Show Host (5:29)

Go ahead.

Co-Host (5:29)

Yeah, we're very glad to hear you say that. We were, we were discussing at the outset of the show. The left clearly sees this as a big test. They recognize the importance of this. They believe that if they can force ICE to back down in this clash, then they'll have gotten away with what they did under the Biden administration, that they brought in these 15 plus million people and if they can say it's too difficult to remove them, too disruptive to remove them, too tyrannical to remove them, they can get away with this atrocity. And we're very glad, of course, to hear that you recognize those same stakes when you say insurrection is, of course, a strong word. Do we have to look at possible charges, not just against rioters, but against government officials who are abetting and encouraging this?

Stephen Miller (6:17)

Well, I don't want to speak to any charges that may or may not apply, since it's very important that whatever decisions the Department of Justice makes, whatever facts they analyze, are a result of DOJ's analysis of those facts. But what I would say very clearly is that you only have to read their own words and hear their own words and judge their own conduct to understand that this is clearly an insurgency against the federal government. They are describing the federal government as an occupying force. Just think about that for a second. The federal government is responsible for the administration of federal law, the administration of federal benefits, the administration of federal resources, the administration of federal immigration enforcement in all 50 states. Right? The federal government, whether it's, whether it's providing the funding for our entitlement and our safety net programs, whether it is providing security at our airports and our ports of entry, whether it is maintaining the safety and security of our roads, our transportation, our bridges. And of course, the federal government has sole jurisdiction and authority over immigration law because we have one national immigration law. We do not have. We have one national currency. We have one national flag. We have one national constitution. We have one national immigration law. If you were to permit individual cities and states to ratify their own immigration laws for themselves, that you wouldn't have a republic and you wouldn't have a country. And that's the proposition that Fry and Ellison and Waltz are trying to test. They are asserting that they have the unfettered right to harbor aliens who have no right to be in this country and to effectively, in fact, to incite violent insurrection from organized agitators against federal forces to prevent those federal forces from effectuating duly enacted immigration law. We had a 10 year national. It really goes back for half a century. But the last 10 years in particular since President Trump declared his candidacy In June of 2015, we've had a great national debate about immigration, immigration enforcement and sovereignty. The issue, of course, was one of the largest issues in the 2016 campaign. But I think you would agree, for observers, I would argue that it was an even bigger issue in the 2024 campaign. And so we had this great national debate and dialogue on immigration. President Trump beat Joe Biden, then he beat Kamala Harris. So he defeated two Democrat presidential candidates in a single campaign. Cycle in which one of the central critiques throughout both those campaigns was on the question of immigration. And then after we won, the first major piece of legislation that was enacted was a reconciliation bill, a budget bill to provide the largest increase in funding for immigration enforcement operations in American history. So Americans voted, then the House voted, then the Senate voted, everybody voted to enact this agenda. And now you have Democrat politicians and their radical, violent agitator face using or attempting to use force to veto the result of a democratic process. In other words, they use violence to override votes. That is what you're seeing and that is what is happening.

Show Host (10:23)

I completely agree. And, Stephen, I think it's fair to call these communist front groups. I think it's fair to call these militia thugs that are inspired and trained by communist front groups. I have so many questions for you, Stephen, so I'm gonna try and get through them quickly. But I remember you telling the world, telling me that the last message you got from Charlie was we have to root out the funding networks. So that's question number one, but second part of that question. So I want to, I would love to know an update on where we stand and rooting out some of these funding networks, but there's so much else going on. President Trump has now announced that 75 different countries. He is pausing. Visas from 75 different countries. I would love to know your POV on that. How did we get there? How do we arrive on that? I do hear people asking, what about Mexico? What about India? So I'll let you chime in on that. And then defunding sanctuary cities. All of these are different pieces of this mosaic that you are working on. All part of your portfolio. The floor is yours. Take any of those that you want. Stephen Miller.

Stephen Miller (11:26)

Well, yes, you're right that the last message that Charlie sent me was about dismantling the left wing structures of organized violence. And shortly after that, in the aftermath of Charlie's assassination, President Trump issued a historic executive order that we refer to as NSPM 7 National Security Presidential Memorandum Number 7. NSPM is different than other executive orders in that it establishes the architecture and infrastructure of US Security policy. And that nspm, for the first time ever, created a roadmap and a structure for treating this fifth column, this violent fifth column in the context of domestic terrorism. And since then, there's been enormous progress made and we would all, of course, like more progress and more results, more quickly. But there's been enormous progress that has been made in mapping out these networks and developing the kinds of cases that will be necessary to deliver that crippling blow. The kinds of work, when you're talking about this, effectively, counterinsurgency work is what we're describing here. And sometimes counterinsurgency work, it can take a while to develop the. You can do. You can. You can and should get quick hits and quick arrests. Absolutely. It can't. It can take some time to develop a full picture, for purpose of then shattering and dismantling that organization, of how it works, how it operates, how it communicates, because they're highly sophisticated organizations. What's interesting is that the. Is that the response to the federal presence in Minneapolis has caused a lot of these organizations to unburrow from underneath the rocks where they hide and to come out in force.

