Is Racial Gerrymandering Over? SCOTUS Hands Massive Win to Republicans

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. Big show Thursday coming your direction. Harry Cole is going to be with us from the Sun, Edder at Large.

Great to look at the Kings, the King and Queen being in town in Washington. Then of course in New York City where they visited the 9-11 Memorial and then they split off. Queen went to the library and the King went to Harlem to do an environmental project or to view an environmental project. We'll cover all the trip. I think today is the last day and I think you know normally it's ceremonial what's the big deal but I think he is really representing the Western Alliance because they have totally let us down on Iran.

And they have some of the statements coming out of there show a fracture. And The king and the president get along. Can't say that with a lot of the Prime Ministers. And the Chancellor, especially of Germany.

So, before we get to Senator James Langford, let's get to the big three. Number three. Everybody is clawing for every single seat. Feeling between the two parties is as bitter as I've ever seen it. And the result is what you're seeing now is this headlong race to redistrict any place you can redistrict in order to advance yourself.

Wow, that is Britt Hume talking about the Titanic decision by the Supreme Court. Massive impact prevents any state from using race to gerrymander their district. This could be a chain reaction event that could send a number of districts right to the right. Will it impact the midterms? We'll discuss.

Number two. These images obtained by the Washington Post showed the suspect hunched as he allegedly fired one blast from his shotgun. The uniformed Secret Service agent at the bottom left of your screen quickly pulls his weapon and begins to fire. The Secret Service says that agent fired five times. The suspect then stumbled and fell unharmed right at guest and Navy veteran Aaron Fieldman's feet.

Isn't that weird? Not hit. We're still trying to figure out who hit the Secret Service agent, but it wasn't. It wasn't a friendly fire incident. That's all we know.

Unwinding and evaluating the action of the Secret Service during the White House correspondence dinner. We'll bring you the latest. Number one. They've come a long way. The question is whether or not they're going to go far enough.

So at this moment, There will never be a deal. Unless they agree that there will be no nuclear work. Back to war. Plans outlined and made public as Scott Besson continues to strip their secret hidden wealth. And the market is not happy.

Although the market at this moment is up, we believe the new inflation numbers are out and they're very low.

So that is good news. I think it's 0.7 percent. And we're trying to grow at 2 percent. Keep getting inflation down to 2 percent. Then you can drop rates.

Senator James Lankford joins us now. Senator, it's pretty good news on inflation, right? I'll take any good news we can get right now, but Americans are looking for prices to go down and gasoline to go down. That's legit. We all get it.

Senator, we know too the number one story is affordability, gas prices, and they were going in the right direction into the war. Did the President make the right decision? Oh, he made the right decision. This is the hard decisions that presidents have to make on this. Iran's been attacking the United States for almost five decades now, trying to find some way to be able to kill Americans as they've done over and over and over again.

The president is pushed back on a bully and said, you're going to stop on this. You're not going to do it, and you're not going to have a nuclear weapon. This is an apocalyptic regime that they feel like if they had a nuclear weapon, they could bring on the 12th Imam and all kinds of things in this particular sect of some of the leadership and this belief that they have on it. We cannot allow someone like that to have a nuclear weapon to be able to carry out their acts of terrorism. What the president's focused in on is free flow of commerce to the Strait of Hormuz that should be standard everywhere in the world on it, can't have acts of terrorism and supporting acts of terrorism and can't have a nuclear weapon.

That's straightforward. And the president had to make a hard decision that presidents have to make. Senator, I know we're not in the last throes of a deal. But I would say ballistic missile production as well as funding proxies have to be involved in it. I mean, the Strait of Rose, that's international waters, not the Panama Canal.

You know, we'd have a problem with Panama shut down their canal. We'd have to take action.

So. But in this in this case They're not close. And here's what I've been told by military people and people that know the area. You know, we get gas at $4 or $5 a gallon, and there's going to be regime change here in an election. But in Iran.

Their currency is worthless. Their inflation is at something like 50 or 60 percent. They've lost 2 million jobs since this whole thing started, but it doesn't matter. They got the guns. They don't care about their people.

They are capable of withstanding the economic pressure that Scott Besant is putting on them, and that going back and finishing the job militarily might be necessary. Your thoughts on that. Yeah, it is typical socialism and a dictatorship that they have in Iran, where they really don't care about the people of Iran. The leaders are protected, they'll have money, they'll have the ability to be able to travel, they'll have all those things, but the people are living under their oppression. They'll not only murder them in the streets and just leave their bodies in the street if they protest, but they also don't care about their day-to-day life.

And so it's very difficult to be able to put pressure on them.

So, what the president is trying to do is to be able to put enough economic pressure that it even affects those leaders in that socialist country that they will also feel the pressure of this and continue to have their own people be able to push back on them at a level they've got to be able to give. I think you're being constantly in socialists. That's a brutal dictatorship. The documented actions, $344 million seeds under their widespread illicit accounts, they've gone out of their way to take away what many people think is the way you do illegal activity, they say, is through crypto. $350 million they seized already, $100 million recently.

Overall, between they'll get up to 500 million, and they're trying to track down their accounts. You know who's helping us? The UAE. They are all in. Broke from OPEC, trying to reinvigorate relationships or invigorate relationships with Israel.

And Israel came over and gave them portions of an iron dome. To get ready, should war happen again. They were targeted more than Israel. Things are really changing in the Middle East in real time. Yeah, things are changing very, very rapidly.

Part of this blockade effort that the president has as well is to be able to put pressure on China to be able to put pressure on Iran. China is one of those primary buyers of Iranian oil. If the president blockades Iran, it won't be long before China is calling their proxy, Iran, and saying it's time for you to be able to knock this off because we also need access to energy.

So the president is trying to smartly handle this in a diplomatic way to be able to put maximum amount of pressure on Iran to be able to come to the table and to be able to stop their acts of terrorism.

So, Senator, right now we see that Pete Hakeseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Kaine, are going to be in front of the Senate. That's not your committee today. But what questions do you have? Yeah, I serve on the intelligence committee. They're coming in front of the Armed Services Committee today, actually.

But the questions are going to be out there. How are things going? What are processing? I would hope that a lot of folks that are actually speaking to Pete Hagsteth today will say, please pass on to the troops our gratitude. Because while Americans are saying the price of gasoline has gone up at $1.50, those folks are literally putting their lives on the line in that region to be able to protect America and Americans from acts of terrorism.

So I would hope there's a lot of folks that are actually saying to Pete Hegsteth, please pass on to the men and women that are putting their lives on the line. We're griping about gas prices while you're laying your life on the line. That's a whole different issue.

So I want you to hear some of the sporrhing that takes place. People aren't looking for answers, they're looking for blood. And they're looking for Pete Hegsteth basically to say he's not good at the job and the president just starts wars willy-nilly. Listen to this exchange, Cut 19. Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war?

I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb. I am going to give you that opportunity to do that. I would simply ask you what the cost is. You are playing gotcha questions about domestic things. You are saying it is a gotcha question to ask what it is going to be in terms of the increased cost of the business.

Why won't you answer what it costs to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? I will give you that, sir. But let me ask you a question. What would it cost? What would you pay to ensure Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb?

What would you pay? I reclaim my time. Do you not know, you had no one do the analysis of what the increased cost of gas and food on the American people are going to be? What is the cost of Iran holding that straight at issue with nuclear weapons? It is $631 billion, which means it is an increase of $5,000 a year for American households.

So Why the Secretary of War Defense in the past That's not his job. His job is to get an objective, get a goal, hear it from the president, make his recommendations, and then implement that job. If he says to the president, well, gas will go up to $3.20, they'll say, what are you talking about? That's not your job.

So what's he even doing, running for president instead of asking a real question? That is exactly what's actually happened, trying to be able to make a social media clip and to try to be social media famous. Say, look, I tried to stick it to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of War. This is a. This is the politics of the day rather than just the reality of the day.

Listen, Americans do not want a war in the Middle East. We don't want a war anywhere. But when war comes to us, we can't just ignore that. We've learned the lesson of 9-11: that far-off people that are crazy in the Middle East that say they want to kill us can actually kill us. And so, when people start to attack us, we should learn the lesson and say, We're not going to allow you to continue to be able to kill us and to be able to come after us.

We're going to stop you. We want peace with all nations and with all regions of the world. We want to just be able to live our lives, do our things. They do their things. I hope that Jeffersonian democracy breaks out one day in Iran, but that's not what we have right now.

But at the least, We can have them stop attacking us. And that's really what Americans are all about. And, Senator, we know that the recruiting's through the roof to the point where they got to put off, when you apply and you get in, they're putting off. going to the base, going in for basic training because we're so overwhelmed. And that wasn't the case four years ago.

You have the most pro-military state, I would argue, out you in Texas in the country. What are they saying? Like when the parents come to you, everyone's worried when a war starts. You should be. But do they feel the communication is adequate?

Are they getting answers? They are getting answers. They all want to end of the war. They've all got loved ones that are in harm's way. No one wants their loved one in harm's way, but they all are very proud of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives that are actually going and saying, I not only took the oath to defend the country, I'm actually defending the country right now.

I'm going to do what it takes to be able to make sure that the future generations are not living under the oppression of the previous generations. That's a big deal for us. By the way, in Oklahoma, we are a little upset that the king chose to go to New York instead of Oklahoma. I know. It would have been a much better trip for the king to come to Oklahoma.

What about a mayor who says he's not really thrilled? He wants some jewel back from, I mean, it's unbelievable. Can you imagine a king coming to New York City and the mayor making disparaging comments about it? That's why Bloomberg got rolled out there to go to the 9-11 Memorial with him. But, Senator, I want to ask you about redistricting.

So, a lot of people saw that ruling in Louisiana and want to make sense of it.

So, they knifed, am I right in saying the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't redistrict on race? Oh, yeah, obviously, gender. You can't redistrict on race.

So, how is that unconstitutional? How is that Jim Crow 2.0? It is not Jim Crow 2.0. It is not that. The Supreme Court ruled inconsistent with the Constitution saying if you form a district simply because of race, that is literally violating the Constitution because now you're doing everything based on race.

But they also said the opposite. Everybody's leaving at the other one. If you try to redistrict also because of race to try to exclude races on that, you're also violating the Constitution. They literally just stepped in and said every American should be protected. Get this equally.

Every American, regardless of their race and their background, protects the rights of every single American. We believe that we are created equal.

So make sure that all of the voting standards are also done equally.

So, Senator, how do you redistrict? How do you district then? What is the criteria to draw up a district?

Well, that is actually constitutionally left up to the states how to do that. The states can do it as we've seen Virginia do that, as we've seen California do that, as we've seen Texas do that, as we're now watching Florida do that, as long as they're not gerrymandering based on race. They can choose to be able to do that in whatever format they want to do. If they want to make a lobster shape in Virginia, they're allowed to do that on it, but they can't do it based on race to try to exclude a certain race one way or the other.

So, if you district, you could do it on economics.

So, you could say, well, that's a working-class area with bracketed that way. This is an upper-class area, bracketed that way. That's okay. Right. That is left up to the states to be able to choose that.

