Speaker 1: My name is Charlie kirk I run the largest pro
Speaker 1: American student organization in the country, fighting for the future
Speaker 1: of our republic. My call is to fight evil and
Speaker 1: to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you
Speaker 1: is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But
Speaker 1: if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end
Speaker 1: up purposeful.
Speaker 2: College is a scam, everybody.
Speaker 1: You got to stop sending your kids to college. You
Speaker 1: should get married as young as possible and have as
Speaker 1: many kids as possible.
Speaker 2: Go start at turning point.
Speaker 1: You would say college chapter. Go start at turning point,
Speaker 1: yould say high school chapter. Go find out how your
Speaker 1: church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist.
Speaker 3: I gave my.
Speaker 1: Life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision
Speaker 1: I ever made in my life, and I encourage you
Speaker 1: to do the same. Here I am Lord, Use me.
Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is
Speaker 1: the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company
Speaker 1: that specializes in gold I rays and physical delivery of
Speaker 1: precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with
Speaker 1: Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is
Speaker 1: Noblegoldinvestments dot com.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It's Friday. We are
Speaker 2: at the y ref I studio here in Phoenix, Arizona.
Speaker 2: It's a beautiful day, sunny.
Speaker 3: I've got a great sun in the y reef I sky.
Speaker 2: Well, this is a closed environment, so unfortunately these these
Speaker 2: lights are fake. It's all studio lighting. Outside. It is beautiful. Okay,
Speaker 2: it is the sun, it's the y Reef, It's y
Speaker 2: ref I world. Check them out investy Refi dot com.
Speaker 2: Got a lot to get to it. It looks like
Speaker 2: we're gonna start with what's happening in Maine. So if
Speaker 2: you watch the Cold Open, you saw a clip from CNN.
Speaker 2: Uh Scott Jennings was talk basically talking about this guy
Speaker 2: who has a Nazi tattoo. His name is Graham Platner.
Speaker 2: He has described himself what was it as Antifa's.
Speaker 3: He I am a person he liked the line, and
Speaker 3: someone I think someone else described himself as an Antifa
Speaker 3: super soldiers said that was a line he liked.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Onreddit, that's our future.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: This guy is a forty one year old, but he
Speaker 3: has a bunch of Reddit posts from twenty twenty twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one.
Speaker 2: Look, get some images of this guy up here while
Speaker 2: we're talking about let me explain Graham Platner to you.
Speaker 2: It's time to deal with this guy out of Maine.
Speaker 2: He's gonna be running against Susan Collins, and I have
Speaker 2: interesting tidbits from Charlie and Susan Collins we'll get to
Speaker 2: in a second. But he's the presumptive Democratic nominee for
Speaker 2: US Senate in Maine in the upcoming twenty twenty sixth election. Here, okay,
Speaker 2: So Janet Mills suspended her campaign citing a lack of funds,
Speaker 2: So that's cleared the path for Platner ahead of the
Speaker 2: June ninth primary. So he's now presumptive. Right. Platner a
Speaker 2: marine veteran oyster farmer, and he's a political newcomer. He
Speaker 2: has faced a wave of scrutiny. We've not really gotten
Speaker 2: into it too much on this show, but it started
Speaker 2: in the fall, and he kind of came into this
Speaker 2: race as an anti establishment progressive guy. So here's what
Speaker 2: the controversies around this gentleman are a Nazi affiliated tattoo.
Speaker 2: So he had a chest tattoo that he got while
Speaker 2: he was serving as a marine apparently and in Croatia
Speaker 2: in two thousand and eight. And it's imagery as a
Speaker 2: skull and crossbones style that was linked to Nazi extremist symbolism,
Speaker 2: and he's owned it right. Apparently he covered it up
Speaker 2: after its surface and said he was unaware of the association.
Speaker 2: He's apologized publicly. Then you get to his Reddit feed,
Speaker 2: which we have warned about Reddit. Reddit and Blue Sky
Speaker 2: are basically where left wing extremism gets domestic violence is.
Speaker 3: The left has a certain lack of survival instinct about
Speaker 3: posting online, so you know, you'll have like right wingers
Speaker 3: will get in trouble for stuff they hosted, but at
Speaker 3: least they usually had a pseudonym and someone had to
Speaker 3: hack it or whatever. Like leftist will just be like
Speaker 3: small just be small businessmen posting about how they want
Speaker 3: someone to shoot Trump in the head and they want
Speaker 3: a revolution and they fantasize about guillotine.
Speaker 2: It's because nobody's all the time, and nobody's ever made
Speaker 2: them be held accountable that all the.
Speaker 3: Time, and the left has in the case of Platinir.
Speaker 3: What's what's really funny about it is they've just they've
Speaker 3: actually like come out and openly said that they would
Speaker 3: never forgive Platner for his past fewer Republican But luckily,
Speaker 3: since he is a Democrat, we know that he's okay.
Speaker 2: Okay, So so what are some of these comments. He's downplayed,
Speaker 2: made light of sexual assault and rape, and at least
Speaker 2: in military context, victim blaming apparently as some of it,
Speaker 2: or blaming intoxication. He's made racially charged remarks questioning black
Speaker 2: tipping habits. He's been accused of misogyny language. So basically,
Speaker 2: they've hurled a lot of the same insults at him
Speaker 2: as they do the average right winger. He's made anti
Speaker 2: police sentiment sentiments. He said all cops are bastards. Uh call,
Speaker 2: calling rural white maners racist and stupid. Those are his
Speaker 2: future voters. Let's see if they end up pulling the
Speaker 2: pulling the uh I guess ballot for him, we'll see.
Speaker 2: And he's self identified as a communist in some posts.
Speaker 2: So this is my question, Blake. You're a student of history,
Speaker 2: you understand ideologies and political philosophy. Is he a Nazi
Speaker 2: or is he a Communist?
Speaker 3: No, he's yeah, first of all, yes, but you know
Speaker 3: the thing about it is is they could They'll say,
Speaker 3: he honestly, that's probably believable that he just got this
Speaker 3: tattoo because he thought it like looked cool and then
Speaker 3: covered it up later. Or he might be this huge
Speaker 3: winger swinging back and forth every direction one way or
Speaker 3: the other. I assume that's his updated Yeah, his updated tattoo.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: But like what matter. There's a lot more is the
Speaker 3: fact that he in recent history that he's supportive of Antifa, which,
Speaker 3: as we've tried to warn people, this is not just
Speaker 3: a left wing protest movement, it's a left wing street
Speaker 3: violence unit. The people they look up to, especially in Europe,
Speaker 3: this is a very refined art. They will go out,
Speaker 3: they'll bash people with hammers, they'll torch people's offices and stores.
Speaker 3: They will They really believe in using street violence to
Speaker 3: get things and then engineering the legal system to avoid
Speaker 3: consequences for it. And we're seeing that in America too.
Speaker 3: We see that with the brewing company guy out in
Speaker 3: in Wisconsin, Monoua. These people, this.
Speaker 2: Guy's definitely not not mentally well, I mean, he's he's
Speaker 2: something's wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's that is what that is who Antifa
Speaker 3: appeals to that's why they get so much let's just
Speaker 3: say it kind of disgusting. Riff raft. Well, a lot
Speaker 3: of problems, people have, a lot of problems are drawn
Speaker 3: into Antifa and it's this radicalization engine. It makes them
Speaker 3: turn again everything functional in society. Anyone who has a business,
Speaker 3: especially small business. Antifa types they hate small businesses vastly
Speaker 3: more than big business most of the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, probably, and they don't mind vandalizing. This is why
Speaker 2: we always we actually also have to be worried about
Speaker 2: the epidemic of prescription medications and antidepressants and all this stuff.
Speaker 2: I mean, because there is a lot of mental illness
Speaker 2: out there, and the more that we, you know, prescribe
Speaker 2: these medications, we're covering it up. And I'm telling you
Speaker 2: a lot of these left wingers at this anti Antifa types,
Speaker 2: there's a mental unhingedness going on. They are not mentally
Speaker 2: will well. And we have to be very aware of
Speaker 2: the fact that when they go online and they see
Speaker 2: all this like crazy crap, they're liable to take hold
Speaker 2: of it and do something crazy about it. Last night,
Speaker 2: this was this race was discussed on CNN. So I
Speaker 2: want to play some clips here. This is the old
Speaker 2: friend Adam Mockler. Uh, this guy. I mean, listen, if this,
Speaker 2: if the roles were reversed and this was a Republican
Speaker 2: we were talking about, this whole answer would be opposite.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm gonna tell you. Stop for now.
Speaker 6: If this were a Republican candidate who had had a
Speaker 6: Nazi tattoo covered it up when he was running for something,
Speaker 6: and had said all the things that he had said
Speaker 6: about black people, about women, about rape, et cetera, do
Speaker 6: you really think there's a world in which Democrats would
Speaker 6: be like, let's just let bygones be bygones.
Speaker 5: That's the past.
Speaker 6: Today is the president.
Speaker 7: I think we're entering a new era and we'll see
Speaker 7: what the base wants. We'll see who wins when the
Speaker 7: actual election happens. But for the past decade, Democrats have
Speaker 7: been unified by our opposition to Donald Trump. And now
Speaker 7: Graham Plattner has a forward looking message. So if Donald Trump,
Speaker 7: or if another Republican had a Nazi tattoo, I don't know,
Speaker 7: donald Trump has dinner with nazis not that far from
Speaker 7: you know, it's happening. But there's also plausible deniability regarding
Speaker 7: Grand Platter's tattoo.
Speaker 3: We don't know if he knew.
Speaker 7: We don't know what he knew.
Speaker 5: But it's not just the tattoo.
Speaker 6: That's it's not just the tattoo.
Speaker 2: It's not just the tattoo. Adam Mockler is a total phony,
Speaker 2: and he was doing cover for him because he's a
Speaker 2: young radical and that's his job. His job is to
Speaker 2: go up there and be the young guy that supports
Speaker 2: the new thing. It's so fresh, fresh face. Okay, got it.
Speaker 2: How about Hassan Piker, he supports them too, SOT six.
