Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:04]
A
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 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.
- [00:47]
B
Use me.
- [00:48]
A
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
- [01:18]
B
we have so much to be grateful for today. I will tell you so much. And that is thanks to a number of people and I want to give them some kudos. And that is because they got the Anthony Fauci diaries. The Fauci diaries will go down as one of the most embarrassing falls from grace. If he had any, at least with half the country he did. That anybody has seen in recent memory. Now who do we have to thank for this? Well, it turns out we have Secretary Kennedy. That's right. RFK Jr found these diaries in about eight servers scattered across. Eight servers. They go back years, by the way. There's a ton there. And he found them. And then he gave them to Senator Rand Paul and Senator Ron Johnson, both friends, both great patriots that are pushing hard. And I mean, nobody has been quite like Senator Rand Paul. He has been a dog with a bone to expose Anthony Fauci. Because I think sometimes with people like Dr. Fauci, you just have this sense that something's pretty off. And I think a lot of us did, a lot of you in this audience did. And it turns out those suspicions were correct. He was a fame seeking incompetent with sometimes sinister and malevolent aims to cover his own rear. And that has become increasingly clear as we dive further and further into these diary entries. Now, while much noise is being made about his contradictions on school closures and restaurants and bar closures, on the origin of the COVID virus and so much else. And obviously, I think driving most of this was his desire to cover up the fact that he was funding gain of function research, research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So that's the driving motivator for this man not to save lives. And that's all very, very, I would say, clear from a casual reading of the text, but what more, and this is something not many people are making the point. I actually caught this, thanks to our friend Kane over at Citizen Free Press. He had posted Jesse Waters monologue from last night. At the very tail end, Jesse makes a parting comment that says he delayed the approval of the vaccine so that it didn't give President Trump a boost for the 2020 election. Now, he didn't support that claim with any evidence, so I was skeptical. But I was chatting back and forth with Cain this morning, and, man, did he put me in the right direction because this is an absolute treasure trove and it's, it's a substack authored by a guy named Justin Hart. There it is. And it says, new Fauci revelation. He slow rolled the vax with backroom dealing so Trump wouldn't get his quote, unquote, October surprise. And what this says, and this, we're gonna go through it in detail here, is that it is apparent through about five months of diary entries that Anthony Fauci was not only well aware of the fact that an approved vaccine, think what you will about the vaccine, by the way, you don't have to support the vaccine. But at that time, nobody knew if it was gonna be good or bad. It was definitely going to be politically advantageous to President Trump to have an approved vaccine ahead of the 2020 election. So five months of him being very well aware of the fact that this was going to benefit the president if it got approved. And what we see revealed in these diary entries is yet another example of how the Deep state conspired to block President Trump to steal the 2020 election. Now, we know about mail in ballots, we know about signature verification. Easy. We know about Dropbox Galore all over the place, funded by Zuckerberg and others. But this has been something that I remember very well. I remember after the election, a couple days, and then all of a sudden, Pfizer gets approval and it's a big deal. And I remember thinking, why on earth did they wait until after the election? I mean, I knew why. But now we have documentation from Anthony Fauci's own diary that explains what happened. So there's a number of players in this story, and we're gonna go through them as we go. But namely, you got the FDA commissioner. You've got who's Stephen Hahn. You've got Peter Marks, who's the director of the FDA center that reviews vaccines. You've got Alex Czar, Secretary of Health and Human Services. You got Larry Horowitz, who's a shadowy character. I can't even find an image of this guy. But he works closely, worked closely, closely with speaker Nancy Pelosi in his Fauci's main source again and again. And of course, you got Francis Collins and Cliff lane from the NIH director and the DEP, one of Fauci's deputies at NIAID. So here's what we know. Starting in June of 2020, a full five months before the election, this is a diary entry from Dr. Fauci. It's him becoming disillusioned with with Deborah Birx, who was the White House coronavirus response coordinator, if you'll remember. Scarflady. Here's the quote. Deb has stated that we should not do clinical trials since, quote, I want to see every infected person in a nursing home get plasma early and on steroids later. Forget the trial. We need to do this on EA E UAs, which is emergency youth authorization. She says the same thing about vaccine trials. Clearly she is trying to provide Trump with his October 2nd surprise. Did you check that? Did you catch that? This is in June 2020. Provide Trump with his October surprise. I may need to blow the whistle on her. June 20, 2020, five months before the election. He's already framed the acceleration of a vaccine approval process to ostensibly save lives. Now we know that the vaccine turned out to be a big, huge dud and if anything, contributed to worse, worse health ailments for many people. But at this point, we didn't know that it was objectively a good thing for the President. Okay, so later, this is the next diary entry that's of note from July 2020. And this is quite interesting. So he's now. So he's already expressed his worry about Deborah Burks. Now he's expressing concerns about Mark Meadows, chief of staff. So he watches Mark Meadows on television and writes that it is his way of backing out of a failure and trying to get an October surprise. Once again, heads up for him trying to push an early approval of vaccine. The next day, July 27, Fauci is in the Oval Office briefing Trump on therapeutics and vaccine. His note is almost sympathetic. And I'm reading straight from Justin. Justin's substack, which you should also check out. Rational Ground. Trump accepted that the vaccine might not be ready before the elections, but he was not happy about it. Then on July 31st comes the entry that changes the picture. Okay, it comes from Nancy Pelosi's office. Important call says Dr. Fauci, Larry Horowitz, who works closely with Nancy Pelosi. Apparently, there was a meeting at the White House with Steve Mnuchin, Mark Meadows, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Steve and Mark told Nancy and chuck that AstraZeneca will have a vaccine in September. Oh, that's before the election. And that it will be given eua. Apparently, Peter Marks does not know anything about this and Larry just informed him. So get this. Nancy Pelosi aide is informing the guy who has to approve vaccines. Bottom line is that they are going to pressure Steve Hahn, who likely will cave to the idea of an EUA to issue one. Even though Peter has serious issues with this. Clearly this is politically driven and will be a ploy for Trump to get reelected. Diary entry, July 31, 2020. Anthony Fauci was back room dealing to block the reelection of President Trump by delaying the vaccine. And if it was just there, that would be enough. But there's more diary posts and entries that prove this point. So we just got done with a July 31 post, right? And a week later, August 7, 2020, there's a phone call. And as Justin Hart explains it beautifully, this is the entry the entire story turns on. I think that's a really great way to put it. He says, call from Larry Horowitz again. This is the person that works closely with Nancy Pelosi. He had warned me a few days ago about Meadows trying to pressure Hahn and Marx to grant ua. So just really quick, let's tell their names