So the most basic thing is it's got to be equal protection under the law, that every single American is treated the same way on that. But again, if they want to do it for political designations, they can.

Now, I don't think it's the best idea to be able to do it that way. I do think it creates greater division across the country, but that is allowed.

So, there's a Republican super PAC who came out with a statement that they really believe that Republicans should be aware that the Senate is in jeopardy in the midterms.

Now, we know that the war in the spring has been not a poll, not have been a boom for popularity or for gas prices. They've gone up, but this will be temporary, by all accounts. Having said that, Do you believe the Senate is up for grabs? I think the American people choose.

So I will remind people all the time: it is always up for grabs. Anyone who tries to predict ahead of time, this is what the American people are going to do, don't know the American people. They choose based on their preferences and their direction. That's the way that our republic works on it. And so, this belief that somehow the Senate is safe, the Republicans are going to lose it, or the Democrats are definitely going to get it, is unknown.

But I would tell you, the trends right now are showing. People are going to go to the polls and they're going to choose based on economics, as they always do, as affects my family, safety issues, security issues. I encourage people to look seriously and to ask the most basic question. Compare where we are now as far as the security of the nation and what's happening. We have higher gas prices right now, but they're still not as high as they were under the Biden administration.

And there wasn't a war in the Middle East at the time during the Biden administration. And so to be able to say, gosh, I want lower gas prices. I want to bring the Democrats back. We just saw that movie four years ago. We know exactly what that looks like.

That was higher gas prices without a war. It was just their policies driving that. Senator James Langford, our guest. Senator Rapid Fire Now, future of FISA. I heard you guys wanted a temporary extension.

All of a sudden, I find the House is going to give a three-year extension. Can you give us up to date on what you guys are haggling as you're haggling over this? We are haggling this out by midnight tonight. We've got to get the FISA issue resolved: how do we actually make sure we're watching for international terrorists that want to be able to attack us? But we're also protecting.

Civil liberties of Americans. Nothing decided yet? Nothing settled on that yet. The House has a version, the Senate has a version. We got till midnight tonight to resolve the two.

So funding DHS, it looks like the House is coming along to agree with you and maybe fund it through reconciliation? Yep, we hope that is so. We've already passed a reconciliation bill. They passed the first step of the budget piece.

Now they've got to pass the rest of DHS funding and get that funded again. Secretary Mullen is ready to be able to have full funding again for Homeland Security. Senator James Lankford, thanks so much. Always great having you on. I guess it's back to work.

It is back to work. We got more work to get done. All right, Senator James Lankford, always great. We'll take a short time out. Come back, take your calls, and then Harry Cole at the bottom of the hour: the latest on the King, the Queen, and New York City.

It's Brian Kilmade. LORD! Ah, I'm sensing plumbing problems. Worry not. With American Home Shield, you can now video chat with live repair experts for help with home fixes over the phone.

Talk to a real human expert over video chat who can help get that home system or appliance back on track. Ah, sounds like peace of mind. American Home Shield, don't worry, be warranty. Visit ahs.com/slash listen for 20% off any plan. Video chat feature available as benefit to AHS members with select plans.

See AHS.com for hours and details. Uh From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. This is where Mayor Vass lives. You notice something? This is where I live.

They let my home burn down. I know what the consequences of failed leadership are. Didn't play. That is, this is so unbelievable. This guy is so talented.

I'm talking about what's going on with the mayor's race. Spencer Pratt has this ad. He's a reality star, had a bit of acting. I don't can't give you his definitive bio, but I've listened to him for three hours with Joe Rogan. He's taken on Mayor Bass.

He's never had political aspirations, but he digested the issues and he suffered big time firsthand because he, like so many in the Pacific Palisades, had their home burned to the ground when the firefighters forgot to, or were told, don't show up and we have no water. But that's nobody's fault. And I'm being sarcastic.

So Spencer Pratt says, enough. He went ahead, even though he had moved to Santa Barbara because his house burned to the ground, in order to run for mayor, he went back to his property. He can't get permits to build it. He was struggling with insurance to supply the money to rebuild it.

So he's fighting that out like so many others. And he moved a trailer onto his lot so he could run for mayor. He's got some great ads. I want to talk about this later this hour after we talk about our next topic, and that'll be Harry Cole. He's the son editor-at-large.

And Harry is going to give us an idea of how the King's trip is resonating overseas. I think here it's been very positive, but some subtle shots that I guess. The king gave at President Trump just about the alliance, and important to, we've had rough ups and down before. People are pointing to he's standing up to Trump. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

These two were great friends. They showed it again. They have mutual respect for each other. I just think they went back to a traditional, hey, Disney Alliance, great. We've had rough times before.

He pointed out that Eisenhower and the prime minister then weren't happy in the 1950s with each other on something with the Sinai Peninsula. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal. It is irreplaceable and unbreakable.

To the United States of America, On your two hundred and fiftieth birthday, Let our two countries rededicate ourselves. To each other. in the selfless service. of our peoples. and of all the peoples of the world.

Prince Charles, excuse me, King Charles, very impressive here. I loved it, I'm happy for him. Because you know a lot of times you do this is what I view. They do a lot of ceremonial things.

Okay, we gotta knight this person, gotta show up here. The king's gonna bless this preschool. All right. And for the last hundred plus years, they really don't make decisions. And now he's given a speech where the whole world's watching.

Instead of saying, isn't it great that we get along? We're not getting along now. We're not getting along with NATO, we're not getting along with Europe, and the feeling is mutual. It's not just about transparent countries. We're not getting along with Canada.

Getting along with Israel, absolutely. There are other countries, there's mutual respect, I mean there's friction, no doubt about it, there's friction. And we'll talk about who's to blame. Surely. But I think they wouldn't The king comes over.

He's got a friend with President Trump. They just like each other. I think King Charles, in my opinion, Is somebody that's used to people who are very structured and very prim and proper, and Trump could do both. He can treat you like a human being while respecting who you are. And I think it works for both.

Harry Cole, the son editor at large, had a chance to see Harry over the weekend before all hell broke loose with the shooting. Harry, welcome back. Your thoughts about how the Kings trip is doing. And am I overstating it to say it's had an impact and the world is watching? Hi, morning, Brian.

Great to see you. As ever, thank you for having me. Look, I've been speaking to people in the King's Entourage, Buckingham Palace, over the last 24 hours, they're pretty happy with how it's gone. This is an unusual visit for the King. Obviously, they've wanted to come in this 250th year of America.

This has been in the pipeline for nearly five years. They were always going to come in this year, but they didn't know who was going to be in the White House at the time. But it comes at a time when, as you rightly say, the so-called special relationship between Britain and America has taken a bit of a battering. But then I think the point of the King's visit is to ram that point home that, you know, the special relationship is bigger than who's in Downing Street, who's in the White House at any one time. It's a bond that's deeper and longer than any mere politician who comes and goes.

And yeah, look, Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, has wound the president up something chronic. He's, you know, the president is. Is furious. I've spoken to him about it. That Britain didn't just, it wasn't that Britain didn't come along with him in those initial strikes on the Ayatollah.

It was that Britain actively frustrated those efforts. By blocking the use of the base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, they made those B-2 bombers go the long way round. By blocking the use of British bases in the early days of the war in Iran, British bases on the mainland Britain, it made things more complicated for America.

So, look, the President's very angry. There's an assumption because we have that security and defense partnership. That's so deep, and it works both ways on intelligence sharing, on spying, on satellites, under the ocean, protecting the undersea cables that support trillions and trillions of pounds of trade going backwards and forwards between America and Britain every year, financial services and the like. Because that relationship was so deep, and because Britain's always been kind of there by America's side over the last 25 years, I think there was a sort of feeling, and this goes way beyond Donald Trump. This goes into the Pentagon, into the US military, into the US security services, that actually kind of we kind of Britain kind of left the side down.

So I think it was really important for the King to be able to come and just make that really powerful speech in Congress on Tuesday, just remind everyone of those shared ties. And he can do it in a way that he doesn't have to wag a finger, he doesn't have to lecture or hector because his status, you know, he's almost the one person. I said, I said to you on the air earlier today, he's Almost the kind of one person that can have a mano-eye mano conversation with the leader of the free world, right? And say it like it is and not expect to have to, you know, sort of tiptoe around. He said what he thought.

The president, you know, returned the favors, said he thought it was a great speech. They had that brilliant moment at the White House on Tuesday evening where they were exchanging that beautiful gift of a bell from the HMS Trump. But, you know, and as the king said, look, when you need us, we should be there. We're here. Just give us a ring.

You know, boom, boom, get the pun. But I just think it was important to kind of reset that relationship. And yeah, look, Kirstama and Donald Trump may never recover, but. America and Britain are bigger than just two politicians. President Sorabet actions.

He gets over things. People get mad at actions. What's he doing?

So okay, do you miss the part where we were going after Iran? When we had the military buildup that took place over the series of months, even though they were you know, the people of Iran were hoping for us to take quick action, we took deliberate we had a deliberate build-up in the region. Did Starmer not notice that? And then when we had a shot at the Ayatollah, we took it.

So if he's like, well, you didn't tell me, all right. Got it. You over it? You're not.

Okay, you're not. Can't use your bases. Really?

Okay, we can't use your bases. You know, since twenty ten, you've not had diplomatic relations with Iran and you said they're a persistent enemy. You know that's your policy on the books prior to you getting there. Also, Now that we are using our bases, if you actually want to help, meaning that you've allowed your Navy just to rust away. We need your mind sweepers because we kind of get rid of our mind sweepers.

They can and they move so slow. If he put those minesweepers into action, it would have been there by now. And that would be a way to help. Just do what you can do. And instead, we're not gonna that this is an illegal war, he said.

So an illegal war against an enemy that's been taking British hostages and killed Britons fighting with us in Iraq. I mean, you know how many those EFPs killed the Britons, I think it's over 100. We had 600, and then any roadside bomb you could link back to Soleimani and the Iranians who supplied it with the Iraqi insurgents. Let alone the hostages that they've been taking, and the unrest that they cause in the Middle East overall.

Well, I think right, I think you're right. This was a serious misstep in terms of geopolitics for Kirsten, I believe. I don't think he's a very good idea. Harry Cole, you believe that, but what about the Muslim population in Britain? Is he more concerned about that?

You took the words right out of my mouth. There's domestic issues at play for Kiostama. He is the most unpopular Prime Minister since they invented opinion polling. Think about that. Think about some of the characters we've had in the past.

And then compare that. He is in real trouble. He's got the equivalent of the British midterms next Thursday. He's going to get an absolute pounding. He's up to his neck in scandal involving the former British ambassador to the United States and his links to Epstein and whether he was security vetted.

And actually, it turns out that Kirstama put the guy in the Oval Office, having already failed his security vetting. It's astonishing.

So he's right up against it. And you're so right. There is a big domestic issue at play, which is the increasing reliance of various factions of voting in the United Kingdom, including a large Muslim population that the Labour Party, Sir Kirstama's party, always relied on. They're going to Gaza independence, these new parties that are forming, and they're going out to the Greens. Bleeding out politically on his left-wing flank.