Speaker 3: Dude, are you on ironically saying Janet Mills is better
Speaker 3: than Graham Platner?
Speaker 2: Please?
Speaker 5: Dude?
Speaker 2: He was pro Hamas.
Speaker 4: Okay, he was giving Hamas credit in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2: Okay, what more do you want?
Speaker 3: I think that really, I think that captures it better
Speaker 3: than anything the direction we're headed. Uh, but Southern twenty fourteen,
Speaker 3: we're gonna have Democrats who just love Hamas right now?
Speaker 2: Yeah, everything's great, all right, So I gotta go into
Speaker 2: a story that I don't really want to go into,
Speaker 2: but you know what, screw it. So there's a person
Speaker 2: named uh and it's so funny because I learned about
Speaker 2: the story this morning, and I was like, who her
Speaker 2: name is, Vivian Kubrick. Okay, so, Vivian apparently didn't like
Speaker 2: uh Erica's remarks earlier this week, and she went on
Speaker 2: some unhinged rant basically attacking Turning Point, attacking Erica, and
Speaker 2: I was like, who is this person? Like, you know what?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 2: Why do I care? Well, it's because she's the estranged
Speaker 2: daughter of the now deceased director Stanley Kubrick, who did
Speaker 2: a lot of famous movies. I think his last one
Speaker 2: was that creepy one with Nicole Kidman and Toms White Eyes,
Speaker 2: White Chet. That's right, the Shining.
Speaker 3: My favorite paths of Glory, Black and White, World War One.
Speaker 2: Oh I've not seen that.
Speaker 3: Oh it's good.
Speaker 2: Okay, well interesting, yeah, I mean a very illustrious director.
Speaker 2: But she's a daughter of a director, so like, who cares?
Speaker 2: But anyways, Uh, I took note of it because she
Speaker 2: basically says, uh that President Trump needs to kill Turning Point.
Speaker 2: So that was like in this whole unhinged rants. You'll
Speaker 2: see it right there in New York posts President Trump,
Speaker 2: you know, ask President Trump to kill Turning Point USA.
Speaker 2: So if you remember, like what Erica was even talking
Speaker 2: about this week, and we devoted a whole episode of
Speaker 2: the show to it, and Erica did a great job.
Speaker 2: She said, it's the dehumanizing language. And she was reflecting
Speaker 2: on the White House Correspondence dinner, the three assassination attempts
Speaker 2: on President Trump and obviously the assassination of Charlie and
Speaker 2: basically said, you know, dehumanizing people leads to a really
Speaker 2: ugly place and we need to stop. Enough is enough,
Speaker 2: We're done putting up with this and something needs to
Speaker 2: be done. And then you know, lo and beholds. Somebody
Speaker 2: that steps into this role is Stanley Kubrick's. Kubrick's a
Speaker 2: strange daughter who became a scientologist that looks like in
Speaker 2: the nineties and is now an avid supporter of people
Speaker 2: like Candice and other people that are into the conspiracy world.
Speaker 2: Apparently she was a q and on fan. So I
Speaker 2: just I'll be nice about it. I just want to
Speaker 2: say to say out loud that you want to kill
Speaker 2: turning point Usa, Vivian. I want you to understand that
Speaker 2: you are potentially stoking violent people to do crazy things
Speaker 2: and that does not end in a good place. And
Speaker 2: so I pray that you restrain yourself in the future
Speaker 2: and maybe get off the Internet and go enjoy life,
Speaker 2: because it's not worthy of anybody's time for you to
Speaker 2: be saying such vile things. It's not a good look
Speaker 2: for you, it's not good for us, it's not good
Speaker 2: for the country. It's not good for your family or
Speaker 2: your reputation. So please stop doing it. I don't know, Blake,
Speaker 2: if you have any any thoughts to to it, but
Speaker 2: I wanted to address it because it's just another one
Speaker 2: of these things that pops up and I want to
Speaker 2: do address.
Speaker 3: I guess it's just these like children of directors, it's there.
Speaker 3: They're even than children of actors or the actors themselves.
Speaker 3: Childhood actors, child actors, you know some child some ex
Speaker 3: child actors are great, but uh, ex child actors. I
Speaker 3: believe it was it was a former child actor who
Speaker 3: paid for the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse. That's that was
Speaker 3: a great that was a great heroic acts in a.
Speaker 2: Really good spot. That's what I want for all of that.
Speaker 2: I want.
Speaker 3: I want some children of directors to pay for for
Speaker 3: Daniel Penny's defense and the future.
Speaker 2: We have a deal to make with you if you
Speaker 2: are willing. We can bury the hatchet and listen like
Speaker 2: my heart is one of peace. I want love, I
Speaker 2: want harmony. But don't come at us like that, and
Speaker 2: don't come at Erica like that. That's not cool, that's mean,
Speaker 2: it's mean.
Speaker 3: We don't need a phrase. It that. Erica is a
Speaker 3: tough woman. She can end people. People are going to
Speaker 3: be mean. The left is very mean. But what she
Speaker 3: has been saying, I think is important to emphasize. She's
Speaker 3: talking about the dehumanizing rhetoric and what she's getting a
Speaker 3: I think is an important thing to say, which is,
Speaker 3: we have freedom of speech in the United States. And
Speaker 3: as you know, I'm basically an unhinged free speech absolutist.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't hate speech is not a thing, not a
Speaker 3: thing in general.
Speaker 2: I don't speech speech.
Speaker 3: But a lot of people they'll they're much more willing
Speaker 3: to embrace. Oh, I think this statement is threatening or
Speaker 3: you know, should be indicted for this or that. And
Speaker 3: I'm almost always of the attitude that unless you are
Speaker 3: actively whipping up a mob to go burn someone's house down,
Speaker 3: go loot a business, go shoot someone, it's it's probably
Speaker 3: better to say that it's fine otherwise you're doubt you're
Speaker 3: going down the path towards Europe where saying any of them, let's.
Speaker 4: Just say it.
Speaker 3: And there's been some lines on this end. I think
Speaker 3: what Erica is pointing out is when you have people
Speaker 3: recklessly fanning flames of hate, that is the step towards
Speaker 3: where people decide, actually, we're okay with uh, we're okay
Speaker 3: with dialing back freedom of speech because the only reason
Speaker 3: we're going to have free speech stick around is if
Speaker 3: people want it to stick around and insists that it
Speaker 3: stick around. Right now, we keep it because we have
Speaker 3: a good legacy of federal judges in the twentieth century
Speaker 3: who really entrenched freedom of speech as a value in
Speaker 3: America such that it's hard to restrict speech. But the
Speaker 3: left wants to restrict speech. The left are the ones
Speaker 3: who go around saying, well, there's hate speech exceptions, okay,
Speaker 3: and the public will go along with this if they're
Speaker 3: thinking there's gonna be violence.
Speaker 2: I just want to be very clear, I'm not suggesting
Speaker 2: anybody's speech be restricted. I'm just saying I have my
Speaker 2: own free speech.
Speaker 3: We're gonna end up debating this in the next segment.
Speaker 3: Do we think do we think James Coley did anything wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, that's an open question that we're gonna have.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have Mike Davis on in the next segment
Speaker 2: to discuss just that. And by the way, we also
Speaker 2: have gotten word that the DOJ is going to enforce
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court ruling that has called racial jerrymandering illegal essentially,
Speaker 2: and so those two topics we're gonna get into with
Speaker 2: Mike Davis. But yeah, just to be very very clear,
Speaker 2: I don't believe in the concept of hate speech. I
Speaker 2: think there is gross speech, there is vile speech, there
Speaker 2: is unhinged speech, there is you know, all kinds of
Speaker 2: different categories. But I don't even believe in that category
Speaker 2: of hate speech, not in America at least. And that
Speaker 2: is a beautiful heritage that we have, and we need
Speaker 2: to keep it strong and instill it and make sure
Speaker 2: it's defended and protected. Absolutely, But that's not all, not
Speaker 2: at all what I was talking about, folks. Let me
Speaker 2: tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what
Speaker 2: I put in my body in what companies we support. Here,
Speaker 2: Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family
Speaker 2: run American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA, built
Speaker 2: by people who believe in hard work, freedom and America.
Speaker 2: No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn
Speaker 2: good coffee made by a Mayoras for Americans. This is
Speaker 2: coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink it
Speaker 2: every day right here on the show. From Morning Reaper
Speaker 2: and Brutal Awakening to seventeen seventy six Dark Roast in
Speaker 2: their two A medium roast. They've got something for everyone.
Speaker 2: They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine,
Speaker 2: no mess, Just add water, stir and you're ready to roll.
Speaker 2: Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie and use code
Speaker 2: Charlie for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee
Speaker 2: dot com slash Charlie. Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie, and
Speaker 2: for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription.
Speaker 2: Save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through
Speaker 2: their rewards program just for drinking what you already love.
Speaker 2: Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never
Speaker 2: run out.
Speaker 1: That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie. Check it out promo
Speaker 1: code Charlie.
Speaker 2: All right, Mike Davis, it's been a minute since we've
Speaker 2: had you on the show, my friend. Welcome back to
Speaker 2: the Charlie Kirkshaw. How you been.
Speaker 5: I've been great. Thanks for having me back on cash.
Speaker 2: So we've got a couple things that are on the
Speaker 2: docket today, one of which is this Komy indictment, so
Speaker 2: we'll put that one bucket. And then the other is
Speaker 2: this doj is now publicly said they're going to enforce
Speaker 2: the Scotus ruling on maps and redistricting. Both legal questions
Speaker 2: with a lot of I guess unanswered questions. So let's
Speaker 2: start with Komy. Blake is not convinced. What do you
Speaker 2: think did he do something when he posted that picture
Speaker 2: eighty six forty seven? Did he make a threat against
Speaker 2: the President's life?
Speaker 8: Yes, And you do not have a First Amendment right
Speaker 8: to threaten the president's life. You do not have a
Speaker 8: first Amendment right to threaten any federal officials lives.
Speaker 5: There's a criminal statutes that are on the books.