again. Peter Marks is director of the FDA center that reviews vaccines. Okay, Peter Marks. That's him right there. And then you've got Stephen Hahn, who's the FDA commissioner, Marks boss. And then Mark Meadows. We all know Mark Meadows, chief of staff. So this is. These are the players involved, Hahn and MARX to grant UA, which is emergency use authorization prematurely to vaccines, likely AstraZeneca in time for the election. I called. So again, he's. This is Dr. Fauci referencing the election. I called Peter Marks a couple of days ago together with Collins and Lane. Remember NIH Director Francis Collins Lane, and explain that we would back him if he holds the line. We would back him if he denies Trump his October surprise. He called the AZ package a hot mess and definitely not in shape for an EUA. That's from August 7, 2020. You've got three of the most senior scientists in the federal government, the NIAID director, the NIH director, and Fauci's D deputy. They telephone the regulators who would sign the authorization and told them they would back him if he held out. Great journalism from Justin Hart, by the way. So this is Fast forward to October. So there's more emails or more diary entries throughout August, September. Then on the 8th of October, Horowitz flags that an FDA official needs support against a hydroxychloroquine authorization being pushed by Peter Navarro. They didn't like hydroxychloroquine. Remember they called it horse paste and that Hahn told her to hold her decision so he could speak with Meadows. On the 24th, Pfizer CEO, remember him? Albert Bourla calls Fauci worried that AstraZeneca will get an authorization before the other companies finish their trials. On the 26th, after the FDA authorizes convalescent plasma. Foushee writes that Han likely caved to Meadows, who is looking for good news before the election. There seems to be one player in this story that is hyper fixated on the upcoming election and that is Dr. Anthony Foushee. October 29th. We're just five days out now. This is, this is his dire entry. Some potentially nefarious stuff going on. The FDA career scientists are hesitant to grant emergency youth use authorization to lilies and regenerons ma be based on the current data. Alex Azar is really pushing them and furious because he thinks FDA is slow walking the process so as to not have it out before the election in five days. Clearly Alex wants to please POTUS so that they can say that they have a breakthrough right before the election. He puts this in all bold. We encourage Francis to support career scientists at FDA since they do not want to rush this through. Okay, they do not want to rush this through. That would be all well and good if that's where the story ended. Okay, you're just a principled scientist that doesn't want to rush through an emergency use authorization. But then Fast forward to November 21st, Trump lost air quotes and Pfizer announces its 95% efficacy result on November 9th, six days after the election. And a little over two weeks later, the same back channel that's been feeding Foushee all this information, which is of course Nancy Pelosi's Larry Horowitz calls and tells Foushee the following Got call from Larry Horowitz tonight telling me that Peter Marks told him that Trump called up Steve Hahn today and told him that Alex Azar said that Steve lost the pot lost POTUS the election by holding up the news about Pfizer vaccine. Well, you can imagine why President Trump might think that Pfizer announced six days after the election Trump was cursing Steve on the phone and then hung up. Steve did not know if he was going to get fired and told this to Peter who called up Larry. Still not sure what's going to happen. That's right. This is the story of how Dr. Anthony Fauci back channeled, weighed in with the top scientists at the FDA and HHS, and even took stabs at Deborah Burke, scarf lady to block the emergency use authorization of the AstraZeneca vaccine and in so doing knowingly worked against President Trump's reelection hopes. This is Dr. Anthony Fauci. Not only is he a fame whore, not only was he absolutely obsessed with his own press clippings, not only was he obsessed with celebrities wearing Fauci shirts and being sainted through the legacy media, not only was he obsessed with funding gain of function research in China and then covering it up, the man very well could have cost President Trump the 2020 election single handedly. This is the real story of Dr. Anthony Fauci, a sinister, lying, fame hungry, incompetent, a bureaucrat that put his thumb on the scales of the 2020 election. And we all unfortunately saw the devastation caused by that. More Americans are starting to ask an important question. Why is it so difficult to get access to medications you may already know you need? If your health is your responsibility, why are outside systems deciding what you can have and when you're allowed to get it? That's one reason I recommend All Family Pharmacy. They make it super simple to order a wide range of medications online. From everyday maintenance medications to travel and emergency preparedness options. The process is straightforward, secure and it's designed for people who value convenience and peace of mind. Whether you're preparing for a trip dealing with pharmacy shortages or simply want to be proactive for your family, All Family Pharmacy helps put you back in control. And right now, when you visit allfamilypharmacy.com Kirk and use promo code KIRK10, you'll save 10% off your order. Because being prepared isn't political, it's just responsible. So visit allfamilypharmacy.com Kirk and use code KIRK10 for 10% off. Jonathan Swan, welcome to the show. It's good to see you. Some might be Surprised to see a New York Times journalist on the Charlie Kirk Show. But for those who didn't know and don't know, you and Charlie were actually friends and you guys knew each other pretty well. I actually know you because of Charlie, so maybe that's a good place to start. Cuz I know you mentioned in your book Regime Change Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, but you talk about Charlie in this book. Why don't we start there?
- [17:34]
C
Well, I got to know Charlie in the way that reporters get to know people. You know, you want to talk to as wide a range of people as you can. And I just found Charlie to be, I mean, I met Charlie for the first time in 2017, so almost 10 years ago. And I got to know him through Trump's first term as he was very young, building this organization that at the time, not that many people had heard of, but it started to really build momentum. And it was very obvious to me straight away a, that he was a very sophisticated and smart operator. I mean, he'd already developed a friendship with Donald Trump Jr. And he was starting to build at the time a very close relationship with the President. And so one thing you sort of try to figure out when you're reporting on people who are activists, leaders, movement leaders, is, are they, are they running an organization that is essentially an astroturf organization? Because there's a lot of people who are sort of put out there as well. This person is a leader, this person leads a movement and, and you scratch a little bit under the surface and actually, no, it turns out this whole thing is sort of ginned up with algorithms and it's fake. You could see very quickly and very clearly that that was not the case with Charlie Kirk. He had really huge, these events that the crowds at these events, you can't fake that. And it was very obvious to me that he was not just building himself as an activist leader, as a movement leader, as an advisor to the president, as a fundraiser, but in the view of, I could tell you quite a few people around Trump, Kirk had a choice. They thought he was either going to be the heir to Rush Limbaugh or potentially the Republican nominee for president in a future cycle. And I happen to share that view. And, you know, obviously we will never know, but I certainly had shared, had strongly felt that by, you know, 2022,
- [19:49]
B
2023, and you tell the story of inside the White House when the news broke of what happened to Charlie, and it's pretty excruciating. I candidly, I don't want to spend too much time on it. But if. If you have an anecdote, we'd love to hear it.
