Loading summary
Transcript136 lines
- [00:04]
Charlie Kirk
My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord. Use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold investments@noblegold investments.com that is noblegoldinvestments.com.
- [01:17]
Andrew Colvett
all right. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is Monday, June 29th. Hanging out here in the remote Y Refi Studios. Blake is in the real why Refi Studio. How we doing, Blake?
- [01:31]
Blake
We're doing splendid. The mic flag is mine once again.
- [01:35]
Andrew Colvett
Well, I'll be back to reclaim it soon. In the meantime, we have four Supreme Court decisions breaking this morning. That is where we will start our show. Here to help us unpack them all is Bill Shipley. He's a veteran DOJ prosecutor. You can find him on X at Shipwrecked Crew. So please check him out there. I've been following him for a long time. Bill, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. Good.
- [02:00]
Bill Shipley
I guess it's afternoon for a lot of the audience on the East Coast.
- [02:04]
Andrew Colvett
Good morning on the West Coast. Exactly. So, Bill, the big one that's getting all the headlines this morning, and we are going to go through all four of them. But it is this decision about Watson v. Republican National Committee, about ballots that are postmarked, apparently day of the election, but they come in days after. Help us break this down. Separate truth from fiction, because people are getting really worked up about it. I would be one of those people. Help us understand what this decision actually means.
- [02:35]
Bill Shipley
Yeah. Well, it's written by Justice Barrett, joined by the chief justice and the three liberal justices of the court. It's written in a relatively narrow fashion, but obviously it doesn't produce the result that conservatives had hoped for all the court really says is that there's a variety of election related statutes, federal statutes. And one thing that happened was Congress amended some of the statutes to cover what it refers to as the period of voting. And by describing something as the period of voting, they opened the door to an interpretation of Election day as something broader than just the 24 hours on the day in question. And the court specifically says that the question before it is narrow whether counting ballots postmarked by election day, but received up to five days later violates federal election day statutes. So it's purely a statutory decision. And it says the plaintiffs do not challenge the general practice of absentee voting, the use of the postal service so mail in votes or common carriers to transmit ballots, early voting, or the counting and certification of votes after election day. The court also does not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. Meaning if you can muster the political support to further refine down election Day and eliminate this period of voting aspect, then there's nothing that prevents Congress from saying election Day is one day. But as federal law currently stands, there is not a requirement in these election statutes that all the votes cast be in by a particular deadline in order to be validly counted.
- [04:40]
Blake
So. So, bill, to make sure I'm understanding this right, Congress, maybe they could throw it into the save act or make a separate bill entirely. They could just pass a law that says all federal elections, you got to have the ballots count. You can only count stuff that arrives by election day. Maybe even they could require count them on election day. They could pass that. But the court also didn't really rule if that's allowed. So whenever they do, will probably be back before the Supreme Court again.
- [05:07]
Bill Shipley
But on the left, yeah, it'll be challenged. I mean, but Congress certainly could pass it. The court's saying, look, we're not, we are not issuing an opinion that defines the scope of Congress's authority. We're just recognizing that there are election statutes, and some of those election statutes authorize what is referred to as a period of voting as opposed to simply a single day.
- [05:30]
Andrew Colvett
So when did those statutes get updated by Congress? You said that this was a update at some point, or was it even legislation?
- [05:37]
Bill Shipley
No, there was. There was. You know, it's buried in the text of the, of the case. I don't have it exactly. Offhand. There are a variety of statutes that have over time been modified to sort of accommodate sort of the modern practices, you know, absentee voting. I think one in particular is the statute involving military ballots. Cast from overseas and the time within which those are allowed to arrive after Election Day. So, you know, there's certain classes of voting. It's not a general rule, but just certain classes of voting. Congress has authorized or recognized that the period of voting extends beyond simply Election Day.
- [06:28]
Andrew Colvett
Got it. All right. So this is yet a renewed call for those of us that care about this sort of thing. And this audience, I believe, billed that we have to pass the Save America act, okay? Congress has to act, and if they refuse, we want names of who's blocking it. So that's simple as that. For those listening, we gotta pass the Save America Act. That President Trump has been reiterating the same. I've seen it across from different people in the conservative movement this morning, and I concur, I echo that sentiment. The other one here, Bill, that's getting a lot of news is this Trump v. Slaughter, the independent agency removal, the ftc, et cetera. Please explain this one.
- [07:11]
Bill Shipley
Yeah, this is one that's been around for a long, long time. And I'm not talking about Slaughter case, but this controversy over a 1937 decision, I think 35, in Humphreys executor, often referred to as Humphreys Executor. And in that case, a New Deal era case, the Supreme Court basically said that independent commissioners, and in that case it was the Federal Trade Commission. So independent commissioners are immune from termination by the President, even though they're part of the executive branch, except for cause, as defined in the various statutes. And this runs up against the concept that's gained a lot of traction the last 50 years of what's called the unitary executive, meaning there's one president under the Constitution, and everybody under the Constitution that exercises executive authority is exercising the authority given to the president, to the person, to the individual who's elected. The concept of an independent agency and independent commissioners runs up against the authority of the President to have his executive authority exercised only in ways that he approves of. Justice Gorsuch has a concurring opinion that really goes deep into the roots of the problem this created.
- [08:37]
Andrew Colvett
There's this great clip the team just flagged for me. And it goes back to the first case that we're talking about here, about Election Day, as opposed to postmarked, you know, ballots that come in five days after Election Day. This is Justice Alito during, I believe, oral arguments on this case, SOT 36. We have lots of phrases that involve
- [09:00]
Cremu Jay Lasker
two words, the last of which, the
- [09:03]
Andrew Colvett
second of which is day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday Independence Day, Birthday Day and Election Day, and they're all particular days.
- [09:17]
Oren McIntyre
So if we start with that, if
- [09:19]
Andrew Colvett
I have nothing more to look at
- [09:20]
Cremu Jay Lasker
than the phrase Election Day, I think
- [09:24]
Andrew Colvett
this is the day in which everything is going to take place and or almost everything. Exactly right. A lot of common sense wisdom from Justice Alito there. Yeah, I want to keep going through these cases here with you, but I also you we cut you off mid sentence on this Trump v. Slaughter case about the ftc. Boil it down. How much authority does the President have when it comes to removing, you know, FTC commissioner, for example, or I guess it would be the Fed board members.