Speaker 8: One is if you make an assassination attempt against the president,
Speaker 8: you're charged with that felony or make it a none
Speaker 8: an attempt, excuse me, threat against the president. You're charged
Speaker 8: with that felony. The others if you transmit it online,
Speaker 8: that's another felony. That's exactly what happened with James coming.
Speaker 8: James Cummy is not your average Joe who does not
Speaker 8: understand what he's doing. He is a former FBI director,
Speaker 8: he is a former Deputy Attorney General, the number two
Speaker 8: in the Justice Department.
Speaker 5: He's a former US attorney.
Speaker 8: He posted this eighty six forty seven seashell threat on
Speaker 8: Instagram after two assassination attempts against the president of the
Speaker 8: United States. He did this within days of releasing his
Speaker 8: new novel about cod it threats by right wingers. James
Speaker 8: Cummy knew exactly what he was doing. This is after
Speaker 8: the election.
Speaker 2: Mike, he was in Yeah, I think this is some
Speaker 2: of the context that gets lost in this debate. And
Speaker 2: and listen, I'm a little bit I'm not sure what's
Speaker 2: going to happen here, if this if this indictment's gonna
Speaker 2: stick and he's gonna get convicted. But I think that
Speaker 2: context is really important. So as a former FBI director,
Speaker 2: he obviously is very aware of criminal elements and criminality
Speaker 2: in general. Right. Secondly, President Trump at this point had
Speaker 2: just been survived two assassination attempts well, and he wrote
Speaker 2: a book about coded assassination attempts. That part of this story,
Speaker 2: I think it's lost, you know when you look at CNN,
Speaker 2: or you look at MS now or whatever, even Fox, whatever,
Speaker 2: but that those are relevant and pertinent details. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: First of all, I don't even say eighty six isn't
Speaker 3: even a doesn't even mean kill somebody. Well, it can,
Speaker 3: it will, Okay, it can, but so can like get
Speaker 3: rid of Okay, So if you say we should get
Speaker 3: rid of Trump, is that an assassination threat? I don't
Speaker 3: think so.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, if you say get rid of Trump, no,
Speaker 2: absolutely not. I think the question here is when you
Speaker 2: when you talk about eighty six ing somebody, it could
Speaker 2: be like the president I think did a truth on
Speaker 2: this where it could be like mobs speak violence speak
Speaker 2: for killing somebody. But that is one of the alternative meanings.
Speaker 2: But I do agree that the main thrust of that
Speaker 2: meaning eighty six forty seven is to eject somebody, to
Speaker 2: get rid of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've heard it associated with restaurants and bars and stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 3: eighty six that cust I don't think that usually means.
Speaker 2: So legally, Mike, how difficult is that going to be
Speaker 2: to prove in court?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, that's a defense that he could make.
Speaker 5: He can said that that was not my intent.
Speaker 8: He'd have to testify to do that, and that would
Speaker 8: be very smart for him to testify. Look, at the
Speaker 8: end of the day, I have zero sympathy for James coming.
Speaker 8: He's a top law enforcement official. He politicized and weaponized
Speaker 8: the Justice Department to go after Trump. He set up
Speaker 8: Michael Flynn and caused a great deal of hardship for
Speaker 8: General Michael Flynn, President Trump's incoming national security advisor. I
Speaker 8: just I have zero sympathy for him. And look, I'm
Speaker 8: not some principled conservative who like I'm not a high
Speaker 8: browed principal conservative.
Speaker 5: I am a partisan.
Speaker 8: Street fighter, and I love that James Comy is getting
Speaker 8: a healthy dose of his own medicine. Call it lawfair,
Speaker 8: call it whatever you want it. Two wrongs don't make
Speaker 8: it right, but it makes it even So.
Speaker 2: Do you remember this clip when he was he was
Speaker 2: sort of walking through how he'd like to see Trump
Speaker 2: in prison st. Twenty four?
Speaker 6: Do you agree with that that it would be difficult
Speaker 6: or nearly impossible for the law enforcement institutions to put
Speaker 6: him in actual jail.
Speaker 4: No, they would just put him in a double wide
Speaker 4: somewhere out near the fence, out in the grass, and
Speaker 4: he would eat there, he'd shower there, he'd exercise there,
Speaker 4: he'd be away, as Donia Perry said, from general population.
Speaker 5: But it's obviously doable.
Speaker 2: I remember that.
Speaker 3: I guess I just feel skeptical here. James Comy, of course,
Speaker 3: doesn't like the president at all. They've had a decade
Speaker 3: worth of bad blood at this point. He was fired
Speaker 3: as head of the FBI. He's written stuff critical of Trump,
Speaker 3: He's testified in a hostile way to Trump, and he
Speaker 3: made posts on social media that are clearly hostile towards Trump.
Speaker 3: But I just feel do any it stretches credulity for me,
Speaker 3: for anyone who saw that post to think James Comy
Speaker 3: is threatening to personally go or is inciting somebody to
Speaker 3: go and assassinate the president. I feel very skeptical of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I understand the skepticism. Did you were you about
Speaker 2: to say something?
Speaker 9: Mind?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I would just I maybe, But I think that
Speaker 8: citizens on the grand jury disagree, and they weren't skeptical.
Speaker 5: They indicted so they found probable cause.
Speaker 8: I think there's more evidence that will come out that
Speaker 8: we haven't seen yet that they're gonna I think there's
Speaker 8: probable cause that James Comy had the subjective intent he
Speaker 8: intended for his message be to threaten the life of
Speaker 8: the President of the United States, and that's why they
Speaker 8: indicted him. Look, I agree that you have to be
Speaker 8: careful about going down this road where you're going after
Speaker 8: people for their speech. This is not protected speech. Making
Speaker 8: a thread against the president is not protected speech. It's
Speaker 8: a federal crime. It's several federal crimes, says James Comey
Speaker 8: just learned, and it's dangerous. But we just saw with
Speaker 8: this third assassination attempts that people take these messages and
Speaker 8: they act on them. And that's exactly what James Comy wanted. Again,
Speaker 8: he wrote a book about this, about coded messages like
Speaker 8: leading to political violence as wild.
Speaker 2: All right, I want to pivot really quick, Mike. The
Speaker 2: Justice Department says it will force the Scotus ruling in
Speaker 2: every state with racially Jerry Mander district. So we're talking
Speaker 2: South Carolina. I guess North Carolina has already been done. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee.
Speaker 2: This could be a huge, huge shift politically. I think
Speaker 2: I'm not overstating the case when I say that Democrats
Speaker 2: appear to be freaking out, like there's actual panic amongst Democrats,
Speaker 2: and now AOC's out there vowing to retaliate in every
Speaker 2: blue state. I mean, we saw this hypothetical map of
Speaker 2: Illinois where it literally has I think, what seventeen district
Speaker 2: the number seventeen and they're all spaghetti noodles that run
Speaker 2: up to Chicago. So this is what they're going to
Speaker 2: try and do to counter it. What can they legally
Speaker 2: do to defend this? Meaning can we actually get these
Speaker 2: maps changed quickly? Do they have the legal right and
Speaker 2: oomph to do it?
Speaker 8: Give us your take, Yeah, the Supreme Court's ruling six
Speaker 8: or three made crystal clear you.
Speaker 5: Cannot have intentional.
Speaker 8: Racial discrimination when you're creating these congressional districts. You can't
Speaker 8: have DEI districts like the Democrats have done for Solo.
Speaker 8: You can you can jerrymander based upon politics, but you
Speaker 8: can not jerry mander based upon race.
Speaker 5: And so when you have these.
Speaker 8: Blue states that have intentionally drawn their lines based upon
Speaker 8: race DEI districts. The Justice Department's going to sue them
Speaker 8: and get those maps thrown out, and so this is Look,
Speaker 8: it's going to be an uphill fight for Republicans to
Speaker 8: keep the House. But this could this could change the
Speaker 8: momentum significantly.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and there's not a ton you know, we
Speaker 2: talked about this is Ryan James Gerdowski yesterday. There's not
Speaker 2: as many swing districts as there used to be. So
Speaker 2: if you look at even between now and twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: when when the Democrats had that big wave election, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure there's enough seats to kind of, you know,
Speaker 2: replicate that performance. Yeah, we are down right now. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of time between now and November. And if
Speaker 2: some of these House seats Ryan was predicting about at
Speaker 2: least seven congressional districts will be able to get flipped
Speaker 2: as a result of this in time for the midterms,
Speaker 2: I think that's probably right. I looked into it last night.
Speaker 2: So we'll see what happens. But this is a huge,
Speaker 2: huge change. It's it's a massive, massive tectonic shift in
Speaker 2: our politics. What do you think about the legal process
Speaker 2: that's playing out in Virginia with their redistricting. Do you
Speaker 2: have any insight on that, MIC? And then if states
Speaker 2: like Illinois do these spaghetti noodle maps, is there a
Speaker 2: legal defense to block that?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 8: I mean I think that the Civil Rights Division, the
Speaker 8: Justice Department under Army don't should sue these states sue.
Speaker 8: Republicans need to need to fight and fight very hard
Speaker 8: to end these DEI districts. Look at New England. Republicans
Speaker 8: make up like forty plus of New England. They have
Speaker 8: zero House seats in New England because they've been Jerry
Speaker 8: manderd out of off the map. So Republican governors, Republican legislatures,
Speaker 8: the DOJ move forward aggressively and redraw your maps based
Speaker 8: upon politics and sue on the maps that are based
Speaker 8: upon race.
Speaker 2: We haven't talked about the legalities of this, but one
Speaker 2: of the outstanding questions with the SPLC story is that
Speaker 2: it seems like the FBI and the DOJ they uncovered
Speaker 2: this three million dollar plus scheme to pay informants that
Speaker 2: were actually the leaders the organizers of this white supremacy stuff,
Speaker 2: the KKK, the Arean Nations all stuff, but they haven't
Speaker 2: charged individuals yet, and I wrote it not ed in
Speaker 2: Fox and I just said, listen, if we got to
Speaker 2: get accountability like individuals that greenlit this stuff, I don't
Speaker 2: care if it's the board or the executives. People have
Speaker 2: to be held personally accountable for defrauding their donors. First
Speaker 2: of all, I think that's the easiest claim you could make.
