Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, America, You're a great American. Again the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. Remember the Hello everybody, This is
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk filling in for the Great Buck Sexton on
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Radio Show. I was with you a
Speaker 1: couple days ago. Just thrilled to be back here on
Speaker 1: familiar turf. Buck Sexton is a patriot. Buck Sexton is
Speaker 1: a hero. It's terrific to be here. A lot going
Speaker 1: on in the news today seems that it's amazing how
Speaker 1: upset the left and Democrats get whenever there are measures,
Speaker 1: wherever there are efforts to try to save lives. I'm
Speaker 1: on board, children, It's amazing how upset the left, how
Speaker 1: much they rage, how much victory all there is when
Speaker 1: conservatives and Republicans do whatever they can to protect the unborn.
Speaker 1: And I want to go slowly but deliberately about this
Speaker 1: abortion issue. So I got a lot of questions about it,
Speaker 1: and I think there's a lot of confusion around this topic.
Speaker 1: First and foremost, we have to decide when life begins.
Speaker 1: We have a universal medically adopted, medically agreed upon consensus
Speaker 1: of when life ends. We can say we issue a
Speaker 1: death certificate of when a life is over. However, we
Speaker 1: do not have that same sort of consensus of when
Speaker 1: life begins. In fact, there is no agreement, There is
Speaker 1: no sort of determination, for lack of a better term,
Speaker 1: of when that life begins. And so typically those of
Speaker 1: us that are pro life believe that life begins when
Speaker 1: the sperm and the egg meet. This is commonly called conception.
Speaker 1: That is, when there is the unique and magical blend
Speaker 1: of two different beings capacity to reproduce, something happens there
Speaker 1: that will never happen again. More specifically, there is a DNA,
Speaker 1: There is a mixture that is so unique that the
Speaker 1: termination of that rather intentional such as abortion or birth control,
Speaker 1: are unintentional such as a miscarriage, will make that unique
Speaker 1: being disappear forever. And so that's where we start from.
Speaker 1: Those of us that are pro life, we start from
Speaker 1: the scientific that's right, I'm using that word scientific, the
Speaker 1: scientific fact that life begins. And so the first question
Speaker 1: that I always have when I'm debating people that are
Speaker 1: pro choice, do is they call the being? I think
Speaker 1: that's what I'm going to call it just as a
Speaker 1: neutral term to describe as they call the being in
Speaker 1: the womb a fetus. They say it's a fetus. They
Speaker 1: see it's a fetus, they see it's a fetus. So
Speaker 1: my first question always is is the fetus alive or not?
Speaker 1: And of course they say, yeah, the fetus is alive. Okay,
Speaker 1: So then discontinuing the fetus would be making something not alive.
Speaker 1: What do we call that? Let make it's silent. We
Speaker 1: usually would call that being dead. In order to make
Speaker 1: something dead, you have to end a life. I say,
Speaker 1: oh no, no, that's demagoguery. You're playing linguistical terms. I said, oh, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: what species is the fetus? What species is the fetus?
Speaker 1: Because Whoopi Goldberg had this whole deal the other day
Speaker 1: where I think she said it's not a human in
Speaker 1: the womb. She said something along those lines. I hear
Speaker 1: this a lot, and I think about it. Wow, those
Speaker 1: people that really believe in evolution have accelerated their viewpoint.
Speaker 1: Are you trying to tell me that there's a species
Speaker 1: change that happens within the womb, that actually there's something
Speaker 1: pre human about being a fetus that there's something pre human.
Speaker 1: I just said that twice. I'm trying to think a
Speaker 1: better way to say it, but there's something before being
Speaker 1: a human being, about being a fetus. And and of
Speaker 1: course the answer, of course there isn't because the essence
Speaker 1: of what an abortion does is it ends human life
Speaker 1: that is a human being at the moment of conception.
Speaker 1: And so those of us that came that care about
Speaker 1: the rights and the protections of all people. We care
Speaker 1: that as soon as the sperm and the egg, meat,
Speaker 1: and conception happens, that there should be some form of
Speaker 1: protection for that being. And we understand that you can
Speaker 1: live in a very mixed society and that you have
Speaker 1: to have conversations. And you have one form of the
Speaker 1: American political discourse that I'm on that believes abortion is
Speaker 1: abhorrent and horrific and should be reduced that all measures possible,
Speaker 1: and then you have another side that thinks is nothing
Speaker 1: more than cosmetic surgery, it's no big deal, that it's
Speaker 1: just something that needs to be disposed of. And when
Speaker 1: you have that kind of polar opposites, you have to
Speaker 1: understand that, well, maybe we should begin by having no
Speaker 1: late term abortion. How about that no abortion for how
Speaker 1: about let's even start even beyond that, let's not have
Speaker 1: abortion for people that survive abortions. And the Democrats can't
Speaker 1: even agree to that. They cannot even agree to the
Speaker 1: fact that we should not have protections or children or
Speaker 1: for babies that survive abortions. And so there was there
Speaker 1: is a law that was just passed in Alabama that
Speaker 1: restricts abortion that quite frankly, is designed to make this
Speaker 1: go all the way up to the Supreme Court, that
Speaker 1: is designed to challenge roversus weight. And the hysteria on
Speaker 1: the left is predictable. And I want to be very clear,
Speaker 1: this is not going after people that have had abortions,
Speaker 1: is going after abortion doctors. And if you have not
Speaker 1: seen the procedure of an abortion, you've not actually seen
Speaker 1: the inhumanity that happens, the crushing of the skull. I'm
Speaker 1: going to be as as far away from graphic as
Speaker 1: I can because I don't want to get into that.
Speaker 1: But you should go see it for yourself. And my
Speaker 1: friend Lyla Rose at Live Action is very good at
Speaker 1: this and she talks about it quite often. Sure her
Speaker 1: videos are just terrific. And so this issue of abortion
Speaker 1: for those of us that are pro life. We come
Speaker 1: at it from a from a position that every life matters,
Speaker 1: that every life deserves protection. But isn't it always the
Speaker 1: left that is saying that they want to protect children.
Speaker 1: Isn't always the left that says we need to protect
Speaker 1: the rights of the unborn. Isn't it always the left
Speaker 1: that says they're not the unborn? The left? They always
Speaker 1: say that we need to protect the rights of those
Speaker 1: that can't protect themselves, the vulnerable, is what I'm saying
Speaker 1: that they always say that we should protect the rights
Speaker 1: of the vulnerable. What could be more vulnerable than someone
Speaker 1: who's in a person that is in the womb with
Speaker 1: no ability to defend themselves. Here's an interesting question. A
Speaker 1: woman says, it's my body, my choice. We as conservatives
Speaker 1: believe that there's two bodies. Therefore, you don't have a
Speaker 1: choice to end that life. Let me give you a
Speaker 1: great example. I'll give you three examples really quick. Number one,
Speaker 1: do you ever notice how when you go up to
Speaker 1: a pregnant woman that you might know, you say, hey,
Speaker 1: how's your baby? You don't say how's your body? Is
Speaker 1: that interesting? And I say hey, when's your body due?
Speaker 1: You say how's your baby? Because you recognize there something
Speaker 1: else within that woman. We've already believed this as a
Speaker 1: culture in a society, you ever hear a woman who's
Speaker 1: pregnant say, boy, my baby was kicking last night, or
Speaker 1: I'm eating for two. Now, do you ever hear a
Speaker 1: pregnant woman say that I'm eating for two or you know,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to meet my child? There's a there's
Speaker 1: already built into our culture that there's another being within you,
Speaker 1: that that there you don't have the jurisdiction over that being,
Speaker 1: just because you're the temperary host. That's a separate human life.
Speaker 1: It's the first thing. In many states this is still
Speaker 1: the case. New York has just repealed this, which is
Speaker 1: just unbelievable. But in most states, if you kill a
Speaker 1: pregnant woman, it counts as double homicide. If the horrific
Speaker 1: thing that happens, when you actually kill a pregnant woman,
Speaker 1: it counts as a double homicide because that counts as
Speaker 1: is two lives. And do you ever notice that when
Speaker 1: women what do we call I'm here with the producer
Speaker 1: here of the Charlie Kirkshow, executive producer and Andrew and
Speaker 1: of the Charlie kirk Show on Apple podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: download go to Apple podcast type and Charlie kirkshow press subscribe? Andrew,
Speaker 1: what do we call it when a pregnant woman has
Speaker 1: a celebration for their pregnancy. That would be a reveal
Speaker 1: or a something shower? Oh, a baby shower. We don't
Speaker 1: call it a fetus shower. That is correct, okay. And
Speaker 1: so when you call something a baby shower, now here's
Speaker 1: what's so amazing something life should not be determinable on
Speaker 1: object on subjectivity. It should be objectivity. So a woman
Speaker 1: could have a baby shower, be celebrated for her upcoming baby,
Speaker 1: and have a gender reveal. I want you to think
Speaker 1: about this really carefully. People could celebrate it. People could
Speaker 1: have either pink or red. What do they do right?
Speaker 1: The different pink or blue? Those the kind of the
Speaker 1: typical ones? Right pink or blue? Based on the gender reveal?
Speaker 1: And then the woman who is pregnant, based on our laws,
Speaker 1: could drive right after her baby shower and then go
Speaker 1: have an abortion. Think about that? Does it make it
Speaker 1: less of a life or more of a life just
Speaker 1: based on her decision? Everyone's treating is it? Is? It? Is?
Speaker 1: It as if it is a child at that baby shower, right,
Speaker 1: they want to take a picture with, you know, the
Speaker 1: expecting mom. She's talking about the nursery, or she's talking
Speaker 1: about the school that the kid might go to, and
Speaker 1: then right after that she can go have an abortion.
Speaker 1: Does that mean all of a sudden, make that make
Speaker 1: it seem as if that life didn't exist? And this
Speaker 1: is so interesting because we as conservatives, believed we should
Speaker 1: have objective views on when life starts and when life ends.
Speaker 1: What could be more important than that? I think that
Speaker 1: I think you're hitting on a really important topic here,
Speaker 1: because every other litmus test is subjective. Right, If we're
Speaker 1: going to judge life on when it can sustain itself,
Speaker 1: it's like, well, you know, you know my fourteen month
Speaker 1: old can't sustain itself. Does that means she's not a life?
Speaker 1: I mean, they're every other measure is subjective, without a doubt.
Speaker 1: And so they say, well, the I want an abortion
Speaker 1: because I didn't want the child. Whoa you think we
Speaker 1: should just dismiss children that aren't wanted in our society.
Speaker 1: First of all, there are millions of people waiting for
Speaker 1: adoption right now in America. Millions of people in the
Speaker 1: adoption laws are so screwed up. They're so screwed up.
Speaker 1: But you really think we should become a society that
Speaker 1: judges life based on how much we want child. Think
Speaker 1: about that. I don't want the kid. Really. It's called
Speaker 1: taking responsibility for your life, isn't it. And they say, well,
Speaker 1: you know the child can't think for itself, Well, neither
Speaker 1: can a six month year old, six month year old
Speaker 1: couldn't sustain itself. Six month old six month old, not
Speaker 1: a six month year old six month old couldn't sustain itself.
Speaker 1: So you put all these things together, and this is
Speaker 1: why those of us that are pro life are so
Speaker 1: passionate about this topic. I do want to nuance this
Speaker 1: point is that I'm in no way against or criticizing,
Speaker 1: or trying to demonize or women that have had abortions
Speaker 1: at all. I understand that could be a very personal
Speaker 1: and very difficult decision. I know people that have gone
Speaker 1: through that decision. I don't think less of those people
Speaker 1: at all. I really don't. Criticism is towards abortion doctors
Speaker 1: because they know exactly what's going on. They see the ultrasounds,
Speaker 1: they actually do the procedure, and they and their nurses
Speaker 1: actually help engage in those side of processes, and so
Speaker 1: I think far too often the pro life movement becomes
Speaker 1: one that becomes highly critical of women that have actually
Speaker 1: had abortions. So coming up, we're gonna keep talking about
Speaker 1: this Alabama abortion law some of my predictions surrounding that.
Speaker 1: This is Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USATPUSA dot com,
Speaker 1: filling in for Buck Sexton on The Buck Sexton Radio Show.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe to my podcast. Go to Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: press subscribe Charlie Kirk Show. We will be right back.
Speaker 1: Hello everybody. This is Charlie Kirk filling in for the
Speaker 1: great Buck Sexton on the Buck Sexton Radio Show. I
Speaker 1: am the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA,
Speaker 1: the nation's largest student movement dedicated to educating, empowering, and
Speaker 1: organizing students around the values of free markets and limited
Speaker 1: government TPUSA dot com. I'm also the host of the
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk Show. You can go to Apple Podcasts, type
Speaker 1: in Charlie Kirk Show and press subscribe. I'm kind of
Speaker 1: flipping through Twitter here and I'm kind of seeing some
Speaker 1: of the reaction. I'm kind of seeing some of the
Speaker 1: misrepresentations around abortion. I've asked producer Andrew to read off
Speaker 1: some of them and you can kind of comment on
Speaker 1: some of what you got. Well, yeah, I mean right now,
Speaker 1: abortion hashtag abortion is a Woman's Right is trending number
Speaker 1: two on Twitter, and you've got lots of celebrities chiming in.
Speaker 1: You've got you know, Liam from one direction, and I
Speaker 1: mean some of the listeners might not be as familiar
Speaker 1: with somebody like Liam, but you know, suffice to say
Speaker 1: he holds a lot of sway with younger audience, very
Speaker 1: very internationally famous pop star says, I don't normally I
Speaker 1: don't usually comment on politics. By the way, I love it.
Speaker 1: It's always I don't normally comment on it. Okay, you
Speaker 1: mean you only comment every week when you disagree with Trump?
Speaker 1: Go ahead. I don't usually comment on politics, but this
Speaker 1: one got me and is so important, and he quotes
Speaker 1: this whole abortion law thing in America is a mess.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're completely taking away by the way he
Speaker 1: misspells your which is a pet peeve should be you
Speaker 1: postivie r e. Completely taking away the rights of women
Speaker 1: and the ownership of the bodies, bodies plural that belong
Speaker 1: to them. I mean, and so read that last part again.
