Brian’s down in Texas but he’s got an eye on D.C., California and Iran

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Hi everyone, so glad you're here. It's Brian Kilmeat Joe coming to you from Houston, and we're going to have a big, big show out at Special Fox and Friends and where we give away an RV. It's going to be fun, all part of America 250, which is going to be picking up momentum through the summer.

It's going to start really with the World Cup, going to go into July 4th, and that's going to be a lot of fun in many of these cities. I think non-soccer fans will be watching. The world will be here. Hopefully, we're ready for it security-wise, visa-wise, immigration-wise. And we finally fund DHS and ICE.

That would certainly help. Although, I don't think it's going to be an issue. A lot of people think that ICE is going to be outside soccer stadiums trying to check for American citizens. That's not going to happen. We'll talk about that.

We're talking about what's happening with Iran. We're talking about trying to get DHS funded once and for all, and all the other breaking news heading into the weekend. But now it's time for me to bring in Molly Hemingway, editor-in-chief of the Federalists and author of the new book, Alito, The Justice Who Reshaped. the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution. Molly, welcome back.

It is great to be here with you, Brian.

Well, first off, on this book, what gave you the idea? What made you think? Is it because you thought, okay, at one point, this guy's going to be retiring within the next few years, or is it the impact he made? I'd previously co-written a book on the Supreme Court with Carrie Severino, and when we did that, everybody talked about how weird it is that you have this giant on the Supreme Court, Justice Alito, and nobody knows anything about him.

So I kind of got the idea many years ago.

Well, it is weird. He's such an influential justice. He's the author of all these really important decisions, and nobody ever talks about him.

So I began attempting to do it years ago, and I'm so glad.

Now it seems like everybody understands that Alito is this giant on the court, but I'm glad I got to put the work in to understanding who he is, what his motivation is, how he differs from his colleagues. And it seems like just at the right time. Right. I mean, in other words, could you tell us about his journey to get the nomination, get a... get confirmed.

When Obama called out the Supreme Court, he famously lip sank, not true. If people know anything about him, it's that, yeah, he was at a State of the Union. Uh, President Obama said something not true. Everyone admits that what he said was not true, and Justice Alito mouths quietly, not true, and the cameras were on him, and it was a big story. But this is a man whose father was a public servant, he was very.

His father was very influential to him. He has spent his entire life as a public servant, a civil servant at the Department of Justice, a U.S. attorney for New Jersey, on a federal court for 15 years. He could have made tens of millions of dollars as working for a big law firm, but he wanted to be a public servant and has devoted his life that way. He went to elite institutions, liberal institutions, but never.

Deviated from being this very modest, conservative man. And And he also has this particular trait that I think is interesting for the current moment. He's very principled, but he's also very pragmatic. And in the conservative movement and among Americans in general, you have people who all they care about is your principles, or on the other hand, all they care about is winning. And he shows that these things don't need to be in conflict with each other.

And I think that's what makes him a compelling figure for right now as well. What are some of his disappointing decisions or the majority decisions that didn't go his way? Where do you think is the ones that stand out? He's been on the court for 20 years, and much of that time he was not in the majority. The fact that originalists or constitutionalists have the majority is a very recent phenomenon.

So he is like Scalia, like Thomas, sometimes known for his dissents. The issue he cares about more than anything, it seems, is religious liberty. And so in decisions that people didn't think through, the implications on religious liberty, for instance, Obergefeld, which redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, his biggest concern was on how that would affect religious institutions and people. And a lot of what he says ends up Coming out to be true. Even like in recent years, he thought that when the court ruled against nationwide injunctions, they did it in such a limited way that it would be that it would be easily exploited.

Within months, That turned out to be true.

So he's a thoughtful person and understands that the court is in a unique moment right now. Yeah, I would add the other big one that's coming down the pike is birthright citizenship. And I think they made a pretty compelling case that there's very few countries that say if you're born here, you become a citizen. And that it's not something the Founding Fathers really had in mind. Where do you think he would stand on that?

So, I actually went to oral arguments for that case because I find it so interesting. And I myself have changed my opinion on what the original meaning of the 14th Amendment is.

So, I loved hearing their arguments. I had a little bit of a different view of how it was going to go down than many other people did. I have no idea. It could be a 7-2 decision that we do have birthplace citizenship, but I think that they might give. President Trump a technical loss, meaning that they might say his executive order overreaches, but I also think that they might say there is no birthplace citizenship according to the 14th Amendment.

We currently have a birthplace citizenship policy, but that Congress can change that if they want to.

So maybe that'll mean nobody's happy, but I didn't see it as them finding that the 14th Amendment would say, yes, if you are, you know. From China, and you come here and have a baby and take that baby right back, that that child is just as eligible to run for president as anybody else. Yeah, it's interesting because if you listen to the arguments, you see what China's doing. I mean, they're sending their people here. They have kids.

They have no interest in being Americans, but they want that citizenship card. They'll go become communists, come back here and wreak havoc. We're watching that's another part of their infiltration scheme that should play a role in this. It should. And I do actually think for someone like Chief Justice John Roberts, who has said he doesn't really have a judicial philosophy, but some of his clerks have said to me that he has a philosophy that they jokingly call a great country can't do this, which is just an understanding.

Like there's no way that a great country would say that a leader of a Mexican cartel who happened to be born here. Is the same type of citizen as anyone else, or that you have a million-plus people in China whose parents intentionally just had them born here, that they are able to have all the benefits of citizenship.

So that type of argument might actually be compelling for someone like Chief Justice John Roberts. And you sat there through this, Molly, and you're the court expert. But I mean, when you say where the 14th Amendment comes from, these raging racists, even after the war, still didn't want to look at slaves as citizens. And their kids are citizens.

So they say if you're born here, you are a citizen here. I mean that really was the main intent of it, correct? Not just that, but the context in which it's so clearly, nobody disputes that the 14th Amendment was done to deal with this issue of how certain people did not treat. enslaved Americans as full citizens or their children as full citizens. But it's also true that we've had wildly different immigration policies over the course of our history.

And so even the debates they were having about immigration at that time are not really the same as what we're talking about now, where people are exploiting a system that does now have clear rules about you're not allowed to cross the border illegally. I mean that's that's kind of a newish rule in the history of our country. And it does play a part in what the law says about citizenship as well. I want you to hear what James Carville said a couple of days ago. I know you know, but I want our audience to hear it.

And because it relates to the courts, too. Here's James Carville and what Democrats should do if they win the House, win the Senate, and eventually get the Presidency. Let's listen. If the Democrats win the presidency in both houses of Congress, I think on day one they should make Puerto Rico, D.C. a state and they should expand the Supreme Court to thirteen.

Eat our dust. The only way to fight this is don't run on it, don't talk about it, just do it. She said, Okay, we got fifty-four sentences and we got thirteen. Court numbers. Thank you.

Goodbye. Because you're not going to get a fair shake any kind of way in this system. 18% of the United States elects 52 senators.

Well, you're not going to make it equitable, but you'll make it better by adding Puerto Rico and D.C.

So that's a perfect campaign end, in my view, for Republicans. Don't they could impeach the president? But that is a worry that I have. That they're going to get rid of the filibuster and start doing things like that. It's a legitimate worry, isn't it?

It's a legitimate worry also. He explained how they'll do it. They will make claims that people are moderate, that they don't want to destroy the system, that they don't want to burn it down. I live in Virginia. We had this happen with our current governor, Abigail Spanberger.

The media and other Democrats said, she's going to be a moderate. Everyone calm down. She's such a moderate. She's been such a radical. She's only been in office for a few months.

I think the media still do have a lot of power to portray people as moderate when they're not. And you need to remember that these are the goals of certain people in the political process. It is a threat to the system. And packing the court, you know, it's not about. Increasing the number of seats on the court so much as changing the shape and nature of the court to achieve a particular political outcome.

That's what's in violation of our founding fathers' intent with the court that it wouldn't be political, that it wouldn't be subject to the political process. And it's very important for all Americans who care about the rule of law, whatever their party, to understand that you destroy the judiciary, you destroy the entire country. You cannot exist without one rule of law for everybody. Molly Hemingway, our guest author of a brand new book, Alito, the Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution. We'll take a short time out and come back with Molly.

I do want to get her take on what her takeaway was from the gerrymandering mania we've been witnessing.

Next Stop Florida. Don't move. Politics, current events, and news that affects you. Brian's got a lot more to say. Stay with Brian Kilmead.

I'm Dana Perino. This week on Perino on Politics, I'm joined by Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melusian. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Must listen to podcasts from Fox News Audio. Mm.

I'm sorry. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. I can't remember who it was. It might have been Paul Morrow, who, of course, is our Fox News contributor.

What people might not know about him is that he's also a great fiction editor. He used to teach Hemingway as a professor. Molly Hemingway. No. Ernest Hemingway.

See, I thought she was saying that she was teaching, Bali. I go, the only Hemingway I know that Paul Morrow could possibly teach would be you. I didn't know she was teaching Ernest Hemingway as a. As a course, my guest is Molly Hemingway, editor of the Federalist, and author of a new book, Alito.

So, do you understand my confusion? I love it. And sometimes people will, you know, it's my husband's name and people will ask. If we're related to the famous Hemingway, and my husband always wants to joke: do you mean my wife, you know? But but I will tell you, I went to Hemingway's house.

And he was just an unbelievable legacy there. And what a writer. I didn't even know the bar. They showed the bar he went to. Uh and everything that he went you know and what it would inspire I love his office there in Key West.

I want that office with the beautiful desk and anyway. And the typewriter. He would always put aside a certain amount of time to type and then he'd go do his other thing, fishing, whatever. But he'd always have the discipline, despite the drinking, whatever he was doing, to go and write. And I thought it was really cool.

By the way, on what made America great, I got a great 30-minute feature on that whole reason to go to the keys.

So, Molly, in particular, speaking about that, the President of the United States. is doing a lot on foreign policy. And a lot of people are saying focus more on domestic, but the next thing to go. Could be Cuba. We're having high level meetings with Cuba right now.

Do you think the constituency is appreciating what it's like not to have a enemy in our hemisphere like Venezuela and having a capitalist Cuba would do to our security? I think people generally support President Trump's history of foreign policy. They are concerned that the current war with Iran is distracting him from some of what they want to see accomplished on the domestic side of things. And there are midterm elections coming up in November with the type of things going on right now that will not help the Republican Party.