Show Host (13:50)

Candles were lit on Bondi beach by families, by children, by people of faith to celebrate a festival of light, a festival from Bible times, one that Jesus himself celebrated. People gathered with hope, seeking unity and comfort in tradition. But instead of light, there was darkness, violence, fear, hatred showing itself at a time meant for prayer and rejoicing. Times like this remind us that even with the ceasefire in Israel, Jewish people are being targeted simply because of their faith. And times like this remind us why. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to stand in the gap, providing safety and security to God's people. The fellowship brings together Christians and Jews to be a light to suffering Jews in Israel, the former Soviet Union, or wherever the needs are greatest. Together, we can make a real difference in the lives of those who need hope the most. Your gift today will help provide the security that God's people so desperately need. Visit urgentifcj.org, that's one word. Urgentifcj.org or call now at 866338, IFCJ. That's 866-338-4325.

Stephen Miller (14:59)

And so with the. With the thousands of officers that we have now in response to the incredible threats and violence in Minnesota, the. There's now within that an opportunity to. To interdict large numbers of these insurrectionists and then use them to gain insight into these networks and deliver criminal consequences. So you'll see a lot more progress in the near future. I also want to point out, in the interest of transparency, that there was a study that was done in 2016, and it said that for all the. For all the employees at DOJ who had a recorded political donation, that 98% were to Hillary Clinton, someone can check that. It might have been 94%, 97%. That's immaterial. The greatest challenge that the administration has had with respect to the Department of Justice, which should, of course be no surprise to you or your listeners and your viewers, is how thoroughly the Department of Justice at every level was infiltrated by deep state actors and activists. And, you know, one of the most important things that we can do as a movement, just like at DHS, you know, by hiring 10,000 new ICE officers, you're also in so doing that, you're hiring 10,000 new pro American Patriots. You're hiring 10,000 people who love their country and believe in their country and believe in the rule of law. There's a desperate need, desperate need to do the same kind of project, project at DOJ in the sense that we need, we need young patriots with law degrees to choose a career at the Department of Justice. That's not, that's a medium term, that's a medium term issue. That's not a, that's not a short term issue. We have the obligation to fix things in the short term. And the Department of Justice understands this. But if you want to change the character of federal law enforcement in this country, at the end of the day, the pipeline is the thing that matters most. Who are the people that are actually charging the cases? Who are the people that are actually sitting in the U.S. attorney's offices? Who are the careers at every level of these enforcement agencies and enforcement arms? Who works in the civil rights office? Who works in the criminal division? Who works in the National Security division? Now, one of the big mistakes that conservatives have made historically is they focus on policy to the exclusion of personnel. And personnel is the most important consideration when it comes to policy. And I don't just mean the personnel that, you know whose names, you know, they're out there in the public. It matters who the line attorney is in the office that you've never heard of. It all matters. And cumulatively, it matters enormously. And so the Department of Justice understands this problem and this challenge, the deep state challenge. And of course, every department inherited this when we came in, right? So there's a deep state at dhs, there's a deep state at doj, there's a deep state at the State Department. There's a deep state at Dow. Right? I mean, everyone is confronted this. And you know, my last point, for example, Pete has done an extraordinary job rooting out the deep state in in D. But if I had to tell you, where do I think the deep state was the worst on day one, the most corrupt deep state that anybody inherited, it was certainly a doj, none of which is none of which in any way alleviates the burden that we have in the here and now to ensure that justice is done fully, fairly, completely and swiftly. But I guess I'll just go back full circle and say that I'm Minnesota Right now. The insurrectionists have come out of hiding. They're confronting our officers on the street. They are being arrested. This is a national security priority. More arrests of insurrectionists are being made every day. And each of those arrests that provides an opportunity to learn more about the network from a law enforcement and national security standpoint. Just, you raised a couple of things. So switching over to the other announcement. So Secretary Rubio announced that they are suspending issuances of new immigrant visas, also known as green cards, and for short, they call them IVs. So you have NIVs, those are non immigrant visas. Think, for example, like tourist visas and then IVs, which are immigrant visas. And so they are suspending immigrant visas from 75 countries or putting them on pause, A temporary, temporary pause, because those countries have had extraordinarily high rates of welfare usage, which is a violation of federal law. In other words, an alien who is going to be on welfare is per se inadmissible. And as a side note, to be an immigrant to this country, you have to have a sponsor. That sponsor has to assert, under penalty of significant financial punishment, they have to assert that they will ensure that no one they sponsor will ever go on welfare, and that if they were to ever be in any kind of financial duress, that they, the sponsor, would personally encumber the entire financial cost of that. So what you see is a system that has been broken at every single possible level. In other words, it means that the sponsors have all lied on their forms where the welfare is being used, or they haven't lied, then they failed to live up to their legal obligations. And then you have the aliens themselves who are wrongly admitted. The system is completely broken. Right. In other words, that is the definition of a non functioning system. So the State Department's been putting new measures in place, not just in those countries. I mean, these measures we put in place that will apply universally. Public charge, the universal standard. But those are the countries where the concern have been most acute in terms of extremely high rates of welfare usage.

