, as they say, back to the Stone Age. As the president now is at listening to the Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship.

Yeah, I mean part of President Trump's kind of the hallmark of his strategy is he's perfectly happy to look for diplomatic openings and improvements while at the same time continuing our military mission, which is to ensure that Iran is as weak as possible so that they do not have coercive leverage over the United States.

So the military option or operation continues apace, Brian. And look, it's not just the fact that the Iranian Air Force, the Navy has been completely degraded, but also what I keep watching is their ability to reproduce. There's been some massive explosions just in the last couple of days because the United States is hitting these underground missile cities essentially where they've been digging underground and trying to have a production capacity. And we are just laying waste to that as well. What is your take on Uh Rezla Pallavi, the Shah's son.

And the support he has. What do your sources say? How much support does he have there?

So it's really interesting.

So as an American, I always look at this, you know, what is primarily, number one, going to be the best outcome for the American people, the American way of life? And so that's kind of my priority. If it's Reza Pahlavi, that's great. If it's not, also great. But Reza Pahlavi, obviously, descendant of the Shah, if we could magically make him in power, I think that that would be good for the United States.

My understanding is he has about, to the best we can tell, 30% approval inside Iran. What we would want, though, is to make, and there's a lot of other Iranians who don't like him because he left Iran.

Now, you could say, who could blame him for leaving Iran? He was in danger. But there's a lot of Iranians who have been long suffering, and they want there to be a leader that rises up domestically inside Iran. The other thing that we need, we need whoever is the interim leader or the leader who takes over after the supreme leader who we killed and his son who has not made an appearance. We need him to have control of the army.

And so it does raise a... the Pahli have the ability to be reinstalled essentially and have control of security forces in the Army without there being a civil war? That's a giant question. Obviously, President Trump and his team is constantly assessing that because we don't want there to be a civil war. That would be disastrous.

You agree, though, that we can't leave without the strait being open, right? Absolutely. That is a core interest of the United States. And you know who has known that for decades? It's President Trump.

I mean, if you look back to his interviews he gave in the 80s, he was prescient. He said, look, we cannot allow this terrorist regime to threaten this global commodity. It's ridiculous. And so I think that we also don't, remember, if the Iranians have control of the strait, it means China does, because China is the one that's buying that Iranian oil. We do not want our greatest opponent, adversary, China, to essentially buy through Iran to have control of the strait.

It's got to be the U.S. um with our partners and allies.

So I think that when this is done, what's going to stop them from arming up again? I think the one thing that we could do besid with Iran, excuse me, with China, is we got to let the Gulf states know, who now understand fully that Iran is the enemy. Not just they have different philosophical approaches to their society, but they're an enemy of the Gulf states. And the Gulf states realize that UAE wants to fight. They said they're ready.

So do you think there's enough leverage in the Gulf States to tell China, make a choice? If you start selling them more missiles, you can't do any business with us. Would China care about that? Oh, it certainly would care about that. I don't know.

This is going to take enormous dedication and resolve on the part of the United States to hammer this point home diplomatically. I mean, one thing about the Middle East that President Trump and his team have seemed to really understand is the way power works. The Gulf states are always looking to hedge with either with the U.S. or with China, depending on which country is the most powerful with the most resolve. The fact that the United States did this really gutsy move in epic fury to really take out the Iran regime and end their terrorism throughout the region has done wonders for the Gulf states to say, we're picking the winning horse.

That's the United States of America.

So if we can just keep pressing on this and to make sure that this outcome ends successfully for the U.S., I think we are going to have all kinds of diplomatic leverage with the Gulf states to do exactly what you suggest, Brian, which is to say, no more China. Kick the Chinese out of your countries. They do not get to have a foothold in here. But the one thing people would say is, well, they're still able to hit rockets. They have more rockets into UAE than actual Israel.

Does that show the the limits of American power? I don't think so. I mean, look, I mean, you have to take the world as it is. You're still going to have a terrorist regime, you know, with some terrorists in there that have kind of rockets, okay. But, like, you know, we're so degrading their ability, as Admiral Cooper keeps talking about, to project power outside the country, to reach outside the country.

I mean, small kinds of attacks here and there. Obviously, we want to continue to make sure that we build our defenses up with our Gulf states, make sure that they're adequately secured. But I'm confident that if we can get their big stuff and we actually have a regime, you know, I wouldn't say they're not going to be radical, but more compliant with the United States, we're going to be able to really keep a lot of pressure on that regime so they can do a lot of limited damage, I think, throughout the region. I think so too. And so when you look at what's happening now with the Gulf states as well as our weapons, it looks like Israel may or may not be running short on interceptors, and so are some of the Gulf states.

How close do you know what we're doing in terms of the US? Of being able to refill those capacities? Working really hard, but this is also why that $200 billion supplemental is so important that President Trump wants through Congress. You know, a lot there's people who are opponents of the war who are like, I don't want to fund the war. This is really to replenish, replenish our stocks, make sure that we are able to replenish our stocks so that we can sell weapons to our key allies too.

This is defensive in nature. It's for our own interests.

So, we got to move fast. I do think American companies have the production capability to do that. The big companies have already promised President Trump to quadruple their number of production of key defensive systems as well as key offensive munitions. But we got to have bipartisan work to be able to get that done, Brian. And I don't see that getting done.

It seems like we have a lot of people cheering against this mission and inaccurately portraying the message. Seth Moulton, we're losing. You see the same thing with Senator Kelly. These people have military credentials. And they're saying things Rokana, the same thing.

Corey Booker. How damaging is that message?

So incredibly damaging. One of the most shameful things is when we are at war, you actually, no kidding, if you even believe that it was not the best choice to do Epic Fury. But who could disagree, though, that the Iran regime could never have a nuclear weapon? I mean, even the Democrats said that. They had wrong ideas about the Iran deal to make that happen.

But okay, but now that we have American forces in the region who are taking out the adversary, you know, working in collaboration with our closest ally in the region, the Israelis, I mean, it is shameful that you would have American elected officials say that we are not going to do everything we can to make sure that our stocks are refilled. And so, and I will say too, Brian, it is, I think, just unprecedented in how the United States with Israel has been able to successfully carry out this military campaign and take out Iranian leadership. I mean, we are really thumping them, but we've got to finish the job, and there should be bipartisan consensus cheering on the success of the United States. I hear you. By the way, the foreign minister.

just sat down. with a with Al Jazeera and said there is currently no negotiation between us. The exchange of messages is ongoing, but it's not a negotiation.