Speaker 1: This is your compete, this is more. Oh yeah, he
Speaker 1: did a screen grab of his nay yet completely. He's
Speaker 1: got a whole thing here. It's bad enough that women
Speaker 1: have to go through cycles of periods that can be
Speaker 1: painful without making some of them have to go through
Speaker 1: with unwanted pregnancies that will literally change the course of lives.
Speaker 1: This guy should not be an author, by the way,
Speaker 1: or a columnist the same time. Soon it's like a
Speaker 1: flow of consciousness. Abortion up to a certain point. Oh,
Speaker 1: abortion up to a certain point. Hold On, should be legal,
Speaker 1: always be legal. It's only right that women are given
Speaker 1: that choice to make for themselves. Well, hold On first
Speaker 1: of all his positions and direct defines to the Democrat
Speaker 1: Primary and the Democrat Party because they actually don't believe
Speaker 1: they believe in abortion a limited abortion on demand always
Speaker 1: And here's it always bothers me is that it the
Speaker 1: woman is the host of another being. The woman is
Speaker 1: the host of a child within her, and so what
Speaker 1: gives her the full jurisdiction to decide the feature and
Speaker 1: the fate of that child based I do believe there
Speaker 1: should be exceptions. Actually, I do believe there are in
Speaker 1: certain exceptions. I'm actually in the minority in some of
Speaker 1: the concerted moment. I think that rape, incest, life the mother,
Speaker 1: and health of the mother should be reasonable exceptions. But
Speaker 1: just so you know, that's less than two percent of
Speaker 1: all abortions. Solissa Milano goes on CNN and she says, well,
Speaker 1: some women have unwanted pregnancies because a crime gets committed
Speaker 1: to them. And she's talking about insisting rape, and she says,
Speaker 1: Republicans want to take that away. First of all, the
Speaker 1: majority opinion of Republicans out there is no those exceptions
Speaker 1: are perfectly fine. Some conservatives think there should be no
Speaker 1: exception for rape, and I respect that opinion. I just
Speaker 1: disagree if that. I think if an act of a
Speaker 1: crime was done to you that results in a pregnancy,
Speaker 1: you should not be you should not be forced to
Speaker 1: have to continue to have that child. That's an act
Speaker 1: of force was done against you. And sam can be
Speaker 1: said with incest, which is a crime against the woman.
Speaker 1: But again that's the percentage. There's a small percentage. It's
Speaker 1: less than two percent of all abortions actually pertained to it.
Speaker 1: What do you got Andrew got some more hashtag abortion
Speaker 1: as a woman's right. Well, you've got Kirsten Gillibrand chiming
Speaker 1: in as well. This is about Alabama just passed a
Speaker 1: near total ban on abortion, no exceptions for rape or incests.
Speaker 1: Doctors could face ninety nine years in prison for providing abortion.
Speaker 1: This is a war on women and it is time
Speaker 1: to fight, Like hell, what about the what about the
Speaker 1: young babies that are aborted that are women? Isn't that
Speaker 1: a war on women? If you're aborting women children, if
Speaker 1: you're aborting women babies, isn't that making their less women
Speaker 1: in the world. I want more people. I want more
Speaker 1: people in the world generally and altogether. So this is
Speaker 1: being labeled as culture war twenty twenty. We are hopefully
Speaker 1: going to have an honest conversation. Hey, Andrew, We're always
Speaker 1: though about having an honest conversation, right, how many times
Speaker 1: I hear we need to have an honest conversation about race,
Speaker 1: We need to have an honest conversation about climate change. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what, we can have an honest conversation about
Speaker 1: life in this country. One does life begin? Should life
Speaker 1: be protected? Preserved? Better understood? Does life matter? What protections
Speaker 1: and provisions should be put in place to actually make
Speaker 1: sure that those that cannot defend themselves should be preserved
Speaker 1: and protected. And so this is going to only become
Speaker 1: a bigger and bigger issue. You're going to see the
Speaker 1: left really gallivant, I think try to galvanize this into
Speaker 1: one of their big issues for twenty twenty. I think
Speaker 1: America is becoming more and more pro life. I think
Speaker 1: there it's not going to work well. This is Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk filling in for Buck Sexton, host of The Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirks Show. You're going to Apple Podcast Press subscribe or
Speaker 1: go to TPUSA dot com. That's TPUSA dot com. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton is back. Hello, everybody. This is Charlie Kirk filling
Speaker 1: in for the great Buck Sexton. I am the founder
Speaker 1: and exam I Coultive, director of Turning Point USA, the
Speaker 1: nation's largest student movement dedicated to educating students around the
Speaker 1: values of free markets and limited government. College campuses have
Speaker 1: become islands of totalitarianism. They have become places where freedom
Speaker 1: of speech and freedom of thought are not allowed, and
Speaker 1: instead they have become a place where you must have
Speaker 1: a monolithic, singular viewpoint in order to be respected and
Speaker 1: even have a platform. And as this year comes to
Speaker 1: an end and it's a graduation season, and I reflect
Speaker 1: back on the year of Turning Point USA, and I've
Speaker 1: seen our hundreds and hundreds of campus events that we've hosted,
Speaker 1: and I see the over fourteen hundred college and high
Speaker 1: school campuses that were present on and hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of members, and the millions and tens of millions and
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of people that we have reached social media.
Speaker 1: It's still is not enough. We need to continue to
Speaker 1: push for the values of free markets and limited government,
Speaker 1: American exceptionalism on these campuses where the fight matters most,
Speaker 1: because if we lose the next generation, if we lose students,
Speaker 1: we will have a country that soon becomes unrecognizable. We
Speaker 1: will have a country that embraces socialism, that capitalism. And
Speaker 1: if you don't believe, whatever happens on college campuses will
Speaker 1: soon happen in the halls of Congress. And it's not
Speaker 1: that students are opposed to our ideas, it's that they're
Speaker 1: not exposed on them at all. In the first place,
Speaker 1: I got an alert here that the constantly wrong but
Speaker 1: never in doubt. Congresswoman from New York's fourteen congressional has
Speaker 1: a new tweet, Alexandria asuquittez Alete. She says to bar
Speaker 1: streisand if male politicians could get pregnant, there would be
Speaker 1: as many planned parent clinics as there are post offices.
Speaker 1: Can you can you can you interpret this? Andrew? I
Speaker 1: don't want to man explain it to the audience. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's the center of the Twitter
Speaker 1: debate today, not that Twitter is the real world, but
Speaker 1: basically you have a lot of progressive people on the left,
Speaker 1: very very upset at all the men that voted for
Speaker 1: this bill in Alabama, probably Georgia as well. There's pictures
Speaker 1: of their faces going around Twitter. It's sort of attempt
Speaker 1: to docks these men, saying you should not be speaking
Speaker 1: about my body. And I think you know, Alexandro Coasto
Speaker 1: Cortez is focusing in on that certainly. Well. And I
Speaker 1: mean AOC who actually is the most powerful person elected
Speaker 1: person of the Democrat primary a party, and it's actually
Speaker 1: probably the most powerful Democrat outside of Barack Obama right now?
Speaker 1: Would you say that's true? And and I think the
Speaker 1: Servitis have a lot to do with that, because we
Speaker 1: talked about her all the time. Yeah. I mean there
Speaker 1: was an article in Politico that I think said it well,
Speaker 1: that it was the most hers is the most coveted endorsement,
Speaker 1: endorsement in the primaries, the AOC primary. Oh boy, help us.
Speaker 1: The So AOC had another tweet yesterday and you could
Speaker 1: pull it up or she said, this is really all
Speaker 1: about advancing a core tenant of the conservative worldview, the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna be honest, this is why I wish
Speaker 1: just AOC would talk to conservatives. I talked to liberals
Speaker 1: all the time. This is a super important point that
Speaker 1: I talked to a liberal journalists, I talked to a
Speaker 1: liberal TV host, I talked to a liberal radio show host.
Speaker 1: I'd have debate, I've dialogue, I discussion I every day
Speaker 1: every time I go in college campus, I have people
Speaker 1: that disagree with us. I invite them to the front
Speaker 1: of the line. We have conversations that are spirited and fruitful.
Speaker 1: I just wish AOC would do the same, because she
Speaker 1: had this tweet that was just so wrong and so
Speaker 1: she's like she said yesterday, AOC Alexandria Kazi grdes abortion
Speaker 1: bands aren't just about controlling women's bodies hardstop did anyone's
Speaker 1: did I say anything about controlling anything at all before?
Speaker 1: So she's just misrepresenting it intentionally. They're about controlling women's sexuality,
Speaker 1: owning women hold on saying okay, no from limiting birth control,
Speaker 1: the banning comprehensive sex, said us religious fundamentalists. She's she's
Speaker 1: declaring war in religion. Can you believe this? Are bringing
Speaker 1: clinging to their God's gun in religion? Right are working
Speaker 1: hard outlaws sex that fails outside their theology. Okay. Ultimately
Speaker 1: this is about women's power. When women are in control
Speaker 1: of their sexuality, it threatens a core element of underpinning
Speaker 1: of right wing ideology, patriarchy. Okay, I know right wing.
Speaker 1: By First of all, I hate this term right wing.
Speaker 1: I hate it. I hate it. I try to never
Speaker 1: use it ever because I just don't call myself right wing.
Speaker 1: I think it's become a pejorative. And I know the
Speaker 1: conservative libertarian worldview better than most because I live in it.
Speaker 1: Patriarchy is not anything that we talk about. First of all,
Speaker 1: what would you have to say to someone like Nicky Haley.
Speaker 1: Do you think she's in this for the patriarchy. I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you have to say about someone like Ivanka
Speaker 1: Trump or Betsy Devas or Kelly and Conway or Mercedes
Speaker 1: Mercedes Schlapp or Kathy McMorris Rogers, who's one of the
Speaker 1: highest ranking women in the House, or Joni Earnst or
Speaker 1: any of these women. They're in this The underpinning right
Speaker 1: wing ideology is the patriarchy. When you actually look at
Speaker 1: the statistics, and we could pull all of them up.
Speaker 1: Men are much more likely to commit suicide in America.
Speaker 1: Women are much more likely to graduate from high school,
Speaker 1: graduate from college, got a master's and a doctorate degree.
Speaker 1: Women comprise a majority of the small business startups. Men
Speaker 1: are much more likely to die while at work. Men
Speaker 1: are much more likely to die go fighting at war.
Speaker 1: I can go through all the statistics, especially if you
Speaker 1: look at unemployment rates of men between the age of
Speaker 1: twenty five. The thirty five unemployment rate is much higher
Speaker 1: for men than it is for young women. I can
Speaker 1: go piece by piece by piece. Women control the majority
Speaker 1: of the financial decisions in this country, but women and
Speaker 1: their thirties aren't a much better financial condition than men
Speaker 1: in their thirties. Yet there's whole idea a patriarchy exists.
Speaker 1: What patriarch are you talking about? They say, Well, women
Speaker 1: don't make up enough board positions on Forbes five hundred
Speaker 1: CEO seats. It's a great point to talk about, not
Speaker 1: a great point to make. Why is it that women
Speaker 1: at times don't make up the highest echelons of the
Speaker 1: corporate ladder? Well, usually women voluntarily eggs of the workforce
Speaker 1: in the late twenties or early thirties to go have
Speaker 1: children voluntarily. No one's forcing them to make that decision,
Speaker 1: no one coerced them. And then making that decision, no
Speaker 1: one told them then to make that decision. They've voluntarily
Speaker 1: left the workforce to go have children. The last part
Speaker 1: of AOC's tweet is it's a brutal form of oppression
Speaker 1: to seize control of the one essential thing a person
Speaker 1: should command, their own body. That's the only thing they
Speaker 1: should command, though Andrew, not their spirit, not their mind,
Speaker 1: just the body. But what about the body of the
Speaker 1: baby with in the woman? What about the body that
Speaker 1: of the baby that can't control themselves? And in AOC
Speaker 1: here has one hundred and fourteen thousand likes on this street.
Speaker 1: Can you believe, you know, two hundred and fifty thousand likes?
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable that, you know, It's always an interesting form
Speaker 1: of projecting. I think when I totally agreement with they
Speaker 1: always go straight to this idea of control, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's actually more of a reflection about how
Speaker 1: they view the world. They view the world in terms
Speaker 1: of who has control, who doesn't, who has power who
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. So their whole paradigm of analysis of
Speaker 1: politics is who's currently the people that have power, who
Speaker 1: are currently the people that are in control, and the
Speaker 1: people that aren't in control, the ones that are disaffected
Speaker 1: and are being exploited inherently. Well, first of all, this
Speaker 1: is just so silly because in America large in part,
Speaker 1: those of which that have control are people that graduate
Speaker 1: high school, get married, don't commit crimes, and have a job.
Speaker 1: Amazing combination of success. In America is the only country
Speaker 1: in the world that guarrantee success if you make good choices.
Speaker 1: That's what a meritocracy is, or a country that rewards
Speaker 1: good choices. And so she thinks of this, she actually
Speaker 1: thinks that Alabama passed this law because people want to
Speaker 1: control their people, like, ah, I'm so unhappy with my life,
Speaker 1: my religion says I must control people. Therefore I pass it. Instead.
Speaker 1: The motivation is, we need to end this horror called abortion.
Speaker 1: We need to end this unbelievably bad practice called abortion.
Speaker 1: And we want to have more people in our world
Speaker 1: and have more babies, and what people that are pregnant
Speaker 1: should have those children because we want his life is
Speaker 1: a gift. That's the motivation. So she immediately and I
Speaker 1: think just arrantly, right, would you say describes it in
Speaker 1: a way that is so inappropriate and so outrageous. Well,
Speaker 1: they always avoid the personhood of the baby, right, They
Speaker 1: always talk about that has no identity. All that matters,
Speaker 1: All that matters is right and in the in the right,
Speaker 1: the right political right in this country is not looking
Speaker 1: at it as trying to control anybody. It's saying, there's
Speaker 1: a there's a baby that we need to protect because
Speaker 1: life is sacred. It's as simple as that. We actually
Speaker 1: want to empower the baby, the most um vulnerable among us. Right,
Speaker 1: And if you believe in this, in this idea that
Speaker 1: it is actually a fully human um, It's not fully formed,
Speaker 1: but it is a child. It is a baby, it
Speaker 1: is a child human, it has identity. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you know I I tweeted this out earlier. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: find it right now. And um, which is all the
Speaker 1: characteristics and how quick those characteristics reach it might really
Speaker 1: surprise you if you actually go and and read it. Um.