Show Host (21:19)

I did see questions about Brazil and I was sort of wondering what the rationale for Brazil was. Tim Miller actually challenged me on that from from the Bulwark. So it's great to understand the rationale there. Final question to you, Steven, is about defunding the sanctuary Cities. Of all of the insults to our immigration laws and common sense immigration jurisdictions are, the sanctuary city jurisdictions are the most appalling to me. President Trump has announced that he is defunding them starting very soon. What can you tell us about that decision and how will it be enacted?

Stephen Miller (21:58)

Yes, well, as we discussed earlier, I mean, sanctuary cities are the backbone of the legal insurrection against the sovereign authority of our, of our government. Right? In other words, of the sovereignty of the country. The idea that we have borders and we have laws and we have immigration rules and, and therefore, obviously these cities should not be receiving federal funding. The Department of Office or, sorry, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB is working on a plan to implement that directive and we'll be providing more updates soon. But that's Russ. Vote. But the basic concept is very straightforward, which is that we can't be providing funding to people, entities and institutions that are effectively trying to nullify the entire structure of our federal government and the backbone of our entire system of living. The point is that you cannot provide funding to entities that are engaged in a form of legal insurrection against the federal government. In other words, there's a single immigration law for the whole country. These are states and cities and jurisdictions that are harboring and shielding illegal aliens, particularly criminal illegal aliens from the reach of the federal government. And that is, of course, a direct, willful, purposeful affront the whole structure of our republic. The idea that again, we have a single national immigration law for the whole country. We don't get different immigration laws for different cities and different states, and the federal law enforcement has authority and sole authority to enforce federal immigration law. And just to go back to my point earlier on the Department of Justice, the. This administration will be very clear that has been committed from day one to restoring democracy. And let's be very clear what that means, because I want to, because, you know, this is the kind of thing where there's deliberate, there's willful stupidity, deliberate deception on the part of the media when they discuss this issue. Let's just be very clear in understanding this. The American people elect a president. The American people elect a Congress. The American people do not elect a bureaucracy. The degree to which unaccountable power is vested in the hands of bureaucrats who ignore the law, who ignore elections, who ignore the Constitution to pursue their own agendas. The degree to which that is the case, in equal measure, we are less free. Right. In equal measure, we are less of a republic. This is a zero sum proposition. Either we have decision making that is made across our government by duly appointed individuals as a result of a democratically held election. Or we have the tyranny of a bureaucracy that pursues its own agenda at the expense of democracy in the American people. That's how we had Russiagate and the Russia hoax and the Ukraine hoax and every other hoax and sabotage the entire scheme, the whole coup to overthrow the President from Mueller and Weissman and all these people. And then, of course, later on, Jack Smith. All of this is a contest, a struggle between whether power belongs to the people and the right of the people to choose change. To say, I want a safe city, I want a secure border. I want to uphold our immigration laws. Right. I want to have a government that's responsive to my needs and my desires. I want to make sure their taxpayer dollars aren't robbed and stolen and wasted. The right of the American people to make those decisions versus the right of a bureaucracy to exercise an absolute veto over those decisions. And if we have a bureaucracy that can veto the decisions that the American people made lawfully and correctly through the democratic process, bureaucrats are going to have their own private and personal views. But what they don't get a choice on is their loyalty to the Republic, their loyalty to the Constitution and, and their loyalty to the laws of the United States. And the idea that when an election is held, President gets to set the policies of the United States. These things are not negotiable. These things are not debatable. And that's what is at play here.

Show Host (26:36)

Stephen, thank you for so much of your time, so much of your insight. I mean, this, that so much of the country, the base, looks up to you to set the pace. So thank you for your time. We have experienced now the first year in living memory of net outflow migration out of the United States. Please, for our audience, explain how incredible what a huge accomplishment that truly is, given all the barriers that have been thrown up in your path.

Stephen Miller (27:02)

Yes. I mean, thank you for raising that. Because it's such a reminder to everybody that you can't get, you cannot get sucked into negative thinking. You have to stay. You have to be. You have to be. Yes. Put pressure on us. Yes. Demand the most, demand the best. Stay honest. Light that fire. Make us stronger, make us better, make us tougher. Absolutely. But we also have to march forward with optimism, with purpose, with a confidence and a belief in our ability to continue winning and to achieve victory. And so the entire system, judicial, bureaucratic, every part of it, the NGOs, all of it, international pressures, everything is stacked against us. Having sovereign control over our borders and immigration system. For the first time in living memory, the United States had net negative migration. This hasn't happened since the modern age. This hasn't happened since air travel was widely available. Like, the last data point you have to go to was a time at which the Third world didn't have access to airplanes. Right. Like, there weren't a lot of airports in the countries that were sending migrants to us, that were. That were responsible for all this immigration growth in recent decades. So you're going way back to a time period in which it was much harder for the Third World, the Third World regions of the planet to empty out into the United States. And so this is an unprecedented achievement. Everybody said it would be impossible, and President Trump achieved it. And it's a reminder that we need to stay positive. We need to stay optimistic. We need to keep moving forward. We need to keep delivering for the American people.