- [10:01]
Bill Shipley
Well, the Fed board is different, so let's set that one aside. But my initial read through the Slaughter case is it pretty much resets the bar back to pre Humphreys executor, pre New Deal, essentially expanding the President's authority to terminate executive agency officials, regardless of what independence Congress might have tried to write into the statutes for these agencies. And that's sort of where this dispute come from is, is when Congress creates the agencies and gives them authority and either participates in or allows the President to appoint them. It's tried to insulate them, the commissioners, and make them independent of the President's judgments. And that's created a big problem over time because once people assume these positions with these protections Congress affords them, you can't dislodge them, you can't get rid of them until their term ends. So a new administration ends up with commissioners on these various boards that Congress has created that are insulated from the politics of the administration. This basically eliminates all of that. It basically says the Slaughter, says Humphrey's executor was wrongly decided. And to the extent Humphreys, it's been chipped away at in several decisions over the last several years. But basically it says to the extent Humphreys executor exists as controlling authority, protecting agencies in any respect, it's reversed, it's done away with. Now, the second decision today is involving federal board member Lisa Cook. And President Trump fired her from the board because of allegations about an investigation produced allegations of mortgage fraud. Now, in reading this opinion today, all this opinion involves is a request by the government to vacate a stay of her removal. In other words, the President fired her, wanted her removed. She went to the District Court in D.C. sought an injunction, the injunction was granted, basically saying she gets to remain on the board until the entire firing process and her legal challenges in the trial court and then in the appellate court until they're all done, she stays in place. If ultimately the firing is uphold, then she gets removed. But between now and then, she remains a Fed board governor. The court today, all it said was, we're not going to disturb that decision. It did not decide the case on the merits. It did not decide whether she should be fired or she shouldn't be fired based on the allegations. In fact, as I read through it briefly, it's a relatively narrow decision that does not, in my view, give her a lot of comfort in the sense that the court basically said, look, she's entitled to a certain level of due process before losing her position. And, and if you recall, the facts were that an investigation was done, the investigation was announced, she was not charged. There hasn't been a criminal allegation, no criminal indictment filed against her, just the allegations of potential mortgage fraud involving her were made public. And based on that, the President fired her. The opinion says, well, look, you've got to give her some fundamental basic due process. You've got to give her notice of the allegations against her and an opportunity to respond. If you do both those things and you still fire her, that might very well stand up. They just didn't do that.
- [13:57]
Blake
You know, Bill, I'm trying to distinguish something here, it seems, based on what we just said with this case overruling Humphrey's executor. Why can't they basically say she gets her due process here? But also, we just ruled that the President can fire all of these people so President Trump could go do that.
- [14:16]
Bill Shipley
This is one that's kind of difficult to explain, and I can't even tell you because I don't. I'm not intimately involved with the history of the Federal Reserve. But the court notes here, as it has done earlier, that the Federal Reserve is a little different than just an independent agency. It's structured to be a quasi public private entity. It's not just a federal government agency. It operates. It not only operates independent of the executive branch, it's funded, funded independent of the executive branch. It doesn't get its money from the federal government. It raises money through fees imposed on banks and other mechanisms, but it's not tax dollars. And it was purposely created sort of in the aftermath of the first and Second banks of the United States, which were government agencies. And there was an effort to say, well, you know, banking should not be controlled by the federal government other than regulations on banks, but the actual banking system should not be controlled by the federal government. It's controlled by the Board of Governors and the Chairman of the Board. Its structure historically is just a little different than a typical federal agency, Bill.
- [15:32]
Andrew Colvett
It feels like a distinction without a difference to Blake's point. And so I think in a lot
- [15:37]
Bill Shipley
of ways it is.
- [15:37]
Andrew Colvett
There's going to be a lot of. Yeah, so it's. It seems like they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth here. The Supreme Court is. I think it probably, based on what we're just talking about, is worth diving into the dissents here in some detail to see if they're pointing out the same inconsistencies, because I would assume that they are. I want to. With the time we have remaining. We got about 90 seconds left, Bill. So tomorrow is going to be the last decision day of this term for scotus. So. So we should basically all be bracing for the birthright decision, correct?
- [16:11]
Bill Shipley
Yeah. And again, I think there's a lot of hand wringing over the birthright citizenship case, and I think everybody's likely to be disappointed, not just in the result, but in what the court doesn't say. I don't think the court's gonna reach the constitutional issue, what the 14th Amendment means. I think the Court's gonna look at and say, look, we're dealing with an executive order. We're not even dealing with something that has the power, power and force of a federal statute. It's an executive order signed by the president that. This is his view of the law. Okay, well, fine. That's one branch's view of the law. Congress has a different view of the law or May. And the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to legislate. And in fact, Congress has legislated. There's a federal statute that essentially tracks the language of the 14th Amendment. So you have a statute now that doesn't answer the question of otherwise subject to the jurisdiction which. The phrase that comes after that is the one that's so controversial, I don't think the court's going to reach it. I think the court's going to say this is a matter of statutory interpretation. Congress has spoken. And Congress can change it if there's a political will to change it, to eliminate birther tourism and the children of illegals born in the United States. Congress can't do that. It just never has.
- [17:27]
Andrew Colvett
Bill Shipley, former DOJ prosecutor Follow him on exit Shipwrecked Crew. Thank you so much for joining Bill.
- [17:34]
Bill Shipley
Pleasure to be here, guys.
- [17:37]
Andrew Colvett
Hillsdale College Great Books 101 Ancient to medieval course is an absolute game changer. I'm taking it right now, and you gotta check it out. So Before Charlie ever stepped into a debate stage or behind a microphone, he understood something important. If you want to lead, you have to first learn. Charlie believed that ideas shape character and conviction and courage. And that's why he spent so many years studying the classics, the American founding, and the Bible. And he did a lot of that through Hillsdale College's free online courses. These are real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors. They're amazing. The best academics in the country. One of those courses, like I just said, is Great Books 101, Ancient to Medieval, where you'll study foundational authors like Homer, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, writers who shape Western civilization. And they still speak to the deepest questions about our human nature and courage and family and government. The course includes Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the epic stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the west for thousands of years. And this summer, Hillsdale College is releasing a brand new course dedicated entirely to Homer's odyssey. Great Books 101 is the perfect way to prepare before the full Odyssey course launches in July. Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge. It's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage. So you can enroll today, completely free. Visit CharlieForHillsdale.com to start learning today. That's CharlieForHillsdale.com Charlie for Hillsdale.com. learn deeply. Think clearly. Lead boldly. Carry. All right, Secretary Mullen, welcome back to the show, my friend. It's good to see you. You have been a longtime friend of the show, but this will be your first time in your new role as DHS secretary, so welcome.
- [19:26]
Secretary Mullen
Thanks, Andrew. Appreciate you having me on. It looks like you're in a laundry room.
- [19:30]
Andrew Colvett
Yeah, I'm in a hostage situation. It's like. There's a great follow on.
- [19:36]
Secretary Mullen
I think I understand Morris code a little bit.
- [19:39]
Andrew Colvett
Blink twice a few times. All right, so I. We gotta get into it here, sir, because I was. I was getting all these angry texts. You went on Jake Tapper, and you're it. I think people interpreted what you were saying as you were encouraging these Haitian TPS recipients where the Supreme Court rightly ruled that temporary means temporary, but you were encouraging them to apply and that they could stay. I read through the transcript, and so I texted you immediately. I was like, are people misinterpret? What are you trying to say here? So let's. Let's give you the opportunity. What are the options for these TPS Haitians that now it. Temporary actually does mean temporary. What are the options for them and what is the goal of this administration?
- [20:25]
Secretary Mullen
They don't have an option now. The courts rule. They have to go back. They don't have to go back the country they went to. They can go, they can choose another country and we'll assist you in that. You can self deport or we're going to pick you up. What I was saying on Jake Tapper is like people have been here 15, 20 years. They had time to change their status if they wanted to. Because you didn't change your status. There's nothing I can do at this point. The court has spoken. Full stop. Period. There's no other place to go to change your status. Now you're going to have to go back to your country you came from and change your status or, and what I mean by change your status, reapply to be able to come into the country legally, because as of right now, TPS is ended and you're currently in the country illegally. So I'll give you a $2,600 check and an airline ticket to go back to the country you choose that will accept you or go back to your country that you came from.
- [21:17]
Andrew Colvett
So if I'm a, if I'm a Haitian in Springfield and I've been there for, let's say two years or whatever, right now I'm, I'm an illegal. And is there a legal process that I could pursue? Say I go to some, you know, office somewhere, some immigration lawyer to apply to, not get removed, or is that option off the table for them?