Speaker 2: But maybe there's other things that they could go after
Speaker 2: for these executives. For what do you think should happen
Speaker 2: what's legally feasible here?
Speaker 8: I agree. I remember what they did here. The Southern
Speaker 8: Poverty Law Center was telling its donors that it was
Speaker 8: fighting the clan when it was secretly funding the clan.
Speaker 5: There's no way.
Speaker 8: These little old liberal ladies would be sending their checks
Speaker 8: to the SPLC if they knew they were funding the
Speaker 8: ku Klux client and the Aryen Nations. And so you're
Speaker 8: exactly right, Andrew. There has to be and I think
Speaker 8: there will be a superseding indictment or an amendates indictments
Speaker 8: where they name the executives and they name other individuals
Speaker 8: who were involved. This entity didn't commit the crime on
Speaker 8: its own. It was done through the people who run
Speaker 8: the entity. So that I'd say, stay tuned on that.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's good. And could I say that your sources
Speaker 2: have or do you just want to leave it there
Speaker 2: you have some.
Speaker 8: Look, I think that Acting Attorney General Todd blanche is
Speaker 8: a great American. He is bold and fearless, and he
Speaker 8: has a great team. And I have full confidence in
Speaker 8: Todd and his great team at the Justice Department.
Speaker 2: Fair enough. I'll leave it to the audience to interpret
Speaker 2: that as they will. But I couldn't agree more with you, Mike.
Speaker 2: I think individuals that have defrauded their donors here and
Speaker 2: really just done a heinous thing, you know, fueling the
Speaker 2: hate so that they can fundraise off the hate, and
Speaker 2: you know, and then the ideological blurring of the lines
Speaker 2: between Prager you and Turning Point in eighty f and
Speaker 2: putting us on their hate map, putting a target on
Speaker 2: Charlie's back. You know, it was three months and nineteen
Speaker 2: days after the SBOC put Turning Point on the hate
Speaker 2: map that Charlie was assassinated. I hope that sinks in
Speaker 2: for everybody. It was twenty two months after they put
Speaker 2: the Family Research Council on the hate map that their
Speaker 2: offices in DC got shot up. I want to ask
Speaker 2: you a question. Have you been following the Monocua Brewing
Speaker 2: company story. The brewery owner in Wisconsin that after the
Speaker 2: White House correspondence dinner posted that really obscene post about
Speaker 2: you know, it was almost free beer day, right, So
Speaker 2: the idea being if Trump gets assassinated, everybody gets free
Speaker 2: beer for the day at his brewing company. So he's
Speaker 2: posted something here and it says hi, folks, owner kirk here.
Speaker 2: The Secret Service and FBI have contacted me. I'm speaking
Speaker 2: with them with my lawyer Fred in less than an
Speaker 2: hour at Monocua tap room. I encourage supporters to come
Speaker 2: if you can and make sure they don't do anything
Speaker 2: to me. If you don't hear from me our socials tonight,
Speaker 2: something is wrong. I am of sound mind and body.
Speaker 2: I would disagree with that. And he's also pretty overweight,
Speaker 2: too much beer and in no way thinking of harming myself.
Speaker 2: If you don't hear back from me tonight, don't believe
Speaker 2: a thing you hear from the federal government. I think
Speaker 2: this is the front line. I mean, Blake and I
Speaker 2: are even in the breaks having a discussion about free
Speaker 2: free speech and understanding that in this country we have
Speaker 2: very established precedents about what is incitement to violence. Right,
Speaker 2: So this guy was obviously gleefully enjoying the near assassination
Speaker 2: of our president. Again, that's gross and disgusting and it
Speaker 2: must be condemned. But at what point are we at
Speaker 2: risk of blurring those lines and infringing upon his right
Speaker 2: to say gross and viled disgusting things.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, people have the first and I agree
Speaker 8: with Blink on this. People have the right to say
Speaker 8: gross and bile and disgusting things. I say them every
Speaker 8: day on Twitter.
Speaker 2: Is a is you guys, by the way, follow Mike
Speaker 2: Davis on Twitter. It's a good follow. You will be entertained.
Speaker 8: But the issues. You can't threaten the president of the
Speaker 8: president's life, you can't. But that's where you crossed.
Speaker 2: He But that's the question. So he was celebrating, he
Speaker 2: was going to reward his patrons with free beer should
Speaker 2: the president be assassinated. But he I mean, listen, I
Speaker 2: find this to all be so gross and to humanize,
Speaker 2: I think you have a I have a righteous indignation
Speaker 2: and righteous anger towards this person. I think he's mentally unwell.
Speaker 2: I think he's a total scumback. But what where is
Speaker 2: the line? Like what what becomes incitement? Right? Like what
Speaker 2: becomes you know what? What what's the legal line here?
Speaker 5: Yeah? It is.
Speaker 8: I guess I haven't read this post that carefully, but
Speaker 8: under the Supreme Court's precedent from a couple of years ago,
Speaker 8: it's called true threats, meaning when you make a threat,
Speaker 8: it has to be a truth threat. You have to
Speaker 8: look at their subjective intents. Did they intend to harm
Speaker 8: someone with their threat or is it political hyperbole? And
Speaker 8: that's the line that you look at. With James Comy,
Speaker 8: I guarantee you that grand jury heard evidence that he
Speaker 8: that was his actual subjective intent to eighty six forty
Speaker 8: seven to assassinate President Trump.
Speaker 5: And so it's really case by case.
Speaker 8: But I would just say this more broadly, here's the
Speaker 8: bigger problem is we have a Democrat party that promotes
Speaker 8: and celebrates political violence, including assassinations.
Speaker 5: We saw this and it's one sided. It's coming from
Speaker 5: one side.
Speaker 8: Republicans have a hell of a lot more guns than Democrats.
Speaker 8: With all of his own guns, we know how to
Speaker 8: use guns. We're not killing Democrats. It's one sided violence.
Speaker 8: We saw this with now three assassination attempts against President Trump,
Speaker 8: an assassination attempt against Steve's Kalise, Justice Kavanaugh, Charlie kirk Our,
Speaker 8: dear friend, I mean it's we have an assassination culture.
Speaker 2: Thompson, Yeah, LUISGIMANGIONI and Bran Thompson. Here's the actual post.
Speaker 2: I just want you to see it. It's it says
Speaker 2: from a Monocua brewing company. Well, we almost got hashtag
Speaker 2: free beer day. Either a brother or sister in the
Speaker 2: resistance needs to work on their marksmanship, or he faked
Speaker 2: another assassination to get a positive news cycle. We'll never know.
Speaker 2: Regardless that we stand at the ready to pour free
Speaker 2: beer the day it happens.
Speaker 8: That that seems to cross the line to me when
Speaker 8: you're when you're offering free beer if someone kills the president,
Speaker 8: that that they the Secret Service needs to go put
Speaker 8: this guy in jail.
Speaker 2: Blake, I know, I I know, I feel you, I
Speaker 2: feel you, I feel the tension.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's genuinely tough, especially with the President, because
Speaker 3: I think obviously would be justified if you're literally offering
Speaker 3: a bounty to commit an assassination. I think that's worth noting.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, is I will pour out free
Speaker 3: beer to celebrate the death of someone I hate, while
Speaker 3: gross and ugly, does that really count as it?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm just I. We always have to be careful
Speaker 3: about this because we saw with Biden. We know, we
Speaker 3: know the left very much loves to bring cases like
Speaker 3: this with a very sinister agenda, and I think it
Speaker 3: is benefited.
Speaker 5: Deal. Let me say this very fast. This debate is
Speaker 5: exactly the problem.
Speaker 8: On the right, we're principled and nice and the others
Speaker 8: and so we're debating principally and nicely.
Speaker 5: On the other side wants to blow off our heads.
Speaker 2: Well, if I didn't want to be principled, I could
Speaker 2: go be a lib Mike Davis Article three project. Good
Speaker 2: to see you, my friend, We'll see thank you. I
Speaker 2: want to talk to you about an issue you so
Speaker 2: many Americans faith, and that's health insurance. There's an organization
Speaker 2: I really really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries CHM is
Speaker 2: a faith based alternative to health insurance. And this is
Speaker 2: real stuff. Folks like you've gotta listen in with HM.
Speaker 2: You're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing
Speaker 2: in a community with less overhead than the competition. You
Speaker 2: get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members.
Speaker 2: Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's
Speaker 2: medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need
Speaker 2: Because they're not insurance. You get access to your preferred
Speaker 2: doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right.
Speaker 2: If you want to see massive savings in your healthcare budget,
Speaker 2: HM has four low cost programs for every stage of life,
Speaker 2: starting at just one hundred and fifteen dollars a month plus.
Speaker 2: You can enroll or switch your program at any time.
Speaker 2: See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith.
Speaker 2: Start today by visiting ch ministry dot org slash Charlie
Speaker 2: and use promo code Charlie for a fifty percent credit
Speaker 2: towards your first month. That's cchministries dot org slash Charlie
Speaker 2: and use promo code Charlie. It's our ask Us Anything hour.
Speaker 2: It's our final hour two of the week, and that
Speaker 2: means if you are a member at members dot Charliekirk
Speaker 2: dot com, then you can ask questions live on this show.
Speaker 2: And I'm excited about that. So, who's up. First, I
Speaker 2: guess we got Anthony. Anthony, welcome back. Tell us your questions, sir.
Speaker 9: Hey guys, So it's kind of two questions. The first
Speaker 9: is can the president do anything to stop this AI
Speaker 9: tracking tech that will shut cars off starting in twenty
Speaker 9: twenty seven? I know Chip Roy, Thomas Mass and a
Speaker 9: few others are trying to get it amended, but for
Speaker 9: some reason, fifty plus Republicans want it, and I know
Speaker 9: Biden put it in twenty twenty one. And then my
Speaker 9: other question, I'll ask real quick so you guys can
Speaker 9: answer back to back data centers. They seem to be
Speaker 9: popping up faster and faster each day and week. Other
Speaker 9: than being used a sort of data for AI, what
Speaker 9: are we going to be using these for? Because they don't.