Show Host (28:41)

Stephen Miller, Deputy White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor, you are the architect of so much that is holding the base together, that is keeping us optimistic. You let us know that we are moving forward. So please continue on, sir, we have your back 100%, and you're doing great work. You have turned the Titanic in a single year. You've secured the border. The Trump administration is doing phenomenal work. We have your back. Thank you for your time.

Stephen Miller (29:15)

Thank you. It's all because of President Trump. No president in American history has accomplished more. He's done more in a year than our greatest presidents have done in eight years. So keep supporting your president. Keep supporting President Trump. Keep rallying behind the flag. Keep rallying behind this administration. Thank you.

Show Host (29:35)

Yeah, well done. Thank you. Stephen Miller, we hope to have you back on again soon as these stories.

Stephen Miller (29:40)

Anytime.

Show Host (29:41)

Evolve.

Co-Host (29:42)

That was so good. Just, it's so. I mean, he was in the first administration. He did a lot in that first administration. Yet it's still. They accomplished a lot in those four years. And yet it's so clear they knew more of what they needed to do this time around. There's more of a focus on it. And I'll be frank, I think there's more resolve, too. I think there had to be a few false starts that first admin. This one. There's much more of a, let's be frank, ruthlessness about it.

Show Host (30:07)

Yeah.

Co-Host (30:07)

You know what their strategy is going to be?

Show Host (30:09)

Totally.

Co-Host (30:09)

You have to beat it.

Show Host (30:10)

Well, and I remember thinking that the number one obstacle that we were going to have to overcome as a, as a base, as a movement was to not get weak kneed, to not give in to the sob stories, to not give in to the propaganda. And so they're playing their old tricks again in Minneapolis. They're thinking that this is going to break our resolve. And when you hear somebody like Stephen Miller, who is an architect of the immigration program, coming from the White House, from President Trump, you realize that they are not going to fold. They are going to double, triple down. If they have to invoke the Insurrection Act, I absolutely think that they will. Whether or not they have to is a question. But this is the test of this administration. Stephen Miller, if you have any doubt, if you have any doubt of their resolve, listen to Stephen Miller. Listen to that back. We're gonna post that all over social media as well. Well, it's a brand new year and a brand new opportunity to change the world for the better. This is one of our most important partners. It's easier than you might think. You can save babies by providing ultrasounds with preborn together during this Sanctity of Human Life Month, we're going to save babies right here on the Charlie Kirk show to show the world that not only do we believe life is precious, but we're going to do something about it. Your gift to preborn will give a girl the truth about what's happening in her body so that she can make the right choice. What better way to start this new year than to join us in saving babies? And $28 a month will save a baby a month all year long. A 15,000. And I know there's some of you out there that can do this. A $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come and will also save moms from a lifetime of regrets. So start this year right, by being a hero for life. Call 833-850-2229. That's 833-850-2229. Or click on the preborn banner at charliekirk.com today. We do have Nick Freitas out on the line. I'm so sorry that, that we were supposed to have you much earlier and you've been such a champ waiting. Stephen Miller. What can you do? He's got a lot to say, but thank you so much for joining the show. I reached out to you, Nick, because I see in you somebody after Charlie, after we lost Charlie, after he was killed. There is certain voices, certain names, certain personalities with the right disposition, the right internal constitution that I believe God is raising up and promoting to help Bring. You know, we're. We're filling the back lines here and reinforcing the. The front lines. So that is what. You are one of those people. So please, just introduce yourself to our audience and. And. And welcome.

Nick Freitas (32:52)

Oh, gosh. Well, I'm. I'm honored. It was an honor to actually get to speak at amfest this year. You guys did an incredible job. It was a wonderful tribute to. To Charlie. But, yeah, just a little bit about me. As of yesterday, I'm no longer a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, but I served as a state legislature legislator there for 10 years. Before that, I did some time in the United States army with 82nd Airborne, 25th Infantry. Did a couple of combat tours in Iraq with 1st Special Forces Group. But. But more than any of that, I'm a husband and a father. I've been married to my high school sweetheart for 26 years. I tricked her into marrying me. We had a very, very small graduating class. She didn't have a lot of options. And. And then we have three wonderful kids, 22, 20, and. And 18. So, yeah, that's. That's just a little bit about me.