So and the exchange of messages, you're going to say, well, I want a ceasefire. But the Foreign Minister, who the only reason he's alive is It looks like the Pakistanis and the Turks asked us to ask the Israelis not to kill him because they had his coordinates. But they said he's somebody we can deal with.

So, an odd situation. The success in killing 240 leaders has left them not knowing who they can. Who has the power? Rebecca Heinrichs, thanks so much. Thanks, Brian.

So happy to do it. You got it. Back in a moment. Engaged and always a step ahead. It's the Brian Kill Meat Show.

Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. I tell Phil, everyone's got to compete, including cities. And for a city to compete, of course, it's quality of life, it's your subways, it's your hospitals, but it's also individual taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, and it drives people out.

So all you have to do is look at California. versus Nevada, you know, New York versus Florida, and there's a huge exodus taking place. It's not good for the city, and people just make a mistake, oh, just tax these people, but but that's the outcome. And very often people think they're being moral by doing that. But they're not.

What they're doing is they're hurting your own city. And unfortunately, people vote with their feet. Yeah, people just don't understand the whole philosophy that if it's amenable to have big businesses in your City, in your state, it's because it's to their benefit. The business has to benefit. And how you benefit, if you're a mayor or governor, assemblyman, is because you have more of your constituents that vote have a place to work, whether it's a restaurant right next to JPMorgan Chase, or it's a dry cleaner for people that are there, or whatever, it builds business.

And when you tell people I'm going to raise the corporate tax rate from 7.25, which they're offering now in New York City, to 9.25. That place like Apollo Investments says, I have 900,000 people here, I'm leaving. 900 billion in investment. I'm going to go somewhere else.

Now we have our own interview with Jamie Dimon that we did on the radio that's on our YouTube page. The whole thing is an entirety. You will love it.

So check it out. On uh at uh YouTube at uh the Brian Kilme uh the Brian Kilmeet Show.

So you'll be able to see that there. But that's what's happening across the country. Jamie Diamond, who built this incredible building, said I got more people in Dallas because they want to live in Dallas. You get more for your money in Dallas, Texas. Taxes are less in Dallas, Texas.

You know, you got property taxes. You also have an insurance situation, which is amenable, and they have tort reform there.

So it's just a better place to live. You might not like the climate in the summer.

Some people think that Florida gets too hot in the Central and South Florida is too hot in the summer. But man, your quality of life is a lot better. You don't have to deal with these crazy winters. And now these mayors and these leaders are kicking you out. And the peak businesses are left behind.

Well, you have a budget deficit.

So, what are you going to do to close that budget deficit? If you're a socialist Democrat, You are no longer thinking growth is possible. What you got to do is just get more from the successful. Which brings you to Bernie Sanders, Cut 26. They are extortionists.

And what they are saying, if you are successful, California is successful, we the billionaires are going to leave California. New York City, you're successful raising taxes, we're going to leave New York City. In America, if we raise taxes, we're all going to go to billionaires, we'll go to Saudi Arabia and be with their fellow autocrats and oligarchs over there. What they are saying in so many words. is they don't believe in democracy.

Do you see his fundamental misunderstanding of America and the people the freedom to move where you want, to a state that you want to be apart, to neighbors that you want to be next to? to a government that you want to have a say in. You really think that anybody you know We're probably listening, would ever vote for a Zo Ram Mdami who's been worse than advertised, and he was advertised terribly.

Okay, you want that? I'm outta here. You want a socialist communist who thinks billionaires should not be allowed?

Sorry, that's not what I signed up for, and I'm not a billionaire. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. The only thing I asked the president to do are two things. I get more credit or burning than I deserve, and that is that I want him to have other pollsters at the table than it's just listening to one.

And B, I wanted him to assure the public that he could serve the term. They didn't agree with that and so he then decided to step aside. It was his decision.

So that is the most ridiculous, dumb, inaccurate spin that Nancy Pelosi is trying to, I guess, in her final interviews while still in power, though she'll probably wield some power in retirement, to inaccurately play her role. Remember, she repeatedly called up Joe Biden and said, you got to make your decision. He says he's going to stay. Make your decision. Essentially, she wanted to go.

She had to step up. And actually, she said, because Obama wouldn't step up and no one else would step forward. She had to step up and tell Joe Biden to bow out, put your other pollster on. Remember the story? But I just simply want another poster.

No, she was listening to the wrong pollster. Why? Because the people telling Joe Biden to keep fighting on were making a zillion dollars. Michael LaRosa lived this, a former special assistant to President Biden, chief spokesman for the First Lady, House Democratic Leadership, and U.S. Senate Communications Director.

Michael, welcome back. Are you surprised that the former speaker seems to be trying to spin things her direction? I think I'm not surprised that she's trying to sort of downplay the. The sharpness and acuteness that the Bidens felt by her. At the time.

And I mean, she is right that and we found this out much later, Brian, but she is, and this is stunning, by the way. This is unheard of. But Biden had Three, the three best pollsters you can have in the Democratic Party. The three, like Jeff Pollack, Molly Murphy, and there was another one, I forget his name. Maybe it was John Hart, but.

The president never spoke to his pollsters. He had one person giving him information based on that polling, Mike Donnelly. And yes, that makes sense.

Okay, fine. Yes. I mean, it doesn't make sense, but if you understand Biden world, yes, that makes sense because it was so insular that the president was only ever speaking to Mike and Steve, and information was funneled through Mike and Steve. And to hear the reports after the fact that these pollsters for a year. Never spoke to Biden.

It is stunning. It is malpractice. It's disappointing. It's a betrayal. It's just.

There's no words for it. And so she's not wrong that he did need to hear from not only other pollsters, his own pollsters. And he wasn't hearing from his own pollsters.

Well, how about the fact that Mike Donnelly was making a ton of money to run his reelection campaign, right? Doesn't have a lot to do with it. Yeah, like, you know, according to Jake and Alex's book, Biden said, pay Mike whatever he wants. And look, I get loyalty. I understand Mike has been with them since 84.

I understand, like, he was there through the depths, the highs and lows, the lows of the 1987 campaign. He's someone that it's very rare that you get the trust and the respect from both Biden and the First Lady. And he and Steve were those people.