And so he's in trouble.

So this was good politics for him. This actually probably brought him. Everyone's, you know, all his MPs who were saying he should go soon were saying, oh, he's had a good war. But the scars of the Iraq conflict have really rocketed the. Split the UK left, and we're seeing that play out in the fact that they're still arguing whether Tony Blair was right to go along with George Bush back in the day, and Keir Starmer took a political decision to protect him at home, and that he's reaping the consequences on the world stage now.

So, one thing you said caught me by surprise. You said that Starmer could pay the price, but not by the Conservatives aren't going to take advantage of it. You said there's going to be more Greens. Because of his vulnerability, so they're going to stay to the left in Britain. The Conservatives aren't going to be able to fill the breach.

Kirstama only got into power with the size of the majority and the scale of the victory he did because the right in the United Kingdom is split. It's split between the Conservatives, who have been in power for 14 years, and frankly, you know, have their more than fair share to blame for hollowing out our defences and lots of other policies, like allowing healthcare spending and benefits spending to rocket and spiral out of control.

So they're kind of in trouble. You've got Nigel Farage and reform surging, but because of that split, there is a way that the left could stay in power. But Kirstam has got his own problems. He's now splitting out to the left. The Labour Party is very fractured.

And voters, they asked for change. They wanted change. 2024 was a change election in the UK as it was in the US. And they haven't got that change.

So if you're a lefty, you're looking at even more extreme versions and going out to the Greens. If you're a middle-of-the-road voter, you're kind of thinking, well, maybe we give reform a chance. Everyone else is screwed up. I mean, why not have a go with these guys?

So, Harry, you know what's interesting? No one talks about Brexit anymore. But you know who was for Brexit? President Trump. You know who supported them when Europe abandoned them and they tried to isolate Britain?

President Trump, you know who did the first deal, and you guys deserve credit for this too? The first trade deal was done with the UK.

So that was a reinforcement of a relationship. And I know Bush and Trump aren't as popular as Clinton and Obama in Britain. But I thought, well, in reality, you needed a deal with us. You need a free trade with America. And you basically got a pretty good deal.

I think both sides benefited.

So that doesn't seem to matter right now because personalities have taken it over. If it was me, I'd send a minesweeper out there. You obviously don't have the battleships, but you have the minesweepers. That would certainly help. No, I think totally.

I mean, look, I mean, the state of the British Navy right now is the Royal Navy, I should say. I've got to be sent to the tower for saying, calling the British Navy, the Royal Navy. It's the King's Navy. Sadly, after successive governments have shirked on defence spending, it is in a sorry state. I was talking to someone the other night, Brian, about the Falkland Islands.

Obviously, in 1982, we sent a ginormous flotilla to take back those islands after the Argentinians invaded. That flotilla we sent there had three aircraft carriers in it, multiple destroyers, multiple support ships. The idea that we could send anything of that scale ever again. Luckily, the Argentinian Navy is in a pretty shonky state as it is.

So they won't be seizing the Falklands Island anytime soon. But if they did, the Royal Navy couldn't even do, couldn't even repeat those actions. It's a very sorry state of affairs. But one thing we do have is minesweepers. You're right.

We should never have let them leave. the Gulf. They were there until a couple of years ago. Why they left, I mean, it beggars belief. By the way, the market is up really high.

I believe it's on an inflation report. It's up 363 points, even though a war plan has been submitted to the President to go back, as well as meetings are on schedule today. Harry, my last point I want to bring up is our ridiculous mayor here in New York City. Less than thrilled that your king is here. He's such an embarrassment.

Cut 55. Today I'll be attending a wreathling. Alongside a number of other elected officials, including Governor Hochl, Governor Sherrill, and the focus. of that reflaying is to honor The more than 3,000 New Yorkers who were killed in the horrific terror attacks of September 11th. And that's what I'm really looking to do at that event.

So you haven't thought about anything you might say if you say hello to him and he stops to chat? No, if if I was to speak to the king separately from that, I would probably encourage him to return the Kohinur diamond. What is he talking about? This is a contentious diamond that was held in London. It's a part of the Crown Jewels.

There's a movement in India to have it returned. But I should stress: the Indian Supreme Court a few years ago ruled that this was a gift. It wasn't stolen. It was given as a gift.

So you can't. I mean, there's about 14 different people who claim ownership of this thing.

So if we're going to give it back, who are we giving it back to? But it's a classic little lefty talking point by Mandami. I noticed yesterday, though, that wasn't even the most controversial thing that Mandami had to say, was it? He admitted that just four months in, less than four months, I think, into his tenure in New York, where he promised a load of free stuff. Guess what?

He's bankrupt. He says there's an emergency, he needs an emergency bailout in New York. I mean, it's not like you guys weren't warned, I'm sorry, but like, how many times are you going to have to hear this story of a you know, promising is too good to be true from lefty politicians who say they can they can they can balance budgets while giving away a load of free stuff and lo and behold a matter of weeks in there they are with their begging bowls who Who would have thought? 34 years old, had one job his entire life, was raised by two angry anti-American professor parents. Who would have thought that he'd be off to a struggling start?

Harry, for the most part, just so you know, for the record, I didn't vote for him. I can't. I live on Long Island, even though I work in New York City and pay city taxes. I wasn't accusing you, bro. Thank you.

I just have to clear my name. It was all those young liberal new arrivals, doughy-eyed new arrivals with a college education that have ruined New York. Right. And we're taking the most successful people in New York and tell them to go elsewhere. Vilified billionaires.

Harry Cole, also a billionaire. He will not submit his tax returns, but I believe he is very wealthy. He is the editor-at-large of The Sun. Harry, thanks for your insight. Let's hope we get our countries back together.

Absolutely. Special relationship good and strong. Back in a moment. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmead Show.

A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead. You touched on the camaraderie, and we had a goal from the very beginning, three years ago. We said we want to launch as friends and land as best friends, and I think we pulled that off. The world showed that they're hungry for this, and it's going to get quiet for a little while.

And we're going to go do a lot of technical problem solving on Artemis 3, and then we're going to land on Artemis IV, and you will see the swell. It will come back. I don't think we need to work every day to keep it going. We just know that that energy is there and it will come back when it's done. We know these things as humans that we live on this globe, we understand the science, but when you go see it with your own eyes, it just puts proof behind it.

I don't have a thousand words to tell you what we experienced, but we saw all the seas.

So I had the privilege this morning. He was going to, they were going to the UN, but could stop by Fox and Friends first.

So I interviewed him at 5:30 in the morning. I'm talking about the Artemis astronauts and what great people. I know you watched it on TV, and I thought, wow, how bright. I mean, how the team that they have. It reminds me of the best locker room you could ever walk into.

But to see them in person and see how they like on and off camera, I could not be more impressed. They joined me this morning and they talked about keeping the momentum going. And here's it: this is going to be key. SpaceX, and weigh in if you want, Eric, but SpaceX. and Blue Origin are in a race to get the lander.

So, the way the ship, they like the way it's progressing. They're going to do some. What do they call they call it some rendezvousing, some coupling to see if they could hook up with the launcher in real time in s in the sky? The goal is to stay on the ship, two will go into the lander and they'll land on the moon. That'll be the next mission, but that's not as electric as going to the far side of the moon, right, Eric?

Yeah, Farside would be very impressive. But I think this one, I believe they're going to one of the polls, right? Is that what they said? Yeah. But I mean, they're going to go buy it.

But isn't it this about the maneuvering? And don't we not have the lander yet? Doesn't that concern you? Shouldn't that be NASA be concerned that Blue Origin and SpaceX neither one of them has it? Not yet, I don't think.

There's still plenty of time to to develop it, and they have been working on it for For a couple years now, I think that SpaceX and Blue Origin are about the same. Um about the same along in their progress on it.

So if they do this, they got to keep momentum, they got to get money and they got to be focused, and they already have the unit picked out. And then I think before 28, they want to land. That means pushing up the schedule. I know you follow this stuff. Do you think that's possible?

Push up the schedule? Push up the schedule to land while Trump's still in office. I hope so. I mean, that would be a tall task, I think. Um you know 'cause you want to make sure that everything is checked out correctly, everything works correctly.

'Cause it would be a disaster. Yeah, but if we can do it, that would be fantastic. I know. I was kinda uh hoping that uh evidently spa Blue Origin is back in as a as a contractor and has a shot because SpaceX hasn't produced. Which blows me away because isn't SpaceX the one that wants to go to Mars?

They're the ones who thought the moon was just going to be, hey, let somebody else handle that. And you'd think that they'd know that the first step to Mars is the moon. Yeah, and I'm pretty sure Elon knows that.

So hopefully they'll get it done. I just hope everyone stays interested in space. You know, we grew up there on, I was, I watched the moon landing, then I watched the space shuttle, then we had a pause, then we're back in action. From high atop, five. Fox News headquarters in New York City.

Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi everyone, so glad you're there. The Brian Kilmead show coming away from 48th and 6 in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world. Yesterday, the king and queen were here, and our mayor was not happy.

I know. He just, that's what happens when you hire a guy from Uganda who's never run a business in his life. He doesn't like rich people, who promises free buses and we have government subsidized supermarkets and then declares yesterday that we're out of money and needs an emergency infusion of funds. That's what you get while fighting back against fraud and ICE. Make sure illegal immigrants stay here so we could pay for everything that they don't deserve.

Josh Crash Hour at the bottom of the air. We'll talk about that. Mark Thiessen is standing by. Gotta remind you, too, we got a YouTube channel. Go to youtube.com/slash at the Brian Kill Me Show.

You got great clips. Most of our guests are on stream now. And then you got clips from around the day. We'll be able to do here. Everybody's talking about it, almost like the Trump watches.

Let's get to the big three. Number three. Everybody is clawing for every single seat. Feeling between the two parties is as bitter as I've ever seen it. And the result is what you're seeing now is this headlong race to redistrict any place you can redistrict in order to advance yourself.

We're talking about a massive impactful decision from the Supreme Court, which prevents any state from using race to gerrymander their district. This could be a chain reaction event that could send a number of districts to the right. Will it impact this midterm, though? We'll discuss. Number 10.

These images obtained by the Washington Post show the suspect hunched as he allegedly fired one blast from his shotgun. The uniformed Secret Service agent at the bottom left of your screen quickly pulls his weapon and begins to fire. The Secret Service says that agent fired five times. The suspect then stumbled and fell unharmed right at guest and Navy veteran Aaron Fieldman's feet. Yeah, why he fell.

Glad he fell, but we don't know why he fell. Unwinding and evaluating action of Secret Service during the White House Correspondence Dinners events. We'll discuss it because yesterday the director was on Capitol Hill. Number one. They've come a long way.

The question is whether or not they're going to go far enough.

So at this moment, There will never be a deal. Unless they agree that there will be no nuclear weapons. Back to war. Plans outlined and made public as Scott Bessing continues to strip their secret, hiding, hidden wealth. And the market is not happy, but this morning it's happy because some inflation numbers came in, and it is indeed up.