Now, people already assumed the House would be lost, but the Senate being in play makes things suddenly much more fraught, including if there is an opening on the Supreme Court and you don't have a Republican Senate to help confirm one of the nominees. That has very long-term effects that people are concerned about, even as they do appreciate that after so many decades of hearing about the problems of China and Venezuela and Iran, someone is making the really large and risky type of changes that need to be made to deal with them. Yeah, there's a lot going on with if the center was to flip. But I think if the war is still going on in the fall, that's the issue. I think that if this ends the right way.

People do have short memories, and if it goes in the right way, you could actually run on this. And I guess we could talk about him solving a problem that's been existed way before he got there and would have existed past when he's gotten there, depending on how this ends.

So we'll see if people can appreciate it. But the other thing is, I would just love to see Democrats say this is what I would do if we were in power. Besides not liking Donald Trump and trying to get him impeached, Tell me what your plan is, besides taxing the wealthy. Tell me what your plan is on immigration. Tell me what your plan is on defense, bouncing the budget.

Have you heard or do they need to say what they're going to do? Because the Democratic brand is still sucking wind.

Well, it seems like one of the problems we have in domestic politics is that you never have to say, no matter which party you're in, if you can just criticize the party in power, that's usually sufficient to regain power. And therefore, people aren't dealing with some of these large, intractable issues like the deficit, like porous borders. And Americans are increasingly getting sick of that. Being the least disliked party. Is to me a weak way to win.

And if the Republican Party were to figure out a way to truly become that party that cares about middle America, working class Americans, they would be an electoral juggernaut. And it's not something that just Trump can do, it's something all Republicans need to be thinking about. They need to be thinking about these economic issues that really do motivate people in voting. You know, the other thing is, when I w when the Tea Party emerged, I said, okay, if this is a Tea Party candidate, they'll just be more conservative. Right, more to the, you know, not radical, more conservative, more focused on economic issues during Barack Obama's reign.

If the squad or these socialists win, We're going to have head-snapping change to this country.

So if the AOC and this Mayor Mamdani and this lunatic running for the Senate in Michigan, the woman in the 11th district here in New Jersey, if that becomes the mantra and the messaging from the Democratic Party, should they be successful, I don't think it's overstating to say well we'll recognize the country. And do you think they have a shot and the majority of Democrats that would vote for a Bernie Sanders protege like this?

Well, they've got an issue in the Democrat Party in that much of their base and their excitement is with those types of candidates, but they can be more difficult to run outside of very blue areas. But I think. Again, Abigail Spanberger, the governor of Virginia, which is a fairly evenly divided state, she is just as radical, if not more radical, than a mom Donnie. But because she presents as moderate, it's a bigger threat. People are not digging deep into these issues, and it's incumbent upon people who understand the situation to say, Yeah.

Here's what the actual track record is of these people. Here's what they're going to do. Even pointing out they're going to claim to be more moderate than they are. When Kamala Harris was running, she tried to claim she was more moderate than she was, but she had all that video evidence of how extreme she was, wanting to pay for trans surgeries for incarcerated individuals in California, that she just couldn't deny that record. And she paid the price, and she's running again, and she's totally clueless that she stands for nothing, has very little talent, does not put the work in, and will fail spectacularly, in my view.

Molly Hemloy, congratulations on your new book. It's called Alito, The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution. Molly, go get him. Thanks so much for your time. Thank you.

All right, and we're forward to seeing Molly Henry on the road talking about this again. We'll do this on TV. Do us in the Brian Killmeat Show. We're coming to you from Houston, and don't want you to move. This week on the Fox True Crime podcast, psychotherapist and author Lena Durhauley breaks down the mind of Chris Watts and the warning signs behind one of America's most disturbing family murders.

Listen and follow now at FoxtrueCrime.com. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. We had a great meeting with the very high officials of Lebanon and the very high officials of Israel and we think that The President of Lebanon and the Prime Minister of Israel over the next couple of weeks will be coming here. They've agreed to an additional three weeks of Uh I guess uh no firing, ceasefire.

No more firing. Let's see. We hope that happens. Not going to happen between them, but they do have. Hezbollah too.

Think about And we're going to be working with Lebanon 2. Get things straightened out in that country. I really believe it's something we can do pretty easily, just with the power of. who we are, the great people, the Lebanese people. Love that they have I love that they have um Get a little bit of an echo in my ear if we can handle that.

But I love that we are now. Dealing with Lebanon directly, and meaning we, meaning Israel, I consider them as close as allies as any in the world. But we know the problem is Hezbollah, and it looks like fighter jets, Israeli fighter jets, were blowing them up again. And we're looking to hit Nasser Elizabeth replacement. And the problem is, the funding is going to keep coming from Israel.

I know we talk about nuclear weapons, and that's the primary thing, and that's the primary reason why we're in Iran. But if you're ever gonna have Semblance of normal relations in the Middle East. Yeah, with normal tensions. We don't want to be abnormal, be honest. We're fine with Canada right now.

Who would have thought that? You can't have funding coming from Iran. And the people of Iran deserve to keep their own money instead of just giving it to these evil groups. But I love the fact that Lebanon's looking past that cancer in their country and understand that Israel's problem is not with them. In case you do not know, the Secretary of War had a press conference along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They updated us on the ceasefire, which will be extended. Dr. Jonathan Shanzer joins us now, Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Senior Vice President there. Jonathan, great to have you on. Your thoughts about what came out.

when the Secretary of War and Chairman of the German Chiefs of Staff just spoke. Look, I mean, I think what we're hearing right now is just that we have a process that needs to play out. There's no way around it, right? We've got conflict in the Persian Gulf. We're going to have to handle that, I think, through primarily economic means.

You've probably seen the reports today that the munitions that we need for contingencies all around the world, you know, they may be starting to run low, and we're going to have to start to rebuild those. And it could take a couple of months in order to do that. We can't be just dropping bombs on everything all over Iran when maybe it doesn't have the same kind of meaning. But I get the sense that there's a strategy that's formulating. We've got this economic fury.

And so as much as I think everybody wants to talk about Pete Hagseth and the Department of War, I think the Department of Treasury is also playing an important role in terms of what we're doing right now in the Middle East. And so I think there's a lot happening. You've got the diplomacy that Donald Trump was just talking about. that he presided over yesterday.

So we're spinning a bunch of plates here. It's all interrelated, as you just mentioned at the top here. There is an interlocking strategy where we're trying to defang those proxies. We're trying to wage an economic war. We're trying to conserve some of that military might for when we might need it next.

And of course, the Israelis got their finger on the trigger. They're willing to jump back into Iran at any point if we need them to. Absolutely. And we got to get back to the elimination game because these guys are as bad as it gets and you've got to keep going deep and deep and peel it back. And right now, we were dealing with a theocracy.

Do you believe we're now dealing with a military government? I mean, essentially, yes. I mean, but I think it always has been a military government, Brian. I mean, yeah, there's the clerics at the top, and you had the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

Now you got maybe his son. We don't even know if this guy's even conscious. I mean, we could be dealing with a kind of a weekend at Bernie's kind of scenario with the Islamic Republic, but it is always the IRGC, right? This is the engine of the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they are the military backbone, and by the way, also the terror-sponsoring backbone, the nuclear proliferating backbone of this government.

And so, yes, they are still in power. They are the ones that have the money. They're the ones that are truly corrupt. They've been siphoning off cash from the people. And as you mentioned, these are people that deserve so much better.

But yes, the core problem right now, beyond just the ideology, that kind of death to. America mentality that we hear from the clerics, it's the Islamic Revolutionary Guards that we ultimately have to defeat. And so, you know, again, getting back to those munitions, if we're going to be spending down more of those, my hope is that we're targeting IRGC bases and hopefully targeting those IRGC commanders. The more that entity is thinned out and weakened, I think the better chance we have of bringing down that regime once and for all. By the way, the whole thing about going low on munitions in proportion, you got to read the article as you did.

The New York Times, if it was anywhere but the New York Times, I'd be much more alarmed if it was a Wall Street Journal. Because the New York Times will go out of his way to paint something negative about this conflict. And again, I don't think it serves anybody well who's ever speaking about munitions running low is in the Pentagon's got to go. Because that's not helpful to anyone if it's true or not true. Yeah, if they're making that stuff to the press that's absolutely out of line, I will say that it is.

Like, not hard to understand that that may be happening. And so, I don't want to just discount it because it came out of the Times. I do think that there's probably some truth to it. And yes, I think it probably shouldn't have been leaked in the first place. But now that it's out there, I mean, I do think we ought to acknowledge that there are, you know, we have a bunch of different things that we're juggling here right now.

I want to see this regime gone. And I think if we have munitions to spend down, we should, where there's ample opportunity to strike at the heart of the regime.

So let's do what we're at right now. Let's look at the straight. We got the blockade. We have the blockade that's in place that is not expensive to put together, that's easy to reconfigure. I had Admiral McCraven on, and Admiral said to me, you know what, I'd have no problem.

If they want to talk, substantial talks, and they want their blockade released, I'd do it because it's so easy to put back together. The bad part about that is we're in a process now of stopping them from. uh really selling their oil. And therefore, oh, their tankers are full. And if their tankers are full and they have no place to put the oil, they're going to have to cap the wells.

And where they say we're about a week away from making Iran do that. That's an important moment. Hugely important. And I got to tell you, again, you know, Scott Besson over at the Treasury, keep an eye on that guy because I do think we're watching this thing pivot away from the Secretary of War to the Secretary of the Treasury, who's waging a different kind of war. Economic fury, I mean, let me just say the blockade that we have on the ports and the capping of the wells.

This is an important moment, right? You're going to start to see the regime hemorrhage hundreds of millions of dollars per day, and you're going to see that oil infrastructure start to groan under the weight of some of these transitions that are taking place. Capping the wells is not a healthy thing for a country that relies entirely on its oil in order to stay afloat. And now, on top of that, and this is what I think we need to watch from Scott Besson, you got possible bank sanctions that we can put on the regime that we have not done yet. You got sanctions against all these sanctions, evaders, and networks from Turkey to UAE to other places.

Around the Middle East, we can go after them. There are kinetic strikes that the Israelis and the United States can carry out against factories and other key nodes of production that have been supporting the Islamic Republic. I think there's a lot that can be done here to do real damage to the regime without having to mobilize our military in the way that we have before, without having all these complex operations. This is, as you mentioned, fairly straightforward stuff. Our Navy's going to have to be on high alert here.

But I think there's a lot of opportunity to degrade the regime economically now that we've done it militarily. And so this is phase two of this war, and I'm kind of excited to see what can be done. Yeah, I want this mosquito navy, has got to be addressed. I know we can, with the warthogs and others, it looks to get them from the sky. But if we could kick them back and they get some minesweepers in there, I think that'll be another checkmate as we head to talks.