So. I get it, but I mean, certainly the Bidens never made a lot of money. I mean, I know the Republicans think they did, but the people around them are making much more money off of them than they were.

So I want you to do the ironic part. How about this?

Now, unless you want to correct the record, Michael, it's Kamala Harris outmaneuvered Nancy Pelosi in the end. Because Nancy Pelosi wanted an open primary, Obama wanted an open primary. She consolidated power like Jerry Maguire did, and Tom Cruise did on Jerry Maguire. Called everybody up possible. Stay with me, stay with me, stay with me.

And she wired the game. But listen to how this former speaker portrays it now, Cut39. She ran a great campaign. She turned out so many more people than who would have voted. I think she doesn't deserve enough credit for the outcome of the election in terms of we would have lost probably 14 seats.

in that election if she had not been the candidate.

So she doesn't believe that. Nobody believes she ran a good campaign. But like everything, like everything, it's a little bit. Um It's a little bit of a mixed bag.

So, Pelosi, on one hand, what she's trying to refocus that conversation on is the loss that Democrats could have faced in the House if Biden stayed at the top of the ticket. And yeah, in California, it helped. Because a lot of those seats we lost In 2022, in the suburbs of LA and Newport Beach and in Orange County. Uh yeah, having h kamala helped in some of those places. But That said, 9%.

less voters turned out in California to vote for their own Vice president, their own home state vice president, then in 2020, when she was vice president. Uh There was a huge voter drop-off in spite of the fact that she was on the ticket in her own state. She is plus plus you know i don't think is What? Kamala had it wired from the beginning because. She they were ready with a whipping operation from the beginning.

They were ready. They were set to go. And if you talk to even Mansions people, they will tell you, we tried. Other I think I think some other people, JB and I know Manchin, a couple of other people did try to make some calls, but those delegates were locked down.

Now, Trump would have done the same thing. That's a good use of power. It's a good use of your Your seniority, your ability, the resources you have. But you're right also that. You know, most people would have preferred a little bit of some options at the time, but her team was on it.

It was impressive. I give Sheila Nix, her chief of staff. And Lorraine Voles a lot of credit for being ready and jumping on it. And hey, can you blame them?

Now, I can blame them for a lot of things that they did wrong technically during the general. But the way they consolidated the Democratic delegates. Was fast and furious. Right. And I'll tell you what, picking the wrong candidate is number two.

And remember, they finally sat down and didn't do any interviews. When they did, Waltz got in a higher chair and she got all insulted. They first, she was scared to do interviews. It was just crazy. And when, yeah, the other guy was talking five, six times a day.

That's just nuts. Oh. Not even just cop, like, first of all, yes, you're right. They didn't do an interview until August 30th. She got the.

She basically locked it up at the end of June. That's unforgivable. You can't keep the press at bay. The press, 99.999% of the voters only meet their candidates through the press.

So, there's no way for anybody to get to know her if she's hiding. And then the first interview she does is with Waltz and I. With Dana Bash, and it just didn't go well. And then they started throwing spaghetti up against the wall to do everything that they could, but voting had already started in September and it was too late. And that's emblematic of the caution, the culture of caution in the Democratic Party that needs to be fixed.

So, Michael Rosa. As we look at the top five candidates that you hope to see in the debate stage after the midterm elections, this is all we're going to be talking about. Who are the five that you want to see in the debate stage for the Democrats? Five? Wow.

I mean, I want to see Rom. He's the only one I think that I really Feel much for at this point. I'm going to give all the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I'd like to see Brahm, I'd like to see Andy Bashir, I'd like to see non-politicians, I'd like to see a Mark Cuban. I'd like to see somebody who runs that doesn't have much to lose and doesn't behave like the careful politician, our own.

Our own sort of disruptor to the establishment, but someone who people will listen to because they have some authenticity to them, not because they're politically calculating.

So, Rahm, I want to see Andy Bashir. I'd like to see Mark Cuban. I'd like to see Pritzker because I think he's a decent communicator. I'm not really with his. Governing style at the moment.

I don't really, I'm not that far left.

So, but I do think that we need to have those debates. um and i think we're gonna get them i think there's gonna be a lot of Democrats who are going to be talking about AIPAC and dark money, and shifting the conversation. Um But Ron will be the one that you will see kind of. Weaponize common sense. And that's what I want to see.

I would hope so too, because I want center left, center right. I don't want extreme either direction. And that scared me, the No Kings rally, when I saw all those Soviet, those Russian flags, I mean, excuse me, the communist flags. I'm going, are you kidding me? The Islamists?

Really? You heard Tony Blair come forward and said the Democratic Party in both countries, US and UK, have to divorce themselves from Islamists. Not saying Muslims, from Islamists. Because How do your philosophies overlap? I hope they don't.

Well, how do we distance ourselves from that when we have The mayor of the largest city in the world, who's often sympathetic to a terrorist group in the Middle East, Hamas. I don't get how we can escape some of that because that platform, you can't yield that platform easily. He's the mayor of New York City, but we did this to ourselves.

So we have to figure out because that is not going to help us win seats in the midterm. And that's not going to help us win in 28 either. But the key, the Brian, what to watch for, I think, and this hasn't been talked about yet for those 2028 debates that will begin in a year. The partnerships, the media partnerships, who is asking the questions? Because Yeah.

Those candidates are being asked questions from. And I saw this. If you watched some of the debate that the DNC chairman had, that chairman's race had on. Uh MSNBC. And The questions put them into boxes that could only make them run left.

And in the in the end. One of Kamala's biggest hurdles was overcoming herself and the things she said in the primary back in 2020. In these debates, or for these questionnaires that these groups make you fill out in order to get their support. And that's going to be fundamental. And I really hope.

Martin is careful. About who they partner with on these debates because. they're going to box Democrats in rhetorically. And it's It's going to hurt everybody in the it's going to hurt the party in the end.

So I want you to Ram Emmanuel, who's weighing in, a little disappointed me on the war. He didn't acknowledge really that Iran's been an enemy of every administration, but he was on the fifth column podcast. And here's what he said generally about the Democratic Party, Cut 43. We lost the plot. We, as Democrats nationally, from Latinx to defunding the police to police organizations are all racist, to bringing a set of cultural wars to our schools.

We are on the losing side of those cultural wars. Full stop. You are worried about bathroom access and locker room access. Why don't you focus on classroom excellence? You have 50 percent of our kids not reading at grade level.