Speaker 9: They're more of an expense to a local community than
Speaker 9: they are a revenue generator.
Speaker 3: You want to take either, I can talk about I
Speaker 3: could do the data center one first. So the thing
Speaker 3: about data centers, I think a lot of people aren't
Speaker 3: necessarily aware of data centers do pre date AI. A
Speaker 3: data center is basically a building that just has a
Speaker 3: ton of computer equipment in one spot. So you think
Speaker 3: of used to have mainframe rooms decades ago, but our
Speaker 3: need for computers has gone up exponentially since then. And
Speaker 3: so everything that you run through the internet, which is
Speaker 3: all your banking, your purchases, you're surfing on Facebook, all
Speaker 3: those photos you're uploading into the cloud, everyone's store stuff
Speaker 3: on the cloud, has to go somewhere, and the demands
Speaker 3: for it are so great that rather than you know,
Speaker 3: Google isn't just going to have some room on their
Speaker 3: campus that does this, They're just going to build entire
Speaker 3: buildings dedicated to this stuff. And then what's happened is
Speaker 3: since AI started to take off, the demands for computational
Speaker 3: power online have gone up so much that anticipating how
Speaker 3: successful this is going to be, a lot of companies Amazon,
Speaker 3: Google among them Microsoft, they're building huge numbers of new
Speaker 3: data centers, and so it's become this front in the
Speaker 3: AI fight. But these do exist without AI, and they
Speaker 3: will continue to exist regardless. I know this is probably
Speaker 3: going to make me a giant target. I am relatively
Speaker 3: pro data center in the sense that I think AI
Speaker 3: is going to be something we're going to have to manage.
Speaker 3: But it's clearly a major new technology that's not going away.
Speaker 3: And we want the United States to be strong in
Speaker 3: new technology, want to dominate a new technology. We don't
Speaker 3: want it to be where we secede from this and
Speaker 3: then China just eats our lunch on this powerful new tech.
Speaker 9: And that makes sense.
Speaker 3: And on top of that, I think I would have
Speaker 3: to check the numbers, but whether they're a cost center
Speaker 3: or a revenue generator. I know I was reading in
Speaker 3: loud And County, Virginia, for example, which has a ton
Speaker 3: of them. They generate property taxes and they don't generate
Speaker 3: traffic for example, they're they're a building that people pay
Speaker 3: property taxes to operate. They do consume electricity, and I
Speaker 3: know that that's a concern. They've gone up and they've
Speaker 3: raised energy prices.
Speaker 2: Well, the President has now sort of directed them to
Speaker 2: have to build their own sort of power source or
Speaker 2: augmented that's a.
Speaker 3: That's like a stop gap that they're doing, and because
Speaker 3: it's easier, and what we're really confronting there that's sad
Speaker 3: is it's a lot easier for us to say, for
Speaker 3: a company to build a small, inefficient power plant on
Speaker 3: their own thing. Because they're so desperate to get them up,
Speaker 3: they're willing to do this, but it would be vastly
Speaker 3: better if we were just building more normal power plants.
Speaker 3: And it's just not able to do this.
Speaker 2: So I am a child of the West, Western United States.
Speaker 2: Charlie and I used to disagree on this stuff. Charlie
Speaker 2: was I think more amenable to some of Mike Lee
Speaker 2: these ideas about seizing a mass amount of federal lands
Speaker 2: blm lands and putting houses on it. I thought that
Speaker 2: there would be better ways to do that. Okay, I
Speaker 2: am as a child of the West. I actually love conservation.
Speaker 2: I love open spaces. One of the things I hate
Speaker 2: most is going through the desert and you can see
Speaker 2: it here in Arizona and seeing these massive fields of
Speaker 2: solar solar panels out in the middle of the desert.
Speaker 2: Generally in New York too. Yeah, I think it's gross, actually,
Speaker 2: and I think that same about windmills. I want to
Speaker 2: see open place, open spaces, and so one of the
Speaker 2: things that I don't really love is this move to
Speaker 2: build these giant you know, uh, data centers, these buildings.
Speaker 2: They're ugly. So but I'm like Blake, I'm pro growth.
Speaker 2: I want to see US advance and i want to
Speaker 2: see US lead in this in this way, and if
Speaker 2: there's a if there's a workaround when it comes to
Speaker 2: the power source and keeping the rates down for everybody else,
Speaker 2: I'm I'm all, I'm I want any solutions, So I'm
Speaker 2: sort of agnostic on the solution. But what I will say,
Speaker 2: Jack Posobak actually had a great idea. We have a
Speaker 2: lot of old building in this country that are basically
Speaker 2: dilapidated already on development his mall topic, all the mall theory.
Speaker 2: I actually like that. I don't know if it's workable,
Speaker 2: so I haven't talked to anybody about it, but I
Speaker 2: like it directionally, where you use old spaces that have
Speaker 2: become dilapidated, that have been you know, underutilized, and you
Speaker 2: you break ground there because it's already developed land. You're
Speaker 2: not You're not going out into the middle of the
Speaker 2: desert here and building some much strong.
Speaker 3: That's a great thing that's put out a lot of
Speaker 3: them just they are they're built like ugly modern buildings.
Speaker 3: And in addition to use old buildings, the reason we
Speaker 3: want to use old buildings. Old buildings are pretty So
Speaker 3: we could just say you can build your data center,
Speaker 3: but it's got to be art deco. It's got to
Speaker 3: look like it fell out of the nineteen tour, or
Speaker 3: make it look like a castle. I saw a tweet
Speaker 3: that suggested it make it look like a medieval castle or.
Speaker 2: Estate around you.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, we want to hit the other question as well.
Speaker 3: So that's about I said. Twenty twenty one. It's twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one. They call it the kill Switch Law. It
Speaker 3: was called the Halt Drunk Driving Act, and I think
Speaker 3: it was even possible. It was sort of passed, and
Speaker 3: the idea was while in the future, we're gonna have
Speaker 3: more computerized cars, and cars need to include some sort
Speaker 3: of technology. They were pretty vague about it to detect
Speaker 3: whether a person trying to start the car is intoxicated
Speaker 3: on alcohol, and then it would, as it says, kind
Speaker 3: of be a kill switch. It would prevent them from driving.
Speaker 3: And the idea is to prevent drunk driving deaths, which
Speaker 3: is a good thing. Thousands of people get killed by
Speaker 3: drunk drivers every year. But obviously there's this freedom dynamic
Speaker 3: which we're basically if we're going to add that tech
Speaker 3: to a car, what we're basically saying is we want
Speaker 3: tech in your car that is always spying on you.
Speaker 3: Can't be deactivated, can be used for infinity other potential uses,
Speaker 3: and you know law enforcement and authoritarian government would be
Speaker 3: eager to do that. Now, whether President Trump can do
Speaker 3: anything about it, as you said, it is an act
Speaker 3: of Congress. We know this administration is pretty creative, Honestly.
Speaker 3: One thing that comes to mind that I wouldn't be
Speaker 3: surprised if they came out if they took a page
Speaker 3: out of a Democrat playbook and said, well, we can't
Speaker 3: repeal this law, but can just announce right now we'll
Speaker 3: never enforce it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that.
Speaker 3: Would be a way to go about it.
Speaker 2: That's another slipper.
Speaker 3: I don't like it. I don't like that, but that
Speaker 3: is an option I could see this administration doing.
Speaker 2: Or they find creative ways to litigate it, or it
Speaker 2: could get stayed in the course they.
Speaker 3: Could say, they could Another strategy they could do is
Speaker 3: they could invite someone to sue over it and say
Speaker 3: we actually believe this law was an unconstitutional invasion into
Speaker 3: privacy and we're not going to defend it intentionally lose.
Speaker 2: I've seen some people online attack this law because basically
Speaker 2: you could you could envision a situation where somebody's out
Speaker 2: in the field, they get injured. Maybe they're a farmer
Speaker 2: or a construction worker. They get injured, they drag themselves
Speaker 2: into their car, but the car detect them in their
Speaker 2: injured state with maybe dilated pupils whatever, it will not
Speaker 2: turn on even though they're trying to drive themselves to safety.
Speaker 2: So that could be a realistic way to combat this law,
Speaker 2: because it could get in the way of law abiding
Speaker 2: citizens that are just trying to get to the hospital.
Speaker 3: There's so many ways that could end up being annoying
Speaker 3: or of knocks. And another thing I would say a
Speaker 3: reason to delay this is this is a huge intrusion
Speaker 3: on privacy when we know looking around that we're what
Speaker 3: maybe five years away from everyone being able to afford
Speaker 3: a car that just drives itself everywhere, and that's gonna
Speaker 3: be vastly safer. And then we could just say we
Speaker 3: don't even need to ban driving your own car, but
Speaker 3: we could just massively increase the penalties for drunk driving
Speaker 3: because we'll be able to say it's super easy. Every
Speaker 3: car made these days drives itself. You have no excuse
Speaker 3: forever driving intoxicated. I think that would be a reasonable
Speaker 3: way through this. Just wait, for technology to overtake us
Speaker 3: on this question. Yeah, but in general, we are very
Speaker 3: very leery of it. Want to see it get stricken from.
Speaker 9: Yeah, because I'm actually looking at it.
Speaker 2: It's an Act of Congress, so it's gonna be it's
Speaker 2: gonna be tricking, and I don't think we should just
Speaker 2: ignore the laws. Actually. So anyways, next question up, Who
Speaker 2: do we got next? Elizabeth Yes, Hi, Andrew Hi, Welcome
Speaker 2: to the show. Elizabeth Hi, Blake, Hi, thank.
Speaker 10: You for having me. Quick idea. Can some one please
Speaker 10: sell a hashtag Team Erica's shirt Pray the Demons away?
Speaker 10: I'd buy ten.
Speaker 2: Foot food for thought. Yes, exactly, hashtag pray for Erica.
Speaker 2: Is that what she said?
Speaker 10: Oh, Team America, Pray the Demons away?
Speaker 2: Oh, I like that even better.