Now, I understand the foreign minister is going to Pakistan for talks, and he's going to go to Russia after. My feeling is. I'm a little indifferent because clearly the foreign minister has been marginalized by the IRGC leaders, and I have no interest in sending my Vice President, if I'm Trump, over to talk to somebody that has no pull.

So that we have to get some guarantee that what this guy says represents what's left of the regime, don't you think, Jonathan? Yeah, I mean absolutely and I think everything that we're hearing from the president and from elsewhere is that there is chaos within the regime that the IRGC and the foreign minister and the president and you know all these different figures not to mention the possible vegetable You know supreme leader. We don't even know if the guy's you know breathing if he's conscious Nobody knows anything right now.

So it's chaos from within which let me just remind everybody this is a good thing from the perspective of the United States. In other words, we have driven them into chaos that their leadership is in total disarray. I think that's a good thing when you think about cost benefit in the war. This is in the good column, right? This is in the positives.

I feel pretty good about that. But again, I think you're right. I don't want to send J.D. Vance out there. I don't want to send anybody out there.

I don't want to send Jared Kushner or Stephen Witcoff or anybody on their team. There's no reason why they should be talking to the Islamic Republic, quite frankly, until they announce that they're ready to capitulate. And look, I don't expect the regime to capitulate here. You know, their whole creed of death to him. America, they think they're fighting to the end here.

But there is possibly a moment where you see such severe cracks from within the leadership that we may be able to get a win out of this before they even raise the white flag. I would love to see the people grab their country back. I want you to hear what John Kerry said, and then I got to get your opinion because there's too many people who are hosting late-night television shows and on other networks who think he's right. Cut 10. President Obama wanted to test the extent.

uh of of diplomacy. And he was successful. We were all successful. What President Trump now has to do is frankly get them to again agree to what they already agreed to, which should underscore The the absurdity of the situation that we're finding ourselves in.

Well, the former Secretary of State says the JCPOA was great and that it's okay for them to have ballistic missiles fully from their proxies and have an agreement that expires in 10 years that had no American weapons inspectors but had cameras. Your thoughts about what Kerry is saying and too many people are embracing? Look, with all respect, John Kerry was a clown back then. I think he's a clown now. This is, I mean, it is such a distortion of truth.

The fact that the Islamic Republic was able to make a surge in its missile production comes from the fact that we gave them billions of dollars in sanctions relief and pallets of cash. This is what enabled them to build up Hezbollah and the Houthis and all the other proxies around the region. It's what powered the 10-7 attacks that were launched by Hamas in 2023. Their nuclear program was never arrested, it was never stopped. The idea that this thing was a success, I can't believe these guys continue to regurgitate lies.

They've been self-aggrandizing, they're puffing their chest out, telling everybody that they won in this diplomatic dance with the Islamic Republic. They lost. They got fleeced. I mean, they got deep-pants, is the best way to put it, right? I mean, the Iranians negotiated the pants off of Kerry, and he's still walking around acting like he.

Has clothes on. And they thought the JCPOA was bad. You know who else thought it was bad? Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, Senator Ben Cardin. They are, according to reports, Democrats.

And the reason why it's not a treaty and the president could rip it up is because he did not have the votes. The 60 votes to pass that treaty because Democrats all thought it was a bad deal. I wouldn't say all, most thought it was a bad deal, and every Republican thought it was terrible. In terms of what our next move is, I'm talking with Jonathan Shanzer. Jonathan's with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

I want you to hear what the best in the business, Jack Keene, had to say. And this is what he said he would eye: Cut 16. If we go back into this thing, we got about two weeks is what we had left when we got to the ceasefire. The damage that's going to be done now is even more than what it would have been done before. And we have an ace in the hole.

We're blocking everything coming out of Corg Island. we can threaten its complete destruction. at the end of a military campaign and push them in a direction to accommodate our desires, which is less negotiation and more terms to give up Everything that we want from them. They give us everything in the deal that President Trump wants. Just level it.

Yeah, and look, that is what we have the ability to do. I mean, our Air Force, strongest in the world, most powerful in the world, we can do all of that. I do think that this economic operation, and the general's right to talk about that too, I think that's going to be important. You could do a lot without even firing a shot. And then there's what we can do economically and militarily.

I mean, when I talk about economically kinetic strikes against economic targets, we can do that, plus the continued degradation of the regime's military capabilities, although it has been severely degraded already. And I do think that it would probably make sense for the U.S. and the Israelis to start hunting down some additional top leaders of the regime. Whoever's making the decisions now, shake it up again. Force them to go deeper into that bench.

The weaker the leader, the less support they have, I think the better off we're going to be. And Jonathan, I guess I am up against a break, but you know what blows me away, that we are all pretending that Donald Trump is the only one with a problem with the run. And to see these men, these Democrats, get up there and rip the President on a war of choice. Knowing that, no, he decided to address a problem. He didn't choose the problem.

He addressed it one time, lost the presidency the second time, and came back to finish the job. And how anybody we I could roll soundbites all day of Democratic presidents talking about the need to address in some way, shape or form the threat of Iran. The president was incredibly brave to do this. I think he understands that the Iranians are key partners to the Russians and the Chinese.

So there's a much bigger global implication to all of this. But yeah, Democrats that are denying the need for this war, I think, are absolutely distorting the truth. Same with the Europeans, by the way. This whole thing of war of choice. Hey, you know what?

You can actually see what the Islamic Republic was capable of doing to your oil supply. This is the moment for you to try to set things straight. Same with Democrats. Same with the world. The world needs to understand that this regime needs to go.

Go get them. Dr. Jonathan Challenzer, thanks so much. Thanks, Brian. All right, listen, we'll take a short time out and we'll come back.

We're of the beautiful studios of KSEV in beautiful Houston, Texas, 7:00 a.m. You'll listen to the Brian Killmeat show. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmead Show. Pepsi Prebiotic Cola in original and cherry vanilla.

That Pepsi taste you love with just 30 calories and no artificial sweeteners. Uh Pepsi Prebiotic Cola. Unbelievably Pepsi. He's so busy, he'll make your hat spin. It's Brian Kilmead.

Because of technology, you can build a drone at $25,000 to $75,000 a pop, and then it allows the Ukrainians to fight Russia to a draw so far. And it allows Iran to be able to go to war with America and wreak havoc, not just on our missiles, but also on our allies. And they're spending $25,000 to $75,000 a pop. We're often shooting at these drones or having to defend ourselves with things that take years and years and years to produce, missiles that cost millions and millions of dollars. It's called asymmetry.

And that asymmetry that you're seeing in warfare is now going to unfold across business. It's going to geopolitics. You just don't necessarily need big size and might. Yeah, I thoroughly agree, but we have made the adjustment, and that was the story. That was the story before, no question, because I remember the first time I really thought about that was when the Houthis were trying to take out ships in the Red Sea, and we were going there to help people, help other countries, and we were using essentially patriots or Thadmiss or Patriots off off ships to knock down these You know, really cheap drones.

And you know who's been a big help? Zelensky. Zelensky went and visited all the Gulf states. He's working out drone deals. We have started to engineer drone against drone technology, and we're using lasers too.

So we have made the adjustment. We do need more thads. We do need more patriots. But most of all, we've just got to get into the innovation game. That's why General Petraeus told me on One Nation, which is Sunday at 10 Eastern, he said that go to school on warfare in Ukraine.

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Killmead. Hi everyone, so glad you're there. I am here.

I'm actually in Houston, Texas today. We had a big special on Fox and Friends giving away this RV to a lucky couple at some point. It's going to be a big promotion celebrating year 250. Speaking of 250, thrilled to have one of America's premier historians on this hour, Arthur Herman, author of a brand new book called Founder's Fire from 1776 to the Age of Trump. You talk about a comprehensive book, I'm pretty sure that's it.

Meanwhile, I just got to remind you. Go to our YouTube page all the time. We're just growing it. It just started. It's huge hit at the Brian Killmeat Show.

You're not going to believe what we have there. A good way, if you have to have to miss the show, you leave an affiliate, you'll have another option.

So let's get to the big three. Number three. You're here adding $140 billion to an agency that nobody, to two groups, Border Patrol and ICE, that nobody respects in this country. Unbelievable and so out of control. Senator Chuck Schumer, I think it's despicable what he just said, demeaning Homeland Security.

Well, the Secretary of the new Secretary Mowen is not going to take it. We have the latest on his effort to fund a much-needed agency. Number two. I think all taxes should be progressive. The very wealthy, the billionaires should pay more.

The problem with a gas tax or a vehicle's mild travel tax is that it does the opposite. It punishes the lowest income Californians. That is Katie Porter, who has this pipe dream of becoming the next governor of California, all part of the big California gubernatorial primary debate this week.

So we're going to compare and contrast California's wokeness, which was on full display at that debate, as well as what we're seeing in Texas and why that is growing. But yet a liberal wants to be a senator there. Will that even work in Texas? And we'll look at Minnesota too woke, thanks to Waltz. Number one.

Part of the problem is that way I can't really answer your question. They have all the leadership and they're fighting like cats and dogs.

Well, who's going to control? Because we've created a real mess for them, but they've created a mess for the world. There's no argument there, Mr. President, bulking up. Another aircraft carrier sails into the Gulf as tensions rise in the strait.

We're going to look at what's next and some of the highlights from the Secretary of War's press conference a couple of hours ago. Josh Krashauer joins us now, Fox News Radio Political Analyst, Editor-in-Chief of The Jewish Insider. Josh, what did you glean from the presser that we saw, one of which we're going to aggressively go after those fast boats and we're going to look to pick up the the Any mines in the strait? And we've already shown that we're willing to go even to the Indo-Pacific. to find any ships might be delivering or going to Iran.

Yeah, look, Brian, it did sound like the president was taking a somewhat more aggressive approach, not just with those comments, but also moving the H.W. Bush carrier into the region. I think it's the most firepower we've had since the ceasefire in the region.

So, look, Iran is clearly not making any concessions diplomatically. We're in sort of this holding pattern. I don't think the president is eager to re-engage in military operations. But, you know, there are a lot of risks to the region, American personnel, and the war's accomplishments, I think, are still kind of hanging in the balance.

So, you know, listening to the president speak yesterday for quite some time, this did remind me a little bit of when we were kind of in the run-up to the beginning of the, before the Iran war began, and we were building up assets and we're waiting to see what Iran would do and if they would actually make concessions. And clearly, they're not. And the question is, what is Trump's next step? I think he still may have some cards on the table. the play.