Trevor Burrus: Well, they can just say we can do both. You've proven you can't. Because you've permitted a 30-year low in reading and math scores, and nobody seems to be calling the whistle on this. We've lost the plot. Why?

Because the party got unanchored. Every one of our most successful electoral presidents anchored themselves in what I call middle-class values and values that are universal, at least in this country. ascribed to. We went from acceptance to advocacy. Big difference.

And I'll just take one on that I shouldn't.

So here it goes. I remember fighting for Title IX. The reason we are champions in women's sports in the Olympics, in soccer, hockey, et cetera, is Title IX. Why would you undercut the premise of Title IX with the ability of trans men playing in women's sports? To me, it's insane.

It's baffling. You are undermining one of the great accomplishments we as a country, but also spearheaded by the Democratic Party. Title IX, and we're undercutting it. He's 100% right on almost everything he said. Right?

You you absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, and I only would say this because I was asked this question. I teach a class and a student asked me about it was there was the night of the Supreme the day of the Supreme Court arguments about Trans trans athletes. And I said, look, my, my.

Experience Tells me That this is a common sense fairness argument because I was a college swimmer. And so I know my most liberal progressive friends who are my ex-teammates and ex-athletes, some of them are coaches now. They know this is a common sense thing. And I'm not informed just because I happen to be like an L identify as LGBT. That's not what this is about.

It's about biologics and fairness. And so, but importantly, Rahm's right. I mean, I've heard him say before, and he's right about this, you know. Kennedy Clinton and Obama, frankly, they had to show that they were culturally in touch. With everybody, with the mainstream of the country.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be accepted. Um Kennedy for his faith. Yeah. Um for you know it was During post-LA riots, and there was a crime epidemic, he had to show that. That he could have that sister soldier moment, that he could reprimand our party when it was necessary.

Obama had to reprimand his old pastor in order to show that. Um, the rest of the country, the mainstream, the independent voters, that we could trust us culturally before you get to economic issues of competence. Right now, most of the country doesn't believe that the Democrats are in line with mainstream. Common sense cultural values. And so they do.

They won't trust us on anything else. We had Jason Crow in here, so obviously a service, special ops. He would not answer that question that Ram Emmanuel just answered. He's like, it doesn't matter. It rarely happens.

That's the traditional answer of Democrats. It rarely happens. Republicans are trying to make this a big issue. You know, have a heart. Gavin Newsom says, have a heart.

Yeah, so I have a lot of respect for Crowe. I think he's ambitious. I think he wants to be on that vice presidential ticket, if not at the top. That's the kind of shit that is going to get Democrats in trouble. People will forgive a lot of things about candidates.

They'll forgive you for changing your mind. They will forgive you for your vulnerabilities. They will forgive you for mistakes or gaps. They won't forgive phoniness, and they don't forgive cowardice. Right.

Especially just logic. He was actually upset. And if it happens so infrequently, then you shouldn't have a problem answering the question. Michael Rosa, thanks so much. Incident analysis.

We're going to be doing a lot of that as we get closer and closer to the midterms to get through this war. Michael, thank you.

Sounds good. Back in a moment. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead. It's the Brian Kill Meet Show. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Kilmead. NASA changed the world July 20th, 1969. We last went to the moon, Apollo 17, in 1972. What's taken so long to get back?

Well, we put a lot of our attention to low Earth orbit. We built the world's most extraordinary laboratory that orbits above us. It's been continuously inhabited for more than a quarter of a century. I mean, think about that. For more than 25 years, we've kept astronauts alive on the International Space Station.

We've learned a lot about keeping people alive in the environment of microgravity. And also, that is Jason Geisigman who's running NASA today. It looks like the Artemis is going to be going around the moon, get shot off today. It takes about five days. It'll be great.

I hope everything goes extremely well, obviously. And we got to stay ahead of the Chinese. I think it's so interesting. I'd also add we had the space shuttle program, and the space shuttle program was lower orbit. And they thought, well, you know, we've been to the moon, we've got that.

I think people stopped watching it. 72 was the last time we did it, even though it was so extraordinary the first time.

So now we're going to go back and do it differently. We want to have sustained life and do it with a rocket. And then we have to also just flat out say what NASA doesn't want to say. We are racing the Chinese. They plan on being on the moon in two years.

We got to go back, establish it. You just watched, the Chinese are going to declare that they own it. or own half of it. And they're gonna find some metals up there that'll benefit us down here, I think.

So I'm excited. Check it out again and then understand how much time and money goes into it. And then people get more interest and realize you have to invest in it.

So many other presidents looked at it and said, oh, we don't need to spend on space. I got too many other items. This president feels differently, and I'm glad. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division.

It's Brian Kilmead. So glad you're there. It's the Brian Killmead Show coming to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan. Doug Schoen is going to make sense of the Democratic Party. Tell us who he wants on that debate stage and with their message is to be successful in the midterms.

Doug Schoen, former Clinton advisor, advisor to Michael Bloomberg and a Democratic strategist. Roger Zachheim is standing by, Washington director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, a president that Ronald Trump and Reagan are also brought up with the same breath. They have a lot of the same principles. And also, Roger's got a book coming out shortly, Peace Through Strength, that tells the story of the Reagan military buildup. Lots of parallels between the two administrations.

Both had problems with Iran. No kidding. Let's get to the big three. Number three. President Trump gave us the Artemis program during his first term.

He's given us the national space policy in his second term. The one big beautiful bill funds, the $10 billion investment into NASA, is what's going to give us the capabilities now to go back to the moon, and again, this time to stay. Jared Isaacman running NASA in this exciting day, flying to the moon, eventually staying for good. One big step for NASA. We'll discuss it and why we got to beat China.

Number two. We clearly see the Democrats trying to punish the rest of the department, the Department of Homeland Security, because they don't like immigration enforcement. Bring them back. Mr. President, no president has done it since 1948, but it's time to bring Congress back to finally end the impasse with DHS.

You might think that the president found some money to pay the TSA, but there's a lot of people still not being paid. Number one. I would say that within Two weeks, maybe, two weeks, maybe three. They have no leaders. You know, their leaders are all gone.

That's why we have regime change. We have nice new leaders. That is the President of the United States. Big speech tonight as the war rages on. Another aircraft carrier, the George H.W.