- [21:40]
Secretary Mullen
If you have current or current status change pending, say you filed it before the court ruled you could stay while your court case is being heard or while you're going through the process and then you have a, then you have an option to appeal it. That's if you, that's if you had the paperwork filed prior to the court ruling. The only. Or. Yeah, before the court or ruling. Now the difference is if you're married to an American citizen and you haven't changed your status, but you've been married for, you know, not for the point of being legal or getting a, or getting status in the United States, but you married out of love and you pass all the qualifications of it, you can at that point apply for what we call a family visa, but that's under special circumstances. And that special circumstances because you married an American citizen, outside of that, very few options apply. The end of the day, the temporary status, which is temporary and you got to emphasize that it was never meant to be Permanent. Even though the Democrats wanted. I don't know how they can finagle that word temporary when it was in the own and TPS's own, you know, language. You have to go back to the country to reapply, to come back in the country in a different legal status.
- [23:00]
Andrew Colvett
All right, so just to be 100% clear, because, I mean, I saw so many people interpreting this clip, just so many different ways. You've got to go home. If you did not pursue some other type of visa, and that's getting litigated and that's getting heard before this ruling, you are officially an illegal immigrant. You need to get the heck out. How? Yeah, how? What percentage of the Haitian population living in the United States is like, I mean, I don't know if you know this, but like the base wants them all out as you can, as you gather, how many can we just immediately get out? And what is the process that DHS is now engaged in to identify, locate, and remove?
- [23:44]
Secretary Mullen
So there is. There's two groups. There's a group that came in after the earthquake years ago, and there. There's a group that came in underneath the Biden administration. The Biden administration. There. There is very little legal status that you can even pursue at this. This point, because it's.
- [24:01]
Bill Shipley
It. That's.
- [24:03]
Secretary Mullen
That was part of the whole TPS lawsuit to begin with. The ones that came in prior or after the. The earthquake years ago. There is a. There's a challenge that could possibly be made, like I said, if your status had changed by being married. But if you haven't changed your status, there is no percentage that can stay. If you were just here for TPS and you don't meet the special circumstances, you have no path forward. You're here illegally. Your work permit is now void. You have to go back to change that status. When you have status in the United States, say you come over on a vacation visa or you come over on a H1A visa, and you want to change that status the way the statute wrote, which is this is Congress that wrote the statute. The way the statute wrote is written is you will have to go back to the country that you came from to reapply, to change the status, to re. Enter into the country. So there is no other path for you. We will begin deporting individuals immediately. In fact, to be quite frank, we already started the enforcement this weekend. We have. Over the weekend, we set two records. I can't tell you where we did the enforcement at, but we set two records of daily arrest in ICE and we average 3,500 individuals per day on Saturday and Sunday underneath the President's direction and ISIS leadership.
- [25:27]
Andrew Colvett
Fantastic. Fantastic. So I saw a clip of you saying that we were on pat on pace right now to break the deportation record set in 2025 in about six weeks. Is that correct?
- [25:40]
Secretary Mullen
Right, right. We are, we are about 100,000 below what we did last year. Actually we're below 100,000, but we'll just round up to 100,000. And what we did an entire year of 2025, we will surpass that definitely by the end of August. At the rate we're going right now, we're going to probably pass that by the middle of August. Keep in mind, we are every single day we get better at the system and well organized with it. We work directly with the White House, we work directly with our partners and are adjudicating these cases. We have a very good system on our flights to deporting individuals. We have a lot of people now that are starting to take advantage of the self deportation total. We are over 1.3 million individuals since President Trump has come into office. We have either deported or they self deported. And we expect to, if we can continue to increase the numbers we're doing right now, we could possibly double what we did last year.
- [26:46]
Bill Shipley
All right.
- [26:47]
Blake
And Secretary, that people kind of fixate a lot on the daily amount. How many per day are we talking about at this new escalated pace? And how high do you think it can go? Is there a goal maybe for next year that can even exceed what we've done this year?
- [27:01]
Secretary Mullen
Well, it's, there's a. Being successful also has a downside because you, it's like the low hanging fruit. You get the low hanging fruit accomplished and then you got to go and really dig in and go find the people that are deeply hiding. So at some point the self deportation number is going to start decreasing and we're going to have to start rounding all these individuals up. When we start going after the worst of the worst. What we found out is the worst, the worst, these are individuals that have felony charges that the sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go or they have pending charges that once again sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go. When, when we, when we go find the individuals, we use their rest and an additional 4.3 individuals that are with that one person with a felony. And so since we're doing a heavy focus on the worst of the worst, we're actually increasing our numbers on rounding up all the illegals that are here and we expect that number to continue to increase, but we're probably going to hit a plateau sometime early next year. But we don't, we're really, we're, every time we think we're about ready to hit a plateau, we continue to find another area to that we can increase on finding the individual. So I don't, we don't have it set speculations or estimates on next year's numbers yet because we're, we're refining our, redefining our systems that we have right now. And, and I really do think that, that my goal is to double what we did last year. And I think we can get, I think we can get there.
- [28:37]
Andrew Colvett
Amen. I know the American people would be very happy about that. Mr. Secretary, I have one quick question about this Haitian matter. So I looked it up. There's about 200,000 of them that came through Joe Biden's CVP1 app. So technically they were, that was a legal process for them. Are they in a separate bucket or does the, does that apply? Does the SCOTUS ruling apply to them, too? And they got to go.
- [29:02]
Secretary Mullen
Well, so some of them applied not through tps, but they applied through asylum seeking. The ones that are applied to asylum, we have to go through the court system on those. We are spinning that process up or in a court in a cooperation right now with DOJ to help them hire 1500 additional judges. But if they claimed asylum, we have to, they have to have their asylum case heard. The majority, not majority by far, the majority of the individuals that come to in front of a court after seeking US Asylum, we, they don't, they don't qualify for it. In fact, a lot of the asylum cases, when we go and send them their new court date, they haven't updated their system, meaning they haven't updated in their system. So we don't have an accurate number on them. We don't have an accurate address on them. And when that happens, they immediately come and at that point as they've broken parole and, and so once you have broken parole now, you don't have a claim anymore and we can arrest you. So we're doing a tremendous amount of those cases. In fact, a lot of those cases are what we arrested this weekend. And so that's, you know, that's a violation, obviously. And so once you have that violation, you don't get a second, a second chance. And we call that cleaning our books. So we're going through the process and cleaning the books up right now.
- [30:21]
Andrew Colvett
Yeah. Secretary Mueller, I just want to give you some do you. You are getting the daily deportation numbers up. You're doing it quietly behind the scenes. I. The Haitian thing is charged and a lot of people had an emotional response to that. But you are also working within a system that has been established before you. And you got to do it lawfully and you got to do it the right way or it could blow up in our face. Thank you for taking the time today, sir.
- [30:43]
Secretary Mullen
God bless you, Andrew. Thank you.
- [30:47]
Andrew Colvett
Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi? For some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember, Yrefi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. Blake, we just took in a lot of information. I kind of love that we took in all the info. Here we are at the end of the hour. Being able to interpret it. You know, I feel for Secretary Mullen. I put a lot of pressure on him. People don't understand this. Behind the scenes. I'm. I'm one of probably, you know, hundreds of people blowing up saying we need more deportations, we need more deportations. You know, and he's stuck within a system where he has statutes to follow, he has laws and rules and regulations that he's bound by some he can sort of trump and get over. You know, regardless, his messaging this morning was very firm and it was very encouraging. And I felt like it was a step in the right direction that they gotta go. If you did not apply before this for some other. I mean, many of these people had years, decades, Blake, to try and stay in the country via a more long lasting route, and they did not. Those people gotta go. And all these tps, people that are more New, newer, newly arrived, they gotta go. And I love that he, that he kind of, at least from a messaging standpoint. Course corrected there.