Well, what we want to do is make it clear that they're going to have nowhere to load or unload their oil. And there are a few days, evidently, according to the energy experts, of having to cap their wells. And when you cap, it takes a long time to reinvigorate those wells.

So I think that would be huge, number one, cutting off all angles. Number two is pursuing those fastboats, going through the strait and just opening up ourselves like the tanker wars that was written up today. But, Josh, there is some movement, and it looks like the foreign minister is going to Pakistan.

Now, I just don't know if the foreign minister has got the juice to pull off a deal. And I don't think we really need a gatekeeper to you don't send your vice president in 18 hours to somebody that can't make any decisions. Perfect. The big question, Brian, is who's running the show, who's calling the shots in Iran. Trump has said quite often now that he doesn't know who he's talking to.

He takes in a carrier pigeon to send the message to different people and then to get it back into Islamabad to get any kind of response from the Iranian government. There's the foreign minister, who doesn't seem to, frankly, have a whole lot of influence. He seems more like a spokesperson. You have the speaker of the Iranian parliament, who there have been reports that he's also been sort of marginalized as part of the processes. And then there's the hardcore Iranian Revolutionary Guard that do seem to be calling the shots, and those are the least pragmatic, most extreme forces within the government.

So not just the speed or the lack of response time, but it does seem like there's some debate or some internal divisions within the Iranian infrastructure, the governing infrastructure. Not only is that slowing things down, but I think the hardliners are winning out when it comes to making any compromises. Aaron Powell, what's pretty stunning to me is how almost every Democrat outside John Fetterman is just ripping this hole. this whole operation, negative things about the President, going over to Barcelona, Senator Tim Murphy, Chris Murphy and Senator Tim Waltz and just saying the most vile things about the President. And then you have comics named Gregory Meeks, cut seven.

Yeah. Yeah. Cut seven. Cut seven. There has not been any strategy from day one.

Uh there's been no plan. And that's why he has not come to Congress at all. He's not said anything to any allies. I believe very childishly, and that's how he's acting and running this war. Yeah.

So I mean, I could play more, go on for days. childish, no plan, no objectives, war of choice, none of which fit the bill. Yeah. Partisanship has become I mean, that's been one of the things that's been, I think, very disillusioning in watching the reaction from Washington that the Democrats and Republicans have long talked about how dangerous a regime the Iranians have been and continue to be, and yet you're seeing kind of this partisan breakdown and understanding the importance of dealing with and doing something against their nuclear program and military activities.

So yeah, no, that's pretty much part of the course. All right, I want to move move over to what's happening in Homeland Security and these comments from the the minority leader. And that is Chuck Schumer. He was commenting: we're trying to get financing as a country. I think it would be a good move to finance the Department of Homeland Security.

I always thought that would be a good move. And yesterday, as they were debating it, he took to the floor and just, I think, said some of the most vile things possible about that agency. Here he is, Cut 31. You're here. Adding $140 billion to an agency That nobody to two groups, Border Patrol and ICE, that nobody respects in this country.

Are you kidding me? After you abused the border for four years, ignored the problem, you have somebody who got control of the border, and now you say everybody there nobody respects, including ICE. Here's Secretary Mullen, Cut 32.

Well, it makes my ears red. It takes a lot to get me upset. But, Chuck Schumer, no one respects you. The definition of a lying scumbag politician, that is you. You would be the definition if you Googled you right now.

I mean, why don't he just come out and be honest with the American people? He wants to have open borders. If you want to defund the Custom and Border Protection Agency, if you want to defund ICE, who is in there arresting the criminals that the laws were passed by you, you had time to change those during the Biden administration. You didn't because you're for open borders and you're for the criminals running amok in our cities. And for you to say that is so disrespectful to the law enforcement that is out there protecting you because he has a detail with him.

How about he walks around these city streets without a detail? I wonder how safe he would feel. Mm-hmm.

So, I mean, obviously, he's seething. First your thoughts on the exchange, and number two, where we're at in terms of the funding. Yeah, look that It's riled up that the new DHS secretary, Mark Wayne Mullen, has gotten. He's actually tried to, and he gets along very well, frankly, with a lot of Democrats. He does have a little bit of a temper, but he gets along.

And you talk to Democrats, he's one of their favorite Republicans to work with.

So the fact that he's been responded that way to Senator Schumer's comments, I think, tells you a whole lot. Look, politically, it's no secret that the Republicans of the White House are facing pretty strong political headwinds. But when you look at the latest polling, Fox polling, Cook political report came out with some battleground district polling. The one issue that Republicans still hold a pretty stalwart advantage on is border security.

So that is an issue, and it's why I think there may be there's talk about a reconciliation package that may not need 60 votes in the Senate.

So maybe that's a way to get funding.

Well, it passed the Senate, didn't it? Didn't it? It did, but then there's a lot of legislative technicalities still left to go. I'm not sure if it's fully going to get through. Yeah, I mean, that's the one.

I mean, it's kind of interesting that Democrats have the wind at their back politically, and yet they're trying to pick a fight on, frankly, what is one of their biggest vulnerabilities and still remains that way.

So, when I mentioned that it got through the Senate, but the House wants to add more to it, get for the Save America Act. They want to add some of that stuff to it, they want to add military funding to it, and I can understand it. And the Speaker is pushing back on that because he just says, I've got to pass this to fund those agencies for the next two years and pull it off the table. And then he wrote me this, the Speaker, this morning. The simple reason we can't add things to the skinny Senate reconciliation package bill is to get ICE and Border Patrol, we have to get the funded ASAP because of the timing.

If we add other priorities that require weeks of additional work to get through our committees, first due to budget instructions, they must be provided to use the reconciliation tool. Mark Wayne says the DHS will be completely out of money by April 30th, meaning the 10 critical agencies that keep America safe will be operating without funding or paychecks. We must get them reopened immediately, and then for our remaining priorities, we will work to add them together in the next reconciliation package.

Now, some say there won't be another one.

So this is what the Speaker is dealing with. Josh, did I say anything that you think you would like to challenge in reading the Speaker's remarks? Is there anything you want to challenge? There's a lot of argument about the kind of legislative minutia. On the political side, Brian, the fact that TSA agents are now getting paid through other means, which Trump put an executive order out a few weeks ago allowing that to happen, you also have You know, frankly, the very generous funding to ICE in the original reconciliation package, I think, is keeping it's creating less urgency at the moment.

There was urgency when we had the long lines at airports, when you had like security breakdowns at airports, TSA staff not showing up to work. That has been alleviated for now.

So, not that there aren't real issues, and they're going to percolate again if we're not funding the government, this part of the government. But I think from the political standpoint, the urgency has tapered down a little bit just because both Because of the executive order allowing TSA to be funded, and that there is money available. I can't say exactly how much, but I know in the reconciliation bill, it was a pretty hefty sum that was allocated to ICE and other border enforcement agencies. Yeah, I'm not sure it's going to what's going to happen on that. But I do know that I think the speaker will get this done next week, or at least I hope so, anyway.

Does anybody want to see the TSA not funded? Does anybody want to see ICE not funded that doesn't have a political axe in this race? I want to talk a little bit about, before we let you go, real quick, the Democratic debate, excuse me, not the Democrat, the debate for the primary in Los Angeles to be the, excuse me, in California to be governor. Here's a little of the back and forth. You go styer.

The so-called moderate mayor from San Jose, Matt Mahan. And Steve Hilton, Cut 22. The problem we have here is a president who's out of control, who's driving up costs across the board, and we actually need to take on the special interest oil companies who are taking advantage of Californians and making $70 billion more because of this war. I know what it means when gas prices go up a dollar or two unnecessarily. I'll reform the gas tax so it's no longer the poorest, hardest working people in our state who are paying an unfair share to maintain our infrastructure.

The costs that are being imposed on our businesses and on workers in California is just too much. And one way or another, all the Democrats here are part of this system that obviously isn't working. We need common sense solutions. They all, except Steve Hilton, want Governor Newsom's endorsement. None of them are going to get it.

It looks like in the polls, Beshere is moving up, but Hilton's one or two.

So we're going to get out of this primary, get into the two finals. What do you think the state of that race is? It's a race to the left to the point where even a lot of the candidates who are in the strongest position among the Democrats. Doesn't want to get behind. Tom Stire is like a left-wing funder and ran for president in a weird campaign in 2020.

So there's that candidate. And you also have Katie Porter, who is videotaped, abusing and haranguing her staff, among other things, reputationally. Look, you're right, Javier Becerra, who we all remember from his time as Biden's HHS secretary, seems to have kind of gotten that establishment support that was sitting with Eric Swalwell and didn't really have anywhere to go. And he certainly has the most momentum among the Democrats in the race. And look, I will say ideologically, he's a little more to the center left as opposed to being from the far left as Steyer and Porter are.

But, you know, that's, boy, ask anyone in the Biden administration what they thought of Becerra's management of HHS. And you're literally dealing with one of the biggest economies in the world, and that's who you're going to hand the governorship to. Boy, I mean, it's a sign of the times that you have the biggest date, one of the biggest. Economies, and these are your candidates. These are your leading lights for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, the Swalwell effect. I mean, he was going to be the one everyone was getting behind. And now he's got to try to avoid prison, which I don't know if that's even possible. Thanks so much, Josh. Always appreciate it.

Josh Crowshawer. 1866-408. You're welcome. 4867669. When we come back, we'll be able to squeeze in some calls.

Also, we'll continue to follow the events. Big press conference this morning. We'll find out where we're going. And of course, I'll be able to report on Monday. What the White House correspondence dinner is going to be like because the president's going, so I'm in.

Double. Yeah. Giving you everything you need to know. You're with Brian Kilmead. I don't know what I'm doing.

Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Would you steal from Holtz? You want to go first?

Well. I'm pro stealing from big corporations is you know they they steal quite a bit more from their own workers.

However, one thing that might even help your ethical dilemma is is the fact that the automated process that they designed These companies know will increase shrink, right?

So it's actually factored in. The lemons that you stole are factored into the bottom line of these mega corporations, regardless, and they still end up having increased profit margins because they no longer have to pay the cashiers that they used to hire as opposed to this automated system, knowing full well that people are still going to be able to steal, still steal a lot more efficiently, as a matter of fact, through the automated process.

So, what a clown. Number one, because you haven't automated or a self-checkout, that's bad. Number two, corporations making money is bad. Hassan Piker with the New York Times podcast giving us an idea of what he thinks about stealing. He thought 9-11, we deserved it.

He said I would vote for anybody Hamas over any Republican. He said Senator Rick Scott, someone should kill him. But yet, all these Democrats are rushing to get on this podcast, including Roe Connor, And Gavin Newsom said, I hope he asked me, I would do it. Believe it or not. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead.