Bush, is steaming into the Persian Gulf. Marines are now arrived. Let's hope we finish the job the right way and don't leave without opening up the strait. Joining us now is Roger Zakheim. Roger, what do you think President Reagan would say if he was told that NATO allies like The UK.

France, Spain, and Italy would not let us use the American bases in their country. No, he would say that they're not Living up to their responsibilities, their commitments under the NATO Charter. And more importantly, I think he would go to the core. of what's at hand here, Ryan, and that is Freedom is something that you can't pass on from generation to generation. It's not in the bloodstream.

You need to fight for it. That's what President Reagan stood for. And that's what the NATO allies are not doing. Of course, this regime in Iran is one that is interfering with our freedom, freedom of navigation, freedom from tyranny. And it's disappointing that they're not living up to their obligations.

I don't want to speak about it in a monolithic way. There are NATO allies that are absolutely with us. You think about Poland. You think about the Baltics. Even I think the UK is engaging in some operations now I've seen reported, but certainly some of the core members have not, and that's disappointing.

Well, they don't even have an aircraft carriage sent. The mind sweepers are not even in motion. Because they don't have the support group to send a carrier.

So they've allowed their whole military to rust in a way I didn't think was possible. But I've been watching all this British T V and they can't believe w how how inept their own country is. How they've let themselves rust from within. Here's Marco Rubio on how this campaign has been going. Cut six.

We can see the finish line. It's not today, it's not tomorrow, but it is coming. We are going to get to the point where our military will have achieved all of its objectives in this mission, and they're doing so with extraordinary efficiency.

Something that I think will go down in history as one of the best-run tactical military operations in modern times. It's unreported because a lot of it has to do is we can't get information for the much information from inside Iran. But what do you think about his analysis? I mean, I think Sector Rubio is spot on. I think from an operational standpoint, the military has been extraordinary.

That's measured in the form of the targets it's taking out, the fact that we have air superiority. Every KIA, any service member who's killed in action is a tragedy, but that count is so low compared to what so many so-called experts told us and the elected officials told us what might happen. And the challenge is, of course, translating that operational success into something that is politically significant. I know you view it this way. My view is the same, that there has been tremendous political success here because this regime is beaten down.

It's on its knees. I think it's the beginning of the end. But certainly there are still challenges that remain. One, of course, as we'll talk about, the Strait of Hormuz and how to reopen it. And two, who is taking over for this regime?

President Trump is... Correct when he says, Hey, the leaders that were there at the beginning of the conflict are no longer there. That's true, but the theological regime still seems to remain in place. The RGC still seems to be calling the shots, and that's what we need to work on, translating the operational success into a durable political outcome that advantages us here in the United States. You know, it's interesting, we had Dennis Ross on, worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, and he said he doesn't think if this war ends and he's got to end it with opening up the strait.

But if it does end, he doesn't think the Iranian regime lasts a year because of the damage being done. The UAE is preparing to help the U.S. militarily to open up the Strait of Hermuz. The UAE is lobbying the United Nations Security Council resolution. He's going to do it officially on Thursday to demand that they open that because it is international waters.

They should be demanding it themselves on the Security Council, but they're going to be pushing that personally. The UAE wants the U.S. to consider taking some of these islands. and forcing the straight open ourselves, they pledged to help. There's risk with that though.

Yeah, we'll see what the President says tonight during his national address. I think this is the issue. Everybody's waiting to hear from him on whether or not he wants unilaterally through military operations, those troops being deployed or have been deployed to take steps, including perhaps seizing an island to open up the Strait of Hormuz or to do it through some form of ceasefire, getting an agreement that the U.S. will seize military operations in exchange for those in Iran seizing to effectively close it. I think the latter option, which there's some reporting suggesting that the President may choose that approach, is one that basically means we will continue as a military engaging the region until that regime falls, because it is not sustainable to rely on this tattered regime to open up or risk them closing the Strait of Hormuz.

And I think the President's already said it, that, yeah, it may require future operations in the future. Either way, I think this is a key point, and I'm pleased that you said it definitely. That's right. we are much better off as a country. The world is much better off.

In the status quo now. In other words, status quo ante. The state of affairs prior to Operation Epic Fury was not sustainable, and we have gained greatly as a country and as security because of this operation. But people are looking at gas prices at $4. They're seeing jet blue hike up baggage fees.

And the president, it's almost like looking at his economy during the pandemic. He had it rolling. The pandemic rolls in. They said 10 days to stop the spread, and they never opened up again. And he had his gas prices and oil prices, natural gas and diesel down.

And now they're going up. It's around $4.

So that's the pain we're feeling. Yeah. I think it's a small price to pay. I don't want to belittle the increase for everyday Americans, but this is short-term volatility for long-term durable stability, Ryan. I mean, the reality is that having the Iranian regime on their knees, crumbling before our eyes, means that the commerce that the world relies on, including the United States, because, of course, the energy markets are global in nature.

And even if we're energy independent, as we are, we still are impacted by what happens in that global trade. We are so much better off because of this. It is not. The outlook here is not good for those in the Iranian regime or for those who relied on the regime for their ring of fire. I mean, they are being consumed by the ring of fire that they had set up, and that is better for economic trade.

That is better for economic interests. And so I think it's a short-term problem, but in the long term, it's going to benefit the United States and, frankly, politically, President Trump. You have your book coming out, and you talked about how Ronald Reagan built up the military. What did he have? When he took over for Jimmy Carter.

What was the state of our military? the state of our military was upside down. We were suffering with Vietnam syndrome. And you and I have spoken about this in the past, where Americans were embarrassed. They doubted the success of our military.

They didn't think the United States could achieve good things, let alone great things. And President Reagan restored American pride. That was his major objective entering office in 1981. And the cornerstone, the epicenter of that. Was rebuilding the U.S.

military to convince the military and the American people that we could do great things. And it took a tremendous amount of effort on the president's part. He rallied the country behind him. He basically slayed Vietnam syndrome, and we realized we could win again. And that is how, I argue, we won the Cold War.

Wow, and that's truly now we're in a situation now where the Russians have overstretched themselves again like they did in Afghanistan. Do you see similarities there?

Well, we are facing great power competition for the first time since the Cold War. You're right to note that Russia is facing great challenges, and they're showing themselves to be a weakened power, a failing power. But as you talk about regularly, the real challenge is in the Indo-Pacific with the People's Republic of China. We now face another competitor, another communist competitor, and this time we're facing a country that is engaging not only in a major military modernization not seen since the Soviet Union, but also a major economic power. And in that respect, it's a little more complicated than what the United States faced during the Cold War and facing the Soviet Union.