- [20:07]
C
Well, yeah, it's hard to relive it. We have in the book. What we try to describe in the book is the effect that Charlie's death had on the President of the United States and the people around him, his inner circle. And we have a scene in the book where the President learns about Charlie's death, and he actually learns about it from his son, Baron, who was a huge fan of Charlie's. And he phoned the President. He was very distressed, very distraught. And the President was trying to absorb this news, but also trying to comfort his son. And people who were in the West Wing that day describe it almost like it was just a zombie land in the sense that people were just in a state of shock. Charlie Kirk was considered a member of the family by many of these people. And we. So we just describe. We. You know, again, I don't want to belabor it too much with you, but, you know, we have an insight in the book into how they regathered themselves at that moment, got together. Of course, they still didn't know who had done this or any of the details. The Vice President was in a state of acute distress. He credits JD Vance, credits Charlie Cook more than anyone with his political career. I mean, I think it's an objective fact that Without Charlie Kirk, J.D. vance would not be United States Senator. He would not be Vice President of the United States. Charlie Kirk was the one who vouched for J.D. vance to the Trump family initially, when they were very skeptical about someone who had a history as a never Trumper, who had said all sorts of things about Donald Trump in early 2021, Charlie Kirk was, I would say, of all the people, him and Don Jr. But really, it was Charlie Kirk vouching for JD Vance that. That established him within that circle. And then, of course, he had a huge role in helping him become the Vice president. So we, you know, we describe in the book the emotions that the Vice President was going through, but also the decision he made very quickly to take Air Force Two to collect Charlie's casket, to comfort his family, to comfort Erica. And that whole sequence of events, which, of course, you're very intimately familiar with.
- [22:43]
B
Andrew, I can tell you he comforted all of us. I mean, I was on that flight as well. And he came back. I mean, he sat up with Erica and Usha, but he came back and he talked to us, too. And you could tell he was in a. In a Bad way, like we all were. But he put on a brave face and, you know, put his hand on our shoulders. And I'll never forget it. I'll never forget it. On the topic of jd, there's been a lot made of these scenes. In your book from inside the Situation Room, there's a scene with Benjamin Netanyahu pitching some of the intel leading up to the Iran war. You see JD's posture as being pretty skeptical. And I would say that there was a lot of members that were pretty skeptical. I would say. I guess my question is separate fact from fiction when it comes to the admin's reception of that intel, the players, I mean, how skeptical were they? And why, in your estimation, why was the decision to go in in the second strikes made by the president?
- [23:50]
C
Well, it's nuanced, right? Even the skepticism from the US intelligence. Just to take a backward step, in the book, we describe Netanyahu, this pretty astonishing meeting where he comes to the White House Situation Room and essentially pitches President Trump on his plan for a regime change war with Iran. And he's got, you know, on the screen behind him, he's got the head of Mossad, Israeli generals, and he lays out scenarios, including the Kurds coming across helping to overthrow the regime. And a video montage which has potential replacement leaders in Iran, including Reza Pahlavi, who's the son of the last shah. So they absorb all of this and overnight the CIA does an analysis on it. And the skepticism was in a very, I wouldn't say narrow, because it's pretty, pretty darn important. But it wasn't like they said, oh, we can't achieve any of these objectives. We can't degrade or dismantle the ballistic missiles. We can't do anything to suppress Iran's defense industrial base. The really hardcore skepticism concerned the regime change scenarios. And I'll tell you, everyone on the Trump team basically was sceptical about this. Vance happened to be the one who vocalized that most aggressively with Trump. But others did too at different times, and particularly that intelligence, Ratcliffe and Rubio expressed skepticism to President Trump about it. Look, people will debate about how and why we went to war, but every piece of reporting I've done and everyone I've talked to in the inner circle and think Trump has made this clear in different ways, maybe less bluntly, publicly, is that he had a feeling, he had a gut feeling that this Iranian regime would collapse quickly. And even if it wasn't going to end up in regime change, he thought it would. He thought it was worthwhile going ahead with this mission, even with the more limited objectives of trying to degrade and dismantle both their nuclear program and their ballistic missile program. So that was his thinking going in. And, you know, he did hear a range of skeptical views, but I will say not expressed to him in a particularly forceful way, with the exception of J.D. vance.
- [26:03]
B
Yeah, and I think that stands out from, from your reporting, actually. And I remember the portion about Marco Rubio saying, I mean, you laid it out in four objectives, right? Degrading their military capacity, getting their nuclear program offline, all the way up to regime change. And I think Rubio was like, if you're. If your goal is to get the first two, then fine. If your goal is to get the other two, namely regime change, like the intel's bunk. And I thought that was a really interesting. I mean, a lot of people had issues with BB Being in the Situation Room. I share those. A lot of people had issues with a number of things from that story, but I think it was a really interesting look inside the room about how varied the opinions were and how actually how sober minded many of them were, including JD Including Marco. All right, so I wanna talk about this MoU, because I do think that there is this perception, I don't think it's fair, that basically JD Vance has been going rogue and he's working against the President's interests. And you see this narrative forming online. I know you've mentioned you've talked about this before, and I know that you say it's false, but let's get into detail, explain how you know that the peace proposal, working towards a peace plan was President Trump's direct order to J.D. vance. And what changed in the president's thinking to get him from a war posture more towards a peace posture?
- [27:34]
C
Well, I mean, I don't even. I heard this. I didn't really realize this was much of a narrative until I was actually asked this question on. On a different podcast. And it was so absurd. I. I just, honestly, I'd never even really heard anyone say this, because no one who actually knows what's going on, who's working in the administration, a senior level, has ever suggested that to me. I mean, President Trump asked J.D. vance, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to negotiate with Iranians. Now, that's not to say that Trump thinks Trump has been, at different times, very sceptical of whether they would succeed or not. But that's a separate question from whether he asked them to do it. He just did. I mean, I Don't even know what to tell people who are saying that. And do they have any evidence? I mean, what are they proposing as evidence that this is a rogue situation?