Show Host (33:41)

So. Funny backstory here is my wife follows you on Instagram. And she kept going, you need to get this guy on the show. You need to get this guy on the show. And I kept saying, yeah, you know, I don't. I don't have a contact form, but I'm gonna figure it out. We'll figure it out. And, you know, and then you're at amfest, and I'm showing a picture of you on stage. My wife, and she's like, will you finally get him on the show? I was like, yes, we absolutely will. It's so much of what you say resonates with exactly what Charlie would say. You have this such a drumbeat about family, marriage, faith, owning your own block, taking responsibility for your own actions. So much of your political commentary originates out of that, just like it did for Charlie. Explain why that's important to you and explain. I believe it's the path forward. I believe that we don't have a country if we lose our virtue. And that seems to actually be the core of your message.

Nick Freitas (34:31)

Oh, no, it's absolutely true. I was listening to. You know, people are arguing about this now on the right, where we're having this internal battle, and we have some people arguing for more liberty and some people arguing for more order. And the bottom line is, if you want to. If you want a civilization that actually has ordered liberty, where we can actually Work and cooperate and create and build together, then virtue has to be a part of that. And how do you achieve that if you don't have. If it's not built upon something that actually provides something transcendent? If you want objective truth and objective morality, I got news. There's only one place I know to actually find those things, and that's the Christ. And I think one of the things that I always admired so much about Charlie was that it has become very, very easy and popular on the right to talk about what we're fighting against. Right. Because every day we get new examples of what we're fighting against. But I think Charlie understood that the best soldiers are not the people that hate what they're fighting against. They're the ones that love what they're fighting for. And so when you put the emphasis on your relationship with God, the relationship you have with your spouse, your children, that's what actually gives you the energy. It's what gives you the discipline. Sometimes when motivation may. May fall a little bit short, to keep going and to keep fighting. Because when you know what it's for, all of a sudden the obstacles don't seem so great.

Show Host (35:48)

Yeah, I think that's really well said. And we, you know, I have to do a better job of that, of promoting what we are for what we. Because we love this country. I always say, I was born here, I'm going to die here. My kids were born here. They're probably gonna die here. It's probably true for my grandchildren. God, I hope so. And I love this country so much that I'm willing to step into roles that I never imagined for myself, especially after Charlie. I'm willing to continue putting it all on the line for this country. And when you say stuff like that, it really inspires me, Nick. And, you know, you. But again, you have taken your faith and you put it into action, not only in Virginia, but, you know, I'm looking at your Twitter feed and you're talking about the primary season. We should be replacing weak Republicans in safe districts. This is what you will have the best chance of winning, and the others will get the point. So you are somebody that then takes your faith, your convictions, your love of this country, you're putting it into action. Explain why that's important, because a lot of people, I think it's like, poso will say this a lot. It's like, look at all the black pillars, the doomers. Show me which ones have done anything. Show me which ones have gotten out and chased some ballots that have Knocked on doors, and you will, you will separate the wheat from the chaff really, really quickly.

Nick Freitas (37:03)

Oh, no, he's absolutely right. The people that, the people that are most convinced were doomed have probably put in the least amount of effort to save anything. And I think when we look at, okay, what is the strategy going forward, the thing I'm always going to start with is what is the thing you have most control over in your life? Because if you're spending hours of time on campaigns and on social media debating with people that are not even going to give you a fair hearing, while in the meantime, your children are being indoctrinated at school, I'm going to argue that you're probably not investing your time where, where it can have the most. The most impact. So focus on that first. What can you do about yourself? What can you do about your family? What you can do about your family, your community, etc. But then when it does come to the political world, the other thing that's been frustrating is watching people behave as if, well, there's, there's no real difference between the two parties. We had 300,000 people that showed up to vote for Governor Glenn Youngkin that didn't show up to vote in this last election. And you look at what Democrats are doing in the first 24 hours of taken Control, they're trying to turn Virginia into California. And it's like, look, no, you have to participate in the political process. I'm not saying you got to run for office. I'm not saying you got to make it your whole life. Right? But this idea that you're going to stand back because you're either above all of that or, well, you just don't feel like that's what they should be talking about from the pulpit garbage, it's done. I'm sorry, you're not going to find biblical justification for that. What you need to be doing is focusing on how do you be salt and light in every area that you encounter with, and then how do you be obedient to what God's laid out as your purpose in this life? And one of those realms is the political. And these people that will say, well, Nick, you know, you can't legislate morality. Ten years in the General assembly, you want to know how many bills I voted on that had no moral premise? Zero. All legislation is built upon a moral premise. And so whereas I don't believe that we can proselytize through the sword, I don't believe that we're supposed to use government as a mechanism to compel people to believe what I believe about God. By the same token, all law is predicated upon some set of moral principles. I would like my moral principles to be represented in that law. And so I do believe I have an obligation to go out and to speak about these things and. And to not only let my arguments speak for themselves, but also the way I live my life to speak for itself. Because one of the reasons why so many young people were attracted to what Charlie had to say was not simply because he gave incredibly good academically, intellectually rigorous arguments, but when you took a look at that guy's life, his marriage, his relationship with his kids, his friends, that was something where no matter what they were be told in college, they could look at that and say, I don't know what it is, and I don't know what the source of it is, but that guy's got it, and. And I want it. That's somebody who's worth listening to, not because he's got a degree that he's pointing to, but because he's got a lifetime worth of accomplishments at a young age that I would love to emulate. And that's the thing that we need to do more of, is actually demonstrate to people what it is that they're fighting for. And nobody did it better than Charlie.