Although at the time, we weren't quite as sure as we are now that the Soviet Union was crumbling, was a failing power. I think China is not quite 11 feet tall, as sometimes we talk about. They have their internal contradictions, which we can't exploit. And President Trump, in his first term, and we'll see what the second term looks like, has done a lot. lot to exploit those weaknesses.

Roger, thanks so much. Always appreciate it. Look forward to your book, Peace Through Strength, coming out. Shortly.

So we look forward to that. Thank you, Roger. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right.

You listen to the Brand Kill Me Show. We come back. We're watching the birthright citizenship. I'm listening to it. There's no cameras, obviously.

The Supreme Court being heavily debated. This is interesting. We'll talk about that. I was shocked. I'm for getting rid of it.

Right? If you're born here from parents that took you here illegally, I don't think you should be a citizen. That's not what it was meant for. I was shocked that 69% of the American public. Think I'm wrong.

Brian Kilmicho. From breaking news to big-name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kill Meat Show. Uh He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Kilmead.

Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations. It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship. It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws, but also jump in front of those who follow the rules. It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States. I welcome the Court's questions.

And that's John Sauer, the Solicitor General, making his case to get rid of birthright citizenship. It's tourism. People come in and they're illegals, they have kids, and they get to stay. The kids become citizens, and they have a choice. Hey, you know, I can leave the kid here, or they could come back and send for me as parents.

And there's all these different scenarios there. And no one ever sends them back.

Well, the kid was born here. We're not going to toss out the parents. Get out the worst first.

So they get to stay. And the Chinese are doing it as absolutely a weapon. We already know the students come here and they're all spies. They have to. They keep their families back here, college kids.

Now they have kids being born here. Plus, they got that single p that single child philosophy up until recently in China. They have their multiple kids here and they become dual citizens.

So This is what I hope people look at. And I hope they just don't look at this as a Donald Trump mission, and people understand it just diminishes all those people doing it the right way, just like people who breach our border and get to stay and get to use our social services. The problem is, we offer so much to people as a social safety net, it is too attractive for people not to take the risk to come. And here is Gabrielle Pasteur, the office of the White House Counsel, on their approach Cut 47. I think the President made it clear what he believes his constitutional role is in interpreting the Constitution.

And also, he's, in my mind, would appear because he genuinely believes that the Supreme Court needs to look at the original historical baseline meaning of the citizenship clause. There's a lot of media around this issue, there's a lot of tradition, and there's a lot of thought that this issue has already been resolved, as you mentioned, for the last 150 years. But that's just not true. We have not resolved the issue of what to do with children of illegal aliens and illegal residents, people who are here illegally. And so I think the President's going in order to show how much he wants the Supreme Court to genuinely consider this issue and look at the historical original baseline.

I think that's why he's in the audience. And I believe it's historic because I don't think any other sitting president sat there.

Now, think about everything that he's got to do, but this is important to him. It's not one of those larks that people say another executive order with just is about Republicans. I would hope Democrats would get behind on this as well. I want to make everything. If you want to get to the dreamers, that's something Democrats want.

Kids who are brought here as young children, they have no say in it, and they can't really be citizens. They go to school, but they cannot really apply for citizenship.

So get them off the bench. Nobody wants to kick him out. Do that. Birthright citizenship, same vein. Stop the attraction.

Have people come the right way. And then make it easier for people to come the right way. That's got to be part of it. This president's going to be after the midterms, especially if it comes out to his liking. He's very perfect place to reform.

To reform immigration. Because he's already done the hard part, and that's. And that's fixed the border.

So I hope this comes out good. It looks like the arguments are strong. And as Shannon Bream, of all experts of experts, told me, that if there wasn't a reason to have, if there wasn't a sense that this could be overturned, that it were not adhering to the Constitution, that circumstances have changed since the 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860s under Lincoln, if there wasn't enough residence there, they wouldn't have taken up the case. There is. And there remains.

So the debate begins. Good luck.

Next, talking about this war, President speaks 9 o'clock tonight about what we're doing now with this war. General Jack Keene, cut 13. We have a choice to make. Do we occupy it and take control of it, or blockade it, or we destroy it? That is a presidential decision.

In any way, What the result will be will be quite profound, and I believe it's checkmate for the regime. because now we will either control or destroy their economic viability as a nation state to have any capable power projection in the near future.

So the president's for excuse me, Jack Keene seems to me He's for taking these islands, taking a couple of islands. You become a target, but not if you're an aggressor.

So that's important. But what the President did in coming to war the way he did, he left allies on the side because he was doing it for us. But when it came to using the bases, he didn't think that would be an issue. Newke Gingrich was on with Larry Kudlow last night. Cud sixteen.

There's a secondary part of this. A theme of this administration. Consistently going back to Trump's first speech in Warsaw in 2017. They want the Europeans and others to step up to the plate and do their share. They want to get the Europeans to take responsibility so they can pivot to make sure we can overmatch China.

Now this has been very clear if you watch him.

So some of this that's going on right now is, you know, Trump, if he could have beaten him quickly, he'd been happy. If you can't beat them quickly, he's going to grind them down. He's never going to leave. We may not have combat every morning. We may not put any ground troops in.

Well, we'll be around. We'll be watching. Our intelligence operation plus massage Yeah, he's doing things differently. He's talking about a new NATO where if you don't pay your fair share, you have no say in decision makings or exercises. That means trouble for Italy, a lot of trouble for Spain, maybe even the UK and Germany.

Not Eastern Europe, they get it. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Hey, welcome back, everybody. Brian Kilmicho here.

So bad you're there. We're watching or listening to the arguments on birthright citizenship. The president of the United States, extraordinarily, is there watching it. We believe it's the first time a sitting president has sat in on any court, any Supreme Court proceedings like this, but it means a lot to them. Birthright citizenship.

The question is: law passed in the 1860s, 14th Amendment, to make sure that slaves were American citizens and their kids, and American Indians were not. Does that apply today when people do birth tourism? Why China is And people come across the border illegally, illegal parents. And they give birth, the kid becomes a citizen. Are you okay with that?

Is that what the law was intended to do? Doug Schoen is with us now, former Clinton advisor, Bloomberg advisor, long-term Democratic strategist. Doug, where do you stand on this, birthright citizenship? Do you feel as though this should be a partisan debate? Mm-hmm.