- [28:25]
B
Well, I mean, listen, Jonathan, you know, it's all a proxy war about 2028. Right. The more hawkish crowd, he's very skeptical about JD and I think they prefer Rubio. So it's all a proxy war for 2028. Right. And they want to paint JD as some sort of non pragmatic dove who's naive to the machinations of the Iranian regime. I mean, that's what it is. But I think JD has gone into these negotiations very aware that they could back out at any time and that they might have to restart military kinetic operations, which they've had to do. But once again, we're in a position where we're seeing the push towards an mou. You saw President Trump this morning with Lindsey Graham and his funeral, saying Lindsey was pushing for a peace plan with Iran. He's like, Lindsey loved war. But even he was pushing. I mean, that's what he said, said by the end. So, I mean, basically your point, there's two narratives, really, that JD Went rogue with this peace plan or that he was being naive, something along those lines. And that Trump got dog walked into Iran by Israel. Those are the two, I think, competing narratives that you see at both the start of this operation and in the attempt to conclude it. Right, so maybe let's go back to the first. At the start, you know, obviously it's clear Netanyahu was in the Situation Room. Did Trump get, you know, pushed into this war by Israel?
- [29:51]
C
Again, it's more complicated. These are these nice, clean narratives and they're just not accurate. It's much more nuanced. Yes, Netanyahu made a very aggressive campaign, as everyone knows, over many, many months to try to bring America into this war. But actually the reality, you could talk to anyone in Trump's inner circle, literally anyone, talk to anyone who was actually there who saw these decisions get made. Donald Trump himself was more hawkish about Iran than just about anyone on his team. I think actually more than anyone on his team. The closest probably was Pete Hegseth. And remember, Trump has a long history of this. People choose not to see it, and that's their prerogative. But if you choose to actually just deal with objectively with what Trump has, his long record on Iran. A, he's been talking about Iran for a very long time. Very long time. Even before he went into politics in the first term, there were senior advisers that he had who counselled him to stay in the jcpoa. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Trump. Trump ignored their advice and pulled out of the deal. That was a hawkish move. And then again later in his term, January 20, 2020, there were many people who thought it was unwise to order the killing of Qasem Soleimani, the top Iranian general. Trump went ahead with it and did it anyway. And then in his years out of power, he was briefed by the FBI that the Iranians were trying to kill him. So that had an effect. Again, he's also said, you know, stay out of wars and you can find what you want in Donald Trump's rhetoric. I fully concede that, of course. But he does have a very hawkish record with Iran specifically. So it was more complicated than that. And ultimately, Donald Trump decided to go into this war. He made the decision, and a sceptical case was put to him most aggressively by J.D. vance, but in certain more narrow respects by others, too.
- [31:44]
B
So let's go into Everybody wants to talk about 2028 horse race. We've probably given it too much attention on this show. I know your book is about the first year, but what can you glean from that first year as we head into the midterms? What is the mood inside this White House? What are they thinking? What are the strategies that you expect them to employ heading into November? Are they worried? Are they frustrated? Are they confident? What's the mood?
- [32:10]
C
I mean, they're obviously worried. I mean, these are smart political operators, and they're immersed in data, and they can see what everyone else can see, which is the president has a low approval rating. Presidents always, their party always tends to. History shows they tend to perform not always, but almost always tend to underperform in midterm elections. So all of those factors and then, of course, cost of living. You know, I could just rehearse the listening, but you've heard it. The Iran war certainly hasn't helped. But to the extent that they're hopeful, optimistic, in some cases more confident, it's for a couple of reasons. Number one, the Senate map is very, very favorable to Republicans. And a lot of these races that Democrats are talking about winning, they're tough. I mean, you tell me what the layup is in the Senate for Democrats. I can't tell you what it is. I can't tell you what the layup is. Maine. Yes, I get it. Democrats generally do well in Maine. But Susan Collins has her own brand there. She's a very formidable candidate. Ohio's a red state. I understand. I think that they have a strong candidate there. But it's a red state. That's a hard win. Iowa's a red state. These are not like slam dunks for the Democrats. So that's one thing. And then the other thing is in the House. Look, it's a huge uphill climb for the Republicans to hold the House. They all understand that. But the effort by James Blair and others to redraw the maps has definitely helped them. The structural advantages are definitely on their side. So. And they've got. Here's the other thing that people aren't really talking about. I think nearly enough for the first time in my memory, the Republicans have an overwhelming financial advantage and a lot of it is because of these. The shift in Silicon Valley and the crypto money and the changing landscape in the donor community, which I think is really under indexed. So you can tell a story where things are much more favorable to them, even though the overall environment is pretty terrible.
- [34:19]
B
Well, I think that's a really fair telling of events there. Jonathan Swan, New York Times reporter, author of the new book Regime Change. And you know that title man, given what's happened in Iran, is almost freaky, Jonathan. And by the way, those are the marching orders. Get gas under 4, get oil prices down and wrap up that war. Cause that's the big drag. If we could do that, a lot of things open up. Jonathan Swan, thank you. Thank you for your time.
- [34:47]
C
Thanks so much for having me.
- [34:50]
B
If you could go back in time and buy oil before the world relied on it, would you? Of course you would. Anybody would. So why aren't you buying silver right now? The people who recognized oil early didn't just make money. They got ahead of one of the biggest economic shifts in history. And today a similar opportunity is unfolding with silver. Silver is more than a precious metal. It's a critical resource used in solar panels, electric vehicles, defense systems, AI infrastructure, and the massive data centers powering that digital world. While demand keeps growing, it's still affordable enough that the average American can start accumulating it right now. That's why investors are turning to silver to protect against inflation and to own one of the world's most important strategic resources. Don't be the person who looks back in 10 years and says, I saw it coming. I just didn't act. Visit noblegoldinvestments.com Kirk and learn how easy it is to own physical silver. That's noblegoldinvestments.com Kirk own the metal the future depends on our next guest needs no introduction to this audience. And that of course, is Sean Davis, CEO and co founder of the Federalist, an amazing, amazing news institution, analysis, opinion and reporting. Sean, welcome back to the show, my friend. I couldn't help but notice you're rather, in pure Shaun Davis fashion, you're very reserved tweet this morning railing against the neocons and I think that's a good place to start. We were originally planning to talk about Foushee, but when I saw this tweet, I was like, okay, we gotta start there. So let me, let me read the few word, first few sentences here because it's a long tweet. It is inarguable that the war in Iran is a massive drag on Trump's numbers as well as those of the Republican Party heading into November. This is largely driven by consensus. Consistently high gas prices, which also drive up the price of everything else. Trump obviously knows this, which is why he's been searching for an off ramp for months. He knows he was elected to get gas prices down and the economy in shape, which he did until the war jammed up the gears. But a major problem for Trump's presidency right now is that nearly everyone outside his inner circle is pushing for this war. And this includes the entirety of the so called conservative pundits who never found a war they weren't willing to make others fight and pay for. Also hates Trump and especially Vance, and sees the war's negative effects on his popularity as a secondary benefit of the war they've been salivating over for decades. To them, his declining numbers are a feature, not a bug. What do you mean by that?