- [32:47]
Blake
Your interpretation, I mean, people have fussed a lot about Mullen and a lot of other people in the admin because sometimes they will say rhetoric other than maximal, everyone's going to go deportation. Not everyone is Stephen Miller. And I understand why people worry about that because they've been around the block of having politicians who run on a really hardball message and then back off. But that's why it's so important to look at what, what is actually happening. And all of the last year and a half, what we have consistently seen under both Mullen and under Nome and in other departments run by others is they are consistently rolling back the, rolling back the regulations, rolling back the policies that allowed all of the open border stuff that flourished for decades. And they're getting the deportation number higher and higher and higher. As he said. I loved that Mullen. He was frank and said, well, we may eventually hit a plateau, but we've blown through plateaus in the past. They're finding new ways to arrest people. They're finding new ways to deport people. They're causing more people to self deport. And the number does keep going up regardless of what, whether their rhetoric is always exactly what we want. I don't care if they go on TV and say maximum deportations or worst of the worst, as long as the number keeps going up. And so far it has been, yeah,
- [34:05]
Andrew Colvett
3,500 deportations a day is a very significant new high. If you could roll that out for the remainder of Trump 2.0, plus the self deportations, I guess we're offering $2,600 stipends. I would increase that. I don't even care. Just get them the heck out. That's where I'm at. So I like the direction, the tone. And here's the thing, the admin is going to make mistakes. What I look for is are they responsive? They might make messaging mistakes, but as you said, from a pure execution standpoint, it's going in the right direction. So we need to stay on them. They, I mean, listen, I believe his heart is in the right place. I believe he wants to get those deportation numbers up. So we're going to stay on him. You guys are going to stay on him. And that's the way this system works. And when they're responsive, you got to give them their due and say, good, you're hearing us. That's the, that's the way this is supposed to work. All right, so tomorrow, Blake, we got the biggie. The Supreme Court drops four rulings at once. None of them are insignificant. They're all big deals. So you got the birthright citizenship, which is the one you and I have been looking at. We're not expecting good things there, but as Bill Shipley said in segment one and two, he expects them to rule narrowly. Okay. So there could be out clauses that they give us. Right. Saying, kicking it back to Congress, which is interesting. So then you've got the. There's two cases actually, and we've heard about this from adf, the trans athletes in women's sports. So dudes in women's sports. So there's two different cases split into two cases, and they're going to be decided simultaneously. Then there's a campaign finance limits as the fourth. So tomorrow is the day. Set your calendar, set your alarm. We're going to be covering extensively tomorrow. Blake, you are not a lawyer, but you do play one on tv. You, you're the best non lawyer at this stuff that I've seen. What are you expecting tomorrow?
- [35:54]
Blake
I am frankly not optimistic on the birthright citizenship case for all the reasons we don't want to litigate it. What I do want to push back on is there's a lot of doomerism. We even saw doomerism today with the decision on day of voting where, you know, I've seen people say our elections are done now.
- [36:10]
Andrew Colvett
It was a bad one.
- [36:11]
Blake
It's not a good ruling. All they did is they preserved the rules under which we won the 2024 election, under which we won the 2016 election. It's not a great rule, but. And we have this path. Congress could change the law. And I know that's a source of endless frustration, but I don't like doomerism on this sort of thing. And I feel the same way with birthright. I don't think we're going to get a good ruling. But even any ruling at all is actually better than what we had before, which was just this universal presumption that they have birthright citizenship, that it was actually already decided, when in fact it never was. Now we'll have a ruling, and that ruling can be a litmus test for every judge that Trump appoints for the next two years, for every judge that a President Vance or President Rubio or anyone else, any Republican in the future appoints. It would just become a target for us to go after. And that's going to be a good thing.
- [37:04]
Andrew Colvett
Yeah. I mean, here's the thing, I mean, and it becomes increasingly more frustrating when you think about these Haitians. A lot of the Haitians that are under here on tps, they've had kids since being in the United States. Those kids are now able to vote in future elections and determine the future of the United States and Western civilization. I think that's wrong. I think that's completely bastardization and a poisoning of U.S. sovereignty, U.S. citizenship. I would love for us to get this right. It is increasingly frustrating. But we also have to remember that the way the founders established this country, it was intended that Congress would act. And so we've got a lot of problems here. And I'm hearing that there is some rumblings on the Save America Act. So all is not lost to your point. But I mean, listen, this is frustrating. The fact that you can get a ballot five days after election. This is the third worlding of the United States. And yeah, perhaps it wasn't the Supreme Court's job here. And they're saying this is Congress's job to define these statutes more clearly or narrowly if that's what they want. We have to have a full out push for this. And to your point, yeah, we have won elections like this too big to rig all this. What we saw in Los Angeles, it's incomprehensible to me that what you saw with Spencer Pratt, what you saw with Steve Hilton in California, that there would be any other plausible outcome that would make any type of sense. But whatever. I understand we're not dooming, we never do mean.
- [38:31]
Blake
And a big lesson we're getting is we're headed towards the future. We need a real Congress again. And so we'll be discussing that into the future.
- [38:40]
Andrew Colvett
Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that. Turning Point still knows that. And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other. When ideas meet respect, good things happen. On TikTok you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name, or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers. Viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond. TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding. You can feel it in the comments, in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world. TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for Discussion and discussion helps us build something real. We have Orrin McIntyre, host of the Orin McIntyre show at BlazeTV, so check him out there. Oren, welcome back to the show. It's good to have you.
- [39:38]
Oren McIntyre
Thanks for having me, guys.
- [39:39]
Andrew Colvett
So, Oren, I love having you on because you're based on immigration just like me, and you want maximal enforcement at every possible line there is imaginable. Right? And that's how I feel too. So we just had Secretary Mullen on to kind of explain, explain some of his jig tapper commentary that got, you know, a lot of uproar. Let's talk about Haitians though. And, and to his credit, by the way, he's sounding a much more firm tone. I think he's sort of was getting stuck in a, in a ideological cul de sac, thinking about statutes and what the actual process was. He says they gotta go home. Right. Just explain to our audience, cuz you're very good at this, the, the implications, the consequences, why this is so critically important to the future of America and thereby the all of Western civilization.
- [40:30]
Oren McIntyre
Well, it hits us on so many levels. The obvious one is simply elections. With our current setup and unfortunately, what will probably be the ruling from the Supreme Court right now, anyone who stays in America long enough will have children and those children will have birthright citizenship. The fact that also the Democrats are pretty good at laundering ballots and they now also just receive basically a pass to do, you know, count a ballot for a month or two if they need to. This means that election fraud is very easy. And so the more illegal immigrants you have here, or even those that are here under some form of legal, protected status locations, they will ultimately end up becoming dedicated voters for the Democratic Party or they will end up producing dedicated voters for the Democratic Party. And this is a fundamental shift in what democracy is supposed to be. Democracy is supposed to be a reflection of the positions of the people, the popular sovereignty. But if you swap out all of the people, if you introduce new people constantly who always vote one way, then you are rigging that game. You are changing the fundamental nature of elections. You are undermining the authority and legitimacy of elections. But of course, it goes much deeper than just elections. It also impacts our cultures, our neighborhoods. People who come into the United States and had to at some point assimilate through the years, but they tended to be people who were closer to the founding stock. Now we expanded that over time. We found different populations that were more assimilable, less assimilable, and we work with them as Much as possible. But even when it came to assimilating, say the Germans, which many people think of as very American today, there were a lot of challenges there. There were very serious issues to overcome. And so we have to recognize if it was hard to assimilate, say Germans than Haitians and other people from third world countries that are very, very different from our own, they are only going to be more difficult. They are going to break down the character characteristics of neighborhoods, the continuity of tradition and heritage and culture. And when we bring in so many people from so many places that are so hard to adapt, we fundamentally make it impossible to have a high trust society. And that's something that every American really relies on. Even if they can't see, say that out loud, even if they can't articulate that expectation. That is how our society is supposed to run.