Speaker 1: And my Twitter is at Charlie kirk Levin. If you
Speaker 1: want to give me a follow, it's always great. So
Speaker 1: just so you know, there are one point two million
Speaker 1: children aboarded every year in America. Only to think about that,
Speaker 1: And so here's another question for the left. What if
Speaker 1: we want to just cut that number in half? Would
Speaker 1: you agree with that? How do we have less abortions?
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's a horrible thing. You want to
Speaker 1: control people? No, what didn't used to be right? I mean, oh,
Speaker 1: of course it's famous for saying we want a few
Speaker 1: and safe, safe, safe, legal and rare. Yes, I can
Speaker 1: never remember that. I should always struggled with that. That
Speaker 1: is three thousand, two hundred and eighty eight abortions this day,
Speaker 1: this ding, in this one hour that I have hosted
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Radio show, which I'm honored to be doing,
Speaker 1: there have been one hundred thirty seven abortions in America.
Speaker 1: When you think about that, there's been a hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty seven abortions in this country since I've started hosting
Speaker 1: this show. Oh my goodness, that does that just send
Speaker 1: up a chill up your spine? There have been nine.
Speaker 1: There were nine during our commercial break. And in the
Speaker 1: twenty six seconds that I have described this entire tweet,
Speaker 1: there was another abortion. Let me you to think about that.
Speaker 1: Just when I started talking about my Twitter. There's already
Speaker 1: been another abortion like this every twenty six seconds. And
Speaker 1: if you sort of zoom out since Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: right in nineteen seventy three, I mean, there's been over
Speaker 1: sixty million abortions. It's a number so unconscionable it becomes
Speaker 1: almost like the national debt. You become desensiti You can't
Speaker 1: actually put a number that large into context in your mind. No. No,
Speaker 1: And so at eighteen days, did you know a baby
Speaker 1: hearts beat, baby heartbeat starts. Did you know at forty
Speaker 1: two days, brain waves are detected. Did you know at
Speaker 1: fifty two days a baby can hick up and yawn?
Speaker 1: At eight weeks, all organs are functioning. At nine weeks,
Speaker 1: a baby has fingerprints, At ten weeks, a baby can
Speaker 1: feel pain, and at twelve weeks babies can smile. It's
Speaker 1: pretty amazing. Yet Democrats don't even want to have late
Speaker 1: term abortion restrictions that allow that would restrict abortion with
Speaker 1: all these different categories. And just in this break that
Speaker 1: we're about to take right now, and I hope you
Speaker 1: hang with us, because we got more stuff coming. There
Speaker 1: will be another nine abortions in just the break we
Speaker 1: have coming up right now. Nine babies will be aborted
Speaker 1: in just this break. It's horrifying. This is Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: filling in for Buck Sexton on the Buck Sexton Radio Show.
Speaker 1: Can follow me on Twitter at Charlie kirklevn TPUSA dot com,
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirkshow, and Apple Podcast. We'll be right back. Hello everybody.
Speaker 1: This is Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, the
Speaker 1: nation's largest student movement dedicated to educating, empowering, and organizing
Speaker 1: students around the values of free markets and limited government,
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and of course American exceptionalism. We live in
Speaker 1: the greatest country ever to exist in the history of
Speaker 1: the world. It is a blessing that we live in
Speaker 1: this country. We should be thankful that we live here,
Speaker 1: not angry that we live in this country. The horse
Speaker 1: race continues and the Democrat primary I call it the carnival.
Speaker 1: I think the circus gives it too much credit, but
Speaker 1: it's the carnival. It is amazing. I agree with this
Speaker 1: assessment completely. I think Kevin McCarthy hit it on the
Speaker 1: head when he said this, Joe Biden will be the
Speaker 1: Jeb Bush of this cycle. Good for Kevin McCarthy. That's
Speaker 1: kind of like an insult, isn't it, mister producer? I mean,
Speaker 1: pretty pretty harsh, pretty harsh. Yeah, it's Kevin McCarthy's energy Jeb,
Speaker 1: low energy Joe or flip flop Joe. What do you think,
Speaker 1: creepy Joe. I like creepy Joe. I don't like him.
Speaker 1: I like the term creepy Joe. But I think he
Speaker 1: is going to be the Jeb Bush, or he already is.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's the front runner. He's raising all the
Speaker 1: money and just wait, the knives are going to be out.
Speaker 1: And I know some liberal activists on Twitter and I
Speaker 1: follow him, Boy do they have anger towards Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: And what an AOC I'll be I don't want to
Speaker 1: say the word on radio something if we're gonna let
Speaker 1: the people that screwed up our climate now going to
Speaker 1: be our nominee or something like that, it's typical. Well
Speaker 1: what did she say? She said, conservatives on both sides
Speaker 1: of the aisle, and she was definitely talking about Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: But this is really important. It shows that that the
Speaker 1: Democrat Primary, that the Democrat circus or carnival or whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, the Democrats show has become
Speaker 1: as I like to call other as, like I say,
Speaker 1: the Trump hating Olympics and whoever can be the most
Speaker 1: radical person in the room. It's quite it's quite extraordinary.
Speaker 1: It's not good for the country either. There there are common,
Speaker 1: decent sense things that our country needs, like an infrastructure proposal.
Speaker 1: All these things have become impossible because the Democrats hate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump a lot more than they love America. They
Speaker 1: hate him so much that at all costs, no matter
Speaker 1: what's what is it going to take, they have to
Speaker 1: oppose him, no matter what it is, they have to
Speaker 1: oppose him. And it's too bad because there this country
Speaker 1: is needing right now for bipartners and approval of a
Speaker 1: variety of different things. And so just wait, you're going
Speaker 1: to see Bernie Sanders, You're gonna see Elizabeth Warren, You're
Speaker 1: gonna see Peepooha, Judge. You're gonna see Kamala Harris start
Speaker 1: to unite against Joe Biden. You're going to see them unite.
Speaker 1: And I think I think I think we're underestimating how
Speaker 1: quick and how sudden and how dramatic the fall of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's gonna be. At least in my estimation, that's
Speaker 1: what it's going to be. And so I guess the
Speaker 1: question is this, I'm just reading this headline right now
Speaker 1: that some Hollywood actress poses naked in protest of Alabama's
Speaker 1: abortion bill passing. What is that supposed to me? Emily
Speaker 1: radj Dakowski. By the way, it was a female governor,
Speaker 1: wasn't it that signed the bill? Is it not? It
Speaker 1: was It was a female So the war on women
Speaker 1: is being launched by a female governor. Go figure that one.
Speaker 1: But oh, you know, she doesn't really care about women,
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah that whole thing.
Speaker 1: And so, as Tucker Carlson said, this is exactly how
Speaker 1: the function of government is supposed to work, is that
Speaker 1: you put people in place, you have people in positions
Speaker 1: of power, and then you have policies based on the
Speaker 1: people that you actually put in those positions of power.
Speaker 1: And I find it so amazing, kind of going back
Speaker 1: to my earlier point, and how passionate the Democrats have
Speaker 1: become to make sure that the lives of the unborn
Speaker 1: will never see the light of day. And we see
Speaker 1: this a lot. The anger and the vitriol and college
Speaker 1: campus is the work that we do at Turning Point USA.
Speaker 1: At Turning Point USA, we are trying to fight America's
Speaker 1: culture war around the values of constitutional liberty and free
Speaker 1: markets and limited government. And we find so often that
Speaker 1: the students on the left just have contempt and victriol
Speaker 1: and are so programmed around these perspectives that you can't
Speaker 1: tell them anything different. And that's exactly why we are
Speaker 1: doing what we are doing. And I do anticipate this
Speaker 1: abortion fight to heat up even further. I do anticipate
Speaker 1: this to intensify heading into twenty twenty. Well, this has
Speaker 1: been a fun first hour. We're going to be around
Speaker 1: for another couple so hang tight here at the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Radio Show. Do you like what you heard? Go
Speaker 1: to Apple Podcast and subscribe on the Charlie Kirk Show,
Speaker 1: Standard remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, You're a great American again. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show. CIA analysts remember the Hello everybody,
Speaker 1: this is Charlie Kirk. Welcome the hour two of the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Radio Show. Filling in for my good friend here.
Speaker 1: I am the founder of Turning Point USA, the nation's
Speaker 1: largest student movement dedicated to educating, empowering, and organizing college
Speaker 1: and high school students around the values of free markets
Speaker 1: and limited government. We believe America is the greatest country
Speaker 1: ever to exist in the history of the world. I'm
Speaker 1: also the host of the Charlie Kirk Show podcast, which
Speaker 1: can be found on Apple Podcast. If you have an
Speaker 1: Apple device, just open up that podcast app, type in
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirks, press subscribe. It really helps us out. I'm
Speaker 1: joined here by the executive producer of The Charlie Kirkshow,
Speaker 1: Andrew Sir Andrew hell And it is quite extraordinary, isn't it, Andrew?
Speaker 1: Just seeing the Democrats outrage of having more children in
Speaker 1: the world. They are very upset today. They're even posing
Speaker 1: in the nude in protest as actress Emily Rotski. I
Speaker 1: think I follow her on Instagram, say in Alissa Milano
Speaker 1: is of course in the mix as well. And it
Speaker 1: never ceases to amaze me how how extreme the Democrats
Speaker 1: are willing to go just to oppose Donald Trump. It
Speaker 1: seems no matter what the issue is, how whatever it
Speaker 1: takes to oppose him at all costs. It is the
Speaker 1: appeach at all costs caucus. And it's gonna be interesting
Speaker 1: to see actually on the debate stage when they do
Speaker 1: have a debate, when people actually disagree and say, I
Speaker 1: don't know if we should this impeachment thing. Oh, you're
Speaker 1: really a conservative, you're bought by the right, You're all
Speaker 1: these things. I do have to say, I have to
Speaker 1: go after somebody in particular, Elizabeth Warren. Can you find
Speaker 1: the exact language she used about Fox News? Can you
Speaker 1: find the exact language Elizabeth Warren? And an attempt maybe
Speaker 1: to I don't know, get attention. I mean I really
Speaker 1: respected and appreciated Amy Klobachar and Bernie Sanders going on
Speaker 1: Fox News and actually having a town hall, mayor. Pete's
Speaker 1: doing it as well, Pete Boodh Jedge And anyway, I
Speaker 1: have to say President Trump pronouncing Buddha Judge the other day.
Speaker 1: It was one of the funniest things you got, Pete
Speaker 1: boot Edge Edge, It's very funny. But what did Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren say about Fox News but her exact she said,
Speaker 1: a Fox News town hall adds money to the hate
Speaker 1: for profit machine, to which I say, hard pass. I
Speaker 1: think she said something about it being a network for
Speaker 1: racists or something like that, pulling it up. I mean
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren's she goes on and on and on all
Speaker 1: through this. She says, I love town halls of then
Speaker 1: more than seventy cents January. I'm glad to have a
Speaker 1: television audience to be part of the Fox News has
Speaker 1: invited me to do a town hall, but I'm turning
Speaker 1: them down. Here's why Fox News is a hate for
Speaker 1: profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists.
Speaker 1: I don't know who she's talking about. I mean, she
Speaker 1: must be talking about her friend, Louis Farracon. It's designed
Speaker 1: to turn us against each other, risking life and death.
Speaker 1: Consequences to provide cover for the corruption that's rotting our
Speaker 1: government and hallowing out our middle class. She's this is
Speaker 1: on Twitter, by the way, is Elizabeth Warren. She goes
Speaker 1: on and on goodness five paragraphs, here was a more racist.
Speaker 1: I won't ask millions of Democrat primary voters to tune
Speaker 1: into an outlet that profits from racism and hate in
Speaker 1: order to see our candidates. It's you know, what really
Speaker 1: upsets me about this is that when everything becomes racist,
Speaker 1: nothing is racist. There are actual racists in American society,
Speaker 1: and they should be condemned and they should be ostras.
Speaker 1: But when Elizabeth Warren says a network with viewers throughout
Speaker 1: a week of fifteen to twenty million people and five
Speaker 1: million a night that watch on primetime are just all
Speaker 1: racist to hate for profit machine, she's trying to indict
Speaker 1: an entire segment of the American population. What kind of
Speaker 1: contempt and what kind of anger is within her to
Speaker 1: say something like that? And it's really too bad because
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. So what is she saying? Bernie Sanders is
Speaker 1: okay with appeasing races? Is her way to like attack
Speaker 1: other people in the primary. Pete poota Judge or Amy Klobuchar,
Speaker 1: that they're somehow okay with it and she's not. And
Speaker 1: it's this sort of attack on the main institutions on
Speaker 1: the conservative arena. And so, if you have noticed how
Speaker 1: the left has reignited their war on Russia, Lumba, They've
Speaker 1: reignited their war on Sean Hannity, on Tucker Carlson on
Speaker 1: Fox News, on the think tanks such as the Judicial
Speaker 1: Crisis Network. It's like, all of a sudden, the left
Speaker 1: is realized that there is a well built conservative infrastructure
Speaker 1: that is now behind Donald Trump completely. And it's not
Speaker 1: just the war on Trump. It's behind all the organizations,
Speaker 1: It's behind the pundits, behind the companies, behind the media
Speaker 1: networks that are also in harmony with Donald Trump. And yes,
Speaker 1: Fox News is a singular piece of opposite opinion on
Speaker 1: all the cable networks. Every cable network agrees on the
Speaker 1: exact same thing on every single issue. You go to CNN, MSNBC, HLN, ABC, CBS, NBC,
Speaker 1: they agree on every single issue, no matter what it is.