- [37:24]
D
Yeah, so let's go back a little bit in time to 2016. There was a very infamous magazine article and the COVID said against Trump and it was signed by a bunch of so called conservative luminaries. And wouldn't you know, almost to a person, every person who wrote in that article against Trump trying to make sure he wasn't going to become president. These are the same people whispering in his ear or shouting from behind microphones now on television and podcasts telling him, no, no, no, no, Mr. President, actually everyone loves this war. It's going really awesome for you. Yeah. Also, J.D. vance sucks. We don't want him. But like, just keep doing the war, Mr. President. It's like watching Grima Wormtongue give advice to King Theoden, watching how these neocons constantly try to manipulate and distort what's going on to get Trump to do something that's not gonna be good for him, not gonna be good for America, but is gonna be great for neocons who just want wars and who want Trumpism and MAGA and America first or whatever you want to call it, gone forever. And so this is kind of just like my place, Mr. President. Understand that the people trying to push you into expanding this war, getting into a ground combat, these people do not have your best interests at heart. And to the extent that the advice they give you hurts you, they are fine with that.
- [38:43]
B
It sort of reminds me of the Empire Strikes Back. Right? You've got Trump leads this takeover of the gop. A hostile takeover of the GOP bends the entire movement and popular will to his will. And now there is this opportunity that they've seen to scurry back in and get the President's ear, win the influence of the presidency and Trump 2.0. And they really don't care if it hurts President Trump. And I think that's the key point here, is I agree with you. These voices, they really don't care what happens to the coalition that won him the White House. Because in their mind, the conservative movement would be better off if it didn't have MAGA to deal with. If they could just get rid of these pesky populist America first policies that have gotten in the way of so much good K Street lobbying money, then they would be better off. And that's what they want. I mean, they would defend. Let's play devil's advocate here, Sean. They would defend their position as principled stands against totalitarian regime and against a nuclear armed Iran, which is unacceptable. They would say, now you gotta go the full way. We're pot committed. What's your answer to them as far as what the right next move is?
- [40:03]
D
Yeah, well, so I get that. That's the other argument. I wish people would just be honest about the political consequences of that. Instead, what we're seeing is them trying to have their cake and eat it too.
- [40:14]
B
We have to do this, Sean. It's not about politics. It's about principle. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Sean, you can't just be politically driven.
- [40:24]
D
But it is politically driven because the reality is that Iran and any other sort of despotic regime, whether it's Iran or North Korea or whatever, they understand that their survival is based on having nuclear weapons. That was the lesson of Gaddafi, who gave up his weapons program during the Iraq war and who was then removed from power at the pass department. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at that moment, every tyrant on earth understood that if we have nuclear weapons, that's the only thing that saves us. So you have to acknowledge the long term reality of geopolitics, which is that Iran is not trustworthy. It's a completely total mess of a nation. They are going to try and get nuclear weapons regardless of what they say right now. And so the best hedge, the best way to predict, protect against Iran or any other despotic regime having these nuclear weapons is to make sure you have a strong Republican in power who they're terrified of. This is why they were trying to build it under Obama. They were building capacity back up under Biden. And what has happened with this war right now is that by making it less likely that Republicans hold Congress, by making it less likely that a Republican can hold the White House in 28 and 32, they are making it more likely that an Iranian regime under the next Democrat president will be able to build up and perhaps even deploy nuclear weapons. And so I get the principled argument, but the problem with so much of this interventionist neocon nonsense is they're never thinking past the current move. They think, I'm going to move the pawn here and I'm going to take this piece and that's it, I've won. Nothing that happens after this matters without understanding that, oh crap, I may have just left my king and absolutely wide open. There is a total lack of long term strategic thinking here that I think is making the situation worse for America over time. And the reason is that you cannot escape politics. Who is in charge matters. And everything you're doing right now is making it less likely that Republicans will be in charge and in a position to stop despotic and tyrannical regimes like those in Iran.
- [42:26]
B
Sean, I think the interesting part of your analysis though is you said it's a feature, not a bug. Are you alleging that they wanted to leave the king totally exposed? That was part of the move here so that they could then say, look, see, Trump's policies are really unpopular. We gotta go back to the old way.
- [42:44]
D
Oh, yeah, I'm not implying that or suggesting that. I'm gonna straight up say it. They want Trump gone and that's part of 2026 is a lot of base of this opposition is actually in the Republican Senate. You have people there who are sick of Trump. They want him gone. They want the MAGA fever to break so they can take back over and be in charge again and get us people like Mitt Romney or John McCain running for president. Again, they want to go back to being a party of beautiful losers. And so a lot of what's happening now is about setting the stage for 26 and then setting the stage for 28. They want MAGA and America first and Trumpism gone so they can take the party back over again.
- [43:23]
B
I hate to say, but you're 100% right. You're 100% right. And I mean, I grant that they want to deal with Iran, the hawks want to deal with Iran. They want to take down the regime, but they don't care what it costs. They don't care at all what it costs. They don't. They weren't part of building this coalition. They didn't have sleepless nights knocking doors and making the argument, or in Charlie's case, visiting dozens and dozens of college campuses and all the videos and the billions of views, trying to pitch this to young people and to this new coalition that we built. So they have no skin in the game if it falls apart. They just get to go back to the old way. And that's really depressing. 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. Why Refi 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. Okay, so. So I just had Jonathan Swan on in hour one, right? He's got that book, Regime Change. And I asked him, I said, was it Trump's idea to move towards peace? And he said, absolutely. JD Was doing the president's bidding there. And granted, based on news of the day, new intel that comes in. The president may fluctuate some, but the president gets that this needs to be done. With and he gets it for political reasons, as you said. What is your advice to this admin right now? What needs to be focused, number one and number two?