So I'm coming to you from KSEV 700 a.m. in beautiful Houston, Texas, fourth biggest city in the country. It is the capital of energy, I think, in the world, which matters so much now, as well as, I think, the home of space around the world.

So great, fantastic Texas city. We're on the road for a special 250 celebration with Fox and Friends. I'm lucky enough to come to our great affiliate here. In about 15 minutes, be able to take your calls. But if you want to put 250 in perspective, you could always talk to Arthur Herman.

He always has it in perspective, especially in his brand new book. It's called Founders Fire from 1776 to the Age of Trump. Arthur, welcome back. Hey, welcome back. Thanks, Brian.

Hey, how are things deep in the heart of Texas? It's going great. I mean, the humidity is high, but the people's attitude is great, and they do have that founder spirit here. First off, can you get a direct link of the founding fathers and the attitude that they displayed all the way up to from 1776 to 2026? Yeah, I think you can.

And I think the founding fathers were very much aware of that. And if you look at The way in which they set up the Declaration of Independence, but also the Constitution. They foresaw that the future of America would be about encouraging individuals to bring the kind of drive, and vision, and commitment, and willingness to take risks. that they had used to found the country. During the American Revolution, but that that was going to be crucial across all walks of life in the new nation.

Whether you were talking about in business, whether you're talking about in technology, whether you're talking about even in the political system and the way in which they constructed that constitution so that we had an office, the presidency, which had that kind of bias towards action. And as I explain in the book, Brian. The founding fathers give us basically three gifts. which are lay the foundations for what I talk about as the founder mindset, the founder the founder instinct that has carried us forward and that I argue is really the core of what we call American exceptionalism, that really distinguishes us from every other country in the world. whether it's in Europe or in Asia or even in the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

So, Arthur, in your premise of this book, so when you look at some of the attitudes, you know, Jefferson's quest to find out about the West, when you see the whole ability to change when the Articles of Confederation didn't work, we got to get a Constitution, let's get another Convention. We didn't want a President, then we're going to have to have a President. We had slavery, we got to get rid of slavery, obviously. We see America never saying we're perfect, let it be, always trying to get better. Do you think it's an oversimplification?

No, no, I think you just summarized it very well, Brian. And getting it together means getting back to those founding principles. and particular those that are embedded in the Declaration of Independence about the idea that we are endowed by our Creator. You can't keep God out of this system, Brian. It doesn't work that way.

But endowed by our Creator with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And Um the the one of the most important gifts that they gave us From the point of view of that pursuit of happiness, is the U.S. Patent Office. And I talk about this in the book, as being an important, even crucial background for the United States. It's the only time in the US Constitution.

Apart from the Bill of Rights, in which the notion of right Is actually explicitly mentioned. And that's in Article I. Section eight, which talks about the right of inventors and discoverers to hold their invention, their discovery, as their own personal property. And they have the right within a limited time to use it any way they want to. And that really becomes the core to turning human creativity in America into this profound economic but also national security asset.

Where individuals are going out and looking for ways to create new ideas, to create new inventions, new technologies. And if you look over the course of our history, and as I describe it in Founder's Fire, From Bell's telephone to the electric light bulb to microchips, Silicon Valley, it's all built around this idea. that inventors, founders, people who created their own companies have the right to hold and to use that in any way they form, in any way they think. The government's not going to tell them how to use it. Megacorporations Supported by the government, aren't going to tell them.

That's your right, and it's your right to use and to build, and to not only bring prosperity to yourself, but then also, as the founding fathers understood, Bringing that same prosperity to everyone else in society. And, Arthur, where does this fit in?

So if I'm Edison, if I'm. You know, if uh I Eli Whitney, if I am Henry Ford, I do these things, yes. I want to do them. I want to get into mass production. I want to build the Model T.

I want to find a way. uh to generate electricity. But I also want to be rich. I want to be successful. And there's nothing wrong with that.

That's the incentive. Because along the way, when you're trying to make that light bulb, you're hiring people and then you're creating industries through that, right? And that's the core of a free enterprise system. And you know who really put his finger on this, and I talk about this in the chapter in Founders Fire, was Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, who was a patent holder himself, understood from the beginning.

That this Right, this ability through holding patents. Would unite on the one hand what he calls the fire of genius, right, human creativity. and human invention. But unite it with the power of interest. In other words, that by taking my invention and my discovery and putting it out into the marketplace.

When I see fit, when I think there's an opportunity, that with it comes a reward, financial reward, monetary, but also a moral reward of seeing what it is that I've created change people's lives for the better. You know J John D. Rockefeller. By pushing, and I talk about him in the book, he's one of the founders I discuss. By creating an oil production system.

To reduce the cost of oil to a nickel a barrel, if you can believe that, a nickel a barrel in the end of the 19th century, how that produced energy. Access to energy across American society and then world society. Likewise, Ellison with the light bulb. Likewise, Henry Ford with the Model T, making America mobile. Likewise, Steve Jobs.

With a personal computer. And the way in which this empowers and liberates people to enjoy, to engage in data and gaining knowledge and communication, but also to create businesses, their own start ups. It's America is this I I call it at the beginning of the book the startup nation. And it's a startup nation in 1776 with the creation of American independence, but it's also a nation which perpetuates this cycle of founders creating businesses that grow and expand and become larger and larger, and then new Competitors. New companies and founders arise to challenge their dominance, to take on their monopoly, the way Steve Jobs did with IBM, for example, to take on those monopolies and to say, no, I've got a better way to do it.

I've got a better way in which everybody can benefit and I can reap the rewards from the time and effort and risk. That's bedded into. And risks is a big, important part of this book.

So Arthur Hermann's our guest. Brian, understanding risk-taking and willingness to do so is part of that founder's fire.

Okay, I got it. But where is capitalism And uh capitalism and the Constitution come together. We know Adam Smith writes Wealth of Nations right around the time of our nation's birth.

So people a lot of people say, we don't capitalism isn't part of our founding, and that's not true, but tell us how they're linked. They're linked in this particular way. And you know, sometimes, Brian, I don't like the word capitalism, because capitalism suggests a bunch of wealthy industrialists sitting in their clubs, being served by the lower class. It has a kind of class. Bias built into it.

I think a much better term for it, particularly in the American context, is free enterprise system. People are free to create businesses, to pursue their dreams. And you know, in my mind, remember, keep in mind, a lot of those founding fathers were businessmen themselves. Yep. Right?

Benjamin Franklin. For example, uh Thomas Jefferson. George Washington ran Mount Vernon as if it were his own business. And they grasped that this was going to be that the pursuit of commerce and trade and free enterprise would be necessary if America was going to become the kind of powerful nation it could become that they envisioned to take place here. And you know One of the key gifts, again, that I've come back to here.

Is that little phrase that appears in the Declaration of Independence, which is pursuit of happiness? You know, they could have said life, liberty, and property. That's what everybody expected them to say. And property, right to property, is obviously a fundamental. To a capitalist in a free enterprise system, that you don't have a mayor of New York City taking away your property simply because he decides that you don't need it or that others need it.

It's yours. But they said pursuit of happiness. And you know, Brian, that's a really subjective judgment, isn't it? what it is that makes me happy could be different from what makes you happy. And yet they were saying this is something embedded by the Creator in you to decide what makes me happy, what I want to pursue, In that regard, it is one that centers, it's a declaration of independence in a nation.

that centers on empowering individuals. to pursue their dreams. And lastly, you say we got to keep that shark tank attitude. Is that what you're talking about? That shark tank attitude.

Isn't that great? And that's exactly it. All of those participants who come up, I talked about shark tank at the end of the book. All those participants who come up, they're pursuing a dream. They have a dream.

Not just of getting rich, but also many of them of how their invention, of how their product is going to change the world for the better and raise the standards for everyone who will buy it and participate in it. And you notice something else, to come back to where we were earlier. You notice every time you get a participant there, the sharks are always asking. How many patents do you have? How many patents have you applied for patents?

And they have to answer yes, because that's so foundational. To a successful founding business and to the promise of growth and success in the future. And if we look at today's AI industry, for example, all of those companies are. uh bristling with patents. It's what gives us that edge, gives us that AI leadership.

Against countries like China. As you probably know, China has more patents in AI than the United States does currently. But most of them are really basically of minor significance. They're not cited in other countries. They're not taken up and adopted by others in the scientific or in the AI community.

China's opted for a quantity over quality approach. to the patent war with the United States for AI. We're the drivers. America's the drivers in the AI industry and the AI future. And it rests on that founder mentality that I talk about in the book, and on the ability to take your invention, to own it and use it the way you want to use it and not the way government or anyone else can tell you.

And he wasn't born in America, but doesn't Elon Musk personify all that? I think he does. He's, in many ways, a typical founder. In so many respects, like Steve Jobs, like Henry Ford, the others I've talked about in the book. But its founders also don't just appear in business, Brian.

And some of the other figures I talk about in this book who are central to shaping the direction of America, Abraham Lincoln, for example, patent holder, and who understood how important that was to free enterprise, but also to the importance of what the founders were trying to create, including that clause about all men are created equal. which slavery had viol violated. I talk about Martin Luther King. who takes also, who takes on this vision and this drive to see it happen and to see that clause about all men are created equal fully realized in our legal system as well as in our constitutional framework. Here, and who took enormous risks, as you know.

In order to pursue that direction. And then also Charlie Kirk, who I talk about. I think his turning point really is precisely that kind of founder Drive and vision that unites him with Lincoln, that unites him with Martin Luther King, and again at enormous personal risk. Founders, when they venture into the political sphere, become important targets because they pose such a threat To the status quo and to those who fear big change. And they are often targets of assassination.

Lincoln King. Charlie Kirk, and I'll include Donald Trump. in that list as well. Here, because as I describe it in the book, he's also part of that founder mentality, that founder instinct. which he developed in the real estate business in New York City.

Now, I worked in New York City in the 1980s on Wall Street, and I remember following his career as he was building this enormous empire, transforming the city. In the process. And now he's bringing that transformative and has brought that transformative founder view and understanding of solving problems, not just talking about them. whether you're talking about illegal immigration or if you're talking about our 47-year war with Iran. Um It arouses a lot of hostility.

It arouses a lot of opposition. But so have founders always had to face that. Throughout our history, including, of course, Brian, you know, the original founding fathers. And the debate about do we really want to have Are we really ready for independence? And are we really ready to take on a war with the greatest empire on earth, with Great Britain?