Speaker 1: Not to mention Washington, Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune,
Speaker 1: La Times, you name it. Every major network, and then
Speaker 1: you have not to mention the online having the post.
Speaker 1: BuzzFeed and Fox News is the singular, the singular different
Speaker 1: voice on cable, and they get all of the hate,
Speaker 1: all of the boycotts, all of the attention, and for
Speaker 1: doing what for having a separate opinion, for having a
Speaker 1: difference of opinion, for having a perspective that might be
Speaker 1: a little bit out of what would be called the
Speaker 1: Beltway ordinary, and they say they give credence to racists
Speaker 1: and all this whole n A second, the most racist
Speaker 1: stuff I've heard of been on networks like CNN where
Speaker 1: Bakari Sellers said, I'm not going to say it on
Speaker 1: air because it's so bad. He said something horrible abou
Speaker 1: Kanye West and insulted him using a racial pejorative. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to say it. I mean, I can go
Speaker 1: time and time again of horrific things that are set.
Speaker 1: I'll give you another example on the MSNBC in the
Speaker 1: last couple in the last months, you had to contribute that.
Speaker 1: And this is this is one of the most racist
Speaker 1: things that the left always says. The left says is
Speaker 1: all the time they say, well, we need illegals because
Speaker 1: who else is going to pick our vegetables and clean
Speaker 1: our houses. That's such a racist thing to say, to
Speaker 1: say that illegal aliens are good for nothing more than housework.
Speaker 1: And they said this on MSNBC. It goes completely unanswered.
Speaker 1: And so Elizabeth Warren believes just because a network might
Speaker 1: challenge her on her fake Native American ancestry, that might
Speaker 1: challenge her on her socialist ideas, that I challenge her
Speaker 1: on her radicalism. Somehow she is not able to go
Speaker 1: on there. And she says, I'm not going to give
Speaker 1: them a problem, you know, I hate for profit machine instead.
Speaker 1: I don't remember, Andrew, maybe you could enlighten me how
Speaker 1: many town halls did MSNBC do with any of the
Speaker 1: candidates for the Republican candidates back in twenty sixteen. I
Speaker 1: don't think they did any of them. So if it
Speaker 1: was really like a hate for profit thing, Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: why didn't the other ones do it? Why didn't the
Speaker 1: other ones give credence to that? Well? I think this
Speaker 1: goes back to what you're always saying about how the
Speaker 1: UH the Democratic Party right now, there's so many candidates
Speaker 1: they're forced to follow, radicalize, the forced to find ways
Speaker 1: to stand out from the back. And this seems like
Speaker 1: a very transparent attempt at saying, well, okay, well, if
Speaker 1: Bernie and me are often lumped into the same group,
Speaker 1: well how can I out Bernie Bernie, I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna stick it to Fox, even though you know, Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders obviously did his town hall with Fox and it
Speaker 1: was by all accounts of great success for his campaign.
Speaker 1: So to go to one of my favorite heroes in
Speaker 1: AMR in con cinema history, Kelsey Grammar, none other than
Speaker 1: Frasier Krane. He was a great radio show host two
Speaker 1: on KCl seven eighty, the Seattle Talk of Hello, everybody,
Speaker 1: this is doctor Frasier Crane. The Frasier fans out there,
Speaker 1: Kelsey Grammer said, says Trump has accomplished more than the
Speaker 1: Washington clowns have in sixty years. Washington didn't do us
Speaker 1: any favors. I love Kelsey Grammer. He's been a rock
Speaker 1: solid conservative Republican for years. And actually one of his
Speaker 1: best performances Andrew was in the television series about the
Speaker 1: Chicago mayor. It was called So I can't remember the
Speaker 1: name of It was excellent, excellent, excellent. Well, the listeners
Speaker 1: might not know that you are a proud Chicagoan. I
Speaker 1: am a proud Chicagoan. So you know what the fun
Speaker 1: thing about being from Chicago is we have term limits
Speaker 1: in Illinois. One term in office, one term in jail,
Speaker 1: and we always we vote early, vote often. My grandmother
Speaker 1: passed away in them in nineteen nineties. She's been voting
Speaker 1: Democrat ever since. And you know, it's actually seeing a
Speaker 1: profile in a Chicago mayor with something quite enlightening and
Speaker 1: quite fun and so kind of going going back to
Speaker 1: this idea of Elizabeth Moore and boycotting Fox News and
Speaker 1: boycotting the conservative networks. Andrew, isn't it an amazing You've
Speaker 1: been to a lot of my campus events Attorney Point, USA.
Speaker 1: You've been to a lot of my kind of campus outreach.
Speaker 1: Is it incredible how the left stays away from conversation,
Speaker 1: how conservatives want to go towards the conversation. Isn't that
Speaker 1: how you can tell who's on the right side of
Speaker 1: the issue and who's actually on the proper side of discussion. Well,
Speaker 1: I think you know the conservatives, at least on campus
Speaker 1: for example. I mean, there's just so much more pressure
Speaker 1: on conservatives there that their arguments actually get better and
Speaker 1: better and better, and the student activists get their messaging honed,
Speaker 1: and they have to challenge their assumptions, and what you
Speaker 1: end up having is activists on campus that are way
Speaker 1: more effective. I think the modern left needs to take
Speaker 1: a page out of the conservatives on campus that when
Speaker 1: you get challenged, you get better well, and then you
Speaker 1: embrace it. And so if Elizabeth Warren wants to be president,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren wants to be president of this country, she's
Speaker 1: gonna have to talk to people like Fox News and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. This is what I love about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: From the day Donald Trump announced he was doing he
Speaker 1: was doing interviews with anyone, he was doing well. Now
Speaker 1: he's been deep platformed. But yeah, exactly, they won't shows
Speaker 1: his rallies anymore because they realized they might have contributed
Speaker 1: or yeah, or that they actually might convert other people.
Speaker 1: My favorite is, you know, Donald Trump used to do
Speaker 1: phoners with CNN. He used to call into CNN and
Speaker 1: just take a whole hour. I mean, the guy would
Speaker 1: talk to anybody. He'll take any question about anything, and
Speaker 1: if he has a problem with it, he'll tell you.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren is a coward. She is a coward for
Speaker 1: not wanting to go on Fox News, for actually hearing
Speaker 1: a difference of opinion or sharing your different opinion. You
Speaker 1: know what I actually respect about Bernie Sanders. You know
Speaker 1: what he said. He said, Well, there might be people
Speaker 1: that watch Fox News that have a bad opinion of me,
Speaker 1: and I want to give them a good one. Good
Speaker 1: for him. That's exactly what civil discourse is all about. Right,
Speaker 1: That's what dialogue is all about. You should not be
Speaker 1: afraid here or say something that people might be disagreeable.
Speaker 1: And this whole decision just sort of reeks of a
Speaker 1: basket of deplorable's type of of statement. You know, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're you're talking to an audience or a network that
Speaker 1: represents roughly half of the American electorate. Yeah, that's exactly,
Speaker 1: but not all of them. Obviously, not all conservatives like
Speaker 1: Fox or listen to Fox. There's a lot of critiques
Speaker 1: of Fox. But you're talking to a roughly half of
Speaker 1: the electorate that put President Trump into the Oval office.
Speaker 1: And then she has the gall and really the audacity
Speaker 1: to say, you know, hey, listen, you're a hate for
Speaker 1: profit routet. And then you guys advance racism and It's
Speaker 1: essentially it's like saying basket of deplorables or what else?
Speaker 1: What irredeemable? It is what she said Trump supporters are irredeemable, right.
Speaker 1: I think this is going to come back to haunt her.
Speaker 1: She might see it as useful in the primaries, but
Speaker 1: if you know she was to you know, make it
Speaker 1: any any farther, you know this is going to be
Speaker 1: a problematic thing to say. I totally completely agree. This
Speaker 1: is Charlie Kirk filling in for the Buck Sex Then
Speaker 1: radio show. We're gonna be talking about school choice and
Speaker 1: my column that just got published in The Hill. If
Speaker 1: you like what you're hearing, you can go to an
Speaker 1: Apple podcast type and Charlie Kirk show Press subscribe, Founder
Speaker 1: of Turning Point USA TPUSA dot com. We will be
Speaker 1: right back. Hello everybody, This is Charlie Kirk filling in
Speaker 1: for Buck sex Then on the Buck Sex Then Radio show.
Speaker 1: Having a lot of fun here on the founder of
Speaker 1: Turning Point USA. And you go to TPUSA dot com
Speaker 1: you want to get more involved on the culture war
Speaker 1: on college campuses. I just have a new piece out
Speaker 1: for The Hill where I say let's talk about education
Speaker 1: and school choice in twenty twenty. And this is so
Speaker 1: important because I believe this is the issue that could
Speaker 1: break the back of the Democrat Party. I believe that
Speaker 1: this is the issue that could change the fabric of
Speaker 1: the political discourse and could also change the political dynamics
Speaker 1: as we know it. It is immoral and it is
Speaker 1: wrong that there are students, particularly minority students, that are
Speaker 1: stuck in these perpetually failing public schools. That students are
Speaker 1: being forced to go to schools with teachers that should
Speaker 1: be fired, lowly motivated administrators, underfunded schools, and so I
Speaker 1: talk about school choice as the ability for parents to
Speaker 1: be able to send their kids to better schools. We
Speaker 1: have over fifty million students primary and secondary students enrolled
Speaker 1: in schools in the United States. A great example of
Speaker 1: this was the Milwaukee Parental school Choice program. This was
Speaker 1: the vision of Milton Frean. Milton Freeman, one of my
Speaker 1: intellectual heroes, was a champion of school choice, and this
Speaker 1: was implemented in nineteen ninety and there are twenty now.
Speaker 1: There are voucher systems all across the country. In the
Speaker 1: Milwaukee Parental school Choice program has been one of the
Speaker 1: most successful school choice experiments in history, raising test scores,
Speaker 1: raising literacy rates, lowering crime, and you name it. Yet
Speaker 1: But unfortunately it is the education unions and liberal politicians
Speaker 1: that say we need to spend more money in education.
Speaker 1: But if we actually had a school choice plan, the
Speaker 1: public schools would then have the pressure to better spend
Speaker 1: the money they're already having. It is not a funding problem,
Speaker 1: believe it or not. We have thrown more and more
Speaker 1: money at public schools, like, for example, in Chicago between
Speaker 1: twenty seven to twenty eighteen, they were the CPS Chicago
Speaker 1: Public Schools. We're bringing in more than two hundred dollars
Speaker 1: more per student. The total of five thousand, three hundred
Speaker 1: twenty dollars per high school students is not factor in
Speaker 1: the funding from the state of Illinois. That is far
Speaker 1: less than it costs to educate a student on in
Speaker 1: private schools or in charter schools in the city of Chicago.
Speaker 1: And I believe this is such an important issue because
Speaker 1: not only rarely do you have an issue that is
Speaker 1: the right policy, but also really really good politics, and
Speaker 1: also the other side cannot contend with it. The other
Speaker 1: side can not promise, the other side cannot respond to
Speaker 1: the fact that students are failing because of Democrat politicians,
Speaker 1: failing public schools and teacher unions. Their only response is
Speaker 1: we need to throw more money at the problem, where
Speaker 1: he's like, well, why don't why can't we send that
Speaker 1: kid to this school? Oh? Well, and then they lose it.
Speaker 1: The teacher unions have disallowed Democrats from talking about this
Speaker 1: issue altogether. The teacher unions which own the Democrat primary,
Speaker 1: the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers,
Speaker 1: the two major teacher unions in this country. They own
Speaker 1: the Democrat primary, they own the American left. They do not,
Speaker 1: they will not allow, and they do not allow politicians
Speaker 1: on the left to talk about this issue. So rarely
Speaker 1: do you get this perfect trinity, this intersection where you
Speaker 1: have really good policy that will improve people's lives, you
Speaker 1: have the ability to draw differences with your opponent on it,
Speaker 1: and it's also very popular. It's very popular. Eighty percent
Speaker 1: of the American people ninety support school choice. And I
Speaker 1: think that we are missing this issue because what could
Speaker 1: be more personal for a mother or for a family
Speaker 1: than sending your child to a good school or sending
Speaker 1: your child to a better school. What could be more
Speaker 1: personal what could be more important than improving your life
Speaker 1: and improving your kid's life than sending your child to
Speaker 1: a school that allows them a higher likelihood to get
Speaker 1: skills and a higher likelihood to succeed in their life.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what school choice does. School choice is
Speaker 1: the issue that could break the back of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Paria primary. And I could tell you the work that
Speaker 1: I'm doing at Turning Point, USA and on college campuses.
Speaker 1: I find so often that students that think they're liberals
Speaker 1: totally and completely agree that our education system is total nonsense,
Speaker 1: that it needs to be rewired, that are educated. System
Speaker 1: needs to be changed to allow low income, particular minority
Speaker 1: students the freedom. And that's really what it's all about.
Speaker 1: The freedom to be able to go to a better school,
Speaker 1: the freedom to be able to pull that parental trigger
Speaker 1: to be able to go to a school that succeeds.
Speaker 1: Because if we do not have a society or a
Speaker 1: culture that respects every individual's right to education, or I
Speaker 1: should rephrase that every individual's access to education, then we
Speaker 1: are going to continually have this endless cycle of poverty
Speaker 1: and violence that plagues our inner cities. How are we
Speaker 1: going to break that cycle schools that work. And what's
Speaker 1: so frustrating is that now we are having millions and
Speaker 1: millions of illegals come into our country that will then
Speaker 1: be put in these very failing public schools where they're
Speaker 1: more likely to live in poverty. If you go to
Speaker 1: a failing public school and you're not taught to read,
Speaker 1: if you're not taught to write, if you're not taught
Speaker 1: to do math, you're far less likely to succeed. You're
Speaker 1: far less likely to be able to contribute meaningfully. And
Speaker 1: because of that, we then have an entire portion of
Speaker 1: the American population that is disenfranchised and feels really disenfranchised.