Speaker 3: A lot of teams out there, there's a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and there's a lot of Team Erica. We've
Speaker 2: just been our inbox, have been in it.
Speaker 3: We get a lot, buddy, and we appreciate emails to
Speaker 3: that effect. We forward them onto Erica quite often. She
Speaker 3: applies to them quite no.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she listen. She's doing great. I think this week
Speaker 2: was super helpful. Just I mean, I don't want to
Speaker 2: put words in her mouth, but I would just say
Speaker 2: she's laser focused. Like I feel like there was something.
Speaker 2: I was in the room at the White House Correspondence
Speaker 2: dinner as well, and I will tell you when you
Speaker 2: are hiding under a table and you could feel the
Speaker 2: Secret Service like rushing. I mean, the first thing I noticed,
Speaker 2: Elizabeth was I looked to the back of the room
Speaker 2: to which was to my right, and I saw a
Speaker 2: chair flying in the air, and it was this Secret
Speaker 2: Service guy that couldn't get through, so he just took
Speaker 2: the chair and flung it some where. Hopefully he didn't
Speaker 2: hit somebody with it, but you could tell something really
Speaker 2: intense was happening. Yeah, And I hid under the table
Speaker 2: for Yeah, I hit under the table, going like, did
Speaker 2: somebody just kill the president? That's I I had no idea.
Speaker 2: Nobody in that room knew what was going on. There
Speaker 2: was no service. We couldn't like check our feeds. Really,
Speaker 2: we just had no idea. And then so we look,
Speaker 2: there's you know, people rushing. There was a Secret Service
Speaker 2: guy who put his boot on my chair as I
Speaker 2: was hiding under the tai as he was getting around
Speaker 2: our table. So it was really like, I will tell
Speaker 2: you if you say that again, intense. Yeah, no, exactly,
Speaker 2: it was super intense. And I mean I'm not saying
Speaker 2: here I'm traumatized by it or anything like that. Like listen,
Speaker 2: it was a short moment. I got over it pretty quickly,
Speaker 2: kind of gathered myself. It took a few minutes, but
Speaker 2: you know, I went over to go see where Eric was,
Speaker 2: and thankfully she had already been moved to a safer spot.
Speaker 2: But like I will tell you, it's very it's a
Speaker 2: very clarifying moments, very focusing moment when you live through that.
Speaker 2: And I think, listen, there's just so many takeaways and
Speaker 2: I think she did a great job saying dehumanization leads
Speaker 2: to a point where eventually you can logically convince yourself
Speaker 2: that your ideological opponents don't deserve to exist, and we
Speaker 2: want to get away from that as a country. I
Speaker 2: think it's great that she's taken time this week to
Speaker 2: kind of just like focus and just reflect. It's really
Speaker 2: powerful when you do that, when you have time to
Speaker 2: just be and think and think clearly. And again, I
Speaker 2: don't want to put words in her mouth, but that's
Speaker 2: my that's my takeaway from this week. Enough is enough?
Speaker 2: What was your question? Though, as I'm waxing.
Speaker 10: My original question, I apologize whatever I call, I always
Speaker 10: say gress before I begin, I apologize, don't worry. So
Speaker 10: I live in New York State, and in twenty twenty
Speaker 10: two there was a redistricting lawsuit and it happened after
Speaker 10: the original primaries, so they actually had to do a
Speaker 10: second primary. Now, anything that was statewide senator, governor, you
Speaker 10: know what I'm saying, that didn't have to be we'k done.
Speaker 10: But they had to do all the prime Mary's over
Speaker 10: again for all the congressional seats. And so this excuse
Speaker 10: out of Georgia, Eh, We're already started our reactions. What
Speaker 10: are we going to do? They can just redo the
Speaker 10: congressional districts and do the regression the congressional primaries. We
Speaker 10: have a case study where it's already been done in
Speaker 10: New York State.
Speaker 2: Who do you guys know, Well in Louisiana is already
Speaker 2: moved to basically do just that. So I think it's
Speaker 2: going to depend on the states. But I'm with you, Elizabeth.
Speaker 2: I think you just got to break glass. Sometimes you
Speaker 2: got to say, hey, where there's a will, there's a way,
Speaker 2: let's get this done, but it's gonna be state by
Speaker 2: state because not all these guys have a backbone. I mean,
Speaker 2: let's just be clear, Blake, do you have the details
Speaker 2: on this New York.
Speaker 3: I'm looking into it right now. It's it's it's annoying
Speaker 3: because this is actually going back to the data center thing.
Speaker 3: I'm having to look up on AI because it's a
Speaker 3: pain to google for these things. I'm trying to find,
Speaker 3: like New York redistricting redo, and it just gives me
Speaker 3: all this stuff about this year and I don't want that,
Speaker 3: so I have to go on.
Speaker 2: To the stay. But I mean, in general, I would
Speaker 2: say that where there's a political will, there's usually a way,
Speaker 2: and these things will end up getting challenged in courts,
Speaker 2: so then you need to be prepared to fight it.
Speaker 2: This is why so much doesn't get done in our culture.
Speaker 2: Just you know, as we sort of reflect on some
Speaker 2: of the things that have declined in our country, a
Speaker 2: lot of it is because everything's litigated. Everything's overly litigated,
Speaker 2: everything's challenged in courts. Everything that has now become strategy
Speaker 2: number one is that before you move or act, you
Speaker 2: just have to you have to appreciate the fact that
Speaker 2: you're going to be drawn into a court situation, right
Speaker 2: into a legal fight, and that can work in our
Speaker 2: favorite can work against us. But I think as a whole,
Speaker 2: as Americans, we're just not able to get as much
Speaker 2: stuff done because we're constantly litigating everything.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, the litigation question is a real one. You think
Speaker 3: about I think a lot about everything the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: We were saying, one of the reasons this administration has
Speaker 3: been better than the first one is they did so
Speaker 3: much stuff on day one, all those executive orders because
Speaker 3: we knew so much of the best stuff immediately blocked
Speaker 3: by some Hawaii judge. Oh gott to spend a year
Speaker 3: or two years and worming up to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 3: and the Supreme Court goes, uh, yeah, the administration is
Speaker 3: obviously correct, they're allowed to do this, but it took
Speaker 3: two years, and there was so much great stuff the
Speaker 3: administration did the first time around that only came out
Speaker 3: in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty wasn't even in effect by
Speaker 3: the time there was a change of power. So it's
Speaker 3: much harder to undo a policy if it's in place.
Speaker 3: And the way you do that is by doing it early.
Speaker 3: And that's a little off topic from that, but yeah,
Speaker 3: we agree if it requires messing with your primary. I'm
Speaker 3: looking it looks like with New York. The result I'm
Speaker 3: getting is they delayed the primary by two months. I'm
Speaker 3: not sure if they reran it, but they might be
Speaker 3: mixed up about that.
Speaker 10: Like I said, I devote in two primaries that year.
Speaker 3: Oh that's amazing. That sounds very funny, I must say.
Speaker 2: By the way, just you know Louisiana will delay House
Speaker 2: primaries after Supreme Court redistricting rule.
Speaker 3: Which I would just say we should do. Anyway, I
Speaker 3: think one of the silliest things in America is when
Speaker 3: we have primaries in March or May or June. We
Speaker 3: should just have primaries in late August. We should have
Speaker 3: a shorter election season. I think it would be better
Speaker 3: for America if we spent less time running for office,
Speaker 3: because think think about how annoying it is that anything
Speaker 3: this Republican Congress was gonna do, and it wasn't much
Speaker 3: they had to do in the first year. Now it's
Speaker 3: reelection season. Everyone's distracted. Shorter election seasons mean more time
Speaker 3: either governing or better out, just more time not doing politics.
Speaker 3: Because the best things in life are not politics. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and that's interesting.
Speaker 2: Apps and tee voting for the May sixteenth primary in
Speaker 2: Louisiana is already underway. Early voting had been set to
Speaker 2: start for all races this weekend, so it was a
Speaker 2: last minute move, but it can be done. That's the takeaway. Gentlemen,
Speaker 2: Let's get real for a second. Are you frustrated with
Speaker 2: today's woke dating scene? The apps, the games, the endless swiping.
Speaker 2: It's a waste of time finding a woman who shares
Speaker 2: your values faith, family, patriotism. If it feels nearly impossible,
Speaker 2: it doesn't have to. Selective Search, America's leading matchmaking firm,
Speaker 2: is changing the game. They connect strong, successful men like you,
Speaker 2: men who love God, love America, want a family with
Speaker 2: women who share your values. These are intelligent, faith driven
Speaker 2: women who put family first and still believe in traditional values.
Speaker 2: Imagine that. If you're a single, conservative man in his
Speaker 2: late thirties to early fifties in southern California, listen up.
Speaker 2: Selective Search has an exclusive network of women ready for
Speaker 2: the real thing. Here's the best part. Their candidate program
Speaker 2: is one hundred percent free and confidential. Some of our
Speaker 2: closest friends the show have used selective search, and let
Speaker 2: me tell you they're meeting great, great women, high quality women.
Speaker 2: This is your chance. This isn't an app, it's your answer.
Speaker 2: The perfect conservative woman is out there waiting for you.
Speaker 2: Visit selective search dot com slash California today. Let the
Speaker 2: professionals introduce you to women already looking for someone like
Speaker 2: you in southern California. Don't wait for the perfect match.
Speaker 2: Take action now. Go to selective search dot com slash
Speaker 2: California and start building the future you deserve. All right,
Speaker 2: we've got David nurse, a nurse named David. I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, David, welcome to the show. Tell us your question.
Speaker 5: My question is very simple.
Speaker 11: I just heard you talk to Mike Davis about uh,
Speaker 11: the gentleman who was threatening the president.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the Monoqua brewing guy. Yeah, from Wisconsin.
Speaker 11: Right, and we're we're in California and we still have
Speaker 11: uh that's my question. We still have men and women's
Speaker 11: sports or men replacing ah in the girls high school
Speaker 11: vision and uh, you know what what.
Speaker 5: Can we do to fix that?
Speaker 11: Because it also we're talking about it, but it ain't
Speaker 11: nothing happening.