But is war the next best thing? I mean, is the ability for the Iranians to absorb economic pain just par for the course from a country's leadership who does not care about the suffering of its people? In fact, a lot of times it's the cause of the suffering all the time. Mark Thiessen joins us now. You know, he's a famous Washington Post columnist.

Former speechwriter, Fox News contributor. Mark, are we going back to war? Do you think it's just a matter of time?

Well, the the ceasefire wasn't the end of the war, it was a pause. to give the Iranians a chance to negotiate a deal. And so if they haven't negotiated a deal and they haven't capitulated when it comes to their nuclear program and their ballistic missiles and their support for terror, then we should go back to war and we should finish the job. Admiral Cooper was about fourteen days away. from finishing all the military tasks that President Trump assigned him.

We've got about eighty percent of what we hit intended to hit. We need to hit one hundred percent of it, and then the and then the war can be over without an agreement.

So I think we need to do it. What is your take on this the evaluation of the bombings that took place already?

Now we had a chance to examine those satellite images. We have seen the bulldozers arrive at a lot of the things that were buried underground. How successful was this? Do you think there's been an evaluation already at the Pentagon?

Well, I think if you talk to most military experts, they will tell you: we've taken out 70 to 80 percent of their military capacity, right? But 20 to 30 percent is a lot. And we know after Operation Midnight Hammer that he immediately started rebuilding, and they will do the same thing unless we damage them more. The good news is President Trump, the ceasefire wasn't a mistake. Even if we don't get an agreement, because it allowed us to do two things.

One, it allowed us to steam ships through the Strait of Hormuz to enforce the blockade.

So now we will have military action plus blockade.

So Operation Economic Economic Freedom and Epic Fury and Economic Fury. And this other thing it did, it allowed us to rearm and reload.

So Jack Keen tells us that we have double the firepower. right now in the Persian Gulf that we had at the start of the war. And also they, the third thing is they've brought some stuff out from under that they had buried away to protect it from the first barrage of attacks.

Well, now that's exposed.

So, you know, and I think we just have to realize that the regime has not moderated. Valdez is in charge. He's the IRGC is completely in charge. And until we eliminate those leaders and until we eliminate their capacity to fire at us, we can't call this a success yet. I hear you.

So the question. is a few questions. Number one, are they all on the same page? You know, famously, pretty no one's really denied it. J.D.

Vance was not for this action. And that's fine. You don't need a bunch of yes men around you. If I'm president of the United States, I do not need someone to say whatever you want, whatever you do. Ultimately, when I make a decision, get on board.

But J.D. Vance was asked that. And then the Atlantic story that said that he's concerned that we're running out of munitions, cut three. Most of these reports I ignore. This one I actually read because it, you know, it ascribed views to me and things that I had allegedly said that I am just 100% certain that I have never said.

And in particular, there's a lot in that story, Will, and you know how this game works, that is attributed to people who describe themselves as Vance advisors. You know, an advance advisor could be a staff member that I see every single day. It could also be a random person off the street that I've talked to once at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. What I feel confident about, Will, is that nobody who actually knows what I think, nobody who's close to me, was speaking to that reporter because if they did, then it would have been a totally different story. Because his head is staffer, unnamed staffer, says that he's concerned about us running out of munitions and for the direction of the war.

So, first of all, we've still got plenty of munitions. We've used a lot, and we're going to have to restock them. But we have plenty of munitions. And two more weeks of bombing is not going to decisively impact our munition stockpiles in a way at a cost that outweighs the benefit of decisively ending this conflict. Look, this war can only end.

In a positive way for President Trump, in one of two ways: the Iranians capitulate at the negotiating table, or we finish the military task. Those are the only choices. Anything short of that is a stalemate. It's an imperfect victory. And so we need to do one of those two things.

And quite frankly, we're going to have an easier time forcing them to capitulate after two more weeks of bombing. Because that'll give Trump a lot more leverage, because we can then say, okay, we destroy the Carg Island. Or you give us what we want.

So the question is, with unable to get any oil out, theoretically, we stopped them at the blockade, turned around 44 ships. Mohammed Baghdar Gabbalaf, he is the Speaker of the House. He mocked the U.S. pressure campaign, says oil infrastructure has not collapsed despite predictions, criticized the U.S. strategy as junk advice, blames the U.S.

actions for rising global oil prices.

So the President says he talks to these guys almost every day. I don't know if this guy's one of them. But How to is that a two-faced attitude? Do you think they really believe that? First of all, he is an evil dude and second of all he's not in charge.

There are more evil people that are in charge. He was the guy that was put forward to negotiate with us as sort of the quote-unquote moderate. A moderate in the Iranian regime is like a moderate Nazi, right? They're all Nazis. And so none of them want to capitulate.

He's putting on a brave face, but the reality is we can keep this blockade forever. You know, there's no timeline on this. And Trump is right that at some point they're going to run out of oil storage. And an oil well is not like your bathtub. If you shut it off, the water just stops and then you turn it on and the water comes back on.

If you shut off an oil well, then it does damage to the oil capacity.

So they're facing permanent damage to all these things. But the problem is, Brian, they don't care about that. All they care about is survival. They don't care. This is a regime that massacred 42,000 people in two days to remain in power.

Do you think they care about oil wells? All they care about is surviving. And so, unless you can threaten their survival and the blockade doesn't threaten their survival, then nothing's going to get them to capitulate.

Well, the one thing I would say is if you can't pay your army, there are about a million soldiers, that's going to be a problem.

So that's when you'd be ripe to have some type of uprising if no one's getting paid at all. They've lost about 2 million jobs since it started.

Now, talk about inappropriate. Here's the German chancellor talking to, I think, high school kids, Cut 11. At the moment, I cannot see what strategic exit the Americans are now opting for, especially as the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully, or rather very skillfully not negotiating, and letting the Americans travel to Islamadad, only to leave again without any results. This entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian state leadership, especially by these so-called revolutionary guards. Humiliated, being outmaneuvered, So, if you thought that, pick up the phone and call the president and say, listen, I think you're being manipulated here or you're being humiliated.

And they'll have it out. And then, you know, the story probably ends there. Or maybe he says, I talked to the president and I think he's being humiliated.

Okay. But that does irreparable damage. The president's taking that extremely personal, and he should. I take it personal. I do too.

I mean, I just don't understand why they're opining on a war that they have steadfastly said that that's not their war.

Okay, if it's not your war, then shut up. No one asked you what you think about the negotiating strategy. And I think, look, I think all the European reaction to this struggle has been pathetic. Because all we really asked them to do is hold our coats while we went and destroyed a nuclear program and a missile program that we discovered during this conflict can actually reach every country in Europe except Portugal, those missiles, because they lied about the range of their missiles. We are once again defending them without their help, and that's fine if they want to do that.

But then we need to take the people who have denied us, the fact that we have to fly around Spain. It's not. To get there is absolutely pathetic.

So I think what this will do, it's going to end up being a forcing mechanism to do something that we should have done anyway, which is reassess our global force posture. And I think we need to do a reassessment of why do we have troops in Germany? The reason we have troops in Germany is because that's where World War II ended, and then the Cold War began. We had Eastern West Germany. We had a threat of a Soviet invasion across the Folda gap.

Well, that's not the line of contact anymore. The line of contact is the border of Poland.

So, why do we have troops in Germany other than sunk costs?

Well, let's move them. Let's move them to Poland. Let's move them to the Baltic states. Let's move them to Finland. Let's move them where the actual line of contact is.

And let's reward the countries like Romania, like Croatia, like Greece, like Poland, like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, that have actually stood with us. When we needed them, and that is they are under threat by Russia, they are, yeah, and they're they happen to be the one the most loyal allies, and two, the ones that are under threat by Russia. And you know, we don't need to have bases in Germany anymore. Why do we need troops in Germany? Um, other than the sunk costs of the infrastructure, right?

So, we have medical facilities and things like that, but we can move those, and I bet you Poland would be happy to pay for it to build new hospitals. And they said it, all these countries would say thank you. Come, come. In fact, Poland said we will name the base after Trump, which was that's the key.

So I want you to hear Ro Conna yesterday. His heart goes out to those who support Donald Trump, Cut 17. You know what I'm sad for? I'm sad for all the people who voted for Trump. I'm sad for them because you betrayed them.

You've betrayed a lot of that MAGA base. And you know who knows that? J.D. Vance knows that.

So do you really think his heart goes out to Trump supporters? I don't think his heart goes out to Trump supporters, but I also, Trump hasn't betrayed the mega base because if you look at every poll. They all, the mega base supports 90% of the mega base supports what he's doing in Iran. And if you look at every poll, the MAGA base is not isolationist. The MAGA base, they are hardline when it comes to defending Taiwan.

They are hardlined when it comes to pushing back on Russia. They support what he did in Venezuela. MAGA Republicans are not isolationists. This is like a myth. This myth of a MAGA fracture with Trump is just insane.

It doesn't exist.

Well, he lost a lot of high-profile podcast support. Yeah, I know. That is a shame. But he's got you, Brian. Right.

He doesn't need those guys. Because this is a podcast and a radio show. I know it is. Mark, let's talk politics for a second. Put in perspective what the Supreme Court did yesterday with the redistricting, deciding that it it is unconstitutional to set up a district on the basis of race.

Yeah. So, all of this, these race-based districts were responds to Jim Crow America that doesn't exist anymore, right? And the court has, whether it was constitutional to begin with, there's no need for it anymore. And this is actually going to benefit. Our political system in a number of ways, one of which is it's going to create more competitive congressional seats.

Because right now, it's not just the Democrats who benefit from having these racially gerrymandered districts, Republicans do too, because all those voters are segregated, and I use that word intentionally, segregated in black districts. And wouldn't it be better for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and the country if they were spread out among other districts so that both parties had to compete for their votes? That's how they should be voters in some of these other districts. That's how Chuck Schumer said: listen, cut 32. And today we're ramping up our efforts.

We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision, which was a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow. Taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying. For the right to vote. to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote. Fine.

So is he is that hyperbole? You know what's Jim Crow? Electoral segregation. Right? We just got to we got to segregate the the black voters in their own districts.

They can't vote with white people. That's what the Democrats support. They're the party that supported Jim Crow in the 50s and 60s, and they're supporting electoral Jim Crow today. I think that the best thing for this country is for us to have multiracial districts where we all live in harmony together and we all vote in harmony together, and everybody has to compete for everybody's vote. Because when black voters are segregated in black districts, Republicans don't have to compete for their votes.

They just write them off. We're never going to get their votes.

So why do we need to do anything for them other than out of the goodness of our hearts?

Well, now it'll increase the power of black voters because all of a sudden you'll need black votes in order to win districts that you thought were safe before.

So it's great for America. It's an end to electoral segregation. Go get them, Mark Teeson. Thanks so much. Appreciate your time and thanks for your testimony.

Take care. Back in a moment. Don't go anywhere, Brian Kilmead will be right back. The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Killmead.

It's not your building. It's not yours. That's the first thing. This is This belongs to the people of the United States of America. It is not your building.

So, building this ballroom basically means you're never leaving. Exactly, that's my question. Is he planning to live there? I guess so. What is, I mean, the view.