Speaker 1: So they turn to government benefits. They turned to the
Speaker 1: government dole, they turned to social welfare. And when that happens,
Speaker 1: you have an entire portion of the American population that
Speaker 1: then becomes Democrat voters. And so school choice is an
Speaker 1: issue that is good policy. It improves people's lives, It
Speaker 1: could increase the standard of living for all people, and
Speaker 1: it can elevate it can elevate the perception that Republicans
Speaker 1: and Conservatives don't care about the inner cities. I think
Speaker 1: conservatives should have an ambitious urban agenda. I think Conservatives
Speaker 1: should have a school choice, opportunity zone, small business agenda
Speaker 1: that could totally change the dynamics of politics within our
Speaker 1: inner cities. I have never been more focused on an
Speaker 1: issue that I think could break the back of the
Speaker 1: Democrat primary and put Republicans and majorities in state houses
Speaker 1: in Congress permanently because the Democrats can't support this issue.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say that again, Democrats cannot support this issue
Speaker 1: because their number one special interest group, the American Federation
Speaker 1: of Teachers in the National Education Association, own their party.
Speaker 1: We talk about this all the time at Turning Point
Speaker 1: USA TPUSA dot com. And students are so passionate about
Speaker 1: allowing their peers or allowing their brothers, their sisters, or
Speaker 1: other students that are in elementary and high school education
Speaker 1: go to better schools. Do you like what you're hearing?
Speaker 1: Go to Apple Podcasts. Subscribe Charlie Kirkshow Press Subscribe helps
Speaker 1: us out, give us five stars Apple Podcast Charlie Kirkshow,
Speaker 1: TPUSA dot com, Turning Point USA. We'll be right back,
Speaker 1: all right, welcome back. This is Charlie kirk filling in
Speaker 1: for Buck Sex. Then on the Buck Sex then radio
Speaker 1: show founder of Turning Point USA, the nation's largest student
Speaker 1: movement dedicated to educating and powering and organizing students around
Speaker 1: the values of free markets and limited government. My friend
Speaker 1: and mister producer of the Charlie kirk Show Charlie Kirkshow
Speaker 1: podcast that you can find an Apple podcast reminded me
Speaker 1: of some of my predictions. Yeah. One of the things
Speaker 1: we've been covering a lot in the shows, if you
Speaker 1: guys have been tuning in, is that, you know, Charlie
Speaker 1: has a hunch that they're, you know, the front runner
Speaker 1: and the Democratic Party for twenty twenty has not yet
Speaker 1: emerged despite all the buzz around Vice President Biden. You know,
Speaker 1: Charlie's I mean, you've said this time and time again
Speaker 1: that you think he's gonna get eaten up by the
Speaker 1: progressive wing of the Democratic Party. You will be devoured
Speaker 1: by the radical Democrats that have taken over this party. Well,
Speaker 1: and it's been really impressive since you've sort of made
Speaker 1: those predictions on the show. It's like every day it
Speaker 1: seems like somebody else is entering the fray, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it be Mark Cuban or now most recently de Blasio. Well,
Speaker 1: so I have to talk about da Blasio. This is
Speaker 1: really interesting. Imagine being the worst at something and then
Speaker 1: think you can be president. He is the worst mayor
Speaker 1: in America. He really is. I mean, I used to
Speaker 1: love New York City. I know there's probably a lot
Speaker 1: of listeners listen to this from New York. I love
Speaker 1: New York under Mayor Juliani, and I'll have to say this.
Speaker 1: I'll say this publicly. I think Mayor Bloomberg did define job.
Speaker 1: I think there were a lot of stuff I disagree
Speaker 1: with that the big Gulp confiscation thing was silly and stupid,
Speaker 1: the gun control stuff, but there was some common sense
Speaker 1: policies Mayor Bloomberg instituted. He's a businessman. He was a
Speaker 1: center right businessman, and he was center right on fiscal stuff,
Speaker 1: center left on social stuff, super successful business man. I
Speaker 1: think he's kind of become a little prickly in recent
Speaker 1: years against Trump. I think he's spending money to elect Democrats.
Speaker 1: Don't miss quote me media matters, because I know you're listening.
Speaker 1: I don't love Mayor Bloomberg, but I think New York
Speaker 1: under Mayor Bloomberg, who was a reasonably well run city,
Speaker 1: New York has become a mess underd Blaggio. He cares
Speaker 1: more about appeasing leftist radicals that actually running the city properly.
Speaker 1: The amount of vagrancy, the amount of homelessness. You know,
Speaker 1: Mayor Giuliani instituted a no vagrancy, no homelessness policy because
Speaker 1: he said, you know what, we have so many homeless
Speaker 1: shelters here. If you are going to what do they
Speaker 1: call it? I don't want to say a negative connotation
Speaker 1: about it, but solicit is that a proper word towards it?
Speaker 1: Or panhandle? Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's a negative word or not, but I think
Speaker 1: it's just the word. It is right if you're going
Speaker 1: to be on the streets and ask for money or
Speaker 1: do you can't do that? You should go to home.
Speaker 1: There was one of the that was one of the
Speaker 1: ways Mayor Giuliani cleaned up the streets. Mayor Giuliani, can
Speaker 1: you imagine just I just want everyone understand this. Nineteen
Speaker 1: years ago a Republican won the mayor's race in New York.
Speaker 1: Can you just see how far this country has come
Speaker 1: that nineteen years ago there was a Republican mayor of
Speaker 1: the City of New York, Mayor Giuliani. It's incredible how
Speaker 1: far this country. There was a Republican mayor in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles too, from ninety three to two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that. Yeah, decent ended leaders used to exist.
Speaker 1: There's not been a Republican mayor of Chicago since nineteen
Speaker 1: thirty one. That's an interesting statistic anyway. So imagine being
Speaker 1: the worst at something. Imagine being awful, the worst hitter
Speaker 1: in the major leagues, and then complaining that you're not
Speaker 1: on the All star team. This is Mayor de Blagio.
Speaker 1: He is the worst mayor in America. The city is
Speaker 1: a mess of crime is rising, vagrancy is rampant, the
Speaker 1: taxes are out of control. I mean, look at how
Speaker 1: they screwed up this Amazon deal. This is a great
Speaker 1: example of the fecklessness of leadership of Mayor de Blagia.
Speaker 1: He allowed a constantly wrong but never in doubt socialist
Speaker 1: from New York's fourteenth Congressional District, Alexander Kaizer Cortez, to
Speaker 1: hijack the recruitment of jobs into New York City. Mayor
Speaker 1: de Blaig, you could have called up Alexander Kaiser Cortez said, listen,
Speaker 1: I'm in charge of this negotiation. Allow the adults in
Speaker 1: the room to handle Amazon. Instead, he cowtowned to the
Speaker 1: leftist radical pressure of AOC and the city lost twenty
Speaker 1: thousand jobs because of it. He is the worst mayor
Speaker 1: in America, and now he is in the Democrat primary.
Speaker 1: Who else do we have? But we have Bullock, right,
Speaker 1: we have Bullock from Montana, who one of my favorite
Speaker 1: kind of pieces in the last couple days of audio
Speaker 1: visual has been seeing him try to name one accomplishment
Speaker 1: as governor and he just kind of stumbles. I don't know,
Speaker 1: and he's been a horrible governor Montana. Montana is probably
Speaker 1: one of my favorite states in the entire country. I
Speaker 1: love going to Montana. I've actually been to all fifty
Speaker 1: states so I can prepare them all. I think, rather reasonably,
Speaker 1: he's a horrific, horrific governor, and he thinks he can
Speaker 1: bring people together. Actually, the not so closed, not the
Speaker 1: not so secret narrative in Montana is that he's going
Speaker 1: to run for the presidency and then go back and
Speaker 1: run for the Senate against Steve Danes. He would give
Speaker 1: Steve Danes a run for his money. In Montana. I
Speaker 1: think Steve would he could out, that'd be a really
Speaker 1: tough race. That'd be a fifty million dollar race right there,
Speaker 1: That'd be a fifty million dollar race. But then if
Speaker 1: you count Beto rebooting officially rebooting while he's getting a
Speaker 1: haircut with the heck is that all about it? And
Speaker 1: going on the view that no, my favorite is I
Speaker 1: don't know if it was your, somebody else who did
Speaker 1: a Beata impersonation? Was it you? It was the hands,
Speaker 1: it was now somebody else did like the voice. So
Speaker 1: I really think that I don't have privilege, but I
Speaker 1: do have privilege, and I think it reinforced the narrative.
Speaker 1: But what did Vanity Fair come out and say, Andrew, Well, today,
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair the epitome of privilege. Well, you know about
Speaker 1: when he went on the View, he was asked by
Speaker 1: Joy behar Uh if going on the cover Vanity Fair
Speaker 1: had been a mistake, to which he answered, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it reinforces that perception of privilege, and so he's
Speaker 1: basically then goes on, no one is born to be
Speaker 1: president of the United States of America, least of all me,
Speaker 1: and his sense tried to walk back the fact that
Speaker 1: he didn't say he was born to run, to which
Speaker 1: the editor of I'm sorry, when is Bruce Springsteen gonna
Speaker 1: sue him? I mean, when when is Bruce Springsteen gonna
Speaker 1: have a class actions? But this is what's great. It's
Speaker 1: it's great to watch watch all the behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: So the editor of Vanity Fair, Redhica Jones, isn't buying it.
Speaker 1: H And she's quoted as saying ended upcoming Christine Christiane
Speaker 1: amanpoor interview. I mean, he did say it, and I
Speaker 1: have felt actually it is clear what he meant. So
Speaker 1: but it has got some explaining to do, not least
Speaker 1: of which is why he's only pulling it. Two. I
Speaker 1: love when Trump says he sunk like a rock. What
Speaker 1: happened to him? Uh, he's really been. He's been probably
Speaker 1: the greatest twenty twenty you know, flounder, and and it
Speaker 1: really kind of goes to show he really had very
Speaker 1: little merit. He had very little um following I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say following, let me kurt myself. He had very little depth,
Speaker 1: That's what I'm looking for. And yeah, he was very
Speaker 1: he was always very thin. He was always very heavy
Speaker 1: on the platitudes and the viral videos, but there's very
Speaker 1: little behind it. So he's rebooting his campaign again. We're
Speaker 1: in May and we're already in the reboots. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's really interesting. Um, he'll probably be on the debate stage,
Speaker 1: but there will be a moment and the way I
Speaker 1: kind of see this all coming together, See, i'd become
Speaker 1: a master, an expert, a doctorate level proficients in the
Speaker 1: American Left. Would you say that's true, Andrew, you're good
Speaker 1: at predicting things. Well, I'm not the predicting, but the
Speaker 1: American left like understanding the left. Well, you're good at
Speaker 1: predicting because you understand what drives them from a motivational standpoint,
Speaker 1: from a founder right. And I'm not trying to overly
Speaker 1: describe my insight into the American Left, but I deal
Speaker 1: with them every day on college campuses, and the college
Speaker 1: campuses are the leading indicator of the spirit and the
Speaker 1: energy and the center of gravity of the left, the
Speaker 1: leftist movement. And so if you understand what drives a
Speaker 1: college leftist, do you understand what drives students on students
Speaker 1: on an issue, or student groups or true and activists,
Speaker 1: you can then reasonably predict what's going to happen and
Speaker 1: how it's going to happen. And so because of this,
Speaker 1: there's going to be a moment on the Democrat primary
Speaker 1: stage where Biden will be right there in the middle,
Speaker 1: kind of where Trump used to be. Remember Trump never
Speaker 1: left the middle. I love those debates. Those were some
Speaker 1: of the great things. And Biden will be there in
Speaker 1: the middle, and he will be flanked by Warren and
Speaker 1: Harris and Jilla Brand and all of this. And somebody's
Speaker 1: going to say something like that, probably Jilla Brand, because
Speaker 1: she has nothing to lose, and her campaign has been
Speaker 1: so amazingly unimpressive. It's really been it's actually been impressive.
Speaker 1: How unimpressive her campaign is. She's gonna say, I think
Speaker 1: it's time for a woman to be in the White House.
Speaker 1: I think it's time for a woman to be present.
Speaker 1: Someone's going to say something intersectional or a person of color,
Speaker 1: I do have to say that their field is much
Speaker 1: whiter than people actually actually realize their field as much
Speaker 1: not as diverse as I think people thought it would
Speaker 1: be anyway, And then Biden will punch back, what do
Speaker 1: you mean that just because you look a certain way
Speaker 1: or a woman or a man doesn't mean that's not
Speaker 1: a qualification. And the war of identity politics will be
Speaker 1: launched within the Democrat primary. They will have a conflict
Speaker 1: around skin color, around gender identity that will be so
Speaker 1: her fic to watch, but also very insightful for those
Speaker 1: of us that actually enjoy political theater. And this this
Speaker 1: is already being signaled, This is already being talked about.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think it was Simone Sanders that said
Speaker 1: that about Biden, that we can't have a white man.
Speaker 1: I tweeted at one of them, and she responded and
Speaker 1: she said, well, I said that in a different context. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I believe Joe Biden can be president because his idea
Speaker 1: as a writer or something silly like that. But the
Speaker 1: horse race of the Democrat primary now is so interesting
Speaker 1: because in some ways they're trying to outradicalize themselves. It's
Speaker 1: the Trump hating Olympics, as I've always called it. But
Speaker 1: they have such little actual differences amongst their own opinions
Speaker 1: of how much they want to take, what direction they
Speaker 1: want to take the country. See in what made the
Speaker 1: Republican primary in twenty sixteen so interesting is you had
Speaker 1: a lot of dramatic differences Jeff Bush and Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: did not agree on immigration in the twenty sixteen prime.
Speaker 1: John Kay McDonald Trump did not agree on much in
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen primary. What what actually substantially does Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren Corey Booker disagree on? What does Krick Kurston, Jilla
Speaker 1: Brand and Elizabeth Warren actually disagree on? Very little? How
Speaker 1: much they hate Trump? I mean, what are they going
Speaker 1: to do in the primary on the debate? I hate Trump?
Speaker 1: I hate him a lot more than I hate No,
Speaker 1: no way can you hate him more than I do?