That debate raged all the way down, all the way down to July 4th. Arthur Herman, thanks so much. Congratulations on Founders Fire from 1776 to the age of Trump, a great 250 celebration. Arthur, thanks. Thanks a lot, Brian.

You got it. Listen, when we come back, it'll be your turn. 1-866-408-7669. I'll also go through your emails. You can write me at BrianKillMead.com.

In a world of noise, get the signal. Sharp, informative, and always on point. You're listening to Brian Kilmead. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kilme Show.

God is both masculine and feminine. and everything in between. God. is non-binary.

Well, I understand that that comment is a little provocative. I said it on the House floor when the extremists in the Republican legislature were picking on school kids who were different. But I don't think it's controversial theologically. Most Christians would acknowledge that God is beyond gender. James Tallarico, the Democratic nominee to be the next senator from Texas.

John Cornyn holds that seat right now. He's got a big primary in May against. against the sitting attorney general So, I say this about Tellerico. He has yet to be examined. This whole build-up reminds me a lot of Beta Ork.

He's a little bit smoother, a little bit more palatable, not as weird. But James Tellerico, examined heavily and probed, will not be successful. But he has raised all kinds of money. In fact, he's setting money records for a Senate race because they smell blood in the water because of the intramural battle in Texas among Cornyn and Ken Paxon. And if I would go by the audience at Boxing Friends this morning, Ken Paxon has the edge.

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Hi, everyone.

So glad you're there. It's the Brian Kilmy Joe coming to you from Not New York for a change. I'm at KSEV, beautiful Houston, Texas, our fourth largest city, but number one in energy and space, of course. There's a buzz out here about the astronauts Automus II and getting Automus 3 and 4. We have Butch Wilmore on a television show today, and I was talking to him, and they know the space program's got a window right now, a window that has America and the world watching.

And he says the new attitude at NASA, and it's a new one. Is tell everybody we're competing with China. I was there two years ago, and I would say, well, where's China?

Well, they might be a little bit ahead of us.

So why don't we say that?

Well, we're not really going to say that. Why don't you say that?

Well, this regime comes in, and Trump's like, yeah, we've got to beat China to the moon.

So pick up the pace. And here's your money. That's key. Here's your money. Before we get to Shannon Bream, who is going to be with us this hour, also going to be joined by Anthony Munos.

I forgot if it was Shannon or Anthony, who was the offensive lineman of the Bengals. I'll talk to my staff. One of them is maybe the best offensive lineman ever, and one is a part of celebrating a 30th anniversary. I'll get this straight in a moment, but let's get to the big three. Number three.

You're here adding $140 billion to an agency. that nobody, the two groups, Border Patrol and ICE, that nobody respects in this country. Nobody respects ICE and Border Patrol. Despicable comments. President demands an apology.

Secretary Mullen calls him out. Number two. I think all taxes should be progressive. The very wealthy, the billionaires, should pay more. The problem with a gas tax or a vehicle's mild travel tax is that it does the opposite.

It punishes the lowest income Californians. Wow. There you go, Katie Porter. You have no shout of being the next governor, but she doesn't know it yet. But there's really nobody running away with it.

Compare and contrast. California wokeness on full display at the gubernatorial debate over the last two days. Yep, the Liberals are getting up and they're going to Texas. Why is that? The numbers don't lie.

Number one. Part of the problem is that that's why I can't really answer your question. They have all their leadership and they're fighting like cats and dogs.

Well, who's going to control? Because we've created a real mess for them, but they've created a mess for the world. Yup, Donald Trump talking about the mass meeting Iran bulking up. Another aircraft carrier sails into the Gulf as tensions rise in the strait. We look at the press conference that just took place a few hours ago and where we're at.

With the talks and the fighting. Shannon Bream joins us now, anchor of Fox News Sunday, Fox News chief legal correspondent and author of a new book, Nothing is Impossible with God. 11 heroes, one God, endless lessons in overcoming. Shannon, welcome back. It is great to be with you, Brian Kilmead.

So I want to go back before we talk about the news today, let's go back 30 years ago. Fox News Sunday launches. You are in grammar school. Exactly. Exactly.

Listen to Cut 47. The show that changed the conversation on Sunday mornings forever and laid the foundation for the most powerful NATO news. Hi, I'm Tony Snow. And this is Fox News Sunday. Live from our nation's capital.

Owning the biggest stories, driving the discussion. The Senate's work is not done. And we're just getting started. The biggest names, the biggest interviews, the biggest debates. But that law goes far beyond Roe v.

Wade. Celebrate 30 years of Fox News Sunday. Wow. Are you going to have special look backs this weekend? Oh, you know it.

We're going back to the very beginning because you know Fox News Sunday existed before the Fox News channel existed. We, of course, knew that was coming, but our founders wanted to get in that network Sunday space on the broadcast channel on Fox.

So Tony Snow launched it, and they didn't have a studio. They didn't have a set. They didn't have anywhere to go.

So they would host the show at different historic homes and sites around D.C. until we got the D.C. Bureau up and running.

So we have a lot of cool stuff looking back with Tony. Christopher Wallace comes back and sits down for a grilling, grilling interview with me. We had a lot of fun doing that looking back. And we've got some of the OG panelists, too, people like Juan Williams and Kellyanne Conway, who were sitting on those very early panels and are still part of the Fox family. Wow.

And so you and Chris sitting down together, Chris Wallace did a great job for years. He loved the job. You know who else loved the job? Tony Snow. Yeah.

And then he went to the radio and launched this show. And then when George Bush calls him to the White House, I get the show.

So it's all a full circle. It works the way that it should, right? I'm surprised. Do I get a lot of time on the spectral? I mean, I've got it told you, and we were told by your handlers that you were not interested.

So I took that as a final answer. I knew it was a mistake hiring handlers, but again, it blew up on my face. They're very expensive. Right. You would know.

Here's a look back a little bit more. Here's with Tony Snow, Cut 48. Hi, this week on Fox News Sunday, they showed Maggie Williams the money and she took it.

So did the First Lady's Chief of Staff break the law by accepting a campaign contribution in the White House? E-Congressional Investigators David McIntosh and Paul Kanjorski look at the fine print. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch tells us if an independent counsel should investigate the administration. And with tax days staring us in the face, should we abolish the IRS? Congressman Billy Tozan and former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander lock horns.

And our heavyweight panel of Britt Hume, Mara Lyason, and Juan Williams run down the issues this week on Fox News Sunday.

So that was just an example of where it all started. Did you remember watching Tony? Yeah, of course. And I was a fan of the show long before I was involved with the show. I was actually in law school when it launched, so not grammar school, I wish that was true.

By the way, speaking of OGs, I went and had a long sit-down with Britt Hume, too, and kind of his remembrances of the early show and how it all came together. And of course, you know, he became our Washington Bureau Chief here.

So he remembers trying to pull these things together when we didn't have things like the studios and the sets and chasing the guests and doing all those things. And so yeah, it's really fun to hear their memories. I know looking back when you go when you're on Fox News channel, in the very beginning, you explain to people, I'm on Fox News. Oh, you mean the local channel channel, Fox? Right.

Unbox sports? No, no, no. And in the beginning I it was the first few years you have to explain to people what the MyCube meant. Right. And here's the thing, is that I still we still get that sometimes, where people will say like, oh, you're on with and they'll name their local anchors like Susie and Jeff.

And I'm like, yes, because if they seem to like Susie and Jeff, I'm like, sure, yes, that is where I'm at. And I'm really happy to see you, and thanks for watching.

So let's talk about the news of the day, just like you would on any Fox News Sunday. And that is the President, Secretary of War, and the leader of the Joint Chiefs of Stairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff met today, and they just gave us an idea of what it's like. We're like, what, a 13-day ceasefire at the moment? And basically, the whole focus is on the straight. The Mosquito Navy is taking some ships, and we've we've turned around thirty-four ships and taken two, one in the Indo Pacific.

We are really turning up the heat in terms of anything in and out of Iran. Yeah, and you heard Secretary Hegg say this morning, nothing moves through the strait without permission of the U.S. Navy. And he says this blockade is going to go global. It's going to continue to expand.

As you said, you know, picking up the ship in the Indo-Pacific. And also, you know, he echoed what you said, what we've heard from the President saying, like, we've got all the time in the world. We are not in a hurry, and we kind of control the game, and we're going to run out the clock, which obviously Iran's trying to do, too.

So, you know, so many issues there. Who do we even negotiate with? Who's running the show? I mean, there's competing leadership factions within Iran. And so can we even know who is going to be able to sign off on something?

Just a lot of moving parts we'll talk about on Sunday. Oh, there's no doubt about it.

So now we look at a situation where Um the Virginia S the Supreme Court is going to be looking At the decision, the referendum with barely passed in Virginia to redistrict and make it heavily Democratic. What do you think of that decision to stay the referendum? And now, what do you think the Supreme Court will do in Virginia? What about the strength of the case the Republicans put forward? Yeah, and like you said, there are multiple cases pending regarding that referendum that did pass last week.

And the Supreme Court there in Virginia had this case and said we're going to let the election happen because, you know, obviously it could have been mooted potentially if the referendum had failed. But now they're going to have arguments on Monday. And, you know, one of the primary arguments that the Republicans are making here, the plaintiffs in the case, is that the state constitution says the districts have to be, quote, compact. And if you look at the map, I think that is a hard thing to argue with a straight face. It fans out from northern Virginia here, just outside of D.C., which is all very heavily Democrat.

It goes hundreds of miles into the Shenandoah Valley, down to Tidewater, at the shore, like it goes all over the place.

So, I mean, a lot of court watchers, regardless of Republican or Democrat, they think that's actually a pretty strong argument that the court's going to be open to. And there's some courts. questions about the process of the way that it actually was done, this referendum, serious legal challenges to the process as well.

So I can't wait for the arguments on Monday to see if the justices there kind of tip their hats at all about what they're thinking. Is there a timeline on this?

Well, I mean, I think that there is a feeling at the Virginia Supreme Court, like sooner rather than later, they've got to resolve this because obviously, you know, you're getting into the midterms, and early voting will start well before the ballots actually have to be cast in November. And people have to campaign. They have to know what their districts are and where they're running.

So I think that the Virginia Supreme Court is going to act pretty quickly. Time is of the essence, and now, you know, the battle switches to Florida. Essentially. Yeah, I guess it does. But I also think, do you think you could take anything from the California decision?

Wasn't that challenged in court? Wasn't Texas challenged in court? Yeah, and what the court said, the Supreme Court essentially in making kind of these early, not fully on the merits, but these emergency docket or interim docket decisions is we're going to apply the same standards.