Speaker 3: Blake, you want to well, I mean if it's very
Speaker 3: tough if you're in California, because our best venue for
Speaker 3: acting is at the state level. Nevertheless, the Trump administration
Speaker 3: has been making efforts in this direction. They've put certainly
Speaker 3: a lot of pressure on justly so I think they
Speaker 3: put the most pressure on hospitals that are like trans
Speaker 3: and kids and stuff. But they've also embraced the no
Speaker 3: men and women's sports agenda. I know there's executive orders
Speaker 3: to that effect. They run into various a lot of
Speaker 3: legal fights.
Speaker 5: But these guys are are.
Speaker 11: People in charge are not listening because this guy who's
Speaker 11: we're getting ready to go into the CIF free limbs,
Speaker 11: and he's beating We're going to the meet next week,
Speaker 11: he's still beating girls out and girls are still getting replaced.
Speaker 5: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, no, no, no, So I'm just reminded as
Speaker 2: you're talking here, David. There was a March twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five letter from US Education Secretary Linda Man and she
Speaker 2: sent it to Governor Gavin Newsom urging him to take
Speaker 2: action against the participation of transgender athletes and girls and
Speaker 2: women's sports, referencing his own recent comments to Charlie in
Speaker 2: that podcast when he referred to it as deeply unfair.
Speaker 2: The letter followed a period of the federal government ramped
Speaker 2: up pressure in California. So they basically have threatened funding
Speaker 2: for the cif and California Department of Education grants via
Speaker 2: Title nine because they're allowing transgender girls to compete transgender
Speaker 2: people that are boys compete in girls sports. The federal
Speaker 2: officials gave California at ten day deadline to comply with
Speaker 2: requirements including banning transathletes and redefining sex based on biology.
Speaker 2: California responded. California officials rejected the demand, with the state
Speaker 2: Superintendent Tony Thurmond urging districts to resist and Attorney General
Speaker 2: Rob Bonta finding a pre enforcement lawsuit against the dj
Speaker 2: So it's basically an ongoing litigated I.
Speaker 3: Was checking on that. Yeah, so they're suing them under
Speaker 3: Title nine. Title nine is an old federal law that
Speaker 3: says you can't have sex discrimination in government funded education.
Speaker 3: I don't think they anticipated what they were on corking
Speaker 3: when they did that, because I think that was just intended,
Speaker 3: Oh you can't, Yeah, you can't be discriminatory between men
Speaker 3: and women. Now that's turned into transgender in sports. The
Speaker 3: Biden administration tried to do. Is it the other way
Speaker 3: where they said it would violate Title nine if you
Speaker 3: didn't let men join women's sports teams. Yeah, very fascinating stuff,
Speaker 3: but we're using it towards a certainly more justifiable goal
Speaker 3: right now. We'll hope that at triumphs in court we
Speaker 3: have a relatively friendly Supreme Court. But we're getting back
Speaker 3: to what we were discussing in the last segment, which
Speaker 3: is the annoying fact that really, regardless of what the
Speaker 3: law says, regardless of how clear the policy is, everything
Speaker 3: needs to practically go up to the Supreme Court before
Speaker 3: you can get anything done.
Speaker 2: And I think they should probably just go ahead and
Speaker 2: pull the funding, to be honest. So and then they'll
Speaker 2: sue about that too. But that's how you ratchet up
Speaker 2: the pressure is you just say, well, listen, well, it's
Speaker 2: you know, this is getting litigated whether or not we
Speaker 2: have a right to tell you to stop putting trans
Speaker 2: you know, athletes in women's sports. We're just gonna pull
Speaker 2: the funding.
Speaker 3: Anyways, it'd be very it would be very enjoyable if
Speaker 3: the Trump administration just said, oh, you know, giving your
Speaker 3: pattern of willful defiance on this and on immigration, we're
Speaker 3: going to yank all of your education funding, elementary schools,
Speaker 3: high schools, colleges, the whole shebang. A bunch of fun,
Speaker 3: a very dramatic crisis in the state of California, which
Speaker 3: is a tumor constantly devouring federal funds for fraudulent purposes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there's just so many instances of bad
Speaker 2: actors getting away with so much in California. Chris Ruffo
Speaker 2: has been doing some great investigative journalism. Our frontlines team
Speaker 2: has uncovered a bunch of it, from the hospice care
Speaker 2: situations that have we found in Los Angeles to the yeah,
Speaker 2: the trans athletes stuff. But there's just so much runaway
Speaker 2: spending in California that now they're trying to do this
Speaker 2: wealth tax, by the way, which is obscene and uh,
Speaker 2: you know, and by the way, Elon Musk has been
Speaker 2: making this point where every tax that's ever been proposed
Speaker 2: to just get the rich eventually gets everybody. So you're
Speaker 2: on a slippery slope in California in that way too.
Speaker 2: But this is being litigated, David. That's the answer to
Speaker 2: your question, and we're gonna see where it goes. I
Speaker 2: might send a note or two to say, you know,
Speaker 2: what can we do to ramp up pressure because I
Speaker 2: think this is a fight that's worth fighting. Thanks for
Speaker 2: your question, David, who do we got next? Blake?
Speaker 3: I believe we have Mick and it's a question that
Speaker 3: they want us to read. Okay, so we'll do this,
Speaker 3: Mick says. I am frankly disappointed with the talking points
Speaker 3: that came up after Trump was almost assassinated this past weekend.
Speaker 3: I don't understand why build the ballroom was the main
Speaker 3: line when it should have been we are going to
Speaker 3: arrest people who make any threats of any kind to
Speaker 3: anyone based on their beliefs. I understand we have people
Speaker 3: who we can't alienate with super strong rhetoric. So how
Speaker 3: do we effectively communicate that violence will be dealt with
Speaker 3: while not alienating to many people? You know?
Speaker 2: It's I find it interesting about your question, Mick, that
Speaker 2: you think that build the ballroom was the main talking point.
Speaker 2: It's interesting because that went viral on social media because
Speaker 2: the allegation was that there was some group chat or
Speaker 2: people were paid to do that. I was one of
Speaker 2: those people that posted that, and my story is way
Speaker 2: less cool than that. Nobody paid me for that. It
Speaker 2: was Danny texted it to me. He's like, man, I
Speaker 2: wish we had the ballroom, and I was like, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna.
Speaker 3: See it was a natural I think it, but that
Speaker 3: was a big response we saw. Congress did immediately introduce
Speaker 3: a bill to pay for the ballroom.
Speaker 2: Which I think. I think we should keep it privately funded.
Speaker 3: I think that's a better move.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think we should call it the Charles J.
Speaker 2: Kirk Ballroom. That's what I think.
Speaker 3: I think the way you could do it is just
Speaker 3: the fact that it hasn't in the argue that it
Speaker 3: hasn't been approved during Doris is it would be good
Speaker 3: for them to approve it, and maybe they could pro
Speaker 3: forma offer money and less private funding offsets it and
Speaker 3: then you can handle it.
Speaker 2: I don't think that should be the main talking point either.
Speaker 2: And I think it became maybe that in your mind
Speaker 2: because people thought it was a paid for post. It
Speaker 2: wasn't a paid It was just an a logical thing
Speaker 2: that I think a lot of people came to on
Speaker 2: their own, or maybe they you know Blake's or was
Speaker 2: this yours or I think I can't remember who told
Speaker 2: me this but somebody was like, well somebody said it
Speaker 2: on Fox News that night, and I bet like a
Speaker 2: lot of people were just watching Fox News and post it,
Speaker 2: you know, watching the breaking news unfold, and they were like,
Speaker 2: that's a good Idea'm gonna tweet it.
Speaker 3: But setting aside, so we have to you know, the line,
Speaker 3: we're going to arrest people who make any threats of
Speaker 3: any kind.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 3: I think that should be something we're alert to.
Speaker 2: We should be. I think you've seen this in Monaqua.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we've seen this.
Speaker 12: Now.
Speaker 3: We do want to be careful because we were, you know,
Speaker 3: we were just debating it a bit with uh, with
Speaker 3: Mike Davis. What qualifies as a threat? I think we
Speaker 3: should be careful about expanding that aggressively because.
Speaker 2: It will be against it, it will.
Speaker 3: Be used against us. And also I strongly favor preserving
Speaker 3: a very robust free speech culture, which means one has
Speaker 3: to have a tolerance for a lot of stupid stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but you are correct, we should have very low tolerance
Speaker 3: for actual violence, and that is where I would really
Speaker 3: like to see things ramped up. We're very supportive of
Speaker 3: the charges brought against that family that assaulted Savannah Hernandez,
Speaker 3: for example, people who think that it's fun in games
Speaker 3: to bash someone in the face at a protest, shove them,
Speaker 3: rip up their stuff on campus when you're doing Heckler's
Speaker 3: veto type activities, when you're doing riots, for example that
Speaker 3: shut down that Charlie event at University of New Mexico.
Speaker 3: Things like that should be met with more force in
Speaker 3: my opinion, as frankly the price to make sure that
Speaker 3: speech can be protected. We want to prevent the blurring
Speaker 3: of lines of violence and speech, and one of the
Speaker 3: easiest ways to do that is to make sure that
Speaker 3: low level politically motivated violence just bam you. You stamp
Speaker 3: that out really aggressively, because that is not acceptable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's why I'm so supportive of what to Blake's point,
Speaker 2: what happened in Minneapolis with the Astrushko family, that they're
Speaker 2: attacking a journalist who's just trying to get b roll
Speaker 2: for a video, so really important that you make a
Speaker 2: very loud noise as well when you arrest these people
Speaker 2: or when you prosecute them, because it's one thing to
Speaker 2: arrest them, it's one thing another thing if nobody knows
Speaker 2: that it happened. So part of the job is on
Speaker 2: us to say, hey, this person was threatening the president.