Speaker 1: And they'll definitely throughout the word constitutional crisis. Oh no,
Speaker 1: By the way, we should have a drinking game for
Speaker 1: the demo. I don't actually drink very much for all
Speaker 1: the audience. I understand very rare occasions, but metaphorical one. Right,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. You could have bingo? How
Speaker 1: about that? You could kind of you could drink water. Yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: So we're so. This is Charlie Kirk filling in for
Speaker 1: the Bucks second for Buck Sex on the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Radio Show. You can follow us TPUSA dot com or
Speaker 1: go to Charlie Kirk Show on Apple podcast Press Subscribe.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Welcome back, to the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: radio show. This is Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point
Speaker 1: USA and host of The Charlie Kirk Show podcast, asked
Speaker 1: you can go download that on Apple Podcasts. Press subscribe
Speaker 1: really helps us out. I'm reading here on Drudge something
Speaker 1: that reminded me of a column I wrote last week.
Speaker 1: I wrote a column for Breitbart dot Com that said
Speaker 1: trump greatest show of power is in his reluctance to
Speaker 1: use power, and I kind of detailed the president's courage
Speaker 1: in standing up to Iran, standing up to Venezuela, standing
Speaker 1: up to Russia, but also not going as far to
Speaker 1: engage US military might in endless wars and endless conflict.
Speaker 1: This is such a fine line, because yes, we should
Speaker 1: take a huge stance against the evil Iranian regime. We
Speaker 1: should take a strong stance against the number one world
Speaker 1: funder of terror. We should take a stance against Russia
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin doing nefarious things all across the world. We
Speaker 1: should take a even stronger stance against China. And yes,
Speaker 1: we should take a strong stance against Nicholas Murdurou and
Speaker 1: his horrendous citizen exploitation in the country of Venezuela. But
Speaker 1: I also talk about in this column what he should
Speaker 1: not do. So I used the first parameter of talking
Speaker 1: about Venezuela. I talked about Venezuela that right now, sure
Speaker 1: we could put America could about one hundred thousand troops
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. We can make Guido go into power. We'd
Speaker 1: we'd lose American citizens for that, we would lose civilians,
Speaker 1: no doubt. War is messy, War is horrible. War is
Speaker 1: one of the worst things that human beings can engage in.
Speaker 1: I think far too often, for whatever reason, war is romanticized.
Speaker 1: It's something that never should be a romanticized should be
Speaker 1: the last possible option of manage imaginable. So let's say
Speaker 1: we get Guido and in power. Wouldn't take much military might.
Speaker 1: That happened almost immediately, all the Americans are coming. Well,
Speaker 1: then what then We'd have to rebuild the schools that
Speaker 1: we broke, We'd have to fund all the hospitals, and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, we'd have another permanent military intervention
Speaker 1: in another part of the world. Meanwhile, we have a
Speaker 1: twenty two trillion dollar day. The same could be said
Speaker 1: for Iran. And this is a very dangerous potential path
Speaker 1: that we're on right now. Iran is an evil, murderous
Speaker 1: terrorist funding regime. Iran should be sanctioned. Iran should not
Speaker 1: be sent palettes of cash like Barack Obama did. But
Speaker 1: you can think a country should be put in check.
Speaker 1: You think a country should be shunned. You think you
Speaker 1: can think a country should have economic pressure put against it,
Speaker 1: without supporting a ground war, without doing another country's bidding,
Speaker 1: and so. On the front page of Drudge, I read
Speaker 1: something that said that a Saudi Arabian newspaper urges United
Speaker 1: States strikes on a run. This is really important for
Speaker 1: those of you that kind of follow my commentary. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm no huge fan of Saudi Arabia. I think that
Speaker 1: they have been double faced and double minded in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the United States. Are far too long. I
Speaker 1: talk about their involvement in nine to eleven. I talk
Speaker 1: about their funding of madrasas across the world. I talk
Speaker 1: about their funding of al Qaeda, and also the most
Speaker 1: radical form of Islamism, which is Wahabism. But I'm equally
Speaker 1: as critical against Iran. For whatever reason, seems as if
Speaker 1: there has to be this binary choice that you can't
Speaker 1: be critical of Saudi Arabia while also being critical of Iran.
Speaker 1: I'm very critical of both. But this paper said that
Speaker 1: the Saudi Arabian paper urges the United States to do
Speaker 1: surgical strikes against Iran, which would be an act of war,
Speaker 1: which would put us in another endless conflict, potentially in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. This would be a horrendous mistake. If
Speaker 1: we are doing the bidding of another country's foreign policy,
Speaker 1: that is a mistake. Saudi Arabia and Iran have a
Speaker 1: Shia Sunni conflict that goes back hundreds and thousands of years,
Speaker 1: a thousands, a thousand years. Probably. This would be an
Speaker 1: unbelievable mistake for our country to attack war against a
Speaker 1: sovereign country. The last time we did that was when
Speaker 1: we evaded Iraq. Iraq. The Iraq War was one of
Speaker 1: the worst mistakes foreign policy mistakes in American history. In
Speaker 1: American history, spent trillions of dollars in a region, had
Speaker 1: nothing to show for a thousands of Americans lives lost,
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of vets have PTSD, and we attacked
Speaker 1: a sovereign nation with an inappropriate response to nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: So I guess my word to the wise, my word,
Speaker 1: my word of caution here we should have an America
Speaker 1: first foreign policy. Yes, it is America first to put
Speaker 1: sanctions on Iran because Iran is funding terror directly against
Speaker 1: America against our interests. They could shut the straighter harmus,
Speaker 1: they could shut down the flow of energy. But no,
Speaker 1: it is not in our interests to get in a
Speaker 1: ground war with one hundred and twenty thousand, four hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: whatever many troops it would be against Iran. And then what,
Speaker 1: let's say we overthrow the Ayatola Kameni. Let's say we
Speaker 1: overthrow Akademajad. We've done that before. We did that in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty three, and then of course that got displaced,
Speaker 1: which led us to the Iranian Revolution, which we had
Speaker 1: the radicalism which we have today. The Shaw was far
Speaker 1: less radical than we have today. But the seeds of
Speaker 1: resentment that we sewed in displacing the leader back in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty three is one of the reasons we're there today.
Speaker 1: Why would we continue to make the same mistakes that
Speaker 1: we made there. You can have pressure against Iran, you
Speaker 1: can believe that they're evil and murderous about having to
Speaker 1: do the bidding of another country in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: like Saudi Arabia that wants us to do surgical strikes
Speaker 1: against the sovereign country. This is Charlie Kirk filling in
Speaker 1: for Buck Sext on the Buck Sexton Radio Show. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Hello everybody, Welcome back to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Radio Show. This is Charlie Kirk filling in form
Speaker 1: my friend, the great Buck Sexton. It is an honor
Speaker 1: to be hosting with you today. I am the founder
Speaker 1: and executive director of Turning Point USA, the nation's largest
Speaker 1: student movement dedicated to educating the next generation around the
Speaker 1: values of free markets, limited government in the Constitution. I
Speaker 1: am also the host of The Charlie Kirk Show on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts. Go to Apple podcast, type in the Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk Show, Press subscribe, Maybe give us a five star rating.
Speaker 1: That really helps us out. We give you the news
Speaker 1: of the week and a unique take on everything that
Speaker 1: is going on today. President Trump talked and unveiled his
Speaker 1: immigration proposal. President Trump has really changed the conversation when
Speaker 1: it comes to immigration in this country. Both parties have
Speaker 1: ignored this issue for so long, and they both have
Speaker 1: different reasons for why they want open borders. Traditionally, Republicans
Speaker 1: want open borders for cheap labor, for the ability for
Speaker 1: these big corporations to be able to have workers illegal
Speaker 1: workers be able to undercut wages. And Democrats want illegals
Speaker 1: for votes. They want them for potential political control, and
Speaker 1: they want to be able to use use certain portions
Speaker 1: of the American population for their own political purposes. So
Speaker 1: this is what the left is very very good at.
Speaker 1: The Left has become experts at pitting different American groups
Speaker 1: against each other. So when you look at illegals, the
Speaker 1: left wants to be able to use them as political
Speaker 1: political voting base, but also as a way to use
Speaker 1: their suffering towards their own political power. And President Trump,
Speaker 1: to his credit, started his original campaign launched back in
Speaker 1: June of twenty fifteen, on the issue of immigration. See
Speaker 1: both parties had refused to fix this issue. George W.
Speaker 1: Bush did not build the wall. Bill Clinton did not
Speaker 1: build the wall. George HW. Bush didn't build the wall.
Speaker 1: Obama certainly didn't build the wall. Ronald Reagan didn't build
Speaker 1: the wall. In fact, Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to millions
Speaker 1: of illegals in California and other parts of the country
Speaker 1: is in what he later called one of his biggest mistakes.
Speaker 1: We now have well over fifteen to twenty million illegals
Speaker 1: in this country. It's probably even more than that. And
Speaker 1: the issue is not just what do you do with
Speaker 1: the people that are already here? What are we doing
Speaker 1: to stop the next one million illegals from entering our country.
Speaker 1: We are expected to have one million border crossings into
Speaker 1: our country alone this year, one million border crossings. One
Speaker 1: percent of the entire population of Guatemala is anticipated to
Speaker 1: immigrate or to border jump to this country. And now
Speaker 1: I will tell you I get quite bothered by the
Speaker 1: terminology immigration, because immigration means you obey the law, you
Speaker 1: wait in line, you don't commit crimes in your home country,
Speaker 1: You visit the United States embassy, you apply, you wait
Speaker 1: your turn, You enter the country, you find a job,
Speaker 1: you pay taxes, You have kids, and your kids can
Speaker 1: then have a better life than you. That is immigration.
Speaker 1: It is not fair that someone from Guatemala can cut
Speaker 1: in line, someone from Belarus or someone from Vietnam that
Speaker 1: has to wait in line and does not have the
Speaker 1: geographic proximity to border jump into our country. So I'm
Speaker 1: very hesitant to even call that immigration. It is line
Speaker 1: cutting and border jumping. We never have as a country
Speaker 1: ever talked positively about cutting in line. We've never said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a good thing that people are cutting in line.
Speaker 1: No matter what it is, whether it be as something
Speaker 1: as simple as a restaurant or boarding a plane, there
Speaker 1: is a cultural process that is within our country that
Speaker 1: we respect people that are patient and obey the rule
Speaker 1: of law and the structure of systems. However, when it
Speaker 1: comes to the issue of immigration, I do not equate
Speaker 1: people that cut in line and jump the border as
Speaker 1: the same people that wait patiently to get their turn.
Speaker 1: And so President Trump has changed the dynamic when it
Speaker 1: comes to immigration in this country. For far too long,
Speaker 1: we have agreed as conservatives to have open borders to
Speaker 1: appease the left for our own purposes, and now it
Speaker 1: is having significant cultural, financial, and national security implications in
Speaker 1: our country. Illegals cost well over one hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year in state, local and federal tax burden. Illegals
Speaker 1: in the state of Arizona are twice as likely to
Speaker 1: commit a crime versus a natural born citizen. You look
Speaker 1: at the amount of guns being smuggled across our southern border,
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of guns every single month, hundreds of
Speaker 1: pounds of drugs are smuggled every single day across the
Speaker 1: southern border. Children are being sex trafficked. Over ten thousand
Speaker 1: children are sex trafficked across the southern border every single month.
Speaker 1: And the President has changed this dynamic, and he has
Speaker 1: even been more generous than some people in the conservative
Speaker 1: base would have been comfortable with him to be to
Speaker 1: offer a DOCA deal and to even go as far
Speaker 1: to say that there should be a way that illegals
Speaker 1: can stay in our country if they obey the law,
Speaker 1: if in return you have border security. See if the
Speaker 1: Democrats actually cared about protecting the people that were in
Speaker 1: this country illegally and we're worried about them, then they
Speaker 1: would have struck the president to be able to build
Speaker 1: the wall to prevent more illegals coming into this country,
Speaker 1: to prevent more people that are in a position of suffering,
Speaker 1: while in exchange fixing the problem once and for all.
Speaker 1: The President had some comments on this, let's go to
Speaker 1: cut one. Currently, sixty six percent of legal immigrants come
Speaker 1: here on the basis of random chance. They're admitted solely
Speaker 1: because they have a relative in the United States, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter who that relative is. Another twenty
Speaker 1: one percent of immigrants are issued either by random lottery
Speaker 1: or because they're fortunate enough to be selected for humanitarian relief.
Speaker 1: The President is critiquing the fact that our immigration system,
Speaker 1: our legal immigration system right now, is so screwed up
Speaker 1: in the sense that if you know someone in this country,
Speaker 1: you have an opportunity to come here. This is called
Speaker 1: family chain migration, when in reality we should have the smartest,
Speaker 1: most qualified, most ambitious, entrepreneurial people in the world come
Speaker 1: to this country. See. I have this debate amongst some
Speaker 1: people in conservative circles. They say, oh, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we don't need more immigrants altogether. I totally disagree. I
Speaker 1: think we need millions and millions of more qualified, ambitious people.
Speaker 1: We do not have a land problem in this country.
Speaker 1: You go to Nebraska, the Dakota is Iowa, Illinois where
Speaker 1: I'm from, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio. We have unbelievable natural resources,
Speaker 1: abundant amount of land. We could build forever. We could
Speaker 1: fit the entire world's population in Texas, by the way,
Speaker 1: and still have land leftover, Still have tracts of land leftover.