- [45:38]
D
Yeah, so I think the first focus needs. You need a peace deal and you need to get the US out of there. And the thing that is complicating that is the economic situation in the Strait there. There's so much oil that moves through there. But the reality is that most of that oil, and I understand that we have a global oil market and spot prices and all that. The bulk of the oil there is not going to the us it's going to Europe. And so I think the solution here actually has to deal with getting Europe to take charge of its own energy and take charge of its own security situation. America has been the world policeman for way too long. Whether it's doing nuke policing or whether it's having to put bases all over Europe or whether it's going to Iraq or whether it's doing what it did in Syria or Libya, America can't handle it anymore. We're stretched too thin. And it is long past time for Europe to take ownership of its own future. Now, whether that means Europe taking military control of the straits, I don't know. Maybe it is in massive rapid investment of pipelines along so you can make the Strait no longer necessary. But to me, it is largely a European problem, which it was when we first went in at the beginning of the second term to Yemen and started dealing with the Houthis there because they were attacking ships and all that, making things difficult, difficult. The energy problem there is actually a European problem. And if we want to deal with the situation we're having with spot prices, we need to rapidly expand energy extraction in the US we have more than we need here to support us. And we should probably be exporting a whole lot less energy, whether it's liquid, naturalized natural gas or oil. But this idea that we remain completely dependent because of the interconnectedness of global markets on the Middle east, that is a major, major problem. It is a massive weak link in the chain that simply doesn't need to be there. So I think that's the long term solution for this.
- [47:32]
B
It strikes me as something where we could put together a coalition to blockade the Strait, keep the pressure on if that's what we need to do with European allies. While you said we just do that for a couple of years while these pipelines get built and we could exist in a detente and gas prices would come down and I mean, it would maybe it's not the ideal solution, but at least it would get rid of that choke point through the straight. And we could probably just do that for a couple years without huge, huge lift. But you got to make sure that Europe pays their fair share. And it does strike me as a little bit like we break it, you buy it. But nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, realpolitik is that it does affect them way more than it does us. Sean, I wanna pivot really quickly to Anthony Fauci because I just been waiting for this all day. We did a whole rundown of how he actually slow walked the vaccine and it obviously got approved six days after the election. Foushee was very aware of the politics there, but in general, what do you make of the Fauci diaries? He's been pardoned by Joe Biden's auto pen. I don't know what the options on the table are. But what has been the biggest revelation for you when it comes to this?
- [48:47]
D
I will admit that I was wrong about Anthony Foushee. And the biggest revelation to me is that he is a much, much bigger demon, a far more narcissistic, nefarious presence in government than even I assumed. And I was calling for that guy to be fired in April and May of 2020. So I'm actually shocked. As cynical as I am, I'm shocked that he somehow comes off even more megalomaniacal and more narcissistic in his diary than I ever assumed.
- [49:17]
B
You know, there was one of his dire entries dating back to 2013. Somebody at the CDC had blocked him from doing a Wolf Blitzer interview on cnn and he lost it. He was like, this is terrible. I don't know what's going on. They're worried that I'm a rock star, that I'm taking away the limelight from them. I mean, and even with his descriptions of his relationship with President Trump, he's like, President Trump seems quite fond of me, even though I'm stealing the limelight from him. This man is, you use the word narcissist. That is actually a very, very fair description of him. And the way he was fawning over his own press clippings and the love affair. He's talking about how he's the most recognizable and famous man on the planet. I mean, this is a sick, sick deal with this man who ultimately cost, probably cost President Trump the 2020 election. Genuinely, I don't think that's overstating it. There was many factors at play. Many deep state actors contributed to that. Certainly but with the prominence of the COVID story in 2020, I think that case is very fair. What do you make about what we can do about it now with this pardon? Is there anything that can. I mean, Rand Paul's saying if he lies in front of Congress, again, he's not covered by the pardon. Okay, but I guess short of that, is he just off the hook? Is this guy going to skate?
- [50:37]
D
I don't think he's off the hook at all. The question is, are there any red state attorneys general or prosecutors who are willing to hold him account to account for the crimes he did? And again, the Democrats set the playbook here. It wasn't enough when they went after Trump for J6 to do it in federal courts. They also had their people in Georgia, in Arizona, go after anyone who was involved. And so I think the solution for Anthony Fauci here is I guarantee you he committed some kind of crime or multiple crimes or conspiracies across multiple states that we have state attorneys general or prosecutors who can go after him for. So I don't know if it's James Uthmeyer in Florida, you know, maybe it's a prosecutor in Tennessee or Texas or Missouri. I guarantee you he has legal liability in various states. And I don't think we have to wait for him to perjure himself before Rand Paul tomorrow. I think there are lots of avenues for state prosecutors and attorneys general to go after him for what he did. The man's a psychopath responsible for the deaths of million who was eating dinner with Jake Tapper while he made you watch your loved ones die alone in hospitals.
- [51:45]
B
Well said, Sean Davis from the Federalist. God bless you, man. Talk to you soon.
- [51:49]
D
Thank you, sir.
- [51:53]
B
I had the honor of a lifetime to call Charlie a friend. And what I remember most wasn't just what people saw on stage. It was what was behind the scenes. That was an unwavering commitment to his faith, his love for his family, and his genuine desire to encourage others to live with courage and conviction. Charlie believed that following Christ wasn't something you compartmentalize. He didn't put it in a box. He lived it out loud. It shaped how he lived, how he served, how he treated people every single day. Charlie Kirk, American martyr, captures that heart. This documentary isn't just simply about remembering Charlie. It's an invitation for each of us to ask what kind of legacy we're building and whether we're willing to stand firm in our own faith when it's tested. I hope that you'll watch it with your family and have those conversations together. Go to angel.comkirk that's angel.comkirk Become an angel Guild member. Watch Charlie Kirk, American Martyr and help bring more stories of faith, courage and conviction to audiences around the world. All right. Joining us now is Chloe Cole, one of our favorite guests on the show. Charlie used to always love having Chloe on. She's a detransitioner and an advocate for children and for families. She's amazing. She speaks at our events all the time, visits college campuses and gets into a bunch of trouble with crazy left wing lunatics. And we love her for it. Chloe, welcome back to the show. It's good to see you.
- [53:19]
E
Andrew. Great to see you. Thanks for having me.
- [53:21]
B
Of course. And you just had a birthday, right?
- [53:24]
E
Yes, I did. It was actually my 22nd yesterday.
- [53:27]
B
Yeah, you turned 22. Well, I was curious about it because I think your Twitter still says 21, so you just gotta update that.
- [53:34]
E
But that's a good reminder.