Co-Host (39:59)

I think that's actually an incredibly powerful point there, Nick, that we ran into so many people who would say, I disagree with Charlie on X, Y, Z thing, but that magnetic pole because he lived what he preached so well. And people have seen so many hypocritical politicians, so many hypocritical public figures, hypocritical preachers and pastors.

Show Host (40:20)

We saw it up close and we saw it.

Co-Host (40:22)

It was all real. I think people could see that, that all of us who were around Charlie were such big. We could testify so genuinely to seeing that. And I love that you, you, you speak to that. That's one of the strongest things that you can offer. And it was always funny because Charlie would run into that where people would say, oh, Charlie, you know, I disagree with you on xyz, but I love all you've accomplished. And you just say, what's stopping you? Why do you disagree? You can have all of these same things, but it ties into what you just said, which is. It is so important, I think, especially when we've been getting these emails where it's like, how do we come together? The country's fraying apart, that Charlie believes strongly in representing a position to advocate for, especially when the right is so defined currently by just being an ad hoc coalition of people opposed to the left. Our biggest weakness is the sense that we don't have a strong affirmative premise. What would we do if the left disappeared? We need to have an answer to that. And I think Charlie offered that. I think you're able to answer that question, but a lot of people can't. And that's a big weakness you have to overcome.

Show Host (41:26)

I want to remind you about a pharmacy we trust and recommend, especially right now, when it feels like everyone's getting sick. Flu cases are up, viruses are going around. If you're a family, you know your kids are sick. But All Family Pharmacy is here to help you access medications you need without the runaround. When you don't want to wait in line and want instead your meds to be delivered to your door, you need All Family Pharmacy. When everyone around you is sick and you want to be prepared, you need All Family Pharmacy. When your doctor says they won't prescribe Ivermectin, you need All Family Pharmacy. They've got everything. Antibiotics, antivirals, Tamiflu, Ivermectin, hydroxyph, chloroquine, blood pressure meds and more.

Charlie Kirk (42:06)

You do not need insurance. You don't need to beg a doctor. Just simple, fast, honest care. This is what healthcare should look like in America with you in control.

Show Host (42:14)

The process is simple. Order online, a licensed doctor reviews it, and your medication ships straight to your door. So start the year prepared and take care of your family the right way. Visit AllFamilyPharmacy.com Kirk and use promo code Kirk10 to save 10%. Again, that's AllFamilyPharmacy.comKirk and use the code Kirk10. Freitas, the former Green Beret, I guess. Former House. What did you say? You're a delegate. House of Delegates. The crazy. They always get creative.

Co-Host (42:50)

We have our own special name.

Show Host (42:51)

Exactly.

Nick Freitas (42:52)

It's Virginia. We were like, first. All right, so we get.

Co-Host (42:55)

Bring back the House of Burgesses. Don't. Don't pull that. They have to call it the House of Burgesses if they're going to pull.

Show Host (42:59)

Well, you know, it's like I always think of Virginia and I. I think of George Washington and I think the sort of rural agrarian.

Co-Host (43:07)

They should all have to have the wigs.

Show Host (43:09)

Statesman. I love that stuff. Virginia should be a red state, but this is immigration. Full circle to Stephen Miller. Demographic replacement in Virginia.

Co-Host (43:18)

Demographic replacement by bureaucrats.

Show Host (43:20)

By bureaucrats. Yep, exactly. Northern Virginia. But if you're going to be A Republican working in D.C. you probably want to live in Northern Virginia. It's still the best. I mean, let's hope it stays that way. So Nick, what are you fighting for? Distill it as you can?