Speaker 1: If you believe in market principles, you first and foremost
Speaker 1: believe in the rule of law. So I'm not an
Speaker 1: open borders person like some people on the extreme libertarian
Speaker 1: side are. Or they say we have to open up
Speaker 1: the borders an unrestricted amount of legal immigration, of immigration
Speaker 1: illegal or legal, there's no such thing. I don't agree
Speaker 1: with that. But if you have qualified people entering your
Speaker 1: workforce and they're going to start businesses and they're going
Speaker 1: to compete and create wealth, of course we want those
Speaker 1: people in our country. And since we have such a
Speaker 1: booming economy, we have job openings of qualified people that
Speaker 1: want to come to this country. I find inspiration from
Speaker 1: someone that has grown up in less than desirable circumstances,
Speaker 1: from Vietnam, from Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Somalia, anywhere in the
Speaker 1: country and anywhere the world, I should say, and they
Speaker 1: want to come here and make something of themselves. See,
Speaker 1: a country should always want ambitious people, a country should
Speaker 1: always want law abiding people, and a country should always
Speaker 1: want ethical people. If those three things are how we
Speaker 1: design an immigration system, we'd have a much more prosperous
Speaker 1: country today. Because if you have someone that comes in
Speaker 1: the country and they're going to go to school, they're
Speaker 1: gonna obey the law, they're going to act ethically. There's
Speaker 1: nothing negative that could come out of that. Well, I
Speaker 1: shouldn't say there's nothing negative. There's very little old chance
Speaker 1: that something negative would come out of that, very low chance. Instead,
Speaker 1: they will start businesses and they'll reinvest in our country,
Speaker 1: almost assuredly, or they'll get high paying job, they'll purchase houses,
Speaker 1: and they'll participate in the market economy. Now, the problem is,
Speaker 1: as the President pointed out, when you have people that
Speaker 1: are just related to other people and you're not actually
Speaker 1: screening for ambition, likelihood to participate an entrepreneurial activity, or
Speaker 1: their wealth coming into the country, anything that you're able
Speaker 1: to screen for that has some leading indicator that they
Speaker 1: will be able to produce for themselves in their family
Speaker 1: and maybe provide jobs in the future. All of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you have a higher likelihood that those immigrants will then
Speaker 1: take welfare and they will live on the government dole.
Speaker 1: And that's not helpful for anybody. So let's go to
Speaker 1: cut two. As the President continues to comment on the
Speaker 1: immigration debate, under the senseless rules of the current system.
Speaker 1: We're not able to give preference to a doctor, a researcher,
Speaker 1: a student who graduated number one in his class from
Speaker 1: the finest colleges in the world, anybody. We're not able
Speaker 1: to take care of it. We're not able to make
Speaker 1: those incredible breakthroughs. If somebody graduates top of their class
Speaker 1: from the Vest College, sorry, go back to your country.
Speaker 1: We want to keep them here. And it's the president.
Speaker 1: Just to kind of add clarity what he was saying,
Speaker 1: he was almost in my observation of what he said,
Speaker 1: I think critiquing how silly it is if someone someone
Speaker 1: graduates first in their class. Of course we want them
Speaker 1: here in America. So to kind of I'm going to
Speaker 1: detail his America First immigration plan in just a second.
Speaker 1: I'm going to walk through exactly what the actual policies
Speaker 1: been in Before I get to that, I want to
Speaker 1: just reinforce the fact we're even having an immigration debate
Speaker 1: altogether is extraordinary. The fact that we're even discussing the
Speaker 1: issue of immigration is a testament to the President's courage
Speaker 1: and conviction and clarity when it comes to public policy.
Speaker 1: This is Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, host
Speaker 1: of the Charlie Kirk Show podcast. You're going to Apple
Speaker 1: Podcast Press subscribe. It'll help us out. In just a minute,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back talking about Donald Trump's America First
Speaker 1: immigration plan. We'll be right back. Welcome back. This is
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk filling in for the great Buck Sexton. Today.
Speaker 1: President Trump. He detailed his America First immigration plan. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to go for this point by point, very meticulously.
Speaker 1: First and foremost, big cuts in chain migration. This is
Speaker 1: so important. You should not be able to come to
Speaker 1: our country just because you know somebody in this country.
Speaker 1: You should have to have qualifications. You should have to
Speaker 1: have maybe some form of wealth, ambition, maybe high test scores,
Speaker 1: you name it. There is very little argument to be said, Oh,
Speaker 1: we should just let people in because they have an
Speaker 1: ant or an uncle or a niece or a nephew
Speaker 1: or a cousin. No, we want people that are proven
Speaker 1: or have leading indicators to produce in our country. Big
Speaker 1: cuts and chain migration, huge win for the America First agenda,
Speaker 1: big time. Second, drastic increase in skilled labor. Wow, what
Speaker 1: a want to know? What a novel concept to be
Speaker 1: able to say that we want more people that have skills.
Speaker 1: Can you code? Can you speak multiple languages? Did you
Speaker 1: get high test scores? We want more people that have
Speaker 1: skills because when you have those types of skills, you're
Speaker 1: much less likely to go on government benefits, You're much
Speaker 1: less likely to commit crime, you're much less likely to
Speaker 1: drop off and participate in anything in society that is
Speaker 1: less than desirable, and you're much more likely to get
Speaker 1: a high paying job. You're much more likely to start
Speaker 1: a business. So this plan increase includes a dramatic and
Speaker 1: drastic increase in skilled labor. And so what kind of
Speaker 1: the skills are these? And engineering, nursing, being a doctor,
Speaker 1: things that we need in our country. We need more
Speaker 1: of that. We can't find enough of that work. There
Speaker 1: are companies that are saying we can't find enough work. Now,
Speaker 1: some people on the very very far conservative side of things,
Speaker 1: and I'm friends with a lot of these people. Admittedly
Speaker 1: they say, oh, Charlie, what are you talking about. We
Speaker 1: need Americans to fill those jobs. Well, look, first of all,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people that have been left
Speaker 1: behind in the American economy that don't have these skills,
Speaker 1: and we should do more for job training. We should
Speaker 1: do more to actually teach these skills. But that's not
Speaker 1: an excuse not to expand the immigration quotas for people
Speaker 1: that actually have the capacity to fill these jobs. Now,
Speaker 1: we as a country, if you believe in market based forces,
Speaker 1: you believe when someone comes with ambition and ethics and skill,
Speaker 1: ambition and ethics and skill, they're going to participate in
Speaker 1: that economy generally in a positive sense. I want more
Speaker 1: people like Elon Musk. Elon Musk was a legal immigrant
Speaker 1: to this country from South Africa, and he has made
Speaker 1: America a better place. He employs tens of thousands of people,
Speaker 1: He's made billions of dollars. He's ambitious, he has vision,
Speaker 1: and he has ethics. The third part of this America
Speaker 1: First Plan was a self sustained Border Security Trust Fund.
Speaker 1: From my understanding of this, this is the ability to
Speaker 1: have some funding mechanism to make sure that the border
Speaker 1: is always properly funded, that we have a secure border,
Speaker 1: that we have a wall, and we have some form
Speaker 1: of a capacity to make sure that the border is
Speaker 1: not subject to these partisan silly funding fights. This is
Speaker 1: long overdue. The border has become such a political issue.
Speaker 1: The border has become such a contentious partnersan issue. The
Speaker 1: President is looking five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead, saying,
Speaker 1: how can I fund the border in a way to
Speaker 1: make sure that the ice border patrol agents and the
Speaker 1: construction of the wall, what is needed in the future,
Speaker 1: can be self sustainable. He also said there's a build
Speaker 1: America visa. Now, what this is is if you're coming
Speaker 1: into our country, we will give you a visa if
Speaker 1: you actually want to build infrastructure and build buildings in
Speaker 1: our country. It is an America First immigration plan. Then
Speaker 1: finally civics exams. This is so important. The President talked
Speaker 1: about having a civic exam. Do you know our basic
Speaker 1: founding documents? Don't know our basic ideas? Can you speak English?
Speaker 1: Having the ability to have a civic exam has been
Speaker 1: missing in our immigration debate for so long. Let's go
Speaker 1: to cut three, the President on immigration. Companies are moving
Speaker 1: off officers to other countries because our immigration rules prevent
Speaker 1: them from retaining highly skilled And even if I might
Speaker 1: totally brilliant people, we discriminate against genius. We discriminate against brilliance.
Speaker 1: We won't anymore once we get this past, and we
Speaker 1: hope to get it past as soon as possible. Discriminate
Speaker 1: against genius. That is exactly right. Our current immigration system
Speaker 1: discriminates against high qualified people. I have always said I
Speaker 1: want the Kentucky Basketball of immigration policy. What do I
Speaker 1: mean by that? I want the most qualified, the most ambitious,
Speaker 1: the most intelligent, the most entrepreneurial people to come to
Speaker 1: this country. There should not be an inherent discrimination against
Speaker 1: qualifications when applying to come into America. In just a minute,
Speaker 1: we'll be back. I'm going to detail this even more
Speaker 1: or we're going to talk about some of the reaction
Speaker 1: from the left on this immigration issue. They're finding a
Speaker 1: reason to oppose it. This is Charlie Kirk, host of
Speaker 1: The Charlie Kirk Show. You can subscribe by going to
Speaker 1: Apple Podcast typing in the Charlie Kirk Show Press subscribe.
Speaker 1: Founder of Turning Point USA TPUSA dot com. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Welcome back. This is Charlie Kirk filling in
Speaker 1: for the Great Buck Sexton on the Buck Sexton Radio Show.
Speaker 1: I am the founder of Turning Point USA TPUSA dot com,
Speaker 1: the nation's largest student movement dedicated to the education of
Speaker 1: the next generation. Behind the ideas of free markets, limited government,
Speaker 1: American exceptionalism, and the Constitution. We've been talking about immigration
Speaker 1: this hour. This is an issue that I think is
Speaker 1: the number one issue heading into the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have no position on immigration. In fact, Robert
Speaker 1: f answers o rourke. He calls himself Beta, Beto O'Rourke,
Speaker 1: calls himself Beto O'Rourke. Right, mister producer, that's right, that's
Speaker 1: mister producer there. And he has a position where he
Speaker 1: was standing overlooking the fence that actually works in El Paso, Texas,
Speaker 1: that actually works, and Chris Hayes from MSNBC asks him,
Speaker 1: if you could, would you tear down these walls right now?
Speaker 1: Actually might be the toughest question that a Democrat has
Speaker 1: gotten so far in the twenty twenty election, and he says,
Speaker 1: of course, yes, absolutely, I would. He would tear down
Speaker 1: the wall with El Paso. The Democrats are put on
Speaker 1: defense from this issue. And I have to give the
Speaker 1: president credit by framing the immigration debate. Here's what he's
Speaker 1: really doing. He's going to work with Mitch McConnell to
Speaker 1: get this bill into the United States Senate and he
Speaker 1: will put every Democrat running for president, which is about
Speaker 1: half the United States Senate of the Democrat Caucus. It
Speaker 1: seems on the record against these very reasonable immigration proposals,
Speaker 1: cutting chain migration, increasing skilled labor, having a self sustained
Speaker 1: border security trust fund, more build America Visa's civics exams.
Speaker 1: Do you believe in that, Senator Jillibrand, do you believe
Speaker 1: in that? Senator Booker? Do you believe in that? Senator Colbatar, Colobatar?
Speaker 1: Do you believe in that? Senator Warren? I mean what
Speaker 1: senator is not running for president. By the way, we
Speaker 1: should have a list of every Democrat not running for president.
Speaker 1: I think it might be Senator Tim Kane. I think
Speaker 1: he's not running for president now. Senator Tim Kane is
Speaker 1: definitely not running for president. But you go through this list,
Speaker 1: it is such reasonable immigration policy. And what it really
Speaker 1: does is it's now going to put Vice President Joe
Speaker 1: Biden the air apparent front runner of the Democrat primary,
Speaker 1: which I've made this prediction. I believe he will not
Speaker 1: be the Democrat nominee. I believe Joe Biden will not
Speaker 1: be the Democrat nominee. It now puts him in a
Speaker 1: very difficult situation. It now puts him in a very
Speaker 1: tough position because now Vice President Joe Biden is now
Speaker 1: going to have to be against stuff he used to
Speaker 1: be for, which is actually seemed to be kind of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's twenty slogan, Joe Biden, if I don't support
Speaker 1: it now, I probably did then vote for me. I've
Speaker 1: been on every side of the issue, or Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: new slogan, which is, if I set it back then,
Speaker 1: I might not say it today. What do you think
Speaker 1: that's that's good? I think that's this new slogan. If
Speaker 1: I'm not for it I was before, or something like that.
Speaker 1: The guy has been on every single issue of every
Speaker 1: political topic in the American political conversation. He in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six said we waited to build a wall,
Speaker 1: we need to kick out all the illegals, and now
Speaker 1: he says we need to give health care for everybody it.
Speaker 1: The genius of Trump's immigration plan is to compare it
Speaker 1: against what I would say, more leftist notions, the same
Speaker 1: notions that the modern progressive left adores, and so he's
Speaker 1: he's creating contrast through good policy. So not is this
Speaker 1: not only is this something that should, hopefully God willing
Speaker 1: get past. Nancy Pelosi will not allow this to come
Speaker 1: in its true form. But this will also this is
Speaker 1: the genius of Trump's plan. This will put blue dog
Speaker 1: alleged blue dog Democrats like Connor Lamb and these guys
Speaker 1: that have just taken the House back with Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: in a very tough position because they're gonna have to
Speaker 1: vote against leadership. They're gonna have to vote against the
Speaker 1: wishes of the of the Nancy Pelosi. This is a
Speaker 1: moderate immigration plan. This is now. Yes, it has a
Speaker 1: lot of border security. But you might see some of
Speaker 1: these ads on Fox News being run by Numbers USA.
Speaker 1: Numbers USA does not believe in this immigration plan. I
Speaker 1: disagree with Numbers USA, and I like a lot of
Speaker 1: what they do. I agree with them on the illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: But this is a conversation that I've had with some
Speaker 1: of our own team, you know, at the Charlie Kirk Show,
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk Show podcast that you can download on an
Speaker 1: Apple podcast. There's a conversation and debate that we have
Speaker 1: should we have more immigration? My stance is absolutely, I
Speaker 1: want millions and millions of more smart, ambitious, ethical people.
Speaker 1: Smart ambitious, ethical people that's hard to find. Though, it's
Speaker 1: hard to qualify, isn't it Because as soon as you
Speaker 1: say that you have to curtail chain migration, you have
Speaker 1: to curtail people that my I just know somebody or
Speaker 1: have some sort of diversity, the slattery, and so the
Speaker 1: conversation immigration should be always this And this is what
Speaker 1: I love about this president's plan right now? Is it
Speaker 1: going to help America? Not? Does it make you feel good? Not?