- [53:37]
B
Exactly. So happy birthday. And I thought of you because there's this crazy story out of Minnesota which of course Minnesota as turned into ground zero for every woke. Just ridiculous policy you could imagine. And it's called My Gender Dolls. So these researchers, researchers, they're activists with a PhD next to their name at the University of Minnesota. They have been developing these trans identify trans doll. I don't know what you even call them. Gender confused dolls. Maybe that's a better way to put it. I'll just play the clip and we'll go from there.
- [54:14]
F
SOT12, I'm excited to talk to you about a project we've been working on at the national center for Gender Spectrum Health called My Gender Dolls. These dolls were designed by transgender and gender diverse artists. They are intended to be a therapeutic tool for transgender and gender diverse kids to explore how they see themselves or how they'd like to see themselves in terms of gender identity and gender expression. Along with the choice of bodies, the My Gender dolls also include genitals. This is important because kids can learn that all gender identities and gender expressions are valid no matter how your body looks. There are lots of different ways to be a girl, a boy, or anywhere along a gender spectrum.
- [54:55]
B
All right, Chloe, so as somebody that has gone through this process and come out the other side and now advocates against it, how damaging is it? These are apparently for 4 to 10 year olds. They're designed for 4 year olds. How damaging is it to a child's psyche to be even talking about their gender at 4 years old?
- [55:17]
E
I mean, this is something that is Bringing a lot of disgust, a lot of shock to a lot of people, rightfully so, because anybody who's sane will recognize that this is a violation of children's innocence to lie to them about. About human design, about the way that God made us, and then to tell them that they were born in the wrong body. And the only way they can fix that is by going through what basically amounts to medical experimentation. And as somebody who once was part of the transgender community myself and went through that childhood abuse under that. Under the guise of gender affirming care, I know exactly why they are targeting children so hard. This is. I mean, for one, it's an ideology of people who are. I mean, the most prominent ideologues are people who are unable to reproduce themselves because they've taken upon these treatments. Some of them were young. And so if they can't reproduce, if they can't have children of their own, to push this ideology onto, they're going to target the children of the people who are healthy and are able to have kids of their own. And what better way to teach children, indoctrinate them through the way that they know how to learn best, which is through play, through the use of dolls. And one of the core tenets of transgender ideology is that this is an innate condition, that transgender people cannot help being the way that they are. That it's not just a mental health issue, that the earlier you catch somebody in attempt to change their sex, the better.
- [56:36]
B
Yeah, and that's. I mean, I think that point can't be underscored enough. That these are children that don't know that the tooth fairy isn't real or that the Easter Bunny isn't real. And they are being basically handed over a grooming tool that tells them that their body is wrong, that God made them in the wrong body, and that it's okay if they want to be a girl and they're a boy or vice versa. That is grooming behavior. That is predatory behavior. And what makes it all the more obscene to me is that these are researchers who are receiving taxpayer funded grants to advance something that is this, this abusive and harmful to little kids. And they're dressing it up as if they say, what do they say? We're making gender fun? No, you're making it sick. And you're actually abusing little kids. Can't say that enough. These kids are not in any position to be learning or talking about this stuff. They should be having fun and playing outside and touching grass. This is where it gets even more nefarious. Though Tim Waltz has a role to play in this. He's famously pushed pro transgender policies in Minnesota, but he was bestowed the same institute. He was bestowed with the institute's inaugural Distinguished Sexual and Gender Health champion award in 2023, a title they created just for him. We've got a picture of him with that, accepting the reward. 179. As you can see, this is him posing for an award from these people. And by the way, one of the people that is the creators of this doll is pictured in that, and that would be Nick Ryder, who is a PhD LP and LP of my gender doll. So they're trying to monetize this now. And if you look at this person, I guess it's a they themselves, their bio, it's really, really sick. So this is a sociologist, a psychologist, rather, at the Eli Coleman Institute for Sexual and Gender Health. And their professional interests are in areas of intersectionality, improving various health disparities, sexual health and pleasure. Which is ironic because a lot of kids that get this procedure done or transfer surgeries, they can no longer experience sexual pleasure when they're older. Decolonizing, healing, justice, whatever that means. Systems change and social justice advocacy. Okay, so this is one of the inventors of this. That is the description of an activist who is cloaked in language of academia and goes by they, them, theirs, pronouns. Chloe, in your experience, how much of the science around this is basically just activism? It's a warped ideology. I mean, how many of the people that you've seen that advocate for this stuff have totally perverse personal lives and weird fixations, and they cloak it in this academic language?
- [59:49]
E
I think on every single level, physically, emotionally, psychologically. To do this to any child, to do this to anybody who is confused, confused about their sex, and to refuse to give them proper counsel and instead push them down this lifelong route of confusion and experimentation, that is abuse under the guise of activism and love. For these people, I find it incredibly insulting that they're using these terms like making gender identity fun, because realizing that you regret every single part of the last few years of your life, that you've lost your fertility, that you've lost parts of your sexuality and your identity for life is not fun. It's something that I and thousands of other children are going to have to grapple with for the rest of our lives.
- [60:37]
B
You mentioned that they cloak it in this language like they love you. They're the ones that really care about you. And I've noticed in life that so often the predators are the ones that use that Language. The con artists, the scam artists, the snake oil salesman, they're the ones that will click, claim that they are your best friend, that they are here for you, to help you in your personal experience. Is that the way they talk to you? That it was cloaked in concern for your well being?
- [61:02]
E
Yeah. They use all of these rosy terms like gender affirming, care, top surgery, bottom, bottom surgery, loving people for who they truly are in order to, to rope you in. That's how they convince people into this in the first place. That's how they get people like my parents who are well meaning to allow their children to do things that go against their very instincts by telling them your child literally cannot live without this, this is who they are and they cannot change that. And the longer that you go without allowing them to be who they truly are, the more likely you are pushing them into suicide. And that is exactly why we have to investigate these clinics, these activists who are pushing this on our children and make sure that the doctors who do this are all held to account and make sure through legislation and culturally this never happens to any child ever again in the United States.
- [61:52]
B
Yeah, that point you just made where they emotionally manipulate parents by holding out the specter of your child's going to commit suicide if you don't do X, Y and Z, if you don't literally chop off their genitalia or if you don't, you know, chop off their breasts, whatever it is. I mean, I know that it's extraordinarily traumatic probably still to even think about, but you know, from your parents perspective. 30 seconds. What, when they talk now about that, what are they telling you? Like, what was that like for them to be a parent in that position?
- [62:26]
E
They tell me all the time that they wish the doctors told them that we had another option, that we didn't have to do this and that they didn't lie to them the way that they did. But they are very grateful that not only have I been able to come out of it, but also to be able to use our stories story as a family to make sure that other families do not have to go through what we did.