Nick Freitas (43:33)

Sure. I mean, first and foremost, it's this idea. If you were to ask kind of what we think our mission is, it's the idea of godly men and women becoming godly husbands and wives, becoming godly mothers and fathers. Because the idea is, as you show me a country comprised of those sorts of people, and I'll show you a country whose politics you don't got to worry about. Right. So it always starts with this idea of, okay, as a man, what am I trying to do? To be the sort of man that God wants me to be, to be the sort of man that my husband or my wife needs, that to be the sort of man that my children need. And when I'm focusing on those things, what, what ends up developing as a consequence of that is I get a lot closer to being the sort of man that my community needs and that my country needs. And so I, I want people to once again be focused on what is their obligation to God, what is their obligation to their family. And then how are they developing the, the spiritual, emotional, physical, professional, intellectual skills to be able to do that? With respect to my country, I want a, I want a free country. But what does that mean? I want a free country that is actually rooted in the idea that the only way that you can have liberty that makes any sense is that if you actually have a culture which is committed to truth, which is committed to virtue. And so when I look at the way that our founders actually formed this government, I think they were onto something. It was this idea that we're going to reserve the vast majority of decision making power to the individual citizen. To the extent that we have government, fine. At the local level, they're going to be the ones that deal with the things that are the most intimate to your day to day lives. Then we have the states which are also supposed to operate as sovereign entities within their jurisdictions. And when it comes to the federal government, it's only going to worry about those things which genuinely impact the country as a whole. The federal government was never meant to micromanage our education, our health care, our economy. Stephen Miller is 100 accurate when we say that the federal bureaucracy is one of the greatest threats to a free people ever. Because those bureaucracies have, they have goals and objectives of their own which run contrary to a free state. And So I. I want a government which once again understands its proper role. I would argue, in God's created order. You know, again, keep us safe, enforce contract law, make sure that nobody's invading the country. But I don't need a government to try to play daddy for everybody. I need a government to stay within its proper role so that free people can figure things out through voluntary cooperation. And I think if we could get back to that point of understanding that if you really want to be free, then that also includes a great deal of personal responsibility. And. And Adams probably said it best when he said our Constitution is written for a moral and religious people and is totally unsuited to the government of any other. And so it's about once again recognizing that if we can. If we can have that shared commitment for objective truth, objective morality, if we can understand the author of objective truth and morality, then I think we can have the sort of place where we're so good at governing ourselves and in our daily interactions with our family, with our friends, with our community, that the idea that we would need the government to try to run in and micro. All these aspects would just seem absurd to us.

Show Host (46:34)

You know, it's just such a. It's such a paradigm shift, what you're describing, that I just. So many people would not even be able. Because the left has led us down this path for basically a century of Big Brother government taking care of us, that to fully feel empowered, to enjoy the totality of your individual agency. I mean, it really will take a revival. I really believe that. And here's. I just. This is the Charlie Kirk show. Here's Charlie in his own words, I think, describing exactly what you're talking about with a student on campus. 459.

Charlie Kirk (47:05)

The practical solution. We don't have to think. We need to point people to God and eventually to Jesus Christ. And that is the solution. People need to humble themselves before the Lord. They need to go back to church. They need to get married before they have sex. They need to stop engaging in debauchery and limitless amounts of drinking and the sins of the flesh and understand that there's a God who loves them, that wants them to live a certain way. And it's not a matter of the feminist movement or the Black Lives Matter movement. We need a movement that is centered around spiritual, eternal principles. But revival will only happen with repentance. Repentance. And repentance is at odds with pride. There is a God and we are not Him. Those two things are fundamental towards having, hopefully the humility of getting in front of your creator, understanding that you fall short of the glory of God with the eyes on the cross, and understanding the significance of what the cross is and what it means for your life.

Show Host (48:01)

I just love hearing him just preach it. Just preach it. Repentance. That line about repentance just got me. Go ahead.

Nick Freitas (48:07)

Well, I. I think it's also. I. I've noticed this, you know, since Charlie. Since Charlie was murdered. I. I've spoken at several universities, to include Cal, Berkeley, Right. Which is not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. And it is amazing to me how few questions I get on politics, at least in. Compared to what I would have gotten a year ago. The vast majority of questions I'm getting now are about how do I be a better man? How do I raise the sort of family I want? How do I. How do I. How do I continue to foster an important relationship with God? And. And I had. I had one student, actually, Ann Amfest, come up, and he goes, how do I stand up for my faith when it's so difficult? And I said, why is it difficult? And he goes, well, just my. My peers, you know, my peers don't. Don't share my worldview. And I said, so why is it difficult? And he goes, well. Well, my. My college professors, you know, they. They will criticize. I said, once again, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here. Why is it difficult? And what he was getting to is that there's. There's social, there's academic consequences, there's. There's potentially economic consequences. I looked at him, I said, look, I'm not discounting those. But here's what I will tell you. Every time you suffer anything, no matter how minor, your immediate response should be, thank you, God, that I could suffer something for your name, Sid. Because as soon as you take in that attitude, then every time it happens, you're not upset, you're smiling, because you know what it represents. And if you actually want to foster the kind of mindset that can save your country, that's it. Because you're not going to do it. Apart from the revival side, because why are we doing all this? Secular humanism. It's not as if we're not living in an environment which has been inextricably shaped by secular humanism for the last several decades. Is anyone happy with it? It's amazing to me that when I. When I actually mention Jesus, when I mention the Bible, I will have people on our side that will say, nick, I like what you have to say. But can you leave God out of it? No. He's the author of what I'm talking about.