- [42:44]
Andrew Colvett
So let me play devil's advocate here then, Oren, okay? You and I agree on everything. So instead of agreeing, I'm just gonna throw out some arguments here. But Oren, labor. We need labor. Okay? Americans, they just don't wanna do certain jobs. Maybe we can phase this out, but obviously agriculture, hospitality, cooks in the kitchen. What are you suggesting here, Oren?
- [43:07]
Oren McIntyre
I'm suggesting that we pay Americans a wage that will allow them to raise families and have homes and earn a good living even if they're not working in the highest end of the information economy. We have to have a society that allows for people who are not going to have, you know, some kind of job rearranging information on a screen to still have a good life. And that means we can't import a bunch of foreign labor to undercut the wages to drain or rather to flood the labor pool and make it impossible for average Americans to earn a good wage at that price. It's also going to increase things like housing prices, reduce the quality of things like education or medical care. So that labor, that cheap labor, comes with an extreme cost. Yes, there are some benefits to different corporations and maybe even some consumers that get a cheaper product. But there is a larger society wide cost that is hidden inside those lower wages. And we have. Remember that.
- [44:02]
Andrew Colvett
You know, one of the things that I find interesting too is that there does seem to be, and sorry, I'm not playing devil's advocate here because I just agree too much. The point is that when you bring in millions and millions and millions of foreigners from foreign cultures, there does seem to be this depressive impact on the native born population. Less kids, less self confidence, less of an enterprising spirit, less of A pioneering spirit. I don't know what that is, but there is something that transacts and transpires when you bring in an invading force, millions upon millions, where the native population loses their verb. And it's hard to put a finger on it, it's hard to quantify it, but it is so evident, it is so visible. If you're looking for it, once you see it, you can't unsee it. And it's hard to. I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say here, Oren, but it is impossible for me not to see it at this point.
- [44:56]
Oren McIntyre
Yeah. The sociologist Robert Putnam put out a book called Bowling Alone, and it's one of many times he's had to kind of suppress for a little while, then ultimately succumb to the fact that his data keeps showing something that liberals don't like. Putnam himself is no radical right winger. He's very much a center left figure. But he kept discovering that this diversification of cultures creates huge problems in social cohesion. People are less likely to trust each other. People are less likely to spend time outside in public. People are less likely to meet and talk to their neighbor, and they are less likely to have children. They're less likely to see a vision for their future. We, whether we like it or not, have to have a shared identity. I know the left has made the word identity toxic, but it is actually a critical function of human, human society to create a shared vision and identity that people feel like they can be a part of. If you're going to have children, if you're going to have a future, if you're going to form a family, you need to know that those children are going to continue something that is valuable to you, that they will grow up in a society that was much like the one you grew up in. The desire to reproduce and grow is something that comes from a recognition of who we are as a people. And if all we are as a people is an economic zone, if we're just a bunch of economic opportunities that people can come and take advantage of and leave whenever they feel like, and we don't owe anything to each other, we don't have a shared vision of the future, then even again, if people won't say it out loud, they slowly shrink away from forming families, from having children, from making the sacrifices that allow civilizations to thrive. No one is going to sacrifice for an economic zone. That's what we have to understand.
- [46:36]
Blake
Oren, I love what you just said there because it got me thinking of A fact that really stood out to me. They just had a presidential election in Peru and the right wing candidate barely won. And it seems she barely won because voters from America who are allowed to vote in Peruvian elections voted for the right wing candidate. And we know that this is a pattern we see in country after country that immigrants to the US will vote for left wing causes here because it seems they don't value the United States as long term thing, they just want money and then they're voting total blood and soil nationalism for their home countries. And I just think that illustrates so much of what you're talking about there.
- [47:12]
Oren McIntyre
Yeah. On Twitter, Kevin Deanna has a catchphrase. Everyone is a blood and soil nationalist for the people they actually care about. And that sounds a little scary to people, but you have to look at the third world and recognize how they interact. You might have been raised in this deracinated society where you were told that any idea of collective identity was terrible, that you need to act as an individual. And maybe that even works when everybody in the country believes that. But when you start importing a bunch of people who still have very tribalist mentality, still have these very hardcore, what is often considered third world but is really just often traditionally human organizational patterns, they will not behave that way when they enter into your society. They don't suddenly become these free individuals. They maintain those tribal clannish patterns. And so you cannot maintain a system of some kind of free and open liberal democracy while importing a lot of people who are specifically going to come in and vote in ethnic blocs to, to improve their lives while taking things from you. Again, it sounds like something we should be able to lecture people out of, don't you know? Socialism fails, they don't care. They don't care about the ideology. They care that you have the stuff and they want the stuff. And when they get the stuff from you, their life is better. There's really no logic beyond that.
- [48:22]
Andrew Colvett
Hard for me not to instantly think of Zoram Hamdani in New York City when you're talking about that, Oren. It's just New York has been such a five alarm. Listen, you guys like you and I have been very awake to this Blake as well for a long time. But how do you not look at what happened in New York and just think what the hell is happening? So Orin, tomorrow we are expecting to get the birthright decision and we are expecting them to rule against what guys like you think is patently obvious common sense. Nevertheless, I do expect that to be a Narrow ruling in keeping with the character of this court, trying to say, hey, this statute, this, you know, Congress can, you know, redefine it, whatever, but it's probably not going to go our way. That's every indication that I've heard. I find it obscene. What do we do after the moment after that ruling hits and we're all disappointed, what do we do?
- [49:17]
Oren McIntyre
Well, clearly we have to address things at the minimum with the SAVE act, and it's been embarrassing that the Republican Congress has not put more emphasis on this. You would think obviously that this would be in their favor. We know that. Election meddling, election integrity. It's key because if you don't stop the Democrats, they are a machine at this. So every Republican in theory would have the self interest, even if they don't care about the country at all, just to keep themselves getting elected to put something like the SAVE act in place. Ultimately what we really need is some kind of amendment that addresses American citizenship in a permanent way. The 14th Amendment was never meant to grant a permanent, permanent idea of birthright citizenship. It was a specific amendment written to address a post Civil War disparity when it came to black citizens who had been born in the United States, but it wasn't clear since they were slaves, whether they were actually citizens. The 14th Amendment clarifies, yes, they are. It was never meant to grant citizenship to every child who is born on American soil, even if their parents are illegal. But that is what. What it has been interpreted as and what it will probably continue to be interpreted as after this ruling. If we do not change this, this will destroy our country. We cannot have secure elections for the very reasons we discuss with Haitian immigration if we do not fix the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, as it is currently understood, is an absolute sword of Damocles over the existence of our republic.