You know, I think there should be a debate, hopefully not a partisan one, Brian, because I think the world has changed. But on the other hand, it's enshrined in our Constitution that it exists. But undeniably, people have crossed the southern border to have their kids born in the U.S. I know of cases of people who have had from foreign countries come to the U.S. to make sure their kids have American citizenship.

On one sense, I think that's a good thing that people cherish what we frequently hear at home take for granted. On the other hand, I think it's an appropriate time for the highest court to evaluate whether, in fact, the constitutional precepts are accurate and fair for the time today. Why do you think the President is there? I think he's there to underscore to the justices how important it is to him. that this issue be revisited in a serious and substantial way.

And I think it's his way of saying that he hopes full and complete consideration will be to the arguments that he and his legal advisors have made. All right, let's move to the DHS. I just can't believe that both sides are home for two weeks and they take money out of one pot to pay a portion of those not being paid at TSA, but the support staff's not being paid. Cybersecurity is not being paid. A lot of the civilian staff on the Coast Guard is not being paid.

Do you believe the President should use his power to bring everybody back and come up with a solution here? Clear case where we need presidential leadership. The fact that we have airports that are non-functional, I don't know if you've experienced it, I have. And it's frankly contrary to everything we as Americans expect. And I'm very glad the president did what he did last week.

And I hope it gets extended to support staff.

So, yes. Yeah, I mean, it hasn't been done since 1948. You almost think you got to go past leadership because they're all dug in so much, Doug. Exactly. This is a failure of congressional leadership on both sides, Brian.

So there's Tom Swasey and Brian Fitzpatrick are working on some bipartisan legislation going forward. They talk about reforms. The Senate would not have done any reforms, would not have funded. The House said just go for sixty straight days. We want to make sure DHS is funded.

So that's the impasse right now. But I think that Brian Fitzpatrick and Tom Swazi, known as moderates by their party, that might be the way forward. Oh, I would strongly support that. As you and I have discussed many times for many years, I believe passionately in bipartisan approaches, not because I want kumbaya, but because I want consensus and compromise, which sadly we have very little of in today's America.

So let's talk about what's happening in New York. They're talking about raising the corporate tax 7.5 to 7.5 to 9.5. And Albany is supposedly wide open to it to close their budget gap. Jamie Dimon came on with us and says, you got to be kidding me. This is the type of thing that forces people out of the city.

Used to work for Mike Bloomberg, another business titan that was not, you know, he got elected as a Republican, ended up a moderate, then was for the Democratic Party. But he's talking about Jamie Dimon, how people leave cities because of things like this, Cut 25. I tell people, everyone's got to compete, including cities. And for a city to compete, of course, it's quality of life, it's your subways, it's your hospitals, but it's also individual taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, and it drives people out.

So all you have to do is look at California. uh versus Nevada. You know, New York versus Florida. And there's a huge exodus taking place. It's not good for the city.

And people just make a mistake. Oh, just tax these people. But but that's the outcome. And very often people think they're being moral by doing that. But they're not.

What they're doing is they're hurting your own city. And unfortunately, people vote with their feet. You must have had conversations like this with Michael Bloomberg. What do you think again? You know, many years ago, yes, I did.

I think, and I can't speak for him, nor would I try. But going back to the Yeah. Distant past 20 odd years ago, I know he is broadly sympathetic with the view that Jamie Dimon is expressing. Mike Bloomberg has kept his flagship for Bloomberg LP here in New York. He employs thousands of people here.

And I think Jamie Dimon is exactly right. If taxes get increased, it's going to continue to drive people out of the city. And that's just not going to be in the long-term interest of New York or New Yorkers. But they want to close their budget deficit. And the way to do it, they believe, is to raise taxes.

And you have a mayor that says, I don't think being a billionaire is allowed. I I I agree. Fervently against Mandami's election. He has not convinced me since. That he is the right man for the job.

About the only thing he's done that I would tell you I support is when he said he was going to go back. On his intention of raising real estate taxes, which would have had the same impact on population and business that Jamie Dimon was talking about.

So I just think this is a time to tighten our belt, not raise taxes across the board.

So Governor Hokul, who told New Yorkers three years ago: if you don't like it, hit the road, go to Palm Beach, now she's saying this. I need people who are High net worth to support the generous social programs that we want to have in our state. Right? Now, there are some patriotic millionaires who stepped up.

Okay. Cut me the checks. I mean, just if you want to be supportive, but maybe the first step should be go down to Palm Beach and see who you can bring back home because our tax base has been eroded. Right. Why has it been eroded, Doug?

Really? I'm supposed to go down and recruit people from Palm Beach because I'm in New York. And to do what? What's the incentive to come back? Because it's patriotic to pay more taxes in New York than Florida?

Yeah. Brian, it made no sense as I listened to Governor Hokul. I know she said this, she said it many times, but I would think we want to remain competitive, not drive people out and then basically guilt trip them in ways that will doom to failure. To come back and pay more taxes because somehow it's the right or the fair thing to do. Makes no sense to me and is completely contrary to what I believe is in our interest as a state and city and a country.

Yeah, let's talk about the state. It looks like Bruce Blakeman's going to get the Republican nomination running against Kathy Hochul. And he's got to get name recognition up. He's got to go upstate. He's got to go through Nassau.

Nassau, where he's the. He is the guy in charge.

Now we have the Suffolk, he's got to win over, and he's got to take a piece. Of the city.

So far, he started off when he declared his candidacy 63.17. Then it was 54.25.

So now it's now a 13 he's that went from a twenty point race to a thirteen point race. It is now 47.34. Where's this race going, Doug Shoan? I think it will continue to tighten as people get to know Bruce Blakeman and think about Kathy Hochul. And I think the other thing that we haven't discussed is that when people come to realize that Hochul is now cultivating and catering to Zoran Mandami in the far left, I think it will motivate swing voters outside New York, but even independents and some moderate Democrats in the city to reconsider whether they want to support a governor who was elected initially as an upstate moderate and is now clearly serving as a left-wing advocate for policies that I think are inimical to our city and state.

Yeah, and so we'll see. Bruce certainly has got to get his name recognition up throughout the state, but he's certainly got the energy to do it and the experience. And now he's got a track record in Nassau County, but he's also pro-choice.