I guess we're playing the views so they accomplish their goal. I keep forgetting they exist. But Whoopi Goldberg thinks because they're building the ballroom. And that it's going to be done just in the last year that he's going to be there, that means it's proof he's not going to leave. As if he doesn't care about his legacy, as if he doesn't try to build something onto the White House.

You know why? Because in their mind, they can't believe that he would go get private funds in order to build a ballroom that he can't benefit from, but the country can, and so can the next president. He, she, Democrat or Republican. Because in their minds, he couldn't possibly do something magnanimous. He couldn't possibly do something patriotic.

But that's exactly what he's doing. All those fixes, that's what it's about. Yeah, in the short term, it helps him, but he's not going to benefit from that. He's not going to benefit from landing on the moon. Most likely not going to happen in his term, but he's still trying to get it done.

Back and move. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. Everybody is clawing for every single seat and every single advantage. The feeling between the two parties is as bitter as I've ever seen it.

And the result is what you're seeing now is this headlong race to redistrict any place you can redistrict in order to advance yourself, advance your party. It used to be done every 10 years on the occasion of the census, but state after state is jumping the gun on that now and doing it in between, and that's where we are. Right. And for Brent Hume to say I've never seen such anger between two sides, this is uh that's significant. Josh Crash Hour joins us now, Fox News Radio political analyst and editor-in-chief of The Jewish Insider.

So Josh looking now at what we're looking at now with the gerrymandering. Last week we were talking about Virginia, the success they had the ballot box, immediately challenged and frozen by the court. And now we're waiting for Virginia's Supreme Court to weigh in. And now, all of a sudden, Florida is ready to go. And then, how do you characterize what happened in Louisiana yesterday with them with the Supreme Court saying you cannot district on the basis of race?

Come on. Yeah, so there are two separate issues. One is the Supreme Court ruling and and the issue of racially based Gerrymandering, and the second is just the sheer rush to redraw the lines no matter when. I mean, these redistricting typically takes place every 10 years after the census is conducted. And Virginia, Democratic and Republican states alike, Texas, California, Virginia, now Florida, and now some of the southern states have seen this opportunity to try to take advantage of this window now as soon as possible.

Look, I think it's very unhealthy for democracy. I make the comparison to sports. One of the reasons people watch sports is that there's a concrete set of rules. You know the rules, you play by the rules, and you shake hands after the game. You know who wins, who loses, because everyone agrees on the rules.

Right now, when you look at the rush to redistrict and gerrymander, we're fighting over the rules themselves. We're fighting over how, you know, you're not supposed to redistrict until the census is conducted in 2030 and people are breaking those rules and not following the rules and it's anarchy.

So that's not good for democracy, whether it's the Democratic state doing it, whether it's the Republican state doing it. I think there's plenty of room. For politically ad advantageous maps, but you got to do it on the right timetable. You can't just look at, you know, hey, it's going to be a bad year for us. We're going to try to jam every every seat we can before the clock runs.

Not a healthy Democratic process. It's very toxic. What about the Republicans say it started in New York when you tried to get rid of Nicole Maliatakis and a few other districts, and the court overruled it, and that's why the president moved on Texas? Do you buy that? I think Texas started an arms race.

I mean, look, clearly both sides. gerrymander. Democrats claim they do it for high-minded reasons. That's always been ridiculous. They they always try to maximize the number of seats they can for political reasons.

So that's nothing new. And there's certainly been some egregious Democratic gerrymanders and taking advantage of the process. I do think that when the president o off the normal timetable pushed Texas to redraw their lines, that's what led to this round of this arms race that's going on right now. You also have the issue of the and I think the Supreme Court actually had a very well-reasoned argument in the which has been percolating in our political system for some time. But you actually have gerrymanders in these It's better.

Draw districts just based on the issue of race, and it's a relic of the 60s to ensure black voting representation in those states that had a long legacy of segregation and discrimination. We're now 60, 70 years, 60 years past that moment, and these are actually gerrymanders. These are districts that are drawn to elect a Democrat, even in some pretty Republican areas.

So I think the decision was a sound one by the Supreme Court. I think the problem, though, is that now you're seeing with very little time left, a lot of southern states now trying to redraw their maps. Before this year's election, which is going to lead to chaos and I don't think a very healthy Democratic process either. Here's what Ted Cruz said about the ruling. You know, he gets the Constitution.

I think everyone understands that. Cut 33.

Well, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. And in that opinion, the Court vindicated the Constitution of the United States, and in particular, the 14th Amendment. That ensures that all persons in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws, and also the 15th Amendment, which protects the right to vote regardless of race. And what the court concluded is that it is not permissible for elected politicians to gerrymander based on race, to draw a black seat or a white seat or an Hispanic seat, that when government draws distinctions based on race, that is contrary to the Constitution.

So that's what they're saying, not blacks should be x uh x'd out, they shouldn't be categorized by a race. Is isn't that what the Constitution's about? Yeah, that's certainly the argument from John Roberts on down on the conservative side of the Supreme Court. And they've been making those arguments for some time, and it unites every conservative on that court, from Roberts down to Clarence Thomas. And I also think when you look at election results and you look at the composition of the Congress, you have a lot of very prominent black Republicans, like Byron Donalds, who's running for governor of Florida, or Bergen Miller, representing a majority white district in Utah.

You have. You have Republicans that are actually black Republicans that have experienced quite a bit Wesley Hunt, who ran for the Senate in Texas and represents a Dallas area district. Or Texas district. You have plenty of examples now of minorities winning majority-white seats. The legacy of racism, thankfully, is much less than it was in 1964.

So that's the, I mean, I think there was a lot of jurisprudence for some time that there needed to be some protections for some time. And the goal was to see racism decline and people being willing to vote for candidates that weren't white in southern districts. We've seen that in large numbers, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side.

So, by the way, here's Chuck Schumer on the other side. Let's get both sides of it. Cut 32. And today we're ramping up our efforts. We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision, which was a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow.

Taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying. for the right to vote. to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote. So he thinks by having not black and not black, white, black, and white districts, that that's Jim Crow 2.0, which, by the way, Democrats gave us.

Well, Brian, you remember the Georgia rhetoric that was just so overheated and so over the top, Schumer and Biden and a lot of other Democrats made it seem like that the basic reforms, the Georgia voting laws, requiring IDs and we're called Jim Crow 2.0 and that dog didn't hunt. And people eventually realized that that rhetoric was wrong and just extreme. And we're at a similar moment now. I mean, look, why are Democrats upset? Because if you redraw the maps and you don't have to draw essentially a solidly Democratic majority African-American district, it gives Republicans more opportunities to win seats.

So, I mean, your mileage may vary. It depends on how they draw the lines and how the process goes through. But I would say four to six seats on average. I think Republicans would gain in a normal process where you ungerrymander or undraw some of the districts that were designed specifically for black candidates in these southern states. States, but that's why Democrat.

I mean, this is all about power on both sides. This is not about they like to make it about high-minded principles. And the reality is that we've seen through time that this is about holding power, holding seats, and this is a development that's going to lead to Republicans likely gaining a few, you know, four to six seats, I would say, on average based on the market. In what states do you think?

Well, Louisiana is where the case was about Louisiana, where Democrats won a lower court case to require a second majority black Democratic district. And now it's possible you could have, I think it's most likely you'll have one, one back to one majority black district in New Orleans, but you theoretically could pick up two seats there. I think South Carolina, Jim Clyburn's seat is one that's going to be looked at closely. Alabama is not going to have a special session, but that's a state where Terry Sewell, her seat, could end up getting kind of rejiggered around.

So, you know, I think those are the states to watch. Mississippi, also Benny Thompson in the second district there.

So you have, you know, I would say about. Four to six seats that could easily be redrawn and slipped to the Republicans if every state did it this year. All right, so let's talk about the war in Iran with the time we have left. Here is. Here's the President of the United States.

Cut to. The United Arab Emirates, the UAE, they pulled out of Open. What do you think about it? I think it's great. I mean, I think it's great.

I know him very well, Mohammed. And uh very smart. And he probably Maybe he wants to go his own way. That's a good thing. I think ultimately it's a good thing for.

Getting The price of gas down, getting oil down, getting everything down, they have it all. He's a great leader, actually.

So, no, I'm okay.

Some problems in OPEC.

So they've played for OPEC. They're starting to reestablish or establish relations with Israel, who's helping them construct an iron dome there should this war go back. And they're thinking west, the UAE, and they're talking tough, and they've been targeted a lot. If this war starts again. What do you think this does for relations?

How does this change the Middle East? Yeah, a game-changing dynamic, and it's not something that happens overnight. But the Abraham Accords was. Embraced and signed early on by the UAE. They've been.

They didn't closely allied with Israel since then. We now learn that Israel provided them military assets, missile defense during the war this month, this past couple months. And we now know that the UAE is helping the U.S. economically by pulling out of OPEC and upping their production of oil, which they have plenty of.

So, I mean, we it's I always say with foreign policy and the developments that are very volatile in the Middle East right now, the knee-jerk reactions are often the wrong ones. There are a lot of bigger tectonic shifts that are happening before our very eyes that Trump has fueled by Degrading Iran's military capabilities, and now we're in this sort of stalemate period where they're closing the Strait of Hormuz, but other countries and other allies are responding accordingly.

So we're going to deal with a lot of the aftershocks for quite a while, I think. But not everything has been negative. And this development that the UAE is now pulling out of OPEC, producing more oil, should reduce energy costs in the long term, could actually have a very profound shift in the geostrategic posture and a favorable geostrategic posture for the United States in the long run. These are the things that you don't kind of see overnight, and then you're not getting hot takes on in the immediate aftermath of the news. But these are very important developments and very favorable of the United States.

So it looks like the supreme leader, not the Ayatollah, he's not religious, has emerged. I guess he lost a limb and is a little defigured, but he is coming out resurfacing with an ominous threat to the U.S. The only place for the military is, and he goes on with his rhetoric and his screed. I don't want to give him. The time of day, but it shows that they're not ready to knuckle under yet.

And I think that the President's got to either take out Carg Island and open up the strait ourselves, but I think the holding pattern is not working for our economy and gas prices. Yeah, I mean, oftentimes, whether it's in politics or in military efforts, like going halfway, you need to win. You need to play to win, not to like, you know, they're clearly not amenable to any reasonable diplomacy.

So there may be an, you know, and we're hearing this a little more from the administration. There may be a need to engage militarily once again. But I don't think Trump wants to. I think he understands that there's a political cost as we get closer to the midterm.

So he's been very wary about that. But he's also been very frustrated with the Iranian lack of willingness to come to the table and make any concessions at all.

So he's definitely keeping the military option on the table, though we've been in this long-standing holding period now for quite some time. All right. Josh, thanks so much. I just wanted to get you the breaking news that Graham Plantier looks like he's going to get the Democratic nomination as the governor of Maine has dropped out.

So it'll be Plantier against Collins. Is that good news or bad news for Democrats?