- [50:46]
Andrew Colvett
Man, I couldn't agree more. It's such a. It is an absolute affront to, and by the way, I think to the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment. If you look at their arguments from the Senate floor, they never imagined a world in which illegal immigrants and their children would be granted such wide, broad, sweeping benefits of U.S. citizenship. It's just not anywhere in there. So it's a complete statutory thing. Blake, I know you have thoughts on this. Sorry, I want to make sure you get a chance to chime in here.
- [51:16]
Blake
I'm looking at. A friend of mine is watching and he says if we're given any leeway at all by the court, where if they say, for example, that there's just a statutory opening here. Throw that into the SAVE act force at the minimum, force every Republican to vote and say they actually want to define citizenship as children of people who are actual US Citizens. Not every birth tourist, not every illegal. Force them to get on the record about that. So that's a great idea from a friend of mine.
- [51:45]
Andrew Colvett
Yeah, and Blake, I totally agree. You were saying before that this becomes a litmus test for every jurist that could come in the future. And by the way, our two oldest are our two best, which is just heartbreaking because replacing Alito and Clarence Thomas, if and when that time comes, is going to just be. It's going to be fraught waters because getting somebody as reliable as either of them will be difficult. But this becomes the litmus test for anybody that you want to elect in Congress. We need to get them on the record saying, will you redefine the statutes? Will you be very clear that the children of illegal immigrants should not be made citizens? Will you vote this way? And I agree, Oren, I think this is a great idea. Attach it to the Save America Act. I'm hearing that there are rumblings there could be a new way emerging. So I don't want to all I'm going to say, but there are people working on this behind the scenes. There could be a new way emerging that could get the Save America act passed. So attach this new definition of citizenship and for children of illegals to that Save America. If that's what the court rules. There's still an outside, I would say 10, 20% chance that the court gets this right on its face. But let's make this the litmus test going forward for anybody that we let get near power. What are you going to say about Birthright citizenship or McIntyre?
- [53:03]
Oren McIntyre
Oh, no, I agree, absolutely 100%. You have to put this at the center of everything you do. If you do not secure elections, the rest of the government is illegitimate. That's all there is to it. We, we are literally talking about the future of the country. People will tear themselves and the rest of this country apart if they cannot trust our elections. And really after 2020, there's already too many questions about the legitimacy of our elections. If people know for sure that illegal immigrants can simply, you know, get citizenship or get a. The ability to vote in the United States simply by having children over time, this is going to eventually destroy everything we believe in the country. So, so we should hold Republicans feet to the fire. We should make this the central issue for judges. We should make this the only question when it comes to any kind of primaries, any kind of continuation. The only problem is that so many of the Republicans have continued to push back against this. I mean, we still have Republicans out there openly pushing for amnesty. This is ridiculous. This should be purged from the party.
- [54:07]
Blake
100%. 100% luck. As we say, we are making progress one election at a time. It's just, it's unfortunate that it does. You have these fossils from the 90s, from the 2000s. We have a gerontocracy. We have aging lawmakers who aren't good at updating to new realities. And we're gra. But we're gradually getting better. We're getting better litmus tests. And I just like to flag that because I know it's frustrating, but it's also worth remembering how far we've come that the Amnesty party was the default 20 years ago. And we're getting better on this and a bunch of other issues. We've gotten better on guns, gotten better on life, gotten better on a lot of things.
- [54:43]
Andrew Colvett
You see that John Kasich video where he's like Haitians need to stay in Ohio. That was the party in 2016.
- [54:50]
Blake
That man was a governor. A two term governor.
- [54:53]
Andrew Colvett
Yeah, yeah. I mean Ohio has a knack for getting crappy Republican governors. Oren.
- [54:59]
Oren McIntyre
Yeah. We have a situation where we absolutely need to make this the next abortion. One of the reasons that the abortion issue, the pro life issue was so successful is they made it the key thing. Every candidate know they had to stand against abortion. Every judge knew that if they wanted to get confirmed by conservatives, they needed to have an openness to something like overturning Roe v. Wade. And that's why that program was successful. Immigration has to be exactly the same.
- [55:23]
Andrew Colvett
Just as important, my new litmus test is going to be immigration moratorium for anybody that gets in. That's. That's where I'm at. Hi folks, Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Yrefi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Yrefi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America. And we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.
- [56:31]
Blake
All righty. Well, I love having Cremu Jay Lasker. You could follow him on substack at cremu or on X at Cremu Rakul. We love having him on for a few reasons. One, he knows the stats on a million different things. And two, cremu, you're a never ending source of white pills. Every time we talk to you, I feel like you're saying everything's going awesome. There's so much progress going on and we want to hit a few things. We're going to be talking about RFK and something you're saying he can do about cancer. But first, because there's been a lot of discussion on this in the last day, I wanted to flag something you were talking about. We remember when President Trump took office and the DOGE cuts were happening, Their biggest source of cuts was usaid. They really dismantled that agency. And this was basically instantly labeled by a lot of people as essentially, I think they threw around the term genocide. They said millions of people are going to die because of these programs. And you were posting just the other day that data has come in on this and basically this was. This is a total lie, correct?
- [57:34]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Essentially, yeah. The most extreme claims especially are basically blood libel. There. There's nothing true to them. So for example, the most famous paper on this, the one that is cited the most often because it is, you know, from the most prestigious venue. This Lancet paper has been used to claim that 14 million people have or will die by like 2030. And it's based on modeling an intentionally kind of ridiculous scenario where practically every country involved in USAID or any sort of a distribution of the sorts dealt with in the paper, cuts off everything. And that didn't happen. In fact, a lot of the programs that they talked about being shut down entirely. They've continued in the like being funded by the US So the scenario is wrong and then it's modeled incorrectly as well. And they knew it was modeled incorrectly because they had the model diagnostics. And it turns out that the choices they made really, really exaggerated the numbers upwards. So we end up with a scenario where you essentially have fake numbers for statistical reasons and fake numbers because the scenario you're modeling didn't even come remotely true.
- [58:39]
Bill Shipley
Remarkable.
- [58:40]
Blake
Remarkable. And it just seems like this is a common statistical trap. We're falling for a left wing scam here where it seems, I even saw it, speculated they kind of knew this was bogus, but they're colluding on this. It's sort of their way of you can have, if the real stats are on your side, great, but if they're not, you just sort of make up stats to bring about the reality that you want. And this just seems like a top example of it.
- [59:03]
Cremu Jay Lasker
It's also just a fundamentally broken way of doing things. Sorry, go ahead.
- [59:07]
Andrew Colvett
No, no, no. It's. I just want to be very clear for the audience. So you're, you're saying that Elon Musk is not a genocidal murderer. He's, he's.
- [59:15]
Cremu Jay Lasker
No, he's not.
- [59:15]
Andrew Colvett
He didn't kill millions of people. Okay. I just want to make sure everybody's clear because that is the accusation right now on lefty Twitter and like Blue sky and all these Reddit chats, they are, without any sense of shame, claiming that Elon Musk is a genocidal murderer. I, I just want to make sure that that's, that's where we're at.
- [59:36]
Cremu Jay Lasker
It's, it's really extreme and it's really unwarranted and fundamentally the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense. Because what they're arguing is that if you don't spend certain amounts of money, you are killing people and you could always spend more money to save more people. If you cut any program, some number of people will die. Do we ever actually do this whole death attribution game with anything else? The answer is no, we really don't. I mean, sometimes we do, you know, in a very political kind of happenstance way, like, oh, we really want to attack this guy. We're going to say he killed a lot of people, but it's not really fair. Sometimes you have to, for example, cut your budget. And if you cut your budget, you, some people will die, like, regardless of what you're cutting too, just because, like, somebody relies on that money. Somewhere along the chain, money circulates. If you're cutting anything and reducing economic activity, any, any downturn in the economy will kill some considerable number of people. But it's a very diffuse effect. And we don't play this genocide mongering game about all this stuff, and we don't play it about the counterfactual money people aren't giving. Why aren't you donating all of your money to charity? You are killing people. You're genocidal. It's fundamentally a very broken way of viewing things, and it's not very helpful. It's politically poisonous.