Speaker 2: They have been arrested and they were gonna they're gonna
Speaker 2: go to jail for a very long time. It's not
Speaker 2: gonna go well for them. Okay. Anyways, I because there's
Speaker 2: a lot of stories. People forget that there was a
Speaker 2: Molotov cocktail dude that went into mar A Lago when
Speaker 2: Trump wasn't at mar A Lago. Like, these kind of
Speaker 2: stories happen, and you know, we don't even we don't
Speaker 2: even remember them. Did you have something else to add? Sorry?
Speaker 2: I think I, oh, oh, this is Mick. We're not
Speaker 2: even talking about. Yeah, so we're gonna get to the
Speaker 2: next question in the next segment. We're running low on
Speaker 2: time here. But yeah, the ballroom is just an aside.
Speaker 2: It was a it was a footnote in that Bernadette,
Speaker 2: you're up next, Please immute yourself. Welcome to the Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk Show.
Speaker 12: Did you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes? It is again?
Speaker 12: How are you guys? Is amazing. I've been on it
Speaker 12: since Scott three years. Even made a joke with John
Speaker 12: about it. I took it to all the meetings, always
Speaker 12: had it with.
Speaker 2: Me, changing lives.
Speaker 12: My question is about mister Blakeman. I went to his fundraiser.
Speaker 12: The man's amazing. He's got a great plan. He wants
Speaker 12: to end sanctuary states, you know, cities right immediately, slash
Speaker 12: utility costs, aggressive tax cuts across the board. Did a
Speaker 12: great job in Nassau County. I have a lot of
Speaker 12: the Turning Point Chapter kids that are going to go
Speaker 12: and do some campaigning, so can hit the areas, you know,
Speaker 12: like upstate New York some of the weaker areas. Kind
Speaker 12: of mentioned it to Tyler. I think that this candidate
Speaker 12: is a great, a great option for us against Kathy Hochel.
Speaker 12: I would love if you guys could get him. He
Speaker 12: would love to come on the show.
Speaker 3: We should look into that now.
Speaker 12: I did Tyler, and Tyler said he was going to
Speaker 12: get the I know he's busy because he's building the
Speaker 12: Red Wall. So we need to build the Red Wall
Speaker 12: in New York and stop some of these horrible, huge
Speaker 12: taxes we have in NASA and Suffolk County.
Speaker 10: You know.
Speaker 12: He wants to expand the law and order immediately stop
Speaker 12: you know, increase the funding in our local police departments,
Speaker 12: very concentrated on keeping our neighborhoods safe, like he did
Speaker 12: in Nassau County. He turned Nassau County around. I mean,
Speaker 12: we're pretty safe out here in Suffolk and we won't
Speaker 12: let it go bad. But he did do a great job,
Speaker 12: and he's really, really very interested in coming and talking
Speaker 12: to you guys, So I can send you. I sent
Speaker 12: you an email, Blake, and you know how you love
Speaker 12: reading my emails, so I did send you one, and
Speaker 12: I'll send you the contact for his campaign, guys. And
Speaker 12: he would love to get on there and tell everybody
Speaker 12: about what he's going to do to save us in
Speaker 12: New York.
Speaker 3: What do you think, Well, I'd love to talk to him.
Speaker 3: I'd love to profile his campaign. It sounds like he
Speaker 3: has a lot of good ideas and we would love
Speaker 3: to see better governance in New York, which it's worth
Speaker 3: noting they've had a Republican governor within the past twenty years.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So it was an internal GOP poll from March
Speaker 2: had him down by nine. The public polling shows him
Speaker 2: down by thirteen. And you got to remember lee Zelden
Speaker 2: ran a heck of us. Eldon was at the same
Speaker 2: numbers leez Elden. Yeah, leez Elden lost by It looks
Speaker 2: like six point four points, and he actually ran a
Speaker 2: great campaign.
Speaker 3: That's the thing. So what's unfortunately here it always makes
Speaker 3: it tough is there's kind of this idea you could
Speaker 3: use to describe a lot of Democrat politics, which is
Speaker 3: they've horribly messed up their states and they've taken it
Speaker 3: to the point where they have really driven a lot
Speaker 3: of people out, and the people they drive out are
Speaker 3: the ones most inclined to vote them out, and it's
Speaker 3: politically advantageous for them to do so they're still at
Speaker 3: the top of the pile, even if they're making the
Speaker 3: state worse off. It's great to be on top of
Speaker 3: the state. And you can look at the domestic migration stats.
Speaker 3: I always like to look at those because that's the
Speaker 3: best proof we have that the blue state model has failed.
Speaker 3: What Americans when they move, they move to red states.
Speaker 3: They're moving to Texas, They're moving to Florida, Tennessee. Everywhere
Speaker 3: in the South is gaining people from the rest of
Speaker 3: the country, But California is shedding hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 3: people like per year on average. In terms of the
Speaker 3: New York is right behind them, and New York is
Speaker 3: right behind them. I think New York. They're having their
Speaker 3: population I think declining year to year now because international
Speaker 3: migration has gone down. And that was their system, that
Speaker 3: was the Mamdannification of New York. Is let's drive out
Speaker 3: tens of thousands of Native New Yorkers. They're off moving
Speaker 3: to Florida, they're off moving to Texas, and they're replacing
Speaker 3: them with Mamdanni's who either can't vote, or when they
Speaker 3: get the ability to vote, they're voting lockstep Democrat, their
Speaker 3: third world Marxists. They don't they're actively fine with just
Speaker 3: ripping the state apart. It's great for them, and it
Speaker 3: just does make it harder and harder for us to win.
Speaker 3: I don't know that Rudy Giuliani could have won his
Speaker 3: mayoral elections in today's New York. And I don't know
Speaker 3: if Pataki could have won his elections in today's New York.
Speaker 3: So we're very optimistic for Blakeman, but it is a
Speaker 3: big hill to climb.
Speaker 12: Yeah, well, I think also, like I said, having the
Speaker 12: I do, we have about fifty of your chapter leaders.
Speaker 12: We are going to meet with him in campaign headquarters
Speaker 12: in two weeks, and we're going to take on those
Speaker 12: areas that really don't know him, that can benefit of
Speaker 12: him or not. So we're gonna go up like upstate
Speaker 12: New York, upstate where these people are just going to
Speaker 12: vote Democrat because that's all they know, and try to
Speaker 12: push his one hundred day plan, ending the sanctuary cities,
Speaker 12: slashing the utility costs, aggressive tax cuts like he did
Speaker 12: in Nassall County, one of the richest counties. I might add,
Speaker 12: expanding the law in order and going against all of
Speaker 12: the things that are making everybody unsafe, poor and dangerous,
Speaker 12: especially the utility bill dollars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean all of this stuff. Yeah, you're you're
Speaker 2: you're going through the laundry list of bad Democrat governance.
Speaker 2: And we totally agree. Can you send you have his contact?
Speaker 2: Can you send it to our Absolutely have it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'll reach out to and we'll get him on the show.
Speaker 2: I absolutely I agree with this. I you know, Charlie
Speaker 2: used to do this as well. Like we keep talking
Speaker 2: about California, we keep talking about New York because there
Speaker 2: will come a day and I really believe this where
Speaker 2: we will reclaim those two states.
Speaker 3: I think we're taking cat California. We will, We'll talk
Speaker 3: about it, and we'll fight yeah, all right, So thank.
Speaker 2: You for your call. Send us his contact. We'll get
Speaker 2: him back on send O.
Speaker 3: Thank you, God bless you, Blake. We have a final question.
Speaker 3: A final question. This is from Pete and it's another
Speaker 3: one we have to read. Uh, he says, uh, speaking
Speaker 3: of fighting things with more force, as you guys just
Speaker 3: mentioned regarding free speech, It's good that you finally showed
Speaker 3: a bit of fight this week. With respect to drum
Speaker 3: roll cand Owans, this is exactly what Charlie would have done.
Speaker 3: He wouldn't have sat back and let her set the
Speaker 3: agenda in her attempts to destroy Turning Point USA and
Speaker 3: to destroy Erica. He would expose her for exactly what
Speaker 3: she is. You need to dismantle her fake claims like
Speaker 3: they do on Paramount Tactical and speak more about their
Speaker 3: falling out. When are you going to take the fight
Speaker 3: up to her?
Speaker 2: So he's talking about, you know, Erica's speech that she
Speaker 2: gave on Wednesday and where she said that she's been
Speaker 2: accused of killing her husband, which she has.
Speaker 3: There's been some fake nonsense where people say she's never
Speaker 3: been accused of that bogus.
Speaker 2: I posted it.
Speaker 3: I've had to watch far too much stuff about this
Speaker 3: where if they're saying Erica should be arrested, that she's
Speaker 3: but if this evidence was against anyone else, they would
Speaker 3: be on trial, which has been said. If they're saying
Speaker 3: she's part of a conspiracy, they are saying that she
Speaker 3: did it, period, And I'm not going to accept any
Speaker 3: nonsense saying otherwise.
Speaker 2: Correct. Yeah, And so I posted a screen grab where
Speaker 2: you know, Candace was talking with a former employee of
Speaker 2: Mind and saying, you know, my first question ahead of
Speaker 2: the December fifteenth meeting that they had in Nashville is
Speaker 2: going to be why did you murder your husband? So
Speaker 2: I posted that, and I think that's what Pete is
Speaker 2: referring to. Yeah, I mean, listen, I think that there
Speaker 2: is some truth to that. And you know where the
Speaker 2: line really gets for me is if you're going to
Speaker 2: come for Erica Kirk, you're going to start having to
Speaker 2: go through me, Blake and the rest of us because
Speaker 2: I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of Charlie's widow
Speaker 2: getting attacked senselessly, and that's it.
Speaker 3: I'm sick of people. A ton of these people trash
Speaker 3: Charlie right up to the point of his death, and
Speaker 3: then I'm sick of people who are trafficking and lies
Speaker 3: and presenting themselves as his best friend when they hate
Speaker 3: his organization, hate his wife, hate the people around him,
Speaker 3: hate what he fought for, hate the Jews, hate everyone,
Speaker 3: and they come out and they just deal in lies
Speaker 3: and manipulation because they think that'll make them rich and
Speaker 3: get clips.
Speaker 2: For more on many of these stories and news, you
Speaker 2: can try go to Charlikirk dot com