Speaker 1: Is it going to put more people there disaffected in
Speaker 1: your country? Is? Will this policy actually help America? Will
Speaker 1: this policy benefit the nation state that you're elected to serve?
Speaker 1: Isn't that a novel concept? Actually ask yourself will your
Speaker 1: public policy you're pushing for benefit your constituents. It seems
Speaker 1: as if the Democrats are will it get me elected?
Speaker 1: Or will it put me in power? Or will it
Speaker 1: make me feel good? Or will it get applause some
Speaker 1: sort of leftist gathering of ACLU human rights campaign. It'll
Speaker 1: be very interesting to see which Democrat actually has something
Speaker 1: nice to say about this, which will probably none of them,
Speaker 1: and they'll all vote. My guess is war into Clobuchart.
Speaker 1: All of them will one by one by one vote
Speaker 1: against this very reasonable immigration proposal and plan. And I
Speaker 1: do want to reinforce a point I made earlier, which
Speaker 1: is we are only talking about immigration because of President Trump.
Speaker 1: Let's play a hypothetical out. Let's say it was President
Speaker 1: Jeb Bush or President Marco Rubio. Do you think we'd
Speaker 1: be having this conversation around the illegal immigration in this country?
Speaker 1: Do you think we'd actually be having the conversation around
Speaker 1: declaring the southern border as a national emergency. I think
Speaker 1: there's a zero percent chance that the traditional Republican Party
Speaker 1: would actually be addressing illegal immigration. They'd be talking about
Speaker 1: it from a corporatist lens. What do you think, No,
Speaker 1: we'd be doing exactly the point you've made time and
Speaker 1: time again, that we'd be talking about how much we
Speaker 1: can concede to the Democrats so that we can stay
Speaker 1: at the cocktail parties as opposed to getting actual immigration.
Speaker 1: It seems like that that's a trend, isn't it. It
Speaker 1: seems as if that's exactly right. It's the traditional Republican
Speaker 1: Party is this traditionally, and that Trump has blown this up,
Speaker 1: blown this up, and most Republicans, like Lindsay Graham, are
Speaker 1: no longer like this. I want to qualify this. Most
Speaker 1: Republicans are no longer like this. The traditional Republican Party,
Speaker 1: especially in the early two thousands, is two things. How
Speaker 1: can I get the Democrats and media to not say
Speaker 1: bad things about me? And how do I serve corporate interests?
Speaker 1: How do I not get the Democrats and media not
Speaker 1: to say bad things about me? And how do I
Speaker 1: serve corporate interests? How do I stay on CNN? Yeah, exactly?
Speaker 1: How do I say on certain cable networks? How do
Speaker 1: I stay on certain cable networks while also still getting
Speaker 1: invited to the cocktail parties? How do I blend those
Speaker 1: two things together? Donald Trump doesn't care about the cocktail parties.
Speaker 1: The ultimate cocktail party where you go to get loved
Speaker 1: is the White House correspondence dinner. When you're a president,
Speaker 1: that is that is the oscars of being president. Of
Speaker 1: course you get made fun of a little bit, but
Speaker 1: you get that is your show. And President Trump has
Speaker 1: shown he doesn't care about that. He goes and actually
Speaker 1: rallies with real Americans. Here's a kind of a fun
Speaker 1: stat that my executive producer, who you're hearing some nice
Speaker 1: chime in, Andrew told me. Currently only about twelve percent
Speaker 1: of immigrants are admitted based unemployment and skills, while sixty
Speaker 1: six are Oh my goodness, this is unbelievable, while sixty
Speaker 1: six are admitted based on family connections. Inside the United
Speaker 1: States administration, are you kidding me? This means that sixty
Speaker 1: six percent two thirds. I want you to imagine a
Speaker 1: pie right now, Okay, a physical pie, and two thirds
Speaker 1: of that pie, sixty six percent of immigrants, legal immigrants
Speaker 1: into our country right now are admitted just based on
Speaker 1: family ties. That's no way are we getting the best
Speaker 1: people in the world because of that. Do you know
Speaker 1: what that also means? That means that we are disenfranchising
Speaker 1: qualified people from other parts of the world, because that
Speaker 1: means qualified people are being puts the back of the
Speaker 1: line because someone else is here. That means somebody else.
Speaker 1: So you know what else that means. That means it
Speaker 1: gives you preference to people that know illegal immigrants. Do
Speaker 1: you know any illegal and that illegal has a child,
Speaker 1: that child that becomes fifteen or sixteen, you can then
Speaker 1: use that fifteen or sixteen year old daughter of an
Speaker 1: illegal immigrant to come to this country legally. That's silly.
Speaker 1: We should be to have an immigration policy that is
Speaker 1: crafted based on merit, based on ambition and based on ethics.
Speaker 1: A country should be built on what is best for
Speaker 1: the nation state, not what makes you feel good. This
Speaker 1: is Charlie Kirk filling for Buck Sex Then on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex Then Radio Show. We'll be right back, Welcome back.
Speaker 1: This is Charlie Kirk filling in for the great Buck
Speaker 1: Sex Then on the Buck Sex Then Radio Show. I
Speaker 1: am the founder of Turning Point USA. Turning Point USA
Speaker 1: is the nation's largest student movement dedicated to educating, empowering,
Speaker 1: and organizing the next generation around the values of free markets,
Speaker 1: limited government, and the constitution. We'd like to learn more,
Speaker 1: you can visit our website at tpusa dot com. That
Speaker 1: is tp usa dot com. So Andrew Andrew's here, executive
Speaker 1: producer of The Charlie Kirk Show. You can go to
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts and subscribe to The Charlie Kirk Show. We
Speaker 1: were just talking about immigration, and it seems far too
Speaker 1: often that the immigration debate in our country gets immediately demagogued.
Speaker 1: It seems as if the left wants to use it
Speaker 1: as a way to perpetually have future voters. If the
Speaker 1: Left was serious but actually solving this problem, they would
Speaker 1: build a wall. As I co and le say if
Speaker 1: illegals entering America and their children were likely to vote Republican,
Speaker 1: but while would already be built, and anyone that would
Speaker 1: oppose the wall would be a racist. If people coming
Speaker 1: across the southern border would actually tend to be more conservative,
Speaker 1: then the left would say, oh, we gotta build the wall,
Speaker 1: we gotta restrict because you know how we know this
Speaker 1: to be true. The left does not want actual legal
Speaker 1: immigration from countries that are far more likely to have
Speaker 1: Republicans or people of the vote Republicans. I'll give you
Speaker 1: a great example when time and time again we try
Speaker 1: to accept the victims of communism from countries like Venezuela,
Speaker 1: or from Cuba, or from Eastern Europe, the Democrats want
Speaker 1: to put restrictions on that. Democrats, time and time again
Speaker 1: would rather have people that are in caravans coming from
Speaker 1: Guatemala that are living in less than desirable circumstances. Living
Speaker 1: in less than desirable circumstances are not a reason to
Speaker 1: be able to come to America. Living in less than
Speaker 1: desirable circumstances. I have empathy for those people. I have
Speaker 1: compassion for those people. Actually believe the best way to
Speaker 1: help those people is to empower their own nation state,
Speaker 1: to have a free market economy, to have the rule
Speaker 1: of law, and to have a constitutional republic free expression.
Speaker 1: That's the best way to help people in less than
Speaker 1: desirable circumstances, not to just say, oh, leave Guatemala. I
Speaker 1: have twenty five percent of Guatemala comes to America. What
Speaker 1: does that mean. It means the twenty five percent they're
Speaker 1: actually young enough. Their young workforce leaves their country and
Speaker 1: they have less people, less quality, they have less people
Speaker 1: at all, and their country is less off today than
Speaker 1: it was beforehand. And so Donald Trump, to his credit,
Speaker 1: has kept the national conversation around immigration going for some
Speaker 1: time now. It is an issue. And this is what
Speaker 1: I love about President Trump. He doesn't care if it's
Speaker 1: a divisive issue. He doesn't care if it's a difficult issue.
Speaker 1: He cares if it's an issue that needs to be
Speaker 1: addressed by the country and for the country. And so
Speaker 1: the President takes on these difficult issues. The President takes
Speaker 1: on these issues that he knows are going to spur
Speaker 1: conversation because he knows it's good for America long term
Speaker 1: to actually solve our immigration crisis. We are on pace
Speaker 1: to have one million people cross the southern border this year.
Speaker 1: One million people. Think about that, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: you know what? You know, how many one million people is?
Speaker 1: That's the entire population of Montana. The state of Montana
Speaker 1: is illegally crossing into our country every single year. One
Speaker 1: million people a year, every single year. This is not sustainable.
Speaker 1: These are people that are not on our books. These
Speaker 1: are people that are going to be draining the public resources.
Speaker 1: These are people that are going to be flooding our schools.
Speaker 1: It's different if you come from a country and you
Speaker 1: come legally. What what's the actual distinction of the difference here?
Speaker 1: When you come legally, you get placed usually in a
Speaker 1: region or a country or a city that can sustain
Speaker 1: that kind of immigration or that is in need of
Speaker 1: that kind of immigration. There is a beautiful documentary done
Speaker 1: on Frontline, which I know is a PBS thing, but Frontline,
Speaker 1: actually I think does they do a pretty fair job.
Speaker 1: I love the music to I love Frontline, I always have.
Speaker 1: I think I think Frontline is one of the great
Speaker 1: true I think they're one of the great documentary kind
Speaker 1: of providers in the country. Anyway, there's a great there
Speaker 1: was a really terrific piece that they did on Ohio.
Speaker 1: I think it was Date in Ohio where they talked
Speaker 1: about how, what's the cash register company that went out?
Speaker 1: It was a cash register company went to Atlanta and
Speaker 1: I'll look it up, National Cash I think it was
Speaker 1: called NCR National Cash Register, and they're four billion dollar
Speaker 1: company left Date in Ohio and the whole city has
Speaker 1: been grappling with this. And they voted for Trump by
Speaker 1: eighty percent. And I kind of love these leftist documentarians
Speaker 1: that look at Trump voters as if there's some sort
Speaker 1: of zoo animals and now looking into the wild, we
Speaker 1: try to figure out why Cynthia from Ohio actually voted
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. Yes, it is NCR National Cash Register.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and nine, they left Date in Ohio
Speaker 1: and the city is still trying to grapple with that.
Speaker 1: Thousands of jobs were lost. Anyway, So you go to Dayton, Ohio.
Speaker 1: And this was a really cool thing is that it
Speaker 1: showed that there was an entire community of Dayton, Ohio
Speaker 1: of these unbelievably entrepreneurial people. I think they were Armenian
Speaker 1: or they were Turkish or something. They were they were
Speaker 1: from that part of the world. Probably, I think it
Speaker 1: was Armenian and they came to distinction, but yes, a
Speaker 1: huge distinction. But I'm confusing it because Armenia and Turkey
Speaker 1: has history, so I'm confusing it. You can actually probably
Speaker 1: look it up on frontline. I want to be very precise,
Speaker 1: try to always be very precise in this. But the
Speaker 1: whole point is that these this community came in five
Speaker 1: ten years ago with high skill visas and they've totally
Speaker 1: changed Northern Dayton for the better. They own auto dealerships,
Speaker 1: they have manufacturing plans. Is like this amazing story of
Speaker 1: legal immigration and their net their net income for their
Speaker 1: communities like eighty thousand dollars and the whole community loves them.
Speaker 1: I can't I can't remember if it was Armenian or
Speaker 1: Turkish or if it was whatever. It doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: The whole point is that that's what we want more
Speaker 1: of Dayton, Ohio is now seeing a net benefit from
Speaker 1: that type of that was not, by the way, It
Speaker 1: was not chain migration, it was not family based migration.
Speaker 1: It was actually people that came here for the right
Speaker 1: reasons that have entrepreneural activity. And you know what, they're
Speaker 1: all flying American flags over all their businesses that's talk
Speaker 1: about how much they love America, from about how much
Speaker 1: they love this country, how appreciative they are of this country.
Speaker 1: And I find the people that are sometimes most appreciative
Speaker 1: of this country, our first generation immigrants that came here
Speaker 1: and fled something and came for a reason. They love America.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats always make it seem as if we're
Speaker 1: against these people. They were like, oh, you hate immigrants. No,
Speaker 1: we don't. We don't hate immigrants. We love immigrants. We
Speaker 1: love people that come here for the right reasons. We
Speaker 1: don't want border jumpers or line cutters. We have to
Speaker 1: change our language when it comes to immigration. Immigration is
Speaker 1: following the rules. Illegals, our border jumpers and line cutters,
Speaker 1: those are not people that have obeyed our protocol and
Speaker 1: obeyed the set of standards put in one of them,
Speaker 1: and those standards exist for Those standards exist for the
Speaker 1: nation state. Those standards exist for a very particular reason. Well,
Speaker 1: it's been a fun couple hours here on the Buck
Speaker 1: Sex Then Radio Show. I want to thank our executive
Speaker 1: producer here of the Charlie Kirk Show. If you liked
Speaker 1: what you heard, you can go to the Apple podcast.
Speaker 1: Type in Charlie Kirk Show and press subscribe. That really
Speaker 1: helps us out. We have a weekly episode and sometimes
Speaker 1: even more than that. Again, I'm the founder of Turning
Speaker 1: Point USATPUSA dot com. It's been such a thrill with
Speaker 1: you these last couple hours. Please get involved on college campuses,
Speaker 1: if you have a young person, if yourself, want to
Speaker 1: get involved in the culture war, We'd love to do it.
Speaker 1: We believe in free markets, the constitution, limited government, American exceptionalism.
Speaker 1: We believe America is the greatest country in the history
Speaker 1: of the world. That's TPUSA dot com. Again, that's TPUSA
Speaker 1: dot com. Or you could subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Speaker 1: We want you to be a subscriber, no charge, tons
Speaker 1: of fun involved in the fight. This has been a
Speaker 1: great couple of hours. Hope to see you again soon.
Speaker 1: In fact, I'm hosting the show again tomorrow, so I'll
Speaker 1: see you tomorrow. This is Charlie Kirk signing off on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Radio Show.