- [62:43]
B
Yeah, I just, I can't imagine. And God bless your parents too, because it's so obvious and the way you talk about them, that you care about them and that they care about you and that they were just trying their best. And there's so many parents out there that have been caught in this that probably just thought they were trying their best. I mean, if a doctor comes to you Somebody you're supposed to trust, and they say your kid's going to commit suicide if you don't do this. I mean, what. You just can't imagine the excruciating, terrible choices in front of parents like that. I just gotta. I gotta give a few more details on this story because it's so bizarre. The paper dolls, the gender with gender neutral names like Sam, Rory, Avery and Parker have removable internal and external genitalia, along with more than 100 interchangeable pieces of clothing, accessories and hairstyle. Think of it like a trans Mr. And Mrs. Potato Head. The goal is for kids to, quote, learn about the different options that exist for who they can be, end quote. According to a therapist at the University of Minnesota who spent over half a decade developing the project funded by their government, and now they're monetizing it. So now they're sending it to schools. Chloe? Yep. They see you can be anything. You can be any variation of the 6 to 600 different sex permutations that these people believe in. And it's all good. We're making, we're making gender fun. It will be made available to teachers, school counselors, pediatrician and mental health providers, according to a website for my gender dolls. Okay. And by the way, their website features an image of a boy doll wearing a dress and others in various states of sexual identity confusion. There they are broadcasting, showcasing their their new product to the marketplace. It's just so wrong. It's so inappropriate and it's so gross. And I just, I can't get over the fact that we're still dealing with this. And this is where my question leads, Chloe. So we thought President Trump won. Woke is dead. We like to say on the show, woke is not dead. It's just dormant or it's still very active in these blue enclaves. Give us an update across the country. Where are we seeing wins and where is there still a lot of work left to do?
- [64:59]
E
I get incredibly frustrated whenever I hear people say, like, oh, woke is dead. We've completely defeated all the demons and Trump has won. And in many aspects, yes, we've won. We've had 26 states over the years pass legislation to protect children from this in some form. We're having federal legislation like the Chloe Cole act being proposed that recently passed through committee, actually, and will seek to not just protect a select few children in a few different states, but federally, all across the board, through all 50 states. Ban this treatment, ban this abuse for kids and make sure that every kid who's already been harmed gets A private gets a private right to action. And we have a lot of motion moving in the culture as well, as well as a lot of investigations. But gender transition for children has not gone away. These clinics and these ideologues have only found better ways of hiding it from us.
- [65:53]
B
Give us some examples. How are they hiding it from us? Because we see this with dei, for example, the schools say they got rid of dei, but they just changed the name. And that's how they skirt responsibility and accountability. What are they doing on this?
- [66:05]
E
Right. A lot of these schools will have policy changes that are as simple as changing the name of a program so that they can just get away with it. And we have recorded cases of hospitals like I believe Texas Children's committing fraud, basically committing insurance fraud by saying that these children don't have a mental health issue, that they have an endocrine issue that is otherwise unspecified in order to continue the abuse and the medical experimentation on them. But there also are cases like these so called gender dolls where they are doing it out in the open, loud and proud, because they know they can, because they're being protected by the state, because they have governors like Tim Waltz who are actively pushing for this. And for as long as this is legal anywhere in the states, as long as it's encouraged anywhere by anybody in power, no child in the US is going to be safe until we take the industry down ourselves.
- [66:56]
B
I want to throw up. 148. This is from my gender Dolls. It says, a new play based therapeutic approach for trans and gender diverse children and the clinicians who support them. We make gender fun. Our award winning dolls. I wonder who gave them an award. Maybe themselves. And service are community informed, research driven, culturally attuned and grounded in gender affirming clinical practice. And this is the part that really caught me off guard. Join the wait list. They have a wait list for this. So when we're talking about is woke dead? Is some of this gender insanity dead? No, no, no. There's a whole army of people that are involved with your children that completely support this. And they're joining a wait list to get these trans dolls in your kid's classroom. This has not gone away. This needs to be illegal. And the question then becomes how do we best achieve that end? Now tell us more about the Chloe Cole act. Who's sponsoring it and what would it achieve?
- [68:01]
E
So the Chloe Cole act was implemented by, was written by Representative Bob Otter of Missouri and it's as I said earlier, it seeks to ban this treatment across all 50 states in all in all territories of the US
- [68:18]
B
is it surgery and therapeutics or what does it ban?
- [68:22]
E
Every single aspect of the transition process from the medical, the, the affirmation, the surgeries, the use of hormone treatments and blockers. And it makes it so that I believe there is about a 20 or so year period after a minor turns 18 or after they, after they first discovered that they regret this and want to detransition, want to see damages for what they've been through. Which is something that is very desperately needed right now. Because I have many friends who have cases of their own. I'm currently in a lawsuit of my own right now with Kaiser and many of these cases are being thrown out on the basis of statute of limitations or people aren't even able to sue or get justice for things that they went through at very tender ages. Because in many states the statute of limitations for treatments in hospitals is as little as two to three years. And that is not nearly enough when we are abusing children and confusing them for life.
- [69:17]
B
Yeah, isn't that very convenient for them? So, so they get a young kid, 10, 12 years old, maybe four in this case, they medically mutilate them, they psychologically abuse them and brainwash them. And then it takes a little while, understandably in any of these cases to figure out what has been done to them. That they have been victimized by these absolute monsters that call themselves PhDs and researchers and clinical psychologist or whatever. And then they get off scot free because it takes young people like yourself that detransition a certain amount of time to figure that out and to come out of that. Because when you spend so much of your formative years as a child going down a road to hell, it takes you a little while to turn it around and figure things out. So I totally support that. By the way, I think that's brilliant extending the statute of limitations on these lawsuits because I genuinely believe that the way you really take these people out is you sue them into oblivion. If you start getting lawsuits from all these kids speaking up and you get a whole infrastructure around that, you will stop them in their tracks. They will not want the financial liabilities that come with it. It would be just be simply too risky. So I love that approach and I'm glad you're pursuing it. Chloe Cole D, Transitioner and advocate and a brain rave voice on college campuses, on social media and the media in general. Thank you Chloe. You're the best. It's so great to see you and happy birthday.
- [70:47]
E
Thank you so much for having me again.
- [70:53]
C
For more on many of these stories
- [70:54]
D
and news you can trust, go to charliekirk. Com.