So if we're going to tell people they can do X in Texas, you've got to let them do X in California and vice versa. What we're waiting on from the court is this big decision out of Louisiana, which could upend potentially the Voting Rights Act. And that could have a big impact this fall, too, because essentially they're looking at can you use race as a predominant factor in mapping out your districts. And if they say no, then it's going to throw out the new map that currently exists in Louisiana and could impact, you know, the estimates are up to 20 seats across the country. Wow.

I'm not sure who benefits from all this to begin with, but the gerrymandering's been around for hundreds of years.

So, Shannon, I don't want to stereotype. Be accused of stereotyping, but tell me if this is true. Mm-hmm.

When it comes to the royal family in England, women are usually much more into it than men. Is that true? And you're unofficial? Have you done a challenge? Yeah, listen, I've got a royal text chain and there's not one dude on it.

It's all checks.

Okay.

So that's my first time.

So yesterday, Harry was in Kyiv, Ukraine, and said it's up to the U.S. to finish their obligation to continue to supply arms to Ukraine. Here's the president on that CUD19. Prince Harry today has said that he would like to see you do more to end the war in Ukraine. Do you think it's appropriate for a royal to make those comments at another visit on Monday?

Prince Harry? Yes, sir. How's he doing? How's his wife? Please give him my regards, okay?

No? No, I don't know. I know one thing: Prince Harry is not. Speaking for The UK. That's for sure.

I think I'm speaking for the UK more than Prince Harry, but I appreciate his advice very much. Great advice. Yeah. Did you get the sarcasm?

Well, listen, you know how hard the royal family tries to stay out of this stuff. Yes. I mean, the queen was like masterful at negotiating around this stuff. But obviously, Megan and Harry have sort of a different take on what they're doing as royal, non-royals. I can't even keep the classification straight.

That's pretty diplomatic, I thought, of President Trump. You didn't think? Yes, I got the sarcasm. He wanted to make reviews on it. This is about coming.

Yes, here he is. Cut 20.

Well, I look forward to the dinner. We're having King Charles come, he's a friend of mine. We're really looking forward to it. We've spoken and we're going to have a great time. I tell you, if I had that ballroom built, it would be full.

I wish we had more seats. You know, they've wanted a new ballroom for 150 years.

Now they're getting the best in the world. We're going to have the best in the world. But you know, we have little a room that's not. Big enough to handle what would be a big crowd, but we're going to have very great people that love the UK. I love the UK.

I think they made a big mistake on energy. You should open up the North Sea in Aberdeen. You should open it up. And the other thing is they've made a big mistake on immigration.

So, by the way, I don't think the king is a big environmentalist, so I'm pretty sure he's not into the drilling, but they do seem to get along. You know, and it's just interesting because we are kind of at a low with the UK right now.

So this might be a little bit more substance and ceremonial. What do you think, Shannon? Yeah, I think that it's going to be, you know, there's a garden party, there's a tea, there's the dinner. Like, it's going to be very fancy pants, like it is when we have, you know, visiting dignitaries kind of thing. I don't know that these two will talk a lot of policy because that generally hasn't been the role of the sovereign monarch person.

It's been more the prime minister.

So I don't know that, you know, they're going to come out and announce a whole lot of policy stuff. I think it's much more, hey, the UK and America, we go way back. We're friends and let's kick up our heels together. But they did burn the White House down. Are we over that?

You know what? I actually inside the White House, I got to see one time where the flames were. You know, the little they take you on the little secret tour in there and you can see what happened. I feel like we've gotten past that. As long as they're over the tea party, we can be over them burning down the White House partially.

That's true. But we did dress like Native Americans. And do that.

So we never really owned up to it. Did they figure out it was us? Do you know? I think they were onto us, I feel like. I'm not sure if the king's going to bring it up to take word to cast out of the bag on that one.

Shannon, before we go, do you have any other guests, or are you just doing a look back? No, no, no, we've also got Kakeem Jeffries with us, the House Minority Leader exclusively, to talk about all kinds of things, including James Carville's admonition that they just pack the Supreme Court and make D.C. and Puerto Rico states if they retake Capitol Hill. Does he agree? I'll ask him.

And what's about the, I think, the other goal is impeachment, which I think is a good idea. Definitely impeachment. And also, you know, he's in this fight with Ron DeSantis, so we'll get into that too. Awesome. Hey, Shannon Breen, congratulations on your contribution to this remarkable legacy Fox News Sunday.

Always a much watch on the network and on the channel. I'll see you Sunday night, my friend. Absolutely. Sunday night at 10. Thanks so much, Shannon.

Back in a moment. He just doesn't read the headlines, he breaks them down. Real talk, real news. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Uh A radio show like no other is Brian Killmead.

Brian Thompson, as the United Healthcare CEO, was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder, the systematized forms of violence, the structural violence of poverty, the for-profit, paywalled system of healthcare in this country. And the consequences of that are. tremendous amounts of pain, tremendous amounts of violence, tremendous amounts of deaths. And that was a fascinating story from for me because America is very draconian about Crime and punishment. They're very black and white on this issue.

And yet, because of the pervasive pain. That the private healthcare system. had created for the average American I saw so many people. immediately understand. Why this death had taken place.

No, they thought that Luigi was a sexy guy. And they thought that was it. But that's Hasan Piker, this despicable character who's got a lot of followers and extreme leftists, hates the country, really, doesn't like the country. I mean, he says Hamas, I'll vote for him any day, Republicans. Republicans are worse than Hamas, he said.

He said that Senator Rick Scott should be killed. And now you have a guy saying, hey, by the way, the Thompson CEO was executed two blocks from our studio. He had it coming to him. Because of the healthcare system in America, which with all its faults might be the best in the world, if you ask England, you ask Canada, you ask Mexico where they want to go. It's not to Russia, and it's certainly not to China.

You have inequities with health insurance, but if you are a CEO of a healthcare company, ladies and gentlemen, you have no justification in killing them. I thought we went over this, but this guy with millions of followers and with leading Democrats hopping on his podcast. He's getting a lot of traction with that attitude. I hope you see the folly in his logic. It's Brian Kilmicho.

When we come back, I'll give you some highlights from the press conference and a short time ago with the Secretary of War and Moore. Kill me. The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Kilmead with the first pick in the 2026 NFL draft. The Las Vegas Greater select Fernando Mendoza.

Quarterback. In the end. All right, there you go. Surprise of nobody. I mean, absolutely anybody.

Everybody knows Fernando Mendoza, the Heisman Trophy winner, started at Yale, went to Berkeley, ended up in Indiana, with the national championship in an undefeated year. He's more impressive as a guy than he even as a player. I love the fact that part of his story is he would intern at real estate places because he wanted to make sure he had a job when he graduated. I'm pretty sure, I guess at one point. It didn't maybe look like he was going to be a first-round draft pick or a second.

But these days you never stay at the college at the start. Joe Burroughs had one good year in college. He ends up one of the best NFL quarterbacks and Heisman Trophy winner. Anthony Munos was great from day one at USC and then was a star for Cincinnati after that. Hall of Famer joins us now.

Anthony, welcome back. Hey, Brian, it's always good to be with you. How are you doing this morning? I'm doing good. I was just amazed.

We talked to. uh jumbo covert yesterday and he was He was saying that When he was drafted. that he didn't even you there wasn't even on television. that they had a trouble getting a hold of him 'cause he was in the back yard. That it was just no big deal.

Do you remember what it was like when you were drafted? Was it a big deal? I do. You know, for me, I wasn't really sure what was going to happen because a lot of people said I wasn't going to be drafted because of injuries. But my wife and I were in our one bedroom apartment on the campus of the University of Southern California, along with some teammates in the same apartment complex.

You know, just kind of ho-hum. I mean, you know, we had hopefully something happened, but it was a matter of waiting for a phone call. That was about it. There was no. I always kid my wife and I said, Man, It would have been nice to have a to be able to wear a suit that nice on draft day, wouldn't have?

And she says, Well, I don't think I could have gotten you out of your overalls. But so. But that nobody's wholly different. Yeah. I mean, it was and but it was a big impact in your life.

I mean, it changed everything. And then you did you started right away and never let go of that position, right? I did. It was, you know, to get that call from the Bengals when a lot of people, like I said, were saying I wouldn't be drafted to be drafted in the first round, the third pick in the entire draft. And I get into camp and I was inserted as the starting left tackle in day three.

The coach said, Man, you got to be the left tackle. And so for 13 years, number 78 lined up there. And I was grateful because we had some good runs, you know, first with Kenny Anderson and quarterback and then Boomer Science and some great guys that I played with. But yeah, it was one of those things that once I got there, And earned that starting job, for me, it was, I did not want to relinquish that starting job until it was time to retire. And it happened that way.

I'm very thankful.

So let's run through some of the draft picks overall we know about Mendoza. Number two, David Bailey, a Texas Tech. Um He he went number two overall and he went to uh he went to the Jets.

So Jeremiah loved the outstanding running back from Notre Dame, went to the Cardinals, Carnell Lake. One from Ohio State, one to the Titans, and then Arville Rees of Ohio State goes to the Giants. Anything stand out about the top five? You know what? Well, I guess Ohio State had a pretty good defense, a pretty good team.

But no, I've watched all those guys. Have not seen a lot of David Bailey, but to go that high, he has some talent. Jeremiah Love, I watched him fight a bit, and what a talent. I mean, the guy is amazing. Tate, I watched, of course, living in Cincinnati, get a chance to watch Ohio State.

Also, Reese at linebacker. And a couple of picks later, you know, Sonny Styles, a linebacker for Ohio State that went to Washington.

So, yeah, some athletic, hard work. I mean, you can tell the guys work at their craft. And I'm just, I always get excited because, you know, guys that high are expected to play well. And that's one thing that I watch.

Okay, how accurate or how does that depend being a great college player to being a great NFL player? And a lot of times it doesn't necessarily work out. But I root for the guys to do well, and we'll see what happens. A lot of people thought the Giants with their second pick after trading the other one to Cincinnati. Um I Uh that uh Dexter.

Dexter Lawrence gets traded for the Cincinnati pick. The Giants take Francis Marwa out of Miami, so he's big right tackle.

So and a lot of people are surprised by that. But if this guy can play, it's going to be worth it. You know what? And I watched him quite a bit this year. At least from what I've seen, he complained.

Again, you know, his adaptation to the NFL offense and what he can do. But everything I've seen in this young man, you know, the way he moves, the size, a very I mean, a lot of times, you know, you see the left tackle that are, you know, they talk about them being athletic. And I really thought this young man is pretty athletic for a right tackle.