- [60:49]
Blake
I was having this thought because we're also talking about. So, yeah, you can say you cut U.S. aid. You killed millions of people. Okay, well, Mackenzie, Scott Bezos, they're highlighting her. She's given away $28 billion, but I'm looking at her top causes. Racial equity, LGBTQ plus rights. She's donated to early childhood education. It seems like you could go up to her and say, mackenzie, because you were donating to those things instead of this charity in Africa, you basically committed genocide.
- [61:15]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Yeah, she's like, you guys know about effective altruism?
- [61:19]
Blake
Oh. Oh, man. I don't think our audience has heard too much about it, but, yes, this idea. It's basically moral blackmail to say you are killing people unless you donate to the specific thing I believe is most important right now in some sense.
- [61:32]
Cremu Jay Lasker
I mean, the basic, fundamental idea is just we want to give money where it's most effective, and that's fine. I think that's good. But Mackenzie Bezos is effectively the opposite of that. The money she gives does, like, the least amount of good. She gives it to the most ineffective possible charities you can imagine. Just things that make no sense and are actually, in a lot of cases where you look at it, they're quite harmful. Like, she donates to a lot of DEI things, and it's like, it's just, what. What is your reason for doing this? How could you possibly believe this is a good idea? Do you really not have any advisors coming to you and telling you, hey, there's actually this alternative where you can give money effectively. Like, if you want to save a bunch of lives, you could do it. But then she just doesn't. It's bizarre. She's, like, the most ineffective altruist ever, and it's really, really sad.
- [62:18]
Blake
Well, thank goodness in some way, because if she was more effective, I'm sure she'd be like George Soros on steroids, and we would have infinity crime in our cities.
- [62:25]
Andrew Colvett
That's a good point, Blake.
- [62:27]
Blake
Yeah, exactly. But we also wanted to talk about.
- [62:29]
Cremu Jay Lasker
You were very.
- [62:31]
Blake
You were very excited to talk about stuff going on with HHS, with RFK Jr. And every time we have you on, you're laying out all these ways that they're making big health leaps and gains in the in the Trump administration. So why don't you lay that out for us?
- [62:46]
Cremu Jay Lasker
So the big thing I want to focus on today, and there are a lot of things going on at HHS all the time. There's all sorts of really cool stuff. They're doing clinical trial reform, they're doing IV reform, they're doing a million really cool things that they just need to be able to get some lawyers and engineers in there to finally finish it up, wrap it up, make it actually happen. I'm really excited about pricing transparency. But the big thing I want to talk about is called Q Star. Q Star is this really awesome way to make it so broadened. Right to try laws. And, and right to try laws are these laws that make it so patients, like a potential patient has the ability to access a. A drug that might not be through its phase three trials, might not be approved by the FDA yet. They allow people to access therapies early, before they're actually on the market, so that they can, if they have like a debilitating condition or they have, or they might die from cancer or something, they can actually get drugs that might save their lives. And these are really cool laws. I think everybody I talk to supports them in some way or another. But some states also have, like, expanded versions where you can get stem cell therapies. You can get those in Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming. Some states have extremely broad right to try laws where you can access stuff that's gone through a phase one trial. That's like New Hampshire and Montana. And some states have like a right to personalized treatment. And altogether, if you threw together all the states of all these expanded right to try laws, you'd find the majority of states have their laws that allow people to access this stuff, which is awesome because you want patients be able to access drugs that might save their lives. But unfortunately, these laws don't really work because the FDA has not made clear if they're going to prosecute drug manufacturers if they provide people with these drugs, which is kind of crazy to think about. What I'm saying here is that if a patient says, I'm dying of cancer, please let me access the cancer drug that might save my life. The FDA has not made it clear if they're going to sue that company if the drug doesn't actually work. So you might be on your last leg, you might be on, like, putting it out, putting everything on the line to try some drug. And then the FDA still hasn't made it clear if you're allowed to Access it. That's the situation we're in.
- [64:49]
Blake
And so Q Star would be basically. I don't know what it's short for, but it basically would be RFK Jr would come out and say this is the new policy. And, and states can run wild.
- [65:00]
Cremu Jay Lasker
That's right. What he would essentially say is that manufacturers are allowed to put all the liability for the drug working, not working, having bad side effects, not having anything on the patient. The patient can consent, can like willingly go. I know it's an experimental therapy and I'm willing to take it anyway. That's what he's saying. The FDA will allow them to do exactly that. Currently, they don't allow them to do that.
- [65:24]
Andrew Colvett
Well, is there any downside to this? It sounds great on its face. So I wanna say I'm broadly supportive. I'm just wondering, you know, these are big corporations, sometimes their motives are obscure, sometimes they're maligned. Is there any downside that could, you know, you just let these companies run wild with this stuff on these. Treating human beings as, you know, experiment labs.
- [65:49]
Cremu Jay Lasker
I mean, ultimately, no, I don't think there is. It's a consent issue at the end of the day. Like if somebody says, you know, I want to take the drug and the drug company says I would love to supply the drug, then what's the problem here? It's a consenting market transaction.
- [66:00]
Andrew Colvett
It's like going to the groceries though.
- [66:03]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Yes. Every state with one of these laws has a lot of information on consent stuff. They make it. So if you are going to provide these to a patient, you have to tell them everything. You have to inform them about the risk. They need to be fully aware that what they're doing is like experimental. It might not work. All of this is in there and it's a, it's a major part of doing this in the first place is making sure patients know exactly what's on the table for them so they're not exploited, so they're not, you know, fooled into thinking that they found some miracle cure and that it's gonna work. It's either like if it's a kid, it's their parents that have to do all the consent about that. But it's taken very seriously.
- [66:42]
Andrew Colvett
Alliance Defending Freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it. Americans have carried that legacy for 250 years. And now we must do so again. Censorship is rising, threatening your free speech in every sphere from classrooms to counselors, offices and even online. Unborn babies are dying. As abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide. Parents are being cut out of kids critical decisions for their lives. Your best gift by June 30 will help defend courageous Americans like free Frank Canepa, a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines just for sharing his catholic faith. Rosalie Markazic, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take mail order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby. And Dan and Jennifer Mead, parents whose 13 year old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at school. Every dollar you give today will be doubled by a one million dollar matching grant. Only while funds last. So go to joinadf.com Charlie that's joinadf for Alliance Defending Freedom. Joinadf.com Charlie or text Charlie to 83848 that's Charlie to 83848. Please give your best gift now to defend the next 250 years of freedom. That's joinadf.com Charlie or text charlie to 83848 if you do not follow him on X, you guys need to give him a follow. I'm just telling you right now. Like I am completely agree. So Blake, I was like, how do I prep for this segment with cray moon? Blake goes just go to his ex man. And I'm like, I'm like having mind explosion after mind explosion. Okay, so I'm gonna do rapid fire with you, Jay. We've only got seven minutes here, so let's go quick. So apparently on TikTok, people who are getting migraines swear by eating a large McDonald fry and a coca cola to cure a migraine.