Stephen Miller (50:00)

It would.

Nick Freitas (50:01)

It would be plagiarism for me to suggest that these are just Nick Fredis's idea. They're not. I'm ripping them off. But here's what I would ask you to consider. If you. If you trusted Charlie and you. You agreed that he could give really good arguments. If you can look around at the world right now and what's actually been governing up until this point and come to the recognition that the people who least happy we. We think we're unhappy with what's going on with woke. Go look at the charts of the people most likely to actually be diagnosed with a mental health issue. And it's young women between the ages of 18 and 29 who identify as liberal. They are the ones suffering the most from what they have accomplished. And at this point, I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to say we're advocating for something else. And the answer is not just in the arguments that we use. It's not just in the logical consistency or effectiveness of the arguments and the way that we construct them. It's actually found in the way we live our lives and the results of those actions in that worldview.

Show Host (51:00)

Blake, I don't want to cut you out of this. If you have questions, please, by all means.

Co-Host (51:06)

He's got a good.

Show Host (51:08)

You sound a lot like Charlie. I mean, in a lot of ways.

Stephen Miller (51:10)

Yeah.

Show Host (51:11)

Yeah. Which is. Which is good because we need them.

Co-Host (51:14)

We need a lot of Charlie's.

Show Host (51:15)

So, Nick, I have a question. Spiritual battle, light versus darkness. I mean, how much of that do you see? Whether it's the infighting on the right, whether it's some of the progressive ideology, the Marxist ideology. How much do you think this defines our current moment? Is it overused? Is it underused?

Nick Freitas (51:35)

I challenge anyone to just go with an open mind and read the book of Romans and not think it provides a perfect example of what we see going on around us. It's this idea of people being totally given over to a way of thinking that bears no, forget morality. It bears no resemblance to reality. When you have Supreme Court justices or you have people arguing behind before the highest courts in the land that cannot make distinctions between a man or a woman is because they're terrified of the political implications. I think we have to understand that there's a spiritual component here.

Show Host (52:08)

Yeah.

Nick Freitas (52:08)

And by the way, you believe in God, then believing in the spiritual should be obvious and logical. I think the spiritual component cannot be undermined. It has to. It has to lead. It can't just be this side component where we think if we make a really good economic argument, that'll win the day. We've seen what happens when you actually have a conservative movement that is obsessed with the economic but then gives up on the true moral issues of our day. And it turns out that Democrats or leftists or woke this. They don't mind moving to your state to take the tax advantages and then all of a sudden push their indoctrination within your school system. So I. I think we have to understand what it is that we're fighting for on a fundamental level. And, and I think the key to this is that when you look at young men and you look at the. The overwhelming numbers for which they are returning to the faith, where they're trying to look at something that will actually give them an identity that is. That is transcendent, that's incredibly encouraging, that that tells me that the right questions are being asked within the next generation. Because they're not just interested in how they get onto a campaign or how do they run for office. They're actually interested in the things that are. Are vi and moral and noble and just. And by the way, they want a cause to fight for. They want to risk something for what they believe. They just want to make sure it's worth it. And as they walk back into our churches right now, the most important message I can send out to the men in those churches is you have a generation of young men looking for answers, looking for truth, and they want to be honorable. What do they find when they walk into your church? Because if they find weak men, if they find men that are unwilling to stand for anything, if they find men that are unwilling to accept risk, if they find men that may talk a good game but don't live it out, I promise you they have other options to listen to. Because the one thing I know is woke loses. Woke loses no matter what. You do not win a war, you do not fight a revolution. You do not run a country with people who define themselves by their mental illness. That does not happen. So young men will determine the outcome of what happens next. The question is, is are they going to listen to the sort of men like Charlie Kirk, or are they going to find answers somewhere else? And if they find answers somewhere else, this can get bad quick.

Show Host (54:12)

Well said.

Co-Host (54:13)

All men have need of the gods. It depends on which one you will follow.

Show Host (54:18)

Bob Dylan said something like that too.

Co-Host (54:20)

Also Homer.

Show Host (54:21)

Yeah, the ancient Homer, not Homer Simpson.

Stephen Miller (54:23)

Yeah.

Nick Freitas (54:23)

Bob Homer.

Show Host (54:25)

Bob Dylan. Homer Blake is our is our history buff here, and we're grateful for him. I want to respect your time. I know Stephen Miller went long, and so we had to sort of compress our time with you. Nick, I hope you will come back on with us soon. I think you have so much to offer. I just want to full circle. Why I thought it was important to have you on is because I do believe God is raising up more leaders that are going to be more and more prominent. And you're one of those. So thank you for making the time for us today.

Stephen Miller (54:56)

We appreciate it.

Nick Freitas (54:57)

It's my honor. Thank you.

Charlie Kirk (54:59)

Yeah.

Show Host (54:59)

God bless.

Nick Freitas (55:06)

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.

Co-Host (55:09)

Com.