So I know for a while there was a much hotter issue last election cycle, but if you're going to go and try to, you know, because Lise Eldon was pro-life, they say that as great a campaign as he ran with abortion such a hot issue last time, it made it hard. Does that make a difference now? It does. It is very hard in New York State, which has an 18% Democratic advantage. And where Democrats are almost unanimously pro-choice, it's very hard to get elected as a pro-life candidate.

So I think politically, and I would certainly support it, being pro-choice is the right way for Blakeman to go and gives him a better chance in the election.

So I want you to hear the no-kings protest, Doug. I didn't see you out there. I might have missed it because it was in so many cities, but it was a Democratic rally. But so many of the theme was not to me the typical Democratic rally. Yeah, I know you don't like Trump, but I didn't know you love communism.

Listen to some of these no-kings protesters this weekend. Communist revolution! Communist revolution! There is only one solution! There is only one solution!

Is that disconcerting to you too? It's very disconcerting to me. I'm one of those who believes that the Democratic Party should be moderate and inclusive. Yes, we need social welfare. Yes, we need policies that Pick up people who for whatever reason need help.

But no, I don't believe in communist revolution. I don't believe in the progressive far left. And I think that the No Kings rally suggests very clearly to me and the electorate how far left the Democratic Party is and out of step with mainstream America.

So who would you like to see? Who do you think is going to be on the stage in 2028 battling for the nomination and for the presidency? And who do you want to see?

So who do you think is going to be there? And then who do you want to see? I would love to see a moderate candidate. like Josh Shapiro. Uh like Andy.

Uh Bashir from Kentucky. Um But I worry That The likely nominee will be Gavin Newsom. I say that Because while he's opposed to wealth tax, he has joined with uh the far left progressives in demonizing Israel and calling it an apartheid state, which to me is contrary to everything I believe and have grown up with as a mainstream Democrat for my entire life. Yeah, he walked that back, but I think that pe almost everyone on the stage when it comes to a Democrat will be denouncing Israel, sadly. I sadly it is the case, but I think it is one of the most chilling developments in our politics and makes it very hard for me to be as enthusiastic about The Democratic Party that I once was.

And look, there's ultra-right, too. I have no patience for it. Israel is the other definition of a great ally, and we're seeing it again. Doug Schoen, thank you so much. Ryan, always a pleasure.

Thank you. You got it. Back in a moment. Both sides, all opinions, it's Brian Killmead. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmeade.

Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. You feel fully comfortable in the universe that you're in now. Mm. What do you mean?

In the political universe that you're in.

Well, I do feel very comfortable in that. No one has ever asked me. To Engage in any kind of litmus test on anything. And I feel very comfortable in that world. I don't feel like I have to walk around pretending anything of any sort.

The expectation is that we are going to be open-minded and have a conversation, and that I'll provide meaningful. input from You know, the perspective of someone who loves him and wants him to succeed.

So, um, Even if we don't agree, I think it's always very productive.

So that is Usha Vance talking about. How she feels in politics. She especially expecting a fourth kid. She's second lady in the United States. Never really wanted politics.

JD Vance was in business. He ran for Senate. Wins the Senate.

Next thing you know, he's as a he's running for President and he wins. And he's probably going to run for president next.

So listen to the view respond to Usha Vance essentially saying she's being held hostage as a woman of color, cut 50. She's sitting there. She's, you know, married to the vice president. She was a Democrat in 2014. She's pregnant now.

But I will say that it just couldn't be me. It wouldn't be me. I think our country's in an existential crisis. This is not a game. I think your values need to align, especially times like this.

And some things are deal breakers. I mean, one of the things that he said about his wife's religion, she's Hindu, he said, I do hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church. Yeah, honestly, I do wish that because I believe in the Christian gospel, and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it that way. And she has said that her Hindu parents, you know, she's of Indian heritage, their Hindu faith is what made them great parents. And she doesn't want to separate from that.

So I think when your spouse is saying, I want you to be a different religion, I don't know. That's something that's just very far apart. The whole political scene right now is weird because people, like you say, she was a Democrat until 2014. Her husband called Trump a moral disaster. And yet, here they are kissing his butt every day.

It's unbelievable to me how many people have done a 180 on everything that they believed before for power. For power and money. And are you saying that maybe she has done that 180 so that her husband could also be aware of that?

Well, of course, she's addicted to the power older. Yeah, that is the view with their infinite wisdom. Saying what Ushavans should do and should they think, and why do people give into the power? I assume they're saying RFK.

Well, J.D. Vance is proving himself to the whole Trump family. said I didn't really know Jud President Trump. I'm listening to some of the things he was saying. I made some comments about him.

As I got into the political process, got a chance to know him, got his support to be the senator from Ohio, realized what he represented, I changed my mind. You have people like Mitt Romney. Good person, but just cannot stomach Trump. You have people like. Bill Crystal cannot do it.

Other people say, well, you know, I get it now. I mean, Condoleezza Rice, would this be the type of president that she would cut out of a cookie cutter? They reminded her of the bushes? No. But do you ever see Condoleezza Rice come out and just rip Trump?

No. She goes, listen. He got elected twice. I hope any way I can. And I see a lot of convergence when it comes to foreign policy.

That's why every time there's a major event in Venezuela, Iran, now, you see people like that and the establishment say, here's a non-typical candidate. I can appreciate it. That's the same thing with Usha Vance and her husband. For you to continue on the view that why would this woman be with the vice president who agrees with the president is insane, but it's not surprising. Not really.

Anyway. Because I don't know how that chill stays relevant if it wasn't for us running clips. Because nobody that I know goes to the view and says, I'm smarter now. There was a time when it was interesting when Barbara Walters was on there, and they have these huge celebrities and these political power players. And you wouldn't really see much political agenda.

But when she leaves the show and she passes away, it's just a left-wing firebrand that is a parody of an insightful talk show. With a bunch of people turning to the audience and telling when to clap and not. And they don't even have people on that might disagree with them. Once in a while, they have someone like Elizabeth Hasselbick fill in like Megan McCain did and really push back. But for the most part, they love, and Abby Huntsman, they love when Republicans come on and just say how bad Trump is.

We just honor in a borrow. Do us on the Brian Kilmeat Show. A chance to see me on the road November 30th, Reno, Nevada, and appearances all throughout the fall, including in New Jersey and on Long Island and Westbury Music Theater. Go to BrianKilmeat.com.