- [68:32]
Bill Shipley
Yeah.
- [68:32]
Andrew Colvett
So some of these people say we're all on low sodium and diet. Low sodium diets.
- [68:37]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Yeah, a lot of people are really low sodium. You know, it's really funny. People have been lowering their sodium a little too much, a little too aggressively and they feel kind of bad from it. Some of these people also probably have blood sugar issues and some of them are probably caffeine addicts. But I'm gonna guess a lot of people have too little sodium in their diet. When I went with Charlie, the one product I endorsed from you guys was lmnt. Really good. Like just lots of salt basically help. You'll feel a lot better a lot of the time.
- [69:02]
Andrew Colvett
Fascinating. Who would have ever imagined that anything good came out of McDonald's when it came at least to the health side? Okay, so true.
- [69:09]
Blake
President Trump loves it because you mentioned it.
- [69:11]
Andrew Colvett
Just Donald Trump love a filet o fish
- [69:15]
Blake
because you're saying he hits everything you mentioned. Maybe your coffee is not okay. But I went and I read it during the break, he has a post on his substack. Do hot drinks cause cancer? And the answer is probably not. It was, it was bad for you. And then it was a superfood that was really good for you. And the answer is it's probably just a nice thing to drink. Although I guess we can get addicted to the caffeine and then we need to go to McDonald's to stop our migraines.
- [69:37]
Andrew Colvett
So topic to topic two, Cremu. It looks like parents, both in western countries and eastern countries are giving their kids HGH to make them taller. They're tall, maxing as a, as a status symbol. This is a new one for me. What's going on and how, how common and prevalent is this?
- [69:58]
Cremu Jay Lasker
So it's not very prevalent in the west yet. It's increasingly prevalent among rich families. They go to a pediatric endocrinologist, a, you know, baby hormone doctor, a kid home run doctor, and they go and get them HGH and they end up up to about like 3, possibly sometimes even 4 inches taller if they take it for long enough. They take high enough doses and. And they don't really seem to be any downsides besides any of the general downsides associated with height. So like nothing in like, they don't grow weird, they don't become weaker, they just end up like taller. It's pretty neat. And it's really expensive in the west, so I don't think it'll proliferate too much yet. If we can lower prices a lot, I think it'll go actually become like a big thing. But in Korea it is a big thing. It's becoming increasingly common, like very like meaningful percentages of the parents are looking into this option. And I think it might end up being kind of like the equivalent of sending your kids to Hagwon. The like after schools they send kids to, to do additional studying and they. It might be like a, almost a universal thing in Korea in like a generation.
- [71:00]
Andrew Colvett
Are there downsides to hgh? I mean, higher rates?
- [71:04]
Charlie Kirk
Yes.
- [71:05]
Andrew Colvett
Or something like this.
- [71:06]
Cremu Jay Lasker
You can get acromegaly and to the extent that larger people get more cancer, you should expect that as well. But it's not going to be meaningfully elevated and I think probably totally worth it in most cases. So like, would you rather live your life 6 foot 2 versus like 5 foot 9 or would you like, even if it came with a little bit of cancer risk when you're 70? I mean, like, the answer is probably you go for the 6 foot 2 with a slight bit of cancer risk.
- [71:29]
Blake
I Could see it becoming a red queens race in Korea, where it's just now suddenly everyone is. Is 6:2, and you have to be 6:5 to stand out. And it's just, you know, it's just all over if you're a normal height.
- [71:41]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Yeah.
- [71:42]
Blake
All right, next.
- [71:43]
Andrew Colvett
Next one.
- [71:44]
Blake
What do you want next?
- [71:45]
Andrew Colvett
Wait, hold on. I have. I have one. Follow up on that. Blake, is that really the. The. The height difference that you can achieve from like, 5:10 to 6:2 if you give your kids HGH at the right age?
- [71:54]
Cremu Jay Lasker
No, no, 5:9 to 6:1 is, like, more realistic.
- [71:58]
Andrew Colvett
Okay, well, it's the same. Same number of inches. That's wild. Okay, Blake, take us to the next one.
- [72:04]
Blake
Alrighty. Oh, which one? You had another one you wanted to hit.
- [72:08]
Andrew Colvett
Oh. So this is coming out of the uk Unmarried couples in Britain may soon gain stronger rights to share assets after a breakup. This feels diabolical to me, Kramer. This is like Western democracies saying, we don't want you to actually get married. Which seems like a really poor decision to be making for the sake of civilization.
- [72:27]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Yeah, it seems quite bad. Like, if you were theoretically trying to reduce the rate of coupling in the UK without looking like you were trying to reduce threat of coupling, what alternative policies would you do? This seems about, like, what you would do. It's effectively instituting, like, common law marriages at meet, like a more meaningful scale and giving more protections to people in the sense that, like, you can claim more of your partner's assets. So it disincentivizes people living together, cohabiting, etc. And reduced rates of cohabitation lead to reduced rates of marriage. Finland has done something similar to this, apparently. I haven't looked at this actual paper yet, but there's an economist who commented to this effect, saying that when they did something like this, it did reduce rates of cohabitation or reduce rates of marriage as a result. So it's probably a policy that works exactly as we think it does, and it's going to be quite harmful, unfortunately.
- [73:12]
Blake
All right, I just loved. Because like I said, when we have you on, you're always telling us all these other good things that are going on with health. So you mentioned that Q Star thing, but what's some other stuff that's been going on in the world of HHS and the world of health that we should be aware of, good developments?
- [73:28]
Cremu Jay Lasker
Well, I mean, a lot of the focus right now is on trying to get ahead of China. So a lot of the reforms you'll be seeing, such as, like, for example, this really cool Bayesian clinical trial thing they did late last year, what it does, it allows you to like run a clinical trial with non standard configuration of like the control and treatment arms and like various different ways of treating the groups. But it allows you to basically accelerate the trial and run it for less money. And a lot of reforms are basically how can we out deregulate China and get ahead of them. Which is really neat. And Q Star is actually part of that. What Q Star does that's really important for the like beating China race in bike biopharma in drug production is it allows us to demo drugs that have had their phase ones where they've shown that the drug is safe so that they can start gathering data to show that the drug works, which is the phase two thing you have to start showing. And they can also raise money to fund a phase two trial so that they can actually start funding more drugs without having to like you know, immediately go full mass market. It'll allow more drug companies to survive and like get their research done and get the research funded. And basically everybody wins in this. I mean like patients get more access to drugs and we get more research data. And that's what a lot of what the HHS is doing is they're trying to figure out ways to make everybody in the ecosystem win so that we can do more innovation, save more lives, maybe, maybe make it so there's no cancer to even worry about when you're 70 and you've grown three edges from HGH.
- [75:01]
Oren McIntyre
Amen.
- [75:02]
Blake
Amen. I just, we have a few seconds left here. I just want to again, shout out your ex, shout out your substack even if you don't agree with everything Cremu says. I don't, I don't think Andrew does, but he has so many interesting thoughts. You're going to be get a never ending supply of, of stuff you hadn't heard about otherwise it's, it's a very fun stuff to read and I know Charlie was very excited when he talked to you. We went like three hours or something like that. It was quite remarkable.
- [75:27]
Andrew Colvett
So that was fascinating stuff. It's always, always a fascinating trip with you and really great stuff and we all hate cancer. Everybody. Tomorrow is the birthright citizenship Dec decision. We're going to be covering that. Be sure to tune in. We're going to be hitting it hard.
- [75:47]
Blake
For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.