Well, it's uncomfortable news for Democrats because Chuck Schumer recruited Governor Janet Mills into the race, thought she was going to be the best candidate to beat Susan Collins. They are very worried about the baggage that Plattner brings to the table. You mean the Nazi tattoo? Right, the neo-Nazi tattoo, liking and watching Hamas terrorist videos. We reported that in Jewish Insider, his socialist and pro-communist rhetoric and on message boards.

I mean, this guy, the question is, has something changed as the kind of Democratic Party, is this their Democratic Party on terror? In fact, I wrote a piece today about how I remember covering the 2010 elections, and Christine O'Donnell said, I am not a witch, and that was that derailed her campaign, and it was one of the memorable lines in our politics.

Well, this guy, Graham Plattner, said, I am not a secret Nazi on an internet. That makes Christine O'Donnell see that's a very quaint time back in 2010. Look, the guy is conversant, but he's a Bernie Sanders disciple. Does Maine want socialism? I mean, Senate seats are going to deliver socialism, but do they want that spirit representing them in Washington?

Because you have a moderate with Susan Collins. They looked at the governor somewhat of a moderate. This is going to be a a contrast. Yeah, right. Historically, Maine has been a very moderate state.

Susan Collins on the Republican side, Jared Golden on the Democratic side in the House, they elect moderates. They have an independent Angus King. That said, I think the thinking among some Democrats is that a rural, authentic, rough-around-the-edges type of candidate offers the stronger contrast against Susan Collins. And polling does show him early on with a lead. That said, Susan Collins has trailed in almost every poll she's been in, competing back to her 2020 campaign, and she won pretty comfortably.

So the polls have never been accurate in Maine. This is going to be a real test of extreme versus mainstream. All right, Josh, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Brian.

Josh Crosser. Back in a moment. Big guests, bold opinions, better information. This is the Brian Killmead Show. Radio that makes you think.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Today I'll be attending a reflame. Alongside a number of other elected officials, including Governor Hochul, Governor Sherrill. And the focus of that reflaying is to honor The more than 3,000 New Yorkers who were killed in the horrific terror attacks of September 11th. And that's what I'm really looking to do at that event.

So you haven't thought about anything you might say if you say hello to him and he stops to chat? No, if I was to speak to the king separately from that, I would probably encourage him to return the Kohenur diamond.

So I never even heard that before, but that idiot mayor, he's not even happy to meet the king, doesn't understand. It'll be a fun part of the job. Make history, go to 9-11, salute those who lost their lives, right? But he brings up this diamond. I don't know anything about it, but Harry Cole did.

He writes for the Sun. He's the editor of The Sun, and he said this. What is he talking about? This is a contentious diamond that was uh that is it's held in London, it's a sort of part of the Crown jewels. Um there's a movement in India to have it returned, but I should stress the Indian Supreme Court a few years ago ruled that this was a gift.

It wasn't it wasn't stolen, it was given as a gift, so you can't gi I mean there's about fourteen different people who claim ownership of this thing, so if we're going to give it back, who are we giving it back to? But it's a classic little lefty talking point by uh Mandami.

So So, I had no idea.

So, what's he doing? I mean, this mayor, an embarrassment. And by the way, people think we voted for him. Only New York City voted for him.

So, anyone in New York and Westchester surrounding, if you listen to us around the country, don't blame us. Just because I work in New York City, I never would have voted for this guy. And I know it was Democrat on Democrat race. The other, the Republican was a joke. They're really, if you look at the debates, to hurt Cuomo.

Who I'm sure would have been fighting with Trump, but it would have been reasonable fighting. I don't agree here, I disagree here. They were bad during the pandemic. It was good and it was bad most of the time. I'm not a Governor Cuomo fan, never will be, but I would have taken him every day of the week as opposed to an inexperienced 34-year-old avowed socialist who leans and embraces communism, who is mentored by Bernie Sanders, who doesn't think billionaires should be allowed in society, who vilifies the most successful and has found nothing to grow the economy, doesn't know anything about doing it, doesn't show an interest in running it.

And guess what? In Seattle, I just saw this. The other Socialists had just got elected with no experience. When asked about billionaires who are getting upset about a wealth tax, They say they can go.

So Top 10%. pay 75% of all the taxes in this country. You're trying to balance a budget. and the people that are providing you the revenue, you're telling them to go. You are clueless.

You're in the wrong country. You're not for free enterprise. There is plenty of places in Europe, plenty of places in Russia, for a little while in Cuba. Not for much longer, though. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show.

Brian Kilmead. I'm one of Brian Kilmead here, like the guy with the deep voice says. Thanks so much for listening. Don't forget, you can grab our YouTube channel if you ever missed the show live or you just want to review it and get additional clips, youtube.com/slash at the Brian Kilmead show. But if you're streaming, you got our app, just click on listen and click on the headsets, and you'll be able to hear wherever you go, too.

So, this hour we're going to be joined by Rafael Mangul. He is a The Nick Onfo Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor at the City Journal, and a member of the City Council on Criminal Justice. We'll be talking about the shooter from the White House correspondence dinner and so much more. Also, we're going to be talking about in Iran, it looks like more and more like the. New supreme leader has emerged and sounds just as extreme as all the others.

And if that is indeed the public and private stance, I think we're going back to finish the job there. And if we're not going to do it without Israel, and a lot of the elimination of the key figures is because of Israel's intelligence and actual implementation, that is not news to my next guest, Dr. Ophir Falk. He is the foreign policy advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Etanyahu. Doctor, welcome back.

Thanks for having me, Brian. First off, what's the feeling in Israel? Unfinished business, or are we looking to land this plane diplomatically? Yeah. Well, the feeling in Israel is as the Prime Minister has said and as the President has said, we have to finish the job and we're going to finish the job, either it's got going to be done diplomatically or by other means.

So here's the President yesterday, Kawan. We have talks, we're having talks with him now, and we're not flying anymore with 18-hour flights every time we want to see a piece of paper. We're doing it telephonically. And it's very nice. Make a call or I have my people make a call and you know the answer.

I always like face-to-face. I consider it better. But they've come a long way. The question is whether or not they're going to go far enough.

So at this moment, There will never be a deal. unless they agree that there will be no nuclear weapons.

So no nuclear weapons, also ballistic missiles and funding the proxies are a part of it. President doesn't want to complicate it. But until they come across on that, there's no reason to talk about anything else, right? Right, I agree. I obviously agree absolutely with the President.

There can't be a deal unless Iran gives up the nuclear. And if they give up the nuclear material and the ballistic missiles and stop funding these proxies that they have, these terrorists that they have, then the war can end. I hope it can end diplomatically, but if not, again, as the President said, all options are open. Dr. Vock, how many.

Leaders have you guys eliminated?

Well, we've taken my most of uh the regime's first tier. And we've taken a large part of the second tier of the regime's leaders and terrorists. We've taken out twenty of their top atom-bomb nuclear scientists. And um And right now what's happening is that their uh D League is negotiating uh negotiating the deal, and that's what we're up against right now. But at the end of the day, the Iranian people don't want to change one Ayatollah with another Ayatollah.

What do you think? A are they more extreme, the ones left, or are they just more incompetent?

Well, what it's hard to say, but what's clear is that they are exeem, as he heard today from Ayatollah Jr., he's still calling death to America death to Israel. He's calling America the big Satan and Israel the small Satan. They've been doing that for forty seven years. They've also been lying for 47 years with the negotiations, and they've been playing for time. But right now, what we have is a very strong president and a very strong prime minister, and I would never bet against them.

$6 billion has been blocked from reaching Iran. They diverted 42 ships with the blockade. What, in your estimation, is the blockade doing? And do you think we should incorporate a way to open up the strait while blockading?

Okay. Well, I think clearly the blockade has been effective in hitting Iran's already very weak economy. Iran is weaker than ever, and Israel and the United States, of course, are stronger than ever. The sanctions that are being applied and the other things that America has been doing in terms of economic pressure has been very effective, and that's not mutually exclusive to other things that can be done. If the economic pressure is enough, then great.

And if not, then maybe other things will be needed. I want you to hear the Treasury Secretary cut six. The port at Karg Island is at a virtual standstill in terms of loadings. We think that the Iranian storage will be full soon. They'll have to start Oh.

capping in their wells, which will lead to permanent problems. And again, the regime won't be able to pay their soldiers. And equally important, Larry, is they won't be able to fund their proxies, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, around the world. But are they right now able to do that? And what do you think the state of their oil production is?

Right, so the Secretary is absolutely right. We've been hitting them. The US and Israel have been hitting them economically very strong. The Iranian people have been paying a big price for 47 years from this regime, but they still have enough to pay the paychecks for the IRGC. The question is how long will they be able to hold off?

They're playing for time. They think that they can play for time, but I think they're wrong. I think they're gambling against. A very, very, very strong president and a very strong prime minister. Dr.

O'Fior Falk, our guest, foreign policy advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu. If we took out Carg Island, what's the downside? I don't really want to get into specific targets and operational things that we could do. But again, all those things are on the table and we've already hit them very, very hard. Hopefully they will be able to say, okay, let's cut our losses and make a deal, give up the material, give up the ballistic missiles that have been terrorizing the world.

And hey, look, they've been the bullies of the area for 47 years. They've been bullying the area, their neighbors, their Gulf neighbors. They've been calling death to America, death to Israel. And now after 47 years, all that has changed. There are Gulf states that are standing up to the plate and are saying, we're not going to be bullied anymore.

Obviously, America and Israel can't be bullied. And we're putting them in their box. The question is, will they make a deal? There won't be a bad deal. There'll either be a good deal or no deal.

That's the way I see it. And if there's a good deal, great. If they give up the material, the ballistic missiles, stop funding terrorism, killing civilians, slaughtering citizens on their own streets, if that can happen by means of negotiations, if anybody can do it, the president can do it. Yeah, and if that's not if that's not feasible, then uh we'll do it we'll do it another way.

So why do you think there hasn't been more unrest in the streets like we saw in January in Iran? What we have done, we have created the conditions. That was one of the goals of the operation, was to create the conditions for the Iranian people to do the right thing. You never know how long that could take or when it would happen. After the previous operation, it took a few months until the Iranians stepped to the plate.

But hey, I can't hack any blame the people that are getting slaughtered in the streets for not going out to the streets. Uh so we've hit The Iranian regime very, very hard, and they're bleeding economically now as well. And I think it's a matter of time before this regime will fall.

Sooner or later, They will fall because they've terrorized the region and their people for 47 years, and people are saying enough is enough. UAE has reached out to you guys for their iron dome. It's been widely reported, and you've gone over and helped. It seems like the relationship between you two countries is only growing stronger at a time in which Iran has actually targeted them more than you. Can you give us an idea of these relations between governments?

I think the the leader of the UAE is an exceptional leader. Uh very brave leader. And uh he's seen for forty-seven years and the region has seen for forty-seven years what Iran has done. What it's done to the region. They've been the bullies of the region.

They've terrorized everyone. They've built a they tried to build a ring of fire around Israel. We've turned out that fire. We've extinguished that fire. And also, there are brave Gulf states that are saying no longer enough is enough.