So At least what he's done and on paper, it should be a pretty good. And when I saw that, I said, well, they got a pretty good deal there. Of course. I don't know if we could have gotten a first-round pick like Dexter Lawrence. I mean, when we made that trade.

I was over the top, Brian, just so thrilled. Because he's coming off of a season in which he was a little overweight, only had half a sack. But anyone who played with him said, please don't trade him.

So you don't really judge him by sacks. I guess you judge him as an offensive lineman, right, Anthony? How would you handle him? And you thought he was a handful. Yeah, you know, being the player he is, he's going to occupy a couple guys in the middle.

And anytime you can occupy a couple offensive linemen on blocking schemes, you're going to lose some, you're going to, you know, your linebackers are going to run free, allow them to make some plays.

So, you know, for interior guys, guys that get a lot of sacks, I mean, that's good. But guys that are, you've got to look at the other things they do. And like I said, Price street up the middle, not necessarily getting sacks, but occupying guys. And therefore, other guys benefit from it. I'm not going to take that one sack or something and say, oh, my goodness, he can't get a quarterback, because there's other things that a big guy in the middle like that can do that will help a defense.

So Anthony, as you know, with the NFL has never been hotter. It's never you have all these broadcast outlets competing to carry it. Instead of just giving it to two networks, they really fanned it out. But some of it's behind paywalls. You know, you got if you wanna watch the NFL, you gotta get Amazon, you wanna watch the NFL, you gotta get Peacock, you wanna watch it, you gotta get Hulu.

So I mean, the you have uh YouTube, you got a bunch of subscriptions along with cable in order to watch it, and the FCC is looking what the NFL is doing. The NFL is confident they're just adapting to the market for people who cut cut the cord. and a medium where they are. How do you feel as a Hall of Famer player? Got it, but you've been a fan too.

So how do you feel about it? Can you empathize with the money you gotta pay just to watch games? You know, it's interesting because, yeah, you know, before I, you know, got educated in all this peak and all that, you know, it's great to have some grandkids that are very, you know, tech-oriented to hook me up. But, you know, the days of, I guess, not only viewing, you know, at home, but you look at the prices of the tickets of people trying to go to games. I mean, it's one of those things where a family of four, it's tough for them to afford tickets going to the game, but it really is.

It's like buying water in a bottle now. You know, back in the day, you just turned on the drinking fountain and got free water.

Now you got to buy water.

So, you know, how much further is this going to go? How much more are you going to have to pay to watch the NFL where you used to just flip on ABC, NBC, and CBS, and you could watch as many games as you want for free? You know, I can sympathize with those that struggle to do that. But man, I tell you what, Brian, this league is raking in the bucks, and you got to give them credit. You know, their main thing now is just don't mess it up because it is.

Marketing wise, they are huge right now. And I had a chance to be at the owners meeting with the president of the Hall of Fame, Jim Porter, and just hearing what's going on, it's like, holy smokes. I think I was born about thirty-five years too uh too early. Yep, you weren't in the leather helmet era. Those guys really had it rough.

They had to go right to their jobs after practice, those guys. Exactly. Then, some of you guys, you just missed the get job in off-season time. But Fernando Mendoza, I find it interesting that he kept interning in real estate firms, thinking that, you know, I don't know if I'm going to make it. Very serious guy.

He's already attended Raider Camp. I think what he could do within the collective bargaining deal. And he's going over how a Raider practices the Raider playbook. Here's a little from Fernando. He is so impressive, Cup 43.

The last five months has been such a blessing by God, and I can't think of him enough. I'm just looking forward to get to work, prove it at the next level. College was fantastic. I'm so blessed to have that career, but now I step into a great game of the NFL. Look forward to proving and earning it every single day.

I just get the sense that he's been in college so long, literally, three schools, I think, five or six years. He comes out really pretty mature. I mean, there's very little. I would not be shocked if he was a mid-range to in the upper level right away. Would you.

Brian, I tell you, every interview I've heard, I get more and more impressed every time I hear this young man. And to me, you know, he's going to, I mean, he's already doing it. I mean, the fact that he's already studying, that he's already seeing how things are done, to me, that's impressive. And out of all the positions, everybody's got to do that because it's very difficult mentally, regardless of what position, but especially quarterback. I mean, that position is the most demanding.

That's the most important. And to hear him just be appreciative and thankful for what he's got and he's ready to go to work. You know, of course, I played with the Bengals. I still root the Bengals. But now, as an older guy, I root for individuals.

And he's definitely an individual I'll be rooting for and hopefully get a chance to meet here in the near future.

So the Jets have a lot, need a lot, and they have to make these picks work. They gave up a lot last year and gave up on the season, gave up two players. Here's one of those picks, David Bailey, cut forty-four. With the second pick, In the 2026 NFL draft, The New York Jet Select. David Bailey.

Linebacker, Texas Sec. I mean, is this the type of player that can make an impact? Because the Jet fans are really worried about this draft.

Well, I mean, defensive end, pass rusher, all I have to do is look back to when I was playing against the New York Sack Exchange with Mark Gastino and Marty Lyons and Abdul Salam and Joe Kleco. Those guys can create havoc if they come in and do what they're drafted to do. And he's, you know, supposedly the second pick in the draft. They're saying he can get off and get after the quarterback.

So if you can get somebody like that, I mean, look at Cleveland. They got Miles Garrett. You know, he's a guy, you know, Micah for Green Bay now out of Dallas. We traded him. Those guys can be a game changer if they come in and do what they're drafted to be.

I mean, to do what they've been asked to do.

So, yeah, he could be a game changer. He can turn things. He just got to come in and do it.

So, the whole thing with going on in college now, I'm really anxious to see if these reforms are going to be real. The Senate had a proposal, the House has got something a little bit different, but I know. Randy Levine, the present New York Yankees, along with Nick Sabin and others. Or Co-chairing, and they got some really prestigious people on this panel to try to fix college sports. What's the right balance?

To me, I think if. One transfer, and after that, you got to sit out. I think there should be an age cutoff. I mean, you shouldn't be a 27-year-old senior unless you're serving in the military and something happens. But we're not really doing that now.

So, I mean, literally, the military could be an exemption. And I'm happy that some players, the fact that you had to live in a one-bedroom apartment while married, while being the best offensive lineman in college sports, that's not right. But on the second hand, maybe we need some type of Some type of salary cap. You have it in every major sport, whether it's through a luxury tax, there are limitations. There's rookie limitations for the NFL.

Give me three things that you would change.

Well, first of all, I just gotta make a comment on the age thing. This guy's playing 26, 25, 26 years old in college. I was in my fifth year in the NFL. Talking about playing, still playing college at that age was like, oh, that's crazy. I mean, no, there's several things I think about.

I mean, with that money, I agree with you. You can't transfer every single day. I think there's got to be contracts. It's professional. I mean, you're getting paid.

So if you're going to get paid, you've got to give me a commitment, two, three-year commitment to make that much money. If you transfer, I agree with you. I mean, it's willy-nilly. You go, you play one, 12, you know, 14 games with one school. The next year, you're there, and you start the entire season.

So I think if they're already dealing with agents, they're paying guys. Let's go with contracts. Give me a contract. You know, for those guys that are and gals that are doing that, because still there's what, 90% they say there's like 90% that are aren't in that boat with the guys and gals that are making all that money. But still, those are I think those are some ways that you curtail.

Which is kind of sad, and I gotta share this thing.

So I'm out in Southern California right now, and I'll probably see a couple of my college buddies.

Now think about this, and I don't see this happening again ever. This year, Brian, is my fiftieth year that I was a freshman football player at USC. There's five guys that we get together when I come to Southern California. All five of us were freshmen offensive linemen at USC together. Four of us were married in college, one shortly after.

And we have a 50 year relationship because we met each other when we were 17, 18 years old. We played four or five years of college together, and that was it. And now we're enjoying grandkids, and we still Those type of relationships, you'll make some relationships, but you're not going to have some long-term relationships like that, which to me. The one thing that I tell people when they say, What do you miss about the game? I say, I miss the locker room, I miss the relationships.

And that I mean, I look at college and I mean, you play in four or five different colleges. Where are those long-term relationships that you have an opportunity to make if you play? At least three years at a college, sometimes four, and then maybe a graduate year somewhere else. Almost every one of my friends that I still have today from high school, I played soccer with.

So, I don't have your career, but I know the feeling. You point to different things. You get to know them on and off the field, and you keep that alive. I'll give you an example: the University of Michigan basketball team that won the national championship, pretty great, but not one attended as a freshman. They all transferred in.

So it did just become, I'm not saying they didn't work hard and the coach didn't do a good job. Obviously, they did, but that's not what it used to be. Right. No, I hear you. I think it was three years ago when Ohio State won the national championship.

Now you talk about Michigan's basketball. On the other hand, N of the 11 starters on defense for Ohio State had been there four or five years. They had one kid that transferred in. That was a freshman Downs who was drafted this year. He left Alabama after Nick Sabin retired.

But 10 of the 11 starters had been there at least four years, some five years. That's important. To me, that's yeah. I mean, it's just the opposite of what you just said about Michigan. But Yeah, by the way, you launched 78 Muno's cigar brand.

You could get it carried in to buy Anthony Muno 78 cigars.

So go pick it up. It's got to be quality. Anthony, thanks so much. Appreciate it. All right, Brian.

Always a pleasure being with you, buddy. Take care. All right. Same here. Have a good time with your friends.

I don't want to pick up that bill. Bunch of offensive linemen hanging out. Back in a moment. Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it.

You're with Brian Kilmead. We're closely tracking vessels of interest headed towards Iran and those moving away from Iran that were outside the blockade area when this blockade was ordered. And as everyone saw this past weekend, we're prepared and postured to intercept them.

So that is a little of General Kaine giving a briefing about what's happening at the Strait of Hormuz. It's really where all the action is taking place. And we're going to start going after those fast boats. They call it the Mosquito Navy. The traditional Navy has been destroyed, no doubt about it.

We've turned around 34 ships. We're looking to cut off all aid, all oil, all transactions from going in and out of the strait. And we've had a lot of success.

Some might have slipped through, but not any substantially. Also, got this news: the Department of Justice has dropped the criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Why is that important? Because Senator Tillis has said, I'm not voting for Kevin Wash as the new Fed chair if you still have that lawsuit out there. And Powell says, I'm not leaving as long as this suit is hanging over my head.

So it looks like Gene Piro has backed off. I think it's a really wise move. Get Wash in there.

Somebody really confident, the president who could understand what he's going to do. He's not going to manipulate it. He's going to understand it. And for those people who look at the economic numbers on the president's, Well, it'll turn around when this war's over.