And they're fighting back. And we applaud them on that. Do you think they're more ready now if this war should reignite? Pardon me? I think they're ready more now with interceptors and missile defense.

Should the war reignite? UAE? Again, I don't want to speculate on what our defensive and offensive means are. We have plenty, and we can do whatever is needed. And the UAE and their leader have shown great courage, and I think they're up to it.

Right. I know you've got to run. Dr. Ophir Falk, thanks so much. He's Foreign Policy Advisor of Benjamin Etanyahu.

Appreciate your time telling us here in the U.S., still up firmly in our corner. As we move on, Senator John Kennedy weighed in on last night on why we're fighting. And why Democrats are pretending that Iran has not always been our enemy. Cut 13. Why did we go in?

We destroyed most of Iran's nuclear weapons program last June when we bombed them. But our spies picked up Then Iran, after that, decided to change Their plan, their new plan was to produce so many missiles, ballistic, crews, and drones. Stockpile so many missiles that they could turn to America and say, look, we're going to restart our nuclear program. And if you bomb us again, you can, but we're going to destroy the Middle East. With our stockpile of missiles.

And by the way, we can hit Berlin and London and Paris.

Now, we couldn't let that happen, and President Trump didn't let that happen.

So, and now we're in a waiting game, but we're rearming. In fact, They have put into theater the hypersonic deployment. It signals that we're going to use hypersonic missiles to get into them quickly, and the hypersonics could do some real damage. The blockade stays in place. Nobody gets through.

All the economic underpinnings are there, the sanctions are there, and the cryptocurrency has been or a lot of it's been found to the tune of $500 million. And they're losing $400 million a day for a total of $6 billion so far since the blockade came into place. You can talk tough, and you can mock, and you can tweet, and you can post. We know the reality. The real you're Currency is worthless.

is around 50-60%. And the ratio to the dollar. Is it something like 100 to 1?

So good luck with that. Economic pain. I know you're set to absorb it, but at one point the dam's going to break. And I'm going to remember exactly, and so will the President, most importantly, remember exactly who jumped ship. You listen to Brian Killmeat Show.

Mm. From the Oval Office to the front lines, he talks to the people making history. This is the Brian Killmeat Show. Yeah. Breaking news, unique opinions.

Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. This has been a contest from the beginning. About who can be the most anti-Trump. And Katie Porter's remarks in that email came directly from her speech at the California Democratic Convention, where she actually held up a sign with those four-letter words on them. And it doesn't really say much about what she's going to do in terms of policy, what direction she's going to take the state in.

That has created an opening for the two Republican candidates who have focused on policy. And so if Democrats allow the two Republicans to qualify for the general election because the Democrats have been entirely focused on Trump and not on policy, they only have themselves to blame. And that was on the stage last night. That is Joe Pollock of the California Post.

So you're seeing the debate. We know Tuesday is going to be the primary, which is a big deal because the top two, regardless of party, emerged for November's election. And Gavin Newsom has not endorsed anyone. The top second, or first, second, or third has been Shad Bianco, Republican, former sheriff, and Steve Hilton, who is an advisor and fantastic host here at Fox News. Here's more from Joe Pollack on who really stood out in the debate.

Chad Bianco, the Republican who has that trademark mustache, did very well and introduced himself to voters. But it probably won't change the result. Right now we know that the two Republicans, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, are near the top. In California's jungle primary system where all the candidates compete in a common pool and the top two go on to the general election regardless of party, it could mean that two Republicans make the general election.

So that would be pretty amazing. But they all went out and they kept mentioning Donald Trump all night, kept mentioning Donald Trump. And it's. I don't know. Gavin Newsom made a national name for himself by having a snarky social media guy.

That's it. And showing up wherever there was a conference, like the Munich conference. I think he went to the correspondence dinner. I don't know if he actually went to the dinner, but showed up at an event I was at on Friday. Here's more from Joe Powell, CUP 53, when he talks about the chance for all Republicans on an all-Republican general election, CUP 53.

Democrats are getting increasingly desperate because the key here is there is no Democratic frontrunner. And even though the media are trying to find a replacement for the now dropped out Eric Swalwell, they're looking at Javier Becerra, looking at Tom Stair, maybe Katie Porter. None of them has really established themselves as the Democratic frontrunner. And that means there is still a chance that it could be an all-Republican general election, which would mean a profound political change in California, no matter who wins. Pretty amazing, right?

The guy I thought if Steve Hilton can't win, I don't know much about Chabianko. I thought Matt Mahan would be the guy. He seems moderate. He seems conversant. He actually has Silicon Valley in his corner.

But for the most part, he's in single digits. And just ask things about, for example, he weighed in on the gas tax. He weighed in on went after Becheira, who was a terrible HHS secretary. Tom Steyer, a joke environmentalist who made his money going being anti. A lot of the stuff that he invested in was against the environment.

This guy spent $100 million, so he's everywhere. People say he might emerge, but my goodness, that's the definition of buying election, isn't it? Here's a little from Matt Mahan, Cut Fifty One. I'm the only candidate on this stage who has pledged to suspend and then reform the gas tax. It is the most regressive tax in California.

Working people, rural people are spending three times as much maintaining our roads as wealthier EV owners. We need to change that, but I won't stop there. All right. Cutting taxes, being moderate, doing what they're doing in San Francisco. The guy's making some gains there in San Francisco by looking at the homeless and saying they're mentally ill.

Don't be compassionate and give them some drugs to stay in the streets. The other story is the mayoral story. Why am I talking so much about California? Because it's indicative of a national conversation.

So, California, we know about is now buried in debt. We know that Gavin Newsom's a terrible governor. We know he's got something like 45% approval rating just basically on his presence. He knows how to play the game. He's an actor.

But in terms of the economy, the way he treats illegal immigrants, his stand on transgender, his sense about the schools have fallen, the way he supported illegal immigration, allowed the homeless to take billions of dollars, allowed the homeless to thrive. The numbers are through the roof. Had that trained to nowhere over the last eight years, they haven't put one layer of track down.

So when everything burns in the Palisades, they Said this is an opportunity, or this is going to be a death sentence for somebody's political career. But over a year later, only a handful of houses have been rebuilt, permits have been issued. One of the people that's suffering through it is former reality star Spencer Pratt, who decided to run for office and put to work in nosy issues. Listen to a little of his ad, Cut45. This is where Mayor Vass lives.

You notice something? This is where I live. They let my home burn down. I know what the consequences of failed leadership are. Yes, here's more, Cup 46.

Well, to be clear, I never wanted to be mayor. I don't want to be in politics. I want to be back in my house with my family, going down to the local public schools and having just a normal life. But once you uncover everything I have in the last year, these people in charge should have resigned on January 7th, January 8th. And I was waiting for somebody to step up and go after these people, and nobody did.

So I was like, okay, well, I'm. It's my job to do that.

So, yes, again, it's criminal negligence. Once people are burning alive, It's a whole nother tier in my mind. It's not just negligence. Right, burned alive, family burned alive. That's happened, and as well as the family not being able to rebuild with environmental restrictions, which is just insane.

They put Lee Zeldon in charge of it. Hopefully, he'll be able to come up with something. And Spencer Pratt, listen, man, he gets it. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

When I ran for mayor, I said I was gonna tax the rich.

Well, today, We're taxing it. I'm thrilled to announce we've secured a Pia to Terre tax, the first in New York's history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million, whose owners do not live full-time in the city. Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million. This Pia to Terre tax is specifically designed for the richest of the rich, those who store their wealth in New York City real estate, but who don't actually live there.

But even so, they're able to reap the huge financial rewards of owning property in, dare I say, the greatest city in the world.

So, Rafael Mengog joins us now. That was the TikTok video of a mayor. That's what he does well. TikTok videos. But being mayor, I'm not seeing any ability.

Raphael is going to weigh in here. He's the Nick O'Nell Fellow at Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor at the City Journal and a member of the City Council on Criminal Justice. Raphael, first off, on the state of the economy. This guy has not been able to get out of the box, and he thinks the problem is billionaires aren't giving enough money to taxes. It's completely wrong.

I mean, if you just look at the data, it tells a really compelling story. I mean, 2022 is the last year for which we have data available, but that year, millionaires in New York City, who only constitute about 1% of the population, paid about 40% of the city's personal income taxes.

So, you know, I don't think that Mamdani and his fellow comrades in the DSA really appreciate the degree to which New York City relies on the ultra-wealthy as the core of their tax base. And this idea that storing wealth in New York City real estate is somehow bad. I mean, you know, to call out Ken Griffin in the way that he did, I thought was totally disgusting. And it, you know, completely elides the fact that if you look at Ken Griffin's history in New York, not only does he employ countless New Yorkers and pay them significant upper-middle class wages so that they can pay taxes and spend money in the city, but he has contributed, I think, more than $500 million just in charitable donations alone to institutions like Sloan Kevin. And Success Academy Charter School.

So, you know, this sort of claim that millionaires and billionaires are sliding by without contributing to New York City is just absolutely wrong. It's toxic. And what it risks is pushing people out who the city needs the most. I mean, New York City cannot function if the ultra-wealthy decide to leave the state for places like Texas, Tennessee, and Florida.

So, Raphael, we know that. I mean, it's just fundamental economics.

Some people are good at foreign policy. You know, he's got to be good at something besides TikTok videos. When he looks at the math. He must be seeing the same thing you just said. It's the fact.

Why would he decide to go do something like that? I mean, there's other things you could do for you to prove you're communist bona fides. But this is really self-destructive.

Okay. I mean, I think it is, and I think that somebody eventually got in his ear and told him that because he does seem to have sort of walked back from the more extreme rhetoric in the days since that video was posted. But I think ultimately, these are his instincts. He harbors a very deep level of resentment, if not hate, for the ultra-wealthy. He has been brought up in a political milieu in which these people are the enemy, in which they represent evil.

And so, you know, I think it's sort of second nature for him to end up shooting himself in the foot in the way that he did and the way that he will continue to do if he continues on this path toward a policy orientation that doesn't appreciate the degree and the contributions of wealthy New Yorkers. I know. I mean, Jamie Diamond said as much to me about a month ago. Look, he's got this great building in New York, but he's got more people in Dallas. That's exactly right.

And New York City, and especially at a time where work from home is becoming more and more common, the city needs to keep these businesses here. The city needs to keep jobs growing here. And when you have these companies that are coming to realize that they can. Employ more people in other parts of the country for significantly cheaper. New York City really then finds itself in a bind.

And this idea that we can just continue to take for granted continuous, unlimited investment by these major companies is wrongheaded and it's dangerous.

So Kevin Kenn Griffin's about to make a substantial investment in New York, and he's thinking twice about it now. Cut 58. Ken, you're going to go ahead with your building in New York?

Well, you know, I'm meeting with the governor. Thursday?

Okay, you'll figure it out. And we'll talk about our future direction in New York. Here's the real question. Is New York going to put their fiscal house in order and run itself from a position of a strong government that's pro-business? Or are they looking to play I why do the Americans think we can do socialism?

Like, we have none of that in our DNA, and we're just going to screw it up. Right. So, he's really thinking about not doing the $6 billion investment. And you know how much money he gives, hundreds of millions in charity. Because look, I don't know this guy.

But I'm sure Raphael, he probably worked a few weeks, 90 hours, not seeing his family, taking tremendous risk. You don't just get, you know, it's not from the Carnegies and it's not from the Rockefellers. This is a guy that took risk and employs a lot of people. I want him on my side. I want his advice if I'm him.

That's exactly right. And, you know, and this decision now that he's going to make, you know, I think illustrates perfectly the risk that people like Zora Mamdani are running when they demonize this class, this class that employs countless New Yorkers, this class that invests in the city's infrastructure and real estate, this class that makes up a huge component of the city's tax base, and this class that props up a number of the city's nonprofits and hospitals, right? I mean, like, we cannot take for granted, we cannot emphasize enough the degree to which people like Ken Griffin contribute to the cities that they call home and the cities that they don't call home. This idea that we can just drive them out is nonsense. And, you know, it reflects this kind of, you know, silly dichotomy that I often hear in the discourse where, you know, people talk about working people and the wealthy as if the wealthy don't work.

And you hit the nail right on the head when you said that people like Ken Griffin are working 90, 100 hour weeks. They are, you know, sacrificing time with their family. They are putting in In the work to build empires and enterprises that ultimately employ thousands. Yeah, and let alone the people that he mentors and those people.

So I think we get it.

Now let's think about the governor. The governor's saying, I'm not raising taxes, but she's in a race. She said a lot of things last time to hold off Lee's Elden. What kind of governor is she? Do you really believe that she looks at how do you think she views Mondami?

Oh, I think she views him likely as a threat. I mean, you know, she just put up a selfie with him and some other New York Democrats yesterday, I think, very transparently to try and reassure the public that everyone's on the same page. But I think ultimately, you know, she understands where the direction of New York City politics is going, and she needs New York City's voters to win. And, you know, someone like Zohar Mamdani represents an insurgency, a political insurgency. It's a very different tact than the sort of moderate Democrats.

And so, you know, I think she has a real decision to make. You know, does she run as a real moderate, which I think a lot of New Yorkers want, but runs the risk of being made to look bad by the TikTok class? Right. The question is, you notice that Gillibrand did not show up to his inauguration. Do you notice that Schumer did not show up to his inauguration?

At home, just know they're Democrat, New York Democrat senators.

So there's a real division there. I just looked at a quote from the Seattle mayor, the other socialist mayor that got elected with no experience at all. And she said two billionaires. You can leave. You can leave.

So Some Democrats don't subscribe to that. They don't want to be part of it, but they also can't control it. It's not that Bernie Sanders, crazy guy from Vermont, who's not really a Democrat anymore. He is mentoring a whole bunch of people that is beginning to infect the Democratic Party. Your projection on where this is heading.

Oh, I mean, I think we're seeing a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party in real time. And so, you know, I think it's very fair to assume that the choice has been made. And the Democratic Party, to the extent that it still has a middle, that middle is going to be under increasing pressure to move further and further left just to survive.

Now, eventually the bill is going to come due, right? And you're going to have to pay the Piper. And we'll see what the voting class has in the way of tolerance for these kinds of self-destructive policies, right? I mean, you brought up Bernie Sanders, one of his other mentees, is someone like AOC, who was instrumental in the decision to keep Amazon out of New York and how many jobs did she deny the city then.

So again, over time, we'll eventually start to see the downside risk of playing this kind of game. But sometimes a lot of damage can be done before cooler heads prevail. Yeah, when you're going to control by a left-wing, when you're trying to be harnessed by a left-wing city council, I feel like we're doomed. The one thing is the commissioner here. People don't know listening around the country, watching around the country because we're on stream.

Um The police commissioner is really good, and she's been very effective. And she decided to stay over. What do you hear about the tension, if there is any, between the Mayor and the Commissioner? Yeah, I mean, I don't hear much. I think they do a pretty good job of keeping, you know, whatever tensions do exist under wraps.

But I think the dynamic is pretty obvious to anyone who's keeping a close eye on this. I think Zoram Mamdani tied his hands on the campaign trail when he pre-committed to keeping her on, which he felt the need to do as a way to sort of get the New Yorkers who were on the fence about him, right? The moderates who were unsure, but didn't really like Cuomo. You know, one of his biggest vulnerabilities was his positions on crime. This is a relatively recent police abolitionist, someone who was calling for the abolition of that department, someone who was calling for the abolitions of prison and jails.

So he felt the need to say, hey, we have a well-liked police commissioner. I'm going to keep her on. And I think that probably helped get him over the hump. Remember, he only won with like 50.7% of the vote. A million people voted against him, right?

So it was a very, very close race. And I think he understood that that was necessary. But in making that choice, I think he gave the commissioner a lot of leverage. And so now we're just. You're kind of playing a waiting game, right?

And the game is this: How long will Zohram Mamdani keep his powder dry on his most radical campaign promises with respect to policing and public safety? This is a guy who ran on abolishing the gang database, which still stands. This is a guy who ran on getting rid of the strategic response group within the NYP, which still stands. This is a guy who ran on giving the Civilian Complaint Review Board final authority over police discipline. That hasn't happened.

So his entire mayoralty on the public safety side has been characterized by walking back the promises he made.

Now, that's a good thing for New Yorkers, but it's probably a bad thing for him in the eyes of his base. And so it's just a matter of time until he gets called to pay the bill on that as well. When it comes to police, two things are happening. Number one, he's cutting back overtime, which means they're going to be a bunch of mass retirements. In case you do not know, the last couple of years they take an average of what you made and they give you a pension for the rest of your life.

So if you're going to cut somebody's Overtime. They're going to have no choice but to leave, or else the rest of their life they're going to be getting less money. Number two, he's canceled a police academy.

So we're going to have less people, less cops on the street.

So those two things are going to have an impact. Does he realize that? Oh, I think he does. I think he does. And he's going to hide behind the sort of fiscal constraints that the city's under in order to justify these decisions.

But the additional 5,000 hires was absolutely necessary and needed. The NYPD has been underwater for quite some time. I mean, yes, the city is making progress on a handful of crime categories, specifically homicides and shootings, because they're driving so many resources to those kinds of crimes. But if you look at other crime categories, I mean, those are still up pretty significantly compared to pre-pandemic lows. I mean, if you compare 2025 to 2018, the city experienced 17% more robberies, 48% more assaults, 10% more burglaries, and 150% more car thefts.

There's still a lot of work to do, and the NYPD has seen response times go up because they do not have enough officers to handle the workload. 911 calls are going up, 311 calls are going up. This is a basic math problem. You cannot do more with less. You can only do more with more.

And if you continue to cut the department's resources, Eventually, public safety is going to suffer. You 250, we're going to drop the ball here like it's New Year's Eve, and we're going to have a World Cup here. Rafael Mangul, do you think that we're ready for that? It's hard to say. I mean, you know, luckily, a lot of the actual World Cup will be taking place in New Jersey, but you know, a lot of people are going to flood into the city.

And that's going to create not just opportunities for tourism and businesses, but also opportunities for criminal offenders. And that's going to weigh heavily on the MYPD. It would be interesting to see how that's handled, whether groups like the Strategic Response Group are called into action. But it's certainly going to be a challenge, and the world's eyes will be watching. Raviel, thanks so much.

Appreciate your insight. Very tenuous time. We'll be back in a moment. It's Brian Killmead. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Kilmead. Sponsored by Previgen. Previgen made for your brain. I'm not going to any more events where Trump's at him. I don't feel safe.

Wherever Donald Trump is. Chaos follows him. Chaos follows him. And you are less safe, right? If you decide to go into his orbit, you have become less safe.

So, though, Chuck Todd, what does that mean?

So, he just is for self-preservation, he's not going to follow the president of the United States.

Okay. Oh. If your job is to involve the President of the United States, I'm going. If I have a chance to interview him and he says, come to a rally and I'll get you after, I'm going. Go to an event where he's speaking, you know, I'm there for work, I'm going to go.

Or for what other reason.

So show some courage. By the way, there's going to be more people around him security wise than anybody else.

So it's a there's a dangerous time, perhaps. If you look at some of the crime numbers generally, it's not. Except for those high crime areas. But for the most part, you look around the country, places like Washington DC it's actually Safer than ever. In terms of the uh government coming in the other night?

Everybody in there, 75% is press.

So everybody's talking about it nonstop. And they should. When you try to assassinate a president, That certainly makes news. But I would not stop going doing my job because the president is a target of assassins. I have news for you, and I wish it wasn't the case.

It's going to be the case forever when presidents, it's always been the case in American history where presidents are targeted. But you still got to do your job, and it's a prestigious job. It looks like he doesn't need a job.

So if you are a White House correspondent, you've got to hop on a plane, go to Air Force One. You gonna go, it's too dangerous? No, you say, my goodness, I can't believe how lucky I am to be following any president at any time, one of the most important jobs in the world, and I'm asked to cover it.

So today we see Pete Hakeseth, again, the Secretary of the War, meeting about the war of Iran in front of the Senate side now, the Senate Armed Services Committee. Why? How much does it cost? How much more do you need? Here's a little of the exchange yesterday back and forth with Adam Smith.

Adam Smith is somebody that came on this show a lot, but I thought he was always good because when it came to the military, he would not be partisan. And when he I watched him with the But he tends to be somewhat moderate. That's all changed. But I watched him sparring a little with Pete Hegseth, and afterwards he hopped on CNN. And mischaracterized their whole conversation.

They talked about money, they talked about objective, and Adam Smith, who understands the danger of Iran, seems not to see it now. Cut 14. If his position is, as long as it's possible for Iran to build a nuclear weapon, it's an unacceptable threat, then think about that. That's regime change. I mean, that means we got to go in there and take out this regime because you can't unring the bell of being able to develop nuclear technology.

If that's his standard, then regime change is the only answer. And if it's not his standard, then what is an acceptable level of protection? And the fact that he doesn't know that, 60 days into the war, with all of the cost of this war, the economic chaos, the lives lost. You know, we don't seem to know.

Sorry, the Trump administration doesn't seem to know where they're going, and they think they can just shout nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons, they're bad. Therefore, that proves we're right. It doesn't. What do you say to that? Nuclear weapons, yeah, they're bad.

There's a few regimes that can't have it. One of which is Iran. Do you know what the other one was? North Korea. You know what everybody said?

They're never going to get them. You know what they have? Nuclear weapons. What are they doing now? We just accept it.

But now you have one right in the middle of the Middle East. It's already rocketed all their neighbors. It said, I could make eight to ten bombs, and we got the scientists to put it together, and they were reconstituting. And the one thing is, to be specific, there's another site called pickaxe built into a mountain that's even hard for our bunker busters to reach, but not impossible. But we've done some damage to it.

We've actually sealed it. Can they try to reopen it? Of course, they could try to reopen it. Were they trying to reopen their other sites? Yes.

Is the uranium buried there? Yes. But also, I believe the objective has to be eliminating their ballistic missile program. We've already heard their manufacturing. What they have, they have, but what they can't make is new missiles.

That's also important. Have you seen what goes on with Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas?